As much as that'd be great to see, there's no way I'd expect to see systems like that in a 5 year old MMO engine. And considering how damage oriented the new hero-based MMOs are, apparently they still think the same.
Single-player games, most definitely should allow stuff like this.
[ QUOTE ]
As much as that'd be great to see, there's no way I'd expect to see systems like that in a 5 year old MMO engine. And considering how damage oriented the new hero-based MMOs are, apparently they still think the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I see your point about the game engine I still believe that it's definitely the right step to take. If the other hero based MMOs are going to stick with the old model than CoX needs to once again blaze the trail and try something new.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
If the other hero based MMOs are going to stick with the old model than CoX needs to once again blaze the trail and try something new.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see what you did there.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the other hero based MMOs are going to stick with the old model than CoX needs to once again blaze the trail and try something new.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see what you did there.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
?????
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bent my Wookie.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's nice, dear.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman = Ralph Wiggum. Film at eleven.
[/ QUOTE ]
Me fail game design? That's un-possible.
I'm not saying I agree with JB, but I think not all of his points are invalid.
It seems like *any* buff to Tanker damage is universally ignored (or maybe, any suggestion JB makes is ignored, and since that's his main suggeston, it is.. I don't know).
I think when CoH was launched, the view of the then-five AT's was radically different than it is now. Which meant Tanks had huge, ridiculous, incredible defenses and damage, and Scrappers did too. Steadily through the updates, things were changed (GDN and ED, most memorably now).
CoV comes out, and there's actually *two* melee AT's meant for damage. Gasp! How can that be!
I think Blueside could do well to be looked over as a whole to learn from some of the things they've done *right* with other sets, specifically those on the Redside.. Like balancing Melee damage better between Scrappers and Tanks. This could be done in several ways: Burst vs. Sustained DPS (With Tankers being the former), or AoE vs. ST damage (With Tankers, again, the former).
I think I'd be fine with it if Tankers had their damage buffed but had a metric much like WoW uses, where you have a global cooldown cycle between usages of certain things; in this case, it would be Tanker attacks. It could be, say, a 4 Second global cooldown, which activated as soon as you used the attack (so the power's animation/activation time would count as a part of the 4 seconds).
You could increase Tanker's damage by hard-capping how often they're able *to* attack, thus making them true heavy but slow hitters. Individual powers might need looking at (mostly, the quick, early-tier attacks) to help make sure they're not completely worthless with this method, but it'd give them more of a feel of being 'Tankers', while not marginalizing Scrappers (because they'd be slow, and in any sustained fight would not pump out as much damage).
It would make Scrappers still the boss killers, the ones that duel with the tough foes while Tankers go around smacking minions and liuetenants against walls, bullets being soaked without issue.
Which is not to say I agree with Johnny's incessant cries of "Buff tanker damage!"--I don't think it's that simple. I think it's a matter of considering that it isn't a binary situation: Scrappers are good at damage therefore Tankers can't be. Or: Tankers have better defenses, thus, their damage is fine as it is.
I think there's a distinct problem with how Tanker vs. Scrapper offensive potential and team contribution is viewed and is handled, whereas I don't see any such distinction between Brutes and Stalkers, who both have widely different methods of being good melee damage AT's.
Just my two cents.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that I have seen. Both DCUO and CO look like they are all melee characters scrappers, with a tanker toggle.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't comment on what I haven't played, but if all their melee characters are "Scrappers", and that's the toughest "class," wouldn't that make them the toughest and most melee damaging?
.
[/ QUOTE ]
This quote pretty much says it all. You problem isn't with Tankers, but that Tankers exist at all. You don't want a Tank, you want a Scrapper; yet since something is tougher than a Scrapper, it automatically has to be the mirror of Superman (etc).
[/ QUOTE ]
I have always found it to be ironic that the only way to satisfy J_B's desires for tankers in this game that doesn't create intractible balance problems would be to eliminate them completely.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like *any* buff to Tanker damage is universally ignored (or maybe, any suggestion JB makes is ignored, and since that's his main suggeston, it is.. I don't know).
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a matter of considering that it isn't a binary situation: Scrappers are good at damage therefore Tankers can't be. Or: Tankers have better defenses, thus, their damage is fine as it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stolid, the fact is there's a bias, a dispairity if you will.
That fact was laid bare to be during a discussion of Scrapper/Tanker damage vs their actual survivability, ie, how much do they really face plant most of the time vs the damage they deal.
It was argued by more than a few people here, that theoretically, it would be OK if Scrappers had almost or the same mitigation as Tankers on top of Scrapper damage as long as the Scrapper had inferior aggro handling skills.
And after it was put forward by me that Scrappers were now much more survivable than they were really intended to be, and that their damage to survivability ratio was likely now much better than not only Tankers, but every other AT in the game sans Brutes, it was conceeded by those same people that's likely true, but that it's also OK for the same reason as above; that they also don't manage aggro.
In short: It's OK to bend the balance rules for Scrappers, but not Tankers. That's very telling of the view some people around here have of "balance" and fairness.
You can dig up the thread and see for yourself. It's not the last one that happened, it's one of mine IIRC.
Do the devs think the same way? Evidence points to 'yes' in my opinion. They seem to have no problem allowing ATs with more damage to become more survivable, and as you agreed with(?) before, give them plenty of ways to do it and few to allow the already most survivable AT more damage, be it build options or in the AT's design itself.
.
[ QUOTE ]
I have always found it to be ironic that the only way to satisfy J_B's desires for tankers in this game that doesn't create intractible balance problems would be to eliminate them completely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember Speed?
"Shoot the hostage."
.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying I agree with JB, but I think not all of his points are invalid.
It seems like *any* buff to Tanker damage is universally ignored (or maybe, any suggestion JB makes is ignored, and since that's his main suggeston, it is.. I don't know).
I think when CoH was launched, the view of the then-five AT's was radically different than it is now. Which meant Tanks had huge, ridiculous, incredible defenses and damage, and Scrappers did too. Steadily through the updates, things were changed (GDN and ED, most memorably now).
CoV comes out, and there's actually *two* melee AT's meant for damage. Gasp! How can that be!
I think Blueside could do well to be looked over as a whole to learn from some of the things they've done *right* with other sets, specifically those on the Redside.. Like balancing Melee damage better between Scrappers and Tanks. This could be done in several ways: Burst vs. Sustained DPS (With Tankers being the former), or AoE vs. ST damage (With Tankers, again, the former).
I think I'd be fine with it if Tankers had their damage buffed but had a metric much like WoW uses, where you have a global cooldown cycle between usages of certain things; in this case, it would be Tanker attacks. It could be, say, a 4 Second global cooldown, which activated as soon as you used the attack (so the power's animation/activation time would count as a part of the 4 seconds).
You could increase Tanker's damage by hard-capping how often they're able *to* attack, thus making them true heavy but slow hitters. Individual powers might need looking at (mostly, the quick, early-tier attacks) to help make sure they're not completely worthless with this method, but it'd give them more of a feel of being 'Tankers', while not marginalizing Scrappers (because they'd be slow, and in any sustained fight would not pump out as much damage).
It would make Scrappers still the boss killers, the ones that duel with the tough foes while Tankers go around smacking minions and liuetenants against walls, bullets being soaked without issue.
Which is not to say I agree with Johnny's incessant cries of "Buff tanker damage!"--I don't think it's that simple. I think it's a matter of considering that it isn't a binary situation: Scrappers are good at damage therefore Tankers can't be. Or: Tankers have better defenses, thus, their damage is fine as it is.
I think there's a distinct problem with how Tanker vs. Scrapper offensive potential and team contribution is viewed and is handled, whereas I don't see any such distinction between Brutes and Stalkers, who both have widely different methods of being good melee damage AT's.
Just my two cents.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tanker damage has been buffed once and the suggestion for more powerful but slower attacks for tankers has been tabled but it was decided that it would ultimately make tankers more frustrating to play. For the most part tankers are doing well but this is not to say that they could not stand a tweak. On that note, I agree that tankers need to be more AoE oriented in their attacks than scrappers, I've been saying that for some time now. Ultimately though those kind of suggestions get brushed aside in the interest of rehashing the age old argument of yet another damage boost for tankers.
You make a valid point with the brute/stalker example and you are correct that simply buffing tanker damage is not the answer. Something needs to be done to make tankers and scrappers as divergent in play style as brutes and scrappers. Vox Populi had a good suggestion. I think taking that a step further and applying the increased debuff/control to any mobs affected by gauntlet would be a step in the right direction. While not increasing damage (accept maybe in the case of Fire Melees DoT) it would move tankers toward more of a group fighter role. Which, IMO, is where they should have been all along.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
You make a valid point with the brute/stalker example and you are correct that simply buffing tanker damage is not the answer. Something needs to be done to make tankers and scrappers as divergent in play style as brutes and scrappers. Vox Populi had a good suggestion. I think taking that a step further and applying the increased debuff/control to any mobs affected by gauntlet would be a step in the right direction. While not increasing damage (accept maybe in the case of Fire Melees DoT) it would move tankers toward more of a group fighter role. Which, IMO, is where they should have been all along.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that's interesting, and easily doable to boot. All you'd need to do for that is apply a status resistance debuff to the target, thus making controls last longer. It does gives some sets more perks than others, though.
For example, compare Axe and Mace. Very similar sets, except all of Axe's attacks have a chance for knockdown while Mace is a mix of knockdown/stun. Knockdown wouldn't be effected by the status resistance debuff (it would cause knockback which has just been removed in most cases) and the stuns would. Mace would be able to benefit while Axe would be left in the cold. Now I'm imagining giving that to Stone Melee... (Fault anyone?)
Still, it's something to think about. (Finally, a fresh idea!)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You make a valid point with the brute/stalker example and you are correct that simply buffing tanker damage is not the answer. Something needs to be done to make tankers and scrappers as divergent in play style as brutes and scrappers. Vox Populi had a good suggestion. I think taking that a step further and applying the increased debuff/control to any mobs affected by gauntlet would be a step in the right direction. While not increasing damage (accept maybe in the case of Fire Melees DoT) it would move tankers toward more of a group fighter role. Which, IMO, is where they should have been all along.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that's interesting, and easily doable to boot. All you'd need to do for that is apply a status resistance debuff to the target, thus making controls last longer. It does gives some sets more perks than others, though.
For example, compare Axe and Mace. Very similar sets, except all of Axe's attacks have a chance for knockdown while Mace is a mix of knockdown/stun. Knockdown wouldn't be effected by the status resistance debuff (it would cause knockback which has just been removed in most cases) and the stuns would. Mace would be able to benefit while Axe would be left in the cold. Now I'm imagining giving that to Stone Melee... (Fault anyone?)
Still, it's something to think about. (Finally, a fresh idea!)
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't the main thrust of that suggestion that it makes Tanks more appealing on Teams, not just that it helps their own individual powers?
The fact that it helps Mace a bit more is nothing compared to the fact that it helps any Controller they are teamed with, right?
I like the idea though .. it's a lot more "Thinking out of the Box" than J_B's idea.
My memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my memory's not as sharp as it used to be.
"The tip of a shoelace is called an aglet, its true purpose is sinister." The Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You make a valid point with the brute/stalker example and you are correct that simply buffing tanker damage is not the answer. Something needs to be done to make tankers and scrappers as divergent in play style as brutes and scrappers. Vox Populi had a good suggestion. I think taking that a step further and applying the increased debuff/control to any mobs affected by gauntlet would be a step in the right direction. While not increasing damage (accept maybe in the case of Fire Melees DoT) it would move tankers toward more of a group fighter role. Which, IMO, is where they should have been all along.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that's interesting, and easily doable to boot. All you'd need to do for that is apply a status resistance debuff to the target, thus making controls last longer. It does gives some sets more perks than others, though.
For example, compare Axe and Mace. Very similar sets, except all of Axe's attacks have a chance for knockdown while Mace is a mix of knockdown/stun. Knockdown wouldn't be effected by the status resistance debuff (it would cause knockback which has just been removed in most cases) and the stuns would. Mace would be able to benefit while Axe would be left in the cold. Now I'm imagining giving that to Stone Melee... (Fault anyone?)
Still, it's something to think about. (Finally, a fresh idea!)
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't the main thrust of that suggestion that it makes Tanks more appealing on Teams, not just that it helps their own individual powers?
The fact that it helps Mace a bit more is nothing compared to the fact that it helps any Controller they are teamed with, right?
I like the idea though .. it's a lot more "Thinking out of the Box" than J_B's idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't even consider Johnny's an idea.
It's been proven time and time again that's it's not.
Ofcourse as has been proven by this thread if no one agrees with his comic book vision of tanks (despite tanks being 4th most popular) he ignores that.
Pretty much the EPIC FAIL of discussions. He's good at that.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
Tanker damage has been buffed once and the suggestion for more powerful but slower attacks for tankers has been tabled but it was decided that it would ultimately make tankers more frustrating to play. For the most part tankers are doing well but this is not to say that they could not stand a tweak. On that note, I agree that tankers need to be more AoE oriented in their attacks than scrappers, I've been saying that for some time now. Ultimately though those kind of suggestions get brushed aside in the interest of rehashing the age old argument of yet another damage boost for tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Was it? I can't say I'm the most dedicated person when it comes to getting involved in Tanker discussions, so I apologize, I didn't realize that had been thought of and already sort of rejected by the community.
I would love to see Tankers have their sets be more AoE oriented, but it seems like now that they've introduced Powerset Proliferation, that's likely not going to be something they'll do. Seems to me like they're trying to get the sets as *close* to each other as possible so they can be proliferated from one AT to the next, rather than making the sets within the different AT's more unique for their individual roles.
[ QUOTE ]
You make a valid point with the brute/stalker example and you are correct that simply buffing tanker damage is not the answer. Something needs to be done to make tankers and scrappers as divergent in play style as brutes and scrappers. Vox Populi had a good suggestion. I think taking that a step further and applying the increased debuff/control to any mobs affected by gauntlet would be a step in the right direction. While not increasing damage (accept maybe in the case of Fire Melees DoT) it would move tankers toward more of a group fighter role. Which, IMO, is where they should have been all along.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you seem to at least understand what I mean to say, with that, and I actually like Vox's suggestion.. but I'm fairly sure I'd seen that one before, myself. Wasn't that suggested by someone and the ultimate concensus is that if Tanker's had that ability, they'd start infringing on Controller's territory? I know they recently changed one or two sets because the magnitude of the Tanker's control effect was too good.
Though I still like that suggestion, even so.
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the main thrust of that suggestion that it makes Tanks more appealing on Teams, not just that it helps their own individual powers?
The fact that it helps Mace a bit more is nothing compared to the fact that it helps any Controller they are teamed with, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
That may be the idea behind the change, but I think it would be folly to ignore the effects to the sets themselves, especially depending on the relative rankings of the sets. For example, Stone Melee would be a huge winner due to Fault and wouldn't surprise me if it was a top performer. Compare that to Ice Melee which only gets 1 power that "really" benefits from it - Frozen Touch.
Of course, the more I think about it, the more questions I ask myself...
*) What is the intent of the change? Is it meant to make Tankers more team friendly? If so, it's a pretty specific change, as it would only boost teams that actually use a decent amount of control. I'd look at (if you can data mine this) what ATs Tankers usually team with. If they're on control heavy teams, the change could be superfluous (things are locked down anyways), but on control light teams, would it be strong enough to notice?
*) Is it intended to make a second Tanker more attractive? If so, then I have a concern in line with the last part above. If there's enough control, the making them last longer wouldn't have as much of an effect as adding another AT (especially one with buffs/debuffs).
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea, but I'm a bit shaky on what problem it's supposed to address... It's effects seem to be a bit to narrow in scope to make a big difference.
[ QUOTE ]
Was it? I can't say I'm the most dedicated person when it comes to getting involved in Tanker discussions, so I apologize, I didn't realize that had been thought of and already sort of rejected by the community.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, look at this way. Energy Melee pretty much fits that mode right now (slow, but big numbers), but gets a lot of flak for it. Could you imagine all Tankers being slowed down to that level? Yikes, it wouldn't be pretty. Personally, I don't mind the occasional slow attack, but and entire set? No thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me like they're trying to get the sets as *close* to each other as possible so they can be proliferated from one AT to the next, rather than making the sets within the different AT's more unique for their individual roles.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which I think is quite a shame. The ATs have different focuses, and I think the sets should reflect that... it'd be a much bigger headache to keep everything in line, though.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, look at this way. Energy Melee pretty much fits that mode right now (slow, but big numbers), but gets a lot of flak for it. Could you imagine all Tankers being slowed down to that level? Yikes, it wouldn't be pretty. Personally, I don't mind the occasional slow attack, but and entire set? No thanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tomato, uhh.. tomah-to, on this one. I actually *don't* mind that aspect of EM at all; the only thing about EM I mind is the fact that you're double-fisting every one of your major attacks (Bonesmasher, ET, and Total Focus), and I think aesthetically it looks horrible. But the slow animation times I'm okay with, because of the burst damage it can dish out.
But I can see why not everyone would like that, so I suppose I'm just in the minority. 
Ah well.
[ QUOTE ]
Which I think is quite a shame. The ATs have different focuses, and I think the sets should reflect that... it'd be a much bigger headache to keep everything in line, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree on both points, but I don't know if the Devs agree that that should take priority over proliferation. It hasn't seemed that way thus far (which I can understand too).
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea, but I'm a bit shaky on what problem it's supposed to address... It's effects seem to be a bit to narrow in scope to make a big difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
The main thrust of the idea (called Critical Taunt for expediency) is to give tankers something that the other melee archetypes do not have. Group fighting specialization. Capitalizing on their impressive defenses tankers have honed their fighting skills to allow them to engage and attack multiple targets simultaneously whereas scrappers and stalkers attack with surgical precision and brutes fight with a single minded fury.
Critical Taunt is really meant to have a larger effect on a tanker's single target attacks. Basically there would be a percentage chance (equal to Scrapper's Critical Hit) to have the secondary effects of a tanker's single target attack applied to the surrounding mobs affected by the punchvoke for that attack.
The details of why the minor AoE effects are applied is left up to the individual player. EM, FM, DM and IM could all be splash damage whereas physical attacks like SS, BA, WM and DB would be more wide swung attacks that inadvertently strike multiple targets or just a domino effect due to the push of battle. The only place where I see this idea adding any extra damage would be Fire Melee as some of their ST attacks have a DoT component.
Existing cone and AoE attacks for tankers wouldn't be changed by critical Taunt since, as I understand it, punchvoke for those kind of attacks only applies to those who were hit by the cone and AoE in the first place. I suppose that it could increase the chance of applying the secondary effect but I don't really see that as necessary.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
I don't like the idea of Tankers specializing in fighting groups for two reasons.
Number one, fighting guys weaker than you seems like the exact definition of being a bully to me. I don't find the idea heroic and fitting for a hero AT. Brutes, it's fine for. That's their concept.
Thematically, I can accept Tankers holding back on the lesser foes; minions, LTs...IF they were able to open up on the Bosses, EBs AVs and GMs.
Number two is the time when Tankers NEED offense the most beyond concept reasons, is the early levels BEFORE your defenses allow you to stand in crowds of foes and maximixe any AoE potential. At best you're fighting three guys at a time.
As for the idea of Critical Taunt, as I said before it's pointless spashing secondary effects to enemies who are already next to you and are in your taunt aura. It doesn't buy the team anything in a team situation. If you're next to the enemies and attacking to be splashing, they're already NOT attacking the team because of Gauntlet and your taunt aura. Solo, it increaes Tanker survivability, but frankly Tankers don't NEED more survivability solo.
I don't think the idea makes sense on a thematic level, and on another level, it feels like someone is just grasping to give Tankers something, any old thing, that Scrappers or Brutes wouldn't want at all or loose sleep over not getting. Tankers deserve better than the scrapings at the bottom of the barrel that the other melee ATs wouldn't touch. We already have Gauntlet for that.
.
Tanks will replace brutes and MM's. Scrappers will replace brutes.
You'll see a lack of brutes, & silly brutes who think they can tank when the hero side has the real tanks.
All I have to say is QQ & GL brutes. LOL
I giggle when I see a brute jump into a group of bosses on AE and get instantly crushed. lol
They need to pop purples to handle what a Tanker can.
---------------------------------------------------------
"A coward dies many times before their death, the valiant taste death but once." - William Shakespeare
Learn it... OWN IT!
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the idea of Tankers specializing in fighting groups for two reasons.
Number one, fighting guys weaker than you seems like the exact definition of being a bully to me. I don't find the idea heroic and fitting for a hero AT. Brutes, it's fine for. That's their concept.
Thematically, I can accept Tankers holding back on the lesser foes; minions, LTs...IF they were able to open up on the Bosses, EBs AVs and GMs.
Number two is the time when Tankers NEED offense the most beyond concept reasons, is the early levels BEFORE your defenses allow you to stand in crowds of foes and maximixe any AoE potential. At best you're fighting three guys at a time.
As for the idea of Critical Taunt, as I said before it's pointless spashing secondary effects to enemies who are already next to you and are in your taunt aura. It doesn't buy the team anything in a team situation. If you're next to the enemies and attacking to be splashing, they're already NOT attacking the team because of Gauntlet and your taunt aura. Solo, it increaes Tanker survivability, but frankly Tankers don't NEED more survivability solo.
I don't think the idea makes sense on a thematic level, and on another level, it feels like someone is just grasping to give Tankers something, any old thing, that Scrappers or Brutes wouldn't want at all or loose sleep over not getting. Tankers deserve better than the scrapings at the bottom of the barrel that the other melee ATs wouldn't touch. We already have Gauntlet for that.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually increased mez effects would help in team situations by stacking with mez effects from other players to overcome the mez protection of tougher foes like bosses, EBs, AVs and GMs. As far as concept is concerned it fits pretty easily for a hero that is singelhandedly taking on large numbers of foes at once in order to protect his teammates.
You state tankers need something better Johnny but all you offer is the same old damage increase as a way to make them more like scrappers and brutes. Whether you choose to accept it or not, the reality is that game balance will not allow tanker damage to be as good as scrappers or brutes. Therefore more damage won't make tankers stand out or more popular because if it's only about the damage than brutes and scrappers will still be able to deliver more damage more consistently.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
Actually increased mez effects would help in team situations by stacking with mez effects from other players to overcome the mez protection of tougher foes like bosses, EBs, AVs and GMs. As far as concept is concerned it fits pretty easily for a hero that is singelhandedly taking on large numbers of foes at once in order to protect his teammates.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since Tankers within the game have always had a bit of a melee controller-ish element this idea would fit in well. In comics there are a great many examples of the Tanker cornering a large number of thugs and dispatching them with ease. Take the movie Incredibles for example, when Mr. Incredible traps the thugs in the RV.
[ QUOTE ]
You state tankers need something better Johnny but all you offer is the same old damage increase as a way to make them more like scrappers and brutes. Whether you choose to accept it or not, the reality is that game balance will not allow tanker damage to be as good as scrappers or brutes. Therefore more damage won't make tankers stand out or more popular because if it's only about the damage than brutes and scrappers will still be able to deliver more damage more consistently.
[/ QUOTE ]
No evidence has been shown that giving Tankers more damage inherently will do anything to make them more popular and such a change would would imbalance the game. I still think Tankers should have Defender or Controller numbers when using the Leadership pool. Some Tanker secondaries might be left out in the cold by this change such as Dual Blades or battle axe I think in those cases an additional effect of defense or resistance debuff might be more appropriate as the Tanker literally rips the armor off their foe with each strike.
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks will replace brutes and MM's. Scrappers will replace brutes.
You'll see a lack of brutes, & silly brutes who think they can tank when the hero side has the real tanks.
All I have to say is QQ & GL brutes. LOL
I giggle when I see a brute jump into a group of bosses on AE and get instantly crushed. lol
They need to pop purples to handle what a Tanker can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Case in point. Spent billions on my SS/WP brute. A WP/SS tank with SOs will have better resists, similar defense, similar HP and similar regen.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the idea of Tankers specializing in fighting groups for two reasons.
[/ QUOTE ]
They are not specialized in fighting groups since under this proposal their single target prowess remains unchanged.
[ QUOTE ]
Number one, fighting guys weaker than you seems like the exact definition of being a bully to me. I don't find the idea heroic and fitting for a hero AT. Brutes, it's fine for. That's their concept.
Thematically, I can accept Tankers holding back on the lesser foes; minions, LTs...IF they were able to open up on the Bosses, EBs AVs and GMs.
[/ QUOTE ]
They can its called red inspirations. Tankers also have some of the highest Brawl index attacks out there with heavy hitters like KO blow, Energy Transfer, Greater Fire sword Etc...
[ QUOTE ]
Number two is the time when Tankers NEED offense the most beyond concept reasons, is the early levels BEFORE your defenses allow you to stand in crowds of foes and maximixe any AoE potential. At best you're fighting three guys at a time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Get a team. like it or not Johnny, Tankers are a TEAM based AT.
[ QUOTE ]
As for the idea of Critical Taunt, as I said before it's pointless spashing secondary effects to enemies who are already next to you and are in your taunt aura. It doesn't buy the team anything in a team situation. If you're next to the enemies and attacking to be splashing, they're already NOT attacking the team because of Gauntlet and your taunt aura. Solo, it increaes Tanker survivability, but frankly Tankers don't NEED more survivability solo.
[/ QUOTE ]
So stacking Mez effects to lock down Bosses doesn't help the team. Ok have you ever ran with a team of Controllers and Defenders stacking mez and debuff. I will clue you in, everything dies fast.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the idea makes sense on a thematic level, and on another level, it feels like someone is just grasping to give Tankers something, any old thing, that Scrappers or Brutes wouldn't want at all or loose sleep over not getting. Tankers deserve better than the scrapings at the bottom of the barrel that the other melee ATs wouldn't touch. We already have Gauntlet for that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scrappers and Brutes are not the same kind of beast as Tankers. They serve different purposes.
[ QUOTE ]
How does that fancy gibberish make tankers do more damage than anything else in the game? If it doesn't, then you're part of the problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fancy gibberish? Aw $#|+! I only meant to use my normal gibberish! Now what do I do about this weekend?
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat