Casshan_NA

[ QUOTE ]

That seems irrational.


[/ QUOTE ]
I will concede that it *sounds* irrational, and to a certain extent, I believe it is. However, what the tank does, by definition, is manage aggro and survive. If everyone pulls their fair share, you will find the tanker doing significantly less than other ATs because it cannot compete in Damage mitigation. While mobs may focus on the tank, mitigating damage to other ATs, the actual mitigation is so small that a tank requires the assistance of a defender / controller to buff, who can perform the same functions on other team members as well as contributing damage / buffs to each member of the team (excepting themselves in most cases) not to metion control and debuffs

[ QUOTE ]
One controller cannot lock down a full team spawn on Invincible.
One defender cannot heal 7 people fast enough to recover all of the damage caused by a full team spawn on Invincible.
One scrapper or blaster couldn't take down a full team spawn on Invincible with no heals or other support.

Why should One single tank be able to hold aggro with no buffing for a full team spawn on Invincible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the one controller can still Control his share of foes AND add buffs / debuffs to the mix.
Because the one defender can give damage mitigation to ALL the party AND add damage to the mix.
Because the one Scrapper / Blaster can provide the best damage mitigation of all - removing mobs from the equasion.

Assuming the tank attacks "more than his fair share" of mobs, holds their aggro, he cannot do so without buffs in this team setup. For the cost of buffing the tank, by eliminating the tank and adding another buffer (or debuffer or damage dealer), you will have stronger damage mitigation than you will from having the tank because the tank can no longer be depended on to do his function without being monitored like every other AT.

Thus, while it sounds irrational to expect a tank to do that - that is what most people consider the job of the tank. Not to pull an 8-man invincible mob and survive INDEFINITELY and / or DEFEAT them without assistance ... but to survive for a significantly longer period than double-buffed Scrappers or "squishies" so that said scrappers and squishies can focus on cherry-picking the most important mobs to get rid of without having to worry about healing / buffing the tank as much as the rest of the party.

Otherwise, what does the tank contribute? Downtime as his slow recharges retoggle, and (in some cases) slow movement catches up and his under-damaging attacks recharge and his HP refills or is healed (thus costing the defender as much, if not more time replenishing endurance and waiting for power recycling).

Without the ability to survive a spawn like that unaided (not DEFEAT and not BE UNHARMED) for a significant time, just in case the party needs to flee / regroup / rez / whatever, in a reliable and timely manner, a Tanker adds VERY LITTLE to a group that could not be added by another AT which would bring more benefits besides.

I LIKE Barrage ... if for no other reason than its unique look. Meh.

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. I love being forced to think when I'm goofing off. That's the epitome of "fun", or something. For someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

^_^ /agree

My tank used to be my "kick out the jams and have fun" character (unless my SG needed something serious done ~_^). *sighs* Oh for the day ...

Just for what it's worth, I hope this test proves something because we still have people who don't believe us at all.

May I suggest

Fire / Nrg for Blaster (lots of AoE / Damage at all ranges)

Grav / Rad for Controller (avg. Smash/Lethal damage primary, secondary heals / debuffs)

Kin / Arch for Def (Good mix in primary, secondary will be smash/lethal and some fire)

Of course, provided these can be found/made in time. The preponderance of S/L damage in the Controller and Defender ought to help not skew the test by adding exotic damage types, right?

Don't forget that you can still have a 6-man mission with a pentad team ... just have one member drop out in the mission and that can be the "impartial observer" ^_^

Not to rehash, but what is the list of definites on the "replace tank with" list, and should one of them be an Illusion Controller, since they have unkillable tanking pets?

Actually, Ultra, with the Damage mitigation of Scrappers, i.e. "Making things Dead really quick™" it's not an unfair comparison. If a scrapper can dispense with a foe, that's 100% mitigation against attacks, and they do it much more quickly, to the team's benefit.

Oh, I'd love to, but I'm afraid I'm going to be out of town with my fiance for the Thanksgiving weekend. *sigh* well, there goes my resume highlight "tanking dummy"

^_^

Still, if I can, I'll get on ... my tank is 39, though ... Inv/EM

Say, that reminds me ... not to get too crazy-wacky here ... but should we also be testing secondaries, or will that not make a difference? Not to be a wet blanket, but if we're figuring what we "bring to the table," that's also wide and varied ... and it would be synergistic to the capabilities of the primary, wouldn't it? Or am I just using big words meaninglessly now ^_^

[ QUOTE ]
One of the problems I see is that if the role is already defined in the mind of the DEVs and that the kind of results that States got on his team are seen as acceptible, we may not be able to come up with anything to counter it. It becomes a philosophical argument, rather than a numerical one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Numerical or philosophical, I think that any data would be helpful. Part of the problem that I think we have with tanks is that we can't agree what can be done with what. We can say that AT "X" can replace tanks all day long, with no loss and perhaps improvement. However, with hard data we can show and decide whether or not to get behind the concept of doing whatever.

My chosen method (so far) has always been "Meatshield," but others might be "Skrank." Testing both is good, then for these two major camps.

A reply to Tom:

May I request also that if/when you run your tests, you get some of the not-so-great tanks as well.

The all-star line up going to test this might set the bar a bit too high for lower lights, like myself

[ QUOTE ]
My problem is that the test is skewed and he knows it - Invincibility is broken, and he's not yet given a fair announcement about it to the masses. And its going on close to two weeks since he notified me that it was broken in exactly the way I stated it was broken, though providing more of a bonus than I had thought.

He was getting, assuming 3 slotted for DEF and even level SOs, avout 7% DEF per mob that surrounded him. Figuring his 1/3 of that mob he had around 6 or 7 mobs on him, which means he was getting about 42% or 49% DEF total plus the @2.5% you net with Tough Hide less Unyielding penalty.

If Invinc were working properly he'd be at 14% or 16.4% +2.5%.

So he'd have been getting hit much more, taking much more damage, and considering he was riding at 1/3 health several times, you can consider that each of those times he would have been more than likely dead had his defense been where its intended to be.

So I personally find his test, and his portrayal of it to be a bit ludicrous. Which is why I can't take it seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on ... Statesman wouldn't release a faulty statement regarding what someone can do when they're going to just nerf that possibility in a few weeks ... I mean, it's not like he said we could six-slot powers for maximum effectiveness right before we couldn't do that anymore, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I really hate some of Statesman's replies. If I gave this little of information that something was wrong I would get a reply of how many in the typical mob? What level were the mobs? How many LTs? Bosses? Were you street hunting(my guess he was) or doing missions. Maybe a slotting/power question.

States with all due respect you need to give out what you ask for if you want us to give your responses credit in such scenarios. I know it is extra work, but would make it easier to swallow. Big difference if you were fighting 4-5 blues and whites or 6-7 yellows and reds.

When a long time player says I feel such and such is off they get hammered with give more info, when Statesman does it we are suppose to take it for face value.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Seriously, he didn't even tell us his build, something he asks for whenever people complain they can't do something.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you said, but there's more to it. Just as there's synergy between members on a team, there's also synergy within an 16-enemy spawn for a team of 7. On rugged, that spawn would have been 52 carnies, which is nothing to sneeze at.

The tank can pick and choose which of the enemies to get the aggro from, while the scrapper cannot. This does give the tank an advantage.

The question is, is this a big enough advantage to be important?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that answers my question of "How Many Enemies," but leaves the question of what powers and strategies he was using. Considering Taunt pulls a group and various auras do the same, how exactly was he "picking" his opponents? What powers was he running? Did he act like the traditional "static" tank that stands and brawls or was he a "runner" tank that ran everywhere?

FWIW, I don't believe the majority of tankers can fulfill this expectation, either, especially without knowing more about the tactics in use.

[ QUOTE ]

Should a skilled Tanker be able to corral EVERY mob? With a lot of skill, it should be possible - but it's certainly not required to be a good Tank. As long as the Tanker can hold onto aggro so that his teammates are facing less than they'd normally face (i.e. 3 minions), then the team has an advantage. Namely, each teammate can quickly eliminate his opposition...and then come to the Tanker's aid at the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd also like to point to this particular area and ask about spawn sizes and such. I think most tanks have heard (at one point or another) that "nobody should be able to take on X amount of mobs at once."

How many was the spawn? And how long is it supposed to take while you're absorbing the damage?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much rather hear Cryptics explanation of our intended role and how they see us accomplishing it. Since we have obviously been wrong by their direction, I would really like for States and company to tell us what we are supposed to contribute to a team, and how that contribution stands out beyond all other AT's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tankers manage aggro better than any other Archetype. They also have the highest combination of hit points and defenses in the game. Their role is to take the brunt of a spawn's aggro just long enough in order for the rest of the team to be able to eliminate the mobs.

Should a skilled Tanker be able to corral EVERY mob? With a lot of skill, it should be possible - but it's certainly not required to be a good Tank. As long as the Tanker can hold onto aggro so that his teammates are facing less than they'd normally face (i.e. 3 minions), then the team has an advantage. Namely, each teammate can quickly eliminate his opposition...and then come to the Tanker's aid at the end.

I just played a Tanker with the following group (actually, at the request of a PM)...

Inv/Fire tanker (32, SKed to 49)
Level 50 Elec/Elec Blaster (it was his mission, set on Rugged)
Level 32 Peacebringer (SKed to 48 or so).
Level 48 MA/Inv scrapper
Level 50 Fire/Kin controller
Level 35 Earth/empathy controller (SKed up to 48)
Level 49 Energy/energy blaster

We faced the Carnival of Shadows. Typically, I'd start combat by Taunting any Strongmen in the spawn. I knew that I could handle their damage best. I'd usually catch some other minions and lts. I'd end up with a good 1/3 of the spawn focused on me, while the rest of my group disposed of the others. Whenever I saw a teammate enter the red, I'd either Taunt the mobs off them or hit the mobs to get their aggro.

End result? Well, no one was that familiar with their builds. The Controller was defeated by getting too close to another spawn. The Peacebringer carelessly tossed off attacks and ended up aggroing too much. After those two defeats, we settled down and functioned fine.

Admittedly, my own health dropped down to a 1/3 several times. I'd get a little concerned, but usually I had Dull Pain ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I'm again so glad I tried to get a handle on how people define tanks on at least two other postings. I wonder why mine wasn't good enough to respond to a week ago or so.

So you're saying that a set of exceedingly high-level players were "unfamiliar" with their builds? That strikes me as very odd. Basically, this collection of high 40s (and sk'd 30s) was not experienced enough with the enemies or their own builds to know how to handle an encounter on Rugged?

Which controller was it? The low-level one or the high-level one?

The Peacebringer (who in theory is effectively level 82, adding his 50 to his current level) was not experienced enough after 38 levels to know what he could and could not do?

I'd also be curious to hear what powers you took and how you slotted them, Statesman, especially considering I remember being told to 6-slot my powers pre-ED. Is this a six-slot passive Invul tank?

I'd also like to know, since it's a hot topic in other threads, how many Inspirations you used and what kind.

I am honestly curious since I play an Inv/EM tanker and I'm wondering how everything happened, who was covering you, what tactics you were using, et cetera. I mean, were the Strongmen far enough away that you could taunt only them? That sort of thing.

Hopefully, we'll see a little more information / exposition on this.

Editied for accuracy

Don't take this the wrong way, Tom, but I wish I'd gotten this much response the two or three times I tried to get people to give an idea of what tanking should be now ...

Anyway ...

I have zero experience with Ice, so I don't have much to contribute in that context. However ...

I think that Tanking should involve a series of low-level short-duration controller-style effects combined with a healthy amount of DR that scales up based on an inverse of how many enemies are within melee range.

I think that the Tanking Primary sets should be specialized with regards to defense. Fire being specialized v. Fire and Negative Energy, Ice being specialized v. Ice and Positive Energy, Stone being specialized v. Smash/Lethal and Psi, and Invulnerable having a median role in all these, save Psi, which should be replaced with Toxic.

I believe that every Tanking primary should include some mitigation of "untyped" damage

I beleive that aggro control should not be accomplished via a power but rather by an inherent that simply counts our damage as double, triple, or even quadruple when we deal it.

I believe that every tanker should have a maximum high DR (60-75%) vs. Smash/Lethal and a moderate (30-50%) in the areas they're specialized in, with current 7.5 - 10%s being reserved for "other types."

[ QUOTE ]

This has always bothered me. I HATE being told what I'm "supposed to be" and I'm sure Blappers do too. The beauty of this game has always been its flexibility. Just look at the term... Blapper. Blaster/Scrapper. You also have deftrollers, scraptrollers, scrankers, etc. There's always been this amazing capacity to blur the lines between the ATs and do something unique and unexpected, and everytime we use the justification that someone is "supposed to be" doing something, we whittle away at that possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me about it. I wanted to play a Tanker and now I'm being told by the Devs that I can only play a Scranker!

Not that you'd want to tell them what to do and interfere with their artistic vision, or anything.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ice could use some love as well while you folks are at it.

[/ QUOTE ] out of curiosity and completely off topic, are there threads which explore/establish Ice's comparative effectivenss to Inv and other sets under ED? I guess i'm wonding if Ice is going to be as bad off as Inv or worse.

I think some of the challenges for the dev in applying this to Ice may be:

1) thematic - if this is supposed to be associated with /SR's "dodging," then it's not clear that any other +DEF set should get it. I guess i never thought ice was about "doging" per se. In other words, if Ice gets this, then every set with some +DEF could argue for this. If they limit this power change to strictly "Super Reflexes" then they won't have to open that can of worms.

2) One of the reason I think they had to do something like this is based on the Gamespot screenshots. Remember /Ninji? Ninji has the toggles with the AoE, but it also got a bunch of other powers in place of the passives. This forces the question of whether the passives in SR were balanced with all that other stuff? Did Dodge and Agile make up for the reconstruction like power? Did they make up for caltrops? At 5% +DEF, coupled with a toggle max of about 20% ...that answer has to be a resounding no. Ice doesn't have to make up for the powers in /Ninjitsu the way /SR's passives have to.

3) Ice got that PBAoE dmg debuff and /SR did not ge that. This means that the devs see the powers/problems associated with Ice/ and /SR as requiring different solutions. Personally, I like that. I don't want a power that Ice/ has in /SR just because it helps the problem. I'd like to keep the Ice/ solutions as separate and unique from the /SR solutions as possible.

Please don't misconstrue this as a vote against Ice needing improvement. I'd just like to see them get something that was more thematic with Ice than a "rolling with the punch" power....just my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fret not, Space Butler! If not bacon, then what about porkchops?

Sorry, having a Simpsons flashback ...

DAD! Those all come from the same animal!"

"Surre Lisa, a wonderful magical animal!"

They're added debuff resistances to certain powersets, that's what they're doing ^_^

[ QUOTE ]
Whoa...whoa...WHOA...you misunderstand...I quoted you to AGREE with you!! lol. My point was that chainsaw was talking out of his rear-end since he's never played a 40+ tank. He can't exactly comment on something he's never done with any sense of authority, now can he?

Please, for the love of all that is holy, don't put me in the group of the narrow minded nerf lovers...I think I5 is forcing people to play in ways they never wanted to and I think that stinks. I haven't even had the heart to respec my 50 yet. My other tank is now a "skranker" and I really can't stand that, but I've brought him too far to just delete him now.

Again, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression, my comments were directed at fuzzy.

Peace

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry ^_^ I had a tough day, I apologize! Peace and Love ^_^

[ QUOTE ]
I also find it funny that tankers who never bothered to play the 40+ game seem to want to assert themselves as some kind of authority on the issue of "god mode" tanking.

"I'll just let that room full of Carnies or that Sapper know that I'm in god mode so they can't hurt me...oh, hello floor, havent seen you since lv17."

Yes, Inv needed an adjustment, but it just digs me when people go on and on perpetuating the myth of the "unkillable tank" and have never even played one past the mid 30s. The devs could have done something to address the free pass Inv got from 18-40 without gutting the non s/l resists and making us SR Scrappers to any other danage type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed the "Free Pass" method of gaming, considering I'm what would've been called a "casual gamer." I get a few levels every so often because I have plenty of other things to do other than grind for XP and learn the most uber way to build and play.

It kills me that players of 40+ characters all talk about how they're fine and dandy and that lower levels don't know a damn thing when, in actuality, it is the 40+ powerlevellers and exploiters who rocketed up in levels and are now sitting pretty in their unassailable 40+ tower are more often than not the cause of the nerfs that hurt a casual gamer.

This sort of statement really burns me, I have to say. What in the hell would it matter if I were 8, 18, 28, 38, 48, 50? If I'm cheated of my game experience, I'm cheated of my game experience. It's time, money, and effort that I've (apparently) foolishly wasted in crafting a character that can play in a certain way that I'm comfortable with.

Do disinclude me from your narrow vision where everyone gets to play up to 40+ at a whim with no RL pressures bearing down on them, where a casual tanker, like myself can just let her hair down and be as invulnerable as she wants to be.

I apologize if this comes off as flamey, but don't think that being 40+ means you know more about fun and game experience than I do. I've been to the 40+ dance plenty of times as a sidekick and I did fairly well for a sidekick. But why is it that I feel like a sidekick fighting with any team now?

[ QUOTE ]
My highest was an Invince/Stone, set to invince at 20, retired at 34 because it was WAY too easy. Sure, things like Malta and Carnies would have made the 40+ game more challenging, but... meh. Couldn't be bothered to take it that far simply because of how easy it was before. Now... I rolled a couple of tanks, an Ice/Mace out of masochistic curiousity and Stone/Energy on coolness (Granite + Total Focus = one of my favorite visuals in the game).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how tanks who stuck with the game despite the "boredom" some people had are being called lazy, but the lazy ones quit because they "couldn't be bothered" and are being rewarded for it.

I guess to get Invulnerable resists back, Invulnerable tankers should just quit and issue six will address resists?

Oh, good ... does this mean that Invincible (Invulnerable) will add 100% resistance? I mean, since the set already has so many +Def powers.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you considered what it is to be a post-40 Invul tank who wants to solo?

Have you read the plethora of posts in the Tanker forum agreeing that Invul needed to be toned down, but not [censored]?

Are you aware that Fire and Stone both have better non Smash/Lethal resistances than Invul?

Invulnerablility was designed originally as a Resistance based powerset. Now, once you get Invincibility, it becomes a Defense based powerset. This isn't a change of tactics. This is a destruction of concept. You cannot build a playable Invulnerability Tanker whose concept is to stand there and take damage for a team. Not after lvl 20. What's more, is that in order to maximize the defense bonus for Invincibility, you have to herd. Have to herd. Believe it or not, there are Tankers who don't like to herd!

I don't like to herd. I don't like PvP. I loved playing Tankers. I5 screwed me. I got the impression that you don't play Tanks. If you don't, then don't bother to tell me what you think my favorite AT needs. I get enough of that from Jack Emmert.

[/ QUOTE ]

AMEN! Except replace post-40 with 38 (and little hope of keeping a group without feeling like a leech, since I contribute less damage than the controller, hold less aggro than the blaster, can't heal, buff, or debuff like a defender, and can't kill as fast as a scrapper.)