Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for December 6, 2019

[golstat2003]

2 hours ago, Super Atom said:

The problem is not damage. Tanker issues start at IO's not before. They fall off when sets are brought into the mix so just adjusting damage values isn't gonna solve any problems. If you want to fix tankers focus on their tanking utility and not how much damage they put out. Nerfing brutes isn't the answer either as again this all starts with IO's. CoH is not balanced around IO's nor should it be.

I completely disagree. The age of incarnates has made it so that the tankiness of tankers isn't really needed as much. They need something in addition to damage, but tankiness just isn't needed as much in the era of IOs + Incarnates. I would say put BACK bruising. And maybe add a mechanic that when a tank is on the team buffs, debuffs and controls increase by 5-10% in effectiveness and call it day.

Edited December 9, 2019 by golstat2003

[csr]

To get an idea of how much benefits from the Inherent +Arc/Radius buff varied from set-to-set I put together a spreadsheet to calculate Damage Scale * Area / Cycle Time for each power and the total for each set and then looked at the difference between Live and Pineapple.  This is just a benchmark value and should be taken with many grains of salt.  Target caps were not taken into account.  And most notably the new Tanker Damage Multiplier was backed out as I was only interested in the new Inherent buff.  And mostly just the change, which is under the "Increase" column.

 

You can see there is in fact a wide variation with 3 2 sets getting no buff at all (Stone Melee, Super Strength and Titan Weapons) and Kinetic Melee and Staff Fighting getting big boosts.  Dark Melee and Spines also do quite poorly with the Inherent, for different reasons.  [Correction:]  Stone Melee actually got a small buff from Tremor having increased DS.

 

Nine powers are tagged to ignore the buff and ten eight were reduced in reciprocal ratio to the buff so that the net is zero increase in area.  This accounts for more than 1 in 3 powers.  [Correction:]  There are actually only 8 powers that were reduced in this way, so just less than 1 in 3 (18/55) got no area increase.

 

[Edit:] To be clear... the "Reduced" column only includes those powers reduced in reciprocal ratio to the Inherent buff.  The two that had their arc reduced from 130 to 90 but get he buff (Slice and Flashing Steel) are not included.

 

There are quiet a few issues and caveats with the table that need to be noted...

 

Notes:

1. Dual Blades does not include the Sweep combo, as I don't know if it is affected.  I think it is.  The DS*A/Cycle numbers for DB are probably a bit low in each instance.
2. Electrical Melee does not include Chain Induction and Lightning Rod, as neither is a true AoE (the former is a chain and the latter a pseudo-pet) and I don't think they are affected by the buff.
3. Radiation Melee does not include Irradiated Ground.  I don't know if it is affected or not.
4. Savage Melee does not include Savage Leap (another pseudo-pet) and more importantly has no damage info for Rending Flurry; so it's numbers are way off.
5. These numbers are actually with Quills ignoring the buff rather than Spine Burst.
6. The Titan Weapons calculations were done with Defensive Sweep, Titan Sweep and Arc of Destruction using the slow cast and Whirling Smash using the fast.  It's AoE is slightly under-estimated as a result.

 

	Live		Pineapple
Set	AoEs	Total DS*A/Cycle	Enlarged	Ignores	Reduced	Total DS*A/Cycle	Increase	Rank
Battle Axe	3	7.5	2	0	1	13.1	5.7	13
Broad Sword	3	8.7	3	0	0	17.6	8.8	10
Claws	3	25.7	1	2	0	34.9	9.2	9
Dark Melee	3	2.3	3	0	0	4.9	2.6	17
Dual Blades (1)	3	8.4	3	0	0	18.1	9.7	6
Electrical Melee (2)	3	3.3	2	1	0	7.1	3.8	16
Energy Melee	1	3.9	1	0	0	8.7	4.8	15
Fiery Melee	3	26.4	2	0	1	38.6	12.2	3
Ice Melee	2	9.5	2	0	0	20.6	11.1	5
Katana	3	9.6	3	0	0	19.2	9.6	7
Kinetic Melee	2	20.2	2	0	0	41.6	21.4	1
Martial Arts	1	4.9	1	0	0	11.0	6.1	12
Psionic Melee	2	9.7	2	0	0	21.4	11.7	4
Radiation Melee (3)	2	7.7	2	0	0	17.0	9.3	8
Savage Melee (4)	1	1.80	1	0	0	3.6	1.8	20
Spines (5)	4	42.8	1	2	1	44.9	2.1	19
Staff Fighting	3	15.7	3	0	0	33.9	18.2	2
Stone Melee	2	13.0	0	0	2	15.4	2.4	18
Street Justice	2	4.2	2	0	0	9.1	4.9	14
Super Strength	2	14.5	0	0	2	14.5	0.0	22
Titan Weapons (6)	4	32.6	0	4	0	32.6	0.0	21
War Mace	3	9.3	2	0	1	15.9	6.6	11
Average	2.5	12.8	1.7	0.4	0.4	20.2	7.4

Edited December 9, 2019 by csr
Correct a bug for SM and a typo for StJ.

[summers]

24 minutes ago, csr said:

To get an idea of how much benefits from the Inherent +Arc/Radius buff varied from set-to-set I put together a spreadsheet to calculate Damage Scale * Area / Cycle Time for each power and the total for each set and then looked at the difference between Live and Pineapple.  This is just a benchmark value and should be taken with many grains of salt.  Target caps were not taken into account.  And most notably the new Tanker Damage Multiplier was backed out as I was only interested in the new Inherent buff.  And mostly just the change, which is under the "Increase" column.

 

You can see there is in fact a wide variation with 3 sets getting no buff at all (Stone Melee, Super Strength and Titan Weapons) and Kinetic Melee and Staff Fighting getting big boosts.  Dark Melee and Spines also do quite poorly with the Inherent, for different reasons.

 

Nine powers are tagged to ignore the buff and ten were reduced in reciprocal ratio to the buff so that the net is zero increase in area.  This accounts for more than 1 in 3 powers.

 

There are quiet a few issues and caveats with the table that need to be noted...

 

Notes:

1. Dual Blades does not include the Sweep combo, as I don't know if it is affected.  I think it is.  The DS*A/Cycle numbers for DB are probably a bit low in each instance.
2. Electrical Melee does not include Chain Induction and Lightning Rod, as neither is a true AoE (the former is a chain and the latter a pseudo-pet) and I don't think they are affected by the buff.
3. Radiation Melee does not include Irradiated Ground.  I don't know if it is affected or not.
4. Savage Melee does not include Savage Leap (another pseudo-pet) and more importantly has no damage info for Rending Flurry; so it's numbers are way off.
5. These numbers are actually with Quills ignoring the buff rather than Spine Burst.
6. The calculations were done with Defensive Sweep, Titan Sweep and Arc of Destruction using the slow cast and Whirling Smash using the fast.  It's AoE is slightly under-estimated as a result.

 

	Live		Pineapple
Set	AoEs	Total DS*A/Cycle	Enlarged	Ignores	Reduced	Total DS*A/Cycle	Increase	Rank
Battle Axe	3	7.5	2	0	1	13.1	5.7	13
Broad Sword	3	8.7	3	0	0	17.6	8.8	10
Claws	3	25.7	1	2	0	34.9	9.2	9
Dark Melee	3	2.3	3	0	0	4.9	2.6	17
Dual Blades (1)	3	8.4	3	0	0	18.1	9.7	6
Electrical Melee (2)	3	3.3	2	1	0	7.1	3.8	16
Energy Melee	1	3.9	1	0	0	8.7	4.8	15
Fiery Melee	3	26.4	2	0	1	38.6	12.2	3
Ice Melee	2	9.5	2	0	0	20.6	11.1	5
Katana	3	9.6	3	0	0	19.2	9.6	7
Kinetic Melee	2	20.2	2	0	0	41.6	21.4	1
Martial Arts	1	4.9	1	0	0	11.0	6.1	12
Psionic Melee	2	9.7	2	0	0	21.4	11.7	4
Radiation Melee (3)	2	7.7	2	0	0	17.0	9.3	8
Savage Melee (4)	1	1.80	1	0	0	3.6	1.8	19
Spines (5)	4	42.8	1	2	1	44.9	2.1	18
Staff Fighting	3	15.7	3	0	0	33.9	18.2	2
Stone Melee	2	13.0	0	0	2	13.0	0.0	22
Street Justice	2	4.2	0	0	2	9.1	4.9	14
Super Strength	2	14.5	0	0	2	14.5	0.0	21
Titan Weapons (6)	4	32.6	0	4	0	32.6	0.0	20
War Mace	3	9.3	2	0	1	15.9	6.6	11
Average	2.5	12.8	1.6	0.4	0.5	20.1	7.3

This is very interesting, though 'reduced' from my understanding might be a little bit misleading. While the AOE size is in fact reduced, it is returned to normal with the inherent, and this means the power is slightly buffed due to its now preferable interaction with proc mechanics. Overall a fascinating analysis!

[SwitchFade]

Jab is a horrendous power, outdone by crosspunch, punch, air superiority.... To name a few. Bruising might as well be a myth, for all the effective good it does.

 

Not taking jab and taking any other attack yields a far better attack chain, dps, dpa, kpm etc. The constant debate about bruising is really rather tired as the testing math has proven. Kill the mechanic.

 

I rarely post and won't respond to replies, but had to come out of the shadows for this: bruise is a thoughtless, broken listless joke of an excuse for damage and the debate about it has been answered, it's junk.

[golstat2003]

1 minute ago, SwitchFade said:

Jab is a horrendous power, outdone by crosspunch, punch, air superiority.... To name a few. Bruising might as well be a myth, for all the effective good it does.

 

Not taking jab and taking any other attack yields a far better attack chain, dps, dpa, kpm etc. The constant debate about bruising is really rather tired as the testing math has proven. Kill the mechanic.

 

I rarely post and won't respond to replies, but had to come out of the shadows for this: bruise is a thoughtless, broken listless joke of an excuse for damage and the debate about it has been answered, it's junk.

I honestly wouldn't loose sleep if they left it out. I suggested them putting it back for the folks who apparently love the mechanic. That doesn't include me.

[Haijinx]

Wait I think I know the trend of this thread already

 

1. Tankers don't need damage, they need moar aggros 
2. Brutes are damage dealers, not tanks
3. You Try it, I'm not gonna try it! 

 

And the responses 

 

1. For why?  What kind of crazy missions are you running that your team is wiping out at level 50? 
2. Stalkers/Scrappers 
3. Lets get Mikey.  He hates everything.  

 

[Myrmidon]

55 minutes ago, csr said:

To get an idea of how much benefits from the Inherent +Arc/Radius buff varied from set-to-set I put together a spreadsheet to calculate Damage Scale * Area / Cycle Time for each power and the total for each set and then looked at the difference between Live and Pineapple.  This is just a benchmark value and should be taken with many grains of salt.  Target caps were not taken into account.  And most notably the new Tanker Damage Multiplier was backed out as I was only interested in the new Inherent buff.  And mostly just the change, which is under the "Increase" column.

 

You can see there is in fact a wide variation with 3 sets getting no buff at all (Stone Melee, Super Strength and Titan Weapons) and Kinetic Melee and Staff Fighting getting big boosts.  Dark Melee and Spines also do quite poorly with the Inherent, for different reasons.

 

Nine powers are tagged to ignore the buff and ten were reduced in reciprocal ratio to the buff so that the net is zero increase in area.  This accounts for more than 1 in 3 powers.

 

There are quiet a few issues and caveats with the table that need to be noted...

 

Notes:

1. Dual Blades does not include the Sweep combo, as I don't know if it is affected.  I think it is.  The DS*A/Cycle numbers for DB are probably a bit low in each instance.
2. Electrical Melee does not include Chain Induction and Lightning Rod, as neither is a true AoE (the former is a chain and the latter a pseudo-pet) and I don't think they are affected by the buff.
3. Radiation Melee does not include Irradiated Ground.  I don't know if it is affected or not.
4. Savage Melee does not include Savage Leap (another pseudo-pet) and more importantly has no damage info for Rending Flurry; so it's numbers are way off.
5. These numbers are actually with Quills ignoring the buff rather than Spine Burst.
6. The calculations were done with Defensive Sweep, Titan Sweep and Arc of Destruction using the slow cast and Whirling Smash using the fast.  It's AoE is slightly under-estimated as a result.

 

	Live		Pineapple
Set	AoEs	Total DS*A/Cycle	Enlarged	Ignores	Reduced	Total DS*A/Cycle	Increase	Rank
Battle Axe	3	7.5	2	0	1	13.1	5.7	13
Broad Sword	3	8.7	3	0	0	17.6	8.8	10
Claws	3	25.7	1	2	0	34.9	9.2	9
Dark Melee	3	2.3	3	0	0	4.9	2.6	17
Dual Blades (1)	3	8.4	3	0	0	18.1	9.7	6
Electrical Melee (2)	3	3.3	2	1	0	7.1	3.8	16
Energy Melee	1	3.9	1	0	0	8.7	4.8	15
Fiery Melee	3	26.4	2	0	1	38.6	12.2	3
Ice Melee	2	9.5	2	0	0	20.6	11.1	5
Katana	3	9.6	3	0	0	19.2	9.6	7
Kinetic Melee	2	20.2	2	0	0	41.6	21.4	1
Martial Arts	1	4.9	1	0	0	11.0	6.1	12
Psionic Melee	2	9.7	2	0	0	21.4	11.7	4
Radiation Melee (3)	2	7.7	2	0	0	17.0	9.3	8
Savage Melee (4)	1	1.80	1	0	0	3.6	1.8	19
Spines (5)	4	42.8	1	2	1	44.9	2.1	18
Staff Fighting	3	15.7	3	0	0	33.9	18.2	2
Stone Melee	2	13.0	0	0	2	13.0	0.0	22
Street Justice	2	4.2	0	0	2	9.1	4.9	14
Super Strength	2	14.5	0	0	2	14.5	0.0	21
Titan Weapons (6)	4	32.6	0	4	0	32.6	0.0	20
War Mace	3	9.3	2	0	1	15.9	6.6	11
Average	2.5	12.8	1.6	0.4	0.5	20.1	7.3

Some sets benefit a lot, some don’t. That’s much more of a Set issue than the AoE mechanics issue. If something winds up seriously underperforming, it will get looked at, it’s just a matter of time.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Myrmidon

[csr]

46 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

Some sets benefit a lot, some don’t. That’s much more of a Set issue than the AoE mechanics issue. If something winds up seriously underperforming, it will get looked at, it’s just a matter of time.

The table was mainly to...

1.  See how wide the variation is.  It's pretty big.
2.  See if Claws and Spines still got as much benefit - in absolute terms, not relative to their beginning AoE - as a "standard" set.  Claws does, Spines doesn't.
3.  Find places that might need testing in the wild.  For me that will be checking to see if KM's Repulsing Torrent actually gets the arc increase and deciding whether it should or not.
4.  Hopefully get Captain Powerhouse to clarify some of the issues such as whether the buff passes to pseudo-pets like Lightning Rod, Savage Leap and Shield Charge (based upon the Burn comments, I'm assuming it doesn't).
5.  Find bugs in the power descriptions/info (I found some for Rad Melee and Staff).

Edited December 9, 2019 by csr

[csr]

1 hour ago, summers said:

This is very interesting, though 'reduced' from my understanding might be a little bit misleading. While the AOE size is in fact reduced, it is returned to normal with the inherent, and this means the power is slightly buffed due to its now preferable interaction with proc mechanics. Overall a fascinating analysis!

One thing I found interesting is that the DS was not changed for most of those powers that had their area reduced.  Only SM/Tremor got an increased DS (ooppss, I see a false assumption in my spreadsheet that results in an error there, SM actually should have increased AoE).  SM/Fault and SS/Hand Clap do no damage to begin with.  The other seven - BA/Pendulum, BS/Slice, FM/Combustion, Kat/Flashing Steel, Spines/Spine Burst, SS/Foot Stomp and WM/Crowd Control - all remained the same DS.

Edited December 9, 2019 by csr

[Galaxy Brain]

5 hours ago, Super Atom said:

The problem is not damage. Tanker issues start at IO's not before. They fall off when sets are brought into the mix so just adjusting damage values isn't gonna solve any problems. If you want to fix tankers focus on their tanking utility and not how much damage they put out. Nerfing brutes isn't the answer either as again this all starts with IO's. CoH is not balanced around IO's nor should it be.

The issue is that the most valuable stats from IOs are defensive or "neutral" (recharge), not offensive. A Brute can cover the survival gap between themselves and Tankers with sets while the reverse is currently not true for offense. Increasing the base offensive abilities of Tankers to close the gap even with IOs would be healthier and sort of like the mentioned Defender vs Corruptor comparison. 

[Myrmidon]

4 hours ago, csr said:

 Find places that might need testing in the wild.  For me that will be checking to see if KM's Repulsing Torrent actually gets the arc increase and deciding whether it should or not.

It did prior to this patch. I’ll check it when I log back on either tomorrow or Tuesday morning.

[Rathulfr]

11 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

The issue is that the most valuable stats from IOs are defensive or "neutral" (recharge), not offensive. A Brute can cover the survival gap between themselves and Tankers with sets while the reverse is currently not true for offense. Increasing the base offensive abilities of Tankers to close the gap even with IOs would be healthier and sort of like the mentioned Defender vs Corruptor comparison. 

 

This is precisely the same problem that Sentinels have with trying to use IOs to compensate for lackluster damage: there just aren't any/enough IO sets out there to boost damage.  This is why it's easier to make a tanky Blaster than a blasty Sentinel.  Or to rephrase it for the purposes of this thread: it's easier to make a tanky Scrapper than it is to make a scrappy Tanker.  So Tankers need a base damage buff to bring them closer (but not necessarily equal) to parity with the other melee ATs, while non-Tankers need only select IO sets to improve their durability.

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Rathulfr

[Brutal Justice]

49 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

 

This is precisely the same problem that Sentinels have with trying to use IOs to compensate for lackluster damage: there just aren't any/enough IO sets out there to boost damage.  This is why it's easier to make a tanky Blaster than a blasty Sentinel.  Or to rephrase it for the purposes of this thread: it's easier to make a tanky Scrapper than it is to make a scrappy Tanker.  So Tankers need a base damage buff to bring them closer (but not necessarily equal) to parity with the other melee ATs, while non-Tankers need only select IO sets to improve their durability.

 

If there are IO sets that offer 5 melee/s/l defense, there should be equivalent +dam set bonuses to help.  5 is 11.11% of softcap 45.  If we want to use 95% for “softcap” of damage enhancement, then there should be 10.5 +dam set bonuses available.  There should also be +dam toggle pool powers to offset the plethora of +defense powers.  Trash all these changes and just add these things to help all lower damage archetypes. 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Rathulfr said:

 

This is precisely the same problem that Sentinels have with trying to use IOs to compensate for lackluster damage: there just aren't any/enough IO sets out there to boost damage.  This is why it's easier to make a tanky Blaster than a blasty Sentinel.  Or to rephrase it for the purposes of this thread: it's easier to make a tanky Scrapper than it is to make a scrappy Tanker.  So Tankers need a base damage buff to bring them closer (but not necessarily equal) to parity with the other melee ATs, while non-Tankers need only select IO sets to improve their durability.

 

Scrapper while they would like to think they can do all tanks can do are incorrect.

 

They can get close, but there is content that will chew a scrapper up where a tank will pretend it's a tickle fight.

[Infinitum]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Sinister said:

If there are IO sets that offer 5 melee/s/l defense, there should be equivalent +dam set bonuses to help.  5 is 11.11% of softcap 45.  If we want to use 95% for “softcap” of damage enhancement, then there should be 10.5 +dam set bonuses available.  There should also be +dam toggle pool powers to offset the plethora of +defense powers.  Trash all these changes and just add these things to help all lower damage archetypes. 

But then you would literally have damage capped ATs of all kinds running around.

 

That literally would make the game too easy, and ask anyone that knows me.  I love easy buttons.

 

If people would stop and test the new patch the way I did I think most would come to the same conclusion that it's still a pretty good change.

[Brutal Justice]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

But then you would literally have damage capped ATs of all kinds running around.

 

That literally would make the game too easy, and ask anyone that knows me.  I love easy buttons.

 

If people would stop and test the new patch the way I did I think most would come to the same conclusion that it's still a pretty good change.

We already have defense capped  ATs of all kinds running around causing these current issues.  Force fields are fairly pointless after IOs, why not impact kinetics also?   

 

Obviously you you wouldn’t want to attach the +dam bonuses to IO sets with +def.  you choose one or the other.  Glass canon or brick wall.  

[siolfir]

19 minutes ago, Mr.Sinister said:

There should also be +dam toggle pool powers to offset the plethora of +defense powers.

Assault would say hi, but it's too busy crying in the corner feeling lonely and neglected...

 

 

Edit to add: IIRC it's also one of the buffed powers that was missed in the overall patch notes; I can't check on beta right now but didn't it go from 10.5 -> 15% for Tankers?

Edited December 9, 2019 by siolfir

[Gobbledigook]

Is any of this actually going to help the Tanker be more competitive with the Brute? Brute will have higher damage still and very near Tanker survival. They seem to be allowed to have both and are actually getting a buff to help them dps even more lol.

 

Players will compare them and most will probably just go with the Brute Tank, that can tank most if not all content, whilst having higher dps. 

 

Extra taunting or mitigations will not help the Tanker, the Brute doesn't really struggle with any of that really.

 

IO's have created monsters 😛

[Azra]

In the age of the Incarnate gods, Tanks seem somewhat eclipsed if not lost.  It's too easy to rip aggro from them.  And by the time they get off some of their 'slow' attacks, the one target they get to kill is mercifully put down before the attack finishes.

 

I've played a few tanks.  Ice.  Energy.  WP.  SJ.  Reflexes.  TW/Rad on Beta (just rolled one on live to test there as well.)  Invul/En on Beta.  

 

Got a few brutes.  Shield/SS/Mu (being set IO built is the only way it eclipses a tank in my view.)  Shield/Axe.  Spines Fire.  Rad Fire.

 

1.  The basic idea of this patch is parity with other ATs, I presume.  So fixing any design flaw(s) makes sense.

2.  Damage and Tanking utility come to mind as issues.

 

There doesn't need to be homogenisation of the ATs or even in an AT's proliferation of powers.  Some powers can be more damaging but slow.  Some quicker but lighter in damage.  There will be some that are poor.  Ice falls into that category for me.  Simply dreadful.  Energy Melee seems mediocre.

 

This patch is primarily about giving parity with other ATs.  I can see the merit in that.

 

But maybe it should also be about giving people a compelling reason to play Tanks.

 

So upping the taunt aura (as standard) of all Tank auras or as a simple inherent to all ATs makes sense.  Though I'm not against the idea that some auras keep more aggro than others.  Ie.  Fire or Ice or auras that do damage in general could see their taunt cap go from 5 to 7 or 10.

 

That tanks keep the stickiness of that taunt even under provocation from 'can't control myself' ATs (not looking at you blasters....)  That it's harder to grab aggro off a tank.

 

In herently, tanks should be good at getting and keeping aggro'.  (That's the way I remember it pre-IO.)  

 

With incarnates and set builds it seems anyone can skip ahead of the tank and 'tank' the content...with their safety all but assured.

 

As for damage.  Base damage sucked on a tank.  More so depending on which melee type.  (*Points to ice.)

 

And end?  I was somewhat disappointed to see this vanish.  120 base end to begin with sounded decent to me.  As the 'superman' apex of the team, to have that 'GAS tank' of end to take all that aggro' and last the fight sounds good.

 

And the aggro' bar?  or a 'Mighty' button for all tanks?  Shame this mechanic wasn't given more consideration.  2 minutes of  'Mighty' sounds good to me.  A domination style bar.  Once the aggro' from herding and taking 'BUILDS UP' you get to press the 'Mighty' (alrighty...) button and boom!  You're 80% up for dam and to hit.

 

Tanks.  Design wise.  There is no confusing with Brutes.  Tanks are quite simple.  They take aggro and punch it in the face.

 

You need.

 

1.  Aggro Tool.  More taunt.  More stickiness of taunt.

2.  End.  Big Gas Tank to last the fight.

3.  Damage.  You are slow.  But you hit hard.  (ergo.  Temporal Time being the limiting factor on your damage output.  NOT how hard you can hit.)

 

How much in %s?  That's Cap' Powerhouse's job.  I'm sure the Homecoming community will chime in.

 

I'd simply say.  'Moar.'

 

Azra.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Azra

[siolfir]

1 hour ago, Azra said:

120 base end to begin with sounded decent to me.

Of course it sounds decent: name an AT that couldn't use an extra 20% base endurance (and thus, 20% increase in base endurance recovery, which would also affect all of their other recovery powers as well).

 

All of the ATs would benefit from never having to worry about endurance. It's why Fitness was made inherent, because nearly every build ended up taking Stamina at level 20. Tankers were not alone in that, which is why I felt that it - in combination with the other changes, many of which have been reduced or removed - was excessive. Especially when the attacks (more damage for the same endurance) and especially the AoEs (larger area, higher target cap for the same endurance cost) were made more endurance-efficient at the same time, and the lack of efficiency of the attacks was the cited reason why the buff was being done.

Edited December 9, 2019 by siolfir
rearranging for legibility

[Gobbledigook]

Just some ideas....

 

Keep bruising as we have it or at a lower %

Increase Tanker damage a little to .9?

Lower +damage modifier to .75/.85?

Increase radius and number of mobs hit with AoEs and cones.

Stronger Taunts.

 

This would be unique from Brutes. Brutes should still be higher damage slightly with a little less survival.

 

 

 

 

[siolfir]

4 minutes ago, Gobbledegook said:

Just some ideas....

 

Keep bruising as we have it or at a lower %

Increase Tanker damage a little to .9?

Lower +damage modifier to .75/.85?

Increase radius and number of mobs hit with AoEs and cones.

Stronger Taunts.

 

This would be unique from Brutes. Brutes should still be higher damage slightly with a little less survival.

 

 

 

 

So basically, everything that's on beta now, only adding Bruising back in and reducing the melee damage modifier increase to 0.9 instead of 0.95?

Edited December 9, 2019 by siolfir
punkshewayshun

[Gobbledigook]

Just now, siolfir said:

So basically, everything that's on beta now only while adding Bruising back and reducing the melee damage modifier increase to 0.9 instead of 0.95?

Yes.

 

A few are against losing bruising. So keep it and just adjust the numbers a little to compensate. uniqueness retained and a buff achieved.

[kenlon]

1 hour ago, Gobbledegook said:

A few are against losing bruising. So keep it and just adjust the numbers a little to compensate. uniqueness retained and a buff achieved.

Those people need their heads examined. Bruising is an objectively bad mechanic. 

[Infinitum]

3 hours ago, Mr.Sinister said:

We already have defense capped  ATs of all kinds running around causing these current issues.  Force fields are fairly pointless after IOs, why not impact kinetics also?   

 

Obviously you you wouldn’t want to attach the +dam bonuses to IO sets with +def.  you choose one or the other.  Glass canon or brick wall.  

Survival doesnt necessarily make it easier in every way, you still have to put them down which in turn could still potentially affect survival if it takes a while to put them down.  This change is helping to bring tank damage parity with brute damage.  Its still a good patch 

 

The only way to make it work would be to make def and dmg sets mutually exclusive.  I'm not sure there is any way to do that.  You definately can't have both.