Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

209 Excellent
  1. Sentinels should have a similar relationship to blasters as scrappers to stalkers. Sentinels and scrappers are DPS, blasters and stalkers are burst damage.
  2. Sentinals are just above Corruptors.
  3. Interesting, taking the smallest percentage point to make my argument sound absurd. Even looking at that 1%, you are talking about 1% of the people who chose to play a set that basically lives or dies off of stances. You are ignoring the large number of people that do not play Bio. Furthermore, you are in the position of advocating a play mechanic that a significant percentage of players dislike for an AT. Calling me dim within your irrational response is not only weakening your argument by making it seem personal, but, it is also against forum rules. Domination is a discouragement to a good number of players, that is why I oppose clickies for inherents as well. Opportunity 1.0 is the problem we are trying to address. It is a passive stance mechanic that is underwhelming. You would like to replace that with a slightly less passive stance mechanic? I have never portrayed my feelings as facts. In fact, I have yet to share my feelings on stance mechanics. The reality is that there is a significant portion of the playerbase that do not like stances, and having stances as an inherent is an inherently bad idea.
  4. Your argument makes no sense... stancing takes no thought, but people who don't like stancing are stupid? That makes no sense. Dislike of stancing rarely has anything to do with cognitive load, it is a matter of the way a character feels. That is why there are one-form Khelds, because stancing isn't everyone's cup of tea. Yes, I overstated its lack of popularity a tad, but it is still far from the top option. Adding a stancing inherent would likely make it less popular than it currently is. Also, a significant percentage of players run stanceless DP (2.5-15.5% depending on AT) or Bio (around 1%), and they work fine without stances. Why force a stance-centric playstyle on an entire AT?
  5. The (all but self) buffs/heals should be reconsidered. Some may be best off as they are, but some of the older sets could use adjustments including the possible removal of (all but self) tags.
  6. I did not say it was too complicated (although increasing to the possibility of nearly 50 stance combinations for some sets would be a bit annoying). I said it would make the AT less attractive to too many players. Some people really love their stancing. Some people vomit at the thought of playing a stance-based character. Why force an entire AT into stance hell (for those that do not like stances)? It seems like you want to take the least popular AT and make it even less popular...
  7. Fly is usually the fastest to the door (because most people do not have the patience for handling TP, which is faster, but useless on combat maps...
  8. Defender damage is fine, but some AoE Friendlies (does not affect self) or heal/buff friendly (does not affect self) powers may need to be reconsidered.
  9. PEBKAC issue - Target damages self (alternatively, single-target confuse) ID10T problem - Single target stun CtP - PBAoE +Recharge
  10. I think combining the offensive/defensive opportunity mechanic, changing from +Dmg to -Res, and making it always on rather than on a build-up would be the best solution for the inherent. Raising offensive and defensive scales would also be reasonable. Adding a perception mechanic in addition to these changes would be thematic and interesting, even if many see it as less useful. Toggles are a bad idea for an inherent because they will prevent large swaths of players from trying out the AT because stances are only popular among a specific subsection of the playerbase, and the goal of an inherent should be to increase the likelihood of people to play an AT, not decreasing it.
  11. What, that is only 24-32 possible stances. Incendiary, offensive, offensive couldn't go off the rails ever...
  12. Stancing and clickies work well for specific power sets, but as an inherent they are annoying at the best of times. The stancing nature of offensive/defensive opportunity is part of the problem.
  13. Right, and my solution would allow players to stay heroes and take 4/5 of the PPP.
  14. I really don't like the idea of making the inherent a clicky. That being said, two lackluster buffs tied to powers that tend to underperform is not the best way to go either. As such, the best way to go would likely be to link the two buffs together and let the buff work for either the T1 or the T2. There has also been some interesting ideas related to making Sentinels more like Sentinels. These increase +Perception, Stalker-spotting, and having perceived Mobs red triangles show up on the map. I'm not too big of a fan of leadership-auras as they will likely come at a cost of other options that will help the solo game. Some discussion has been had about offensive and defensive levels being adjusted, which I also think may be reasonable depending on other adjustments.
  15. Usually in a control set the first two powers have damage (and the second ability is a hold)... Other than that, replace "boring speech" with "lullaby" and maybe: "change hearts & minds" (alternatively "charm", "silver tongue", "Blarney", or "entice"), "enrapture" (alternatively "gaslight" or "sweet talk"), and "conjure" (alternatively "incant", "kotodama", "invocation", "seance", or "seducing satan"). This seems workable for Dominator, but would be hard to pull off with a troller... Also Rhetoric may be a better name for the set than "speech control"...
  • Create New...