Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Vanden]

  On 9/23/2019 at 10:45 PM, Leogunner said:

Rather than try to conjure a scenario that invalidates Auroxis' data, how about considering scenarios that can exploit these data points even further than Auroxis or others ever thought about?

Expand  

I literally can't think of a scenario more ideal for abusing Melt Armor than a pylon test.

[Auroxis]

  On 9/23/2019 at 10:48 PM, Vanden said:

I literally can't think of a scenario more ideal for abusing Melt Armor than a pylon test.

Expand  

Hami raids?

[Vanden]

  On 9/23/2019 at 10:51 PM, Auroxis said:

Hami raids?

Expand  

It's just gonna be another drop in the bucket of debuffs from an entire league.

[Auroxis]

  On 9/23/2019 at 10:54 PM, Vanden said:

It's just gonna be another drop in the bucket of debuffs from an entire league.

Expand  

When you're trying to beat down hami on the first go every bit of -res helps. And you often don't get a full league or enough debuffs since you need other roles fulfilled.

[Vanden]

  On 9/23/2019 at 10:59 PM, Auroxis said:

When you're trying to beat down hami on the first go every bit of -res helps. And you often don't get a full league or enough debuffs since you need other roles fulfilled.

Expand  

It's still just gonna be a drop in the bucket. I feel like you're treating this like all Tankers just got a stackable 15% res debuff for free, when they got a 6.25% increase to a resistance debuff they already had but most didn't take. And most people still won't take it, even if the number of people who do goes up with this buff.

Edited September 23, 2019 by Vanden

[Myrmidon]

  On 9/23/2019 at 10:45 PM, Leogunner said:

Rather than try to conjure a scenario that invalidates Auroxis' data, how about considering scenarios that can exploit these data points even further than Auroxis or others ever thought about?

Expand  

 

 

I’ve always considered Pylon testing to be a “Very good, but brick not hit back.” theory.

 

There is likely a perfect method of testing against actual mobs, if you can get past the “farming stigma” of its use. Someone just has to build the mission(s).

[Auroxis]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:05 PM, Vanden said:

It's still just gonna be a drop in the bucket. I feel like you're treating this like all Tankers just got a stackable 15% res debuff for free, when they got a 6.25% increase to a resistance debuff they already had but most didn't take.

Expand  

6.25% increase to one resistance debuff.

8.25% increase to a damage buff.

TW/Staff/StJ already have 2.5% higher res debuff values.

Bio already has a 3.33% higher res debuff value.

[Vanden]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:11 PM, Auroxis said:

6.25% increase to one resistance debuff.

8.25% increase to a damage buff.

TW/Staff/StJ already have 2.5% higher res debuff values.

Bio already has a 3.33% higher res debuff value.

Expand  

Titan Weapons and Bio are known outliers. Assault is rarely taken at all. It's not going to be a big increase.

[Auroxis]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:18 PM, Vanden said:

Titan Weapons and Bio are known outliers. Assault is rarely taken at all. It's not going to be a big increase.

Expand  

It's a big enough increase to justify lowering the cap, which is just as rarely reached.

[golstat2003]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:22 PM, Auroxis said:

It's a big enough increase to justify lowering the cap, which is just as rarely reached.

Expand  

Disagree. It’s an outlier and that’s all. We should not be balancing an entire AT by outliers. If anything those individual outliers should be dealt with.

[Leogunner]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:25 PM, golstat2003 said:

Disagree. It’s an outlier and that’s all. We should not be balancing an entire AT by outliers. If anything those individual outliers should be dealt with.

Expand  

Damage cap IS an outlier.

[Auroxis]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:25 PM, golstat2003 said:

Disagree. It’s an outlier and that’s all. We should not be balancing an entire AT by outliers. If anything those individual outliers should be dealt with.

Expand  

Being at the 550% damage cap is an outlier in itself. I'm not asking to nerf the damage modifier.

[golstat2003]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:29 PM, Auroxis said:

Being at the 550% damage cap is an outlier in itself. I'm not asking to nerf the damage modifier.

Expand  

The 550 damage cap is just fine. We agree to disagree.

[Myrmidon]

Honestly, the damage cap increase is the second to last thing that matters to me and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if it stayed at live levels. That said, by all means keep testing it if it matters to you.

[Haijinx]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:55 PM, Myrmidon said:

Honestly, the damage cap increase is the second to last thing that matters to me and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if it stayed at live levels. That said, by all means keep testing it if it matters to you.

Expand  

I wonder how much added opponents the whole dmg cap increase made to all of these tank changes in general? 

 

Basically people consciously or unconsciously mad that the brutes toes were getting stepped on.  Since they are the ones who traditionally have the big cap. 

 

Versus just having made it 500% like most damage dealer ats. 

 

It really won't matter much since if you have that much +dmg flying around, nothing is living long anyhow.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Replacement]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:29 PM, Auroxis said:

Being at the 550% damage cap is an outlier in itself. I'm not asking to nerf the damage modifier.

Expand  

I'm trying to keep up, here.  Apologies if I come off uninformed.

 

So if I understand, your issue is that a capped damage tanker will be capable of using their newly-superior Melt Armor to actually push them ahead of an identical (damage-capped and armor-melting) Brute?

 

I think at that point, my remaining question is "what did it take to get the Tanker to that damage cap vs getting the Brute to that point?" 

 

I was just saying a page or 2 ago that the ATs should perform similarly at damage cap vs standard unbuffed scenarios, so I'd be a hypocrite to back-pedal on that.  But I do think there's a range where it doesn't need to be precise if there are other factors, here, like "tanker needs a whole 3rd party member buffing their damage."

[Replacement]

  On 9/23/2019 at 11:55 PM, Myrmidon said:

Honestly, the damage cap increase is the second to last thing that matters to me and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if it stayed at live levels. That said, by all means keep testing it if it matters to you.

Expand  

Super-agree it's the smallest point for the whole test.  It's also the one thing that can be nerfed later on without too much fallout.

 

But I would hate to see it kept at 400%.  Tanker has no true ways to ratchet up or ignore their damage cap (like crits, scourge, pets, more crits, containment, more pets, opportunity, and even more crits)

[Haijinx]

  On 9/24/2019 at 12:39 AM, Replacement said:

Super-agree it's the smallest point for the whole test.  It's also the one thing that can be nerfed later on without too much fallout.

 

But I would hate to see it kept at 400%.  Tanker has no true ways to ratchet up or ignore their damage cap (like crits, scourge, pets, more crits, containment, more pets, opportunity, and even more crits)

Expand  

Could just move all ats except brutes to 500. 

[siolfir]

  On 9/24/2019 at 12:33 AM, Haijinx said:

I wonder how much added opponents the whole dmg cap increase made to all of these tank changes in general? 

 

Basically people consciously or unconsciously mad that the brutes toes were getting stepped on.  Since they are the ones who traditionally have the big cap. 

 

Versus just having made it 500% like most damage dealer ats. 

 

It really won't matter much since if you have that much +dmg flying around, nothing is living long anyhow.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expand  

Actually, I was more upset that it was higher than the Scrapper, Stalker, Blaster, and Corruptor caps - you know, damage primary ATs? It still is, and Blasters should really have the biggest complaint here since Defiance allows them to get a stacking +damage buff for attacking and the other ATs I mention have some form of criticals that allows them to bypass it under certain conditions. Contrary to your strawman, it's not all about Brutes vs Tankers.

 

My main posts about the cap were in response to claims that it's nigh-impossible for a single Kinetic to keep someone at it, which is blatantly false and misleading on top-end performance, if that's something that this dev team wants to try to balance around (which seems to be the case, given that it was set to provide 90% of top-end Brute damage ignoring -resistance modifiers).

  On 9/24/2019 at 12:46 AM, Haijinx said:

Could just move all ats except brutes to 500. 

Expand  

I'd be in favor of this.

 

I'd even be in favor of moving all ATs to the Brute cap, but that's a power creep at the top end that is generally a bad idea and would push the game even more into easy mode. What I don't like seeing is a seemingly arbitrary change just for one AT, which just underscores how the cap affects all of them.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by siolfir
posts happening while I wrote the original

[Haijinx]

  On 9/24/2019 at 12:56 AM, siolfir said:

Actually, I was more upset that it was higher than the Scrapper, Stalker, Blaster, and Corruptor caps - you know, damage primary ATs? It still is, and Blasters should really have the biggest complaint here since Defiance allows them to get a stacking +damage buff for attacking and the other ATs I mention have some form of criticals that allows them to bypass it under certain conditions. Contrary to your strawman, it's not all about Brutes vs Tankers.

 

My main posts about the cap were in response to claims that it's nigh-impossible for a single Kinetic to keep someone at it, which is blatantly false and misleading on top-end performance, if that's something that this dev team wants to try to balance around (which seems to be the case, given that it was set to provide 90% of top-end Brute damage ignoring -resistance modifiers).

Expand  

Whoa whoa whoa.

 

Strawman?

 

I was speculating on a PR problem with rolling out a 600% damage cap for tankers.

 

Big damage caps are traditionally Brutes baliwick. 

 

And I wondered if that might have soured  some people to the changes in general. 

 

How is that a strawman? 

 

 

[siolfir]

  On 9/24/2019 at 1:03 AM, Haijinx said:

Whoa whoa whoa.

 

Strawman?

 

I was speculating on a PR problem with rolling out a 600% damage cap for tankers.

 

Big damage caps are traditionally Brutes baliwick. 

 

And I wondered if that might have soured  some people to the changes in general. 

 

How is that a strawman? 

 

 

Expand  

The part where you mentioned that people were "Basically people consciously or unconsciously mad that the brutes toes were getting stepped on. " You're putting words into people's mouths and then reacting to that, which is practically the definition of a strawman argument.

 

Like I said, for me the problem with a 600% cap was the other ATs that got leapfrogged.

[Replacement]

  On 9/24/2019 at 12:56 AM, siolfir said:

Actually, I was more upset that it was higher than the Scrapper, Stalker, Blaster, and Corruptor caps - you know, damage primary ATs? It still is, and Blasters should really have the biggest complaint here since Defiance allows them to get a stacking +damage buff for attacking and the other ATs I mention have some form of criticals that allows them to bypass it under certain conditions. Contrary to your strawman, it's not all about Brutes vs Tankers.

 

My main posts about the cap were in response to claims that it's nigh-impossible for a single Kinetic to keep someone at it, which is blatantly false and misleading on top-end performance, if that's something that this dev team wants to try to balance around (which seems to be the case, given that it was set to provide 90% of top-end Brute damage ignoring -resistance modifiers).

Expand  

That's not the full picture, though.  You have to multiply their damage scales by their damage caps to get a broader view (but still a rather minor one that I can't believe we're still discussing).  Blasters and scrappers are 5.625 max damage multiplier (with Scrappers functionally increasing that by ~10% or whatever the current going crit rate is), this incarnation of tanker is 5.225‬

 

@Haijinx I really do want everyone but Controllers and Masterminds bumped up to 500% damage cap as we discussed on like page 34, but that isn't a topic for this patch.  In fact, I wonder how much easier it would be to swallow this 550% number if we had word that they would at least look at damage caps of other ATs down the road...

 

EDIT: we talked about bringing up damage caps for defenders, dominators, and EATS on page... 37ish, if anyone cares.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Replacement

[Haijinx]

  On 9/24/2019 at 1:07 AM, siolfir said:

The part where you mentioned that people were "Basically people consciously or unconsciously mad that the brutes toes were getting stepped on. " You're putting words into people's mouths and then reacting to that, which is practically the definition of a strawman argument.

 

Expand  

Putting words into whose mouths?

 

 

[siolfir]

  On 9/24/2019 at 1:10 AM, Replacement said:

That's not the full picture, though.  You have to multiply their damage scales by their damage caps to get a broader view (but still a rather minor one that I can't believe we're still discussing).  Blasters and scrappers are 5.625 max damage multiplier (with Scrappers functionally increasing that by ~10% or whatever the current going crit rate is), this incarnation of tanker is 5.225‬

 

@Haijinx I really do want everyone but Controllers and Masterminds bumped up to 500% damage cap as we discussed on like page 34, but that isn't a topic for this patch.  In fact, I wonder how much easier it would be to swallow this 550% number if we had word that they would at least look at damage caps of other ATs down the road...

Expand  

I'm perfectly aware of that. I also noticed that you ignored Stalkers (5.0) and Corruptors (3.75), and realistically I just wanted my feedback to be heard by the dev team - that's the point of this thread, after all.

 

And the initial +200% bump has been lowered (some), the reason for doing so was explained (as a straight damage-vs-survivability comparison to Brutes), so now the point of the post was more of a "how about these ATs"? Again, to get the thought in place that a damage-secondary AT has a higher cap than damage-primary ATs.

[Replacement]

Yes, and I would like to see the damage scales fixed for any AT that doesn't have a clean ratio of performance between unbuffed and max-buffed.  "Ignored" carries some heavy connotations.  I didn't think about them.  Note that both of those ATs you mentioned have mechanisms that allow them to bend their damage caps, but yeah I largely agree.

 

This is wrong, but it's not the Tanker's fault:

  On 9/19/2019 at 6:58 PM, DreadShinobi said:

Night Widow damage cap for example has a 400% damage cap:

My night widow looks at this:

100% base

100% enhanced value

40% set bonuses

30-90% follow up

Gaussian proc

Can't use red inspirations

Expand