How to fix Sentinels

[Wavicle]

3 hours ago, Omega-202 said:

I think that speaks to poor balance between the stances and a systemic issue with endgame balance in the game than anything to do directly with the idea of stances.

 

COX endgame comes down to one thing and one thing only: damage.  Survival is binary, either you are tough enough to live at +4/8 (or +3/8 due to level shift) or not.  More durability than that is wasted.  Same for endurance recovery, either you can go forever or you drain, there's barely a middle ground, and extra recovery beyond "can attack forever" is a waste.  Same with accuracy.  But more damage is always better.  That's the issue with Bio Armor.  Everything but damage is binary while damage is not.  

 

But if you put things in the "non damage" stances that aren't binary, then we could have something, especially if they're group buffs.  Hefty Recharge bonuses in an aura?  Power boost effect?  

 

Or, the marginal benefit for the more binary attributes just need to be buffed.  Hypothetical situation:

A) 15% damage boost + 10% to hit boost

 

versus

 

B) 10% defense boost + 40% recharge boost + 50% movement speed boost;

 

versus 

 

C) 15% resist all damage + 50% Debuff resistance + 50% Mez resistance + 75% Power boost

 

and you now have a decent debate about which is better.  There's going to be certain teams that wouldn't turn down C if you're heavy on squishies or B if you want faster nukes instead of a small damage bump.  

 

I don't disagree that Bio Armor does a bad job of selling stances, but that's a Bio Armor and balance issue, not a mechanics issue.

This is a very specialized interpretation of "endgame".  Apparently by endgame you mean solo farming.  Meanwhile on teams and in leagues none of what you said is true.  There is a huge middle ground, because the difference is made by teammate buffs.

But I agree the non offense stances could use improvement, and that the concept of stances is not bad on its face.

[Omega-202]

1 hour ago, sacredlunatic said:

This is a very specialized interpretation of "endgame".  Apparently by endgame you mean solo farming.  Meanwhile on teams and in leagues none of what you said is true.  There is a huge middle ground, because the difference is made by teammate buffs.

But I agree the non offense stances could use improvement, and that the concept of stances is not bad on its face.

No, I seriously mean everything at endgame.  Unless you're playing with non-IOd and non-incarnate outed teams, damage is all that matters.  Maybe its just the people I play with, but for us, the only way to get a faster ITF, MLTF, LRTF or Apex/TM clear is more damage when none of us are getting hurt, mezzed or end drained. 

 

This isn't a "learn to play" comment, but please go look at most of the complaint threads about how support isn't feeling very needed these days.  It is a bit of an issue.  

[drbuzzard]

I find it funny the gap between perceptions on this forum of everyone having minutely optimized beings of destruction, and what I actually encounter playing. While there's a fair number of tweaked out characters out and about, they are not what you hit every time you play. Sure, if you advertise a speed ITF or such, you will get the twinked characters, but with essentially unlimited alt room and not everyone being a market player or fire farmer, not everyone can afford unlimited tweaking. 

 

I play a lot with people who simply aren't all that durable. They get mezzed, they don't have unlimited fonts of endurance, they are not all softcapped to all positions. The forums has a rather self selected group of high end players (or they probably wouldn't spend time here). Balancing the game around them seems rather to be missing the forest for the very tall trees. 

 

Heck, especially with sentinels which are (correctly) perceived to be a weak sister DPS class for people who like it easy, twinks are not all that common. 

 

Making the stance buffs immensely good basically kicks the support classes to the curb. As I mentioned before, not gonna fly. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by drbuzzard

[Wavicle]

2 hours ago, Omega-202 said:

No, I seriously mean everything at endgame.  Unless you're playing with non-IOd and non-incarnate outed teams, damage is all that matters.  Maybe its just the people I play with, but for us, the only way to get a faster ITF, MLTF, LRTF or Apex/TM clear is more damage when none of us are getting hurt, mezzed or end drained. 

 

This isn't a "learn to play" comment, but please go look at most of the complaint threads about how support isn't feeling very needed these days.  It is a bit of an issue.  

I don't take offense, no worries.  But yes, it is you and the people you play with.  Also, notice NONE of the events you mentioned are Incarnate content.  In Incarnate trials the caps are somewhat higher.  But yes, fundamentally, the players who discuss issues on the forums have NEVER been representative of the player base as a whole.  Most content, done by most players, does not have everyone constantly at the cap for everything but damage.

And also note that the REASON damage is all that matters to you is because of all the investment you and your team has already put into defenses.  They didn't go away when you got to these levels of performance.  They ARE these levels of performance.

[Wavicle]

Just to be absolutely clear, the REASON you and your team are not getting hurt, mezzed, or end drained is because you all have stacking armors, buffs, etc.  If it's binary as a team that means you're doing it right, but that doesn't mean each team member individually must be able to do +4/x8.  You do it together.

[Omega-202]

5 hours ago, sacredlunatic said:

Just to be absolutely clear, the REASON you and your team are not getting hurt, mezzed, or end drained is because you all have stacking armors, buffs, etc.  If it's binary as a team that means you're doing it right, but that doesn't mean each team member individually must be able to do +4/x8.  You do it together.

I understand that maybe the forums are not representative of the larger population as a whole, but a few points:

- Each of the standard squad runs at 40%+ defense (literally all ATs), are end self sufficient and usually mezz self sufficient.  Stacking each other's buffs is NOT needed to get to unkillable status.  And there's really not a lot of sacrifice to get to that in a build.  Pick the right incarnates and slot the right sets and its pretty easy.

 

- I haven't died in an Incarnate trial in forever and it has nothing to do with outside support.  Please don't try and tell me that stacking buffs or anything matters in stuff like the Keyes trial where most publicly organized leagues have 75% of its members running around like chickens with their heads cut off.  In my last 5 trials, I distinctly remember not being targetted for a single buff and having to hug a Fire/Kins imps to get a splash speed boost.

 

- This isn't just something that I have experienced with my friends list.  I just last week pugged a Market Crash at +4 in 16 minutes with randoms.  Sure not pinnacle content, but way more Market Crashes are being run than Magisterium trials.  If a group of 8 randoms can do that on tier 1.5 content, that speaks to an issue with the endgame balance.

[Wavicle]

5 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

I understand that maybe the forums are not representative of the larger population as a whole, but a few points:

- Each of the standard squad runs at 40%+ defense (literally all ATs), are end self sufficient and usually mezz self sufficient.  Stacking each other's buffs is NOT needed to get to unkillable status.  And there's really not a lot of sacrifice to get to that in a build.  Pick the right incarnates and slot the right sets and its pretty easy.

 

- I haven't died in an Incarnate trial in forever and it has nothing to do with outside support.  Please don't try and tell me that stacking buffs or anything matters in stuff like the Keyes trial where most publicly organized leagues have 75% of its members running around like chickens with their heads cut off.  In my last 5 trials, I distinctly remember not being targetted for a single buff and having to hug a Fire/Kins imps to get a splash speed boost.

 

- This isn't just something that I have experienced with my friends list.  I just last week pugged a Market Crash at +4 in 16 minutes with randoms.  Sure not pinnacle content, but way more Market Crashes are being run than Magisterium trials.  If a group of 8 randoms can do that on tier 1.5 content, that speaks to an issue with the endgame balance.

I’m not really sure exactly what  point you’re making now. I’m sure plenty of people are doing all of that on sentinels.

[Omega-202]

35 minutes ago, sacredlunatic said:

I’m not really sure exactly what  point you’re making now. I’m sure plenty of people are doing all of that on sentinels.

I was respomding to your comment. 

 

But as it relates to Sentinels: they aren't useful in the current meta because they don't contribute anything useful at endgame.  They can be built to be tough enough to be unkillable in 99% of content, they are end and mez self sufficient.  So the fact that they bring such bad damage and nothing else of use is what makes them so lacking.

 

So, back to my proposal, give them stances that each contribute an attribute to the team that is useful at endgame.  Damage, recharge, power boost etc. and if its def/res/end/to hit/acc/regen, it needs to be really substantial because all of those are not very useful by incarnate levels.  

[Zepp]

23 hours ago, Omega-202 said:

A similar percent of MM's run petless.  What's your point?  You can't cater to 1% of the population.  

 

And the proposed stances wouldn't be anything like Kheldians.  A set of mutually exclusive buff toggles is nothing like a full transformation that locks out 3/4 of your powers.  You trying to equivocate them indicates to me that you're trying to poison the idea and are arguing in bad faith, or you're too dim to understand the proposal.  

 

I cannot understand how tacking on a set of inherent toggles is any more of a discouragement than Domination management or Opportunity v1.0.  Hell, you want to talk about a mechanic that makes people not want to play an AT, look at the terrible set up Sentinels currently have.  I have chatted with people in game with lvl 35+ Sentinels who still had no idea what their inherent does.  One guy thought that triggering it was random.  

 

Stop projecting your feelings against something and trying to portray them as facts.  Too many people in this thread are doing it.

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.

[Frosticus]

I imagine that our current end game was envisioned more as a stepping stone to more difficult content that was never created.

 

So the fact that fully kitted out teams are ganging up on mediocre difficulty content isnt a compelling argument to give sentinels OP team auras.

 

I'd probably make sentinels self sufficient as an enjoyable AT and give them a version of the kheldian inherent but as a team buff. Making them enjoyable is tricky though.

[drbuzzard]

Making them enjoyable is tricky? I love sentinels as they are, even though I certainly think they could use more damage. Sentinels fill a void in character ideas which has been present the whole time of the game's existence. Even if they aren't an optimal choice, sentinels are a fun choice because you get to play something you've seen in comics for ages, and you also get to play a pretty easy to run AT.

 

Heck, here's a real simple solution which will avoid stepping on toes, though it will be a bit duplicative of things that exist. It will also avoid stacked buffs or resistance debuffs which I suspect could be a sore spot with CP.

 

Improve defenses to 75% tanker base instead of 70% (tidiness is all).

Improve damage scalar to match scrappers and blasters at 1.125

Give them weaker crits. Don't make them 200%, just 150% or so.

With that you'd probably have to ditch the current inherent altogether and the ATOs would have to be revised.

 

Done.

[Frosticus]

I'm pretty strongly of the mindset that their damage to survivability ratio is off. While they are conceptually cool and desirable, they fail in that they play with almost no risk and no reward. Tanks also play with little risk, but they bring tremendous team benefit so that directly translates to satisfying reward. Sentinels have low risk, but what reward beyond being conceptually cool? Their damage is mediocre (in most cases), they offer little buff/debuff, they have little impact on the success/failure if a team is on the cusp and they have limited show stopper powers.

 

I could be wrong but I bet the data would show they solo the slowest, but suffer the least defeats in teams of all the armored AT's excluding tanks. 

 

And people want more defenses added to them? I think the .7 was intentional, but doesn't go far enough. I'd look at 0.6 and I'd look at improving their damage respectively. And then add something interesting to their inherent that addresses their value in a team setting. 

[Wavicle]

Again with the excessively complicated solutions to an incredibly simple problem.

 

Sentinels defenses are totally fine. The Debuffs they bring are totally fine. They just need to do more damage. It is so simple. Why are we even discussing this?

[Wavicle]

There are four "pure" dps classes: Scrappers, Stalkers, Blasters, and Sentinels.

They all do slightly different levels of dps, but Scrapper, Stalker, and Blaster seem to generally be within a fairly small distance of one another.  Sentinel is the outlier.  It can remain the least damaging of the four, but the difference just needs to be less.

[Frosticus]

39 minutes ago, sacredlunatic said:

Again with the excessively complicated solutions to an incredibly simple problem.

 

Sentinels defenses are totally fine. The Debuffs they bring are totally fine. They just need to do more damage. It is so simple. Why are we even discussing this?

I think mostly cause CP said he is looking at a fairly drastic revamp of their inherent and some subsequent changes to make them play more evenly.

 

that and dont they rank near the bottom of AT popularity despite being brand new to everyone and conceptually cool?

 

If he thought it was as simple as upping their damage I think he would just do it....?

Or was your question rhetorical?

[Wavicle]

58 minutes ago, Frosticus said:

I think mostly cause CP said he is looking at a fairly drastic revamp of their inherent and some subsequent changes to make them play more evenly.

 

that and dont they rank near the bottom of AT popularity despite being brand new to everyone and conceptually cool?

 

If he thought it was as simple as upping their damage I think he would just do it....?

Or was your question rhetorical?

well, it may be somewhat rhetorical.  But honestly, I DO think it is as simple as just upping the damage and I'm not sure why he thinks otherwise.

Are they near the bottom of popularity?  Where's the list? (not rhetorical, where's the list?)

[Frosticus]

It was the FOTM thread from the devs. dunno where it is, but I think they were right in there with doms and stalkers - 

they are both fantastic ATs but havent shaken the poor reputation they garnered from their original implementation and arguably villainous names.

 

 

 

[drbuzzard]

3 hours ago, Frosticus said:

It was the FOTM thread from the devs. dunno where it is, but I think they were right in there with doms and stalkers - 

they are both fantastic ATs but havent shaken the poor reputation they garnered from their original implementation and arguably villainous names.

 

 

 

I should check that. I wonder if corrupters are above defenders. If so I'd say that would be a mark against the name theory. Though stalkers do have a distinct play style which probably doesn't appeal to most, in spite of being the Batman archetype.

[Zepp]

Sentinals are just above Corruptors.

[Frosticus]

2 hours ago, drbuzzard said:

I should check that. I wonder if corrupters are above defenders. If so I'd say that would be a mark against the name theory. Though stalkers do have a distinct play style which probably doesn't appeal to most, in spite of being the Batman archetype.

just from what I recall but the 3 "villainous" ATs (corrs, stalkers, doms) were at the bottom with sents.

 

the name theory isnt a theory, players prefer being heroic. It's why a set like empathy can have hundreds of times as many people compared to pain.

 

 

[DarknessEternal]

Regardless of whatever it is you think Sentinels might need, the list of those things is "more damage".

 

There's no making Sentinels useful that doesn't include that.

[Zepp]

Sentinels should have a similar relationship to blasters as scrappers to stalkers. Sentinels and scrappers are DPS, blasters and stalkers are burst damage.

[Wavicle]

26 minutes ago, Zepp said:

Sentinels should have a similar relationship to blasters as scrappers to stalkers. Sentinels and scrappers are DPS, blasters and stalkers are burst damage.

Agreed.  But generally speaking, although stalkers and blasters are more bursty, stalkers, scrappers, and blasters are all roughly equal (roughly) in terms of what they bring to a team.  If you need a damage dealer any one of them will do.  The same must be able to be said of sentinels.  Since they lack Build Up and melee attacks, their ranged attacks need to at least do Almost as much as a blasters ranged attacks.  The details on the snipe replacements and the nukes can be messed with to keep the flavor right.

Edited December 13, 2019 by sacredlunatic

[Wavicle]

I just had an idea though.

What if Sentinel primaries got Build Up (with +Range) instead of Aim?

[nihilii]

15 hours ago, Frosticus said:

Sentinels have low risk, but what reward beyond being conceptually cool?

I'd argue low risk is the reward. It certainly is for me.

There's room in design space for less base involvement. Then you, as the player, choose what you stack on that.

"More damage and less defense" would fight against that design space, and put Sentinels in greater competition with Blasters - who should always do more damage anyway, if both ATs are designed properly.

I don't agree with the often repeated assumption Sentinels should be more popular by virtue of being new and shiny, implying their current popularity numbers are disappointing. A large size of the playerbase is repeat customers. Many players set out to remake their main. Inertia also makes people gravitate towards tried-and-true combos. See: undying popularity of "healers", */fire brutes for farming over ice/fire blasters... I feel the "new" factor of Sentinels is likely counterbalanced by all these above points, and the Sentinel popularity numbers don't spell any decisive story.

Ultimately...

 

14 hours ago, Frosticus said:

If he thought it was as simple as upping their damage I think he would just do it....?

This is the culprit. I like what CP does in general, but when you design stuff, there can be a tendency to design for the sake of design.

Here we're in a situation where:

1) there is no proof Sentinels are underperforming, neither in perception nor objectively
2) because no metric has been set to define that underperformance, we're throwing suggestions blind

It's entirely possible

a) Sentinels are fine as is
b) Sentinels have slight problems, and a minimal increase in damage would fix their problems

c) Sentinels have some problems, and a rework is needed (to what extent? the range is wide)

Unsexy as it may be, beyond making the inherent more intuitive (like @Zepp's suggestion of combining offensive and defensive mode in one, and letting any blast activate it), I'd rather we look at individual powersets to bring them up to par.

There seems to be little reason AR should have Slug as its T3 with T2-level damage, when every other powerset sees their "stun" type blast changed into a proper T3.

Smoothing animations so no standard blast takes more than 1.66s (1.848s) to animate would be nice as well. OK, that one opens a whole can of worms with PvP, but something has to give if sets like Psi, Energy, Elec, are to deal decent damage in PvE. Either the animations need to go faster or the damage needs to be bumped up. It's asinine the damage equations are based on animation time in PvP and based on recharge in PvE, but that's another topic.

Then maybe we could look at the epics, as currently /psi outperforms everything if you want to deal damage. I guess procs and especially Dominate might be targeted for a nerf eventually, so this might not be that big of a problem - and if such a nerf happens, then it would make sense for overall Sentinel damage to be bumped. That being said, it would leave us with fairly unattractive epics.

Edited December 13, 2019 by nihilii