Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Gobbledigook]

It seems obvious that it is farmers and maybe some soloers who are objectional to the Tanker buffs. 

 

In a group setup there will be little difference. A tanker will just be a little more potent. Everyone else will also still be just as potent as they were before.

 

Farmers and Soloers already have access to the Brute, so whats the problem lol?

[MunkiLord]

1 hour ago, Gobbledegook said:

But a blaster does not taunt whole groups of mobs. Blasters will still be awesome dps.

I have Provoke on one of mine and I've tried, but Provoke is terrible. The only time it's ever worked is when I did an all Blaster ITF, and then it just caused me to die really, really fast.

 

28 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

It seems obvious that it is farmers and maybe some soloers who are objectional to the Tanker buffs. 

 

In a group setup there will be little difference. A tanker will just be a little more potent. Everyone else will also still be just as potent as they were before.

 

Farmers and Soloers already have access to the Brute, so whats the problem lol?

I agree here. I have a farming Brute, and if Tanks can now do it a little bit better, I'm not sure why that would bother me since I'm still just as effective. 

[Haijinx]

4 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.

I disagree, who else should Brutes compete with if not Tankers?

 

The "Tankiness" and "Damage" of Melee classes and Damage should be a graduated spectrum.

 

You have The Tank melee classes

Tanker / Brute 

Brutes should be the higher damage tank.  Tankers should tank better.

 

You have the DPS classes

Scrapper / Stalker 

Stalkers should be the higher damage.

Scrappers should scrap better. 

 

If Brutes can tank almost as good as Tankers, then Tankers should DPS almost as good as Brutes.

 

If Scrappers do almost as much damage as Stalkers, then Stalkers should scrap almost as good as Scrappers. 

 

Right now all those statements are true with two notable exceptions. 

 

One older stalker (except ele) sets have crap AOE.  So those stalkers fall behind. 

 

Two, more relevant for this thread, Tankers don't do anywhere near Brutes damage.  Their survivability difference starts to narrow markedly late game with IOs or buffs, but their damage does not. 

 

So you have to buff damage for tankers to be viable late game.  

 

Early game the tanker has much more survabilty, but these damage increases won't really matter because tankers can't really access the better attacks due to secondary level progression. 

 

 

[siolfir]

6 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

 

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

Because Focused is the biggest lie told in the thread?

5 hours ago, Wompy said:

Also Tank's getting a 0.8 modifier for range, putting it above defenders and corruptors is clearly ridiculous. 

It buffs all of 3 powers, 2 of which weren't in the game until after these changes started. All of their other powers already used a 0.8 modifier.

 

 

...back to lurking with the occasional pop-in to see how far off the rails the thread has gotten.

[Haijinx]

2 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

It seems obvious that it is farmers and maybe some soloers who are objectional to the Tanker buffs. 

 

In a group setup there will be little difference. A tanker will just be a little more potent. Everyone else will also still be just as potent as they were before.

 

Farmers and Soloers already have access to the Brute, so whats the problem lol?

I think there's also the contingent that is railing against placing Brutes into the "tank"  category, they want them to be a DPS class.

 

I mean they want them to be able to tank just as good as now.  But they don't see why that should affect Tankers any since its not like Brutes are "tanks" 

 

So they will propose things like bigger Tanker aggro caps, more Tank support ideas etc.  I mean after all they aren't DPS like brutes ..

 

The problem with this idea is there are already two DPS melee ATs and neither of these has anywhere near the aggro tools or Resistance caps and HP of a Brute. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arkterusss]

Why not just double the aggro cap of Tankers from 16 to 32. Might give people reason enough to make em over Brutes.

[Gobbledigook]

14 minutes ago, Arkterusss said:

Why not just double the aggro cap of Tankers from 16 to 32. Might give people reason enough to make em over Brutes.

Not exactly useful in most content.

[Haijinx]

9 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

Not exactly useful in most content.

It would also make the game easier, since risk for squishies tends to come from aggroing the baddies the tank/brute hasn't locked down. 

 

And of course there's the whole Aggro cap isn't based on AT the way its implemented that has to be brought up weekly. 

[summers]

I rail against the idea since I don't think you need two Archetypes that are so fundamentally similar.

 

The main argument for the change is that because Brute survivability is about the same as Tanker survivability, then they should get about-the-same damage. If this were true, then there is absolutely no need to change Tankers, since that exact combination of power (within a 10% margin) exists in Brute. Instead, I think people want the complete invincibility of Tankers (at all levels, not just at IO'd out to the gills levels) alongside loads of damage.

 

I also think the fair minded readers of this thread will agree that Brute survivability at anything except the IO level is significantly poorer than Tanker.

Edited November 16, 2019 by summers

[Haijinx]

8 minutes ago, summers said:

I rail against the idea since I don't think you need two Archetypes that are so fundamentally similar.

 

(Snip)

 

I also think the fair minded readers of this thread will agree that Brute survivability at anything except the IO level is significantly poorer than Tanker.

How does it make more sense to lump the Brute into the fundamentally similar camp with Scrappers and Stalkers than into the camp with Tankers?

 

The reason we have so much overlap is the whole side changing thing.

 

Tankers should be to Brutes what Defenders are to Corruptors. 

 

=====

 

Team Buffs can take the place of IOs in that comparison.   That and IOs do exist. 

 

 

[summers]

17 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

How does it make more sense to lump the Brute into the fundamentally similar camp with Scrappers and Stalkers than into the camp with Tankers?

 

The reason we have so much overlap is the whole side changing thing.

 

Tankers should be to Brutes what Defenders are to Corruptors. 

 

=====

 

Team Buffs can take the place of IOs in that comparison.   That and IOs do exist. 

 

 

Brutes are very clearly not in 'the fundamentally similar camp' as Stalkers, and there are no Developer proposals looking to converge them. I am quite happy for proposals that would diverge them from Scrappers, however.

 

Brutes and Tankers don't need to be merged into the same Archetype.

 

I also believe that readers of this thread know that from the early levels of teaming all the way to 50, there's a big difference in survivability when you have a Brute leading the alpha versus a Tanker. Perhaps our experiences are vastly different, but to me it is an appreciable one.

 

As for the argument of "IOs do exist", while that is clearly true, it is also ignoring the reality that it only applies to a very small and narrow window of the game, which, based on the various character data extracted, appears to only account for a small % of gameplay. I know from my personal experience that once I IO out a character, it still gets some attention, but it starts to hit the shelf fast for my next experiment.

Edited November 16, 2019 by summers

[summers]

I guess I'll just pose the question

 

If Brute and Tanker survivability is so very similar, why would you want the Tanker to gain more damage and essentially become an almost carbon copy of the Brute? I know this is a reductionist argument, but the numbers of 90% damage / 90% survivability float around so much that this is the way it's been going.

 

If they are so similar, there is no need to have two Archetypes.

 

What we have is an opportunity to have the Tanker gain some kind of real identity in the game, instead of the character creation screen saying "Brute again, +/- 10%". I like that idea.

 

(I also think that [some] people secretly recognise there's a more noteable difference in survivability, especially non-IO levels, and want that survivability plus lots of damage.)

[Haijinx]

2 minutes ago, summers said:

Brutes are very clearly not in 'the fundamentally similar camp' as Stalkers, and there are no Developer proposals looking to converge them. I am quite happy for proposals that would diverge them, however.

 

Brutes and Tankers don't need to be merged into the same Archetype.

 

I also believe that readers of this thread know that from the early levels of teaming all the way to 50, there's a big difference in survivability when you have a Brute leading the alpha versus a Tanker. Perhaps our experiences are vastly different, but to me it is an appreciable one.

Leveling up Brutes do a lot more damage than tankers, and will continue to do so with the proposed changes, because the tankers can't access the better attack powers and slot them as early. 

 

Except for the Hide gimmick Stalkers are essentially very close to Scrappers.  So thats 2 already in the melee DPS group.

 

Brutes can either be tough scrappers or high damage tanks.   For the former they would need Taunting/Toughness adjusted downwards.  For the later, well Tanker damage needs to improve.  

 

Or of course they can be "DPS!!" (Ohh psst also tanks but don't tell anybody or they will buff tanker damage)   <- this is the status quo. 

 

I think in retrospect the name "Tanker" has helped lead to this whole mess.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[summers]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

Leveling up Brutes do a lot more damage than tankers, and will continue to do so with the proposed changes, because the tankers can't access the better attack powers and slot them as early. 

 

Except for the Hide gimmick Stalkers are essentially very close to Scrappers.  So thats 2 already in the melee DPS group.

 

Brutes can either be tough scrappers or high damage tanks.   For the former they would need Taunting/Toughness adjusted downwards.  For the later, well Tanker damage needs to improve.  

 

Or of course they can be "DPS!!" (Ohh psst also tanks but don't tell anybody or they will buff tanker damage)   <- this is the status quo. 

 

I think in retrospect the name "Tanker" has helped lead to this whole mess.

I may not have made myself clear since you continue to make comparisons between Stalkers and Scrappers as defence for Brutes and Tanks. I'm not going to argue their closeness, as that seems to muddy the issue, but instead state my clear objective.

 

ATs should be different, and have their own clear identity. If they are not different, they should be made different. I will argue against (most) suggestions that converge ATs together, and I will give favourable consideration to (most) suggests that diverge them to acquire their own identity.

 

I hope this drops the Scrapper/Stalker discussion and gives you an idea about why I don't want Brutes and Tanks to be so increasingly similar. If we disagree on this, that's fine, but that is why I just don't want to see "Brute" and "Basically another Brute" in the AT selection screen.

[Haijinx]

3 minutes ago, summers said:

 

 

(I also think that [some] people secretly recognise there's a more noteable difference in survivability, especially non-IO levels, and want that survivability plus lots of damage.)

It takes less than a week for a casual player, playing one character, to hit 50. 

 

At 50 with IOs many blasters, definitely all stalkers and sents and scrappers can take alphas at +3/x8 with minimal support. 

 

Meanwhile  Brute can be built to basically rival a Tanker against 95% or more of content, and has nearly the same aggro tools as the Tanker.  But much more damage.

 

Somehow the tanker needs to stay relevant in this world.  

 

So i guess we should change the entire game?  Rather than upping Tanker damage a bit?

[summers]

Just now, Haijinx said:

So i guess we should change the entire game?  Rather than upping Tanker damage a bit?

I find that highly disingenuous. There have been other suggestions, including my own such as providing some additional support tools to Tankers that help the team, especially where those support tools are directed towards increasing team survivability.

[Haijinx]

4 minutes ago, summers said:

I may not have made myself clear since you continue to make comparisons between Stalkers and Scrappers as defence for Brutes and Tanks. I'm not going to argue their closeness, as that seems to muddy the issue, but instead state my clear objective.

 

ATs should be different, and have their own clear identity. If they are not different, they should be made different. I will argue against (most) suggestions that converge ATs together, and I will give favourable consideration to (most) suggests that diverge them to acquire their own identity.

 

I hope this drops the Scrapper/Stalker discussion and gives you an idea about why I don't want Brutes and Tanks to be so increasingly similar. If we disagree on this, that's fine, but that is why I just don't want to see "Brute" and "Basically another Brute" in the AT selection screen.

Im confused how?

 

How do you make them different? 

 

They were literally the red side version of Tankers.   The Direct Inverse.  They even shared almost all the same sets.

 

The same way Corruptors were the red side version of Defenders.  Again with inverted Primaries and Secondaries. 

 

And yes Stalkers were the Red Side version of Scrappers.  Though they were even closer.

 

The reason they ended up so close to Scrappers is Scrappers were already the inverse of Tankers.   The big difference being Scrappers had different sets.  But that difference is mostly gone. 

 

 

 

[Haijinx]

7 minutes ago, summers said:

I find that highly disingenuous. There have been other suggestions, including my own such as providing some additional support tools to Tankers that help the team, especially where those support tools are directed towards increasing team survivability.

Why?  Team survivability is already too high. 

 

I haven't had a character die in months.  I think my Fire blaster died twice on the way to 50.  

[summers]

2 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Im confused how?

 

How do you make them different? 

 

They were literally the red side version of Tankers.   The Direct Inverse.  They even shared almost all the same sets.

 

The same way Corruptors were the red side version of Defenders.  Again with inverted Primaries and Secondaries. 

 

And yes Stalkers were the Red Side version of Scrappers.  Though they were even closer.

 

The reason they ended up so close to Scrappers is Scrappers were already the inverse of Tankers.   The big difference being Scrappers had different sets.  But that difference is mostly gone. 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, summers said:

I may not have made myself clear since you continue to make comparisons between Stalkers and Scrappers as defence for Brutes and Tanks. I'm not going to argue their closeness, as that seems to muddy the issue, but instead state my clear objective.

 

ATs should be different, and have their own clear identity. If they are not different, they should be made different. I will argue against (most) suggestions that converge ATs together, and I will give favourable consideration to (most) suggests that diverge them to acquire their own identity.

 

I hope this drops the Scrapper/Stalker discussion and gives you an idea about why I don't want Brutes and Tanks to be so increasingly similar. If we disagree on this, that's fine, but that is why I just don't want to see "Brute" and "Basically another Brute" in the AT selection screen.

 

[mcdoogss]

9 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Why?  Team survivability is already too high. 

 

I haven't had a character die in months.  I think my Fire blaster died twice on the way to 50.  

This seems to me to be the real problem.  Theoretically tankers can be built tougher than brutes, but realistically there is no 50+ content that can actually test that extra toughness with even moderate team buffs/debuffs.  So we end up with the score guys deciding to just buff tankers damage to be more 'brute'-ish, probably because it's way easier than stiffening up the lvl 54 content to make the extra survivability actually factor in.  Hell, most of us here have probably built traditional 'squishy' classes that are nigh-unkillable at the current endgame difficulty.

Edited November 16, 2019 by mcdoogss

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, mcdoogss said:

This seems to me to be the real problem.  Theoretically tankers can be built tougher than brutes, but realistically there is no 50+ content that can actually test that extra toughness with even moderate team buffs/debuffs.  So we end up with the score guys deciding to just buff tankers damage to be more 'brute'-ish, probably because it's way easier than stiffening up the lvl 54 content to make the extra survivability actually factor in.  Hell, most of us here have probably built traditional 'squishy' classes that are nigh-unkillable at the current endgame difficulty.

This is how i see it too.

 

Incarnate IO

 

Squiahies can survive 75%+ of content

Sents / Scraps / Stalkers 85%+

Brutes 95%+  

 

But what Brutes also have are strong taunt tools.  

 

So basically there is a soft cap on how much aggro management and toughness is needed, and Brutes surpass that cap comfortably. 

 

So there is no room for the tanker in that direction.   

 

Brutes are Tanks now.  As much as Tankers are 95% of the time.  So right now they are the only one of the pair living the current reality.

 

Tankers are still playing some old issue.  They need more damage.

 

Or the game has to change to make everyone die a lot more. 

 

 

 

[Gobbledigook]

A brute is just as survivable as a Tanker with IO's or external buffs in a team which is usually required for the hardest content. The difference between them would be minor. Slightly more health.

But the Brute has way more damage.

 

Blasters got buffed to do more damage, Stalkers got buffed to do more damage. No complaints there, yet they were fine really. Why should a stalker do Scrapper damage? they have stealth and placate etc? Why did Blasters need more damage? to help trivialise content more?

 

Corruptors/Defenders do the same job of support and buff the WHOLE team. They are extremely similar. One villain and one hero side. We don't need both do we?

 

Brutes are getting a Fury Buff to help with fury generation when not main tanking. A dps buff.

 

Why is it felt that the Tanker should be a Taunt bot only and receive no worthwhile buffs?

 

Best thing to do is remove the corruptor as it isn't really needed, we have the defender. Remove the Brute as it isn't really needed as we have the Scrapper/Tanker and remove the Stalker etc. Change content to make the Tanker more useful as a taunter with low damage high survival. Would this be better?

 

Or just Remove IO's lol

Edited November 16, 2019 by Gobbledegook

[Leogunner]

On 11/12/2019 at 4:39 PM, 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.

But technically, you're gaining survivability by exploiting range which is taxed for that.  

16 hours ago, summers said:

I rail against the idea since I don't think you need two Archetypes that are so fundamentally similar.

 

The main argument for the change is that because Brute survivability is about the same as Tanker survivability, then they should get about-the-same damage. If this were true, then there is absolutely no need to change Tankers, since that exact combination of power (within a 10% margin) exists in Brute. Instead, I think people want the complete invincibility of Tankers (at all levels, not just at IO'd out to the gills levels) alongside loads of damage.

 

I also think the fair minded readers of this thread will agree that Brute survivability at anything except the IO level is significantly poorer than Tanker.

There are various facets at work here and I don't feel you're quite accurate depicting them.  I don't think any player that is a fan of Tanker wants their invincibility + more damage.  From my participating in the thread a while back, those individuals actually want to retain their place while having a **special** role in the team, not necessarily damage.  Those that advocate for more damage are looking at it from the perspective of AT dispersion.  Brute are overly represented in characters made and used at 50 and it likely has to do with overall balance between Tanker and Brute.  Those advocating for changes in general likely see the same thing as the former with Brutes being overly represented but from the reverse: seeing Tanker underrepresented compared to both Scrapper and Brute and see something that could differentiate these playstyles could give players more reason to roll a Tanker.

 

As for the fair minded readers, the aspect of survivability goes hand-in-hand with DPS.  If you can obliterate targets before they can fight back, that is also part of your mitigation.  This is also tied to the fundamental tactics of the Brute itself since it CAN'T obliterate targets at the start of an engagement but if it can capitalize on fury and rolling tactics (team buffs/debuffs, inspirations, etc), they can survive LONG ENOUGH so that their offense shifts their level of survivability closer to a Tanker *because* they can start to obliterate things.  This all goes kind of out the window when you start mixing in IOs and incarnates.  You don't even have to build for soft capped defense to benefit from it.  Just a few sets to put you around the range of 30% and suddenly the stray Maneuvers buff or Darkest Night pushes you over cap.  

15 hours ago, summers said:

Brutes are very clearly not in 'the fundamentally similar camp' as Stalkers, and there are no Developer proposals looking to converge them. I am quite happy for proposals that would diverge them from Scrappers, however.

 

Brutes and Tankers don't need to be merged into the same Archetype.

 

I also believe that readers of this thread know that from the early levels of teaming all the way to 50, there's a big difference in survivability when you have a Brute leading the alpha versus a Tanker. Perhaps our experiences are vastly different, but to me it is an appreciable one.

 

As for the argument of "IOs do exist", while that is clearly true, it is also ignoring the reality that it only applies to a very small and narrow window of the game, which, based on the various character data extracted, appears to only account for a small % of gameplay. I know from my personal experience that once I IO out a character, it still gets some attention, but it starts to hit the shelf fast for my next experiment.

This change doesn't merge Brutes and Tankers tho.  It doesn't even make them similar.  They're no more similar on test than they are on live.  They function the same.  The only *real* difference is certain cones are a lot more useful and some AoEs are very generous for minion mashing compared to the Brute.

15 hours ago, summers said:

I guess I'll just pose the question

 

If Brute and Tanker survivability is so very similar, why would you want the Tanker to gain more damage and essentially become an almost carbon copy of the Brute? I know this is a reductionist argument, but the numbers of 90% damage / 90% survivability float around so much that this is the way it's been going.

 

If they are so similar, there is no need to have two Archetypes.

 

What we have is an opportunity to have the Tanker gain some kind of real identity in the game, instead of the character creation screen saying "Brute again, +/- 10%". I like that idea.

 

(I also think that [some] people secretly recognise there's a more noteable difference in survivability, especially non-IO levels, and want that survivability plus lots of damage.)

If I can use Shadow Maul well on a Brute, then maybe you're right...but it's pretty niche (or from the min/maxers: it sux).  And it's not just Shadow Maul.  There are a lot of AoEs this change alters that will make the two ATs distinct in how they are played and built.  One could also say "why not just buff those powers then? make Shadow Maul good for all ATs?" and that's because needless powercreep shouldn't be the damned answer.  The only reason I'd propose for buffing the AoEs for Tanker is BECAUSE they're behind the power curve.  And it's because that is a rationed perspective of the AT is why we're looking at ways to improve it.

 

If all you're complaining about is Tanker minion mashing as good as a Brute, perhaps you should actually "reductionist" that part as well.

15 hours ago, summers said:

I may not have made myself clear since you continue to make comparisons between Stalkers and Scrappers as defence for Brutes and Tanks. I'm not going to argue their closeness, as that seems to muddy the issue, but instead state my clear objective.

 

ATs should be different, and have their own clear identity. If they are not different, they should be made different. I will argue against (most) suggestions that converge ATs together, and I will give favourable consideration to (most) suggests that diverge them to acquire their own identity.

 

I hope this drops the Scrapper/Stalker discussion and gives you an idea about why I don't want Brutes and Tanks to be so increasingly similar. If we disagree on this, that's fine, but that is why I just don't want to see "Brute" and "Basically another Brute" in the AT selection screen.

I wholeheartedly agree that the ATs should be different.  But making a nearly unkillable AT even more unkillable or handing the team they play with more buffs or safety when teams are mostly already at the threashold of not needing more buffs or safety is patently ineffective.  Give Tankers more aggro?  Why?  They still won't out control a Dominator or Controller.  Team buffs?  Players didn't choose a Tanker to buff teams.

15 hours ago, summers said:

I find that highly disingenuous. There have been other suggestions, including my own such as providing some additional support tools to Tankers that help the team, especially where those support tools are directed towards increasing team survivability.

And those suggestions suck.  Interesting to discuss, but they suck...

[Gobbledigook]

I think there has been too much discussion on this now that is not really going anywhere. I think the developers just need to decide, release it and adjust accordingly as we go. there are other matters that need attention in game also. Sentinels for one, which the discussion will end up going the same way i suspect lol.

 

You CAN NOT please everyone!

Edited November 16, 2019 by Gobbledegook

[golstat2003]

1 minute ago, Gobbledegook said:

I think there has been too much discussion on this now that is not really going anywhere. I think the developers just need to decide, release it and adjust accordingly as we go.

 

You CAN NOT please everyone!

Pretty sure they’ve ALREADY said MORE THAN ONCE that another patch is coming. So no they are not going to just release it. Folks arguing for the last few pages are not adding anything that hasn’t been discussed for the 15-20 pages prior.

 

Everyone just needs to patiently wait for the next patch to hit beta.