Darkaj

The concept of layered defense sounded great to me and was one of the reasons I rolled an MA/INV scrapper. At level 50 with IOs, it's soft-capped to S/L and has high defense to other damage types with just 1 enemy in range.

It's a nice build, but it still doesn't do as well as my DM/SR scrapper for my play style (mostly solo on +3/+2, with some TFs thrown in), for one main reason, and that's its susceptibility to debuffs. The /SR scrapper doesn't get hit very often by a Malta Sapper, for example, but my /INV (even with 25% resistance) is still quickly dead if she can't kill it immediately, or if there is more than one. I also have a /WP scrapper, and Sappers kill her before she can blink.

Edited to add: Actually, the /INV is not quite at soft-cap for S/L, she still needs the Glad proc. E/N is at 35% with 1 foe in range, dropping to 28% in sniper situations with no foe in range. I would love to increase the positional defense further, but my build is already really hurting for slots.

Ignoring defense debuffs, is there ever a situation where a scrapper with, say, 50/50/50 positional defenses will do better than a scrapper with 45/45/45 positional defenses?

The reason I say ignoring defense debuffs is that I'm aware of the possibility of cascading defense failure, but I've never experienced it on my /SR scrapper and it seems to be so rare as to not be a concern. My question is directed more to the situation of fighting higher level mobs and mobs with a to-hit bonus who have a greater than 1 in 20 chance to hit you -- and I'm wondering if positional defenses that exceed the soft-cap can reduce the chance that those mobs will hit you back down to 1 in 20.

I've read Arcanaville's excellent posts on defense and I think the answer is "yes" but I lack the math ability to work through her formulas and would really appreciate a bottom-line answer.

[ QUOTE ]
Its a pretty simple. Check and see how far back you can go on the Dominator boards. Odds are you wont beable to pull up stuff from 2005 or early 2006.

So only the shadow knows...that and the Board Mods & People involved with any peticulare board drama.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I was asking about was this statement you directed to me:

"At that point only Cricket and Cuppa knows your history here (as well as a few others who have been involved with your posting history)."

I'm asking you once again -- what are you talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Kid Lazarus said to me was: "Given your long history of defending/ignoring/justifying anyone whose opinion is similar to yours, regardless of how egregious their errors or misbehaviors, while constantly complaining about similar behavior from people whose opinions run counter to your own, I'm not sure whether to find the above post funny, ironic or sad."

He is accusing me of defending or justifying someone no matter what they do, simply because they have a similar opinion to mine. This puzzled me because I have never done what he is accusing me of doing. I asked him to post a specific example of what he was talking about, and he refused. Then I got flamed by a couple of people simply for asking him to provide some specifics as to what he was talking about.

But, whatever. If that's how you guys do business, at least everyone is now aware of that.

[/ QUOTE ] To be honest, this board has undergone many wipes so he can no longer provide links of you doing so no more than you can provide links of your 1000th post. At that point only Cricket and Cuppa knows your history here (as well as a few others who have been involved with your posting history).

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What are you talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would say that his repeated refusal to actually do what you ask implys his understanding of what you are asking of him.

next spin attmept please...

[/ QUOTE ]

Djimmi, you directed this post at me, but I don't know what you mean. If you want to explain a little more clearly, I will try to answer you.

[/ QUOTE ]

as predicted spin attemt #2, "i dont know why that was at me, can you explain.

from kid lazarus...post the first:
[ QUOTE ]
I have no intention of wading through your countless posts to prove something; if you take that as justification that I am wrong, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

post the second:
[ QUOTE ]
Even if I were inclined to spend my time wading through your posts to back up my statement,...

[/ QUOTE ]

your spin:
[ QUOTE ]
I have asked you to provide some examples from my previous posts of what you are talking about. Since you won't do so, all I can say is that I have no idea of what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your Insanity May Vary...keep trying to keep the initative boy. or you could give up 'tactics and strategy' and actually join the [censored] debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

What Kid Lazarus said to me was: "Given your long history of defending/ignoring/justifying anyone whose opinion is similar to yours, regardless of how egregious their errors or misbehaviors, while constantly complaining about similar behavior from people whose opinions run counter to your own, I'm not sure whether to find the above post funny, ironic or sad."

He is accusing me of defending or justifying someone no matter what they do, simply because they have a similar opinion to mine. This puzzled me because I have never done what he is accusing me of doing. I asked him to post a specific example of what he was talking about, and he refused. Then I got flamed by a couple of people simply for asking him to provide some specifics as to what he was talking about.

But, whatever. If that's how you guys do business, at least everyone is now aware of that.

[ QUOTE ]
i would say that his repeated refusal to actually do what you ask implys his understanding of what you are asking of him.

next spin attmept please...

[/ QUOTE ]

Djimmi, you directed this post at me, but I don't know what you mean. If you want to explain a little more clearly, I will try to answer you.

[ QUOTE ]
Us doms aren't the only people having problems getting on RSF's. The RSF's have issues that I believe will have to be adressed in the near future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who make true statements don't mind being asked to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Since doms have less damage than any other CoV AT, they live and die by whether a team needs a dom's control more than it needs what other ATs can provide."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes please back that statement up because quite honestly I think you're a total liar. I've never had a problem getting on teams. Maybe you just have bad luck or a bad reputation as a crappy dom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please see my reply to Hack. As for doms getting on teams, I will always take a dom if I can, just to show support for the AT. I do believe that doms are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting spots on the RSF, but that's common knowledge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do take that as justification that you are wrong. People who make true statements don't mind being asked to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I were inclined to spend my time wading through your posts to back up my statement, it would serve no purpose. You consistently demonstrate a refusal to admit when you are wrong and this very thread is proof of that. You blatantly twisted statements and motives from Bradd and, when proven that you were mistaken, you did what you always do -- shifted gears to avoid admitting you were in error. You're very fast at demanding apologies, yet I seemed to have missed your apology to Bradd.

You have long been the most disruptive poster on this forum; I have never seen another forum member, here or on any other message board, so consistently have conflicts with others. Any mature or rational person would, at some point, have a moment of self-reflection and wonder why. But, of course, you seem to feel it's always the other person causing the conflict while you stay in your long suffering victim mode.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have asked you to provide some examples from my previous posts of what you are talking about. Since you won't do so, all I can say is that I have no idea of what you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who make true statements don't mind being asked to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide supporting evidence for this statement:

"Since doms have less damage than any other CoV AT, they live and die by whether a team needs a dom's control more than it needs what other ATs can provide."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be happy to. Damage for doms is a secondary, whereas damage is a primary for every other CoV AT. Doms get their highest-damage powers very late -- witness Bitter Ice Blast, Blaze, and Psi Shockwave, none of which are available until level 38. There may be rare instances where a high-level dom that is specced for damage, such as, say, a level 45 Fire/Fire, can out-damage a corr that is specced purely for team support -- say a Dark/Rad that took all the /rad powers. A team leader isn't generally going to know the details of everyone's build, however, so the team leader has to go by the averages.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This accusation surprises me -- would you care to provide an example (actual quotes, please) of any case at all where I have "defended" or "justified" someone who is guilty of "egregious errors or misbehaviors"? Since you say I have a "long history" of doing this, surely you can come up with some examples? If not, you owe me an apology.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's your "shocked martyr" routine. You must have a patent on this.

I have no intention of wading through your countless posts to prove something; if you take that as justification that I am wrong, so be it. Every time someone comes into this forum and causes an uproar with their rude or inflammatory posts about the failings of this AT, you are inevitably the first to defend them on the grounds that only their message matters, not how they express it. You are also the first to complain about anyone who uses similar tactics in favor of Dominators. If you fail to see your own double standard, you are either clueless about your behavior or utterly disingenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do take that as justification that you are wrong. People who make true statements don't mind being asked to back them up.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that would help would be for people not defend someone who agrees with them, no matter what errors that person has made, simply because they are in the same "camp."

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, your hypocrisy is starting to show. Given your long history of defending/ignoring/justifying anyone whose opinion is similar to yours, regardless of how egregious their errors or misbehaviors, while constantly complaining about similar behavior from people whose opinions run counter to your own, I'm not sure whether to find the above post funny, ironic or sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This accusation surprises me -- would you care to provide an example (actual quotes, please) of any case at all where I have "defended" or "justified" someone who is guilty of "egregious errors or misbehaviors"? Since you say I have a "long history" of doing this, surely you can come up with some examples? If not, you owe me an apology.

I plead guilty to sometimes "ignoring" things -- including all the flames that are directed my way, to which I do not respond in kind.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you've got to just love the "If you're not a level 50 then your opinions and experiences mean nothing" rubbish. More elitist wankery at its best. I agree with ShrikeX on one point--this thread needs to die already. It started out as a splendid discussion with strong insight and opinions, now it's degenerated into the usual verbal fracas, with lines and ideas drawn (good and bad and ubsurd) like guns on the battlefield, with madmen (and women) pulling the triggers like the good soldiers that we are.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing that would help keep threads from degenerating into flames would be for people not to exaggerate/take out of context what others have said.

Another thing that would help would be for people not defend someone who agrees with them, no matter what errors that person has made, simply because they are in the same "camp."

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, KL. That's exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bradd, thanks for clarifying that, based on your highest toon being level 33, you do not presume to offer build or tactics advice.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Having a level 50 is not a sufficient condition to be an expert in the game, but I think it is a necessary condition -- and a fairly minimal one at that.

[/ QUOTE ] Having a level 50 is a necessary condition to comment meaningfully on issues that only affect level 50's. And only that.
Issues of basic logic can be commented on by someone who hasn't played the game at all.
Issues that pop up before level 33 can be commented on by someone who is level 33.

You are welcome to think otherwise, but be careful to not construe it as anything but your own preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, the person who demanded that others post their builds and tactics so that he could tell them what they were doing wrong did not say that he was going to restrict his comments to pre-level-33, or to the build that he has personal experience with. If he had, then I would not have had a problem with it. I just think it's silly, though, for a person to put themselves forth as an expert on build and tactics when they have been playing the game since 2004 and their highest char is level 33. If I were such a person, I'd be asking for advice, not presuming to offer it.

[ QUOTE ]
That's not a very reliable means of judging someone's expertise. The game is not substantially different at 40 or 50 than it is at 30, and there are enough power levelled 50s that using the big 5-0 as some sort of magic benchmark isn't very trustworthy. There are people who have been consistently playing this game for 2 years and, due to altitis, still do not have a level 50 toon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having a level 50 is not a sufficient condition to be an expert in the game, but I think it is a necessary condition -- and a fairly minimal one at that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to offer your services as tutor for the uninformed, you ought to at least tell us how many toons you have, what AT and level they are, and how long you have been playing the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could direct the same question to you, 515. I'm still waiting for you to reveal some of your alts in-game or to join us in some dominator gathering. You can bring your corruptor if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between me and Bradd is that I do not presume to give people overall build and tactics advice, or criticize them for not accepting it -- I have always said that I consider myself to be a completely average and typical player. If someone is going to put themselves forward as an expert and insist that other people just aren't using the right build or tactics to succeed, as Bradd does, then they ought to expect to have to put forward their credentials. And I personally am not terribly impressed by someone who doesn't even have a level 40 dom or a level 50 anything -- I'm not willing to accept such a person as an expert on the game, frankly.

[ QUOTE ]
So you don't want to learn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bradd, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time you mentioned your highest dom, it was like, level 30 or so.

If you are going to offer your services as tutor for the uninformed, you ought to at least tell us how many toons you have, what AT and level they are, and how long you have been playing the game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I'm saying is that if some of the people here who are so satisfied with doms actually experienced the full gamut of the game, instead of just solo and PuGs, they might have a better idea of what those of us who feel doms are lacking on large teams are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

... because 8-man PuG's running on relentless aren't large teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the issue is whether doms are as good as other toons on large teams, a PuG is not a good place to look for the answer, simply because it's quite likely that some or most of your teammates are drunk, watching TV, watching their children, set on "follow" so they can PL, etc. etc. A dom may indeed be lacking on such a team, but the very high noise-to-signal ratio may well disguise that fact.

[ QUOTE ]
515A:

Some of us, in fact a *lot* of the playerbase do NOT have the ability to dedicate that much time to playing. It's not how many months, it's how many hours were spent. For myslef, I have a 3 and a 5 year old child, and a wife, and a life outside CoX. Please bear in mind that not everyone gets to focus on playing and can get to play every day/night, or even anywhere *near* that frequency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, I'm lucky if I get to play 2 hours a day, and definitely cannot play every day. I certainly don't think of myself as a "powergamer" and am really just an average player. All I'm saying is that if some of the people here who are so satisfied with doms actually experienced the full gamut of the game, instead of just solo and PuGs, they might have a better idea of what those of us who feel doms are lacking on large teams are talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
Its not that we prefer them to be unchanged. Its just that some people are blowing things out of proportion, just like positron stated. I pulled a ice/fire dom to lvl 42 in 4 months almost completely with large PUGs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are happy with taking 4 months to get to level 42, and if you team with PuGs rather than an organized VG, I can see where you would think doms are OK, or at least I can see that you perhaps don't have the experience to evaluate what other ATs can do on a team in skilled hands.

NinjaMonkey discounts that factor as "min-maxing," and I agree with him that it's a game and the primary thing is to enjoy it, but I think for most people the enjoyment in the game comes from seeing how good you can be. If you aren't a member of a good VG that regularly runs large teams doing hard missions (or on the friend's list for members of such a VG) then you really don't know what you are missing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problems that doms have with large teams are not anything that can be cured by build advice, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I recommended asking for advice on build and tactics. Your large-team problems are not universal. Instead of continuing to argue fruitlessly otherwise, get help.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were the only person who felt that doms don't contribute as much as other Ats to large teams, then you would have a point.

With all the dozens of threads and hundreds of comments on this very issue on this forum, however, I think that it is pretty obvious that this is an AT problem. you are free to argue that it is not a problem, but to pretend that no one else sees it as a problem is simply disingenuous, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just wish I could team with them without feeling like the weakest link.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then post your build & tactics and ask for help. Given your extreme comments about controls and relative performance, it seems that you're having a harder time than most dominators. This suggests to me that either you're not playing effectively or you have unrealistic expectations. By asking for advice, rather than complaining about problems, you might actually be able to succeed at your stated goal. Even better, if it works, the turnaround will be much faster than waiting for the devs to change the game.

By the way, the same goes for everyone else who complains endlessly about dominators without asking for advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have posted my build for both of the doms I am currently playing (Fire/Ice and Plant/Psi) and I got many helpful comments. My doms solo just fine (altho slowly) and they do OK on small teams. The problems that doms have with large teams are not anything that can be cured by build advice, however. Just look around you at all the people who are saying the same thing I'm saying. And that's on the dom forum -- in the game at large you will find very few people who think doms measure up on large teams.

[ QUOTE ]
If you try to discuss the subject reasonably people take it as either a personal attack or an opportunity to proclaim how great they are because they can solo some arbitrary obscure situation that occurs at most in .01% of typical gameplay.

As someone who enjoys playing a dominator very much but has trouble dealing with the fact that it is just simply not very good, I'm tired of reading post after post from people who refuse to admit something is wrong with this AT when you put it on a team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you completely. The forum is much, much better than it was a few months ago, though, so there is some hope in that regard. Whether there is hope for doms will be up to the devs. And I say that as someone who loves my doms -- I just wish I could team with them without feeling like the weakest link.