Concerned about Scrappers.


Acemace

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
I ask a simple question: does this make Tankers more fun to play?
Possibly. Everybody has a different definition of fun though - it's entirely subjective. For whatever it's worth (not much considering I don't play tanks or brutes), enormous survivability is a selling point, sure. Never dying and being the de facto team leader is a desirable quality for some people. Maybe that's worth emphasizing more? Increasing the Tanker's taunt to be, in a grand majority of cases, far stronger than a Brute's or Scrapper's would be a mild start. Increasing their aggro caps to ensure they maintain aggro on larger groups would be another. Mild crowd control additions built into sets would be nice, but that's on the scale of a revamp bigger than what Stalkers got, but it'd be nice. Tankers always felt to me as though they should be the center of attention, the group's strongman. They already do that in a sense, but merely homogenizing the 4 melee ATs even further by making Tanks comparable damage dealers won't fix that. They should be doing decent damage, sure, but I still say the root issue lies in Brutes stepping on toes because of now irrelevant design decisions.

Also, I seem to recall a dev statement about Tankers being the next AT to get looked at after Stalkers did. Not sure if that's still happening or not.


 

Posted

It is plenty fair that Brutes can get more from buffs, so long as buff don't allow brutes to take over the role that tankers are designed for.

It was ok to continually increase the Brutes ability to hold aggro when sides were segregated. It was ok to allow the level of survivability they have, because they had a real reason to need it.

The thing is, now that they co-exist they are competing for the same job. Brutes can give the same "Wow, I survived that!?" feeling, and they can control mobs aggro.

Tankers don't offer anything different. Raising their damage cap doesn't fix that. I actually don't understand what you think it would actually accomplish in the whole AT balance discussion.


Murphys Military Law

#23. Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

#46. If you can't remember, the Claymore is pointed towards you.

#54. Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity.

 

Posted

I'm actually pretty inclined to say that maybe Tanker BASE damage is what should go up here (to 0.9).

The pocket kin argument is stupid; it's also irrelevant, because Brutes don't need a pocket kin to outperform Tankers. Having a pocket kin just exacerbates the gap.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiska View Post
I'm actually pretty inclined to say that maybe Tanker BASE damage is what should go up here (to 0.9).
No thanks.

-Brutes would still do 1.34x the ST (and 1.6x AoE) damage of Tankers at the cap while only having 10% less max HP.

-Tankers would still be getting screwed out of +damage buffs and Hybrid Assault.

-It would be giving Tankers higher damage out of the gate which is something I don't think should happen.


.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Android_5Point9 View Post
Also, I seem to recall a dev statement about Tankers being the next AT to get looked at after Stalkers did. Not sure if that's still happening or not.
If it did happen, I don't expect it to suitably address my concerns. If they did, well, better stay indoors...





.


 

Posted

I'm going to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I think when we talk about "Survivability" that it would be more technically helpful to talk about "Survivabilities." IMO staying alive is not a single yard stick measurement, and treating that way potentially traps all of the ATs into an eternal game of balance shuffleboard. Survivability is an estimation of a number of different kinds of things, and specifically an assumption about how frequently players encounter certain threats.

Some points that I think should be kept in mind (sorry for all the italics, not trying to be pushy, just trying to clarify certain specific viewpoints):

- IMO survivability should not be thought of just in terms of whether your hit points hit zero. One form of Survivability is the measurement of presumable threat: "Looking at this group, what kind of risk am I likely in?" To torture the English language a bit, Survivability isn't just about actually surviving. It's also about surviving comfortably and the security of knowing survival is likely before it happens. In the context of Tanking specifically, it also means granting peace of mind to other players who also expect you to survive. This sense of Survivability might be thought of as like a Credit Score, and more is always better, whether you end up needing it or not. In other words, in asking for balance review I'm not only asking with my own characters in mind. There is an impact on which ATs I will trust to do certain kinds of jobs even when they are played by someone else.

- There are also parallel Survivabilities. Death patches are one example. It is possible to conceive of a character with low armor values who is immune or highly resistant to death patches. "Survivability" does not have to mean just better or worse armor values or Hit Points/healing. It is in fact possible, if we so desire it, to make Scrappers, Brutes, Tankers, and Stalkers each individually excel at different Survivability situations just as Stalkers specifically excel in the arena of single target damage.

- Survivability in the context of having a tank really does not scale well. IMO Tankers are, at their core, a very team-y sort of AT, but they are also one of the least effective when stacked with their own kind. Tankers are the self-only personification of the Defender AT without the stackability. That is specifically why I suggested having Tankers function as limited, explicit force multipliers, specifically by giving them powers that increase the capabilities of allies. That is, after all, part of what supposedly justifies the low damage modifiers of Controllers and Defenders.

- Just increasing Damage or armor values back and forth for the various melee ATs is never going to fix them. It's just going to keep pushing the balance see-saw up and down.

- In any case, I do see the argument that Brutes should have a 85% Resistance cap as valid. I spoke of "Survivabilities" and while it's unlikely for a Brute to cap everything, capping to one source and then playing to that strength most of the time is very achievable. In fact it is part of the reason Brutes make such desirable farmers.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Android_5Point9 View Post
Also, I seem to recall a dev statement about Tankers being the next AT to get looked at after Stalkers did. Not sure if that's still happening or not.
Unless they change things to be what he wants them to be it would be a complete waste of resources.


The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrandX View Post
I'll have to disagree with that statement. The rage that was against dropping Brute resist cap to 85% in GR beta makes me think it would change gameplay, cause that was a lot of the complaints said in GR beta when it was suggested the first time.

"OH NO! I won't be as survivalable and die all the time now!"
That was also the complaint when they dropped the resistance cap from 95% to 90%.

I know I complained that I'd be taking 100% more damage.

In comparison, going from 90% resist to 85% resist is only taking 50% more damage.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei View Post
Unless they change things to be what he wants them to be it would be a complete waste of resources.
Obviously, but still, he maintains a valid point that Brutes step on the toes of Tankers too much. The 5 villain side ATs were designed to function in an environment where the hero side ATs simply didn't exist. Why major balancing revisions weren't made at the launch of GR is beyond me, but better late than never. Sadly, I feel like any real addressing of Tanker problems is going to directly relate to how they perform versus Brutes, and not spell anything unique or new for the AT itself. On the other hand, it means they can move on to Blasters next, who are in a far worse spot anyway.

As a vaguely related side note, there's a weird, almost palpable attitude from the devs that they don't want to mess with well established and documented "features" that are, in essence, glaring oversights. They'll admit they exist and probably shouldn't, but won't do anything about them. Super Strength's Rage and snipes in general, for instance. How that Hami-O fix went through years later is beyond me as well, but as long as they're finally addressing the laundry list of things to do, I'm a-ok with it.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
I ask a simple question: does this make Tankers more fun to play?
I have a lot more fun playing tankers than playing brutes. I've never managed to get a brute past level 28.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Android_5Point9 View Post
Obviously
To me, this is where any debate about tankers in a scrapper thread should end. If "anyone" really feels the tanks or brute have issues, then to me in order to be taken seriously they must follow the rules and post those issues where they should be.

In addition to that, crusading in every single thread he enters with those cross issues and people just arguing there is bringing down the quality of the forums not to mention breaking the very clear rules not being enforced for certain people for whatever reasons.

Putting all that together you are left with the hot mess we have right now. There may be valid issues, but they are not being and should not be recognized unless presented in the proper way that everyone has to present them in.


The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
No thanks.

-Brutes would still do 1.34x the ST (and 1.6x AoE) damage of Tankers at the cap while only having 10% less max HP.

-Tankers would still be getting screwed out of +damage buffs and Hybrid Assault.

-It would be giving Tankers higher damage out of the gate which is something I don't think should happen.


.
I thought about that (and yes; Tankers need a damage cap increase also, not going to argue that, for the reasons you've stated).

I'm not sure giving Tankers higher damage out of the gate is a bad thing, though, given that Brutes are way ahead of them in all damage metrics from levels 1-50 at any point but the first 5 seconds of a fight. At SO levels, a Brute only needs 7 Fury to outstrip a Tanker's damage; pre-22, the Brute needs even less (mostly irrelevant, because you have 7 Fury within one or two attacks, incoming or outgoing). Obviously, any increase in Tanker damage has to be minor; but if you boosted their base scalar to .9 instead of .8 and then gave them the 500% damage cap Scrappers/Stalkers get, they'd be competitive while still being reasonably behind.

As an extra bonus: raising Tanker's damage scalar to .9 restores the original relationship of Tanker vs. Scrapper damage from launch - it would be a 12.5% increase in baseline damage, parallel to the 12.5% increase in baseline damage that Scrappers received in issue 5.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiska View Post
Obviously, any increase in Tanker damage has to be minor; but if you boosted their base scalar to .9 instead of .8 and then gave them the 500% damage cap Scrappers/Stalkers get, they'd be competitive while still being reasonably behind.
500% cap with a .9 modifier, I wouldn't complain.

A dev will be right around to make that change aaany second now...


Now...


.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
500% cap with a .9 modifier, I wouldn't complain.
80% of the Blaster ranged modifier and 100% of the Blaster cap is all you need? Well why didn't you say so in the first place.


[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.)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
80% of the Blaster ranged modifier and 100% of the Blaster cap is all you need? Well why didn't you say so in the first place.
Seems to me Blasters have issues of their own. Someone should make a thread about that.
It's a good thing they have someone like you to look out for them.


.


 

Posted

The thought occurs to me that I forgot about Bruising in all this theorycrafting, which makes the gap somewhat smaller.

Corrected numbers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiska
Currently, Brutes have a 775% damage cap, Scrappers and Stalkers 500%, and Tankers 400%. When you apply this to each AT's base modifiers, you get the following damage scales with capped damage: Brute 5.8125, Scrapper 5.625, Stalker 5.000, Tanker 3.200.
Accounting for crits and bruising, those numbers should be: Brute 5.8125, Scrapper 6.1875 (6.525 with ATIO set), Stalker 6.550, Tanker 3.840.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiska View Post
I'm actually pretty inclined to say that maybe Tanker BASE damage is what should go up here (to 0.9).
(...)
-It would be giving Tankers higher damage out of the gate which is something I don't think should happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiska View Post
Obviously, any increase in Tanker damage has to be minor; but if you boosted their base scalar to .9 instead of .8 and then gave them the 500% damage cap Scrappers/Stalkers get, they'd be competitive while still being reasonably behind.
500% cap with a .9 modifier, I wouldn't complain.
Wait, what?


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
Seems to me Blasters have issues of their own. Someone should make a thread about that.
The largest of those issues is that the devs have allowed every other archetype to continually poach offense from them without either giving up anything in return or eliminating the converse restrictions on blasters to acquire non-offensive capabilities, to satisfy archetypal desires that defy good game design.


[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.)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarrate View Post
Wait, what?
Someone gives me an in, I'm gonna take it.

500 x 0.9 (what Reiska said) or 545 x 0.8 (what I was gunning for)

Either works for me (even though mine was less).
*shrug*



.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
The largest of those issues is that the devs have allowed every other archetype to continually poach offense from them without either giving up anything in return or eliminating the converse restrictions on blasters to acquire non-offensive capabilities, to satisfy archetypal desires that defy good game design.
So what is it you want? More survivability or more damage? Or prettier colored power icons?



.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
So what is it you want? More survivability or more damage? Or prettier colored power icons?
Are those three mutually exclusive?


[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.)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Are those three mutually exclusive?
Depends. Which of them would be satisfied by creating more epic pools and expanding on number of powers in them (and lowering their level requirements) that I suggested to you before?


.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane View Post
Depends. Which of them would be satisfied by creating more epic pools and expanding on number of powers in them (and lowering their level requirements) that I suggested to you before?


.
i would tend to say none, really.
i won't say your idea is silly and missing the point, though.
(Although i will feel free to think it.)


Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiska View Post
(and yes; Tankers need a damage cap increase also, not going to argue that, for the reasons you've stated).
I don't agree that tanks need a damage cap increase or that we need a damage increase.

I feel Tanks are, for the most part, fine offensively.

Some sets have problems. Energy Melee, for example, has to go 35 levels with nothing that hits harder than Bone Smasher. It makes for some very tedious fights. Even after level 35, Energy Melee has issues for entirely different reasons.

As Johnny points out, the sole problem is brutes. Tanks, as compared to scrappers, trade damage for survivability and greater aggro generating capabilities. Brutes seem to get aggro tools, survivability, and damage.