Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[ryuplaneswalker]

17 hours ago, Moka said:

They should have always had the same damage modifier as a brute.

They already have a higher Modifier than a Brute.

[Moka]

3 hours ago, ryuplaneswalker said:

They already have a higher Modifier than a Brute.

I'll put my foot in my mouth.

[MunkiLord]

22 hours ago, unknown said:

This thread is making me think that inspirations drop WAY too often....

 

10 hours ago, kenlon said:

Nah, that's not a problem. Because the people who are claiming to be at damage cap all the time aren't. 

I agree with kenlon here. Solo, it's possible if killing really fast, especially if someone uses binds to convert. But on team? That's not nearly as easy as some people make it sound like.

[Omega-202]

1 hour ago, MunkiLord said:

 

I agree with kenlon here. Solo, it's possible if killing really fast, especially if someone uses binds to convert. But on team? That's not nearly as easy as some people make it sound like.

I think the original person was talking about farming situations.  In a solo farm, even just one of the old nonAE portal farming maps and more so in AE, its very easy to stay damage capped if you're using binds to convert and burn reds.  If you have a farming character it would be crazy to not set up the convert+use binds.  I have mine on Mouse 4, 5 and 6 and just hit them between spawns.  Helps in general content too, as a time saver.

[Solarverse]

22 hours ago, Omega-202 said:

I think the original person was talking about farming situations.  In a solo farm, even just one of the old nonAE portal farming maps and more so in AE, its very easy to stay damage capped if you're using binds to convert and burn reds.  If you have a farming character it would be crazy to not set up the convert+use binds.  I have mine on Mouse 4, 5 and 6 and just hit them between spawns.  Helps in general content too, as a time saver.

I personally find it insanely sad that AE is being used to compare Brutes and Tanks. Farming. Nobody is really talking about teams, only farming.

[Haijinx]

2 hours ago, Solarverse said:

I personally find it insanely sad that AE is being used to compare Brutes and Tanks. Farming. Nobody is really talking about teams, only farming.

May be hard to get teams going on test?

 

But yeah I'm with you in that farming balance is not important. 

[Myrmidon]

6 hours ago, Solarverse said:

I personally find it insanely sad that AE is being used to compare Brutes and Tanks. Farming. Nobody is really talking about teams, only farming.

The Captain has already said that Farming isn’t ever factored in, so no worries.

[Haijinx]

7 hours ago, Myrmidon said:

The Captain has already said that Farming isn’t ever factored in, so no worries.

Faith in the future of the game restored.

[kenlon]

@Captain Powerhouse: Is there any sort of rough ETA for when the patch that will contain the tank changes will be ready for live? I've found myself playing less CoH because I have a whole stack of tanker ideas that I don't want to start building until we have the new hotness. 😄

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, kenlon said:

@Captain Powerhouse: Is there any sort of rough ETA for when the patch that will contain the tank changes will be ready for live? I've found myself playing less CoH because I have a whole stack of tanker ideas that I don't want to start building until we have the new hotness. 😄

Read pg 22 and 23.

[kenlon]

2 hours ago, Infinitum said:

Read pg 22 and 23.

Yes, that's why I'm asking the question. Captain said that there's going to be a couple more rounds of patches before it goes live, and that it's dependent on people other than him. So I'm asking, "Hey, got any idea what timeline we're looking at?"

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, kenlon said:

Yes, that's why I'm asking the question. Captain said that there's going to be a couple more rounds of patches before it goes live, and that it's dependent on people other than him. So I'm asking, "Hey, got any idea what timeline we're looking at?"

I'm pretty sure the answer is no.  There is no idea. That's what most anyone could discern from those 2 pages.

[ivanhedgehog]

On 10/31/2019 at 4:47 PM, Myrmidon said:

Blasters have a 1.125 Range Damage modifier and access to excellent levels of indestructibility.

which blaster primary/secondary approaches the levels of protection that an SO'd out brute or tank has? Because we balance with so's. Blasters should have a lot higher damage than they do currently to make up for their lack of defense. Glass canon, remember that?

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, ivanhedgehog said:

which blaster primary/secondary approaches the levels of protection that an SO'd out brute or tank has? Because we balance with so's. Blasters should have a lot higher damage than they do currently to make up for their lack of defense. Glass canon, remember that?

If you’re just using SOs as the balance point, then the last few pages of “discussion” concerning that very thing have been pointless. The game is just fine for those.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Myrmidon

[Haijinx]

2 hours ago, ivanhedgehog said:

which blaster primary/secondary approaches the levels of protection that an SO'd out brute or tank has? Because we balance with so's. Blasters should have a lot higher damage than they do currently to make up for their lack of defense. Glass canon, remember that?

How much more damage should they do?

 

Considering in actual gameplay situations no one else comes close. 

[Puma]

9 hours ago, Haijinx said:

How much more damage should they do?

 

Considering in actual gameplay situations no one else comes close. 

Are we sure about that?  I feel like my brutes usually keep up with my blasters in the damage department.    

 

 

That being said blasters do NOT need any buffs.  After the last round, they are no longer glass cannons if you have any idea what you're doing. They're sturdy, powerful, and can run non-stop.  I have more than 1 blaster farmer, even.  

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Puma said:

Are we sure about that?  I feel like my brutes usually keep up with my blasters in the damage department.    

 

 

That being said blasters do NOT need any buffs.  After the last round, they are no longer glass cannons if you have any idea what you're doing. They're sturdy, powerful, and can run non-stop.  I have more than 1 blaster farmer, even.  

Brutes still need to move to their victims.  Blasters can shoot them, then melee, then shoot the ones trying to get away, then quick snipe the next group, and start over.

 

All with having bigger AOEs that hit more targets for more damage.

 

Some ATs might do more against a single AV but the blaster left a smoking path of wrecked baddies to get there.

[Infinitum]

23 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Brutes still need to move to their victims.  Blasters can shoot them, then melee, then shoot the ones trying to get away, then quick snipe the next group, and start over.

 

All with having bigger AOEs that hit more targets for more damage.

 

Some ATs might do more against a single AV but the blaster left a smoking path of wrecked baddies to get there.

That's true, nothing easier than hovering from a safe distance with soft capped range defense and obliterating everything below without any chance for reprisal.  There's not even a close second to what a blaster can do under most circumstances.

 

Caves and buildings can be tricky sometimes.

[StratoNexus]

13 hours ago, Haijinx said:

How much more damage should they do?

 

Considering in actual gameplay situations no one else comes close. 

Maybe no more or maybe melee attacks should deal 12.5% more. There has always been a part of me that thought Blaster range and melee damage mods should be the same, I think they were both set to 1 originally, but when scrapper damage was increased to 1.125, only the ranged damage mod for blasters was increased (I may be misremembering though). Castle was pretty strongly against improving the melee mod, not wanting to encourage blasters to melee more. While I disagree with that choice, I always thought it was a perfectly reasonable position.

 

I want to be clear, blasters are in a great spot, IMO, after the I24 changes. The crashless nukes, increased tier 3 blast range, and improved snipes went a long way to improving blast damage (for all three ATs with ranged attack sets) and the sustain powers made sure blasters can keep dishing out that damage with significantly fewer defeats. The ability to kill a runner without chasing is nice, but not as significant as it sounds, especially compared to ATs with the ability to boggle the AI via aggro magnet powers. I was just playing a lot of blasters this last week and I agree they bring a lot of damage in a lot of ways and pre 40s it is impressive compared to other ATs and IMO impressive enough that it makes up for the lower survivability. Endgame, armored ATs get a lot closer to the damage level of blasters, but blasters also pick up a goodly amount of extra survivability. Armored ATs close the damage gap more than blasters close the mitigation gap, but not enough to bother me personally. I like the blaster play style being more dangerous, so that affects my judgement. 

 

I am not saying blasters should be buffed more. I am definitely not saying the Tanker test AoE size increase or target cap increase is an issue, i very much like those mechanics and think they go a long way to differentiate the Tanker from other melee armored ATs and are a great factor to generating threat and aggro control, which is an advantage they should clearly have over brutes and scrappers. I am simply concerned about the sheer size of the damage increase and how close it puts Tankers to ATs that are more focused on damage but have little armor (blasters and dominators). It felt too close on my last round of testing and while the reduced max end would slow me down some, I am not positive it would be enough (sadly, I have not been able to test the current build to know for sure, I am really hopeful I will get a go once the next revision is placed on test).

 

Finally, I want to make a quick statement to Infinitum's last comment. Hover blasting can be safe, but is always slower than collapsing a spawn and destroying it. Trading speed for safety is often a good choice (and death from above can often be fun as well), but it is almost always slower than alternatives. Even when teamed with an aggro magnet who collapses the spawn for you, hover blasting tends to be slower than the alternative.

[Infinitum]

10 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

Maybe no more or maybe melee attacks should deal 12.5% more. There has always been a part of me that thought Blaster range and melee damage mods should be the same, I think they were both set to 1 originally, but when scrapper damage was increased to 1.125, only the ranged damage mod for blasters was increased (I may be misremembering though). Castle was pretty strongly against improving the melee mod, not wanting to encourage blasters to melee more. While I disagree with that choice, I always thought it was a perfectly reasonable position.

 

I want to be clear, blasters are in a great spot, IMO, after the I24 changes. The crashless nukes, increased tier 3 blast range, and improved snipes went a long way to improving blast damage (for all three ATs with ranged attack sets) and the sustain powers made sure blasters can keep dishing out that damage with significantly fewer defeats. The ability to kill a runner without chasing is nice, but not as significant as it sounds, especially compared to ATs with the ability to boggle the AI via aggro magnet powers. I was just playing a lot of blasters this last week and I agree they bring a lot of damage in a lot of ways and pre 40s it is impressive compared to other ATs and IMO impressive enough that it makes up for the lower survivability. Endgame, armored ATs get a lot closer to the damage level of blasters, but blasters also pick up a goodly amount of extra survivability. Armored ATs close the damage gap more than blasters close the mitigation gap, but not enough to bother me personally. I like the blaster play style being more dangerous, so that affects my judgement. 

 

I am not saying blasters should be buffed more. I am definitely not saying the Tanker test AoE size increase or target cap increase is an issue, i very much like those mechanics and think they go a long way to differentiate the Tanker from other melee armored ATs and are a great factor to generating threat and aggro control, which is an advantage they should clearly have over brutes and scrappers. I am simply concerned about the sheer size of the damage increase and how close it puts Tankers to ATs that are more focused on damage but have little armor (blasters and dominators). It felt too close on my last round of testing and while the reduced max end would slow me down some, I am not positive it would be enough (sadly, I have not been able to test the current build to know for sure, I am really hopeful I will get a go once the next revision is placed on test).

 

Finally, I want to make a quick statement to Infinitum's last comment. Hover blasting can be safe, but is always slower than collapsing a spawn and destroying it. Trading speed for safety is often a good choice (and death from above can often be fun as well), but it is almost always slower than alternatives. Even when teamed with an aggro magnet who collapses the spawn for you, hover blasting tends to be slower than the alternative.

I dont think a blaster should have stronger melee attacks than a melee AT. Aside from Nukes which require you to be in melee range.

 

I'm not a blaster by nature so I dont know the ins and outs of blaster playstyle.

 

after I set up a bunch of tank brute tank style builds i set out to create at least one epic build of every AT just so I would have one to play if needed.

 

When I built the blaster I had already built a controller and learned with it to keep enemies at range.  So when I came to the blaster I basically set up the same way. 

 

From my perspective hover blasting is fast enough, if there is another way I wouldnt know how to do it anyway.

 

What do you mean by collapsing a spawn exactly?

[Gobbledigook]

How about making the Tanker Mechanic a Toggle? if its toggled on you will do 15-25% less damage but your attacks will hit more targets and have larger AoEs. Great for tanking as the Tanker can aggro more mobs.

 

In my experience of gaming, Balance will never be fully achieved. Just get every AT in a good spot with no glaringly obvious strengths or weaknesses and that should be good enough. Let the number crunchers worry about it lol.

 

 

[StratoNexus]

14 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

What do you mean by collapsing a spawn exactly?

There are several ways to cause spawn collapse, although some enemy groups require more effort and some spawn placements also require more effort. Old style herding is one technique to cause spawn collapse, but can take too long to be efficient. Simply moving through a spawn and behind something can work, but can also take longer than necessary for most enemies.

 

However, moving into a group, switching targets so you attack a few different ones and wiggling around often causes most enemies to run at you and that happens quickly, relative to other techniques and it speeds up spawn clearing compared to just picking off the 7 that are pre-grouped and then getting that group of 3, then the group of 2, then the singles. There are still usually 2-4 enemies for cleanup, but that is better than 5-10 stragglers.

[Haijinx]

The older Blaster melee attacks are already stronger than melee ATs get, because they have double the recharge.

 

Just need to fix the recharge of the newer sets.

[StratoNexus]

27 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I dont think a blaster should have stronger melee attacks than a melee AT. Aside from Nukes which require you to be in melee range.

It is important to remember that blasters are a Melee AT for some secondaries. Blasters deal damage at range and in melee. It is OK to build a blaster without melee attacks, variety is good, but that does not mean they should be disadvantaged when leveraging their melee attacks. I don't think Armored characters should deal more Base damage than blasters. Ever. Scrappers and stalkers get criticals so they can out damage blasters in melee even if the blaster damage mod was 1.125, and that is perfectly fine. But for the base damage to be nearly the same or less bothers me.

[Infinitum]

23 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

There are several ways to cause spawn collapse, although some enemy groups require more effort and some spawn placements also require more effort. Old style herding is one technique to cause spawn collapse, but can take too long to be efficient. Simply moving through a spawn and behind something can work, but can also take longer than necessary for most enemies.

 

However, moving into a group, switching targets so you attack a few different ones and wiggling around often causes most enemies to run at you and that happens quickly, relative to other techniques and it speeds up spawn clearing compared to just picking off the 7 that are pre-grouped and then getting that group of 3, then the group of 2, then the singles. There are still usually 2-4 enemies for cleanup, but that is better than 5-10 stragglers.

Ok basically I call that gathering.

 

Yeah I do thst with blaster too leveraging the build ups nuke burnout then repeat.