Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[atletikus]

23 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Not really, I fight at range with my blaster, and build for that and its hard to die the way im set up.

 

My blaster is > any of my brutes and tanks where damage is considered.  Its not even close.

Bet it's much, much, much closer than the discrepancy in survivability and even team usefulness (everyone brings damage in this game). Next roll a Sonic Blaster and compare its damage to your Brutes and Tankers.  Bet again the damage of the Blaster is not even close while the survivability is still far, far behind.

[Infinitum]

39 minutes ago, atletikus said:

Bet it's much, much, much closer than the discrepancy in survivability and even team usefulness (everyone brings damage in this game). Next roll a Sonic Blaster and compare its damage to your Brutes and Tankers.  Bet again the damage of the Blaster is not even close while the survivability is still far, far behind.

Not sure about sonic, but have seen several blaster sets and when they are along the majority of damage isn't coming from me as a brute or tank.  I will get my licks in but there's not much left after a couple of seconds.

 

What I have seen from the majority of blasters I play with is their damage is far > than mine as a brute or tank.

[Myrmidon]

2 hours ago, StratoNexus said:

Cool blaster tricks yo. Doesn't change the fact Tanker Fire Sword Circle will be larger and hit more enemies than Blaster Fire Sword Circle, while also encouraging the enemies to stay close so you can keep AoEing them, which a good thing, because it keeps them close for teammates to be safer and for them to AoE as well, but still added value over the blaster version, which often makes them run away due to the fear of having taken a lot of damage and from being on fire.

I am not saying out of hand that this is bad. I am just saying it needs to be reasonably considered. It sometimes feels we are comparing Tanker to Brute to Scrapper without considering the squishier melee that is Stalker and paritally Blaster (and possibly Dominator).

It defintely should not be dismissed out of hand by folks who think blaster Combustion uses a 1.125 modifier and who posit that blasters can reach excellent levels of indestrucibility in a bloody tanker thread. Blasters can survive fine, but in the context of this thread, calling it excellent levels of indestructibility is a bit much. 😀

Good catch and corrected. I always forget the Secondary modifiers.

 

 

 

Now, you’re making me want to take a look at a */Fire Blaster that can fight in the melee pit.😁

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, atletikus said:

Bet it's much, much, much closer than the discrepancy in survivability and even team usefulness (everyone brings damage in this game). Next roll a Sonic Blaster and compare its damage to your Brutes and Tankers.  Bet again the damage of the Blaster is not even close while the survivability is still far, far behind.

Are you looking at this from the SO/Common IO perspective?

[Captain Powerhouse]

Although blasters have a low melee damage modifier, most of the manipulation sets attack have increased recharge and damage that make them a lot harder hitting than their melee counterparts (even scrapper versions.) There should, for the most part, not be any "equal one to one" power between Melee ATs and blasters outside power pools. There are some exceptions, though.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Captain Powerhouse

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Although blasters have a low melee damage modifier, most of the manipulation sets attack have increased recharge and damage that make them a lot harder hitting than their melee counterparts (even scrapper versions.) There should, for the most part, not be any "equal one to one" power between Melee ATs and blasters outside power pools. There are some exceptions, though.

Yeah some of the newer sets don't seem to use the same longer recharge, higher damage melee attacks.

 

/martial melee attacks seem anemic compared to /energy or /electric.

 

 

[Demon Shell]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Yeah some of the newer sets don't seem to use the same longer recharge, higher damage melee attacks.

 

/martial melee attacks seem anemic compared to /energy or /electric.

Lack of Build Up probably doesn't help, especially in burst.

 

Good survival, though.

[Bossk_Hogg]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Yeah some of the newer sets don't seem to use the same longer recharge, higher damage melee attacks.

 

/martial melee attacks seem anemic compared to /energy or /electric.

 

 

Hopefully that gets fixed in the blaster pass. Right now they serve no real function, being light hitting melee attacks that do the same as your ranged attacks. But that's a blaster specific powerset issue (as is sonic) rather than a blaster AT issue. 

[Haijinx]

8 hours ago, Demon Shell said:

Lack of Build Up probably doesn't help, especially in burst.

 

Good survival, though.

the DMG boost power does decent over time I think 

 

But attacks like Storm Kick, Eagle's Claw, Dragons Tail have Scrapper like recharge times and thus correspondingly low damage for Blaster Melee attacks 

 

Ninja also has this issue.   

[MunkiLord]

22 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

Good catch and corrected. I always forget the Secondary modifiers.

 

 

 

Now, you’re making me want to take a look at a */Fire Blaster that can fight in the melee pit.😁

With the right primary(Ice!), fire is a stupidly string secondary. 

[StratoNexus]

 

23 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Although blasters have a low melee damage modifier, most of the manipulation sets attack have increased recharge and damage that make them a lot harder hitting than their melee counterparts (even scrapper versions.) There should, for the most part, not be any "equal one to one" power between Melee ATs and blasters outside power pools. There are some exceptions, though.

That is a truism amongst the single target attacks (with exceptions as you noted). For the AoE attacks, I think the opposite is true. mostly they align with their armored counterparts, with a few exceptions, several of which actually make the blaster version noticeably weaker than the armored ATs. Frozen Aura, Lotus Drops, and Shadow Maul are truly excellent examples of the blaster version being treated harshly compared to the armored ATs. Combustion is an odd example where the blaster version is slightly better, but that power is noticeably missing from the other three armored ATs, likely because of how bad it is overall. Thunderstrike is the example of a blaster AoE version with longer recharge and more damage, this power is really in the blaster's favor with a bigger AoE as well.

 

But Shadow Maul, Soul Drain, Dark Consumption, Atom Smasher, Fire Sword Circle, Burn, Frozen Aura, Dragon's Tail, Psychic Shockwave (compare to Mass Levitate), Lotus Drops, Golden Dragonfly, Thorn Burst (compare to Spine Burst), and End of Time (this does not have a melee counterpart, but is pretty much a clone of Atom Smasher) are all basically equivalent or worse than the armored version.

 

That leaves Combustion. Consume, Thunderstrike, and Ripper as adjusted to make the blaster version deal a higher damage scale (Ripper has 2 seconds increased recharge over the armored version, leaving it slightly better off relatively, although still less than scrapper damage in absolute numbers, due to the lower melee modifier).

 

11 hours ago, Haijinx said:

But attacks like Storm Kick, Eagle's Claw, Dragons Tail have Scrapper like recharge times and thus correspondingly low damage for Blaster Melee attacks 

 

Ninja also has this issue.   

While I agree Ninja needs increased recharge and damage per attack (except for Lotus Drops which needs increased damage and lowered recharge since it is messed up), the control in Martial is good enough that I prefer the slightly lower damage, but faster recharge in order to keep juggling the enemies (and applying the stun).

 

On 11/1/2019 at 11:12 AM, drbuzzard said:

Blaster combustion base damage at 50: 83.42

Tanker combustion base damage at 50: 57.83

 

So we assume the tanker boost from .8 to .95 which means *1.18 or so and the tanker is now doing 68.6. This means the tanker is doing about 82% of the damage of the blaster without even accounting for defiance. 

 

So yes, his numbers were way the heck off.

Heh. I checked the individual numbers for the Combustion damage components and the tanker versions were precisely 80% of the blaster. However, I failed to notice that the blaster version got two extra ticks of the DOT (in the same timeframe, i.e. the blaster version ticks slightly faster).

Edited November 2, 2019 by StratoNexus

[Odhinn]

Honestly, at this point I am ready for the changes to put on live. I understand the want to make sure they are close to perfect as possible and not over tuned as it is far easier to give than takeaway if need be. But, given the small percentage of players who frequent the boards and the smaller percentage who actually test it seems much more comprehensive insight would be gained by maximizing real game use of the AT with the changes.

 

After nearly two months and 80 pages of "focused" (using the term loosely) feedback it seems nearly everything has been said to the point where there is an ongoing discussion about blaster damage. Feedback has fallen into the camp of "That's not how I would do it!", "In this very specialized, synthetic test with the character maxed out X happens and I am unhappy about it!" or, "Why not do this thing you have stated multiple you can't or won't do for technical or other reasons?".

 

Who has tested by leveling up with groups in DFB or Positron TF or Talos radio missions to see how it feels? Most tests (not saying all) are ran at level 50 with incarnates and high end builds. I consider something like a Rikti Pylon to be a synthetic test that is not really indicative of the vast majority of game play where a tank is managing aggro, hitting taunt, and generally being a tank.

 

The changes as they stand have not broken anything from a technical standpoint and have not broken the game in any way. These should be released on live to the actual player base to see they affect the actual game and players enjoyment of it.

[Auroxis]

23 hours ago, Odhinn said:

Honestly, at this point I am ready for the changes to put on live. I understand the want to make sure they are close to perfect as possible and not over tuned as it is far easier to give than takeaway if need be. But, given the small percentage of players who frequent the boards and the smaller percentage who actually test it seems much more comprehensive insight would be gained by maximizing real game use of the AT with the changes.

Once the changes go live it's a lot harder to pull them back since you're buffing the class and redefining its identity. Once players get used to the numbers and make full use of them with a hefty time investment, It's a lot harder to nerf and invalidate the time they spent with the class due to the changes.

Quote

After nearly two months and 80 pages of "focused" (using the term loosely) feedback it seems nearly everything has been said to the point where there is an ongoing discussion about blaster damage. Feedback has fallen into the camp of "That's not how I would do it!", "In this very specialized, synthetic test with the character maxed out X happens and I am unhappy about it!" or, "Why not do this thing you have stated multiple you can't or won't do for technical or other reasons?".

That's incorrect if you're trying to describe what I was saying. I don't like repeating myself (which is why I've been abstaining from posting ITT), but I can't have people putting words in my mouth.

 

Firstly, in multiple scenarios where the Tanker is buffed moderately (before becoming "maxed out") It matches the Brute's damage output while having superior AoE and resilience. I've given these numbers multiple times.

 

Secondly, I dislike removing Bruising as a support option for the Tanker as it nerfs an aspect of the class that I enjoy (support) in favor of a boring damage increase that just puts it in direct competition with Brute as a damage class.

 

Lastly, I don't like how inconsistent the AoE changes are (the 90deg rule, 10ft rule and inconsistent target cap increases). Some powersets got a massive buff (like Staff and War Mace), some didn't (like TW and Spines) and that would make the affected sets more difficult to balance in the future as well as making the tooltips confusing to players.

Quote

Who has tested by leveling up with groups in DFB or Positron TF or Talos radio missions to see how it feels? Most tests (not saying all) are ran at level 50 with incarnates and high end builds. I consider something like a Rikti Pylon to be a synthetic test that is not really indicative of the vast majority of game play where a tank is managing aggro, hitting taunt, and generally being a tank.

Along with the pylon and regular gameplay tests in incarnate builds, I've given number comparisons at multiple tiers of damage buffs which simulate different levels of play.

Quote

The changes as they stand have not broken anything from a technical standpoint and have not broken the game in any way. These should be released on live to the actual player base to see they affect the actual game and players enjoyment of it.

Just because something doesn't break anything doesn't mean it should be a release candidate. Like I mentioned above, it's a lot harder to nerf stuff once the changes go live.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Auroxis

[golstat2003]

With that said I think this is as close to a release candidate as we’re going to get with these Sets of  changes. Additional changes are probably coming in the next patch, but this particular iteration has been talked to death. The next step is a NEW patch with additional changes, some probably different things (likely) and releasing this iteration to production as is (very less likely).

[Bopper]

10 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

With that said I think this is as close to a release candidate as we’re going to get with these Sets of  changes. Additional changes are probably coming in the next patch, but this particular iteration has been talked to death. The next step is a NEW patch with additional changes, some probably different things (likely) and releasing this iteration to production as is (very less likely).

I wouldn't be surprised if they remove the increase to max targets on tanker attacks. 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Bopper

[Odhinn]

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

Once the changes go live it's a lot harder to pull them back ...

 

Not disagreeing at all. Though I would point out that even if a character is abandoned it does not invalidate the fun of having played the character.

 

Quote

 

buffing the class and redefining it's identity

 

I do not think that allowing the Tanker to actually do meaningful damage is a redefinition of the AT. It seems more in line with the original definition as well as putting it more in line with the comic book origins of the AT.

 

Quote

but I can't have people putting words in my mouth.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth but a summation of how various post from more than one source have read. I was not attempting to point fingers at any individual player. (Well, I do recall one message I saw somewhere asking why a tank needs to do any damage at all.)

 

2 hours ago, Auroxis said:

Firstly, in multiple scenarios where the Tanker is buffed moderately (before becoming "maxed out") It matches the Brute's damage output while having superior AoE and resilience. I've given these numbers multiple times.

Not so sure if about superior resilience most brutes are just a skittle or two away from having the same resilience as a tank. To say nothing of outside buffs.
 

Quote

 

I dislike removing Bruising as a support option for the Tanker as it nerfs an aspect of the class that I enjoy (support) .

 

I understand that, I like the aspect of aggro management and being the hero's hero. Where bruising is concerned in my testing I have noticed the damage increase far more than I ever have bruising. I also tend to run in small groups often as a duo or trio.

 

2 hours ago, Auroxis said:

Along with the pylon and regular gameplay tests in incarnate builds, I've given number comparisons at multiple tiers of damage buffs which simulate different levels of play.

You absolutely have and I think it is great that you have. I just may disagree with some of the conclusions drawn from those numbers. I think we both agree the first pass was a bit over tuned. (Though I was really hoping for the endurance boost.) The entire crux of my post is that the test bed is too small a fraction of the player base to determine the real gameplay impact of the changes as they stand.

 

On a raid where players are buffed from multiple sources almost everyone is as survivable as the tank. When a team gets together that is all T4 incarnates with a billion inf build almost everyone is as survivable as the tank. What we don't know is how is that level 38 tank with the generic IO's and a bad build who is waiting for 50 to respec affected? How is the player still learning the game being or learning to tank affected or the players whose rotation is crap? I would just like the largest group of players possible to be able to glean input from.

3 hours ago, Auroxis said:

Just because something doesn't break anything doesn't mean it should be a release candidate. Like I mentioned above, it's a lot harder to nerf stuff once the changes go live.

Once more I do not disagree at all. That said I feel players as whole would rather have the changes and face some potential nerfs if they already knew it was a possibility. Much like the /enterbasefrompasscode.

 

May I just add that it is not my intention to insult anybody or to minimize one's input even if I disagree. I simply want the best CoH possible.

[DarknessEternal]

On 11/3/2019 at 1:24 PM, Bopper said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they remove the increase to max targets on tanker attacks. 

I hope they do remove those.  That change is what would obsolete brutes instead of the damage ones.

[Rooks]

Has anyone brought up the possibility of the aoe increasing inherent doing a little bit of base -dmg on affected powers to make up for an increased target cap, say 5/10%? To try to put off would-be farmers and aoe minmaxers from switching to tankers just for damage?

Edited November 5, 2019 by Rooks

[Moka]

16 hours ago, Rooks said:

Has anyone brought up the possibility of the aoe increasing inherent doing a little bit of base -dmg on affected powers to make up for an increased target cap, say 5/10%? To try to put off would-be farmers and aoe minmaxers from switching to tankers just for damage?

Do you want -dmg on the player or the enemies? I do not think tanker damage needs to be lowered at all. 

[Rooks]

1 hour ago, Moka said:

Do you want -dmg on the player or the enemies? I do not think tanker damage needs to be lowered at all. 

Sorry yeah I meant on the actual damage of the power, not adding a debuff to enemies.

 

I haven't kept up with this thread in a while but I assume since it's still going there are still some issues with what's being proposed despite page upon page of discussion. The issue for some seems to be a fear that tankers will be both a top end aoe dmg dealer (even if only in extreme scenarios) because of increased target caps as well as the hardest AT to kill in the game.

 

I think the increased target caps are a nice differentiation from other melee ATs and so think it's worth keeping. Just having increased aoe size on big teams would be kind of redundant asked imo most will be fully saturated at the old caps anyway.

 

If the debuff is kept low enough it would still be a net gain in raw damage per target hit over live anyway, and might lower edge cases of tanks doing better damage than dps ATs or at least put people off trying to use tankers as a dps AT

 

But if it's a case of "no compromise is good enough, because tankers are never meant to actually deal damage in any way under any circumstance" then just ignore me and keep arguing lol. Just remove the secondaries and give us 9 taunts lol.

 

For the record I love the changes as they are, or at least as they were last iterated on that I saw (which is probably closer to the beginning of October lol) and I'd love to see them or an iteration of them go live at some point, because I think it deals appropriately with a lot of the issues I've noticed running tankers, particularly at high levels and in large groups

[Moka]

It just means brutes will have to work harder. Brutes have been an effortless cruise control AT ever since IOs came out and have sort of "nullified" tankers for a long time. Now brutes will actually have to work if they want to do damage, but as long as they're working, they will always outperform a tanker in terms of actual damage, even with a shorter cone.

[golstat2003]

18 minutes ago, Moka said:

It just means brutes will have to work harder. Brutes have been an effortless cruise control AT ever since IOs came out and have sort of "nullified" tankers for a long time. Now brutes will actually have to work if they want to do damage, but as long as they're working, they will always outperform a tanker in terms of actual damage, even with a shorter cone.

LOL, most of the brutes I see on team really don't care if they are outdamaging a tanker or not, if one is on the team. They just go in and "H<redacted for copyright>K SMASH!"

 

I think folks are too obsessed about who does more damage or doesn't.

 

Are things dieing? Brute and the Fury mechanic is doing its job (or any damage at really)

Are things being pulled at the tank so that squishes on the team don't die? Tank and Taunt, etc is doing it's job.

 

EDIT: I don't think giving tanks a little more damage is going send most brutes into the corner worrying about working harder. They will joust go about their business.

Edited November 6, 2019 by golstat2003

[ironjoe]

I'm just checking back here every few days to see when the next beta patch drops for testing. The conversation has wandered so wide all over I don't really have much to add. Just hoping to see that next beta patch drop soon so we can try the various iterations.

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, golstat2003 said:

LOL, most of the brutes I see on team really don't care if they are outdamaging a tanker or not, if one is on the team. They just go in and "H<redacted for copyright>K SMASH!"

 

I think folks are too obsessed about who does more damage or doesn't.

 

Are things dieing? Brute and the Fury mechanic is doing its job (or any damage at really)

Are things being pulled at the tank so that squishes on the team don't die? Tank and Taunt, etc is doing it's job.

 

EDIT: I don't think giving tanks a little more damage is going send most brutes into the corner worrying about working harder. They will joust go about their business.

This is My experience as well, my shield tanker doesnt do quite as much damage as my rad elec or psi Elec but it's fun enough with shield charge and street justice to where I dont care honestly - in fact its more fun for me than those are.

 

It does pretty good damage also, a good team will make all that irrelevant anyway. 

[DarknessEternal]

22 hours ago, Moka said:

It just means brutes will have to work harder. Brutes have been an effortless cruise control AT ever since IOs came out and have sort of "nullified" tankers for a long time. Now brutes will actually have to work if they want to do damage, but as long as they're working, they will always outperform a tanker in terms of actual damage, even with a shorter cone.

If the current aoe changes to tanks goes live, there’s no amount of work a brute could do to out damage tank.

 

It’s mathematically impossible.

Edited November 7, 2019 by DarknessEternal