[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. Rushing to get Prestige is futile in the current system anyway, so no need. We will get it a base when we get it. My level 50 sugar mamas will take care of any future young uns for me. 
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
[ QUOTE ]
I watched close to a billion influence get turned into prestige yesterday.
[/ QUOTE ]
Get about 20 prestige out of that? 
[ QUOTE ]
Scorus, it seems from your sig you play a stone tank. YOUR character is still able to hold aggro and survive it fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I expected this, though not in the first response. 
The premise is incorrect. Pre-granite took severe hits both from I5 and ED. Granite didn't take a hit as far as surviving, but it took a huge hit in the "able to hold aggro." Without Hasten, the huge -SPD component of Granite makes holding aggro on a large scale very problematic. I don't mean that it is impossible, but it is very difficult. Imagine trying to keep aggro while under the influence of 2-3 swarms and you'll get the idea of the challenges.
I've tested ED at the mid-20s, mid-30s, and mid-40s (I keep old versions of my character on the test server). If I push the envelope with my character the way I used to, then I and/or my teammates die. If I make sure that I take the aggro from the most dangerous enemies in a group and my teammates understand that none of us can get away with what we used to, everybody walks away.
Scorus
Scorus, you bring up some good points, but, if the most dangerous mob in the group, say for a 6 man team, is the boss, then were does that leave the scrapper? They are the boss killers, not us. Yes, we could taunt the boss and the scrapper could take them, but, if we can hold the boss for a while, then wouldn't the scrapper become more useful whittling the spawn down? Course, if that happens then the scrappers are no longer the boss killers. I like the idea of a tank wading through lots of minions, being able to whip through them fairly quickly. I also like the idea that a tank should be able to stand up to, and kill a boss eventually . I just had the idea while typing this, if we are to be able to stand up to 17 mobs, mostly made of minions, what does that say about how powerful minions are? We give up a lot to be tanks, damage for one thing. Speed of leveling for another. In exchange we get to be able to take the most beating in the game. Right now, we have give up alot and are not able to get our reward, and for me, being a tank, my reward is making sure my teams live and that I live. My teams will tell you, If I'm going down, I'll faceplant, I'm not scared of debt, but I let them know it so they can run. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should be able to do what we used to. We were to overpowered, but now, we are to underpowered. A happy medium has to be found.
Prof
hey Tom, count me in or whatever testing you're doing on test. either PM me here or send me a tell @MrYukon ingame if i'm on.
50 Dark/Psi defender
50 invul/ss tank
38 fire/stone tank
28 dark/regen scrapper
im willing to help somehwat in test too tom.
From what i am doing now.. im trying a somewhat different tactic. Im going the AoE route with my Invul/fire tanker ( fire sword circle and combustion) and im looking at the presense power set.
WHY you ask? good question.. let me tell you why.
I want to get the INVOKE PANIC power... that thing generates TONS of AGGRO.. ok its not as good as a controler... but the power in itself is awsome...
so that means i have to trade out TAUNT for provoke ( no big whoop.. taunt was nefed to hell anyway) , and that means i have to get rid of 2 local attack powers. In the long run.. this gives me 3 AoE attack powers and one that will generate AGGRO like a mutha.... ALSO a nice side effect of invoke panic is that for 30 seconds they stand there and cower unless attacked, and when it wares off you get attacked.
that 30 seconds may make the difference between your team celebrating or eating jello in the emergency ward in paragon city!
just a thought..
"Lokk, you have a powersuit that is self-contained, can withstand any atmosphere, it can fly and shoot out energy beams. BUT you cant open the helmet to have coffee and doughnts??? Sad man.... just... sad" PatriotPrime asking me why I am angry all the time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scorus, it seems from your sig you play a stone tank. YOUR character is still able to hold aggro and survive it fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I expected this, though not in the first response.
The premise is incorrect. Pre-granite took severe hits both from I5 and ED. Granite didn't take a hit as far as surviving, but it took a huge hit in the "able to hold aggro." Without Hasten, the huge -SPD component of Granite makes holding aggro on a large scale very problematic. I don't mean that it is impossible, but it is very difficult. Imagine trying to keep aggro while under the influence of 2-3 swarms and you'll get the idea of the challenges.
[/ QUOTE ]
<sigh> I was refering to only your post granite build. That's why I refer to granite tanks, rather than stone tanks.Of course I realize your pre-granite stone tank took a big hit. My "premise" is only that your ability to still be a tank post-32 colors your judgement.
[ QUOTE ]
I've tested ED at the mid-20s, mid-30s, and mid-40s (I keep old versions of my character on the test server). If I push the envelope with my character the way I used to, then I and/or my teammates die. If I make sure that I take the aggro from the most dangerous enemies in a group and my teammates understand that none of us can get away with what we used to, everybody walks away.
Scorus
[/ QUOTE ]
For your pre-granite tests, another AT would have provided more than your stone tank could have. That is the point. Not that we can't do what statesman did, but rather that what he brings (and what you bring, by the sounds of your 'tests') is minimal compared to what another AT could bring to the same team.
To Reiterate again: This is not about comparing what we could do before. It is pointing out that our "roles" have been reduced so far as to be nonexistent. With the support we require to truly tank for a team, a scraper could do the same. With our meagre abilities without support, the team would surive more easily with a defender or controller, or with another scrapper to kill things more quickly. Your own anecdotal evidence supports this!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scorus, it seems from your sig you play a stone tank. YOUR character is still able to hold aggro and survive it fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I expected this, though not in the first response.
The premise is incorrect. Pre-granite took severe hits both from I5 and ED. Granite didn't take a hit as far as surviving, but it took a huge hit in the "able to hold aggro." Without Hasten, the huge -SPD component of Granite makes holding aggro on a large scale very problematic. I don't mean that it is impossible, but it is very difficult. Imagine trying to keep aggro while under the influence of 2-3 swarms and you'll get the idea of the challenges.
I've tested ED at the mid-20s, mid-30s, and mid-40s (I keep old versions of my character on the test server). If I push the envelope with my character the way I used to, then I and/or my teammates die. If I make sure that I take the aggro from the most dangerous enemies in a group and my teammates understand that none of us can get away with what we used to, everybody walks away.
Scorus
[/ QUOTE ]
hasten cannot be permaed anymore but you only get minimal downtime if you keep it about 40 seconds or so. I don't get why stone tanks would respect out of it all of the sudden just because you can't perma it. The benefits still outweight the cost and besides all of us were affected by the changes to hasten.
[ QUOTE ]
My problem is that the test is skewed and he knows it - Invincibility is broken, and he's not yet given a fair announcement about it to the masses. And its going on close to two weeks since he notified me that it was broken in exactly the way I stated it was broken, though providing more of a bonus than I had thought.
He was getting, assuming 3 slotted for DEF and even level SOs, avout 7% DEF per mob that surrounded him. Figuring his 1/3 of that mob he had around 6 or 7 mobs on him, which means he was getting about 42% or 49% DEF total plus the @2.5% you net with Tough Hide less Unyielding penalty.
If Invinc were working properly he'd be at 14% or 16.4% +2.5%.
So he'd have been getting hit much more, taking much more damage, and considering he was riding at 1/3 health several times, you can consider that each of those times he would have been more than likely dead had his defense been where its intended to be.
So I personally find his test, and his portrayal of it to be a bit ludicrous. Which is why I can't take it seriously.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, come on ... Statesman wouldn't release a faulty statement regarding what someone can do when they're going to just nerf that possibility in a few weeks ... I mean, it's not like he said we could six-slot powers for maximum effectiveness right before we couldn't do that anymore, right?
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, come on ... Statesman wouldn't release a faulty statement regarding what someone can do when they're going to just nerf that possibility in a few weeks ... I mean, it's not like he said we could six-slot powers for maximum effectiveness right before we couldn't do that anymore, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
I also find it very ironic that statesman would say people aren't familiar with their builds, I mean it's not like he makes major changes to the game all the time without proper implimentation or informing the playerbase right?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: PorkchopXpress
.
I feel sorry for States sometimes.
.
He comes here and posts his results, probably in very good faith - and hoping to possibly help us to reach some AT determinations and move forward.
.
What he gets is a verbal beatdown that his tanking A) sucked and B) that the AT sucks. Well, both are probably true 
, but at least he tried. Maybe this will help to promote some future dialog amongst Devs and players about the seemingly widespread discontent amongst the Tankers AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel sorrier for the team that invited him expecting him to tank and all he did was target S/L minions (Strongmen) that were the least threat to the team. I mean $deity at least aggro an LT that is a little more dangerous.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. When was the last time you were on a team that called up a tank to deal with S/L mobs?
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
[ QUOTE ]
<sigh> I was refering to only your post granite build.
[/ QUOTE ]
*sigh* 5 of the 6 sentences in my response that you quoted referred to my post granite build. Apologies if the first sentence concerning pre granite forced you to stop reading there.
[ QUOTE ]
My "premise" is only that your ability to still be a tank post-32 colors your judgement.
[/ QUOTE ]
Enough Inv and other non-Stone Tankers have reported still being able to tank effectively post-32 that I believe your premise to be incorrect.
[ QUOTE ]
For your pre-granite tests, another AT would have provided more than your stone tank could have.
[/ QUOTE ]
More what? Not a rhetorical question, I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about. More crowd control, damage, buffing, debuffing? Yes. More aggro control and damage soaking? No. If the other categories are more important than what Tankers can and have always been able to do, then the question isn't redefinition as much as definition.
These debates sound like cut-and-paste versions of the old Controller concerns that they were unnecessary because of the Tankers ability to control things, the arguments that got Taunt and Provoke to briefly require accuracy enhancements to get them to land. And they seem rooted in one big concern:
Tankers are no longer needed.
And, you know what? That is a good thing. No AT should be needed. For a good while, we were. After the changes to Scrapper defense and resistance, it became suicide to go into certain encounters, the ones that large groups seek out, without a good Tanker. That is no longer the case, it is now possible for a well-balanced team without Tankers to take these groups and encounters.
But unnecessary is not the same as useless! No one should be necessary and everyone should be useful. As I said in my original message, it is a matter of perspective. People are comparing our usefulness now to the necessity that we were before and finding our desirability wanting. I can understand that, but I team with an Inv tank all the time and I wouldn't trade him on the team for any other AT. His ability to get where he needs to be to draw aggro for the team quickly is a wonderful complement to my ability to stand in one place and take a truly incredible amount of damage. He has powers and player skills that every person in the party knows keeps them from ending up face down on a regular basis.
[ QUOTE ]
To Reiterate again: This is not about comparing what we could do before. It is pointing out that our "roles" have been reduced so far as to be nonexistent.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know what you are trying to say even if the two sentences here are contradictory. But enough tankers have proven themselves to be not only 'existent' but full and effective parts of teams, that it again reminds me of the old Controller arguments. They were wrong about being useless and I think those of us that believe we are also in that category are also.
Scorus
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
What about Solo tanks?
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 
Scorus, I would really like to be wrong about the AT having a role that is still well differentiate from what the other ATs could provide.
It's not a matter of tanks not being "needed" or "necessary" it is a matter of tanks bringing nothing that another AT cannot provide. It is a matter of our primaries not actually affecting our value to a team. You only value tanks on the team because it is what you have always done , rather than any inherant value they now bring.
If you look at your performance objectively, without the bias of your pre-I5 teaming habits, I think you will find this to be true.
You and othe tankers who are reporting you can tank, but at a reduced level, don't realize that at this reduced level, we are better replaced by someone else. A scrapper is just as survivable in a team sitatuation with heavy support. On a team with minimal support a defender or controller would provide even the weakest defensive character with more damage mitigiation than your tanker could bring.
Please, examine this honestly, without the bias of your pre I5 teaming experiences. Tell me what you think your tanker brings that another AT cannot. Our abilities to control aggro (mainly through a nice-to-have inherant and our secondary I might add) has been rendered moot except in extreme support situatoins, because we can no longer handle the aggro that is ridiculously easy to draw. (And in those same heavy support situations the defenders/controllers are going to be able to make everyone on the team a psuedo-tank, rendering aggro control again moot) In what situations do our primaries distinguish us? In what situations is the marginal value we bring due to being a larger bag of HP and caps?
ADDENDUM: In regards to your controller cannard, their argument was always that tanks provided better aggro control than they did. To a certain extent, this was true because of how overpowered we were in I4, and how dumb the aggro control game mechanic is, but it ignores the supremacy of status control vs aggro control. Despite what you may think the argument "sounds" like, the comparison is not a good one. Controllers did not require any outside support in order to perform aggro control. Tanks currently require heavy support to do the same, beyond the pathetic kind of tanking that Statesman demonstrated. Without this supportwe are mearly low damage scrappers, with marginally superior survivability (which is most likely more than cancelled out because of the ease at which we draw extra aggro which we can no longer handle).
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
the whole point of trying to catalog AV performance of tanks is to try to bring some understanding to why tanks are experiencing such vastly different results in tanking the same AV's. certainly some of this is due to teaming, but i think you underestimate the effect of simple buffs on outcome.
a +2 AV battling an Inv tank with 3-slotted Invinc/UY/TH is likely to have about 90% accuracy against the tank. give that same tank 3-slotted Fortitude and that drops to 40%. that one simple buff is going to have a huge impact on the tank's ability to tank the AV. so it might be a little less surprising that, on the tougher AV battles, tanks perform noticably better when Empaths are included on the team, as compared to the inclusion of other types of Defenders/Controllers.
[ 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.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
Hey Tom, I may be out of town that weekend for a russian judo clinic but I'll see if I can make it.
Let me think on the test parameters for a bit. It is important to choose parameters that allow us to potentially see what we suspect, but also not to bias it so that we MUST see what we expect. Of course many level ranges is important, as the CoH dynamic changes vastly as powersets and ATs come into their own.
The problem with this kind of test is that you'd always like to run it with ALL possible combinations, but of course that is impractical. You'd need at least one or two different team combinations for each of
<ul type="square">[*]minimal support [*]medium support[*]heavy support[/list]as well as several spare ATs that can come in. To not bias the results it would be better if we tried testing each AT in turn to replace the tank, rather than just the scrapper or defender/controller, with enough shakedown time for a group to find it's equilibrium in discussion and testing.
I'll think on it a bit more and get back to you.
Tanks just have no shine. When a defender or controller can buff an AT to near the same defense or security what do you need a tank for? Tanks worst nightmare is a Dark Armor scrapper with a bubble defender in the team. Dark Armor has the best over all resistance that includes Psionics, add the defence of a bubbler and you have a nearly unbeatable Tanker, that can deal good damage, heal and gather end.....these become even more gross if they are a Dark / Dark scrapper. I have never played one, but have a FF defender and seen this "thing" in action, manytimes, and shed a tear for any tank that saw it. With all of the nerfs, and ED coming into play as well, Tanks and Scrappers are starting to become the VERY same thing minus one is slightly more damage focused, and the other slightly more defense focued. At the hire end game not really enough to offset them from eachother. A sad world for tanks 
Stoner signing in.
I'm actually not here to say we're fine and everything is hunky dory. We ARE doing okay when solo, and can tank for teams as long as the teams realize our reduced status, and that they have to carry their weight now. That includes strategy, buffs for us, healing, debuffs on the baddies, etc.
My Stone/Fire does okay, but I've noticed that when solo, I need to use Granite far more often once the mobs get above 5-ish in number. So when teaming that happens a fair bit. If the team does't support me, presuming that I'm a tank so I can do it (like I could even Pre-ED), I either faceplant or need to pop into Granite for a bit. After the mob thins, I can return to my other armors and speed up the mop up.
I now request buffs from the team and they need to put extensive resources into me. When I'm at half I need a slotted dull pain, no other heal will cut it.
Here's my Numbers
Normal Mode
27.5 Def from Rock Armor and Combat Jumping.
15% Res from a base slotted Stone Skin.
Crystal has 27.5 Def
Minerals has 25 (due to CJ not stacking on it except for positional defense.
Granite Mode
31.2 Def vs all but Psi and Toxic
93% res S/L
78% for all the rest except Psi.
This is with Granite 3xDef, 3xRes and Stone Skin w/base Res. All at even enh.
Obviously Granite is the best choice bar none. Even better Def. Takes a lot longer to take down mobs though with the speed and dam debuff.
So, can I tank? Yes.
Do I use more resources than any other character on the team? Also yes.
Can I be replaced by a scrapper or other AT? No, but only because of my HP. Others will be one shotted where I'll only go deep orange or red. At which point a slotted Absorb Pain is the only heal worth throwing at me.
We're not tecnically tanks anymore. More... armored cars.
@bpphantom
The Defenders of Paragon
KGB Special Section 8
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good idea, Tom, I'd be happy to help. Although given all the various numbers we posted related to Issue 5 and ED, and the amount of change (zero) that came from that, I wonder how much anything we find will matter. Still, I'm a math nerd at heart, and collecting the data and analyzing it is kinda fun on its own.
I'm thought about this a little and came up with a straw man for a test format. Should be a good starting point. Ya'll pick this apart, I'll revise it, get a good solid plan down.
Mission Selection: I recommend two missions, L40-45, one with Freaks and one with Crey. Freaks are smash/lethal heavy, but also do pretty major energy damage and have a ridiculous number of sleep and stun effects. Also their self-rez makes for an interesting aggro-control challenge sometimes. Crey have a ton of cold and energy damage (depending on which Lts spawn), as well as smash/lethal, and Paragon Protectors really test the ability of a tanker if you get a couple unkillable ones in MoG-mode pounding on you. Note that I'm not suggesting Carnies - we know that all tanks have trouble with Psionics, testing that serves no purpose.
Specifically, the 'Rescue Vivian Van Dyne' Freak mission would be good for the Freak side. It has a ton of Freaks, being outdoor, and there's an AV we can test against without losing the mission. Just have to be careful not to rescue the hostage. For Crey, ideally we'd have someone of the right level that hasn't done Mark IV's SO store mission - just pick that one up. Or any mission in the Countess Crey arc would work fine, so long as we're careful not to complete it.
Team Selection: A full team of 8 is probably not feasible since people have time constraints, so I'm thinking 6. That forces the mobs to +1 level, always a concern for tanking, and if we set to Tenacious/Unyeilding difficulty there should be plenty of bosses. Ideally everyone would be within a level or two, probably in the 42-44 range. I suggest one Scrapper, two Blasters, one Defender, and one Controller. The powersets shouldn't matter a lot as long as we keep them consistent across tests, although it would be a good idea to avoid Invulnerability scrappers (since they tend to be the most tank-like scrappers and could skew the tanker's results) and to make sure the defender and controller aren't both the same set (since doubling up on any defender primary, with the possible exception of trick arrow, has the potential to massively reduce reliance on the team's own powers).
Ideal in my mind would be the following:
<ul type="square">[*]Gravity/Empathy controller. Gravity is a nice 'average' controller to test with - the set has excellent holds, including the Singularity, but lacks the soft controls like Ice Slick or Earthquake which are extrememly friendly to tankers. (Just look at how much a Fire/Ice tanker depends on Ice Patch, which isn't even as good as those controller versions.) The Empathy secondary won't be quite as effective as a similar defender, but the difference is negligible, especially once you get to 40+ and have plenty of slots.[*]Dark/Regen scrapper. Regen is a very common secondary still, even after all the nerfs (and there have been plenty), so it works well for a test team. The Dark primary is lacking in AoEs but the single target damage is excellent, which means that it is less likely the scrapper will be stealing a lot of aggro from the tanker.[*]Rad/Rad defender. The Radiation primary is a good jack-of-all-trades set, from healing to buffing to debuffing. Not quite the offensive punch of Kinetics, but Rad. Infection and Lingering Radiation give better defensive help. The secondary isn't all that important, really, but I see a lot of Rad/Rads so it's likely we'll find one.[*]Fire/Fire blaster. These guys are a true test of aggro-management skill for the tanker. AoEs everywhere. When we get to testing other ATs in place of tankers, we'll want to have someone with the massive AoE attacks that tend to cause aggro loss without a firm Taunt in place.[*]Energy/Energy blaster. Good single target damage, plus that annoying knockback that can also seriously test aggro management.[/list]Test Execution: Start by running both missions with the above team plus an Invuln tanker. This is the control test, to familiarize everyone with the mission. Using Invuln here makes sense, given that we know Invincibility is bugged and don't want real numbers anyway.
Next, run both missions 3 more times, once with each tanker primary that we want to test: Stone, Ice, and Fire. That should give us a fair baseline of how the team behaves with a tanker. Obviously the Stone test will be different than the other two, with Granite as an option.
Finally, run both missions 7 more times, once with the tank slot replaced by: any controller, any blaster, a Invuln scrapper, a non-Invuln scrapper, a FF/Sonic defender, and non-FF/Sonic defender, and a Kheldian (either type will do, I think). In each case we should try to avoid duplicating sets where possible. I listed Invuln scrappers separate because of their 'tankishness' with Invincibility, and FF/Sonics seperately because they boost the team's defenses directly, often nearly to tanker levels.
So that means we're running a total of 22 missions. If we spend about a half hour per mission, not an unreasonable time considering swapping toons, recording results, and the inevitable breaks that people will need, we're talking about 11 hours of testing. Split up over two weekend days, that becomes a more reasonable 5-6 hours each day.
Skip
My Char. List and Market Transactions
HeroStats Developer
Legion of Valor
Iron Eagles
I'd be happy to lend a hand testing.
I have a Rad/Rad level 32 if you need for testing. I play mostly on guardian but can surely copy to test if that's where the testing is to take place. I also have a Rad/Ene level 27.
My other Guardian Guys are:
fire/fire tank level 32
Stone/Stone level 27
Inv /SS level 39
PB with White Dwarf level 27
Broadsword/Regen level 50
I have a couple folk on other servers think one or two are in their 20s Inv/WM and Emp/Ele I think but haven't used them in a while, pre-I4 I think, maybe even pre-I3.
Good start bob. Remember what we are testing here is the relative contribution tanks make to teams. I presume we will do this quantitatively using XP/second or some such method, and qualitatively with anectdotal description of the play experience.
However given that I think varying the team composition is an essential component for the test. At least with teams of varying support/control/damage levels are necessary to see how tanks behave in each situation. Of couse the more variation we need, the harder it will be to find enough people with enough toons to test everything.
[ QUOTE ]
However given that I think varying the team composition is an essential component for the test. At least with teams of varying support/control/damage levels are necessary to see how tanks behave in each situation. Of couse the more variation we need, the harder it will be to find enough people with enough toons to test everything.
[/ QUOTE ]
We may need two different tests. I wrote my post under the assumption that we were testing whether a tanker could be effectively replaced by other ATs. If we're also going to test how each tank contributes with different types of support, we should probably keep those tests separate.
Skip
My Char. List and Market Transactions
HeroStats Developer
Legion of Valor
Iron Eagles
[ 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.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."