Quote:
Look, Brutes are not broken...|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Fine.
My hypothetical, exactly 100 damage attack would deal EXACTLY 523.2 damage on a Tanker if you count Bruising. What a huge difference it made. You still have not explained how it is fair for a Tanker to deal more damage than all of these ATs: Corruptors: 375 Defenders: 220 Controllers: 220 Dominators: 500 Epic ATs (all 4): 400 Mastermind: 220 (pets make the real number much higher) .....while having much better survivability than all of them. You're only 5% lower than BLASTER DAMAGE. I will let that sink in for a second. You are seriously proposing that the toughest thing in the game have a maximum damage potential that is only 5% lower than the squishiest. Also, since this is using YOUR rules, as in "everyone is at their caps to everything all the time", you make Defender primaries, and Corruptor, Controller, and Mastermind secondaries completely useless. What good are buffs if everyone on the team is capped to everything already? What good are debuffs if nothing can hit you? The only debuff that would be worth anything is -resistance. Look at the numbers for those ATs' damage output again. When everyone is capped and half of those characters' abilities are useless, all they have to bring to the table is that amount of damage. And you think it is FAIR and BALANCED for a Tanker to out-damage the majority of them, while shrugging off damage that will one-shot all of them? Unbelievable. Also, since Tanker base values are so much higher, they need less help than anyone else to reach their survivability peak. All the above points are why I am in favor of Brute maximum potential being reduced. And the most unbelievable thing is: You actually believe that is a perfectly sane and reasonable request. There's already 1 broken AT in the game....why do you want there to be 2? Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the one that's broken instead of breaking another one? (Most reasonable people would answer "yes" here, but I know you're not going to) |
Let's count ATO sets with + crit % chance which are available to premium + level players and not terribly hard to get.
The Damage potential of your scrapper would include twice as many critical hit chances...especially with ATO2 in the pipe...further widening the gap between scrappers and EVERYONE...
While I think you might seriously enjoy scrappers getting buffed to the gills and everything else being WAY below them, the entire Brute community would be outraged that we got nerfed when we're ALREADY 3RD at dealing damage....sure tanks might love it...
BRUTES ARE NOT OVERPOWERED...in 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of gameplay...and for that 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that they are...so is everyone else...so it's all proportional anyway...
Stop talking about nerfing something that isn't damn well broken!
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
Undoubtedly.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The devs take feedback into account. That doesn't mean they obey individual players.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Would it be fair for others to judge whether you listen to them based on how often you did what they told you to do?
The devs get feedback from lots of directions: from lots of different players, all of whom have different ideas (consensus among the players is usually an illusion). From their QA team. From their peers. All of that gets fed into the decision making engine that is a brain. They get paid to do what *they* think is best, *based* on all the information available, including player feedback. But listening to player feedback is not the same thing as taking a poll and doing whatever gets the most votes. That's not being responsive, that's being an idiot. |
In other words, I am not disagreeing with their tactics in general; I am disagreeing with the directions they have ultimately selected as of late, which I feel renders their current tactics to be an inferior option. I truly wish that was NOT the case. However, when a team of developers begins to build content around ideas that seem vastly inferior to those of their community, there's something lacking. This is my opinion, and I would not expect everyone to agree. That said, it is my personal opinion based on their recent decisions that any change they plan for Tankers would ultimately weaken a majority of builds in general in some way.
Say what you will about Castle but the man also had a talent for pleasant surprises, so perhaps I was spoiled during his run. But I'll be damned if he didn't know how to push nerves - including mine - during the development period for each change.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
Quote:
But that's not the same thing as saying:|
Originally Posted by Sylph_Knight
And I agree. However, that doesn't mean I cannot reserve the right to judge whether I agree with their decisions or state what I perceive to be the obvious. More specifically - the third options that are being taken as of late appear less-fulfilling than some of the offerings we have seen in previous Issues.
|
Quote:
| And while I respect the Devs for their hard work, if Hybrid and PPM changes are any indicator then I am of the opinion that this current generation of Devs are less inclined to making changes based on feedback and instead venture on third (arguably less-fulfilling) options. |
[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:
The only thing I really want to see is the resistance cap lowered to 85%. |
Originally Posted by planet_J
BRUTES ARE NOT OVERPOWERED...in 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of gameplay...and for that 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% that they are...so is everyone else...so it's all proportional anyway...
Stop talking about nerfing something that isn't damn well broken! |
The damage isn't incredibly out of line, and in normal gameplay Brute damage is comparable to Scrapper damage.
Tankers getting a little more damage wouldn't break things, and Brutes being a little less tough wouldn't break them either. I still think increasing the Tanker damage scalar would be more beneficial to more players than a damage cap increase, as you wouldn't have to already be at the bleeding edge of performance to notice an improvement.
And the devs were already going to reduce Brute resistance to 85%. I'm sure outcry from the Brute players stayed their hand in that regard. It's not like it's an arbitrary amount either, EATs are already at 85%. Perhaps Tankers being the only AT able to reach 90% resistance would help make them feel a little more special, and strengthen their position as the toughest things in the game (since you can't really make them much tougher, the only realistic option is to reduce the max potential of their only challenger for the title)
Scrappers are fine as they are. My reason for suggesting their resistance cap be increased to 80% was assuming Tankers got a significant damage cap increase. If that doesn't happen, Scrappers don't need their resistances increased either. My reasoning is that Scrappers and Tanks are the only ones of the melee ATs that are visibly in balance with each other. Scrappers get 75% of Tanker survivability, and Tankers should have 75% of scrapper damage (which would work out to something like 80% of Brute damage). In order to make that balance point work, Tankers should get a damage scalar increase to .85 from their current .8. They would deal slightly more damage both at their cap, and in general gameplay. I would not argue with a damage cap increase to 450% from their current 400% either. That would put their damage for my hypothetical 100 damage attack at 462.
So, my revision is:
Scrappers unchanged
Brute resistance cap reduction to 85%, no other change.
Tanker damage scalar to .85, damage cap to 450%, no other change.
Stalkers unchanged.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
The "feel" issue is why I separately suggested the Vigilance-style damage-HP trade-off (gods that sounds clunky, what should I call it?). Give them upfront damage when solo in return for less HP. The immortality-line issue isn't going to be solved, but Tankers will feel less tedious when solo or on small teams. In teams and leagues they can do what they've always done.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The only thing you might get me to agree to is meet you half way and lower the Brute damage cap a smidge and raise the Tanker damage cap (but not as high as 545%).
But that alone doesn't solve the problem of Tankers not feeling like comic book tanks, or give them more pizzazz. Nor does it address the issue of Brutes and Scrappers being allowed to become functionally immortal in most of the content in the game, yet continuing to have a huge damage advantage over Tankers even when none of the three are in any real danger. . |
-Captain_Aegis aka @Captain Valiant EU
Quote:
Before we proceed, are you attacking my choice of words or are you attacking me?
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Its fine to state the devs are doing things other than what you personally want. Its not reasonable to conflate the devs not doing what you want and not doing what "the players" want. The devs often do something other than what I recommend. That doesn't mean every time they do that they failed to listen to "the players." They just failed to obey one player.
|
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
It's not worth it.
Quote:
Their resistance cap shouldn't change. Brutes are listed under the Tank gameplay category at character creation. They are intended to tank and doing so requires high caps in suitable room for defensive buffing. Yes, Khelds are also listed under the Tanker category but I didn't invite them, did you?|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
The only thing I really want to see is the resistance cap lowered to 85%.
The damage isn't incredibly out of line, and in normal gameplay Brute damage is comparable to Scrapper damage. |
Quote:
| Tankers getting a little more damage wouldn't break things, and Brutes being a little less tough wouldn't break them either. I still think increasing the Tanker damage scalar would be more beneficial to more players than a damage cap increase, as you wouldn't have to already be at the bleeding edge of performance to notice an improvement. |
Quote:
| And the devs were already going to reduce Brute resistance to 85%. I'm sure outcry from the Brute players stayed their hand in that regard. |
Quote:
| It's not like it's an arbitrary amount either, EATs are already at 85%. Perhaps Tankers being the only AT able to reach 90% resistance would help make them feel a little more special, and strengthen their position as the toughest things in the game (since you can't really make them much tougher, the only realistic option is to reduce the max potential of their only challenger for the title) |
.
Quote:
Just out if interest - if Brute damage is comparable to those of a Scrapper why do you feel that Brutes should have any surviability advantages?|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
The only thing I really want to see is the resistance cap lowered to 85%.
The damage isn't incredibly out of line, and in normal gameplay Brute damage is comparable to Scrapper damage. Tankers getting a little more damage wouldn't break things, and Brutes being a little less tough wouldn't break them either. I still think increasing the Tanker damage scalar would be more beneficial to more players than a damage cap increase, as you wouldn't have to already be at the bleeding edge of performance to notice an improvement. And the devs were already going to reduce Brute resistance to 85%. I'm sure outcry from the Brute players stayed their hand in that regard. It's not like it's an arbitrary amount either, EATs are already at 85%. Perhaps Tankers being the only AT able to reach 90% resistance would help make them feel a little more special, and strengthen their position as the toughest things in the game (since you can't really make them much tougher, the only realistic option is to reduce the max potential of their only challenger for the title) Scrappers are fine as they are. My reason for suggesting their resistance cap be increased to 80% was assuming Tankers got a significant damage cap increase. If that doesn't happen, Scrappers don't need their resistances increased either. My reasoning is that Scrappers and Tanks are the only ones of the melee ATs that are visibly in balance with each other. Scrappers get 75% of Tanker survivability, and Tankers should have 75% of scrapper damage (which would work out to something like 80% of Brute damage). In order to make that balance point work, Tankers should get a damage scalar increase to .85 from their current .8. They would deal slightly more damage both at their cap, and in general gameplay. I would not argue with a damage cap increase to 450% from their current 400% either. That would put their damage for my hypothetical 100 damage attack at 462. So, my revision is: Scrappers unchanged Brute resistance cap reduction to 85%, no other change. Tanker damage scalar to .85, damage cap to 450%, no other change. Stalkers unchanged. |
Are you simply trying to come up with a compromise without annoying the Brute comunity?
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
Quote:
The difference between debate and discovery is that one requires both sides to be immalleable or at least resistant to another's approach, while the other involves a willingness to accept that another's perception holds greater relevance.|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
It's not worth it.
|
Arcanaville has seen me on the forums enough to know that while I am considerably bull-headed, I am also wise enough to apologize for my mistakes and learn from them. Nothing on the internet is more dangerous than someone with the courage to accept that they are mistaken. Those people become increasingly more intelligent with the passing of time.
So you see, intent is the key to the relevance of the topic. Despite our common generosity, she and I can both come across as abrasive and frankly at times I simply cannot tell with her.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
Quote:
Pretty much trying for an acceptable compromise. |
Originally Posted by Psiphon
Just out if interest - if Brute damage is comparable to those of a Scrapper why do you feel that Brutes should have any surviability advantages?
Are you simply trying to come up with a compromise without annoying the Brute comunity? |
Johnny and I are currently closer to being able to agree on this than we've ever been. Which is saying something considering how far we are from actually agreeing.
And if you really want to know what I think about it, I think Brutes should be below Scrapper damage but higher than Tanker damage, and below Tanker survivability but above Scrapper survivability.
In normal gameplay, Brutes are pretty comparable to Scrappers in both categories. The survivability advantage Brutes have in the absence of outside buffs comes purely from their higher HP.
I don't actually believe that Tankers need more damage. I'm simply trying for a compromise that has the end result of bringing the 4 melee ATs closer to being balanced.
Scrappers and Tankers have roughly 75% of each other's strong points. Tankers could use a slight adjustment to their damage scalar to put them closer to being at 75% of Scrapper damage, which is about where they should be given that Scrappers have 75% of Tanker survivability (actually slightly lower after Tankers got the HP buff)
Personally, I think Brutes should end up at about 80-85% of Scrapper damage, and 80-85% of Tanker survivability. Since they are supposedly meant to fall somewhere between the two.
I haven't mentioned Stalkers much because I think they are actually pretty close to where they should be after the recent buffs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
I'm objecting to the idea expressed by the words, which would not be resolved by changing the words, unless your original words were mistaken. |
Originally Posted by Sylph_Knight
Before we proceed, are you attacking my choice of words or are you attacking me?
|
I said the devs do make changes based on feedback, and you said you agreed: you only reserved the right to judge if those changes were acceptable. But your original statement explicitly stated that you believed the devs ignore feedback when making changes and that seemed unambiguous.
You also referred twice to "a third option" which suggests you think there are two sides. In fact the phrase "take a third option" is common enough to be a trope. As I said, I don't believe there are two sides in the contexts we're discussing.
[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 isn't a game of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. Brutes (and Stalkers) are supposed to play in a notably different way than Scrappers and Tanks. So we've having a problem of either design failure on one end, or failure to appreciate design on the other.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Personally, I think Brutes should end up at about 80-85% of Scrapper damage, and 80-85% of Tanker survivability. Since they are supposedly meant to fall somewhere between the two.
|
Or to put it another way -- when are Brutes supposed to be at 85% of a Scrapper's damage? When both are using the same primary and have been capped by a kin build of some sort? Will this be against a minion or a higher-rank target? Will they have their ATOs slotted? Will the Brute's Fury bar be meaninglessly empty or meaninglessly full?
Is this a ceiling? Should a Brute's damage be capped at 85% of a Scrapper's, but able to fall well below that? Should their survivability be capped at 85% of a Tank's, but at base about the same as a Scrapper's?
What I'm getting at is that the conversation has gotten to the point where the Brute inherent is no longer part of the discussion; that the 775% damage cap is more relevant to the discussion here than Fury. As I see it, either this is a legitimate assumption and the Fury mechanic itself is obsolete as the game currently plays, making it the appropriate target for re-evaluation, or it is not and players involved in the discussion are abstracting Chinese tea as an economic health indicator of global export markets.
I'd be willing to believe either, and possibly even both. The possibility of the former is a little over half of why I am interested in (the current state of) this discussion.
Dang it Aett you know how johny gets now where is the pop corn?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I'm objecting to the idea expressed by the words, which would not be resolved by changing the words, unless your original words were mistaken.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I said the devs do make changes based on feedback, and you said you agreed: you only reserved the right to judge if those changes were acceptable. But your original statement explicitly stated that you believed the devs ignore feedback when making changes and that seemed unambiguous.
|
Poor wording and a case of mismanaged subject matter are to blame. Allow me to clarify my position - I do believe the Dev's see the feedback, but when the results don't match the expectations they simply choose to ignore it. In the case of PPMs in particular, this was evidenced in that they released a broken system that was repeatedly railed against, more or less stated it was working as intended, and then abruptly backpedaled after player investments were made in the system. If the concern was a matter of balance or pay-to-win, then all the warning signs were there and they chose to ignore them for months. I find this to be irresponsible behavior and in no way endorse it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
You also referred twice to "a third option" which suggests you think there are two sides. In fact the phrase "take a third option" is common enough to be a trope. As I said, I don't believe there are two sides in the contexts we're discussing.
|
In short, the behavior of the developers as of late has trounced my faith in their willingness to improve the game with the expectation of their community seeing changes as an improvement, and in that place have shown a willingness to be bullish on changes that make absolutely no sense to me. Therefore, I cannot in good faith believe they will change Tankers in a way that does not somehow also take away from something else in return, and I would not call that an improvement from my standpoint.
I interpreted your original statement as accusatory to my character, to which I must state that I am not so foolish as to think that the world revolves around me. However, I do believe my opinion matters on some scale and if I disprove of something I'm not afraid to say it. If my opinion did not matter, you would not have acknowledged it. No one in their right mind wastes their time acknowledging something that is insignificant.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
Normally, I do not reply before reading the entire thread so that I do not repeat something that has been stated earlier. I feel that I must in this case because I remember a data variable that many people seem to not know exists, or overlook it as an immutable value instead of a variable. This data point was brought to mind when people were discussing making tanks more able to control aggro than brutes as a point for establishing a bigger difference between melee archetypes.
This data variable can be seen in Mids, and varies from one AT to another as well as varying based upon certain powers that are in effect on the character.
Threat Level.
Very few powers directly modify this variable, but Invisibility is one of them as it applies -100% and is also the easiest to compare across various archetypes. Stealth and Hide do NOT alter this variable, nor does Cloaking Device. Controllers are the only AT to get a similar power via Superior Invisibility in Illusion.
The base Threat Level for Tankers and Brutes is 400%, meaning enemies see them both as equally threatening targets (assuming I am interpreting this correctly without being able to get a plain-speak version of the AI threat code, anyways) and they get an equal chance to draw the attention of all mobs. Scrapper base Threat Level is 300%, Stalker, Soldier, Widow, Warshade, Peacebringer, and Mastermind base is 200%. All unmentioned are 100%
Now, upthread there were people arguing over the feasibility of making tankers better at aggro management than Brutes. With one look at the Mids Advanced Totals window (Misc Buffs) I have found the simplest way to do this that could be imagined: Tankers are now 500% base threat level instead of 400%.
I have made Tankers 25% better than Brutes at aggro management with one variable being altered.
This concludes my thoughts on Tankers versus Brutes and their aggro management and redirection capabilities.
Now, I have an entirely imbalanced suggestion for the damage issue. Eliminate the tanker Damage Cap entirely, and instead institute diminishing returns on damage buffs applied to them so that in a team setting (not league) the maximum buff level attainable with an average team composition with buffs and debuffs as well as other damage AT's has them at 90% of the Brute damage cap under, say, double-stacked fulcrum shift with 16 targets from a Defender.
In a League setting, this could make a given tank more desirable than a given brute with otherwise identical builds and power picks because the tank can gain more benefit from multiple buffs than a Brute can....but only under outlier gameplay conditions found in Incarnate trials where they are sorely lacking in utility while keeping their basic group gameplay much the same, with a bit of a boost in basic functional capacity.
Now, obviously, this change would result in groups with 7 kinetics users and a single tank buffed to insane levels in practice rather than being a usable suggestion...but it is a conceptual alternative.
They CAN do it, they have the technology, it would just be horrifyingly unbalanced.
Quote:
The PPMs are a situation with which I'm directly knowledgeable, and I can state categorically that is not what happened. They were investigating the issues players were bringing up with the PPM system right from the start, but as no decision had been made as to whether they were actually going to change the system or not nothing could be stated about those changes until they were actually finalized.|
Originally Posted by Sylph_Knight
Allow me to clarify my position - I do believe the Dev's see the feedback, but when the results don't match the expectations they simply choose to ignore it. In the case of PPMs in particular, this was evidenced in that they released a broken system that was repeatedly railed against, more or less stated it was working as intended, and then abruptly backpedaled after player investments were made in the system. If the concern was a matter of balance or pay-to-win, then all the warning signs were there and they chose to ignore them for months. I find this to be irresponsible behavior and in no way endorse it.
|
I'm generally aware of the work the devs were doing on the PPM system because I was working with them to find the cone bug. But I was not at liberty to discuss the fact the devs were well into the process of reexamining the PPM system within the context of player feedback to the system, nor were the devs themselves at liberty to discuss unannounced future feature changes, particularly ones that could affect the in-game store.
The argument surrounding the devs' inability to freely make forward-looking statements about future development much of the time is a separate discussion.
[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.)
Back on topic...
I would support a bump in tank resist caps to 95% so that resistance and defensive based mitigation would be on equal footing for them...long before I would ever support a decrease to brute's potential survivability, because it is only edge cases at best where they ever reach that potential (except of course, fire armor and elec armor).
If someone wants a survivability difference then go that route...I don't see that EATs should be on equal resistance footing with brutes...they're supposed to be close to tank survivability.
Personally, I don't think or feel that tank damage needs a buff...but that is me personally...and strictly my opinion.
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
What cone bug?
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The PPMs are a situation with which I'm directly knowledgeable, and I can state categorically that is not what happened. They were investigating the issues players were bringing up with the PPM system right from the start, but as no decision had been made as to whether they were actually going to change the system or not nothing could be stated about those changes until they were actually finalized.
I'm generally aware of the work the devs were doing on the PPM system because I was working with them to find the cone bug. But I was not at liberty to discuss the fact the devs were well into the process of reexamining the PPM system within the context of player feedback to the system, nor were the devs themselves at liberty to discuss unannounced future feature changes, particularly ones that could affect the in-game store. The argument surrounding the devs' inability to freely make forward-looking statements about future development much of the time is a separate discussion. |
Quote:
Thank you.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
They were investigating the issues players were bringing up with the PPM system right from the start, but as no decision had been made as to whether they were actually going to change the system or not nothing could be stated about those changes until they were actually finalized.
...the devs were well into the process of reexamining the PPM system within the context of player feedback to the system, nor were the devs themselves at liberty to discuss unannounced future feature changes, particularly ones that could affect the in-game store. |
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
Quote:
Testing showed that the PPM procs seemed to be working more or less as the devs described for single target powers and spherical AoEs, but they generated wildly differing results for cones which seemed to be difficult for player testing to decypher.|
Originally Posted by Ultimus
What cone bug?
|
I did a suite of tests on cones and concluded there were two bugs in the cone formula for PPM procs: one affected the calculation for the proc chance, and the other was due to the game engine not correcting for the fact that cone arcs are stored in the game database in radians not degrees.
[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:
90% Res is mitigating the same as 45% defense. They're on equal footing already. |
Originally Posted by planet_J
I would support a bump in tank resist caps to 95% so that resistance and defensive based mitigation would be on equal footing for them...
|
If an enemy is hitting you for 100 damage every attack, you will take 10 Damage with capped resist. Keep in mind, the base to-hit is 50%, so only half those attacks are hitting you.
So, after 20 attacks, you've only taken 100 damage.
45% Defense means only 5% of those attacks comes through.
So, after 20 attacks, you've only taken 100 damage.
Quote:
| long before I would ever support a decrease to brute's potential survivability, because it is only edge cases at best where they ever reach that potential (except of course, fire armor and elec armor). |
As someone who really enjoys their brutes, I'd be fine with the Res cap being reduced to 85%. My average performance isn't going to notice it, and it's more in line with balance between the 4 AT's anyway.
Also, I have to support the idea of raising the damage scalars over raising the damage cap for tanks. If the caps only going to benefit extreme cases, how can we expect the player base to notice an improvement?
Besides, if the scalar is improved, don't you still see that at the damage cap? Where as, just a raised damage cap is only effecting you if you're capable of hitting that on your own.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
Just a small interjection in the hopes that one day people might agree with me on this |
Originally Posted by Rylas
90% Res is mitigating the same as 45% defense. They're on equal footing already.
|
but when you add in secondary effects to an attack, defense is of more value. This is perhaps why some resistance powers recieved buffs such as res to (insert secondary effect here) sometime ago but I am doubtful.
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 possible downside to this. I would have to leave it to the weekend to check as I am an awfully busy person during the week but I would rather double check what I believe the downside to be as its been years since I looked into it but its to do with a Tanker being a SK to say a Brute and fighting +4s.|
Originally Posted by Lady_of_Ysgard
Now, upthread there were people arguing over the feasibility of making tankers better at aggro management than Brutes. With one look at the Mids Advanced Totals window (Misc Buffs) I have found the simplest way to do this that could be imagined: Tankers are now 500% base threat level instead of 400%.
I have made Tankers 25% better than Brutes at aggro management with one variable being altered. |
Some say Brutes are OP like me and some say they're not. There are terms in which some ATs are OP and some are not, it could be subtle as in aggro control, or it could be extravagant as in tankmaging through tailor made farms like Godzilla through Tokyo. With myself not being a true farmer and oblivious to the reward system I just concern myself with the aggro control potential.
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.
But that alone doesn't solve the problem of Tankers not feeling like comic book tanks, or give them more pizzazz. Nor does it address the issue of Brutes and Scrappers being allowed to become functionally immortal in most of the content in the game, yet continuing to have a huge damage advantage over Tankers even when none of the three are in any real danger.
.