It's time to recognize Domination is bad.

[Lines]

Shall we not name-call, maybe?

[Replacement]

1 hour ago, tidge said:

I counter with this: If you play a tank with a Resist/Defense hole against certain enemies, your "damage" drops by a helluvalotmore than 20% if you are unable to hang with those enemies and attack them. I suspect that folks aren't noticing this (or just aren't remembering it) because they are playing ATs with soft-capped defenses. Building for Defense across all ATs is almost certainly more common than building for Permadom.

 

This thread is literally just another: "I have ideas how to radically change a core (as of CoV) class. Let me spitball some rationalizations for my ideas in the forums."

 

The only post in the thread that leaned towards there being an actual issue that got me curious was Hereclea's post about how she felt that her Dominator was weak when exemplared to level 20 (specifically when teaming on TFs like Synapse)... but that is because I'm curious about the specifics of her build as far as power choices. The OP specifically wanted to avoid build discussions, so I've let that lie.

The problem I'm having with your opinion is you keep insisting it's radical, that it "is a solution in search of a problem" and such, but it feels like you keep driving the conversation towards something mostly irrelevant:

 

This is not a thread saying Dominators are OP, or UP, or whatever direction you want them to pee in.  

 

The OP notes that

• No other AT has a magical cliff that suddenly doubles their power when viewing their IO progression curve.  Galaxy Brain's chart shows the sudden cliff, but you need to remember that it's representing "access to double mez power and personal mez protection."
• No other AT has to give up as much for the expectation of their "tier two" performance.  Because of the specific clickiness of Dominator primary/secondary, this results in a great deal of undermining their own fiction.  If you want to say this is a "me" problem and is subjective, that's fine.

And a different way to stress it:

 

I'm imagining if Scrapper Critical Hit chance suddenly doubled but only when you're at the Defense soft-cap.  How you would /jranger its implementation right now, but if it existed, would be so opposed to its removal.

 

 

[Replacement]

2 hours ago, ScarySai said:

To me, permadom is a power you should have to earn, so I don't really like the idea of just giving it away.

 

Accessibility is an easy thing to frame as "well why not? It makes things easier!" While ignoring that not everything should be easy.

Alright, I'll give you a better answer:

 

Perrmadom should be earned.  That's no reason to penalize builds that fall just shy of it.  That's the current reality of it.  

 

My suggestion to remove this binary is just like Practiced Brawler: It sucks until perma.  Being even 4 seconds shy of perma is miserable.  But it's not half as good as being perma.  

 

My strong opinion follows

I seriously think people should remember, when visiting Suggestions & Feedback, that you're putting on your own Developer hat.  Think like a an online game designer, and that means considering (Emphasis: CONSIDERING) changes even if there is an edge case cost.  It is your job to scout out those risks.

 

What I'm saying is: I will never ever agree with any of you saying "I am opposed to this because of [[UNSEEN RISK]]."  The world's stupidest Trolley Problem is the one where the "other track" looks completely empty.  How long are you going to obsess over if it's rusty?  How do you ever leave the house (present circumstances not withstanding) if you think you might step on an ant that causes a volcano to erupt?  Scientifically speaking, there's a chance at any second we will all turn into twinkies.  You have to accept this risk if you want to get anything done, and that means you may as well assess the odds and talk about how to improve things instead of being happy with broken.  If that's treading a little too deeply into morality for you?  That's fine.  But consider that's what you're saying when you shut down ideas like this because of nebulous "someone will suffer!"

 

A good designer, like a good author, will kill your darlings.  For this thread, that's the hazing-esque outlook of "I earned this so everyone else should as well!"

Edited April 17, 2020 by Replacement
snake-typos. Several extra Sssss

[ScarySai]

11 minutes ago, Replacement said:

A good designer, like a good author, will kill your darlings.

A good designer will assess the problem, consider the context of the problem, consider if the proposed fix would have consequences, and decide if it's worth devoting resources to, over say - buffing regen.

 

Needless to say, as a software designer, I'm inclined to disagree with how you both view and approach the feedback thread.

Edited April 17, 2020 by ScarySai

[Nanolathe]

@Replacement: Scrapper RNG criticals are, for me, a whole other barrel of disappointing. Mechanics I have no possible ability to influence, let alone control are the bane to my enjoyment of classes that are given them. It's The (capital T) reason I play Brutes over Scrappers. Same for why I would play Dominators over Controllers if I wanted a Lockdown focused AT.

 

I don't like PermaDom as a concept really, but I'll take it over just rolling a dice any day.

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Nanolathe

[Replacement]

1 hour ago, ScarySai said:

A good designer will assess the problem, consider the context of the problem, consider if the proposed fix would have consequences, and decide if it's worth devoting resources to, over say - buffing regen.

 

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

Think like an online game designer, and that means considering (Emphasis: CONSIDERING) changes even if there is an edge case cost.  It is your job to scout out those risks.

I'm not sure if you just like disagreeing, or if your threshold for acceptable change is "correcting apostrophes."  It seems from my perspective that you have assumed there is a cost at all, which you have not explored, and that is enough for you to say no. 

 

This is my issue not just with you, but basically everyone who has said they do not want Domination to change.  It's vapid to claim a cost to others without expressing that cost, while Galaxy Brain's charts show the issue plainly. 

 

The only criticism I view as holding merit has been that a permadom character cannot idle without facing a reset, and I'd be thrilled if we were discussing other concretes like this.  And we've already addressed several times about how that becomes balance-able in a way that we cannot do currently if we break the binary.

 

(And I have very much soured on the "I'd rather HC devs focused their efforts elsewhere" argument.  I file the report; management decides the priority, including the decision to mark it Deferred/WAI.)

[ScarySai]

I disagree with most of your 'strong opinion' section. Highlighting one part and ignoring everything I'm responding to comes across as disingenuous.

 

Aside from that, we could spend the next several pages discussing our design philosophies, disagreeing on certain things and why we should leave it alone/change it.

 

I don't really see the point in that when it's clear we're pretty firm in our stances.

 

Your dismissive arguments don't convince me, my arguments don't convince you. 

[Replacement]

16 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

I disagree with most of your 'strong opinion' section. Highlighting one part and ignoring everything I'm responding to comes across as disingenuous.

 

2 hours ago, ScarySai said:

2 hours ago, Replacement said:

A good designer, like a good author, will kill your darlings.

A good designer will assess the problem, consider the context of the problem, consider if the proposed fix would have consequences, and decide if it's worth devoting resources to, over say - buffing regen.

A post where you literally cut out my using your exact same logic.

 

Pot, Kettle, all of that.  Anyway, happy to continue to agree to disagree.  Good day.

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Replacement

[golstat2003]

I've read the whole thread and it's interesting.

However, I'm against having the way domination works being converted into the way Brute Fury works.

 

I like that I can build it once, set it and forget it, as long as I remember to click it or have it auto set.

 

Any suggestion that doesn't mess with that I'm down with.

 

Also I would move the mez prot out of domination and into some sort of toggle. But that's just wishful thinking on my part.

[Lines]

27 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

However, I'm against having the way domination works being converted into the way Brute Fury works.

I was thinking this for a while, but since domination is still an 'either on or off' thing, rather than the progressive buff of fury, there's enough of a distinction for me.

 

But you'd definitely start getting the same rush to get into the fray and get that bar up, which maybe isn't so attractive. And yes, you'd be thinking about the bar even once you've hit perma.

[golstat2003]

4 minutes ago, Lines said:

I was thinking this for a while, but since domination is still an 'either on or off' thing, rather than the progressive buff of fury, there's enough of a distinction for me.

 

But you'd definitely start getting the same rush to get into the fray and get that bar up, which maybe isn't so attractive. And yes, you'd be thinking about the bar even once you've hit perma.

Yeah the more I think of it the more this is a showstopper for me. I've  . . . never liked Fury. I just tolerate it cause I like Brutes. And spines/fire. 😄

[tidge]

4 hours ago, Replacement said:

The problem I'm having with your opinion is you keep insisting it's radical, that it "is a solution in search of a problem" and such, but it feels like you keep driving the conversation towards something mostly irrelevant:

 

This is not a thread saying Dominators are OP, or UP, or whatever direction you want them to pee in. 

 

My opinion is that Domination does not require change. This is hardly radical.

 

The title of the thread is "It's time to recognize Domination is bad", but the complaint has essentially become "Domination is bad because it doesn't work the way *I* want it to work."

 

The followup posts which vaguely fall in favor of the premise of the OP have been variants of  "Permadom is too good, and it isn't easy enough to get to permadom."

 

There are plenty of quantum leaps in this game: The AoE nukes aren't available at level 10. The VEAT specialists don't even unlock until the 20s. T3 pets are in the late 20s, and the final upgrades aren't until the T9s. There are folks who want powers like Dull Pain to be perma (more easier than it can be made, I suppose). Folks want Mind Link to be easier to perma, they want their defenses to be higher and their resists to be stronger. All of these wants can be already be addressed in different ways: IO choices, power choices, empowerment buffs, Incarnate choices, team buffs, etc.... yet a favored solution is to crack the code and add a bunch of new mechanics to an AT that is not only working but (to some folks way of thinking) has too wide a spectrum of performance!

 

The most straightforward fix to making permadom "easier" to achieve is to turn down the recharge timer or increase the duration... but instead of proposing that, we have to entertain the idea of a change that will make the Dominator AT challenge the Brutes for thrill-seeking, and why again?

Edited April 17, 2020 by tidge
'literal' abuse corrected (somewhat)

[Replacement]

7 minutes ago, tidge said:

My opinion is that Domination does not require change. This is hardly radical.

 

The title of the thread is "It's time to recognize Domination is bad", but the complaint has essentially become "Domination is bad because it doesn't work the way *I* want it to work."

 

The followup posts which vaguely fall in favor of the premise of the OP have been variants of  "Permadom is too good, and it isn't easy enough to get to permadom."

 

There are plenty of quantum leaps in this game: The AoE nukes aren't available at level 10. The VEAT specialists don't even unlock until the 20s. T3 pets are in the late 20s, and the final upgrades aren't until the T9s. There are folks who want powers like Dull Pain to be perma (more easier than it can be made, I suppose). Folks want Mind Link to be easier to perma, they want their defenses to be higher and their resists to be stronger. All of these wants can be already be addressed in different ways: IO choices, power choices, empowerment buffs, Incarnate choices, team buffs, etc.... yet a favored solution is to crack the code and add a bunch of new mechanics to an AT that is not only working but (to some folks way of thinking) has too wide a spectrum of performance!

 

The most straightforward fix to making permadom "easier" to achieve is to turn down the recharge timer or increase the duration... but instead of proposing that, we have to entertain the idea of a change that will make the Dominator AT challenge the Brutes for thrill-seeking, and why again?

This underlined part is certainly a solution -- simply lowering the cooldown.  And I thank you for stating a simple fix like that. 

 

The issue with this fix then, is that if it's not attainable by SOs, I would argue it fails to break the performance binary.  Now, maybe that wouldn't be bad if we could add slots to Domination itself like Inherent Fitness.  My thought of simply dumping Domination on activation instead of buff expiration seemed like a lot less work, but I could absolutely be wrong and I'd be open to a suggestion like this (though I think it may open a can of worms about having enhanceable passives for everyone, I think this thread proves I don't mind getting wormy).

 

Again, my particular suggestions for how to combat the issue don't need to be this holy grail of "my way or the highway."  That's HC's unlucky job. 

 

But I do not like this characterization of turning it into brute thrill-seeking.  It wouldn't be any more than it's already the status quo for non-permas, and I have reiterated several times that I'd love to see the Domination bar made easier to fill if this performance binary was broken.

 

Different Thought:

I'm entertaining the notion of completely removing the bar and Domination just becomes a Duration click with all its current stats.  How many veteran Dominators would be against this?

[tidge]

3 minutes ago, Replacement said:

But I do not like this characterization of turning it into brute thrill-seeking.  It wouldn't be any more than it's already the status quo for non-permas, and I have reiterated several times that I'd love to see the Domination bar made easier to fill if this performance binary was broken.

While my Dominator was leveling up, I used Domination as a boost much like Aim or Build Up for certain combat situations. At low levels, I didn't have many powers to even take great advantage of Domination, much less run from fight to fight. Attacks aren't that powerful, endurance costs are real, cycle time on powers aren't that great. Running from fight to fight would have been a trip to the hospital five times out of eight.

 

As I wrote earlier: I didn't get permadom 'naturally' until level 31 or so... and it was nothing magical: Hasten, LotG Global Recharge, a set bonus and a +Recharge proc. At level 50 I change my slotting, added Purples and permadom is now available at lower levels... but I certainly encountered non-exemplar Dominators who were permadom much sooner than lvl 31. When I play really low level content with PUGs, I barely miss having Permadom (and I'm surprised when it ticks off!)

 

One thing I don't think that has been mentioned: The current means of attaining Permadom (high Global Recharge) and the effects of Permadom (Endurance bar recharge, Mez resistance, increased Control) are a positive feedback loop that allows for more attack spamming (with many-slotted powers) and more control spamming (with many-slotted powers) all while being less concerned with actually taking damage... these are the effects that make the Permadom player that much more impressive. I feel that without the Global recharge there would still be a significant difference between Doms... and under what I think of as the proposed Brute-bar-model it might be difficult to refill a dumped bar without resorting to large Global recharge... and at a large enough value of Global Recharge the character would have achieved permadom under the current system anyway.

[kenlon]

 

55 minutes ago, tidge said:

 

The title of the thread is "It's time to recognize Domination is bad", but the complaint has essentially become "Domination is bad because it doesn't work the way *I* want it to work."

 

The followup posts which vaguely fall in favor of the premise of the OP have been variants of  "Permadom is too good, and it isn't easy enough to get to permadom."

No, the problem that GalaxyBrain, Replacement, and I have all expressed is: "Domination has a problem because the gulf between 122% global recharge and 123% global recharge is huge in terms of Domination uptime." It's out of line with everything else in the game, and is out in line in such a way that limits build diversity (because you can't have AlmostAllOfTheTimeDom.)

On my tanker builds, for example, I almost always end up with not-quite-permahasten, with an effective 130-140 second recharge, because I choose to prioritize other things over squeezing out that last bit of recharge.  If Hasten worked like Domination, where you had an enforced 30+ second downtime if you don't make the power permanent, then these builds would be a waste. 

 

The only way that Permadom is too good is this: "PermaDom is too good in comparison to being 1% recharge short of PermaDom." I don't have any issue whatsoever with Permadom. (I think that there are some core design flaws around putting Dominator's ability to reliably use controls behind a click power, but that's beside the point.)

 

Other AT's do not have built-in "You must be this much +recharge to ride this ride" signs in the same way that Dominators do. I see no reason that Dominator players should be punished for not having a certain level of +recharge. I'll ask you the same question I asked Salty: Would turning Domination into a standard click power with 90s duration and 200s recharge, without the need to fill a bar, address your problem with removing the effectiveness cliff? (At least in principle.)

 

8 minutes ago, tidge said:

and under what I think of as the proposed Brute-bar-model it might be difficult to refill a dumped bar without resorting to large Global recharge...

And this is easy enough to test: How long does it take for you to fill your bar the first time? If this change was being considered for real, then one of the things that would absolutely come up in testing is how long that takes and whether it needs to be adjusted.

Edited April 17, 2020 by kenlon
Missed a closing tag.

[tidge]

12 minutes ago, kenlon said:

And this is easy enough to test: How long does it take for you to fill your bar the first time? If this change was being considered for real, then one of the things that would absolutely come up in testing is how long that takes and whether it needs to be adjusted.

Outside of teaming, at lower levels it was taking my Dominator quite some time. He couldn't handle large mobs, and didn't have the end or recharge or damage to be particularly quick about the groups he faced.

 

Even now when running Incarnate content solo (from memory) it takes me about 3 groups in Heather Townshend's first map (at x8). But even this is on a character with enough Global Recharge for permahasten as well as permadom. Keep in mind that during that arc there are plenty of cutscenes, and I will stop what I'm doing to craft items or use the AH or answer questions in Help. There won't be taking breaks of any kind under the proposed change, and I simply see no need for that change.

Edited April 17, 2020 by tidge
more 'literal' abuse removed.

[Lazarillo]

At the very least, I think it's a step in the right direction, and helps to at least acknowledge the problem.  I dig Dominators, but they do feel a little overly reliant on Incarnates and Perma-Hasten and such, to the point that I lose some enthusiasm for them because it feels like they only "work" at 50.

 

There's also the weird way Dominators kinda interplay with alignment more than any other AT, since by being a pure villain, they can instant-charge their bar once every few minutes in case of slip-ups (or before starting off).  So to get the "most" out of the AT, you also end up locking yourself redside.

[kenlon]

4 minutes ago, tidge said:

There won't be taking breaks of any kind under the proposed change, and I simply see no need for that change.

 You seem to have missed the other question I asked you, so here it is again: Would turning Domination into a standard click power with 90s duration and 200s recharge, without the need to fill a bar, address your problem with removing the effectiveness cliff? (At least in principle.)

[tidge]

27 minutes ago, kenlon said:

 You seem to have missed the other question I asked you, so here it is again: Would turning Domination into a standard click power with 90s duration and 200s recharge, without the need to fill a bar, address your problem with removing the effectiveness cliff? (At least in principle.)

I didn't miss the question, I didn't want to answer it because my reasoning isn't germaine to the beautiful metamorphosis some folks refer to as a cliff! I shall now think of Permadom as a quinceañera.

 

I'm generally not a fan of extra bars, or combo-builders or anything else on the HUD that I'm supposed to pay attention to, but even so I'm less inclined to support changes to the ATs, especially for something so fundamental.  The (relatively) late brouhaha about changes to Bruising in the recent Tanker updates comes to mind. Different kettle of fish perhaps, but I still wouldn't want to poke in it.

[M3z]

this game is already so easy lmao

[kenlon]

42 minutes ago, tidge said:

I didn't miss the question, I didn't want to answer it because my reasoning isn't germaine to the beautiful metamorphosis some folks refer to as a cliff!

So, effectively, "I had to deal with this, so everyone else should too", then? Disappointing. 

 

Is it fair that the 1% global recharge between 122 and 123 makes a drastically difference in effectiveness than any increase of a single point previously?

[tidge]

1 hour ago, kenlon said:

So, effectively, "I had to deal with this, so everyone else should too", then? Disappointing. 

 

Is it fair that the 1% global recharge between 122 and 123 makes a drastically difference in effectiveness than any increase of a single point previously?

Don't read more into my response than is intended. I don't worry about trying to fix things that I am not convinced are problems. Fairness isn't a consideration here when it is fairly easy to get to 123%.

[kenlon]

Just now, tidge said:

Fairness isn't a consideration here when it is fairly easy to get to 123%.

If you're trying to address the balance of a game, then yes, fairness and things working as the player has been led to expect from every other AT in the game should matter.

 

How would it harm you if other people could get smoother scaling uptime on Domination based on how much recharge they have? 

[tidge]

We've each demonstrated our ability to perma-post. Let's let some other folks participate shall we?

[kenlon]

5 minutes ago, tidge said:

We've each demonstrated our ability to perma-post. Let's let some other folks participate shall we?

You're dodging my question. What reason, other than FYGMism, do you have for opposing Domination working like other long duration/longer cooldown buffs in the game?