Johnny_Butane

Don't forget, the Tanker still has lower damage caps too. So considering buffs, the Tanker is going to hit a wall and the Scrapper can still keep going.

And because of the way Primaries and Secondaries work, Scrappers are still going to get their better attacks earlier.

Two more considerable advantages the Scrapper would maintain.


.

The typical response (one that I do not agree with) is to make a flimsy excuse that Tankers still get better aggro tools.

The problem is the assumption that aggro control and better out of the box survivability on their own are fun, compelling and interesting enough for most players.
There's no doubt they're enough for a small niche of players, but for everyone else, doubtful.

Realistically, the question is do you buff Tanker offense and damage caps or nerf Brute defense and HP caps.

Nerfing Brutes wont make Tankers any more fun to play for anyone. It wont make Brutes any happier. While it may be a logical solution, it's far from the best solution in this case. It's just as bad as ignoring the situation in the first place in my opinion.


.

I mean a mature Scrapper with SO'ed with intelligent slotting, power picks and a good player behind the controls doesn't have bad survivability at all.

Mids says those numbers are incorrect. It may be slightly out of date, but Dark Melee has not changed since then. I trust Mids more than your numbers.

It's telling me, three slotted with SOs, Smite is 177.1 for Scrappers, 114.5 for Tankers. The same numbers I gave before. Check for yourself.

Half correct. I suggested Tankers could recieve a damage bonus against Bosses and up. I made no suggestions about changing Scrappers AT ALL. I conjectured the devs COULD have made Scrappers great at killing minions over five years ago when designing the ATs, but I never advocated changing them.


Critical hit for Scrappers is a 10% chance to do (2 x damage) to a LT con and up. That is not something I suggest for Tankers. What I suggest is something along the lines of a 100% chance to do (? x damage) to a Boss con and up. With "?" being a value to determined.

Considering the lower base values of Tanker attacks, I feel such a value could be up to 1.5 and not be overpowering, considering it wont even be coming into play against the vast majoritiy of enemies a Tanker will face, which are Minions and LTs. That would put Tankers slightly under Scrappers, but ONLY when facing Bosses and EBs, and Tankers would still lack Criticals and have lower damage caps.

If that sounds too potent, perhaps tying it to a click power with a limited duration with a balanced cooldown so it can't be used every spawn.

Correct. Compared to every other melee AT they are the LOWEST damage. So one could look at Tankers as being "low damage".

Albiet slower, burning more endurance to defeat the same spawn and always being dwarved offensively by every other melee AT.
Sounds awesome and just like their comic counterparts.


.

Nobody is trying to take any aggro control or damage mitigation away from Tankers. So stop crying.



.

I disagree. Scrappers having lower defenses do not hamper them the way Tankers having lower damage hampers them. Scrapper do not have BAD defenses at all. Scrapper defenses are in fact optimal for soloing. On teams, they have outside support from buffs, debuffs and heals. You will find very few complaints on the Scrapper boards about them being to weak defensively. Many fewer than you will find of Tankers complaining about damage.

A well built Scrapper can survive just about anything he wants, hazard sized spawns, EBs, AVs, and thanks to their superior damage they'll defeat them in a shorter time than a Tanker.

That's not accurate. Tankers deal roughtly 65% of what a Scrapper does with the same power set. That's not counting Criticals

Smite does 114.5 three slotted for damage on a Tanker, 177.1 on a Scrapper.

I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I agree, Minion fights are trivial. I've specifically spoken AGAINST making Tankers better Minion/LT/AoE killers. I've always leaned to making Tankers better at hurting the big guys, the guys who can take it.

I fail to see how improving Tankers at damaging Bosses will destroy game balance.

In all of my suggestions, Scrappers still outdamage Tankers on the whole. Be it my Tanker Domination proposal, suggesting a damage bonus against bosses and up or whatever.

And I pointed out that consistant, medium, vanilla damage is far from their super hero roots and the ideal of the comic book tank.

I think it's very comparable. With have two ATs, both with defensive primaries and offensive secondaries. When one had "feel" problems, largely due to how it performed offensively, it got offensive tweaks. I'd say that's very relevant.

What about being like the Thing? His catchphrase was "It's clobberin' time!"
Not "It's aggro management with medium damage time!"


.

They could. I'd rather see it in the form of a special mechanic for Tankers.

One line of suggestions about Tankers has been about improving their damage against Bosses, EBs, etc and leaving their damage against Minions and LTs alone. That goes with the idea Tankers hold back on the little guys and let loose on the ones who can take it.

But I was speaking hypothetically.

As it has been said, Scrappers get Critical Hit that has slightly better chance of happening against bosses.

But Scrappers aren't just better at dealing damage against Bosses than Tankers, they're better at dealing damage against everything.

In the previous I was speaking as if we could go back in time to when the ATs where being designed and have both ATs with equal prowess, but in different areas of dealing and taking damage.

That can't happen now. Scrappers and Brutes are always going to come out ahead in damage. That doesn't mean Tankers could nearly match them for a short period, or against specific cons of enemies, but that's not the hypothetical situation I was describing.

I wouldn't pass up a single target damage bonus for Tankers that didn't effect Minions or LTs and scaled for Bosses and up. Such a thing fits with the concept of comic book Tankers and wouldn't be overpowering at all from what I can see.

But the point is moot until the devs decide to address Tanker issues.


.

This game didn't do that. This game decided that Wolverine gets to outdo the Thing whether they're fighting 30' tall robots or droves of ninjas. They could have said "OK, Tankers are better fighting one large foe(like a Boss), and Scrappers are better at lots of little minions". They didn't. They said Scrappers get to be better at fighting everything, all the time and Tankers get to be decoys. How exactly is that fair?

What Samuel is pointing out is ONE abstraction that didn't have to be made so abstract. There have been NUMEROUS ideas and suggestions made about how to deal with Tanker concept issues. We could maintain game balance and solve these problems by next issue if the devs wanted to tackle it. It doesn't require throwing out ATs or the system. It requires some thought and the desire to do it on the devs' part. That's all.

The argument that Tankers have to be the way they are now because that is the only way that works doesn't hold water. If that was the case, NONE of the ATs would have been altered after they were launched. In recent game history we've seen striking changes to Blasters, MMs, Stalkers and most recently, Doms. In the last instance, Doms were changed for very qualatative reasons. Castle listed those reasons as:

-Eliminate Jeckyll and Hyde feeling.
-Improve "feel" of low level play.
-Increase Dominator vs. Controller viability.

While there is some argument already about Brute vs Tanker viability in the coming expansion, addressing the "Jeckyll and Hyde feeling" and the "feel of low level play" seem to me as just as valid reasons to alter Dom secondary damage as arguments about the "feel" of Tanker offense and improving the feeling that Tankers are heavy hitters are for changing theirs.

True, but being better at one thing may not be as beneficial or fun as being better at another.

When the things you're not so great at contradict what people's reasonable expectations are of the AT based on any number of outside examples, why shouldn't we attempt to rectify that? You can tell those people their expectations are invalid, OR you can try to make improvements.



.

That is your opinion, and one not agreed upon by a number of people who've posted in this thread.

By the outdated DnD style definition of being a decoy/meatshield is being "a tank."

The comic book definition is different. People have reasonable expectations of the AT based on the powers it gets and what comparable characters are like in comics, movies and cartoons, that are not, and never were, met.

Being that this is a comic book MMO about super heroes, it's not unreasonable AT ALL to expect Tankers to reasonably relate to their comic counterparts. The official description given on the CoH home page implies they should. It is many people's opinions they don't.

There's nothing in the comic definition that precludes them from being decent MMO tanks, but the inverse can't be said. Therefore the narrow, outdated MMO definition is what's holding them back.

Incorrect. People have made suggestions in this thread and others about mechanics that would allow Tankers to be closer to their comic counterparts, be heavy hitters, and still be balanced within the game.

Such a mechanic is well within the realm of the possible and plausable if the devs would stop dismissing the issue and work on one.

Roleplaying something that many people think should be, but isn't because the mechanics and gameplay constantly shove it in your face that it isn't, is non-sense to me. Expecially since we wouldn't have to pretend if the devs would address the issue.

Clearly pretending Tankers aren't medium damage decoys in the face of constant contradiction isn't enough for some people.


Look, people are seeking a reasonable solution to understanable concept issues. If you don't see those failings, fine. But nothing the devs would do would be intended to make Tankers any worse for people who think they're fine as is. The only thing anyone is asking is for the devs to deal with the issue, re-examine Tankers and attempt a solution. Their previous attempt four years ago didn't take or we wouldn't keep seeing threads and conversations like this.


.

That's a valid point. I don't know enough about how the power system works to say how much work such a mechanic would take, but you would definately need some interface code and graphic work done to display a meter or some such to show how much you've charged a power. That means implementing the mechanic goes beyond just the bounds of Castle. The more people that have to be involved(and thus taken away from working on something else), the less likely a feature like this is to happen in my opinion.


.

I did not say that at all.

I said the original driving concept behind Fury when it was being designed for Tankers, that Tankers hold back for conscientious reasons, was a good concept and one core to comic tanks and could still be used to design a mechanic around.

I do not think the Fury mechanic is correct for Tankers then, or now.

That sounds very similar to the system they're using for a number of powers in CO.

I think the idea has merit in itself, but that being said, I think that it is too much a departure from the current playstyle in CoX to gain enough popularity with the devs or most players to make it happen.



.

The problem is in my opinion, that Tankers are punished for their survivability with having 40% less damage than the comparable Scrapper while Scrappers and Brutes are allowed to have (or gain) enough survivability to survive hazard sized spawns, solo AVs or what have you. Well built, Scrappers and Brutes have enough survivability to solo almost whatever they could reasonably want(and some unreasonable things) while Tankers are punished with mediocre damage simply because they have the tools they need to tank for teams.


Because the problem of Tankers not playing like their comic counterparts exists now, just as it existed five years ago. Jack Emmert himself said: "Tankers don't play like comic tanks. This is a valid issue." The solution at that time, Fury, was never given to Tankers. The solution they went with, a modest damage multiplier increase, didn't really solve the problem of them playing like the heavy hitting big guys of comics. Even with said increase, as you admit, they deal "respectable" damage. That is a far cry from the "devastating hand to hand combatants" the AT description on the official CoH webside still pitches Tankers as.

And for that matter, "respectable damage" is hardly super in my opinion.

I'm not going to argue that Tankers can't deal damage. Generally, they deal low-medium or solid medium damage.

But that's not what comic styled tanks do. The proof is in developer quotes that Tankers were intended to represent these kinds of characters. There's a reason they were given powers like super strength and Scrappers were given swords. There is/was an expectation there for them to reasonably play like their comic cousins. The very tough guys are almost ALWAYS very powerful offensively. That is why they are called tanks to begin with. Like their militaty namesake, they're the toughest thing on the field and they have one heck of an offensive punch. CoH Tankers don't. Not compared to every other melee AT in the game and compared to the melee damage of a couple of the ranged ones.

Claws/Regen Scrappers are a very good analog for hairy Canadian mutants. I can name few if any comic heroes who's primary role is to act as a distraction. So why is it wrong for CoH Tankers to be closer to their comic analogs?

Starsman said in another thread:

I happen to agree with this idea. I think it provides a conceptual framework for a gameplay mechanic to allow Tankers to be heavy hitters AND stay balanced within the game with lower damage the majority of the time. I would be very interested in a mechanic added to Tankers based on this concept. At one point, the devs THEMSELVES latched onto this concept for Tankers. It was the conceptual reasoning behing Fury. As you can see, when they gave it to Brutes they changed the concept to one more fitting. While the Fury mechanic is not/was not suitable for Tankers, why shouldn't this concept still be?

Just tossing out a wild guess, is it's because you see Tankers as very good implementation of MMO tanks(aka decoys, which is what they are), rather than as a not so good interpretation of tough, non-brutish melee-oriented super heroes.

CoH's Tankers are great MMO tanks/decoys, and that in my opinion, becomes a problem when it supersedes them being great comic book tanks, as it has.


.

How so? They get the same power sets as Scrappers and Brutes, who are both about damage. They have power sets for defenses and power sets for melee damage. Tankers have secondary effects on their melee sets for soft control, but then so do Brutes, Scrappers, Blasters and Stalkers. Assuming eventual complete power set proliferation among melee ATs, there's nothing at all to indicate Tankers are especially oriented to control or that they even should be.

Here is the official description of the Tanker from the CoX website:

I've highlighted parts of the description that indicate Tankers should have considerable offensive capabilities(as opposed to the mediocre capabilities they actiually have).

I count four instances that can suggest the 'flavour' of the AT is at least in part about melee damage.

Please highlight the parts you think indicate they are supposed to be control oriented.

I would caution you about associating "protecting their comrades" with control, because the same can be said about Defenders who protect with buffs and heals, Blasters who protect by sniping an enemy about to attack a teammate, etc.


Considering the points I just made, the estsablished written description of Tankers the devs have given and most importantly the primary and secondary power sets Tankers are given, the "road" we're on is about survivability and melee damage. Since the last thing Tankers as a whole need is more survivability, that leaves one thing.


.

It's an original direction, for sure.

With it not being stackable by the same Tanker, what you're talking about is a defacto -Max HP debuff that has to be sustained.

Why not cut to the chase, simplify the suggestion and do just that?

I can name some reasons to go that way, or at least things to be considered.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't buffs and debuffs to Max HP work on a percentage to the target's HP? If that's the case, such a debuff would have a greater effect on enemies with higher HP Like Bosses, EB, AVs, and less impact on Minions and Lts. Or they could simply not have it apply to Minions and Lts at all.

Since HP affects regeneration ticks, wouldn't this have the side effect of decreasing regeration on AVs and GMs? That could be a boon to teams.

It's an interesting idea either way, but what it really comes down to is how potent it is and how it performs in play testing.


.

And now you are causing it to derail it further. Please stop and maybe we can get it back on track.

Then he'd be a Scrapper.

Have you ever considered the majority of tough heroes in comics are also super strong?

You asked for tank examples that weren't the classic INV/SS. I gave you some.

I said specifically that it's the combination of them being very powerful defensively and offensively coupled with a heroic, protective mindset; the same mindset that leads them to tank in the first place. You can argue your DA/DM doesn't have that mindset, but then you'd be arguing that he's a Scrapper or Brute.

Now, I'm done trying to rationalize and sell this concept to you because you don't want to be sold on it. If you're not going to agree with the concept in the OP no matter what, you're not worth my time and frankly there are more pleasant people to converse with.



.

Please don't do that. It's both childish and confusing for anyone who's trying to follow the conversation. It's easy for anyone to be misrepresented when you alter their opinion and don't include the original text. In a gag thread, its one thing. In a discussion thread, it's another. If you can't at least respect my opinions, respect Starsman. It's his thread.

I can name several comic tankish characters that are not the classic Inv/SS.

-Damage from DC could be interpreted as an Inv/EM/NRG Tanker. He's always careful about unleashing his power.

-Classically, Luke Cage has had "enhanced strength" as opposed to full blown super strength. A more accurate description would be street fighting. He doesn't go caving in thugs' chests even though he could.

-The Molten Man. Fire/Fire. Once he became a hero, he kept his powers in check for fear of hurting those around him. An example is when Harry Osborn snapped and held his sister and nephew hostage. MM didn't fully power up for fear of them getting hurt in the crossfire or by himself by accident. He even 'tanked' a pumpkin bomb for Spidey.

-Giant Man technically isn't super strong. His power is growth. He has to be very careful about throwing his weight around.

-Thor is super strong, but I would make him a Mace Tanker for sure. Part of the point of his adventures on Earth was to learn respect for human life. After being chewed out by Odin he learned to watch it around the squishy mortals.


I think a large number of the tank-like characters in comics are super strength. No doubt. That doesn't change the fact the OP's concept applies to them AND other tank-like characters. The concept in question doesn't have to only apply to SS. It's part of a mindset, the same mindset that leads these characters to use their powers protectively and tank to begin with. Tanker comic characters protect too. They also cut loose when possible.

It actually has more to do with being very tough AND offensively powerful AND a hero who thinks things through, as opposed to being a brute.

Being a game that needs to be balanced, one character can't be both very powerful offensively and defensively all the time. However, with the right mechanic, he could be heavy hitter a portion of the time, or perhaps be one with restrictions on who he can hit hard against and when, as the OP suggests.

Such a mechanic is supported by the concept in the OP and in turn, the concept explains conceptually why Tankers tank/protect and deal lower damage most of the time in the first place. Said concept is agreed upon by many as being something that speaks to the core of Tankers, and was even acknowledged as such by the devs at one point.


.

I'm not all that interested in the concept Castle has in mind. For one, he's demonstrated in the past he lacks an understanding and respect for the super hero genre's conventions and tropes.

I simply do not trust his judgement on concept issues. Not after that Juggernaut discussion from a little while back.

His ability to adapt a concept to a working and semi balanced game mechanic? I'm fine with that. But I don't want him making the call as to if a concept is "right" or not for an AT or powerset.

I have similar opinions of Positron. Judging on how much he seems to enjoy DnD, decisions made in the past, it seems to me he'd rather be working on a fantasy MMO. If you say the word "rogue" to the lead designer of a super hero game, his first thought should be about a red-headed mutant with a southern accent and not about stealthy elves with daggers. If that is the case, is it any wonder CoH's Tankers reflect the ideal of the fantasy MMO tank and not the ideal of the super hero tank, and any wonder he doesn't seem to see any problem with that?

Secondly, if the players have a problem with the concept of Tankers, but Castle thinks it's fine, that doesn't mean he shouldn't do anything. Ultimately the game and AT should be made of us to express our concepts, not the devs'.

That being said, many Tanker players are happy with Tanker concept and execution as is. That doesn't change the fact that many think they could use something. The important consideration to make is anything the devs do to Tankers, can't take anything away from the players who enjoy them as is. That's always been my mantra. I don't agree with how Tankers are currently, but I understand that people like them as is and respect their right not to have that yanked out from under them at this point. It just wouldn't be fair.

It's also not fair for the devs to ignore the people pointing out Tankers don't reasonably live up to their comic cousins.



.

I suggested that.

As far as I know, it wasn't even 'noted' by anyone of import.



.

I mean specifically about the issues of Tanker concept, damage, mechanics and most importantly, about doing something about those issues.

The only thing I can recall seeing in three years was a brief comment when I suggested battle stances about how he had already designed a system of battle stances, but they were never going to happen.

I have never seen such a thing in writing and we both know I make it a point to read and take part in every single thread like this.


.

I disagree that Tankers should have their aggro control abilities increased beyond what they already are. The task of actually tanking is already trivial, shallow and easy. That is simply not a direction the AT needs to go any further.

Besides soloing and team stackability concerns, the area they do need attention in is concept.

A good number of people agree on the basic concept in the OP:

In other words, Tankers hold back their damage for conscientious reasons, but they "cut loose" occasionally. CoH Tankers lack this ability to take the kid gloves off. With the right added mechanic they could do that and stay balanced in the game.

Such an addition would, in my opinion, address the soloing, team stackability and conceptual issues at once.


.

That's the most he's said on the subject in 3 years that I've seen.

And that's considering Starsman is fairly well respected.



.

I say one of the few because most of the time there's any talk of conceptual failings of the Tanker AT and discussion of addressing it, the same half dozen or so "Tanker community" members come out en masse to stymie any effors to grow the AT beyond being a rodeo clown.

I suggest PMing Castle because for him and the other devs, the issue has been all to easy to ignore and not do anything about. A few more PMs from people not content with Tankers as aggro monkeys might make it a little harder to ignore.

I seriously doubt it.



.

Could you pretend like you do?




.