Pilcrow

[ QUOTE ]
I think alot of the complaints about this can be adressed if people consider PvP and PvE seperate games.

Those that tend to get the one shot kills have built their character for PvP. What this means is they spend a majority of their time in PvP and have designed their character for just that. That is both a merit and a flaw. Builds for PvP do not do well in PvE. Yes they can switch between the two but the truth is if you build for one aspect over the other you will be at an advantage in one and disadvantaged in another.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think many of the opponents of "cheap" kills (one-shots, TP into tripmines, etc.) are unaware of this truth, or think that a PVE build Defender ought to be able to beat a PVP built Stalker. I think they are well aware that there are significant differences between the PVP and the PVE games and a paper-scissors-rock-lizard-spock relationship between ATs.

The central issue is that PVP combat should ADD to the fun of the game for both participants, and that a combat that is essentially a quick, unstoppable loss for one opponent is not particularly fun for that one opponent.

It may be LOADs of fun for the other opponent, as they work very hard and strategically to set up their trap, find their prey, and spring the trap. But for the victim of said trap, the combat boils down to:

"What the-?"
"Oh NO!"
"Faceplanted again. [censored]!"

That just isn't fun.

Now, I know that this kind of thing is a risk you take in a PVP zone, but accepting a risk and enjoying it are two different things. The more often this particular form of PVP combat occurs, the less appealing the zone becomes and the more interesting the zone content has to be to overcome that risk, eventually, it deflates the fun for both sides - since hunters don't have a lot of fun without prey.

I think it's not an unreasonable expectation on the part of PCs to want to be "dangerous" prey. Prey that takes more than one hit to kill. Prey that has a chance to fight back. Prey that might be able to escape. Prey that *might* pull from behind to turn the tables. Prey that can, at the very least, wound you on the way to the grave.

If you can one-shot them, they aren't dangerous. No matter what capabilities they have, they will not get to use them if they are one-shotted.

And if they have capabilities that are already dangerous to you active (PBAEs, Sufficient Defenses), then you simply will move to another target. (So, even when they "win" they don't get to have fun.)

There's a lot of room between being dangerous and having the upper hand. People who build for PVP should clearly have the upper hand, but they should still find their opponents dangerous (as defined above).

Note: The above reflects my personal philosophical position on this issue and may or may not express the attitudes of others who are against one-shotting, the devs, or the owners of this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you miss this sentence in my post? I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrace (and i tought i did that before posting it):

Or simply accept that you cant posibly survive against every single AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's something I'm willing to accept. I would like to actually participate in the fight where they vanquish me, however.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think things like "info" that allow a Stalker to size you up in detail before striking should be disabled in PVP zones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of agree. Sort off because I think the only thing you need to disable is the power information tab, bio, badges and pvp ratings should still be visible to anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I go so far as to take issue with seeing HP and END reticles on PVP foes, but I can see that perspective. I worry about things like badges, which can be pretty indicative of some of the hero's powers are. But, hey, not my game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the pretention that one should have to buy a specific power to counter each AT strikes me as odd. That means 9 powers we'd have to buy to have a counter to each AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or simply accept that you cant posibly win against every single AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss this sentence in my post? I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
Not an "I WIN" button, just a "They don't necessarily win" button.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing i would say does need some change, and this is not only for stalkers, is supression. The 4 seconds that are there currently are too short. After attacking players there should be a 15 to 20 seconds of supression of travel powers (teleport included), phase shifts, and stealth powers. This would actually make the desition to attack a real risk one.

Right now being able to jump in, kill, and run away is a bit unrisky. 4 seconds can be too little for a human to get to target you, specialy on a crouded space where tab will just jump arround everyone and targetting with mouse can get tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a valid point. While I think a larger change is warranted, I can see this as a place where reasonable people can disagree.

But I would add that one of the key ways Stalkers (and other stealthers) have an unfair advantage in PVP at current is in his ability to pick his battles. I think things like "info" that allow a Stalker to size you up in detail before striking should be disabled in PVP zones. It's no risk to take on an opponent you know didn't buy the countermeasures even if you have to stay and fight.

We'll just agree to disagree on how much of the utility of a build should cross over from PVE to PVP.

But the pretention that one should have to buy a specific power to counter each AT strikes me as odd. That means 9 powers we'd have to buy to have a counter to each AT. Not an "I WIN" button, just a "They don't necessarily win" button. That's seems a bit over the top.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd suggest they do the same thing with +perception, but +perception stacks much better than status defense do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add too many options and suddenly everyone will auto negate Hide and stealth without even trying, that is definitively overpowered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the central issue with the Stalker AT. Either you are at their mercy or they are at yours. Since the key to your defense (perception) is also the key to being their bane, you can't protect yourself from them without becoming "overpowered".

I can make myself a hard target for scrappers/brutes/tankers by having fast movement. But this fast movement doesn't help me to penetrate their shields any better.

I can make myself a hard target for most controllers/dominators by having status protection and DEF. But status protection and DEF don't help me to actually cause them harm.

I can make myself a hard target for blasters/corruptors/defenders by getting and slotting up defenses. But those defenses don't help me to defeat those opponents.

For Stalkers, the prescription is +perception. But offering that as a defense is like offering control as a defense. It not only protects you, it makes them vulnerable.

Fortunately for us, there is no class for which control is the only counter. But for stalkers, we're not so lucky.

One alternative to +perception that people have discussed is PBAEs. These can disrupt an AS, and deliver little enough offensive punch that they can be viewed as primarly defensive in any short battle. But there are three key problems with that solution:

<ul type="square">[*]PBAEs are not in the shared pools, so not everyone can get them[*]3/4 Stalker secondaries are focused on DEF, which makes the PBAEs significantly less effective as a preventative[*]Stalkers get a massive protection vs. AE when hidden[/list]
So, if we're going to say that the availability +perception will make everyone else "definitively overpowered" in PVP in relation to Stalkers, then we have to figure out some other way by which people can protect themselves from stalkers. Some method that protects them without opening the Stalker to becoming the prey.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh? You mean there is a definite, absolute history of the etmology of the phrase "PvP not influencing PvE" for these boards? If there is, would you please do me the courtesy of citing it? And if not, could you please do us all the courtesy of not asserting your own ideal as the greater, better, truer meaning?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Statesman and company have stated many times that what they mean with their offten missquoted line is mainly they will not take desicions that affect PvE due to PvP. Mainly it really means: no nerfs will come to PvE due to PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out. States and crew have said they will not make any PVE changes SOLELY for PVP reasons. That doesn't mean they will not change PVE for reasons that are primarily for PVP.

In reality, many things they say are issues in PVE were somehow magically discovered and/or raised in priority for a fix because they were causing significant problems in PVP. Had PVP not come along, they might have remained unchanged due to the devs either not noticing.

[ QUOTE ]
As for finding you a quote, i'll do a search but these forums get inactive threads deleted every week so i may not find any currently. You can always PM states himself if that is what he means, he takes his time, but often if the PMs are serious he may reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless a MOD deletes them, redname posts stay on the boards forever - they are immune to the auto purges. That's why I can find posts like

Statesman clarifies his PVP/PVE statment:

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed.

We should try NEVER to change a power because of PvP alone (BTW, this is what I've always promised). The changes now aren't solely because of PvP - there's signifcant PvE issues, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

And This

[ QUOTE ]
We endeavor NOT to change powers solely because of PvP. The powers we are changing are usually because of PvE or PvE AND PvP.


[/ QUOTE ]

And This

[ QUOTE ]
“PvE will never be changed solely because of PvP.” I don’t want any PvP problem to be solved with a PvE change – unless there’s also a problem in PvE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, it helps to search under CuppaJo's name because she posts in his stead somtimes:

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you seemingly designing this game around PvP when only a very small percentage of people even partake in it?

There are very, very few things that we’ve done with PvP in mind. Travel Suppression is often given as an example – but that isn’t true. During Beta, we noticed that players would Fly and Snipe away from mobs beyond their range – and essentially gain XP for no risk. We instituted an Accuracy penalty to discourage this gameplay. We noticed early in Live that the same thing was happening with Super Jump and Super Speed; a player could zoom in with either power, attack and escape with impunity. It’s not that we minded escaping, because travel powers should help with that, but the issue was that the travel powers were being used to get XP for no risk. We initially added an Accuracy component, but players didn’t like it as much, because it seemed to remove completely the option of attacking while traveling. I agreed and we went back to the drawing board – and came up with Suppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, PvP is an entire diferent playstyle, and as such, if you want to be optimal you do need to build for it instead of PvE. Heck, there are builds that are done specificaly to deal with one type of enemy and farm them to death even if they fail against other types of enemies, it is imposible to expect there to be a build that can work optimaly on every single situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Optimal != Functional

A build that performs well in PVE ought to be able to perform decently in PVP. That's why these answers of "get tactics" are a bit funky. You shouldn't have to get a specific power or to be decent in PVP.

There was a similar issue with Status protections . People used to say "get acrobatics", but you shouldn't have to get a specific power or pool to be decent at PVP. And, lo and behold, status protections are now sprinkled throughout the shared pools.

I'd suggest they do the same thing with +perception, but +perception stacks much better than status defense do.

[ QUOTE ]
I only have one thing to say about this issue, so I'll just say it without further ado:

Whatever happens in PvP...I couldn't care less, as I don't bother with it. Those who are interested in it can hash out the AS there. However, if AS is made a NON one-shot kill in PvE, I will be VERY pissed off. That would make every fear I (and many others) had about PvP intruding into PvE come true, and would be the beginning of the end. I *LIKE* the way my PvE Stalker plays, and changing that for PvP reasons would break the game for me.

Now, if AS changes ONLY effect PvP? No skin off me. Like I said, I'll let those affected by such things argue about that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post from Castle should be of interest to you then.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I asked for clarification on this when it was mentioned on the beta boards. The code will be for PLAYERS ONLY, meaning that a player will not be one-shotted by players OR by mobs. Players will still be able to one-shot mobs.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the basic idea, yes. It would be pretty annoying for a level 50 scrapper to hit a level 1 Hellion and not take him down instantly.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eliminate AS or reduce the damage by 1/2 even would make stalkers uneffective in pvp and even less effective solo in pve

[/ QUOTE ]

PVP changes don't have to effect PVE.

If the entire AT is "gimped" if a single power is nerfed/not taken, then the AT is broken.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that statesment I have read some of your suggestion and think they would go a long way to make stalkers more balanced. But as it currently stands for most of the stalkers carreer AS is all that he really brings to the team or solo play. If that were to be taken away stalkers would basically be a watered down scrappers with a controllled critical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do feel that IF it is true that a Stalker really only has AS to bring to the table (mine is still in under 20 and that's not my experience so far, but there's a lot of game left to play), then something else needs to be put there to keep the AT viable.

I'm just saying that the argument of Kill AS = Kill Stalkers ergo no fixing AS/one-shotting is faulty. If it's true, we still need to fix AS/one-shotting and also fix Stalkers so they aren't so dependent on a single power.

[ QUOTE ]
Eliminate AS or reduce the damage by 1/2 even would make stalkers uneffective in pvp and even less effective solo in pve

[/ QUOTE ]

PVP changes don't have to effect PVE.

If the entire AT is "gimped" if a single power is nerfed/not taken, then the AT is broken.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is the one thing I currently dislike about the PvP zones at present, that you must constantly use your travel power to avoid the possibility of a Stalker creeping up behind you. It would be nice to be able to stand in one place and either take in the zone or fight without having to leap away after every few attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you simply don't like to be caught off guard, if you haven't noticed that's the entire point of the AT. To catch you when you least expect it and take you down as fast as they can. I have a feeling that until stalkers are completly gimped unable to sneak on people or take them down no one will ever be really "happy" with them because of the nature of the AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no need for them to be "completely gimped" over this issue. For the most part people don't have an issue with being sneak attacked - they have an issue with the very short period of time between initiation of sneak attack and death, which denies them the oppotunity to actually combat.

If Stalkers are such weak combatants that they cannot complete a kill after a successful sneak attack that eliminates, say, 50% of a recipients HP - then that needs to be fixed in tandem with any one-shot fix. And can be. It's not a binary either/or of "Stalkers get to one-shot or they will be gimped".

[ QUOTE ]
A large chunk of the people whinning to have AS nerfed have never even beened AS'ed before and have NO experience to pull from. ie, wasted opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

A large chunk of the people maiking claims about what a large chunk of people have said or done have nothing more to back their statements than their fervent belief that what they assume to be true IS true.

[ QUOTE ]
The thing you should worry about are "thor shots" (i.e. man made meteor-like projectiles dropped from earth orbit onto a targeted city)... not scifi type weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT would make a cool reward for Warburg!

[ QUOTE ]
So, what it really boils down to is that for a few situtations that are usually Team v 1 and rare 1v1 situations you want to get tactics nerfed.

I can't believe I am hearing this but that is exactly what Castle and Pilcrow seem to want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think tactics provides too much +perception.

How much tactics does it take to lay a trap and TP Foe someone directly into it? It may take some ACC slotting or chewing of inspirations to make TP Foe work,, but it sure doesn't take tactics.

As for the trap laying itself, now THAT takes some tactics. It takes some real tactics to decide where to do it so, and how to survive the time it takes to do it, and how to get someone into it before your trap expires.

But the thing that takes the most tactics when you set a trap is finding a way to get someone to go INTO your trap. Now THAT that takes serious tactics.

Or TP Foe.

Note which of those two I am for "nerfing" in PVP. (Hint: Not tactics)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm also aware that TP Foe is a big issue in PvP. In our internal testing, my Stone/Stone Brute used it to great affect on opposing targets.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your Brute "used it to great effect", then your Brute greatly under-utilized it. Teleport Foe owns the field in PvP. It owns the field, owns the bleachers, owns the hot dog stands, owns the parking lot, blockades the streets, has an option to buy on all the surrounding blocks, and is able to block any other transactions for a mile radius around the stadium.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, I think it should be #1 on the "needs to be fixed to make PVP fair" list.

I've seen three ideas for fixing it that seem to make sense:
<ul type="square">[*]Instead of letting people place you exactly where they want you, TP Foe places people at a random place around the summoner[*]Instead of placing you on the ground, TP Foe puts you in the good 'ol "TP Hover" mode[*]When you TP Foe, you also Dimension Shift them for 5 seconds[/list]
All three of these still gives the summoner a strong advantage without allowing him to force the summoned directly into a trap.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[*]People just don't like to lose, and when they "fix" one shots, we'll stil hear complaints about the next best way to gank


[/ QUOTE ]

I've tried to bring this up in numerous threads a bunch of times, but people just want their flamefest.

What is the difference between getting one shotted and getting ALMOST one shotted, THEN almost instantly two-shotted?

So you can take away my one shot from my snipe or AS. But the second attack I have que'd up (and its going to be my second biggest alpha), WILL certainly kill you unless you have the reflexes of a cat and the speed of a mongoose (lil Ace Ventura in there).

Now, I guess we can go through and eliminate all the possilbe one shot scenarios/powers. But ton of people will still be able to two shot you just as fast, and in most instances without reaction time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I'd put this reason on the stack if illegitimate complaints.

But just because ONE of the complaints about this issue is illegitimate doesn't mean all of them are.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Defenders suck, period.. They're small and easy to push around, just like the Japanese, the only reason you're not being mauled into the ground is because of Sony

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making me cry!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm, I didn't say this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reason I ask is because no solution will correct ALL the reasons people dislike losing in PVP. We know people will ALWAYS complain about this, so the question we really need to ask (and that Castle raised indirectly) is: What are the legitimate issues with one-shotting and how do we address ALL PVP situations that raise those issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a gamer, one that has played dozens(that wasn't dramatic) of MMO's, knows that this type of whining exists in every game that has PvP.. Why? People instinctively want to be the best, they can't just accept that they're built for several strengths and weaknesses.. There IS NO WAY to fix this

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why we need to define the goalposts. If our goal is to eliminate all PVP whining - we'll never succeed.

But if we wish to insure that every player has at least a few seconds to react before they die, that could be accomplished. If we wish to insure that every player has a chance to get revenge (MAD), that can be accomplished.

So the question isn't "How do we get rid of one-shotting?", but "What is the true problem with one shotting and how do we get rid of THAT?"

[ QUOTE ]
People lose, people win, heck I lose all the time if people are smart enough to use holds on me, and 4/10 times I'm seen. People just need to learn their way around the issues, they need to think- wait, scratch that, people don't like to think, they'd rather just cry and complain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I, personally, see the same issue with one-shotting that others saw with holds and that brought about supression and break frees. Previous to break frees, your only way to deal with that method of death was proactive, there was no way to be reactive. Furthermore, there was limited access to the proactive solutions in the game. We have a similar issue with +perception. I'd like to see an opprotunity for reaction to attacks like stealth-sniping and tp to mines in the game.

How we do that depends on which of the other reason why "one shotting must stop" we consider legitimate.

Here's a quesiton I have: WHY does one shotting have to end?

Here are the answers I have seen so far:
<ul type="square">[*]It is frustrating to not be able to engage in a PVP combat that kills you, people wish to actually participate[*]It doesn't seem fair that a low-risk (not low-skill, low-risk) situation like stealh sniping or TP Foe to tripmines should yield significant game rewards[*]While the ability to insta-gank exists in the game, that method of killing is the most rewarding for the hunter because nothing poses less risk than a defeated opponent. So players have an incentive to engage in the form of PVP that is least pleasant to be the recipient of (because of the first reason)[*]You can't really take revenge on the person who defeated you if you've faceplanted[*]People just don't like to lose, and when they "fix" one shots, we'll stil hear complaints about the next best way to gank[/list]
What reasons did I miss that you've seen in this thread.

What reasons do you think are "legitimate" complaints.

Reason I ask is because no solution will correct ALL the reasons people dislike losig in PVP. We know people will ALWAYS complain about this, so the question we really need to ask (and that Castle raised indirectly) is: What are the legitimate issues with one-shotting and how do we address ALL PVP situations that raise those issues.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh well... at least we can accept that the probability of any religion being even remotely correct is near nil. So science is still the only worthwhile paradigm to live by.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Talk about flamebait. Even nicely worded, bringin in the science vs. religion debate is dangerous.


I'll leave it at this: Science knows it is not applicable to all questions we have about the world, one can find answers to questions outside the boundaries of science anywhere one wishes without being in conflict with science.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even though Newton's Laws are, in fact, incorrect, I bet they tuaght them to you in school. Why? Because you can still make a lot of good decisions wbased on those laws - even though they aren't universally true.


[/ QUOTE ]

*nod* And then you take Physics in college and they tell you "forget all that BS you learned in grade school, it's wrong. here's how it actually works..." and you wonder why you wasted your time learning Newtonian Physics if it's been proven incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect they don't tell you to forget it, since you generally use einsteinian theory only on an exception basis. I think a lot of engineers would be pretty pissed if they had to use relativistic or quantum equations to do their jobs.

Now, there's no assurance that Mieux's view that the PVP zone game is true in the majority of situations or not. But finding a single counter-example doesn't make the rest of his point fall as if you had extracted a keystone. If his perspective accurately reflects the experience of a majority or even large minority of the playerbase, then it's worth consderation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Newton's Laws of Mechanics are not universally true. They are especially inaccurate near the speed of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why they've been largely rejected in favor of the General Relativity Theory. That, however, breaks down in very small masses and singularities, so the difference is made up with Quantum Theory. Unfortunately, neither are universally true, hence the search for the Grand Unified Theory, which doesn't exist just yet.

So even Newton, Heisenberg, and Einstein aren't absolutes. It's not likely we're going to find the grand unified theory of PvP, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to miss the point.

Even though Newton's Laws are, in fact, incorrect, I bet they tuaght them to you in school. Why? Because you can still make a lot of good decisions wbased on those laws - even though they aren't universally true.

[ QUOTE ]
What you're doing is attempting to construct a logical argument, and you're doing it exactly right.

You start with a universally true premise, then you apply that premise to a specific situation within the universal truth. That's "deductive reasoning" since you're deducing from the universal to the specific.

For example. Premise: PvP isn't fun unless you're a Stalker or a Stalker Hunter. Given: There are other players besides Stalkers and Stalker Hunters. Deduction: PvP isn't fun for those players.

The argument is rock-solid. The Given is accurate and the Deduction follows very smoothly and logically from the given and the premise.

In order to deconstruct that logical argument, the PREMISE would have to be deconstructed. In other words, one would have to present a counter-example that proved that the premise is NOT, in fact, universally true, in which case any deduction derived from that premise would be suspect.

Therefore, logically, if there is a single person playing CoH/V that is neither a Stalker nor a Stalker Hunter that enjoys PvP, the logical argument is deconstructed.

I'm sure we can find one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newton's Laws of Mechanics are not universally true. They are especially inaccurate near the speed of light.

But for most practical purposes, they remain an extremely legitimate and useful way to understand much of the physics of everyday life. The fact is: I can make a good prediction of how to bank my pool shot based on Newtonian Mechanics. I don't have to account for how I would bank the shot if near a black hole to make a good decision.

Likewise, one counter-example does not invalidate his argument.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trick Question. The answer doesn't matter. It has the same psychological effect that a one-shot does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. This was exactly my point.

PvP is a very fine balance and there are a lot of ways to creatively combine powers for extreme effect. Assassin Attacks, while powerful, are only the most visable (irony?) example. There are others which are worse and whatever solution we come up with for 'The one shot problem' has to address as many variations as we can identify.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which is why I felt encouraged when you said the 1 HP solution is only one of the "solutions" you are considering.

Anything that kills you in X secons or less (I'd say 2) is something that can "instagank" you - i.e. kill you before you even know you're under attack.

That's the problem. Be it one shot or three.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, does that include a team of 8 stealthed blasters that all snipe a single target?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you implement it. Here's my current favorite suggestion. Instead of speculating on my thoughts, perhaps you'd take the time to find them out and post your reactions. I've not doubt they will be insightful.

I do think that any set of tactics that eliminate the victims opportunity to actually engage in the combat have the dual-edged problem of being unpleasant for the victim and, at the same time, the best possible tactics for the hunter (since there's nothing safer for them than a tactic to which no response is posible).

Regardless of any meritocratic wish to reward smart play, we have to keep in mind that people play this game to have fun. Assuming these groups with good tactics kill more than they are killed (a likely assumption if the tactics are good) that means such situations lead to a deficit of fun.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like that you seem to be taking any suggestion that there is a problem as a call for extreme nerfs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem being Cryptic has a reputation for turning any suggestion into an extreme nerf...

[/ QUOTE ]

A reputation they had well before I5 and I6.

It was quite inaccurate then, and if they follow through on their intent to buff more than nerf from here forward, quite unwarranted now.

[ QUOTE ]
you do get an inspiration to respond to an AS attack . . . . its called an awaken

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed yesterday. Today, I'm thinking, this could actually work.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That was because magnitude of holds could trump the inspirations, thus making them useless.

I fail to see how seeing a Stalker before he/she even gets a chance to line you up somehow doesn't prevent you from being AS'd.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Stack enough Disciplines and the magnitudes of the holds could not trump them.

Stack enough Insights and the stregnth of the stealth cannot trump them.

I was asking how the situations were DIFFERENT.

They're not, so why shouldn't we get a way to RESPOND to a stealth snipe the way we can now RESPOND to a status?

[/ QUOTE ]

Situations are different. Any build can get +perception powers to help detect a Stalker. You can't say the same about holds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could swear there were some mez protection powers in the power pools. I could swear there were some mez protections in the shared pools. I guess I eas wrong, since some builds apparently cannot get mez protection.