HacknSlash

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing: MMs can more easily handle the endurance drain of FB, since they don't need END to run any offense: a defender might want to shoot with their secondary, and FB might drain them too fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something else that's related: MM's don't need direct LOS/LOF to attack.

As a bot/ff MM, I can make nice use of FB by hiding behind terrain. The bubble will aggro mobs on me (taking aggro off the bots) while simultaneously preventing mobs from attacking me.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Domination is a great inherent, and with Domination running, the dom can hold a DOZEN bossES

[/ QUOTE ]

Typo corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

If at any point in time my Dom needs to hold 12 bosses, I'm only going to do it long enough to run from the said 20 second statues.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the things that people are pointing out as to why doms do so badly in PvP also apply to PvE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.
I really wish Ruin Mages didn't carry so many breakfrees.

[ QUOTE ]
Domination is a great inherent, and with Domination running, the dom can hold a DOZEN bossES

[/ QUOTE ]

Typo corrected.

[ QUOTE ]
But it's no excuse, and going into Issue-8 here will be the prime time to unify our demmands for real changes that make the AT popular, and less reliance on Domination as a crutch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah. Again with this "crutch" nonsense.

Consider a stalker without assassination or a brute without fury, and tell me which AT relies on an inherent as a "crutch".

... or how about a controller without containment?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's more true than anything I've seen on the boards in a long time. When people forget about trying to play the CoV AT's like they played CoH AT's, their gameplay improves dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact of the matter is, it's not what any of us envisioned, it doesn't serve a dynamic role, and we're lowering our standards to accept that. Some people are happy with theirs but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an evolutionary dead-end under current circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is "any of us"?

I never played CoH before picking up CoV.
My dominator does what I expected him to do.

[ QUOTE ]
It took over year too and some people seem to conveniently forget it happened whenever their dominators are the focus of discussion, but it happened all the same... Suddenly, fewer Tankers and Scrappers were being rolled, and the controller population grew until it was on equal footing with everyone else once they were finally given real damage in early game too. Nevermind that people like me and Ishtar already had guides and lots of positive encouragement (prior the big change) showing that controllers could also be damage-dealers before getting Pets by taking the right powers. ...No, the big splash was made when people finally saw for themselves a well-rounded AT that wasn't shortsheeted(underpowered) on any of the essentials required to do a majority of the tasks this game called for.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, that's the problem with your comparison. Pretty much every *other* AT is "shortsheeted" somewhere.

[ QUOTE ]
The unrechargeable 4/15 pet is very debateable on coolness. Being a Grav, the last thing I really need is a 27% of the time pet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being mind/psi, all my pets are 27% of the time pets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its not bad but it doesnt fix the underlying problems.

One of the main ones being we are too dependant on domination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Early on, maybe. With TO's, the duration boost is almost necessary for holding bosses. However, my L35 mind/psi regularly completes missions without ever using it.

Regardless, isn't that rather like saying brutes are entirely too dependent on fury, or stalkers too dependent on assassination?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same can be said about my lvl 40 Grav/ENG. i can hold nearly any boss with Power Boost > GD > GDF > GD for a long time. The problem comes in with

a.) non-*/Ice or *?ENR Dominators that don't have Power Boost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er.... My /psi doesn't have power boost.

[ QUOTE ]
b.) EB'ed heroes and AV's

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, we are dependent upon domination when trying to fight EB's and AV's... but is that a realistic standard?

[ QUOTE ]
While it wouldn't help with part b, changing Power Boost/Aim to a modified Power Build-Up would be a generous help to us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. [Well, actually, it would help with EB's and AV's too.]

[ QUOTE ]
(Am I sounding like a broken record on this topic yet?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly no worse than some other posters here.
Myself included, more than likely.

[ QUOTE ]

Its not bad but it doesnt fix the underlying problems.

One of the main ones being we are too dependant on domination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Early on, maybe. With TO's, the duration boost is almost necessary for holding bosses. However, my L35 mind/psi regularly completes missions without ever using it.

Regardless, isn't that rather like saying brutes are entirely too dependent on fury, or stalkers too dependent on assassination?

[ QUOTE ]
Here's my attempt to state in somewhat of a syllogism form why I think the PvE change for Dominators doesn't help much for large teams:

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you *tried* it yet?

[ QUOTE ]
I've also noticed that Earth Thorn Casters have become practically impervious to most Plant/Thorn attacks - yet Spectral Demons are still very susceptible. This should be reversed considering these "spectral" demons are just that - spectral.

[/ QUOTE ]

The earth armor set has lethal *and* toxic resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
So does this mean you solo a lot because you can't find a team -- odd, after all the claims by others that their doms have no problem finding a team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I solo a decent amount of time on all my toons (not just my dominator) for two reasons:

1. The sporadic nature of invites. I find that I get more invites the later it is; probably because I'm on the east coast.

2. My laziness takes precedence over my desire to actively form a team on my own.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I don't care whether people are soloing because they want to or because they can't find a team -- the fact is that they are soloing a lot and your own survey bears that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is your stalker.
So is my mastermind.

It's not necessarily due to some global problem with the dominator archtype.

[ QUOTE ]
So please don't flame me for saying it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I need to repeat the Inigo Montoya quote?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I have noted many times, most of the people who like doms seem to prefer a solo or small-team playstyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Paul Simon

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed, I don't know how many times 40 people have to say they play in mostly large teams with their doms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to reply to this politely and ignore the flames.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
you think it means." - Inigo Montoya.

[ QUOTE ]
There was a survey on the dom board a while back that asked whether people soloed or teamed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. My survey, in fact.

[ QUOTE ]
About half of the people who responded said they excusively or almost exclusively soloed, and most of the rest said they soloed and teamed more or less equally. Very few said that they almost always teamed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spending a majority of your time soloing (my survey) and prefering to solo (your claim) are _not_ the same thing.

For example: I solo until I get a tell, regardless of AT. According to you, your dominators get less tells than your corruptors. This means my dominator will spend more time solo than teamed. [Edit: At least relative to my corruptor. ]

However, I *prefer* teaming. Soloing is boring, because I'm basically in complete control of the situation at all times.

[ QUOTE ]
As I have noted many times, most of the people who like doms seem to prefer a solo or small-team playstyle.

[/ QUOTE ]

"All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." - Paul Simon

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure some people will reply that they hold higher level mobs just fine, and I'm glad that they are happy with their performance, but really, when you get maybe 10 seconds duration against +2s from an aoe hold that is three-slotted for hold duration with SOs, that's not too hot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That 10 seconds would be 15 seconds with domination.
It would be 20 seconds with power boost.
It would be 30 seconds with power boost and domination.

That's probably long enough, eh?

That's why duration increase is not a good solution. It has the same problem that containment does - it doesn't scale well across the various sets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then how come we are not all pulling together?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because repeatedly waving a "doms suck" banner isn't the way to get people who actually *like* dominators and playing dominators to rally to your side.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first place, my view of doms is considerably more nuanced than you indicate. But whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'll note, I didn't say a single word about your view of dominators.

[ QUOTE ]
Then how come we are not all pulling together?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because repeatedly waving a "doms suck" banner isn't the way to get people who actually *like* dominators and playing dominators to rally to your side.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Breakfrees prevent control in PVP

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, with toggle-dropping restricted, inspirations should be disabled in PvP zones.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we don't have break frees, then how are we going to stop a tanker who just used a ST hold on us from far away? I say this idea sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I meant by enforcing team play.

No one on your team can free you, heal you, run interference for you, or even just recall friend your butt out of there until suppression kicks in? Maybe it's time for a new team?

Yeah, I know it's not that simple... but the opposing team is in the same boat...

[Well, except for God's gift to AT's... controls, buffs, damage *and* mez resistance in APP's. ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well when you put it THAT way I like the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Didn't realize I was that good with the Force.

[ QUOTE ]
I still want the option of going solo, though, but I guess I'll just have to deal with Warburg or pray a Tanker/Scrapper in RV took Body Mastery. 99% of them did anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

See? Perfect circle. Stalkers are already quaking in fear over scrappers with focused accuracy, and here you are looking at them as targets.

[ QUOTE ]
If they remove Breakfrees, they need to remove Containment's 3x damage buff in PvP, though. That wouldn't be remotely fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree completely there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Breakfrees prevent control in PVP

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, with toggle-dropping restricted, inspirations should be disabled in PvP zones.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we don't have break frees, then how are we going to stop a tanker who just used a ST hold on us from far away? I say this idea sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I meant by enforcing team play.

No one on your team can free you, heal you, run interference for you, or even just recall friend your butt out of there until suppression kicks in? Maybe it's time for a new team?

Yeah, I know it's not that simple... but the opposing team is in the same boat...

[Well, except for God's gift to AT's... controls, buffs, damage *and* mez resistance in APP's. ]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Breakfrees prevent control in PVP

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, with toggle-dropping restricted, inspirations should be disabled in PvP zones.

Since *team* PvP is the supposed goal, I don't see this as a problem. Especially since suppresion is still in play.

[Except, obviously, for the PvP player outcries. ]

[ QUOTE ]
3) In PVE, AVs/EBs are immune to holds, which are a doms main capability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a good way to deal with that, except to treat less-than-mag controls as debuffs.

Immobile -> -SPD.
Hold -> -SPD, -RCH.
Sleep -> -ACC.
Confuse -> -PER.

... or somesuch.

[ QUOTE ]
However, the Patron power pools seem to have plugged the holes in the melee toons (brutes and stalkers getting holds and ranged attacks) while the only real thing doms got were an armor (and another pet - had one already, another weak AOE - already had one, and a specialty power - endo drain already had one).

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Raz is absoutely correct about Side-Switching. For the last couple months I've been rolling Corruptors to replace all my Defenders(which would explain my disappearance from the Defender boards...but atleast Defenders were all Unified in our Plea for improvements). Now I will be rolling more Controllers to replace my Dominators in preperation for their side-switching as well.

I'm not going to question anyone anymore who still insists on defending the weaknesses of Dominators just because yours "is just fine", so I don't want to hear one goddamned peep from any of you along the lines of "Dey Tuk R JOBS!" once side-switching is available.

Everyone got that? Not a Peep.

[/ QUOTE ]

AFAICT, every AT (except, maybe, scrappers) has said that controllers are replacing them in their own job.

[Whether it's contained fireballs, phantasm tanks, or the empath h34l0r who can stop mobs from attacking too.]

Dominators as a whole *are* just fine as-is in PvE.
[EDIT: At least pre-PPP.]
It's controllers that are, apparently, seriously out of whack.

More accurately, it's certain controller builds that get their cake and eat it too.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it is an AoE that is why the power says (Explosion) after the range. This is all the plaque in Grandville gives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The text that Monkey_King cited says "hold", not "immobilize".
There's a rather big difference between the two.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, am I the only stalker who cringes every time he sees one of those longbow wardens with that friggin' "Quills" power. When i see those damn spikes shooting everywhere I just wanna cry.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, most definately not. I avoid them like the plague.

[/ QUOTE ]

What secondary are you two?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm Claws/regen. I suppose SR would be a little better for defending against AoE's but I'm just really not a fan of the set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked because my /ninjutsu doesn't have serious problems assassinating anything up to red-conned spine wardens.

[I don't remember trying a purple-conned one, but I run on vicious, so they would only show up when I'm teamed...]

I can see that /regen wouldn't even have the few seconds needed to pull it off, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, am I the only stalker who cringes every time he sees one of those longbow wardens with that friggin' "Quills" power. When i see those damn spikes shooting everywhere I just wanna cry.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, most definately not. I avoid them like the plague.

[/ QUOTE ]

What secondary are you two?

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, the current 3 slotted hover isn't fast enough to keep up with people on the ground who have swift + sprint. So instead of spending the entire mission in hover, I have to run, then turn it on in battle, then turn it off and run, etc. Not only a pain, but certainly not in the spirit of my toon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not switch from hover to FLY instead of run?

[ QUOTE ]
* They do 90% of Blaster Damage / 80% of Scrapper Damage. They do more damage than any other AT besides Blasters and Scrappers with their attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought they did the same damage as tanks, and less than brutes?

[ QUOTE ]
* Stalkers' Primaries are primarily drawn from Scrappers' Primaries. Their powers have the same BIs as their Scrapper counterparts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except their damage is 20% less, right?
That's like saying corruptors have the same BI's as blasters.

[... and don't scrappers have increase odds of crits or something?]

[ QUOTE ]
* Stalkers' Secondaries are drawn primarily from Scrappers' Secondaries, and operate at exactly the same rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's deceptive, since the stalkers are operating with less hit points. The odds of two hits penetrating defenses are much better than the odds of three hits penetrating defenses.

Also, the regeneration set is percentage-based off of hitpoints, is it not? That makes the entire set proportionately less effective, even if the "rates" are the same.