Sounds like they could be interesting, and the Leader's not just a "Give heroes masterminds" which is nice to see.
I'd probably play 'em.
Wanted: Origin centric story arcs.
If you've only played an AT once (one set combo) and "hate" it - don't give up. Roll a different combo. It may just be those sets not clicking for you.
While I may not agree with everything Samuel_Tow said, he does bring up good points and it's good to have a disenting opinion on an idea to work out the kinks. The main things I see and agree on are that the actual pets may need to be slightly more buff based than the current MM henchmen are and there are some issues with the inherant.
Tweaking the henchmen some makes sense so that more of the weight of the AT is actually on the Leader themself. Possibly going as far as to remove the third level henchman so that more effort is put into the others and to better separate it from MMs. Making the henchman less damage based actually opens things up for "Medics" or other sets that don't fit with current MMs.
While I like the concept of Charisma, I can see where it seems too much like support than leading and adding the inverse Bodyguard concept should help it. Buff the Leader based upon his proximity to those he is leading. Also, give him a stronger benefit to his own insps due to this.
While I agree that support pets would be an interesting concept, the idea here was to give players new playstyle options using the existing power frameworks that are actually in the game - basically, what don't we have as an option *using what is in the game right now*. Yes, you could have a zillion types of new ATs with their own crazy or new setups, but the idea here was to create new options that use existing sets in the game in new and interesting ways.
Adding completely new things, like support pets, both deviates from this idea, as well as just exacerbates the problem of not fully utilizing what's already in game - add buffing/support pets, and now it becomes 'why don't we have a defensive support pet class, or a crowd control support based pet class' etc., when the idea here was just to attempt a new take on what's already there - the most effective way to add new arechtypes without having to massive code new content into the game.
I apologize if I didn't communicate that effectively in the original post - my intent was to remedy holes in current playstyles with creative use of existing content.
Quote:
Now I thought there were separate mods for range_buff mods and self_buff mods. Is that not why Tanker's melt armor and things like Maneuvers and Grant Cover aren't overpowered for them?
|
Originally Posted by Samual_Tow
Firstly, a tangent - you can't make a specific pool power have higher values for one AT than for another. It all comes down to specific AT mods, and if you want to make Leadership strong on the Leader, you're going to have to give them high defence, to-hit and damage buff modifiers, which can potentially make powers like Weave stronger than they should be.
|
Actually, I did have an idea for a Mastermind-like Hero archetype, but honestly, with Going Rogue coming out, I now don't think it's necessary.
to 
TO THE END!Villains are those who dedicate their lives to causing mayhem. Villians are people from the planet Villia!
Quote:
I'm not sure that is entirely true.|
Originally Posted by cursedsorcerer
Actually, I did have an idea for a Mastermind-like Hero archetype, but honestly, with Going Rogue coming out, I now don't think it's necessary.
|
While GR will certainly reinvent AT distribution, I don't think it means that making new and different ATs should be axed. There is certainly room for some new AT combinations, and post-GR each one added will actually do twice as much "work" as they did before.
Even with going rogue some people will just prefer stick on their own side. (or opt not to buy GR right away.)
- Leader-
If we re going make this truly different I agree with the sentiment of the Leader should be the primary offense, and the pets 1 or two of them should be support trying keep them alive. You couldn't just copy paste power sets for this to work as the pets should be retooled toward the purpose of this AT. Basically the pets be a team of squishies, blasters ,defenders controllers backing the hero. The hero is less powerful than a scrapper but has a team backing them to offset it. Just a thought if the devs are goign take it serious, and give it its own feel.
The was an epic AT being purposed by statesman before he left, Avatar was going combine tankers and mastermind basically the pets be the offense while the player kept them alive. They d have fewer of them of course. like 1-2.
- Justice
Lastjustice- lvl 50 defender
Leader of Eternal Vigilance.
- Freedom
Lastjudgment - lvl 50 corruptor
Member of V.A.M.P.
Beware:NERDS ARE THE WORST FANS!!
Quote:
Maybe I misread, but it's a question of the durability of the AT. I don't want a squishy with damage like a Blaster or a Dominator is. I want a fighter like a Stalker is, or thereabout. Also, you mention nothing about hit points, which is important (I assumed Defender level) and there is a whole world of leeway between Tanker and Scrapper damage. Tankers are at 0.8 and Scrappers are at 0.125. Technically, 0.85 would be in that range, but it would still be terribly little. I'm going to say here and now that this AT cannot work, in my opinion, with a damage mod less than 1.0.|
Originally Posted by Witch_Engine
I fail to see how bonuses to leadership powers and an inherent that benefits the team as well as their pets is 'support'. Stalkers cause debuffs and fears with their assassin strikes, and bane spiders have Defender level buff/debuff mods, and I don't think anyone would call either of those classes support classes in the sense you are talking about here. The fact that his inherent boosts the team doesn't negate the fact he still dishes out a ton of damage, nor the fact that he still benefits from those inspirations himself.
|
Quote:
| Furthermore, it IS possible to make a class get a greater benefit specifically from a pool power - all that you would have to do is add a qualifier to the power that checks 'if archetype = Leader, add this additional effect', or one of many other possible workarounds. You also say giving them high leadership mods would make powers such as Weave stronger - this is flat-out wrong. Tankers have the same mod as Defenders on Weave, but the mod of Scrappers on Maneuvers. |
Quote:
| Charisma encourages aggressive play, as outlined in the description, simply due to the fact that in order to get inspirations on a mission, and hence fuel the inherent, they have to defeat foes, and, to benefit from that bonus, they have to defeat foes QUICKLY. If an inherent which functions best by attacking foes as quickly as possible isn't proactive, I don't know what is. |
Furthermore, at 20% inspiration efficiency on pets, you need to use 5 inspirations to get the equivalent of one, which a Mastermind can just about match by feeding one of each inspiration to each of his henchmen directly. What's more, greens already heal patently little. Healing for only 20% of that isn't really noteworthy. An Insight inspiration is 7.5% to-hit buff. A 1.5% to-hit buff may not even exist for all it matters, and that's what you'll get by applying 20% strength of one. I'm assuming, since this AT will have full-fledged henchmen equivalents, that the Leader will be able to simply feed inspiration to his followers directly. This just makes the system redundant.
Really, I don't want to see a repeat of the Kheldian or Defender inherents, which are "kind of" useful and only really on a team. If anything, I'd like to see an inherent as defining as something like Fury, Scourge or Domination. Minor bonuses here and there just don't do it for me.
Quote:
| As far as terrible yield...eating 1 tier 3 yellow and 2 tier 3 reds (or double that number of tier 1s) matches the bonus to pets given by Supremacy. Given that you can do between 3-7x that if you empty out your tray (and it still buffing yourself) AND have the advantage of not just being able to buff accuracy and damage, but also survivability, heal them, give them mez protection, give them endurance...as well as to your team, I want to see what you consider an impressive yield. |
I play my missions at even con, count me as a two-man team, and with those, I see five kinds of spawns - five even con minions, four even con minions and lieutenant, two even con lieutenants and minion, +1 lieutenant, +1 lieutenant and minion. I don't see boss spawns more than once per half a dozen missions, named bosses or those odd missions which decide to spawn a boss + minion combo on EVERY spawn on the map. I don't see bosses, so I don't see large inspirations. The only reason I see medium inspirations is because I hoard them. And even then, I can kick *** on my Scrapper and FORGET I have inspirations at all, for the most part, so having to rely on them would be a WEAKNESS in the leader, not a strength.
Quote:
| ...this was exactly the entire point of leader. It seems to me you're arguing against something that nobody was disagreeing with in the first place. The Leader, as designed, DOES do powerful damage on his own, does have reasonable defenses and self-sustainability options, and the idea is that his folowers are only there to help, not to be the focus. The idea behind their inherent is to allow the Leader to bring the pets up to his level, not to have them do the work and 'play defender' to them as you put it. |
I actually changed my mind in regard to personal shields. In fact, I'd like to see the leader have NONE, and draw his protection form his followers. Want a shield that protects you fire and cold damage? Well, you're on a faux team, have one of your followers buff you with it. Want status protection? You're on a faux team, have one of your followers give it to you.
What I argue against, mostly, is the inherent, because I KNOW that AT will need a decent inherent, and I don't see bleeding inspirations as a good one. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL you're going to balance this AT to be both a decent, survivable fight AND a decent pet wielder, and I don't want it to specialise in one at the expense of the other, so you're going to have to compromise a little bit of both. An inherent, then, is needed to step up and bring everything up to scratch under specific conditions, and your vision of Charisma just doesn't do it for me.
*edit*
[quote]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Witch_Engine
While I agree that support pets would be an interesting concept, the idea here was to give players new playstyle options using the existing power frameworks that are actually in the game - basically, what don't we have as an option *using what is in the game right now*. Yes, you could have a zillion types of new ATs with their own crazy or new setups, but the idea here was to create new options that use existing sets in the game in new and interesting ways.
|
The reason I keep suggesting that followers be retooled into support is because you have to give something up somewhere, and to my eyes giving up pet offence is a good place, specifically since you can also excise personal protection that way and work that in as part of a pet's powers.
In fact, I could see at least one power per such powerset that works like the Ninja Mastermind Smoke Flash - give a henchman an order to use a power once, but make it something cool. Like, you could order a henchman to do a weakened version of Fulcrum Shift or put you inside a Personal Forcefield for a while, or directly heal you and suchforth. Look at it this way - the Mastermind orders his henchmen to go out and attack while he stays back and supports them. A Leader would go out and attack, while he orders his followers to stand back and support him. "This is too dangerous! I'll fight the ninja master, you guard the old man!" sort of deal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Actually, that's a lot like what I had in mind when I first started thinking about leaders. Say your character is the Leader of a spec ops rescue team. You carry the firepower, your followers carry the stretchers, defibrilators, medical supplies and so forth. Maybe at some point you could have another one or two with more offensive roles, but I see the Leader as the player character in, say, a first-person shooter. Your job is to survive and shoot down the enemies before they can rip into the EMTs.|
Originally Posted by Zamuel
Tweaking the henchmen some makes sense so that more of the weight of the AT is actually on the Leader themself. Possibly going as far as to remove the third level henchman so that more effort is put into the others and to better separate it from MMs. Making the henchman less damage based actually opens things up for "Medics" or other sets that don't fit with current MMs.
|
I wouldn't really go into thinking up a full set, but I'd like to see a VERY support-heavy pet set with the followers armed (obviously) but not really designed to be major damage dealers.
A couple of nights ago I did an ITF that broke up on the third mission, and we were left fighting Romulus and Requiem with just the four of us, with my Fire/Fire Brute the only actual melee, and as we know, Fire/Fire isn't exactly a tanking combo. However, when I managed to get the attention of both Romulus and Requiem on me and off my team-mates, through their concerted effort, they were able to keep me alive despite my being HOPELESSLY outmatched against the AVs. THAT is what I want for a Leader - someone who leads not by buffs and orders, but by going out and fighting, surviving only because he can rely on his followers to keep him safe. Only this is a single player with henchmen, instead of a full team.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Now that actually sounds like something I'd play. I tried to play masterminds before but coupled with the complexity of mircomanaging pets + the fact of me not actually being powerful and the pets doing the 'super stuff', I never last long playing them (I think I got one to lvl18 before shelving her).|
Originally Posted by Samual_Tow
In fact, I could see at least one power per such powerset that works like the Ninja Mastermind Smoke Flash - give a henchman an order to use a power once, but make it something cool. Like, you could order a henchman to do a weakened version of Fulcrum Shift or put you inside a Personal Forcefield for a while, or directly heal you and suchforth. Look at it this way - the Mastermind orders his henchmen to go out and attack while he stays back and supports them. A Leader would go out and attack, while he orders his followers to stand back and support him. "This is too dangerous! I'll fight the ninja master, you guard the old man!" sort of deal.
|
I think Charisma isn't too bad of an inherent but 20% effectiveness on pets, now that I think about it, is pretty weak especially with smaller inspirations. I think you could rework it into something like 50% effectiveness for your pets only with 50-75% its duration. So with 3 pets, a MM would need to feed his pets 3 purples while a Leader would need 4 purples (2 and 2 again when it wears off sooner). That may sound bad but the gap gets bigger with more pets. With 6 pets, that 6 insp for the MM and still 4 for the Leader.
Anyway, whatever. Just rework the inherent so it's actually *decent* with regular tier 1 insp but possibly scales to *really good* with larger ones. Seeing as larges aren't common, and you kinda share inspiration drops when on teams, it balances out.
Anyway, someone write up a version of that kind of Leader and compare/contrast with the OP's version.
Samuel, ultimately, I see your plan for a Leader being literally simply just a scrapper/brute type who gets his or her armor benefits from the pets, rather than toggles. Ultimately, the playstyle would be no different except that your defenses would have HP totals instead of endurance costs, if I am reading that right. Really, at that point, you're just playing a standard melee character that already exists, except with the added pain of having to micromanage a bunch of pets to get any of the benefits those classes get with a simple button click.
The Leader as I presented it was at least a take comparable to one already in the game - much like a Dominator is, in oversimplifying terms, a controller-type who can fight instead of buff, the Leader is a mastermind-type who can fight instead of buff, since it is nigh-impossible to make a MM who is focused on personal offense. Making the pets into your personal buffbots instead of keeping their offense just makes the class into scrappers who can...get protections from their seconday.
I also don't get why you're being so needlessly antagonistic here, but whatever. You twist words around (like claiming I said the Leader 'needed' Tier 3 insprations or was balanced around them), ignore what I typed and then just retype the same thing as if it was your own idea and insinuating the exact same thing I typed was wrong, or when called on it, just outright changing your stance to the complete opposite (they need armors! Oh wait, you said that? No! they don't need armors!) to keep up some sort of argument. You repeatedly ignore that the original post outright says numbers are generalizations and not to be taken as gospel, hard numbers, but continue to harp on exact modifiers for damage. You're completely inconsistent too - in the same post you will argue that the archetype would be completely unworkable and worse off than blasters in survivability, and then in the exact same post say they would be horribly overpowered tank mages. Which is it?
You don't want to play the Leader as I presented it, I get that, but you keep harping on all these ideas you have to completely, and utterly change it from the design, to some radically different one you have. That's not constructive, and it doesn't help refine the class, it's just repeatedly harping about how it's all 'wrong' for your vision and needs to be made into something that in no way resembles what it is. Without trying to sound completely crass, if you want something so utterly, radically different, energy would be better spent writing up an archetype that actually DOES those things, rather than arguing such sweeping changes to another one which uses a completely different concept.
Did I do something in the past to upset you or something? There's a difference between offering up constructive suggestions, and outright just making things up/obviously not reading the posts to start arguments, or arguing a completely different tangent (ie making up radically new powers/pets instead of using existing sets in new and creative ways) than the original post.
This was supposed to be a thread on using the existing AT powersets and frameworks to create new ATs to fill gaps, and has been completely derailed now into the Samuel_Tow 'make up completely and radicallly different powersets than exist in game and change the entire intended point of the thread' hour. 
Quote:
Let's see... I changed my mind on having armours. I was wrong the first time around. I didn't contest your numbers, I added a few extra, because I assumed the numbers you skipped would be of the Defender/Controller variety (e.i. low hit points) and... What else? Oh, yeah, you'll have to point me to where I stole your ideas, because I don't recall that. If I did, I apologise, but I'm just not sure where I did that.|
Originally Posted by Witch_Engine
I also don't get why you're being so needlessly antagonistic here, but whatever. You twist words around (like claiming I said the Leader 'needed' Tier 3 insprations or was balanced around them), ignore what I typed and then just retype the same thing as if it was your own idea and insinuating the exact same thing I typed was wrong, or when called on it, just outright changing your stance to the complete opposite (they need armors! Oh wait, you said that? No! they don't need armors!) to keep up some sort of argument. You repeatedly ignore that the original post outright says numbers are generalizations and not to be taken as gospel, hard numbers, but continue to harp on exact modifiers for damage. You're completely inconsistent too - in the same post you will argue that the archetype would be completely unworkable and worse off than blasters in survivability, and then in the exact same post say they would be horribly overpowered tank mages. Which is it?
|
As for balance, an AT with crappy self-protection is weak in my eyes, no matter what else it does. That, or it's team support, which I DO NOT WANT. Unless you want to give the Leader Blaster level damage output both in terms of amount and AoE (which I know you don't - that'd be silly), you're not going to make a combatant that plays well enough with weak defences. That is, unless you put the henchmen up front soaking up damage and providing Bodyguard, which I trust we both agree we do not want. The point of the Leader is to take the lead and take the damage, not have pets soak up the damage.
If you do, however, build off the Mastermind model with henchmen doing damage and taking aggro (Mastermind henchmen have a higher threat value than the Mastermind, himself), then giving THAT shields is a recipe for disaster. What I am suggesting is henchmen who do not have the offensive capability to deal damage for you, nor have the aggro control capabilities to take aggro off you. THAT design would benefit from shields and/or henchman buffs, but that is NOT a Mastermind design. Then again, I, personally, don't want to see a Mastermind design re-ported over to heroes when pretty soon heroes will be able to make straight-up Masterminds. For this AT to have merit, it has to be different enough to where it's not just a redux of what we already have.
*edit*
On the notion of Tier 3 inspirations, you built an inherent which is too weak when using Tier 1 inspirations, and only really becomes powerful if you use Tier 3 inspirations. I really don't like a system which is only powerful if you use Tier 3 inspirations, because ANYONE gets monumentally more powerful when they use Tier 3 inspirations. Blasters can tank. And while I will freely admit to how much LESS inspirations do for Masterminds (you need 7 of everything to match the power of one on any non-pet AT), having them affect the followers for 20% doesn't solve that problem. You still need five of everything to match one on any non-pet AT. If we go with your idea of pets doing damage, you need five inspirations to buff their damage, whereas a Blaster could buff his damage with just one for the same amount. It's a consequence of having damage distributed. And, at the end of the day, an AT which relies on inspirations is always going to be weaker than ATs which do not. Inspirations are, by virtue of how they drop, unreliable, whereas powerset powers are usually quite reliable.
Quote:
| Samuel, ultimately, I see your plan for a Leader being literally simply just a scrapper/brute type who gets his or her armor benefits from the pets, rather than toggles. Ultimately, the playstyle would be no different except that your defenses would have HP totals instead of endurance costs, if I am reading that right. Really, at that point, you're just playing a standard melee character that already exists, except with the added pain of having to micromanage a bunch of pets to get any of the benefits those classes get with a simple button click. |
If you really view henchman micromanagement as a "pain," then I'm afraid we're never going to see eye-to-eye on a Mastermind-style pet AT. To my eyes, micromanagement is what sets the good Masterminds apart from the bad ones, and it would very much HAVE to be an integral part of playing a Leader if I am to support it.
Think about it - Mastermind henchmen have almost exclusively only attacks, with the occasional control-heavy pet. Ninja are all about damage. Zombies are damage, but the Lich is a controller, Mercenaries are pretty much all about damage, but the Spec Ops have some control, Robotics are all about damage with Protectors being somewhat support and Thugs are pretty much raw damage with Leadership. Damage, damage, damage, with sometimes a side order of something else. So why not have your first three minion-class followers be mostly support, your two lieutenant-class follower being mostly damage and the boss-class follower a lot of both?
Quote:
| The Leader as I presented it was at least a take comparable to one already in the game - much like a Dominator is, in oversimplifying terms, a controller-type who can fight instead of buff, the Leader is a mastermind-type who can fight instead of buff, since it is nigh-impossible to make a MM who is focused on personal offense. Making the pets into your personal buffbots instead of keeping their offense just makes the class into scrappers who can...get protections from their seconday. |
Mind you, Masterminds are tank-mages already. They get damage, protection and support, all within their own powers. That's more than most ATs, which only really get two things all told.
Quote:
| You don't want to play the Leader as I presented it, I get that, but you keep harping on all these ideas you have to completely, and utterly change it from the design, to some radically different one you have. That's not constructive, and it doesn't help refine the class, it's just repeatedly harping about how it's all 'wrong' for your vision and needs to be made into something that in no way resembles what it is. Without trying to sound completely crass, if you want something so utterly, radically different, energy would be better spent writing up an archetype that actually DOES those things, rather than arguing such sweeping changes to another one which uses a completely different concept. |
What is your problem with that?
Quote:
|
This was supposed to be a thread on using the existing AT powersets and frameworks to create new ATs to fill gaps, and has been completely derailed now into the Samuel_Tow 'make up completely and radicallly different powersets than exist in game and change the entire intended point of the thread' hour.
|
But please - if you want to have any claim at a constructive discussion, stop trying to mandate my posting and post about ideas. You don't like mine, that's fine. Pull it apart and criticise it if you want to - I enjoy that sort of thing, myself. It gives us a discussion of the pros and cons of it, and it helps me refine it for next time this comes up. Or don't tell me you don't like it and simply ignore me. I'm fine with that. I don't have some deep-held belief that whenever I post, people should give me attention. If they discuss my take on the idea, great. I'll join the discussion. If they don't, oh well. Their dime, their time.
And, really, if you wanted to use only existing powersets, could you point me to where you said that in your original post? I didn't see that stated anywhere. For all I knew, I saw a suggestion for NEW ATs and didn't even suspect you wanted to recycle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Okay I've just reread the original post, just to be sure I understand the leader AT.
What I see is an AT that initially will need to rely on their own powers but over time will gain MM pets. Once it has a full set of pets I'm not sure it would need to be at the front leading. IMO it could be played as an MM, which isn't the intention as I read the original post.
It seems to me if you want the leader to be at the front leading he needs to be made in such a way that he can't just leave it to the pets.
Samual_Tow has suggested one way of achieving this, change the pets so they buff instead of fight, meaning the leader needs to be at the front leading.
I suggested another, make the pets weaker and have them buffed when the leader is close to them and in combat.
I think either is a reasable suggestion Witch, though of course mine is by far the best 
Overall I think we are all trying to get the same thing, an AT that different to the others, but I'm not sure any of us are right, but I also don't think we are all totally wrong either.
Quote:
While I wouldn't mind this as an inherent, it's kind of similar to Supremacy - the henchmen are stronger with the Mastermind around. Someone suggested the reverse thing, though. How would feel about an inherent which, instead of buffing the followers, buffer the Leader when he was around his own followers? I'm not sure what those buffs should be, and indeed if we want one universal buff, or if we want each follower's presence to give a buff unique to the follower, kind of like a Kheldian would feel in a team.|
Originally Posted by Heart Attack
I suggested another, make the pets weaker and have them buffed when the leader is close to them and in combat.
|
---
On a tangent, and going a bit too far into wishy-washy land, how you you guys feel about a pet AT which had several summons which brought about, say, 5-6 pets, but only one set could be active at a time? For instance, you can have a set of relatively harmless buffers, a set of damage dealers who don't have much direct support and... I don't know. A set of control-heavy pets? Essentially, how would you feel if you have a pet AT which had to pick which of its strengths were active at a given time?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Sounds to me like the way to balance the Leader would be to put (almost) ALL the offense into his powers, and (almost) ALL the defense into the (secondary) pets, who may not even get attacks past Brawl or Revolver or whatever. One blaster and his squad of buffers/ablative meat shields.
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
Quote:
Or rather, similar to MM's current ability to convey pet commands, the Leader has similar commands but perhaps the ability to shift his pet abilities to different types like you said (support types, control type, etc). To keep it from being overly gamed, activating one command to switch to a given type recharges all of the switch commands.|
Originally Posted by Samual_Tow
On a tangent, and going a bit too far into wishy-washy land, how you you guys feel about a pet AT which had several summons which brought about, say, 5-6 pets, but only one set could be active at a time? For instance, you can have a set of relatively harmless buffers, a set of damage dealers who don't have much direct support and... I don't know. A set of control-heavy pets? Essentially, how would you feel if you have a pet AT which had to pick which of its strengths were active at a given time?
|
The main reason I suggest this is because you can't customize pets. If the different types of pets looked different, players will bound to specialize their build to 1-2 types but want them to look like the 3rd/4th types.
Quote:
Hmm... You know, I could see that. It might actually also go around the problem of support-only pets. For instance, say you could choose pet stance between combat and support. Selecting combat makes them fight, but they provide you with NO support, meaning you lose your shields and protections, but you gain more outgoing damage. Inversely, switching them over to support robs you of damage, but gives you back your shields and protections. I am personally not a fan of "either or" balance mechanics, but this sounds like an interesting concept, wouldn't you agree?
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Or rather, similar to MM's current ability to convey pet commands, the Leader has similar commands but perhaps the ability to shift his pet abilities to different types like you said (support types, control type, etc). To keep it from being overly gamed, activating one command to switch to a given type recharges all of the switch commands.
The main reason I suggest this is because you can't customize pets. If the different types of pets looked different, players will bound to specialize their build to 1-2 types but want them to look like the 3rd/4th types. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
That sounds okay to me, but would be much more coding, as a pie in te sky idea I like it. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
On a tangent, and going a bit too far into wishy-washy land, how you you guys feel about a pet AT which had several summons which brought about, say, 5-6 pets, but only one set could be active at a time? For instance, you can have a set of relatively harmless buffers, a set of damage dealers who don't have much direct support and... I don't know. A set of control-heavy pets? Essentially, how would you feel if you have a pet AT which had to pick which of its strengths were active at a given time?
|
If we're going that way though I'd be tempted to suggest the pets be more random. The leader calls for help and has no control of which AT of pet turns up, could be 2 tank pets or 3 defender pets. Obviouly if you don't like the help that turned up you could recast, so maybe the recharge time would need to be long. I'm thinking along the lines of the pets being minor heros who answer the leaders call. Again its a pie in the sky idea, but to a limited degree they already do it in gang war.
Trouble is we are a long way from the original suggestion then.
I like the AT's But they will they really be needed with Going Rogue coming out?
Interesting ideas. Not good with the numbers and not sure if they would balance with what is already in the game, but sounds like good options to fill in the gaps that exist between heroes and villains...though after going rogue, that will be less necessary. I would be interested in seeing them in action and seeing how they play as an experiment. Great ideas.
Quote:
Will there be Melee/Buff in Going Rogue?
|
Originally Posted by Blpup
I like the AT's But they will they really be needed with Going Rogue coming out?
|
Quote:
Or a MM that feels powerful? And I'm not talking about the pets feeling powerful.|
Originally Posted by Smurphy
Will there be Melee/Buff in Going Rogue?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Hmm... You know, I could see that. It might actually also go around the problem of support-only pets. For instance, say you could choose pet stance between combat and support. Selecting combat makes them fight, but they provide you with NO support, meaning you lose your shields and protections, but you gain more outgoing damage. Inversely, switching them over to support robs you of damage, but gives you back your shields and protections. I am personally not a fan of "either or" balance mechanics, but this sounds like an interesting concept, wouldn't you agree?
|
Just as another possibility, what if, instead of upgrades, you get orders? So when you summon them and in the situation that the MM would be upgrading his pets, the Leader is issuing orders that will permanently change the abilities of a pet from one stance to another. If you want that medic to grab his missile launcher, you have to dismiss him, resummon him and give him the order.
So you could summon the 3 tier 1s and issue each a different order or all the same order...was that already suggested?
Quote:
Nice idea.
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Just as another possibility, what if, instead of upgrades, you get orders? So when you summon them and in the situation that the MM would be upgrading his pets, the Leader is issuing orders that will permanently change the abilities of a pet from one stance to another. If you want that medic to grab his missile launcher, you have to dismiss him, resummon him and give him the order.
So you could summon the 3 tier 1s and issue each a different order or all the same order...was that already suggested? |
I would like to play the Leader AT. It would be especially nice if the pets did not need to be upgraded and there were other powers to play with.
Furthermore, it IS possible to make a class get a greater benefit specifically from a pool power - all that you would have to do is add a qualifier to the power that checks 'if archetype = Leader, add this additional effect', or one of many other possible workarounds. You also say giving them high leadership mods would make powers such as Weave stronger - this is flat-out wrong. Tankers have the same mod as Defenders on Weave, but the mod of Scrappers on Maneuvers.
As 'Character Definition' goes - the leader should do exactly that, lead by example. How is it not character-defining for a "leader" to go 'look I am inspired to deal tons more damage, or dodge all attacks, follow my lead and you can too?'. That's what the inherent does, and it's more or less the definition of leading by example.
As far as terrible yield...eating 1 tier 3 yellow and 2 tier 3 reds (or double that number of tier 1s) matches the bonus to pets given by Supremacy. Given that you can do between 3-7x that if you empty out your tray (and it still buffing yourself) AND have the advantage of not just being able to buff accuracy and damage, but also survivability, heal them, give them mez protection, give them endurance...as well as to your team, I want to see what you consider an impressive yield.
I don't really know what you're arguing against here, except that you seem to have taken the exact writeup I wrote for Leader, and then going 'this is all wrong, do it THIS way' and then literally typing EXACTLY what I wrote for leader. It boggles the mind.