Johnny_Butane

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers and Damage...you CAN spec a tank for pure damage - it's possible

[/ QUOTE ]

And you will generally have fewer options and see less return for your effort than for building a Scrapper or Brute to be tougher.

Which is one of big arguments for Tanker change, because such a dispairity can't be addressed by the devs adding IOs and pool powers.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Well said. Not having your every whim catered to does not mean you were not heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about when one person is against blue side Brutes, and another is for them?

How is introducing Brutes to blue side a compromise there?

I'm sorry, but that in combination with the devs not doing anything about the Tanker situation demonstrates to me very much that no compromise has been made and that I have not been heard on one issue and ignored on another.

I also want to point out that I'm not the only one upset/disappointed about GR and that a lot of the general complaints are consistant. I bet those people feel they're not being heard as well. And I suspect the devs aren't listening to them either. They tend to lable anything they don't want to hear as "noise" and put their big ole earmuffs on. Which is fine if they want to gamble with their playerbase at a time when the competition is trying to snap them up.

GR holds nothing for me from what I see so far and actually has some things that would drive me away from the game. That and I'm currently of the opinion that the ability to throw a car and build a character closer to the way I want > anything I expect GR to ever offer.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I've seen plenty of compromise. The repeal of the Rage crash change for one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Rage crash wasn't repealed. The proposed change didn't test well, so it was backburnered until another change could be attempted.

The current crash isn't supposed to allow vet/temp powers to work during it, and the -def is still something Castle wanted to change as of last time he spoke on it.

Technically, the power is currently buffed from what it was before, and not intentionally. It was supposed to be temporary until he had time to work on it, but that hasn't happend yet, apparently.

I would offer Damocles and the sword as a metaphor, but it's not an impending nerf. It's an impending unbuff to correct a buff that wasn't supposed to happen.


.

[ QUOTE ]
rather than what would be the best compromise between all interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Compromise" implies give and take, offering a concession or two. In this case there has been no such negotiation on the dev's part. They ignore one side and serve the other entirely.

There will be no compromise until there is a discussion.
There will be no discussion until the devs are willing to discuss.

Such is unlikely considering this is essentially an oligarchy.


.

Assault is regarded as a poor choice for boosting Tanker damage by most.

It only grants a 10.5% damage boost, which is less than half of a single red inspiration. It costs between .27 and .2 endurace to run, using up two slots for the latter. It locks you into a power pool, and as many may overlook, the power accepts no IO enhancement sets, which is something that should be considered.

It is simply not a very good option for Tankers increasing their damage.
That's fine because the power is intended as a team buff and is balanced as such.

Tanker damage is an issue that has to be delt with on the AT level.


.

[ QUOTE ]
The changes with the other AT were made to enhance the core purpose of the AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tankers already fulfull their core purpose too well in some cases. That is not the area causing deficiency, so it is not the area that needs attention.

Nor should we invent a "new area" for Tankers when then cannon, other media and other information sourses indicate Tankers and Tanker-like heroes should be heavy hitters; not debuffers or healers or anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the earlier poster that Tankers should be better against groups as a means to preserve their role within the game. If you want a boss killer grab a Scrapper. If you want to take on an entire spawn grab a Tank.


[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you justify the hero teams's team big guy smacking around people smaller than him and then girly slapping the guys he should by all rights be able to lay into?

Tankers holding back on minions and LTs with their current mediocre damage levels at least makes thematic sense if they can unload on Bosses, AVs, etc with high damage.

NOT being able to open up on Bosses and AVs and then brutalizing the squishy enemies not only doesn't make any thematic sense, it's not very heroic in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]

Isn't all damage on non perma-Doms being improved not just melee? Since Castle stated that the Dominator's new purpose is damage and control consecutively.


[/ QUOTE ]

And that just goes to show that an AT's purpose can change over time as the game changes.

Doms are an example of a defensive primary and an offense secondary AT that has now seen a shift to more offense. They could do both before, but now they do one better than they used to. Do they now control worse? If not, I fail to see how that is unlike Tankers. They didn't give Doms leadership abilities or invent them something new to do.


.

[ QUOTE ]
It must not be damage-related.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then I am immediately off on another rant.

For the simple reason that any change that doesn't affect Tanker damage, isn't going to help their concept deficiency, which is where I say they are lacking the most. Other areas where they're lacking (endurance use, the early-mid levels stretch, being called "boring" by many) can all be tied to damage and offense issues.

The recent revisions to the AT's inherents can be see as an attempt to make them more rounded.

Blasters, an AT primarily about damage, got a form of mez protection to make them more survivable in addition to increasing their damage output.

Stalkers, another damage AT, got the demoralizing effect which also helps their survivability, not to mention staying hidden from missed Assassination.

These changes improved the survivability for these primarily offensive ATs, making them more rounded and less frustrating to play.

Why then, should it be off the table for a primarily survivable AT to get improved offense to make them more rounded and fun to play?

It should very much be on the table.

And since Tankers currently do two things: they tank with their primary and attack with their offensive secondary, making them more rounded would involve improving on their secondary's offense.

Not to mention now there's a precident for improving a melee damage secondary:

Dominators.




.

[ QUOTE ]
While I respect Johnny's tenacity I believe it's slightly self serving

[/ QUOTE ]

We are arguing changes to a game people play for pleasure.

Everything here is self serving.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately increased damage is neither unique among the archetypes' inherents nor is it a new idea for tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stalkers, Scrappers and Brutes. Three melee ATs. Their role is dealing damage, in different ways. Three very different playstyles because of the mechanics involved.

They're going to soon co-exist. There's no reason Tankers can't be as unique as they are from each other and also be able to be heavy hitters. It all comes down to mechanics, not roles.

If you accept that Tankers should conceptually be heavy hitters for the reasons I've stated before, then you can logically conclude Tankers can be both heavy hitters and unique among the melee ATs.


.

[ QUOTE ]
This is true, but (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't Tankers also get -Range to their Taunt exclusively as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. It wasn't exclusive to Tankers. It was applied to Scrapper Challenge and Brute Taunts as well.


.

[ QUOTE ]

Johnny, even though I think there are times you have the personality of a wet mop when trying to get your ideas across, I have and still do agree with several of them. Maybe you should get a PR agent or something to try and give ideas to Castle on this type of thing. It may have taken forever to get Invul, Warmace, Dark Melee, and several other sets buffed, but they did get buffed after enough civil discussion was had about the issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

My humble request to you then is when you hear me touting ideas and concepts that you agree with, speak up.

I suspect Castle is well aware of the things I propose, be they reasonable or unreasonable. But he's not even going to stop and consider them either way when there is little to no support for them.

We both know there's more people out there who'd support Tanker tweaks/changes than who actually speak up to say so. I've had a number of people encourage me to keep pushing away at this because they support many of the ideas. But these same people don't always turn out to vocalize that support. I can understand people not wanting to step into the crapstorm that's regularly directed at me, but if they really do support the effort, and they want any progress made, when push comes, they should make an effort to shove.

If you wanna roll with an analogy, I'm tanking this stuff for you guys. Support's always welcome.


.

[ QUOTE ]
My question regarding the idea was why did tankers deserve two inherents and the other nine primary ATs did not? IIRC, it was never answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brutes?

Who said two? This would wrap into Gauntlet.

Just like Defiance now does a couple of different things (pseudo mez protection and damage buffs) as does the Stalker's new Assassination(regular crits, hidden crits, demoralizing effect), there's no reason Gauntlet can't do something else on top of being a radial AoE taunt.


.

[ QUOTE ]
Then a tank should spec into Pyre mastery if they want to do more damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Boo specifically asked for protective shields for Blasters. That's a very narrow concept. Force Mastery is exactly that.

Now, if you want to argue Blasters should get better survivability without resorting to that pool, by all means you're welcome to in the Blaster forum. I won't impede you.

Tankers as a whole don't need fire attacks, nor should they need them in order to fulfill what's missing from them in general that conceptually should be there.

Why should it(being a heavy hitter) be there?

Comic books indicate heroes with powers like the Tanker get are heavy hitters. The official description calls them "a devastating hand to hand combatant". In media based on the CoH universe, like the comics and the novels, Tankers are indeed excellent fighters and heavy hitters. Back Alley Brawler, an admitted Tanker, when refering to his offensive fighting ability, is said to be one of the best in the world.

The precident for Tankers and Tanker-like heroes as heavy hitters is there: In super hero comics, games and movies. In the cannon of the game itself. In the media derrived from the game. The lead designer himself said they should be.

I don't think the Tanker's current even, mediocre damage that's 40% behind the next hardest melee hitter satisfies any of these depictions, descriptions and comparisons.

You can argue they already are heavy hitters, but I'm willing to bet if you posted to the Brute or Scrapper forum saying they are, most people would disagree. If you opened it up to Joe Public on the live servers, I don't think they'd identify Tankers as they are currently as heavy hitters either. Or excellent fighters.


.

[ QUOTE ]
what do you think the blasters will have to say about not being able to generate their own protective shields just like in the comic books?

[/ QUOTE ]

"I should really spec into the Force Mastery Blaster epic pool"?


.

[ QUOTE ]

Not surprising, as most don't want to have their tankers to "play" that way.

it's once again down to the "feel" issue. Aka, see the epic argument going on in the I5 dom buffs thread, related to /psi.

[/ QUOTE ]


If executed the way I proposed, the inherent I suggested wouldn't impact anyone who didn't want to use it ONE BIT. You could drag the icon off your tray and you wouldn't notice a difference between your Tanker then or before. Their playstyle
would remain the same if they wanted it to. Period.

That was one of my goals behind the proposal; not to take anything away from people who liked Tankers as is.


.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thematically, I can accept Tankers holding back on the lesser foes; minions, LTs...IF they were able to open up on the Bosses, EBs AVs and GMs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now this idea has merit, actually. That's pretty much how all of the "Comic-Book Tanks" operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh hai.

I agree 100%.

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.

And it was the idea behind my Tanker Domination proposal, executed differently of course. You'd save your big hits for the last encounter on a mission.

And I've also suggested Tankers could get a flat damage increase against just Bosses and up. That's quite possible, technically speaking.

I was inspired by Supe's little speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoJ2Bd41zsw

Which, as you said, is something that could speak to the Tanker's concept.

Many people here shot down the concept(Tankers holding back against everyone but the big guy), and any execution of it suggested by me. And the devs, of course, ignored me and the idea.

I still think is a viable hook for Tankers being able to be heavy hitters, some of the time.

So yeah, it's nothing new.
Glad you like it, though.



.

Post deleted by Moderator 08

I don't like the idea of Tankers specializing in fighting groups for two reasons.

Number one, fighting guys weaker than you seems like the exact definition of being a bully to me. I don't find the idea heroic and fitting for a hero AT. Brutes, it's fine for. That's their concept.
Thematically, I can accept Tankers holding back on the lesser foes; minions, LTs...IF they were able to open up on the Bosses, EBs AVs and GMs.

Number two is the time when Tankers NEED offense the most beyond concept reasons, is the early levels BEFORE your defenses allow you to stand in crowds of foes and maximixe any AoE potential. At best you're fighting three guys at a time.

As for the idea of Critical Taunt, as I said before it's pointless spashing secondary effects to enemies who are already next to you and are in your taunt aura. It doesn't buy the team anything in a team situation. If you're next to the enemies and attacking to be splashing, they're already NOT attacking the team because of Gauntlet and your taunt aura. Solo, it increaes Tanker survivability, but frankly Tankers don't NEED more survivability solo.

I don't think the idea makes sense on a thematic level, and on another level, it feels like someone is just grasping to give Tankers something, any old thing, that Scrappers or Brutes wouldn't want at all or loose sleep over not getting. Tankers deserve better than the scrapings at the bottom of the barrel that the other melee ATs wouldn't touch. We already have Gauntlet for that.


.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to wait and see what Going Rogue (which I'm assuming will be a November-ish release) looks like before passing judgment on the efficacy of the newly enlarged dev team.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we've been told a Growth power set wasn't feasible!?

Now I can finally create the Giant Man tribute character I've always wanted!



.

[ QUOTE ]

I have always found it to be ironic that the only way to satisfy J_B's desires for tankers in this game that doesn't create intractible balance problems would be to eliminate them completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember Speed?

"Shoot the hostage."



.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like *any* buff to Tanker damage is universally ignored (or maybe, any suggestion JB makes is ignored, and since that's his main suggeston, it is.. I don't know).


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a matter of considering that it isn't a binary situation: Scrappers are good at damage therefore Tankers can't be. Or: Tankers have better defenses, thus, their damage is fine as it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

Stolid, the fact is there's a bias, a dispairity if you will.

That fact was laid bare to be during a discussion of Scrapper/Tanker damage vs their actual survivability, ie, how much do they really face plant most of the time vs the damage they deal.

It was argued by more than a few people here, that theoretically, it would be OK if Scrappers had almost or the same mitigation as Tankers on top of Scrapper damage as long as the Scrapper had inferior aggro handling skills.

And after it was put forward by me that Scrappers were now much more survivable than they were really intended to be, and that their damage to survivability ratio was likely now much better than not only Tankers, but every other AT in the game sans Brutes, it was conceeded by those same people that's likely true, but that it's also OK for the same reason as above; that they also don't manage aggro.

In short: It's OK to bend the balance rules for Scrappers, but not Tankers. That's very telling of the view some people around here have of "balance" and fairness.

You can dig up the thread and see for yourself. It's not the last one that happened, it's one of mine IIRC.

Do the devs think the same way? Evidence points to 'yes' in my opinion. They seem to have no problem allowing ATs with more damage to become more survivable, and as you agreed with(?) before, give them plenty of ways to do it and few to allow the already most survivable AT more damage, be it build options or in the AT's design itself.



.

[ QUOTE ]
since you're a tanker fan...Taunt

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm prepared to let that slide.



.

For years players have wanted the devs to moon them.
When will they show players the pale, craggy surface they've been asking to see?



.

[ QUOTE ]
If the other hero based MMOs are going to stick with the old model than CoX needs to once again blaze the trail and try something new.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you did there.



.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may be giving them far too much credit and reading to too much into their form responses and patting themselves on the back.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, aren't you a ray of sunshine.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like a shade of grey.



.

[ QUOTE ]

And again, more damage is not the answer. As I have said before, what you have successfully done Johnny is point out a problem with the current "damage is king" state of the game. Allowing subdual and sapping to be as effective as damage in gaining experience will level the playing field for all archetypes across the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how should a super strong hero or a guy with a huge mace "subdue" a giant robot?

By smashing the crap out of it. And that would be damage.

The second you have holds, mezzes and debuffs defeat enemies, that's damage.



.