Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[golstat2003]

11 hours ago, Auroxis said:

Against a +4 AV with the rare alpha slot (making it +3) it's a 13% resistance debuff before resistances.

/shrug

 

Insignifigant.

 

I’d rather have better all around damage and AOE potential to help me hit more targets at once, than bruising. I do a lot more teaming overall where we aren’t fighting AVs. AV debuffing is not a concern I care about on melee when I have teammates who can pretty much melt any resistance/defense AVs may have.

 

Caring about bruising just was never on my mind while playing a Tank. I’d bet the average player on Homecoming would notice more AOE damage than bruising.

[Auroxis]

That's almost the same as the total resistance debuff output from radiation emission/pain/thermal/time/nature on a corruptor. Would you be ok as a corruptor if the -res got replaced with an AoE and a higher damage multiplier?

[Cailean]

I am not a fan of the fault/tremor swap. I have been using it plus either build up or yellow inspirations as a toggle dropper when fighting circle of thorns. An earth thorn caster on their back could still have the defense buff, and the spirit leuitenants with their -acc aura are even worse. I am past the point of it mattering now at level 39, but the thought of having to go back through the low 30s without fault...ugh. Also, the tremor animation is so slow...not really useful for "oh crud" mitigation.

 

If this has already been addressed, please forgive me. I just found the thread on the 16th and it is already some 32 pages...too much to read in a hurry.

[Snakebit]

2 hours ago, Auroxis said:

That's almost the same as the total resistance debuff output from radiation emission/pain/thermal/time/nature on a corruptor. Would you be ok as a corruptor if the -res got replaced with an AoE and a higher damage multiplier?

Omg yes! So much scourge...

[Myrmidon]

2 hours ago, Auroxis said:

That's almost the same as the total resistance debuff output from radiation emission/pain/thermal/time/nature on a corruptor. Would you be ok as a corruptor if the -res got replaced with an AoE and a higher damage multiplier?

 

Apples and Komodo dragons. Corruptor secondary is support, Tanker secondary is damage. Giving up Bruising for even half of these changes is worth the trade off.

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, Auroxis said:

That's almost the same as the total resistance debuff output from radiation emission/pain/thermal/time/nature on a corruptor. Would you be ok as a corruptor if the -res got replaced with an AoE and a higher damage multiplier?

Reliability, propagation and magnitude. How does Tanker Bruising compare to the - res in this sets? 

 

But that's more a determination of what I'd qualify as force multiplication. Those sets obviously have other bonuses that easily put those sets in that category so even if their - res is comparable in this 3 fronts, that would merely mean the - res is a bonus for them too kind of like the - recovery in poison trap. 

[Myrmidon]

9 hours ago, Leogunner said:

Curious how you play your Kinetic Brute.

 

It might not be that the differences aren't enough but that you're already privy enough on optimizing Kinetics.  I actually had an Inv/Kinetic Tanker on live, I think that's another I need to test.

While I am definitely privy to optimizing Kinetics, my main is the one that stays with my Sorcery concept more that anything (up to and possibly including respeccing every month to change out my level 49 “spell”).

 

The primary reason is that I really enjoy the reactions of people that knew me on live now seeing my main as a Brute.😁

[Auroxis]

37 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

 

Apples and Komodo dragons. Corruptor secondary is support, Tanker secondary is damage. Giving up Bruising for even half of these changes is worth the trade off.

In both scenarios you're taking away features from players. What matters isn't only what you think the class should have, but also what it currently has. And has had for the past 10 years.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Auroxis

[Myrmidon]

9 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

In both scenarios you're taking away features from players. What matters isn't only what you think the class should have, but also what it currently has. And has had for the past 10 years.

 

If you took a poll on Bruising today, I would wager that the majority of the player-base wouldn’t even know what you’re talking about.🤣

 

 

Besides, everyone’s opinions clearly matter, otherwise, they could have just pushed the changes live instead of allowing this discussion for ideas on the matter. You want Bruising to stay, I am willing to drop it and it’s pretty clear that neither of us will change our minds, no worries.😁

Edited September 17, 2019 by Myrmidon

[Profit]

9 hours ago, DreadShinobi said:

 I will also mention that brute damage cap is as high as it is because they have a much lower base damage and fury which eats into alot of it. Per percentage point of damage buffing, brutes gain less than other ATs with higher modifiers, including tankers.

Wait... What?

[Auroxis]

5 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

 

If you took a poll on Bruising today, I would wager that the majority of the player-base wouldn’t even know what you’re talking about.🤣

 

 

Besides, everyone’s opinions clearly matter, otherwise, they could have just pushed the changes live instead of allowing this discussion for ideas on the matter. You want Bruising to stay, I am willing to drop it and it’s pretty clear that neither of us will change our minds, no worries.😁

To be clear I want the 20% -res to stay, not necessarily in the form of Bruising.

[Myrmidon]

8 minutes ago, Profit said:

Wait... What?

 

[Myrmidon]

3 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

To be clear I want the 20% -res to stay, not necessarily in the form of Bruising.

Fair enough. 😁

[Steele_Magnolia]

I'm fine with all the changes except for the nerf to Tank taunt cap. I don't understand how reducing the taunt cap from 17 to 10 improves the tank. A higher taunt cap makes sense if you want the tank to be the team's meat shield.

[ParagonKid]

29 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

If you took a poll on Bruising today, I would wager that the majority of the player-base wouldn’t even know what you’re talking about.🤣

That's because it's a passive ability with no visual effects on one AT out of fourteen in a MMO where most of the playerbase engaged the game at an extremely casual level.

Plus, at no point during character creation did the game actually TELL you Tankers softened up enemies or anything. 😗

 

[Sura]

24 minutes ago, Steele_Magnolia said:

I'm fine with all the changes except for the nerf to Tank taunt cap. I don't understand how reducing the taunt cap from 17 to 10 improves the tank. A higher taunt cap makes sense if you want the tank to be the team's meat shield.

Taunt has a five target cap.  I played all through Live and never knew that.  I always thought it was 17 too.  After someone mentioned it here on the boards I went and looked in game and sure enough there was the cap of five.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Sura

[Auroxis]

9 minutes ago, ParagonKid said:

That's because it's a passive ability with no visual effects on one AT out of fourteen in a MMO where most of the playerbase engaged the game at an extremely casual level.

Plus, at no point during character creation did the game actually TELL you Tankers softened up enemies or anything. 😗

 

Resistance debuffs have a visual effect and the power description contains bruising.

[golstat2003]

1 hour ago, Myrmidon said:

 

Apples and Komodo dragons. Corruptor secondary is support, Tanker secondary is damage. Giving up Bruising for even half of these changes is worth the trade off.

What she said.

[golstat2003]

11 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Resistance debuffs have a visual effect and the power description contains bruising.

A visual effect that most players won't notice. A majority probably never even knew tanks do that. Ask them if they know what a glowing green toggle does on a mob and THAT they will probably have noticed and be able to tell you. Let's keep it real.

 

Though, glad it's at least in the description. I'm fine if the -resistance is moved  to something else on tanks or not. Once again I really don't care if a tank brings that. If I want debuffing I'm asking for any of the other ATs that do it better. And if I want to focus on debuffing I'll play one of them. It's never been a concern when I play a tank. lol

Edited September 17, 2019 by golstat2003

[Bossk_Hogg]

16 hours ago, Auroxis said:

Against a +4 AV with the rare alpha slot (making it +3) it's a 13% resistance debuff before resistances.

That's against an even con AV (same level as you). How often do people run on +0 in teams, outside of pure speed runs? The purple patch takes both rank and relative level into account. That AV on a+4/x8 is getting bruised for under 1% damage resist debuff.

[Auroxis]

2 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

That's against an even con AV (same level as you). How often do people run on +0 in teams, outside of pure speed runs? The purple patch takes both rank and relative level into account. That AV on a+4/x8 is getting bruised for under 1% damage resist debuff.

That's flat out incorrect and you can easily test it yourself with a power analyzer if you have a tank. You must be applying the AV debuff resistance formula by mistake which doesn't apply to resistance debuffs.

[Bossk_Hogg]

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

To be clear I want the 20% -res to stay, not necessarily in the form of Bruising.

Then it should be unresistable. 

 

As a separate note, it's probably time to roll back the purple patch some on debuffs, to achieve parity with buff effectiveness. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Bossk_Hogg

[Sailboat]

3 hours ago, Sura said:

Taunt has a five target cap.  I played all through Live and never knew that.  I always thought it was 17 too.  After someone mentioned it here on the boards I went and looked in game and sure enough there was the cap of five.

I believe the cap is (before contemplated changes) five you can affect with one Taunt or one Gauntlet from an attack...BUT the effect can accumulate on up to 17 total foes.  So you might taunt 5, attact 5 more with gauntlet, and grab 7 more with your taunt aura (e. g., Invincibility) and then hold aggro on those 17 until some are defeated (and hopefully replaced by freshly aggroed foes).  So 5 at a time up to a cumulative  total of 17.

[Sura]

12 minutes ago, Sailboat said:

I believe the cap is (before contemplated changes) five you can affect with one Taunt or one Gauntlet from an attack...BUT the effect can accumulate on up to 17 total foes.  So you might taunt 5, attact 5 more with gauntlet, and grab 7 more with your taunt aura (e. g., Invincibility) and then hold aggro on those 17 until some are defeated (and hopefully replaced by freshly aggroed foes).  So 5 at a time up to a cumulative  total of 17.

Right, that's the aggro cap.  Taunt's target cap is 5, soon to be 10.  I didn't know which one Steele was referring to, but figured I'd answer as if they were referring to Taunt, which was the thing that changed (for the better) and if they were referring to the aggro cap they'd probably see my post and realize what the change actually was.

[Steele_Magnolia]

41 minutes ago, Sura said:

Right, that's the aggro cap.  Taunt's target cap is 5, soon to be 10.  I didn't know which one Steele was referring to, but figured I'd answer as if they were referring to Taunt, which was the thing that changed (for the better) and if they were referring to the aggro cap they'd probably see my post and realize what the change actually was.

Thanks to both you and Sailboat for explaining. I knew the number 17, knew I could hold a lot of targets for my teams, but didn't realize how that number was achieved.