Sentinels. Are they underused?

[oldskool]

43 minutes ago, DrInfernus said:

The blaster did it around 3 mins quicker. 

 

Clearly doing double the damage no doubt.

[Haijinx]

What Server is this where there is such a running "Get Gud" style commentary that is described in this thread? 

 

It sounds more like a live server. 

 

If you want to Sentinel you should be fine.  Sure you won't do equal damage to a Blaster.  But that's just because Blasters are more better at doing damage.  They also get stunned, knocked around, held, etc.  That's why they are fun!  There's actually some risk, even on the big billion inf builds. 

 

Sent is not nearly as risky.  Should be reliable ranged damage, and you don't have to be afraid about throwing all the AOE blasts you can since you will be durable.  So you can always contribute. 

[macskull]

I think another key difference people are missing is how trivial it is to make a Blaster approach Sentinel survivability levels most of the time while the inverse just isn't possible - the Sentinel's lower base damage, lower damage cap, and lower target caps mean a Sentinel will never be capable of performing to the level of a comparably-built Blaster when both are being intelligently played. Obviously there will be content where the Blaster will have a more difficult time in the survivability department than the Sentinel but that only matters if you ignore a player's ability to choose the content they want to run.

 

I also wanted to address something I've seen come up a few times in this thread, specifically re: Sentinel nukes being better by virtue of their faster recharge. At face value you're looking at a 90s recharge versus a 145s recharge so the Sentinel's nuke will be up more often. Sounds nice, right? Welllllllll it's not quite that simple. I'm going to use Nova for these numbers but the damage scales are the same for all the PBAoE nukes (minus the extra DoTs Inferno gets). With no enhancements a Blaster is getting 250.246 damage every 145s while a Sentinel is getting 168.0513 damage every 90s. This works out to an effective damage per second per target of 1.726 for the Blaster and 1.867 for the Sentinel, or about an 8% advantage. Sounds good so far! But wait, there's more! The Blaster's nuke has a 25% larger radius and a 60% larger target cap, which means it is easier for the Blaster to hit more targets more consistently. Once you factor in the total number of targets, assuming you're hitting the max every time (and if we're talking x8 you almost certainly will) you end up with an effective damage per second of 27.616 for the Blaster and 18.67 for the Sentinel, or a nearly 50% advantage. But wait, there's more! Did you know about 30% of a Sentinel nuke's damage does not apply to targets outside the first ten feet of radius? So not only are Sentinel nukes hamstrung by lower radius and target caps, but they're also doing even less damage to some of those targets. Yikes.

[Buffy Barritt]

I don't have the edgelord chops to argue toe to toe with any of you (this has been a highly entertaining thread for me by the way), but...

 

I can posit a good strong role for my Sentinel:  combat commander.

 

If you want a wider field of view than that given by running a melee build, AND you want to avoid the embarasment of chewing pavement multiple times during a mission, OR you just want to hoverblast from medium range with complete confidence, then the Sentinel becomes a strong choice.

 

In Guild Wars 2 world v. world battles the combat commander for a given side always had to be the last person to fall.  We used to share tips for builds that, through one means or another, achieved this.  The Sentinel clearly would fit that bill.

[oldskool]

10 hours ago, macskull said:

I think another key difference people are missing is how trivial it is to make a Blaster approach Sentinel survivability levels most of the time while the inverse just isn't possible - the Sentinel's lower base damage, lower damage cap, and lower target caps mean a Sentinel will never be capable of performing to the level of a comparably-built Blaster when both are being intelligently played. Obviously there will be content where the Blaster will have a more difficult time in the survivability department than the Sentinel but that only matters if you ignore a player's ability to choose the content they want to run.

 

I also wanted to address something I've seen come up a few times in this thread, specifically re: Sentinel nukes being better by virtue of their faster recharge. At face value you're looking at a 90s recharge versus a 145s recharge so the Sentinel's nuke will be up more often. Sounds nice, right? Welllllllll it's not quite that simple. I'm going to use Nova for these numbers but the damage scales are the same for all the PBAoE nukes (minus the extra DoTs Inferno gets). With no enhancements a Blaster is getting 250.246 damage every 145s while a Sentinel is getting 168.0513 damage every 90s. This works out to an effective damage per second per target of 1.726 for the Blaster and 1.867 for the Sentinel, or about an 8% advantage. Sounds good so far! But wait, there's more! The Blaster's nuke has a 25% larger radius and a 60% larger target cap, which means it is easier for the Blaster to hit more targets more consistently. Once you factor in the total number of targets, assuming you're hitting the max every time (and if we're talking x8 you almost certainly will) you end up with an effective damage per second of 27.616 for the Blaster and 18.67 for the Sentinel, or a nearly 50% advantage. But wait, there's more! Did you know about 30% of a Sentinel nuke's damage does not apply to targets outside the first ten feet of radius? So not only are Sentinel nukes hamstrung by lower radius and target caps, but they're also doing even less damage to some of those targets. Yikes.

 

Apologies on the wordsmithing I am about to do, but I think this entire argument could be reframed into something that doesn't read like a condescending jerk.  I actually don't think that is your intent, but this is how it feels to read the above.  Furthermore, it fully express the "talking past each other" @Obitus mentioned before.  

For the first point, I think it is a stronger argument to state that under certain conditions there comes a point where more defense is no longer necessary.  I think that phrasing is rather important because the first point reads like absurdity to me.  Outside of maybe 2 secondaries, Blaster's using the jury rig house-of-cards IO defense approach doesn't get anyway near Sentinel power sets.  However, I do support an idea that within certain playstyles the level of defense that Sentinels have isn't needed while maintaining range.  However, however, this kind of argument entirely glosses over that Sentinels can comfortably fight within melee range and this is allowable against a wide range of faction types.  Indeed, I think that is what Obitus was pointing to before.  Unlike some posters on the Sentinel side, I either run an AoE Immobilize or caltrops.  Either option allows me to control enemy placement to a degree and this is something that not all of my Blasters have access to.  It is an entirely different kind of gameplay experience between the two ATs.  

Let me just express my own experience here for a moment having played every one of these secondaries and having 7 incarnate Sentinels.  I don't hover-blast on any one of them.  I can fight close quarters and not worry so much about my health.  This is readily apparent while soloing and often can be entirely unnecessary while grouping.  If I do take some additional heat in a team, I can handle it myself.  That's the point of the Sentinel, and it actually matches the description at character generation.  My Blapper build on the other hand has to be a bit more tactical while solo, because I don't hover blast on that either, but in teams I can generally let loose without much issue.  There are more enemy types that I need to be mindful of on any of my Blasters that I really don't think twice about with my Sentinels.  If there is no value there for certain players or their playstyles, then the Sentinel is going to be disappointing.  I get that, and I think Obitus does too from what I am reading.  Hell, I think most of us that are more supportive of Sentinels, despite their weaknesses - which we are aware of, get this difference.  It is often times those that want to browbeat about how Blasters are superior in all ways that just do not want to see any value in the Sentinel.  This is where certain commentary like "training wheels AT" and "has no role" starts to manifest.  

For the last point, that's an argument I've seen done to death.  I also don't think anyone has said the Sentinel's nuke is better than the Blaster.  At least not those words.  I think more to the point the Sentinel nuke is brought up as a reminder that the higher uptime is there to pad out its AoE weaknesses.  In actual practice, the Sentinel nuke uptime combines with its other AoE powers in a fashion that are readily available per spawn.  This isn't how all Blaster builds work, and it is equally intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.  Furthermore, the Sentinel design allows it easier access to leverage PBAoE powers without much fear of reprisal.  Again, In practice, the range limits are way overblown as are the damage ratios, but that doesn't seem to matter to folks that exploit maintaining range with hover (not accusing the poster of this but making general observation).  Once again this is how the two player bases completely talk past each other than with each other.  

This thread, and all of them like it on this subforum, are one of the classic blunders.  Never start a land war with Asia, never gamble with a Sicilian when death is on the line, and never, ever, try to convince Blaster lovers there is any value in the Sentinel.  It is like trying to convert religion.   

 

Edit: I opted to go back and re-read some of what both Mac and Obi are saying previously.  Ironically, Mac already touches on the point about enough defense vs not enough offense (Sent v. Blast).  So, restating this really doesn't add anything other than to seem smug when the comment is viewed as a whole (again, I think it is unintended but still present in the tone).  Obi notes a preference for a faster recharging nuke despite the Blaster version which is noted to do more damage.  So, that poster already recognizes the potential of either path.  Again, this just illustrates talking past each other.  Can we group hug?  🙂 

Edited May 13, 2021 by oldskool

[nihilii]

11 hours ago, Monos King said:

I'm confused. You said that Sentinels are only, at worst, tied with blasters at clearing content alone. And I asked you to demonstrate it, because that's difficult for me to believe. What else did you expect me to ask for other than proof?

 

Like I said before, I'd like you to go on beta and show me how your sent works in action. No video necessary.

It seems disingenuous to fail to quote the friendly challenge offered in the sentence just before the one you selectively quoted.
 

Your Blaster vs his Sentinel. What's the hold up?

[GM Tempest]

👀

[macskull]

3 hours ago, oldskool said:

Snipped for brevity

I think you are overlooking my earlier post(s) in this thread where I said something along the lines of "people can play what they want." I'm not in here trying to tell people to not play Sentinels, or saying that I would rather die than have a Sentinel on my team, or someone else's playstyle preferences are wrong, or anything weird like that. Those are all subjective viewpoints and I'm not here to change anyone's mind on those. If someone likes playing Sentinels, cool. My subjective opinion is Sentinels are boring as hell because there's little to no risk involved and you give up a lot for that lower risk (incidentally, the same reasons I dislike non-Stalker melee characters). However, the last page or two of this thread has revolved around the discussion of which AT performs better in the role they fill (Blaster = damage primary/damage and utility secondary = damage dealer, Sentinel = damage primary/armor secondary without taunt = damage dealer) and in this case the Blaster is objectively better by almost every measure.

[Monos King]

3 hours ago, nihilii said:

Your Blaster vs his Sentinel. What's the hold up?

It seems disingenuous to ignore that:

1) That challenge isn't prohibited by my request 

2) I am the one that discussed beta activity to begin with, and first expressed interest

3) That challenge isn't necessary to prove either of our points, and 

4) I was addressing exactly the problem that he didnt seem to want to provide proof, via competition or by my audience. 

 

I quoted that line because, as it followed the other, it seemed to say "even if you come down here looking to verify , if that's all you want from me I'm not interested." Pretty much invalidating the offer.

 

It's best you don't come in late and act the wise man. I was from the beginning, and still am, interested in seeing his performance. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Monos King

[Bastille Boy]

Clearly the answer depends on what you are trying to optimize for. I am optimizing for two things.

1. Ability to fit into a backstory that involves a bunch of superpowered people living happily in close quarters. (My main storyline involves a Scandinavian-style open prison, but I also have a nuclear submarine officer, and I have plans to roll some modern-day sea pirates.)
2. Ability to complete AE 801.2 solo at the highest possible difficulty. (+3/8 is my personal best. I'm hopeful about achieving +4/8 on my SD/EM tanker.)

For happily living in close quarters, I would rank the archetypes as follows (more details here )

• Best: Defenders, corruptors, and petless masterminds with buff sets focused on buffs and healing powers that do not require the presence of an enemy. Being in several overlapping regeneration or damage resistance auras presumably feels amazing.
• Second best: Tankers. Being physically almost invulnerable makes them generally chill.
• Third best: Scrappers and sentinels. Chill, but not quite as chill as tankers.
• Neutral: Blasters; defenders, corruptors, and petless MMs with debuff-focused sets, Dark Miasma, or Kinetics.
• Mildly problematic: Controllers (because they're, well, controlling); Masterminds with pets (because space is at a premium here); Stalkers (because they think they can get away with things).
• Second worst: Brutes. Rage is an issue.
• Worst: Dominators. They are nightmare roommates, for obvious reasons.

For completing AE 801.2 max diff solo, here's what I believe to be viable:

• Tankers are clearly most viable. Most people who have reported a successful solo max diff AE 801.2 run did it with a tanker. The challenge is to get enough damage without sacrificing durability.
• Brutes and Scrappers have done it. There are fewer viable powerset combinations here than there are with tankers. Durability is the main obstacle here.
• Controllers have done it. There are likely many viable powerset combinations.
• At least one Time/ defender has done it.
• Linea has run AE 801.2 max diff with a Water/Atomic blaster but rates the build +2/8.
• Promising but unknown: Stalkers with heavy use of the updated Teleport or Concealment pools.
• Promising but unknown: /Time corruptors.
• Promising but unknown: Sentinels!
• Not promising: Anything that relies on soft-capped defenses for protection and has no DDR.

If I were a diehard min-maxer, I would only play tankers and Time/ defenders. They are optimal, by my criteria, so why would I play anything else? But variety is good, there are other possibilities known to be viable by these criteria, and it is fun to try things that haven't been done yet.

 

My focus right now is on my SD/EM tanker. But I have a Fire / Energy Aura sentinel at 50, made in the hope that it will be durable in AE 801 and other very tough content. It was fun to level up. It's pretty clear that sentinels are more promising than blasters for AE 801, and they're slightly better for my other criterion.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Bastille Boy
accidental emoji removed

[nihilii]

How is PvP any relevant to the topic? Man, you are desperate to avoid having to back your words.

 

And you are pretty bad at forum-warrioring... Let me post the point you should have made, if you're so desperate to dodge challenges.

 

"The debate isn't about my Blaster vs your Sentinel, but about Blasters vs Sentinels. It's possible for you to be a better player to the point you make Sentinels work better than I do Blasters, and tells us nothing about overall balance."

[oldskool]

15 minutes ago, macskull said:

*snips* which AT performs better in the role they fill *snips*

 

Totally fair points for your earlier paragraph, and I do recognize what you had stated earlier.  However, the tone of that other reply comes across differently.  That's my point.  Furthermore, you really didn't need to restate any of that because your early commentary was already solid, in my opinion.  Anyway...  

The final part of your commentary here.  Are you sure that what you perceive is being argued is truly what is being stated?  I've parsed over what Obitus wrote a few times.  I do not see anything where it states Sentinels are better than Blasters.  Instead, the last few pages are crafting an argument that Sentinels aren't as bad as the general consensus makes it.  

That is what I takeaway from this, but there is apparently a difference in perception.  

[arcane]

Waiting for one of either Monos King or nihilii to call the other chicken at this point.

Edited May 13, 2021 by arcane

[Monos King]

1 minute ago, nihilii said:

How is PvP any relevant to the topic? Man, you are desperate to avoid having to back your words.

 

But I thought I wanted to see his Sentinel in action.

 

[DrInfernus]

May I just interject and stress again that the blaster v sentinel ‘debate’ (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense) is only even remotely relevant if Sentinels are designed to be a damage-dealing AT - which they are not. 
 

All that blasts is not a blaster, nor supposed to be. 

[nihilii]

It is a ridiculous proposition to ask someone else to spend time and effort to prove a point to you while offering nothing in return.

 

Similarly ludicrous to pretend not to understand this after it has been pointed out to you several times.

 

Come on. Cut the crap for just one second. You're not a complete fool. The reason you posted that "desire to see his Sentinel in action" is BECAUSE you know just as well as the rest of us nobody is likely to agree to such a lopsided query.

 

You don't give a damn about being educated on Sentinel performance. You're just here wanting to have your clever little gotcha. Even though in all likelihood, you didn't even give the AT an earnest try yourself.

 

Why don't YOU hop on Test and get started on giving us some +4/x8 Blaster clear times? Pick some testing conditions, powersets, missions, rules re:insps/temps...

That's the second thing: you ask someone else to put effort, and you yourself put the minimum amount of effort.

 

Overall, an abysmal display to the point it's frankly idiotic if you were genuinely looking for what you claim to be looking for. I don't believe you're an idiot. I believe you're a dick.

 

[Monos King]

You see nihilii, when you assume the role of hypocrite, and deflect addressing explanation and evidence with 

23 minutes ago, nihilii said:

Blah, blah. Quit being a pompous ass.

You don't get to be taken seriously anymore. If you were paying attention, you would know that twice I have accepted to doing whatever Mr. Obitus likes because above all else, I want to see what I presume to be a good sentinel mess things up. Of course, I also want to see it surpass a blaster. That's why I offered to. 

 

Here's my forum warrior advice, it might sound familiar. Don't come in late. It'll make you look silly.

[Monos King]

21 minutes ago, nihilii said:

Edit: but I did check your posts, and there's none of that. More bullshit from you.

Interesting. Well here's one. What was it I said in that very reply you followed with "blah blah..."

[oldskool]

16 minutes ago, DrInfernus said:

May I just interject and stress again that the blaster v sentinel ‘debate’ (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense) is only even remotely relevant if Sentinels are designed to be a damage-dealing AT - which they are not. 

 

A problem here though, is the Sentinel was designed to be a damage dealer.  This has been stated before and that the conceptual inspiration was leveraged against Scrappers.  I forgot which post it was in, but this goes back to 2019.  

It is completely fair to criticize the Sentinel's merits for the role it has been assigned.  It is justifiably underwhelming for a wide range of reasons when viewed against its cousins in the melee ATs.  When viewed explicitly against ranged only Blaster builds and more offensive Corruptor builds there is additional, and valid, challenge to the implementation of the AT.  

And, yet, I haven't actually read anyone disputing the fundamental flaws of the Sentinel in this entire thread.  Instead it is more a debate about just how bad that scope really is.  The truth of this matter is that is perception.  If people want to build their Sentinel with full IO sets and try to play exactly like a Blaster with an armor set, then I can see how they'd be disappointed.  Sentinels that want to push more damage are also pretty cookie cutter and I can see why that is perceived as boring to some.  At no point does a Sentinel exceed a Blaster on AoE, which was a core design feature of the original Blaster, and so these comparison just spiral out of control.  

I've this once, and I will say it again.  There will always be a camp of players that will never, ever, value the Sentinel until it does more damage than a Blaster is capable of.   Full stop.  There is just always going to be this debate no matter what the devs redesign until the Sentinel is so brokenly overpowered there is no disputing why anyone would ever play it.  

 

[PyroBeetle]

As has been stated multiple times it really is pointless to compare blasters to sentinels, their roles are different from each other. A ranged only blaster, as has been stated, is going to be quite limited because they ignored a large portion of their secondary, and this is not the purpose of my statement.

 

By dint of having their resistances and or defenses baked into their secondary, a sentinel has a greater range of builds and sets available to them. My Psy/SR is procced to the gills to achieve respectable results, which he does just fine. My Elec sentinel less so, or the procs are differently purposed because he does exactly what I want to do, drain and survive then delete the enemies. He does so efficiently and effectively if not so fast, but it is a universally effective playstyle.

 

Just because people enjoy the sentinel doesn't mean they are threatening the blaster, which is unfortunately the way that blaster fans seem to be taking it. To the original point though, yes sentinels are underused, mostly because if you read the forums and redit etc most of what you will read are from the extreme high end of playtime, and to most of that damage is the one and only thing that is viable.

[macskull]

5 minutes ago, DrInfernus said:

May I just interject and stress again that the blaster v sentinel ‘debate’ (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense) is only even remotely relevant if Sentinels are designed to be a damage-dealing AT - which they are not. 
 

All that blasts is not a blaster, nor supposed to be. 

I believe it was you who said Sentinels are a “utility” AT rather than a damage AT and I’m having difficulty understanding exactly what you mean by that. A Sentinel isn’t capable of tanking (where “tanking” = managing aggro) significantly more than any other non-Scrapper/Brute/Tanker AT unless they dip into the presence pool since their armor sets lack taunt auras, their attacks lack a taunt effect, and they don’t get a taunt power to manage aggro. They have a higher threat level than other ranged ATs (2.5 vs 1) but threat level is only part of the equation for threat generation. A Sentinel can’t reliably pull enemies off a teammate.

 

Sentinels also lack much in the way of support powers. They do get a few in their epic pools but those are generally too weak to be consistently useful. About the most useful support a Sentinel brings is offensive opportunity, and even then it’s a mediocre debuff that is only available periodically on single targets and also requires the Sentinel to take a specific power but also to use it at the correct time before accidentally using a different power and wasting the opportunity (puns!).

 

So if they’re not an aggro management AT and they’re not a support AT... what are they? The AT text at character creation describes them as “powerful ranged combatants.” The guy who created the AT has at multiple points described them as “ranged Scrappers.” Both those make Sentinels sound like a damage AT to me.

 

A far better example of a “utility” AT would be Kheldians because unlike Sentinels they can deal high damage at range and deal respectable damage in melee and manage aggro via dwarf form.

[Monos King]

Not to mention I'm humoring the idea that requesting some modicum of proof when you make a claim is somehow "asking without offering". That's not how this works.

 

When you put forth a position, it is your job to defend said position. If your position happens to be "Sentinels would, at worst, tie in clear times with a blaster" then when someone says "cool, I find that hard to believe, show me" it is incumbent on you to demonstrate, if you want your claim to hold water. Of course, I'm not saying he wasn't going to, because we were literally in the midst of negotiating before you decided to interject. Anyone sharing his position is kind of punching up here, because blasters are a damage class meant to ruin mobs, and most wouldn't think a non hyper dmg dealer would compete with them to begin with. 

 

If actually providing that evidence is somehow too much for him (which it must not be seeing how he responded, and not you) then it isn't a position he could even maintain.

[DrInfernus]

9 minutes ago, oldskool said:

 

A problem here though, is the Sentinel was designed to be a damage dealer.  This has been stated before and that the conceptual inspiration was leveraged against Scrappers.  I forgot which post it was in, but this goes back to 2019.  

It is completely fair to criticize the Sentinel's merits for the role it has been assigned.  It is justifiably underwhelming for a wide range of reasons when viewed against its cousins in the melee ATs.  When viewed explicitly against ranged only Blaster builds and more offensive Corruptor builds there is additional, and valid, challenge to the implementation of the AT.  

And, yet, I haven't actually read anyone disputing the fundamental flaws of the Sentinel in this entire thread.  Instead it is more a debate about just how bad that scope really is.  The truth of this matter is that is perception.  If people want to build their Sentinel with full IO sets and try to play exactly like a Blaster with an armor set, then I can see how they'd be disappointed.  Sentinels that want to push more damage are also pretty cookie cutter and I can see why that is perceived as boring to some.  At no point does a Sentinel exceed a Blaster on AoE, which was a core design feature of the original Blaster, and so these comparison just spiral out of control.  

I've this once, and I will say it again.  There will always be a camp of players that will never, ever, value the Sentinel until it does more damage than a Blaster is capable of.   Full stop.  There is just always going to be this debate no matter what the devs redesign until the Sentinel is so brokenly overpowered there is no disputing why anyone would ever play it.  

 

I’m honestly not sure about that. I mean, looking at how they were designed: The lower damage multiplier, the AoE cap etc... the fact you load up the game, start a new Sentinel, and it shows a 7 under ‘damage’... I mean, defenders get a 6. That puts Sentinels considerably closer in designed damage output to defenders than blasters. I just think they can’t possibly have been designed as damage dealers considering they weren’t given damage dealing tools.

 

And don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with that. I LOVE my Sentinels. Got 4 incarnate ones. But there’s nothing in their nuts and bolts that I’ve ever seen that suggests they were ever intended to be specific damage dealers. There is nothing but restrictions on their damage output everywhere you look within the ATs design. 

[nihilii]

23 minutes ago, Monos King said:

When you put forth a position, it is your job to defend said position.

Yeah, so... Why are you not on Test getting us some Blaster +4/x8 clear times to defend your position Blasters obliterate Sentinels in clear times. Less talking, more blasting. Chop chop.

[Monos King]

10 hours ago, nihilii said:

Yeah, so... Why are you not on Test getting us some Blaster +4/x8 clear times to defend your position Blasters obliterate Sentinels in clear times. Less talking, more blasting. Chop chop.

Oh come on, you didn't even try to pretend you weren't ignoring everything I said there.

My comments aren't a position, they are calling for him to defend his. Which it wasn't even originally, but it's become a way to get this debate out of obscurity. When you say "This car is faster than other cars" and someone says "can you prove it" you don't then say "why don't you prove your car isn't slower". That's asking for the other person to prove it for you. You're literally just going "no u". 

I'll be talking to @Obitus exclusively on this matter now, you may carry on once you understand basic conventions.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Monos King
Explanation of the basics