Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Rathulfr]

5 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I'm saying this perception would, at worst, make such players roll their next melee into a Tanker or something non-Brute instead of another Brute.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

[William Valence]

People will most likely roll what they think is strongest.

 

With tanks now getting offense pushed so much, and the differences between brute/tankers getting smaller rather than larger, they occupy the same space even more. I think it's unlikely there will be a balanced shift. If the two of them do the same thing effectively, or one does all the stuff of the other, plus some, then the one that's seen as more optimal will be picked with greater frequency.

 

Or the one that is easier to use, at each tier to apply it's effect.

[Leogunner]

3 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

You say that like it's a bad thing?

I did say "at worst" meaning that's the worst likely outcome I can think of.  If it doesn't seem that bad of a thing, that reflects on the changes as a whole.

[DreadShinobi]

On 10/1/2019 at 4:54 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:

Tanker Updates [Experimental Changes]

 

• Tanker Damage cap lowered to 5.0
• Brute Damage cap lowered to 7.0
• The Tanker Max End has been removed.

 

I 100% support the tanker patch as a whole with these adjustments. As someone who has put alot of time into playing the two brutes I have, one being my main, I welcome the damage cap adjustment in the interest of supporting future archetype balance patches, and reducing overall power creep to keep current content relevant. I will also point out that I only see the damage cap reduction affecting my play in AE farm missions and I do not see that as a negative, and I won't even call it a nerf.

 

I will also point out that the original reason for adding the max endurance increase was because tankers took much longer to kill things, which made sense at the time, but with the base damage increase and bringing up their damage cap to be in line with scrappers, blasters, stalkers, and corruptors, as well as the radius increases making them much more effective at dealing aoe damage, removing the endurance increase was a good idea as well. This goes back to my earlier point that trying to do too many things in 1 patch can really distort what should be called balanced objectives.

 

Furthermore this patch doesn't need to be the be all end all patch for tankers and if they are still shown to be needing tweaks in the future, it is easier to do so now on a more specific level with their baseline performance being brought up. Possibly targeting specific sets that are underperforming.

[Myrmidon]

4 hours ago, Replacement said:

I don't think this is constructive to dwell on.  Everyone was so sure the damage caps mattered in the previous thread, so this is the response.  

 

In general, I caution against using an argument of "this won't impact anything, so don't spend time fixing it."  It feels, to me, like the same mindset as "my candy wrapper, particularly, isn't why the world is covered in trash" when you litter.  If it's not where it should be, I think we should encourage changing it as opportunity allows.

 

--

Real quick aside, I want to point out two sides of thought to the Live (775) cap for Brutes

Side A: Lower base damage numbers means each percentage point of +damage % matters less.  So even full fury (200%) + 500% (expected base for a damage dealer job) = 700.  It's instead set to 775 to compensate for those diminished increases.

 

Side B:  This set the scales for Brutes to keep pace with Blasters, while also having the 2nd-best survival in the game -- and remember, the whole point of Tanker Love is that Tankers' survivability isn't meaningfully better than Brutes.  This is the definition of Tank Mage.  The damage calculations of Ye Olde Threade did more to show just how far out-of-line a damage-capped Brute is than to say anything definitive about where Tankers should stand.

--

 

Ok, testing!  (I'm trying really hard to remember this thread has feedback in the title and I'm dismayed there are more people in this thread than logged onto Pineapple)

 

Previous test build: I had built an Elec/SS tanker, played him at 20 w/out any enhancements to see just how much I hate my life. It went remarkably well.  I think naked Blasters perform a bit better (Sustain power is stronk).

I then leveled him to 28 and gave him basic level 30 IOs, played a few maps.  Trade-offs compared to my experience soloing blasters in this range: Obviously safer and slower, but in general, I'd say it felt like the same amount of effort.  

I was also using this character to test out Force of Will and - guys - I really do think Wall of Force is giving me a 180° cone.  It's awesome.

October 1 build: I logged on and played some missions again, more level 28 radio missions.  This is all +0/x1 normal stuff, btw.

Result: I absolutely miss the endurance, but it's not breaking my back.  I'm running a single level 30 +Recovery IO in Stamina. 

On Live, I would absolutely have 2-3 +Recovery IOs at this level on just about any character I play (exceptions for some builds of all 3 Blast ATs -- probably Controllers too but I don't play Controllers).

 

Ok, so that's a lot of words, but here's my tl;dr on live vs current build:

On Live, a Tanker's only hope for soloing is to herd and slog.  It's slow and for a lot of your career, it's hard on endurance.

On Pineapple, the kill speed is good enough that I can simply combine a few packs here and there.  In general, I nodded off less and felt more like I could flow throw small packs, letting 2-3 mingle here and there, and still do ok.  

But, I definitely now need Endurance again.   I'll up him to 30 soon and give him another +Recovery and a Performance Shifter soon, see how it feels then.

 

Thank you for the information, Replacement. Don’t forget what I consider “required basics to avoid Endurance misery”

level 20 Miracle

level 30 Numina

 

(You can toss in a level 10 Panacea when you gain access to a PvP recipe)

 

These are all so easy to come by now, even for a new player if they do some basic forum research.

[macskull]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

The actual change will almost make no difference in actual gameplay.

 

People annoyed by the nerf will be unable to see that. 

 

They will only see a 75% max dmg reduction. 

Yeah, I'm more miffed that this is coming to pass especially considering as recently as a week ago Powerhouse said that the only way he'd further lower the Tanker cap (it had already been lowered from 600 to 550) was if he also lowered the Brute cap and that wasn't something he was considering, and less than a month ago he also said he was not going to nerf Brutes as part of the Tanker changes.

 

Sure, I understand that this is less than a 10% damage reduction at the damage cap, and that it will have zero effect on most builds and situations, but a change that is essentially nonexistent for 95% of characters and is a reduction in performance for the other 5% is a nerf, plain and simple. In my case, that 5% was the entire reason I even have Brutes.

[Rylas]

38 minutes ago, macskull said:

Yeah, I'm more miffed that this is coming to pass especially considering as recently as a week ago Powerhouse said that the only way he'd further lower the Tanker cap (it had already been lowered from 600 to 550) was if he also lowered the Brute cap and that wasn't something he was considering, and less than a month ago he also said he was not going to nerf Brutes as part of the Tanker changes.

 

Sure, I understand that this is less than a 10% damage reduction at the damage cap, and that it will have zero effect on most builds and situations, but a change that is essentially nonexistent for 95% of characters and is a reduction in performance for the other 5% is a nerf, plain and simple. In my case, that 5% was the entire reason I even have Brutes.

I hear you. I do. But this is like when a kid tells their parents they brushed their teeth, when all they did was stick the toothbrush in their mouth without toothpaste on it, and only brushed it back and forth two times. I mean, technically, yeah, they brushed their teeth. But did they?

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Rylas

[macskull]

54 minutes ago, Rylas said:

I hear you. I do. But this is like when a kid tells their parents they brushed their teeth, when all they did was stick the toothbrush in their mouth without toothpaste on it, and only brushed it back and forth two times. I mean, technically, yeah, they brushed their teeth. But did they?

That's not at all the same. My Brute exists to do one thing and now it is going to be objectively worse at doing that thing. I may end up biting the bullet and switching to a Blaster for farming.

[Leogunner]

7 minutes ago, macskull said:

That's not at all the same. My Brute exists to do one thing and now it is going to be objectively worse at doing that thing. I may end up biting the bullet and switching to a Blaster for farming.

Why weren't you farming with a Blaster to begin with?

[macskull]

Just now, Leogunner said:

Why weren't you farming with a Blaster to begin with?

Laziness, mostly. The Brute was cheaper to build and I could basically zone out for a couple hours and I'd have a new level 50. I've been sitting on a few Blaster builds the last couple months, just haven't got around to it.

[DreadShinobi]

9 minutes ago, macskull said:

That's not at all the same. My Brute exists to do one thing and now it is going to be objectively worse at doing that thing. I may end up biting the bullet and switching to a Blaster for farming.

If something is objectively worse at doing something that it is currently better at doing than everything else is that really a problem? Should brutes be able to earn more inf/hour than every other AT? Should a brute be strictly better than >insert next best thing here<, and everything else up the totem pole? Do you really think shaving off that small portion of damage at the top end is going to break your ability to earn a ridiculous amount of inf/hour? I'd say this is a 1st world problem and I'll refer you to this:

4 hours ago, Vanden said:

Brutes should be grateful to get out of the spotlight with only a small reduction to their damage cap.

 

[Haijinx]

Its a poor argument to suggest that something is not a nerf by arguing a nerf is deserved. 

 

[Rylas]

33 minutes ago, macskull said:

That's not at all the same. My Brute exists to do one thing and now it is going to be objectively worse at doing that thing. I may end up biting the bullet and switching to a Blaster for farming.

Difference of opinion I suppose. I love playing Brutes. I farm quite frequently with my Rad/Fire. Tons of recharge bonuses. Have binds for making red inspirations, which is a lot since I have large insps turned off as well as break frees and wakies. And I find staying at the cap nearly impossible to do for longer than a few seconds. 

 

And even if I could stay there longer, I wouldn't notice a heck of a lot of difference because mobs are dying way to fast to notice.

 

I don't see any of my Brutes being crippled by this in the least. I'm sure I'll still be making millions of influence at the same pace. 

 

Edit: actually, if you want to prove your brute will be objectively worse, recreate it on Pinapple and run comparisons between that and your live version. Same settings and all. I mean, if you're truly being objective. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Rylas

[macskull]

Just now, DreadShinobi said:

If something is objectively worse at doing something that it is currently better at doing than everything else is that really a problem? Should brutes be able to earn more inf/hour than every other AT? Should a brute be strictly better than >insert next best thing here<, and everything else up the totem pole? Do you really think shaving off that small portion of damage at the top end is going to break your ability to earn a ridiculous amount of inf/hour? I'd say this is a 1st world problem and I'll refer you to this:

 

I think I made my position on this clear earlier in the thread. My opposition to lowering the Brute damage cap comes from the multiple occasions in the past month where the powers developer said Brutes weren't getting nerfed as part of the Tanker changes, and now here we are with Brutes getting nerfed as part of the Tanker changes.

 

I do not care at all about inf/hour because the amount of inf I make from farming is a fraction of the inf I make playing the market and playing converter roulette, but it is a good metric for determining performance in a specific set of conditions. Your entire argument hinges around the assumption that Brutes are the best farmers, or that they make inf the fastest, or that they do the most damage, and none of those things are true. And, really? "Brutes should be grateful they're not getting nerfed more" as if people should be grateful they're getting nerfed at all?

[Captain Powerhouse]

2 hours ago, macskull said:

Yeah, I'm more miffed that this is coming to pass especially considering as recently as a week ago Powerhouse said that the only way he'd further lower the Tanker cap (it had already been lowered from 600 to 550) was if he also lowered the Brute cap and that wasn't something he was considering, and less than a month ago he also said he was not going to nerf Brutes as part of the Tanker changes.

 

Sure, I understand that this is less than a 10% damage reduction at the damage cap, and that it will have zero effect on most builds and situations, but a change that is essentially nonexistent for 95% of characters and is a reduction in performance for the other 5% is a nerf, plain and simple. In my case, that 5% was the entire reason I even have Brutes.

 

Yes, it is a nerf. Yes I did say i was not planning to nerf brutes (not sure if i ever said any definitive "wont", i try to avoid speaking in certain terms like that but I know sometimes I fail.)

 

Anyways, no one should try to cover the sky with one hand, this is a nerf. It is indeed a minor nerf that should only play a role in team and raid situations.

 

@kenlon got it right earlier, my mind was changed after a lot of talk pointed the dynamic between brutes and blasters/scrappers. It's an AT that can tank, manage aggro, and deal lots of damage, and then it can also be buffed to deal higher damage scale than a Blaster. I wasn't planning to do it, I was focusing on the melee at balance, but I stated that "if tanker damage is too high at 5.5, then so is brute damage with a 7.75 cap". Once blasters entered the conversation, I really felt that indeed, if there was a time to do this, it was now.

 

The result after this should be a more balanced field among tanking ATs (Kheldians will be touched at some point, sorry, those require a lot more work than can be done within the scope of this wave) and also a better position for raw DPS ATs that bring little to the team more than, well, raw dps.

 

Anyways, I own it. It's a nerf, not out of a whim, but it's a nerf and I did say it was not in the table. I apologize, but still feel this needs to happen. I'll do my best to avoid such absolute statements in the future.

[DreadShinobi]

 

23 minutes ago, macskull said:

I think I made my position on this clear earlier in the thread. My opposition to lowering the Brute damage cap comes from the multiple occasions in the past month where the powers developer said Brutes weren't getting nerfed as part of the Tanker changes, and now here we are with Brutes getting nerfed as part of the Tanker changes.

 

I do not care at all about inf/hour because the amount of inf I make from farming is a fraction of the inf I make playing the market and playing converter roulette, but it is a good metric for determining performance in a specific set of conditions. Your entire argument hinges around the assumption that Brutes are the best farmers, or that they make inf the fastest, or that they do the most damage, and none of those things are true. And, really? "Brutes should be grateful they're not getting nerfed more" as if people should be grateful they're getting nerfed at all?

My argument is that lowering the brute damage cap was a fair compromise to keep power creep in check and so the two archetypes don't overshadow other archetypes that are not as durable. But go ahead, keep pushing for your vitality in AE farming. I said inf/hour but that is directly translatable to how fast you can power level your alts as well. I won't indulge you further on this subject.

 

edit for the reply below @macskull: You seem to have missed the part where I said Brutes already weren't the best at any of those things.

>Brutes don't need to be the fastest when they can be as safe as they are in doing so. Not commenting going to clutter up this thread arguing how well you should be able to farm AE.

Edited October 3, 2019 by DreadShinobi

[macskull]

1 minute ago, DreadShinobi said:

 

My argument is that lowering the brute damage cap was a fair compromise to keep power creep in check and so the two archetypes don't overshadow other archetypes that are not as durable. But go ahead, keep pushing for your vitality in AE farming. I said inf/hour but that is directly translatable to how fast you can power level your alts as well. I won't indulge you further on this subject.

You seem to have missed the part where I said Brutes already weren't the best at any of those things.

[Haijinx]

Have to give credit to Captain Powerhouse for a fair explanation about the brute damage cap.

 

 

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Have to give credit to Captain Powerhouse for a fair explanation about the brute damage cap.

 

 

 

Indeed. That drop in capped damage doesn’t ever matter in any content that this game currently possesses and after seeing the testing in the old thread, the Captain changed his mind. Case closed.

[Ignicity]

I'm glad that Powerhouse has not only owned up to misleading the community with naive reassurances to not nerf Brutes, but also that he's taken the time to quell the ridiculous argument from apologists claiming this isn't a nerf.

 

Personally, I disagree with the Brute nerf, but at the end of the day, they don't care what we think.

Edited October 3, 2019 by GM Widower

[Parabola]

CP, as ever it's fascinating and useful to read your thoughts behind the changes. I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to include these thoughts as a matter of course with any patch notes? That way the discussion will hopefully be more focussed on the implementation rather than getting stuck on the perceived intent.

 

As for the changes in question I can't see how I will notice the lower damage cap on my brutes. My farmer is always levelling an alt and so has a reduced flow of insps, she's never hit the cap to my knowledge. And out in the 'real world' the damage cap is an even more theoretical concept as my brutes tend to solo. Even in a teaming situation with enough buffs flying around to hit the cap, everyone is going to be doing so much damage it's hard to imagine how the brutes losing a few percent off their orange numbers is going to matter.

 

It makes perfect sense to me that an AT with survivability and aggro control shouldn't under any circumstances out damage an AT whose only purpose is raw damage. It doesn't make any sense that someone sitting at the character creator thinking 'I want to do the most damage' would then pick an AT that can reach most of the survivability of a tank.

[Haijinx]

6 hours ago, Ignicity said:

I'm glad that Powerhouse has not only owned up to misleading the community with naive reassurances to not nerf Brutes, but also that he's taken the time to quell the ridiculous argument from apologists claiming this isn't a nerf.

 

Personally, I disagree with the Brute nerf, but at the end of the day, they don't care what we think.

Not sure that is fair.  If they didn't care what we thought, Cap PH wouldn't have written up an explanation. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by GM Widower

[Zenex]

3 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

Yes, it is a nerf. Yes I did say i was not planning to nerf brutes (not sure if i ever said any definitive "wont", i try to avoid speaking in certain terms like that but I know sometimes I fail.)

 

Anyways, no one should try to cover the sky with one hand, this is a nerf. It is indeed a minor nerf that should only play a role in team and raid situations.

 

@kenlon got it right earlier, my mind was changed after a lot of talk pointed the dynamic between brutes and blasters/scrappers. It's an AT that can tank, manage aggro, and deal lots of damage, and then it can also be buffed to deal higher damage scale than a Blaster. I wasn't planning to do it, I was focusing on the melee at balance, but I stated that "if tanker damage is too high at 5.5, then so is brute damage with a 7.75 cap". Once blasters entered the conversation, I really felt that indeed, if there was a time to do this, it was now.

 

The result after this should be a more balanced field among tanking ATs (Kheldians will be touched at some point, sorry, those require a lot more work than can be done within the scope of this wave) and also a better position for raw DPS ATs that bring little to the team more than, well, raw dps.

 

Anyways, I own it. It's a nerf, not out of a whim, but it's a nerf and I did say it was not in the table. I apologize, but still feel this needs to happen. I'll do my best to avoid such absolute statements in the future.

Welp as much as I dislike the idea of lowering the cap, I understand where it's coming with brutes surpassing blasters, I thank you for the explanation.

 

However I would like to ask for a quid pro quo of sorts. Because this nerf is being more focused on teams, raiding and keeping brutes from over powering pure damage AT would it be possible to slightly improve fury generation to compensate for the lowered damage potential ? I mean at the lower damage cap it wouldn't be making brutes do anymore damage.

[Auroxis]

17 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

Don't think it is problematic, also the main reason to lower the -radius was toned down mostly because +100% of making taunt auras and other cc abilities way too good.

Keep in mind that on SS with 2xRage, a Tanker matches a Brute's raw damage output on 50% Fury while having better AoE and resilience.

[Megajoule]

36 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Keep in mind that on SS with 2xRage, a Tanker matches a Brute's raw damage output on 50% Fury while having better AoE and resilience.

Counterpoint:  the Brute doesn't have to deal with a 2xRage crash.

(Yes, I'm aware that many don't want the Tanker to have to either.)