Stolid

A poster above stated the best way to cover it already. Go for +Recharge. Making Dull Pain perma should really help, and in most cases, it should get you over it. You could go for some +Regen as well (Which will be more noticeable with Perma-DP), but +Defense is expensive, and +Resistance is usually not worth it. Going for Recharge both helps your offense and defense, as well, which is especially noticeable with Dark Melee's ST chain. And a dead opponent won't be hurting you with Psi. =P

Shields does as well.

Different sets made at different times.

Dark/Ice is the best control you'll find in a Tanker set, imo.

Dark has a PBAoE Stun and Fear, both Mag 2.

Ice is (of course) loaded with slows, a Single-target Mag 3 Hold, a PBAoE Knockdown, and a PBAoE sleep (which is, admittedly, not very useful as a control).

But do something like take Dark Armor, activate Cloak of Fear and take the Presence pool for Invoke Panic, and you can apply a Mag 4 Fear effect to an entire mob. Build Up, Frozen Aura (for damage), back up, Frost, then wade in with your Ice Sword.

The problem area is that Ice is *not* good at damage.. at all. I'd really like it to be looked at, but I think it's going to just be the black sheep of Tankers, which is a shame.. but oh well.

Dark/Ice is great for teaming; I wouldn't try to solo with it. It's got great defenses and control options available to it, but they don't mean much if it takes you five minutes to defeat one group.

Edit: Dark Melee is great for single target damage, but not so much for AoE damage, which is what I'd say Dark Armor really is best suited for.

Read it wrong, my bad.

Are you certain that's the best chain? I could've sworn CAK was better than Eagle's Claw for DPS because of EC's long activation time.

.. And what do you know, I changed the file path to c:/coh/pb_human.txt, created the file by opening Notepad first then saving as, and it loaded the file just fine.

I'm not entirely sure where it went wrong, but it's working now. Thanks for the help!

Sorry about that. The exact error message it shows is:

Unable to read in keybind file: c:/binds/pbhuman.txt

I originally used that version of target enemy (the one you suggest), but I thought that might be part of the issue since another guide showed a different one, but I'll switch it back and use that one instead.

Thanks for the team catch too, I'll add that in there. =)

As for the files themselves, I created them all as new files with Notepad. I have not tried saving it to a different path, but I'm wondering if the fact I made the files by right-clicking inside the folder and choosing new text document messed something up? I don't think it should have, but I'm not sure why else it couldn't read it.

I just installed this computer a week ago (built it and installed everything on it, really),so I don't think it's any issue like that, but I'll try another file path and seeing if that works.

I'm trying to make some keybinds for a Kheldian I just made with some friends; I used to have files that worked for them but I moved computers, so I'm having to remake them, and I haven't tried in a long while.

I basically made the following file:

c:/binds/pbhuman.txt

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not ignoring them. You, and those who are trying to point out that Brutes are somehow so "omigawd OP" are the one's ignoring them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply put, you're bringing up irrelevant points in order to justify your argument using flawed logic.

I have no interest in going through your post quoting you a dozen or so times to make these points which you would only refute in the exact same methodology, so I'm going to save myself the time.

[ QUOTE ]
But hey, if that's what you wanna believe, feel free, it's wrong, but feel free.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very ironic you say that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're invariably ignoring other facets of both AT's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like those ignoring brute damage output variability pointing to the necessity of higher hitpoints.

It's fascinating to me that the arguments for and against some unfair brute advantage are being shown to have the same kind of overall fairness in their logical holes that I see present between the two ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never meant to imply the other side wasn't ignoring some things as well, like the fact that Scrapper's damage is more consistent across all scenarios with more noticeable spikes, because of Criticals.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Scrappers and Brutes are both balanced perfectly together. Brutes get a mere 12% survivability increase in order to survive a tad longer to "generate" their Fury in a battle

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you think that. Brutes have a single-target gauntlet, Tanker-strength Taunt auras, Tanker-level caps, and Scrapper-level damage. Most people would admit that there's something odd going on there.

[ QUOTE ]
(Scrappers start at full) and are tasked/burdened with "maintaining" that high Fury generation the "entire" mission in order to achieve a whopping 0.94% net damage over Scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

It much be very much a burden to keep your damage up to see those oh-so-trying orange numbers. I'm sure everyone just feels like it's such a pain.

I also have no idea why you're using quotes around specific words, other than for unneeded emphasis.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, they will be forced to work their rears off to "keep" that entire 0.94% damage edge over Scrappers throughout the mission, and let's face it...not only is this normally not easy to do with your average pickup team (most love to take breaks between spawns, absorbe alphas for you with controls, etc)...but we're also talking about a LESS than 1% damage difference...0.94%.

[/ QUOTE ]

So while they're even on damage, they maintain a consistant higher survivability. Unfortunately, brutes aren't "less than 1%" more survivable, so in that area Cybernaut and others have a point.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean...it wouldn't even show up in damage figures. Less than 1% difference, for a "huge" amount of work in order to reach that "whopping" potential. Whearas a Scrapper can get it at the start of a fight all the way to the end and doesn't have to keep moving or work for it as hard. So yea...I think a little 12% increase in Brute survivability is a perfectly balanced trade-off.
0.94% man. 0.94%.
If that is really troubling you, then you have some serious envy problems that maybe you should speak to a councelor about...

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to ignore the fact--constantly, even--that Brutes end up equating Scrappers damage-wise, while having an innate superior survivability, and are more buffable both offensively and defensively to out-perform any other melee AT. And they have aggro control capabilities on par with Tankers, sans the splash Gauntlet.


I'm not saying I agree that there's a huge "issue" but you're trying to focus on one point of the argument ("less than 1% damage difference") of one specific set of analysis (Single-target attack chains) of an entire set. Which rules out things like aggro control (which only a few of Scrapper's sets have, and what taunt auras they do have are weaker than the Brutes), buffability, and AoE damage potential altogether.

Bill's list was a showing of something he was interested in, and was very cool to see, but it does not make an accurate comparison between the two sets. But you also can't sit there and really try to say there is no disparity just because one metric shows an even keel. You're invariably ignoring other facets of both AT's.

I actually plan to try out all of the Villain AT's blueside, mainly because I don't like the villain zones and such. I much prefer the hero version of the game, for some reason. Maybe it's just because I've played it longer, so I'm more familiar with it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, it doesn't solve one of the main issues with Tanks: The redundancy of having more than one on a team.

[/ QUOTE ]If you take attacks, you will find this less of a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because tankers are chosen for their damage-dealing potential. I'm sorry, I totally forgot the fact that there aren't any other AT's that deal more damage than tankers, I don't know what I was thinking.

Move along.

[ QUOTE ]
You are misinterpreting the way in which I am using the word 'weak.' It's the single-target nature of Brute Gauntlet that makes it weak when compared to that which is given to Tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're underestimating Brute's Gauntlet inherent, then, and you shouldn't do that. Because Brutes are entirely capable of pulling aggro off of Tankers, who are supposed to manage the aggro.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By contrast, Gauntlet is an always-on effect that is very useful for the tanker's primary role in this game, which is not to deal lots of damage. Granted, it has no useful effect when solo, but Tankers don't need help to solo content unless they're going up against things not intended to be soloed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that like Gauntlet for Brutes isn't always on. or like their Fury isn't always on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cherry-picking. Read and respond to the entire sentence, if you please. Brute Gauntlet isn't 'very useful' for the primary role of a Brute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I'm fairly sure Gauntlet means that Brutes are being attacked more, which means their fury bar is going up from being attack, which means they're gaining a damage buff from Gauntlet's taunt effect.

Again, you're trying to downplay Brutes.

[ QUOTE ]
Ideal conditions and maximum potentials don't, and shouldn't, inform the balance between ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, since we're all up in arms about AT balance, let's remember the fact that we've got lots of Scrappers with enough survivability to fight multiple AVs, and enough damage to defeat them all. Tankers? Stalkers?

*tumbleweeds*

Not doing that, as far as I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're contradicting yourself. If maximum potentials don't, and shouldn't, inform the balance between AT's, then you shouldn't be trying to say anything about Scrappers, and the fact that they can Solo AV's where Tankers and Stalkers can't (or haven't been known to nearly as much, anyway).

So, yeah.

Your answer is: Why no, I would have no problem with it.

.. BUT..

.. Of course, I have no problem with it.


You can see where it falls apart, right?

If Brutes and Scrappers have the same secondary set numbers (which they do, to my knowledge), it means they take the same amount of buffing to reach their respective caps (ignoring HP capping here, because that's both uncommon to do, and largely irrelevant considering the closeness of their base HP's, which would mean it'd basically take the same amount anyway).

You're trying to say that because Scrappers are blueside (able to team with Defenders), it's not the same as with Brutes. .. Because they can't team with Defenders.. what does that have to do with Scrappers, again? I think it's an unfair comparison to make between the sets, mainly because you're then quantifying things based on the support they're receiving.

It shouldn't be about prevalence, but about maximums--after all, we *are* talking about ideal conditions and maximum potential of Scrappers and Brutes. Trying to say it's more 'okay' for Brutes to have a cap than it is for Scrappers because they don't have Defenders is ignoring the focus of the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
As one can see...there are ALOT more clauses for the Brute to deal with in order to maintain his most ultimate level of performance than the Scrapper. The Scrapper with the same res/hp caps could simply have 2-3 buffers buff him to the cap, and then just flip out and go crazy right out the gate, which as I explained above is not the case with the Brute.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by clauses, you mean there's a lot more potential buffing able to be done to them than Scrappers, then yes, you're right. Of course, if we raise Scrapper caps to the same levels, then that's not true, soo...

[ QUOTE ]
Brutes get a weak, single-target Gauntlet effect coupled with Fury -- an inherent-and-a-half, at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is false.

Brutes have the exact same Threat Magnitude and Taunt Duration in their version of Gauntlet. The only difference is the AoE vs. Single Target nature of Gauntlet for each AT. That is not a "weak" Gauntlet--That is a full-strength Gauntlet without a splash effect (which is practically impossible to be seen in the first place).

[ QUOTE ]
By contrast, Gauntlet is an always-on effect that is very useful for the tanker's primary role in this game, which is not to deal lots of damage. Granted, it has no useful effect when solo, but Tankers don't need help to solo content unless they're going up against things not intended to be soloed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that like Gauntlet for Brutes isn't always on. or like their Fury isn't always on.

I like this idea, personally.

Of course, it doesn't solve one of the main issues with Tanks: The redundancy of having more than one on a team.

If it's based on the number of mobs you have aggro'd, most teams aren't fighting more than 20 mobs at once, I'd say. (I don't know actual numbers of an 8-man spawn, but that seems about right--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

That means one Tank will likely be gaining a large benefit, and the other will.. not, simply put.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not balance. That's a definite imbalance. Damage roughly equal. Survivability obviously imbalanced in the favor of Brutes. Learn to pay some [censored] attention to the game mechanics and the numbers before you accuse me of generating conclusions based solely on an unimportant bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, here you are getting extremely passionate about your anger over Brutes, once again showing your bias, and once again I'm not seeing this "severe imbalance" that you so cry about.


Maybe cry less? Dunno..you sound pretty heated. A hug maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about you actually look at the survivability disparity and realize that you're wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that Brute's have greater survivability "possibilities" yes. But what you seem to imply is that Brutes come out of the box spitting 850% +dmg buffed fireballs from hell 110% of the time without fail...which is so far from the truth it hurts my sides from laughter. The "case-by-case" scenarios, un-predictability of damage ratios and team/buffs, as well as basic un-predicatability of how any given mob will respond is why Brutes are balanced with what they have. During ultimate-optimal-sweetass conditions, they can perform better than Scrappers, sure, but that's such a circumstantial event that it's not something we can "count on" for average play. So when are "you" going to realize that you are wrong and just angry?

[/ QUOTE ]

By your logic from this post and posts before it, you're saying there's nothing wrong with the fact that Brutes can attain similar or better damage than Scrappers and better defense than Scrappers, because it requires support (read: buffing) to do so.

So by that logic, if nothing but Scrapper's maximum Resistance values, HP, and Damage cap were raised, you would have no problem with it? Because after all, Scrappers, without buffs, aren't being changed at all. They're just being made to be able to be buffed in a way that equals Brutes.

So there's no problem with that, right? You wouldn't care or think it's wrong to do so?

[ QUOTE ]
Well, look at this way. Energy Melee pretty much fits that mode right now (slow, but big numbers), but gets a lot of flak for it. Could you imagine all Tankers being slowed down to that level? Yikes, it wouldn't be pretty. Personally, I don't mind the occasional slow attack, but and entire set? No thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tomato, uhh.. tomah-to, on this one. I actually *don't* mind that aspect of EM at all; the only thing about EM I mind is the fact that you're double-fisting every one of your major attacks (Bonesmasher, ET, and Total Focus), and I think aesthetically it looks horrible. But the slow animation times I'm okay with, because of the burst damage it can dish out.

But I can see why not everyone would like that, so I suppose I'm just in the minority. Ah well.

[ QUOTE ]
Which I think is quite a shame. The ATs have different focuses, and I think the sets should reflect that... it'd be a much bigger headache to keep everything in line, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on both points, but I don't know if the Devs agree that that should take priority over proliferation. It hasn't seemed that way thus far (which I can understand too).

[ QUOTE ]
Tanker damage has been buffed once and the suggestion for more powerful but slower attacks for tankers has been tabled but it was decided that it would ultimately make tankers more frustrating to play. For the most part tankers are doing well but this is not to say that they could not stand a tweak. On that note, I agree that tankers need to be more AoE oriented in their attacks than scrappers, I've been saying that for some time now. Ultimately though those kind of suggestions get brushed aside in the interest of rehashing the age old argument of yet another damage boost for tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it? I can't say I'm the most dedicated person when it comes to getting involved in Tanker discussions, so I apologize, I didn't realize that had been thought of and already sort of rejected by the community.

I would love to see Tankers have their sets be more AoE oriented, but it seems like now that they've introduced Powerset Proliferation, that's likely not going to be something they'll do. Seems to me like they're trying to get the sets as *close* to each other as possible so they can be proliferated from one AT to the next, rather than making the sets within the different AT's more unique for their individual roles.

[ QUOTE ]
You make a valid point with the brute/stalker example and you are correct that simply buffing tanker damage is not the answer. Something needs to be done to make tankers and scrappers as divergent in play style as brutes and scrappers. Vox Populi had a good suggestion. I think taking that a step further and applying the increased debuff/control to any mobs affected by gauntlet would be a step in the right direction. While not increasing damage (accept maybe in the case of Fire Melee’s DoT) it would move tankers toward more of a group fighter role. Which, IMO, is where they should have been all along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you seem to at least understand what I mean to say, with that, and I actually like Vox's suggestion.. but I'm fairly sure I'd seen that one before, myself. Wasn't that suggested by someone and the ultimate concensus is that if Tanker's had that ability, they'd start infringing on Controller's territory? I know they recently changed one or two sets because the magnitude of the Tanker's control effect was too good.

Though I still like that suggestion, even so.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Tanker will have more HP - An Invul Tanker with Dull Pain up, or a Willpower Tanker with HPT?

HPT is up 24/7, but Dull Pain is also a self-heal. Tough call.

So, who's the biggest meat bag?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tanker HP cap is 3212.7 hps. The invuln tanker will reach that cap for two minutes at a time while the willpower tank can, with accolades and some IO set bonuses, be at the cap perpetually.

Each tank has its niche in the game. Willpower tanks have no self-heal and only moderate defense, and can get cut down by damage spikes that don't give the high regen time to work. Invuln tanks can avoid those spikes with high typed defense and the self-heal/hp boost can patch over what does get thru, and against s/l damage invuln tanks aren't at risk.

If high hps are what you want, build up a willpower tank. Against a collection of bosses, eat a couple of purples to keep that spiked damage at bay. Against everything else, you should be fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Invuln/ could also slot for recharge to make DP perma.

Willpower relies on a combination of Resistance, Defense, and foe-proximity Regen to tank, and has an inherently weaker taunt aura (1/10th the normal duration of other auras, iirc)

Invulnerability primarily relies on its Defense for everything but S/L, which it relies on resistance for, but has a distinct Psionic vulnerability.

I wouldn't say one is better than the other, it just sort of depends on what your preference is for how you want to mitigate the damage you're attracting.

I'm not saying I agree with JB, but I think not all of his points are invalid.

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).

I think when CoH was launched, the view of the then-five AT's was radically different than it is now. Which meant Tanks had huge, ridiculous, incredible defenses and damage, and Scrappers did too. Steadily through the updates, things were changed (GDN and ED, most memorably now).

CoV comes out, and there's actually *two* melee AT's meant for damage. Gasp! How can that be!

I think Blueside could do well to be looked over as a whole to learn from some of the things they've done *right* with other sets, specifically those on the Redside.. Like balancing Melee damage better between Scrappers and Tanks. This could be done in several ways: Burst vs. Sustained DPS (With Tankers being the former), or AoE vs. ST damage (With Tankers, again, the former).

I think I'd be fine with it if Tankers had their damage buffed but had a metric much like WoW uses, where you have a global cooldown cycle between usages of certain things; in this case, it would be Tanker attacks. It could be, say, a 4 Second global cooldown, which activated as soon as you used the attack (so the power's animation/activation time would count as a part of the 4 seconds).

You could increase Tanker's damage by hard-capping how often they're able *to* attack, thus making them true heavy but slow hitters. Individual powers might need looking at (mostly, the quick, early-tier attacks) to help make sure they're not completely worthless with this method, but it'd give them more of a feel of being 'Tankers', while not marginalizing Scrappers (because they'd be slow, and in any sustained fight would not pump out as much damage).

It would make Scrappers still the boss killers, the ones that duel with the tough foes while Tankers go around smacking minions and liuetenants against walls, bullets being soaked without issue.

Which is not to say I agree with Johnny's incessant cries of "Buff tanker damage!"--I don't think it's that simple. 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.

I think there's a distinct problem with how Tanker vs. Scrapper offensive potential and team contribution is viewed and is handled, whereas I don't see any such distinction between Brutes and Stalkers, who both have widely different methods of being good melee damage AT's.

Just my two cents.