Jade_Dragon

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is almost a trap to lure in folks that knee jerk post without reading the whole thread

I find it rather amusing

[/ QUOTE ]

(For those who get that this is a joke, but are not quite sure exactly why it came about, check this out)

Hm... "Why you should never, ever play a Force Field Defender"... I think I'm inspired.

The tentacles are scary, the nude girl wearing that as clothing is scary, but my first thought was, "Wow... she really does have teeth 'down there'..."

Nope. There is no way to "make decisions" based on what you have targetted. Which is too bad, really, I've wanted that ability. (But the devs really want to make "bots" really hard to make)

The closest thing would be a keybind that targets the closest ally, then casts Speed Boost, and another key that targets an enemy and casts Siphon Speed. I haven't been able to make a bind that targets and casts a power work reliably though. I suppose you could do it with the "press down to target, release to cast" trick, but that's a lot of work.

[ QUOTE ]
and recently switched my car insurance to Geico.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean "switched my car insurance to Geko"?

Or EvilGeko, since Geko's gone...

I got about six characters levelled, three on Guardian, two on Virtue, one on Pinnacle. One of the characters on Guardian levelled three times, and one of the ones on Virtue almost made two levels. He's about a bar from 35.

Also, three of those were villains. Exactly half, actually. I didn't even realize that.

I didn't play at all on Friday, and played about 4-5 hours on Saturday and again on Sunday. About half of that was spent solo, although I usually got picked up for PUGs rather quickly.

I'm probably one of the few people who soloed as much as I did, though. I turned down a few offers because I was only a bar or two from level and didn't want to join a team only to leave it.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, a similar effect would happen for a Kheldian's life when when traveling long distances at relavistic speeds. n.n;

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting, it suggests that the reason a Kheldian's life span is so short is that it evolved travelling at high relativistic speeds. With such a vast universe passing past them at high rates, though, and years passing for each one of theirs, they probably found that the universe was very small and boring.

Once they reduced their speeds to more "normal" rates, however, they found the universe was full of fascinating creatures. But their life spans were so short they barely had time to enjoy any of the new planets and people that they had found. So they took to merging with them in order to "synchronize" themselves with the beings that all lived at slow relativistic speeds.

When they need to travel between planets, though, they can do it, from their point of view, in the blink of an eye. They would just rather stay at our speeds.

[ QUOTE ]
So make one specific to heros and vills? It's more of a wish for the ally target than necessity. *shrug* I won't qq if it doesn't happen. However, you have brightened my day by pointing out that post... so *kiss kiss* and a cookie for you!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I thought about making it a Location AoE, that way you could choose the spot to be the target. It could be an ally, an enemy, or even nothing. There wouldn't be much point to targetting nothing, though, and considering how fast foes move you would definately have to reduce the animation time to make it usable.

So I think the power does need to be either ally or foe targetted. And because of the "assist" mechanism they sort of are the same. You can target Repulsion Bomb on an ally, it'll just hit whatever target he has targetted. It's just the AoE may not hit the same targets since it's centered on the foe and not the ally.

[ QUOTE ]

[u]Repulsion Bomb[u]
[...]
1) Reduce the knock back, keep the same mag of stun (or increase it), but give it a significantly better chance to stun. This might make for incentive for people to take force bolt again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look into the version of Repulsion Bomb on Test right now. There's a thread on the subject in this forum. ( here)

Oh, and I disagree with making Repulsion Bomb ally targettable again, for the same reason it was made enemy targetted in the first place. Masterminds have pets from level 1, so they have an ally target available even when solo. Defenders do not.

The description needs to be changed, especially now that it is being changed again.

[ QUOTE ]
The key isn't damage via an attack chain, its short circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not for nothing, but this is an example of, "A Defender shouldn't rely on his Secondary for something his Primary should give him." If you say things like, "Well, my FF does fine because I use my Electric Blasts to do X", well, anyone who doesn't have Electric Blasts obviously can't do X.

Of course, there is some amount of overlap, one of the strongest features of Radiation Blast is the disorient in Cosmic Burst, and other sets have their status controls, too. I'm not saying that Defenders shouldn't be allowed to use or rely on such powers, it's just a slippery slope when you start trying to judge a Primary based on synergy with a Secondary.

[ QUOTE ]
The only way it can be done is by using massive amounts of inspirations. And I shouldn't have to eat my entire tray just to defeat a single even level boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the thing that gets me. I can do somewhat better than that, about half the time it works okay. But that half the time I find that I'm completely without any alternative but to go buy a tray of Lucks, I have to say, "What is going on here?"

I expect that for an EB, not an even level Boss.

The thing is, I think that although every other AT can deal with that situation fine, being forced to resort to Inspirations is what the devs WANT. I suspect that's what they mean when they say Defenders are "balanced".

[ QUOTE ]
That conclusion doesn't logically follow from the first two statements. It can be inferred but not logically deduced. "Little use" is not the same as "no use". That is why I didn't chose it to complete the logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

*I* didn't make the logical statement. *YOU* did. *I* phrased my statement within a paragraph giving the statement context. I made a statement that did not have to be limited to deductive and not inductive logic. It was *YOU* who chose to express the statement in such a way in order to dismiss my arguments.

Even if I were convinced of your sincerity in wanting to understand me, which I am not, you reworded the argument into such a way that you could totally invalidate my statement without even considering its meaning. Which, as I said previously, is utter nonsense.

At this point, this argument is about nothing but technicalities and terminology. Which is a waste of time, effort and bandwidth.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This whole argument about whether Defenders need more damage being broken down into semantics is mind boggling to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]
...Yeah. I agree that Defenders could use a bit more damage, but expecting them to solo as well as *anything* else, even post-GDN Controllers, is something I don't agree with. (Previously, I'd have said that Controllers should have been worse, and sometimes they were.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

On what do you base your assertion that Defenders should have the most difficulty soloing of any Archetype? (Or any hero Archetype, at least, I don't think you're comparing to villains)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you can even consider that to be fair and balanced. Fix this imbalance and I won't give a monkey's fart if Controller's get Containment damage from Defender powers. Just as long as it's fair and balanced. That's all I'm asking for.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but the devs don't work for Fox News.

[/ QUOTE ]

More specifically, I doubt they will change anything once it's established. I personally feel Containment should have been a 100% damage buff, not a Critical. But it's too late to change that now.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a question I have. Can a power that is flagged to not do Containment damage still be used to establish Containment? Hmm...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, although AFAIK there is no such power that exists. (At least unless Repulsion Bomb is so changed, and the disorient isn't removed)

Note that there are plenty of powers that apply Containment, though, but do no damage.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry you aren't buying that. It is exactly what I was doing. You didn't say that attacks could only be used solo. I added that so that I could logically connect your statement to your conclusion. I wasn't trying to make a slight of hand or misrepresent you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, there is something wrong with this logical syllogism?

Defenders have ranged attacks.
Ranged attacks have little use for support in a team environment, but are important solo.
Defenders must have been designed to be able to solo.

Perhaps you can explain to me why you didn't interpret that, instead of "ranged attacks can only be used solo".

[ QUOTE ]
So much of a concern in fact that the devs took away some of the major ability of Controllers, referring to control, so they could justify putting in containment so that Controllers of all levels could solo much more effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which really only made Defenders and Controllers even more alike, although Defenders still don't have the control capability of Controllers. They're a lot closer than they once were, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you feel that there are any issues with the FF power set in regards to team play that should be given HIGHER priority?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the question. If we are talking about team play, higher priority than what? I prioritize team play for defenders higher than solo play when considering modification to powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you said that solo play should be secondary to considerations when considering modifications to the Power Set. This thread is about considering modifications to the Power Set. (of Force Field) And it is fairly accepted to most of the folks in this thread that Force Field should have some modifications.

So, again, what do you feel are issues with team play, that need to be addressed with Force Field? Because if there are none, well, then we can move on to the secondary considerations of solo play.

I means, it sounds like you were trying to argue that there are no problems with Force Field in a team, so we should not worry about it.

[ QUOTE ]
I was exercising the Principle of Charity. In the context of debate, this means that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to find the most favorable interpretation of your case.s This would be, for example, transforming an illogical argument into the closest logical argument instead of just taking it at face value and dismissing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd actually quoted me, I might buy that. Perhaps you can point out to me where I said that attacks could only be used solo?

[ QUOTE ]
My reason for bringing it up was that many of the recent posts in this thread about changing the Defender powers (FF in particular) were oriented toward playability of the AT solo. I wanted to chime in my opinion that solo play should be a secondary consideration when considering modifications to the powerset with team play being the primary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel that there are any issues with the FF power set in regards to team play that should be given HIGHER priority?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is logical nonsense.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase. The logic is valid. The argument is unsound because it has a false statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nonsense because you made it up out of nowhere with no foundation in any statements I had made.

If you want to turn this into a logical argument, then start by actually defining the premise. And make it something I actually said, not what you're making up.

[ QUOTE ]
You must have an attack ability to be able to solo.
Defenders have the Brawl attack
Defenders can solo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I SAID that it was incomplete. You could change that to "You must have an attack Power Set", but Controllers don't have an attack Power Set.

It wasn't my idea to go into logical analysis, though.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by "the official description". Where can I read this? I'm not picking a fight here. I'd like to learn more.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cityofheroes.com/gameinfo/archetypes.html

[ QUOTE ]
The CoH manual on page 9 in the section describing each AT says:
[ QUOTE ]

The Defender is a suitable archetype for grouping, though
soloing is possible—difficult, but possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This does not say the devs never wanted this to be soloed.
Is not the CoH Manual an "official description"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been a long time since I read the CoH Manual that was included with the game, but I have never taken it as gospel. As you said yourself, it is outdated. The truth is, there is no "official description", per se. The Defender is what it is, within the limitations set by its Power Sets and stats.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not asserting that Defenders are forbidden from soloing. I am asserting that they are designed for team play for their primary role. Soloing is possible, but difficult by design. I think I wrote as much in my earlier post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically speaking, yes, you did say that Defenders are described as "difficult to solo". And technically speaking, yes, that is the way they are usually described. However, "difficult to solo" is hardly a point to be debated. Blasters are "difficult to solo". Tankers are "difficult to solo". Even Scrappers are "difficult to solo", if you think you are entitled to just kill everything freely with no risk.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the logic here. Ranged attacks are not specific to soloing.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way does a character that specializes (either primarily or secondarily) with ranged attacks NOT find these abilities useful for soloing?

[ QUOTE ]
That would be the connecting logical concept. This is how I interpret your syllogism.
Defenders have ranged attacks.
Ranged attacks can only be used when soloing.
Defenders must have been designed to be able to solo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is logical nonsense. At no time did I say that ranged attacks could ONLY be used solo. Merely that they are HELPFUL solo.

[ QUOTE ]
Defenders have no attacks whatsoever.
You must have an attack ability to be able to solo.
Defenders were designed only for team play.

Maybe this is what you were thinking of. But that isn't what we have. The first condition isn't met.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is closer. It is arguing the negative. But how about this:

You must have an attack ability to be able to solo.
Defenders have ranged attacks
Defenders can solo.

This is still an incomplete syllogism, because there may be OTHER things Defenders need in order to solo. But at least it's making some logical sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the part about Vigilance isn't bad either. As it is, we have the biggest stinker of an inherent out of all the ATs, both hero and villain side.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting to think I have a good idea for an Inherent. Something like current Defiance, where every time you use a Power, you get a short duration buff. However in this case, whenever you use a defensive buff on an ally or debuff on a foe, you get a boost to your damage, and when you use an offensive buff on an ally or debuff a foe's defense, you get a boost to your defense. (Resistance. By "defense" I mean any defensive power)

That would actually raise damage and defense across the board, but more defensive builds like FF would get more offense, and offensive sets like Kin would get defense. It would help balance things out.

I'm not sure how to work control powers into that, though. Maybe they should count as defenses so you get a damage boost.

[ QUOTE ]
Please, CG.

Don't hold back; tell us what you /really/ think.



And for whoever was on the receiving end of CG's post: Some folks, and probably the majority in this forum, think defenders are properly played as Offenders.

There's a joke in here about being offensive somewhere, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, what I was going to say was, "See, that's where being 'Defensive' can actually be pretty aggressive."

I'm not complaining, though, we've got a little "good-cop bad-cop" thing going.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I too am very pleased with the planned change to Repulsion Bomb.

On the topic of the difficulty of soloing a Defender, this is by design...

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with every single thing you said in your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything, or do you not mean his agreement with the Repulsion Bomb change?

[ QUOTE ]
On the topic of the difficulty of soloing a Defender, this is by design. It was not intended to be easy to solo. The (albeit dated) COH Manual states this as much in the description for the AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the official description of the Defender doesn't say anything about soloing. The manual may say something different, but primarily the Defender is described as the best at strengthening the team. It IS mentioned, however, that the Defender has long ranged attacks, and that he is well defended, "they aren't fragile", are the exact words. So the description doesn't say the Defender can't be soloed, just that he's mainly a team player.

It may be difficult to solo a Defender, because there are so many things to be considered during a battle, and because there can be such a lengthy set-up period. But if the devs did not intend for the Defender to be soloable, they would not have given it ranged attacks. They would have created a second Archetype like the Controller, with primarily team support powers and few attacks. After all, Ranged + Defense is the Tank Mage, and the Defender comes closest to that in CoH. If the devs truly wanted to avoid anything close to the Tank Mage, it would have been easy enough to make Defenders Buff/Debuff + Defense or Buff/Debuff + Melee.

The devs did not give Defenders a Secondary with the intention that it never be used. And sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

In fact, the devs stated particularly when this game was being designed that it was their intention to make ALL Archetypes soloable. Including Defenders, and including Controllers.

[ QUOTE ]
Here we will disagree. Defender base damage needs to be raised by 20% for all secondaries. You never balance secondaries based upon primaries or on secondary attributes. Just give every power in every secondary that does damage a 20% increase. Done. This puts us back at a damage scale that is much closer to the .65 of Blaster that we're supposed to be. Remember, Blasters and Corrupters were buffed, but we weren't. We're supposed be at 65% damage of a Blaster, but right now we're about 54%. This needs to be fixed.

[...]

And trust me, giving Defenders a 20% base damage increase will in no way get them even close to a Corruptor, let alone Blaster, no matter what their primary is. We are flopped with Corruptors, right? So we should do slightly less damage in exchange for slightly better buffs/debuffs. Right now that balance is way off. A 20% damage increase puts things back to where they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with that is that Corruptors have a 0.75 base modifier. So if we raise Defender damage any more, whether it's through a base damage buff or a 20% buff to the scale damage of all their powers, Defenders will end up doing more damage than Corruptors. Since Corruptors have only 80% of the defenses of a Defender, that will create an imbalance.

You might argue that Scourge adds to the Corruptor's base damage, raising it above what a Defender can do, however it's already been established that certain Defender builds can come very close to a Corruptor's damage, or even exceed it. Scourge only kicks in late in the fight, and at most, it represents only a 25% increase in damage. In practice, it is probably lower than that, due to wasted damage.

If you want to balance the Corruptor's Inherent, then give Defenders an Inherent that boosts damage. I don't think that's even necessary, though, because of the advantage that the Defender's greater damage buffs represent to his total damage.

Wait a minute... what? Corruptors were buffed? What are you talking about, I haven't heard anything about this. As far as I know, Corruptors went from 75% of the damage of a Blaster to 67% with the Blaster boost, just like we went from 65% to 57%.