Leogunner

How is this any different than the Tank/Scrapper issue before IOs and Brutes were a thing? In-group, Scrappers were good enough for 99.9% of the game. Hells, once people started learning CoH's group dynamics, 'no Melees at all', performed way better than 'good enough'. CoH was unique in that it needed no Trinity. Has this changed with the addition of IOs and Incarnates? The team leader who would bypass a Tank, to wait on a Brute, is an ignorant, who thinks they are playing (Name any other MMO). The team leader who would kick a Tank for a Brute, is a team leader I would 'note', and then I would drop from their group. The thing is, I'm not sure what your issue is. My issue with the Tank is that it was fricken boring to play. Brutes were the Devs answer to how boring a Tank was to play. Because unless you drastically change the Tanks game-play there is no answer to the Tank's issue, as I see it... that there are other ATs that can fill their roll 'good enough', and are way more fun to play. Note, I do not see the OPs fixes, fixing the fun factor Agreed wholeheartedly. You just walked yourself in circles. Profit: Here's a fix for tanks because they aren't fun to play and there's no real reason to play them over Brutes. Here's some changes I'm suggesting. You: My issue with tanks is that they aren't fun to play. And that they need changes. At this point, I'm wondering if you even read what you're replying to. How is "taunt has higher mag" and "there is a small amount of -res added" fun? That's merely placebo considering how many effects get thrown around that are vaporous concepts. Like, why not add -def to gauntlet? Because players can already reliably hit targets? Well players can already reliably defeat targets too so how is -res fun?

I'd argue: Who cares? I've been on teams as a Blaster where things fall at such a clip that, I paused and just watched a few spawns and surprise, the mobs still fell at relatively the same speed. I've been on a Stalker where I just relaxed and AS'ed mobs while the try-hard Scrapper was the Tank, DPS and coordinator. At the end of the day, practically any role can be minimalized to a point that the only difference is mincing percentages in an excel spreadsheet. But players do it to themselves. They minimalize roles and then wonder why roles are minimalized lol

Really? People are going to actually notice an extra 10% resistance debuff difference? And if they have a Poison Defender/Corruptor, anyone would actually care? Or that that Tanker will hold the aggro for a couple seconds longer before it rolls down to the guy with the next amount of taunt layered on? Perhaps I don't understand the purpose of this suggestion (the thread, not the quote). Do you want people to play Tankers more or do you just want numerical justification to use in forum arguments as to the existential crisis of Tankers?

I think, back in the day, when I was suggesting possible solutions, mind was simply to have Gauntlet's "secondary effect" be that it improves on the AoE ranges and target caps of their abilities. The solution wasn't to bring parity or balance, I just wanted to have a Tanker with Dark Melee using Shadow Maul and hitting 5-8 guys without lots of positioning and herding. It would give a reason to play "Tanker Melee" vs "DPS Melee" solely because it has a fun new dynamic you can play around with. Would also have the additional affect of spreading secondary effects more easily with that being either taunt, -ToHit, Knockdown or some sort of buff.

Or we could just go with the proposed revised set of the OP.

I dunno. I just took a cruise around PC and RI and I couldn't find many examples of regular citizens being attacked in the streets in the RIs. In PC, I was curious at what level do the villains stop bothering the citizens on the streets and I gave up at Brickstown where there are even "victims of circumstance" lying around. I'm pretty sure it's dangerous to live in the RIs...but more than PC? I just don't believe it.

First of all, living in either place would actually be horrible. I'd try to escape to a place with less hassle. Think about it, how often do you see people getting mugged in the streets? How often do you see a hero just fly/run on by? Even if a hero comes by to save you, you'd likely get in the same situation later in the day or at night with no one to come save you. Even if you yourself are adequate at self-defense, your gf/bf/spouse/kids/mom/sibling/ect may not and likely would get in the same situation or worse. Now if we're talking about realism here where people aren't getting mugged 5 times per city block in broad daylight, you'd probably think the whole situation with mission doors and gang busts are also at realistic levels (a hero might bust up a warehouse trafficking drugs once a month not 3 times per day). In which case, things look a bit more sane. After all, Crey is suppose to seem like a legitimate yet very shady industrial power, not wackos that practically every hero has had multiple run-ins a month of them raiding labs over and over. Funny thing is, despite the circumstances, I think as a regular person, your survival is possibly higher in the Rogue Isles as you don't see people getting robbed, mugged or held hostage every week. But if you are crazy enough to live in either place, you're better off with a group that isn't considered a high priority threat. Something like the Midnighters, for example, might seem safe but it's not unlikely to be killed along with all your comrades or face a fate worse than death within your time as a member. On the other hand, the Outcasts don't have to be dastardly villains, they could just be a bunch of guys with powers hanging out. But my answer is still get out of Dodge...

Firstly, I had mistaken the OP for another poster who posted 2 other AT ideas. I was seeing a trend in the suggestions and gave criticism in the context of all 3 being from the same poster. Secondly, I understand the context of the suggestion being merely a suggestion so it really shouldn't be skin off anyone's back if someone doesn't like an idea. I don't think it's a swell idea to have an AT whose got one primary or secondary set that is both offensive types (melee and ranged) and couple it with another set whose both defensive types (armor and control). It's a formula that spreads itself very thin and the line between mediocrely bad and overpoweringly overshadowing would be very narrow. To which, the only solution is picking either or. This can help in a number of ways. For ranged or melee sets, this gives conceptual focus. I enjoy assault sets as much as the next guy but there's just no replacing a good Archer with their many arrows, or a machine gun toting bad mother-F, or a man with a huge sword/hammer. On the other hand, if you want something that definitely uses the assault sets, why meddle with aspects of Dominator and just put it on an armored individual and solely focus on that aspect? Of course, you start dipping into Sentinel territory which touches on the previous criticism. So my suggested change would be to go back to the drawing board.

This is my first AT idea post? There's another poster named Varkarrus that has been posting several ideas. My bad. I had multiple threads open and I guess I just mistook you since you didn't have a picture avatar. Well, I wouldn't consider web-shooters a control set. It's more a signature power as he can do whatever the plot of the comic requires using webbing. He's used them as control, for melee, for ranged, as debuffs, as travel...there is no analog for such a character within CoX. Same with Batman. His gadgets are more like pool powers (I actually remember suggesting a pool power called Utility Belt where you had basically 4 empty slots that you can put temporary powers into and maybe the 1st power in the pool increases the usage and storage of the slots and these would be, like, any temp power that exists you can store it in there...).

You're posting a lot of AT ideas. One thing I'd suggest to you is to consider the entire ability set of an AT and measure it against the concepts you propose. For this instance, you've got an AT made to have melee, ranged and damage buffing, control and armor defense. Now look at Blaster who has ranged, melee and damage buffing, some control and later on, armor defenses. Or Dominator who has control, the assault sets, mez defense in the inherent and then later armor defense. The idea to my criticism is, why build this AT when a Dominator could control much better with similar damage? Or why not make a Blaster who can deal a heck of a lot better damage? Personally, I'd focus on making something that wasn't reliable or possible before as an AT rather than coming up with whatever novel concept just comes to mind because the ATs while on the surface, look rigid and confining to concrete roles, are actually very flexible with proper powers combinations. It's just people tend to look at them through the high-end min/max lens of how they perform in incarnate trials or maxed farms rather than crafting a character within the confines of the ruleset of the game. Lastly, just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt: The assault sets (and related, the manipulation sets and pet sets) are crafted, implemented and balanced for the sole ATs that have them. They are unique to the needs of that AT and aren't like power pools that you can try to fit in with other AT ideas. Really, the concept of retrofitting same sets to other ATs is rather outdated as many of the new sets abandon this concept and change or remove powers so that they are balanced for the needs of the AT that has it. They could have ported over Dark Miasma to controllers, but they didn't. They could have ported all blast sets to Sentinel with no changes but they didn't. That being said, even if this AT were to get the assault sets, I'd hope enough is changed to facilitate this ATs needs...but overall, I think having 1 mixed role set (primary or secondary) is enough. Anything else should be covered in the Ancillary/Epic pools.

Level 29 Defender > Sonic/Psi > has combat jumping with Kismet +6% ToHit > has Tactics with 2 lvl 30 ToHit Buff IOs in it > has insta-snipe.

I suppose that's a possibility too. But from my POV as an MM player ... that last upgrade is really somewhat needed, especially when you hit 40+. Also, I very specifically want other pet classes to have less than MMs do. So, I'm quite torn on that one. (Originally, I omitted both, but then rethought things when I recalled how needed the second upgrade is, in that last 10 level stretch.) Here's a quick comparison of the progression of each, WRT pet summons. The third tier for WL is a ?, to show "maybe this, or maybe second upgrade": [snip] I'm not sure what the rest of that means. I'd also suggest that the purpose of the pets isn't for DPS like it is for MM. I'm not sure to what extent the OP is suggesting but my thought is the WL would be dealing the majority or at least half the AT's total damage while the pets deal the remainder. In exchange, I'd assume the pets and the WL would be sturdier (the pets much more so).

I don't think that is their job though. If an AoE Cone's job is not to do AoE, then what is it's Job? Why should I be spending a power choice and slots on an AoE Cone that is not really for AoE? Well it depends on the cone. The melee cones with a large 180degree radius are clearly intended for AoE damage but the ones with narrow cones (19, 30 or 45 degrees) are more like single target attacks that can occasionally hit a second target. They generally have their damage balanced closer to a single target attack than an AoE attack. In the Scrapper set the only Melee Cone with a 180 was Axe's Pendulum, there are one each at 130 in Broadsword and Katana. Something to note is even at the larger arc they are still set to 5 max, just like every other short melee cone. As for damage lets look at Dark. Smite Shadow Maul DPA 13.95 7.2 Act .97 3.07 Rech 6.00 8.00 End 6.86 8.53 So if SM is not made for AoE, then what is it made for, because it sure as hells does not compare to Smite for single target. Until someone brings some facts to this argument, instead of opinion, I will continue to believe that an AoE Cone's job is to do AoE, just like in every other RPG I have played. And if AoE Cones are consistently not doing AoE then they are broken, and need fixing. Well, for Scrapper, a Crit Shadow Maul is quite painful because all the damage it triggers is applied at the start + it continues its normal damage over several tics. Granted, the power itself is niche. Usually min/max players don't take it but overall, not every power in the game is meant for min/max purposes. Some are just cool or fun.

No, no, better: make the pet sets SECONDARIES ... a mix of defense, and pets. And, to keep the pets weaker than MMs, they don't get a Tier 3 pet. At all. I think that might rub some people the wrong way since a lot of the flavor of a pet set comes with the variety of pets and their themes/features. I'd suggest, instead, remove the last pet upgrade or change what attacks those pets have for each upgrade.

It's an interesting idea. One thing I'd be worried about is it completely invalidating Mastermind. The inherent seems to grant too much stacking advantage and you minion healing which kind of takes away from the skillset of MM as a buff/debuff and healing secondary. Lastly you mentioned damage and sustain potential. You mentioned not being as durable as a Brute, is that with or without the pets? You also mentioned not as damaging as a Scrapper? I'd say "duh" to that, as Scrapper is meant to be the highest melee DPS so that's a given...but then you mentioned being between a Tanker and a Brute. Is that taking Brute Fury into account? Because technically, Brutes have the lowest melee damage mod but make up for it with their extremely high damage buff cap + fury pushing their damage up. If you are talking about lower than Brute with fury but higher than Tanker, that's kind of the ballpark of Stalker except Stalkers get burst. Also, are we talking about the Warlord's damage with or without pets? Some suggestions I'd make for this would be: -Warlord trades its potency for some of its pets. It summons fewer pets than Mastermind (2 tier 1s, 1 tier 2 and tier 3 instead of the MM's 3, 2, 1 set-up). This is partially to facilitate clutter. As much as I enjoy having a MM or 2 on my team, it's annoying to fight next to them when you're melee...if you, the MM, are also melee, i'd imagine they'd even start getting in your way. -Instead of a +def/res buff from pets, let it be a simple +MaxHP buff and have the AT start with low (MM level) HP but have a Brute or Higher Max HP cap. Also, if the above is done, greatly boost your pets' HP to make up for fewer pets. -I'd think about changing some of the moves of the pets to push them toward more ranged attacks. They can have melee but when in close, they should be focusing on taunting. -With regard to taunting, the attention should end up directed to you. Maybe not at the instance of their taunt but it should definitely increase your threat levels as the pets draw attention for you. -Maybe think of some way to work around the weakness of AoE damage?

I LOVE CONES! It's an odd fixation I have from my old days playing Dark Melee as my first serious character. It made me learn and appreciate the wider cones or how to utilize longer ranges. I even have several characters who solely focus on cones (my Fire/SD/Mako brute's draconic heritage lets him use various types of elemental breath attacks, for example). The trick is, cones are sort of malleable...you can use the server's delay that tells you if your attack is out of range to stretch the cone's length thus increasing the possible targets. It's kind of a fun game to play and the downfall of their execution as if they made the cones more usable, they likely would have to find a way to patch this and make all cones more defined. An obvious fix would be if cones required no target. Just like PBAoEs, if foes happened to be in the area of the cone, they get hit. But just like PBAoEs, you can't stretch the area at all. Increasing the degree may help hit max foes but maybe just make it so range bonuses work on cones? Might make the difference of needing to take a step back and to one side of your target before executing the cone and just targetting the guy behind him instead.

I'd remind you that this: contradicts this: Why yes, I have, thank you. If your argument to my point is this: Anything's possible with enough time and money. We could create walls, and then redo every level design to use them rather than map boundaries. We could replace Enhancements and enhanceable attributes with a traditional system of STR/DEX/MAG/etc and give characters gear slots. We could nerf Titan Weapons. Unfortunately our budget is zero. In my experience, the more conservative the approach is, the easier it generally is to sell the proposal and to get it done when it's approved. It's a good point to remind people of when making suggestions but I'm not oblivious to the point and it can also used against your Self-targeted Darkest Night which will end up being a new power with new values and mechanics. It is no different from just replacing a power in the set with, say, an armor/mez resist toggle that already exists in the Dark Armor set.

The OP specifically stated that they were not thinking of a Paladin type. But WE are not the OP. Just because I thought to use some of the ideas from the OP's suggestion doesn't mean WE can't or haven't brought up our own points and ideas. I found the OP's vision to be quite clear. You were the one making things unclear. So now we're quote mining? And I'd remind you to retain the context of things you quote. My post you quoted was directly speaking about placate vs taunt vs something else and the inherent role of the AT. And just for clarity's sake, quote mining is taking specific quotes out of context and then arguing the points from there. It's cheap. It's a waste of time. It's petty. Firstly, what the hell does Melee Armor and Controller CC and MM pets have to do with if someone wants aggro or not for this AT? It's irrelevant. The point is, support CAN do it so WHY would they want to avoid "face time with the MOBs" especially considering ALL their attacks are melee? And I'll end it by saying you're making absolutely no sense. Your arguments are out of context, you can't keep track of what we're talking about and then you've stooped to accusing folks of derailing when I'm actually engaging the discussing points brought up (i.e. the ATs role, replacing/changing taunt, etc). You've tried to skirt your argument into a position to try to make it seem like I don't like the OPs ideas just because you don't agree with my statements about keeping taunt in the set. You're attempting to set me against the OP here so that people will try to disagree with me. Pretty lame.

Because it's redundant with the proposed secondary. The proposed secondary starting this part of the conversation was literally just Support, with no changes. You pointed out that for several sets like Empathy, this wouldn't work; I agree. I agree also that even for sets that it more or less would work for, like Force Fields, it's not an ideal approach to plop it in with no changes. I agreed with your idea that one of the ways to address the issue was to make the Inherent handle the mez part of the armor kit, since that doesn't cost any defensive slotting. It was your flip I found confusing. So I needed this clarification that you are, at this point, talking about some other different proposed secondary kit. I didn't really flip. I'm merely putting out suggestions. The person suggested making the inherent buff sustain and to put mez protection in a power swapped for taunt and I merely suggested the reverse. Just because I'm putting out ideas doesn't mean I support that idea and thus that is my stance. When you're brainstorming, you're fluid. You're not sticking to any one idea and you're trying to encorporate all the good ideas put out while discarding ones that don't work. This isn't a debate and there aren't any sides to flip (unless you fabricate sides which kind of forces me to play devil's advocate). If you think mez protection in the inherent is best, then flesh out the idea. Don't expect me to buy it just because you feel like it's a good direction. I'd ask why would you decide to pursue a conventional port of a support set when you know it doesn't blend well with a pure melee set? And I made arguments for why melee and support sets clash so I'm not just making counterpoints and then abandoning them to suit an argument. I'm not asking you why you like your idea but rather why would it be better than the OP's. As far as I can tell, it's because you feel it wouldn't be able to perform a particular job but you don't follow up on why you believe that is. You also mention a mechanic of centering toggles that are normally on a foe on yourself...that's pretty much just a damage/debuff toggle we're used to. Have you considered the balancing required to have a Darkest Night toggle on yourself at all times? If I'm not mistaken, you disregarded the argument of powersets as Legos a while back. I think if you consider the concept a bit, it holds some truths. The powerset itself isn't a whole that requires either pure proliferation or complete overhaul. You can simply take powers and then flag them as a powerset, you'd just need to set the groundwork for them (i.e. the AT mods and custom code that recognizes a powerset's existance). If Controller can change a couple powers in a set and just rename it into something else, I don't think you need to unduly box yourself into a specific context with only a handful of joints to adjust it with. It's even possible to have more than 9 powers in a set! Also, if you actually mean direct port, no changes, I think that's unrealistic as you still have to consider what other aspects might change it or need to be changed to facilitate the playstyle or desired outcomes that could be achieved. Numbers will need to be changed, arcs adjusted, ranges modified and effects added/subtracted.

You asked a question about what 'I'd prefer', which means the only right answer is the one I give, not the one you think is fricken correct. It'd be like asking "would you want more custom choices or no choices?" The wrong answer is "no choices". You can prefer to have no means of controlling the fight but it's the wrong answer. I'm sorry your preference is wrong. You are making the wrong argument. You should be arguing for a Support/Melee, not for Taunt to be a part of the OP's vision of a Melee/Support. A vision I... support. You could say it's the wrong argument but I'm questioning why it wouldn't want to draw attention to itself, especially considering the parallel we're drawing is a Paladin type. And need I remind you, the OP's vision is unclear. They don't know whether to have placate in taunts place or not. I'm making the argument that the AT shouldn't want to shy away from aggro especially considering the ridiculous tricks a support-type can pull off RIGHT NOW to shirk off attacks.

Because it's redundant with the proposed secondary. To make using the same bundle of powers (i.e. powersets) more unique to play. I've answered these questions already in this thread...

literally what i'm trying to do here. You went a step further than that. Possibly several. Ok, then what is the outcome of my position that you're disagreeing with? And the "ur wrong" is only part of the response. The other part was why is what I suggest a design constraint while what you suggest is not? Also WHY isn't so much important here when not talking about concrete details/facts/data. I'll remind you, this is all hypothetical theorycrafting and armchair-dev talk. The WHY is because I formed my opinion that way and have a design in mind. You should be asking WHAT. Stating that you're making a strawman argument doesn't absolve you of making a strawman argument. But then using strawmen isn't inherently wrong if you're trying to spark discussion of bring others to your perspective. As for the WHAT, just going off what the OP already outlines for his idea for the AT to trade some support for self-sustain WITH mez protection, it seems pretty basic to understand why I wouldn't want an inherent that provides more sustain and mez protection but rather some unique spin on how it uses it's melee attacks or team buffs. As novel as an AT with melee attacks and team buffs within their primary and secondary is, the standard requires all ATs have an inherent power that functions with their primary and/or secondary in some way. If I'm being unclear or vague somewhere, just point that out.

Not hyperbolic, still baffled. What you want -- I think -- is for the proposed AT's Inherent to specifically modify the AT's attack powers to do something similar to other AT's Inherents. For example, you'd presumably be OK with an Inherent that improved melee damage for X seconds after casting a buff. It depends. How would the rest of the powersets be configured and what role the AT is meant to be played for. Again, it depends. Same reply as above. Well this is novel and baffling. So you're attempting to project a certain intent about making an inherent for the AT to use their primary or secondary differently while you yourself suggest an inherent you find unique but somehow one of our suggestions is wrong or a design constraint while the other is not? If anyone should be confused, it's me. What exactly is your goal in this particular response? Also, when you're making an argument and you have to "think" what the other person means and attack that (basically, a strawman argument), I'd suggest just approaching that response from a different angle. And to clarify for you, I AM allowed to find things unique and not unique. That is called an opinion. You can disagree or criticize it and I can explain why I have said opinion or defend it.

So you don't consider, Knockdown, Knockup, and Stuns CC? The context of that quote is with regards to making a substitute of the discussed AT. The main reason I wouldn't categorize either as viable stand-ins is mostly because they have either too drastic a handicap (if they only took the support powers) or too drastic an advantage (mass CC and a hoard of controllable pets) because this hypothetical AT would likely have neither. From what's being discussed, it would have buffs/debuffs and melee attacks and some sort of mez protection. And while I understand that there are support sets that have a moderate amount of control or even pets/pseudo-pets, I think that's why the discussion is happening: to figure out how to bring those sets and the more one-dimensional sets closer to form a workable standard and engaging concept while hopefully creating something unique enough to warrant the effort. That's the wrong answer. You say I don't get it but I nailed it. Yes, you don't like taunt. You don't want taunt. You'd rather taunt just not be there. That, my friend, is exactly what you just said and what you quoted, also known as "nailing it" lol I would add to this that if the AT is built fragile and probably more at DPS angle, yes. But if it's more aimed toward handling that aggro, then no.

I'm utterly baffled by this. Why? Corruptors, Scrappers, and Stalkers have incredibly similar Inherents. Hell, most Inherents are psuedo-powers/design guidelines anyway; the difference is almost entirely in the power sets and scaling. Baffled? And utterly too? I mean, Domination does some interesting things for their primary that makes its usage have a different dynamic than Controller's Containment. Why would I want an AT to use the same or similar powerset but in a unique way? I mean, either you're being hyperbolic or you just didn't understand what I was saying. I don't think it's difficult a concept to grasp. Also, while the outcome of Scourge, Critical Strikes and Assassin's Focus are similar, their utilization and means of capitalizing off of said outcome couldn't be more different. That's a good example of what I'd like to happen for this hypothetical AT: take something familiar and make it unique.