Focused Feedback: Tank Updates for December 6, 2019

[Infinitum]

32 minutes ago, Mr.Sinister said:

To me that looks like good data showing the +dam modifier change has actually nerfed your tank.  Without combat readiness you’re probably dealing 3% more damage.  With combat readiness you’re dealing 4.5% less damage.  

 

I would be curious what kind of data you would get fighting the lvl 54 chief soldier boss surrounded by his posse feeding aao.  Thanks for all the testing you’re doing.  

only problem with the chief soldiers or any enemy type is its hard to get it static, because other spawns around him - some have negative effects they can cast on you.  they dont sit still and they eventually die.  haha  

 

ill give it a shot tomorrow though just to see.

 

As for the numbers, it doesnt look good does it?  Not sure what to make of that, but again we got to trust them to do the right thing here, and thats why i am trying to get the most accurate test data out here.  the more that does that the more they will have to have every opportunity to hopefully help us out here.

[Infinitum]

I just thought of another test, without combat readiness Live and Beta but initial strike building to combo level 3

 

That should give a good data point how bruising would affect non build up combo level powers.

 

Will do that tomorrow as well.

[Myrmidon]

1 hour ago, Mr.Sinister said:

To me that looks like good data showing the +dam modifier change has actually nerfed your tank.  Without combat readiness you’re probably dealing 3% more damage.  With combat readiness you’re dealing 4.5% less damage.  

 

I would be curious what kind of data you would get fighting the lvl 54 chief soldier boss surrounded by his posse feeding aao.  Thanks for all the testing you’re doing.  

Agreed. I’ll try out my WP/StJ to see what that looks like sometime Tuesday.

[Haijinx]

Combat Readiness was already reduced scale +dmg 

 

Only Stalkers get a real build up for STJ unfortunately. 

 

[oldskool]

13 hours ago, Rathulfr said:

 

In all my years of playing CoH, I don't believe anyone has ever considered Bruising to be a factor (at all) in having Tankers on a team.  In fact, I'd completely forgotten that Bruising was even a thing until it came up in these threads.  And if a minor, limited-utility, damage resistance debuff had any significant team value, my Sentinels wouldn't get so much crap about being "useless" on teams, because unlike Bruising's debuff, the Sentinel debuff is unresistable.

 

Hate to burst your bubble, but Sentinel Opportunity is resistable.  The tool tip doesn't state it is unresistable and you can confirm it with a Power Analyzer. 

[Rathulfr]

2 hours ago, oldskool said:

Hate to burst your bubble, but Sentinel Opportunity is resistable.  The tool tip doesn't state it is unresistable and you can confirm it with a Power Analyzer. 

[Galaxy Brain]

@Infinitum, use the Mission Simulator 

[Rathulfr]

24 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

@Infinitum, use the Mission Simulator 

There's a Mission Simulator?  Where?  How?

[oldskool]

38 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

 

[Galaxy Brain]

26 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

There's a Mission Simulator?  Where?  How?

Yep, it's made by @Hopeling on test as "Mission Simulator" for our work on testing melee primaries in a standardized environment  🙂

 

@Infinitum, you can try gunning for the EB and testing numbers there. They have no debuffs or armor themselves.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Galaxy Brain said:

Yep, it's made by @Hopeling on test as "Mission Simulator" for our work on testing melee primaries in a standardized environment  🙂

 

@Infinitum, you can try gunning for the EB and testing numbers there. They have no debuffs or armor themselves.

That will work for sure.  Easier than trying to cherry pick the war zone.

[Replacement]

@Infinitum Do you happen to have your numbers from your last test from before you pulled out the 9% yourself?

 

It does not make much sense to me that a trivial 10-second buildup window would make the difference between your results, and the results from previous builds showing Tankers outperforming Brutes.

 

I guess those were TW Tankers, but still, this wasn't a huge change.

 

Text blurbs for future self-quoting:

 

"Why are we buffing Brutes now?"

The perceived issue was that Brutes were often reliant on stealing the Tanker's job in order to keep up.  That's a pretty bad status quo to encourage.  You will only see this issue when other Tank ATs are relevant.  We want them relevant, so this is just the time to address the issue and smooth out the Brute experience.

 

"This poops all over Super Strength!
SS is so skewed, it is misinformative to even include in the broader Tanker discussion at this point.  We need to hammer out Tanker, probably with a SS-band-aid tossed on at the very end, so we can give SS the focus it deserves later on.

[Myrmidon]

3 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Yep, it's made by @Hopeling on test as "Mission Simulator" for our work on testing melee primaries in a standardized environment  🙂

 

@Infinitum, you can try gunning for the EB and testing numbers there. They have no debuffs or armor themselves.

Is this one also on live to run comparisons?

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

@Infinitum Do you happen to have your numbers from your last test from before you pulled out the 9% yourself?

 

It does not make much sense to me that a trivial 10-second buildup window would make the difference between your results, and the results from previous builds showing Tankers outperforming Brutes.

 

I guess those were TW Tankers, but still, this wasn't a huge change.

 

Text blurbs for future self-quoting:

 

"Why are we buffing Brutes now?"

The perceived issue was that Brutes were often reliant on stealing the Tanker's job in order to keep up.  That's a pretty bad status quo to encourage.  You will only see this issue when other Tank ATs are relevant.  We want them relevant, so this is just the time to address the issue and smooth out the Brute experience.

 

"This poops all over Super Strength!
SS is so skewed, it is misinformative to even include in the broader Tanker discussion at this point.  We need to hammer out Tanker, probably with a SS-band-aid tossed on at the very end, so we can give SS the focus it deserves later on.

LIVE
Combat Readiness
Leading with Initial Strike for Bruising
Crushing Uppercut 571.21 571.21 571.21 571.21 571.21
Sweeping Cross    280.21 280.21 280.21 219.58 280.21
Average 268.08
Spinning Strike   276.62 276.62 276.62 276.62 242.68
Average 269.83

 

 

Just add 9% to that

[Replacement]

8 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

LIVE
Combat Readiness
Leading with Initial Strike for Bruising
Crushing Uppercut 571.21 571.21 571.21 571.21 571.21
Sweeping Cross    280.21 280.21 280.21 219.58 280.21
Average 268.08
Spinning Strike   276.62 276.62 276.62 276.62 242.68
Average 269.83

 

 

Just add 9% to that

Ok, but that's not actually accurate.  Mot is just 9% damage bonus, right? -- it's not a proc or something with a known, weird calculation method?  That means it would be applied linearly to your existing +damage %s.

 

Example: 100 damage +9% = 109.  But 50 damage with a +100% damage bonus is now +109% damage bonus, which = 104.5.  

Edited December 10, 2019 by Replacement

[Brutal Justice]

This one time when I was a teenager I woke up one morning with super strength.  For real.  I could just tell I had it.  Sixth sense if you will.  

 

I tried to to show my friends by punching through a brick wall.  My arm shattered.  Unfortunately I don’t have invulnerability to handle the super strength.  After a very long healing process (no regen either) I tried to lift a car.  Dislocated both shoulders, and collapsed a couple disks.  

 

In my older days I no longer try to show off my super strength because I don’t have the durability to use it.  My real world experience  tells me that I’m ok with tanks performing higher than brutes with super strength.  If you don’t have the durability to back it up then what’s the point?

Edited December 10, 2019 by Mr.Sinister

[Infinitum]

15 minutes ago, Replacement said:

Ok, but that's not actually accurate.  Mot is just 9% damage bonus, right? -- it's not a proc or something with a known, weird calculation method?  That means it would be applied linearly to your existing +damage %s.

 

Example: 100 damage +9% = 109.  But 50 damage with a +100% damage bonus is now +109% damage bonus, which = 104.5.  

Im telling you how I calculated it though, it may have been an inaccurate calculation, but basically add 9% back to thosr numbers - multiply them by .09 Then add that to the numbers and you will get my original numbers.

[Galaxy Brain]

49 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

Is this one also on live to run comparisons?

Should be yes 🙂

[Myrmidon]

6 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Should be yes 🙂

Excellent! I only have two Tankers currently and the level 42 Rad/Rad would be useless on a pylon test.🤣

[Infinitum]

Crushing Uppercut 622.61

Sweeping Cross     299.20

Spinning Strike       294.11

[Replacement]

@Captain Powerhouse I hate to be that guy but...

 

Quote

The pet AI now ignores the aggro cap. This should prevent pets from standing around twiddling their thumbs in Incarnate Trials and other situations where many pets are attacking the same target.

...What's the feasibility of adding a new debuff to Tanker Taunt that makes it so, for the duration, affected targets ignore aggro cap?

[Auroxis]

On 12/9/2019 at 11:14 PM, kenlon said:

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

So objectively bad the original devs of this game kept it for years. So objectively bad it gives the class a support aspect that sets it apart from the Brute and makes the lackluster T1 attacks decent. So objectively bad it's part of the reason I rolled a Tanker and fully IO'd/Incarnated it out. But apparently I need my head examined for doing that.

 

I'm done giving feedback on this massive patch (which gets new stuff added to the list constantly, except letting me keep what I have). But I thought I needed to say something when I saw that comment.

[drbuzzard]

55 minutes ago, Replacement said:

@Captain Powerhouse I hate to be that guy but...

 

...What's the feasibility of adding a new debuff to Tanker Taunt that makes it so, for the duration, affected targets ignore aggro cap?

I'd say zero. 

 

Note that the pet AI is what permits the aggro cap being ignored (as in the things being aggroed). The cap is a function of enemy AI, not powers or ATs. It cannot be by nature of how things are done. Unless you modified the general enemy AI, you cannot modify the aggro cap. You cannot tune it to specific powers or ATs. 

[Troo]

1 hour ago, Replacement said:

..What's the feasibility of adding a new debuff to Tanker Taunt that makes it so, for the duration, affected targets ignore aggro cap?

hahahahaha

good try though

[Replacement]

4 hours ago, Infinitum said:

Crushing Uppercut 622.61

Sweeping Cross     299.20

Spinning Strike       294.11

Bewildering that it's this low. The .95 change should be almost exactly the same as built-in bruising (.96 would be more perfect), except unresistable.

 

I realize you're just reporting your findings, I'm not trying to overturn these results. More, I want to know what's missing.