will homecoming be able to make new content?

[RikOz]

I've found that several of my old blasters from live work much better (for me) now as sentinels. I've also discovered I enjoy sets like DP and AR a lot more as sentinels, where I can just concentrate on spewing damage instead of needing to mix in mezzes that are so frequently ineffective. Sentinels are generally simpler than blasters. My main is a lvl 50 fire/fire/flame blaster and there are so many buttons between the power sets and pools. Sentinel secondaries are more "set and forget" passive stuff, and that works well for the way I like to play. Even in WoW, when selecting talents, I tended toward passives instead of actives that required me to find a way to insert yet another button into my rotation/toolkit.

[TyrantMikey]

11 hours ago, Shred Monkey said:

I think we have enough ATs.  I could see adding a powerset, but honestly, we have a lot of them already, just small tweaks to balance and we're good there.  Perhaps more alternate animations on the ones we have. 

 

I could get behind a new energy powerset that lacked knockback, and was adjusted numerically to compensate for it. That way, you don't have to invest in an IO to convert KB to KD, and you can opt-in to KB by making a powerset selection.

 

I dig the energy powerset animations and the concept. I'd just like to see the ability to opt-in to KB from the get-go.

 

But that's my two-cents, and they ain't worth squat.

[boggo2300]

14 hours ago, Coyotedancer said:

I'm really fond of them as-is, too. 

They're excellent solo characters, and *not* useless with a group. At all.

 

You don't have to be "the best" at something to have a role with a team. You don't have to be a rock star to be useful and to contribute. I off-tank with my Dark/Bio/Dark. I blast the crap out of things with Fire/Ice.  I make a moderate mess with my Psi/Bio, too. They're good fun to play and that alone makes them worth having on my character list.

 

I've also read the proposed "improvements" to the AT with something between horror and wariness. I'm really worried that the intended direction of the so-called fixes will end up basically altering the way they play so much that we might as well have just had another archetype completely.  o_0

 

16 bazillion times this!!!!!

[boggo2300]

14 hours ago, Chris24601 said:

I tried a Sentinel for a bit and the main changes I think it needs are

 

A) buff/reduce the nerf on AoEs

B) fix their AT mechanic so you can control its triggering without resorting to the t1-2 attacks (perhaps something closer to the Domination button that you can hold once charged up).

 

Other than that I don’t think there’s that much of a problem with them. They don’t especially stand out on teams, but they’re another source of damage and another pool of relatively resistant hit points that makes the team stronger than they’d be if that slot weren’t filled.

 

They’re kinda the Jack-of-All-Trades (i.e. second best at everything) which means they don’t shine individually in a group the way the best do (i.e. blasters nuking whole spawns, tanks soaking hits from entire spawns), but they’re adding a bit to everything (damage dealt, hits soaked) that adds up overall.

 

Has anyone tested what the performance of an all Sentinel team looks like relative to say, one of all blasters, all tanks and a well mixed team? I’d be curious about, say, their clear times for some of the common TFs relative to each other.

See, I love the inherent, I think the way it operates and it's effects are just plain cool

[boggo2300]

19 hours ago, Shred Monkey said:

I agree... I mean, people saying we need a melee control AT, isn't that what Dominators are?

 

I think we have enough ATs.  I could see adding a powerset, but honestly, we have a lot of them already, just small tweaks to balance and we're good there.  Perhaps more alternate animations on the ones we have. 

 

More mission content would be great.  Granted we have a ton of mission content as well, but the way content has kept getting better and better over time, I think just adding more new content using those new tools would be great... preferably endgame playable, also.  The New Pretorian arc is perfect.  More please, thanks!

 

You've hit the nail right on the head, rather than AT after AT usually to mimic something another AT already does, I think yes new Powersets, I think this is hugely better way of going with extending the player options with far less chance of breaking stuff!!!

[Coyote]

I read about the Guardian AT as a proposed melee/buffing set. So I wondered... wouldn't you get the same effect just by proliferating MELEE attack sets to Defenders? Does it really seem either too weak or too strong to let Defenders (and by extension Corruptors) have Stone Melee, Dark Melee, Superstrength, etc? You can have a Stone Melee/Kinetics character, or make the Martial Arts/Kinetics Ink Men that players have been asking for, and you don't have to create a new AT for it. Just proliferate a different TYPE of attack set.

[boggo2300]

3 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I read about the Guardian AT as a proposed melee/buffing set. So I wondered... wouldn't you get the same effect just by proliferating MELEE attack sets to Defenders? Does it really seem either too weak or too strong to let Defenders (and by extension Corruptors) have Stone Melee, Dark Melee, Superstrength, etc? You can have a Stone Melee/Kinetics character, or make the Martial Arts/Kinetics Ink Men that players have been asking for, and you don't have to create a new AT for it. Just proliferate a different TYPE of attack set.

😉

 

honestly powerset proliferation is in my opinion anyway pretty much the only player power expansion that should happen in the near future, I even think the Sentinel would have worked better as some defense powers given to Blasters 😄

[Luminara]

21 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I read about the Guardian AT as a proposed melee/buffing set. So I wondered... wouldn't you get the same effect just by proliferating MELEE attack sets to Defenders? Does it really seem either too weak or too strong to let Defenders (and by extension Corruptors) have Stone Melee, Dark Melee, Superstrength, etc? You can have a Stone Melee/Kinetics character, or make the Martial Arts/Kinetics Ink Men that players have been asking for, and you don't have to create a new AT for it. Just proliferate a different TYPE of attack set.

 

Defender melee uses 0.55 scale.  Mastermind use 0.55 for their attacks (the character, not the pets).

 

The generally unfavorable opinion of petless masterminds indicates that proliferating melee sets to defenders would be somewhat less than enthusiastically embraced by the majority.  And without reworking some of the melee sets to include status protection, they'd only be usable with roughly half the defender primaries.  You really would be better served with a new AT for melee/buff.

[KC4800]

Doesn't the Widow already give you melee and buff team concept?

[siolfir]

Just now, KC4800 said:

Doesn't the Widow already give you melee and buff team concept?

It also gives you range and armor, but we have Sentinels.

[DR_Mechano]

5 hours ago, boggo2300 said:

You've hit the nail right on the head, rather than AT after AT usually to mimic something another AT already does, I think yes new Powersets, I think this is hugely better way of going with extending the player options with far less chance of breaking stuff!!!

That would actually be fair enough, if they ported the gave Defenders the option to take a modified melee set instead of ranged set that would be cool. Something akin to Martial Combat from Blasters would be ace.

[Gulbasaur]

2 hours ago, KC4800 said:

Doesn't the Widow already give you melee and buff team concept?

Sort of. Widows (and spiders) get cheap versions of the Leadership buffs, but in reality they're basically toggles you leave on and forget. They're not support in nearly the same sense as Defenders, Corrupters and Controllers.

[siolfir]

5 hours ago, Gulbasaur said:

Sort of. Widows (and spiders) get cheap versions of the Leadership buffs, but in reality they're basically toggles you leave on and forget. They're not support in nearly the same sense as Defenders, Corrupters and Controllers.

Depends on the Defender, Corruptor, or Controller, really. Some support sets are more active than others, and some players skip a lot of the single-target buffs. For the most part I agree, though; that's why I commented about the ranged/armor that you get from the VEATs (and even earlier, from Khelds) as not preventing them from making Sentinels.

Edited January 9, 2020 by siolfir

[Puma]

10 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

Defender melee uses 0.55 scale.  Mastermind use 0.55 for their attacks (the character, not the pets).

 

The generally unfavorable opinion of petless masterminds indicates that proliferating melee sets to defenders would be somewhat less than enthusiastically embraced by the majority.  And without reworking some of the melee sets to include status protection, they'd only be usable with roughly half the defender primaries.  You really would be better served with a new AT for melee/buff.

Im sorry but this is seriously flawed logic. 


The modifier isn't the reason single pet masterminds aren't popular. The reason is that to make a single pet mstermind, for the most part, you are just making a defender with fewer offensive power options.  The majority (5) of your primary powers suddenly become useless (the three pet powers +2 equips).  For almost all of them you could make the same kind of toon as a defender, only you'd have far more offensive power options.

And I say this as someone who has run multiple single pet masterminds to incarnate level for concept.  

You could keep simply alter the defender melee modifier of you really wanted to to equal its ranged modifier, open up the melee sets to it, and make defenders a true "support" class that can play in melee or ranged.  I have actually never understood why defenders were relegated to ranged combat when so many of their powers really benefit themselves and their team as well or better if they're in melee with the fighters. 

[boggo2300]

5 minutes ago, Puma said:

Im sorry but this is seriously flawed logic. 


The modifier isn't the reason single pet masterminds aren't popular. The reason is that to make a single pet mstermind, for the most part, you are just making a defender with fewer offensive power options.  The majority (5) of your primary powers suddenly become useless (the three pet powers +2 equips).  For almost all of them you could make the same kind of toon as a defender, only you'd have far more offensive power options.

And I say this as someone who has run multiple single pet masterminds to incarnate level for concept.  

You could keep simply alter the defender melee modifier of you really wanted to to equal its ranged modifier, open up the melee sets to it, and make defenders a true "support" class that can play in melee or ranged.  I have actually never understood why defenders were relegated to ranged combat when so many of their powers really benefit themselves and their team as well or better if they're in melee with the fighters. 

wow thanks, thats really a helpful explanation

[siolfir]

56 minutes ago, Puma said:

You could keep simply alter the defender melee modifier of you really wanted to to equal its ranged modifier, open up the melee sets to it, and make defenders a true "support" class that can play in melee or ranged.  I have actually never understood why defenders were relegated to ranged combat when so many of their powers really benefit themselves and their team as well or better if they're in melee with the fighters. 

So it would go from 0.55 to 0.65. Still not great. At least Corruptors are at 0.75 on each already, but they probably don't want to deal with Scourge on melee sets that haven't already been ported to Stalkers or Scrappers (and with melee powers being in epic/Patron pools). A Fulcrum Shifted Energy Transfer that has a full damage Scourge would be fun, though.

[boggo2300]

12 minutes ago, siolfir said:

So it would go from 0.55 to 0.65. Still not great. At least Corruptors are at 0.75 on each already, but they probably don't want to deal with Scourge on melee sets that haven't already been ported to Stalkers or Scrappers (and with melee powers being in epic/Patron pools). A Fulcrum Shifted Energy Transfer that has a full damage Scourge would be fun, though.

don't forget though it's still supposed to be a support toon rather than a frontliner so 0.65 is probably not too horrible

[MTeague]

Technically the Homecoming Dev team doesn't have "rights" to anything, not until there's a signed agreement with NCSoft. 

Hasn't stopped them thus far.  I don't see it stopping them until/unless an agreement is signed. 

 

However, given that they cannot allow themselves to make a profit, resources and man-hours are never going to be there to crank out content as if they were a AAA gaming company.

Anything and everything we get, is gravy, and should be appreciated as the gift and labor of love that it is.

[Luminara]

2 hours ago, Puma said:

Im sorry but this is seriously flawed logic. 


The modifier isn't the reason single pet masterminds aren't popular. The reason is that to make a single pet mstermind, for the most part, you are just making a defender with fewer offensive power options.  The majority (5) of your primary powers suddenly become useless (the three pet powers +2 equips).  For almost all of them you could make the same kind of toon as a defender, only you'd have far more offensive power options.

 

Except, the modifier is the reason.  More specifically, all of the applicable modifiers are the reason.  You aren't playing a defender with fewer offensive options when you're playing a petless mastermind, you're playing a defender-lite with fewer offensive options.  Mastermind scales are lower than defender scales across the board.  Buffs, debuffs, heals, damage, everything.  Attacks can be replaced with pool powers, as I proved back in 2006, so only having access to three of your primary set isn't actually relevant in this context.  What's relevant is that you're not only working with a base 0.55 damage scale, you're also working with lower base scale values on all of your buffs, debuffs, heals, everything.

 

And that's why the vast majority of players do not choose to play petless masterminds.  It's not just because the pets are the primary mode of damage dealing for masterminds, it's also because mastermind secondaries are significantly weaker than their corruptor and defender versions.  Playable, yes, for the right people, but not most.

 

The point, though, was not about petless masterminds.  The ATs share a scale value, so I used that as a reference people would understand.

 

2 hours ago, Puma said:

You could keep simply alter the defender melee modifier of you really wanted to to equal its ranged modifier, open up the melee sets to it, and make defenders a true "support" class that can play in melee or ranged.

 

That could be done, but, speaking from experience, it would still be crap.  Not only because the base damage would still be low, but because very few defender primaries have status protection which player can use to his/her own benefit.  It's just not a viable option without significantly redesigned sets.  Status protections would have to be included, numerous debuffs would have to be reduced in strength and many of the ally-only buffs would have to be replaced with versions which offered some benefit to the defender.  That's not a change of 0.55 to 0.65, it's a rework of at least eight defender primaries, possibly all of them, and several months of testing and rebalancing.

 

3 hours ago, Puma said:

 I have actually never understood why defenders were relegated to ranged combat when so many of their powers really benefit themselves and their team as well or better if they're in melee with the fighters. 

 

Because melee attacks typically have higher base values, and defenders have access to the most powerful -Res and +Dam.  Defenders are a force multiplier, even in a team of one.

[Lines]

6 hours ago, MTeague said:

Technically the Homecoming Dev team doesn't have "rights" to anything, not until there's a signed agreement with NCSoft. 

Hasn't stopped them thus far.  I don't see it stopping them until/unless an agreement is signed. 

 

However, given that they cannot allow themselves to make a profit, resources and man-hours are never going to be there to crank out content as if they were a AAA gaming company.

Anything and everything we get, is gravy, and should be appreciated as the gift and labor of love that it is.

I think we derailed this topic in this thread long ago.

[boggo2300]

6 minutes ago, Lines said:

I think we derailed this topic in this thread long ago.

shhhh FIXED, FIXED the topic 😉

[Chris24601]

15 hours ago, MTeague said:

However, given that they cannot allow themselves to make a profit, resources and man-hours are never going to be there to crank out content as if they were a AAA gaming company. Anything and everything we get, is gravy, and should be appreciated as the gift and labor of love that it is.

I think its worth pointing out that "non-profit" doesn't mean people can't be paid for their work. My brother-in-law works at a non-profit religious school and is paid just like any employee at a for profit company would be.

 

Non-profit just means that its profits can't exceed its expenses; any overage needs to be re-invested in infrastructure (ex. new computers for the classrooms) or donated (ex. giving the older computers to another religious school that needs them).

 

Once a deal is signed (before which you might be hiring people just to lay them off if something goes sideways), a non-profit could still hire a small staff to perform basic operations. Having paid positions to provide 24/7 trouble ticket support would be a perfectly justified expense for a non-profit offering a service. Having a few paid employees to program new mission content/power sets would similarly not be out of line with a non-profit related to a computer service.

 

A lot depends on the provisions of any deal made. One thing I feel fairly confident of is that it won't involve a rollback of what Homecoming has already added. There's just no point to forcing a rollback to i23 when the work's already been done. While it might freeze any additional new content beyond that, I also think that outcome is unlikely (other than possible provisions like not being able to use the existing signature characters in new content).

[Carnifax]

On 1/9/2020 at 2:58 PM, DR_Mechano said:

That would actually be fair enough, if they ported the gave Defenders the option to take a modified melee set instead of ranged set that would be cool. Something akin to Martial Combat from Blasters would be ace.

One option would be to give Defenders some assault sets. Say the types they dont already have (Martial, Earth, Savage and Thorns I think). 

 

A Kinetics / Martial defender sounds fun. 

[Chris24601]

I think you could even argue the seeds for such unconventional additions would be some of the new blaster secondaries like Tac Arrow (i.e. all ranged control/debuffs and personal buffs to the point it almost feels like a hybrid controller/defense set).

 

Sets like that really diversify the way you can play a blaster (away from the blapper melee secondary attack) while still leaving the primary role (ranged damage) intact.

 

Which does mean it probably makes more sense to apply this approach to the original hero ATs since they were less hybrids like some of the villain ones.

 

As an example; how necessary would the dominator AT be if damage sets had been created for Controllers in addition to their buff/debuff sets?

 

We have a strong semi-control/debuff set for Blasters. Could you create a balanced ranged damage set for a tanker? How about a melee set for a defender? A pure damage secondary for Masterminds?

 

Perhaps the solution isn’t to add more ATs, but to expand the concepts available for the AT secondary sets.

 

You’d have to be careful how you approached it (there’s a reason I suggest such options only be secondary sets... no ranged/defense scrappers) particularly where it would step on other ATs.

 

For example, adding a damage secondary to controllers steps all over dominators so is a non-starter for legacy reasons (if we were back in 2005 discussing how CoV should be built it’d be another matter).

 

Similarly, adding a ranged damage secondary to tankers could step on sentinels... as would adding armor as a blaster secondary.

 

But others like adding melee as a defender secondary (replacing one damage category with another) or a scapper’s defense secondary with a debuff set (i.e. defense through debuffing attackers’ acc/damage/recharge) are niches that aren’t already filled and seem like areas worth exploring.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Chris24601

[Puma]

17 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

 

That could be done, but, speaking from experience, it would still be crap.  Not only because the base damage would still be low, but because very few defender primaries have status protection which player can use to his/her own benefit.  It's just not a viable option without significantly redesigned sets.  Status protections would have to be included, numerous debuffs would have to be reduced in strength and many of the ally-only buffs would have to be replaced with versions which offered some benefit to the defender.  That's not a change of 0.55 to 0.65, it's a rework of at least eight defender primaries, possibly all of them, and several months of testing and rebalancing.

 

 

 

I take it you play your kinetic defenders at ranged? Because I know I and a lot of other people don't, and they seem to play just fine. Not as sturdy as a brute of course, but just fine. And add in Sorcery and you're doing pretty solid on status protection when you need it, too.

And the same goes for nature, time, sonic, and storm, which many people also play in melee range.  All of which are entirely viable and in melee range at LEAST 50% of the time, at least in how I play them.  

By the way, what you describe as needing to be done is exactly what Guardians were going to be on Beta, and while I loved the concept (as did many who tested it) the Devs didn't like it and there were some very technical reasons given for why it would be a nightmare to do, which is why it was scrapped. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Puma