Reiraku
-
Posts
1334 -
Joined
-
In PvP, Leviathan is quite a bit better than Soul due to access to Hibernate (which works if you can't fit Phase into your build, best used with backup) and Spirit Shark. The Shark itself hits like a truck filled with headbutts where Soul's ranged damage power isn't nearly as effective.
Also, keep in mind that DR will reduce your soft-capped build's defenses quite a bit when in PvP. -
If your set on Regen vs Elec, I'd go with Regen. Easy HP capping with WP is not a bad thing, as it allows you to build towards other bonuses that will help you out more, not to mention WP has advantages like Repel resistance and Perception. But between Elec and Regen, Regen is overall better.
And Elec Melee is still hitting like a bus. You may want to consider that for a primary. -
I'm posting in support of this idea.
Hey devs! This is a good idea. Use it! -
Quote:Nah, he knows me. PWNZ posters and all that.Originally Posted by CityofChange
1) You might be thinking of the Russian Rei, not this one... idk.
2) What the eff happened to your rep Con? It's getting worse everyday. Someone have a hard on for you? -
The last time my SO'd stalker died in RV on Virtue was before i13 hit.
-
You mean you actually compromised and made a sane and rational decision?
... Where's the real Athy? -
Did NC finally let you re-sub?
-
I tend to recommend against taking the pet on a stalker, particularly if you're solo often. There's almost always another power you can take that'd be better used.
-
Even if you don't, Mako is still just fine in PvE. Maybe not as good as Soul is, but still very handy. I ran it on my Nin/Nin and did fantastic.
-
Pine's a little off. Spirit Shark for stalkers is a single target blast that does KB. In PvP, it does tremendous damage from Hide.
If you're not planning on IO'ing out your character, I'd go Soul Mastery. Shadow Meld is a great boost to your defenses and Dark Blast is an excellent ranged attack. If you build to hit the soft cap, I'd probably go with Leviathan Mastery. -
Well, pre-buff stalkers were pretty dang overshadowed in nearly every gameplay situation by brutes, but that's just the one AT I had the most experience with. In that case, MOAR DAMAGE seemed like a good call since that's what stalkers were primarily all about.
Now if they gave them an innate taunt effect to their attacks and double mez/debuff duration from Hide, then I'd have to facepalm. -
Quote:They still solo better than a number of ATs out there as a whole. I would put them above tanks (barely) on a SO comparison if one took all sets into account.Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Only on teams. Solo, they're the weakest (in general).
Actually, yes. They change mechanics that aren't underperforming regularly. Going back to Invuln, Castle stated that it was a bit lopsided, but was over all fine. Then it got the buffs it did. Compared to say, Firey Aura, which was underperforming and didn't receive nearly the amount of love Invuln did. It just happened to be Defenders' turn at getting looked at.Quote:OF course, this is why they made a change to the class, because it wasn't underperforming? Really now.
A solo damage boost (not to be confused with mod increase) that scaled down per teammate wasn't mentioned, and particularly by you. If you had done so, please link me to the post and I'll gladly stand corrected. That's the difference between the two ideas. Your suggestion of a mod increase would make an extremely powerful team AT even more powerful (and some would say more overpowered). The scaling damage buff helps solo cases, but doesn't change top end performance (such as kins) or their team ability.Quote:What? Givig them a boost to damage wan't mentioned? Hmmmm, I seem to ecall suggesting that exact thing myself. Of course, I didn't specify how, I was pointing aout a general principle again.
Well, when you say things are happening that by the game mechanics, numbers, outside experience/recreation couldn't be happening, then refuse to state exactly how, people are going to tell you that you're lying. If there's a problem, stating the numbers in your experiences shows exactly where that problem is. Either via build choices or through balance mechanics. Telling a dozen people that you're right without a shred of proof when they can claim and show how you're wrong doesn't work very well, as you've experienced.Quote:Not really. People react to me the way I do because I refuse to capitulate at the first sign of resistance. They tell me the things I saw happening with my own eyes didn't happen, and are then offended when I refuse to accept that assertion.
As I said above, I generally don't post numbers because my comments are usually very general in nature, and because I don't pretend to have the expertise in the mechanics of the game I would need. I only present numbers when they are demanded of me. The usual result is that the example becomes the fixation of the thread and the general point I was making is lost. I suspect sometimes that is the reason people demand the numbers. -
Quote:Actually, you referred to many posters as "aggro-monkeys" simply because they disagreed that tanks needed more damage and wanted to see an inherent that better let them mitigate damage. As for why people flamed you, because the suggestions you made were grossly unbalanced (see the offensive stance one above) and usually with little to no regard to AT balance.Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
If you're referring to me:
What do suggestions for a power set than spans multiple ATs have to do with suggestions specific for one AT?
You're confusing two different subjects, both of which I've made many suggestions for.
I called Invul neglected because at the time in had been a long time since any changes had been made to it. WP was rappidly becoming the defensive powerset of choice and because of it being newer, enjoyed advantages and improvments to its design the older sets didn't share. There were several player made surveys at the time of people rating the sets by sturdiness and by how "good" they were and WP was at the top and Invul was consistantly at the bottom. I called WP Castle's pet because it clearly was. The first new power set in a long time and it was untouchable for a time.
I never made that claim. I said I was very vocal about it the set getting a buff, was flamed for it hard, the set eventually got a buff and now the people who flamed me don't seem to see a problem that it got buffed.
And yet Castle has stated similar reasons being the motivation behind recent buffs to Defenders and Dominators. He's even admitted at the 6th anniversary event that he is concerned about Brutes v. Tankers in GR.
Concerned enough to do something about it? And to which AT? He didn't say further. I'm interested to see what happens, however.
Actually, I used the expression for Tankers themselves, not the people who play them. I think it's a fitting description because they lack the offensive capabilities of their comic counterparts and are relegated to a role of being decoys by running around, grunting with the Taunt power and grabbing aggro. Very much like a rodeo clown instead of a super hero. -
Quote:Well, in a way, you were. When suggesting a change for defenders, one has to look at defenders as a whole. In the majority of in-game situations, defenders are one of the most powerful AT's around due to their force multiplying capabilities in teams. Even from a solo standpoint, they're still capable of things other AT's couldn't dream of. It's only in a small number of cases that they struggle, and that's where the problem lay. How do you make defenders better without changing their overpowering nature on teams? A number of people would like to see them solo better/faster (myself included), but I never would have given them more damage. The fix the devs made was brilliant in its simplicity, and one I don't recall ever seeing posted.Originally Posted by Ultimo_
I won't presume to speak for JB, but I wouldn't think of suggesting my threads were the motivating factor behind the changes made.
My threads on Defenders were designed to identify what I saw as a failing in the class, that they had weak offense and weak defense, and needed a boost in one area or the other. I was informed I was wrong, and didn't know what I was talking about, and not politely. Seems I did know what I was talking about, since the Devs decided to give the class more offense.
I'd never suggest MY comments motivated the change. I'm just saying that if I was as off-base as some are making out, the changes they DID make wouldn't have happened.
Why people react to you the way they do? Well, you've posted anecdotal evidence with VERY questionable numbers and results that no one else can come close to replicating. You're either lying, crazy, dumb, or have the only bugged game client out of a hundred other people. When it happens several times over different issues, people tend to remember. (as we've seen.) -
Quote:Interestingly enough, most of the changes to Invuln were suggested LONG before JB was ever registered to these boards. His proposed change to tanks being "an offensive stance that lets them do the same damage as brutes with 50% fury with 10% more mitigation" never happened. Calling Invuln a neglected and ignored set because it wasn't Castle's "pet" (WP) that was inferior in every way didn't bring the buffs about. Just by saying "it sucks, fix it" doesn't mean he was the reason behind the fix. Likewise, your proposition for a raised Defender damage mod wasn't the catalyst behind the defender buffs.Originally Posted by Ultimo_
Say, JB, isn't it fascinating how we're apparently wrong even when we're right?
Before GR was announced, JB would constantly say that switching sides would trivialize tanks since brutes could do more damage and had the same mitigation caps. The wide majority of posts to the contrary said they wouldn't because Brutes, for as neat as they are, still can't tank like tanks can. One person may have said that side switching would never happen, but that person was ignored and rightfully so. Most definitely not the multitudes he claims in his post. It was the work that people like Sarrate, Acemace, Starsman, Tundara, and such that showed where the holes in a lot of those sets were and with the numbers to back them up. Insulting anyone who liked tanks as they were with the phrase "aggro-monkey" didn't help. -
It auto refreshes if you put it in a toggle power, effectively making it last for however long the toggle is on as well as 2 minutes after it's turned off. With Hide, the IO, and Stealth, Heroes will only be able to see you at 10 feet or less with maxed perception.
-
It's been that way since i13. The devs have been told, but bug fixes for PvP are a very low priority for them.
-
I greatly encourage anyone interested to read the thread in its entirety. That was just one gem amongst many in it.
-
Quote:Luminara did a pretty good job sometime back. The Snow Storm bit was great, but the damage buff for defenders part really cracked me upOriginally Posted by Ultimo_
Show me ANY "knowing untruth" I've posted. I NEVER deliberately mislead in ANY of my posts, and I find it VERY insulting to be accused of lying in this or any other way. -
8 bots/storm in cage.
go go go -
Number 2 refers to Diminished Returns in PvP zones.
-
Quote:What if they aren't there for rep?Originally Posted by Snow Globe
Not for rep.
-
Issue 9.
-
To expand on what Mac said, the No Phase timer makes both Hibernate and Phase Shift redundant to one another. Dull Pain works as an amazing heal, and can be half of your defensive strategy at times. Since /Regen lacks any sort of perception power, Tactics will help you see enemies you otherwise wouldn't (ill/emp controllers are notorious for this).
On the bright side, at least you took out Revive. That power is ultimately worthless in PvP. -
Depending on what you're building for, it can come in very handy. I built stalkers for around 30% or so in damage buffs and it definitely showed. In your standard PvE missions, you might not notice as much depending on your primary (EM vs Claws, for example), but against hard targets/PvP it's very nice to have.