Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Leogunner]

10 hours 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.

Quantitatively, one would then question this rather than tip toe around it or toss your hands up and surrender.

 

If it's a small nerf for one but a huge nerf for another, then that another must have been getting a disproportionate benefit from something thus it's going to warrant taking into account.  It does no one any favors to just ignore it.  Like, if we could find something that is only a minor nerf to every build but Titan Weapons which would actually be strongly nerfed, that MIGHT just be something to look into.

[Sir Myshkin]

3 hours ago, Auroxis said:

 I'm not quite sure which values you're referring to (including enhancements+musculature? Gauss proc?)

While actively playing, the total buff-capable cap Tankers are set to is 400%. That value I was able to hit between Hybrid, a few lingering +Dam bonuses, the Assault changes, double stacked Rage, and the Gaussian's proc. It was a small 5/s window of opportunity, but it's still there, every 70/s (no sense in wasting it during the crash). The Brute goal-post is currently 600% (I believe, I didn't actually confirm/double check that). More common balance point while Hybrid was running the Tank typically sat ~300%.

 

With the Brute, following the same build (but not getting that same Assault differential), at stabilizing around 70% Fury, its damage window spiked up up to ~530%. Same deal, while Hybrid was running, ~400% common balance point.

 

I wouldn't try and look at that as hard-math, Hybrid causes spastic jumping up and down, I could've gone from 344% to 420% in a heartbeat. I don't do the math, I just do the testing, and that's what you would see on the screen cap.

 

Whether you continue to isolate on a solo stand point, or if you do want to include team buff potential in there, my point was still the fact that the Brute(s) still have a wider gap they can fill. The Tanker is closer to its peak potential than the Brute because the Tanker ceiling is much lower.

 

2 hours ago, Sylar said:

but i was wondering, and i think it is fair to suggest but maybe altering super strength to be good again?

Revisit the last couple of pages. You might not personally like the style and approach of Super Strength, but it is by-far from being in a "bad" spot. In its current incarnation it is vastly above the curve in damage potential. Sadly, I don't mean this in a positive way, either.

[Infinitum]

28 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Quantitatively, one would then question this rather than tip toe around it or toss your hands up and surrender.

 

If it's a small nerf for one but a huge nerf for another, then that another must have been getting a disproportionate benefit from something thus it's going to warrant taking into account.  It does no one any favors to just ignore it.  Like, if we could find something that is only a minor nerf to every build but Titan Weapons which would actually be strongly nerfed, that MIGHT just be something to look into.

So what exactly are you saying nerf all of melee now just to get at TW?

 

We aren't talking about disproportionate benefits, but varied design - so varied you can't reliably quantify or qualify how buffs or nerfs would affect a set because there are so many different design options - that honestly should be there as an endgame reward for any that takes the time to enjoy that part of the game.

 

I think here you are talking about nerfs too much without actually quantifying or qualifying what you are really saying.

 

Some of you losing sleep about what can min max and how blows my mind, just sit back and enjoy the freaking game without trying to talk about mythical game breaking set balance.

 

It's like you can't rest because people are enjoying being powerful in many different ways and avenues to get there.

 

Just enjoy the game, it's not broken.

[Haijinx]

12 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

So what exactly are you saying nerf all of melee now just to get at TW?

 

We aren't talking about disproportionate benefits, but varied design - so varied you can't reliably quantify or qualify how buffs or nerfs would affect a set because there are so many different design options - that honestly should be there as an endgame reward for any that takes the time to enjoy that part of the game.

 

I think here you are talking about nerfs too much without actually quantifying or qualifying what you are really saying.

 

Some of you losing sleep about what can min max and how blows my mind, just sit back and enjoy the freaking game without trying to talk about mythical game breaking set balance.

 

It's like you can't rest because people are enjoying being powerful in many different ways and avenues to get there.

 

Just enjoy the game, it's not broken.

You might be reading a bit into Leogunner said.  It only sounded like an example.  

 

 

[Megajoule]

Infinitum is opposed to any nerfs, large or small, for any reason whatsoever.

[Infinitum]

23 minutes ago, Megajoule said:

Infinitum is opposed to any nerfs, large or small, for any reason whatsoever.

 

11 hours ago, Infinitum said:

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.

holy crap i guess nemesis mind controlled me there or cot possessed me or something there then.

[Leogunner]

41 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

So what exactly are you saying nerf all of melee now just to get at TW?

 

I do believe I didn't say that.  I said LOOK INTO IT.

 

42 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

We aren't talking about disproportionate benefits, but varied design - so varied you can't reliably quantify or qualify how buffs or nerfs would affect a set because there are so many different design options - that honestly should be there as an endgame reward for any that takes the time to enjoy that part of the game.

 

It might only seem that way until you put forth the bit of brainpower to contemplate these variables.

 

43 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I think here you are talking about nerfs too much without actually quantifying or qualifying what you are really saying.

 

Some of you losing sleep about what can min max and how blows my mind, just sit back and enjoy the freaking game without trying to talk about mythical game breaking set balance.

 

It's like you can't rest because people are enjoying being powerful in many different ways and avenues to get there.

 

Just enjoy the game, it's not broken.

 

Well first of all, this is a beta thread on experimental test changes.  Not a nerf.

 

Secondly, you should be losing sleep or at the least expending effort, if you're actually testing anything.  This isn't the thread to sit back and enjoy the freaking game lol

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Leogunner said:

 

I do believe I didn't say that.  I said LOOK INTO IT.

 

 

It might only seem that way until you put forth the bit of brainpower to contemplate these variables.

 

 

Well first of all, this is a beta thread on experimental test changes.  Not a nerf.

 

Secondly, you should be losing sleep or at the least expending effort, if you're actually testing anything.  This isn't the thread to sit back and enjoy the freaking game lol

1. You suggested it, do you know how many hairbrained suggestions like that get legs and run on here? I wont dredge them back up, but a lot.

 

2. You literally cant, if you would think about the issue you would realize that, you literally cant account for all the set variables that are in someones head(s). Maybe common IOs could be the standard, but Sets could literally take you any number of different ways.  What may not affect one set build could greatly affect another.  Its not a AT issue its a Set issue.

 

3. I know, I have been testing them, and as i stated i think they are awesome changes. However nerfing brute resistance caps based on Max Level builds keeps coming up, and i am against that.

 

4. Im not losing sleep, Im enjoying the freaking game, and yes it is because if its about anything else - thats too much like work. 

 

I have tested the current changes on both tanks and brutes and I see a lot of possibility with one and Nothing lost with the other.  I think its a good way to bridge the gap between the two and Give us two similar yet different tanky options to play with.

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

 

I have tested the current changes on both tanks and brutes and I see a lot of possibility with one and Nothing lost with the other.  I think its a good way to bridge the gap between the two and Give us two similar yet different tanky options to play with

This right here. More options are always better than less.

[Auroxis]

3 hours ago, Sir Myshkin said:

While actively playing, the total buff-capable cap Tankers are set to is 400%. That value I was able to hit between Hybrid, a few lingering +Dam bonuses, the Assault changes, double stacked Rage, and the Gaussian's proc. It was a small 5/s window of opportunity, but it's still there, every 70/s (no sense in wasting it during the crash). The Brute goal-post is currently 600% (I believe, I didn't actually confirm/double check that). More common balance point while Hybrid was running the Tank typically sat ~300%.

In that case I was correct in saying a bit more damage buffs would put the Tanker even closer to the Brute for DPS(and an even bigger AoE advantage), since you weren't at the Tanker's cap for the majority of the time.

Quote

Whether you continue to isolate on a solo stand point, or if you do want to include team buff potential in there, my point was still the fact that the Brute(s) still have a wider gap they can fill. The Tanker is closer to its peak potential than the Brute because the Tanker ceiling is much lower.

But the Brute's cap is also harder to reach than the Tanker's, because even with maxed Hybrid Core, Musculature and double Rage you only hit the Tanker's cap when the gauss proc was active. The Tanker ceiling is not "much" lower either due to the modifiers, in a scenario where both classes are capped the numbers wouldn't change much from your test results.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Auroxis

[Auroxis]

6 hours ago, WumpusRat said:

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?

While also giving the Brute a Fury head-start and an attacking foe to maintain it.

 

Regardless this is far from the only scenario where Tanker reaches 90% or more of the Brute's DPS. That'd be fine in a vacuum, but there's also AoE and resilience to consider where the Tanker has a big advantage.

[DSorrow]

On 10/9/2019 at 8:39 AM, Sir Myshkin said:

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.

This is a point I'd really like to highlight. I don't farm merits, AE or anything else but all my 8 50s are fully kitted out. My most expensive character up to date was my Blaster whose build is basically 100% comprised of Winter sets, ATOs, purples and interesting uniques/globals at a total of 800M buy-it-now, with my average build probably coming in at around 600M. Inf is spectacularly easy to make if you spend a little time researching the different methods, and even if you don't, getting a fully maxed out build doesn't take all that long even through normal gameplay.

 

Consider that a build with 2 full ATO sets (1200 merits), 4 five piece purple sets (2000 merits), 50 rare IOs (2500 merits) and the rest generic IOs costs a total of 5700 merits. Most TFs reward you with around 1 merit per minute so those alone get you there in 5700 minutes or 95 hours. Once you factor in random drops, influence gain and veteran level ups that can be converted into merits, even if you don't spend all your time in semi-efficient activities such as the 1 merit/min TFs, I'd find it extremely unlikely it would take much more than 100 hours to get there. If you're willing to settle for a 100-200M build that is still far ahead any SO build, you can get there in a couple of dozen hours. Hell, even a frankenslotted 10M IO build is massively better than a pure SO build and achievable by doing the Market Crash once (<1h).

 

I still think the baseline performance of sets should be balanced around SOs, but I agree with @Sir Myshkin that at this point it would be quite stupid to completely ignore the general implications of IOs (global recharge and survivability increases, mostly).

Edited October 10, 2019 by DSorrow

[WumpusRat]

4 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

Consider that a build with 2 full ATO sets (1200 merits), 4 five piece purple sets (2000 merits), 50 rare IOs (2500 merits) and the rest generic IOs costs a total of 5700 merits. Most TFs reward you with around 1 merit per minute so those alone get you there in 5700 minutes or 95 hours. Once you factor in random drops, influence gain and veteran level ups that can be converted into merits, even if you don't spend all your time in semi-efficient such as the 1 merit/min TFs, I'd find it extremely unlikely it would take much more than 100 hours to get there. If you're willing to settle for a 100-200M build that is still far ahead any SO build, you can get that in a couple of dozen hours.

My current Inv/SS tanker is fully kitted out, and I spent probably a grand total of 50 million on her. I bought the two ATO sets for 1200 merits, and everything else was either bought via recipe and crafted, or converted into what I wanted by starting with an uncommon junk item. All total, I probably spent about 150 merits converting stuff, so 1350ish merits and ~50 million for my full build, which has all the heal set procs, 5 LotG globals, gladiator and steadfast +def, 5 unbreakable guard sets, etc. Converting junk recipes into something useful can save you a HUGE amount of money. Especially if you get even a tiny bit lucky. Typically I'd blip something around in the uncommon random until it got a defense/resist/heal set, then flip it through that until I got the set I wanted, then do an in-set conversion. Longest one was like 30 flips, which ended up being about 45 converters, or 15 merits. But 15 merits for a LotG global? Sure. 🙂

[DSorrow]

Just now, WumpusRat said:

My current Inv/SS tanker is fully kitted out, and I spent probably a grand total of 50 million on her. I bought the two ATO sets for 1200 merits, and everything else was either bought via recipe and crafted, or converted into what I wanted by starting with an uncommon junk item. All total, I probably spent about 150 merits converting stuff, so 1350ish merits and ~50 million for my full build, which has all the heal set procs, 5 LotG globals, gladiator and steadfast +def, 5 unbreakable guard sets, etc. Converting junk recipes into something useful can save you a HUGE amount of money. Especially if you get even a tiny bit lucky. Typically I'd blip something around in the uncommon random until it got a defense/resist/heal set, then flip it through that until I got the set I wanted, then do an in-set conversion. Longest one was like 30 flips, which ended up being about 45 converters, or 15 merits. But 15 merits for a LotG global? Sure. 🙂

I'd probably do that too if I wanted to maximize my influence efficiency. 30mins to 1 hour of playing the market per week gets me around 600-1000M by the time a new character hits level 50 so I opt to just get most of my sets from the WW at buy-it-now prices because it's quick and convenient, plus at least for me there's no other use for inf.

[FUBARczar]

On 10/3/2019 at 9:06 PM, Demon Shell said:

 

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

yeah, I've always thought a little energy damage and -res as a sort of sonic attack.  Could stay PBAoE or more focused into a cone like Frost.   It could well be the single change SS needs now that Rage is *settled,* not counting a reasonable tweak to Jab,

[Infinitum]

3 hours ago, DSorrow said:

I'd probably do that too if I wanted to maximize my influence efficiency. 30mins to 1 hour of playing the market per week gets me around 600-1000M by the time a new character hits level 50 so I opt to just get most of my sets from the WW at buy-it-now prices because it's quick and convenient, plus at least for me there's no other use for inf.

Do you mean 30min - 1 hr per day per week?  Or 30min - 1 hr total per week?

[Snakebit]

On 10/9/2019 at 7:24 AM, 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.

Sure you can. There are limited nimbers of sets. Of those sets, only one combination is the best, everything else will fall off until you reach the performance levels of common IOs. If we draw an arbitrary line between common IOs and max performance and use that as a baseline for balance, then sets that don't reach that base line will underperfoem and sets that exceed the baseline will overachiever.

 

Data mining will give you information on the most common set bonuses and tell you that only x% of the AT has slotted over the base and that x% has slotted under the base.

 

Then you can contrast that data against the same data for other ATs and come to a reasonable conclusion about how well balanced the ATs are in relation to one another. Which is all you need because the Player vs AI balance left the building a decade hence.

 

You could however use that data  to tweak future content. Ala Market Crash type content, but with buffed mobs. Imagine a mob group that is (sky raiders+100% damage +25% defense) on normal. 

[TheSpiritFox]

My Rad/fire brute is irritated that his farming is being nerfed. 

I don't see this as a brute nerf. I see this as an influence making nerf. And as such, I disagree wholeheartedly and think it should stop. The nerf "Won't affect most people"

You're right. It affects farmers specifically, lowering our inspiration macro farm pace. With good inspiration drops I stay damage capped for several minutes at a time. This is basically just a nerf to farm clear time, and to that I say I have kids man come on let me fucking farm fast I don't have all day to sit around on this old ass broken unoptimized grindfest that I can't seem to let go of. 

[Infinitum]

12 minutes ago, TheSpiritFox said:

My Rad/fire brute is irritated that his farming is being nerfed. 

I don't see this as a brute nerf. I see this as an influence making nerf. And as such, I disagree wholeheartedly and think it should stop. The nerf "Won't affect most people"

You're right. It affects farmers specifically, lowering our inspiration macro farm pace. With good inspiration drops I stay damage capped for several minutes at a time. This is basically just a nerf to farm clear time, and to that I say I have kids man come on let me fucking farm fast I don't have all day to sit around on this old ass broken unoptimized grindfest that I can't seem to let go of. 

It doesn't slow it down that much honestly.  I didn't notice any slow down actually.  If it is there its miniscule.

 

Did you roll yours in test to see how it felt?

[Doc_Scorpion]

1 hour ago, cejmp said:

Sure you can. There are limited nimbers of sets. Of those sets, only one combination is the best

Best at...  what?  Your whole scheme of balancing against IO's is based on the flawed assumption that there is only One True Build for each AT.
 

1 hour ago, cejmp said:

Data mining will give you information on the most common set bonuses

Data mining will give you information on the most popular builds.  What happens to my scrapper (who is increasingly biased towards being a killing machine) if it turns out that living bricks are the most popular scrapper build?  By default, if you're building around the most common, you're disadvantaging those folks who don't play/build around the most popular philosophy.

In the case of Brutes, there's a pretty good chance you'll be defining the One True Build as a farmer, almost certainly a fire farmer.  Oh, sure, in theory you can balance by AT/primary/secondary...  But now you've increased the amount of work required exponentially.  Brutes have 216 different potential combinations of primary/secondary - add in power pools (of all flavors) and your potential number of builds to balance soars into four figures.  (And you can't ignore power pools, they're a popular place to mule IOs.)

Even the Live dev team (larger than the current one and likely larger than any possible current one) couldn't keep up with keeping even one AT completely balanced within itself...  let alone against all the others.  That's why, after multiple Issues across a span of years, we're even having this discussion....  because, as the game is currently played, tanks are disadvantaged in group play.

And that's not even mentioning the question of what level you start balancing around IO's...  Twinking is a thing, and I'm seeing heavily IOed builds as far down as the low teens.

[Snakebit]

7 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

Best at...  what?  Your whole scheme of balancing against IO's is based on the flawed assumption that there is only One True Build for each AT

There is. The build with capped resists, softcapped defenses, and peak damage output be it from raw damage or recharge for slots available. 

 

 That's the peak performer for xp/time.  

[golstat2003]

8 minutes ago, Doc_Scorpion said:

Best at...  what?  Your whole scheme of balancing against IO's is based on the flawed assumption that there is only One True Build for each AT.
 

Data mining will give you information on the most popular builds.  What happens to my scrapper (who is increasingly biased towards being a killing machine) if it turns out that living bricks are the most popular scrapper build?  By default, if you're building around the most common, you're disadvantaging those folks who don't play/build around the most popular philosophy.

In the case of Brutes, there's a pretty good chance you'll be defining the One True Build as a farmer, almost certainly a fire farmer.  Oh, sure, in theory you can balance by AT/primary/secondary...  But now you've increased the amount of work required exponentially.  Brutes have 216 different potential combinations of primary/secondary - add in power pools (of all flavors) and your potential number of builds to balance soars into four figures.  (And you can't ignore power pools, they're a popular place to mule IOs.)

Even the Live dev team (larger than the current one and likely larger than any possible current one) couldn't keep up with keeping even one AT completely balanced within itself...  let alone against all the others.  That's why, after multiple Issues across a span of years, we're even having this discussion....  because, as the game is currently played, tanks are disadvantaged in group play.

And that's not even mentioning the question of what level you start balancing around IO's...  Twinking is a thing, and I'm seeing heavily IOed builds as far down as the low teens.

Pretty much better explained than the explanation that I gave earlier in the thread about the level of complexity folks aren't considering.

 

This doesn't even get into what happens at level 50 when you throw Incarnate abilities on top of that. Or are we going to look at IOs for balance but then ignore Incarnate abilities? Also some folks use purples and Attuned, while scale down to appropriate levels. And some don't. They just use set IOs that you lose the function of depending on their level.

[golstat2003]

Just now, cejmp said:

There is. The build with capped resists, softcapped defenses, and peak damage output be it from raw damage or recharge for slots available. 

 

 That's the peak performer for xp/time.  

Balance should NOT be around peak performance time, or "one true IO builds". Plenty of folks DON'T softacap their Brutes, Blasters, Controllers ETC.

 

Or are we saying we'll only look at balance by IOs for Brutes and Tanks only?

 

Aka what farmers do can be taken into consideration but it sure as hell should not be considered the "one true build".

[Snakebit]

Just now, golstat2003 said:

Or are we going to look at IOs for balance but then ignore Incarnate abilities?

I would say ignore it. There is dedicated iContent. Even though most people don't play it all that much, there is still content for that bracket.

[Snakebit]

Just now, golstat2003 said:

Balance should NOT be around peak performance time, or "one true IO builds". Plenty of folks DON'T softacap their Brutes, Blasters, Controllers ETC.

I didn't say it should. I didn't even say anything like that.