Instigator: Take Two. Assault/Defense Tank

[Zepp]

4 hours ago, Steampunkette said:

And Manipulation would -never- work as a Primary.

Hey...

 

Zoomer (19.07.25.22.56.xx)

Manipulation/Assault

Zoom: Personal +SPD for ranged, enemy -SPD for melee, and increased speed cap.

Zoomers offer the feel of playing a speedster while providing access to two AT-specific power sets that are versatile an fun.

 

I actually proposed a way to make Manipulation work as a primary...

 

That being said, Manipulation would not be a good choice for what you are trying to do with this AT proposal. I like your decision to go straight armor, it is likely a better choice than your take one proposal, but don't be dissing Manipulation... (that being said, I will not be bringing up manipulation on this thread again (I hope)...)

[Kimuji]

I've got a profound aversion to anything looking like a ranged Tank. We had those in CO and it was nothing short of a mistake.

Sturdy ranged characters are a game design abomination (yeah I also dislike Sentinels as a concept for the same reason), armors are for those who fight at melee range, you're taking risks you get an armor you attack from afar you don't get one. You are completely downplaying the advantage of attacking from range, especially if you're flying. Hover + attacking from a distance + armor is exceptionally good.

Setting that balance issue aside, how do you herd mobs from range? I can answer that question fairly easily from what I've experienced on CO: you don't. So as a tank you're not even very good at your job at controlling crowds. On CO ranged tanks were popular because they were safer... from the tank's perspective (especially for PVP for obvious reason: you have to reach them first and they're super sturdy. Very balanced indeed). But from the team's perspective? Much worse than a melee tank because mobs were all over the place, cone AoE were coming from any angles...

 

Now if we're going into the specifics, a 85% res cap is way too much if you're throwing an absorb shield on top of it, it would make them significantly better than Brutes which would be awful from a game balance perspective. Yeah we're all back to the same problem: sturdy ranged characters are a game balance abomination.

[Steampunkette]

5 hours ago, Kimuji said:

I've got a profound aversion to anything looking like a ranged Tank. We had those in CO and it was nothing short of a mistake.

Sturdy ranged characters are a game design abomination (yeah I also dislike Sentinels as a concept for the same reason), armors are for those who fight at melee range, you're taking risks you get an armor you attack from afar you don't get one. You are completely downplaying the advantage of attacking from range, especially if you're flying. Hover + attacking from a distance + armor is exceptionally good.

Setting that balance issue aside, how do you herd mobs from range? I can answer that question fairly easily from what I've experienced on CO: you don't. So as a tank you're not even very good at your job at controlling crowds. On CO ranged tanks were popular because they were safer... from the tank's perspective (especially for PVP for obvious reason: you have to reach them first and they're super sturdy. Very balanced indeed). But from the team's perspective? Much worse than a melee tank because mobs were all over the place, cone AoE were coming from any angles...

 

Now if we're going into the specifics, a 85% res cap is way too much if you're throwing an absorb shield on top of it, it would make them significantly better than Brutes which would be awful from a game balance perspective. Yeah we're all back to the same problem: sturdy ranged characters are a game balance abomination.

I think we could safely drop their res cap to 75, at this point. As to how to herd from range: corners and brief surrounded situations. 

 

But the intent isn't to make them awesome tanks that stand in one spot. It's to make the combat more dynamic and mobile for those who want it. If you're looking for the most efficient tank you'd need to look at a Tanker or a Brute for pure XP/Second by holding the mobs still in your AoE spam. Though toss a couple doms on the team and it's the same thing outside of AV fights or iTrials.

[ZeeHero]

How about fixing the issue with the original aggro management AT (Tanker) before making new ones please? Once tankers actually are as desireable as brutes, we can talk about new ATs which can do the same job.

[ZeeHero]

8 hours ago, Kimuji said:

I've got a profound aversion to anything looking like a ranged Tank. We had those in CO and it was nothing short of a mistake.

Sturdy ranged characters are a game design abomination (yeah I also dislike Sentinels as a concept for the same reason), armors are for those who fight at melee range, you're taking risks you get an armor you attack from afar you don't get one. You are completely downplaying the advantage of attacking from range, especially if you're flying. Hover + attacking from a distance + armor is exceptionally good.

Backwards thinking. the Sentinel is a great idea. However giving it aggro management can cause issues. Sturdy ranged characters are fine. ones which can hold threat reliably.. theres an argument against that. So, in short, ranged characters should not be AS invincible as tankers... but they sure as hell can be as tough as scrappers or so.

[Some Random User]

There is a lot of conversation in this thread, and some that seems to contradict what we know about the threat system. Can we start by agreeing on terms? There seems to be a bit of "no you're wrong" that is not being supported through citation. If someone has a site they can refer to please provide a U.R.L. for us to educate ourselves. If someone's seen the code, please tell me where to look in the code.

[Steampunkette]

1 hour ago, ZeeHero said:

How about fixing the issue with the original aggro management AT (Tanker) before making new ones please? Once tankers actually are as desireable as brutes, we can talk about new ATs which can do the same job.

Nah.

 

There is no fix for Tankers. They just were not designed for a game with Inventions and Incarnates. To fix them you'd have to break the Cottage Rule so badly they would be nearly unrecognizable. The best thing you can do for them is create separate sub-mechanics to try and offset the differences between them and brutes, but any kind of -real- change is going to have a profound effect on their effectiveness at all level ranges.

 

If we're not going to create any Tank ATs 'til Tankers are 'Fixed' then we'll never make another tanking type Archetype. Honestly, that's a bad idea.

 

Better to add some variety to the field so we can create new niches for the Tanker and Brute to fill and help set them apart.

 

1 hour ago, Some Random User said:

There is a lot of conversation in this thread, and some that seems to contradict what we know about the threat system. Can we start by agreeing on terms? There seems to be a bit of "no you're wrong" that is not being supported through citation. If someone has a site they can refer to please provide a U.R.L. for us to educate ourselves. If someone's seen the code, please tell me where to look in the code.

 

I sent SRU a PM about this, the crux of it is:

 

Threat is a mechanical function of AI, not tied to the player character in any way. We can poke the NPC's threat meter to get higher on it, but the limits and monitoring of Threat exist exclusively on the AI. Thus they cannot currently be used to affect player Power Values without some kind of data-mirroring effect that doesn't currently exist. And any such data-mirroring would need to apply to every NPC in the area, and report on all threat levels and do it to every character... it would be a kludge and a mess.

[Some Random User]

5 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

There is no fix for Tankers. They just were not designed for a game with Inventions and Incarnates. To fix them you'd have to break the Cottage Rule so badly they would be nearly unrecognizable. The best thing you can do for them is create separate sub-mechanics to try and offset the differences between them and brutes, but any kind of -real- change is going to have a profound effect on their effectiveness at all level ranges.

This sounds more like an argument for going through the Tanker Powersets, one at a time, and rebalancing them.

[Steampunkette]

Just now, Some Random User said:

This sounds more like an argument for going through the Tanker Powersets, one at a time, and rebalancing them.

It isn't.

 

Spoiler

 

The Tanker's damage value for Melee Attacks is 0.80. That's only slightly less than Kheldians at 0.85. Their damage isn't -great- but it's not awful, either. Corruptors, Controllers, Defenders, and Masterminds all have lower damage modifiers (Ranging from 0.75 to 0.55)

 

Meanwhile Brutes have a .75 modifier. 

 

But Brutes also have a built in Damage Buff mechanic and a Damage Cap of 775% compared to a Tanker's 200%.

 

If you've got a melee attack that deals 100 damage, a Tanker throws 85. The Brute throws 75. And when you get to the tanker's damage cap the difference is still relevant. 255 for the Tanker, to only 225 for the Brute.

 

But the Brute's cap is freaking 775%! That caps out at 581 damage for that attack that deals less for the Brute than the Tanker. It blows the Tanker out of the water with double damage! Granted the Brute isn't likely to hit their damage cap without a couple of Fulcrum Shifts... but still.

 

Meanwhile a Brute can get 90% to all Damage Resistance or 57% to all Defenses through IO set bonuses and Incarnate values to be just as durable as the Tanker. 'Cause after a certain point you don't get more durable, mechanically speaking, but you can always do more damage.

 

 

I put that into a spoiler. I'd like to ask that that information blurb be the last time we talk about the Tanker/Brute issue in this thread aside from vague references to the problem as regards the Instigator. This is not a "Tanking is Broken!" thread. This is an AT Suggestion.

[Some Random User]

33 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

This is not a "Tanking is Broken!" thread. This is an AT Suggestion.

That's fair. We should fix the Tankers we have, though. Moving on...

 

Your O.P. post was talking about how there are fewer Tanker-related suggested Archetypes. Adding any new Archetype is a big step, so let's show our work. Why do we need another Archetype? What is the new "experience" or niche or playstyle? What do you try to get out of this new idea? Like I keep asking but getting brushed off about, what makes this less melee-focused combatant any different from either adding a few other effect types to Scrappers or slapping an Assault Powerset on a Sentinel? What is the quintessential core of the Archetype? Don't answer with mechanics, as mechanics can be put into existing Archetypes.

 

Example: The Stalkers could have just been Scrappers with a couple new Powersets that had Stealth effects in them. They're not because there really was so much difference in their playstyle that the live devs felt like they had enough to work with there to make Stalkers a whole new Archetype.

 

Another example: The Brutes are not just Scrappers (or Tankers) with different effects, the swapping out of the Passive for a Fury bar and other adjustments to their Archetype facilitate a very different experience from those other Archetypes.

 

What kind of feeling are you trying to achieve?

[Steampunkette]

... I feel like I've explained the feeling quite well throughout this thread, SRU. Repeatedly.

 

A new playstyle in the form of an active and dynamic type of tanking archetype which cannot stand stock still in the middle of a group of enemies and take all of the hits forever. One which generates aggro not through passive means but active ones, and relies on movement and repositioning to most effectively survive and provide opportunities for their allies.

 

One which benefits -particularly- well from teaming with Control and Soft-Control capable characters who can slow enemies down or immobilize them to reduce overall damage output (Leading to having some Support and Control powers in their Epic Power Pools)

 

Mechanical considerations would be damage resistance caps being lower than Tanker or Brute, lower overall health than same (But more than a Scrapper), Strong enough defenses to effectively tank at lower levels, and both an absorb inherent (Allowing them to take Alphas) and an Aggro Generation inherent (allowing them to take Aggro)

[Zepp]

Also, as a point of clarification, the strong similarities between certain current ATs was intentional. When there was a wall between CoH and CoV you could not play a Tanker on redside or a Brute on blueside. That meant that their core mechanics could be quite similar without any conflict. The feeling of redundancy is, in part, because of these similarities. Redside ATs were introduced after blueside, which is why they are often better designed than the originals. That being said, CoH has become a game of nuanced differences, and I would agree that this set fills a nuanced niche that is separate from Tankers, Brutes, and Sentinels.

[Kimuji]

6 hours ago, ZeeHero said:

Backwards thinking. the Sentinel is a great idea. However giving it aggro management can cause issues. Sturdy ranged characters are fine. ones which can hold threat reliably.. theres an argument against that. So, in short, ranged characters should not be AS invincible as tankers... but they sure as hell can be as tough as scrappers or so.

Balance isn't backward thinking. There's a reason why Sentinels never were an official AT, they don't really have a spot in a team's synergy. If you increase their damage they'll make Blasters obsolete, if you increase they defenses they become bad tanks (poor aggro and crowd control management).

But they're now so they're gonna stay, we're not going to erase players' characters. But what we can do however is not double down on this and make another AT based on the same flawed principle.

52 minutes ago, Zepp said:

That being said, CoH has become a game of nuanced differences, and I would agree that this set fills a nuanced niche that is separate from Tankers, Brutes, and Sentinels.

A niche that is not, and never really was, needed.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Kimuji

[Zepp]

There are basically three roles in RPGs: Support, Tank, and DPS. CoH has:

 

Support:

Controller

Defender

Dominator

Mastermind* (pretty close to DPS)

 

Tank:

Brute

Sentinel* (pretty close to DPS)

Tanker

 

DPS:

Blaster

Corruptor

Scrapper* (pretty close to tank)

Stalker

 

There are currently fewer Tank ATs than the other two. Tanks have two roles, damage absorption and herding. Tankers and Brutes are more focused on aggro management, whereas Sentinel is more focused on damage absorption. The current proposal would involve another damage absorption model that is significantly different from current ATs.

 

Now, Kimuji, I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that you are only perceiving this from a limited perspective, focusing on one specific playstyle and one specific narrow definition of roles. CoH simply is not that game. If you are worried about ranged tanks being unable to herd, that is because it is not their role. Just as it is not the role of a Stalker to stand in the fray with scrapperlock and be semi-tankish. Each AT fits a specified role while also overflowing to the other two roles to greater or lesser extent. This means that no specific AT has a specific job, they all can work together to improve each other while defining their own role and playing to their strengths. But this game will never be as simple and narrow as some other RPGs are, and that is why it exists despite the odds.

Is Instigator T2 a good new AT? yes. Is it my favorite? no. But would I endorse it if it won the great AT battle and became the players choice for implementation? Definitely.

[Haijinx]

Maybe you could just add some carefully balanced Assault/   sets as Sentinel primaries.

 

You could get much of the same flavor without adding a new AT.  

 

 

[Kimuji]

2 hours ago, Zepp said:

Now, Kimuji, I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that you are only perceiving this from a limited perspective, focusing on one specific playstyle and one specific narrow definition of roles. CoH simply is not that game. If you are worried about ranged tanks being unable to herd, that is because it is not their role. Just as it is not the role of a Stalker to stand in the fray with scrapperlock and be semi-tankish. Each AT fits a specified role while also overflowing to the other two roles to greater or lesser extent. This means that no specific AT has a specific job, they all can work together to improve each other while defining their own role and playing to their strengths. But this game will never be as simple and narrow as some other RPGs are, and that is why it exists despite the odds.

 

Is Instigator T2 a good new AT? yes. Is it my favorite? no. But would I endorse it if it won the great AT battle and became the players choice for implementation? Definitely.

You're not seeing the big picture.

Have you read the "Addressing the Tanker/Brute conundrum" thread? You'll see plenty of suggestions to nerf Brutes tanking capabilities. Some want to reduce their damage resitance cap, some want to remove the taunt effect on their attacks. This is madness.

People are already mad because they feel like Brutes are stealing the Tankers spot (which is nonesense because Brutes were meant to be tanks from the start). Now imagine adding another Tanking AT type on top of this. It's going to be a mess of epic proportions.
 

Quote

 

Maybe you could just add some carefully balanced Assault/   sets as Sentinel primaries.

 

You could get much of the same flavor without adding a new AT.  

 

This is something I could get behind. I'd even think that you might toss a taunt effect to some of the sentinel attacks.
So, Assault Sets made available to sentinels, a taunt effect on a few selected attacks and I'd leave it at that.

Sentinel would get a new flavor, a bit more purpose in a team and we save us the headache of having to balance Tankers and Brutes with a new tanking AT.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Kimuji

[Steampunkette]

6 hours ago, Zepp said:

There are basically three roles in RPGs: Support, Tank, and DPS. CoH has:

 

Support:

Controller

Defender

Dominator

Mastermind* (pretty close to DPS)

 

Tank:

Brute

Sentinel* (pretty close to DPS)

Tanker

 

DPS:

Blaster

Corruptor

Scrapper* (pretty close to tank)

Stalker

 

So... Kind of.

 

I wanna clarify that before WoW came along with it's "Holy Trinity" and kind of made that the standard there was, in fact, a four-role design setup with Control as a fourth Role for parties, sort of based in D&D Thinking with Cleric-Support, Wizard-Control, Fighter-Tank, Rogue-DPS mentality.  CoH was built on -that- design mentality. In fact Everquest had a total of SIX roles, though some of those roles were handled by the same class. Tank, Healer, DPS, Crowd Control, Utility, and Puller. Bards were all about that CC and Utility, baby! 

 

Control is not a Support Role. Control is Absolute Mitigation where Support is Partial Mitigation. In Support you make people take less damage or restore HP to mitigate what is coming by a percentage. Control just -stops- damage. It's almost closer to Tanking than Support.

 

I fully endorse and support the rest of your post (See what I did there?)

 

6 hours ago, Kimuji said:

You're not seeing the big picture.

Have you read the "Addressing the Tanker/Brute conundrum" thread? You'll see plenty of suggestions to nerf Brutes tanking capabilities. Some want to reduce their damage resitance cap, some want to remove the taunt effect on their attacks. This is madness.

People are already mad because they feel like Brutes are stealing the Tankers spot (which is nonesense because Brutes were meant to be tanks from the start). Now imagine adding another Tanking AT type on top of this. It's going to be a mess of epic proportions.

If we stop making any AT 'til all those people are happy we won't ever make another AT.

 

And no. I don't think it'll make a mess of Epic Proportions because the suggestion is a whole other kind of tank. One that -doesn't- have the same levels of amazing resistances and damage-buffing possibilities as the Brute. It'd be a different tank that is interesting but likely weaker, in end-game content, than the Tanker is. (Slightly better damage because their base is higher, but worse survivability, rather than better damage and equal survivability)

 

6 hours ago, Kimuji said:

This is something I could get behind. I'd even think that you might toss a taunt effect to some of the sentinel attacks.
So, Assault Sets made available to sentinels, a taunt effect on a few selected attacks and I'd leave it at that.

Sentinel would get a new flavor, a bit more purpose in a team and we save us the headache of having to balance Tankers and Brutes with a new tanking AT.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if the Sentinel had Assault Sets. I'd play the heck out of an Assault Sentinel...

 

But it wouldn't be an Instigator. Even if you tossed a couple of Taunt effects on it's attack powers. It wouldn't have the survivability to be a viable Instigator style thing. If Assault Sets were proliferated, it would have to be as a straight DPS style port, not a Tank port.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Steampunkette

[Some Random User]

7 hours ago, Haijinx said:

Maybe you could just add some carefully balanced Assault/   sets as Sentinel primaries.

 

You could get much of the same flavor without adding a new AT.

I agree.

[Zepp]

I actually do not like the concept of the holy trinity, it is just one lens to see things through.

 

If you expand it out you have multiple roles: information gathering, movement CC, attack mitigation CC, buff, debuff, heal, aggro-based herding, aggro-based mitigation, position-based mitigation, melee single target dps, melee multi-target dps, ranged single target dps, ranged multi-target dps, melee single target burst damage, melee multi-target burst damage, ranged single target burst damage, ranged multi-target burst damage, and probably some others I can't remember atm. D&D is another simplified lens, and each class had multiple roles.

 

CoH has basically five game modes: solo normal content, team normal content, solo high-end content, team high-end content, and PvP. Now, what the specific roles you choose to play do not matter much for solo and team normal content. For high-end content, CC is often out the window and you want to make sure you have sufficient coverage of all the roles, but you do not necessarily have to have specific ATs doing specific jobs. PvP content I will not comment on, because I basically don't care about it, so I couldn't give you a meaningful analysis of the needs of a PvP team. That being said, 40% of the game requires each AT to be sufficiently self-sufficient, 80% of the game requires that each AT have sufficient versatility to address at least four of the above-stated seventeen roles, and the other 20% I couldn't tell you about (but my guess is that it is similar to team high-end content except that aggro-based mitigation and herding become a lot less important and position-based mitigation and CC-based herding become more important).

[ShogunGunshow]

I too have desired the chance to put Assaults on a primary, simply because I have characters where it fits that they can duke it out in range and melee.

 

Designing an AT around the concept, though, is somewhat problematic. Ideally, you'd like the fact that you have this mixed bag of melee and ranged abilities to influence your gameplay. So often with my Dominators, the fact that I have ranged attacks turns out to be kind of irrelevant, because I'm spamming them in melee anyway.

 

I try to imagine passives addressing this. Coming up with one that isn't overly dictatorial, however, is a challenge. 

[Steampunkette]

4 hours ago, ShogunGunshow said:

I too have desired the chance to put Assaults on a primary, simply because I have characters where it fits that they can duke it out in range and melee.

 

Designing an AT around the concept, though, is somewhat problematic. Ideally, you'd like the fact that you have this mixed bag of melee and ranged abilities to influence your gameplay. So often with my Dominators, the fact that I have ranged attacks turns out to be kind of irrelevant, because I'm spamming them in melee anyway.

 

I try to imagine passives addressing this. Coming up with one that isn't overly dictatorial, however, is a challenge. 

It's a frustrating thing, yeah. You either create a "See Saw" passive ability which increases melee damage when you make ranged attacks and ranged damage when you make melee attacks (Which has to be included power by power across every assault set since there's no "Melee Damage" or "Ranged Damage" function of the character) but that rewards cycling powers, not moving at range, and you're back to "Standing in melee, firing ranged attacks"

 

You could add a Distance function to ranged attacks in the same way Savage Leap has, where longer range deals more damage, but that's liable to just make a weak blaster type who uses melee only when enemies get close... and still has to be coded on a power-by-power basis plus it makes the Real Numbers less visible.

 

Part of why I went for purely tanking mechanics in this version of the Instigator. It doesn't declare you need to be X yards from your target or bounce between melee and range. Enemies -will- close. You'll get the chance to use melee, and then need to create separation for increased survivability. It puts half the movement onus on NPCs and lets the player do the other half.

[ZeeHero]

Tanks dont have 2 roles. they have 3. the 3rd being damage which is a role of every AT becuase damage is the most basic gameplay mechanic without it nothing ever gets done. DPSy ATs are of course expected to output significantly more. this is why tankers should not be doing less than half the damage of an AT which takes damage nearly as well- the overpowered brute.

[Steampunkette]

46 minutes ago, ZeeHero said:

Tanks dont have 2 roles. they have 3. the 3rd being damage which is a role of every AT becuase damage is the most basic gameplay mechanic without it nothing ever gets done. DPSy ATs are of course expected to output significantly more. this is why tankers should not be doing less than half the damage of an AT which takes damage nearly as well- the overpowered brute.

...

On 8/21/2019 at 8:35 AM, Steampunkette said:

This is not a "Tanking is Broken!" thread. This is an AT Suggestion.

 

[ZeeHero]

2 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:

...

 

lol I was making a general point which applies to every AT tankers included.