[ QUOTE ]
In all fairness, they also intended for people to embrace the jekyl/hyde design. So standing by a "jousting" design doesn't necessarily hold water.
[/ QUOTE ]
That makes no sense. The Hyde concept did not turn the Dominator into a strong defensive meleer, it increased its damage and holds. It should remain just as dangerous to be in melee as Hyde as it is for Jeckyl, just the reward is higher.
Again, it's not jousting, it's waiting until the foe is held and can't hit back before closing to melee, but that strategy doesn't change when you go into Domination. Not that it wouldn't have been interesting if, when you went into Domination, you gained a huge amount of HP and defense, but that does not seem to have been the intention. You still need to weigh the risk of using your melee attacks against their greater damage, even when Domination is going.
Another reason I don't like the Jeckyll/Hyde analogy, Mr. Hyde was usually percieved as being much stronger AND more resiliant than Dr. Jeckyll. If anything, it is a misleading comparison.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Casuals don't jump in and out of melee. They didn't on blasters, they don't on doms, they don't on any AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
1) When I note in and out of melee I dont mean jousting, I mean staying at range doing poor damage if you dim melee too dangerous and go in close and personal in situations where your controls are strong enough to keep the melee safe.
2) You keep bringing the casuals into the topic but I seen enough casual doms doing good in live now to think that you want survivability compensated not for the casuals but for the retards. The game won't be balanced around retards.
3) Blasters did it and do it all the time, even casuals. Specially newbies. They tend to be more open on picking every power from their primary and secondary and actually test it and find how hard they hit with them.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's generally the retards and the pros that color the AT for everyone else 
. It gets buffed if retards can't use it, and nerfed if pros are too good with it 
1. If people really did what you suggest they are doing in a somewhat effective way I seriously doubt doms would be rated as low as they are.
-BS, mindprobe, havoc, icesword, incin et al, they are all on like 8-10 second timers with DO slotting. Do you seriously think the avg player is popping in and out of melee at 10 second intervals? Or do you think they.
a/ forgo the use of melee and put out subpar damage?
b/ use melee and just stand there the whole time?
2. lrn2ply didn't work for blasters to save them from being made retard friendly, it didn't work for pvp either lol. Sooner or later it won't work for doms. I'm just forward thinking
3. Yep they pick all their powers, find out that melee is most powerful and then use everything from that range while waiting for melee attack(s) to cycle. Have people forgotten the range damage increase during the blaster revamp so they'd feel much less inclination that melee > range?
[ QUOTE ]
-BS, mindprobe, havoc, icesword, incin et al, they are all on like 8-10 second timers with DO slotting. Do you seriously think the avg player is popping in and out of melee at 10 second intervals? Or do you think they.
a/ forgo the use of melee and put out subpar damage?
b/ use melee and just stand there the whole time?
[/ QUOTE ]
You forgot option c:
c) neither avoid melee attacks altogether, nor use them constantly, but use them a portion of the time, using ranged attacks when it is not safe to be in melee.
Granted, this will do considerably less damage than if you closed to melee and, assuming you were perfectly safe doing this, proceeded to use the best possible attack chain for your selection of attacks. But the same is true for Blasters as well. Blasters are capable of immense amounts of damage, but usually cannot leverage it, because it is not safe to do so.
A Dominator's damage is not limited by the strength of his attacks, but by his need to move in and out of melee. A Brute or Scrapper, by virtue of his defenses, is able to stay in melee and thus leverage his full damage.
This can actually help a Dominator or Blaster on a team, because with some buffs it can actually become safe to leverage more of his damage, thus dealing even more damage for the team. This could be what Castle meant by giving a Dominator a "primary purpose" of damage on a team.
A Dominator certainly will be the best at going after the targets that are most suited to his attacks, such as single targets that are an unusual threat to the team, like mezzers, or those which can bypass the tank's defenses.
I will add, now that I think about it, that in some cases it is not necessary to pop in AND OUT of melee. Because by popping into melee at the proper time, the melee will end. If you happen to be using your control powers to keep your foes separated, you would need to move into order to enter into melee with another foe anyway.
(Of course, I feel it's probably unnecessary for me to even mention that to someone else who plays a Dominator or Blaster, or even a Corruptor. )
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In all fairness, they also intended for people to embrace the jekyl/hyde design. So standing by a "jousting" design doesn't necessarily hold water.
[/ QUOTE ]
That makes no sense. The Hyde concept did not turn the Dominator into a strong defensive meleer, it increased its damage and holds. It should remain just as dangerous to be in melee as Hyde as it is for Jeckyl, just the reward is higher.
Again, it's not jousting, it's waiting until the foe is held and can't hit back before closing to melee, but that strategy doesn't change when you go into Domination. Not that it wouldn't have been interesting if, when you went into Domination, you gained a huge amount of HP and defense, but that does not seem to have been the intention. You still need to weigh the risk of using your melee attacks against their greater damage, even when Domination is going.
Another reason I don't like the Jeckyll/Hyde analogy, Mr. Hyde was usually percieved as being much stronger AND more resiliant than Dr. Jeckyll. If anything, it is a misleading comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
tl:dr version - you may not consider full mez protection an increase in resilience against mez loaded melee attacks that npcs use, but I'd bet my first born daughter the devs do.
...
You missed the point or you are taking it out of context...again 
I was saying that originally doms were envisioned to be this crazy on/off AT and people would just love that dynamic. Some did, most don't.
In addition to that it is envisioned that doms will make critical mid-fight analysis and strategically pop in and out of melee range.
I'm saying that the first intended use of dominators fell on its face in actual play (for the avg player, ie the majority of the player base). I'm also saying that the second intended use of dominators ALSO falls on its face for the majority of players.
It just doesn't happen, people literally stand in ONE spot and play the game until the mob is dead and then they move to the next static location.
As for the Jekyll/Hyde analogy of the AT, I didn't come up with it, but it is very applicable. You say it lacks resilience and fails? I say full mez protection definitely falls under the category of increasing resilience and definitely makes the AT a more competent melee'er (on live) by greatly increasing damage output and being able to shrug off all those status effects that npc melee attacks often have. On live the damage is designed to be secondary to the control and domination boosted mez powers also add a great deal of resilience through active armors.
But that is live dominators, they are being "revamped" to be dual role/dual primary and to need domination much less.
If domination (mez protection and active defense) was a large part of what made them "competent" in melee range (and it was) what is going to happen if domination is used less on average, but the necessity to use melee has increased?
Is that going to help dominators? Or is it going to do something else?
[ QUOTE ]
tl:dr version - you may not consider full mez protection an increase in resilience against mez loaded melee attacks that npcs use, but I'd bet my first born daughter the devs do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Point to you on that one. I think taking that as a sign that Doms should be given a huge defense boost is a bit extreme, but it does show that there has been some thought in that direction.
One might say the Blaster ability to use the basic attacks and immobilize while mezzed is a similar addressing of the same issue.
[ QUOTE ]
It just doesn't happen, people literally stand in ONE spot and play the game until the mob is dead and then they move to the next static location.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't do that. I don't do that, period. I don't do it on my Defenders, Blasters, Corruptors, Controllers, Dominators, Masterminds, or Stalkers. And even when I DO do it on my Tankers, Brutes or Scrappers, it's either because I'm tanking, and I want to hold everybody down so they don't get out of control, or I'm just to lazy to move around.
I move around in combat. I don't like to stand still. That's probably why I usually don't choose the tank role. I'll even dart around as an off tank, gathering up foes that the main tank has missed and dragging them back to him.
Am I unusual? Probably. But every single person I have played with regularly has on most Archetypes moved around while fighting. I don't see anybody standing still except on meleers. Heck, the SG I team with regularly has a gust-happy Stormie, and nobody seems to mind that.
Oh I didn't forget C.
C - strategic, real time combat anaylsis and decision making combined with real time repositioning to most effectively execute a desired result.
With how good you guys talk about the average player being at "C" i12 pvp would have been excessively popular in this game
[ QUOTE ]
With how good you guys talk about the average player being at "C" i12 pvp would have been excessively popular in this game
[/ QUOTE ]
I personally don't have any knowledge of the average intelligence level of your basic PvPer, and I am probably not the one to ask for my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With how good you guys talk about the average player being at "C" i12 pvp would have been excessively popular in this game
[/ QUOTE ]
I personally don't have any knowledge of the average intelligence level of your basic PvPer, and I am probably not the one to ask for my opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
In general it took a lot of situational combat awareness
-recognition of powers being used
-recognition of range disparities
-recognition of when to strike from afar, when to strike up close
-the ability to make executive decisions on the fly and then deal with the results in real time.
Really, the people I see most often displaying the kind of pve combat techniques that doms require are when I see pvp'ers piloting various AT's.
I think it is no small coincidence that doms were very popular with experienced pvp'ers (ie non 2 shot stalkers heh).
PvP was and is largely unpopular because it requires so much attention to the details (there are other reasons too). Whereas the majority of pve scenarios you can just shut off your brain and punch things in the face.
Dom's requiring a higher degree of player competency (on avg) presents a barrier to entry that will always prevent them from being popular with the casual "I just wanna beat stuff up" crowd.
[ QUOTE ]
Dom's requiring a higher degree of player competency (on avg) presents a barrier to entry that will always prevent them from being popular with the casual "I just wanna beat stuff up" crowd.
[/ QUOTE ]
You nailed it right there.
I enjoy my doms specifically for the challenge. I also like the frantic, constantly moving, constantly responding to threats playstyle of Doms. But then, my first and still favorite character to this day was a Blaster, so go figure.
That being said, I finally got the opportunity to test these changes this morning. For my Ice/Ice Dom? Straight to God Mode. My Plant/Thorn is going to need some reslotting, his End use is a bit too high. My Earth/Fire looks great though. Overall, I LOVE these changes, which perhaps makes me a bit weird.
The single biggest aspect of this change I love the most though? I no longer feel pressured to keep Domination going at all costs. I am now free to use it tactically as I need it. To me that makes it all worth it. Do I think these tweaks will make Doms more popular? Maybe. I expect a huge influx of Doms when I15 hits, then it will taper back off as people discover it is not a simple "pew pew" AT, as someone said earlier in the thread.
[ QUOTE ]
You nailed it right there.
I enjoy my doms specifically for the challenge. I also like the frantic, constantly moving, constantly responding to threats playstyle of Doms. But then, my first and still favorite character to this day was a Blaster, so go figure.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that has really changed. Then again, that's true for Blasters, as you said, and it can be true for Defenders and Corruptors, as well. They aren't really a "pew pew" archetype, if you want to really succeed you need to use your buffs and debuffs intelligently, choosing the right targets and herding your foes so as many of them are caught in your debuffs as possible. It requires thought, as much as playing a Blaster or Dominator does.
And meleers, as well, work best if you use a little strategy. I've often said that one reason for the unpopularity of Doms and Stalkers are their more specific playstyles, they are more like the specific strategies employed by Blasters and Scrappers, respectively, for specific builds. So there may be this perception that they have a higher "learning curve".
The changes don't really make Dom's "dumber", though. You still need to employ the same strategies you needed to use during Domination, to ensure that you are safe enough to use melee attacks. You even have to be more cautious, since you do not have Domination-level holds to support your Domination-level damage. Sure, you can go charging in like a Blaster, but you'll faceplant like a Blaster, too. The damage is essentially just enough to keep you from being a total failure if you choose to brute force your way through.
That's hardly the best way to play, though.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You nailed it right there.
I enjoy my doms specifically for the challenge. I also like the frantic, constantly moving, constantly responding to threats playstyle of Doms. But then, my first and still favorite character to this day was a Blaster, so go figure.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that has really changed. Then again, that's true for Blasters, as you said, and it can be true for Defenders and Corruptors, as well. They aren't really a "pew pew" archetype, if you want to really succeed you need to use your buffs and debuffs intelligently, choosing the right targets and herding your foes so as many of them are caught in your debuffs as possible. It requires thought, as much as playing a Blaster or Dominator does.
And meleers, as well, work best if you use a little strategy. I've often said that one reason for the unpopularity of Doms and Stalkers are their more specific playstyles, they are more like the specific strategies employed by Blasters and Scrappers, respectively, for specific builds. So there may be this perception that they have a higher "learning curve".
The changes don't really make Dom's "dumber", though. You still need to employ the same strategies you needed to use during Domination, to ensure that you are safe enough to use melee attacks. You even have to be more cautious, since you do not have Domination-level holds to support your Domination-level damage. Sure, you can go charging in like a Blaster, but you'll faceplant like a Blaster, too. The damage is essentially just enough to keep you from being a total failure if you choose to brute force your way through.
That's hardly the best way to play, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I agree that Dom playstyle hasn't been made any "dumber". Like I said, I'm loving the idea that Domination can be saved for when it is really needed. Before, I felt pressured to have it going as much as possible. I don't feel that with my Doms on Test. I save it for those fights I know are going to be tough, or for a free End refill power. Domination use is much more tactical with the AT changes, and that's what I'm really liking.
I will add that I miscalculated. The change to Blaster HP was around +18%, not 7%. That's still not significant when the Blaster is solo, but on a team it can be. And a Scrapper has only around 30% more HP than a Blaster.
The difference is the defense. Stalkers and Scrappers are more survivable than Dominators not because of their hit points, but because of their Secondary. I'm actually thinking that maybe a 10-15% boost in HP from Domination might actually be a quite useful change to make Doms better able to survive AoEs from AVs and Bosses. They would still need a buffer on the team to give them defense, but with greater HP those buffs would be multiplied accordingly.
I can see the potential for stacking becoming a danger, however. With double and triple Domination still being possible, that must be considered. And Doms still have significant damage mitigation in their ability to hold. (Even if you hold only one foe out of three, that is a damage mitigation of 33%)
[ QUOTE ]
The difference is the defense. Stalkers and Scrappers are more survivable than Dominators not because of their hit points, but because of their Secondary. I'm actually thinking that maybe a 10-15% boost in HP from Domination might actually be a quite useful change to make Doms better able to survive AoEs from AVs and Bosses. They would still need a buffer on the team to give them defense, but with greater HP those buffs would be multiplied accordingly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I may be in the minority here, but despite my utter dislike for the PSW change, I'm for the AT revamp over all. Mainly because of the things I, as an experienced Dominator can pull off. EB's are no longer require a tray full of inspirations, or even a Shivan to take down. And thats why I'm also against any further buffs. A HP increase or anything else will push Dom's over the edge into tank magery IMHO. My opinion of these buffs over all, in the hands of experienced Doms, they are freaking awesome. I don't think majority of the player base will notice much of a difference. As an "active defense" playstyle is a turn off for many players it seems. Brute's and MM's will still lead the pack redside.
My level 50 Dominators:
Madame Mindbender 50 Mind/Energy
Fly Agaric 50 Plant/Thorn
Nate Nitro 50 Fire/Psi
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a lil, but I think the idea really came from Ice/Energy Blappurs using PowerBoost+Freeze Ray to hold mobs and then safely go in and smash them to death quickly and more efficiently (single target wise) with their devastating melee attacks. I'm almost sure of this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dammit, now you have me wanting to make a Fire/Energy dom...arrrrrgh..... Power Boost, Flashfire, Fire Cages..beatdown..lol.
My level 50 Dominators:
Madame Mindbender 50 Mind/Energy
Fly Agaric 50 Plant/Thorn
Nate Nitro 50 Fire/Psi
[ QUOTE ]
And thats why I'm also against any further buffs. A HP increase or anything else will push Dom's over the edge into tank magery IMHO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the reason why I suggested keeping the boost low, and keeping it only within Domination. Since some of the complaints have been Domination is not as much of a "change in behavior" of the AT since it's effect is only mez protection, a refill of the End bar, and increased control duration, adding a new effect would make it percieved as more useful.
I must admit to not being opposed to "throwing the Dom players a bone", as I described the Blaster HP boost. I don't feel that 10% more HP is significant without high defenses to multiply that boost. So it would be relatively useless solo, even though most players would see, "OOo, I have more HP nau, I'm teh ubar!!!1!!"
On a team, though, that boost could be stacked with Defense, Resistance, and additional HP boosts to give an effective defense.
I'm more worried about that becoming 20-30% under double Domination, or 30-45% under triple Domination, which gets a Dom's HP close to that of a Brute. That's why I'm posting it, though, it is worth discussion. I still feel it likely the devs would reject an increase in HP outright, but maybe by putting it under the umbrella of Domination it can be limited.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dom's requiring a higher degree of player competency (on avg) presents a barrier to entry that will always prevent them from being popular with the casual "I just wanna beat stuff up" crowd.
[/ QUOTE ]
You nailed it right there.
I enjoy my doms specifically for the challenge. I also like the frantic, constantly moving, constantly responding to threats playstyle of Doms. But then, my first and still favorite character to this day was a Blaster, so go figure.
That being said, I finally got the opportunity to test these changes this morning. For my Ice/Ice Dom? Straight to God Mode. My Plant/Thorn is going to need some reslotting, his End use is a bit too high. My Earth/Fire looks great though. Overall, I LOVE these changes, which perhaps makes me a bit weird.
The single biggest aspect of this change I love the most though? I no longer feel pressured to keep Domination going at all costs. I am now free to use it tactically as I need it. To me that makes it all worth it. Do I think these tweaks will make Doms more popular? Maybe. I expect a huge influx of Doms when I15 hits, then it will taper back off as people discover it is not a simple "pew pew" AT, as someone said earlier in the thread.
[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't weird to like these changes. Existing dom players should really like these changes (barring a few exceptions of course). I think they are pretty great too.
My concern with them is that the motivation behind the changes isn't actually being satisfied. I don't foresee a lasting increase of large proportion for doms.
Sure an AT description rewrite, the devs hype them up a bit with some new images, gmotd, w/e and in conjunction with the new changes numbers might go up a meaningful amount.
But one mistake would be attributing that to the changes alone and not giving credit to the advertising (if it gets done).
*off topic, but sort of like how people have used pvp IO's as evidence that the pvp changes are working . Did they try pvp IO's under the old system and have them fail? meh.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You nailed it right there.
I enjoy my doms specifically for the challenge. I also like the frantic, constantly moving, constantly responding to threats playstyle of Doms. But then, my first and still favorite character to this day was a Blaster, so go figure.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that has really changed. Then again, that's true for Blasters, as you said, and it can be true for Defenders and Corruptors, as well. They aren't really a "pew pew" archetype, if you want to really succeed you need to use your buffs and debuffs intelligently, choosing the right targets and herding your foes so as many of them are caught in your debuffs as possible. It requires thought, as much as playing a Blaster or Dominator does.
And meleers, as well, work best if you use a little strategy. I've often said that one reason for the unpopularity of Doms and Stalkers are their more specific playstyles, they are more like the specific strategies employed by Blasters and Scrappers, respectively, for specific builds. So there may be this perception that they have a higher "learning curve".
The changes don't really make Dom's "dumber", though. You still need to employ the same strategies you needed to use during Domination, to ensure that you are safe enough to use melee attacks. You even have to be more cautious, since you do not have Domination-level holds to support your Domination-level damage. Sure, you can go charging in like a Blaster, but you'll faceplant like a Blaster, too. The damage is essentially just enough to keep you from being a total failure if you choose to brute force your way through.
That's hardly the best way to play, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meh, blasters blow crap up - and dam wel -l easily into the 30's. In the 30's they hit a brick wall. It just so happens they were specifically targeted for a buff to address that issue. And it did. Blasters didn't have to get strategic until the 30's and when they did people cried to the high heavens.
Corrs and defs are inherently draw to grouping. They drop aoe debuffs and/or buff up teammates and stuff goes boom in spectacular fashion. They don't have to get strategic beyond deciding what npc to put a toggle debuff on. And that is too hard for many of them too and they whine "boo hoo, the scrapper killed meh anchor".
The only place they have to get strategic is when solo'ing and numerous people whine they can't solo x combo and the boards are stuffed with "best solo" choice to satisfy that niche of a group oriented AT.
Doms on the other hand do have to be strategic right away. They have huge aoe control powers that wear off in a matter of seconds during the low levels and they don't debuff enemies to make everyone tear through them all that much faster. They also don't buff allies to the point they become much more brash and would actually peal potential agro away (ie thermal shielded brute).
They have to be strategic about what aoe's they use in teams, and in case no one has notice dom primaries are almost entirely aoe's. And they have to be strategic about how they engage the enemy to deliver damage. ie sacrifice damage and stay at range or close in to use those tasty melee powers.
Sure once a dom matures most of the strategic thinking goes out the window, their controls become mature enough to neutralize most threats and domination is up more and more often to trivialize everything. But mature doms were never the issue, they are good on live and even better on test.
Lets be honest though, the AT is a little bit dumber now for solo play. Their teaming capability hasn't really changed much and it is where they struggle.
Maybe that is ok though, all the changes sure seem to point doms toward playing solo. Maybe me thinking doms should shine in teams is incorrect.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And thats why I'm also against any further buffs. A HP increase or anything else will push Dom's over the edge into tank magery IMHO.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the reason why I suggested keeping the boost low, and keeping it only within Domination. Since some of the complaints have been Domination is not as much of a "change in behavior" of the AT since it's effect is only mez protection, a refill of the End bar, and increased control duration, adding a new effect would make it percieved as more useful.
I must admit to not being opposed to "throwing the Dom players a bone", as I described the Blaster HP boost. I don't feel that 10% more HP is significant without high defenses to multiply that boost. So it would be relatively useless solo, even though most players would see, "OOo, I have more HP nau, I'm teh ubar!!!1!!"
On a team, though, that boost could be stacked with Defense, Resistance, and additional HP boosts to give an effective defense.
I'm more worried about that becoming 20-30% under double Domination, or 30-45% under triple Domination, which gets a Dom's HP close to that of a Brute. That's why I'm posting it, though, it is worth discussion. I still feel it likely the devs would reject an increase in HP outright, but maybe by putting it under the umbrella of Domination it can be limited.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would seem weird to attach it to domination and thus make domination highly desirable and actively pursued again. (not that I personally think building for dom is going to stop being the "best" way).
I will say that if a hp boost is given at some point it won't be to have any impact on solo play, doms already solo with great ease on live and especially test. They are very solo competent.
A hp boost, or some other passive survivability boost would be to help them in teams.
We know controls are binary - on/off - in function. In a team when they are on it is great. When they shut off you have 16 enemies looking to kick the crap out of the dominator because there is less support structure in cov (by design). The enemies usually don't have to look far either because the dom is standing right next to them using melee attacks
The margin of error when playing a dom in a team is absolutely tiny compared to other ATs. When things go wrong it is almost always the dom that dies first because they have so much aoe hate and they are standing right next to the enemies and they have no protection and they have low hp.
*I have no doubt doms would be more successful blue side with tanks drawing agro and a system designed to be more supportive of each other.
When the control is on, everthing is hunky dory. When it is off, the dom falls over dead
A passive survivability buff would be given to make the margin of error a little bit bigger, which is precisely the same reason it was given to blasters. But for them it was one aoe blast at the wrong instant and splat.
[ QUOTE ]
It would seem weird to attach it to domination and thus make domination highly desirable and actively pursued again. (not that I personally think building for dom is going to stop being the "best" way).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that the changes were meant to make Domination useless, and to remove its desirability as a Dominator function.
The thing is, there are plenty of advantages to Domination, as I mentioned. Domination has not been rendered totally ineffective, it has just had about 1/3 of its functionality removed. (If you estimate control buffs as another 1/3, and mez protection and the End recharge as the other 1/3) The PERCEPTION, though, is that Domination was doing something, as you saw the orange numbers get bigger, and now those orange numbers aren't bigger any more.
This is not to say that the perception of Domination being highly desirable because it gives an HP boost would not be essentially an illusion. (solo) But I don't believe it was Castle's intention to nerf Domination, it was to buff non-Domination.
(I believe it was Positron who said "a buff given under one condition could be seen as a penalty under the other condition")
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would seem weird to attach it to domination and thus make domination highly desirable and actively pursued again. (not that I personally think building for dom is going to stop being the "best" way).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that the changes were meant to make Domination useless, and to remove its desirability as a Dominator function.
[/ QUOTE ]
And they don't. They were made to remove the perception that domination is the absolute "best" build to the point it is the "only" way to go on the AT.
Domination is far from useless
- they could strip it until it was just mez protection and it would still be awesome.
- they could strip it until it was just +mag controls and it would still be awesome.
- they could strip it until it was just and end refill and it would still be better than the defender inherent
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, there are plenty of advantages to Domination, as I mentioned. Domination has not been rendered totally ineffective, it has just had about 1/3 of its functionality removed. (If you estimate control buffs as another 1/3, and mez protection and the End recharge as the other 1/3) The PERCEPTION, though, is that Domination was doing something, as you saw the orange numbers get bigger, and now those orange numbers aren't bigger any more.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here I believe you are mistaken. We both agree domination is still very good (it is supposed to be), but I disagree about the perception aspect. Domination has been percieved as awesome because you see DOMINATION all over your screen and you run around 1 shot mezzing everything in sight for like half an hour.
Lots of people didn't even realize domination boosted damage. Or they realized it, but had no idea by how much. And that is understandable because most doms do split damage types. Seeing 20+30 on your screen and then seeing it go to 27+43 doesn't register as much as if it said 50 and then jumped to 80
But there is NO missing the words domination all over your screen. Heck it even encourages people to spam their aoe immob just to see it haha.
[ QUOTE ]
This is not to say that the perception of Domination being highly desirable because it gives an HP boost would not be essentially an illusion. (solo) But I don't believe it was Castle's intention to nerf Domination, it was to buff non-Domination.
(I believe it was Positron who said "a buff given under one condition could be seen as a penalty under the other condition")
[/ QUOTE ]
The point I'm trying to make is that by stripping the damage out of domination Castle is attempting to lower the perceived notion that domination is the only desirable state to play the toon in and that domination should be pursued first and foremost.
If you were to then add a hp buff back into domination (but not out) you again take a step toward suggesting that domination is the "ultimate". Which is specifically being avoided.
You would also be buffing doms in a place they don't require it. Doms in domination don't have issues, not even on teams because their aoe mezzes last so long the mob is easily defeated. And everyone can "see" the dom is teh awesomesauce with domination all over their screen too.
If you are going to add a passive surviabilty boost to doms it would be targeted at when they need it most, which is out of domination.
HOWEVER, you wouldn't want to add it just to out of domination mode and then take it away in-domination mode because then you are creeping into the territory that Castle was originally thinking with his idea of: out of doms do extra damage, in doms lose the damage, but do more control.
Entering into domination should never be a debuff. (well it would have drawbacks in my world, but NOT in this game, no way). It just shouldn't be such a massive buff that everyone thinks it is the only way to play the game (which for better or worse, it still is imo).
[ QUOTE ]
The point I'm trying to make is that by stripping the damage out of domination Castle is attempting to lower the perceived notion that domination is the only desirable state to play the toon in and that domination should be pursued first and foremost.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's a matter of perception, and I don't think that Castle believes that it is a matter of perception either.
[ QUOTE ]
That "almost the only way to make a dominator playable" is the reason I'm looking at this AT in the first place. Perma-Dom is almost certainly going to remain possible; it simply shouldn't be as necessary as it currently is.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you relied only on multiple stacking of Domination, then you will see a decrease in damage output in certain circumstances. However, since your damage Buff range is no longer being eaten away by Domination, external buffs such as Reds or Fulcrum Shift will add considerably more overall damage. This basically means that having team mates can be more useful to the Dominator, while the Dominators new high damage values means he can bring more to the team, even in situations where you are facing Purple Triangles of Doom.
[/ QUOTE ]
Castle makes two points is the second quote here. One is that double Domination is going to be less effective, on its own. That is not to say that that's the trouble Castle was having with Domination, that the damage bonus could be stacked, but if it IS, then certainly there is not a "perception" than perma and double-Dom are useful, it actually IS.
The other, however, is that under the new system, Doms will benefit more from support from their teammates, acting as true damage dealers, and not just a weak damage dealer that gets a huge boost because it happens to be in Domination. The Dom's strength depends not on Domination, but on the player's ability to use his powers, and the team makeup.
Again, this seems to confirm that to Castle, Domination was TOO important. Not because of the damage done, but because of the way it isolated the Dominator from the benefit of his team. It is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of changing some of the behavior of Domination itself.
Also, remember that Castle himself described the Dominator as having a "weak Secondary" and that he wanted to boost it so that it was comparable to a Primary. While he might have meant this in regards to the changes he has made to the Secondaries, it is clear he wanted this to be an actual increase in damage, not a perceptual one.
[ QUOTE ]
If you are going to add a passive surviabilty boost to doms it would be targeted at when they need it most, which is out of domination.
[/ QUOTE ]
This I disagree with. Doms do not need a passive survivability boost when they are out of domination. Doms need, by the argument of several people here, and you yourself, I believe, a passive survivability boost WHEN TAKING ON AN AV AS PART OF A TEAM. A Dom does not need a boost to survivability when taking on a minion. He does not need a boost to survivability when taking on a group of minions. He does not need a boost to survivability when taking on a Boss. Those things may be helpful, but in all those cases, the Dom can use his holds to mitigate the damage.
This is meant to address the issue that the PToD disable the Dom's ability to hold, and thus expose him to AoE attack. AoE attack that for an AV is more than enough to overcome his low hit points. While a small boost to HP isn't going to change that on its own, when coupled with defensive buffs from allies, or debuffs to the AV, a small amount of HP may give him an advantage.
This is not intended to make it possible for a Dominator to fire off an AoE hold with impunity and take the counter attacks. Although, if he is in Domination and has buffs from an ally and wants to do that, that is an advantage.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point I'm trying to make is that by stripping the damage out of domination Castle is attempting to lower the perceived notion that domination is the only desirable state to play the toon in and that domination should be pursued first and foremost.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's a matter of perception, and I don't think that Castle believes that it is a matter of perception either.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it isn't perceived then what is it? think about that for a bit before you answer?
Is perma dom the ONLY way to play a dominator? no
Is perma dom PERCEIVED to be the be all to end all of playing a dominator? yes
And just so we are absolutely crystal clear, perceptions are often grounded in reality. Your absolution of the term "perception" seems to suggest you believe otherwise.
I'm really not sure why you are quoting Castle at me, he isn't agreeing with anything you have said.
I assure you, specifically adding another buff to domination is counter to what he is trying to do. Every step you make domination > non domination you drive players to seek it.
I really don't understand how you can say anything to the contrary. It is baffling to hear from someone who has been a part of the discussion for so long.
As for this whole part of your discussion:
[ QUOTE ]
This I disagree with. Doms do not need a passive survivability boost when they are out of domination. Doms need, by the argument of several people here, and you yourself, I believe, a passive survivability boost WHEN TAKING ON AN AV AS PART OF A TEAM. A Dom does not need a boost to survivability when taking on a minion. He does not need a boost to survivability when taking on a group of minions. He does not need a boost to survivability when taking on a Boss. Those things may be helpful, but in all those cases, the Dom can use his holds to mitigate the damage.
This is meant to address the issue that the PToD disable the Dom's ability to hold, and thus expose him to AoE attack. AoE attack that for an AV is more than enough to overcome his low hit points. While a small boost to HP isn't going to change that on its own, when coupled with defensive buffs from allies, or debuffs to the AV, a small amount of HP may give him an advantage.
This is not intended to make it possible for a Dominator to fire off an AoE hold with impunity and take the counter attacks. Although, if he is in Domination and has buffs from an ally and wants to do that, that is an advantage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me just ask you three questions:
Does a dominator ever fight tough encounters out of domination mode?
Why would you want to exclude a dominator that ISN'T perma dom in an AV fight from being more survivable?
Does every AV encounter require a team with multiple +rech sources and/or does it autokick doms that don't have enough recharge to be perma dom?
[ QUOTE ]
And just so we are absolutely crystal clear, perceptions are often grounded in reality. Your absolution of the term "perception" seems to suggest you believe otherwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that the perception is FALSE. Is the perception that a Dominator is more powerful (on Live) in Domination or perma-Domination true, or not?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm really not sure why you are quoting Castle at me, he isn't agreeing with anything you have said.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't see that? In what way is he disagreeing? He is saying that Dominators will be better off now, on a team, because they will be able to gain more benefit from their teammates than they were getting from double Domination. Doesn't that sound like double Domination being replaced by buffs from teammates is something Castle thinks is good?
But please, point out Castle's counterarguments to my points.
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand how you can say anything to the contrary. It is baffling to hear from someone who has been a part of the discussion for so long.
[/ QUOTE ]
Adding defense or hit points to Dominators was your idea, not mine. We've been discussing why I think that change will never be made. I made a suggestion that I thought might actually have a chance to be acceptable to the devs. It is baffling to ME to hear YOU argue against it.
[ QUOTE ]
Does a dominator ever fight tough encounters out of domination mode?
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, but a Dominator can CHOOSE to save Domination for encounters that he knows will be tough.
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you want to exclude a dominator that ISN'T perma dom in an AV fight from being more survivable?
[/ QUOTE ]
If the Dom loses Domination, he can continue to contribute to the fight from range until he builds it back up again. Not having fought many AVs I'm not sure how many cycles of Domination you would go through, but I would guess it is more than one. The PToD themselves are off-on nature, and so the Dominator can close to melee EITHER when the PToD are down, or when Domination is up.
The Domination would still be in danger from the AV's mez effects without Domination anyway. I'm not going to be crude enough to ask you if you feel the mez protection should be made permanent as well.
[ QUOTE ]
Does every AV encounter require a team with multiple +rech sources and/or does it autokick doms that don't have enough recharge to be perma dom?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would they do that? As it stands on Test, a Dominator would have no HP bonus that he could use to get in melee witth an AV. Why would any team be more likely than they are now to kick a Dom over the lack of a bonus that currently they don't even have?
...edited to remove what is a pretty pointless discussion...
tl:dr version - I'm not sure what points you are trying to push anymore (if it was ever clear). But if your newest line of thinking is to add more additional benefits to domination, but exclude out of domination mode then I'll just say no thx. People said they disliked the on/off feeling of the AT for a reason and Castle listened. I doubt he is looking to increase it again.
If AV's are a major problem then it is AV's that need to be changed not dominators. Why tweak doms for 1% of the game at the risk of unbalancing the other 99%?
[ QUOTE ]
"I never said doms fight up close but out of melee"
hmm
[ QUOTE ]
Dominators are not really intended to be in melee, like a Scrapper or Brute, they are intended to be at close range, just outside of melee range, but close enough to use a Cone or PBAoE.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well you did say exactly that, but I'm guessing it isn't what you meant.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was pretty clear that what I meant was that Doms do not STAY in melee, like a Scrapper or Brute. They spend most of their time just out of melee, until it is safe to move into melee. That was covered in the previous paragraph, which conveniently enough you left out of your quote.
Go ahead and accuse me of changing my story if you want, but don't do it while picking and choosing my quotes to make it look like I'm saying something else.
[ QUOTE ]
I'll just state with absolute certainty that most doms (except live fire and test energy) spend most of every fight standing right next to the enemy(ies)...
You may joust in and out, I definitely do, but I am not typical.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I see this more with experienced players than with casual ones. Most PUGs I get in with Blasters or Doms, they are staying out of melee entirely. If they do get in melee, they dart in to make an attack, like I do. (And really, this is a common strategy in many MMOs and even other types of games such as FPSs. So there should be very few players who have not already mastered the skill)
And I, personally, usually do NOT joust. I hold down the foe, and THEN, when it is safe, I move into melee. There is no need for jousting, as there is with a Blaster. (And honestly with my Blaster few foes survive once I get her into melee, although for the most part I do use the darting strategy)
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly never implied that by "dual role" they should be doing blaster damage. They don't come close, no one does. That doesn't mean other AT's aren't classified under the role of damage dealers.
Dom's two roles are:
1/ control
2/ damage
The definition of dual role means they are interchangeable as in:
1/ damage
2/ control
Which is also supported by Castle stating they would have two "primary" strength sets.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get your point here. Okay, damage is first and control is second. By your own admission, they are both equal. So order doesn't really make any difference. And even if it is second, there is still Control. You still can use your controls to hold down your foes to make it safe to move into melee.
It works the other way around, too. Your Control can't really accomplish anything without your Damage. You don't really do enough damage with Control alone to defeat anything before your control breaks and it starts to defeat you. So you need the damage from your Secondary to make your Primary viable, at least solo.
Putting it another way, Scrappers have two roles:
1) dealing damage
2) taking damage
The first is greater than the second, so if you reverse them you have Tankers:
1) taking damage
2) dealing damage
A Scrapper can't deal any damage without his Secondary, though. The moment he gets into melee range he would be killed, if he didn't have a full complement of Secondary powers. So it doesn't mean that the Scrapper doesn't have a viable Primary role if his Secondary has to support his Primary. I don't see why the Dominator's damage role is not viable, because he has to have his Primary to support his Secondary.
The fact is, you HAVE to have either some sort of defense, some sort of defensive buff that effects yourself, or some sort of control capability in order to survive long enough to deal damage. Damage can't exist on its own, that's why Blasters are not Ranged/Melee.
I think you're also reading "role" where Castle meant "capability".
[ QUOTE ]
The overall effect of these changes will be refocusing the AT from Control primary with Damage as a weak secondary, to effectively giving the Dominator dual primary purposes of Control and Damage. While this sounds unbalancing, it is apparent from how the ATs are being used that this is actually the proper method of addressing the issues of this AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
He did not use the word "role", he used the word "purpose". This may seem like a technicality, but it seems as if you are making the assumption Castle meant for the Dominator to be a primary damage dealer on the team. I don't believe that is the intended role, and that in fact the role is as a supplemental damage dealer, supporting the Brute and Corruptor.
Castle's point was that in order for the Dominator to fulfill this role as a supplemental damage dealer, it was necessary for its Secondary to function as a Primary. The damage dealing role is not primary to the Dominator's purpose, but it needs to be stronger since previously it was "weak", in Castle's words.
I'll also say that every AT except for Blasters and Stalkers have a dual role. Scrappers deal damage and also tank. Tankers tank and also deal damage. Defenders support the team and also deal damage. Controllers use their control powers and also support the team. Brutes deal damage and also tank. Corruptors deal damage and support the team. Masterminds absorb damage and support the team. It is not at all unusual for an AT to have two roles.
What you seem to be thinking is that a Dominator now has two PRIMARY roles. A Scrapper can tank, but he can't tank like a Tanker. That's unrealistic, though, not only because by your own admission a Dominator should not be doing the damage of a Blaster or Brute, and because that's not what Castle seems to be saying. All he's saying is that Dominators are intended to Control and deal Damage. He doesn't mean Dominators should be dealing MOST of the damage.