[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
JB finally wore you down... =]
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
From what I see, Starsman says Tankers' biggest problems are primarily endurance and grouping issues and I say that they're conceptual and role issues. Furthermore, I contend that the two former issues are valid, but are merely symptoms that can be cured by addressing the two latter issues.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
JB finally wore you down... =]
I have thoughts on your points but no time to reply, accept that I've had a lot of fun on teams with a second good tank, but that's anecdotal.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I had fun as a lone tank with 5 storm/energy defenders that seemed to just have Gale from their primary, but that's also anecdotal, not to mention just fun, not evidence that the setup was optimal or even balanced. 
[ QUOTE ]
i like how people seem to always skip over me when i post 
[ QUOTE ]
---keep the current taunt stuff in there
---60-80% reduction to end cost for all Tanker primary powers.
---add a bar that adds buffs to tanks based upon what they have aggrod:
0 aggrod = 49.99% damage buff
1 aggrod = 33.33% damage buff
2 aggrod = 16.66% damage buff
3 aggrod = n/a
4 aggrod = 3.33% buff to primary powers (kinda like power boost)
5 aggrod = 6.66% buff to pp
6 aggrod = 9.99% buff to pp
7 aggrod = 13.33%
8 aggrod = 16.65%
9 aggrod = 19.98%
[/ QUOTE ]
no one has anything to say about it?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think damage buffing Tankers across the board is needless and by and large will be dismissed by the devs (for a host of reasons, mostly AT balance related).
Certain Tanker sets could use a bump (Ice Melee) but that should be confined to those sets.
I don't think Endurance is a problem at all once you have Stamina (or Quick Recovery), at least no more than it's designed to be, and I think the Stamina debate is game-wide, it's not a Tanker issue.
[ QUOTE ]
i like how people seem to always skip over me when i post
[ QUOTE ]
---keep the current taunt stuff in there
---60-80% reduction to end cost for all Tanker primary powers.
---add a bar that adds buffs to tanks based upon what they have aggrod:
0 aggrod = 49.99% damage buff
1 aggrod = 33.33% damage buff
2 aggrod = 16.66% damage buff
3 aggrod = n/a
4 aggrod = 3.33% buff to primary powers (kinda like power boost)
5 aggrod = 6.66% buff to pp
6 aggrod = 9.99% buff to pp
7 aggrod = 13.33%
8 aggrod = 16.65%
9 aggrod = 19.98%
[/ QUOTE ]
no one has anything to say about it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Players love damage, so this would be seen as rewarding Tankers for not aggroing enemies.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Endurance is a problem at all once you have Stamina (or Quick Recovery), at least no more than it's designed to be, and I think the Stamina debate is game-wide, it's not a Tanker issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is fairly true.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Endurance is a problem at all once you have Stamina (or Quick Recovery), at least no more than it's designed to be, and I think the Stamina debate is game-wide, it's not a Tanker issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
The first time i heard some one say that tankers paid more end for their damage than they should, I smirked, shrug it aside and thought they were crazy, never bothered entering those conversations.
Then one day I saw Arcanaville, of all people, join THAT side of the topic. I figured she may had lost it and keept on walking.
But when the big A thinks there is numerical inbalance, well, something may actually be wrong so it always staid in the back of my head, until I decided to run some quick speed tests one day and found my tanker running out of end way more often than my scrapper. Figured it was all about Rage crashing, "ss is an end heavy set after all", but by the time I had done enough math to know that SS is actually very endurance efficient, how could that be... my math may had been wrong and I'd have to go check it again to make sure I was doing my damage analysis right... and then I saw how big of an impact lower damge modifiers had on actual endurance efficiency.
Yes, all ATs can have endurance issues, but the tanker is, on top of it all, the most endurance inefficient AT out there. I can fully see how anyone can think that's all bullocks since I thought the same at some point, but the most I look at the topic the more I'm convinced it's a significant issue, its just not easy to quantify so people simply start labeling sets End Heavy without realizing it's not the set, its the AT.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my last calculator, SS benchmarks 2.6 on endurance efficiency. Fire Melee 2.3 and the normal tanker 3.1. (lower numbers are better.)
The worst scrappers benchmarks at 2.3 with scrapper fire melee benchmarking at 1.8.
That is the sets on isolation, though, no armor toggles accounted for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Small correction ... SM is more end intensive then EM. EM is actually one of the better endurance efficient sets (mostly because of the long animation times of a few powers).
[/ QUOTE ]
You misread his statement. He wasn't saying energy melee is worse than stone. He' saying it's better than stone, as it uses less endurance for the damage it does.
Animation time and number of power selections has nothing to do with it, unless someone is using AEs while other attacks are recharging. Without using hurl, Stone is equally as endurance efficient as axe and mace, for example. Being able to attack faster does not affect damage per endurance, which is what you responded to.
Stone's reputation for being hard on endurance is only supported by those that lack the self-control to attack just as fast as every other set 
[ QUOTE ]
Animation time and number of power selections has nothing to do with it, unless someone is using AEs while other attacks are recharging.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFE
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my last calculator, SS benchmarks 2.6 on endurance efficiency. Fire Melee 2.3 and the normal tanker 3.1. (lower numbers are better.)
The worst scrappers benchmarks at 2.3 with scrapper fire melee benchmarking at 1.8.
That is the sets on isolation, though, no armor toggles accounted for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Small correction ... SM is more end intensive then EM. EM is actually one of the better endurance efficient sets (mostly because of the long animation times of a few powers).
[/ QUOTE ]
You misread his statement. He wasn't saying energy melee is worse than stone. He' saying it's better than stone, as it uses less endurance for the damage it does.
Animation time and number of power selections has nothing to do with it, unless someone is using AEs while other attacks are recharging. Without using hurl, Stone is equally as endurance efficient as axe and mace, for example. Being able to attack faster does not affect damage per endurance, which is what you responded to.
Stone's reputation for being hard on endurance is only supported by those that lack the self-control to attack just as fast as every other set
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, I did misread it (thanks). I thought he said "intensive" and he said "effective", which I will then say ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!?!??!
Super Strength one of the most endurance effective Tanker secondaries?! I think someone is underestimating the Rage crash (especially when coupled with Hasten crashes which many take)).
And animation times have everything to do endurance efficiency as they directly impact the time of the attack chain. Unless you're talking per power, which is meaningless in the context of actually playing the game.
And yes, every power is endurance efficient if you wait an hour between attacks (what a totally silly thing to say). 
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, every power is endurance efficient if you wait an hour between attacks (what a totally silly thing to say).
[/ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what endurance efficient means, do you?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, every power is endurance efficient if you wait an hour between attacks (what a totally silly thing to say).
[/ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what endurance efficient means, do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not in the context you seem to be using it in.
Endurance efficiency, practically speaking, means how much endurance you use per chain of attacks.
Not sure why you would calculate it for a single attack in a vacuum if that's what you're (or Starsman are) doing.
[ QUOTE ]
and then I saw how big of an impact lower damge modifiers had on actual endurance efficiency.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's just it- Tankers do less damage. This isn't an Endurance issue, it's just part of the Offense/Defense balance. Tankers use the same Endurance but their attacks do less damage. Scrappers use the same Endurance but their toggles/clicks give less defense.
And I'd argue that Defenders are even worse off. Yeah, they have powers available to them to deal with Endurance, but so do Tankers. More importantly, Defenders can't afford to slow down their attacks to recover a bit- if they let their guard down at all, they're faceplanted.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, every power is endurance efficient if you wait an hour between attacks (what a totally silly thing to say).
[/ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what endurance efficient means, do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not in the context you seem to be using it in.
Endurance efficiency, practically speaking, means how much endurance you use per chain of attacks.
Not sure why you would calculate it for a single attack in a vacuum if that's what you're (or Starsman are) doing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Damage/endurance, in any instance. An attack, an attack chain, an entire set.
If you kill a target faster than I do using the same amount of endurance, you're not less efficient, but that's how you're describing it.
[ QUOTE ]
Endurance efficiency, practically speaking, means how much endurance you use per chain of attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kruunch: They're saying how much damage you deal per point of endurance, DPE. Time isn't a factor. Let me give you an example:
A lvl50 Tanker will deal ~8.55 damage per end consumed for a single target attack. (A single target attack consumes 5.2 end per 1 damage scale. A Tank deals 44.488 dmg for a 1 scale attack, so 44.488 / 5.2 = 8.55 DPE.)
A lvl50 minion has ~430 hp. That means, in order to defeat that enemy, the Tanker has to consume 50.29 end. They could deal that damage in 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or 10 minutes, it will still cost 50.29 end to do (before slots; ~19.33 end w/3 dmg and 1 end reduc). Yes, if two sets were identical except for animation time, the one with faster animations would run out of end faster, but it would be a result of dealing more dps not being less efficient. It would pass the finish line sooner (if you finished the fight before running out of end) or near the same time (end constrained forcing you to deal damage no faster than the rate you recovered it).
To use an analogy, assume a car gets 20 miles to the gallon regardless of other conditions (speed, etc). If you have to drive 100 miles, that car will consume 5 gallons every time. They could drive that 100 miles in 1 hour, 2 hours, 2 days, etc, but it will still consume 5 gallons. The car's efficiency remained constant.
[ QUOTE ]
And I'd argue that Defenders are even worse off. Yeah, they have powers available to them to deal with Endurance, but so do Tankers. More importantly, Defenders can't afford to slow down their attacks to recover a bit- if they let their guard down at all, they're faceplanted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Vox: I agree. Not only that, those powers cost endurance and time to setup, so they aren't even free. I've yet to make a Defender that can solo as well as a Tank, better efficiency be damned. My example is Kin/Sonic. Massive damage, huge efficiency, near unlimited endurance, but man when things turn sour... (That's also a function of status protection, though.)
[ QUOTE ]
Damage/endurance, in any instance. An attack, an attack chain, an entire set.
If you kill a target faster than I do using the same amount of endurance, you're not less efficient, but that's how you're describing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You making my life easy today. 
Still feel forced to add:
Every attack by default should cost 5.2 end per DS of damage. This means once enhanced with 95% damage in SOs, they should cost 2.66 end per DS.
Some attacks have bonus damage as secondary effect (fire)
Other attacks have permanent damage bonuses that enhance your total damage without increasing cost (SS:Rage/DB:BF)
Other attacks have endurance discounts due to special situations or penalties (EM:ET)
These are the things that increase endurance efficiency. In the end, what matters is how much endurance it cost you to kill that target, the time may be inconsequential since burning too much endurance will force you to rest sooner.
On top of all this, tanker modifiers (.8) make it so that you actually pay 5.2 end per 8/10th of a DS, or 6.5 end per DS.
Scrappers, with 1.125 mods, actually end up paying 4.62 end Per final DS when you ignore criticals. 4.4 end against minions and 4.2 against everything else.
Sure but have the mobs get the same bonus. After all, they are being totally focused on taking out the threat that is taunting them so they also let go and do more damage.
Interesting idea. Still mulling it around in my head. I agree the focus should be on single target attacks.
Personally I still think that it shouldn't be an instant 20-25% damage to the target with the flag, or even the +30% mentioned for AVs/higher cons. I still think the damage should be ramped up the longer you fight against the flagged target as you " unleash" your might against the more difficult target. (again a pseudo rage "like" mechanic?) Maybe a +% damage buff per single target attack against the flagged target that's capped at 25% or so.
So according to Castle making the "tag" a personal thing is extremely hard to do, but would making it an AT specific thing be feasible? In that case two tanks attacking the same flagged target would get to the damage cap that much quicker and help maintain the +damage to the single target. It would give having a second tank on the team a nice plus.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
I think a point has been missed in all this math as well -
Taking longer to kill a target ALSO means that target has a lengthier opportunity to regenerate HP, thus adding another factor in the formula. This may not mean much to Minions and LTs, but it does have a noticable impact on Bosses and higher.
In other words, not only must you do more attacks to break down their original HP values, you must also add even MORE attacks to break through the HP they've regenerated in that additional time. I would hate to see the math on this one.
I believe a proposal was mentioned at one point (and thereafter extensively reviewed) of adding a -Regen modifier to enemies affected by Gauntlet regarding this issue.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would hate to see the math on this one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Geek out.
[/ QUOTE ]
*Dramatically removes monocle* Dear god...
I documented this on the spreadsheet but: the tiny "% of goal done by tank" should read 100% or close if tankers were actually balanced with scrappers.
Their Activity Window would also be much higher, the goal would be that the tanker can take longer in doing the same, not that both run out of endurance at the same time with the tanker staying behind.
I can force the tanker to slow down to 60% of his speed if so he can attempt the same feat (if he slots 33% end redux on all attacks AND toggles, so would the scrapper, off course) but at this point, although the tanker completed the same feat, he did it at 37% the killing speed.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would hate to see the math on this one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Geek out.
[/ QUOTE ]
*Dramatically removes monocle* Dear god...
[/ QUOTE ]
O.O And people say that I don't have a life...
On a more serious note, I want to congratulate and thank you for actually fishing up those numbers and providing the analysis. I must admit actually seeing for myself on paper that the average AV generates high-end Willpower Regen numbers is a shock, which I would relate to negating the DPS equivalent of one SO-build damage-secondary archetype for the duration of the entire battle.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, every power is endurance efficient if you wait an hour between attacks (what a totally silly thing to say).
[/ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what endurance efficient means, do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not in the context you seem to be using it in.
Endurance efficiency, practically speaking, means how much endurance you use per chain of attacks.
Not sure why you would calculate it for a single attack in a vacuum if that's what you're (or Starsman are) doing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Damage/endurance, in any instance. An attack, an attack chain, an entire set.
If you kill a target faster than I do using the same amount of endurance, you're not less efficient, but that's how you're describing it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah ok true. I was speaking on a more practical level with the way the game is played on average but you're correct, I'm not talking about endurance efficiency per point of damage, but endurance efficiency over time (or rather, end usage over time).
Sarrate: thanks for clarifying.
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
JB finally wore you down... =]
I have thoughts on your points but no time to reply, accept that I've had a lot of fun on teams with a second good tank, but that's anecdotal.