Empathy and Force Field - end game?

Convenient. Basically, what you're saying is "I see a situation where Cold can't match Force Field. However, rather than grant that advantage, I'm going to declare it irrelevant because it doesn't support my belief that Force Field is always worse than Cold." I don't know about other people, but this is part of what frustrates me so much about your arguments. Rather than just say "Yes, if you want defense and mezz protection Force Field is a valid choice" you have to find some way for Cold to STILL be the winner, in this case by saying IOs are irrelevant. That's just beyond ridiculous and makes it harder and harder to take your opinion seriously with each new post.


You can't be serious. Lost bosses? Longbow? Malta Gunslingers? Carnie Illusionists? Seers? Rikti mind-whatevers? What technique have you developed where you are able to hold them in one shot, and that is sufficient to support 7 teammates to the point that everyone could turn off their anti-mezz toggles and not notice a change in performance?


This may be a case where what you wrote, and what you mean, are two different things.


A thread where someone was talking about frustations while soloing. And one of the replies is "Play a Force Field/Sonic Defender, take Acrobatics, or team with a FF/Sonic Defender." Probably not the thread I'd have selected to bolster my point.


I mentioned it because if a such a conflict existed in Force Field, you'd lament that it once again demonstrates a failure for that set. Your position is actually a rather easy one to maintain. Any positive for Force Field is "irrelevant" or "marginalized." Any negative for Cold is equally "irrelevant" or "has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

Again you seem like a decent person, and reasonably experienced with Cold Domination. Your insistence on knocking Force Field, however, and telling people they're imagining the effects they experience by adding one to the team, is baffling. I totally understand not liking a particular set, but I feel you have carried it further into an intractable position where your spreadsheets overrule practical experience and actual game play. I'm fully aware I will never change your opinion because it is based on a belief about a game I'm unfamiliar with, because I've never played it. This has all been very entertaining. Hopefully the original poster at least got some kind of answers out of it. While also discovering us players are a pack of wild animals.

please go find a post anywhere in which I said "Force Field is always worse than Cold". You won't find it because I never said anything remotely to that extreme. You sound way too emotionally invested here and I don't think you're quite thinking clearly at this point as you're reading things that aren't there.




Lieutenants only take 1 mag 3 hold/stun to mez, that's instantaneous. Bosses take 2 which is also easily handled since 5/10 defender blast sets have a 10 second to recharge their ST control, 3/10 def blasts have 5 second recharges, and all of controller except for illusion have 4 second recharge with blind being 4.5 seconds. Late game when status ailments become more frequent defenders get access to an addition stun/hold in APP/PPP to stack right off the bat and controllers get it as soon as they get their AoE hold, in addition to critical holds happening.

On teams, letting scrapper/tanker/brutes/stalkers soak the Status AoEs and staying out of melee in general will avoid getting mezzed til you get the 5 to 10 seconds to lock the boss down. Same strat works against extra lieutenants.


Except it's pretty clear that it isn't. You took my comment about using a ST hold to mez a mezzer before they mez you as "Nobody needs status protection if you have a ST hold". Obviously Scrappers/Tankers/Brutes/Stalkers do need them since they get hit by both ranged and melee attacks, and there is a lot more melee mez than ranged. That's pretty much why they've had self status protection from day one.




have you tried reading beyond the first reply? Specifically from the 3rd post and down. FF was never mention beyond the first reply and controls were mentioned numerous times as a solution.



The positives for FF are pretty cut and dry. Superior +Def, AoE status protection, and minor click aoe knockdown. My case is about FF having no offensive powers and thus rapidly contributes less as mitigation increases until the contribution eventually reaches zero. No other support set does this and it's why FF is so undervalued at the endgame when mitigation tools are widely available. The only relation this argument has with Cold is as an example of a standard or design practices across all the non-FF sets to show what is lacking in FF.

I find it funny that you guys think I'm bashing FF. Bashing would be saying negative things about it without supporting evidence or logic. I've been stating my logic pretty clearly why I think FF underperforms comparatively with the rest of the support sets, it's just that some of choose to take that a personal attack and respond by taking words out of context or manipulating what I said to be radically different. The posts in the thread remain unchanged and truly speak for themselves in that regard.

No one who wants to play at extreme levels undervalues FF in the endgame. And this translates into non-extreme levels, as FF will make any team nigh unkillable. People I team with like that quality (even though I sometimes prefer to die).

I would love to see some type of -resist, -regen, +recovery, and/or +damage added to FF. I agree that the set is too limited in scope. But it boggles my mind that you think it is undervalued in the endgame and that you feel its value on most endgame teams approaches nil. I run with Cold defenders a lot and still find FF extremely valuable when fighting endgame content.

I think you missed some words there, I have no clue what you're trying to say.

It's the lack of variety in addition to only dabbling in mitigation that results the scenario that FF can contribute nothing.

(It's easier to think of a [y = -mx + b] graph when reading the following)
All support sets see a contribution reduction as mitigation increases, the rate of this decay is less the more varied they are in stats and the less the mitigation matches those stats. FF has the problem of only having +Def to work with and very high amounts of it, this makes for a very rapid decay. Because we have an 8man team cap, the amount of mitigation that can be added is finite and the more varied sets will never reach zero contribution, but will hit a minimum point above zero instead. However FF's decay is so rapid because of the focus solely on +Def it will have a guaranteed minimum of zero before mitigation reaches it's peak potential at the 8man team cap. The solution is to make FF more varied so that the minimum is higher than zero and relatively closer to the minimums of other sets.

In short, more variety added to FF would improve the set immensely, because as it stands it's habit of bottoming out far too soon makes it the weakest of the support sets for end game challenges. If you think I'm saying it's useless, I'm not, only that it's not as widely useful as every other support set at end game.

What you are saying here pretty much applies to ANY support based character.
Take for example my Empath (my main support character atm), what good do any of my powers do when my teammates are at their mitigation caps.

Healing Aura, Heal Other, Absorb Pain ( no one is getting hurt, so powers unused)
Fortitude, Clear Mind (again unnecessary since no one is getting hit)
Regen Aura (regenerating people at 100% health... cool, but useless)
Rez (no one dies... move that to another power tray)
Recovery Aura (Ok here is a power that does not mitigate, but any player worth their salt has recovery under control, so this power means that they stay pegged at 100 endo instead of flucuating between 75-100, I guess they needed me afterall)
Adrenaline Boost (ditto on the regen/recovery, but here we finally find a power that probably fits your "idea" of a useful power under maximum player conditions due to the recharge. Well except for those players that are heavily recharge enhanced and this would only shave a couple seconds off their longest powers... awesome!)

So thats 1 power that definitely satisfies your needs, and I can keep this running on ONE, exactly ONE teammate.

Your point has merit Turbo, and I think most folks here are not disagreeing with the idea that FF could use some versatility, but the scenario you describe as the point where FF provides zero benefit (none of us believe that point is commonly achievable) would relegate any support toon to similar near-zero performance.

If FF got more versatility, Castle would probably nerf the small bubbles. And that would make me sad

FWIW, the problem isn't so much that FF is overly focused on (def-based) mitigation, it's that the game is, when you get right down to it, pretty easy. The original dev team, as far as I can tell, figured they had made a challenging, tactical game (one that leverages repel and KB as high order mitigation).

The playerbase figured the devs had made a constant zerg rush.

Meh.

I love the fact that, as someone mentioned, when teamed with a bubbler, I can run full steam into spawns. With wreckless abandon. With Blazing Aura and Hotfeet going.

I don't have to wait for someone to grab aggro. I don't have to wait for someone to mez the spawn. I don't have to wait for debuffs to land. I GO.

I like playing my bubbler when I want a relaxing stroll through Paragon City. I find a 'troller or another defender and 6 random teammates ... and watch my XP bar fill up. Nothing really bad every happens to teammates when my bubbler's along.

I can't say that for any of my other toons.

I did not miss any words. I will simplify. Everyone I have ever met in game that expressed an opinion has always wanted, desired, and loved having a FF defender join every team I have ever been a part of. No joke. All the time. Never have I ever encountered anyone, anywhere being saddened by adding a bubbler. That includes when I have been on a team that already had two bubblers and we added a third.

I am not joking. I am not exaggerating. People generally seem to like being buffed to the gills with bubbles (even though I sometimes prefer to die).

I do not believe I have EVER been on a team or in a scenario where a FF defender just using the three defense powers are contributing nothing. Even the team with three bubblers.

I guess you run on more teams where everyone has capped defense and mez protection without bubbles. That is cool. I think it is also extremely rare.

I said that in the first line of the paragraph you're responding to...

If mitigation is capped for empathy, then empathy still has a minimum value to the team in form of +recovery, +Tohit, +Dmg, and +Recharge. Comparatively under the same conditions, FF offers nothing. It should also be noted that it takes more than +Def capping off for empathy to get to this point, where as FF decays faster towards zero because of only +Def soft capping.

We're not debating FF's performance at protecting the team, we're debating it's contribution rapidly dropping when mitigation is moderate to high. You provide a scenario with a team with 2 bubblers. Already you have nearly fulfilled your +Def need with simply one, the 2nd bubbler adds significantly less contribution now because of the pressence of the first bubbler. The 3rd bubbler adds absolutely nothing. If we replaced it with any other support set the 2nd and 3rd would still be contributing via other stats like +recovery or +dmg.


as I said the 3rd bubbler in that scenario is contributing nothing from their primary.


it doesn't take much beyond the first FF to cap defense. If FF had more variety it would decay so quickly in contribution.

Yes, and you also said that FF would reach zero benefit before all other sets, but what I am trying to say is that at that extreme level of team mitigation ALL supports sets are offereing nearly zero as well. In essence, they are not very far behind.

And back to FF

at the point where my empath is only offering +recovery, +tohit, +dmg and +rech,
a Forcefielder is offering +KB, detention, AoE KB, AoE dmg and Mob keepout

lets not forget that he is also providing his own mezz protection, which is not something my empath can say.

Not true when you play like an idiot. If you haven't aggroed the entire room and part of the next hallway, you are doing it wrong.

Generally, the more mitigation you bring, the more insane I play. I turn the difficulty up. I aggro more stuff. I try not to split much, but we may have people spread out and outside of Leadership buffs/Steamy Mist/Tactical Training/etc.

One bubbler is very nice, but I have to remember that when I go out of the DB, I am no longer capped. The 2nd bubbler does not add significantly less contribution, but instead adds significantly more, since now both bubblers are capped and the whole team is likely capped even if they wander away from the team too far.

Sure, the third was a just a security blanket. But the point was not that they were doing anything, the point was that they were desired by the players. While you can attempt to make it seem like FF brings less in the endgame and you can talk about mitigation curves and contribution amounts, the fact is that in game, people WANT bubbles. And they want them in the endgame and they bring a lot more than you credit them for in that endgame.

All that still does not change the fact that I think they could use some variety and some type of offensive contribution through a buff or debuff. I just think you overstate the case considerably. So I can agree when you say this:
Although I'd rather have one of each, and IME there are plenty of times (but definitely the minority) I'd rather have the FF, if I can only have one.

However, I have to take issue when you make statements like:

psst, don't forget Khan/Barracuda TFs

For now I consider it anything 40+ (maybe with some of the 35+ stuff).

ITF, LGTF, STF, Crimson, Harvey, RWZ, Grandville arcs, 40-50 tips, etc.

Maybe after Issue 20 I will think differently.

Are they "needed"? No. Of course not.

But NO AT is "needed" in this game. Any content that REQUIRES a certain AT (outside of the epic-specific mission arcs) is broken content.

HOWEVER, Emp and FF are VERY nice to have.

Went to a ship raid tonight and offered to swap off my heavy-duty stone tank to my bubbler. NOBODY said no to that. Most of the raid, for me, was spent bubbling like a mad-person. While we had a few people kissing deckplate, at no time did we splash the entire raid. A couple traps MM/Corrs provided me with a bit of extra defense with their FFGs so I didn't have to worry about floating up, being obvious, and going to town.

As a result, much Rikti *** was kicked.

When we run the STF on Thursdays, an Emp is ALWAYS welcome. Especially for MO runs.

Simply because they aren't "necessities", doesn't mean that the addition of such toons to a group don't carry some extravagantly nice luxuries with them.

Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.

So you're saying FF doesn't rapidly decay in utility if you play worse? You're not presenting a very strong argument if the only thing you can come up with is "FF is great for idiots" as a contribution on teams with already high mitigation.


2 Cold or 2 FFs will cap the team's +Def, with the 2nd only adding a partial contribution on the +Def since it is the one that caps it off the rest of the way. The difference is that 2 Colds are bringing heck of a lot more than 2 FFs are at this point because of the wider variety of effects. The gap only increases more when we compare 3 cold to 3 FF since FF has reached it's minimum by this point where as cold can still contribute more through +Res(nrg), -Res, and more targets to infrig/benumb. That's only an example, the same would be true when comparing 3 kin to 3 FF or 3 rad to 3 FF and so on. FF's rapid contribution decay is directly caused by it's lack of variety.

1 FF is about all I'll invite to a team if I'm doing something like STF or LRSF, any more would be redundant since I would be bringing other support sets as well. Any other set I could fill the entire team up with and not be worried too much whether I have all my bases covered since all except FF brings a wide variety of stats to buff/debuff. Sure FF is wanted on teams with little to no mitigation, but when most of your team is tankers/controllers/defenders/corruptors/mm/dominators/veats/brutes it's nowhere nearly as desirable as other support sets.

You say overstate, I would say thoroughly state. We seem to be in agreement then based on your understanding that 3+ FFs really doesn't bring much to a team beyond the first 2 FFs and the statement above.

In a vacuum, FF works fine and does a great job at protecting the team, it only underperforms in comparison to other support sets when more mitigation is added. Again this is due to it's lack of variety.

Except they aren't. Since you're so hung up on empathy, we'll use it in this comparison model.

Support power decay model


I can add more supports sets if you're not convinced.

Maybe I read too much into what you've said. I kind of felt like a statement like "Force Field is easily the worst support set" was pretty extreme. Debating 6 people for three days in order to "prove" that point seems pretty extreme to me as well, but who am I to say, since I keep responding?


There is a logic of kinds to your arguments. The problem is it's flawed logic that's based on your subjective opinion about the frequency of a particular event (teams already being 100% survivable). Rather than acknowledge the conditional nature of your assertions, you simply repeat the assertions. When questioned about other benefits of Force Fields (mezz protections, ability to IO, endurance reduction) you immediately declare that argument "irrelevant" and repeat your assertions yet again.

In the end, if you stuck to saying "I don't like Force Fields for these reasons" I think you'd receive a better reception.

So this whole time you've been telling us controls > force field, and yet the first thing it says on your spreadsheet is "Controls and heals are unquantifiable and can't be properly modeled?" Well at least it explains your claim that controls are infinitely powerful and able to defeat any argument about adding protection.