Obitus

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it is an all out brawl with many heroes and villains, the Stalker is not going to attract the attention of the entire hero group.

[/ QUOTE ]


You'd be surprised... We seem to be PC aggro magnets.

One other NB Stalker and I were engaged in a little bit of a duel(both of us AS'd the same controller and turned to attack each other). After the first couple of swings, 2 groups, one hero, one villain, stopped attacking each other and came after us.

We weren't even in that mass of players, but they turned and chased after us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're aggro magnets because you pose the largest threat in a pitched battle, at least as the game currently stands -- what with their being 3 Stalkers for every other Villain AT.

On my Scrapper, for instance, when I'm in the middle of a team PvP fight, I mostly go after squishies and Stalkers. If I actually stop and try to engage one of the Brutes that's chasing me (or if I happen to engage a squishy who isn't going down quickly), I get ASed.

Even if I can see the Stalkers in question (Tactics), it's nearly impossible to stop the AS under those circumstances, because I don't have the powers I need up (mostly build up) in the middle of a pitched battle.

Now, to this you might say, "You should joust more; don't stop and engage!" And as a general rule, that might be the correct thing to say. But when you're in a team-versus-team battle, jousting ain't gonna kill anyone. They're going to get healed while you're running around like a jackass. All the more reason to stick to targets that can be dropped reasonably quickly.

It's actually pretty funny. I had two brutes chasing me around for a good 15 minutes the other day. I always knew I deserved my own personal entourage.

So yeah, long story short, you're darn right Stalkers are PC aggro magnets. You should regard it as a point of pride.

Oh, and to no one in particular: Stalkers do more damage than Tankers, period. Energy Melee Tankers may indeed do more damage than Ninja Blade or MA Stalkers, but that's a commentary on EM's offensive punch, not the Archetype's. EM Stalkers actually do far better damage than Scrappers in the short-term, so please don't whine about your lack of toe-to-toe damage potential if you're EM. Please.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll try my best to record some PVP videos, then, since it seems so abnormal to you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Obitus must have not seen that Micro Huge video of him blasting every villain in the zone with the greatest of ease. After seeing that how could anyone think that Stalkers are uber?

My 2 cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'll download it when I get a chance.

Edit: Okay, watched the video. It's entertaining.

But I have to note that, in the fights displayed, the Blaster's side (teammates and non-teamed heroes) either outnumber the opponent(s), sometimes vastly, OR, and this is telling, the guy has AT LEAST 3 rages active, sometimes as many as five.

Granted, no video is going to be truly representative, because you can always edit out the bad parts. That's why I don't lend much credence to the Stalker videos, in terms of formulating an opinion about the AT. You can get a decent understanding of some of the tactics available from a video, but you can't judge how it actually performs overall, in practice.

To be honest, I was pretty unimpressed, overall, by the exploits listed here. Obviously the guy's a skilled player, but his video does nothing to dissuade me from my opinion that Blaster ranged damage, in general, isn't going to kill an opponent by itself very often. In team play, like I said, that doesn't apply so much, as you can always take advantage of teammate-generated distractions.

Just as I wouldn't try to judge AS damage on the basis of Inspiration use, I wouldn't judge Blaster ranged damage on that same basis.

[ QUOTE ]

The kill ratio of stalkers is more aligned with blasters while death ratio is similar to scrappers. unless +perception is heavy then most stalkers go down as fast as MMs. =)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly as I thought. Thank you for sharing your experience.

[ QUOTE ]
Yup

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool deal. So just out of curiosity, how much end does a power-boosted Short Circuit drain (fully slotted)?

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt say you meant they were gimped, just that saying their blizzard does less damage then a blasters doesnt do justice an Ice/Cold Cors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, perhaps I gave that impression. But if anything, I'm pro-Corrupter in this instance. The point I was making was that the Corrupter is better able than the blaster to leverage his Blizzard such that the Blizzard does full damage to the target (better slows and whatnot). But in the interests of fairness, I have to note also that the Corrupter version of Blizzard does slightly less damage. For all I know, it's a wash for that one power.

Of course, if the Corrupter uses Freezing Rain (or whatever the Corrupter version of it is called), then the damage could be the same. I'm not sure.

[ QUOTE ]
Obitus must have not seen that Micro Huge video of him blasting every villain in the zone with the greatest of ease. After seeing that how could anyone think that Stalkers are uber?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, as mentioned about six thousand times, I DON'T think that Stalkers as a whole are 'uber.' I DO think that EM Stalkers are uber, and that perhaps -- PERHAPS -- Stalkers as a whole could use a very very very small tweak. Again as noted, though, it is impossible to tell at this point what that tweak should be or even if it's truly necessary, given the vast preponderance of EM Stalkers in the active population.

So please stop trying to belittle my arguments by (falsely) characterizing my motives.

Finally, linky?

[ QUOTE ]

The supreme importance is to get the kill...
Do alot of blasters think like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I'm sure they do. The point is, they die more often than Stalkers, or are you going to tell me that isn't true, too?

[ QUOTE ]

In Sirens =
Blaster HP is 820.2
Stalker HP is 692.6

so about 16% more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to know.

[ QUOTE ]
Power Boost compliments the heck out of my Elec/EM blaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate. Does it work on endurance drains? I didn't think it did, but if so, then nice.

[ QUOTE ]
Less damage, like it matters.
Seriously have you fought an Ice/Cold COR?
You have no idea how well they can capitalize on their stacked slows, -recharge, -regen, -fly, -def, -res, -heal,....and ugh I didnt have fun fighting one to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have, and they're very nasty. I only mentioned that Blizzard does less damage in the interests of full disclosure, because Dwarflord is taking the pro-Blaster angle. It wasn't in any way intended to imply that Ice/cold corrupters are gimped.

[ QUOTE ]
The pure Blapper playstyle is silly, in my opinion. It basically ignores the ATs strengths. That's like saying "I'm going to play a Stalker without ever using Hide." It's possible to do, but it's silly, due to the disadvantages. If you play the Blapper way, then you've noone to blame but yourself. A BLASTER has less to worry about as they don't stupidly put themselves in range of death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that the "Blapper playstyle" must necessarily preclude the use of other Blaster powers. I was merely referring to the Blaster's closing to melee range. That, however, may have been unclear in my post.

[ QUOTE ]

I'll try my best to record some PVP videos, then, since it seems so abnormal to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please do. I've seen how long it takes my MA Scrapper to kill something, anything, without crits. It's at the very least four hits. Blasters -- apart from Ice -- have a poorer selection, in terms of BI, of ranged attacks that actually can strike from a decent range, and they're on a slightly lower damage scale to boot. That's fact, and if the target is even semi-aware, it therefore makes zero sense to me that a Blaster can regularly ranged-blast a target unto death before that target can run away, given the way travel powers work in this game.

In team play, sure. In the scenario that Dwarflord mentioned, wherein the blaster uses range on a fleeing, heavily-wounded target, definitely. In one-on-one, starting from range? Very rarely it would seem.

But hey, I'm always happy to be proven wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Then the Stalker AT must really suck to easily fall prey to attacks that just aren't that good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a childish non-sequitor, and you should know that. But let's take it at face value. I'd have to get more clarification as to the circumstances you're citing to understand where you're coming from.

You already mentioned a hypothetical in which the Blaster uses Defiance to snipe an unaware target. I broke down that scenario logically. If there are factors that I ignored, then please speak up. Tell me why that break-down isn't applicable, instead of making snide remarks. As I've already mentioned, I have no wish to nerf the Stalker AT as a whole, anyway, so your point here is a little silly.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, when someone (who is lucky enough to not be toggle-dropped and stunned) gets blapped and survives long enough to move away from the blapper, the blapper can blast at them from range.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine, as long as you're acknowledging that those ranged attacks aren't all that by themselves. To use them on a fleeing opponent after you've blapped them is about the best application I can think of for them.

[ QUOTE ]
Making them yet again even more effective than a stalker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, right.

[ QUOTE ]
The only risk a blapper takes that is greater than a stalker is when trying to take on an opponent in a group who they do not choose to TP foe to them. Their target has pretty much no chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Blapper has less stealth, so right there he's taking more risk than the Stalker in general play. Even if he uses TP foe when attacking, he's therefore more likely to get ganked (and the lack of status protection and defense comes into play here too) when just maneuvering through the zone.

I'll agree with you, however, that TP foe is incredibly powerful in PvP. Probably even a bit too powerful.

Unless the Blapper loads up on Inspirations, it's suicide even to THINK about attacking a someone in a team, though. Inspirations are a perfectly valid tactic, of course, but I think you'll agree that anyone can look like a god with enough of them.

[ QUOTE ]
The blapper still has more hp, but less defense (at pre-epic levels), and no status protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The Blaster has what? 10% more hitpoints? I'm honestly curious.

2. Less defense, even at epic levels. Take another gander at those EPPs you keep harping about. Compare the numbers. Are you seriously trying to imply that the ONE toggle defensive power in each Blaster EPP is comparable to an entire Stalker secondary? If so, then I'm afraid we'd have to file it in the same category with your claims about Tanker versus Stalker damage, and about Scrapper/Blaster/Stalker damage caps. In the "flat-out wrong" category.

[ QUOTE ]
To compensate for the less defense and no status protection, they get more hp and more damage, many ranged damage options for if their opponent flees, ranged control powers to open with or if their opponent somehow manages to flee, possibly a PBAE nuke, and any number of other tools loke power boost or mega-endurance drains depending on their spec.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's all true technically, but it's a bit misleading (unintentionally or not) because you're basically lumping in every powerset's capabilities in that list. If I were to, say, do the same thing with Stalker Primaries, it would likely look almost as insane.

Again, ranged mezzes are almost exclusively the domain of Ice Blasters. Happily for Ice, it's also the most viable ranged powerset because of the slows and the longer-ranged (non-snipe) attacks in the set. Any other set who tries to kill a single-opponent purely from range is more than likely going to fail, because they have to be up close and personal to leverage their full potential, even their full ranged potential.

As for Power Boost, it used to be uber, back when power pool defenses were worth a damn. I'm not sure whether it works on slows or not, but either way, it's another power that appears to compliment Ice almost exclusively, because of the ranged mezzes in that power set. Other sets are going to see little or no benefit from it, except, of course, Energy Manipulation itself, assuming your in melee range (stuns).

Boost Range is yet another power -- although you didn't mention it, I thought I'd toss my thoughts in since it does appear in Energy Manipulation along with Power Boost -- that appears to benefit Ice most of all. Why? For the same ranged reasons cited before. If a Fire or an Energy or any other Blaster Primary tries to use Boost Range to gain an advantage in PvP, then they're still limited to 40 feet if they want to use their biggest-hitting ranged attacks. Hami-Os are huge here for obvious reasons, but Hami-Os are outside the scope of this conversation.

And finally, noting all of the above, it's important to add that the PBAoE nukes aren't available to Ice Blasters. Blizzard actually ought to be a fairly decent power in team PvP assuming you have the means to lockdown your opponents in its radius. I'm not sure whether an Ice Blaster can slow an opponent enough by himself, but I tend to doubt that in general practice.

Interestingly, an Ice Corrupter is better suited to leverage Blizzard in small-scale or one-on-one play, although for Corrupters, the power does less damage.

[ QUOTE ]
There's your built-in advantages/disadvantages. Is there something I'm not seeing? Stalkers have mez protection due to the risk that comes with being in melee range. Blasters do not, because they do not have to be near the target to pose a threat. The only time a decent Blaster is in any real danger is against another ranged opponent, unless they stop moving and leave themselves open to a melee attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. So you acknowledge that the Blapper playstyle incurs great risk, without status protection? Finally.

From what I've seen, a Blaster, by himself, isn't going to be killing much of anybody with ranged attacks alone in PvP. If you're an Ice blaster, and you can mez a squishy from range, then yeah. Otherwise, I don't see it. Their ranged attacks just aren't that good generally speaking.

[ QUOTE ]
I can say that MY Blaster dies less than my Stalker, as I can readily monitor it. It's mostly due to the fact that I refuse to move in range of the Stalker (unless I intend on using AoEs). I can also say that the Stalker vs. Blaster fights that I've witnessed were a bit one-sided in the Blaster's favour.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very interesting, almost logic-defying, but your experience is your experience. I'm not going to try to refute it. Just to clarify, though, the PvP game isn't limited to Blasters versus Stalkers. In general play, the Blaster is going to be at greater risk a higher percentage of the time. In group play, particularly, Blasters are fodder -- high risk, high reward characters.

Stalkers, even in group play, seem to thrive on ambushing people who are otherwise engaged. Blasters make particularly good targets for this playstyle, and any other, for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
If this particular Blaster is stealthed and perched out of range of the target, yes. There isn't a way for a Stalker to strike from an undetermined area a second time, if they have to. After the first, they're in the open. You might not be able to target them, but you know they're there. With a Blaster, it's different. They can snipe you and remain out of your view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and if the Stalker sneaks up on an unsuspecting target, he's in perfect safety too. You can't arbitrarily assign ideal circumstances to the blaster and then ignore all of the BUILT-IN advantages for the Stalker in setting up HIS ideal situation.

If +perception is such a big deal for Stalkers, it's an even bigger deal for Blasters, who have less stealth, no defenses, and no status protection. This is common sense, and irrefutable. Secondly, the builds that I've seen cited in this thread for the Blasters seem to be almost ridiculously specialized.

Thirdly, Placate appears to be the ultimate escape power. I fail to see how being "untargetable, but you know they're there" makes the Stalker any worse off than the Blaster who just sniped. Is the target AFK? Or is he just supposed to be so clueless that he doesn't realize he was attacked?

Finally, even at the damage cap, a blaster snipe isn't going to kill anyone. So the range advantage of Snipe relative to other Blaster attacks becomes moot. If you're within range of the OTHER Blaster attacks (and let's ignore for a moment that all the best ones have a 20 foot range, unless you're Ice), then you're easily spottable.

[ QUOTE ]

It really depends on the powersets. EM is the best example, but there are Blasters that make heavy use of their secondaries and can deal about as much damage as a Stalker, without the need to be hidden or undamaged while attacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and the trade-off is obvious. Blasters might not NEED to be hidden to deliver that damage, but they probably would LIKE to be, given all their other weaknesses.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not advocating changing anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that. It was a turn of phrase. Yours was a hypothetical posed for rhetorical effect. However, it is perfectly valid for me to challenge the feasibility of that hypothetical trade-off.

Obviously, while you aren't actually asking the devs to put it into effect, you think your hypothetical Stalker-with-blaster-melee is reasonable. I don't, for all the reasons already mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying if you think that stalkers do too much damage then let's give them the damage of one of the strong melee damage dealers from the hero side. But that's too powerful too...cause they do better damage with better effects than stalkers do and don't have set up for it like an AS.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've been through this. If you truly think that a Blapper has less or even comparable risk to a Stalker in "setting up" a kill, then there's nothing more to say.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I wasn't wanting my cake and eating it too...I didn't suggest stalkers keep ET if they got blaster melee damage. I was suggesting they get EXACTLY the melee capability that blappers have and maybe substituting another similar melee attack for the short range blast that they all use as a 3rd attack. I didn't say keep stalker EM and just up it to blaster dmg with toggle drops. Anyhow, it is ridiculous and the nerf cries would be even worse...


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying. The absence of any mention of powerset readjustment led me to assume that you just wanted the devs to throw a blaster modifier on all your attacks (or whatever it is the devs would have to do to make such a change).

[ QUOTE ]
Heroes have AT's that are better at EVERYTHING than villains have. Best defense? tankers. Best melee damage? Blasters and scrappers Best buffs/debuffs? defenders Best crowd control? controllers Best healing? defenders Best ranged damage? blasters Do you see a pattern here? Yet people still want to nerf stalkers, because they are the only threat to heroes, even though they don't do as much melee damage as the most damaging melee heroes. Now please refute ANYTHING I just said as untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, your assertion about people calling for nerfs to Stalkers is a bald opinion, without much to back it up. As I've said repeatedly, I for one have no nerf-the-villains agenda here, and since you're discussing this with me at present, I'll thank you to stop injecting your guesses as to other people's motives out of the discussion.

As for your assertion that Hero ATs are better at everything, that's true, and it isn't. Hero ATs are more specialized than Villain ATs. Generally speaking, Villain ATs are designed to be more self-sufficient. I also believe that villains were designed moreso around their inherent powers, whereas Hero inherents seem basically to have been afterthoughts. Depending on the Archetype, this can be good news (Stalker comes to mind), or bad news (Dominators come to mind) in a PvP setting.

Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, this means that Villains are probably at a disadvantage when you start talking about balanced team play. For Heroes, particularly when you throw a goodly number of Controllers/Defenders into the mix, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For Villains, particularly when so many people play Stalkers, the whole tends to be the sum of its parts.

All of this is largely irrelevent to the issue of Stalker balance, though. If we assume for the sake of argument that Stalkers or certain Stalker powersets are imbalanced, then that isn't JUSTIFIED by the lack in other Villain ATs. Sure, if you want to argue that we should boost other villains first to see where we stand, that's one thing. But arguing that Stalkers are somehow inviolate because other Villain ATs suck strikes me as really foggy logic.

[ QUOTE ]
I can honestly say that Blasters have killed me more times than I've killed them. Not by much, but the ones I've seen are quite good at killing Stalkers. Good to the point I'm beginning to believe that they're better at hunting down Stalkers than Scrappers are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you honestly say that those Blaster die less often than you do, generally? Because that sounds absurd on its face.

This isn't about Blasters, though, ultimately. It's about the assertion that somehow Stalkers with blaster-level melee damage would be balanced.

[ QUOTE ]
Defiance. The lower the Blaster's hp, after a certain point, the more damage they deal. So, imagine a Blaster dropping from a tall building and taking their hp into red (obviously around the safety of their base), going into Stealth, and then sniping/kiting villains. Sometimes, they TP Foe from a building ledge, allowing the villain to drop and unable to return fire as the Blaster... well.... blasts them into oblivion. Valid tactics, but just as painful as AS and safer (most of the time). I found the last one mentioned to be one of the funniest...

[/ QUOTE ]

You're telling me it's safer to use Defiance than it is to use AS?

[ QUOTE ]
What about the Stalkers that AREN'T Energy Melee? Would it be so ridiculous of us to ask for that? D: *really does dislike the EM set... maybe out of jealousy or the fact that it gives the rest of us a bad rep*

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think it would be ridiculous to ask for that, under the circumstances that Dwarflord posited. That is to say, Stalkers lose AS, but keep Hide and Assassination (the inherent power); they keep status protection and defensive powersets, and gain blaster-level melee damage. The lack of Stalker hitpoints relative to Scrappers' doesn't account for THAT much, sorry.

The only point I was making about Energy Melee (or Manipulation, for Blasters) is that Blaster melee sets are structured differently, and for good reason.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm ascribing motives to this thread which obviously do exist as they have been stated and restated countless times. If AS doesn't drop toggles anymore, I want all toggle drops except brawl removed from the game. Heroes have more toggle drops than villains anyhow. If EM gets removed from stalkers, get rid of /EM and /Elec blaster secondaries and get rid of tanker EM, too. The set is either overpowered or it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I am not the thread.

2. The loss of toggle-dropping ability in AS would hardly cripple Stalkers or AS in particular. I don't have a really firm opinion on the matter either way, but if I had to think of a change that applies to all stalkers that would be the one I'd look at first. It's very hard to form an opinion about Stalkers in general, though, when there are so many EM stalkers running around.

3. EM isn't going to be taken away from you or from anyone else. It could be adjusted, though, and probably should be.

[ QUOTE ]
Definitely other villain AT's need some love though. Everyone plays stalkers on the villain side because the other villain AT's are inferior to the hero ATs. I would LOVE to see more diversity and to not feel like a gimp when I bring out my brute into a PvP zone. Hell, I'd even roll up a corruptor if they fixed their barely-better-than-defender damage and gave CoV a real ranged damage AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just on paper, it seems to me that the Villain ATs apart from Stalkers are somewhat behind the curve. Dominators in particular. But Mieux does bring up an interesting point: It is impossible to say exactly whether the current Villain PvP situation is influenced by Stalkers' uberness, or by the other Villain ATs' gimpiness. In team play, I imagine Villains would do better if they had a better mix of ATs available.

It's the chicken and the egg.

Something does have to change, though, one way or another.

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters don't need nerfed so much as they need changed. Their best option for damage needs to be ranged damage. They don't need insano melee attacks. They need really good ranged attacks. I met an AR/dev blaster who couldn't even overcome my regen rate with dull pain up. I just stood there and let him shoot at me while I politely asked him to leave me alone so I could go to my next mission. He refused, so I killed him. WTH? Blasters should do great ranged damage...I should have had to run. The sad thing is, if he'd been an ice/EM blapper, I wouldn't even have had time to run, he'd have killed me so fast. This game is currently borked and some changes definitely need to be made, but neutering the only viable villain isn't the way to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and are these the same uber ranged attacks that you earlier argued were adequate recompense for a lack of defense and status protection? I actually agree with you about Blaster ranged damage. It needs to be a more viable option. Even in PvE, their ranged attack selection is generally poor, what with their biggest-damage attacks weighing in at a beefy 20-foot range (Blaze, etc).

Make no mistake, though. What I was objecting to was your assertion that somehow Blasters have all these other options which render their squishiness a good trade-off. If Blasters got status protection and STalker-level defenses tomorrow -- even if they KEEP the ranged attacks -- then all they'd ever USE is their melee attacks.

That's why your hypothetical is unreasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
And... what server are you on? A majority of my deaths are caused by Blasters. None were Electric, Assault Rifle, or Archery, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. And how good do you suppose their kill/death ratio is, in general? I'll bet yours is better.

[ QUOTE ]
Not that they need it. If you dent'em enough, they can go on a villain killing spree without much worry. Especially those SS/SJ combo ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dent 'em enough? What do you mean?

Regardless, that's not the point. THe point is that Stalkers DO have Energy Transfer, and this Dwarflord fellow is advocating blaster-level melee damage for Stalkers. Do the math.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is this risk? What do I care even if I did die, if I can kill anyone I want first? Heroes are the ones who want to have their cake and eat it too. They want their strong builds but want to take away the very few that villains can muster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the highly specialized build and the ideal situation you describe, there is still one great risk: Being stunned. Have you tried this tactic on your /energy blaster?

And again, I don't even play a Blaster, and I don't exclusively play heroes, so stop trying to obfuscate your idiotic argument with partisan bantering. I'm not on a crusade to deprive villains of their "one good AT."

I am of the opinion that EM for Stalkers is overpowered, and that perhaps AS shouldn't drop toggles. Other than that, I'm fine with Stalkers. As to other Villain ATs, they could use a boost here and there. You're ascribing motives to me for which there's no evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
It's absurd only because the heroes have something more powerful and you know good and well you wouldn't want to face it from the villain side.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't some partisan debate. I'm not approaching this from the standpoint of "I'm a hero; you're a villain." Personally, I think that CoH ATs tend to synergize better than Villain ATs. So yes, there is a slight overall advantage for Hero ATs in team PvP.

That, however, does not speak to this issue of Blasters. Blasters are not the first thing that leaps to mind when I think of Hero ATs' superiority. Blasters are probably the worst PvP archetype, in general, certain powerset combos (Ice/Energy) notwithstanding.

[ QUOTE ]
Energy melee is held by 3 ATs, 2 of which are heroes. Stalkers, Tankers, and blasters. Of those 3, Blasters and Tankers both have higher base damage. Blasters by alot, and tankers by a little bit. Tankers also have more hp and better defenses. If anyone complains about EM, it should be villains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, Tankers have LOWER damage than Stalkers, genius. .8 < .9.

(And that's totally ignoring the significant damage advantage that Assassination grants Stalkers.)

Secondly, as I pointed out above, Blasters don't have Energy Transfer, which is the single best (PvP) attack in the so-called Energy Melee set. There's a reason for that.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so do I get Nova and all the ranged attacks and holds, too? Do I get massive dmg resistance in my epic power pools?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. "All the ranged holds" are in one powerset, Ice.

2. Is there a PvP zone available in which people can use Epic Power Pools? Um, no. We don't know yet what Stalkers will have for Epic Power Pools. You're complaining about something about which you have no clue yet.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think blasters have so much better melee damage than stalkers do that we'd have to give up our secondaries as well as our primaries...just to get a ranged AT's melee damage by itself, then you prove my point that heroes are monstrously overpowered and not even stalkers hold a candle to their uberness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blasters incur incredible risk to close to use those melee abilities. If you were to maintain your status protection and defensive capabilities, then you'd get to have your cake and eat it too.

[ QUOTE ]
Come on now...I'm agreeing to trade the most offensive villain AT's primary powersets for blaster secondary sets. Surely that's a fair trade, yeah? I mean if our offense is so insane, then just give us the secondary set of a ranged archetype. Surely their secondary isn't better than our overpowered Stalker primaries, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a gross, misleading oversimplification, and you (should) know it. On a powerset-by-powerset basis, anything can be seen to be reasonable. By your logic, why shouldn't Scrappers get Blaster Secondary melee ability? How about Tankers?

And just by the way, Stalker EM does have better melee powers than Blaster EM. The only difference is the damage scale. Could you imagine a Blaster with Energy Transfer? Didn't think so.

All the rest of the Stalker Primaries are based on Scrapper Primaries. See above.

The bottom line is that your Primary or Secondary alone is not what defines your character. And anyway, no one that I've seen has called Stalker Primaries as a whole overpowered. I've seen complaints about two primary-related things here: Assassin's Strike, which in your absurd example you concede, and Energy Melee.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not totally reliant on AS. I have 2 stalkers though...a 40 MA and a 38 EM. People are complaining about the attack that takes all of their life and about our stacked stealth. Well I'm agreeing to give it up for blaster damage/melee attacks. No, I wasn't giving up my defenses entirely since I wasn't asking for the Blasters' ranged attacks/AE's/holds/etc....just trading their melee attack damage for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I didn't see your MA in your sig. Or rather, I did, but I only saw the Scrapper.

Blasters have it rougher than you do, period. They'd still have it rougher than you do, if AS didn't exist. Your request, tongue-in-cheek or not, is silly. You'd have to give up either your defenses, your status protection, or both to get what you're asking for.

Cuddles, that's at the damage cap. I'm not defending or criticizing the figures quoted, I'm just pointing out that your question about enhancements and build up is moot.

[ QUOTE ]
Please oh please just do away with AS and just give my stalker exactly the same melee attacks, damage base, toggle drops, and versions of AIM/BU that blappers get. I would trade in a heartbeat. Just give us a couple more attacks to chain since we won't have the ranged attacks to supplement our melee with and we'll work just fine in PvE too. You can take away stealth stacking too for all I care...just get rid of perception stacking to compensate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you giving away your status protection and your defenses too?

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I'd be much happier 3-shotting someone in 2.5 seconds with 3 uninterruptible attacks than with trying to line up an interruptible melee range sniper attack that takes 3-4 seconds of time during which I can't take any damage or be hit by effects that don't even do anything to me to even go off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, EM stalker. Yeah, I can see why you'd talk as if you're TOTALLY RELIANT on Assassin's Strike.

The_Rad,

I understand all of that, and I agree that a lot of it is unfair on some level. I do not, however, see how any of that is relevant to a discussion of how Force Field's powers can be adjusted such that Controllers will receive less benefit.

Going solely on the powerset's numbers, Controllers already do receive less benefit. That's the only point I was making. While it's true that Controller Primaries allow for greater leveraging of certain FF abilities -- while it's true that Controller Primaries in general tend to compliment and be complimented moreso by the shared Defender/Controller sets -- there is no amount of value-tweaking one can do to the FF set that will correct this problem.

It's all about context. This thread started as a laundry list of power and set-specific tweaks/explanations. The discussion developed (or a thread of the discussion developed) into this issue of FF's being superior for Controllers as a set.

Further, I'd like to emphasize something you yourself pointed out (and which I pointed out earlier):

[ QUOTE ]
Once your reach 90% damage mitigation, a number both can easily reach, who really cares? Controller or defender the team will generally be taking no real damage, at least none worth mentioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, exactly what I was trying to say in that passage of mine you quoted. If the Defender starts at or near the magical 90% mitigation mark for his team, then even if the Controller can catch up -- through use of his primary -- or even if the Controller can SURPASS the Defender's mitigation, is the difference really noticeable?

No, it isn't. Which is why I think that FF actually has an odd sort of advantage relative to other Defender Primaries in regards to Defender/Controller balance. With other sets, it's debatable whether any team will notice the difference in buff/debuff effectiveness when a Controller is wielding them. With FF, since its buffs are so tightly focused in purpose, and since the buffs are such a huge part of the set (which isn't necessarily a good thing), and since Issue 7 is buffing DEF's benefit against higher-level foes, a team IS likely to notice the difference between an FF Defender and an FF Controller (buff-wise).

On the other hand, worst case, the theoretical Controller who can compensate for the Defender's DEF advantage through proactive use of his Primary, isn't going to display a marked advantage in terms of overall survivability benefit to his team.

None of that means the set couldn't use tweaking. None of that means that Controllers are balanced in relation to Defenders. All that means is that I (and apparently a couple of others) don't quite understand or agree with the logic with which certain people are arguing for change.

Oh, and as to this:

[ QUOTE ]
Based off a rather vague statement of Statesman's the defense cap can be estimated to be at about 300% so neither defenders nor controllers could ever buff someone to this cap. I think people mean to say that defenders can floor MoB base accuracy. That quiet a bit different since their are alot of variables that go into determining that number. The I7 changes make the differences between minions, lts, bosses, and AVs effectively accuracy slotting rather than tohit buffs. That does not mean the MoBs still can't get tohit buffs or -def buffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Issue 7, DEF is going to scale against higher-conning mobs. The equation dealing with mob ToHit bonuses is being reworked. What this means is that, effectively, no one will ever need more than 45% DEF to floor opponents' accuracy (and reach the 90% mitigation mark), at least in PvE. This is the "cap" to which I was referring.

The exception, of course, is when one is dealing with copious DEF debuffs. But for all intents and purposes, anything over 45% DEF will be overkill in Issue 7.

The DEF cap that Statesman alluded to was something different -- a concept, in fact, that i'm not even sure will survive Issue 7, unless the level curve on it is much steeper than I have reason to believe.

EDIT: As to your rant:

[ QUOTE ]
It is annoying me to no end that a very serious issue with defenders has been revealed and while we should be discussing how bad the issue really is and ways and means to to correct it, Scores of posts have been spent in some fruitless arguements about which sheilds are stronger, the difference between primaries and secondaries or soft and hard cotnrols.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your annoyance, but the issues are intertwined. This whole "FF is/isn't better for Controllers" discussion was, in fact, borne out of an attempt to correct what you call the serious Defender issue, or at least out of an attempt to IDENTIFY the exact nature of the problem.

How would you define this serious Defender issue? Are referring to Castle's statement that control powers will be stronger for Controllers whether they appear in Primary or Secondary sets? I'm honestly curious.

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'd ask for something completely different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning, you'd ask for something completely different in place of those five non-DEF powers? Then we agree. This isn't about tweaking values. This isn't about its being "unfair that Controllers have better control even in their Secondaries," even though that may be true.

It's about the fact that the fundamental design of the powerset is lacking, and it just so happens that Controller Primaries are better equipped to compensate for that lack.

[ QUOTE ]

As for ST . . . it's a whole nother ball of wax. If you think it's overpowered, you should use it a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, I think you mistake me. I don't know whether ST is overpowered or not. I don't care either. You brought it up. As I said, I was being facetious.

[ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

Though, IMO, this kind of thinking does have a statute of limitations, and is susceptible to estoppel. Allowing a poor design to go uncorrected for long enough constitutes, in my view, a ratification of that design; further, we've had Statesman expressly try to tell us that life for FF/* Defenders is perfectly peachy. I don't have a lot of benefit-of-the-doubt left to extend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point; I really do. I can see how it might be a bit annoying to have someone come in here and basically blow sunshine up your *#% (subject to interpretation, of course ) about how the whole set should be overhauled, when you guys have apparently been waiting for a very long time.

It's just that I don't see how any amount of tweaking of the current implementation of those five non-DEF powers is going to ever correct your beef about Controllers. Even if the aggro on Repulsion Bomb (and whatever else) were reduced to nothing, even if the disorient were increased five-fold, you'd still have the same fundamental complaints.

My position isn't that you have it better than Controllers overall. It's that your set is (as of Issue 7, at least as far as we know) much better in terms of DEF than it used to be, and certainly good enough to get the "job" done for just about any group composition. Granted, the rest of your powers are still pretty crappy, and probably a liability in such a team situation -- which makes your playstyle boring -- but at least you're competitive again.

[ QUOTE ]

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. There's no way to go from "Controllers get just as much effective defense from FF as Defenders" to "Controllers>Defenders." They're related, but not dispositive.

I'm trying to understand how can you even figure out if FF is better for Defenders than Controllers without seeing what the Controller does with it. Powers don't exist in isolation. They are used. The issue is what happens when that power is used.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm aware that powers don't exist in a vacuum. But the context of this thread lead me to examine how the powerset performs by itself. Remember the first post is that mammoth by Castle, going through the laundry list of individual powers' issues.

That lead to many comments about the relative effectiveness of individual powers in shared (controller/defender) sets -- some happy, some sad, some angry, some apathetic, but that's neither here nor there.

The point, if I could be said to be advocating any course of action, is that you cannot very well argue to the devs that certain powers' or powersets' values are unfairly weighted in Controllers' favor if you keep falling back on things like, "but, but, he can forcefield his pets!"

While it's absolutely true that he can Force Field his pets, and it's absolutely true, in fact, that Controllers (generally) enjoy synergies that Defenders can only dream of between their Primary and Secondary sets, that's an ancillary issue. In short, no amount of buffing the knockback distance, or the disorient duration, of certain Force Field powers is ever going to correct the problem that the Controller has certain advantages intrinsic to the design of his class (like being able to cast Deflection and Insulation on pets, or being able to take aggro better).

The bottom line, I think, is that your problems with FF have very little to do with Controllers.

[ QUOTE ]
By saying this just shows that "illusion controllers are too powerful," you're ignoring why Illusion Controllers are better than Defenders with the FF set. It's because, effectively, they are getting the same defense out of the FF set - enough to floor accuracy w/ other powers. Several other Controller sets can do the same thing, I'm just more familiar w/ Illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being partially facetious. My point was that, if what you said was true -- and I have no idea what the value on ST or any other Illusion power is off the top of my head -- then the Controller in your example could achieve floored ToHit on opponents without touching the Force Field set.

That strikes me as broken, and not terribly relevant to Force Field. But sure, if we ignore ST entirely, then I see your point, even agree with it. The problem is, as stated above, that what you're really asking for is a revamp of the 5 non-DEF FF powers into something more appreciably useful, am I correct?

And that has very little to do with a Controller's Primary.

[ QUOTE ]
And this comparison also shows what changes will and will not help the FF Defender. More Defense won't help the Defender. Less Defense for the Controller won't help much - it just demands another pool power. So changing those aspects of the Primary are irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly my point.

[ QUOTE ]
(1) If I understand the I7 defense changes correctly, that 40% figure is the relative difference, not the absolute difference. In absolute terms the Defender's shields floor enemy to-hit, while the Controller's shields get enemy to-hit down to about 15%. So as a practical matter the Defender's shields are only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage than a Controller's. That's a difference, sure, but it's hardly this earth-shattering, orgasm-inducing one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point. When one talks about mitigation, things can definitely get a little misleading. Depending on how one goes about calculating it, the disparity (between Controller and Defender FF) could be expressed by as little as 25%, and as much as 200%.

Personally, I don't lend much credence to either of those two extreme figures. As you point out, a 15% chance to hit isn't very much, although I tend to give the gap between 15% and 5% more importance. In Issue 7, 15% and 5% will only be the numbers against even-con minions. If you're fighting something with an initial ToHit value of 95%, then those numbers become 28.5% and 9.5%.

Proportionally, it's the same ratio. But on a practical level -- and as you point out -- no one is likely to care when even minions are hitting 15% instead of 5%. People ARE likely to care (and what was more my point, notice) when that +3 ArchVillain is hitting roughly thirty percent of the time instead of ten percent.

Just an example obviously. Your points are well taken, though. I can't really dispute any of them, when so expressed.

I guess, as I said to another poster, my own approach to the issue was a bit colored by certain preconceptions about the nature of certain past Defender complaints. Forcefield strikes me as a fairly lackluster set on a number of levels. But what leapt out at me immediately upon reading about the DEF revisions in Issue 7 was that FF will likely be noticeably different (to teammates) in the hands of a Defender as opposed to a Controller.

That's something that not many of the shared powersets can claim, at least not to the same extent. I've heard many complaints to that effect in the past, about just about every shared Defender Primary/Controller Secondary, and rightly so.

It seems that the power set was simply designed poorly, and that's the problem, moreso than that it's more effective for Controllers. The latter is just a symptom, a natural result of the powerset's high aggro and target-only buffs.