Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Bopper]

3 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

It's my understanding that PPM ignores buffs, only slotted enhancements count. But best way to know for sure is to test it.

 

If the Area boosts truly work like the Boost Range power, then there is no impact to PPM. I tested that previously with a Dark/Energy blaster. I was able to confirm that increasing the range of a power (thus the radius of a cone), there was no change to PPM performance. Slotting range enhancements did not change the performance either.

 

I suspect the code checks the radius and arc of the power, thus not looking for enhancements. So the question is, for tankers, does the inherent change the original radius/arc of the power, or are those values being buffed? 

 

Either way, it should be tested just to confirm. But I imagine no changes were made under the hood for how PPM works, and there would be no impact.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Bopper

[Vanden]

4 minutes ago, Bopper said:

So the question is, for tankers, does the inherent change the original radius/arc of the power, or are those values being buffed? 

The increased areas of effect are buffs from the new Gauntlet.

[Bopper]

Just now, Vanden said:

The increased areas of effect are buffs from the new Gauntlet.

Correct, which is why I expect no change. 

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

So ... a Scrapper with a Taunt aura ...

That's pretty much what your perceived Tanker's role has always been.

 

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

Well ... if you're going to enforce it from a game mechanical perspective where there is simply NO POINT AT ALL (or even opportunity) to "stack" what a Tanker can "do" in a combat situation, you're reduced to a tautology of ... You Only Need One Tanker Because You Only Need One Tanker ... due to the fact that the game mechanics by design mandate that you can only USE one Tanker at a time effectively.  If you can't "stack" what a Tanker brings to the mix, then it literally is a One And Done™ type of Archetype.

And these changes rectify that mandate.

 

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

... HOW ... exactly?

Likely has something to do with pushing into the support role of providing the team damage via -res.

 

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

If there's any Archetype that deserves a boost to Leadership pool throughput, it's Masterminds ... not Tankers.

Thematically? Perhaps.  Mechanically?  They already mutlitply their own buffs via pets.

 

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

I've always felt that the Melee Defender notion was functionally the wrong framing for how Tankers ought to be understood ... because they're not melee buff/debuff monsters.

The analogy is more in the vein of being melee support not focused on damage, not being buff/debuff monsters.  And when I say "not focused on damage" I mean literally sacrificing it for support as a Defender would.

 

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

No, the better mental/conceptual framework is to think of Tankers as being Melee CONTROLLERS instead ... because their Taunt is a CONTROL function, not a buff/debuff function.  Tankers are functionally "controllers" who just so happen to be "limited" to melee range (mostly) for doing their thing.  They MANIPULATE what their Foes are allowed/going to do, by altering the "decision process" of what the AI controlling the NPCs permitted to choose.  That's very different from a buff/debuff focus for the conceptual foundation of what it means to be a Tanker.

 

Put simply, Taunt is more like a Mez effect ... and is kind of like a "poor man's Confuse" in the way that a Sleep is a "poor man's Hold" if you don't mind the mixing of the metaphors.  Confuse powers make the Foes attack each other, while Taunt makes the Foes attack YOU (and only you!) exclusively in order to redirect aggro onto yourself.

 

And it's that "control" function of Taunt that is the bedrock cornerstone foundation that ought to be what a Tanker starts from and "IS" for thinking about the Archetype.

Well I'm glad someone is acknowledging the similarities in a tank's role and a control role in CoH.  Perhaps we can finally acknowledge that a true control role can replace the function and need of a tank role here and thus abolish this notion that it should be the core focus of the AT's function.  Tankers are good at not being killed and their ancillary purpose is they can utilize that durability by using taunt.  That's it.  It's not a pure role on a team or anything.  It's just a means to exploit a control effect, no different from combining a stun and immobilize to simulate a hold which is a 100% shutdown of a foe.

 

 

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

I'm going to challenge this notion head on, mainly because I think it's erroneous in the context of Bruising.

 

 

 

So ... here's what I propose.

 

 

 

In the Nature Affinity powerset, there's an effect added to every power called Bloom.  Some powers add +1 Bloom (Regrowth, for example), others add more ... up to +5 Bloom (Overgrowth).  Basically, all the Bloom effect does is apply Healing Resistance DEBUFF to Allies(!) which then increases the throughput of Heals while under Bloom ... and obviously, Bloom can be stacked, making healing of Bloom affected allies more effective.

 

 

 

Take that known already working example and apply it to Tankers.

Change the name from Bloom to Bruising (for what ought to be obvious reasons).

Make it apply to Foes hit by Tanker secondary attacks (but not primary attacks).

Make Bruising apply a Resist (All) debuff that is 50/50 resistable and unresistable.

Let Bruising stack, just like Bloom can stack, on Foes ... but there would be a max limit just like with Bloom, per $Target.  Ideally speaking you'd want this max Bruising limit to function as a max stack per Tanker on each $Target, rather than as a max stack from ALL Tankers per $Target.

 

After that, it's just a matter of deciding how big to let the Bruising debuff be per stack and what the duration ought to be (can use base Gauntlet Taunt duration as a guideline here if necessary).  I'm thinking no more than -2/-2 resistable and unresistable ought to suffice and just do it up as a sort of "anti-Bloom" type of Tanker debuff that they do with their secondary attack powers.

 

 

 

How's that idea grab ya, @Captain Powerhouse?

Here's an exercise for you: Defend Bruising.  Why does it need to exist at all?

 

As has been implemented, it is purely a kludge meant to make picking the tier 1 ability less of a punishment.  It doesn't improve team damage by much when taking into consideration of resistances and levels, cannot be stacked and overall encourages counterproductive tactics of using the lowest effective attack most often.

 

So why even bother with the mechanic at all?  What useful mechanical and/or conceptual purpose does it serve that can't be better simulated by some other mechanic that doesn't require a convoluted mechanic that's more complicated than what is already implemented?

[Lhanis]

5 hours ago, William Valence said:

"Have a Blaster that reduces the number of enemies to 5 with 2 clicks (Aim+Nuke)."

Does the blaster also have 90% res and 3k+ health?

You're missing the context here. The point being made is that those increased caps effectively mean very little the moment another DPS is added to the Tanker's party, where the minions are immediately going to be dropped (along with most if not all of the LTs), leaving a handful of mobs that would leave it well within the same numbers a Brute can still hit. 

[Noyjitat]

11 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

If that was the case, this would not be happening now, and the AT would have been given 1.1 modifiers over 5 years ago. If i was to go for my personal favorite idea and ignore everything anyone else said, tankers would be running with an offensive/defensive toggle right now. My potential bias is one of the reasons I have forced myself to take years on changing anything on the Archetype.

Thing is I'd actually agree to an offensive/defensive toggle if you gave it to everyone. But then we'd be champions online and again that would be a radical change. I don't get why you'd want to dramatically change an entire AT.

 

Look at the offensive/defensive toggles for bio armor. EVEN THERE The paragon devs made it so if you use offensive toggle; you get damage but suffer a -resistance penalty while using the defensive toggle gives you a -damage ability. So even if you did give tanks an offensive/defensive mode you'd have to follow the same fashion. Cant give them both easy max defense and a high damage cap and expect it to be balanced. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Noyjitat

[Bopper]

15 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

It doesn't improve team damage by much when taking into consideration of resistances and levels

The resistance part does not matter, but the levels do.

 

I forget the exact number for the Bruising debuff, but let's say it's 20%. That is 20% more damage done on the target by the team that otherwise would not be there, even when factoring in the resistances of the enemy (I can show you the math if you would like, but I assume you are aware of this already).

 

Now levels do come into play (purple patch for the loss). If you are facing a +4 enemy, that resistance debuff is reduced (to what, I don't recall). Let's say it's only 10%. That's still 10% more damage the team does on that target. Even that is a fairly significant buff, especially since it affects both regular damage and proc damage.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Bopper

[Vanden]

50 minutes ago, Noyjitat said:

I don't get why you'd want to dramatically change an entire AT.

It doesn’t dramatically change the entire AT to give it bigger AoEs and a little higher base damage. It still plays exactly the same and brings the same thing to a team that it always has.

[Parabola]

Really interesting to read a bit of background from CP about the thinking behind these changes. I get the arguments about what a tank should and shouldn't be but we are where we are with this game. This isn't the kind of game with a rigid trinity. One of the many massive strengths of this game is everything can solo. Therefore everything has to have meaningful  damage and as stated the longstanding design goal is for tanks to have 75% scrapper damage which they seem to be currently falling short of.

 

Anecdotally I love my melee characters in general and want to love tanks more than I do but I find myself rerolling tanks into brutes far too often. A bit more damage and bigger aoes will hopefully change that. Given that damage is a big part of the threat equation wider and greater damage will also help tanks perform the classic aggro holding role too.

 

If the concern is tanks stepping on the toes of brutes I don't see how they are going to overlap more than brutes and scrappers and no-one seems too up in arms about that. Since all the AT's have been thrown into the same bucket and given the need for everything to be able to solo it's very hard to see how all the AT's can be given completely distinct roles. There just aren't that many different ways to go about the business of arresting mobs.

 

Numbers can and I'm sure will be tweaked but broadly speaking I accept the reasoning behind these changes and can see that they will make me want to play more tanks. So that's a thumbs up from me.

[Auroxis]

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

It doesn’t dramatically change the entire AT to give it bigger AoEs and a little higher base damage. It still plays exactly the same and brings the same thing to a team that it always has.

It can be argued that if you crank it up too high then the class takes on a new identity of being an AoE specialist which eclipses the tank role it had before.

 

Also, you didn't mention the Bruising change which removes a feature from the class. Yes the damage buff is an argument for it, that it circumvents the cottage rule if you buff up the damage, but you're still taking the team damage buff aspect away as well as messing up existing attack chains (forcing respecs) or in TW's case applying a nerf.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Auroxis

[Vanden]

20 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Also, you didn't mention the Bruising change which removes a feature from the class. Yes the damage buff is an argument for it, that it circumvents the cottage rule if you buff up the damage, but you're still taking the team damage buff aspect away as well as messing up existing attack chains (forcing respecs) or in TW's case applying a nerf.

It's true that removing Bruising is a bit of a change, but let's be honest: nobody invites a Tanker to their team thinking, "Oh boy! We'll do 20% more damage to the occasional enemy!"

 

And everyone knows Titan Weapons is borderline overpowered anyway.

[Auroxis]

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

It's true that removing Bruising is a bit of a change, but let's be honest: nobody invites a Tanker to their team thinking, "Oh boy! We'll do 20% more damage to the occasional enemy!"

 

And everyone knows Titan Weapons is borderline overpowered anyway.

What matters isn't what team leaders think, it's that you're taking a feature away from players as well as telling them to respec to reach similar DPS numbers (still without the -res).

 

As for TW, you can nerf the set as a whole in another patch. No need to specifically target tanker TW, and even if there was a need you could have done it in a way that didn't impact power selection as much.

[Vanden]

2 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

What matters isn't what team leaders think, it's that you're taking a feature away from players as well as telling them to respec to reach similar DPS numbers (still without the -res).

You're missing the point. Nobody got excited about bruising. It was a consolation prize for being forced to take the worst attack in every set. And nobody's being forced to respec, every Tanker's DPS will be the same since their damage scale went up by the same amount that bruising added.

[Auroxis]

Just now, Vanden said:

You're missing the point. Nobody got excited about bruising. It was a consolation prize for being forced to take the worst attack in every set. And nobody's being forced to respec, every Tanker's DPS will be the same since their damage scale went up by the same amount that bruising added.

"Nobody", yet there are several people in this thread who are against the change. You can't just take away features from players without giving them something similar in return.

 

As for "Nobody's being forced to respec" maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but I didn't see a confirmation of existing T1 power choices being changed and it's not as if we can test it (what happens to enhancements that can't fit in the new power?).

[Vanden]

Just now, Auroxis said:

"Nobody", yet there are several people in this thread who are against the change. You can't just take away features from players without giving them something similar in return.

 

7 minutes ago, Vanden said:

every Tanker's DPS will be the same since their damage scale went up by the same amount that bruising added.

 

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

As for "Nobody's being forced to respec" maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread, but I didn't see a confirmation of existing T1 power choices being changed and it's not as if we can test it (what happens to enhancements that can't fit in the new power?).

 

[Auroxis]

2 minutes ago, Vanden said:

 

 

 

So yes, forcing a respec to reach old DPS levels. And even if you reach old DPS levels, you're still removing the team damage buff feature by taking away the -res.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Auroxis

[Vanden]

Just now, Auroxis said:

So yes, forcing a respec to reach old DPS levels.

So you completely misunderstood? The new T1 power picks don't change your powers until you respec.

 

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

And even if you reach old DPS levels, you're still taking away the team damage buff feature by taking away the -res.

Good riddance. It sucked.

[Auroxis]

1 minute ago, Vanden said:

So you completely misunderstood? The new T1 power picks don't change your powers until you respec.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding? If you only get it on respec, the current players on live will experience a DPS decrease on most powersets (since T1 attacks usually have less DPA) and will only reach old DPS levels once they respec to get the better DPA attack since Bruising isn't bundled in with their current attack anymore.

 

1 minute ago, Vanden said:

Good riddance. It sucked.

That's your opinion, I hope you realize it's not the only one that matters.

[Haijinx]

I though people posted bruising was not unresistable 

 

Also bruising did nothing for AOE damage, just helped on stuff you tagged with your T1.  

 

[Auroxis]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

I though people posted bruising was not unresistable 

 

Also bruising did nothing for AOE damage, just helped on stuff you tagged with your T1.  

 

Yes, but we're giving tankers a massive AoE buff here which makes the issue of current Bruising not helping AoE insignificant.

 

And even if it is resistable, it's still a -13% resistance debuff to +3 (most +4's are +3 due to the alpha slot).

Edited September 14, 2019 by Auroxis

[Vanden]

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

Perhaps you're misunderstanding? If you only get it on respec, the current players on live will experience a DPS decrease on most powersets (since T1 attacks usually have less DPA) and will only reach old DPS levels once they respec to get the better DPA attack since Bruising isn't bundled in with their current attack anymore.

I don't understand what part of it you're not getting? All tanker attacks do 20% more damage at base now. That's the same amount Bruising adds. If you use the exact same attack chain damage should be identical. In fact, it should be higher, since the first hit will also be 20% stronger, where before the first attack to apply Bruising didn't benefit from it. And if you use a better attack chain that doesn't use the T1 attack with its probably worst DPA, higher DPS still.

[Auroxis]

Just now, Vanden said:

I don't understand what part of it you're not getting? All tanker attacks do 20% more damage at base now. That's the same amount Bruising adds. If you use the exact same attack chain damage should be identical. In fact, it should be higher, since the first hit will also be 20% stronger, where before the first attack to apply Bruising didn't benefit from it. And if you use a better attack chain that doesn't use the T1 attack with its probably worst DPA, higher DPS still.

That's the point, there's a "better attack chain" now from most powersets which requires a respec in order to obtain.

[Vanden]

Just now, Auroxis said:

That's the point, there's a "better attack chain" now from most powersets which requires a respec in order to obtain.

That's not what you were saying. You were saying:

 

13 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

So yes, forcing a respec to reach old DPS levels.

You said players would have to respec to reach the DPS they had with Bruising. Which isn't true.

[Auroxis]

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

That's not what you were saying. You were saying:

 

You said players would have to respec to reach the DPS they had with Bruising. Which isn't true.

You caught me on semantics then. What I should have said is reaching old levels of optimized DPS. Or "If you wanna keep having the best attack chain".

Edited September 14, 2019 by Auroxis