Make Corruptors King of Debuffs

[Frozen Burn]

8 minutes ago, kelika2 said:

There is already no reason to play a defender because the buff/debuff difference between corr and def is 25%.

So technically, they already are due to player population alone.

 

That makes no sense.  25% is a big enough difference and still worthy to pick a Defender over a Corruptor when you want to primarily support your team.  And player population picking one AT over another means nothing at all.  Sentinels are popular, but the AT sucks and everyone knows they need help. 

 

People pick Corruptors because they want to do both damage and buff/debuff.  But having both of these functions means there is a trade-off, less of both compared to the ATs that specialize in those areas.  And this is FINE and as it should be.  It's just a lot people apparently like to play this amalgamation.  

[arcane]

29 minutes ago, kelika2 said:

There is already no reason to play a defender because the buff/debuff difference between corr and def is 25%.

So technically, they already are due to player population alone.

Yeah no. Reasons to play both. You = wrong. Sorry bout that.

However, I do appreciate your wrong statement because the fact that half the people here think Defenders are clearly on top and the other half think Corruptors are clearly on top… clearly means that neither is obviously true and the AT’s are reasonably well balanced vs each other.

 

They should probably scrap and rebuild Vigilance though.

Edited April 11, 2022 by arcane

[golstat2003]

23 minutes ago, arcane said:

Yeah no. Reasons to play both. You = wrong. Sorry bout that.

However, I do appreciate your wrong statement because the fact that half the people here think Defenders are clearly on top and the other half think Corruptors are clearly on top… clearly means that neither is obviously true and the AT’s are reasonably well balanced vs each other.

 

They should probably scrap and rebuild Vigilance though.

 

QFT for the bolded.

 

They can rebuild Vigilance if they come up with something better. I'd be down and might actually make me want to play Defenders more. (Granted when I want to debuff and buff the shit out of stuff I roll out my defenders).

 

This entire thread is giving me a headache. It's like some folks never heard of primary/secondary.

 

I say again that some folks are playing a different version of COH than the rest of us. lol

[Marbing]

6 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

I say again that some folks are playing a different version of COH than the rest of us. lol

Clearly.

[Naraka]

1 hour ago, Frozen Burn said:

 

That makes no sense.  25% is a big enough difference and still worthy to pick a Defender over a Corruptor when you want to primarily support your team.  And player population picking one AT over another means nothing at all.  Sentinels are popular, but the AT sucks and everyone knows they need help. 

 

People pick Corruptors because they want to do both damage and buff/debuff.  But having both of these functions means there is a trade-off, less of both compared to the ATs that specialize in those areas.  And this is FINE and as it should be.  It's just a lot people apparently like to play this amalgamation.  

Anything not a damage buff or resistance debuff doesn't really care about a 25% bump.

 

Heck, hardly anyone cares about anything else, even if that buff was really meaty. Like, who is crazy about the abundant -def my Trick Arrow can apply? Or the +END in Shock Therapy?

[kelika2]

9 hours ago, Frozen Burn said:

 

That makes no sense.  25% is a big enough difference and still worthy to pick a Defender over a Corruptor when you want to primarily support your team.

But its not.  Between IOs, Incarnates and those brave enough to touch Inspirations, people are rather tough as it is.  I never once had a group break up because there was no defender around.  And the difference in damage output from the corr greatly outweighs the 25% difference in buff/debuff strength.

 

Maybe, just maybe, sub level 30 when folks dont have their IO sets on or a batch of fresh players then i can probably see a Thermal defender being a king.

 

But in the industrialized game-world we are in now when we can level alts to 50 in hours and buy stuff on the mark oh god when the fuck has a mind been changed by the forums ever here we all are three fucking years later doing the same shit over and over again.  maybe it was because I said 100% and not 99.9% like they do in the commercials to avoid getting sued but at some point we have to sit back and

[Solarverse]

You can't be serious...

[Solarverse]

Ironic. When players were begging to allow crossovers, everything negative that has come from crossovers were points that I brought up when I explained how that would be a horrible idea. I also stated that with those issues that would arise, players would then come up with more horrible ideas attempting to balance the chaos from the aftermath of crossovers that they were actually asking for.

 

Seeing it being played out just as I said it would just makes me wish that people had actually listened to me. 

 

Crossovers is the absolute dumbest thing the Original Devs have ever done. That was a completely brain dead decision. I honestly wish we could reverse it and for once, I wish the Devs had told people no and stuck with their guns.

 

I mentioned that people would slowly migrate off red side. Check. I said the Tanks and Brutes would not synergies well. Check. I said Defenders and Corruptors would be a nonstop issue. Check. I said Stalkers would take a back seat to Scrappers...and before the Stalker changes, that was true. So again, check. I also said Controllers would take a back seat to Dominators. Check.

 

So here we are. Exactly where I said we would be. Check Please!

[Greycat]

On 4/20/2022 at 1:44 PM, Solarverse said:

Ironic. When players were begging to allow crossovers, everything negative that has come from crossovers were points that I brought up when I explained how that would be a horrible idea. I also stated that with those issues that would arise, players would then come up with more horrible ideas attempting to balance the chaos from the aftermath of crossovers that they were actually asking for.

 

Seeing it being played out just as I said it would just makes me wish that people had actually listened to me. 

 

Crossovers is the absolute dumbest thing the Original Devs have ever done. That was a completely brain dead decision. I honestly wish we could reverse it and for once, I wish the Devs had told people no and stuck with their guns.

 

I mentioned that people would slowly migrate off red side. Check. I said the Tanks and Brutes would not synergies well. Check. I said Defenders and Corruptors would be a nonstop issue. Check. I said Stalkers would take a back seat to Scrappers...and before the Stalker changes, that was true. So again, check. I also said Controllers would take a back seat to Dominators. Check.

 

So here we are. Exactly where I said we would be. Check Please!

 

Have to 100% disagree.

 

Crossing over gives me more flexibility to build a character the way *I* want to - as mentioned earlier, the subject of this thread, "Do I want my damage or de/buffs first?" for instance.  Or, if you're going controller/dom, "do I want to do support or damage." *I get fewer limitations in building the character I want.*

 

As far as people migrating off redside? The only thing that had Redside feeling good about itself was how few people were on gold, even on live. There's a *lot* more going on for why people don't play red than "my AT is no longer locked to that side." And those get listed out - with obvious variation between people - every single time someone asks.  People don't like being lackeys, or they're turned off by suddenly hitting an arc doing things they really don't want to do, or their character is railroaded (or basically called an idiot) in the missions, or they don't like the way it is environmentally, or ... how many more reasons?

 

So... sorry, but saying "Yep, called it, crossing over sucks and should never have been done!" is just ... no.

[biostem]

I would like to see scourge given a flat inverse chance of kicking in, based upon an enemy's remaining health - so 90% health, 10% for scourge, and at 25% health, 75% chance for scourge to take effect, etc...

[Rudra]

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

they're turned off by suddenly hitting an arc doing things they really don't want to do

Nope. No idea what you are talking about. ... please ignore the Haven House blueprints and anti-Westin Phipps material. Also please ignore the saw and bottles of acid. And if anyone asks if I've seen him? I've never even heard of him. Just to be clear.

 

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

their character is railroaded (or basically called an idiot) in the missions,

That never happens red side! *is tapped on shoulder* Oh hey, Hearts of Darkness arcs! Didn't see you there! What? Dean John Yu is still waiting for me to take out those Luddites before the mind bomb Dollface put in my head goes off? Oh yeah! Guess I should go pay for his services. No, wait. Wrong response. AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! If I don't go take down some Luddites, my brain is going to explode! (Yes, I remember when the arc had Dean John Yu tell you to go take down the Luddites as an after-thought and it was obvious how stupid he thought you were. And that doesn't even address how Scirocco, Dr. Graves, Dollface, and Omnicore treat you. Just to cite a quick example.)

 

1 hour ago, Greycat said:

People don't like being lackeys

To be fair, there is some of this happening blue side too. And most definitely gold side. Though you're more of a go-fer than a lackey blue side.

 

On the plus side? Red side has Bane Spider Ruben! Now HE rocks as a contact! 😄

[macskull]

On 4/20/2022 at 11:44 AM, Solarverse said:

I mentioned that people would slowly migrate off red side. Check. I said the Tanks and Brutes would not synergies well. Check. I said Defenders and Corruptors would be a nonstop issue. Check. I said Stalkers would take a back seat to Scrappers...and before the Stalker changes, that was true. So again, check. I also said Controllers would take a back seat to Dominators. Check.

 

So here we are. Exactly where I said we would be. Check Please!

If the only thing keeping players redside was the inability to play certain ATs blueside, then that's a pretty clear admission redside needed help and a lot of it. But let's look at the rest of this paragraph:

• Tankers sort of took a backseat to Brutes post-I18. That's been rectified by buffing Tankers, and now the two ATs have different playstyles and neither overshadows the other. End result of side switching: Tanker buffs.
• Defender vs Corruptor is only "a nonstop issue" on the forums. There are some powerset combinations which are clearly advantaged on one AT or the other, but for the most part it doesn't really matter and it comes down to personal preference. End result of side switching: nothing really changed, but had the Vigilance buff not happened in Issue 17 it probably would've happened after Going Rogue.
• Side-switching did make it painfully obvious how underwhelming Stalkers were, even with the scaling out-of-hide crit chance that was added (waaaaaaaaaaaay back in Issue 11, but no one seems to remember that). Thankfully they got some attention afterwards. Now you've got two ATs with different playstyles and different specializations. End result of side switching: Stalker buffs.
• Your Controller/Dominator comparison is a little weird to me because those two ATs don't really compete for the same role on a team. Controllers are control/support while Dominators are control/damage, meaning Dominators more accurately compete with Blasters. Dominators are cool and all, but outside of Domination they're just worse Controllers and worse Blasters. End result of side switching: Nothing really changed.

 

What do we take away from this? Thanks to side-switching, the game as a whole is in a better place.

Edited April 22, 2022 by macskull

[Rudra]

After the last round of Tanker buffs and Brute being punched in the face, it feels like Tankers are definitely a better AT between the two. I would like some clarification on this matter please, but please send it as a message. I think I've done too much wandering off topic in this thread already. (I still prefer Brutes, for clarification. Getting my attacks earlier rather than later keeps me happy.)

Edited April 22, 2022 by Rudra
Corrected "my" to "me".

[Naraka]

2 hours ago, macskull said:

If the only thing keeping players redside was the inability to play certain ATs blueside, then that's a pretty clear admission redside needed help and a lot of it. But let's look at the rest of this paragraph:

• Tankers sort of took a backseat to Brutes post-I18. That's been rectified by buffing Tankers, and now the two ATs have different playstyles and neither overshadows the other. End result of side switching: Tanker buffs.
• Defender vs Corruptor is only "a nonstop issue" on the forums. There are some powerset combinations which are clearly advantaged on one AT or the other, but for the most part it doesn't really matter and it comes down to personal preference. End result of side switching: nothing really changed, but had the Vigilance buff not happened in Issue 17 it probably would've happened after Going Rogue.
• Side-switching did make it painfully obvious how underwhelming Stalkers were, even with the scaling out-of-hide crit chance that was added (waaaaaaaaaaaay back in Issue 11, but no one seems to remember that). Thankfully they got some attention afterwards. Now you've got two ATs with different playstyles and different specializations. End result of side switching: Stalker buffs.
• Your Controller/Dominator comparison is a little weird to me because those two ATs don't really compete for the same role on a team. Controllers are control/support while Dominators are control/damage, meaning Dominators more accurately compete with Blasters. Dominators are cool and all, but outside of Domination they're just worse Controllers and worse Blasters. End result of side switching: Nothing really changed.

 

What do we take away from this? Thanks to side-switching, the game as a whole is in a better place.

 

Tanker buffs were still pretty heavily scrutinized. There was a lot of complaints of losing the -res and some currently see the overall buffs being too far.

 

I'll also admit that nothing really changed with Defenders or Corruptors. They are both, mostly, just sought after if a buffer is needed along with Controller. No one tends to have the ability to be picky with their support because they aren't common AND they are such a mixed bag (if you have a Dark Miasma, you probably want a buffer, not a Trick Arrow or if you have an Empath, you probably don't want more healing).

 

The Stalker buffs didn't really help the identity crisis tho.  They basically just replaced Scrappers. If you want a more durable Stalker with more AoE, play a Brute. The only thing Scrapper has is their ATO makes their inherent not be completely overshadowed (only matched). At least Stalker ATO makes the character play differently...

 

Dominators have never been worse controllers.  They have always been the superior controller partly because you only need momentary control over your "crits" to shut down everything AND Dominators have been perma-ing their crits even before side switching. I'm unsure what the effects of side-switching had besides nerfing Domination, tho...and maybe buffing Controller.

 

My take away from this? It pushed a lot more power creep that we are now stuck with.  I think just increasing Tanker AoEs a bit through their inherent would have been great...but they also added to their damage mod. Vigilance is on the radar to have changes now. Stalkers are seen as "fine" because they've been turned into copies of Scrappers. Doms hide their powerlevel and no one even talks about Masterminds lol

[Solvernia]

Making Defenders better at buffing and Corruptors better at debuffing seems reasonable to me, especially considering that Corruptors are just worse Defenders right now. There has to be a good reason to play Corruptors, and 'they have a chance to do slightly more damage at the cost of significantly less support efficacy' isn't one of them.

 

So what if this idea makes Corruptors objectively better for some powerset choices over Defenders? The same exists elsewhere; i.e. Kinetic Melee is superior on Stalkers compared to any other AT due to their lightning-fast AS being overwhelmingly better than Repulsing Torrent, and Regen works best on Brutes due to their higher base HP. No matter how hard you try to balance it, there will never be a purely level playing field for different ATs with the same sets; there will always be an AT where a powerset performs best on. And that's okay, because some ATs should be better than others at specific things in order for gameplay to stay interesting and for character creation choices to actually matter.

 

Tankers are better at surviving damage than any other AT. Blasters are better at dealing damage than any other AT. Even within the same role, Stalkers are (or at the very least, are supposed to be) better at ST melee damage than Scrappers and Scrappers are better at AoE melee damage than Stalkers. Defenders should be better at strengthening their allies than Corruptors, and Corruptors should be better at weakening their enemies than Defenders.

 

Making debuff focused sets better on Corruptors does not somehow make Defenders weaker or magically stop people from playing them, it just makes it so those sets are better on Corruptors. You can make the case that less people will play Defenders because of a change like this, but that's not necessarily relevant: people who pick an AT because the set they want to play performs better on it aren't the kind of people who care what AT they play in the first place beyond making the decision of what is more optimal. You can complain about people wanting to play optimally all you want, but different people play the game for different reasons and you're not going to change that. The people who want to play Defenders will still play Defenders, the people who want to play Corruptors will still play Corruptors, and the people who want to play whichever AT works best will play whichever AT works best, although more of them will be playing Corruptors if they want to play a debuff heavy character.

 

An alternative to this that would still favor the use of debuff sets on Corruptors would be to rework Scourge into something like Containment. If you have a debuff applied on an enemy, make Scourge have a higher chance to trigger. The debuff value would still be the same (less than Defenders) but their damage would improve, possibly making them a decent pick if you want to be able to buff/debuff but still like doing a reasonable amount of damage in the process.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Solvernia

[Solarverse]

13 hours ago, Greycat said:

 

Have to 100% disagree.

 

Crossing over gives me more flexibility to build a character the way *I* want to - as mentioned earlier, the subject of this thread, "Do I want my damage or de/buffs first?" for instance.  Or, if you're going controller/dom, "do I want to do support or damage." *I get fewer limitations in building the character I want.*

 

As far as people migrating off redside? The only thing that had Redside feeling good about itself was how few people were on gold, even on live. There's a *lot* more going on for why people don't play red than "my AT is no longer locked to that side." And those get listed out - with obvious variation between people - every single time someone asks.  People don't like being lackeys, or they're turned off by suddenly hitting an arc doing things they really don't want to do, or their character is railroaded (or basically called an idiot) in the missions, or they don't like the way it is environmentally, or ... how many more reasons?

 

So... sorry, but saying "Yep, called it, crossing over sucks and should never have been done!" is just ... no.

 

All fair points and a reasonable argument, but I still feel the same about it.

[MoonSheep]

On 4/11/2022 at 3:15 PM, Frozen Burn said:

 

I generally pick Defenders over Corruptors.  In fact, I generally pick most things over Corruptors.  They do less buff/debuff than Defenders and less damage than Blasters.  When I want to defend my team, I go with the AT that does it best:  Defenders.  When I want to do ranged damage, I go with the best:  Blasters.  The only reason I ever choose a Corruptor is for character concept (and i do have a few Corruptors - but more Defenders and WAY more Blasters).  

 

 

i absolutely agree - if you’re looking to play a buff/debuff set why play anything else apart from the best?

 

i also choose defenders as i want to play a certain role/mindset - on a defender i feel more “free” to focus on team support / enemy debuff without needing to invest too much in attacks

 

getting the buff/debuff powers earlier is a great advantage too, some of the best game content in my opinion is before lvl 30

[Solarverse]

14 hours ago, macskull said:

If the only thing keeping players redside was the inability to play certain ATs blueside, then that's a pretty clear admission redside needed help and a lot of it. But let's look at the rest of this paragraph:

• Tankers sort of took a backseat to Brutes post-I18. That's been rectified by buffing Tankers, and now the two ATs have different playstyles and neither overshadows the other. End result of side switching: Tanker buffs.
• Defender vs Corruptor is only "a nonstop issue" on the forums. There are some powerset combinations which are clearly advantaged on one AT or the other, but for the most part it doesn't really matter and it comes down to personal preference. End result of side switching: nothing really changed, but had the Vigilance buff not happened in Issue 17 it probably would've happened after Going Rogue.
• Side-switching did make it painfully obvious how underwhelming Stalkers were, even with the scaling out-of-hide crit chance that was added (waaaaaaaaaaaay back in Issue 11, but no one seems to remember that). Thankfully they got some attention afterwards. Now you've got two ATs with different playstyles and different specializations. End result of side switching: Stalker buffs.
• Your Controller/Dominator comparison is a little weird to me because those two ATs don't really compete for the same role on a team. Controllers are control/support while Dominators are control/damage, meaning Dominators more accurately compete with Blasters. Dominators are cool and all, but outside of Domination they're just worse Controllers and worse Blasters. End result of side switching: Nothing really changed.

 

What do we take away from this? Thanks to side-switching, the game as a whole is in a better place.

 

I have some thoughts on this but will have to get back to you. I have dreaded adulting to do right now, heh.

[PLVRIZR]

On 4/9/2022 at 12:52 PM, PeregrineFalcon said:

I don't make misleading or disingenuous statements.

 

I, for one, can certainly attest to that.

[Solarverse]

23 hours ago, macskull said:

If the only thing keeping players redside was the inability to play certain ATs blueside, then that's a pretty clear admission redside needed help and a lot of it.

 

I personally loved red side. I only started disliking red side when population became so low that it took an exhausting amount of time to form a pug for even a simple mission. Blue side is better, but something being better does not mean something else is bad. I don't know how many others share my opinion, but that's my point of view anyway.

 

23 hours ago, macskull said:

• Tankers sort of took a backseat to Brutes post-I18. That's been rectified by buffing Tankers, and now the two ATs have different playstyles and neither overshadows the other. End result of side switching: Tanker buffs.

 

 

That's the thing, Tankers were never designed nor meant to be as powerful as they are now. Remember when I said that people would have to make stupid requests to balance a stupid decision of making crossovers? Well, that's how I feel about the Tanker changes. It was something stupid that was done, but sadly, it was a necessary evil to compensate for the original stupid decision to make this game a crossover. Not taking any stabs at you at all, this is just simply how I see it and am pretty hard set on my views of the issue.

 

23 hours ago, macskull said:

 

• Your Controller/Dominator comparison is a little weird to me because those two ATs don't really compete for the same role on a team. Controllers are control/support while Dominators are control/damage, meaning Dominators more accurately compete with Blasters. Dominators are cool and all, but outside of Domination they're just worse Controllers and worse Blasters. End result of side switching: Nothing really changed.

 

I won't respond to your two previous points, because I feel my opinion of your first point pretty much applies there as well. However, what I often see in game and sometimes on these forums is that Controllers were the original Damage Mitigation masters. Now, we have Dominators who not only out DPS them, but also outdo them in the mitigation sector as well. A Dom can one shot Hold a Boss at will, a Controller has to wait for the Hold to recharge and hit it with two holds to lock down the Boss. This does not just apply to holds, but every single mitigating ability that they have. This makes Doms superior at Damage and Holds. Now, I am aware that there can be several counter points to this, but this will be the foundation that I will be sticking to, because I believe this debate could literally go in circles and it would just keep coming back to this point over and over again.

 

23 hours ago, macskull said:

What do we take away from this? Thanks to side-switching, the game as a whole is in a better place.

 

I suppose that would have to be a matter of perspective. For players like me, it has taken a lot away from this game and has left this game a husk of what it once was. All one need do to see this for themselves is to simply visit City of Villains, and then ask themselves, "Where is everyone?"

So my logic may or may not be flawed on a few points, but this is just the way I see things from this end of the computer screen.

[biostem]

I wonder if debuff values could be tailored to only affect, say, a Corruptor's blast powers, while keeping the lower values for their secondary sets.  I'd also reiterate my belief that there should be a chance for scourge to proc as soon as the enemy is down even a little health, (instead of kicking in only at 50%).

[Solarverse]

19 minutes ago, biostem said:

 I'd also reiterate my belief that there should be a chance for scourge to proc as soon as the enemy is down even a little health, (instead of kicking in only at 50%).

 

I have made a similar request myself in the very early days (like within the first couple months?) of Homecoming. At the time, the idea was not so popular. Opinions may be a bit less resistant these days though.

[Naraka]

16 hours ago, Solarverse said:

 

I suppose that would have to be a matter of perspective. For players like me, it has taken a lot away from this game and has left this game a husk of what it once was. All one need do to see this for themselves is to simply visit City of Villains, and then ask themselves, "Where is everyone?"

So my logic may or may not be flawed on a few points, but this is just the way I see things from this end of the computer screen.

 

Very true.

 

@macskull said "the game as a whole is better" but that's obviously not true lol. If you take into consideration the actual whole of the game (and that's leveling experience, various parts like red, blue and gold, PvE and PvP, etc.  Or maybe it was just poor words on his part but these factors aren't all just variables in an equation that equal a whole but they do act as parts of what make up this game.

 

To put it in perspective, I play Guild Wars 2 which has PvE and PvP. The PvE includes open-world event bosses, fractals/dungeons, raids and world completion/exploration while PvP has World vs World, standard PvP, structured PvP. They left WvW to languish for years before adding anything new to it and just because they added raids and mounts didn't make the game "better as a whole", it was just good-to-decent PvE content. WvW was still an issue that needed help.

 

The screwed up part is, there is nothing wrong with CoV and we're free to move back and forth as we wish. With the finite content that exists in the game, it's a no-brainer to just diversify activities but for whatever reason, that never happens all that often.

[macskull]

18 hours ago, Solarverse said:

I personally loved red side. I only started disliking red side when population became so low that it took an exhausting amount of time to form a pug for even a simple mission. Blue side is better, but something being better does not mean something else is bad. I don't know how many others share my opinion, but that's my point of view anyway.

Red side's cool and all, but having to slog through some of that content while not having the resources available to the hero ATs (especially when the two sides had separate markets) was awful. Having almost everything segregated from the very beginning kept redside from ever really being successful - once the new shiny wore off players went back to blueside where they were already established.

 

As far as AT balancing goes, the hero ATs got constant tweaks while the game was in development even before side-switching happened, because the game was evolving around them. Adding side-switching mixed things up a bit, but we can't look at ATs designed around a game launched nearly 20 years ago and say they "were never designed nor meant to be as powerful as they are now" - the game has been continually changing over its life and eventually some things will get left behind unless they receive attention. Even before side-switching was a thing, Tankers were already considered largely unnecessary for most teams running most content.

 

18 hours ago, Solarverse said:

I won't respond to your two previous points, because I feel my opinion of your first point pretty much applies there as well. However, what I often see in game and sometimes on these forums is that Controllers were the original Damage Mitigation masters. Now, we have Dominators who not only out DPS them, but also outdo them in the mitigation sector as well. A Dom can one shot Hold a Boss at will, a Controller has to wait for the Hold to recharge and hit it with two holds to lock down the Boss. This does not just apply to holds, but every single mitigating ability that they have. This makes Doms superior at Damage and Holds. Now, I am aware that there can be several counter points to this, but this will be the foundation that I will be sticking to, because I believe this debate could literally go in circles and it would just keep coming back to this point over and over again.

I'll address this part at least - Controllers and Dominators are really only similar in that they provide damage mitigation via crowd control. In today's game, crowd control is often unnecessary and has taken a backseat to buff/debuff and damage (which is something the dev team has been working on addressing with the sleep changes and addition of hard mode TFs). Of course Dominators out-DPS Controllers, Controllers aren't a DPS AT. Dominators really only outdo Controllers in the mitigation department when Domination is up (less than half the time if you haven't invested several hundred million into an IO build), but Controllers do have that 20% chance for additional mag on all their controls and deal double damage to mezzed targets and some incarnate bosses/mobs even without them being mezzed.

 

If you ignore the crowd control parts of the AT, you're left with their secondaries - Controllers act as force multipliers for the entire team via buff/debuff abilities, and Dominators do DPS but they are by far the squishiest AT in that role.

[Solarverse]

2 hours ago, macskull said:

Red side's cool and all, but having to slog through some of that content while not having the resources available to the hero ATs (especially when the two sides had separate markets) was awful. Having almost everything segregated from the very beginning kept redside from ever really being successful - once the new shiny wore off players went back to blueside where they were already established.

 

As far as AT balancing goes, the hero ATs got constant tweaks while the game was in development even before side-switching happened, because the game was evolving around them. Adding side-switching mixed things up a bit, but we can't look at ATs designed around a game launched nearly 20 years ago and say they "were never designed nor meant to be as powerful as they are now" - the game has been continually changing over its life and eventually some things will get left behind unless they receive attention. Even before side-switching was a thing, Tankers were already considered largely unnecessary for most teams running most content.

 

I'll address this part at least - Controllers and Dominators are really only similar in that they provide damage mitigation via crowd control. In today's game, crowd control is often unnecessary and has taken a backseat to buff/debuff and damage (which is something the dev team has been working on addressing with the sleep changes and addition of hard mode TFs). Of course Dominators out-DPS Controllers, Controllers aren't a DPS AT. Dominators really only outdo Controllers in the mitigation department when Domination is up (less than half the time if you haven't invested several hundred million into an IO build), but Controllers do have that 20% chance for additional mag on all their controls and deal double damage to mezzed targets and some incarnate bosses/mobs even without them being mezzed.

 

If you ignore the crowd control parts of the AT, you're left with their secondaries - Controllers act as force multipliers for the entire team via buff/debuff abilities, and Dominators do DPS but they are by far the squishiest AT in that role.

 

I guess one can only hope that the direction the game goes from here brings balance. Would sure like to see Red Side shine once more as well. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.