Buff Brutes... or Nerf Tanks.

[macskull]

22 minutes ago, Brutal Justice said:

 

Thank you for this.  I ran some simple numbers through this tool because it's all I have time for at the moment.  All using 1000dps.

 

A scrapper with 45% defense, 0% res will last 30s at even level.  14s at +4

A scrapper with 0% defense, 75% res will last 11.2s at even level. 5.43s at +4

 

A tanker at 45% defense, 0% res will last 44.42s at even level.  20.15s at +4

A tanker at 0% defense, 90% res will last 44.42s at even level.  20.15s at +4

 

A blaster with 45% defense, 0% res will last 26.79s at even level.  12.58 at +4

 

A scrapper at 40% defense, 0% res will last 14.18s at even level.  6.83s at +4

 

These are the numbers I got putting in 45% defense to melee and 75-90% res to smashing.  The soft capped scrapper lasts almost 3 times longer than the hard capped resistance scrapper.  The 40% defense scrapper lasted 1.4 seconds longer than the 75% resistance scrapper.  The blaster lasted 15s longer than the scrapper.  This also matches my in-game experiences.  

 

It appears to me that the 40% hard cap would actually bring some balance.  

You're missing one of the key issues: every time I jump into a mob of +4x8 enemies on my softcapped <insert character here> I'm taking a gamble. I don't know that I will survive the encounter or even the alpha - there's a not-insignificant chance multiple mobs get hits in and if I'm not fast enough on the inspirations I'm taking a dirt nap. This disparity gets worse on characters with lower HP (pretty much everything that isn't a Scrapper, Tanker, or Brute).

[Naraka]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

And you would be just as wrong as the previous 10k times you have posted it.

 

Personally speaking, when people say somethings "wrong", it activates skepticism the more it's expressed to believe it's wrong.  Basically the Streisand effect: for example, at worst, a global 40% "fluid" cap for everyone (exception for Tankers, Brutes at 45%, Warshade/Peacebringer and Widow at 42%) might facilitate defense-oriented buff sets to fill the gap created rather than being nearly render useless. 

 

This is just an example.

[siolfir]

13 minutes ago, Naraka said:

In the case of the PBAoEs and nukes in ranged sets, if they decided to change them to use melee mods (I always assumed they did but I guess I was wrong there) Blasters wouldn't see much of a change but Defenders, I believe, would see a nerf.

Going off on tangents again, but both Blasters (1.125 -> 1.0, 88.89% of the original damage) and Defenders (.65 -> 0.55, 84.62%) would see a nerf while Corruptors, who have a 0.75 modifier for both melee and ranged, would be unchanged. Sentinels also have matching ranged and melee modifiers, but weren't brought up.

 

Also left unsaid is that the AoE sizes for the blast sets are larger than those in the melee sets, which with a few 15' exceptions (Footstomp, Tremor, fully-charged Rending Flurry... am I missing any?) and the telenukes which have a smaller inner radius to deal the full damage, stay within the 10' "extended melee" range. You could easily use that as the cutoff point to differentiate, and then none of the ranged PBAoEs would be small enough to count as "melee," which is why I said earlier that I wouldn't worry about them. This also means that you don't get the arguments about why several sets have ranged nukes which wouldn't be affected while the others would be negatively impacted for half of the ATs that get the sets.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Naraka said:

If they decided to just reign back the damage mod to 0.75 or 0.7

It used to be 0.8, if they were going to lower it then I can't see it going lower than that.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Naraka said:

 

Personally speaking, when people say somethings "wrong", it activates skepticism the more it's expressed to believe it's wrong.  Basically the Streisand effect: for example, at worst, a global 40% "fluid" cap for everyone (exception for Tankers, Brutes at 45%, Warshade/Peacebringer and Widow at 42%) might facilitate defense-oriented buff sets to fill the gap created rather than being nearly render useless. 

 

This is just an example.

I have no idea what you just said, but what hes suggesting is still wrong.

[Naraka]

2 minutes ago, macskull said:

You're missing one of the key issues: every time I jump into a mob of +4x8 enemies on my softcapped <insert character here> I'm taking a gamble. I don't know that I will survive the encounter or even the alpha - there's a not-insignificant chance multiple mobs get hits in and if I'm not fast enough on the inspirations I'm taking a dirt nap. This disparity gets worse on characters with lower HP (pretty much everything that isn't a Scrapper, Tanker, or Brute).

 

Why are we "jumping in" exactly?

 

Don't we have controls, nukes, extra-buffs (like resistance/regen) to soften the blow?  Or tactics like thinning out, sniping/pulling and LoS to shore up the fact that "this AT isn't Tanker/Brute"?

[siolfir]

1 minute ago, Naraka said:

Personally speaking, when people say somethings "wrong", it activates skepticism the more it's expressed to believe it's wrong.  Basically the Streisand effect: for example, at worst, a global 40% "fluid" cap for everyone (exception for Tankers, Brutes at 45%, Warshade/Peacebringer and Widow at 42%) might facilitate defense-oriented buff sets to fill the gap created rather than being nearly render useless. 

If it's hard-capped (as was suggested) it reduces the benefit of any defense oriented buff because you hit the wall that much sooner even without any external buffs. It also greatly exaggerates the effects of any mobs with +to-hit, many of which are already avoided by people.

 

Honestly, if you want to fix everyone building to softcap everything, cut the defensive set bonuses in half across the board and see how that shakes out. Both the defense and resistance set bonuses used to a) not be as plentiful, and b) not be set up in matching pairs (ex: separate defense for melee and smashing/lethal, kinetic combat was only smashing defense, etc). Some new resistance set bonuses were also added in for sets that only provided mez resistance, and those were also paired up. The set bonuses you saw in issue 9 were not this generous, and that's not just from having fewer sets.

[macskull]

5 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Why are we "jumping in" exactly?

Why not?

5 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Don't we have controls, nukes, extra-buffs (like resistance/regen) to soften the blow?  Or tactics like thinning out, sniping/pulling and LoS to shore up the fact that "this AT isn't Tanker/Brute"?

Sure we do, but that's not what this discussion is about.

[Naraka]

4 minutes ago, siolfir said:

Going off on tangents again, but both Blasters (1.125 -> 1.0, 88.89% of the original damage) and Defenders (.65 -> 0.55, 84.62%) would see a nerf while Corruptors, who have a 0.75 modifier for both melee and ranged, would be unchanged. Sentinels also have matching ranged and melee modifiers, but weren't brought up.

 

Also left unsaid is that the AoE sizes for the blast sets are larger than those in the melee sets, which with a few 15' exceptions (Footstomp, Tremor, fully-charged Rending Flurry... am I missing any?) and the telenukes which have a smaller inner radius to deal the full damage, stay within the 10' "extended melee" range. You could easily use that as the cutoff point to differentiate, and then none of the ranged PBAoEs would be small enough to count as "melee," which is why I said earlier that I wouldn't worry about them. This also means that you don't get the arguments about why several sets have ranged nukes which wouldn't be affected while the others would be negatively impacted for half of the ATs that get the sets.

 

Might be able to compensate the PBAoE nukes with a decreased rech instead.  Overall, you might be improving those sets in the tangent here to make them more DPS oriented rather than burst oriented.  With the Defender, the point being made was to alter their melee mod so the PBAoEs would be slightly advantageous although that could be seen as incentivizing "suicidal" Defenders.

[Naraka]

2 minutes ago, siolfir said:

If it's hard-capped (as was suggested) it reduces the benefit of any defense oriented buff because you hit the wall that much sooner even without any external buffs. It also greatly exaggerates the effects of any mobs with +to-hit, many of which are already avoided by people.

 

Making +ToHit mobs a threat seems like a good positive.

 

Also, adding a mechanic for "aegis" (or over/to "fluid" capped) to buff sets would be another positive, so long as it was skewed to specific sets and not just outside buffs.

 

3 minutes ago, siolfir said:

Honestly, if you want to fix everyone building to softcap everything, cut the defensive set bonuses in half across the board and see how that shakes out. Both the defense and resistance set bonuses used to a) not be as plentiful, and b) not be set up in matching pairs (ex: separate defense for melee and smashing/lethal, kinetic combat was only smashing defense, etc). Some new resistance set bonuses were also added in for sets that only provided mez resistance, and those were also paired up. The set bonuses you saw in issue 9 were not this generous, and that's not just from having fewer sets.

 

Probably best saved for another thread, I suppose.

 

I don't have a solution to everyone softcapping.  My best solution so far is limiting its benefits.

 

14 minutes ago, siolfir said:

It used to be 0.8, if they were going to lower it then I can't see it going lower than that.

 

I was meaning in conjunction with giving them a higher mod for ranged (so like a 0.75 melee mod but a 0.95 to 1.0 ranged mod).  Make it so that it seems Tankers should take ranged attacks (the few good ones they can, at least) but make it so that ranged attacks have longer casts and recharge to balance that benefit.

 

16 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

I have no idea what you just said, but what hes suggesting is still wrong.

 

That's fine.  I'm not trying to appeal to everyone to agree.  I'm more or less saying, anything perceived as "wrong" likely has some shred or form that is isolated to be outside of current represented perspective.  I'm not a defense attorney, but if someone can argue down your claim of "wrong" to "unsubstantiated", that is a success in the argument of the defense.  The only argument you seem to claim is it would be a nerf and most of the aspects trivialized in this game substantiates that a nerf might be needed.

 

 

[ScarySai]

I'm personally of the opinion that a damage capped brute should be the deadliest thing in the game, at least among the melee ATs. Anger the hulk and he not only kills you, but he kills your entire city.

 

But even if we don't go that far, I'd like to see their damage cap back to where it was before, at the very least.

[Infinitum]

6 minutes ago, Naraka said:

 

Making +ToHit mobs a threat seems like a good positive.

 

Also, adding a mechanic for "aegis" (or over/to "fluid" capped) to buff sets would be another positive, so long as it was skewed to specific sets and not just outside buffs.

 

 

Probably best saved for another thread, I suppose.

 

I don't have a solution to everyone softcapping.  My best solution so far is limiting its benefits.

 

 

I was meaning in conjunction with giving them a higher mod for ranged (so like a 0.75 melee mod but a 0.95 to 1.0 ranged mod).  Make it so that it seems Tankers should take ranged attacks (the few good ones they can, at least) but make it so that ranged attacks have longer casts and recharge to balance that benefit.

 

 

That's fine.  I'm not trying to appeal to everyone to agree.  I'm more or less saying, anything perceived as "wrong" likely has some shred or form that is isolated to be outside of current represented perspective.  I'm not a defense attorney, but if someone can argue down your claim of "wrong" to "unsubstantiated", that is a success in the argument of the defense.  The only argument you seem to claim is it would be a nerf and most of the aspects trivialized in this game substantiates that a nerf might be needed.

 

 

No im saying its flat wrong this time, last time and every time because the game would need to be re written from top to bottom to facilitate it.  If you want context do your homework and go read the last 4 beelion posts where its been argued against.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Infinitum

[siolfir]

3 minutes ago, Naraka said:

Making +ToHit mobs a threat seems like a good positive.

They already are, which is why they're typically avoided. It doesn't matter how much defense debuff resistance you have when you need 100%+ defense to soft-cap - that's when those outside +defense buffs that everyone says aren't needed become really useful, though.

[siolfir]

1 minute ago, ScarySai said:

But even if we don't go that far, I'd like to see their damage cap back to where it was before, at the very least.

Which "before"? I doubt it's going back to 850%, although that would get you the closest to the "angered hulk" level you were talking about.

[ScarySai]

7 minutes ago, siolfir said:

Which "before"? I doubt it's going back to 850%, although that would get you the closest to the "angered hulk" level you were talking about.

 

Nah, not that far (As hilarious as that would be.), the cap as it was before they changed fury to be more manageable in teams when you aren't the main aggro magnet.

[Naraka]

4 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

No im saying its flat wrong this time, last time and every time because the game would need to be re written from top to bottom to facilitate it.  If you want context do your homework and go read the last 4 beelion posts where its been argued against.

 

I'm not denying the framework changes, moreso the "wrong" conclusion.  I suppose an admission that the current defense mechanics being shaky in the sense of balance could be a compromising argument though.

 

7 minutes ago, siolfir said:

They already are, which is why they're typically avoided. It doesn't matter how much defense debuff resistance you have when you need 100%+ defense to soft-cap - that's when those outside +defense buffs that everyone says aren't needed become really useful, though.

 

Or non-defense mitigation such as heals, regen, resistance, -rech, sleeps, disorient, confuse, holds and knockback are prioritized in said niche situations.

 

If defense is already finnicky by nature, what other point is trying to be made here?

 

 

[siolfir]

7 minutes ago, Naraka said:

If defense is already finnicky by nature, what other point is trying to be made here?

That hard-capping defense to 40% is a Bad Idea™ and would have a "cascading failure" of other systems and encounters needing to be adjusted, for little to no benefit because people would just go about their merry way using, as you so eloquently put it, "non-defense mitigation such as heals, regen, resistance, -rech, sleeps, disorient, confuse, holds and knockback."

 

It's not a panacea, and making it harder to soft-cap would be met with equal vitriol without breaking existing encounters and would have the side benefit of not invalidating an entire set of support powers that provide +defense.

Edited May 21, 2021 by siolfir
had -> have

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

And you would be just as wrong as the previous 10k times you have posted it.

 

I figure he is entitled to his opinion.  But wow.  Every damn balance thread. 

 

I mean he has a point, it would do wonders for increasing the game difficulty.  I am not sure how fair it would be to defense sets and what not but that's kind of beside the point. 

  

I have a feeling it would be less popular than ED and the GDN combined at this point, adjusted for the current game population. 

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

 

I figure he is entitled to his opinion.  But wow.  Every damn balance thread. 

 

I mean he has a point, it would do wonders for increasing the game difficulty.  I am not sure how fair it would be to defense sets and what not but that's kind of beside the point. 

  

I have a feeling it would be less popular than ED and the GDN combined at this point, adjusted for the current game population. 

AT specific def soft caps should have gone in at launch, but it’s too late for that.

 

The only way I could see it being done now would be if Defense based armor sets, and possibly some support sets, had powers that let them get to 45 when everyone else could only get 40. A little like how travel powers now work, but with def.

[Wavicle]

I’m not advocating for that, though.

[Haijinx]

7 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

I’m not advocating for that, though.

You have to admit, it would make the game harder.

 

But it would be like throwing a chaos grenade into the game balance.  

[Wavicle]

1 minute ago, Haijinx said:

You have to admit, it would make the game harder.

 

But it would be like throwing a chaos grenade into the game balance.  

It’s the sort of thing that belongs in Incarnate content. Level shifts beyond Alpha should be restricted to iTrials.

[Infinitum]

24 minutes ago, Haijinx said:

 

I figure he is entitled to his opinion.  But wow.  Every damn balance thread. 

 

I mean he has a point, it would do wonders for increasing the game difficulty.  I am not sure how fair it would be to defense sets and what not but that's kind of beside the point. 

  

I have a feeling it would be less popular than ED and the GDN combined at this point, adjusted for the current game population. 

There would be no population if that gets implemented.  lol

[macskull]

50 minutes ago, Wavicle said:

I’m not advocating for that, though.

Adding elusivity to melee set armors is probably the simplest way to accomplish this - it does nothing to change defense but it potentially gives defense-based melee an easier go against higher-level/higher-rank targets. But again... extra work to fix something that ain't broken.

[chi1701]

1 hour ago, Naraka said:

Might be able to compensate the PBAoE nukes with a decreased rech instead.  Overall, you might be improving those sets in the tangent here to make them more DPS oriented rather than burst oriented.  With the Defender, the point being made was to alter their melee mod so the PBAoEs would be slightly advantageous although that could be seen as incentivizing "suicidal" Defenders.

 

What the guy you quoted needs to understand, that the archytypes damage is only part of the equation, Base damage x scale x archytype modifer. 

 

For example, blaster vs defender on snapshot

 

Defender is base of 36.1466 scale of 0.68 which gives damage of 24.5797

Blaster is base of 62.5615 scale of 0.84 gives damage of  52.5517

 

Understanding how each archytype does damage isnt just based on modifier but much more.

[macskull]

4 minutes ago, chi1701 said:

 

What the guy you quoted needs to understand, that the archytypes damage is only part of the equation, Base damage x scale x archytype modifer. 

 

For example, blaster vs defender on snapshot

 

Defender is base of 36.1466 scale of 0.68 which gives damage of 24.5797

Blaster is base of 62.5615 scale of 0.84 gives damage of  52.5517

 

Understanding how each archytype does damage isnt just based on modifier but much more.

Scale is irrelevant since it is based on recharge time and is not an AT-specific thing.