Defense_Options

[ QUOTE ]

Your argument is also based on the assumption that the doc people have made a promise to document all changes to a feature. They don't,


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope my arguement was based on the fact that they claimed no change had been made. Not that they would document all changes. Quite different actually. Also they have come back since and agreed that a change had been made and was missed because of sementic differences in what we call defense and what they were calling it basically. They changed it from base defense, thus working against everything to typed defense working against S/L, Ene, Ele. Not toxic not psi. They made this decsion because they felt it was overpowered as base defense. If that was a topic and reason for the change then really it wasn't just a small tweak that some Dev did on his own but a choice by the heads to have it made. Why it was not documented at that time we can guess at but I was not talking about that but rather the first denial of any change in its defense.

It's one thing to miss something in your documentation but when asked to then not know is quite another. It's even worse when you don't check but rather just give the negative answer. CJ surely asked the devs so she is not likely at fault but whichever dev gave her the unverified no certainly blew it.

Noticed that too Tom. Stopped posting didn't see the point. I totally understand and agree with much of the feelings but it isn't getting us anywhere. Chatman thanks for trying too.

Nov 16 put your post up and we'll give this a whirl. I might try and do some this weekend if my pals are about to help, if not then I'll wait.

[ QUOTE ]

In either case, "give us higher defenses" or "give us more damage" may not be a viable answer.

I just don't want the total result of all the testing effort to boil down to "Told ya!"


[/ QUOTE ]

Well the funny part is we must do this as impartially as possible. So we can't be going in looking to prove anything. We are going in to test, if that test suggests a problem, ie removing the tank actually improves the groups performance, then we need to look to the tests and try and explain why followed by testing that hypothesis. Then after and if we find why we can work on how to fix it. We really should do our best not to go in expecting anything, I know it's not easy but it is best that way.

So I strongly suggest we not jump the gun and start coming up with fixes for a problem that at this point is only speculated at.

No sonic here. Specifically using a sonic though could seem like we're weighting the test to prove our point. We might want to take what comes. Its more random and less looking let we're out to skew the results. If a sonic comes great, if not if our point is to be made and valid it shouldn't matter what defender. Unless we're saying that sonic defenders have taken the special place tanks used to have on a team.

Tonight if possible I will let you know what missions my boys have.

Well Foo has a 31 Ill/Kin Controller that he says can get to 32 soon. You have a 32 scrapper. I have a 32 defender and 32 fire tank. Certainly not claiming anything here but I could certainly run the fire tank then my defender to see if we have a change. We need a blaster for certain at this point and while I have a defender that I would happily use as the team's standard defender we then need 3 tanks all 32, keeping the levels the same seems a really good idea to me.

So lets post what we need and see who can help.

Fire tank (I really think secondary should be the same for all tank if at all possible) (I have Fire/Fire)

Stone tank

Ice Tank.

Then we need

Defender to replace tank
Controller to replace tank
Scrapper to replace tank
Blaster to replace tank

All 32 if possible but I think the power sets of the non-tanks shouldn't matter other then no /Inv scrappers.

As for the tank secondary if we could simply roll level 32 tanks I would say take /Axe as its a pretty solid and yet well rounded set. I would avoid /SS because of Rage and Fire because its so heavily based on AoE. That said we can't so I suggest we take the one we can fill the three slots with.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, all I can say is that I have not noticed a substantial change in the operation of my tanks since the launch of the game with the exception of Gauntlet getting in and Taunt becoming auto-hit AoE.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first question has to be what type of tanks were you playing then that you are still playing now?

[ QUOTE ]
What about Weave and a 3 slotted tough hide, would that give the same numbers as if INVINC were going at 1.5% per mob?

Prof

[/ QUOTE ]

Weave burns End like a forest fire burns timber. And no it wouldn't do enough to represent it. Espically since an ED tanker will likely have Tough Hide anyway so you would be replacing Invinc with TH. Its hard to deal with a known borked power in a test it throws all kinds of unclear results around that can confuse the issue. I would love to test Inv but for now I really think its best we skip it, for now. Lets go in with things with know are working "as intended" and work from there.

This is my Fire/Fire tank's build. I tend to try and keep aggro with my few single target attacks between letting off my AoEs. I also favor burst damage thus I have both build up and fiery embrace. Tough is there as it fits my guys tough guy, bar brawling, cigar smoking image.

Exported from version 1.5A of CoH Planner
http://joechott.com/coh

Archetype: Tanker
Primary Powers - Ranged : Fiery Aura
Secondary Powers - Support : Fiery Melee

01 : Scorch endred(01) acc(25)
01 : Fire Shield endred(01) damres(3) damres(7) damres(7)
02 : Blazing Aura endred(02) acc(3)
04 : Healing Flames recred(04) recred(5) recred(5) hel(9) hel(23) hel(27)
06 : Combat Jumping defbuf(06)
08 : Consume acc(08) recred(9) recred(27)
10 : Combustion endred(10) dam(11) acc(11) recred(17) dam(17) dam(23)
12 : Plasma Shield recred(12) damres(13) damres(13) damres(15)
14 : Super Jump jmp(14) jmp(15)
16 : Swift runspd(16)
18 : Health hel(18) hel(19) hel(19)
20 : Stamina endrec(20) endrec(21) endrec(21)
22 : Acrobatics endred(22)
24 : Boxing endred(24) acc(25)
26 : Fiery Embrace recred(26)
28 : Fire Sword Circle endred(28) acc(29) recred(29) dam(31) dam(31) dam(31)
30 : Tough damres(30)
32 : Build Up recred(32)

-------------------------------------------

01 : Brawl acc(01)
01 : Sprint runspd(01)
02 : Rest recred(02)


Here is my Rad/Rad. He too has tough because of his story. By the way I took his name form the list of scientists that actually worked on the Manhatten Project and worked it into his story. He actually plays more offender but note I really have not skipped on his primary, if anything his secondary could use more love, and come levels 35 and 38 it will get just that.

Exported from version 1.5A of CoH Planner
http://joechott.com/coh

Archetype: Defender
Primary Powers - Ranged : Radiation Emission
Secondary Powers - Support : Radiation Blast

01 : Neutrino Bolt acc(01) dam(13) dam(13) dam(27)
01 : Radiation Infection endred(01) endred(3) endred(3) thtdbf(11) thtdbf(15) thtdbf(15)
02 : Accelerate Metabolism recred(02) recred(5) recred(7) endrec(23) endrec(25) endrec(27)
04 : Irradiate acc(04) recred(5) dam(9) dam(9) dam(11)
06 : Enervating Field endred(06) endred(7)
08 : Swift runspd(08)
10 : Combat Jumping defbuf(10)
12 : Lingering Radiation recred(12) acc(25)
14 : Super Jump jmp(14) jmp(23)
16 : Radiant Aura endred(16) hel(17) recred(17) hel(19) hel(19)
18 : Health hel(18)
20 : Stamina endrec(20) endrec(21) endrec(21)
22 : Acrobatics endred(22)
24 : Boxing acc(24)
26 : Mutation recred(26)
28 : Tough damres(28) damres(29) damres(29)
30 : Cosmic Burst recred(30) acc(31) dam(31) dam(31)
32 : EMP Pulse acc(32)

-------------------------------------------

01 : Brawl acc(01)
01 : Sprint runspd(01)
02 : Rest recred(02)


I post these so if anyone has any big issues with the builds we can deal with it before the tests, not after. I do want these tests to be as open and fairly done as possible.

So we're looking 32 to 37 no Inv, neither tanks nor Scrappers.

Well that drops me to two.

Smoke'n Jack Fire/Fire Tank (needs to be respec'd) level 32
Dr. Serber Rad/Rad Defender (also needs respec'ing) level 32

I would think we're looking for whatever build is your normal playing build.

[ QUOTE ]

In the test cases (and it needs to be cases that cannot have holes shot in them with charges of bias) the following was true:

The team will suffer fewer defeats and gain xp faster if another AT is substituted for a given type of tank.

If we can present case after case where this is true using the same team setup and the same missions, I think we have a shot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you overestimate the devs. After all the tests before and after I5 about Invinc and they basically blew it all off. But for our own edification I'm up for it.

So the question isn't really what roll a tank can play its really whether he can help the team as much or more then any other AT slipped into his place on the team.

Why not start simple? Take the five basic ATs and build a team with one of each. Make the level like 32-39 range so we avoid Epics skewing things but were the ATs have most of their powers. We build a team with each then we start swapping out the tank for others and see what changes. It might give us an idea of what else we need to look at later.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Be my guest, Casshan. I plan to run my non-tanks in this testing set-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be average right? No level 40+ tanks in my line up.

I think we really need to have an idea beyound the extremes of Scranker and Meatshield.

What percent of the damage should the tank divert from the team to him/herself?

What percent of the teams damage should the tank be responsible for?

To me those are the questions that we seem to dancing around. I mean so we agree that 1/3 of the incoming damage is to be the tanks job, and say in an 8 man team his out going damage should be 12.5%. Ok then can he do that on a team? Can someone else do it better? Is he doing enough if that's what he does?

If States really think his example is what a tanker should be expected to do teams are going to need a fistfull or a stoner with granite. I don't get the "tank things that I'm good against" and let my team deal with the rest thing.

Ok we need a fire tank because we know that council have fire. We need an Ice tank since council have energy and neg energy attacks. Oh and an Inv tank for all the S/L......

Heck with that kind of selective tanking you'd think single target taunts would be more handy. Prehaps we should ask for that back.


In truth I think it best we ignore this type of tanking for test purposes its silly and done simply to show that Inv (or any tank) isn't flawed in some situations where we can only tank foes we're good against.

I would suggest we do solo, 4 man teams, and 8 man teams. I would also suggest you have various team builds.

Like:

Tank
Blaster
Scrapper
Defender

Tank
Tank
Tank
Tank

Blaster
Scrapper
Defender
DEfender

Blaster
Blaster
Blaster
Blaster


You need to build teams as varried as possible. Another interesting thing would be to purposely gather some PuGs and see what the "average" person expects from a tank and how they deal with the meatshield vs skanker styles. Could be interesting.

I'd be happy to lend a hand testing.

I have a Rad/Rad level 32 if you need for testing. I play mostly on guardian but can surely copy to test if that's where the testing is to take place. I also have a Rad/Ene level 27.

My other Guardian Guys are:
fire/fire tank level 32
Stone/Stone level 27
Inv /SS level 39
PB with White Dwarf level 27
Broadsword/Regen level 50

I have a couple folk on other servers think one or two are in their 20s Inv/WM and Emp/Ele I think but haven't used them in a while, pre-I4 I think, maybe even pre-I3.

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe a third, but which third?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well based on States post it would be those we are most able to survive. That blaster goes shooting off an AoE he, based on States can expect us to stop at most 6 from coming for him. He needs to play more intelligently. Doing it to finish a group is one thing, doing it to start a fight is a bad idea.

As for aggro from mezzers well most controllers/defenders can give some protection from that so we need not be all fire focused on that. Plus teammates should bring breakfrees or not aggro something that they can't handle.

If a debuffer is doing his part should that mob debuffed be much less of a threat now? Damage dealers and the rest need to manage aggro just as much as the tank. Don't take aggro you can't survive doesn't go just for tanks. As has been said many times aggro management is a team thing.

[ QUOTE ]

If I had an AoE attack, I'd agree with you. But oftentimes I'm not next to the mobs whose aggro I need, e.g. whoever's meleeing the back line or the core of whoever the blaster just fireballed. Thus I have Taunt slotted only with 2 ranges; I may add a recharge if I get rid of Hasten post I6.


[/ QUOTE ]

One punch and you've got a third of the aggro, your portion based on states. Movement is key if you want to stand still then yes taunt is something you may want or even need. If the blaster fireballs a mob your not engaged with he needs to think that its his aggro and can he handle it before he fires it off. Or is there a controller/teammate that can because if he fireballs groups not engaged with the tank he made the choice to manage their aggro. I don't mean to be harsh but everyone on the team needs to do their part and manage the aggro together. A fireballing blaster (or anyone) that doesn't look at the battle field and understand what will happen when he lets loose is not doing his part and more he's making problems if he expects you to fight your group while taunting another he aggro'd and now can't deal with. If he can deal with it then great if not big mistake on his part.

[ QUOTE ]

And I've started to lobby Statesman for a way to make us able to be tougher at the expense of offense when we're teamed, ...


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Tougher sure but our offense isn't staggering now why give it up? Look honestly tanker offense is fine but our defenses are not. Making that flip really doesn't sound like a great idea. Even if just while teaming. That forces meatshielding and is just as bad a forcing scranking.

The problem with many passives is how low the base numbers are. Also of course ED killing you if you 6 slot these powers. And really its not just passives. There is no real benifit in 6 slotting Uy 3 demres/ 3 endrdx or some combo including recharge. One endrdx is more then enough and recharge is completely unneeded. Not being able to actually get resist from a resist power is a shame. Attacks do benifit some from ACC, Recharge, Dam, Endrdx, and other side effect boosting enhancements. That gives you a couple ok choices but Uy for instance gets nothing or so close to nothing is near worthless from anything past the first endrdx outside of slotting damres enhancements that it really doesn't leave you with any good options.

[ QUOTE ]

I5 and ED were an ugly 1-2 punch for Tankers and I think there need to be some changes to ED. But if you try and do less to match the fact that you can do less, just like everyone else, you'll find that the changes are only a matter of degree and not redefinition.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess. Reading States he seems to say grabbing a third of the aggro on a 7 man team is doing your part, I guess. But many of ous defenses aren't even a third of what they were, though we have S/L left and can cap with tough I suppose that's good. Well for Inv anyway. Stone pre-granite is at about that post granite the differense is extremely small defenses wise. Fire seems at about a third its biggest issue is a lack of strength against S/L, I suppose tough would be very handy filling in there. Not sure about Ice but judging from some of the numbers I'd say a third or so is about right.

Also I would say the need for taunt from this veiw is not really much needed. Normal spawn for that team is around 14 to 16 right? So one punch and you have your third almost. Your aura, assuming you have it, should pick up the rest or lacking that one AoE will get you up to 10 way more then third your shooting for.

In States post he seems to say that a tanks job is to make it easier then 3 minions to each hero aggro gathering wise. On a 7 man team with a spawn of 14 that means we start better then that, barring lts and bosses. That does seem to lead one to wonder what exactly we are doing since spawn sizes aren't 3 to 1.

I suppose our roll is to grab maybe boss/lt aggro but then again isn't that the scrappers job, you know to kill boss/lts.

Our job is to do as we have been only to not over do it I guess. I always thought to be a good tank you needed to know your limits and learn to live within that so you don't over tax your teammates. Don't grab an extra groups aggro unless you know you can hold it, don't herd unless you know you can survive it, don't charge in unless you have a plan to get back out. Only now we are much more dependant on the team so basically we have to know them or learn what they do before we roll well as he seemed to have trouble doing also. Seems this might just discourage PUGs even more. Yet the game seems to want to encourage teaming more and more.

I feel conflicted on this. I like teaming, I even like PUGs to a degree. I also like solo. Solo I am safe to run my mission on any level I choose and do well. In a way I'd like a bigger team bonus to offset the bigger team risk, you know his old risk = reward thing. But then again that's thrown out the window with PvP XP and temp powers so maybe its not part of the vision anymore. Still it is more risk now to team then before, and certainly more then Solo play so it ought to be worth more too.

As far as balance I'm not seeing it much from I6. Some builds got smoked, other saw little change. I think there are those powers now that are far more out of balance then ever and so I do think yet more changes (nerfs) will come. Invinc getting hit will hurt and we are unlikely to get anything for it so that's not a happy thought.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, if we were lying to you, it was an error of omission, rather than an act of malice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to point out the difference between a lie and a mistake is deliberance. Too many people say others "deliberately lied" as if there is any other form of lying. You can't accidentally lie. You either purposefully mislead someone, or accidentally mislead, but lying is always deliberate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the power didn't change itself someone changed it. And then that someone (could be a group of someones) also didn't post the change in patch notes so the players could know. Thus at some point it was a choice to not tell the players this had happened and thus it was deliberately deceptive on some level.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
erm wow why the heck is my name red?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick Edit Statesman's posts now!

Anounce all Tanks getting a base 20% resist vs all!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for nothing but a flat 20% base for tanker resists would be great. A new inherit power that actually does something useful to us.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to cry foul to much but doesn't that make the much weaker inherent power that tanks get already even more pathetic when compaired to everyone else's?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Someone's forgetting the FURY meter... THAT is the Brute's inherent, not the single-target taunt effect of their attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tanks don't get fury. Their punchvoke is a tiny AoE that does nothing in PvP. Brutes get a non-AoE punchvoke and fury. Somehow I think the tanks are getting the short end of this deal.

[ QUOTE ]

Brutes have an inherent taunt on their attack powers but it's only single target and affects the target you're attacking. Brutes can slot their attack powers so they have a greater taunt effect on them.

The Tanker's Gauntlet inherent ability effects nearby enemies instead of just 1 target but up to a maximum of 5 enemies.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to cry foul to much but doesn't that make the much weaker inherent power that tanks get already even more pathetic when compaired to everyone else's?

[ QUOTE ]
Simple answer: They don't play the same game we do.

Their internal servers were using 3.5 rules while we were using 2nd Edition and calculating THAC0, something that didn't exist in their game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wonder if they are still 3 shotting +8s. Man and they say we were playing on "god-mode".

You know the interesting thing is they are saying we're lying by saying that it never had Psi Defense aren't they? I mean I've yet to see a regenner post anything but that it most certainly did have Psi defense and yet here they are saying it never did. Interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
haha I just wanted to be the first *evil grin*


edit: omgbbqnerfitnerfit!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]


Die.......... There will be no nerfbats untill I2 lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh ... its I6..... duck and cover people regen has lost aggro on the nerf bat or its picked up AoE ....

Not that I've read this thread much but how does this change help regen in anyway. After I5 we have one toggle and a ton of relatively cheap clicks. The point was so we didn't need fitness anymore based on what States said one of the "benifits" of making IH a click now. But with ED I'm loosing most of the benifit because now slotting QR with more then 3 endrecovery is not worth the effort. A 13% reduction does not cover that so in the end I get to have even less end then before and have more of a need for stamina. Thanks but I'd rather have my enhancements continue to work as they do now.

[ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with you? How many times does one have to say "Invulnerability is not a defense-based set, but should probably get some of this debuff resistance because it does rely, somewhat, on defense", before it makes sense to you? How many times to I have to point out that don't think Invulnerability should have less debuff resistance than Stone before you stop asking me why I do think that? How many worthless little "gotcha" posts are you going to throw out before you realize that you're off-target?


[/ QUOTE ]


As soon as you realize that just because you don't think Inv is a defense based set doesn't make it so. Sorry your opinion just doesn't make it a fact.

What can you say this very unfortunate for the game. Wonder what this will do to the community? Flaming wars and such.