Did tanks get overbuffed?

[marcussmythe]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

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.

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.

And that does raise an interesting point, though one likely outside the scope of our discussion here - EFFECTIVE Damage vs Hypothetical.

 

It may (may) be the case that at certain (likely quite high!) levels of difficulty, the Tanks greater HP, or ease of reaching defensive targets, MIGHT result in it having a higher EFFECTIVE output than the Brute, simply because the Tank has more design space to play with, or spends less time clicking to not die.  I will note that my sentinel (yes, yes, laugh, sentinels) can handle some things that my scrappers cannot, simply because not being stuck in melee range with an Angry Kitty is a positive life choice.

 

Similarly, at some situations, the Brute or Tank will have more effective damage out than the Blaster or Stalker - though I consider neither overbuffed in comparison - simply because the Stalker or Blaster is having to focus so much more time/energy/design room on not dying (or on buying mission teleporters and superspeed for quick returns to the action from the hospital).

 

That said, 'burn the AV as hard as possible and run back before it regens' is a strategy...

[marcussmythe]

6 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

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.

An interesting point about survival vs. damage - as survival is a prerequisite to damage, and damage can open the door to surviving (Defeat being the best debuff)

 

So looking at the 'really tough content' design space - how do BZB Scrap, Brute, and Tank handle in Linea Missions?  I recall you running them, right?

[Bill Z Bubba]

40 minutes ago, marcussmythe said:

So looking at the 'really tough content' design space - how do BZB Scrap, Brute, and Tank handle in Linea Missions?  I recall you running them, right?

I thought of the same missions but they are rather long and I'd have to find a sweet spot where any of the three aren't immortal but where the scrapper doesn't get trounced as soon as he walks in the door.

 

My initial choice for my enemy faction is already a failure. BZB scrap is immortal at max diff. 😞

 

Ideas for a good enemy group that has a chance to kill all three but not completely wax them off the map like... Rularuu?

 

Looks like incarnate BP might do the trick. May even have to drop below max diff.

Edit 2: This'll work. Tank is immortal at max diff but brute and scrapper are not. And we're only getting 1 lvl shift so they're at true +3.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[Infinitum]

23 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Look... I'm not actually trying to get rid of the recent tank buffs. I just think if they're gonna be in play, thus drastically reducing the damage output difference between the two ATs, then perhaps the base mitigation values for brutes shouldn't be at scrapper levels and should instead be somewhere between scrappers and tanks.

That's good... Because if you were i would find a water tower near you.  🙂

[marcussmythe]

Incarnate BP are -mean-.  I dont imagine this psy damage troubles the Bubbas much, but NOONE likes Radiation Defenders.

[Bopper]

1 hour ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

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.

We really aren't trying to test survival. We are isolating variables to focus on your original point, which is "did tanks get overbuffed?". If you are trying to merge both survival and damage in a single test, you won't be able to tell how much of each contributes to your times. I recommend using the Mission Simulator. 

[Bill Z Bubba]

19 minutes ago, Bopper said:

We really aren't trying to test survival. We are isolating variables to focus on your original point, which is "did tanks get overbuffed?". If you are trying to merge both survival and damage in a single test, you won't be able to tell how much of each contributes to your times. I recommend using the Mission Simulator. 

I think I've dealt with that variable. The map I'm using killed both the scrapper and the brute with them just sitting in an aggro cap while the tank was barely being touched. This means that the extra effort to stay alive will play a important role in the testing as it just took my brute 16:08 to clear the map and some of that time was used up by running away to avoid death.

 

If we find that the tank grossly surpasses the kill speed of the brute because it never has to run away.... well, that's pretty dang relevant in my opinion. Checking that now.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[Bopper]

12 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I think I've dealt with that variable. The map I'm using killed both the scrapper and the brute with them just sitting in an aggro cap while the tank was barely being touched. This means that the extra effort to stay alive will play a important role in the testing as it just too my brute 16:08 to clear the map and some of that time was used up by running away to avoid death.

 

If we find that the tank grossly surpasses the kill speed of the brute because it never has to run away.... well, that's pretty dang relevant in my opinion. Checking that now.

You can assess the ATs how you like. I'm just saying, you will not be able to know if the tanker is killing faster than a brute because it does more damage or if its because the brute had to run away more. Plus, that introduces other variables such as what powersets did you choose, how did you build the characters, etc. 

 

Nobody will argue with you if you said Tankers are more survivable than Brutes. The argument you proposed was Tankers are doing too much damage relative to Brutes, yet you're not testing specifically for that claim.

 

If I ran into a mission with a brute and died (or ran away), but i was doing killer damage, what would your test tell me? A brute can't solo as fast as the tank in that content. It tells me nothing about the damage performance.

 

If you truly want to provide evidence of tanks doing too much damage, you have to do a test that isolates the damage. So far, the only controlled test you've done is against a Pylon that showed the Brute doing more damage. You attempted a non controlled test with running missions, however the randomness of the missions added noise in your results. You can remove that noise by simply running the Mission Simulator map multiple times. It doesn't take that long, you build up samples which builds up confidence, and you know the test set-up is consistent. Set it to +1/x8 (or +2), and get atleast 10 samples for each AT. Then we can analyze the performance.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bopper

[Peacemoon]

2 hours ago, Omega-202 said:

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.  

This is also why I think we’ve moved into a meta where damage trumps all.

 

A good character, and a good team is largely dependant on how much damage potential they can maximise. Things that offer great defence are unfortunately less important to these days...

[Bill Z Bubba]

18 minutes ago, Bopper said:

The argument you proposed was Tankers are doing too much damage relative to Brutes, yet you're not testing specifically for that claim.

Specifically I'm arguing that current tank damage is so high in comparison to brutes, that brute mitigation has now become ridiculously too low.

 

Some here are saying that's fine. I'm not one of those people.

 

I'd probably be fine with the damage comparison if I was *consistently* running around on my brute with 86% of the mitigation of the tank. But we both know I'm not.

 

In any case, the tank's 1st run on that same map as earlier was 14:44. 968 seconds for the brute. 884 seconds for the tank. I will of course do several more runs each to get a fair average.

 

For the record, the tank never had to use his destiny power. He only had to get out of the end sapping patches. The brute was firing off barrier every time it was up.

 

If you aren't seeing a pretty ridiculous unfair advantage to the tank at this point... I'm not sure what to say.

 

But I will go run the Mission Simulator, 10 times each at +2/x8 w/ bosses as requested. This will give us a more accurate representation of ONLY the damage output over time.

 

And then we can discuss how grossly unfair the existing damage to mitigation ratio is between tanks and brutes.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[Peacemoon]

11 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Specifically I'm arguing that current tank damage is so high in comparison to brutes, that brute mitigation has now become ridiculously too low.

 

Some here are saying that's fine. I'm not one of those people.

 

I'd probably be fine with the damage comparison if I was *consistently* running around on my brute with 86% of the mitigation of the tank. But we both know I'm not.

 

In any case, the tank's 1st run on that same map as earlier was 14:44. 968 seconds for the brute. 884 seconds for the tank. I will of course do several more runs each to get a fair average.

 

For the record, the tank never had to use his destiny power. He only had to get out of the end sapping patches. The brute was firing off barrier every time it was up.

 

If you aren't seeing a pretty ridiculous unfair advantage to the tank at this point... I'm not sure what to say.

 

But I will go run the Mission Simulator, 10 times each at +2/x8 w/ bosses as requested. This will give us a more accurate representation of ONLY the damage output over time.

 

And then we can discuss how grossly unfair the existing damage to mitigation ratio is between tanks and brutes.

Is this because tanks AoE hits more targets, rather than the actual damage themselves? Damage multipliers only account for half the story.  
 

To be honest I think all melee are overtuned in this game, even in the 20s Brutes and Scrappers especially often run off and solo the whole TF, even at +2 or +3. 
 

And if you always have to trade off damage for more defence, then surely the sweet spot is where you’ve traded off as little damage as possible to get enough defence to survive. Anything more than that is superfluous. Which is why people prefer Brutes and Scrappers generally.

Also the game is about having fun - tankers should do enough damage that they can have fun. To be honest i wish the same principle was applied more to other ATs, like Defenders and Corruptors, who take a big hit in damage for the support they bring.

[Bopper]

19 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

But I will go run the Mission Simulator, 10 times each at +2/x8 w/ bosses as requested. This will give us a more accurate representation of ONLY the damage output over time.

Thanks, that would be a good control test for seeing Tanker damage compared to Brute damage in typical mission AoE environments. Save your builds for configuration control and share those as well. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bopper

[marcussmythe]

20 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Specifically I'm arguing that current tank damage is so high in comparison to brutes, that brute mitigation has now become ridiculously too low.

 

Some here are saying that's fine. I'm not one of those people.

 

I'd probably be fine with the damage comparison if I was *consistently* running around on my brute with 86% of the mitigation of the tank. But we both know I'm not.

 

In any case, the tank's 1st run on that same map as earlier was 14:44. 968 seconds for the brute. 884 seconds for the tank. I will of course do several more runs each to get a fair average.

 

For the record, the tank never had to use his destiny power. He only had to get out of the end sapping patches. The brute was firing off barrier every time it was up.

 

If you aren't seeing a pretty ridiculous unfair advantage to the tank at this point... I'm not sure what to say.

 

But I will go run the Mission Simulator, 10 times each at +2/x8 w/ bosses as requested. This will give us a more accurate representation of ONLY the damage output over time.

 

And then can discuss how grossly unfair the existing damage to mitigation ratio is between tanks and brutes.

Im not sure that is an entirely fair comparison from which to draw 'grossly unfair'.    Yes, in content of sufficient difficulty to badly threaten the brute, there is a good chance the tank will do better than the brute - as the tank is getting busy killing, and the brute is getting busy dying - or trying not to.

 

At the next layer down, the brute should similarly outperform the scrapper at a lower threat level - and the scrapper the blaster.  The tougher AT SHOULD outperform the more damaging one on sufficiently dangerous content - and exactly at this point, where the content starts killing the lower-toughness character, but cannot yet do so to the tougher one.  That is the tradeoff, and there must be, else there is no point to the more resilient AT.

 

More broadly, after years in live and early days on HC of 'Well, I COULD tank, or I could Brute and level far easier and do waaaayyy more damage oh and also be tough enough for almost every circumstance...'  .. yeah.  If you buff Brute survival until you cant find a temperature point of survival between the brute and the tank.. well.. we are back there, again.

[Bopper]

Actually, while we're at it, you probably shouldn't use destiny powers in your test if you're not using the same ones. One...Incarnates are OP. But Two, if you are giving one character a nice recharge bonus while the other does not (plus the recovery it comes with), that character is getting a significant offensive buff.

[Bill Z Bubba]

4 minutes ago, Bopper said:

Thanks, that would be a good control test for seeing Tanker damage compared to Brute damage in typical mission AoE environments. Save your builds for configuration control and share those as well. 

Builds: All passive accolades exist on all three. Musc Core, Assault Core and Degen Core are in use. Assault is clicked when up for all runs. Other incarnate powers are T4ed on all three but not used.

 

Tank:

 

http://www.cohplanner.com/mids/download.php?uc=1484&c=689&a=1378&f=HEX&dc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

 

 

Brute:

 

http://www.cohplanner.com/mids/download.php?uc=1531&c=713&a=1426&f=HEX&dc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

 

 

Scrapper:

 

http://www.cohplanner.com/mids/download.php?uc=1554&c=716&a=1432&f=HEX&dc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

 

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Bopper said:

Actually, while we're at it, you probably shouldn't use destiny powers in your test if you're not using the same ones. One...Incarnates are OP. But Two, if you are giving one character a nice recharge bonus while the other does not (plus the recovery it comes with), that character is getting a significant offensive buff.

I can see that but destiny is the only difference. Brute/Scrapper use barrier core, tank uses rebirth core.

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Builds

Thanks, when I get on a computer tonight I'll review them.

[Bopper]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I can see that but destiny is the only difference. Brute/Scrapper use barrier core, tank uses rebirth core.

copy. If they are all not using Ageless, then I think its fair to go about business as usual. Shouldn't have a drastic impact on the test.

[Sovera]

23 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Specifically I'm arguing that current tank damage is so high in comparison to brutes, that brute mitigation has now become ridiculously too low.

 

Some here are saying that's fine. I'm not one of those people.

 

I'd probably be fine with the damage comparison if I was *consistently* running around on my brute with 86% of the mitigation of the tank. But we both know I'm not.

 

In any case, the tank's 1st run on that same map as earlier was 14:44. 968 seconds for the brute. 884 seconds for the tank. I will of course do several more runs each to get a fair average.

 

For the record, the tank never had to use his destiny power. He only had to get out of the end sapping patches. The brute was firing off barrier every time it was up.

 

If you aren't seeing a pretty ridiculous unfair advantage to the tank at this point... I'm not sure what to say.

 

But I will go run the Mission Simulator, 10 times each at +2/x8 w/ bosses as requested. This will give us a more accurate representation of ONLY the damage output over time.

 

And then we can discuss how grossly unfair the existing damage to mitigation ratio is between tanks and brutes.

I don't want to mingle in the conversation too much since I don't really have much to add.

 

But. Even if it is as you say? So what? What is the problem here? We have had years of Tankers being useless and only the most die hard tank fan who always played tanks in whatever game rolling a tank in CoH. Everyone else more pragmatic was told to roll a Brute for -much- better damage and nearly the same survival.

 

This has been going on and on and on under the simple principle defenses can be added via IOs but damage cannot except with recharge... and those with defenses can -also- have recharge.

 

Now there has been buffs and the lines are blurred with Brutes no longer the simple solution and this is suddenly a problem? Despite Brutes still performing 44% better if no Kin is around?

 

Come on Bill. This is not WoW where a shift in the meta causes much wailing and tears since it means leveling for two weeks, then grind gear for two months. Tanks are now an option (and Brutes still leading even in the farm threads). Be happy. Roll a tank too, woo!

[Troo]

BZB seems to be doing all the work here so I believe there is no need for hard controls and anything burdensome. We're just along for the ride.

 

We'll find anecdotal evidence can provide an answer to "Did Tanks get overbuffed?".

 

My guess = that while Tanks did get a boost they were not over buffed to where they eclipse their position but can be tweaked to push Brutes for damage. 
 

[Bill Z Bubba]

3 minutes ago, marcussmythe said:

Im not sure that is an entirely fair comparison from which to draw 'grossly unfair'.    Yes, in content of sufficient difficulty to badly threaten the brute, there is a good chance the tank will do better than the brute - as the tank is getting busy killing, and the brute is getting busy dying - or trying not to.

 

At the next layer down, the brute should similarly outperform the scrapper at a lower threat level - and the scrapper the blaster.  The tougher AT SHOULD outperform the more damaging one on sufficiently dangerous content - and exactly at this point, where the content starts killing the lower-toughness character, but cannot yet do so to the tougher one.  That is the tradeoff, and there must be, else there is no point to the more resilient AT.

 

More broadly, after years in live and early days on HC of 'Well, I COULD tank, or I could Brute and level far easier and do waaaayyy more damage oh and also be tough enough for almost every circumstance...'  .. yeah.  If you buff Brute survival until you cant find a temperature point of survival between the brute and the tank.. well.. we are back there, again.

That is precisely where this all started. If I am providing content where the tank is immortal but the brute isn't when neither is fighting back, then we should be at a place where the brute's supposed higher damage output will carry the day. So far, I'm not seeing that.

 

If we are now in a situation where the tank is leveling faster from 1 to 50 at base diff (or really, at any diff at which both can survive) than the brute, then can we all agree that something is very wrong?

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Sovera said:

But. Even if it is as you say? So what? What is the problem here? We have had years of Tankers being useless and only the most die hard tank fan who always played tanks in whatever game rolling a tank in CoH. Everyone else more pragmatic was told to roll a Brute for -much- better damage and nearly the same survival.

How about I don't want years of brutes being useless?

[Sovera]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

How about I don't want years of brutes being useless?

A Tanker doing 66% of the damage of a Brute (with no Kin involved. I must be the only person doing PuGs where a kin shows up every ten runs) while the Brute has 86% of the defenses of a Tanker sounds reasonable to me.

 

There is that mythical perfect scenario where everyone runs every single team with a Kin who can cap the damage for the full run. In practical terms is this a thing?

[Bopper]

12 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

How about I don't want years of brutes being useless?

woah...how did brutes become useless? Sure, their damage cap decreased to 700% but their Fury was improved. If Brutes were strong before, how are they no longer useful? Not sure about that claim.

 

14 minutes ago, Troo said:

BZB seems to be doing all the work here so I believe there is no need for hard controls and anything burdensome. We're just along for the ride.

 

We'll find anecdotal evidence can provide an answer to "Did Tanks get overbuffed?".

 

My guess = that while Tanks did get a boost they were not over buffed to where they eclipse their position but can be tweaked to push Brutes for damage. 
 

He is putting in the work. But the guidance I'm trying to provide is to help him prove his point. I'd hate for BZB to spend 2 hours doing a test that was flawed. I've been doing testing for 12 years (wow, actually today is my 12 year anniversary on the job, neat), and I have seen many missions waste millions of dollars on bad test practices. This does not have nearly the financial risk (I sure hope!!!), but if the results are going to matter or interest anyone, I would recommend taking some of my advice. BZB has captured my interest to see the comparison in damage. And sure, there are some parameters that are not controlled with even what I proposed, but it's a compromise I'm willing to live with.

 

I will still be taking the results with a grain of salt given we are looking at only one build combination. But all that being said, it's still a good enough test doing it this way as opposed to doing a random mission test that has too many variables to draw any conclusions. If that's the results that were to be produced I'd just leave the thread. It wouldnt be value added, just anecdotal. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Bopper

[Apparition]

8 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

How about I don't want years of brutes being useless?

Brutes aren’t useless.  They allow you to skip Taunt, and to skip the tier one melee attack power which is useless on most melee attack sets.  For those two reasons, I still prefer playing Brutes to Tankers in most cases.