...

I see your point, and counter that there are times when you want to leave mobs sleeping. Like solo, or ambushes / adds. But yes, often in groups it would be pointless. Perhaps the added difficulties would change that!

Broad strokes to minor details, all thoughts are welcome. These are not firm suggestions. I would also like to acknowledge - city of statues is probably bad - powercreep is bad - you have the option to jranger, but I'm coming at this from a discussion perspective. So please let me know why you're jrangering. I'll start. I'm sure most of these are not new thoughts. - considerably reduce confuse durations (to match holds). As a hard control, I don't see why they should last so long. Sure, "xp penalty," if by penalty you mean a net gain in xp/hour in most scenarios. Note: my only 50 is a plant fire Dom. I'm voting to nerf myself here. - considerably increase sleep durations (mind control single target sleep and electric control sleep patch notwithstanding). As a not-so-hard control, sleeps might as well last a long time. This + page 3 autohit = nice. - find a way to have controlled mobs have a chance to "break free" at different times. Sort of like how many dots tick for variable durations, but I wouldn't use the "cancel on miss" formula in use for dots. Something that has an accelerating probability with time, so that as controls last longer and longer, the probability of a mob breaking free becomes more and more certain. As long as the "average" control duration was kept about where it is right now, I could see this working out nicely with my next point to combat "city of statues." - reduce recharge on AoE holds. Honestly, most of them don't feel like a competitive powerpick relative to other options, even pool powers. Dark and Earth are good, and @Mezmera loves total domination, but meh. - reduce the accuracy penalty on AoE holds. - normalize/speed up single target immobilize and single target hold cast times. Honestly. Stone Prison and Stalagmites are only getting updated cast times in page 3 because Blasters are getting them. Other thoughts? Disagree? Hurl insults?

Great stuff. Though it's been said multiple times in the thread, it bears repeating: a balance pass or two for control primaries is sorely needed. Please, hear this.

May be nonstandard because radiation assault has the contaminated effect. In theory this could potentially add a bunch of aoe damage on tightly grouped mobs (and thereby justify the crappy radius of atom smasher). In practice contaminated is a rather lacklustre.

@Voltak Very nice. Why not Thorny Assault? Does a better job of defense debuff, both single target and AoE. You lose out on Radiation Siphon's heal. And Thorny has some long animation times. But so does Radiation Assault.

Didn't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been posted already. Macros. Amazing macro system.

Yes, that's 100% fair.

Agree on this point. But they aren't totally separate issues; easy access to high damage abilities devalues control. Why control when you can just make them dead? I'd argue incarnate powers in non-incarnate content (plus basically free incarnate unlocks) are a much bigger problem in this regard though. Nerf incarnates! At least in non-incarnate content!

I do! I'll talk about 145 second crashless nukes Too!

Topic comes up often because it is popular. I'd love to see a port to doms. PA is kind of a weird, unique control/damage power. Which makes for the appeal. Too many changes and then you wreck it. I think removing PA taunt would wreck it. Lowering PA damage would be fine. Increasing healback would be fine. Getting perma PA on a dom would require real sacrifices. That's more recharge than I've ever built a dom for. Soft capping defense would likely be difficult. I suppose the Captains quoted objections relate to the combo of an unkillable tank plus decent dmg. But honestly. What are tankers right now?

Unclear what you are facepalming. Pro or against anything in particular?

... and there you have it. Knowing a game is significantly unbalanced is a major problem for some, one that directly effects enjoyment of the game.

So nerf the duration in tandem with reducing the recharge. If the developers don't like the numbers I proposed, make perma-control attainable only on those toons with high set-bonus recharge, ie developed characters with well made builds. Control has significant limitations. In most cases, it's better to be tougher or have more firepower. Just let control classes compete! Where is that controller patch we were promised years ago?

Seeds and Mass Confusion both have a 16 target cap. Seeds range limitations can be overcome with +range (enhanced, IO, and alpha), stealth, and the contagious confusion proc. Played well, it is very easy to hit an entire spawn with Seeds. Seeds is available at level 8. Personally, as someone with not enough playtime but who feels most at home on a dominator, I'd nerf Seeds a bit (90 sec cooldown, duration to match hold effects) and buff/nerf Mass Confusion (120-145 second cooldown, duration to match hold effects). That said, this discussion needs to be held in the broader scope of - what is the role of control - how much damage should characters do - how survivalable should characters be I'd argue that both defensive and offensive powercreep have greatly diminished the role of control. I'm looking at 145 second nukes, tanker/brute/scrapper/stalker/blaster tank-mages, and incarnates. People don't like the idea of permanently controlled mobs, but invincible tankers/brutes and spawn clearing nukes are a similar problem.... that just gets a pass.

I was the second poster on this thread with my 1 proc per power suggestion, and I've read nearly every post since then. I'd like to revise my suggestion, but first a few comments. Lotta useful discussion. Lots of chest-pounding (including my-metric-is-better-than-yours), and even some people who claim mathematical superiority but lack a deep understanding of the word optimal (Google "partially ordered set" and then ask yourself if there are mathematical structures with multiple maxima (hint: I just used the plural of maximum)). I would argue that character design in CoX requires multiple considerations, and there isn't a single optimal solution for all possible conditions. I digress. If I were a developer, I'd take as many distinct viewpoints into consideration as possible, and certainly wouldn't use a single metric, but would consider a range of performance characteristics under varying conditions. I get the feeling the current developers are doing a decent job of that. Anyway, my new suggestion is: PROC DIVERSIFICATION. At most 1 type of proc per power. All dmg procs form a single type. Debuff procs could likely form multiple types (ie both -tohit and -res could be slotted). Buff procs... well there aren't a lot of them, so I dunno.

Careful what you wish for, as domination is both a blessing and a curse in this regard.

I think there may be some competing definitions of balance here. Games of chance are not inherently unbalanced. Take cards, for example. There are card games where the house always has an advantage (ie the game is unbalanced), and card games wherein the house does not have an advantage over the players. In PVP, losing a match because your proc didn't fire isn't unbalanced. It just sucks. Procs, in there current form, can be said to unbalance the meta because they allow many defender builds to outdamage corruptor builds. Just as your earlier post called for a definition of "the problem," we might need to also define "the goal."

This has been done elsewhere, and is not the point of the thread.

The trouble with bonfire is that it ends up outperforming ice slick and earthquake (via lower recharge), and is available in APPs on ATs that arguably shouldn't have access to a control power that good (masterminds, blasters, maybe others?).

I do. Especially the part where it could be 75% chance for 25% +dmg. I think the randomness is important. A bit like critting.

Ya. To support my position more thoroughly though: I envision procs primarily as a way to slightly go above the 100% ED soft-cap for dmg. As is, procs can entirely replace dmg enhancements in some powers, and turn holds into nukes. That. Doesn't. Make. Sense. So limit them. Plain, simple, won't increase server load, and maybe easy-to-code? Also maintains functionality of some procs in some powers. FF +recharge being a nice example.

Yes. That's the point. Procs are too powerful and need a drastic nerf.

My solution: only 1 proc per power.

I don't see a good case for change here.

My opinion: no. I am but one voice though. I don't envy our current development team. They are basically in the position of screwing over thousands of character builds, or saying "fuck it, let's just accept a totally unbalanced game and make the best of it." While the latter option may seem appealing, the possibility of adding meaningful new content (ie something to challenge incarnates), is likely very difficult without a solid base. By analogy: how high do you think you can build the leaning tower of Pisa before it topples? Better to fix the foundation now, imo. But it depends on their ambitions. And resources (the most important resource being: DEVELOPER TIME). Given the pandemic, the Talks/NDA (with associated recruitment limitations), I suspect we are slipping into "fuck it" territory. But they have surprised me before!