[ QUOTE ]
Err, you have a good point!
[/ QUOTE ]
No problemo! It's probably just a reflexive reaction. And probably a "trained reflexive action."
Dang Pavlov!
Still here, even after all this time!
I hate to ask this, but has anyone bothered to draw out what happens when you compare Defender Bubbles + Manuevers against Controller Bubbles + Smoke + Manuevers (and another other +def or -tohit)?
I mean, surely that's the standard we should go by, if we're relying on Radiation Emission Defenders as the ruler against which we measure the equality of our secondaries to Blasters, surely we must note what the maximum situation for Controllers is.
Note on testing:
I haven't checked this myself, but "people" say that the sets don't really acheive the final ratio of damage, etc. until level 20. I knowl, for HP, that the level 1's are all within 5 HP of each other, while at level 40-ish they've spread to whatever their final value is.
Level 15 may be a little early for testing.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, the secondary effect of most defender blasts does not synergize well with defender primaries
[/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is as clear cut as you make it out to be...but we'll get back to this...
[ QUOTE ]
Even with 75% blaster damage i don't think that an Empathy/Electrical defender would outdamage an Electrical/Devices blaster, or a Radiation/Energy defender outdamage a Fire/Energy blaster.
[/ QUOTE ] So let's test some of this with a simple excercise...
Let's look at a Rad/En Def and and an En/En blaster against an even level minion...
fictional
Blaster damage 100
Defender damage 65 * 1.37 (Enervating Field) = 89
Blaster Acc = 75
Def Acc = 90 (Radiation infection debuffing defense, unslotted)
Blaster = 100 .75 = 75 points
Def = 89 * .9 = 80 points
So at least with Rad, you have a defender that can out damage a blaster. On paper it seems some defender primaries work very well with the role of fire support. And this is just a direct approach. Buffs, like Speed Boost and Fortitude, while technically they don't synergize with a def secondary, they do indirectly increase the the overall DPS increase of adding a defender as compared with a blaster.
I think recognizing how a defender can spell a blaster extrinsically but not intrinsicially is the real source of the problem if we look at what the devs want out of a defender and what players want. In other words, Controllers often feel as good as defenders, but defenders don't really feel as good as blasters....even when the opposite is actually true.
I think the crux of the problem is more about perception.
I'm going to ask the community....what is that you really want from your defender?
1) Is this really about soloing?
2) Do you want to be unequivocably perceptually better at damage mitigation than controllers?
3) Do you want to do unequivocably perceptually more damage than Controllers?
4) Do we want a better harmony between our Primary/Secondary at the expense of versatility and variety?
One of the things that occurs to me in asking these questions is a synergy/impementation issue. What do I mean? For Controllers...there are often just a few powers in the defender Primary that allow a Controller to perceptually mimic a defender. RI and EF are really all you need from Rad to capture the heart of the set. Transfusion, Speed Boost, and Fulcrum shift are the heart of Kin. Can the same be said about the Blaster powers? Is the heart and sole of Arrow in 2-3 powers? What about Energy? So in addition to synergy, are Cntrlrs able to fake a defender more easily simply based on the design of the sets?
[ QUOTE ]
I hate to ask this, but has anyone bothered to draw out what happens when you compare Defender Bubbles + Manuevers against Controller Bubbles + Smoke + Manuevers (and another other +def or -tohit)?
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't actually charted it out, but it seems pretty obvious that both situations are going to put you at the effective DEF cap.
I suspect you're asking a rhetorical question, though. If not, please correct me.
If you are asking your question rhetorically, presumably in an attempt to invalidate my prior points concerning Defender FF and Controller FF, then I will simply direct you to reread. I noted, quite clearly, that I wasn't making any arguments about overarching Controller/Defender issues, nor was I in any way attempting to trivialize or make light of the complaints about FF as a whole set.
I was simply pointing out that Issue 7 is a huge buff for Force Field, to the extent that Defender Force Fielders will find themselves in perhaps the MOST advantageous position in relation to Controller who share their power set.
And I stick by that statement. You may well argue that Controllers can EQUAL the damage mitigation offered by Issue 7 Defender FF, and I certainly won't disagree. Hell, I'll even concede that Controllers can surpass it given the right build and/or great play. That isn't the point, though. The point is that the powerset itself is far far far far better in the hands of Defender, irrespective of other factors.
And if you want to include other factors, which is fine -- although it isn't terribly pertinent to the conversation into which my previous post was meant to intrude ( 
) -- I have to ask you a somewhat rhetorical question of my own: After one has managed to provide ~90% mitigation to an ENTIRE TEAM, does it really matter if a Controller who uses more powers can achieve the same or even a superior result? I'm not speaking in terms of equity here; I'm just speaking in terms of practical effectiveness. Because, to me, once you've approached that 90% mitigation mark, anything beyond that is purely theoretical except in the most extreme cases.
Force Field is a bit of a special case among Defender Primaries/Controller Secondaries, because the buffs are at once so very crucial to the set's performance, and so very tightly focused in function. If you were to compare, say, Controller Empathy buffs with Defender Empathy buffs, the disparity isn't so pronounced, because the buffs are far more varied. The DEF difference in Fortitude isn't as noticeable because you probably also have +500% or more in Regeneration buffs on top of it, not to mention assorted heals and a huge end buff.
With Force Field, under Issue 7, it'll be practically impossible not to notice a huge difference in the DEF values. Again, that isn't to say that Force Field is a better SET than Empathy. It isn't. I'd argue that it's worse, in fact, for several reasons -- many of them qualitative.
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, surely that's the standard we should go by, if we're relying on Radiation Emission Defenders as the ruler against which we measure the equality of our secondaries to Blasters, surely we must note what the maximum situation for Controllers is.
[/ QUOTE ]
I quote this because it's what leads me to believe you were framing your question rhetorically. If your post was addressed to me, then the Blaster comment is wholly irrelevant. I didn't mention Blasters once in my prior post, nor have I ever tried to argue that the ratio of Blaster to Defender damage is equitable.
If you were addressing me, then it appears you were projecting a bit. I can definitely understand being a bit bitter about the plight of Defenders.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
 |
[ QUOTE ]
Arcanaville's point (at the risk of putting words in her mouth) was simply that your contention (and others') that FF is superior for Controllers, is not as clear-cut as perhaps you might like to think. From my perspective, you haven't addressed any of her objections in a logical manner. Can you explain how exactly the Controller version of FF is superior, despite that the Defender version will be providing more than 40% more mitigation through DEF? Even if you DO include Controller Primaries in the discussion, which is a bit shady, that's going to be a hard case to make.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well Concern and I made some points about FF's synergy with pet classes that I think are good. Heck, just having a built in target for those ally only bubbles would mean you would be able to use them a heck of a lot more, espcially with a Mastermind (or Illusion controller) who gets pets a lot sooner. Being able to raise your party to a defense cap doesn't do you too much good if you don't have a party. To put it another way, the simple fact that for most controllers and all masterminds the ally only bubbles can be used solo as well as on a team more than makes up for their lower DEF values. IMO of course.
Knockback is more valuable with pets as well, the more pets, the more value simply because of the number of attacks able to be aimed at the mob while it gets up. In a set with so much knockback that's not a small advantage.
We mentioned aggro, which an FF defender has a very difficult time handling in groups or solo due to low personal defense. Controllers of any level will be much better off due to holds (and later, pets), and masterminds don't need to attack at all, thus avoiding aggro issues.
I don't think it's shady at all to include Controller primaries, depending on what's being discussed. If the question is whether or not Controllers are better at Damage Mitigation than Defenders, then we need to take the whole picture into account. If we're talking about FF, then perhaps not so much, though we probably should be talking about FF as part of a bigger picture (including controller/MM primaries and Defender secondaries) and not on an island by itself since that situation isn't really applicable to the game.
The problem we've always had trying to get changes to the FF line is to some extent what we're talking about here. People (developers) look at the numbers and wonder what the problem is. The problem is that those numbers come from a grand total of two powers that require refreshing every four minutes, and that does not make for compelling gameplay. It hardly makes for gameplay at all. What we've always wanted is not better numbers, but better gameplay, better utility, and I'm pretty sure that most FFers would sacrifice some numbers to see that happen.
I'm not a great debater, and I especially hesitate to be opposite Arcanaville, whom I respect a great deal from other posts and threads, but I do think I see the other side's view, and I'll be happy to try and represent it as best I can.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
OT -
This was one of about a gazillion suggestions Controllers made to replace Containment, which nobody really liked. Other good ones were adding a low DoT to all Controller mezzes and adding an "arrest timer" so that so many seconds of mezzing=arrest.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, the secondary effect of most defender blasts does not synergize well with defender primaries
[/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is as clear cut as you make it out to be...but we'll get back to this...
[ QUOTE ]
Even with 75% blaster damage i don't think that an Empathy/Electrical defender would outdamage an Electrical/Devices blaster, or a Radiation/Energy defender outdamage a Fire/Energy blaster.
[/ QUOTE ] So let's test some of this with a simple excercise...
Let's look at a Rad/En Def and and an En/En blaster against an even level minion...
fictional
Blaster damage 100
Defender damage 65 * 1.37 (Enervating Field) = 89
Blaster Acc = 75
Def Acc = 90 (Radiation infection debuffing defense, unslotted)
Blaster = 100 .75 = 75 points
Def = 89 * .9 = 80 points
So at least with Rad, you have a defender that can out damage a blaster. On paper it seems some defender primaries work very well with the role of fire support. And this is just a direct approach. Buffs, like Speed Boost and Fortitude, while technically they don't synergize with a def secondary, they do indirectly increase the the overall DPS increase of adding a defender as compared with a blaster.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is this Mieux, with this analysis.
The radiation defender is going through much more activation time than the blaster.
They might end up with a bigger orange number, but at literally 1/2 to 1/3 the damage per second.
RI has a 3 second animation. EF has a 1.5 second animation. That's 4.5 seconds of animations that you aren't doing damage during. Do they just not count vs your DPS? I can't buy that.
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
Answering for myself, and on behalf of my own defenders:
50 Rad/Dark
39 Kin/Rad
26 Dark/Elec
22 Storm/Elec
[ QUOTE ]
1) Is this really about soloing?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's 100% about soloing (I'm not a soloer myself), but I can't deny that defender soloing is an issue either. Both the fact that we have an inherent that is of no benefit solo, and also that ED hit our damage output very hard are big problems for the folks who do solo.
[ QUOTE ]
2) Do you want to be unequivocably perceptually better at damage mitigation than controllers?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. I play controllers, and I love my controllers, and I fully understand that stopping a target in their tracks is the best form of damage mitigation. I don't think that defenders need to compete with controllers in terms of control, but I do think we could use role other than "not as good as controllers at mitigation" and "not as good as blasters at ranged damage." I'm not sure exactly what that is, but as things stand now, defenders don't have a very good niche.
[ QUOTE ]
3) Do you want to do unequivocably perceptually more damage than Controllers?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. After all, we do have a whole powerset that's damage oriented. Unless they change the focus of our secondaries, we should use them for what they're meant to do... and that's damage.
[ QUOTE ]
4) Do we want a better harmony between our Primary/Secondary at the expense of versatility and variety?
[/ QUOTE ]
No. I haven't read all the posts, and I'm not sure exactly what's been suggested, but the versatility and variety among defenders is one of the strong points for the AT. It seems like it would make more sense to increase that in some way, rather than reduce it.
[ QUOTE ]
But I am deeply underwhelmed with Vigilance, and was the very first time I heard it described. On an empath, or any reactive powerset, I can see its use. On a proactive powerset, I cannot.
[/ QUOTE ]
My expeience has been the opposite. Even though I am a soloist, when soloing I can pace myself. In a group I don't have that luxury, fights run longer than they would if I was soloing. If it's just me, and maybe another mitigation based friend or two, my blue bar doesn't move. Damage comes in at a slooow pace and suddenly I don't have endurance problems, the fight ends before anyone really gets hurt enough to worry about.
What breaks this up is an empath, who is often obsessive about keeping everyone at 100% health all the time. I groan when I see them in the group, because it means i'm going to be sucking wind in the longer battles, and furthermore, i'm going to need to be using a lot of blues and adding downtime with Rest.
A no attack "Group-Friendly" Defender is like a "Team Friendly" basketball player who won't dribble, run, or shoot, under any circumstances. "I'm a PASSER."
[ QUOTE ]
Well Concern and I made some points about FF's synergy with pet classes that I think are good. Heck, just having a built in target for those ally only bubbles would mean you would be able to use them a heck of a lot more, espcially with a Mastermind (or Illusion controller) who gets pets a lot sooner. Being able to raise your party to a defense cap doesn't do you too much good if you don't have a party. To put it another way, the simple fact that for most controllers and all masterminds the ally only bubbles can be used solo as well as on a team more than makes up for their lower DEF values. IMO of course.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed there, definitely. It all depends on how you frame the debate. Most often, when people bring up the lack of practical distinction in buff/debuff effectiveness between Controllers and Defenders, they're talking about team play. Perhaps erroneously, I proceeded with that context in mind.
Solo play is a little iffier a prospect. If you have pets, then undoubtedly you're in the best possible position to take advantage of the whole set. Of course, the devs most likely response to this would simply be to remove the ability to use FFs on pets.
Heh, I'm half joking. I don't know what the devs would do, realistically. The point I'm making is that FF isn't, at least to my eyes, intended to be fully usable in solo play, and thus, I don't think this particular angle is going to get the Defender contingent anywhere by itself. Still, it's a fair point.
[ QUOTE ]
Knockback is more valuable with pets as well, the more pets, the more value simply because of the number of attacks able to be aimed at the mob while it gets up. In a set with so much knockback that's not a small advantage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I think your complaint here is more about pets than it is about knockback. The notion that knockback is somehow more valuable when you have more people around to hit downed mobs strikes me as a bit specious, with all due respect. You could make that argument about any effect in the game.
[ QUOTE ]
We mentioned aggro, which an FF defender has a very difficult time handling in groups or solo due to low personal defense. Controllers of any level will be much better off due to holds (and later, pets), and masterminds don't need to attack at all, thus avoiding aggro issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a very good point.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's shady at all to include Controller primaries, depending on what's being discussed. If the question is whether or not Controllers are better at Damage Mitigation than Defenders, then we need to take the whole picture into account. If we're talking about FF, then perhaps not so much, though we probably should be talking about FF as part of a bigger picture (including controller/MM primaries and Defender secondaries) and not on an island by itself since that situation isn't really applicable to the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, yes, of course. It's always good to keep the big picture in mind. I only used the word shady there because of the context of the conversation at the time. Centerfire was making an argument that FF was better on its own merits for Controllers, or so it appeared to me -- and apparently I'm not the only one.
He went through the set, power by power, suggesting that five of the nine powers were either as good for Controllers, or better.
The problem, for me, in discussing the big picture is that I honestly don't disagree with either of you about it. Thus, you're not going to get much of a debate out of me on, say, whether or not Controller Primaries synergize better, mechanically, with their Secondaries than do Defender powersets. You're not going to get any argument out of me that Defender damage is pretty pitiful.
You're also not going to get any argument out of me in terms of general Force Field beefs. I agree 1,000% that Force Field is an uninteresting set to play, and that's just for starters. I'm no great expert on the set, but I'd also likely agree that certain of the non-DEF powers in the set are poorly conceptualized.
The only thing that I wanted to comment on was this issue of the powerset's relative effectiveness for each Archetype, because it's been a reoccuring theme (and rightly so) on this board for so long. Issue 7 doesn't FIX force field. It doesn't fix Defenders. All I'm saying is that Issue 7 may very well render Force Field the one shared (controller and Defender) powerset that is most easily distinguishable as being wielded by a Defender.
People are going to notice the difference, largely because of Force Field's broken playstyle or feel. Being hit three times as often when a Controller is buffing you is not a small thing.
So I guess what I'm trying to do here, in too many words (as always), is point out a silver lining. I'm not defending the whole cloud.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the big three powers in FF will work twice as well as a Controller or MMs bubbles after I7 against bosses and AVs.
[/ QUOTE ]
They don't and they won't. The buff to defence against higher level foes works for everyone. Plus a controller is 80% as effective as a defender with regards to the def Buff. Which amounts to about a 4% difference, 8% when stacked, in the level of defence provided. So I'm not sure how you can come to your conclusion.
[/ 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
[/ QUOTE ]
True!
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Sadly, arguable.
The problem comes from looking at various powers, and not an AT as a whole. A Defender can scrap on Maneuvers or GI and cap accuracy. That's as good as defense can get for them.
An Illusion/FF Controller, however, can use Group Invisibility, Grant Invisibility, Maneuvers, or some combination of stuff, and cap Defense w/ just a minor teamate's defense power like Combat Jumping. (Let's not even get into Spectral Terror, which allows accuracy to be floored regardless. Just looking at buffs here.) They can reach 40% Defense pretty easily.
It's harder for an Illusion controller to do, admittedly, and takes more powers and more time. But the net effect is that Illusion/FF provides as much defense as FF/Dark.
So why play a FF Defender? Before we even get into how much buttar a Controller kicks in non-FF ways, things look grim for a Defender. Except for the buffs, the FF powers work the same or worse for the Defender than the Controller. Your damage is arguably inferior (at best slightly better), you certainly don't get pets, you lack all/most of the Controller's status effects, and you can't take Indominitable Will in the 40's.
So there's a problem here. Controller secondaries probably can't be nerfed much, if at all, or they'd become worthless. Defender primaries can't be buffed much b/c it just doesn't matter. Adding 20% to FF's defense numbers just let's them avoid Manuevers to cap accuracy, hardly much of a benefit.
[ QUOTE ]
Um, as this is an *animation* problem with the power and the duration is not changable (only control powers can have this enhancement), this has *nothing* to really do with ED.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, a good QoL change would be to give us Buff Duration Enhancements.
SA
@Griffyn
"40 characters is my limit... okay, 50... 50 is my limit... okay, 60... 60 is my limit... okay, 70..."
Obitus, the point wasn't to bring a rhetorical question to the table - I really do want to know how the two situations compare, and to be honest, I don't even know the base Force Field numbers anymore, nevermind those of Smoke. However, if a Force Field Controller can ever reach the same points as a Force Field defender, well, we've got a *big* problem.
[ QUOTE ]
Blaster damage 100
Defender damage 65 * 1.37 (Enervating Field) = 89
[/ QUOTE ]
This number is off, Enervating field no longer debuffs 37%. It's 30% which is equal to Tar Patch -DAM RES.
65% * 1.3 = 84%.
So 84 * .9 = 75.6% which should be "identical" almost statistically blaster damage. This does ignore having to run toggles to do that and such.
As it was specifically made impossible for Defender to match Blasters damage due to debuffing, I think the 65% versus 100% blaster damage is suspect.
This was very thoroughly tested by Rad defenders at that point and the just could not get that close DPS or DPE. A lot of Beta guys specifically quit the AT at that point in disgust.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
An Illusion/FF Controller, however, can use Group Invisibility, Grant Invisibility, Maneuvers, or some combination of stuff, and cap Defense w/ just a minor teamate's defense power like Combat Jumping. (Let's not even get into Spectral Terror, which allows accuracy to be floored regardless. Just looking at buffs here.) They can reach 40% Defense pretty easily.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if Spectral Terror (or some combination of ST and Group Invis and Maneuvers) really does floor opponent ToHit (which means anything approaching 45% ToHit debuff), then I think it'd be more appropriate to ask why an Illusion Controller would take FF as a Secondary at all.
Which speaks to a few different issues. Is Illusion just too powerful? Or does Force Field just need dramatic improvement in terms of its non-DEF capabilities?
I don't think your example addresses the debate on whether or not the Force Field powerset is actually better for Controllers, though. Maybe if you'd picked a different primary it would have been better. I think the problem here is that some of us are just arguing different things. I'm arguing that the Force Field powerset, by itself, is better in its Defender incarnation. You appear to be arguing here that Controllers are just better than Defenders, which may well be true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
Obitus, the point wasn't to bring a rhetorical question to the table - I really do want to know how the two situations compare, and to be honest, I don't even know the base Force Field numbers anymore, nevermind those of Smoke. However, if a Force Field Controller can ever reach the same points as a Force Field defender, well, we've got a *big* problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would we have a big problem exactly? I understand all the complaints about Controller effectiveness overall, etc. (I'm really not inclined to type out all of my various disclaimers again here.)
But, in principle, I do not understand why it would be wrong for a Controller, wielding Force Fields and some combination of primary and pool powers to reach the DEF cap. Could you expound on that a bit more?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out, he was supporting you, Centerfire. Ironically enough, he was using the definition of "marginal" that you defended earlier, while you apparently put him on your ignore list based on the definition Arcana used.
[/ QUOTE ]
The context did not lend itself to that interpretation. But if that's what he meant, then I apologize to BrasswireBrush.
[ QUOTE ]
Arcanaville's point (at the risk of putting words in her mouth) was simply that your contention (and others') that FF is superior for Controllers, is not as clear-cut as perhaps you might like to think. From my perspective, you haven't addressed any of her objections in a logical manner. Can you explain how exactly the Controller version of FF is superior, despite that the Defender version will be providing more than 40% more mitigation through DEF?
[/ QUOTE ]
A few reasons:
(1) If I understand the I7 defense changes correctly, that 40% figure is the relative difference, not the absolute difference. In absolute terms the Defender's shields floor enemy to-hit, while the Controller's shields get enemy to-hit down to about 15%. So as a practical matter the Defender's shields are only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage than a Controller's. That's a difference, sure, but it's hardly this earth-shattering, orgasm-inducing one.
(2) Because of the better synergy between most Controller primaries and the FF set as a secondary, the Controller gets more mileage out of his shields: they do nothing for the solo Defender, but the solo Controller can buff his pets with them. That advantageous synergy is certainly an offset to the superiority of the Defender's shields: the Defender's are stronger, but he gets absolutely no personal benefit from them.
(3) The knockback and repel powers are equal in numerical strength for both ATs, but, again, Controllers enjoy advantageous synergies: most of these powers are problematic for a Defender because of the aggro that they draw, while the Controller can manage the aggro with his controls, or he can let his (shielded) pet take the aggro; either way, he's able to use the powers in much greater safety, and they're thus far less situational for him than for the Defender.
(4) The control-oriented powers are, simply, superior in the hands of any Controller. Detention Field, which is a mainstay in the attack chain of any FF/* soloist; and the disorient component of Repulsion Bomb, which is the only thing that makes that power worth casting to begin with.
So Arcana's contention is, essentially, that ~10% more absolute damage mitigation makes the Defender's overall capabilities with the set at least arguably superior to those of a Controller despite the fact that (a) that damage mitigation is of no personal benefit to the solo Defender, whereas it's of tremendous personal benefit to any Controller build that includes a pet; (b) any Controller already gets far more mileage out of the set's knockback and repel powers, inasmuch as he can better manage the aggro that those powers draw; and (c) any Controller is concededly superior with the set's ST immobilization/phase, and its AOE knockback/disorient (note that a good phase or a good disorient is better than a +defense buff as damage mitigation, inasmuch as for the duration of the effect the target(s) aren't attacking at all).
As I have said, I find this contention entirely frivolous. ~10% absolute damage mitigation is not all that; it's roughly a Luck inspiration, for God's sake. "FF Defenders can floor enemy to-hit rates!" is a nice talking point, but that's all it is, and I don't know a single FF/* Defender who wouldn't give up ~10% of the absolute damage mitigation conferred by his shields if it meant that (a) the shields, though weaker, were still pretty good, and of some personal benefit to him; (b) he could better manage the aggro from his knockback/repel powers (particularly Force Bubble), and thus be able to get more mileage out of them as soft controls/damage mitigators; and (c) Detention Field was a better phase and Repulsion Bomb was a worthwhile disorient.
Because we've had several powers redefined due to their previous ability to intercede on other archetype's capabilities. Every -res power, every +dmg power, risks that.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to ask the community....what is that you really want from your defender?
1) Is this really about soloing?
2) Do you want to be unequivocably perceptually better at damage mitigation than controllers?
3) Do you want to do unequivocably perceptually more damage than Controllers?
4) Do we want a better harmony between our Primary/Secondary at the expense of versatility and variety?
[/ QUOTE ]
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) For my FF/* Defender, yes (the set has no real versatility to speak of, so it's not like I'd be giving anything up). For my Dark/* Defender, no (I find the harmony between primary and secondary to be pretty good, there, but this I think is because Dark is such a damned good set).
[ QUOTE ]
This number is off, Enervating field no longer debuffs 37%. It's 30% which is equal to Tar Patch -DAM RES.
65% * 1.3 = 84%.
So 84 * .9 = 75.6% which should be "identical" almost statistically blaster damage. This does ignore having to run toggles to do that and such.
As it was specifically made impossible for Defender to match Blasters damage due to debuffing, I think the 65% versus 100% blaster damage is suspect.
[/ QUOTE ]
Futurias, the reason the number looks suspicious to you is that he (Mieux) included the accuracy boost for the Defender -- which, while certainly relevant -- isn't likely to show up in the DPS/DPE comparisons you cite.
In most cases, both characters are going to have capped accuracy, or at worst the Blaster is going to have a 5-10% disadvantage. Targeting Drone will impact results, as will Build Up/Aim. That covers pretty much every Blaster, and so far we're ignoring the sizable damage boosts from Build Up/Aim.
Defender damage IS 65% of Defenders'. Realistically, no Defender will equal or surpass a Blaster's damage output, although you can get fairly close with certain builds.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ 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
[/ QUOTE ]
True!
[/ QUOTE ]
Not correct, actually. The values you are using are actually too high. You are using the 100% value for defense rather than the 50% you plug into equations.
29% Defense * 1.25% = 36.25%
But the new improved equation is actually using 50% - 1/2 of the "old style" = base total * rank * purple modifier. So...
50% - 29% = 21% * 1.5 = 31% accuracy for Controllers.
50% - 36.25% = 13.75% * 1.5 = 20% accuracy for Defenders.
So not a 91% increase from the example that used the wrong defense numbers but a 55%. The numbers were just too good!
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This number is off, Enervating field no longer debuffs 37%. It's 30% which is equal to Tar Patch -DAM RES.
65% * 1.3 = 84%.
So 84 * .9 = 75.6% which should be "identical" almost statistically blaster damage. This does ignore having to run toggles to do that and such.
As it was specifically made impossible for Defender to match Blasters damage due to debuffing, I think the 65% versus 100% blaster damage is suspect.
[/ QUOTE ]
Futurias, the reason the number looks suspicious to you is that he (Mieux) included the accuracy boost for the Defender -- which, while certainly relevant -- isn't likely to show up in the DPS/DPE comparisons you cite.
In most cases, both characters are going to have capped accuracy, or at worst the Blaster is going to have a 5-10% disadvantage. Targeting Drone will impact results, as will Build Up/Aim. That covers pretty much every Blaster, and so far we're ignoring the sizable damage boosts from Build Up/Aim.
Defender damage IS 65% of Defenders'. Realistically, no Defender will equal or surpass a Blaster's damage output, although you can get fairly close with certain builds.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they *really* did an exhaustive test of DPE and DPS and blasters ended up being very superior.
We did forget to plug in animation times, buff powers (end and animation times) and the fact that Blaster get a (25%?) bonus on attacks for endurance compared to everyone else too.
Oops. This is rapidly becoming complicated.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
Because we've had several powers redefined due to their previous ability to intercede on other archetype's capabilities. Every -res power, every +dmg power, risks that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that, but you're talking about specific powers, and I'm talking about a Controller using the sum total of his abilities to achieve a similar effect. In other words, while I can understand your concern about Controllers flooring opponent ToHit, and even agree with it on some thematic level, I think it would be dangerous to set the precedent that: "No character of X Archetype shall EVER, by ANY means, achieve a comparable effect as Archetype Y does with fewer powers."
I don't like the principle behind the objection, if that makes any sense. Of course, I've been accused before of concentrating too much on abstractions, so that may well be the case here as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find your argument to be not marginally dishonest.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's always great when trolls self-identify; makes it easier to add them to my /ignore list.
*plonk*
[/ QUOTE ]
As others have pointed out, he was supporting you, Centerfire. Ironically enough, he was using the definition of "marginal" that you defended earlier, while you apparently put him on your ignore list based on the definition Arcana used.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well at least one person got it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
[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.)