[ QUOTE ]
Thank you very, very much for looking at these things Castle!
I do have a concern though; more of a rant, really.
In my opinion, there is no way a secondary set of any AT should outperform ANY aspect of a primary of mine, even if their main focus is 'controlling.' It's a secondary powerset -- by default it should not be as good in any aspect as someone's elses primary.
Again, thanks for looking at it for us! We all appreciate it, I'm sure!
-River
[/ QUOTE ]
This is nothing personal directed at you, but I so strongly believe this idea needs to die, that I believe the time has come to rename them "Alpha Sets" and "Gamma Sets" just because it seems it is impossible to break this notion.
There is absolutely no reason for one AT's primary to have any direct relationship of any kind to another AT's secondary: the actual ATs themselves should have a much greater impact in distinguishing the sets first, and then the internals of the sets should come second, and somewhere on page six hundred and forty five, item number ninty three thousand seven hundred two should be "oh, and maybe other people's secondaries shouldn't be stronger than my primaries."
Scrapper secondaries should have more damage mitigation than most other people's primaries, except tankers. Tanker primaries are more effective than scrapper secondaries because they are tankers, not because the set is a primary. If scrapper defenses were primaries, and damage was secondaries, and tankers were similarly reversed, tanker defenses should still be stronger than scrappers.
Blaster damage in the secondaries should be stronger than most people's primaries, because blasters in general are more damage-centric. Energy punch alone out-does most all controller attacks in controller primaries, and that's both appropriate, and logical.
In general controllers should have stronger control than defenders, and defenders should have stronger buffing/debuffing than controllers, regardless of where those powers are in the sets, as a general rule, all other things being equal.
The whole notion that "secondary" means "lesser" fails in a lot of areas. Scrappers are not "primary damage dealers, with a little bit of defense." By the devs own direct statements, scrappers are supposed to be balanced damage/mitigation ATs - meaning they really ought to have two "primaries." But the way the power trees work, something has to be primary, and something else secondary. Corruptors appear to have a similar balance; they are flipped defenders of a sort, but much more balanced in the buff/debuff and damage roles, similar to scrappers in that sense.
Kheldians are another good example where the primary/secondary distinction breaks down. It is not obvious that kheldians are meant to be "whatever is in the primaries first" and "whatever is in the secondaries second."
The *strongest* case, though, is electric blast. If all primaries should be stronger than all secondaries, then you'd basically be advocating that electric blasters should have stronger end drain than electric blast defenders, and I'm not sure you'd agree with that.
[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.)
This is moderately worrying, actually.
Basically, any defender powerset that has "controlling" effects is in effect a much, much better power for Controllers.
This makes some sets inheirently weaker for Defender primary ability. As there are no debuffs in our secondaries for the most part, there is no way to keep a balanced set.
This really hurts Force Field and Dark Miasma, as both have a lot of "control" powers, but would be generally better as a secondary power for Controllers.
Why were Debuffing/Buffing sets allowed such a large percentage of "control" powers when they will not be allowed to function the "best" for Primaries for Defenders?
As other ATs don't have buffing/debuffing in *their* primaries, there is no way for a balance to be met.
And "debuffing" set with a decent amount of mezzing is going to have this problem.
This effectively gives controller *two* primaries sets, as the mezzing ability in these secondaries becomes "primary" potent in effect.
Radiation, Force Fields and Trick Arrows are *as* good for Controllers (or better!) than for Defenders.
Perhaps, as so many Defender Primaries have a strong controlling secondary effect they should be "boosted" up in effectiveness. Or perhaps even be *as* effective as Controllers, just with less choices.
I'm probably rambling.
Still here, even after all this time!
The devs have always said
Primary>Secondary>Power Pool
And let's put it like tihs: Controller secondaries *should* be working at 80% of defender primaries instead of somewhere between 80 and 110%.
Neat. Thank you Castle, for investing your time into these issues and preparing concise explanations.
But I'm a little irked by the comment that controllers naturally benefit from the control aspects of these sets moreso than defenders. I understand the reasoning (controllers control, defenders debuff/buff) but doesn't this guarantee a much greater synergy between controller primaries and secondaries than anything defenders could possibly gain from their blast sets?
* Of all the controller secondary powers, how many have control aspects?
* Of the all defender secondary powers, how many have buff/debuff aspects?
I imagine that the controller's implicit control advantage is more generously seeded in their secondary powers than the defender's advantage are in their's. The ATs certainly play that way.
Anyone know?
SparrowhawkHummingbirdDungeon MasterCapricornHour WomanQueen NefariaJunkyard GirlDoll FaceStitchbladeRed MinstrelMimic
[ QUOTE ]
The devs have always said
Primary>Secondary>Power Pool
And let's put it like tihs: Controller secondaries *should* be working at 80% of defender primaries instead of somewhere between 80 and 110%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Basically it boils down to buffing/debuffing (which includes heals, BTW) are 100% for controllers (and Corruptors/Masterminds, I think) while 125% for Defenders *BUT* Controllers are always at 125% for any mezzing power, no matter if it is primary or secondary, while Defenders (and MM/Cors) will only ever be 100% as effective.
So for power sets with decent mezzing ability, they are effectively a second primary for controllers, just slanted towards mezzing more.
There is something very wrong when any secondary can outperform a primary only based on AT.
Still here, even after all this time!
Great to see you made time to look at Def issues. Thanks. Some thoughts:
[ QUOTE ]
Controllers AT modifier for Slows is higher than Defenders. I'll talk to geko to make certain this is by design.
[/ QUOTE ] I will argue that Slow should be considered a debuff and not a control. Slow reduces movement speeds and recharge times. This reduction in effectiveness seems more in-line with the defender purpose than that of controller. In essence, you are debuffing a person's speed. Defenders should be better at this than Controllers.
Another way to separate this is by using the Break Free Doctrine. If an effect can be cancelled a BF, then it is a power that Controllers should be better than Defenders at. Slow is not affected by BF's. The only exceptions are Det Field and Sonic Cage, but those are obviously controllerish.
[ QUOTE ]
If the target is lower level than you, or if it has a weakness to knockback, then knockdown powers will knock the target backwards. Knockdown is a low magnitude Knockback.
[/ QUOTE ] I understand how this woks. However, I would make a request that the devs separate out the effects. KD is very useful. KB is much less so IMO. Something like Oil Slick or Ice Slick should legitimately KD foes without KB lower ones. I also recognize that some of the Tanker powers make use of this magntitude based result. But again, I would petition the devs to create a KD status effect.
Thanks again for the work.
_Castle_,
I am not sure if you are still here, but there is one issue you did not cover that I am the most curious about. That is if you are going to look at the individual powers ED hurt badly.
EMPATHY
Regin aura: This power was already considered situational and almost completely skippable. The recharge was way too long to make it worthwhile unless six-slotted with recharges and the HP regin was so low that it was a waste of time to pretty much use on almost anyone unless it is six-slotted with heals. At least in the past, we had the ability to choose to slot it one way or the other, but now with ED, it has become an even worse power.
Recovery Aura: The downtime is almost twice as long as it is active even with hasten and the power 3 slotted with recharges. It was initially given such a long recharge because of the fear of six-slotting both that and hasten with recharge. Now that this can no longer be done, will the power be evaluated again.
Heal Aura: Without the ability to six-slot or even five-slot it with heals, the heal numbers are so low that there is almost no noticeable difference between a defender and a controller using it. It also is too low to even serve a purpose using it on a scrapper or tank. Is there anyway that the devs could consider increasing the numbers some so it serves a purpose for anyone but a squishy. It may be AoE, however, it is also one of the only 3 powers an empathy can use solo. All of the others are just useless icons unless there is a teammate to cast them on (or pet if you are a controller) so it should not be too big of a balance problem since the class survives on the ground of balance mainly for the heals. Heal Other got hurt in the same way, but the numbers on this power is at least high enough to still have some effect on a scrapper/tank.
Adrenaline Boost: This is a power that can only ever be used on ONE teammate at a time. With ED in the game now, it can not even be made perma on one person. Will you look at the recharge of the power and speed it up some so that we can at least use our 9th tier power as it was originally intended.
FORCE FIELD
Original comment by Statesman right after the global defense nerf was that ff was balanced because of the ability to SIX-slot defense buffs. He said it was the sixth slot that made all the difference. With ED, this means what originally made it balanced had to have disappeared. I mainly just want to know if Statesman meant what he said meaning it is now unbalanced or if he just said it and quoted numbers to pacify us.
I also wanted to mention that ff is not the best defense in the game when you add in all the defense debuffs and –dam resists that rad and dark has. It is in the top three, but it is no longer the top dog in the game when it comes to defender defense. I do not want to see the others lowered, however, I still think the numbers should be run so that you can maybe give ff a small boost since they are no longer balanced as they were supposed to have been pre ED.
Castle, I'm so glad you came out and said that a number of Defender primaries work better as Controller secondaries. Now I have no reason to feal guilty about giving up on defenders.
I'm also glad to see a dev say this, for when I try to explain to my SG mates why I won't be playing another defender after lovingly bringing my Rad/Dark deftroller to 50. If I want a defender, I'll just make a Ill/* controller.
/em yes, I'm pissed. Maybe I'll settle down later, but when I see ths, it kind of makes my blood boil.
[ QUOTE ]
Original comment by Statesman right after the global defense nerf was that ff was balanced because of the ability to SIX-slot defense buffs. He said it was the sixth slot that made all the difference. With ED, this means what originally made it balanced had to have disappeared. I mainly just want to know if Statesman meant what he said meaning it is now unbalanced or if he just said it and quoted numbers to pacify us.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, this was Statesman not trying to confuse people with a *possible* implementation of ED when it hadn't been announced yet. He specifically stated that this is why he didn't mention it in his examples. He was aware that ED was possible and may have happened, but it had not gone "public" at that point.
The did "balance" the numbers a bit around ED when they were lowering things in i6. If they hadn't, they probably would have downgraded powers another 25% or so in another patch.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
The devs have always said
Primary>Secondary>Power Pool
And let's put it like tihs: Controller secondaries *should* be working at 80% of defender primaries instead of somewhere between 80 and 110%.
[/ QUOTE ]
They've said all things being equal Primary>Secondary>Power Pool. When the primary is a defender primary and the secondary is a controller secondary and the power is a controlling power, all things are *not* equal.
But as I said, the rosetta stone is electric blast drain. If my view is correct, defenders should have higher end drain for electric blast than electric blast blasters. If yours is correct, then electric blast blasters should have higher end drain than electric blast defenders. Which one do you believe is proper, and which one do you believe best reflects the devs intentions?
To be consistent, anyone asking for defender primaries to have stronger control than controller secondaries solely on the basis of the primary>secondary theory has to believe that blaster end drain should trump defender end drain.
Keeping in mind, its entirely possible for a defender control power to need to be stronger for set balancing reasons having nothing to do with the primary>secondary rule. Such a position would be reasonable if the justification is reasonable: I'm not suggesting any particular power is necessarily balanced at current values. What I'm saying is that the primary>secondary rule in this case has no value.
[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 ]
Storm Summoning
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Bug: Hurricane, when used to push an enemy who is under the effects of a hold by another player, sometimes pulls or pushes the enemy in a different direction than intended. (Theory: Hurricane repels enemies Immobilized by another player as if that other player (caster of the Immob) were the origin of the Hurricane.)
[/ QUOTE ]
This is on my buglist, but I've not been able to reproduce it. In any case, it is almost certainly a code issue, which means until I get a reproducable case, it is problematic that it will be corrected.
[/ QUOTE ]
This bug still exists and has existed since early in CoH. I'm more than happy to help test this at any given time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Balance: Snowstorm's recharge debuff is more effective for Controllers than Defenders. ( It appears the defender version is 80% as slowing as the controller version, seems they were reversed. Dark_Pyroblast)
[/ QUOTE ]
Controllers AT modifier for Slows is higher than Defenders. I'll talk to geko to make certain this is by design.
[/ QUOTE ]
Please consider that all this power does is slow opponants. By designing it in this manner, the devs have designed the power to be more effective for controllers than defenders even though this is a defender primary power and a controller secondary.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Balance: ThunderClap's disorient lasts the same duration for Controllers as it does for Defenders, and may crit.
[/ QUOTE ]
This should not be the case. The Disorient value is the same for both ATs and the Controller has a 1.25 modifier, while the Defender has a 1.00 modifier. Controllers Disorient should last a bit longer by default.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, we have the problem of a controller secondary power being better than a defender primary (longer duration). Since all this power does is disorient opponants, the longer duration of the controller version of this power means a controller is more effective when using it than a defender. This is the reason storm defenders are so routinely outshined by their controller counterparts. Please reconsider this.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Balance: Tornado does the exact same damage and secondary effect for Controllers as it does for Defenders.
[/ QUOTE ]
Defenders should do slightly more damage with Tornado, while Controllers Disorient should last a bit longer. It sounds like a wash, but I'll run it by geko to see if we want to change this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, why should a defender primary power be functioning at approximately the same level of effectiveness as a controller secondary. No wonder no one rolls storm defenders.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* PVP: Hurricane does not debuff the ranged attacks (APP, Claws/Focus) of Scrappers and Tankers as it should. (Stormbringer) It also debuffs the range of Blaster melee attacks to zero. (Soyuz)
[/ QUOTE ]
The current system is working as designed. We may eventually get code put in that more adequately handles Melee AT's with Ranged attacks and Ranged ATs using Melee attacks, but it is fairly low on the priority list.
[/ QUOTE ]
Although working as designed, the current system was (i believe, please correct me if i'm wrong) introduced as a temporary fix for a coding problem that prevented melee ATs from launching melee attacks against someone using hurricane. The band-aid the devs placed on the boo-boo was simply that hurricane would not debuff ANY attacks from melee ATs--melee or ranged. This overkill was introduced as a temporary fix and has lingered like a bad smell, unfairly penalizing hurricane users against melee ATs in pvp by denying them one of the most useful and defensive secondary effects (-range debuff) of their primary defensive power (hurricane). I repeat, this fix was to be temporary, until the devs could recode the melee attack/hurricane interaction. This issue STILL needs to be addressed.
Thanks for your time, Castle. I appreciate you looking into these issues.
So I guess this exposes a rather large flaw in the AT modifiers system. I hope that powers can be changed individually for each AT, or else this will require a far more complicated fix.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The devs have always said
Primary>Secondary>Power Pool
And let's put it like tihs: Controller secondaries *should* be working at 80% of defender primaries instead of somewhere between 80 and 110%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Basically it boils down to buffing/debuffing (which includes heals, BTW) are 100% for controllers (and Corruptors/Masterminds, I think) while 125% for Defenders *BUT* Controllers are always at 125% for any mezzing power, no matter if it is primary or secondary, while Defenders (and MM/Cors) will only ever be 100% as effective.
So for power sets with decent mezzing ability, they are effectively a second primary for controllers, just slanted towards mezzing more.
There is something very wrong when any secondary can outperform a primary only based on AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't follow this. You're saying defenders have 100% mez and 125% buff/debuff, while controllers have 125% mez and 100% buff/debuff, and then jump to saying that (I think) at least some controller secondaries (ones with mez?) will always outperform defender primaries.
Controller secondaries with "decent mez:"
Really, all I can think of is storm, and radiation if you count EMP. That's one set and one additional power.
On the flip side, there are defender secondaries with buff/debuff that give defenders "effectively a second primary" in the same sense you're suggesting. More of them, actually:
dark blast (accuracy debuff)
electric blast (end drain)
radiation blast (defense debuff)
psionic blast (slow)
Actually, all of them except energy blast.
I think I'm missing the specific point being made here.
[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 ]
But as I said, the rosetta stone is electric blast drain. If my view is correct, defenders should have higher end drain for electric blast than electric blast blasters. If yours is correct, then electric blast blasters should have higher end drain than electric blast defenders. Which one do you believe is proper, and which one do you believe best reflects the devs intentions?
[/ QUOTE ]
Defenders are supposed to be the best at buffing/debuffing, so it makes sense in that portion, but the -end in electric blast is a minor secondary effect when compared to the main purpose of the powers (damage).
Blasters do 1.5 times as much damage as defenders do, and their blasts cost a bit less. Overall, I'd say that more than balances out the higher endurance drain that defenders get.
What we're seeing here is when a power's primary function is control, and it's being done better by another AT's secondary.
[ QUOTE ]
So Defender Primary "controlling" powers being weaker than Controller's secondarys is by design?
[/ QUOTE ]
Quoting for emphasis. Telling defender force fielders and stormies that their powers don't work as well as controllers' BY DESIGN...it's very frustrating to be one today.
Force Field:
- Force Bolt: Defenders do more damage, unless containment is on. (But it barely does enough damage to speak of.)
- Detention Field: Better for controllers.
- Repulsion Field: Same for both.
- Force Bubble: Same for both.
- Repulsion Bomb: Defenders do more damage (I wasn't aware it DID damage...I haven't tested it, but the short help in-game doesn't say it does damage), controllers stun longer.
- DS, IS, DB: Better for defenders.
Storm Summoning:
- Snowstorm: The slow is better for controllers.
- Thunderclap: The disorient is better for controllers.
- Tornado: Defenders do more damage, controllers disorient longer.
Arguably a third of each set performs better for controllers simply because the powers have a control component? That's NOT something we wanted hear. Tankers/scrappers and blasters/defenders have a defined division in shared powers, but controllers can match defenders in their shared powers...in both utility and, once containment is applied, in damage.
Many thanks for the post, Castle. Just had one quick question. Based on your responses, it looks like you just confirmed that FF Controllers get equal to more effectiveness from 5 out of the 9 powers in the set. Is the development team honestly happy with that as is? I understand your statement about how the whole set would need to be reworked, but if there's ever been a reason for it, shouldn't it be that the set as a secondary is only demonstrably different from the primary in less than half of it's powers?
I know that it's not your job, but you seem to be the only one on the staff willing to comment on this, other than a couple that have tried to tell us that knockback is a wonderful thing and we just don't appreciate it enough...
-M
Marut, 50 FF/Rad/Power Defender - Champion
Leader of The Earthguard
Leader of The Galactic Empire
[ QUOTE ]
While few enemies are especially vunlerable to Mental attacks, comparatively few have defense against it, either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you insane?
Seriously this is the most completely 180 degree wrong thing I've seen a dev post in a long time.
I run an illusion storm controller in the mid 20s.
Things that have high defenses (50% res or higher) against psi that I've run into:
Arachnos bots
Council bots
Sky raider bots
Banished pantheon minions (yes, ALL of them)
So, of all the enemies I'm fighting, virtually half of them have minions or leiuts that have psi resists. Not just psi resists, but huge, gigantic psi resists.
One of the most common enemy groups I fight is composed almost entirely of minions that have 50% psi resist.
I'll put this in bold capital letters so you know it is important:
ALMOST HALF THE MISSIONS I RUN HAVE MINIONS OR LEIUTENENTS THAT RESIST PSI IN AMOUNTS OF 50% OR MORE.
PSI IS NOT A RARELY RESISTED DAMAGE TYPE. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST RESISTED DAMAGE TYPES IF NOT THE MOST RESISTED IN THE GAME
again, so you really understand it:
PSI IS NOT A RARELY RESISTED DAMAGE TYPE. IT IS ONE OF THE MOST RESISTED IF NOT THE MOST RESISTED DAMAGE TYPES IN THE GAME
once more
YOU CAN NOT THROW A CAT POST LEVEL 20 WITHOUT HITTING A PSI RESISTANT ENEMY WITH IT
Thank you.
[ QUOTE ]
No other Defender set provides the level of Defense as a Force Field Defender. The built in Status Protection is invaluable, especially with Scrapper and Tankers Status Protections reduced. Also, Defenders are more than Healers -- consider your 'Healing' the fact that your team is taking considerably less damage as a result of your protections. I do know that many of you will disagree with this, but short of rebuilding the powerset completely, it is not likely to change in the near future.
[/ QUOTE ]
a slotted up darkest night or radiation infection reduce the target's tohit chances at a higher percentage than a force field defender can buff a teammate's defense. one toggle from radiation or dark primaries provides greater protection, with the only advantage to FF being that they cannot be detoggled. a toggle debuff + a heal (if it's actually needed) is far more desirable than a def buff in my opinion. while i have several friends who have FF defenders, FF is at the bottom of the ladder in terms of desirability for teams.
I'm both happy and sad at the same time.
...Happy that ALL of this got responded to(Except for Repel not having any ACC slotting still)
...and sad that so much of it seems so unfair. ...Esp PvP debuffs.
This concept that a Defender is only as good as the Taunt-Bot Tanker between him and the threats that come in from all sides in all shapes and forms makes me very sad indeed. I Play a tanker in PvP too and I can barely protect a Scrapper or Controller as it is, let alone a couple of Defenders. ...and let's not even get started on "Vigilance"...
I'm glad I've already started rolling some corruptors because I have no reason now to roll another Defender ever again if these are to remain the design philosophys behind them. NO COOKIES FOR GEKO
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But as I said, the rosetta stone is electric blast drain. If my view is correct, defenders should have higher end drain for electric blast than electric blast blasters. If yours is correct, then electric blast blasters should have higher end drain than electric blast defenders. Which one do you believe is proper, and which one do you believe best reflects the devs intentions?
[/ QUOTE ]
Defenders are supposed to be the best at buffing/debuffing, so it makes sense in that portion, but the -end in electric blast is a minor secondary effect when compared to the main purpose of the powers (damage).
Blasters do 1.5 times as much damage as defenders do, and their blasts cost a bit less. Overall, I'd say that more than balances out the higher endurance drain that defenders get.
What we're seeing here is when a power's primary function is control, and it's being done better by another AT's secondary.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I said previously, I believe Controller Control > Defender Control trumps Anyone Primary > Anyone Secondary. But lets assume the reverse is true and look for other instances.
I believe electric drain is pretty relevant, but I will concede one could claim that the end drain is allowed to break the rules because the counter balance is the higher damage of the blaster version (although you snuck in "Defenders are supposed to be the best at buffing/debuffing, so it makes sense in that portion" which undercuts your own argument, since replace "Defenders" with "Controllers" and you contradict your contention that Primaries vs Secondaries is more important than Defender vs Controller).
So lets take a look at debuffs in powers primarily debuffing in nature in controller primaries. Smoke, for example. Smoke is a controller primary: should its debuffing effects be larger in magnitude than all other debuffs in all other defender secondaries? Would you consider that a mandatory balancing requirement?
Ice control is loaded with slows. Should they be stronger than all other defender debuffs not in defender primaries?
I believe if you are going to have ATs and AT distinctions at all, your first loyalty (as designers) has to be to the ATs distinctions, and not to the happenstance of the sets that were classified "primary" and "secondary." And in fact the game as currently implemented is designed around ATs not power sets individually. Suggesting that a particular power set should be inherently weaker than another simply because its classified as "secondary" sounds suspiciously to me like suggesting that one AT should be weaker than another because its classified as "support."
Going back to electric blast: defenders are on a lower damage scale, this is true. But a significant chunk of that damage scale difference is counterbalanced by foe debuffs in a lot of sets. And while blasters get an endurance cost reduction for blasts, that margin is significantly reduced in the case of electric blast, because electric blasts were changed to transfer end, not simply drain it, so electric blast defenders do not have the same end cost calculation as other defenders.
[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 am absolutely flabbergasted that anybody can say with a straight face that the Defender versions of Repulsion Bomb and Force Bolt doing more damage than the Controller version is any way whatsoever a balancing feature. The damage on both is utterly negligible, and nobody with any experience with the set whatsoever pays the slightest attention to the "damage" of these powers. The *meaningful* effects of both are either identical between Controllers and Defenders or weighted towards Controllers (better mez from RB). This means that we have two powers which are as effective or more effective as secondaries than they are as primaries. Same with Force Bubble and Detention Field. The only powers in the entire FF set for which an FF Defender has any *meaningful* advantage over an FF Controller are the +DEF powers. So what happened to "Primary" > "Secondary"?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the basis of my discontent in issue 5, when defender controls were reduced. In essence, defenders aren't really allowed to be the best at very much, and those things they are the best at aren't that much more powerful than the controller versions.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Wow, _Castle_, just wow. Thanks.
Sigh. I'm really glad you were willing to be this upfront with the comunity. No dev has done that with us, as is obvious, since we are getting so pissed about what is apparently a central and obvious direction taken by the devs.
Thank you for communicating with us. I think many of the answers you have given us are horrible, but I really appreciate the direct and upfront manor they were given, as well as the work that went into finding/researching/testing/compiling.
I guess I'm also a little pissed that so many of the melee sets problems seemed to have been resolved to their satisfaction, and we are basicly getting "suck it up, controller are *supposed* to be better than defenders".
very good info. thank you.
Quick question on Detention Field... since it's so easy to resist the immobilize, I usually don't realize I'm inside an opponent's Detention Field. Can we get the red "Phased" status label added to this power?
Another way to produce the same bug is using the repel effect in TK. Not that you shouldn't be able to reproduce it with hurricane, but with TK you know the target you are working on.
Also, make sure the teammate who held him previously is not right next to you
I hope you squash this one since it's been around for ages and is extremely annoying in multi-control teams.