Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Infinitum]

53 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

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

 

It’s mathematically impossible.

Show the math then, because I'm not sure what I have seen in testing them backs up what you just said.  

 

My experience with both actually still gives an edge to brutes in overall damage when attacking with a built up fury bar.  But they are closer in line with each other now which is the goal.

 

Even if what you said were true I still wouldn't stop playing my brutes because they are awesome.

[golstat2003]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Show the math then, because I'm not sure what I have seen in testing them backs up what you just said.  

 

My experience with both actually still gives an edge to brutes in overall damage when attacking with a built up fury bar.  But they are closer in line with each other now which is the goal.

 

Even if what you said were true I still wouldn't stop playing my brutes because they are awesome.

pretty much where I am on the emphasized part. If I want to hold aggro, I jump on a tank. If I want to smash I jump on a brute. If tanks can now do damage great, but that's a side benefit to me of when I'm playing a tank. Most of the time I DON'T want to hold aggro, or play a scrapper. So I play something that can SMASH. Stalker when I want to solo with some speed in clearing missions.

[Captain Powerhouse]

So far, in my own testing and data-mining, the only places I found tankers beat brute all involve having enemies literally rain on top of the tanker (in a kill 100 test.) Killing waves (with minions dying before higher rank enemies and intermittently lowering target saturation) the brute takes a clear advantage.

 

There are some scenarios of slight concern: Super Strength and procs, and Rage being fleeting on teams if the Brute is not tanking.

• Fury gain on teams is being tweaked on next patch (whenever that hits, sorry got no ETA on that yet.)
• SS can have a marginal advantage over the brute equivalent IF the builds don't both have Epic Pools. This also happens to cut two ways, though. SS relies so much on self +dmg, that as soon as a Kin or damage buffer joins the party (or tons of reds are popped,) ANY other set becomes superior to SS. This all will be looked at in the not so faraway future, hopefully.
• Procs are an issue, in great part because they ignore AT modifiers. I know this is not going to be popular but they will be looked at sooner or later. When they were introduced and made to ignore AT mods, it was also expected they would be ridiculously rare and have very low flat chances to trigger. But that's an IO issue, not an AT or set issue.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Captain Powerhouse

[Gobbledigook]

With a few outside buffs a Brute can easily closely match a Tanks survival. So a Tank should be close to a Brutes damage with some buffs . All is fair.

 

If a Brute thinks they should do significantly more damage, then a Tank should stay significantly ahead in survival. Best way to ensure this is to lower the Brutes Survival slightly, then it can justify having the higher dps. It would be a dps off tank, Capable of Tanking just like Kheldians are but not as efectively as a Tanker but deal more damage. Or just increase the Tankers Damage  close to Brute capability with a few buffs, as is currently happening on test

 

Some Brutes seem to think they should have it all.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Gobbledegook

[Demon Shell]

5 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

• Procs are an issue, in great part because they ignore AT modifiers. I know this is not going to be popular but they will be looked at sooner or later. When they were introduced and made to ignore AT mods, it was also expected they would be ridiculously rare and have very low flat chances to trigger. But that's an IO issue, not an AT or set issue.

[Worry for Controller Jolting Chain intensifies]

[DarknessEternal]

55 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Show the math then, because I'm not sure what I have seen in testing them backs up what you just said.  

 

Ok.

 

Brute damage scalar is .75.  Damage cap is 7.  Max targets is 10.

Tank damage scalar is .9.  Damage cap is 5.  Max targets is 16.

 

Brute single target = .75 * 7 = 5.25.

Tank single target = .9 * 5 = 4.5

 

This is fine.  Brute does more damage.

 

Brute aoe = .75 * 7 * 10 = 52.5

Tank aoe = .9 * 5 * 16 = 72

 

Tank does more damage.  This is not fine.

 

Nothing either AT can do to change those as they are maximums.

 

Max target increase on Tank powers is the only part of the Tank/Brute changes that is objectionable.  There should not be a situation where Tank has both better damage and better survivability than Brue, else we are just back to this boat where one AT is objectively better than the other.  This is especially a problem because hitting maximum number of targets is the most common scenario for anyone also working hard enough to reach damage caps, eg any high end gameplay.

[DarknessEternal]

14 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

So far, in my own testing and data-mining, the only places I found tankers beat brute all involve having enemies literally rain on top of the tanker (in a kill 100 test.) Killing waves (with minions dying before higher rank enemies and intermittently lowering target saturation) the brute takes a clear advantage.

 

So, all end game content then?  The most common scenario where any caps matter at all?  This is the scenario you need to not allow.

[Gobbledigook]

18 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

Ok.

 

Brute damage scalar is .75.  Damage cap is 7.  Max targets is 10.

Tank damage scalar is .9.  Damage cap is 5.  Max targets is 16.

 

Brute single target = .75 * 7 = 5.25.

Tank single target = .9 * 5 = 4.5

 

This is fine.  Brute does more damage.

 

Brute aoe = .75 * 7 * 10 = 52.5

Tank aoe = .9 * 5 * 16 = 72

 

Tank does more damage.  This is not fine.

 

Nothing either AT can do to change those as they are maximums.

 

Max target increase on Tank powers is the only part of the Tank/Brute changes that is objectionable.  There should not be a situation where Tank has both better damage and better survivability than Brue, else we are just back to this boat where one AT is objectively better than the other.  This is especially a problem because hitting maximum number of targets is the most common scenario for anyone also working hard enough to reach damage caps, eg any high end gameplay.

There should also not be a situation where Brutes have matching Tanker survival but much higher Dps.

 

The Brute is better single target damage and the Tanker better AoE fully buffed? but both are near equal in survival fully buffed? Doable lol with a few small adjustments.

 

All tanker AoEs could be 15ft and max targets of 13 or so.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Gobbledegook

[golstat2003]

38 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

With a few outside buffs a Brute can easily closely match a Tanks survival. So a Tank should be close to a Brutes damage with some buffs . All is fair.

 

If a Brute thinks they should do significantly more damage, then a Tank should stay significantly ahead in survival. Best way to ensure this is to lower the Brutes Survival slightly, then it can justify having the higher dps. It would be a dps off tank, Capable of Tanking just like Kheldians are but not as efectively as a Tanker but deal more damage. Or just increase the Tankers Damage  close to Brute capability with a few buffs, as is currently happening on test

 

Some Brutes seem to think they should have it all.

Nope. The only thing they should do is buff tank damage that is all. No further nerfs are necessary. I really don't care if tanks and brutes are equal. Most players don't either. If a tank can now substitute for a brute in terms of damage that is fine. If a brute can tank (which they certainly can) I see no issue with that and no need to do anything about that. At all.

[golstat2003]

29 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

Ok.

 

Brute damage scalar is .75.  Damage cap is 7.  Max targets is 10.

Tank damage scalar is .9.  Damage cap is 5.  Max targets is 16.

 

Brute single target = .75 * 7 = 5.25.

Tank single target = .9 * 5 = 4.5

 

This is fine.  Brute does more damage.

 

Brute aoe = .75 * 7 * 10 = 52.5

Tank aoe = .9 * 5 * 16 = 72

 

Tank does more damage.  This is not fine.

 

Nothing either AT can do to change those as they are maximums.

 

Max target increase on Tank powers is the only part of the Tank/Brute changes that is objectionable.  There should not be a situation where Tank has both better damage and better survivability than Brue, else we are just back to this boat where one AT is objectively better than the other.  This is especially a problem because hitting maximum number of targets is the most common scenario for anyone also working hard enough to reach damage caps, eg any high end gameplay.

So make them equal. And do it with buffs. Not nerfs.

[Captain Powerhouse]

19 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

Brute aoe = .75 * 7 * 10 = 52.5

Tank aoe = .9 * 5 * 16 = 72

 

Food for thought:

 

Tank

Foot Stomp  16 * 1.42 * 0.90 * (1.95 + .8) = 56.232

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.80 * (1.95 + .8) = 41.986

Total 98.21

 

Brute

Foot Stomp 10 * 1.42 * 0.75 * (1.95 + .8 + 2 * .75) = 45.26

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.75 * (1.95 + .8 + 2 * .75) = 60.83

Total 106.1

 

Same with double stacked Rage:

 

Tank

Foot Stomp  16 * 1.42 * 0.90 * (1.95 + .8 * 2) = 72.59

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.80 * (1.95 + .8 * 2) = 54.2

Total 126.79

 

Brute

Foot Stomp 10 * 1.42 * 0.75 * (1.95 + .8 * 2 + 2 * .75) = 53.78

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.75 * (1.95 + .8 * 2 + 2 * .75) = 72.28

Total 126.07

 

*Keep in mind: epic pools for tankers are still at a modifier of 0.8. The more epic AoEs you manage to add (patron epics have multiple) the more brute takes over per volley. This is one of the reasons why i been noting from the start that actual in-game testing is required to accurately get a perspective of how these changes impact balance.

 

[Bopper]

49 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

Brute single target = .75 * 7 = 5.25.

Tank single target = .9 * 5 = 4.5

 

This is fine.  Brute does more damage.

 

Brute aoe = .75 * 7 * 10 = 52.5

Tank aoe = .9 * 5 * 16 = 72

You need to tweak your math a little. Since a Brute applies more damage on each target it hits, it will have a kill rate faster than a tank, thus it will bring in enemies into its target cap more quickly than a tank. You should adjust the AoE math as follows with the faster kill rate:

Brute AoE = .75×7×10×(5.25/4.5) = 61.25.

So we closed the gap a bit there.

 

Also, there is a big assumption you're making which is you will have an entire attack chain made up of target saturated AoE attacks. You should factor in your single target attacks and AoE attacks that are less than 10 (16)  while also factoring in when you are no longer target saturated (when you have 10 enemies or less left in a mob).

Edited November 7, 2019 by Bopper

[Demon Shell]

32 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

Brute aoe = .75 * 7 * 10 = 52.5

Tank aoe = .9 * 5 * 16 = 72

 

Tank does more damage.  This is not fine.

 

In addition to this:

 

9 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

*Keep in mind: epic pools for tankers are still at a modifier of 0.8. The more epic AoEs you manage to add (patron epics have multiple) the more brute takes over per volley. This is one of the reasons why i been noting from the start that actual in-game testing is required to accurately get a perspective of how these changes impact balance.

 

What you have only applies if you are consistently at damage and target cap, while using only target capped abilities. And that requires enemies consistently coming to you (moving would drop your DPS). The only situations where you can do that are farms and Rikti Raids. Even zombie/rikti invasions are spawned in waves, making this impossible. You will not stay at target cap and Tanker DPS will plummet by comparison (especially once enemy regen is applied).

 

There is not a mission in DA. There is no Master of. There is no iTrial where you will sit at target cap for the duration. Hell, most of the time DPS and judgements will kill the minions before you even engage (because they only need you to tank the bosses), and then you're sub 10 targets before you throw out a single attack. There is no endgame where the above applies.

[DarknessEternal]

6 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

Food for thought:

 

Tank

Foot Stomp  16 * 1.42 * 0.90 * (1.95 + .8) = 56.232

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.80 * (1.95 + .8) = 41.986

Total 98.21

 

Brute

Foot Stomp 10 * 1.42 * 0.75 * (1.95 + .8 + 2 * .75) = 45.26

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.75 * (1.95 + .8 + 2 * .75) = 60.83

Total 106.1

 

And with actual gameplay numbers which will always be at the damage cap:  (Rage is irrelevant)

Tank

Foot Stomp 16 * 1.42 * 0.90 * 5 = 102.24

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.80 * 5 = 76.3392

Total 178.5792

 

Brute

Foot Stomp 10 * 1.42 * 0.75 * 7 = 74.55

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.75 * 7 = 100.1952

Total 175.7452

 

Tank wins.  Tank wins on the worst possible option of a set with only 1 AoE.  Tank wins even more on sets with more than one.

[DarknessEternal]

4 minutes ago, Demon Shell said:

What you have only applies if you are consistently at damage and target cap, while using only target capped abilities.

I'm not sure how you play, but that's how I play.

 

Why make changes that make this common scenario re-institute the problem it's trying to fix, but just swung to a different overpowered AT.

 

Tank target cap cannot increase.

[Infinitum]

10 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

And with actual gameplay numbers which will always be at the damage cap:  (Rage is irrelevant)

Tank

Foot Stomp 16 * 1.42 * 0.90 * 5 = 102.24

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.80 * 5 = 76.3392

Total 178.5792

 

Brute

Foot Stomp 10 * 1.42 * 0.75 * 7 = 74.55

Fire Ball 16 * 1.1928 * 0.75 * 7 = 100.1952

Total 175.7452

 

Tank wins.  Tank wins on the worst possible option of a set with only 1 AoE.  Tank wins even more on sets with more than one.

Yeah, they both play out well this brings them both in line.

 

You need to let this go.  It's a fair result where we are at from an avid tank and brute player.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Infinitum

[Sir Myshkin]

9 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Procs are an issue, in great part because they ignore AT modifiers. I know this is not going to be popular but they will be looked at sooner or later. When they were introduced and made to ignore AT mods, it was also expected they would be ridiculously rare and have very low flat chances to trigger. But that's an IO issue, not an AT or set issue.

A bit off topic on this issue specifically, but given that i24 Beta (at sunset) contained the recalibrated the formula for Procs so that they'd be more consistent, what exactly do you infer by "would be ridiculously rare and have very low flat chances to trigger"? 

 

It would seem to me, based off the notes found in the code itself, and how the formula was reworked, and original Dev comments on the topic, that the proc-rework was intended to better balance the process as a generic coverage sentiment. To me, the proc rates themselves do not seem over powered, so I am leaping to extend that this is more a point of interest on the damage procs themselves maybe, given that you pointed specifically to "ignore AT modifiers"? 

 

I acknowledge that there are some unique scenarios where certain procs (*cough*gaussians*cough*) can be leveraged to near consistent application due to the recharge values of the powers it qualifies for, but in circumstances like the melee pool of damage procs it takes a specific building method to leverage those to a "high" return. When comparing one AT to the next, as-so-far-tested, no one AT in a heavily proc-built focus has significantly overshadowed another AT built in the same manner. There has only ever been one build, for one specific powerset that procs have created an indifference that revealed a glaring imbalance in the set itself (Super Strength), in my experiences with... I don't even know how many sets I've tested at this point.

 

Based on what I've tested (in the realm of intentionally attempting to bend/break the proc utility), it takes a very specific, and very extreme methodology and focus to become truly proc-positive that the majority of the player base are unlikely to adopt, as such it has me curious what specifically will be "looked at" and if there is something more targeted I could be looking for to be aware of that you have in mind.

[Infinitum]

4 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

I'm not sure how you play, but that's how I play.

 

Why make changes that make this common scenario re-institute the problem it's trying to fix, but just swung to a different overpowered AT.

 

Tank target cap cannot increase.

Yes it can.  And my brutes won't care.

[golstat2003]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

Yeah, they both play out well this brings them both in line.

 

You need to let this go.  It's a fair result where we are at from am avid tank and brute player.

HARD AGREE.

[DarknessEternal]

8 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

HARD AGREE.

So you just want Tanks to be unilaterally better than Brutes?  That's not good design.

 

In fact, it's the design this entire change was made to rectify, but instead is reversing. 

[Captain Powerhouse]

18 minutes ago, Sir Myshkin said:

A bit off topic on this issue specifically, but given that i24 Beta (at sunset) contained the recalibrated the formula for Procs so that they'd be more consistent, what exactly do you infer by "would be ridiculously rare and have very low flat chances to trigger"? 

I meant the introduction of procs in i13. When they became more consistent, a lot more should had been considered, especially cross-at balance.

 

On some of your other points: there is also issues with how they interact with epic pool attacks that are meant to have 2x recharge rate as a penalty, not as a bonus for PPM (this later is more of a PvP issue.)

 

Edit: as to what will be looked at there, I don’t know yet. It’s a thing of concern that is on a huge bucket list of things that need looking at.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Captain Powerhouse

[Moka]

3 hours ago, DarknessEternal said:

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.

You're entirely wrong. Unless a tank just has an infinite amount of reds to pop, a brute will always out damage the tanker, just in a different way. They have a smaller cap to deal with but have 200% more damage potential. Of course, I haven't made a comparison yet. I could build the same version of my tanker but as a brute on the TR and see what comes of it. 

[Bossk_Hogg]

1 hour ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

So far, in my own testing and data-mining, the only places I found tankers beat brute all involve having enemies literally rain on top of the tanker (in a kill 100 test.) Killing waves (with minions dying before higher rank enemies and intermittently lowering target saturation) the brute takes a clear advantage.

 

There are some scenarios of slight concern: Super Strength and procs, and Rage being fleeting on teams if the Brute is not tanking.

• Fury gain on teams is being tweaked on next patch (whenever that hits, sorry got no ETA on that yet.)
• SS can have a marginal advantage over the brute equivalent IF the builds don't both have Epic Pools. This also happens to cut two ways, though. SS relies so much on self +dmg, that as soon as a Kin or damage buffer joins the party (or tons of reds are popped,) ANY other set becomes superior to SS. This all will be looked at in the not so faraway future, hopefully.
• Procs are an issue, in great part because they ignore AT modifiers. I know this is not going to be popular but they will be looked at sooner or later. When they were introduced and made to ignore AT mods, it was also expected they would be ridiculously rare and have very low flat chances to trigger. But that's an IO issue, not an AT or set issue.

 

 

Why not have Rage and Buildup grant Fury to help equalize some of the SS/team issues? Right now they grant 0 Fury, which does seem kind of weird for a power named Rage...

[Infinitum]

20 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

I meant the introduction of procs in i13. When they became more consistent, a lot more should had been considered, especially cross-at balance.

 

On some of your other points: there is also issues with how they interact with epic pool attacks that are meant to have 2x recharge rate as a penalty, not as a bonus for PPM (this later is more of a PvP issue.)

 

Edit: as to what will be looked at there, I don’t know yet. It’s a thing of concern that is on a huge bucket list of things that need looking at.

(Performance shifter, miracle, numinas, panacea) these are not the droids you are looking for.  🙏

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, DarknessEternal said:

So you just want Tanks to be unilaterally better than Brutes?  That's not good design.

 

In fact, it's the design this entire change was made to rectify, but instead is reversing. 

Well thats also not what is said or what is going on here.

 

So take another stroll through fantasy land and you might actually get to whats really happening - which is a good thing by most definitions especially considering Brutes didnt get resistances nerfed.

 

Like I said you really need to let this go.  This is an equitable solution that I have tested.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Infinitum