ScarySai

Let's just all agree that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.

Inb4 40% defense hardcap proposal that has nothing to do with the thread.

Certain sets excel on one over the other. Savage will always be best on a brute, super strength will always be better on a tank.

Nah, not that far (As hilarious as that would be.), the cap as it was before they changed fury to be more manageable in teams when you aren't the main aggro magnet.

I'm personally of the opinion that a damage capped brute should be the deadliest thing in the game, at least among the melee ATs. Anger the hulk and he not only kills you, but he kills your entire city. But even if we don't go that far, I'd like to see their damage cap back to where it was before, at the very least.

Not wrong, I just find the trend of people going "here's my awful idea, I did the math, use your own math to prove my idea wrong!" to be generally annoying. The idea isn't in the game, so any math provided for it is worthless.

No. The idea sucks, so your math is irrelevant. Game design is more than just bad ideas backed by questionable math.

This one's simple. Imagine if you could actually tell how long each CC effect on you will last so you can respond appropriately, instead of just seeing "stunned" or whatever in big red letters.

That idea is terrible and you genuinely need to give up on it, especially in a totally unrelated thread like this.

To be more accurate, it benefits certain powersets more than others. An ice blaster gets way more out of procs than a fire blaster, but the fire blaster also doesn't really need them to do scary things.

I still consider competently built brutes better than tanks overall. That said, I'd love to see that very strange damage cap nerf undone. Reducing it because fury was easier to cap is weird, because well played brutes don't have fury issues, especially solo.

This thread is just full of comedians.

Apparently all it takes to be a power gaming elitist is to point out the objective fact that sentinels don't hold a candle to blasters with minimal investment, with blasters just having higher potential overall. I also think comparing them to blasters I'd a bit unfair though. Soldiers of arachnos are basically what sentinels wish they could be. Tank buff was mostly fine. I just take issue with the damage cap nerf, as I never had issue maintaining fury, a damage capped brute should be scary.

Blaster nerfs are unlikely. Maybe fire blast will get a love tap, but really - overall blast set buffs are more likely than blaster nerfs.

Now that videos are back, I do hope the enthusiasm for this thread picks back up.

Today is the day forum arguments become a lot shorter.

Dismissing my valid responses as deflections is a good way to get me to dismiss your outrageous claims (with no evidence, by the way.) That go against ingame experience and general consensus. The fact you honestly believe blasters can't drop +4 bosses in seconds is very telling.

At least you got one thing right.

The fact of the matter is that this is a min/max based discussion. Maybe the best sentinel can outclear stuff like elec or sonic blasters, due to how generally terrible those sets are, but the fact of the matter is any top tier or even middling blaster will stomp the clear speeds of a sentinel. Low target caps, weaker base damage and far less potential with a broken inherent is all sentinel has going for it. It's the poor man's soldier of arachnos. If a blaster manages to solve their defensive woes, it's no contest. This isn't pre-i24 anymore, blasters aren't floor magnets. Their time spend eating dirt for so long has allowed them to siphon power from the well of the furies with their mouths, making them literal gods if built well. Take it from a kheld main, though. Nothing in this game is useless, if you put time into your character, there's very few things in the game that can't accomplish impressive feats. When weighing potential however, implying sentinels can even touch blasters is either ignorant or dishonest.

There's only so many polite ways to tell you you're wrong.

As much as I love the idea of going back and forth with someone who fails to understand the concept of a fair comparison, I think I'll just write you off and go about my day.

It's not false, they have the same exact power options. If the goal is to compare elec blast and fire, you don't introduce a secondary into it, especially in not such a lopsided fashion. Elec isn't even in the same league as the other blast sets, it's not even close and it needs help. And that goes double for the ATs that can't take filler attacks, like blasters can.

Irrelevant, because fire has the exact same options as elec does with secondaries, but also can grab other stuff due to not relying on such things. If the question is X vs Y, adding Z arbitrarily just renders the whole comparison irrelevant.