[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...how do Illusion and Weather powers fit together without coming up with some convluted explanation?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ghost Pirates.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lol, yes! Now if only heroes could be pirates.
[/ QUOTE ]
Issue 7!
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
Which brings up an interesting point. Over the course of CoH, defenders have seen relatively little change. Sure, powersets were changed here or there, but the AT as a whole has hardly changed at all. Instead, everything's been changing around defenders.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is the thought that should send every other AT to their knees shivering in fear. Defenders have not been changed, everyone else has been nerfed. Since these responses are basically stating they still will not change defenders, although there is plenty of evidence that defenders are underpowered in comparison to everyone else, it stands to reason that many more nerfs are coming.
After all, since defenders are the bar that every other AT should be like, imagine how the others will react when their primaries start becoming inferior to other ATs secondaries or forbid the pps.
Please Devs, before you make everyone the same basic power level as defenders (verse controllers), just delete the Defender AT and allow the people to either choose to respec to controller or blaster. Add DM to controllers and DB, Psy and Rad blast to blasters. After all, we might have 15 sets to choose from, but only these four are unique to us.
(Please note, I am only joking about deleting the Defender AT, however, I do honestly feel at this point, the game would probably benefit far more if it did not exist since the devs can not find a way to balance it without hurting another AT in the process.)
The more I think about this, the thing that bothers me the most is that, though my characters have not changed at all, they will in the perception of the people looking for teammates.
I have a lowbie FF/Sonic, perfect level for the Hollows. Who would invite her over a different defender or a controller? I was already hearing things like "Well, I got a defender, but she can't heal. I guess we'll try it like this and kick her and get a healer if we have problems" when I joined teams. I know how good my FFer is; I ran her to 24 as FF/Energy before I got sick of all the KB and rerolled her, and I've played FF/dark and FF/Psy before. I know how large a group she can solo, and I know where and when to put blasts to help the team.
But selling myself to a team now is going to be harder than ever. Even if I'm no weaker, I'm going to be perceived as weaker, or at least as worse than other choices.
Anyone else who read the post hoping in vain they throw in a AT respec for those of us who wasted all this time on Defenders?
Powers that slow:
Defender
Snowstorm: -speed, -recharge, -fly
Lingering Radiation: -speed, -recharge, -regen
Freezing Rain: -speed, -def, -res, knockdown
Tar Patch: -speed, -res
Siphon Speen: -speed, (self +speed, +recharge)
Controller
Arctic Air: -speed, -stealth, confuse
Quicksand: -speed, -defense, -jump(?)
Hot Feet: -speed, (also has DoT component)
I am not familiar enough with the other controller slows. Anyway, my point is to show there are a significant number of powers that have -speed without -recharge.
Triumphant Defenders Forever
Psylenz FF/Psi, ArticQuark Storm/Rad, Symon BarSisyphus Bots/psn, Max VanSydow Thugs/Dk, Cyclone Symon Bots/stm, Blue Loki Ice/Cd, Widow 46526
HelinCarnate:OMG it is so terrible. I have the option to take 3 more powers but no additional slots. Boo F'ing hoo.
[ QUOTE ]
Props to you for addressing an unpleasant issue and hopefully putting it to utterly, completely, finally to bed forever.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. It is put to bed in the same way that a Doctor tells his patient he has HIV, and there is no cure, nor does he feel like researching a cure.
Cuz, ya'know, a huge problem with defenders has been CONFIRMED by a redname, thats all we wanted right? To be told that there is a problem. We don't actually want anything to change. We just wanted it in writing.
Right?
Right?
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Please tell me you're kidding. Speed boost is an ally buff; it in no way impairs the target, which means its not a means of control. Movement slow (-speed) as a foe debuff is a form of control because it functions similarly to an immobilize.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is not the basis for the arguement. Physical restraint has nothing to do with anything. 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. In neither case does movement slows or immobilizes reduce villain damage output, short of preventing them from using melee attacks.
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.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ 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 ]
Then -recharge powers, as debuffs, should be better for defenders, correct?
In which case what the discussion needs is clarification about whether or not -recharge powers are better for defenders, if they are the same, or if (as Castle's original post implied), they are in fact better for controllers.
That's all.
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me you're kidding. Speed boost is an ally buff; it in no way impairs the target, which means its not a means of control. Movement slow (-speed) as a foe debuff is a form of control because it functions similarly to an immobilize.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is the third or fourth Sign of the Apocalypse, Arcana, but I'm going to side with Mieux on this one. He was drawing a comparison.
While I can see the argument for -speed as an (incredibly wuss) form of control, I can't see how you could reasonably argue that it can't be viewed as a debuff. Given how much more "hard" control all Controller sets provide, compared to how ubiquitous slows and immobilizes are in other powersets across ATs, and combining that with the perspective that +speed is a buff, I find the argument that -speed should be considered a debuff compelling.
Most importantly, though, I think you guys have grabbed onto a stray hair and are madly trying to split it.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Please tell me you're kidding. Speed boost is an ally buff; it in no way impairs the target, which means its not a means of control. Movement slow (-speed) as a foe debuff is a form of control because it functions similarly to an immobilize.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with Mieux - -Speed/-Recharge should be defined as a debuff, not a control. Control removes the ability to act in certain (or in many cases, all) ways, while a debuff limits your ability to do certain things. A to-hit debuff limits your ability to hit, a resistance debuff limits your mitigation, and a speed debuff limits how fast you move.
Also, the majority of slows are in defender primaries.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Mieux - -Speed/-Recharge should be defined as a debuff, not a control.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then that creates a problem. Like you, I'm in favor of softening control overall; adding more "soft" control and less "hard" control. This definition of control, if it was adopted by the devs, would force me to reverse my position on soft control. If movement slow is a debuff right up to just shy of immobilize, and then immobilize is suddenly considered control, then the line between debuff and control in general is being drawn in such a way as to make any attempt at implementing softer control a form of controller assassination.
How we handle slows is a leading edge indicator for me, in the same way blaster range, pool stacking, and variable criticals have been for me in the past. In this case it tells me where I should side on control modification, and right now its strongly suggesting that I'm currently on the wrong side.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
This may have been stated by others (and possibly better), but am I the only one that think it's screwy that controller secondaries can in some way function better than defender primaries? Isn't this unfair to the Defender AT? Is it untrue to say that, across the board , blasters primaries are stronger than defender secondaries, tanker primaries are stronger than scrapper secondaries, scrapper primaries are stronger than tanker secondaries, and controller primaries are just plain unique and incomparable. Yet somehow, a controller taking a defender secondary can use certain powers to better effect. Not only that, but their primaries allow them to use certain powers to better effect as well! (i.e. tornado, freezing rain, etc).
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the heart of the issue to me. If a power resides in an AT's primary it should be clearly better then the same power sitting in anothers secondary. This whole thread has been the eye opener for me. Defenders have complained about this issue since the game began and now we realize the problem is -by design-.
Not right Devs, sorry because if it is ok to do this then perhaps you should look over say the "Invulnerable" set because I'm sure an argument can be made for certain powers being more "scrapper like" and thus deserving of a buff or two.
Why is control the exclusive domain of controllers? If a controller had cobra strike would the stun be longer? what would be the argument there? perhaps that Scrappers do more damage with it and a chance to crit? (lol).
Very weak.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Mieux - -Speed/-Recharge should be defined as a debuff, not a control.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then that creates a problem. Like you, I'm in favor of softening control overall; adding more "soft" control and less "hard" control. This definition of control, if it was adopted by the devs, would force me to reverse my position on soft control. If movement slow is a debuff right up to just shy of immobilize, and then immobilize is suddenly considered control, then the line between debuff and control in general is being drawn in such a way as to make any attempt at implementing softer control a form of controller assassination.
How we handle slows is a leading edge indicator for me, in the same way blaster range, pool stacking, and variable criticals have been for me in the past. In this case it tells me where I should side on control modification, and right now its strongly suggesting that I'm currently on the wrong side.
[/ QUOTE ]
Another one late to the game but I agree it's down to the definition of a buff/debuff and control from the devs. To me, if +speed is a buff then logically -speed is a debuff. At least it seems to work well with most of the other stuff like
+dmg (buff) and -dmg (debuff) or
+acc (buff) and -acc (debuff) or
+def (buff) and -def (debuff) or
+res (buff) and -res (debuff)
If we allow -spd to be a "hold" or "control" then why would we rule out -res or -acc?
In my mind, a debuff doesn't stop a mob from doing anything, it just makes it harder. It's like the age old comparison of debuffs vs hold and which you'd rather have. If I'm punching you in the face do you want to stop me or make me hit you less often or not as hard? Stopping is control but less frequency or less impact is a debuff.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This may have been stated by others (and possibly better), but am I the only one that think it's screwy that controller secondaries can in some way function better than defender primaries? Isn't this unfair to the Defender AT? Is it untrue to say that, across the board , blasters primaries are stronger than defender secondaries, tanker primaries are stronger than scrapper secondaries, scrapper primaries are stronger than tanker secondaries, and controller primaries are just plain unique and incomparable. Yet somehow, a controller taking a defender secondary can use certain powers to better effect. Not only that, but their primaries allow them to use certain powers to better effect as well! (i.e. tornado, freezing rain, etc).
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the heart of the issue to me. If a power resides in an AT's primary it should be clearly better then the same power sitting in anothers secondary. This whole thread has been the eye opener for me. Defenders have complained about this issue since the game began and now we realize the problem is -by design-.
Not right Devs, sorry because if it is ok to do this then perhaps you should look over say the "Invulnerable" set because I'm sure an argument can be made for certain powers being more "scrapper like" and thus deserving of a buff or two.
Why is control the exclusive domain of controllers? If a controller had cobra strike would the stun be longer? what would be the argument there? perhaps that Scrappers do more damage with it and a chance to crit? (lol).
Very weak.
[/ QUOTE ]
It actually wouldn't be as big a deal, if our secondary did the base 100% damage (like tanks) versus 125% damage that Blasters and Scrappers had. Our set would be fairly balanced against Controllers then.
Which brings me back to Blasters and them being the causitive imbalance because their secondaries aren't really set up well.
I think Blaster secondaries being redesigned as 1/3rd buffing/debuffing, 1/3rd controllers and then 1/3rd damage (pets that attack or melee hits) would suddenly make them more viable soloists and would allow having Defenders function at 100% on ranged damage.
Still here, even after all this time!
It's technically a debuff, but practically soft control.
Soft control is accomplished with the help of debuffs. The same argument for -speed can be applied to -acc, it is also a form of soft control.
Er...I don't see any way -acc can be called soft control. It has absolutely nothing to do with control whatsoever.
Consider that all the following powersets all provide slows (as in -speed). Primary control powersets make up 23.4% of this list.
Ice Blast
Ice Armor
Stone Armor
Devices
Ice Manipulation
Dark Miasma
Kinetics
Radiation Emission
Storm Summoning
Trick Arrow
Fire Control
Gravity Control
Ice Control
Plant Control
Poison
Traps
Umbral Blast
The following powersets offer immobilizes. Primary control powersets make up 38.5% of this list.
Earth Control
Fire Control
Gravity Control
Ice Control
Plant Control
Psionic Blast
Devices
Electricity Manipulation
Fire Manipulation
Ice Manipulation
Dark Blast
Dark Melee
Trick Arrow
The following powersets offer single-target holds. Primary ontrol powersets make up 43.8% of this list.
Earth Control
Fire Control
Gravity Control
Ice Control
Illusion Control
Mind Control
Plant Control
Electrical Blast
Ice Blast
Super Strength
Ice Melee
Dark Miasma
Radiation Emission
Ice Arrow
Poison
Luminous Blast
Green powersets are Controller-only. Cyan powersets are Dominator-only. Yellow powersets are shared between them.
(I could easily have missed some powersets in that breakdown.)
There's a progression here, which is pretty easy to continue as you go down the list with the effects sleep, fear and AoE hold, showing that those become less and less available to non-Controller/Dominator powersets.
The point I'm going for is the loose idea that this progression shows that slows (and to some extent immobilizes) aren't considered the unique specialty of Controllers. While it's somewhat tangential to the question of "is a slow a control or a debuff", I think it can be used as evidence that its not critical to the function of Controllers that they be the best at slows, because of all the related "controlly" effects, its the one they specialize in the least.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
You are preventing someone from attacking. How would you define "soft control"?
[ QUOTE ]
You are preventing someone from attacking. How would you define "soft control"?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you're not. Not with an accuracy debuff. You are lowering the chance that the attack will succeed.
That's the difference. In the common parlance I am exposed to on these forums and in game, "control" prevents the action. Debuffs reduce its effectiveness. Accuracy (or more correctly, toHit) debuffs to not prevent the character from attacking. The reduce the character's chance to succeed with the action.
By your logic, +Defense would be "control".
"Soft control" is usually used in the context of temporary disablements that do not drop toggles. For example, knockdown/back/up, and Fear are often referred to as "soft" control. Sleeps are somewhere in the middle, since they detoggle powers but are easily broken.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
You are preventing someone from attacking. How would you define "soft control"?
[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't preventing them from attacking with -acc, you are preventing them from hitting as often. That's not any sort of control at all - you aren't hindering either their attack rate or their mobility.
Reducing the frequency of their attacks (fear, sleep, -recharge) could be called soft control with some rationality, because "hard control" is basically reducing the frequency of attacks to 0 (held/stunned mobs don't attack even when taking damage; recharge debuffed mobs attack much less often).
However, -recharge is more reasonably defined as an attack rate debuff, not as a form of soft control because it lacks any impact, in itself, on the victim's mobility. Many but not all -recharge powers are also -speed, which is a soft control... but -speed doesn't impair enemy attacks, just movement.
Fear and sleep, on the other hand, can more reasonably be called forms of soft control because feared enemies don't attack or move except under a specific condition (when they take damage). But since sleep/fear prevent all attacks - like a hold - except when the target takes damage it may be more reasonable to call them "semi-rigid" controls or something.
Soft control is most reasonably defined, broadly, as things that hinder enemy movement without impairing their ability to attack (immobilize, -jump, -fly, and -speed thus rightly belong in this category).
So to sum up... my opinion:
Hard control: hold and disorient. Hinders or negates the victim's mobility, and negates (not just hinders) their ability to attack.
Semi-Hard Control: sleep and fear. They negate mobility and attacks, like holds, until you damage the target.
Soft Control: Immobilize, -speed, -jump, -fly. Hinders mobility without hindering attacks.
What blurs the line is where powers have two or more aspects, such as -speed and -recharge. -speed can reasonably be called soft control. -recharge is a debuff.
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
[ QUOTE ]
While it's somewhat tangential to the question of "is a slow a control or a debuff", I think it can be used as evidence that its not critical to the function of Controllers that they be the best at slows, because of all the related "controlly" effects, its the one they specialize in the least.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was offering a possible suggestion as to why the devs originally set controllers to be stronger with slows than defenders (the -speed component being the controllerish half that was being synonymized with "slow" even though not all slows function totally that way), and also a counter-proposal that would make defenders always stronger at the recharge debuffing component of slows that have it.
The fact that that is being at least partially interpreted as possibly supporting the original statement that "controllers should be better at slow" is interesting meta-feedback.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Er...I don't see any way -acc can be called soft control. It has absolutely nothing to do with control whatsoever.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've seen a few controllers insist that debuffs are soft control that make defenders "too good" at control compared to controllers. One said to me that Tenebrous Tentacles + Darkest Night was just as good as an AoE hold, because the villains aren't actually hitting.
Note: I refer to the above argument as "weaseling," but hey.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
As others have already pointed out, thats not true. What we colloquially call "slow" is really sometimes -recharge, sometimes -movement, and sometimes both.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)