Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Auroxis]

1 minute ago, cejmp said:

Inside the Tank AT box they do respectable damage. In relationship to the rest of the melee pool, yes they are conforming to boundaries defined by trivial damage. Highest of the lowest is not a prize. 

I assure you that the majority of tanker secondaries can be built to deal respectable single target damage, especially now thanks to procs and their synergy with bruising. SS and TW are just the best examples of that.

 

AoE is a different issue since Bruising doesn't apply there, but we have AoE buffs included which remedy that. Removing Bruising in favor of a higher damage multiplier and damage cap just takes away a significant support feature while making the Tanker more like a Brute.

[golstat2003]

17 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I assure you that the majority of tanker secondaries can be built to deal respectable single target damage, especially now thanks to procs and their synergy with bruising. SS and TW are just the best examples of that.

 

AoE is a different issue since Bruising doesn't apply there, but we have AoE buffs included which remedy that. Removing Bruising in favor of a higher damage multiplier and damage cap just takes away a significant support feature while making the Tanker more like a Brute.

And I'm fine with that. Brusing was not something that ever impressed me. And apparently not a lot of others who simply don't roll tanks because of the anemic damage. And saying you have to take procs just reinforces that. Remember that the balance point here is SOs NOT IOs. So saying procs are option is great, but it doesn't address the damage problem many people have with the AT.

Edited September 19, 2019 by golstat2003

[lobster]

16 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

 

 

There are typed commands for obtaining every IO set at whatever level you like. It just takes a little bit of time to gather, which isn’t really bad, plus the ability to squander any IO into the trash is quite satisfying.😁

 

 

Yep, I've been using this since it was offered.  Still takes me a bit of time to spin up a new character from scratch, click through all the windows, then get all the ios, slot them, etc.  I do it, I'm just saying it would be way easier if I could use my existing characters, especially given I'm familiar with exactly how they play. 

I have limited time to play, and spending 1/4 of that on putting a character together makes psyching myself up to spend my time testing tougher than it might otherwise be.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by lobster

[Auroxis]

15 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

And I'm fine with that. Brusing was not something that ever impressed me. And apparently not a lot of others who simply don't roll tanks because of the anemic damage. And saying you have to take procs just reinforces that. Remember that the balance point here is SOs NOT IOs.

I didn't say you have to take procs, but that you can use them to beef up your damage and help bridge the gap between the classes. TW and SS definitely don't need procs to perform well overall.

 

You might not care about losing a -20% resistance debuff in favor of a damage buff, but the feature has been in the game for a while and players have grown accustomed to it. I also personally prefer it since it contributes more overall damage in an AV fight. There's no need to reduce the Tanker's AV fight contribution even further just to make it even better in AoE since the radius/arc/target cap changes have proven to be very strong regardless of the damage increase.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Auroxis

[golstat2003]

2 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I didn't say you have to take procs, but that you can use them to beef up your damage and help bridge the gap between the classes. TW and SS definitely don't need procs to perform well overall.

 

You might not care about losing a -20% resistance debuff in favor of a damage buff, but the feature has been in the game for a while and players have grown accustomed to it. I also personally prefer it since it contributes more overall damage in an AV fight, there's no need to reduce the Tanker's AV fight contribution even further just to make it even better in AoE since the radius/arc/target cap changes have proven to be very strong regardless of the damage increase.

Many folks would strongly disagree (and have in this thread). The amount of debuffing to be found while teaming won't make AV fights last any longer, if bruising were gone. And Tankers needs something better than what bruising currently provides. Most teams aren't constantly fighting AVs 24/7. 

 

Guess we agree to disagree.

Edited September 19, 2019 by golstat2003

[Lord_Cyclone91]

10 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I didn't say you have to take procs, but that you can use them to beef up your damage and help bridge the gap between the classes. TW and SS definitely don't need procs to perform well overall.

 

You might not care about losing a -20% resistance debuff in favor of a damage buff, but the feature has been in the game for a while and players have grown accustomed to it. I also personally prefer it since it contributes more overall damage in an AV fight. There's no need to reduce the Tanker's AV fight contribution even further just to make it even better in AoE since the radius/arc/target cap changes have proven to be very strong regardless of the damage increase.

If in fact it's true that in the Dev's testing that Bruising is providing a negligible amount to the Tank's damage, then what's the harm of leaving it on the T1?  Everyone is happy.  Tanker's have multiple reasons for being desirable in the AV/Hard target fights and have their damage scale increased.  

 

Just leave Bruising in and keep the AoE range and target count changes, Taunt changes and if you are super concerned about over-valuing damage contribution, make the Cap 575%.   

[Replacement]

57 minutes ago, FUBARczar said:

I am totally amenable, and my hyperbole was sarcasm.  

 

I agree that this isn't black and white and the best fixes translate partly into feeling, a fun-factor, etc.  What we should be cautious of is making Tanks too offensive discarding a balance of risk vs reward., and encroaching too far into Brute territory.   I would hate to see any one AT completely dominate, I don;t want to see this turn into City of Tanks, even though I really like playing tanks.

 

Also, I would point out that a damage buff is not the only buff that support characters have.

 

let's take a look at the damage.  Maybe I am looking at this completely wrong.   Is this not how it works?

 

Let's take KO Blow....

 

Dmg %	KO Blow	Damage	Scale
100%	Blaster	198	1
500%	Blaster Cap	990	1
100%	Tanker old	158.4	0.8
400%	Tanker Cap	633.6	0.8
100%	Tanker New	188.1	0.95
575%	Tanker Cap	1081.6	0.95
100%	Brute	148.5	0.75
775%	Brute Cap	1150.9	0.75

 

Just on the surface, does it make sense that a tank out-damages a Blaster, and nearly equals a Brute?  Maybe it does...

 

Either way after removing Bruising, a bump in the damage scale is certainly warranted.  As for the a dmg scale buff + a dmg cap buff, the latter seems a bit much.  Something less than or equal to 500 seems more appropriate.

 

100%	Tanker New	188.1	0.95
500%	Tanker Cap	940.5	0.95

Mad props to you for this.  Definitely reaffirming why I've always loved the community.

 

This is a valid concern.  I feel I should mention it's also an edge case (Blasters are always getting high amounts of +damage, Brutes obviously moreso; Tankers are only getting it in parties that lack real damage dealers because those slots were replaced with Kins).

 

I'm liking this.  In the discussion of "Tankers need some amount of increased damage (and damage potential)," we stumble on a metric that functions as something of a pivot point: Can the Tanker be allowed to do "the adults are talking" levels of damage, and how much actual party damage does it require you to sacrifice to hit that point?  I don't know these answers, I just think it's a good note to keep in mind.

 

I wanted to run another scenario, swiping your format:

 

Dmg %	Ball Lightning	Damage	Scale
100%	Blaster	63.81	1.125
500%	Blaster Cap	319.05	1.125
100%	Tanker Old	45.38	0.8
400%	Tanker Cap	181.52	0.8
100%	Tanker New	45.38	0.8
575%	Tanker Cap	260.94	0.8
100%	Brute	42.54	0.75
775%	Brute Cap	329.69	0.75

 

Ball Lightning was designed for Blaster as much as KO Blow was designed for Tanker, so these are opposing in their biases and we need to recognize that.  But this is often a "bread and butter" skill for brutes regardless.

 

Assuming I did my math right (and I strongly suggest someone check it; I'm just using Mids and multiplying by max damage), you can see the Blasters and Brutes were maxing out at just about double what a Tanker was doing.  And with their far superior access to damage buffs, even the starting damages are worse than they look

 

Anecdotally, my experience has been that as blaster who isn't even paying attention, I tends to hover around 30% damage buff (83 damage Ball Lightning) from Defiance, and that a Brute with plain IOs can get roughly 60% damage buff (68 damage Ball Lightning) from Fury within the first half of the first pack they come across.

 

I feel like we need to launch to Live servers with a waiver message that pops up whenever you try to roll a tank that says "hey, this might get nerfed later on and you waive your rights to complain about it by choosing to create this character."

[Replacement]

Re: Bruising vs AVs.  

 

I saw posts (much) earlier in the thread talking about how it ignored purple patch, and others saying it purple patches itself into oblivion.  It would be really nice if someone was able to say definitively if this really ignored Purple Patch on Live or if a developer just said it did. 

 

I'm not saying the live devs were liars so much as human.  Entirely possible they meant for it to ignore it but it didn't work come implementation time.

[golstat2003]

13 minutes ago, Lord_Cyclone91 said:

If in fact it's true that in the Dev's testing that Bruising is providing a negligible amount to the Tank's damage, then what's the harm of leaving it on the T1?  Everyone is happy.  Tanker's have multiple reasons for being desirable in the AV/Hard target fights and have their damage scale increased.  

 

Just leave Bruising in and keep the AoE range and target count changes, Taunt changes and if you are super concerned about over-valuing damage contribution, make the Cap 575%.   

I'd be fine with them leaving bruising in with the AoE range and target count changes. And fine with it dropping the cap to 575. Whether 575 or 600 doesn't matter in realistic play scenarios.

[Replacement]

27 minutes ago, Lord_Cyclone91 said:

If in fact it's true that in the Dev's testing that Bruising is providing a negligible amount to the Tank's damage, then what's the harm of leaving it on the T1?  Everyone is happy.  Tanker's have multiple reasons for being desirable in the AV/Hard target fights and have their damage scale increased.  

 

Just leave Bruising in and keep the AoE range and target count changes, Taunt changes and if you are super concerned about over-valuing damage contribution, make the Cap 575%.   

That would be double-dipping.

Tanker .8 damage modifier *1.2 (best case scenario for an unresisted Bruising) = .96 damage modifier.

 

So the damage .96 is essentially "idealized bruising" baked into every Tanker's power.  The fact that it also affects a lot of their aoe is probably being viewed as a rough tradeoff for the actually negligible amount of damage you were providing your party via debuffs.

[Trogan707]

1 hour ago, Lord_Cyclone91 said:

Oh my, you just wrote what's been my experience and my mindset for so long.  When I came back to Homecoming, I ended up rolling seven brutes and only 1 tank, because the damage is anemic on the tanks.

I guess I just don;t understand the thought behind rolling up a tank and expecting to do damage...or not rolling a tank because it doesnt do enough damage.. When I roll a tank, I do so for teaming, and to aggro manage and herd etc...I also don't understand the mentality of trying to balance the pve experience so that all classes can solo or do damage more or less equally..I think that is the absolute ruin of games. The main reason I fell in love with coity of heroes was because all of the classes felt so different. I really don't like the thought of more and more power creep and indistinguishable classes. Personally I think we should try to aim for MORE reliance on teams and more distinguishable, unique....classes.  I realize this is all subjective and some people want to solo, and 'do it all' but in my eyes this is a mistake.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Trogan707

[GM Capocollo]

5 minutes ago, Trogan707 said:

I guess I just don;t understand the thought behind rolling up a tank and expecting to do damage...or not rolling a tank because it doesnt do enough damage.. 

Here's the problem as I see it: at the high end, a "tanker that can do it all" is just called a brute.  It's possible for a brute to get up to tanker levels of resistance, defense and aggro generation with a proper set of enhancements, but a tanker doesn't have a path to get to brute levels of damage.  Tanker has a strong "class fantasy" focused on a single domain, but it's mechanically getting edged out by an archetype that's been allowed to straddle multiple domains.

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, Trogan707 said:

I guess I just don;t understand the thought behind rolling up a tank and expecting to do damage...or not rolling a tank because it doesnt do enough damage.. When I roll a tank, I do so for teaming, and to aggro manage and herd etc...I also don't understand the mentality of trying to balance the pve experience so that all classes can solo or do damage more or less equally..I think that is the absolute ruin of games. The main reason I fell in love with coity of heroes was because all of the classes felt so different. I really don't like the thought of more and more power creep and indistinguishable classes. Personally I think we should try to aim for MORE reliance on teams and more distinguishable, unique....classes.  I realize this is all subjective and some people want to solo, and 'do it all' but in my eyes this is a mistake.

Yeah I think it's a valid concern.  I think the dmg modifier buff is fine.  In fact, it may further distinguish a tank from a Brute.

But the huge cap increase not so much.  Seems too out of character.

[Trogan707]

13 minutes ago, GM Capocollo said:

Here's the problem as I see it: at the high end, a "tanker that can do it all" is just called a brute.  It's possible for a brute to get up to tanker levels of resistance, defense and aggro generation with a proper set of enhancements, but a tanker doesn't have a path to get to brute levels of damage.  Tanker has a strong "class fantasy" focused on a single domain, but it's mechanically getting edged out by an archetype that's been allowed to straddle multiple domains.

 

I agree with the assessment of the problem: The role for tankers is limited, because brutes can have tanker levels of defenses/resists etc....AND do a ton of damage. I disagree that the solution is to give more DPS to tankers , though. I just see this as a power creep trap and a bandaid instead of a long term fix....I think the answer lies more in passive powers, trying to increase the aggro cap for tankers by alot (if possible), and team/group abilities. I am trying to understand why someone would want to 'tank' for themselves. Who are you tanking the damage for?? I realize that there is a segment of peopel who wants to solo and do it all but I hope the dev team will avoid this trap. I also realize this is just one old guy's opinion , and the entire reason i love city of heroes is based on teamwork & classes that ARENT balanced because they feel so different  So I respect others opinions, I just feel the need to throw mine out there. The problem with balance , is that it can end up being where everyone can do it all, nothing feels that much different....I don;t understand the need to 'balance' a game that is like 95% pve.....The extreme IMBALANCES are what make CoH so special and always have. Heck I played characters that did very little or even no damage...I levelled a stone/stone tank to 50 on live way back when ...I did hardly any damage but I felt like a GOD and every team I was on, was happy to have me.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Trogan707

[DreadShinobi]

2 hours ago, FUBARczar said:

 

 

Let's take KO Blow....

 

Dmg %	KO Blow	Damage	Scale
100%	Blaster	198	1
500%	Blaster Cap	990	1
100%	Tanker old	158.4	0.8
400%	Tanker Cap	633.6	0.8
100%	Tanker New	188.1	0.95
575%	Tanker Cap	1081.6	0.95
100%	Brute	148.5	0.75
775%	Brute Cap	1150.9	0.75

 

Just on the surface, does it make sense that a tank out-damages a Blaster, and nearly equals a Brute?  Maybe it does...

 

Either way after removing Bruising, a bump in the damage scale is certainly warranted.  As for the a dmg scale buff + a dmg cap buff, the latter seems a bit much.  Something less than or equal to 500 seems more appropriate.

 

100%	Tanker New	188.1	0.95
500%	Tanker Cap	940.5	0.95

People really need to look at this. The tanker damage cap increase went too far when combined with such a large base damage increase AND a heavy load of other buffs. The damage cap should not be balanced around red spam and fulcrum shift. Many of the arguments I am seeing from Cejmp could just as easily justify giving tankers a 1000% dmg increase because they won't regularily hit it. If anything the brute damage cap could be lowered because it actually takes _a lot_ to hit it, and either an enormous amount of red insps or fulcrum shifts to do so. 

 

Brute damage cap: 775%

100% Base

100% from enhancements for simplicity.

175% from fury

That leaves a wide margin of 400% which does take a lot to build up to and only if you have the buffs or red inspirations to do so. This could easily be reduced instead of having tankers throw off the balance of every other AT because certain people can only see these changes in a vacuum of brute v tanker.

[Auroxis]

18 minutes ago, GM Capocollo said:

Here's the problem as I see it: at the high end, a "tanker that can do it all" is just called a brute.  It's possible for a brute to get up to tanker levels of resistance, defense and aggro generation with a proper set of enhancements, but a tanker doesn't have a path to get to brute levels of damage.  Tanker has a strong "class fantasy" focused on a single domain, but it's mechanically getting edged out by an archetype that's been allowed to straddle multiple domains.

If you're talking high-end there are Tanker combos that contribute Scrapper levels of damage to a team if not more. A Scrapper/Brute with the same combo would deal more damage, but Tankers certainly have the tools to reach damage levels of an average Scrapper/Brute and have more -res utility.

 

There are combos that fall behind, and AoE's don't benefit from Bruising, but saying Tankers can't make up the damage gap is inaccurate to say the least.

[DreadShinobi]

5 hours ago, cejmp said:

 

What about the damage cap makes it unbalanced? Tanks can't reach the cap on their own, meaning it requires a team environment, which means the entire team will be capped which means that the increase to the damage cap makes the AT better than it is only under certain conditions. Like in a duo. A tank at the damage cap is still doing less damage than Blasters, Corruptors, Scrappers, and Stalkers with the same buffs. What's the issue? Bruise is out, thankfully. 

 

Nobody has a taste of anything, it's all on test and won't be rolled live until they are done testing. The playerbase doesn't get a taste. 

 

Why do you support a lower damage cap? 

 

Why can't tanks do non-trivial damage?  Saying "Damage sponge" is an non-answer artifact of a decades old vision from a game designer with demonstrably flawed ideas of how to make an MMO.  Give us a reason that doesn't involve "Role" or "Brute". 

Good changes regarding balance are carefully thought out, and typically smaller in scale that can lead to significant improvements. These changes reek of bias and being quickly slapped on as a bandaid. Let the other changes roll out first and then see if a higher damage cap is still needed *for top-end performance only*. The damage scale increase and aoe radius increase already means they will be doing more than non-trivial damage, on top of having a higher endurance bar than every other AT. 

[Trogan707]

8 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

If you're talking high-end there are Tanker combos that contribute Scrapper levels of damage

 

I personally don't feel this game should be balanced around the top end builds -- with incarnates, epic pools, tricked out IO sets etc. All the AT's can be broken at that end. To change core game mechanics and base balance decisions on the top end builds is another mistake, in my eyes.

 

In my mind, I'd concentrate on the earlier parts of the game, pre-IO sets in terms of game play mechanics, balance... grouping, roles for AT's/builds  etc..

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Trogan707

[Snakebit]

7 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

If you're talking high-end there are Tanker combos that contribute Scrapper levels of damage to a team if not more. A Scrapper/Brute with the same combo would deal more damage, but Tankers certainly have the tools to reach damage levels of an average Scrapper/Brute and have more -res utility.

 

There are combos that fall behind, and AoE's don't benefit from Bruising, but saying Tankers can't make up the damage gap is inaccurate to say the least.

When you say "reach" you mean after spending hundreds of millions and getting Incarnates right?

 

Yeah?

 

GTFO with that.  

[golstat2003]

37 minutes ago, GM Capocollo said:

Here's the problem as I see it: at the high end, a "tanker that can do it all" is just called a brute.  It's possible for a brute to get up to tanker levels of resistance, defense and aggro generation with a proper set of enhancements, but a tanker doesn't have a path to get to brute levels of damage.  Tanker has a strong "class fantasy" focused on a single domain, but it's mechanically getting edged out by an archetype that's been allowed to straddle multiple domains.

That domain that comes from the trinity is something that needs to go in modern mmos. The trinity to me was always something that this game didn't enforce. And thankfully so. The more we move away from that the better.

Edited September 19, 2019 by golstat2003

[Snakebit]

10 minutes ago, DreadShinobi said:

Good changes regarding balance are carefully thought out, and typically smaller in scale that can lead to significant improvements. These changes reek of bias and being quickly slapped on as a bandaid. Let the other changes roll out first and then see if a higher damage cap is still needed *for top-end performance only*. The damage scale increase and aoe radius increase already means they will be doing more than non-trivial damage, on top of having a higher endurance bar than every other AT. 

 

I mean, come on. Nothing has been rolled out and nothing is being slapped on. They proposed a buff to the set that benefits the entire AT and are testing and responding to the tests. Because they are doing it incrementally from high to low instead of low to high doesn't mean anything. 

[Trogan707]

9 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

That domain that comes from the trinity is something that needs to go in modern mmos. The trinity to me was always something that this game didn't enforce. And thankfully so. The more we move away from that the better.

 

I disagree with the sentiment here. While this game may not have 'enforced' the trinity...On live, especially in the early days - group composition was pretty important and somethign that was very common was people asking for tanks, healers, support, mezzes, DPS etc..... In fact thats what made the game great....So yes..there wasnt really a trinity (in the literal sense)...but there ABSOULTELY was thought behind group composition and synergy among team mates. I actually think thats why so many people love this game is because of the synergy /teamwork aspect....when that really cool group composition happens. In my mind we need to move more TOWARDS some thought and strategy/tactics ..and group compositions being something that needs at least a little thought into...rather than just a bunch of individuals running around nuking everything with capped defenses....who dont need anyone on their team...who are barely distinguishable from one another in terms of AT. Boooring....

Edited September 19, 2019 by Trogan707

[golstat2003]

23 minutes ago, Trogan707 said:

 

I disagree with the sentiment here. While this game may not have 'enforced' the trinity...On live, especially in the early days - group composition was pretty important and somethign that was very common was people asking for tanks, healers, support, mezzes, DPS etc..... In fact thats what made the game great....So yes..there wasnt really a trinity (in the literal sense)...but there ABSOULTELY was thought behind group composition and synergy among team mates. I actually think thats why so many people love this game is because of the synergy /teamwork aspect....when that really cool group composition happens. In my mind we need to move more TOWARDS some thought and strategy/tactics ..and group compositions being something that needs at least a little thought into...rather than just a bunch of individuals running around nuking everything with capped defenses....who dont need anyone on their team...who are barely distinguishable from one another in terms of AT. Boooring....

In a game where 8 anything can go to town and not be stopped . . . yeah I don't think the trinity was all that important here.

 

Syngergy/teamwork/the mentoring system Paragon developed I think is why folks love this game.

 

Not the aspect of other games where you can't do content until you spend an hour or more spamming channels "looking for tank".

[Replacement]

40 minutes ago, DreadShinobi said:

Good changes regarding balance are carefully thought out, and typically smaller in scale that can lead to significant improvements. These changes reek of bias and being quickly slapped on as a bandaid. Let the other changes roll out first and then see if a higher damage cap is still needed *for top-end performance only*. The damage scale increase and aoe radius increase already means they will be doing more than non-trivial damage, on top of having a higher endurance bar than every other AT. 

In addition to system-level changes, there were at least 30 powers modified in this update.  By definition, this was not "quickly slapped together." 

 

While I am mostly all for these changes, I do think there is some risk in going above 500% damage increase.  But given half a chance, I would probably up Defenders, Dominators, and any EATS to 500% as well (MMs and trollers effectively ignore their damage caps anyway).

 

Really, though, I think it feels wrong to balance around max damage multipliers.  Are you guys really running around with full time perfect Fulcrum Shifts?

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Replacement

[golstat2003]

Just now, Replacement said:

In addition to system-level changes, there were at least 30 powers modified in this update.  By definition, this was not "quickly slapped together."  While I am mostly all for these changes, I do think there is some risk in going above 500% damage increase.  But given half a chance, I would probably up Defenders, Dominators, and any EATS to 500% as well (MMs and trollers effectively ignore their damage caps anyway).

 

Really, though, I think it feels wrong to balance around max damage multipliers.  Are you guys really running around with full time perfect Fulcrum Shifts?

 

 

Despite some of the hyperbole in this thread most regular non-forum reading players aren't. And we sure as hell shouldn't be balancing around that assumption.