Teleiosaurus - Tanks need more credit for damage taken

pjz99

During the Teleiosaurus cosmic Open Mission, if the players have very effective damage, it happens very often that the off-tanks (particularly the baby tank) does not receive enough credit to reach the 100k minimum score threshold to obtain a reward. If the group has a flawless run and misses no DPS checks it's extremely likely. This punishes effective group play, players are less eager to play in the tank role at this event and it severely screws the person on whom the entire flawless run depended. Please consider giving tanks some more credit for damage taken/damage blocked. Thanks!

rtma

This also applies to those that come in late and don't do enough damage to pass qualifying threshold, how to fix?

pjz99

I don't think that's the same problem at all, if you came in late vs. the person who was in place from the start and was 100% necessary to a flawless run. Maybe that's a problem but that's not really related to this.

zamuelpwe

I think the best way to handle this would be to increase the score multiplier for the bite attack. This would help the tanks who need it without boosting everyone else.

theglasskitten

This is something that really needs to happen. Finding a way to award a players score for damage mitigated would help the tanks get rewarded for successful runs while also positively reinforcing good game play.

As it stands now we score for damage taken which positively reinforces bad game play.

shadowolf505

Damage taken and damage dealt

theglasskitten

> @shadowolf505 said:
> Damage taken and damage dealt

This isn’t a complete thought. Can you clarify? : p

shadowolf505

A tank deals damage and gets score as well as when they take damage

markhawkman

shadowolf505 wrote: »

Damage taken and damage dealt

Apparently part of the problem is that scoring is post damage-mitigation. So damage reduction powers make tank credit harder.

theglasskitten

Some tanks have very low damage output as they are built for mitigation over damage. It makes it difficult for them to reach the threshold to get credit. You are penalized for mitigation, even the presence of AoRP penalizes your score. The issue is more about scoring for mitigation.

spinnytop

My tanks are built for mitigation over damage and so long as I consistently attack during the fight then I'll get enough score to get rewards. If you see the fight is going to be short, start attacking. I don't think motivating people to just stand there with block toggled on for the whole fight is a goal of the threshold system.​​

jaazaniah1

If I see something that looks like it is going to be a fast run (i.e. the usual high scoring crowd is there) and I am going to BT I have taken to standing to the side of mamma, opposite the dps, and attacking full tilt until baby appears. No damage comes my way so the healers can focus on the MT, so my soaking is not missed. So far I have not failed to get credit when being BT using this method.

roughbearmattach

jaazaniah1 wrote: »

If I see something that looks like it is going to be a fast run (i.e. the usual high scoring crowd is there) and I am going to BT I have taken to standing to the side of mamma, opposite the dps, and attacking full tilt until baby appears. No damage comes my way so the healers can focus on the MT, so my soaking is not missed. So far I have not failed to get credit when being BT using this method.

This strategy works. If you plan on being baby tank, try it.
Just don't miss the window to get out in front of mom before baby comes.

pjz99

spinnytop wrote: »

My tanks are built for mitigation over damage and so long as I consistently attack during the fight then I'll get enough score to get rewards. If you see the fight is going to be short, start attacking. I don't think motivating people to just stand there with block toggled on for the whole fight is a goal of the threshold system.​​

I'm not suggesting this, but clearly it's a problem. Glad it doesn't happen for you but unless you want to be regularly stuck doing this job because other people are unwilling to take it, the scoring system for this needs a little tuning. Out of the past 4 runs I've participated in the BT failed to get 100k 3 times, and the 4th was really a squeaker (106k with a missed dps check). These weren't novice tanks either.

Also doesn't your tank have a really strong ult as well as single blade powers? I don't think most tank builds will perform as well offensively.

pjz99

jaazaniah1 wrote: »

If I see something that looks like it is going to be a fast run (i.e. the usual high scoring crowd is there) and I am going to BT I have taken to standing to the side of mamma, opposite the dps, and attacking full tilt until baby appears. No damage comes my way so the healers can focus on the MT, so my soaking is not missed. So far I have not failed to get credit when being BT using this method.

This reads to me as "I know this is a problem and this is how I work around it". I'm not looking for tactics on how to work around this problem, I'd like the problem acknowledged and fixed.

theglasskitten

> @spinnytop said:
> My tanks are built for mitigation over damage and so long as I consistently attack during the fight then I'll get enough score to get rewards. If you see the fight is going to be short, start attacking. I don't think motivating people to just stand there with block toggled on for the whole fight is a goal of the threshold system.​​

The issue is deeper than motivating people to hold block. You are currently rewarded more for face tanking AoEs than you are for blocking them. And bringing AoRP is more punishing ((from a score stand point)) than rewarding. Bad play is being rewarded over good play in many situations. I don’t think this was the goal of the system either.

spinnytop

pjz99 wrote: »

Also doesn't your tank have a really strong ult as well as single blade powers? I don't think most tank builds will perform as well offensively.

None of my tanks have an Ult. I don't know why other tank builds would have an issue since, like I said, mine aren't built for putting out a lot of damage, they're primarily built to stay upright. I don't know what sort of special things you think I'm doing, or what sort of special magical attributes I have that make the game mechanics behave differently for me than they would you, but I can assure you there's none of that.

If I don't attack while baby tanking and the fight goes too fast, I don't get enough score same as you. The difference is I know exactly who's at fault for that and that I should know better.

theglasskitten wrote: »

The issue is deeper than motivating people to hold block. You are currently rewarded more for face tanking AoEs than you are for blocking them. And bringing AoRP is more punishing ((from a score stand point)) than rewarding. Bad play is being rewarded over good play in many situations. I don’t think this was the goal of the system either.

Last I heard the AoEs at cosmics don't give you tanking score, it's only the cosmic's direct attacks that do. Unless it's Kiga I know I certainly am not facetanking anything to up my score because that sounds like a one way ticket to Ground Town. The game seems to very sternly punish you for trying to face tank, by pushing your face into the floor ( unless you're a dodge tank, in which case you'll be attacking a lot anyway to keep your dodge up ).

When it comes to AoRP, the baby tank is unlikely to be getting it anyway unless the healer is standing ocean-side of baby, at which point the bad play is that they're not standing with the dps and toughening them.

I wouldn't mind if they changed the scoring to be total damage rather than unmitigated damage.

pjz99 wrote: »

This reads to me as "I know this is a problem and this is how I work around it". I'm not looking for tactics on how to work around this problem, I'd like the problem acknowledged and fixed.

I don't think a tank attacking the thing they're tanking counts as a "workaround". Far as I'm aware it counts as exactly what a tank should be doing.​​

pantagruel01

The first problem with baby tanking is that you can do it AFK. Fix that (say, apply a reasonably strong threat chaining so if you don't keep active on the baby it aggresses on the mama tank) and you cut down on the problem naturally, as it means attacking the baby isn't pointless score-padding. Still, the way scoring for tanking works is also inherently broken, in that it gives credit for taking damage, while good tanks are good at not taking damage; it should instead be giving credit for threat.

pjz99

pantagruel01 wrote: »

credit for threat.

Entirely on board with this, either/or/and.

theglasskitten

You are scored on damage received, not damage mitigated. Any bubble shields, AoRP, blocking effectively gives you a lower score ((healers get 0 score for damage shielded)). Tanks often score much higher at kiga where they can take the damage unblocked than say dino where they have to mitigate more of the damage.

DPS are rewarded for damage done. Healers are rewarded for healing. Tanks are not rewarded for holding threat or damage mitigated, which is their job. As Panta said, scoring for tanks is broken.

Even my dodge tank that does more damage than my defiance tank scores lower on average because i mitigate more damage.

jaazaniah1

Since the devs seldom return to fix/update old content your options are either to complain or to adapt.

pjz99 wrote: »

jaazaniah1 wrote: »

If I see something that looks like it is going to be a fast run (i.e. the usual high scoring crowd is there) and I am going to BT I have taken to standing to the side of mamma, opposite the dps, and attacking full tilt until baby appears. No damage comes my way so the healers can focus on the MT, so my soaking is not missed. So far I have not failed to get credit when being BT using this method.

This reads to me as "I know this is a problem and this is how I work around it". I'm not looking for tactics on how to work around this problem, I'd like the problem acknowledged and fixed.

shadowolf505

Dodge vs Defiance would make you not receive a certain amount of damage if I am not wrong but Defiance is mainly for Facetanking vs Dodge which is for Missing attacks. At least, in my eyes.

warcanch

Another thing that most of us know is that if you die at the Cosmic and respawn, you lose a large chunk of your score (30 - 50k is usually bandied about). Which is why if I have a self-rez, I'll get up and rez others around me.


If the run is a wipe, I tend to wait for someone to come around and rez me rather than respawn. Especially if I'm one of the tanks. Of course, often if the run does wipe, most everyone DOES get enough credit after the victory. Just, not always.​​

pantagruel01

Part of the problem is that the scoring system for OMs is clunky legacy code, though it could probably be made better with some tweaks. My understanding of credit for damage taken is:

1. It is based on actual damage taken. This is probably not something that is easy to change.
2. It can be limited to certain damage types. This is why dps does not get credit for taking damage from ice storms and so on.
3. It can have a value multiplier (i.e. it does not have to be 1 credit per damage).

Given those facts, a better tanking credit setup would be:

1. Assign each tankable attack a small additional damage component. This damage component should be:
   1. Irresistible.
   2. Of a damage type that is not used elsewhere in the OM.
   3. Assigned a high credit multiplier
2. All other damage should be assigned a credit multiplier of -1 (i.e. taking damage is actually bad).

pjz99

shadowolf505 wrote: »

Dodge vs Defiance would make you not receive a certain amount of damage if I am not wrong but Defiance is mainly for Facetanking vs Dodge which is for Missing attacks. At least, in my eyes.

This is a good point but as an earlier poster suggested, maybe "damage mitigated" would be a better metric since it would work as well for blocking as it would for dodging.

e: In fact this is probably better than raw "damage taken" because it wouldn't reward poor tanking (failing to mitigate the incoming damage).

spinnytop

pantagruel01 wrote: »

Part of the problem is that the scoring system for OMs is clunky legacy code, though it could probably be made better with some tweaks. My understanding of credit for damage taken is:

1. It is based on actual damage taken. This is probably not something that is easy to change.
2. It can be limited to certain damage types. This is why dps does not get credit for taking damage from ice storms and so on.
3. It can have a value multiplier (i.e. it does not have to be 1 credit per damage).

Given those facts, a better tanking credit setup would be:

1. Assign each tankable attack a small additional damage component. This damage component should be:
   1. Irresistible.
   2. Of a damage type that is not used elsewhere in the OM.
   3. Assigned a high credit multiplier
2. All other damage should be assigned a credit multiplier of -1 (i.e. taking damage is actually bad).

1 sounds good. 2 I can see being really difficult to tweak, and until they get it perfect we would have a long period of there just being a new circumstance where tanks don't get enough credit. Better to just completely 0-out mitigation as a factor, and simply have your damage-taken score be based on number of hits tanked. If a tank can successfully tank without blocking then that's really no reason to risk them not getting rewards - if they can't successfully do that, the game already punishes them with horizontality.​​

pantagruel01

spinnytop wrote: »

1 sounds good. 2 I can see being really difficult to tweak, and until they get it perfect we would have a long period of there just being a new circumstance where tanks don't get enough credit.​​

Nah, it's an identifiable rate. Just make sure the bonus is high enough to compensate.

spinnytop

In fact, taking hits or damage should be removed entirely. Tank score should be entirely based around a tank's ability to keep putting attacks out while tanking. That's where tanking skill is shown after all, not mitigation.​​

pantagruel01

spinnytop wrote: »

In fact, taking hits or damage should be removed entirely. Tank score should be entirely based around a tank's ability to keep putting attacks out while tanking. That's where tanking skill is shown after all, not mitigation.​​

That's just scoring for damage done. There's no obvious way to give bonus credit to tanks.

pjz99

spinnytop wrote: »

In fact, taking hits or damage should be removed entirely. Tank score should be entirely based around a tank's ability to keep putting attacks out while tanking. That's where tanking skill is shown after all, not mitigation.​​

Attacking is already assigned wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much credit, anyone who's played an extremely bad DPS knows this. It is very hard to not score when playing DPS role even if you are a large net minus to the completion of the raid (dying at Kiga, skewing DPS checks at dino, shooting incorrect dumb **** at Qwyjibo). It shouldn't be this difficult for effective tanks to qualify.

spinnytop

pantagruel01 wrote: »

spinnytop wrote: »

In fact, taking hits or damage should be removed entirely. Tank score should be entirely based around a tank's ability to keep putting attacks out while tanking. That's where tanking skill is shown after all, not mitigation.

That's just scoring for damage done. There's no obvious way to give bonus credit to tanks.

Well that threat idea someone mentioned would solve that. Perhaps give score for applying Challenged.​​

pantagruel01

spinnytop wrote: »

Well that threat idea someone mentioned would solve that. Perhaps give score for applying Challenged.​​

Problem is that requires capabilities that don't seem to be built in to the CO open mission system. In any case, effects that give credit for being the dino's primary target measure threat well enough.

spinnytop

The scoring system can give score based on applying Holds to targets, that's essentially debuff detection.​​

pantagruel01

spinnytop wrote: »

The scoring system can give score based on applying Holds to targets, that's essentially debuff detection.​​

Doing that required programmer assistance; for a long time it couldn't.

spinnytop

Well now it can o3o​​