Johnny_Butane

Spider-Man is hardly renowned for "putting targets down". When he has been adapted to team games that have defined roles, he is used as control more often, which as far as melee characters go in this game is closer to Tanker territory than Scrappers. Indeed, most Scrappers don't even take their taunts at all. Compare Spidey's mindset to a true Scrapper like Wolverine's. Which of those two is going to be blindly charging a supervillian and which will be the one concerned with bystanders? Spider-Man's mantra is "with great power comes great responsibility". Honestly, who is more responsible, Tankers or Scrappers?

Lastly, not all Tankers "soak" damage. You talk like only characters with invulnerability or resilience can be Tankers. I suggest you look up what 'dodge tank' means. With his Spider Sense and reflexes, Spider-Man is almost impossible to lay a hand on in a straight fight. His Super Reflexes are as good as they come, which means he is a Tanker.



.

.

If you're talking base damage, I don't think such a point exists.

Brutes are too well optimized for the game. They have high damage. They have enough survivability for most people. They have high potential for more of both. They are optimal for the game, as it is today. So, by definition, anything else would be sub optimal. Even if you bump up Tanker damage, anyone with half a brain will still look at them and say: "OK Brutes still have better damage. More damage is always better. Tankers still have superfluous survivability that doesn't even matter some of the time. Still no reason reason not to be a Brute."

I think what's ultimately needs to happen is two things:

1: Bring Tanker potential in line with Brutes. Give Brutes as little clear quantitative edge a possible. That means upping Tanker damage caps so their damage potential relative to Brutes is as good as Brute survival potential is to Tankers. So, if you're purely looking at the numbers, Brute vs Tanker is a coin toss; 10% better survivability potential or 10% better damage potential. In short, choosing Tanker versus Brutes should be down to concept, not numbers.

2: Play up the differences of the ATs via a fighting mechanic. Brutes are savage fighters like the Hulk. Fury fits Brutes. Fury defines Brutes. What can be done for Tankers that makes them play and fight differently, instead of being just slow, weak Brutes without Fury? Give enemies a reason for focusing their fire on the Tanker.

Tankers need better combat and a better image. If you pitch the truth of the matter to a random guy on the street, what is he going to pick: the powerful, unstoppable monster that smashes anything in his path, or a turtle that functions as a distraction above all else? A pimped out monster truck, or a dump truck? Slow and steady doesn't sell. Tankers are badly in need of an injection of 'badassery'. We all know what super hero the Tanker was intended to represent, even if some people loath to admit it. The fact that the premier signature NPC Tanker is/was a flying brick expy of him should clue you in. It's time Tankers lived up to their comic roots as powerhouses and not just decoys.



.

No I do not.

Question: who does Spidey tank for?
Nobody. Tank and spank is not the norm in comics.

Additionally, his taunts aren't about aggro. That doesn't really exist in comics. His taunts are more like targeted debuffs,



.

Adjusting the cap is not the only thing I'm proposing. It goes in hand with creating a fun, thematic and unique mechanic for Tanker offense. Whatever that mechanic is, I'm open to hearing ideas.

EDIT: And to clarify, by 'Tanker offense' I don't necessarily mean a damage boosting mechanic (but I'm not discounting one either). Right now there is a view that Tankers are just Brutes without Fury. We need something that ideally gives their fighting style some "OOMPH", makes them appealing to the people who wont play them currently because "they're just slow low damage Brutes/Scrappers" and works some more comic thematics into the AT. In other words, some "flash". A simple raising of the damage scalar isn't flashy. IMO, it's boring.

IMO, this "something" could be anything from having John Williams musically score Tanker combat (not a serious suggestion!) to adding some visual affects to Bruising to creating a mechanic that attempts to emulate the "World of Cardboard" speech to let Tankers unload on the hard targets.


.

Norrin Radd is the original sparkling angst poster boy.
Twilight just brought it back.



.

That is the aim of raising Tanker damage cap to 545%. A Brute would do 10% more ST damage (and 30% more AoE) because Tankers would have 10% more max HP at the cap.


Nope. Tankers have 10% more HP at cap since ~i18.

I agree with the sentiment but not the implementation. They're both intended to be bricks, it's just the Brute succeeds at it while the Tanker has fail damage and has been sidelined as a walking decoy and crutch for bad teams. Tankers should not get Fury and Brutes should not get proper Gauntlet. Both AT's should have their damage caps brought in line with each other to correspond to their very similar defensive caps. Tankers should get their own damage boosting mechanic that is distinct and thematic to them that sets them apart as their own flavor of brick. As I've said before, I'm strongly in favor of trying to emulate the 'World of Cardboard' speech as a thematic hook that justifies Tankers having lower damage most of the time (yet they would have similar but not quite as much damage capacity as Brutes with the caps fixed) but the ability to take off the kid gloves when it's warranted on the hard targets.

This would allow Brutes and Tankers to be villainous/heroic, or savage/self-sacrificing flavors of bricks respectively.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBigGuy
...versus the aptly named:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBrute



.

Is fire evil because it burns? Is the wolf evil because it preys on the lamb? Mako is a shark. Sharks kill. It's his nature.


Recluse is a social Darwinist. Bowing to appease him is basically admitting you forfeit your life. He respects ambition and ability, but don't you dare let one outdistance the other. If you demonstrate neither, he will view you even less favorably.

Nemesis, perhaps.

Tyrant wouldn't care. If you've wronged Praetoria in his eyes, he'll twist your head off. Tyrant's most established character trait is that he's rigid and uncompromising. Bowing to him wouldn't change his course of action.



.

The Surfer has a wide and poorly defined suite of powers, but they extend beyond simple ranged and melee attacks.

He's basically a Defender with whatever Buff/Debuff Primary he can think of, and an Energy Blast secondary.

Iron Man, if they had Power Armor Blast, Power Armor Support and a few of the upcoming pool powers, could work as a Blaster. You can essentially do his Hulkbuster armor now as a Tanker. I'd be more interested in some Power Armor-esque attacks as pool/epic powers for a Scrapper to model his original Mark 1 armor.


.

Spectacular Spider-Man #189



It was their big 30th anniversary of Spider-Man issue with the "final battle" with the Harry Osborn Goblin (it wasn't by a long shot). That's Harry's son, standing over his unconscious body, giving Spider-Man the death glare. Fortunately for Spidey, he was retconned out of existence before he could grow up to exact his revenge, so as a meme it's a perfect representation of impotent rage.

The poster from this issue still hangs in my computer room to this day.



.

OK, I have that book.
How the heck did that utterly forgettable holofoiled abomination become a meme?


.

I think Hover should have it's speed increased to what Fly is, and Fly be removed from the game. Then Fly's current spot should be taken by Afterburner and a new flying attack created to be the new 5th power in the Flight pool.


.

I'm comparing those heroes to the ATs the way they currently are, not the way the ATs should be.



.

He is a dodge tank. His primary M.O. is to jump around taunting his foes. He's not known for being exceptionally good offensively.



Flash too is not known for being an exceptionally powerful fighter. He is nearly impossible for a non-speedster to lay a hand on, meaning his Super Reflexes are of the utmost caliber. Both the Wally West and Bart Allen incarnations, and to a lesser extent Barry Allen, made extensive use of taunting in battle, therefore he is a Tanker.



.

Correct.

SR/MA Tanker.

King of Inv/SS Tankers.

Correct

StJ/Nin Stalker

SR/Speed Melee Tanker

Correct.



.

Their resistance cap shouldn't change. Brutes are listed under the Tank gameplay category at character creation. They are intended to tank and doing so requires high caps in suitable room for defensive buffing. Yes, Khelds are also listed under the Tanker category but I didn't invite them, did you?


I want to keep the Tanker scalar down because it gives them more room for an interesting mechanic that could maybe boost their damage periodically, or in specific situations; something that helps with thematics('World of Cardboard speech' or what have you) without being OP. It also keeps Tanker AoE down which helps keep some breathing room for Brutes and Scrappers.

And you don't think that would happen again?

I don't think the majority of players playing the game even know Tankers have 90% resistance caps, let alone understand what that means, let alone care. To be clear, my lobbying to bring Tankers in line with Brutes is to correct an inequity that I see and one that perhaps other dedicated Tanker players who concern themselves with numbers in the high end game might see. I don't honestly think it will improve how Tankers are viewed by the masses, at least not at present (but after a few more Incarnate slots and powers added, we'll see), which is why I say there needs to be something flashy or a mechanic in whatever changes Tankers get for that purpose. But in order for such a mechanic to do anything noticeable, assuming it was offense oriented, they need some more headroom with the damage cap first (or do something that bypasses the conventional cap, like [Doublehit]/bonus damage).



.

The only thing you might get me to agree to is meet you half way and lower the Brute damage cap a smidge and raise the Tanker damage cap (but not as high as 545%).

But that alone doesn't solve the problem of Tankers not feeling like comic book tanks, or give them more pizzazz. Nor does it address the issue of Brutes and Scrappers being allowed to become functionally immortal in most of the content in the game, yet continuing to have a huge damage advantage over Tankers even when none of the three are in any real danger.


.

How about you use a cap of 545% to make the math accurate.

Otherwise I want you to round the Scrapper's resistance cap up to 80% and the Brute damage cap up to 800% because it's "easier". Now I'll explain to you that's sarcasm: use accurate numbers, don't round just to make your point look better.


Brutes get 10% better maximum damage. Tankers get 10% better maximum HP.
Works for me. Brutes have been allowed have their current numbers for years and the game hasn't imploded. It would be hypocritical to deny Tankers the same, would it not?


Tanker AoE damage is laregly unaffected by Bruising, so Scrappers would have more breathing room there. And most people seem to agree that AoE damage matters more, especially on teams. In fact that's more reason why I object to your proposal of increasing the Tanker damage scalar: Tankers don't need better AoE damage to further crowd out Scrappers and Brutes.

So to modify your statement to be more accurate, it would put Tankers at 70% of Scrapper AoE, with Scrappers having 75% of Tanker survivability. Their ST damage would be closer, but take into account any time a Scrapper is around a Tanker or teamed with one, they get 20% more damage from a Tanker's Bruising for free, pushing Scrappers damage back out AND they get protected by the Tanker to boot, making a Scrapper's lower survivability a moot point.

So from where I stand, Scrappers would still have a pretty sweet deal; continuing to have better damage and way better AoE damage than Tankers solo, while being protected and buffed by them when teamed.



.

*sigh*
I shouldn't have to explain to you that it was an intentionally extreme scenario that was used to illustrate a point. That the value of survivability has sharply diminishing returns after the point where immortality for the given situation is achieved and that after that point, it becomes illogical and unfair to strictly balance damage against it. I can also point to the other end of the spectrum to demonstrate the same point if it helps: a standart PI +0x1 radio mission against the Council. In that situation, neither a Scrapper, Brute or Tanker are likely to faceplant. None of them are really in any danger, so why heavily penalize the Tanker's damage?

Nor should I have to point out that you don't even need 8 level shifts for Scrappers and Brutes to survive most of the game's content just fine. We were already seeing the situation I described happen with just IOs.


No it isn't, because it doesn't solve the two other issues I see with Tankers and the melee ATs: the aforementioned damage vs practical survivability problem, and it doesn't improve their comic book feel in my opinion or give them any pizzazz/flash.

In addition to that, it noticeably also increases Tanker base damage, which is something I don't think need happen, and it doesn't even do it in a way that's interesting or adds some pizzazz to Tankers.

It may help if you stopped strawmaning me and listened to what I am actually asking for before you condemn me for rejecting your proposal for Tankers (which IMO ends up helping Scrappers more)



.

No.

Scrappers and Brutes already do way too much damage for how often they don't faceplant. There is no way that Scrappers should be allowed higher resistance caps.

All three ATs can already be brought well above the immortality line for 90% of the content in the game, and you want to make it easier for Scrappers to? No way to that.


No, Scrappers win. They get an undeserved resistance cap increase.
Brutes loose with a nerf in both directions.
Tankers get an unnecessary increase to base damage that still doesn't make them interesting and doesn't solve their first issue I outlined in an earlier post.

Allow me to elaborate on that last point:

The problem with the melee ATs isn't their survivability relative to each other. The problem is with with their survivability relative to the game environment. For a given situation, does it matter if a Tanker is 2x or 20x more survivable than a Scrapper if the Scrapper doesn't faceplant? And if the Scrapper doesn't faceplant, why is it fair to penalize the Tanker's damage greatly as if all of that 20x more survivability mattered?

That is the problem: both Scrappers and Brutes can get above the immortality line for too much of the content in the game. As far as I'm concerned, if a Scrapper, Brute and Tanker each individually clear missions without faceplanting, their survivability in practice, as in "for all practical purposes", is the same, regardless of what the base or cap numbers say.

Consider this currently theoretical, yet entirely possible, situation:
A Tanker, a Scrapper and a Brute, each with +8 level shifts. All of them will be functionally immortal in 98% of the content that's currently in the game. Yet the Brute and Scrapper will still be putting out way more damage than the Tanker. So how is that fair?



.

Super heroes are modern myths. To say that something crafted a mere 60 years ago or less is outdated in its mores when Aesop, Beowulf, the Bible, Shakespeare and other 'timeless' stories deal with the same themes and tropes is idiotic.

The only thing I can say to those so called "professional critics" is this: "Read some Joseph Campbell, you pretentious *********".



.

No duh! That's because the Tanker cap is so low. Of course it's easier for them to hit it.


And I have Brutes that outdamage those Tankers. Congratulations, all that proves is that characters that are well built are better than ones that have stock SOs.

To elaborate, I have well built Brutes and well built Tankers.

All of the Tankers are at the point where more survivability is mostly useless to them 99% of the time. The game just doesn't call for it. Half of those Tankers are hitting their damage cap. They will never do any more damage. They have no way to improve offensively, and no real reason to improve defensively.

Set for set, all of the Brutes surpass the equivalent Tankers in damage. Some of the Brutes are getting to that point where more survivability doesn't matter too, but all of them still have plenty of room to grow offensively and defensively.

Every issue they get more powerful and will close in on the Tankers for survivability, but will always have a huge damage advantage. The Tankers are up against a brick wall and Brutes are not.


As more and more Incarnate powers, Amplifiers and whatever come out, my Brutes will just get more damaging and tougher. Half of my Tankers have no where to go to improve offensively, and defensively don't need it and are up against a brick wall.


Now, I'll tell you a secret: I'm well aware not everyone has characters built to this level and this isn't a problem they've encountered. But, as time goes on, as we're allowed to get more powerful, more and more people will encounter this. And when their Tankers are at the damage cap, and the Brute next to them rivals them for survivability but does a ton more damage, it'll be their problem and it'll be in everyone's faces. I can wait for then, because at this rate it's an inevitability that's not far off and I'm nothing if not patient.

When it becomes painfully obvious that there's no point in rolling a Tanker over a Brute, maybe then the devs will do something.



.