Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Gobbledegook said:

I  know that my Brute is in the 80%+ resists and soft capped defence to melee/smash,lethal and its not close to finished with IO's. A tank would be capped resists now with probably 10%ish more defence but the brute will kill much much faster and not a lot stresses it.

 

i have watched tanks die due to not being able to kill fast or not built well enough. Whilst i will kill them fast enough before they become a real threat even if not capped.

 

Personally i would lower Brute mitigation caps to 85% or so, considering they don't get there as conveniently as you say. But thats just my opinion and would never happen.

 

I am no expert just giving some of my experiences in game so far.

Again, if your tank is dying because it cant kill fast enough, you are running content above your head, or your teams head, or both by not being slotted correctly or sufficiently for what you are trying to run.

 

I have both brutes and tanks that are unkillable for the most part, with a few weaknesses but even then i can mitigate them at will and indefinately.

 

Lowering Brutes Resistance caps would nuke pretty much half my character base, make a ton of slotting and planning redundant - including incarnate slotting you cant change easily now that I am lvl 70 and lvl 50 on my 2 main brutes.  Im about 50 50 split with tanks and brutes for my elite mains that i play most.

 

Not to mention if you take super reflexes or any defense based set into account the defense soft cap is the same across tanks brutes scrappers and stalkers.  So in essance you would nerf half the brute secondaries and then the hybrids or pure defense would be left alone.  It would only penalize resistance based sets for brutes only.

 

I dont think any of that would be reasonable.

[WumpusRat]

4 hours ago, Sir Myshkin said:

I'm going to be running a counter-part test at some point today taking a Tank build I tested and flipping it IO for IO onto a Brute and running the same test(s) with it. I can tell you already that, despite Brute's having the same max survival caps as Tanks, they do not get there as conveniently. The build I flipped is 10% Defense lower, and 26% Resistance lower than its Tank counterpart. In order to fix those variances I'd have to dramatically sacrifice how I slotted the offensive side of the build (which for practical testing reasons, can't be done). So the variances aren't "small" comparatively out of the box.

I can understand the defense being a bit lower, but having 26% less resists is puzzling. Out of curiosity, what sets are you building, and how are you slotting them? Because pretty much every brute I've made hits the resist/defense caps without all that much effort if it's with a set that already has a lot of either.

[Sir Myshkin]

As promised, took a Reverse Flash to my Tank Bio/SS and transformed it into SS/Bio for a Brute. It is same-for-same except in the necessity of Jab. Since I did not utilize Jab in any way before, not being forced to take it became a plus, and I opted for Dark Obliteration instead (which I wanted to test out with this build anyway, just couldn't fit it with the Tank). From a survival front, I definitely felt squishier on the Brute since it doesn't end up carrying the same extremes of Resistance and Defense. My attack set was 100% devoted to Proc building, so no set bonuses there, and most efforts are after +Rech over any other priority. The Tank is able to soft cap elemental defenses, and hard cap S/L Resists (even in the onset of Bio's Offensive mode). The Brute suffers a -10% Defense squash, and -30% Resistance.

 

Bio Armor is relatively pretty good at utilizing three different Regen/Absorb/Heal tools to stay alive, but despite that I don't think I could've safely accomplished a full-tilt Comic-Con style "everything at once" farm and walked out with sane stress levels like the Tank can. From a singular spawn-to-spawn approach, I was good however, and didn't have any real concerns. From a kill speed, it matched the Tank (for the most part). Dark Obliteration obviously changed the dynamic a bit as I was able to hit FS>DO>FS and clear most of a mob save Bosses, which were easy to dispatch with KO-B and Gloom (no different than the Tank).

 

The big kick is in its efficiency to take down a singular heavy target (ie Pylon "AV").

 

It was a wash. If I walked blank into the fight, I'd hit a similar stride of 2:40-2:45 (which were my low-end ranged on a Tank), and if I hit the next Pylon at 70% Fury (where I pretty much tapped out in these fights), then I'd be in the 2:20-2:30 range; the peak non-hybrid zone for the Tank. The only tipping point where I was able to exceed the Tank at all was marginal in the fact that I could (technically) burst my +Dam into the 500%+ range for brief windows on the Gaussian's proc with rolling Hybrid stacks. The Tank tapped out its peak hits at just shy of +400%.

 

My process for hitting the Pylons on both Tank and Brute was "clear them till I get bored, and then check the times." My best Tank time with Hybrid Assault Core running was 2:09 when I ran it. Tonight, with the Brute, the best time was 1:55. I broke two minutes on Super Strength, Solo, and (in my opinion) officially moved it into "outlier" territory. That time was hitting the Pylon just after "Weakened" passed, Ageless was already popped, Fury at 70% (again, was literally doing all this ping-ping-ping in a row), run in and hit DNA Siphon > Hybrid > Rage (Beat Pylon to Death); run only ended up with one drop of Rage, and honestly even in those drops I'm still doing ~150 DPS on Procs alone.

 

For the first time in 15 years I'm actually like "Huh, maybe I should roll one of these." But then I know it's broken, so ... no.

 

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

On the brute survival side though, outside buffs can also bump them up to tanker levels. 

True, but these have to be looked at in a vacuum of solo performance to be fairly evaluated.

2 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

...but the brute will kill much much faster...

Still sure about that given the changes we're facing?

[Myrmidon]

3 hours ago, Sir Myshkin said:

Still sure about that given the changes we're facing?

After your testing, one thing that I am sure about is that stacked-Rage Super Strength is broken and should be adjusted to the Captain’s original non-stacking idea.

[BlastLord]

I do like the new Tanker updates to make things balanced.

[Haijinx]

47 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

After your testing, one thing that I am sure about is that stacked-Rage Super Strength is broken and should be adjusted to the Captain’s original non-stacking idea.

Then they could fix jab and punch

 

And port to scrappers

[metacore]

The way I have been reading the goal behind these changes is, and correct me if I am wrong, to have Tankers more into the multiple-enemy zone than the single-enemy zone.
That is Tankers are better at handling multiple foes and Brutes are better at ST (!!!in general!!!).
Tanks want as many enemies as they can surrounding them. In their face. Punching, kicking, clawing, burning, etc while they laugh at their foes. Cant hit me or I resist what you do (it barely a scratch) or thats all you got watch this heal.

Keep the inc AoE/Arc changes and add onto that with changing the Taunt Aura.

All Tanks have, and generally take (Ive never seen a Tank without the Taunt Aura but that doesn't mean there aren't any), this power to have a Self +Dam buff similar to the Shield Defence Against All Odds. The first enemy grants a self buff of +X%Dam with each additional foe in range granting +y%Dam up to 10 enemies total.

This means when the Tank is surrounded by enemies (ie doing its job) it does more damage. Against a single foe it does less damage.

 

When versing EB/AV/GM I would have these enemies provide a higher +Dam buff.

Numbers would need to not get too high to avoid being too Brute like.

What about the SD AaO as this already provides a +Dam buff?
Either add more +Dam (SD is already known as a damage set) or change it to -Res/-Def/+Rech (Self)/-EndCost (Self)/+Absorb (Self)/Reflect%Dam (can the game even do such a thing?)/???


Brute vs Tank
Brutes still do more damage than Tanks.
Brutes can still hit Def/Res targets (usually with IO Sets)
Tanks can still hit Def/Res targets (without or with minimal IO Sets)
Tanks can deal more damage in AoE with the inc range/arc of powers and the Taunt aura
Why have a Tank vs a Brute on a Team? Tanks can handle and deal with the additional mobs easier.
Why Solo a Tank? With multiple enemies in close the poor damage is mitigated.
Multiple Tanks on a Team equals ever better AoE take downs and more chance to control mobs of foes (not needed but not a wast of an AT either).

[Bunmaster]

Shouldn't balance the Brute/Tanker around IOs. Need to really stop using the "Brute is as tanky with IOs" argument. If that's the case, might as well delete IOs or lower every single value down to 90% (or even lower) of current values.

 

Honestly, if you wanted damage in the first place, roll a Brute then. Sure there is no reason to do low damage as a Tanker, but it comes with the territory of having you damage powers as a secondary.

 

I personally prefered not touching the dmg modifiers. Increased AoEs and cones are great ideas, some form of improved bruising (i know CP said no bruising). But these 2 things still improves dps indirectly.

 

With current patch, it's choosing between a brutey Tank and a Brute.

[Bossk_Hogg]

2 hours ago, Bunmaster said:

Shouldn't balance the Brute/Tanker around IOs. Need to really stop using the "Brute is as tanky with IOs" argument. If that's the case, might as well delete IOs or lower every single value down to 90% (or even lower) of current values.

 

 

IO's have been in the game longer than they haven't, and the power levels they offer some AT's and sets varies greatly. It's time to acknowledge them in balance discussions. Given how vastly more available they are on Homecoming, balancing around SO's makes as much sense as balancing around DO's.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Bossk_Hogg

[golstat2003]

11 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

IO's have been in the game longer than they haven't, and the power levels they offer some AT's and sets varies greatly. It's time to acknowledge them in balance discussions. Given how vastly more available they are on Homecoming, balancing around SO's makes as much sense as balancing around DO's.

Disagree. If we start balancing around IOs does that mean we start balancing around all configurations of those builds? Do we consider defense focused builds, recharge focused, damage focused, etc etc? Also what level? Fully purpled out setups with attuned IOs? Frankenslotted builds that don’t have set bonuses? Or builds that have sets but aren’t the max farming builds or those built for the max? At which balancing point if we are considering IOs do we start with and who makes that determination?  I would be against any group of players making that determination.

 

For a small volunteer team of devs this seems unrealistic. Keeping the balance somewhat focused on one universal starting point like SOs seems more manageable. 

 

Edit: in this specific example for Brutes vs Tanks are we focusing on Brutes that build for defense vs tanks? And what if Brutes that don’t build for max resistance or defense? How about those that build for recharge?(Hint: NONE of my Brutes build for defense or resist, including my farming ones and they do just fine) How are you balancing that against IO’d Tanks?

Edited October 8, 2019 by golstat2003

[Doc_Scorpion]

1 hour ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

IO's have been in the game longer than they haven't, and the power levels they offer some AT's and sets varies greatly. It's time to acknowledge them in balance discussions.

- No, we shouldn't balance around billion inf babies.  Not everyone has a farmer.  Not everyone is interested in farming.
- Nor should we balance around the levels that billion inf babies are typically found at.  Not everyone races to fifty then grinds out the vet levels so they can stand around bored.
- Not to mention that not everyone is a min-maxer seeking that perfect billion inf build.
 

54 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Disagree. If we start balancing around IOs does that mean we start balancing around all configurations of those builds? Do we consider defense focused builds, recharge focused, damage focused, etc etc? Also what level? Fully purpled out setups with attuned IOs? Frankenslotted builds that don’t have set bonuses? Or builds that have sets but aren’t the max farming builds or those built for the max? At which balancing point if we are considering IOs do we start with and who makes that determination?  I would be against any group of players making that determination.

 

For a small volunteer team of devs this seems unrealistic. Keeping the balance somewhat focused on one universal starting point like SOs seems more manageable. 

This, ten billion percent.  I'm not even certain a paid retail team could tackle the job, there are simply too many potential permutations of power sets and IO sets.  (And that's just for tanks.)

[Bossk_Hogg]

IO's are why we're even having the tank/brute conundrum. Defense granted vastly outstrips damage and resistance. Ignoring this just leads the game even further to rewarding damage above all. Sentinels are also in a bad spot, where they are relatively pointless with defense capped blasters running around.

 

Also, if you cant scrape together some influence for basic sets like thunderstrike or crushing impact, I don't know what to say. You don't need to spend anywhere near a billion to see a huge performance boost.

Edited October 8, 2019 by Bossk_Hogg

[golstat2003]

6 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

IO's are why we're even having the tank/brute conundrum. Defense granted vastly outstrips damage and resistance. Ignoring this just leads the game even further to rewarding damage above all. Sentinels are also in a bad spot, where they are relatively pointless with defense capped blasters running around.

 

Also, if you cant scrape together some influence for basic sets like thunderstrike or crushing impact, I don't know what to say. You don't need to spend anywhere near a billion to see a huge performance boost.

Except we're not talking about scrapped together builds. Or are we? That's the problem, what is the balancing point you start and end with, if you start balancing around IOs? And again, using your example, what if it's Brutes that choose damage or recharge as their IO build focus and not defense or resistance?

 

EDIT: And how would the DEVS (again DEVS, NOT PLAYERS) make that determination of what to balance around? Does that new balancing point become the one true way to IO out your build? What if players then find a new balancing point, or the devs release new IOs that move that goal post? Are we prepared to keep playing wackamole with balance based on what the changing IO meta is?

 

EDIT2: If this game were still live, and had a full paid dev team, I might be moved on the argument for us to start considering IOs for balance. As it is now, with a volunteer team, NO. There are too many permutations for those builds (including billion inf builds, 250 million builds, and frankenslotted cheap builds) for us to waste precious dev time playing wackamole with that. I'd prefer if the devs focused on things like more content, actually fixing the bugs that were left over from live, etc etc etc).

Edited October 8, 2019 by golstat2003

[Cawshun]

24 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

- No, we shouldn't balance around billion inf babies.  Not everyone has a farmer.  Not everyone is interested in farming.
- Nor should we balance around the levels that billion inf babies are typically found at.  Not everyone races to fifty then grinds out the vet levels so they can stand around bored.
- Not to mention that not everyone is a min-maxer seeking that perfect billion inf build.

The idea was never to ignore IO existence when balancing, it was to make sure that any adjustment because of IOs did not hurt the viability of a set at SO level. Say a set was performing average at SO levels, but over-performing when sets came in to play. The solution isn't to lower the damage, because that would hurt it at SO level. The solution is to look at what about the set is causing it to scale heavily and adjust that instead. It takes a lot more time because the set has to be thoroughly investigated, but the end result is worth it.

I'll also point out that you don't have to farm to get a character maxed out. There are plenty of people who use merit rewards to get the expensive sets.

To me I think set bonuses themselves need to be looked at. There are some that are just way too powerful for what they are (including many of the defense bonuses). Rebalancing sets would be a huge undertaking though, and would likely be met with backlash. 

[golstat2003]

4 minutes ago, Cawshun said:

The idea was never to ignore IO existence when balancing, it was to make sure that any adjustment because of IOs did not hurt the viability of a set at SO level. Say a set was performing average at SO levels, but over-performing when sets came in to play. The solution isn't to lower the damage, because that would hurt it at SO level. The solution is to look at what about the set is causing it to scale heavily and adjust that instead. It takes a lot more time because the set has to be thoroughly investigated, but the end result is worth it.

I'll also point out that you don't have to farm to get a character maxed out. There are plenty of people who use merit rewards to get the expensive sets.

To me I think set bonuses themselves need to be looked at. There are some that are just way too powerful for what they are (including many of the defense bonuses). Rebalancing sets would be a huge undertaking though, and would likely be met with backlash. 

I think it would be wiser to spend the time elsewhere, based on the type of team we have now.

[Doc_Scorpion]

11 minutes ago, Cawshun said:

I'll also point out that you don't have to farm to get a character maxed out. There are plenty of people who use merit rewards to get the expensive sets.

Narrator voice: People can, and do, farm merits as well.

[Cawshun]

6 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

Narrator voice: People can, and do, farm merits as well.

Yet people don't have to farm to get a reasonable number of them. They basically just have to play the game. Not everybody who builds their character up farms to do so. I knew plenty of people on live that had multiple purpled out characters that hated farming even before merits were introduced. Anybody can get to that level just by playing the game. It's part of the natural character progression.

[Gobbledigook]

18 hours ago, Infinitum said:

Again, if your tank is dying because it cant kill fast enough, you are running content above your head, or your teams head, or both by not being slotted correctly or sufficiently for what you are trying to run.

 

I have both brutes and tanks that are unkillable for the most part, with a few weaknesses but even then i can mitigate them at will and indefinately.

 

Lowering Brutes Resistance caps would nuke pretty much half my character base, make a ton of slotting and planning redundant - including incarnate slotting you cant change easily now that I am lvl 70 and lvl 50 on my 2 main brutes.  Im about 50 50 split with tanks and brutes for my elite mains that i play most.

 

Not to mention if you take super reflexes or any defense based set into account the defense soft cap is the same across tanks brutes scrappers and stalkers.  So in essance you would nerf half the brute secondaries and then the hybrids or pure defense would be left alone.  It would only penalize resistance based sets for brutes only.

 

I dont think any of that would be reasonable.

Yes they were probably under geared i guess. I was soloing it fairly easily with just half a build.

 

 Levelling a tank to 50 can feel very underwhelming when a brute can tank pretty much the same, especially with a few buffs, yet kill so much faster. I just thought whats the point? and rolled a brute, so much easier.

 

A brute can easily match the survivability of a Tanker or come very very close, yet a Tanker is not even close to brute damage on live. Nerf Brutes a little so tankers only need smaller buffs or just raise the Tanker damage to nearer Brute damage. A brutes damage can stay the same but its survivability caps should be lowered slightly to somewhere between scrapper and Tanker, its a little too close to tanker survival with Io's and buffs in my opinion.

 

Something like this.....

 

Brute          9/10 damage      8.5/10 survival

Scrapper    10/10 damage    7.5/10 survival

Tanker        7/10 damage      10/10 survival

[Bunmaster]

If we balance with IOs and ourside buffs in mind, might as well lower all values across all ATs by a percentage. Cannot single out Brute and Tankers.  

 

With IOs Blasters can output immense dmg and tank. 

 

Just don't open that can of worms.

[Infinitum]

59 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

Yes they were probably under geared i guess. I was soloing it fairly easily with just half a build.

 

 Levelling a tank to 50 can feel very underwhelming when a brute can tank pretty much the same, especially with a few buffs, yet kill so much faster. I just thought whats the point? and rolled a brute, so much easier.

 

A brute can easily match the survivability of a Tanker or come very very close, yet a Tanker is not even close to brute damage on live. Nerf Brutes a little so tankers only need smaller buffs or just raise the Tanker damage to nearer Brute damage. A brutes damage can stay the same but its survivability caps should be lowered slightly to somewhere between scrapper and Tanker, its a little too close to tanker survival with Io's and buffs in my opinion.

 

Something like this.....

 

Brute          9/10 damage      8.5/10 survival

Scrapper    10/10 damage    7.5/10 survival

Tanker        7/10 damage      10/10 survival

So then what do you do with all the brutes like mine that have resilient as their alpha or melee as their hybrid so we can cap resistances at 90?  That becomes a wasted slot that is then over the new cap.

 

That leaves all the defense based or hybrid defense based brutes untouched. They share that cap with every AT in the game not just tanks. 

 

You do realize that a scrapper or Stalker that's defense based can do the exact same thing a tank with the same set can do right?  So what then adjust the soft cap for every AT lower than tanks just so the can feel better about it?

 

That literally ruins a lot of builds for no justifiable reason, because there is no reason the two can't share the same survivability cap - especially when it's much more difficult and costly for the brute to choose that path.  Like it or not Brutes are basically tanks with different mechanics that gave them an edge on damage, which is what they are trying to address in this patch.

 

You said easily, match the tank, but thats not in all circumstances.  And definately not out of the box. Because like the above mine won't cap till incarnate, my tanks cap way before incarnate.

 

Tanks and Brutes were designed to share the same space, that's why honestly I think it's most fair to nerf the brute damage cap a little, and raise the tanks damage cap and aoe limits.

 

That gives you 2 good options for tanking, with the tank still being a good bit ahead with agro management and survivability out of the box now exceeding brute damage on low fury and matching it up to 50%.

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Cawshun said:

The idea was never to ignore IO existence when balancing, it was to make sure that any adjustment because of IOs did not hurt the viability of a set at SO level. Say a set was performing average at SO levels, but over-performing when sets came in to play. The solution isn't to lower the damage, because that would hurt it at SO level. The solution is to look at what about the set is causing it to scale heavily and adjust that instead. It takes a lot more time because the set has to be thoroughly investigated, but the end result is worth it.

I'll also point out that you don't have to farm to get a character maxed out. There are plenty of people who use merit rewards to get the expensive sets.

To me I think set bonuses themselves need to be looked at. There are some that are just way too powerful for what they are (including many of the defense bonuses). Rebalancing sets would be a huge undertaking though, and would likely be met with backlash. 

Yeah, because they aren't hurting anything except people's feelings.  When most adults would move on, play something else instead of worrying about why X can match Y when this effort is applied.

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

So then what do you do with all the brutes like mine that have resilient as their alpha or melee as their hybrid so we can cap resistances at 90?  That becomes a wasted slot that is then over the new cap.

 

That leaves all the defense based or hybrid defense based brutes untouched. They share that cap with every AT in the game not just tanks. 

 

You do realize that a scrapper or Stalker that's defense based can do the exact same thing a tank with the same set can do right?  So what then adjust the soft cap for every AT lower than tanks just so the can feel better about it?

 

That literally ruins a lot of builds for no justifiable reason, because there is no reason the two can't share the same survivability cap - especially when it's much more difficult and costly for the brute to choose that path.  Like it or not Brutes are basically tanks with different mechanics that gave them an edge on damage, which is what they are trying to address in this patch.

 

These sorts of lowered caps would have made a lot of sense in 2005.

 

 

 

[Infinitum]

39 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

These sorts of lowered caps would have made a lot of sense in 2005.

 

 

 

That and also switching gauntlet to fury for tanks also back then.

 

I heard stories that that was the original intent for fury.

[Haijinx]

28 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

That and also switching gauntlet to fury for tanks also back then.

 

I heard stories that that was the original intent for fury.

I think there is a core of people that think we are dealing with a game in Beta instead of a game brought back After its sunset that has evolved over quite a long run. 

 

 

 

 

[Infinitum]

32 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

I think there is a core of people that think we are dealing with a game in Beta instead of a game brought back After its sunset that has evolved over quite a long run. 

 

 

 

 

And with a limited albeit awesome development staff, it sure seems that way though - the game is as it is.

 

I think is pretty awesome and like the proposed tank changes.  Cant wait to rediscover them all over again.

 

Seems brand new Again.