Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for October 1st, 2019

[Demon Shell]

4 hours ago, Eiko-chan said:

I apologise for trying to give feedback. I'll leave it to the super-posters from now on.

You're perspective is appreciated. Regrettably, you were one of the only people in the last 2-3 pages that had anything worth commenting on.

 

All I was pointing out is that SS's Rage isn't the only power to require constant observation to maximize performance. That doesn't mean Rage should work that way.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Demon Shell
I posted the same thing in two topics like a doof

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

Quantifying hasn't really helped much, but here goes again.

 

The changes push tankers more towards damage as a primary output making them more similar to brutes rather than accentuating differences. There is nothing to this that creates anything ancillary to either the tanker or brute to differentiate them in fundamental identity. The primary difference would be in feel, with the the brute needing to build resource to get it's effect higher and tankers are just easier to play, in outputting their effect.

That's not particularly quantified.  You say this pushes Tankers primarily toward damage but that, in itself, has no definitive reference point.  How much are they aimed at damage on HC live?  And you say it's less differentiated from Brute but I can quantify their difference EASILY by just using Shadow Maul on 3 foes.  The difference in use means the Brute likely would lean toward cycling the faster ST attacks for better fury and high DPS while the Tanker might utilize the longer animating attack despite its lower DPA IF he can hit 3 or more foes with it.  That is a quantifiable difference that fundamentally changes how the set (Dark Melee) is played compared to a Tanker vs a Brute similarly to how the fundamental differences between Stalker Dark melee and Scrapper Dark melee will be completely differentiated due to one having Soul Drain and the other having Assassin's Eclipse.

 

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

 

The increase in target caps allows for base damage output that can't be matched by brutes, and is unlikely to be matched by scrappers (would have to crit every enemy hit) this is best observed on the extreme end in farms, as both brutes and tankers have the same tools, and ancillary options (with higher target caps) yet the tanker's AoEs are potent enough to knock a minute plus off of run times. This is strong enough that it could cause a general change in play pattern to leverage that power

I understand that AoE is king in CoX but the meme isn't painting the whole picture.  Being able to AoE down a bunch of minions is a great utility but it is really only that: a utility.  It isn't DPS.  If it were DPS, it wouldn't be decreased by the presence of anyone who has better AoE like a Blaster or a Dominator.  Just one AoE from them and your advantage is pretty much clipped to solo farming.  I'm not trying to downplay the stronger AoE, I'm just saying it's not the mass DPS output it's framed to be.  I'd deem it closer to a utility so you don't have to use as many ST attacks thus burn as much endurance.  It also comes with the caveat that you're reducing your own effectiveness by lowering the amount of targets around yourself.  This goes for your AoE attacks AND your buff auras.

 

As for the farming comparison, I'd argue that Brute isn't the best farmer anyway.  If Tankers just so happen to take their place, it doesn't actually matter much since shifts in meta for farms will constantly be changing and for all we know Peacebringer will be the next meta farmer at the top of the heap half a year from now.  So long as Brute can still farm as well as now, I'd say it's a wash.  Now you have a reason to run a Tanker.

 

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

The increase in areas makes tankers even easier to play. This means they are not only able to reach the 90% damage of brutes (I disagree with this assessment, as I believe that tankers will be able to exceed brutes output, but even if you use the 90% metric), they will be able to do so with ease of play rather than a swingy mechanic like fury

I won't argue with you on that.  Increased area makes using the AoEs easier...but the increase in target cap makes using the same skills of lining up those AoEs more REWARDING.  That's my take away.  I could be happy hitting 4 foes with my shadow maul and it's a net profit in DPS...or I can cram in another 4 targets and make its activation REALLY pay off.

 

So you're right on one facet, I disagree on another.

 

As for the whole 90% damage part, I will agree.  I was never a proponent of the 0.95 melee mod.  I would prefer 0.85 or even 0.8 as their melee mod and they can make up the rest with the utility of efficient AoEs...that and put their damage cap back up.  Even still, putting Bruising back on the tier 1 wouldn't hurt either.  But my bias shows that I just like the AoEs since that should be what Tankers excel at (they're good at taunting large groups to themselves for a reason).

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

They have the same powersets, so if their output is seen as only damage/survivability and that's how they're balanced, then the one that applies the effects better will be the one selected most often. Rather than having different identities that are built up on for players to choose from.

That is the case now...it's just leaned in favor of Brutes.  You can't deny, with the betatest changes, at least they play differently (Tankers and Brutes) far more than on live...and I'm not talking the clear times on farming maps, I'm talking mechanical differences in play.

[William Valence]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

About your damage comparisons - I assume you're talking about Tanker damage when capped on targets (e.g. base damage * max target number)?  I cannot fully disagree with your assessments, but I think it's important to point out if this is a comparison of best-case scenario.

That is what I'm talking about (Bolded).

 

It is reasonable and fair to point out it is a comparison of a best case scenario, meaning the most damage the tanker can output vs cross-at equivilants, but it's a construct-able scenario that is influenced by the player. A tanker can saturate it's AoEs with more ease than a brute can reach 100 fury. And a Tanker can actively influence it's additional damage whereas a scrapper's crit is RNG.

 

 

[Rylas]

48 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 The difference in use means the Brute likely would lean toward cycling the faster ST attacks for better fury and high DPS while the Tanker might utilize the longer animating attack despite its lower DPA IF he can hit 3 or more foes with it.  That is a quantifiable difference that fundamentally changes how the set (Dark Melee) is played compared to a Tanker vs a Brute similarly to how the fundamental differences between Stalker Dark melee and Scrapper Dark melee will be completely differentiated due to one having Soul Drain and the other having Assassin's Eclipse.

This is a pretty key detail I think some people are missing. I haven't had the opportunity to test the latest patch yet (waiting for the weekend), but from the last go-round and before, I could tell I'd be playing my Brutes much differently than I'll be playing my Tankers. On live, there's no real difference except for Brutes turning out more damage across the board.

48 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I won't argue with you on that.  Increased area makes using the AoEs easier...but the increase in target cap makes using the same skills of lining up those AoEs more REWARDING. 

And this solidifies that difference all the more. I've always tried to line up cones. Jumping or shifting over to get as close to making 5 targets happen as much as possible. But hardly ever seeing more than 3. Now my Tankers will actually make that a skill worth employing.

48 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

As for the whole 90% damage part, I will agree.  I was never a proponent of the 0.95 melee mod.  I would prefer 0.85 or even 0.8 as their melee mod and they can make up the rest with the utility of efficient AoEs...that and put their damage cap back up. 

I could get behind that quite happily. But no matter what percentage you try to gauge one Tankers damage to Brutes, you'll never have a straight correlation line graph. I think we have to accept that even if we tweak down the multiplier and up the cap, we'd still have outliers that would be able to reach higher damage than Brutes in the right circumstances.

48 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Even still, putting Bruising back on the tier 1 wouldn't hurt either.  But my bias shows that I just like the AoEs since that should be what Tankers excel at (they're good at taunting large groups to themselves for a reason).

I still don't think Bruising makes all that much sense on Tankers. It's not a terrible thing to have, but a mechanic that did more for crowd control would serve Tankers in a more thematic way. But that's just my opinion.

[Auroxis]

34 minutes ago, Rylas said:

I still don't think Bruising makes all that much sense on Tankers. It's not a terrible thing to have, but a mechanic that did more for crowd control would serve Tankers in a more thematic way. But that's just my opinion.

Bringing Bruising back in some form or another and reducing the melee damage modifier would be the best way to keep Tanker from becoming significantly better than Brute at AoE, since that way you're not reducing the Tanker's effective single target DPS. In fact you're increasing it at the early-game, where Tanker struggles most in comparison to Brute.

 

For the record I'm talking AoE in regular team scenarios, Brutes are still slightly ahead in AE Farms which utilize multiple ranged attacks and easily saturate 100% Fury, while in normal gameplay the Brute hovers around 25-75% Fury.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Auroxis

[William Valence]

28 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

That's not particularly quantified.  You say this pushes Tankers primarily toward damage but that, in itself, has no definitive reference point.  How much are they aimed at damage on HC live?  And you say it's less differentiated from Brute but I can quantify their difference EASILY by just using Shadow Maul on 3 foes.  The difference in use means the Brute likely would lean toward cycling the faster ST attacks for better fury and high DPS while the Tanker might utilize the longer animating attack despite its lower DPA IF he can hit 3 or more foes with it.

Apologies I thought it was fairly self-evident. HC live they aren't aimed at damage. If you're looking for an AT that is primary damage output, then a tanker isn't as viable an option as others, and now it is. And not only is this version a viable option, it can output the most in player constructed situations. That's the quantifiable change in primary output. That was the goal of the changes if I'm understanding correctly, but there are unintended consequences to that.

 

As to the current difference, that would only be true if the tanker couldn't cycle those same attacks in it's downtime at the same rate, or the powersets were different. In situations where it's more damage to use the AoE, it will be more damage to use the AoE for both, just easier for the Tanker. The tanker doesn't to anything different with AoEs, it does the same thing, just better/more. If damage is kept in a range the only difference will be due to targets hit with extra AoE. If a tanker does 90% it does 90% plus whatever extras it hits with it's AoE. There's no secret sauce like with scrappers/stalkers that makes a big difference here.

34 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I understand that AoE is king in CoX but the meme isn't painting the whole picture.  Being able to AoE down a bunch of minions is a great utility but it is really only that: a utility.  It isn't DPS.  If it were DPS, it wouldn't be decreased by the presence of anyone who has better AoE like a Blaster or a Dominator.  Just one AoE from them and your advantage is pretty much clipped to solo farming.  I'm not trying to downplay the stronger AoE, I'm just saying it's not the mass DPS output it's framed to be.

It is the DPS it's being framed to be, because it's being framed in context. I'm comparing Melee damage Armor ATs to each other, because if a player is looking at a concept using one of them, it's most likely that they would be compared to the others, not to Dominators or Blasters. Also having mitigation should inherently mean less damage compared to an AT that doesn't have that mitigation output which is in part, I believe, why the brute damage cap was lowered.

 

45 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I won't argue with you on that.  Increased area makes using the AoEs easier...but the increase in target cap makes using the same skills of lining up those AoEs more REWARDING.  That's my take away.  I could be happy hitting 4 foes with my shadow maul and it's a net profit in DPS...or I can cram in another 4 targets and make its activation REALLY pay off.

That's fine, and it is more rewarding, but being rewarding doesn't mean it isn't out of spec. If Scrapper attacks were all cones that only damaged the enemy targeted, but the crit damage scaled with the number of targets in the cone so crits did between 1x and 8x damage to the target, it would be more rewarding to line up your attacks, but it would be out of spec. You could hit the 4 people easy and get 4x damage, but the crit would be really rewarding if you got all 8 in. Yes more rewarding, but not necessarily balanced.

 

57 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

That is the case now...it's just leaned in favor of Brutes.  You can't deny, with the betatest changes, at least they play differently (Tankers and Brutes) far more than on live...and I'm not talking the clear times on farming maps, I'm talking mechanical differences in play.

No problem is ever solved by allowing something else a turn at being the problem rather than fixing it. As for mechanical differences, with the way the sets are structured, it's almost always optimal to gather as many enemies as you can survive and AoE, with single target fillers. That hasn't changed. The feel to it has, with tankers feeling much easier to use and brutes feeling the same. But the optimal mechanical play is pretty simple to figure out, and hasn't changed. Meme, meta, it can be called whatever someone wants to call it, but it's also true. IIRC only stalkers and masterminds get a modifier to participation for event tables. Masterminds because of how their pets interact with the participation metrics, and stalkers because of how disadvantaged they are due to their lackluster AoE output, and behavioral focus on ST damage.

 

I am concerned that there will be a behavioral change in optimization and selection, but the mechanical gameplay won't change. Not really, and definitely not with a change that just modifies the comparative damage levels. Get things into your AoE, use them, fill time with other abilities, repeat. That's the basic loop of CoH combat gameplay. Stalker's Hide/AS mechanic subverts this to create something interesting, but these changes don't do that. They do the same things as pre-change just more.

[siolfir]

1 hour ago, William Valence said:

They do the same things as pre-change just more.

That was one of the premises behind the changes, though - you may not agree with it, but it was stated as one of the design goals of the changes in the other thread.

[William Valence]

40 minutes ago, siolfir said:

That was one of the premises behind the changes, though - you may not agree with it, but it was stated as one of the design goals of the changes in the other thread.

 

1 hour ago, William Valence said:

That was the goal of the changes if I'm understanding correctly, but there are unintended consequences to that.

I don't believe I've said that it wasn't the goal. I understand that Tankers doing more, easier, without changing play pattern was the objective. The changes reach their goal.

 

I'm saying meeting that goal doesn't fix the problem of two ATs being too similar with one just having more output (It just changes which has more output), while changing tankers to a primary damage identity, and adds a very strongly scaling effect that in my opinion is being under accounted for.

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, William Valence said:

Apologies I thought it was fairly self-evident. HC live they aren't aimed at damage. If you're looking for an AT that is primary damage output, then a tanker isn't as viable an option as others, and now it is. And not only is this version a viable option, it can output the most in player constructed situations. That's the quantifiable change in primary output. That was the goal of the changes if I'm understanding correctly, but there are unintended consequences to that.

I'd argue against that assessment.  Just because there are a large portion of Tanker players who don't feel they are obligated to participate in damage or just take taunting powers or their contributions are beyond quantifying among the group's damage output, the Tanker has a secondary set and it is meant to do damage.  Just like Dominator has a secondary that is meant to do damage.  But my inquiry was aimed at HOW MUCH it was or wasn't aimed at damage.  If you can get that reference down and compare it with the new level of offensive output, we can try to get a ballpark estimate on how close to Brute it is.

 

But frankly, I feel that consideration is kind of moot when the whole purpose of helping Tanker was to shore up their lack of offense...so yeah, they might be perceived as closer to Brute....if Brute = offensive AT then mission accomplished.  If you're telling me that they play mechanically the same, I'd argue that fury makes them different as well as the mechanical differences of Tanker AoEs now.

 

1 hour ago, William Valence said:

As to the current difference, that would only be true if the tanker couldn't cycle those same attacks in it's downtime at the same rate, or the powersets were different. In situations where it's more damage to use the AoE, it will be more damage to use the AoE for both, just easier for the Tanker. The tanker doesn't to anything different with AoEs, it does the same thing, just better/more. If damage is kept in a range the only difference will be due to targets hit with extra AoE. If a tanker does 90% it does 90% plus whatever extras it hits with it's AoE. There's no secret sauce like with scrappers/stalkers that makes a big difference here.

It is the DPS it's being framed to be, because it's being framed in context. I'm comparing Melee damage Armor ATs to each other, because if a player is looking at a concept using one of them, it's most likely that they would be compared to the others, not to Dominators or Blasters. Also having mitigation should inherently mean less damage compared to an AT that doesn't have that mitigation output which is in part, I believe, why the brute damage cap was lowered.

Depends on composition and tactics.  I'm just expanding your context to the not-always-optimal situations which do exist.

 

Even comparing melee powersets side by side with similar ATs, if we're talking about teams, few melee needs the Tanker to bundle foes up anyway.  Any time it takes the mobs to gather around is DPS lost.  Overkill is DPS lost.  Repositioning is DPS lost.  

 

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

That's fine, and it is more rewarding, but being rewarding doesn't mean it isn't out of spec. If Scrapper attacks were all cones that only damaged the enemy targeted, but the crit damage scaled with the number of targets in the cone so crits did between 1x and 8x damage to the target, it would be more rewarding to line up your attacks, but it would be out of spec. You could hit the 4 people easy and get 4x damage, but the crit would be really rewarding if you got all 8 in. Yes more rewarding, but not necessarily balanced.

 

No problem is ever solved by allowing something else a turn at being the problem rather than fixing it. As for mechanical differences, with the way the sets are structured, it's almost always optimal to gather as many enemies as you can survive and AoE, with single target fillers. That hasn't changed. The feel to it has, with tankers feeling much easier to use and brutes feeling the same. But the optimal mechanical play is pretty simple to figure out, and hasn't changed. Meme, meta, it can be called whatever someone wants to call it, but it's also true. IIRC only stalkers and masterminds get a modifier to participation for event tables. Masterminds because of how their pets interact with the participation metrics, and stalkers because of how disadvantaged they are due to their lackluster AoE output, and behavioral focus on ST damage.

 

I am concerned that there will be a behavioral change in optimization and selection, but the mechanical gameplay won't change. Not really, and definitely not with a change that just modifies the comparative damage levels. Get things into your AoE, use them, fill time with other abilities, repeat. That's the basic loop of CoH combat gameplay. Stalker's Hide/AS mechanic subverts this to create something interesting, but these changes don't do that. They do the same things as pre-change just more.

I don't like your rewarding Scrapper analogy.  It doesn't make sense and/or doesn't relate.

 

I'm not trying to trying to solve anything by shifting turns at being the problem.  Farming Brutes ISN'T a problem so neither is farming Tankers.  I mean, do you not feel audacious trying to defend Brute's position at some solo game exploit that nobody cares about?  Again, I'm not trying to fix them, I just don't think it's a defensible position to try and gatekeep another AT out of.  I'm concerned with team play and leveling performance mainly.

 

And @siolfir said what I was going to say.  The mechanical changes are different ENOUGH without drastically altering the AT or powers.  It's simple (I assume) and unique.  It also sort of fulfills a spectrum where defensive and AoE oriented Tanker would be on one end and ST burst/DPS frail Stalker is on the other with Brute and Scrapper being the inbetweens.

 

 

[Haijinx]

Where does it say Tankers aren't supposed to do damage?

 

It said they have slow, devastating attacks right in the original game manual.  

[William Valence]

Quote

The Tanker is the “big man” of the hero world, combin-ing massive defense with a powerful, but not exception-ally quick, offensive punch.Tankers make effective solo Heroes, at their own delib-erate pace, but they are also in demand by teams,where their function is to keep enemy attacks off thelightly defended Blasters, Controllers and Defenders.

 

The full bit from the manual you referenced @Haijinx. Emphasis mine, but that's not even what I'm arguing.

 

It's not that they don't do damage, of course they do damage, rather that the damage wasn't the primary reason to pick them because other options were focused on that. The utility for protecting a team through survivability and melee fighting control, was the primary purpose for choosing to take a Tanker over another option. Just like a Defender's primary output isn't damage, but of course they do damage.

 

@Leogunner We've spun this circle in the past, and I don't think we'll agree on this topic. Probably just best for us to just leave it be this time.

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

 

@Leogunner We've spun this circle in the past, and I don't think we'll agree on this topic. Probably just best for us to just leave it be this time.

We do have some common ground.  But yeah, I don't think this is the thread to hash that out in.  It's more for feedback of pineapple.

[Vanden]

I put in some real play time on my remade Inv/SS tanker on Pineapple, and my experience pretty much confirmed for me what I'd been saying earlier in the thread: I really think Super Strength needs some buffs on top of the Tanker changes. It gets less out of the new inherent than possibly any set besides Titan Weapons (which was specifically exempt for already being too stronk) I definitely defeat enemies a little faster, and that's great, but I don't notice a big difference otherwise. This is at odds with the other posters who've seen great results on other sets with more AoEs and cones to benefit from the new inherent. Foot Stomp and Hand Clap only got 1 foot larger in radius, something I sure don't notice in practice, and (while this is just me, personally) I don't normally play on difficulties high enough to benefit from the increased target cap. (As an aside: I actually noticed my endurance usage was much worse on Pineapple; I'm pretty sure this is because I made my Tanker when the T1/T2 swap was still being tested and I was able to fit Hand Clap in my build. I've posted before about the lengths I went to in order to get my endurance under control; to still have end problems at 50 after going to those lengths is troubling. Sure could've used the bigger endurance pool...)

 

I've said this before, but I think it bears reiterating; besides Rage, Foot Stomp was the big selling point for Super Strength. Its radius was nearly twice that of most other PBAoEs while still doing comparable damage. Now, on Tankers, the radius is only 25% bigger than those same powers. It would need a radius of 24 feet to keep the same ratio it had before with the 8-foot PBAoEs, but that seems much too big; I think the 20-foot radius it had in the first iteration of the Tanker changes would be fine.

 

Beyond that, I would like to see Jab and Punch swapped in the power order. Punch would make a much better T1. Give Jab something to make it worth a pick; it's absolutely miserable right now. Making it a defense move like Parry or Storm Kick would be good, or letting it keep Bruising would be nice too. Or even both; it really is so bad currently that letting it reduce a target's resistance while increasing your own defense doesn't feel like it would make it too powerful. Give that to Brutes' Jab, too, of course.

 

Oh yeah, one last thing, not related to Super Strength: those new taunt lines from Gauntlet are really distracting. Also, bug? I was seeing them on APP ranged attacks. On the live shards those only taunt the target for Tankers, no AoE. Is that intentional?

[Rejolt]

What if tankers cause a stacking 5 percent res debuff to anything they damage that’s been affected by their gauntlet?

 

Call it “Annoyance”, stacks up to 3 times. If the taunt/gauntlet affect falls off so do all stacks. 

[Generator]

I've been a little distracted this week, sorry to be late to this.  Was anything done with the T1 attacks of Tanker secondaries apart from sweeping them under the rug?  All I saw (with the important caveat that I could have missed something) is that Bruising is gone and the T1 attacks were shoved out of the way by making them the T2 attacks, and thus skippable.

 

Honestly, I'd rather have the current setup than this.

[Snakebit]

11 hours ago, William Valence said:

 

I don't believe I've said that it wasn't the goal. I understand that Tankers doing more, easier, without changing play pattern was the objective. The changes reach their goal.

 

I'm saying meeting that goal doesn't fix the problem of two ATs being too similar with one just having more output (It just changes which has more output), while changing tankers to a primary damage identity, and adds a very strongly scaling effect that in my opinion is being under accounted for.

 

I read this and I think "What problem"? If I have a concept for a melee toon that I will inevitably be playing solo at some point now I don't have to chose between a Brute and a Scrapper. I can now throw Tanks into the mix.  That isn't on option with the Live version. 

 

[Doc_Scorpion]

2 hours ago, cejmp said:

I read this and I think "What problem"? If I have a concept for a melee toon that I will inevitably be playing solo at some point now I don't have to chose between a Brute and a Scrapper. I can now throw Tanks into the mix.  That isn't on option with the Live version. 

So. Much. This.

Though I disagree with "not an option on Live".  On Excelsior, I've soled a f/f tank to 19 without many problems (only needed an assist on two missions), and back in the original game the same tank made it easily into his thirties before Shutdown.  (With inherent Fitness and only only one travel power pick required, both of those coming early, it's actually easier now than then.)  It's a very different playstyle than scrappers or brutes, and I think that's lead folks into believing that soloing a tank isn't inherently practical.  (Scrappers and brutes are rabbits - tanks are turtles.  And slow and steady can and does win races.)
 

14 hours ago, William Valence said:

I'm saying meeting that goal doesn't fix the problem of two ATs being too similar

That problem is inherently unsolvable - because it's origin lies in the original design of the game(s) and the fact that originally they were never meant to be compared side to side because you'd never have a choice between them.  This has lead to the problem of the player base insisting that there must be a clear binary choice between the two and that their favored candidate not be the "loser".

The whole problem goes away when you give up the idea that each character is a peg that must fit into the hole they've been designed for and that there's never, ever, any chance of putting the "wrong" peg into the wrong "hole".

Myself, I don't have a problem with shades of gray or grappling with the subtle (and not-too-subtle) differences between the various melee archetypes.

[csr]

This is just a generic reply to the "Tankers now do too much damage" comments from several posters.

 

I won't disagree with that.  I think Tankers are now balanced with Brutes.  But I think both ATs are now over-performing.  I believe my first comment in this beta was that I would have nerfed Brutes before I even started on balancing Tankers.  IMO, Brutes survivability should have been lowered to about 85% that of Tankers, their offense reduced to where it is now (for the reasons given by Captain Powerhouse), and then Tankers' damage buffed to the reduced survivability factor (85%) of Brutes.  As a result I think Brutes are too tough for their damage output and I think Tankers do too much damage for their toughness.

 

However the bottom line is really "is this better than what's on HC?"  And I think it clearly is.  Not even close.  Capt P's clever AoE change is what makes that the case for me.  The other factors are just tweaks to that to make it balance.  [Personally, I'd whack Brutes' Res Cap down to 87.5%, drop Tanker Melee DS to 0.9 and probably add 1 more target to Tanker Taunt (8 instead of 7).  But this is still an "A" grade improvement, IMO.]

[Tachstar]

My ultra-hyper scientific analysis of current Pineappley tankage.

 

Played my testy level 32 SR/SS tanker, still in Brickstown, still sporting the same setup as last time around.  Got off to a bad start jumping into a banner event circle in which some purple freakshow end-suckers were loitering.  Wound up pulling the boss one into the zapper thingee by the tram.  Admiral Ackbar'd his butt.  Hurr.  Moved on from that and fought some prisoners.  Would have been cool if the prison riot event had been running, but alas.  Seemed kinda off at first, particularly in regard to end usage, but eventually I jumped into a group of five or six level 38 prisoners and proceeded to clobber them, albeit at a molasses-like rate.  Didn't run out of end due to scientific pacing of attacks, even though there was much whiffage.  There was a massive end hit from clicking Rage, which at one point caused a toggle to drop.  Not sure if Rage has always been like that and escaped my notice previously, or if this is something new.  All in all, this tanker wasn't as butt kicky as last time, but still not bad.

 

Next, played my level 27 electric/stone tanker, set up the same as the original on Torch.  Started off with a zombie invasion in Talos, which didn't go well.  Electric armor vs toxic damage, and all that.  Blech.  Decided to try something else.

 

Duped my level 31 dark/staff tanker, scientifically calibrated the powers and slots and +end IOs to match the original on Indom, then commenced clobbering.  Did some back and forth comparison between the dupe and original.  Didn't notice much difference.  Both felt pretty good. 

 

Duped my level 27 SR/MA tanker from Excelsior.  Noticed that some of the MA attacks have been swapped on Pineapple.  It's the same up to Crane Kick, then it's Dragon's Tail, Focus Chi, and Crippling Axe Kick instead of Focus Chi, Crippling Axe Kick, and Dragon's Tail.  Cool.  However, in the interests of science, I refrained from using Dragon's Tail until after I'd done some comparisons.  Played the duped version, then the original, then the duped.  The dupe seemed to do better with end usage, but as noted in a previous post, not sure how much of that is due to an accolade.  Damage seemed a little better, too.  You know, it would be cool if MA had some more alternate animations, like, say, a Kirk Drop Kick or some space karate or something. 

 

Played the electric/stone tanker again.  Ran some radio missions, switching back and forth between the dupe and the original.  Again, end use seemed less heinous on the dupe, but the difference wasn't tremendously different.  Not enough to prompt me to run out into the street and perform the Macarena in celebration, which tends to confuse the neighbors, as none of them play CoX.  Damage seemed better on this one, too, even more so than with the MA attacks.  Overall, this dupe seemed the most improved over the original version.  Hopped back onto live for some more comparison, and lo!  Another zombie invasion.  Stood on the hill in Talos next to a brute, not sure what kind, but probably fiery, and we fought alongside each other quite merrily until I woopsied and didn't click the heal or a greenie to counteract ye olde toxic damage in time.  Bloop.

 

And so, thus, therefore, and to wit, the current version of tankage on Pineapple seems pretty much okay to me.  Better, I suppose, than merging tanks and brutes into one AT to rule them all -- Tutes!  Branks?

 

Um.  Yeah.  Laters!

[Megajoule]

Bricks.

(oh, wait.)

[Captain Citadel]

2 hours ago, csr said:

This is just a generic reply to the "Tankers now do too much damage" comments from several posters.

 

I won't disagree with that.  I think Tankers are now balanced with Brutes.  But I think both ATs are now over-performing.  I believe my first comment in this beta was that I would have nerfed Brutes before I even started on balancing Tankers.  IMO, Brutes survivability should have been lowered to about 85% that of Tankers, their offense reduced to where it is now (for the reasons given by Captain Powerhouse), and then Tankers' damage buffed to the reduced survivability factor (85%) of Brutes.  As a result I think Brutes are too tough for their damage output and I think Tankers do too much damage for their toughness.

 

However the bottom line is really "is this better than what's on HC?"  And I think it clearly is.  Not even close.  Capt P's clever AoE change is what makes that the case for me.  The other factors are just tweaks to that to make it balance.  [Personally, I'd whack Brutes' Res Cap down to 87.5%, drop Tanker Melee DS to 0.9 and probably add 1 more target to Tanker Taunt (8 instead of 7).  But this is still an "A" grade improvement, IMO.]

Do you play Super Strength? Because the AoE changes are far less impressive for that set, and honestly I'm tired of Super Strength feeling very not super. After these tanker/brute changes are finalized, I think SS needs a rework of some kind. We've got a whole thread for Rage but it's just the tip of the iceberg, as far as I'm concerned.

[Auroxis]

1 minute ago, Captain Citadel said:

Do you play Super Strength? Because the AoE changes are far less impressive for that set, and honestly I'm tired of Super Strength feeling very not super. After these tanker/brute changes are finalized, I think SS needs a rework of some kind. We've got a whole thread for Rage but it's just the tip of the iceberg, as far as I'm concerned.

Tanker Foot Stomp has a 16 target cap to Brute's 10. That's 60% higher potential AoE damage.

 

Tanker can also get more out of Cross Punch than Brute, since the arc is doubled.

 

And Rage makes up for not having Fury, so much that in 50% fury and 2x Rage the Tanker deals identical levels of raw melee damage.

[Captain Citadel]

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

Tanker Foot Stomp has a 16 target cap to Brute's 10. That's 60% higher potential AoE damage.

 

Tanker can also get more out of Cross Punch than Brute, since the arc is doubled.

 

And Rage makes up for not having Fury, so much that in 50% fury and 2x Rage the Tanker deals identical levels of raw melee damage.

Cross Punch is a pool power, and a fairly deep one at that. Not many people are going to build with it. Also, you're going to compare Rage to Fury when Brutes with Fury can take Rage in SS? And 2x Rage at that? Double Rage is not worth the damage crash, and it's rather disingenuous to call Tankers and Brutes "even" by comparing 2x Rage on a Tanker to a Brute that doesn't have it, seeing as how SS Brutes are fairly common, and the only reason it's not the most popular set is because Spines/Fire farmers exist.

[Auroxis]

8 minutes ago, Captain Citadel said:

Cross Punch is a pool power, and a fairly deep one at that. Not many people are going to build with it. Also, you're going to compare Rage to Fury when Brutes with Fury can take Rage in SS? And 2x Rage at that? Double Rage is not worth the damage crash, and it's rather disingenuous to call Tankers and Brutes "even" by comparing 2x Rage on a Tanker to a Brute that doesn't have it, seeing as how SS Brutes are fairly common, and the only reason it's not the most popular set is because Spines/Fire farmers exist.

You misunderstood. When both the Tanker and the Brute are at 2x Rage, and Brute is at 50% Fury, they both have the same levels of melee damage.

 

And team buffs work similarly on other powersets, you can replace 2x Rage with Fulcrum Shift in those cases.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Auroxis

[Captain Citadel]

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

You misunderstood. When both the Tanker and the Brute are at 2x Rage, and Brute is at 50% Fury, they both have the same levels of melee damage.

Fair enough. My point about Cross Punch still stands. I was saying Super Strength is not getting as much benefit out of the Tanker changes to AoE powers, because it only has one damaging AoE and no cones or other area attacks like several other Tanker secondaries do. Telling people "just take Cross Punch" is not a great solution when most people aren't going further than 3 powers into the Fighting power pool.