Defenders vs Controller Disparity.
By
Adelie,
Posted on: 2009-07-20 04:50 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
If anything, the weaker attacks are the ones that give MORE Scourge, not less. The calculation was of the amount of damage that was "overkill". Note that Scourge itself does not become weaker or stronger as you slot attacks, it is a Critical, not a damage boost, and thus Scourge is boosted by Enhancement slotting. So the decrease in effectiveness is due to the increase in extraneous damage as the damage scale of the attack goes up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for repeating my point, that weaker attacks receive a greater benefit from Scourge due to less wasted overkill.
As for the slotting, see the replies upthread - I asked, it wasn't answered until later after I had stopped following the thread, and the slotting varied by level. *shrug* When the numbers work out to ~10-11% for the majority of what you run into and I'm using 10% I don't consider that too far off the mark.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a drastic difference in performance between the two, and it's in favor of the Defender until you factor in Scourge's effect on damage - even using the 80% numbers, that's a 20% difference compared to 15% for base damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Saying "so-and-so isn't really different until you factor in Scourge" kind of misses the point.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I said they really aren't that different once you factor in Scourge, and that the numbers are skewed in advantage of the Defender without it. You address that you don't like how imprecise I am with the approximations, but exact precision doesn't play out that way in the game due to so many other factors.
By and large, the performance is close enough that the ATs are interchangable with the difference being that fewer Defenders are "needed" to equal capped buff/debuff values and each Defender providing more team damage and/or safety until those caps are hit (debuffing requiring more to cap than buffing, particularly resistance debuffs), and Corruptors deal a bit more personal damage due to Scourge, a higher damage cap (which has as much or more effect than Scourge for any team with a Kinetic), and every set other than Kinetics (which already benefits from the higher damage cap) having at least one resistance debuff - something that Empathy and Force Field Defenders lack to aid their damage output while solo.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind the extra damage boost for both ATs (I've found myself annoyed since VEATs came out that they're "medium" damage but outdamage "high" damage Corruptors using the same damage scale attack with both at the damage cap), but I don't think there's any reason to buff just Defenders based on their performance relative to Corruptors. Since the only real issue is when comparing them to Controllers, I feel that you're looking at changes to the wrong AT.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
<QR>
As I'm on my ice/ff controller I am reminded why I dont tend to play controllers much. To me the damage they have is lower. A FF/Ice defender feels much more damaging.
Thats even with Jack.
<edit> to fix my mis-AT representation.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
As someone whose most played AT jumps between Defender and Controller, I think something that seems to have been glossed over a bit in this discussion is the fact that Defenders have access to the buff/debuff powers far earlier in their careers. While some may argue that the effectiveness of the powers is the same once they get them, I think the fact that Defenders get them earlier must be factored in.
Take kin for example: Having key powers like SB, Transferance, and FS at 12, 26, and 32 vs 20, 35, and 38 makes a large difference. Perhaps most of the folks in this discussion can get to 40 so quickly that it does not matter, but for me, that definitely affects which to play, especially in a game where "it's the journey, not the destination".
Defenders are the only ATs with access to buff/debuff set powers early. Until I get to the 40s, that weighs heavily on my decision on what to play and what to invite. Even later, if I'm doing a Manti TF, the only way I'm getting Andrenalin Boost or Fulcrum Shift is to invite a defender along.
Justice Superteamer
Current Project - Water Blast Superteam starting Friday, 7/20/2012.
Come out and join us Fri/Sun 8pm ET on the "Justice Superteamers" channel.
All players welcome!
[ QUOTE ]
A FF/Ice blaster feels much more damaging.
[/ QUOTE ]
Catwhoorg, you using hax again? 
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
<QR>
As I'm on my ice/ff controller I am reminded why I dont tend to play controllers much. To me the damage they have is lower. A FF/Ice blaster feels much more damaging.
Thats even with Jack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you try domitrolling with it? Take that fighting pool, punch them in the nose and kick them in the nuts!!! Air superiority in the neck once they bend down!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<QR>
As I'm on my ice/ff controller I am reminded why I dont tend to play controllers much. To me the damage they have is lower. A FF/Ice blaster feels much more damaging.
Thats even with Jack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you try domitrolling with it? Take that fighting pool, punch them in the nose and kick them in the nuts!!! Air superiority in the neck once they bend down!!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Bah. You want Hasten to bring back Ice Slick faster. Since you're in the Speed pool anyway... Flurry FTW! (I have Flurry on my Ice/Sonic, because I can afford the long animation on Held enemies 
).
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
Almost every controller I have has air superiority at the very least whilst they level to the 20s.
using the level 50 numbers from Red Tomax.
Block of Ice 30.75 Damage
Chillblian 30.75
Frost Bite 9.18 AOE
Air Sup. 30.59
All doubled with containment of course.
Ice Bolt 36.15
Ice Blast 59.28
BiB 82.42
Freeze Ray 3.6
BFR 47.7
Frost breath 50.6 AOE
Ice Storm Upto 75*.78 (58.5 AOE)
and of course Blizzard.
Ice blast is about equivalent damage to the best ice control power use with containment. BIB is ahead of that, and the AOE potential of the FF/Ice (def) is far ahead of the Ice/FF (troller).
So it really isn't that controllers are always ahead of defenders nor is it the other way round.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
[ QUOTE ]
So it really isn't that controllers are always ahead of defenders nor is it the other way round.
[/ QUOTE ]
Get your fact ridden rubbish out of this place right now, young man!!!
But seriously: I think people are aware of the outliers, and the discussion is more about the general structure of the ATs.
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity....
If fire control didn't have imps, and illusion didn't have phantom army, would we be having this discussion?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, because there are more powers for controllers than PA or IMPS.
My Plant / Rad is a group-killing beast, for instance.
I'm all for leaving controller alone, no nerf.
Instead, buff Defenders damage 5-10% and provide a better inherent. I like a lot of the ideas floated in this thread.
53 Bots/FF/Mace Mastermind | 53 NRG/FF/Electricity Defender | 50 Time/Dual Pistols/Soul Defender | 50 Demons/FF/Mace Mastermind | 51 Necro/Dark/Soul Mastermind | 50 Thugs/Time/Mace Mastermind | 50 Ice/Ice/Arctic Tanker | 50 Plant/Rad/Earth Controller | 50 Illusion/Trick Arrow Controller | 50 Gravity/Force Field Controller
Yes, I like Force Fields.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it really isn't that controllers are always ahead of defenders nor is it the other way round.
[/ QUOTE ]
Get your fact ridden rubbish out of this place right now, young man!!!
But seriously: I think people are aware of the outliers, and the discussion is more about the general structure of the ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was just pleased that the numbers matched my perception.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it really isn't that controllers are always ahead of defenders nor is it the other way round.
[/ QUOTE ]
Get your fact ridden rubbish out of this place right now, young man!!!
But seriously: I think people are aware of the outliers, and the discussion is more about the general structure of the ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was just pleased that the numbers matched my perception.
[/ QUOTE ]
You got lucky!
Its been mentioned, but it doesn't make a huge difference. THe first twenty levels move the fastest of any in the game. So its really only the last three or four powers that it makes any difference on.
I think Controllers are actually harder to level than Defenders because they tend to use more endurance. Once they get SO's Controllers start to solo better. But as you get to the 30's you'll have most all the powers from both your primary and secondary and then its really moot.
But as levels go up Controllers just keep getting stronger and stronger and the same cannot be said for Defenders.
[ quote]As someone whose most played AT jumps between Defender and Controller, I think something that seems to have been glossed over a bit in this discussion is the fact that Defenders have access to the buff/debuff powers far earlier in their careers. While some may argue that the effectiveness of the powers is the same once they get them, I think the fact that Defenders get them earlier must be factored in.
Take kin for example: Having key powers like SB, Transferance, and FS at 12, 26, and 32 vs 20, 35, and 38 makes a large difference. Perhaps most of the folks in this discussion can get to 40 so quickly that it does not matter, but for me, that definitely affects which to play, especially in a game where "it's the journey, not the destination".
Defenders are the only ATs with access to buff/debuff set powers early. Until I get to the 40s, that weighs heavily on my decision on what to play and what to invite. Even later, if I'm doing a Manti TF, the only way I'm getting Andrenalin Boost or Fulcrum Shift is to invite a defender along.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for repeating my point, that weaker attacks receive a greater benefit from Scourge due to less wasted overkill.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you said:
[ QUOTE ]
anything less than 1.95 scale was completely useless to use for a slotted attack given that the comparison was between damage of the attack to mob hit point levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, was that a typo, and you meant that anything MORE than 1.95 scale is completely useless? Or did you mean that anything less than 1.95 scale is BETTER for Scourge, because of the damage compared to the MOB HP levels. Because your statement as you made it seems to be the exact opposite.
I can understand if you mistyped, or if I misunderstood, but I can only reply to what you type. I am not a mind reader.
[ QUOTE ]
Since the only real issue is when comparing them to Controllers, I feel that you're looking at changes to the wrong AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since I repeatedly stated that both Defenders AND Corruptors could use a damage boost, I don't think I am.
Now, I do feel Defenders could use an Inherent comparable to Scourge because, as I said, you really cannot balance Defenders to Corruptors on 5% damage increments, it is closer to 2-3%. It would be a lot easier to provide such a small boost in the form of an Inherent, which could be made more useful than that under particular conditions. (That is, Corruptors get a bonus from Scourge beyond just the damage because it makes their attacks less End costly when they are getting close to finishing off the foe, and also gives them a greater role against Bosses and AVs)
The real issue, I think, is that there are Buff/Debuff sets that provide no damage boost at all, which are available to Defenders, but not to Corruptors. I think that issue will have to be addressed before Force Field is ported to Corruptors, because it will be more difficult for a Corruptor to accomplish its primary task as a damage dealer with no damage boost. This is already an issue for Sonic, Cold Domination or Thermal, although not to this extent.
I still haven't seen proof, in my experience, that in non-farm settings, controllers are in any way scarier than blasters or scrappers or brutes. Sure, when they have a very precisely configured map, fire/kins can blast through things at a huge pace, but it's not like actual gameplay involves that configuration.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lower controller damage cap to 300%. It is currently too high in conjunction with containment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or, give Defenders a Critical that can break their damage cap.
Or, change Containment to a damage boost so it won't break the damage cap.
[/ QUOTE ]
In general, I don't like intertwining base damage with the damage cap. Fundamentally speaking, the base damage elements of an archetype are supposed to express their intrinsic damage potential, and the damage cap is supposed to express their intrinsic ability to be buffed. Saying "lower the cap because they have containment/criticals" is tantamount to saying "they're designed to do a lot of damage, so make them unable to benefit from teams assistence." That may not be the direct intent, but its what the game change ultimately says in terms of the design.
[/ QUOTE ]
Supposed to yes. Containment is clearly a special case though, it is easily as ingrained into controller damage as any base value both through analysis and in perception.
There is only one kind of controller with any kind of meaningful +dam. It also happens to be the biggest outlier. If they went the route of capping dam at 300% that would still leave 200% buffing ability from base, or about 105% from slotted value.
That means they'd still get full benefit from 5 other rad trollers, or 4 other rad Defs. To me that leaves more than enough room for benefiting from teams.
If trollers had powers like aim, bu, or some other way of self buffing themselves where a lower cap would be hit more often you might have a point, but that isn't the case. They would still benefit fully from -res, which is a much more common way they boost their own damage.
[ QUOTE ]
If containment was delivering too much damage, it makes more sense to simply lower containment damage. There's no law that says containment must do the same amount of damage that the primary damage components of the attack do. Reducing containment to, say, 50% of primary damage would mean a fully buffed controller ends up dealing the same amount of damage that a controller with full containment and 300% damage cap would do. But it would also lower the damage of controllers below the cap.
[/ QUOTE ]
This has already been brought up and based on the pve testbed know as pvp is probably the direction that would be taken.
It makes the glaring assumption that all controllers are overperforming with containment across all levels.
I don't believe that is true in the least and it also has the side effect of directly countering the original reason containment was even added.
On the other hand a decrease in the damage cap would have zero impact on trollers through most of the game unless they are cross-buffing to the extreme (probably something they'd like to put a damper on too). The earliest point it would ever impact them would be lvl 32 playing with a kin fender. It just so happens that is about the same time trollers start to make leaps and bounds in their performance.
[ QUOTE ]
Alternatively, if you wanted to play deeper games with containment, my original counterproposal to containment when it first came out was to make containment ~150% of primary damage but be unbuffable (i.e. Ignores Strengths and Enhancements). The original stated intent of containment was to boost lower level damage of controllers and improve soloability. A high-order containment that wasn't buffable would proportionately benefit lower level controllers more than high level ones, which I thought was the original point of containment.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a solid idea. It fails the KISS test (keep it simple stupid), which is pretty important in a game like this, but would likely provide a viable solution.
[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the real reason you don't want to travel down this road is that if controllers are knocked down to 300% because their *maximally buffed* damage intrudes on defender territory, it opens the door to blasters asking for defender damage caps to be lowered equally severely, because teams of buffed defenders intrude on their offensive territory. While I'm sure someone can nitpick the differences in situations**, that would ignore how game design precident actually works.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thankfully this is a slippery slope argument that completely lacks a hillside to even get sliding on.
[ QUOTE ]
I still haven't seen proof, in my experience, that in non-farm settings, controllers are in any way scarier than blasters or scrappers or brutes. Sure, when they have a very precisely configured map, fire/kins can blast through things at a huge pace, but it's not like actual gameplay involves that configuration.
[/ QUOTE ]
This reflects the majority of my experience as well. In most teams they get overshadowed quickly by the heavy "burst" damage dealers.
Trollers can deal phenominal damage, but it generally takes a while to get going (dot and/or need to prep the field).
Generally in the time I drop Freezing rain+flashfire and move in to hotfeet them to death the blaster/scrapper has killed almost everything. With a /kin troller it is even faster. Right after fulcrum everything falls over from the front loaded damage of other AT's.
I find most of my trollers end up contributing a fair amount of control and a bunch of buff/debuff, but not a ton of damage in most teams.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for repeating my point, that weaker attacks receive a greater benefit from Scourge due to less wasted overkill.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you said:
[ QUOTE ]
anything less than 1.95 scale was completely useless to use for a slotted attack given that the comparison was between damage of the attack to mob hit point levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, was that a typo, and you meant that anything MORE than 1.95 scale is completely useless? Or did you mean that anything less than 1.95 scale is BETTER for Scourge, because of the damage compared to the MOB HP levels. Because your statement as you made it seems to be the exact opposite.
I can understand if you mistyped, or if I misunderstood, but I can only reply to what you type. I am not a mind reader.
[/ QUOTE ]
OR you could quote the whole sentence which mentioned that I was under the impression that it was referring to unslotted attacks - which I asked in the thread, and didn't get a reply about until two months later, long after I had stopped following the thread.
A scale 1.00 attack (unslotted) would become effectively a scale 1.95 attack when slotted 95% for damage. If you don't read what I type then I have no idea why you bother trying to reply. That is why (until I heard otherwise today) I ignored anything under scale 1.64, which I also explained in the post you quoted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brillig
It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.
|
[ QUOTE ]
A scale 1.00 attack (unslotted) would become effectively a scale 1.95 attack when slotted 95% for damage. If you don't read what I type then I have no idea why you bother trying to reply. That is why (until I heard otherwise today) I ignored anything under scale 1.64, which I also explained in the post you quoted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, I see. You weren't saying that the scale 1.0 attack was useless. You were saying that the table for the scale 1.0 attack was useless, because no attack would have such a low damage when slotted.
I'm sorry, but that was far from as clear as you seem to believe it was. It is clarified now, though, so no need to discuss it further. Obviously, although I read it, I did not understand the meaning of your post.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If containment was delivering too much damage, it makes more sense to simply lower containment damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
It makes the glaring assumption that all controllers are overperforming with containment across all levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't necessarily believe that's true. If you assume that some Controllers are overperforming with Containment, and others are not, then the logical conclusion is that prior to Containment, some Controllers were underperforming, and others were not. As with Defenders, we have a situation where with some Power Sets the Controller can buff his damage to reasonable levels, and with some Power Sets he cannot. Containment was obviously meant to address the issue of underperformance, but managed to buff the Controllers that performed well to a point where they overperform. Obviously this is a danger for Defenders as well, should a bad solution be implemented to raise their damage.
Should the imbalance between Buff/Debuff power sets be corrected, though, the disparity will be reduced, and thus Containment will perform more equally across all Controllers. Under the circumstances, it may be appropriate to reduce or limit Containment.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that is true in the least and it also has the side effect of directly countering the original reason containment was even added.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that's necessarily true either. Here you are assuming that in able to solo, a Controller must have an effective doubling of his damage modifier, from 0.55 to 1.10. Yet, Defenders and Corruptors are able to solo just fine (apparently) with a damage modifier of 0.65 or 0.75. It is certainly not a given that the Controller must have his damage raised by exactly that amount.
The purpose of Containment is the same as the purpose of a Mastermind's henchmen. It is not the Controller's damage scale that makes his damage low, it is the lack of dedicated attacks. He is essentially limited to two to three attacks, of basic attack damage levels, until he reaches level 41. If he chooses attacks from the Power Pool, however, or his Secondary happens to provide him with some damage, or he chooses to use a Vet Reward, he can fill out his attack chain to at least do the moderate level of damage that another AT can do.
Given my experience with Controllers, particularly with some Pool attacks thrown into the mix, I don't see why a bonus of anywhere between 50% and 100% would not be more than sufficient to solo. A 50% damage bonus would be a damage scale of 0.825. And I mentioned before, a 100% damage bonus is 1.10. The truth is, there is only a small amount of damage that is needed to make the difference between easily soloable, and frustrating to solo. A Defender can get by on 30-40% more damage. Even given that Containment is not up all the time, ~75% Containment should be able to match that.
The question is whether that should be done, or whether Defenders should be given an Inherent that addresses the issue of the disparity in offense, and does it better. For instance, one idea I had was that a Defender Inherent could give an offensive buff every time a Defender uses a defensive power, and a defensive buff every time the Defender uses an offensive power. This would by definition balance out some of the disparity in Buff/Debuff sets, because it would make defensive sets more offensive, and offensive sets more defensive. However, it's a clumsy idea, and really only an example, there are too many details like how a control power would be handled, or what effect toggles have compared to click powers, that I wouldn't want to address. So that's not really a suggestion.
[ QUOTE ]
Yet, Defenders and Corruptors are able to solo just fine (apparently) with a damage modifier of 0.65 or 0.75.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to take issue with this, to some extent. Soloing on some Defenders is downright awful. Empaths, for example, are basically playing with one power set, their blasts, and an astoundingly weak set at that.
I reiterate my belief that Defenders need equalization for the buffing sets. If they're to have good offense or good defense, it should come from their powers (that is, buffing sets that buff damage can expect higher damage and lower defense, while sets that buff defense can expect the opposite), not from a general buff to the class as a whole.
Of course the ideal solution would to be to address inter set disparities within the AT and inter AT disparities between the various "support" classes. At which point specific tweaks to containment may very well be necessary and even welcomed.
That just probably won't happen any time soon.
Controllers by and large do NOT overperform even with containment for several reasons.
1. Few controllers can significantly buff their damage before engaging. They must prep the battle field
2. Few controllers even slot their powers for damage unless it is an obvious direct damage power. ie levitate, propel, epics. The result is that even with containment these powers end up being no better than a defender t1 and usually take a long time to deliver the damage.
3. Controllers have no appreciable aoe damage (plant and fire being the exception) prior to epics.
A few outliers have painted a damning landscape for all trollers.
I'm sorry, but damage scale and even effective damage scale w/ containment don't really mean as much as people seem to think. Not when the vast majority of "attacks" deal 30 damage, deliver it over 9 seconds of DOT and are rarely even slotted for damage.
This is very similar to the discussion regarding fire blasters the other day. Paper warriors look and see a value and jump all over it, when in reality that "capability" to produce such high damage is very rarely realized.
Anyway, changing containment would affect every single controller except possibly Illusion which relies on containment far less than others.
There is really no justification for such a change. The collateral damage would be higher than whatever benefit gained.
Any sort of direct reduction to containment (at this time) is a non-starter.
[ QUOTE ]
Empaths, for example, are basically playing with one power set, their blasts, and an astoundingly weak set at that.
[/ QUOTE ]A self-heal on a 4 second timer that replenises a quarter of your health, Instant Healing, and Stamina on Crack are not to be sneezed at.
[ QUOTE ]
I have to take issue with this, to some extent. Soloing on some Defenders is downright awful.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. Soloing on *your* Defenders is downright awful. I was part of that thread where it came to light that you neither know how to play a Defender nor do you know how to build a defender to solo.
I suggest we not derail this thread with your incredibly skewed perceptions of the Defender AT.
Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to take issue with this, to some extent. Soloing on some Defenders is downright awful.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. Soloing on *your* Defenders is downright awful. I was part of that thread where it came to light that you neither know how to play a Defender nor do you know how to build a defender to solo.
I suggest we not derail this thread with your incredibly skewed perceptions of the Defender AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, while do remember Ultimo's thread way back when and tend to agree that his defender build was about the worst for soloing I also tend to find just about ANY defender to be bad at soloing. I have nothing but admiration for those who CAN solo defenders but also consider them to be something of a masochist when I compare the solo experience of even the best defender to my blasters, scrappers, brutes or stalkers or even some controllers (illusion/anything or mind/anything - both of which solo incredibly well compared to a defender).
And before folks point out once again that defenders are not meant to solo I don't really care - I mostly solo and so an archetype that sucks at soloing is one I am never going to play. With some AT's thats not a big deal, as I can translate my character concepts into another AT that I feel solo's well - tanks vs scrappers or brutes for instance. Any melee character I dream up I can play as a scrapper, brute or stalker - all of which I enjoy soloing. However, there are some concepts I come up with that will pretty much only play as a defender or corruptor and that is a problem.
So my vote goes to any changes to vigilance that will improve the solo experience of a defender. I may never get it but one can always hope.
Globals: @Midnight Mystique/@Magik13
[ QUOTE ]
It is a very complex issue if it even exist. A can of worms maybe Castle would prefer not to touch at this point.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid that's true. The cat is out of the bag. It may be necessary to try to do something to control outliers, but to seriously nerf Containment would be badly recieved.
The best bet would be to redesign Containment completely, so it gave the same benefit or even improves performance in 90% of the cases, but eliminated the outliers. As was done with Domination. And that will do nothing to help the Defenders that are outliers in the other direction.