Mieux

[ QUOTE ]
When it's up and it ignites, yeah, it's definitely nice.

[/ QUOTE ] Just got OS today. The first three times I tried to ignite it ..I didn't work. Then an En blaster set it off with power punch or something. HOLY MOLY! Those are some serious ticks. I'm amazed the power slows, debuffs defense, knocks down, and can do massive damage.

[ QUOTE ]
After PvPing with TA, I really like that they chaged PGA to a targeted AoE

[/ QUOTE ]Very good point. When I first read Castle's post, I had Arcana's reaction. Then I realized that sometimes it's hard to find a spot to locate it...like if the target is flying, or in situations where mobs at are various levels. I've seen DA get stuck on some wall or ledge and not affect anyone. That's why I'd like the power to be able to do both...including the use of friendly's for a drop point. Of course I'm probably asking for something the tech can't support.

[ QUOTE ]
all of your debuffs except flash arrow would wake up everyone you just put to sleep.

[/ QUOTE ] You have to damage an opponent to wake them from sleep. Disruption and Glue Arrow shouldn't wake them. I don't think Oil would wake unless it was ignited...but I dont' have this.

[ QUOTE ]
Trick Arrow used to have 4 Targeted AoE powers.

[/ QUOTE ] ...Why not give us the option of doing both Targeted AoE and Location AoE?

There are many times when I'd like to lay down a Glue Arrow in a choke point and having to wait until a target is on that spot is less than ideal. In addition, the activation time may result in timing issues with where the patch gets laid down. I'd even argue letting TA target friendly units except that thematically, it would mean that your friends get hit with the debuffs in the case of Glue and Poison (though it is kind of a stretch that there is no collateral damage in the game...tho I completely understand why).

Btw, your discourse on the subject is greatly appreciated. And let me extend my thanks to those who have given you the authorization to post so freely.

[ QUOTE ]
I was one of the only Defenders in the area and I ended up being held and AS'ed the whole night.


[/ QUOTE ] Except for FF and Storm, being the only defender in swarm of stalkers or just villians is certain death. Defenders are generally easy to kill and have no massive counter attack to deter opportunists. It's amazing to see how stalkers will just chase me all over Siren's Call just waiting for me to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
but I would think that the sleep component would be counterproductive.

[/ QUOTE ] This would be stronger argument if Disruption Arrow had the sleep. Poison Gas Arrow is a fundamentally a damage mitigator. Add a working sleep compenent gives you two methods of damage mitigation and gives the power greater flexibility.

1) You can use it on the main mob group for the straight -dmg.

2) You an use it on a separate group to stop their damage all together. Obviously this is only going to last as long as the sleep, but it does drop the rate of incoming damage.

In addition, when you group with smaller groups, there can be more selective use of AoE's...thus preserving the benefit of the sleep AoE's. Since TA has no heal, it can behoove teams to forgoe using AOE attacks on slept mobs to reduce the amount of incoming damage. It's slower, but safer.

Also, Sleep is a toggle dropper. Slept Tsoo Sorcs, Spectral Demon Lords, etc...all have debuffs that get dropped when they are mezzed. In PvP...this is a huge plus to have a sleep that works along with your damage debuff.

And finally, "Poison Gas" should have some sort of mez shouldn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
There is some small hints of this already. Empathy, a more defensive-oriented (healing oriented) set has recovery aura. Radiation, with more offensive punch, has a weaker recovery in AM. Kinetics, which is more offensive-focused, has transference (significant, but situational).

[/ QUOTE ] I think you're on the wrong path here. Kinetics is potentially the most offensive boosting set and probably offers the best endo recovery on top of it. Speed Boost is only slotted for one thing. Transference, properly slotted, can easily keep up with anyone's endurance usage (barring ridiculous builds). In fact it surpases Rec Aura in that it can immediately replace endo on those who have endo crashes from nukes or Elude type of defenses.

As far as the real point of your post, I'll leave that to others.

[ QUOTE ]
Just wait until these guys get around to looking and debating Trick Arrow.

That will be a good debate. Anyone know what the damage is like in comparison between the Oil Slick of a defender and a the Oil Slick of a controller?

[/ QUOTE ]If you strike Trick Arrow down now, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, the secondary effect of most defender blasts does not synergize well with defender primaries

[/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is as clear cut as you make it out to be...but we'll get back to this...

[ QUOTE ]
Even with 75% blaster damage i don't think that an Empathy/Electrical defender would outdamage an Electrical/Devices blaster, or a Radiation/Energy defender outdamage a Fire/Energy blaster.

[/ QUOTE ] So let's test some of this with a simple excercise...

Let's look at a Rad/En Def and and an En/En blaster against an even level minion...

fictional

Blaster damage 100
Defender damage 65 * 1.37 (Enervating Field) = 89

Blaster Acc = 75
Def Acc = 90 (Radiation infection debuffing defense, unslotted)

Blaster = 100 .75 = 75 points
Def = 89 * .9 = 80 points

So at least with Rad, you have a defender that can out damage a blaster. On paper it seems some defender primaries work very well with the role of fire support. And this is just a direct approach. Buffs, like Speed Boost and Fortitude, while technically they don't synergize with a def secondary, they do indirectly increase the the overall DPS increase of adding a defender as compared with a blaster.

I think recognizing how a defender can spell a blaster extrinsically but not intrinsicially is the real source of the problem if we look at what the devs want out of a defender and what players want. In other words, Controllers often feel as good as defenders, but defenders don't really feel as good as blasters....even when the opposite is actually true.

I think the crux of the problem is more about perception.

I'm going to ask the community....what is that you really want from your defender?

1) Is this really about soloing?

2) Do you want to be unequivocably perceptually better at damage mitigation than controllers?

3) Do you want to do unequivocably perceptually more damage than Controllers?

4) Do we want a better harmony between our Primary/Secondary at the expense of versatility and variety?

One of the things that occurs to me in asking these questions is a synergy/impementation issue. What do I mean? For Controllers...there are often just a few powers in the defender Primary that allow a Controller to perceptually mimic a defender. RI and EF are really all you need from Rad to capture the heart of the set. Transfusion, Speed Boost, and Fulcrum shift are the heart of Kin. Can the same be said about the Blaster powers? Is the heart and sole of Arrow in 2-3 powers? What about Energy? So in addition to synergy, are Cntrlrs able to fake a defender more easily simply based on the design of the sets?

[ QUOTE ]
I have never once since its inception noticed any effect from Vigilance.

[/ QUOTE ] Of the five defenders I have played, only one has Stamina...my D3. I can tell you without equivocation that my TA/A sees a dramatic difference in endo when teaming. In fact, /Regens and Blasters are like like having six slotted Stamina.

In fact, I will consciously modify my play style depending on my endo. When the team is taking very little damage, depending on the teammates, I will focus on just defendering or offending. Lots of tanks and scrappers? I will probably go straight offending. Lots of blasters...more defending. I love big teams with lots of squishies...I can blast and defend to my hearts content.

You know what's really funny? When I do play my Corrupter, I keep wishing I had Vigilance. When I play my blaster, I keep looking for Scourge.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I brought up these points back when containment was first being introduced. I was told by controllers that the defender inherant ability would solve the issues with defenders.

[/ QUOTE ] And in theory, it almost does. With Vigilance (which I love) Defenders can theoretically debuff and blast when it's needed most. The question is whether it does in practice. If Controllers have to take three extra powers to Control and Debuff, one should expect less debuf from controllers.

[ QUOTE ]
but all other team mates damage as well. If a defender taken alone is worth maybe 65% of the net damage of the average blaster, but improves the average output of each team member by 15%

[/ QUOTE ] So here, you are addressing the extrinsic aspect of my test. On a simulation, it might show up that with three teammates, a defender's debuffs/buffs increases the team damage by more than the blaster's raw DPS contribution.

But this is why I talked about the extrinsic value first. Extrinsically, the devs see what you pointed out...the players don't. Intrinsically, I won't see a Rad/ as a replacement for a Fire/ blaster even if emprically it's higher DPS. Why? The context of the game. Even if the DPS value is higher with a the Rad/, "death is the ultimate debuff." Unless I am fighting AV's every mission, that higher DPS is largely immaterial. All I need is peak damage to kill mobs...not sustained DPS. A blaster gives me that, a defender does not.

The simulation says the defender is better...game play shows the blaster is more effective. Remember..I'm talking about just looking for killing power, not safety...like when I'm a solo tank.

Not that it refutes anything you've said, but I'll leave it to the tanker community to vocalize their opinion on whether a defender has ever been seen as a subsitute for a blaster for raw damage.

[ QUOTE ]
And the main thing throwing off that equation is containment.

[/ QUOTE ] This is separate issue for me. Whether defenders or controllers do more damage, is not, imo, central to the issue of parity between the controller/defender overlap and the defender/blaster overlap. As defender, if a controller can spell me....then I want to be able to spell a blaster. Whether a controller can spell me in damage is not relevant to whether I can spell a blaster.

[ QUOTE ]
Because containment is so dramatic in benefit

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see this. With the exception of Ill/* or PvP solo battles, I don't see Containment being a factor in teams. I've been teaming with a lvl 39 Ice/FF and maybe he kills one mob while my DM/SR and the Ice/En blaster kill 10. What is huge is the bubbles...major major factor in team effectiveness...and Ice Slick.

So getting back to the point, the devs may feel extrinsically, defenders do make up for lack of blasters on teams? Do people who play defenders feel this is apparent or even true?

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is probably close to the crux of the whole Defender/Controller/Blaster issue. Controller Primaries/Secondaries synergize extremely well.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree. I think that as players...in the "real world of the game" we have to step back and acknowledge some competing philosophies.

Let me preface this by asking for some leeway. Arcana <hugs>, CF, let's not focus on the details, but the overall gist....

The problem is one of both design, philosophy, and playability (which are another way to spell revenue). To uphold the "no AT is needed" philosophy, the sets have to overlap. Overlapping sets also save money. Without going to the long and short of this, we want this to remain to be true. Defenders, like any AT, cannot be allowed to be have a monopoly on any given sphere of influence.

The challenge is giving Def's something they are great at without making them indispensible (or triviliazing) and without making them tank-mages. Too much damage we've made blasters obsolete. Too much debuff and we've made the game trivial.

Def's are, in and of themselves, very well balanced imo. I can solo, but so slowly I always want a scrapper or a blaster. At low levels, controllers don't have the debuff's as developed, so they aren't the same..more importantly, controllers are generally busy controlling. At higher levels...it's a different story. The question then should look at this:

What in the game should make me want to team with defender as opposed to a controller or a blaster?

The first answer is that def's can provide more fire support than controllers and more protection than blasters. The blaster part is easy. The question is whether defender's fire support is of equal or better value than controller control. Can defenders pinch hit for blasters in the same way that controllers pinch hit for defenders?

If we look below the surface, the answer is no. The reason is two fold:

1) We see the "Defender" as someone who "defends" by mitigating damage, not by defeating foes. Thus, controllers are quite capable of achieving the ethos of defenders. My blaster doesn't care how you defend me against the incoming damage, just stop it as quickly as possible.

2) Defenders do not come even close to the damage output of blasters in terms of DPS. While they may have a better Risk vs. Reward curve, this is far overshadowed by the effeciency of blasters. Even more so, everyone expects blasters to die. Even blasters. So a defeat by a blaster isn't really seen as a sign of failure on the blaster's part. No one would choose a defender just because they are worried a blaster might get defeated. So that lower risk is arguably meaningless to anyone but the solo defender.

In short, if I need a blaster because I just need more damage output, I don't see an /En defender a viable substitution in the same way I am very happy to have a /Kin controller in place of a Kin/ defender. I never care what the defenders's secondary is. They are all equally irrelevant from my persepective as a teammate (Dark Blast and good nukes being the exceptions).

So one place to look at this Controller vs Defender vs Blaster equation is making the fire support of defenders offset the control of controllers:

Extrinsic Value ( Controller Control + Controller Debuff ) = Extrinsic Value ( Defender Debuff + Defender Blast )

But this runs us right up along side our original concerns. Improving the Defender Blast portion makes us a Tank-Mage. Improving the Debuff portion trivializes the game for teams. Lowering the Debuff of controllers upsets the "no AT needed" balance, and lowering the Control assassinates controllers (as Arcana would say).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been mentioned many times, but if controller are better with the control power secondaries then defenders are with their primaries why is it that a debuff in a defender primary isn't stronger then the one in a controller primary even though debuff is one of the main focuses of the defender class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Power values are the same. AT mods are different, except for the Perception debuff which is hard coded at -90% for all of these powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

Sorry I'm a bit slow I suppose.

Does this mean defenders actually have a higher accuracy debuff because their AT gets a better modifier while the power is basically the before AT modifiers come into play.

Or am I confused and are they the same in accuracy debuff.

or would the president look good in a pink tutu.

I just don't know.

And what is your sig from _castle_

[/ QUOTE ]I believe he i saying that the "power" has a base value which is the same regardless of who uses it. However, certain aspects of any power are modified by various AT modifiers. For example, if a power has a Damage + Debuff value and is used by a scrapper, the Dmg will be multiplied by the scrapper DMG multiplier and the Debuff will be multiplied by the scrapper Debuff muliplier. Also...we can infer things like this.

fictional
AT DMG Multiplier Heirarchy:
Scrapper>Tanker>Controller

AT Debuff Multiplier:
Defender>Controller>Scrapper

So the same power works differently in the hands of a scrapper versus a defender. The advantage is that they can code one set of powers for all AT's....but then have them work differently depending on the AT.

But remember, this only works if the powers are the same. A Defense debuff in a controller power such as XYZ is not the same Defense debuff in defender power YYX (or YYZ for you Rush fans). In other words, the base value of a debuff in two separate powers is not goingto be identical even if it is the same type of debuff.

If Dark Blast has base debuff of -5%...and Radiation Infection has a base debuff of 18.5%...RI in anyone's hands is going to be a better debuff than Dark Blast in a defender's hands.

That's how I interpret his response.

[ QUOTE ]
This started with the devs saying controllers are better at slows and me saying defenders should at least be better at -recharge....

[/ QUOTE ] Just for the record, I responded to your post because I had already argued that Slows should be better for defenders maybe 10 pages earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
Mieux the Defender is the Supreme Grand Poobah of Buffs and Debuffs.

[/ QUOTE ] That's Mr. Grand Poobah to you. And the point is not that "anybody" would give a crap...the point is that you, as the creater of your toon, would give a crap. In other words..the def is the buff/debuff king and I like that distinction based on my AT rather than it being based on the powers in my Primary. (Did I mention that Stalkers are just the PvP cheese queens?). It's more about how you see your self as toon and how the game reinforces that belief...but..

[ QUOTE ]
They're interested in two things: damage, and damage mitigation.

[/ QUOTE ] Shhhh...let's just ignore that for the sake of argument. You know...and I know...and the devs know...and the devs know that we know that the devs know....that this game boils down to one thing. But...I think some people enjoy the ability to render groups harmless, even if they can't defeat them. In fact, it is the ability to do one and not the other that makes the former valuable. My scrapper can defeat mobs..but I can't really protect a team from them. I can only hold aggro on a few at a time. If there are two +3 bosses...and no tank...someone's going to eat dirt without a defender. It might even be me.

[ QUOTE ]
They established the primary/secondary system; they've promulgated it for 20 months and imported it into COH's sister game; they made this bed, and I see no reason not to require them to lie in it.


[/ QUOTE ]Well, my position is one more of long term. The Primary > Secondary scheme, even if it is one that the devs have pushed, should only have limited applicability...like Prim or Sec > Power Pool. But Modifiers should still apply...as they do...with things like the Leadership Pool.

[ QUOTE ]
then why play a Defender at all

[/ QUOTE ] This is a different subject all together. But...I think the answer to this questions is more accessible following the AT modifier method than the Primary>Secondary philosophy. In other words, I'd rather defender superiority be achieved through our AT modifier than the fact we have it as a primary and they have it as secondary. I can't give you anything substantive to base this on so I know you'll accept it as gospel postehaste.

[ QUOTE ]
except out of pity?

[/ QUOTE ] You say it like it's a bad thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me erect a better straw man for you: -fly and -jump are not resisted by status protection also, ergo they must be debuffs just like slows.


[/ QUOTE ] Yeah..except we have one small problem with that one...-Fly and -Jump are binary effects. They are not mag reducing effects. I either fly/jump or I don't. That to me is control..not debuff.

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that you consider slows to be a form of damage debuff because they prevent foes from entering melee range?

[/ QUOTE ] Now that is vintage Arcana. You are the one that brought up the whole damage reducing aspect. You brought it up to argue how it put -recharge in the debuff arena as opposed to -speed....your argument was that -speed does not reduce damage per se where -recharge does. Now you are telling me it's my distinction?...too funny.

[ QUOTE ]
That would make immobilizes damage debuffs also, and a stronger one.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, that depends on the AI. My impression is that when you immobilize a foe the AI will more quickly switch to a ranged attack. When I -speed folks, they will continue to try and close the distance gap rather than simply stopping and shooting. Its' like the AI is stuck in melee mode and gives no weight to the rate at which its moving...but only the distance from the target. A couple of feet = melee...regardless of how long it takes them to get there.

Now, I don't know the AI code, and I think Imm'd foes in close proximity will stay in melee mode too, so this is just my impression. But to the extent that it's true...-speed allows me to lower the incoming damage far more than Immobilize. And remember, the whole reducing damage comparison is yours ...not mine. I don't find the lower damage comparison compelling.

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests you have no idea what soft control means.

[/ QUOTE ] Hahahaha.. Oh yes..that technical term.."soft control." I see it referred to a lot in CoX power descriptions and never knew what it meant. The devs refer to it all the time and I admit, I was to shy to ask what it meant.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be suggesting that anything that can wildly claim to reduce damage and isn't explicitly a normally resisted status effect is a buff or debuff.

[/ QUOTE ]Vintage....ascribing your distinction as mine. Reducing damage is not my criteria...it's yours.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said slows were a status effect, so that's irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ] I said it. The point being I think it's a better demarcation for what is "control" and what isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Like, say, repel.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolutely, because Repel reduces your.....wait..what does Repel reduce?

[ QUOTE ]
is counterintuitive and indefensible when for the last 20 months we've been sold primary/secondary, not AT, as the first, last, and only differentiator between strength of powers.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, CF, as I know you are a big fan of mine, let me offer a counter thought. Even if you are right, even if the devs have maintained that heirarchy, let's not force them to apply it universally.

To the extent that Arcana argues that powers should be broken up into spheres of influence and work best for those who hail from that sphere, I agree. The primary/secondary distinction is a double-edged sword. It is a construct of the game and has no "comic book" analog.

Think about it like this...the AT is a starting point, not an ending point. It simply determines where your strength is, not your purpose. Although I think defenders who have heals should heal, the game allows a defender to do whatever she wants. But..since you've decided to start in the sphere of defenders...you speciality is buff/debuff. Not damage...not control. Thus, as a defender, a buff/debuff power should be better in your hands, than any other hero who started with a different sphere (AT).

The devs have essentially done this with the AT modifiers. I think that's a good way to go. As a defender, I'm the debuff king. As a controller, I'm the control king. As a tanker, I'm the defensive king. As a Stalker, I'm the cheese queen (sorry, Castle, couldn't resist). I think that's a better route for defenders than the primary/secondary distinction. So I think it behooves us as defender not to hold the devs feet to the fire if powers violate that heirarchy.

AT modifiers are good...Primary/Secondary modifiers...not so good...imo.

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me you're kidding. Speed boost is an ally buff; it in no way impairs the target

[/ QUOTE ] lol...it's a rhetorical question Arcana. It exposes the weakness in the logic that slowing movement is a control because then speeding up movement should be a control too.

Whether it is an ally buff or foe debuff should have as much import as whether it is a Primary versus a Secondary power.

[ QUOTE ]
Movement slow (-speed) as a foe debuff is a form of control because it functions similarly to an immobilize.

[/ QUOTE ] Not at all in how they are treated by this game. Immobilizes are resisted by status protection. Slows are not. Slows and Immobilizes are completely separate effects. The fact that you want to argue some sort of intensity association with being slowed and being immobilzed is not compelling, nor is it consistent with the game. -speed often works wehn Immobilze doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
An immobilize serves a single purpose in combat: to keep the foes in one place. This has the net effect of preventing them from getting into melee range, scattering, or gaining any other sort of combat advantage by moving. A movement slow serves a similar purpose, to a lesser but qualitatively similar degree.

[/ QUOTE ] You can make the same qualitative argument about knockdown.

[ QUOTE ]
In neither case does movement slows or immobilizes reduce villain damage output, short of preventing them from using melee attacks.


[/ QUOTE ] Which means they reduce damage hunh? In fact, -speed is much better at reducing dmg than Immobilize....why? When the AI switches to melee mode, the mobs will continue to chase your around if you are in close proximity. If you immobilize them, some will immediately switch to ranged. A -speed debuff also allows me greater ability to manipulate them as their intended target. Immobilize doesn't. But that is irrelevant.

-Speed reduces someone's speed in the same way -Recharge reduces someone's attack rate. It does not "control" them. If one is controllerish, so is the other.

[ QUOTE ]
Recharge slows reduce damage output; they function within the same class of debuffs as damage debuffs, or accuracy debuffs. That places them in completely different classes of net overall effect.

[/ QUOTE ] What a completely biased view. -Speed is in the same class as debuffs as it can reduce damage by preventing the foe from reaching a moving target to do melee damage. Nor is -speed affected by Break Frees or resisted by ANY status protetion powers like PB, Int, Uny.

Claiming -speed is somehow different than -recharge is arbitrary. Like statistics, you ignore facts which undermine your position. There's no right or wrong to this question, but let's at least treat them consistently.

[ QUOTE ]
As others have already pointed out, thats not true. What we colloquially call "slow" is really sometimes -recharge, sometimes -movement, and sometimes both.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, as I said, "IIRCC". Nevertheless, I haven't read every post in this thread, nor do I have a complete and exhaustive list of defender powers stored in my memory but please point to a "Slow" primary defender debuff that does only -recharge.

Kali pointed out that Tar Patch does only -speed. It seems that anything with a "-" is a debuff...not a control. And by your own logic, the only exception would be to argue that immobilizes are -100% speed. Tar Patch isn't even available to controllers.

Really, the only thing that matters is how -speed is considered since we agree on -recharge. My point is that there is no logical reason to put -speed in the domain of controllers. As I stated above, slowing someone down is not "controlling" them any more than speeding someone up is "controlling" them. . Are we going to make Speed Boost be better speed for controllers?

The argument for "Slow" being controllerish stems simply from the idea that being hit with -speed is thought of as a physically or mentally imposed restraint similar to a hold or immobilize. By that logic, -recharge should work better for controllers as well. In fact, the whole -recharge not being controllerish doesn't seem to make any more logical sense under any logic that would deem -speed controllerish.

[ QUOTE ]
The movement slow is much more of a control aspect than a debuffing aspect (unless you want to claim that an immobilize is a movement debuff to zero). But the -recharge is a clear debuff.

[/ QUOTE ] That's an inconsistent approach to the topic. If you are going to argue that a Slow is a type of control, the same logic would apply to a -Recharge. Both effects are the technical implementation of a "Slow." There are no "Anti-Recharge" only powers in the game. Psi Blast does have a -recharge component with no Slow, but IIRCC all powers that list a "Slow" slow both movement and recharge.

The point is to look at the spirit of the debuff Slow. It slows you down physically and this slows both your movement which should also slow your ability to draw your weapon, swing your fists, etc. Separating out the slow movement from the -recharge undermines the intregrity of the "Slow" effect. Both are required to effectuate the "Slow."

Whether one wants to consider a Slow more controllerish or defenderish is somewhat arbitrary. IMO, defender powers are aimed at reducing the effectiveness of a foe. Controller powers look more to incapacitate a foe or Control. Slowing someone is not "controlling" someone. The foe still goes where it wants or attacks with what it wants......they just do it slower or with less frequency. Their speed is debuffed just like their accuracy or their defense is debufffed. But hindering something is not controlling something no more than I can control a Mack truck by hanging on the bumper.

Defenders should be better at Slows. Both the movement and the recharge. If Break Frees worked on Slow movement, then I'd agree with you. But the Break Free, imo, provides the litmus test for what is something that "controls" you. The whole point of the Break Free is to "break free from the control." If devs want Slow movement to be Controllerish, then Break Frees should free us from the slow movement and not the -recharge.

Great to see you made time to look at Def issues. Thanks. Some thoughts:

[ QUOTE ]
Controllers AT modifier for Slows is higher than Defenders. I'll talk to geko to make certain this is by design.


[/ QUOTE ] I will argue that Slow should be considered a debuff and not a control. Slow reduces movement speeds and recharge times. This reduction in effectiveness seems more in-line with the defender purpose than that of controller. In essence, you are debuffing a person's speed. Defenders should be better at this than Controllers.

Another way to separate this is by using the Break Free Doctrine. If an effect can be cancelled a BF, then it is a power that Controllers should be better than Defenders at. Slow is not affected by BF's. The only exceptions are Det Field and Sonic Cage, but those are obviously controllerish.

[ QUOTE ]
If the target is lower level than you, or if it has a weakness to knockback, then knockdown powers will knock the target backwards. Knockdown is a low magnitude Knockback.


[/ QUOTE ] I understand how this woks. However, I would make a request that the devs separate out the effects. KD is very useful. KB is much less so IMO. Something like Oil Slick or Ice Slick should legitimately KD foes without KB lower ones. I also recognize that some of the Tanker powers make use of this magntitude based result. But again, I would petition the devs to create a KD status effect.

Thanks again for the work.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not interested in fighting with you again over something irrelevant and trivial.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed. Props to you for saying it first.

Let me just restate something from one of my earlier posts for the record.

I can see how the devs might have set the resistance cap based on the minion to-hit floor. They couldn't ever let us cap +0's because we would and then there would literally be zero risk for gaining xp. Once they decided 5% is as low or they were willing to go, 90% would have been the corresponding cap for res against minions

However....if that was their thinking, then they never should have gotten out the front door because their method of implementation never got them past +0 Lt's, Bosses. I have a hard to accepting that the 10% concept would be abandon as soon as one faced a Lt. or Boss of the same level.

The idea that's its taken them over 2 years to discover the formula that allows them to suddenly scale defense and preserve the 10% floor is also less than compelling. It wasn't until recently that Statesman even stated that defensive scaling was a problem.

...and for the record../SR's passive resitance doesn't scale either. As we faced higher level mobs, the higher damage means our health based resistance is in effect for a narrower window of time.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling us that Darkest Night has never been able to floor a minions ACC to 5%, even in I3???


[/ QUOTE ] Castle's post is about ED DN.

The 1.98 would be 2.98 under I3 and the debuff would be around 55% if my math is correct...so yeah..it was close to capping +2 minions back in I3...assuming you slotted it with six debuffs.