Completist

You're right that it would take a lot of work to overhauling the Support sets to eliminate "team-only powers". But why is that necessary? Consider how crucial it is to your vision that Melee pairs with Support in a different way than it does Ranged/Control/Pets. You should start with a mission statement. What is your goal in designing a new AT? What is your intended player experience or party role? Because as described it's a lone-wolf kickpuncher with placate and soft control. What's the one thing this AT will be best at? What playstyle is currently missing or undersupported that you want to give players? Start by designing the Inherent! (Rambling Sentinel criticism goes here.) You don't want to end up with an AT that feels unfinished or unnecessary. Again, it's important to determine whether you are designing a squishy Skirmisher who darts around in combat, a brave Guardian that leads his allies into battle, or a wary Stalwart that supports the front lines and deals with any stragglers, etc. If your goal is Punching and Support, make the AT about Punching and Support. It probably isn't a good idea to replace Confront--situationally weak, but nonetheless a Punching/Support power--with a Control/Defense Power Boost + Placate ... Either that power steps on many other AT's toes or you have to weaken it to nothingness.

I love what you guys are doing and have faith that you'll continue to implement awesome stuff. Before taking it "live" I think you should consider updates and improvements to many of the game's older systems. make IO enhancements Attuned by default As part of a market balance/overhaul, making set IOs inherently Attuned would be much more straightforward than the current system. "endgame"/Incarnate unlocks at 15 Encourage players to advance through content by making Incarnates unlockable at a lower level. AE farming would stay viable, but expert players could jumpstart their shard drops by playing story arcs. I'd also make all PvP zones (and Vanguard recruitment) accessible at 15; Hami/TFs/Story Arcs keep their level requirements, Incarnate trials still locked to 50. Heroes with XP turned off get vet level experience instead. zone critters scale to player tier (rather than level) Outdoor (i.e. non-instanced) zones would be more evocative if the enemies scaled to player tier instead of player level, similar to how holiday enemies and GM's work. For example, typical Atlas Park mobs could con +0 to a level 1-4 character, -1 to a level 5-19 character, and so on up to -10 to a level 50 character; a level 1 character running around in Brickstown would face +6 mobs, whereas a level 50 would face -4 mobs, adjusted by their difficulty. Perpendicular rewards could be awarded for defeat badges and completion of appropriate story arcs, giving +1 or more effective rank vs. certain enemy factions. This would also allow easy creation of level 55+ zone content that remains challenging to +3 Incarnates and beyond. Foes inside instanced missions would remain unchanged. automatic web-based character tracker/sharer Easily share your character profile, badges (and costumes?) with an integrated web interface.

I totally agree with you that that is a problematic feature of CoH's design. And equalizing all Tanker /T1s wouldn't fix it! How about opening up both /T1 and /T2 to first level characters of any AT? That would increase build choice, and make more players happy at the cost of a little complexity for newbies. If complexity is undesirable, make it a respec exception. Win-win.

I can understand how you feel that way--it's clearly the more popular opinion based on upvotes--but from a designer's perspective, making T1s identical is likely to have the opposite effect. Even though Temporal Manipulation's T1 didn't do damage, it was still popular because it was a strong secondary. The flavor of the month gets the most play and generates the most feedback; I bet there were lots of /TMs complaining about T1 imbalance. I could be wrong, but with no perceived tradeoff, I'd wager that /TM became more prevalent in the 2 months since that change, even though the set got nerfed. Perhaps not. Lots of Manipulation secondaries got interesting buffs at the same time. I don't have the data, but they would be interesting to examine. The reason there is a perceived "disadvantage you have no control over" is because the immobilize T1s were too similar in the first place. If those powers had been more varied, more powerful, and geared toward the intended strategy pathway for each set, there would be no frustrating (illusion of) disparity. There should be cooler options, not equivalent ones. Give me a mag 1 stacking hold in /cold, or a short melee cone (3 targets) in /fire, or a cheaper faster non-damaging net arrow, etc. You're stuck with that power, so it should be signature to your choice of secondary; Not just tucked away on hotbar 2 and maybe slotted when you reach the endgame.

The Blaster Manipulation T1s (that immobilize) have been adjusted and equalized over time. Can one of the devs comment on the reasoning behind this choice? I am skeptical that "to make them equal" is a valid reason, but I don't know if there's more thought behind it. As T1 secondary is the only power you're required to take, the little differences create meaningful choices in character creation and add to the flavor of the set. Balancing them by making them equivalent (equal damage and range) makes those secondaries a little more 'samey'.

I also had a very similar idea which I posted a while back. Instead of an additive damage bonus I envisioned a similar "Edge" debuff: each specific damage type would reduce your foe's resistance to an associated damage/mez pair, and stacking multiple types would give increased benefit. I am no longer sure a manipulation/control Manipulator is a great idea: It's a cool concept, but that concept is pretty much a Dominator. That said, the idea clearly has some inherent traction. The manipulation set is one of the more varied and exciting secondaries--Why should Blasters get all the fun?

This is a great, wandering, thread and I am sorry for showing up late to the party. To summarize what everyone has said so far: balance is important, more or less, depending on context. I agree with @Xanatos's original sentiment (and the linked video) that the core purpose of game balance is to make the game more fun. But I definitely don't think balance is pointless: even in the context of easy, PvE, character-expression free play, power imbalance has an obvious negative impact. Character building and optimization may be a creative outlet as well as an analytical one, but it's never fun to feel weak or ineffectual. Perfect balance is impossible (or boring) and, as @Luminara eloquently put it, players will naturally migrate to the strongest options--Along with the "funnest" options. To diversify the meta and make the game seem more balanced, you can't just look at ATs, you have to look at the context and provide more pathways for optimization. One important part of the OP that no one really touched on is tradeoffs. Back in the day--I was here for launch--the design was heavily dependent on weaknesses as limitations, like no access to psi resistance for some sets that linger. Paradoxically, limitations are wonderful for increasing player agency: character optimization is all about working within constraints. Making those sets more playable and balanced actually leads to fewer optimal builds, only counteracted by an influx of new options and power proliferation that continues to this day. Not that I'm suggesting limiting Stone Tankers to one armor at a time, e.g., but that improving balance might require changes to the gameplay, addressing the current binary context (Endgame PvE and PvP) for what makes a build viable/optimal. It could help to create a basic ontology between different roles and powersets--like the Color Wheel from Magic: The Gathering--and develop new contexts for ATs to shine. Imagine adhering to simple content tenets, e.g., "Ice tanks should be weaker against Magic factions and stronger against Science ones". Right now hero viability is based on "be prepared for anything, or buff the guy who is." Establishing damage type and mez expectations for different tasks/factions would improve the perception of under-performing sets without any powerset changes at all: "Faction so-and-so has few minions and high-HP bosses, giving ST damage heroes an advantage", etc. Creating more distinctive niches for ATs, as well as between different primaries and secondaries (i.e. damage/debuff types) would encourage specialization and lead to a broader meta. More holes!

I think they might be too good. If they are any more sturdy than a Defender, and they would be, they'd quickly outshine them. Give your buddy fortitude and now you get it too. I.e. you're getting +50% effect to all of your single target buffs (if the AT scale is low enough to compensate you end up with bad ones instead.) Despite the potential for too good (esp. Kinetics as you mentioned) I'm iffy on having them not get a benefit when solo or without an ally to heal.

Sentinel has created excitement for new ATs. What are your spec designs for new possibilities? I don't think every primary/secondary combination needs to be explored but there are some options I'd like to see. Marshal Playstyle: Tank/Pets Powersets: Assault (Primary), Pets (Secondary) Innate: Marshals lead their Followers safely into the thick of battle. Each nearby enemy grants the Marshal and their pets a small amount of damage resistance, based on that enemy's current Health. Enemies at maximum Health provide the largest bonus, which diminishes as they take damage. Stronger foes, such as Archvillains, provide an even larger bonus. Your Pets' attacks have a chance to Taunt their target for a short time. Notes: Marshals would be potent Alpha soakers, easily running in to aggro big mobs but then taking significantly more damage as the numbers drop. It'd be fun to rush in as the vanguard and then shift to a more blapper-y target cleanup to protect your pets. I'm thinking the resistance would be something pretty low but still substantial, ~2% per minion within 15' or 20' (max 10-15 targets), slightly higher boosts for Lts. and above. The resistance would be proportional to the enemy's health. The Build Up slot in Assault would get a powerset-appropriate mez-resistance power instead. Manipulator Playstyle: Control Powersets: Manipulation (Primary), Control (Secondary) Innate: Manipulators find weaknesses in their enemies and masterfully exploit them. Your Primary or Secondary attacks apply an Edge debuff to the target, reducing its damage, damage resistance, and resistance to control powers for a moderate duration. Edges are specific to the type of damage dealt by the attack (Fire, Psionic, etc.). Focusing multiple types of damage on a target creates increased effects; however, Edges of the same type do not stack. Notes: With two control-heavy powersets Manipulators would be very good at locking down foes with repeated applications of different powers. Their Strategic Edge encourages them to diversify damage types. I'd test out roughly -5% damage and control resistance per Edge. -2.5% resistance to the applied damage and 5% to other types. If that wasn't exciting enough, maybe variety based on damage type could be neat too. I.e. Fire reduces cold resist significantly, and vice versa. dark reduces energy reduces psi reduces dark. What do you thinnk?

There are a variety of ways they could "balance" SS by replacing rage with a similar but more scrappy power. How about "Reckless Rage", a 40s buff that increases damage by and recharge by 25%, isn't stackable, and reduces damage and recharge slightly by 10s afterward. Or a longer buff like Rage with a bigger crash.