page 3 [FOCUSED FEEDBACK] Mastermind Archetype Adjustments

[Dispari]

50 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Here are some of my builds that I do +4/8 with frequently -

Robots/EA

Robots/Time

Robots/Marine

Robots/Dark

Demons/EA

Demons/Marine

Necromancer/Time

 

Heh, I mean... I play a lot of MMs too, they've always been in my top 3 ATs even though they struggle. Which is why I've been dedicating a lot of my time to these threads. You basically just named all the best possible sets and combinations. City is by and large an easy game that's not very demanding, and you can often play whatever you want and be "fine." So yes if you play extremely well with the best possible sets they're going to feel good. The trick would be to make them feel good even when you aren't the best MM out there. MMs also don't exist in isolation. Yeah you can do all the content in the game with an MM but odds are good basically any other AT would have an easier time or do it faster.

[Vinceq98]

58 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 

I quite regularly solo at +4 on some of my MMs. So "neigh unplayable" is a bit of a stretch. But I do agree with the idea that it takes a certain build/style to do, not all pets and secondaries are capable of it. But I also think that would be fair to say about any AT. 

 

So tough? Sure. Have to plan ahead. Mainly the EA, Time, and Marine secondaries, but my Robot/Dark can also perform at that difficulty solo.

But unplayable? Not quite.

 

Here are some of my builds that I do +4/8 with frequently -

Robots/EA

Robots/Time

Robots/Marine

Robots/Dark

Demons/EA

Demons/Marine

Necromancer/Time

 

My next MM I was going to try was a Necro/Marine, but that was before the changes were announced and I put a pause on all my MM stuff. I suspect Mercs could also do well, but I have not done any testing with them yet. But I am pretty sure that Ninjas and Beasts are too squishy. I don't have a ton of experience with those two primaries, so that's just a guess on my part. 

 

But yes, the majority of secondaries and a few primaries I don't think can solo at that difficulty. Or if they can, it would be such a slog that it wouldn't be worth the effort. Better to turn it down to +3 and be more efficient. And personally with my playstyle damage was never the main issue. The main obstacle was pets surviving. If your pets can survive without relying on inspirations/temp buffs and so on, that's the first big step. Once your pets are durable enough, its really only a matter of time before you win. More damage only makes the fights faster.

Beasts are not squishy at all. With the new changes beasts will be go best with a secondary that can provide global recharge buffs. So time and marine and kinetics will be the best for them. Fortify Pack if you can get it to perma levels can be power boosted and off the top of my head it provides 27.5% def (with only 1 LOTG 7.5 recharge/def IO) at ten stacks of pack mentality(basically when you get the ring around the icon) and after you hit power boost. This lasts 60 secs. Beasts don't need other def buffs other than fortify pack now.  My goal for this power is to slot max recharge/ heal because the regen buff is also substantial enough to never need to heal the pets if they have 10 stacks of a power boosted fortify pack on them.

 

However the catch is of course you need to build up those stacks in order for this to work. I took my unoptimized beasts/dark and after debuffing the mobs first I went straight into my damage rotation because building up pack mentality was the most optimal choice in clearing a mission. I originally had all the dark debuff powers but will drop them in favor of the beasts primary attacks since pack mentality is so important now to keep at 10 stacks as much as possible. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Vinceq98

[tidge]

1 hour ago, Neiska said:

 

I quite regularly solo at +4 on some of my MMs. So "neigh unplayable" is a bit of a stretch. But I do agree with the idea that it takes a certain build/style to do, not all pets and secondaries are capable of it. But I also think that would be fair to say about any AT. 

 

So tough? Sure. Have to plan ahead. Mainly the EA, Time, and Marine secondaries, but my Robot/Dark can also perform at that difficulty solo.

But unplayable? Not quite.

 

1 hour ago, BRADICAL said:

Yeah—MMs are played so differently by so many people, and are very subjective in terms of powerset combos, builds, and individual playstyles more than any other AT, where you can absolutely perform magnitudes worse than someone who's going for the maximum sweaty gamer performance using full proc bomb builds, non-stop attack chains and a stash full of team insps to cover up any flaws (I'm one of those people, but I understand how the AT caters to more than just that one specific thing and in an ideal world, it should be able to perform anywhere without having to rely on so many crutches to make it work).

 

54 minutes ago, Lunar Ronin said:

Honestly, people grossly over-inflate the issues with Masterminds.  Do they have issues?  Oh yes.  But mostly their issues are due to jank and speed, not "lack of damage," and Page 3 deals with the survivability issue.

 

Of these three recent posts, the only part I take some issue with is (sideways, perhaps?) reference to adapting playstyle (and if necessary, an alt-build) of a MM as a "crutch". MMs cannot be played exactly the same through all content, unlike almost all other ATs... and I'm not referring to swapping out Incarnate powers. I absolutely understand players getting frustrated with MMs if they are used to something like a Blaster/Scrapper/Brute/Tanker... and I've been in circumstances when I've taken a well-tuned MM into content that it was *not* tuned for... writing only for myself, the mental load can be enormous!

 

@Lunar Ronin comment about gross over-inflation of MM issues resonates with me. I've experienced the blue-bar issues. I've experienced some henches getting clobbered before they can get an upgrade. I've experienced bad pathing, and peculiar AI... but these aren't even close to be AT-killers, because they can all be addressed, through build choices (including power picks and slotting choices) and playstyle choices.

 

Personally... I don't even think the T1/T2 less-than-even-level (currently on Live) is that big of a deal... because I can slot and make build choices to augment ToHit and Accuracy... and lets not pretend there aren't some proc-heavy other AT that struggle to hit enemies at +3... yet I can understand if the devs want +7 content they don't want solo MMs to feel left out.. Like @Paradox Fate wrote... are players clamoring to take their MMs solo through such content?

[Neiska]

@Vinceq98 - I'm glad to hear that beasts aren't squishy! But the scuttlebutt I heard was that they suffer from gaps in their attack chains? (Meaning they oddly stand there awkwardly at times?)

 

@tidge - I wasn't trying to suggest that people need to change their playstyles and so on. Mostly it was a "here's what worked for me if I'm soloing +4 stuff." I do agree that it would be better if certain playstyles/tricks were not needed for various difficulties. Some say MMs are underpowered, I consider them strong if you plan accordingly. Here's an example -

 

Elite Bosses have mag resist, taking several applications of immobilize to affect them. While some people consider that a bad thing, I turned it into a strength. When soloing, my usual opener isn't to send the pets in, I hit the pack with the immobilize. (Web Envelope, Electric Fences, or Soul Tentacles work with any primary/secondary) That locks almost all of them down, except for the EB and maybe a Lt might come running from the pack. That's when I order the pets to get the EB first. It's pretty easy to keep the rest of the pack locked down pretty much indefinitely, and to keep all my pets out of range of what ranged attacks they might have. (The simplest answer is to just back up if there's room.) The swarm isn't really much of a threat at that point, it's the EB. And in 30-60 seconds with all the pets on him, he goes down, and the rest of them are easy to deal with. A lot of the time I don't even take any damage. 

 

IMO the best way to play MM isn't to brute force things or just dive into the pack. You have to play strategically. It's the thinking players AT! And you can build them so many different ways, which is why I love MMs so much. Well, that and because I love pet classes in games.

 

But yes, I am all for more options for both builds and playstyles for MMs across all difficulties. 

[Paradox Fate]

3 hours ago, BRADICAL said:

[...] but at least things are on the right track to move forward even if it had to come at the cost of even con DPS taking a dive.[...]

 

Wouldn't it be better to straight up start the changes at +2 onwards and skip the trade-off?

I don't see why it needs to come with a 'cost' in order to be viable in higher difficulties.

Edited 3 hours ago by Paradox Fate

[Uun]

On 11/10/2025 at 5:19 PM, The Curator said:

40% of your Set Bonuses now applies to henchmen that are within range of Supremacy

Global bonuses (i.e., Steadfast Protection +def, Gladiator's Armor +def, Unbreakable Guard +hp) are not being applied to henchmen. 

[Faultline]

1 minute ago, Uun said:

Global bonuses (i.e., Steadfast Protection +def, Gladiator's Armor +def, Unbreakable Guard +hp) are not being applied to henchmen. 

 

Set Bonuses are the ones you get from slotting multiple enhancements of the same set. If the bonus comes from slotting a single enhancement, it's not a Set Bonus and not part of the change.

[BRADICAL]

23 minutes ago, Paradox Fate said:

Why should there a 'cost' of lower Henchmen damage on 0/+1 ? They could straight up start the changes at +2 onwards and skip the trade-off.

When you look at it in broad terms, it's because of the way the purple patch works: bringing the T1/T2 pets up to even level without any adjustments to the base damage would result in an oppressively high DPS increase. Many Pylon times have already demonstrated that MMs would be dominating the proverbial charts if the changes to their even con damage output weren't made.

 

The trick, of course, is to make sure it impacts the leveling experience as little as possible, but I don't think we're in a situation where things are ever going to be a struggle against even con enemies, even if it is technically a nerf—MMs weren't suffering in that content and they still aren't (especially when considering the survivability buffs are still in effect at all levels), and now that we've reached a point where Pylon DPS is comfortably high the tradeoffs are worth it for the overall performance increase in situations where MMs have an exponentially worse time (in particular, accounting for the +5 spawns that can show up as part of this update, which is an important reason why the foundational changes to MMs had to go through).

 

Things will only get better when we start seeing more QoL updates on the table that dramatically improve the AT, like the universal accessibility to KB prot we have now that all pets can benefit from very early on; that simple change will be a significant advantage for MMs who slot it while leveling, and even a theoretical DPS improvement in a wide variety of situations given how prevalent KB is while leveling (and how difficult it used to be to account for that in a meaningful way outside of Clarion or team break frees).

 

Totally just my opinion, but even if people used to playing at +0 will take a noticeable hit in their performance, that performance was already so high that the worst thing these changes are really doing is bringing MMs more in line with the other ATs while still being very much on the high end of the scale. Powerset combos and playstyle depending, of course, but the logic is sound and the numbers seem to be lining up with expectations.

[Uun]

50 minutes ago, Faultline said:

Set Bonuses are the ones you get from slotting multiple enhancements of the same set. If the bonus comes from slotting a single enhancement, it's not a Set Bonus and not part of the change.

As implemented, 40% of Set Bonuses (as defined) are so small as to be inconsequential, generally a 2-3% increase to the applicable metric. The 40% multiplier needs to be applied to a larger base (i.e., including globals and/or accolades) or the multiplier needs to be increased. 

[Captain Powerhouse]

59 minutes ago, Uun said:

As implemented, 40% of Set Bonuses (as defined) are so small as to be inconsequential, generally a 2-3% increase to the applicable metric. The 40% multiplier needs to be applied to a larger base (i.e., including globals and/or accolades) or the multiplier needs to be increased. 

 

As noted in the extended writeup on the OP:

 

Quote

The set bonuses share originally rolled out as a 1/3rd effect and got increased to 40% at some point during testing. It's not a trivial thing to adjust at this time, but we do plan to revisit it. We [also] want to look further into how special enhancements are handled, as well as how much juice people start squeezing out of these set bonuses before expanding on the scheme. It's one of those things we want to roll out carefully.

 

[Uun]

25 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

As noted in the extended writeup on the OP:

Until now, I really haven't pushed set bonuses on my MMs, as there was little reason to do so. With this change, would I? Unlikely, the return is too small.