Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Myrmidon]

7 minutes ago, William Valence said:

I may have been mistaken, but the drop from 100% to 60% was regarding the radius boost for AoE size, not the target cap.

 

Did I understand that incorrectly?

 

It's the target cap that's got me so riled up, like I said lower in that post, I'd be less scared if the cap was dropped back down and the radius kept high.

 

I did say “closer”.😁

Edited September 14, 2019 by Myrmidon

[Haijinx]

Hmm how do PPM work with this AOE boost i wonder.

[golstat2003]

And I should have been clearer in my earlier exchange. I'm fine with all the changes for Tankers.

I would have prefered something that makes them tank better, but I guess them doing more damage helps with that?

Not really sure what you could have given them to differentiate them more from Brutes.

 

Again if I want something to hold aggro I invite or play a tank. If I want melee damage I invite or play a Brute or Scrapper.

[Profit]

51 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

And send me that build, Profit, so that I may make my own adjustments to the Blasters that I manage.

Nah, you don't want that build Myr, /nin sucks on blasters, ask anyone. It certainly can't do all the things I say it can and do on a regular basis like 4x8 asteroids, tank Ghost Widow, etc...

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

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

 

Irrelevant if there is a Tanker around who is t3H b3$t at holding aggro. 

[Leogunner]

19 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Hmm how do PPM work with this AOE boost i wonder.

Not going to lie.  The reason I said in the past that the Tanker's AoEs should have increase recharge if their area was increased, was so that procs would work better in them.

 

Also, the reason I'd want their damage mod reduced to 0.85 is so that there would be a nice, clear distinct advantage to using proc IOs to buff their damage if so desired.  It'd be their way of using "sets" to improve damage...but not actual set bonuses.

[Captain Powerhouse]

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

 

[Aluminum Ape]

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

A thing I am considering to do, though, is to increase some of the modifiers used by power pools like Leadership, allowing for some tanks to opt into more support-oriented builds on an individual basis, instead of the AT as a whole being shoe-horned into a new support role via global mechanics. Between Leadership and epic pool powers like Darkest Night or Melt Armor, a tanker could build for more support.

I really dig this idea.

[Tubalcain]

I don't think giving them more damage is the way to go. We already have Brutes and Scrappers. I think leaning into them as a melee support would be better. Here are some ideas.

 

1: Have all their attacks do a minor -resistance debuff

 

2: Share Buffs. Here's my idea for this. When you use a castable buff targeting the tank some of its benefits splash over to allies. Say you cast Forge on the Tank. +50% damage and +25% accuracy some of that buff gets shared with the whole team. Let's say the whole team gets half of it or 1/3. Even shield powers, though an AOE, would benefit from this with the buff affecting the whole team and then a small amount stacked on top of it from the Tank's shared buffs. Heals could work this way to. It would be an amazing mechanic!

[skoryy]

I'm really not digging this evolution of class balance towards DPS boatraces.  Once you've opened the door, its only a matter of time for the Defenders and Controllers will want their share.  Not to mention what happens if/when the tank-brute pop numbers flip flop.

 

I think we need some discussion about class balance philosophy and purpose.  How do we differentiate between tanks and brutes?

[Vanden]

17 minutes ago, skoryy said:

How do we differentiate between tanks and brutes?

With this change, Tankers and Brutes will have virtually identical defense and damage caps. Brutes will more easily push themselves closer to their damage cap, while Tankers will more easily push themselves to their defensive caps.

[Redlynne]

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I rolled a tank to punch things in the face, while i get punched in the face and my team mates are mostly safe.

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

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

From a balance perspective, it still means a second tank is the least optimal party member you can bring aboard.

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.

 

I dunno about you, but that sounds like a suboptimal design decision to me.

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Allowing it to stack is also problematic in it's own ways.

... HOW ... exactly?

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

A thing I am considering to do, though, is to increase some of the modifiers used by power pools like Leadership

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

13 hours ago, Captain Citadel said:

The -Res debuff is like a flanking maneuver.

VERY well said.

That is exactly the concept I was angling for.  The resistance debuff functions like a flanking maneuver that ENABLES increased throughput from any source, not just the Tanker themselves.  They basically make everyone on the team/league BETTER at delivering the beatdowns, relative to what they'd be doing in the absence of the Tanker (or Tankers, plural, preferably).

8 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Even if i took a melee-defender approach

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.

 

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.

 

Now, granted, there are some Tanker powersets (primary and/or secondary) which lean more into the Control/Mez side of things, while others lean more into the Buff/Debuff side of things ... but at their core, what Tankers are supposed to be are Melee Controllers who can "take a lickin' and keep on pounding" (as it were).  First they draw the aggro, then they survive the aggro that they draw.  Everything else flows from that basic core competency assumption.

 

Brutes are Scranker (meaning Scrapper/Tanker) hybrids, and they really need to keep that particular niche role space to themselves.  Because of that, I'm of the opinion that a direct comparison between Scrapper vs Brute and also Tanker vs Brute is not quite as useful as it might at first appear, if all you're doing to making damage output the ONLY parameter that matters to the evaluation while pointedly ignoring pretty much everything else (in the pursuit of "purity" in Max Deeps?).

[Redlynne]

12 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

From a balance perspective, it still means a second tank is the least optimal party member you can bring aboard. Allowing it to stack is also problematic in it's own ways.

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?

[Vanden]

@Redlynne How does that solve the problem of multiple Tankers being redundant? Bloom can't have more than 5 stacks no matter how many Nature Affinity characters are on the team, and more Tankers wouldn't allow for more Bruising if you had it work the same way. Increasing Tanker damage is a better solution for Tanker redundancy than this, because it means more Tankers makes for more substantial additional DPS than they do currently.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Vanden

[Haijinx]

I also remember the stated goal being Tankers do 75% of the damage as Scrappers

 

Scrappers would get 75% of the defenses of Tankers ... 

 

If Scrappers/Brutes for practical purposes can get more than that .. well why are they complaning about a Tanker getting slightly more than 75% damage as well

 

Its almost like people want to enforce some Second Class AT status on Tankers.  

Edited September 14, 2019 by Haijinx

[summers]

7 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I also remember the stated goal being Tankers do 75% of the damage as Scrappers

 

Scrappers would get 75% of the defenses of Tankers ... 

 

If Scrappers/Brutes for practical purposes can get more than that .. well why are they complaning about a Tanker getting slightly more than 75% damage as well

 

Its almost like people want to enforce some Second Class AT status on Tankers.  

 

I did a breakdown of damage for Super Strength Tankers vs Brutes here:

 

To make Tankers deal 75% of the damage of a Brute, they Brute would need to deal 33% more. They don't. To summarise it, the Brute deals 18% more damage single target with 1 Rage, <10% more damage with double stacked Rage, and ~6.5% at the damage cap. In most AOE situations (which IMO is most of the game experience), the expanded AOE size and target cap means the Tanker will comfortably deal more damage; they turn previously mediocre cones into excellent attacks, and their PBAOEs are have a 60% larger radius (or, more than 2.5x in area of effect). 

 

I also look into the relevant effect of the Rage crash which IMO further pushes the decision to play Tankers over Brutes for this iconic set, but won't repeat those here.

Edited September 14, 2019 by summers

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, summers said:

 

I did a breakdown of damage for Super Strength Tankers vs Brutes here:

 

To make Tankers deal 75% of the damage of a Brute, they Brute would need to deal 33% more. They don't. To summarise it, the Brute deals 18% more damage single target with 1 Rage, <10% more damage with double stacked Rage, and ~6.5% at the damage cap. In most AOE situations (which IMO is most of the game experience), the expanded AOE size and target cap means the Tanker will comfortably deal more damage; they turn previously mediocre cones into excellent attacks.

 

I also look into the relevant effect of the Rage crash which IMO further pushes the decision to play Tankers over Brutes for this iconic set, but won't repeat those here.

Brute is not a scrapper?

[summers]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

Brute is not a scrapper?

8 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

IIf Scrappers/Brutes for practical purposes can get more than that .. well why are they complaning about a Tanker getting slightly more than 75% damage as well

 

 

[Vanden]

7 minutes ago, summers said:

I did a breakdown of damage for Super Strength Tankers vs Brutes here:

Super Strength is not the only Melee set for Tankers and Brutes. If you run those numbers with no Rage, which is going to be the typical case for every other set, you'll find that Tankers are almost exactly at 75% of Brutes.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Vanden

[Haijinx]

1 minute ago, summers said:

 

 

Brutes can get more defenses than a scrapper.

 

For example your 18% number (SS will of course be more weighted towards Tankers than other sets due to rage benefiting their proposed higher Scale) 

 

So if the Brute can get with 18% of the Tanker its okay then?  I'm confused. 

 

For almost all content the Brute can MATCH the tanker in survivability.  If you never die, you never die.  It doesn't matter if you never die 18% better.  

 

[Haijinx]

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Super Strength is not the only Melee set for Tankers and Brutes. If you run those numbers with no Rage, which is going to be the typical case for every other set, you'll find that Tankers are almost exactly at 75% of Brutes.

I think SS will benefit Tankers the most because of Rage due to the proposed scale.

 

Claws would be another one.  Staff I guess in offensive mode.  (though not as much)   

 

They newer sets with reduced power buildups though should favor Brutes more than Tankers as a ratio.  Street Justice, Titan Weapons (also the AOEs would not increase in size), Rad 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Haijinx

[Myrmidon]

14 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

A thing I am considering to do, though, is to increase some of the modifiers used by power pools like Leadership, allowing for some tanks to opt into more support-oriented builds on an individual basis, instead of the AT as a whole being shoe-horned into a new support role via global mechanics. Between Leadership and epic pool powers like Darkest Night or Melt Armor, a tanker could build for more support.

 

[summers]

14 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

There are many reasons I dont want to expand the bruise to every power, from personal to actual balance.

 

From a personal point, going all the way to launch, I didn't roll a tank just to debuff things so others can kill them better. I rolled a tank to punch things in the face, while i get punched in the face and my team mates are mostly safe.

 

From a balance perspective, it still means a second tank is the least optimal party member you can bring aboard. Allowing it to stack is also problematic in it's own ways. A thing I am considering to do, though, is to increase some of the modifiers used by power pools like Leadership, allowing for some tanks to opt into more support-oriented builds on an individual basis, instead of the AT as a whole being shoe-horned into a new support role via global mechanics. Between Leadership and epic pool powers like Darkest Night or Melt Armor, a tanker could build for more support.

Is it possible that we can get a real melee defender tank AT, since I hear those kinds of requests regularly in Discord and Reddit? They'd come with baked in identity and individuality instead of the increasing convergence we're about to have between Brute and Tanker?

By the way I really appreciate that there is a lot of thought and time being put into this, even if I disagree with the choices, I think it shows we are heading in exciting directions! I am especially a fan of larger taunt auras for Tankers (20' sounds delicious), which IMO would give them a very significant boost over Brutes for aggro control.

Edited September 14, 2019 by summers

[Vanden]

1 minute ago, summers said:

Is it possible that we can get a real melee defender tank AT, since I hear those kinds of requests regularly in Discord and Reddit? They'd come with baked in identity and individuality instead of the increasing convergence we're about to have between Brute and Tanker?

Yeah, I like the idea of a built-from-the-ground-up melee support AT more than trying to half-ass the Tanker into that role.

[Oubliette_Red]

On 9/12/2019 at 1:53 PM, Golden Azrael said:

I understand the frustrations of the above post.  How can it be that a tank is 'helpless' other than to get beat upon?

 

Simple.  Replace Build UP with 'Rage' for all non SS tanks and you have a transformative action to all of those old fashioned tanks like Ice, Energy and Stone.  Suddenly you CAN be more than a beat shield.  You can then put your fist in where it hurts.

 

Another thing missed off this Tanker patch.  The actual Taunt sound.  Can we have a choice please?  Of 'Arhh...' or 'Hurr' (bah, the sick bucket for that one.  I don't like the latter but it's been given to all my tanks rolled so far.  Can we please /taunt 1 or 2 please?  It seems to be linked to body type..?

 

Azrael.

 

Options are great, but until they happen (or if they never do) you can always change them yourself.