A sincere request to take a look at the sentinel AT.

[honoraryorange]

1 hour ago, nihilii said:

High DPS builds typically must use Ageless as well, which implies either you consume amplifiers permanently (an option, but one I would argue is *significantly* less representative of AT performance than any shenanigans any Sentinel can get up to), carry a tray of breakfrees (then you get no lucks for extra defense against defense debuffs, no oranges for extra resistance, no rages for extra damage), or enjoy mezzes.

Your understanding of DPS builds in general seems flawed. There's plenty of high DPS builds that don't need Ageless. Some need it more for End management than anything else, but there's also other ways of dealing with that. Additionally, the ones that do use Ageless still don't need a tray of breakfrees. And this goes for squishies as well - I generally don't carry more than 1 or 2 on my blaster and rarely need to use them.

[Zeraphia]

5 hours ago, nihilii said:

That might make sense if you divided the number of players reporting high damage by the total number of players reporting damage, as well as by the number of players active on the subforum, and did that for all ATs. An absolute amount in a vacuum isn't relevant.

 

But in any case, I disagree with the idea. The performance of any AT is defined by its upper bounds. In this thread you spend half of the time arguing Defenders geared for ST damage specifically against a Pylon by some of the best minmaxers outdamage Sentinels, and the other half insinuating any posted proof of high damage Sentinels is invalid because an edge case. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either they're both edge cases or they're appropriate as comparison points.

This was when I didn't understand the new proc system, didn't use any epics, had Cardiac as an Alpha, Reactive as an Interface, didn't use Ageless, and when Blazing Blast had bugged damage, dealing as little as Fire Blast, a Tier 2 blast available at level 1!!

 

This was also only one attempt, and in that very same post you linked a second run with Degen T4 is posted dealing 247 DPS...

Merely adding Alpha and replicating the same suboptimal attack chain and build would force you to be above 250 DPS. The Blazing Blast fix alone doubled its damage.

 

It's amazing: you dismiss my numbers when they spell a positive story about Sentinels, then suddenly if it seems like some of these numbers can be used to say Sentinels suck, you pounce on it like a fire farmer on a thread about nerfing AE. While also ignoring the latter half of the post not going along with your narrative.

Time/Dark, Cold/Rad dealing 300+ DPS? Where are you getting this from? The Defender proc thread you linked from above has very few Pylon times that I could see at a quick skim/reread, most of which are above 5 minutes. 5 minutes to kill a Pylon = 255 DPS. You need to get the timer down to 3:40 or below.

As for the Scrapper Pylon thread, I don't recall even 250+ DPS times posted from non-Storm defenders. I could be wrong, but I don't feel like going through 28 pages of it on the offchance you're right, given that I know you've been wrong and twisted data about other things...

 

I'm not even saying it's impossible, but I'd like to see attack chains, builds, details.

Also once again pointing out you can't argue on one hand Sentinels must have no procs and no epics to accurately represent AT performance, and also argue Defenders can be fully procced out and use all the powers they want! For any comparison the scale used has to be the same.

High DPS build examples of this, please? Time/ can softcap all 3, but I'm doubtful of 300+ DPS claims from this primary in particular.

 

High DPS builds typically must use Ageless as well, which implies either you consume amplifiers permanently (an option, but one I would argue is *significantly* less representative of AT performance than any shenanigans any Sentinel can get up to), carry a tray of breakfrees (then you get no lucks for extra defense against defense debuffs, no oranges for extra resistance, no rages for extra damage), or enjoy mezzes.

The point of Pylon tests isn't "can a Defender survive a Pylon". Pylons are more or less the bottom tier of damage you'll have to survive if you want to take on situations where high DPS is actually useful. All Defenders can take on all +4/x8 factions solo, just like all Sentinels can do the same, the question is how easy it is for each AT, and how does any extra effort required to survive play into the ability to do damage.

I have a Poison/Fire (all credit to Frosticus). I love the character. She dishes out fantastic damage competitive with my Sentinels, and improves the offensive output of her teammates significantly. At the same time, she is MUCH harder to play and dies more often as a result. The gap is so wide there is simply no comparison.

This ugly debate rears its head every now and then on the Sentinel forum, with people arguing a Blaster softcapped for range defense is all you need. Look, if you want to play in a team all the time and always have someone else take the aggro, that may be true. If you're an elite speedrunner emailing yourself 100 T3 insps before any 20 minutes run, that may also be true. Play a Blaster and be happy for the extra damage.

 

In any other situation, the survivability gap between Sentinels and traditional squishies is massive, and that extra survivability is useful - anytime you don't have to manage staying alive, you can deal more damage.

I truly respect and value your opinion, and I can attest to the fact that Sentinels can be decent, but Nihiilii, you've got to look at how far the gap is between Sentinels vs. Scrapper & Blaster. With epic pools, a lot of Sentinels can become viable, but in no other AT does it so strictly rely on legitimately half of its DPS or more on an epic pool... That's not good.

 

Nihilii, the Blast sets by themselves are not competitive in damage, they're just not I'm sorry. Psionic pool is practically a requirement to gain competitive DPS, that's really bad design if 2/4 of your main rotation attacks are doing significantly more damage than what your primary powers are able to produce on a damaging archetype (remember, Sentinel is a BLAST-FIRST, SURVIVAL-SECOND.) You can min-max the Sentinel to the highest degrees with procs, but honestly you could do the same for most Defenders (a SUPPORT-FIRST, BLAST-SECOND) within the same realm (most of the types of people who post there are possibly not utilizing procs to min-max their damage to the degree we are with Sentinels), and a lot will come out ahead. I don't have the time unfortunately to produce them, but the Sniper power + offensive tools are all there to push them further ahead unfortunately with just their two primary sets. Now, if we factor in Epic pools, Sentinels come out ahead, but that's the issue, why is an epic pool such a stringent requirement to actually deal DPS that's competitive to be beyond a Defender?

 

I'm going to be 100% real, it's concerning IMO, that Sentinels and Defenders are even mentioned in the same sentence for damage comparisons, and they're valid... That is not good. They should IMO, be mentioned with Scrappers, but as it stands, they're just not even playing the same sport.

 

All this said, could we absolutely abuse procs and incarnates to an exceptional degree with exploiting helpful secondaries to push Sentinels into a 300 DPS-range, even at the cost of foregoing defenses? Yes, you could... But the same could be said for a Defender if they really went for it all-out. The thing about Defenders is that Defenders will in most cases not just improve their own damage, but they will magnify everyone else on the team's damage making the leaps and bounds more powerful than the Sentinel, and if they can get similar DPS on their bases, that's pretty telling that Sentinels are not competitive as a whole as an AT by their bases. That's unfortunate IMO, now, I quite enjoy my Sentinel with her Psi pool, but if she didn't have that Psi pool, I'm afraid I'd have to dustbin her for IO's because by her primary and secondary she is just totally eclipsed by Scrapper to such a magnitude at this state of the game that it is just unbelievable. 

 

You've done some absolutely astonishing things with your Sentinel Nihilii, you should be proud of them! You even inspired me with what you've done! But the Sentinel itself has flaws, that's OK! It doesn't take away from how great of a player you are and your impressive accomplishments!

Edited April 17, 2020 by Zeraphia

[nihilii]

15 hours ago, modest said:

I have shown you nothing but respect. If you are unable to have a polite conversation, then we can simply agree to disagree and I will cease to reply to your posts. I understand that you are emotionally invested in this topic because the Sentinel archetype is one that you enjoy playing, and I am trying to respect that while also suggesting that improvements can be made to the damage output of the archetype.

You know, you're right. I'm being uncouth. I feel you come from a position where you claim your thesis is rational, yet mangle data horribly to support your point. This gets me going.

 

I have no problem with improving Sentinel damage. I have problems dealing with what I perceive to be bad logic.

15 hours ago, modest said:

I would be happy to send you my Poison/Fire or Cold/Fire Mid's file for you to Pylon test. Because you already have a Poison/Fire, your build might outperform mine. It is likely to do so since you outperform me in Pylon testing.

All I'm saying is I haven't seen 250+ DPS builds posted on the Pylon thread from non-Storm defenders. If you accept we can use other sources than the Pylon thread for Defender builds, surely the name should go for Sentinels?

 

15 hours ago, modest said:

Please quote where I said that Sentinels must have no procs, and that Defenders can be fully procced out and use all the powers that they want. I have pointed out that Sentinels must use the Psychic epic tree to achieve top DPS times. Would you disagree?

You have hunted down a 1 year old post of mine to claim the first posted time, using a BUGGED power and on a suboptimal build with very few procs, and again I quote your own words: "I would argue that this number is more indicative of the innate damage output of the archetype."

You've ignored the latter half of this very same post where DPS was 240+, still using the same bugged power.

You're still not acknowledging any of that now.

Playing with words might work if you're considering a career in politics, but in the end, you seem purposefully misleading.

 

15 hours ago, modest said:

I have not insinuated that "any posted proof of high damage sentinels is invalid because an edge case". I have stated that the majority of Sentinel Pylon times that we have are sub-250DPS. This compares unfavorably to Scrappers, Blasters, and Stalkers, the three primary damage dealing archetypes. The fact that it also compares poorly to Defender Pylon times illustrates a further divide between the archetypes.

You have still not demonstrated that "fact" to any meaningful extent. The topic you linked earlier shows Defender Pylon times inferior to Sentinel Pylon times.

You're now mentioning the Homecoming Discord, without details. I repeat my previous enquiry: please post attack chains, builds, details. This would be helpful. "A bunch of us on Discord are doing this thing and we all agree" is not helpful data.

15 hours ago, modest said:

I would estimate that most min-maxed Defenders are in the ~230-250DPS range, which is above most min-maxed Sentinels based on Pylon times.

This is so factually wrong it's criminally so. You have no basis whatsoever to make that claim. Your whole "thesis" relies on purposeful ignorance of any Sentinel data that isn't in the Pylon thread, with vague allusions to unclear Defender data that isn't in the Pylon thread. You diss the /psi epic for Sentinels - I'd be curious to know how many Defenders minmaxed for ST DPS skip their own /psi epic.

 

I'll repeat my own previous claim: a solid half if not more of Sentinel primaries can achieve 250+ DPS, regardless of secondary. I'll happily demonstrate the claim if it comes to that, provided you actually put up too and start showing attack chains, builds, details, for this previous claim you made: "Defenders are able to reach the numbers that you quoted [250+ DPS? 300+ DPS?] using Dark Blast, Rad Blast, Fire Blast, and Ice Blast when paired with Cold Domination, Storm Summoning, Poison, and Time Manipulation. It is possible that they can reach these numbers with other sets as well. "

Again: I would like to see examples of Time/Rad, Cold/Dark doing this. I am not asking you for much here. Just two specifics builds. I'm not even holding you to the implication other sets might do the same, even though you only name 4 primaries out of 16 possible choices, and 4 secondaries out of 13 possible choices - making for 16 possible combos out of 208 possible choices, or a mere 7.69% of all Defender combos.

In exchange for just two fully detailed builds of yours, I would post 250+ DPS builds for Elec, Fire, Rad, Dark, Beam, Psi and Ice, 7 primaries out of 13 possible choices, using any secondary (you can even specify which secondary, if you want); meaning the results would show 53.8% of all Sentinel combos can deal 250+ DPS.

If your interest in this discussion is truly genuine, please don't ignore this part of my post. Please avoid semantic games with other parts of my reply. Let's be serious for a moment and focus on trading hard data.

16 hours ago, modest said:

Builds that slot for high global recharge do not require Ageless, but I agree with you that it does improve most builds.

Ageless isn't typically used for recharge, but to sustain the endurance requirements of the highest DPS attack chains.

 

16 hours ago, modest said:

Again, I understand that you are very passionate about the Sentinel archetype, and therefore you feel a need to defend any perceived slight against the archetype. Please try to understand that I am not criticizing the archetype in an attempt to insult it. My criticisms are motivated by a desire to see the archetype improved. I am also not attempting to insult you.

 

You appear to believe that you are being personally attacked by suggestions to improve the archetype. You are not. In fact, the reason that I used your Pylon times is because they provide a good, helpful reference. If I did not think that they were helpful, I would not have posted them.

It's a common rhetoric sleight of hand to ignore attacks made on one's logic by questioning the motives of the attacker and painting them as emotional, but you still haven't addressed the double standards argument that is at the core of my tone in answer to you.

To sum up points that were unfortunately ignored once more in your post:

- a comparison has to be defined using the same scale, either by its top performers or by some measure of the average. One cannot argue the best Sentinel times are outliers while pointing to outlier Defender times as representative.

- additionally, it would be nice to have any sort of hard data on Defender times! Pointing out a thread about procs where posted times don't meet your own claimed threshold is not helpful. Saying people in the Homecoming Discord "share times and builds" is not helpful. You tell me to push Sentinels to the Pylon thread. Please push your Defender Discord friends to the Pylon thread.

- outliers go *both ways*. Taking the worst Sentinel time you can find at a time where one of the main attacks used was bugged, ignoring a better time posted in the same post and concluding "I would argue that this number is more indicative of the innate damage output of the archetype." is not serious data collection.

 

Frankly, until you actually address this last point, I feel justified in my "personal attacks" of telling you "I know you've been wrong and twisted data"... As far as I'm concerned, that claim is hard data.

But once more, let's please refocus the topic. Answer the rhetorics if you want, but also please post detailed example builds of Time/Rad and Cold/Dark builds dealing 300+ DPS, to help support your previous claim combos of Time, Poison, Cold and Storm paired with Dark, Fire, Rad and Ice would be able to reach the numbers I quoted (which were "250+ DPS? 300+ DPS?").

If you want to retract that claim and specify you were only referencing the first of the two numbers, you are welcome to do so, even though I strongly feel an intellectually honest participant wouldn't have left it vague in the first place.

 

And in answer, I will post similarly detailed example builds for 7 Sentinel primaries, in order to help support my own claim a good half of Sentinel primaries can reach 250+ DPS.

This would be a healthier starting point for any discussion on Defenders vs Sentinels. Of course, it would only mean (at most) 7.69% of all possible Defender choices can equal (at least) 53.8% of all possible Sentinel choices; but we could then expand the discussion and tests to other builds if you want to pursue your suggestion "it is possible other sets may do it as well" and your repeated claims Sentinel Pylon times compare poorly to Defender Pylon times.

The ball is in your court. I would welcome you proving me wrong, in a rational manner.

 

[nihilii]

11 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

I truly respect and value your opinion, and I can attest to the fact that Sentinels can be decent, but Nihiilii, you've got to look at how far the gap is between Sentinels vs. Scrapper & Blaster. With epic pools, a lot of Sentinels can become viable, but in no other AT does it so strictly rely on legitimately half of its DPS or more on an epic pool... That's not good.

Zeraphia, you know I tend to see the logic in your take even if I don't necessarily agree with it. You're always logically consistent in looking at top performers and comparing them. Our disagreements come from my feelings there are outright broken sets in other ATs, that Sentinels are better balanced overall, and game balance shouldn't aim to make everyone overpowered. I don't think I'm right nor that you are wrong. We just have different takes.

 

My issue comes from comparisons I feel are flawed on a logical level. There's people who look at Sentinels earnestly, crunch the numbers, play them, and conclude they're underpowered. That's fine.

 

Then there's people who come up with all kinds of somewhat dubious to factually wrong claims, and become evasive and slippery when called out. This is annoying.

 

At the same time, I do have to nitpick your numbers. The /psi pool is probably not half of Sent DPS (except perhaps in extreme cases like AR?). Fire/ without /psi can dish out ~300 DPS. Fire/ with /psi is in the ~400 DPS range. Other primaries likely take a larger hit because their attacks aren't innately as great as Fire. Still, I know from experience Dark/ can deal 250+ DPS without /psi (or without any boost from the secondary, from that matter). Elec, Rad and Beam are likely up there as well.

BUT this is not to disagree with your overall point. Which is that Sentinels rely too much on /psi epic for their DPS. It's probably a solid third in many cases, and overreliance on /psi epic is a fair point that will have to be looked at one day.

 

11 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Yes, you could... But the same could be said for a Defender if they really went for it all-out. The thing about Defenders is that Defenders will in most cases not just improve their own damage, but they will magnify everyone else on the team's damage making the leaps and bounds more powerful than the Sentinel, and if they can get similar DPS on their bases, that's pretty telling that Sentinels are not competitive as a whole as an AT by their bases.

Also a strong argument/conclusion I can't disagree with. But I would like to see those droves of mythical Discord Defenders easily outdamaging Sentinels! That is my main point of contention in this topic: a claim heralded as fact, but with little basis for it.

(And beyond this discussion, here's a selfish reason I'd like to see those 300+ DPS defenders: I'm struggling to get there myself on anything that isn't Poison or Storm. So by all means, teach me!)

To reiterate: it's completely OK to argue Sentinels might be underpowered because the entire mix of what they bring to the table supposedly isn't as good as the entire mix some other ATs bring to the table. I'm down with buffing Sentinel damage - always has been, regardless if I feel it's necessary or not.

But extraordinary claims like "most Defenders trump Sentinels in Pylon tests" could use some form of evidence.

Edited April 17, 2020 by nihilii

[Galaxy Brain]

Unrelated, but it brings a tear to my eye to see "elec blast is top tier damage " in any context

[modest]

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

I have no problem with improving Sentinel damage. I have problems dealing with what I perceive to be bad logic.

All I'm saying is I haven't seen 250+ DPS builds posted on the Pylon thread from non-Storm defenders. If you accept we can use other sources than the Pylon thread for Defender builds, surely the name should go for Sentinels?

 

You have hunted down a 1 year old post of mine to claim the first posted time, using a BUGGED power and on a suboptimal build with very few procs, and again I quote your own words: "I would argue that this number is more indicative of the innate damage output of the archetype."

You've ignored the latter half of this very same post where DPS was 240+, still using the same bugged power.

You're still not acknowledging any of that now.

I posted every single Sentinel time that was listed in the Pylon thread, regardless of the date when it was posted. You may use whatever sources you like to provide more data. I don't read the Sentinel forums regularly, and I am not familiar with Pylon times that are posted there.

 

I have not ignored anything that you've written. If I haven't addressed a specific statement that you wrote, it is likely because I agreed with that sentence and saw no reason to debate it.

 

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

You're now mentioning the Homecoming Discord, without details. I repeat my previous enquiry: please post attack chains, builds, details. This would be helpful. "A bunch of us on Discord are doing this thing and we all agree" is not helpful data.

This is so factually wrong it's criminally so. You have no basis whatsoever to make that claim. Your whole "thesis" relies on purposeful ignorance of any Sentinel data that isn't in the Pylon thread, with vague allusions to unclear Defender data that isn't in the Pylon thread. You diss the /psi epic for Sentinels - I'd be curious to know how many Defenders minmaxed for ST DPS skip their own /psi epic.

 

I'll repeat my own previous claim: a solid half if not more of Sentinel primaries can achieve 250+ DPS, regardless of secondary. I'll happily demonstrate the claim if it comes to that, provided you actually put up too and start showing attack chains, builds, details, for this previous claim you made: "Defenders are able to reach the numbers that you quoted [250+ DPS? 300+ DPS?] using Dark Blast, Rad Blast, Fire Blast, and Ice Blast when paired with Cold Domination, Storm Summoning, Poison, and Time Manipulation. It is possible that they can reach these numbers with other sets as well. "

Again: I would like to see examples of Time/Rad, Cold/Dark doing this. I am not asking you for much here. Just two specifics builds. I'm not even holding you to the implication other sets might do the same, even though you only name 4 primaries out of 16 possible choices, and 4 secondaries out of 13 possible choices - making for 16 possible combos out of 208 possible choices, or a mere 7.69% of all Defender combos.

In exchange for just two fully detailed builds of yours, I would post 250+ DPS builds for Elec, Fire, Rad, Dark, Beam, Psi and Ice, 7 primaries out of 13 possible choices, using any secondary (you can even specify which secondary, if you want); meaning the results would show 53.8% of all Sentinel combos can deal 250+ DPS.

What you are asking for is unreasonable. You are asking me to create builds for each of these power sets and Pylon test them myself which is simply not something that I'm willing to do. I am happy to accept the numbers that other players have posted in the Pylon thread, or the Defender forums, or the Sentinel forums, or any other source that you feel is reasonable to cite.

 

I offered to send you my Cold/Fire and Poison/Fire Blast builds because those are builds that I have already Pylon tested. I am not willing to invest the time into personally testing every build posted. I trust that other players are posting times in good faith.

 

I have not "dissed the /psi epic for Sentinels". I have pointed out that it is used in all of the top Sentinel Pylon times.

 

Frankly, as @Zeraphia wrote, "it's concerning IMO, that Sentinels and Defenders are even mentioned in the same sentence for damage comparisons, and they're valid... That is not good." This entire debate regarding the comparison of Sentinel damage to Defender damage is indicative that Sentinels are not competitive with Scrappers. It serves no purpose to fixate upon this debate, and it has become a distraction from the purpose of this thread.

  

1 hour ago, nihilii said:

But extraordinary claims like "most Defenders trump Sentinels in Pylon tests" could use some form of evidence.

If you put a sentence in quotation marks, it indicates that another person has written or said what you are quoting. No one in this thread has written this sentence.

 

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

You know, you're right. I'm being uncouth. I feel you come from a position where you claim your thesis is rational, yet mangle data horribly to support your point. This gets me going.

 

Playing with words might work if you're considering a career in politics, but in the end, you seem purposefully misleading.

 

It's a common rhetoric sleight of hand to ignore attacks made on one's logic by questioning the motives of the attacker and painting them as emotional, but you still haven't addressed the double standards argument that is at the core of my tone in answer to you.

 

Frankly, until you actually address this last point, I feel justified in my "personal attacks" of telling you "I know you've been wrong and twisted data"... As far as I'm concerned, that claim is hard data.

The ball is in your court. I would welcome you proving me wrong, in a rational manner.

This is the point where I step back and disengage. I have no obligation to continue a conversation with a person who is unwilling to communicate respectfully. I am also not responsible for meeting your personal standards for discussion.

 

I mentioned your passion for the archetype because I was attempting to empathize with your point of view. I also complimented your contributions by writing that "the reason that I used your Pylon times is because they provide a good, helpful reference." I was extending an olive branch, and you have interpreted that olive branch as a nefarious plot to undermine your argument.

Edited April 17, 2020 by modest
Formatting.

[nihilii]

Edit: removing quotes so there's no unwanted ping.

 

Modest, I am not asking you to create builds out of scratch to prove your claim these builds could deal 250-300 DPS. One would assume you had some form of previous evidence those builds could deal 250-300 DPS, in order to make that claim. At least, I assumed as much.

You compile Sentinel times. But you don't compile Defender times. You post the Sentinel times, and conclude with "as you can see, on average Sentinels have worse Pylon times than Defenders or Corruptors."

How can we see "X < Y" if Y is an unknown?

 

All I am asking for is something to support your claim.

 

Or the claim that "Based on Pylon tests, Defenders that are focused on dealing damage (often referred to as offenders) out-damage all but two players' Sentinels."

Likewise, I don't really see how [my words] "most Defenders trump Sentinels in Pylon Tests" fundamentally differs from [your words] "on average Sentinels have worse Pylon times than Defenders or Corruptors". Certainly not to the point claiming statements like the former have been made. Quotes or no quotes, "like" implies (to me?) likeliness and not exactitude.

If anything, my statement seems tamer than yours. "Defenders or Corruptors" without qualifiers implies all, whereas I stuck to a milder "most". Maybe I'm wrong? If you feel I'm misinterpreting your position, do feel free to set me straight.

All this semantic nonsense is the reason a subtopic that deserved no more than a couple posts turned into this long back-and-forth. You can call out my emotions or personality or manner of speech, but I'd rather we focus on finding some common ground, based in numbers and testing, to derive productive conclusions from.

Edited April 17, 2020 by nihilii

[kenlon]

No one's been attacking you, or the AT. No one 'dissed' the psi Epic pool, it was just noted that high damage Sentinels use the epic, not their AT powersets, as a large portion of their damage. Do you feel that Sentinels, as an AT, are well balanced when it comes to damage output? Do they compare decently with Scrappers?

Edited April 17, 2020 by kenlon
Removed unnecessary snarkiness.

[SwitchFade]

50+ Water/SR here...

 

I alpha every group,

 

My nuke is up every 23 seconds to boot.

 

I leave my diff at 54/8,

 

I only use defensive opportunity, to date.

 

I often wipe out +4 mins,

 

And lt's perish with hair steam-singed.

 

I may not blaster damage be,

 

But what good is damage when you're D-E-A-D?

[Bossk_Hogg]

Sents need a damage buff, pure and simple. Defenders offer buffs, debuffs,  and other force multiplication. The fact that they are close enough in damage to even debate is nuts. Hell, tankers now deal comparable damage. When an energy sent is plinking away with their sad sub-60 DPA attacks, don't tell me they aren't bad at doing the only thing they bring to the table. My fire tank now deals better damage than my fire sent... hits more targets too lol. 

[Bossk_Hogg]

Just now, SwitchFade said:

50+ Water/SR here...

 

I alpha every group,

 

My nuke is up every 23 seconds to boot.

 

I leave my diff at 54/8,

 

I only use defensive opportunity, to date.

 

I often wipe out +4 mins,

 

And lt's perish with hair steam-singed.

 

I may not blaster damage be,

 

But what good is damage when you're D-E-A-D?

Sounds like my water/atomic blaster, but dealing half the damage... With the insane regen, cycling stuns in the nuke and the secondary (30 second AE hold), I basically never die either. Sents really only look good if you never play with a good IO build. 

 

[SwitchFade]

1 minute ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

Sounds like my water/atomic blaster, but dealing half the damage... With the insane regen, cycling stuns in the nuke and the secondary (30 second AE hold), I basically never die either. Sents really only look good if you never play with a good IO build. 

 

I like pie.

 

Do you like pie?

[Bossk_Hogg]

3 minutes ago, SwitchFade said:

I like pie.

 

Do you like pie?

Hah, if I say yes will you write another beat poetry ode to sentinels?

[SwitchFade]

5 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

Sounds like my water/atomic blaster, but dealing half the damage... With the insane regen, cycling stuns in the nuke and the secondary (30 second AE hold), I basically never die either. Sents really only look good if you never play with a good IO build. 

 

Also, apples to apples on the survivability...

 

Do you run into melee and facetank the alpha? Sentinel SR is basically scrapper unkillable.

 

Not debating a damage bump, I'd love that too, more OP is more OP, but sentinels are far more survivable 😁

[SwitchFade]

4 hours ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

Hah, if I say yes will you write another beat poetry ode to sentinels?

Query a rhyme and one shall ye get,

 

Query a remake and I'd be willing to bet;

 

That many will argue and many agree,

 

That sentinel damage is less than merry.

 

Regardless it seems that pie>cake,

 

And logic like that you surely can't fake!

Edited April 18, 2020 by SwitchFade

[SwitchFade]

Hi @Zeraphia!

 

I see your squinty confused face at my limerick. Perhaps light hearted humor couched in rhyme is disquieting to you?

 

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by SwitchFade