Game Balance & The Endgame

[EyeLuvBooks]

If we want to talk about 'endgame balance' then I think MMs need the most love. Even the squishiest AT can get a self-rez if they take the right Epic. Boom...they hit a button and they're back.

 

When a MM does this he's down 80% of his power because he needs to resummon 3 sets of pets, retrain them, AND reactivate all of the buffs. Somewhere around summoning the 2nd set of pets he's dead.

 

I have no problem with the survivability of an Incarnate-level MM in your typical +4/x8 PI team. However, in most Incarnate-level content the pets aren't on the table long enough to say so. During ITrials and other post-50 content I strongly feel that MMs, and in particular their pets, need some luv and attention.

[Naraka]

2 hours ago, FUBARczar said:

 

Stalkers have always played like scrappers, although many players got stuck in AS mode.  Additionally, as development progressed the Devs continued to refine Stalkers.  As they did so Stalkers performance and playstyle by design was compared to and became more Scrapperesque.  

 

I wasn't mincing words.  I didn't have anything to say about about comparing AS to Snipe, or being described as a melee snipe.  I can't comment line by line, word by word.  But your other comparison of AS to Nuke, that was worthy of scrutiny so I commented on that.  In fact, you throwing in a comment like, "One could also make the argument that Assassin's Strike is similar to a ST nuke," that's the real waste of time.

 

Even back in the early days people realized that to stay up with teams it was best to lead with the auto-crit of the Heaviest Hitter than to start with AS.  In fact, a trend of people skipping AS in their builds partially led to the changes of quick snipe, and Stalker 2.0.  And how they play now is important because it highlights the direction of Stalkers' development, the intention of the AT.   

 

 

It sounds like you came in after a lot of Stalker changes. It's obvious because it took a heck of a lot of convincing to get people to stick around after the initial AS. Convincing people that "hit and run" wasn't the mainstay of the AT. Of course if you're dismissing that period (completely dropping the context ball, so to speak) to move the talking point toward current trends (like I said you would) then yes, Stalker had basically become a better Scrapper. But the talking point was (and I swear if you do not get this, then you are obviously being dense on purpose) what other AT aspects were blended with Scrappers to form the premise of Stalker and the answer is Blaster. Not about role (even if it were, the role of Blaster is burst damage and little else, same As Stalker) or powerset make up, but overall aspects that take into account all or any of the above. 

 

And you are mincing words otherwise you wouldn't omit things. I didn't compare AS to a nuke, I labled it a SINGLE TARGET nuke, which technically it is, a very large controllable burst of damage. The controllable portion is important as it was often SOP for blasters to combine Aim and BU with their nuke to assure complete destruction which is similar to a Stalker combining Hide and BU with AS. 

 

As for what you belive went down back in the day: you're either wrong, wilfully omitting things or unknowingly using hindsight. I am a long time fan of Stalkers and have been around for the many many lows of the AT and remember where the AT started out at and where it's been since. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Naraka

[Naraka]

35 minutes ago, EyeLuvBooks said:

If we want to talk about 'endgame balance' then I think MMs need the most love. Even the squishiest AT can get a self-rez if they take the right Epic. Boom...they hit a button and they're back.

 

When a MM does this he's down 80% of his power because he needs to resummon 3 sets of pets, retrain them, AND reactivate all of the buffs. Somewhere around summoning the 2nd set of pets he's dead.

 

I have no problem with the survivability of an Incarnate-level MM in your typical +4/x8 PI team. However, in most Incarnate-level content the pets aren't on the table long enough to say so. During ITrials and other post-50 content I strongly feel that MMs, and in particular their pets, need some luv and attention.

I actually agree with this. Since coming to HC, my focus has been on MM since I was never big into them on live and wanted to give them a shot. I haven't taken any into incarnate content but my main issue with the AT was anything that had mission objectives that needing quick travel to and that definition exists in incarnate content. Them getting stuck or taken out is just a part of the problem. The near necessity of the pet IO uniques is another. I think there are quite a few things that would turn out bad in high end content for MMs that should be addressed. 

[Gobbledigook]

It seems the answer to everything nowadays is MORE DAMAGE!.

 

If Blasters become obsolete because of more damage ATs that bring more to the table do we then buff them with even MORE damage? 🤣

 

Maybe a small buff to Dom damage but no where near Blasters.

 

If you want to do Blaster damage then roll a Blaster.  

 

Dominators were the villain side Crowd Control that added some extra damage.

They are/were a main CC class and not a main damage class. They would be far too powerful. Lockdown a group entirely then nuke it into oblivion even faster? No lol.

 

Controllers are the Hero side CC that also can buff a teams damage/survival etc.

 

No way are Blasters and Doms comparable in my opinion.

[Mezmera]

36 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

It seems the answer to everything nowadays is MORE DAMAGE!.

 

If Blasters become obsolete because of more damage ATs that bring more to the table do we then buff them with even MORE damage? 🤣

 

Maybe a small buff to Dom damage but no where near Blasters.

 

If you want to do Blaster damage then roll a Blaster.  

 

Dominators were the villain side Crowd Control that added some extra damage.

They are/were a main CC class and not a main damage class. They would be far too powerful. Lockdown a group entirely then nuke it into oblivion even faster? No lol.

 

Controllers are the Hero side CC that also can buff a teams damage/survival etc.

 

No way are Blasters and Doms comparable in my opinion.

Well Controller's spend a lot more of their time healing/buffing/debuffing and trying to contribute some damage than using their controls especially since they don't instantly lock down just about everything like a Dom does.  So on both AT's you're using your controls as some form of aggro mitigation and the better majority of your time is spent with damaging and healing/debuffing.  I'd say 3/4 of the time you're not using control abilities so what would you like to have dom's do in the meanwhile, not use all the damage attacks available to them?

 

They aren't blasters and I wouldn't advocate for some wholesale sweeping damage upgrade for doms but I do see they have a blaster-esque playstyle and are like second cousins.  Where a blaster uses those fast charging damage as a form of aggro control dom's use their hard lockdown controls then go to town with their damage.  Dom's though do have a buffet of most of blasters best attacks.  I'd have no problem with a slight upgrade in regards to a more specific focus on melee and ST being by default a little stronger since that seems to be the more intentional skew anyways.  

 

The dom revamp helped a lot more than anything else being advocated for in terms of sweeping upgrades to doms.  More of that to some of the other now lesser powersets I'd say would be a better avenue.  I for sure don't want to see aoe hold recharges lowered to being available for every mob, that'd be so OP and I can't see how it'd be fun fighting a whole map that can't fight back.  The blaster nukes in their current form I'd argue have the same feel but at least whatever is left alive can still attack back.  

Edited October 6, 2020 by Mezmera

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, Gobbledegook said:

 

Maybe a small buff to Dom damage but no where near Blasters.

 

I could see them speeding up some of the animations for both controls and some of their attacks. It would also assist Controllers with damage a bit. 

 

Touching up some of the Blasters melee attacks to be a bit more bursty (looking at the katana attacks particularly) but longer rech. 

 

In turn, they likely could nerf some of blaster AoE mez. 

[Coyote]

2 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

No way are Blasters and Doms comparable in my opinion.

 

Just to address this comment and situation. There are players who play on "high end" teams, usually supergroups, or veteran characters usually not on pickup teams, and so on, where the characters are generally highly tuned defensively. These teams generally don't care much about incoming attacks, so don't see a need to waste animation time on Controls, and see Tanks as useful mostly to Taunt mobs in order to group the mobs around them... thus, Controls that prevent the mobs from moving to the Tanks are actually detrimental.

 

These teams have no need for Control and in fact may prefer no use of it, so all they need are debuffs (especially -Res) and maybe buffs... and damage. So on a team like this, a Dominator may not do anything other than use their secondary... which is a mix of Range and Melee attacks, like a Blaster.

 

So, in specific end-game situations, Dominators ARE like lower-damage Blasters. The rest of the game, no... but it's not an unreasonable claim to make, as long as it's limited to the scenario of RFD teams (Rolling Furballs of Doom).

[Naraka]

15 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

Just to address this comment and situation. There are players who play on "high end" teams, usually supergroups, or veteran characters usually not on pickup teams, and so on, where the characters are generally highly tuned defensively. These teams generally don't care much about incoming attacks, so don't see a need to waste animation time on Controls, and see Tanks as useful mostly to Taunt mobs in order to group the mobs around them... thus, Controls that prevent the mobs from moving to the Tanks are actually detrimental.

 

These teams have no need for Control and in fact may prefer no use of it, so all they need are debuffs (especially -Res) and maybe buffs... and damage. So on a team like this, a Dominator may not do anything other than use their secondary... which is a mix of Range and Melee attacks, like a Blaster... 

Sounds like there's your endgame problem right there. 

[Gobbledigook]

29 minutes ago, Coyote said:

 

Just to address this comment and situation. There are players who play on "high end" teams, usually supergroups, or veteran characters usually not on pickup teams, and so on, where the characters are generally highly tuned defensively. These teams generally don't care much about incoming attacks, so don't see a need to waste animation time on Controls, and see Tanks as useful mostly to Taunt mobs in order to group the mobs around them... thus, Controls that prevent the mobs from moving to the Tanks are actually detrimental.

 

These teams have no need for Control and in fact may prefer no use of it, so all they need are debuffs (especially -Res) and maybe buffs... and damage. So on a team like this, a Dominator may not do anything other than use their secondary... which is a mix of Range and Melee attacks, like a Blaster.

 

So, in specific end-game situations, Dominators ARE like lower-damage Blasters. The rest of the game, no... but it's not an unreasonable claim to make, as long as it's limited to the scenario of RFD teams (Rolling Furballs of Doom).

Not every team set up requires controls or even a Blaster really. Just roll a team of defenders for example or even a team of dominators.

 

The game is easy enough for any team combination to do.

 

Crowd control being needed less does not warrant Blaster damage, it just shows the games need for harder content as most of it is steamrolled nowadays.

 

A plant dominator destroys mobs fast already for example. Amazing CC and then you want Blaster damage on top? Would you like more pets also like a Mastermind?  

[Coyote]

2 hours ago, Naraka said:

Sounds like there's your endgame problem right there. 

 

Exactly. Who needs control or defensive debuffs when teams steamroll almost all content? But the solutions don't exist or are impractical or are too hard.

[FUBARczar]

3 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

A plant dominator destroys mobs fast already for example. Amazing CC and then you want Blaster damage on top? Would you like more pets also like a Mastermind?  

I think this has gotten away from what was said.  No one has advocated Blaster level damage.  Even if dominators received the same damage modifiers in reverse, so for Doms that would be 1.125 for melee and 1.0 for ranged (current modifiers 1.05 Melee and 0.95 Ranged), they would not do blaster level damage for several reasons: 1) Blaster's inherent Defiance adds significant damage boost.  2) Blasters get Build Up and Aim.  3) Dominators lack a full attack chain of melee attacks.  4) Dominators lack Nukes, and Blaster level AoE in general.   

[Ralathar44]

Look, we need to decide folks.  Either we want folks to feel like gods and be totally overpowered for the content, in which case EVERY power set and class should feel like gods, OR everyone should have strengths and weaknesses and significantly benefit from all manners of controls/debuffs/buffs even if they are tricked out.  If the answer is "let us be OP" then you need to let other ATs also be OP.  Folks arguing that they should be allowed to be OP for current game content but that other ATs are not allowed to be as OP as them in ways that matter are hypocrites IMO.

In end game teams thanks to the level of player power controls are just not near as valuable and can be determental, so damage is really all the Dom brings to the table.  I don't personally thanks that's balanced, but I don't personally think the current state of the end game is balanced either.  If the current state of the end game is fine then Doms getting additional damage to better compete with blasters/scrappers is also fine.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Ralathar44

[Gobbledigook]

1 hour ago, FUBARczar said:

I think this has gotten away from what was said.  No one has advocated Blaster level damage.  Even if dominators received the same damage modifiers in reverse, so for Doms that would be 1.125 for melee and 1.0 for ranged (current modifiers 1.05 Melee and 0.95 Ranged), they would not do blaster level damage for several reasons: 1) Blaster's inherent Defiance adds significant damage boost.  2) Blasters get Build Up and Aim.  3) Dominators lack a full attack chain of melee attacks.  4) Dominators lack Nukes, and Blaster level AoE in general.   

Of course. A damage buff for Doms is not out of the question but putting blasters as a comparison is just wrong. 

 

They may do less damage than a blaster but it would still be significant for a class that can lock down whole groups and be CC immune with enough recharge that also helps the attack chain. 

They may lack the big long cooldown nuke that blasters get but they have AoE that can be cycled with good effectiveness with +recharge.

They can also use procs to good effectiveness.

A Dom will lock a target down, nullifying any threat then have their wicked way with them. A Blaster should not have this CC and be more at risk from retaliation and CC. Damage being their main survival.

 

If you want damage then don't pick a CC class pick a damage class. It's not like Dominators don't do decent damage already. 

 

A possible solution is to give them a small fury type bar in Domination that gives +damage or just a damage buff but when Domination is used the damage buff is lost. The choice being more damaging attacks or hitting Domination and having stronger CC and CC resistance. But not both.

 

Or just buff the pet significantly to benefit the Dom and Controller.

 

Just an idea.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Gobbledegook

[FUBARczar]

7 hours ago, Naraka said:

It sounds like you came in after a lot of Stalker changes.

I started playing before the CoV release.  And have played stalkers since CoV went live.  Hmm all of the Stalkers I have played to 50: (Live) EM/SR, Spines/WP, Elec/Ninja, Claws/EA, Spine/Elec, StJ/Ice, Staff/WP (HC) Rad/SD, Psi/Bio, Psi/Rad, Elec/Fire, DM/Ice, Staff/Ice, Staff/WP(2), Ice/Rad, Savage/DA, StJ/Inv, Rad/DA

 

8 hours ago, Naraka said:

It's obvious because it took a heck of a lot of convincing to get people to stick around after the initial AS. Convincing people that "hit and run" wasn't the mainstay of the AT. Of course if you're dismissing that period (completely dropping the context ball, so to speak) to move the talking point toward current trends (like I said you would) then yes,

Thanks for being so dismissive, but what I said and what you said are not mutually exclusive.  My SG and other SGs I played with regularly did not have players like you describe above.  You are describing the low-end early stalker players, and I am describing mid to higher level players.  I remember specifically many people saying wow, after teaming with my Spine/WP and my Elec/Ninja specifically, I didn't know Stalkers were that good, or that Stalkers could do AoE, etc. etc.

 

8 hours ago, Naraka said:

But the talking point was (and I swear if you do not get this, then you are obviously being dense on purpose) what other AT aspects were blended with Scrappers to form the premise of Stalker and the answer is Blaster. Not about role (even if it were, the role of Blaster is burst damage and little else, same As Stalker) or powerset make up, but overall aspects that take into account all or any of the above. 

LOL    The only premise for this, is the comparison of AS and Snipes.  Pretty much everything else is Scrapper.  So 5% Blaster b/c of AS/Snipe, 15% unique b/c of Hide, 80% Scrapper.  You realize that Scrappers are about Burst and sustained damage similar to Blasters right?  A huge difference is the amount of damage that Stalkers and Scrappers can take compared to Blasters, and being melee, and basically sharing inherents, and sharing primaries, and sharing secondaries, and sharing similar capabilities, and similar roles, and so on.  But Sure Stalkers really are villain Blasters, ok you are right.

 

8 hours ago, Naraka said:

And you are mincing words otherwise you wouldn't omit things. I didn't compare AS to a nuke, I labled it a SINGLE TARGET nuke, which technically it is, a very large controllable burst of damage. The controllable portion is important as it was often SOP for blasters to combine Aim and BU with their nuke to assure complete destruction which is similar to a Stalker combining Hide and BU with AS. 

Wow I better quote and comment and every little thing you say, otherwise you'll accuse me of mincing words.  

 

Look here you say, "I didn't compare AS to a nuke" and the you say, "I labled it a SINGLE TARGET nuke" in the same sentence.  So you didn't compare AS to a nuke (ST or not), but you did and even "labled it a SINGLE TARGET nuke."  Honestly it's difficult to discuss things with you when you contradict yourself in the same sentence.  But just to be clear you clearly did compare AS to a nuke, "One could also make the argument that Assassin's Strike is similar to a ST nuke, or a melee snipe..." 

So I guess you were also saying that a Blasters' Snipe is similar to an ST Nuke.  I could be wrong, but I think you may be the first person to make such a comparison. 

 

[Blackfeather]

2 hours ago, Coyote said:

Exactly. Who needs control or defensive debuffs when teams steamroll almost all content? But the solutions don't exist or are impractical or are too hard.

I'm somewhat reminded of the posts on Warframe's forums from time to time such as this one, and this one (or this Reddit one). Seems to mirror a lot of the different points brought up here, honestly (can pretty much CTRL+F "power fantasy" to see what I mean).

Edited October 7, 2020 by Blackfeather

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, Gobbledegook said:

They may do less damage than a blaster but it would still be significant for a class that can lock down whole groups and be CC immune with enough recharge that also helps the attack chain. 

They may lack the big long cooldown nuke that blasters get but they have AoE that can be cycled with good effectiveness with +recharge.

They can also use procs to good effectiveness.

A Dom will lock a target down, nullifying any threat then have their wicked way with them. A Blaster should not have this CC and be more at risk from retaliation and CC. Damage being their main survival.

Blasters can also control the field a lot, certainly it's typically with softer controls such as slows, KDs, damage, etc.  But don't sell Blasters short in their abilities.  

 

Even without the Nuke, blasters still have more AoE damage than Dominators.

 

Blasters can Proc too, so that's a complete wash.

 

Blasters are not Mez'd 100% of the time, and when they take damage they can rebound their health faster, and also maintain their attack longer, more aggressively.  And have a full max DPS attack chain from range.  This is also one reason Doms got mez protection, b/c for max effectiveness they need to play in melee range, which is riskier.

 

[Gobbledigook]

15 minutes ago, FUBARczar said:

Blasters can also control the field a lot, certainly it's typically with softer controls such as slows, KDs, damage, etc.  But don't sell Blasters short in their abilities.  

 

Even without the Nuke, blasters still have more AoE damage than Dominators.

 

Blasters can Proc too, so that's a complete wash.

 

Blasters are not Mez'd 100% of the time, and when they take damage they can rebound their health faster, and also maintain their attack longer, more aggressively.  And have a full max DPS attack chain from range.  This is also one reason Doms got mez protection, b/c for max effectiveness they need to play in melee range, which is riskier.

 

Blasters should have more AoE, they are BLASTERS.

 

Procs and holds work pretty well for CC. 

 

Blasters are max dps from melee range, not from range. Although ranged damage is good.

A blasters survival was in question also I think.

A dominator that plays as a dps rather than locking down the mobs safely first should really be playing a different class in the first place.

 

A blaster should always do significantly more damage than a CC class. Maybe if dominators gave up some of that CC to do more damage but then again why not just roll a dps class?.

 

I don't think we will ever agree. We just see the class differently. I hope you get something though, hopefully nothing OP. That would just end badly. 

 

I don't think people would object to a pet buff though that would certainly help Dom's and controllers. Maybe go that route as it won't step on others toes the same.

 

Good luck though 😊

Edited October 7, 2020 by Gobbledegook

[Ralathar44]

2 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

Maybe if dominators gave up some of that CC to do more damage but then again why not just roll a dps class?.

That's literally what most people did.  Controllers are the only non-DPS class that's highly played and if you look at the power sets of controllers played you'll see that Fire/Illusion Kin/Rad are the top played controllers, being literally over 50% of all controllers.  So even the Controllers are being DPS.  So why play a controller if you're just going to DPS?  Because DPS is pretty much all that matters end game.  Most people are going to be soft capped on defense and not even at risk of dying with or without you adding control.

The idea of AT identities is a good one, but not a terribly viable one in the current state of end game.  People are too safe, things die too easily.  There is no space for controls and most defbuffs.  -res/-regen and everything else is pretty unneeded, you'd be way better off just bringing another DPS.

Edited October 7, 2020 by Ralathar44

[FUBARczar]

On 10/6/2020 at 2:41 AM, aethereal said:

This presupposes that someone said, "All five ATs must have a one-to-one mirroring."

Not necessarily, but it is more than a coincidence when they came out with CoV that it had the exact same number of basic ATs.  

 

On 10/6/2020 at 2:41 AM, aethereal said:

 

And what's the implication of the rest of your post?  That Masterminds are a mirror to controllers?

By process of elimination yes it does.  That's why it has been explicitly stated elsewhere that MMs and Controllers are analogous, that they are interchangeable on a team, they serve the same role, that they have more similar playstyles to one another than to any other AT.

[FUBARczar]

6 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

Blasters should have more AoE, they are BLASTERS.

 

Procs and holds work pretty well for CC. 

 

Blasters are max dps from melee range, not from range. Although ranged damage is good.

A blasters survival was in question also I think.

A dominator that plays as a dps rather than locking down the mobs safely first should really be playing a different class in the first place.

 

A blaster should always do significantly more damage than a CC class. Maybe if dominators gave up some of that CC to do more damage but then again why not just roll a dps class?.

 

I don't think we will ever agree. We just see the class differently. I hope you get something though, hopefully nothing OP. That would just end badly. 

 

I don't think people would object to a pet buff though that would certainly help Dom's and controllers. Maybe go that route as it won't step on others toes the same.

 

Good luck though 😊

No I meant that Blasters sans their Nukes do more AoE damage than Dominators, it wasn't a typo. 

 

Procs work well for a lot of powers, and several blaster sets gave Holds, CC powers, and so on, so yes it is still a wash.  

 

Only certain sets have Max DPS including melee attacks, and many Blasters skip them for the safety of range w/o much of a hit.  For instance I often see one of the best blapper secondaries (Temporal Manipulation) being played at range only.  

 

A blaster will still do significantly more damage than a Dominator if Dominators received the same damage modifiers (a small bump) in reverse as I said here

 

 

[Lockpick]

10 hours ago, Ralathar44 said:

Look, we need to decide folks.  Either we want folks to feel like gods and be totally overpowered for the content, in which case EVERY power set and class should feel like gods, OR everyone should have strengths and weaknesses and significantly benefit from all manners of controls/debuffs/buffs even if they are tricked out.  If the answer is "let us be OP" then you need to let other ATs also be OP.  Folks arguing that they should be allowed to be OP for current game content but that other ATs are not allowed to be as OP as them in ways that matter are hypocrites IMO.

In end game teams thanks to the level of player power controls are just not near as valuable and can be determental, so damage is really all the Dom brings to the table.  I don't personally thanks that's balanced, but I don't personally think the current state of the end game is balanced either.  If the current state of the end game is fine then Doms getting additional damage to better compete with blasters/scrappers is also fine.

 

 

I don't know that anyone is advocating for characters to be OP for the content.  I have argued that the content is fine as is for the core game and people should use existing mechanics to make harder content for their min/max builds with IO sets and Incarnates.  I also think the devs should focus their attention on making it easier for players to create this harder content with appropriate rewards.

 

You cannot make every character the same and in every situation there will always be a stack rank of 1 to N.  Buffing or balancing is a no win solution because there will always be one AT or set that will be considered OP and then there will be calls for nerfs or buffs to bring alignment,  It never ends (as evidenced by this thread where players are calling for Dominators to get Blaster/Scrapper levels of damage).

 

I just find that the entire argument that Dominators should have Blaster/Scrapper level damage is weak.  Dominators are a CC / Pet class; not a damage class.  Continually saying it is a damage class is just wrong, but people will believe what they want to believe.

 

I do understand your point that controls are weaker than damage at higher levels because characters have IO sets and Incarnates, so can push through current content easily making less of a need for controls.  But the answer to this problem is harder levels of content with appropriate rewards; not buffing Dominators to Blaster/Scrapper levels.

 

Dominators are listed as CC/Pet class according to the in-game creator.

 

Ranged Damage

Blaster

Defender

Corruptor

 

Crowd Control

Controller

Dominator

 

Support

Controller

Defender

Corruptor

 

Pets

Controller

Dominator

 

Dominators are expected to be a mid-tier damage class according to the in-game character creator and based on this thread it sounds like they are somewhere around mid-tier.

 

Dominator:

Survivability: 3

Melee Damage: 6

Ranged Damage: 6

Crowd Control: 10

Support: 2

Pets: 5

 

Blasters:

Survivability: 4

Melee Damage: 8

Ranged Damage: 10

Crowd Control: 4

Support: 2

Pets: 2

 

 

9 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

Blasters are max dps from melee range, not from range. Although ranged damage is good.

Huh?

 

Blasters:

Survivability: 4

Melee Damage: 8

Ranged Damage: 10

Crowd Control: 4

Support: 2

Pets: 2

[oedipus_tex]

IMO the heyday for Dominators was around i19, around the incarnate system came around with the Alpha slot. They were the only squishy class with mezz protection other than Controllers who took Indom Will and Force Field/Sonic Resonance/Traps characters. Blast archetypes didn't have crashless nukes yet and Blasters didn't have sustains, but Doms had a full endurance bar refill from Domination. Without nukes, spawns took much longer to clear so good controls meant a lot. 

 

The first problems were starting to show though. The Level Shift mechanic was already beginning to make difficult content easier. The Alpha slot was beginning to make it much more feasible for most builds to run Punch/Tough/Weave. Enemies like Victorias in the iTrials were making melee as a squishy difficult. But IMO the class was still at its peak.

 

This isn't to say the game was perfectly balanced. A few classes of Brute and Scrapper, along with Fire/Kin Controllers dominated much of the end game space and could render a team mostly irrelevant.

 

A lot has changed since then. IMO the worst contributing factors currently:

• Level shifts - IMO the most destabilizing mechanic introduced to the game
• Lore pets doing more damage than entire actual characters
• Destiny
• The Hybrid slot's double damage ability 

 

FWIW I do happen to think the Alpha slot is well balanced. If the level shift, Judgment and Lore abilities went away tomorrow though I would leap for joy. Especially Level Shift. It has introduced more issues than any mechanic I can think of.

Edited October 7, 2020 by oedipus_tex

[CaptainLupis]

15 minutes ago, oedipus_tex said:

A lot has changed since then. IMO the worst contributing factors currently:

• Level shifts - IMO the most destabilizing mechanic introduced to the game
• Lore pets doing more damage than entire actual characters
• Destiny
• The Hybrid slot's double damage ability 

 

FWIW I do happen to think the Alpha slot is well balanced. If the level shift, Judgment and Lore abilities went away tomorrow though I would leap for joy. Especially Level Shift. It has introduced more issues than any mechanic I can think of.

I actually have pondered in the past having the incarnate powers tied to the level you are playing it, so if you are playing at +1 you only have access to T1 versions of the incarnate powers, which would make level shifts only apply at +3/+4. There are issues with that idea of course, not least of which is if you are T4 slotted and are playing at +2 (for example) which T2 power would you get? There are 2 possibilitied from the side your T4 is slotted in.

 

Also there's the very real possibility it might well only negatively impact the wrong set of players, ie those without top end builds.

[oedipus_tex]

I can't even begin

16 minutes ago, CaptainLupis said:

I actually have pondered in the past having the incarnate powers tied to the level you are playing it, so if you are playing at +1 you only have access to T1 versions of the incarnate powers, which would make level shifts only apply at +3/+4. There are issues with that idea of course, not least of which is if you are T4 slotted and are playing at +2 (for example) which T2 power would you get? There are 2 possibilitied from the side your T4 is slotted in.

 

Also there's the very real possibility it might well only negatively impact the wrong set of players, ie those without top end builds.

 

 

I can't even begin to say how I'd fix the incarnate powers. 
 

IMO the way they should have been designed is you can only fire one after collecting a particular power up from an enemy, and that power up is only available against certain enemy types. E.G. War Walkers are known to drop Judgment charges.

 

The ship has long since sailed on that though. I'm curious what this development team, who I have a ton of respect for, choose to do with it.

 

If it was me opening a brand new server as lead developer I'd pull all those powers from the game until I could figure out what to do with them but 1) I am not lead developer on my own server and 2) its quite different to remove a power after players have been playing for a year versus removing it at server launch. I trust this team to do whats in the best interest of the game.

[Gobbledigook]

1 hour ago, Lockpick said:

 

I don't know that anyone is advocating for characters to be OP for the content.  I have argued that the content is fine as is for the core game and people should use existing mechanics to make harder content for their min/max builds with IO sets and Incarnates.  I also think the devs should focus their attention on making it easier for players to create this harder content with appropriate rewards.

 

You cannot make every character the same and in every situation there will always be a stack rank of 1 to N.  Buffing or balancing is a no win solution because there will always be one AT or set that will be considered OP and then there will be calls for nerfs or buffs to bring alignment,  It never ends (as evidenced by this thread where players are calling for Dominators to get Blaster/Scrapper levels of damage).

 

I just find that the entire argument that Dominators should have Blaster/Scrapper level damage is weak.  Dominators are a CC / Pet class; not a damage class.  Continually saying it is a damage class is just wrong, but people will believe what they want to believe.

 

I do understand your point that controls are weaker than damage at higher levels because characters have IO sets and Incarnates, so can push through current content easily making less of a need for controls.  But the answer to this problem is harder levels of content with appropriate rewards; not buffing Dominators to Blaster/Scrapper levels.

 

Dominators are listed as CC/Pet class according to the in-game creator.

 

Ranged Damage

Blaster

Defender

Corruptor

 

Crowd Control

Controller

Dominator

 

Support

Controller

Defender

Corruptor

 

Pets

Controller

Dominator

 

Dominators are expected to be a mid-tier damage class according to the in-game character creator and based on this thread it sounds like they are somewhere around mid-tier.

 

Dominator:

Survivability: 3

Melee Damage: 6

Ranged Damage: 6

Crowd Control: 10

Support: 2

Pets: 5

 

Blasters:

Survivability: 4

Melee Damage: 8

Ranged Damage: 10

Crowd Control: 4

Support: 2

Pets: 2

 

 

Huh?

 

Blasters:

Survivability: 4

Melee Damage: 8

Ranged Damage: 10

Crowd Control: 4

Support: 2

Pets: 2

I mean they do their best dps using some of the melee attacks and not ranged only as they they have some of the best dpa.

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by Gobbledegook