defensive t9 Flip the script on Defensive T9s

[Zepp]

There is another thread about the need to minimize/remove crashes from Defensive T9 powers. However, there is another aspect of that discussion that has not really gotten the level of discussion I believe it requires. Defensive T9s (with a few noticeable exceptions --MoG, being the best at filling the holes, despite its insanely short uptime) provide nothing that sets cannot do better without them. In other words, by the time you get to the T9, it is useless.

 

One solution would be to flip the script, +Def T9s become +Res T9s and vice versa. That would make Elude more than an occasional travel power that can mule a LotG, it would make it something people actually wanted...

 

Just my thoughts, I would like to hear other opinions about this.

[Sunsette]

I think this would have to be presented as alt-T9 choices ala SR's brawler tier due to severe cottage rule but I'm otherwise all for it.

[DSorrow]

This sounds good. T9s definitely need some work as most of the time you can get the same end result with a couple of inspirations on top of the resist/def your set already provides, just without the crash or cooldown.

[Sura]

I agree with the core premise here, that the T9's should fill holes rather than making better something that's already more than good enough.  I also like the idea of the new powers being presented as alternates. 

 

As Sunsette mentions in the other thread, I think a lot of care has to be taken here.  Tankers are already feeling the burn, and making defensive secondaries better could make that situation even worse.  

[Voldine]

38 minutes ago, Sura said:

As Sunsette mentions in the other thread, I think a lot of care has to be taken here.  Tankers are already feeling the burn, and making defensive secondaries better could make that situation even worse.  

You're forgetting that this would make Tanker Primaries better, not just brute/scrapper/stalker/sentinel secondaries.

 

Personally I think the devs need to look at a serious rework of Stone Armor so that those of us who play it aren't trying to push a boulder made of dung up a mountain made of dung for 31 levels as tankers before we finally get the chance to feel powerful. Conker's Bad Fur Day got that crap out of the way about 45 minutes in...pun very much intended.

[Yoru-hime]

I hate to say it, but if we're adding effectiveness to the T9 for the defensive sets, particularly as a secondary, we probably need to be asking where else in those sets effectiveness is removed in return. Scrappers are supposed to be tough, not indestructible.

 

On the other hand, as noted elsewhere, a buff to the Tanker version only is something I could get easily behind. As the defenses of the other melee sets have gone up and up, their distinctive role feels less and less desirable. They need something to either set them apart defensively or close the gap offensively. It's also the T9 of their primary set, so it feels like that should be a defining power they should always want to have.

[Sura]

46 minutes ago, Voldine said:

You're forgetting that this would make Tanker Primaries better, not just brute/scrapper/stalker/sentinel secondaries.

 

Indeed, but as mentioned in the other thread and in the first post in this thread the T9 powers, for Tankers especially, are often adding very little or nothing to mitigation effectiveness.  If the character is already at defensive soft cap, or resist cap, (states most easily reached by the Tanker AT) popping that T9 isn't going to make much difference at all.  If you're not capped, like Stalker, Scrapper, and possibly Brute (EDIT: and maybe especially Sentinel, forgot about them), the difference after popping a T9 could be very significant.  Making changes to mitigation T9's across the board is going to benefit Tankers the least, which seems counter intuitive since it's the Tanker primary we're talking about, and secondaries for all the other AT's.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Sura

[nihilii]

1 hour ago, Yoru-hime said:

On the other hand, as noted elsewhere, a buff to the Tanker version only is something I could get easily behind.

This sounds like a better and better idea everytime it's mentioned. Buffing Tanker T9s first could help test the waters before potential proliferation, and increase interest in the AT.

[Zepp]

A taunt aura that lasts longer than the buff would be very effective and favor.

 

What I am thinking is a 75s Recharge (unaffected by attack rate changes) 30s duration hole-filling buff with a 60s 30' mag 4 taunt aura - no crash. That would make it feel more tanky. On the other hand it has a risk/reward calculation for secondary. Brutes will likely still take it, Scrappers will think twice, Sentinels will probably still skip it.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Zepp

[Leogunner]

Power Creep!  Power Creep as far as they eye can see!

[n00baka]

I have to agree with Leogunner on this one. Each set has a hole it can’t defend against, be it a type of damage, a type of defense (defense vs resist), the ability to sustain itself via regen or heals, or some combination of mediocrity. They were designed that way, and I lend more support to ideas that keep it that way. It’s an obstacle that we, the players, are supposed to over come in game because they, the Devs, placed it for us to overcome. 

 

I like the outside-the-box thinking for the OP’s idea, because I feel the T9s do need help. But I personally don’t feel that granting each powerset the ability to fill its own defensive holes to be the right answer. 

 

The idea that the T9s were supposed to be the “Ultimate OP power that comes at a price” confuses me. I get that it works in comics, but in a game it really doesn’t. Players have never responded well to abilities with a crash. I don’t even feel the T9s need to feel super powerful compared to the rest of the set. The T9s should feel like a part of the set, full holes in it like the set was designed around it, just like how there are multiple shields to cover different damage or positional types on the same set making them all feel like they work together. The T9s have always felt like a separate thing to me, in general, and that the newer sets did it “right”. They’re stronger, because you get them later, but they still feel like a piece of a set. 

[Leogunner]

The way I see it, you've got dozens upon dozens of players that are asking for many many things.  Some players want challenge, some want variety, some what more sense of progression, some want freedom, some want structure.  The thing is, all these things can be opposed to each other or some can complement other changes.  While none of these suggestions on the boards are likely to come about, you can still consider them outside of the vacuum of the suggestion itself and how they'd co-existing with other possibilities out there.  In none of those possibilities do I see changing the armor tier 9s to be more efficient co-existing *better* with everything else among the game.

 

Just because you can use IOs to achieve what these powers do doesn't mean we need to change the powers.  If anything, the IO bonuses should be changed.  Same argument that people use to defend incarnate: If you don't like invalidating team roles/powers with incarnate powers, don't use/team with incarnate players.  If you don't like your armor tier9s being redundant or worthless, then don't make your tier9 redundant or worthless. 

[justicebeliever]

3 hours ago, Leogunner said:

The way I see it, you've got dozens upon dozens of players that are asking for many many things.  Some players want challenge, some want variety, some what more sense of progression, some want freedom, some want structure.  The thing is, all these things can be opposed to each other or some can complement other changes. 

I like this Leogunner...I want challenge, and if there are ways we can make improvements with IO's that allow for choices in how players can approach the game, that's all the better!