How would you nerf tankers?

[PyroBeetle]

I have been playing CoH from Beta to the present, minus the sunset gap. I don't always post, especially when I see something negative, but I actually think that the correction of the proc rates and the over the cap damage is appropriate in this case. Tankers have reached the point where they effectively invalidate any other class except in the most extreme content.

 

Using any of my L50 tanks I could confidently stride into a +4/x8 mission, contacts, tips, radio, and solo the mission quickly and effectively with next to no risk. If I chose I could take others along with me, but it didn't really affect much. To make matters worse, with most of those builds I could do the same thing from about L25 and forward, and certainly for most of them the difficulty level began to be cranked up, especially regarding enemy group size from the teens on up.

 

With the changes, clear times have been affected, dramatically, which is an acceptable trade off for the feeling of invincibility that is conveyed to the average tank. It encourages the tank to invite others along for the ride, and anything that encourages grouping in a MMO is inherently a good thing. 

 

Yes Blasters and Scrappers can kill things much faster, but as said, grouping things and runners is a challenge and there is some level of inherent risk that tankers do not really experience. The same thing goes for brutes, to experience tanker level survivability, outside of farming, they have to make sacrifices to their build that ultimately affects their damage output.

 

Should the over the cap changes been made a lot longer ago, like the patch after tanks were given vast AoE and damage buffs, yes. It would seem like much less of a shock now. Does something need to be done to affect proc damage across the board, again, yes. I see this as the first step in needing proc damage across the board, and hope that it doesn't take the devs 6 years to fix it for all classes. However, that does not mean that these fixes were not needed and appropriate.

[Uncle Shags]

It seems like there is a trend in reactions of tanker enthusiasts here? Many of us fit into categories:

 

1. Hand in the cookie jar: many of us enjoy this game for min/maxing builds, and some have found ways to really maximize tank damage. These folks reactions seem to may be, "OK, you caught me. This was OP. I'll take the hand slap." Absolutely nothing wrong with chasing dps, and good on them for owning it. 
2. Traditional tanks: protecting the team as the boulder that baddies get broken on is a time honored tradition, and damage isn't really a priority. Reactions here are mostly, "Oh well. I don't worry about damage." Nothing wrong here either. 
3. Middle of the road tanks: might be harder to pin down. Maybe they haven't chased crazy damage or procs because they come at the expense of tankiness.  Maybe they can't afford the fancy purple dps builds. Or maybe they just like both damage and toughness. Whatever the reason, the reaction may be, "Wait a minute? I was only doing middle of the road damage, and you're saying that was too much? Not cool, man..." I find myself in this category, and I think this reaction is reasonable. 

I'm just spitballing here, and I'm certain there are other categories than these three, but I'm thinking this might be helpful, for me at least, to understanding my fellow tanker's reactions. 

 

I think it's important that we remember all of our perspectives are valid. I just hope the devs can find a way to do right by all of us. 

 

[Snarky]

4 hours ago, tidge said:

 

You often write this, but what is the 'giant nerf to Brutes' you are referring to?

You ever play a Brute?  You know how Fury pegs short.  Never used to.  And a few other “minor” (major) changes over the years.  I am at work so do not have exact numbers or time to research. But, they all hurt.  And in the conglomerate kneecapped Brutes very effectively 

[tidge]

By many accounts, the only reason Scrappers pull ahead of Brutes (to the limited extent Scrappers pull ahead) is because of the Scrapper ATOs (increasing critical chances, *1), so I really want to know what it was that "kneecapped" Brutes. I think everyone can agree that Tankers pull ahead (again, to the limited extent shown in Ston's tests) were because of %damage chances improved by the +AoE +Cone changes to Tankers (which are going to be addressed in i28p2, scaling those back). 

 

(*1) I think Brute ATO procs are mediocre, but I'm not sure they are the worst. I don't think that ATOs should be what the ATs are balanced around.

[Marine X]

You know, as long as I can still take Roughneck and his shovel, and Tour the Fortress thrashing on crowd after crowd of Level 54 Cimmeroran Traitors, I'm good. Have never set a stop watch to measure performance or DPS, just not my thing. My reason for going on Open Beta was to make sure he hadn't been, ahem, gelded. All i care about is being able to hang in a fight when teaming to benefit the team and take care of myself if I'm not.

[Andreah]

23 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

tankers, brutes, and scrappers are relatively interchangeable

This is the real problem, imo.

[Spaghetti Betty]

8 hours ago, Ukase said:

But disgustingly high damage? You haven't seen my tanks. Most don't use damage procs, except maybe in one or two attacks. Usually just one.

This is the key here! If you look at most optimized Tanker builds over the last couple of years, they showcase just how easy it is to achieve enough mitigation to still be Tanker tough while inflating their damage with ridiculous amounts with proc bombing. When you add how the AoE buff from Gauntlet currently functions on live (acting as a "proc" instead of a hard increase to range), it means Tankers just straight up aren't following the rules and doing Blaster AoEs with little to no consequence!

 

Granted, it was hasty dev work that allowed all of this and by no means was an exploit.

 

On topic, I think actually hard coding the AoE buff for Tankers is enough of a nerf on their end as it is, as it'll normalize proc rates for them across the board. Some of the other stuff in beta feels a bit heavy handed, but it won't stop me from playing Tanks! They've always been my main since retail!

[kelika2]

8 hours ago, Erratic1 said:

Already done.

how the hell are you going above 80% fury and staying there?

[Neiska]

17 hours ago, macskull said:

For a lot of people this is a feature, not something to be eliminated.

 

And to that I say is part of the problem. Not that people feel that way, that its now seen as a "feature" rather than something that arguably should be corrected. If we are going to discuss over the pretense of balance, how are Glass Cannons with enough defenses to obliterate hardest difficulties balanced to the opposite end of the spectrum where it takes a tanker 3-5x longer to do the same thing? If both can be equally survivable, and the tanker has excess, why is not the excess DPS if we want to call it that, reigned in as well?

 

My theory? It isn't about balance. It's about pushing the meta to "gotta go fast." Things barely hit hard enough to even warrant a tanker, unless you are on hard mode. A DPS can just enter a mission with a tray full of purples, pop one, and just go to town, while the Tanker does not have the same option. Popping a Red will not make a Tankers dps on par with the DPS, not even close.

[Erratic1]

5 minutes ago, kelika2 said:

how the hell are you going above 80% fury and staying there?

 

The decay rate was decreased a fair bit back. I typically assume 85% fury when planning.

[Snarky]

56 minutes ago, kelika2 said:

how the hell are you going above 80% fury and staying there?

they are not

[Maelwys]

3 minutes ago, Snarky said:

they are not

We definitely are.

As @Erratic1 says, I tend to assume 80+ Fury unless I'm idling even on a ST focussed Brute.



As for AoE Focussed ones? >90 easy.

[tidge]

53 minutes ago, Neiska said:

 Things barely hit hard enough to even warrant a tanker, unless you are on hard mode. A DPS can just enter a mission with a tray full of purples, pop one, and just go to town, while the Tanker does not have the same option. Popping a Red will not make a Tankers dps on par with the DPS, not even close.

 

This makes me wonder about the Tanker-targeted scale changes to self-buffs (and debuffs). I'm not thinking these changes are the end-of-the-world but they have the stink of "everything and the kitchen sink" being thrown into the mix (to scale back Tanker performance). My opinion: the majority of the inspirations do what Tankers do via having to pick powers... and not all Tanker primaries are created equal... so if enemy is dead before needing most of a Tanker can bring, it's not like most content requires a Tanker. Not needing an AT doesn't bother me, I'm more interested in seeing regular mode content be able to be completed in roughly the same amount of time across ATs.

 

I don't farm, and the stuff I solo that might look like farming isn't at +4, so I won't notice as much of the effects of those as others might... but on +4 team content I can't say that my Tankers have been providing that much of the teams damage... although I have been applying debuffs when possible (and when they would make a difference).

[Snarky]

11 minutes ago, Maelwys said:

We definitely are.

As @Erratic1 says, I tend to assume 80+ Fury unless I'm idling even on a ST focussed Brute.



As for AoE Focussed ones? >90 easy.

okay, screenshots aside, do we have a ling to the Dev issue where it was changed?  because i am a grumpy old soul who is not going to look through that.

[Maelwys]

2 minutes ago, Snarky said:

okay, screenshots aside, do we have a ling to the Dev issue where it was changed?  because i am a grumpy old soul who is not going to look through that.

 

Issue 26, Page 4.

Third point down under "Tanker & Brute Changes"

[skoryy]

(I just got my third tank to 50, I don't want to start another brute, but maaaaaaaaaan...)

[Erratic1]

2 minutes ago, skoryy said:

(I just got my third tank to 50, I don't want to start another brute, but maaaaaaaaaan...)

 

I've got at least two more Tankers planned for the next patch.

[macskull]

4 hours ago, Neiska said:

And to that I say is part of the problem. Not that people feel that way, that its now seen as a "feature" rather than something that arguably should be corrected. If we are going to discuss over the pretense of balance, how are Glass Cannons with enough defenses to obliterate hardest difficulties balanced to the opposite end of the spectrum where it takes a tanker 3-5x longer to do the same thing? If both can be equally survivable, and the tanker has excess, why is not the excess DPS if we want to call it that, reigned in as well?

I promise you the difference between a high-end Tanker and a high-end Blaster is far less than "3-5x longer."

 

4 hours ago, Neiska said:

My theory? It isn't about balance. It's about pushing the meta to "gotta go fast." Things barely hit hard enough to even warrant a tanker, unless you are on hard mode. A DPS can just enter a mission with a tray full of purples, pop one, and just go to town, while the Tanker does not have the same option. Popping a Red will not make a Tankers dps on par with the DPS, not even close.

And here you're once again vastly overstating the gap between a Tanker and "a DPS." There is a gap, for sure, but a lot of that is simply due to Blasters essentially having two power sets full of attacks. Your concern has more to do with the game's underlying combat mechanics than anything else, specifically how easy it is for characters to reach defensive caps. Any sweeping change to address something like that would rightfully make a whole lot of people upset (see the I13 PvP changes for a great example of the fallout from a change like that). This game's population exists almost entirely because of nostalgia, and once the game is sufficiently different from the version people remember, they're not going to stick around.

[Neiska]

2 hours ago, macskull said:

I promise you the difference between a high-end Tanker and a high-end Blaster is far less than "3-5x longer."

 

Having played Masterminds, Tankers, Corruptors, SoA's, etc, several of which beyond 300+ vet levels, I think I have a pretty good grasp about the difference in time needed to clear the same content among different ATs and builds. Your personal experience may be different, but that is your mere personal experience. Just as my DPS finishing much faster than my tankers is mine. Neither of our personal experiences over-ride each others.

 

2 hours ago, macskull said:

 

And here you're once again vastly overstating the gap between a Tanker and "a DPS." There is a gap, for sure, but a lot of that is simply due to Blasters essentially having two power sets full of attacks. Your concern has more to do with the game's underlying combat mechanics than anything else, specifically how easy it is for characters to reach defensive caps. Any sweeping change to address something like that would rightfully make a whole lot of people upset (see the I13 PvP changes for a great example of the fallout from a change like that). This game's population exists almost entirely because of nostalgia, and once the game is sufficiently different from the version people remember, they're not going to stick around.

 

No, I'm really not. And blasters having two full sets of attacks is only part of it. If you have enough recharge, depending on the power set, you might not even use the other set all that often. And, again, no, I'm not, as DEF caps are only one small part of what makes a characters durability. Resistances, Hitpoints, resists to debuffs, etc etc all play a part. If all it took to do everything was reach 45% def, well most powers wouldn't even be needed and we could all call it a day. And blasters are hardly the only DPS in play here. Scrappers, Stalkers, Corruptors, Widows, can all effectively lap tankers, many of which can be close to a tankers durability. Scrappers and Stalkers both "tanking" are a thing. Not a common thing mind you, but its "possible" nonetheless. /Shield in particular. You are downplaying the differences not only in time, but neglecting to consider the different activities here. I mean if its a race, stalkers beat everybody on some missions. 

 

To put it into perspective, if some stalkers or scrappers can go toe to toe with Recluse, then why isn't there some huge outcry to nerf that? If you can put together an entire team of corruptors and just take turns popping ageless/barrier and absolutely destroy even hard modes without tankers/brutes at all, then what's the point? Its certainly not for any sake of balance or fair play. What I suspect is more likely in play is that someone clever took a design and used it in a way that wasn't intended or thought of, and instead of addressing the particular case they "fix" the entire AT itself, even if it severely punishes builds that "don't" do that. I mean, what are Tanker Secondaries that are already behind going to do? Just fall even further behind.

 

To further simplify it - they are selectively addressing certain things that can be seen as broken, or too powerful, and all but ignoring or even encouraging others. Of all the broken things in this game, I wouldn't have even put tanker AoE in the top 10. Teams? Largely moot since any DPS will obliterate entire spawns of enemies even before that supposedly concerning tanker AoE comes into play. Any DPS can blow their BU, get a good chance at a proc, pop their T9, and wipe out 90% of the spawn in less than 10 seconds. And somehow, a tanker being able to hit more than other melee is suddenly so unfair? I mean, you can make a Scrapper tough enough to rip through +4/8 content in much less time than a Tanker could, and if both survive as easily then the tankers superior durability is largely moot, where the scrappers damage is not. Kind of like how they came down hard on spines/fire brutes, just because there were so many of them at one time. Now? I hardly see any at all.

 

And some sweeping changes already have made a lot of people upset. And I don't think that is really a high priority for them at this point.

 

You and I will likely disagree on this. And that's okay. But just as you are free to support it and certain playstyles, others are certainly free to not support them. And I am getting rather tired of DPS being the only measuring stick to end-all-be-all and comparing one specific AT to another as the only metric, and using the most extreme builds as justification to nerf the entire AT itself which affects the powers that AT has unequally. (The weak stuff just gets weaker when they try to make the strong stuff normal.)

 

PS - the point of "if they change that, people will leave" really isn't justifiable, as it was used for several other things such as the AE changes, and they still happened. I honestly doubt they are overly concerned if they make a change and people get upset about it at this point. I've certainly never seen any of them specifically address such an issue. Some people will keep getting hosed, while others get to keep their cake and eat it too.

Edited yesterday at 03:16 AM by Neiska
Added a PS

[tidge]

9 hours ago, macskull said:

And here you're once again vastly overstating the gap between a Tanker and "a DPS." There is a gap, for sure, but a lot of that is simply due to Blasters essentially having two power sets full of attacks.

 

I agree with Senator @Neiska response above, with slight additions:

1. Blasters "two sets" of attacks is allowing for ~2x higher tier attacks that can be chained because of high Global recharge,
2. One of the largest advantages of Blasters having attacks in both primaries and secondaries is the greater variety in slotting opportunities for (IMO, the better) set bonuses.

In the case of #1, I think we can make a strong case that Blaster DPS is as large as it is because of Global recharge... and if there was a 'diminishing returns' on Global Recharge only affecting Blasters... I think we can reliable predict what the reactions would be. If "Tankers kill too fast because targets" is a problem, I think there is an argument to be made that maybe Blasters are achieving too high of a DPS because of global recharge (and crashless nukes, etc.) This is NOT an argument I would make, because the game was a lot duller when it was a grind.

 

In the case of #2... "the game isn't balanced around IOs"... yet... It does usually sit uncomfortably with me that all flavors of blasters can slot their ATOs in either Primary or Secondary powers, which gives them even more opportunities to slot the offensive Winter, Very Rare, and PVP sets too. This isn't a freedom of slotting choice that most other ATs have.

[SeraphimKensai]

On 6/1/2025 at 10:35 PM, twozerofoxtrot said:

 

 

On 6/1/2025 at 9:42 PM, SeraphimKensai said:

I don't remember doing too much testing, but my memory has more holds in it than a sieve these days so who knows.

 

Apologies! I really thought it was you who coined the proc monsters thread

If memory serves correctly that was @Sir Myshkin who did the proc monster threads. I'm usually the guy doing the what stout to pair with my steak tonight threads (and I suppose an assortment of other stuff too).

[SeraphimKensai]

On 6/2/2025 at 6:06 AM, Snarky said:

your memory has holds like a sieve.

 

wait, you're a Sith?!?

 

What's wrong with being a sith? I simply want to bring order to a dysfunctional system. Realistically as a disgruntled middle aged man who's a public servant and a combat vet, I'd probably be a grey force user that has some sith tendencies.

[Neiska]

1 minute ago, SeraphimKensai said:

What's wrong with being a sith? I simply want to bring order to a dysfunctional system. Realistically as a disgruntled middle aged man who's a public servant and a combat vet, I'd probably be a grey force user that has some sith tendencies.

 

This you? 

 

I kid I kid, in seriousness thank you for your service.

[Uncle Shags]

22 hours ago, PyroBeetle said:

Tankers have reached the point where they effectively invalidate any other class except in the most extreme content.

 

Using any of my L50 tanks I could confidently stride into a +4/x8 mission, contacts, tips, radio, and solo the mission quickly and effectively with next to no risk.

The same can be said for any AT in this game.  Should everyone be nerfed? 

[Erratic1]

33 minutes ago, tidge said:

In the case of #1, I think we can make a strong case that Blaster DPS is as large as it is because of Global recharge... and if there was a 'diminishing returns' on Global Recharge only affecting Blasters... I think we can reliable predict what the reactions would be. If "Tankers kill too fast because targets" is a problem, I think there is an argument to be made that maybe Blasters are achieving too high of a DPS because of global recharge (and crashless nukes, etc.) This is NOT an argument I would make, because the game was a lot duller when it was a grind.

 

Blasters may manage pretty impressive Trapdoor times, but its facing Council, not exactly known for their Mez usage. 

 

I would also be careful at levelling, "too high DPS" at a DPS class lest some angry Blaster fan make a similar comment as goes survivability and Tankers. DPS is, after all, the sole purpose of Blasters.