Alabaster12

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree.

Stoners are easily the most survivable of the Tankers and the second most identifiable thematically only to Invulnerability (i.e. The Thing).

Yet they don't rank as the highest played Tanker AT. Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't? I see (pardon the expression) TONS of Stoners. Maybe it's second to Invulnerability, sure, but Inv is the classic Tanker thing. Are there stats somewhere on Tanker primary preferences?

[/ QUOTE ]

There once was but I forgot the link.site (if it even exists). However, while I see Stoners occasionally, I see Inv (obviously), WP, SD and Fire tankers much more frequently on Justice.

The only two Tanking sets that I see less frequently then Stoners is Ice and Dark.

Not exactly a scientific measurement .... just my personal observations.

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience is the exact opposite. Tons of stoners. I would say the only thing I see more of is inv and MAYBE SD just because it is the new kid on the block. It's pretty close though.

I never see fire, or dark... and wp and ice are about equal in between....

So my personal experience
Inv
SD
Stone
WP / Ice
Fire
Dark

I love my stone tank, and I have a feeling that if granite was modified in any way I would stop enjoying it. It is by far my favorite power in the game.

That said... I think the curve on stone armor is very rough. Until you get granite it is an absolute chore to try to soak damage and doing missions you feel pretty vulnerable. I think I probably died pre-32 on my stone tank more than any other char I've made, and haven't died since post-32. Very dramatic change. I MIGHT be supportive of fixes for that problem, but I kind of think it's a rite of passage in some ways. If you can survive the grindtastic 32 levels of stone armor pre-granite, you can be a beast post-granite.

I agree completely about scaling, but beyond that anything I think would just drive me away from the set.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I've gotten a handful of PMs from him myself

[/ QUOTE ]

I've gotten a handful of something else entirely from him on a couple occasions.


.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where I come from we call that a hint. In this case possibly about changing the demeaning aggressive pit-bullish way you present any idea?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These discussions drag on because.....

"I don't really care what you think "-Johnny_Butane

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right. I really don't care about how someone crafts a ridiculous definition of "being a heavy hitter" to justify calling Tankers that as they are now.

Or the nonsense people use to validate the disparities that exist and defend the team's heroic heavy hitter/big gun being shafted conceptually with a role primarlily as a decoy/rodeo clown with piddling vanilla damage.

@Alabaster12:

[ QUOTE ]
The resolution to your problem is to play another class that is effectively the same but plays the way you want this class to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No class exists to be the heroic heavy hitter.

We've got the scrappy little mutants with knives coming out of his hands.

We've got the stealthy dark knights who strike hidden from the shadows.

We've got the brutish gamma irradiated monsters who are ruled by anger.

And we've got medium damage decoys who don't do justice to any hero with super strength and don't fill the role as the team big guy.

Tankers should be that class. The lead designer of the game even said that they should be and confirmed they were intended to be the kind of heavy hitting hero in question. I suspect the majority of people wouldn't call Tankers heavy hitters as they are now by any means. So, why isn't that something that should be looked at?


.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get it.

People play this game to have fun.... not for your opinion of what each class should be. They also don't play it for what a lead designer said 3 years ago about a class that has changed constantly.

If a large group of people are having fun playing tankers exactly the way they are why do you feel entitled to taking that away from them.

Conceptually this game is what you make it. That is how people can fit just about any story and/or character into virtually any model. As evidence, just walk around and take a look at some of the crazy yet also amazingly creative stories people have to fit their powers into their own imaginations.

Your rigid definitions of each class do not work at all, and the fact that you can't mold your own definition of a heavy hitter in to a class (brute) that is clearly begging for the definition shows a clear lack of imagination. On top of that you are expecting others to fit into your idea for what each class should be.

Given options for two classes that have solid defenses and damage, where one has higher base damage and lower defense, and one that has higher base defense and lower damage... you feel like you can't fit your concept into the playstyle that you want.

I say again... if you are so unhappy... find another class that fits your definition and use your imagination to make that work for you.

If you can't make that work for you, there are plenty of other games out there for you to enjoy.

Neither of these options includes spamming and irritating everyone who is trying to get help on a message board for a class they like and for a game they like and having to deal with someone who drones on with the same topic week after week after week.

The dev's are not required to have a resolution to your perceived problem that Tanks do not have enough damage. You seem to think you are entitled to something from them. You can play the game as they design it... or you can leave. They are not required to make any change that you or anyone else comes up with.

Brutes are tanks that do more damage.

You're being pedantic for no reason whatsoever. The resolution to your problem is to play another class that is effectively the same but plays the way you want this class to play.

Tankers are obviously not for you in their current incarnation in the game but there clearly are a group of people who like them as is. You're mandating that the devs should listen to you over others and that is both childish and wrong... and the fact that no changes have been made regardless of your opinion over the years (as you continually bring up) should be a clear sign that the dev's have no intention of listening to you and so you should probably stop with the endless and nonstop badgering of anyone who doesn't have exactly the same opinion as you.

I really don't understand how this argument can now keep going and going and going and going.

With the future update where you can swap sides I can't see how anyone is complaining about damage in tanks anymore. If you want more damage... play a brute. Simple as that. It should be that answer now with scrappers, but it will be doubly so when brutes can come blue side.

Let people who want to play tanks continue to play them as is, and everyone who wants a tank but with more damage can go play the brute. If as you all seem to think there are no tanks left then maybe the devs will do something about it, but it's all supposition and opinion until then. There seems to be a large portion of people who still like playing them at this point, so arguing about it constantly and needlessly is quite irritating, and bordering on spam considering the mod's usually lock these posts anyway.

My Bots/Dark was a scientist who created artificial intelligence robots in an effort to help mankind when the robots turned on him. They put cybernetic implants into his brain that allowed them to control his actions. From there they went on to force him into occult research to expand both his and their power. (fluffy as the pure evil of the combined robot personalities).

It is a bit long and complex in that my mastermind is actually controlled by the pets, not the other way around, but I like it. Even then it's not really they control me... it's like a giant collective of evil.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I recently did a fantastic MA arc on my tank that I would challenge a brute to handle without extreme buffs to the entire team in the game. The last mission had 7 of the nastiest AV's I've seen all in the same room. Since your arbitrary mark for dismissing MM's as tanks is the ITF, once a brute can hold on to and tank all these guys all at the same time without losing a party member, then I'll concede they are tanks.

40% of the agro goes to the team huh? I would love to see you keep that stat on this mission... and these things are becoming increasingly common now with MA.

Also I can't help but laugh when people still compare Scrappers and Tanks. I couldn't tell you how many scrappers have gotten killed in like 2-3 hits from splash damage in the MA let alone actually taking a legitimate hit from the mob. The game has gotten harder, and this is a very good thing for tanks. That is exactly why the min/maxers are all but begging for stone tanks, and all of a sudden it has started to become the FoTM.

About the only thing I would say is needed for tanks, is some kind of mechanic that would make it acceptable (or not) to stack them. Right now a team needs one tank, and that is realistically about it. Anymore adds both confusion on who is trying to hold agro and is pretty useless. A mechanic that would allow the tanks to split damage taken, or some other mechanic that keeps with the damage absorption nature of tanks would be very nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never used the itf as an arbitrary point negating the tanking abilites of an MM. I said Most AV's/Hero's one shot an MM's pets with an aoe.

Also, are you forgeting recluses strike force. Brutes do "tank" that. So I dont care what you say you did in the MA that a brute couldnt.

Also the only way a tank could do something a brute couldnt is if you had a team that was doing nothing but watching. Of course i your taking AV's all your going to be able to do is stand their and soak damage so you are not really "doing" anything.

Tanks and Brutes have the same caps. So since this is a team based game you ARE going to have buffs on the team. Ignoring that fact is not going to make it go away. With the buffs a brute is just as survieable as a tank and as many have said. Dead enemies hurt no one.

However If those of you who play tankers are content to remain niche meat shields that have no other purpose. Are not always wanted on a team, even when on a team you only want one. Well thats fine by me. Ill be playing and tanking on a brute on many many teams.

If my brutes can tank the LGTF, ITF, and the RSF on relentless I am not concerned that someone will choose a tank over me to tank any of the new content that comes out. Yes their are lots of players that couldnt hold agro on a wet paper bag as a brute. Thats because they are not playing a "tanker role" they are playing the "scrapper role".

Ive seen scrappers tank the STF therefore they can tank any hero side tf in the game. Ive tanked a few of the lower ones myself on a fire fire scrapper with no Io's.

Ive tanked many task forces hero and co op with my D3 defender. I will admit I have to carry break frees or have someone keeping mez protection on me.

I have tanked several SF's with my MM. I can do it I just dont like it. Constantly respawning pets irratates me. I much prefer to be actively using my poison powers at all times. When a Brute is tanking my pets pick up the 40% of the agro he isnt managing and I can easily keep them alive as well as debuff multiple targets.

I have done many TF's/SF's on both sides with all defender, all controler, and all corruptor teams.

So yes, I believe that as is tanks are completely unnesesary. Which is why I want something done about them.

Then again something is being done, brutes are coming to blue side. Though I would not be surpised if there was some kind of level limit to it.

Also for those who were wondering about the patron pools. IMO they should still have access to them providing you have completed that arc. Villains are notorious for getting what they want from a partner and then double crossing them.

Learning from one of them and then jumping ship fits in well with the concept IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

In reading this forum there is a large disconnect between the way the game actually is, and the way people report it. I have played many tanks. I have never been denied entry into a group just because I was a tank, and I've never felt like I wasn't contributing to the team. Just logging in for a length of time produces a large number of tell's in game asking me if I want to join a group. All of this subjective opinion that tanks are bad or unable to fulfill a role in the game seems to come from people who dislike them, and therefore never play them anymore so it seems very suspect to me.

Since as you said the problem is being fixed for you in that brutes are coming blue side hopefully we can start to see an end to these silly arguments and the people who like tanks can stick with them, and the people who want more damage can go play a brute.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.

All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.

P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.

Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.

This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant do that. It would completely bone villain teams. Brutes are villain sides tanks no matter what people say about it being MM's.

MM's pets get one shotted by most AV/Hero aoe's. The MM then dies and so does the rest of the team.

Brutes are villains sides tanks and are needed as such.

The simple fact is Brutes are tanks done right.

While I might accept a nerf to brute damage (providing it wasnt stupidly over done like most nerfs) I will never support their durability being messed with.

If the damage cap on a brute was changed from 750% to 600% I wouldnt complain. However nerfing brutes is just going to piss alot of players off, so it would be a stupid thing to do.

Buff tankers to what they should be. Add a few more challenging difficulty settings to what we have for options and put something in that actually gives one incentive to run at those settings.

Off topic I know but for challenge 1 standard merits. Challenge 2 a 25% increase to merits. Challenge 3/50% challenge 4/75% challenge 5/100%.

IF there was a reason to run on challenge 5 maybe people would want to have the added durabitity and agro management of a tank. However when challenge 1 gives you the same rewards why bother. Yes you get more influence on the higher settings but it takes far longer so is it really faster.

Man i need to stop ranting lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must've been playing a different game because not once playing red side through several 50's did anyone take the "tank" role in a mission, SF, or anything and all those AV's I soloed and had attacking me in groups on my MM must've been an illusion.

I would MUCH rather have my tank playing the role of "tank" than my brute or my MM for that matter. It's not even a question to me so I'm not even remotely sure where you get that brutes are tanks done right. Brutes are melee damage dealers with nice survivability on a side of the game that has no defined roles like "Tank", "Support", and "Control".

[/ QUOTE ]

I really do not run TFs with pugs very often. If I do the lead brute is never someone I do not know. That way you do have someone who is playing the role of "tank". If I am not playing my brute I am playing my kin. I do bust out my Tank on the odd itf because he was my first 50 and is my favorite. However if the team is a little low on damage I get one of my brutes. Accomplish the same role and do 2 and a half times more damage.

You get what you pay for as they say. If you run with a pug you will get hit and miss teams. If your brutes are not "tanking" then you are obviously missing.

I play tanks and brutes. I can tank nearly as well with a brute as I can with a tank. I will admit that a tank is slightly better and I have to work a bit at agro management with a brute but I can easily hold agro on 60% of the mob or an AV with my brute. Thats all that is nessesary if the other 7 people cannot handle 40% of the agro they need to learn how to play their toons. I belive the extra damage the brute supplies is well worth my having to work a bit to manage agro. Its also far more fun (for me). I get to hit really hard and I have a challenge in managing agro.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently did a fantastic MA arc on my tank that I would challenge a brute to handle without extreme buffs to the entire team in the game. The last mission had 7 of the nastiest AV's I've seen all in the same room. Since your arbitrary mark for dismissing MM's as tanks is the ITF, once a brute can hold on to and tank all these guys all at the same time without losing a party member, then I'll concede they are tanks.

40% of the agro goes to the team huh? I would love to see you keep that stat on this mission... and these things are becoming increasingly common now with MA.

Also I can't help but laugh when people still compare Scrappers and Tanks. I couldn't tell you how many scrappers have gotten killed in like 2-3 hits from splash damage in the MA let alone actually taking a legitimate hit from the mob. The game has gotten harder, and this is a very good thing for tanks. That is exactly why the min/maxers are all but begging for stone tanks, and all of a sudden it has started to become the FoTM.

About the only thing I would say is needed for tanks, is some kind of mechanic that would make it acceptable (or not) to stack them. Right now a team needs one tank, and that is realistically about it. Anymore adds both confusion on who is trying to hold agro and is pretty useless. A mechanic that would allow the tanks to split damage taken, or some other mechanic that keeps with the damage absorption nature of tanks would be very nice.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.

All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.

P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.

Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.

This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant do that. It would completely bone villain teams. Brutes are villain sides tanks no matter what people say about it being MM's.

MM's pets get one shotted by most AV/Hero aoe's. The MM then dies and so does the rest of the team.

Brutes are villains sides tanks and are needed as such.

The simple fact is Brutes are tanks done right.

While I might accept a nerf to brute damage (providing it wasnt stupidly over done like most nerfs) I will never support their durability being messed with.

If the damage cap on a brute was changed from 750% to 600% I wouldnt complain. However nerfing brutes is just going to piss alot of players off, so it would be a stupid thing to do.

Buff tankers to what they should be. Add a few more challenging difficulty settings to what we have for options and put something in that actually gives one incentive to run at those settings.

Off topic I know but for challenge 1 standard merits. Challenge 2 a 25% increase to merits. Challenge 3/50% challenge 4/75% challenge 5/100%.

IF there was a reason to run on challenge 5 maybe people would want to have the added durabitity and agro management of a tank. However when challenge 1 gives you the same rewards why bother. Yes you get more influence on the higher settings but it takes far longer so is it really faster.

Man i need to stop ranting lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must've been playing a different game because not once playing red side through several 50's did anyone take the "tank" role in a mission, SF, or anything and all those AV's I soloed and had attacking me in groups on my MM must've been an illusion.

I would MUCH rather have my tank playing the role of "tank" than my brute or my MM for that matter. It's not even a question to me so I'm not even remotely sure where you get that brutes are tanks done right. Brutes are melee damage dealers with nice survivability on a side of the game that has no defined roles like "Tank", "Support", and "Control".

I always log out in the train station as well, but even so, more speed is never a bad thing for me and I don't particularly need the slots anywhere else. (Having hasten 3 slotted instead of the 6 you have for Breath of Fire, Greater FS among a few other extra slots in powers you have really helps with making the build less tight).

While true you can get the same with tough, I use both tough and stone skin as a great places to IO Mule. I think I have ageis for run speed and psi in both of them at the moment (although I never actually run tough) which leaves me free to slot granite strictly with def and res IO's. In addition since I never actually run tough (unless I'm outside of granite since I'm already capped in granite) my end problems are a little less.

Effectively the only toggles I run in granite are mud pots and weave.... and occasionally rooted if its a nasty fight (but this is extremely rare).

As far as attack chain...
hasten
teleport in
Build Up
Combustion
FSC
Melt Armor
Fireball
Taunt (if any were missed and just because at this point the rest of the group is now attacking and might pull a few).
Scorch/Incinerate until I recharge an aoe up which due to hasten doesn't take long even without a kin... with a kin I completely skip the single target attacks.

It's pretty difficult to pull off of me with that formula just because of all the aoe I'm throwing around.

Without granite (which is solo for me) I can basically do a very similar tactic only I'll usually use Incinerate first on whatever the toughest baddie is. My rech is so crazy without granite I hardly ever even worry about chains solo though, and pretty much just spam my heavy hitters as much as possible. Even then usually there's enough aoe I kill the hole pack pretty quickly.

In my build... I typically take Hasten where you take Breath of Fire. (sort of... my build is completely different, but basically thats the power swap I make).


As you said... different strokes. If it works for you more power, just figured I'd say what works for me.

While I'm not saying at all that my way is the only way there are a few things that you have setup that I wouldn't dream of living without on my stone/fire. As a note ahead of time, I spend virtually all of my time not solo'ing in perma-granite... so keep that in mind with these suggestions and ignore if you spend more outside of it.

Hasten - I've never built a stoner that didn't have this just for sheer need against the rech.

3 slotted swift - Overkill? Maybe, but moving at normal or better speed is pretty important to me.

Stone Skin - Getting this caps your S/L resist while in granite.


A few things you have that I don't... and why.

Leadership - I never take this on a tank. I usually am to worried about guaranteeing agro with multiple attack chains that may or may not use a ton of end to worry about having more toggles.

Breath of Fire - Admittedly I've never even tried this spell on a tank, but it seems slightly less useful to me than the other aoe's in the set, and this is one I drop.

Greater Fire Sword - I usually pick either Incinerate or this... right now I'm going with Incinerate.


I don't have my build anywhere at the moment or I would show you, but basically I take Taunt, the Fighting Pool, Build Up, Hasten much earlier than you have them for the ones you have. I also pick up the Pyre Epic pool for some great additional aoe chains that seem to really help me hang on to everything.

Hopefully my ranting made some sense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stoners are probably the best all around Tankers at higher levels in terms of tanking (i.e. taking a hit) but is the least favorite set for me due to Granite mitigating all prior toggles and the negative drawback to Granite (-recharge and -movement. These can be overcome with IOs but I'm still not a fan of sets where one power makes several other powers useless (I had this problem with Inv conceptually with Unstoppable back in the perma Unstoppable days ... even if it was a blessing to respec out of the old tele-tanker build).

[/ QUOTE ]

Within the realm of SOs, I'd agree that Granite is much more sturdy than other Tanks. With IOs, I personally think Granite loses a lot of its luster. Tankers can build up their mitigation much easier than a Granite can build to overcome their shortcomings. If you don't have millions to blow on IOs, then it's tough to beat Granite.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably a super super side tangent at this point on this thread but this one stuck out to me as I love playing my Stoners.

While it might be possible to equal the toughness of a stoner it is not possible to exceed it if a stoner has IO's available to them (or as you said even with SO's they can't be exceeded). My stoner has capped resists AND defense to all damage types with psi being the one exception, and I'm even then I've pretty well filled the psi hole just not capped to both. I've yet to see any other tank hit that mark. I have no doubt that it is possible, but it really can't get any better than that. Even out of the gate a stoner can get very close to those numbers with just grante, stone skin, and weave.

All in all, I didn't even spend all that much on the build. It wasn't nearly as much as some of the capped inv builds I've heard about and on top of that I also run at normal speed, and have substantially better +rech than most stoners (I'm still in the negative but not by much).

Is that necessary in the game? Probably not, and my other tanks can do just fine with less than those numbers, but from pure mitigation it really can't get better.