Sentinels. Are they underused?

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, underfyre said:

 

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.

 

Doesn't matter if it works or not, its Dead on Arrival. 

 

So is making bad guys harder.   The only buy-in there will ever be is for optional content no one will play.

 

So the way to make Sentinels shine more is some other way.   Evidently true Status Protection at low level, Super Easy Soloing, Very easy Gameplay (just get within 60 feet and attack), and so on isn't enough.  

 

If its just the Get Gud guys bothering you though, Play on Everlasting.  No one cares what you play over there, Everyone is receptive to RP reasons for everything.  And Sentinels are about perfect for Superhero RP. 

 

  

[Underfyre]

11 minutes ago, macskull said:

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.

 

Okay, but that's not what I'm saying. That post is in reference to halving the set bonuses. I'm saying switching the limit from 5 down ..I'd have the look at how many different bonuses are available, but 3?

 

There are several 5% S/L/E/N/F/C bonuses, and stacking those gets potent fast. Limit to 1 depending on AT.

 

Just that change there makes it a challenge.

Edited May 14, 2021 by underfyre

[macskull]

9 minutes ago, underfyre said:

Just that change there makes it a challenge.

Not really, you'll just end up with players picking up different power picks and slotting them differently. Besides, after several iterations of buffing Blasters because apparently they were too squishy I hardly think limiting set bonuses on them is in the cards.

[Underfyre]

7 minutes ago, macskull said:

Not really, you'll just end up with players picking up different power picks and slotting them differently. Besides, after several iterations of buffing Blasters because apparently they were too squishy I hardly think limiting set bonuses on them is in the cards.

 

A guy can dream. Sometimes the answer is buffing a class, sometimes the answer is nerfing a class.

[Haijinx]

8 minutes ago, macskull said:

Not really, you'll just end up with players picking up different power picks and slotting them differently. Besides, after several iterations of buffing Blasters because apparently they were too squishy I hardly think limiting set bonuses on them is in the cards.

 

Its just not going to happen.

 

I often post in favor of added difficulty.  But I know limiting character power already granted is a no go, Sunk Costs and all that.   So always need to go from the other side of the equation.   Unfortunately that would leave Sentinels out in a relative sense still.   Not that I think added difficulty is going to happen either.  But I am in favor of it. 

[DrInfernus]

I’m sure that @Captain Powerhouse said ages ago he had Sentinel changes planned, so it sounds like the powers that be already have something in mind. 
 

I agree with the majority here. The solution is to buff Sentinels, not nerf others. And I don’t even think Sentinels would need that much of a change to be brought up a notch or two. 

[Brutal Justice]

1 hour 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). 

I think it would actually give value to buffers and debuffers.  

 

Currently any archetype can reach the soft cap giving -ToHit debuffers and +def buffers very little value.  If all non tank archetypes had a hard cap of 40% those bubbles would become much more important.

 

The question then becomes, how being able to give less defense actually adds value.  Less = less right?   In this case I believe less = more for those buffers and debuffers.  It all follows along the same idea of building for slightly more than the 45% softcap.  The overage gives you a cushion against -def.  Slowing and possibly preventing the cascading failure we all know can happen.  When you’re pumping out the damage blasters are, often times a slowing of that effect is all you need.  

 

At 40% cascade becomes a real threat.  We all know this.  Any -ToHit can put you back to those soft cap values, giving debuffs significantly more value than they currently have.  

 

The bubbler may not get you to the current levels but you will need him more than ever to maintain your current 40% hardcap defense.  Since the overage would absorb the now twice as many -def debuffs you’re getting hit with.  Giving the bubbler roughly twice as much value as they currently have.  

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

5 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

If all non tank archetypes had a hard cap of 40% those bubbles would become much more important.

 

So you wish to completely nerf all defense based scrappers/stalkers/brutes?

 

/jranger

[Brutal Justice]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

So you wish to completely nerf all defense based scrappers/stalkers/brutes?

 

/jranger

I sure do.  We went over this once already and I showed the extreme discrepancy between an electric armor scrapper and a super reflexes scrapper.   The 40% brought them right in line with those resist based scrappers.  

[Bill Z Bubba]

15 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

I sure do.  We went over this once already and I showed the extreme discrepancy between an electric armor scrapper and a super reflexes scrapper.   The 40% brought them right in line with those resist based scrappers.  

 

Considering how bloatedly overpowered tanks are now in comparison to the other archetypes, again, No. It's not going to happen because it would flatly break the game even further to the status of unplayable mess and it's just a bad idea.

 

Edit: If you want to nerf defense, do it properly, at the Set IO level.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[ScarySai]

56 minutes ago, underfyre said:

A guy can dream. Sometimes the answer is buffing a class, sometimes the answer is nerfing a class.

Blaster nerfs are unlikely. Maybe fire blast will get a love tap, but really - overall blast set buffs are more likely than blaster nerfs.

[Underfyre]

2 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

Blaster nerfs are unlikely. Maybe fire blast will get a love tap, but really - overall blast set buffs are more likely than blaster nerfs.

 

We've been over why Fire is fine. Blasters are a sum of their parts. In that aspect, Fire is adequately "past" the other sets enough to emphasize that their secondary effect is "MOAR DAMAGE" without being overboard.

[macskull]

55 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

I think it would actually give value to buffers and debuffers.  

 

Currently any archetype can reach the soft cap giving -ToHit debuffers and +def buffers very little value.  If all non tank archetypes had a hard cap of 40% those bubbles would become much more important.

 

The question then becomes, how being able to give less defense actually adds value.  Less = less right?   In this case I believe less = more for those buffers and debuffers.  It all follows along the same idea of building for slightly more than the 45% softcap.  The overage gives you a cushion against -def.  Slowing and possibly preventing the cascading failure we all know can happen.  When you’re pumping out the damage blasters are, often times a slowing of that effect is all you need.  

 

At 40% cascade becomes a real threat.  We all know this.  Any -ToHit can put you back to those soft cap values, giving debuffs significantly more value than they currently have.  

 

The bubbler may not get you to the current levels but you will need him more than ever to maintain your current 40% hardcap defense.  Since the overage would absorb the now twice as many -def debuffs you’re getting hit with.  Giving the bubbler roughly twice as much value as they currently have.  

 

Hate to burst your bubble (haha) but values beyond the hardcap are still calculated, the game doesn't just go "oh you're at the cap, time to forget everything past that!" Example: a Tanker has 120% fire resistance, which gets capped at 90% by the game because limits but the game is still calculating the uncapped value. If that Tanker gets hit with a resistance debuff they resist the entire debuff, not 90% of it. Along the same lines, if the game capped my defense at 40% but I had 100% before cap, I'd need to get hit with 60% -def before I went below 40%.

 

So no, lowering the defense hardcap will not make defense buffers more valuable.

 

EDIT: Besides, all that change would accomplish is reduce build variety and unfairly punish the sets which primarily rely on defense for mitigation (SR, Energy Aura, Shield) which still have the downside of being vulnerable to multiple rapid lucky hits.

 

EDIT 2: I guess it would also make higher-difficulty content substantially harder since mob rank/level accuracy bonuses are applied after the clamp, not before, which really just means teams that struggle through content would struggle even more while teams having an easy go of it would not be substantially impacted. One way you could implement your suggestion is by bringing PvP-style diminishing returns into PvE but then you'd have the misfortune of watching players leave in droves for a server which chose not to implement such an asinine system.

Edited May 14, 2021 by macskull

[Luminara]

31 minutes ago, underfyre said:

 

Okay, but that's not what I'm saying. That post is in reference to halving the set bonuses. I'm saying switching the limit from 5 down ..I'd have the look at how many different bonuses are available, but 3?

My post was, in fact, applicable to any change targeting a single damage mitigation vector.  Any change, whether it's limiting the number of set bonuses achievable, or halving values across the board (set bonuses, power sets, pools), or even implementing harsh restrictions by archetype, if it's constrained to a single mitigation method.  Any nerf to one type of mitigation is absolutely guaranteed to fail to achieve the goal of adding challenge, because all it will accomplish is to prompt players to pursue other types of mitigation, or other sources of the nerfed mitigation, or both, and they'll keep on keeping on.

 

Moving the goal post one inch in any direction isn't going to fix anything.

[Seed22]

On 5/11/2021 at 9:32 PM, macskull said:

It is worth pointing out that almost every solo task force speed record is held by Blasters, and the team composition of 8-person teams setting records in that same content is usually 6-7 Blasters and 1-2 Corruptors.

 

Also would like to see a Sentinel clearing at anywhere near the speed of a high-end Blaster build.

This. Plus whats all this about average blasters? Can any of yall saying that explain  what’s average? Also 45% def is dumb easy to get on all builds through a 5 second forum search and maybe a few hours casually of TFs/Farmer builds/Half ass market play to get these builds. I don’t think getting that 45% makes anyone a power gamer (thought I saw that mentioned earlier) 

[Seed22]

On 5/11/2021 at 10:03 PM, Obitus said:

 

How about this--you tell or show me how fast a Blaster can clear 4x8 content, against a wide variety of NPC factions and without routinely chewing floor, because clearly I'm doing something wrong, if you think that Blasters are some sort of untouchable gods of clearing speed.

 

I will happily admit that "at the high end" may have been a poor choice of words, though.  What I meant was that Sentinels are perfectly capable of matching most of the high-end IO'd Blaster builds that I would personally play, which tend to emphasize range and survivability over WTFPWN PBAoE damage.  That's what "IME" was supposed to mean.  I'm sure there are builds that can clear faster, though I'm not sure exactly what their existence would prove, with regard to the overarch of my argument.  On average, i.e. with powersets that aren't your bespoke Ice/Fire or whatever, even highly IO'd Blasters don't clear 4x8 content particularly fast.

 

(And chances are, your bespoke Ice/Fire would have survivability problems unless he's cherry picking enemy groups or gulping down temps and inspirations like a drunken sailor.)

 

Anyway, even really good PBAoE damage Blasters, which I have played in the past, tend to get slowed down by scatter, against mobs that don't die in the first salvo.  This is why most farmers prefer Brutes, Tankers, and even occasionally Controllers for the task.  Sentinels who opt for the AoE immobilize have an advantage here, as noted.

 

 

 

All of that is very impressive, and I appreciate the link.  But I already acknowledged that Blasters shine in high-end speed runs.  Do you think Blasters are actually the best soloist AT because a tiny handful of people who've memorized the content and made it a priority to refine the process down to its most minute detail, use Blasters to shave seconds off their best times?  Am I supposed to cede the balance argument because stacking every temp power available, mailing yourself inspirations, and so on and so forth tends to favor ATs with a high damage scalar and damage cap?

 

To put it another way, if you were soloing something for the first time, or even the third or fifth time, and you had your pick of any build in the game, would you pick a Blaster?

Yeah. Or a brute. I’ve got a troller that can solo every enemy group no matter what at +4/8, so I know there’s PLENTY of blasters who can easily do it out there. Sents are alright, though. Just not something I’d even remotely consider over a blaster or well...pretty much anything. 

[Underfyre]

3 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

Yeah. Or a brute. I’ve got a troller that can solo every enemy group no matter what at +4/8, so I know there’s PLENTY of blasters who can easily do it out there. Sents are alright, though. Just not something I’d even remotely consider over a blaster or well...pretty much anything. 

 

So ...not alright? I think the term for that is not alright.

[Seed22]

4 minutes ago, underfyre said:

 

So ...not alright? I think the term for that is not alright.

What do you mean? It’s just a little mids play and a farmer toon. Or merits. Sometimes I’m lazy 😂

 

But seriously: one of the things I find funny is whenever I mention this, people think it’s wrong; here’s the thing. It’s not some “secret”. It’s not an impossibility or even remotely hard, it’s LITERALLY 5-10 minutes on Mids or a forum search. That’s it.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Seed22

[Underfyre]

23 minutes ago, Seed22 said:

What do you mean? It’s just a little mids play and a farmer toon. Or merits. Sometimes I’m lazy 😂

 

But seriously: one of the things I find funny is whenever I mention this, people think it’s wrong; here’s the thing. It’s not some “secret”. It’s not an impossibility or even remotely hard, it’s LITERALLY 5-10 minutes on Mids or a forum search. That’s it.

 

NGL, I'm so confused right now.

[nihilii]

9 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

Your wish is granted. [Videos are allowed again]

 

Possibly the most important thing to come out of this thread. Now there is much less friction in sharing provable data.

 

I'll go ahead and say if +4/x8 Blaster defeat alls start being posted in video form, I'll give a honest try at recording the same thing on a Sentinel.

 

[Brutal Justice]

2 hours ago, macskull said:

Hate to burst your bubble (haha) but values beyond the hardcap are still calculated, the game doesn't just go "oh you're at the cap, time to forget everything past that!" Example: a Tanker has 120% fire resistance, which gets capped at 90% by the game because limits but the game is still calculating the uncapped value. If that Tanker gets hit with a resistance debuff they resist the entire debuff, not 90% of it. Along the same lines, if the game capped my defense at 40% but I had 100% before cap, I'd need to get hit with 60% -def before I went below 40%.

You’re not bursting my bubble.  This is exactly what I was describing would happen.  The defense over 40% would be used to absorb -def debuffs.  The bubbles would provide that. You would need more than you currently need to maintain the 45% though because you’re getting hit twice as much at 40%.  Therefore, since you need twice as much overage with your new 40% cap to maintain your cap status, the bubbles have twice as much value as before.  

 

As for edit 1.  The last time I brought this up I provided adequate numbers to show just how far ahead of their resist based brothers those defense sets are.  40% brought them right in line with their resist based counter parts, at least in terms of damage received.  They still take significantly less status effects and debuffs from the enemy as the resist sets so they would still be ahead by a fair margin.  

 

Regarding edit 2.  The +ToHit given to incarnate content to specifically counter the 45% soft cap would need to be removed.  Other than that, higher difficulty should be higher difficulty.  Isn’t that also what people are always asking for?   You wouldn’t have to create a whole new system, or faction, or part of the game to achieve it.  The 40% hard cap would provide it.  Without making toons unplayable.  

[Brutal Justice]

3 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

 

Considering how bloatedly overpowered tanks are now in comparison to the other archetypes, again, No. It's not going to happen because it would flatly break the game even further to the status of unplayable mess and it's just a bad idea.

 

Edit: If you want to nerf defense, do it properly, at the Set IO level.

I feel tanks were overbuffed as well.  Even still, it’s not like they are already posting the best times for things like pylons and trapdoor runs.  I’ve been away from the game for a while but I am pretty sure I recall some blasters completing the max diff ITF before I left.  I would say that test is primarily a test of durability with dps as a secondary.  If that is indeed the case, then shouldn’t tanks be the ones completing that the most?   (I know dps is very important in the test but I regard survival as more important and the harder nut to crack, especially since it’s a no death run)

[ScarySai]

3 hours ago, Seed22 said:

I don’t think getting that 45% makes anyone a power gamer (thought I saw that mentioned earlier) 

 

Apparently all it takes to be a power gaming elitist is to point out the objective fact that sentinels don't hold a candle to blasters with minimal investment, with blasters just having higher potential overall.

 

I also think comparing them to blasters I'd a bit unfair though. Soldiers of arachnos are basically what sentinels wish they could be.

 

10 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

I feel tanks were overbuffed as well.

 

Tank buff was mostly fine. I just take issue with the damage cap nerf, as I never had issue maintaining fury, a damage capped brute should be scary.

Edited May 14, 2021 by ScarySai

[Brutal Justice]

3 hours ago, Luminara said:

Any nerf to one type of mitigation is absolutely guaranteed to fail to achieve the goal of adding challenge, because all it will accomplish is to prompt players to pursue other types of mitigation, or other sources of the nerfed mitigation, or both, and they'll keep on keeping on.

Players will keep on keeping on but that doesn’t mean it didn’t achieve its goal.  

 

Hypothetical numbers.  At 45% soft cap fire blasters blow the doors off speed run/ timed tests.  Say 3m45 seconds clear time.  A dark blast blaster might achieve 5m clear.  

At 40% hard cap defense the fire blaster might take 4m30 seconds because he had to dip into other areas to achieve his lost durability.  The dark blast blaster still has a 5m clear even though he didn’t have to change up his build.  

 

The dark blast wasn’t suddenly able to blow the doors off.  It stayed the same.  You also achieved a much better balance between the two.  

 

If you deal more damage you SHOULD have less mitigation.  If you have more mitigation you SHOULD have less damage.  Which is exactly what blasters and sentinels are doing. Trading one for the other.  The problem arises when one of them is able to achieve, or very nearly as to not matter anymore, the values of the other and not vice versa.  

 

Players keep on keeping on but balance is maintained.  Isn’t that really the goal?

[Solarverse]

I have tried them, hate them, refuse to play them.