Sentinels. Are they underused?

[DrInfernus]

21 minutes ago, macskull said:

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.

Yeah that’s how I described them and I stand by that. Of course Sentinels can’t tank (I said they can take alpha) because unless they go presence pool (which is a much watered down version) they can’t taunt or hold any aggro.

 

But my Sentinels are my only characters who can be comfortable in every situation thrown at them. They are able to take alpha, where squishier ATs can’t. They can get in the melee if need be with full protection and confidence or they can blast from range without a down tick in output. They don’t have to worry about mez at all like many other ATs. They’re much more survivable than most and don’t need any looking after. Meanwhile, they have just enough damage to take down an AV solo too, although admittedly it can be slow. 
 

There isn’t another AT who can do that other than, as you say, Epic ATs. To me, that adaptability and versatility has a lot of value, both in terms of my experience of the game and whilst contributing to a team. 
 

And yes, the person who created Sentinels may have started out wanting to design a ranged scrapper, but that’s not what he designed, and I’m more than fine with that. As I’ve said, looking at the numbers and bare bones of Sentinels, it’s hard to see any evidence of a desire for notable damage output.  

[nihilii]

13 minutes ago, Monos King said:

Oh come on, you didn't even try to pretend you weren't ignoring everything I said there. I'll be talking to Obitus exclusively on this matter now, you may carry on.

That was sort of implied by your earlier tantrum you weren't taking me seriously anymore ( 😢 ). Maybe stick with that? I'll be awaiting any results, hopefully we get data rather than excuses.

[macskull]

18 minutes ago, DrInfernus said:

There is nothing but restrictions on their damage output everywhere you look within the ATs design. 

This is what makes Sentinels so frustrating from a design standpoint - they were so worried about stepping on the toes of Blasters that they kneecapped the AT out of the gate. In a solo situation that’s probably fine but in a team situation you end up with an AT that only brings damage but is outpaced in many cases even by Defenders and Corruptors, both of which are also acting as force multipliers for everyone else on the team. If Opportunity were reworked to not be so clunky and be more valuable to a team, Sentinels would at least bring something other than subpar damage.

 

8 minutes ago, DrInfernus said:

And yes, the person who created Sentinels may have started out wanting to design a ranged scrapper, but that’s not what he designed  

This is contrary to statements from that person over the last two years which have continued to describe the design and intent of Sentinels as ranged Scrappers. In that case, either the creator of the AT has no idea what they are talking about (a possibility) or the AT as currently implemented fails to meet its intended design goal (a much greater possibility).

[Underfyre]

2 minutes ago, DrInfernus said:

it’s hard to see any evidence of a desire for notable damage output.  

 

After working with the numbers for over a year, it still hurts to see someone actually say this out loud.

 

Melee Fiery Aura > Fiery Embrace: Additional damage proc that also scales with enhancements, can have a reasonable cooldown to being up 30% of the time, faster recharge can have it up 40% of the time.

Sentinel Fiery Aura > Molten Embrace:  A toggle that increases damage by 10% and adds an unenhance-able proc. Damage scalar for the AT is already low, so 10% ain't that big of a boost. Being toggle makes the damage boost and proc up 100% of the time, but it doesn't compete with the enhance-able melee version which is already based off of a massive scalar.

 

Bio Armor - Damage proc is the same across all ATs with a varying % damage increase by AT. Which is why it does so much more for a Sentinel. Also up 100% of the time.

[ScarySai]

6 minutes ago, macskull said:

This is contrary to statements from that person over the last two years which have continued to describe the design and intent of Sentinels as ranged Scrappers. In that case, either the creator of the AT has no idea what they are talking about (a possibility) or the AT as currently implemented fails to meet its intended design goal (a much greater possibility).

Edited May 13, 2021 by ScarySai

[GM Kaiju]

Stop with the name calling, etc. If you can’t constructively add to the conversation, don’t post.

[macskull]

41 minutes ago, GM Kaiju said:

Stop with the name calling, etc. If you can’t constructively add to the conversation, don’t post.

Nerd!

[DrInfernus]

1 hour ago, macskull said:

This is what makes Sentinels so frustrating from a design standpoint - they were so worried about stepping on the toes of Blasters that they kneecapped the AT out of the gate. In a solo situation that’s probably fine but in a team situation you end up with an AT that only brings damage but is outpaced in many cases even by Defenders and Corruptors, both of which are also acting as force multipliers for everyone else on the team. If Opportunity were reworked to not be so clunky and be more valuable to a team, Sentinels would at least bring something other than subpar damage.

 

This is contrary to statements from that person over the last two years which have continued to describe the design and intent of Sentinels as ranged Scrappers. In that case, either the creator of the AT has no idea what they are talking about (a possibility) or the AT as currently implemented fails to meet its intended design goal (a much greater possibility).

I think you’re right to be honest. For all they probably started out with the design intention to create a ranged scrapper, they quickly pivoted to - as you excellently put it - ensure they ‘didn’t step on blasters’ toes’ to the extent that they decided there wasn’t actually any room for another ranged damage dealer at all. 
 

With the underlying numbers they baked into the bones of the AT, they never even gave Sentinels the potential to compare with the damage output of blasters. That seems like a deliberate design decision they made along the way, despite their initial intentions. 

[tjknight]

From playing Sentinels I stick with my old argument. They are not blasters, and shouldn't be. Comparing Sentinels to blasters is always a losing, pointless, circular argument. They are hybrid AT, the do a little of everything (dps, buff, debuff, minor control). This is evidenced in their epic pools, in my opinion.  A hybrid by design, is never "the best" at anything, but they are versatile and solo well. If we are doing an AT to AT comparison, it makes more sense to compare them to the EPIC AT's and Corruptors. For me, they most closely resemble the VEAT's. 

 

But comparing them to blasters doesn't really make sense. Especially if you look at the Sentinel's  AT modifiers and their inherent. They are not designed to be top-notch DPS, they are designed to debuff hard targets, do middle-tier dps, and have a little utility. If anything, I'd like to see their buff/debuff modifiers buffed, and the inherent tweaked to not be so reliant on the first tier attack powers. 

[Myrmidon]

23 hours ago, Obitus said:

This sort of thing would be much easier if we were still allowed to post videos. 

Your wish is granted.

 

 

 

[Galaxy Brain]

 

 

Alrighty, to answer the OP's question, no they technically are NOT underused if we go by raw metrics:

As of last March anyways, the % of all AT's rolled evens out to:

1. Blasters
2. Brutes
3. Masterminds
4. Scrappers
5. Controllers
6. Tankers
7. Sentinels
8. Defenders
9. Corruptors
10. Dominators
11. Stalkers
12. EAT's (lumping them together cus similar %'s among other things)

 

Sents are right in the middle of the pack in terms of "raw" popularity. If we look at the number of AT's at lvl 50:

1. Blasters
2. Controllers
3. Brutes
4. Scrappers
5. Tankers
6. Defenders
7. Corruptors
8. Masterminds
9. Sentinels
10. Dominators
11. Stalkers
12. EAT's

There is a dropoff for sure, which does point to a possible Abandonment issue as players progress with Sentinels. This is shown in the 3rd graph of that post that shows the portion of each AT that is lvl 50, of which Sentinels are 2nd to last above Masterminds which have the SHARPEST decline of any AT. Shown below:

 

 

1. Controllers
2. VEAT's
3. Corruptors
4. Tankers
5. Defenders
6. Blasters
7. Brutes
8. Stalkers
9. Scrappers
10. Dominators
11. HEAT's
12. Sentinels
13. Masterminds

 

 

The next question though is to ask "Why?"

 

For an AT that has overall healthy popularity, why is it that most people do not stick with them to the end compared to less popular AT's? When you look at the numbers, there are nearly x2 the amounts of Blasters, Brutes, and Scrappers as compared 1:1 to Sentinels. Combined together, I would reckon that odds are every Sentinel Player has one of those other 3 AT's rolled. 

 

When looking at what a Sentinel *is*, it's a Damage/Armor AT by set design. This is more analogous to the common Brutes and Scrappers more so than Blasters, which they get compared to more due to sharing Blast sets. Stalkers are also in this boat, but are far more specialized in what they actually do which can explain why there are fewer of them than Sentinels on the whole (though more of them stick around to the end). When comparing to their melee counterparts objectively... yeah you can kinda see where they fall short.

 

Scrappers and Brutes are just flat our more durable, and output more damage thanks to their inherents. Stalkers are more comparable to Sentinels in terms of durability, and somewhat analogous with their special changes to their sets, however their ST focus is so much more efficient than the Opportunity mechanic found on Sentinels it is hard to compare. Aside from the novelty of range / their versions of certain armor sets, I can see why many players may play a Sent and then one of the melee damage dealers and come to the conclusion of "something doesn't feel right...". It'd be one thing if the Sentinel's range offered some truly MASSIVE advantages over the Melee counterparts, but in a game where you can passively run 40mph target to target with minimal effort, where mobs feel compelled to rush in and dogpile you, and 99% of encounter time is raw combat, I can see where there is a dropoff.

 

One thing that range does afford is extra safety though, something the other melee AT's cannot boast except for Tankers. Now, something I am truly curious about with this comparison is how Sentinels measure up to them given they now have the same 0.95x damage modifier, on top of Tanks having on average better target saturation for their AoE attacks. That is not to say their offense is 1:1, but I am curious on how close it ends up. Back to the point on safety though, I do feel like Sents are comparable enough to the melee folks to where we can maybe assess a bell curve of "well, Sents deal less damage than all of them but in practice take less damage too" though that needs research. In actual practice again though, it was touched on that past a certain point you have "enough" defense, which is where damage shines over mitigation. If you do enough damage to end a fight in 10s, you only need to be tough enough to live for 10s, that sort of thinking. 

 

This is all without diving into Opportunity as well, which I have a whole other thread on with how it's the clunkiest inherent that also may drive some players off the AT when compared to "I hit stuff harder sometimes / I hit stuff harder the more I hit / my hits are bigger" of the other Offense/Armor AT's. 

 

 

Comparing them to Blasters is incredibly tricky as they are not really the same outside of "We deal damage and have ranged attacks".  Why it does come up though is that due to the shared ranged concept, when you go to make a Blasting character who focuses on damage, it narrows down to either Sents or Blasters given the rest have much more split roles with either Support or Control (if you consider Dominators ranged). At a base level, the comparison is actually fairly balanced: A blaster does far more output, but is far more fragile in the same situations. Where it gets super blurry is when the blaster gets buffed either by team mates or IO's to where the defensive line is crossed that the Sentinel cannot as easily match with Offense, which is matched by their comparisons to Brutes, Scrappers, and Stalkers with their ability to push offense far higher as well.

 

 

So.... yeah, that is a lot to unpack but I think the gist is:

 

1. Sentinels as a whole have a healthy population, but the abandon rate on them is very troubling where so few Sents actually reach 50 out of the population.
2. This indicates there is something causing many, many players to give up on them and seemingly opt for other Offensive characters with armor, or just pure offense. 
3. Many players anecdotally feel Sentinels are "underwhelming", which can be backed up by direct comparisons to other Offense/Armor AT's, as well as issues with their designated role as "Ranged Damage", combined with a clunky inherent.

 

Does this mean they are awful? NO! 

Does this mean they can be improved? YES

 

 

[Haijinx]

53 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

 

 

Alrighty, to answer the OP's question, no they technically are NOT underused if we go by raw metrics:

As of last March anyways, the % of all AT's rolled evens out to:

1. Blasters
2. Brutes
3. Masterminds
4. Scrappers
5. Controllers
6. Tankers
7. Sentinels
8. Defenders
9. Corruptors
10. Dominators
11. Stalkers
12. EAT's (lumping them together cus similar %'s among other things)

 

Sents are right in the middle of the pack in terms of "raw" popularity. If we look at the number of AT's at lvl 50:

1. Blasters
2. Controllers
3. Brutes
4. Scrappers
5. Tankers
6. Defenders
7. Corruptors
8. Masterminds
9. Sentinels
10. Dominators
11. Stalkers
12. EAT's

There is a dropoff for sure, which does point to a possible Abandonment issue as players progress with Sentinels. This is shown in the 3rd graph of that post that shows the portion of each AT that is lvl 50, of which Sentinels are 2nd to last above Masterminds which have the SHARPEST decline of any AT. Shown below:

 

 

1. Controllers
2. VEAT's
3. Corruptors
4. Tankers
5. Defenders
6. Blasters
7. Brutes
8. Stalkers
9. Scrappers
10. Dominators
11. HEAT's
12. Sentinels
13. Masterminds

 

 

The next question though is to ask "Why?"

 

For an AT that has overall healthy popularity, why is it that most people do not stick with them to the end compared to less popular AT's? When you look at the numbers, there are nearly x2 the amounts of Blasters, Brutes, and Scrappers as compared 1:1 to Sentinels. Combined together, I would reckon that odds are every Sentinel Player has one of those other 3 AT's rolled. 

 

When looking at what a Sentinel *is*, it's a Damage/Armor AT by set design. This is more analogous to the common Brutes and Scrappers more so than Blasters, which they get compared to more due to sharing Blast sets. Stalkers are also in this boat, but are far more specialized in what they actually do which can explain why there are fewer of them than Sentinels on the whole (though more of them stick around to the end). When comparing to their melee counterparts objectively... yeah you can kinda see where they fall short.

 

Scrappers and Brutes are just flat our more durable, and output more damage thanks to their inherents. Stalkers are more comparable to Sentinels in terms of durability, and somewhat analogous with their special changes to their sets, however their ST focus is so much more efficient than the Opportunity mechanic found on Sentinels it is hard to compare. Aside from the novelty of range / their versions of certain armor sets, I can see why many players may play a Sent and then one of the melee damage dealers and come to the conclusion of "something doesn't feel right...". It'd be one thing if the Sentinel's range offered some truly MASSIVE advantages over the Melee counterparts, but in a game where you can passively run 40mph target to target with minimal effort, where mobs feel compelled to rush in and dogpile you, and 99% of encounter time is raw combat, I can see where there is a dropoff.

 

One thing that range does afford is extra safety though, something the other melee AT's cannot boast except for Tankers. Now, something I am truly curious about with this comparison is how Sentinels measure up to them given they now have the same 0.95x damage modifier, on top of Tanks having on average better target saturation for their AoE attacks. That is not to say their offense is 1:1, but I am curious on how close it ends up. Back to the point on safety though, I do feel like Sents are comparable enough to the melee folks to where we can maybe assess a bell curve of "well, Sents deal less damage than all of them but in practice take less damage too" though that needs research. In actual practice again though, it was touched on that past a certain point you have "enough" defense, which is where damage shines over mitigation. If you do enough damage to end a fight in 10s, you only need to be tough enough to live for 10s, that sort of thinking. 

 

This is all without diving into Opportunity as well, which I have a whole other thread on with how it's the clunkiest inherent that also may drive some players off the AT when compared to "I hit stuff harder sometimes / I hit stuff harder the more I hit / my hits are bigger" of the other Offense/Armor AT's. 

 

 

Comparing them to Blasters is incredibly tricky as they are not really the same outside of "We deal damage and have ranged attacks".  Why it does come up though is that due to the shared ranged concept, when you go to make a Blasting character who focuses on damage, it narrows down to either Sents or Blasters given the rest have much more split roles with either Support or Control (if you consider Dominators ranged). At a base level, the comparison is actually fairly balanced: A blaster does far more output, but is far more fragile in the same situations. Where it gets super blurry is when the blaster gets buffed either by team mates or IO's to where the defensive line is crossed that the Sentinel cannot as easily match with Offense, which is matched by their comparisons to Brutes, Scrappers, and Stalkers with their ability to push offense far higher as well.

 

 

So.... yeah, that is a lot to unpack but I think the gist is:

 

1. Sentinels as a whole have a healthy population, but the abandon rate on them is very troubling where so few Sents actually reach 50 out of the population.
2. This indicates there is something causing many, many players to give up on them and seemingly opt for other Offensive characters with armor, or just pure offense. 
3. Many players anecdotally feel Sentinels are "underwhelming", which can be backed up by direct comparisons to other Offense/Armor AT's, as well as issues with their designated role as "Ranged Damage", combined with a clunky inherent.

 

Does this mean they are awful? NO! 

Does this mean they can be improved? YES

 

 

 

Mostly a great post, but blasters being a ranged AT?  What is that noise? 

 

[Brutal Justice]

Drop the 45% soft cap on defense to a 40% hard cap and the “perceived” problem goes away.  Then the blaster can’t “match” the durability of the sentinel.  

 

The sentinel can’t “match” the blaster for damage, the blaster can’t “match” the sentinel for durability.  Balanced by counter weaknesses.  

[Underfyre]

So damage-wise, yeah, most tanker sets do less than an equivalently built Sentinel. Like we'll say a Sent that is using a non-damage boosting secondary and a Tanker doing the same. Ignoring Titan Weapons, obviously.

 

Where things get weird is the Fire Armor thing I was talking about. By my numbers (yes I have a spreadsheet, yes I know nobody cares) The average damage for a Fire tanker surpasses the numbers of a high end Sentinel. But this is also a Tank that is building for damage instead of building to tank, so take it how you will.

[Haijinx]

Sents should get the same range with their blast sets as everyone else.

 

It won't help a lot, but its a kick in the shin that they don't deserve. 

[macskull]

3 hours ago, Brutal Justice said:

Drop the 45% soft cap on defense to a 40% hard cap and the “perceived” problem goes away.  Then the blaster can’t “match” the durability of the sentinel.

This creates more problems than it solves. If you nerf defense players will just find another way to get around it, and you’re left right back at the beginning. 45%, 40%, the actual value is irrelevant. This change would also make the game more difficult for everyone while gutting some support sets and epic/patron pools... for what?

[drbuzzard]

3 hours ago, Brutal Justice said:

Drop the 45% soft cap on defense to a 40% hard cap and the “perceived” problem goes away.  Then the blaster can’t “match” the durability of the sentinel.  

 

The sentinel can’t “match” the blaster for damage, the blaster can’t “match” the sentinel for durability.  Balanced by counter weaknesses.  

Given how that soft cap comes about, I'm not really sure it's possible. It's based on the basic chance to hit. I suppose you could cap how much defense a character can add, but then you're crapping all over the buffing people (bubblers in particular). 

[Underfyre]

7 minutes ago, drbuzzard said:

Given how that soft cap comes about, I'm not really sure it's possible. It's based on the basic chance to hit. I suppose you could cap how much defense a character can add, but then you're crapping all over the buffing people (bubblers in particular). 

 

Maybe cap how many times a character (or AT) can receive a particular set bonus? Like, there's technically no ceiling they can have in defense buffs, but they can only stack a bonus X amount of times.

[drbuzzard]

2 minutes ago, underfyre said:

 

Maybe cap how many times a character (or AT) can receive a particular set bonus? Like, there's technically no ceiling they can have in defense buffs, but they can only stack a bonus X amount of times.

That's already part of the IO system. Any particular numerical bonus value from sets can only be done five times. 

[Underfyre]

I know. I thought about editing that in, but I also thought people would give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I knew that already.

 

I meant cap it further per AT.

[Haijinx]

6 minutes ago, underfyre said:

I know. I thought about editing that in, but I also thought people would give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I knew that already.

 

I meant cap it further per AT.

 

Too late for all that.  

 

You'd be nerfing every squishy build in the game just to add some more shine to a new AT?

[Underfyre]

3 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

 

Too late for all that.  

 

You'd be nerfing every squishy build in the game just to add some more shine to a new AT?

 

Give healers a job? Give need to tanks besides herding? Making the game a threat to squishies would help more than it would hurt, I'm sure. Sometimes you have to do the right thing despite the cries of the wicked.

Edited May 14, 2021 by underfyre

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, underfyre said:

 

Give healers a job? Give need to tanks besides herding? Making the game a threat to squishies would help more than it would hurt, I'm sure. Sometimes you have to do the right thing despite the cries of the wicked.

 

Hey, I'm all about making the game harder.  But It won't be. 

 

And that suggestion is DOA.  So is the 40% hardcap btw. 

 

This is stuff that needed hashed out in Beta.  Way too late. 

[Underfyre]

Just now, Haijinx said:

And that suggestion is DOA.  So is the 40% hardcap btw. 

 

Nah, like drbuzzard said, putting a 40% cap won't work, and it'd be indirectly nerf buffing classes. Make those Blasters a high risk, high reward class.

[macskull]

11 minutes ago, underfyre said:

Give healers a job? Give need to tanks besides herding? Making the game a threat to squishies would help more than it would hurt, I'm sure. Sometimes you have to do the right thing despite the cries of the wicked.

When "nerf defense" comes up unironically in a thread I like to refer to this post from @Luminara. The post specifically addresses defense bonuses but can be applied to defense as a whole and the argument is still sound.