Make Your FF Change Suggestions Here!

[ QUOTE ]
Technically speaking, yes, you did say that Defenders are described as "difficult to solo". And technically speaking, yes, that is the way they are usually described. However, "difficult to solo" is hardly a point to be debated.


[/ QUOTE ]

My reason for bringing it up was that many of the recent posts in this thread about changing the Defender powers (FF in particular) were oriented toward playability of the AT solo. I wanted to chime in my opinion that solo play should be a secondary consideration when considering modifications to the powerset with team play being the primary.

[ QUOTE ]

Blasters are "difficult to solo". Tankers are "difficult to solo". Even Scrappers are "difficult to solo", if you think you are entitled to just kill everything freely with no risk.

[ QUOTE ]
That would be the connecting logical concept. This is how I interpret your syllogism.
Defenders have ranged attacks.
Ranged attacks can only be used when soloing.
Defenders must have been designed to be able to solo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is logical nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase. The logic is valid. The argument is unsound because it has a false statement.

[ QUOTE ]
At no time did I say that ranged attacks could ONLY be used solo. Merely that they are HELPFUL solo.


[/ QUOTE ]
My reason for presenting the above syllogism was to illustrate that the only logical way you can draw the conclusion you did was to fill in the false statement.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Defenders have no attacks whatsoever.
You must have an attack ability to be able to solo.
Defenders were designed only for team play.

Maybe this is what you were thinking of. But that isn't what we have. The first condition isn't met.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is closer. It is arguing the negative. But how about this:

You must have an attack ability to be able to solo.
Defenders have ranged attacks
Defenders can solo.

This is still an incomplete syllogism, because there may be OTHER things Defenders need in order to solo. But at least it's making some logical sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my whole point of bringing in the syllogisms. That syllogism does not make logical sense. It is not a valid argument from an academic standpoint. I showed the one arguing the negative but didn't complete the train of thought to say that finding that argument unsound (yet valid) does not let you draw a different conclusion.

This would make it even better.

It is necessary and sufficient to have an attack ability to be able to solo.
Defenders have ranged attacks
Defenders can solo.

Now we are happy.
But that just brings us to the point that we both agree on. Defenders can solo.

[ QUOTE ]
You must have an attack ability to be able to solo.
Defenders have the Brawl attack
Defenders can solo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I SAID that it was incomplete. You could change that to "You must have an attack Power Set", but Controllers don't have an attack Power Set.

It wasn't my idea to go into logical analysis, though.

[ QUOTE ]
My reason for bringing it up was that many of the recent posts in this thread about changing the Defender powers (FF in particular) were oriented toward playability of the AT solo. I wanted to chime in my opinion that solo play should be a secondary consideration when considering modifications to the powerset with team play being the primary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel that there are any issues with the FF power set in regards to team play that should be given HIGHER priority?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is logical nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase. The logic is valid. The argument is unsound because it has a false statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nonsense because you made it up out of nowhere with no foundation in any statements I had made.

If you want to turn this into a logical argument, then start by actually defining the premise. And make it something I actually said, not what you're making up.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you feel that there are any issues with the FF power set in regards to team play that should be given HIGHER priority?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the question. If we are talking about team play, higher priority than what? I prioritize team play for defenders higher than solo play when considering modification to powers.

[ QUOTE ]
It's nonsense because you made it up out of nowhere with no foundation in any statements I had made.

If you want to turn this into a logical argument, then start by actually defining the premise. And make it something I actually said, not what you're making up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was exercising the Principle of Charity. In the context of debate, this means that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to find the most favorable interpretation of your case.s This would be, for example, transforming an illogical argument into the closest logical argument instead of just taking it at face value and dismissing it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you feel that there are any issues with the FF power set in regards to team play that should be given HIGHER priority?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the question. If we are talking about team play, higher priority than what? I prioritize team play for defenders higher than solo play when considering modification to powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you said that solo play should be secondary to considerations when considering modifications to the Power Set. This thread is about considering modifications to the Power Set. (of Force Field) And it is fairly accepted to most of the folks in this thread that Force Field should have some modifications.

So, again, what do you feel are issues with team play, that need to be addressed with Force Field? Because if there are none, well, then we can move on to the secondary considerations of solo play.

I means, it sounds like you were trying to argue that there are no problems with Force Field in a team, so we should not worry about it.

[ QUOTE ]
I was exercising the Principle of Charity. In the context of debate, this means that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to find the most favorable interpretation of your case.s This would be, for example, transforming an illogical argument into the closest logical argument instead of just taking it at face value and dismissing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd actually quoted me, I might buy that. Perhaps you can point out to me where I said that attacks could only be used solo?

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to chime in my opinion that solo play should be a secondary consideration when considering modifications to the powerset with team play being the primary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is an AT that is, or was, primarily for team play, but it wasn't Defenders. In changing Controllers, an AT so team oriented that it didn't even have a damage set, the developers of CoH demonstrated that the ability for every AT to solo effectively is a major concern to them. So much of a concern in fact that the devs took away some of the major ability of Controllers, referring to control, so they could justify putting in containment so that Controllers of all levels could solo much more effectively.

So while you may feel that Defenders should only be considered in a team setting, the treatment of Controllers shows that the solo ability of Defenders is a legitimate concern. And while you may feel that the ability to solo rather than the ability to solo effectively is good enough for Defenders, the treatment of Controllers shows that the developers recognize the latter as a legitimate issue.

[ QUOTE ]
So much of a concern in fact that the devs took away some of the major ability of Controllers, referring to control, so they could justify putting in containment so that Controllers of all levels could solo much more effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which really only made Defenders and Controllers even more alike, although Defenders still don't have the control capability of Controllers. They're a lot closer than they once were, though.

[ QUOTE ]
So, again, what do you feel are issues with team play, that need to be addressed with Force Field?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in particular comes to mind with Force Field. My first FF/ defender is just about to ding on lvl 16. I have found this discussion thread interesting in learing how to get the best out of FF.

[ QUOTE ]

Because if there are none, well, then we can move on to the secondary considerations of solo play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. You can do whatever you like.

[ QUOTE ]

I means, it sounds like you were trying to argue that there are no problems with Force Field in a team, so we should not worry about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't intend to argue for that.

I don't consider soloing a defender (FF or otherwise) an important consideration when discussing changing the AT powers. If you are making a change to improve solo play, the change's impact on team play should be of paramount importance. If the proposed change has zero impact on team play and only benefits solo play for a defender, I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand I solo my defenders enough to be happy to benefit by improvements, but on the other hand I don't want it to add to the noise and draw developer attention away from more deserving issues. You could call me ambivalent there.

The Repulsion Bomb change being discussed recently is an example of this. I see this as improving team play. It may negatively impact solo play. I am OK with this.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I was exercising the Principle of Charity.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd actually quoted me, I might buy that. Perhaps you can point out to me where I said that attacks could only be used solo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry you aren't buying that. It is exactly what I was doing. You didn't say that attacks could only be used solo. I added that so that I could logically connect your statement to your conclusion. I wasn't trying to make a slight of hand or misrepresent you.

I don't feel that continued picking at this specific logical argument is productive. You have already clarified that you did not intend to make a valid argument. Part of my reason for focusing on it was to be pedantic and somewhat educational to elevate the level of discussion a bit for the forum at large. I am sensing that I wasn't very succesful. I may be in for a long haul --- kind of like soloing a defender.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to chime in my opinion that solo play should be a secondary consideration when considering modifications to the powerset with team play being the primary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is an AT that is, or was, primarily for team play, but it wasn't Defenders. In changing Controllers, an AT so team oriented that it didn't even have a damage set, the developers of CoH demonstrated that the ability for every AT to solo effectively is a major concern to them. So much of a concern in fact that the devs took away some of the major ability of Controllers, referring to control, so they could justify putting in containment so that Controllers of all levels could solo much more effectively.

So while you may feel that Defenders should only be considered in a team setting, the treatment of Controllers shows that the solo ability of Defenders is a legitimate concern. And while you may feel that the ability to solo rather than the ability to solo effectively is good enough for Defenders, the treatment of Controllers shows that the developers recognize the latter as a legitimate issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. My hockey analogy obviously failed, due to not enough people having the good sense to enjoy a fun sport I guess, but I digress.

So many of the positions stating that Defenders shouldn't be expected to do decent damage and/or have solo capability are starting from the premise that how the game is now, is how it's always been.

As we've already shown, the original team-support AT was the Controller. The nerf to their control powers and addition of containment is what gave rise to the current FoTM, powerlevelling, farming, uber-duber characters we have today. Defenders now asking for their ability to solo be improved are no different than the Controllers who campaigned for the same change pre-containment.

Do I think it's necessary? Not really, but if the change was made, I know I'd like it.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you aren't buying that. It is exactly what I was doing. You didn't say that attacks could only be used solo. I added that so that I could logically connect your statement to your conclusion. I wasn't trying to make a slight of hand or misrepresent you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, there is something wrong with this logical syllogism?

Defenders have ranged attacks.
Ranged attacks have little use for support in a team environment, but are important solo.
Defenders must have been designed to be able to solo.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you didn't interpret that, instead of "ranged attacks can only be used solo".

You know, I REALLY like pie....


..... mmmmmmmmm.... pie....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder what majicj thinks of the change to Repulsion Bomb?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I believe she already pointed out that with knockback reduced to knockdown, you will be unable to get it back up to its original 10.something magnitude with slotting. So I'm sure she'll say that this has nerfed the power for her as a Controller.

I'm not sure the disorient is going away, though, so it may still set up Containment. As low a chance as that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor thing... I feel sooooo bad for her...

Here is a question I have. Can a power that is flagged to not do Containment damage still be used to establish Containment? Hmm...

I'm kinda torn on the whole damage/Containment thing. I don't necessarily mind that Controllers can often do more damage than a Defender (not always, it depends upon the sets). What I mind is that the damage-to-buff ratios aren't equal because they don't take Containment into consideration. This allows most Controllers to do significantly more damage than a Defender (often more than double, sometimes TRIPLE), while retaining 88% effectiveness on Defender buffs and debuffs AND getting 125% effectiveness on Defender control powers.

There is no way you can even consider that to be fair and balanced. Fix this imbalance and I won't give a monkey's fart if Controller's get Containment damage from Defender powers. Just as long as it's fair and balanced. That's all I'm asking for.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you can even consider that to be fair and balanced. Fix this imbalance and I won't give a monkey's fart if Controller's get Containment damage from Defender powers. Just as long as it's fair and balanced. That's all I'm asking for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but the devs don't work for Fox News.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a question I have. Can a power that is flagged to not do Containment damage still be used to establish Containment? Hmm...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, although AFAIK there is no such power that exists. (At least unless Repulsion Bomb is so changed, and the disorient isn't removed)

Note that there are plenty of powers that apply Containment, though, but do no damage.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you can even consider that to be fair and balanced. Fix this imbalance and I won't give a monkey's fart if Controller's get Containment damage from Defender powers. Just as long as it's fair and balanced. That's all I'm asking for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but the devs don't work for Fox News.

[/ QUOTE ]

More specifically, I doubt they will change anything once it's established. I personally feel Containment should have been a 100% damage buff, not a Critical. But it's too late to change that now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here we will disagree. Defender base damage needs to be raised by 20% for all secondaries. You never balance secondaries based upon primaries or on secondary attributes. Just give every power in every secondary that does damage a 20% increase. Done. This puts us back at a damage scale that is much closer to the .65 of Blaster that we're supposed to be. Remember, Blasters and Corrupters were buffed, but we weren't. We're supposed be at 65% damage of a Blaster, but right now we're about 54%. This needs to be fixed.

[...]

And trust me, giving Defenders a 20% base damage increase will in no way get them even close to a Corruptor, let alone Blaster, no matter what their primary is. We are flopped with Corruptors, right? So we should do slightly less damage in exchange for slightly better buffs/debuffs. Right now that balance is way off. A 20% damage increase puts things back to where they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with that is that Corruptors have a 0.75 base modifier. So if we raise Defender damage any more, whether it's through a base damage buff or a 20% buff to the scale damage of all their powers, Defenders will end up doing more damage than Corruptors. Since Corruptors have only 80% of the defenses of a Defender, that will create an imbalance.

You might argue that Scourge adds to the Corruptor's base damage, raising it above what a Defender can do, however it's already been established that certain Defender builds can come very close to a Corruptor's damage, or even exceed it. Scourge only kicks in late in the fight, and at most, it represents only a 25% increase in damage. In practice, it is probably lower than that, due to wasted damage.

If you want to balance the Corruptor's Inherent, then give Defenders an Inherent that boosts damage. I don't think that's even necessary, though, because of the advantage that the Defender's greater damage buffs represent to his total damage.

Wait a minute... what? Corruptors were buffed? What are you talking about, I haven't heard anything about this. As far as I know, Corruptors went from 75% of the damage of a Blaster to 67% with the Blaster boost, just like we went from 65% to 57%.


[/ QUOTE ]

Corruptors were buffed with Scourge, and it's already been shown on average it buffs their damage by at least 20%.

And you forget that Corruptors get virtually the same buffs and debuffs that Defenders do. So while a Defender can buff his damage by 30%, a Corrupter can buff theirs by 26% -- a mere 4% difference. But a Corruptor's base damage is 15.4% more than a Defender's. When you factor in Scourge and the AT buff modifier, they end up doing at least 30% more -- and remember, that's 30% more than a Defender WITH a 30% buff.
Dude, I'm not making this [censored] up, these are the real numbers. Why do you think Corruptors can sail thru missions like a Blaster but Defenders plod thru like a 90 year old with emphysema?

And I'm not saying a Defender should get an inherent that does damage. I'm perfectly fine with Vigilance provided it's fixed. What I'm saying is that the current AT damage modifiers are no longer appropriate in the CoX of today. They may have been fine 4 years ago, but not now. A 20% across the board damage increase to Defender secondaries puts them slightly above Corruptor base damage, but well below Corruptor damage with Scourge.

Now you could argue that it's their inherent, and therefore it shouldn't matter, cause we get our own inherent that gives us a bonus that Corruptors don't get. While that may be true on paper, it doesn't pan out in the game. The objective in this game is to kill things. Not buff and debuff. If you can't kill, you can't progress. It's that simple.

9 out of 11 ATs in the game get an inherent damage buff. You can't just dismiss that. Nor can you say the devs ignore all that extra damage when they balance critters. So why are they still using 4 year old damage modifiers that clearly diminish the one AT that was already near the bottom of the damage scale and NEVER got a damage buff?

[ QUOTE ]
Defenders have two powersets: Buff/Debuff and Damage.
Controllers have two powersets: Control and Buff/Debuff.

See anything missing from the Controller description? Yep, Damage. When the game released (which is probably about the time the manual became obsolete) Controllers were the teaming AT, thus no damage powerset.

Unfortunately, because Controllers had so much trouble soloing at lower levels (pre-pet) the developers decided to add in the travesty that is containment, thus granting Controllers what is a third facet or powerset: Damage and throwing a lot of balance out of whack. The primary team focussed AT disappeared, to be replaced by the tank-mages of today.

So yes, Defenders were originally intended to be an AT that was good on a team. But they were not the AT that required teaming, that was the Controllers. What's interesting is that there are Defender builds that are in a very similar soloing boat that Controllers used to be in, and yet there's very little concern about possibly fixing them. FF is one.

At the moment Controllers changed from post pet powerhouses to full game powerhouses, the AT's and their purposes became a lot more skewed, and Defenders inherited the "team player" mantle by default, not by design.

EDIT: I think perception has become reality for a lot of people. The Defender is the "team" AT, and thus no one cares whether they can solo well or not. Those people forget the history of the game, and of Controllers specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, way back in the beginning, soloing a Defender was much like soloing a Corruptor is today. You weren't quite as powerful as a Blaster, but you made up for it with your buffs and debuffs, and could easily solo at a good pace without constantly running out of endurance and needing "patience".

I really don't think that's too much to ask out of any AT in this game.

[ QUOTE ]

So, there is something wrong with this logical syllogism?

Defenders have ranged attacks.
Ranged attacks have little use for support in a team environment, but are important solo.
Defenders must have been designed to be able to solo.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you didn't interpret that, instead of "ranged attacks can only be used solo".

[/ QUOTE ]

That conclusion doesn't logically follow from the first two statements. It can be inferred but not logically deduced. "Little use" is not the same as "no use". That is why I didn't chose it to complete the logic.

You could salvage that by not making it a "must" conclusion. You could perhaps soften it to say

"This suggests that Defenders may have been designed to be able to solo."

It was the sentence structure and the certainty of the conclusion in your initially posted statement that made me mistake this for a logical argument.

By rephrasing it with less definite language, it takes it out of the realm of being a conclusion that must be accepted by rational readers who agree about the truth of your predicate, and into being a persuasional argument.

I grant you that this wishy-washy way of expressing oneself isn't as confrontational therefore is not very popular in Internet boards like this where a strongly stated position is thought to be the only way to be noticed above the background noise.

But personally I wouldn't have chosen that as a middle statement since I don't feel that ranged attacks have little use in a team environment. I use them constantly when teaming with my FF/sonic defender. That goes toward the truth of the statement and not to the logical fit of the statement in the syllogism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to chime in my opinion that solo play should be a secondary consideration when considering modifications to the powerset with team play being the primary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is an AT that is, or was, primarily for team play, but it wasn't Defenders. In changing Controllers, an AT so team oriented that it didn't even have a damage set, the developers of CoH demonstrated that the ability for every AT to solo effectively is a major concern to them. So much of a concern in fact that the devs took away some of the major ability of Controllers, referring to control, so they could justify putting in containment so that Controllers of all levels could solo much more effectively.

So while you may feel that Defenders should only be considered in a team setting, the treatment of Controllers shows that the solo ability of Defenders is a legitimate concern. And while you may feel that the ability to solo rather than the ability to solo effectively is good enough for Defenders, the treatment of Controllers shows that the developers recognize the latter as a legitimate issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said. My hockey analogy obviously failed, due to not enough people having the good sense to enjoy a fun sport I guess, but I digress.

So many of the positions stating that Defenders shouldn't be expected to do decent damage and/or have solo capability are starting from the premise that how the game is now, is how it's always been.

As we've already shown, the original team-support AT was the Controller. The nerf to their control powers and addition of containment is what gave rise to the current FoTM, powerlevelling, farming, uber-duber characters we have today. Defenders now asking for their ability to solo be improved are no different than the Controllers who campaigned for the same change pre-containment.

Do I think it's necessary? Not really, but if the change was made, I know I'd like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the Controller story is the other way around. Controllers didn't lose their control abilities so that they could be given Containment. Controllers lost their control abilities because Jack Almighty deemed them overpowered in his new GDN and ED world. He didn't like it that a single Controller could hold an entire 8-man team spawn for longer than it took the team to defeat them. To use his terms, no risk.

And even though Trollers were very difficult to solo up to level 32 (about as difficult as soloing a Defender is now... except Defenders don't magically get better at some point), after they got their pets they were gods. You'd hold the entire spawn and let your army of pets flatten them. Soloing was a BREEZE. Again, no risk.

After controls and pets were nerfed to hell, now there was no way for a Controller to solo at all. Your mez powers didn't last long enough for you to attack with impunity, and you were now limited to 1 moderate damage pet. Giving them a damage buff was the only way to salvage the AT. A side-effect of this was that Trollers became better soloers across all levels, not just after getting their pets.

But this was never a priority, it was merely a side-effect. Prior to all the nerfing, Jack had no issue with the way Controllers were. It was a struggle to get to 32, and then you got seriously rewarded for your diligence. It had nothing to do with Containment. Containment was put in place because Controllers were left un-soloable after all the global nerfs. And one thing that Jack always insisted upon was that every AT should be able to solo on heroic. This is why you no longer get bosses on heroic, because after critters were buffed many Defenders and some Trollers couldn't solo a single boss.

Nice to see not much has changed, at least for the Defender.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you can even consider that to be fair and balanced. Fix this imbalance and I won't give a monkey's fart if Controller's get Containment damage from Defender powers. Just as long as it's fair and balanced. That's all I'm asking for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but the devs don't work for Fox News.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently they do if they think what we have now is fair and balanced.

[ QUOTE ]
This is why you no longer get bosses on heroic, because after critters were buffed many Defenders and some Trollers couldn't solo a single boss.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe im having a bit of a disconnect here, but are you saying that FF Defenders cant solo bosses well?

I dont know about you, but since I picked up force bolt I have had very little trouble with bosses, other than the time it takes to kill them.

About the only ones that give me fits are the carnie Master Illusionists, and last time I checked they tend to give everybody a bit of trouble.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why you no longer get bosses on heroic, because after critters were buffed many Defenders and some Trollers couldn't solo a single boss.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe im having a bit of a disconnect here, but are you saying that FF Defenders cant solo bosses well?

I dont know about you, but since I picked up force bolt I have had very little trouble with bosses, other than the time it takes to kill them.

About the only ones that give me fits are the carnie Master Illusionists, and last time I checked they tend to give everybody a bit of trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

So just because you've had no trouble with bosses since you got Force Bolt, that means all Defenders of any pairing of primaries and secondaries at any level shouldn't have trouble soloing bosses?

Cause if that's what you're saying, let me introduce you to my lvl 28 Storm/Electricity Defender, who is lucky if she can kill an LT, let alone a boss.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why you no longer get bosses on heroic, because after critters were buffed many Defenders and some Trollers couldn't solo a single boss.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe im having a bit of a disconnect here, but are you saying that FF Defenders cant solo bosses well?

I dont know about you, but since I picked up force bolt I have had very little trouble with bosses, other than the time it takes to kill them.

About the only ones that give me fits are the carnie Master Illusionists, and last time I checked they tend to give everybody a bit of trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

So just because you've had no trouble with bosses since you got Force Bolt, that means all Defenders of any pairing of primaries and secondaries at any level shouldn't have trouble soloing bosses?

Cause if that's what you're saying, let me introduce you to my lvl 28 Storm/Electricity Defender, who is lucky if she can kill an LT, let alone a boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair I havent ever played a stormy, and I dont care for electric blast either.

But of the defenders I do play consitantly (FF/Dark, Kin/Dark, TA/A) I have not had much trouble with soloing bosses.

Its not like it is on my scrappers mind you, but with a little thought and some liberal use of my primary I can usually turn a boss into a kitten.

Anyway... Dont you have gale? You should be able to use that just like I use force bolt, not to mention all the other nifty things storm can do...

[ QUOTE ]

Actually the Controller story is the other way around. Controllers didn't lose their control abilities so that they could be given Containment. Controllers lost their control abilities because Jack Almighty deemed them overpowered in his new GDN and ED world. He didn't like it that a single Controller could hold an entire 8-man team spawn for longer than it took the team to defeat them. To use his terms, no risk.

And even though Trollers were very difficult to solo up to level 32 (about as difficult as soloing a Defender is now... except Defenders don't magically get better at some point), after they got their pets they were gods. You'd hold the entire spawn and let your army of pets flatten them. Soloing was a BREEZE. Again, no risk.

After controls and pets were nerfed to hell, now there was no way for a Controller to solo at all. Your mez powers didn't last long enough for you to attack with impunity, and you were now limited to 1 moderate damage pet. Giving them a damage buff was the only way to salvage the AT. A side-effect of this was that Trollers became better soloers across all levels, not just after getting their pets.

But this was never a priority, it was merely a side-effect. Prior to all the nerfing, Jack had no issue with the way Controllers were. It was a struggle to get to 32, and then you got seriously rewarded for your diligence. It had nothing to do with Containment. Containment was put in place because Controllers were left un-soloable after all the global nerfs. And one thing that Jack always insisted upon was that every AT should be able to solo on heroic. This is why you no longer get bosses on heroic, because after critters were buffed many Defenders and some Trollers couldn't solo a single boss.

Nice to see not much has changed, at least for the Defender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, some defender builds have a tendency to play in a controller-like manner, but without the benefits of containment. For example Dark/Dark has an AE snare, AE disorient, AE Immobilize, AE Fear, ST Hold, and AE Intangible all available to them, as well as a controller-style pet at 32. A Dark/Dark can, with some luck regarding accuracy, solo bosses and such, but it takes a LONG time compared to what others can do the same in (essentially fighting based on attrition, using the dark heal to buy more time while hitting them with enough -acc that they only rarely hit you [senile asthmatic vs what say a scrapper can achieve]).

I recall someone above saying that 9/12 AT Inherents buff damage? 9/12 also do not require a team to function (Warshade, Peacebringer, and Defender only gain a benefit while teamed, and Defender only gains this benefit when he's doing his job badly).

This whole argument about whether Defenders need more damage being broken down into semantics is mind boggling to say the least.

There is no doubt that the amount of damage defenders do, especially at lvl 50, is painful to deal with to say the least. That said, it is very hard to determine how much damage is enough.
Should an empathy defender be able to 1 shot an even con minion with a basic tier 2 attack? Probably not. (I chose empathy for the lack of self damage buff and lack of enemy debuff).
Should they be able to solo at the same clip as a blaster? I honestly cannot decide, but lean towards no. The reason being that if the kill potential is as great for both ATs, why ever team with a blaster? I can instead pick up a defender for de/buffs and damage.

Also as has been brought up, soloing is a very different affair depending on primary. Soloing on rads, kins, darks, TAs, and even storms isn't undoable. However, emps, FFs and sonics all have nightmarish times. This is almost entirely based on whether the primary power pool is buffs or debuffs. What always interested me about the concept of being able to solo as a defender, the two "strongest" blaster primaries are not available to defenders. I often wished I could go around causing havoc with a Kin/Fire or Rad/Ice defender, but these options aren't even available. This makes me think that it was always designed to keep defenders from becoming too offensively potent.

As how to fix this, it has to be a vigilance chance. Frankly if it added both endurance and damage in a manner of some team defiance, that would be one option. But then again, it doesn't reward a well built team where no one is at risk of dying. I would prefer a sort of power build up defiance, where every attack gives a slight boost to secondary effects other than damage. Or, as has been mentioned, the opposite. Buff/debuff/heal powers cause a boost to damage, as if you were feeding off the powers you were giving to others.

I think some sort of change like that would greatly help the oft neglected secondary power pools of defenders. Yet, I do resist complaining too much, as I rarely have issues finding teams that wouldn't love to have a defender along.