Focused Feedback: Tanker - Archetype Inherent Changes

[stryve]

Ok, ran through the Tankers I have rough analogues of on other ATs.  All tests performed using Galaxy Brain's Office Mission Simulator at +4/x8.  All toons adjusted to have Musculature Radial Alpha, Reactive Core Interface, and Assault Hybrid.  No active usage of Incarnates.  I did use Blue Inspirations when I screwed up and ran myself out of Endurance a few times, but none aside from that.

 

Character	AT	Time
Ice/Stone	Brute	7:52
Ice/Ice	Scrapper	9:21
Ice/Ice	Tanker	11:40
Shield/Kin	Tanker	16:54
Kin/Willpower	Scrapper	10:53
SR/MA	Tanker	14:55
MA/SR	Scrapper	9:24

 

First, I wasn't expecting that particular Brute to do so well.  Guessing it's a combination of Brute Punchvoke keeping things grouped well, Stone Armor being better than Ice Armor for damage, and a just plain better build than the Scrapper or Tanker.

 

Second, these runs just cemented my previous conclusion about melee cones:  anything less than a 120° arc isn't going to get much value out of higher target caps without aggressive re-positioning for better angles once a fight starts.  Ice Melee's Frost actually has a cap of 10 on Scrappers & Brutes, but I still wasn't getting more than 5 most of the time.  It also has a radius of 10ft on all ATs, so increased radius doesn't help much there.  On the other hand, cones are part of my single target rotation on several of my Tankers, so I appreciate that damage hasn't been decreased.

 

Third, lack of ability to hold aggro definitely hurts Scrapper times.  I felt that the most on MA/SR, though it was still pretty noticeable on Ice/Ice, with Kin/Will being the best.  At least as far as having to chase runners goes.

 

Fourth, the damage decrease for PBAoEs is very noticeable, especially with sets that don't have cones or damage auras to lean on.  My SR Scrapper and Tanker in particular have builds about as close as can be between those ATs, with identical attack chains.  Some of the difference in time is down to Scrappers being better at clearing hard targets like Bosses and EBs, but just mopping up the Minions and Lieutenants was notably slower on the Tanker, despite having to chase down runners on the Scrapper.  Tanker Kinetic Melee's Burst does solidly more damage per target than Repulsing Torrent on Live but significantly less on Beta, as well.  There's a point after which it is faster to do more damage to fewer targets than lower damage to more targets, and the proposed Tanker AoE changes are well past that.

 

Lastly, since all of these are full builds from Live, there's a fair bit of variance just from set bonuses and differing power choices.  There might be value in testing otherwise identical SO builds across multiple ATs just to reduce variables, though that would have to be run lower than +4/x8.  Don't know if I'll be able to work up the energy to do it myself, unfortunately.

[Excraft]

3 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

No you didn't, but you excluded it from having any worth of consideration.

 

I made no mention whatsoever one way or the other about solo play and whether or not it has any worth in consideration.  That's you attempting to inject that into my post.  Why I don't know.

 

3 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

And for the record, it is poor form to assume what a person understands.

 

For the record, it's poor form to inject things into other people's posts that isn't there.  Seems clear that you're just interested in arguing, so good day to you.

 

[Uncle Shags]

29 minutes ago, stryve said:

Third, lack of ability to hold aggro definitely hurts Scrapper times.  I felt that the most on MA/SR, though it was still pretty noticeable on Ice/Ice, with Kin/Will being the best.  At least as far as having to chase runners goes.

Yeah, if this is legitimately how the severity of this nerf is going to be decided we need to account for taunt.

 

I have a Fire/BA tank and a BA/Fire scrapper. On test the scrapper had a better time (4min vs 5min) but the nearly complete lack of runners on the tank was a MASSIVE advantage. If the scrapper had the same level of taunt it would have taken half the time.

 

There's scrapper taunt auras on shield, inv, will, bio and rad, but they aren't as effective as tanks.  And brutes don't have aoe taunt on their attacks.

 

Is this what it's coming down to?  Tankers having inflated numbers in clear time missions/farms due to more effective taunt that has created a false impression that is leading to nerfs?

 

 

[Erratic1]

9 minutes ago, Uncle Shags said:

Yeah, if this is legitimately how the severity of this nerf is going to be decided we need to account for taunt.

 

The developers have stated they want Tankers to be the AoE specialists. Perhaps I am reading something which isn't there, but I am thinking the point of the comparison is to get Tankers up to the right numbers to achieve the stated goal. Already more than one negative change had been reversed. Case in point:

 

Quote

This latest patch readjusted cone attacks to be more comparable to other melee archetypes, leading to better direct comparisons.

 

 

 

[Maelwys]

5 hours ago, stryve said:

 

Shield/Kin	Tanker	16:54
Kin/Willpower	Scrapper	10:53
SR/MA	Tanker	14:55
MA/SR	Scrapper	9:24

 

Kin Melee times there are rather telling IMO.

 

Scrapper Willpower gets a Taunt Aura (Rise to the Challenge) to dissuade runners but no offensive buffs... whereas Tanker Shield Defense gets a Taunt Aura plus a damage buff from Against All Odds and a decent AoE in Shield Charge and is still a good 6 minutes slower! (+55.3%)

 

The two Martial Arts toons are roughly the same proportional speed difference too, despite the lack of a Taunt Aura on the Scrapper. (+58.7%)

[tidge]

On 6/10/2025 at 6:55 PM, Player-1 said:

 

Some use the Trapdoor mission, others use custom AE missions they can do on repeat. As long as the same mission is repeatable in a decent time frame it would work for comparison.

 

I gotta write: Suggesting Trapdoor (and Pylons) as a means of balancing power sets and ATs seems like it is really muddying the waters when it comes to relative performance. Even the vaunted Ston analysis showed fractions of a minute in differences between three different melee ATs (at level 50).

[ExeErdna]

3 minutes ago, tidge said:

 

I gotta write: Suggesting Trapdoor (and Pylons) as a means of balancing power sets and ATs seems like it is really muddying the waters when it comes to relative performance. Even the vaunted Ston analysis showed fractions of a minute in differences between three different melee ATs (at level 50).

 

My measure of a stable build is non-incarnate slotted 50 versus Malta 50+2/8/bosses and AV's on since they're now the most "fair" group at the 50 currently. Once the KW update rolls out that's gonna change to Cray. I take missions where I have to kidnap or grab an item, so I can always reset the mission. To me you're not REALLY supposed to be soloing AVs yet can I GET TO THEM? Can I handle the alpha strikes without Incarnates or excessive buffing? Since I play like I'm in a group what can I do for this group. Which means on Lady Grey can I with this character run ALL the way to Penny can save her? If a Tanker has a hard time doing that there's a problem. Many tankers can't deal with Hami's debuffs. Yet I sure as hell wanna see how much can a Regen Tanker really can hang versus a real Hami.

To me a Tanker should be able to hang versus +3 enemies from 2 pulled groups. BWI, Wyvern and Freaklok should be the newer higher end testing measure for a stable build. What's a DPS test when you need to factor in being debuffed while doing the DPS. Like versus BWI and Wyvern it was a shitshow with my building logic with +3 and +4 enemies. The only tanker that I made on Brainstorm that was stable versus that newer higher end foes was my Stone/Stone/Earth

[Maelwys]

Right, throwing a few test times in for some toons I have on Live that will be affected by "Nerfs" this page:

These are endgame fully IO-ed builds; min-maxxed for regular gameplay rather than for a specific task like 4-star content or pylon soloing or farming.
Galaxy Brain's Office Mission Simulator at +4/x8 with Bosses enabled.
Musculature Alpha, Reactive Interface, and Assault Hybrid. No active usage of Incarnates.
Average of 3 runs; after a "test run" on each toon first to get my bearings.

EnergyMelee/RadArmor Scrapper
LIVE: 4:43
BRAINSTORM: 5:32 (This toon was hit harshly by the nerfs to Ground Zero and Radiation Therapy - RT in particular is inflicting a LOT less damage in regular missions)
BRAINSTORM #2: 5:14 (Redo using tweaked Radiation Therapy slotting for Healing Aspect + Damage Aspect + 2x Procs instead of Live's Healing Aspect + 4x Procs)
 

BattleAxe/FieryAura Brute
LIVE: 5:13
BRAINSTORM: 5:16 (Axe Cyclone's cast time increase is being offset by increased proc activation rate - the resisted pull distance is annoying but has no bearing on performance)
 

BioArmor/Staff Tanker
LIVE: 5:59
BRAINSTORM: 7:18 (Obvious Tanker nerfs here. Slightly offset by the buff to Sky Splitter and the fact that Innocuous Strikes is currently bugged with a 135 degree Cone)

RadMelee/StoneArmor Brute ("AFK AE Farmer" build so INTENTIONALLY SLOWER THAN A REGULAR BRUTE when playing actively/normally - included here as a "control")
LIVE: 6:19
BRAINSTORM: 6:21 (No obvious change here and negligible variation in clear times)


I'll see if I can spin up some different Tanker-and-non-Tanker variants on Brainstorm at the weekend for a more like-for-like comparison.
 

Edited Thursday at 12:45 PM by Maelwys

[Gobbledigook]

      Would it not be better to hold off on the Tanker changes until more thorough testing has been done? The rest of this update seems close to ready and could be implemented soon, but i think the Tanker changes are far from ready.

 

Perhaps leave the Tanker changes on the test servers so people can test it for a few weeks and introduce it in the near future as a small update.. We do need not an over nerf trying to undo the over buffs from the past. Best to get it right now rather than pissing players off.

Edited Thursday at 12:52 PM by Gobbledigook

[Player-1]

3 hours ago, tidge said:

 

I gotta write: Suggesting Trapdoor (and Pylons) as a means of balancing power sets and ATs seems like it is really muddying the waters when it comes to relative performance. Even the vaunted Ston analysis showed fractions of a minute in differences between three different melee ATs (at level 50).

Hello Tidge,

 

As long as the enemy groups do not have too much variance, and similar characters are used each run, the test results should show usable deltas. For example, using Battle Axe vs lethal resistant enemies is OK provided we only look at Battle Axe vs Battle Axe between characters. Comparing it to Fiery Melee would have an obvious skew for Fire Damage in this case. Even if lethal is slower in this instance, we can still gauge the lethal vs lethal test to see the difference with limited variables.

 

Neutral enemies from AE are likely the best bet overall as seen in the Galaxy Brain mission others have tested so far as they eliminate this issue. 

 

Thank you all for the tests so far! As noted, the best comparisons would be the same powerset across different archetypes which we have a few examples of. If there are more results of Battle Axe (Tanker) vs Battle Axe (Brute) and the like, it will help highlight the differences.

[Psi-bolt]

In the interest of science, I did the Trapdoor mission at +1/x8 with a:

 

• Axe/Regen Brute
• Regen/Axe Tanker

 

Identical slotting in both builds for the primary/secondary except I had the appropriate AT sets for each.  The Brute had Tough but otherwise, their pool selections were very similar.  I did the Tanker first.  It was honestly a bit harder than the Brute, it was clearly slower.  Early in the spawn things went well but it really slowed down as the targets died down.   For the Brute it was much more consistent.  While I might have been hitting less targets, I think I was doing signficantly more damage.   My final times were:

 

• Brute    11:55
• Tanker  16.21

 

So it took roughly 37% longer.   I did the Tanker first, and probably played a bit worse, since this was my first use of this combo.  To be honest, I'm not sure that's a reasonable difference.  I can't test that particular combo on live, so I'm sure how it would do.  

[bhiestand]

On 6/10/2025 at 9:06 AM, Player-1 said:

Hello everyone,

 

Something that would be beneficial now that we have a wide array of testers is to compare results between Tankers and their contemporaries (Brutes and Scrappers). This latest patch readjusted cone attacks to be more comparable to other melee archetypes, leading to better direct comparisons. The more data we can get with actual mission results between these archetypes, the better we can adjust values to help everyone have a fun role to play.

 

As for specific powersets being impacted by changes to an archetype, we are aware that there will be some uneven experiences just like how they may play differently on each archetype as is. Powerset changes would be done seperately than Archetype changes as needed, given it may also impact other archetypes. 

 

+4x8, Office simulation, RC1 on Brainstorm.

 

Base character was elec/elec tanker from live, without being rebuilt to take advantage of changes.  General build for tanking stuff, not farming.  NOT a proc bomb build.

 

Scrapper and Brute were the exact same power and slots, just replacing AT IOs with the appropriate ones.

 

Well, scrapper lost two perfect zinger from Power Sink due to not being slottable, but I don't expect that it mattered.

 

Tanker: 11:11

Brute: 8:41

Scrapper: 11:16

 

The increased scrapper times were somewhat inflated because I chased mobs I should've waited on; I'm not used to soloing lots of mobs on scrappers.

 

In all fairness, I don't think elec/elec tank was too affected by these changes due to the weird nature of electric melee (fake chain, fake single with splash).

 

I will probably try the same with a few others as time permits.

[AlexEquinox]

Overcap targets taking 1/3 damage at most at the same time as smaller base range AoE's losing damage feels really bad.

Edited yesterday at 12:30 AM by AlexEquinox

[Zappalina]

On 5/27/2025 at 3:04 PM, icesphere said:

Not a dev, but appears to align more that tankers are heavy duty tankers that can also be DPS monsters with the right build. This nerfs the proc rates for a lot of their aoe, so makes them fit the role of their namesake.

With IOs buffing DPS to make them DPS monsters?

[Maelwys]

23 hours ago, Maelwys said:

I'll see if I can spin up some different Tanker-and-non-Tanker variants on Brainstorm at the weekend for a more like-for-like comparison.

Quick 1st attempt at this; variant times in ORANGE.
 

EnergyMelee/RadArmor Scrapper
BRAINSTORM #2: 5:14
TANKER RUN: 8:26 [+61.1% - this may be a bit higher than usual due to the build being very ST Burst damage focused, with only Whirling Hands plus RA's GZ/RT for AoE]
 

BattleAxe/FieryAura Brute
BRAINSTORM: 5:16
TANKER RUN: 6:51 [+30.1%]
 

BioArmor/Staff Tanker
BRAINSTORM: 7:18
BRUTE RUN: 5:54 [so the Tanker is +23.7% - this may be lower than usual due to the build's attack chain having a large amount of AoE plus IC's bugged Arc on Brainstorm]

RadMelee/StoneArmor Brute (The slower-than-usual "AFK AE Farmer" build)
BRAINSTORM: 6:21
TANKER RUN: 8:08 [+28.1%]



It looks like in general the Tankers are coming in ~30% slower than the Brutes.

The Staff Fighting powerset is skewed a bit; but that set has an AoE and two decent Cones, one of which is currently bugged on Brainstorm and is still considerably wider on Tankers (Innocuous Strikes) which is allowing the Tanker to consistently hit more targets. However it's worth noting that despite the buff to Sky Splitter on Brainstorm; Staff is still very light in terms of Burst Single Target damage - it's taking these two Staff toons a lot longer than the other powersets to kill the Elite Boss at the end of the mission; but it's not bad in terms of non-burst AoE damage. Providing its Cone Arcs are wide enough to actually hit things.

The EM/RadArmor Scrapper is far faster than its Tanker variant. However that Scrapper is very Single Target burst damage focused. On Live; even without an active Hybrid running or Judgement nukes the Scrapper's Whirling Hands + Ground Zero + Radiation Therapy are able to whittle down the minions/LTs whilst it uses its ST attacks only on the bosses. However on Brainstorm; with the nerfs to GZ and RT this is no longer quite able to kill off the LTs so there's a bit of extra time spent mopping them up and/or dragging them into the next spawn. But it's still consistently able to three-shot the Elite Boss at the end of the mission.
The Tanker simply cannot keep up with that level of Single Target damage; and there is very little opportunity for its increased AoE range to matter. The "overcap" mechanic appears to be completely negating any benefit the Tanker might be seeing from a higher Target Cap on Whirling Hands.

Also... "playstyle" is probably going to be a big factor here for comparing the results of different players in the Mission Simulator.
So for full disclosure:

Personally I tend to leap into one enemy group; fire off an AoE; then begin whacking bosses, rotating myself around my currently-targetted Boss to ensure my Cone attacks hit other nearby enemies. Then whenever that group's minions are dead I'll jump into the next group; dragging any remaining LTs and Bosses with me whilst taking ranged potshots at whatever boss I still have targeted. That way my AoEs and Cones are usually able to catch a fair number of foes rather than getting "wasted" on just one target. However in an office map; at the end of each floor I'll pause and mop up any remaining foes before calling the elevator.

 

Edited yesterday at 11:33 AM by Maelwys

[Warboss]

5 hours ago, Maelwys said:

It looks like in general the Tankers are coming in ~30% slower than the Brutes.
 

 

So... with Tankers now being 30% slower, does that mean Brutes need to be nerfed?

Edited yesterday at 04:44 PM by Warboss

[Maelwys]

2 minutes ago, Warboss said:

So... with Tankers now being 30%, does that mean Brutes need to be nerfed?

If you're asking honestly rather than tongue in cheek?

Tankers mission completion times being ~30% slower than Brutes on Brainstorm would suggest that if what the Developers are intending is that Brutes and Tankers should be dealing comparable levels of damage in a regular mission like Galaxy Brain's Office Mission Simulator (albeit via the Tankers dealing less raw AoE damage but hitting more targets) then either Tankers need to be doing more damage or Brutes need to be doing less damage. 

And since the major effect of the proposed changes is to lower Tanker damage... then the obvious solution here is for them to not lower Tanker damage by quite as much they are right now. So lose (or reduce) either the radius changes or the overcap damage reduction changes.

Personally I'd like to see Tankers have larger Cone Arcs again (without the base damage reduction) and for the "overcap" damage reductions to be made less harsh.
But even just lowering the harshness of the overcap reductions from its current -67% to something a bit more reasonable would be helpful; IMO.
 

[BrandX]

15 minutes ago, Warboss said:

 

So... with Tankers now being 30% slower, does that mean Brutes need to be nerfed?

 

I always thought Brutes should've capped resists at 85% but others did not like that idea.

 

Tested the changes on my Tanker, it didn't feel that bad.  Maybe because it's Bio/EM/Soul?

 

 

[Maelwys]

3 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Tested the changes on my Tanker, it didn't feel that bad.  Maybe because it's Bio/EM/Soul?

IIRC Power Crash's base arc is pretty big as it is (120 degrees?) so unless you're intentionally constantly trying to catch 6+ targets with it there won't be much difference there. Dark Obliteration (Soul Mastery) will be completely unaffected; so I suspect the only power you'd really notice a change in would be Whirling Hands. Hitting 10 Targets for full damage is going to be much worse than 16; even before you factor in the base damage decrease.

 

[lemming]

2 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Tested the changes on my Tanker, it didn't feel that bad.  Maybe because it's Bio/EM/Soul?

I did a few runs on my Bio/Fire tank to check changes since the powersets weren't as impacted as some of the other powersets (EM too I think) and yea, I did see I was doing less damage, but it wasn't an impact on the feel of how I did missions.

 

The loss in dps may impact solo times a bit, but I don't anticipate much of an impact in team  settings. 

[BrandX]

3 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

IIRC Power Crash's base arc is pretty big as it is (120 degrees?) so unless you're intentionally constantly trying to catch 6+ targets with it there won't be much difference there. Dark Obliteration (Soul Mastery) will be completely unaffected; so I suspect the only power you'd really notice a change in would be Whirling Hands. Hitting 10 Targets for full damage is going to be much worse than 16; even before you factor in the base damage decrease.

 

 

Well, see, no Power Crash on my build or Dark Obliteration.  And my mistake...I switched to Psi (just for Dominate) tho I had Soul for Gloom before.

Whirling Hands and DNA Siphon with damage aura has been the AOE for me.

 

I came out 7 seconds slower on pylon runs.

 

 

[Uun]

Power Crash gets a 5 target bonus (10 total) when used with Energy Focus on non-tank ATs. Tanks get a 6 target bonus (11 total) when used with Energy Focus, plus 5 more at 1/3 damage.

[Maelwys]

1 hour ago, BrandX said:

I came out 7 seconds slower on pylon runs.

AFAIK the only things that should be affecting Single Target damage (e.g. Pylon times) currently are the slight decreases to "damage buff" and "resistance debuff" scalars.

Evolving Armor will be inflicting -9.975% resistance instead of -10.64%
Hardened Carapace will be granting +21.875% damage instead of +25%
Build Up will be granting +70% instead of +80% damage.

...and that's about it I think.
 

So yeah, I'm not surprised the Pylon times are almost the same as before - I'm pretty sure that keeping Single Target damage as-is was one of the design goals here.

[arcane]

7 hours ago, Maelwys said:

It looks like in general the Tankers are coming in ~30% slower than the Brutes.

Although I never run completely solo +4x8 anymore and am pretty sure I am unlikely to experience the full impact of this, this does not sound quite acceptable. 

[Warboss]

1 hour ago, Maelwys said:

If you're asking honestly rather than tongue in cheek?

Tankers mission completion times being ~30% slower than Brutes on Brainstorm would suggest that if what the Developers are intending is that Brutes and Tankers should be dealing comparable levels of damage in a regular mission like Galaxy Brain's Office Mission Simulator (albeit via the Tankers dealing less raw AoE damage but hitting more targets) then either Tankers need to be doing more damage or Brutes need to be doing less damage. 

And since the major effect of the proposed changes is to lower Tanker damage... then the obvious solution here is for them to not lower Tanker damage by quite as much they are right now. So lose (or reduce) either the radius changes or the overcap damage reduction changes.

Personally I'd like to see Tankers have larger Cone Arcs again (without the base damage reduction) and for the "overcap" damage reductions to be made less harsh.
But even just lowering the harshness of the overcap reductions from its current -67% to something a bit more reasonable would be helpful; IMO.
 

 

@@Sovera got it, but actually it's a bit of both. Honestly if you look at the amount of  adjustments needed to achieve what they are attempting, it's too much.

 

If damage is decreased over range for Tanks, then it should be for all ATs/all powers (Game World Reality), otherwise it's a targeted nerf. Decreased damage affects the "Threat Level"(?) (used to, not sure now).... If so, then Tanks control/aggro will decrease even with the increased "aggro" range due to the decreased damage (threat) (aggro will be stripped by higher damaging attacks the further the mob is away from the Tank - maybe the hidden goal here?). 

 

If there are certain powers that need to be adjusted (Rage ( which has been targeted for forever)), then those should be addressed and resolved before any AT wide changes go into affect. Power Sets should be looked at, adjusted and tested BEFORE any global changes, otherwise complications will just be added to the formula.

 

If the problem is that Tanks are faster than Brutes at farming (or solo runs (not sure which or if both are the issue here, but I think it's very specific situation/s for very specific builds. I'm not sure the bulk of my Tanks would be faster than Brutes.)... then look at Brutes (didn't realize that CoX recognized Brutes as the "official farming toon"), clearly there needs to be something done there.

 

If the problem is procs, then look there to resolve the problems PRIOR to global AT changes. 

 

Making sweeping changes to an AT to resolve other issues, won't. It will just complicate the mechanics of the game, which already seem pretty complex.

 

I agree with you on the Cone Arcs.

 

I don't have a great deal of time to play these days, but I did manage to test a few of my builds WP/IM (No Incarnates), Rad/Elect, and Rad/Fire (2 different builds w/Incarnates (Alpha and Interface only). The toons were not as fun to play as they are on "live" right now. I did not run at 8+4 (as mentioned, I don't have a lot of time to whittle down Bosses and my STs are not proc'd out), but at 8+2 Council, so I could compare the numbers (this was prior to the suggested missions). WP/IM, Frost seemed to really be lacking (I don't think this was the "latest build", maybe v5?), and didn't write down the numbers I was watching. Since I don't really play the other ATs, I can't give comparisons, but I can provide feedback for the Tanker sets.