Defiler (Melee/Support AT)

[Hyperstrike]

If you want to play a Melee Support role, look at SoAs.

With the ability to carry what is essentially double-Tactics BEFORE Incarnates AND cap defenses, you've pretty much got your team Buffbot there.

[Yikes]

Could we swap the Primary powerset from Melee to Assault?  More character variety that way instead of yet another Melee AT.

 

Brute, scrapper, stalker, tank

Blaster, defender, corruptor

Dominator

 

Needs Moar assault!

 

why do people think assault is anything but a supplementary powerset for dealing damage to CC'd enemies at any range

 

it's not designed to function in a primary slot in the same way blaster's manipulation sets arent designed to function as a primary

[Blastit]

The issue isn't that a melee AT with a solid range debuff would be bad, even if the AT itself isn't tough enough to easily be an aggro magnet. That sounds like a fine power to have and one that any melee or AoE character would appreciate having on the team even if it just adds convenience. It's more the degree of survivability you'd need to manage using a taunting power. If it was just a range debuff that caused no more aggro than inherent to a range debuff then I don't think anybody would have a problem with that.

 

Why not reverse it and make the inherent mez resist/protection and some kind of skill swap have your sustain?

 

I made that suggestion because mez toggles already exist and can simply be copied (except for fire, iirc), and because the inherent is just one power. I saw it as less work than coming up with new, different powers for every set. I'm certainly not opposed to doing it the other way around. I'm not sure how to feel about mex protection that is just always on for an AT and costs no endurance. How good should that be allowed to be?

 

Firstly, I think the idea of the thread is to discuss what the fundamentals of the AT would be.  Is it a DPS? A high-damage support? An off-tank with debuffs? All of the above? Trying to pin it to a specific in-game NPC seems shortsighted (although it is a fact those ink men are quite annoying primarily because of their stacking debuffs).

 

I was approaching this primarily from a thematic point of view, which is why I mentioned the paladin. It's usually a melee dude with some spells to heal and buff with. A very common thing for people to visualise when a melee and support character is mentioned, and why I would prefer an AT that could have Empathy or Thermal. But eh, if certain kinds of sets are what work best then that's pretty much that. Mechanically, I guess I'd aim for basically a Corruptor who trades damage for mez protection and a bit extra survivability against incidental AoE damage. You don't hit as hard but you're also not as vulnerable to stray crowd control. Plus you get a new perspective due to using different attack sets.

 

A melee primary and support/defence hybrid secondary AT is pretty cool and would be a much individually thougher individual tho it'd lose out on support stuff. I'd be fine with that archetype, too. It'd be closer still to Night Widows which is something I rather like playing, so that's not a problem. I was just thinking about something that's tougher than a Defender but not tougher than a Scrapper because... well, it's just where I started.

[Leogunner]

The issue isn't that a melee AT with a solid range debuff would be bad, even if the AT itself isn't tough enough to easily be an aggro magnet. That sounds like a fine power to have and one that any melee or AoE character would appreciate having on the team even if it just adds convenience. It's more the degree of survivability you'd need to manage using a taunting power. If it was just a range debuff that caused no more aggro than inherent to a range debuff then I don't think anybody would have a problem with that.

 

That that point, we'd need to discuss the capabilities of the hypothetical AT in question.  But as is, Taunts work in magnitudes and durations just like mez and mobs can be peeled off to other targets for various reasons.  If a meatier teammate is around, likely they have inherent taunt rolled in their attacks.  If you're on a team without other taunters, likely you're going to be built to handle it.  It's like putting the horse before the cart: if you are tough enough, use taunt.  But you're arguing the other way: they have taunt, but are they tough enough?

 

And no, I think it should have the range debuff and taunt.

 

Why not reverse it and make the inherent mez resist/protection and some kind of skill swap have your sustain?

 

I made that suggestion because mez toggles already exist and can simply be copied (except for fire, iirc), and because the inherent is just one power. I saw it as less work than coming up with new, different powers for every set. I'm certainly not opposed to doing it the other way around. I'm not sure how to feel about mex protection that is just always on for an AT and costs no endurance. How good should that be allowed to be?

 

Personally, I don't think the inherent power should be EITHER mez protection or sustain.  That should be taken care of by their powers.  The inherent should be something that makes the sets play differently or emphasizes something else about them so being a Energy Melee Brute would feel vastly different from an Energy Melee [whatever this AT is] without needing to make the powers of the set actually new.

 

Firstly, I think the idea of the thread is to discuss what the fundamentals of the AT would be.  Is it a DPS? A high-damage support? An off-tank with debuffs? All of the above? Trying to pin it to a specific in-game NPC seems shortsighted (although it is a fact those ink men are quite annoying primarily because of their stacking debuffs).

 

I was approaching this primarily from a thematic point of view, which is why I mentioned the paladin. It's usually a melee dude with some spells to heal and buff with. A very common thing for people to visualise when a melee and support character is mentioned, and why I would prefer an AT that could have Empathy or Thermal. But eh, if certain kinds of sets are what work best then that's pretty much that. Mechanically, I guess I'd aim for basically a Corruptor who trades damage for mez protection and a bit extra survivability against incidental AoE damage. You don't hit as hard but you're also not as vulnerable to stray crowd control. Plus you get a new perspective due to using different attack sets.

 

A melee primary and support/defence hybrid secondary AT is pretty cool and would be a much individually thougher individual tho it'd lose out on support stuff. I'd be fine with that archetype, too. It'd be closer still to Night Widows which is something I rather like playing, so that's not a problem. I was just thinking about something that's tougher than a Defender but not tougher than a Scrapper because... well, it's just where I started.

 

Frankly, there are various ways this idea could go so I'd rather just look at someone's idea and talk about it vs trying to come down on a consensus about the AT's concept.  I guess if people are interested in that type of discussion, I'm not trying to stop you.

[Replacement]

In my brain, I feel such an AT should be called Interceptor.

 

It fits their position (running in to intercept bad guys) and also informs what debuffing and buffing does for your party.

 

I know you guys want your /Empathy Paladins but honestly, Empathy would be one of the harder sets to proliferate.

 

Test bed sets

These are what I would suggest starting with to actually test out the AT's viability and get a feeling for what needs patched up.

 

Primary sets - You'll note I intentionally avoid sets that can cause Redraw.

Dark Melee

Fiery Melee

Martial Arts

 

Secondary sets - I selected these because they're reasonably "easy" sets, but are also so different from each other that they highlight some of the design challenges.

Cold Domination

Dark Miasma

Radiation Emission

 

Inherent/Special mechanical considerations:  Instead of including Armors in these sets, I'd rather see an approach to get a more reliable amount of benefit from their own buffs.  So to put Cold Domination on a similar footing with Dark Miasma, for example, you'll need to get at least a portion of your own buffs.

 

Approach #1: Simply change all the "aoe buff allies" powers to pbaoe, let them affect self.  Cool, but down the road we'll get to stuff like Temporal Selection and we'll need to know how to deal with those ST buffs that are OP to give everyone.  Which doesn't bode well for Empathy.

 

Approach #1.b: One interesting thing you could feasibly do is make all their buffs even weaker than MMs but AOE. Allies gain 2 stacks but you gain 1.

 

Approach #2: Some sort of unique self-target method.  Something as simple as "targeting through enemies who are targeting you" seems... dubious to pull off in-engine, but could maybe be workable.  It means you would buff yourself less the more tanks you have.

 

Approach #3: your inherent is a Click that creates some sort of pet that you buff, and its buffs reflect to you.

 

Also, +1 for replacing Taunt/Confront with Power Build Up.  That would be fun.

[jack_nomind]

Personally, I don't think the inherent power should be EITHER mez protection or sustain.  That should be taken care of by their powers.  The inherent should be something that makes the sets play differently or emphasizes something else about them so being a Energy Melee Brute would feel vastly different from an Energy Melee [whatever this AT is] without needing to make the powers of the set actually new.

 

I'm utterly baffled by this.  Why?

 

Corruptors, Scrappers, and Stalkers have incredibly similar Inherents.  Hell, most Inherents are psuedo-powers/design guidelines anyway; the difference is almost entirely in the power sets and scaling.

[Rikis]

I'm not going to interject, I'm really liking all this back and forth and the great ideas that are coming from it. I just wanted to say that this:

 

In my brain, I feel such an AT should be called Interceptor.

 

It fits their position (running in to intercept bad guys) and also informs what debuffing and buffing does for your party.

 

Is an amazing and more neutral name for such a theoretical Melee/Support AT.

 

+100 from me.

[Xaeon]

So basically you want to be able to play the traditional Paladin class in fantasy MMOs in CoX?

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. +1

[Rikis]

So basically you want to be able to play the traditional Paladin class in fantasy MMOs in CoX?

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. +1

 

I was thinking more of a Shadow Knight or Beastlord type class from EQ1 more than Paladin.

[Jeuraud]

I wouldn't categorize Controller or MM though as they have CC and pets.

 

So you don't consider, Knockdown, Knockup, and Stuns CC?

 

As for the MM Pets, you cant really control them when you are in the scrum. They are your armor like any Resistance set, and extra DPS, like Death Shroud and Blazing Aura; only your armors don't go running off after a runner, and your damage aura does not sit there laughing at you because whatever is supposed to active their attack while in bodyguard, didn't.

 

For me, Melee/Support is someone who gets in the MOBs face and has a Support set.

 

As is, Tanker/Brute taunt has a debuff to range that forces mobs closer to be able to act.  I see no reason why a Melee/Support wouldn't want that.  Or would you prefer mobs shoot at you where you can't affect them?

 

Well I'd rather have a bunch of MOBs shooting me than getting in my face and punching me, and as for the one I'm face punching, I usually just get up there and you know, punch it in the face.  This seems to work for my Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes, Corrupters, Controlers, MMs, Dominators, Blasters, etc..

 

We get it.  You two don't like the Taunt powers and you skip them whenever possible.  I still don't think that's a reason to remove them, especially when the AT has MUCH more pressing issues to deal with.

 

You mean You think you get it.

 

On my early Scrappers I had Taunt to pull off the squashy, that is part of my job... the problem was that I would more than likely run over and punch the MOB, and then later remember that I had taunt. After a while I just quit getting taunt on my Scrappers, and never got it for my Brutes. Of course the early Taunts did not have a Range Debuff, just the taunt, which limited their usefulness.

 

I was thinking that I would rather have a ranged attack to get that distant MOBs attention, than a Taunt, then I realized that I would prefer a Teleport Attack, that puts me in the MOBs face. That I would take over a taunt any day.

 

 

As for the Interceptor's Inherent, some of the Inherents were put in to aid the ATs' in their specific duty, such as Gauntlet, but some were put in to help where the AT was lacking, such as Containment.

 

So what is the specific duty of the Interceptor?

  Not sure.

 

Where do you think it's going to be lacking?

  I think it's going to be an agro magnet, with it's Melee Attacks, Buffs, Debuffs, and Heals, and I think it's going to need some type of PBAOE Placate, but I'm not sure how this would work as an Inherent.

 

Not a lot of help here I know, but that is what Brainstorming is for.

[Kilrane]

How about their innate ability is that they are also affected by their secondary's targeted buffs.

[Leogunner]

Personally, I don't think the inherent power should be EITHER mez protection or sustain.  That should be taken care of by their powers.  The inherent should be something that makes the sets play differently or emphasizes something else about them so being a Energy Melee Brute would feel vastly different from an Energy Melee [whatever this AT is] without needing to make the powers of the set actually new.

 

I'm utterly baffled by this.  Why?

 

Corruptors, Scrappers, and Stalkers have incredibly similar Inherents.  Hell, most Inherents are psuedo-powers/design guidelines anyway; the difference is almost entirely in the power sets and scaling.

 

Baffled?  And utterly too?

 

I mean, Domination does some interesting things for their primary that makes its usage have a different dynamic than Controller's Containment.  Why would I want an AT to use the same or similar powerset but in a unique way?  I mean, either you're being hyperbolic or you just didn't understand what I was saying.  I don't think it's difficult a concept to grasp.

 

Also, while the outcome of Scourge, Critical Strikes and Assassin's Focus are similar, their utilization and means of capitalizing off of said outcome couldn't be more different.  That's a good example of what I'd like to happen for this hypothetical AT: take something familiar and make it unique.

[Leogunner]

I wouldn't categorize Controller or MM though as they have CC and pets.

 

So you don't consider, Knockdown, Knockup, and Stuns CC?

 

The context of that quote is with regards to making a substitute of the discussed AT.  The main reason I wouldn't categorize either as viable stand-ins is mostly because they have either too drastic a handicap (if they only took the support powers) or too drastic an advantage (mass CC and a hoard of controllable pets) because this hypothetical AT would likely have neither.  From what's being discussed, it would have buffs/debuffs and melee attacks and some sort of mez protection.

 

And while I understand that there are support sets that have a moderate amount of control or even pets/pseudo-pets, I think that's why the discussion is happening: to figure out how to bring those sets and the more one-dimensional sets closer to form a workable standard and engaging concept while hopefully creating something unique enough to warrant the effort.

 

Well I'd rather have a bunch of MOBs shooting me than getting in my face and punching me, and as for the one I'm face punching, I usually just get up there and you know, punch it in the face.  This seems to work for my Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes, Corrupters, Controlers, MMs, Dominators, Blasters, etc..

 

That's the wrong answer.

 

You mean You think you get it.

 

On my early Scrappers I had Taunt to pull off the squashy, that is part of my job... the problem was that I would more than likely run over and punch the MOB, and then later remember that I had taunt. After a while I just quit getting taunt on my Scrappers, and never got it for my Brutes. Of course the early Taunts did not have a Range Debuff, just the taunt, which limited their usefulness.

 

I was thinking that I would rather have a ranged attack to get that distant MOBs attention, than a Taunt, then I realized that I would prefer a Teleport Attack, that puts me in the MOBs face. That I would take over a taunt any day.

 

You say I don't get it but I nailed it.  Yes, you don't like taunt.  You don't want taunt.  You'd rather taunt just not be there.  That, my friend, is exactly what you just said and what you quoted, also known as "nailing it" lol

 

So what is the specific duty of the Interceptor?

  Not sure.

 

Where do you think it's going to be lacking?

  I think it's going to be an agro magnet, with it's Melee Attacks, Buffs, Debuffs, and Heals, and I think it's going to need some type of PBAOE Placate, but I'm not sure how this would work as an Inherent.

 

Not a lot of help here I know, but that is what Brainstorming is for.

 

I would add to this that if the AT is built fragile and probably more at DPS angle, yes.  But if it's more aimed toward handling that aggro, then no.

[jack_nomind]

Baffled?  And utterly too?

 

I mean, Domination does some interesting things for their primary that makes its usage have a different dynamic than Controller's Containment.  Why would I want an AT to use the same or similar powerset but in a unique way?  I mean, either you're being hyperbolic or you just didn't understand what I was saying.  I don't think it's difficult a concept to grasp.

 

Also, while the outcome of Scourge, Critical Strikes and Assassin's Focus are similar, their utilization and means of capitalizing off of said outcome couldn't be more different.  That's a good example of what I'd like to happen for this hypothetical AT: take something familiar and make it unique.

 

Not hyperbolic, still baffled.  What you want -- I think -- is for the proposed AT's Inherent to specifically modify the AT's attack powers to do something similar to other AT's Inherents.  For example, you'd presumably be OK with an Inherent that improved melee damage for X seconds after casting a buff.  What you don't want is for the Inherent to do something different than other Inherents, like providing mez protection based on the number of allies/enemies nearby or w/e.  What you also don't want, or don't count as unique, are emergent differences arising purely from a novel primary/secondary combination and their scaling, as e.g. separated Controllers and Defenders before either one had any Inherent.

 

Why you are introducing this design constraint remains unclear.

[Leogunner]

Baffled?  And utterly too?

 

I mean, Domination does some interesting things for their primary that makes its usage have a different dynamic than Controller's Containment.  Why would I want an AT to use the same or similar powerset but in a unique way?  I mean, either you're being hyperbolic or you just didn't understand what I was saying.  I don't think it's difficult a concept to grasp.

 

Also, while the outcome of Scourge, Critical Strikes and Assassin's Focus are similar, their utilization and means of capitalizing off of said outcome couldn't be more different.  That's a good example of what I'd like to happen for this hypothetical AT: take something familiar and make it unique.

 

Not hyperbolic, still baffled.  What you want -- I think -- is for the proposed AT's Inherent to specifically modify the AT's attack powers to do something similar to other AT's Inherents.  For example, you'd presumably be OK with an Inherent that improved melee damage for X seconds after casting a buff.

 

It depends.  How would the rest of the powersets be configured and what role the AT is meant to be played for.

 

What you don't want is for the Inherent to do something different than other Inherents, like providing mez protection based on the number of allies/enemies nearby or w/e.

 

Again, it depends. Same reply as above.

 

What you also don't want, or don't count as unique, are emergent differences arising purely from a novel primary/secondary combination and their scaling, as e.g. separated Controllers and Defenders before either one had any Inherent.

 

Well this is novel and baffling. So you're attempting to project a certain intent about making an inherent for the AT to use their primary or secondary differently while you yourself suggest an inherent you find unique but somehow one of our suggestions is wrong or a design constraint while the other is not?

 

If anyone should be confused, it's me.  What exactly is your goal in this particular response?  Also, when you're making an argument and you have to "think" what the other person means and attack that (basically, a strawman argument), I'd suggest just approaching that response from a different angle. 

 

And to clarify for you, I AM allowed to find things unique and not unique.  That is called an opinion.  You can disagree or criticize it and I can explain why I have said opinion or defend it.

 

[jack_nomind]

You can disagree or criticize it and I can explain why I have said opinion or defend it.

 

literally what i'm trying to do here.  i don't understand WHY, and would like you to explain WHY.  i disagree with the outcome of your position, but i have no idea how you got there in the first so i'm reduced to 'ur wrong' and i think we can do better than that.

 

or if i'm wrong about part of the WHAT, you can say that instead.  restating what i take your position to be in my own words so you can examine that understanding isn't a strawman.

[Leogunner]

You can disagree or criticize it and I can explain why I have said opinion or defend it.

 

literally what i'm trying to do here.

 

You went a step further than that. Possibly several.

 

i don't understand WHY, and would like you to explain WHY.  i disagree with the outcome of your position, but i have no idea how you got there in the first so i'm reduced to 'ur wrong' and i think we can do better than that.

 

Ok, then what is the outcome of my position that you're disagreeing with?

 

And the "ur wrong" is only part of the response.  The other part was why is what I suggest a design constraint while what you suggest is not?

 

Also WHY isn't so much important here when not talking about concrete details/facts/data.  I'll remind you, this is all hypothetical theorycrafting and armchair-dev talk.  The WHY is because I formed my opinion that way and have a design in mind.  You should be asking WHAT.

 

or if i'm wrong about part of the WHAT, you can say that instead.  restating what i take your position to be in my own words so you can examine that understanding isn't a strawman.

 

Stating that you're making a strawman argument doesn't absolve you of making a strawman argument.  But then using strawmen isn't inherently wrong if you're trying to spark discussion of bring others to your perspective.  As for the WHAT, just going off what the OP already outlines for his idea for the AT to trade some support for self-sustain WITH mez protection, it seems pretty basic to understand why I wouldn't want an inherent that provides more sustain and mez protection but rather some unique spin on how it uses it's melee attacks or team buffs.  As novel as an AT with melee attacks and team buffs within their primary and secondary is, the standard requires all ATs have an inherent power that functions with their primary and/or secondary in some way.

 

If I'm being unclear or vague somewhere, just point that out.

[jack_nomind]

Why do you think that an Inherent power that provides mez protection isn't sufficiently unique for a novel combination of primary and secondary powersets, and why does the Inherent need to be the thing that makes an AT unique?

[Leogunner]

Why do you think that an Inherent power that provides mez protection isn't sufficiently unique for a novel combination of primary and secondary powersets,

 

Because it's redundant with the proposed secondary.

 

and why does the Inherent need to be the thing that makes an AT unique?

 

To make using the same bundle of powers (i.e. powersets) more unique to play.

 

I've answered these questions already in this thread...

[Jeuraud]

That's the wrong answer.

 

You asked a question about what 'I'd prefer', which means the only right answer is the one I give, not the one you think is fricken correct.

 

I would add to this that if the AT is built fragile and probably more at DPS angle, yes.  But if it's more aimed toward handling that aggro, then no.

 

I've just realized something about your argument, something I should have picked up earlier; when you say Melee/Support your thinking Tank/Tank Brute which Taunt is built for, when I say Melee/Support I'm thinking Scrapper/DPS Brute/Stalker were Taunt is of little use, or even detrimental to the AT.

 

This is in the opening statement.

 

One problem with the Defiler would be what to do with Taunt, since this AT does not want to draw attention to itself under any circumstance.

 

You are making the wrong argument. You should be arguing for a Support/Melee, not for Taunt to be a part of the OP's vision of a Melee/Support. A vision I... support.

[jack_nomind]

Why do you think that an Inherent power that provides mez protection isn't sufficiently unique for a novel combination of primary and secondary powersets,

 

Because it's redundant with the proposed secondary.

 

The proposed secondary starting this part of the conversation was literally just Support, with no changes.

 

You pointed out that for several sets like Empathy, this wouldn't work; I agree.  I agree also that even for sets that it more or less would work for, like Force Fields, it's not an ideal approach to plop it in with no changes.  I agreed with your idea that one of the ways to address the issue was to make the Inherent handle the mez part of the armor kit, since that doesn't cost any defensive slotting.

 

It was your flip I found confusing.  So I needed this clarification that you are, at this point, talking about some other different proposed secondary kit.

 

I think we could still do at worst a 5/9 port on nearly every Support set.  I think with the right Inherent we could make it an 8/9 with maybe a few exceptions (Empathy leaps to mind), as long as some of the ported powers are adjusted for either better uptime or self coverage.  This might not be the ideal implementation, but what I'd rather see is for the AT to start with five or so solid secondaries (FF, Sonic, Dark, Time, and Nature come to mind) that take the least amount of work to massage over and an Inherent that works for them and anticipates sets like Thermal, Cold, and Storm.

 

Like you, I also want the class to feel significantly different than playing a Scrapper, Corruptor, Defender, or Tanker -- even though it's got a little bit of each of those things.  Our three easiest anchor points for that are the replaceable non-attack (eg Taunt, Confront, or Placate) from melee kits, the class Inherent, and the secondary toggle (since all of the Support sets either have one like Shadow Fall or can get one with a fairly obvious move like by dropping Absorb Pain).  The less redesigning we need to do outside of those three areas to make it fit, the easier the AT is to implement.

 

(Or in the other extreme, something almost totally new like the Duo, which seems like a development nightmare but is a neat idea.)

[Ghost49X]

Why not just give Defenders the option for an assault secondary? You could do something similar for corrupters if you really wanted to push it.

But for Defenders, their main role is supporting so they're not going require a focus on melee or range damage. The players can decide just how much they want to stick around or stay away from melee. This is by no means a request to replace the current defender secondaries, only to add more options.

[jack_nomind]

I'd be fine with /assault Defenders, but honestly for them it's just more attractive to stay at range; they'd need their melee scaling adjusted significantly upwards to make it worthwhile.  Even some Doms skip melee powers other than whatever their big hit is, and their melee scaling is fantastic.

 

It also wouldn't effectively accomplish the paladin-y feel I think most of us are going for.

 

 

[Leogunner]

That's the wrong answer.

 

You asked a question about what 'I'd prefer', which means the only right answer is the one I give, not the one you think is fricken correct.

 

It'd be like asking "would you want more custom choices or no choices?" The wrong answer is "no choices".  You can prefer to have no means of controlling the fight but it's the wrong answer.  I'm sorry your preference is wrong.

 

I've just realized something about your argument, something I should have picked up earlier; when you say Melee/Support your thinking Tank/Tank Brute which Taunt is built for, when I say Melee/Support I'm thinking Scrapper/DPS Brute/Stalker were Taunt is of little use, or even detrimental to the AT.

 

This is in the opening statement.

 

One problem with the Defiler would be what to do with Taunt, since this AT does not want to draw attention to itself under any circumstance.

 

You are making the wrong argument. You should be arguing for a Support/Melee, not for Taunt to be a part of the OP's vision of a Melee/Support. A vision I... support.

 

You could say it's the wrong argument but I'm questioning why it wouldn't want to draw attention to itself, especially considering the parallel we're drawing is a Paladin type.

 

And need I remind you, the OP's vision is unclear.  They don't know whether to have placate in taunts place or not.  I'm making the argument that the AT shouldn't want to shy away from aggro especially considering the ridiculous tricks a support-type can pull off RIGHT NOW to shirk off attacks.

[Leogunner]

Why do you think that an Inherent power that provides mez protection isn't sufficiently unique for a novel combination of primary and secondary powersets,

 

Because it's redundant with the proposed secondary.

 

The proposed secondary starting this part of the conversation was literally just Support, with no changes.

 

You pointed out that for several sets like Empathy, this wouldn't work; I agree.  I agree also that even for sets that it more or less would work for, like Force Fields, it's not an ideal approach to plop it in with no changes.  I agreed with your idea that one of the ways to address the issue was to make the Inherent handle the mez part of the armor kit, since that doesn't cost any defensive slotting.

 

It was your flip I found confusing.  So I needed this clarification that you are, at this point, talking about some other different proposed secondary kit.

 

I didn't really flip.  I'm merely putting out suggestions.  The person suggested making the inherent buff sustain and to put mez protection in a power swapped for taunt and I merely suggested the reverse.  Just because I'm putting out ideas doesn't mean I support that idea and thus that is my stance.  When you're brainstorming, you're fluid.  You're not sticking to any one idea and you're trying to encorporate all the good ideas put out while discarding ones that don't work.  This isn't a debate and there aren't any sides to flip (unless you fabricate sides which kind of forces me to play devil's advocate).  If you think mez protection in the inherent is best, then flesh out the idea.  Don't expect me to buy it just because you feel like it's a good direction.

 

I think we could still do at worst a 5/9 port on nearly every Support set.  I think with the right Inherent we could make it an 8/9 with maybe a few exceptions (Empathy leaps to mind), as long as some of the ported powers are adjusted for either better uptime or self coverage.  This might not be the ideal implementation, but what I'd rather see is for the AT to start with five or so solid secondaries (FF, Sonic, Dark, Time, and Nature come to mind) that take the least amount of work to massage over and an Inherent that works for them and anticipates sets like Thermal, Cold, and Storm.

 

I'd ask why would you decide to pursue a conventional port of a support set when you know it doesn't blend well with a pure melee set?  And I made arguments for why melee and support sets clash so I'm not just making counterpoints and then abandoning them to suit an argument.  I'm not asking you why you like your idea but rather why would it be better than the OP's.  As far as I can tell, it's because you feel it wouldn't be able to perform a particular job but you don't follow up on why you believe that is.  You also mention a mechanic of centering toggles that are normally on a foe on yourself...that's pretty much just a damage/debuff toggle we're used to.  Have you considered the balancing required to have a Darkest Night toggle on yourself at all times?

 

Like you, I also want the class to feel significantly different than playing a Scrapper, Corruptor, Defender, or Tanker -- even though it's got a little bit of each of those things.  Our three easiest anchor points for that are the replaceable non-attack (eg Taunt, Confront, or Placate) from melee kits, the class Inherent, and the secondary toggle (since all of the Support sets either have one like Shadow Fall or can get one with a fairly obvious move like by dropping Absorb Pain).  The less redesigning we need to do outside of those three areas to make it fit, the easier the AT is to implement.

 

If I'm not mistaken, you disregarded the argument of powersets as Legos a while back.  I think if you consider the concept a bit, it holds some truths.  The powerset itself isn't a whole that requires either pure proliferation or complete overhaul.  You can simply take powers and then flag them as a powerset, you'd just need to set the groundwork for them (i.e. the AT mods and custom code that recognizes a powerset's existance).  If Controller can change a couple powers in a set and just rename it into something else, I don't think you need to unduly box yourself into a specific context with only a handful of joints to adjust it with.  It's even possible to have more than 9 powers in a set! Also, if you actually mean direct port,  no changes, I think that's unrealistic as you still have to consider what other aspects might change it or need to be changed to facilitate the playstyle or desired outcomes that could be achieved.  Numbers will need to be changed, arcs adjusted, ranges modified and effects added/subtracted.