Johnny_Butane

[ QUOTE ]

HC had an alternate animation? They looked the same. Generally it's a start down the road to universal alternates for every power set, so I'm not complaining. imo

[/ QUOTE ]

I had thought it shared KO Blow's replacement animation, just with different timing.

After looking at the video again, it could be that she just played the new KO Blow twice and there is no new HC animation (at least in the build shown in the video).

I always thought a good HC alternate chould be bringing your arms forward and sweeping both back at the same time in a half circle.

Found something like it here:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5...ndclap_sub.jpg


And I agree, it's a good start. They could make a whole job just out of creating new custom alternate animations and weapon models.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Courtesy of Zekiran_Immortal here. I really like the fist to ground alternate for foot stomp, and the optional kob punch looks good.

Thanks Zekiran for the videos.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ground punch appears to be the fan favourite.

The KO Blow replacement leaves me cold as does Hand Clap.

It's slightly disapointing all you can do with Hurl is tint the color.

The rest look OK however.



The replacements for Martial Arts don't seem to be going over as well, which is odd considering how many Scrappers wanted a punchy set or Street Fighting.



.

[ QUOTE ]

This would speed up Tanker soloing before IOs since they'd have more end to attack with, but it wouldn't increase their maximum kill speed (which a dmg buff / res debuffs would).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I understood you perfectly.

Increasing their kill speed against Bosses and EBs, and to a lesser extent LTs, is something that should be done. That is why I gave this the thumbs down.

With your solution to Tanker end efficiency, you're still trying to change the lightbulb by having one guy hold the bulb and two more turning the ladder.

The cause of Tankers being less endurance efficient than the next guy is because of their lower damage. Treat the disease, not the symptom.


.

[ QUOTE ]

So what say you, the Tanker community?

[/ QUOTE ]

- I say the proposal sounds overly complicated and not very fun, flashy or interesting.

+ It does improve Tanker endurance issues.

- It specifically doesn't improve Tanker soloing, which is an area they should be improved in.

- As you said, conceptually it fails. This does nothing to bring Tankers closer to their comic counterparts as the heroic heavy hitter. At least Starsman's idea had the correct concept at it's core.

So ultimately, I say "/unsigned".

***

Now that I've made it clear that I'm not interested in this idea, do you suppose I should burglarize your time with an endless series of pointless questions and strawmen and then imply you're an coward and fool if you don't respond to every single one?

I suppose not. I know I don't like it when someone does that to me.


.

[ QUOTE ]
can you post a pic of the spines?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a video of it in the 5th post in this thread.

There's an option for them to look like Thorns for Dominators do. Long sharp cones.


.

[ QUOTE ]

Actually there is no single JLove, it's like The Phantom (the ghost who walks), each time a JLove dies, another replaces them and takes on the mantle, merely giving the Illusion that there is a single, ever lasting JLove.

There have been many over the years, some have died in battle, some merely grow too old to continue their work, costume designers age very quickly, each year to us is fifty to them, an unfortunate curse of their bloodline but allows for quick replacements.

Sometimes a Jlove will go rogue and BaB has to step in to cut them down, mourning the loss of a designer before his relative takes the mantle.

There will always be a Jlove, love them, hate them or otherwise be indifferent to them, the legacy continues forever...

[/ QUOTE ]

Que up Princes of the Universe...now!



.

[ QUOTE ]
I, personally, really like that idea.

It fits with the whole "World of Cardboard" approach that most of the 'tankers' (and I use that term loosely) in the Comic books have.

Against normal thugs they're not going to unleash their full might, I mean you don't see Superman punching that bank robber as hard as he could, he'd liquify the poor guy if he did.

However against certain he will just let loose, "show you how powerful he really is" and unleash his full might against someone he knows that can take it, in CoH case, this would be AVs.

Brutes are about smashing their way through people, battering them aside and racing from one group to the next, Tankers would be about taking out those tough targets, perhaps, with AVs/Signature Heroes, have them even surpass Brute/Scrapper damage at the very high end of it but only if the fight lasts a while, (say longer than 3-4 minutes)

Eh it's just a random thought from a random person, don't look at me for balancing issues

[/ QUOTE ]

We talk about ideas like this all the time in the Tanker forum. We talk and talk and debate and deal with trolls and talk and debate and nothing ever happens and no progress is ever made because a red name never comes in and validates the discussion or says "yeah, we'll think about this".

It's massively frustrating for all parties involved and the fact it's gone on as long as it has (even before Jack promised Tankers Fury and even after they got a damage scale increase instead) is a joke at this point.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Johnny actually has a point, though his mannerisms tend to obscure that. The point is that a hero who is incredibly tough and practically immortal, but also largely harmless, is not cool, not threatening and not interesting. He is an object. I'm reminded of a hero from... Somewhere, I don't remember, whose entire super power was that he was immortal and could regenerate any injury. He literally could not be killed. But aside from that, he had no actual offensive super powers. Any two-bit thug could just walk up to him and beat him up like a little girl, he just couldn't be killed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Take your pick. Both are joke characters.

I find Emery especially reflective of CoH Tankers because they actually use him as such twice in his sole appearance. Once to draw the fire of a system of lasers and once as the worst hostage in the world for a supervillain to take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterball_(Emery_Schaub)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Immortal

[ QUOTE ]

"Tanks" in fiction are not intimidating because they're hard to kill. A steel safe is hard to kill, yet people aren't terribly intimidated by those. No, tanks in fiction are intimidating because they are dangerous AND cannot be stopped. They pose a danger that cannot be averted - the tank will keep on coming and keep on coming, though anything you throw at him, until the danger he poses turns into your own personal reality.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK so far, but...

[ QUOTE ]

A hero who is unstoppable...


[/ QUOTE ]

Here I disagree. Every character I consider a Tanker, from Superman to the Thing to Colossus, are capable of being defeated. Often they are tougher than their teammates, but they all have their limits.
Often even have specific things they are highly endangered by. Psionics, magic, Kryptonite, poison, mez, etc.


[ QUOTE ]

And pretty much just that is lame. For a hero's unstoppability to actually matter, there has to be a reason why stopping that hero is important and, by extension, why the impossibility of stopping this hero is intimidating and... Well, cool!

In this game, and indeed in many other MMOs, a Tanker is, at best, an annoyance. Yeah, he's big, fat and hard to kill, but he can't actually DO all that much. Artificial Taunt mechanics aside, what does a villain stand to lose by simply ignoring the Tanker and ripping his team a new one while the Tanker puffs his cheeks and swings his fists? Not a whole lot, let me tell you. Not compared to what a Blaster or a Defender can do if left to live for too long.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. This is why the concept behind Gauntlet makes be snicker. Why would I as an enemy, pay attention to the medium damage love taps of a Tanker as opposed to the massive hits of a Brute or the Scrapper who keeps poking me in my critical areas.

A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. That's what taunting is.

[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, the Thing was mentioned already, and described as someone who's very tough but not monstrously strong. Which is interesting, since the Thing, in all occurrences that I have seen him, is proclaimed to be the strongest man in the world, and that's in a universe that has wet dreams about the Incredible Hulk. "World's strongest man" really ought to mean something there, and while I don't know about the comics, what I've seen of him in both the Fox cartoons and the recent Cartoon Network cartoons is a lot more of him punching things really, really hard, throwing really, really heavy things around and breaking really, really big things apart. If there were any instances where he stood between the Fantastic Four and a ray gun or a Hulk punch, I've missed it.


[/ QUOTE ]

For most of their career, the Thing has been physically weaker than the Hulk. Hulk is strongest there is. That's the rule. However, Ben's fighting experience, intellect and toughness makes up the difference when they fight in neutral territory.

In the end, it can go either way.

[ QUOTE ]

The way he protects his friends is by ensuring that HE is the one engaged in hand-to-hand combat and anyone who's not fighting him but instead aiming for his friends is in trouble. He doesn't do that by being hit a lot. In fact, whenever he is, he's usually thrown across the room. No, he does that by kicking serious amounts of [censored].


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. There's few MMO tanks in comics. Most are Bricks. There few Defenders. Most are Corruptors. Support classes are an outdated MMO trope. Players should have the option to act in a support role if the situation calls for it, but entire ATs dedicated to it like Tankers and Defenders don't represent characters with similar traits and powers found in comics. This is a design failure that should be remedied.

[ QUOTE ]

Which brings us all the way back to the tank-mage, that "perfect character," that night terror of all men, women and children. Surely a character who can do everything would ruin the game and make it so no-one ever plays anything else. Except... Masterminds can do pretty much everything. They have SIGNIFICANT survivability, easily on par with a lot of melee ATs. They have serious damage output. Not the greatest, admittedly, but pretty damn good for how hard they are to kill. They have support. Maybe not the best support there is, maybe not the second best, but still PLENTY. So does that mean that the whole game can be played with one Mastermind to tank them all, one Mastermid to heal them, one Mastermind to bring them all together, and in darkness kill them? Well... Yes! Strange, then, that everyone isn't playing Masterminds all the time. Oh, but they're weird, they can be hard to use, they have all these pets, they need a lot of micromanagement, they don't do enough by themselves. There are plenty of factors that make Masterminds just plain weird, and a lot of people don't want to hide behind henchmen. But then if we have an AT that's pretty much as close to a tank-mage we're ever going to see and people are STILL playing other characters, shouldn't that mean that it's possible to have a "perfect" character such that people will still play other things?


[/ QUOTE ]

MMs were intended as the Tanking class for CoV. The way they get their damage and their survivability is through stances. They can switch to go on the offensive and defensive at will.

I once suggested such a system for Tankers and Castle said he had worked on one at one point but stopped for an undisclosed reason.

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I feel the notion of a Tanker as it is executed here is flawed in its inception. The very idea of aggro control and management is a kludge designed to justify creating all ATs with one arm missing and avoid having to make each of them a threat on its own. The simple fact that "threat level" is an abstract variable entered by hand based on how threatening a character is supposed to be, rather than a result of actions demonstrating how threatening a character actually IS, is clear evidence to that. This whole thing is a kludge to make Tankers APPEAR threatening without actually BEING threatening. And though it may fool the AI, players aren't as easily convinced by intent when they can see the reality of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they hoped to "encourage" teaming by cutting the legs and eyes off of one guy, cutting the arms off another and telling them both to work together. Aggro monkeys don't feel super heroic to me. Neither do glass cannons.

The question is Samuel, short of waiting for CoH 2, what can we do about it?
Especially when Castle and the other devs don't see a problem or at least wont admit the flaws and wont work on improving them system?


.

[ QUOTE ]
What can you do to the tanker class that will make it more interesting for you and Johnny to play WITHOUT turning it into a Brute, a Scrapper, or a "Perfect" character?

Come up with that and we'll talk about how to make it work in City of Heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

People been discussing mechanics distinct from Scrapper and Brutes for Tankers to allow then more damage (or the equivalent in debuffs) for ages. Starsman just posted one a couple of days ago. It, and also many of them a number of players have agreed, wouldn't be overpowering or result in a "perfect AT" and are at least worthy of trying out IMO.

Here is not the place to discuss them however, but you're welcome to come by next time they come up in the Tanker forum.


.

[ QUOTE ]

No. Tanks are not supposed to roam around being engines of destruction. That is a Brutes job.

[/ QUOTE ]

This here:

http://www.cityofheroes.com/game_inf...rchetypes.html

...says Tankers are supposed to be "a devastating hand to hand combatant, and ranks second only to the Scrapper in sheer melee power."

Key phrase being "supposed to be".



.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think If they had a system like Vigilence for tanks it would help. Instead of end reduction though have the tank gain damage strength as his team takes damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the whole idea of 'the tank' was to hold aggro and keep their teammates from eating damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of 'the tank' is that it's a tough machine that prowls around the battlefield. It's extremely hard to bring down and its weaponry is devastating.

CoH Tankers are indeed hard to bring down but they aren't really that devastating compared to the other melee ATs.


.

[ QUOTE ]

Are you grossly ignorant of the survivability differences between tankers and brutes, or do you just want people to think you are?

[/ QUOTE ]

The survivability difference between Tankers and Brutes or between Tankers and Scrappers derived just from their defensive sets is not insignificant.

However, that is not the totality of survivability a melee character has. There's lot of mitigation loaded into the melee offensive sets. The mitigation value from powers like KO Blow, Air Superioritry and Foot Stomp is astounding and a Brute gets the same amount of it from them as a Tanker does. Not to mention powers like Invoke Panic. Then factor in that with more damage, often they have to face enemies for a shorter amount of time, meaning the enemies don't get a chance to expend as much damage or stack as many debuffs.

Yes, there is a gap between Tanker and Brute(or Scrapper) defensive sets, but with so much survivability coming from other sources, their actual compared survivability is much closer than that gap would suggest. That actual gap, in my opinion, is much smaller than the damage gap between Tankers and Scrappers or Brutes, and that seems unfair to me.


.

[ QUOTE ]
As a very design, I HATE the Tanker concept.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mind if I take a snapshot of that?

[ QUOTE ]

It is incredibly stupid to expect a character with little offence but much defence to provide any sort of protection to his team-mates, short of them crouching behind him or him standing in a narrow doorway. In a stand-up fight such as what you will see in a comic book, the "tank" isn't standing between himself and his team-mates, taking punches on the face, he is actively fighting because the only way the bad guys can get past him is if they can pin him down. If he is not pinned down, then woe betide anyone who is not actively fighting the big strong tank.

There's a reason that in fiction and in games (when enemies are concerned) the "tanks" are the ones both dealing the damage and surviving the damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except here, where the true heroic "tanks" are the weakest melee damage of all the melee classes and are even surpassed by the melee damage of a couple ranged ATs. This is, paradoxically so if we look at your assertion, the price they pay for doing their job for teams.



.

[ QUOTE ]

I'd still like my answers, Mr. Butane.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'd still like developers who don't force outdated MMO conventions into a genre they don't belong.

It doesn't look like we'll be getting either here.



.

[ QUOTE ]
Now how about addressing my concerns, Johnny?

-Rachel-

[/ QUOTE ]

How about you being a little more polite and a little less insulting?


.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want an offensive melee toon, play a scrapper. You seem to want the tank to be as indestructible as they are now, but to have the power of scrappers or blasters.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if you want a powerset that's not available for Scrappers, or would like something half way between and don't want to be chained to the Fury mechanic you're out of luck.

From the looks of it, the upcomming super hero MMOs don't make the distinction between the melee class that deals damage and the one that tanks. Instead there's a system of stances.

This allows the same character to tank or deal damage OR even split the difference and be halfway between the two should they choose.

This also allows ranged characters not to have to be glass cannons and allows characters who want to heal and support to have soloability when they're not teamed.

In short, you're allowed to pick your own role, have a greater measure of flexability instead of the developers forcing you into one as they did and still do here.

[ QUOTE ]
To make the massive changes JB talks about really is more appropriate for CoX2.


[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to give you a little golf clap.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree that a different system could be VERY fun and I'd love to try it. It's outside the scope of what you can do to an existing game though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why we're not going to see any core progress until the devs stop milking this game and break ground on a sequel. The devs admit the old systems are holding them back, yet it seems they wont do what it takes to move forward. I'm going to have to assume that until they announce CoH 2. After over five years, I'd like to see core progress made and I really shouldn't have to look to the super hero MMO down the block for it.


.

I agree with many of the points made in the article. It sums up nicely part my issue with Tankers in CoH and illustrates the cause of it.

The developers trying to play up to an forced, artificial convention of traditional MMOs, took a character archetype that when going off of expectations from comics, PnP games and other media, should have had amazing offensive potential, and transformed them into mediocre damage dealing decoys.

I've spent two and a half years trying to make the developers recognise this mistake and make reparations to it.

This is is an excellent paragraph from the closing of the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Players want to feel like heroes, not fragile rag dolls; by imbuing all characters with greater survivability, granting players a host of abilities to protect their friends and allies, and moving towards a more tactical system of combat, MMO players will all be empowered to face more challenges, and will no longer be reliant on a single tank to soak up all the hurt.


[/ QUOTE ]

The flipside to that is making tanks(Tankers) feel more like heroes (or in our case super heroes) by not gimping their offensive abilities and flying in the face of the AT's conceptual roots just to serve this absurd trinity.

CoV was a move away from the trinity, seeing more hybrid ATs that were individually stronger. The problem there, was that the content for teams was identical to CoH's and thus catered to the trinity style of play. There we come to the notion that CoV ATs don't team well. And that's true. There's many conflicts and some of the villain ATs don't mesh in a team situation as well as they could.

So, red side represents progress made on the AT end of things, but the team content never adapted and also the team dynamic was far from optimal.

I look forward to future super hero MMOs where the roles are more loose and you can switch them as the situation demands. Both of the upcomming games allow you to switch from tank to DPS on the fly for example. I look forward to seeing how that works out.

Nothing would make me happier for upcomming games to do well and demonstrate how backwards and idiotic the trinity is, how outdated and foolish CoX's AT and power system is for still trying to play up to it and how CoX's devs fail for not trying to advance beyond it any further and for keeping some ATs slaves to the trinity.


.

[ QUOTE ]
My main Tanker isn't based on any of the popular comic references found in this thread, and conceptually, wouldn't benefit at all from more damage.


[/ QUOTE ]

Conceptually, would he suffer from more damage? I'd have to stop taking you seriously if you answer in the affirmative.

[ QUOTE ]

As someone stated before, I think Rage properly represents the idea originally proposed in this thread


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Rage does not.

SS Brutes also get Rage. Brutes do not hold back for conscientious reasons. Until we see otherwise, we can assume when SS is ported to Scrappers, they will get Rage as well.

The concept outlined in the OP is distinct from Rage's concept, and is something unique to heroic, Tank-like characters in comics. It's one not really found in the bruteish and scrappy characters.

It's also a trait that's shared by more than just super strong characters. It goes beyond one power set.
I can cite characters who fit into that concept and as you said, characters change depening on who's writing them. That is true to an extent. One day Commander Action reads more like a Scrapper, the next he's a Tanker. But one thing that's more consistant, is that some characters are typically written as Tankers the majority of the time, and when most characters in general are written as Tankers, they have the "holding back and cutting loose" trait.

Also, functionally speaking, most SS Tankers are perma Raged, which means they're never really "holding back" or "unleashing" anything. The concept in the OP speaks to Tankers cutting loose on worthy opponents, and usually holding back on anyone else, not just cutting loose on whoever comes by while your click is up.

Rage doesn't function like the concept in question, people don't use Rage like they would the concept in question. That is because Rage is NOT really an adaptation of the concept in question.


.

[ QUOTE ]

The only fair way to increase the damage of the tanker to a target should also leave the tanker more vulnerable to that same target.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that same logic, since Tankers are more vulnerable to Bosses, EB, AVs and GMs than they are to Mins and LTs, they could deal more damage against Bosses, EB, AVs and GMs.

Assuming the same melee and defensive powersets:

If a Scrapper is vulnerable to a LT by a factor of X, and he can defeat it in 5 seconds with 3 attacks.

And a Tanker is vulnerable to a Boss by the same factor, wouldn't it be ok by your quoted logic for him to defeat that Boss in 5 seconds with 3 attacks?


You can increase a Tanker's damage against Bosses indivually from the damage he inflicts on Minions and LTs via damage bonuses.

You could in theory manipulate the damage curve so that Tankers deal the same damage vs safety ratio as Scrappers do.


.

[ QUOTE ]
False, Superman in the comics, uses brute force , enough to knockout an opponent or send him/her flying into an object, or in some cases a different zip code. Examples; His fight with Maxima, his fight with the hulk, his fight with Superboy prime, his fight with Lobo, his fight with Metallo, and of course his fight with doomsday.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

But for the purposes of equating those fights to PvE in CoH, each one of those battles were against EB and AV ranked enemies.

Supes, Colossus, Ben Grimm or the Hulk aren't using their full strength on minions and LTs like typical Metropolis bank robbers.

Bosses, EBs, AVs and GMs are another matter though, and conceptually speaking, Tankers should be bringing them hell.

[ QUOTE ]
I will agree that taunt should be an inherent as having taunt and gauntlet is highly redundant, especially when Gauntlet is this weak in the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

My personal opinion is that Taunt + Gauntlet aren't as redundant and Gauntlet + taunt auras. Both grab eneies as a PBAoE. From what I can see, Gauntlet is intended to be the little bit extra that helps keep enemies on you should a Scrapper with a Taunt aura be thrown into the mix. I don't think Gauntlet would be necessary however, if they just made Tanker taunt auras better.

I can see reasons why they did it via Gauntlet, but that doesn't change the fact the two are a little redundant together in some cases.

[ QUOTE ]

As for more dmg?, sure I would love actually feeling like a comic book "tank".


[/ QUOTE ]

You're one of the few it seems. Castle doesn't seem to see a reason for it. Maybe you could explain it to him in a PM sometime.

[ QUOTE ]
The Fury Warriors of WoW easily achieve this feat with the exclusion of better tanking "tools". Regardless, I hope tanks in CoH will be given more dmg without the cost of taunting power.

[/ QUOTE ]

CoH Tankers are the best tanks in any MMO I've seen. They hold aggro better and survive easier than similar classes in other games.

The problem is, the devs make them pay for helping teams, conceptually and with decreased soloability.

Soloability-wise, in other games the extra survivability of the tanking classes is an asset solo. In CoH, it's largely wasted and redundant. I'll bet if you trimmed 15%-20% of survivability off of Tankers, they'd likely solo just about as well. What holds back Tankers solo is damage. Scrappers and Brutes have less survivability than Tankers out of the box, yet they solo better. Their survivability is lower, but it doesn't slow their soloing the way Tanker damage slows theirs.

Conceptually speaking, comic Tankers are tougher and they deal a lot of damage, albiet usually slower and concentrating on one large foe, unlike characters like Wolverine and Daredevil who are often fighting 100 ninjas at once. CoH Tankers don't get to have the great damage. That's the forced trade off they make for doing their job on teams and being good at it. Scrappers and Brutes really don't pay a price conceptually for their team role. Speaking as someone who has multiple 50s of all three ATs in question, that never struck me as a fair deal and it never will. Not that some other ATs don't have concept issues, but I feel the ones with Tankers are the most easily fixable and I feel most AT should and could stand to be a little more super and closer to their comic counterparts.



.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

JB finally wore you down... =]


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

From what I see, Starsman says Tankers' biggest problems are primarily endurance and grouping issues and I say that they're conceptual and role issues. Furthermore, I contend that the two former issues are valid, but are merely symptoms that can be cured by addressing the two latter issues.


.

[ QUOTE ]

Now, this does not mean I think this thread is suddenly fail, but alternative ways of thought may be needed.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't call it a fail thread. The battle is lost but the war continues.

Every thread like this that pops up just fuels the fire and every time people like you and Briton agree on the concept of comic Tankers being the heavy hitters who take on the big bads, it just adds strength to the argument of what Tankers are supposed to be and that them not being that is failure on the designers' part.

[ QUOTE ]

This is not me giving up, this is me changing approach, as my goal is not getting tankers more damage but to improve tanker stack-ability in teams and make solo play a bit more fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good. Don't give up. My motivations are not exactly the same as yours, but I'm confident both of our ultimate goals can be reached with the right balanced mechanic for Tankers.


.

[ QUOTE ]

But only against bosses and above....

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends which proposal you're talking about.

Stars' original one at the begining of this thread doesn't care about con. It was a moderate bonus to any enemy affected. So in that case, no.

Others suggested making the bonus con based. I suggested that if it was con based, you could give a greater bonus against the higher cons and less against the lower ones. Mins the LTs would get a minor bonus, Bosses and up increasing bonuses. That way you could have higher bonuses against the foes that need it the most and it would continue with the theme that Tankers only unleash on the guys who can take it.

Reading onward, Great_Briton seems to be thinking the same thing.

Castle's seen the proposal. His reply indicates dev action is unlikely. I don't know if Starsman contacted Positron, but that might be something to do in the future if he has another idea. The nature of the recent Domm changes were a result of Posi and Castle talking. But then again, Posi has often said he's got a soft spot for Domms.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever it indicates doesn't matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

To these devs, likely not.

[ QUOTE ]

They're not going to massively overhaul Scrappers and Tankers at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't have to touch Scrappers as far as this issue goes.

The only massive overhaul required is the devs' current mindset that Tankers should be decoys. For Tankers, the only thing called for is the right inherent power to be added to them.

I'd back the one in the OP for that with the right changes and some more work put into it.


[ QUOTE ]

I've been playing a heavy-hitting powerhouse Superman homage for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction.

You've been pretending to play a heavy hitting powerhouse while in actuality he hits weaker than Daredevil.
Affleck's Daredevil.

[ QUOTE ]
Good times.

[/ QUOTE ]

No standards?



.

[ QUOTE ]

How does this help make tankers more effective when they are running solo


[/ QUOTE ]

It allows them more damage, which is the area Tankers suffer from the most solo.

[ QUOTE ]
or address their endurance woes?


[/ QUOTE ]

Fewer attacks to defeat foes means more efficient endurance use.

[ QUOTE ]

How does it make them stand out from brutes and scrappers?


[/ QUOTE ]

Brutes get very high ST damage and very high AoE damage, but it's all back loaded DPS.

Scrappers get high ST damage and AoE damage, it's evenly loaded DPS with punctuated bursts.

Stalkers get very high ST front loaded burst damage as well as high evenly loaded DPS punctuated with bursts.

Tankers would get high ST damage, medium AoE damage, evenly loaded.


.