Aett_Thorn

Well, to answer this the other way, I think that the /Elec would work better on the Brute, since damage auras play nicely with Fury. So I'd make the /EA the Scrapper.

Just give Jagged and I the ability to ban people. That way, Jagged can ban the spammers, and I can ban whomever I want*! Problem solved!





*I swear I'll only use it for good. I pwomise!

Actually, Net, from what I've seen, I think it would need new coding within the ToHit formula. You can't just say that it would use the same mechanism as the Defense check, because that is looking for something completely different.

Let's say that it did use the same check as the Defense one. So the attack checks for your Melee/Smashing/Energy Defenses, and sees which one is higher. If it's your Melee Defense, then under your proposal, the resistances of the set would come into play. But, what if you've got capped S/L Defense, but only 5% melee Defense. Then the attack go against your Smashing Defense, not your melee, and your armor wouldn't resist the attack.

So you're need a new check AFTER the ToHit check but before the damage gets applied to do another vector check on the attack to see which armor's value would get used.


Also, to make a powerset like this work with other sets like Sonic, Thermal, or Tough, you'd need some way for the game to provide those resistances with a way to combine with the vector-based armors, since they don't work like that. So, let's say that you have a Melee armor on and Tough. The game would need a way to determine how much resistance you have to a power in both melee and ranged/AoE for S/L damage. Right now, there is no check for that in the way that resistance is calculated, so there'd need to be ANOTHER check entered in between the ToHit formula and the damage being applied.


So you'd be adding in two checks into the attack formulas, both of which we can't be sure whether they'd cause further problems with the way attacks work. I'm not surprised that the Devs haven't added something like this in yet. Because it is a MASSIVE amount of work for them to do, and could significantly break the attack mechanics.

A few suggestions:

1) You've got a ton of slots in Placate, including Range for some reason. You're most likely going to be using that on targets right next to you, so Range isn't that useful. You can drop AT LEAST three slots from that.

2) Danger Sense is vastly overslotted for EndRed. If you're building on SOs only, 3 DefBuff, 1 EndRed is fine on armor toggles.

3) SLOT YOUR ATTACKS! Assassin's Strike isn't even slotted for Damage at all. Take some of the slots created from the two suggestions above, and slot attacks for Acc, Damage, and then EndRed/RecRed. Your attacks do you no good if they don't do any damage.

4) Drop Smoke Flash, get Blinding Powder. It's a much better power.

5) Swift and Health don't need three slots. Flight's Fly speed is capped with no slots whatsoever, and you won't need any additional +flightspeed for Hover, so drop Swift down to a +Runspeed SO instead. Health is similar, in that since you don't have any other Regen powers, you're not going to see much difference from 3-slotting it. Again, add these extra slots to attacks.

I am very glad that IOs happened. I do, however, wish that the Devs had spent a LOT more time creating more balanced sets. There are currently a LOT of ways to get significant Defense, Regen, HP, Accuracy, and Recharge. However, there are few ways to get things like Resistance or significant Damage.

And before they released IOs, and ESPECIALLY before they tweaked the Defense set bonuses, they should have looked into AT Defense caps.

Just letting you all know that I'm basically done compiling all of the ideas for Tankers into four categories for a stickied thread: defensive suggestions, offensive suggestions, crowd control suggestions, and inherent suggestions (those tied to either the actual inherent powers of Tankers and those dealing with more fundamental layers of Tankers, such as debuff mods, that don't deal with the other three categories). However, as I am on client site today, I am not sure if I'll get a chance to post them today.

My proposed plan is to do this: get two stickied threads going. In the first one, it will be a place to post all of the ideas in consolidated, up-front posts, but then allow people to add more in posts, as well as discuss any that are in there.

The second thread will include the more "realistic" ideas that come out of the consolidated suggestion thread, or at the very least the changes that we think are more reflective of what the Tanker community wants the Devs to really look at.

In this way, we can have a single discussion thread, and then also a "Hey Devs, this is the thread to look at" thread.

That make sense, or do you think there is a better approach?

Just to let everyone know, I am going to create a consolidated Tanker improvement thread. I currently have the shell going, and am putting all of the ideas in this thread into one (well, actually, four) posts. Hopefully we can build off of that, get it stickied, and have someplace to go for all of these.

However, it is slow going, and I'm on page 3. But I'll try to get everything in there.

I haven't seen any enemy groups in the game where I've needed to invent anything, potentially outside of the Incarnate content, which isn't inside the bounds of what the Devs were talking about back then. Remember, the exact quote was, "the existing game hasn't been rebalanced according to IOs." Basically, anything they've added since IOs can be balanced by the Devs around the invention system, and this does include Praetoria, if they want.


However, I've Tanked Praetorian content and still stood standing, so I don't think it's as much of a need as a "if you want to make this easier, then..." statement.


Mobs with -Regen powers don't cause my Ice Tanker to suddenly keel over, nor my Elec/SJ Tanker. Nor my Fire/Kin Tanker. So again, I don't think that this is really needed as much as low-level mobs not being given significant debuffs and told to stay at range.

Johnny, what sets are these three Tankers of yours using that are routinely at the damage cap?

Okay, worked up a mock build for myself, starting with what Hyperstrike gave me, and then working in some of the things that I wanted to grab instead. So, while I know that this build is expensive and will take me a while to get, I was hoping to grab some additional suggestions on it.

Right now, I can not only softcap my entire team to S/L/F/C/E/NE/M/R/AoE, but I myself will be over the softcap for S/L/E and ~40% to Ranged, which should be good enough, considering. Endurance use might be a bit high, but I'm not sure how much I can bring that down, with all of the toggles.


Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.952
http://www.cohplanner.com/

Click this DataLink to open the build!

Fireguard: Level 50 Technology Defender
Primary Power Set: Force Field
Secondary Power Set: Fire Blast
Power Pool: Leadership
Power Pool: Flight
Ancillary Pool: Mace Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Deflection Shield -- LkGmblr-Def(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(7), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(11), LkGmblr-Rchg+(31)
Level 1: Flares -- Thundr-Acc/Dmg(A), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx(3), Thundr-Dmg/Rchg(19), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(31), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(34), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(37)
Level 2: Fire Blast -- Thundr-Acc/Dmg(A), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx(3), Thundr-Dmg/Rchg(15), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(31), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(34), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(37)
Level 4: Fire Ball -- Posi-Acc/Dmg(A), Posi-Dmg/EndRdx(5), Posi-Dmg/Rchg(9), Posi-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(15), Posi-Dam%(25)
Level 6: Insulation Shield -- LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(A), LkGmblr-Def(9), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(11), LkGmblr-Rchg+(33)
Level 8: Assault -- EndRdx-I(A), EndRdx-I(17)
Level 10: Fly -- Zephyr-ResKB(A)
Level 12: Dispersion Bubble -- LkGmblr-Def(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(13), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(13), LkGmblr-Rchg+(33)
Level 14: Hover -- Flight-I(A), Flight-I(45)
Level 16: Rain of Fire -- Posi-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(A), Posi-Acc/Dmg(17), Posi-Dmg/EndRdx(21), Posi-Dmg/Rchg(36), Posi-Dam%(42)
Level 18: Repulsion Field -- FrcFbk-Dmg/KB(A), FrcFbk-Acc/KB(19), FrcFbk-Rchg/KB(25), FrcFbk-Rchg/EndRdx(46), FrcFbk-Dmg/EndRdx/KB(46), FrcFbk-Rechg%(46)
Level 20: Aim -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(21)
Level 22: Maneuvers -- LkGmblr-Def(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(23), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(23), LkGmblr-Rchg+(45)
Level 24: Force Bolt -- FrcFbk-Acc/KB(A), KinCrsh-Acc/KB(43)
Level 26: Repulsion Bomb -- Posi-Acc/Dmg(A), Posi-Dmg/EndRdx(27), Posi-Dmg/Rchg(27), Posi-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(37), Posi-Dam%(43)
Level 28: Blaze -- Thundr-Acc/Dmg(A), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx(29), Thundr-Dmg/Rchg(29), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(33), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(34), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(42)
Level 30: Fire Breath -- Posi-Dmg/Rng(A), Posi-Acc/Dmg(39), Posi-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(40), Posi-Dmg/Rchg(40), Posi-Dam%(40)
Level 32: Personal Force Field -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A)
Level 35: Scorpion Shield -- LkGmblr-Def(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(36), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(36), LkGmblr-Rchg+(39)
Level 38: Web Envelope -- GravAnch-Acc/Immob/Rchg(A), GravAnch-Hold%(39)
Level 41: Blazing Bolt -- Mantic-Acc/Dmg(A), Mantic-Dmg/EndRdx(42), Mantic-Dmg/ActRdx/Rchg(43), Mantic-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(50)
Level 44: Force Bubble -- EndRdx-I(A), EndRdx-I(45)
Level 47: Summon Disruptor -- BldM'dt-Acc/Dmg(A), BldM'dt-Dmg/EndRdx(48), BldM'dt-Acc/EndRdx(48), BldM'dt-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(48), BldM'dt-Acc(50), BldM'dt-Dmg(50)
Level 49: Vengeance -- Empty(A)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Vigilance
Level 2: Swift -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Health -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Hurdle -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Stamina -- EndMod-I(A), EndMod-I(5), EndMod-I(7)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 4: Ninja Run

So 100% of responses say that I should get both.

Are they both "ASAP" powers? Or can you hold off on one of them for a few levels?

Okay, so to sum up what I've seen in this thread in terms of suggestions that we might actually want the Devs to explore, including some of Johnny's ideas, not all of which are bad (and including some he just brought up that he has raised before):

1) Raise the Tanker damage cap to +300% (a 100% increase)

2) Give Tankers more ways to increase damage potential in the Ancillary Pools

3) Raise the Tanker aggro cap to anywhere between 20 and 34

4) Give Tankers the ability to have higher Defense and Resistance caps (95% and 47.5%, respectively

5) Give Tankers a fury-like bar that reduces endurance cost and/or recharge time.

6) Give Tankers MOAR DAMAGE!

7) Give Tankers LESS DAMAGE!

8) Adjust Tanker secondaries to be more mitigation-heavy, instead of adding more damage

9) Give Tanker secondaries something to help offset the higher DPE ratios that Tankers face. Not all secondaries have been adjusted to reflect the fact that Tankers do less damage for the same amount of endurance.

10) Create more ways for Tankers to increase their damage potential. Brutes and Scrappers have many ways to increase their defenses, but Tankers have few options to increase their offense.

11) See below

12) Either increase Tanker AT threat mod, or increase Tanker gauntlet duration. Both of these will help a Tanker get and maintain aggro.

Did I miss any?

Also, I'd like to throw a #11 into the ring:

When IOs first came out, Tankers who put procs in their attacks soon found out that the procs were hitting in an AoE off of single-target attacks. It was quickly discovered that Procs were firing based on who was hit by gauntlet, not just the target of the attack. As such, we know that effects can be transferred through gauntlet.

Given the suggestions above saying that Tankers should have had attack sets that were more mitigation-heavy, and given that Tankers do less DPE than similar ATs with the same attacks, what if we do something like this:

Allow Tanker secondary single-target attacks to have their debuff/mitigation effect spread through Gauntlet.


Basically, for any Tanker single-target attack, allow the debuff to be applied through the AoE effect of Gauntlet, instead of just to the single target that you were attacking. Against hard, single targets, this won't do much. But against large spawns, the tanker could knockdown/stun/debuff/burn 5 enemies instead of 1. Since most of these attacks only have a chance to fire against every target (and some of the AoEs on Gauntlet are fairly small), this wouldn't be something you'd see constantly hitting 5 targets, but would give the Tanker a feel of more active mitigation.

Tannim,

I agree that doing something like that would probably take datamining a large amount of samples. However, there are basically three outcomes from that kind of datamining:

1) Tankers defeat the spawn at a time so close to Brutes that it shows an imbalance towards tankers (basically, the Tanker is tougher, but offensively isn't far behind in the spawn-wiping).

2) Tankers defeat the spawn at an "adequate" rate compared to Brutes. Basically, based on the balance 'formula' that the Devs have, the spawn defeat rate between Tankers and Brutes is just right.

3) Tankers defeat the spawn significantly slower than the Brute.


In case 1, which I don't think would happen, it would actually indicate that Tankers do more damage than they should.

In case 2, Tankers are within the right range of offensive power, and no changes should be made to their offense.

In case 3, offensive changes to Tankers should be made.


I'm willing to bet that it ends up being case 2. If that is the case, then will the people calling for offensive changes to Tankers stop campaigning for those changes? Probably not. Basically, there is nothing that would stop these people from "feeling" that Tankers hit softer than they should, and that they need offensive adjustment. And we can't argue balance changes based on feelings.

So I've started on a new FF/Fire Defender, and I'm liking it so far, along with all of the potential slotting options for it. When all is said and done, I should have softcapped S/L/E and ranged defense, at the very least.

However, having never played a high-level bubbler before, I have questions about Repulsion Field and Force Bubble. Which of these two is better? Which should I take? Both? Are there different strategies to these powers? The guides section's latest FF guide is from I11, and seemed to assume that you'd take both of these. Just wasn't sure if this had changed with more IO knowledge and Incarnate content or not.

Thanks for any help you can offer!