UberGuy

[ QUOTE ]
There's a Crab spider guy in the rescue mission and a Fortunata type (is that the blood widow)?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Black Widow hierarchy seems to be as follows.

• Blood Widows: Red tightsuit outfit with black arachnos symbol details but no accessories other than an ovoid helmet. LTs up until 30, then minions till 35, then they go away. Blade "Scrappers" with toxic damage.
• Fortunata Seers: Red outfit, with black details with the cone helmet, the half cape, and that spider bra/harness dealybob. LTs until 35 (I think), then you don't see them any more. Psi attacks and Leadership/Tactics.
• Night Widows: Same outfit as Fortunata Seers but it's solid grey with some black and violet. Bosses in the 20s, LTs in the 30s and up. They combine the melee attacks of the Blood Widows with the Psi attacks of the Fortunatas, have what looks like Concealment/Stealth, and use Smoke Grenade (debuffing both perception and toHit).
• Fortunatas: After level 35, these minions replace both Fortunata Seers and Blood Widows. They look like just like Blood Widows except they wear the spider bra/harness that you see on the other Black Widows. They use Psi attacks.
• Fortunata Mistresses: These level 30+ Bosses look like Fortunata Seers, but the detailing on their costumes is bright red instead of black. They are Fortunata Seers on steroids, whipping off nasty attack chains from the entire Psi Blast line of powers. Prepare to be stunned, knocked back, immobilized, slept and generally be dealt a boatload of damage at range. They do not use melee attacks. They also have both Leadership/Tactics and Leadership/Maneuvers, and (at close range at least) they can see through at least pool stealth with Tactics.

Somewhere in there are also the Tarantula Mistresses and Tarantula Queens. These seem to be exceptionally rare. They basically function like Fortunata Seers and Mistresses, respectively, but their armor gives them physical resists the Fortunatas lack.

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed something similiar with long bow spec ops mobs, when they stealth I miss about 4 out of 5 times!

[/ QUOTE ]

This all is a clear example of critters getting to cheat bigtime with the scale at which they use our powers. If my Blaster could get that level Defense buff out of Cloaking Device he's be unstoppable. Because you're right; I miss way, way more when they cloak.

I also enjoy how I can't hit Crey LTs who activate Focused Fighting, and a few others. You know, like the CoT Behemoths who activate Invincibility and I can't hit them anymore even when I'm the only opponent in melee with them. (And you can't hit them with ranged attacks when there are only two people in melee. Can I have that back on my Invul characters?) And don't forget everyone's favorite! That's right, Spectral Daemon Lords of all varieties.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was a Blood Widow. I was doing a door mission in Bloody Bay with a couple other people and we ended up with a Blood Widow boss - a claws/something stalker-type boss. I was playing an ice/energy blaster. She was +3 to me, +2 to the other players.

When she stealthed and I lost targeting, I hit an insight and retargeted her, ran up, hit build up, hit:

Bonesmasher
Energy Punch
Power Push
Ice Blast
Ice Bolt
Freeze Ray

in no particular order. One of those attacks hit...I have two accuracy DOs in each attack, I had an insight for +25% to-hit buff, and build up for another +66%, and as far as I can tell, my accuracy was floored. She then turned around and two-shotted me.

What's up with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

She was a Night Widow.

I actually like them, for the most part. They don't win through sheer damage. They are (IMO) an example of a boss that is hard through something other than huge DR + huge damage. I would much rather face one of them compared to some Longbow bosses.

They actually don't deal that much damage, unless something changed in the patch. I think you just got waxed because it was a +3 boss in melee and you were playing a squishie.

I've seen other people on the forums talk about them making themselves unhittable. I haven't had it happen to me, but plenty of folks complain about it. They use Smoke Grenade, and its clear to me that mob debuffs scale up in effectiveness when they have level advantage. This may be why I've not experienced being floored by them, but you couldn't touch her.

By the time you reach the 30s, they become LTs, and so aren't as dangerous. Of course then you get the joy of Fortunata Mistresses, who are Psi Blast Defenders on mental superadyne. Fighting one of them is easily the most psi damage you will ever take in the game outside of the Psi Clockwork AVs. Rikti and Carnies have nothing on these chics.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I brought up these points back when containment was first being introduced. I was told by controllers that the defender inherent ability would solve the issues with defenders.

[/ QUOTE ] And in theory, it almost does. With Vigilance (which I love) Defenders can theoretically debuff and blast when it's needed most. The question is whether it does in practice. If Controllers have to take three extra powers to Control and Debuff, one should expect less debuf from controllers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never once since its inception noticed any effect from Vigilance. When I perform my duties of buffing, debuffing and controlling (the features of a Dark/Dark build with Leadership) I extraordinarily rarely run low on endurance. This is because my character is designed to be an efficient soloist, which requires effective endurance supply and management.

It is apparent to me that other Defender primary powersets would also gain extremely conditional benefit from Vigilance. Force Field and Sonic Resonance both come to mind, but honestly, I have no experience playing them.

But I am deeply underwhelmed with Vigilance, and was the very first time I heard it described. I consider is the least useful of all inherent powers, lagging behind even Desperation. On an empath, or any reactive powerset, I can see its use. On a proactive powerset, I cannot.

[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell, the effects that are both Control & DeBuff need to be used at the same effectiveness modifier for BOTH Controllers and Defenders.

On top of this, I would posit that if I was a Storm/, that my primary powers would be 20% more powerful across the board than they would be if I was /Storm instead. I used to believe it was this way. What I'm seeing in this thread is that this belief is grossly incorrect. My primary purpose / powerset should be more powerful than the SAME powerset used as a secondary.

[/ QUOTE ]

QF being exactly what I think.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it kind of surprises me that no one has gone for the obvious and likely true answer: EvilGeko was having some fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Those of you responding seriously to EvilGeko's post need to have your sarcasm detectors recalibrated.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, they are happy with the most *gimped* AT for balance. That must mean they actually feel that every other AT is overpowered by their own numbers.

I really don't see how they are going to "fix" this issue myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure we know the devs are happy with the power level of Defenders (but I think we can all agree that buffing them is not high on their priorities). I know I'm sure not convinced Defender damage needs to be as low as it is. Should it be lower than Blasters? Definitely. That much lower? I don't see it.

When I say I think Defenders were the most balanced AT out of the gate, I am refering to their functionality. With the possible exception of Force Field, which has long had a stigma as a one-trick-pony, all of the Defender powersets provided an excellent set of diverse tools. Some were useful solo, some were useful on a team, and some could switch hit. But they were all useful, and they were all powerfully unique. No one fails to grasp how different it is to have a Defender of a given primary added to the team as opposed to one of a different primary. But with rare exception (often born of ignorance) all of them bring powerful utility to that team. In this regard I consider them unique among ATs, because it usually doesn't matter what kind of Blaster or Scrapper or Tanker you get barring that you get one that is especially gimpy. But it can matter a great deal what Defender you get. I oversimplify, certainly, but I think there is a great deal of truth to what I say.

And I think that that is an example in success in balance in an AT. Not neccessarily anything else we know about them, such as their damage scale, or that Controllers get their primaries as a secondary.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To my mind, controls are "binary" effects. You're either hit with it fully or not at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

But doesn't that mean that (for those of us that have been doing it) arguing that mez effects are "too binary" has been, in effect, totally nonsensical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that you believe that to correct the "binary problem", they should be modified to be "less binary".

In fact, I think that, to correct the problem, they should simply be removed.

The top-end control powers are the least fun thing this game does to us short of one-shotting us. The game has slows (both kinds) and other debuffs (for lack of a consistent term I'm using this to refer to -movement of all sort) and the "less-rigid" control powers such as fear. Honestly, I think that's where it should have stopped. There are succesful examples of MMOs (including ones with massive PvP following) that show that all you need are such debuffs, degens and "soft" controls to have a challenging game. Hard control powers are not required.

Sadly, that cat is long, long out of the bag. The only way to put it back is to destroy an entire AT, and one that has many dedicatated players. What would, IMO, be good for the game would be massively unfair to them, so there's no question in my mind that that cannot and should not happen.

But migrating "hard" controls into "soft" ones (making immobilizes into -speed and holds into -recharge, for example) would, IMO, unacceptably erode the role of another AT, or at the very least certain powersets within one. That's not acceptable to me either, certainly in no small part because it would risk a knock-on effect affecting one of the characters I am most proud of.

Ensuring a roll for Controllers must not entail weakening the one for Defenders.

The devs have long maintained that they think Defenders were the most balanced AT aftter realease, and I strongly agree with them. Unfortunately, they have screwed around with the game immensely in an effort to "fix" all the other ATs, and in what I consider typical fashion, they have been all but blind to the collateral affects of those changes. Defenders are no longer well balanced in respect to the rest of the game. Absolutely every other AT has moved from its initial postion relative to the others. And of course all of them moved relative to the environment thanks to I5+ED. By leaving Defenders where they were, they are now beginning to no longer fill the role they originally were created to fill.

[ QUOTE ]
You are preventing someone from attacking. How would you define "soft control"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not. Not with an accuracy debuff. You are lowering the chance that the attack will succeed.

That's the difference. In the common parlance I am exposed to on these forums and in game, "control" prevents the action. Debuffs reduce its effectiveness. Accuracy (or more correctly, toHit) debuffs to not prevent the character from attacking. The reduce the character's chance to succeed with the action.

By your logic, +Defense would be "control".

"Soft control" is usually used in the context of temporary disablements that do not drop toggles. For example, knockdown/back/up, and Fear are often referred to as "soft" control. Sleeps are somewhere in the middle, since they detoggle powers but are easily broken.

Consider that all the following powersets all provide slows (as in -speed). Primary control powersets make up 23.4% of this list.

• Ice Blast
• Ice Armor
• Stone Armor
• Devices
• Ice Manipulation
• Dark Miasma
• Kinetics
• Radiation Emission
• Storm Summoning
• Trick Arrow
• Fire Control
• Gravity Control
• Ice Control
• Plant Control
• Poison
• Traps
• Umbral Blast

The following powersets offer immobilizes. Primary control powersets make up 38.5% of this list.

• Earth Control
• Fire Control
• Gravity Control
• Ice Control
• Plant Control
• Psionic Blast
• Devices
• Electricity Manipulation
• Fire Manipulation
• Ice Manipulation
• Dark Blast
• Dark Melee
• Trick Arrow

The following powersets offer single-target holds. Primary ontrol powersets make up 43.8% of this list.

• Earth Control
• Fire Control
• Gravity Control
• Ice Control
• Illusion Control
• Mind Control
• Plant Control
• Electrical Blast
• Ice Blast
• Super Strength
• Ice Melee
• Dark Miasma
• Radiation Emission
• Ice Arrow
• Poison
• Luminous Blast

Green powersets are Controller-only. Cyan powersets are Dominator-only. Yellow powersets are shared between them.

(I could easily have missed some powersets in that breakdown.)

There's a progression here, which is pretty easy to continue as you go down the list with the effects sleep, fear and AoE hold, showing that those become less and less available to non-Controller/Dominator powersets.

The point I'm going for is the loose idea that this progression shows that slows (and to some extent immobilizes) aren't considered the unique specialty of Controllers. While it's somewhat tangential to the question of "is a slow a control or a debuff", I think it can be used as evidence that its not critical to the function of Controllers that they be the best at slows, because of all the related "controlly" effects, its the one they specialize in the least.

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me you're kidding. Speed boost is an ally buff; it in no way impairs the target, which means its not a means of control. Movement slow (-speed) as a foe debuff is a form of control because it functions similarly to an immobilize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the third or fourth Sign of the Apocalypse, Arcana, but I'm going to side with Mieux on this one. He was drawing a comparison.

While I can see the argument for -speed as an (incredibly wuss) form of control, I can't see how you could reasonably argue that it can't be viewed as a debuff. Given how much more "hard" control all Controller sets provide, compared to how ubiquitous slows and immobilizes are in other powersets across ATs, and combining that with the perspective that +speed is a buff, I find the argument that -speed should be considered a debuff compelling.

Most importantly, though, I think you guys have grabbed onto a stray hair and are madly trying to split it.

Those of you responding seriously to EvilGeko's post need to have your sarcasm detectors recalibrated.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...The second requires new design, new code and would probably mean a direct nerf to all Negative Energy, Fire, and Cold attacks, since those resistance types are less common than Smashing, Lethal, Energy and Psionic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't it devposted not a few days ago that Psionic is balanced because, despite having slowly-activating powers that don't do a lot of damage, it's not a very resisted set..?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and a whole galaxy of us came back with evidence showing that reasoning to be based on a falsehood.

[ QUOTE ]
I of the electric blaster school have a complaint. Electric defenders drain more end than blasters. So no, there are cases where blasters get hosed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are most certainly not being hosed, because with those same blasts you do 54% more damage, your Aim and Build Up boost you 125% more and your damage cap is 25% higher.

Please try to keep the big picture of what your AT does in context. Blasters do damage. Defenders mess with foe effectiveness. That you do (significantly) more damage and they mess with foes more is perfectly in line.

[ QUOTE ]
If defender blasts are supposed to have more effect, then why don't Energy defenders do more Knockback?

[/ QUOTE ]

Castle specificaly stated that no AT does knockback better than any other.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems almost like controllers were put together as an afterthought

[/ QUOTE ]

They were. They were added late in the beta process, after the other four ATs had been worked on for some time. Granted, they probably existed in some stage of design before we heard of them, but there's no question that they became fully formed later than the other ATs, and were still being finalized when the other ATs existed basically as we know them now.

[ QUOTE ]
And once again, I don't care if they show up in primaries or secondaries; I care that defenders have the stronger debuffs, and controller have the better control. I think that is the overriding concern - *especially* if you are concerned about the overlap in defenders and controllers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I radically disagree with you here, for one simple and very powerful reason. Primary powersets have "cross AT" powers in them. By taking a primary powerset that has, say, exclusive control powers in it, you are making a sacrifice. That sacrifice is that you are not taking some other powerset in your primary that, for example, performs your primary function more explicitly. In any case where there are a significant fraction of such powers in your powerset, then your primary powerset will be more powerful as someone else's secondary powerset. This makes little sense and, fundamentally, means that the powerset is a poor choice. Worse, it makes the character a poor choice to add to a team give either someone else of the same AT who took a more "mainstream" powerset for the AT or (especially) someone of that other AT who will use the powerset more effectively as a primary.

I assert strongly that no AT should ever use their secondary powerset more effectively than any AT uses their primary powerset. That can mean a lot of things, and for powers with multiple functions (for example a slow that debuffs) there are clear options for making both effective in different ways. But for a power that is only a hold, only a slow, only a disorient, and so on, it is damaging to the AT that has a powerset as a primary if another AT can be shown to use it more effectively as a secondary. It is almost always a better choice to pick that other AT, because they can combine the better secondary with a full-effect primary.

[ QUOTE ]
While controllers escaberate the situation by actually be *better* with Defender Primary powers, having so many powers in the Primary set that are controllerish that everyone is "good" at very much blurs the distinction between a Defender and a Corruptor/Master Mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I maintain, that by creating powersets that provide heavy utilization of another AT's functions, this is by design.

Lets look at an Ice Blaster. They get two single-target holds in their primary powerset. If those holds encroach on the level of single-target holds you might find in a Controller's secondary I fail to see the problem.

We have two factors here. What ATs are supposed to be good at, and the relative value of primaries versus secondaries. My stance is that no one should have a primary power that has a single function and is superior at that function in some other AT's secondary powerset. In the worst case the two should be equal. Going back to the Ice Blaster example, no Ice Blaster, even one who has "Controller secondary strength" holds can ever be said to be a better Controller than a real controller, because a real Controller brings far more "control" to the battlefield, and a Controller has holds as a primary.

My vast preference is that implementing this would mean that powers like Thunder Clap would be made better for Defender, but if they're not going to do that then I do think it needs to be made "equally poor" on a Controller so long as it is a secondary set power.

On the matter of Mental Blast, Castle, I'm sorry to see what appears to be you slipping into buying the pure paper analysis of powers. I've always had a ton of respect for the fact that you have usually spoken from working knowledge of the powers and ATs you talked to the players about. I recognize though that you can't possibly be tackling all these AT problem lists by playing all the powersets of all the ATs.

That said, I can tell you practical experience says that MB is a problem on the weak side. I will assert that extended range is not a pratical benefit except except in a few, rare cases. Moreover, I can attest to the "gimp" feel of the power due to its animation. I had no experience with it until I built a Mind/Psi Dominator in CoV. I have a respec banked, and I can tell you that one of my primary reasons for using it (besides finally getting a travel power - darn holiday packs) is to replace Mental Blast.

Why do I want to replace Mental Blast? Because it is the slowest damage dealing power I have, and holds in my primary deal more damage than it does with lower animation times[/i]. In other words, activating MB is a disruption to both my roles as a control character and a damage dealer. I removed it from my power tray some time ago.

Please think about that. I saw activating this power as such a poor use of my time that I removed it from my power tray until I can respec. I'm only one player, but I think it says something about the power.

Also, please tell whoever told you that Psi resistance is rare to take a flying leap.

Every robot in the (pre-30) game is around 40% Psi resistant. (Well, except Clockwork, who aren't really robots). So right there about 35-30% of the troops in any given Arachnos spawn are heavily resistant to it. Vahzilok zombies are heavily resistant to it. I seem to recall Fortunatas being reistant to it. My Dominator isn't very high level, but just the robot part ensures a steady supply of foes that it almost doesn't make sense for me to use any of my psionic attacks on.

While these Psi resistances may make thematic sense they give Psi characters startling offensive weakness against these foes - weakness shared by no other ATs because Psi only exists as a secondary powerset. Assault Blasters and Sword Scrappers meet many foes that have high Lethal damage defense and/or resistance, but they also do significantly more damage to begin with. Hitting someone who's primary means of damage is their secondary powerset with extreme resistances to those powers is a serious double-whammy.

Psi protection is among the most rare of defenses for the players, yet it is both fairly common among mobs (it's easy on any given night of play to meet some) and when they have it, it is very strong protection. This makes the set highly unattractive and frustrates those who have it.

I am going to say, Castle, that I think part of the balance design methodology has broken down here.

I'm going to cut to the chase and make a declaration. The logic behind it follows.

Any "control" power in a Defender primary should work as well for a Defender as it does for a Controller's secondary, because a Controller should have superior control powers in their primary.

"Cross functional" powers in a powerset have an opportunity cost. If I choose a non-controller powerset that gets a substantial number of "control" powers in my primary, then those powers should not be such that, in a shared powerset scenario, the powerset would be better as another AT's secondary.

Taking an easy example, Thunder Clap is a Storm Summoning power which Defenders get as a primary power and Defenders get as a secondary power. All it does is disorient foes. By AT role description, Controllers are better at disorients than all other ATs. However, blindly ignoring the distribution of a power as a primary/secondary power has been given to an AT as a primary power creates nonsensical balances.

My recomendation is that, for "cross AT" powers given in a primary powerset, the powers should function no worse than that power would function for the "correct" AT as a secondary power. In other words, Thunderclap should work as well for a Defender as it does for a Controller, because a Controller should have superior disorients in their primary.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* PvP: Trick Arrow/Archery proves very ineffective in PvP, unable to kill a detoggled and unmoving Regen scrapper.

[/ QUOTE ]
Regen Scrappers are very difficult to kill for low damage characters. I *was* able to kill one, but it took several minutes, which is a highly unlikely "real"-world situation. This is a more general concern than just with Archery, but it is most visible here. No solution I can discuss, yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I so do not like the sound of that. I pray to all the gods of MMOdom that that's not some new lurking nerf for Regen.

[ QUOTE ]
OK i just did a test with Damage Resist and debuff.

I took on an enemy that did 20.71 damage normaly.
I used chilling embrase and i got 17.81. Thats 14% less damage.
Then i poped up a 5% resist inspiration. He did 16.92 damage. Thats a total of 18.3% less damage, and that is definitively not 14 + 5. It does however fit with the debuff taking effect first and the resist taking effect later, so they do not stack.

I did not test if there is a total mitigation cap though, that may be a thing for tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tested this with just Dark Miasma powers some time back so I knew what I was getting with my Corruptor. Like you, the behavior I encountered is the separate powers are multiplicative, not additive. Darkest Night and Twilight Grasp left a foe dealing damage that looked more like:

NewDamage=BaseDamage * (1-TG) * (1-DN)

Not:

NewDamage=BaseDamage * (1- TG -DN)

Moreover, multiple applications of Twilight Grasp were also multiplicative.

Testing with other similar debuffs, such as Sonic's DR debuff, seem to provide consistent effects.

I should add that I would have always expected +DR to be multiplicative with -DAM.

[ QUOTE ]
Sidekicked to a person that is -1 on an eight man team will pit you against a +4 AV. Or just being -2 on an eight man team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose if you hang with people that do all their AVs in Invinicible/Relentless. That's not something I recommend. Not with at least of third of the ones I can come up with off the top of my head.

Remember that (at least in CoV - I haven't been in a large CoH team since it came out) foe levels no longer scale with team size. An 8-man team no longer adds +2 to the level of spawned mobs. If this is different in CoH, I assume it's an error, since it seems an appropriate change with I5/ED.

Here's a question for you, Futurias. Why are you engaging a +4 AV? I mean honestly, that doesn't happen much, and I don't know if I recommend anyone do much of anything to a +4 AV. I would say no one should be tossing effects on anything above, say, a +2 AV unless they are willing to risk getting seriously squished.

I use DN all the time on teams on things up to +4 bosses. but the only time I'm looking at something that much bigger than me is when I'm on a large team, and/or where there are other things soaking up foe aggro, like Brutes who lead the charge or Mastermind pets mixing it up. Certainly there is someone who's higher level than me. Does it get me in trouble? Sure, sometimes. Does it do my team no good? Hardly. Especially if anyone else is in there debuffing. Especially if I can stack debuffs, which I can and do (Fearsome Stare, Tenebrous Tentacles, Twilight Grasp).

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but I am disagreeing a little bit with the doom you seem to suggest it means for those of us with ACC debuff powers.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying Arcanaville, but I do not agree that I5 and this change are linked. At the very least, I do not agree that the must have been linked in order for defense to be "fixed" in the way this change does help it. The point about the idea of the values of the change are the crux of it. The real values could have been anything. A normilzed base or standard for critter accuracy could have been chosen using the pre I5 critter progression.

The shift of higher level and rank foes from toHit scaling to accuracy scaling was feasible at the game's release. Nothing whatsoever required I5 for that to be possible or desirable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I can't see this being related to I5 or ED. Defense has always been inferior to other mitigation methods. If I5 and ED had never happened this would still have needed to be done to balance it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But with the old defensive numbers for powers I'd say this particular change would have made defense the obviously superior form of damage mitigation. Nerfs would have definitely followed or accompanied this change had it been done prior to I5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, everything was basically halved. I'm not saying defense numbers wouldn't have had to come down to prevent them flooring everything, but I5 as such and especially ED are not logical follow-ons of this change.