Cold vs FF

Lately I can't find a single worthwhile reason to take FF over Cold, and that makes me sad. Cold seems to bring so much more to the table; Defense, Awesome Debuff, +HP, Stealth, Knockdown, and +Recov. Whereas FF only brings 5% more defence than cold unenhanced (defender numbers), mez protection, and repel/knockback.

I can't think of a single situation where I would rather have a FF over a cold, in groups, solo, or PvPing, and neither can the majority of the people I have been talking to in game, all expert players in their own right with years of credibility. It just seems that the minor benefits FF has are far outweighed by the usefulness of Cold's other powers.

Am I missing something here? I've had countless debates on the subject and in the end everyone seems to come to the same conclusion; that until FF gets a revamp, its inferior to Cold.

What are your thoughts?

I prefer to play with people and not AT's. A good FF will beat an average Cold any day.

I agree that, all other things being equal, Cold beats FF any day, thanks to the debuffs.

If I had to choose between two defenders, one cold and one FF, I'd likely pick the one with sonic blast if I didn't know either of them.

What ACFU says, though, is very true. This game is about the driver, not the car.

Another little known benefit to FF is that the FF bubbles can be powerboosted. Cold's shields cannot, as they contain resist components and the entire power was flagged "unaffected by buffs."

Oh boy, here we go...

I generally prefer to play FF, since it's practically Buff'n'Forget. It may not be flashy, but I can focus on my blasting/controlling more.

I still think there's room for both even without FF getting tweaked, and I wouldn't deny either a slot on my team.

A good player is better than an average one? Would never have guessed.
If you play with people and not powersets, say you're on a team of 7, theres room for one more person and you invite your friend, that friend has both a Bubbler and and a Cold, and is equally good at playing both, which one would you rather they bring, supposing that they are also apathetic towards which one they play thusly eliminating the cop out answer of "I would tell them to play whatever they want."


Edited for typos.

And in response to Gehnen, you like FF because you can buff and then focus on doing other things, that's great. But Cold allows you to "Buff n Forget" and then do even more to benefit the team while simultaneously doing more damage and/or increasing your CC capabilities.

i have both an FF and a cold, and i would choose cold over any FF because of the debuffs, FF in no way will help you kill that AV because it has no regen debuffs, sure nobody will get hurt, but you wont ever kill an AV without regen debuffs if your team doesnt have the DPS

the only thing i like about ff is the mez protection, other than that i would rather have a cold

Post history says otherwise but keep fighting the good fight

Don't worry... I feel the same too. I will take Cold over FF any day. :P

Cold offers a variety of buffs and debuffs while FF only focuses on a few things. The only thing Cold lacks is mez protection.

I would take and play cold over FF. The only reason I would play a FF over cold would be if I was solo over a very small team with no mez protection.

Solo the mez protection/KB would benefit you more then the debuffs would, but then again I would never play a FF or Cold solo anyway.

I guess I didn't say enough. I do also greatly appreciate the mez protection, and 100% melee mitigation.

So it's a one-trick pony... so is Super Reflexes, and I don't hear people complaining over and over about that. In fact, I don't hear people saying, "Energy Aura is way better than SR because it has utility powers!" Most people consider EA rather weak*, even though it's a bit more well-rounded.

In fact...let's do this: "Cold is better than Radiation because it has debuffs and DEF buffs!" See how far that gets you.

Cold is cool (HA!), no doubt. I just still think there is room for both.

*EA probably does need some tweaks.

Hmm. Most of the people in this thread are talking about Defenders in the third person.

Most of the people in this thread are assuming that "everyone on the team has a certain amount of self-defense."

Yup, this is a classic FF discussion.

I actually play Force Fielders. Why?

* I can cap EVERYONE on the team. Blasters, Rads, Empaths, everyone.
* No matter what goes wrong, Force Fields still work.
* Blasters who aren't scared of repeated horrible death do about 30% more damage than Blasters who are. In my experience, only FF can really give a Blaster the confidence they need. I like what multi-blaster teams can acheive.
* 5% more Defense, when it's 40% vs. 45%, means "half the incoming damage." (5% more Defense, when it's 50% vs 55%, means nothing.)
* Force Fields means everything ELSE keeps working. Debuffers don't get mezzed, for instance.
* Force Fields can softcap the team's Defense from level 22 on. Level 17 on with a little work (4-slotting the bubbles with L20 IO's, specifically.)

Are Force Fields overkill on Defense? Sometimes. Especially if you're playing at level 50 with a group of heavily IO'd billion inf babies.

Are Force Fields for everyone? No. Almost nobody actually wants to PLAY the set, even if they want to have the set on their team.

Last, I ask the following question:

When have you had more Force Fielders wanting to get on your team than you've had spaces?

Looking only at what direct protecion they give, here's how the two compare:

Cold using artic air, ice shield, frostwork and glacial shield max-slotted for protection:

defense:
Smashing:23.4+7.8=31.2
Lethal: 23.4+7.8=31.2
Fire:7.8
cold:7.8
Energy:23.4+7.8=31.2
Neg. Energy:23.4+7.8=31.2
Psy:7.8
Toxic:7.8

ranged: 23.4+7.8=31.2
melee: 23.4+7.8=31.2
AoE: 23.4+7.8=31.2

resistance:

Smashing:
Lethal:0
Fire:15.6+31.2=46.8
cold:19.5+19.5+31.2=70.2
Energy:31.2
Neg. Energy:0
Psy:0
Toxic: 20

Note that the 20% toxic res is kinda limited and unslottable in frostwork.

Forcefield, using Deflection Shield, Insulation shield, and dispersion Bubble

defense:
Smashing:23.4+15.6=39
Lethal: 23.4+15.6=39
Fire:23.4+15.6=39
cold:23.4+15.6=39
Energy:23.4+15.6=39
Neg. Energy:23.4+15.6=39
Psy:15.6
Toxic:0

ranged: 23.4+15.6=39
melee: 23.4+15.6=39
AoE: 23.4+15.6=39

resistance:

Smashing:0
Lethal:0
Fire:0
cold:0
Energy:0
Neg. Energy:0
Psy:0
Toxic: 40

Note: forcefield also has resistance to end drain in insulation shield, and of course the 8.65 mez protection from immobilize, hold, and stun.

In the end, forcefield wins on pure defense. Cold wins on its mix of resists and defense. (It does seem odd that it has so little to help allies avoid fire and ice, but since those resists are good, it seems fair.) So if you just don't want to get hit? Forcefields are better at that. Barely, but it is. Then there's the anti-mez thing...is that a fair trade when all the extra debuffs are involved? That's debateable. Especially when cold can cap HP on allies, basicaly making them tougher.

This doesn't seem to include the knockaround mitigation of forcefield; force bubble is excellent mitigation for ranged team members. Repulsion bomb helps turn off anenemy's clump's damage for a moment.

Personally? I see few enough of both that it's not an either/or...if one is available, I'll take it in a heartbeat. If both? C'mon, capped defenses, debuffs, mez protection, it's all good.

If forcefields are so bad then why do I constantly get asked to alt to my forcefield defender to run TFs?