Replacement

I'm sorry in advance if I let it bleed through that I've had a very long and annoying day, but I'm really tired of this "find your own joy" argument presented like the high road, when you're just defending an imbalanced status quo. This is a game where anyone can get to level 50 in 4 hours, and yet I have played 300+ hours and don't have a single level 50. I made this bed, I'm not complaining about it, but recognize that ridiculous difference between people here for the content, and people who need that character select screen to say "50". But I mostly solo. Sometimes I get to play with people I know IRL. Would I like to occasionally party with randos and truly engage with this community? Yes. Will I? No, because I will feel bad making them hunt 30 Tsoo in IP for whatever first-gen story arc I felt fit this current character, and oh look now we gotta run to boomtown. I will feel bad making them wait while I read the mission text. And most importantly, I will feel bad for making them endure subpar XP in my 4-man party struggling through spawns. I like reading the stories, I do not AE farm, and I like small parties. But I am so done with Shauna Stockwell and Officer Wincott. (sidenote: I've never cared to collect all badges or experience all content on a single character, and I realize this is probably a quirk. I much prefer finding story arcs that match my current character and occasionally join random groups just for a 1-3 level bump to get to the next arc I'm eyeing). Regardless: I want to emphasize that Abraxus had it right on the money: no matter how nice it might be to try to bridge the gap some, there are probably better things to spend our entirely-volunteer dev time on.

Yeah, if there were any low-man bonuses, I'd probably have them cap at 2-4 people (meaning there's no further benefit to soloing). @Twisted Toon Kindly note that I never said it should be pulled back to 6. I can selfishly wish the universe was one thing while acknowledging a solution that is objectively better. And I think I have a solution that fits: Story arcs simply aren't ran regularly with full teams. Full teams run TFs or Radios. So give story arcs scaling low man benefits. 2 henchmen with one hurl boulder.

I can understand the argument of dev time, for sure. But locking down seems a bit dramatic for some bonus mission completion XP. That's not forcing anyone to do anything. Ah -- I just reread my post and see the important bit I missed. I would specifically like to see story mission completion get a low-man bonus.

I've wished a lot for this game to have a team cap of 6 instead of 8. In addition to the complete lack of difficulty, it's just too much... Noise. Realising I'm the odd man out with how much I low-man, and in an effort to not be a hateful shit, I would at least like to see incentives for smaller parties. Given I'm one of the folks that would like to see story arcs level you at a rate competitive with AE, I'd say scaling (EDIT: STORY) mission completion bonuses inversely with party size would be a good start (say, 20% more xp for 6 people, and 20% more for each additional "missing" person).

I like having scrapper secondaries that do and don't have offensive/taunt auras. I think at this point, one of the only remaining aesthetic strengths of scrapper is to have some stalker-esque builds and other brutish builds. To that end, I'm super happy to see them get /ninja for example. I think new power sets not getting taunts on scrapper versions will help load-balance the different scrapper ideals. Also: I'm good with giving Khelds new tricks. Maybe with some customization options. If I at least had 2-3 dwarves to choose from... (I'd choose Dopey)

Even if EA doesn't have a taunt effect, it at least has an offensive component, which at least makes things follow and stick to you. Don't know how that compares though.

I hope not! At least not for all of them...

@golstat2003 Because it's a single target, so it would never threaten the role of dedicated tanks, yet would allow a Scrapper to be able to come to a tank's rescue by sharing some of their own durability. I'd take a reduced duration to get it. Lots of theoretical ways to tune it, too. Such as a separate "target lock" debuff that gets duration-resisted, so that AVs barely glance at a scrapper. I understand this is likely a minority opinion. EDIT: Didn't some of the late tanker proliferations (like war mace) keep taunt when they went to scrapper instead of getting a single target version? Silly, if so, but something like my proposition to make the more focused Confronts offer something similar on the utility spectrum would be nice.

Well, I guess this thread has ran its intended course with even CP willing to discuss tanking in a more meta capacity, so I guess I won't feel bad about saying: I know I'm strange, but I actually want the scrapper ST taunt to be the strongest in the game. I like the idea of being able to grab one target for sure, even off a (struggling) Tanker. It's likely too complicated, but I'd also love if Confront, et al, summoned a hostile, invisible pseudopet (my phone knows that word. Thanks, HC community!) that stayed directly on top of the scrapper for a while - basically, a mechanism to +1 all powers that scale with nearby enemies, to give scrappers a light incentive to take and use the power.

Oh yeah! And the target cap on Taunt (the actual power) is up from 5 to... 7(?) on Pineapple.

I think I agree with what you're saying here. I think. Basically, while what I said above is "ideal," there are some "first pass tweaks" being made as part of it. Ultimately, these are some pretty good ideas (like intentionally overlooking TW and Spines) but it's certainly muddying the ideal. I can live with it, but I agree it creates a more confusing "partial implementation." Thanks for the additional notes, though I don't know which attacks remain at 10 max targets (the ones from 5 to 10 were cones, iirc, so thanks on that front as well). Are there any overlooked from Tanker secondary? Also, I didn't touch the "Brute, go stand in time-out" penalty since it's not specifically Tanker. 😄

I think that's sort of like treating symptoms. We need to focus on getting the structure right first, and getting things to perform "by the formula." Once we have that foundation of "here's how things should work, so the reality matches the numbers on paper" then all the outliers should become pretty evident as a live population begins really stress-testing. In essence: we have no benchmark, when the game was literally designed around a series of them (the initial damage formulae). CP has very clear stress points for how he feels Tankers should perform, and if this goes live, we will be able to report every instance of that being false. (I should note, that doesn't necessarily mean exact parity will ever even be strived for. Some sets are intended to have higher damage or utility than others. But the inflection points should be known and tracked) Atm and iirc (and more internet letters) it is: Ranged modifier matches old melee modifier (0.8) Epic attacks all use ranged modifier Melee damage modifier to .95 (from .8) Damage cap to 5.0/500% (from 400%, I believe) Gauntlet refactored as a global proc. No longer has an accuracy check. It's aoe centered on ST targets, and auto-hit vs all targets hit by your own aoes. Bonuses to several "party help" effects. I honestly don't remember the very specific list but I know defense debuffs were untouched and Leadership (and particularly Assault) is stronger. AOE stuff (I believe this is all considered "gauntlet") AOE attacks from melee sets from 10 max targets to 16 (not pool or epic) Most AOE attacks (or maybe just pbaoe?) with a radius of 10' or less gain +60% radius (should apply to pool and epics) All cones with a radius of 90° or less have their arc increased by 100% (should apply to pool and epics) I ran out of stuff. I think that's it.

Considering that's damage cap, and not a huge ding anyway, you are almost guaranteed not to notice.

Yes. It's on Pineapple now. Check out the previous build's patch notes. EDIT: September 21st patch notes

It really has. I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you, but I've really respected yours and @Auroxis's posts, among others I've disagreed with. And a lot of power has been rolled back throughout this beta process already, so don't feel like this is all on deaf ears. About your damage comparisons - I assume you're talking about Tanker damage when capped on targets (e.g. base damage * max target number)? I cannot fully disagree with your assessments, but I think it's important to point out if this is a comparison of best-case scenario.

Folks, Ignicity just proved they're flamebaiting. They care more about a reaction than the topic at hand. (Their edit about sentinels above proved it). Don't come down to their level. Keep this a feedback thread please for the love of Sister Psyche.

5.0 takes into account that you're always operating at 100% base. The ui only shows +400.

In case anyone wants to really continue this "You said you wouldn't!" Angle: In particular (I don't know how to quote across tabs, so I'mma just paste with quotes): "At the moment, the tanker cap wont go below 5.5 unless the Brute cap also goes down to keep the 90% relationship, but that is not something I am currently considering (that can always change.)"

You uh... you sure about that, buddy? @Captain Powerhouse: I don't think this change made the code push 🥶

I don't think this is constructive to dwell on. Everyone was so sure the damage caps mattered in the previous thread, so this is the response. In general, I caution against using an argument of "this won't impact anything, so don't spend time fixing it." It feels, to me, like the same mindset as "my candy wrapper, particularly, isn't why the world is covered in trash" when you litter. If it's not where it should be, I think we should encourage changing it as opportunity allows. -- Real quick aside, I want to point out two sides of thought to the Live (775) cap for Brutes Side A: Lower base damage numbers means each percentage point of +damage % matters less. So even full fury (200%) + 500% (expected base for a damage dealer job) = 700. It's instead set to 775 to compensate for those diminished increases. Side B: This set the scales for Brutes to keep pace with Blasters, while also having the 2nd-best survival in the game -- and remember, the whole point of Tanker Love is that Tankers' survivability isn't meaningfully better than Brutes. This is the definition of Tank Mage. The damage calculations of Ye Olde Threade did more to show just how far out-of-line a damage-capped Brute is than to say anything definitive about where Tankers should stand. -- Ok, testing! (I'm trying really hard to remember this thread has feedback in the title and I'm dismayed there are more people in this thread than logged onto Pineapple) Previous test build: I had built an Elec/SS tanker, played him at 20 w/out any enhancements to see just how much I hate my life. It went remarkably well. I think naked Blasters perform a bit better (Sustain power is stronk). I then leveled him to 28 and gave him basic level 30 IOs, played a few maps. Trade-offs compared to my experience soloing blasters in this range: Obviously safer and slower, but in general, I'd say it felt like the same amount of effort. I was also using this character to test out Force of Will and - guys - I really do think Wall of Force is giving me a 180° cone. It's awesome. October 1 build: I logged on and played some missions again, more level 28 radio missions. This is all +0/x1 normal stuff, btw. Result: I absolutely miss the endurance, but it's not breaking my back. I'm running a single level 30 +Recovery IO in Stamina. On Live, I would absolutely have 2-3 +Recovery IOs at this level on just about any character I play (exceptions for some builds of all 3 Blast ATs -- probably Controllers too but I don't play Controllers). Ok, so that's a lot of words, but here's my tl;dr on live vs current build: On Live, a Tanker's only hope for soloing is to herd and slog. It's slow and for a lot of your career, it's hard on endurance. On Pineapple, the kill speed is good enough that I can simply combine a few packs here and there. In general, I nodded off less and felt more like I could flow throw small packs, letting 2-3 mingle here and there, and still do ok. But, I definitely now need Endurance again. I'll up him to 30 soon and give him another +Recovery and a Performance Shifter soon, see how it feels then.

Actually, while I like Electric and Psionic @Zepp, I don't know about Nature. I think your direction makes sense, and I get Regen is one of those mechanics where it takes a lot of stuff coming together for it to even start being useful, but it's a lot to come out the gate with a way-stacked defensive toggle. I wonder if something like High Pain Tolerance wouldn't be better (auto, 5%ish resist all, +Max HP which will benefit any future +Regen). I'm actually OK with Spirit Tree, though. It, their absorb shield, and a regen-oriented t1 would set up a far more skirmish-minded Operative. A lot of options there but... Let's take a moment to remember Vines is better than most Controller Controls. Mag 3 aoe hold, can be used every other spawn with just basic IOs. Its drawback is a double cast time -- which is largely negated if you're using it from a position of stealth. It'll be a strong set.

Looking good. I saw Mass Hypnosis coming and I think that's a good call -- it also really justifies the cone fear later on. The one place you guys have diverged from me is that I'm quite fond of removing the Mez Protection from their passive and putting it in their Placate in lieu of secondary defensive benefits (e.g. +resist). And that's fine. It's the level of detail that could be moved around pretty easily in testing, without wildly changing gameplay expectations. As for the class being complicated to play -- I guarantee it will be easier than a Dominator. An AT that will always have more actions than time to use them all (made oh-so-much worse by the desire to perma-dom). In terms of gameplay, I believe there are 2 "gaps" in the AT playstyles that this can fill. When I say gap, I mean a void in the scales of comparing one AT to another. Example scale: Scrapper -- Brute -- Tanker. This is a pretty simple linear scale. Scale 1: Blitzkrieg, shock-and-awe Stalker -- Operative -- Blaster. Scale 2: Stacking the battlefield, Active defense (e.g. mez and positioning) Blaster -- Operative -- Dominator. More than slight boons to their direct controls (which I think will really round them out), the intended major difference in the "battlefield" angle is utilizing stealth to better-choose how to engage and smoothly disengage. If done right, that should help them feel like an Operative -- the person on the battlefield who fights with a plan and always stays mindful of all the exits.

Sad to see the endurance go. At the points of the game where endurance isn't functionally infinite, low-damage characters basically get dinged on their kill speed twice. But overall, I'm ok with this.

You sure it's not still giving only affects self? I know it was missing from Justin for a while but I'm quite sure I read patch notes of them reinstating it. About the defense -- also quite sure none of Stealth's defense is suppressed, while most of invisibility's is.

I do I do! (page 3 of this thread)