Focused Feedback: Tank Updates

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, Tater Todd said:

I wish I could join in and provide the much needed data for testing...but when it comes to melee I feel like a fish out of water.  All I can do is cheer everyone on and hope someone tests and helps the Devs find all the answers.  It just kills me that I can't contribute 😕

 

But you can, Tater. Make a Tanker at various levels and post back here what playing it feels like. The inexperienced perspective might be even more useful to the stated goals than a (possibly jaded) veteran approach.

[DreadShinobi]

On 9/24/2019 at 7:54 AM, 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.)

 

On 9/24/2019 at 10:36 AM, StratoNexus said:

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.

Bumping an excellent post that got buried. Hoping @Captain Powerhouse will comment.

[Myrmidon]

16 hours ago, FUBARczar said:

@Haijinx touche, but still no less lousy.

*** Rage as a name has nothing to do with Super Strength per se.  As I have said previously it should be changed to something like "Unleashed," "No Holding Back," etc.

*** Rage as it's currently implemented is antithetical to Super Strength.  There is no reason for character using it's innate strength to tire, to crash relatively more/faster/harder beyond using one's endurance like everyone else.  It was narrow-mindedly designed (They must have been thinking of Hulk, and a bad representation of Hulk to boot.)

*** The new proposed design of allowing 1 stack with no penalty and a crash if doubled stacked is a fair enough compromise I suppose.  C'est la vie.  

 

 

Apart from getting it to work properly, it looks like the pass on Rage is done and what is currently here on Test is simply what we all will have to live with.

[Myrmidon]

On 9/24/2019 at 5:01 PM, 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.  

 

I’m saving Paragon City from evil, planning to take the Rogue Isles for myself or keeping the last of humanity safe in Preatoria (depending on what character I log onto at any particular time). I would hope that something like this is the prevailing opinion and the reason why we are all here.😁

Edited September 26, 2019 by Myrmidon

[Snakebit]

7 hours ago, ParagonKid said:

I suspect very little thought went into crafting Super Strength, just due to priorities being elsewhere.

The animations for Jab, Punch and Haymaker were all recycled from the weapon sets. Even the alternative animations that were added later were swiped from elsewhere.

Its a core set...its been around since the beginning. It had as much thought as any other issue 0 set. 

[Haijinx]

8 hours ago, Leogunner said:

That's why I was pressing people to challenge those charts rather than try to dismiss them.  I want to know if someone can find a combo that works opposite and benefits Brute or Scrapper disproportionately compared to beta Tanker.  There's also the need to run an identical Brute build along a Tanker build and collect more data (preferably, without Incarnate abilities).

 

 

Maybe one that doesnt rely on -res

 

Fire Melee perhaps. 

====

 

Also BIO by definition helps tankers more compared to brutes since every % of plus damage matter more with a higher scale.

 

So a BIO scrapper might make a better comparison point.

 

TW/BIO scrappers can get far in excess of anything a tank can manage.

 

 

[Myrmidon]

17 hours ago, Sir Myshkin said:

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!

 I would like to request that you show us Kinetic Melee in this proc cycle, please.

[Sovera]

Wow, 13 hours without a new reply. 1331 replies later I think we finally exhausted the topic.

[Captain Citadel]

I think we've only exhausted the topic because a vocal minority is shouting down some really good ideas (like proliferating Bruising to Tanker secondaries entirely instead of trading it in for a selfish flat damage increase) and it's become clear that the AT is just getting band-aids instead of quality fixes. The AoE damage buffs are the only thing I'm really happy about, as an Invuln/SS Tanker main. The Rage changes over in the other thread are depressing because (IMO) they are the wrong kind of fixes.

Tankers as an AT were designed in a vacuum where Brutes didn't exist. I think it's a mistake to just increase Tanker damage to create more parity between Tankers and Brutes, because at the end of the day Brutes are still equally good tanks and still have greater overall damage output. I think more emphasis on Tankers' support capability and team synergy should have been made. Removing Bruising was a mistake. I think an opportunity has been missed to make Tankers the "support tank" and Brutes the "selfish tank." This would give a solid answer to the question of which AT to pick and why, instead of the default answer still being "pick a Brute, they do more damage."

Increasing the effect of Leadership buffs is the wrong kind of fix also. You have to actually take them all to make your Tanker better at support. This does not increase Tankers' support capabilities out of the box, like Bruising proliferation would. It's not a bad idea, but I think if I had to pick between Leadership buffs and Bruising buffs, I'd take Bruising.

All in all I think the proposed changes are not strictly bad, but they are not as good as they could be. Hence my disappointment, and I'm guessing I am not alone in feeling this way.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Captain Citadel

[Shadowfane]

Alternatively, people are just bored of watching the same 5 people shout at each other and go round in circles.

[Replacement]

EDIT: This post was just stirring up shit and offered nothing constructive.  My apologies; move along.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Replacement

[Captain Citadel]

2 minutes ago, Replacement said:

I think the topic was only exhaustive because a vocal minority insists good changes are going to ruin the game (like ignoring all the math that shows how stupid Bruising actually is) and it's become clear that the AT is getting a thorough look but these minority voices are mad that it's not the exact path they would have taken.

Bruising could be improved. Proliferate it to the entire Tanker secondary pool instead of just the T1 attack. Increase the amount of the damage resistance debuff it applies. Increase the emphasis on Tankers being a support-oriented tank rather than a selfish one that only focuses on raw damage. Instead you'd rather have Tankers be "less worse Brutes" than they already are, and call it a day? The proposed changes are not enough to make Tankers a worthwhile choice over Brutes when picking a character for yourself or when picking team members. Pumping the numbers on the proposed changes wouldn't fix the problem either, it would just flip the positions.

[Bunmaster]

While loving the aoe and taunt changes, i just don't feel the rest of it. With these changes, it feels like choosing between a tanky brute and a brutey tank. Tank will be just as "selfish" as the brute.

 

But since this direction was already decided and these changes are inevitable, there is nothing left to say nor suggest. Except this last bit.

 

Specifically the endurance changes feels tacky, every single AT can make a case about not having enough endurance. I feel like it should be either all AT or no AT. Also since tanker has more dmg now, it shouldn't have more endurance, since the justification for it was, no dmg need more end to keel stuffs.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bopper]

1 hour ago, Captain Citadel said:

Proliferate it to the entire Tanker secondary pool instead of just the T1 attack

I agree with this. I asked the GM why we can't JUST do this. It won't pigeonhole tankers into needing to use their weakest attack in their attack chains and could offer a means of applying bruising in AoEs. That is a significant boost for solo and teams that's not overkill.

 

Oh well, instead we are getting 6 or so different fixes. If I had to choose which changes I'd like to see implemented, I would just want the increased taunt cap (not aggro, but targets affect by taunt), increased damage cap, and my suggested minor tweak to bruising. The increased damage modifier is fine too, I suppose, but the AoE mechanic is a bit much. Also the endurance buff is unnecessary if we are buffing the damage.

 

As it is now, I hardly recognize the archetype. It feels like we now have 3 Brute ATs: Brute, Offensive Brute (Scrapper), and Defensive Brute (Tank).  Not very interesting.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Bopper

[Vanden]

I suggested keeping the T1-T2 swap earlier in the thread, and keeping Bruising on the old T1 to make it a more attractive power pick, but I don’t think anyone’s responded with what they think of that idea.

[Leogunner]

28 minutes ago, Bopper said:

Oh well, instead we are getting 6 or so different fixes. If I had to choose which changes I'd like to see implemented, I would just want the increased taunt cap (not aggro, but targets affect by taunt), increased damage cap, and my suggested minor tweak to bruising. The increased damage modifier is fine too, I suppose, but the AoE mechanic is a bit much. Also the endurance buff is unnecessary if we are buffing the damage.

Well, putting bruising on all the attacks is also a different extra fix. 

 

But the AoE part is what makes the attacks Fun! I like actually hitting things with shadow maul! 

 

Personally, the changes I'd be in favor of is keeping the cap for taunt the same as live and made the AoE's the the initial versions (100% range and arc+target cap increase) and THAT would be your method of getting more hate. None of this auto-hit no endurance cost cheating. You need to work for your aggro like a Brute. But their damage mod would stay the same, take the new damage cap and endurance boost. 

 

The advantage of the boost to endurance is that it increases recovery effects making them more useful and if their damage mod was the same as live, the justification works. 

[Replacement]

Dear sweet Statesman.

 

Because Bruising gets resisted down to nothing. This is wrong.  AVs have no special resistance to damage resistance and they don't affect conning the way I thought they did.

You do, however, get a lot of resisted Bruising vs higher-level mobs.

 

Also:

 

Because Bruising makes a 2nd tank the literal-worst addition to any party layout.

 

And you cannot fix this by allowing it to stack, because then instead you have a party of bricks with stacking debuffs which immediately sends it the other direction.

 

And the +damage does not instantly turn them into a Brute.  It makes playing as a tanker more fun, and lets you get to enjoy half of your powers.

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Replacement

[Haijinx]

Bruising mainly only helps with EB, GM and AVs right?

 

 

[Bopper]

21 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Bruising mainly only helps with EB, GM and AVs right?

 

 

Yes in the sense it's a sustained fight and the extra dps is not wasted on overkill (like one shotting minions). But -resist debuffs help everywhere, technically speaking.

[Haijinx]

I think a buff that helps me a lot all the time beats a buff that helps me a tiny bit all the time, but more than the first once in a while.

[Replacement]

And of course, remember:

Bruising gets resisted down to nothing.

 

Same-level AV is treated as +5 to a player; some content will spawn them in as +4 to the player as "level-appropriate."

 

+5 drops Bruising from a 20% resist debuff to a 6% debuff.  

 

I understand Incarnate stuff twists that, but I don't really think it's intelligent or advisable at this point to make any balance decisions around the "let's give everyone a t9 nuke that ignores AT modifiers" system.

This whole post is wrong and I need to go contemplate all of my life's conclusions.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Replacement

[Auroxis]

41 minutes ago, Replacement said:

And of course, remember:

Bruising gets resisted down to nothing.

 

Same-level AV is treated as +5 to a player; some content will spawn them in as +4 to the player as "level-appropriate."

 

+5 drops Bruising from a 20% resist debuff to a 6% debuff.  

 

I understand Incarnate stuff twists that, but I don't really think it's intelligent or advisable at this point to make any balance decisions around the "let's give everyone a t9 nuke that ignores AT modifiers" system.

 

[Vanden]

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

 

What’s your point? You’re fighting a -1 AV, so Bruising is getting a buff.

[Auroxis]

4 minutes ago, Vanden said:

What’s your point? You’re fighting a -1 AV, so Bruising is getting a buff.

That the whole "Same level av's get treated as +5's" is incorrect. Some TF's will spawn them at +4 despite your settings though.

 

And the alpha slot is part of the game whether you like it or not.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Auroxis

[Replacement]

So first off, what level are you?  53?  I assume that's how that works out: 50+5-3 = 2 levels of shift.  Even that should be 16%; not 22%.  

 

Hell, against a +0 white minion, you should only be debuffing 20% instead of 22.2%.

 

What the heck are you doing and can I come play at your table?