Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[siolfir]

4 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Putting words into whose mouths?

 

 

 

56 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

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

Opponents of the damage cap increase.

[Haijinx]

Just now, siolfir said:

 

Opponents of the damage cap increase.

Maybe my wording was clumsy?  Im on my phone.

 

I think people who think the damage cap is too high have a pretty good point.  

 

What i wondered was that adding such a high cap might have caused some people to be more inclined to not like any of the proposed changes. 

 

And I think if so, that is unfortunate, since the damage cap really won't matter much due to the fact that when you are on a team that is at the cap you all do tons of damage anyway.   

 

So i was suggesting it might have caused some bad PR for no real benefit.

 

 

 

[Leogunner]

Off topic, but I'm having fun with my Bio/Fire/Mako...it's actually a better analog for a Draconic Necromancer who wields and summons dragon bones and breathing elemental dragon breaths on fools.

 

Not sure why I never though about Bio for the concept until now...it was a live version of Brute before remaking it in HC but I just wish the customizations for Bio were literal bone.  I might play with costume options for a better visual representation.  Breath of Fire isn't quite as good as I'd hope it to be with these changes though although if the other attacks had sword animations, I guess I could make the set work better vs taking/slotting 4 primary attacks and frankenslotting them for max effectiveness.

 

I've got a lot of Tankers to make if these changes go live.

[MunkiLord]

57 minutes ago, 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.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I play Scrappers and Blasters almost exclusively and I consider the proposed Tanker damage cap a non issue. It most circumstances the extra damage is still going to be simply adorable in comparison. And on those rare occasions they surpass my Scrapper or Blaster? Good for them. 

[ironjoe]

So I just did another test run picking fights with large groups of 50+ Rikti in the RWZ. Didn't make any changes on my build. The decrease from the previous changes to boosts on PBAoEs was immediately noticed but still a little better than live. I still like that for a little more agro generation. The changes with leadership were immediately noticeable. I already had assault and if this goes to live it will be a nice buff for teams. Since I wasn't being followed around by some kins, the damage cap wasn't something I could really see and test but I kind of feel like complaints against that is a little overblown.

[Myrmidon]

2 hours ago, Leogunner said:

Off topic, but I'm having fun with my Bio/Fire/Mako...it's actually a better analog for a Draconic Necromancer who wields and summons dragon bones and breathing elemental dragon breaths on fools.

 

Not sure why I never though about Bio for the concept until now...it was a live version of Brute before remaking it in HC but I just wish the customizations for Bio were literal bone.  I might play with costume options for a better visual representation.  Breath of Fire isn't quite as good as I'd hope it to be with these changes though although if the other attacks had sword animations, I guess I could make the set work better vs taking/slotting 4 primary attacks and frankenslotting them for max effectiveness.

 

I've got a lot of Tankers to make if these changes go live.

 

My first Brute-Tanker conversion already has the attuned sets for the ride to 50 at 18. Those later slotting IOs really do take up a lot of space.

[Haijinx]

2 hours ago, MunkiLord said:

I can only speak for myself, but I play Scrappers and Blasters almost exclusively and I consider the proposed Tanker damage cap a non issue. It most circumstances the extra damage is still going to be simply adorable in comparison. And on those rare occasions they surpass my Scrapper or Blaster? Good for them. 

I just got done running my second blaster to 50 (fire/martial), and I lold at the adorable description. 

 

Its very true, in real play no one really comes close to blasters offensively.  You don't even have to chase your targets down.

[DreadShinobi]

4 hours ago, 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...

 

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

Thing is people didn't care for AT balance outside of tanker vs brute. (or really anything else I had to offer, and a large portion of this thread gets eaten up by 1 liners by myrmidon which have nothing to do with actual *focused feedback*, which is why I've stopped caring to reply because this thread is so heavily derailed).  Captain Powerhouse said specifically he will not nerf brutes' damage cap when they are an outlier. Approxamately 400% of a brute's 775% damage cap is set aside for red insps and team buffs, and this enormous damage cap often detracts from the fact that brutes have much lower base damage. (I currently main a brute and I would support lowering a brute's damage cap). So Tankers are being brought up to that level, the original proposed changes were to give tankers a 600% damage cap which would again have been about 300% dedicated to team buffing and red insps, which has been brought down to ~250% with the recent proposed changes of a 550% damage cap, which is still a very wide margin compared to what other ATs can gain that do not have the durability of a tanker either. Meanwhile Captain Powerhouse has said that red insps et all aren't factored into balance decisions but setting the damage cap as high as it was set clearly makes an otherwise assumption plausible. It also didn't seem to catch that any change to damage caps should be done independently of internal class balance changes such as what is contained in the rest of this patch for tankers. This patch sets a high level of precedent that a certain margin should be present for characters to operate at a standard level and how effective they should be when fully buffed, currently there are several ATs that gain very little from self-damage buffing or team damage buffing (outside of resistance debuffs), Epic ATs being a prime example. 

 

My suggestion has been and still is that any damage cap change should be done independently of other changes within an archetype, because they affect things that are not unique to the archetype but what all ATs have access to: red insps, fulcrum shift, assault, etc. Giving the most durable archetype in the game access to highly competitive baseline damage, which already has a strong utility role in aggro control, alongside significant utility buffs in stronger leadership skills, wider aoes, higher endurance than every other archetype, and then on top of that giving them such a large gap between what they can do at their baseline performance to what they can do with a stack of reds or fulcrum shift is inappropriate for one patch.  

 

The set of changes that have been proposed for tankers is great and I support everything else being done here. I also don't disagree that a damage cap increase for tankers is warranted and needed, this is just a terrible way to push a bunch of changes through that don't look at the bigger picture. Changes to damage caps just need to be done outside of a tanker specific thread and have all ATs discussed collectively while addressing the damage cap specifically.

4 hours ago, Replacement said:

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:

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by DreadShinobi

[Grandfeatherex]

On 9/21/2019 at 3:54 PM, Replacement said:

 

Fortunately, you are wrong. 

 

(This isn't me trying to be aggressive, btw.  I feel this is born from a misunderstanding and I need a way to grab your attention so you aren't spreading misinformation)

 

Scenario #1: you're soloing.  Vs ST or aoe, the results are the same: you now deal, at worst, the same damage (because Bruising's power boost has been baked into all of your attacks) and more likely, better (because the new increased damage multiplier is immune to Purple Patching).

 

Scenario #2: you're partying vs a single big target.  You lose some minor ability to increase your party's damage in exchange for contributing much more damage.  And, again, any +Recharge, +ToHit, or +Damage effects from your allies are now more effective.

 

Scenario #3: You're partying and fighting a big group.  Obviously, these buffs will be noticeable.

 

Scenario #4 soloing between lv 20-27 against an AV/EB and being saddled with an AoE attack instead of a heavy hitting ST attack, for all the tanks getting powers out of sequence to what they do now, to make them more AoE focused 

if the tanks get their t1 and 2 swapped and MA has three others swapped that's 5 out of 9 getting shuffled around just to focus on AoE's

-------------------
it looks like everyone is focused on what they do at 50, and not how they get there can a brute hit 90% cap? sure, much harder for them to do it at lv 25 compared to a tank though or to do it with basic SO/IO's
tanks always shined in getting, and holding aggro and dealing with it long enough to kill everything attacking them, i'm all for changes to accentuate that with more targets on taunt, but everything else seems to be to make them AoE killers instead

 

[Sir Myshkin]

Show of hands who thought Energy Melee could do something obnoxious?

 

Further testing out the alterations to Tanks with some good-old-fashioned video for any inclined to see the insanity!

 

 

The SD/RM I posted on 47 had a static +Dam of 56%, this one only has 41%, and has a similar range capability of -Res on a target, but the Rad was more consistent in its applications of the proc(s). Energy Melee doesn't get any of those fancy debuff tools, and Genetic Contamination was the only place I could fit anything of that nature with just one Fury -Res and what Evolving Armor could put out.

 

Watch that and tell me, after these changes to Tanks, that Energy Melee still needs "fixed." Just blasted a 52 EB in 30/s, and a Pylon in 2:25 with the Assault Hybrid turned on, 2:56 as a best time without it. That's beyond what I did with Radiation Melee even with Hybrid.

 

Now I'll just wait here for a Dev to come along, look at this, see something wrong, and tell me there's no way I should be putting out that much damage.

 

[golstat2003]

6 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Maybe my wording was clumsy?  Im on my phone.

 

I think people who think the damage cap is too high have a pretty good point.  

 

What i wondered was that adding such a high cap might have caused some people to be more inclined to not like any of the proposed changes. 

 

And I think if so, that is unfortunate, since the damage cap really won't matter much due to the fact that when you are on a team that is at the cap you all do tons of damage anyway.   

 

So i was suggesting it might have caused some bad PR for no real benefit.

 

 

 

In the age of incarnates complaining about damage caps seems a bit irrelevant to me, since mobs will be judgmented to death faster than you can say “Pull”. But to each their own.

[golstat2003]

5 hours ago, MunkiLord said:

I can only speak for myself, but I play Scrappers and Blasters almost exclusively and I consider the proposed Tanker damage cap a non issue. It most circumstances the extra damage is still going to be simply adorable in comparison. And on those rare occasions they surpass my Scrapper or Blaster? Good for them. 

Pretty much this. In a team game where the faster the TEAM melts mobs of enemies = the faster we all get xp, i couldn’t give a flying fart if a single tank or brute or whatever is doing more damage than the character I’m currently using in that team setting. Who the hell cares. Blast away, I get my xo and vet levels faster the more damage we all do.

[Auroxis]

11 hours ago, Replacement said:

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."

 

Basically I'm saying that the Tanker can already leverage its advantages (better damage buff application, better -res, better leadership, procs to close the gap) to reach between 85-95% of an identical brute's solo DPS. Which makes the damage cap advantage aimed at putting the tanker at 90% of brute actually cause the tanker to overtake brute with certain builds and teammates.

 

As for a better look at damage buff scenarios, have a look at this table which does not take -res and procs into account:

 

 

Damage Buff+Enhancements	Brute damage with +175% from Fury	Tanker Damage (550% cap)	Tanker Damage compared to Brute
+0%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+0)=206.5	100*0.95*(1+0)=95	46%
+100%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+1)=281.25	100*0.95*(1+1)=190	68%
+200%	356	285	80%
+300%	431	380	88%
+400%	506	475	94%
+500%	581	100*0.95*(1+4.5)=522.5	90%
+600%	581	522.5	90%

 

 

Damage Buff+Enhancements	Brute damage with +175% from Fury	Tanker Damage (500% cap)	Tanker Damage compared to Brute
+0%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+0)=206.5	100*0.95*(1+0)=95	46%
+100%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+1)=281.25	100*0.95*(1+1)=190	68%
+200%	356	285	80%
+300%	431	380	88%
+400%	506	475	94%
+500%	581	475	82%
+600%	581	475	82%

 

 

Damage Buff+Enhancements	Brute damage with +175% from Fury	Tanker Damage (400% cap)	Tanker Damage compared to Brute
+0%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+0)=206.5	100*0.95*(1+0)=95	46%
+100%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+1)=281.25	100*0.95*(1+1)=190	68%
+200%	356	285	80%
+300%	431	380	88%
+400%	506	380	75%
+500%	581	380	65%
+600%	581	380	65%

 

 

My build is around the +200% mark and shown times more akin to the +300% mark thanks to the -res debuffs and procs. Meaning that on a team with enough buffs to get me to +300% or 400%, my Bio/TW/Pyre Tanker would overtake the comparable Brute. If you get buffs even beyond that to reach both class's respective caps, which in my experience is unlikely, then my tanker would still probably overtake the brute but not by as much.

 

Also here are the current Live numbers for comparison:

 

Damage Buff+Enhancements	Brute damage with +175% from Fury	Tanker 0.8 Damage (400% cap)	Tanker Damage compared to Brute
+0%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+0)=206.5	100*0.8*(1+0)=80	39%
+100%	100*0.75*(1+1.75+1)=281.25	100*0.8*(1+1)=160	57%
+200%	356	240	67%
+300%	431	320	74%
+400%	506	320	63%
+500%	581	320	55%
+600%	581	320	55%

 

Remember that this does not include damage procs or -res numbers, including Bruising which provides more -res than we currently have available on Pineapple.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Auroxis

[Auroxis]

What concerns me the most about above numbers is how the curve got steeper:

 

1. Tanker at its lowest point (not slotted, no buffs) isn't that much better than before since Bruising made up for the tanker's reliance on enhancements and buffs to compete with a brute.

 

2. The +400% sweet spot isn't that rarely obtained in endgame teams, and when you couple it with the tanker's greater AoE, team buffs and -res it will often pull ahead.

 

Abandoning bruising in favor of a higher damage multiplier and cap seems to be the primary cause of that.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Auroxis

[Procellus]

Just so I understand your position: You think that the damage buffs are too severe because of Melt Armor's new -res and would rather keep the old damage scale and cap because of the -res in Bruising?

[Leogunner]

16 minutes ago, Procellus said:

Just so I understand your position: You think that the damage buffs are too severe because of Melt Armor's new -res and would rather keep the old damage scale and cap because of the -res in Bruising?

Take into consideration all the Tanker changes here:

-Melee damage mod up to 0.95 (replaces Bruising)

-Damage caps increased

-AoEs increased in area (radii/arc) and target cap

-Resistance debuff mods increased

-Leadership improvements (not sure what the exact number is on this increase)

-Taunt increases (changed to a Proc, increased from 5 targets to 7)

 

The point to take in is the general mark that is aimed for is 90% damage of an equivalent Brute at the damage cap.  I believe his point is it may be possible to reach that 90% before the cap and surpass that 90% at the cap or when taking into account Tanker-specific advantages such as AoEs.  What would be rather keeping isn't really the takeaway point here unless you're trying to dismantle his point.  What should be the takeaway point is addressing if these possibilities are possible, if they are desirable and if not, toning down or requiring enough sacrifice to achieve.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Leogunner

[Auroxis]

25 minutes ago, Procellus said:

Just so I understand your position: You think that the damage buffs are too severe because of Melt Armor's new -res and would rather keep the old damage scale and cap because of the -res in Bruising?

It's not just Melt Armor. Tankers have inherently more -res for Bio, TW, Staff, StJ and Arctic Breath. They also have better values for Assault and AoE's.

 

I think the damage buffs are too severe because at the high-end, tanker already catches up to the Brute even with moderate levels of damage buffs once you add in a few of the above factors. I also think that the changes fail to address one of the discrepancies, which is at the low-end early-game where fury's damage buff absolutely dominates.

 

I don't think adding Bruising back in while reducing damage is the only answer, especially now with Melt Armor and Assault changes restoring Tanker to its previous levels of contribution in AV fights. But something should be done to lessen their performance at the high-end (between +250% to +450% damage) and increase their performance at the low-end (between +0% to +100% damage).

Edited September 24, 2019 by Auroxis

[Vanden]

I don’t think it’s really a problem if Tankers can outperform Brutes DPS-wise in certain high-end, buff heavy environments, unless it’s for some reason sacrosanct that Tankers can never outdamage Brutes by any metric.

[golstat2003]

Just now, Vanden said:

I don’t think it’s really a problem if Tankers can outperform Brutes DPS-wise in certain high-end, buff heavy environments, unless it’s for some reason sacrosanct that Tankers can never outdamage Brutes by any metric.

I don’t see the issue either. As I said, if I’m on a brute and the tank on the team is doing more damage, I don’t care. The more damage the team brings overall the faster we get through content and get our rewards. And I’m more like to invite a second or even third tank to the team if I know they going to actually bring something useful to the table.

 

The changes being made are also more likely to get myself and some of friends I regularly play with to try out Tanks. This is a group of returning players who generally despised melee ATs on live.

[Leogunner]

2 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

I don’t see the issue either. As I said, if I’m on a brute and the tank on the team is doing more damage, I don’t care. The more damage the team brings overall the faster we get through content and get our rewards. And I’m more like to invite a second or even third tank to the team if I know they going to actually bring something useful to the table.

 

The changes being made are also more likely to get myself and some of friends I regularly play with to try out Tanks. This is a group of returning players who generally despised melee ATs on live.

Please look past your own nose when considering aspects of balance here.

 

Of course you'll probably be on a team with a Tanker that does more damage than you on even your Scrapper.  It's possible now, just have a mid to upper level non-IO'ed Scrapper with a tricked out max level incarnate Tanker and you likely will have that scenario.  No one's arguing that that happens and thus we should accept it (we already do).  But these changes aren't live yet so they are subject to OBJECTIVE balance, not your subjective moral sophistry about rewards and team cohesion.

 

You, as a beta tester, should be keen on the goals of the changes, not your subjective acceptance of them. 

[Captain Powerhouse]

I'm not concerned about a tanker's own -res happening to make a tanker at the cap do more damage than a brute at it's caps because:

• A brute on the same team will also take benefit of those -res doing still more damage than the tanker.
• A team situation will likely bring other permanent -res that might even also take foes to the -res cap (that applies to everyone equally since it's target based.)

 

At that point, if the Tanker is considered to be doing too much damage, then so is the brute, even more so. At the moment, the tanker cap wont go below 5.5 unless the Brute cap also goes down to keep the 90% relationship, but that is not something I am currently considering (that can always change.)

 

I do am still paying attention to the tanker's personal benefit in non-team scenarios when combining -res with leadership, among other things, but do keep in mind that the base damage increase only applies to melee attacks. Tanker Epic pool attacks are left at 0.8 modifiers. While the tanker has stronger -res from Melt Armor, their Fire Ball does as much damage as a brute's, and the brute one is empowered by fury and a higher damage cap.

 

At the caps, epic pool damage for Tankers is 76% the epic pool damage of a Brute, and here is where things get tricky, as they stop being apples to apples, the goal is that is offset (again, not in an apples-to-apples way, so not just by bringing the damage to any specific relationship) by stronger support abilities like stronger leadership for the team or stronger debuffs.

 

Epic pools also continue to have the same target caps for both ATs, Tankers and Brutes.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Captain Powerhouse

[golstat2003]

13 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I'm not concerned about a tanker's own -res happening to make a tanker at the cap do more damage than a brute at it's caps because:

• A brute on the same team will also take benefit of those -res doing still more damage than the tanker.
• A team situation will likely bring other permanent -res that might even also take foes to the -res cap (that applies to everyone equally since it's target based.)

 

At that point, if the Tanker is considered to be doing too much damage, then so is the brute, even more so. At the moment, the tanker cap wont go below 5.5 unless the Brute cap also goes down to keep the 90% relationship, but that is not something I am currently considering (that can always change.)

 

I do am still paying attention to the tanker's personal benefit in non-team scenarios when combining -res with leadership, among other things, but do keep in mind that the base damage increase only applies to melee attacks. Tanker Epic pool attacks are left at 0.8 modifiers. While the tanker has stronger -res from Melt Armor, their Fire Ball does as much damage as a brute's, and the brute one is empowered by fury and a higher damage cap.

 

At the caps, epic pool damage for Tankers is 76% the epic pool damage of a Brute, and here is where things get tricky, as they stop being apples to apples, the goal is that is offset (again, not in an apples-to-apples way, so not just by bringing the damage to any specific relationship) by stronger support abilities like stronger leadership for the team or stronger debuffs.

 

Epic pools also continue to have the same target caps for both ATs, Tankers and Brutes.

Thanks for the clarification.

[golstat2003]

19 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Please look past your own nose when considering aspects of balance here.

 

Of course you'll probably be on a team with a Tanker that does more damage than you on even your Scrapper.  It's possible now, just have a mid to upper level non-IO'ed Scrapper with a tricked out max level incarnate Tanker and you likely will have that scenario.  No one's arguing that that happens and thus we should accept it (we already do).  But these changes aren't live yet so they are subject to OBJECTIVE balance, not your subjective moral sophistry about rewards and team cohesion.

 

You, as a beta tester, should be keen on the goals of the changes, not your subjective acceptance of them. 

My response:

 

I don’t think it’s really a problem if Tankers can outperform Brutes DPS-wise in certain high-end, buff heavy environments, unless it’s for some reason sacrosanct that Tankers can never outdamage Brutes by any metric.

[Captain Powerhouse]

There will always be edge cases where a Tanker will outperform a brute, I can easily see cases where a Titan Weapons tanker could outperform some non-TW brutes.

 

It becomes a problem if at high end the median tanker performs better than the median brute on most situations, and I don't have plans to turn a blind eye to that.

 

Obviously not all builds can be compared to eachother, but I'm very interested to see how close can someone bring an equivalent tanker/brute build (TW/Bio/Fire vs Bio/TW/Fire, for example.)

 

It is worth noting that Incarnate abilities can blur the lines, since for, some reason it was decided to make them ignore AT modifiers.

[Auroxis]

26 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I'm not concerned about a tanker's own -res happening to make a tanker at the cap do more damage than a brute at it's caps because:

• A brute on the same team will also take benefit of those -res doing still more damage than the tanker.
• A team situation will likely bring other permanent -res that might even also take foes to the -res cap (that applies to everyone equally since it's target based.)

 

At that point, if the Tanker is considered to be doing too much damage, then so is the brute, even more so. At the moment, the tanker cap wont go below 5.5 unless the Brute cap also goes down to keep the 90% relationship, but that is not something I am currently considering (that can always change.)

But if you replace that Brute on the same damage capped team with a Tanker, you'll end up with better buffs, better debuffs, better AoE, better survivability, better aggro management, and better endurance stability. Also, the Tanker doesn't just reach 90% at a +500% damage increase scenario, it reaches it way beforehand around the +300% mark.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Auroxis