Squoshie friendly IOs

[MsSmart]

Hi:

 

    I have all types of arch types by now, but the one thing I notice that is common in all IOs is that the kind of things that squoshies needs for defense are usually on the 5 and 6 enhancement level, while all the resistances, which does little use for them, are often within the first 3.

 

    It would be nice, if a new generation of IOs are made with type defenses at the first two, and positional (especially ranged) at the third, after that you can put more HP, move, and resistances for instance.

 

    I am not asking to change the present ones, just asking for new ones to be more squoshie focused.

 

Hugs

 

Sue

[CrudeVileTerror]

Perhaps, but we kind of run in to a problem with that IO Sets don't discriminate between Archetypes.  So, if some new Sets were made that favoured Defenses at small Sets combos, then the non-squishies would get just as much mileage out of them, if not more.

 

And, of course, there's the argument folks make along the lines of "a squishie is supposed to be squishie, because they do things non-squishies don't."  That particular rabbit hole is one I'll avoid diving down right now, though.

 

However . . . I would certainly not be adverse to some new ATO Sets being introduced.  Perhaps such ATO Sets could also provide the Defenses you're looking for on the squishier Archetypes, while providing other bonuses for the tougher Archetypes.

[arthurh35353]

Aren't all the current ATO sets only attack sets? I don't think I've seen any buff/debuff/armor ATOs even looked at.

[SeraphimKensai]

1 hour ago, arthurh35353 said:

Aren't all the current ATO sets only attack sets? I don't think I've seen any buff/debuff/armor ATOs even looked at.

Than you run the risk of alienating players that don't have a buff/debuff/armor/control powerset. Each AT has 2 sets of ATOs. Balance in that regard should be maintained.

 

My god imagine the difficulties making an Armor ATO set, trying to have it differentiate between defense or resistances, and not apply both, or perhaps apply both and have reduced mitigation to your primary mitigation method to boost a secondary. It would be a pain in the ass to balance that.

[Dragon Crush]

Controller/Dominator ATOs primarily boost control strength and MM ATOs are for pets rather than personal attacks, but other than that yeah they are for attacks.

I think the problem with buff/debuff/armor ATOs is that there are such differences between the different buff/debuff/armor sets it'd be hard to have something that is good for all of them without being horribly overpowered for some.

[arthurh35353]

I would assume that they would be Res or Def focused, with a smattering of HP/debuffing abilities and could be slotted into either Res/Def/Reg-heal for armors.

So your First ATO armor slot would be slanted to Res with some regen/heal/debuff (and some resist debuff powers), while your second armor ATO would be slanted to +DEF with regen/heal/debuff with resist debuff.

 

Perhaps to make it a real choice, you can only do one or the other.

 

And since everyone gets some sort of armor (ancillary or patron pools) you could actually make a version of them for every ATO. Probably slightly generic, but with tweaks to focus on AT deficiencies. Slight Damage buff for tankers/defenders, higher mez resistance for ATs that don't need damage buffs, etc.

[arcane]

I think of defense as just being a more valuable bonus like recharge, which is also harder to get than resistance or regen, for instance. Such patterns are so common through all the IO bonuses in the game that it is clear they were intentional choices by the developers.

[MsSmart]

The general concept is to make the support types a bit more survivable by having better defenses, they still have a glass jaw due to very low resistance and too few opportunities to actually work on their defenses and resistances.

 

By allowing them to achieve reasonable defenses sooner by having defense IOs at lower number of IOs slotted, it now allows them to wok on IOs to make them even better support.

 

Hugs

 

Sue

[oedipus_tex]

The Dominator ATOs in particular should be revised to work in attacks IMO. It is currently difficult to find a power to slot them in.

[Grouchybeast]

If you want to add defense to an AT that doesn't naturally have defense, then you have to work at it and potentially sacrifice some other stuff to get there.  That's the nature of the ATs, and the nature of game balance.  Making characters very strong in one area is balanced by making them weaker in others.   If you want to play an AT with higher defenses, then Brutes, Scrappers, Tanks, Stalkers, Sentinels and the Epic ATs are already right there.

 

And all that said, it's still possible to get squishie ATs near and over the non-incarnate softcap with IOs.  I feel that complaining that it's too hard to soft-cap a Blaster is something of a diamond shoes problem.

[chi1701]

2 hours ago, Grouchybeast said:

If you want to add defense to an AT that doesn't naturally have defense, then you have to work at it and potentially sacrifice some other stuff to get there.  That's the nature of the ATs, and the nature of game balance.  Making characters very strong in one area is balanced by making them weaker in others.   If you want to play an AT with higher defenses, then Brutes, Scrappers, Tanks, Stalkers, Sentinels and the Epic ATs are already right there.

 

And all that said, it's still possible to get squishie ATs near and over the non-incarnate softcap with IOs.  I feel that complaining that it's too hard to soft-cap a Blaster is something of a diamond shoes problem.

 

I have managed to get a reasonable amount of defence on my PB through set bonuses, its not easy but it is definitely doable.