Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Infinitum]

12 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

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.

They don't deal more when you figure in the ranged part.  There's no reason blasters melee should be made stronger than it currently is or melee made to be weaker, because of the ranged portion of their sets.

 

You are playing outside what should be allowed for a blaster if you want more melee damage or survivability exactly like a tank or brute.

 

It's basically a ranged scrapper.  Keep it at range and pick your melee opportunities and there's nothing that can touch a blasters damage.

 

It would be about like making iron man, hawkeye or falcon stronger than hulk or Thor in melee.  

 

That's not how it's supposed to be.

[Demon Shell]

12 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

It is important to remember that blasters are a Melee AT for some secondaries.

Exactly. Melee (and CC/survival/buffs) is a Blaster's secondary, out of two attack pools. Why, when you have two attack pools, would your secondary be more effective than another AT's primary?

 

If its necessary for Tankers to hit harder to keep up with our modern game, so be it. They don't have another attack pool to fall back on.

[Infinitum]

25 minutes ago, Demon Shell said:

Exactly. Melee (and CC/survival/buffs) is a Blaster's secondary, out of two attack pools. Why, when you have two attack pools, would your secondary be more effective than another AT's primary?

 

If its necessary for Tankers to hit harder to keep up with our modern game, so be it. They don't have another attack pool to fall back on.

Thank you, thats what I was trying to say but couldn't get my brain wrapped around it.

[Super Homer]

Are we comparing tanker melee AoE attacks to blaster melee AoE attacks? Because if so, that's a bit silly. Tanker melee AoE attacks are their primary means of dealing AoE damage. Blaster melee AoE attacks are just spice to attempt kill stranglers after BU+Aim+FireBall+Nova failed to kill absolutely everything.

[StratoNexus]

7 minutes ago, Demon Shell said:

Exactly. Melee (and CC/survival/buffs) is a Blaster's secondary, out of two attack pools. Why, when you have two attack pools, would your secondary be more effective than another AT's primary?

Because overall AT balance might demand it? And to be clear, I have never proposed blaster melee should be more damaging than scrappers or stalkers (although I do think they should be more damaging than brutes, despite it being brute's primary, since brutes get punchvoke, fury, and a larger survivability advantage). Criticals will keep scrappers and stalkers ahead in melee. Additionally, the advantage armor sets bring to utilizing melee attacks, makes even tankers and brutes better at leveraging melee attacks, even if the blaster versions are more damaging.

 

Keep in mind, melee attacks are also a Tanker secondary and the test versions of the AoEs only deal 5% lower damage (base, defiance will cause the blaster to be even higher) while also being larger and hitting more enemies. I am not opposed to this and strongly support the current size increase and target cap increases for Tankers. I am just concerned the damage is too close (but not convinced it is a problem).

 

And I want to state that the two attacks set argument is somewhat a misnomer, as all armored ATs easily have plenty of attacks by the 30s to make it a non-issue outside of recharge debuts and it was LONG an argument that two attacks sets was actually a drawback, since armor sets actually make you more effective at using your attacks than more attacks that you do not need anyway.

16 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

They don't deal more when you figure in the ranged part.  There's no reason blasters melee should be made stronger than it currently is or melee made to be weaker, because of the ranged portion of their sets.

 

You are playing outside what should be allowed for a blaster if you want more melee damage or survivability exactly like a tank or brute.

I have never proposed making any armored ATs melee attacks weaker at base (I do propose that the current test increase to Tanker melee is higher than it should be, but I still agree it should be increased from current live). Increasing the blaster melee damage mod to 1.125 will not have them better at melee than ATs that get more melee attacks, even when you factor in blaster range attacks. Plus, the amor set makes armored ATs better in melee just from the survivability and mez avoidance advantage.

 

I am not sure why you talked about more survivability like a tank or brute. Increasing the blaster melee damage mod from 1 to 1.125 would have almost no impact on overall blaster survivability. It would make blaster melee AoEs closer to on par with the scrapper and stalker, although still fall behind due to criticals.

 

The primary reason I brought this up in the first place was simply because there is a misconception about the strength of blaster melee, especially blaster AoE melee. Most people think it is better than it really is and the current changes to Tanker melee AoE makes that analysis important for overall game balance, IMO.

[Infinitum]

17 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

Because overall AT balance might demand it? And to be clear, I have never proposed blaster melee should be more damaging than scrappers or stalkers (although I do think they should be more damaging than brutes, despite it being brute's primary, since brutes get punchvoke, fury, and a larger survivability advantage). Criticals will keep scrappers and stalkers ahead in melee. Additionally, the advantage armor sets bring to utilizing melee attacks, makes even tankers and brutes better at leveraging melee attacks, even if the blaster versions are more damaging.

 

Keep in mind, melee attacks are also a Tanker secondary and the test versions of the AoEs only deal 5% lower damage (base, defiance will cause the blaster to be even higher) while also being larger and hitting more enemies. I am not opposed to this and strongly support the current size increase and target cap increases for Tankers. I am just concerned the damage is too close (but not convinced it is a problem).

 

And I want to state that the two attacks set argument is somewhat a misnomer, as all armored ATs easily have plenty of attacks by the 30s to make it a non-issue outside of recharge debuts and it was LONG an argument that two attacks sets was actually a drawback, since armor sets actually make you more effective at using your attacks than more attacks that you do not need anyway.

I have never proposed making any armored ATs melee attacks weaker at base (I do propose that the current test increase to Tanker melee is higher than it should be, but I still agree it should be increased from current live). Increasing the blaster melee damage mod to 1.125 will not have them better at melee than ATs that get more melee attacks, even when you factor in blaster range attacks. Plus, the amor set makes armored ATs better in melee just from the survivability and mez avoidance advantage.

 

I am not sure why you talked about more survivability like a tank or brute. Increasing the blaster melee damage mod from 1 to 1.125 would have almost no impact on overall blaster survivability. It would make blaster melee AoEs closer to on par with the scrapper and stalker, although still fall behind due to criticals.

 

The primary reason I brought this up in the first place was simply because there is a misconception about the strength of blaster melee, especially blaster AoE melee. Most people think it is better than it really is and the current changes to Tanker melee AoE makes that analysis important for overall game balance, IMO.

 

Again blaster has 2 attack sets.  The ranged alone blows anything a melee centric AT has out of the water.

 

Their secondary shouldnt be stronger than the one attack set a melee oriented AT has.

 

That would create too much dependence on blaster damage at that point. When its already better than anything melee has to offer.  What you are suggesting would throw balance out either way.

 

From my perspective blaster damage is > any melee damage. And both seem balanced good as is, and will be even better with the tank changes.

 

If you play your blaster in an extreme way you have to accept the risks and consequences of it.  If I want to spec out a brute or scrapper for more damage you can but it makes survivability harder, but the option is there if you choose to do that.

 

You have to sacrifice something somewhere to get what you want.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Infinitum

[Rejolt]

Well, do you want melee in the primaries? This would allow more utility, passives, etc in th secondary. I don’t know where you’d put it unless you gave blasters the option to change their brawl to charged brawl, etc 

[StratoNexus]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

Again blaster has 2 attack sets.  The ranged alone blows anything a melee centric AT has out of the water.

 

Their secondary shouldnt be stronger than the one attack set a melee oriented AT has.

 

That would create too much dependence on blaster damage at that point. When its already better than anything melee has to offer.  What you are suggesting would throw balance out either way.

 

From my perspective blaster damage is > any melee damage. And both seem balanced good as is, and will be even better with the tank changes.

 

If you play your blaster in an extreme way you have to accept the risks and consequences of it.  If I want to spec out a brute or scrapper for more damage you can but it makes survivability harder, but the option is there if you choose to do that.

I am enjoying the discussion and since this thread is old, I hope we can continue, because I think the thoughts are related to the thread topic, although at a slight tangent. I also want to reiterate that I am discussing these points not because I feel blasters absolutely should have a higher melee damage mod, but because I think the thought process is important and I think it is important to make sure the topics are fully understood (it is easy to see a blaster nuke a spawn and think Damn! without considering spawn to spawn fighting and the few extra deaths a blaster will deal with). First, I do not agree with the point that the second attack set of blasters has to be weaker than the one attack set of tankers or brutes or scrappers or stalkers or dominators. I think those other ATs get a lot of other features and the AT strength as a whole is what should be considered. It is perfectly OK for blaster Fire Sword Circle to deal more damage than Tanker Fire Sword Circle, because Tankers have much more survivability as well as significant aggro control (and possibly a larger AoE and bigger target cap). It is irrelevant that tankers only have one attack set.

 

The relevant points are what else the AT brings. Tanker = survivability, aggro control, damage, some other control (usually). Blasters = damage, some other control, minor survivability. There is also the degree to which they bring those things and the effect on gameplay, so blasters may bring less "things" but they are really good at that damage thing, especially every 30-50 seconds, so that has to count pretty high. I mean tankers are really good at that survivability thing, but I have already stated numerous times that unkillable = unkillable, so there is a point where you have to reasonably state that tankers have some survivability beyond what is normally needed, whereas Boss hit points being what they are, blasters never really have damage beyond what they need, so the damage probably counts more than the survivability. I am not going to discuss everything, but the tougher ATs ability to gather actually has a huge effect on gameplay, IME. So I count that feature pretty highly.

 

However, having two attack sets does not increase damage. No blaster can activate Fireball and Fire Sword Circle at the same time. This is an old discussion, but the second attack set provides variety more than pure power. Yes, a blaster can chain more attacks, but most armored melee sets can chain plenty anyway. The second attack set is an advantage early game over other ATs, but by the 30s that advantage is minimal and at 50 with Incarnates, I would say there is no advantage to having extra attacks (with the small exception of extreme recharge debuffs, which while rare, do occur). Yes, nukes are very good now but their recharge is long enough to not be available every spawn (with a very good build, they are there every other or third spawn, most folks likely are sitting at every 3-5 spawns).

 

Also, you are overestimating the strength of standard blaster range AoEs. Look at Fire Ball for blasters and compare to Fire Sword Circle for tankers on test or Spine Burst for scrappers and even Brutes (considering a reasonable amount of Fury and Defiance). Many of the melee AoEs are on par with blaster primary AoEs. Not all tier 3 blaster powers are Blaze either, so even in single target, it is clear the melee attack sets are not overly disadvantaged vs. blasters, especially for the actual high damage armored ATs which have criticals.

 

When I play a melee blaster, I fully accept that I am squishier than my scrappers and tankers. I am less accepting of the fact that when I melee, I am sacrificing damage. i already sacrificed a lot of mitigation with the AT, to hear it suggested that I should also expect to deal less damage after giving up all that mitigation sounds wrong in my ears. There are points against blaster melee being higher, but "think of the poor scrappers, brutes, and tankers" is not one of them, IMO.

[Infinitum]

22 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

When I play a melee blaster, I fully accept that I am squishier than my scrappers and tankers. I am less accepting of the fact that when I melee, I am sacrificing damage. i already sacrificed a lot of mitigation with the AT, to hear it suggested that I should also expect to deal less damage after giving up all that mitigation sounds wrong in my ears. There are points against blaster melee being higher, but "think of the poor scrappers, brutes, and tankers" is not one of them, IMO.

You arent sacrificing damage because you still have a primary set that's better suited to deal damage that's inside your wheelhouse as a blaster.

[kenlon]

25 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

 

When I play a melee blaster, I fully accept that I am squishier than my scrappers and tankers. I am less accepting of the fact that when I melee, I am sacrificing damage. i already sacrificed a lot of mitigation with the AT, to hear it suggested that I should also expect to deal less damage after giving up all that mitigation sounds wrong in my ears. There are points against blaster melee being higher, but "think of the poor scrappers, brutes, and tankers" is not one of them, IMO.

The idea that a ranged DPS AT should always outdamage a melee DPS AT in melee range is silly. I mean, how would you like it if Scrappers could suddenly out-DPS blasters at range?

[StratoNexus]

1 minute ago, Infinitum said:

You arent sacrificing damage because you still have a primary set that's better suited to deal damage that's inside your wheelhouse as a blaster.

Sorry, in this case I meant specifically power to power. If blaster Fire Sword Circle is doing less base damage than scrapper Fire Sword Circle, and I gave up all that mitigation scrappers get, it sounds wrong in my ears.

 

Also, outside of nukes, ranged damage sets are not blowing melee sets out of the water damage wise. Nukes put them slightly ahead I think, overall (definitely way ahead on the spawn it is used on), but even with nukes, I think brutes and scrappers are pretty close to blasters for mission clearing speed and team damage contribution if not ahead due to the other elements those ATs bring to the table.

[StratoNexus]

12 minutes ago, kenlon said:

The idea that a ranged DPS AT should always outdamage a melee DPS AT in melee range is silly. I mean, how would you like it if Scrappers could suddenly out-DPS blasters at range?

That is not my idea. I might be suggesting that a no armor, no buff/debuff AT should always out damage an armored AT, whether in melee or at range. That said, I am totally fine with criticals taking scrappers and stalkers above blasters when comparing melee powers.

Edited November 12, 2019 by StratoNexus

[Infinitum]

18 minutes ago, StratoNexus said:

Sorry, in this case I meant specifically power to power. If blaster Fire Sword Circle is doing less base damage than scrapper Fire Sword Circle, and I gave up all that mitigation scrappers get, it sounds wrong in my ears.

 

Also, outside of nukes, ranged damage sets are not blowing melee sets out of the water damage wise. Nukes put them slightly ahead I think, overall (definitely way ahead on the spawn it is used on), but even with nukes, I think brutes and scrappers are pretty close to blasters for mission clearing speed and team damage contribution if not ahead due to the other elements those ATs bring to the table.

Thats just not been my experience playing blasters and playing alongside blasters.  I want them with my tank or brute because I know they can leverage damage to take out anything we could come across while I keep their attention.

 

On my ranged powers on my blaster there are three that fire faster and out damage my brute or my tank by 3-4 to 1 on most powers and 2 to 1 on the heavy hitter usually. And thats not even taking into account nukes.

 

They also fire faster so they can definately out dps my brute or tank.

 

Most of them dont have to enter melee range unless to nuke.

[0th Power]

22 hours ago, unknown said:

Are we comparing tanker melee AoE attacks to blaster melee AoE attacks? Because if so, that's a bit silly. Tanker melee AoE attacks are their primary means of dealing AoE damage. Blaster melee AoE attacks are just spice to attempt kill stranglers after BU+Aim+FireBall+Nova failed to kill absolutely everything.

How are you using fireball and nova, jerk-hacker?

[Super Homer]

1 hour ago, 0th Power said:

How are you using fireball and nova, jerk-hacker?

Meant Inferno XD

[MunkiLord]

 

1 hour ago, unknown said:

Meant Inferno XD

How are you using Nova and Inferno?

[Demon Shell]

18 minutes ago, MunkiLord said:

How are you using Nova and Inferno?

Very well, I imagine.

[Bossk_Hogg]

All these arguments about brutes v tanks, and I'm just hoping sentinels can get an emergency damage buff, because Tankers are going to be solidly outdamaging them once this patch goes live... 

[metacore]

13 minutes ago, Bossk_Hogg said:

All these arguments about brutes v tanks, and I'm just hoping sentinels can get an emergency damage buff, because Tankers are going to be solidly outdamaging them once this patch goes live... 

The Sentinel Inherent is confirmed to be reviewed for a complete overhaul. No ETA.
Also not sure if this is underway or somewhere on the Devs To-Do List.

But best to have any further discussion on Sentinels in the Sentinel channel or wait for the Devs to start their "Focused Feedback: Sentinel Inherent Changes" thread (name?)

[Haijinx]

On 11/12/2019 at 1:11 PM, Infinitum said:

They don't deal more when you figure in the ranged part.  There's no reason blasters melee should be made stronger than it currently is or melee made to be weaker, because of the ranged portion of their sets.

 

You are playing outside what should be allowed for a blaster if you want more melee damage or survivability exactly like a tank or brute.

 

It's basically a ranged scrapper.  Keep it at range and pick your melee opportunities and there's nothing that can touch a blasters damage.

 

It would be about like making iron man, hawkeye or falcon stronger than hulk or Thor in melee.  

 

That's not how it's supposed to be.

Blaster melee attacks that were ported not following the established pattern should be fixed. 

 

The old sets don't need a melee damage buff, its already built in to their powerset by having longer recharge times.  

 

So the scale is fine.  

 

For the older sets, Blaster damage is slot limited rather than power limited.  You can't actually slot up all your blasts and all your melee attacks AND build for controls/defenses. 

 

So it doesn't really matter if they can be better at melee than scrappers. 

[ivanhedgehog]

On 11/12/2019 at 7:38 AM, 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.

brutes have a lot bigger chance to live to move to other victims, a dead blaster does no damage.

[Haijinx]

56 minutes ago, ivanhedgehog said:

brutes have a lot bigger chance to live to move to other victims, a dead blaster does no damage.

Well that's the price paid for the boom. 

[Gobbledigook]

Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

 

How has this gone from Tank feedback to comparing Brutes to Blasters? lol

 

Brute is more than fine, Blaster is more than fine, Sentinel may need some work and so does the Tanker. This is the Tankers turn. Sentinel might be next 🙂

Edited November 14, 2019 by Gobbledegook

[Wompy]

Tanks shouldn't be competing with Brutes in damage.  Brutes are primarily a damage dealing AT, a Tank's main job is to help keep the rest of the team safe.  Rather than risk turning Tanks in to Tankmages with the damage buffs they should get some sort of absorb buff depending on number of team mates or their team mates should get a % absorb buff for every tank on the team, capping at a reasonable level.  Also Tank's getting a 0.8 modifier for range, putting it above defenders and corruptors is clearly ridiculous. 

 

And just a brief mention for blasters before the thread gets back on track, /ice needs looked at and /ninja needs fixed.  If there's ever an official thread for them I'll go into more detail there.

[Gobbledigook]

2 hours ago, Wompy said:

Tanks shouldn't be competing with Brutes in damage.  Brutes are primarily a damage dealing AT, a Tank's main job is to help keep the rest of the team safe.  Rather than risk turning Tanks in to Tankmages with the damage buffs they should get some sort of absorb buff depending on number of team mates or their team mates should get a % absorb buff for every tank on the team, capping at a reasonable level.  Also Tank's getting a 0.8 modifier for range, putting it above defenders and corruptors is clearly ridiculous. 

 

And just a brief mention for blasters before the thread gets back on track, /ice needs looked at and /ninja needs fixed.  If there's ever an official thread for them I'll go into more detail there.

Tankers have no trouble in the survival department. They taunt to keep mobs off squishies.

 

A Brute can reach Tanker survival with and without a few external buffs, yet their damage is superior to a Tankers. This is why so few Tankers compared to Brutes are seen, until lately maybe with anticipation of the update. A Brute was the Villain side Tank.

 

If a Brute can reach Tanker survival then why is it so alien for a Tanker to reach near Brute damage? with IO's even squsihy Dps can be fairly tanky now.

 

Balance does involve IOs as they exist in the game and are not a temporary benefit. More thought should have been given maybe when they started adding them.

 

Obvious choice is to nerf the Brute or buff the Tanker. Nerfing has already been rejected.

 

Sentinels and fully IO'd Blasters are Tankmages btw.

 

A Tanker draws the aggro of mobs off others and they need the survival to deal with this. Does that mean they should not do respectable damage? A blaster sure does the damage still, either way. A blasters survival is in killing mobs fast with their superior dps, a dead threat is no threat. IO's and secondary for Blasters is just extra survival. But a blaster does not taunt whole groups of mobs. Blasters will still be awesome dps.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Gobbledegook