Quote:
It is a buff, yes. It's not enough to compensate for the introduction of Brutes to the everyday hero life.|
Originally Posted by JulioThom70
Starsman, this is a net buff to Tankers
|
Also:
Quote:
| With the HP buff, they are THE toughest AT in the Game. |
Quote:
| Bruising helps increase soloing speed and is a force multiplier on a team. |
Let's assume a tanker can keep bruise 100% of the time in a foe, so every single hit by his allies is amplified by a full 20%, and no one ever hits an unbruised foe (this means just pure ST fights and the tanker always being the first to hit and not miss.)
To keep things simple, lets imagine a team of one tank and all scrappers, compared to pure scrappers (we could do the same with blasters or any other AT but I picked scrapers just for simplicity)
Code:
1 01.9 02.4 -20.6% 2 04.7 04.7 -0.3% 3 07.5 07.1 06.5% 4 10.4 09.4 09.8% 5 13.2 11.8 11.9% 6 16.0 14.1 13.2% 7 18.9 16.5 14.2% 8 21.7 18.9 14.9%
If there are brutes in the fight, unless you spam taunt (and pray none of the brutes is doing it too), you will not hold aggro from the brutes, so you are there just dpsing and bruising. Would you consider, 15% more dps during AV fights, reason enough to make tankers better support ATs than:
Controllers
Dominators
Defenders
Masterminds
Corruptors
Specially since almost all of the above (exception being dominators, who can push a lot of damage) can bring insanely stronger damage buffing to the team?
Bruising is good, I wont deny it. But it wont make you even the second best option support AT. If it applied to all Gauntlet effects, making it AoE, then perhaps things would be different, but it seems the devs intentionally don't want this (not to mention it would amplify FURTHER the redundancy of a second tanker.)
Quote:
| Brutes don't make Tankers obsolete. Scrankers? Yes. Tankers? No way. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Castle
Taunt is not "mandatory" for Tankers and nothing in this change makes it so. A Tanker is not meant to be 100% effective as an aggro magnet, just as a controller is not meant to be 100% effective as Crowd Control. The fact that these AT's come as close as they do is pretty darn cool, though, don't you think? Super even.
|
So the fact that brutes will steal aggro constantly from tanks seems to be "meant to be."
Off course, when Controllers cant be 100% effective at Crowd Control they still can be insane power multipliers thanks to their buffing secondaries that have no stacking restrictions, but that's a point for another to argue.
Oh but all this goes to this:
Quote:
| Brutes don't need Tankers to tank for them. Tankers are supposed to protect "squishies". Brutes are far from squishy. |
Finally: If tankers are only meant to protect the "squishies" (and I heavily disagree with the point,) then you are further narrowing it's team utility to a point where the tanker is even less useful of a support AT, making tankers even less useful for a team that is not composed of pure blasters.
Edit to add:
I already posted a lot on this, I have nothing new to say. Just posting my opinion in the open forums. You disagree? Then enjoy the game.
Quote:
You could cap it but you would also have to prevent the tank from being able to use bruise again until the previous bruise expired. So let's say Bruise lands, you could not bruise a secondary target for another 10 seconds.|
Originally Posted by Rajani Isa
I don't know if they could cap it, but it would be possible to make a "barely stacking" bruising - basically using the same tricks as front loaded auras. I have no idea of how cludgy this would end up being, however.
|
This would open the doors to set a cap of, lets say, 3 stacks of bruise. Anything higher than 3 stacks would fall into the "way too much" territory.
Now, if all tankers would have bonus damage against bruised foes, making a second tanker take extra advantage of another tanker's bruise... that would be a more controlled way of "stacking tanks."
I'm happy with Bruise as it is doing the effect of what gauntlets will, knuckle dusters etc and give npcs a bit more of a realistic reason for being annoyed and attacking the Tanker.
As for the Tanker being the worst AT, the extra HP will help to ensure Tankers stand out better at their task than a Brute does. One thing holding Brutes in general from taking over a Tankers role is the many players and their Scrapper playstyle/Tanking flexibility. Brutes on average shouldn't be as reliable. Brutes shouldn't need to maintain initial aggro (alpha) to maintain fury.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
Brutes were also changed. They need much more time to build up fury, meaning an alpha is no longer enough.
|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
Brutes shouldn't need to maintain initial aggro (alpha) to maintain fury.
|
Isn't there a depreciation change of some sort? Is there a curve to that? I not been following Brute changes plus at work so can't spare oodles of time sifting.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
There is a "curve" change (the curve always existed it just kicked in at 90%.) The first chunk of fury may be faster to get (specifically, the fisrt 40-50%) but after this it starts to get slow to get past 60% (the point brutes tie up with scrappers in damage.) Given they will want to get there as fast as possible, they will still desire aggro for longer.|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
Isn't there a depreciation change of some sort? Is there a curve to that? I not been following Brute changes plus at work so can't spare oodles of time sifting.
|
In fact, the reason some people argue against improving tank aggro management in the beta forums (and the slip in this thread) is that brutes don't want the tanker stealing the possibility of them retaining as much aggro as they want without any effort (they seem to accept tankers using taunt to do it but they refuse to use taunt to get aggro off gauntlet.)
I honestly don't blame them, because fury generation from offense technically caps lower than fury generation from tanking.
I'll go on test later, take an alpha as a Brute, then see where I am with 5 secs of fury generation.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Just to say it, while it is not as nice as if the Bruising ability could stack, having two or more Tankers on the team means you can apply it to two or more targets at the same time. Not as useful for taking on AVs, but in a spawn with multiple Bosses it doubles the bonus.
The duration of Bruise is also effected by additional applications. So if you have two Tankers hitting the same target, they can either alternate using their Tier 1, each using it half as often, or make sure to keep enough duration going that they're covered if one misses.
I'm pretty sure that it would be possible to change it from:
20% debuff, not stackable from any source, to:
15% debuff, not stackable from any source PLUS
5% debuff, not stackable from the same source.
So it would still be 20% solo, but each additional Tanker hitting the same target could add another 5% debuffing.
Quote:
The one really good thing about the Bruise effect is that it ignores the purple patch, meaning it's always a 20% damage boost. This aporach would make the stackable segment be subject to purple patch degradation.|
Originally Posted by BlackSly
I'm pretty sure that it would be possible to change it from:
20% debuff, not stackable from any source, to: 15% debuff, not stackable from any source PLUS 5% debuff, not stackable from the same source. So it would still be 20% solo, but each additional Tanker hitting the same target could add another 5% debuffing. |
The max debuff I'd give a team of 8 tankers would be 60%. Anything after that may be "too much." I guess if the 5% stack-able was on top of the 20% instead of a portion of it, it would work nice (20% + 5%*8 = 60%)
Actually, perhaps if the T1 added this strong bruise, and every other tanker attack landed a -5% for CastTime + 1 seconds...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rowdy
Exactly what I was thinking Pilgrim. As of now, there's really no need to have more than one tanker on a team (sometimes not even one is needed). But here's some food for thought from Castle's perspective, suppose there was a team of say 8 tankers and this ability was stackable. Would their combined debuff be enough to make them easily able to take down the AV themselves? Exactly how powerful is a 120% resistance debuff? Of course, this is an extreme case.
|
Ever been to a Tanker Tuesday?
YMMV---IMO
Ice Ember
Quote:
LOL!|
Originally Posted by Ice_Ember
Ever been to a Tanker Tuesday?
|
I almost posted this exact comment when I saw that post.
In a nutshell, 8 tankers can and do kill anything they want to, and do it in good order.
Bruising just makes it ever-so-much better.
Outside of the lone AV fight, why would Tankers be fighting the same enemy unless they were in some epic e-peen match? If there are two Tankers in a team they should be fighting different enemies or of course they are going to be redundant.
Brutes are not the only other AT that can hold their ground against an AV either. Hell, a few of my Stalkers can do that, and that's ignoring whatever buffs I'm getting from being IN a team.
Quote:
Bruise is unresistable? I thought I saw in the notes at there that it is resistable. Or has that been changed?|
Originally Posted by Starsman
The one really good thing about the Bruise effect is that it ignores the purple patch, meaning it's always a 20% damage boost. This aporach would make the stackable segment be subject to purple patch degradation.
The max debuff I'd give a team of 8 tankers would be 60%. Anything after that may be "too much." I guess if the 5% stack-able was on top of the 20% instead of a portion of it, it would work nice (20% + 5%*8 = 60%) Actually, perhaps if the T1 added this strong bruise, and every other tanker attack landed a -5% for CastTime + 1 seconds... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ice_Ember
Ever been to a Tanker Tuesday?
|
Not sure what to say on the status of Brutes and Tanks. I asked this earlier, but anyone know if Brutes are getting their numbers changed in anyway? Still can't tell if they were or if those adjustments in resistance were kept.
*added*
Warkupo, the reason a lot of us are focusing on AVs with Bruising is that's where people and teams are going to notice it most. Sure, it will help solo and against bosses on a team, but players and teams may not notice them much. And while we don't need to min/max in this game, people still seem to do it and call "x" AT unneeded.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
It is resistible, but it ignores purple patch. Reason it ignores the purple patch is because it is a granted temp power that makes the target debuff himself, making the target (the critter himself) technically even level.|
Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
Bruise is unresistable? I thought I saw in the notes at there that it is resistable. Or has that been changed?
|
If the foe has resistance, though, the debuff will be resisted.
Keep in mind, though, that even when the foe has resistance you are still boosting your damage by 20%.
Quick example:
foe with 90% smashing resistance
A punch that does 100 points of damage will now do 10 points of damage.
The resistance will make the -resist -2%, making the foe 88% resist.
At this point the 100 point punch becomes 12 points, a 20% increase to what it would be without Bruise.
This is why I say it's a flat 20%* damage buff despite level.
*Attack chain changes can make the true impact of the buff less than 20%. In some early testing the worse situation still yield a 12% buff.
@Grey Pilgrim
I suppose I don't really consider AV's a big enough menace to be really concerned about them. Outside of a few TF's, I've never really gone up against an AV that I considered utterly challenging to defeat or requiring of some specialized tactic to take out. Once you get an AV by itself it isn't really challenging regardless of what your team composition is; You just attack it until it dies.
Where I notice deaths occurring is when the team is getting swarmed by MANY enemies at once. Without someone to manage the hoards, be it a Tanker, Controller, or well buffed team, the group is going to start having problems. So it's actually in general game play that I'm more interested in Tankers because that's where I feel their niche exists.
I DO think that some AT's can replace the "role" of a Tanker, just as a Tanker can replace the need for the other AT's. I don't see this as a problem. If a Tanker was MANDATORY for every team a lot of players wouldn't *get* anywhere and this would quickly turn into every other MMO I've played and dumped where the progress of your party often relied on having a specific class such as the Tank or the Healer.
All of this said, I rather doubt a team if normal players is going to notice that the Tanker is lowering the AV's resistance by 20% unless they already knew that the Tanker could do that. Just like when playing a defender, teams rarely realize you're the one making them awesome unless there's green numbers flying around their noggins.
Quote:
An unshameful truth if you're aren't generalizing all teams. People come from other games with how other games worked and then you can have people who for them, this is their first game, believing those from other games. I played for about a year before I woke up to a lot of crap, believe me there was plenty and needed to get out of that mindset. I seen posts where controllers and defenders said tankers are useless but worked it out, tankers are about as useless to them as they are to a tank.
|
Originally Posted by Warkupo
Just like when playing a defender, teams rarely realize you're the one making them awesome unless there's green numbers flying around their noggins.
|
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
I've said it a lot of times before, and I'll say it again (just noting it again as I don't expect you to know/remember my thoughts on the subject, Warkupo... or anyone for that matter, heh): one of the best things about CoX is that any combination of ATs can succeed, and no one AT is needed to complete any content. That's awesome, and I love it.|
Originally Posted by Warkupo
@Grey Pilgrim
I suppose I don't really consider AV's a big enough menace to be really concerned about them. Outside of a few TF's, I've never really gone up against an AV that I considered utterly challenging to defeat or requiring of some specialized tactic to take out. Once you get an AV by itself it isn't really challenging regardless of what your team composition is; You just attack it until it dies. Where I notice deaths occurring is when the team is getting swarmed by MANY enemies at once. Without someone to manage the hoards, be it a Tanker, Controller, or well buffed team, the group is going to start having problems. So it's actually in general game play that I'm more interested in Tankers because that's where I feel their niche exists. I DO think that some AT's can replace the "role" of a Tanker, just as a Tanker can replace the need for the other AT's. I don't see this as a problem. If a Tanker was MANDATORY for every team a lot of players wouldn't *get* anywhere and this would quickly turn into every other MMO I've played and dumped where the progress of your party often relied on having a specific class such as the Tank or the Healer. All of this said, I rather doubt a team if normal players is going to notice that the Tanker is lowering the AV's resistance by 20% unless they already knew that the Tanker could do that. Just like when playing a defender, teams rarely realize you're the one making them awesome unless there's green numbers flying around their noggins. |
Still, that doesn't stop the hordes of min/maxxers and doomcriers to say that "x" AT is better than another one, or that "x" AT is going to be utterly phased out with Going Rogue (like the devs would let that happen, heh). I have seen such posts on... just about every AT forum, ironically enough. So it's enough to make me think that it won't happen, just from that (if I didn't have other thoughts on the subject).
People seem to like pick on Tanks, though, and I do think it's arguable that Brutes and their shields are allowed to get too close to Tanks in survivability, while Tanks aren't really allowed to touch their offensive capabilities. Also, I can just hear the min/max crowd saying "'x' Brute can outdamage a tank and get to the same resist caps, might as well take them... who cares about bruising." Such reasoning would only get more strident and persuasive if you talk about having more than one Brute or Tank on a team.
So that's where my thoughts on Bruising comes from. I don't really envy Castle's analytical task in comparing Brutes, Tanks, and even Scrappers. They're all melee, they all have defenses, and they all overlap to some extent. Trying to balance the three and keep them unique is a tough chore, but I more than think the devs can do it. Bruising shows Castle and co's ability (once again) to make an interesting adjustment. Same thing for Fiery Embrace, really. He went with a cool change that is more difficult than anything most of us asked for, but it probably beter.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
I never said more than one tanker was useless, just not necessary; big difference there.|
Originally Posted by mauk2
LOL!
I almost posted this exact comment when I saw that post. In a nutshell, 8 tankers can and do kill anything they want to, and do it in good order. Bruising just makes it ever-so-much better. |
And of course, Tanker Tuesday is an exception.
Onto the topic though, if this thread is boiling down to Brutes stepping on the toes of Tanks come GR, than I honestly have no clue as to what can be done to avoid that. Best thing we all can do is to throw out suggestions and see what happens.
For me, I've always believed that tanks should have their aggro and target cap increased. We don't deal that much damage anyways, so why not let us hit more foes? That could be our way of "increased" damage. As for the aggro cap, it too could be our crutch. But as mentioned by someone earlier, Brutes would'nt be too fond of this; so in my regards. I give up!
*Walks Away*
- Im Not Talking Fast, You're Just Listening Slow.
- To Each His Own
I'm not going to deny that Brutes in CoH won't shift the dynamic. It can't help but do so. I'm still of the opinion that Brutes are what Tankers should have been in the first place. Having the iconic Super Strength Powerset on a Defense first AT was ludicrous from the start.
But Starsman, your point has its merits. Brutes are tough. Not Tanker tough, but tough. No one can fight the arguement is that a fully buffed Brute can replace a Tanker in most situations.
Still, Brutes aren't Tankers. Brutes don't grab aggro to help teammates. They selfishly grab aggro to SMASH! Plus, Brutes will face plant if they bite off more than they can chew. Much moreso than a Tanker would. Plus, Punchvoke makes Tankers better aggro magnets than Brutes in almost every case.
My 3 mains are a WS, an INV/EM Tanker and an SS/INV Brute. The Brute can rip through a room, but cannot handle spawns like my Tanker. It isn't even close. Maybe a /Stone Brute with Tough and Taunt can come close to a Tanker's toughness, but that's it.
Quote:
I'm curious to see what the new endgame brings for us. It may be that the challenges will call for greater survivability and need what Tankers can give more easily. I only hope this is the case, and not more instances like the end of the STF where you need to be well beyond the defense softcap and at the resist caps to take on Recluse fully buffed. Most tanks need inspirations or a little help to do that. I'm not sure what the midground is on that, but STF is not it.|
Originally Posted by JulioThom70
But Starsman, your point has its merits. Brutes are tough. Not Tanker tough, but tough. No one can fight the arguement is that a fully buffed Brute can replace a Tanker in most situations.
|
Quote:
| Still, Brutes aren't Tankers. Brutes don't grab aggro to help teammates. They selfishly grab aggro to SMASH! Plus, Brutes will face plant if they bite off more than they can chew. Much moreso than a Tanker would. Plus, Punchvoke makes Tankers better aggro magnets than Brutes in almost every case. |
Personally, I've always thought it ridiculous that every AT can get to the softcap, just like Tanks, and that Brutes were allowed to have their resist caps be the same as Tanks. And it's nothing against other ATs... I have a lot of non-Tank alts (and I'm keen on trying Brutes without being a villain). It just seems to make more sense for balance to portion things out differently.
But Castle made it clear a few months ago that he is living with everyone having the same defense softcap, and (if I'm reading notes right) the removal of changes to the Brute resist cap seems to indicate that is not going to happen. I'm not sure, though, as no one seems able to tell me what happened there. Grrr.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
The experimental change that was made (and cancelled) was a slight buff to Brute resist powers, but a reduction of their resist cap to 85%.|
Originally Posted by Grey Pilgrim
But Castle made it clear a few months ago that he is living with everyone having the same defense softcap, and (if I'm reading notes right) the removal of changes to the Brute resist cap seems to indicate that is not going to happen. I'm not sure, though, as no one seems able to tell me what happened there. Grrr.
|
So, in everyday solo play (outside of Granite) brutes would be more durable, but less durable than tanks in resist-buffing situations.
Again, that change is not going live; nothing has changed for brute survivability.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
With the buffs to Tanker, and the "re-balance" to Brutes, I feel they should be on more equal terms now. Before Brutes were simply numerically superior to both Scrappers and Tankers. I considered this to be a problem with the Brute AT rather than a deficiency in the Tanker AT, so I've never felt like Tankers were under-performing, just that Brutes were too powerful.
lalala
Quote:
Ummm...what? Controller AoEs are indeed limited to a maximum number of opponents.
|
Originally Posted by Warkupo
If I were to add one more buff to Tankers, it would be to increase their Aggro Cap from 17 enemies to something like 20 or 22. This is mostly to address the fact that AOE mez effects from controllers are not restricted to a maximum number of opponents, and that their limited radius is not sufficient in balancing out this fact. This is probably more of a problem with AOE's in general, however. |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[I had a long snarky rebuttal, but...meh. I'll keep playing having fun with my tanks all the same.]