Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, Vanden said:

I'm not sure this test means the buffs are over the top, since you specifically went out of your way to get more AoE attacks, and played on a difficulty that heavily favors AoE attacks (weaker, more numerous enemies).

I can understand where you're coming from, but the conclusions are still entirely meant to be subjective.  When the term "test" is used in this context, it's more a subjective comparison and thus a data point for a more broad analysis for others to compare and contrast.  Basically, the quoted is meant to be their opinion and it's one I agreed with after playing various combos.

 

Oh, and try mace.  It feels almost too nice.  

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

Also, Rylas, the AoE radius boost is dropping from 100% to 60% in the next patch, so run those two again when that happens, if you would.

Also to note, the cones will remain relatively unchanged from the next patch (if PH's posts are still accurate).  DM has PBAoEs that will be reduced but they are more utility than damage.

[summers]

Can anyone tell me if, for cone attacks, it's just the arc that is being doubled, or is it the arc and the radius that is increasing?

[Kimuji]

Sorry if it has already been discussed but the thread is 35 pages long now, does the AoE and target cap increase also applies to taunt Auras?
I mean making damage auras (like Blazing Aura or Death Shroud) hit 16 targets instead of 10 is a substantial increase but it isn't a massive imbalance, however auras that give a buff based on the number of affected targets are a concern. Invulnerability, Shield Defense or Willpower for instance (or even rad armor). The bonus increase from 10 to 16 targets would make those auras completely OP: massive regen for WP, huge defense for Invul, stupid damage for SD etc...

Speaking of auras, and balanced changes, Willpower could certainly benefit from a longer duration of its taunt effect.

[summers]

24 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

Sorry if it has already been discussed but the thread is 35 pages long now, does the AoE and target cap increase also applies to taunt Auras?
I mean making damage auras (like Blazing Aura or Death Shroud) hit 16 targets instead of 10 is a substantial increase but it isn't a massive imbalance, however auras that give a buff based on the number of affected targets are a concern. Invulnerability, Shield Defense or Willpower for instance (or even rad armor). The bonus increase from 10 to 16 targets would make those auras completely OP: massive regen for WP, huge defense for Invul, stupid damage for SD etc...

Speaking of auras, and balanced changes, Willpower could certainly benefit from a longer duration of its taunt effect.

On 9/12/2019 at 10:21 PM, summers said:

 

Will taunt auras get their target caps upped? What will happen, for instance, to Against All Odds or Rise To The Challenge? Will they go up to 16 targets?

 

On 9/12/2019 at 10:37 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:

They won’t, the cap change only applies to melee sets.

 

That's all I know so far; I am assuming that the auras are larger but the cap is the same.

Edited September 19, 2019 by summers

[FUBARczar]

WOW!

 

IMHO: I would tone it down a little bit to help tanks, but not step on Brutes' toes

 

Keep Bruise

Increase Aggro Cap

Increase Endurance as proposed

Increase damage scale to be = w/ Khelds - 0.85 melee / 0.80 ranged

Is it possible to only extend effect of secondary effects?  If so do that for the Arc & PBAOES

make appropriate T1/ T2 powers swaps

BUT......

Do not change damage cap

 

 

[Snakebit]

57 minutes ago, FUBARczar said:

WOW!

 

IMHO: I would tone it down a little bit to help tanks, but not step on Brutes' toes

 

Keep Bruise

Increase Aggro Cap

Increase Endurance as proposed

Increase damage scale to be = w/ Khelds - 0.85 melee / 0.80 ranged

Is it possible to only extend effect of secondary effects?  If so do that for the Arc & PBAOES

make appropriate T1/ T2 powers swaps

BUT......

Do not change damage cap

 

 

Aggro cap cannot be chamged for 1 AT.

 

What did your testing show that makes you think the damage cap is too high?

[Haijinx]

changing it to 0.85 wouldn't do much 

They are already at 0.80 

 

[Trogan707]

13 minutes ago, cejmp said:

Aggro cap cannot be changed for 1 AT.

Why?

 

That one change alone would make tanks unique and solve many of these issues. Is it not possible to make tanks have a higher aggro cap?  If its possible this should be on the short list of fixes..a tank should have a huge agro cap ....

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, cejmp said:

Aggro cap cannot be chamged for 1 AT.

 

What did your testing show that makes you think the damage cap is too high?

can't change aggro cap is too bad.

 

As for an increase to 600% damage cap one does not need to test that raising the cap above damage ATs (500% - Blasters, Corruptors, Scrapper, Stalkers (unless those changed too since live)) does not make sense.  Nor to see that things may be askew if the damage modifier was raised to .95 and the cap to 600% for a damage sponge (not dealer).   And consider that this counts on Bruise remaining.  

 

Also my overall point was aimed at not overshooting on the first set of changes.  It's easier to increase incrementally rather than rolling back changes after people get a taste.

 

 

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

changing it to 0.85 wouldn't do much 

They are already at 0.80 

 

Correct, it's an incremental boost, and also considers on bruise remaining.  

[Haijinx]

I don't know incremental doesn't seam like its common in mmos though.

 

More like get buff, go to end of the line.

[Snakebit]

1 hour ago, Trogan707 said:

Why?

 

That one change alone would make tanks unique and solve many of these issues. Is it not possible to make tanks have a higher aggro cap?  If its possible this should be on the short list of fixes..a tank should have a huge agro cap ....

Because aggro cap is tied to critter AI, not players. It can't be done with the existing code. 

[Snakebit]

58 minutes ago, FUBARczar said:

can't change aggro cap is too bad.

 

As for an increase to 600% damage cap one does not need to test that raising the cap above damage ATs (500% - Blasters, Corruptors, Scrapper, Stalkers (unless those changed too since live)) does not make sense.  Nor to see that things may be askew if the damage modifier was raised to .95 and the cap to 600% for a damage sponge (not dealer).   And consider that this counts on Bruise remaining.  

 

Also my overall point was aimed at not overshooting on the first set of changes.  It's easier to increase incrementally rather than rolling back changes after people get a taste.

 

 

 

What about the damage cap makes it unbalanced? Tanks can't reach the cap on their own, meaning it requires a team environment, which means the entire team will be capped which means that the increase to the damage cap makes the AT better than it is only under certain conditions. Like in a duo. A tank at the damage cap is still doing less damage than Blasters, Corruptors, Scrappers, and Stalkers with the same buffs. What's the issue? Bruise is out, thankfully. 

 

Nobody has a taste of anything, it's all on test and won't be rolled live until they are done testing. The playerbase doesn't get a taste. 

 

Why do you support a lower damage cap? 

 

Why can't tanks do non-trivial damage?  Saying "Damage sponge" is an non-answer artifact of a decades old vision from a game designer with demonstrably flawed ideas of how to make an MMO.  Give us a reason that doesn't involve "Role" or "Brute". 

[Sovera]

People keep going back to the 600% damage as if mattered. Begging the pardon of Captain Powerhouse the 600% damage is almost troll and is taking too much attention off the changes as people zoom in on that particular thing.

 

Spreadsheets come out, calculators come out, and omg, 600% means that blah blah!

 

In practical terms, what? People are worried that teams that have two kins, and the nukers in the team are careful not to nuke and kill all minions, will manage to cap a Tanker's damage? How is this a consideration?

 

I, personally, sort of want to /pat the poor kins I play with since they know their role and they want to give everyone omfgbbqsauce damage, but the first Blaster, or Sentinel, or anyone with a Judgement, that reaches the pack nukes it and the pack goes from 10-12 to 5-6 mobs.

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, cejmp said:

 

Tanks can't reach the cap on their own, meaning it requires a team environment, which means the entire team will be capped which means that the increase to the damage cap makes the AT better than it is only under certain conditions.

Tanks can't reach it on their own, so let's make it 1000%

 

Quote

Nobody has a taste of anything, it's all on test and won't be rolled live until they are done testing. The playerbase doesn't get a taste. 

Duh, that's why I am saying that the current proposed changes shouldn't go live so they don't get a taste on live for OP changes that later get nerfed.  ie I am advocating for these proposed changes to be tuned down before they go though. 

 

Quote

What did your testing show that makes you think the damage cap is too high?

You provide nothing to justify or support a 200% jump in the damage cap.  Where's your support for such a drastic change?  

The greater burden of proof resides with giving reasons to make the change in the first place.

 

Quote

Why can't tanks do non-trivial damage?  Saying "Damage sponge" is an non-answer artifact of a decades old vision from a game designer with demonstrably flawed ideas of how to make an MMO.  Give us a reason that doesn't involve "Role" or "Brute". 

oh I didn't realize that MMOs disregarded any notion of risk vs reward, or need to balance damage vs survivability.   Let's just let the character creator allow us to mix and match any powersets.  Hmm give me Tanker Defense set with a Blaster Blast set.

Edited September 19, 2019 by FUBARczar
wording

[Snakebit]

Why all the semi-hostile non-sequitor and empty hyperbole? You seem almost offended that I asked for your thinking in your post. I was under the impression that a discussion board was for discussion. My bad. 

 

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, cejmp said:

Why all the semi-hostile non-sequitor and empty hyperbole? You seem almost offended that I asked for your thinking in your post. I was under the impression that a discussion board was for discussion. My bad. 

 

you inferred the offense; and you ask for what you don't give yourself, and you misread what was written; and you apply things I wrote to questions I wasn't answering.

 

nice trollin' bruv....cheers 😜

[Replacement]

1 hour ago, FUBARczar said:

A bunch of hyperbolic and slippery-slope logic.

This isn't binary, buddy.  There exists a point where you can add enough damage for tankers to feel good without threatening other ATs.  And as CP said, Bruising is currently providing almost nothing to Tankers except forcing a weak power into all of their attack chains.

 

I feel like every argument you make against the changes should apply to Corruptors. But the forums don't seem to show a bunch of upset Defenders and Blasters so nuance must be working, to at least some extent.

 

Note that the damage cap is going to be 575% from 600% next build, so keep that in mind.

 

As someone who mostly plays in squads smaller than 4 members, I will enjoy these buffs.

 

As someone who enjoys playing Support, I would feel a lot better knowing any offensive buffs aren't a complete waste on a Tanker.

 

As a human being trying to enjoy a game, I welcome changes combating the old "this class just isn't allowed to have fun" mentality.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Replacement

[Snakebit]

 

19 minutes ago, Replacement said:

This isn't binary, buddy.  There exists a point where you can add enough damage for tankers to feel good without threatening other ATs.  And as CP said, Bruising is currently providing almost nothing to Tankers except forcing a weak power into all of their attack chains.

 

I feel like every argument you make against the changes should apply to Corruptors. But the forums don't seem to show a bunch of upset Defenders and Blasters so nuance must be working, to at least some extent.

 

Note that the damage cap is going to be 575% from 600% next build, so keep that in mind.

 

As someone who mostly plays in squads smaller than 4 members, I will enjoy these buffs.

 

As someone who enjoys playing Support, I would feel a lot better knowing any offensive buffs aren't a complete waste on a Tanker.

 

As a human being trying to enjoy a game, I welcome changes combating the old "this class just isn't allowed to have fun" mentality.

 

 

So much of this. The only thing that has kept me from playing more than 1 tank is the lack of damage. You can get decent damage on every support class solo EXCEPT tanks.  I'm not a "solo only" player, but when I have time to log in and play I'm not waiting for teams and I don't run teams, so I watch LFG and I solo. That might be for 2 minutes or it might be for 2 hours. But when I log in, I don't want the decision on what to play be determined by LFG invites. There is nothing fun about aggro herding and plinking away at a spawn for 20 minutes. 

 

I'm still waiting for someone...anyone...who is of the "Role is meatshield" opinion to explain why the "Role" has to include trivial damage. I can at least empathize with "mediocre damage is good enough". I don't agree, but there can be a point made that isn't driven by dogma written by 1st gen MMOs.

 

Defenders can be developed to do very respectable damage while still maintaining their "role". Controllers with high end dps and team mitigations can be built with ease. Corruptors bring plenty of damage and mitigation. Brutes have huge mitigation and huge damage. Scrappers have huge mitigation and huge damage. Stalkers are on a whole 'nuther level. Yes, I realize it is possible to play a build that can't fight through wet paper and still be huge force multiplier, but every AT has the ability to produce builds that go off the rails with either burst or DPS. Except the Tank AT. 

 

All of those AT's fill their "role" with mitigation and damage. Why does the "role" of tank have to conform to trivial damage in order to maintain "balance"?  The only role and the only balance I care about are "Fun to play". The proposed changes will not diminish any other AT, they will not marginalize any play style.  Steamroll teams will continue steamrolling  and teams that struggle will continue struggling. 

[Auroxis]

10 minutes ago, cejmp said:

 

 

Defenders can be developed to do very respectable damage while still maintaining their "role". Controllers with high end dps and team mitigations can be built with ease. Corruptors bring plenty of damage and mitigation. Brutes have huge mitigation and huge damage. Scrappers have huge mitigation and huge damage. Stalkers are on a whole 'nuther level. Yes, I realize it is possible to play a build that can't fight through wet paper and still be huge force multiplier, but every AT has the ability to produce builds that go off the rails with either burst or DPS. Except the Tank AT. 

 

All of those AT's fill their "role" with mitigation and damage. Why does the "role" of tank have to conform to trivial damage in order to maintain "balance"?  The only role and the only balance I care about are "Fun to play". The proposed changes will not diminish any other AT, they will not marginalize any play style.  Steamroll teams will continue steamrolling  and teams that struggle will continue struggling. 

Huh? Are you implying that an AT with access to Bio Armor/Fiery Aura and TW/SS has to conform to trivial damage? Tankers can be developed to do very respectable damage as well. That's not the problem.

 

The problem is that currently their low end is a bit too low since their force multiplication is handicapped by a non-stacking rule, and their tanking advantage is rarely as relevant as the brute's superior performance in clearing.

[FUBARczar]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

This isn't binary, buddy.  There exists a point where you can add enough damage for tankers to feel good without threatening other ATs.  And as CP said, Bruising is currently providing almost nothing to Tankers except forcing a weak power into all of their attack chains.

 

I feel like every argument you make against the changes should apply to Corruptors. But the forums don't seem to show a bunch of upset Defenders and Blasters so nuance must be working, to at least some extent.

 

Note that the damage cap is going to be 575% from 600% next build, so keep that in mind.

 

As someone who mostly plays in squads smaller than 4 members, I will enjoy these buffs.

 

As someone who enjoys playing Support, I would feel a lot better knowing any offensive buffs aren't a complete waste on a Tanker.

 

As a human being trying to enjoy a game, I welcome changes combating the old "this class just isn't allowed to have fun" mentality.

 

 

I am totally amenable, and my hyperbole was sarcasm.  

 

I agree that this isn't black and white and the best fixes translate partly into feeling, a fun-factor, etc.  What we should be cautious of is making Tanks too offensive discarding a balance of risk vs reward., and encroaching too far into Brute territory.   I would hate to see any one AT completely dominate, I don;t want to see this turn into City of Tanks, even though I really like playing tanks.

 

Also, I would point out that a damage buff is not the only buff that support characters have.

 

let's take a look at the damage.  Maybe I am looking at this completely wrong.   Is this not how it works?

 

Let's take KO Blow....

 

Dmg %	KO Blow	Damage	Scale
100%	Blaster	198	1
500%	Blaster Cap	990	1
100%	Tanker old	158.4	0.8
400%	Tanker Cap	633.6	0.8
100%	Tanker New	188.1	0.95
575%	Tanker Cap	1081.6	0.95
100%	Brute	148.5	0.75
775%	Brute Cap	1150.9	0.75

 

Just on the surface, does it make sense that a tank out-damages a Blaster, and nearly equals a Brute?  Maybe it does...

 

Either way after removing Bruising, a bump in the damage scale is certainly warranted.  As for the a dmg scale buff + a dmg cap buff, the latter seems a bit much.  Something less than or equal to 500 seems more appropriate.

 

100%	Tanker New	188.1	0.95
500%	Tanker Cap	940.5	0.95

[Darth_Helmet]

3 hours ago, cejmp said:

Because aggro cap is tied to critter AI, not players. It can't be done with the existing code. 

That's really unfortunate.

[Lord_Cyclone91]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

This isn't binary, buddy.  There exists a point where you can add enough damage for tankers to feel good without threatening other ATs.  And as CP said, Bruising is currently providing almost nothing to Tankers except forcing a weak power into all of their attack chains.

 

I feel like every argument you make against the changes should apply to Corruptors. But the forums don't seem to show a bunch of upset Defenders and Blasters so nuance must be working, to at least some extent.

 

Note that the damage cap is going to be 575% from 600% next build, so keep that in mind.

 

As someone who mostly plays in squads smaller than 4 members, I will enjoy these buffs.

 

As someone who enjoys playing Support, I would feel a lot better knowing any offensive buffs aren't a complete waste on a Tanker.

 

As a human being trying to enjoy a game, I welcome changes combating the old "this class just isn't allowed to have fun" mentality.

 

 

Oh my, you just wrote what's been my experience and my mindset for so long.  When I came back to Homecoming, I ended up rolling seven brutes and only 1 tank, because the damage is anemic on the tanks. 

 

This is going to be great for us, those of us who love tanks and felt the AT was left behind and rendered obsolete in the world of "Everyone is a god" and "We don't need a tank - everyone is a tank now." 

 

I play brutes too, so I appreciate those brute players who who love having the OP tank class in the end game.  If they honestly feel like they are getting their toes stepped on now that tanks can do decent damage, well I say "welcome to the tanker's world" after years of brutes being just as good at tanking and twice as good in terms of damage. Tanks just became relevant again, so it's a welcome change. 

[Snakebit]

48 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Huh? Are you implying that an AT with access to Bio Armor/Fiery Aura and TW/SS has to conform to trivial damage? Tankers can be developed to do very respectable damage as well. That's not the problem.

 

Inside the Tank AT box they do respectable damage. In relationship to the rest of the melee pool, yes they are conforming to boundaries defined by trivial damage. Highest of the lowest is not a prize.