Johnny_Butane

Duck?


.

So, we were told they couldn't change charatcer height on the fly.

Well now they can, apparently.

And we know Castle has been working on oversized targeting recticles.

We know "Growth" was a power set they presented in the new powerset survey not so long ago.

And giant heroes and villains is something CO does not currently do.

I shouldn't get my hopes up, but I can't help but wonder.



.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers "being boring" and "lacking punch" are the two biggest reasons given by people when asked why they don't player Tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you so aptly said in the other thread...

Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any thread about Tankers vs Brutes vs Scrappers.



.

[ QUOTE ]

Helps survivability. Promotes keeping the Tanker moving and at the front of the fight. Seems about right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the last thing Tankers need more of, or could even use more of, is survivability.

More survivability wont make Tankers more fun solo, on teams that's what buffers are for.

The last things Tankers need are better survivability and more aggro control. They do both almost too well. What they don't do that well, is solo and deal damage, especially in the lower levels. Tankers "being boring" and "lacking punch" are the two biggest reasons given by people when asked why they don't player Tankers. I don't see how giving them more survivability will make them less boring.



.

[ QUOTE ]

That said; these days we do seem to be dealing with a Kinder-Gentler Johnny.
Have you been replaced by a Nemisis Automaton?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just proving wrong the people who said attitude matters. Since turning the dial down I've gotten less results in anything I campaign for.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Ya know I have always thought it funny that the Brute class was based on the HULK. A Hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider Hulk in most incarnations, an anti-hero.

He does the right things, but sometimes for the wrong reasons.

He fights the Leader not because the Leader is a bad person who wants to hurt people, but beause he keeps sending mutants and robots to attack the Hulk.

I think the 2nd movie really drove that home where the Hulk strangles the Abomination and Betty has to basically stop Hulk from tearing his head off. He sees the expressions of the crowd. The people are afraid of him. He sees he's made Betty cry, and he realizes he's the monster at that point, and he flees.

That's how I interpret the scene anyways.

Perfect fodder for something like Going Rogue. I wouldn't object to blue side Brutes on those grounds.


.

[ QUOTE ]
But I want to play Superman, and fie on those who want to play The Question!

FIE ON THEM I SAY!

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a Question/Rorschach homage character for a long time. He ideled in the teens because there's no Street Fighting set and DM felt wrong.


.

[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much the original idea behind Fury; that Tankers hold back at the begining of a fight and cut loose as it wears on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct. That was Emmert's original rationale behind Fury; the concept of Tankers "holding back their true power".

While I agree that's a great hook to justify Tanker damage being low most of the time, and similar concept assessment to mine of how comic Tankers operate, I disagree Fury was, or is, the best way to adapt that to the game/AT.

Tankers holding back their true power is the concept/idea. Jack's implementation was Fury. I disagree with that implementation. I think it's wrong for Tankers. The core idea and conceptual rationale behind it, however, is mostly right in my opinion.

They changed the conceptual rationale behind the mechanic when they brought it to Brutes and made it about anger and the Brute reveling in combat. That fits the mechanic and Brutes much better in my opinion.

The other two quotes support that stance 100%.

This...

[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much the original idea behind Fury; that Tankers hold back at the begining of a fight and cut loose as it wears on.


[/ QUOTE ]

...within the context of the conversation is saying, "Oh yeah, the devs zeroed in on that concept of Tankers holding back too. Their original take was Fury."




.

[ QUOTE ]
I was being sarcastic. I was sure all you wanted was for me to give you some more ammo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sarcasm and the humour in it is lost on me.

I'm coming from a position of being constantly attacked and opposed for what I say, including by you. I'm called a liar, a child, an idiot and a villain. All for pushing for Tanker issues. The developers themselves troll my threads when they're not ignoring them. What kind of attitude do you think that would foster?


.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In the interest of compromise?


[/ QUOTE ]


In the interest of compromise I would test and entertain any solution the devs implemented.

That does not mean I'll support any old suggestion or jump on the first idea floated.

I'm going to back and support the solution I think that best addreses concept, viability and performance issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically, not compromising.

What you're saying you'd do is not at all within the definition of compromising.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not compromising would be saying "Tankers need the same offense as Scrappers all the time and to keep their defenses the same because Superman is as strong as he is tough."

Which is not what I or anyone else is asking for, nor what I want. I can't speak for what anyone else wants.

I think Tankers should be closer to the ideal I outlined in my previous post to Sorciere.

I'm willing to negotiate how close they can get to that, but I'm not going to push for or support things that move away from that. I did not say I would not accept anything less.

I would test any solution regardless, because in the end, it's all about how it feels in game. The solution to Invulnerability was hardly what I would have called ideal at the time, but after testing it, and living with it, I agree it reasonably solved the issues it intended to.


.

[ QUOTE ]

This time you're demanding an offensive buff that is so small as not to be a balance problem yet big enough to produce a major experience in how the AT plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pushing what I always have. An offensive change that allows Tankers to be heavy hitters compared to Brutes and Scrappers and better match up with their comic counterparts. Even if that's for a limited period at in Tank-omination or as in the case of Battle Stances, make a temporary sacrifice to do so.

How close they can get to that ideal, and not impact the people who like them as is, is a matter of negotiation and discussion.

[ QUOTE ]

With their availability blue-side, you will be having everything you wanted

[/ QUOTE ]

No, as I've said, Brutes don't fit the ideal of 'comic tankers' either.

Comic Brutes revel in fighting and their emotions fuel them. That is the core concept behind Fury.
Fury in many ways represents the opposite concept of what Tankers should be.

Comic Tankers hold back their true power, only unleashing it on tough foes.They pull their punches most of the time, but cut loose when need be, but it's not a 'ramping up affect'. It's more about 'throwing down the gauntlet' and taking the kid gloves off.

That is what CoH Tankers lack, conceptually. The ability to ever take the kid gloves off and show their true might.

I proposed the following conceptually before:

At their core, the comic Brute is the same at the comic Tanker, but they're like twin brothers raised by different mothers. They're both really tough and really powerful, but...

The Tanker is more heroic minded and protective. He pulls his punches on Minions and LTs. He could cause a lot of damage if he didn't keep himself in check. The Brute doesn't care about hurting people. He gives into his Fury and revels in it.

The downside to this is the Brute leaves himself open defensively, even though he has the same caps and limits, while the Tanker has spent more time thinking defensively and his will to protect drives him to keep standing through things the Brute buckles to without extra support.

Where the wheels come off in-game is that CoH Tankers lack the mechanic to ever "cut loose" and show what they can do offensively. That is exactly what I seek in a mechanic for Tankers.



.

[ QUOTE ]

In the interest of compromise?


[/ QUOTE ]


In the interest of compromise I would test and entertain any solution the devs implemented.

That does not mean I'll support any old suggestion or jump on the first idea floated.

I'm going to back and support the solution I think that best addreses concept, viability and performance issues.


.

[ QUOTE ]
YOU want to dismiss a statement about tanker underperforming on a level range because of an unlinked source?


[/ QUOTE ]

I want to strengthen your argument by prompting you to produce a source because doing so helps the common cause of getting Tankers attention and needed changes from the devs.


.

[ QUOTE ]

you have advocated making tankers into single target, heavy hitting, boss killers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have suggested improving Tanker ST or boss killing abilities to improve their soloing and "feel". Your point?

[ QUOTE ]

You've also shot down ideas that include damage buffs that you don't personally feel are adequate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I back a solution I don't find adequate?



.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, no. A brutes role is to deal damage

[/ QUOTE ]

They deal damage and tank.

They're used to take the alpha redside and their attacks have a taunt component, unlike Scrappers. They also have access to the same taunt auras as Tankers do (more than Scrappers). They also have Tanker level defensive caps specifically for Tanking on teams.

Brutes tank by virtue of the fact they run into the middle of a group of enemies and draw aggro onto them, and hold it. They tank and deal damage, the same as Tankers.


.

[ QUOTE ]
I did not say dull, I noted the devs admit there are performance issues with Low level tankers, not fun factor issues, just "they level too slow at that range compared to everyone else". And not only tanking but doing solo or teaming.


[/ QUOTE ]

Source?



.

[ QUOTE ]

In short, speak for yourself, do not claim to speak for others who do not share your ideas by pronouncing your personal preferences to be a universal truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

People in glass houses.

I'm seeking offensive improvements to make the AT more enjoyable to everyone, not just people who get their rocks off mashing Taunt over and over. I'm seeking to make the AT a little bit closer to their comic roots for the people, like me, who expected something a little more Brick-like(which is not Brute-like) but were forced to comply to someone else's preferences and be a decoy with mediocre damage.

I'm seeking a compromise solution; an offensive tweak that has no, or minimal impact on the people who enjoy Tankers as is.

You're demanding complaince to your preferences, the alternative being exile to another AT(Brutes/Scrappers) that doesn't really match the concept of a heroic heavy hitter either.

You're the one being unreasonable and telling people what they should play. Not me.



.

[ QUOTE ]
This still doesn't represent a reason for making tankers like brutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman.


Tanker offensive tweaks do not make them Brutes. Scrappers are not Brutes. Stalkers are not Brutes. All are damage dealers.

A mechanic can improve Tanker offense, soloability and viability against Brutes without "making Tankers like Brutes." Unless you define any melee AT with teeth as "being a Brute."

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that two archetypes that share the same primary, like control, and will soon be working side by side should be balanced against one another makes perfect sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Brutes and Tankers share two power sets. Althought they may not be matched primary to primary. This makes them even closer in roles.

Controllers are buff/debuff and control. Dominators are control and damage. They share one role: Control.

Brutes and Tankers share two roles, damage and aggro control. They're even more closely related than Controllers and Dominators.

Now, in the case of Dominators, so solve the issue they didn't invent a third role Dominators and give them debuffs or buffs. They improved the area they were weak in.

With Tankers, they're not weak in aggro control at all. In fact improving their aggro control or survivability would do little to help them or the issue. Their weakest area is offense, and that is what affects their soloability early on. The solution is to improve Tanker offense, but in a way that's distinct from Fury and Brutes.


.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not miss the point. Brutes do trade off defense for more personal offense. Therefore, brutes do NOT act as the same force multiplier (defensively), simply because they have weaker defense.


[/ QUOTE ]

That weaker defense has not stopped them from filling the exact same team role as Tankers do. Weaker defense =/= weak defense, and Brutes are strong enough even without minimal support to tank for teams. They've been doing so in CoV since day 1.

[ QUOTE ]

Well, the problem is that you don't like playing a primarily defensive character.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, the problem is for a Tanker, their defense doesn't benefit them, it benefits others, and at the expense of a Tanker's concept, ability to solo and for the people who think Tankers should have some teeth, fun.

[ QUOTE ]

That, however, is your problem, not that of the developers.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is an admitted flaw in the AT by the lead designer who was in charge of their creation.

[ QUOTE ]

The developers are well advised providing a variety of different ATs and powersets to cater to people with different playstyles instead of making tankers essentially the same as brutes, which would reduce the number of character options a player has.


[/ QUOTE ]

The developers should also be advised to realize that being a niche with limited popularity isn't something they should strive for on any AT and should be reminded they have in fact made efforts in the past to make ATs like that slightly more rounded and more enjoyable to a greater number of players.

Blasters and Stalkers getting buffs that improve survivability comes to mind.

As do Dominators, a control (defensive) primary getting buffs to it's offensive secondary. A defensive primary and offensive secondary? Sounds a little like Tankers to me.

[ QUOTE ]

Luckily for you

[/ QUOTE ]

UN-luckily for you, perhaps, Going Rogue is only going result in me pushing harder and being louder about Tanker reform now that there's the direct and increased threat from Brutes.



.

[ QUOTE ]
According to Castle changes to dominators have been in the works for quite a while with no mention of Controller/Dominator viability.


[/ QUOTE ]

According to this:

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...age=0&vc=1

...you're wrong.


.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with that line of argument is (1) that there are actually people who enjoy the role of being in the thick of things and taking hits for the team, (2) that tankers ARE a force multiplier, both defensively and offensively.


[/ QUOTE ]

And you seem to miss the point that Brutes act as the same force multiplier, take hits for the team, do so with minimal support BUT unlike Tankers and the end of the day get to go solo with excellent speed and damage.

Even if Brues were faceplanting each spawn, and they're not generally, they're still filling the role as aggro sponge, have been doing so for as long as CoV has been around, and unlike Tankers, they're not half-crippled offensively for the dubious privilege.

Given that Brutes and Tankers share the exact same roles, just in different proportions:

Damage/Aggro and Aggro/Damage.

...Tell me why is Controller/Dominator viability an issue worth making AT adjustments when those ATs only share a controlling aspects, while the rest of the AT is completely different, and Tankers vs Brute isn't an issue even though they share more power sets and their roles are more similar?

Brutes and Tankers are way more similar, and there's just as much popularity gap between Controllers and Doms as there is between Brutes, the most rolled AT on their side, and Tankers, the 2nd least rolled AT on their side.

With that in mind, Brutes have it over Tankers in the offense and soloing department. So if there were any changes to Tankers over viability concerns, the changes would be to solve the issues of offense and soloing.

You want a problem to warrant a change? There you go. You want to see how said change fixes said problem? Any offensive-minded inherent change would improve offense and soloing. Done.

You can commence with the backpedaling and blanket dismissal now. There's the goal post, you'd better move it quick.



.

[ QUOTE ]

Nobody expects tankers to out-DPS scrappers. They would just like to kill bosses in less than three minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. It's not Tankers vs Minions anyone ever complains about. It's Tankers vs Bosses, EBs and to a lesser extent, LTs and AVs.


.

[ QUOTE ]

This may get the text changed before the AT but still:

Note that ranged thing? But where is the range? Odd no? Been there 5 years and I personally never seen people ask where the range is at unless they roll SS and take Epics.

Not that range will do anything to improve the AT but still odd.


[/ QUOTE ]

They've changed the text at least twice before.

First to remove any reference to Tankers being 'second only to Scrappers in sheer melee power' because Blasters made that only half-true and CoV made it a blatant lie, and second was to further slant them as being defensive and to specifically say they're lacking at long range.

This is what it now says in game:

[ QUOTE ]

The Tanker can take it and dish it out all at once. The Tanker primarily can absorb vast amounts of damage, and hold his own in a fist fight. But the Tanker lacks any long range punch. The Tanker would prefer just to charge straight ahead anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to what it used to be:

[ QUOTE ]
The Tanker is the irresistible force combined with an immovable object. This Archetype can take and absorb all sorts of damage. The Tanker though is not totally invulnerable, but his skills allow the other Archetypes to play their parts, too. The Tanker is a devastating hand to hand combatant, and ranks only second to the Scrapper in sheer melee power. The Tanker possesses some ranged abilities, though far below the Blaster and the Defender. The Tankers proudly stand in the front lines of battle in order to protect their comrades and, of course, the innocent.

[/ QUOTE ]


Notice how Tankers went from "devastating hand to hand" and being "second only to the Scrapper" to merely "holding their own"?

Amazing what Brutes can do to the AT's self image. Or rather, amazing how the developers will compromise the vision of the Tanker AT's concept and role just to sell boxes of CoV.

Me, I'd rather play something with devastating hand to hand combat than something that just holds their own. Holding your own doesn't sound very super to me. And just because the devs ran out on Tankers for Brutes, doesn't mean I will.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Probably not. They probably would've included that in Posi's screenshots if it was possible. It's still...technically possible, but considering that this "power customisation" will be tied to the character creator (where else would it go?), then I fully expect one tint for the entire set. With a lot of sets left out, too.

Still, might be nice to make my Fire/Ice Blaster have green fire and white(r) ice, so I'm happy it's coming. I'm just pragmatic regarding results.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to launch into a speech about how that level of customization largely excludes melee sets without weapons, sets with model projecticles like spines, etc, but then I realized such sets are in the minority so there's really no point.

Bananas are likely here to stay, SS Punch will likely never be a punch, sadly and throwing cars will have to wait until CoH 2.



.

[ QUOTE ]

I fully expect to see a whole lot of people disappointed when detailed information on I16 comes out. Pinkish purple Fire Control is way different than, say, replacing Hurl's chunk-o-concrete with a Yugo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this. I don't think the customization will be much more in-depth than tinting an entire primary and secondary a color. I'll be surprised if there's even tinting on a per-power basis.


.