Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Myrmidon]

9 hours ago, DreadShinobi said:

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.

 

 

A Ninja that doesn’t like a little theatricality. Learn something new everyday.😁

 

 

 

 

That’s a good point about damage caps, which should also include the +End increase. They really are All or None adjustments more than any specific AT one. Perhaps giving all of the ATs a balance pass, then switching to Damage Caps, End increases, etc. might be the better option.

[Leogunner]

17 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

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.

Well the parameters have been set.  Just start testing identical build Brutes to the new Tanker.  I think the AoE variable is another factor that will greatly depend on teams or lack thereof.  AoE is only an advantage for how long fodder lasts to soak up more damage.

[Brutal Justice]

20 hours ago, Replacement said:

Nice.

 

If anyone cares, the +aoe should apply to Speed's Whirlwind as well.

 

I'm sure the 4 tankers built in the last 20 years that took that power care?

I built a brute specifically to run whirlwind.  Sudden acceleration and the force feedback procs and the power is gravy.  The biggest issue is managing the extreme end cost of the power.  .9 something end drain plus another -1 end proc in the power.  

 

If these changes go live I will be rerolling the brute as a tank.  If they ever port regen to tanks then I’ll have no reason to build a brute.  

 

Do you even whirlwind bro?

[Vanden]

24 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

But if you replace that Brute on the same damage capped team with a Tanker, you'll end up with better buffs, better debuffs

Only on the few Tankers that took these powers.

27 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

better survivability, better aggro management

Not to a degree that actually matters.

 

 

[Replacement]

9 hours ago, Grandfeatherex said:

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

 

How often is a Tanker tanking for a full party?

How often are they soloing EBs?

Which of these scenarios is the better to focus on for enforcing their party role?

 

Easily worth the loss for a few levels. 

 

I guarantee this will be worse for me, personally, than it will be for 90% of Homecoming. Because I can count on one hand how many times I have joined a PUG shouting for members. And I'm still objective enough to see how much this helps Tankers perform their actual role.

 

Note: the t1/2 swap has been backed out. Abandoned.

 

(I'm discarding AVs because solo AV is so far beyond intended play, particularly at 22-27, that it's not worth addressing)

[Vanden]

13 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Well the parameters have been set.  Just start testing identical build Brutes to the new Tanker.  I think the AoE variable is another factor that will greatly depend on teams or lack thereof.  AoE is only an advantage for how long fodder lasts to soak up more damage.

Not just identical or near identical builds, but ones with no incarnate powers.

[Brutal Justice]

16 hours ago, Vanden said:

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

Assault WAS rarely taken.   I’ll likely drop tactics for assault on all my tanks from here on.  Never really needed tactics for anything other than getting to vengeance for the LotG proc

[Auroxis]

29 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Only on the few Tankers that took these powers.

Not to a degree that actually matters.

 

 

Why are you so incessant on trivializing cases when:

1. You have no proof of these being fringe power picks since the changes haven't been live enough to datamine.

2. The numbers point towards them being great power picks.

3. "The extra survivability doesn't actually matter" is ridiculous proposition, if that was the case then you'd hardly see any Tankers at all. 

20 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Not just identical or near identical builds, but ones with no incarnate powers.

What about the numbers i gave that show performance differential at different levels of damage enhancement+buffs?

[StratoNexus]

55 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

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.)

How do you feel about them having a ~93% relationship to blasters at the cap?

 

It seems odd to have the absolute cap as a hard line relationship to brutes alone, especially when comparing damage/survivability ratios, since the 3 (supposed) best damage ATs have massively less than 90% the survivability of the tanker. I think it might be OK if, fully buffed, the Brute gains a higher damage advantage over the Tanker than the Tanker gains in survivability advantage over the Brute, not only because the Tanker has a bit more ease on getting higher survivability alone but also because of the currently testing larger AoEs and target caps and improved endurance efficiency.

 

Trying to baseline raw damage alone around that 90% target is not a bad starting point, but I think it is missing too many factors to be a final target.

The .95 damage scale has a big effect on leveling ease and this will be during a time when no one, not even brutes are coming close to the mitigation a tanker will have. Enemies die so fast in this game, I am having trouble seeing why one of the middle damage ATs needs such a large increase not only to base damage, but also to their best case scenario damage as well as to the number of enemies they can affect with said damage and with the efficiency in which they deliver it. Again, I agree they need more damage. I really want them to solo more efficiently and to bring a bit more damage to teams and something to differentiate them from brutes. I just think everything combined here currently is taking us a few steps too far.

 

The more I test and the more I think about it, the more I really like the AoE/arc increases. I also like the target cap increases (although 7 or 8 for cones may be better than 10, but I like 10 too). 16 may be too much for the PBAOEs, but 13 or 14 sounds weird. I like the new gauntlet a lot; I might miss the 18 foot taunt in my Seismic Smash (which rarely came into play, but sometimes it made me giggle when that guy way over there turned to look at me after I hit his ally), but overall for the AT, the test version is a vast improvement. But the new base damage just feels way faster than necessary, even in the 20s. Dropping a ton of reds in the 40s and going to town was kind of crazy with the new base and the new cap.

 

I am also not really a fan of amplifying the buff/debuffs. It is OK and I can see it thematically, but it is not what I expect from the tanker AT. It makes more sense to me as an AT wide focus when their attacks add the control/debuff, as opposed to optional powers. That said, this seems at least interesting, although it might really accentuate some pools more than they should and could make some epic pools too good compared to others epic pools. It affects a lot of balance points and there is a lot to consider for that change.

[Vanden]

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

Why are you so incessant on trivializing cases when:

1. You have no proof of these being fringe power picks since the changes haven't been live enough to datamine.

2. The numbers point towards them being great power picks.

3. "The extra survivability doesn't actually matter" is ridiculous proposition, if that was the case then you'd hardly see any Tankers at all.

1. Your list includes four powers across the 22 armor sets and 11 melee sets available to Tankers and Brutes. That is not widespread across the ATs. There are still 19 melee sets and 10 armor sets that gain no benefit from the -res effect buff, and that represents by far the majority of Tankers and Brutes. The difference in Assault amounts to 1/3rd of a small red over what it is currently.  And Melt Armor long recharge means it isn’t regularly available in fights. I don’t have the numbers for Arctic Breath in front of me, but they’d have to be extreme to unbalance the entire AT.

 

2. Great doesn’t mean unbalanced.

 

3. There are nearly twice as many Brutes as there are Tankers on Homecoming. The whole instigating issue for these changes was that players felt that the Tanker’s increased survivability over the Brute was not worth the lower damage. It’s not a ridiculous claim at all.

2 hours ago, Auroxis said:

What about the numbers i gave that show performance differential at different levels of damage enhancement+buffs?

What about them? I don’t see any place where the Tanker surpasses the Brute’s damage on paper.

[Auroxis]

12 minutes ago, Vanden said:

1. Your list includes four powers across the 22 armor sets and 11 melee sets available to Tankers and Brutes. That is not widespread across the ATs. There are still 19 melee sets and 10 armor sets that gain no benefit from the -res effect buff, and that represents by far the majority of Tankers and Brutes. The difference in Assault amounts to 1/3rd of a small red over what it is currently.  And Melt Armor long recharge means it isn’t regularly available in fights. I don’t have the numbers for Arctic Breath in front of me, but they’d have to be extreme to unbalance the entire AT.

Are you seriously gauging powerset usage by simply counting them? Usage is primarily governed by popularity which is influenced by a number of factors including power level (see: fire/kins and spines/fires) and theme (see: inv/ss and empathy)

12 minutes ago, Vanden said:

2. Great doesn’t mean unbalanced.

Balance has nothing to do with my argument, a power being great means it'll likely get picked up more.

12 minutes ago, Vanden said:

3. There are nearly twice as many Brutes as there are Tankers on Homecoming. The whole instigating issue for these changes was that players felt that the Tanker’s increased survivability over the Brute was not worth the lower damage. It’s not a ridiculous claim at all.

Tankers are still being rolled heavily despite Brutes being so popular. If your claim of extra survivability being pointless was true, then surely Tankers would be dead last in popularity when in fact they're still among the most popular AT's.

12 minutes ago, Vanden said:

What about them? I don’t see any place where the Tanker surpasses the Brute’s damage on paper.

You asked me to test non-incarnate performance for you, I gave you the numbers. You cherry-picked what suited you as expected.

[Vanden]

3 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Are you seriously gauging powerset usage by simply counting them? Usage is primarily governed by popularity which is influenced by a number of factors including power level (see: fire/kins and spines/fires) and theme (see: inv/ss and empathy)

I’m looking at the FotM posts Cipher made.

4 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Balance has nothing to do with my argument, a power being great means it'll likely get picked up more.

If you’re not arguing for the sake of balance, why are you being so cautious about giving Tankers more damage output? What other reason is there to be so wary of it?

5 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Tankers are still being rolled heavily despite Brutes being so popular. If your claim of extra survivability being pointless was true, then surely Tankers would be dead last in popularity when in fact they're still among the most popular AT's.

You know that isn’t true. Super Strength is the most popular Tanker secondary by a wide margin, despite people swearing up and down that its an average set at best. If effectiveness was the sole factor in what people decide to play, it wouldn’t have such a commanding lead. When it comes to Brutes vs. Tankers, the numbers match the prevailing player sentiment.

 

10 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

You asked me to test non-incarnate performance for you, I gave you the numbers. You cherry-picked what suited you as expected.

Well if that’s all it takes for an accurate test, everything is in order. The Brute does more damage than the Tanker at all levels.

[Profit]

5 hours ago, Auroxis said:

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.

I see all you guys worried about losing bruising. But please try to understand, only like the 35 of us in this thread discussing it actually even knows it exists. Take a poll in the discord, most people have no idea. And on top of that, less than the 35 of us in thisbtjread acticely used the t1 to apply bruising because using a t1 doesn't create an optimal attack chain even with its bruising factored in.

 

Even if you are one of the few that actively used bruising, realize that your experience speaks for a very very small subset of the population. And only slightly larger is the subset that would use bruising on hard targets like AVs because mobs die to quick. Your lucky to get foot stomp off before the blasters roflmao the mobs.

[Auroxis]

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

I’m looking at the FotM posts Cipher made.

If you’re not arguing for the sake of balance, why are you being so cautious about giving Tankers more damage output? What other reason is there to be so wary of it?

The argument of powerful and recently buffed powers becoming more popular is not about balance. Stop trying to deflect.

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

You know that isn’t true. Super Strength is the most popular Tanker secondary by a wide margin, despite people swearing up and down that its an average set at best. If effectiveness was the sole factor in what people decide to play, it wouldn’t have such a commanding lead.

Your argument falls on the assumption of people's preferences being inferior to yours.

 

Have you considered that perhaps a lot of players prefer the Tanker's benefits to the Brute's? And that it's a valid opinion to have?

 

 

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

 

Well if that’s all it takes for an accurate test, everything is in order. The Brute does more damage than the Tanker at all levels.

You're only looking at the parts that suit you, tankers have a lot of benefits you're continuously choosing to ignore or trivialize.

[Obsidius]

....

Ah, yes.

This is what I remember the most about the old CoH Forums.

The inane squabbling.

[Vanden]

31 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

The argument of powerful and recently buffed powers becoming more popular is not about balance. Stop trying to deflect.

Then what is it about? Is there something wrong with sets becoming more popular?

 

31 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Your argument falls on the assumption of people's preferences being inferior to yours.

How?

 

31 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Have you considered that perhaps a lot of players prefer the Tanker's benefits to the Brute's? And that it's a valid opinion to have?

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Why should that be an argument against buffing Tankers?

 

31 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

You're only looking at the parts that suit you, tankers have a lot of benefits you're continuously choosing to ignore or trivialize.

You’re the one who directed me to your charts, I can only look at what’s on them.

 

Less facetiously, that’s the point I was trying to make.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Vanden

[Auroxis]

14 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Then what is it about? Is there something wrong with sets becoming more popular?

There's nothing wrong with powers becoming more popular, but there is something wrong with trivializing power changes by saying "only a few people use them" while the buffed power hasn't even left testing yet. In fact I seem to be the only one testing it.

Quote

How?

 

Quote

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Why should that be an argument against buffing Tankers?

By saying tanker survivability and aggro management aren't really significant, you're dismissing the opinions of countless players who chose the class over brute precisely for that reason.

 

It is an advantage many players like having, no matter how you choose to trivialize it. Therefore it should be part of the balance process.

 

Quote

You’re the one who directed me to your charts, I can only look at what’s on them.

Then you saw my charts show Tankers achieving over 90% of Brute raw damage without too much buffing. You also saw the part about damage procs, -res powers, leadership powers and endurance and chose to dismiss them as trivial. You also saw the part about the AoE benefits which you chose to ignore.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

55 minutes ago, Vanden said:

 

If you’re not arguing for the sake of balance, why are you being so cautious about giving Tankers more damage output? What other reason is there to be so wary of it?

That's like a reverse slippery slope argument.  "The slope is impossible to get slippery so why not lather it in more butter!  Let's Go!"

 

You should always be cautious of making changes.  Why do you think the Cottage Rule is so referenced?

[Vanden]

19 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

There's nothing wrong with powers becoming more popular, but there is something wrong with trivializing power changes by saying "only a few people use them" while the buffed power hasn't even left testing yet. In fact I seem to be the only one testing it.

Most people don’t min-max. They don’t look closely at the numbers of powers and put serious thought into the cost/benefit of choosing particular powers. Thus, the changes to these powers won’t greatly affect the prevalence of these powers outside of the main-maxer community, who are just a small portion of the overall community.

 

19 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

By saying tanker survivability and aggro management aren't really significant, you're dismissing the opinions of countless players who chose the class over brute precisely for that reason.

 

It is an advantage many players like having, no matter how you choose to trivialize it. Therefore it should be part of the balance process

What some people think about Tanker survivability and aggro management is irrelevant in this instance. The advantages Tankers have over Brutes in those categories do not produce practical differences in actual play.

 

19 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Then you saw my charts show Tankers achieving over 90% of Brute raw damage without too much buffing. You also saw the part about damage procs, -res powers, leadership powers and endurance and chose to dismiss them as trivial. You also saw the part about the AoE benefits which you chose to ignore.

You directed me to the charts and nothing else when I made a post saying that Tankers and Brutes should be compared to each other without incarnate powers, so that’s what I did.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Vanden

[golstat2003]

23 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

That's like a reverse slippery slope argument.  "The slope is impossible to get slippery so why not lather it in more butter!  Let's Go!"

 

You should always be cautious of making changes.  Why do you think the Cottage Rule is so referenced?

The same Cottage Rule that Castle himself said he was open to breaking as needed? Yeah.

[StratoNexus]

1 hour ago, Profit said:

I see all you guys worried about losing bruising. But please try to understand, only like the 35 of us in this thread discussing it actually even knows it exists. Take a poll in the discord, most people have no idea. And on top of that, less than the 35 of us in thisbtjread acticely used the t1 to apply bruising because using a t1 doesn't create an optimal attack chain even with its bruising factored in.

 

Even if you are one of the few that actively used bruising, realize that your experience speaks for a very very small subset of the population. And only slightly larger is the subset that would use bruising on hard targets like AVs because mobs die to quick. Your lucky to get foot stomp off before the blasters roflmao the mobs.

That is more an argument that bruising is a better choice to amplify tanker and team damage than increased buffs. More people likely use their tier 1 attack just naturally than might take assualt. Bruising being in the tier one (and possibly adding it to the tier 2, as I suggested) allow this to be a regular occurrence for almost all tankers, even if they know nothing about it. Requiring folks to realize that Assault and the long recharge Melt Armor are actually good only benefits those in the know and only benefits those who make very specific power picks.

 

Bruising is automatic and all tankers have it. It could be adjusted to be more often applied, but overall less strong and with added base damage be a win-win.

Edited September 24, 2019 by StratoNexus

[Leogunner]

7 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

The same Cottage Rule that Castle himself said he was open to breaking as needed? Yeah.

Does that mean "Throw caution to the wind! Do whatever you want"? No.

[golstat2003]

5 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Does that mean "Throw caution to the wind! Do whatever you want"? No.

There is absolutely nothing of these buffs or the responses from the lead dev that shows they are throwing caution to the wind in terms of these buffs.

 

This has been one of the most methodical and well explained feedback threads I have seen discussed in ages.

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Profit said:

I see all you guys worried about losing bruising. But please try to understand, only like the 35 of us in this thread discussing it actually even knows it exists. Take a poll in the discord, most people have no idea. And on top of that, less than the 35 of us in thisbtjread acticely used the t1 to apply bruising because using a t1 doesn't create an optimal attack chain even with its bruising factored in.

 

Even if you are one of the few that actively used bruising, realize that your experience speaks for a very very small subset of the population. And only slightly larger is the subset that would use bruising on hard targets like AVs because mobs die to quick. Your lucky to get foot stomp off before the blasters roflmao the mobs.

I can't believe I'm defending Bruising, as I am a major proponent of the AoE/target cap changes but I'd argue that your observations are due to its implementation rather than the effect or intent.  They could make the effect more visually noticable with a "shattering" visual when applying bruising.  They can make it mechanically more noticeable by expanding the skills that can apply it and giving the AT charges to build and expend (with glowing circles and all).  

[golstat2003]

15 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

That is more an argument that bruising is a better choice to amplify tanker and team damage than increased buffs. More people likely use their tier 1 attack just naturally than might take assualt. Bruising being in the tier one (and possibly adding it to the tier 2, as I suggested) allow this to be a regular occurrence for almost all tankers, even if they know nothing about it. Requiring folks to realize that Assault and the long recharge Melt Armor are actually good only benefits those in the know and only benefits those who make very specific power picks.

 

Bruising is automatic and all tankers have it. It could be adjusted to be more often applied, but overall less strong and with added base damage be a win-win.

And maybe do something to make it noticeable to the rest of the team. Cause most teams simply don’t notice such a tanker contribution in the face of more noticeable debuffs that fly around in the average team. I’d be down with such a change.