Jade_Dragon

[ QUOTE ]
It makes balancing a lot less of a headache, at least. It seems like a lot of the sets were just randomly hacked together when they were made.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

Of course, Blaster Secondaries are much worse. But while the CoV devs had at least an outline in mind, they were trying to stitch together differering Power Sets that themselves had some variation. (Such as Electric having VS instead of a Burst)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See BaBs? SEE?!?

Put a stop to it before it gets out of hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's too late now, this "confusion" will persist even until after I16 goes live, and we'll have team leaders kicking people with custom powers because "LOL coloors r nerf".

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad part is, this will probably turn out to be true.

[ QUOTE ]
They will probably call it "power customization" but it will BE "color customization"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm hoping they call it "color customization" so "power customization" is an option for the future.

I do wonder if the color will be universal across all powers, though. And whether pets/objects that DON'T have an aura will be effected.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But...but...I read it on the internet! It must be true!

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything you have been told is a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

including this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all a Nemesis Plot. Except that which is not a Nemesis Plot. Nemesis says so.

[ QUOTE ]
Few AV's have mez resistance, just flat protection. (think integration vs accel metab). Unresistable holds wouldn't do anything that normal holds don't already do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, "resistance" could be -protection, or whatever else accomplishes the task. The idea here is to remove the mechanism that a Dom's holds are off/on, and that more than one Dom doesn't do anything to change that. A couple of Doms working together, or one Dom who happens to get lucky, can break through from time to time.

Changing AVs might help, but it's not going to change the fact that anybody can use a hold. (Unless you just gut everyone else's ability to use control powers period) Controllers, at least, have a random element to their magnitude, so their hold magnitude varies over time. With Doms it's a constant, Domination is either up or down.

I do like the resistance idea, although I thought that Bosses and higher were already effected by a shorter duration than normal on holds. Is that more a factor of the difference in level or rank between the AV and the player? At any rate, Doms and Controllers have two things that distinguish their holds and other mezzes from other ATs, magnitude and duration. Not to mention that Domination boosts duration.

[ QUOTE ]
Johnny Sonata's Soul is an Arch Villain without PToD. He is trivial, if boring, for any Dominator to solo, assuming a moderate damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I've taken on AVs as EBs before, including those that have PToD, but I really don't pay attention. If it registers on me that, "Oh, my holds aren't working" I'll adjust my strategy. But if you ask me after the fact, "Hey, does so-and-so have Purple Triangles?" I won't have a clue.

I don't think anybody is really suggesting eliminating PToD, though, I think the main suggestion is increasing and decreasing mez protection over time, instead of it just being an on/off thing. I don't know, some sort of -mez protection in a power or two might result in something like that.

[ QUOTE ]
Go fight Johnny Sonata, solo, then come back and try to tell me that PTOD, or something like them, is not necessary for the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't really tell if you are saying PToD are necessary or they are not necessary.

Does Johnny Sonata NOT have PToD? And thus it is trivial? Or would it be trivial if he didn't? Or are you saying he proves PToD are an unneeded burden?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's up to you, of course. It was your idea to increase either HP or resistance for a Dominator, and I disagreed with that suggestion, as I felt it had no chance to be implemented. In the interest of discussion, I tried to suggest a solution that I felt had a better chance of being accepted by the devs. If that's not good enough for you, if you're unwilling to accept anything but all or nothing, fine. You may disregard my suggestion, you have every right to.

You are perfectly welcome to cross your fingers and hope that the devs boost Dominator HP. Maybe they will, they did it for Blasters, and they did it for Stalkers, so who knows?

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

This is a point. I'm not sure the devs will see it that way, though. PToD are there to keep holds from trivializing AV encounters, while you may argue about the implementation, it may be easier to design certain powers around the implementation, not the other way around. For instance, AVs have resistance to debuffs, but some debuff powers are unresistable.

Perhaps Dominators could be given individual, "unresistable" holds? Or the Domination effect could randomly make their hold penetrate the PToD. Not sure how that would be implemented, but it's a thought. Feel free to reject it because it would make Domination more powerful, of course. :/

[ 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?

[ 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 ]
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 ]
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.

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%)

I do think it's a little amusing that there is a source of potential confusion in the similarities of the names "Domination" "Dominate" and "Total Domination".

You seem to have already gotten this, but just to clarify in general, the power referred to is "Domination", the Inherent shared by all Dominators.

(And then there is Cold and Pain Domination! )

Sounds like someone who was trying to create a "healer" before Pain came out. Although I would think Thermal would have been the choice there. You wouldn't need Stimulant then...

[ 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 ]
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 ]
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.

[ 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 ]
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 ]
"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.

[ QUOTE ]
I countered your assertion that doms play "up close" somehow outside of melee but still in range to make good use of pbaoes. That really didn't make much sense when you said it as we know pbaoes are fired from the middle of spawns and melee attacks are used in melee range.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that Doms fight "up close but out of melee range", what I said was that a Dominator does not stay in melee. He spends most of his time at a moderate range where he can use a hold, a cone attack, a ranged blast, or close to melee or to use a PBAoE. But he moves around in that range, he doesn't try to maintain it. I never said that Dominators STAY out of melee, I said that they do not stay IN melee. And that is by design. The devs did not design Doms or Blasters with the defenses to maintain melee range for long periods of time.

I was also referring to the ranges of Dom attacks, which range from around 15 ft for PBAoEs, to 40 ft for cones. This means if a Dom wishes to inflict full AoE damage on a target, he has to be within 25 ft on Live, or 15 ft on Test. This is distinct from a Corruptor, which can inflict AoE damage as far as 80 ft away. So actually I was distinguishing the Dominator in that it DOES have to get close to melee range.

I was arguing the point that a Dominator has to STAY in melee, (because it is designed to be a melee AT) and thus needs greater HP. If you want to argue that Dominators need greater HP because they get NEAR melee, that's fine, but I've already posted my counter argument to that.

[ QUOTE ]
(Of course you also recent said doms assault sets are still intended for supplementary damage despite Castle publicly stating they are "dual role" now and should be legitimate damage dealers.) So it is a bit confusing trying to get behind anything you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that when Castle refers to a Dominator as "Dual Role" he is not saying that a Dominator should be doing as much damage as a Blaster. Merely that relegating the Dominator's Secondary to an afterthought, outside of Domination, does not help the Dom either solo or on a team. He is raising the damage of a Dominator to be comparable to a AT with damage in the Primary, such as a Brute or Corruptor. However,, I don't think that means that dealing damage will be the PRIMARY ROLE of the Dominator, simply because the damage has been raised to that level. Rather, he's giving the Dom enough damage for it to be significant, while leaving the primary role of the Dom as Control.

There is also the fact that a Dominator is niether a Brute nor a Corruptor, but half the attacks of each, mashed into a not necessarily consistent whole. A Dominator can never do as much damage as a Blaster, because it doesn't have as many attacks. And it can never do as much damage at range as a Corruptor, or as much damage in melee as a Brute, because it has no complete set for either of those attacks. The Dominator combines the two, being weaker than either a Corruptor or Brute, but more flexible than either. (In that it can either attack at range or in melee)

[ QUOTE ]
I said why doms often find them themselves fighting from that range, but said in the exact same post they aren't a melee AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though a Dominator deals the greater portion of his damage in melee (much as a Blapper does) it is not true that the Dominator deals sufficient damage JUST in melee. The Dominator must support his melee attacks with holds and ranged attacks, not just to prevent his foes from fighting back, but also to "soften them up" and make the time required to defeat them once you move into melee less. And before you make the argument, even if you don't slot your holds for damage, they still will deal damage, and they will deal more damage now outside of Domination. Thus, whether a player expects his holds to deal damage or not, they will reduce the HP of the foe. If the Dominator has any experience at all, he will use other ranged attacks to supplement this damage as well.

So again, a Dominator is not a meleer, he is a combination of range and melee. This is what makes him a supplemental damage dealer, he is neither a specialist with melee damage, nor with range. He can at best perform to expecations by placing himself at risk and using both sets of attacks, as well as his Primary powers. As with Defenders, he really needs the support of his Primary to make his Secondary function at full potential.

I've also said in the past that Dominators are Control/Melee/Ranged. In the areas of Control and Melee the new Dominator has the capability of a Primary, but that isn't really true for Ranged. 0.95 is pretty high, but it's not as high as a Blaster, and it's probably slightly less than a buffed Corruptor. So at best a Dominator has 1.75 Primaries, and 0.25 Secondaries. (I would say a Blaster has 1.5 Primaries, being Ranged and Melee, and 0.5 Secondaries, being Control) All that is generalities, though, there's no numbers behind it.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the worst players I ever met (in my opinion, naturally) was the TF leader with the keybinds for giving orders to the rest of the team. Made no difference that they were at least passably in character. The player just hit them too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a matter of knowing your audience, of course, and experience. I actually have the chat binds separate from the power binds, so I don't have my character yelling out, "I summon you through the darkness of the Netherworld!" every time I use Recall Friend, for instance, although I've seen those who do that.

And I'll add that while I have always been upfront with my real life gender, my online persona is my online persona. This is the Internet, and as such, that's all you're going to get.

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't understand how anyone has trouble building dom in its base recharge....

I find that notion unfathomable.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be blunt, I suspect that we aren't actually talking about building Dom in its base recharge. We are talking about the people who have perma-Dom, and how long it takes them to fire it off for the first time.

This also applies, for low level Doms, to the time it takes them to fire it off for the first time in a mission. So I'll be fair about it. You're right, though, if you are waiting on Domination to recharge, likely you will have it ready when it does, particularly if you are on a team.

Well, at best I would say Dominators will be Moderate-High damage after this change, and it might be misleading to call them outright High damage. In melee, yes, but that's with a limited selection of attacks, and I'm not sure you can compete with a Corruptor, or even a Brute. They won't be weaker than Corruptors (that may be a note in their description that may need changing) but they will deal damage in a different way.

Besides, I don't think anyone would agree that Masterminds do Low damage. Maybe the Mastermind himself, but with the henchmen, that rating doesn't really apply.