Jump to content

New Archetypes - the things we do not have


Natti

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

A Fortunata gains -some- control powers to supplement their damage abilities. Similarly, a Wolf Spider gets some control powers to supplement their damage abilities. So do PBs and Warshades.

 

But those are not Control Powersets. There is a distinct difference between a Control Powerset (Which typically contains minimal damage output outside of a Pet or Pets) and having a Powerset which contains some Control Powers.

 

That's not a Logical Flaw, Zeraphia. That's a False Equivalence.

 

I also wasn't "Comparing" Debuffs to Controls. I was using the differences between them to -define- them. In large part because these sorts of discussions about control powers almost invariably result in at least one person piping up "Well what if we added debuffs to controls so that even if you don't control an AV you're still helping out?" That's not control. That's debuff. There's a distinct difference.

 

That's not "Apples to Oranges", Zeraphia. That's a Strawman Argument.

 

As to "Low Tier" being "Narrow Minded" I literally meant low-tier in the sense of them being Tier 1 or Tier 2 powers. Ones you get at first or fourth level. Even if I held that very false belief, which I don't, most Manipulation sets get a hold, stun, or fear at a later point in their power progression. And certain sets (Like Ice) gain several. However, their magnitudes are low enough, or proccy enough, that they cannot reliably be used to control EBs and AVs, ensuring the Blaster relies on their Primary Powerset.

 

Instead of responding to that you've constructed a Strawman Argument and added an Ad Hominem attack to it.

 

I do not believe that you're reading my posts in good faith, here. With an intent to understand.

They're not control powersets, but they're literally some of the exact same powers and some of them are the best controls out of the bunch (from Mind Control). Maybe instead of being so rigid in your thoughts and analysis, being more open to new ideas that were never really tested, even if they're not necessarily "competitive" or "meta" may be interesting to some people and keep the game more fresh? Besides, a lot of the philosphies that Castle had were often debunked and found illogical later in the game's life and even to the HC devs. 

 

You don't see it as a logical flaw, and you see it as a false equivalence, I come to think of Fortunatas very distinctly being thought of as controls as their secondary and their nature as that AT and how it was intended, much more so than PB/WS/Spiders. It's extremely distinct, and it has far more hard controls than any of the VEATs/HEATs. I'm pointing it out, because you seem to be totally against the idea of having controls as a secondary effect, when in reality, Fortunatas already use this effect to an extent, and it works marvelously for them. You may not see it as such, but I see their controls as the secondary function of a Fortunata. I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this topic, but I think it's still solid evidence that despite controls not being the primary purpose of an AT, they're still quite serviceable/functional hence why I brought it up.

 

This particular next section, is going to be about the terms you're throwing around with "Strawman" and "Ad Hominem." A Strawman argument takes another argument and greatly exaggerates the claim, in your argument you stated the following: 

On 6/20/2020 at 8:49 AM, Steampunkette said:

Manipulation sets combine some low-tier control powers (Web Grenades and the like) with a few melee attacks. Why? 'Cause the Web Grenade is never going to stop an EB or AV that you wind up fighting. So those powers in the Manipulation set become nearly useless.

your own words define, specifically, Web Grenade (which is an immobilize) as "nearly useless" and you quite literally state how it is never going to stop an EB/AV that you end up fighting. 

15 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Also your point about these "low-tier" control powers is extremely narrow-minded. Keeping an enemy in an immobilize ring is a huge amount of damage mitigation for ranged characters with squishier health because that means they cannot hit you with melee damage at all, and many "auras" that are extremely annoying to deal with (think Requiem's stun aura) are completely nullified by having this immobilize easily stack-able. Also, in many cases, if you look at the true DPA of these powers, many of them are actually better than your T1/T2 blast *by damage* and actually have better proc rates than those powers. No offense intended, but in all sincerity, that is what a lot of people who do not understand battlefield positioning do not understand, it's not always about having the enemy locked down unable to do anything as much as it is sometimes them just not running away from you. Don't have a Tank on a TinPex? Well that Blaster spamming Ring of Fire in its chain rotation takes care of that, and that goes for any AV that is running around like a chicken with its head cut off because there is no form of taunt on the team. Honestly, immobilizes are probably the best controls against an AV that a set can have, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that.

Me debunking how you find these "low-tier control powers useless" in your own words, is not a strawman argument. Why? I didn't exaggerate your words, or do anything of the sort, because by your OWN WORDS, you found them "nearly useless," especially against AV-level targets.

 

Onto the Ad Hominem portion, I called your point narrow-minded, NOT you. An Ad Hominem argument is when you attack someone to debunk their argument, specifically their character. I did not call you as an individual and a person narrow-minded, I called your point/argument narrow-minded, as I found it was and I will on record always say that it was, because I do not feel the same way that you do or see these "nearly useless" T1 powers as awful as you tried to make them out to be, especially against AV-level targets. I found your argument didn't take into account many battlefield scenarios. This was a counter-point against your argument rather than me attacking you as a person and character. There is a big difference. Also to add onto this point, I even said "no offense intended," in my post, therefore meaning, I wasn't intending to actually attack you or your character, rather I don't think you understand the implications of that ST immobilize, or how good it actually is, otherwise you wouldn't be stating that in your post or trying to be using that as an argument against it, especially against an AV.

 

I am actually arguing in good faith, though I disagree and I find that just because you don't see something as useful as another, and that person heavily disagrees with your logic, you shouldn't result to claiming they're utilizing "Ad Hominem" and "Strawman" arguments to attempt to debunk their claims.

 

-- Personally, I have no issue with you as a person, this argument rests with me disagreeing with your logic and points. 

 

Edited by Zeraphia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2020 at 11:00 AM, Steampunkette said:

  

I am certain that you believe that, Replacement. But on the Live Forums I pushed for a "Reverse Dominator" back before I got into an understanding of Control and Defense powersets both being straight mitigation sets.

 

Castle (Floyd Grubb) expressed to me the reasoning behind keeping Control a primary powerset. That it could never truly work as a secondary. Originally, Blasters were meant to be Ranged/Control, but either it was significantly weak when the controls were tuned down or OP when the controls were tuned up. The Manipulation powerset sprang out of that desire.

 

It's also why you see no one else with Manipulation powersets. It's just -such- a niche powerset type built to key into an incredibly specific design philosophy.

 

As to Blaster melee multipliers: I literally just explained it. They have strong melee damage and limited melee attack power availability so they can handle bosses, EBs, and AVs with some high damage melee since their control powers will not function on them without significant stacking from allies.

 

For Brutes it has to do with them being able to function as gameplay Tanks since the Mastermind Tanking concept went largely underutilized by the playerbase through testing and was ultimately found to be largely flawed by the relatively low damage a Mastermind put out, himself, for aggro-draw and Bodyguard damage spread.

 

And Dominators? It has to do with the way they gained domination. It used to be Domination gave them a flat bonus to damage, but that got pulled and placed into their baseline damage as a balancing metric once people started routinely permadomming so that newer dominator players, or players who didn't focus on global recharge, wouldn't be completely left in the dust.

 

As to correlation: No. I'm talking about a flat understanding of gameplay mechanics. Because while Brutes have a 90% resistance cap, they're not going to achieve it outside of Tier 9 abilities, serious team-buffing, or a shitload of IOs.

Good info, there. It sounds like this turned into arguing with others, and I think you know I'm not interested in stirring up stuff with you are making you feel piled on.

 

But sadly, my very thorough post on this discussion was destroyed when I interrupted it to make my Father's Day call.

 

So here's a short version: my issue with your message is that it reads as absolutes. But they're not - they're guidelines. You calling out the exceptions for Dominators and Blasters actually illustrates where they were wrong and needed to break things.  You can even see how their ideas on design matured over time.  

 

I promise I had some really thought out examples here, but I am not doing that again on mobile.

 

I tried to stay away from specifics but I do have one I want to mention: about manipulation specifically and secondary control: remember that was in the context of the artillery class. Those constraints will not be universal.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

They're not control powersets, but they're literally some of the exact same powers and some of them are the best controls out of the bunch (from Mind Control). Maybe instead of being so rigid in your thoughts and analysis, being more open to new ideas that were never really tested, even if they're not necessarily "competitive" or "meta" may be interesting to some people and keep the game more fresh? Besides, a lot of the philosphies that Castle had were often debunked and found illogical later in the game's life and even to the HC devs. 

 

You don't see it as a logical flaw, and you see it as a false equivalence, I come to think of Fortunatas very distinctly being thought of as controls as their secondary and their nature as that AT and how it was intended, much more so than PB/WS/Spiders. It's extremely distinct, and it has far more hard controls than any of the VEATs/HEATs. I'm pointing it out, because you seem to be totally against the idea of having controls as a secondary effect, when in reality, Fortunatas already use this effect to an extent, and it works marvelously for them. You may not see it as such, but I see their controls as the secondary function of a Fortunata. I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this topic, but I think it's still solid evidence that despite controls not being the primary purpose of an AT, they're still quite serviceable/functional hence why I brought it up.

 

This particular next section, is going to be about the terms you're throwing around with "Strawman" and "Ad Hominem." A Strawman argument takes another argument and greatly exaggerates the claim, in your argument you stated the following: 

your own words define, specifically, Web Grenade (which is an immobilize) as "nearly useless" and you quite literally state how it is never going to stop an EB/AV that you end up fighting. 

Me debunking how you find these "low-tier control powers useless" in your own words, is not a strawman argument. Why? I didn't exaggerate your words, or do anything of the sort, because by your OWN WORDS, you found them "nearly useless," especially against AV-level targets.

 

Onto the Ad Hominem portion, I called your point narrow-minded, NOT you. An Ad Hominem argument is when you attack someone to debunk their argument, specifically their character. I did not call you as an individual and a person narrow-minded, I called your point/argument narrow-minded, as I found it was and I will on record always say that it was, because I do not feel the same way that you do or see these "nearly useless" T1 powers as awful as you tried to make them out to be, especially against AV-level targets. I found your argument didn't take into account many battlefield scenarios. This was a counter-point against your argument rather than me attacking you as a person and character. There is a big difference. Also to add onto this point, I even said "no offense intended," in my post, therefore meaning, I wasn't intending to actually attack you or your character, rather I don't think you understand the implications of that ST immobilize, or how good it actually is, otherwise you wouldn't be stating that in your post or trying to be using that as an argument against it, especially against an AV.

 

I am actually arguing in good faith, though I disagree and I find that just because you don't see something as useful as another, and that person heavily disagrees with your logic, you shouldn't result to claiming they're utilizing "Ad Hominem" and "Strawman" arguments to attempt to debunk their claims.

 

-- Personally, I have no issue with you as a person, this argument rests with me disagreeing with your logic and points. 

 

A Strawman is when you create an argument for your opposition which is not the argument the opposition provided in order to debunk or defeat -that- argument.

 

Web Grenade is given to Devices at level 1. Low Tier. You invented the idea that I meant "Immobilizes are less powerful than Holds" which is not the argument I made.

 

Hence, a Strawman.

 

As to the Ad Hominem, I will say that's a rather unique perspective on the term "Narrowminded" and accept your intent didn't follow.

 

To the actual discussion:

 

Blasters who take Energy Manipulation have some of the same melee attacks as Energy Assault Dominators -and- some of the same ranged powers if they take Energy Blast. This does not make Energy/Energy Blasters into Energy Assault Blasters. It means they share some similar powers.

 

But the Framework of those powers, and the other powers provided to the Archetype, result in wildly different playstyles. A Fortunata plays similarly to a "Ranged Dominator with Defense Powers", but does not have a Control Powerset in the same way that a Dominator does, which is to say "Exclusively" control based aside from pets and/or mind control damage throughput powers. The additional defensive powers the Fortunata has at their disposal creates a distinct difference in how the two play. The Fortunata, for example, may miss some of their control effects and still be largely survivable in an encounter. The Dominator will be at a much more significant disadvantage.

 

However, unless you intend to recommend a Primary Powerset which provides Attack and Defense Powers akin to what a Fortunata gains, this remains a False Equivalence. And still does not account for the issues mentioned of the power levels required for Control Powers to function due to the binary nature of control effects.

 

If an Archetype was designed with Control Powersets (Not powersets with some control powers in them) as a secondary powerset, it would either need to have the control powers weakened (To maintain the power dynamics between classes and the weighting difference between Primary and Secondary Powersets) or so heavily redesigned as to no longer -be- Control Powersets, but something like Manipulation.

 

To weaken them is not really an option due to the binaristic nature of control powers, the required magnitudes of controls to affect enemies, and the various issues players have with layered RNG resulting in ultimately largely nonfunctional powers.

 

 

Edited by Steampunkette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

Good info, there. It sounds like this turned into arguing with others, and I think you know I'm not interested in stirring up stuff with you are making you feel piled on.

 

But sadly, my very thorough post on this discussion was destroyed when I interrupted it to make my Father's Day call.

 

So here's a short version: my issue with your message is that it reads as absolutes. But they're not - they're guidelines. You calling out the exceptions for Dominators and Blasters actually illustrates where they were wrong and needed to break things.  You can even see how their ideas on design matured over time.  

 

I promise I had some really thought out examples here, but I am not doing that again on mobile.

 

I tried to stay away from specifics but I do have one I want to mention: about manipulation specifically and secondary control: remember that was in the context of the artillery class. Those constraints will not be universal.

I recognize that they're largely guidelines... but.

 

Most stuff in City of Heroes combat is proportional and relative. You deal Mag 2 damage against a target with 12 Mags of HP and 20% damage resistance so you're only actually dealing 1.6 Mags of damage. Still have 10.4 to go. 

 

Control is -absolute-. The target has Mag 6 Hold Protection. You must apply at least 7 Mags of Hold to affect the target. Once the target is affected, that's it. They're affected.

 

Dude with 10.4 Mags of HP left is still in the fight, swinging. But Mag 6 Protection man is a nonfactor in the Time to Kill/Time to Die calculation.

 

If you create a new Support/Control archetype with Control Power equal to a Controller and Support Power equal to a Defender, you have just kneecapped Controllers, forever. Why play a Controller with 75% of the Buffing/Debuffing/Healing capacity of a Defender when you can just play this new class and be at full power on both?

 

And if you reduce the Support Power to be identical to a Controller, even though it's the archetype's primary powerset, you've just created a Controller that has to wait 'til 38 instead of 32 to get their Tier 9 Pet (Or Mass Confuse).

 

There just seem to be no good options for a ???/Control archetype.

 

1 minute ago, Tyrannical said:

Glad to see people are finally getting use out of their philosophy degrees these days.

Debate. Though I have 0 degrees in total.

 

But if you'd like to discuss some Existentialist theory I'm 100% game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this thread is still a thing?

 

On 6/20/2020 at 11:00 AM, Steampunkette said:

  

I am certain that you believe that, Replacement. But on the Live Forums I pushed for a "Reverse Dominator" back before I got into an understanding of Control and Defense powersets both being straight mitigation sets.

 

Castle (Floyd Grubb) expressed to me the reasoning behind keeping Control a primary powerset. That it could never truly work as a secondary. Originally, Blasters were meant to be Ranged/Control, but either it was significantly weak when the controls were tuned down or OP when the controls were tuned up. The Manipulation powerset sprang out of that desire.

I'd argue that the concept of AT specialties being reflected in which set is a primary and which is a secondary is mostly a tertiary balancing point with regards to overall strength, i.e. the level at which one obtains a skill for that AT being delayed if its in the secondary.  The strength or power of those skills, while a correlation can be had, does lean toward secondary powers being less effective at their primary purpose, the ultimate determining factor of a power's strength are the numbers, not whether it's a primary or secondary.  Even for an AT like Defender who clearly has less damaging blast effects from their secondary often have much more powerful additional effects.

 

Since you've likely never archived the exact text exchange of your discussions with Castle and we have to go on your interpretation of his text, I'll happily criticize your interpretation since likely Castle may have had a different actual intent and conclusion.

 

Control as a secondary most certainly can work.  A reverse Dominator most certainly cannot work.  I say this because the sum of Dominator is a product of its powersets and inherent.  Even as a primary, Dominator has weaker base control effects compared to Controllers.  Dominator temporarily surpasses a Controller's potential because of their inherent and that likely wouldn't care about whether the powerset is a primary or a secondary.  Even if weakened further and placed in the secondary, the control effects would be too strong with a Domination equivalent.  Without the domination effect and swapped to the secondary (the set is already weakened), can and does function...you just have to hop on a Dominator and hold off using Domination and that is what it would be like having controls as a secondary.  If anything, that'd be more a superfluous AT that has no purpose.  It would either end up being a copy of Dom or a crappy knock-off of Dom.

 

On 6/20/2020 at 11:00 AM, Steampunkette said:

 It's also why you see no one else with Manipulation powersets. It's just -such- a niche powerset type built to key into an incredibly specific design philosophy.

Now this I do agree with.  But this has nothing to do with the powerset being a primary or secondary, but rather the set (Manipulation) being a mash-up of different types of powers.

 

I actually feel the reason you won't see a Manipulation/Pet AT has more to do with the Pet powersets being a mash-up of pet summons/upgrades and ranged attacks and manipulation being a mash-up of melee damage, control and sustain, thus amounting to a lot of different powers mashed-up...too many, you might say.

 

On 6/20/2020 at 11:00 AM, Steampunkette said:

  As to correlation: No. I'm talking about a flat understanding of gameplay mechanics. Because while Brutes have a 90% resistance cap, they're not going to achieve it outside of Tier 9 abilities, serious team-buffing, or a shitload of IOs.

Mitigation caps are really all that matters since it actually is common not only for the user to cap their own resistance, def or MaxHP but also external buffs/inspirations capable of doing the same.  It is correlation to assume balancing is wholly done by using primary/secondary placement of sets rather than the ultimate deciding factors being the numbers (AT mods, inherent abilities, and caps) which can be shifted independently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Leogunner said:

So this thread is still a thing?

 

I'd argue that the concept of AT specialties being reflected in which set is a primary and which is a secondary is mostly a tertiary balancing point with regards to overall strength, i.e. the level at which one obtains a skill for that AT being delayed if its in the secondary.  The strength or power of those skills, while a correlation can be had, does lean toward secondary powers being less effective at their primary purpose, the ultimate determining factor of a power's strength are the numbers, not whether it's a primary or secondary.  Even for an AT like Defender who clearly has less damaging blast effects from their secondary often have much more powerful additional effects.

 

Since you've likely never archived the exact text exchange of your discussions with Castle and we have to go on your interpretation of his text, I'll happily criticize your interpretation since likely Castle may have had a different actual intent and conclusion.

 

Control as a secondary most certainly can work.  A reverse Dominator most certainly cannot work.  I say this because the sum of Dominator is a product of its powersets and inherent.  Even as a primary, Dominator has weaker base control effects compared to Controllers.  Dominator temporarily surpasses a Controller's potential because of their inherent and that likely wouldn't care about whether the powerset is a primary or a secondary.  Even if weakened further and placed in the secondary, the control effects would be too strong with a Domination equivalent.  Without the domination effect and swapped to the secondary (the set is already weakened), can and does function...you just have to hop on a Dominator and hold off using Domination and that is what it would be like having controls as a secondary.  If anything, that'd be more a superfluous AT that has no purpose.  It would either end up being a copy of Dom or a crappy knock-off of Dom.

An interesting angle to go at... but one which misses the point while reinforcing it, so... Kudos on stumbling into the right answer via the wrong path and then diving on the wrong answer, anyhow?

 

Yes. The "Numbers" matter more than when you get the powers themselves. After all, once you've gotten to 50 it doesn't matter how late you had to wait to get Mass Confusion, you have it and will have it forever.

 

However, the functions of Secondary Powersets in Archetypes are when you can choose your secondary powerset's different tiers and... you guessed it: Lower Numbers. That's the game's most basic design paradigm. 

 

And no... I don't have a bad memory of what Castle said. Thanks for that ad hominem attack, Leo. Always lovely to get those. I played D&D with the guy for literal years. Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds. We talked about game design philosophies at length, particularly the ups and downs of City of Heroes and the various tabletop games we played, particularly the fixation game designers have on class-role assignments as core functions of character definition as opposed to freeform character building and it's pitfalls. But go off, I guess, on criticizing my "Interpretation" of a conversation that you've never read.

 

Control as a secondary "Can Work" if it's left at Controller Level Power. That is to say "Full Magnitudes". However, that is not the design paradigm of archetypes in City of Heroes, which reduce the magnitudes of secondary powersets. Like Scrappers and Brutes getting less defense numbers than Tankers from the same defensive powers.

 

Control Sets, as they stand now, cannot work as a secondary powerset within the design paradigm. And if we decide to ignore the design paradigm in order to provide full power and comprehensive control powersets as a secondary, while an archetype also gets full magnitude and comprehensive primary powersets, we'll have an OP as shit archetype.

 

If we reduce the magnitudes and durations (Like using the Dominator original values) the archetype will be underpowered.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Leogunner said:

I actually feel the reason you won't see a Manipulation/Pet AT has more to do with the Pet powersets being a mash-up of pet summons/upgrades and ranged attacks and manipulation being a mash-up of melee damage, control and sustain, thus amounting to a lot of different powers mashed-up...too many, you might say.

To be clear: I do not think it's realistic to expect we'd see a Manipulation/Pet AT.  But theorycrafting is fun, so I'm going to continue discussing the possibilities!

 

Consider: Pet sets are actually extremely rigidly defined (you basically know exactly what you're getting out of each tier in the set), and Manipulation sets start out mostly-identical and then branch out from there.  You would be able to count on beginning play with a Ranged attack (guaranteed from your secondary) and your choice of melee or ranged immobilize.  That already sets the tone for how you intend to play (whether or not you stay the course; it allows a player a sense of progression).

You could also count on having a Sustain power online by around level 10 to help with sharing aggro with pets, and it would be expected you would eventually grab some pets in the same way Scrappers are expected to eventually grab all their necessary armor toggles.

As you would level up, you would see an axis of control vs melee emerge, and the amount melee is enabled is going to be based heavily on your ability to have and keep pets (and of course, other tertiary details like pool investments, slotting, and the particulars of your powers).

 

Essentially: your performance baseline is "weak blaster with pets.  Captures the 'Ranger' sense we see in other games."  From there and based on build, you are able to blend that into increasing control, ranged attacks, or melee.

 

--

57 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

Control as a secondary "Can Work" if it's left at Controller Level Power. That is to say "Full Magnitudes". However, that is not the design paradigm of archetypes in City of Heroes, which reduce the magnitudes of secondary powersets. Like Scrappers and Brutes getting less defense numbers than Tankers from the same defensive powers.

 

Control Sets, as they stand now, cannot work as a secondary powerset within the design paradigm. And if we decide to ignore the design paradigm in order to provide full power and comprehensive control powersets as a secondary, while an archetype also gets full magnitude and comprehensive primary powersets, we'll have an OP as shit archetype.

But that's in evidence literally nowhere.  Defender Holds (from their blast set) are mag 3.  Manipulation controls are mag 3.  Tanker Touch of Fear is mag 3.   You really cannot reasonably assert that "Control sets are different" because we have a sample-size of zero secondary Control sets.

 

The design paradigm is the corollary between secondaries being less impactful than the primaries; not a hard-fast rule of how that is achieved.  I have a lot of respect for Castle, but his outlook at that time does not match the realities of how the game evolved.  He can call you and tell you every night before bed that "you cannot have secondary Controls because the Mag would need to be reduced" and he would be misapplying his own design philosophy.  The correlation should stand, but the "how" is abstract.  

 

This is "how" Dominators had to evolve with the game and gained the ability to punch harder than a tanker, despite having less right to the melee.  This is "how" blasters came to have Sustains enter the pipeline, allowing them to survive while still being "the glass cannons."  

 

The game evolves and so the methods to maintain the correlation change.  

 

--- 

 

Also, please everyone try to be civil.  I don't really think Leo's "happily criticize your interpretation" line was intended as a character attack, but this can be a really fun and interesting conversation of differing opinions if we leave hostility at the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:

An interesting angle to go at... but one which misses the point while reinforcing it, so... Kudos on stumbling into the right answer via the wrong path and then diving on the wrong answer, anyhow?

 

Yes. The "Numbers" matter more than when you get the powers themselves. After all, once you've gotten to 50 it doesn't matter how late you had to wait to get Mass Confusion, you have it and will have it forever.

 

However, the functions of Secondary Powersets in Archetypes are when you can choose your secondary powerset's different tiers and... you guessed it: Lower Numbers. That's the game's most basic design paradigm. 

 

And no... I don't have a bad memory of what Castle said. Thanks for that ad hominem attack, Leo. Always lovely to get those.

You have a habit of accusing others of things you do yourself.  If what I wrote was an ad hominem attack, you tell me me I'm diving into wrong answers would also be considered an ad hominem attack.  Me saying I view your interpretation of Castle as an interpretation and not as the word of God simply means I'm being skeptical, which last time I checked, is not attacking anyone.

 

Secondly, lower numbers is a correlation which I explained before.  Just because a set is a secondary doesn't = lower values.  This hasn't been the case, it isn't the case now and it likely won't ever be.  I'll restate why I expressed that in some examples: Defender vs Blaster ranged blasts, in many cases have the Blaster damage values as higher than the Defender's but the secondary effects like -ToHit, -res, -def, mez effects, etc have higher value on the Defender vs Blaster which means an exception exists.  Another is current Tanker vs Scrapper/Stalker melee damage sets which has more damage for the Scrap/Stalk version but the Tanker has larger AoEs and target caps.  This is another exception.

 

Since exceptions exist, your rule has loop holes and thus, a control set as a secondary can be built to function *differently*, being less effective in some capacity and more effective in others.

 

1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:

I played D&D with the guy for literal years. Shadowrun, Mutants and Masterminds. We talked about game design philosophies at length, particularly the ups and downs of City of Heroes and the various tabletop games we played, particularly the fixation game designers have on class-role assignments as core functions of character definition as opposed to freeform character building and it's pitfalls. But go off, I guess, on criticizing my "Interpretation" of a conversation that you've never read.

Good for you.

 

I'm still skeptical.  I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to marry the guy so that you'd then be able to practically read his mind.  I also don't believe you can read minds since you haven't done a good job reading the thoughts of your critics.

 

1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:

Control as a secondary "Can Work" if it's left at Controller Level Power. That is to say "Full Magnitudes". However, that is not the design paradigm of archetypes in City of Heroes, which reduce the magnitudes of secondary powersets. Like Scrappers and Brutes getting less defense numbers than Tankers from the same defensive powers.

 

Control Sets, as they stand now, cannot work as a secondary powerset within the design paradigm. And if we decide to ignore the design paradigm in order to provide full power and comprehensive control powersets as a secondary, while an archetype also gets full magnitude and comprehensive primary powersets, we'll have an OP as shit archetype.

 

If we reduce the magnitudes and durations (Like using the Dominator original values) the archetype will be underpowered.

I've read other posts about exceptions in this very thread that could be avenues besides "full magnitudes".  I think the difference between your interpretations and mine are that I see mine as fallible and remain skeptical of other possible approaches yet you feel you have more expertise than those around you thus you reject possible paths before fully considering/exploring them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:

Control as a secondary "Can Work" if it's left at Controller Level Power. That is to say "Full Magnitudes". However, that is not the design paradigm of archetypes in City of Heroes, which reduce the magnitudes of secondary powersets. Like Scrappers and Brutes getting less defense numbers than Tankers from the same defensive powers.

 

Control Sets, as they stand now, cannot work as a secondary powerset within the design paradigm. And if we decide to ignore the design paradigm in order to provide full power and comprehensive control powersets as a secondary, while an archetype also gets full magnitude and comprehensive primary powersets, we'll have an OP as shit archetype.

So here are some counterpoints:

 

Yes, we can give weaker controls as a secondary, and they will still function. How? We reduce the durations rather than the magnitudes. You look at it from the angle that we can only produce them via reducing magnitudes rather than just reducing duration. 

 

Look, all due respect... do you sincerely play this game? I mean no offense, I really promise I don't, but I have to ask because controls are just never going to be "broken" in this state of the meta and the game. When we have judgements, crashless nukes, exceptional debuffing, etc. that make controls a questionable benefit to a team to begin with, I really have a hard time accepting the argument that giving an AT controls will make it "OP." There was a time where that may have been true in this game, but I'm afraid that time has long passed and the ship has sailed far off the dock and well into the sunset. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Replacement said:

To be clear: I do not think it's realistic to expect we'd see a Manipulation/Pet AT.  But theorycrafting is fun, so I'm going to continue discussing the possibilities!

 

Consider: Pet sets are actually extremely rigidly defined (you basically know exactly what you're getting out of each tier in the set), and Manipulation sets start out mostly-identical and then branch out from there.  You would be able to count on beginning play with a Ranged attack (guaranteed from your secondary) and your choice of melee or ranged immobilize.  That already sets the tone for how you intend to play (whether or not you stay the course; it allows a player a sense of progression).

You could also count on having a Sustain power online by around level 10 to help with sharing aggro with pets, and it would be expected you would eventually grab some pets in the same way Scrappers are expected to eventually grab all their necessary armor toggles.

As you would level up, you would see an axis of control vs melee emerge, and the amount melee is enabled is going to be based heavily on your ability to have and keep pets (and of course, other tertiary details like pool investments, slotting, and the particulars of your powers).

 

Essentially: your performance baseline is "weak blaster with pets.  Captures the 'Ranger' sense we see in other games."  From there and based on build, you are able to blend that into increasing control, ranged attacks, or melee.

I don't have an issue speculating.  I only say "I feel" with regards to a Manip/Pet AT because it's not discussed that often.  I think, if you actually do dig into it a bit and maybe alter some of the ways pet mechanics work (maybe removing the whole "pet upgrades" mechanic and just have them be baseline to the pet while exchanging those powers and maybe the blasts for something more unified) and then possibly rework the Manipulation set slightly to just exchange the "sustain" for just offense or control.  I feel that the Blaster sustain powers, while good, are practically broken for anyone else besides Blaster, or at least anything with a Bodyguard equivalent effect and 6 resummonable pets.

 

That or the AT would feel underpowered and clunky without a means of keeping the pets alive.  All in all, I feel MM and the pet sets need a rehash in how they function, from the pet upgrades to the pet levels to the weak blasts and the funky specialty buff some sets are bogged down with.

Edited by Leogunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zeraphia said:

So here are some counterpoints:

 

Yes, we can give weaker controls as a secondary, and they will still function. How? We reduce the durations rather than the magnitudes. You look at it from the angle that we can only produce them via reducing magnitudes rather than just reducing duration. 

Someone else mentioned reducing the range/radius/target cap as well.  Keeping the set the same with durations and magnitudes but making it so powers like Seeds of Confusion, Wormhole, Conductive Aura, etc either affect fewer targets at once, have a more limited range requiring more slotting or simply are smaller.  You can even do that AND POSSIBLY reduce recharge (so instead of 240sec AoE holds, they get 180sec AoE holds).  But ultimately, the viability and payoff of such measures will hinge more on what the primary powerset is, how it's tuned and what the AT's inherent does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you mention it, @Leogunner!  I had a bunch of specifics and I needed an excuse to post them!  (but specifically the "trading out Equip powers was high on my list)

 

Here's a "stub" of a Manipulation/Summon AT:

  • Inherent builds up a bar on attack and when pets are attacked.  Effect is a minor +resist aura, also gives the same benefit to minions as a buff regardless of distance, which means nearby minions get a doubled effect.  Say, average of +15% resist (30% to nearby minions).  Numbers and effects obviously subject to change.
  • Ranged attacks from the Summon set have better damage and end costs.
  • Fewer pets and slight rearrangements.
    • Get your 2nd tier 1 pet at level 10.  Never get a 3rd tier 1.
    • Never get a 2nd tier 2.
    • Tier 3 pet moved up one slot so it comes online at 28.
    • IIRC, MM gets pets at 1t1, 6t1, 12t2, 18t1, 24t2(?), and 26t3.  This "Commander" would instead get them at 2t1, 10t1, 20t2, and 28t3.
  • Pets themselves adjusted relative to MM versions.
    • One of your t1 pets would hit you with Injection or similar - a cooldown-based mez protection with low mag and no KB protection.
    • T2 and/or t3 would have additional tricks to help keep you alive.  "Warning Shout" absorb shield, Pet Numbers version of Darkest Night if the power budget allows, etc.
    • Pets come out already upgraded (you get fewer of them, afterall)
    • Probably longer cooldowns on pet resummoning.  It takes you less time to get them back to combat-ready, and this enforces the idea that you need them present to ensure no gaps in your own defenses.
  • Upgrade powers are replaced with specific Minion buffs that consume amounts of your Inherent bar (unusable below that point).
    • Specifics of Upgrades could either be universal or based on the set.
  • Half of the Sustain numbers from Manipulation moved to "out of combat" or similar mechanisms.
Edited by Replacement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Replacement said:

I had a bunch of specifics and I needed an excuse to post them!  (but specifically the "trading out Equip powers was high on my list)

 

Here's a "stub" of a Manipulation/Summon AT:

  • Inherent builds up a bar on attack and when pets are attacked.  Effect is a minor +resist aura, also gives the same benefit to minions as a buff regardless of distance, which means nearby minions get a doubled effect.  Say, average of +15% resist (30% to nearby minions).  Numbers and effects obviously subject to change.

A lot could be said about rebalancing the pet sets for both MM and this AT which might lend themselves to other differentiation between the two.  As for the inherent, I'm usually against inherents that remove opportunity for thematic strengths/weaknesses like giving passive resistance or defense but pets are rather different from your standard fare.  For example, I'd rather my ninjas be more dodgy while my demons can resist their elemental affinity, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Leogunner said:

A lot could be said about rebalancing the pet sets for both MM and this AT which might lend themselves to other differentiation between the two.  As for the inherent, I'm usually against inherents that remove opportunity for thematic strengths/weaknesses like giving passive resistance or defense but pets are rather different from your standard fare.  For example, I'd rather my ninjas be more dodgy while my demons can resist their elemental affinity, etc.

Yeah I figured something intentionally generic and baseline to make up for the fact that you don't have a Support set.


As for specific benefits above and beyond that: that's where the 2 "cash in" powers come in.  What you outlined is the advantage of having those 2 powers give set-specific benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...