Most Unstoppable Tank

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

Stalker and Scrapper have similar numbers to Brute EA also though - thats the point - the set has a sweet spot and if you hit it you are in good shape.

 

But it still has weaknesses that Ice doesnt - Toxic is rough on EA - you really have to stay on your toes - but with ice its not nearly as noticeable.

 

 

See drastically different ATs - same targets - all attainable - this shouldnt change with a tanker - the only difference with the tanker is the inherant HP being higher which is where the tanker advantage will lie with this set. 

 

Now take the comparison with Ice Armor again... Keeping in mind EA is static or can be made static across 3 different ATs - so Tanker should be no different from Brute aside from the HP area.

 

 

 

Those numbers for both are with 1 enemy with energy drain or energy absorption cast on.

 

Also Ice has  -14% dmg from chilling embrace

Isn't that exactly the problem I am complaining about?

 

Tanker Ice should be way ahead of Brute EA. 

 

Roughly as far ahead as Tanker SR is compared to Brute SR

 

Its not.  That's the problem.

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Isn't that exactly the problem I am complaining about?

 

Tanker Ice should be way ahead of Brute EA. 

 

Roughly as far ahead as Tanker SR is compared to Brute SR

 

Its not.  That's the problem.

That sounds like more of an issue with Brute SR.  But those are two completely different sets - mainly positional defense vs hybrid (typed defense and resistance)  ice and EA are similar enough and there is precedent with Brute vs Scrapper Vs stalker all being in the same zipcode to extrapolate how tanker EA could look - which would be very similar to ice.

 

Not to mention ice has the dmg debuff also which is another form of mitigation you can't quantify in mids unfortunately.

 

I get what you are saying but EA just doesnt work that way, which would make it incredibly easy to port to tankers and not be any more OP than the other 3 ATs.

 

I think if you ported EA to tankers it wouldn't be as survivable as ice currently is but they would be close - well maybe if you add the tanker ATO to the Brute numbers it would surpass ICE then but still would be close.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Infinitum

[Haijinx]

3 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

But look at brute EA vs Scrapper vs Stalker.  

 

The set isn't setup that way because its a hybrid is my guess.  They are all within a few points of each other.

 

Not to mention ice has the dmg debuff also which is another form of mitigation you can't quantify in mids unfortunately.

 

I get what you are saying but EA just doesnt work that way, which would make it incredibly easy to port to tankers and not be any more OP than the other 3 ATs.

 

I think if you ported EA to tankers it wouldn't be as survivable as ice currently is but they would be close - well maybe if you add the tanker ATO to the Brute numbers it would surpass ICE then but still would be close.

I think you are working at this backwards from me.  

 

I am not saying EA is OP, I'm saying Ice defense numbers are too low compared to EA.  And its clear this is so because Tanker Ice numbers are roughly equal to Brute EA numbers.

 

I think this is because EA was originally an Ice replacement for Brutes.  

 

Also EA recieved a large buff, while Ice did not. 

 

-------

EA also debuffs recharge in its taunt aura, while stalkers get a stun field.  So it also has damage mitigation added to its other properties.  

 

Not as good as Ice, no.  But Brutes shouldn't be that close to Tankers for the same IO investment.

 

-----

So Ice needs buffed.   By a fair amount.  At least it does to make it fair compared to EA.

 

I'm agnostic about porting EA since I think Capt. Powerhouse's main arguement that a direct EA port would have too high defense is flawed.  Both because you'll be capped anyway, and because SR for Tankers already went there.  

 

 

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

So Ice needs buffed.   By a fair amount.  At least it does to make it fair compared to EA.

No, it really doesn't - in my portfolio of tanker builds it actually surpasses SR in the tests I threw at it.  You also have to take into account the vastly higher toxic psi, fire, and cold resistances - that if applied the tanker ATO wouldn't make up the gap even if the brute version had it.

 

Ice also has slightly higher energy defense and drastically higher negative energy defense.

 

So if you ported Brute EA over to tankers, even with minor changes ice would still have those advantages.

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

I am not saying EA is OP, I'm saying Ice defense numbers are too low compared to EA.  And its clear this is so because Tanker Ice numbers are roughly equal to Brute EA numbers.

But if you look - scrapper and stalker are similar to brute numbers on EA - that's just how the sets like this work - tanker has an advantage with resistance due to the ATO but thats about it - also being a tanker it should have that advantage IMO.  

 

My point is if you can make EA across the board essentially equal across 3 ATs - a very similar set in function like Ice Armor - doesnt matter that its close to the brute version of EA - because the tanker version of EA if it existed would be virtually identical to the brute version (just like the scrapper and stalker versions are roughly equal to the brute version) aside from having the tanker ATO and higher base HP.

2 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Not as good as Ice, no.  But Brutes shouldn't be that close to Tankers for the same IO investment

IMO toughness scale its Tanker Brute Scrapper Stalker

 

With tanker and brute being tier 1 and fairly close together and scrapper stalker being tier 2.

 

The main divider is the HP pool which matters a great deal when getting smacked by an AV like bobcat.

 

Neither ice nor EA Will cap resistance but the trick is to balance either set on any AT by building where its strengths are closing the gaps in any holes it may have - that is what makes it close across all 3 ATs and even what makes brute EA and tanker Ice close - because thats where the balance point for building them is.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Infinitum

[Haijinx]

25 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

No, it really doesn't - in my portfolio of tanker builds it actually surpasses SR in the tests I threw at it.  You also have to take into account the vastly higher toxic psi, fire, and cold resistances - that if applied the tanker ATO wouldn't make up the gap even if the brute version had it.

 

Ice also has slightly higher energy defense and drastically higher negative energy defense.

 

So if you ported Brute EA over to tankers, even with minor changes ice would still have those advantages.

But if you look - scrapper and stalker are similar to brute numbers on EA - that's just how the sets like this work - tanker has an advantage with resistance due to the ATO but thats about it - also being a tanker it should have that advantage IMO.  

 

My point is if you can make EA across the board essentially equal across 3 ATs - a very similar set in function like Ice Armor - doesnt matter that its close to the brute version of EA - because the tanker version of EA if it existed would be virtually identical to the brute version (just like the scrapper and stalker versions are roughly equal to the brute version) aside from having the tanker ATO and higher base HP.

IMO toughness scale its Tanker Brute Scrapper Stalker

 

With tanker and brute being tier 1 and fairly close together and scrapper stalker being tier 2.

 

The main divider is the HP pool which matters a great deal when getting smacked by an AV like bobcat.

 

Neither ice nor EA Will cap resistance but the trick is to balance either set on any AT by building where its strengths are closing the gaps in any holes it may have - that is what makes it close across all 3 ATs and even what makes brute EA and tanker Ice close - because thats where the balance point for building them is.

Disagree, because of the resulting brute/scrapper/stalker numbers for ICE  

 

Which might help explain why those seem a bit rare. 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Disagree, because of the resulting brute/scrapper/stalker numbers for ICE  

 

Which might help explain why those seem a bit rare. 

Scrapper and Stalker also have Icy Bastion - which is light years better than Hibernate - with really good recharge and agility and ageless you can have it back in roughly 60-70 seconds. With 30 seconds of runtime.  Brute seems to get  the worse of both EA and Ice now that i think about it.

 

But i stand by my premise that there is precedent for a port to tankers based on how Ice armor performs - and extrapolating EA from the other three ATs - because its so similar in function.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Infinitum

[Haijinx]

6 hours ago, Infinitum said:

Scrapper and Stalker also have Icy Bastion - which is light years better than Hibernate - with really good recharge and agility and ageless you can have it back in roughly 60-70 seconds. With 30 seconds of runtime.  Brute seems to get  the worse of both EA and Ice now that i think about it.

 

But i stand by my premise that there is precedent for a port to tankers based on how Ice armor performs - and extrapolating EA from the other three ATs - because its so similar in function.

Brutes get a taunt aura in EA, scrappers don't.

 

Icy Bastion is a Tier 9, which means level 38.  The fact its trying to do so much is basically an arguement for my point not yours.

 

I've already said just port EA to Tankers with normal tanker relative scaling.  If you did so though its numbers would make Ice seem less good.

 

 

 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

Icy Bastion is a Tier 9, which means level 38.  The fact its trying to do so much is basically an arguement for my point not yours.

What?  It's a really good power, one of the good T9s, sorry but no that doesn't support your points.

 

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

I've already said just port EA to Tankers with normal tanker relative scaling.  If you did so though its numbers would make Ice seem less good.

No it won't, I thought so at first also, but Ice is good enough to stand on its on merits - there's nothing I've found yet to stress it that it can't overcome.  Have you even ever played Ice?

 

Either way - my point is with EA - just port the Brute version to tankers with the HP scaling increase and the ATO potential - Maybe a few other minor tweaks - it will perform fine then.

 

EA is so similar at the end between Stalker, Scrapper, and Brute it would be fine to do that.

[Haijinx]

2 hours ago, Infinitum said:

What?  It's a really good power, one of the good T9s, sorry but no that doesn't support your points.

 

No it won't, I thought so at first also, but Ice is good enough to stand on its on merits - there's nothing I've found yet to stress it that it can't overcome.  Have you even ever played Ice?

 

Either way - my point is with EA - just port the Brute version to tankers with the HP scaling increase and the ATO potential - Maybe a few other minor tweaks - it will perform fine then.

 

EA is so similar at the end between Stalker, Scrapper, and Brute it would be fine to do that.

If you need a T9 to make a set, the set is bad.  Therefore arguing the T9 is what makes Ice work for non tankers makes my point, not yours. 

 

Maybe scrappers don't need the T9 for Ice or whatever.  I never have seen any.

 

Yes I've played Ice, on Tankers back in the day.  It works of course.  Its was better than non granite stone by a mile.  But it has great debuffs.  And Tanker numbers.

 

I just don't think its numbers match EA in a direct Same AT comparison.  You threw EA Brute vs ICE Tank numbers at me and suggested they were close with Ice slightly better.  Throwing in that the Tank ATO helps. This also makes my point.  

[Haijinx]

2 hours ago, Infinitum said:

 

Either way - my point is with EA - just port the Brute version to tankers with the HP scaling increase and the ATO potential - Maybe a few other minor tweaks - it will perform fine then.

Wait.  I just reread this statement. 

 

You are suggesting Tankers should get EA with Brute scaling for their PRIMARY?  Seriously?  

 

[Infinitum]

3 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Wait.  I just reread this statement. 

 

You are suggesting Tankers should get EA with Brute scaling for their PRIMARY?  Seriously?  

 

When EA is identical across the board already between brutes scrappers and stalkers - yeah.

[Infinitum]

33 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

If you need a T9 to make a set, the set is bad.  Therefore arguing the T9 is what makes Ice work for non tankers makes my point, not yours. 

 

Maybe scrappers don't need the T9 for Ice or whatever.  I never have seen any.

 

Yes I've played Ice, on Tankers back in the day.  It works of course.  Its was better than non granite stone by a mile.  But it has great debuffs.  And Tanker numbers.

 

I just don't think its numbers match EA in a direct Same AT comparison.  You threw EA Brute vs ICE Tank numbers at me and suggested they were close with Ice slightly better.  Throwing in that the Tank ATO helps. This also makes my point.  

You are also missing 90% of the correlations I'm making, the acknowledgement of the tests ive ran with ICE that firmly places it in the top 5 in survivability - and none of it makes your point because EA actually has holes thats tricky to overcome - Ice doesn't.

 

Newer T9s are actually useful btw they arent like unstoppable and T9s from that day.

[Haijinx]

4 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

When EA is identical across the board already between brutes scrappers and stalkers - yeah.

But for brutes, scrappers and stalkers its the Secondary.   They all already have the same scaling.  They SHOULD be that way.   

 

This is the normal for all armor sets, with the exception of Stalkers having slightly different powers. 

 

Tankers normally get BETTER values, you know this. 

[Haijinx]

4 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

You are also missing 90% of the correlations I'm making, the acknowledgement of the tests ive ran with ICE that firmly places it in the top 5 in survivability - and none of it makes your point because EA actually has holes thats tricky to overcome - Ice doesn't.

 

Newer T9s are actually useful btw they arent like unstoppable and T9s from that day.

Not missing anything.  I'm Ignoring the correlations because they are not relevant.  Of course you can build a Ice Tanker to survive almost anything.  Its a freaking Tanker.  My argument is not about survivability.   Its about parity.  

 

Whether T9s are useful or not is also pointless.   Granite is extremely useful.  But Stone without Granite stinks on mud.  

Edited January 1, 2021 by Haijinx

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

Whether T9s are useful or not is also pointless. 

Thats old thinking, you need to get past that.

 

And the last two posts you made are completely missing the points I made - on purpose or not doesnt matter.

 

At this point in going leave it here.

[Saikochoro]

2 hours ago, Infinitum said:

When EA is identical across the board already between brutes scrappers and stalkers - yeah.

Scrappers, stalkers, and brutes use the same armor modifiers for the armors so it makes sense that they have the same armor other than brutes having higher caps for resists and stalkers usually having some slight changes. 
 

Tankers get higher modifiers on their armors. It would not make sense to port over EA with the non-tanker modifiers. Especially given that tankers already have SR. 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Saikochoro said:

Scrappers, stalkers, and brutes use the same armor modifiers for the armors so it makes sense that they have the same armor other than brutes having higher caps for resists and stalkers usually having some slight changes. 
 

Tankers get higher modifiers on their armors. It would not make sense to port over EA with the non-tanker modifiers. Especially given that tankers already have SR. 

Again - looking at it the wrong way - think outside the box - tankers get a higher HP pool - tweak EA a little from the brute version - port it to tankers - that combined with the tanker ATO would be more than sufficient to make it viable for tankers without making it overpowered.

 

But if the other three are nerfed just to make it work on tankers then it will no longer be viable on those ATs - in fact it would be pretty weak.

[Saikochoro]

8 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Again - looking at it the wrong way - think outside the box - tankers get a higher HP pool - tweak EA a little from the brute version - port it to tankers - that combined with the tanker ATO would be more than sufficient to make it viable for tankers without making it overpowered.

 

But if the other three are nerfed just to make it work on tankers then it will no longer be viable on those ATs - in fact it would be pretty weak.

I don’t see why the other three would need to be nerfed or why EA would not be able to have tanker modifiers on a tanker port. 
 

Tankers can already have completely insane numbers with SR, shield, invuln, etc. I see no reason why EA would be separated out to be different. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Saikochoro

[Haijinx]

34 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

I don’t see why the other three would need to be nerfed or why EA would not be able to have tanker modifiers on a tanker port. 
 

Tankers can already have completely insane numbers with SR, shield, invuln, etc. I see no reason why EA would be separated out to be different. 

Exactly. 

 

Besides much of all the extra defense is wasted.  So its not really an issue.  It just makes your build more flexible.

 

  

[Haijinx]

36 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

I don’t see why the other three would need to be nerfed or why EA would not be able to have tanker modifiers on a tanker port. 
 

Tankers can already have completely insane numbers with SR, shield, invuln, etc. I see no reason why EA would be separated out to be different. 

Also 

 

Is there ANY powerset that is effectively nerfed scale wise like this?  At all?  

I can't of any. 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Saikochoro said:

I don’t see why the other three would need to be nerfed or why EA would not be able to have tanker modifiers on a tanker port. 
 

Tankers can already have completely insane numbers with SR, shield, invuln, etc. I see no reason why EA would be separated out to be different. 

well i honestly think you are right there - but i dont think there is a chance in hell it will sell that way.

 

especially with the current perception of EA being OP - so if its buffed to tanker modifiers naturally it will become more OP based on that trend.

 

Now i have played all EA on Scrapper Stalker and Brute and i dont think its any more OP than anything else top tier - in fact EA can get into trouble you have to work out of occassionally - lot of clicking to do that - that you arent attacking.

 

Thats why my point to port the brute numbers to tanker - while allowing the HP increase and ATO to further bolster the resistance numbers - I still stand by that - because honestly it would be enough to make an EA tanker thrive under any circumstance.

 

I would not like to see EA modified down just to port it to tankers - if thats the case just leave it be.

 

Furthermore and again it really doesnt need the tanker modifiers to be any better.  It would be fine as it is on Brute Scrapper or Stalker ported to tankers that way.

[Haijinx]

If lowering the Defensive numbers are the goal, I think I would start by removing the Stealth Power.  That would lower 5%(tanker scale) defense without really compromising the set otherwise.

 

Replace it with a +Max HP power  

And replace the T9 with something that adds Resistance and Absorb instead of Defense, a lower power one ALA the Willpower T9 

 

 

[Saikochoro]

I still contend that it would not need need to be nerfed by not having tanker modifiers. 
 

The pure fact that tankers get SR invalidates any argument that any other set would be too much in my opinion. Even stuff like shield defense invalidates “too OP” arguments. Shield is completely insane on tankers (and awesome on other archetypes too).

 

EA is a fantastic armor and it would be even better on tankers. But I don’t feel like it would be fair, or necessary, to single out EA to not have tanker modifiers when tanks already have shield and SR with tanker modifiers. 

[Infinitum]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

If lowering the Defensive numbers are the goal, I think I would start by removing the Stealth Power.  That would lower 5%(tanker scale) defense without really compromising the set otherwise.

 

Replace it with a +Max HP power  

And replace the T9 with something that adds Resistance and Absorb instead of Defense, a lower power one ALA the Willpower T9 

 

 

yeah tankers dont sneak around anyway, i would agree with this.

[Infinitum]

40 minutes ago, Saikochoro said:

I still contend that it would not need need to be nerfed by not having tanker modifiers. 
 

The pure fact that tankers get SR invalidates any argument that any other set would be too much in my opinion. Even stuff like shield defense invalidates “too OP” arguments. Shield is completely insane on tankers (and awesome on other archetypes too).

 

EA is a fantastic armor and it would be even better on tankers. But I don’t feel like it would be fair, or necessary, to single out EA to not have tanker modifiers when tanks already have shield and SR with tanker modifiers. 

SR also doesnt have a self heal that provides Regen that recharges in around 30-40 seconds or a bonkers End Def click that recharges in 15-20 seconds.

 

thats the difference and the worry about porting to tankers.