Do dominators suck like people say they do?
By
Aleshanee_NA,
Posted on: 2006-07-05 13:59 in Dominators
so the 'Sweet Spot' for Doms is 23 (slotted with SOs) to 40 (or whenever you hit AV/Monster mish where your Primary is nullified by Purple Triangles)
Well, thats almost half the game!! 
People sometimes tell me I'm both pessimistic and paranoid but I think that's just because all you optimists are out to get me.
[ QUOTE ]
so the 'Sweet Spot' for Doms is 23 (slotted with SOs) to 40 (or whenever you hit AV/Monster mish where your Primary is nullified by Purple Triangles)
Well, thats almost half the game!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, on an ice/nrg dom, I felt I more than contributed my share as soon as I started using ice slick at level 12. Further, before then, I could usually nuke the boss (BOI, powerpush, BOI) which at the time was a big deal for corruptors, and brutes (no real defense/resistance before 12).
Really, other than AV fights (and PVP), I dont think doms (or, ice/nrg doms or fire/fire doms) need any improvement. The problem is ice slick, AA, BOI and glacier not working. Slick uses knockdown, AVs basically immune. AA uses fear and a extremely short confuse, which dont seem to affect AVs at all, leaving an ok slow with a huge end drain. BOI only works with no triangles, same with glacier. Shiver is a slow and -recharge, which mainly doesnt help much when an AV can win in two hits (ie. no recharge needed).
Looking at my fire/fire, I have smoke, char, hotfeet, flashfire and bonfire. The def is smoke is pitiful, char works 33% at most (triangles), hotfeet does damage, but the fear doesnt seem to affect AVs (though I may have just missed it), flashfire needs stuns to work, and bonfire is knockback which most can just run through.
In other words, the devs think its fun for my powers to work 90% of PVE, and in the 10% when the chips are down, they take them away. Both my toons can do ok damage and do some slows, and thats about it against an AV. THAT is the problem, that I and some others have with doms, and its made more apparent due to the LRSF, where you face 5-8 of them (AVs) at the same time.
Same as Kid Laz, I have boosted my doms health through accolades, and it doesnt do much for the AT (IMO). I have also used red inspirations, and have been on teams with assualt. I'm told assualt adds +19% damage, and it didnt make my dom any better than he is now.
Every boost is nice, but the complaints I see as valid mostly wont be fixed by adding health, damage, or mez protection, unless the add a lot more health or damage than is reasonable.
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't.
I pointed it out in response to a comment that dominators are "underpowered".
[/ QUOTE ]
if you read the entire post you'll see I make it clear that it was in reference to team play.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you cleary are only paying attention to your half of the conversation anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, would that be the sort of comment you described earlier, where you are "discussing the subject reasonably" and someone "takes it as a personal attack"?
[/ QUOTE ]
technically no, since it was an observation of the irrelevance of your reply. I suppose I could have sunk some more time into coming up with a nicer way to get that point across.
[ QUOTE ]
The majority of your post was opinion. Since it *was* clearly opinion, I felt no particular need to respond.
e.g. "What if RSF's last mish were 8 EB's? Triangles aren't the problem with dominators. I wholeheartedly agree that the triangle mechanism is foolish but to pretend that if they went away or were modified in some sort of way to benefit control functions that suddenly dominators would be fine is naive at best."
What more would you like me to say, other than "I disagree"?
<Shrug>
[/ QUOTE ]
perhaps why?
Pretend the last mission was EB's. I'm making a team to attempt it. Why would I choose a dominator over a Brute, MM or a Corruptor?
Carry it further. Pretend it was 15 bosses. 25 LTs. Anything not involving triangles. In my opinion, in any of those scenarios you're better with an AT that can flatten the difficulty curve. A dominator spikes it.
I would much rather discuss this topic vs. whether or not you appreciated the tone of my post which was not even directed at you, and (upon rereading) mild compared to the ones I tend to see in opposition to my point of view.
[ QUOTE ]
With regard to the two sections I did respond to, both were attempts at denigrating the "opposition" - which I felt was uncalled for.
Insisting that the other side is "in denial" in some fashion does nothing to support your position.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you say in principle. I admit, I get frustrated reading this particular forum. However a quick perusal of this thread which I've followed from day one leads me to belive that neither comment was severe enough to be called out, nor would they have been if I'd shared your opinion.
I stand by the fact that many people argue in the dominator-effectiveness debate simply to argue, and often times seem to stop comprehending what is said upon realization the topic is not in line with their own opinons. To be fair, probably a lot of it goes on from the other camp as well, however the side I seem to notice the most is the side that disagrees with me - for no other reason than I tend to notice replies to my comments more often.
But to be fair, the vast majority of the rebuttals I receive are one of the following:
"You just don't understand how to play it"
"You're a min/maxxer"
"Dom's are fine, my plant/thorns -or- fire/fire soloed <insert mob here>"
And the new one, "Corruptors are overpowered"
I hope that helps some in understanding where I'm coming from.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so the 'Sweet Spot' for Doms is 23 (slotted with SOs) to 40 (or whenever you hit AV/Monster mish where your Primary is nullified by Purple Triangles)
Well, thats almost half the game!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, on an ice/nrg dom, I felt I more than contributed my share as soon as I started using ice slick at level 12. Further, before then, I could usually nuke the boss (BOI, powerpush, BOI) which at the time was a big deal for corruptors, and brutes (no real defense/resistance before 12).
Really, other than AV fights (and PVP), I dont think doms (or, ice/nrg doms or fire/fire doms) need any improvement. The problem is ice slick, AA, BOI and glacier not working. Slick uses knockdown, AVs basically immune. AA uses fear and a extremely short confuse, which dont seem to affect AVs at all, leaving an ok slow with a huge end drain. BOI only works with no triangles, same with glacier. Shiver is a slow and -recharge, which mainly doesnt help much when an AV can win in two hits (ie. no recharge needed).
Looking at my fire/fire, I have smoke, char, hotfeet, flashfire and bonfire. The def is smoke is pitiful, char works 33% at most (triangles), hotfeet does damage, but the fear doesnt seem to affect AVs (though I may have just missed it), flashfire needs stuns to work, and bonfire is knockback which most can just run through.
In other words, the devs think its fun for my powers to work 90% of PVE, and in the 10% when the chips are down, they take them away. Both my toons can do ok damage and do some slows, and thats about it against an AV. THAT is the problem, that I and some others have with doms, and its made more apparent due to the LRSF, where you face 5-8 of them (AVs) at the same time.
Same as Kid Laz, I have boosted my doms health through accolades, and it doesnt do much for the AT (IMO). I have also used red inspirations, and have been on teams with assualt. I'm told assualt adds +19% damage, and it didnt make my dom any better than he is now.
Every boost is nice, but the complaints I see as valid mostly wont be fixed by adding health, damage, or mez protection, unless the add a lot more health or damage than is reasonable.
[/ QUOTE ]
not even half the game when you consider it takes a considerably longer time to get from 23 to 50 than it does from 1-23
First of I would like to say I do like my doms even though they are gimped.. I've been holding out being hopeful the devs would give us a LOT more buffs.. Will I lvl up another dom now that issue 7 has come out probably NOT.
My dom is more gimp in 1 vs 1 duels now in issue 7 against melee archtypes such as brutes stalkers etc... The reason? Well cuz the devs decided to nerf toggle dropping across the board. I really depended on my 2 100% toggle drops they were SOOO much better at providing me with a dmg increase due to the fact that I could knock of my opponents shields.. In return they gave us a very small bump in our melee attacks. I definitely would not of traded my 2 100% toggle drops for that YUCK... Maybe blasters needed it to be reduced for them but NOT doms... Sigh..
OK I am appreciative of the added buff in building up domination.. Although it really only works in a PVP zone where u can get random hits of certain non defensive opponents and run around... In a duel in the arena where the map is smaller and your opponents are more focused well it's pretty much dooom..With a lot of testing and strategy I used to have a good pvp rep breaking the perceived notion that doms could be not good in pvp especially in the arena.. I enjoyed the challenge and although it took a lot of work and planning I was successful..
I come from a PVP SG on my server and had many debates and discussions on how to incorporate a dom on a team PVP arena match.. Sigh the conclusion is I will probably have to roll a corruptor Double Sigh.. They are also a needed for the SF too.. It's a shame.. My SG does the SF almost every night to get SHOES for their pvp builds.. They have suggested that I roll a corruptor for that purpose and for team pvp.. All of them recognize that I am one of the best PVP doms on my server but to no avail I also have come to the conclusion that the corruptor archtype is more versatile than the dom and we just don't have the tools necessary to compete in serious pvp..
I love doms for their concept I have 4 of them and I am always devising and scheming tactics and strategies to show the rest of the archtypes we are a force to be reckoned with but at this point I've waited to long the devs aren't buffing us enough..
So if PVP is your thing it's my opinion your better of rolling a corruptor or brute.. I know I am for the double XP for this weekend..
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't.
I pointed it out in response to a comment that dominators are "underpowered".
[/ QUOTE ]
if you read the entire post you'll see I make it clear that it was in reference to team play.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is that you have made comments like this:
"I honestly think if the RSF were EBs a corruputor, brute, or MM would still be a better choice. Stalkers - I agree that there are some effectiveness issues in this type of encounter but I don't think the vast majority of people would get onboard the "stalkers are underpowered" bus."
Which appear to separate "underpowered" from "team play".
So I pointed to an example of "power" and asked what you mean by "underpowered"...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The majority of your post was opinion. Since it *was* clearly opinion, I felt no particular need to respond.
e.g. "What if RSF's last mish were 8 EB's? Triangles aren't the problem with dominators. I wholeheartedly agree that the triangle mechanism is foolish but to pretend that if they went away or were modified in some sort of way to benefit control functions that suddenly dominators would be fine is naive at best."
What more would you like me to say, other than "I disagree"?
<Shrug>
[/ QUOTE ]
perhaps why?
Pretend the last mission was EB's. I'm making a team to attempt it. Why would I choose a dominator over a Brute, MM or a Corruptor?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not about choosing a dominator *over* one of those.
It's about making it a reasonable alternative.
[ QUOTE ]
Carry it further. Pretend it was 15 bosses. 25 LTs. Anything not involving triangles. In my opinion, in any of those scenarios you're better with an AT that can flatten the difficulty curve. A dominator spikes it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. A dominator can perma-control part of that group.
That is a flattening, not a spike.
Same thing with a non-triangle elite boss.
Even assuming there is still a difference in overall value, at least removing the purple triangles mitigates that difference enough to where the players could reasonably choose between the archetypes.
If I quote #'s, they're from City of Data.
Global: @Kazari
It was either Taunt or Purple Triangles of Doom. I stand by my decision!
-BackAlleyBrawler
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the devs think its fun for my powers to work 90% of PVE, and in the 10% when the chips are down, they take them away. Both my toons can do ok damage and do some slows, and thats about it against an AV. THAT is the problem, that I and some others have with doms, and its made more apparent due to the LRSF, where you face 5-8 of them (AVs) at the same time.
[/ QUOTE ]
/begin pure speculation
I think it comes down to the nature of control, and its intended role in this game. I believe it's designed to be crowd control, not mob-control.
In other words, the role of holds possibly are not to allow you to eliminate all risk from an encounter, but rather to bring the risk down to a manageable level.
The problem with lowering hold magnitude on an AV is that while they'd be fine in a situation like RSF if only used for crowd control, they would likely end up being used to either a)stack RSF teams with doms so there was no risk attached to it or B)make every single AV fight in the game trivial. Even with the template 2 brute/6 corr team, RSF is not a risk-free encounter.
I see sleep as essentially a hold for crowd control purposes, but not in a mob-control circumstance.
Fear, confuse.... these fall into the same categories IMO - they're not designed to take the single mob you're fighting and make him unable to fight back - they're designed to allow you to handle X number of mobs when otherwise you'd only be able to handle X-Y.
Perhaps massively overhauling the secondary effects of some powers to incorporate a heavier representation of debuffs (in both the primary/secondary) would add value to a dominator in not just "triangle" fights, but also boost their overall effectiveness without requiring things like an HP/dps/control duration boost like many ask for.
/end pure speculation
[ QUOTE ]
I stand by the fact that many people argue in the dominator-effectiveness debate simply to argue, and often times seem to stop comprehending what is said upon realization the topic is not in line with their own opinons. To be fair, probably a lot of it goes on from the other camp as well, however the side I seem to notice the most is the side that disagrees with me - for no other reason than I tend to notice replies to my comments more often.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would also say that there are the "anti-doms" that just like to argue about Doms being gimped and find it hard to believe that there are people out there that do have Doms that can solo well and do contribute to both small and large teams.
IMO part of the problem is this is a very subjective manner. There are too many variables such as power selection, slotting, player experience, player tactics, Level etc that muddy up the arguement. You can have one player that can very successfully play his Dom and on the other end you can have another person have nothing but problems with their Dom. It's all a matter of perspective.
I was talking in a PVE point of view and not from a PVP when it came to Teaming. Even though PVP is not my thing I have done a bit of it with my Dom in BB & WB and done the Team PVP. I am well aware of the problems of Dominators in PVP, namely being Break Frees. I've used the hit and run (carrying a couple BFS myself for stuns) tactics and have had some success in PVP though I am far from an expert.
If PVP is your thing, I would agree and would never recommend a Dominator (or for that fact even a MM). If PVP is your #1 concern I would skip on the Corruptor and Brute and just roll a Stalker. If you don't want to do the Stalker, I would just go with a Brute.
[ QUOTE ]
The problems that doms have with large teams are not anything that can be cured by build advice, however.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I recommended asking for advice on build and tactics. Your large-team problems are not universal. Instead of continuing to argue fruitlessly otherwise, get help.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that you have made comments like this:
"I honestly think if the RSF were EBs a corruputor, brute, or MM would still be a better choice. Stalkers - I agree that there are some effectiveness issues in this type of encounter but I don't think the vast majority of people would get onboard the "stalkers are underpowered" bus."
Which appear to separate "underpowered" from "team play".
So I pointed to an example of "power" and asked what you mean by "underpowered"...
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. You are (inexplicably) reading "team play" as meaning RSF and/or hypothetical "EB-RSF". While I feel stalkers are optimal solo, good ones do quite well in a team environment. My opinon that an all AV/EB encounter doesn't play to their strengths has nothing to do with how I feel they are able to contribute to a team.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not about choosing a dominator *over* one of those.
It's about making it a reasonable alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to assume that dominators are fine and it's just the RSF that's broke you're welcome to do so. But I would point out that I would happily bring a controller on the RSF. Trust me, I'd love to make dominators a reasonable alternative. My goal is not to attempt to make people feel bad, it's to point out areas the AT needs improvement. I'd like to see it improved, as I enjoy the playstyle.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Carry it further. Pretend it was 15 bosses. 25 LTs. Anything not involving triangles. In my opinion, in any of those scenarios you're better with an AT that can flatten the difficulty curve. A dominator spikes it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. A dominator can perma-control part of that group.
That is a flattening, not a spike.
Same thing with a non-triangle elite boss.
Even assuming there is still a difference in overall value, at least removing the purple triangles mitigates that difference enough to where the players could reasonably choose between the archetypes.
[/ QUOTE ]
We can agree to disagree on this. I do not think Perma-holding AV's (which a removal of triangles would allow) is what I'm looking to be able to do.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problems that doms have with large teams are not anything that can be cured by build advice, however.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I recommended asking for advice on build and tactics. Your large-team problems are not universal. Instead of continuing to argue fruitlessly otherwise, get help.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've done exactly as you've requested.
[ QUOTE ]
well triangles are just a representation of the jump from -4 to -49
If AV"s had a 12 or 16 mag .. and that was it. they would be hard to hold, but doable when multiple holders stacked. This SHOULD be fine...
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is, then, that a single dominator has the same lack of contribution... If they can only - mayby - hold the AV for 10 seconds with domination for the duration of the fight, it is actually worse than triangles.
I can sort of see the point of the triangles, which allow a single mezzer to mezz an AV for a part of the fight, but not lock him down completely. But with the inordinantly high status protection from the triangles, multiple mezzers become redundant.
My opinion: Keep the triangles, heck, keep the max value what it is, but have the mez strength ramp up and down in incrememts, not all at once; so a single mezzer can keep him held for 33% of the time, two can keep him out for 50%, until you get to a team of, say, 6, where even with them at full force, they can be locked down completely.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that you have made comments like this:
"I honestly think if the RSF were EBs a corruputor, brute, or MM would still be a better choice. Stalkers - I agree that there are some effectiveness issues in this type of encounter but I don't think the vast majority of people would get onboard the "stalkers are underpowered" bus."
Which appear to separate "underpowered" from "team play".
So I pointed to an example of "power" and asked what you mean by "underpowered"...
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. You are (inexplicably) reading "team play" as meaning RSF and/or hypothetical "EB-RSF".
[/ QUOTE ]
No, not really. That is, however, an explicit example of 'team play' used consistently in this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
While I feel stalkers are optimal solo, good ones do quite well in a team environment.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel that it's a poor dominator who doesn't contribute as much as a stalker in a team environment.
[ QUOTE ]
My opinon that an all AV/EB encounter doesn't play to their strengths has nothing to do with how I feel they are able to contribute to a team.
[/ QUOTE ]
So why continue to use the RSF as an example of how _dominators_ are unable to contribute to a team?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not about choosing a dominator *over* one of those.
It's about making it a reasonable alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to assume that dominators are fine and it's just the RSF that's broke you're welcome to do so. But I would point out that I would happily bring a controller on the RSF.
[/ QUOTE ]
A controller who very explicity would not be "controlling".
Again, it's not the RSF that's "broke", it's purple triangles.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Carry it further. Pretend it was 15 bosses. 25 LTs. Anything not involving triangles. In my opinion, in any of those scenarios you're better with an AT that can flatten the difficulty curve. A dominator spikes it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. A dominator can perma-control part of that group.
That is a flattening, not a spike.
Same thing with a non-triangle elite boss.
Even assuming there is still a difference in overall value, at least removing the purple triangles mitigates that difference enough to where the players could reasonably choose between the archetypes.
[/ QUOTE ]
We can agree to disagree on this. I do not think Perma-holding AV's (which a removal of triangles would allow) is what I'm looking to be able to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not necessarily what *I* am looking to do. I am simply suggesting that it makes the playing field a *lot* more fair than it is now.
If I quote #'s, they're from City of Data.
Global: @Kazari
It was either Taunt or Purple Triangles of Doom. I stand by my decision!
-BackAlleyBrawler
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problems that doms have with large teams are not anything that can be cured by build advice, however.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I recommended asking for advice on build and tactics. Your large-team problems are not universal. Instead of continuing to argue fruitlessly otherwise, get help.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I were the only person who felt that doms don't contribute as much as other Ats to large teams, then you would have a point.
With all the dozens of threads and hundreds of comments on this very issue on this forum, however, I think that it is pretty obvious that this is an AT problem. you are free to argue that it is not a problem, but to pretend that no one else sees it as a problem is simply disingenuous, imo.
[ QUOTE ]
If I were the only person who felt that doms don't contribute as much as other Ats to large teams, then you would have a point.
[/ QUOTE ]
Multiple people complaining just means that multiple people have a problem. It's not a sign that dominators are universally (or even generally) bad on large teams. Heck, you might not even be performing poorly; it might purely be a perception problem.
PS: I didn't say that nobody sees it as a problem. Putting words in my mouth is disingenous.
hack bud, you sort of need to stop. Anything I reply to, you will rebut without taking into account what I've already posted in this thread. So please, look at a few of my previous posts, figure out what I'm saying, and stop taking things ridiculously out of context.
I'll leave it at this:
I am not using the RSF as the example. I've tried to point out how it is NOT the dom's inability to contribute on the RSF that I have an issue with. Rather it is a fundamental flaw in the AT's design that is only magnified by the RSF.
And yes, the controller would not be controlling. That's the point. Dom's should be able to do more than they currently can when hold's are negated.
Being able to perma hold an AV is not what I would call fair.
And as far as who contributes more - stalker or dom - in a team environment - a lot would depend on how you define contributing - I would imagine youd factor in control, which in my experience is not as important as you might.
[ QUOTE ]
I think it comes down to the nature of control, and its intended role in this game. I believe it's designed to be crowd control, not mob-control.
In other words, the role of holds possibly are not to allow you to eliminate all risk from an encounter, but rather to bring the risk down to a manageable level.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, but how do you do this, in a way that compares to a debuff? I understand 100% held is not very risky (I fought GMs with controllers back in the days they could perma hold them) and therefore not fun.
However, its also not fun to not be able to use your powers. A primary built on holds isnt much use when it cant hold.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with lowering hold magnitude on an AV is that while they'd be fine in a situation like RSF if only used for crowd control, they would likely end up being used to either a)stack RSF teams with doms so there was no risk attached to it or B)make every single AV fight in the game trivial. Even with the template 2 brute/6 corr team, RSF is not a risk-free encounter.
I see sleep as essentially a hold for crowd control purposes, but not in a mob-control circumstance.
Fear, confuse.... these fall into the same categories IMO - they're not designed to take the single mob you're fighting and make him unable to fight back - they're designed to allow you to handle X number of mobs when otherwise you'd only be able to handle X-Y.
Perhaps massively overhauling the secondary effects of some powers to incorporate a heavier representation of debuffs (in both the primary/secondary) would add value to a dominator in not just "triangle" fights, but also boost their overall effectiveness without requiring things like an HP/dps/control duration boost like many ask for.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem I see started with the original controller AT. It could permahold everything, and had no real damage except its pets post level 32 (with a few exceptions). With I5, the devs added damage, and reduced holds. This was ok, because the trollers lost some control, but gained being able to solo pre-level 32 pets.
Now we have the dominator. Its what controllers were begging for pre-I5. Hey, lose the team buff/debuff stuff, and keep the controls and add lots of damage. Only, now, the controls are nuked, and the damage is only ok. Its like a controller without any secondary powers. Part of that is that controllers should never have had as much damage as they were given, without sacrificing some of their buff/debuff capacity.
The other side of the coin are buff/debuff powers. Control is too strong so we dont let it work, but debuffs are allowed to work at full strength. Furthermore, many of these powers are AOE, while the AOE holds have been made rarely available. Even more so, these AOE debuffs are often toggles, meaning they never go down (are perma).
When the best control in PVP is a slow or -fly, and thats available to every single AT in COV, what does a control primary bring to the table?
If the devs feel controls cant be allowed to work in PVP or against AVs, doms really must be given something else that will actually WORK. Otherwise, in those two scenarios, they will always be gimped.
For fun, start comparing Dominators and Defenders. Theoretically, they should fit the same team role (primary is mitigation, secondary is offense). With how ridiculous the comparison between a Defender's mitigation and a Dominator's is, either Control would need to be boosted to high heaven or Dominators need to be flipped over--more about offense than mitigation.
Once again, not holding my breath on that happening.
[ QUOTE ]
hack bud, you sort of need to stop. Anything I reply to, you will rebut without taking into account what I've already posted in this thread. So please, look at a few of my previous posts, figure out what I'm saying, and stop taking things ridiculously out of context.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever. You're free to stop replying at any point, you know.
[ QUOTE ]
I'll leave it at this:
I am not using the RSF as the example. I've tried to point out how it is NOT the dom's inability to contribute on the RSF that I have an issue with. Rather it is a fundamental flaw in the AT's design that is only magnified by the RSF.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree, because AFAICS, the only thing that's "magnified" by the RSF is the artificial shutdown of the control primary.
That shutdown is not a "normal" situation in the vast majority of the PvE game, which is why I will continue to insist that the flaw is not with the archetype but rather the mechanism of the purple triangles (and breakfrees in PvP).
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, the controller would not be controlling. That's the point. Dom's should be able to do more than they currently can when hold's are negated.
[/ QUOTE ]
That sort of statement is unreasonable to me, from a game balance perspective. No archetype should have half their powers negated in that fashion.
It makes no more sense to me than the following one:
"Brutes should be able to do more than they currently can when attacks are negated."
I see no reason why that "should" be the case.
[ QUOTE ]
Being able to perma hold an AV is not what I would call fair.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nor would I, in a typical 8 toons-on-1 AV fight.
[ QUOTE ]
And as far as who contributes more - stalker or dom - in a team environment - a lot would depend on how you define contributing - I would imagine youd factor in control, which in my experience is not as important as you might.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I quote #'s, they're from City of Data.
Global: @Kazari
It was either Taunt or Purple Triangles of Doom. I stand by my decision!
-BackAlleyBrawler
[ QUOTE ]
With how ridiculous the comparison between a Defender's mitigation and a Dominator's is ....
[/ QUOTE ]
How ridiculous is it? What portion of incoming damage do you think one typical dominator can prevent? One typical defender? Don't assume that we're thinking of the same numbers that you are.
[ QUOTE ]
How ridiculous is it? What portion of incoming damage do you think one typical dominator can prevent? One typical defender? Don't assume that we're thinking of the same numbers that you are.
[/ QUOTE ] Well, first let's assume it's not PvP or an AV. Those are gimmes, after all, since Control performs the weakest then.
So let's talk about missions instead. How many Defenders does it take for damage to be mitigated to the point that a typical team can run through at a reasonably quick speed (no need to stop to Rest, no deaths, quick kills, etc). Two, in my experience, for a full team. More makes things faster, but you're smooth sailing with two Defenders as your sole source of mitigation.
How many Dominators would it take for there to be no risk, fast killing, and no pauses? Could you do it with two Dominators as your sole source of team mitigation? Would adding more Dominators make it faster?
Support mitigates better than Control. Not only because of what I noted above, but Support does not have the liability of being 100% foe-based for its effect.
Control is useful. I like Control. Control is not, however, the superior option for team mitigation.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you try to discuss the subject reasonably people take it as either a personal attack or an opportunity to proclaim how great they are because they can solo some arbitrary obscure situation that occurs at most in .01% of typical gameplay.
As someone who enjoys playing a dominator very much but has trouble dealing with the fact that it is just simply not very good, I'm tired of reading post after post from people who refuse to admit something is wrong with this AT when you put it on a team.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you completely. The forum is much, much better than it was a few months ago, though, so there is some hope in that regard. Whether there is hope for doms will be up to the devs. And I say that as someone who loves my doms -- I just wish I could team with them without feeling like the weakest link.
[/ QUOTE ]QFT
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just wish I could team with them without feeling like the weakest link.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then post your build & tactics and ask for help. Given your extreme comments about controls and relative performance, it seems that you're having a harder time than most dominators. This suggests to me that either you're not playing effectively or you have unrealistic expectations. By asking for advice, rather than complaining about problems, you might actually be able to succeed at your stated goal. Even better, if it works, the turnaround will be much faster than waiting for the devs to change the game.
By the way, the same goes for everyone else who complains endlessly about dominators without asking for advice.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe with perfectly optimized slotting, rigorously analyzed tactics and enough effort the grav dom might be as good as the average other AT, but that defines the problem rather than indicate that there isn't a problem. On any team of similarly skilled players, a grav dom will always be the weakest link.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you try to discuss the subject reasonably people take it as either a personal attack or an opportunity to proclaim how great they are because they can solo some arbitrary obscure situation that occurs at most in .01% of typical gameplay.
[/ QUOTE ]
Presumably, that was in response to my Ballista comment.
The *point* of that comment was to get you to clarify what you meant by "underpowered", to which I have not seen a response.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't referencing your particular comment as it seemed no different than at least 30 other ones that were rampant a few months ago. However feel free to feel included. you've essentially made my point.
FWIW I've posted numerous times what I feel are the basic flaws with this AT when in a team environment. I generally put quite a bit of time into them too, so I'm not going to reiterate them for you, since when you point out how well you can solo X in resonse to my team-effectiveness comment,
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't.
I pointed it out in response to a comment that dominators are "underpowered".
[ QUOTE ]
you cleary are only paying attention to your half of the conversation anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity, would that be the sort of comment you described earlier, where you are "discussing the subject reasonably" and someone "takes it as a personal attack"?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As someone who enjoys playing a dominator very much but has trouble dealing with the fact that it is just simply not very good, I'm tired of reading post after post from people who refuse to admit something is wrong with this AT when you put it on a team.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sure there is an equal, if not greater, number of people who are "tired of reading post after post from people who refuse to admit that there are no serious problems with this AT when you put it on a team."
[/ QUOTE ]
While you might be right, not only does my personal observation lead me to concluse that that person would be incorrect; Waiting patiently for that person to disprove it with something other than an opinon hasn't worked either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I'm sure the "other side" feels exactly the same way about your position.
[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting that in that entire post, those were the two comments you felt compelled to respond to.
[/ QUOTE ]
The majority of your post was opinion. Since it *was* clearly opinion, I felt no particular need to respond.
e.g. "What if RSF's last mish were 8 EB's? Triangles aren't the problem with dominators. I wholeheartedly agree that the triangle mechanism is foolish but to pretend that if they went away or were modified in some sort of way to benefit control functions that suddenly dominators would be fine is naive at best."
What more would you like me to say, other than "I disagree"?
<Shrug>
With regard to the two sections I did respond to, both were attempts at denigrating the "opposition" - which I felt was uncalled for.
Insisting that the other side is "in denial" in some fashion does nothing to support your position.
If I quote #'s, they're from City of Data.
Global: @Kazari
It was either Taunt or Purple Triangles of Doom. I stand by my decision!
-BackAlleyBrawler