How would you buff Sentinels?

[nihilii]

On 9/19/2019 at 1:50 AM, Jeuraud said:

Also just because you like the current Sentinel Inherent and thus play them, does not mean that your opinion holds any more value than mine.

For me, in the context of buffs it seems logical to not break things others enjoy just because I don't enjoy them. *shrug* We've got endless ATs and powerset combos to play with, it just seems selfish to want to make the whole game conform to your playstyle at the expense of others.

 

So I would say in a 1:1 ratio, the opinion of someone who currently enjoys something should definitely have more weight than the opinion of someone who doesn't. Now, if the group who dislikes Sentinels greatly outnumbers the group who likes Sentinels, that's another thing entirely and might warrant taking drastic action.

Either way it looks like the sledgehammer is coming for the AT, so the argument is moot now - and we're losing this feast/famine (cool term!) that made the AT so fun. Bummer. It's more fun to alternate 400s and 200s than to hit 300s reliably, if you ask me, because the 400s are memorable. But then again it's a glass half full half empty sort of thing, and presumably there's people who remember the 200s only.

"Comparable scrapper damage" sounds nice from a performance standpoint, hopefully we don't lose the -res from that.

[Jeuraud]

49 minutes ago, nihilii said:

So I would say in a 1:1 ratio, the opinion of someone who currently enjoys something should definitely have more weight than the opinion of someone who doesn't.

Right... so the person who votes for the Incumbent President should have a stronger vote then the person who votes for their opposition.

53 minutes ago, nihilii said:

Now, if the group who dislikes Sentinels greatly outnumbers the group who likes Sentinels, that's another thing entirely and might warrant taking drastic action.

Yes, it's called majority rule, where everybody's vote has equal weight, whether your for or against.

[nihilii]

-

Edited September 20, 2019 by nihilii
whatever, not going to change anyone's mind and it's offtopic at this point

[Pharce]

What if the inherent was a set of toggle with no endurance cost.

+tohit, +damage, +def, -resist, -damage, -defense 

 

but you could only run 1 toggle at a time. Then you would help yourself and your team but have the versatility to choose how depending upon the enemy. As to the percentage i have no idea.

[DSorrow]

Very interested in seeing how these changes turn out. I haven't played a Sentinel yet mostly because the inherent seems pretty clunky and forces power picks. If these and the Tanker changes go through any time soon I'm going to have a hard time choosing between those two ATs for my next character.

[EmmySky]

So I spent some time this morning on my fire/ice sentinel.  She was 23 and I got her to 24 (to match my other toons levels) just doing some tip missions.  I did notice that the Opportunity was usually cancelled in the next blast because she is strong and I fail at target hopping.  Anyway, I cant complain about the inherent as they have stated its going to change.  Lets see what they come up with.

 

Regarding the dev/gm post about the upcoming (but not soon) changes, he said they want them to BE sentinels in the lookout and watcher capacity.  Now, I generally play solo bit I can see an opportunity to be a lookout for the team as the 'runner catcher' if there were a single target taunt, long range but low mag....not able to take away from tank, brute or even scrapper, so that when I see an enemy break and run I can grab him back to the team for defeat.  Also useful if a squishy (empath or some such) mistakenly gets a bit of aggro I could pull an enemy off them.  I know the dev/gm post said no taunt would be included but I think it may be worth thinking about as it could really play into the lookout role.  I do not think an aura would be good because ideally I will be at range not melee.  This is all dependent on how they see whatever new inherent they come up with works.  Right now I am having trouble figuring out what they mean by having sentinels be a team lookout in an inherent way.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.  Keep up the good fight!

[Murcielago]

16 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I have not had a chance to go through this entire thread but I saw the subject and wanted to drop a quick comment:

 

The AT will go through what may be considered a drastic revamp, I do have my hands full right now so it wont happen soon.

 

Things I can say at this time: the entire inherent will be scrapped. The original goal was the sentinel would do lower than scrapper damage half the time, and half the time inside offensive opportunity they would do DPS much higher than scrapper, averaging to 50/50 bit below scrapper damage.

 

Once the inherent is scrapped, the AT damage scale will go up to be comparable (not equal) to scrappers. The AT will get a new inherent that wont be as required to sustain dps, if at all. My current goal is for the AT to do a bit of honor to it's name and become a bit of a spotter/lookout, via inherent mechanics.

 

Things that wont happen (again sorry if I misread) are target cap increases or any addition of taunting capabilities. The goal of the AT is to be akin to a ranged scrapper, not an armored blaster, much less an off-tank.

[Steampunkette]

24 minutes ago, Murcielago said:

[Bartacus]

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

Blasters, as glass-cannons, tend to have a lot more AoE and burst potential via snipes and nukes. On top of nukes (that other ranged ATs get) Blasters also tend to get double-damage boosters at very high modifier levels (Aim + Build Up or some equivalent) that allows heavy aoe burst potential. Sentinels by design should never step in that territory.

 

This is why the sentinel don't have snipes and their nukes are heavily toned down, to work be more in line with melee "nukes" like Lightning Rod.

 

As for the vision for the lookout, it's still not finalized, but a form of inherent Tactics is a close call, things that would buff tohit and perception, and enemy -stealth (that might not be useful a lot in PvE, but there are enemies like Arachnos that can make heavy use of stealth and -perception.) ToHit buffing can also make most other ranged ATs better by buffing their snipes via tohit. In PvP, a sentinel might work as a bit of anti-stalker, but that will need to be tweaked carefully.

Personally, an inherent that gives to-hit and perception to the team and self seems more useless than the current inherent. Especially in end-game content, people aren't really missing their abilities since they have so much accuracy from set bonuses. -Res, however, is always useful. 

[PaxArcana]

7 hours ago, nihilii said:

So I would say in a 1:1 ratio, the opinion of someone who currently enjoys something should definitely have more weight than the opinion of someone who doesn't. Now, if the group who dislikes Sentinels greatly outnumbers the group who likes Sentinels, that's another thing entirely and might warrant taking drastic action.

The second sentence can only happen if the first sentence does not.

 

Picture if, in a population of 100, 49 people liked it the way it was and 51 did not.  On the one hand, more people want change than want to maintain the status quo.  But, on the other hand, those 49 no-change-please voters get more than 49 votes if their opinions "hold more weight".  The minority gets their way, while the (slim) majority gets told to go pound sand?

 

That's not how it should work.

 

7 hours ago, nihilii said:

presumably there's people who remember the 200s only.

My problem is, again, that the Inherent is awkward to use.  Which no other AT really has; you just ... do your thing.  You don't need to pause, to avoid using a power because it's not the right KIND of opportunity to fit what you need right then.

(Not to mention how horribly brief that Opportunity window is, when it does fire off.)

[Replacement]

11 hours ago, Zepp said:

I see how it facilitates the dps over burst mentality, but it does lead to issues of it becoming very difficult to justify them being the anti-stalker, when they can't snipe those sneaky ATs.

This is actually better for PvP, I think. If your "counter" to an insta-gank is another insta-gank, you really fuel binary gameplay. This is why hard counters are typically very bad. Soft counters, where you just have an edge, are definitely better. The other thing worth noting is that no amount of +perception is feasibly going to let you see a Hidden stalker at sniping distance.

 

So instead what you end up with is a sentinel that has a slight edge in detecting the stalker before they can unload, changing the confrontation into a desperate skirmish. Which is good and interesting.

 

Re: Sentinel passive: it's worth remembering that Passives needn't be strong if the rest of the AT shines on its own (such as high multiplier).

 

I'm not sure, personally, what I'd like to see. Part of me says "something that lets them perform as a spotter for squishies" to encourage them to hang back, but then what's the armor for?

 

I guess that's another point for something aura-based: something that encourages them to define a front- and backline and then stand between them.

[nihilii]

30 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

Picture if, in a population of 100 [...]

Good grief. I deleted a whole post about the misconception, bowed out of the convo, and you ping me hours later just to rehash that same misconception of my actual point.

 

I'm not suggesting there should be a Red/Blue presidential vote on Opportunity where my tribe gets double votes. I'm saying good suggestions for radical changes are mindful of a diversity of points of view.

Even if you disagree with that, please learn to take "let's agree to disagree" for an answer.

[PaxArcana]

I replied to a postr that made no mention of "bowing out", and only now, after going over every post since with a fine-toothed comb, do I see that you did so.

In the very-small-text "edited because ____" line, rather than, you know, AN ACTUAL POST.

 

And for a person who says he's bowed out, and wants to "agree to disagre", you sure seem to still want to make your point:

 

2 minutes ago, nihilii said:

I'm saying good suggestions for radical changes are mindful of a diversity of points of view.

Bollocks to that.  Suggestions don't need to tip-toe around the possibility that maybe someone else won't like them.  They need to be stood up, plainly and in full view - and those who don't like them can respond to the suggestion, explaining why they don't like it.

 

That's how debate and discussion work.

[ShardWarrior]

Personally, I find Sentinels fine as they are. 

[Murcielago]

33 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

Personally, I find Sentinels fine as they are. 

A four page thread disagrees with you.

[ShardWarrior]

1 minute ago, Murcielago said:

A four page thread disagrees with you.

Ok?  I never suggested that others do not or should not have a differing opinion.  I simply added my own personal one to the conversation.  Quite frankly, I don't care if others agree or disagree with me.  Everyone's opinion is valid and worthwhile here.

[Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Murcielago said:

A four page thread disagrees with you.

People that are fine with sentinels as they are will be unlikely to open this thread or post a response.

[Captain Powerhouse]

I'm going to side a bit with Nihilii here: if an equal amount of people liked the AT as is, in fact, if a plurality, not even an even split, loved the AT as is, then it's best not to mess with it. I dont think that's where the AT stands. My impression at the time, though, is that only a small minority of the players actually enjoy the nature or dependency the AT has on it's inherent.

 

The Feast or Famine concept could be done better, but I don't think it would even fit this AT's name. Honestly, i feel it would had fit much better a no-longer possible Dominator concept. That AT also was originally designed with a Feast or Famine design, still has some of it, but there was no upside to the Famine side.

 

I am thinking, maybe at some point in the future, an AT that allows a well implemented Feast or Famine model, where both sides had their upsides. Maybe i can make that Melee Support AT everyone keeps asking for work with such an inherent... Call it the Reaper... Famine mode makes all support abilities stronger and drastically weakens your offensive, Feast mode makes all offensive abilities stronger but drastically weakens your support abilities, and you need to build up the red meter bar to swap modes... anyways, now I'm rambling... shelving that for a so-not-soon-more-potentially-never bucket.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Captain Powerhouse

[Cutter]

2 hours ago, Bartacus said:

Personally, an inherent that gives to-hit and perception to the team and self seems more useless than the current inherent. Especially in end-game content, people aren't really missing their abilities since they have so much accuracy from set bonuses. -Res, however, is always useful. 

+to-hit and +perception are flavourful, and in the lower levels the +tohit at least would be welcomed. That said, they are not really compelling or exciting, which I'd suggest a non-zero number of us would agree are desirable attributes on our New Inherent Wishlist. THAT said, I very much doubt people roll Defenders because "Vigilance is teh awesome"; which leads to:

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

...

Re: Sentinel passive: it's worth remembering that Passives needn't be strong if the rest of the AT shines on its own (such as high multiplier).

...

If the class, through its primary and secondary, does something unique and interesting and effective, I'd prolly be OK with a less-than-overwhelming inherent. In its current form, I enjoy playing my Sentinels as mini hover-tanks (I also come with a very strong preference for armour sets on my toons, so...), and I don't get that same experience from the other ranged classes.

 

The only part of the AT, as it is now, that I dislike is Opportunity. Specifically: (1) if I miss with my preferred attack, I have to either settle for the other or wait and try again, which slows me down; and (2) outside of AVs/GMs, the value of the big Opportunity debuff (in teams especially) is usually wasted because everything dies so fast anyway. So for me and my playstyle, an inherent that is neither frustrating nor feels wasted would be a significant improvement, notwithstanding any other changes to the AT.

[PaxArcana]

21 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I'm going to side a bit with Nihilii here: if an equal amount of people liked the AT as is, in fact, if a plurality, not even an even split, loved the AT as is, then it's best not to mess with it. I dont think that's where the AT stands. My impression at the time, though, is that only a small minority of the players actually enjoy the nature or dependency the AT has on it's inherent.

But that's not really what s/he was or is saying.  Nihili started out saying that people who dislike something should not even make suggestions, and has only been backed down to the opinions of people who like a thing should be given more weight than those of people who do not.  Well, "more say" can lead to situations like my 49/51 split, where the 49 can out-vote the 51 with as little as 5% extra "weight": 49.00 x 1.05 = 51.45, and 51.45 > 51.00 ...

 

If the community is truly divided 50/50, then yes, those who want a change have failed to make a sufficiently compelling argument in favor of that change, and so the status quo should hold.  But, nonetheless, the pro-change folks should still be able to speak up (and without tip-toeing around the tender sensibilities of those who're fine with things as they are).  Even if they are but a tiny minority, they should still be encouraged to speak up.

[PaxArcana]

28 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I am thinking, maybe at some point in the future, an AT that allows a well implemented Feast or Famine model, where both sides had their upsides.

Honestly?  I'd be 80% fine with the current Sentinel Inherent if it were not tied to the T1 and T2 primary attacks.  Give me two separate buttons, one for Offense and one for Defense, that only become available when the Opportunity bar is filled.  Let me choose to activate whichever of them I want, no matter what might be on cooldown at the moment the bar fills.

 

I might like it to be more AoE in nature (hit the target and anything within 10-15 feet), so that the target doesn't go face-down half a second after the crosshairs show up under it's feet, but, just separating the activation from my attacks, would be a huuuuge step forward, IMO.

 

Something to keep in mind WRT that Reaper idea, at least.

[Replacement]

2 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Honestly, i feel it would had fit much better a no-longer possible Dominator concept.

This is... Horrifyingly correct. I've never been a fan of domination. At all. The feast is too brief and hard to count on... Right up until it becomes perma. Another one of those poor binaries that we never should've kept.

 

Edit to avoid double post:

Maybe a fury leadership would be fun. 

Get bar for being involved in the fighting, bar size dictates how strong your aura is.

Could also keep the starter power interactions too, if that was desired. Have them function as switches flipped to change the benefits.

 

Man, this is hard to do without it turning into a Marshall class.  CP's job is hard.

Edited September 20, 2019 by Replacement

[Murcielago]

4 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Ok?  I never suggested that others do not or should not have a differing opinion.  I simply added my own personal one to the conversation.  Quite frankly, I don't care if others agree or disagree with me.  Everyone's opinion is valid and worthwhile here.

k

[Teirusu]

On 9/19/2019 at 2:08 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:

I have not had a chance to go through this entire thread but I saw the subject and wanted to drop a quick comment:

 

The AT will go through what may be considered a drastic revamp, I do have my hands full right now so it wont happen soon.

 

Things I can say at this time: the entire inherent will be scrapped. The original goal was the sentinel would do lower than scrapper damage half the time, and half the time inside offensive opportunity they would do DPS much higher than scrapper, averaging to 50/50 bit below scrapper damage.

 

Once the inherent is scrapped, the AT damage scale will go up to be comparable (not equal) to scrappers. The AT will get a new inherent that wont be as required to sustain dps, if at all. My current goal is for the AT to do a bit of honor to it's name and become a bit of a spotter/lookout, via inherent mechanics.

 

Things that wont happen (again sorry if I misread) are target cap increases or any addition of taunting capabilities. The goal of the AT is to be akin to a ranged scrapper, not an armored blaster, much less an off-tank.

I'll just add my own 2 cents and say that I don't particularly care for the inherent as-is, either.  The -20% is nice but the rest of it is pretty meh?  And, I agree, doesn't really fit with the theme of the Sentinel AT, in my opinion.  I like what you've suggested and, while I feel like the damage of Sentinels is okay, I certainly wouldn't mind a minor damage buff.  Especially with Tankers getting one too.  My experience in teams makes me feel like their T9s are about where they should be, but the rest of their damage could use a buff; singles and regular AOEs.

 

My thinking would be when their damage scalar is increased, their T9s would be lowered in damage to match current damage output, but their Cooldown and/or END cost would be reduced in compensation.  Decreasing the cooldown on AIM to match the cooldown reduction would be a great bonus, if that were to happen.

I do hope that you partially reconsider your thoughts on your last comment of them not being considered an off-tank.  In my opinion, 'ranged scrapper' is kinda.. more boring?   And less exciting?  Having some other tool to bring into a team would certainly be nice besides just being a 'ranged scrapper'.  And, the whole spotter/lookout is kinda similar to that function?  Don't you think?  Really, the only thing I'd ask for, which others have mentioned in the thread (As you've picked up on), is some token taunt on the single-target attacks. 

Ideally, it be less mag then what Brutes and Tankers get.  We could then peel mobs off the squisher ATs but wouldn't be able to out-taunt the Brutes and Tankers on a team if they've already tagged a mob.  This would also slightly off-set their advantage of being ranged defense, which I feel like is something that should be done to make them slightly more balanced.  Also, I feel like I should be able to immediately get the attention of a mob off a blaster regardless of how much damage that blaster has done.  After all, we're Sentinels!  The name implies that we're there to protect, if needed.

[Rathulfr]

I think we've gone far afield into some weird places.  Let's try to simplify, and maybe make @Captain Powerhouse's job a bit easier (if/when he decides he has the time to do so, of course -- I realize he's got a lot on his plate).  How does everyone feel about the following, if only as a short-term solution?

 

1. Increase the base damage modifier to 1.0.  Everyone seems to agree that Sentinels could a use a minor damage buff, and that shouldn't be too much or too difficult, right?
2. Combine Offensive and Defensive Opportunity into a single effect.  This will eliminate any confusion about which one to use when.  Just use it when it comes up: simple, right?
3. Trigger the combined Opportunity with either the T1 or T2 attack power.  Again, this is to eliminate any confusion, and allow for more flexibility in builds/respecs.

How does that sound to everyone?  Nothing too drastic here, nothing to fundamentally change the AT (for the moment).  Those who like Sentinels as they are don't have to adjust too much, and those who prefer changes can try these out to see if it's enough, for the time being.