[ QUOTE ]
Props to you for addressing an unpleasant issue and hopefully putting it to utterly, completely, finally to bed forever.
You've done a lot of good work and youve been a great addition to the Dev postings in the CoX forums.
I sincerely hope that posts which contain language like the most disheartening developer post, lack of an apology, appalling absence of manners, does not excuse etc, etc, etc, do not reduce your spirits or wear you down.
I cant apologize for other posters, but unfortunately some people cannot let go of an issue even when the issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of the original problem. Unfortunately, there appear to exemplary, sainted people who have never, ever make even a single mistake walking among us and unfortunately those people dont seem to realize that other more ordinary, more mortal, actually human people can actually make a slip every now and then. Unfortunately events which are subject to interpretation are often taken in the most negative light possible. And unfortunately people can be a lot more acidic on message boards then they would be in real life. Things which should just be dropped arent.
Please do not let these goings on bring you down or change your posting habits in any way shape or form.
You and the good work you do is sincerely appreciated.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am really hoping for more powersets to be available to both CoV and CoH that are now only in one game. All the Corruptor secondaries for defenders. Some of them for controllers. And the new electric brute set for tanks. A few more blast sets for defenders would be nice as well.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
This argument is sound.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
You have me so far.
[ QUOTE ]
(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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stop.
Two problems already. First, without any further comment, if controllers are better or equal in five of nine, then defenders are by your own admission unequivocally better in four of nine. If even one of the five of nine is close to equal, this is not a strong statement at all.
Second, the number is not self-evident to me either. Of the nine FF powers, I'd say that:
PFF: defender better
DS: defender better
FB: questionable, arguably equal
IS: defender better
DF: questionable, default to controller
DB: defender better
RF: controller better
RB: controller better
FB: arguably equal
There is absolutely no question that PFF, DS, IS, and DB are better for defenders, which I'm assuming are the four you don't include. But it would be difficult to make a case that FB is in favor of controllers: knockback distance is not terribly relevant to the damage mitigation of KB in general. It would also be difficult to make a strong case for force bubble being significantly in favor of controllers, since it has a defense component.
You can argue the points, but you cannot suggest that the numbers are obvious.
[ QUOTE ]
(3) A Defender has access to marginally superior +def buffs through the other four FF powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Define "marginal." My estimates suggest that controller bubbles admit something between 30% and 100% more damage than defender bubbles, depending on situation.
[ QUOTE ]
(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.
[/ QUOTE ]
But this has nothing to do with the force field set. And its also not universally accurate. Many defender secondaries have significant damage mitigation in them, such as dark and psi. Meanwhile the damage mitigation in a set like illusion isn't necessarily consistently superior.
For this argument to work, you have to believe that the significantly higher defense numbers in FF for defenders is basically immaterial, even though the numbers strongly suggest otherwise, that the other control-oriented powers in FF are all strongly weighted in controller's favor, even though thats not easily demonstrable, and then above that you have to amplify with synergy problems. I consider that quite a few hoops, actually, especially since ignoring the defense numbers and sidestepping knockback mechanics are already two that won't slide past me easily.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Containment certainly helps controller damage, but that's not strictly speaking relevant to whether or not the controller FF set outperforms the defender FF set.
[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 ]
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 ]
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 ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now I've lost track of what side I'm on.
But I'm not advocating: advocating would imply I was in favor of a change, or promoting an option. I'm not. I'm stating that the devs have, as far back as I can track, designed and balanced the game based on AT balance, not power set pri/sec balance. And far from moving away from AT-oriented balance, like you suggest, they have only consistently reinforced it. Their record on pri>sec is much more spotty, and if the past is any suggestion, its obvious that that rule of thumb does not supercede AT distinctions (such as controller control > defender control, or defender buff > controller buff).
The devs have never accepted the pri/sec argument *alone* as a reason to change something; there are always AT-specific concerns that usually are equal or overriding. For example, they've never bought the argument that is periodically brought up that scrapper melee attacks should be stronger than blaster melee attacks just because blaster melee is in a secondary set and scrapper melee is in a primary set. Blaster melee isn't balanced against scrapper melee; scrapper melee is irrelevant. Blaster melee is balanced against blaster defense: clearly an indication that internal AT issues override pri/sec comparisons. On the other hand, they did buy the notion that defender end drain should be higher than blaster end drain, even though the electric blast set is a blaster primary and a defender secondary. The notion that there were extenuating circumstances doesn't mesh with the fact that the devs suggested that that was the primary, possibly sole justification for altering end drain as they did.
In every case where AT concerns were in direct opposition to the pri/sec rule, AT concerns came first. This is nothing new. Need more examples? Tanker taunt vs scrapper taunt. Scrapper taunt is in the primary, tanker taunt is in the secondary. But AT concerns come first: tanker taunt is designed to be more effective than scrapper taunt.
[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 ]
Posted by Castle on January 31 on this thread
Charged Bolts is a bit over twice the Activation time of Dark Blast. Mental Blast is ~25% longer Activation Time than Charged Bolts. All do the same base damage. Mental Blast, however, does Psionic damage, which is among the hardest to defend against in the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Posted by Castle on February 1 on the blaster board
The first is a tremendous amount of work, which should probably be done at some point. I'd guess it would take me a full 5 weeks to do. The second requires new design, new code and would probably mean a direct nerf to all Negative Energy, Fire, and Cold attacks, since those resistance types are less common than Smashing, Lethal, Energy and Psionic.
[/ QUOTE ]
As the second post shows, Castle is now placing psionics in the same category as Smashing and Lethal.
Castle, if you read this, please tell me that this was not a mistake and you looked into the arguments and see that many of us were right and that psionics is a very highly resisted damage type in the game. Cause if this is the case, then psionic base damage should no longer be used as a reason for not boosting some of Psychic Blasts powers to the level they should actually be in regards to balance.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Posted by Castle on January 31 on this thread
Charged Bolts is a bit over twice the Activation time of Dark Blast. Mental Blast is ~25% longer Activation Time than Charged Bolts. All do the same base damage. Mental Blast, however, does Psionic damage, which is among the hardest to defend against in the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Posted by Castle on February 1 on the blaster board
The first is a tremendous amount of work, which should probably be done at some point. I'd guess it would take me a full 5 weeks to do. The second requires new design, new code and would probably mean a direct nerf to all Negative Energy, Fire, and Cold attacks, since those resistance types are less common than Smashing, Lethal, Energy and Psionic.
[/ QUOTE ]
As the second post shows, Castle is now placing psionics in the same category as Smashing and Lethal.
Castle, if you read this, please tell me that this was not a mistake and you looked into the arguments and see that many of us were right and that psionics is a very highly resisted damage type in the game. Cause if this is the case, then psionic base damage should no longer be used as a reason for not boosting some of Psychic Blast’s powers to the level they should actually be in regards to balance.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, its possible Castle was thinking about two different things in those two quotes. The second comment clearly indicates Castle believes that psionic resistance is common in critters - the quote specifically is in reference to critters.
But the first quote is interesting because of wording: "which is among the hardest to defend against in the game." No critter finds it either "easy" or "hard" to defend against psi: critters either have, or don't have, psi defense or resistance. Its *players* who find it "hard" - they are the only ones making build decisions. I'm wondering if Castle was thinking critters in quote 2, and PvP combat in quote 1.
[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 ]
I'm wondering if Castle was thinking critters in quote 2, and PvP combat in quote 1.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope not. I do not think the majority of people actually do pvp and hurting them in regards to pve just because it helps some in pvp would be unfair.
[ QUOTE ]
It would also be difficult to make a strong case for force bubble being significantly in favor of controllers, since it has a defense component.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, there's no defense component. Force bubble does two things: repel with a small / tiny chance to knock affected mobs down. There's a ghetto damage debuff in making mobs switch from melee to ranged attacks, but this argument holds for all KB / repel powers.
FB is, however, a superior power for someone with pets since the pets will soak up some of the aggro that would otherwise be directed at the bubbler. I've heard of MMs who can make wickedly good use of the power because they can deliberately set their pets up as aggro sponges.
FB and force bolt, and to a lesser extent repulsion bomb, can also be used to ram mobs into a controller's AoE effects like ice patch -- a case where the seoncdary reinforces the primary.
Force bubble is undoubtedly superior for a set with pets (see _Castle_'s comment about finding someone with taunt), but not necessarilly superior for all controllers.
[ QUOTE ]
It would also be difficult to make a strong case for force bubble being significantly in favor of controllers, since it has a defense component.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just a comment here... Force Bubble has *no* defense component *whatsoever*. It does Repel with a very small percentage chance of Knockdown. That's it. Nothing else. For long while the text *said* that it included a to-hit debuff as well, but that was removed in *Beta*.
This is actually one of the big complaints with the power. It draws a lot of aggro without effectively mitigating the incoming damage to the defender. Sure most of it will be ranged. Most of it will *also* now be concentrated on the least-defended member of the team rather than distributed. And the extreme range to which it pushes mobs and its unlimited effect means that in any large team it can easily draw more aggro than any other power in the I6 world. Heck. I would *love* the power on a Granite tank....
[ QUOTE ]
Containment certainly helps controller damage, but that's not strictly speaking relevant to whether or not the controller FF set outperforms the defender FF set.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is in that as one of the unlucky Defender sets with no offense boosting capabilities FF has less to distance it from equivalent Controller damage. Radiation can (ostensibly) rely on a stronger AM and a stronger EF to increase its offensive prowess relative to a Rad Controller. An FF Defender has no such additional counter to containment.
Clearly the Devs believe the "greater damage" of Force Bolt and Repulsion Bomb to be a meaningful difference (even though the base damage for both is trivial). This would imply that "greater damage" is supposed to be one of a Defender's advantages. For Defenders with no offense boosting primary powers it is very questionable how true this is. Given how *unquestionable* is a Controller's superiority at controlling even relative to the Defender's superiority at buffing/debuffing... I would think that for the relative damage capacity of the two ATs to even be arguable is problematic. Either Defenders need to be as much better at buff/debuff as Controllers are at Control - i.e. qualitatively as well as quantitatively, unquestionably better at offense across all powersets, or Defenders need to be penalized much less heavily in the Control department relative to Controllers.
[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is untrue.
Secondary effects/debuffs work BETTER for Defenders than for Blasters. Granted, most Blaster-shared Blasts don't have a secondary effect that can be changed in value, but it's visible in Electric Blast.
Scrapper primaries are stronger at damage than Tanker secondaries. However, in general, Tanker secondaries provide more inherent crowd control while Scrappers provide more debuffs. That's another secondary being better at a (specific) thing than comparable primaries.
Doesn't seem wrong or unbalanced. Only problems are mistakes (Defender FR getting switched with Controller FR), and powers which are not multipurpose (Thunderclap) so that they don't have a purpose which works better for Defenders than for Controllers.
But the concept of having some aspects work better for Controllers is not inherently wrong. It's just applied poorly for a few powers. And that seems to be a case of "pure control powers don't work that well for Defenders". Simple solution is to insert debuffs even in all pure control powers like Thunderclap.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
I would actually agree with this. I think the Defender's problem is simply that their declared "speciality" is not nearly common enough in their own powersets. It rarely consititutes more than half the powers in their primary sets, and its impact on the secondary sets is largely unnoticeable because the base values are so low. And far more effort has been sunk into making Controllers unquestionably the masters of Control than into enforcing any such mastery of buff/debuff for Defenders. Possible fixes?
1) Defender buffs/debuffs last longer than anybody elses in addition to being quantitatively stronger. Problem: This would do very little for some sets (like FF) unless a way were implemented to make mobs take longer to get up after a Defender knocked them down. Then again since KD is almost more a "control" than a "debuff" it may not even be applicable.
2) Accept that one of a Defender's roles is "soft control" and let Defenders have a bonus to such powers as slows, Immobs, KB, Repel, etc. "Hard controls" like Disorient and Hold are obviously Controller turf, but this is such a strong bailywick there is no reason for them to need a strong advantage over Defenders at other forms of control.
3) Allow Defenders to be "second-best" at control - giving them say half the Controller control bonus. Controllers are clearly the second-best buff/debuffers. Note that they get half the "AT bonus" to leadership powers that Defenders receive. And AT overlap is already extreme. Why should Defenders not intrude on their turf as much as they intrude on Defenders'?
4) Allow Defenders low-level self-status protection. I know. It will never happen. But it would suddenly give Defenders a concrete, useful, meaningful edge in both PvE and PvP. Look at how ubiquitous IM is among Controllers even since it became non-perma. It would make them more effective at their primary purposes. And their damage is low enough that there is little danger of Defenders suddenly acheiving tank-mage status.
5) Substantially increase the debuff values and/or durations of defender blasts. Problem: What to do with Archery and Energy? Increased KB distance on Energy would be of questionable utility, and increased KB chance would actually be detrimental as often as it would be advantageous.
I respect your arguments in many other areas, Arcanaville, but I honestly wonder if you know what you're talking about here. The clearest proof is this:
[ QUOTE ]
FB: questionable, arguably equal
[/ QUOTE ]
Force bolt is *not* a damage power; and moreover, for any damage power in the defender primary, controllers will typically outdamage defenders with it. My /ff controller, when fulcrum shifted to the damage cap, does 12 damage or so with force bolt. (That's not a typo; I mean twelve points of damage). I'm assuming a defender would do 15 points of damage or so, then, or some similar multiple of 12. However, I use it after I blind them -- so I really do 12+12=24 points of damage, exceeding defenders. See how carefully _Castle_ had to phrase his statement to try to make it sound balanced?
Anybody who says that force bolt is better for defenders had better actually present that argument; it's a laughable claim otherwise. And others have pointed out your mistake re force bubble.
The argument that is being made is very straightforward. The proofs for each lemma may be a bit problematic, but the overall argument is clear (and the lemmata you quibble at are incredibly plausible -- you can quibble that back-of-the-envelope calculations aren't exact, but they're pretty darn good at getting the idea across).
Task Forces shouldn't need 8 people to start ... it's not fun.
I'll put it another way for Arcanaville.
Straight up, even on powers where supposedly defenders have an advantage, my controllers can typicaly get better synergy with their primary useing my primary as a secondary and thus are qualitatively better at useing the power even if they are quantitatively worse.
A good example of this would be as burningchick mentioned, A force bubbled controller useing his pets to mitigate agro. A fire Controller who can stack Smoke and Flash Arrow to produce a debuffed accuracy about as good as hurricane and debuff perception tremendously. Ice, Earth, and Fire controllers can all make great use out of the Storm defender powers due to their ability to controll the chaos that a defender doesn't get via Knockback, immobilize, and slows.
Just having a pet allows controllers to use Defender powers to greater effect than any defender could. Speed Boosted Singularity, Animated Stone, Imps, or Phantasm. Or any other buff other power.
In other words, the AT role of the defender being a force multiplier is a joke with the advantage that controller have over defenders useing the defenders own primary. The numbers show that defenders have some advantages over controllers, but those advantages become pointless when one considers how well controller primary powers combine with the defender powers. Someone was talking about how there was a lack of synergy between controller primaries and their secondaries and I just couldn't believe what I was reading. I don't think the word synergy means what they think it means.
Now, after looking at some of he qualitative advantages that controllers have over defenders, the developers fealt it necessary to nerf defender powers that could also controll, I am referring specificaly to Ice Arrow and Petrifying Gaze. Controllers already had the advantage quantitatively, so why did the developers have to nerf the power for defenders?
That is why many of us are calling for buffs to the defender lines of powers. Simply because the developers have given us the shaft in regards to controllers and our role as Force Multipliers. The only time where defenders shine as force multipliers over defenders is in the 1-30 levels. Which is basicaly the first 1/4 of the game. The last 3/4s of the game belong to the controllers.
Defenders need a qualitative boost of some kind. Vigilance wasn't the boost that defenders needed. The inherant would have been a really good time to really make defenders all about buffing and debuffing by applying a boosting modifier to them in some way letting them do their job better but that didn't happen.
At some point someone will mention that I am specificaly speaking about the late game and that in the early game, controllers don't have all the powers that defenders do as early as defenders do. This is a weak arguement because the developers have consistantly balanced the game for the top end in both PvE and especially in PvP.
Why not apply a small 'inherent debuff' to the Defender version of each powerset's offensive powers? I'm sure Force Fielders would love it if they could get, say, 25% -dmg on an enemy. Kineticists with a heavy -recharge debuff on EVERYTHING wouldn't mind the extra survivability, particularly on powers like Transfusion. Radiant Aura and such could certainly take a small +dmg to them.
It might close the gap. Might even justify dropping the defender modifier to controls, if necessary for balance. I know I'd be willing to give up a three seconds of disorient on Repulsion Bomb for - 20% damage. I know I'd be willing to give up a couple seconds on ThunderClap in exchange for ten points of Endurance Drain.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is untrue.
Secondary effects/debuffs work BETTER for Defenders than for Blasters. Granted, most Blaster-shared Blasts don't have a secondary effect that can be changed in value, but it's visible in Electric Blast.
Scrapper primaries are stronger at damage than Tanker secondaries. However, in general, Tanker secondaries provide more inherent crowd control while Scrappers provide more debuffs. That's another secondary being better at a (specific) thing than comparable primaries.
Doesn't seem wrong or unbalanced. Only problems are mistakes (Defender FR getting switched with Controller FR), and powers which are not multipurpose (Thunderclap) so that they don't have a purpose which works better for Defenders than for Controllers.
But the concept of having some aspects work better for Controllers is not inherently wrong. It's just applied poorly for a few powers. And that seems to be a case of "pure control powers don't work that well for Defenders". Simple solution is to insert debuffs even in all pure control powers like Thunderclap.
[/ QUOTE ]
Said much better than I ever could of and sums up my feelings about this thread as well. The idea of Controllers being better at control and Defenders being better at buff/debuff/dmg, regardless of whether a power is in the primary or secondary, is not a problem in and of itself. Taken in isolation it's quite logical. The problem is in the execution, the fact that certain powers provide little meaningful benefit for Defenders over Controllers. And I suspect that most people would even be ok with that if it weren't for the fact that certain whole powersets seem to function better for Controllers than Defenders.
Don't you dare apologize, Castle. You signed on the forums as the Stalker rep, and have since then become perhaps the most up front, honest, and community-friendly developer we have. If the worst that can be said is that your responses don't include apologizing all over yourself for not paying close attention to a problem that people other than yourself made in the first place, then I'll take that, and a second helping please.
For those reading this thread that don't remember when Castle started on this, the man did this research into Defender issues while on his lunch break at work. LUNCH BREAK, PEOPLE! Not only is he up front, but the guy produced more results for the community while eating a sandwich than others had with hours of paid time! And while no, the developers don't owe us explanations far various things, not while they're doing their job, the fact that one would take his free time to do it for us anyway is truly kind and generous.
No apologies, man. We owe you, not the other way around.
-M
Marut, 50 FF/Rad/Power Defender - Champion
Leader of The Earthguard
Leader of The Galactic Empire
That, and that alone worries me. That a Dev regardless of his supposed job on his OWN FREE TIME does more gamefixes then the monkeys typeing away is a real indication of the game.
Either extend castle's lunchbreak folks, or fire a Dev to sharpen the rest up. Seriously.. if the man can even apologize for a situation he himself had no hand in doing just to close the case on one moldy old corpse then he deserves paid 3 hour lunches. If he can work on defender issues when the man is assigned to a whole other area of game work, then he needs 5 hour paid lunches. If he keeps doing this he deserves someone elses job and pay in compensation.
Hope to gawd Castle can keep on trucking like this on his lunches, imagine the game if he did this when he was on the clock. MMmm the possiabilities boggle the mind 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is untrue.
Secondary effects/debuffs work BETTER for Defenders than for Blasters. Granted, most Blaster-shared Blasts don't have a secondary effect that can be changed in value, but it's visible in Electric Blast.
[/ QUOTE ]
I forgot about that. You're talking about the boost in end drain that Defenders got for the /Elec blasts I assume right? I think that came in I5 or I6. To me, that kind of confuses things.
You have to wonder if the devs just like to complicate things. Wouldn't it just be easier to say give Defenders the Blaster powers at 65% across the board for both damage and secondary effects? Want to know the damage of a shared power? Easy, 65%. Want to know the secondary effect of a shared power? Easy, 65%. If they see a problem with balance AFTER doing that then it could be addressed but why make it more confusing than it needs to be? 
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
* PvP: Trick Arrow/Archery proves very ineffective in PvP, unable to kill a detoggled and unmoving Regen scrapper.
Regen Scrappers are very difficult to kill for low damage characters. I *was* able to kill one, but it took several minutes, which is a highly unlikely "real"-world situation. This is a more general concern than just with Archery, but it is most visible here. No solution I can discuss, yet.
[/ QUOTE ]
uh oh
poor regens!
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
* Balance: Mental Blast does little damage for its animation time. It costs more end, does the same damage, and has 150% of the animation time of charged bolts. It is 1/3 the dpa of Dark Blast for the same cost. Its animation time should be reduced significantly.(LadyMage)
Charged Bolts is a bit over twice the Activation time of Dark Blast. Mental Blast is ~25% longer Activation Time than Charged Bolts. All do the same base damage. Mental Blast, however, does Psionic damage, which is among the hardest to defend against in the game. Mental Blast also has a 25% longer Max Range compared to the other two sets. Is this 100% balanced? Possibly not, but we don't want to simply make every power a complete clone of another.
[/ QUOTE ]
i completely agree with NOT making every power the same, jsut with a diff colored animation.. however.. its clear that mental blast just SUCKS compared to the others.. even discounting the dmg(it IS psi after all)
perhaps a 10% chance to disorient at mag 1 for 5 seconds?, or increase its -recharge to be more noticeable than other psi attacks?
[ QUOTE ]
* Balance: There is only one villian group which has vulnerabilities to psi damage and it's only in the early game when the set is weakest. By the time the set can actually do damage, most villian groups (nemesis, praetorians, Council, Carnies, Malta just to list a few) are not only not vulnerable, but have a high precentage of members with either sizable resists or defense to the entire set, save telekinetic blast, making the set feel underpowered throughout the game. (LadyMage)
While few enemies are especially vunlerable to Mental attacks, comparatively few have defense against it, either.
[/ QUOTE ]
so clockwork, and cot ghosts... i do more dmg to them.. anyone else? can we get a list of people we do MORE and people we do LESS dmg to, so we can see for ourselves how BALANCED this is 
no? i didnt think so.
thru a toons lifetime, i cant imagine psi doing anymore than 1/3 total dmg to mobs than the other sets
youd have to fight nothing but clockwork and cot to feel that this PSI ISNT DEFENDED SO ITS LOWER DMG argument holds water.
no one NEEDS psi dmg res... its low dmg already.. its UNIVERSALLY RESISTED!
oh.. cept for clockwork and cot ghosts... balanced?
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you dare apologize, Castle. You signed on the forums as the Stalker rep, and have since then become perhaps the most up front, honest, and community-friendly developer we have. If the worst that can be said is that your responses don't include apologizing all over yourself for not paying close attention to a problem that people other than yourself made in the first place, then I'll take that, and a second helping please.
For those reading this thread that don't remember when Castle started on this, the man did this research into Defender issues while on his lunch break at work. LUNCH BREAK, PEOPLE! Not only is he up front, but the guy produced more results for the community while eating a sandwich than others had with hours of paid time! And while no, the developers don't owe us explanations far various things, not while they're doing their job, the fact that one would take his free time to do it for us anyway is truly kind and generous.
No apologies, man. We owe you, not the other way around.
-M
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh no. That is only half the story. The apology was definately deserved regardless of what he does on his lunch hour. The apology doesn't really have to come from anyone in particular since so many developers got their noses dirty on the issue, it could have been just a general apology from the developers. That would have been great and settled the issue.
If you want to know why some people were so peeved about it, it is because the power was nerfed once and even after it was posted with proof, and screenshots back 4 months after release if I remember correctly showing that it was nerfed, nothing was done. No comment other than the developers saying that it hadn't been nerfed. Only, it had been nerfed.
Then they came out and did it a second time. Again proof went up showing that it was nerfed. The response came back that we had claimed this several times and that the effect hadn't been nerfed. The proof gets shoved in their face by a community that got pushed too far once too often. Then they fess up and admit that it had been nerfed. That one power. Specificaly. No apology was given in regards to the way in which the players were told that they were basicaly wrong and making up the claim. It was the worst dev to player communication that I can remember.
So, his apology is accepted but I will never look at a developer saying "working as intended" the same way again. Working as intended does not mean that it is working correctly it seems from past experience.
Thus, when I hear Castle say that powers are working as designed, I have effectively heard "We don't see anything wrong here". Which doesn't mean a whole lot to me if I do see something wrong. It just means that the developers are not going to address an issue brought before them in a manner that I would like, nothing new about that and the game continues for better or worse.
In regards to him working on his Lunch Break, that is an issue he should take up with his superiors. He should get paid for work rendered unless he is salary, then it doesn't really matter if he works on his lunch break.
Let it never be forgotten that the developers actually owe us, they owe us alot. If we didn't pay and play this game, it wouldn't continue. If we the market was not here, this game would have never been gotten financial capital. We are the reason this game is here in the form it is in. We are the reason they have their current jobs. Last but not least, they owe the people who have the patience to test their game and that even after being told that they are wrong, to have the fortitude to try and show the developer that they are in fact mistaken. That is a dedicated player. The developers should and do appreciate them although you don't always see all the ways that they appreciate some of the more dedicated members of this community.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is untrue.
Secondary effects/debuffs work BETTER for Defenders than for Blasters. Granted, most Blaster-shared Blasts don't have a secondary effect that can be changed in value, but it's visible in Electric Blast.
[/ QUOTE ]
I forgot about that. You're talking about the boost in end drain that Defenders got for the /Elec blasts I assume right? I think that came in I5 or I6. To me, that kind of confuses things.
You have to wonder if the devs just like to complicate things. Wouldn't it just be easier to say give Defenders the Blaster powers at 65% across the board for both damage and secondary effects? Want to know the damage of a shared power? Easy, 65%. Want to know the secondary effect of a shared power? Easy, 65%. If they see a problem with balance AFTER doing that then it could be addressed but why make it more confusing than it needs to be?
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that Defender secondaries are 66% damage 125% buffs/debuffs, while Blasters are 125% damage and 100% buffs/debuffs.
And the secondary debuff/buff effect can be largely ignored on top of this.
The few powers that are debuff/buff in nature are usually only 2 out of 9 powers, where as the damage of the blast sets is usually 7 out of 9.
Defenders being better out of 2 powers by 25% would not be unbalanced. It even fits the "better at buffing/debuffing" credo versus damage.
At least until you remember that blasters are almost *twice* as good at damage as a defender. Even with a 30% increase with a -damage resistance debuff, that only gets *some* defender up to 81.25% of a blasters 125%.
To protect Blasters damage, Defender's own secondary damage role was made a joke.
Post level 38, Defender become the low damage AT behind everyone. The decision to buff Controller damage with containment sounded like a good idea. 50% really was too low, but 50% x2 is suddenly 100% base damage, that several of the controller secondaries all them to buff too by 24%.
Suddenly, the *LOWEST* damage AT is now doing almost blaster's 125% damage.
And the non-damage buffing Defenders are now doing about 1/2 the damage of everyone else.
No wonder Force Field Defender feel like they are getting the shaft.
That's because they are.
Still here, even after all this time!
I haven't read this entire thread, just selected parts of it, so I don't know if someone might have brought up this thought already. But before I do that, thanks to _Castle_ for spending his time addressing Defender issues.
Ok, that said, I smell a double standard grinding we Defenders down.
On the one hand, we have Controllers, who are supposed to be better than us at controlling, so their version of our powers are better than ours.
On the other hand, we have Blasters, who are supposed to be better than us at blasting, so their version of our powers are better than ours. This is especially true since our buff/debuff powers were found to be too good even with 75% of blaster power, so we got further nerfed some time back.
Well, once you grind away the blasterish and controllerish parts of our AT, you have -- well, a bit of healing, certain buffs, and certain debuffs. Oh, and we have an intrinsic that helps us use our powers, gimped or not, on those occasions that disaster occurs.
Hardly a surprise that people like Empaths and Rad so much. They do buffs, debuffs, and heals -- they're not gimped too bad!
I love/loved playing my Storm/Elec to 50, and genuinely enjoyed the experience. But I hate game "balance" by feel because this kind of double standard garbage pops up.
Set a numerical standard and follow it. Evaluate the quality of the standard sometimes. What I mean is have values for power properties, add them up, and when a power set is done being totaled up, the sum value of a power at a given level should be within a certain threshhold. If later on, you see that an "advantage" is too weak or two strong, you rerate that power aspect and recalcuate, then make changes.
To pull an example out of my ***, let's take a simple power and rate it. Say, charged bolt. CB has certain properties: base damage, energy damage type, ranged attack, END drain/recovery, and a very average recharge rate.
Now, rate each of these on their stand-alone usefulness. A 1 is a "barely useful and a 10 is an "awesome".
The brawl index is 2.78 (for blasters -- comparable to power bolt & ice bolt), which is average for a level 1 power, so it gets a value of 5 on a 1-10 scale. That would be a 5 * .67 = 3 for defenders because of their relatively low damage. Energy type is common and reasonably commonly resisted (not as much as S/L, but common enough) so we'll give that a value of 4. It's a ranged attack with a bit below average range, so we'll give that a 5. It has an average recharge rate, so minus 5 there (a lower recharge rate might give a lower negative value), then it has this crappy END drain, which is virtually unresistable, but has no significant combat effect past very occasional transfer of a modicum of END to the user. So, if the drain is moderately useful (value 5) but happens 10% of the time, then the value is 5 * .1 = .5 -- rounded to 1 in this case to keep us in integers for ease of use. Defenders get 25% more energy, so 5*1.25*.1=.625 -- still a 1 for Defenders. The END cost for using the power is standard, so we'll call that a minus 5, since it balances the usefulness of the power. However, the END cost is about 25% higher for defenders, so the value is -5*1.25 or -6.25 for defenders.
So, the value for CB is 5 (standard damage) + 4 (energy type usefulness) + 5 (ranged attack, weak range), - 5 (standard recharge rate), + 1 (crappy END effect), - 5 (END cost) for a total value of 5 for a blaster. It's Defender value is a 2.
Now, you might argue that, for example, my value for the energy type damage might be too low. Great! This is all about judgment calls, but the point is, that using a number as a reference for making these judgment calls (a) gives you a point of argument and (b) illustrates how changing the power may or may not put it within an acceptable threshhold. If the threshhold for the power is 4.5-5.5 for blasters but 2.5-3.5 for defenders, then clearly, the above system suggests that some buffing is in order for defenders who use that power because they're missing their threshhold.
At the end of the day, the numbers become a tool for basing your judgment arguments around, which means there's a "feel" factor involved, but you're kept honest. Plus, if you later discover that the END drain for charged bolts is massively powerful in certain tactics, you can up its value and recalibrate (well, nerf). Devs and players can make their cases about balance around certain variables ("we thought that the herding component we didn't anticipate in Invincability had a balance value of 5, and it turns out it's a 9.5 in our opinion, so we're change the AI to put the value back in line") lets people understand the rationale, whether they agree or disagree.
Hmm... sorry, this turned into a rant a little while ago. Well, it's something for game designers and communities to consider if we like.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes we are. Statesman himself said it from his high-and-mighty throne. Look upon this post, ye might, and despair:
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, we've already committed to looking at several Archetypes and builds for I5 and afterwards, but I've said nary a word about Defenders. Why? Because of all the Archetypes, we're happiest with them. There are certainly issues with individual sets and powers - and those we're always looking at. Defenders, however, don't have any overarching problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
Admittedly, he said 'happiest'. But considering that in the thread this comment spawned, almost all of the bugs that _Castle_ found and partially already fixed were mentioned and nothing was done about them until _Castle_ came along speaks for itself.
The whole train wreck can be read here.
Winston Churchill