Did tanks get overbuffed?

[Riverdusk]

5 hours ago, marcussmythe said:

Id argue that, at least for resist sets, the scrapper plummets compared to the other two.  My tanks and brutes think Smashing/Lethal Damage is something that happens to other people,and go get a sandwich.  My Scrapper goes 'why god why' when Bobcat opens up on her.

Exactly, scrapper resistance armor sets where scrappers have the same res cap as your run of the mill squishy is the biggest imbalance to me.   The damage/survivability ratio is maybe not perfect, but it is pretty good between tank/brute/scrapper...until you try to rely on resistance.

[Galaxy Brain]

@Bill Z Bubba,

 

 

This has been republished on Beta and should be useful to compare the offenses of sets.

[Eclipse.]

4 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

The ITF isn't regular play? It is for me. I use it as my primary test for every character I have. Solo and teamed.

Running into AVs isn't regular play? How do you think I get the passive accolades?

 

That's not my definition but you will see MANY posters around here, even in this thread, imply that the game is balanced around SOs and therefore the average is balanced around SOs.

Personally, I find that argument pretty much horseshit.

*MY* average build is a mix of basic IOs and some sets.

*MY* end builds are fully purpled, pvped, AT IOed, Wintered, ect and cranked to whatever balance I can find between damage output and mitigation.

I agree that it is "horseshit" to call SO builds "Average" they are very much _not_ average these days.

That said, the state of the game on Live was to have things balanced around SOs....and even worse for damage specifically skills were [IIRC] balanced around DPS, not DPA (ie. Set a skill to Auto, use nothing but that skill for an hour, and skills roughly even out.). So while the DPS of each set is theoretically equal on a per-power basis the actual attack chains can vary wildly based on how cooldowns/cast times line up.

Now, To the best of my Knowledge neither homecoming or ANY other private server have made a balance pass on every.single.skill. to fix the balance to assume IOs (2x as effective as SOs at level 50?), none the less sets. The nice thing about Balancing around SOs is they are just as effective at 25 as they are at 50, makes the balancing a lot easier.

And you _have_ to do it for all the skills at once, otherwise any skill that got a balance pass for IO/Sets will be super underperforming compared to ones that haven't gotten that same balance pass yet.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Eclipse.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

6 hours ago, Troo said:

ahhh but where do Blasters and Stalkers fit in?

We dont, blasters are too busy clearing the mission, while the brute grumbles about not being able to maintain their bar, and tanks grumble about not staying behind them.

 

First rule of stalker club is we dont talk about stalker club. And really do you want to break a rule in a club full of stalkers?

 

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

4 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I'm not concerned with what happens at the caps and I don't think any of us should be.

I'm concerned with how the ATs perform while solo.

Granted, this is an MMO, but that only means you CAN team... it doesn't mean you have to.

When teamed, you can gather all manner of crazy ass buffs. You can hit the mitigation or damage caps. It depends solely on who you decide to team with.

Quite frankly, though, that's damn near impossible to balance around unless you just gear your view based on the caps.

And that's fine. Take that view into account.

But if you ignore the solo values, then you don't actually give a shit about game balance.

Well personally I think your whole premise invalid because the poper test would be between tanks and MMs, and brutes and scrappers. You seem as confused as many about the actual design goal of the brute by the original devs, it is not meant to be the tank, making a brute into a tank can be done, just like you can with a scrapper, but its you going against the grain from the get go trying to think tank as brute. Ultimately its no different then think DPS as a support AT, yes we can bloody well build offenders and rightfully so, but we sure as hell are not going to use them as the new standard to balance the game around.

 

So frankly imo you want to run some balance comparisons, mae an SO tanker and MM, and compare them by running them at level through content. See which one takes longer to cap leveling the old fashion way, as that back on live was always my main benchmark for any AT back on live, how easy to solo them to 50 via normal play.

[VV]

2 hours ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

and tanks grumble about not staying behind them.

Once again proving my original statement, most people play tanks wrong, which is one of the many things that makes this whole comparison bad.

[VV]

1 hour ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

Well personally I think your whole premise invalid because the proper test would be between tanks and MMs, and brutes and scrappers.

YES THANK YOU FOR FINALLY SAYING THAT. Brutes aren't wimpier Tanks, they are tougher Scrappers. That is why their special AT ability, Fury, is damage-related, rather than aggro-related. Whereas the Mastermind has a damage-mitigation special AT ability, Supremacy in Defensive.

 

Anyway, now that someone finally spoke the truth, OP needs to restart those whoooooooole thread with Brute vs Scrapper calculations. Or, Tank vs Mastermind.

[VV]

7 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I'm concerned with how the ATs perform while solo.

Okay, but then why wouldn't you just solo with a Scrapper or Blaster, instead of a Brute or a Tank? I mean, if the point is to get through the solo mission as fast as possible, wouldn't both those ATs do it faster than either of the other two? I mean, what is restricting your choice between just these 2 ATs? I mean, you have 15 ATs to choose from, hundreds of powerset combos, and dozens of Pool Powers. Out of those, why not find the combos that work the best for what you are trying to do? Which is, as you said: "solo hard TFs, SFs, AVs, monsters and other hard targets."

[Bill Z Bubba]

Because A: the concept that masterminds were supposed to be the redside tanks was as ridiculous back at go live as it is now and B: because it was all made even more meaningless with Going Rogue and the ability to create a tank, brute or scrapper on any side.

 

The direct comparison between brutes and tanks is necessary now because it exists now. Masterminds? They have no place in this discussion.

[Haijinx]

For self powered situations ...

 

Any set with a non standard dmg buff will favor Tanks slightly in comparison due to the higher scale. 

 

The build up sets will favor Brutes.  

 

The mitigation aspect rarely matters.  If Brutes never die, does it matter if they never die 86% or 93% as never dying as tanks? 

 

Run the tank and the brute on a team with a kin and 5 people running maneuvers and assault.    Then see which one does better ... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DSorrow]

I think the biggest issue we have is how increasing damage works linearly, but increasing defenses gets less and less linear the closer you are to the respective defensive cap. For example, if we assume a Tank is at the 90% Resistance cap and does 90 DPS, then apply the tank/brute defense/offense logic to an identical brute build, we should get a brute that has 81% Resistance while doing 100 DPS. In this case, the tank can survive roughly double the incoming damage compared to the brute while only suffering a 10% difference in damage output. Depending on your build, that 10% damage might be pretty easy to bridge with procs because you can skip more than a handful of 5-6 piece bonuses (usual places for +Def/+Res), and thus you'd end up with a Tank build that has Tank survivability and what's basically Brute damage.

 

Given the current rules for Def and Res, I don't think this discrepancy can be solved without either breaking the game apart and rebuilding it.

 

Disclaimer: I don't actually have a Tank on HC, so this is just me thinking out loud.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

33 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Because A: the concept that masterminds were supposed to be the redside tanks was as ridiculous back at go live as it is now and B: because it was all made even more meaningless with Going Rogue and the ability to create a tank, brute or scrapper on any side.

 

The direct comparison between brutes and tanks is necessary now because it exists now. Masterminds? They have no place in this discussion.

Sorry but you as the player not the dev do not get to simply dismiss the very real motivation the devs had for each of the ATs. The Brute was not made to be the primary tank on a team no more then a blaster, but my blaster will out tank and spank most brutes, because blasters got the aoe dps 2nd to none, and can be more than tanky enough if built right to handle plenty of content at max dif if they so desire.

 

MM are the damage sponge AT of red side no matter your personal feelings on the subject. You are literally trying to argue based on emotional bias rather than the factual truth of the purpose each AT was made for by the Devs.

 

There isno need now for direct comparisons, because both AT can solo base level content effectively which is what the game balance is built around, not about what content a max tuned AT can do solo.

 

Players like you always seem to forget, a toon with all the trimmings is the equiv of a character on wow having completed all the raiding needed for BiS items, and will be maxed and over power content till a new level cap increase renders all that gear obsolete. They dont make a new raid at the old cap with no new gear just so the completed character can choose to run it for fun. Once youve got a toon decked out here, it doesnt even matter what content they do or dont do, they are done, they have completed the game as it were and are now there to be played for fun or left to gather dust if not fun.

 

And we certainly dont need to balance around such characters. I mean hell even your power combo choice for comparison is a laughably bad one. Obviously a Dark/SR would be far more appropriate test as that combo is considered a true power combo that leverages the strength of SR and covers its weaknesses. Not to mention was able to for scrappers let them solo upwards of 14 AVs at once back on live using just a SO build. I mean SR isnt  even considered a good set for tanks otherwise. Id sooner find the comparison of a WP/war mace tank and a tw/bio brute.  When you really want to stress test 2 ATs to see which surpasses the other, you use meta power combos for each AT.

 

In the end tanks are finally fun to play for more players, and brutes by and large can solo the toughest of content when used by skilled brute players. So any point your trying to prove is moot. I still never ever ever will let a brute be the tank for any team on any content were a real tank feels needed for whatever reason. Id sooner take an Offender over a brute for that role.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Here's the initial DA run for tank and brute. I agree with yall, though, that there are variables with this that we can avoid by using AE missions. Found Mission Simulator Arc ID 15873, ran it once in 8:43, will use that for round 2 of testing later today.

 

Time starts at mission entrance, time ends at last enemy defeated, all mission clear all, max diff w/ bosses. Time are in seconds. No insps or lore pets used.
BZB tank:
Stop Tsoo: 628
Stop Tsoo: 509
Thin banished Pantheon: 625
Defat MOt's Chamipions: 666
Thin banished Pantheon: 430
Average: 572

BZB Brute:
Stop Tsoo: 635
Stop Tsoo: 497
Rescue Knives: 660
Investigate Knives: 429
Stop Tsoo: 668
Average: 577

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

Buncha stuff.

I'm comparing archetypes, not your opinions on what AT was supposed to do what. I don't care that someone once said "masterminds are redside tanks and/or damage sponges." We never played it like that. Because it was dumb. They are a pet/buff archetype and of zero relevance when comparing damage/mitigation and mitigation/damage archetypes. I'm comparing 3 ATs with shared powersets.

 

It doesn't matter what combo I choose to use (nor do I give a shit what you think of claws, so you can shove the snide insults) as I'm not concerned with the testing of the powersets. I'm concerned with testing the variations and equity regarding how the AT modifiers and/or inherents have left them since the last round of tank buffs. This is why I'm using the same combo with practically identical builds.

 

Tanks could solo without any difficulty before they got buffed. Obviously, the devs felt that you are wrong and further study was necessary.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[kiramon]

52 minutes ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

Sorry but you as the player not the dev do not get to simply dismiss the very real motivation the devs had for each of the ATs. The Brute was not made to be the primary tank on a team no more then a blaster, but my blaster will out tank and spank most brutes, because blasters got the aoe dps 2nd to none, and can be more than tanky enough if built right to handle plenty of content at max dif if they so desire.

 

MM are the damage sponge AT of red side no matter your personal feelings on the subject. You are literally trying to argue based on emotional bias rather than the factual truth of the purpose each AT was made for by the Devs.

 

There isno need now for direct comparisons, because both AT can solo base level content effectively which is what the game balance is built around, not about what content a max tuned AT can do solo.

 

Players like you always seem to forget, a toon with all the trimmings is the equiv of a character on wow having completed all the raiding needed for BiS items, and will be maxed and over power content till a new level cap increase renders all that gear obsolete. They dont make a new raid at the old cap with no new gear just so the completed character can choose to run it for fun. Once youve got a toon decked out here, it doesnt even matter what content they do or dont do, they are done, they have completed the game as it were and are now there to be played for fun or left to gather dust if not fun.

 

And we certainly dont need to balance around such characters. I mean hell even your power combo choice for comparison is a laughably bad one. Obviously a Dark/SR would be far more appropriate test as that combo is considered a true power combo that leverages the strength of SR and covers its weaknesses. Not to mention was able to for scrappers let them solo upwards of 14 AVs at once back on live using just a SO build. I mean SR isnt  even considered a good set for tanks otherwise. Id sooner find the comparison of a WP/war mace tank and a tw/bio brute.  When you really want to stress test 2 ATs to see which surpasses the other, you use meta power combos for each AT.

 

In the end tanks are finally fun to play for more players, and brutes by and large can solo the toughest of content when used by skilled brute players. So any point your trying to prove is moot. I still never ever ever will let a brute be the tank for any team on any content were a real tank feels needed for whatever reason. Id sooner take an Offender over a brute for that role.

I think it's incredibly moot and short sighted for a (relatively dead) game to try and argue original design intentions are more important than actual functionality. Design intentions/goals are not always where things end up - in any game. And they certainly missed the mark with Brute as a scrapper and MM as a Tanker. This is especially true in HC, as these devs directly balance brute against Tanker, as we've seen in the tanker updates.

 

To use wow as an example, Druids were originally intended to be master of none, shifting in and out of forms as needed. But it didn't play out that way, hence their role changed to be a multi-spec with a focus on whatever role that spec was. The original wow was built with the idea that Priests were the primary healers, with druids as the backup healers. Obviously they didn't end up there. Same with Shaman tanks.

 

Anyways, my point is that to literally stick to what the devs wanted vs what actually happens is just silly. Case and point: League of Legends has MULTIPLE champions that were built for a specific role - literally a specific lane to play in - yet players find one that works out better. And what do the devs do? They either encourage that by including it as a role, or they nerf them out of that role -- mages as support or supports as mages is a common theme here.

 

Also, I'm not sure how often you played Red back on live -- but your brute was your tanker dude. And your Corruptor was your defender dude, despite being the blaster of Red. It's just irrelevant. Devs are not omniscient. And unless they design against it, the player always wins. 

[Sailboat]

1 hour ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

Players like you always seem to forget

Bill doesn't need my help defending himself, but from the perspective of a forum reader, I would like to see us address each other more cordially.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Sailboat

[ForeverLaxx]

Part of the problem is the complete dismissal of how the game's numbers are balanced under the hood to only account for SO-level slotting. Once you start bringing in set bonuses and Incarnates, systems designed to blur and blend the lines in (theoretically) any direction you want, the differences between the ATs becomes unclear. With basic slotting though, things work out pretty much how you expect them to, and since that's the balance point, I don't think there's any issues that need fixing.

[kenlon]

2 hours ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

Sorry but you as the player not the dev do not get to simply dismiss the very real motivation the devs had for each of the ATs.

Sure we do - what motivation they had when creating an AT matters very little compared to how it worked out in practice once it was implemented. MMs are not tanks. They don't have the tools to do what tankers do, regardless of what the devs originally intended. Now, if they'd gone in and added/revised mechanics to make MMs work for tanking, then sure, compare them to tankers, but they didn't.

 

And with Brutes and Tankers both being able to fill the same role in practice (Melee DPS that Does Not Die), then comparing them is valid. 

[Omega-202]

4 hours ago, DSorrow said:

I think the biggest issue we have is how increasing damage works linearly, but increasing defenses gets less and less linear the closer you are to the respective defensive cap. For example, if we assume a Tank is at the 90% Resistance cap and does 90 DPS, then apply the tank/brute defense/offense logic to an identical brute build, we should get a brute that has 81% Resistance while doing 100 DPS. In this case, the tank can survive roughly double the incoming damage compared to the brute while only suffering a 10% difference in damage output. Depending on your build, that 10% damage might be pretty easy to bridge with procs because you can skip more than a handful of 5-6 piece bonuses (usual places for +Def/+Res), and thus you'd end up with a Tank build that has Tank survivability and what's basically Brute damage.

 

Given the current rules for Def and Res, I don't think this discrepancy can be solved without either breaking the game apart and rebuilding it.

 

Disclaimer: I don't actually have a Tank on HC, so this is just me thinking out loud.

This, and essentially the whole premise of this thread, ignores the fact that survival is binary, whereas damage is not. 

 

Does it really matter that your Tank has 90% resists and defense cap and your Brute has 80% resist and defense cap when neither can be killed by anything short of Hamidon?  Hell, I have Stalkers and Scrappers and Crabs that can solo face tank most of the game because of IOs.  

 

In the end, if the lack in toughness isn't enough to change the binary state of Living to Dead, that extra durability is meaningless.  

 

To the point of the thread: As long as Brutes can be built to survive 99% of what the game has to offer and still outdamage Tanks, then no, Tanks weren't overbuffed.  When we have Blasters doing 4/8 solo ITFs, Brutes have no reason to complain about the defensive disparity with Tanks.  

[Troo]

Spoiler

4 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Here's the initial DA run for tank and brute. I agree with yall, though, that there are variables with this that we can avoid by using AE missions. Found Mission Simulator Arc ID 15873, ran it once in 8:43, will use that for round 2 of testing later today.

 

Time starts at mission entrance, time ends at last enemy defeated, all mission clear all, max diff w/ bosses. Time are in seconds. No insps or lore pets used.
BZB tank:
Stop Tsoo: 628
Stop Tsoo: 509
Thin banished Pantheon: 625
Defat MOt's Chamipions: 666
Thin banished Pantheon: 430
Average: 572

BZB Brute:
Stop Tsoo: 635
Stop Tsoo: 497
Rescue Knives: 660
Investigate Knives: 429
Stop Tsoo: 668
Average: 577

 

This is great BZB.

It is helpful to hear the boots-on-the-ground perspective from someone very familiar with the three examples being examined.

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Troo

[Omega-202]

8 minutes ago, Troo said:

  Hide contents

 

This is great BZB.

It is helpful to hear the boots-on-the-ground perspective from someone very familiar with the three examples being examined.

 

Those times have a standard deviation of ~100 and a 90% confidence margin of error of ~75 for each set.  They're really not showing us anything worth putting any value in, especially with the fact that its not even apples to apples in terms of the missions.  

[Coyote]

21 hours ago, Troo said:

ahhh but where do Blasters and Stalkers fit in?

 

The Blaster icon is usually in the Hospital, and the Stalker is not placed on the board since you don't know where it is. You just roll for its attack and then remove an opposing piece.

[marcussmythe]

4 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Here's the initial DA run for tank and brute. I agree with yall, though, that there are variables with this that we can avoid by using AE missions. Found Mission Simulator Arc ID 15873, ran it once in 8:43, will use that for round 2 of testing later today.

 

Time starts at mission entrance, time ends at last enemy defeated, all mission clear all, max diff w/ bosses. Time are in seconds. No insps or lore pets used.
BZB tank:
Stop Tsoo: 628
Stop Tsoo: 509
Thin banished Pantheon: 625
Defat MOt's Chamipions: 666
Thin banished Pantheon: 430
Average: 572

BZB Brute:
Stop Tsoo: 635
Stop Tsoo: 497
Rescue Knives: 660
Investigate Knives: 429
Stop Tsoo: 668
Average: 577

How many deaths for each?

[Troo]

3 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

Those times have a standard deviation of ~100 and a 90% confidence margin of error of ~75 for each set.  They're really not showing us anything worth putting any value in, especially with the fact that its not even apples to apples in terms of the missions.  

I have heard that 84% of statistics are made up on the spot whether they are troothful or not.

 

I'll stick with "It is helpful to hear the boots-on-the-ground perspective from someone very familiar with the three examples being examined.". Thanks anyway.

[Bill Z Bubba]

7 minutes ago, marcussmythe said:

How many deaths for each?

Zero. Came close a time or two on the brute but nothin a quick jaunt around a corner to let his native regen do its thing didn't get me past.

Next test will tell us more since I won't be using any click incarnate abilities nor insps and will be fighting +3s since I'll only have the 1 incarnate shift.

 

Might be making my own test mission, though. The one I found was built specifically for timing damage output and tells us nothing about survival.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba