Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Auroxis]

55 minutes ago, Vanden said:

It doesn't sound like Bruising is returning.

In that case neither Punch nor Jab would be used in the top chain anyway since Gloom, Haymaker and Cross Punch exist.

[Noyjitat]

7 hours ago, Profit said:

@NoyjitatHere is my damage coming off the rock to tank hami tonight. This is with Single Rage and a LEAGUE worth of buffs on me...

 

 

There is no way your going to hit this cap.

Besides world of pain and kinetics (maybe im forgetting another aoe damage buff?) there's no reason why you'd have lots of +damage from a league unless you were on a team with buffers and I doubt you were. It would only take you one kin with decent recharge build using siphon power and fulcrum for most all group content to get you into the new damage cap.

[Noyjitat]

9 hours ago, cejmp said:

Tanks have existed in a meatshield vacuum long enough. 

Do you realize how stupid that statement is? tanks are meatshields, this is what they are supposed to be, not damage.

[Haijinx]

This reads like a delaying action.  

 

Hold the line!  If we grumble long enough everyone else will give up!

 

 

[Parabola]

1 hour ago, Noyjitat said:

Do you realize how stupid that statement is? tanks are meatshields, this is what they are supposed to be, not damage.

I'm sorry but this just isn't true.

 

 

Melee damage is 7, not 0. All AT's in this game get damage, all AT's can solo.

 

The idea of a non damaging meatshield may be your definition of a tank but it isn't the definition of a tank used by this game.

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, Noyjitat said:

Do you realize how stupid that statement is? tanks are meatshields, this is what they are supposed to be, not damage.

 

The times they are a changin. Adapt or cry.

[...]

Tankers are meant to be the most survivable and best at aggro management. This is reflected in their higher base values and inherent power.

 

Brutes are meant to be very survivable, but trade some survivability for damage.

 

Unfortunately in a world of IOs, both tankers and brutes can achieve "extremely hard to kill almost all the time" levels of survivability in nearly all content. So Tankers don't beat brutes on survivability. Gauntlet, for all its intentions, doesn't make tankers that much better at maintaining aggro than brutes.

 

So the devs have options:
1) increase tanker damage

2) increase tanker target caps on aoes and cones + increase areas (remembering that the 16 target cap limit is very hard to change for technical coding reasons most of us don't understand)

3) nerf brute survivability

 

The devs have avoided option 3 because no one likes a nerf bat (and honestly, it would break brutes; they are meant to be survivable).

 

1+2 seems to fine to me, 2 being the more important in my opinion. Then it is just a matter of spreadsheets and numbers for balancing purposes. Target cap increase (10 to 16 on pbaoes) + base damage increase (0.8 to 0.95) means that tankers will do almost double damage in AOE heavy situations relative to the damage they deal now: 16/10 * 0.95/0.8 = 190%. If the devs think that is reasonable, then great. If not, then it might be worth changing the damage scale to 0.9 or whatever. This may shift the farming meta-game from brutes to tankers. Oh well; farmers will adjust.

 

Finally, I'll note that tankers get a "3" on "Support" on the character creation screen, as user parabola was so kind to include above. Though the Cottage Rule, strictly speaking, applies to powers, I think I'd like to invoke it for archetypes as well; tankers were never support via buffs. Giving them higher base values for things like Leadership toggles doesn't make sense to me. That's the wheelhouse of defenders and VEATS.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Vooded
spelling

[Captain Powerhouse]

5 hours ago, Auroxis said:

If Bruising is returning

It is not.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Captain Powerhouse

[Myrmidon]

21 minutes ago, Vooded said:

Though the Cottage Rule, strictly speaking, applies to powers, I think I'd like to invoke it for archetypes as well;

Castle’s own words about the “Cottage Rule”. It means, simply, that the Devs can make any changes that they feel are necessary, so stop quoting it like it’s some kind of holy text.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Myrmidon

[Mr. Igneous]

10 minutes ago, Vooded said:

 ...(remembering that the 16 target cap limit is very hard to change for technical coding reasons most of us don't understand)...

 

I still don't understand that part. When CoH launched we did not have a target cap.  Taunt could hit an entire map of Mobs and hold their aggro.  Why can't it be put back to its original state? 

 

Would be happy with being able to Herd 25 to 50 mobs at a time.  Herding was fun, and boy did it look epic!!

 

Later,

 

Mr. Igneous

[Auroxis]

3 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

It is not.

Welp, thanks for clearing that up. I hope we get some kind of force multiplier to replace it.

[Captain Powerhouse]

5 hours ago, Mr. Igneous said:

Ah...great...Thank you!!  Good news for Stone tanks.  The swap would have been fine if the T2 power was changed to the T1 recharge time when it was moved to the T1 spot.

 

Later,

 

Mr. Igneous

Stone was not going to have it’s t1/t2 swapped in the first place, only tremor/fault was moving for that set.

[Mr. Igneous]

1 minute ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Stone was not going to have it’s t1/t2 swapped in the first place, only tremor/fault was moving for that set.

Ah...you misunderstood that.  I meant for the Defense set stone, not the offensive set stone.  I was unhappy with the offensive set of ice having Frozen Fists and Ice Sword swapped.  Was concerned with recharge time issues with a t1/t2 swap while in granite.

 

Later,

 

Mr. Igneous

[...]

27 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

Castle’s own words about the “Cottage Rule”. It means, simply, that the Devs can make any changes that they feel are necessary, so stop quoting it like it’s some kind of holy text.

My apologies for accidently antagonizing you by quoting the Cottage Rule.

 

On the other hand, this is my first time participating in this discussion; I have not been quoting the Cottage Rule as some kind of holy text.

 

Of course the devs can overturn any rule they want. That is what it means to be a developer. 

 

But the "how" and "why" to make changes is what matters. The developer responsibility is to make the right changes for the right reasons. 

 

Tankers were never melee support. Making them melee support is antithematic to their original design intent. That is the important principle I was getting at: don't break original design intent without sufficient justification.  

 

Giving tankers a melee support flair would overlap too much with VEATS. 

[Auroxis]

5 minutes ago, Vooded said:

 

Tankers were never melee support. Making them melee support is antithematic to their original design intent. That is the important principle I was getting at: don't break original design intent without sufficient justification.  

 

Giving tankers a melee support flair would overlap too much with VEATS. 

I guess it depends on your definition of "Support":

• If you mean "keeps teammates alive", then aggro management does just that.
• If you mean buffs/heals to keep your teammates alive, then the only examples are higher values on Grant Cover and the existence of Ground Zero (shared by scrapper and brute).
• If you mean "force multiplier", then the higher values on -res powers and Bruising are a thing (on live, at least).

[Profit]

5 hours ago, Noyjitat said:

Besides world of pain and kinetics (maybe im forgetting another aoe damage buff?) there's no reason why you'd have lots of +damage from a league unless you were on a team with buffers and I doubt you were. It would only take you one kin with decent recharge build using siphon power and fulcrum for most all group content to get you into the new damage cap.

Now your missing the point. That was to demonstrate a mass amount of buffs effect on damage because your not always going to have your 'finely tuned' kin that your friend built. So I needed to go for the widest assortment of buffs I could find. A tank, even with one kin with recharge, will still not hit the 600% damage cap. Turn your monitoring on, screenshot, and prove me wrong.

 

And as further proof, let's have a look at fulcrum shift shall we?

 

Notice currently It's set for 10 enemies. And I slotted it with 3 lvl 50 IOs recharge reducers.

 

 

So we see here it provides a 250% dmg buff at 10 targets and with 3 recharge can have a 13 second overlap (adjusting for casting cost, not counting other global recharge bonuses. (Duration - Cast 'rounded down' - Rchg 'rounded down' =  13). So 250 + (Single Stacked Rage) 80% (is what mids says) dmg buff = 330% dmg bonus.

 

That is if it perfectly hits 10 targets. Which it almost never does because of 'HOW FAST MOBS DIE TO A IOd AND INCARNATED TEAM OF 8'. Likely, fulcrum shift is going to hit 3/4 targets, let's say 4 and be generous.

 

 

Oh look, that's a mere 100% dmg buff.

 

You are lording a specific situation over everyone claiming it as fact over the whole experience when it is certainly not. You and your friend may take time to herd, bunch. line up, fulcrum shift mobs for max effect but 99% of the teams playing won't take time to do it because even fulcrum shift, while nice is unneeded at incarnate level game play. MOBS DIE TO FAST FOR IT TO BE POWERHOUSE EFFECTIVE LIKE IT IS AT SO LEVELS. Literally, I've had people in discord claim I was deleting mobs from the game with my blaster.

 

And also into consideration, not every team will have a kin to attempt it with. Archery Nuke + Vorpal Radial Final Judgement + Exploding Arrow, and a lot of the time the kins I have ran with can't even get a proper fulcrum shift off. Because Mobs die to fast at that level.

 

So TL:DR, the sky isn't falling. It only looks worse than what it is. If it is as bad as you think, please provide proof of the badness in screenshots.

[Profit]

15 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I guess it depends on your definition of "Support":

• If you mean "keeps teammates alive", then aggro management does just that.
• If you mean buffs/heals to keep your teammates alive, then the only examples are higher values on Grant Cover and the existence of Ground Zero (shared by scrapper and brute).
• If you mean "force multiplier", then the higher values on -res powers and Bruising are a thing (on live, at least).

I personally view aggro management as a force multiplier. Keeping teammates alive, allowing them to attack more, allows more force to be pushed basically. Just my view on it though.

[...]

14 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I guess it depends on your definition of "Support":

• If you mean "keeps teammates alive", then aggro management does just that.
• If you mean buffs/heals to keep your teammates alive, then the only examples are higher values on Grant Cover and the existence of Ground Zero (shared by scrapper and brute).
• If you mean "force multiplier", then the higher values on -res powers and Bruising are a thing (on live, at least).

I specifically meant support via buffs. Leave the high value buffs to VEATs, defenders, corruptors and controllers. 

[Auroxis]

1 minute ago, Profit said:

I personally view aggro management as a force multiplier. Keeping teammates alive, allowing them to attack more, allows more force to be pushed basically. Just my view on it though.

Well a better example would be that good aggro management also bundles up mobs to make them easier to AoE down, like those scattered mobs at the start of Apex. AoE them and then hide behind an obstacle while your team is finishing up on the last pack, and stuff goes down a lot faster.

[Bunmaster]

I personally think that the proposed 575% is still too much. Damage is a brute thing. Tanks should be tanks, the increases aoe and cone radius is amazing, it definitely helps with aggro.

 

Theoretically  when tanks and brutes team up, with these new changes, brutes would have less aggro. Thus less fury and damage, thus an indirect nerf. Though this is merely a theory, needs some tests first.

 

I would expand bruising , revert the modifier change back to the original, make ta cap 550% and increase the aoe/cone radius. That should keep the tanker playstyle the same. 

 

That +20 End makes 0 sense, every AT can make the claim that they need more endurance, why is the tank the special one?

 

On a side note about the secondary T1 powers. I don't know how the code works, but is it possible to make it non-mandatory when respeccing? As in, have it start out empty and allow the player to choose an extra power?

[BillyMailman]

1 hour ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

It is not.

Can you give any more explanation why there's no willingness to look into fixing/un-nerfing bruising? Removing it because it sucks feels like entirely the wrong approach, when it only sucks because it got broken somewhere along the line. Was the nerf actually intentional in the first place? Bruising on the live servers was actually pretty awesome, and when I found out how badly it had been nerfed on Homecoming, I was actually really looking forward to hopefully being able to get it un-nerfed, not see it removed.

 

If someone wants a tank that personally does a lot of damage, well, as you yourself said earlier in this thread, there are other tank classes. You've even acknowledged that they're slower at defeating mobs, by giving them the extra endurance. So, I don't see the harm in embracing the idea that Tankers should simply be the furthest to one end of the damage vs. survivability spectrum, when it comes to melee characters. Let them focus on other forms of mitigation/support, through things like the increased AoE, and a correctly-working Bruising power.

[Haijinx]

Using the cottage rule to prop up bruising which was a kludgy later game attempt to increase tanker damage..

 

While ignoring the fact tankers were supposed to be melee damage dealers with "slow devastating attacks"  according to the original game manual description ..

 

Is a whole new level of rationalization. 

 

I mean the original came in a box, with the manual printed on PAPER it was so old.  

 

 

 

 

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Bunmaster said:

I personally think that the proposed 575% is still too much. Damage is a brute thing. Tanks should be tanks, the increases aoe and cone radius is amazing, it definitely helps with aggro.

 

Theoretically  when tanks and brutes team up, with these new changes, brutes would have less aggro. Thus less fury and damage, thus an indirect nerf. Though this is merely a theory, needs some tests first.

 

I would expand bruising , revert the modifier change back to the original, make ta cap 550% and increase the aoe/cone radius. That should keep the tanker playstyle the same. 

 

That +20 End makes 0 sense, every AT can make the claim that they need more endurance, why is the tank the special one?

 

On a side note about the secondary T1 powers. I don't know how the code works, but is it possible to make it non-mandatory when respeccing? As in, have it start out empty and allow the player to choose an extra power?

The less fury thing applies every time brutes team with anyone that can steal aggro or slow baddies attack rate.

 

Hard to design a game around that.

 

More than one Brute = less fury

 

Blasters steal aggro = less fury.

 

Scrappers with taunt auras = less fury. 

 

Contollers locking down mobs = less fury. 

 

Defenders slowing mob recharge = less fury.  

 

Caltrops, rain of fire, reaction time, snow storm, even energy torrent .. all reduce potential fury.

 

[Auroxis]

11 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Using the cottage rule to prop up bruising which was a kludgy later game attempt to increase tanker damage..

 

While ignoring the fact tankers were supposed to be melee damage dealers with "slow devastating attacks"  according to the original game manual description ..

 

Is a whole new level of rationalization. 

 

I mean the original came in a box, with the manual printed on PAPER it was so old.  

 

 

 

 

Cottage rule has nothing to do with what a class "should" do, it's about taking away features from players without giving a similar feature to replace it.

 

In this case, the feature being taken away is force multiplication against single targets. And a higher melee damage multiplier and damage cap aren't similar enough to replace that.

[siolfir]

2 hours ago, Profit said:

<long rant about Fulcrum Shift being unable to keep Tankers at the cap snipped>

Nice cherry-picking on the screenshots for the power there... Fulcrum Shift routinely is permanently double-stacked because of global recharge. But you had to know that to be able to build that Blaster you posted totals for earlier, so you're being deliberately disingenuous. You also missed the +50% damage from around the Defender that can get you to +300% per stack in an ideal situation, because it's not on that tab in Pine's - but then, for a Controller or Corruptor it caps at +240% and those are the usual ATs I've seen with Kinetics because the Defender damage cap is so low.

 

Here's a screenshot from Pine's where it's slotted with only 2 level 50 recharge IOs (not even boosted level 50s):

 

Gee, that has it double-stacked all the time, and triple-stacked for a couple of seconds. I can keep my Corruptor at the +400% cap most of the time as the only Kin, and that's not even accounting for damage slotting. If a Tanker is running with me, they're going to get the same buffs. There's no arcane secret to do this, either... you hit Fulcrum Shift as the first thing you do in every other spawn, and that spawn and the next one usually dies before it's recharged. It doesn't take an uber build, and it doesn't take being softcapped to everything on defense and hardcapped to everything on resistance to survive doing it... my Corruptor is still running around with SOs slotted in half of her attacks because I couldn't decide what sets to take, and it didn't matter once I got Clarion. What it takes is prioritizing Fulcrum Shift before your AoEs, a bit of knockback protection, and moving through the mission quickly enough that it doesn't wear off.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by siolfir
added last sentence to first paragraph