-
Posts
2441 -
Joined
-
[ QUOTE ]
I think most of your problem is based more around the fact that tanker secondary sets tend to be ordered in a way that your hardest hitters don't come before 35 with meaningful offensive slotting not coming until later. Honestly, that's the only thing I would like to see changed, but even that , I don't think, is that big a deal.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not. I have several 50s of varying combos and all with varied builds generated on Test. Even the 50's with fully slotted attacks, in many cases heavily IOed out, don't perform offensively to a point I would call them heavy hitters compared to similar quality Brutes or Scrappers.
Even if they flipped Tanker primary and secondaries in terms of picking order and left the actual stats of the powers the same, the end result would be the same.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course a .9 modifier comes with other benefits that yours does not, specifically that all damage boosts would be more beneficial and damage enhancements would be more beneficial.
[/ QUOTE ]
You also forgot to mention that my proposal doesn't increase Tankers max theoretical damage. They still hit the cap. With a .9 mod, the damage being dealt at cap would be higher.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Tanker damage cap raised eventually.
[/ QUOTE ]
Raising the cap accomplishes nothing.
It would bring Tankers into closer pairity with Brutes, but it wouldn't make them more interesting or fun to play, wouldn't help with Tanker role or concept, nor fix any Tanker problems.
Neither does lowering Brute survivability caps. That doesn't make anyone happier either.
There's also been talk of increasing Tanker damage from the 0.8 multiplier to a 0.9 multiplier. Arcanna even suggesed I push for that as it was more likely, which is true even if her tongue was firmly in cheek when saying so. Even that wont help with making Tankers heavy hitters, in my opinion and still doesn't elevate Tanker offense from plain vanilla to something more intersting and unique. In fact, such a move is in my opinion, WAY more unbalanced than anything I ever suggested, and that includes my inherent proposal.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
which is total BS
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, why don't you ask Castle what he thinks of it.
. -
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
I can do this now with my tankers. Hold back and use my lower level attacks to manage my endurance until I feel like letting loose. Then I fire off Build Up and hit with my big attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the doesn't make you a heavy hitter like comic Tankers. You're not doing anything close to Brute or Scrapper damage for the same sets even when you're not "holding back". You're the same mediocre-hitting meatshield with bland offense.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
In my mind, that's what Rage and Build Up was for. Perhaps what would be better is a modification of those specific powers?
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you mean removing them from every other AT, or making special versions for Tankers, how would that be something that conceptually serves Tankers?
Why should Tankers, again, have to share something that's supposed to be conceptually special and inherent to them with Brutes like they do with Gauntlet?
. -
[ QUOTE ]
So I can assume that shield tankers are roughly what you would want out of baseline tankers in terms of long term performance?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not about long term. It's about being able to cut loose the deal some serious damage occasionally.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Comic Brutes get carried away on their anger. Comic Tankers make a tactical decision to kick it up a notch and stop pulling their punches.
Which is something I've been trying to get for CoH Tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT, hit the nail on the head, with a sledge.
[/ QUOTE ]
. -
[ QUOTE ]
You stated in that thread that it would be the equivalent over time of 1 red inspiration on at all times. 1 red inspiration = 25% damage bonus. With 3 enemies in range, I'm getting a 26.5% damage bonus on my shield tanker. Do you feel that shield tankers do the damage that you would want tankers to do?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I said it was slightly less than one small red inspiration, which is what the average worked out to.
But for the sake of this exchange, let's say it would equal exactly one small red inspiration, a 25% damage bonus.
So, one red inspiration on all the time. Let's say the devs deemed that an acceptable increase for Tankers.
25% buff @ 100% of the time.
So, if that's acceptable, what about:
50% buff @ 50% of the time?
That's double the buff but half the duration.
It still averages out the same in the end.
What about:
125% buff @ 20% of the time?
Again, still averageing out to 25%
Which is close to what I had proposed for Gauntlet 2.0. Actually, I had proposed a 120% buff @ 20% of the time, which only averages out to 24%, slightly less than a red inspiration, as I had said.
This would put Tanker damage at near peak Brute levels for a short time, allowing them to be heavy hitters at least some of the time.
[ QUOTE ]
With 3 enemies in range, I'm getting a 26.5% damage bonus on my shield tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you? Mid's is telling me you only get a 16.5 damage buff with 3 foes feeding AAO on a Tanker. I don't think the View Totals window takes into account AT multipliers, if that's where you're looking.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
Please find a new name for your proposal. Smackdown, Overpower, Bulldoze. Anything but Tank-omination, it isn't very descriptive as it could be misconstrued as some form of ESP for tankers and it's far too silly to say.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the point is you remembered it because of the silly nickname. The actual proposal I dubbed Gauntlet 2.0, IIRC.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
The point I was making is that in the comics the Tanker-types tend to go toe to toe with the big guns. That doesn't mean standing there for eternity unable to affect them, it means having the theoretical hope of eventually defeating them.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Being awesome is its own reward.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Thing clobbering something and not even being able to make a dent in it or even wear it down when Daredevil can isn't very awesome. More like awful.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Power customization is a big deal because the system wasn't designed to support it. If the could start fresh, it wouldn't be a big deal at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ask and you shall receive. Now I realize that this is only part of power customization but there is nothing saying that they haven't also taken the time to change the fetters and animations for powers so that people could be firing energy blasts from their eyes or spitting fireballs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw that. Gimme a call when the devs confrim that:
A) On a Blaster you can change the emanation points for each ranged attack. This means making Fire Blast come out of your chest, or eyes.
B) You can tint colors on a per-attack basis, as opposed to tinting your entire primary or secondary a color. (A and B would merely bring CoX's system up to par with what Champs can do.)
C) You can swap melee attack animations, even for ones that aren't the same length, because they will confrom themselves to the same length.
D) You can add and remove non-performance related effects to attacks as much as you like. (Screen shake, rock debris, flashes, sound effects)
Becuase otherwise, I wouldn't say they really did fully-featured customization.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, the babies have their bottle, and such a fuss would be kicked up if they were made to play fair.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe Tankers should get their bottle too. You know, for doing the job nobody wants to. Like Mr. Roboto?
Also I find it slightly amusing Tankers can't solo AVs like some other ATs because their damage is too low... and their damage is so low because they tank for the other ATs... ostensibly so those ATs can do things like take on AVs... except when they're soloing the AVs...
And I want to point out that Tank-omination really wouldn't help Tankers solo AVs.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
And since AV's are meant to be team content anyway, the fact that only some combos can and many can't should be telling.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, I spent all morning trying to explain this to someone who felt soloing AVs was their privilage for picking the "right" combos and AT and that changing AVs in anyway was taking something away he was entitled to, and giving myself a headache in the process.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
It's still not a problem. How many builds of anything can solo AVs? That Tankers even have any already puts them above a number of other ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Tal, Fail, I invite you two to have a discussion with Fernandes and ask about his thoughts on soloing AVs and if players should be allowed/able to.
I'll be happy to just watch, thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
They shouldn't be able to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just Tankers shouldn't be able to?
. -
Also, does anyone else think it slightly rude when you leave someone a message politely asking a genuine question, and you know they've read it, but they just don't reply?
. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, Tankers really can't solo against an AV, their damage is far too low. Since this would be a buff to single target damage, this would help with this "problem."
[/ QUOTE ]<ul type="square">[*]It's not a problem.[*]Yes they can.[*]This is only a problem to those people with scrapper envy who can't be arsed trying to solo AVs.[*]They shouldn't be able to.[*]Did I mention this isn't actually a problem?[/list]
[/ QUOTE ]
[*]Why not?
[*]One, maybe two combos are capable of the feat. Saying Tankers can solo AVs is like saying mammals are ocean-dwelling just because a couple of orders are. But try putting a gorilla in a tank of water and see what happens.
[*]This sentence doesn't make sense to me.
[*]Says who?
[*]Yes, but your opinion of what does and does not constitute a problem is hardly qualified.
[*]Your avatar is broken.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
I'm unclear, JB, did you mean you liked my budding idea?
[/ QUOTE ]
I was asking if those are reasons enough to make any kind of change. Or to even reason enough to get the Tanker offense/damage issue re-examined.
As to your idea (I assume you mean the one about Tanker damage diffusing with more enemies):
I thought about something similar before.
When I thought about it, the way it would have to work to satisfy me wouldn't fly with most people, so never posted about it.
The way I think it should have worked, is that with three foes in melee range range (10'), the Tanker would have been dealing the same damage as now.
With only one foe in range, the damage would have to be pretty high for me to consider the Tanker a heavy hitter. Much higher then I think the devs would be willing to allow in this instance. Not as much as I think they would allow with something like my Tanker-domination proposal where the time the damage effect is in play is much more limited.
Also, the debuff penalty for having more than 3 enemies in range would either have to cap fairly low (at like 6 enemies) or the debuff effect would have to be disproporionatly more mild than the buff effect.
Why?
Because lowering a Tanker's damage output is going to seriously effect survivability in large mobs. I can easily see a "slippery slope" effect where survivability gets exponentially lower the more mobs you add because the Tankers damage (and ability to neutralize incomming sources of damage) keeps going down as the incomming damage and debuffs from enemies keep going up.
I could see such a sharp decline rendering Tankers no more survivable solo in large mobs than a Scrapper or Brute.
Now, unless the upside of the power renders Tanker output and damage caps nearly as high as a Scrapper or a Brute, reducing Tanker survivability to nearly their levels doesn't seem fair to me one bit.
But "fair" or not, increasing Tanker offense to that level is something I doubt the developers would ever do.
In short:
I don't think the developers would ever let the advantage of the power be strong enough to do Tankers any more justice than they are being done now.
And
I can forsee circumstances rendering the disadvantage of the power much to harsh for the advantages the developers would be willing to grant.
So, I let the idea die on the drawing board.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
So I love the idea of the stone tanker, but I really dislike that with granite armor on I will look identical to other stone tankers. Is there ANY customization options at all? Or any way to keep the power on but the graphic off?
[/ QUOTE ]
This has been the greatest complaint about many of the Tanker armors.
No, there's not.
Not yet anyways. Possibly in the new expansion pack. Check back in the Fall.
. -
The lighting and day/night cycle in the game could stand to be improved as a whole. Nothing in CoX compares to the sun setting over Loch Mordan or just before dawn breaks over Dun Morogh.
I wouldn't object to some of the grittier zones getting the "Gotham City red sky" treatment during the day. Would that help satisfy the night hawks here?
. -
[ QUOTE ]
If you are serious about your suggestion then you should give it more thought. Then make a post about the suggestion that states your desired goal and outline the revisions with facts and stats to support the change.
Basing the suggestion of opinion and personal want will not get very far around here...I'm sure you know that by now.
[/ QUOTE ]
How are these as goals?
Eliminate feeling of Tankers not being heavy hitters.
Improve "feel" of low level play.
Have minimal impact on "aggro-sponge" players.
Increase Tanker vs. Brute viability.
How do they sound as goals? Are they far too "subjective" as reasons to change an AT?
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...age=0&vc=1
. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But honestly if this power scaling thing is so acceptable, why not reverse it? Have a mission or two where you fight the entire freedom phalanx and they're all lieutenants, because in this issue of City of Heroes you're the star? Obviously that'd be ridiculous and not exceptionally fun, but that's pretty much how some people such as myself see the current AV mechanic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, that would ROCK for a level 50 mission.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suggested something similar to this in the other thread. Have an arc where you and your team get powered up and can smack around Recluse and Co. like white con wusses. Of couse, the missions would have to have additional challenges to prevent the missions from becoming a sleep walk.
Say some Mu guys botch a spell and whenever you're around Recluse and friends(ie, in the missions in the arc as opposed to on the street), you end up siphoning their power and becoming uber.
Play it like the Black Suit Saga from Spider-Man where the power ultimately proves harmful, thus the heroes have to give it up, and you've got the makings of an intersting arc.
[ QUOTE ]
What does it accomplish for Superman to be (presumably) on a higher tier of power than anyone else can reach in DCUO? It's just a byproduct of his concept and his history (DCUO will go on to make me eat my words by making Kandorians and Daxamites player races).
[/ QUOTE ]
In the well written stories, he's not some unreachable god on a whole other tier from other heroes. John Byrne's Superman, generally regarded as one of the best interpretations of him, wasn't the most powerful guy on the block by far. Lots of characters, the Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, even Batman were capable of bringing him down.
What made him "powerful" was his will to fight, the sheer diversity of his powers, and the fact he was so much of an icon.
They even addresed this in the comics. You ask a kid in New York or London who the best super hero in the world is, he'll say Superman. You ask a kid in Buenos Aires or Sydney Australia who the best super hero is, he'll say J'onn J'onzz.
[ QUOTE ]
1) There is always going to be a critter that has bigger numbers than you; they are NEEDED.
[/ QUOTE ]
But they don't have to be the Freedom Phalanx, Statesman or Recluse.
[ QUOTE ]
2) Since those are going to exist, there is no reason to exclude the Signature Heroes from that status UNLESS doing so would improve the game significantly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doing so would require more diverse finale encounters, and we both seem to agree those are good things.
You don't feel overshadowed, but at least respect that other people do. You seem to not mind either way as long as the challenge remains the same, and that's what is being advocated here; changing the presentation of the encounters and not the challenge level of them. So why argue in favour of signature characters as AVs when it's (supposedly) no skin off your neck either way?
. -
[ QUOTE ]
See, I fundamentally disagree with your number 4 assumption. Not all builds are eqallyt good at soloing. ANd frankly not all builds are equally good, period. IF you didnt do the research and/or analysis to figure out which ones were better (or if you chose to build a sub-optimal character anyway) then you do not get the same performance as someone who did. If you want that performance, roll a better character.
[/ QUOTE ]
You miss the point that there shouldn't BE drastically better characters based on things players can't control like what power set contains massively overpowered debuffs and what set contains attacks with an overly resisted damage type.
Tell me, what would a dev say if someone asked to TRIPPLE the damage of Tankers?
Or if someone suggested making Blasters as survivable as Brutes?
They would say 'no' because that would be overpowered. There would be little reason to play any other AT. They would become the optimal AT.
That is what you are preaching. That flys in the face of all the balancing effort the devs have put into the game. You're saying it's OK for a handfull of combos to better for no reason other than a mathamatical quirk or because eliminating that outlier would create other problems.
That isn't rewarding hard work or skill with better performace. That's rewarding someone who followed a build guide someone else wrote and either farmed for a lot of hours or bought inf to obtain IOs.
[ QUOTE ]
and you can't blame me if, as one of those people, IM not keen to see my hard work rendered irrelevent.
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't "work hard" at all. You pushed buttons in a video game, George Jetson.
And I pushed buttons too. As many as you, for as long as you. And I pay the same fee every month as you too. So why should you get rewarded because one combo and AT is better than another? Why am I wrong for picking something different?
You likely have no more skill at this game than I do. I could roll the same AT and combo as you and within a short time devise a AV soloing build based what players who've gone before me have discovered. With my network of friends I could have him leveled up and outfitted with IOs in short order. Suddenly, your "work", is rendered just as irrelevent.
But just as I don't crawl inside glitched geometry just because it's possible, I don't build a character with no real concept behind it just because that outlier is better.
And just the same as that hangar glitcher I kicked from my server, I don't think it's fair to the vast majority of players, including anyone else who builds for something other than pure performance, that such outliers exist. And I'm especially disgusted that anyone can have a feeling of entitlement or superiority because they choose to take advantage of them.
***
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm done with this line of the discussion. You've made me very mad, and not for the reason you likely expect.
You've made me stand up for the devs, defend them and even compliment them in these little exchanges. That makes me feel so dirty I can't describe, especially since when the sun rises tomorrow, they're still going to continue to deny me the things I've spent two and a half years fighting for.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of thinking of AVs as munchkins, look at it from a comic book angle. Lord Recluse isn't an AV because he's better than you, he's an AV because this issue he's appearing in a team title rather than a solo title. One issue it takes the entire Avengers to take down Doctor Doom, another Spider-Man punks him by himself. AVs are the game's mechanical version of writer's fiat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even in that situation, what is better writing? The entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom is suddenly abnormally badass for no reason what so ever, or the entire Avengers being needed because Doctor Doom has gotten his hands on the Magical McGuffin which makes him ten times as powerful?
As I said earlier in this thread, I'm fine with signature characters temporarily becoming AVs when the story gives reasons for it, but not when it is totally arbitrary.
[/ QUOTE ]
And even when the story does give reason for it, as in the last three TFs added to the game, using that all the time to justify every AV encounter gets real old, real fast, especially when you rarely see that character NOT powered up.
Don't get me wrong, having a reason is better than no reason, but if all they're doing is using that as a cop out to keep throwing AVs at us, that doesn't fix anything.
As Shadow_Fire pointed out, fickle power levels and inconsistant writing are part of comics; part of the poorer ones.
While it's true I think the game should embrace fun aspects of comics, this isn't one of them. I don't want it any more than I want pop-up ads half way through a mission about "Selling Grit for CASH PROFIT and FREE PRIZES!"
That being said, I've said before I wouldn't mind a riff on Hostess Fruit Pies in the game in some form.
There's your "gadget fight" and alternative finale encounter right there.
http://www.seanbaby.com/hostess/v2spiderman21.htm
. -
[ QUOTE ]
So, yeah, I'm completely against Tanker changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that. I said that's the front you most often present.
. -
[ QUOTE ]
I have also historically been for changes to Invuln post-ED (and especially once the Devs fixed the bug in Invuln which was the problem in the first place), and to Ice Melee. I am NOT against all change. I am against THIS change.
[/ QUOTE ]
No you weren't Aett.
You used to come in my threads about Inul and argue against every change suggested by me or others. INCLUDING the changes Castle eventually went with. That's how I first encountered you, for crying out loud.
You, and a handful of others in this forum, don't seem to post unless it's to oppose a change or suggestion.
That's not true? That's the front you present. That's exactly what it seems like you're doing here.
.