Jade_Dragon

Forum Cartel
  • Posts

    2627
  • Joined

  1. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus View Post
    Maybe there is someone better than me at math (lots of people) who can work out how much Fury the Brute would need to do only 80% of the damage of the Scrapper version (ignoring the pseudopet limitation).

    It certainly isn't 400%.
    Well, the problem isn't really the damage scales, it's that the Brute will cap his damage with the psuedo-pet with only a 55% damage buff. It doesn't matter how much Fury you have, you can't go over a 400% damage buff. So the Scrapper only needs a 55% damage boost to achieve the same "cap" at which the Brute stops.

    I am not sure where you are getting your numbers, my calculations of final damage don't match yours. I'm pretty sure that Shield Charge uses the pet scale for damage, (and I'm assuming melee) and so given the scale values from the patch notes, the Brute version should do a base 1.8*55.61 at level 50, or 100.1 for stage 1. Slotted for 3 damage, that should be 195.1911. 400% damage should be 400.392. Stage 2 should be 70.90275, or 138.26 3 slotted, and 283.611 at 400%.

    For the Scrapper, it should again be 2.7*55.61 or 150.147 for stage 1, 292.78665 3 slotted and 600.588 at 400%. Stage 2 is 106.354, 207.39 and 425.41.

    I don't know where you are getting 284, but that's 71% of what I would expect it to be if you're talking about stage 1, and 41.5% of what I would expect total. That's not 75%, so I'm assuming you're not trying to apply the Brute base modifier. If you are seeing that in game, I'm not sure where my calculations are wrong, but we can just consider the rest of this post in proportion relative to that. We'd just reduce all the following numbers by 71%.

    Anyway, If the Shield Charge damage is calculated from pet damage, then it should take only 50% Fury for the Brute to do more damage than the Scrapper. 100.1*(1.95+1.2) = 295.295 > 150.147*1.95 = 292.787 According to City of Data Shield Charge doesn't Crit, (or at least, didn't) but if it does the formula becomes the same as for any attack, with the balance point at 60%.

    The problem is that the Brute's damage maxes out at 75% Fury and a 55% damage boost, the Brute is doing 400.392 as mentioned above, while the Scrapper does 150.147*(1.95+.55) = 375.3675 damage. But as the Scrapper goes to +100% damage, and then +200% damage, that obviously exceeds what the Brute can do, because he's effectively lost his 775% damage cap.

    I suppose the pertinent thing to calculate it at what damage boost the Scrapper exceeds the Brute. Which is 150.147*(1.95+x) = 400.392, or 71.67%.
  2. I will say this, if you are mixing Veteran Attacks in your attack chain, or have your attacks inconsistently slotted, this can effect the streakbreaker code. The streakbreaker uses the worse to hit chance over your last several attacks to determine how many misses it will allow you to have in a row. So it's possible, though likely also due in part to bad luck, that bad slotting on your Assassin Strike or some other attack is making the next attack after you AS miss so much.

    This should not be happening, though. Your next attack after an Assassin Strike has exactly the same chance to hit as every other attack, 75%, plus whatever Accuracy you have slotted. You are probably seeing the combination AS-miss because it calls attention to itself, and you had a run of bad rolls. Now you're coming to expect the miss and noticing when it happens. So it's likely perception.

    As others in the thread have said, HeroStats is a good way to confirm everything's working normally, and if there is a pattern that reveals an issue, like an attack with low Accuracy, you can fix it.
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Leo_G View Post
    I wouldn't think the devs always know exactly what to look for in their datamined storages. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken them even longer to change Domination from i6 up until just a year and a half ago.
    Besides, it sounds like the issues Castle is talking about are situational, not consistent. Stalkers are certainly better off now than they were before the changes. But that may be as far as a constant, consistent buff can be taken to address a problem that is really bad when it shows up, but doesn't show up that often.

    Then again, Going Rogue certainly seems to be putting Stalkers in situations lately where those systemic problems are getting worse. That would not show up in any datamining prior to the release of GR.

    Quote:
    And it's arguable if they actually made Doms 'stronger' with the removal of the damage buff from domination. They basically just normalized the high-end with the normal-end of the AT's performance.
    Well, I think that's the point. Dominators weren't made "better" in all situations, they were just changed so that the few Power Sets and tight builds that allowed them to be successful before were no longer necessary for that success. Some power at the "high end" was lost, yes. The Brute changes were similar, a drop in max Fury, accompanied by an increase in minimum Fury. So was the change to Defiance. In many cases, we can demonstrate where the devs have nerfed an extremely narrow, extremely powerful buff to an AT, and made it less powerful but more consistent.

    When Castle says, "Stalkers are about as strong as we want them to be", I think he just means that he doesn't want this high end performance to get any better. But that doesn't mean the buff can't be tweaked to apply more of its bonus at the low end.
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dante View Post
    If you do have a Frankenslotting suggestion, I'd still like to hear it. I'm not so hot when it comes to maxing out powers using that method.
    I actually don't remember my slotting, but I believe the reason I'm so set against using Kinetic Crash is that's what I've got in there. I wasn't thinking and slotted it, and started doing major knockback. I need to remove it, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
  5. The Blaster has three things going for it, burst damage, strong melee attacks that don't take much time to animate, and a large selection of very powerful AoEs. Scrappers I believe are justified in their challenge to Blasters as the primary damage dealer, but Corruptors and Dominators really can't compete. When it comes to range, the Blaster is definately the damage dealer, although it often has to get in melee to deal it.

    If you can deal with the hit and run style of play, and that the odds can change on you in a second, then it's great. Of course, that makes your performance very erratic and inconsistent, and I think that's what a lot of people don't like.
  6. I find it very hard to resist frankenslotting Repulsion Bomb. It is just SUCH a good damage power. If it were an attack on its own, it would be great, but it's a mitigation tool too.

    I would NOT slot it for Knockback, say with a Kinetic Crash or whatever. While another proc might be nice, if you slot any knockback in it it will turn from knockdown to knockback. And the knockdown, more than the stun, is the main mitigation of the power.

    I would go ahead and slot Positron's, and then if you can find the space, try and fit two of something that you can double up the Recharge a little bit. It's a useful power to have three slotted for both damage and recharge. But that's just me, if you'd rather complete the Set, that's better than trying to make it work without damage.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arkadian_NA View Post
    One thing that confuses me on some of these posts...why play /DA if you aren't using the powers that make it unique? CoF, OG, CoD, Soul Transfer...those are the "gimmicks" that made me interested in the powerset. Without the bag of tricks wouldn't it just be better to play plain old /Invul or even /elec?
    Well, to me the answer to that is that Oppressive Gloom, while it may be frustrating to keep it up all the time, can be useful in emergency situations. It can be used to "pulse" a disorient which will cause your foes to stagger around, but not outside of the radius of Death Shroud. And it can be used solo, when it doesn't matter if your foes wander outside of your taunt aura.

    I mean, Unstoppable is one of the powers that makes Invulnerabilty unique, but most folks don't recommend keeping it perma any more. You've got to know how and when to safely use it. Cloak of Fear is usually safe to us, Soul Transfer, well, you've got to be dead, so it's situational to start with, but it's usually okay to use it once to are dead. Oppressive Gloom is a bit more of a situational power.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zem View Post
    It's been two and a half years since scaling criticals went in! If they haven't datamined its effectiveness by now, do you honestly think they are still at it? It's not that I want to be the voice of doom and gloom but at this late date, when Castle tells me they think they have made Stalkers as strong as they want to make them, I believe them. Not that *I* believe Stalkers are strong enough, mind... just that THEY believe it.
    Or, maybe the datamining has revealed that the problem is not as bad as you think it is. Maybe the scaling Criticals are working just fine on a large enough team, but aren't doing enough to compensate for the aggro issues on smaller teams.

    Quote:
    I don't know how far back you are reading to come up with this conclusion, but I have in the past pointed out that I think it is mostly melee allies that DO account for the scaling crit we CURRENTLY have (and have had since 05/2008). I'm not saying I want it to be that way. That's just pretty much how it is. These are the folks who are most likely to be within 30ft of you. It's a generalization of course. There are always exceptions.
    If it is not because melee allies are the ones most likely to be within 30 feet of you, then why IS the radius of the effect only 30 feet? Why isn't it 60 feet? Why isn't it 100 feet?

    Quote:
    You are assuming that the current scaling crit along with all the rest of the post-i12 Stalker changes are not performing as well as they want them to. Castle's post seems to indicate that they are happy with all that and only believe Stalkers underperform due to issues outside the design of the Stalker.
    I'm not actually assuming that at all, merely pointing at that feature as a way to expand the tweaks that were made to compensate the Stalker for the issues outside of its design, in order to better achieve that goal. If a Stalker cannot get a Crit because a teammate has given him shared aggro, then it seems logical that that teammate was given the ability to increase the Stalker's chance to Crit to compensate. The two are not unrelated.

    The small radius of the Crit chance calculation, as well as fact that an Assassin Strike does not apply the demoralize effect on defeat have been given as examples of limitations of these tweaks. You either assume that Castle intended these limitations from the start, with no specific confirmation of this assumption, or you assume the limitations are somehow introduced by the system. If the latter, then there is room for discussion. Particularly since this thread owes its existance to discussion.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Biospark View Post
    I like his idea even more, but I suspect that a team-mate in range buff that targets only one power might not be possible. But I would gladly be wrong about that.
    I agree, it is probably easier to just put you back in Hide than to change a timer on a single power.

    OTOH, the suppression effect on Hide is probably pretty complicated as it is. It may be separate from Hide itself. And it can be altered, it is different from the suppression time on Stealth. So maybe that rehide time can be coded to take into account team size instead of just being a constant. That's a lot of assumptions, though.

    If you have a 30% chance of rehide every second, though, that's 30% within the first second, 51% the second second, 65.7% the third second, 75.99% the fourth second, 83.193% the fifth second, and 88.2351% the sixth second. That's just over a 3/4 chance at four seconds. That should be enough to, if not duplicate Shadestorm's suggestion, at least come somewhat close to it. (Assuming my calculations are correct, of course)

    Also, it occurs to me that every time you are hit, the Hide is broken, and so the "chain" of rehide checks starts over again at 30%. So while it might be possible to build up to a 65% chance of rehide during a very long attack, it's more likely you'll have a 30% or less chance.

    Honestly, I think it will come out very close to the percentages we have right now. With the potential for alteration of the range to allies, of course.
  10. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Biospark View Post
    What if Placate received a reduction in its recharge based on the number of teammates you have. The concept being that the more people around the easier for the Stalker to distract enemies and go back into hiding. I am not sure how much of a cooldown reduction a full team would need to bring, but would this improve a stalker's team contribution despite the "shared aggro" concerns ?
    Well, I'm assuming that's kind of what the random critical is supposed to do. Instead of relying on the ability to misdirect the foe at will, the Stalker takes advantage of distractions.

    I wouldn't necessarily want to have Placate up more often because a) there would reach a point where further recharge would just be wasted and b) you still have to animate Placate, whereas the random Criticals don't cost any extra animation time.

    OTOH, I was thinking that if it is too difficult to code a higher radius in the random Crit effect (I suspect it's not how much time it takes, but how much it would DELAY each attack) there could be an Inherent power running in the background that would, every second or so, determine a chance based on number of allies in range and automatically put the Stalker into Hide. His next attack would then Crit, but that wouldn't have to be calculated per attack.

    The chance of this happening may have to be adjusted a bit, most attacks take more than a second to cast and thus would get multiple checks during their animation time, but it might be effective at increasing the range of the check. My original thought was to count the number of allies in range with this Inherent power and use that number when attacking, but this method would not require creating and accessing a variable to store that. The Hide mechanic already exists and can be set directly.

    There would also be a chance, after the battle is over, that the Stalker will go back into Hide sooner than the expected 8 seconds. I don't think this would have too big an effect, but would be an occasional advantage.
  11. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zem View Post
    Why would he have said they think Stalkers are as strong as they want to make them if their changes weren't working as well as they expected?
    Maybe because they haven't had time to fully datamine these changes to the extent that they were able to datamine the issues that Stalkers had before? Heck, the fact that Castle posted says that they are still watching Stalkers, even several issues after the buff.

    Quote:
    Systemic means a problem "with the system". In that context I assume it means "as opposed to the Stalker itself". So the example of Shared Aggro being directly addressed would mean changing the way aggro is distributed on a team, NOT changing Stalkers again to compensate them for it.
    Unless the solution is to ensure that Stalkers get random criticals on the team, which compensates for the unreliability of getting a Crit from Hide when the foe becomes aggroed before the Stalker can strike.

    If that's the criteria, then EVERY teammate that is capable of spoiling a Stalker's aggro should contribute a bonus, not just those in melee.

    You sound like you have concluded that the bonus is ONLY supposed to come from other meleers, Tankers, Scrappers, and Brutes. (Well, and other Stalkers as well) Does anything in Castle's post support that conclusion?

    Heck, if you conclude that that IS Castle's intended design, then it would be FAR more logical to add a per teammate bonus of 5% per meleer within range, and then cap that bonus at 20%. This would give the exact same spread of Crit chances as current, but with only 4 meleers in range instead of a full team of 7. How many teams of 8 are made up of all meleers?
  12. Yep, Tankerminding is awesome, and it's doubly awesome on a Bots/FF.

    I Tankermind on a Ninjas/FF, which is probably not the best combo for it, but so far it works.
  13. I just think it's too early to abandon the thought that these changes could themselves be tweaked. If the changes have problems that are THEMSELVES systemic; if the scaling Crit chance is not achieving as high a value as expected because the radius to the nearby teammates is too short; if the demoralize effect is not achieving the team support function that is expected because the foe dies and loses the buff instead of surviving the AS; then those are additional issues that can still be addressed.

    It seems to me as if Castle's intentions are being inferred by the results, instead of his intentions inferred by his statements, and the results analyzed to see if they meet them.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zem View Post
    How? If it's an on-kill benefit of some kind it occurs *after* you kill something. Shared aggro is a problem *before* you kill anything. You get aggro shared to you from some Brute charging into the spawn and then you get hit and interrupted while waiting for AS to land.
    I would call that just the sort of systemic issue that Castle was talking about. The same goes with demoralize not being applied on kill. Is that an intentional restriction, or a systemic limitation based on Castle not wanting the buff to stack?
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Biospark View Post
    In order to do what you suggest, they just need to move the effect to spawn off the Stalker instead of the critter being attacked, OR... make it occur like a pseudo-pet regardless of whether the target dies or not.
    Well, as I said above, I think I have concluded the reason the effect spawns on the target is not because of some technical limitation, but because the devs don't want the effect to stack. One Stalker could be prevented from stacking the effect, but two Stalkers would be able to, if each effect was centered on them. Likewise, a "dropped" effect would stack no matter who it came from.

    My solution would be to cut the effect in half, and attach half to the target, and half to the Stalker. That way, if the target dies, you still get half of the effect. And if two Stalkers AS the same target, they get 1.5 times the effect. (Or 1.0 times the effect if the target dies) It's not a perfect solution, but it keeps some of the limitation on stacking, without requiring the target to survive.

    Plus, if the Stalker goes around ASing Minions, he will not be able to stack the effect since it comes from himself, and his targets will all die. (Not that it should normally be all that easy to stack the effect, since it lasts 8 seconds, and without global recharge AS can really be up at best every 7.5 seconds)

    Personally, it does make sense to me that demoralize WOULD have a slightly greater effect if the leader-type survives, as being hit in combat would disrupt his attempts to give orders and rally his minions. As his minions see him repeatedly being smacked every time he tries to regain control, they would be more likely to panic. Yet when he finally does die, that might bring back their morale. (Think of the death of Boromir scene in LoTR)

    I suppose another alternative, in the spirit of Leo_G's argument, is to apply a foe debuff if the target lives, and a team buff if the target dies. The problem I see is that how do you apply an effect to the Stalker ONLY IF the target dies? You can't really determine that. I suppose what we really need to know is WHY the target power doesn't take effect when the target dies. Is it because the power must be marked usable either by a living or a dead caster, but not both? Is it because the effect fades when activated if the caster then dies?

    Perhaps what AS needs to do is drop two powers, one that the target can activate if it is alive, and one it can activate if it is dead. The "dead" power then drops a pet that sustains the effect. Or, the target hits one of the team with the power, which then puts the AoE buff on him.
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA View Post
    As Nalrok says it's down to Fury.

    If you Crit you get 2Dam + FE because FE and the Crit are both coded as extra damage effects in every Scrapper power, but Fury actually increases your Damage Modifier so increasing it will increase both the standard damage effect of a power and the Fiery Embrace one.

    For a Scrapper Build-Up will work with a Crit though.
    Yup, it's a trade off. Advantages to a "true" Crit are that it can exceed the damage cap, and doubles buffs. FE is in this sense Crit-type damage, although not a double damage Crit.

    But in this case the damage boost does more than another Crit, since it's coded to be enhanceable, but not to "double Crit".

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus View Post
    The strength of AAO is a problem for a lot Tankers though I imagine. I believe the strength of it's Taunt aura is to provide what the developers consider a "negative" in that you take more incoming damage in order to deal the damage that you can do - this is not too dissimilar to part of the design concept of Brutes.
    Or conversely, the strength of the aura is to draw foes in so you can get the benefit of the greater scaling buff. That's both a positive and a negative. It's the same with Invincibility and Rise to the Challenge though. (Although in those cases the benefit is defensive, not offensive, and helps balance the greater risk. And of course RttC's taunt aura isn't "up to the challenge", so to speak )
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Biospark View Post
    Last time I checked, my stalker was 2-shotting Bosses (AS being the first shot).
    Doing the majority of the damage to a Boss is not the same thing as doing the final attack to a Boss.

    All things equal, if you have four players in combat with a Boss, and his HP is low enough that any attack by any of them will kill him, and all four trigger an attack at the same time, then the chance of any one of them striking the killing blow is 25%. At the very least, whoever hits the button first is going to win. At the worst, lag will determine the winner.

    I think it is a much more reasonable suggestion that ANY Assassin Strike has a chance to trigger a demoralize, whether it is a one shot kill or not. That way you can be assured that the Assassin Strike attack, not whether or not it kills the target, will be the producer of the demoralize.

    Putting it another way, if it is the death of the foe that triggers the demoralize, then you shouldn't need to Assassin Strike. You can just trigger it every time the Stalker kills someone.

    The good thing is, if you get a demoralize effect no matter who you attack, whether you kill them or not, then there's no reason to be choosy about whether you attack Bosses over Minions. You can just attack whoever needs to be attacked, and the Assassin Strike will work the same either way. Although you would still probably want to save it for Bosses since Minions will tend to die while you are still animating.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison View Post
    One thing I didn't see mentioned: The stun/fear wears off long before the taunt duration expires. You shouldn't care if mobs wander. They are still taunted and will come right back.

    Yes, OG and CoF have their own taunt auras (at least for tanks). They don't amplify each other, but even running just OG will taunt enemies.
    Well, this is the Brute version we're talking about I think, and they don't have the taunt aura. So you'd be relying on your Death Shroud to draw them back.

    But yeah, on my Tanker I often choose which taunt aura based on what I want my "aura" to do. They're, well, they're ferrets. They can either bite the foes, scare them, or disorient them.
  19. Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrGamma View Post
    Regarding Arctic Breath versus Supression though, to me Supression seems to come out on top. While its animation is indeed slower (3s versus 2.67s for AB - not considering Arcana Time), it does a bit more damage, so the DPA is nearly identical: 20.67 for Supression, 20.97 for AB, unenhanced at level 50. That .3 difference in DPA, though, is more than made up by Supression's arc of 60 degrees, which is twice as wide as AB's 30 degrees. I also think Supression looks much cooler, but that's besides the point.

    Heavy Burst is faster (unless it comes with redraw) and actually has considerably better DPA than Supression: 2.67s activation and 22.85 DPA, about 10% better than Supression. It's all Lethal Damage though, very resisted, so I -still- prefer Supression's energy damage most of the time. HB's arc is also half of supression's, only 30 degrees.
    My take on the matter is, why would you not want to take both Suppression AND Heavy Burst? You don't have to choose between them, they both are good in their own individual way, and combined with Venom Grenade, Frag Grenade and Bile Spray that's just that much more AoE damage.

    ('Course, my concept Bile Spray or Arctic Breath wouldn't really fit)
  20. I'll just point out that in cases where I actually did put off powers in order to achieve Stamina at level 20 (which is by no means every time) I usually chose the attacks and other slot-intensive powers first. So in going back and picking up powers, I pretty much ended up with those that only needed a single slot.

    Since the powers are not opening up any earlier than they were previously, it's not like there are more than a handful of powers in your Primary or Secondary that you can choose from. And if you've already picked up the slot intensive powers, what's left is the ones that can get by on one slot. If you are picking up slot intensive powers, you're probably getting them out of the Pool.

    Granted, I've been saying I wish the devs had added a new Pool of low slot cost, Auto powers, but that's only so I don't have to go looking for low slot cost, click or toggle powers that I can use sparingly. I like Auto powers. Especially for Primary/Secondary combos that don't have them.
  21. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Leo_G View Post
    While an improvement to burst damage (mostly frequency of that burst damage) would be a good change for the AT, it isn't the only or best change. Making a narrowly functioning AT better by enhancing that narrow function is viable, but you'd have to push that functionality to broken proportions to get any *real* benefit over every other AT it competes with.
    Plus, I think Castle's whole point is that the burst damage of Stalkers is working just fine. They can't really enhance Stalkers' burst damage any further without imbalancing the Stalker in the short term, and they can't really enhance their sustained damage without reducing their burst damage.

    The problem is more the systemic problems in which the Stalker loses his ability to strike from Hide. Which supposedly is where the scaling nature of the random Criticals on team size is supposed to come in.

    Quote:
    The only reason to *really* improve Stalker's burst damage is if there is some type of imbalance with the AT. As is, Stalkers function perfectly fine on teams and solo. Why people want to improve Stalker damage is because they feel Scrappers do more and survive more...not because Stalkers don't do enough damage themselves.
    And that's not really damage, for the Scrappers, it is that they have greater survivability and some tanking ability. If Stalkers just become damage specialists and contribute nothing else to the team, it just becomes easier to replace them. Demoralize is basically saying, "Well, you can't pull the aggro off your allies with your taunts, but you get a nice debuff and control effect instead."

    I think the main thing we need to consider is that REPLACING a sustainable debuff with an on-kill debuff is not necessarily a good thing. It might be okay to supplement it, since right now that sustainable debuff doesn't function if the target dies. But we would lose way too much of the current functionality of demoralize if we replace it. I think Biospark either didn't mean that, or didn't realize it would be so drastic a change. (It would be possible to sustain the effect, but your focus would shift from the Boss to the Minions)
  22. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zem View Post
    If I go after the boss first, even if it generates a larger debuff I STILL have to kill it first. By that point on a decent team the fight is mostly, if not entirely, over. What good is a debuff/fear then?
    I agree. The argument seems to be that it is illogical for the demoralize effect to take place if the foe is left alive, but NOT if he is killed in one blow. So make the demoralize effect trigger on a Boss or AV whether the target is killed or not.

    You can leave the effect on a Minion or Lt if they survive the AS, as current, or drop it if it doesn't make sense. But AS'ing one of those isn't unexpected, it's pretty much overkill.

    I honestly don't know what the thought process was in the devs making the demoralize effect applied to the foe. Maybe they wanted to ensure Bosses/AVs were the target, by nature of their being the only ones likely to survive. Or perhaps they wanted the effect to center on and follow the target, in case the Stalker decided to duck out. I'd like to ask a redname what the intention was, but I don't really know. (Edit: Actually, I suspect it's because they didn't want two Stalkers to stack the effect on the same target. Similar to how Bruising is applied to the target for the same reason)

    We KNOW it's possible to make an effect take place only on a Boss or higher rank, though. That's how Brutes get their Fury bonus from AVs, and Scrappers get their Crit bonus on Lts and better. It should be possible to center the demoralize effect on the Stalker, only on a hit to a Boss or higher.

    I wonder if it would be possible to have the Demoralize effect applied ONLY to the Stalker if the target is defeated. That way it would be applied to the target, not stacking on the same target if it survived, but if it died, only one Stalker could be the one to kill it. Or even, make it so the effect is applied to the Stalker if the target is one-shot killed, going from full HP to 0. That would ensure another Stalker had not already hit it and applied the debuff.
  23. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ideon View Post
    Oh, side note - Thugs' Empty Clips needs their damage to be divided into four attacks, since the guns are being fired twice from each gun. Dual Wield's damage is divided into two, so Empty Clips really should be four attacks rather than the four bullets somehow being compressed into a single attack. :3
    It is four attacks, it's just sometimes those four bullets can somehow hit more than four targets. If there are less than four targets, then I guess one or two of those bullets just miss.
  24. Basically, the MM personal attacks are like the first three attacks you get for a Blaster or Defender. Then, for the rest of the attacks, you get henchmen that do those. So your nukes and burst damage attacks are being done by your henchmen. You're the foundation doing the little constant low damage attacks all the time.

    It's possible that the devs could do to the personal attacks what they did with Blaster Melee attacks. Increase the damage, and then increase the recharge and End cost to compensate. In other words, turn the basic attacks into burst attacks. Unfortunately, this might result in Masterminds doing too much damage. A Mastermind's problem is that he can't fill out an attack chain with only three attacks, but give him a few Temp Powers, and some global recharge, and that changes. Add some burst attacks, and he's doing nearly the damage of a Defender.

    Consider that if the Mastermind is doing exactly the same damage as all of his henchmen put together, either a) the Mastermind and his henchmen together are still doing only as much damage as another AT, meaning the pets are REALLY weak (this is where Controllers are) or b) the Mastermind + pets end up doing twice as much damage as any other AT in the game. That's really not going to work.

    A Mastermind really CAN'T do more than about 25% of his overall damage. That's innate to the concept of an AT which does most of his damage with pets. The unfortunate thing is that when you spread that 25% across three attacks, you end up with very individually weak attacks. I think perhaps a better solution would be to simply lower the End cost, so the attacks are worth using, or to give the MM some sort of situational boost, like more damage as his henchmen start dying.

    I've also said I'll like to see MMs be able to taunt with their attacks by slotting Taunt in them. It may be difficult to do this, though, while retaining the ability to have no Taunt by not slotting. (For instance, there may have to be a positive Taunt mag that can be slotted, and then a negative Taunt mag that is constant. That may very well be outside the limits of how status magnitude works )

    You also CAN compensate for a Mastermind's lower damage mod by using Temp Powers, Pool Melee attacks, and slotting IOs and procs. (Thanks to Bodyguard, there should never be any problem with an MM using melee attacks) MM personal damage is NOT as low as most people believe it to be. The problem is not the damage, it is the investment required in order to get that damage, and that you must often sacrifice more efficient pet abilities in order to get it.
  25. Okay, okay, lethal attacks from guns are definately common enough for Tough to be useful against them. However, in my experience it's not the lethal attacks from guns that were ever any threat to my Blaster, it's the exotic types like Fire and Electric. Those packed enough punch that I had to be concerned about them taking me out, AND they didn't come with a Smashing component.

    It might make those *#$&%# Council Marksmen a bit less irritating, though.