Patch Notes for January 14th, 2020 - Issue 26, Page 4 (Release Candidate 1)

[metacore]

With the fixes to certain powers no longer accepting Sets (such as Sentinel > Bio Armor > Athletic Regulation: Should no longer accept travel enhancement sets) if a current build DOES have such a Set IO slotted what happens when the update goes Live?

[Captain Powerhouse]

Nothing, they stay in the power but can’t slot them again if you respec, nor can they be slotted on a new alternate build.

[metacore]

Thanks for the answer

[Chronicler J]

It is a shame that Bruising is going away in favor of just pumping steroids into Tankers. Teams I run in +4 AE content will now see damage losses on AV/EB targets because of the loss of Bruising. Oh well. I dislike that Tanks are losing a unique mechanic that helps the entire team and not just themselves. But I suppose it's a party game now. 

[Rathulfr]

15 minutes ago, Chronicler J said:

It is a shame that Bruising is going away in favor of just pumping steroids into Tankers. Teams I run in +4 AE content will now see damage losses on AV/EB targets because of the loss of Bruising. Oh well. I dislike that Tanks are losing a unique mechanic that helps the entire team and not just themselves. But I suppose it's a party game now. 

From https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Bruising

 

Quote

Bruising is a damage resistance debuff that was added to the game in Issue 18.

On a successful hit, any tier 1 Tanker secondary power set attack will bruise an enemy target. This bruising effect causes a resistible 20% damage resistance debuff which lasts for 10 seconds. Bruising cannot stack, even if there are multiple tankers attacking the same target; thus, it is a good idea for multiple tankers to spread attacks out on the whole spawn.

 

I guess you'll just have to make sure you have a Sentinel on your team now: they provide a similar resistance debuff. 😜

 

[Chronicler J]

23 minutes ago, Rathulfr said:

From https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Bruising

 

 

I guess you'll just have to make sure you have a Sentinel on your team now: they provide a similar resistance debuff. 😜

 

I'm glad the afterthought AT gets to have a unique mechanic where an original AT loses its unique mechanic. But hey, more damage is easy to code, right?

[Brawlin]

Glad my 250 damage arc of destruction will hit for 300 instead 😄

[Biosphere]

As someone who enjoyed playing Tankers I can say I'm really disappointed to see bruising go away. I can understand trying to give Tankers more damage, but that mechanic was given to them for the purpose of helping the entire team including them. If removing the resistance debuff was done as a trade off then I think it's a mistake, because the entire team now suffers for that change. I think Tankers have a good role, they hold threat and control the mob like a Controller, although they do it through Taunt and being a hard body. Bruising allowed them to boost their team's damage for significant targets, while also maintaining threat, giving them the power to direct damage. The Tanker holds the threat of the enemies, and in that respect they know who should die first. Bruising was like that, it marked an enemy for death to compliment the intent. 

 

By removing it the Tanker has lost some of that nuance that I thought was the better way to design the archetype. There's always been people who have argued "why pick a Tanker when a Brute deals more damage?" And to be fair, on a full team with tons of buffing the Brute will reach the Tanker cap numbers. But a Brute could never deal resistance debuff.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Biosphere

[Number Six]

1 hour ago, Chronicler J said:

It is a shame that Bruising is going away in favor of just pumping steroids into Tankers. Teams I run in +4 AE content will now see damage losses on AV/EB targets because of the loss of Bruising. Oh well. I dislike that Tanks are losing a unique mechanic that helps the entire team and not just themselves. But I suppose it's a party game now. 

Errr, if you're running +4, Bruising is barely doing anything. It gets hit hard by the purple patch.

[Brutal Justice]

9 minutes ago, Number Six said:

Errr, if you're running +4, Bruising is barely doing anything. It gets hit hard by the purple patch.

Errr, so does every -res.  Your rad defender toggle ends up something like -13 res while bruising ends up -9 res.  If you think this is a valid argument for dropping bruising then you might as well drop some other signature powers from signature sets.  

[Chronicler J]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Sinister said:

Errr, so does every -res.  Your rad defender toggle ends up something like -13 res while bruising ends up -9 res.  If you think this is a valid argument for dropping bruising then you might as well drop some other signature powers from signature sets.  

I don't understand why they can't just expand on the concept? If Bruising is the mechanic, just do more with it. Throwing out more damage is the most underwhelming change. 

[Number Six]

I guess at 20% (same as Achilles Heel procs) it is higher than I remembered it being.

 

I don't really have a dog in that fight and in general like the extra flavor, though I'm not sure I'd call something added in Issue 18 a "signature power".

 

Mostly I'm making sure people aren't still under the misconception that it bypasses the purple patch. It used to be ridiculously good against +4 AVs because of implementation details, but not for many years.

[Biosphere]

Random test provides that Black Scorpion being hit with bruising reduces the -20% to -13%. That's still pretty solid in my book. Because it's not just the Tanker who benefits. It's the damage archetype. That's like giving the entire team another assault. 

 

It might not bypass the purple patch, but it's still good.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Biosphere

[Sovera]

People worried about 30 second fights against +4 AVs.

[Captain Powerhouse]

9 hours ago, Biosphere said:

that mechanic was given to them for the purpose of helping the entire team including them.

Even if some might had considered that a use for it, it was never the intended reason. It was added very specifically to make up for the fact that tankers where forced to pick the T1, the worst possible power in almost all melee sets. This is also the reason it was non-stackable.

[siolfir]

Also, to all the people complaining about losing Bruising: there are focused feedback threads for Tanker changes, where this was all hashed out. Feel free to go poke through those.

[Auroxis]

Just now, siolfir said:

Also, to all the people complaining about losing Bruising: there are focused feedback threads for Tanker changes, where this was all hashed out. Feel free to go poke through those.

"All hashed out" implies both sides of the argument were satisfied.

 

I'm still left with a useless must-pick T1 power, still lose a feature i've been enjoying for years in favor of a damage buff I didn't want (i wanted support buffs), and I still lose class distinction between the brute and tanker. There was no "hashing out" being taken place, just me addressing my concerns and them being brushed aside over and over again.

[esotericist]

12 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

There was no "hashing out" being taken place, just me addressing my concerns and them being brushed aside over and over again.

the concerns about bruising were not brushed aside, they were responded to more than once. powerhouse gave firm rationale for why it wasn't being kept, and why it wasn't as good for party composition as it appeared. powerhouse reported they even did focus testing on alternatives internally, but they didn't work out.

 

we lost a thing, sure, but the concerns were heard, and were acknowledged. 

 

i personally hate that it's gone myself, and i view tankers are more of a support AT than anything else^*, but to pretend that the concerns were not acknowledged is in pretty stark defiance of the actual history of the discussions. 

 

^{*  as I see it, aggro management is just another form of mez, but instead of the critter not being able to attack, they're just being forced to attack something that can take it instead of something that can't}

[Auroxis]

8 minutes ago, esotericist said:

the concerns about bruising were not brushed aside, they were responded to more than once. powerhouse gave firm rationale for why it wasn't being kept, and why it wasn't as good for party composition as it appeared. powerhouse reported they even did focus testing on alternatives internally, but they didn't work out.

I responded to every single one of those replies and didn't get a response in the end. Just because you think the rationale was firm doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Quote

we lost a thing, sure, but the concerns were heard, and were acknowledged. 

Acknowledged how? By giving tankers a stronger buff/debuff multiplier only to nerf it back down because my tests showed the damage buffs were too strong alongside the support buffs? By making T1 powers useless in a patch that's supposed to address tankers?

Quote

i personally hate that it's gone myself, and i view tankers are more of a support AT than anything else^*, but to pretend that the concerns were not acknowledged is in pretty stark defiance of the actual history of the discussions. 

 

^{*  as I see it, aggro management is just another form of mez, but instead of the critter not being able to attack, they're just being forced to attack something that can take it instead of something that can't}

I love this game so obviously this won't stop me from coming back, it's just me expressing my disappointment more than trying to change stuff at this point.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Auroxis

[DarknessEternal]

47 minutes ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

Even if some might had considered that a use for it, it was never the intended reason. It was added very specifically to make up for the fact that tankers where forced to pick the T1, the worst possible power in almost all melee sets. This is also the reason it was non-stackable.

Why still force those powers then?

[esotericist]

12 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I responded to every single one of those replies and didn't get a response in the end. Just because you think the rationale was firm doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

i don't know if you got a personal response or not, but i know that powerhouse definitely discussed those issues.

 

also, that goes both ways: just because you think your position is solid doesn't mean the devs have to change what they're doing to match your desires.

 

Quote

Acknowledged how? By giving tankers a stronger buff/debuff multiplier only to nerf it back down because my tests showed the damage buffs were too strong alongside the support buffs? By keeping T1 powers useless in a patch that's supposed to address tankers?

is the only "acknowledgment" you consider valid "undoing the thing I disagree with"? because again, there was actual discussion in the threads.

 

7 minutes ago, DarknessEternal said:

Why still force those powers then?

technical reasons.

 

it's not currently easy to give the power choice^*, and the attempt to swap those powers (so that a more useful power was in the tier 1 slot) went poorly.

 

there were statements to the effect that a more general solution for all ATs might be pursued at some point in the future (but obviously no specific promises could be made about what might happen, or when it might happen).

 

^{*  yes, it's "possible" but I get the impression there's collateral damage for a powerset that already exists, rather than setting it up that way to begin with}

Edited January 16, 2020 by esotericist
missing word

[Auroxis]

12 minutes ago, esotericist said:

i don't know if you got a personal response or not, but i know that powerhouse definitely discussed those issues.

I did, and while it was discussed, a lot of my counter-arguments were ignored.

Quote

also, that goes both ways: just because you think your position is solid doesn't mean the devs have to change what they're to match your desires.

And I don't have to stay quiet if I feel like my voice isn't being heard.

Quote

is the only "acknowledgment" you consider valid "undoing the thing I disagree with"? because again, there was actual discussion in the threads.

There was actual discussion, and I wasn't asking for all the changes i dislike to be removed. If I weren't able to compromise I would've given up a long time ago.

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Auroxis

[siolfir]

11 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

And I don't have to stay quiet if I feel like my voice isn't being heard.

Sure, you don't have to, but you said you would. In the last feedback thread.

 

[Auroxis]

1 minute ago, siolfir said:

Sure, you don't have to, but you said you would. In the last feedback thread.

 

This isn't the feedback thread.

[siolfir]

5 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

This isn't the feedback thread.

Exactly.