A Minimalist Take on a Support/Melee AT

[Replacement]

Hey, it's been like an entire week since we discussed this!  Now, when I say "Minimalist" I mean "does not create entire new powerset categories."  

 

Design Philosophy

• No armor set bastardization.  Or as little as humanly possible.
• Strong reliance on tweaking some powers within sets instead.
  • Each Support set should usually have 8/9ths the same names as the Defender versions.  
• Open-ended.  Details not specifically nailed down are typically done so on purpose because if you think you can create an entire, perfectly-balanced AT on paper without in-game testing, you're off your rocker.
  • Obviously, I still like feedback!  Just know that a post that says "sounds OP" isn't that helpful.  Tell me where changes make sense, but remember that the goal is a frame that could go to Test.

 

Universal Change: Suppress all toggles! (wishful thinking)

Suppress all toggles while mezzed (including offensive) instead of dropping them!  This is something I'd like to see across the whole game, not just for this AT.  However, if it's too much, then we should consider it part of the Inherent (even though I believe it would technically be a quality of their powers).  Naturally, running out of stamina should still detoggle you.

 

Meet The AT:  Support/Melee

I still like Interceptor for a name, and any time i need to refer to it, I will likely use this name.  However, I'm amenable to other names.

 

Why Support Primary?  Because we only have 1 (same with melee secondary).  Yes, that's a silly reason.  But I'm designing it like this because I don't think it ultimately matters at this "not a realistic dream" stage.  We would discover what flows best through testing testing testing. 

As a side effect, if we assume Corruptor-esque DPS, it will have a very unique progression curve (whereas Corruptors often eschew Support powers early on in favor of an attack chain, Interceptors would often load up on their offensive Support options and power pools early on)

 

Support powers on the frontline

The AT is enabled with 2 levels of Support changes:

• Team "bubbles" are changed to PBAOE, but retain the same power name.
  • I have a plan to reign in defensive numbers being too dang big, which I will hit in a later section.
• A single power is removed and replaced with a thematically-similar Party Mez Resist power.  I came to this conclusion when looking at Increase Density - here's a "bubble" mez protection.  I like the idea, but it's actually a little too strong.  The goal is to not only survive on the front line, but bring folks with you (such as blasters or crazy Fighting Pool Controllers), should still shut you down!
  • I'm targeting the neighborhood of 3-4 points of mez protection, after AT modifiers.  
  • This should be somewhat proportionate to current coverage.  E.g. Thermal and Kinetics will get good Mez Protection because they already excel there; Time and Dark would have some holes because their strengths are elsewhere.  Essentially, I'm trying to grade what a set "offers" on a curve.
• Of course, any sets pushed over the top by this should get some numeric nerfs elsewhere.

 

Example Power Swap Options:

 

Dark Miasma - A few options I could see for customizing Dark Miasma

1.  enhanced Shadow Fall (e.g. Lengthening Shadows) that gains some Mez protection at the expense of some of its defensive stats
2.  Replacing either Black Hole or Dark Servant with a more traditional Click buff.

 

Thermal Radiation:

1. Actually, aside from bringing the Mez protection values in line, this set needs little more than the pbaoe bubble change.

 

Sets I would avoid proliferating right away

Unsurprisingly: Empathy.  But I would also hold off on Force Field, Sonic, Storm, and Trick Arrow.  FF and Storm are both being held off due to their Knockback powers (though I think Storm is easier to fix).

 

Scales and Invisible Nerfs

At least some part of this class' Inherent would end up "patching holes" instead of providing power.  On paper, it will look like a strong passive, but it's really just the debt paid for other hits the AT must take.  I will explain this in 2 parts:

 

1)  I am proposing very low AT modifiers for team buffs, with part of their Inherent being a large boost to these stats when affecting others.

For example, if they have the same modifiers as a Mastermind, their Deflection Shield would provide only 11.25% to Self.  If their passive buffed this by 30%, that would push it to nearly Defender levels (unenhanced) for your allies.  Another cool thing is that, since this would stack linearly with enhancements, your buffs on this AT would follow a different curve than other Support classes.

 

2) I also think it will need a damage buff mechanic to offset time spent on Support.  

I would propose that all their Support powers give a short damage buff based entirely on the power's Activation Time (and no other stat such as recharge).  I suggest the duration of the attack buff persisting for 4 seconds, though it could creep as high as 7 seconds if needed (for reference, Defiance is usually 9-10 seconds).

 

Let's bring that together

• Having "+30-50% ally buff power" looks like a potent benefit in an Inherent, but remember this only checks out because we're not just giving them Corruptor values out the gate. 
• Spending time using your Support abilities actively means suspending DPS.  It would be disastrous to incentive "passive Support powers only" so we need something like this to give their DPS dips a corresponding peak. 

 

Ugh.  Inherent.

Though this would play and be understood simply enough, this sure doesn't feel very "minimal" by this point.  We're looking at an inherent that needs to:

• Convey that your toggles suppress instead of drop (unless we make that systemic, which would be excellent)
• Cover an allied power boost (not actually a buff; it's actually just a band-aid for our ridiculously low team buff multiplier)
• Cover that non-damaging Support powers temporarily raise your damage (again, less of a buff and more of a necessary mechanism to stop players from racing to the bottom of bland passive-only builds)

 

Sample Inherent - Protector:

You persevere through even the hardest efforts to sway you from your goals, and your offensive toggles suppress instead of drop when affected by negative statuses.  Your dedication strengthens any buffing abilities when used on allies, which also invigorates you and provides a moderate damage bonus on your next attack.

 

This should give us a good start!  I think it would underperform, but it would perform and that would be enough to get it off the ground and tweak it from there.

 

Oh Yeah: Melee Attacks and Confront

So first off, I would suggest basing their melee sets off of the Brute versions.  These tend to have the least amount of weird mechanics on them (they just universally need Fury mechanics removed).

But what about Taunt?  No clue!  That's an open power and I would suggest not wasting it on Taunt.

 

 

EDITS:

 

TL;DR: I'm attempting "as straight a port as possible" of the Support sets and I'm using mechanical details to make it work on the frontline instead of resorting to adding several armor toggles. The exact goal is for it to feel as much like a straight port as possible.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Replacement

[VileTerror]

I like the attention and thought you've put in to this, however it's not the take I'd do for a Support Primary with Melee Secondary.  But that's kind of an unfair thing to say, as it's not really a legitimate criticism.  From what I see at first blush here, I don't have any helpful critiques yet.  Sorry.

I'm all-for more brainstorming and discussion though, so here's a reply to bump your post.  I really, really want a Support/Melee Archetype.  I don't think this is the one I want in particular, but I encourage the whole community to keep at it.

[Leogunner]

Seems forced and incomplete.  Like you had part of an idea clear in your head so started a write-up but then got to the uninteresting bits and just tossed something down.

 

Making a "minimalist" suggestion seems to portray your target audience is the devs, not the fans.

 

And then you use my AT name for it (that I properly stole) and do nothing with the concept.

 

I'm sure someone will chime in liking it.  I'm not a fan lol.  I suppose having an AT that attempts to "standardize" the Support sets (because they're the most varied sets we have still) may not be a bad thing.

[HelBlaiz]

I'll always throw my support in for a Support/Melee AT. I'm partial to the title Warder for it, personally.

I'd say keep the ally and personal modifiers for buffs the same. I don't know if giving them Defender numbers would exactly be balanced, but compared to a Defender, the class will be giving up some level of safety and utility granted from a longer ranged attack set. Without an armor set to protect them, they have to rely on their self-buffs to get by in melee. And with that in mind, I'd also say instead of giving them moar damage on their inherent, I'd have it provide a small bit of survivability. I personally imagine a passive that provides a resist(all) buff that stacks up to five times. Hitting with attacks builds stacks, and using their support powers refresh stacks. I'd also increase their base/max hitpoint pool to be one of the tankier support ATs as well.

 

As for Taunt, I have ideas for Taunt. Rename it demoralize, make it so its taunt mag is JUUUUST enough to peel aggro off a blaster/defender/controller, but never off a scrapper/tanker/brute, and add in a -tohit or -damage debuff to it as well. If using my idea for a passive, have it grant a stack of the passive for each target hit, up to the max of five if you taunt the cap of five targets. This makes the power useful on its own, reducing incoming damage while instantly setting the AT up to join the brawl safely. Keep it in the T6 spot, so they have to wait until level 20 to get it from their secondary.

 

Quite a few powersets need some form of modification to fit. One of the most problematic I can think of is Force Field, as it was designed to synergize with a ranged set. Two of its powers are PBAOE that actively inhibit any attempt to close into melee. I'd replace repulsion field with the Disrupt aura from the Stalker's Energy Aura set. As for Force Bubble, I'd love for the game to allow for a 'reverse repel' that drags targets into a clump around you, but that seems like it'd be way too code intensive, so probably just make it a strong slow, a damage debuff, or apply a pulsing Absorb to any allies in the area?

Oh, and I'd have the AT's Epic Pools include a Mez protection toggle as the fifth slot capstone. The only issue I'm having trouble justifying that is the fact that the Patron Pools have PETS at their caps, and a support AT with a pet seems like it'd also be amazing, but then that means they couldn't get a Mez protection toggle as their T5. They'd either have to get it earlier, which would make them MORE appealing, or not at all, which would make them a "bad" choice, potentially.

[EmmySky]

Over in a different thread (about Khelds) Captain Powerhouse stated that "toggle suppression" would mean you keep using the endurance to run the toggle, it just stops providing any benefit.  The only plus side of that is not having to retoggle.

 

I like that someone actually put a bit of thought into this idea as I really want a kin/MA toon.  I dont think it is fleshed out enough for me (I am stupid when it comes to the mechanics and technicalities of powers) to really understand where you are going with it but I am game to follow the discussion.

 

I honestly have no idea if a new AT is even on the horizon for the devs to consider, but if it is, support/melee is really the only missing combo I see.  I really hope that this can lead to a concept AT that might, maybe, eventually happen here.

 

Good luck!

 

Edit:  my personal idea would be straight ports..give me kinetics and give me martial arts..no changes.....this is what I mean when I say I am stupid about the mechanics and technicalities of it 😀

Edited February 14, 2020 by EmmySky

[Zepp]

I really need to update my proposals compilation threads. I've been too overwhelmed with work to do anything with them. I actually plan to do a much larger compilation compilation project, but that will take some time to set up.

 

That being said, while I am not opposed to a support/melee or melee/support AT, I still think that Assault and Manipulation set ATs should take precedent.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Zepp

[dangeraaron10]

I'm all for an AT that uses Melee as one option and Not Armor as another.  For a little variety.  Would give a strong Paladin/War Cleric vibe.  Support seems to be a good pair if plenty of changes are made.  By far and away the most popular AT desire/suggestion is Melee/Support or some variant of it, so there's definitely a hunger for a supprty Melee character or even one that provides buffs and not have armor like the other 4 Melee ATs.  

[Alchemystic]

So long as the AoE buffs also affect the player, you might be onto something. The one thing all these Melee/Support ideas like to ignore is that if you are in Melee you NEED some kind of personal protection.

 

it's why I'm usually more in favor of Manipulation/Support or Assault/Support concepts, since you aren't melee focused enough to demand getting resist/defense toggles.

 

So if a Melee/Support is going to work, and the melee element is going to be relatively unchanged, the support set needs to be tweaked to allow for personal auras, or have the caster included in AoE buffs as above.

 

As for taunt? replace it with Power Boost maybe? (NOT Power Build Up).

 

Other than that, I'm glad there's a Melee/Support post that isn't just some standoffish monkey vehemently defending the same half-baked idea that pops up here every week, so kudos for being open to ideas/feedback 

 

 

[Haijinx]

You could give them some variation on a Blaster's sustain power to replace one Power 

 

It works for Blasters in Melee 

[Replacement]

Hi folks!  Thanks for the kind responses!  I'm honestly impressed at how respectful everyone's been.

14 hours ago, Leogunner said:

Seems forced and incomplete.  Like you had part of an idea clear in your head so started a write-up but then got to the uninteresting bits and just tossed something down.

 

Making a "minimalist" suggestion seems to portray your target audience is the devs, not the fans.

 

And then you use my AT name for it (that I properly stole) and do nothing with the concept.

 

I'm sure someone will chime in liking it.  I'm not a fan lol.  I suppose having an AT that attempts to "standardize" the Support sets (because they're the most varied sets we have still) may not be a bad thing.

So first, about the "clear idea" -- yes and no.  It's more accurate to say "I was very distraught on how to convey the idea that 2 of the necessary components to the Inherent aren't actually +power the way they appear at first blush."  I focused very hard on that, and I always aggressively trim my word counts down until it doesn't feel too much like a wall of text.  And yeah, ultimately?  I don't expect HC to come along and take a community members' ideas whole-cloth.  I honestly think that sets a bad precedent (hey, you listened to so-and-so so I'm going to scream even louder), so I'd rather give them a framework that works.

 

The elephant in the room:  You want melee/support that can tank; I do not think this has a place in CoH.  This incompatibility in our opinion on the topic is so fundamental that there is literally no way for you, specifically, to be happy with this take.  And that is fine, I want to stress.

 

I liked your version, and I can see why you liked the idea of Intercepting attacks.  But I originally defined Interceptor as similar to the way a Defender is currently Defending allies without necessarily taking them. It encompasses debuffs to stop attacks at the source, defending allies with your effects, and bodily diving into the opposing force.  Still a good fit, but yeah, I see how the name fits even better with your tanking iteration.  As I said, I'm willing to relinquish it.

 

13 hours ago, EmmySky said:

Over in a different thread (about Khelds) Captain Powerhouse stated that "toggle suppression" would mean you keep using the endurance to run the toggle, it just stops providing any benefit.  The only plus side of that is not having to retoggle.

 

I like that someone actually put a bit of thought into this idea as I really want a kin/MA toon.  I dont think it is fleshed out enough for me (I am stupid when it comes to the mechanics and technicalities of powers) to really understand where you are going with it but I am game to follow the discussion.

 

I honestly have no idea if a new AT is even on the horizon for the devs to consider, but if it is, support/melee is really the only missing combo I see.  I really hope that this can lead to a concept AT that might, maybe, eventually happen here.

 

Good luck!

 

Edit:  my personal idea would be straight ports..give me kinetics and give me martial arts..no changes.....this is what I mean when I say I am stupid about the mechanics and technicalities of it 😀

About the toggle suppression -- this is not true of Support classes.  Many offensive and location toggles have pretty long Cooldowns, so even getting a half-second stun is enough to break your Anchor.  Mids' tells me it's only 8 seconds but if you've ever been in this situation, you know that feels more like a minute.

 

Just in case this is helpful: the TL;DR is that I'm attempting "as straight a port as possible" and I'm using mechanical details to make it work on the frontline instead of resorting to adding several armor toggles.  The exact goal is for it to feel as much like a straight port as possible.

 

13 hours ago, HelBlaiz said:

I'll always throw my support in for a Support/Melee AT. I'm partial to the title Warder for it, personally.

I'd say keep the ally and personal modifiers for buffs the same. I don't know if giving them Defender numbers would exactly be balanced, but compared to a Defender, the class will be giving up some level of safety and utility granted from a longer ranged attack set. Without an armor set to protect them, they have to rely on their self-buffs to get by in melee. And with that in mind, I'd also say instead of giving them moar damage on their inherent, I'd have it provide a small bit of survivability. I personally imagine a passive that provides a resist(all) buff that stacks up to five times. Hitting with attacks builds stacks, and using their support powers refresh stacks. I'd also increase their base/max hitpoint pool to be one of the tankier support ATs as well.

 

As for Taunt, I have ideas for Taunt. Rename it demoralize, make it so its taunt mag is JUUUUST enough to peel aggro off a blaster/defender/controller, but never off a scrapper/tanker/brute, and add in a -tohit or -damage debuff to it as well. If using my idea for a passive, have it grant a stack of the passive for each target hit, up to the max of five if you taunt the cap of five targets. This makes the power useful on its own, reducing incoming damage while instantly setting the AT up to join the brawl safely. Keep it in the T6 spot, so they have to wait until level 20 to get it from their secondary.

 

Quite a few powersets need some form of modification to fit. One of the most problematic I can think of is Force Field, as it was designed to synergize with a ranged set. Two of its powers are PBAOE that actively inhibit any attempt to close into melee. I'd replace repulsion field with the Disrupt aura from the Stalker's Energy Aura set. As for Force Bubble, I'd love for the game to allow for a 'reverse repel' that drags targets into a clump around you, but that seems like it'd be way too code intensive, so probably just make it a strong slow, a damage debuff, or apply a pulsing Absorb to any allies in the area?

Oh, and I'd have the AT's Epic Pools include a Mez protection toggle as the fifth slot capstone. The only issue I'm having trouble justifying that is the fact that the Patron Pools have PETS at their caps, and a support AT with a pet seems like it'd also be amazing, but then that means they couldn't get a Mez protection toggle as their T5. They'd either have to get it earlier, which would make them MORE appealing, or not at all, which would make them a "bad" choice, potentially.

Responding to the bolded parts, in order of appearance:

• I'd love to, but there's enough debate about that as-is.  It would certainly free up the "burden" on the passive.  Something like Controller values, universally, wouldn't be so bad, but I think many in the community would vehemently disagree.
• Important: this isn't a damage buff for the sake of damage.  This is a consolation prize for the DPS lost to using Support abilities.
  • Without the damage buff, people would absolutely trend towards builds with as few clicks as possible.  They would refuse in-combat Support entirely and build for between-fight buffs.  This is asking for failure.
  • If it instead adds defensive benefits, it creates strange incentive structures ("Let me spam my aoe party bubble every 4 seconds for my personal inherent defense") that ultimately get in the way of the experience.  Additionally, it's weird with sets that are already adding Defense.
• Thanks, I meant to call that out and I'll edit it into my "ignore this set on the first pass" list.  Until "reverse Repel" is proven tech, stuff like this is hard.
• Yeah, definitely cannot wait until level 44 to get a mez toggle.  In fact, I'll make the sweeping declaration that no melee can function after 20 without mez protection to some degree.  Especially if they have offensive toggles that could be dropping.

[Leogunner]

10 minutes ago, Replacement said:

So first, about the "clear idea" -- yes and no.  It's more accurate to say "I was very distraught on how to convey the idea that 2 of the necessary components to the Inherent aren't actually +power the way they appear at first blush."  I focused very hard on that, and I always aggressively trim my word counts down until it doesn't feel too much like a wall of text.  And yeah, ultimately?  I don't expect HC to come along and take a community members' ideas whole-cloth.  I honestly think that sets a bad precedent (hey, you listened to so-and-so so I'm going to scream even louder), so I'd rather give them a framework that works.

 

The elephant in the room:  You want melee/support that can tank; I do not think this has a place in CoH.  This incompatibility in our opinion on the topic is so fundamental that there is literally no way for you, specifically, to be happy with this take.  And that is fine, I want to stress.

 

I liked your version, and I can see why you liked the idea of Intercepting attacks.  But I originally defined Interceptor as similar to the way a Defender is currently Defending allies without necessarily taking them. It encompasses debuffs to stop attacks at the source, defending allies with your effects, and bodily diving into the opposing force.  Still a good fit, but yeah, I see how the name fits even better with your tanking iteration.  As I said, I'm willing to relinquish it.

Well the reason I say what I do about the idea being clear is because the effort to bring it all together seems half baked. It doesn't elaborate on the other side of support (debuff, which seems completely absent from interacting with the inherent), and I'd like to hope the interaction with the secondary is somewhat noticeable to the player since the buff granted sound short term. 

 

Then there's the concept which sounds pretty white bread (basically a clone of Defender). And the justification (not enough support primary)? There should be a purpose for everything. Is this suppose to compete directly with Defender for the support top spot? Is this suppose to entice melee to play support? Who is the target audience? 

 

It all comes off like you're aiming more at the minimalist portion of the idea and not focusing at all on the concept, audience or entertainment factor. 

 

As for your elephant, I can separate my previous ideas from other suggestions quite easily, thank you very much. The only reason I brought up mine is a joke like reference to the name and how I also "borrowed" it. But I also shouted out the person I stole it from. Not saying you should too but at least take a joke if you're not. 

 

But if you really want to delve into the aspects of a tank vs whatever this suggestion is supposed to do (if assume it's similar to Defender) I have clear reasons why I didn't want my Interceptor to be a clone support role and why I don't think it's a good idea to make a clone support role in general. As is, there is already 3 clear support ATs and 1sub-support. The difference between the number of support (3.5) and the number of DPS (6.5) is that DPS dominance is wholly unobtrusive. Tanking is largely an untouched field (2.5 w/ MM being the half) and control (mostly just 2, with partial mez spread unevenly among certain sets) so these have a clearer purpose to be focused on (part of my justification) but it also has clear interaction with the secondary being its ability to grab aggro. 

 

And your term "bastadization" (I skipped it despite not enjoying your use of the term there) also flies in the face of balance considerations presented thus misinterpreting why fitting in armor to replace some support is more balanced than just fisting self defense in support sets which upsets the balance between the other support ATs. Also also, is the assault sets now just a bastadization of melee and blast sets? 

 

But again, this isn't about my suggestion versus yours, my criticism was focused on the fact it was unrefined and lacked conceptual continuity and purpose and seemed focused on being "minimalist" thus appealing to an audience whom benefits most from such a goal. 

[Bossk_Hogg]

9 hours ago, dangeraaron10 said:

I'm all for an AT that uses Melee as one option and Not Armor as another.  For a little variety.  Would give a strong Paladin/War Cleric vibe.  Support seems to be a good pair if plenty of changes are made.  By far and away the most popular AT desire/suggestion is Melee/Support or some variant of it, so there's definitely a hunger for a supprty Melee character or even one that provides buffs and not have armor like the other 4 Melee ATs.  

There's no real point to a melee AT that does not have armor, other than checking a box for a powerset type combos. Particularly support, where you're just going to be a defender that dies more often from splash damage. What's the payoff? 

 

I think a better starting point is a hybrid scrapper/support type. Have a melee primary, and a secondary with support and some armor (3ish toggles). The Guardian looked promising, they'd just need to tweak the numbers. Essentially a VEAT that is flexible to more concepts.

[HelBlaiz]

I'm not sure why a DPS bonus consolation prize is needed to incentivize using active support powers. Anyone choosing a support class has already decided they want to provide support. Defenders don't get DPS boosts when they heal or shield allies, they don't need it. "DPS loss" from using their support powers is part of playing the class to its full potential. I've never heard a pain or emp player complain about having to spam heal other during a tense AV fight because of a loss of DPS.

 

However if the inherent granted stacks that fall off if you don't attack constantly, people will complain about being "punished" for having to spam support powers in a tense fight. Which is why the refresh mechanic is part of my idea. Anyone who's in a position where they can't attack because they need to constantly be doing support things doesn't have to worry about losing their stacks. And spamming shields out of combat to keep the stacks up wouldn't be much of an issue once they can open with a decent ape or the taunt replacement Demoralize I mentioned earlier. They can start every combat at or near full stacks, sO why waste endurance maintaining it?

[oedipus_tex]

This isn't a bad idea overall. I admit I didn't read deep into the specifics.

 

I do think the reason Support/Melee keeps being suggested by various posters is because there is a lot of player interest in it. It's basically the Cleric/Paladin archetype from D&D, largely missing in CoX.

 

I'd be very interested to see whether the Storm Summoning set would make an appearance on this archetype and what sorts of changes would be made to accommodate it. Traps would be interesting as well.

[HelBlaiz]

Storm Summoning suffers a similar issue to Force Field with Hurricane. Thunderstorm, Tornado, and Gale to a lesser extent. I'd personally make Hurricane a slow instead of a knockback/repel, at least until someone makes reverse repel a thing. As for the others, hard to say. Kb>kd ios are a thing, and some melee sets have kb in them already. For Thunderstorm, shifting the oh into a hold or stun, maybe? Using the electrocution animation of Tesla Cage? Might have to suffer the I'd in Gale and tornado without the io though.

[Replacement]

8 hours ago, Tyrannical said:

So long as the AoE buffs also affect the player, you might be onto something. The one thing all these Melee/Support ideas like to ignore is that if you are in Melee you NEED some kind of personal protection.

 

it's why I'm usually more in favor of Manipulation/Support or Assault/Support concepts, since you aren't melee focused enough to demand getting resist/defense toggles.

 

So if a Melee/Support is going to work, and the melee element is going to be relatively unchanged, the support set needs to be tweaked to allow for personal auras, or have the caster included in AoE buffs as above.

 

As for taunt? replace it with Power Boost maybe? (NOT Power Build Up).

 

Other than that, I'm glad there's a Melee/Support post that isn't just some standoffish monkey vehemently defending the same half-baked idea that pops up here every week, so kudos for being open to ideas/feedback 

 

 

I meant to grab this in my first batch but apparently I missed your plus-sign for the multiquote! I was also thinking about Power Boost (and NOT Power Build Up) but ultimately thought I'd save it for a post down the line.  Of course, then I was Disappeared for several hours and now I'm "on the back foot" or whatever the cliche is.

 

I want to mention the trap of Assault/Support: unless it can also self-protect, it becomes very hard to make the melee attacks into optimal choices.  I'm not saying it can't be done. Just that a designer needs to take serious care to avoid this.

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

Well the reason I say what I do about the idea being clear is because the effort to bring it all together seems half baked. It doesn't elaborate on the other side of support (debuff, which seems completely absent from interacting with the inherent), and I'd like to hope the interaction with the secondary is somewhat noticeable to the player since the buff granted sound short term. 

 

Then there's the concept which sounds pretty white bread (basically a clone of Defender). And the justification (not enough support primary)? There should be a purpose for everything. Is this suppose to compete directly with Defender for the support top spot? Is this suppose to entice melee to play support? Who is the target audience? 

 

It all comes off like you're aiming more at the minimalist portion of the idea and not focusing at all on the concept, audience or entertainment factor. 

 

As for your elephant, I can separate my previous ideas from other suggestions quite easily, thank you very much. The only reason I brought up mine is a joke like reference to the name and how I also "borrowed" it. But I also shouted out the person I stole it from. Not saying you should too but at least take a joke if you're not. 

 

But if you really want to delve into the aspects of a tank vs whatever this suggestion is supposed to do (if assume it's similar to Defender) I have clear reasons why I didn't want my Interceptor to be a clone support role and why I don't think it's a good idea to make a clone support role in general. As is, there is already 3 clear support ATs and 1sub-support. The difference between the number of support (3.5) and the number of DPS (6.5) is that DPS dominance is wholly unobtrusive. Tanking is largely an untouched field (2.5 w/ MM being the half) and control (mostly just 2, with partial mez spread unevenly among certain sets) so these have a clearer purpose to be focused on (part of my justification) but it also has clear interaction with the secondary being its ability to grab aggro. 

 

And your term "bastadization" (I skipped it despite not enjoying your use of the term there) also flies in the face of balance considerations presented thus misinterpreting why fitting in armor to replace some support is more balanced than just fisting self defense in support sets which upsets the balance between the other support ATs. Also also, is the assault sets now just a bastadization of melee and blast sets? 

 

But again, this isn't about my suggestion versus yours, my criticism was focused on the fact it was unrefined and lacked conceptual continuity and purpose and seemed focused on being "minimalist" thus appealing to an audience whom benefits most from such a goal. 

It's exactly as baked as I intended it.  I intended some future discussion but, in keeping with my OP, thought it best to save "getting into the weeds" for further discussion with you lovely folk.  But to get into it briefly: I'm of the opinion the mez protection powers and debuffs that lower enemy damage output should be enough to allow some skirmishing.  

 

Bolded part:  You are either intentionally misusing my words or you skimmed it too fast to understand.  Either way, not helpful.  Just in case it helps, here is the relevant part:

 

Quote

Why Support Primary?  Because we only have 1 (same with melee secondary).  Yes, that's a silly reason.  But I'm designing it like this because I don't think it ultimately matters at this "not a realistic dream" stage.  We would discover what flows best through testing testing testing. 

Your Tanking concept: Was the only one I could throw my support behind, despite it not being my cup of tea.  You made a very sound argument for how it fit into the game, and I admit I had forgotten that aspect of it.  Sorry for appearing to turn this into a "my idea vs yours" thing.  There's a reason I put mine in a new thread, and it wasn't to start a fight.

 

1 hour ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

There's no real point to a melee AT that does not have armor, other than checking a box for a powerset type combos. Particularly support, where you're just going to be a defender that dies more often from splash damage. What's the payoff? 

 

I think a better starting point is a hybrid scrapper/support type. Have a melee primary, and a secondary with support and some armor (3ish toggles). The Guardian looked promising, they'd just need to tweak the numbers. Essentially a VEAT that is flexible to more concepts.

...In fact, This is the reason I started a new thread.   Look into literally any other melee/support thread and you're going to see this suggestion.  My entire purpose is to avoid this.  Those ideas are fine, but I have issues with them and so I wanted a place to intentionally explore not resorting to that.

 

1 hour ago, HelBlaiz said:

I'm not sure why a DPS bonus consolation prize is needed to incentivize using active support powers. Anyone choosing a support class has already decided they want to provide support. Defenders don't get DPS boosts when they heal or shield allies, they don't need it. "DPS loss" from using their support powers is part of playing the class to its full potential. I've never heard a pain or emp player complain about having to spam heal other during a tense AV fight because of a loss of DPS.

 

However if the inherent granted stacks that fall off if you don't attack constantly, people will complain about being "punished" for having to spam support powers in a tense fight. Which is why the refresh mechanic is part of my idea. Anyone who's in a position where they can't attack because they need to constantly be doing support things doesn't have to worry about losing their stacks. And spamming shields out of combat to keep the stacks up wouldn't be much of an issue once they can open with a decent ape or the taunt replacement Demoralize I mentioned earlier. They can start every combat at or near full stacks, sO why waste endurance maintaining it?

First off -- There are few things I'm more certain of than my assertion that players would play their Support half passively.  This is the nature of melee, where the very nature of your survival makes your DPS doubly important.  I could write an essay on this effect, but the short version is that optimal play matters more in the melee, and this results in too large of a range of performance (i.e. if you buff "low tier" sets too high, the "high tier" players are way overboard).

 

Second -- you are correct.  I misread.  I had suggested Support powers provide damage stacks.  You went the other direction and said Attack powers (and taunts) grant defensive stacks. I missed the "attacks" part, which absolutely changes that reading.  This would certainly prevent them from spamming bubbles to stay alive, but it wouldn't really fix the notion that "duration buff sets > click-heavy sets." 

 

I had considered this direction a lot, in fact.  But ultimately, I still saw the DPS-chasing at the other end of the rainbow.  However, I also wonder about both (+Damage consolation for using Support abilities; +survival for using attacks, simply using Defiance as a base but applying to defense and/or resist instead of damage).

Edited February 14, 2020 by Replacement

[Bossk_Hogg]

35 minutes ago, Replacement said:

 

 

...In fact, This is the reason I started a new thread.   Look into literally any other melee/support thread and you're going to see this suggestion.  My entire purpose is to avoid this.  Those ideas are fine, but I have issues with them and so I wanted a place to intentionally explore not resorting to that.

 

 

There's still no point to the AT though. "Defender, but have to stand in melee" isn't a good design space to start from. Sure, you can tic off a box and say "yeah, we sure do have a melee support, now onto melee primary/blaster manipulatrion secondary!", but it doesn't do anything worthwhile to justify the dev time to create it.

 

It also sounds far too fiddly. Reactive Support sets are already very active, Melee sets require positioning and chasing mobs. add in that you're squishy from not having direct armor, and the need to manage stacks to keep your survival up (which you wouldn't need as much if you were a ranged suppoort) and it just screams negative play experience to me. That's a lot of hoops to jump through to get to the payoff. Do they buff better than a defender and deal a lot more damage than a corrupter?

[Replacement]

Ok, so I need to plow ahead with some thoughts before I get pulled away again.  (Why is it as soon as I post a thread that I know puts me in the crosshairs, I get busy?)

 

Passive Details and Options:

There is one aspect I intentionally left out of the OP because I simply didn't know if it was asking too much, so I'll put to you here:

How ridiculous would it be to create a sort of "Minimum Defense and Resist" for such a class?  What I'm thinking is something that would check combat monitor and say "If I don't see a given Defense has enough buffs to hit 10%, increase Defense to 10%."  And likewise, a monitor on Resist, probably to the tune of 15% resist.

This seems very challenging, programmatically.  It would need to monitor every defense and resist type, and it would need to account for debuffs (e.g. it can't just ignore -40% defense and set your defense at 10, still).  

It's also, of course, a bit boring.

 

What I like more is much like I had mentioned in my previous post to @HelBlaiz -- keeping my "Damage for using Support" but also adding their +survival when dealing damage.  This is ultimately where I'd like to see the AT go, but it starts to look like an insanely-stacked passive.  

 

This means what I'm really looking for is a way to word a massive combo-passive to not look so daunting.

 

As for the +Survival benefit -- The only issue with simple +resist (again, @HelBlaiz) is what it looks like on, say, Thermal.  If your Support set already gives a ton of Resist, this gets weird.  I think a smaller amount of Resist and Defense would be good, especially since as an Inherent, we can get away with flagging it unenhanceable.  You could also increase stack duration and benefit magnitude while decreasing stack size to 3 to help in scenarios where you are forced to rely more on your Support than your puchitude.

 

A really interesting alternative is a +Absorb shield (iirc, internally, these buffs are always +Max absorb as well as +current absorb).  These can afford to be much longer-duration buffs because they have their own mechanism for getting used up (taking damage).  It also provides an easy way to "read" your current survivability.

 

Confront, Taunt, maybe even Build Up

One thing I had also considered was moving Mez protection to the Confront/Taunt replacement.  I'm curious to know if folks feel like this would be "out of line" in a melee set.  The larger issue to me is actually the "mez bubbles" that do exist in the Support sets.  These often give benefits you really want on your melee/support

 

tbh, if you absolutely had to have an armor toggle, it would be better-placed here than in the support.  You could even drop Build Up for a 2nd defensive trick, though I'd rather veer away from that direction.

 

All that said, however, I'm instead looking more towards "unburdening the Inherent."  

 

As an example, if the class overall has Mastermind buff values, we could replace Confront with a passive +buff values on allies (again, if that's even needed -- my assumption from other threads is folks will have a cow if I don't include this). 

 

[[Oh hey!  @Leogunner!  I just realized I forgot something in my OP that probably affects your reading.  I was thinking "this would also affect debuffs you cast on others, which is 100% of them."  I think I must have trimmed this part out so much that I deleted it completely.  It's not really noticeably different from simply "higher AT modifiers on debuffs than on buffs" but either way - I did think about this and you're right, I forgot to call it out.]]

 

Alternatively and most-simply -- going back to @Tyrannical said would be straight to the point.  Having normally low-ish modifiers and simply being able to Power Boost them every once in a while would most likely provide everything we need and buy us room for a simpler passive.

[HelBlaiz]

I'm not sure which sets being popular would change all that much. The popular sets will remain popular, with the only upsets I see being Force Field and Sonic Resonance since they provide mea protection and defensive stats to the caster, making them better choices compared to on a ranged character. Time is already popular, and safe with Time's Juncture and Farsight, debuff sets like Rad and Dark will still be considered better than Empathy and other buff sets that don't affect the caster, Kinetics still has Fulcrum Shift. I wouldn't worry about passive versus active support unless testing shows its a problem.

[Replacement]

32 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

There's still no point to the AT though. "Defender, but have to stand in melee" isn't a good design space to start from. Sure, you can tic off a box and say "yeah, we sure do have a melee support, now onto melee primary/blaster manipulatrion secondary!", but it doesn't do anything worthwhile to justify the dev time to create it.

 

It also sounds far too fiddly. Reactive Support sets are already very active, Melee sets require positioning and chasing mobs. add in that you're squishy from not having direct armor, and the need to manage stacks to keep your survival up (which you wouldn't need as much if you were a ranged suppoort) and it just screams negative play experience to me. That's a lot of hoops to jump through to get to the payoff. Do they buff better than a defender and deal a lot more damage than a corrupter?

"Silent" design goals (things that risk me rambling too much to go into in an OP):

• Don't endanger other ATs.
  • My choices were to step on the toes of Defenders or Tankers, and I decided to avoid Tanker.  Call it bias, or an expectation that non-Defender numbers would be enough to keep them protected.  Yes, I expect it to fall short of Defender numbers by quite a bit.
• Design around an assumption of better-than-Corruptor DPS.
  • In a perfect world, Scrappers would be at the top of the damage heap, blasters only slightly behind, and there would be a lot of room between there and Corruptors.  All we can do is plan on ideals and aim just-above Corruptor, but the nature of Support sets means this may be messy enough to revisit.
• Create subtle nudges towards different metas.
  • The whole premise is one power gets traded out for an aoe mez power that requires you to be in pbaoe range of the Interceptor (or-whatever-you-name-it).  This is intended to allow nonnstandard builds and playstyles to run to the front with the Interceptor.
  • This is a common goal for me.  If you read my Operative by chance, I gave it an aoe immobilize for a similar reason.
• Not a jack-of-all-trades.  I want players to understand, in the same way they do a Tanker or a Defender, what this AT is capable of when they seem them in a Search list.
• Obviously, increase build diversity.  Whether or not it's a good reason for a new AT, a lot of us dislike ranged combat but enjoy Support.  It's not out-of-line to want to see this realized in a way that isn't just "Cross-punching Defender." 

 

I say this as someone who Likes most of your posts around here, Bossk but... did you read this suggestion?  Stacks for survival, though being discussed, is not part of the OP.  Having direct armor is:

• Ice Shield projected base defense: 11.25% (Controller/MM numbers, which is what I've been advocating)
  • Comparison point: Scrapper Ice Armor: 12.75% defense.
• Darkest Night -22.5% damage and -11.25% ToHit
• Built-in Mez protection

Survival? yes.  "Toggles stolen directly from Armor sets"? No.

Edited February 14, 2020 by Replacement

[VileTerror]

My biggest concern is people approaching this from a strictly game mechanics standpoint.

This is City of Heroes, folks.  We want Support/Melee because of the -cool- factor.  Because of the character concepts.  Because it will be AWESOME, even if it sucks.

Yes; we should strive to make the Archetype capable of soloing AND contributing to teams as much as any other Archetype.  But the driving force isn't to have just to have it; it's to have it because City of Heroes is exactly the sort of game where the pay-off for playing is creating something!

 

I'm glad that Replacement made this thread, even if their version of Support/Melee isn't the one I want.  But know what?  Even if it's the one we wind up with, I'll still be happy!  Even if it underperforms more than original-flavour Kheldians.  Even if "Master of" runners don't want it "stinking up" their Task Forces.  Even if I go splat to AoEs every 5 minutes (I have so many Bounce Backs sitting in my in-game email that I need to use them on /something/!).

 

If you don't think the game needs a Support/Melee Archetype; ok.  You've said your piece.  Going around and around in circles about why you feel that way does not change the fact that a Support/Melee Archetype is widely desired by many other players, and is frankly awesome.

 

Constructive criticism would be addressing -how- to make Support/Melee work.

[HelBlaiz]

I second the "because it's cool" justification. I have a pain domination/war mace inquisitors to make. And a force field/broadsword guardian angel. And a poison/spines xenomorph. And a time manipulation/kinetic melee spiral power user. And a kinetics/katana Tsoo red ink man.

 

I can definitely go on, but I won't.

 

 

 

But I could.

[dangeraaron10]

2 hours ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

There's no real point to a melee AT that does not have armor, other than checking a box for a powerset type combos. Particularly support, where you're just going to be a defender that dies more often from splash damage. What's the payoff? 

 

I think a better starting point is a hybrid scrapper/support type. Have a melee primary, and a secondary with support and some armor (3ish toggles). The Guardian looked promising, they'd just need to tweak the numbers. Essentially a VEAT that is flexible to more concepts.

For fun and flavor.  I guess.

[VileTerror]

And a Trick Arrow / Dual Blades Hunter-Trapper.

And a Kinetics / Staff Fighting Warrior Maiden.

And an Empathy / Martial Arts Mystic Monk.

And a Traps / Street Justice Urban Vigilante.

[HelBlaiz]

One more thing to add that is purely wishful thinking and pipe dreams,  I want a Shield Support set. So I can play a melee support with a shield that's focused on the team's survival rather than their own.