[ QUOTE ]
Brasswire, Arcanaville, and everyone else :
Can we stop argueing apples and oranges? With the exclusion of Tornado, not a single one of these defender issues is talking about a power even remotely similar to Short Circuit
Why?
Because Short Circuit has (currently) two valid effects. You can slot for damage, and kill every minion around you in two shots, or slot for end mod and drain every enemy around you in two shots. BOTH of those are VALUABLE effects.
Most of these powers don't have two valuable effects. They have a control, and that's it. There's no useful part of them that performs better for Defenders rather than Controllers.
Again, I don't expect the balance mechanism to change - for some whatever reason, controllers seem to have some sacred ground where none may tred, and as a result, anything considered a mez or soft control they get a bonus on. Fine. I don't expect to change that.
But let's try to make it so that an entire power perform subpar as a primary rather than a secondary? Cause this arguement sure as hell isn't helping that.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not arguing apples and oranges. Lets just toss out all the apples and the oranges. I believe that defenders and controllers overlap more than they should for healthy AT distinction. Unfortunately, that problem is unlikely to go away any time soon. However, I stand firm on the notion that when defenders get control-oriented powers, those powers should on average be less powerful than controller control powers, and controllers vice versa should have less effective buffing and debuffing, and I could care less whether they show up in a primary or secondary. My position is that whether a power shows up in a primary or secondary set is less important than which AT is wielding it.
Slows are an interesting case, because actually, slows have *both* a debuffing and control aspect. The movement slow is much more of a control aspect than a debuffing aspect (unless you want to claim that an immobilize is a movement debuff to zero). But the -recharge is a clear debuff. I don't know if the game could support this, but I believe that controllers should get stronger -movement out of slows, and less -recharge, and defenders should get the reverse, to distinguish them. And once again, I don't care if they show up in primaries or secondaries; I care that defenders have the stronger debuffs, and controller have the better control. I think that is the overriding concern - *especially* if you are concerned about the overlap in defenders and controllers.
How we decide to balance things - either by being more concerned about primary/secondary distinctions, or by AT distinctions, can have consequences for balancing sets like trick arrow, which have a little of both. Should trick archery be "weaker" for controllers than defenders in *all* respects, just because its a secondary for controllers and a primary for defenders, or should trick archery have stronger control for controllers and stronger debuff for defenders, regardless of the primary/secondary distinction? I'm heavily in favor of the latter over the former.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
So let me see if I get what is being said in Castle's post correctly.
When it is said that controllers use defender primary powers at 80% of a defenders effectiveness, what is ACTUALLY meant is that the controllers have 80% of the base debuff power, possible 80%? of the base damage/healing? and 150+% of any base control aspect? But other than that the powers are identical between both ATs.
This would explain why I found the corruptor versions so bizzarly weaker then the defender versions despite the fact that 80% usage for controllers does not seem that far off from 75% usage for corruptors. The corruptors are also getting effected by their ATs lower base control effect on the defender powers.
Sooooo It looks something like this than?
(using a defender as baseline)
AT ...............Debuff........... Control............ Damage
Defender:.....100%...............70%................. 66%
Controller:.....80%..............100%..................50%(+s pecial)
Corruptor:.....75%..................?.....................77 %
Master Mind:...?....................?.....................50%
Since I think it would be hard to argue that control or damage are superior to debuffs, so defenders get out right hosed. Even compared to the reasonably built (IMO) corruptors.
Controllers are in actual fact functionally more powerful than a defender with any defender power that relies on control more than debuffs or healing to defend a team. So not only are certain defender powers just strangely better for controllers but in fact entire defender powersets are vastly superior(force fields, storm, sonic? trick arrow?, and theortically dark) despite the "80%" reduction in effectiveness. I am guessing alot of the strange numbers and discrepences that crop up on occasion with controller secondaries are because the Devs have been hand "tweaking" them to bring them "more in line" porobably meaning that the 80% difference is little more than a paper tiger.
[/ QUOTE ]
The numbers bandied around are "controllers debuff/buff at 80% of effectiveness" which was confusing.
Recently the developers have stated that people use powers at 1.0 (or 100% effectiveness) and certain ATs *always* have a bonus based on their maing thing they do.
{Edit: BTW 80% to 100% is just a different way of saying 100% to 125%. It's the same breakdown of effectiveness. So anything that they used to say 80% as good as the primary users is 100% or normal effectiveness.}
Tankers: Self Buffs (which include armors).
Scrappers: Melee damage.
Blasters: Damage.
Controllers: Control powers.
Defenders: Buffing/Debuffing.
So everyone of these ATs gets a 25% boost at what they are "good" at.
This theoretically works well until you run into Defenders.
Defender primaries are not fully about debuffs. A significant portion of the powers are actually controlling sorts. As discovered with Forcefields, Defender are 125% on the buffs, but controllers are at 125% all of the control powers. Effectively, this powers set is as effective for Controllers as for Defenders, just in slightly different ways.
Going with that concept, Defender secondaries should all be 100% of ranged damage and controls, with any buffing/debuffing at 125% (there are a few powers that actually debuff, so not entirely moot.)
But, as buffing/debuffing allowed Defenders to encrouch upon Blasters 125% damage, our damage was dropped. It looks like it's about 66% to blasters 125%. There is no way that Defenders could possibly buff themselves up to blaster damage.
Not all Defender sets really allow for good damage boosting, so they do really sub-par damage. FF and Trick arrows are the big ones right now, I believe. Dark Miasma was in this boat, so I can empathize.
Basically, it boils down to because Blaster Secondaries are subpar, it caused a cascade problem into Defenders.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
... don't know if the game could support this...
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm almost 100% sure gravity powers' secondary effect is -speed, but no -recharge.
[ QUOTE ]
This is the most disheartening developer post I've ever seen. The lack of an apology, even while addressing the issue of a lack of an apology to the defenders who tested Enervating Field, is an appalling absence of manners. Explaining why you made a mistake does not excuse the fact that you flat out told prominent members of the community that they were lying. A simple "we're sorry we treated you poorly" would go a long way, and would cost you nothing - but it will probably never be voiced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'll address this, though I really don't want to. After doing fairly extensive research into three "Enervating Field has been nerfed" calls with faulty testing/logic behind them over several months (one, which took hours to find, had the tester being buffed between his two test casts, so the 'proof' was completely incorrect) I frankly dismissed it as yet another in the series. That made me have poor diligence in looking into it, which is my fault and for that, I apologize to the community.
Hats off to you _Castle_. I do not always agree with solutions and answers by the devs, but regardless of that, I do have to give props where they are due with your attention and work on these issues
Some are legends because of their posts, others just post becoming legends in their own mind.
[i]I refuse to have Numina regen/recovery envy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... don't know if the game could support this...
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm almost 100% sure gravity powers' secondary effect is -speed, but no -recharge.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking of things like lingering radiation, and other slows shared between controllers and defenders, but if gravity's slows are all -speed and no -recharge, that would reinforce the notion that controller slows should (in general) be weighted more towards -speed and less towards -recharge, while defenders should get the reverse, rather than having the full combination of -speed/-rech be stronger for controllers than defenders (which doesn't seem to make sense to me regardless of where the powers are located).
[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.)
Thank you, Castle, for doing that. It's nice to have a reasoning in writing, and having several hoaxes first is a lot kinder on the community than the previously commonplace rumor of complaints just being blown off.
Thank you.
Castle - thank you for all your attention and diligence.
The defender community is pretty upset, and some house cleaning obviously needs to be done, but I hope you never become disheartened. You have done the game and the players a great service. Viva la revolution 
SparrowhawkHummingbirdDungeon MasterCapricornHour WomanQueen NefariaJunkyard GirlDoll FaceStitchbladeRed MinstrelMimic
This may have been stated by others (and possibly better), but am I the only one that think it's screwy that controller secondaries can in some way function better than defender primaries? Isn't this unfair to the Defender AT? Is it untrue to say that, across the board , blasters primaries are stronger than defender secondaries, tanker primaries are stronger than scrapper secondaries, scrapper primaries are stronger than tanker secondaries, and controller primaries are just plain unique and incomparable. Yet somehow, a controller taking a defender secondary can use certain powers to better effect. Not only that, but their primaries allow them to use certain powers to better effect as well! (i.e. tornado, freezing rain, etc). Do the devs just dislike defenders, what's up with that?
I get the dev's fuzzy logic on making controller-esque powers more powerful in a controller's hands, but where's the balance? Why give defenders controller-esque powers at all, then?
I thought I read way back when that defender secondary mez-type effects were more powerful than the blaster primary mez effects. Is this the trade-off? Why do I still feel like it's the short end of the stick?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... don't know if the game could support this...
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm almost 100% sure gravity powers' secondary effect is -speed, but no -recharge.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tar Patch, too, is -speed but no -recharge.
[ QUOTE ]
This may have been stated by others (and possibly better), but am I the only one that think it's screwy that controller secondaries can in some way function better than defender primaries? Isn't this unfair to the Defender AT? Is it untrue to say that, across the board , blasters primaries are stronger than defender secondaries, tanker primaries are stronger than scrapper secondaries, scrapper primaries are stronger than tanker secondaries, and controller primaries are just plain unique and incomparable. Yet somehow, a controller taking a defender secondary can use certain powers to better effect. Not only that, but their primaries allow them to use certain powers to better effect as well! (i.e. tornado, freezing rain, etc). Do the devs just dislike defenders, what's up with that?
I get the dev's fuzzy logic on making controller-esque powers more powerful in a controller's hands, but where's the balance? Why give defenders controller-esque powers at all, then?
I thought I read way back when that defender secondary mez-type effects were more powerful than the blaster primary mez effects. Is this the trade-off? Why do I still feel like it's the short end of the stick?
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the were referring to debuffs/buffs actually. I would surmise that Dominators would get the bonus to mezzing powers over Blasters in comparison.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
And once again, I don't care if they show up in primaries or secondaries; I care that defenders have the stronger debuffs, and controller have the better control. I think that is the overriding concern - *especially* if you are concerned about the overlap in defenders and controllers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I radically disagree with you here, for one simple and very powerful reason. Primary powersets have "cross AT" powers in them. By taking a primary powerset that has, say, exclusive control powers in it, you are making a sacrifice. That sacrifice is that you are not taking some other powerset in your primary that, for example, performs your primary function more explicitly. In any case where there are a significant fraction of such powers in your powerset, then your primary powerset will be more powerful as someone else's secondary powerset. This makes little sense and, fundamentally, means that the powerset is a poor choice. Worse, it makes the character a poor choice to add to a team give either someone else of the same AT who took a more "mainstream" powerset for the AT or (especially) someone of that other AT who will use the powerset more effectively as a primary.
I assert strongly that no AT should ever use their secondary powerset more effectively than any AT uses their primary powerset. That can mean a lot of things, and for powers with multiple functions (for example a slow that debuffs) there are clear options for making both effective in different ways. But for a power that is only a hold, only a slow, only a disorient, and so on, it is damaging to the AT that has a powerset as a primary if another AT can be shown to use it more effectively as a secondary. It is almost always a better choice to pick that other AT, because they can combine the better secondary with a full-effect primary.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
I gotta say, my main hero is a controller and I agree with those who say it's not right for controllers to use defender primary powers more effectively than defenders do. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I think it'd be more balanced and appropriate to make control-ish powers more powerful in defender primaries than they are in controller secondaries. They are primary set powers for defenders, after all, and I don't think any reasonable person would dispute that controller primaries are far and away more powerful than defender secondaries. Controllers using defender powers more effectively than defenders do (even if it's only certain powers) really seems very unfair to defenders.
As much as I hate to say it, the general public opinion is right. _Castle_, I think we all applaud you for your work here and openness in both answering our questions and in finding problems. But the list of 'by design' comments is very worrying. There seem to be a significant number of Defender primary sets and powers that are simply being written off as okay that Controllers can use them as well or better. If that is by design, I (and seemingly many others) question what logic was put into designing them that way. Poor Forcefield is obviously getting the worst of it - with half the powers, it's 'just fine' that a Defender is no better or worse than a Controller? If we're supposed to be worse at using mezzes and better with buffs/debuffs, why are our sets being saddled with so many mezzes and effects that aren't buffs/debuffs that aren't supposed to have a difference? I don't believe most of the complaints on that topic are directed at you, but more at the design logic that, by your statements, seems to suggest that we're being given primary powers that are purposely reduced to the strength of being secondaries, while others who have those same powers as secondaries are being given primary-equivalent levels of strength. I think we're all justified in being put out by this, and in questioning if it's viable design logic.
Castle: I appreciate the work.
I have a couple of Force Field things that I wish to complain about. . . I don't know enough about the other sets, so I'm only talking about Force Field here.
TO CASTLE:
1) Why does high-end Force Field suck so bad? I wanted to like it when the END costs were changed, but. . .I don't. Cheap redundant worthless powers are still redundant and worthless. Maybe it's me.
2) Being a Force Field defender means the following, in playstyle: You have only one real thing to do, you have to do it every 4 minutes, it doesn't take that long. Easy job, except what you have to do is hit the "avoid teamwipe" button. Don't screw up, now!
TO OTHER PEOPLE:
1) "Does anybody have a good reason to play a Defender now? Anybody? "
I hate Controllers. If I'm not hitting people I'm not happy. (I didn't say it was a GOOD reason.)
2) "Controllers are about as good at Force Fielding as Defenders"- this is actually not true. If we consider the Proverbial White Minion [in I7, true for all badguys]:
Defender gives team 40% Defense, so people get hit 1 in 10 times.
Controller gives team 32% Defense, so people get hit 1 in 5.55 times.
FF Defender gives almost twice as much protection as FF Controller. . .excluding the Controller primary, that is. So "they bounce people around more" isn't that big a deal to me.
This is one thing they [accidentally?] did in the Great Defense Nerf: made Def bubbles distinctly better than Troll ones.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
I have to admit that you've made me ashamed of myself for posting that in the first place, Castle. I didn't mean for it to come out quite so high-handed. 
I'm sorry I dragooned you into that.
~Gabriel
[ QUOTE ]
Is it untrue to say that, across the board , blasters primaries are stronger than defender secondaries, tanker primaries are stronger than scrapper secondaries, scrapper primaries are stronger than tanker secondaries, and controller primaries are just plain unique and incomparable.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's somewhat akin to the following:
A Scrapper using a Defense power that does damage would deal more damage than a Tanker using that power in his Primary.
A Tanker using an attack that raises his Defense would get more bonus than a Scrapper. (Unfortunately, the only attack for which this applies is Parry, and weapon Tankers don't get it)
A Defender using a Secondary that debuffs an enemy should get a greater (or longer duration) debuff. (Sonic Attack is probably the only real example of this, although Rad's -Def debuff would theoretically apply. Plus, Electric was intentionally changed to drain more End for Defenders)
Unfortunately, the issue is that most of the powers above have ANOTHER effect as well as the one that's getting a "boost", so for instance while the Parry might do less damage for the Scrapper, it obviously does more damage. The Defender Powers that are an issue, though, are those that have ONLY a Control element, or the other element is minor. (Like Force Bolt's damage)
In some cases, the solution might be to add a debuff element. Tar Patch, for instance, mentioned above, may not have a -recharge component, but it DOES have a -Res, which is quite useful. So there is something the Defender could be overall better at. (If Controllers got Dark Miasma, but this is just in general, here)
[ QUOTE ]
Poor Forcefield is obviously getting the worst of it - with half the powers, it's 'just fine' that a Defender is no better or worse than a Controller?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think Trick Arrow gets the worst of it -- three powers that work better for Controllers in all regards (if my reading of the definition of 'Slow' is correct) and one works better for Controllers in its main capacity. But that is semantical as Trick Arrow already had it worst.
"If you're going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
[ QUOTE ]
2) "Controllers are about as good at Force Fielding as Defenders"- this is actually not true. If we consider the Proverbial White Minion [in I7, true for all badguys]:
Defender gives team 40% Defense, so people get hit 1 in 10 times.
Controller gives team 32% Defense, so people get hit 1 in 5.55 times.
FF Defender gives almost twice as much protection as FF Controller. . .excluding the Controller primary, that is. So "they bounce people around more" isn't that big a deal to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except that:
1) You're talking about high level Defenders and Controllers here, not low level. Base level for the numbers you gave above would be Defender 25% for 1 hit in 4 times, and Controller 20% for 1 hit in 5 times. That's only an increase of 25%.
2) At high levels, most Tankers and Scrappers will have some form of Defense, too. In fact, only 4% Defense, which can be gotten from the power pool, will take your double damage and make it only 40% more damage. Once you hit the cap, both Defenders and Controllers are equal.
It can also be said that this is the same argument as about the increase in the cap for Bosses and AVs, in that twice as much of so small an amount of damage is not significant. You really have to compare that to how much damage the team is able to take.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the most disheartening developer post I've ever seen. The lack of an apology, even while addressing the issue of a lack of an apology to the defenders who tested Enervating Field, is an appalling absence of manners. Explaining why you made a mistake does not excuse the fact that you flat out told prominent members of the community that they were lying. A simple "we're sorry we treated you poorly" would go a long way, and would cost you nothing - but it will probably never be voiced.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'll address this, though I really don't want to. After doing fairly extensive research into three "Enervating Field has been nerfed" calls with faulty testing/logic behind them over several months (one, which took hours to find, had the tester being buffed between his two test casts, so the 'proof' was completely incorrect) I frankly dismissed it as yet another in the series. That made me have poor diligence in looking into it, which is my fault and for that, I apologize to the community.
[/ QUOTE ]
Castle man, cheer up, you did a great service to us all by even acknowledging this thread and taking time to poke around and give us answers, good and bad. A lot of us realize that hey, you're human and do the best ya can, like the rest of us, as a defender you have my thanks for this, despite not liking some of the answers, at least we aren't in the dark anymore, so have a brew and smile and keep a stiff upper lip.
Wow -- I haven't touched my Storm/Rad Defender since COV came out, and after this post I know why...
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Controllers secondaries operate at 80% of Defender efficiency. But if the power is a "controllery feeling one", say detention field, they operate at a 1.25 multiplier vs. a 1.00 multiplier for defenders.
This seems so far out of whack to me...
In essence, this seems to boil down to Controllers will be more effective with 50% of their secondaries than many defender sets will be. And even when they aren't more effective, they operate at 80% of our effectiveness.
Someone remind me again why anyone would want a Defender when a Controller with the same secondary is MORE effective at the same things ?!?
I think the biggest problem boils down to what the devs are considering "controller" powers. Slows are a controller power ?!? Disorient is considered controller power. Etc. Etc. (I have to say, Slow is the one that REALLY blows my mind. If slow is NOT a debuff to someone's speed thwen what is it??? A 'control' of their speed?!? Please...)
I still love my Storm/Rad, but I can't say I'll be playing him anytime soon.
I thank Castle for the info, but I can't say that I agree with the way they are "balancing" defenders vs. controllers. My Stormie comes out far behind */Storm Controllers using many of his primary powers - and that's simply not right.
I'm in the Primary > Secondary camp (who isn't and isn't a dev).
I'd think that the way to do this would be to have some sort of overall scaling factor say 1.2 for a Primary set. The problem with doing this now would be having to rebalance basically every shared set in the game which, of course, would set the boards on fire with "nerf!" cries.
<rant>
My overall thoughts on this basically boil down to my perception that Controllers shouldn't have Defender Primaries for their Secondary sets. Nearly every other AT's Primary/Secondary sets have a conceptial synergy:
<ul type="square"> [*] Dark/Dark[*] Storm/Electric[*] Rad/Rad[*] Assault Rifle/Devices[*] Super Strength/Invulnerability[*] Claws/Regen 
[*] an on ...[/list]
Controller powers don't have this with the possible exception of Ice/Storm and maybe (pushing it) Grav/Kin. This makes controller power set selection more of a mechanical issue (how the mechanics of the power sets complement each other) than a conceptial one (how the ideas of the power sets complement each other). A great example of this is the (once, I'm not sure anymore since I haven't kept up) UBER Illusion/Storm set ... [censored] - how do Illusion and Weather powers fit together without coming up with some convluted explanation? They don't .. the build works like magic, the concept - not so much.
Nearly all my heros have been cowboys .. no really, Defenders. I love how their powers fit together and how they can be both soloists and team players. Before containment (I really haven't tried since) I tried, oh how I tried, playing a controller. I just couldn't do it.
Now, oddly, my favorite character is a Dominator - what a Controller should have been. The Primary and Secondary sets jive .. they make sense and they mechanically complement each other.
If only the Devs could come out with a Time Control set and use it themselves to go back and rethink the Controller secondaries.
Sorry for the long post but this has been a sore point for me since the first time I tried to play a controller
</rant>
[ QUOTE ]
The movement slow is much more of a control aspect than a debuffing aspect (unless you want to claim that an immobilize is a movement debuff to zero). But the -recharge is a clear debuff.
[/ QUOTE ] That's an inconsistent approach to the topic. If you are going to argue that a Slow is a type of control, the same logic would apply to a -Recharge. Both effects are the technical implementation of a "Slow." There are no "Anti-Recharge" only powers in the game. Psi Blast does have a -recharge component with no Slow, but IIRCC all powers that list a "Slow" slow both movement and recharge.
The point is to look at the spirit of the debuff Slow. It slows you down physically and this slows both your movement which should also slow your ability to draw your weapon, swing your fists, etc. Separating out the slow movement from the -recharge undermines the intregrity of the "Slow" effect. Both are required to effectuate the "Slow."
Whether one wants to consider a Slow more controllerish or defenderish is somewhat arbitrary. IMO, defender powers are aimed at reducing the effectiveness of a foe. Controller powers look more to incapacitate a foe or Control. Slowing someone is not "controlling" someone. The foe still goes where it wants or attacks with what it wants......they just do it slower or with less frequency. Their speed is debuffed just like their accuracy or their defense is debufffed. But hindering something is not controlling something no more than I can control a Mack truck by hanging on the bumper.
Defenders should be better at Slows. Both the movement and the recharge. If Break Frees worked on Slow movement, then I'd agree with you. But the Break Free, imo, provides the litmus test for what is something that "controls" you. The whole point of the Break Free is to "break free from the control." If devs want Slow movement to be Controllerish, then Break Frees should free us from the slow movement and not the -recharge.
So, um.. any chance of a free respec? Not just any respec, I mean a total character AT switching overhaul. My first toon to 50 is lame by design, not by negligence.
Forgive me; I'm simply fuming over the FF section particulary. My dark defender may not be what she used to be, and that I can tolerate. But really.. why anyone in their right mind would roll a bubble defender now is beyond me.
[ QUOTE ]
Does anybody have a good reason to play a Defender now? Anybody?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because all five of mine are still extremely fun, and two of them join my main corruptor as my favorite characters?