Announcements

Watch this space for important information on planned twitch streams, updates and more

Discuss What We Can Do: Archetypes

330 posts / 0 new
Last post
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 21 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
The problem, I think, is that

The problem, I think, is that the all-or-nothing nature of the control decks in Magic is analogous to the Controllers we had in CoX in the sense that if you don't have something pretty darn close to full lock-down, then what you do get for all of your efforts is not NEARLY so good as just making a scrapper or blaster and going with the old "the best defense is a great offense" approach. At the very least, you'll be able to carve up a PvE map WAY faster solo as one of those than you would as a controller, and at worst the so-called Controller you get isn't what most CoX-style Controller fans would have had in mind.

The people who played blue counterspell decks in the old days were waiting forever for WotC to finally print or reprint a 2-mana hard counter in the standard environment, and they still haven't. It's like Magic's equivalent of Enhancement Diversification. Those people got their favorite "strategy" taken away and started whining about it for years, but WotC stuck to the plan and haven't caved yet. I doubt an MMO, any MMO, has that kind of discipline.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and people like Doc Tyche who miss their true Controllers will be fine with the limited version of control they get out of whatever CoT gives us. I hope that happens. I just think you'd better not give people full lock-down as a possible build up-front and then take it away later, because that will cause the riots with the pitchforks and torches and the burning and screaming, n'hey.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac, we cannot properly

Radiac, we cannot properly judge it at this time since we don't know how control effects will scale on their way to "100% hard lock", nor how easy it will be for "pure DPS" to go through content.

Personally though I have to say that on paper the control effects spectrum system looks to be a huge step up from all control systems that I have seen in other games since as long as you hit the enemy you'll apply some form of control to them. I don't think a controller should need to apply a "100% hard lock" to all or even most mobs in pack to survive but rather just having to reduce the collective DPS enough.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Between Steamy Mist for

Between Steamy Mist for pseudo-stealth, careful tactics, and slotting lots of Accuracy, my Mind/Storm Controller could casually stroll through nearly any instance of nasty bad-guys and never even get tagged with (effective) aggro.

The difference between running at 'Controller-speed' and 'Scrapper-speed' was simply a matter of how frantic one played. And, yes, when I teamed up with my 'all (Rabid) Scrappers, all the time' partner, it could get very frantic. Controllers COULD keep up, by popping blue 'Pez' (Inspirations) constantly.

What I learned from That experience is that a Controller could mana-burn their way out of the occasional 'oops' quite handily, if they didn't panic. That was the advantage of having multiple kinds of control powers in each set. Also, the path to Success for a Controller was to CONTROL and none of this other stuff. If you can't build a solid control on the target, then your DPS is irrelevant.

I'm really hoping that, even with the whole 'spectrum of control' paradigm that the Devs are promising, it will still be possible to get a Solid Lock on an opponent. Especially when soloing.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 29 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I'm really hoping that, even with the whole 'spectrum of control' paradigm that the Devs are promising, it will still be possible to get a Solid Lock on an opponent. Especially when soloing.

You have no cause for concern there.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

The problem, I think, is that the all-or-nothing nature of the control decks in Magic is analogous to the Controllers we had in CoX in the sense that if you don't have something pretty darn close to full lock-down, then what you do get for all of your efforts is not NEARLY so good as just making a scrapper or blaster and going with the old "the best defense is a great offense" approach.

Look it's clear you never seriously played with Controller-types in CoH, or if you did you somehow never learned how they were actually meant to work.

You seem to be fascinated with the binary "all or nothing" style of Mezzing and you seem to think that Controllers in CoH (or CoT) would be totally screwed if they couldn't ALWAYS keep EVERYTHING locked down 100% of the time. Let me let you in on a little bit of history: Most Controllers could NOT routinely lock an entire MOB down until they got to like level 20 or 30. So you may ask, "How did they survive before they could lock everything down?" Well I'll tell you: They learned the proper tactics to juggle the situation and in the long run were forced to learn proper MOB management regardless of what they had locked down or not.

Radiac wrote:

At the very least, you'll be able to carve up a PvE map WAY faster solo as one of those than you would as a controller, and at worst the so-called Controller you get isn't what most CoX-style Controller fans would have had in mind.

This clearly tells me you never played with a fully-decked out high level Controller-type character in CoH. There's a reason I used to call Scrappers and Blasters I teamed with MY "extra Fire Imps" because those guys usually just got IN MY WAY and SLOWED me down.

Radiac wrote:

The people who played blue counterspell decks in the old days were waiting forever for WotC to finally print or reprint a 2-mana hard counter in the standard environment, and they still haven't. It's like Magic's equivalent of Enhancement Diversification. Those people got their favorite "strategy" taken away and started whining about it for years, but WotC stuck to the plan and haven't caved yet. I doubt an MMO, any MMO, has that kind of discipline.

OK once again you're clearly in this mode of completely conflating what they did in a card game 20+ years ago and what MWM plans to do with Control powers in a modern MMO. I've already pointed out how your analogies between the two are fleeting at best yet you still cling to the idea that Control is somehow "a broken thing that will never be truly fixed in a MMO". I get that you seem to have no working concept for how Control actually worked in CoH so please stop assuming that what we'll get in CoT will somehow be a "pale shadow" of its former greatness.

Radiac wrote:

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and people like Doc Tyche who miss their true Controllers will be fine with the limited version of control they get out of whatever CoT gives us. I hope that happens. I just think you'd better not give people full lock-down as a possible build up-front and then take it away later, because that will cause the riots with the pitchforks and torches and the burning and screaming, n'hey.

Yes, you are very wrong here.

Why on earth do you possibly think that the "version" of Control we'll get in CoT is going to be weaker and/or more limited than CoH's version? I've already told you how they plan to make Control WORK in PvP WITHOUT the necessity of removing hard lock downs in PvE. You're so blinded by the way Control worked in CoH (or worse how it worked in a 20+ year old card game) that you didn't even seem to understand my explanation in my last post for how the problems CoH's Control had in both PvE and PvP will be mitigated in CoT.

Look I get that you might not have liked how Control worked in CoH. But until you get your fingers out of your ears there might not be anything we can do to help you realize that you're just talking compete nonsense here.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
IMO the problem with

IMO the problem with controllers in CoH wasn't the binary nature of mez powers but the offensive imbalance of the class. It would have been more noticeable if it were not for the simple combat challenge of CoH.

Aside from Fire/(usually kin), controllers were originally a support class. It took them a long time to find the right way to make controllers a more rounded class. This is in part due to most controller primaries having less direct damage options, mostly pets or masteries but some sets had big hitters). This was further hindered by the fact that most players either slotted for damage or, more commonly, they slotted for duration. Even when slotted for damage, mez powers were difficult to use as a damage dealing source because those powers tended to have a longer recharge.

When CoV came out they had a firmer grasp on the games combat balance and so designed a more offensive mez class with Dominators.

CoT is going to have a controller clone which is mez primary and support secondary. I would strongly suggest that when designing a mez power set that MWM includes more rounded combat capabilities. Especially if they intend to go from a binary mez system to a gradual mez system.
Instead of every set having some minor damage in each mez power and relying mostly on a couple attacks/pets to provide DPS they should look at including a few more direct attacks to flesh out mez class functionality. Not every mez set should have pets, which in the case of fire/kin can be unbalancing. Offer another avenue for combat for some or even most mez sets rather than pets.

Of course this might be a completely moot suggestion because Tertiary powers could be designed to fill the gap (IMO) of a mez/support class.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

IMO the problem with controllers in CoH wasn't the binary nature of mez powers but the offensive imbalance of the class. It would have been more noticeable if it were not for the simple combat challenge of CoH.

Aside from Fire/(usually kin), controllers were originally a support class. It took them a long time to find the right way to make controllers a more rounded class. This is in part due to most controller primaries having less direct damage options, mostly pets or masteries but some sets had big hitters). This was further hindered by the fact that most players either slotted for damage or, more commonly, they slotted for duration. Even when slotted for damage, mez powers were difficult to use as a damage dealing source because those powers tended to have a longer recharge.

When CoV came out they had a firmer grasp on the games combat balance and so designed a more offensive mez class with Dominators.

CoT is going to have a controller clone which is mez primary and support secondary. I would strongly suggest that when designing a mez power set that MWM includes more rounded combat capabilities. Especially if they intend to go from a binary mez system to a gradual mez system.

Instead of every set having some minor damage in each mez power and relying mostly on a couple attacks/pets to provide DPS they should look at including a few more direct attacks to flesh out mez class functionality. Not every mez set should have pets, which in the case of fire/kin can be unbalancing. Offer another avenue for combat for some or even most mez sets rather than pets.

Of course this might be a completely moot suggestion because Tertiary powers could be designed to fill the gap (IMO) of a mez/support class.

Unlike Radiac's recent comments your "assessment" of Control in CoH seems more grounded in the realities that actually existed in the game.

It's true that the concepts behind Control evolved throughout the course of CoH not only with changes to the original Controller AT but with the "lessons learned" that got baked into the newer Dominator AT. One of the biggest changes to Controllers was the reworking of the Containment Inherent AT power which gave all Controllers better DPS output in general. Then of course the Dominator was given the twin combo of the Assault secondaries and the Domination Inherent AT power.

I agree the version of the "mez primary and support secondary" class in CoT probably could be tinkered with a TINY BIT more in terms of giving them maybe a TINY BIT more basic DPS output but I'd caution against giving them that much more direct offensive capability. I'd rather this class concentrate on what it did best - being the BEST Control class in the game, period. It really doesn't serve them well to be split between having to be Control/Support AND Offensive. Besides as you yourself point out the reworking of the Tertiary powers will probably be enough to give these guys the extra boost of DPS they'd need if they even choose to have it. Also I'm not against exploring the idea of an alternative to "pets providing DPS" for at least some of these powersets.

I'm frankly more interested in the brand new "mez primary and ranged offense secondary" class that's going to be in CoT. I'm wondering if it's going to have the same kinds of advantages that Dominators had and if it'll even use something like the Domination Inherent AT power.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 29 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I'm frankly more interested in the brand new "mez primary and ranged offense secondary" class that's going to be in CoT. I'm wondering if it's going to have the same kinds of advantages that Dominators had and if it'll even use something like the Domination Inherent AT power.

All Operators (control primary) Specs can use any of the Mastery powers abailable to the Class. Don't forget you can follow a Mastery in one tree, choose the starting power of 3, or have 2 of one and the starter of another.

With reagards to concerns of control power set damage capability, it was one of the issues I've aimed to address.

Not that control powers are meant to achieve dps, but there are a couple of things to note. Different players will end up enjoying different play styles. And some enjoy the aslpect of controlling targets and supporting the team, without worry of damage, while othet want that feeling of control, support, and more offense.

Different control sets will have some different capabilities when it comes to this apsect. Another aspect is how damage over time was handled in CoH and how we will handle it differently with regards to duration.

Then of course as mentioned is the introducation of Tertiary sets allowing players to round out their character a bit. If a player wants to add some offense to their controller, picking the appropriate Tertiary powers is the way to go.

Of course the best thing would be to take an Operator with a ranged Secondary when it comes out. Or, use one of your alternate builds to switch your Spec when you desire a switch up.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Lothic wrote:
I'm frankly more interested in the brand new "mez primary and ranged offense secondary" class that's going to be in CoT. I'm wondering if it's going to have the same kinds of advantages that Dominators had and if it'll even use something like the Domination Inherent AT power.
All Operators (control primary) Specs can use any of the Mastery powers abailable to the Class. Don't forget you can follow a Mastery in one tree, choose the starting power of 3, or have 2 of one and the starter of another.
With reagards to concerns of control power set damage capability, it was one of the issues I've aimed to address.
Not that control powers are meant to achieve dps, but there are a couple of things to note. Different players will end up enjoying different play styles. And some enjoy the aslpect of controlling targets and supporting the team, without worry of damage, while othet want that feeling of control, support, and more offense.
Different control sets will have some different capabilities when it comes to this apsect. Another aspect is how damage over time was handled in CoH and how we will handle it differently with regards to duration.
Then of course as mentioned is the introducation of Tertiary sets allowing players to round out their character a bit. If a player wants to add some offense to their controller, picking the appropriate Tertiary powers is the way to go.
Of course the best thing would be to take an Operator with a ranged Secondary when it comes out. Or, use one of your alternate builds to switch your Spec when you desire a switch up.

As always thanks for the info.

A very simple question just occurred to me: Is CoT even going to have "Inherent AT powers" like CoH (i.e. Containment for Controllers or Domination for Dominators) or is the very concept of Inherent AT powers not really compatible with CoT?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

It's true that the concepts behind Control evolved throughout the course of CoH not only with changes to the original Controller AT but with the "lessons learned" that got baked into the newer Dominator AT. One of the biggest changes to Controllers was the reworking of the Containment Inherent AT power which gave all Controllers better DPS output in general. Then of course the Dominator was given the twin combo of the Assault secondaries and the Domination Inherent AT power.

They played with controller inherent for a while which is why I said it took them time to make the class more rounded.

Lothic wrote:

I agree the version of the "mez primary and support secondary" class in CoT probably could be tinkered with a TINY BIT more in terms of giving them maybe a TINY BIT more basic DPS output but I'd caution against giving them that much more direct offensive capability. I'd rather this class concentrate on what it did best - being the BEST Control class in the game, period.

My assumption is that no class in CoT will be able to get every power in a set and will have choices as to how they want to focus. In the case of a mez primary, if you wanted the 'BEST control class in the game' you would build accordingly. When I was talking about adding more damage to a mez primary I wasn't saying to remove any capability of the class just offering alternatives.
Tertiary powers could be used to supplement damage abilities but the flip side is they may have additional controls as well to enhance a mez primary's control ability.
I still don't know exactly how CoT is going to handle mez powers so speculating on how many controls in a mez primary is based on CoH design. For all I know, mez might not have the full range of diversity that CoH had, stun, sleep, hold, immob, ect. Instead there could be just a few mez types that you build up to accomplish lockdown/complete control. Maybe a certain mastery will increase mez power in general and another increases the damage while sacrificing control capabilities.

Lothic wrote:

Also I'm not against exploring the idea of an alternative to "pets providing DPS" for at least some of these powersets.

Pets as one of the primary damage sources was the biggest reason I could never get into Controllers even though I loved Dominators. Like I said, CoH designed Controllers as a support class and as a result they could never really get them right IMO. One of the biggest flaws was the fire/kin combo and its over shadowing capabilities compared to most any other combo. Pets coupled with lockdown and enormous buffs is a broken mechanic IMO. I strongly think the reason why Kin was avoided in MM's was because of its game breaking capability. This is why I think other ways to provide damage to the mez/support should be considered before pets.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Mastery replaces Inherents

Mastery replaces Inherents

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Not that control powers are meant to achieve dps, but there are a couple of things to note. Different players will end up enjoying different play styles. And some enjoy the aslpect of controlling targets and supporting the team, without worry of damage, while othet want that feeling of control, support, and more offense.

I agree, which is why I am talking about options within each mez set, actually any power set, to allow for different builds. I don't expect you to change the concept of a mez primary, just tweak the design so that it is more viable in more situations.

Tannim222 wrote:

Different control sets will have some different capabilities when it comes to this apsect.

As you probably know, but still should be said, care should be taken so one mez set does not stand above all others especially when a support set is added to it.

Tannim222 wrote:

Of course the best thing would be to take an Operator with a ranged Secondary when it comes out. Or, use one of your alternate builds to switch your Spec when you desire a switch up.

I wasn't saying that mez/support is a class I wouldn't enjoy. I was stating that I found the controller class in CoH to have a flawed design which made it problematic.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Also I'm not against exploring the idea of an alternative to "pets providing DPS" for at least some of these powersets.

Pets as one of the primary damage sources was the biggest reason I could never get into Controllers even though I loved Dominators. Like I said, CoH designed Controllers as a support class and as a result they could never really get them right IMO.

If you rewind the original Controller concept back to the beginning I think the original CoH Devs must have thought that Control in general was going to be so "powerful" that as a counterbalance to that they made them easily the least capable DPS AT in the game. Pets provided a method to introduce a source of "uncontrollable indirect damage" that added to the DPS limitations of Controllers. The problem (in 20/20 hindsight) was it made most Controllers (especially low level Controllers) painfully slow to level. Throughout the course of CoH there were multiple improvements to the game that made them much more solo-friendly in general. But even by the end Controllers probably remained the hardest AT to solo at low level.

Now it's debatable whether that means that Controllers were intrinsically "broken" and "could not be fixed". Look at it from this point of view: No matter what in games like CoH and CoT there's probably always going to be "the least capable DPS class in the game" and that class is always going to be considered "too slow/annoying to play" by many people. Making the worst DPS class better would likely only lead to making ANOTHER class the new worst DPS class. I get that you're looking for ways to improve the situation, but maybe in this case that situation doesn't really need to be improved. Remember that we will no longer be stuck with ONLY Mez/Support - we'll be able to play Mez/Assault (a.k.a. Dominators) and Mez/Ranged as well if the whole Mez/Support class is too slow for you. TBH, I actually don't consider the Mez/Support class to be intrinsically broken so I don't really agree it needs to be "fixed" in any significant way. *shrugs*

Brainbot wrote:

One of the biggest flaws was the fire/kin combo and its over shadowing capabilities compared to most any other combo. Pets coupled with lockdown and enormous buffs is a broken mechanic IMO. I strongly think the reason why Kin was avoided in MM's was because of its game breaking capability.

Yes clearly Kinetics provided a "boost" to these ATs that was arguably too strong for its own good. Imagine what Fire/Kin was like back at the beginning of CoH when you could have 6-12 EVEN level Fire Imps up and running around simultaneously! That was clearly ridiculous and easily justified why the Fire Imp power was nerfed like 4 different times in a row. ;)

Brainbot wrote:

This is why I think other ways to provide damage to the mez/support should be considered before pets.

Again I'm willing to consider alternatives to pets for some of these classes but I don't think pets should be completely removed from Control-type classes in CoT. If you disregard the specific problems with Kinetics the Controller pets in general weren't all that bad. I would favor coming up with multiple types of Control-type powersets which would provide an array of options both pet-oriented and non-pet oriented. Pets weren't the problem all by themselves but I agree there could be more options that range from pet-based to petless.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

harpospoke
harpospoke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 00:13
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

All Operators (control primary) Specs can use any of the Mastery powers abailable to the Class. Don't forget you can follow a Mastery in one tree, choose the starting power of 3, or have 2 of one and the starter of another.
With reagards to concerns of control power set damage capability, it was one of the issues I've aimed to address.
Not that control powers are meant to achieve dps, but there are a couple of things to note. Different players will end up enjoying different play styles. And some enjoy the aslpect of controlling targets and supporting the team, without worry of damage, while othet want that feeling of control, support, and more offense.
Different control sets will have some different capabilities when it comes to this apsect. Another aspect is how damage over time was handled in CoH and how we will handle it differently with regards to duration.
Then of course as mentioned is the introduction of Tertiary sets allowing players to round out their character a bit. If a player wants to add some offense to their controller, picking the appropriate Tertiary powers is the way to go.
Of course the best thing would be to take an Operator with a ranged Secondary when it comes out. Or, use one of your alternate builds to switch your Spec when you desire a switch up.

That sounds great.

Sounds like how CoH did it. Controllers were my favorite class. Each primary was different with regard to control and damage as you mentioned here. I didn't always have the same mood so what you said about different players applied to me as an individual.

There were days when my Fire/Kin was just what I wanted. The old farm thing was a lot of fun at times.

But then more often than not, my mood was for a more team oriented session where I didn't have to provide any damage. I did have a team build for the Fire Controller but it wasn't enough to scratch that itch. That's when I broke out the Ice, Mind, Grav, Plant, and Earth controllers. Complete and utter dominance....but I couldn't kill anything. lol And each one of them locked down the batttlefield in a different way so I had to switch around a lot. Locking it down with Mind was a very different thing than locking it down with Earth.

Then there was the in-between Controller...my Illusion/Rad. Decent control and decent damage. Big toolkit was really the allure of that one. He had something for every situation it seemed.

So if you guys are shooting for that kind of range in one AT, I'm all in.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

TBH, I actually don't consider the Mez/Support class to be intrinsically broken so I don't really agree it needs to be "fixed" in any significant way. *shrugs*

That's fine, although I never said they were broken I said they were flawed.
I personally found controllers to be a one trick pony that had very little variation in game play regardless of the mez or support power set chosen. In most cases you spammed your controls then let your buff pet(s) do the clean up. It clearly led to the mez set with the best pets and the best buff secondary being the stand out winner in Controllers. That's what I am saying with all my issues. When you have one play style associated with a class you remove variety and set up clear best build options. It's not about leveling or DPS, its about options in build and play style.
Even Dominators, which I loved, suffered from the same limitations in primary build options that Controllers had, it was just offset by more versatility with the assault secondary.

My issue with pets on controllers, for the most part, is that most buffs are designed to be applied to another and not oneself. With pets being the primary source of damage a mez/support has, it sets up a situation which buff disadvantages are circumvented to a degree that turns the restriction into an advantage. While in most cases this is not broken, it is still clearly a flawed design IMO.

harpospoke
harpospoke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 00:13
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

That's fine, although I never said they were broken I said they were flawed.
I personally found controllers to be a one trick pony that had very little variation in game play regardless of the mez or support power set chosen. In most cases you spammed your controls then let your buff pet(s) do the clean up. It clearly led to the mez set with the best pets and the best buff secondary being the stand out winner in Controllers. That's what I am saying with all my issues. When you have one play style associated with a class you remove variety and set up clear best build options. It's not about leveling or DPS, its about options in build and play style.

Boy we must have played a different game. You talking about CoH? You thought Illusion, Earth, Mind, Fire, Grav, Plant, etc played the same? I couldn't disagree more. Whole different mindset even before you added in the secondary.

Deathwatch101
Deathwatch101's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 03/30/2016 - 15:26
With the planned dynamics for

With the planned dynamics for Archetypes and their long ranging cover with its combination with powers, Im hoping im gonna be able to pull off my "normi" soldier support character.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
harpospoke wrote:
harpospoke wrote:

Boy we must have played a different game. You talking about CoH? You thought Illusion, Earth, Mind, Fire, Grav, Plant, etc played the same? I couldn't disagree more. Whole different mindset even before you added in the secondary.

Yes I do think mez sets played the same, with the exception of Illusion and possibly (but not really) Mind.

Go ahead and explain how they played differently to one another. I mean, I am pretty sure you didn't read any of the conversation before you took my one statement out of context in order to imply I am wrong without explaining anything. So please, how do the sets differ in play style?

harpospoke
harpospoke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 00:13
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Yes I do think mez sets played the same, with the exception of Illusion and possibly (but not really) Mind.
Go ahead and explain how they played differently to one another. I mean, I am pretty sure you didn't read any of the conversation before you took my one statement out of context in order to imply I am wrong without explaining anything. So please, how do the sets differ in play style?

Pretty much every way. Earth was the most controllery one I played. I could lock everything down in many ways. No damage of course so that's a team character. Improving everyone's accuracy (-Def) was something of great value that probably only I knew about on the team. I also made great use of the sleep power to save teams from side aggro. For my money, Volcanic Gasses was the best hold in the game.

Ice was more tactical especially as a Stormie. I created controlled chaos and the slows were amazing (and underrated). I could actually move the battlefield if I wanted. Arctic Ice was one of my favorite powers. No real damage there either.

Illusion with Rad was the big bag of tricks. I was more versatile than with any of my other Controllers. The confuse power was both useful and hilarious. The awesome invis power gave me the ability to sneak around (although I think it got nerfed late in the game) and TP ally to me. The PA were the most unique pets I had on any character. Loved those guys. Totally loved the fear power too. The pet was my favorite. He seemed smart.

Fire was more damage but came with the headache of three really dumb pets that tripled the threat of unwanted aggro. Not as controllery though. Bonfire was more useful than its rep if you ask me. I used it to open Boss fights a lot.

Mind was a lockdown set but it seemed like I had to think about it more. I could just keep a foe asleep if I wanted. Levitating was a blast while telekinesis was a great mass hold power if you had a wall handy. The mass confuse was a nice bailout power if things went south.

Grav was one I didn't enjoy as much but I did love the pet. Never could figure out how to get the most out of Dimension Shift and Wormhole.

Carrion Creepers and Fly Trap made the Plant set for me all by themselves. Paired it up with Trick Arrow for uber control. That was a great combo.

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

And with how we have set things up with Tertiaries, anyone could get access to protection powers to help with reducing control effects.

That was one of the bigger imbalances with CoH: just about all of the scrapper classes had mez defense powers, while blasters generally had nothing.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
This is why context is

harpospoke, this is why context is important.

What you are describing is the powers in a set not the play style, at least not in the way I was using it when you jumped in.

Mez, as it was designed in CoH, was a support ability so regardless of your situation you were in a support role. When solo you supported your pets and on teams you supported your team. There is nothing wrong with this as a choice if the players wants to go that route but for Controllers it was the only route. Their play style was support. CoH spent years trying to turn mez sets from support into offense and had some fairly mixed results.

Now take a look at a Dominator. You could easily build for pure mez and play a support role similar (not exact) to the way a Controller does or you can swap out some control powers for more direct ways to deal damage from the assault set. A dominator could be a support class or an offensive class. They were designed to offer different play styles from the get go unlike Controllers.

harpospoke
harpospoke's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 00:13
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

harpospoke, this is why context is important.
What you are describing is the powers in a set not the play style, at least not in the way I was using it when you jumped in.
Mez, as it was designed in CoH, was a support ability so regardless of your situation you were in a support role. When solo you supported your pets and on teams you supported your team. There is nothing wrong with this as a choice if the players wants to go that route but for Controllers it was the only route. Their play style was support. CoH spent years trying to turn mez sets from support into offense and had some fairly mixed results.
Now take a look at a Dominator. You could easily build for pure mez and play a support role similar (not exact) to the way a Controller does or you can swap out some control powers for more direct ways to deal damage from the assault set. A dominator could be a support class or an offensive class. They were designed to offer different play styles from the get go unlike Controllers.

Well then all Scrapper played the same too if you want to define "playstyle" that way. Also all Blasters were the same. All Tankers were the same as well. And yes of course that means all Defenders were all the same.

But the truth is they didn't really play the same way. There were different tactics for each Controller primary. My Ice Controller actually stayed in melee range much of the time while the Mind Controller was able to stay at range. They didn't have the same amount of control, the damage potential was different, and the pets were different.

Actually I think the Controller AT had more variety than any other AT. Probably why it was my favorite.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 12 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
harpospoke wrote:
harpospoke wrote:

Brainbot wrote:
Yes I do think mez sets played the same, with the exception of Illusion and possibly (but not really) Mind.
Go ahead and explain how they played differently to one another. I mean, I am pretty sure you didn't read any of the conversation before you took my one statement out of context in order to imply I am wrong without explaining anything. So please, how do the sets differ in play style?
Pretty much every way. Earth was the most controllery one I played. I could lock everything down in many ways. No damage of course so that's a team character. Improving everyone's accuracy (-Def) was something of great value that probably only I knew about on the team. I also made great use of the sleep power to save teams from side aggro. For my money, Volcanic Gasses was the best hold in the game.
Ice was more tactical especially as a Stormie. I created controlled chaos and the slows were amazing (and underrated). I could actually move the battlefield if I wanted. Arctic Ice was one of my favorite powers. No real damage there either.
Illusion with Rad was the big bag of tricks. I was more versatile than with any of my other Controllers. The confuse power was both useful and hilarious. The awesome invis power gave me the ability to sneak around (although I think it got nerfed late in the game) and TP ally to me. The PA were the most unique pets I had on any character. Loved those guys. Totally loved the fear power too. The pet was my favorite. He seemed smart.
Fire was more damage but came with the headache of three really dumb pets that tripled the threat of unwanted aggro. Not as controllery though. Bonfire was more useful than its rep if you ask me. I used it to open Boss fights a lot.
Mind was a lockdown set but it seemed like I had to think about it more. I could just keep a foe asleep if I wanted. Levitating was a blast while telekinesis was a great mass hold power if you had a wall handy. The mass confuse was a nice bailout power if things went south.
Grav was one I didn't enjoy as much but I did love the pet. Never could figure out how to get the most out of Dimension Shift and Wormhole.
Carrion Creepers and Fly Trap made the Plant set for me all by themselves. Paired it up with Trick Arrow for uber control. That was a great combo.

Ice's best control always seemed to be Ice Slick, until they started making enemies who laughed at the power and IOs made teams not need it more. Never felt it really recovered from that.

However, I do agree that the sets played differently.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
harpospoke wrote:
harpospoke wrote:

Well then all Scrapper played the same too if you want to define "playstyle" that way. Also all Blasters were the same. All Tankers were the same as well. And yes of course that means all Defenders were all the same.

That's right, many of the classes in CoH had limited variety in play style and I have said that all sets, not just mez, should offer variety a few times now in this conversation. But as we were discussing Controllers that was the focus of my attention.

We obviously differ in opinion about the definition of play style in a combat focused game. To me it means offense and defense/support. To you it has to do with where you stand and when to use a power. If you had taken the time to go back and read the previous posts you would understand that I am talking about my definition of play style and not yours.

Look, I get that you think I am insulting your favorite class and feel the need to defend it but I'm really not. I am using the example of the struggle CoH had in making Controllers a more rounded class and the comparison of Dominators play style options to support my opinion that a mez/support set should be designed with options towards damage capabilities.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 29 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Quote:
Quote:

Look, I get that you think I am insulting your favorite class and feel the need to defend it but I'm really not. I am using the example of the struggle CoH had in making Controllers a more rounded class and the comparison of Dominators play style options to support my opinion that a mez/support set should be designed with options towards damage capabilities.

I'm going to partially agree with you on this. Only in the matter that there were, after changes, sufficient damage in CoH for its base combat loop. And often that allowed the Controller a fair amount of securiity due to mez, but this came at a cost of time.

The goal here shouldn't be to tweak each class into homogeny of performance of damage or sustainabiliiry, but to have anvariance in multiple degrees between damage, sustainabiity, and utility.

Part of this is about giving Control sets the basic capability to perform within the basic combat loop.
Niw, it has been stated that some of the control sets withnthe right combination of secondaries at higher levels of the game had high performance capabilith.

Some controllers were capable of doing things only a few scrapper builds were capable of. Meanwhile other builds were highly team oriented - as a matter of choice. This brought a lot of versatility and variety to the Controller AT.

I will disagree with you on kne point, positioning js a part of play style. Attacking from range and attacking from melee - even if both at the most basic level are performing the same function - depleting target hp, can have a very different feel of play. Even if it is part a psychological factor - they botj affect how the player can engage in the game play - hence they are part of play styles.

To take this a step fiurther, does your ranged effect require active target (pc / noc) or a location? Posittioning location effects can also require different ways of engsnging in play and can be another factor in play style.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

I will disagree with you on kne point, positioning js a part of play style. Attacking from range and attacking from melee - even if both at the most basic level are performing the same function - depleting target hp, can have a very different feel of play. Even if it is part a psychological factor - they botj affect how the player can engage in the game play - hence they are part of play styles.

See this is what frustrates me. Isolating one part of my opinion and trying to use it as the reason to have a whole different argument.

Fine you win. Despite the fact that I was talking about something else and you involved yourself in the middle of a conversation I will allow you to redefine the manner in which I am making my points so you can maintain your singular view of one term I used. I will not say play style anymore instead I will now use the much more inflamitory and divisive term 'Role' because that has worked so well in the past. In CoH Controllers were not designed to fill any ROLE except for support and this is due to their limited and unvaried offensive abilities.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 29 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
I will disagree with you on kne point, positioning js a part of play style. Attacking from range and attacking from melee - even if both at the most basic level are performing the same function - depleting target hp, can have a very different feel of play. Even if it is part a psychological factor - they botj affect how the player can engage in the game play - hence they are part of play styles.
See this is what frustrates me. Isolating one part of my opinion and trying to use it as the reason to have a whole different argument.
Fine you win. Despite the fact that I was talking about something else and you involved yourself in the middle of a conversation I will allow you to redefine the manner in which I am making my points so you can maintain your singular view of one term I used. I will not say play style anymore instead I will now use the much more inflamitory and divisive term 'Role' because that has worked so well in the past. In CoH Controllers were not designed to fill any ROLE except for support and this is due to their limited and unvaried offensive abilities.

I didn't mean to upset you there. Just a disagreement. Though, I shoulld even correct myself here: it is a matter of...nuance.

You are correct. Support is a play style as much as tanking js, or dps. And we do consider controlling to be a distinctive play style (though this is in part paychilogical as debuffing a target suffciently can result in nullifying the threat they represent ad mich as controlling them). But anyway.

Ywt even withi these let us call them major play styles, there are layers. Ranged attacks vs melee, area attacks compared to single target, location placement, and others can all be part of the play style. This results in a variance in how different sets are designed even within the same AT to provide a different method of play - a variance of the play style.

And Controller sets did have varied offensive capability, and when paired with certain secondaries, they could have respectable output.

The issue here is they had a steeper curve to climb compared to other ATs. And yet, some could compete with certain scrapper builds.

There were sets which certainly did have limited offense capability and when paired with certain secondaries, only compounded thiis issue.
These were more team oriented support builds.

Both existed within the same AT. And there were people who enjoyed both.

Now, if we increase the offense viability at the early levels, we also have to bring down the high end capability, reducing the steepness of the curve.

There will still be a varience in offensive capability certainly. And we don't have to make too much adjustment here because of the differences in design I sttated previously.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

And Controller sets did have varied offensive capability, and when paired with certain secondaries, they could have respectable output.

When I say varied I am talking about variety not degrees. Pretty much all offensive capabilities for Controllers came mainly from pets (or pseudo pets through confuse powers) and to a small extent from Ancillary choices. There were some exceptions like Gravity's Propel or Fire's Bonfire for example.

Even though some combinations of mez and support were able to reach a very high damage output this was not by design as is evident by the struggle CoH had in finding a way to round out the class. Controllers were originally designed as a support class with very limited offensive capabilities. They were in essence support (mez)/support (buff).

Issues with the class started to become apparent when players saw the reversal of buff disadvantages into advantages when used on personal pets. Many of the larger buffs provided by support sets were intended to be used on others but pets allowed Controllers to circumvent that disadvantage and in practice were actually buffing their own attacks. This resulted in a fairly obvious choice for players who wanted to play an offensive Controller. Which started the complaints from players about this disparity in combos which resulted in nerfs because Controllers were never intended to be an offensive powerhouse. When that didn't provide the right balance they looked at ways to buff Controllers without making the pets stronger. Eventually they settled on a solution which was never quite right IMO.

The reason why it always seemed a flawed solution was they never changed the idea that pets were a main source of damage output for controllers. If mez sets had a few more options in offense as a choice and most sets had their pet powers removed then more Controller combos would have an offensive option to explore. Of course that change might have been too drastic in an established power set for players to accept.

This is why I am suggesting that mez sets in CoT be designed with an offensive option as well as a pure control option from the get go. I am not saying that the offensive option should be a power house (I would advise against that) just that mez sets have a way to build for offense. This way even a mez/support class has offensive options if the players decides to build that way but still lets them choose to be support focused.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I personally found controllers to be a one trick pony that had very little variation in game play regardless of the mez or support power set chosen. In most cases you spammed your controls then let your buff pet(s) do the clean up. It clearly led to the mez set with the best pets and the best buff secondary being the stand out winner in Controllers. That's what I am saying with all my issues. When you have one play style associated with a class you remove variety and set up clear best build options. It's not about leveling or DPS, its about options in build and play style.
Even Dominators, which I loved, suffered from the same limitations in primary build options that Controllers had, it was just offset by more versatility with the assault secondary.

I think your concept of Mez/Support being a "one trick pony" is interesting because when you talk about play style I think you're confusing "versatility" with "pace of play". Let me explain what I mean by that.

With the more DPS-oriented classes (and I'll even lump Dominators into that category) they usually had to actually do more moving around and "button-mashing" to get things done. This is especially true of Melee-oriented characters that usually had to get close to each target before they could kill them. We even collectively coined a term called "Scapperlock" to describe people paying so much attention on constantly moving/attacking that they sometimes lost sight of the situation around them.

Now on the other hand Controllers tended to be among the most "hands-off" type of players in the game. The very nature of their powers meant that by the time they got their pets (usually at level 32) they usually could engage an entire MOB group with only having to press maybe 5 or 6 buttons. Most of their activity against a MOB usually occurred in the first few seconds of engagement and then you usually only had to wait for the pets to finish.

So while the typical Scrapper/Brute is flailing away mashing buttons as quickly as possible the Controller could usually sit back and take a more measured, strategic approach. It's not that a class like Dominators had more "options" for their play style; it's that they usually just had to push more buttons during a typical engagement to get the job done. Remember that every AT had the same basic number of powers - what made them different is how often you had to use them.

Brainbot wrote:

That's fine, although I never said they were broken I said they were flawed.

My issue with pets on controllers, for the most part, is that most buffs are designed to be applied to another and not oneself. With pets being the primary source of damage a mez/support has, it sets up a situation which buff disadvantages are circumvented to a degree that turns the restriction into an advantage. While in most cases this is not broken, it is still clearly a flawed design IMO.

Again I think your use of the word "flawed" is not entirely justified here and I'll try to explain why in another way.

What you have to remember is that each AT/Class has a different "progression curve". What this means is that as each character progresses from level 1 to 50 they tend to be weaker or stronger compared to other classes depending on their own class. I think we can agree that the average Scrapper or Blaster was pretty capable from level 1 whereas the average Controller was relatively weak at low levels.

These classes usually tracked that way until around level 32 where Controllers finally got their pets. At that point Controllers usually got a huge jump in their overall capability as compared to most other classes. By level 50 one could even make the case (especially with the borderline overpowered powersets like Kinetics) that the average Controller was usually MORE generally capable of tackling entire MOBs than most other ATs were.

Think of this just like classic D&D with Fighters and Magic Users. We all know that low level MUs were pretty puny compared to low level Fighters. But eventually MUs got their higher level Fireballs and Lightning Bolts which meant by the end people were far more scared of what Gandalf could do to them than Aragorn. ;)

So the idea of pets being the main source of DPS for most controllers was not a "flaw" insomuch as a way to transition them from lower level weakness to upper level strength. Their progression curve was simply more of an actual upward curve like this:

whereas most other classes' upward progression was more of a straight line or even something like this:

Brainbot wrote:

Which started the complaints from players about this disparity in combos which resulted in nerfs because Controllers were never intended to be an offensive powerhouse.

Again we can probably agree that certain specific Controller powersets (i.e. Kinetics) were initially "overpowered" once they got their pets and certain nerfs were definitely needed (i.e. the initial version of Fire Imps).

But I would actually argue -against- the idea that "Controllers were never intended to be [...] powerhouse(s)". I actually think their entire progression curve was designed so that after you suffered through the weaker lower levels that you'd finally have very strong top-end characters to play with.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 21 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think the one thing nobody

I think the one thing nobody has said in response to the assertion that all controllers played the same, is that given we're talking about a single specific class (archetype in CoX parlance), why SHOULD one Controller be VASTLY different from another in that sense? In the final analysis, they are of the same class, aren't they? You can't expect a Controller to play like a Scrapper too much or they'd called a Scrapper, which is to say they would no longer be a Controller at all.

To me there has to be a limit to how much variability you have within the auspices of a given class, and when things exceed those limits, you have to say "Wait, this is what the other class is supposed to be like, let's not step on that class's toes too much. We don't want the best Blaster in the game to actually be a variant Controller build, right?" and then pull back on some of the versatility for the sake of having classes that have some definition to them in how they behave.

I think CoX did a decent job of making Controllers, Defenders, Tankers, Blasters, etc that played differently from each other within the same class while maintaining some semblance of "Nobody Tanks like a Tanker" even though some Scrappers, Brutes, etc would come awfully close. I think that's the better goal to have. There should be options within each class to provide some variability, but also differences between different classes to provide some class identity.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

I think the one thing nobody has said in response to the assertion that all controllers played the same, is that given we're talking about a single specific class (archetype in CoX parlance), why SHOULD one Controller be VASTLY different from another in that sense? In the final analysis, they are of the same class, aren't they? You can't expect a Controller to play like a Scrapper too much or they'd called a Scrapper, which is to say they would no longer be a Controller at all.

Clearly a character of class X needs to play differently than a character of class Y or else what's the point of having classes.

I think part of Brainbot's concern is that because CoH Controllers were arguably more radically different than most of the other classes were to each other that there may have been an issue that they were somehow "flawed" or "were lacking" in what made all the other classes play better(?) than Controllers. His argument was that since pretty much every other class had more DPS capability (at least in the lower levels) that somehow Controllers needed to be "adjusted" closer to the rest of the classes and that their relatively unique DPS generator (i.e. pets) needed to be done away with.

My argument is that the Mez/Support class worked just fine regardless of its significant differences. Also because CoT is going to provide options for playing Mez/Assault and Mez/Ranged classes that the specific need to make Mez/Support more like every other class is essentially eliminated. Basically if you don't want to play that "weird support" class you won't have to for a number of reasons.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I think part of Brainbot's concern is that because CoH Controllers were arguably more radically different than most of the other classes were to each other that there may have been an issue that they were somehow "flawed" or "were lacking" in what made all the other classes play better(?) than Controllers. His argument was that since pretty much every other class had more DPS capability (at least in the lower levels) that somehow Controllers needed to be "adjusted" closer to the rest of the classes and that their relatively unique DPS generator (i.e. pets) needed to be done away with.

The impression I have gotten is more about that Brainbot looks at the highest level "classification", or playstyle as BB seems to call it, (offensive defensive support) of the primary and secondary sets and since controllers only had sets from support while all other ATs had from 2 of those classifications made up one of the major factors for BB calling controllers "flawed". By shifting focus between the the primary and secondary set one could change the "playstyle" of the AT, in a sorta way.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

The impression I have gotten is more about that Brainbot looks at the highest level "classification", or playstyle as BB seems to call it, (offensive defensive support) of the primary and secondary sets and since controllers only had sets from support while all other ATs had from 2 of those classifications made up one of the major factors for BB calling controllers "flawed". By shifting focus between the the primary and secondary set one could change the "playstyle" of the AT, in a sorta way.

Even if we accept Brianbot's classification of the Mez/Support Controller as "Support/Support" there's no law that says that combo is and/or must be unplayably "flawed". The Controller AT did get modified/updated during CoH's 8.5 year run but so did practically every other AT during that time. Going by that metric one could say that EVERY AT in CoH must have been "flawed" to some degree.

Again it's clear that the Mez/Support Controller of CoH called for a much different "playstyle" than most of the other ATs and its method for "addressing" how it applied DPS (via pets) was relatively unique as well. I simply oppose the idea that A) there was a fundamental "flaw" because it was different and B) that the "solution" to that supposed flaw is to adjust the Mez/Support class to make it more like all the other classes (in terms of how it dishes out DPS). I don't think all the classes of a game like this needs to be laser-focused only on maximizing DPS. Bottomline if you don't like playing a support class (for whatever reason) you don't have to play one. *shrugs*

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I think your concept of Mez/Support being a "one trick pony" is interesting because when you talk about play style I think you're confusing "versatility" with "pace of play".

Well, you actually talk about what I mean when I say one trick pony when you say this:

Lothic wrote:

Most of their activity against a MOB usually occurred in the first few seconds of engagement and then you usually only had to wait for the pets to finish.

I just don't understand why you want to complicate my opinion with arguments I didn't make. I am not talking about button mashing or level progression or any thing else.
I am talking about offense vs defense/support.

Yes I am talking a bit about pace of play if only because an offense moves faster than defense/support.

Lothic wrote:

Remember that every AT had the same basic number of powers - what made them different is how often you had to use them.

Did you want to rephrase this cause it sounds like you are saying active engagement is the defining feature of a power. I'm sure that's not what you mean.

Lothic wrote:

Think of this just like classic D&D with Fighters and Magic Users. We all know that low level MUs were pretty puny compared to low level Fighters. But eventually MUs got their higher level Fireballs and Lightning Bolts which meant by the end people were far more scared of what Gandalf could do to them than Aragorn. ;)

That's my point, Controllers didn't get Fireballs and Lightning Bolts, they got pets. Just Like Gandalf, Controllers don't throw that many damage spells and instead made Merry and Pippin do all the fighting. There just wasn't a decent alternative to pets for an offensive Controller in CoH.

Lothic wrote:

So the idea of pets being the main source of DPS for most controllers was not a "flaw" insomuch as a way to transition them from lower level weakness to upper level strength.

Ok, just so I am clear, you are arguing that one power in a set should have so much influence on a character that it almost completely changes that characters capabilities? And that the power should be a 'fire and forget' power? That doesn't seem like a poor or flawed design to you?

Lothic wrote:

But I would actually argue -against- the idea that "Controllers were never intended to be [...] powerhouse(s)". I actually think their entire progression curve was designed so that after you suffered through the weaker lower levels that you'd finally have very strong top-end characters to play with.

Alright, but editing my statement to fit your argument does not affect the validity of my statement.
Also, there is no real reason to design a class that you have to suffer through lower levels with until you get to be strong. That again is a flawed design to me.
In truth, a Controller did not and by design should not have to suffer through low levels. They were a support class always intended to be useful to teams but not on it's own. It was playing against type that cause the suffering. Which is a reason I argue for a mez set in CoT having options for an offense focus to alleviate the narrow role they played in CoH. This does not mean you couldn't still choose to build a mez/support for that narrow role if you choose, it just allows an alternative.

In the end, your assessment of a Controllers progression curve and level of active engagement (button mashing) seems pretty solid, it just isn't what I am talking about.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

The impression I have gotten is more about that Brainbot looks at the highest level "classification", or playstyle as BB seems to call it, (offensive defensive support) of the primary and secondary sets and since controllers only had sets from support while all other ATs had from 2 of those classifications made up one of the major factors for BB calling controllers "flawed". By shifting focus between the the primary and secondary set one could change the "playstyle" of the AT, in a sorta way.

Yes, this is pretty much what I am saying. I did offer a way to fix my issue with the mez/support class which, despite Lothic's misplaced concerns, does not affect the a players ability to make a similarly pure support character like the Controllers of CoH.

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

I simply oppose the idea that A) there was a fundamental "flaw" because it was different and B) that the "solution" to that supposed flaw is to adjust the Mez/Support class to make it more like all the other classes (in terms of how it dishes out DPS). I don't think all the classes of a game like this needs to be laser-focused only on maximizing DPS. Bottomline if you don't like playing a support class (for whatever reason) you don't have to play one. *shrugs*

And this is where our conversation ends. I have learned from past engagements that when you begin ignoring what the other person says and start inventing things to rally against no amount of explanation will get you back on point.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Now on the other hand Controllers tended to be among the most "hands-off" type of players in the game. The very nature of their powers meant that by the time they got their pets (usually at level 32) they usually could engage an entire MOB group with only having to press maybe 5 or 6 buttons. Most of their activity against a MOB usually occurred in the first few seconds of engagement and then you usually only had to wait for the pets to finish.

I appreciated the whole post, but wanted to focus on this particular observation.

By the nature of their powers, most Controllers had to learn a strategic viewpoint. They were Squishy, so they stood back from the point of conflict and worked to gain control of the situation. Once control was achieved, then, yes they were basically 'done', except for maintaining the controls. That's because Controller powers were mostly Damage over Time. So, once they had control and were 'safe', it was just a matter of waiting for the time-to-defeat to run out.

Some Controller powersets did have a power that did damage in relatively large lumps, but recharge and endurance meant one couldn't just spam that power. So, when the AT's powers matured, when one finally had enough slots to go around, and then pets on top of that? Yes, a Controller's damage output rocketed.

I have a friend and game-mate who is a 'natural' Scrapper. By this, I mean that his own personality is very Scrapper-like and he tends to do Everything like a Scrapper would. In CoH, he could not stand to play a Controller. No 'RHAARGH!' in a Controller. So, I can understand how some people might have negative feelings about the AT. It simply appeals to a different mindset.

I found playing a Controller quite relaxing, myself.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

I just don't understand why you want to complicate my opinion with arguments I didn't make. I am not talking about button mashing or level progression or any thing else.

I am talking about offense vs defense/support.

Because only talking about this from some abstract level of "offense/defense classification" is pointless when you get down to the fact that some (maybe weird) people actually LIKED how Controllers worked regardless if it fit within your narrowly defined categories or not.

Brainbot wrote:

Yes I am talking a bit about pace of play if only because an offense moves faster than defense/support.

That's not a universally true statement. As I pointed out earlier HIGH level controllers could often move FASTER than other ATs. Trust me on this: I played thousands of hours with both Controllers and non-Controllers so the differences in speed between different ATs at different levels were obvious to me.

Brainbot wrote:

Did you want to rephrase this cause it sounds like you are saying active engagement is the defining feature of a power. I'm sure that's not what you mean.

Different ATs used their powers at different rates. Wasn't that obvious to you while you were playing?

If you liked ATs where you had to press a button dozens of times a minute then play those ATs.
If you liked ATs where you had to press a button only a couple of times a minute then play those ATs.

This was one of those core details that defined the "playstyle" of a given AT.

Brainbot wrote:

That's my point, Controllers didn't get Fireballs and Lightning Bolts, they got pets. Just Like Gandalf, Controllers don't throw that many damage spells and instead made Merry and Pippin do all the fighting. There just wasn't a decent alternative to pets for an offensive Controller in CoH.

Lol at least you carried my Gandolf analogy to its logical connection to CoH by mentioning that Gandolf usually got his "pets" to do most of the dirty work. :)

One more time I would entertain the idea of having more petless Control-type powerset options in CoT. I just continue to disagree with the assertion that all pet options should be categorically removed from CoT or even that the use of pets in the first place is fundamentally "flawed". Sure a pet user is unique, but that doesn't automatically mean that it must be changed to work like all the other petless classes.

Brainbot wrote:

Ok, just so I am clear, you are arguing that one power in a set should have so much influence on a character that it almost completely changes that characters capabilities? And that the power should be a 'fire and forget' power? That doesn't seem like a poor or flawed design to you?

I'm not just "arguing" that pets had that much influence over Controllers but I accept that as a fundamental truth of the AT. Clearly if you had spent any serious time playing Controllers you would know there was a clear demarcation in ability between "pre-pet" vs. "post-pet". Just like when D&D Magic Users could start using 4th and 5th level spells there was a clear "before and after" with the class where its capabilities would begin to skyrocket in the later levels.

You act like games have never designed their classes to follow different progression curves before. That's been going on in RPGs like this for roughly 45+ years now.

Brainbot wrote:

Alright, but editing my statement to fit your argument does not affect the validity of my statement.

Actually I was trying to be nice to you. My level 50 Controllers were often in fact OFFENSIVE powerhouses but I didn't want your DPS-oriented classes to feel inadequate. ;)

Brainbot wrote:

Also, there is no real reason to design a class that you have to suffer through lower levels with until you get to be strong. That again is a flawed design to me.

I can accept that as your opinion. On the other hand I've played many RPGs over the years that had classes that started off "relatively weak" compared to the other classes and then blossomed later on. No one will ever make you play a class like that if you don't want to but oftentimes games "reward" players for "suffering" with characters that approach godlike-status in the end. If you like swinging the same claws at level 50 as you did at level 1 go right ahead.

Brainbot wrote:

In truth, a Controller did not and by design should not have to suffer through low levels. They were a support class always intended to be useful to teams but not on it's own. It was playing against type that cause the suffering.

How can a class be "flawed" if players are CHOOSING to play against its type?

Brainbot wrote:

Which is a reason I argue for a mez set in CoT having options for an offense focus to alleviate the narrow role they played in CoH.

Why? It should be up to the player to play a class "against type" as you say if they want to. That doesn't mean the class needs to be changed to accommodate them.

Brainbot wrote:

This does not mean you couldn't still choose to build a mez/support for that narrow role if you choose, it just allows an alternative.

The tools to let you play "against type" were continually added to CoH over its lifetime. By the end it was relatively simple to solo a Controller if you wanted to at any level. No reason to think CoT will step backward in that regard.

Brainbot wrote:

In the end, your assessment of a Controllers progression curve and level of active engagement (button mashing) seems pretty solid, it just isn't what I am talking about.

Again I can accept we might disagree on this. My point is that what you considered to be "flawed" (a class that starts out relatively hard to play then becomes godlike easy with pets) is not really a problem in a game like this. The "problem" may simply be you don't like how Controllers were designed to work. Nothing wrong with that but your solutions to that problem will be the Mez/Assault and Mez/Ranged classes, not the homogenized neutering of the Mez/Support class.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Lothic wrote:
I simply oppose the idea that A) there was a fundamental "flaw" because it was different and B) that the "solution" to that supposed flaw is to adjust the Mez/Support class to make it more like all the other classes (in terms of how it dishes out DPS). I don't think all the classes of a game like this needs to be laser-focused only on maximizing DPS. Bottomline if you don't like playing a support class (for whatever reason) you don't have to play one. *shrugs*
And this is where our conversation ends. I have learned from past engagements that when you begin ignoring what the other person says and start inventing things to rally against no amount of explanation will get you back on point.

Well if there's any consolation once I get into the "mode" of realizing that I'm right about something it's hard for me to change my own mind. ;)

Besides what I'm I "inventing" here? You're the one who wants to strip the pets from one of the only ATs that have pets in the entire game and make that AT do more of its DPS just like every other AT does. Did I get that idea of yours wrong?

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Brainbot wrote:
Brainbot wrote:

Yes, this is pretty much what I am saying. I did offer a way to fix my issue with the mez/support class which, despite Lothic's misplaced concerns, does not affect the a players ability to make a similarly pure support character like the Controllers of CoH.

Your "fix" would fundamentally change how Mez/Support Controllers work if I couldn't choose to play with the classic powersets that relied on pets the way they did in CoH.

If you accept the compromise I've been talking about where SOME Control powerset are petless and SOME are classically pet-oriented then we're fine. It's just not clear that you would be amenable to that. Most of you posts on this topic have been implying that "pets ARE the problem that must be fixed" which seems to leave no quarter for people like me who don't actually accept there's a problem here.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Brainbot
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 04/25/2016 - 21:30
Sorry Lothic, until you stop

Sorry Lothic, until you stop confusing:

Lothic wrote:

fundamentally change how Mez/Support Controllers work

with

Brainbot wrote:

I am suggesting that mez sets in CoT be designed with an offensive option as well as a pure control option

and

Lothic wrote:

strip the pets from one of the only ATs that have pets

with

Brainbot wrote:

Not every mez set should have pets

as well as inventing arguments I didn't make like progression and button mashing, there isn't much to talk about.

TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

I didn't mean to upset you there. Just a disagreement. Though, I shoulld even correct myself here: it is a matter of...nuance.
You are correct. Support is a play style as much as tanking js, or dps. And we do consider controlling to be a distinctive play style (though this is in part paychilogical as debuffing a target suffciently can result in nullifying the threat they represent ad mich as controlling them). But anyway.
Ywt even withi these let us call them major play styles, there are layers. Ranged attacks vs melee, area attacks compared to single target, location placement, and others can all be part of the play style. This results in a variance in how different sets are designed even within the same AT to provide a different method of play - a variance of the play style.
And Controller sets did have varied offensive capability, and when paired with certain secondaries, they could have respectable output.
The issue here is they had a steeper curve to climb compared to other ATs. And yet, some could compete with certain scrapper builds.
There were sets which certainly did have limited offense capability and when paired with certain secondaries, only compounded thiis issue.
These were more team oriented support builds.
Both existed within the same AT. And there were people who enjoyed both.
Now, if we increase the offense viability at the early levels, we also have to bring down the high end capability, reducing the steepness of the curve.
There will still be a varience in offensive capability certainly. And we don't have to make too much adjustment here because of the differences in design I sttated previously.

It make sens for me. Controllers are not a first line in battlefield. They must stay behind and control the chessbaord. But sometimes, some are more offensive than others but not to equals a dps of course. No, it really make sens to me that controllers must do more efforts to equals a certain amount of damages.

TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Or, use one of your alternate builds to switch your Spec when you desire a switch up.

I wasn't aware of that ! Oo
How can i miss this element ? Where did yo tell us that ? OMG OMG OMG ^^

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 29 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
TitansCity wrote:
TitansCity wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
Or, use one of your alternate builds to switch your Spec when you desire a switch up.
I wasn't aware of that ! Oo
How can i miss this element ? Where did yo tell us that ? OMG OMG OMG ^^

In the update l: What We Can Do: Powers
Under the heading for Secondaries.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
Thanks Tannim22 !

Thanks Tannim22 !
I was so excited to look at what you've made, i didn't even take the time to read ^^
I'll do a news on that in a few days for french heroes (who begin to follow CoT's dev)

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 31 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
TitansCity wrote:
TitansCity wrote:

Thanks Tannim22 !
I was so excited to look at what you've made, i didn't even take the time to read ^^
I'll do a news on that in a few days for french heroes (who begin to follow CoT's dev)

Oh yeah, quite a few people weighed in on that can of worms (the ability to switch secondaries within your AT) when it was opened in the discussion thread.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 21 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I made Defenders and

I made Defenders and Controllers (yes I did have one) in CoX because I liked playing in groups on TFs as a way of leveling fast (and early on, you got a guaranteed SO drop at the end of each TF. Oh boy!). So I didn't really care about my own DPS because everyone else was making Blasters and Scrappers anyway and I knew that TF teams would be looking for a good support toon, usually, so I made those. It was like playing a Mastermind before Masterminds were invented. All of you were my DPS pets. I just had to keep you alive and well buffed. And debuff bosses. And occasionally rez people.

My Controller (He was Grav/Kin):

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Basically playing Controllers take tactics that are almost diametrically opposed to playing things like Scrappers or Brutes so if you love "Scrapperlock" then Controllers are always going to seem too weird, too slow or even too wimpy because you're somehow not -willing- to get hit.

Fireheart wrote:

I have a friend and game-mate who is a 'natural' Scrapper. By this, I mean that his own personality is very Scrapper-like and he tends to do Everything like a Scrapper would. In CoH, he could not stand to play a Controller. No 'RHAARGH!' in a Controller. So, I can understand how some people might have negative feelings about the AT. It simply appeals to a different mindset.

I found playing a Controller quite relaxing, myself.

Wow ... I find these comments so contrary to my own personal experiences.

Redlynne was a Martial Arts/Super Reflexes/Soul Mastery Scrapper by her last respec, although I always described her as being either a "pocket tank" or as a Scranktroller at the end. Redlynne was my first character in City of Heroes (starting in Issue 2!) whose "birthright" and reason for playing was always intended to be NO GET HITSU!! of pushing Defenses to the softcap. Playing Redlynne got me lost in Scrapperlock ALL THE TIME. At heart, I was totally a Scrapper! Once a Scrapper always a Scrapper!

My first alt was ... Ms Givings ... a Mind Controller(!). Turns out I also enjoyed playing a Controller very much.

After that I picked up all of the Hero Archetypes except for Blaster (I could never get into a Blaster mindset, ironically, just too darn squishy!). I enjoyed playing my Warshade significantly more than my Peacebringer, even though both of them were Tri-Former builds. I liked playing Controllers more than I liked playing Defenders, although Ms Givings (Mind/Kin Controller) and Sidhe Bang (Storm/Dual Pistols Defender) were really neck and neck as far as which one was the most fun to play. Shirayukihime, my Ice/Ice/Arctic Tanker played more like a Brute who wouldn't share aggro with any of the other Tankers when I brought her out for Tanker Tuesday runs. Yeah, a team of 8 Tankers, and 7 of them are crying for aggro because *I* wouldn't let them grab (or keep) any aggro during an entire Imperious Task Force run.

Over on Redside, I got closer to playing a Blaster than anything else with my Huntsman ... Leggs ... who picked the Crab Soldier for her alternate build (and thus had the backpack full time). Leggs played like a sort of hybrid Assault Rifle Blaster/Force Field Defender with Mez Protection who kept winding up ankle deep in spent brass casings. Leggs let me go full on Scrapperlock while at range. I also had a Ninja/Trick Arrow Mastermind ... Ku No Ichi ... who was hands down quite possibly the most gimped combination of powersets possible.

Suffice it to say that I found my natural inclination for (and love of) Scrapperlock adequately satisfied when playing my Controllers. Perhaps that's because I've always been a patient Player, rather than someone who resents "wasted" time.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Wow ... I find these comments so contrary to my own personal experiences.

Well, of course, your mileage may always vary. Every archetype had it's good bits. I also had the most trouble with Blasters, but my Human-form Peacebringer did everything a Blaster did, and more. My Huntsman also proved that a 'Blaster' with a bit of armor was grossly unfair to the opposition. I just could not 'get' Stalkers and by the time CoH closed down, I had deleted every one I'd made. Tankers, Controllers, and 'Offenders' were most of my roster.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
For me I define "scrapperlock

For me I define "scrapperlock" and, well, "playing as a Controller" (too bad nobody came up with a clever nickname for that) as being diametric opposite playstyles based mainly on one factor alone: your willingness/ability to take hits.

As you're aware a well built Scrapper could usually just hop right into the middle of a typical MOB and start flailing away because based on their DEF/RES values they could usually survive multiple direct attacks without breaking a sweat. This was the basis of the negative connotation of the term 'scapperlock' because oftentimes the scrapper in question had so little risk of being individually defeated that they'd become complacent and willing to just keep plowing ahead without noticing what the rest of the team might be doing.

On the other hand playing as a Controller meant that if you started taking ANY hits at all you were doing something wrong. Controllers survived with having no significant DEF/RES stats by adopting a mindset that not getting hit at all is the best defense. Keeping MOBs locked down and keeping their pets as buffers between themselves and MOBs kept them from even getting touched most of the time.

I'm not trying to imply that Controllers couldn't be reckless or that Scrappers couldn't be cautious. I'm just saying that the nature of their ATs and powersets had a big effect on encouraging these types of "typical" playstyles.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

"playing as a Controller" (too bad nobody came up with a clever nickname for that)

City of Statues

FTFY


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Grimfox
Grimfox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 42 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/05/2014 - 10:17
It's interesting. This idea

It's interesting. This idea that all trolls played the same. I only have my personal experience. I could never get into trolls. I made minders and stormies both of which I envied when teaming. I saw what they did and was amazed. But I could never take those characters to completion. But then came Plant control. I made a Plant/Rad and could not stop playing. I wonder then, how I was able to do that if all the controllers played the same? For reference I also played a lot of scrappers. And blasters.

Certainly there are some similarities between some powersets particularly when looking at the early powersets. Looking at scrappers sets (my wheelhouse) Katana and Broadsword were nearly identical even sharing some animations. As time went on they added new sets like Dual Blades which was thematically very similar to BS and Kat played a whole lot differently. They learned how to make a set that played uniquely despite being very similar. Just as COH devs learned how to make their powersets unique I think MWM can do the same. They've got a lot more experience having watched paragon and cryptic do it. I think AD helps them here too. They can look very closely at the way powers operate without having to also balance that with the style. (those poor animators) So hopefully a great deal of the argument is moot.

It seems to me that too high a view is being taken. We're missing the trees for the forest.

(at)Roxanna - Little Sister - Plutonium Bloom - MilkShakes
Triumph
Guardian
Virtue

Dev Tracker: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/fixing-dev-digest
Dev Comments: https://cityoftitans.com/forum/dev-comments

Greyhawk
Greyhawk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 3 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/03/2015 - 19:17
Only made one Controller, Ice

Only made one Controller, Ice/??? I think. Played it up to level 20 or so and deleted it. It didn't suit me.

Dominators, on the other hand, were wonderful. Fire/Fire, Mind/Psi, Plant I loved as a primary, but had a hard time finding a suitable secondary. Plant/Thorn never felt comfortable for some reason.I made some Fire/Ice and Ice/Fire Dominators just for the fun of it. I quite enjoyed them. I had several in their 30s at the end.

I'm looking forward to CoT because I am eager to see how their whole power/aesthetic decoupling system affects core archetype building. I'm heartbroken there will be no Operator/Commander (or whatever the pet class is being called!) at launch, but I understand. It is a much more involved process to design a successful pet class.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B000APIPZC?ref_=pe_584750_33951330

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Grimfox wrote:
Grimfox wrote:

It's interesting. This idea that all trolls played the same. I only have my personal experience. I could never get into trolls. I made minders and stormies both of which I envied when teaming. I saw what they did and was amazed. But I could never take those characters to completion. But then came Plant control. I made a Plant/Rad and could not stop playing. I wonder then, how I was able to do that if all the controllers played the same? For reference I also played a lot of scrappers. And blasters.

Certainly there are some similarities between some powersets particularly when looking at the early powersets. Looking at scrappers sets (my wheelhouse) Katana and Broadsword were nearly identical even sharing some animations. As time went on they added new sets like Dual Blades which was thematically very similar to BS and Kat played a whole lot differently. They learned how to make a set that played uniquely despite being very similar. Just as COH devs learned how to make their powersets unique I think MWM can do the same. They've got a lot more experience having watched paragon and cryptic do it. I think AD helps them here too. They can look very closely at the way powers operate without having to also balance that with the style. (those poor animators) So hopefully a great deal of the argument is moot.

It seems to me that too high a view is being taken. We're missing the trees for the forest.

Everything's relative. If you compared Controllers to any other AT you could easily say "all Controllers played the same" compared to those other ATs. But obviously if you compared one type of Controller directly with another you could find subtle differences between them. I was talking more about "Controllers versus other ATs" in my earlier posts.

I supsect you might have enjoyed the Plant powerset because it was one of the newer sets (originally introduced for Doms in CoV) so out of all the Controller primaries it probably had a higher DPS capability than most of the other sets. Nothing wrong with that, but like I said compared to "minders and stormies" playing a Plant was probably just about as different as you could get and still be playing a Controller. Also the animations of Plant were pretty cool and there's nothing wrong with liking the way some powerset look more than others.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Greyhawk wrote:
Greyhawk wrote:

Only made one Controller, Ice/??? I think. Played it up to level 20 or so and deleted it. It didn't suit me.

Dominators, on the other hand, were wonderful. Fire/Fire, Mind/Psi, Plant I loved as a primary, but had a hard time finding a suitable secondary. Plant/Thorn never felt comfortable for some reason.I made some Fire/Ice and Ice/Fire Dominators just for the fun of it. I quite enjoyed them. I had several in their 30s at the end.

Well Dominators replaced the "Support" secondary of Controllers with a new kind of secondary called "Assault" which was basically a half-n-half mix of melee and ranged attack powers. This turned blueside-style Controllers into a weird variation of a Defender/Blaster mix that combined good Mez (especially when Domination kicked in) with reasonable DPS output. Basically Dominators were Controllers that also had semi-decent DPS.

This is why I'm looking forward to CoT and its new AT combination of Mez/Ranged. Unlike the CoH Dominator (Mez/Assault) this new AT is should be more fully all-range oriented instead of being half-n-half melee and ranged. A Hovering Mez/Ranged character should be a relative powerhouse in CoT. ;)

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

OathboundOne
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 59 sec ago
Joined: 03/06/2016 - 16:15
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

Grimfox wrote:
It's interesting. This idea that all trolls played the same. I only have my personal experience. I could never get into trolls. I made minders and stormies both of which I envied when teaming. I saw what they did and was amazed. But I could never take those characters to completion. But then came Plant control. I made a Plant/Rad and could not stop playing. I wonder then, how I was able to do that if all the controllers played the same? For reference I also played a lot of scrappers. And blasters.
Certainly there are some similarities between some powersets particularly when looking at the early powersets. Looking at scrappers sets (my wheelhouse) Katana and Broadsword were nearly identical even sharing some animations. As time went on they added new sets like Dual Blades which was thematically very similar to BS and Kat played a whole lot differently. They learned how to make a set that played uniquely despite being very similar. Just as COH devs learned how to make their powersets unique I think MWM can do the same. They've got a lot more experience having watched paragon and cryptic do it. I think AD helps them here too. They can look very closely at the way powers operate without having to also balance that with the style. (those poor animators) So hopefully a great deal of the argument is moot.
It seems to me that too high a view is being taken. We're missing the trees for the forest.
Everything's relative. If you compared Controllers to any other AT you could easily say "all Controllers played the same" compared to those other ATs. But obviously if you compared one type of Controller directly with another you could find subtle differences between them. I was talking more about "Controllers versus other ATs" in my earlier posts.
I supsect you might have enjoyed the Plant powerset because it was one of the newer sets (originally introduced for Doms in CoV) so out of all the Controller primaries it probably had a higher DPS capability than most of the other sets. Nothing wrong with that, but like I said compared to "minders and stormies" playing a Plant was probably just about as different as you could get and still be playing a Controller. Also the animations of Plant were pretty cool and there's nothing wrong with liking the way some powerset look more than others.

I think it probably helped that Plant/* could just open with Seeds of Confusion, and then fairly safely transition directly to DPS without the need for much other control until (if/when) Seeds needed reapplied. SoC really was incredibly an powerful tool.

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
OathboundOne wrote:
OathboundOne wrote:

I think it probably helped that Plant/* could just open with Seeds of Confusion, and then fairly safely transition directly to DPS without the need for much other control until (if/when) Seeds needed reapplied. SoC really was incredibly an powerful tool.

Well the SoC was just about the only Confuse power in the game based on the multiple target Cone mechanic. Most of the other Confuse powers were either single target only or one of those "random" PBAoE style toggles so arguably SoC was one of the most tactically useful/dependable Confuse powers in the game.

It was obviously helpful because not only did it usually keep you from being attacked by most/all of an entire MOB but it also forced your foes to attack each other which did half your job of killing them for you. The downside of course is that you lost out on any XP from foes that managed to hurt each other, but obviously the power was so useful that dealing with that wasn't much of a disadvantage.

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 1 hour ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Lothic wrote:
Lothic wrote:

...snip...
The downside of course is that you lost out on any XP from foes that managed to hurt each other, but obviously the power was so useful that dealing with that wasn't much of a disadvantage.

I know this was a persistent rumor, but it wasn't so. Actually, as long as the Controller (or the Team) did at least half of the damage, the dip in XP was negligible. The big loss came if the Confused opponents managed to kill each other, without intervention from the Controller.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Lothic
Lothic's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 30 sec ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 00:27
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:
Lothic wrote:

The downside of course is that you lost out on any XP from foes that managed to hurt each other, but obviously the power was so useful that dealing with that wasn't much of a disadvantage.

I know this was a persistent rumor, but it wasn't so. Actually, as long as the Controller (or the Team) did at least half of the damage, the dip in XP was negligible. The big loss came if the Confused opponents managed to kill each other, without intervention from the Controller.

Yeah I always knew it was percentage deal - I wasn't trying to say that if a Confused critter just hit (but didn't kill) another critter you'd get 0XP from that victim.

Based on that it clearly wasn't a "rumor" according to the people who apparently knew enough to write up the "wiki" page for it. But I will agree that the overall net loss in XP was probably not super significant when spread over a long period of time. According to the provided chart (and obviously if I'm interpreting it correctly) you probably only lost like on average 20-30% of the earnable XP per critter:

CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012

Pages