Uncle Shags

I would find it very difficult to not take a power named Buttstroke.

I'm sure. And his name is Chiron. He's the first named boss in an arc, so I guess I can somewhat understand him being an EB, but the end of an arc, when the boss was discussed for several missions? EB? Boooo.

That's it. That's my suggestion. The lack of AVs is particularly noticeable during the 40-50 mission arcs. There are several times that a great deal of buildup and anticipation for the big bad boss ends in a waaaawaaaaa when they turn out to be an EB. I just ran the first mission in one of the new page 2 KW Skull arcs. Can't remember the boss name, started with a C. Another EB. Boooo. More AVs please!

Dammit, I missed it! I was excited and the kids would have loved it. And my Lord Rot would have given the winners a run for their money. Thank you for organizing event like this. Maybe there'll be another monster one around Halloween. Next time I'll set an alarm....

Thank you to the devs for being open-minded and flexible. Maybe you aren't villains after all!

Well, it's been quite a roller coaster over the last two weeks, but if this latest build is sent to live I think I'll be happy with it. My main tank's clear times went from 6min, to a depressing 8.5, and now back to 6.5. 6.5 feels ok. I'm still very slightly disgruntled, because 6min for that mission is already below average and I'm still not convinced an AT wide damage reduction was necessary, but I'll take it. Could be much worse. The bigger hit I've taken is to my faith and trust. It seems like, in the end, the devs were receptive and reasonable. And there's a ton of good stuff in Page 2. It's great, and I'm thankful. But.... This tanker thing? I just wish it didn't take dozens of pages of debate, how many hours of shared testing, fighting amongst ourselves, and all the unnecessary ill will towards the dev team along the way to get us to this point! I can't help but wonder, "How the hell did that ever make it out of closed beta?!" I'll try not to hold a grudge, but it kind of feels like, "Yeah, you didn't stab me, but you had the knife, and you were definitely THINKING about it!" I don't want a sour taste in my mouth, but it is what it is... It'll wear off, I'm sure. Especially if there are some upcoming buffs to some underperformers! Thanks to all those who fought the good fight. In the end, reason, truth, fairness, and justice won! Very fitting...for those of us who play hero-side. =P

You sure about that? From the homecoming wiki: Gauntlet -- also referred to as "PunchVoke" -- causes the Tanker's AoE attacks and auras to taunt every PvE enemy they affect. Their single-target attacks taunt the enemy hit and up to four more around it. Gauntlet has reduced chances of affecting exceptionally high-rank foes like Giant Monsters, and even worse chances of affecting other players in PvP. Brutes possess a smaller version of this power, occasionally labeled as "PokeVoke" by the community, as it does not possess an official name. The Brute's version of Gauntlet does not apply in PvP, and their single-target attacks only taunt the one target hit. https://homecoming.wiki/wiki/Inherent_Powers

Yeah, if this is legitimately how the severity of this nerf is going to be decided we need to account for taunt. I have a Fire/BA tank and a BA/Fire scrapper. On test the scrapper had a better time (4min vs 5min) but the nearly complete lack of runners on the tank was a MASSIVE advantage. If the scrapper had the same level of taunt it would have taken half the time. There's scrapper taunt auras on shield, inv, will, bio and rad, but they aren't as effective as tanks. And brutes don't have aoe taunt on their attacks. Is this what it's coming down to? Tankers having inflated numbers in clear time missions/farms due to more effective taunt that has created a false impression that is leading to nerfs?

Does it skew the results? Honestly, I think so, but can't say how much, as I don't solo, and don't run tests (until recently for this patch). But I know it was a significant issue when I ran my blaster, compared to my tanks. And I've read that other people have mentioned it in speed test threads. Chasing runners takes time. Baddies moving out of your aoes slows you down. All I'm saying is that if we're trying to compare damage from one AT to another, a taunt aura is a confounding variable. For example, scrapper Burn causes baddies to run in fear. Tanker Burn they just stand in and melt. Is the fire tank doing more damage, faster? Maybe. But I'd argue that's more of a test of a game mechanic (taunt) than it is a test of damage. If you're suggesting that taunt auras be ignored in testing, I'd disagree. It would be like doing pylon testing where the pylon stood still for some builds, and everyone else had to chase it down.

If we're just comparing damage it should be a mission with wet noodle enemies that run to melee and stay there.

Are there any maps where the baddies all run into melee and stay there? Scrappers without taunt auras who need to chase runners skews the results.

You're not the only one. I'm toasty, Irish, mad at the devs, and itching for a fight. "Which one of you fanbois want to try to defend this bullshit target cap?! Bring it!" Sorry if I got a little belligerent on you. You're not my target. I should take your advice.

We're in a thread about blasters. I'm talking about blasters. The blaster AR nuke, Full Assault, has a cap of 10 targets. It's the only blaster nuke with a cap of 10. The rest are 16.

I'm sorry. I can't figure out what you mean. I'm going to assume there's a typo.

I don't know why it wouldn't be discouraging. Disappointing. Disheartening. Demoralizing. I used a thesaurus. They all ring true. My first nerf was Star Wars Galaxies. I had a Tera Kasi Rifleman. Devs destroyed it. Here we are, 22 years, and dozens of mmos later. All of a sudden it's the same old same... I joined Homecoming because the developers were fans. Players. They weren't corporate goons who would make knee jerk, careless, overeactive nerfs. I figured they'd have the mentality of buffing the underpowered rather than over-nerfing the powerful and instead, making balance decisions with the players in mind. Balance shifts happen. Nerfs happen. They should. That's not the issue. The issue here is there is a very good case that has been presented, with lots of data, that this nerf was excessive. And then, after I made this thread to try to help do something, and so many have responded with tons of work to prove the excess, the developers, whom I felt were different, have finally responded. And their response is, "Hey, that nerf you were complaining about? Yeah... We're going to make it worse." Discouraging is a pretty mild version of the emotion this situation provokes.

My only problem with AR is that FA has a cap of 10 targets. Who decided that was a good idea? Please. Someone try to defend it.

So you made it simpler. And more harsh.

There is also an added section with "Design Notes" which I appreciate as it seems to give some insight into their purpose. It also clarifies (I hope) that this latest build may contain a mistake? Because the numbers don't seem to jive with this statement: "Tankers will still deal more damage than they had in the past, and be AoE specialists among the Melee AT's. We believe that this is a more balanced take for their intended role compared to more damage-focused counterparts. Despite all these changes, Tankers will still find themselves in a much better standing than they were before the previous revamp." It seems like the underlined sections don't align with the new data? Without this dev design note one might get the impression that the mentality is: "Hey remember that buff 6 years ago? Oops, it was supposed to be a nerf. Here ya go!" I'm hoping that isn't their intention...

Oh jeez, this is discouraging. So much for optimism...

Edit: Never mind, looks like you're right. Damnit...

I want to thank you all for the discussion we've had in here and in the focused feedback thread. Balance talk can get a bit heated, but I think we kept it pretty chill. And a big thank you to all those that got into beta and tested. The good news is Beta Build 5 softens a couple of the tanker changes. The optimist in me bets that it had something to do with the quality and quantity of the feedback we provided the devs. Is it perfect? Maybe not? But to borrow a phrase from one of my home reno contractors, "It's better than it was..." EDIT: Holy Balls they made it even worse?!

The same can be said for any AT in this game. Should everyone be nerfed?

I'm not sure this type of exaggeration is helpful when we're talking about trying to find balance. Some may read this and take it at face value. I'm sure you just mean super tough, or immortal vs x and y in z scenario, but when I hear immortal I hear "doesn't die, no matter what." That's what I try to build for, and I know it takes much more than just "minimal slotting." To me, for instance, immortal means pulling, all at once, a map full of 54x8 radios. Endless groups. Arachnos, Carnies, Cot, and Council. I know from experience that's not easy to build and requires a lot more than just minimal slotting. Even then I wouldn't use the word "immortal". Recently I tried to solo the new roaming Awaken group in the beta KW park and it was a...humbling experience... I'm not trying to pick a fight or play semantics, but sometimes words matter.

Holy smokes that's awesome.

It seems like there is a trend in reactions of tanker enthusiasts here? Many of us fit into categories: Hand in the cookie jar: many of us enjoy this game for min/maxing builds, and some have found ways to really maximize tank damage. These folks reactions seem to may be, "OK, you caught me. This was OP. I'll take the hand slap." Absolutely nothing wrong with chasing dps, and good on them for owning it. Traditional tanks: protecting the team as the boulder that baddies get broken on is a time honored tradition, and damage isn't really a priority. Reactions here are mostly, "Oh well. I don't worry about damage." Nothing wrong here either. Middle of the road tanks: might be harder to pin down. Maybe they haven't chased crazy damage or procs because they come at the expense of tankiness. Maybe they can't afford the fancy purple dps builds. Or maybe they just like both damage and toughness. Whatever the reason, the reaction may be, "Wait a minute? I was only doing middle of the road damage, and you're saying that was too much? Not cool, man..." I find myself in this category, and I think this reaction is reasonable. I'm just spitballing here, and I'm certain there are other categories than these three, but I'm thinking this might be helpful, for me at least, to understanding my fellow tanker's reactions. I think it's important that we remember all of our perspectives are valid. I just hope the devs can find a way to do right by all of us.