Champion Spotlight - Sentry [Updated: Added 5-Star Stats]

1192022242540

Comments

  • ESF wrote: »
    @DNA3000:

    Perhaps you could help me with something. Can you give what a sense of what "underperforming" means, in the setting you are describing?

    I ask because I honestly can't wrap my mind around it for this reason: My belief is that even with the limitations of a Luke Cage or Red Hulk, most/all skilled players can still use them, rarely lose with them in, say, Arena settings, or event quests, etc.

    I mean, I never lose with Luke Cage in a content-appropriate setting. Know what I mean? No, I don't take him into, say...RTTL. But there's a lot of characters I wouldn't take there, you know?

    Do you understand what I am asking? If someone looked at my usage patterns, for example, I don't use Luke Cage any less or more than, say...Phoenix, who is in the curated crystal. I rarely, if ever, lose with either of them. I don't think Phoenix, as an example, is any more useful than Luke Cage in a lot of content -- not all, but a lot.

    In my world, Luke Cage is a weaker character, but I don't understand the concept of "underperforming" because I never lose with him when I use him.

    Does that make sense?

    Based on how other games work, I believe "underperforming" is a phrase that requires some context, as in "underperforming in what area?" And I can think of five important areas that a champion can underperform in.

    1. When the champion is played at a particular level of play, the champion's win/loss record is significantly below average.

    2. When the champion is placed on defense at a particular level of play, the champion's percentage kill ratio is significantly below average.

    3. For all players that possess some version of the champion, the percentage of time they are used is significantly lower than average.

    4. (Related) For a given piece of content, the percentage amount of time that champion is played as an attacker by all players that play the content is significantly below average.

    5. For all players that possess the champion, the average rank and signature level of the champion is significantly below average.

    I'm sure there are other statistics that are not coming to mind at the moment, but those seem to be the most obvious. Also, these statistics are not always meaningful in context. For example, there's probably a few champions that are used a lot in LoL. Most others are rarely or never used. But that doesn't mean Luke Cage would be considered underperforming according to the LoL metric: the reverse would be true. Because so many champions are rarely used at all, Luke Cage would be unremarkable on that report. In other words, a few champions overperform on participation in LoL. Everyone else is mediocre in terms of being considered not useful.

    Very skilled players can do well with almost anything. But that only means that skilled players don't show a significant difference between most champions - they aren't a useful measuring stick to measure them. To find a champion that is remarkably strong or remarkably weak, you sometimes have to look at players which emphasize, not deemphasize, the difference between champions. Hand an expert Luke Cage and Stark Spiderman and he'll succeed with both. But hand a medium player both, and I would guess Sparky would succeed far more often. Sparky builds damage faster, and his specials are (more or less) ranged, and he does secondary damage. All that damage plus damage plus damage is something that probably shows up very strongly in the stats for most players.

    How Kabam *specifically* decides to slice and dice their numbers is proprietary, and I doubt they would tell me any specifics. But in general, some kind of segmentation is probably done to see which champions are underperforming and overperforming in different parts of the game, for different kinds of players.
  • ESFESF Posts: 878 ★★★
    @DNA3000: Thanks for the detailed explanation - that helps!
  • DaMunk wrote: »
    DNA I understand the points you are making and I'm sure how that's how things normally work. You're making the "normal" argument. Most of us are making an argument for an exception. Exceptions are rare but they do happen. Sentry is so bad that he is broken. While it doesn't break the game we have a useless champ in game. Not a champ we don't want to use but a champ we really can't use. Any other champ in the game is better regardless of whether they were designed to be defensive or offensive. His only redeeming quality is his Prestige.

    The point I was making was that trying to argue for an exception is extremely difficult, because the "normal" machinery, so to speak, can't be trivially excepted.

    In other words, you want an exception. Cool. Who are you going to convince to make an exception? The developer who made Sentry? He can't go back and change him. He would need permission. Are you going to convince a producer to order him to do that? How? How does he know that you're right and Sentry is exceptionally weak? And not just exceptionally weak, but so weak so as to be completely worthless?

    And when you make that argument, that he is so worthless no one would want to play him, what happens when the early reports come in and people actually are playing him? Then what? Your credibility is now gone.

    I'm not saying an exception is impossible. I'm saying it is very difficult to make a *convincing* argument to someone holding all the cards and has already moved on to another game. You have to make a case in which every word you say is convincingly correct, and every word of hyperbole reduces the chances of being taken seriously by about 99%. And because the devs aren't talking to you directly, you have no idea what you're saying they know to be false, and what you're saying they are interpreting as fatal hyperbole.

    I don't make the rules, I'm just pointing them out. Having actually done this myself many dozens of times, I can say it is an unfair game and you almost always lose, but if you want the odds of winning to increase from zero to almost zero, its important to acknowledge what you're really up against.

    When I made suggestions for changing Sentry, I made two suggestions. One: when Sentry reaches the end of the state chain he jumps immediately to the special 1 state, not the base state. Two: when Sentry changes state if he doesn't trigger a buff his chance to trigger on the next state change improves by ten percentage points (i.e. from 30% to 40%) and keeps rising until he gets a buff, then it resets to 30%. Those were not just random suggestions. The goal was to address some of the failings in Sentry, but they were also explicitly formulated to follow the design ideas of the champion. @Kabam Miike said the idea behind Sentry was "momentum" - that was a clue to what the designer was probably thinking. The designer may have even told Miike that himself or communicated that to the team in some way. We don't get hints like this often, so it is important to treat them like gold. Any change to Sentry has to be a) simple, b) not change his fundamental mechanics, and c) be easy to articulate. And most importantly, it has to not violate the intentions of the designer. But we don't know what those intentions were because we were not in on the design. So we have to take our best shot: they are thinking about this "momentum" thing, so any change that emphasizes that concept has a better chance at not breaking some design intent we don't know.

    We keep the base chance at 30% so that doesn't change. We only change it if we fail to gain a buff but maintain combo, so that's emphasizing the champion's "momentum" - the longer you maintain combo, the more likely you will eventually get a buff. But conversely, the chance doesn't just keep getting higher so eventually it stays very high. Someone wanted the base chance to be low, so it is low. It only gets higher if you keep "losing" so to speak. That might be more palatable. And short circuiting the state changes to eliminate the base state also is a way to emphasize momentum: if you maintain combo, you skip that initial state that has no (damage) buff.

    I'm not saying its the greatest suggestion ever, nor am I saying the devs will necessarily implement it. I'm saying understanding how the development process works can steer suggestions in ways that improve their odds of being adopted. But not in spectacular fashion. I'm saying you can improve your odds from maybe zero to one percent.

    I don't know any way to do better. But I do know lots of ways to do worse, and a lot of players use them. I'm basically saying, you'll probably lose either way, but you should still hit sixteen when the dealer shows ten. And when it comes to players vs game devs, the dealer always shows ten.
  • ESFESF Posts: 878 ★★★
    @DNA3000: Your explanations are, in a way, why anyone asking for a nerf of a character truly astounds me -- you are basically explaining that when a character hits, that is it.

    More or less, that is what that character is going to be, far more often than not.

    This game...I am not being critical. I play almost every single day, even if only for a few minutes. I have seen all iterations of it, from Day 1, Week 1.

    And ever since signature abilities were introduced and more difficult content came into play, there have been maybe...15 or so characters, maybe 20, who have dropped that players can use in almost all aspects of attack.

    It astounds me when I see things like The Goldblum and LOL that people want characters who have significant utility to be nerfed, not because Sentry and Carnage are weaker, but because it's almost impossible to get weaker characters buffed, so you'd think we would be happier when a character drops that is truly useful
  • ESF wrote: »
    @DNA3000: Your explanations are, in a way, why anyone asking for a nerf of a character truly astounds me -- you are basically explaining that when a character hits, that is it.

    More or less, that is what that character is going to be, far more often than not.

    Unless they are bugged in some way, that's virtually always true. For a while. Champions do get buffed and nerfed - Thor got nerfed, Magik got buffed - but it takes a long time to convince the devs a buff or nerf is warranted.

    Even buffs can be problematic. When Magik was buffed she was generally considered underperforming, but the changes they made altered her in ways the players actually playing her had come to rely upon. Magik used to be a nullifying machine, back when nullify was considered valuable and power control was considered valueless. So giving Magik power lock was actually considered by many players to be a step backward. Magik was actually considered not that much better after the buffs, at least going by the most vocal comments about her at the time. Eventually she was considered an extremely strong defender once people realized Limbo scaled with node buffs. But she was still considered a subpar attacker for a long time. She slowly gained converts, but it took all the way to Dave's event for power control to gain the spotlight and Magik to be reevaluated as a very strong attacker. There's a lot of people who think Magik was always considered god-like. Not true. Players had to *learn* how strong she was over a remarkably long period of time.
    This game...I am not being critical. I play almost every single day, even if only for a few minutes. I have seen all iterations of it, from Day 1, Week 1.

    And ever since signature abilities were introduced and more difficult content came into play, there have been maybe...15 or so characters, maybe 20, who have dropped that players can use in almost all aspects of attack.

    It astounds me when I see things like The Goldblum and LOL that people want characters who have significant utility to be nerfed, not because Sentry and Carnage are weaker, but because it's almost impossible to get weaker characters buffed, so you'd think we would be happier when a character drops that is truly useful

    This too is a kind of relative opinion. Storm used to be considered one of the best attackers, and people used Storm in LoL. People used Yellowjacket in LoL. Champions are considered great relative to other options, not based on what they can actually do. Now, fewer people would probably try to use Yellowjacket in LoL, but YJ didn't get any worse, other options became better. Captain Marvel used to be considered one of the best 5* pulls you could get. Very hard hitter and doesn't need to be awakened. Very important when we were getting like one 5* every three months. Now, she's considered decent but unremarkable. It is a little easier to dup when we're pulling so many more champions, and awakening gems now exist that obviate the need to dup.

    You know, some people honestly believe that game balance demands nerfs. And sometimes nerfs are ultimately necessary. But game players are also very emotionally engaged people in general, and public forums self-select the most emotional, most engaged, most expressive players. It is not surprising that these people would express strong opinions in all directions.
  • ThalionThalion Posts: 65
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ESF wrote: »
    @DNA3000: Your explanations are, in a way, why anyone asking for a nerf of a character truly astounds me -- you are basically explaining that when a character hits, that is it.

    More or less, that is what that character is going to be, far more often than not.

    Unless they are bugged in some way, that's virtually always true. For a while. Champions do get buffed and nerfed - Thor got nerfed, Magik got buffed - but it takes a long time to convince the devs a buff or nerf is warranted.

    Even buffs can be problematic. When Magik was buffed she was generally considered underperforming, but the changes they made altered her in ways the players actually playing her had come to rely upon. Magik used to be a nullifying machine, back when nullify was considered valuable and power control was considered valueless. So giving Magik power lock was actually considered by many players to be a step backward. Magik was actually considered not that much better after the buffs, at least going by the most vocal comments about her at the time. Eventually she was considered an extremely strong defender once people realized Limbo scaled with node buffs. But she was still considered a subpar attacker for a long time. She slowly gained converts, but it took all the way to Dave's event for power control to gain the spotlight and Magik to be reevaluated as a very strong attacker. There's a lot of people who think Magik was always considered god-like. Not true. Players had to *learn* how strong she was over a remarkably long period of time.
    This game...I am not being critical. I play almost every single day, even if only for a few minutes. I have seen all iterations of it, from Day 1, Week 1.

    And ever since signature abilities were introduced and more difficult content came into play, there have been maybe...15 or so characters, maybe 20, who have dropped that players can use in almost all aspects of attack.

    It astounds me when I see things like The Goldblum and LOL that people want characters who have significant utility to be nerfed, not because Sentry and Carnage are weaker, but because it's almost impossible to get weaker characters buffed, so you'd think we would be happier when a character drops that is truly useful

    This too is a kind of relative opinion. Storm used to be considered one of the best attackers, and people used Storm in LoL. People used Yellowjacket in LoL. Champions are considered great relative to other options, not based on what they can actually do. Now, fewer people would probably try to use Yellowjacket in LoL, but YJ didn't get any worse, other options became better. Captain Marvel used to be considered one of the best 5* pulls you could get. Very hard hitter and doesn't need to be awakened. Very important when we were getting like one 5* every three months. Now, she's considered decent but unremarkable. It is a little easier to dup when we're pulling so many more champions, and awakening gems now exist that obviate the need to dup.

    You know, some people honestly believe that game balance demands nerfs. And sometimes nerfs are ultimately necessary. But game players are also very emotionally engaged people in general, and public forums self-select the most emotional, most engaged, most expressive players. It is not surprising that these people would express strong opinions in all directions.

    I know you are saying this exactly. But sentry is not like Magik. He's only utility is the unblockble in his sp1/sp2, right now the only place is "usefull" is in 5.4 against modok
    But even there. The 30% is not enough to justify his use there
  • Thalion wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    ESF wrote: »
    @DNA3000: Your explanations are, in a way, why anyone asking for a nerf of a character truly astounds me -- you are basically explaining that when a character hits, that is it.

    More or less, that is what that character is going to be, far more often than not.

    Unless they are bugged in some way, that's virtually always true. For a while. Champions do get buffed and nerfed - Thor got nerfed, Magik got buffed - but it takes a long time to convince the devs a buff or nerf is warranted.

    Even buffs can be problematic. When Magik was buffed she was generally considered underperforming, but the changes they made altered her in ways the players actually playing her had come to rely upon. Magik used to be a nullifying machine, back when nullify was considered valuable and power control was considered valueless. So giving Magik power lock was actually considered by many players to be a step backward. Magik was actually considered not that much better after the buffs, at least going by the most vocal comments about her at the time. Eventually she was considered an extremely strong defender once people realized Limbo scaled with node buffs. But she was still considered a subpar attacker for a long time. She slowly gained converts, but it took all the way to Dave's event for power control to gain the spotlight and Magik to be reevaluated as a very strong attacker. There's a lot of people who think Magik was always considered god-like. Not true. Players had to *learn* how strong she was over a remarkably long period of time.
    This game...I am not being critical. I play almost every single day, even if only for a few minutes. I have seen all iterations of it, from Day 1, Week 1.

    And ever since signature abilities were introduced and more difficult content came into play, there have been maybe...15 or so characters, maybe 20, who have dropped that players can use in almost all aspects of attack.

    It astounds me when I see things like The Goldblum and LOL that people want characters who have significant utility to be nerfed, not because Sentry and Carnage are weaker, but because it's almost impossible to get weaker characters buffed, so you'd think we would be happier when a character drops that is truly useful

    This too is a kind of relative opinion. Storm used to be considered one of the best attackers, and people used Storm in LoL. People used Yellowjacket in LoL. Champions are considered great relative to other options, not based on what they can actually do. Now, fewer people would probably try to use Yellowjacket in LoL, but YJ didn't get any worse, other options became better. Captain Marvel used to be considered one of the best 5* pulls you could get. Very hard hitter and doesn't need to be awakened. Very important when we were getting like one 5* every three months. Now, she's considered decent but unremarkable. It is a little easier to dup when we're pulling so many more champions, and awakening gems now exist that obviate the need to dup.

    You know, some people honestly believe that game balance demands nerfs. And sometimes nerfs are ultimately necessary. But game players are also very emotionally engaged people in general, and public forums self-select the most emotional, most engaged, most expressive players. It is not surprising that these people would express strong opinions in all directions.

    I know you are saying this exactly. But sentry is not like Magik. He's only utility is the unblockble in his sp1/sp2, right now the only place is "usefull" is in 5.4 against modok
    But even there. The 30% is not enough to justify his use there

    I'm not saying Sentry is necessarily in the same position as Magik. I'm using Magik as an example to show that even when Kabam straight up buffs a champion into godlike status, the buff can be seen as a bad move by the players initially, making game developers cautious about making any change.
  • GrubGrub Posts: 116
    @Kabam Miike
    Hi,
    I have a question I am hoping doesn’t get lost in the spam of the I think sentry sucks comments. Sentry has a synergy where he gains fear of the void upon using SP3 for 40 seconds. I know from fighting void in the new quest that void can stack this a max of 2 times can sentry also stack this debuff twice? Or only once? 40 seconds is long enough that if you are fighting aggressively you should be able to stack it twice.
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    Yes that’s a 2* starlord that is better than a 5* sentry. @DNA3000 @Kabam Miike . If you don’t see a problem with that then something is wrong. Go Write a novel on the defend sentry page.
  • Neroa65Neroa65 Posts: 302 ★★
    JAQRIPP wrote: »
    du3dzd5sx40x.jpeg

    Not sure what your idea is with reposting this. After multiple people have posted it, in the same thread. Not entirely sure what you're hoping to achieve.

    I don't think reinforcing the idea that he's "bad" will achieve anything positive, I'd rather go with suggesting why he's disappointing and perhaps ways (if the devs will listen) to improve him without breaking his intended mechanics.
  • Neroa65Neroa65 Posts: 302 ★★
    JAQRIPP wrote: »
    Yes that’s a 2* starlord that is better than a 5* sentry. @DNA3000 @Kabam Miike . If you don’t see a problem with that then something is wrong. Go Write a novel on the defend sentry page.

    And I think you misunderstood his point entirely.

    That being said, improving the chances of his modes changing from 30% to about 60% doesn't seem to mess up his mechanics. Not by my view.. Even if it's left at 30% and the reality warps reinforce it's chances, it even makes it better as it rewards you for not getting hit.
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    2 points @Neroa65 . #1 is the squeaky wheel gets the grease. #2 is k.i.s.s. (Keep it simple “silly”) Hahaha. If he sucks and he can be fixed then fix it. Simple enough... I believe.
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    Or you can write a novel about it. Your choice. Drop the mike!! Lol.
  • Neroa65Neroa65 Posts: 302 ★★
    JAQRIPP wrote: »
    2 points @Neroa65 . #1 is the squeaky wheel gets the grease. #2 is k.i.s.s. (Keep it simple “silly”) Hahaha. If he sucks and he can be fixed then fix it. Simple enough... I believe.

    Lol. This we can agree on.
  • Neroa65Neroa65 Posts: 302 ★★
    But I think everyone here wants the same thing - We want Sentry to be better.

    Whether some write novel or not.
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    @Neroa65 I agree
  • Gladiator09Gladiator09 Posts: 313 ★★
    I was really looking forward to a new science champ but forgot kabam is never generous to science class but more than generous giving out science awakening gems lol
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    Ok who’s the flag...
    flagger??? It’s all good no judging. But It’s my opinion and my idea, you don’t have to like it But don’t Flag it because you disagree. No cursing no disrespect to anyone. I don’t flag, I just state my case and disagree. Don’t be scurred.
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    You know what,... screw it, I don’t care. Hide behind your internet shield because you didn’t agree with a picture. More fuel to the fire. I smell COVERUP!!!
    Bahaha...
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    Who are you working for???
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    LOL, this is funny! WHO is covering WHAT up mate?

    Hes a very very bad champ, we all can see that, so what is being covered up please? Is he even worse than 22 pages of this thread say he is?[/quote]

    someone Flagged my post ... mate. I thought it was funny so I made a joke of it. It made me laugh... actually I’m still laughing... and drinking.
  • JAQRIPPJAQRIPP Posts: 84
    Ok it’s a flag fest right now... I didn’t know there was that much flagging to go around. All my comments are getting flagged without one single curse word. It’s cool. Good night, sorry to disturb the equilibrium ...
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 20,431 ★★★★★
    I'm going to throw in a positive. I love both of their L3s. Very cool concept. Not really a spoiler. Anyone can see it in the EQ. ;) That's all.
  • Logan00Logan00 Posts: 41
    So officially confirmed, Sentry with Void synergy = Sentry still sucks. I guess that closes the debate of " Wait to see his synergy with Void", Lagacy just released a video of ROL WS about it and is very conclusive. RIP Sentry
  • Damn I have seen Sentry with Void synergy and he's still the worse champ in the game. Lol
This discussion has been closed.