Tanker Primary "Tough Test"

[Bill Z Bubba]

50 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

This SO version isn't rocking 70% S/L resist though. 

It might be as it nears zero health.

[Heraclea]

3 hours ago, Werner said:

I believe that every call for buffs has been a joke made by people who know how to make those sets into immortal godlings. I know that I at least was attempting to jokingly make the opposite point. I was praising the test while also cautioning against drawing overly-broad conclusions, such as thinking the mentioned sets needed buffs. I guess that wasn't as clear as I'd hoped.

The real question is how close the armor set gets you there under its own power.   You can build up Regeneration the same way, and it will become fairly sturdy.  I built a Regen brute for tanking just to see if it could be done.   The real question is the spending differential, and how much making these survival builds affects other aspects of game play.  I wouldn't recommend that you try to build a regen brute for tanking without a base full of enhancements and a roster ready to supply inf and merits. 

[Hew]

3 hours ago, Heraclea said:

 The real question is the spending differential

This a million times. Combo A requires ~20mil inf from all sorts of areas and merits, and is rock solid. Combo B requires 200 mil and is really just an exercise in square peg round hole world.

[Haijinx]

5 hours ago, Heraclea said:

The real question is how close the armor set gets you there under its own power.   You can build up Regeneration the same way, and it will become fairly sturdy.  I built a Regen brute for tanking just to see if it could be done.   The real question is the spending differential, and how much making these survival builds affects other aspects of game play.  I wouldn't recommend that you try to build a regen brute for tanking without a base full of enhancements and a roster ready to supply inf and merits. 

oddly enough, I think with Tanker numbers Regen might not actually be that bad as a Tanker Set  

 

Not once you get the Fighting Pool and CJ rolling with IOs 

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Hew said:

This a million times. Combo A requires ~20mil inf from all sorts of areas and merits, and is rock solid. Combo B requires 200 mil and is really just an exercise in square peg round hole world.

Thats kind of the thing with Tankers.  200 million is really nothing.  But you can turn any Tanker into a Immortal for about that.  

[Hew]

5 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Thats kind of the thing with Tankers.  200 million is really nothing.  But you can turn any Tanker into a Immortal for about that.  

200 million may be nothing to you, but to a casual player, that is a LOT.

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Hew said:

200 million may be nothing to you, but to a casual player, that is a LOT.

I probably play less hours most weeks than most casual players since my work schedule is demented.

 

200 million is a lot for a leveling up player maybe.

 

But for a 50+ incarnate?  Its nothing. 

 

Its not even horrible if you dont have an incarnate.  Just do the weekly task force every week and you'll have it with very little actual playtime.  Just convert merits to converters and sell them.

 

There's no maintenance fees or anything like that in this game.  

 

If you are in a hurry do it with multiple characters.  Though that itself is a bit of a trap. 

 

200 million is nothing times 1.  200 million times 10+ characters is a lot.   

 

If you have limited playtime and you want an expensive build, either learn to market, or ditch the altitis.  

 

I don't have the patience to market, so I work on one character at a time   

 

 

[DSorrow]

19 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

It seems interesting that the top performing set in your test all have +defence in them and the resist sets fair the worst. 

I think this is just a result of how Defense effectively works as Debuff avoidance in addition to damage avoidance. Each attack might hurt a Res and Def set similarly on average over time, but if the attacks come with some components that increase damage taken (such as -Def, like in the test), the Res set will end up taking more. This is just how it seems to work in-game, too.

 

The main difference I see between my Res capped and Def soft capped characters is that Res is basically immune to "bad luck" whereas Def trades the immunity against bad luck to what's essentially an overall immunity to most debuffs. Case in point: anything like the incarnate Banished Pantheon eat my Res based characters alive after the debuffs are stacked, but on the other hand they can be 100% care free against hard hitting enemies like the Cimerorans. For Def characters it's the opposite way around: debuffs aren't all that scary but a few coinciding big hits can lead to nasty surprises.

3 hours ago, Hew said:

200 million may be nothing to you, but to a casual player, that is a LOT.

It might be look like a lot, but I don't think that kind of influence is objectively a huge task to obtain. Just playing with any team at 50 will probably make a baseline of 5-10mil inf/hour, which I think is extremely reasonable considering that the only actual "money making strategy" involved is playing at level 50. Playing with teams running at +4x8 and focusing activities into merit yielding content will easily bump that up to double or triple, at which point you're looking at ~10-20 hours of gameplay for an end-game build.

 

For example, I soloed the Dark Astoria story arcs (20 missions total I think, so let's say 10 hours) some time back on a fresh 50, bumping up the difficulty as I unlocked more level boosts from my Incarnate abilities. I never ended up running even close to +4x8, died every now and then and my progress was slowed by being solo anyway, but yet I made ~50mil excluding merits and recipe drops over 10 hours. Not bad for just playing the game.

[Gobbledigook]

1 hour ago, DSorrow said:

I think this is just a result of how Defense effectively works as Debuff avoidance in addition to damage avoidance. Each attack might hurt a Res and Def set similarly on average over time, but if the attacks come with some components that increase damage taken (such as -Def, like in the test), the Res set will end up taking more. This is just how it seems to work in-game, too.

 

The main difference I see between my Res capped and Def soft capped characters is that Res is basically immune to "bad luck" whereas Def trades the immunity against bad luck to what's essentially an overall immunity to most debuffs. Case in point: anything like the incarnate Banished Pantheon eat my Res based characters alive after the debuffs are stacked, but on the other hand they can be 100% care free against hard hitting enemies like the Cimerorans. For Def characters it's the opposite way around: debuffs aren't all that scary but a few coinciding big hits can lead to nasty surprises.

Yes. That is why invuln and shield at higher levels do really well. They can be built with IOs to have very high defence and very good resistance. Healing is barely needed then.

 

A resist set will probably need some healing, which most resist sets come with . They can build defence but certain mobs will strip it easily with no DDR. They are more prone to debuffs also.

 

That is why i put invuln and shield 2-3 but shield only with good IO investment. But Rad etc are awesome also.

 

A question to all...Do you think the ATO proc favours defence sets more than resist sets, that cap more easily without the proc? ElecA has very high resists already.

 

Resist sets should get resistance debuff resistance also or do some get this?

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Gobbledegook

[Gobbledigook]

11 hours ago, Haijinx said:

oddly enough, I think with Tanker numbers Regen might not actually be that bad as a Tanker Set  

 

Not once you get the Fighting Pool and CJ rolling with IOs 

Building for resistance + the Tanker ATO procs and with the Tanker health i would imagine a regen Tanker would be pretty sweet 🙂

Edited November 25, 2020 by Gobbledegook

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, Gobbledegook said:

Yes. That is why invuln and shield at higher levels do really well. They can be built with IOs to have very high defence and very good resistance. Healing is barely needed then.

 

A resist set will probably need some healing, which most resist sets come with . They can build defence but certain mobs will strip it easily with no DDR. They are more prone to debuffs also.

 

That is why i put invuln and shield 2-3 but shield only with good IO investment. But Rad etc are awesome also.

 

A question to all...Do you think the ATO proc favours defence sets more than resist sets, that cap more easily without the proc? ElecA has very high resists already.

 

Resist sets should get resistance debuff resistance also or do some get this?

 

 

This is actually why Invuln is so good, its the only set that naturally gets great defense AND great resistance (except it's hole) together without having the penalties that Granite has, on top of decent debuff resists.

[Werner]

1 hour ago, Gobbledegook said:

Resist sets should get resistance debuff resistance also or do some get this?

Resistance itself resists resistance debuffs. So while 90% resistance is subject to cascading resistance failure, 95% resistance handles a 50% resistance debuff, and 100% handles a 100% resistance debuff. So there is still some value in overcapping resistance. Resistance debuffs are much rarer than defence debuffs, though, which is I think why this isn’t much discussed.

[America's Angel]

I understand the intention in giving the mobs a split of damage types that reflects the split in the game as a whole. But in real-world play, this isn't how the mobs are encountered. (Psychic damage, for example, isn't found in 6% of every mob in every mission - it's often found in EVERY mob in certain missions.)

 

Also, standing still and letting enemies hit you doesn't reflect the mitigation provided by certain sets' offensive capabilities.

 

What might be better is to create eight missions, each one filled with enemies doing a single damage type. And then run each of the armour sets through them using War Mace as the secondary. You could then pull an average survival time across the missions (weighted by damage type frequency in the game world) to determine the real rankings of the armour sets on SOs.

Edited November 27, 2020 by America's Angel

[Galaxy Brain]

11 hours ago, America's Angel said:

I understand the intention in giving the mobs a split of damage types that reflects the split in the game as a whole. But in real-world play, this isn't how the mobs are encountered. (Psychic damage, for example, isn't found in 6% of every mob in every mission - it's often found in EVERY mob in certain missions.)

 

Also, standing still and letting enemies hit you doesn't reflect the mitigation provided by certain sets' offensive capabilities.

 

What might be better is to create eight missions, each one filled with enemies doing a single damage type. And then run each of the armour sets through them using War Mace as the secondary. You could then pull an average survival time across the missions (weighted by damage type frequency in the game world) to determine the real rankings of the armour sets on SOs.

While this is true, there are a lot of nuances. 

 

For one, I don't think there is a set that has more S or L mitigation than the other, so that at least leaves one out. Toxic is also incredibly rare to be "pure" toxic,  nor be consistently mitigated for every set.  Most SL enemies also tend to have either energy or fire tossed in sparingly as well.

 

Otherwise that sounds solid. 

 

The lack of active mitigation was done to just gauge the "base level" for the sets. For example, of invuln can just stand there and take a beating, it will be even more unbeatable with knockdown and stuns. Fiery Aura in contrast would probably be comparably the same level of "tough" compared to invuln as the attacks that slip in will be like when I stood there in the crowd, where fire was still able to delete most the mob despite dying. Its worth plotting out tho!

[Slithershot]

I think the problem here is that "Tankability" can't really be tested with a broad brush like "Damage ability" can. On the one hand, even the weakest damage type (claws) overcomes its inherent weakness by sheer relentless attacking. This doesn't really apply to being "tanky". 

 

You could be S/L capped and damn near feel invincible to a good chunk of the game. But walk into a couple of roman bosses and they chop you up like a thanksgiving dinner. Some sets that matters to, others it doesn't. The problem in testing that is... you really can't. At least, not in a spreadsheet, like you can with damage. There's -WAY- too many factors that go into being a good tank, and your build and armor is only a quarter of that each. The other half is how you take the weaknesses of those sets and put flex seal on those bitches so they stop leaking. Some do that through certain pool powers. Some do it through their offensive sets. Some just need the right combination of IO set bonuses. Some need all three of those, and then some. 

 

I think the point I'm trying to make here is... while this test means well, I think it's incredibly misleading to people who want to roll a tank, and play it well because what I see there does not represent anything I've learned about tanker sets. Except granite. Granite is always granite. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Pizzamurai

[Doomguide2005]

On 12/8/2020 at 3:46 AM, Pizzamurai said:

<snip> ...

 

I think the point I'm trying to make here is... while this test means well, I think it's incredibly misleading to people who want to roll a tank, and play it well because what I see there does not represent anything I've learned about tanker sets. Except granite. Granite is always granite. 

I do think the listing carries a risk to a casual player who skims the thread and has a lesser understanding of game mechanics.  And hence draws what amounts to uninformed conclusion.  But as with any test understanding what the test is testing and the limits of the test are the most important things to understand and this isn't a test for anything beyond a very basic baseline of the primaries SO performance in a relative vacuum, no IOs, no active mitigation by movement or secondary etc.powers, just stand there and take it. 

 

Unless, of course, ironically I missed the point of the test.

[Slithershot]

1 hour ago, Doomguide2005 said:

But as with any test understanding what the test is testing and the limits of the test are the most important things to understand and this isn't a test for anything beyond a very basic baseline of the primaries SO performance in a relative vacuum, no IOs, no active mitigation by movement or secondary etc.powers, just stand there and take it. 

No, I understand that. I do. I just don't think it's something that can be measured on a spreadsheet, or by times. Tanking is a lot more complicated and nuanced than damage in general. You can't time it. You can't really put numbers on it. Tanking is... you either survive, or you don't. To not give a tank all the tools they need to survive is to do a set a disservice when you're trying to attain a baseline. You can't really test a good bit of tanker sets without a secondary because some of them really do require something from their secondary to survive... and sometimes survive even better than your basics like Invuln or granite. It's not really a baseline if you're not testing a realistic scenario. 

[Bill Z Bubba]

28 minutes ago, Pizzamurai said:

No, I understand that. I do. I just don't think it's something that can be measured on a spreadsheet, or by times. Tanking is a lot more complicated and nuanced than damage in general. You can't time it. You can't really put numbers on it. Tanking is... you either survive, or you don't. To not give a tank all the tools they need to survive is to do a set a disservice when you're trying to attain a baseline. You can't really test a good bit of tanker sets without a secondary because some of them really do require something from their secondary to survive... and sometimes survive even better than your basics like Invuln or granite. It's not really a baseline if you're not testing a realistic scenario. 

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. But tanking isn't what's being studied here. It's base mitigation of the armor sets with SOs.

Or base mitigation of the armor set + tough/weave/cj with SOs.

Or even base mitigation of the armor set tough/weave/cj with SOs and the unique +def/+res IOs.

Each iteration shows us something different.

Arguing that the test doesn't show what it isn't being tested doesn't make much sense.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[Slithershot]

2 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise. But tanking isn't what's being studied here. It's base mitigation of the armor sets with SOs.

Or base mitigation of the armor set + tough/weave/cj with SOs.

Or even base mitigation of the armor set tough/weave/cj with SOs and a the unique +def/+res IOs.

Each iteration shows us something different.

Arguing that the test doesn't show what it isn't testing doesn't make much sense.

I'm just saying I think it's misleading people who may not otherwise know what to look for, or what they're looking at, or even what's being explained to them. I'll drop it though, said my peace 🙂

[Bill Z Bubba]

7 minutes ago, Pizzamurai said:

I'm just saying I think it's misleading people who may not otherwise know what to look for, or what they're looking at, or even what's being explained to them. I'll drop it though, said my peace 🙂

I hear ya. It's a valid point.

[PeregrineFalcon]

I think what's happening here is that actual numbers are being shown. Some people are seeing these numbers for the first time and getting buthurt because their favorite powerset isn't as "ZOMG hAxx0rs oVerpowered!" as they thought it was.

 

"Bu... bu... but when I tank with that set I'm the awesome because I do this or I combine it with that." Ok, I don't think anyone here is saying that you're not a great tanker, but the numbers are the numbers.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I think what's happening here is that actual numbers are being shown. Some people are seeing these numbers for the first time and getting buthurt because their favorite powerset isn't as "ZOMG hAxx0rs oVerpowered!" as they thought it was.

 

"Bu... bu... but when I tank with that set I'm the awesome because I do this or I combine it with that." Ok, I don't think anyone here is saying that you're not a great tanker, but the numbers are the numbers.

No. The numbers show a slice of reality. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

SR not at the softcap sucks horribly. But folks don't run around talking about how much SR sucks in actual play.

 

Edit: Well... some do but those people are stupid.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Bill Z Bubba

[Tsuko]

30 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

No. The numbers show a slice of reality. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

SR not at the softcap sucks horribly. But folks don't run around talking about how much SR sucks in actual play.

 

Edit: Well... some do but those people are stupid.

yeah it seems that Shield is not really tough too 😄

[Saikochoro]

5 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

No. The numbers show a slice of reality. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

SR not at the softcap sucks horribly. But folks don't run around talking about how much SR sucks in actual play.

 

Edit: Well... some do but those people are stupid.

Exactly this. I understand what the test is showing and it is interesting data to have. I appreciate the efforts and it’s nice to know baseline performance. 
 

However, as I stated in an earlier post, people need to take this test for what it is and only for what it is. All conclusions drawn from the test need to be constrained to the actual testing parameters and not applied to game play as a whole. I get what @Pizzamuraiis saying. Even if you ignore tanking mechanics and the secondary as a whole, you still have a completely different picture once full set builds are on the table (ie SR and shield are amazing when built out). 

[Slithershot]

Also, nerf regen.