Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Vanden]

Just now, Profit said:

Um. Originally it was one target like scrappers and tanks were dipping into presence pool to get provoke to be able to do the job devs said they should do which is manage aggro. The devs changed tanker taunt power from single target to a provoke clone and removed the to hit check making it auto hit. Taunt has never hit more than 5 critters as an aoe. That's a fact because my OCD cringed everyone I could get to the 17 critter Agro cap and the loss of 3 taunt effects didn't math right. I argued at one point to lower it from 17 to 15 just so it was mathematically happy for my OCD.

Nope, Taunt had an unlimited target cap, same as every AoE, until target caps were implemented on AoEs.

[HelenCarnate]

54 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

No, epic pool damage is not changing at all. As a mater of fact: nor is damage in PvP. Should had noted this in the initial patch notes, the increase in damage modifiers is only for PvE melee damage.

Ranged Epic attacks used melee modifiers before. Now they use Ranged modifiers that have been set at the old melee modifier, if that makes sense.

 

If that was the intent you may want to undo some changes.  Epic pools are nerfed for Tanks and Brutes.  At least MU is, I have not tested all the others.  The numbers on Test are the same for both 

 

Elec Fences

Live Brute 33.37, Tank 35.59.  Test 32.25.

Ball Lightning 

Live Brute 42.54, Tank 45.37.  Test 37.37

 

Mu Lightning

Live Brute 55.05,  Tank 58.72.  Test 36.70.

[Captain Powerhouse]

1 minute ago, Bopper said:

When you ran your benchmark, were you capping the AoE limits (180 degrees, 20 foot radius), or were you still doubling the number? 

Even with the current change, it's doing too much AoE. It has 3 cones, on top of the limit i had to still hard-limit the first 2 cones to only 5 targets. Only the T9 and the PBAoE ended getting the boost.

 

Claws and Spines are also over-performing in my benchmarks and will be looked at individually, but then again, they always overperformed.

[Brutal Justice]

39 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

AoE isn't DPS. If you're going to factor damage differences of AoEs you're going to have to calculate kill speeds. Adding up the numbers is almost as arbitrary as adding up money spent to create a budget without any other data like income, necessary expenses, desired amount for savings, ect. 

I am not talking about pylon times.  What is the optimal attack chain for war mace?  Clobber, shatter, jawbreaker?   Again, I don’t have actual numbers but percents should be the same due to modifier.  I’ll make some up.  

 

Clobber-120

shatter-100

jawbreaker-95

 

scrapper-

120x1.15=150. 165 with 10% crit 

100x1.15=115.  127 with 10% crit 

95x1.15=109.  120 with 10% crit

 

tanker-

120x.95=114

100x.95=95

95x.95=90

 

scrapper deals 539 damage if they hit two targets with shatter

 

tanker deals 394 damage if they hit two targets with shatter

 

the scrapper deals 27% more damage

 

if the tank hits 3 targets with shatter 489 damage

 

if the tank hits 4 targets with shatter 584 damage.  

 

This may not use in game numbers, and it’s not a DPS calculation, but it is using one cycle of the attack chain so it should be consistent from one cycle to infinity.  

 

If you cycle your target with each cycle of the chain.  Then this shows if you’re fighting 4 targets that don’t die in 3 cycles of the attack chain, the tank has the faster clear time.  It doesn’t matter if the targets have 3 million hp or 3 thousand.  All they need is enough to survive 3 cycles of the chain and the tank wins.  That’s 4 targets!

 

if you’re fighting a typical x8 mob with 1 boss, just target the boss and the larger tank aoe on shatter will melt everything else while you kill the boss.  The scrapper will kill the boss faster but be stuck with clean up.  

 

Average gameplay doesn’t care as much about dps as it does how much damage can you deal in 3-4 hits.  In 3 hits the tank only has to hit 4 targets with one of those hits for a total of 6 actual hits to out damage a scrapper doing 2 hits with one attack for 4 actual hits

 

6 hits to pass 4 hits from a scrapper seems balanced, because it currently is!   With aoe increases those 2 extra hits are inconsequential.

[tellania]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Sinister said:

I am not talking about pylon times.  What is the optimal attack chain for war mace?  Clobber, shatter, jawbreaker?   Again, I don’t have actual numbers but percents should be the same due to modifier.  I’ll make some up.  

 

Clobber-120

shatter-100

jawbreaker-95

 

scrapper-

120x1.15=150. 165 with 10% crit 

100x1.15=115.  127 with 10% crit 

95x1.15=109.  120 with 10% crit

 

tanker-

120x.95=114

100x.95=95

95x.95=90

 

scrapper deals 539 damage if they hit two targets with shatter

 

tanker deals 394 damage if they hit two targets with shatter

 

the scrapper deals 27% more damage

 

if the tank hits 3 targets with shatter 489 damage

 

if the tank hits 4 targets with shatter 584 damage.  

 

This may not use in game numbers, and it’s not a DPS calculation, but it is using one cycle of the attack chain so it should be consistent from one cycle to infinity.  

 

If you cycle your target with each cycle of the chain.  Then this shows if you’re fighting 4 targets that don’t die in 3 cycles of the attack chain, the tank has the faster clear time.  It doesn’t matter if the targets have 3 million hp or 3 thousand.  All they need is enough to survive 3 cycles of the chain and the tank wins.  That’s 4 targets!

 

if you’re fighting a typical x8 mob with 1 boss, just target the boss and the larger tank aoe on shatter will melt everything else while you kill the boss.  The scrapper will kill the boss faster but be stuck with clean up.  

 

Average gameplay doesn’t care as much about dps as it does how much damage can you deal in 3-4 hits.  In 3 hits the tank only has to hit 4 targets with one of those hits for a total of 6 actual hits to out damage a scrapper doing 2 hits with one attack for 4 actual hits

 

6 hits to pass 4 hits from a scrapper seems balanced, because it currently is!   With aoe increases those 2 extra hits are inconsequential.

If we are comparing damage, I much prefer comparing scrapper vs tanker.   No fury to mess up comparison.   Once established, then any issues with brutes should be done comparing to scrappers.    I'm actually agreeing with you on your comparison, the problem being, what would be fair?   E.g. what if the tanker aoe radius is increased by 0%?  or 50%, but still 16 max? vs 100% aoe radius, with no max increase (leave it at the original value).

 

Brute vs scrapper should be separate issue (though brute has higher caps in resistance and HP maximums), and more relevant comparison.

[Captain Powerhouse]

36 minutes ago, HelenCarnate said:

If that was the intent you may want to undo some changes.  Epic pools are nerfed for Tanks and Brutes.  At least MU is, I have not tested all the others.  The numbers on Test are the same for both 

 

Elec Fences

Live Brute 33.37, Tank 35.59.  Test 32.25.

Ball Lightning 

Live Brute 42.54, Tank 45.37.  Test 37.37

 

Mu Lightning

Live Brute 55.05,  Tank 58.72.  Test 36.70.

Oh.... i see how that happened.... thanks for bringing it up.

[EyeLuvBooks]

19 hours ago, Psi said:

My initial reaction is to say I do not like the idea of removing the bruise mechanic.
It was a nice way to differentiate Tankers from Brutes, in that it made them a relatively unique support option, akin to a Sonic Blast Defender? I don't like just making them diet brutes. IMO, of course.

The problem is that the Bruise mechanic was small enough that the damage cap for Brutes totally overwhelmed it. When was the last time anyone ever said 'Boy that (fill in the blank) was tough. Glad we had that Tank along to debuff his Resistance!' What's much more likely is 'I'm glad that Brute was along with his 800% damage cap!'

[Brutal Justice]

7 minutes ago, tellania said:

I'm actually agreeing with you on your comparison, the problem being, what would be fair?   E.g. what if the tanker aoe radius is increased by 0%?  or 50%, but still 16 max? vs 100% aoe radius, with no max increase (leave it at the original value).

I think the .95 modifier and damage cap are fine.  The max targets is probably good too.  The end increase is great.

 

The increased range and arc is the offender.  Personally I don’t think +damage is the right direction for tanks. Also the fault swap is not good. 

[Moka]

I don't understand what the argument about making them more "brute-like" comes from. What else was supposed to be modified for tanker? They do fine as a survivable class. They don't need boosts there.

[Auroxis]

5 minutes ago, Moka said:

I don't understand what the argument about making them more "brute-like" comes from. What else was supposed to be modified for tanker? They do fine as a survivable class. They don't need boosts there.

Bruising could have been buffed. Tankers could have also received a support passive that buffs your teammates' damage, to expand on the role of being a team anchor.

[Moka]

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

Bruising could have been buffed. Tankers could have also received a support passive that buffs your teammates' damage, to expand on the role of being a team anchor.

I do like the idea of tankers offering team support, but I'm not quite sure how it would be implemented. 

[Auroxis]

2 minutes ago, Moka said:

I do like the idea of tankers offering team support, but I'm not quite sure how it would be implemented. 

My idea from a while back was adding an inherent power:

 

Tanker's Assurance

 

PBAoE, Team (But not Self) +DMG, +To Hit

 

"Being near a Tanker puts your mind at ease, increasing your Damage and Chance to Hit".

[William Valence]

6 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Claws and Spines are also over-performing in my benchmarks and will be looked at individually, but then again, they always overperformed.

Everything will overperform with this.

 

I tried, I just can't wrap my head around this. These changes are just absurdly strong. I think it would be easier to implement different aggro caps for each Archetype than it would be to balance this.

 

Honest question: Is this just the direction the changes will be going for Tankers? Am I wasting my time trying to come up with a way to explain why I think this is not the best direction to go?

3 hours ago, Moka said:

Tanker will not "invalidate" brute, and for once, this goes both ways. Tanker finally fills its niche - to TANK and keep tanking. Anyone saying tanker is too overpowered needs to play them for themselves.

I strongly disagree. I played them, and it just re-affirmed my prediction. Brutes have no way to catch up with the increased target cap. When it comes to single target damage, if everything but fury is equal between them, the brute is only managing a marginal advantage that gets smaller as damage buffs get larger. Marginal especially when compared to the Tanker's AoE advantage.

 

In league content where things are buff saturated, brutes can only manage 2% more damage from single target attacks, and Tankers will still have their grotesquely strong AoEs.

 

Then you buff Brute damage so it isn't such a wash, and you get an "Addressing the Scrapper Brute conundrum" post.

 

I'm having a hard time seeing how this won't just change which AT outperforms the other.

[Infinitum]

19 hours ago, ShogunGunshow said:

You say this like it's impossible to tank with slightly lower resistance caps. Or like I was arguing that Brute shouldn't be able to tank. Which is not what I was arguing. I merely believe that there needs to be more, not less, differentiation in roles between ATs.

 

I hope your iterations continue, I hope you're right. Currently, though, I just don't see this as the right way of addressing the problem.

Yeah because your way you can ruin hundreds or thousands of builds already with incarnates and IOs selected at current brute resist levels.  Making half of the selections useless.

 

It's not breaking the game with brute levels where they are at, coming from a player with equal numbers of both tanks and brutes each one fits a theme.

 

Why is it so necessary to nerf Brutes for the sole purpose of differentiating the ATs?

 

Play one or play the other, hell play both.  You have a thousand character slots.

 

Sounds like an ego play to me honestly.

[csr]

19 hours ago, Seph said:

While I agree that tankers should get some kind of damage boost a cap of 600% seems very excessive.

Damage potential off a given power's base (DS Multiplier times the Damage Cap)...

 

Proposed Brute:  581.25% Melee, 581.25% Ranged/APP.

Proposed Tanker:  570% Melee, 480% Ranged/APP.

Scrapper:  562.5% Melee, 250% Ranged/APP.

 

The reality is that instead of boosting every non-Brute AT's high end performance, Brutes top end simply needs to be lowered, and Tanker buffs should target that level, rather than the existing Brute level.

[Seph]

2 minutes ago, csr said:

Damage potential off a given power's base (DS Multiplier times the Damage Cap)...

 

Proposed Brute:  581.25% Melee, 581.25% Ranged/APP.

Proposed Tanker:  570% Melee, 480% Ranged/APP.

Scrapper:  562.5% Melee, 250% Ranged/APP.

 

The reality is that instead of boosting every non-Brute AT's high end performance, Brutes top end simply needs to be lowered, and Tanker buffs should target that level, rather than the existing Brute level.

And why should tankers do brute damage? They have higher hp caps, higher base defenses and better agro abilities. How about proposing something that makes tankers more unique instead of invalidating another AT to steal their spot.

[King Kog]

21 hours ago, Leandro said:

Tank Updates [Experimental Changes]

Damage Scale

• Tanker: Ranged damage modifier increased from 0.5 to 0.8, Melee damage modifier increased from 0.8 to 0.95
  • Bruise has been removed in favour of a flat damage scale increase
• Brute : Ranged and Melee damage modifiers are now equal.
• Epic Pools: All Brute and Tanker Epic pools now use ranged damage modifiers
  • Due to the above changes, Epic Pools should see no damage change at all.

I don't really like this change. I like the idea that bringing a tank increases damage against an AV for the team. It fits thematically, and by taking it away I think that against a single hard target the team's DPS will actually drop.
For me, I want the reason to bring a tank is maintain aggro in a hard fight. For fast-moving map clear style missions, bring whatever.

 

Quote

Stats

• Tanker base endurance has been increased to 120, to reflect the fact that they kill slower, but last longer in combat.
• Tanker damage cap to 600%, this would increase the max Tanker damage potential when grouped.

I like the endurance change thematically, but not 100% sure I agree it's the way to go.

I'm worried that Tanks will be stepping on Brute's toes here, but 600% damage to be roughly equal to Brute's output might be fine since it's so hard to reach that point?

 

Quote

AoEs

• Most Tanker Melee AoE powers have had their target caps increased. Most cones are now 10 target cap. Most PBAoE are now 16 target cap.
• Tanker Taunts now have a 10 target cap.
• Most Tanker AoE powers now extend to inflict damage and other effects beyond their radius or arcs.

  • As part of their inherent power, tankers get a buff that works similar to Boost Range, but it boosts Radius and Arc of powers.

  • The arc of Cones gets boosted by +100% and the radius of PBAoEs are boosted by +100%.

  • This means a 90 degree cone will actually cover a 180 area, while a 10ft PBAoE will cover 20ft.

  • Almost all cones with over 90 degree arc, or AoE with over a 10ft radius, ignores this buff.

 

Love this change. Helps Tankers do what tanks should do: hold aggro off their teammates. Increasing the radii of AoE's means bigger AoE CC's, and cute tanker ticks of damage to boot.

 

Quote

 

Gauntlet

• Is now applied via a global proc. Any single target power that takes accuracy enhancements will trigger an AoE taunt. Every AoE power that takes accuracy enhancements will taunt the enemies it hit.
• Radius is now the same for all attacks (15ft, 5 targets max)
• Taunt scale is now 10% higher than Brute's
• Brute PunchVoke is now also applied via a global proc. Any power that either inflicts damage or takes accuracy enhancements will be able to punch-voke.)

This seems good!

 

Quote

Power Levels

• In an attempt to help tanker progression, Tanker T1 and T2 powers have been exchanged for the following sets:
  • Battle Axe
  • Claws
  • Dark Melee
  • Energy Melee
  • Fiery Melee
  • Ice Melee
  • Katana
  • Kinetic Attack
  • Martial Arts
  • Psionic Melee
  • Radiation Melee
  • Savage Melee
  • Staff Fighting
  • Street Justice
  • Super Strength
  • War Mace
• To improve Tanker AoE capability during level up progression, the following powers had their acquisition levels changed:
  • Battle Axe > Whirling Axe = 20, Swoop = 28
  • Martial Arts > Dragon Tail = 20, Focus Chi = 28, Crippling Axe Kick = 34
  • Stone Melee > Tremor = 20, Fault = 35
  • War Mace > Whirling Mace = 20, Clobber = 28

This just makes me a bit sad that I remade my Shield/Kin Tank into a Brute haha.
 

I also thematically like that Tanks start with the slower animating attack (since they're big and slow and strong? This might not be true for everyone though, just a personal feeling about tanks).

 

On another note, why was Stone Melee skipped for the early powers swap? And I think Fault is the defining power of Stone Melee, and don't think it should be moved until so late in the build. Tremor feels awful to cast without casting Fault first anyways (the 20 year cast time doesn't feel as bad when all the baddies are just trying to stand up after being knocked down by Fault).

Edi/ TL; DR:
For what it's worth (if the purpose of these changes is to differentiate Brutes and Tanks), I think that:

• Brutes:
  •  res cap should be lowered to 85% (5% isn't a huge deal IMO, but it will make a difference)
• Tanks:
  • Go with:
    • AoE cap Increase
    • Increasing the Taunt values for Tanks
    • Swapping the T1/T2 attacks
  • Dump:
    • Damage Scalar increase
  • Don't Mind Either way:
    • Endurance Increase
    • Damage Cap Increase

 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Jono265
Added a TL;DR.

[Brutal Justice]

Stone melee wasn’t included because the tier 1 is already better than the tier 2 dpa wise

[Unknown Magi]

1 hour ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

The end goal is for tanks to deal slightly less damage than brutes and be somewhat better at tanking. This is pretty much the same thing as defenders/corrupters being two sides of the same coin. I don't see what the issue is. Tanks don't get brute numbers on damage. If so, they can tweak it downwards.

 

What's the concern? That fire/spine tanks will somewhat outperform their brute equivalents on farms? 

If that is the end goal, then this fails.  Tanks are *still* not any tankier than brutes, but can potentially deal more damage in AoE.  And when I say potentially, I mean a tossed-together tank build is outperforming top end brute farmer builds by as much as 30-40% in terms of damage and overall speed.  Does this update provide something in the ballpark of parity between the two archetypes?  Sure.  But it does it in a way that feels more and more like we don't even need both archetypes.  Why have 2 tank archetypes with the same survival caps, same sets available (mostly), and and similar damage, where the only difference is one has a fury bar?  

 

What I was pointing out is that saying "Brutes are a tank archetype too, and therefore should have the same survivability numbers.  That's how support archetypes work" is patently false.  Support arechetypes have varying numbers based on what *else* those archetypes do.  Rather than just turning tanks into better Brutes and continuing the power creep arms race, why don't we get both archetypes to where they should be in the grand scheme of things, which as you say is with Brute being higher damage and Tank being better *at tanking.*  There have been plenty of suggestions here for how that can be done without huge tank damage buffs.

 

But if the new mentality is "they're both X archetype, so Y numbers/caps should be the same" then Masterminds and Sentinels would like to have a word with you.

[Vanden]

So I've noticed an issue with the radius buffs with regards to Foot Stomp. Foot Stomp has always had the unique aspect that its radius is bigger than it should be for the damage it does. I believe the standard formula, for an attack with the damage and recharge it has, would put it at a 10 foot radius (don't quote me on that number), but it's always been 15 feet. Now, with the AoE changes, Foot Stomp had its radius reduced to be able to take advantage of the radius buffing effect, meaning it has an overall larger radius now, but it also means that it's lost that unique aspect of itself. It's now essentially a standard power. Could something be done so Foot Stomp doesn't lose its unique flavor?

[tellania]

At this moment, I see this topic is 'HOT' with 269 replies.   When we have more replies than actual tanks, will the Dev's give us a good freebie?

😄 😄 😄  😄

 

[Bossk_Hogg]

1 minute ago, Unknown Magi said:

If that is the end goal, then this fails.  Tanks are *still* not any tankier than brutes, but can potentially deal more damage in AoE. [/quote]

They ARE tankier, they have better aggro generation and higher damage numbers. You aren't going to get a brute tanking nerf, so you may as well deal with the fact. Tanking is one of those things where once you are "good enough" there really isn't anywhere else to go. The mobs are uselessly flailing at an unbeatable blob either way. So either brutes aren't good enough to tank, despite being a tank archtype, or we give tankers more in other areas, because "tanking" isn't an exclusive niche that can be protected anymore than support can. Even before brutes came out scrappers were tanking on teams. The truth is there are too damn many AT's that are "dudes with armor toggles and melee attacks". Brutes, scrappers, stalkers and tankers all occupy too much of the same niche, and it's frankly too late to start bolting on support to the tank AT. The sentinel further muddies the water. The Guardian (assault powersets with an armor/support secondary) probably has enough to hang a hat on. But the ship has sailed for tankers and brutes to not just be more or less the same, unless you want to start cottaging the AT...

 

1 minute ago, Unknown Magi said:

 

And when I say potentially, I mean a tossed-together tank build is outperforming top end brute farmer builds by as much as 30-40% in terms of damage and overall speed.  Does this update provide something in the ballpark of parity between the two archetypes?  Sure.  But it does it in a way that feels more and more like we don't even need both archetypes.  Why have 2 tank archetypes with the same survival caps, same sets available (mostly), and and similar damage, where the only difference is one has a fury bar?  [/quote]

Because that's how COH works my dude. There's no real difference between defenders and corrupters either. You'll find a few corner cases where one is obviously superior (sonic blast on defenders), but otherwise they're more or less interchangeable at 50. 

 

1 minute ago, Unknown Magi said:

 

 

What I was pointing out is that saying "Brutes are a tank archetype too, and therefore should have the same survivability numbers.  That's how support archetypes work" is patently false.  Support arechetypes have varying numbers based on what *else* those archetypes do.  Rather than just turning tanks into better Brutes and continuing the power creep arms race, why don't we get both archetypes to where they should be in the grand scheme of things, which as you say is with Brute being higher damage and Tank being better *at tanking.*  There have been plenty of suggestions here for how that can be done without huge tank damage buffs.

 

But if the new mentality is "they're both X archetype, so Y numbers/caps should be the same" then Masterminds and Sentinels would like to have a word with you.

The numbers aren't the same. You keep ignoring that. If we dropped brute resistance by 1% would that satisfy you? You can then crow that brutes take twice as much damage or whatever. It won't matter either way, so why nerfherd?

[Bossk_Hogg]

14 minutes ago, Vanden said:

So I've noticed an issue with the radius buffs with regards to Foot Stomp. Foot Stomp has always had the unique aspect that its radius is bigger than it should be for the damage it does. I believe the standard formula, for an attack with the damage and recharge it has, would put it at a 10 foot radius (don't quote me on that number), but it's always been 15 feet. Now, with the AoE changes, Foot Stomp had its radius reduced to be able to take advantage of the radius buffing effect, meaning it has an overall larger radius now, but it also means that it's lost that unique aspect of itself. It's now essentially a standard power. Could something be done so Foot Stomp doesn't lose its unique flavor?

I think the solution is to make the rest of super Strengths attacks not hot garbage so you aren't better off with pool attacks. Too much of its power was concentrated in footstomp. on the bright side, Hurl's damage should have just went up thanks to the ranged damage modifier change. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Bossk_Hogg

[tellania]

offtopic:

 

brutes are fine, but I always felt they should have a lower rate of fury decay.    I tended to run out of endurance after 2-3 mobs, and rest killed fury, and you dont always have lots of blue skittles to keep going and going like the legendary brute, leroy jenkins, who is the archetype of the brute archetype.

 

[Vanden]

1 minute ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

I think the solution is to make the rest of super Strengths attacks not hot garbage so you aren't better off with pool attacks. Too much of its power was concentrated in footstomp. Hurl's damage should have just went up thanks to the ranged damage modifier change. 

Hurl uses the melee damage modifier, its damage did go up.