The consequences of crossing over...
By
Adelie,
Posted on: 2009-07-17 16:44 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You write as if Tankers are somehow in need of buffing for buffing's sake. I stopped reading at that point.
[/ QUOTE ]
compared to brutes,
[/ QUOTE ]They're not brutes. They're tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point. Tankers hit for significantly less compared to brute than they gain in damage mitigation over brutes.
Tankers have a 25% damage mitigation gain over brutes but with brute's fury only at 50%, a brute has a 29% damage advantage. At 90% fury it's going to be 44.5% damage advantage.
As I said the damage vs damage mitigation doesn't quite balance out here and setting up a Tanker damage buff scale that increases the more they are hit would balance this. Ideally at 50% and 90% of each bar, tankers would maintain their 25% mitigation and brutes would maintain their 25% damage bonus.
[ QUOTE ]
You miss the point. Tankers hit for significantly less compared to brute than they gain in damage mitigation over brutes.
Tankers have a 25% damage mitigation gain over brutes but with brute's fury only at 50%, a brute has a 29% damage advantage. At 90% fury it's going to be 44.5% damage advantage.
As I said the damage vs damage mitigation doesn't quite balance out here and setting up a Tanker damage buff scale that increases the more they are hit would balance this. Ideally at 50% and 90% of each bar, tankers would maintain their 25% mitigation and brutes would maintain their 25% damage bonus.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, if you're going off of base numbers rather than buffed numbers, the Tanker is actually going to start off with an innate survivability adavantage simply because Tankers start off with 25% more hit points which, when increased by their 25% greater innate mitigation, actually maintains the survivability to damage advantage when ignoring outside buffs.
Now, when you actually bring in outside buffs, Tankers lose out rather quickly because, thanks to their caps, Brutes are capable of getting huge quantities of damage and easily closing the gap where survivability is concerned because they have such a huge +dam cap (750%) and the same survivability caps as Tankers. Normally, Tankers don't get much benefit from survivability buffs mainly because they've already got such substantial survivability buffs on their own and there isn't much point to increasing their damage because their +dam cap is only 300% and it's pretty normal for a third of that to be already in the hands of the Tanker thanks to simple slotting.
Brutes are not imbalanced when it comes to basic solo functionality (except where compared to Scrappers wherein they maintain virtually identical damage while maintaining a significant survivability advantage thanks to the insurmountable issue of higher base hit points). Brutes only become noticeably imbalanced when their caps are actually considered because they're capable of overshadowing or equalling both Scrappers and Tankers in every single way at the same time.
[ QUOTE ]
Either way, I've never really seen a problem between the two of them. Stalkers get more ST damage, control, and control over damage variability, but lose AoE damage and survivability. None of those values are particularly large compared to what it is opposed by, so it's balanced quite well, especially considering the near direct comparison of powersets.
[/ QUOTE ]
So we're in agreement. There is really nothing wrong with Stalkers. With Going Rogue, I doubt their team spot will be in any more danger than it is now vs Brutes.
It's a shame that more players don't make Stalkers though. They really do have quite a unique playstyle from the other melees and vs AVs, their crit rate can make them quite the dmg dealers on full teams.
[ QUOTE ]
So we're in agreement. There is really nothing wrong with Stalkers. With Going Rogue, I doubt their team spot will be in any more danger than it is now vs Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I believe that Stalkers are pretty much the villain versions of Scrappers. However, one of the big reasons that there are so few Stalkers is because, overall, Stalkers are rather easily overshadowed by Brutes, which are capable of equivalent or near equivalent ST damage, better AoE damage, better team utility, and vastly superior survivability. All without a need to tactically approach each fight (and don't try to dispute it; Brute "tactics" are run in, beat face, move on to next group; Stalkers have to actually choose specific targets and prioritize in a much more significant manner).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stalker - Assassination - not so much the inherent but more of the base survivability of the AT here. It's a pretty sick joke to give them blaster base hp and hp cap and then give them regeneration as secondary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why even comment if you're not going to talk about the inherent?
The reason Stalkers have less HP is to balance the fact they have passive stealth, less aggro grabbing abilities and higher critical hit potential. Seriously, they have 2x the crit chance of scrapper with the potential to ramp it up to over 6x the crit chance on teams plus 1-2 controlled crits as well. 50% crit chance on AoEs already cements the fact that Stalkers trade HP for crits. It's a fine trade IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
The HP cap is way too low for a melee AT with access to HP buffs. It only takes 33.33% of an HP buff to cap off stalkers and then they are given a set that has a heal slottable power that gives 40% hp buff at base value. Also keep in mind regen's effectiveness is directly related to base hp.
Scrappers (80% hp buff needed to cap)
base hp: 1338.63
hp cap: 2409.53
Stalkers (33.33% hp buff needed to cap)
base hp: 1204.76
hp cap: 1606.35
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes are not imbalanced when it comes to basic solo functionality (except where compared to Scrappers wherein they maintain virtually identical damage while maintaining a significant survivability advantage thanks to the insurmountable issue of higher base hit points). Brutes only become noticeably imbalanced when their caps are actually considered because they're capable of overshadowing or equalling both Scrappers and Brutes in every single way at the same time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I always thought Brutes were a bit too much. With their good mitigation caps, their higher than anyone else's damage caps plus the ability to boost their damage to nearly scrapper levels with a little work. They simply have to deal with the annoying bar pushing them on and on.
I wouldn't suggest nerfing Brutes, per se. But they need a disadvantage and I think it should be that bar. A blessing and a curse. If I were thinking of changes, I'd give certain abilities -fury debuffs that either directly lower fury or slows down it's generation or speeds up its decay. You could link it to certain debuffs or controls or whatever would be balanced...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stalker - Assassination - not so much the inherent but more of the base survivability of the AT here. It's a pretty sick joke to give them blaster base hp and hp cap and then give them regeneration as secondary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why even comment if you're not going to talk about the inherent?
The reason Stalkers have less HP is to balance the fact they have passive stealth, less aggro grabbing abilities and higher critical hit potential. Seriously, they have 2x the crit chance of scrapper with the potential to ramp it up to over 6x the crit chance on teams plus 1-2 controlled crits as well. 50% crit chance on AoEs already cements the fact that Stalkers trade HP for crits. It's a fine trade IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
The HP cap is way too low for a melee AT with access to HP buffs. It only takes 33.33% of an HP buff to cap off stalkers and then they are given a set that has a heal slottable power that gives 40% hp buff at base value. Also keep in mind regen's effectiveness is directly related to base hp.
Scrappers (80% hp buff needed to cap)
base hp: 1338.63
hp cap: 2409.53
Stalkers (33.33% hp buff needed to cap)
base hp: 1204.76
hp cap: 1606.35
[/ QUOTE ]
That's an issue of intra-AT balance. Stalkers are fine. Stalker Regen and Willpower are fine. The issue is Stalker Ninjutsu/Super Reflexes vs. Dark Armor/Elec armor.
Even with the limited HP cap, willpower and regen still perform well. Their max effectiveness was decreased with the base changes but they are still among the better sets the AT offers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You write as if Tankers are somehow in need of buffing for buffing's sake. I stopped reading at that point.
[/ QUOTE ]
compared to brutes,
[/ QUOTE ]They're not brutes. They're tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point.
[/ QUOTE ]No, I don't. I just know you're the kind of player who thinks of your way of playing as better than other people's method of playing, and that in time, as they get better, eventually, everyone will come to agree with you.
If the devs genuinely feel that tankers need a global buff, that tankers were somehow underperforming, they'd have done something in the, oh, say, past two years. But like every other DPS-measuring, resist-tracking, XP/min goggle-eyed forumite mantra-ing to yourself the short, pithy phrases that make perfectly good sense in a vacuum but fail to take into account other people's play styles being completely different.
I love my tankers the way they are. If they get more damage, if they get buffed, some way or other, I'll quietly shrug to myself and roll my eyes and wonder what the [censored] that was about, but accept that more than just myself was taken into account with that change. On the other hand, when they don't get a damage buff, when they don't receive sweeping changes to somehow 'make parity' with Brutes that they don't seem to actually need based on some arbitary thought process that one inherent is 'better' than the other and that fails to take into account that the individual elements that make up an archetype are not balanced against one another, I will sit back and continue playing with gauntlet, enjoying it, noticing it, and glad I have it, wondering what the hell people who don't seem to think such a creature is visible are talking about.
I don't want my tankers to be brutes. And I don't think there's a point ever trying to explain to the players like yourself as to why. I just had fun writing a big bombastic post that I'll read again and giggle to myself, then wonder why the [censored] I bothered. I blame Tim Minchin.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You miss the point. Tankers hit for significantly less compared to brute than they gain in damage mitigation over brutes.
Tankers have a 25% damage mitigation gain over brutes but with brute's fury only at 50%, a brute has a 29% damage advantage. At 90% fury it's going to be 44.5% damage advantage.
As I said the damage vs damage mitigation doesn't quite balance out here and setting up a Tanker damage buff scale that increases the more they are hit would balance this. Ideally at 50% and 90% of each bar, tankers would maintain their 25% mitigation and brutes would maintain their 25% damage bonus.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, if you're going off of base numbers rather than buffed numbers, the Tanker is actually going to start off with an innate survivability adavantage simply because Tankers start off with 25% more hit points which, when increased by their 25% greater innate mitigation, actually maintains the survivability to damage advantage when ignoring outside buffs.
Now, when you actually bring in outside buffs, Tankers lose out rather quickly because, thanks to their caps, Brutes are capable of getting huge quantities of damage and easily closing the gap where survivability is concerned because they have such a huge +dam cap (750%) and the same survivability caps as Tankers. Normally, Tankers don't get much benefit from survivability buffs mainly because they've already got such substantial survivability buffs on their own and there isn't much point to increasing their damage because their +dam cap is only 300% and it's pretty normal for a third of that to be already in the hands of the Tanker thanks to simple slotting.
Brutes are not imbalanced when it comes to basic solo functionality (except where compared to Scrappers wherein they maintain virtually identical damage while maintaining a significant survivability advantage thanks to the insurmountable issue of higher base hit points). Brutes only become noticeably imbalanced when their caps are actually considered because they're capable of overshadowing or equalling both Scrappers and Brutes in every single way at the same time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was avoiding talking about a fully buffed brute since that's a highly uncommon scenario.
The Equilibrium point where tankers have 25% mitigation advantage and brutes only have 25% damage advantage is at 42% fury. Having a brute regularly above that 42% mark is very common though and tankers should get some kind of scale to not let their damage lag too far behind the more foes they fight.
[ QUOTE ]
I was avoiding talking about a fully buffed brute since that's a highly uncommon scenario.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a debatable issue, though not really within the purview of this discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
The Equilibrium point where tankers have 25% mitigation advantage and brutes only have 25% damage advantage is at 42% fury. Having a brute regularly above that 42% mark is very common though and tankers should get some kind of scale to not let their damage lag too far behind the more foes they fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
The point that you're missing is that you're consistently missing the fact that not only do Tankers have a 25% damage mitigation advantage from having a higher modifier for their defensive sets, they've also got 25% higher base hit points which gives them a further 25% survivability advantage beyond that suggested by their resistance and defense values. Thanks to their higher base hit points, Tankers actually have 56.25% higher survivability than an unbuffed Brute which means that a Brute would need to maintain that much more damage in order to maintain that level of balance.
If you assume basic slotting (95% +dam from enhancements), this means that a Tanker would have a 1.6575 damage scalar and that a Brute would need a 2.5898 damage scalar in order to generate equivalency. Starting from their .75 damage scalar, that means that a Brute would need to maintain 245% +dam in order to maintain equivalence. With 95% from slotting, that leaves 150% +dam that needs to be made up from Fury, which would be at the nominally sustainable 75% Fury. That's equivalent, assuming that survivability and damage are judged with equal weight.
[ QUOTE ]
The Equilibrium point where tankers have 25% mitigation advantage...
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's an example of invulnerability with resists only, since defense isn't static. 56% enhancement.
Unbuffed @ level 50:
Tankers withstand 1875hp in damage
Brutes withstand 1500hp in damage (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Invuln @ 50, resists only:
Tankers, 70.2% res, withstand 6292hp in damage
Brutes, 52.65% res, withstand 3168hp in damage
Invuln @ 50 with tough, resists only:
Tankers, 90% res, withstand 18750hp in damage
Brutes, 70.2% res, withstand 5034hp in damage
Differences in defense only magnify the gap. The 25% difference in numerical values for defensive powers does not translate into 25% more survivability. While the other damage types aren't quite as pronounced as S/L, withstanding over 300% the S/L damage is hard to mistake as only 25% more. Invuln tankers are only about 25% more survivable than brutes during the duration of unstoppable (edit: when brutes invest in more slots in the power), before defense is counted. Oh, the absolute horror!
Willpower is closer, as regeneration and healing values aren't different between the ATs, and only change by HP, and IOs blur the line quite a lot. None of that allows fur such dismissal for the massive survivability differences the two ATs can witness.
[ QUOTE ]
Differences in defense only magnify the gap. The 25% difference in numerical values for defensive powers does not translate into 25% more survivability.
[/ QUOTE ]
This can't be stressed enough.
Also, tankers have 33% more resists/defense than brutes at base (brutes have 25% less than tankers).
I like the increased aggro abilities of a Tanker, very noticeable to a Fire/Fire blaster (tankers also die less; and when the brute who is tanking dies, guess who the baddies start shooting).
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
I have yet to find a Brute that would replace a Tank on my team assuming adequate player quality. I have yet to find a Tank that would replace a Brute on my team assuming adequate player quality.
Now... If you're asking Scrappers vs. Stalkers vs. Brutes... I don't see enough Stalkers that aren't played like idiots to really have a solid opinion. I'm not going to get into my thoughts on the matter mainly because they still won't sway me to say anything more to the question "What should I bring?" than "Whatever you want/have fun with."
:
The one... absolutely... horrifying... and painful consequence of crossing over (need more ellipses...) is that there will be no safe refuge from MMs.
Blue: ~Knockback Squad on Guardian~
Red: ~Undoing of Virtue on [3 guesses]~
[ QUOTE ]
The one... absolutely... horrifying... and painful consequence of crossing over (need more ellipses...) is that there will be no safe refuge from MMs.
[/ QUOTE ]
They'll be too busy soloing everything to care. 
I think the ability to set 8 man spawns in the new difficulty system will be the saving grace of Tankers. If you can set 8 man spawns, all the sudden Tankers look like a good soloing Archetype. I wouldn't mind seeing Tankers get Defiance 1.0, or perhaps some kind of damage boost based on how many enemies are aggroed on them though. And Brutes shouldn't be nerfed. There's simply no need. The times when they are buffed into overperformance are really pretty rare in game.
The real problem as I see it with GR is redside population. People will largely leave redside not because it is an inferior gaming experience (it's better designed mechanics-wise than blueside as we all know) but because:
-it's more fun for them to be a Hero
-system requirements on blue side are slightly lower (and therefore system performance is somewhat better)
-blueside is where they started. It's their "home".
-more zones (quantity over quality, but that's slowly changing with revamps)
-more TFs.
-better market.
-blue aesthetics preferred over red aesthetics.
Right now it's about 2:1 to 3:1 Hero:Villain. Post GR (a year or so after its launch), you'll probably be looking at 4:1 to 5:1. Or worse.
And PvP is a bit less fun (IMHO) when both sides are bringing exactly the same Archetypes.
The best comics are still 10�!
My City of Heroes Blog Freedom Feature Article: "Going Rageless?"
If you only read one guide this year, make it this one.
Super Reflexes: the Golden Fox of power sets!
WARNING: I bold names.
[ QUOTE ]
Biggest problem I could see for crossing over would be dealing with John Edwards. That guy is a d-bag.
[/ QUOTE ]
The biggest in the Universe, as a matter of fact.
"OK, first of all... Shut Up." - My 13-Year-Old Daughter
29973 "The Running of the Bulls" [SFMA] - WINNER of the Mighty Big Story Arc Contest !
- The Stellar Wind Orbital Space Platform
[ QUOTE ]
I think the ability to set 8 man spawns in the new difficulty system will be the saving grace of Tankers. If you can set 8 man spawns, all the sudden Tankers look like a good soloing Archetype. I wouldn't mind seeing Tankers get Defiance 1.0, or perhaps some kind of damage boost based on how many enemies are aggroed on them though. And Brutes shouldn't be nerfed. There's simply no need. The times when they are buffed into overperformance are really pretty rare in game.
The real problem as I see it with GR is redside population. People will largely leave redside not because it is an inferior gaming experience (it's better designed mechanics-wise than blueside as we all know) but because:
-it's more fun for them to be a Hero
-system requirements on blue side are slightly lower (and therefore system performance is somewhat better)
-blueside is where they started. It's their "home".
-more zones (quantity over quality, but that's slowly changing with revamps)
-more TFs.
-better market.
-blue aesthetics preferred over red aesthetics.
Right now it's about 2:1 to 3:1 Hero:Villain. Post GR (a year or so after its launch), you'll probably be looking at 4:1 to 5:1. Or worse.
And PvP is a bit less fun (IMHO) when both sides are bringing exactly the same Archetypes.
[/ QUOTE ]
All i have to say is "So be it". Let players play the chars they want and where they want. Things will get sorted out and we will see if there are really any issues with that outcome.
Let's wait and see what happens. Cross the bridge when we see it or something like that. Some people are overreacting right now in this thread i think.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
Every archtype has their own thing going for it that I think preserves its usefulness on its own.
Blasters/Corruptors/Controllers/Dominators/Defenders
Blasters are all offensive
Corruptors are offensive with some support
Controllers are mezzing with a support role
Dominators are mezzing with a more offensive role
Defenders are light on damage but great at support.
Each of those lends itself to a certain play style. Some people are all about damage. Some people are all about control. Some people are all about support. Then there are ways to blend those pretty well too.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well here's the problem. Corruptors aren't just "some support", they're close enough to Defenders in their effectiveness at support to seriously threaten to steal a Defender's group role.
I can tell you that my Dark/Rad Defender and Rad/Dark Corruptor play exactly the same. Really, the only noticeable difference is that my Corruptor deals a lot more damage. The difference in support effectiveness is as good as negligible. It's certainly not noticeable.
MrQuizzles hit the nail on the head for my concerns, its funny how this turned into a tanker discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Biggest problem I could see for crossing over would be dealing with John Edwards. That guy is a d-bag.
[/ QUOTE ]
The biggest in the Universe, as a matter of fact.
[/ QUOTE ]
And Nancy Grace. I would love to deck that woman in her jaw.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every archtype has their own thing going for it that I think preserves its usefulness on its own.
Blasters/Corruptors/Controllers/Dominators/Defenders
Blasters are all offensive
Corruptors are offensive with some support
Controllers are mezzing with a support role
Dominators are mezzing with a more offensive role
Defenders are light on damage but great at support.
Each of those lends itself to a certain play style. Some people are all about damage. Some people are all about control. Some people are all about support. Then there are ways to blend those pretty well too.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well here's the problem. Corruptors aren't just "some support", they're close enough to Defenders in their effectiveness at support to seriously threaten to steal a Defender's group role.
I can tell you that my Dark/Rad Defender and Rad/Dark Corruptor play exactly the same. Really, the only noticeable difference is that my Corruptor deals a lot more damage. The difference in support effectiveness is as good as negligible. It's certainly not noticeable.
[/ QUOTE ]
I second this from a Cold/Ice defender vs Ice/Cold corruptor perspective.
for what its worth, if they were doing a CoX 2.0, one of the things I would do, would be EVERYONE starting in the same newbie zone, and by say lvl 5 or so decide on which faction they want to join. Just to use an example here, Professor X and Magneto in their Newbie Days, teamed up, and for a time Magneto fought the good fight, it was only later that he discovered the power of the Red Side of the Force
[ QUOTE ]
it was only later that he discovered the power of the Red Side of the Force
[/ QUOTE ]
And then the Blue side, then the Red side again, then the Blue, then the Red but only faking as he was still Blue then really going Red in the end after the Redder guy made his not-quite-as-Red status safe again, depending on the writer that day.
Blue: ~Knockback Squad on Guardian~
Red: ~Undoing of Virtue on [3 guesses]~
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it was only later that he discovered the power of the Red Side of the Force
[/ QUOTE ]
And then the Blue side, then the Red side again, then the Blue, then the Red but only faking as he was still Blue then really going Red in the end after the Redder guy made his not-quite-as-Red status safe again, depending on the writer that day.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that guy is basically bipolar.
[ QUOTE ]
So you're pretty much just agreeing with what I said?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm agreeing with qualifications, like I do most of the time. Of course, that doesn't stop most people from reading the "agree" rather than the "qualifications" portion.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, point against Scrappers: I find they overkill-crit about as often as they don't so it's like half those crits aren't even on the radar. Stalkers on the other hand, often frontload a controlled crit to balance out those occasional overkill-crits. I won't even bring up the double assassin strike...
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I'd have to agree that the random chance crits for Scrappers are a bit of overkill, but not nearly so much as they are for Stalkers. Scrappers have a greater crit chance against harder targets, making the actual hp quantities smaller so that the chances for an overkill crit are actually significantly smaller. Stalkers simply have a crit rate that is roughly flat and only varies based on their teammates rather than their target so that they'll have the same higher crit rate against weaker foes, just as likely to get a crit on a minion (which are the primary generators of overkill crits simply because they have so little hp). Of course, this is mitigated substantially by a Stalker's ability to control crit capability to some degree thanks to Placate and attacking from stealth.
I guess the problem also arises insofar as Scrappers having larger crits (on an equal +dam basis) than Stalkers do simply by virtue of having a higher damage modifier which means that they have a larger range of hit points that generate "overkill crits" so, while a Stalker is more likely to have crits, those crits act upon a larger range of fully effective hp values.
Either way, I've never really seen a problem between the two of them. Stalkers get more ST damage, control, and control over damage variability, but lose AoE damage and survivability. None of those values are particularly large compared to what it is opposed by, so it's balanced quite well, especially considering the near direct comparison of powersets.