[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so I'm not sure what you are saying here. That locking down one/third of the spawn is enough for a Controller, but not enough for a Tanker? If it isn't enough for a tanker, why not?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the problem with it is, that controllers can do more than just lock down 1/3 of the mobs. A *lot* more. I think of my illusion controller friend (I have not ever played a controller past level 10 or so). He got to 50... Illus/Rad. In a typical go at a large spawn:
1. He group invises us (= buffs us)
2. He accel matabolizes us (= buffs us even more)
3. He summons a pet that follows him around.
4. He turns invisible, runs into the middle of the spawn, and flashes them, locking (let's say for argument's sake) 1/3 of them down. His pet(s) that are following him, now go after a few more with an AOE etc.
5. He heals and single-target holds as needed.
Meanwhile, as a tanker, what can I bring to the table?
1. Lock down 1/3 of the mobs and...
....?
Do a little damage? Not enough to be worth even mentioning, really. Beyond that, what do I do.
The problem is the controller can lock down 1/3 of the mobs plus do a bunch more things for the team, including occupying another chunk beyond his 1/3 with pets and single-target lockdowns. All with zero (or near zero) chance of aggroing because he holds (aggro = zero during the hold) or his pet gets the aggro.
Meanwhile, at best I can lock down, and slightly damage, the guys "stuck" to my tanker.
This is why I think tankers are complaning. The only thing they could do was keep things stuck to them, so when keeping things stuck to them becomes hard or less effective, it's a major nerf.
The controller meanwhile, going from full spawn to 1/3 spawn lockdown, still has tons of other stuff he can do.
F
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, its so obvious readying your post Spirit where my frustration has been coming from! While I'm on the one big guy (whom I usually make a bee line towards to get agro) everyone else takes down all the minions. Then, they come over and finish the boss I've been whittling away at. End result? I held one person; the whole team did all the fun takedowns. My contribution? I kept one boss at bay (mathematically equal to 1/3rd agro by difficulty). And, if I get more agro than that, I have to run. Embarrassing. Before, I could hold all agro while the team took down everyone. Now, not so much. Yep, wonderful post.
GP,
I don't think the problem is that you can't hold as much as before, by itself. That's true of controllers too. Why aren't they having as many problems/issues?
Because they can do lots else besides hold, and tankers basically can't. As a dominator (controller-esque) in COV, my plant/thorn can single-target hold a boss by stacking 2 holds on him. Once she gets him held, she can just re-apply each time the hold re-charges, and in between those times, can attack, confuse, immobilize, and otherwise deal with lots of other enemies. In other words, she has options. The tanker really doesn't.
When the ONLY thing you can do is lockdown and lockdown gets nerfed in one way or another, it feels a lot worse than when lockdown is just ONE of your duties (along with healing, pet control, etc).
F
[ QUOTE ]
End result? I held one person; the whole team did all the fun takedowns. My contribution? I kept one boss at bay (mathematically equal to 1/3rd agro by difficulty). And, if I get more agro than that, I have to run.
[/ QUOTE ]
Probably technically not true actually. Not that you would have noticed too much though. Unless the group was very spread out, odds are that your punchvoke was taking some aggro from the odd minion or two that was around the boss, which kept that minion from attacking a teammate, and let the teammate cut loose more/longer, but you certainly didn't look cool doing it. This goes to the "Active defense" things that people have talked about. In this case an "I grab the minion and beat the boss with him" scenario would have a similar effect, but look oh sooo much cooler. I'd trade in most of the whirling attacks for a 2 enemy nailer like that (not sure if others agree with that), basically weakening my damage output against large groups for the sheer coolness of tossing minions around.
But that's about secondaries.
When it comes to primaries, tanks are about NOT taking damage, and making that look cool can be done, but is tricky at best, and it's clear that the artwork isn't there for that.
Picking a guy up and hurling him at another guy would be too cool. I agree. 
F
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, she has options. The tanker really doesn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't scrappers have the same problem as tankers i.e. they hit stuff and get hit? Tho, they don't seem that they do. Is their "coolness" factor merely a function of their higher dmg? Which may be GP's point... that tankers just don't arrest anything, they merely distract.
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't scrappers have the same problem as tankers i.e. they hit stuff and get hit? Tho, they don't seem that they do. Is their "coolness" factor merely a function of their higher dmg? Which may be GP's point... that tankers just don't arrest anything, they merely distract.
[/ QUOTE ]
Defeating stuff is cool. Big damage numbers are thus cool, because they translate to defeating things faster. Big numbers are relative or course, as is time to defeat/arrest. Being mezzed is uncool (and a big problem for Blasters), a problem that tankers and scrappers do not have for the most part.
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't scrappers have the same problem as tankers i.e. they hit stuff and get hit? Tho, they don't seem that they do. Is their "coolness" factor merely a function of their higher dmg?
[/ QUOTE ]
OK I am not going to speak to the coolness factor. But just in terms of why don't scrappers have the same problems... the idea is that both scrappers and tankers (and to an extent blasters) are one-trick ponies. Tankers absorb damage; scrappers deal it out. So why are tankers more unhappy?
I think the reason is that the one trick scrappers have is ACTIVE, and the trick that tankers have is PASSIVE. And for most players, active > passive in terms of fun.
F
Ok, if its active vs passive, is not our secondary the active side? Like Mr Yukon pointed out in his thread, our secondaries provide additional dmg mitigation like status effects (save */fire).
If defense should be our active half (which makes sense to me given its our primary), what would you suggest to make it active?
Oh I was just explaining why people are grumbling.... Not proposing that they change tankers. Inherently a tank in any standard MMO is more passive than active.
F
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't scrappers have the same problem as tankers i.e. they hit stuff and get hit? Tho, they don't seem that they do. Is their "coolness" factor merely a function of their higher dmg?
[/ QUOTE ]
OK I am not going to speak to the coolness factor. But just in terms of why don't scrappers have the same problems... the idea is that both scrappers and tankers (and to an extent blasters) are one-trick ponies. Tankers absorb damage; scrappers deal it out. So why are tankers more unhappy?
I think the reason is that the one trick scrappers have is ACTIVE, and the trick that tankers have is PASSIVE. And for most players, active > passive in terms of fun.
F
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, scrappers aren't exactly one trick ponies. While yes they do have high offensive capability, they can also actually tank for small groups, or for larger groups with plenty of assistance. While their ability to Tank the way a Tanker can is no where near as good and it does require more of a team effort for a Scrapper to do so.
Also, I would not call the current Tanker passive in its role. The old stand in one place and only hit Taunt when it recharges (Taunt-bot) while still possible is certainly no where near the potential a Tanker can reach.
With Gauntlet and Aura-voke, a Tanker is much more active in its role than it used to be before these tools were added to the AT.
One could also point out that a Tanker is not only a meatshield, but in effect is a form of control. By keeping enemies focused on itself, the Tanker effectively removes those enemies from combat for the rest of the team to handle either what is left, or take out what the Tanker is "cotrolling".
Now do not take this as a statement that Tankers are as good at controlling in the sence a Controller is. The 2 ATs use distinctively differnt abilities to control, and one would note that the Tanker version of controlling can place the Tanker at risk more so over that of a controller (using more than just group immoblize 
)
A contoller is not a one trick pony either. As it can both control and defend.
A defender is probably the most versatile. Most sets (contrary to the many players out there that ask R U H3al0R ?!) can be used to buff, debuff, and / or control. They can also be used offensively in conjuction with their debuffs / buffs. While the offense is no where near as high or efficient as Blasters, many set combos can be quite effective at damage dealing.
The only true one-trick pony is a Blaster. While some can "blap" they are no where near the in-melee capability of a scrapper. However, given the proper assistance, I have seen high level blasters actually "scrap or *tank*" for small man (2-3) teams. Truly impressive. However, within their own AT, currently cannot perform a multi-function like the other hero ATs.
I'm trying to explore the nebulous areas of coolness, fun and game play. It's a question that has been avoided on these forums (for good reasons sure). But even tho there is no right or wrong answer, i think it still is a good question to ask and discuss. I would think Cryptic would want to know why people gravitate toward and like playing a particular AT.
Why play a tanker? What is fun about playing a tanker? Why do ppl play tankers until lvl 50? Or has I5/I6 ensured the death of a tanker legacy? If so, how? Bc we're less tough?
To me, tankers should play differently than scrappers. In practice, they do but bc of my role. As tanker, I look out for the team first, looking to grab aggro and looking at teammates health bars. As scrapper, I look for quick arrests. Both offer different game play experiences, and I look to one or the other depending on my mood.
I'm not sure if I have a point here. I'm trying to get at the "psychology of a tanker".
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to explore the nebulous areas of coolness, fun and game play. It's a question that has been avoided on these forums (for good reasons sure). But even tho there is no right or wrong answer, i think it still is a good question to ask and discuss. I would think Cryptic would want to know why people gravitate toward and like playing a particular AT.
Why play a tanker? What is fun about playing a tanker? Why do ppl play tankers until lvl 50? Or has I5/I6 ensured the death of a tanker legacy? If so, how? Bc we're less tough?
To me, tankers should play differently than scrappers. In practice, they do but bc of my role. As tanker, I look out for the team first, looking to grab aggro and looking at teammates health bars. As scrapper, I look for quick arrests. Both offer different game play experiences, and I look to one or the other depending on my mood.
I'm not sure if I have a point here. I'm trying to get at the "psychology of a tanker".
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok I'll take a crack at the coolness factor. Everything cool about a Tank is what everyone else hates. They say its bad for the game.
What was cool to me was jumping into a massive spawn of bad guys punching swinging and thus getting nailed by tons of various attacks with flashy effects and cool heavy death-knell sounds and SURVIVING ON MY OWN.
That was cool! Like the Thor or Hulk or Ironman comics wading into hordes of badguys, taking damage and being an inexhorable force. Even though my damage was slow it was heavy and with the right knockback effects made for some cool still shots.
What was cool was watching the health bars of your team and if you saw trouble or if a team mate was fleeing being pursued by bad guys that meant him/her serious hurt you could leap into their path and give them pause then have them swing at you.
What was cool was knowing you could take the hurt. Not being a namby pamby oooh he has energy damage I better not fight him. Oooh she uses fire or cold I can't stand up to that better let somebody else with less protection but more power handle this.
Even facing psi enemies you didn't flinch you knew you had to do what needed to be done.
What was cool was that he was the closest thing to be a self sufficent hero next to a Defender or Controller (in the late game).
That is my opinion. Now others want to Skrank and some want to be a meatshield. What used to be cool about this game for me was that you could be any or all of those things. Not quite anymore.
And before anyone leaps to the conclusion that I'm talking about standing in a sea of +8 or +20 or +2000 purples or whatever exaggeration they want to use this week, no I'm not.
I fought things that could hurt me. Sometimes I lived sometimes I died. Solo and teamed. I didn't pick and choose and run and hide. The tank was the guy that was supposed to be undeniable force in attack and the unyielding defense when under assault. He was there to the last to hold the line if necessary to advance the line when possible.
Tanks didn't have to be weakened to balance against other ATs. Other ATs and NPCs should have been given the tools to deal with them. I still maintain armor piercing enhancements to attacks (done right!) would have allowed Tanks to still be whatever their creator chose and allow others to shine in teams, if being "unkillable" was really all of the big deal its made out to have been.
Just my opinions, my apologies if in my passion I spoke harshly or derisively.
Some will doubeltess disagree as is their right. I state my opinion and they can state their own.
Shell game: Arc_ID:417344: It can't be good for humanity if the Circle of Thorns, Banished Pantheon and The Vahzilok are making deals.
A Final Solution: Arc_ID:402587: Earth is under stress. Every being she has spawned and some she hasn't want to possess her. Some of her children believe they have a way to put a stop to this and bring a peace.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to explore the nebulous areas of coolness, fun and game play. It's a question that has been avoided on these forums (for good reasons sure). But even tho there is no right or wrong answer, i think it still is a good question to ask and discuss.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's been said on the boards that each new issue of COH give less and less leeway for "concept characters" to survive. One of the stated goals by the devs was to have a system that was essentially "gimp-proof." But because the way that some people have been able to play their ATs exceptionally well, they've taken more and more away from everyone. The exceptional player, who reads the forums, and studies the numbers behind the game via hero planner and damage per second parsers has been able to keep pace. I've done fine with my tank. I don't feel *that* gimped. But I've had to ditch a lot of my treasured concepts for cold hard min max gaming reality to still kick butt in a way that satisfies me at the end of the day. But where does this leave the casual players? In gamer's hell. It sucks when casual players (or newbies to a particular AT) ask questions and they get the inevitable response of "well *I* doing great, so you're wrong and don't know anything you're talking about, so go back to playing your old archetype, which btw is teh suq." I have friends that play more casually, and they get really frustrated with how things are. I suggest that they use Hero Planner or scour the boards for more info to make their time easier. Their response? "If it takes that much work to have fun then it isn't fun anymore." I have a high tolerance for rooting out info. Others don't. This is a problem and I really hope the devs look into it more closely and with a mind for people other than the veterans.
Can't say any more than what you've said. "Self Sufficient Hero" not uber gods. That's what I signed up for. 
What was cool to me was jumping into a massive spawn of bad guys punching swinging and thus getting nailed by tons of various attacks with flashy effects and cool heavy death-knell sounds and SURVIVING ON MY OWN.
That was cool! Like the Thor or Hulk or Ironman comics wading into hordes of badguys, taking damage and being an inexhorable force. Even though my damage was slow it was heavy and with the right knockback effects made for some cool still shots.
What was cool was watching the health bars of your team and if you saw trouble or if a team mate was fleeing being pursued by bad guys that meant him/her serious hurt you could leap into their path and give them pause then have them swing at you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Outstanding Chatman, exaclty my impression of a tank. Exactly the reason to play a tank, and what the term "tank" represents. A nice description of the fun factor of being a tank. All in all, a very good description of how I used to play. 
[ QUOTE ]
a massive spawn of bad guys
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats the main kicker so many people are having a problem with. The number of bad guys Tanks can take on has changed dramatically from I4 to now.
The Tanker that is complained about the most? Invulnerability. Probably because it is one of the most common tank types around. Also it experienced the most down grade changes during these past issues.
The question is, do the players need to redefine their perception of what a Tanker can now do and let go of the past?
Or, is it that other ATs (at a similar level to given established Tank) can take on the same number of villians **with the same style of tactics** and out tank a Tanker? - This has yet to be proven true. Plenty of opinion and speculation, but no proof.
The other issue is how the Tank does its job. There have been a ton of ideas thrown around out there, many repeated in this thread and a few other recent ones like it.
Yet Tanks are left with the same old, I protect the team by gaining agro via Taunt (or Taunting abilities w/in my powers) and absorb damage.
Of course the only suggestion that I have seen that would help a Tank solo better is the idea where Gauntlet is changes so that as a Tank's health goes down, their Taunt factor in the attacks and auras goes up as well as their defense / resists.
The rest are more team-centric in nature though.
[ QUOTE ]
The question is, do the players need to redefine their perception of what a Tanker can now do and let go of the past?
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but when I responded, I responded as a new tanker of 4 months. Chatman's description is what I had expected and have done. But I've found that my ability to do this post I5/I6 depends on the dmg type of the foe, diff lvl, team size and the presence of other ATs (e.g. def/trollers).
[ QUOTE ]
Or, is it that other ATs (at a similar level to given established Tank) can take on the same number of villians **with the same style of tactics** and out tank a Tanker? - This has yet to be proven true. Plenty of opinion and speculation, but no proof.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, and I hope the testing that is being done and other efforts like Tiffany's AV Project will give shed some better light on this rather than relie on anecdotes and opinions.
However, I believe that a tanker should play differently than a Scrapper or Blaster. So the tactics should be different. I don't think anyone would argue that an unbuffed Blaster can jump into a middle of a spawn and start tanking. But can a Blaster handle the same spawn by blowing them away and using the environment/space to mitigate dmg? yup.
But I do understand the argument, posed by some, that a "neener neener" tank (one that taunts/gains aggro but runs like a chicken using SPACE as a dmg mitigator vs their own defenses) is not what tanking experience should be. If I wanted to do that, I would play a blaster or defender or scrapper.
I would agree that tankers, as a community, still has not narrowed its issues and priorities. There are multiple positions based on different concerns. Maybe that's why the devs has not really reponded in depth to tanker concerns bc we're still working out our issues.
But what we're doing now - the tests, the discussion, the threads for action - is heading in the right direction.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a massive spawn of bad guys
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats the main kicker so many people are having a problem with. The number of bad guys Tanks can take on has changed dramatically from I4 to now.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, really it's not. It is for some, but for a lot of vets it's not really about a comparison to what we could do in I4. We all knew it was too much.
[ QUOTE ]
The question is, do the players need to redefine their perception of what a Tanker can now do and let go of the past?
[/ QUOTE ]
The question is, when will people stop throwing around this strawman.
[ QUOTE ]
Or, is it that other ATs (at a similar level to given established Tank) can take on the same number of villians **with the same style of tactics** and out tank a Tanker? - This has yet to be proven true. Plenty of opinion and speculation, but no proof.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is certainly proof for specific cases of this, but across the large spectrum of all cases of teams and situations assembling such proof would be onerous. However I think you are missing the true crux of the matter.
Really the problem is twofold:
First now it is often not advantageous to use a meatsheild (especially in low buffing situations). Yes Tanks would be slightly more effective in these situations than other ATs, but costs of using a meatshield centric strategy outweighs the benefits much of the time now, because of the lowering of overall defenses. (And again, I can only offer playtesting "evidence" of certain cases, since it is nigh impossible to experience all cases, however we fairly good at analyzing play in this game)
Second is that when the balance has tilted enough in the team and situational configuration, I, and many others, find that the buffing needed to make Tankers worthwhile tanks, is the same in magnitude to the buffing that makes scrappers or sometimes even squishies, able to tank sufficiently as well (what you are addressing essentially). Clearly in the limiting cases these situations where a tank is not useful exist. The question is do they overlap in the majority of cases or not?
I could go on with the specifics we've hashed out again and again over the last few weeks, but my point is that MANY of the concerns we've discussed on the forum have NOTHING to do with a comparison to the past performance.
I'm not the greatest or most experienced tank-gamer in this game, so I can't speak to so many of the detailed nuances of this archetype paradigm of which some of the posters in this forum are capable. However, I am a super-hero / comic-book culture junkie for a couple of decades now. I've always liked the concept tanker archetype...to me seemingly like the "knight in shining armor" of comics heroes.
These days when I'm gaming, I do genuinely miss seeing that archetype in the game. The few I do see I feel for as they seem like wounded vestiges of their pasts. Sure, I understand that they may have tipped the scales too much in their favor in missions / battles whatever...but I think where they are at now is just a shadow of any archetype in general.
I find when building a team or considering heroes for a team (in a realist and practical sense), which type would I rather have...
(1) Any tanker or
(2) Any scrapper / controller.
Odds are, I'd look for a scrapper or controller first (aside from a tanker seeking a team...again for which I have a soft spot in my heart).
Why?---well, chances are there are toons on the team that'll be able to buff the scrapper to the point of being a tanker...who can do more damage. Or, I'll take a controller who can manage the masses better than a tanker and I'll get extra buffs in addition.
These days, I'm not seeing the intrinsic / overall value that a tanker brings to a group (for me) aside from nostalgia.
~ Jonathan
PS---As an aside, I can't imagine playing a tanker in PvP. Knowing that you have so much less powers to choose from (in Bloody Bay), I'm not sure how any tanker can survive there let alone participate with what's available to them at level 25. Again, without others to buff you into a viable archetype, what chance do they stand vs. others one on one? Maybe I'm over-generalizing...again, I'm not a tank-player who truly knows...but these are my impressions of the current tanker status. And again, I just find that sad since I like the character type so much.
[ QUOTE ]
...a Scrapper, with buffs, can tank, but not as well as a Tanker. Why? Because...
1) a Tanker starts with higher resistances/defenses and
2) he has Punchvoke and thus can manage the aggro better.
[/ QUOTE ]
3) Tanker Taunt is a target AoE while Scrapper Confront is single target.
4) Tankers has the highest resistance cap.
5) Tankers get their defense powers much earlier.
[ QUOTE ]
And he's also admitted that anyone can Tank. So if Tanking is supposed to be the realm of Tankers, and anyone can Tank, then what again is so special about Tanks? (possible answers that have been disproven by these conversations: agro management, and higher health)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm like deleriously tired after an all night LAN party with copious amounts of alcohol so if I'm like all over the place - sorry. 
But it's more than just anyone can be buffed, but Tankers usually have more than just a head start, they have higher resist caps, insane levels of status protection, aggro-generation tools (better than what any other AT gets).
Also the same arguement for saying multiple tankers being redundant is the same for defenders. Either way it's going to be an extremely safe experience.
I also agree with Statesman that no one AT is a requirement. I've grouped in practically every combination out there - and even on Invincible I'd be surprised if there was one specific combination that's needed. Maybe desired, but not needed.
Not knocking any AT here, but I don't think any are a requirement as a rule. There are exceptions such as specific AV's, but that tends to vary with each AV, and I think it's more power-set specific.
I mean, I used to play in blaster-only AoE groups and we'd take turn nuking groups or try different combinations. And lord knows we've heard about how useless Blasters are supposed to be on teams, right? Even in the lower levels, there were pure AoE attacks (non-nuke) and we'd just wipe mobs away. All it took was teamwork and timing.
The anyone can tank arguement also applies to blasters and scrappers, as anybody can do damage. But blasters and scrappers not only have a head start in that department, they do more damage after buffs. Anyone can mitigate damage, like Controllers, Defenders and Tankers. But offense is a good way of doing that, too.
That's about all I can muster.
I have been playing since I1 and there isnt a problem with ED the problem comes into play when combining it with I5 also. It would be fine if they undid I5 but that wont happen so ill just hit my self in the head for playing tanks or Spines/regen scrappers in the first place!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And he's also admitted that anyone can Tank. So if Tanking is supposed to be the realm of Tankers, and anyone can Tank, then what again is so special about Tanks? (possible answers that have been disproven by these conversations: agro management, and higher health)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm like deleriously tired after an all night LAN party with copious amounts of alcohol so if I'm like all over the place - sorry.
Also the same arguement for saying multiple tankers being redundant is the same for defenders. Either way it's going to be an extremely safe experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
I must take into account that you have a lot of alcohol in your system but...I just do not understand this statement. Lets go at it from the high end. 8 defenders or 8 tankers? Which team can complete any mission? Which team will have an absurdly easy time completing missions?
If you picked the team that can buff their party and debuff opponents you are correct.
Adding another defender is always good. Even if the team has nothing but defenders in it.
[ QUOTE ]
I also agree with Statesman that no one AT is a requirement. I've grouped in practically every combination out there - and even on Invincible I'd be surprised if there was one specific combination that's needed. Maybe desired, but not needed.
Not knocking any AT here, but I don't think any are a requirement as a rule. There are exceptions such as specific AV's, but that tends to vary with each AV, and I think it's more power-set specific.
I mean, I used to play in blaster-only AoE groups and we'd take turn nuking groups or try different combinations. And lord knows we've heard about how useless Blasters are supposed to be on teams, right? Even in the lower levels, there were pure AoE attacks (non-nuke) and we'd just wipe mobs away. All it took was teamwork and timing.
The anyone can tank arguement also applies to blasters and scrappers, as anybody can do damage. But blasters and scrappers not only have a head start in that department, they do more damage after buffs. Anyone can mitigate damage, like Controllers, Defenders and Tankers. But offense is a good way of doing that, too.
That's about all I can muster.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, taking alcohol into account. I have yet to hear a time, post ED, that a tanker was NEEDED for a mission. Anytime that adding a controller or any other AT would not work out fine. If you have a tanker on a team he NEEDS a defender but a defender on a team does not need a tanker.
You brought up some good arguments which I wanted to address. I also am up in the air on some of them, but I offer these points for discussions sake.
[ QUOTE ]
But it's more than just anyone can be buffed, but Tankers usually have more than just a head start, they have higher resist caps, insane levels of status protection, aggro-generation tools (better than what any other AT gets).
[/ QUOTE ] I wonder if there will be any concensus about these concerns since it deals mainly with "meaning" versus "facts".
Stateman, and other posters, have correctly noted facts e.g. Tankers have punchvoke, Auras and taunt, all of which are superior aggro control tools. They have noted that tankers have the most hp and start off with the most defenses (DEF and RES). All these are facts that I think can't be refuted.
But the important question is: "yeah, and so what?" in relation to the role that they are supposed to play. The fact that tankers are aggro kings means little if aggro mgmt, to the extent that tankers possess, is not needed. A better example is one posted by Iron_Vixen:
[ QUOTE ]
Thread: The silence hurts the most 12/11/05
Just look at Invuln's (as an example) non-S/L resists. Invuln Tanker with 3 SOs in Uy and R/En:27.5%, Invuln Scrapper:20.5% (rough estimates). That is a mere 7% difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, invul tankers have more RES than an invul scrapper. But does the 7% benefit mean anything? Will it ostensibly increase your survivability over a Scrapper, for the role you are supposed to play (let's assume meatshield)? Or will an invul tanker die only 7% seconds later than an invul Scrapper? Imagine:
Tanker: Ha! I was the last one standing by 7 seconds!
Scrapper: So? We're BOTH dead!
[ QUOTE ]
Also the same arguement for saying multiple tankers being redundant is the same for defenders...
Either way it's going to be an extremely safe experience.
[/ QUOTE ] I like the phrase "safe experience". That's what trollers/def/tankers (the "support AT's) really offer (or should offer) to a team.
I think the consensus as to how many tankers is necessary for a large team is still open. I see no problem if two tankers (or any support classes) are necessary for an 8-man team. But you should be able to mix n match so two tankers = 2 def = 1 troller + 1 def = 1 tanker + 1 def, etc.
[ QUOTE ]
I also agree with Statesman that no one AT is a requirement...
Not knocking any AT here, but I don't think any are a requirement as a rule.
[/ QUOTE ] I agree with this design consideration. No AT should be required. But many posters don't really argue this (i.e. "tankers MUST be required on ALL teams from heroic to invincible!"). The majority of the arguments are "I want tankers to contribute something to the team that is unique to tankers".
Again, it is a fact that tankers can do dmg and ergo, can be argued that "we contribute". But since other ATs far overshadow us in this regard, it's not something I would want to hang my AT's hat on.
[ QUOTE ]
The anyone can tank arguement also applies to blasters and scrappers, as anybody can do damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
True. But there is an inherent design in the game that makes damage dealers more desireable than support ATs: coh is a combat game whose ultimate goal is to defeat mobs. You cannot "buff/debuff/tank/control" mobs to defeat them. Someone must attack the mob to do that.
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone can mitigate damage, like Controllers, Defenders and Tankers. But offense is a good way of doing that, too.
[/ QUOTE ] True. I think other posters have argued such under the rubric of "aggro mgmt". Every AT learns (or should learn) how to manage aggro. The sytem is designed at heroic that no AT is needed. Ergo, a tanker, someone with high levels of aggro control, is not needed on heroic. Again, one could argue that blasters and scrappers also are not needed. OTOH, they help defeat mobs faster which is the point of this game ultimately.
A better argument can be found btwn trollers vs. def vs. tankers. All three are support classes so both should bring something to the table (e.g. "safety") but in different ways. But as some have argued and as some posters have admitted, teams tend to want trollers/def over tankers.
Some posters have indicated that tankers do well on small teams (<= 4) but a def/troller is preferable on larger teams. This is sad, since I would think, on larger teams, there are larger spawns. Larger spawns would require better aggro control - tanker's supposed specialty.
[ 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 ]
When i started this game i never wanted to be unkillable playing my tank. I did wanted to be damn tough though. I loved my tankers through I3 and 4. My prime a INV/SS never capped Eng/Ele untill around L41-42 when i heard about the coming nerfs and made a mad run to get to 50 before I5. I wanted to see what maxed resists were like and would never be again.
In my run through the 30's i had around 70-75% Eng/Ele tanking and had some of the most fun i have ever had in this game.
Pinnacle
Arch light L50 INV/SS
Psiberia L50 Kin/Psi
Screaming Mentallica L50 Sonic/MM
Infinity
Arc Voltinator L50 SS/Elec
Mind Fire Kinesis L50 Fire/Kin
Flaming Screamer L50 Fire/Sonic