Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Leogunner]

2 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

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.

Hey guy, read the context of the posts you're replying to. I don't have time to explain the meaning of my posts to someone who can't follow linear responses.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Leogunner

[golstat2003]

1 minute ago, Leogunner said:

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).  

Agreed to making it more noticeable.

[golstat2003]

3 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Hey guy, read the context of the posts you're replying to. I don't have time to explain the meaning of my posts to someone who can't follow linear responses.

Seems pretty clear to me /shrug

[Auroxis]

44 minutes ago, Vanden said:

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.

People play Spines/FA Brutes and Fire/Kins precisely because of min-maxers. Min-maxers are an essential part of what makes builds and power choices popular.

Quote

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.

There you go, "practical differences". What's practical to you might not be practical to someone else. Some people prefer different things, and tanker survivability is often preferred otherwise tankers wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are currently.

Quote

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.

Oh don't play coy, you know the post contains words along those charts and I've repeatedly stated as well as put forth test results proving my reasoning behind raw damage not providing the full picture. If you don't wanna argue against the fact that Pineapple Tankers have a lot of other merits to them besides raw damage, fine. But don't be facetious about it.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Auroxis

[Rylas]

14 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

People play Spines/FA Brutes and Fire/Kins precisely because of min-maxers. Min-maxers are an essential part of what makes builds and power choices popular.

I think you might be mislead to what exactly that "popularity" actual translates into, or what it really means. While there might be a great many builds that are Spines/FA or Fire/Kin, the build up of teams that generally happen in pick up groups doesn't proportionally show that popularity. Mainly because the people that make those builds are using them to generate influence for their other characters. I don't know if it's prudent or wise to conflate popular farm builds as balance or popularity issues. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rylas

[Auroxis]

8 minutes ago, Rylas said:

I think you might be mislead to what exactly that "popularity" actual translates into, or what it really means. While there might be a great many builds that are Spines/FA or Fire/Kin, the build up of teams that generally happen in pick up groups doesn't proportionally show that popularity. Mainly because the people that make those builds are using them to generate influence for their other characters. I don't know if it's prudent or wise to conflate popular farm builds as balance or popularity issues. 

Spines/FA and Fire/Kins are popular in PUG's as well.

 

Besides, those are far from the only examples. TW/Bio Scrappers, Fire/Time/Dark Corruptors (partially thanks to me), Elec/Shield Stalkers, and more. Those builds don't become popular out of thin air.
 

[Vanden]

50 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

People play Spines/FA Brutes and Fire/Kins precisely because of min-maxers. Min-maxers are an essential part of what makes builds and power choices popular.

They’re still by far the minority. Spines/FA Brutes, the most disproportionally popular Brute build by a wide margin, make up less than 10% of all Brutes made on Homecoming, for example.

 

50 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

There you go, "practical differences". What's practical to you might not be practical to someone else. Some people prefer different things, and tanker survivability is often preferred otherwise tankers wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are currently.

You can make objective measurements of practicality, but that’s besides the point. Peoples’ opinion on those aspects are not important, because Tankers’ survivability and aggro generation are not being reduced. If these changes go live tomorrow, someone who likes Tankers for their survivability and aggro management and does not follow the beta will log in to their Tanker and find their survivability and aggro generation exactly the same as it was, except in the spots where it’s been improved.

 

50 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Oh don't play coy, you know the post contains words along those charts and I've repeatedly stated as well as put forth test results proving my reasoning behind raw damage not providing the full picture. If you don't wanna argue against the fact that Pineapple Tankers have a lot of other merits to them besides raw damage, fine. But don't be facetious about it.

I can’t read your mind. If it’s important that certain aspects of your meaning are not misunderstood, don’t leave them implied.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Vanden

[Auroxis]

12 minutes ago, Vanden said:

They’re still by far the minority. Spines/FA Brutes, the most disproportionally popular build by a wide margin, make up less than 10% of all Brutes made on Homecoming, for example.

Minority in what? Are you grouping all non Spines/FA Brutes together to form some kind of majority?

 

Getting back to the original point, you can't use a power's current popularity as an accurate gauge of its future post-buff popularity.

Quote

 

You can make objective measurements of practicality, but that’s besides the point. Peoples’ opinion on those aspects are not important, because Tankers’ survivability and aggro generation are not being reduced. If these changes go live tomorrow, someone who likes Tankers for their survivability and aggro management and does not follow the beta will log in to their Tanker and find their survivability and aggro generation exactly the same as it was, except in the spots where it’s been improved.

 

What matters is the fact that so many people chose Tankers because of their survivability, as that shows it's part of the player's decision process when choosing a character. Many people roll a tanker but get turned off after their other aspects are unsatisfactory. If Tanker not only has better survivability, but can also match or even overtake the damage contribution of Brute while offering better AoE and group utility, you'll see a lot of people swap. Not just because of the damage but also because of the other factors, survivability among them.

Quote

I can’t read your mind. If it’s important to you that certain aspects of your meaning are not misunderstood, don’t leave them implied.

If you could just fully read my posts that'd be fine, I don't need mind readers.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

36 minutes ago, Rylas said:

I think you might be mislead to what exactly that "popularity" actual translates into, or what it really means. While there might be a great many builds that are Spines/FA or Fire/Kin, the build up of teams that generally happen in pick up groups doesn't proportionally show that popularity. Mainly because the people that make those builds are using them to generate influence for their other characters. I don't know if it's prudent or wise to conflate popular farm builds as balance or popularity issues. 

Does it matter?

 

What are we even doing in this game but glorified farming and gearing up of various characters.  Unless you want to touch on PvP, but I have a suspicion most don't want to be bothered with PvP balance at all.  

[Vanden]

17 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Minority in what? Are you grouping all non Spines/FA Brutes together to form some kind of majority?

Yes! Because just as you can’t say “the entire Brute AT should be nerfed because Spines/Fire Brutes are too good,” you can’t say “the Tanker AT should have its damage cap reduced because of this small handful of powers.”

 

17 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Getting back to the original point, you can't use a power's current popularity as a gauge of its future post-buff popularity.

What can we gauge it on? Is there something you know that I don’t that makes you so confident that their popularity will increase to the point that it will be a problem? Or are we both idly speculating and my lack of concern is just as valid as your worry?

 

17 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

What matters is the fact that so many people chose Tankers because of their survivability, as that shows it's part of the player's decision process when choosing a character. Many people roll a tanker but get turned off after their other aspects are unsatisfactory. If Tanker not only has better survivability, but can also match or even overtake the damage contribution of Brute while offering better AoE and group utility, you'll see a lot of people swap. Not just because of the damage but also because of the other factors, survivability among them.

Nothing you’re saying here can’t be said about Brutes with the damage and survivability aspects swapped. And unfortunately that already happened and we can’t put that cat back in the bag.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Vanden

[Rylas]

38 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Spines/FA and Fire/Kins are popular in PUG's as well.

 

Besides, those are far from the only examples. TW/Bio Scrappers, Fire/Time/Dark Corruptors (partially thanks to me), Elec/Shield Stalkers, and more. Those builds don't become popular out of thin air.
 

I didn't say they don't show up in PUGs. I was saying they don't show up in the numbers proportional to their FotM popularity. And a good reason for that is that most are built to farm. Not to play in teams or to play in most game content. And for that reason, I don't see the wisdom in pointing to such things as min-max capabilities as a reason to do, or not do, something. Because no matter what, you'll always have those things in game, and pure speculation of how prevalent they would be, or how much they would overpopulate the game, is just that. Speculation.

[Haijinx]

Yeah, i think farm builds can basically be discounted as to their general popularity, or need for "balance"

 

They are mainly there to get in game money to let people play their "normal" characters.

 

 

 

[Rylas]

13 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Does it matter?

 

What are we even doing in this game but glorified farming and gearing up of various characters.  Unless you want to touch on PvP, but I have a suspicion most don't want to be bothered with PvP balance at all.  

Well, if we want to get philosophical and esoteric about it, sure, we're all just farming XP and Inf to make the characters we want. But that doesn't mean everyone's going to min-max to the extreme point @Auroxis is concerned about. Or that if some people do, that it would be an issue.

[Leogunner]

18 minutes ago, Rylas said:

I didn't say they don't show up in PUGs. I was saying they don't show up in the numbers proportional to their FotM popularity. And a good reason for that is that most are built to farm. Not to play in teams or to play in most game content. And for that reason, I don't see the wisdom in pointing to such things as min-max capabilities as a reason to do, or not do, something. Because no matter what, you'll always have those things in game, and pure speculation of how prevalent they would be, or how much they would overpopulate the game, is just that. Speculation.

And what metric are you gauging this from?  As far as I know, the poll data collected were of level 50 characters only and the majority of characters that would fulfill the aspect of PUGs are leveling to get to level 50.

 

This justification to dismiss data is insufficient.

 

2 minutes ago, Rylas said:

Well, if we want to get philosophical and esoteric about it, sure, we're all just farming XP and Inf to make the characters we want. But that doesn't mean everyone's going to min-max to the extreme point @Auroxis is concerned about. Or that if some people do, that it would be an issue.

Obviously the majority aren't min/maxers...that doesn't disqualify the actions of min/maxers from affecting a game's balance.  In fact, min/maxers have MORE effect on a game's balance than normal gamers for the very reason they are min/maxers.

 

Your rationalization that there is no issue is insufficient.  At best, the measure of how problematic the issue is is debatable.

[siolfir]

With all of the talk about min/max this, min/max that, the stated premise of the buffs was due to a min/max team building concept: a second Tanker is the least valuable member to a team.

[Rylas]

10 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

And what metric are you gauging this from?  As far as I know, the poll data collected were of level 50 characters only and the majority of characters that would fulfill the aspect of PUGs are leveling to get to level 50.

 

This justification to dismiss data is insufficient.

But by your same reasoning, the justification to use said data is also insufficient, because there aren't any metrics to show *anything* other than what's been built the most. Not why or how it's used.

 

I would agree, the issue of this being an issue is highly debatable. But since neither side of that debate can be substantiated by any meaningful data, it would be better to leave the debate altogether and focus on issues we can more reliably measure. The thread would be better served by doing so.

[Leogunner]

8 minutes ago, Rylas said:

But by your same reasoning, the justification to use said data is also insufficient, because there aren't any metrics to show *anything* other than what's been built the most. Not why or how it's used.

I'd tell you, take it up with Vanden then since he was the one who brought up the amount of powers and their frequency taken.

 

That data isn't used to justify it's use but as a counter to another dismissal of previous data.  This whole back and forth is very circular and completely missing the purpose that data is present and one side is attempting to dismiss it when it should instead be challenged.

[Rylas]

Actually, I think it was challenged quite well...

8 hours 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.)

I'm also not convinced by the data that chooses to compare Tankers at a cap, but Brutes only with a Fury bonus. When we talk about Brutes performing at 90% of Tanker survival, are we comparing by the same skewed measure - Brutes buffed but Tankers only with SOs?
 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Rylas

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Rylas said:

Actually, I think it was challenged quite well...

That's not a challenge, it's a clarification.

 

A challenge would be another test that attempts to put a data set into a better perspective, like a more ST set that demonstrates an advantage to Brutes.  A clarification is CP stating some of the concerns he is looking for.  Two completely different things.

 

CP also suggests a challenge of the data here:

 

 

1 hour ago, Rylas said:

I'm also not convinced by the data that chooses to compare Tankers at a cap, but Brutes only with a Fury bonus. When we talk about Brutes performing at 90% of Tanker survival, are we comparing by the same skewed measure - Brutes buffed but Tankers only with SOs?
 

I had to re-verify those charts and I think you've misinterpreted them.  It's not Tankers at a cap with Brutes with only fury, it's comparing them on a spectrum to the cap, which is kind of the point of the rationalization that it may be possible for a Tanker to overtake Brute damage before the cap.

 

Again, I'd say the various "gotcha" rationalizations (most of which are faulty) are merely attempts to dismiss data.  Why?  You're better off just leaving the point and testing something else and leave others to paint a bigger balance picture using the various comparisons and tests.

[Snakebit]

Any reason why the topic of this thread isn't a good way to baseline tanks? 

 

[Rylas]

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

I had to re-verify those charts and I think you've misinterpreted them.  It's not Tankers at a cap with Brutes with only fury, it's comparing them on a spectrum to the cap, which is kind of the point of the rationalization that it may be possible for a Tanker to overtake Brute damage before the cap.

Ah, so I have. Thanks for shifting my perception on those. But the only trouble spot seems to be around 400%. Most end game leagues will have buffed beyond that point. The rest seems rather in-line outside of where the numbers happen to line up right (or wrong). But dropping the cap to 500% would leave Tankers falling behind again in said content, and dropping below that would begin to fail practically completely at having a 90%/90% goal. Off the top of my head, I would suspect raising the multiplier and keeping a lower cap would end up having Tankers peaking too early. So I'm left wondering if the 550% Cap is the closest we can get even though slightly problematic in some cases. Which I'm still not sure would be an issue or not.

Quote

Again, I'd say the various "gotcha" rationalizations (most of which are faulty) are merely attempts to dismiss data.  Why?  You're better off just leaving the point and testing something else and leave others to paint a bigger balance picture using the various comparisons and tests.

I like it better when you're questioning my judgement. Not so much my intentions. 😉 But I can completely agree that more testing is needed.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Rylas

[Odhinn]

I wonder if I should check my toxic resist before I post in this thread.

 

I have made a few tanks on both live then on test. These were played at at a variety of levels but not at max everything.  The tanks on test were simply more fun to play. I feel like that distinct importance has gotten over looked in the last 20 pages of back and forth.

 

CoH is a game, as a game it is first and foremost designed to be fun. If you are having less fun because under some very specialized circumstances one character may be doing more damage than another you probably need to step away from the computer and take a breather.

 

Also, I would just like to point out in actual game play there are many times a tank is hitting taunt while the brute is hitting another attack.

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, cejmp said:

Any reason why the topic of this thread isn't a good way to baseline tanks? 

 

To be fair, we are still hashing the process out. Once we have results on this we can reassess and determine if this is a great test or not.

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Rylas said:

I like it better when you're questioning my judgement. Not so much my intentions. 😉 But I can completely agree that more testing is needed.

That comment wasn't directed only at you but rather most opponents of the charts presented.  I have a habit of playing devil's advocate but this time it was unintentional and I'm going more on my gut feelings.

[Sir Myshkin]

Ahem

 

Esteemed Testers, I present unto you "Super Strength, and How I Laughed at the Rage Crash."

 

 

Fun Fact: Damage Procs don't care about the Rage crash debuff. Load up those +Dam Procs folks and watch your SS hopscotch through those Rage Crashes like a true champion. I'll see myself over to the Rage thread. Muwahaha!