chatman

[ QUOTE ]
Don't agree. I think it defines a mentality. You don't have to be "unkillable" to subscribe to this philosophy.

Whether or not a particular build or power set can successfully pull it off (i.e. survive) is a question of design and skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you as well. I still maintain that the addition of Armor piercing enhancements made available to players and npcs alike would have allowed resistances and defenses to stay high and would have allowed tanks to feel like tanks wading through hordes of enemies but taking damage as well. Certain identifiable mobs would carry the AP enhancements (APEs?) just like voids, only they might tend to be a bit more common.

The other thing that could be done is to naturally boost their health regen rate but by doing so boost regen scrappers rate by the same amount to maintain their uniqueness.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if buffing draws aggro in the game presently, although I can see the reasoning for why it should. But I will note that all else being equal, mobs will attack a Defender before a Tanker. The base AI for the mobs is to attack the "weakest" enemy (I think it defines "weakest" by HP, but I'm not sure). Of course, this is quickly overriden by damage, taunt, & the like, so the behavior isn't easy to observe.

But I can recall an instance that demonstrates it. I was duoing on my Tanker with a Blaster. I was leading & rounded a corner, where 2 mobs saw me & headed in my direction. Simultaneously the Blaster came up, rounding the corner. As soon as the mobs had LoS on the Blaster, they both switched aggro & made a beeline for my partner instead of me. Since neither of us had attacked them, the mobs were just following their base AI, but clearly chose to forgo the nearer original target (me) & go for the farther (but "weaker") target. Since I didn't have Taunt, I moved to intercept. Then apparently Invincibility pulsed & both mobs immediately switched back to aggro on me before I could even get a melee attack in. After the (short) battle, the Blaster (a much more experienced player than I) told me that this was typical AI behavior, but was pleased that Invincibility's base taunt was enough to override the AI.

Of course, this seems only to matter in the absence of any aggro-generating activity. Once the fight is on, a mob will almost always have someone generating aggro on it. But the base AI is to go after the weakest member of the party that a mob can see, so Defenders already do have something to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really sure if the game works like that...but I have noticed on occasions where I was tanking after the taunt changes and i wondered, "why in the world is the empath defender dying? He isn't shooting at anyone."

That WOULD explain why but confirmation from the Devs would be nice I don't want to assume how the AI works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Combat happens so fast on teams that I'm on that I never really noticed it before. Usually when I get aggro "leaks" its because of some action taken by another team member. This would be interesting to try though. Who would they rush to first? The Defender, Blaster or Controller?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually you say that they shouldn't ignore the threat attacking them directly or even taunts. I would agree with this for some mobs. However, to me, there would be some who might given that they're too mindless (Vaz and Hydra zombies and blobs respectively) or given to single mindedness(Cot and Tsoo Demons/Spirits) and strictly disciplined (Council, Nemesis and Malta) under normal circumstances. I thnk a case can be made for some who would by pass normal aggro rules as a strategy for winning.

Does that mean assault of Defenders/Controllers as THE primary targets in all cases? Not necessarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting question in all this is what happens in PVP?

I don't do PVP at all, so maybe this isn't an issue. Is PVP usually soloists in "every man for himself" mode? Or do you get teams fighting each other?

I would certainly ignore the tank and go for the healer/buffer FIRST if I were in PVP, because that's just what makes sense. The tank has the least ability to *do* anything to you, and good luck taking his HP down if he's got someone heal-camping him or buffing him. The defender, however, even buffed is a squishy, and you could seriously increase your chance of winning by getting rid of him first. The controller has all those holds (and the ability to toggle-drop) and is therefore extremely dangerous.

I agree, some minons, like the Vahz, are mindless. These guys could easily follow the normal (current) aggro rules. But any villain with half a brain, and certainly those being directed by LTs or especially Bosses, should be smart enough to size up the danger and figure out the proper order of attacking things, and just by common sense that order is NOT always Tanker first Defender last... and is usually the reverse.

I'd be interested to know what happens in PVP. How do defenders on teams survive without the stupidity of the AI on their side? And if they can survive PVP, then why wouldn't they survive in PVE also?

I'm just curious really.. I don't expect any of this to change.

F

[/ QUOTE ]

Well from what I've seen a lot of pvp tends to be divide and conquer with some (not all) outright gankfests. Now my experiences are admittedly limited to passer-by observations and the occasional pick ups.

So tactically try to imagine taking on a 5-8+ man spawn of even to purple con paragon protectors solo and that would give you an idea of what I've seen on occasion.

Usually at the center of it was a Brute or Tank, dying or escaping. How would Defenders or Controllers fare in something like that? Not too well I should think. Which would accurately reflect fighting a horde solo.

Look I truly dislike toggle dropping but if people say there is not enough challenge then implement more of it in pve as well.

Have the mobs go after the Defenders/Controllers/Blasters.

Have them try to Mez neutralize and overwhelm the Scrappers. Drop the Tanks toggles. Have them fight like they mean it.

Then after all of this if there still isn't enough challenge then double the spawn sizes and halve or quarter our defenses and offensive capabilities again. After all for some the magnitude of the abilities our characters have is unimportant. The fact that they have them at all is what makes them feel super.

Now to be a bit less draconian perhaps these measures could be taken on a new difficulty slider setting called nightmare. Those who truly want a challenge get set teams up for it and get greater XP rewards. I'd be all for making whole new storyarcs based on their uber eliteness at handling 2 AVs at once in a closed room with no exits that summoned 8 man spawns of bosses lt and minions at every 25% health drop. That is a challenge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words attack the squishies and leave the naugahide for last. Have the bad guys employ true "fight to win" strategies.

[/ QUOTE ] To clarify my thoughts, I wasn't suggesting that mobs ignore everyone else (like the Scrapper who's hitting them, the Blaster who's shooting them or the Tanker who just taunted them). That doesn't seem right either. But should buffs cause aggro? Makes sense to me. Again, the devil is in the details (what causes aggro, how much aggro).

As an unintended side effect, I also see that this could have an effect on buffing defenders who solo, since they may be subject to more heat than usual. OTOH, debuffing defenders have already lived with this.

My view is that this is a dramatic change and should be thought out before implementing. But the question arose out of the concern of "when is aggro management needed?" This suggestion was designed to increase the situations where aggro management is needed. But I think its a good question that should be answered.

Another possible answer: better mish design. For example, I was running in a pentad vs BP. The objective was to protect a tome. It was in the middle of this vast room populated with rows of columns. We took out the spawns on the fringes. We locked and loaded and assaulted the middle spawn whom we quickly defeated. Then we waited for the waves of BP to descend upon us...

This had the makings of an epic battle. We had only two melee fighters, a tanker (myself) and a scrapper. One defender. Two blasters. So we stood our ground to protect the tome. Scrapper on the north side. Tanker on the south. Squishes between us. I went into "full tanker mode", expecting that I would need to focus exclusively on getting baddies off the blasters so they could work their mojo. We expected we all would be fighting for our lives amidst a horde of enemies coming from all sides...

They didn't. They came through one door. And the waves weren't that big. So I stood by the door, held aggro, while the D3 debuffed em (and tar pitted the door), Scrapper sliced em and the Blasters AoE'd em into oblivion. What a let down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I didn't misrepresent your thoughts on the matter. If so I apologize. Actually you say that they shouldn't ignore the threat attacking them directly or even taunts. I would agree with this for some mobs. However, to me, there would be some who might given that they're too mindless (Vaz and Hydra zombies and blobs respectively) or given to single mindedness(Cot and Tsoo Demons/Spirits) and strictly disciplined (Council, Nemesis and Malta) under normal circumstances. I thnk a case can be made for some who would by pass normal aggro rules as a strategy for winning.

Does that mean assault of Defenders/Controllers as THE primary targets in all cases? Not necessarily. Some scripts may opt to target the highest damage dealers first in which case it could be a toss up between the Scrapper and Blaster. Some may use their own defenders (Cot and Tsoo) to try and scatter the team or keep them from their damage dealers. When was the last time Cot or Tsoo used rain powers on heroes? I can see Mort ordering 1 or 2 Zombies to stay near him and just spit at Tanks at range, as a viable strategy, even running away if the tank gets too close. Frustrating but viable.

Should buffs could cause aggro? Yes, if noticed by an officer or happen in close proximity to a mob. That'd be my feeling.

I agree that things like this would be a dramatic change but no more so than I5 or ED. After all the general feeling after these were introduced was bascially and rather callously "adapt or die". The same would be true here and for those truly seeking challenge then this would start to approach having it. This would truly test whether the tools given for aggro management are sufficent or even neccesary if the rule of the day is everyone should be responsible for their own aggro.

As to mission design in your scenario I don't know why it didn't behave like the Terra Volta Trial where they will sometimes spill out of two doors at once. Perhaps it had something to do with the difficulty slider? I don't know, just guessing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heals and buffs should generate more aggro than they do.

The first reaction of most teams who confront a group of Tsoo is, "Find the sorcerer first! Kill the sorcerers!" The sorcerers will heal and buff the bad guys and debuff the team. They therefore must die first. Same way with Sky Raider Engineers. Same way with Devouring Earth, at least when emanators used to drop regularly.

The AI should operate somewhat similarly.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to fit right into the whole idea of "risk vs reward." Your presence provides a big boost to any team you're on. I don't see why there shouldn't be a bit more risk for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking directly to the statement of risk vs reward, I'd agree.

However I don't think they'd take that step because now it would force a confrontation between ideals, logic and their perceptions of "fun".

I want it understood that I'm not being "snarky" or whatever term is used to convey vitriol because I'm genuinely not.

Its easy to be true to an ideal to a point and even proudly espouse it from a particular perspective, however when that ideal is confronted with converse logic from another perspective it becomes harder to defend without deferring to personal subjectivity.

Such would be the case here. The idea was to make the game more challenging (I've got plenty of issues regarding this statement, but be that as it may) so to do so everyone suffered reductions in various forms. Upon further inspection it was decided that danger/damage mitigation provided by tanks was too much. Further reductions ensued.

Other ways were discussed to increase "challenge" however the approaches taken were I5 and ED for various reasons not the least of which was to ensure the viability of all ATs in a team so that none were rendered useless.

Tanks were hit quite hard. The Devs saw this as being necessary to achieve their goals using terms like "risk vs reward" as justifications for their actions. Also stating that Tanks should not be holding all of the aggro for 8 man teams for indefinite periods of time. Fine.

Tanks then can ask if challenge is the goal as well as risk vs reward being the justification then why not truly add challenge and have the mobs behave almost like human players in what and how they'd choose to fight /attack? In other words attack the squishies and leave the naugahide for last. Have the bad guys employ true "fight to win" strategies.

Various answers would ensue from all the affected communities as well as the Dev team itself however, to me , it would boil down to their subjective view point overiding an opposing perspectives objectivity. In other words it wouldn't be "fun" from their perspective.

Again my post is not in anyway intended to be construed as being harsh or antagonisitic. More just a statement of opinion.

No denying that it could lead there. No denying that it would be a bad thing if it did go there. On the other hand , however, it might tend to show up something that has bothered me from day one. That being the false necessity of interdependency that the game was designed on.

I know I'm going to get beat up on this but, how many people go through life wanting to depend on others as opposed to simply wanting others to be dependable?

What I mean is I'd have much rather had seen a system that everyone could be self sufficient reaching whatever soft caps were set by themselves( with an ATless structure gudied by power selection trees) but finding when teamed with others that they could be pushed well beyond it. People would team out of desire rather than necessity.

Now some people would say we already have this and I can see their point of view.

My perspective is that we don't quite have it and its by design that we don't and I really don't understand why it has to be this way. However be that as it may we have what we have.

A while back the call rang out for greater challenge. I think AI using typical human player tactics would definitely answer that call. If spawns did rush the Defenders and Controllers first then one possible solution would be to buff them so they could handle it. If you don't want to increase their power perhaps cut their recharge times again. This is all PvE theorizing by the way. Keep their abilities at the ready but the end costs remain the same. Sort of "the spirit is willing..." scenario. As for Tanks well then we'd soon know if the tools given for aggro management were sufficient.

Perhaps spawns without leaders would use the current AI. Given LTs and up they'd choose their target. Team dynamics would definitely come into play then. Slow powers would have even more value to teams.

There's more but I gotta do work stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, the def/troller group should certainly talk about this if this would even be considered. It seems like a dramatic change that should be thought out and tested.

I do think it makes sense. Also, I wouldn't see this requiring tankers in particular since buffers would only need protection. Tankers might make a great choice (since that's their role) but Scrappers and Blasters could switch targets.

But the devil is in the details (i.e. what generates aggro, how much aggro etc.). For example, what if buffs only produce aggro in nearby bosses and lts since they are the "smart" mobs? They're the ones that figure out "hey, that Scrapper is still standing bc of the funny looking guy glowing green!" The minions act the same ol' stupid way, to avoid def/trollers being mobbed by everyone.

From a priority standpoint, I'd go with a less dramatic change like increasing non-S/L RES.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument/idea does have merits though since the idea is supposed to be about being "active" and "at risk". These terms were used liberally through out the explanation of I5 and ED being necessities. I for one would like to see it tested (on a limited or event base scale).

[ QUOTE ]
Heals and buffs should generate more aggro than they do.

The first reaction of most teams who confront a group of Tsoo is, "Find the sorcerer first! Kill the sorcerers!" The sorcerers will heal and buff the bad guys and debuff the team. They therefore must die first. Same way with Sky Raider Engineers. Same way with Devouring Earth, at least when emanators used to drop regularly.

The AI should operate somewhat similarly.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.

I don't see the state of Tanks changing in any appreciable manner for the positive any time soon. That's just my pessimism on the matter.

However given that things are not going to fundamentally change with the AT I would ask that in order to make the AT more attractive let the players have some fun with it.

I would ask for damage enhancements specifically limited to Tanks and Scrappers.

Allow these two melee classes to modify their attacks. Placing
fire based, cold based, fear based, energy based, toxic based and even to a limited extent psi based damage enhancers on melee weapons and hand to hand attacks.

Once a specific modifier is chosed and slotted it only takes modifiers of that type. Thus you could not have a Fire/Psy Axe. You could however have one or the other. Base modifers would be unenhanceable to to reduce abuse. They would go from 15% to 20% at 2 slots to 30% at 3 slots. Then diminsh according to ED functions.

Does this help Tank survivability? Not in terms of defense but would help greatly in helping tanks keep aggro and allowing them to Skrank.

It would allow for some distinction in the AT based on its type of offense potential.

If the AT is not supposed to be the best at what its designed to do under all circumstances at least let it be more diverse to play under all circumstances.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Declaring a Brute as fun is a sure way to get it nerfed into oblivion. Look in the other forums. If we do not start complaining real soon someone will notice. Fun ATs are not alowed after I6.

SMASH SMASH SMASH

I mean... wimper smush whimper

No fun here. Please move on. I heard some master minds talking about fun.

[/ QUOTE ]
actually except for dominators if fun is the standards for nerfing then COV AT are going to get nerfs of epic proportions

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly it aint like its never happened, but I hope it doesn't. If felt like I could get a sense of stability maybe I'd buy CoV and join you, but after the swirl and sweep of CoH I just can't bring myself to plop down another $50. I just can't do it. You guys have fun though and SMASH as long and as often as you can!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noticed that too Tom. Stopped posting didn't see the point. I totally understand and agree with much of the feelings but it isn't getting us anywhere. Chatman thanks for trying too.

Nov 16 put your post up and we'll give this a whirl. I might try and do some this weekend if my pals are about to help, if not then I'll wait.

[/ QUOTE ]

DO, any good data is a good thing. They're already doing some interesting stuff with the AV thread. I'll make a hardcopy of the team construction thoughts so they're not lost if something happens to the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, thanksgiving is too far away, and I think most of the useful planning we can do 3 weeks in advance is already done. All this good testing talk has brought my testing/analysis motivation back up after all the dev stonewalling sapped my enthusiasm. I'll see if I can finish coding my TTL analysis package, and find some extreme cases to test.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok so when is this happening? I have to download the updates from test so that might take a while and if possible I don't want to miss this event. I'll bring My lvl41 inv/axe and anything else I have that can help.

The Coh version of the 300 Spartans. Last march of the Tankers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting thought. What would be tests that would be biased in the tank's favor? Pocket defenders?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any s/l AV.

Pocket Defenders/Controllers

for two options

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure about the def/trollers. Why would a test with a pocket def for a tank be biased vs a pocket def for a scrapper for instance?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a point but I was thinking along the lines of the Tanks survivability due to hit points from a lucky alpha. However your point stands.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Feel free to add Controller + Scrapper + Blaster + Blaster

PS: I tend to focus on Defenders because since I stopped playing my Tank my Defender has become my Main and he out performs by Tank by a significant margin IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread is depressing.

Just do the all defender team and see the power.

I'm about ready to give up on all of my tankers. As a casual player I have none that are 50 yet and will never get there it seems. I agree with Jagged in that my Defender is my best option and most fun to play. Tankers are all forced into the scranker roll with out the tools to do the job.

Once the devs are done castrating the AT perhaps thay can review the "fun factor" again.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wow my feelings mirror yours. My defenders are a lot more fun than my tankers and actually solo Prior to I6 far faster as well. Given simialr Resists/Def my brutes are also more fun gee i wonder why?

[/ QUOTE ]

See D_O I'm being good. It's hard but I'm gonna be good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really like Foo's AV concept. It might be an enjoyable experiment with our 50s. I might raise a note of caution on that one, however. If we find that a duo combination massively outperforms all others either the DEVs or other players may be tempted to call for nerfs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back in the pre-I5 days the most efficient AV killers I every witnessed was a Defender/Blaster Duo. They were lethal. I didn't think they needed nerfing then and I wouldn't think they need nerfing now. I think Tanks need a boost, plain & simple.

On a different note I think you should come up with some scenarios that give tanks the utmost advantage. If you run some tests that are obviously biased in the tanks favour and the performance is still lack luster then you will have powerful amunition. If.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting thought. What would be tests that would be biased in the tank's favor? Pocket defenders?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any s/l AV.

Pocket Defenders/Controllers

for two options

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have an AV Experience thread floating around that highlights this really well. in particular, PorkchopXpress and AmericanSpirit both submitted reports battling a +2 Nightstar. they were both Inv/Axe tankers. they were both on teams, one a 4-person team with two controllers, a blaster and a scrapper. one a 6-person team with a scrapper, a controller, two blasters, and a defender. one of them couldn't survive without US and had to retreat when US dropped. one of them tanked Nightstar with little difficulty. i think it makes sense for us to have to apply different tactics in different situations, but it becomes frustrating when its not clear the particulars have changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Watch it there Tiff! I was playing the controller that had to jump in and "tank" the AV, damage the AV, and simultaneously do everything I could to keep the squishy Tanker alive. Not that I could have POSSIBLY done any better than the high quality Tanker we were using, but lets keep the facts straight. I was the one in the corner LAUGHING at the retreating tanker. (albeit, while simultaneously worrying for the future of my fave AT)

Let me point out one thing, and that is history does tend to repeat itself. I don't want to cry doom, but in I2s larger teams it was sometimes difficult for a tanker to be wanted over a scrapper. The thought process (as stated by an above poster) was that with multiple players to buff a melee player - you may as well get one that will be providing a lot of offensive output for the team as well as taking the initial aggro. I mean hell, if you are gonna be required to have a controller/defender combo anyways - why not pick up a scrapper over a tanker to take the brunt, then help clean up?

I don't expect it to get so bad that you see Tankers holding "will aggro for food" signs, or a bunch of people ever posting they can't find teams anymore (yes, I do recall those days on this forum) but sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better.

And in the meantime - I'm gonna go SMASH!

[/ QUOTE ]

I will say it again. Build to protect you. Bunk concept and bunk building for teams. Insure your survival first and foremost. Only then can you reliably assist a team. I say this only because you don't know who you're going to be dealing with in pugs.

From the reply given and the rumors of more reductions flying around I see no hope. It's going down hill so my advice is cya as best you can.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, now that Statesman has given us his idea of the Role of the Tank, I have to ask the questions:

With the resources we have at the present time, can we fulfill that role?

Are there Primaries that would not have been able to fulfill that role? Secondaries?

Is the role a reasonable one that we can live with, long term? If not, how can we expand on it? If the DEVs can expand on it, what is reasonable to ask them to do that will not unbalance the game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hesitate to post this but oh well...

I am trying to say this so it doesn't come off as being disrespectful because that is not my intent.

*withdrawn, because no matter how tactfully I say it it will be taken the wrong way*

Anyway to your original question (if it is still being entertained) what I as a player think the new role of the post I5-ED tank is.

I agree with the posters who think our role is that of the soloist now. Self sufficiency and personal survival is key. We need to become the swiss army knife AT. Survival artists. Unless you play with a regular team or luck into decent PuGs you really can't rely on your teammates to help. Now you can't rely on your primary set to protect you either if things go south. Power pools will allow you to help yourself and on the odd occasion to help your team as well.

Honestly you can't help anyone else if you can't help yourself first.