[Nerfs - Stealth Changes - Bullshit]

The only unexpected thing I noticed immediately after i28p2  was that something was seriously wrong with the Maintenance Drone from Robotics, but this appears to have been an introduced bug that has since been addressed. It was so bad, and so unexpected that it certainly felt like a 'nerf'. For a while there I thought it was an unannounced change to give that one user (who missed seeing his Protector Bots cast heals) what they wanted.

[Does Spring Attack need to be slotted for Accuracy?]

Per CoD it has a base accuracy of 1.0

 

I'd slot it for Accuracy, unless somehow the range was the reason for taking it.

 

 

[How would you nerf tankers?]

4 hours ago, flakoff said:

I was wondering, maybe they could have a scaling damage reduction? So solo no damage reduction and by the time you are tanking in a full team you do less damage?

 

I'm not sure what this would accomplish: in team mode Tanker damage never mattered, unless the Tanker was off by herself... other ATs (e.g. Blasters) are pretty much nuking entire spawns. This is the reason why it is sort of easy to believe that it was the solo performance of Tankers (with large spawn sizes) that was the motivation for the wholesale changes (as initially proposed, as rolled out). Bluntly: I'm surprised that the devs even care about what players do solo, especially in instanced missions (AE or otherwise)... it's not like Solo tankers were en masse routinely running 'defeat all' solo Tinpex, ITF, BAF, whatever. I mean... I've taken my Tankers through some pretty long, painful TFs filled with 'defeat all' missions, but it isn't like such things are particularly enjoyable to me.

 

I suppose *if* the devs were actually concerned about a Tanker out-DPSing other ATs *on teams* (for 'roleplay' reasons?), then this would have been a fine suggestion.

 

At this point in the game, the ONLY AT-centered knob the devs seem interested in turning is the damage knob. I don't think there is any appetite for making other ATs more likely to take damage, be controlled, or be hit... except for a smallish number of critters that get improved ToHit chances (or AutoHit powers). Based on the wholesale nature of most of the recent Tanker changes, it doesn't look like the devs are particularly willing to focus on specific powers unless something really gets their attention.

 

Not appropriate for Tankers, but like many folks I felt the change to Seeds of Confusion was way overdue... yet the scale-back of Plant Control was accompanied by a general boost to the usability of long-range AoE controls... it doesn't bring them anywhere close to the utility of the crashless, fast-recharging Blaster nukes, but it was something. I didn't see any signs of dev interest in offering the Tanker AT anything similar to offset the scale backs of i28p2 (again, the PPM Gauntlet fix was necessary for balance).

[How would you nerf tankers?]

28 minutes ago, Uncle Shags said:

I feel like dev opinion had been swayed by the incessant whine of the "tankers do too much damage" crowd and felt like a nerf was a good idea.

 

It's possible that the whining had something(*1) to do with it, but I get the sense that whenever the devs think rewards are outstripping effort, they try to turn the dial back(*2)... Tankers were recognized as being slightly better farmers and it wasn't hard to see a bajillion 'in mission' level 50 Tankers, so I suspect they felt the need to smack down Tankers just because they had become the most popular farming choice.

 

Frankly, I think the efforts in i28p2 to curb Tankers have failed to teach some important lessons to the dev team and community:

1. Tankers got where they had been because of an excellent, but over-tuned change to their inherent. There are a bunch of other AT inherents that are terrible, and deserve to be looked at (ehem, VEATs)
2. The dev team has been really slow to make Tanker primary T9s worthwhile across all sets. I can't imagine an AT like a Blaster skipping or under-slotting their primary T9s like Tankers do. If there is a dev vision that Tankers are supposed to have some role other than 'do damage', maybe the T9s ought to reflect that. I find it janky that the Blaster t9s removed crashes to improve performance, and yet the Tanker t9s can basically be afterthoughts in almost every build.

(*1) Not exactly whining, but the Scrapper/Tanker/Brute ATO discussion always sounds a little whiny to me... Scrappers only hold their ston times because of their ATOs, yet somehow folks still think Brutes deserve better ATOs (more like Tankers' is sometimes suggested). I agree the Brute ATO look lackluster in comparison to Scrapper and Tanker, but this ignores some of the other crummy ATOs to focus on "wah Scrapper/Tanker".

 

(*2) see also the GM changes in i28p2

[Are Tankers still the "hit more enemies" AT? A spreadsheet.]

41 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

Well, I guess everyone can be given Scrapper level damage then. And if Scrapper complain, tough. 

 

[Power Pools for MMs]

MMV, but I'd dump the Speed pool before Leadership. Tactics also provides +Perception... I feel like it helps my MMs, but others may not notice. The Leadership pool has offers places to put Defense IOs.

[Mastermind Pet Speculation]

I was always hoping that Goldside would get the equivalent of VEATs and HEATs, let's call them PEATs... that followed a similar trajectory of the VEATs... with the two initial choices leading to 'specializations' where the player could end up as a Seer or IDF (with their 'pets') or an experimental Hamidon-Hybrid fusion with its 'pets'. The fourth would probably just be something like a Carnie of Light, so the paths would be 'Resistance' -> Seer or Carnie, 'Loyalist' -> IDF or Hybrid.

[Are Tankers still the "hit more enemies" AT? A spreadsheet.]

15 minutes ago, Erratic1 said:

 

I have noted I don't think farming was a consideration. Not sure why so many have leapt to that.

 

As was pointed out by @ZemX : Aside from the PPM formulae mess-up, It's hard to see where Tankers were 'over-performing' except on solo x8. It's hard to imagine x8 and not think 'farming' (of one sort or another).

 

1 minute ago, Erratic1 said:

 

Who said anything about parity being needed. I didn't. If anything, that is coming from those complaining as I believe in this very thread you have someone asserting a 2% change in animations is all that was necessary. Maybe the averages you provided should be seen as calling into question why Tankers average clear time was the same as Scrappers.

 

You are free to repeatedly assert teaming is the only thing that matters, but then what is your complaint? A Tankers role on a team is not damage. So why are you complaining, particularly about damage? Your own claim negates your complaint.

 

Hey that was my joke about the animation times needing a 2% increase for 'ston-parity'!

 

The argument about 'roles meaning less damage for some' has a fundamental flaw: 99%+ of the game's rewards are based on defeats from dealing damage... so for solo play, I like when similar ATs achieve similar completion times for similar rewards.

 

Another drawback with 'roles'... nobody is calling for 'survival nerfs' to all non-Tankers. We have seen some of the more ridiculous stuff (Rune of Protection) get hit, but that wasn't specifically to give Tankers a more important role.

[Are Tankers still the "hit more enemies" AT? A spreadsheet.]

1 hour ago, ZemX said:

 

What I said was, "On any real team..."  Ston's test was +4/x8 solo Trapdoor with IOs, procs, and Incarnates in the mix.  And even then, roll your eyes down to the bottom average completion time for each AT:

 

Scrappers: 5:10

Tankers: 5:10

Brutes:  5:18

 

Eight seconds different.  Hence why I pointed out Tankers were all of 2% faster.  That's smaller... MUCH smaller than the difference between the powersets themselves.  

 

So what I'm seeing... Tanker animation times should have been increased by 2% to achieve parity with Brutes?

[How would you nerf tankers?]

On 6/20/2025 at 11:01 PM, ZemX said:

This to me sounds like a fancy way of saying "farming" or at least soloing x8.  I don't know how else you keep consistently hitting over the standard caps of 10 for PBAoE and 5 for Cones except by herding on a farm or whilst soloing team-sized spawns all by yourself.  

 

MMV, but I got the sense that there was some disingenuity in the (various) stated rationales for the changes targeting Tankers in i28p2. The radius fix for PPM was a no-brainer. The change to buff/debuff scales... as opposed to looking at specific powers... um okay? The "Tankers will be AoE specialists" made no sense given the initial round of changes... and it isn't as if the Tanker secondaries suddenly got new AoE attacks.

 

I feel like most of the Tanker changes could have waited to allow the i28p2 focus to be more on Controllers and KW.

[Are Tankers still the "hit more enemies" AT? A spreadsheet.]

(some of) This mirrors what I am seeing:

 

45 minutes ago, ZemX said:

Any way you slice it though, this appears mainly to have been a farming/soloing nerf.  To constantly hit those larger target caps for Tankers, you had to constantly have enemies clustered around you.  Where else does that happen as reliably as farming or soloing at x8?  

 

I definitely feel like this was a LOT of extra effort applied across-the-board to target one AT that simply happened to be doing what other ATs could already do (and still do).

 

I don't typically farm(*1), but I did happen to have a Tanker just about ready to hit level 40 when i28p2 went live. Historically: by the mid 30s my characters have enough slots to handle both the offensive and defensive side of "turning up the spawn size"... and characters with armor sets (of Blasters) can usually crank that dial up more than other ATs. My soloing Tanker did have to turn spawn size back a notch after p2, I felt like I couldn't defeat (too big) spawns fast enough to stay on the green side of the grass before things would go pear-shaped. For smaller spawns (under the newly established cap) I don't notice much difference otherwise.

 

(*1) For me: The closest regular activity is occasionally running Tip missions at x8, to most quickly get a daily Catalyst drop. 

 

[My suggestion is: a location check box at the character select screen]

17 hours ago, Psyonico said:

I don’t really understand this part of it.  I usually want to play a specific character, so I’ll make that character go wherever they need to go.

 

My guess is that underneath the request is the desire to do a quick logout and log back in to get rewards for something like Adamastor, which is on a daily timer and tends to get defeated quickly.

[New Alexander arc in Kalisti Wharf (spoilers and more spoilers!)]

A comment from someone has done a lot of consumer usability studies: When the users can't figure out the thing that was obvious to the engineer, its not a problem with the users.

[Gravity/Arsenal dom trying to choose a "heal" power.]

On 3/2/2025 at 5:46 PM, normalperson said:

I'm at a three way crossroads again. 

 

At L18 I can take  

 

A- Crushing field.                       Group immobilize that inflicts 7.5 smashing (at level 18)   8  Second Rech

B - Gravity Distortion Field        Group hold that inflicts 0 points damage of any kind and makes foes immune to knock     4 Min Rech

 

C - Wall of Force                       Cone AOE with 33% chance of .67 knock, inflicts 16 points smash/psionic          10 Second Rech

 

I am leaning toward Crushing Field

 

 

 

My Grav/Arsenal Dom has each of those powers:

 

Crushing Field was taken at level 8 slotted w/ 6x Ascendancy of the Dominator

Wall of Force was taken at level 14 slotted w/ Acc/Range and procs (including %+Recharge)

Gravitational Distortion Field was taken at level 18 slotted with 5x Gladiator's Net

 

EDIT: As for heals: I took Unleash Potential at 20, franken-slotted with 3xShield Wall, a LotG +Global Recharge and a Heal/Recharge... the extra defense was more important than the healing for me.

[Has anyone tested Energy Aura yet?]

Apropos of (almost) nothing: I find that IOs (*1) help (me) more with Offense than Resistance/Defense. There are a some reasons why *I* feel this way. 

1. Global Recharge and Global Accuracy (and +ToHit) are much more noticeable than anything else during typical play
2. I play enough characters with terrible Resistance that it gets hard (but not impossible) for me to tell the difference between 70% Resistances and 90%+ Resistances
3. Defenses are easier to notice solo, but once teamed I can usually see by a quick glance to my combat attributes window that someone is buffing them.

(*1) The "help" is the difference between me liking an offense set (with high Global Recharge) and not liking a set.... but on the defense side I simply get better feels, not radically different ones. MMV.

[[OPEN BETA] Patch Notes for June 16th, 2025 - Issue 28, Page 2 - Release Candidate 2]

I like the upgrade to the Giant Monster base ToHit, I think this was a long over-due improvement to the difficulty of them. I've long observed that being able to stand "toe-to-toe" with them was the #1 reason why they were generally not-so-tough. nuEochai's Pumpkin Patch made this much more difficult, which is why I think of all the GMs this one is often ignored.

 

As a practical matter, I've noticed this most evidently with Lusca, where it is impossible to fight only one (Tentacle and Lusca), and when tackling more than one tentacle at a time (plus Lusca) the fight is a proper PITA for a solo player. The only other one I've noticed being slightly more of a PITA is Jack-in-Irons, only because of his somewhat rapid-firing AoEs and controls. Other GMs are taking a little bit more time for me, but I haven't quite pinned down why this would be.

 

Also: Thanks for giving Raving trolls the ability to leap not-so-tall walls!

[Has anyone tested Energy Aura yet?]

I haven't tested in on Tankers, but my expectations match what @PeregrineFalcon describes, based on the way it played for me on a Scrapper. I loved it on a Sentinel FWIW.

 

If I was to try in on a Tanker, I'd absolutely try to maximize HP, and I would use the Force of Will pool to have Unleash Potential available as often as possible. I'd probably franken-slot it with Defense and Heal (and getting whichever Defense globals that don't fit elsewhere in it) but this choice isn't one I can guarantee because of playstyle. For the Scrapper, I found I needed both Defense and Healing way more often than I would have preferred. The extra HP of Tankers should make a big difference (for the way I played and built the Scrapper)

 

Overload (for Tankers) is harder to predict (for me). It probably would get added as an easy IO mule.

[Quicksand - why bother?]

I've taken it: as noted it is a good 1-slot-wonder, and with enough recharge in a build it can be available to grief critters. IIRC it can get in the way of the interruptable summons enemies.

 

I've skipped it: Since it is a level 6 power, it "gets in the way" of me when I am planning to get a level 14 (or 20) power pool power ASAP... level 6 happens to be a convenient time to pick a first or second pool power.

[Homecoming Servers no longer showing up on Google search/Chrome?]

To further fuel the anti-Google sentiment: It appears (to me) that whatever they did in March includes a new variant of digital finger-printing that will force certain users, under certain conditions, to solve captchas to use the default Google search. For example, I don't have to solve the captchas on one machine (of several) unless that one machine is using a browser in incognito mode. I had another machine start down this path when it was on another network, but it seems like (for the time being) I changed networks/cleared caches/etc. enough to get it off that "list". Ultimately I simply rely on other search engines.

 

I don't have extraordinary measures in play: I use Firefox "strict" policy (except for one service that the mode otherwise breaks), and a handful of common blockers. The only thing I can think of that mimics 'bot behavior' on my end is possibly quickly flipping through sites and leveraging an external text file of bookmarks (as opposed to having them in a browser).

[What do you plan on running once we get the update?]

I will probably opt for a Regen Tank of some sort depending on what sort of concept I can come up with. I'd say the same for Psi Armor... I may reroll a stalled concept character using it.

 

Energy Aura is quite low on my list: The current HC version (pre-beta) is something I like on my Sentinel but I don't like the way it make me play my Scrapper. A Tanker with more HP might handle it better, but I am in no rush to find out. 

[How would you nerf tankers?]

4 hours ago, WumpusRat said:

 

I think I'm really curious as for the people arguing balance back and forth if they're comparing the ATs and builds and such the way balance is supposed to be achieved?

As in, SO's only. No IO sets, no incarnate powers, no temp powers, etc.

 

Cause just from personal experience, I think it would shake out a lot differently if people were using purely SO'd builds instead of fully tricked out ones.

 

I think you are correct. IOs, and IMO the lowering of levels at which powers can be chosen, further reduce how much certain ATs are 'valued' for even more content than just 45+ when incarnate powers come into play. It was always true that exemplaring down (with slots and more inspirations) was good... now exemplared characters have access to T9s for even lower level content. BTW: I think the lowering of the power choice levels was a good thing, some of my ATs used to really flounder for some lower level content when exemplared... I point this out because it was a dev choice that directly reduced the disparity (for much more content) between ATs like Tankers/Brutes who have flip-flopped primaries and secondaries.

 

Writing for myself: %proc damage gets some amount of hate, but I find the PPM %damage to be one of the few ways the lower-performing (DPS-wise) ATs can stand a chance to finish most content within an order of magnitude of other ATs... and I'm NOT thinking about +4x8 content when I write this! At the 'finish content uber-fast' end of the spectrum, I simply don't care if a bunch of fully-tricked out solo-ists all finish some content within a minute of each other. The ATs that can already do excellent amount of damage don't need to rely on %damage, and through build choices can concentrate on something else.

[A more even distribution of Hamidon, D-sync drops]

6 hours ago, macskull said:

Eh, I’m not opposed to the idea at face value, or at least the idea of a better potential reward for spending more time on the content. I’d rather see that happen than have the encounter’s rewards nerfed, which to be entirely honest I’m surprised hasn’t happened by now.

 

I am simultaneously surprised and not surprised that certain things that brush up against the idea of 'farming for rewards disproportionate with effort/time' haven't been touched.

 

Hami raids are at least somewhat social. The social aspect(*1) is IMO the only reason why SNS is still accepted, otherwise the idea of flooding a zone with players and GMs was something that used to result in caps on the number of players in a zone.

 

(*1) unfortunately, SNS has long been showing signs of 'this is something we're owed, so conform'. I think it was a cool proof-of-concept idea, but it generates some amount of groupthink that isn't always pleasant.

[A controversial topic: is it time to make all items free?]

On 6/7/2025 at 11:04 PM, Yomo Kimyata said:

What do you see as plusses and minuses if the devs, for example, made items available as they currently do on Beta?

 

(+) The AH offers me something to do with my 'loot' drops,

(-) which would go unwanted if everything was 'free'

 

I like the progression upwards... even if I can get stuff for one character by having another 'pay' for it, it still feels like I'm engaging with the world of the game.

 

The biggest 'plus' for me would be we could eliminate all forms of storage (AH, Vault, SG base) to simplify the database. I suppose we'd have to keep personal enhancement storage.

 

[Make Lady Jane more intelligent]

I always run to the end of that mission and defeat my way back towards her. It doesn't make her any less chatty, but it reduces my stress levels.

[Focused Feedback: Tanker - Archetype Inherent Changes]

15 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

 However that only holds true if attaining those survivability thresholds is necessary for survival in the first place for whatever content you're running. And a very common view is that the majority of this game's content is so easy that building for additional mitigation simply isn't required (even for diehard soloers, in these days of Incarnate clickies and being able to type /AH before each mission!)

 

 

I've bolded the part that I think is fundamental... Tankers (and Brutes) are both pretty close to the "Imma always gonna live" limit for 99%+ of the games contents, no matter the Primary/Secondary choice. Scrappers and Stalkers (and VEATs!) are also pretty close. When we factor in Defenses only... the field has more room for variability, but in comparison Tankers and Brutes have essentially run out of headroom. From my PoV the differences between Brutes and Tankers mostly comes down to the level at which certain powers can be chosen, and the slightly different base scales. I'm not at all bothered by the possibility of nearly identical performance (survive/defeat) at level 50 and beyond... especially if the final equivalence comes only from specific slotting choices.

 

The rumblings about the motivations for the deep pull-backs on Tanker damage don't strike me as entirely well-considered... because (1) Tankers don't really get more AoE 'out-of-the-box' than other ATs and (2) I can't imagine scaling back OTHER ATs to make those easier to be hit (or given fewer HP, or made easier to get mezzed, or whatever) because 'Surviving is the role for Tankers and Brutes'; there would be a riot.