PRAF68_EU

It might be worth putting 3 +accs in first tier pets at higher levels, since they will usually be fighting mobs +5 to them (the to hit penalty caps at +5).

This is a game. The devs set the rules. The rules include: by entering a PvP zone you declare yourself to be a target for anyone; and abuse and sweering is not alowed. And these rules are enforced. If you don't like the rules you are free to pick up your ball and play elsewhere.

How many +Acc enhancments do your pets have Loney?

I find Illusion/TA very effective solo at all levels.

I would just like to point out that there is no nead for pets to be in melee range for them to draw agro for the team.

"Send in the pets" I would interpet as have them attack, not charge them stupidly into melee range, where bots and soldiers are less effective.

Sorry, its -def resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
Im toying with a DM/SR build, DM to reduce their accuracy, and SR for the ok defenses which requires accuracy to get past
Provided DM gets the end drainer from the scrapper set etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought DM/SR might be a strong combination, however SR and Ice Tanks will resist -acc.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking about Tough Hide for Inv tankers it is 5% def vs all but Psi, 3.75 for a scrapper. It is not limited to S/L or it would be a completely pointless power as opposed to one of the must have tanker powers

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm prety sure is was S/L at one time, before the defense nerf, but I haven't looked an that powerset for a long time. Anyway, my guess would be that Shadow Dweller is identical to the Scrapper version of Tough Hide.

With the range of utility powers avalable and low maximum defense dark stalkers will be most effective in PvE, athough fear effects are not well resisted in PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would it be not Psi. Dark has resistance to Psi already so -Psi makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reasoning for -psi: Shadow Dweller represents the general difficult to spot elusiveness of the Shadow Stalker. Psi attacks do not need to be able to physically see the target to hit, they can detect the mind. From a gameplay point of view +def vs all on auto would be simply to good, unless it was a tiny value like 2.5%. +5% Def S/L is more likely, since this would make it the same as an existing power in the Invunerability set.

Well, as i posted on general discussion and got told off for by Cynic, the name Shadow Dweller sounds like a passive (auto) power.

Based on Castle's comment about the set being res with a little def, I would say it's a +def power (either S/L or all -psi).

Based on the low numbers for def in general, and the assumption that it is passive, I would say 5% or less.

i.e. skip it.

I'm not saying that MMs should always tank, just that they should be prepered to if the situation warrants it, and when teaming there has to be give and take when deciding stratagy, and that MMs shouldn't treat someone who suggests their pets take an alpha as if they are completly mad, and basically that they treat a team as a team and not a collection of individuals all doing thier own thing.

It's not usually to bad on my dom, domination decays more slowy than aggro.

I actually do quite a lot of the pulling, and always pull when I'm solo. Ice is good for that since even if you get more than one mob the slow effect splits them up a bit.

Isn't the second warlock pet in WoW a tanking pet?

Certainly a solo WoW hunter neads to use his pet as a tank. They can even be trained with a taunt ability.

The pets do get a kind of taunt, in that their damage counts for extra aggro.

Strictly speaking, acording to the devs, the brutes should fight the bosses while the pets keep the minions occupied (which is why Brutes have a single target punchvoke). The role of stalkers was envisioned as being more akin to single target blasters.

Anyway, don't shoot the messenger, I'm only passing on what the devs said during CoV beta.

[ QUOTE ]
So a blaster is a tank according to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if he faceplants, since he is then no longer able to hold aggro.

A blaster or controller with maxed out res and def buffs can tank yes.

I don't know how you play. But I do know that pets where designed to be cannon fodder, and that no other CoV AT is able to hold and survive as much aggro. BRUTES ARE NOT TANKS.

I have played with a lot of MMs that take the same atatude as you do, which is why I tend to dislike teaming with MMs.

My pets can control aggro very effectively, and a few of the good MMs I have played with can to. Damage from henchmen actually counts for more aggro than damage from party members, in order to enable them to tank, but has the side effect of making ill controlled pets aggro verything in site.

Tanking: preventing the mobs from attacking the team by providing an alternative target.

Pets can tank, maybe yours can't. Maybe that says more about the person controlling them.

You are free to play the game as you wish, but if you are not prepered to co-operate with a team you should'n't be suprised if you find yourself solo.

This really seems to boil down to personal choices and playstyle.

MMs can and often do tank very effectively, so don't be surpised or complain when your team expects you to tank. You should explain from the start when you join a team that you are a non-tanking MM, explaining what tactics you prefer to use. You might want to put "My pets don't tank" in your search comment as well. (My Controller has "NOT a healer".)

Powers that affect an aoe for a time, such a Blizzard, rain of fire etc summon an invisible, invunerable, and untargetable pet, which then generates the effect as an aura. As a result such powers are currently unaffected by any buffs.

5) Who is Knight Stalker and what is a nimmer?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but you are completly wrong there. The design of CoV intends for MM pets to be used as tanks. Brutes are intended as boss killers (the Scrapper role in CoH) NOT TANKS.

If someone says "PETS IN FIRST" they are simply playing the game as it was designed to be played. It the reluctance to commit pets (and if nessasary sacrifice them) that makes me prefer not to team with MMs.

[/ QUOTE ]
If so, can you state EXACTLY in a document/help that MM are designed that way? You are totaly free to play your character however you wont (scranker, blapper, defaster anyone?), imho kinda wrong correcting people that play their own style. Besides that.. a pet cannot 'tank', they die nearly instant when they get hit. So you are already wrong in the line that they are supposed to play as 'tanks'.

Where is the good old 'pull one' tactics?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was in CoV beta from the near the eurostart. This was posted by the developers.

Pulling is a good tactic, but sometimes there is simply no alternative to charging in.

If the MM sends in 1 or more pet and then the rest of the team fail to follow up, then yes, the MM has a right to feel agrieved, the rest of the team isn't doing its job.

[ QUOTE ]
I very rarely, if ever used my bots as cannon fodder. That's what the brute was there for.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you are completly wrong there. The design of CoV intends for MM pets to be used as tanks. Brutes are intended as boss killers (the Scrapper role in CoH) NOT TANKS.

If someone says "PETS IN FIRST" they are simply playing the game as it was designed to be played. It the reluctance to commit pets (and if nessasary sacrifice them) that makes me prefer not to team with MMs.

Playing Ice I did have problems when teamed with mind. The mind dom seemed to be very heavy on sleeps, but I had no sleeps but lots of holds, so I had to be very careful not to cancel out the Mind Dom and I certainly couldn't stack my powers with his.

And the issue 7 defense changes will benefit all tankers apart from fire.

Wilst Ice secondary can help out fire primary, I don't think their are and combinations that need to be avoided at all costs. (EM is great BTW). Choose what best fits your concept and looks coolest.

I'm not a scrapper, but wouldn't 2 acc, 2 def, 2 redrec be better so there is more overlap? Seems a bit pointless to slot this power for damage.