page 3 [FOCUSED FEEDBACK] Mastermind Archetype Adjustments

[High_Beam]

19 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Too much stuff already in the works. Just you wait till you see the panel 2 content... you going to lose it.

Powerhouse is trying to edge me.

[Captain Powerhouse]

8 minutes ago, Arbegla said:

Page 4 is after the holidays, that much is clear. But panel 2? What's the time table on that?

 

Panel 2 is after the holidays. Page 4 at a later time and no clue on time tables for that.

[Arbegla]

1 minute ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

Panel 2 is after the holidays. Page 4 at a later time and no clue on time tables for that.

So, we're assuming this current page is already panel 1? Like that's how the internal count works?

[Captain Powerhouse]

7 minutes ago, Arbegla said:

So, we're assuming this current page is already panel 1? Like that's how the internal count works?

I think so? I don't get to name them at the end but I would assume if we following comic book logic, every page starts at panel 1 and a follow-up update to the "page" are additional panels after that first one.

 

But someone else that actually ends up drafting things might call it Panel 1 so... who knows. 

[StrikerFox]

Playing around with a Bot/Traps build, I'm able to slot multiple Superior Command of the Mastermind sets into pets. SCotMM set bonuses are showing up triple in the Combat Attributes. Can not slot multiple Superior Mark of Supremacy sets. Can do it on Mercs as well. Not sure about other pets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Maxzero]

On 11/16/2025 at 3:30 AM, BRADICAL said:

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.

 

By that reasoning shouldn't MMs dominate Incarnate content already because their T1s and T2s get brought up to even con automatically?

 

To follow that up does this mean MMs are getting nerfed in Incarnate content since their pets are already even con?

Edited Tuesday at 06:59 AM by Maxzero

[Maelwys]

50 minutes ago, Maxzero said:

To follow that up does this mean MMs are getting nerfed in Incarnate content since their pets are already even con?

 

Note Powerhouse's clarification in the OP:

 

"A note about Incarnate content: while on Incarnate Trials or Dark Astoria, henchmen incarnate procs like Hybrid or Interface ones should behave the same as they do now live. If you do not see this, please report it as it's a bug."

[Arbegla]

10 hours ago, Maelwys said:

 

Note Powerhouse's clarification in the OP:

 

"A note about Incarnate content: while on Incarnate Trials or Dark Astoria, henchmen incarnate procs like Hybrid or Interface ones should behave the same as they do now live. If you do not see this, please report it as it's a bug."

 

I ran some incarnate level (+7/x8) missions on test just to see if I could and I noticed that 1) Incarnate romans suck, but more importantly 2) The procs that I do have slotted seemed to do full damage on the mobs. I run the support hybrid so I wasn't able to test that specifically, but my degenerative interface proc worked wonders once I got the hang of fighting level 57 mobs.

[WindDemon21]

19 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

you going to lose it. Not sure if out of hate or happiness, maybe both

Yeah this isn't a brag, and already causing a lot of worry. We shouldn't be hating on anything anymore. We've had to deal with that for the last like 4-5 years of content where the nerfs and badly ported sets were worse than anything good coming out of the updates. We've done our time. The only thing coming out of these updates should be things most people are happy about (ie not nerfs). Way to make us worry about never wanting to play the game again until we know for sure 2 months from now.

[Arbegla]

'nerfs' and rebalancing are part of an ever evolving, healthy game. If they only buffed things, we would get into an issue with power creep that will never stop. I trust in the metrics the devs are using to rebalance things, and I appreciate the work they are doing to better our game, even if it occasionally comes with 'nerfs' to certain powersets or combinations. 

 

Making the pets even level, to remove the purple patch being an issue, and adjusting from there is an iterative process that should be taken with caution, so that we can get buffs later, instead of nerfs. Look at the tanker changes for an example of something being overly buffed, and having to roll back certain things. It's still technically better than what it was before the change, but because of the roll back, people screamed 'you nerfed me!' and have a sour taste in their mouth over the changes. 

[WindDemon21]

5 minutes ago, Arbegla said:

'nerfs' and rebalancing are part of an ever evolving, healthy game. If they only buffed things, we would get into an issue with power creep that will never stop. I trust in the metrics the devs are using to rebalance things, and I appreciate the work they are doing to better our game, even if it occasionally comes with 'nerfs' to certain powersets or combinations. 

 

Making the pets even level, to remove the purple patch being an issue, and adjusting from there is an iterative process that should be taken with caution, so that we can get buffs later, instead of nerfs. Look at the tanker changes for an example of something being overly buffed, and having to roll back certain things. It's still technically better than what it was before the change, but because of the roll back, people screamed 'you nerfed me!' and have a sour taste in their mouth over the changes. 

That's understood by everyone. But the problem is what, and how, they are nerfing things. Not to mention the insane amount of powers that have existed since live that still need fixed before any nerfing or honestly even new sets are introduced.

[Captain Powerhouse]

14 hours ago, StrikerFox said:

I'm able to slot multiple Superior Command of the Mastermind sets into pets.

 

[Championess]

5 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

 

Table flip emote for panel 2 confirmed you heard it here first folks.  😁

Edited Tuesday at 08:00 PM by Championess

[Riverdusk]

On 11/15/2025 at 10:40 AM, 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.

 

Well, not to be one of those "Actually, technically" guys (insert meme here), but the game itself calls even those one piece IO's  "set bonuses".  They are listed under "personal info-powers" in-game under  set bonuses.  As the in game picture shows, the one piece unbreakable guard is listed a set bonus, steadfast protection is in there, etc. 

 

I've gotten into a bit of arguments with people before over this as I've said that things like the LoTG +7.5% IO is a set bonus and been yelled at by people saying, "No its not, its a GLOBAL!"  Sorry, the game itself calls it a set bonus (included in the pic as well).  It also acts like one in every way,

 

If you want to be more accurate you really should say only set bonuses that include 2 or more pieces count.

 

 

[thundersquall]

Had a chance to test the current set of changes on my Robotics/Nature Mastermind that I've been experimenting with on Beta. With the bugfix to T3 proc damage, and the revert of the HP reductions, the changes feel much better than my previous impression of them, so thank you devs for acting on the feedback and reports from players.

 

The base ToHit reductions for T1s and T2s still seem a bit too harsh (they will need absurd amounts of bonus accuracy on the new difficulty levels), and I'd like to add my vote to 50% of set bonuses being granted because it makes so much more sense for ease of use.

 

I understand that these changes are iterative, though (was that mentioned in the original announcement/patch notes?), so I have faith in further adjustments. Overall we seem to be moving in a positive direction!

[Maelwys]

20 minutes ago, Riverdusk said:

Well, not to be one of those "Actually, technically" guys (insert meme here), but the game itself calls even those one piece IO's  "set bonuses".

This is getting pretty deep into "Dev-team terminology" versus "player terminology"... however if we're getting technical-technical:
Things like the LotG +7.5% Recharge IO are listed as a "Global" in lots of places; like https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Set_Enhancements_with_Special_Effects 
 

'Global' Bonuses are (somewhat confusingly) displayed under the "set bonus" heading on your character info's "Powers" tab (and stored within "set_bonus.set_bonus.X")
But they're not visible here -->



Which is what matters for this patch.

It's only these numbered "Set Bonuses" that are (currently) inheriting to henchmen.
Global bonuses may well follow after the Devs are happy with the inheritance and have sufficient time to devote to poking at half a Smithsonian's worth of additional records.
 

[Riverdusk]

50 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

This is getting pretty deep into "Dev-team terminology" versus "player terminology"... however if we're getting technical-technical:
Things like the LotG +7.5% Recharge IO are listed as a "Global" in lots of places; like https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Set_Enhancements_with_Special_Effects 
 

'Global' Bonuses are (somewhat confusingly) displayed under the "set bonus" heading on your character info's "Powers" tab (and stored within "set_bonus.set_bonus.X")
But they're not visible here -->



Which is what matters for this patch.

It's only these numbered "Set Bonuses" that are (currently) inheriting to henchmen.
Global bonuses may well follow after the Devs are happy with the inheritance and have sufficient time to devote to poking at half a Smithsonian's worth of additional records.
 

 

Exactly.  I could be wrong, but the only place I've ever seen the term "global" is from players.  That is a player created wiki.  I never use the term myself because I do find it vague.   I call something either a proc or a set bonus.

 

Regardless, I'm just saying the devs should be more specific in what is meant so there is no confusion among the player base.  I'd just suggest they be more clear and precise in the actual patch note.  Instead of a dev dismissively (and technically incorrectly) assuming everyone should know they mean multiple IO set bonuses only.  

 

Something such as the very clarification you added in the very first response post in this thread was great (and thank you for that).

[Captain Powerhouse]

3 hours ago, Riverdusk said:

I've gotten into a bit of arguments with people before over this as I've said that things like the LoTG +7.5% IO is a set bonus and been yelled at by people saying, "No its not, its a GLOBAL!"  Sorry, the game itself calls it a set bonus (included in the pic as well).  It also acts like one in every way,

 

They are different things. Easier: make the power info screen not mix them up.

 

Also: i thought i added the clarification to the notes before going open beta? Did it not make it in?

[Riverdusk]

1 hour ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

They are different things. Easier: make the power info screen not mix them up.

 

Also: i thought i added the clarification to the notes before going open beta? Did it not make it in?

 

All that I see is: 

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

Unless I'm missing it somewhere else.  @Maelwys did a good job noting it on the first follow up post, but some may only read the patch note itself.

 

As to changing the power screen that would be nice.  I'd have no problem then calling them whatever you decide to label them.  If it's something like "Global Bonuses" then it'd finally define what those are in-game.   Hopefully they wouldn't just be dropped from that screen altogether though, as I do find it nice to see the summary of them there.

[Maelwys]

5 hours ago, Riverdusk said:

 

All that I see is: 

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

Unless I'm missing it somewhere else. 

 

In the main patch notes, there's a "General Adjustments" section right above the "Masterminds" section which has a clarification in the third bullet point

 

 

Set Bonuses

• Standard Set Bonuses should now last for the full duration of most summoned pseudopets.
• 40% of your Standard Set Bonuses now applies to henchmen that are within range of Supremacy.
• Standard Set Bonuses are those granted by multiple enhancements of a set.

[Uun]

I wanted to share some testing I did with Detonator on my Beast/Traps. If you're not aware, Detonator looks to the slotting of the henchman targeted for its dmg/acc and ignores dmg/acc slotted in the power itself. In addition, the relative level of the henchman affects the resulting damage. As a result, on Live the T2 is lvl 49 and the T1 is lvl 48, while on Test all henchmen are lvl 50. There is no change in damage if the T3 is targeted as it is lvl 50 in both tests. The damage from the T2 increases 11.5% due to the 1 level increase, while the damage from the T1 increases 25.7% due to the 2 level increase. Because my base slotting of the T1 isn't at ED max for damage, I did an additional run in which a %dmg proc is replaced with a dmg IO to increase the damage slotted to ED max. 

 

[Decaying Rose]

I've got a tricked-out Merc/FF/Mace I've been driving for a while, and the changes on test didn't seem to make a lot of difference when I ran 'em at +2.  To be fair, Force Field smooths out a lot of survival issues, but as far as the damage went, it felt fine.  

--

 

MM ATOs:  I agree with others, being able to put them in the attacks would be a nice option.  I know that'd open up a couple places for 2/3/4 slot ATO bonuses that wouldn't normally exist in a build.  Or putting them in the T7 would also be cool, if incongruous.  Basically, it sounds like you all want to give every MM primary a little more wiggle room for slotting the various auras, and I'm all for that, even if it's gonna be clunky for a while. 

 

--

 

Upgrade powers:  Count me in on the idea of making the upgrade powers into big-ass PBAoE powers.  That'd save a step--targeting the henchies--and cut down on the stuff we have to manage in a hairy battle situation where resummoning is required.  They're already big-ass targeted AoE powers, so this doesn't seem like a change that would upset too many apple carts.

 

--

 

Henchman travel:  Not that you all are doing this this patch, but here's a thought on making it easier to have henchmen keeping up with us on those maps where we have to flit from location to location quickly.  Give us a new toggle power.  Toggle on and it gives every henchman two powers: Phase Shift and Ninja Run.  Toggle it off, those go away.  

So if you need to cross half of Cap Au Diable in the MLTF, now you can toggle up, zoom where you need to go, and be assured that the henchies will reach you quickly and safely.  You'll have to remember to toggle off so they can actually DO things once they arrive, but that's a small price to pay.  Basically a "safe travel" toggle that doesn't involve any new powers.
 

[OldPenn]

On 11/12/2025 at 4:41 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

...keeping your henchmen alive should be one of the responsibilities of the MM. If they simply get summoned with all the upgrades, the cost of resummoning them becomes too trivial. 

 

 

With this specific statement in mind could you please evaluate the time it takes to select a henchmen so that it can be buffed.  It's fairly common for me to summon pets that get defeated immediately before I can even select them and buff them.  I don't think I'm alone in thinking the henchmen are pretty useless without their buffs.  Not as useless as player powers without slotted enhancements, but the same idea.

 

• As a Mastermind, I want to be able to select freshly summoned pets before they can be damaged so that I have a chance to buff them before they're dead.

  

It currently does not work this way... I think the summon animation time prevents it being selected by me.  I suppose it would also work if they were "untouchable/invulnerable" until they were selectable (but make it work, like against Hamidon special damage and everything - watching Phantom Army and Lore Radial pets take damage from Hami shows a fault in our current "invulnerable"). (Same behavior is noticed for NPCs; set traps/pseudopets on Seige or Nightstar in BAF before they wake up for the final fight and see how much of their health is gone before a player can even select them.)

 

Really apparent with Demons - summon the T1s and select the demonlings... nice. Now do the same with T2 and the T3 and notice how many times you're clicking on the pet before it is actually selected.  That 4-5 seconds is quite noticable to me in an eight player team fight.  The animations look really cool, but being forced to wait for them is frustrating and detracts from the gameplay experience.

[Maelwys]

34 minutes ago, OldPenn said:

• As a Mastermind, I want to be able to select freshly summoned pets before they can be damaged so that I have a chance to buff them before they're dead.

Whilst I'd like this too... you can at least workaround the headache a bit by selecting a currently-alive pet which is close to the one that's locked in a "spawning" animation; and (RE)TRIGGER THE UPGRADES ON IT INSTEAD. The upgrades are AoEs; and as soon as the new henchmen appear in your pet list they are *buffable*; just not *targetable*.

[ScarySai]

The interface change is confusing to me, because interface already has a max stack limit that a non-mm with fast enough attacks can hit.

 

Why nerf mms specifically on this one? You've provided reasoning in the past, but it never held up when scrutinized by the actual testers.