If You Could Change Sentinels, How Would You Do It? (Another Take)

[Zeraphia]

I believe the CoX community has given a lot of feedback on a previous poll and I believe an updated poll to include more ideas about the Sentinels and their redesign is in order. I also would like for this to remain open in order to get as much of the community's views and values on the Sentinel as possible.

 

Why do I have these specific questions? Because a lot community pointed out that the Sentinel is supposed to be a ranged Scrapper. Not some hybrid Tanker with ranged damage, not a "blaster with defenses." I don't think comparing Sentinels and Blasters is a healthy debate due to the fact that Blasters are given increased target caps, rotational snipes, far more hits/aoe from secondary, and access to both Aim and Build Up. In terms of current Sentinel damage, the Tanker updates have given rise to the fact that they're actually on the same damage scalar, and in fact many Tanker combinations are able to surpass or come very close to Sentinel damage. Captain Powerhouse has stated that the Sentinel is supposed to be a "ranged Scrapper" and has said that increased range and target caps are out of the question, so therefore I'm trying to include an imperfect (and realistic) accumulation of what I've seen with the community responses to this topic.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Zeraphia

[Android]

I generally love Sentinels more or less as they currently function (and don't really recognise a lot of the problems players seem to report - you give up some damage for a lot more survivability, which seems a fair trade-off to me), but I'd like to see defensive opportunity reworked or thrown in the can altogether. Once I have a Sentinel at 50, I automatically dump the T2 power during respec because defensive opportunity effectively becomes useless once you've maximised def/res with IOs (and while I recognise that some players find it useful before 50, I always find myself reaching for the damage boost from offensive even on low-level characters). So I think, really, my only fix for the AT would be to dump defensive opportunity completely and then add something new to compensate; either give offensive opportunity a significant damage boost (effectively replacing Build Up for Sents) or keep it as-is and increase base damage (I voted for boosting to 1.000, but certainly wouldn't complain if it was higher). A Sentinel's damage can be made pretty respectable with the right slotting and Musculature/Assault, but it'd be nice if we could trade what I, personally, find to be a fairly useless mechanic for better DPS.

[FUBARczar]

I think it is reasonable to bump the damage to Stalker level (1.0) and add Critical Hits.  Blasters already have a Fury-type bar. 

 

Critical Hit Thoughts / Ideas:

- The Range of Sentinels gives added safety at times, just like Stalkers Hide/Placate

- What if the rate of Critical hits varied depending on the distance from target: say one would only get 1/3 the chances for Crits at Range compared to melee range (<10)

 

 

*** A different kind of idea would be do something similar and opposite to Savage Leap.  Where A Sentinel gets a damage bonus comparable to it's range from target.  

 

*** Also get rid of that slight defense penalty that Sentinels have.  

[oldskool]

"Value" in the realm of the Defensive Opportunity mechanic is a REALLY strong word.  In my experience, the value of Defensive Opportunity shifts over the course of the leveling process and in regards to the secondary used.  

 

Defensive Opportunity should be at its strongest when enhancement values are at their weakest (especially pre-SO level for most players), but really the effect is at its strongest with the highest amounts of recharge.  This is because the effect is only as good as how often you're landing hits and doing so against a high number of enemies.  Ironically, by the time you're pushing that much recharge you've very likely gotten your sustain under control.  Also, several secondaries, especially the ones considered the best, completely trivialize the endurance management aspect.  I've definitely used Defensive Opportunity as a consideration on some builds but those also happened to be ones that already struggle with endurance somewhat.  Ageless completely removes that issue but I don't like being bound to that Destiny in all builds.  In other words; Defensive Opportunity is already niche at the high end of the spectrum and can be lack luster where it should be the strongest.  

 

Critical hits work as a band-aid fix to a lot of other bigger problems.  I'm not sure I see this as a replacement to Offensive Opportunity, but instead a replacement to Opportunity; period.  The only reason I've suggested this before is because I'm hard pressed to see how a damage boost alone is going to "fix" anything.  CP noted before that the inherent may very well be a non-DPS effect that isn't linked to the attacks at all.  How that contributes to the team/solo dynamic is totally unknown.  

 

As for damage boost itself.  I'll refrain from voting on that until a change is actually established.  If the inherent won't be used to bring up the DPS value of the AT, then the base multiplier will likely need to exceed 1.125.  Keep in mind, the AT already constantly imposes a minor resistance debuff and the core scalar is 0.95.  A shift to 1.0 is likely to be completely unnoticed and especially so if that -resistance aspect goes away.  

 

If the inherent can't contribute to damage, then I'm honestly hoping we see two things.  1) Scalar improvement.  That will be helpful when the current version of Opportunity goes away, if it even does.  2) Power improvements.  Powers have their own scalars too, and there are more than enough Sentinel powers that could use a very thorough review.  This is especially so in the world of instant snipes.  I'd like to see the Sentinel have somewhat comparable damage though spread out over its attacks vs being consolidated into a singular power (i.e., snipes). 

[Bill Z Bubba]

I don't know where the "sentinels should be ranged scrappers" thing came from but it's an incredibly stupid idea unless the value for their mitigation sets are drastically reduced. For those that don't believe that range = mitigation, go hover above any faction at max diff and compare the incoming damage to being in melee with that same group.

 

You are wrong. Full stop.

 

To give sentinels scrapper level damage on top of scrapper level mitigation and the mitigation that comes from being at range is ludicrous. I hope that the HC devs understand that.

[Zeraphia]

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I don't know where the "sentinels should be ranged scrappers" thing came from but it's an incredibly stupid idea unless the value for their mitigation sets are drastically reduced. For those that don't believe that range = mitigation, go hover above any faction at max diff and compare the incoming damage to being in melee with that same group.

 

You are wrong. Full stop.

 

To give sentinels scrapper level damage on top of scrapper level mitigation and the mitigation that comes from being at range is ludicrous. I hope that the HC devs understand that.

[Bill Z Bubba]

I read that. Still don't know who's original goal that belonged to? Dude runnin the SSPS that made the AT live? Why do we need to listen to him? At all. Ever. His views on game balance were obviously skewed all to hell and back.

[Zeraphia]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

I read that. Still don't know who's original goal that belonged to? Dude runnin the SSPS that made the AT live? Why do we need to listen to him? At all. Ever. His views on game balance were obviously skewed all to hell and back.

While I understand your sentiments, I think whoever's idea this AT was originally is a bit irrelevant. The Homecoming development team has seen it this way, and agrees or modified it to this vision. 
@Captain Powerhouse is one of the unpaid volunteer Homecoming developers. He has worked on several community projects related to Homecoming, while I don't always "love" all of his views/changes, I respect his hard work and I think he's made wonderful contributions. 

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Zeraphia said:

While I understand your sentiments, I think whoever's idea this AT was originally is a bit irrelevant. The Homecoming development team has seen it this way, and agrees or modified it to this vision. 
@Captain Powerhouse is one of the unpaid volunteer Homecoming developers. He has worked on several community projects related to Homecoming, while I don't always "love" all of his views/changes, I respect his hard work and I think he's made wonderful contributions. 

As do I, completely. But as a long-term player of said game, I hope he and the other devs continue the trend of listening to the players before decisions are finalized as some of the prior devs did.

[Captain Powerhouse]

To clarify some things, although I'm sure this will not clear enough since I'm a bit short of time to be too expansive today:

 

The goal is for Sentinels to have comparable DPS to scrappers, but with the following concessions:

More Range [obviously], lesser than-stalker survivability.

More sustained AoE damage than scrappers, less sustained ST damage than scrappers.

 

The above is, of course, in average. Given the sets are not identical accross ATs, a one-to-one will never be identical (a 3fire sentinel wont be the same as a 3fire scrapper.)

 

The current opportunity design, at it's optimal usage, actually averages at about that (if you always use offensive and never miss an activation.) It just does so in a way that you have ridiculously low damage half the time, and absurd high damage the other half the time (if you managed to be 100% optimal, something that also should is unlikely to happen)

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

The goal is for Sentinels to have comparable DPS to scrappers, but with the following concessions:

More Range [obviously], lesser than-stalker survivability.

More sustained AoE damage than scrappers, less sustained ST damage than scrappers.

I have no argument against this set of goals.

[Bill Z Bubba]

next step, @Captain Powerhouse, make brute mitigation actually equal 90% of tanker mitigation, cuz it ain't there. 🙂 And thanks for your reply. It was a good one.

[Captain Powerhouse]

Brutes are not meant to be 90% of tanks, they are meant to cap at 90% of tanks, with the help of external buffs (or inspiration spam.)

[FUBARczar]

4 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

The current opportunity design, at it's optimal usage, actually averages at about that (if you always use offensive and never miss an activation.) It just does so in a way that you have ridiculously low damage half the time, and absurd high damage the other half the time (if you managed to be 100% optimal, something that also should is unlikely to happen)

yeah the feast or famine characteristic is not great.  I willingly suffer it b/c I like the AT, but I pray for better days.  Not to mention the suffering that comes from the inherent being tied to T1/T2.  It was bad on Tanks with bruising/T1, and it's bad on Sentinels too.  

 

@Captain Powerhouse how about an inverted Savage Leap type inherent, where the closer the range the larger the damage boost.? So it is high risk high reward.  

At the very least up the base damage and lower the buff. so the difference is not so extreme.

[BurtHutt]

I enjoy Sentinels but they really do need a change or...something. I always team so the lack of decent inherent power isn't as apparent. 

 

I am curious as to what changes Powerhouse is planning...I do like having some durability and blasting powers. However, if I dump a ton of INF on a Blaster, it'll outperform and be more durable than my Sents.

 

Maybe Powerhouse can allow us to vote on planned mechanics when the time is right? I imagine it'll be innovative.

 

By the by, is there any reason the Fire primary has repel in one of the attacks?! Seriously dumb...but that's just my opinion 🙂

Edited July 6, 2020 by BurtHutt

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Brutes are not meant to be 90% of tanks, they are meant to cap at 90% of tanks, with the help of external buffs (or inspiration spam.)

Does this mean that tanks weren't supposed to be buffed to 90% brute damage?

[FUBARczar]

3 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Does this mean that tanks weren't supposed to be buffed to 90% brute damage?

Oi! I would address that but the Tanker and Brute forums are over yonder --------------------------------------------->

[oldskool]

15 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

The current opportunity design, at it's optimal usage, actually averages at about that (if you always use offensive and never miss an activation.) It just does so in a way that you have ridiculously low damage half the time, and absurd high damage the other half the time (if you managed to be 100% optimal, something that also should is unlikely to happen)

First off, thank you for chiming in.  It has felt a bit like a vacuum here with some of us that actually like this AT and feeling a little abandoned due to all of the toxicity that surrounds discussion like this.  

 

I am genuinely curious to know a few things. 

 

1) What is "optimal usage"?  -  The AT has no instruction book, and I think many of us are missing the design intent. 

2) How does Offensive Opportunity turn the AT from "ridiculously low" damage to "absurd high" damage?  I've observed Offensive Opportunity adding +8 damage to Pistols, or +20~ damage to Executioner's Shot for example.  Is that how we go from low to high damage?  Is it really just a function of the large resistance debuff?  How does this interact with the purple patch since it is an effect that can be resisted?  

 

Again, I am genuinely curious since some of those words look a bit loaded to me.  I do feel the AT is capable of consistent damage, but pushing its performance does require manipulation within the IO system.  So I am well aware that my own bias of trying to keep up, or tread water, within the current meta absolutely skews my own perspective.  I guess in other words, what is the baseline we should be finding as acceptable?  I think that lack of understanding would also help clear up a lot of misconceptions here.  More importantly, it will help a lot of us that are eager to test any changes to see how it fits in the dev perspective of the game.  

Edited July 6, 2020 by oldskool

[drbuzzard]

9 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Does this mean that tanks weren't supposed to be buffed to 90% brute damage?

Not sure where you get the idea that tanks are at 90% of brute damage. And honestly you have to be pushing it pretty hard for one to find a place where the survivability edge of tankers over brutes means all that much (though leveling up, it's pretty clear, but then the damage gap is even more clear). Once builds are done, both tankers and brutes are pretty close to unkillable in normal content, and brutes can take what is handed out in incarnate stuff with a bit of support with no problems.

 

Perhaps if you have a kinetics buffer in your pocket all the time, this may be the case, but in the world we actually play in, tankers do a lot less damage (and I play a whole lot of tankers and brutes). It takes very little support to get a brute to tanker level defenses.

 

But back to the topic at hand. I would love to see them buff the hell out of sentinels, but having moments of acting like a grownup, I accept they can't be buffed too much. While I'd like crits and to keep the resistance debuff of opportunity, I can't see that flying. Likely it will be one or the other. As I tend to like consistent performance from my characters, crits are not exactly ideal, but I'd rather just have them on, and at a picked value which is deemed to be where the damage should sit. This can be tuned pretty specifically. So I'd probably just ditch the opportunity mechanic altogether, increase defensive values to 75% (over 70%) since defensive opportunity is going away, increase the scalar to 1.0,  and add crits which are finely tuned to make damage where the devs think it ought to be.

 

Oh, and as to range as defense, yes in many cases it works quite well, and can make some content almost laughable. However that is nowhere close to 100% of the time. There are of course 2 main issues. First is if you are in a mission where space is tight- then you simply don't have range as an option, and the enemies will be in your face and you can't avoid it (even caltrops don't guarantee anything). Second is when you fight enemies heavy on ranged attacks. They do exist and can hurt quite a bit. I was playing my elec/bio stalker who hovers and uses caltrops to keep things out of my face. I was doing incarnate content (DA arcs), and had it set to +4x8. I went into a mission where you deal with the BP, and damn if those guys aren't heavy on ranged smackdown. I got slaughtered. Caltrops didn't help. Being at range didn't help (they happily blasted away). Having defenses past softcap (but not to incarnate softcap) didn't cut it at all. I had to tune the difficulty down to finish the mission. I have tanks and brutes that can do that mission on that setting without a hiccup.

[nihilii]

I cannot understand the idea range stops being effective defense if one isn't at range 100% of the time. If at a given instant an enemy was out of range thanks to your ranged nature, and if this enemy uses rangedAttack dealing X damage instead of meleeAttack dealing 2X damage, then you've avoided X damage. It doesn't matter if the next second this same enemy closes in and whacks you in melee.

Beyond that, I find it actually very easy to argue range is defense close to 100% of the time. Even in an office map or a blue cave, and on a Sentinel using Mind Probe or Cremate. It takes one bunnyhop to clear some distance. The AI simply isn't designed to keep up with you.

 

In the ITF, the Mission 2 caves are pretty tight. Especially on x8 with all the enemies packed around and the ambushes. I've done a +4/x8 no insps solo ITF on a Fire/Rad Sentinel running a grand total of 20% def and 70% res as passive/toggle mitigation, and no active knockdowns or what have you. There's no way in hell I could replicate this with a "mirror" Fire/Rad Scrapper running roughly the same defensive values, even though the Scrapper would have more HP, more absorb and slightly more def/res. That particular scenario requires jousting. Range is not only defense there, it's necessary defense. A Scrapper can joust as well, but their damage output will suffer more than a Sentinel.

I don't think it makes sense to interpret "range = defense" as a blank pass to be invincible, no matter the base mitigation. Range doesn't nullify the damage of your enemies, it lessens it. If you lack enough mitigation to survive the lessened damage, yes, the result will be the same: you're dead either way. Just like if you're fighting a level 30 mob as a level 1, you're going to die just as quickly as if you fight a level 50 mob. Yet does it mean there is no damage difference between the level 30 mob and the level 50 mob? All we can conclude is you bit off more than you could chew.

Edited July 6, 2020 by nihilii

[Zeraphia]

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

I cannot understand the idea range stops being effective defense if one isn't at range 100% of the time. If at a given instant an enemy was out of range thanks to your ranged nature, and if this enemy uses rangedAttack dealing X damage instead of meleeAttack dealing 2X damage, then you've avoided X damage. It doesn't matter if the next second this same enemy closes in and whacks you in melee.

Your argument is assuming that the enemy groups are normally all the same and that they do 2X damage at melee than ranged. While often true, this is not always the case.

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

Beyond that, I find it actually very easy to argue range is defense close to 100% of the time. Even in an office map or a blue cave, and on a Sentinel using Mind Probe or Cremate. It takes one bunnyhop to clear some distance. The AI simply isn't designed to keep up with you.

Not all enemy groups are the same, and not all defense sets are created the same. Some defense sets and some enemy groups on specific settings make this possible for a specific player. Not all enemy groups are the same, not all defense sets are created equally, there is no default setting in the game automatically, and not all ATs should be judged and balanced by the highest standard of gameplay.

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

In the ITF, the Mission 2 caves are pretty tight. Especially on x8 with all the enemies packed around and the ambushes. I've done a +4/x8 no insps solo ITF on a Fire/Rad Sentinel running a grand total of 20% def and 70% res as passive/toggle mitigation, and no active knockdowns or what have you. There's no way in hell I could replicate this with a "mirror" Fire/Rad Scrapper running roughly the same defensive values, even though the Scrapper would have more HP, more absorb and slightly more def/res. That particular scenario requires jousting. Range is not only defense there, it's necessary defense. A Scrapper can joust as well, but their damage output will suffer more than a Sentinel.

Then I may argue that this specific map is not the ideal testament to where the map is so tight that it doesn't present a benefit to be ranged. I do not find the caves in ITF to be the tightest map possible. Further, you've got to recognize that this is a niche instance where you've selected upon yourself no inspirations, solo, and the maximum difficulty on an ITF that strictly rewards ranged damage due to the cascading defense failures of the melee hits that soldiers will do (therefore, this is a special circumstance in which you are selecting for one of the most disadvantaged melee situations, not reflective of most of the game.) Allowing inspirations alone would indefinitely close the gap between the two and the Scrapper would probably have superior clear times given their higher sustained DPS. Your argument is flawed in that it looks at a specific instance for a niche benefit to Sentinel over another AT. Further, as CP has stated, you're trying to draw a 1:1 comparison where there is none to be made, the powerset Fiery Melee is not the same as Fire Blast. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Zeraphia

[drbuzzard]

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

I cannot understand the idea range stops being effective defense if one isn't at range 100% of the time. If at a given instant an enemy was out of range thanks to your ranged nature, and if this enemy uses rangedAttack dealing X damage instead of meleeAttack dealing 2X damage, then you've avoided X damage. It doesn't matter if the next second this same enemy closes in and whacks you in melee.

Beyond that, I find it actually very easy to argue range is defense close to 100% of the time. Even in an office map or a blue cave, and on a Sentinel using Mind Probe or Cremate. It takes one bunnyhop to clear some distance. The AI simply isn't designed to keep up with you.

 

In the ITF, the Mission 2 caves are pretty tight. Especially on x8 with all the enemies packed around and the ambushes. I've done a +4/x8 no insps solo ITF on a Fire/Rad Sentinel running a grand total of 20% def and 70% res as passive/toggle mitigation, and no active knockdowns or what have you. There's no way in hell I could replicate this with a "mirror" Fire/Rad Scrapper running roughly the same defensive values, even though the Scrapper would have more HP, more absorb and slightly more def/res. That particular scenario requires jousting. Range is not only defense there, it's necessary defense. A Scrapper can joust as well, but their damage output will suffer more than a Sentinel.

I don't think it makes sense to interpret "range = defense" as a blank pass to be invincible, no matter the base mitigation. Range doesn't nullify the damage of your enemies, it lessens it. If you lack enough mitigation to survive the lessened damage, yes, the result will be the same: you're dead either way. Just like if you're fighting a level 30 mob as a level 1, you're going to die just as quickly as if you fight a level 50 mob. Yet does it mean there is no damage difference between the level 30 mob and the level 50 mob? All we can conclude is you bit off more than you could chew.

I'll be the first to concede I'm not nearly as good a player as you. I'm getting a bit long in the tooth and my reaction time isn't what it ought to be. You posit range being important because you're constantly jinking back to avoid melee attacks. I don't know that I could pull that off well, and I'm certain I wouldn't like to. There will always be a gap between what the best people can do and what is the norm (best defined in both play ability and formulating builds).

 

You didn't, however, address that some factions are equally dangerous at range (or they sure seem that way). Banished Pantheon hits like a ton of bricks at range.

[nihilii]

2 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Your argument is assuming that the enemy groups are normally all the same and that they do 2X damage at melee than ranged. While often true, this is not always the case.

No such assumption. This was a random example making a point about the lack of necessity to be at range full time for "range = defense" to be true. No intent to generalize that hypothetical example to a generalized melee:ranged ratio. There might be instances where that ratio is 3X, 4X or even 10X. There might be instances where that ratio is 1.1X or even 1X.

 

2 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Not all enemy groups are the same, and not all defense sets are created the same. Some defense sets and some enemy groups on specific settings make this possible for a specific player. Not all enemy groups are the same, not all defense sets are created equally, there is no default setting in the game automatically, and not all ATs should be judged and balanced by the highest standard of gameplay.

I don't mean to make any balance suggestion or AT judgement. My post is solely focused on the idea range is defense.

 

2 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Then I may argue that this specific map is not the ideal testament to where the map is so tight that it doesn't present a benefit to be ranged. I do not find the caves in ITF to be the tightest map possible.

Well, damn! I'd like to know what standards of tightness you have in mind. With the ongoing moratium on game footage I can't upload my run to illustrate the point, but on x8 solo with all ambushes focused on me there were so many mobs I sometimes struggled to jump through them because they blocked all the available space. I named the example precisely because of that experience. I could just as well used office maps, blue caves, orange CoV caves, arachnos bases, manticore mansion, the warrior building or what have you. In just about any map there is always some wiggle room to jump around, even if it is obviously easier on an outdoor map with open skies than inside. Simply because you don't need vertical space. A horizontal hop backwards will cost you less time than it does the enemy in 99% of situations.

 

2 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Further, you've got to recognize that this is a niche instance where you've selected upon yourself no inspirations, solo, and the maximum difficulty on an ITF that strictly rewards ranged damage due to the cascading defense failures of the melee hits that soldiers will do (therefore, this is a special circumstance in which you are selecting for one of the most disadvantaged melee situations, not reflective of most of the game.)

I'm not sure how this disproves the idea range is defense. Your argument might be that the defense range offers is unnecessary. That's an entirely different topic I'm not too invested into personally.

 

2 hours ago, Zeraphia said:

Allowing inspirations alone would indefinitely close the gap between the two and the Scrapper would probably have superior clear times given their higher sustained DPS. Your argument is flawed in that it looks at a specific instance for a niche benefit to Sentinel over another AT. Further, as CP has stated, you're trying to draw a 1:1 comparison where there is none to be made, the powerset Fiery Melee is not the same as Fire Blast. 

I think you're reading my whole post as a Sentinel vs Scrapper comparison, whereas it was solely an argument range is defense. I name Fire/Rad Scrapper because it is the most sensible "mirror" combination for the characteristics relevant to this argument: no active mitigation in the primary, and same secondary.

 

1 hour ago, drbuzzard said:

You posit range being important because you're constantly jinking back to avoid melee attacks. I don't know that I could pull that off well, and I'm certain I wouldn't like to. There will always be a gap between what the best people can do and what is the norm (best defined in both play ability and formulating builds).

I posit range is potentially useful the moment you jinx back even once. Whether range becomes important is of course a subjective statement you, I or anyone else ought to make for themselves given their particular playstyles and goals. Perhaps the defense offered isn't worth it. I strongly feel it is in most cases, but I don't have a solid theoretical argument as to why.

 

I do find myself in strong agreement with Bill in that against most enemy factions, it only takes hovering above them vs standing in melee to see the magnitude of the difference. And even if in some select factions, that magnitude is less important, it doesn't mean it suddenly does nothing. Say a faction does 90% of the damage at range it does in melee, that's still 10% of the damage shaved off.

 

1 hour ago, drbuzzard said:

You didn't, however, address that some factions are equally dangerous at range (or they sure seem that way). Banished Pantheon hits like a ton of bricks at range.

That's the point I tried to address in my last paragraph. I don't believe BP is equally dangerous at range, simply because some enemies like the big frozen boss monsters I can't recall the name at the moment, have even more powerful melee attacks than their ranged attacks. A faction can be extremely dangerous at range, and even then still, slightly more dangerous than that in melee.

If we flipped the problem around and talked about player powers, I think the logic at hand would be intuitive. For the purposes of pure DPS and against a static target, is it better to add Mind Probe to an attack chain or not? Perhaps you're already pushing a 300 DPS attack chain at range, hitting like a ton of bricks. And yet Mind Probe would still bump that up to, say, hypothetically, 330 DPS.

I mean, when *I'm* forced at range... Range is definitely defense for enemies too, as my DPS lowers.

The difference can be hard to perceive and it can even be meaningless in some instances. I fully agree that if against a hypothetical encounter one dies at range and if one dies in melee, then the difference in incoming damage is purely academic - at least up until you bring additional resources like insps and buffs, as to climb to the equilibrium point where you win the fight.

Edited July 6, 2020 by nihilii

[Chronicler J]

I'd be nice if they performed a role first. Right now, why take a Sentinel when you can have a Blaster, or a Scrapper, or a Stalker, or a Brute?

[oldskool]

6 hours ago, Chronicler J said:

I'd be nice if they performed a role first. Right now, why take a Sentinel when you can have a Blaster, or a Scrapper, or a Stalker, or a Brute?

Answer: Why not? 

 

Unless a group is specifically trying to do something within arbitrary guidelines, then there is simply no reason to be excluding players running a Sentinel.  Sentinels contribute with damage and they are one of the few ranged ATs that are largely hands off.  Sure, we could get into circular arguments about this AT can do that, but it also just flat out ignores that this game offers flexibility of play.  No one should be pigeon holing all concepts into thou shalt do X DPS or else.  If finishing a TF in a few more minutes is really that important, and so much so to kick Sentinels from a team or not even invite them, then I'd seriously worry more about the people making those choices vs the AT itself.  Difficulties can be scaled down, and just about every AT subforum has threads about some kind of identity crisis.  Well, maybe not Stalkers, or Blasters.  Beyond them, there are plenty of folks willing to say "whoa is me" on their AT choice while looking at how green the grass is on the other side.  

 

So that question you bring up.  It has two sides to it.  Does a party care more about AoE or ST?  If its ST then the question could easily be why ever bring anything besides a Stalker?  If you need something that does damage and is tanky, why ever bring anything than a Brute?  Need moar AoE?  Why ever bring anyone NOT running their Judgment Incarnate?  Oh, I mean... Why bring anything other than a Blaster.  

 

Why would anyone ever play anything other than a Night Widow when Ageless is a thing?  Why would anyone ever play anything other than a Crab Spider?  The answer to all of these questions are just simply staring everyone in the face.  Its because players find said AT fun, and this game isn't so difficult it needs super streamlined party compositions.  Its when people start imposing their own restrictions that these questions even matter, and even then... they don't.