TomTrumpinski

Lots of volunteers, lots of input. Very, very cool.

From what Circeus was saying, it looks like the Pentad is about the best bet, since it has a higher chance of being taken seriously.

Some practical considerations here. We're going to need someone who is running herostats on the "core team" (the four characters that do not switch out.) We'll also need someone who is decent with the /demorecord function. In addition, I would like to be one of the people in the core team so that I can observe and organize.

I've got two characters in the 30s, a level 37 Triform Scrapping PB and a level 32 Claws/SR scrapper.

This would mean that we've got one potential core team with levels 36-38 and an alternate one with levels 32-34. In either case, the Tanks and the rotating ATs would have to be at the same level, preferably in the center of the range.

Questions:

What should be the composition of the "core team"? Should there be any limitation of their powersets to get better data about team dynamics?

For tanks, we'll be using Fire, Ice and Stone. What secondaries would provide the most accurate assessment of their "typical" abilities?

What should be the ATs and Powersets used in the "fifth wheel" slot to substitute for the tank? While I think it is a very good idea to see other support ATs placed in this slot, the role of damage-dealing should not be neglected.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "consensus" isn't so much that Tanks aren't meatshields, its more that, if that's the role the devs want Tanks to play in the game, they've not provided the proper tools for doing so with a reasonable modicum of success. At least not one that makes a Tanks participation in a team environment more palatable that any other AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

The intent of the testing isn’t clear to me at this point. It’s somewhat difficult for me to keep on top of the separate discussions/opinions/decisions within the thread. I think TomTrumpinski wants to show that a tank can be replaced by any other AT in a team and the team will perform better - that’s how I’m reading his posts. I’m not sure if he’s saying that means a tank is still a meatshield or not, though he did say we had moved beyond the scranker/meatshield roles, without it being clear to me what exactly he’s pointing to as the tank’s role then.

To put it a different way, I think the devs haven’t changed their stance that tanks are meatshields, but what they mean by meatshields appears to have changed. Whereas before, meatshield meant take all or almost all of the aggro for an entire team, now it means take more aggro than anyone else on the team. So are we trying to show that the meatshield concept is still a good one, but the amount of team aggro a tank can take is insufficient? Or are we trying to show that the meatshield concept is obsolete? Or is it something else?

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, testing with a bugged core power in a powerset invalidates the test. Wait until they get the bug fixed, then either include Invuln in the test, and if you've already run it, go back and test Invuln

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly doing the testing with a bugged power isn’t the way I’d prefer it, but I think it’s better than ignoring invul altogether. Of course I don’t have any hard numbers, but it seems to me that invuls still make up a higher percentage of team tanks than any other primary. If we’re trying to demonstrate something that is applicable to all or most tanks, particularly in a team setting, then it’s kind of hard to omit Invuls, unless a convincing argument can be made that Invul w/o US will be a lot Ice. I guess it depends on how quickly the devs get around to fixing the bug.

[/ QUOTE ]

skeelos, I'm a scientist in real life. I am not trying to prove anything, specifically. If I was, I would be worried about biasing the test. What I am trying to do is get an unbiased test under very controlled circumstances to see if anything is really obvious. Some of us suspect that some things might be true, but I am keeping my mind as open as possible.

There's some of the best remaining tanks in the game in this forum. They also range across the whole spectrum of levels, playstyles and powersets. If we get data that points us in one direction or another, we can start down that path and see where it leads us.

In addition, as Da5id said, this could be a lot of fun. And one thing that's been missing in this forum has been fun for the last couple of months.

We should approach this like pros and think of as many angles as possible before we assemble the teams.

Yes, there's a Ms. Lithuania just as there is a Mr. Lith. She started playing about three months after I did. My son, daughter-in-law, housemate and grandchildren play, too.

Lithy and I have our date night every Monday night in the Rogue Isles.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a good idea, DO as far as it goes, but I think the pentad team is a bit too small to get the most out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't kid yourself there. The pentad, and in fact any 5 character team is exactly the sort of testing the devs want to see. Especially Statesman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take your word for that, Circeus, you've never steered us wrong yet.

Luminera, I don't think he was implying that he used DP more than once in the same battle. My guess is that he was talking about using it more than once in the entire mission.

If a single-spawn battle goes 7-9 minutes with a bunch of +2 Carnies, you're going down.

[ QUOTE ]
So we're looking 32 to 37 no Inv, neither tanks nor Scrappers.

Well that drops me to two.

Smoke'n Jack Fire/Fire Tank (needs to be respec'd) level 32
Dr. Serber Rad/Rad Defender (also needs respec'ing) level 32

I would think we're looking for whatever build is your normal playing build.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I'd like the expertise to be approximately even across the ATs and powersets. As has been mentioned before, an INV can be used for the first run, because that won't be counted anyway, since it will take longer than any subsequent run due to familiarity with the map.

I think that the rotating ATs should all be at the same level, no matter how we construct the rest of the team.

If they change Invincibility prior to the test, we can toss the INVs back into the mixture.

skeelos, we can't use an INV because of the bug in Invincibility, I'm afraid.

The mid-size team idea is an interesting one, but the reason for dropping a scrapper isn't clear to me. Just because the scrapper *can* solo doesn't mean that he will be doing that.

One of the problems with making first a Defensive tanker and then an Offensive one is that puts them right back in the roles that they were in prior to I5--meatshield and skranker. I think we decided to move past that a couple pages ago.

Thank you, though for the offer of your help. I'll put your name down on the list I am compiling (10 plus myself at the present time.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we put together a team and just vary the tanks and other ATs for a given set of missions without worrying about the tank's or other AT's roles (in other words, assemble the team and just let it happen) the optimum balance for the team should be achieved. That data point is what I think we're looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're going to need a lot more than one weekend, then. There's millions of possible combinations of 6 characters, when you consider different powersets, different power choices, even different pool power picks. And that's not even considering playstyle - two sets of players with the exact same character builds might approach things in a completely different way.

Now, I understand that we don't need to test them all. But say we find 50 different team compositions that are better without a tank. So what? There's millions of other team combinations that didn't get tested and might possibly be good with that tank. That same team might even be better with the tank if the other characters on the team are played differently. And even getting 50 would take much longer than a single weekend.

I don't mind testing, but we need some better criteria than just 'we'll do what feels right on the team'. If that's the only criteria we can come up with, all we're testing is our own playstyles.

[/ QUOTE ]

The DEVs already have a million different combinations going in the game. The thing about those combinations is that there's so much noise that the signal can get lost. That's why needed changes can take as much as a year to a game and why, for example, they couldn't tell that Invincibility was broken.

We start simple with one set of information under controlled circumstances--same mission, five of the six players the same every time, rotate the sixth.

This gives us one starting data point. We examine it, draw any conclusions from it we can and then design the criteria for the next test.

It's possible that the test will tell us nothing. It's possible that it might enlighten us on the future of tanking. It's possible that we're all wrong and the team with the tank always do better with this particular combination of other ATs. What we need to look for are things that are consistent across the test.

What we don't have is any reliable data under controlled circumstances. (The Tanks and AV study being a possible exception, but the variables are so many in those tests that it's hard to draw definite conclusions, although some interesting team dynamics have already been revealed. Folks should read that thread for those dynamics.)

Bob, I like your idea for differing team makeups and I think that it will be a good idea to reference it when we make the sextad. Your notes also have convinced me that choosing the substituted AT should be more complicated than simply "popping in a random Defender."

The current testing date is November 26th with active planning beginning around the 16th. We're trying to bang out the "boundary conditions" of the first set of tests right now.

I think this is a good idea, DO as far as it goes, but I think the pentad team is a bit too small to get the most out of it.

Now, we might consider a six-person team to start with one of each AT plus a Peacebringer. This will kick up the mission difficulty by +1 and provide even more flexibility.

One of the more important things to look at from an anecdotal standpoint is how the roles of the other ATs shift depending on who the sixth AT is. Does the team suddenly get safer in some cases? Is so much damage being handed out that the team walks through the mission? Is aggro not a problem anymore with one AT?

I also like the level 32-37 range for a starting area. Each AT has it's level 9 Primary but no Epics nor level 9 secondary.

Yes, Da5id. You are right.

If we put together a team and just vary the tanks and other ATs for a given set of missions without worrying about the tank's or other AT's roles (in other words, assemble the team and just let it happen) the optimum balance for the team should be achieved. That data point is what I think we're looking for.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to ask then, what are you expecting out of these tests? What outcomes lead to what conclusions?

If we do nothing but rehash the old roles, how does that address the issue of "redefinition"? (Not that I am saying we shouldn't test the old roles, I'm just trying to get a clear picture of what we are trying to test)

It seems to me that whatever new role a tanker now has, it must be defined in terms of the team dynamic, rather than the team dynamic being defined in terms of it.

I agree that testing such a thing would be impractical. But I question the utility of a test that is limited in scope to just testing tanks and other ATs performing the roles you described. That only answers the question: What makes the best meatsheild, scranker or partial meatshield?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am of the opinion that we have a chance to get the DEVs attention if and only if we can prove one assertion:

In the test cases (and it needs to be cases that cannot have holes shot in them with charges of bias) the following was true:

The team will suffer fewer defeats and gain xp faster if another AT is substituted for a given type of tank.

If we can present case after case where this is true using the same team setup and the same missions, I think we have a shot.

For the purpose of this kind of testing, the *role* of the tank is important from an anecdotal standpoint, but not from a statistical standpoint. What is important to the DEVs, I think, is the hard numbers.

Now, it is possible that this could be true below 32 or above 32 or from 22-40. It's possible that it might not be true for stone tanks, but true for Fire and Ice. It's possible that it might not be true vs S/L enemies, but true vs others.

Conditional negative results are as important as positive ones, because it points out imbalances between the sets.

I'm pretty sure that the datamining that the DEVs do looks for two things--how many people are playing an AT and how fast they gain xp. If either are true, they look for ways to fix the problem without unbalancing the rest of the game.

The general philosophy has been stated that if people level too fast, they get bored and leave, if there is only a few people playing an AT, a portion of possible market share is being lost.

[This is one reason I believe that tanks have a shot at being buffed around I8 or so.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A reply to Tom:

May I request also that if/when you run your tests, you get some of the not-so-great tanks as well.

The all-star line up going to test this might set the bar a bit too high for lower lights, like myself

[/ QUOTE ]

Be my guest, Casshan. I plan to run my non-tanks in this testing set-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be average right? No level 40+ tanks in my line up.

I think we really need to have an idea beyound the extremes of Scranker and Meatshield.

What percent of the damage should the tank divert from the team to him/herself?

What percent of the teams damage should the tank be responsible for?

To me those are the questions that we seem to dancing around. I mean so we agree that 1/3 of the incoming damage is to be the tanks job, and say in an 8 man team his out going damage should be 12.5%. Ok then can he do that on a team? Can someone else do it better? Is he doing enough if that's what he does?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of the things that has definitely changed is that the tank's role once was seen as taking nearly 100% of the damage for a normal team (in extreme cases for more than one spawn) and that is no longer feasible now. It is also clear that 33% is their current expectations. The philosophical impasse that we are at is that that is too low a number for a majority of the current tanker population. The meatshield role in the old world is dead.

The difference between a skranker and a non-optimally slotted scrapper is hp--again not an optimal role for them.

One thing I've only heard mentioned once or twice (and one of those times by Statesman) is the role of the Monitor.

What does any kind of healing defender, controller or corrupter do? They monitor the condition of their teammates at all times and make sure that their health does not drop below a certain point.

They additionally, and rightly so, bring more to the table than that. Certainly, they are much more than healers, even if they're mistakenly seen that way.

Perhaps one possible new role of the tank is to provide a constant stream of damage while monitoring the condition of the rest of the team and handing out the taunts that are required to keep them safe?

If we cannot survive more than part of the aggro that is available, we could possibly *select* the aggro we want with a specific purpose.

Not writ in stone, guys, just tossing out an idea.

Yeah, this is why I wanted to open the testing criteria up for discussion.

I like Bob's set of parameters on an instinctive level. It looks, though, like three different roles could be tested:

The meatshield role, arguably replaceable in all cases by an FF or Sonic defender....

The Scranker role, arguably done better by a Scrapper...

And the Statesman Tanker Role, which I am perfectly willing to forget about, since I hold that any tanker in the game right now can do that, probably better than he can, but in most cases doesn't want to.

One of the problems I see is that if the role is already defined in the mind of the DEVs and that the kind of results that States got on his team are seen as acceptible, we may not be able to come up with anything to counter it. It becomes a philosophical argument, rather than a numerical one.

What do you think on this subject?

[I can't believe I just agreed with Nozy on a subject, I need to wash my brain out with soap now.]

[ QUOTE ]
A reply to Tom:

May I request also that if/when you run your tests, you get some of the not-so-great tanks as well.

The all-star line up going to test this might set the bar a bit too high for lower lights, like myself

[/ QUOTE ]

This put a smile on my face because it's one of the things that people bring up a lot, and did with the I5 tests.

Since we will be running comparison tests with the minimum differences between the runs, it won't make any real difference in how skilled the players are as long as they are all about the same skill level. It's almost impossible to assemble a team of less than stellar players because folks who don't read the boards and worry about things like this just don't go to the test server.

It looks like I'm going to aim for the 26th and/or 27th of November for the tests. Da5id, I'd like you to think about what parameters would make the best test--what level to run it at, which enemies, any limitations on the construction of the rest of the team. You're probably the biggest proponent of the hypothesis that we're trying to prove or disprove, so it is essential to have your input on this.

Any time you have an AT or powerset that can be replaced by ANY other and improve your team you have a problem.

Any time you have an AT or powerset that can replace ANY other and improve your team you have a problem.

If that isn't too long, it'd make a great .sig.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: TomTrumpinski
.
You have a team of 7--50s with sk's doing a mission set on rugged. Statesman's sk'd up SEVENTEEN LEVELS. He's missing Incinerate and GFS from his secondary and the majority of the slots that the 50s had, so he's really not doing much damage even if he can hit the reds and purples. I hold that *most* ATs sk'd up 17 levels would be an xp leech in a team like this.
.
I consider it a miracle that he survived, let alone tanked after I5, let alone ED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree there. My SG had what we called "AV nights" pretty much anyone was welcome and we ran AVs. Mr Fontaine had Portal Jockey completed at 33. Basically on AV nights contributing was the only requirement. This let some of the newer players join guys that had faced the AVs several times before.

Once you get SOs at 27 you are essentially the same as you are going to be all the way to 50. In my case at 33 and lower I did not have TF or ET yet with Mr Fontaine. I however did have a solid attack chain with 6 slotted dmg and I used Build up. 3.8x the dmg with the accuracy from build up. This let me hurt anything +3 con or lower. +4 cons never came up.

I was always useful and contributing. I knew what to do to keep aggro and how to keep the AV off balance with knock arounds like AS and jump kick. The higher level does have better powers but the basics used properly will get you through once you have SOs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but even if he slotted perfectly, he had 2/3 the attack power you had not counting build up. (Assuming he had build up.)

I agree that prior to I5, you'd certainly be a valid contributer. Alas, no longer. I also figure that with the influence disappearing from the game at a frightening rate, the days of slotting SOs at 27 are going to be a memory pretty soon, too.

I watched close to a billion influence get turned into prestige yesterday.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing I need from people is a list of things that would bias the test in the makeup of the rest of the team or the mission. I do not want to go to all the trouble to do these runs and then have our credibility shot by something we overlooked.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like don't let an Ice Tank stand near the other tanks during testing while they're running Chilling Embrace?

[/ QUOTE ]

*chuckle* I figure there ought to be no more than one tank in the team at any given time. Things are complicated enough as it is.

Oh, and to the above poster criticizing Statesman's role in the test. I have to agree that it's a bad example and an even worse test, even letting the bugged Invinc out of the equation.

Let's look at this:

You have a team of 7--50s with sk's doing a mission set on rugged. Statesman's sk'd up SEVENTEEN LEVELS. He's missing Incinerate and GFS from his secondary and the majority of the slots that the 50s had, so he's really not doing much damage even if he can hit the reds and purples. I hold that *most* ATs sk'd up 17 levels would be an xp leech in a team like this.

I consider it a miracle that he survived, let alone tanked after I5, let alone ED.

As a matter of fact, this example shows, more than anything, that Statesman is a Powerleveller.

(Just kidding, don't hit me with a giant monster.)

In any case, tearing up his example gets us nowhere, even if it might make us feel better for a few minutes.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is very well put, Scorus, and I think that it's a good start. I apologize for letting my biases get in the way of a good discussion earlier. While I am glad that Statesman posted, it did distract us for a bit from the original aim of this topic.

One thing that would be useful is some kind of numbers, especially since the DEVs love numbers.

Since we and they know that Invincibility is bugged, it would proabably be a bad idea to run a series of tests right now with an INV tank. (Lest we fall into the same situation as Statesman has of being criticized for using a bugged powerset.)

As I've said earlier, it would be a good idea to assemble a large test team willing to spend a weekend doing this with Herostats running:

Pick a good, solid difficult mission containing a wide variety of damage types and assemble a team of six or seven players spread across the ATs to add our tank to. Farm the mission. Run the mission first with the non-bugged tank types (and if someone wishes, an INV with Invincibility totally unslotted for DEF, which we won't be able to use for numbers, but would give a bit of a "feel" for the reduced power.)

For best results, the tank should be 32 or higher, neither sk'd nor exemplared and the team should be of exactly the same composition each time. The mission should be run once as a control, since on the subsequent runs, people will know where the mobs are and that will speed up the fights.

Keep track of xp/min, defeats and other notes that would be relevant to the question at hand.

Once the test has been done on the tanks and the data recovered, the tank slot would then be replaced with one of each of the other 6 ATs of the same level played by someone as familiar with the AT as the tanks in question are of their own.

Once all six of those have been run, the numbers can be compared to that of the tanks and conclusions drawn.

Now, this is a lot of work, and in a perfect world, the DEVs would be doing this and not a bunch of volunteers. However, I think that this would be our best shot at having the AT looked at, short of waiting six months for the datamining to accomplish the same thing.

Added note--It probably would be best to actually /demorecord each of the tests. That way we could actually *send* them the tests after we've analyzed them.

[And before someone presents the argument that they get paid to do this, and we don't, let me remind you that on various occasions (scrappers beating +8s), their testing has been shown to be flawed. If there is a problem, the only hope we have to bring attention to it and a reaction to it is to provide evidence to back up our assertions.]


[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea, Tom. I would be more than happy to join you on the test server to set this up. I have 6 characters that are in or above the level range you describe, all ED Compliant. I say make the actual test date a weekend day so that most of us can make it. Set it up and I will be glad to work with you on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be working on the house in preparation for refi for the next two weekends after this, and it is going to take some time to organize this.

I doubt that any major buffs are going to happen before Thanksgiving weekend. That might be a good target date. It's also possible that the alteration to INV may happen before that. If so, it would be to our benefit.

I think I will start a new thread about the testing on the Test Server and Triumph when we get closer to the date (probably about 10 days before). I've got extensive experience organizing test teams from previous issues.

Thanks a lot for the interest. Anyone else can PM me or post in the thread and I'll add you to a list.

One thing I need from people is a list of things that would bias the test in the makeup of the rest of the team or the mission. I do not want to go to all the trouble to do these runs and then have our credibility shot by something we overlooked.

This is very well put, Scorus, and I think that it's a good start. I apologize for letting my biases get in the way of a good discussion earlier. While I am glad that Statesman posted, it did distract us for a bit from the original aim of this topic.

One thing that would be useful is some kind of numbers, especially since the DEVs love numbers.

Since we and they know that Invincibility is bugged, it would proabably be a bad idea to run a series of tests right now with an INV tank. (Lest we fall into the same situation as Statesman has of being criticized for using a bugged powerset.)

As I've said earlier, it would be a good idea to assemble a large test team willing to spend a weekend doing this with Herostats running:

Pick a good, solid difficult mission containing a wide variety of damage types and assemble a team of six or seven players spread across the ATs to add our tank to. Farm the mission. Run the mission first with the non-bugged tank types (and if someone wishes, an INV with Invincibility totally unslotted for DEF, which we won't be able to use for numbers, but would give a bit of a "feel" for the reduced power.)

For best results, the tank should be 32 or higher, neither sk'd nor exemplared and the team should be of exactly the same composition each time. The mission should be run once as a control, since on the subsequent runs, people will know where the mobs are and that will speed up the fights.

Keep track of xp/min, defeats and other notes that would be relevant to the question at hand.

Once the test has been done on the tanks and the data recovered, the tank slot would then be replaced with one of each of the other 6 ATs of the same level played by someone as familiar with the AT as the tanks in question are of their own.

Once all six of those have been run, the numbers can be compared to that of the tanks and conclusions drawn.

Now, this is a lot of work, and in a perfect world, the DEVs would be doing this and not a bunch of volunteers. However, I think that this would be our best shot at having the AT looked at, short of waiting six months for the datamining to accomplish the same thing.

Added note--It probably would be best to actually /demorecord each of the tests. That way we could actually *send* them the tests after we've analyzed them.

[And before someone presents the argument that they get paid to do this, and we don't, let me remind you that on various occasions (scrappers beating +8s), their testing has been shown to be flawed. If there is a problem, the only hope we have to bring attention to it and a reaction to it is to provide evidence to back up our assertions.]

Oh, and Mr. Yukon, where are you exactly from? My daughter-in-law, who plays Annie O. is from 20 miles from Whitehorse. You live in Heaven.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, after reading the last 5 pages of posts, I think that people finally understand one of the things that I have been trying to get across over the last couple months in this forum and over the last year on the Test Server and AT Boards.

Here is the real information that was given to us yesterday from the DEVs:

THE DEVS NEVER INTENDED OUR TANKS TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID DURING THE NOVEMBER TO MAY PERIOD. ANYTHING WE WERE ABLE TO DO WAS AN UNINTENDED SIDE-EFFECT OF THE GAME NOT OPERATING IN THE WAY THAT THEY DESIGNED IT.



[/ QUOTE ]

Tom I don't think you are right here. The devs CHANGED their design when PvP illuminated flaws in the balance. Their vision for the various ATs has been a moving target since the beginning. Tanks were working as intended before, and it was their intention that changed.

Statesman and the devs are only human, and in designing the ATs originally, he made a big mistake in allowing a fundamentally defensive class to exist as it was. To say this was not originally his intent is to rewrite history.

There is no question this is no longer his intent. What I and others are trying to point out to him though, is that if he follows up on his current "vision" of what a tank is, he might as well just remove our AT altogether, as we bring virtually NOTHING to the table compared to other ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Da5id, I wish I had saved the discussion with Statesman. One of the reasons that I am so adamant about this is that in November 2004, I brought up the exact same issues as are there now.

Statesman's reply then was almost verbatim what they are now, (without the example of the mission.)

It was one of the first times he mentioned the 1 hero= 3 minions argument.

I don't need to pat myself on the back. The information was there all the time, it's just that people did not want to believe that that was the DEVs' vision for the tank.

I have never been sorrier about being right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And the buffs in I3 and I4 were because they were trying to realize this vision of reducing us down to this level? Please.

Their vision has changed. It was a moving target to start with, and they have always had a very poor idea as to what they wanted out of the AT.

Tom, besides patting yourself on the back, I don't even know why are you bringing it up. The dev's previous vision isn't relavent whether this was part of their convoluted grand plan or whether they are stumbling drunks. All that matters is that their vision for the AT now, as described by Statesman is one of an AT with no real role that cannot be easily exceeded by other classes.

[/ QUOTE ]


Point taken, Da5id. Sometimes I have gotten real frustrated over the past year, especially during the arguments over herding when I brought this up and had myself shouted down. I guess I feel vindicated in some sort of really sorry way.

Do you remember how bad tanks were at launch and under I1? We got our major buffs in I2. What I remember is *nerfs* to the tanker set beginning with I3 (including the end of perma-unstoppable.) I figure that was when they realized that the game was broken (again, that coincides with the November date.)

You are right about when they decided on this being irrelevant to the question at hand, however.

I also am getting more and more convinced that it will not be us who defines the new tank. There's just too much history here. We can't even agree on what the definition was for the old tank.

I also have to say that I think you may be right about other ATs filling our spot on a team contributing more than we do. I'd like to see some hard numbers from teams running the same mission over and over again on test, but taking the intuitive approach, it seems like it may be true.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, after reading the last 5 pages of posts, I think that people finally understand one of the things that I have been trying to get across over the last couple months in this forum and over the last year on the Test Server and AT Boards.

Here is the real information that was given to us yesterday from the DEVs:

THE DEVS NEVER INTENDED OUR TANKS TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID DURING THE NOVEMBER TO MAY PERIOD. ANYTHING WE WERE ABLE TO DO WAS AN UNINTENDED SIDE-EFFECT OF THE GAME NOT OPERATING IN THE WAY THAT THEY DESIGNED IT.



[/ QUOTE ]

Tom I don't think you are right here. The devs CHANGED their design when PvP illuminated flaws in the balance. Their vision for the various ATs has been a moving target since the beginning. Tanks were working as intended before, and it was their intention that changed.

Statesman and the devs are only human, and in designing the ATs originally, he made a big mistake in allowing a fundamentally defensive class to exist as it was. To say this was not originally his intent is to rewrite history.

There is no question this is no longer his intent. What I and others are trying to point out to him though, is that if he follows up on his current "vision" of what a tank is, he might as well just remove our AT altogether, as we bring virtually NOTHING to the table compared to other ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Da5id, I wish I had saved the discussion with Statesman. One of the reasons that I am so adamant about this is that in November 2004, I brought up the exact same issues as are there now.

Statesman's reply then was almost verbatim what they are now, (without the example of the mission.)

It was one of the first times he mentioned the 1 hero= 3 minions argument.

I don't need to pat myself on the back. The information was there all the time, it's just that people did not want to believe that that was the DEVs' vision for the tank.

I have never been sorrier about being right.

Ok, after reading the last 5 pages of posts, I think that people finally understand one of the things that I have been trying to get across over the last couple months in this forum and over the last year on the Test Server and AT Boards.

Here is the real information that was given to us yesterday from the DEVs:

THE DEVS NEVER INTENDED OUR TANKS TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID DURING THE NOVEMBER TO MAY PERIOD. ANYTHING WE WERE ABLE TO DO WAS AN UNINTENDED SIDE-EFFECT OF THE GAME NOT OPERATING IN THE WAY THAT THEY DESIGNED IT.

This leads me to believe, Da5id, that getting the roll-back that you want for the AT has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. The AT that we played has been permanently changed and will never go back to what it was.

The question, then, I pose, is same as the one I started with:

WHAT DO WE DO NOW WITHIN THE GAME?

I am beginning to think that there's not much chance of the redefining occuring at this time. There's a lot of anger, frustration, disappointment and I would be willing to be at this point a large percent of the people playing tankers are going to leave the AT.

It may be best to see what folks have come up with three months from now. It's a good possibility that the people who play the AT without knowing the history may have a better chance of creating a new role than we do.

I guess sometimes it's just better not to ask, eh?

I've figured that this is what it was all along, even as far back as when I started my tank 15 months ago.

Broomhilda, good points all. However, the numbers on the servers, (counting CoV) are now 30-40% higher than they were prior to the first of November.

It is probably a combination of folks moving over to CoV, plus the perceived undesirability of tanks (true or false) that is causing your problems with teaming, rather than any drop off in total players.

Note: As of 9pm Central time, on three servers I checked, 2/3 of the people were playing CoV, but the total was up about 40% from pre November 1. This would seem to indicate that population on the CoH servers are down about 50% since CoV came in, but there are twice as many people playing CoV as CoH.

This would lead me to estimate the total number of subscriptions right now for both games to be in the 210k region.

[ QUOTE ]
How can people not be familar with their builds when the team is around 49th level? Even with respecs and E.D. people at that leve should be able to adjust rather quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sort of threw me, too. On the other hand, that would make a difficult mission harder, not easier.

I get the feeling that States doesn't push a button while playing the game without thinking about why he's doing it.

I believe I've done similar missions while we were testing I5, and for many teams, Carnies are worth more than a yawn.

[ QUOTE ]
Something else just occured to me while I was posting in another thread. I'll just add it here, because I think it's something Statesman, or someone at Cryptic, might want to respond to.

I never actually stopped to count when I was playing my tank, but based on Cryptic's usual "3 enemies to 1 hero" response, I'd figure that should come to around 7 (3 enemies/hero, 7 in the team, 21 total, 1/3rd of which would be 7).

That's even more worrisome and shameful than I'd originally realized. He was "worried" while tanking 7, leaving 14 for his teammates to deal with, and had to use Dull Pain "several times" in order to complete the battle.

Let's be a bit more generous, though, and presume that there were as many as 30 enemies in the spawn. That would still only be 10 that Statesman was tanking, leaving 20 (yellow-con, definitely, and more likely orange-con, due to how the game scales enemies for teams, even at Heroic) for his teammates to deal with. That works out to some having 3 enemies to defeat, others having 4, and the requirements for those defeats being harsher than normal (again, standard Villain/Hero ratio is 3:1, even-con).

Not good. Even worse for team members with slow damage output or low hit points, and players who can't or don't want to play at levels of difficulty that pit them against +1-3 foes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luminara, from measuring spawns on teams like this, the total number of enemies in the spawn was more like 16, with 10 of them being minions, 4 or so lieutenants and a couple bosses. They would not have been yellow to States, but red and purple under normal circumstances since the mission belonged to a level 50, with a team of 7, the difficulty would have been kicked up by +1 and it was run on rugged for another +1. The minions would have been orange for the mission holder, with them being +3 to States's tank.

You have to remember that a team of 7 would normally spawn 21 enemies, but that bosses and lieutenants count for more than one when they calculate it.

Nowhere near 30 and at a much higher level than you're thinking, in other words.

You're very right, Tiffany, that's the point I'm trying to get to. Is there a role, independent of the other ATs or team members that the tank can fulfil now?

If so, what is it?

If not, why not?

For those of you who criticized Statesman's test, I have to say that he performed about how I would expect most INV tanks to do considering he's at level 32 sk'd to 49.

At that point, there's only been one level of three-slots I believe, and the two last powers from the Secondary are missing.

A post-ED, 15-level sk'd INV tanking Red and Purple Carnies, not being defeated and only having a couple deaths in the first encounter or two? Seems like a pretty good job to me. Not sucking up, just trying to give the devil his due.

There has been some excellent discussion here, and really, considering the fact that States posted it's pretty damn flame-free.

Let me try and sum up some of the things that we've talked about before I leave for the night. Please remember that I am not vouching for the veracity of any given opinion. This is a summary of the things that were said, not a defense or denial of any of them.

Tanks can still solo pretty well, but of course are diminished both in their defense and offense.

There are Primary Powers in the other tank sets that allow non-INV tanks to act in a Controller-like manner (whether this is good, like Ice, or bad like Fire.)

The test that Statesman ran showed that while an INV can help in a large-team mission, he is in perhaps an unacceptible amount of danger, and would probably have much more trouble if either he did not have Dull Pain or if the DEF from Invincibility was reduced.

Statesman *did*, for once and for all define what the DEVs see as the role of Tanks.

While this role agrees with what some tankers believed it to be, in other cases people thought:

1) It was too limiting

2) It depends on too many other things besides the tanker primary

3) It is not a well-enough defined role that it cannot be done better by another AT consistently

4) Primary weakness does not allow the tank to fulfill that role sufficiently under normal circumstances. i.e. The tank draws so much aggro that he is defeated before the team can defeat the enemies.

The suggestion was made that Tanks use more flexibility in their tactics since there are no longer one or two tactics that works all of the time.

The counter suggestion is that Tanks split into two roles, one concentrating on their primary and one concentrating on their secondary and fulfilling two different roles, depending on the tank.

Once again, in both cases, points were made that other ATs may be able to consistently fill both of those roles in teams.

Thank you for your rational and measured responses so far in this thread. I think that this has been pretty constructive so far.