what AT's are in need of any help?
By
Airhammer,
Posted on: 2012-04-10 14:42 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
Quote:
Five different archetypes are not just anecdotally, but by explicit intent and design intended to fill the role of damage dealer in teams: Scrappers, Blasters, Brutes, Stalkers, and Dominators. If the four melee archetypes are crowded into overlapping roles, and the three generally considered to be capable of tanking are specifically, aren't the five damage dealers likely to be experiencing an even larger version of the same problem?
|
Originally Posted by William_Valence
You can feel the difference when you play, yes, but the ability fill the role just as well and get some extras means there's an issue.
|
[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.)
Quote:
^This.|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Blasters and all versions of Dual Pistols ^_^
|
But since when did tankers need help after 50? Cardiac/Alpha pretty much solves most problems for a tanker.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Shadow_Mokadara
Quote:
Which is why your goal, from what I can tell, is to get the devs to review the design and intent of Blasters.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Five different archetypes are not just anecdotally, but by explicit intent and design intended to fill the role of damage dealer in teams: Scrappers, Blasters, Brutes, Stalkers, and Dominators. If the four melee archetypes are crowded into overlapping roles, and the three generally considered to be capable of tanking are specifically, aren't the five damage dealers likely to be experiencing an even larger version of the same problem?
|
The thing is, with Blasters it's a design issue. Everything is designed with the ability to deal damage and something else. Blaster's something else just happens to be vulnerability.
With Tankers, its an implementation issue. The design was fine when Brutes and Tanks were segregated, but the crossover didn't properly consider the Brute's abilities compared to Tankers when they are both available in all content. Aggro is a yes or no, that damage isn't. A character has the attention of a critter or not. If something deals comprable damage to a Blaster; then there's a balance issue. However the Blaster still does damage. If the Brute holds aggro, then the tank doesn't. If a brute is demonstrably capable of tanking for a team, filling the exact role, and doing more damage? That's not overlap that's replacement.
That being said. Tanks have issues, but they are not a real priority. I'd put them at #4 in order of ATs needing attention.
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.
Tanks' main issue comes to Brutes and Scrappers eventually reaching their effective levels of defense/resistance. Stalkers can do this with enough IOing too.
http://www.virtueverse.net/wiki/Shadow_Mokadara
Quote:
Scrappers and Stalkers cannot reach tanker and brute levels of resistance or max HP. Unless by "effective levels" you mean "good enough for most content", in which case it's subjective and undeniably arguable.
|
Originally Posted by ShadowMoka
Tanks' main issue comes to Brutes and Scrappers eventually reaching their effective levels of defense/resistance. Stalkers can do this with enough IOing too.
|
Mains (Freedom) @Auroxis
Auroxis - Emp/Rad/Power Defender Pylon Video Soloing an AV
Pelvic Thunder - SS/Elec/Mu Brute
Sorajin - Elec/Nin Stalker
Neuropain - Sonic/Mental/Elec Blaster
Quote:
The why comes mostly from the fact they've been historically screwed, because:|
Originally Posted by William_Valence
Which is why your goal, from what I can tell, is to get the devs to review the design and intent of Blasters.
|
Quote:
| The thing is, with Blasters it's a design issue. Everything is designed with the ability to deal damage and something else. Blaster's something else just happens to be vulnerability. |
But it begs the larger question across all the damage dealers. With five things vying for some form of damage dealing specialty, are there even five different ways to specialize in damage that are meaningful? If there aren't, no amount of shuffling will ever really resolve that issue.
Quote:
| With Tankers, its an implementation issue. The design was fine when Brutes and Tanks were segregated, but the crossover didn't properly consider the Brute's abilities compared to Tankers when they are both available in all content. Aggro is a yes or no, that damage isn't. A character has the attention of a critter or not. If something deals comprable damage to a Blaster; then there's a balance issue. However the Blaster still does damage. If the Brute holds aggro, then the tank doesn't. If a brute is demonstrably capable of tanking for a team, filling the exact role, and doing more damage? That's not overlap that's replacement. |
The eventual notion was that Controllers and Tankers could share that responsibility, a perspective that hasn't yet evolved between Tankers and Brutes to the same degree.
Quote:
| That being said. Tanks have issues, but they are not a real priority. I'd put them at #4 in order of ATs needing attention. |
[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.)
Tanks have no issues and need no help. They have a 0.96 single target damage modifier with Bruising, offer force multiplication to teams because of this debuff, have AoE -Range on their Taunt (-Range being the best feature of this skill), levy Gauntlet to generate the best AoE threat, and are leaps and bounds tougher than any other AT.
I am so tired of people complaining about Tanks when Blasters no longer are kings of damage or sets like Trick Arrow, Ice Control and Poison wallow in mediocrity.
Quote:
Would be nice if my Ice/Ice Tanker didnt have aggro ripped off her by those scrappers.
|
Originally Posted by JuliusSeizure
Tanks have no issues and need no help. They have a 0.96 single target damage modifier with Bruising, offer force multiplication to teams because of this debuff, have AoE -Range on their Taunt (-Range being the best feature of this skill), levy Gauntlet to generate the best AoE threat, and are leaps and bounds tougher than any other AT.
I am so tired of people complaining about Tanks when Blasters no longer are kings of damage or sets like Trick Arrow, Ice Control and Poison wallow in mediocrity. |
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
Convenient, but would it be good for the game?|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Would be nice if my Ice/Ice Tanker didnt have aggro ripped off her by those scrappers.
|
CoX players pride themselves in not having the tanker/healer/dps triumvirate. But in games that have that aggro is a factor. DPS has to make sure it does not draw aggro or it dies.
But CoX players seem to want tankers to hold all aggro so everyone else is safe. They ask for others not to be able to take aggro. They ask for tankers to get a higher aggro cap.
Is making holding aggro easier good? Or is requiring some thought and attention on the part of scrappers better for the game?
Quote:
Hmm I feel like I'm reading the wow forums again. I could probably literally cut and paste a reply here. Ahem, if a tank and dps both deliver there A game by skilled players and the only way for the tank to hold aggro is for the dps to choke their rotation then the threat model is broken. Essentially your system says that a tank can't do their job unless the dps let them. |
Originally Posted by dugfromthearth
Convenient, but would it be good for the game?
CoX players pride themselves in not having the tanker/healer/dps triumvirate. But in games that have that aggro is a factor. DPS has to make sure it does not draw aggro or it dies. But CoX players seem to want tankers to hold all aggro so everyone else is safe. They ask for others not to be able to take aggro. They ask for tankers to get a higher aggro cap. Is making holding aggro easier good? Or is requiring some thought and attention on the part of scrappers better for the game? |
I suppose we could start arguing about whose responsibility threat management is but really coh isn't that kind of a game. I think part of the problem of blasters and tanks is likely just that. When you have an AT called "Tank" I'm pretty sure they were shooting for an offshoot of the triumvirate that dominated mmo's in those days. CC/buff/debuff/heal/tank/melee dps/ranged dps.
Years later cov tossed some of that as it didn't seem to work in coh environment. When the two systems crashed together design differences are more obvious. It's kind of like trying to update the wiring in a really old house.
Edit: Hmm, I at first assumed you were being rhetorical and snarky at the end. If not, I apologize and... Forcing a traditional mmo system onto coh at this point would require a revamp and likely kill the game. It's much better to use duct tape than a bulldozer when smoothing problems.
Quote:
With the way damage it delivered in this game, plus the way endurance and recharge work, that's most likely true. My thought would be that it isn't the damage that separates the ATs, it's the second thing that sets them apart. Damage is required. All ATs not only have it, but need to have it. The design of each AT adds flavor; Blasters just happen to have floor flavor. |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
But it begs the larger question across all the damage dealers. With five things vying for some form of damage dealing specialty, are there even five different ways to specialize in damage that are meaningful? If there aren't, no amount of shuffling will ever really resolve that issue.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Its important to note this is argument existed prior to City of Villains: in the opposite corner back then were Controllers. The notion was that if Tankers were intended to draw the aggro from the spawn and the Controller was intended to control the spawn's ability to attack, wasn't that mutually exclusive benefits as well? Meanwhile, Controllers still had buff/debuff in their pockets.
The eventual notion was that Controllers and Tankers could share that responsibility, a perspective that hasn't yet evolved between Tankers and Brutes to the same degree. |
Except in the case of AoE hard control powers, but didn't they get their recharge times nuked because of this?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I think its more that Brutes have issues than Tankers do. Tankers are just one among many victims of the design of Brutes. They damage cap higher than Blasters (even on an adjusted basis), they resistance cap as high as Tankers, they average higher damage and DPE numbers than just about everyone, they have the best low level acceleration (Fury's net benefit is enormous at lower levels). They hit the rails in too many directions simultaneously. They directly conflict with Scrappers, Tankers, and Stalkers, and are directly significant to the archetype balance of Dominators and Blasters. Taking Brutes off the table eliminates a lot of problems in many directions that no amount of effort placed into any of those other archetypes would resolve. Not that I'm advocating the removal of Brutes from the game, but that clearly indicates to me what the central problem in this areas is.
|
But they should really look at MM issues first
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.
Quote:
Fundamentally, that only is problematic if:|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Would be nice if my Ice/Ice Tanker didnt have aggro ripped off her by those scrappers.
|
1. They die.
2. They blame you.
The point to aggro control is to divert damage from things that cannot survive that damage to things that do. No one actually gets any special reward for collecting aggro. If Scrappers interfered with Tanker ability to gain aggro, that would be a problem. Yanking it away on an individual target basis is not a problem if the Scrapper is doing so for only a limited number of targets they can survive.
If a Blaster or Defender, say, was yanking aggro away in large amounts, that would be problematic in the general case. Or if Tanker aggro was so low that Scrappers were talking all of it away and then dying, that would also suggest Tanker aggro capacity was fundamentally flawed. But theft of aggro by itself in isolation is not a problem unto itself.
[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.)
Quote:
Of course, that then reminds me of Galaxy Quest: "Look, I have ONE JOB on this lousy ship! It's stupid, but I'm gonna do it! Okay?"
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
But theft of aggro by itself in isolation is not a problem unto itself.
|
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
Quote:
The only real problems I think Masterminds have structurally is that their intrinsic (and deliberate) vulnerability to AoE can get problematic in the end game, and the use of purple patch leverage can be problematic for them in high level content in those situations where their pets are not level-normalized mechanically.|
Originally Posted by William_Valence
But they should really look at MM issues first
|
Critters are also morons, but at least Masterminds can command them. The critter AI for controller pets is something I wish I could fix.
[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.)
Quote:
That's funny, because my Tanks can usually hold the vast majority of agro on a spawn. Is it 100%-- no, of course not. But what other MMO allows a Tank to hold 100% of the agro? In fact, most MMOs have a far more robust dynamic where DPS classes constantly strip agro and force the "Tank" equivalent to reassert.
|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Would be nice if my Ice/Ice Tanker didnt have aggro ripped off her by those scrappers.
|
Quote:
I very much agree with the purple patch issue.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The only real problems I think Masterminds have structurally is that their intrinsic (and deliberate) vulnerability to AoE can get problematic in the end game, and the use of purple patch leverage can be problematic for them in high level content in those situations where their pets are not level-normalized mechanically.
Critters are also morons, but at least Masterminds can command them. The critter AI for controller pets is something I wish I could fix. |
But I can't agree with a MMs ability to control their pets until:
Melee pets go melee without taking ranged pets with them and ranged stay ranged without making melee pets stand next to them (Quite likely to address issues with non-controllable pets as well)
Damage patches don't override player commands
Pets don't chain aggro and run off on their own trying to attack something
Pets don't decide to run off after certain enemies in iTrials, instead of following orders
Pets don't cycle their "Too far" animation preventing actions, when on certain maps.
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.
Quote:
To me masterminds don't need help because they don't work. They need help because the the ai and ui can often make them frustrating to play. It's a different kind of broke than what arcanaville is pursuing with blasters but it's just as valid really when you consider that this a game and classes should be fun to play.|
Originally Posted by William_Valence
I very much agree with the purple patch issue.
But I can't agree with a MMs ability to control their pets until: Melee pets go melee without taking ranged pets with them and ranged stay ranged without making melee pets stand next to them (Quite likely to address issues with non-controllable pets as well) Damage patches don't override player commands Pets don't chain aggro and run off on their own trying to attack something Pets don't decide to run off after certain enemies in iTrials, instead of following orders Pets don't cycle their "Too far" animation preventing actions, when on certain maps. |
Really it boils down to, as a pet class, a mastermind plays more a cat herder than a general. I really can't think of a single other AT that fights the ai/ui to make their own powers work the way they're supposed to as often as they do the enemy.
I love this thread. It's like turning over a rock.
.
Quote:
What I meant was that every critter AI problem masterminds have, controllers have with the extra added complication of having no means to command them at all. Just having the ability to tell the phantasm "go here" would prevent a lot of phantasm deaths due to stupid. But I did not intend to imply that the mastermind command systems address all critter AI issues. |
Originally Posted by William_Valence
I very much agree with the purple patch issue.
But I can't agree with a MMs ability to control their pets until: Melee pets go melee without taking ranged pets with them and ranged stay ranged without making melee pets stand next to them (Quite likely to address issues with non-controllable pets as well) Damage patches don't override player commands Pets don't chain aggro and run off on their own trying to attack something Pets don't decide to run off after certain enemies in iTrials, instead of following orders Pets don't cycle their "Too far" animation preventing actions, when on certain maps. |
What I know of the AI system leads me to believe a fresh look at it could solve a lot of woes. Some of the dumb things critters used to do were caused by attempts to make them smarter but in ways that did not work correctly. Its entirely possible that there are ways to make them "dumber" that would make them *appear* to be smarter, or at least less problematic.
[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.)
A portion of the Mastermind AI problem might be solvable by giving players a toggle that hits the pets with Mag 1000 Immobilize. Not "think about stopping where you are" but "even if you feel like moving, don't." That might cause other issues though. Like maybe immobilized enemies are dumb enough to stand there wanting to melee you and doing nothing when they could shoot a gun. <shrug> No way to know without seeing it first hand I guess.
Quote:
Its hard to say what that would do. Certainly, it would make them not move while its on. But it might cause the AI to freak out a little: the standard AI brain seems to have code in it that causes the critter to react badly when it wants to do something but can't for some reason. For example, if the critter wants to attack you but it can't because its held, or even if its just heavily recharge slowed, that can sometimes cause the critter to decide to just up and run away, even if it has full health. If the critter intends to move and a mez effect stops it, it might conceivable do goofy things. Without knowing the details, what I have seen of the AI makes it difficult to say what's likely and unlikely, because some stuff is freaky.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
A portion of the Mastermind AI problem might be solvable by giving players a toggle that hits the pets with Mag 1000 Immobilize. Not "think about stopping where you are" but "even if you feel like moving, don't." That might cause other issues though. Like maybe immobilized enemies are dumb enough to stand there wanting to melee you and doing nothing when they could shoot a gun. <shrug> No way to know without seeing it first hand I guess.
|
I *still* can't fully explain this, even after accounting for some things I do know about how critters think: run in circles around a group of critters, and they will shoot less often at you, even with all ranged critters when you are always within range. There's no logical reason for them to do that given the known properties of the critter AI, so something much deeper is doing something much weirder.
[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.)
Quote:
Whoa rare.|
Originally Posted by BrandX
Would be nice if my Ice/Ice Tanker didnt have aggro ripped off her by those scrappers.
|
Nevermind that, why would you care about Scrappers? Don't think Tankers should care for Scrappers at all, if anything out of charity. Scrappers should be perfectly fine dealing with things around you and whilst you're doing the Tanking they can decide on their position, their threat level, their next deathwish.
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:
Or do mediocre players like to pin the problem on these sets?
|
Originally Posted by JuliusSeizure
Trick Arrow, Ice Control and Poison wallow in mediocrity.
|
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 LIKE how you think !! |
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
Tankers have a stackability problem. They are an AT designed with team utility in mind, but that role is quickly saturated. Worse, it can easily be saturated by an AT that does far more damage. To me, Tankers are actually among the worst off of the low-ish damage ATs because when other low damage ATs get together their low damage justifies itself. Tankers are the only AT where I personally feel pressured to leave the team after more than 3 join. Some people just want to increase the defense or offense of the AT, but IMO the problem is actually that Brutes and Tankers are too directly comparable in very simplistic terms and need to be pushed away from each other. The difference needs to harder to quantify than just "one has more defense, one has more offense."
Defenders and Corruptors also overlap to the point of uncomfortableness. They need to be pushed apart. Specifically, I am personally somewhat doubtful that Defenders actually fulfill their intended role as "ultimate support." They come across to me more like the Bard class of CoX, Jack of all Tradeoffs. I personally feel that the Defender AT should be pushed in a direction that is essentially Tanker: the AT that, with its superior buffs, is also the squishy that is most personally armored. The current set up makes this half true for a couple of powersets but it really isn't all that impressive in practice. I would push Defenders toward more classic D&D Clerics: not only good support, but good support wearing plate armor that adds significant (not just a couple of percentage points) survivability relative to the more mage-y types. [Not that it's possible now, but if we were able to do Corruptors over from scratch, I would have made them Assault/Support instead of Blast/Support, removed the Assault utility power (Power Boost, Drain Psi etc) and replaced it with one power from each Control set (probably along the lines of Fire: Flashfire, Ice: Ice Slick, Earth: Earthquake, Plant/Thorns: Creepers, Psi: Terrify, Energy/Grav: Wormhole, and Elec: Synaptic Overload). Defenders would keep their blasts, and drop Aim in favor of a relevant Controller pet for them to support.] |
Although I would say drop Defender AIM in favor of a Toggle power granting Resist/Defense and moderate status protection.
To throw my hat in the ring, ALL ATs that use the support powersets (Def, Cor, Cont, MM) need help, but it is more of a parity problem than an AT specific problem. Everyone knows how each 'support' powerset has varied effectiveness while solo and grouped. I still believe and will always feel that another pass of Defender primaries is due. Especially now, after they have released such a grossly powerful set like "Time Manipulation". It make no sense to have sets like Empathy, Sonic and whichever set is third worst at soloing continue as they are, regardless of how they help a group.
There are sets which solo well AND bring massive group benefits.
BIOSPARK :: DARKTHORN :: SKYGUARD :: WILDMAGE
HEATSINK :: FASTHAND :: POWERCELL :: RUNESTAFF
The fact that they were the aggro generating AT redside from introduction to the addition of side switching. Unless Redside is commensurately easier to compensate, the fact that Brutes could generate aggro the way they do and did (and wanted to due to their mechanics) as well as evolving into the accepted redside tanking class, the survivability gap is indeed trivial.
You can feel the difference when you play, yes, but the ability fill the role just as well and get some extras means there's an issue. I disagree with the thought they need more damage, but I do think there is reason to believe that they are not up to snuff. Are they a priority? Probably not, but arguing with J_B because he is insufferable, and often absolutely bonkers, isn't a good reason to ignore the issues that -do- exist.
My personal opinion is that MM AI and MM inter-powerset balance issues should be the priority should time open up to address any AT issues.
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.