Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Sir Myshkin]

I really want to rationalize how this thread keeps getting devolved into weird, non-focused pathways, but I seem to fail at seeing it when the posts just kind of show up out of no where.

 

We all need to let go of the whole "This game is balanced on SO's." Those enhancements existed in this game for eight issues, alone, before Inventions came onto the scene in Issue 9. The game closed on Issue 23 (Beta 24), meaning 15 of those Issues were with IO's involved, spanning the greater portion of the game. Many sets were released in the years since that update that are very clearly designed around the Invention system. Can we fully grasp the pathway and intention the original devs had laid out? No, not in the slightest, but it would be foolish to not accept that there were still insights in how they developed new sets while using SO's as the crutch to give a minimum floor. "Where can I finagle this so there's at least this much performance at a basic level, while not overpowering its potential."

 

I like to use Magic the Gathering as an example in scenarios like this. The card game is built around a "Standard" environment, and then proceeding play types beyond that based on age groupings of cards, all the way down to play formats that include "everything." Each time a new set is developed the design team has to look at that individual set, the whole of its block it lives in, and then the standard "T2" format it'll play in with the most current card sets, and then they have the evaluate how planned incoming sets may influence it, and how that specific set will influence older blocks. Each time, three times a year, for over 20 years. "How is this mechanic going to effect now, then, two years from now, and four years ago, eight years ago. Am I finding a chain that'll break the game? Will I be making a card I have to ban because I didn't foresee something unbelievably stupid?"

 

The core of it, whether you've played that game or not, is that we're talking about decades of interactions that have to be considered, accounted for, planned for, resolved, and then, after all that, finally print and release a new set.

 

No, we don't have the Dev team for that, but we do have some folks with a pretty good understanding of the game, its engine, what's under the hood, and pieces of a pre-existing roadmap that said, somewhere, "Hey, what about Tanks?" They're players just as much as we are, and they're here and willing to listen to feedback about how these tests run, what the metrics kick back, and what it does to improve the standing of the existing game. There's no guarantee anything will push-forward, it's on the block for testing for a reason.

 

If we don't count IO's in the discussion, than 75% of Brutes are just slightly inflated Scrappers with less bursty-damage, and not-quite-as-good survivability as a Tank. Tanks, however, are still fairly under-powered in a Solo metric comparatively to any other Melee counterpart, so much so that it is often easier to roll a Brute and get more damage, with marginally the same survival, just to play "better."

 

If I do count IO's, just on premise, then I now have a vast majority of the player base that choose Tank or Brute, choosing Brute because they can easily pack in the remaining offset of survival with IO sets, invalidating the need for a Tank holistically, and performing better in a team and solo scale because of better damage performance. Tanks, however, don't really have this option to scale damage output to fairly compete, so they just become "easy" Brutes, with subpar damage scaling.

 

As Bruce said, "Why trust a [Tank]?"* If the Brute can do the job within reasonable proximity, we don't need the other choice. I've seen it, you've all seen it, there's a real offset of Tanks out there. I practically trip over Brutes on teams there's so many of them being rolled on a regular basis. There's an imbalance in the Force. So we look back at the basics, "How can we fix a Tank?" If the Brute can achieve 90% of the survival of a Tank, than the Tank should be able to scale up to 90% of the Brute for Damage. Junk bruising, fix the modifier, there we go.

 

We can't look at that equation without considering IO's though, but it's a fair balance. If we take Super Strength off the table of evaluation, in a solo environment both AT's will perform at an adequate level, and in a team scenario Brutes will have the potential to marginally exceed Tanks at full capacity damage-wise whereas Tanks will more effectively (and earlier) achieve their survival and crowd-controlling goals. Where the beta testing sits right now is a pretty fair adjustment. None of that consideration had to look at "x performing, y performing, z performing" IO set builds, just look at the larger picture. "In general, IO builds achieved this-this-this-this." These changes being considered aren't devastating, ground breaking alterations, they're Quality of Life improvements, and basic ones at that. I think everyone can relax a little. 

 

If you have a reason to disagree with this sentiment, then go out and actually test something instead of just arguing about it wholesale. Prove why something shouldn't be changed. In the process, you might just find that the change is good. Yes, sometimes, change can be good.

 

As a side note about this occasional, but on going concept of "billion inf builds," I want to point out that the SS-Breaking build I tested on both a Tank and Brute achieved that level of performance on a build that wouldn't cost (on current Homecoming prices) more than 350 million influence at a "buy it now" pricing. I have also yet to fund and build a character in this game who's total expense exceeded 750 million (and only because I rebuilt and purchased an additional 150 million in enhancements for the changes I made). The average performance build can be achieved within 500-650 million, and that cost can be earned through basic game play, Merit earnings, and selling of Converters/Boosters over the course of 1-3 months based on play volume. That is a casual estimation on a simple 1-3 hours a day, 10 hours a week max valuation.

 

Now then, I'd say lets get back to actual testing, but I'm still stuck waiting for Kinetic Melee to be de-bugged on Pineapple 😛

 

*(Okay, it was 'Why trust a Shark', whatever, play along!)

Edited October 9, 2019 by Sir Myshkin
minor edit of two sentences because the form field got all buggery on me and wouldn't accept "enter" anymore.

[RobotLove]

12 minutes ago, Sir Myshkin said:

These changes being considered aren't devastating, ground breaking alterations, they're Quality of Life improvements, and basic ones at that. I think everyone can relax a little.

Thanks.

[Infinitum]

5 hours ago, Sir Myshkin said:

I really want to rationalize how this thread keeps getting devolved into weird, non-focused pathways, but I seem to fail at seeing it when the posts just kind of show up out of no where.

 

We all need to let go of the whole "This game is balanced on SO's." Those enhancements existed in this game for eight issues, alone, before Inventions came onto the scene in Issue 9. The game closed on Issue 23 (Beta 24), meaning 15 of those Issues were with IO's involved, spanning the greater portion of the game. Many sets were released in the years since that update that are very clearly designed around the Invention system. Can we fully grasp the pathway and intention the original devs had laid out? No, not in the slightest, but it would be foolish to not accept that there were still insights in how they developed new sets while using SO's as the crutch to give a minimum floor. "Where can I finagle this so there's at least this much performance at a basic level, while not overpowering its potential."

 

I like to use Magic the Gathering as an example in scenarios like this. The card game is built around a "Standard" environment, and then proceeding play types beyond that based on age groupings of cards, all the way down to play formats that include "everything." Each time a new set is developed the design team has to look at that individual set, the whole of its block it lives in, and then the standard "T2" format it'll play in with the most current card sets, and then they have the evaluate how planned incoming sets may influence it, and how that specific set will influence older blocks. Each time, three times a year, for over 20 years. "How is this mechanic going to effect now, then, two years from now, and four years ago, eight years ago. Am I finding a chain that'll break the game? Will I be making a card I have to ban because I didn't foresee something unbelievably stupid?"

 

The core of it, whether you've played that game or not, is that we're talking about decades of interactions that have to be considered, accounted for, planned for, resolved, and then, after all that, finally print and release a new set.

 

No, we don't have the Dev team for that, but we do have some folks with a pretty good understanding of the game, its engine, what's under the hood, and pieces of a pre-existing roadmap that said, somewhere, "Hey, what about Tanks?" They're players just as much as we are, and they're here and willing to listen to feedback about how these tests run, what the metrics kick back, and what it does to improve the standing of the existing game. There's no guarantee anything will push-forward, it's on the block for testing for a reason.

 

If we don't count IO's in the discussion, than 75% of Brutes are just slightly inflated Scrappers with less bursty-damage, and not-quite-as-good survivability as a Tank. Tanks, however, are still fairly under-powered in a Solo metric comparatively to any other Melee counterpart, so much so that it is often easier to roll a Brute and get more damage, with marginally the same survival, just to play "better."

 

If I do count IO's, just on premise, then I now have a vast majority of the player base that choose Tank or Brute, choosing Brute because they can easily pack in the remaining offset of survival with IO sets, invalidating the need for a Tank holistically, and performing better in a team and solo scale because of better damage performance. Tanks, however, don't really have this option to scale damage output to fairly compete, so they just become "easy" Brutes, with subpar damage scaling.

 

As Bruce said, "Why trust a [Tank]?"* If the Brute can do the job within reasonable proximity, we don't need the other choice. I've seen it, you've all seen it, there's a real offset of Tanks out there. I practically trip over Brutes on teams there's so many of them being rolled on a regular basis. There's an imbalance in the Force. So we look back at the basics, "How can we fix a Tank?" If the Brute can achieve 90% of the survival of a Tank, than the Tank should be able to scale up to 90% of the Brute for Damage. Junk bruising, fix the modifier, there we go.

 

We can't look at that equation without considering IO's though, but it's a fair balance. If we take Super Strength off the table of evaluation, in a solo environment both AT's will perform at an adequate level, and in a team scenario Brutes will have the potential to marginally exceed Tanks at full capacity damage-wise whereas Tanks will more effectively (and earlier) achieve their survival and crowd-controlling goals. Where the beta testing sits right now is a pretty fair adjustment. None of that consideration had to look at "x performing, y performing, z performing" IO set builds, just look at the larger picture. "In general, IO builds achieved this-this-this-this." These changes being considered aren't devastating, ground breaking alterations, they're Quality of Life improvements, and basic ones at that. I think everyone can relax a little. 

 

If you have a reason to disagree with this sentiment, then go out and actually test something instead of just arguing about it wholesale. Prove why something shouldn't be changed. In the process, you might just find that the change is good. Yes, sometimes, change can be good.

 

As a side note about this occasional, but on going concept of "billion inf builds," I want to point out that the SS-Breaking build I tested on both a Tank and Brute achieved that level of performance on a build that wouldn't cost (on current Homecoming prices) more than 350 million influence at a "buy it now" pricing. I have also yet to fund and build a character in this game who's total expense exceeded 750 million (and only because I rebuilt and purchased an additional 150 million in enhancements for the changes I made). The average performance build can be achieved within 500-650 million, and that cost can be earned through basic game play, Merit earnings, and selling of Converters/Boosters over the course of 1-3 months based on play volume. That is a casual estimation on a simple 1-3 hours a day, 10 hours a week max valuation.

 

Now then, I'd say lets get back to actual testing, but I'm still stuck waiting for Kinetic Melee to be de-bugged on Pineapple 😛

 

*(Okay, it was 'Why trust a Shark', whatever, play along!)

I think the point is you can't reliable balance around IO slotting because you can't predict every combo that could be chosen.

 

Some say IOs are the problem, I say they are the reward for seeing a character through to 50 then realizing any one of a multitude of options to make them epic.

 

Not everyone is going to do that with every character - well I probably would because I'm OCD.

 

Tanks needed a buff, but I have never had the issue of tripping over brutes to find one.  Well maybe the AE lobby.

[WumpusRat]

4 hours ago, Infinitum said:

I think the point is you can't reliable balance around IO slotting because you can't predict every combo that could be chosen.

 

Some say IOs are the problem, I say they are the reward for seeing a character through to 50 then realizing any one of a multitude of options to make them epic.

 

Not everyone is going to do that with every character - well I probably would because I'm OCD.

 

Tanks needed a buff, but I have never had the issue of tripping over brutes to find one.  Well maybe the AE lobby.

You don't need to balance it around "every combo that could exist". You can't balance around every possible slotting setup with SO's, so why suddenly claim that taking IOs into consideration is impossible? As Myshkin said, you simply need to use a general idea of what IO sets are going to do.

 

In the case of brutes, IO sets are, generally, going to bring their defenses up to par with tankers. Because the gap isn't all that wide, set bonuses can very quickly eliminate it, as both of them are close to the hard upper limit in terms of resistance. 

 

On the other hand, the gap between tanker damage and brute damage is, even with massive IO slotting, insurmountable. Nothing will allow tankers to deal the same damage as brutes. Even though brutes can achieve parity in defenses.

 

And that's where you run into the situation where we're at right now. There is almost zero reason to create a tanker. Brutes do everything they can do, AND deal vastly more damage on top of it. So this change seeks to address that, and bring them back into some level of near-parity with one another. Tankers are a bit more resilient, brutes deal more damage. Flip sides of the same coin, and a choice based on which flavor you'd prefer, rather than one being objectively better in every way.

[Infinitum]

41 minutes ago, WumpusRat said:

You don't need to balance it around "every combo that could exist". You can't balance around every possible slotting setup with SO's, so why suddenly claim that taking IOs into consideration is impossible? As Myshkin said, you simply need to use a general idea of what IO sets are going to do.

 

In the case of brutes, IO sets are, generally, going to bring their defenses up to par with tankers. Because the gap isn't all that wide, set bonuses can very quickly eliminate it, as both of them are close to the hard upper limit in terms of resistance. 

 

On the other hand, the gap between tanker damage and brute damage is, even with massive IO slotting, insurmountable. Nothing will allow tankers to deal the same damage as brutes. Even though brutes can achieve parity in defenses.

 

And that's where you run into the situation where we're at right now. There is almost zero reason to create a tanker. Brutes do everything they can do, AND deal vastly more damage on top of it. So this change seeks to address that, and bring them back into some level of near-parity with one another. Tankers are a bit more resilient, brutes deal more damage. Flip sides of the same coin, and a choice based on which flavor you'd prefer, rather than one being objectively better in every way.

You cant balance around a general idea, a small nerf for one could be a huge nerf for another set up in the same category.

 

And then what about those of us that used incarnate abilities to reach the cap, because easy isnt the operative word in most cases to cap like that when as a tank you are pretty much capped by lvl 40 and some cases earlier.

 

Lvls 1-47 unless you go attuned the tank is drastically better on a team and more survivable solo.

 

And make no mistake, I agree with the current changes as is in regards to damage, I have just as many tanks as brutes and a few concepts also that I cant wait to roll this change on live.  Bringing the brute damage cap down in response seems justified and appropriate.

 

What I am against is nerfing brute resistance caps because and again

 

1. It would only affect brute resistance sets basically ruin them given what we need them to do.

 

And 2 wouldn't do a dang thing about the hybrid or defensive sets across all ATs that can soft cap either way - not that I want anything done to them. Basically putting brutes in the same category as lower damage scrappers, or squishy tanks that can't take point for a team.

 

With the right investment in defense any AT can be as durable as a tank no matter what you do to resistance caps.

 

It would be a punitive slap that would just piss people like me off and change what we have been able to do reliably since CoH came back.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Infinitum

[Schizophobia]

28 minutes ago, WumpusRat said:

You don't need to balance it around "every combo that could exist". You can't balance around every possible slotting setup with SO's, so why suddenly claim that taking IOs into consideration is impossible? As Myshkin said, you simply need to use a general idea of what IO sets are going to do.

more variables, i'd assume. i mean, yeah you have no way of predicting if i'll six slot brawl with damage so's. but there's only so many enhancement slots, and so many enhancements to put in them. its a lot easier to quantify. more enhancement types, set bonuses = more moving parts, etc.

 

also i guess i am kinda dumb (sorry) so i don't know who determines what a 'general sense of what io sets are going to do' is or how they go about doing that.

 

then on top of that, are we sort of agreeing that so's are irrelevant? the new standard is io's, and going forward, your so build isn't considered/important for purposes of new content or AT/power comparisons? not saying it can't be done. i mean after all i'm the asshat that six slotted brawl for damage, and nobody balances around me. and we don't really balance level 50 content around training enhancements either.

 

really the only thing that concerns me with these tanker changes (i like them fwiw) is what happens when people start claiming there's "too much power creep."

 

idk, again, dumb person here.

[Gobbledigook]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

You cant balance around a general idea, a small nerf for one could be a huge nerf for another set up in the same category.

 

And then what about those of us that used incarnate abilities to reach the cap, because easy isnt the operative word in most cases to cap like that when as a tank you are pretty much capped by lvl 40 and some cases earlier.

 

Lvls 1-47 unless you go attuned the tank is drastically better on a team and more survivable solo.

 

And make no mistake, I agree with the current changes as is in regards to damage, I have just as many tanks as brutes and a few concepts also that I cant wait to roll this change on live.  Bringing the brute damage cap down in response seems justified and appropriate.

 

What I am against is nerfing brute resistance caps because and again

 

1. It would only affect brute resistance sets basically ruin them given what we need them to do.

 

And 2 wouldn't do a dang thing about the hybrid or defensive sets across all ATs that can soft cap either way - not that I want anything done to them. Basically putting brutes in the same category as lower damage scrappers, or squishy tanks that can't take point for a team.

 

With the right investment in defense any AT can be as durable as a tank no matter what you do to resistance caps.

 

It would be a punitive slap that would just piss people like me off and change what we have been able to do reliably since CoH came back.

What about lowering the Brute hitpoint cap to 3k or so then? somewhere between scrappers and tankers. A 5% drop in brute resistance mitigations cap is not a massive amount, when a resistance brute can reach soft capped defence anyway with IO's. Going over soft capped defence does not provide much anyway except for the hardest content where you will have a lot of team buffs anyway.

 

If a brute were a little further behind a Tankers survival then a Tanker would not need as much of a Dps increase to be competetive. It would stand out again as the main Tank with ok dps and a Brute would be a decent tank but with really good dps. Rather than a brute being a great tank and great dps whilst a Tanker being a great tank but poor dps as we have now.

 

 Still more mitigations and hit points than a scrapper with near comparable dps.

 

A blaster can be made pretty durable but not close to a Tanker durable. Hit point difference, regen, mitigations and defence etc. But a brute can!

Edited October 9, 2019 by Gobbledegook

[WumpusRat]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

What I am against is nerfing brute resistance caps because and again

Have they said they were going to lower brute resistance caps? I haven't heard that tossed around as an actual option, except by a couple of players.

[Gobbledigook]

2 minutes ago, WumpusRat said:

Have they said they were going to lower brute resistance caps? I haven't heard that tossed around as an actual option, except by a couple of players.

No i don't think it will ever happen either. Just giving my opinion.

[golstat2003]

5 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

What about lowering the Brute hitpoint cap to 3k or so then? somewhere between scrappers and tankers. A 5% drop in brute resistance mitigations cap is not a massive amount, when a resistance brute can reach soft capped defence anyway with IO's. Going over soft capped defence does not provide much anyway except for the hardest content where you will have a lot of team buffs anyway.

 

If a brute were a little further behind a Tankers survival then a Tanker would not need as much of a Dps increase to be competetive. It would stand out again as the main Tank with ok dps and a Brute would be a decent tank but with really good dps. Rather than a brute being a great tank and great dps whilst a Tanker being a great tank but poor dps as we have now.

 

A blaster can be made pretty durable but not close to a Tanker durable. Hit point difference, regen, mitigations and defence etc. But a brute can!

And what of those Brutes who don’t soft cap with IOs? I don’t build my brutes to be tankish nor do I take taunt on them.

[Infinitum]

15 minutes ago, WumpusRat said:

Have they said they were going to lower brute resistance caps? I haven't heard that tossed around as an actual option, except by a couple of players.

No, I was responding to people bringing that up as an acceptable option. And why it wouldnt be acceptable for me.  And also why I don't think it's a fair or balanced option to do that in the grand scope of the game as it is today.

[WumpusRat]

Just now, Infinitum said:

No, I was responding to people bringing that up as an acceptable option. And why it wouldnt be acceptable for me.  And also why I don't think it's a fair or balanced option to do that in the grand scope of the game as it is today.

Ah. Yeah, I don't agree with lowering brute resistance caps either. Having their base be lower and having to work a bit harder to reach the cap is fine. I just agree with the idea that tankers need their damage raised since right now they simply have no comparison to brutes in the end-game (and often while leveling in teams, as well, since teammates can buff brutes up to reach tanker level durability, while still having all the extra damage). I think making tankers better at aoe damage gives them their own flavor, without trying to make them "brutes v2". 

[Infinitum]

6 minutes ago, WumpusRat said:

Ah. Yeah, I don't agree with lowering brute resistance caps either. Having their base be lower and having to work a bit harder to reach the cap is fine. I just agree with the idea that tankers need their damage raised since right now they simply have no comparison to brutes in the end-game (and often while leveling in teams, as well, since teammates can buff brutes up to reach tanker level durability, while still having all the extra damage). I think making tankers better at aoe damage gives them their own flavor, without trying to make them "brutes v2". 

Agree with everything you said 100%

[Infinitum]

37 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

What about lowering the Brute hitpoint cap to 3k or so then? somewhere between scrappers and tankers. A 5% drop in brute resistance mitigations cap is not a massive amount, when a resistance brute can reach soft capped defence anyway with IO's. Going over soft capped defence does not provide much anyway except for the hardest content where you will have a lot of team buffs anyway.

 

If a brute were a little further behind a Tankers survival then a Tanker would not need as much of a Dps increase to be competetive. It would stand out again as the main Tank with ok dps and a Brute would be a decent tank but with really good dps. Rather than a brute being a great tank and great dps whilst a Tanker being a great tank but poor dps as we have now.

 

 Still more mitigations and hit points than a scrapper with near comparable dps.

 

A blaster can be made pretty durable but not close to a Tanker durable. Hit point difference, regen, mitigations and defence etc. But a brute can!

I want to keep my brutes as really great tanks with reduced damage cap, and my tanks as really really good tanks with increased damage, thanks.

 

What you are suggesting is largely punitive.  That would be a disaster for builds like mine however because I would have wasted incarnate power selections then, because I picked incarnate abilities to bring my brutes closer to tank levels.  Thats the tradeoff for the increased mitigation.  Its not as easy as just doing it with sets in some cases, and again you would still have defense based brutes doing the exact same thing they are doing now.  That would only affect res based tanks and you would still have the same percieved issue through the defense based brutes.  To change that you would have to change defense for all ATs because I can build a blaster, a controller, and a defender that is defense based that can take point like any tank out there.

 

I have 3 lvl 50 tanks and 3 lvl 50 Brutes, when the tank changes roll out there will be 4 of each.  I have a shield/sj Captain Infinitum ready to roll.

 

The variety will be pretty good for either AT once the current suggested changes go live, but there is no justifiable need to penalize brute res caps any.

[Haijinx]

They are making it so Tankers can bridge the gap on damage by a fair amount, why would you then also nerf Brute's hp or resistance caps? 

 

It seems like we will end up with two tank classes.  Tankers and Brutes.  Which is just accepting the reality of Broot Life since IOs anyway.

 

We act like this is some MMO novelty.  When in reality most MMOs have more than one tanking AT 

   

 

 

[Astredax]

On 10/7/2019 at 8:38 PM, Sir Myshkin said:

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.

 

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

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

Wasn't the point of the changes to make the tank vs brute dynamic be tanks = 90% damage brute damage vs brutes = 90% tank survivability? 

 

If the best time was 1:55 on a brute and 2:09 with a tank then it's a 10% difference in damage for the absolutely most well tooled primary/secondary combo that benefits tankers the most, so wouldn't that be mission accomplished? 

[Auroxis]

1 hour ago, Astredax said:

Wasn't the point of the changes to make the tank vs brute dynamic be tanks = 90% damage brute damage vs brutes = 90% tank survivability? 

 

If the best time was 1:55 on a brute and 2:09 with a tank then it's a 10% difference in damage for the absolutely most well tooled primary/secondary combo that benefits tankers the most, so wouldn't that be mission accomplished? 

90% was just the goal to reach "at cap", not stated to be the goal for regular gameplay. Keep in mind the Tanker didn't need to build up to 70% Fury, is more resilient, and has superior AoE.

[Infinitum]

35 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

90% was just the goal to reach "at cap", not stated to be the goal for regular gameplay. Keep in mind the Tanker didn't need to build up to 70% Fury, is more resilient, and has superior AoE.

Sounds like a fun ride.  Cant wait.  Now if only we can get a meaningful EM buff.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Infinitum

[Haijinx]

45 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

90% was just the goal to reach "at cap", not stated to be the goal for regular gameplay. Keep in mind the Tanker didn't need to build up to 70% Fury, is more resilient, and has superior AoE.

It was also the most advantageous combo for tanker vs brute damage, weighted in the Tankers favor.

 

 

[Auroxis]

6 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

It was also the most advantageous combo for tanker vs brute damage, weighted in the Tankers favor.

 

 

It can also go even higher in the Tankers favor with a bit of outside damage buffs and less Fury, and it's far from the only scenario where Tankers reach similar levels of DPS while retaining their AoE/Resilience advantages.

[Haijinx]

28 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

It can also go even higher in the Tankers favor with a bit of outside damage buffs and less Fury, and it's far from the only scenario where Tankers reach similar levels of DPS while retaining their AoE/Resilience advantages.

Teamed with a lot of support types and the brute can do likewise reguarding Resilience.  

 

 

[Sir Myshkin]

2 hours ago, Astredax said:

Wasn't the point of the changes to make the tank vs brute dynamic be tanks = 90% damage brute damage vs brutes = 90% tank survivability? 

 

If the best time was 1:55 on a brute and 2:09 with a tank then it's a 10% difference in damage for the absolutely most well tooled primary/secondary combo that benefits tankers the most, so wouldn't that be mission accomplished? 

You might say that, in this specific scenario that math may work out, but unlike the Brute, in this case, the Tank reached its own damage cap, there's a ceiling in there that the Brute still (technically) had room to grow. If I had gone out and collected a group of enemies to surround me and help build up my Fury bar a little further, that case would've edge further and further into the Brute's territory.

 

But basically, yes, we're pretty much in that zone of "this is the balance [we] wanted."

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

90% was just the goal to reach "at cap", not stated to be the goal for regular gameplay. Keep in mind the Tanker didn't need to build up to 70% Fury, is more resilient, and has superior AoE.

For a fair point, when I achieved that 1:55 on the Brute, that was going in at 70% Fury, ramping up to it meant I was more likely to be around 2:10-2:15 (at best case). But, your point still stands, I just want to be fair about the evaluation of it. The Brute was definitely (same build) at a disadvantage compared to the Tank from a survival stand point.

11 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

It can also go even higher in the Tankers favor with a bit of outside damage buffs and less Fury, and it's far from the only scenario where Tankers reach similar levels of DPS while retaining their AoE/Resilience advantages.

This point, unfortunately, this is a bit incorrect. When I performed that comparison test--and this is something I think a lot of people are missing--I hit the damage cap on the Tank. The Beta value right now is 400% buff, between Rage stacking and Hybrid Assault, I hit that cap. Technically when I did the test it was before the drop from 550% to 500%, but the highest value I recalled was 394%. On the Brute the highest I recall (without reviewing the actual numbers in the recorded footage) was 536%, which left me with 64% of buff I could've taken in (iirc the drop to Brute was 700%, so 100/600?).

 

The buff to Tanks is definitely giving them a proportionate value contrast against Brutes, and is also giving them warranted application over Brutes (AoE Control/Damage radius). Just looking at this one isolated solo incident, though, there's a cap on performance where the Tank cannot go beyond, but the Brute still has a small window of growth. But, that's also exactly the way it is being balanced to so...

[Auroxis]

 

3 minutes ago, Sir Myshkin said:

This point, unfortunately, this is a bit incorrect. When I performed that comparison test--and this is something I think a lot of people are missing--I hit the damage cap on the Tank. The Beta value right now is 400% buff, between Rage stacking and Hybrid Assault, I hit that cap. Technically when I did the test it was before the drop from 550% to 500%, but the highest value I recalled was 394%. On the Brute the highest I recall (without reviewing the actual numbers in the recorded footage) was 536%, which left me with 64% of buff I could've taken in (iirc the drop to Brute was 700%, so 100/600?).

 I'm not quite sure which values you're referring to (including enhancements+musculature? Gauss proc?) but if you were constantly at that sweet spot where the Tanker is just about capped and the Brute isn't, your times should be closer to 97% than 93%. Feel free to refer to the table I posted on page 2.

 

 

[WumpusRat]

3 hours ago, Auroxis said:

90% was just the goal to reach "at cap", not stated to be the goal for regular gameplay. Keep in mind the Tanker didn't need to build up to 70% Fury, is more resilient, and has superior AoE.

And what he did was by no means "regular gameplay". Unless you want to consider a massively IO'd out and incarnated character "standard play" now, for balance purposes?

[Haijinx]

SS is only bad through cognitive bias aimed at keeping the double rage status quo.

 

There are testing results earlier in this thread showing TW like performance from the set when perma double stacked.