Naraka
-
Posts
1035 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Naraka
-
-
15 hours ago, Wavicle said:
Except that their OVERALL performance is that they are monsters. Not anemic.
Well, doms could be pretty anemic without Domination/mez protection and without IOs... But people aren't really talking about sans IOs... But they want changes because their IO performance isn't as good as other ATs? I'm confused.
-
6 hours ago, FUBARczar said:
you can knee-cap yourself voluntarily. You know that right? you don't have to use IOs, they are a choice. You may roll completely unslotted, have at it.
You can read a full post to understand its full context. You know that, right? You don't have to reply to a post you don't like while ignoring the full context to make a pointless post. You can disagree and post a relevant argument by doing so, have at it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Wavicle said:
It's a long thread. I'm not going to go back and list names.
Such as?
Well obviously who you're talking to and their views. Lol if I'm trying to make a point, it's usually in opposition to a specific argument that I can attribute a person I'm critical of.
-
1 hour ago, Wavicle said:
Maybe. Might be a lot more effort than it's worth, but as a non dev I can't really say.
Forgot this part. I think the main point there was someone suggested making debuffs/controls for those specialized ATs to be valued more on stronger foes thus making them more valuable on +3 to +4 (and in my suggestion, +5s). But the issue might be that ATs that use those effects supplementary would get high benifits too, to which I said you can attach such bonuses to those ATs or those ATs' powers. Just clariying because I'm not sure if you're saying such an effect might not be worth the effort of the overall idea of making such specializations more valuable not being worthy of the effort.
-
20 minutes ago, Wavicle said:
Who? Anyone who thinks wholesale rebalancing of the game is on the table. I'm not covering up any legitimate points with any misinformation or anything like that. I have no idea what you're talking about.
By "who" in asking which specific people were you talking to to have such a powerful need to get your point across. Who were you discussing this with specifically?
Also I didn't say misinformation, I said misconstrusion. You must have been intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding something.
-
If anything, the arguments against Revive is more a testament to how easy and thus how regrettable this game's curve is.
Think of a lot of other MMOs out there like FFXIV, ESO, Gw2, and handing out an instant click self rez and how useful that would be. Some of those games have such features but with big penalties tied to them and much harsher punishments for getting rezzed...
-
17 hours ago, golstat2003 said:
To be clear I'm not against nerfs (or targetted buffs) as long as as any 8 players can still steam roll the game. Things like more debuffs for mobs, more bosses in missions and many of the interesting things suggested over the years, though should only appear in the higher level difficulty that teams CHOOSE to undertake
Then it's weird how much you were pushing the argument when this is literally what those you were arguing were discussing. No one is talking about bringing back the trinity but they are talking about reigning some things in from a hypothetical stand point.
Also, if they altered the balance so +2s were more like +4s and shifted some stuff around so +5s were also viable targets without incarnate levels, it's a wider window for stronger teams. Maybe then, people would have a use for -1 difficulty as well as turning off bosses if they want the game easier...
16 hours ago, Wavicle said:What are you expecting to happen? That this conversation is going to produce the solution, that the devs will then take that as offered and go implement it?
That the conversation would at least not undermine the issues of some. I don't think anyone's asking to push casual gameplay up a notch, but rather acknowledging that the few notches that exist are very confined. But some opponents are perceiving things as if we are suggesting to put a heel on the casual to make room for hardcore. To put it more in perspective, the casual has stomped the hardcore out of existence. No one's asking for hardcore to come back... But there is still constant requests to buff more stuff.
16 hours ago, Wavicle said:Ah, well no I’m not worried they’re going to do that. I agree, they won’t.
Rather, I am letting others know they won’t, who think they might.
Who are the "others" you're trying to convince? And you'll do that by covering up legitimate points in a fog of misconstrusion?
15 hours ago, Wavicle said:This would probably also improve the debuffs and controls of other ATs... but it’s an interesting idea.
You could add a new effect that either fights debuff resistance to certain powers or to ATs via their inherent.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ZacKing said:
Total nonsense and no offense but you're making "feel sorry for me excuses." the entitlement whining makes me want to puke. Why should people who can afford the time to play more not benefit from their investment? This reply sounds like a direct quote from that philosophy of failure, creed of ignorance and gospel of envy Churchill talked about. Stop blaming others and go and work for what you want. The most successful people in life at anything aren't crybabies. they work for it. get over yourself.
Wow, the irony is magnificent.
I wasn't making those points because I believe in them (but I'm also not dismissing them). I pointed the arguments out as satire of short-sighted individuals who would spin that logic if things were reversed. If the devs decided to nerf def and AoE's, people would complain how the game is too hard, how it's not casual, how they don't have time to invest and play, how they have work and kids, how they have disabilities and makes the game too unbearable to play. Anything to paint their opposition as bad guys doing harm to the underdog.
I'm not playing sides with that regard, just pointing at the potential hypocrisy and you fell for it pretty hard. If the game became super hard, who do you think would be using that "philosophy of failure" then?
And that you'd go so far as to express disgust kind of shows how emotional a poster you would be in such circumstances. Bravo.
15 hours ago, golstat2003 said:No. Keep the base game AS IS. Give others who want it more difficult higher difficulty options. The ones asking for higher difficulty are the ones asking for a change. Let them be the ones to have the option to select the higher difficulty.
As the devs have said in other threads it's completely valid to think that the base game should be left as is. Especially since the HC devs intend to keep SOs the main balance point.
So you're not willing to compromise? As is, players that want more difficulty already change their settings so that wouldn't change. You're making the argument that everything should shift around the status quo? You don't find that entitled at all?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Lockpick said:
I haven't dismissed it as a partial option. I think balancing makes sense if you have outliers, but I think this game for the most part is fine as is. My point is that when you balance you are always going to have some happy people and you will make some unhappy. Why not look at options that might make everyone happy first?
Why not look at options that make everyone happy? Well you just said in your previous sentence why not, because you're not going to make everyone happy. Some will be unhappy. So why bother worrying about emotional reactions and start by looking at things critically *first*? You can worry about people being happy or unhappy in the planning phases.
1 hour ago, Lockpick said:On another note, it is incredibly insulting for you to suggest I leave because I am making suggestions that I think are for the betterment of the game. Why would I leave? I am incredibly happy with the game as is and have spent a ton of time playing here. I am not the one calling for wholesale changes that are going to affect everyone. When I want an easy experience I can have it, when I want a challenging experience I can have it, I can solo when I want, and I can team when I want. IMO this is the best MMO ever because I can play how I want when I want.
Imagine using that argument on the opposing crowd then. Lol it happened.
But then I'm not suggesting you leave, I'm asking there are likely reasons you choose to stay despite there being more powerful builds and capabilities on other servers. It can't all be about the power trip but also about the balance. If anything, that's likely what stands HC apart from the others which is why striking a balance is important.
1 hour ago, golstat2003 said:I don't need the game to be easier or harder. It's fine to me as is.
So you leave your game on default difficulty when you start a character? You don't push it up to +2 or +3 or turn on bosses solo?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:
Oh the game is hella easy. I just like it that way. When I want to play a harder mmo or game I play anything else. But nowadays I often DON'T want to play a harder game.
Hmm, have you been introduced of the difficulty setting that can make the game easier?
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Lockpick said:
My solution (provided previously in this thread, but re-added here with some additional points):
FYI, I'm not against your solution. I just think there is room for other aspects to either differentiate the landscape or become options to amend various other ideas...like, for example, this thread:
There are some ideas in this thread I don't like and some ideas I think could prove to reign in some aspects of the game, either globally or for specific crafted or existing factions. There is room for more than a 1-sized solution.
-
4 minutes ago, Lockpick said:
I know in at least one case because I asked the question specifically and was told no by one of the advocates to make the game harder. I also asked again in that post you quoted. No one has provided a reasonable answer (IMO) as to why balancing the entire game is a better option than focusing on players creating hard mode content.
I also provided some. I guess they weren't reasonable lol...
6 minutes ago, Lockpick said:If people in this thread advocating to make the game harder are using the existing mechanics to make the game harder I am sure they would be saying why the existing mechanics don't work. They are not saying that, they are just pointing to the game not being hard enough.
Okay, I guess I was reading different posts. To me, I was reading that a lot of the in-game options don't work. Likely not that it's not "hard enough", but rather just uninteresting. It's like the difference between telling a Dark Armor character to load up on +END serums from the P2W vendor and telling them how to slot the dmg aura and Dark Regen to "fix" the problem. Some don't want to rely on temp powers, some don't want to conform to limited IO builds. Just because they don't want to use those options doesn't mean they aren't valid options...but just because those options are valid doesn't mean they are the only options and you must use them.
12 minutes ago, Lockpick said:I don't believe wholesale balancing will work because you will get some people that like it and some that don't.
Why? Why have you literally dismissed an option? Why is you dismissing this option valid but someone not dismissing certain difficulty options not valid? Just because some people will whine about something is hardly a reason, no more impactful than ignoring balance all together. I mean, I hear the Cake server has a lot more shinies and stronger builds and options there, why haven't you gone over to them?
15 minutes ago, Lockpick said:What happens if you do all the balancing and then all of a sudden you get a mass of players flooding the forum with threads that the game is to hard? Do you go back and balance again? These players were likely playing the game, having fun, and had no idea that the game they enjoyed was to easy. Then all of a sudden it was much harder and now they are pissed.
Well firstly, no one is advocating for "doing all the balancing" but more or less supporting the *option* of using that method. Secondly, if a change went through to challenge high-end builds, do you think standard players will even notice? And if they do, they wouldn't think to change their difficulty settings? Thirdly, you didn't seem to qualify "much harder" so who knows to what degree you're even arguing from. Regardless, I think the likelihood of any changes would probably come tied to some kind of checkbox option or merely tied to the +4 level (mainly looking at changes to mobs and their powers). Anything more (like nerfs) are probably coming as a power-by-power basis, have come before and will likely continue to come as inconsistencies are exposed.
21 minutes ago, Lockpick said:As a side note I was in game this morning and I was watching the Help channel. Quite a few people were asking for help. Do you think those players feel the game is to easy? It was obviously hard enough that they needed help getting an answer to their questions.
Uh, I dunno. Where they asking where the Cosmetic Surgeon was? Were they asking how to /respec? Were they bumming some inf? Or perhaps screaming for help as they are being actively targeted and murdered by Malta? There's a lot of things people ask for help for, some can't be helped though.
Aside, I am of the odd cut that thinks adversity is fun. They become learning experiences and brand your memory. Some adversity is good, some bad, but all memorable. I'm not the moral arbiter of adversity and memorable moments adequate for future reference.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:
There have been multiple posts over the last two years pointing to the "good ol days". Not just in this thread. Like the game was somehow better balanced at some mystery point in time. It wasn't.
Well that's hardly an argument at all.
I haven't read *every* post in this thread so maybe it was particularly argued around page 18 or something...
-
5 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:
See this is why I find it funny where people long for the old days where they claimed things were better balanced...
Are they, tho?
Clarification: Are they longing for the old days? Or are they just pointing to tangible examples from the past? That is to say, I enjoyed Stalker how it was in the old days. I think the new Stalker infringes on Scrapper. I'm not longing for old Stalker, I'd just have like a more direct focus of Stalker's style rather than overbuffing it to making Scrapper range from "the same" to "obsolete".
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, ABlueThingy said:
I like this, this is more constructive. It's not that people want to nerf Powerboost or make some sets worthless. It's that some aspects have an outsized effect such that it's impacting more than one area. In this case Powerboost kinda sucks for anything that's not boosting a long durration buff. If you just made it not work on +def powers it would suck universally.
No one wants it to suck. I personally want it to be more nuanced.
What if it was a toggle that drained a very small amount of end and did nothing. But when you shut it off it gave you a powerboost effect based on how long you charged the toggle for and give it a super short recharge. Deactivating a toggle costs you almost no time, I think? That would be neat. Just have +def accumulate slower then the other effects and tweak the numbers so it takes a full 60 seconds of running the toggle to get the +def to full. But people who want to use it for heals or controls could cut it at 20 or 30 seconds for a big boost.
That way huge +rech won't overbalance it and there's a risk to trying to get the full +def boost. Someone could crash the toggle out and make you start over. But your reward is easily hitting the soft cap.
That's a nerf but it opens up new styles of play. People who metagame for maximum power can still get there. Just keep the amount of time the toggle has to run to get the max +def around the cooldown of the power now. Now you've halved the cooldown for people who just want the +special and it's otherwise normal for the +def. Roughly.
Is PB really a problem? An idea from me if buffing long duration powers is too much:
Remove the whole "increases certain buff" clause and just make it a "granting power" power. Power Boost for the caster would only last the 10sec but when used in conjunction with any kind of clicky buff, it gives the target a granted passive that basically does the buffing. If that is the case, you can have it boost long duration buffs for how long you want it to be balanced around rather than the duration of the click you used to grant it. So if you wanted PB to buff effects for only 30sec, it would give the user the +def/whatever effect to any defense powers the target has (ally or self-granted) for 30sec and expire.
I think Electric Affinity's tier 9 works in a similar way, if I'm not mistaken.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Lockpick said:
If you want the game to be harder why not use the in game mechanics to make it harder? I would have a lot more sympathy for the people saying the game is to easy if there weren't existing mechanics to make the game harder. However, there are existing mechanics to make the game harder and the people that want to make the game harder are refusing to use them. It's hard to feel sympathy for those people that want to make the game harder, which will also affect many players that do not believe the game is to easy or may believe it is easy, but like the game as is.
I am being serious. Please answer the question. Why is it better to make the entire game harder as opposed to using the existing mechanics to make your play experience the hard mode you crave?
I generally respect your posts and builds, so I am genuinely interested in your response.
Firstly, how do you know they aren't using the in-game mechanics to make it harder? If you know they aren't using said in-game mechanics, have you asked them why? Or are you just throwing a blanket statement out to win the debate?
As for the in-game difficulty mechanics, I'm certain people take advantage of the +a/*y difficulty since it's pretty prevalent in the in-game info that points you to the NPCs that adjust it. Things like flashback and self-nerfs for TFs can be something to utilize but there might be people who find such options are "not fun" because it's not challenging your build, just nuking it. It's about the same as telling people to just build inherently inferior characters...again, it's removing an aspect of the game (character building) that certain people might find just as fun as putting those builds to the test. Lastly, tailored teams is certainly the logical solution as you can get some challenge out of a smaller, close-knit team with the same goals but again, it has its drawbacks as well since being a social game, getting to meet, talk to and play with new people with new ideas and differing playstyles to adapt to can be its own joy as well.
So why not use existing mechanics to make your play experience the hard mode you crave? Another form of difficulty is spontaneity. Not knowing or dealing with the unexpected can be difficult but if you have to tailor your difficulty for it, from the players you team with to the content all the way down to how strong you're allowed to build your character removes a lot of that unknown (i.e. difficulty). Why is it worse to add onto or shift the game to have some added difficulty overall? The funny thing is, if such difficulty were to be implemented, we have all the tools to bring that content DOWN to the current level too.
18 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:How? Am I somehow better than anyone else? How did all the people in the various channels I belong to find like minded players? I am absolutely not the only person who has done this.
I find this argument amusing. If this were directed at another group who had requirements like sporadic playtimes, unpredictable living arrangements, social anxieties, parental guidance or disabilities so telling them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and socialize, it would seem rather insensitive and dismissive.
Perhaps you should merely compromise that some people will not be able to work around some limitations for teaming and difficulty rather than continue to repeatedly beat the drum of "be a go-getter! Look at me, I did it!" Your position isn't wholly untrue, it just might not be the solution that certain people want. Arguing if they should accept that solution regardless is on you, however.
18 hours ago, Lockpick said:Let's try to remember that we had old school CoH and the Live team set about making it easier because that was what the players wanted. Now we have a much smaller player base with a much smaller team supporting it. You don't have the scale to make the game harder for everyone because many people will get upset and leave.
Where!? To me, it always seemed like the devs were more likely chasing after standard MMORPG progression but they had to make hurdles to get to it...but would also need to cut everyone at the knees before giving them bionic legs. I never saw it as making CoH "easier". They just wanted a vertical progression which was likely something NCSoft pushed and wanted monetized. But yeah, I never saw it as making the game "easier"....in fact, quite the opposite. Didn't Jack want to keep people down to 1Lt or 3minion level so they would require teaming? ED and GDN happened to pave the way for IOs and eventually incarnate. Difficulty scaling came in for AE. Many nerfs happened to balance PvP and high-end builds.
Previous quotes aside, a lot of this thread was difficult to read because...it almost seems like most making persistent arguments are doing so from an absolutist position. Just because the devs might look at PB+Farsight doesn't mean they aren't going to buff support. Just because they happen to be taking TW down a couple notches doesn't mean they won't buff other sets. Just because people don't want to globally make the game harder doesn't mean they aren't going to look into other options for a new difficulty setting (that will ultimately end up being the norm because of run-away buffing). While a lot of suggestions on their own have some good thoughts behind them, I the real solution is going to be taking pieces of a variety of ideas, regardless of if you like/agree with them or not.
-
3
-
-
19 minutes ago, Mikewho said:
EA fell into the same trap as Empathy, and I pointed this out in the beta: practically no offense. These days teams often don't have trouble surviving, meaning a lot of the time EA isn't contributing much.
It's fine at keeping the team alive, but offers almost zero offensive options. I suggested addressing that, but was told that wasn't something they wanted to do.
This is completely false.
It not only has an offensive buffing power that directly increases damage, it has indirect means of increasing damage via +ToHit, +END and +Rech buffs.
The prospect of Shock Therapy being too clicky, I feel that some sets need to be. There are far too many sets that are set-and-forget or that have main bread-n-butter clicks that are used once a fight. Having some sets favor more micromanagement is going to benefit certain styles and ATs more which isn't a bad thing. It's called variety. In the case of variety, there will exist inequality and that is okay.
-
56 minutes ago, drbuzzard said:
Actually on a sentinel a big chunk of your survival is the toggle absorb shield, so it is more of the toggle and forget play style (which I like since I'm lazy).
I think that's a perfectly fine perspective. Some players like the more hands-off sets.
I think my only problem is, there aren't many active armors sets for players that either want a change of pace or that simply like the busy-ness. Worse yet, the meta seems to want to make as many sets hands-offish as possible.
-
30 minutes ago, Joshex said:
it's an accidental survival hack.
Like I said before, it's not. This "hack" was something MMs could always do ever since pet commands were introduced. Was probably the desired structure of the AT before Bodyguard mode was implemented, actually.
32 minutes ago, Joshex said:with the numbers I'm seeing here, +4 or even +5 probably wont actually be able to take out this MM, he could just sit in a mob of them and not die. He could tank lord recluse...
I think you don't understand the circumstances here. Yes, a Blaster can also pick up PFF or Hibernate and "tank" Lord Recluse, but they won't be doing any damage. A MM can sit in a bubble and not die but neither will the foes. And when you finally do decide to take out your foes, you'll likely have more pets to resummon.
Have you, by chance, played a Mastermind before?
36 minutes ago, Joshex said:for killing mobs, all it'd have to do is just drop the "only effecting self" toggles summon all the pets, put the toggles up and continue. mobs wont be able to strike it, sure they can kill the pets after a bit, but.. it'd be a futile endeavor.
How would it be a futile endeavor? Once your pets are dead, not only are you more vulnerable without bodyguard mode, but your means of doing damage is now gone and the only way to rectify such a situation is to run away and resummon.
But lets not mince words here, if this was an "accidental survival hack", why did such an effect remain in the power Personal Force Field or Phase Shift since the AT's inception without some review of this combo being done to fix it? I feel, any benefit MM gets from Afterburner because of the circumstances of its use are wholly intentional.
-
2
-
-
On 6/7/2020 at 10:48 AM, Bentley Berkeley said:
Especially one like CoH were most characters would if in this real world of ours atm likely be deemed gone rogue because they would be out beating down cops faster then a red sider would in cohverse.
Ah, so you'd be one of those easily manipulated heroes that only needs the seed of the media to send you on an unjust rampage.
I always thought it'd be an interesting angle to basically run all of Paragon City's media outlets as a villain in order to create a civil war among its citizens. The stories we get in game really don't do the angle justice in just how insidious it is.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Joshex said:
On this page we clarified that MM's can actually use it in battle technically (which is a major accidental hack that I'm sure the devs didn't consider when they made it.)
Well firstly, a MM can do this without Afterburner or PFF or Rest active. It's called "Attack My Target" and they can sit leisurely in an adjacent room 100% safe.
Secondly, those MMs that do that (send their pets to attack stuff or sit in a safe bubble with only affecting self effect) get their inherent turned off. That is, those pets get 0 from your Supremacy buffs.
Thirdly, because of the way pets work, they are -1/-2 levels to the MM so any foe that is +1 or +2 to your MM, they will be +2 or +4 to your pets. Any foes that are +4 to you are +5 to +6. Basically, in any circumstance that you can keep yourself safe and have your pets do the work like in the above examples, your pets are practically useless because they won't be able to hit anything, they'd hardly do any damage and they will die without any of your auras and/or buffs.
I don't think it was an accidental hack. MMs have their own shortcomings and advantages they get with their powers.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Replacement said:
Things I would consider changing:
1) it would certainly feel better if it required one power instead of 2.
2) I'm not sold on it, but perhaps it would be more usable if the defense bonus suppressed when you attacked, instead of Only Affects Self.
Kind of apprehensive about 1. as revising a lot of pools that way might be kind of power creeping.
For 2. is there any effects that suppress only when you attack? AFAIK, there is no mode for that and it's why Stalker Hide gets big AoE def, because their stealth (and all stealth) suppresses *when you enter combat* which doesn't require you to use any attacks.
EDIT: Just double checked since I hadn't used /devices on a Blaster yet, so rolled one on test. The damage bonus from Targeting Drone also drops if you get attacked.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, LiquidBandage said:
...or you can just suffer in silence.
I'd hardly call anything in this game "suffering". As mentioned by others, it's not that tough of a game and even when death happens, everyone is literally equipped to rez everyone else.
All in all, though, I go by the mantra of "go with the flow". It's easier than strictly regulating things and it leaves open space for others to use tactics to get around sticky situations. Going with the flow also incorporates other aspects like "kicking people because they're door sitting" or swapping to an alt when things aren't going just right. The only time I'd vote to kick a door sitter is if they don't exit the mission when the mission is over. The only way I'm swapping to an alt is if I'm bored of the character I'm playing. It's not suffering because that is exactly what makes the game interesting: getting into situations that you have to try and adjust to.
8 hours ago, LiquidBandage said:Maybe the player with the buffs/shields doesn't understand the how or why of the team's failures. If no one steps up into a mentor role, they will not learn how to assess the situation. Those players have probably been cruising on +4x8 teams that blaze through everything and they "learned" that their buffs were superfluous.
And that is their own failing. If they don't understand how to play, they can put up the "Help Me!" flag or just ask. Otherwise, they will just continue to get carried. Likely, they will get bored with that character and try something more deliberate like a melee type. I'm personally not going to force mentorship onto someone lol.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Gulbasaur said:
Not a bubbler, but a lot of other AoE buffs work the same way. I've given up trying to gather people, either fire them off in combat when we're together or just let people miss them. If people don't want buffs, that's their choice.
I've noticed this is more prevalent in some archetypes than others, due to different playstyle preferences. Alas.
I'm not really talking about "hug me" buffs, but rather the quick recharging, normally-doesn't-stack--from-same-caster-but-if-you-exit-an-instance-it-does kind of buffs. How many people in the low/mid levels actively tries to get your team double-stacked shields?
2 hours ago, Force Redux said:As someone who often plays bubblers, and other support types, I'm of the same mind. I announce "hug me for buffs" once at the mission start (I have a simple macro), and then I just buff the murder ball periodically. Seems to work. As you said, those who wander off either don't need them, or will quickly learn they do, and stick closer.
If you're playing a bubbler, you just cast the buff on whoever doesn't have it. There's no reason to announce the buff since they recharge so fast, don't cost that much endurance and anyone who already has it just gets a refreshed duration.
-
1
-
Game Balance & The Endgame
in Developer's Corner
Posted
Isn't it obvious?
A Blaster tries to obliterate its targets as quickly as possible.
A Stalker tries to obliterate its target as quickly as possible.
You might say a Scrapper is trying to do the same but if anything, it just wants to keep shredding. A blaster wants to end the fight to stay alive and a Stalker wants to do the same but also to "charge" up its kill-touch.
Granted a lot of this has become skewed now that Stalkers don't really use AS in hide and they can AoE with the best of em and blasters have decent sustain but it's pretty much laid out in the playstyle.