Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Haijinx]

2 hours 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.

Is that due to the target cap or vs the same number of targets?

[Auroxis]

25 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Is that due to the target cap or vs the same number of targets?

That's due to the damage scale, before bringing target cap into the equation.

[Moka]

 

So a few things of note:

Range still feels nice.
Enemies stay way more on top of me. Very nice. 
Damage cap is still 400%? I was able to reach it in this video by popping a load of reds + using my T9, and I thought I recall it was supposed to be 500%.

On a side note, I think after playtesting the tanker changes, it'd be fair to re-establish the boosted support values.

 

Forgive me if I pause a lot in the video. My keyboard's been acting up.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Moka

[Replacement]

In case anyone wants to really continue this "You said you wouldn't!" Angle:

In particular (I don't know how to quote across tabs, so I'mma just paste with quotes):

 

"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.)"

 

[Replacement]

5 minutes ago, Moka said:

Damage cap is still 400%? I was able to reach it in this video by popping a load of reds + using my T9, and I thought I recall it was supposed to be 500%.

5.0 takes into account that you're always operating at 100% base. The ui only shows +400.

 

[Moka]

Just now, Replacement said:

5.0 takes into account that you're always operating at 100% base. The ui only shows +400.

 

Interesting! I did not know that. Thank you.

[Golden Azrael]

Captain Powerhouse's explanation makes sense to me.  The Tanker changes, whilst not revolutionary, are most welcome and most needed for that AT.  The huffing and puffing to L20 on Live was arduous.  SOs at L22 were like life giving oxygen.

 

This is the 1st keystone in terms of getting Tanks back on the map and heading in the right direction.

 

Brutes getting a trim of their cap makes sense and Tanks are brought into alignment with other ATs.  Seems fair to me.  It will hardly make any real world difference for 95% of players.  So, Cap' chanced his mind.  So what?  People are allowed to that for compelling reasons.  This isn't Tanks vs Brutes (thought comparison help make an assessment...) but more Tanks broader sense along with the other ATs too.  Ergo factoring Brutes vs Blasters.  A broader context then just their nearest comparative.

 

Brutes have it real good.  Just like Scrappers.  Most of the survivability a tank, most of the damage of a blaster with higher ultimate output.  The sweet spot of dam res and dam output.

 

The next keystone?  Give all other non-SS tanks '1 stack' of a version of Rage to replacement BU.

 

Azrael.

[Captain Powerhouse]

10 hours ago, Ignicity said:

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

 

If I didn't care what anyone thinks, It's very likely none of the iteration we seen so far would had happened.

[Ignicity]

33 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

If I didn't care what anyone thinks, It's very likely none of the iteration we seen so far would had happened.

I've always been an advocate for not fixing things that aint broke.

 

But hey, keep nerfing, son.

 

GG

 

 

(edit: I once referred to Sentinels as the deformed little brother of All-Human Peacebringers. I can only imagine what this game could have been without your fingerprints on it. Wait, am I still allowed to voice an opinion that opposes HC propaganda?)

Edited October 3, 2019 by Ignicity

[XaoGarrent]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

In case anyone wants to really continue this "You said you wouldn't!" Angle:

In particular (I don't know how to quote across tabs, so I'mma just paste with quotes):

 

"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.)"

 

Doesn't really change anything. He gave everyone false hope for a better outcome.

[Leogunner]

24 minutes ago, Ignicity said:

I've always been an advocate for not fixing things that aint broke.

 

But hey, keep nerfing, son.

I've always advocated for quantifying harm done rather than just relying of gut feelings.

 

I'm sure if you tried quantifying how much harm this change causes to the AT and intra-AT balance, you'll discover the damage done is likely isolated to your feelings.

 

Maybe, to put a band-aid on those feelings, you can convince CP to slightly decrease Fury decay outside of combat...

[Ignicity]

9 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I've always advocated for quantifying harm done rather than just relying of gut feelings.

 

I'm sure if you tried quantifying how much harm this change causes to the AT and intra-AT balance, you'll discover the damage done is likely isolated to your feelings.

 

Maybe, to put a band-aid on those feelings, you can convince CP to slightly decrease Fury decay outside of combat...

This nerf shouldn't be trivialized, just because *you* can't get to the current brute damage cap consistently. 

 

I've already resigned myself to the fact that this will go live, and have already begun leveling and slotting contingencies that will most likely get nerfed within the next 6 months. Staying ahead of the curve since i4.

[Demon Shell]

2 hours ago, Eiko-chan said:

(Edit: I should add that I don't think there's any other powerset that has to deal with power management like this. Build Up/Aim/etc can just be used whenever it's up, Haste doesn't self-stack, etc. Having to time re-use to avoid a stack and crash is unique to the new Rage and isn't really the right feel for CoX.)

Peacebringer.

 

You're welcome to hit Light Form as often as you can, if you're okay with losing half your endurance even more often (and unlike your health, which resets to full before being cut in half, you straight-up lose 50 endurance).

 

Edit: It sounds to me, more than anything else, like Hand Clap should gain a damage component.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Demon Shell

[Replacement]

Folks, Ignicity just proved they're flamebaiting. They care more about a reaction than the topic at hand. (Their edit about sentinels above proved it).

Don't come down to their level. Keep this a feedback thread please for the love of Sister Psyche.

[Schizophobia]

1 hour ago, Ignicity said:

I've always been an advocate for not fixing things that aint broke.

 

But hey, keep nerfing, son.

 

GG

 

 

(edit: I once referred to Sentinels as the deformed little brother of All-Human Peacebringers. I can only imagine what this game could have been without your fingerprints on it. Wait, am I still allowed to voice an opinion that opposes HC propaganda?)

i, uh, don't know you at all. and i'm not sure if i'm reading the tone on this post correctly. but this behavior, like this whole post is incredibly abusive dude.

 

fwiw, i'm really skeptical of a lot of a lot of changes being proposed by people (especially vague calls for "more challenge" whatever that even means) - coh was a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and homecoming is pretty much run on donations. i feel like there's a kind of responsibility to crystallize the game as it was, not necessarily how any one of us maybe wanted it to be.

 

but what you're doing is really not okay. i hope you'll re-evaluate, but im not your boss

[Eiko-chan]

I apologise for trying to give feedback. I'll leave it to the super-posters from now on.

[Ignicity]

Just now, Eiko-chan said:

I apologise for trying to give feedback. I'll leave it to the super-posters from now on.

Please don't ever feel that you need to apologize for having an opinion, even if that opinion differs from the HC cheerleaders.

 

We're all entitled to one, don't let people tell you otherwise.

 

[GM Capocollo]

6 minutes ago, Ignicity said:

Please don't ever feel that you need to apologize for having an opinion, even if that opinion differs from the HC cheerleaders.

 

We're all entitled to one, don't let people tell you otherwise.

 

If you're going to demand respect for your opinions, then start by respecting the opinions of others.  Don't dismiss them out of hand as being merely from "cheerleaders".

[Myrmidon]

This is a feedback thread. Try to stay on target.

[William Valence]

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

I've always advocated for quantifying harm done rather than just relying of gut feelings.

Quantifying hasn't really helped much, but here goes again.

1.  The changes push tankers more towards damage as a primary output making them more similar to brutes rather than accentuating differences. There is nothing to this that creates anything ancillary to either the tanker or brute to differentiate them in fundamental identity. The primary difference would be in feel, with the the brute needing to build resource to get it's effect higher and tankers are just easier to play, in outputting their effect.
2. The increase in target caps allows for base damage output that can't be matched by brutes, and is unlikely to be matched by scrappers (would have to crit every enemy hit) this is best observed on the extreme end in farms, as both brutes and tankers have the same tools, and ancillary options (with higher target caps) yet the tanker's AoEs are potent enough to knock a minute plus off of run times. This is strong enough that it could cause a general change in play pattern to leverage that power
3. The increase in areas makes tankers even easier to play. This means they are not only able to reach the 90% damage of brutes (I disagree with this assessment, as I believe that tankers will be able to exceed brutes output, but even if you use the 90% metric), they will be able to do so with ease of play rather than a swingy mechanic like fury
4. They have the same powersets, so if their output is seen as only damage/survivability and that's how they're balanced, then the one that applies the effects better will be the one selected most often. Rather than having different identities that are built up on for players to choose from.

[Moka]

Stop it. 

Anyway. Is there any compromise on perhaps buffing the support toggles for tanker, such as the leadership pools? I liked their values before the nerf. If not that, a boost to the endurance bar again? Even if it's just +5 or 10. 

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Eiko-chan said:

I apologise for trying to give feedback. I'll leave it to the super-posters from now on.

Your feedback was totally fine.

 

If I came off rude, sorry, that was not intended.

 

We have actually been actively talking about rage for several weeks.  And there are quite a few people that agree with you.  

 

Take a look at the feedback rage thread in this same section.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Haijinx

[siolfir]

2 hours ago, nihilii said:

I don't understand why would anyone reroll a tanker they currently have based on these changes.

Rage on Live: use it and you get a crash 100% of the time.
Rage on Test: use it, and if you pay attention, you don't get a crash. But you could play exactly as on Live, and crash as often (and now the crash is lessened).

What am I missing here?

This really belongs in the other thread, but since it was brought up here and I was doing multiple replies to posts in this thread, I'll just reply here.

The crash - when it happens - is only lessened for defense sets, it's worse for builds that have resistance to go with their defense.

As you mentioned, the crash (if it happens) is worse for Brutes than Tankers due to having the same defense and resistance penalty applied to an AT with lower modifiers for defense and resistance; Brutes also get less effect from Rage (lower AT modifier, now much lower, combined with an inherent that provides them more +damage much easier).

 

2 hours ago, Ignicity said:

This nerf shouldn't be trivialized, just because *you* can't get to the current brute damage cap consistently. 

 

I've already resigned myself to the fact that this will go live, and have already begun leveling and slotting contingencies that will most likely get nerfed within the next 6 months. Staying ahead of the curve since i4.

I'm one of the first people to post a mild agreement with the nerf, and I'm one of the people in the other thread arguing how it's not that hard at all to cap damage with a Kinetic on the team - I teamed with one on my Rad/Elec Brute last week, and between Fury, Fulcrum Shift, and slotting, I spent about 80% of each mission at the damage cap. I agree that it's a nerf, and not one that's so rarely encountered that you'll never notice (especially since I monitor my +dam on my Brutes in the combat attributes window).

 

But there is a logic to it, and the number chosen makes sense for reasons that I posted earlier that weren't just the "90% damage/survivability ratio" for Tankers and Brutes. That's why I said it probably should have happened when they were "changing" (read: nerfing) Fury to make it +2% damage instead of +3% years ago, which is also when they adjusted the decay rate to make it easier to maintain between spawns.

[GM Capocollo]

I've moved a bunch of posts specifically about Rage into the dedicated thread for the topic.

[Replacement]

1 hour ago, William Valence said:

Quantifying hasn't really helped much, but here goes again.

It really has.  I'm on the opposite side of the fence from you, but I've really respected yours and @Auroxis's posts, among others I've disagreed with.  And a lot of power has been rolled back throughout this beta process already, so don't feel like this is all on deaf ears.

 

About your damage comparisons - I assume you're talking about Tanker damage when capped on targets (e.g. base damage * max target number)?  I cannot fully disagree with your assessments, but I think it's important to point out if this is a comparison of best-case scenario.