Correct me if I am wrong, but I have never seen "Assault" described as anything BUT melee.
The power sets page https://cityoftitans.com/content/power-sets has no mix of ranged and melee.
None of the melee descriptions include any ranged attacks. https://cityoftitans.com/content/melee-sets

the 'assault" terminology is a couple of years old. Everything I read supports melee only for assault

OK, still a mixed set like that would be fun. I just haven't seen it presented yet.

Cyclops wrote:

No negativity here. Sorry if I came across that way.
I just saw no official power set. Still a mixed set would be cool. Tertiaries make a specific set like this moot though.

I disagree.

While the need for a mixed set is lessened by tertiaries having the option of a mixed set, especially as a secondary powerset, alleviates the requirement to rely on them.

This is compounded if there are other, possibly multiple, tertiaries that you wish to take. Especially as, from my understanding, tertiaries are possibly weaker than secondary sets.

A tertiary is good if you just want a couple of ranged attacks on a melee character. A mixed set is good if you want to be able to do both equally.

The Assault Sets will be a mix of Melee and ranged attacks.

Hioe many have AoEs will vary based on the focused play style assigned to the set when being designed.

The reason why there is nothing “official” on these sets is because they aren’t included for launch.

With regards to comparisons between Bastions and Gunners, they will be similar in certain regards. What will really set them apart is the effectiveness of their primary / secondary and the big difference is their Matery Powers.

Lothic mentioned Blasters not needing defenses using heir ranged attacks to stay alive. Let us not forget that Blasters also had the highest kills to defeat rations in the game. They face planted a lot. Some of the more outrageous builds leveraged as much Defense as possible in order to survive and pull off amazing feats.

It will be interesting to see how well our base assumptions about these Specifications will work and how often we were wrong and what adjustments will need to make along the way.

Criminus wrote:

I did say that Gunners and Bastions are practically reverse. I did not say exactly reverse or mirror's of each other.
lets say a set of Assault powers has some melee and some ranged, with a portion of both types being AoE. Once you include the defense sets, Gunner and Bastion are 75% similar.
Its like I'm being forced to defend myself on a simple analogy. Nit picking to this level is simply not necessary.

Please, lets get past the typical internet negativity.

I'm not actually being "picky" or "negative" here. I acknowledged the similarities. I'm simply disagreeing with you that they are going to be "practically reverse" in the way they are going to play. As Tannim has pointed out the differences between a given powerset being a primary powerset versus a secondary powerset can be significant. I'm allowed to take up a contrary position with anyone here without automatically being disregarded as "picky" or "negative".

Criminus wrote:

The jack of all trades (I typo'd jack-off trades, glad I spotted that)

It would have been funny at the very least. ;)

Tannim222 wrote:

With regards to comparisons between Bastions and Gunners, they will be similar in certain regards. What will really set them apart is the effectiveness of their primary / secondary and the big difference is their Matery Powers.

Lothic mentioned Blasters not needing defenses using heir ranged attacks to stay alive. Let us not forget that Blasters also had the highest kills to defeat rations in the game. They face planted a lot. Some of the more outrageous builds leveraged as much Defense as possible in order to survive and pull off amazing feats.

I'm not saying that playing a Blaster as a "Blapper" was not a fun thing to do in CoH. I'm sure there were thousands of Blappers in the game.

But I will say that playing a Blaster as a "Blapper" was effectively taking a class that was primarily designed to act as a "long ranged cannon" and doing your best to pretend it was a melee-oriented Scrapper. Is there really any surprise that Blappers tended to suffer the highest defeat ratios in the game when a good case could be made that people were essentially playing them "wrong" that way to begin with? It was like trying to use a Ferrari as a farm tractor and then wondering why it didn't work well as a farm tractor. It really should have been completely obvious why Ferrari's don't make for good farm tractors. ;)

For what it's worth I played most of my Blasters as "Blasters" and I could go multiple hours at a time without any defeats while doing so. *shrugs*

Also the point must be stressed that the only reason Blappers managed to work as well as they did is that their "Off/Mit Manipulation" secondaries tended to have a few melee attack powers that let them pretend to be Scrappers in the first place. If you replace a Blaster's secondary with a Gunner's Defense secondary you might have a character that'd be "more survivable" but without the melee attacks playing them as CoH-styled Blappers is going to nigh-impossible.

Basically a CoT Gunner is going to be a very survivable Blaster but a very ineffective Blapper.

Criminus wrote:

*I'm simply disagreeing with you that they are going to be "practically reverse" in the way they are going to play.*.

At no point did I ever say this. I made a comparison because they both have defense and ranged attacks.
But thats okay, I completely forgive your picky negativity and strawman of my OP

You are forgiven (pats Lothic on the head).

And I corrected you because a "Ranged" powerset is not really the same thing as an "Assault" poweset even though they each have ranged attacks.

It's not a "Strawman attack" or "being negative" to point out that you were being lazy in your conclusion that these things are "practically reverse" (your words). You yourself admitted you didn't know what an "Assault" powerset was in this context and I helped you out with that.

Even a Dev ([url=https://cityoftitans.com/comment/156647#comment-156647]Tannim222[/url]) suggested you can't really consider these things like you did because of the differences between the way primary and secondary powersets work. If you don't want to take my word for it you can take his.

Sorry I upset you with this... *shrugs*

Criminus wrote:

No, Lothic, you did not upset me with anything.
However, you are still misrepresenting other peoples words.

For example, you just said I was *being lazy in my conclusion that these things are "practically reverse"*
I wasn't a conclusion. It was the start of the post, and I then went on to ask about the particulars of the assault set and the various roles.

Just in case you don't know what words mean, I'll help you out.
conclusion
noun
1. the end or finish of an event, process, or text.
2. a judgement or decision reached by reasoning.
Please learn what words mean before you attempt to use them.

You also didn't help out with anything, as you falsely claim.
1) You had no clue what an assault power set was, saying it was mainly melee and PBAoE, and then Tannim222 said it was melee and ranged, which is what I said in the first place.
2) You also deemed it necessary to lecture me on what a gunner was, for no apparent reason.

You also suggested I should take Tannim222 words, if not yours.
Tannim said the difference between Gunner and Bastion is in the effectiveness of primary/secondary sets (which I think we all agree on), and the big difference in 'Matery" powers (I assume 'Mastery'). I'm happy for you to characterise that as 'significant', if you wish.
However, as already pointed out:-
You said Assault will Likely be a mix melee and PBAoE
I said I assume it will be a mix of melee and ranged.
Tannim222 said "The Assault Sets will be a mix of Melee and ranged attacks."
Great, I'll take Tannim222's words on that one. Actually I think Tannim was being very diplomatic, which is great.

See, its all fairly simple. In my OP, I made a comparison, then went on to clarify and ask questions.
You ignored everything except the comparison and used it as an excuse to be picky and negative.

BTW, putting "shrugs" after a apology, ranks up there with putting the word "but" after "I'm not racist".

Well at least someone has a lot of time on their hands. You ought to channel your skill with excess verbiage and false pretenses into something more productive like wiki page illumination or some such. Good luck to you in what whatever vocation you choose to pursue in the future.

Criminus wrote:

You have beaten me sir, you are far better at projecting that I.

Anyway, onwards and upwards, again.
I was wondering about masteries and tertiary powers.
Lets say I make my planned character, grit/willpower primary, and secondary is kinetic assault (if thats an available choice).
This gives me a mix of invuln and regen in Grit defense, and both melee and ranged (and hopefully some aoe) in the assault.

So why would I need masteries and tertiary powers?
I assume (hope), maybe wrongly, that masteries are uber big versions of the basic power set with a long cooldown, like maybe a 100% defence for 6 seconds, once per minute.
Also what champions online had for the level 35 powers, one big power each, max. Thats totally fine.
Its the tertiary power set that the odd one out.
Of course there can always be answer. Anyone with a bit of quantum mechanics knowledge could stretch that a bit
Using telekinesis to manipulate the probability waves of particles, COULD produce teleportation, but at much less efficiency.
Hay, theres my second travel power, woot.

Good questions.

My understanding of masteries is that they were less “big beefy buttons of OPness” and more akin to the traits from CoH archetypes (eg Rage for Brutes). They’re more like passive abilities. The difference is there are more of them than there were in CoH and you can pick and choose which one(s) to take. That said there might be “big beefy buttons” among those masteries that I did not see.

Regarding tertiaries, I kind of think of them like the ancillary power pools, but ones that draw from existing power sets. As always, like CoH, but with more variety and customization. So you could use them to flesh out your character a bit more by giving them “super strength” or more ranged capabilities. But I believe down the road there will be tertiaries not covered by the existing power sets - such as, for example, stealth.

Criminus wrote:

You have beaten me sir, you are far better at projecting that I.

Anyway, onwards and upwards, again.
I was wondering about masteries and tertiary powers.
Lets say I make my planned character, grit/willpower primary, and secondary is kinetic assault (if thats an available choice).
This gives me a mix of invuln and regen in Grit defense, and both melee and ranged (and hopefully some aoe) in the assault.

So why would I need masteries and tertiary powers?
I assume (hope), maybe wrongly, that masteries are uber big versions of the basic power set with a long cooldown, like maybe a 100% defence for 6 seconds, once per minute.
Also what champions online had for the level 35 powers, one big power each, max. Thats totally fine.

Masteries are like the old COH Inherent powers, like a Tank's Gauntlet and Bruising, a Brute's Fury, a Defender's Vigilance, etc. They are more like global passive abilities/bonuses to your character or team, sometimes only appearing under certain conditions (positioning, momentum level, etc). They help determine how you approach combat.
Look in the bar above under CHARACTERS to see some descriptions of some mastery abilities.

Quote:

Its the tertiary power set that the odd one out.
Of course there can always be answer. Anyone with a bit of quantum mechanics knowledge could stretch that a bit
Using telekinesis to manipulate the probability waves of particles, COULD produce teleportation, but at much less efficiency.
Hay, theres my second travel power, woot.

Tertiary powers are there to "fill out" your character, maybe to shore up some of the weaknesses that your primary and secondary don't address, or maybe even to emphasize certain aspects of your build. How you justify those selections for your character it is completely up to each player.

Criminus wrote:

Thanks for the links Lothic, really helpful, I'll bear that in mind in future.
I especially like the bit in your second link that said :-
Assault Sets: Designed by pairing ranged and melee attacks by pairing thematic mechanics, these sets will offer plenty of flexibility in how to engage your opponent in combat.

That's the best laugh I've had all week.

Lothic wrote:

If the CoT version of an "Assault" powerset is more or less the same as they were in CoH then you'll likely see them provide [color=red]a mix of melee attacks and PBAoEs[/color]. You might get a couple genuine [color=red]"long ranged" attacks[/color] but most of the powers are more oriented towards being either "[color=red]melee[/color]" or [color=red]"short" ranged[/color].

I guess I'm happy for you that I was able to quote from CoT's own source material. When incorporated with what CoH did with Assault sets (mixing melee, PBAoEs and longer ranged single target attacks) it was actually not that challenging to tell you what most of us have known for years now.

If you're extremely interested in how the Assault sets are likely to be organized in CoT you can study the [url=https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Dominator#Secondary_Power_Sets]Assault sets as they appeared in CoH[/url]. There you'll see how they are various mixes of melee, PBAoE, short-ranged cones and long ranged attacks. There's no reason suspect that the CoT Assault sets will be significantly different from these examples.

Empyrean wrote:

Empyrean is a quintessential Bastion. In CoH (since they didn't have Bastion), he was a Fire/Energy/Pyre/Pyronic Tank. I thought of him as sort of a modern SHAZAM (formerly Captain Marvel) but with solar fire instead of lightning--and golden pom poms!

Hard to kill, able to do excellent burst damage at a range and spectacular burst damage up close, but (because you have to be fair) only decent sustained DPS. Not able to put out constant sustained DPS like a blaster, scrapper, or Brute. But he was SO fun to play because even though he was a tank, he could hit like a boss at range or melee--but of course I couldn't keep it rolling like the DPS classes. That would have been nuts.

Still, I could solo great (+4x8 Radio Mission any enemy--Cimmerorans, Rularuu, Malta, Carnies--pulling two groups at a time BEFORE Incarnate), and leading a team, I could unload on a group at range and do enough aggro-boosted damage that they would ignore everyone else, and then I would just attack any mob who did start attacking members of my team till it was time to drop the melee hammer on the boss at just the right moment. It was a tank that didn't feel like just a meat shield.

Man I miss that playstyle. Just a freaking blast every time. Every single time.

Sounds like Empyrean re-rolled as a Bastion would be a fun choice for you. By going from a Tank (Defense/Melee) to a Bastion (Defense/Assault) you'd likely swap out 2 or 3 melee attacks for a few new PBAoE and/or shorter Ranged attacks. This means he would probably lose a bit of the Melee burst damage in favor of a bit more sustained short/medium Ranged DPS.

The only problem of course is that it doesn't appear Bastions [url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart]will be ready by launch time[/url]. I'm basically in the same boat as you on this - I'd love to try out an Executor (Control/Ranged) but they aren't slated for launch either. :(

Safehouse wrote:

Assault is such a cool combat type. It would be cool if one day, far down the road, they introduced an archetype that has assault as the primary.

The [url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/updated-classification-and-specification-chart]main class chart[/url] doesn't even have a row for an "Assault primary" which is kind of weird. It's like they don't even think they would ever even want to try to make a class based on that. Perhaps the Devs believe Assault as a primary would be too powerful no matter what the secondary is.

But if you think about it the HEATs and VEATs from CoH (Peacebringers, Warshades, Arachnos Soldiers and Arachnos Widows) were all basically uniquely weird combinations of what you could call "Assault" and other types of powersets so maybe if CoT offers up some kind of Epic classes like that we'll get something that approaches having an Assault primary.

Safehouse wrote:

I would also like to see the entire chart get filled out, but that doesn’t seem feasible as just looking at it shows me some combos that would be super broken, either OP or unplayable.

Yeah for "completeness" sake it might be cool if they could fill in every slot on the chart but like you say many of them would either be very over or under powered.

You'll notice that on the chart they already have a good number of the slots marked off with dashed lines that indicate classes they will never implement. For instance we'll never get a "double offense" class (like Melee/Ranged) nor will we get something like a Support/Defense which would be the perfect "team buff/debuffer" but would have no serious offensive capability of their own.

Being able to get a pet or some pets as a tertiary would be nice.

Perfect for those who want a Robin to their Batman.

Safehouse wrote:

I’ve actually thought a lot about Kheldians. I really loved Peacebringers in particular. They were a nice “spacey” class and had good well rounded powersets that meshed defense and offense with a lot of unique support skills. I’ve been trying to suss out what it would take to create a CoT analogue of the peacebringers.

Unless CoT ever offers a true "shapechanging" class (to account for the way the Nova and Dwarf forms worked) I doubt you could simulate a Kheldian in CoT exactly.

But maybe if you started with a class we know will be in the game at launch like a Partisan (Ranged/Support) or a Gladitaor (Melee/Defense) and then used your teriatary to make up for the extra offensive powers you were missing (either Ranged or Melee) you could probably come close to simulating a "human-form only" Peacebringer.