Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[drbuzzard]

OK, tried the fire/rad with the new patch. The difference in radii did have a noticeable effect with my damage auras, but it's didn't require much more than a bit of circling to piss everything off and come in to get toasty.

 

I believe the damage aura from radiation melee reached about as far as blazing aura (tested with each separately). I also fiddled with the proton cone, and it's OK, though the dot nature is why it was hiding in my damage auras.

 

I'll have to say the current radius expansion is probably correct. At the double size, the damage auras were arguably too good, and holding aggro should require at least some effort. The current patch on test is about where I'd like it to be.

[Mr. Igneous]

22 minutes ago, Replacement said:

Yeah but aggro cap isn't the same as target cap. Where I think Beau is going with this is, if the aggro cap were higher, then tankers' higher target caps would be pretty noticable just as a means of holding hate.

As I said before.  Tanks used to be able to use the taunt power to auto hit unlimited mobs, you had to use taunt to hold the mobs.  If you did not actively taunt you would lose your massive herds.  Raising the aggro cap is not a death sentence to squishies, it is fun for tanks to manage large mobs with taunt.  It was done in the past.  It can be done again.

[csr]

6 hours ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

@Captain Powerhouse

 

What are the odds some of the dominator assault changes roll out for tankers (and brutes/scrappers)? Namely the animations being sped up and the energy assault changes going to energy melee?

I'd love to see at least the Energy Melee changes included for Tankers and Brutes in this patch (since it is a Tank patch).

[Haijinx]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Igneous said:

As I said before.  Tanks used to be able to use the taunt power to auto hit unlimited mobs, you had to use taunt to hold the mobs.  If you did not actively taunt you would lose your massive herds.  Raising the aggro cap is not a death sentence to squishies, it is fun for tanks to manage large mobs with taunt.  It was done in the past.  It can be done again.

Its the opposite, it reduces the risk to squishies.  

 

Making the game easier.

 

 

[csr]

6 hours ago, Purrfekshawn said:

Well, these Taunt improvements looks nice, AoE improvements are amazing, but please, leave Bruise as it is. -20% resistance may be something shared between Sentinels & Tankers to represent that they help team doing DPS, along with dealing some DPS themselves n.n. Unlike Brutes, which are all about self-DPS.

 

And also - please copypaste Energy Aura & perhaps some sort of Regeneration set (with improved resistance) for Tankers. Brute's Energy Aura lMO may just be copypasted to tankers (with +30% standard buff or so). It's now durable enough for Tanking (mah Elec sentinel approves).

I think the Sentinel version of EA would work better for Tankers and could be ported unchanged (the AT increases would happen automatically).  I like the idea of Tankers and Brutes having slightly different versions to help restore more AT differentiation in a small way.  I also think the Sentinel version of Regen would work better - but Instant Regeneration might well be OP'ed on a Tanker and the power order would need to be adjusted.  Say, dropping IR to 7 and bumping Dismiss Pain, Integration and Resilience all up a spot.  Come on Captain Powerhouse, these are both quick changes that could be put on test for a look see, right?

[csr]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Igneous said:

As I said before.  Tanks used to be able to use the taunt power to auto hit unlimited mobs, you had to use taunt to hold the mobs.  If you did not actively taunt you would lose your massive herds.  Raising the aggro cap is not a death sentence to squishies, it is fun for tanks to manage large mobs with taunt.  It was done in the past.  It can be done again.

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the cap go up to 20, or even 25.  The only down side is for those off-tanks counting on only getting a 17-foe alpha (my DP/SR Sentinel, for example).  However, it would hurt teams relying on control for their alpha mitigation.

Edited September 12, 2019 by csr

[Demon Shell]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Also if you raised it for tanks you'd be raising it for brutes too.  And Blasters.

I thought of this too for a moment and considered that reason enough to not change the aggro cap.

 

Then I thought on it some more and I don't see the issue with raising it. A typical mob (one that doesn't consist of a bunch of underlings/extra minions/lieutenants with no bosses) doesn't have more than 17 enemies. A Blaster wouldn't be at any disadvantage unless they aggro more than one group at once, or jump into an iTrial mob.

 

That's not to say the aggro cap should be raised. There's something to be said about aggro management and a place for multiple aggro-managing ATs in the same group when engaging larger or multiple mobs, and the gameplay feedback this creates. I just don't think lighter-armored ATs are a part of this conversation (especially since with one nuke all the minions are dead anyway, how often will a Blaster ever be at/near aggro cap?).

[Mr. Igneous]

52 minutes ago, csr said:

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the cap go up to 20, or even 25.  The only down side is for those off-tanks counting on only getting a 17-foe alpha (my DP/SR Sentinel, for example).  However, it would hurt teams relying on control for their alpha mitigation.

The game is played way different now.  Back when a tank could herd an entire map, a team had to wait until the tank had a solid aggro on the group.  If a blaster decided to attack before the tank had full control of the herd, they could pull off a massive amount of aggro, and they would die.  Teams had to have patience and wait for a tank to do his/her job, if not then the team would wipe, except the tank...lol...we would wait for them to come back to finish the battle...lol....poor impatient folks.  Patience is lacking in this game as of now, it is like massive chaos in some groups.

 

I would be happy as a Stone tank with 25 to 50 cap. People would have to start relying on tanks again...or just don't aggro that many.  It was very possible to pull groups that were too big for certain tanks to handle...fire...cough...fire....lol..., this also made it much more fun, a bad pull or impatience on a team member would wipe the team.

 

It was the tanks decision how many they wanted in each pull for the group to succeed, not some game mechanic limiting the pull.  I want that back, should be able to pull too many if not careful, adds back some tactics to the game. Tanks are way more durable than any AT, and right now we can't show just how much we can really handle.  A group of 10 or even 20 on a Stone tank in Granite is a joke, let us strut what these builds can really do!!!

[Auroxis]

3 hours ago, JPax said:

Tanker TW has one thing that all the other TW versions don't have, a -res component on their T1. Without it, it's the same as every other TW set. You aren't forced to take Crushing Blow either, you never have been or will be in this patch. I fail to see what your point is at present. The defensive T1 will still be the T1 and still do as much damage as it does now with bruising, except without having to apply bruising. Did you not read that part of the patch notes or somesuch?

The top DPS attack chain for TW tanker no longer greatly buffs your defense, and requires picking up an extra power in order to reach old numbers. I'm not gonna bother replying to you on this if all you're capable of is being facetious.

[Haijinx]

Im confused, tanker damage goes up pretty handidly and some are complaining they won't do enough damage?  

[summers]

25 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Im confused, tanker damage goes up pretty handidly and some are complaining they won't do enough damage?  

In my opinion, if you wanted a Tanker that does more damage, play a Brute. These changes just converge the two ATs until Tanker is probably better at almost everything.

[Haijinx]

2 minutes ago, summers said:

In my opinion, if you wanted a Tanker that does more damage, play a Brute. These changes just converge the two ATs until Tanker is probably better at almost everything.

Its countering a situation where Brutes are probably better vs almost all content.  

 

So I expect that increasing overlap is unavoidable. 

[summers]

Just now, Haijinx said:

Its countering a situation where Brutes are probably better vs almost all content.  

 

So I expect that increasing overlap is unavoidable. 

I think they are doing it the wrong way - they are converging the two ATs on the wrong axis (damage).

 

I'd much rather see the Tanker become better at what the AT is all about - protecting the team. Ideas would be that they provide some kind of support based on their primary - an invulnerability Tanker increases resistances, Willpower regeneration, etc. Those suggestions are more about vision, not strictly that it has to be this way, but that it maintains the Tankers concept without just blending them with Brute until you might as well delete one of the two ATs.

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, summers said:

I think they are doing it the wrong way - they are converging the two ATs on the wrong axis (damage).

 

I'd much rather see the Tanker become better at what the AT is all about - protecting the team. Ideas would be that they provide some kind of support based on their primary - an invulnerability Tanker increases resistances, Willpower regeneration, etc. Those suggestions are more about vision, not strictly that it has to be this way, but that it maintains the Tankers concept without just blending them with Brute until you might as well delete one of the two ATs.

Protecting it from what though?

 

If the brute can already adequately protect the team, how is increasing the Tankers protectiveness but not damage going to solve the overlap?

 

At least with the bigger AOEs etc, the tank will find it easier to grab aggro in situations where the baddies are more spread out.  Which is a lot rougher on teams than them clustered around the brute/tank. 

 

Then of course throw in that at level 50 most teams need no protection 90% of the time, but the tanker still needs to be able to play ..

[summers]

2 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Protecting it from what though?

 

If the brute can already adequately protect the team, how is increasing the Tankers protectiveness but not damage going to solve the overlap?

 

At least with the bigger AOEs etc, the tank will find it easier to grab aggro in situations where the baddies are more spread out.  Which is a lot rougher on teams than them clustered around the brute/tank. 

 

Then of course throw in that at level 50 most teams need no protection 90% of the time, but the tanker still needs to be able to play ..

 

Protecting them from the enemy of course 🙂

 

If the Brute can adequately protect the team, that also makes all the defence/resist shields from support classes useless, doesn't it? But, they aren't useless, just like a SR giving extra defence to the team, or Invulnerability giving resistance, isn't useless. When those become meaningless, so do support.

 

As for bigger AOEs, I like the idea of a bigger taunt aura as that fits the vision of protecting the team. As for gigantic cone attacks, I just see this trampling over the damage that a Brute has.

 

Ultimately, convergence along a damage axis just reduces the individuality of ATs, and I think there's a point where you could simply delete one and call it a day. I'd much rather we collectively find a point of difference between ATs instead of making Tankers more like Brutes.

[summers]

I should add that if this change goes through, I'm not going to be personally upset, I'll just quietly roll all of my new characters as Tanks, and Brutes will be a distant memory.

 

Tankers are going to deal only slightly less single target damage than Brutes, but more importantly in AOE (which most of the game is), they will deal more due to much larger AOEs and target caps.

 

They will have a big boost to the leveling experience - more damage, better AOEs and 120 endurance goes a long way. They're also a heap tougher at low levels.

 

I am not going to expend a lot of time in here since it seems that my vision of a Tanker isn't shared by development, I am just sad to see that the two ATs are very much being rolled together and the pendulum is, with current proposals, completely in the Tankers favour.

[Megajoule]

16 minutes ago, summers said:

If the Brute can adequately protect the team, that also makes all the defence/resist shields from support classes useless, doesn't it? But, they aren't useless, just like a SR giving extra defence to the team, or Invulnerability giving resistance, isn't useless. When those become meaningless, so do support.

One of the persistent complaints is that the added defenses from many IO sets do make support superfluous, particularly sets like Force Field.  Most of these issues can be traced back to IOs changing the game significantly from what was possible with SOs, and the game still being balanced around the latter, by necessity.

[summers]

3 minutes ago, Megajoule said:

One of the persistent complaints is that the added defenses from many IO sets do make support superfluous, particularly sets like Force Field.  Most of these issues can be traced back to IOs changing the game significantly from what was possible with SOs, and the game still being balanced around the latter, by necessity.

I agree, but I think the whole IO discussion (and its accompanying Incarnate talk) are perhaps outside of the purview of this thread. If it helps, my quick comment on that is that Force Field is the iconic set for needing help; it's a one trick pony powerset and something like adding a bit of absorb to their shields would go a long way. For other sets that provide shields they generally provide a package of benefits which combined are almost universally loved on teams.

Edited September 13, 2019 by summers

[MunkiLord]

1 hour ago, Mr. Igneous said:

The game is played way different now.  Back when a tank could herd an entire map, a team had to wait until the tank had a solid aggro on the group.  If a blaster decided to attack before the tank had full control of the herd, they could pull off a massive amount of aggro, and they would die.  Teams had to have patience and wait for a tank to do his/her job, if not then the team would wipe, except the tank...lol...we would wait for them to come back to finish the battle...lol....poor impatient folks.  Patience is lacking in this game as of now, it is like massive chaos in some groups.

 

I would be happy as a Stone tank with 25 to 50 cap. People would have to start relying on tanks again...or just don't aggro that many.  It was very possible to pull groups that were too big for certain tanks to handle...fire...cough...fire....lol..., this also made it much more fun, a bad pull or impatience on a team member would wipe the team.

 

It was the tanks decision how many they wanted in each pull for the group to succeed, not some game mechanic limiting the pull.  I want that back, should be able to pull too many if not careful, adds back some tactics to the game. Tanks are way more durable than any AT, and right now we can't show just how much we can really handle.  A group of 10 or even 20 on a Stone tank in Granite is a joke, let us strut what these builds can really do!!!

If such a change would in any way have a chance of going back to the days of waiting on a tank to herd a bunch, then no thanks.

[Haijinx]

Hmmm.   Just now it occurs to me.  Is it a necessity to balance the game around SOs though?  

 

A lot of MMOs are balanced around having a certain level of gear after all. 

 

Of course the current balance makes the game more fun for casual players .. 

[Warlawk]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Hmmm.   Just now it occurs to me.  Is it a necessity to balance the game around SOs though?  

 

A lot of MMOs are balanced around having a certain level of gear after all. 

 

Of course the current balance makes the game more fun for casual players .. 

Last time I joined a group (mid 30s) 2 of 8 had IO sets slotted, everyone else had zero set bonuses. Those people aren't the ones coming into these threads and arguing their points endlessly so it's very easy to forget that they represent a large portion (if not the outright majority) of the player base.

[Shadowsleuth]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Hmmm.   Just now it occurs to me.  Is it a necessity to balance the game around SOs though?  

 

Pre-Incarnate content should be balanced around SOs precisely because of causal players; Incarnate content should be balanced around IOs & Incarnate powers.

 

We need Incarnate only zones to be added, something a lot tougher than Dark Astoria.

[Myrmidon]

2 hours ago, summers said:

I think they are doing it the wrong way - they are converging the two ATs on the wrong axis (damage).

 

I'd much rather see the Tanker become better at what the AT is all about - protecting the team. Ideas would be that they provide some kind of support based on their primary - an invulnerability Tanker increases resistances, Willpower regeneration, etc. Those suggestions are more about vision, not strictly that it has to be this way, but that it maintains the Tankers concept without just blending them with Brute until you might as well delete one of the two ATs.

Those new Tanker AoEs and adjusted Gauntlet will protect the team much more than the AT currently does, so you get that wish.

[Haijinx]

I generally agree.  But it seems like its taken as set in stone somewhere.  

 

But its not really.  

 

If you do balance around SOs but allow IOs well then this is the kind of balance problems you will see.  

 

The Brute will be able to tank.  So i guess the Tank will have to be able to brute. 

 

[summers]

7 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

Those new Tanker AoEs and adjusted Gauntlet will protect the team much more than the AT currently does, so you get that wish.

1 hour ago, summers said:

As for bigger AOEs, I like the idea of a bigger taunt aura as that fits the vision of protecting the team. As for gigantic cone attacks, I just see this trampling over the damage that a Brute has.