Suggestion: Dominator Power Proliferation to Sentinels

[Vanden]

2 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

That way they can't -stay- in melee, taking every attack that enemies fire off, and -have- to move around to avoid getting overwhelmed.

Then what's the point of them having armor toggles? Running into and out of melee, hit-and-running with ranged and melee attacks? That's a Blaster. You've designed the Blaster.

[Steampunkette]

6 hours ago, Vanden said:

Then what's the point of them having armor toggles? Running into and out of melee, hit-and-running with ranged and melee attacks? That's a Blaster. You've designed the Blaster.

The point is to design a new playstyle. 

 

And no. That isn't a Blaster. The point of the armor toggles is passive damage mitigation,  Vanden. I'm just suggesting it not be freaking perfect mitigation so we don't get another AT that stands in the middle of a pack of enemies punching them. Someone who creates aggro to keep their team safe while being dynamic instead of static. Someone who makes soft controls like Slows more relatively useful. Who makes HoT effects a better form of healing for the metagame of a given team. A tank type who pairs particularly well with Controllers and wouldn't be annoyed by knock back scattering the enemy group.

 

Before getting fully IO'd and half their Incarnates a Blaster can't tank a +4×8 team and take the Alpha. The Instigator would, but would need to continually mitigate damage through distance while managing aggro as the fight continues to avoid getting surrounded or cornered and have to rely on their passive mitigation which ain't perfect to keep them safe from all the incoming damege. To me that's freaking cool.

 

Why do you insist on being reductionist and negative about this?

 

Actually, here: 

 

If we're gonna talk about the Instigator idea, let's do it in the Instigator thread so you can see the compiled idea in one spot instead of piecing it together through a series of posts. It's a lot more thought out than I think you realize.

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Steampunkette

[Bossk_Hogg]

I'm wondering if the best solution wouldn't be to have new pools with various melee attack options (and some ranged). Throw the T1 and 2 of various sets, a weaker AE like Combustion, a hard hitter, and a utility like a ST immob. Set it to be mutually exclusive if you already have the powers or something. If a defender wants to punch stuff, let em. 

[Vanden]

7 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

The point is to design a new playstyle. 

  

And no. That isn't a Blaster. The point of the armor toggles is passive damage mitigation,  Vanden. I'm just suggesting it not be freaking perfect mitigation so we don't get another AT that stands in the middle of a pack of enemies punching them.

You're too used to IOs if you think defense sets give "freaking perfect mitigation." Without IOs, Scrapper-level defenses won't let you take the aggro of a full team's worth of enemies without some kind of help, like active mitigation from controls or buffs from a teammate, or just a lower difficulty setting than most people want to run on. Even less so if the defenses are going to be weaker than that. Even so, melee ATs get their armors so they can survive in melee long enough to fire off their attacks. Staying at range for the most part while occasionally jumping into melee for an opportunistic AoE or melee attack is a staple Blaster playstyle, and they do it without armors for the most part. It wouldn't be something new.

7 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

Why do you insist on being reductionist and negative about this?

I'm not being reductionist and negative just because I see flaws in the proposal.

[Steampunkette]

14 minutes ago, Vanden said:

You're too used to IOs if you think defense sets give "freaking perfect mitigation." Without IOs, Scrapper-level defenses won't let you take the aggro of a full team's worth of enemies without some kind of help, like active mitigation from controls or buffs from a teammate, or just a lower difficulty setting than most people want to run on. Even less so if the defenses are going to be weaker than that. Even so, melee ATs get their armors so they can survive in melee long enough to fire off their attacks. Staying at range for the most part while occasionally jumping into melee for an opportunistic AoE or melee attack is a staple Blaster playstyle, and they do it without armors for the most part. It wouldn't be something new.

I'm not being reductionist and negative just because I see flaws in the proposal.

I would say that calling them "Blasters" is reductionist and negative...

 

You are, right, though, about the defense values. I hadn't considered the relative squishiness of scrappers when it comes to Alphas. Mostly because I play Brutes and Stalkers -instead- of Scrappers. I want to explicitly thank you for reminding me of this important fact!

 

So they would need higher baseline values than the Sentinel gets, but still lower caps than Brutes/Tankers to keep them moving.

 

Though while it is a Blapper's style to dance in and out of melee, they don't do it while -tanking- those NPCs. That's where the big difference actually is. The Instigator concept is a Tank, not a Damage Dealer.

[Bossk_Hogg]

8 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

The point is to design a new playstyle. 

 

And no. That isn't a Blaster. The point of the armor toggles is passive damage mitigation,  Vanden. I'm just suggesting it not be freaking perfect mitigation so we don't get another AT that stands in the middle of a pack of enemies punching them. Someone who creates aggro to keep their team safe while being dynamic instead of static. Someone who makes soft controls like Slows more relatively useful. Who makes HoT effects a better form of healing for the metagame of a given team. A tank type who pairs particularly well with Controllers and wouldn't be annoyed by knock back scattering the enemy group.

 

Before getting fully IO'd and half their Incarnates a Blaster can't tank a +4×8 team and take the Alpha. The Instigator would, but would need to continually mitigate damage through distance while managing aggro as the fight continues to avoid getting surrounded or cornered and have to rely on their passive mitigation which ain't perfect to keep them safe from all the incoming damege. To me that's freaking cool.

 

TBH, that sounds mostly pretty terrible. For example, slows are pretty useless on a decent team. They only matter after a target has exhausted all their attacks, and by then the mob is locked down or dead. BLASTERS get AE holds on a 90 second recharge. Sentinels with Rad, Psi etc are throwing their Nukes every 30 seconds which also function as an AE hold. Soft control is dead on PVE teams. Outside of them turning slows into holds, I don't see any real utility. 

 

Improving HOTS? Given how people feel that healing is more or less useless, I don't see a point . In incarnate stuff you're basically full health or dead. KB is already mitigated by AE immob, KB to KD enhancers,  or just not being a dumbass and scattering stuff everywhere. 

 

Any AT that needs to jump back and forth from melee to range is going to lose out on damage while moving. You seem to have created a half-ass tank, with a needlessly busywork playstyle, that would just be eclipsed by a brute for less effort...

 

Being good on bad teams isnt a niche worth developing IMO.  

[Nexys]

16 minutes ago, Vanden said:

You're too used to IOs if you think defense sets give "freaking perfect mitigation." Without IOs, Scrapper-level defenses won't let you take the aggro of a full team's worth of enemies without some kind of help, like active mitigation from controls or buffs from a teammate, or just a lower difficulty setting than most people want to run on. Even less so if the defenses are going to be weaker than that. Even so, melee ATs get their armors so they can survive in melee long enough to fire off their attacks. Staying at range for the most part while occasionally jumping into melee for an opportunistic AoE or melee attack is a staple Blaster playstyle, and they do it without armors for the most part. It wouldn't be something new.

I'm not being reductionist and negative just because I see flaws in the proposal.

I can't speak for other people's reasons for wanting either Assault sets on Sentinels or a new AT.  But, personally, I would like the "Blapper" style on a character with a dedicated defense set because, though Blasters can be very strong Blappers, I feel rather limited in my playstyle right now.  I can do melee with defense, ranged with or without defense, mixed with control (Dominators...and, to a lesser degree, Blasters).  But, if I wanted mixed melee/ranged, I can't have a defense set.  As someone who solos most of the time, and who isn't really interested in the constant tweaking on Mids or mid/maxing characters, a mixed melee/ranged character with a defense set (even if it isn't as good as the melee-only defense sets) would be a godsend.

[Nexys]

2 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

TBH, that sounds mostly pretty terrible. For example, slows are pretty useless on a decent team. They only matter after a target has exhausted all their attacks, and by then the mob is locked down or dead. BLASTERS get AE holds on a 90 second recharge. Sentinels with Rad, Psi etc are throwing their Nukes every 30 seconds which also function as an AE hold. Soft control is dead on PVE teams. Outside of them turning slows into holds, I don't see any real utility. 

 

Improving HOTS? Given how people feel that healing is more or less useless, I don't see a point . In incarnate stuff you're basically full health or dead. KB is already mitigated by AE immob, KB to KD enhancers,  or just not being a dumbass and scattering stuff everywhere. 

 

Any AT that needs to jump back and forth from melee to range is going to lose out on damage while moving. You seem to have created a half-ass tank, with a needlessly busywork playstyle, that would just be eclipsed by a brute for less effort...

 

Being good on bad teams isnt a niche worth developing IMO.  

That is a good point for people who team a lot.  But, for a solo player (like me), it would be a great AT to play.  Think of Controllers.  They are a gigantic pain to solo with (unless you are an expert at builds), but amazing on teams.  So, if we can have ATs that are great on teams but lackluster as soloists, why can't we have great solo ATs who are lackluster on teams?  Not everything needs to be built with Incarnate-level results in mind.  We have 50 levels of things to get through before that.  Plus, at Incarnate level, the differences between ATs starts to mean less and less anyway.

[Steampunkette]

Just now, Bossk_Hogg said:

TBH, that sounds mostly pretty terrible. For example, slows are pretty useless on a decent team. They only matter after a target has exhausted all their attacks, and by then the mob is locked down or dead. BLASTERS get AE holds on a 90 second recharge. Sentinels with Rad, Psi etc are throwing their Nukes every 30 seconds which also function as an AE hold. Soft control is dead on PVE teams. Outside of them turning slows into holds, I don't see any real utility. 

 

Improving HOTS? Given how people feel that healing is more or less useless, I don't see a point . In incarnate stuff you're basically full health or dead. KB is already mitigated by AE immob, KB to KD enhancers,  or just not being a dumbass and scattering stuff everywhere. 

 

Any AT that needs to jump back and forth from melee to range is going to lose out on damage while moving. You seem to have created a half-ass tank, with a needlessly busywork playstyle, that would just be eclipsed by a brute for less effort...

 

Being good on bad teams isnt a niche worth developing IMO.  

Not all teams are 8 players steamrolling everything in their path because lolnothingmatters.

 

Sometimes it's 3-4 people and they can use slows and have it be useful. Sometimes it's just two people RPing while they fight crime in a videogame.

 

And yeah. Incarnates and IOd out 50s is a whole other ball game. But if we're going to base all the Archetypes in the game on their level 50 versions then Dominators and Controllers are useless, Tankers need to be erased from the game, ANY Psychic or Lethal or Energy damage can die under the Fire/Toxic spam, and so forth.

[Bossk_Hogg]

13 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

Not all teams are 8 players steamrolling everything in their path because lolnothingmatters.

 

Sometimes it's 3-4 people and they can use slows and have it be useful. Sometimes it's just two people RPing while they fight crime in a videogame.

 

And yeah. Incarnates and IOd out 50s is a whole other ball game. But if we're going to base all the Archetypes in the game on their level 50 versions then Dominators and Controllers are useless, Tankers need to be erased from the game, ANY Psychic or Lethal or Energy damage can die under the Fire/Toxic spam, and so forth.

So why not play a sentinel with provoke? Tanks are already having an identity crisis with brutes. Either a ranged/soft control tank will overshadow tankers, or they'll just be a worse version of an already marginal AT. This is designing the game for issue 3 in an issue 25+ world. It may as well double sleep durations too. 

 

A new playstyle alone (which again, overly fiddly for the same payoff) isnt a good reason to create a whole new AT, particularly one in a niche that is already problematically crowded. Imagine if there was a DPS character that gained damage bonuses for attacking the healthiest enemy, and required a crap ton of tab swapping to equal blaster damage. Or killed things in alphabetical order. New playstyle, but why?

[Bossk_Hogg]

19 minutes ago, Nexys said:

That is a good point for people who team a lot.  But, for a solo player (like me), it would be a great AT to play.  Think of Controllers.  They are a gigantic pain to solo with (unless you are an expert at builds), but amazing on teams.  So, if we can have ATs that are great on teams but lackluster as soloists, why can't we have great solo ATs who are lackluster on teams?  Not everything needs to be built with Incarnate-level results in mind.  We have 50 levels of things to get through before that.  Plus, at Incarnate level, the differences between ATs starts to mean less and less anyway.

If you want a damaging character with shields, why not use the AT's that already exist? Scrappers and Sentinels are quite solo friendly. I don't get the point of trying to make a third damage/shield AT that can sort of tank. There simply isnt enough design space. 

[Steampunkette]

1 minute ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

So why not play a sentinel with provoke? Tanks are already having an identity crisis with brutes. Either a ranged/soft control tank will overshadow tankers, or they'll just be a worse version of an already marginal AT. This is designing the game for issue 3 in an issue 25+ world. It may as well double sleep durations too. 

 

A new playstyle alone (which again, overly fiddly for the same payoff) isnt a good reason to create a whole new AT, particularly one in a niche that is already problematically crowded. Imagine if there was a DPS character that gained damage bonuses for attacking the healthiest enemy, and required a crap ton of tab swapping to equal blaster damage. Or killed things in alphabetical order. New playstyle, but why?

 

What -is- a good reason to create a new Archetype if not to create a new playstyle? What exactly would be your reason to create a new AT?

 

And no. Tank is not "Problematically Crowded". Tankers are just badly designed for End Game Content 'cause they were created for a game that didn't have end game content. The proposed Instigator would at -least- be able to do decent damage in Incarnate Content without stepping on the Brute's toes. There's 2 tank types in the game and at least 5 DPS types. 6 if you include Brutes. 3 support types if you don't include any of the EATs... Tank, Control, and Pets are the 3 combat roles that have the -least- options.

 

As to "Sentinel with Provoke": It doesn't use Assault Sets. Period. It can't use Savage Assault or Earth Assault or Plant Assault. It's not a character archetype that weaves in and out of melee (even Blasters can get some of -that- going on unless they're /Archery or /Ninja or something). It's not a character archetype that tanks. Sentinel doesn't cover what I want from the Instigator at all, even with Provoke.

 

I really hate the "Just play what we've already got that clearly doesn't do what you want!" mindset. It misses the entire point every time. Like a WoW player saying "Just play a Death Knight if you wanna be a Necromancer!" without any consideration of the narrative or role differences between the two. UGH.

 

 

[Nexys]

41 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

I really hate the "Just play what we've already got that clearly doesn't do what you want!" mindset. It misses the entire point every time. Like a WoW player saying "Just play a Death Knight if you wanna be a Necromancer!" without any consideration of the narrative or role differences between the two. UGH.

 

 

Thank you!

 

To me, people who decry making a new AT because there's already an AT that does something similar remind me of an old man grumbling on his front porch.

 

"Dammit, why the hell are they opening that new Mexican restaurant up the road?  We already have a good Italian place just across the street from it.  Don't they know that they BOTH serve food?  Dammit, just eat spaghetti if you are hungry.  You don't need fajitas!"

[Nexys]

54 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

If you want a damaging character with shields, why not use the AT's that already exist? Scrappers and Sentinels are quite solo friendly. I don't get the point of trying to make a third damage/shield AT that can sort of tank. There simply isnt enough design space. 

I want a character that has ASSAULT SETS and defense.  I've been very specific about what is on my wish list.  This has nothing, zip, zero, nada to do with what other ATs are solo-friendly.  It's about the idea, first, being floated of porting Assault sets to Sentinels.  Then, that became a discussion about Assault/Defense archetypes.  Why not play Doms if I want solo-friendly?  Because, I want defense too.  Why not play Scrappers or Brutes or Tanks if I want defense?  Because, I want Assault sets too.  You see?

[Bossk_Hogg]

1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:

 

What -is- a good reason to create a new Archetype if not to create a new playstyle? What exactly would be your reason to create a new AT?

 

And no. Tank is not "Problematically Crowded". Tankers are just badly designed for End Game Content 'cause they were created for a game that didn't have end game content. The proposed Instigator would at -least- be able to do decent damage in Incarnate Content without stepping on the Brute's toes. There's 2 tank types in the game and at least 5 DPS types. 6 if you include Brutes. 3 support types if you don't include any of the EATs... Tank, Control, and Pets are the 3 combat roles that have the -least- options.

 

As to "Sentinel with Provoke": It doesn't use Assault Sets. Period. It can't use Savage Assault or Earth Assault or Plant Assault. It's not a character archetype that weaves in and out of melee (even Blasters can get some of -that- going on unless they're /Archery or /Ninja or something). It's not a character archetype that tanks. Sentinel doesn't cover what I want from the Instigator at all, even with Provoke.

 

I really hate the "Just play what we've already got that clearly doesn't do what you want!" mindset. It misses the entire point every time. Like a WoW player saying "Just play a Death Knight if you wanna be a Necromancer!" without any consideration of the narrative or role differences between the two. UGH.

 

 

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were opposed to just giving Sentinels assault sets, and instead were wanting a new AT, with assault and weaker shields than sentinels but that also somehow tanks better than a sentinel. 

 

The latter seems much harder to balance than the former, as it would require a new inherent, new epic pools, etc. Not to mention cause even further issues with the tank/brute conundrum. 

 

Sentinels with assault would be great, and would fully realize many concepts from a low level instead of having to wait until epic levels. 

[Steampunkette]

13 hours ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were opposed to just giving Sentinels assault sets, and instead were wanting a new AT, with assault and weaker shields than sentinels but that also somehow tanks better than a sentinel. 

 

The latter seems much harder to balance than the former, as it would require a new inherent, new epic pools, etc. Not to mention cause even further issues with the tank/brute conundrum. 

 

Sentinels with assault would be great, and would fully realize many concepts from a low level instead of having to wait until epic levels. 

I see where the miscommunication came in! We're good. 🙂

 

And I can agree that it would be more effort to balance than simply giving Sentinels access to Assault Sets. But wouldn't we have to change the Sentinel EPPs? The EPPs typically grant melee attacks right out of the Assault Sets, like Havoc Punch in Electric Assault and Mastery.

 

But... I do have this?

 

You can check out my thoughts, here. As to EPPs I think a split of Control/Support with maybe 1 Sustain power would make a great EPP for Instigators.