Hardboiled Hero

I spoke about something like this with @oldskool a while back and was left under the impression that it probably isn't really worth it. Accepting the caveat that you can theoretically build any AT to "tank", sentinels aren't actually any better for this than most other AT's (In my opinion). With that said, your experience in mids wasn't some kind of miscalculation. Sentinels have a slightly below average health pool and their defensive powers are, I believe, on the same level as a stalker.. which is to say the lowest of any of the "defense power" AT's. Of course their are ways to improve that, but you have to give up something in order to do so. If you're increasing your tanking ability, you're not helping the sentinel's notably mediocre damage, for example. You're going to need one power pool in order to get some taunting, but you still will need some power pools to increase your defensive capabilities. Now the difficulty of tanking would, of course, change depending on what content you're trying to do and whether you have some friends willing to work with you. If you really want to build a tanking sentinel, that's cool.. just be aware it won't be as easy as it seems, and you may need to limit yourself to tanking certain content or working with certain people.

Okay, but bubbles are just bad and, while I really WANT to like speed-boost, it's probably caused me more problems then every other problem power combined. I'd really get to missions faster if I really just weren't running into walls all the time. I don't even want to think how many times I've stopped in the middle of a mob instead of stopping at my range limit from them..

I just figured the devs were looking for ways to incentivize NOT taking hover on every single character with a ranged attack. The problem isn't knockback. The problem is a meta in which every form of crowd control is considered either useless, or a hinderance.

Okay, so some thoughts I was having while reading the thread, organized semi-randomly: First, 'trollers mostly don't keep using their AoE controls to do damage. They keep using their controls because they want to be an active member of the team. Like everyone else who plays the game, they want to press buttons and have good things happen. This game breaks down when you forget that it's really all about the feeling that people get from having great power and exercising great responsibility. The X-men have never said "Sorry Storm, you're not allowed to go on missions anymore because we can do them faster without you." (well.. except maybe when she was de-powered) I don't really think that 'trollers are weak because other heroes can survive everything. I think it's more about the fact that mobs die too quickly. The reason a 'troller uses their biggest flashiest powers at the start of a fight is because there's basically a new fight starting on cooldown. If you wait even a second into a fight in order to use your flashy powers, you'll be hitting like 2 guys when (or if) you use the power. If you want a 'troller to wait a minute before using their "best" stuff, then you need to create scenarios in which waiting is an option that allows the 'troller to still participate.

will my BR/FF Corruptor finally have a purpose at end-game?

I see what you're saying and mostly agree. On the other hand, I feel like if there was an official re-release of City of Heroes, many people would immediately go there. I mean an actual re-release. Not something with the name, but completely new mechanics or whatever. If they feel the need to update programming that's one thing, but actually playing the game should feel the same as playing on a rogue server, except with the ability to say "this is official content". It would be so easy to shut down all of these "rogue servers", except that, for whatever reason, NCSoft wants to keep using the IP for flop projects instead of just doing what we all know would be the most profitable thing for them, and re-releasing CoH.

My Thug/empathy MM is Mama Heart. She's a girl from the hood who became a social worker, but she realized that sometimes a person's got to get violent to protect others from violence. I really haven't played her that much and haven't fully forged her story though.

The obvious answer to the OP is "no". First, it's not as if people can only play one game. Homecoming is free and doesn't demand much in the way of time and effort. What stops people from playing most of the "alternatives" and "successors" has nothing to do with Homecoming, and has much to do with the fact those games aren't much fun (not to say they couldn't be with some time and work, but they aren't right now.) CoH is good because of it's design philosophies which were/are relatively unique these days. They weren't chasing shares of a market. Instead, they made the product they wanted and the market came to them. Apart from the philosophy, there's also, in my case at least, a trust issue. CoH was loved by many people, was making decent profits, and was mercilessly shut down in spite of that. Can any of the companies involved in these "plan Z" projects really guarantee that won't happen again? I'm sure they're all scrambling to do so.. but my trust has already been betrayed by corporations too much for me to actually believe it.. at least until I see it. In fact, I would argue that the fact these companies are trying to make "the successor to CoX" is proof that they're just out looking for a profit. Otherwise, they'd be doing what paragon did.. make the game they want and hope for the best.

I havn't been around in a few months, but I thought Homecoming was banning people for streaming.

I usually appreciate the fighting pool on my Sentinels. It helps my AR characters feel like they also know some basic army combatives or something. Notice also that pool powers can't replace the best AT powers. Melee powers from Brute, scrapper etc.. will always be better than most fighting pool powers, but even then you can often find one pool power that fits your chain better. Likewise, a controller may find good use for the offensive pool powers, but they wouldn't really use pool control powers.

I made one of my versions of MK as a dual-pistols sentinel.. I don't recall for sure, but was probably using willpower. Overall, I'd say Moonie is a little different from the others listed, and should probably be a Brute. he wouldn't have SR OR Ninjitsu.. because it's actually been noted that he doesn't evade attacks at all. (He beat Taskmaster because TM refused to copy MK's fighting style since MK just takes all the hits.) MK's defense should probably be either Willpower or Invulnerability.. depending on whether your version relies more on the armor, or simply toughing out the attacks. MK can actually use any weapon, or fight unarmed, but people seem to like him with the staff.

Shapeshifting is not the only thing that sets Kheldian AT's apart. When I look at WS and PB in the character creator, I don't see "Shapeshifter AT".. that's not their listed role. Their in game description says they eventually get 2 shapeshift forms, (A true "shapeshifter" would, by definition, start with some shapeshifting) it doesn't say anything about unique powers or abilities based on the form. (you have to read all the powers to see that part.). you could make some other AT and still say the character was Kheldian, but the character would still play very differently from even a "human only" PB or WS. Khaldians are different for other reasons beyond shapeshifting. Also, As shapeshifters, the fact that all of the Dwarves and Novas look basically identical is a little disappointing. Or what if your Kheldian was meant to be off doing something else when other Kheldians came across the novas or dwarves? Ultimately, those "shapeshift forms" are just costumes.. they're an aesthetic, so it makes sense that people will ask if they can be changed to suit the player's tastes. Still, whether it can be done (probably yes) and whether the homecoming team has the time, energy, and resources to do it, are two different questions.

Those two statements may not seem contradictory, but they certainly are. You need to decide whether you care more about perception or reality. Pity is entirely a matter of perception. As I said, the sentinel can be pitied, not because it lacks ability, but because it lacks opportunity. What would be required for the sentinel to shine would be an unbalancing of AT's, and doing that just so the sentinel could shine would make the sentinel unworthy. Reality, on the other hand, is that the sentinel is in much the same position as 3/4 of the AT's in the game. The AT is enjoyable to many of us. When I complain about the AT, it isn't because the AT is bad, but rather because I believe there are some easy ways to make the AT slightly better (or more thematic) without causing many balance issues. If the sentinel is to be reviewed without rebalancing, I think it should at least have it's range increased. If the actual playstyle of the sentinel is meant to be altered, I'd like to see the sentinel granted greater flexibility in how it can use pool powers, the epic pools should be changed so that all choices are equally viable etc.. essentially I'd like more utility, but none of that is to say that the current iteration of the sentinel is "bad".

*shrugs* Well yeah.. but.. I mean.. nobody really listens to you. 😛

First, your team was apparently able to make it on without you, so you're not "holding them back". If anything you're holding yourself back, but if you enjoy playing the character than giving yourself more time playing them is actually a good thing. The sentinel is absolutely pitiable, but being pitiable isn't the same as being bad. In fact, eliciting pity from others generally requires that a person be good and likable. Others attribute the "failings" of a pitiable person or situation to "misfortune" rather than any personal flaws or wrongdoing. The AT is likeable and enjoyable. It "fails" mostly due to "misfortune" rather than being due to integral flaws. The specific misfortune is that the sentinel AT was introduced at a time in which no AT is really necessary. This isn't to say that there aren't also "integral flaws" with the AT, but I don't believe those flaws are actually that big. I hate that the sentinel has reduced ranges and target caps, but I can deal with those things. Opportunity could use some work, but it isn't a reason to not play the AT. To me, the problem isn't that sentinels have flaws, it's that they seem to have too many small flaws, some of which could have been easily avoided and seem absolutely unnecessary. Because I believe the sentinel could be easily better than it is, without being game-breaking, I make noise. The sentinel isn't really "bad" though, it's just less good than it could be. P.S.: By the way, the only character I've ever had booted from a party was a defender, so I guess sentinels at least aren't that bad.

I don't think I understand the thought process there. Why would being good at an AT that is considered "bad" make you concerned about whether you're a good player or not? Shouldn't being good at something that others have trouble with be a good thing for you? If you don't have a pre-conceived notion of what a sentinel should be, great, just try it and I hope you enjoy it. The reason you see so much down-talk (IMO) is because most players DO have pre-conceived notions of what the sentinel is, and those pre-conceived notions usually involve the sentinel being Over-powered. Because the sentinel isn't OP, any honest discussion of the sentinel's power-level is probably going to seem like "down-talk", at least at first. Furthermore, I wouldn't really say we have the sentinel "figured out" yet.. so when people come in complaining, we can't necessarily give them "positive" answers. Finally, there's another issue that kind of dove-tails into this. It seems like most of the talk on these forums (for most or all of the AT's) is about damage, followed by survivability. There's an inescapable fact that only one AT can be the top damage at any given time. Even though the sentinel is a pure damage AT, it doesn't top the damage charts. Theoretically, the fact that other ranged classes also bring support and control puts the sentinel in a worse place. However, I believe that this game is actually so unbalanced toward damage that all of the non-blaster ranged classes are actually in the same boat. In other words, if the sentinel is "bad", it's still no worse than a corruptor, defender, dominator, or controller. Then again, all of those classes can find their way into any content.. so you might as well just play what you find to be fun.

I honestly couldn't name most of the inherents off the top of my head, but I know what most of them do. with 'trollers there's the issue of what do you want to consider their inherent? Officially, 'trollers inherent is that they do extra damage to controlled targets (This is "containment") they also have a "hidden" ability to get extra magnitude from some of their controls (called "overpower"). Brutes similarly have "poke-voke" in addition to their damage ramping inherent. Inherents are factor when deciding what melee AT to play, not because the inherents themselves are amazing, but because the melee classes are very similar, so the inherent is a way to differentiate them. (of course their are other factors as well.) I know alot of people love scourge and domination. Having discussed it recently in the 'troller forums, I know some players swear by containment as well. I used to hear defenders talk about their inherent, but not so much recently.. At any rate, I think all of these are inherents that actually matter to people. I include Masterminds in the same sort of category as the eAT's.. Nobody really cares whether their inherents are good or bad.. they simply aren't why people play these AT's. I'm not even sure if the widow HAS an inherent.. the SoA's inherent just makes them healthier (It may give them extra endurance and regen too). The Kheldians inherent sounds cool as it gives buffs based on who else is in the party. The MM buffs it's pets when their fighting, or makes the MM extra tanky when the pets are chillin'. I don't think anyone picks those AT's for that reason though. Then there's blasters.. Personally, I feel like the blaster inherent seems cool.. unlike the sentinel, the blaster gets hit by CC's, but they can fight through most of it anyway. However, I still don't play blasters, so I guess it's not cool enough anyway. As for Opportunity, the sentinel is different enough from other ranged attackers that Opp isn't needed to differentiate it. It's not good enough that people will play sentinels specifically to get opportunity. I guess this makes the sentinel like the MM and eAT's, where the inherent is just a kind of after-thought.

I find myself downtalking sentinels alot, but I still consider them my "main" AT. What I like about sentinels is that they represent a proud tradition of comic book characters. There are a plethora of comic characters with some kind of ranged attack and some kind of defense, whether you're talking about ironman shooting energy blasts at enemies from the safety of his armor (and forcefields as well), or Punisher with his trusty assault rifle and kevlar vest. There's Iceman and Human Torch.. Spiderman is much more controly than most sentinels, but still uses a mix of ranged attacks and super reflexes. So aestheticly I feel like the sentinel fills a much needed niche in a superhero game. The problem comes when talking mechanics. Most commonly discussions about sentinels start with someone asking one of two questions. "Does the sentinel do good damage?" or "what role does a sentinel fill?" Then we're stuck explaining that a sentinel is a pure damage AT that doesn't do as much damage as any other pure damage AT. We're competitive with Corruptors and Defenders for damage, without the ability to fill any secondary roles. Many players assume we're "ranged tanks", but we lack any real tanking tools, and having only 2/3 the range of other ranged classes. But I always try to tell people they should play a sentinel because it's fun. I just don't want people coming in thinking they're going to do blaster damage while having tank survivability.

would you consider super strength and super reflexes to be an "actual match"?

@JayboH The thing is, I wouldn't call it weird. People have explained how it's lethal (piercing) damage. So just saying "It's weird" has many people saying, "No." without really thinking about it. Now it's been a while since I looked at the chart, but IIRC, lethal is the second most commonly resisted type of damage. (Just double checked, it's indeed second behind toxic) For the sake of moving the discussion along, allow me to say that Lethal seems to have a innate 47.54% chance to be resisted and the average resistance against it is 13.97%. 4.92% of mobs are specifically weak to lethal. Cold appears to have an innate 36.07% resist chance and it's average resist is 8.76%, with 14.75% of mobs being weak. So just changing the damage type would make the power significantly more damaging. If the damage type were actually changed I suspect we'd see a reduction in base numbers though. I'm actually in favor of changing this power to a cold aura.. not only do I feel it would make the powerset more unique, I also don't play ice armor characters specifically because I don't like icicles popping out of my character.

I could see sentinel defensives coming with a clicky power or two that would temporarily give them taunt on their attacks and greatly increase their cc ability. The idea here is to allow them to go into "tank mode" for a minute or two in case things go sideways. The problem is that I kinda think 'trollers and doms are meant to shine in that situation.. but still it would put sentinels in a CC role that's only officially filled by two other AT's.. I think a problem of sentinel design at the moment is that they're literally competing for a role with every AT except the 'troller.

My understanding is that sentinels were ready to go into playtesting when the live servers went down. They were "released" by the guys that were running the private server that Homecoming is based on.. which is probably why it often feels like the sentinel could use some fine-tuning. As a side-note, I find myself thinking lately.. "You know, the sentinel probably should have been designed with assault sets instead of pure ranged sets." That would keep the sentinel as mid range fighter, increase their damage, give them a use for their defensive set.. of course you wouldn't get to have your assault rifles and bows then..

Yeah, that's the thread I was talking about.

Just noting that there's no /ice write up in the sticky thread, so if you find you like it, why not talk about it?

hmm.. I honestly don't think I would like sentinels as much if they were "more dynamic", Personally, I like my sentinels to be smooth and consistent. Archery is already like this as a primary.. as for secondaries, I tend to pick things that don't require much thought or active attention. t1, t2, and opportunity: So removing the opportunity triggers from t1 and t2 powers would make people use those powers more, because they're not having to think about getting the right opportunity at the right time. In @Sunsette's concept, it sounds like getting opportunity and using it at the right time should be rather important. As things are, opportunity.. and specifically which opportunity we use, isn't really a big deal. My archery sentinel uses t1 attack often, because it fits in her standard attack routine. she only uses t2 when the t1 misses and I really want to apply opportunity.. I've played many sentinels and, with some of them the t1 and/or t2 seem "natural" and other times one or both of them are simply a way to apply opportunity. Honestly, if the suggested changes were made, I doubt people would even use the t1 and t2 in most cases. In many cases, having opp on the t1 or t2 is what makes those powers usable. the snipe amd utility: If you choose the snipe replacement, your t1 no longer applies offense. Instead, your snipe power does significant extra damage. I assume this would consume the opportunity, essentially becoming an alternate offensive opportunity. I would also like to assume that the generic benefit from opportunity use would still apply, you just wouldn't get the same offensive specific effect. If having t1 with opportunity makes the t1 "less natural", then it seems adding opp to the snipe would make the snipe "less natural".. but I guess that whole thing goes in with the idea of making the sentinel a more bursty AT. As for me, I like using my "snipe" and my "Utility" on a regular basis. furthermore, I want to keep the generic opportunity benefit up as much as possible. Personally, I don't think there would be anything wrong with simply suggesting that the snipe and utility just get addition effect while offense or defense opp are in effect.