If you could change the sentinel (or not) which would you choose?(Poll/Opinions)

[Wavicle]

Make every activation of Opportunity include both Offensive and Defensive buffs.
Make Opportunity a Team buff, centered on the Sentinel, that affects up to 30 allies, but will not be cast on targets that already have a Sentinel's Opportunity buff on them, so multiple Sentinels could cover an entire League.

THAT would vastly increase their team utility. I doubt I'd have a complaint about their personal damage if it worked like that.

But I don't think of them as hybrid damage/support characters, I think of them as primary damage dealers, so that might not be the way to go.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Wavicle

[oldskool]

7 minutes ago, Frostweaver said:

Maybe the question should not be 'should we buff sentinel damage', maybe the question is, 'should we buff sentinel secondary effects'? I mean, all things concerned, they don't have defender secondaries, wouldn't buffing them to at least corrupter-level secondary effects make their hybrid role much more obvious, and help fix the perception problem?

This is making an assumption that the Sentinel is a hybrid of support and damage.  That didn't seem to be the case when CP chimed in last Fall.  

[Frostweaver]

2 minutes ago, oldskool said:

This is making an assumption that the Sentinel is a hybrid of support and damage.  That didn't seem to be the case when CP chimed in last Fall.  

yeah, but of all the AT's, sentinels have the lowest number of attacks... even tankers get useful dps in many of their primaries. Sentinels ONLY get damage from their primary/pools/epics, and the three secondaries that have extra damage in them... fire, rad, and dark, kinda 'break the mold' for the whole 'ranged archetype' thing.

If they are supposed to be solely ranged damage, then by all rights they should have a lot MORE damage per attack than blasters do... because Blaster Melee adds up to 5 more attacks, and they just get a crapton more damage because melee attacks do more damage than ranged attacks. Which means the entire AT needs to be pulled and started over. Blaster-scale damage wouldn't be enough, you'd need blaster caps, and something like a +1.5 scalar.

I cannot see that as being the focus.

[oldskool]

6 minutes ago, Frostweaver said:

yeah, but of all the AT's, sentinels have the lowest number of attacks... even tankers get useful dps in many of their primaries. Sentinels ONLY get damage from their primary/pools/epics, and the three secondaries that have extra damage in them... fire, rad, and dark, kinda 'break the mold' for the whole 'ranged archetype' thing.

If they are supposed to be solely ranged damage, then by all rights they should have a lot MORE damage per attack than blasters do... because Blaster Melee adds up to 5 more attacks, and they just get a crapton more damage because melee attacks do more damage than ranged attacks. Which means the entire AT needs to be pulled and started over. Blaster-scale damage wouldn't be enough, you'd need blaster caps, and something like a +1.5 scalar.

I cannot see that as being the focus.

Sentinel Fiery Aura has Burn.  Sentinel Radiation Armor has Ground Zero.  Are you considering Dark Armor's Obscure Sustenance an attack?  It only does 10 damage, and it despite what it looks it should do, it is just a single target effecting power with a 35ft radius.  I've put procs in it, and it doesn't function like Dark Regen.  

The original description by CP was "Ranged Scrapper".  The Sentinel was supposed to do average DPS with periods of burst that put it on par or above Scrappers.  CP seems to feel this AT is not meeting the design intent and that the inherent is not contributing enough to the AT.  Given that Tankers lost their -resistance and had it rolled into the AT modifier that seems to be a possible path for Sentinels.  CP even stated that the inherent will get reworked into something else (possibly).  

So the lots more damage stuff in your comment... 

1) Sentinel range and AoE caps... unlikely to change 

2) Sentinel inherent... very likely on the chopping block 

3) Sentinel base AT modifier... very likely going to go up 

4) New Sentinel inherent very likely to happen 

 

When?  Who knows.  Probably sometime after Issue 6 or maybe even next year or maybe never.  

You mentioning the 1.5 scalar to put them on par with Blasters... so this is EXACTLY why I said before that the AT scalar should move upwards BUT the inherent needs to help in DPS.  It would make far more sense to keep the scalar in a reasonable range and add critical hits in some fashion.  That idea is more likely to happen and have an impact than removing the AT and completely redesigning it from scratch.  Having the AT's core modifier go outside the bounds of any other existing AT is probably a poor long-term decision for the game.  Am I a huge fan of this idea?  Not really.  I get it seems lazy and all that, but my expectations for a complete overhaul are about as high as having snow during a Florida Summer.  

I may be alone here, but if they pushed the current version of the Sentinel off to a "Legacy" AT classification and totally abandoned it in favor of something totally new.... I'd likely be incredibly pissed off.  Like, that would easily push me to another private server or even away from the game.  Not that my feelings matter to the devs here, but it would be a pretty big slap in the face for something I've invested a lot of time in.  Who knows that may even be a possibility.  

[Wavicle]

53 minutes ago, oldskool said:

I may be alone here, but if they pushed the current version of the Sentinel off to a "Legacy" AT classification and totally abandoned it in favor of something totally new.... I'd likely be incredibly pissed off.  Like, that would easily push me to another private server or even away from the game.  Not that my feelings matter to the devs here, but it would be a pretty big slap in the face for something I've invested a lot of time in.  Who knows that may even be a possibility.  

you are definitely not alone there

[Zerethon]

Hoooly crap i missed a lot while i was at work:

@Frostweaver and a couple others, Yeah, there's a reason i never said "The game is balanced around SO's" because that hasn't been true since jesus walked the earth. Rather, i do my testing WITH only SO's because things like procs & PPM mess with my numbers, i'm fully aware of how insane proc builds can get, but i generally don't build for pure DPS in most cases (My Elec/Elec i always bring up uses Agility alpha for more end drain paired with preemptive....for more end drain, because it's fun and still powerful)

BUUUUUT you also can't balance the game and content around the idea of what classes are capable of at max level + levelshift + "most optimum MLG pro gamer random latin phrase 700 procs and a taco" build #584 either. This has been the death and downfall of SO MANY GAMES AND PROJECTS. You have to find the middle ground between the bottom rung and that, and then balance content to one side of that middle or the other (Easy content on the low side, harder content past it to varying degrees)

Push it too far up, and you start forcing specific combinations of very specific builds because it's the only way to beat it. Push it too low and your better players won't feel challenged by it and complain. (See: GW2 raids and meta, that is a cesspool)

Where does sentinel fall in this then? At a baseline of SO's/Non-set IO's pretty comfortably in the middle, practically any combo can do extremely well Solo or teamed, but you become several orders of magnitude scarier to heavy targets when you have a team with a couple big DPS AT's in it
 

4 hours ago, oldskool said:

The original description by CP was "Ranged Scrapper".  The Sentinel was supposed to do average DPS with periods of burst that put it on par or above Scrappers.  CP seems to feel this AT is not meeting the design intent and that the inherent is not contributing enough to the AT.  Given that Tankers lost their -resistance and had it rolled into the AT modifier that seems to be a possible path for Sentinels.  CP even stated that the inherent will get reworked into something else (possibly). 

*Snip*

I may be alone here, but if they pushed the current version of the Sentinel off to a "Legacy" AT classification and totally abandoned it in favor of something totally new.... I'd likely be incredibly pissed off.  Like, that would easily push me to another private server or even away from the game.  Not that my feelings matter to the devs here, but it would be a pretty big slap in the face for something I've invested a lot of time in.  Who knows that may even be a possibility.  

I Don't feel like after a year they'd honestly completely abandon the AT, it's far too popular

If they REALLY want to push it as a "Ranged scrapper" i'd honestly go more "Ranged brute" which i've laid out before in one form, but basically just convert the gauge into a fury bar. More bar = More damage, and if we're above say, 75% "Fury" we get the passive heal/end/"Damage proc" of the current opportunity

The problem is, to make up for the SERIOUS drop in effectiveness on teams (No more debuff) the damage % per point of "Fury" would have to be pretty high and/or Aim would have to be replaced by build-up (More damage, less Tohit)

My biggest issue then becomes, why play a blaster? If sentinels could do just as much damage while being several times harder to kill, that defeats the purpose. Sure we can't be a blapper, but that's a niche thing.

And thus, the circular argument repeats itself.

My PREFERRED solution to this problem/argument is just to modify the class to be more like a VEAT/HEAT with a ton more options. VEAT's are soldiers who become more like squad leaders, with team-focused buffs and toggles that are superior versions of the leadership pool, which makes them a similar asset to a sentinel (while they're not super destructive as a scrapper or blaster might be, they provide a huge boon to the team)

HEAT's are Jack of all trades, they get various boons for being on a team, and can be built to fill any necessary role at a moments notice going from Pure DPS, to DPS/support to straight tank even as the moment arises. Or they can be built to focus entirely on one or two of those roles

So, what would the sentinel actually be, then? Well, here goes nothing:

New inherent - "Opportunity" (Was going to change it, but meh, i kinda like it)

As a Sentinel, you are extremely adept at taking advantage of and pointing out flaws in the strategies of your enemies. You attacks have a chance of striking a target with opportunity, allowing you and your allies to gain advantage over them in combat. Attacks you make on vulnerable targets do increased damage

Sooo, what does this do, exactly? Well, it works like an unresistable debuff (but can be avoided, it requires attacks to hit still to be applied) that causes the enemy to release a buff pulse when hit, more or less, the buff it applies to allies is:

~5% Damage, ~10% Recovery, ~10% Regen - Stacking up to 3/4(more?) times, lasts for 10(15?) seconds, refreshes all stacks when applied

But why? One, it makes the skill entirely passive, no more skill dependency here. Two, it strengthens the team-buffing side (by now giving all allies the buff to heal/reco) while not nerfing the damage, per se. and Three, it makes it interactive

Basically, a scenario:

I throw out a Zapping bolt, it procs "Vulnerability" on it's target, my tank hits that target with foot stomp, triggering my vulnerability and applying a stack of "Advantage" to all allies within say, 100ft or so, followed by the target dying to a crit from a stalker, but triggering a second stack to be applied

At no point did i have to look for a target, i just do DPS and my passive takes advantage of that and the tankiness of sentinel in general to make sure i can keep sticking those debuffs and getting those stacks on everyone.

The current "Targeter" becomes the indicator for the new debuff, the buff wave doesn't need a visual effect, and it doesn't even need to apply a visible effect to teammates

For the sentinel, you get the current "Offensive" opportunity when hitting targets you've made vulnerable, just much stronger, we're talking probably 20-25%+ harder not counting the buff stacking on you.

The spirit is still the same, ranged DPS with scrapper-esque bursts of damage, but it keeps that unique flair that sentinels have (scary solo, monstrous in teams or together)

[killigraphy]

The nerds have done the numbers....Opportunity is trash, great idea, bad implementation. Its supposed to be OP, in a game with Rad/Rad and Bubblers, its fine if the half-blaster, gets a boost in its inherent.

[Zeraphia]

On 6/11/2020 at 3:30 PM, Bill Z Bubba said:

Just a side note: I just soloed a max diff ITF with my fire/bio sent. Two faceplants from Requiem. Taking him down took about as long as the entire 4th mission. No ultimate insps. Just used what I showed up with and what dropped.

 

Just one point of data.

 

Granted.... it did take 3:22 including a lunch break and some smoke breaks.

Respectfully, I must point out that this is an anecdote rather than a data point. No one is considering whether an AT needs to be buffed or nerfed based upon their +4 ITF no ultimate inspiration time. That's not me bashing you for what you did, what you did is excellent! However, I must point out that there are a great deal of variance in map distributions as well as mob distributions take can greatly affect the time even if you were comparing apples to apples using this metric.

[Zeraphia]

On 6/11/2020 at 4:31 PM, Wavicle said:

It is true that some part of my argument is not based on numbers but on "feel".

I frequently team with a couple of RL friends. Recently I did that with me on a Water/Regen Sentinel and my friends on a Defender and a Controller.

It really felt like fights were not going fast enough, compared to when I played my Scrapper with the same team.

Not that people were dying as a result, but simply that the contribution of my Sentinel was less than that of my Scrapper.

EDIT:
BTW This was in the mid 30s, not level 50, but my attacks are heavily slotted. Sure, things could be improved with procs, but that shouldn't be the baseline for performance.

This is the point I think that often gets skipped in favor of other arguments. A lot of people (self-included) feel this way. This is due to a multitude of issues that Sentinels possess (unilaterally weaker damage, inability to spread the inherent unlike crits, no forms of taunt at all, and less sets with knockdown capabilities). 

 

This is actually perfectly stated, and this isn't something that should be ignored. You shouldn't *have* to build something with a crap ton of incarnates and procs to get it to "work." You shouldn't have to use an attack you may not want to use at all to get your "inherent" to "work." You shouldn't have to pick Fire Blast or Bio Armor to be competitive against Tanker damage with Stalker survivability. You shouldn't have to rely on an epic pool to do Dominate which is legitimately better than any single one of your natural attacks. 

 

Side note, I would appreciate it if people stopped comparing Sentinels to Blasters, they're not the same, they're leagues away from each other. Sentinels do not possess snipes, they do not possess 16 target caps, they have reduced range, they also do not have an inherent that functions at all like Opportunity. Sentinels will NEVER be Blasters, and they will never encroach on that territory for the reasons above. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Zeraphia

[Frostweaver]

19 hours ago, Zerethon said:

Hoooly crap i missed a lot while i was at work:

@Frostweaver and a couple others, Yeah, there's a reason i never said "The game is balanced around SO's" because that hasn't been true since jesus walked the earth. Rather, i do my testing WITH only SO's because things like procs & PPM mess with my numbers, i'm fully aware of how insane proc builds can get, but i generally don't build for pure DPS in most cases (My Elec/Elec i always bring up uses Agility alpha for more end drain paired with preemptive....for more end drain, because it's fun and still powerful)

BUUUUUT you also can't balance the game and content around the idea of what classes are capable of at max level + levelshift + "most optimum MLG pro gamer random latin phrase 700 procs and a taco" build #584 either. This has been the death and downfall of SO MANY GAMES AND PROJECTS. You have to find the middle ground between the bottom rung and that, and then balance content to one side of that middle or the other (Easy content on the low side, harder content past it to varying degrees)

me, I balance builds around a 100 million 'price point', and two full sets of ato's, since that is easy enough for just about any character to do. two weeks of playing and you have enough 'dropped' catalysts to catalyze your sets. also around having your alpha at rank 3 and no other incarnates, since that is pretty much the minimmum to unloack 'endgame' content.
Winter and purple sets are unneccessary, but If you don't get at LEAST 300-500 merits by level 50, you took shortcuts or PL'ed, and your 'experience' is irrelevant to the actual value of a set levelling up.

That provides a MUCH closer idea of what a build is actually capable of... your price point? It's so low as to have almost no bearing whatsoever on the reality of the game.. It's every bit as bad as using pylon tests or fire farms to decide how effective a character is in Itrials.

You can ABSOLUTELY Balance PARTS of the game around "max level + levelshift + "most optimum MLG pro gamer random latin phrase 700 procs and a taco" build #584". Hell, That sort of balance for endgame content is exactly what Made WOW so popular. I am glad CoH does not require that sort of thing for levelling, but people do 'weird and crazy' crap all the time for fun, and the ability to do that sort of thing is ABSOLUETLY a metric of a set or AT's value. Not the sole metric, but certainly a valuable one, especially for endgame builds.

[Frostweaver]

1 hour ago, Zeraphia said:

Respectfully, I must point out that this is an anecdote rather than a data point. No one is considering whether an AT needs to be buffed or nerfed based upon their +4 ITF no ultimate inspiration time. That's not me bashing you for what you did, what you did is excellent! However, I must point out that there are a great deal of variance in map distributions as well as mob distributions take can greatly affect the time even if you were comparing apples to apples using this metric.

Respectfully, anything a character is CAPABLE OF is definitely a data point. if someone does it, and has evidence of doing it, that is a big fat data point that absolutely must be taken into consideration when evaluating the set.

If Santa clause flew through Times Square on a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer, that would absolutely be a data point for Santa Clause' existence... it doesn't matter if it was a one-time occurence.

The fact is, he did it. He PROVED a fire/bio sent is entirely capable of doing one of the HARDEST challenges in the game. Many other AT's cannot do this. My BR/SR did the same thing, with only 1 death and a much better time, but I did not take meal or smoke breaks. That means there are TWO valid data points for sentinels with entirely different builds tackling a solo challenge that is one of the hardest in the game. There are other people who have done the same, and even tackled challenges that are INSANE by our terms, like Nihilli. he does challenges that are IMPOSSIBLE for melees and most other range characters to do, like soloing a max difficulty STF. He does things with his sentinel that even Illusion controllers cannot touch, and they are the most OP solo build in the game.

Please, please never use the term 'data point' again. You are misusing it as badly as a teenaged prom queen uses the term 'literally'.

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Respectfully, I must point out that this is an anecdote rather than a data point. No one is considering whether an AT needs to be buffed or nerfed based upon their +4 ITF no ultimate inspiration time. That's not me bashing you for what you did, what you did is excellent! However, I must point out that there are a great deal of variance in map distributions as well as mob distributions take can greatly affect the time even if you were comparing apples to apples using this metric.

I consider it. I think everyone else should as well and those that don't are incorrect in their assessment regarding how solo performance can and should be extrapolated to the teaming experience.

[Zerethon]

5 hours ago, Frostweaver said:

You can ABSOLUTELY Balance PARTS of the game around "max level + levelshift + "most optimum MLG pro gamer random latin phrase 700 procs and a taco" build #584". Hell, That sort of balance for endgame content is exactly what Made WOW so popular. I am glad CoH does not require that sort of thing for levelling, but people do 'weird and crazy' crap all the time for fun, and the ability to do that sort of thing is ABSOLUETLY a metric of a set or AT's value. Not the sole metric, but certainly a valuable one, especially for endgame builds.

And that was the point, you CAN balance parts of the game around the most broken available metric...to a point, WoW and many others have EXTREMELY STRICT metas for the hardest endgame content, this drives the overall meta of the game toward that because it's the pro way

If you don't have enough "Slip" in the hardest content, you screw up ALL the content, and that was never CoX. WoW Only stood the test of time because people were willing to put up with it's constant BS and sunk-cost/sunk-time fallacies and they advertise the hell out of it while pushing the actual difficulty and creativity of the game down so even a shrimp could play it well after a couple hours.

I've been around long enough to remember when IO's didn't even exist. Want the "Best Gear"? Go raid hami.

But EVEN BLOODY HAMIDON never required a super-specific meta, it was built around the idea of having CC+RDPS+MDPS And some flavor of support, there were "Optimal" combinations, but even a relatively rag-tag group could take him out and i feel this has been lost to time as IO's and Sets and things have been added.

CoX is still the only MMO where you can take basically any combination of 8 random chars into a TF and have a solid chance at beating it. level 50 or not.

But, semantics and politics of game-balance and design aside, this is the sentinel thread and not an overall balance thread. Point is, we're talking about the balance of the SENTINEL throughout the ENTIRE GAME, not just what it should or shouldn't be able to do at max level.

Discounting SO/DO/Basic IO based testing around the idea of "Only level 50 numbers matter" or whatever is, well, arbitrary.

Assuming you haven't already, go make an alt account, make a sentinel, and then play the game without using ANYTHING from P2W, no XP Boosts, no vet powers, no nothing. No PL's or anything cheeky either, entirely organic gameplay.

Notice something? At lower levels without an SG Base stocked with IO's of every level range and a bunch of respec recipes, and a few easy mil from your farming, those first few levels as a sent are about as slow as being a solo tanker. no NR or vet attacks means you have a LOT less options at the low-end of the game, and the clunkiness of the current passive becomes scary clear.

This data point matters just as much as a veteran player who knows how to build toons and already is established. Why? Meet James McNoob the 3rd, he decided to come check out homecoming because his friends told him CoX was amazing, and he decided to roll a sentinel because he liked the sound of it. He's also never played CoX and barely understands the wiki, so he's winging it.

THESE PEOPLE are the "Squeaky wheel" we mention about, or joke about sometimes. "Just git gud" isn't a proper response for the new-player experience.

I Spent nearly the first half-year of HC avoiding making sentinels because they seemed "Broken" and not in a good way, it wasn't until i said "Ah t'hell with it" Came here, read these forums, and spent a few more months derping around with builds and stupid ideas before getting the hang of them and forming a solid opinion that they're basically "Fine, but clunky, could use some QoL"

We can agree to disagree here, but having to know all the tricks about farming merits and basically how to print money with them, how to build properly using IO sets, how combining procs work, etc. should not affect the basic new-player experience. And we should ALSO be able to agree on this:

No AT, not a single one, should ever actually need IO sets to function properly and be fun to play. Not saying sentinels are in that camp (They're actually pretty fine up to +2 with just SO's/BaseIO's) but all content shouldn't also be based around some arbitrary build-target at 50 either, nor should an entire AT.

[Zeraphia]

5 hours ago, Frostweaver said:

Please, please never use the term 'data point' again. You are misusing it as badly as a teenaged prom queen uses the term 'literally'.

This is harsh, just because I don't see something the same way you do, and disagree does not permit the use of these types of remarks. Civilly disagree, and state why you disagree, but that wasn't necessary. I'm not going to engage this behavior, I do not see this as a noteworthy datapoint because it isn't something like pylon data, or clear times on a farm mission, or demonstrating a completely unilaterally fair wage to gauge prowess over another AT/set in relativity to another, and it can be misleading. There are many variables on Task Forces, lots of RNG, and very little true control. That is why I stand by the fact I just don't agree, because there isn't a way to test this accurately under many conditions unless you had the same type of map, exact same spawn locations of the mobs, and same hit rolls (which isn't likely... at all). An anecdote is a short story or a personal experience detailing a point, which is valid but that's not exactly quantifiable. 

[Zerethon]

1 hour ago, Zeraphia said:

An anecdote is a short story or a personal experience detailing a point, which is valid but that's not exactly quantifiable. 

This, combined with the rest of your post. So much.

If i had access to the tools the devs do, i could probably make a ridiculously complex scatter-chart and average out things relating specifically to sentinel based on things like the number of active sentinels and the "K/D" Ratio of them compared to other classes. Or i could make an equally massive DPS Graph using community data..., but there's so many variables it's hard to do true solid testing, because everyone has a different baseline they test by (Clear times, pylon times/dps, hardest solo-able content, etc) and a different methodology (Full IO's, full IO's + Incarns, Proc/nonproc builds, SO's, unenhanced, etc.)

The real data itself is effectively, anecdotal evidence at best. You can base your OPINION of an AT on your own experience, but someone else can build the same AT with the same combo and have a completely different experience, this leads to bias (I'm happy with my Tri-elec doing around 150dps solo and greatly enjoy nuking endurance, someone else might think it's trash because it doesn't instagib 5 hamidons at once, we agree to disagree)

You can't even set a STANDARD, if we're being honest here. Fire might do the highest DPS overall....when we're talking an enemy with no resists to any damage type, but if they have 50% Fire res and 0 Energy res, well, energy-based sets will do more DPS now won't they (assuming roughly equal base damage)

And thus, the problem in our discussion, we're talking about potential tweaks to an AT as a whole, but we're all using a different ruler to take the same measurement.

[Wavicle]

On mobs with health 50% and above the Sentinel gets criticals, below 50% the Opportunity debuffs kick in.

[nihilii]

2 hours ago, Zerethon said:

And thus, the problem in our discussion, we're talking about potential tweaks to an AT as a whole, but we're all using a different ruler to take the same measurement.

There is something strange in that it is the people who want to tweak the AT radically who also tend to espouse the idea all data is anecdotal and invalid. One would think if we can't know something is wrong unless devs tell us with a vast campaign of datamining, then cautiousness is warranted.

 

Doubly strange that this point of view is often expressed when data is posted to support the idea Sentinels can perform, and rarely expressed when data is posted to support the idea Sentinels underperform - even when the objective quality of the data point favors the former.

I think there is a case here of starting from a conclusion ("Sentinels underperform"), then moving backwards to find support for that conclusion. As the data starts to pile up suggesting Sentinels are decent performers, we are now down to dismissing the validity of data rather than challenging it with more data.

Edited June 13, 2020 by nihilii

[Zeraphia]

6 hours ago, nihilii said:

There is something strange in that it is the people who want to tweak the AT radically who also tend to espouse the idea all data is anecdotal and invalid. One would think if we can't know something is wrong unless devs tell us with a vast campaign of datamining, then cautiousness is warranted.

 

Doubly strange that this point of view is often expressed when data is posted to support the idea Sentinels can perform, and rarely expressed when data is posted to support the idea Sentinels underperform - even when the objective quality of the data point favors the former.

I think there is a case here of starting from a conclusion ("Sentinels underperform"), then moving backwards to find support for that conclusion. As the data starts to pile up suggesting Sentinels are decent performers, we are now down to dismissing the validity of data rather than challenging it with more data.

I want to point out, that I said his anecdotal data was valid even in my initial reply, but that it wasn't a data-point that we can use to balance things or gauge relativity. There is a difference, that doesn't mean that his anecdote of being able to perform a hard or difficult task was invalid to showing that a Sentinel can perform specific feats, but it is wrong to try to act like it is a data-point to keep the AT as is in its current place and pretend nothing is wrong with it mechanically. Which is what I've been arguing, which is not the same thing. Also, there is numerous data via pylon numbers, mission clear times, etc. that has shown Sentinels to underperform, especially without the Psionic pool and heavy reliance on procs. I do not consider it a "great thing!" when an AT who's primary purpose is damage (because really that is what a Sentinel is, damage first, no actual taunts to Tank, and not given the tools to be a Tanker) is reaching 200 baseline DPS if not lower than that through its primary. You may disagree, but I do not think this is a great place for the Sentinel. 

[Zerethon]

6 hours ago, nihilii said:

I think there is a case here of starting from a conclusion ("Sentinels underperform"), then moving backwards to find support for that conclusion. As the data starts to pile up suggesting Sentinels are decent performers, we are now down to dismissing the validity of data rather than challenging it with more data.

In my experience (I know, but this is OPINION, rather than pure hard data, working on that part still)

1.) The idea as a whole is fine, we perform especially in teams pretty much like one would expect a tanky damage dealer to perform, we don't hit big numbers but we hit endlessly. Solo, Sentinels are MONSTROUS when built and played well

2.) Overall, in current state, it's less "Sentinels horribly under-perform" and more "Sentinels are clunky and hard to understand" because the passive has like 8 parts, requires 2 powers to have both options, and has basically ZERO in-depth explanation in game because it's overcomplicated currently.

3.) #2 is paired with the fact that we ALSO have tweaked ranged DPS sets AND secondaries, so they don't build the same as other classes, even stalkers are generally less messed with than sents.

Now, the opinion part:

6 minutes ago, Zeraphia said:

I want to point out, that I said his anecdotal data was valid even in my initial reply, but that it wasn't a data-point that we can use to balance things or gauge relativity. There is a difference, that doesn't mean that his anecdote of being able to perform a hard or difficult task was invalid to showing that a Sentinel can perform specific feats, but it is wrong to try to act like it is a data-point to keep the AT as is in its current place and pretend nothing is wrong with it mechanically. Which is what I've been arguing, which is not the same thing. Also, there is numerous data via pylon numbers, mission clear times, etc. that has shown Sentinels to underperform, especially without the Psionic pool and heavy reliance on procs. I do not consider it a "great thing!" when an AT who's primary purpose is damage (because really that is what a Sentinel is, damage first, no actual taunts to Tank, and not given the tools to be a Tanker) is reaching 200 baseline DPS if not lower than that through its primary. You may disagree, but I do not think this is a great place for the Sentinel. 

The problem here, is sentinels are EXTREMELY durable and EXTREMELY safe, we never actually have to walk into danger territory unless we just want too or have a melee we feel the need to use

Yes, at the extreme, blasters can also take a ton of damage, but they still lack things like mez protection and the various flavors of BS sentinels can pull due to having actual armor sets

Even at 80% of a blasters damage, sans inherent effect, sentinels suddenly blow blasters out of the water, 20% less DPS is a noteworthy loss, but having your ranged DPS be entirely self sufficient and nearly mez-immune before buffs is a very tempting tradeoff in a LOT of content. A mezzed blaster does 0 DPS after all. And sentinels are MUCH Easier to cap/softcap due to well, armor sets.

If we want to come up with a change that buffs the damage, without devaluing or invalidating other AT's in the same role, there's a checklist:

1.) Must be conditional, probably controllable. Not just "Increased sentinel base damage by 50%"
2.) Should be unique to the sentinel ("JUST ADD CRITS" - No.)
3.) Should remove the dependency on having both T1 options
4.) EPP/PPP Power scales should be reworked in the process for sentinel (Sorry Psy mastery, but everyone should be as good as you are. What, expected a "Nerf it!!!?")
5.) Sentinels should do less damage than other ranged AT's still even post change, by a noteworthy amount to trade for their utility, so the final state should be more like Brute vs. Scrapper when talking about Sentinel V. Blaster or other useless comparisons (It should be Sent vs. HEAT/Ranged VEAT not v Blasters, imo)

Because again, we're more like a PB/WS without shapeshifts, or a Fort/Crab without pets and free leadership, Sent really just needs something to CLEARLY define it's role and some QoL And we'd be pretty well off.

[kiramon]

I wouldn’t mind a Bar that built to the % of damage added in an attack destiny style — each hit has a chance to proc another attack in energy damage or something, increasing the % of it based on the bar — or a flat % of damage with a scaling % chance to proc— mimicking the idea of a critical but a little different flavor.

[oldskool]

@Zerethon I get where the spirit is, but to be fair a mezzed Blaster can still use a few attacks due to how Defiance works.  Its not the same as being able to use their full kit, BUT... and this is a big one, there are several Blaster sets that value using those attacks anyway.   

I don't think it is worth the time to toss around numbers like X percentage of Y AT's damage.  This is still just too much vacuum conversation.  

[Zerethon]

52 minutes ago, oldskool said:

@Zerethon I get where the spirit is, but to be fair a mezzed Blaster can still use a few attacks due to how Defiance works.  Its not the same as being able to use their full kit, BUT... and this is a big one, there are several Blaster sets that value using those attacks anyway.   

I don't think it is worth the time to toss around numbers like X percentage of Y AT's damage.  This is still just too much vacuum conversation.  

Oh i'm fully aware, it's why i pushed it into the specifically-stated opinion side of that post. I Feel the "Sentinels need more damage" camp, i REALLY do, but sentinels have SO MANY ADVANTAGES already with proper armor sets and everything that if just the damage gets bumped up to be more in-line with blasters, they'll actually overshadow them

Keep in mind too, being mezzed suppresses many many powers, so while they can still do damage, it's also at a massively higher risk-case than a sentinel that has protection to that mez. Lets use a stun for example - The sent will take that hit, still have travel, full power access, and full defense....while the blaster can still attack, but now has suppressed movement and defenses due to still being stunned.

Things like this get lost in discussion and feelings/opinions very very fast. Yes i know about breakfrees and everything else. in a perfect world you always have a full tray of the right insp at the right time. But nothing is ever perfect. When we're comparing classes, there's always a weakness in an AT

What is a base sentinels weakness then? If they get blaster-tier damage with full armor sets, would they still even have one? Lack of CC isn't really a thing due to the design of sentinel blast mez attacks and the EPP/PPP options we have access to...And we can't say lack of melee attacks when we're a ranged DPS.

Tanks and brutes have a flaw (Lack of range) Scrappers have a flaw (Also lack of range) Blasters/Corrs/Defs have a flaw (Low armor, no real mez resist) and so on, so if Sents have scrapper-level defense, but a more purely ranged playstyle....What's the drawback?

Currently, the trade is Damage for Safety, but the shift is a -TINY- bit too much on the damage mostly due to the overall scale of the attacks we have and the overall clunkiness of the passives (Too many different things trying to work together with zero explanation or QoL) but even in the current state sentinels can be almost "Broken" in the fun way with proper builds

These always end up being bloody long because i'm super wordy, point being: The "Fixes" to sentinel should start by reforging the passive and associated effects into a MUCH simpler package with a similar power level, see how that plays out in actual gameplay over a period of time, and THEN look at things like increasing base damage or adjusting the scale of powers in the various sentinel sets.

I Mean, who's to say opportunity wouldn't be absolutely broken if the offense/defense effects weren't reliant on first getting a hit and we could have builds with potentially 100% uptime?

Edited June 13, 2020 by Zerethon

[oldskool]

8 minutes ago, Zerethon said:

Currently, the trade is Damage for Safety, but the shift is a -TINY- bit too much on the damage mostly due to the overall scale of the attacks we have and the overall clunkiness of the passives (Too many different things trying to work together with zero explanation or QoL) but even in the current state sentinels can be almost "Broken" in the fun way with proper builds

These always end up being bloody long because i'm super wordy, point being: The "Fixes" to sentinel should start by reforging the passive and associated effects into a MUCH simpler package with a similar power level, see how that plays out in actual gameplay over a period of time, and THEN look at things like increasing base damage or adjusting the scale of powers in the various sentinel sets.

And now I feel like I am reading my own posts.  😁  This pretty much echos my thoughts that the inherent is cumbersome for most players.  On top of this, the AT can respond very well to the IO system, but without that level of understanding builds can falter for it.  I do not find the Sentinel to be a forgiving AT on builds and this is in contrast to how I feel about other ATs.  This is not the same statement as "anything you build is optimal".  No, this is more a statement of the lines between what is viable and what are optimal in other ATs are bit more blurry.  Having consistent inherents and higher base damage scalars contributes everything to this.  Not just a lot... 

 

My posts trend towards being wordy because I also tend to feel that the "problem" is a bit more complex than it looks.  We could easily make a single sentence problem statement, but that doesn't mean the analysis is so simplistic. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by oldskool

[oldskool]

Just to add on about why I think the comment by Thanos matters a bit.  

 

The common core complaints about the Sentinel are as follows: 

1) Opportunity - in general.  There are a number of varied complaints that define why it sucks for different people.  

2) General damage dealt.  

3) Range of attack.  

4) AoE caps 

 

#3 & #4 are very much related to how people tend to view Sentinels as some kind of Blaster alternative.  Personally, I think this is an enormous mistake by players and it really shows just how misunderstood the Blaster AT is.  While the Blaster can play at range it can also be so much more than that.  The AT isn't always my cup of tea (I only really have 2 I can tolerate), but I see so much potential in it beyond just running */Devices or #/TA and capping S/L/E/Range.  I hate to make a statement that makes it seem like I somehow view myself as the smartest person in the room on this.  That's not how I feel.  Yet, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen Blaster builds that are praised as "good" that look like it is only using half its potential.  I just cannot understand this and that's because I don't play Blasters in half measures.  Then again, debt badges aren't that big a deal to me.  

 

#1 and #2 are also linked.  There is a correlation to be made of Scrappers/Stalkers with their general damage dealing capabilities when combined with critical hits.  The criticals are their inherent.  It helps and it can also play cover to otherwise poor build choices.  Blasters, and by extension Corruptors too, have inherents that directly aid in their damage.  For Corruptors, Scourge makes them look like they do a lot more damage than they really do.  That last statement may make some folks double take, but I'm serious.  Corruptor damage is largely overrated.  Certain Corruptors are most definitely extremes, but even a Kinetics Corr is aiding their team.  Its not just all their damage and sometimes it seems people forget that Fulcrum shift is going to make higher base damage ATs better than you.  

Whenever folks ask for a build here I always ask the same questions when I see the same requests.  

"What does 'good build' mean to you?"  

 

The response is almost always "decent survival and decent dps".  That last part also begs me to ask... 

 

"What is decent DPS to you?" 

 

You know, to this day, no one has ever answered that question.  Not once.  No one has ever said "I want my Sentinel to down a Pylon in 2 minutes".  

Saying things like "I want to maybe fight some AVs" or "I want to contribute to my team" aren't answers to that question.  Those are just generic statements of people that just want their character to feel strong.  

The Sentinel can actually do that, and it can do that right now.  What it cannot always do is win awards for the fastest Pylon times.  The former is an issue with perception and how well the class is designed from a point of entry.  It is not necessarily encompassing of all build possibilities.  The latter statement is absolutely about build possibilities and those can get very limited on Sentinels when trying to achieve a particular standard.  

So, what's the problem again? (haha)

[Frostweaver]

So basically people are stating that instead of being a generalist, They want sentinels to be capable of doing something for a team no one else can do better.

 

I understand and feel for that, but it just doesn't hold water ever since AT proliferation.

AND it ignores the fact that Sentinels, ideally, would have been considered a VEAT... and their balance is VERY much like a veat.

Pre AT proliferation, blue side, Tankers were the best at taking damage. Scrappers were the best at dealing damage safely, controllers were the best at locking down spawns, Defenders were the best at buffing and debuffing, blasters were the best at dealing damage at all ranges. Warshades were the best at filling the holes in a  team, and peacebringers were the best at reinforcing what the team does best. A sentinel would have EASILY slid into a veat role, halfway between PB's and warshades, of generally both reinforcing gaps slightly and helping strengths slightly.

 

After you filled the five to seven other slots, sentinel is the eighth AT... the perfect compliment to all the other roles in a team, able to freely slip from role to role as the team progressed... sometimes being massive dps, sometimes off-tanking, sometimes debuffing, but generally fluidly sliding from role to role as the mission continued. Not locked into whatever the team needs like a WS, not locked into following the team paradigm like the PB.

Redside there were almost NO team roles. All AT's were dps, with a little side action of whatever flavor you wanted. DPS+control is a dom, dps+buff/debuff is a corr, single target dps and solo was a stalker, and 'weird dps plus debuffs and buffs' (sorta the role of PB's and WS blueside) were Masterminds...and safe, damage-soaking dps was a brute. Their VEAT's were all about bringing a little more organization and flexibility to the DPS, with forts and widows playing buffers/stalker and buffer/dom, while huntsmen/banes and aoe/pet spiders were debuff/corrupter/stalkers or debuff/brute/MM's. Masterminds, in a very real way, already filled the hole in between the VEAT's, leaving sentinels with no role.

So it comes down to a problem of perception again. AT propagation wrecked the game, but is so weird it's hard to point a finger at what part of it ruined it, and then sentinels were dragged in and dropped right in the middle of a battle between the AT's for useful roles that was never supposed to happen until level 50 by the original game separation concept. So sentinels are the ones getting the finger, even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with them as originally conceptualized.

I am getting the feeling that this poll is pretty much irrelevant.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Frostweaver