Im sure most of you have picked up on this already and its probably been mentioned somewhere in the 20 pages before this, but for those of you just tuning in maybe whats needed is an explanation of the powers system.
See, the Devs don't code powers for every AT. There isnt a 'defender version' and a 'controller version' of a power. Instead, they code up one power and give each AT modifiers to determine the powers effectiveness.
The simplest example would be something like a force field. There is only one force field power in the game code, not one for defenders, controllers, and masterminds. What happens is, each AT has a modifier for, say, defense (more likely its generalized into 'buffs'), so a player uses Deflection Shield, theres a call to the Deflection Shield power with their AT modifier. I believe Defenders have a 1.25 modifier for buffs (warning, may be pulling number out of rear), so when a Defender uses it, whatever base buff is in the Deflection Shield power code gets a 1.25 multiplier attached to it for being a Defender.
This explains how control powers in Defender secondaries can be more effective for Controllers. Controllers have a higher modifier for control effects then Defenders. A secondary is therefore not weaker then a primary 'across the board' and in fact the whole Secondary = (X%) of a Primary thing is just silly stupidity. Thats not how it works. Any power from any set with a control effect is more powerful in a Controller's hands then in a Defender's. Likewise, any buff from any set would be more powerful coming from a Defender, because thats what they specialize in.
Last example, everyone knows a blast set does more damage for Blasters then Defenders, right? This is because Blasters have a higher AT damage modifier then the Defenders. However, on the blasts that have secondary non-damage effects, like Electricity's end drain a Defender gets more out of the secondary effect, because Defenders have the highest AT buff modifier.
Or, at least, thats how I *think* the Powers System works. I could be wrong.
Sometimes the enemy is so swift and the path so treacherous that you can run no further.
It is then that you must turn and resolve to fight
and in all likelihood die horribly
but you never know when you are going to get lucky, so go for it!
- Captain Fwiffo
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. It's kind of like saying that damage is a form of soft control and therefore, everybody is 'too good' at control. After all, a dead villain isn't actually hitting.
Some people...
"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
[ 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 ]
Last example, everyone knows a blast set does more damage for Blasters then Defenders, right? This is because Blasters have a higher AT damage modifier then the Defenders. However, on the blasts that have secondary non-damage effects, like Electricity's end drain a Defender gets more out of the secondary effect, because Defenders have the highest AT buff modifier.
[/ QUOTE ]
This part is *sort of* how it is supposed to work, but because Defender Damage (buff/debuffed) was too close to Blaster full damage (and could even sometimes exceed it) the Defenders got downgraded beyond standard levels.
Still here, even after all this time!
Here's how I see it:
Control means I force a certain form of behaviour onto my target. Immobilize = Can't move. Disorient = Can't attack. Hold = Can neither move nor attack.
A DeBuff simply makes it harder for my target to behave in the fashion they would like to. Slow = Can move, but not as quickly. Accuracy DeBuff = Can attack, but is less likely to hit.
There is an obvious division between Slow and actual Controls. Note that Controls are always binary. You're never 'a bit Immobilized'. Either you are or you're not. Also note that DeBuffs are always capped. There is a Slow cap below which an enemy can never fall, no matter how many Slows I stack on them. Accuracy bottoms out at 5% and so on.
However, even with this definition, there remain two borderline cases with KB/D/U and Repel as they have aspects of both. These are the powers I'd classify as the actual 'Soft Control' powers.
"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
I've gotta say.... toss me into the pile of folks who just cannot see how either -speed or -recharge can sensibly be considered anything except "debuffs". To my mind, controls are "binary" effects. You're either hit with it fully or not at all. There isn't any fuzziness about degree of effect. You're held or you're not. You're disoriented or you're not. I can see an argument for KD being a "control". It can be resisted as a status effect. It obeys MAG rules. And you're either knocked down or you're not. But Slow??? Debuffs modify numbers. They don't prevent you from doing anything - they just make you worse at it. And that to me is Slow to a "T".
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you weren't kidding. Good to know.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Totally irrelevant to the point. What I said was that they conferred similar benefits, not that the mechanics are totally the same. That's a ridiculous straw man. 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 ]
[ 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 ]
Yes, I can.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're saying that you consider slows to be a form of damage debuff because they prevent foes from entering melee range? That would make immobilizes damage debuffs also, and a stronger one. And it would make damage a damage debuff also, since death is the ultimate debuff.
[ QUOTE ]
-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 ]
This suggests you have no idea what soft control means. Also, all an immobilize does is reduce movement rate to zero. Does that make immobilize a debuff also?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said slows were a status effect, so that's irrelevant. 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. Like, say, repel.
[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.)
Even though I'm guilty of it myself... I'm kinda amused that we've spent so much time and effort splitting hairs over whether or not -speed and -recharge count as control or debuff.
The basic gist of the original post seems to boil down to, "defenders will get a few bug fixes but really, you'll be better off if you just give up and roll controllers instead." It's the devs basically saying the same thing some of us were calling as far back as I3 - controllers are better at doing defenders' jobs and always have been.
And I can't believe that the devs will nerf other ATs to defender levels. The game would become so frustrating from mezzes alone that almost nobody would want to play.
So maybe we need some other way to get our point across. A mass deletion of level 50 defenders from us forum dwellers maybe? Pampleteering new defenders at Back Alley Brawler and Ms Liberty to tell them the truth about their AT? A forum strike? - nobody post here for a week? (Probably wouldn't even be noticed by the devs). I'm kinda kidding around with this all, because at this point I've given up. Might as well milk some dark humor from the situation.
But thanks to this thread I'll be adding this to my sig (linked to the first post): I wasted my time levelling a Defender to 50. Learn from my mistake and roll a Controller instead.
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
[ QUOTE ]
To my mind, controls are "binary" effects. You're either hit with it fully or not at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
But doesn't that mean that (for those of us that have been doing it) arguing that mez effects are "too binary" has been, in effect, totally nonsensical?
I understand the logic that something that "reduces" is debuff, and something that "eliminates" is mez; do we want to stick with that definition permanently?
[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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
To my mind, controls are "binary" effects. You're either hit with it fully or not at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
But doesn't that mean that (for those of us that have been doing it) arguing that mez effects are "too binary" has been, in effect, totally nonsensical?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. It just means that's the way the powers *as currently implemented* seem to me to most logically be differentiated. I'm no happier than you are with binary control. I find it a poor game mechanic on a lot of levels. But that's the game as currently written. And so decisions about whether Defender bonuses or Controller bonuses apply to a given effect in the current game ought to be made in that light.
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the logic that something that "reduces" is debuff, and something that "eliminates" is mez; do we want to stick with that definition permanently?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do we want to? It sure wouldn't be my preference. But are we likely to? Yes. In which case why differentiate "control" vs "debuff" via more complex definitions when the current game implementation already encapsulates a pretty clear one.
[ QUOTE ]
Even though I'm guilty of it myself... I'm kinda amused that we've spent so much time and effort splitting hairs over whether or not -speed and -recharge count as control or debuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
This started with the devs saying controllers are better at slows and me saying defenders should at least be better at -recharge since -recharge is obviously a debuff, and not a control, even though -speed can be argued to be a form of soft control. Somehow that got turned into me attempting to defend why -speed is even soft control at all, something that actually is not a critical element of my original point, which was that -recharge definitely *is* a debuff, and shouldn't be stronger for controllers than defenders.
And something that outside of this particular context, few would have even considered questioning (that -speed is a form of soft control).
Clearly, making controllers better at *all* slows is an error: I think everyone is in general agreement there. To be consistent, defender debuffs should be stronger than controller debuffs, and anything with -recharge is unquestionably a debuff. -Speed is a grey area, but I'm not sure its really a terribly important grey area: if the devs make defenders better at -recharge and controllers better at -speed, I doubt many would really complain, and if the devs made defenders better at both, controllers could simply ask for their -speed powers to be turned into immobilizes if the -speed in their powers dropped too low to be useful.
[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.)
Arcana - the reason it amuses me is because regardless of what happens to -recharge/-speed powers between the two ATs, the fundamental fact that according to Castle's post, defenders being a vastly inferior AT to controllers is, de facto, by design.
It's intended for controllers to use a large number of defender powers equally as, or more effectively than, defenders.
I've said before that I wished I had rolled a controller instead of a defender at release. The effect of Castle's post - while I appreciate him posting it and don't hold anything against him personally (quite the opposite I value the honesty) - is to make me wish that even harder.
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the logic that something that "reduces" is debuff, and something that "eliminates" is mez; do we want to stick with that definition permanently?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do we want to? It sure wouldn't be my preference. But are we likely to? Yes. In which case why differentiate "control" vs "debuff" via more complex definitions when the current game implementation already encapsulates a pretty clear one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its pretty clear, but not 100% clear. Just to play a minor devil's advocate for a moment, how would you classify -regen: it doesn't reduce, it stops. Special case? Lots of end drains also seem to (temporarily) stop end recovery, not slow it. Another special case?
Just to be clear: I consider both of these to be obvious debuffs. Its just that it appears that the rules for classifying a debuff do have some arbitrary twists, even in the current system.
[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 ]
Arcana - the reason it amuses me is because regardless of what happens to -recharge/-speed powers between the two ATs, the fundamental fact that according to Castle's post, defenders being a vastly inferior AT to controllers is, de facto, by design.
It's intended for controllers to use a large number of defender powers equally as, or more effectively than, defenders.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the latter, but not the former. I'm not saying it isn't true, necessarily, just that it isn't intentional. Consider the significant hoops that have to be jumped through to claim that force fields "might as well be" better for controllers than defenders. That isn't a straight-line argument.
What I mean is that arguments centered on individual powers are not likely to be convincing of the contention that controllers are in all respects better than defenders. It might take a significant amount of effort to convince the devs otherwise, but I honestly believe if you could construct a significantly convincing argument that *on the whole* controllers completely supercede defenders as a class, you could convince the devs to make a change. And Castle did indicate that the devs are seeing a piece of the problem:
[ QUOTE ]
As they should. Controllers are better at control type powers. The point you want to make here is that a Controller Secondary power is outperforming a Defender Primary power. We are aware of that and want to correct it at some point in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I read from that is that the devs have two imperatives here: controllers should be better at control powers than defenders, all things being equal, and primary powers should be more effective than secondary powers, all things being equal. It seems that the former has precedence over the latter, but the latter isn't being ignored: it just requires a solution that doesn't immediately reverse the former.
[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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even though I'm guilty of it myself... I'm kinda amused that we've spent so much time and effort splitting hairs over whether or not -speed and -recharge count as control or debuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
This started with the devs saying controllers are better at slows and me saying defenders should at least be better at -recharge since -recharge is obviously a debuff, and not a control, even though -speed can be argued to be a form of soft control. Somehow that got turned into me attempting to defend why -speed is even soft control at all, something that actually is not a critical element of my original point, which was that -recharge definitely *is* a debuff, and shouldn't be stronger for controllers than defenders.
And something that outside of this particular context, few would have even considered questioning (that -speed is a form of soft control).
Clearly, making controllers better at *all* slows is an error: I think everyone is in general agreement there. To be consistent, defender debuffs should be stronger than controller debuffs, and anything with -recharge is unquestionably a debuff. -Speed is a grey area, but I'm not sure its really a terribly important grey area: if the devs make defenders better at -recharge and controllers better at -speed, I doubt many would really complain, and if the devs made defenders better at both, controllers could simply ask for their -speed powers to be turned into immobilizes if the -speed in their powers dropped too low to be useful.
[/ QUOTE ]
As -speed movement does not really stop the enemy from attacking, it just hinders them, I disagree. It should be a debuff and Defenders should just be better at it.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the logic that something that "reduces" is debuff, and something that "eliminates" is mez; do we want to stick with that definition permanently?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do we want to? It sure wouldn't be my preference. But are we likely to? Yes. In which case why differentiate "control" vs "debuff" via more complex definitions when the current game implementation already encapsulates a pretty clear one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its pretty clear, but not 100% clear. Just to play a minor devil's advocate for a moment, how would you classify -regen: it doesn't reduce, it stops. Special case? Lots of end drains also seem to (temporarily) stop end recovery, not slow it. Another special case?
Just to be clear: I consider both of these to be obvious debuffs. Its just that it appears that the rules for classifying a debuff do have some arbitrary twists, even in the current system.
[/ QUOTE ]
BTW, -regen only slows AV and Monster regeneration. It takes multiple applications to "stop" regeneration.
Regular mobs just have a very low regeneration so it has a dramtic (and mostly unneeded) ability.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To my mind, controls are "binary" effects. You're either hit with it fully or not at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
But doesn't that mean that (for those of us that have been doing it) arguing that mez effects are "too binary" has been, in effect, totally nonsensical?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that you believe that to correct the "binary problem", they should be modified to be "less binary".
In fact, I think that, to correct the problem, they should simply be removed.
The top-end control powers are the least fun thing this game does to us short of one-shotting us. The game has slows (both kinds) and other debuffs (for lack of a consistent term I'm using this to refer to -movement of all sort) and the "less-rigid" control powers such as fear. Honestly, I think that's where it should have stopped. There are succesful examples of MMOs (including ones with massive PvP following) that show that all you need are such debuffs, degens and "soft" controls to have a challenging game. Hard control powers are not required.
Sadly, that cat is long, long out of the bag. The only way to put it back is to destroy an entire AT, and one that has many dedicatated players. What would, IMO, be good for the game would be massively unfair to them, so there's no question in my mind that that cannot and should not happen.
But migrating "hard" controls into "soft" ones (making immobilizes into -speed and holds into -recharge, for example) would, IMO, unacceptably erode the role of another AT, or at the very least certain powersets within one. That's not acceptable to me either, certainly in no small part because it would risk a knock-on effect affecting one of the characters I am most proud of.
Ensuring a roll for Controllers must not entail weakening the one for Defenders.
The devs have long maintained that they think Defenders were the most balanced AT aftter realease, and I strongly agree with them. Unfortunately, they have screwed around with the game immensely in an effort to "fix" all the other ATs, and in what I consider typical fashion, they have been all but blind to the collateral affects of those changes. Defenders are no longer well balanced in respect to the rest of the game. Absolutely every other AT has moved from its initial postion relative to the others. And of course all of them moved relative to the environment thanks to I5+ED. By leaving Defenders where they were, they are now beginning to no longer fill the role they originally were created to fill.
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 ]
The devs have long maintained that they think Defenders were the most balanced AT aftter realease, and I strongly agree with them. Unfortunately, they have screwed around with the game immensely in an effort to "fix" all the other ATs, and in what I consider typical fashion, they have been all but blind to the collateral affects of those changes. Defenders are no longer well balanced in respect to the rest of the game. Absolutely every other AT has moved from its initial postion relative to the others. And of course all of them moved relative to the environment thanks to I5+ED. By leaving Defenders where they were, they are now beginning to no longer fill the role they originally were created to fill.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I think that all in all that the developers are fairly happy with the ATs now, it's for the wrong reasons.
Basically, from what I can tell, Defenders are built on 125% debuffs, 66% damage and 100% mezzing and self buffs. You get some skewed numbers because of this.
Basically, they are happy with the most *gimped* AT for balance. That must mean they actually feel that every other AT is overpowered by their own numbers.
I really don't see how they are going to "fix" this issue myself.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
And Castle did indicate that the devs are seeing a piece of the problem:
[ QUOTE ]
As they should. Controllers are better at control type powers. The point you want to make here is that a Controller Secondary power is outperforming a Defender Primary power. We are aware of that and want to correct it at some point in the future.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I read from that is that the devs have two imperatives here: controllers should be better at control powers than defenders, all things being equal, and primary powers should be more effective than secondary powers, all things being equal. It seems that the former has precedence over the latter, but the latter isn't being ignored: it just requires a solution that doesn't immediately reverse the former.
[/ QUOTE ]
The equatable solution would seem to me to ensure that a power set that is used as both a primary and secondary is stacked so that most of its powers play to the strengths of the AT for whom it is a primary. Further I would argue that all of the powers should have at least some significant effect that favors the primary AT. In general I think that is what the devs have tried to do, but when it comes to some of the Defender sets they seem to have clearly screwed it up*. The thread outlining the impacted powers shows that at least 3 sets have a majority of powers that favor the secondary user over the primary and a couple more that have 1/3 of their powers impacted.
*Actually, I thought about this a bit more and that's not really fair. I think what they tried to do was to develop a couple of "hybrid" power sets like Dark and TA which I think is a great idea. The problem is that having developed these they don't seem to know what to do with them in light of the imperitives that you outline. They get a bit like NOMAD on Trek and keep waffling back and forth until we end up with the complete mess that is Trick Arrow. Anyway, back to the rest of the post already in progress...
Of course at this point we aren't going to get a major rework of the power sets, so what we are left with is splitting hairs and fighting over scraps.
What I'd like to see is a reworking of Defenders and Controlers with much less overlap, more emphasis on soft and/or analog control vs. binary control, and math that makes debuffs actually worth something in the face of enhanced powers. What we get are a statement that the overlaps are intentional, break frees, and a statement that the combat engine can't be touched. Given this I think it is at least understandable that if there is a grey area between debuff and control, the defender community would prefer to see things fudged in our favor for once.
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, they are happy with the most *gimped* AT for balance. That must mean they actually feel that every other AT is overpowered by their own numbers.
I really don't see how they are going to "fix" this issue myself.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure we know the devs are happy with the power level of Defenders (but I think we can all agree that buffing them is not high on their priorities). I know I'm sure not convinced Defender damage needs to be as low as it is. Should it be lower than Blasters? Definitely. That much lower? I don't see it.
When I say I think Defenders were the most balanced AT out of the gate, I am refering to their functionality. With the possible exception of Force Field, which has long had a stigma as a one-trick-pony, all of the Defender powersets provided an excellent set of diverse tools. Some were useful solo, some were useful on a team, and some could switch hit. But they were all useful, and they were all powerfully unique. No one fails to grasp how different it is to have a Defender of a given primary added to the team as opposed to one of a different primary. But with rare exception (often born of ignorance) all of them bring powerful utility to that team. In this regard I consider them unique among ATs, because it usually doesn't matter what kind of Blaster or Scrapper or Tanker you get barring that you get one that is especially gimpy. But it can matter a great deal what Defender you get. I oversimplify, certainly, but I think there is a great deal of truth to what I say.
And I think that that is an example in success in balance in an AT. Not neccessarily anything else we know about them, such as their damage scale, or that Controllers get their primaries as a secondary.
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 ]
Consider the significant hoops that have to be jumped through to claim that force fields "might as well be" better for controllers than defenders. That isn't a straight-line argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, it's a very straight-line argument.
(1) Controllers always control better than Defenders, regardless of whether a power comes from primary or secondary.
(2) Thus, five of the nine FF powers function, in the hands of a Controller, as well as or better than they do in the hands of a Defender.
(3) A Defender has access to marginally superior +def buffs through the other four FF powers.
(4) However, despite the marginal superiority of the Defender's buffs, the Controller provides better overall damage mitigation through his marginally inferior buffs plus his superior controls.
No hoop-jumping required. If I wanted to nail the coffin closed even more convincingly I could mention that with Containment active, the Controller outdamages the FF Defender, too.
The bottom line here is that this:
[ QUOTE ]
controllers should be better at control powers than defenders, all things being equal
[/ 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. The idea that Controllers will sometimes get more mileage out of a power than a Defender, even though it's in their secondary but the Defender's primary, is completely out of left field and makes absolutely no sense.
[ 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 ]
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 ]
AT modifiers are good...Primary/Secondary modifiers...not so good...imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really see anything to respond to, here, Mieux. The devs expressly repudiated a free form, AT- and Origin-oriented, system that you and Arcana are essentially advocating for before the game was out of beta. 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.
Besides which, as a practical matter nobody really gives a crap that Mieux the Defender is the Supreme Grand Poobah of Buffs and Debuffs. They're interested in two things: damage, and damage mitigation. Buffs and debuffs are just a means to the latter end. If every other CoH AT provides superior damage, and Controllers (through a combination of superior control and almost-as-good buffs and debuffs) provide superior damage mitigation, then why play a Defender at all, except as a concept? And why invite one to team at all, except out of pity?
Eventually the devs/_Castle_ may make a pronouncement on -speed. What do you think -fly, -jump, and -tp qualify as? Are they controls or debuffs?
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.