It's apparently what Blasters had for secondary powersets in City of Heroes. A grab bag of punches, self-buffs, enemy debuffs, status effects like knockdown or slow, maybe a short duration pet or trap.

Alright so I know that your making a control/defense type powerset in the form of "Defensive manipulation" but I'm wondering if it's possible for a ranged/defense powerset in the far off future? Also I've noticed that quite a few people have been asking for a support secondary for the stalwart and while I do agree that would be a bad idea, have you considered making a support/melee poweset for the stalwart?

AlienMafia wrote:

The is no Control/Defense on that chart. Ranged/Defense is already there. And Stalwart is the class name for Defense primary so how will a stalwart be able to get support for a primary.
If your talking about having a secondary set with those mixtures then thats a whole different conversation and all be labeled as variations of "manipulation"

Okay I have a feeling that you didn't really read my post. First I said POWERSET not archetype. So if you read my post you would understand that a secondary powerset for the enforcer is what I was suggesting. Second the manipulation secondary for blasters was mostly a mix of CONTROL and melee powers. An earlier post by someone trying to confirm that this was going to be the case for manipulation being a "mix of control and melee with some self support" and zombieman did confirm that it was close to what they had in mind for "Offensive Manipulation" which is going to be the secondary for rangers and stalwarts and that they wanted to make "Defensive Manipulation" for the enforcer which would be centered around replacing the melee powers of that secondary with self mitigation powers so that the enforcer can defend himself in melee combat. So while what you said about the ranged/defense POWERSET being another version of defensive manipulation would be nice, it was never implied that it was the case at all. Thirdly I didn't suggest a pure support secondary for the stalwart, I was suggesting a new type of secondary powerset that combined melee powers with support powers so that rather than being an archetype with no offensive powers it would have melee powers as well as support powers.

desviper wrote:

I've always found that, once the barrier between hero and villain was broken (or rather, permeated), having both defender and corrupter was inefficient. They're mirrors of one another. Corrupters are ranged/support; defenders are support/ranged. Once you hit level 38 (or 40 I guess) there's no noticeable difference. So, since this game is designed, I gather, from launch for classes not to be alignment-specific, why have the mirrored classes at all?

The answer for that will probably be the same as the answer for CoH: Even though a high level Corruptor could potentially have access to the same powers as a high level Defender the fact that different powers unlock at different level thresholds depending on whether they're in primary or secondary sets makes them fairly different build wise. For example a Corruptor could have Power Push ([url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Energy_Blast]Energy Blast Primary[/url]) at level 18 but a Defender would have to wait until level 28 to get it ([url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Energy_Blast]Energy Blast Secondary[/url]). That difference affected how hard or easy it was to slot those powers with Enhancement slots over the course of leveling those characters up towards level 50.

Also there's the point that we still don't really know how the powersets are going to be structured/balanced in CoT in the first place. For all we know characters who have so-called "mirrored" powersets in CoT will actually have the potential to be much more different from each other than your CoH Corruptor/Defender example.

Regardless there's really not a "problem" with mirrored powersets anyway. I see it as a way to prioritize what you want your character to be good at doing and just because you could force one powerset pair to be a near replica of another mirrored pair by the time the two characters are level 50 doesn't really invalidate either one.

Lothic wrote:

desviper wrote:
I've always found that, once the barrier between hero and villain was broken (or rather, permeated), having both defender and corrupter was inefficient. They're mirrors of one another. Corrupters are ranged/support; defenders are support/ranged. Once you hit level 38 (or 40 I guess) there's no noticeable difference. So, since this game is designed, I gather, from launch for classes not to be alignment-specific, why have the mirrored classes at all?

The answer for that will probably be the same as the answer for CoH: Even though a high level Corruptor could potentially have access to the same powers as a high level Defender the fact that different powers unlock at different level thresholds depending on whether they're in primary or secondary sets makes them fairly different build wise. For example a Corruptor could have Power Push (Energy Blast Primary) at level 18 but a Defender would have to wait until level 28 to get it (Energy Blast Secondary). That difference affected how hard or easy it was to slot those powers with Enhancement slots over the course of leveling those characters up towards level 50.
Also there's the point that we still don't really know how the powersets are going to be structured/balanced in CoT in the first place. For all we know characters who have so-called "mirrored" powersets in CoT will actually have the potential to be much more different from each other than your CoH Corruptor/Defender example.
Regardless there's really not a "problem" with mirrored powersets anyway. I see it as a way to prioritize what you want your character to be good at doing and just because you could force one powerset pair to be a near replica of another mirrored pair by the time the two characters are level 50 doesn't really invalidate either one.

I suppose I am assuming the same mirror here; if the CoT classes would be further differentiated as cybermitheral noted with Damage and Buff modifiers
However, i'd always found a great focus on end-game content in CoH (again, assuming similarity with CoT, which i recognize mightn't be fair), and at level 50 the level and slot differences between the two are long gone, even by 45. I'd just found it inefficient to have both.
I also have found that this game's culture seems to be less class-oriented. The powers one could have aren't as limited to classes as in CoH. I'm under the presumption that the powersets would look very similar in a ranged/support and a support/ranged toon.

But, if the devs, and I hope they do, have more differentiation in such classes, my point is null.

I believe that there are going to be two versions of manipulation, defensive manipulation and offensive manipulation. Offensive Manipulation would be a mix between a melee set and a control set with some self buff powers and would be a secondary powerset for rangers, stalwarts and guardians. Defensive manipulation would be a mix of defense powers and control powers with some self buff powers and is a secondary for the enforcer.

@notears and @cybermitheral

Ah thanks a bunch for the clarifications, cleared some confusion up!

http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Hunter_Ranger

Example of a class that plays with melee and ranged and each benefits the other and have been LOVING it.

Manipulation is a placement word and will vary greatly.

Whats confirmed is 2 "types" or manipulations. There could be plans for other variations within the types like control/defense, melee/support, etc. Different classes will probably have different variations especially with as many different classes with manipulation. Their original goal was to not simply port manipulation to other classes but have many different variations of manipulation and then have variations of powers within the sets. I'm not a dev so it is not confirmed but going off of things ive read the past year and 4 months. I'm using my imagination going above what confirmed since he is a dev and probably not allowed to talk about anything more or just not confirming because it doesn't exist yet or never which is your premise.

Manipulation- off/mit (example of # of powers each 6/4, 7/3, or even triple with self buffs like u said)
Melee/defense
Ranged/defense
Control/defense
Melee/support(debuff and/or buff). <-- variations of manipulation
Ranged/support(debuff and/or buff)
Control/support(debuff and/or buff)
Pets and could be added but probably not from my thoughts.
/control could be added since it could be a mitegation

Then they could flip it and be mit/off where the number of powers each switch.

AlienMafia wrote:

Whats confirmed is 2 "types" or manipulations. There could be plans for other variations within the types like control/defense, melee/support, etc. Different classes will probably have different variations especially with as many different classes with manipulation. Their original goal was to not simply port manipulation to other classes but have many different variations of manipulation and then have variations of powers within the sets. I'm not a dev so it is not confirmed but going off of things ive read the past year and 4 months. I'm using my imagination going above what confirmed since he is a dev and probably not allowed to talk about anything more or just not confirming because it doesn't exist yet or never which is your premise.
Manipulation- off/mit (example of # of powers each 6/4, 7/3, or even triple with self buffs like u said)
Melee/defense
Ranged/defense
Control/defense
Melee/support(debuff and/or buff). <-- variations of manipulation
Ranged/support(debuff and/or buff)
Control/support(debuff and/or buff)
Pets and could be added but probably not from my thoughts.
/control could be added since it could be a mitegation
Then they could flip it and be mit/off where the number of powers each switch.

You know what? Your right, neither of us know what's going on with but your's is more plausible. I surrender you win :)

As much as I desperately want CoT's version of a blaster, if what you're saying is that it will take time to do it right, I can be patient. Not so patient that I will wait till there are blasters before playing! But I haven't quite wrapped my head around the idea that my first character won't be my main...

There also a question on how the new powers will compare. I had a hard time finding the right power combo for my main Rotten Luck street justice/willpower brute and I'm sure I would have to try different variations within the CoT system to find the one that really fits. So even though he's a brute in CoH don't mean I won't find that playing him more of a scrapper or even a tank to be better.

Gunnar's Coming Out Party.

I'll add that to my list of potential band names.

Pbuckley wrote:

I'm pretty sure control and manipulation are the same thing I might be wrong though.

Not in this context. I think someone mentioned this, but i'm unsure

Control refers almost exclusively to mez, Immobilize, Hold, Sleep, Confuse, etc., which were primaries for the CoH Controller and Dominator, and their CoT counterparts, Director and Brigadier (love that name, though idk if it fits).

Manipulation refers to a mix of melee and mez attacks, as was the Blaster's secondary (not so much devices), and will be for the Hunter.

Paragonwiki.com is the bible for this stuff from CoH.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Manipulation is what we call the "Swiss Army Powerset" with options ranging from the melee-heavy sets found for Blasters to defense-heavy sets like a Stalker's Ninjitsu, depending on what it is paired up with.

GREAT! That's way more efficient than using a melee mez mix.

No master :/

LockOn wrote:

Doctor Tyche wrote:
Techno-Bunny wrote:
Please oh please oh please oh please..... include the Ranger-Hunter (Blaster) in the launch instead of the Ranger-Partisan (Corruptor)!! You already have ranged-support covered with the Guardian-Sentinel (Defender)... 1) you don't need a second ranged-support class at launch that is sub-par to full blaster damage and sub-par to full defender defense/buff/debuff; and 2) I love my blasters!!!!
Down the road, bring in the Partisan, sure! I did enjoy playing a corruptor type.... but give me my blasters!!! Pretty please? :)

Look at the extra development. While I would prefer blasters myself, it uses a different secondary category than any other AT.

I completely and wholly understand the development reasoning behind this decision.
That being said, I cannot state in words strong enough how INTENSELY I HATE THIS DECISION. My disappointment in it cannot be measured. And were the feelings I have for it measurable using dark matter, the subsequent energy released would be enough to swallow the planet in a black hole.
Yes, I realize that the two previous sentences contradict each other. My disappointment is so profound that it, in fact, defies logic.

And that disappointment is the primary reason why we're making sure that we can respec secondary choices.

Foradain wrote:

Doctor Tyche wrote:
And that disappointment is the primary reason why we're making sure that we can respec secondary choices.

For which Goldenrod thanks you ^_^

For which [i]everyone[/i] thanks you.

Ah I misread the titanic glossary then. I thought they renamed the Classification from Commander to Tactician. Not sure why I wasn't corrected. After rereading it, I can't believe I missed that. I wish it was more clear though stating, "These are the specifications expected for launch so far."

I have to agree with you that Partisan > Striker. Striker is definitely a melee name imo. However, Partisan isn't as cool as Corruptor.

Yeah, I guess it was an obvious statement. And true--I'm sure there's a reason they switched Partisan out. We're definitely a long ways from final announcement, and things will shift--I'm aware of that. Just contributing my thoughts.

Oh, I know. I'm not supper happy with Striker either. I was wracking my brains earlier trying to think up another name for ranged/support that didn't sound like a 10 year old made it up. I had no luck on that front.

Amerikatt wrote:

Will there be a classification which will let me approximate what I had as a Peacebringer -- that is, will I be able to give quality healing while also being self-sufficient enough to defend myself and take a few lumps while trying to get to the person I'm healing? Kind of like a Combat Medic, I guess.

Well, we will have to see exactly how it works out, but through tertiary powers you could probably get a build like that. Whether you take the healing as a tertiary to combat class, or a defense set as a tertiary to a support class.

No reason you cant use a Ranged attack as a Melee attack (assuming there are no Interrupts for Ranged attacks (except Snipes I guess).

And the Bastion Spec (Prot/Assault) - Im really looking forward to both of these... drooooool

ZombieMan hasn't been on in 5 months, maybe we should have someone take over the responsibility of managing a Class/Spec chart.

Zombie man needs a Rez or an awaken

desviper wrote:

Fireheart wrote:
Managing? I don't think the thing is that dynamic.
If you want to speculate, try this thread: http://cityoftitans.com/forum/ultimate-classification-and-specification-chart
Be Well!
Fireheart

I don't mean to speculate, but to keep track of the official Class/Spec system so far. That thread does its job well,.

But I want that chart and this chart to be one in the same... :(

What we need is only 8 good names. Imagine the future CoT if all 56 combinations are possible.
We would need 56 different archetype names. If were trying to get avoid repletion of CoX archetype names.
Wich may not be so copyright infringing as number of superhero games use, including role-playing, pen and paper and mmorpg and muds, use blaster, controller, dominator and scrapper.

But if we are going that route here is based on the power sets. It may be easier to list by primary and secondary.
That way we do not need to memorize a bunch of funky names that just aren't natural.

Melee Enforcer
Ranged Striker
Assault Hunter
Manipulation Manipulator
Support Guardian
Control Director
Defense Stalwart
Pets Commander

It easier knowing someone Enforcer/Stalwart, Striker/Guardian or Director/Commander
Then if someone is Bodyguard, Brigadier, Grenadier, Greasier, Toastmaster or Powder-toast. From dozens of classifications.

Godling wrote:

What we need is only 8 good names. Imagine the future CoT if all 56 combinations are possible.
We would need 56 different archetype names. If were trying to get avoid repletion of CoX archetype names.
Wich may not be so copyright infringing as number of superhero games use, including role-playing, pen and paper and mmorpg and muds, use blaster, controller, dominator and scrapper.
But if we are going that route here is based on the power sets. It may be easier to list by primary and secondary.
That way we do not need to memorize a bunch of funky names that just aren't natural.
Melee Enforcer
Ranged Striker
Assault Hunter
Manipulation Manipulator
Support Guardian
Control Director
Defense Stalwart
Pets Commander
It easier knowing someone Enforcer/Stalwart, Striker/Guardian or Director/Commander
Then if someone is Bodyguard, Brigadier, Grenadier, Greasier, Toastmaster or Powder-toast. From dozens of classifications.

The specifications would still be in use either way since they specifically connote with one combo. The only thing that adds is the classification. Now you COULD try saying "Melee/Range" or "Pets/Assault." That would work.

Darth Fez wrote:

If the CoT community turns out to be anything like the folks who hung out in CoH, most people won't much care what someone does, much less how they do it.

At least, up until they team up with them. Then their roles become important!

AAlbusUUmbra wrote:

Darth Fez wrote:
If the CoT community turns out to be anything like the folks who hung out in CoH, most people won't much care what someone does, much less how they do it.

At least, up until they team up with them. Then their roles become important!

Roles are made to be broken.

AAlbusUUmbra wrote:

Well then, have fun solo'ing bosses as a blapper using only melee moves like a tank would!

Accomplished daily by thousands of players when Co* was still alive. And since this game is being developed and designed by long-time, devoted Co* players who loved that game for reasons such as the immense flexibility of ATs and builds in teams and no requirements for specific roles to be filled, expect it to not only be possible, but quite enjoyable.

But you probably won't notice it happening, because you'll be sitting idle, spamming chat channels with begging pleas for "healers" to come make the game playable for you. And like the rest of the role-bound chattel, you'll be gone in short order, off to find a game more suitable for your need to be categorized and firmly cemented into a "role".

Luminara wrote:

But you probably won't notice it happening, because you'll be sitting idle, spamming chat channels with begging pleas for "healers" to come make the game playable for you. And like the rest of the role-bound chattel, you'll be gone in short order, off to find a game more suitable for your need to be categorized and firmly cemented into a "role".

I resent that like a blasphemy, Luminara. I've solo'd archvillains with a Controller before and only cried for 20 minutes.

AmbiDreamer wrote:

AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
Luminara wrote:
AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
Darth Fez wrote:
If the CoT community turns out to be anything like the folks who hung out in CoH, most people won't much care what someone does, much less how they do it.

At least, up until they team up with them. Then their roles become important!

Roles are made to be broken.

Well then, have fun solo'ing bosses as a blapper using only melee moves like a tank would!

There is a big difference between refusing to use an entire powerset (especially your primary) and not playing a specific role to the letter.
That seems like you made an arbitrary rule up an overly specific situation to make your point.

The former half of your reply is sensible. My point was playing an entirely different role after creating a character designed for a completely different role. In this case, using a ranged DPS character for tanking.

However, I can easily accept using unconventional roles to accomplish peculiar tasks, like a tanker using Ice Melee to control and lock down enemies. They may not be as effective, but if it still gives an edge then by all means try it! If CoT's mechanics allow for even more unconventional roles than that to be feasible, then I'm game- I only condemn stupid and inviable builds.

Darth Fez wrote:

Ineffective power set combinations?
No such mongoose.

LOL, this reminds me of this one time when everyone on CoX was debating over which powerset combo was the most ineffective. About half the room immediately cried [i]"Psy/Psy Dominator."[/i]

Guess why.

notears wrote:

no pets?

Nope. Too complex; will be added after release.

I imagine the first power sets available as combos will likely make sense, at least the majority of them will. More exotic sets will come in time. The whole point is customization and having fun.

I don't like the idea of limiting what is available to keep people from choosing things that aren't necessarily logically complimentary. This is where learning how to survive and tactics comes in when you chose to hinder your own character with your powerset combo selection.

Completing every bit of available gameplay was not the goal for everyone that played CoX. Some people just enjoyed role playing a character they created. I don't think it hurts to have multiple power sets available that don't compliment each other logically. Characters aren't always well balanced but they don't always know it until they have been around the block a few times, and they certainly aren't all "balanced".

It comes down to how do you want to play the game? Are the role playing sort, or just out to get all the "stuff" you can, or see every bit of mappage there is to see? The point is it doesn't matter. The game is for playing how you want to play. Not every character is going to make sense and not all of them will work. Some may work better than even the Devs imagine.

I remember plenty of times in CoH where I couldn't find a real defender because all the ones available took offensive Primaries, and it was fine. I had to learn a new tactic to survive a mission. I don't think the game is broken by allowing odd powerset combos, I think it is versatile and creatively appealing. And yeah sometimes I just didn't get to finish a mission like I had hoped to, and that was fine too.

You don't ever have to join a group, team, whatever else if you don't like how the other people are "playing the game" If the character they designed doesn't suit your likes oh well. It's an MMO so there are others with which to play.

I just can't get mad about how people made their characters... It's too much fun seeing everything everyone comes up with!

JWBullfrog wrote:

notears wrote:
AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
notears wrote:
no pets?

Nope. Too complex; will be added after release.

Actually that was a guess as to why people chose psi/psi dominator as the worst powerset combination. Because neither power set had a pet and I remember a lot of people saying that that's why they didn't like mind control back in the day.

Psi/psi Dom being bad? What were they thinking? That was my first OH WOW villain. I owned the room
and I made sure everyone knew it.

It confounded me all the same after wiping the floor with archvillains using one.

notears wrote:

AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
JWBullfrog wrote:
notears wrote:
AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
notears wrote:
no pets?

Nope. Too complex; will be added after release.

Actually that was a guess as to why people chose psi/psi dominator as the worst powerset combination. Because neither power set had a pet and I remember a lot of people saying that that's why they didn't like mind control back in the day.

Psi/psi Dom being bad? What were they thinking? That was my first OH WOW villain. I owned the room
and I made sure everyone knew it.

It confounded me all the same after wiping the floor with archvillains using one.

Reminds me how the first and only brute I managed to get to 50 was a kinetic/ EA despite everyone saying how much EA sucked.

EA? Electric Armor? [i]Sucked?[/i] What the f- HOW THE HELL IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AN EA BRUTE TO SUCK?!?!?!?!?! EA grants nothing but resistance with no defense, which in effect allows your Brute to get hit more often, thereby increasing his rage while still keeping his survivability up. Coupled with the passive Lightning Reflexes power and that one endurance siphon AoE, and you've got a Brute so freaking godlike that it's just plain unfair. I always said that EA along with a really fast power like Claws was the ultimate Brute build, considering that in addition to EA, fast-recharging powers allow for more attacks which increases rage and thus blows DPS out of the water.

Seriously, I don't even know what they were thinking when they called you out on that...

notears wrote:

AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
notears wrote:
AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
JWBullfrog wrote:
notears wrote:
AAlbusUUmbra wrote:
notears wrote:
no pets?

Nope. Too complex; will be added after release.

Actually that was a guess as to why people chose psi/psi dominator as the worst powerset combination. Because neither power set had a pet and I remember a lot of people saying that that's why they didn't like mind control back in the day.

Psi/psi Dom being bad? What were they thinking? That was my first OH WOW villain. I owned the room
and I made sure everyone knew it.

It confounded me all the same after wiping the floor with archvillains using one.

Reminds me how the first and only brute I managed to get to 50 was a kinetic/ EA despite everyone saying how much EA sucked.

EA? Electric Armor? Sucked? What the f- HOW THE HELL IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AN EA BRUTE TO SUCK?!?!?!?!?! EA grants nothing but resistance with no defense, which in effect allows your Brute to get hit more often, thereby increasing his rage while still keeping his survivability up. Coupled with the passive Lightning Reflexes power and that one endurance siphon AoE, and you've got a Brute so freaking godlike that it's just plain unfair. I always said that EA along with a really fast power like Claws was the ultimate Brute build, considering that in addition to EA, fast-recharging powers allow for more attacks which increases rage and thus blows DPS out of the water.
Seriously, I don't even know what they were thinking when they called you out on that...

Energy aura, not electric armour. EA is commonly associated with energy aura while eleA is commonly associated with electrical armour.

Well, the more you know...

I suppose the fact that you weren't exploiting the Brute's abilities and still got your character to level 50 would help prove how mix-maxing is as viable as specialty-exploiting.

So, what possessed you to make an EA Brute? (if you don't mind me asking)

"What class should I play/is best/is most powerful?" - Frequently heard questions around any RPG that uses classes.

"Well, which one looks fun to you?" - My standard response. ^_^

I want to raise the terminology issue again. I wasn't fond of "Partisan" because it refers to either an amateur guerilla resistance fighter or someone who takes sides in a political struggle, neither of which seems particularly relevant to a superhero game. "Striker" sounds like a melee-oriented label when you think in terms of striking someone with your hands or a melee weapon; if you think in terms of football, labour relations, or military air support, it refers to exerting force indirectly or over a distance to achieve a goal, which sounds pretty much like a ranged damage character. May I suggest "Soldier" for the empty Melee/Manipulation class-spec? I'm also not fond of "Gladiator": a slave who fights for the entertainment of others. How about "Brawler", someone keen on melee who has learned to effectively evade or resist most of the incoming damage?

I have some real issues with all of the titles in the Control Classification, but after two days I still don't have any strong replacements in mind. It looks like someone picked up a thesaurus, looked up "controller" and wrote down the first five synonyms, forgetting that a thesaurus thinks that "controller" is a synonym for "comptroller", the chief financial officer of a corporation or polity. The whole "military officers and corporate executives" theming feels to me to be better suited to a pet class, the pets being the soldiers/drones commanded by the character. Shouldn't we be thinking in terms of controlling battlefield conditions, not controlling individuals on the battlefield? Thinking along the lines of "monitor" (in the naval sense), "miner" (in the sense of someone who creates or disables minefields), "sapper" (in the sense of someone who erects or destroys temporary fortifications), "trapper", "reconnaissance", "ambusher", "flanker"... absolutely none of which are really appropriate, but I think we need to get away from the executive officer thing.

"Taskmaster" and "Ringleader" sound very specifically villainous; is this Classification only open to villains? I didn't realize CoT was doing the blue side/red side restrictions on ATs. "Engineer" sounds particularly non-villainous, and is the sort of title I'd like to see for the Control Class.