So I got a PM from Synapse about buffing Tankers

Talen Lee · 12-06-2011 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex

I think Tankers APPs should have included ally/team buffs and the AT should be decent third-hand force multipliers.

Okay. Now do it without taking any powers away, without adding any powers, and without changing the powers that currently exist to be better than the versions buff/debuff classes get.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Talen Lee · 12-06-2011 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarrate

The problem is the Brute can take over the Tanker's role and there isn't anything the Tanker can do about it.

So can the scrapper, the defender, the dominator, the corruptor, the mastermind and-

This is about how tanks don't have a unique role, right?

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

Tannim222 · 12-06-2011 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly

I like the idea but not the direct implementation of them casting buffs. It'd be nice if they had an aura that either redirected damage to themselves (perhaps not doable) or gave those close-by additional resistance (definitely doable). Then when you are close to the Tank, you are safe

Funny enough, Body Guard, where Tankers would absorb some of the damage directed toward nearby team mates was brought up my players here in the Tanker forums. It was later given to MMs.

Damage reflection has been brought up multiple times. We were first told it wasn't possible. Then we were told that it was possible but caused problems. I can't quite recall what exactly, but something about server side calulations, latency, etc...where it was too much to track what damage came from where, how much would be reflected, where that reflection went, how much was taken by the recipient. But I may be wrong on that.

If you notice, tanker APPs offer either hard control, soft control, ranged damage, or debuffs (well some self buffs to with one set).

I still content that Tankers or more akin to melee-trollers. It'd be interesting to see what they'd feel like to play if Gauntlet carried over the Tanker secondary effects from their attacks.

New Dawn · 12-06-2011 03:45 AM

I'm of the idea that this thread is about what people "wish" rather than "need". If a Dev decides on staying put then that's that, no point getting into a heated argument over it.

I respect a Controller can be superfluous at times casting powers unnecessarily because a Dominator has just made the situation even more controlled with something harder. I as a controller cast mass confuse at the sametime as a dominator casts glacier but atleast a Controller has back up and uses a secondary which will do what a Dominator can't. Masterminds still do awesome damage and extra buffs or debuffs don't go to too much waste.

Tankers on a single target, the toughest target, an AV, their ability to perform their role can be compromised and yet they're really not doing anything else that Brutes don't do better and a Scrapper would be better at doing damage in the Tankers place as far as things are concerned.

Maybe Tankers taunt should be increased, I mean why not, what harm could that do? Decreasing Widow, Scrapper or Brutes taunt = Harm so I am not advocating that but increasing Tankers I could live with, although autowinlike. It's only really with AVs I could end up thinking I should of brought my scrapper let alone brute.

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.

Netphenix5 · 12-06-2011 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly

I like the idea but not the direct implementation of them casting buffs. It'd be nice if they had an aura that either redirected damage to themselves (perhaps not doable) or gave those close-by additional resistance (definitely doable). Then when you are close to the Tank, you are safe

It's definitely doable - both Shield defense's Grant Cover and the Leadership-like buffs of the VEATs show that you can have such powers in "armor/defensive" sets - AKA a set that's mainly here to protect you but that could still give you options to protect others (as opposed to a buff set like FF where you're mainly protexting others and only incidentaly helping yourself)

I think Tankers could have one power per Primary that's unique to them and protects nearby teammates, the way Stalkers have specific versions of sets they share with other ATs. It would give them something NO ONE ELSE does, not just something they do "better than others". And personally, I'd rather have a "Paladin" Tanker than a merger of Tankers and Brutes, which is what I read Johnny_Butane's suggestions as amounting to.

Captain_Aegis · 12-06-2011 06:50 AM

Okay.

Leaving aside for a moment any talk of soloing GM's as a useful metric (and in the spirit of trying to keep things constructive); how much agreement is there on the following two suggestions:

- Increasing the Tanker damage cap to be slightly lower than the brute damage cap (thereby enabling, with an arbitrary number of buffs, both Brutes and Tanks to have similar defensive and offensive numbers, but Tanks to have slightly more HP and Brutes slightly more damage); I believe Johnny suggested 440% as a round figure (I haven't checked the maths myself)

- Slightly increase threat generation modifiers for Tanks to at the very least compensate for Brute higher damage (I'll leave discussion as to whether it should be equal or higher for another time).

I don't see either of these as especially game-breaking.

Quite honestly, the points raised on this thread only seem relevant in a very narrow category of cases anyway; namely, large, buff-heavy teams.

Thoughts?

Hopeling · 12-06-2011 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Aegis

how much agreement is there on the following two suggestions:

Based on the discussion from this thread, very little.

Johnny_Butane · 12-06-2011 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Aegis

more damage); I believe Johnny suggested 440% as a round figure (I haven't checked the maths myself)

One way I tried gave 480% (or rather 479.XXXXX IIRC). Another way came up with 508%.
Nobody with better math really commented.

Quote:

how much agreement is there on the following two suggestions:

I personally don't have an issue with increasing Tanker attack threat so they can pull from Brutes easier, so long as the aggro cap remains the same. But, if it negatively affects Brutes on teams because they can't generate Fury, it's just going to lead to them being buffed. Again.

.

BunnyAnomaly · 12-06-2011 07:18 AM

How about instead of trying to appease one person on a 4+ year crusade to get an Archetype he doesn't play, nor like even the concept of, changed... why don't we just let this whole thing die for the 50th time that JB has dragged it up.

Psiphon · 12-06-2011 07:55 AM

Hi All,

I've been reading this thread with interest and based on what I've seen I tend to side with Johnny Butane.

The reason is that people keep putting forward the argument that, "because Tankers have a damage secondary they aren't meant to deal alot of damage", now this is a fair point. However these same poeple appear to have no issue with ATs with a defence secondary getting close to Tank survivability.
So my question is "Where is the justification for Brutes and to a lesser degree Scrappers being able to deal alot of damage while being able to attain very good survivability while a Tank isn't allowed to build for damage?"
Aren't these simply similar AT's coming from opposite positions, building to cover their shortcomings and thus becoming more efficient?

L50s: Tanks: Cryofission - Ice/EM - Dr Celsius - Fire/Ice - Saint George - SD/SS | Controllers: Psichosis - Ill/Kin - Major Chaos - Ill/Stm | Scrappers - Neutron Crusader - DM/SR

Currently Levelling: Angelic Blade - BS/WP Scrapper | Seeds of Destruction - Plant/Kin Controller

Aett_Thorn · 12-06-2011 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psiphon

Hi All,

I've been reading this thread with interest and based on what I've seen I tend to side with Johnny Butane.

The reason is that people keep putting forward the argument that, "because Tankers have a damage secondary they aren't meant to deal alot of damage", now this is a fair point. However these same poeple appear to have no issue with ATs with a defence secondary getting close to Tank survivability.
So my question is "Where is the justification for Brutes and to a lesser degree Scrappers being able to deal alot of damage while being able to attain very good survivability while a Tank isn't allowed to build for damage?"
Aren't these simply similar AT's coming from opposite positions, building to cover their shortcomings and thus becoming more efficient?

This is why a decent amount of posters in this thread have said that they don't think that increasing the Tanker Damage cap by 100% would break the AT.

I also think that a fair number of people here agree that Brutes are probably out of whack, but we've been conditioned to believe that calling for a nerf on another AT is taboo, so we don't say that. The numbers run show that Scrappers aren't a problem. Sure, they can do more damage, but aren't nearly as tough as Tankers even at the caps. Brutes, however, are. Why the devs decided to give them Tanker resistance caps is beyond me (I think they would have been fine at 80%); likewise with their gauntlet-lite.

However, taking a broken AT, and making other ATs just as broken as it, is not necessarily the way to go.

Then there are people who LIKE the role of the current Tankers, and want to have more of that role, and want to have Tankers shine at it more than they currently do.

So there are basically three schools of thought that you see in a thread like this:

1) Tankers are fine, it's Brutes that are the problem.

2) Brutes are fine, Tankers need more damage (or damage potential).

3) Brutes are fine, Tankers need to be more Tankerish.

None of these viewpoints is inherently wrong, and should be discussed.

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

Hopeling · 12-06-2011 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psiphon

The reason is that people keep putting forward the argument that, "because Tankers have a damage secondary they aren't meant to deal alot of damage"

I'm not sure I've seen anyone put that reason forward in this entire thread. Primary vs secondary isn't the issue. Dominators get their attacks from their secondary, yet have higher damage scales than Corruptors, who get attacks from their primary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psiphon

So my question is "Where is the justification for Brutes and to a lesser degree Scrappers being able to deal alot of damage while being able to attain very good survivability while a Tank isn't allowed to build for damage?"

Brutes and Scrappers can do the most damage while having high, but not Tanker-level, survivability.
Tankers can be the toughest while having good, but not Brute-level, damage. After all, even if we account for a 10% crit rate, a tanker still does about 2/3 as much damage as a scrapper based on their damage scales, before considering Bruising. boppaholic's attack chain thread, further down the front page, has some sets breaking 200 DPS single target, so "a Tank isn't allowed to build for damage" just isn't true.

As often as people in this thread have thrown around that Brutes/Scrappers are effectively just as tough as Tankers because they still never die, it simply isn't true. It's not true at lower levels, and it's not true at the highest levels like Incarnate trials. It's only really true in the low-difficulty high-level content, where characters run around with complete IO builds and Incarnate powers and nobody at all is in much danger, especially the guy with a whole power set devoted to keeping himself alive. I'm sure there are scrappers or brutes who can solo crates in Lambda with their eyes closed and feel no danger, because there are always outliers, but so far my /Inv, /WP, and two /Shields are quite capable of dying if I don't play smart and make use of every tool at my disposal, including my insp tray and Eye of the Magus. Meanwhile, the tank I've taken through trials pretty much laughs at their feeble attempts, and mostly uses his Rebirth to save teammates because he rarely needs it himself.

Sarrate · 12-06-2011 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talen Lee

So can the scrapper, the defender, the dominator, the corruptor, the mastermind and-

This is about how tanks don't have a unique role, right?

No, there is a difference between not having a unique role and having that role stolen from them.

For example, the buff/debuff role isn't unique; there are three. Evne so, a Defender on a team isn't prevented from performing that role by a Corruptor.

The same cannot be said for tanking; there is a much smaller niche for tanking. Once someone is tanking, you don't need someone else performing it. A Tanker who wants to tank and is doing everything they can (solid build, good attack chain, utilizing Taunt) can have their threat surpassed by a Brute.

That is the problem. Tankers are designed to hold aggro and take less damage than anyone when punched in the face. They can't be punched in the face without holding aggro.

This is a terrible example, but I can't get it out of my head:
* Imagine Defender buffs/debuffs are stronger than Corruptors. (Easy, they are.)
* Imagine that Defender buffs/debuffs don't stack with one another. (ie: One Lingering Radiation for all Defenders.)
* Imagine that Corruptor buffs/debuffs do stack with on another.
* Further, Corruptor buffs/debuffs take precedence.

Defenders have better mods than a Corruptor at buffs/debuffs (likewise with Tankers and Brute mitigation).
Despite those mods, Corruptors stack better than Defenders because their debuffs stack (likewise, Brute damage stacks better than Tankers)
Defenders who enjoy buffing/debuffing can be left unable to perform that role (likewise with Tankers and Brute threat).

It's a contrived example, but it captures the essence of a Tanker's inability to hold aggro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by New Dawn

Maybe Tankers taunt should be increased, I mean why not, what harm could that do? Decreasing Widow, Scrapper or Brutes taunt = Harm so I am not advocating that but increasing Tankers I could live with, although autowinlike. It's only really with AVs I could end up thinking I should of brought my scrapper let alone brute.

You have to be careful with this "only buff" mentality, it's not sustainable.

The reason I'm not worried about the "HARM" effect of lowering Brute/Scrapper taunt durations (note that auras/Gauntlet/Gaunlet-lite and Taunt/Confront use different tables) is that the only thing they really compete with is each other. A 7.5s taunt effect is generating a 7,500x multiplier in addition to threat for just applying that taunt. Further, since the equation uses (Longest)TauntRemaining, someone using Taunt is already overriding the duration of auras/Gauntlet/Gauntlet-lite.

Also, if you want a Tanker to generate an equal amount of threat to a Brute, their taunt durations would need to be X% longer than they are now:

Brute as 60% Fury: 51.44%
Brute at 80% Fury: 70.67%
Brute & Tanker Damage Capped: 81.64%

That range would place Tanker Taunt in the 62 to 74 sec duration base (current is 41s). On the other hand, that would place Brute Taunt in the 27 to 22.6 sec range. For comparison, Scrapper Confront is 21.3 sec, and I know you've tanked on a Scrapper (ThreatMod 3 instead of 4) with that.

Aett_Thorn · 12-06-2011 09:05 AM

Just wanted to point out that I finally got around to making the consolidated Tanker suggestion thread. Feel free to check it out at your leisure. I'm trying to get it stickied and also get permanent edit rights to it.

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

Arcanaville · 12-06-2011 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarrate

I had a nice reply typed out earlier and the forum going down ate it... Grr, okay, let's try this again.

Coincidentally, the same thing happened to me.

Quote:

That's how they're designed, or more acurately, that's what may be intended. In practice, however, that's not how things work out. The AoE effect of Gauntlet is extremely weak. Let me explain:

Threat = ThreatMultiplier * Damage * (TauntRemaining * 1000) * ((Debuffs and AI Preferences here))

Let's drop debuffs and AI Preferences, since they're the same for both ATs. So the variables we're left with are:

Threat = ThreatMultiplier * Damage * (TauntRemaining * 1000) * (...)

Where am I going with this? Taunt effects, in and of themselves, are 1 damage attacks. So, if I have 40s of taunt on a target, a gauntlet effect would be worth 160,000 threat. Suppose a Tanker attacks every 1s for 10s. That'd be a total of 1,600,000 threat from Gauntlet. (Technically, it would be less, since every second would reduce the TauntRemaining, but I'm being really simple here.) With equivalent TauntRemaining, it would take just 10 damage to equal Gauntlet's AoE threat.

As you say, a Brute only has Gauntlet-lite... but I sure as hell bet their AoEs deal more than an additional 10 dmg over a Tanker every 10s.

Actually, 13.3dps (modifier). In this simplified analysis, the brute must deal 13.3dps more than the tanker *and* 1.33x tanker damage on top of that with AoEs large enough to encompass most of the targets the tanker is affecting nearby the tanker. That's actually not trivial. The breakeven point when comparing identical AoE attacks is about 40dps or so (for the tanker, or 67 dps for the brute), and that's not easy to generate with just large area of effect attacks. I don't think that is within the reach of most tanker secondaries or brute primaries short of very high recharge builds.

[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

Deus_Otiosus · 12-06-2011 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psiphon

Hi All,
So my question is "Where is the justification for Brutes and to a lesser degree Scrappers being able to deal alot of damage while being able to attain very good survivability while a Tank isn't allowed to build for damage?"

There is nothing to justify, they never attain Tanker level mitigation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopeling

As often as people in this thread have thrown around that Brutes/Scrappers are effectively just as tough as Tankers because they still never die, it simply isn't true. It's not true at lower levels, and it's not true at the highest levels like Incarnate trials.

This.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarrate

The same cannot be said for tanking; there is a much smaller niche for tanking. Once someone is tanking, you don't need someone else performing it. A Tanker who wants to tank and is doing everything they can (solid build, good attack chain, utilizing Taunt) can have their threat surpassed by a Brute.

And if you're a Brute and someone else is tanking you should have made a Scrapper instead.

Its a catch 22 for both ATs.

Your scenario also assumes that there is only ever 1 target - a single AV.

Trials have plenty of adds, ambushes, etc - which not only creates space for multiple ATs to hold aggro but also creates space for multiple Tankers.

To be perfectly honest, I don't want any Tanker taking aggro from my Brutes because aggro is intrinsic to their Damage performance - I'm OK with the risk associated with it, it's pretty much the core of the Brute AT.

Oedipus_Tex · 12-06-2011 12:37 PM

FWIW I think increasing any ATs damage level should be taken with a huge degree of caution, because those changes push ATs closer together inside the same swimlane where one was originally judged inferior to the other, without accounting for the fact that it was the existence of the swimlane itself that produced the issue. I think the best long term solution is to look for ways to make the ATs no longer directly compare to each other. Otherwise as the game changes and new content is added or revised, the two ATs will simply continue to trade positions on the same 2-d scale.

In the case of aggro management specifically, it doesn't matter to me whether Brutes or Tankers are better at it. What mainly matters is that the wrong person doesn't take aggro, and both of these ATs are able to fulfill that function. If Brutes were struggling to pull aggro from Blasters or Controllers I think there would be a better case for aggro management as a major point in favor of Tankers. But these ATs' abilities to pull aggro from each other is IMO not relevant to AT balance.

DrGemini · 12-06-2011 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane

You are NOT competing with your melee teammates for aggro. They are meant to share it with you.

This is the entire problem with the mindset of people crying for more aggro/threat generation.

Scrappers and Brutes were given taunt powers in their secondary sets. Brutes effectiveness depends in part on them being attacked. Brutes have Poke-voke. Brutes are LISTED IN THE TANK CATEGORY at AT creation. Get the message?

They are fully intended to share part of the aggro. As Tanker, you are not the sole focus. The spot light is not on you. The other melee ATs were intended to shoulder some of the burden. How much ultimately doesn't matter as long as they can. If they can't, they will face plant and then you get to grab up whatever you want.

You shouldn't care if an enemy is not attacking the squishies because he's trained on you or because he's attacking the Brute next to you. If they are Taunting enemies onto themselves, that's their prerogative. Stop being a control freak.

If you must have the final say in everyone attacking you, roll a Brute if they're trumping Tankers.

.

See, I am not here to argue for more damage for Tankers. I run an Ice/Axe tank, and, although the damage is sub par to others, I do find the damage to be adequate most of the time. What I am arguing is for Tankers to be elevated to perform in the role they are clearly designed for.

If you think about it, why would someone who plays ICE ARMOR be arguing for the things I think (IMHO) that need improvement?

Well, I can generate enough aggro to clearly outclass many others. I can even, literally, get Siege to jump over 23 other people (and their pets) to get to me. So, in a sense, being able to generate more "threat" than others is not as much of an issue for my particular character. However...
I still would like to see the aggro cap increased (for Tankers only). I would like to see my survivability increased so that I can, completely, fill the role my Tanker should be able to fill.

And, I am one of those who, yes, does want to have my Tanker be better than a Brute. I do not look at Brutes as being created for the purpose of aggro management. Sure, back when CoV and CoH were separate Brutes were designed to be similar to Tankers. Still, Brutes were considered inferior in the role of actually being a Tanker.

If what I seek puts me at odds with those who disagree, that's fine. That is the purpose of this forum (I would think): to discuss and debate. So, I have stated the things I think could be done. Take it. Leave it.

@ Dr Gemini

Quote:

�If we would come together and be great role models, it would be amazing to see how the next generation turns out.�

Dz131 · 12-07-2011 06:36 AM

I think tankers need buff. They got more HP and higher resist and defence (both semi useless in teams becuase there are buff that pretty much cap a broot anyway) .

They got tenderizing which is good but only balances the fact your forced to take a useless attack.

They got Aoe Gauntlet, good except every broot and their mom got AOE up every hole in their body, and so in that sense, every broot also has an aoe taunt.

So basically in a team setting all they have is a higher hp cap. I guess that's good in the event of avoiding 2-shots but I don't think it's worth giving up 100+% damage for.

Jagged · 12-07-2011 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrGemini

However...
I still would like to see the aggro cap increased (for Tankers only).

This ^

When I saw that the Brute AT Specific Invention Set provided a boost to Fury I was hoping the Tank set might provide a boost to the cap, say a unique that give +5 or +10. Then I might have been interested.

This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04

Psiphon · 12-07-2011 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn

This is why a decent amount of posters in this thread have said that they don't think that increasing the Tanker Damage cap by 100% would break the AT.

I also think that a fair number of people here agree that Brutes are probably out of whack, but we've been conditioned to believe that calling for a nerf on another AT is taboo, so we don't say that. The numbers run show that Scrappers aren't a problem. Sure, they can do more damage, but aren't nearly as tough as Tankers even at the caps. Brutes, however, are. Why the devs decided to give them Tanker resistance caps is beyond me (I think they would have been fine at 80%); likewise with their gauntlet-lite.

However, taking a broken AT, and making other ATs just as broken as it, is not necessarily the way to go.

Then there are people who LIKE the role of the current Tankers, and want to have more of that role, and want to have Tankers shine at it more than they currently do.

So there are basically three schools of thought that you see in a thread like this:

1) Tankers are fine, it's Brutes that are the problem.

2) Brutes are fine, Tankers need more damage (or damage potential).

3) Brutes are fine, Tankers need to be more Tankerish.

None of these viewpoints is inherently wrong, and should be discussed.

My view is pretty much the same as yours, maybe it was the number of posts directed against JB that distorted the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus

There is nothing to justify, they never attain Tanker level mitigation.

I didn't mean that there was. I'm not a number grinder but there appears to be greater disparity between the damage of a Tank and Brute than there is between their survivabilty.
If a Brute has X% survivability of a Tank, shouldn't a Tank have X% of the Brutes damage? As I said I'm not number grinder but from what I've seen and heard this isn't the case.

L50s: Tanks: Cryofission - Ice/EM - Dr Celsius - Fire/Ice - Saint George - SD/SS | Controllers: Psichosis - Ill/Kin - Major Chaos - Ill/Stm | Scrappers - Neutron Crusader - DM/SR

Currently Levelling: Angelic Blade - BS/WP Scrapper | Seeds of Destruction - Plant/Kin Controller

Sarrate · 12-07-2011 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville

Coincidentally, the same thing happened to me.

Rageface

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcanaville

Actually, 13.3dps (modifier). In this simplified analysis, the brute must deal 13.3dps more than the tanker *and* 1.33x tanker damage on top of that with AoEs large enough to encompass most of the targets the tanker is affecting nearby the tanker. That's actually not trivial. The breakeven point when comparing identical AoE attacks is about 40dps or so (for the tanker, or 67 dps for the brute), and that's not easy to generate with just large area of effect attacks. I don't think that is within the reach of most tanker secondaries or brute primaries short of very high recharge builds.

I'm not following where you got the 13.3dps and 1.33x numbers. Could you please explain?

(I wish I had more time to respond to people, but I'm kinda pressed atm.)

Arcanaville · 12-07-2011 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarrate

I'm not following where you got the 13.3dps and 1.33x numbers. Could you please explain?

Actually, now that I think about it, I was thinking about the Scrapper threat level which is 3, not the Brute threat level which is 4, identical to Tankers. So ignore that calculation: the 1.33 factor is only relevant to Scrappers not Brutes.

[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

New Dawn · 12-07-2011 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarrate

You have to be careful with this "only buff" mentality, it's not sustainable.

The reason I'm not worried about the "HARM" effect of lowering Brute/Scrapper taunt durations (note that auras/Gauntlet/Gaunlet-lite and Taunt/Confront use different tables) is that the only thing they really compete with is each other. A 7.5s taunt effect is generating a 7,500x multiplier in addition to threat for just applying that taunt. Further, since the equation uses (Longest)TauntRemaining, someone using Taunt is already overriding the duration of auras/Gauntlet/Gauntlet-lite.

Also, if you want a Tanker to generate an equal amount of threat to a Brute, their taunt durations would need to be X% longer than they are now:

Brute as 60% Fury: 51.44%
Brute at 80% Fury: 70.67%
Brute & Tanker Damage Capped: 81.64%

That range would place Tanker Taunt in the 62 to 74 sec duration base (current is 41s). On the other hand, that would place Brute Taunt in the 27 to 22.6 sec range. For comparison, Scrapper Confront is 21.3 sec, and I know you've tanked on a Scrapper (ThreatMod 3 instead of 4) with that.

Its the Taunt:Rechg ratio that matters to me then the range is what it is to me specifically designed to almost give people what they could really minimize AV range DPS without actually allowing it to go that way too far.

I realize the only buff mentality is a worry but this is Taunt I am thinking off. Downgrading other ATs would do them more harm than good, improving Tankers taunt duration well that looks perfectly harmless to me. Although it may make tanking a bit easier most things die, pretty quick enough anyway.

I'm not all for it, if a Dev comes up with an interesting way for Tankers to have an improved "potential" of re aggroing an AV off of Brutes then thats cool beans to me. Not good to tamper with other ATs taunts tho unless its a WS but even theirs is what it is for some reason.

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.

Deus_Otiosus · 12-08-2011 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psiphon

I didn't mean that there was. I'm not a number grinder but there appears to be greater disparity between the damage of a Tank and Brute than there is between their survivabilty.

Really?

If you're serious about making a statement like this, I'd ask for you to sit down and mock up some simple comparison builds in mids.

Try WP, SD, Ela, DA for example.

Go ahead and build those, and look at just how much more actual mitigation the Tanker has.

SD for example, SD Tanker's can actually incarnate softcap to at least one or two positions while still getting about 40-60% Global Recharge.

They can have about 2800 HP to start, and can actually hit the Tanker HP cap with OWTS running (3500 ish). For comparison SD Brutes usually sit about 2400 HP and can hit about 2800 with OWTS (both require slotting Heal IOs in OWTS).

The tanker can sit around 40-50% SM/L res and can cap their SM/L resistances with OWTS. The Brute can barely hit the Scrapper RES cap of 75% with OWTS on most builds.

A lot of players just don't appreciate how much extra base mitigation the Tanker actually has.