Irresistable Debuffs... Please?!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that this is not a strong statement. Fact: Defender secondaries are Blaster primaries. Fact: Defender secondaries function at 65% of Blaster primaries, across the board. Fact: Controller secondaries are Defender primaries. Fact: More than half of at least one Controller secondary functions at 100%+ of Defender primary.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the Defender Double Standard (TM) precisely: not good enough for being either a blaster or a controller. Really, I suppose it should be a Triple Standard since we don't get enough buff/debuff love either (with some possible exceptions) as is pointed out above.
And that's the kind of problem that results from doing balance by "feel" and not tracking the quality and value of changes numerically. Is balanced tracked by something other than "feel"? I hope so.
[ QUOTE ]
just as I'm sure Blasters don't really care that Defenders get equal mileage out of Aim
[/ QUOTE ]
We don't get "equal mileage" out of aim. 
We get around 55%ish damage pump while blasters get a 65%ish damage pump from Aim. Or numbers like that.
Please someone tell me I'm spreading missinformation, I want to be wrong!
I am, once again, a sad panda.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Bug: Flash Arrow's -accuracy does not stack with itself. (Concern)
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, it does not. It is functionally the same power as Controller/Smoke and works identically to that power in terms of effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been mentioned many times, but if controller are better with the control power secondaries then defenders are with their primaries why is it that a debuff in a defender primary isn't stronger then the one in a controller primary even though debuff is one of the main focuses of the defender class.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that's putting it another way: that seems to be a completely separate issue. And I'm inclined to agree on at least broad terms: the net effect of buff/debuff on top of strong control has a tendancy to benefit teams more than simply stronger buff/debuff. The question is how to address that without nullifying the reason for controllers to exist: control by itself is a fairly strong team benefit, but its become much more difficult for it to have consistent results with recent changes.
This would be counterbalanced by overall better damage on the part of defenders if it wasn't for containment, and frankly while I appreciate containment as a controller, I do think containment has the unfortunate side-effect of dramatically altering the defender/controller calculus in a way I don't want to see for defenders. I.e. I didn't and wouldn't mind my controllers doing less damage than my defenders (at least on average) despite all the "damage is king" crap.
But since fiddling with damage too much creates all kinds of other issues, the best of all possible worlds would be to separate defender primaries from controller secondaries altogether. But since that would require grandfathering and large-scale set engineering, the more likely alternative is to start splitting the sets apart slowly, taking the shared defender/controller sets and slowly boosting the soft control options in them for controllers, and decreasing the buff/debuff components. That would strengthen the buff/debuff advantage defenders should have, while not eviscerating the sets completely for controllers. It would also reduce the direct synergy of buff/debuff on controller pets.
[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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Bug: Flash Arrow's -accuracy does not stack with itself. (Concern)
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, it does not. It is functionally the same power as Controller/Smoke and works identically to that power in terms of effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been mentioned many times, but if controller are better with the control power secondaries then defenders are with their primaries why is it that a debuff in a defender primary isn't stronger then the one in a controller primary even though debuff is one of the main focuses of the defender class.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know this, too.
"She started dancin' to that fine, fine music,
Y'know, her life was saved by rock 'n' roll."
--The Velvet Underground
[ QUOTE ]
Couple things:
While I do this on my lunch break for the most part, I also do it in between "Get all" and running data generation scripts. It *is* part of my job -- the only difference here is I do part of it while at lunch to keep myself from getting bored, and the fact that I share info with you guys. Plenty of folks here read the boards and deal with issues; they just don't spend much time reporting on it.
So, while I appreciate the praise, don't let it degenerate into disparaging the other folks here and the work they do.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I like to see feed back from a red name. I dont know who is reading the concerns of the various at's. I am not saying that they have to post often, but it would be nice to see every once in a while.
my assumption to why you get get so much praise, other than we can see that you do address issues, is that you give feedback to the issues that you look at. I greatly appreciate the work that you do and have done.
btw, can you give ice melee tanks a tier nine power that is worth taking? an actual aoe damage attack? see, i dont even know who to send this to and it would just get lost in the boards some where, as i am sure that this will.
YMMV---IMO
Ice Ember
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that this is not a strong statement. Fact: Defender secondaries are Blaster primaries. Fact: Defender secondaries function at 65% of Blaster primaries, across the board.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its not entirely accurate to say Defender secondaries function at 65% of Blaster primaries, across the board.
Defender secondaries do 65% of the DAMAGE of the equivalent blaster primary power.
They do not have 65% of the range or cost an extra 35%, or have an extra 35% recharge time.
The secondary effects are not necessarily at 65% Its not like PowerBurst has 35% less chance to Knock-back, or a weaker Knockback distance for defenders. Defenders do drain more END than blasters do, even though that is a Defender Secondary vs. a Blaster Primary.
When comparing the relationship and inequalities between Blaster/Defender and Defender/Controller sets, it is necessary to keep that in mind.
Glossing over those type of things can turn an otherwise objective post into a partisan rant.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In Issue 7, all mobs will have a 50% base to-hit chance while higher ranked mobs will get an accuracy bonus to their attacks. Take AVs. Their base to-hit now is 75%. In Issue 7 it will be 50% with a 50% acc bonus. With no defense that works out to 75% final to-hit. But defense comes in before accuracy buffs so here's how it will work for FF defenders and controllers in Issue 7:
Defenders bubbles three slotted give your teammates 39% defense to all
Controller bubbles three slotted give your teammates 29% defense to all
Put that into the Issue 7 formula for an AVs to-hit:
Defender: 50-39=11*1.5=16.5
Controller: 50-29=21*1.5=31.5
Or in other words a FF defender will defend against mobs 48% better than a Controller. It used to be that was only true for minions, now it's true for all mobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
<sigh> You're right on the base to hit stuff. Forgot about that until I scoured the archives to find castles post. Thanks for the reminder.
For what its worth, Controllers are 80% as effective as a defender so if a defender provides 39% then a controller will provide 31.2% not 29%. So the numbers work out like this:
Defender: 50-39=11*1.5=16.5
Controller: 50-31=19*1.5=28.5
Which makes the defender version roughly 43% better.
[ QUOTE ]
Umm... no. Deflection Shield gives defense to melee, SM, LE
Reflection gives defense to ranged, AoE, Fire, Cold, Eng, Neg
Dispersion gives defense to all
Are you really unaware that your powers were buffed in this way?
[/ QUOTE ]
For what its worth, the patch notes have the buffs in this order.
Force Field/Insulation Field now also buffs defense to AoE Attacks. Dispersion Bubble now also buffs defense to Melee and Ranged attacks.
Assuming the notes are correct, which I did, means that neither Melee, Range or AOE are capped. An thus by default PSI and Toxic are not either since FF doesn't have Toxic DEF and only Dispersion bubble offers PSI DEF.
[/ QUOTE ]
As for the 80% thing, my own test come up with 75%, but it's not a major difference.
As for what things buff, I'm taking that from the powers short help text. The patch notes are as you say they are.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
/snip/
and the fact that I share info with you guys. Plenty of folks here read the boards and deal with issues; they just don't spend much time reporting on it.
So, while I appreciate the praise, don't let it degenerate into disparaging the other folks here and the work they do.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, how about doing some force multiplication for them?
Fold /bug into the NCSoft CoH/V Knowledge Base so we can see the BugTracker in
almost exactly the same way you can.
We don't need to see which user reported things. (Privacy concern, of course)
We would like to see WHAT has been reported, the progress made, and the
priority assigned to it.
Would any of that violate any Cryptic/NCSoft policy?
If, with the same amount of work Cryptic spends updating its own internal
bug tracker, it could also communicate that info to its customers, I'd call that
a win/win.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that's putting it another way: that seems to be a completely separate issue. And I'm inclined to agree on at least broad terms: the net effect of buff/debuff on top of strong control has a tendancy to benefit teams more than simply stronger buff/debuff. The question is how to address that without nullifying the reason for controllers to exist: control by itself is a fairly strong team benefit, but its become much more difficult for it to have consistent results with recent changes.
This would be counterbalanced by overall better damage on the part of defenders if it wasn't for containment, and frankly while I appreciate containment as a controller, I do think containment has the unfortunate side-effect of dramatically altering the defender/controller calculus in a way I don't want to see for defenders. I.e. I didn't and wouldn't mind my controllers doing less damage than my defenders (at least on average) despite all the "damage is king" crap.
But since fiddling with damage too much creates all kinds of other issues, the best of all possible worlds would be to separate defender primaries from controller secondaries altogether. But since that would require grandfathering and large-scale set engineering, the more likely alternative is to start splitting the sets apart slowly, taking the shared defender/controller sets and slowly boosting the soft control options in them for controllers, and decreasing the buff/debuff components. That would strengthen the buff/debuff advantage defenders should have, while not eviscerating the sets completely for controllers. It would also reduce the direct synergy of buff/debuff on controller pets.
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like every AT gets really good mileage out of their secondary sets.
In the past I was against meddling with the defender secondary and prefered to work on getting an inherant power that would make Defenders shine useing their primary powers.
That however was fruitless, even if it was a damn good idea. Maybe I should re-post it sometime.
In anycase, I think the defender secondary sets could be buffed in ways OTHER than simply buffing the secondary effects. Frankly, it would be nice if the defender secondary sets were made unique through special debuffs that were only found in a few of the blasts in each secondary set.
Let each secondary have an attack that negated knockback resistance for 5 seconds (although a person with knockback protection on top of knockback protection from an armor should be alright), an AoE attack that either debuffed accuracy, defense, or resistance. Then, another attack that would be more focused that could either debuff perception or stealth.
This could be done to make the secondary powers of defenders unique and would play to the developers idea of defenders being the best debuffing and buffing AT in the game. The magnitude of the debuffs could vary per set and which AoE and when the defender got their signature debuffs would vary between the sets.
It would certainly be a reason to really make a defender think about what secondary they are going to get.
Oh, when I say "have an attack" I mean an effect in addition to the normal attack. So all the attack would stay the same but the attacks would have an effect added to them. Like Energy Torrent would negate knockback resistance for instance. Or Dark Pit would also have a heavy accuracy debuff that lasted for 4 seconds. Siphon Life would also drain away perception etc.
[ QUOTE ]
Its not entirely accurate to say Defender secondaries function at 65% of Blaster primaries, across the board.
Defender secondaries do 65% of the DAMAGE of the equivalent blaster primary power.
They do not have 65% of the range or cost an extra 35%, or have an extra 35% recharge time.
The secondary effects are not necessarily at 65% Its not like PowerBurst has 35% less chance to Knock-back, or a weaker Knockback distance for defenders. Defenders do drain more END than blasters do, even though that is a Defender Secondary vs. a Blaster Primary.
When comparing the relationship and inequalities between Blaster/Defender and Defender/Controller sets, it is necessary to keep that in mind.
Glossing over those type of things can turn an otherwise objective post into a partisan rant.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a double-edged sword you're pulling out there Q. Controllers don't suffer 80% endurance, range, recharge, etc in using our primaries as their secondaries either....
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been mentioned many times, but if controller are better with the control power secondaries then defenders are with their primaries why is it that a debuff in a defender primary isn't stronger then the one in a controller primary even though debuff is one of the main focuses of the defender class.
[/ QUOTE ]
Power values are the same. AT mods are different, except for the Perception debuff which is hard coded at -90% for all of these powers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been mentioned many times, but if controller are better with the control power secondaries then defenders are with their primaries why is it that a debuff in a defender primary isn't stronger then the one in a controller primary even though debuff is one of the main focuses of the defender class.
[/ QUOTE ]
Power values are the same. AT mods are different, except for the Perception debuff which is hard coded at -90% for all of these powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?
Sorry I'm a bit slow I suppose.
Does this mean defenders actually have a higher accuracy debuff because their AT gets a better modifier while the power is basically the before AT modifiers come into play.
Or am I confused and are they the same in accuracy debuff.
or would the president look good in a pink tutu.
I just don't know.
And what is your sig from _castle_
[ QUOTE ]
Power values are the same. AT mods are different, except for the Perception debuff which is hard coded at -90% for all of these powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to be a stickler, _Castle_ but the reasoning escapes me here. -Runspeed, -Recharge (together being a Slow effect) and -Perception all appear to be DeBuffs to me. So technically, a Defender bonus for Buffs and DeBuffs should apply. Yet it does not. I assume part of it is play balance issues (the -PER effects anyways), but that makes me wonder... does any other AT have comparable issues?
Do Controllers not get their AT bonus for Holds but only fpr all other Mezzes? Do Blasters not get their AT bonus for Snipes, but for all other Blasts? The only comparable situation I can think of -and this is only in the widest sense comparable- is how Stalker/Energy Melee relates to Criticals from Hiding.
"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this has been mentioned many times, but if controller are better with the control power secondaries then defenders are with their primaries why is it that a debuff in a defender primary isn't stronger then the one in a controller primary even though debuff is one of the main focuses of the defender class.
[/ QUOTE ]
Power values are the same. AT mods are different, except for the Perception debuff which is hard coded at -90% for all of these powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?
Sorry I'm a bit slow I suppose.
Does this mean defenders actually have a higher accuracy debuff because their AT gets a better modifier while the power is basically the before AT modifiers come into play.
Or am I confused and are they the same in accuracy debuff.
or would the president look good in a pink tutu.
I just don't know.
And what is your sig from _castle_
[/ QUOTE ]I believe he i saying that the "power" has a base value which is the same regardless of who uses it. However, certain aspects of any power are modified by various AT modifiers. For example, if a power has a Damage + Debuff value and is used by a scrapper, the Dmg will be multiplied by the scrapper DMG multiplier and the Debuff will be multiplied by the scrapper Debuff muliplier. Also...we can infer things like this.
fictional
AT DMG Multiplier Heirarchy:
Scrapper>Tanker>Controller
AT Debuff Multiplier:
Defender>Controller>Scrapper
So the same power works differently in the hands of a scrapper versus a defender. The advantage is that they can code one set of powers for all AT's....but then have them work differently depending on the AT.
But remember, this only works if the powers are the same. A Defense debuff in a controller power such as XYZ is not the same Defense debuff in defender power YYX (or YYZ for you Rush fans). In other words, the base value of a debuff in two separate powers is not goingto be identical even if it is the same type of debuff.
If Dark Blast has base debuff of -5%...and Radiation Infection has a base debuff of 18.5%...RI in anyone's hands is going to be a better debuff than Dark Blast in a defender's hands.
That's how I interpret his response.
I assume that Castle means that perception debuff powers work the same for all ATs (eg. smoke, smoke grenade, flash arrow, smoke flash, etc)
[ QUOTE ]
Then we can stop right here, because I consider your various objections to the straight-line argument I've presented to be at best frivolous if not downright intellectually dishonest.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be unclear about what "intellectually dishonest" means. Let me help you out.
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: Defender secondaries are Blaster primaries.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this being intellectually dishonest? No, that's just being factually incorrect. Only two defender secondaries are actually blaster secondaries. Unless you want to claim that having at least one means you can say that "defender secondaries are Blaster primaries" in which case its similar to:
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: Defender secondaries function at 65% of Blaster primaries, across the board.
[/ QUOTE ]
which isn't factually inaccurate so much as its misleading, because they aren't at 65% of blaster primaries *across the board* - secondary effects are stronger for defender secondaries. At least, the ones that are shared as blaster primaries.
How about:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I said "as well as or better than". Kindly read for comprehension; you went to a lot of time and trouble to confirm precisely what I already told you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is related to intellectual dishonesty, but its really quoting out of context to make an irrelevant point, which is not the same thing. The above sequence was stated to specifically illustrate the thought process, something you seem unwilling or unable to do, believing all of your pronouncements to be self-evident. While the actual exerpt is an example of out of context irrelevancy, the fact that you didn't realize this is a separate issue: its evidence of demagoguery. But its not intellectually dishonest if its combined with self-deception, so they aren't directly related.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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,
[/ QUOTE ]
Um, no. I have to believe that the somewhat higher defense numbers in FF for Defenders is more than offset by the additional damage mitigation a Controller can bring to the table via (a) his primary and (b) his equal or better effectiveness with more than half of the FF set.
[ QUOTE ]
that the other control-oriented powers in FF are all strongly weighted in controller's favor, even though thats not easily demonstrable,
[/ QUOTE ]
Not a necessary predicate for the argument. Thanks for playing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Besides being unjustifiably snide, its also bordering on self-contradictory. Adding the effectiveness of (a) in the first statement is illogical, because it falls outside the scope of the original comparison of the FF set for defenders and controllers. Deliberately shifting topics would be intellectually dishonest, but it can also be an example of irrationality. Discounting (a), which is out of bounds, the two statements become self-contradictory. I consider being self-contradictory to be proof of intellectual dishonesty in sufficiently intelligent people. I don't have sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion in this case.
But hope isn't lost:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Define "marginal." My estimates suggest that controller bubbles admit something between 30% and 100% more damage than defender bubbles, depending on situation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Marginal, i.e., by some margin. I was not suggesting that the difference is negligible; that's your inference, not my implication.
[/ QUOTE ]
This would be an example of intellectual dishonesty, as most people would define it: explicitly or implicitly suggesting that one was unaware or not fully cogniscent of the facts, in direct contradiction to how they were originally used for effect.
"Marginal" does not mean "by some margin" either in standard english, or in any other colloquial common usage. Marginal, in virtually all cases and especially when used as referenced, means "barely within a lower standard or limit of quality" when used descriptively, and "of questionable or minimal quality" when used comparatively. It always connotates "small" or "lesser."
Its intellectually dishonest because its is obvious that you were fully aware of the connotation of "marginal" as used:
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
You would have to be basically brain-dead not to see that the use of the word "marginal" was meant to imply "lesser" to contrast with the "superior" controls. Therefore, it is well within reasonable extrapolation that you knowingly used the word in the way all normal people use it, fully appreciating the connotations it provides, and then attempted to invent a non-existent definition for the word in an attempt to manufacture an opportunity for irrelevant dissent. That would be a great example of being intellectually dishonest.
[ QUOTE ]
I consider your various objections to the straight-line argument I've presented to be at best frivolous if not downright intellectually dishonest.
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't actually seen an argument yet. As soon as I do, I'll be sure to comment on it. At the moment, I'm commenting only on your lack of an argument.
Dysmal reminds me that I forgot to include the two new sets (sonic and archery) so blasters and defenders share four, not two sets. That's not intellectual dishonesty either, that's just a really stupid mistake.
[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.)
Isn't slow a status effect, as well as the SPD, Recharge debuff? I say this because it seems like it can be outright resisted, and not just countered with certain buffs. My kinetics-user, even with a couple of siphon speeds on her still is made slower by quicksand. Meanwhile, it seems that speed-boosted friendlies can run right out of quicksand.
I just say this because maybe slow isn't a good type of effect to argue about, since it's arguably both a control (is imparting status effects control?) and a debuff.
[ QUOTE ]
Power values are the same. AT mods are different, except for the Perception debuff which is hard coded at -90% for all of these powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I'm reading you correct, I believe you've stumbled into the heart of a lot of complaints between Controllers and Defender powers. IF I'm reading you right, you mean to say that Smoke from Fire Control has the same value as Trick Arrow's Flash Arrow when used by a Controller (and a 1.25 modifier when used by a Defender).
That's a big issue for Defenders, because we've seen powers constantly reduced in order to ensure that Controller primary controls remain (significantly) more than 25% better.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Power values are the same. AT mods are different, except for the Perception debuff which is hard coded at -90% for all of these powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I'm reading you correct, I believe you've stumbled into the heart of a lot of complaints between Controllers and Defender powers. IF I'm reading you right, you mean to say that Smoke from Fire Control has the same value as Trick Arrow's Flash Arrow when used by a Controller (and a 1.25 modifier when used by a Defender).
That's a big issue for Defenders, because we've seen powers constantly reduced in order to ensure that Controller primary controls remain (significantly) more than 25% better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ugh, don't remind me about going through I5 with Dark Miasma: Controller nerfs (lots), defender buffs (none).
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is probably close to the crux of the whole Defender/Controller/Blaster issue. Controller Primaries/Secondaries synergize extremely well.
[/ QUOTE ] I agree. I think that as players...in the "real world of the game" we have to step back and acknowledge some competing philosophies.
Let me preface this by asking for some leeway. Arcana <hugs>, CF, let's not focus on the details, but the overall gist....
The problem is one of both design, philosophy, and playability (which are another way to spell revenue). To uphold the "no AT is needed" philosophy, the sets have to overlap. Overlapping sets also save money. Without going to the long and short of this, we want this to remain to be true. Defenders, like any AT, cannot be allowed to be have a monopoly on any given sphere of influence.
The challenge is giving Def's something they are great at without making them indispensible (or triviliazing) and without making them tank-mages. Too much damage we've made blasters obsolete. Too much debuff and we've made the game trivial.
Def's are, in and of themselves, very well balanced imo. I can solo, but so slowly I always want a scrapper or a blaster. At low levels, controllers don't have the debuff's as developed, so they aren't the same..more importantly, controllers are generally busy controlling. At higher levels...it's a different story. The question then should look at this:
What in the game should make me want to team with defender as opposed to a controller or a blaster?
The first answer is that def's can provide more fire support than controllers and more protection than blasters. The blaster part is easy. The question is whether defender's fire support is of equal or better value than controller control. Can defenders pinch hit for blasters in the same way that controllers pinch hit for defenders?
If we look below the surface, the answer is no. The reason is two fold:
1) We see the "Defender" as someone who "defends" by mitigating damage, not by defeating foes. Thus, controllers are quite capable of achieving the ethos of defenders. My blaster doesn't care how you defend me against the incoming damage, just stop it as quickly as possible.
2) Defenders do not come even close to the damage output of blasters in terms of DPS. While they may have a better Risk vs. Reward curve, this is far overshadowed by the effeciency of blasters. Even more so, everyone expects blasters to die. Even blasters. So a defeat by a blaster isn't really seen as a sign of failure on the blaster's part. No one would choose a defender just because they are worried a blaster might get defeated. So that lower risk is arguably meaningless to anyone but the solo defender.
In short, if I need a blaster because I just need more damage output, I don't see an /En defender a viable substitution in the same way I am very happy to have a /Kin controller in place of a Kin/ defender. I never care what the defenders's secondary is. They are all equally irrelevant from my persepective as a teammate (Dark Blast and good nukes being the exceptions).
So one place to look at this Controller vs Defender vs Blaster equation is making the fire support of defenders offset the control of controllers:
Extrinsic Value ( Controller Control + Controller Debuff ) = Extrinsic Value ( Defender Debuff + Defender Blast )
But this runs us right up along side our original concerns. Improving the Defender Blast portion makes us a Tank-Mage. Improving the Debuff portion trivializes the game for teams. Lowering the Debuff of controllers upsets the "no AT needed" balance, and lowering the Control assassinates controllers (as Arcana would say).
[ QUOTE ]
1) We see the "Defender" as someone who "defends" by mitigating damage, not by defeating foes. Thus, controllers are quite capable of achieving the ethos of defenders. My blaster doesn't care how you defend me against the incoming damage, just stop it as quickly as possible.
2) Defenders do not come even close to the damage output of blasters in terms of DPS. While they may have a better Risk vs. Reward curve, this is far overshadowed by the effeciency of blasters. Even more so, everyone expects blasters to die. Even blasters. So a defeat by a blaster isn't really seen as a sign of failure on the blaster's part. No one would choose a defender just because they are worried a blaster might get defeated. So that lower risk is arguably meaningless to anyone but the solo defender.
[/ QUOTE ]
In terms of teams, defender buffs/debuffs not only improve the defender's damage, but all other team mates damage as well. If a defender taken alone is worth maybe 65% of the net damage of the average blaster, but improves the average output of each team member by 15%, say, then in teams with three or more people the net damage contributed by the defender might exceed the blaster individually. Its also the case that the main reason why (some) teams are less destabilized by the loss of a single blaster's damage output is specifically because they have defenders improving the overall survivability of the team as a whole.
Its the other side of the equation that is much more shaky. Because controllers have similar buffing and debuffing capabilities in their primaries, even if the gap between the two is substantial in numerical terms, it might not be enough to counterbalance controller control and damage across the entire team. I.e. the "break even" point might be 10 or 11 team mates instead, which effectively means there is no break even point. And the main thing throwing off that equation is containment. When controllers had a good chunk of defender buff/debuff, and a lot of control, but low damage, you could argue that was balanced against defender better buff/debuff and higher damage overall. Containment changed that comparison to just buff/debuff vs control *and* damage, and that more significantly upset the balance between the two (i.e. less people cared if controller control was air tight, if they killed slower: above a certain point, control strength had diminishing returns).
Because containment is so dramatic in benefit (it would be almost like giving scrappers automatic criticals) its probably the case that the big question the devs should address is, on average, how do they see controller damage relative to defender damage (and blaster and scrapper and tanker damage). If they see controllers as deliberately designed to do more damage, it would be worth knowing why.
A cruel irony: containment was added because the devs felt "statue fights" were "boring" and therefore, controller control needed to be lessened. With lower control, controllers needed more damage to compensate, and in effect, controllers became much more closely aligned with blasters or corruptors than the original model for controllers.
Its too bad containment couldn't work like Hamidon resistances. The longer and stronger you're held, the lower your resistance to damage becomes, instead of just immediately getting double damage. That way, containment would be a bigger boost to solo controllers that have longer, more control-dominated fights, but be less of a factor in teams with faster, more damage and buff/debuff-dominated fights.
[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 ]
Its the other side of the equation that is much more shaky. Because controllers have similar buffing and debuffing capabilities in their primaries, even if the gap between the two is substantial in numerical terms, it might not be enough to counterbalance controller control and damage across the entire team. I.e. the "break even" point might be 10 or 11 team mates instead, which effectively means there is no break even point. And the main thing throwing off that equation is containment. When controllers had a good chunk of defender buff/debuff, and a lot of control, but low damage, you could argue that was balanced against defender better buff/debuff and higher damage overall. Containment changed that comparison to just buff/debuff vs control *and* damage, and that more significantly upset the balance between the two (i.e. less people cared if controller control was air tight, if they killed slower: above a certain point, control strength had diminishing returns).
Because containment is so dramatic in benefit (it would be almost like giving scrappers automatic criticals) its probably the case that the big question the devs should address is, on average, how do they see controller damage relative to defender damage (and blaster and scrapper and tanker damage). If they see controllers as deliberately designed to do more damage, it would be worth knowing why.
A cruel irony: containment was added because the devs felt "statue fights" were "boring" and therefore, controller control needed to be lessened. With lower control, controllers needed more damage to compensate, and in effect, controllers became much more closely aligned with blasters or corruptors than the original model for controllers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I brought up these points back when containment was first being introduced. I was told by controllers that the defender inherant ability would solve the issues with defenders.
I still think controllers NEVER needed containment. Not now, and not then. I believe the real problem was that the developers gave them their pets too late in the game and had too many hard controlls in the begining.
I know someone is going to give me flak but I always thought the best idea would have been to move the Pets to the number 1 power slot and move the AoE hold to the number 9 power slot. That, effectively gave Grav controllers the damage mitigation they were missing in the begining, and gave the rest of the sets the damage they were missing in the early game. All without containment.
Some people previous to this would have said that the developers are not going to switch around powers so it will never happen but they seemed to have no problems doing it for the Tank secondary so that arguement is a wash.
If anyone can figure out a good arguement as to why my idea wouldn't have been more balanced to the game and helped to have kept defenders and controllers seperate in terms of what they bring to teams and their play styles please let me know.
[ QUOTE ]
If Defender primaries were significantly more buff/debuff-oriented, with the occasional control power thrown in here or there, then I wouldn't care if Controllers got equal or better mileage out of that occasional power (just as I'm sure Blasters don't really care that Defenders get equal mileage out of Aim). But that's not the case; our specialty, as Starshield points out, isn't nearly common enough in our own power sets.
[/ QUOTE ]
I always come back to dark miasma.
Dark is a wickedly good blend of powers with lots of debuffing goodness. I have never, not once, in my time playing my dark defender, felt outclassed at defending a team while standing next to a controller. And doubly so while in AV or monster fights where controls start to falter. IME, nothing in the game turns an AV into a cuddly little kitten better than a dark defender.
Not enough buffing and debuffing in defender sets ...
Wow, I had never thought of it that way before, but how absolutely true.
'Trollers and defenders should be balanced out to do roughly equivalent damage AND equivalent damage mitigation -- each AT in its own way. How absolutely right.