Difference between revisions of "Talk:Power Set Themes"

Latest revision as of 21:23, 19 July 2014

About this Page

I am a little fuzzy on what you are trying to do with this page and what your determinations are for what a power set falls under. For instance, how is Fiery Assault a support set in the same way Thermal Radiation is? I would think you should break down the categories in the same way I did for the Power Set Icons: Defensive (Invulnerability, etc.), Melee, Ranged, Control, Assault*, Manipulation*, Pets, and Support (Empathy, Force Fields). (Heck, you could actually find a home for my icons here if you wanted in the headers! (* = You could probably combine Assault/Manip if you wanted since they are quite similar to each other in being hybrid sets with melee attacks.) —  Talk · Cont 05:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

There's some discussion on the forums: http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,9882.0.html Not sure it'll directly answer your questions though. -- Sekoia 14:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is very much a work in progress. I just did it more to group together all sets in one place, since it wasn't there before (it's just for my own pleasure, mostly - the forum thread explains more about the reason for the creation of this article). The actual columns (control vs assault vs support) aren't super important to me, but I think help with the presentation. I sort of drew the lines as such:

• Armor / Self Buff for defensive powers that help only the person who use those powers (as opposed to just defensive in general, since defenders have a similar name to defensive, and I wanted to avoid confusion)
• Control for, well, I guess just controller / dominator primaries, so far. Not sure anything else would go there.
• Melee for melee.
• Ranged for attack-focused ranged sets (so mostly things like blaster primaries / defender secondaries)
• Ancillary / Epic / Pool for those sets, since they have so many types of power that they deserve their own column.
• Support for everything else. The issue is that I didn't want to end up having a column for each archetype,* which is what breaking down support would do. Additionally, the hybrid nature you mention of some sets led me to lump them together)

HOWEVER, I'm looking at the archetype pages now, and there's already categories for these things, as listed in the overview for each archetype: melee, defense, buff, control, assault, ranged, support and summon (epic ATs not included in this list). I probably should have looked at that first. I'll rework the page to use those terms. I think it's worth noting that "manipulation" appears to be in the name for Blaster secondary sets only (based on a cursory search) - and according to the Blaster AT page, those are classified as "support". And your icon for "support" on the Category_talk:Custom_Power_Set_Icons page looks like it might be for Defender type powers - which are listed on that page as "buff" power sets. While Defenders are a "support" AT, I think using the existing nomenclature is important, so I'll rework this page to include the existing names for sets, per the AT pages.

As for Pets, if you look on the left column, I do have a spot for non-MM pet power sets to be placed. Although they will no doubt fit into other categories as well (fire control, for example, with its imps) I think it's important to gather the non-MM pet sets in their own place. It is self-evident that MM primaries have pets - that's the whole point of the AT. But people may not want to be an MM, but still want to know what sets they can get that have pets. Having a pets column would lead to duplicated sets - so I'll stick with a "summon" column, in keeping with the list in the previous paragraph, which will contain MM primaries, and then put other pet sets in the Pets row.

*I don't want a column for each AT, because it would make many sets appear in a row multiple times. There's so much overlap with things like the melee ATs, that it would just make the table larger unnecessarily.

Felderburg 21:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)