New Archetype: Protector (support/melee)

[Haijinx]

Those removed picks to be replaced by the armor/mez resist stuff that is wanted for these ATs

[Wavicle]

26 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

inherents .... covering up holes in your design.  

That's literally what inherents are for.  Inherents are "archetype spackle".  I didn't come up with that.  I forget who it was, Arcanaville maybe.

Edited December 20, 2019 by sacredlunatic

[Wavicle]

29 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

  Then your idea's trajectory has been shifted around after various posts so I don't really know where it stands atm.

It stands currently where the OP is.  I'm vague about exact numbers in the OP intentionally.  When I say "similar to corruptor numbers" that doesn't have to mean Exactly the same.

[Wavicle]

It was important to me that Buff be Primary and Melee secondary.  Some of them would do very good damage, depending on their Primary.  Some would do mediocre damage. I'm ok with that.  That's how Defenders work and it seems to be fine.

[Leogunner]

1 minute ago, sacredlunatic said:

That's literally what inherents are for.  Inherents are "archetype spackle".  I didn't come up with that.  I forget who it was, Arcanaville maybe.

That's the case for some hero ATs because they were designed before inherents were a thing.

 

New ATs should facilitate a mechanic to differentiate it from those that fill the same role.  Scourge isn't filling a hole for Corruptors, it was designed to give the AT an offensive edge over other support ATs via a mechanic that has a degree of manipulation by the player.  Same with Fury, Assassination (even its old incarnation), Domination, etc.

 

Whether or not you view those inherents as "archetype Spackle", you still cannot deny the intent behind those inherents were meant to re-enforce the concept of the AT.  Can you say the same about your inherent?  

[Leogunner]

4 minutes ago, sacredlunatic said:

It stands currently where the OP is.  I'm vague about exact numbers in the OP intentionally.  When I say "similar to corruptor numbers" that doesn't have to mean Exactly the same.

I understand.  That's why I criticized describing it mainly through proximity to other ATs.  It's just easier if you tell us what it's meant to do best and what it's meant to do worst.  Someone with a big-picture sense of balance could chime in with their input and someone with math-centric interests could counter/verify that with some numbers if it comes to that.

 

I can still only assume the Protector here is supposed to be a Defender-lite but with melee attacks and some mez protection and I just feel that's redundant. 

[Wavicle]

ok, I see your point, although it might be noted that in the current game, towards the end anyway, Scourge, Fury, and Domination (when perma) are all basically passive.

However, since I was envisioning this as a support focused archetype it seems like, similar to Defenders and Controllers, a passive inherent is acceptable since Buff sets already tend mostly to be Not very passive.

 

But I see what you mean, the game's design did evolve somewhat.

Ok, so here's my thought process in regards to this idea:

The Buff sets are already some of the most fun powers in any MMO.  They really don't need much alteration.

I didn't want it to be Defender-lite.  I wanted it to be competitive with Defenders for team support.  So maybe that's not clear in the OP.

Corruptors are already more redundant, it seems, since they literally have the same powers.

Soooo...maybe if instead of passive mez protection and shielding they got a tiny stacking mez protection (and maybe some kind of shielding) buff each time they used a Primary power?

 

[Wavicle]

Although I feel like that would work much better for some sets than others.

[Wavicle]

I will take a few minutes to try to reword the OP to describe the capabilities of the AT without so much reference to other archetypes.

[Haijinx]

13 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

 

I can still only assume the Protector here is supposed to be a Defender-lite but with melee attacks and some mez protection and I just feel that's redundant. 

This is basically where I am with regards to the melee support stuff. 

 

I don't see the big divide between ranged and melee that is evidently inherently obvious.  

 

Which might help explain my counter proposal of assault sets for corruptors  "If they really want to punch instead of shoot so bad .. well okay.

 

 

[Wavicle]

It sounds like I should take a look at the possibility of creating a new kind of set, I don't have a name yet, but others have suggested something like this, a hybrid of Buff and Armor.

[Wavicle]

The problem being if you do that then they really do become Defender-lite.

[Leogunner]

19 minutes ago, sacredlunatic said:

It sounds like I should take a look at the possibility of creating a new kind of set, I don't have a name yet, but others have suggested something like this, a hybrid of Buff and Armor.

Not necessarily.  Like I said before, if you point out what the AT is supposed to do, everything else comes easier.  If you want the AT to just have full blown support powers and melee, you can dial back its support a bit but give it high damage and make the inherent a domination-esque break free you have to activate with a build-up bar (you can even give it some absorb).  But what you've got is basically a combination of powersets and that's it.  I'm trying to get some talk going about modernizing the design to make it fun and interactive.

 

29 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

This is basically where I am with regards to the melee support stuff. 

 

I don't see the big divide between ranged and melee that is evidently inherently obvious.  

 

Which might help explain my counter proposal of assault sets for corruptors  "If they really want to punch instead of shoot so bad .. well okay.

 

 

Going back to read my thread on the Interceptor, I still feel it's a worthwhile concept for a wishy-washy tank with some moderate support and a fun offensive edge but not many bit.  I can only hope there are some ideas in there someone would bother stealing.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2019 by Leogunner

[boggo2300]

1 hour ago, sacredlunatic said:

I didn't want it to be Defender-lite.  I wanted it to be competitive with Defenders for team support.  So maybe that's not clear in the OP.

With added Mez and HP it pretty much HAS to be Defender light, you can't add things to the AT without lowering it's  base powerlevel

[Pbuckley818]

52 minutes ago, boggo2300 said:

With added Mez and HP it pretty much HAS to be Defender light, you can't add things to the AT without lowering it's  base powerlevel

I mean we are already taking something away, range. However how far that reall goes towards paying for the AT's defense I cannot be certain. On top of that getting Defender or Corrupter Damage numbers on a Melee AT worries me. The Squishier melee AT's rely on that extra damage to take out enemies quickly, before they can b taken out in turn, sure some Buff sets can really optimize a charecters damage, but do we really want an AT that further insintives the sets that are already super incentivized.

 

The more I look at it the more convenced I am the the AT needs to have support numbers that are at or most probably below Corruptor values in order to give use something that feels fun to play, yet remains balanced. I know how hard it is for the OP at the moment though I origionally wanted to insist that this AT be focused super heavy on support, but now I'd just settle on something modeled after a VEAT, of course I still believe we can trade in The VEATS ranged for a bit more support, how much, no clue, but it should work non the less.

 

I am also not really looking at making the AT a Tank, maybe some builds, but not as much of a focus.

 

Onto side tracking a but into my desighn. One of the majore THings I am looking to do with the Protectore is unify the classes -resist. Some support Powers may still have a -resist but I want to avoid over incentivizing powersets that possesss -resist debuffs. Heres how I am doing this 1 most of the support sets won't have their -resist power, if it is too central to the sts identity, it's -resist will be lower or removed. Secondly All Protectors will have access to.

 

Innate: Sundering

The Protector is a cunning tactician and as a result is always looking for a chance to soften up an opponent’s defenses, as a result every melee attack the Protector makes has a chance of being a Sundering Blow. Reducing the targets defenses and leaving them momentarily exposed to attack. The higher the rank of the target, the greater the chance for a successful Sundering Blow.

The standard chance of a Sundering Blow is 5% against players, pets, and critters of Minion rank and below, and 10% against critters above Minion.

Sunder Debuff

                -20 Res, for 5 sec. Does not stack, even with multiple Protectors.

 

Secondary: Melee

As Per Tanker, however they get a variant of confront at T5 called Goad, and a variant of Placate at T6 called Faint. (Some powers may get Faintat T5 and Goad at T6) The damage should be akin to tankers as well, nothing to write home about, but it should get the job done. (Assume current Tanker values for now). Look at what powers stalkers generally loose in exchange for Assassin strike to see what powers the Protector looses.

 

• T5: Goad- Ranged, Foe: Taunt, -Damage, -To Hit.
  • Foes: Mag 4 Taunt, -15% Def, -20% Res. (For 20 sec. Every 45 sec.)

 

• T6: Faint- Ranged, Foe: Placate, -Defense, -Res (All)
  • Foes: Mag 4 Placate, -15% Def, -20% Res. (For 20 sec. Every 45 sec.)

 

Conversely they may just get Faint without the Placate, and no Goad. But as of right no I like the idea of them getting a confront and a placate, Ideally they might even be able to tiem it to take pressure off a struggling tank, or a squishy that accedentally pulled aggro, thoughts? I do worry that it's a little overturned. Yet I feel their oresist being inantely single target or locked behind a Critical Hit like Innate, should be a pretty good counter too that. Of course you can't slot innates, so maybe it should be stronger? IDK.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Pbuckley818

[boggo2300]

5 minutes ago, Pbuckley818 said:

I mean we are already taking something away, range. However how far that reall goes towards paying for the AT's defense I cannot be certain. On top of that getting Defender or Corrupter Damage numbers on a Melee AT worries me. The Squishier melee AT's rely on that extra damage to take out enemies quickly, before they can b taken out in turn, sure some Buff sets can really optimize a charecters damage, but do we really want an AT that further insintives the sets that are already super incentivized.

 

The more I look at it the more convenced I am the the AT needs to have support numbers that are at or most probably below Corruptor values in order to give use something that feels fun to play, yet remains balanced. I know how hard it is for the OP at the moment though I origionally wanted to insist that this AT be focused super heavy on support, but now I'd just settle on something modeled after a VEAT, of course I still believe we can trade in The VEATS ranged for a bit more support, how much, no clue, but it should work non the less.

 

I am also not really looking at making the AT a Tank, maybe some builds, but not as much of a focus.

 

Onto side tracking a but into my desighn. One of the majore THings I am looking to do with the Protectore is unify the classes -resist. Some support Powers may still have a -resist but I want to avoid over incentivizing powersets that possesss -resist debuffs. Heres how I am doing this 1 most of the support sets won't have their -resist power, if it is too central to the sts identity, it's -resist will be lower or removed. Secondly All Protectors will have access to.

 

Innate: Sundering

The Protector is a cunning tactician and as a result is always looking for a chance to soften up an opponent’s defenses, as a result every melee attack the Protector makes has a chance of being a Sundering Blow. Reducing the targets defenses and leaving them momentarily exposed to attack. The higher the rank of the target, the greater the chance for a successful Sundering Blow.

The standard chance of a Sundering Blow is 5% against players, pets, and critters of Minion rank and below, and 10% against critters above Minion.

Sunder Debuff

                -20 Res, for 5 sec. Does not stack, even with multiple Protectors.

 

Secondary: Melee

As Per Tanker, however they get a variant of confront at T5 called Goad, and a variant of Placate at T6 called Faint. (Some powers may get Faintat T5 and Goad at T6) The damage should be akin to tankers as well, nothing to write home about, but it should get the job done. (Assume current Tanker values for now). Look at what powers stalkers generally loose in exchange for Assassin strike to see what powers the Protector looses.

 

• T5: Goad- Ranged, Foe: Taunt, -Damage, -To Hit.
  • Foes: Mag 4 Taunt, -15% Def, -20% Res. (For 20 sec. Every 45 sec.)

 

• T6: Faint- Ranged, Foe: Placate, -Defense, -Res (All)
  • Foes: Mag 4 Placate, -15% Def, -20% Res. (For 20 sec. Every 45 sec.)

 

Conversely they may just get Faint without the Placate, and no Goad. But as of right no I like the idea of them getting a confront and a placate, Ideally they might even be able to tiem it to take pressure off a struggling tank, or a squishy that accedentally pulled aggro, thoughts? I do worry that it's a little overturned. Yet I feel their oresist being inantely single target or locked behind a Critical Hit like Innate, should be a pretty good counter too that. Of course you can't slot innates, so maybe it should be stronger? IDK.

It's a support toon though, it's not supposed to do much damage, thats the cost all the existing support toons do, they do minimal damage, that should not change it's a fundamental

[Pbuckley818]

1 minute ago, boggo2300 said:

It's a support toon though, it's not supposed to do much damage, thats the cost all the existing support toons do, they do minimal damage, that should not change it's a fundamental

You have obviously never played a VEAT.

[boggo2300]

2 minutes ago, Pbuckley818 said:

You have obviously never played a VEAT.

three, a widow, a fortunata and a bane spider to 50

 

they are primarily not support toons, their support powers are their bonus 

[Pbuckley818]

39 minutes ago, boggo2300 said:

three, a widow, a fortunata and a bane spider to 50

 

they are primarily not support toons, their support powers are their bonus 

That's kind of what I am doing, the AT is loosing range for slightly more support than a VEAT. Basically think about the levels you get froma Mastermind only MAYBE a bit better. Part of me really wants a full on support AT, but I am beginning to doupt it will be possible to implament one without first buffing the other support toons who get short changed way to much in CoH design to begin with. But seeing as we are trying to avoid power bloat... My take on the Protector uses the VEATS as a starting point. Even thane the damage is at the same level as Tanker as of right now, which is already lower than a VEATS. Of course I am open to dropping the damage to Corruptor levels, a lot of this is pure theory until we can get the AT into a test server.

 

Also I would argue mildly that some VEATS have some fairly strong Support potential more so on the Soldier than the Widow, who is more like a Tanky Dominator with Group Buffs.

As the VEATS can put out some Solid Buff/Debuff Potential.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Pbuckley818

[boggo2300]

9 minutes ago, Pbuckley818 said:

That's kind of what I am doing, the AT is loosing range for slightly more support than a VEAT. Basically think about the levels you get froma Mastermind only MAYBE a bit better. Part of me really wants a full on support AT, but I am beginning to doupt it will be possible to implament one without first buffing the other support toons who get short changed way to much in CoH design to begin with. But seeing as we are trying to avoid power bloat... My take on the Protector uses the VEATS as a starting point. Even thane the damage is at the same level as Tanker as of right now, which is already lower than a VEATS. Of course I am open to dropping the damage to Corruptor levels, a lot of this is pure theory until we can get the AT into a test server.

 

Also I would argue mildly that some VEATS have some fairly strong Support potential more so on the Soldier than the Widow, who is more like a Tanky Dominator with Group Buffs.

As the VEATS can put out some Solid Buff/Debuff Potential.

what you are missing though is EATS and VEATS are different than normal AT's and shouldn't be used to balance another AT

[Pbuckley818]

20 minutes ago, boggo2300 said:

what you are missing though is EATS and VEATS are different than normal AT's and shouldn't be used to balance another AT

I am well aware of the fact that the AT will need a more rigid and economical design. However the fact is that VEATS are the closest thing in the game to a working Melee/Support AT and they are fairly balanced against all other AT's. (Otherwise they would be pretty much the only thing you see in game to begin with. I am looking at the game as a whole rather than just one or two AT's.

 

Tanker, Scrapper, Stalker, Defender, Corruptor, Soldier, and Widow, are all things I am looking at when working on this design. I am aslo looking at game design in general especially how what few games that have implamented such a Class did so, to work out where this AT needs to sit in general. If you are concerned about AT balance look at the things I have posted, not worry about non posted numbers just yet, and tell me how you feel about what substantial information you have been given. If it makes you feel better this is my end goal. (As unhelpfull as I know the meter thing from the AT selection screen really is)

 

 

Stats

(Like in the game these are more of a rough metric for the intended result of the AT’s design than a perfect reflection of the final result.)

Survivability: 6-7

Melee Damage: 6-7

Ranged Damage: 2

Crowd Control: 4

Support: 6-8

Pets: 2

 

In short lower overall values than the Veats.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Pbuckley818

[boggo2300]

4 minutes ago, Pbuckley818 said:

I am well aware of the fact that the AT will need a more rigid and economical design. However the fact is that VEATS are the closest thing in the game to a working Melee/Support AT and they are fairly balanced against all other AT's. (Otherwise they would be pretty much the only thing you see in game to begin with. I am looking at the game as a whole rather than just one or two AT's.

 

Tanker, Scrapper, Stalker, Defender, Corruptor, Soldier, and Widow, are all things I am looking at when working on this design. I am aslo looking at game design in general especially how what few games that have implamented such a Class did so, to work out where this AT needs to sit in general. If you are concerned about AT balance look at the things I have posted, not worry about non posted numbers just yet, and tell me how you feel about what substantial information you have been given. If it makes you feel better this is my end goal. (As unhelpfull as I know the meter thing from the AT selection screen really is)

 

 

Stats

(Like in the game these are more of a rough metric for the intended result of the AT’s design than a perfect reflection of the final result.)

Survivability: 6-7

Melee Damage: 6-7

Ranged Damage: 2

Crowd Control: 4

Support: 6-8

Pets: 2

 

In short lower overall values than the Veats.

Veats are paying for their adaptability with the limits on pool selection it's something you don't want

[Pbuckley818]

13 minutes ago, boggo2300 said:

Veats are paying for their adaptability with the limits on pool selection it's something you don't want

Again I feel you are missing my core point. I will have to create a new thread once I have built more power Examples than this but maybe this will help. Yes this is very VEAT like but it was actually designed primarily after the Shield Powerset. It's basically an attempt at porting Captain America into CoH, it was only the first I designed as it was the easiest to desighn. Honestly due to not having Phalanx fighting (Mildly Ironic I know) it is squishier than a Scrapper and maybe even a Stalker while in a full team, but slightly tankier while soloing. which is fair as it doesn't deal nearly as much damage while soloing, but provides group buffs while in a team.

 

Classical Warfare (Again Ballpark numbers.)

• T1: Deflection- Toggle: Self +DEF(Melee), +Res (Smash, Lethal)
  • Self: +7.5% Def (Melee)

 

• T2: Battle Agility- Toggle: Self +DEF (Ranged, AoE), +Res(DEF Debuff)
  • Self: +7.5% Def (Ranged, AoE), +14 Res (Def Debuff)

 

• T3: Battle Tactics: Maneuvers- Toggle: PBAoE Team +DEF(All)
  • Team (But not the Protector): +10% DEF (All), Self: +7.5% DEF (All).

 

• T4: True Grit- Auto: Self +Res (Fire, Cold, Energy, Negative, Toxic), +Max Health
  • Self: +7.5% Res, +10% HP.

 

• T5: Battle Tactics: Assault- Toggle: PBAoE, Team +DMG Res (Taunt, Placate)
  • Team (But not the Protector): +15% To Hit, Self: +7.5% To Hit.

 

• T6: Rally- PBAoE, Team +Res (Disorient, Hold, Immobilize, Sleep, Fear, Confuse, Repel, Knockback, Def Debuff)
  • Team: +10% Res (For 120 Sec).

 

• T7: Battle Tactics: Leadership- Toggle PBAoE Team +ACC Res (Confuse, Fear) +Perception
  • Team (But not the Protector): +10% To Hit, Self: +5% To Hit.

 

• T8: Shield Charge- PBAoE, Superior DMG(Smash), Foe Knockdown, Self Teleport.

 

• T9: Battle Tactics: Interference- Toggle: PBAoE, Foes -To Hit, -DMG, -Def.
  • Foes: -5% To Hit, -7.5% DMG, -5% Def.

 

I plan to get 5-8 of these done before even trying to take the set into testing, so as to have things to compare against.

• Charisma- Empathy/Willpower
• Storm-Storm/(Ice Armor or Electric Armor)
• Kin/(Energy, Reflexes, or Invulnerability)
• Rad
• Dark
• Fire?
• Poisons?
• Nature?
• Time?

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Pbuckley818

[boggo2300]

10 minutes ago, Pbuckley818 said:

Again I feel you are missing my core point. I will have to create a new thread once I have built more power Examples than this but maybe this will help. Yes this is very VEAT like but it was actually designed primarily after the Shield Powerset. It's basically an attempt at porting Captain America into CoH, it was only the first I designed as it was the easiest to desighn. Honestly due to not having Phalanx fighting (Mildly Ironic I know) it is squishier than a Scrapper and maybe even a Stalker while in a full team, but slightly tankier while soloing. which is fair as it doesn't deal nearly as much damage while soloing, but provides group buffs while in a team.

 

Classical Warfare (Again Ballpark numbers.)

• T1: Deflection- Toggle: Self +DEF(Melee), +Res (Smash, Lethal)
  • Self: +7.5% Def (Melee)

 

• T2: Battle Agility- Toggle: Self +DEF (Ranged, AoE), +Res(DEF Debuff)
  • Self: +7.5% Def (Ranged, AoE), +14 Res (Def Debuff)

 

• T3: Battle Tactics: Maneuvers- Toggle: PBAoE Team +DEF(All)
  • Team (But not the Protector): +10% DEF (All), Self: +7.5% DEF (All).

 

• T4: True Grit- Auto: Self +Res (Fire, Cold, Energy, Negative, Toxic), +Max Health
  • Self: +7.5% Res, +10% HP.

 

• T5: Battle Tactics: Assault- Toggle: PBAoE, Team +DMG Res (Taunt, Placate)
  • Team (But not the Protector): +15% To Hit, Self: +7.5% To Hit.

 

• T6: Rally- PBAoE, Team +Res (Disorient, Hold, Immobilize, Sleep, Fear, Confuse, Repel, Knockback, Def Debuff)
  • Team: +10% Res (For 120 Sec).

 

• T7: Battle Tactics: Leadership- Toggle PBAoE Team +ACC Res (Confuse, Fear) +Perception
  • Team (But not the Protector): +10% To Hit, Self: +5% To Hit.

 

• T8: Shield Charge- PBAoE, Superior DMG(Smash), Foe Knockdown, Self Teleport.

 

• T9: Battle Tactics: Interference- Toggle: PBAoE, Foes -To Hit, -DMG, -Def.
  • Foes: -5% To Hit, -7.5% DMG, -5% Def.

I will wait to see your full proposal, but I do think basing it on VEATS is starting off unbalanced

[Pbuckley818]

1 hour ago, boggo2300 said:

I will wait to see your full proposal, but I do think basing it on VEATS is starting off unbalanced

While I do get your point, starting it off with any given AT is going to have it start off unbalanced. The numbers will have to be adjusted to match this AT no matter what, so it is better to start off with no illusions of legitimacy. Starting with VEATS may present problems, but I feel it will help to produce a superior design.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Pbuckley818