[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read this thread through so I am probably repeating someone else, though I don't expect my stance to be common or popular.
There is no need to redefine our role in PvE. We can still tank, we can still get and keep aggro, we can still take tremendous amounts of damage.
The difference between pre-ED and post-ED is that we cannot take ALL the damage. This is consistent with a number of changes they have made in the past few months. Controllers can no longer control ALL of a large group, Blasters can no longer blast ALL of a large group, Defenders can no longer debuff ALL of a large group, and Tankers can no longer tank ALL of a large group.
This will make some people no longer feel like superheroes, and I expect that group to no longer want to play this game over the other options out there. But I believe that the role of the tank has not changed, only the way we play that role. If the rules had been this way from the start, as they are in CoV, then we'd be known as the people that can take tremendous amounts of damage, damage that would easily kill most of our team if we were not there. Instead, we are known as the guys that can now not take nearly as much damage, and the guys that fall over quickly if we don't realize that we are no longer Invulnerable and play our characters accordingly.
Part of the problem is that teams are still trying to do what they did pre-ED instead of turning the mission difficulty slider down (I know, I know, blasphemy that I would suggest that). Tankers are obviously the class that is going to take the brunt of that decision, even though everyone is now able to do what they do worse. That fact is leading good Tanker players to go through massive amounts of existential angst concerning their disappearing role. The role is the same, our ability to do that role on a massive scale has changed, just like it has changed for every single AT out there.
I5 and ED were an ugly 1-2 punch for Tankers and I think there need to be some changes to ED. But if you try and do less to match the fact that you can do less, just like everyone else, you'll find that the changes are only a matter of degree and not redefinition.
Where our role does need to be redefined is in PvP because we are NOT equipped to get and hold aggro there any longer.
Scorus
[/ QUOTE ]
Scorus, it seems from your sig you play a stone tank. YOUR character is still able to hold aggro and survive it fine. Granite tanks are the only ones that still bring anything to teams that isn't better brought by another AT. Please take some time to read through at least part of the thread. Perhaps it will help you understand the state of the other powersets.
ADDENDUM: The contention is that our abilities have been reduced so much that our role is easily eclipsed by other classes in almost any situation. And that our non-granite primaries are rendered moot. We KNOW that everyone got reduced. It's not a matter of an expectation based on what we were able to do in I4. It's a matter of a frank assesment of what we are able to contribute compared to other ATs in the current balance. And for non-granite tanks, it's not much. (In fact I think those that cry out that our roles are still there because everyone was reduced are the ones stuck with the pre-I5 mentality of how the ATs function. Looking at non-granite tanks honestly and objectively it should be clear that that role has shrunk to virtually nothing.)
The primary problem is unlike Defenders or Blasters or anybody else, Tankers can't pick they're foes based on the type of damage they can defend. My Radiation Defenders and Controllers can take on all types of mobs, as can my Dark Defender. Blasters can kill all types of Mobs
Controllers can controll all types from Hellions to DE
however...
Invulnerable tanks have to pick who they Tank against
(as shown in Statesman's post)
Fire and Stone less so
and Ice Tankers are still being one shot
Every role is better served at this point by a scrapper. If I sit my Illusion/Rad behind a Scrapper we clear mish faster than if I support a Tanker. Simple Math
I sat playing heal-bot behind an Ice Tanker for a couple of days, but the numbers match my anecdote
That is, if each Tanker needs a Defender or Controller to TANK, then Scrappers are ALWAYS going to be better Tankers, unless you are going against such high level mobs that you shouldn't be doing! (According to Almighty Statesman)
this is the Shame of I5/I6
Experience is the TOUGHEST teacher!
First you get the TEST,
THEN you get the lesson!!
D'ark Tempest's Book of Fake Ancient Chinese Secrets
(3rd Ed) )
People sometimes tell me I'm both pessimistic and paranoid but I think that's just because all you optimists are out to get me.
[ QUOTE ]
Tom, you post as if you and De5id are the only ones here that remember tanking before now. You are a quite mistaken if that is the case. I was there through I1 and every issue since.]
[/ QUOTE ]
Not quite as long for me, but I have been here a bit. I started a bit before I2 and in fact I2 was what made me come to the boards. I had gotten KO Bow prior to I2 and the first time I used it after I2 went live I was pleasantly surprised at the large increase in damage. I also have tanked in EQ for 3 years now, and even my short stint in WoW had my main being a warrior and tanking.
[ QUOTE ]
You are saying that the new generation of tankers will define us, but I don't think that will be the case. I think we define what we are as an AT within the scope of what the Devs give us to work with. However, Da5id is right about our role being taken over by other ATs. They have always been able to to so and can easily supplant us in teams now if they wish. I3 gave us the illusion that team needed us and now we are upset when we learn that they nver did to begin with. In all honesty, if the current "vision" of Tanks is for us to be the odd AT out, then I suggest that everyone move to a different AT and don't waste your time on Tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I refuse to throw in the towel, despite the current 'limbo' I feel we are in. Ice, Fire, and Invuln have all been cut (between I5 and I6) too much for what we are supposed to do. Stone, despite the fact that the penalties of GA are going to be more pronounced thanks to ED, is the best raw Tanker by far now. Certain situations will be difficult (Diabolique comes to mind) with the penalties now, but GA is undsiputed queen of pure tankability. Unstoppable is of course huge, but only for 3 minutes. This makes it absolutely worthless for some situations. When I tanked the Croatoa TF on Vixen shorty after I5 (and thusly before ED), we had 10 sequential ambushes of the AV and a horde of other mobs with her. Three minutes would be insufficient to tank this properly, and with the new poor res levels and the impending fix of Invinc without a slight upgrading of other issues in Invuln (the now totally inappropriate def debuff in Uy and the too low passives), it makes the set nowhere inadequate for the task.
[ QUOTE ]
However, that is not what you wanted in this thread, Tom. what you wanted was an idea of what our role in a team is. Our role is to control aggro as much as we can. No other AT can quite do it as well as we can, supposedly. Now, take you "been around since launch, pat yourself on the back" experience and prove or disprove it. I can. Can you?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would say again that using our aggro controls to force mobs to make our primary defensive powerset along with the largest health pool in the game, help keep our comrades alive, is what we are supposed to do for teams. There is no point whatsoever in having the best defenses in the game if we do not get to use them.
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.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
[ QUOTE ]
I5 and ED were an ugly 1-2 punch for Tankers and I think there need to be some changes to ED. But if you try and do less to match the fact that you can do less, just like everyone else, you'll find that the changes are only a matter of degree and not redefinition.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess. Reading States he seems to say grabbing a third of the aggro on a 7 man team is doing your part, I guess. But many of ous defenses aren't even a third of what they were, though we have S/L left and can cap with tough I suppose that's good. Well for Inv anyway. Stone pre-granite is at about that post granite the differense is extremely small defenses wise. Fire seems at about a third its biggest issue is a lack of strength against S/L, I suppose tough would be very handy filling in there. Not sure about Ice but judging from some of the numbers I'd say a third or so is about right.
Also I would say the need for taunt from this veiw is not really much needed. Normal spawn for that team is around 14 to 16 right? So one punch and you have your third almost. Your aura, assuming you have it, should pick up the rest or lacking that one AoE will get you up to 10 way more then third your shooting for.
In States post he seems to say that a tanks job is to make it easier then 3 minions to each hero aggro gathering wise. On a 7 man team with a spawn of 14 that means we start better then that, barring lts and bosses. That does seem to lead one to wonder what exactly we are doing since spawn sizes aren't 3 to 1.
I suppose our roll is to grab maybe boss/lt aggro but then again isn't that the scrappers job, you know to kill boss/lts.
Our job is to do as we have been only to not over do it I guess. I always thought to be a good tank you needed to know your limits and learn to live within that so you don't over tax your teammates. Don't grab an extra groups aggro unless you know you can hold it, don't herd unless you know you can survive it, don't charge in unless you have a plan to get back out. Only now we are much more dependant on the team so basically we have to know them or learn what they do before we roll well as he seemed to have trouble doing also. Seems this might just discourage PUGs even more. Yet the game seems to want to encourage teaming more and more.
I feel conflicted on this. I like teaming, I even like PUGs to a degree. I also like solo. Solo I am safe to run my mission on any level I choose and do well. In a way I'd like a bigger team bonus to offset the bigger team risk, you know his old risk = reward thing. But then again that's thrown out the window with PvP XP and temp powers so maybe its not part of the vision anymore. Still it is more risk now to team then before, and certainly more then Solo play so it ought to be worth more too.
As far as balance I'm not seeing it much from I6. Some builds got smoked, other saw little change. I think there are those powers now that are far more out of balance then ever and so I do think yet more changes (nerfs) will come. Invinc getting hit will hurt and we are unlikely to get anything for it so that's not a happy thought.
You do realize that Stone took it in the chops pre 32 as well, right? The fact tht they have a level 32 power that makes them FAR more survivable.
I think that one of the big problems is that the real weaknesses of non-Granite tanks shows up significantly in higher level play (level 30+, and definitely level 40+). Obviousy the fewer powers you have, the more your character is defined by inherents.
As more powers become available and the AT's become more defined as to what they DO and can't do, the non-granite tank simply doesn't excel at much of anything.
In the past, defense with minimal offense can lead to a win, albeit a slow one. PVP games are never built that way, because if they were, no one would attack. Thus I believe that PVP has been a large contributing factor to the current state of the Tanker.
These are fairly dark days in Tanker Town, and I don't think that non-Granite really contributes anything unique or valuable in the higher end game. I don't think they are so "bad" as to actually slow things down, except inasmuch as they take a slot that another character could use to speed things up.
I do believe that tanks will be reviewed again, and changed again, and respecs will be needed again, but that's pretty much par for the course now.
Time will tell though.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess. Reading States he seems to say grabbing a third of the aggro on a 7 man team is doing your part, I guess.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe a third, but which third? Our aggro management skills need to protect the blaster from the return fire of most of the 16 he fireballed, or the controller from most of the 16 he held (easy) or immobilized (back to the fireball scenario again). Plus we need to keep the aggro of the mezzers focused on our mez resists instead of on the squishies. With the hard aggro cap we may now be able to "split an alpha" among several tough folks, but I imagine that still takes excellent timing and no lag. But we need to give the damage dealers and the debuffers the aggro protection to keep the toggles up and finish mowing down the enemies, and with no aggro management, whichever squishy has more than their share of aggro when the alpha goes off or recharges, gets pasted.
[ QUOTE ]
Also I would say the need for taunt from this veiw is not really much needed. Normal spawn for that team is around 14 to 16 right? So one punch and you have your third almost. Your aura, assuming you have it, should pick up the rest or lacking that one AoE will get you up to 10 way more then third your shooting for.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I had a ranged attack, I'd agree with you. But oftentimes I'm not next to the mobs whose aggro I need, e.g. whoever's meleeing the back line or the core of whoever the blaster just fireballed. Thus I have Taunt slotted only with 2 ranges; I may add a recharge if I get rid of Hasten post I6.
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose our roll is to grab maybe boss/lt aggro but then again isn't that the scrappers job, you know to kill boss/lts.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we need to "keep it even" so that not too many mobs overall, and few/no mezzers, are targeting any squishies or anyone else who's dying.
This means our small-team role is more like it was, and our large-team role/tactics need more attention, as I said above, to make sure we grab the aggro that's causing the most trouble when we can't just take it all.
[ QUOTE ]
Our job is to do as we have been only to not over do it I guess. I always thought to be a good tank you needed to know your limits
[/ QUOTE ]
This has always been true. And I've started to lobby Statesman for a way to make us able to be tougher at the expense of offense when we're teamed, something Enhancements don't do because slots aren't scarce and are even less scarce with ED...but it needs to be something we can toggle, because we may well solo and team and solo again in the same play session. Guild Wars does a great job with this; CoH/CoV needs to take a lesson. Without the ability to flex, tankers will/must be gimped for large-team tanking, or will/must be gimped for soloing to balance their large-team survivability, or both.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as balance I'm not seeing it much from I6. Some builds got smoked, other saw little change. I think there are those powers now that are far more out of balance then ever and so I do think yet more changes (nerfs) will come. Invinc getting hit will hurt and we are unlikely to get anything for it so that's not a happy thought.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tankers have a high proportion of powers that can only usefully slot for one thing. Maybe if there were a powers/slots tradeoff and we could take a power with its builtin slot instead of 2 slots now plus 2 slots later, we could take those passives that suck but seem necessary anyway? Of course, I'd hate to exchange 4 slots in an attack which already does poor damage, in exchange for a poorly performing passive, all the time when I don't team all the time...especially when the benefit isn't much anyway.
[Edit: I'd said AoE when I meant ranged, in the section about why I have Taunt and how it's slotted.]
[ QUOTE ]
You do realize that Stone took it in the chops pre 32 as well, right? The fact tht they have a level 32 power that makes them FAR more survivable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes of course I realize that. That's why I usually talk about granite-tanks as being the only ones with survivability, rather than stone tanks. Pre-Granite stone is down around ice level.
[ QUOTE ]
The primary problem is unlike Defenders or Blasters or anybody else, Tankers can't pick they're foes based on the type of damage they can defend. My Radiation Defenders and Controllers can take on all types of mobs, as can my Dark Defender. Blasters can kill all types of Mobs
Controllers can controll all types from Hellions to DE
however...
Invulnerable tanks have to pick who they Tank against
(as shown in Statesman's post)
Fire and Stone less so
and Ice Tankers are still being one shot
Every role is better served at this point by a scrapper. If I sit my Illusion/Rad behind a Scrapper we clear mish faster than if I support a Tanker. Simple Math
I sat playing heal-bot behind an Ice Tanker for a couple of days, but the numbers match my anecdote
That is, if each Tanker needs a Defender or Controller to TANK, then Scrappers are ALWAYS going to be better Tankers, unless you are going against such high level mobs that you shouldn't be doing! (According to Almighty Statesman)
this is the Shame of I5/I6
[/ QUOTE ]
DarK_Tempest, Statesman's example is a terrible one for Tankers to use as a reference, hence the red warning I posted at the beginning of my first post. Please, don't use that because that is not a good example for new players.
You are, unfortunately, right about the fact that Scrappers can replace Tankers in a team and be more of a benefit. I wish you were wrong about this, but my experiances (like yours 
) say otherwise. 
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
[ 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.
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a third, but which third?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well based on States post it would be those we are most able to survive. That blaster goes shooting off an AoE he, based on States can expect us to stop at most 6 from coming for him. He needs to play more intelligently. Doing it to finish a group is one thing, doing it to start a fight is a bad idea.
As for aggro from mezzers well most controllers/defenders can give some protection from that so we need not be all fire focused on that. Plus teammates should bring breakfrees or not aggro something that they can't handle.
If a debuffer is doing his part should that mob debuffed be much less of a threat now? Damage dealers and the rest need to manage aggro just as much as the tank. Don't take aggro you can't survive doesn't go just for tanks. As has been said many times aggro management is a team thing.
[ QUOTE ]
If I had an AoE attack, I'd agree with you. But oftentimes I'm not next to the mobs whose aggro I need, e.g. whoever's meleeing the back line or the core of whoever the blaster just fireballed. Thus I have Taunt slotted only with 2 ranges; I may add a recharge if I get rid of Hasten post I6.
[/ QUOTE ]
One punch and you've got a third of the aggro, your portion based on states. Movement is key if you want to stand still then yes taunt is something you may want or even need. If the blaster fireballs a mob your not engaged with he needs to think that its his aggro and can he handle it before he fires it off. Or is there a controller/teammate that can because if he fireballs groups not engaged with the tank he made the choice to manage their aggro. I don't mean to be harsh but everyone on the team needs to do their part and manage the aggro together. A fireballing blaster (or anyone) that doesn't look at the battle field and understand what will happen when he lets loose is not doing his part and more he's making problems if he expects you to fight your group while taunting another he aggro'd and now can't deal with. If he can deal with it then great if not big mistake on his part.
[ QUOTE ]
And I've started to lobby Statesman for a way to make us able to be tougher at the expense of offense when we're teamed, ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Tougher sure but our offense isn't staggering now why give it up? Look honestly tanker offense is fine but our defenses are not. Making that flip really doesn't sound like a great idea. Even if just while teaming. That forces meatshielding and is just as bad a forcing scranking.
The problem with many passives is how low the base numbers are. Also of course ED killing you if you 6 slot these powers. And really its not just passives. There is no real benifit in 6 slotting Uy 3 demres/ 3 endrdx or some combo including recharge. One endrdx is more then enough and recharge is completely unneeded. Not being able to actually get resist from a resist power is a shame. Attacks do benifit some from ACC, Recharge, Dam, Endrdx, and other side effect boosting enhancements. That gives you a couple ok choices but Uy for instance gets nothing or so close to nothing is near worthless from anything past the first endrdx outside of slotting damres enhancements that it really doesn't leave you with any good options.
The thing that is truly galling is the lack of differences between Fire, Ice, and Inv
Inv: Better S/L defense, minor SR
Fire: Burn patch, end regen
Ice: Slow, end regen, minor SR to 3-5 dmg types
32 powers.
Inv: 3 minutes of uber followed by 30 seconds of extreme suck.
Fire: Self rez that dmgs nearby foes.
Ice: 30 seconds of head in the sand then rest of body buried beside it.
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
[ 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.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
My 2 cents.
If we are to be scrankers, then we need help bringing down enemies. To this end i would suggest making all tank's buildup more like rage. Now rage is what brings Super Strength up to par with the other tanks damage output, so don't think I want an exact copy.
How about something like this:
Instead of 10 seconds of 100% buildup like, well, Buildup, we have a 60% buildup for like 30 seconds?
That would allow us to scrank and set us a bit apart from Brutes and Scrappers.
SuperSolar-Fire/SS H.A.C.S. -Virtue
Capt. Solar-Inv/Fire Tank-Liberty
PowerStrike-Fire/Mace Tank-Virtue
Mighty Marvel-PeaceBringer-Virtue
Power X -Claws/Fire Scrapper-Virtue
[ QUOTE ]
The difference between pre-ED and post-ED is that we cannot take ALL the damage. This is consistent with a number of changes they have made in the past few months. Controllers can no longer control ALL of a large group, Blasters can no longer blast ALL of a large group, Defenders can no longer debuff ALL of a large group, and Tankers can no longer tank ALL of a large group.
[/ QUOTE ]
My sentiments exactly. it also happens to match my post I6 experience. I've run missions from Rikti, Council, CoT, DE, Carnies, and Nemesis.
My role is to take A LOT of the agro, especially when initiating combat, but not ALL agro. During the fight I MANAGE some agro, focusing mostly on any enemies that are beating on my friends, but I cannot grab it all away like I used to be able to do.
My blaster friend has to use her energy puch that throws the enemies back. My other blaster friend has to use the fire cage thingy. My defender friend doesn't throw attacks around and garner too much agro.
My scrapper friends still try to go in before I do, like always. They just love to fight it seems. Good thing is they can take it a little.
I have had no problems except when I'm fighting purple mobs (and then only if there are a ton of them).
My mind tells me we're screwed, but my experience tells me that we need to shift our expectations away from being able to tank massive amounts of higher level mobs like we used to.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would much rather hear Cryptics explanation of our intended role and how they see us accomplishing it. Since we have obviously been wrong by their direction, I would really like for States and company to tell us what we are supposed to contribute to a team, and how that contribution stands out beyond all other AT's.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tankers manage aggro better than any other Archetype. They also have the highest combination of hit points and defenses in the game. Their role is to take the brunt of a spawn's aggro just long enough in order for the rest of the team to be able to eliminate the mobs.
Should a skilled Tanker be able to corral EVERY mob? With a lot of skill, it should be possible - but it's certainly not required to be a good Tank. As long as the Tanker can hold onto aggro so that his teammates are facing less than they'd normally face (i.e. 3 minions), then the team has an advantage. Namely, each teammate can quickly eliminate his opposition...and then come to the Tanker's aid at the end.
I just played a Tanker with the following group (actually, at the request of a PM)...
Inv/Fire tanker (32, SKed to 49)
Level 50 Elec/Elec Blaster (it was his mission, set on Rugged)
Level 32 Peacebringer (SKed to 48 or so).
Level 48 MA/Inv scrapper
Level 50 Fire/Kin controller
Level 35 Earth/empathy controller (SKed up to 48)
Level 49 Energy/energy blaster
We faced the Carnival of Shadows. Typically, I'd start combat by Taunting any Strongmen in the spawn. I knew that I could handle their damage best. I'd usually catch some other minions and lts. I'd end up with a good 1/3 of the spawn focused on me, while the rest of my group disposed of the others. Whenever I saw a teammate enter the red, I'd either Taunt the mobs off them or hit the mobs to get their aggro.
End result? Well, no one was that familiar with their builds. The Controller was defeated by getting too close to another spawn. The Peacebringer carelessly tossed off attacks and ended up aggroing too much. After those two defeats, we settled down and functioned fine.
Admittedly, my own health dropped down to a 1/3 several times. I'd get a little concerned, but usually I had Dull Pain ready.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I am glad and humbled that you took the time to play with a group of people at the request of a PM.
I look forward to seeing your results on what you think of TAs performance.
A few points on Statesmans post on his Tanking experience. First lets look at his teams makeup.
[ QUOTE ]
Inv/Fire tanker (32, SKed to 49)
Level 50 Elec/Elec Blaster (it was his mission, set on Rugged)
Level 32 Peacebringer (SKed to 48 or so).
Level 48 MA/Inv scrapper
Level 50 Fire/Kin controller
Level 35 Earth/empathy controller (SKed up to 48)
Level 49 Energy/energy blaster
[/ QUOTE ]
And then lets look at the mission.
[ QUOTE ]
We faced the Carnival of Shadows.
[/ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else see what Im seeing here? Two Trollers, two heavy mezz Blasters, a Peacebringer, and a Scrapper with defenses that is almost as good as his own. And on a mission that he had no protection in.
Now, I may not be the best player out there but even I can tell that Statesman did not Tank this mission! He survived it. And he did so by taking on only what he could survive and letting the rest of the team do the actual work. Just looking at this groups makeup I can tell that the two Controllers were the ones who Tanker the mission while the two Blasters and Peracebringer wiped them out. The Scrapper, if he was doing his job, took out the danger spots. A Sidekicked Invulnerable Tank in a setting such as this would be little more than an XP leach.
Statesmans claim of one third of the agro is about right for one taunt. Of course that means that the rest of the team had to absorb the agro of all the rest of the spawn including the bosses while he went off to play with the Strongmen.
Without being there, and this is just an uneducated guess, this is how I see it actually went down;
Statesman started off by finding his Strongman and taunting him from outside the mob. *Shudder* (If he had done it the Tanker way and jumped into the mob before taunting he would have drawn a whole lot more agro than he would have wanted or could have handled.)
The two Trollers then hit the mob with their AoE holds/immobilizes which should have had the vast majority of them held, including the ones Statesman was playing with.
The Blasters open fire.
The Peacebringer opens fire.
The Scrapper goes after the bosses.
The Empath Troller heals Statesman.
They wipe out the spawn and go help Statesman with the Strongman.
The Empath heals Statesman again. 
They move on to the next mob.
Statesman comes to the boards and tells us all about his wonderful experiences with his Tank and how he did just fine with the new nerfs.
An Invulnerable Tank in a mission like this, with a team like this, would have been about as useless as a doorknob on a wall. If this is his vision of a Tanks usefulness the Tanks are truly dead. Any other AT could have contributed more to this team.
Last quote,
[ QUOTE ]
Well, no one was that familiar with their builds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Im sorry if this sounds insulting but to me it seems that the only one who was unfamiliar with their build was Statesman. The rest of the team took on a 7 man mission set on Rugged without an effective Tank and a XP leach. I would give them a thumbs up.
[ 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 ]
Inv/Fire tanker (32, SKed to 49)
Level 50 Elec/Elec Blaster (it was his mission, set on Rugged)
Level 32 Peacebringer (SKed to 48 or so).
Level 48 MA/Inv scrapper
Level 50 Fire/Kin controller
Level 35 Earth/empathy controller (SKed up to 48)
Level 49 Energy/energy blaster
[/ QUOTE ]
I would have had a different strategy myself. I would have had the blasters use targeters. One backs up the SKd Inv/Fire and the other backs up the MA/Inv.
I'd have been on the Mistress or Illusionist with Inv aura running. and have the Empath keep an eye on me.
The fire controller and peacebringer would be the wildcards assisting one of the 3 teams.
Team 1: Main assault draw the alpha and aggro.
Team 2: Assassin squad scrapper and a blaster work well here.
Team 3: Flank attack with fire and blaster largely wiping minions.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, no one was that familiar with their builds.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is VERY wrong. You might not be familiar with a new build but you should be very familiar with the powers being used after using them near 50 levels. I've changed builds and there is no adjustment time because each build has the same purpose and powers.
It seems to heavily imply those players unfamiliar were powerleveled States included.
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
[ 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.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
I just don't want people taking his example for gospel, because its as da5id said, its just a data point. Unfortunately, its a pretty bad one, and likely one you'd throw out in any true experiment.
As for his survival, its simple, every time he was running low on health (as in yellow or less) he would have most likely been dead considering he'd have had one third the DEF he had in his test.
Its not a matter of tearing it up, sometimes when something smells bad its just because its rotten.
[ 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.
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
[ QUOTE ]
have an AV Experience thread floating around that highlights this really well. in particular, PorkchopXpress and AmericanSpirit both submitted reports about battles with a +2 Nightstar. both teams included one Inv/Axe tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
AmericanSpirit is an Inv/SS tanker A small difference that didn't matter.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
i hate to bring up the over-used "never make an uninformed decision" argument, but to some degree it applies. if its hard to know you're going to be weaker in a particular situation, how will you know to change your tactics?
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is probably difference. I was teaming with a group which included some memebers I knew very well. Our tatics as a group handled Nightstar better.
Knowing your enemy helps too. I remember tanking Drake the first time with ED:
my thoughts: "What kind of damage does he give again...ah probably smashing/lethal with a few electric blasts like everyone else (right)".
So i went in charging at blazing speed with only 3 other teamates of different AT's...Thanks to Dull Pain and Unstoppable I barely made it out alive, but I beleive it would have gone better if we had some better tatics and perhaps more people.
[ QUOTE ]
Invulnerable tanks have to pick who they Tank against
(as shown in Statesman's post)
(3rd Ed) )
[/ QUOTE ]
Quoted for truth 
This is coming from a guy who thought Invul Tankers needed a huge nerf.
In a balanced place I'd expect a good tanker to at least be able to hold close to 100% aggro of 1.5-2 spawns and survive for long enough for a quick team to defeat them with minimal support, but indefinately with strong support.
I say 1.5-2 spawns because those are the crisis situations that tanks are expected to step up for in most gameplay situations.
For single spawns, a tank should have the capability to survive the single spawn's aggro for long enough that a slow team could defeat them, with minimal support.
The challenge for a tanker should NOT be his inability to survive. Our primary powers reduced this far means that we do not bring enough to a team to really make a difference compared to other ATs. Our defensive abilities are rather passive things, and barring certain clustering techniques to maximize the borked Invincibility there really is no player skill on a tanker's part that can improve raw defensive ability.
What once made a good tank, and what should make a good tank in the future is player skill in aggro control in chaotic situations. It currently takes no skill to get more aggro than a tank can survive. This is not to say "nerf our aggro control powers so they are as bad as our defenses". Rather give us more intelligent and challenging game mechanisms that make us WORK to protect our teammates and defensive level that makes such work worthwhile.
Taunt and Aggro themselves are a poor game mechanic, and immersion breaking. I realize how hard this is to fix, but many people have suggested alternate mechanisms.