[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whereas most Brutes care more about how much damage they can sustain.[/b] There is a difference...
[/ QUOTE ]
We kind of have to be. Cause, you know, if we don't sustain a decent amount of fury we're like Tankers without the defense and aggro abilities.
[/ QUOTE ]
Therefore, I said if I am looking for "tanking", I'll look for Brute... because Brute is not the only one with damage you know?
What's left is to normalize all Assassin Strikes and improve Stalker's old sets (Claw, MA and EM)! You don't need to bring back the missing PbAoE attack. You just need to make the existing ones better! For example, make Slice a WIDER and LONGER cone.
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers already fulfull their core purpose too well in some cases. That is not the area causing deficiency, so it is not the area that needs attention.
Nor should we invent a "new area" for Tankers when then cannon, other media and other information sourses indicate Tankers and Tanker-like heroes should be heavy hitters; not debuffers or healers or anything else.
[/ QUOTE ]
You state that the Tankers of this game are not the "Heavy Hitters" In the canon of this game Statesman an iconic Tanker is an Incarnate and therefore too powerful to use as a base point of reference. Tankers remaining in the canon for this game is Citadel and Back Alley Brawler. Arguably, neither is the most damaging member of Freedom Phalanx that honor goes to Synapse, Positron or maybe Sister Psyche. However what these Tankers do have going for them is that they are powerful enough to endure heavy combat and ultimately triumph since only by overwhelming force can these beings be defeated.
Are you familiar with the Wargame Warhammer 40K? In that game Tanks (the treaded kind) are often termed heavy support Heavy hitters so to speak. Most Heavy Support tanks in that game have 3-5 weapons and cost as much as a full squad of troops or more which have 10 or more weapons. In general if you compare the Heavy Support tank and the equivalent value squad of troops, the possible casualties inflicted in one turn so heavily favors the troops it is unreal until you consider that that squad of troops may have 1 weapon in 10 or less that can hurt that tank. Eventually that tank is going to win because no one can hurt it without the right kind of firepower..
Tankers in this game are no different from the tanks of Warhammer. A Tanker may not have the heaviest damage but without massive overwheming force they just don't go down. Eventually they will whittle you down and crush their opponents. That is why they are Heavy Hitters.
[ QUOTE ]
And how do you justify the hero teams's team big guy smacking around people smaller than him and then girly slapping the guys he should by all rights be able to lay into?
[/ QUOTE ]
A Tank is able to lay into all opponents in this game equally. A tanks attack does no more and no less damage versus everything from a AV to a pet . The fact that the Higher level Stuff is able to take it better is because these Villains begin to equal or exceed the Hero's own power. Our Tank is not "girly smacking" anyone some targets are just better at taking it.
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers holding back on minions and LTs with their current mediocre damage levels at least makes thematic sense if they can unload on Bosses, AVs, etc with high damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is thematic only because you choose to believe it is. It is your opinion. The fact that their damage is medium is a mechanic in this game. You have invented the fiction that your super strength Tanker is really so strong he has to hold back from hurting people but he unleashes against mightier foes. Same as that video clip you like. The fact that the mechanics of this game does not match the rules of your, my, or anyone else imagining is irrelevant past the individuals right to choose to pay to play the game. You equally have the right to modify your imaginings to fit the mechanics of the game and believe your opponents are worthy adversaries. You choose to interpret the mechanics of the game the way you do.
[ QUOTE ]
NOT being able to open up on Bosses and AVs and then brutalizing the squishy enemies not only doesn't make any thematic sense, it's not very heroic in my opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you should redefine heroism. If I take a tank and beat down a Skull gang who is (in the rules of my imagination) much tougher than the average citizen I have certainly done something heroic for the next victim of their criminal activities. Now if I take down large groups of these minions and a few more powerful members of the Skulls that keeps even more citizens of Paragon City safe. That sounds pretty heroic to me. It may not be epic in your mind but again that is how you choose to interpret the mechanics of the game within your imagination.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Isn't all damage on non perma-Doms being improved not just melee? Since Castle stated that the Dominator's new purpose is damage and control consecutively.
And that just goes to show that an AT's purpose can change over time as the game changes.
Doms are an example of a defensive primary and an offense secondary AT that has now seen a shift to more offense. They could do both before, but now they do one better than they used to. Do they now control worse? If not, I fail to see how that is unlike Tankers. They didn't give Doms leadership abilities or invent them something new to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really can't debate the entirety of the Dom changes since I am really not following it so closely. Archetypes purposes may need to be evaluated in light of Going Rogue. Controllers and Dominators may now be competing for the same spots on teams. The Devs, to rebalance the AT in light of Going Rogue and the issues with the Jekyll and hide feeling of regular Dominators and Perma-Doms choose to modify an existing mechanic. Changing the benefit level of Tankers and leadership would follow that precedent. The Devs have also shown they will invent something new when damage just isn't enough as happened with Stalkers and their demoralizing strikes. Since Tankers have already been given a damage buff back in the early issues of the game and adding damage would only muddy the purpose of a Tanker as oppose to clarify, I think if the Dev team decided to do anything it would be to tie a new mechanic into Gauntlet.
Edited for grammar and punctuation.
Nicely stated.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After considerable thought how about this......
Competition.
Your foes recognize the threat you pose to their leaders. This weakens their ally buffs and foe debuffs when they are near you.
Visualize kind of an inverse of mastermind supremacy. This effect would be particularly noticable when faced with stacked enemy buffs such as nemesis veng or cimeroran status resistance. This would also come into play when faced with DE emenators, multiple tsoo sorcs, and cot mages.
This would greatly increase the appeal of a tank, or indeed multiple tanks, on a team across the level spread. So long as the effect is not too obscene, say 30% or less effect reduction, it should have hardly any effect on a solo tank.
[/ QUOTE ]
This has some definite possibilities. While I would personally like to see a new tanker mechanic be something more tactile and proactive I can't really fault this idea. I vote for a name change from Competition to Opposition. It's a better PR move. 
[/ QUOTE ]
In the highly unlikely event that this suggestion gains the traction necessary to get a redname review I would agree the name "Opposition" sells better and I will be happy to share billing :P.
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
[ QUOTE ]
Nicely stated.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your welcome. Sorry if the grammar gets a little unclear at times.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With side-switching actually on the way, how do you think this will impact tanks?
Personally, I think there are room for tanks and brutes in 1-50 content, but I'm not sure what the general public will think.
Somebody had to start this thread. 
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, I want to say to everyone "I told you so."
Every time I brought up blue side Brutes as a motivation to address Tanker issues, there was a wail of people saying it would never happen, we'll cross that bridge IF we come to it, blah blah.
Well surprise. Johnny was right. Again. Cross the damn bridge.
Second:
We don't know if there's going to be cross faction ATs all the way from levels 1-50.
If Brutes still start in the Isles, and Tankers in Paragon, or both in Praetoria, and they dont cross over until the mid levels or something, that changes things a little. Not a lot though.
Considering Tankers are barely Tankers in the early levels. They're mostly low damage Scrappers with a little more HP. They don't have the tools to tank. Period. Brutes on the other hand, kick a lot of butt right out of the gate.
So in a situation with a common starting zone(s), I can see Brutes easily pulling ahead.
Third, the general public has already spoken. Whenever there's Scrapper vs Brute vs Tanker threads outside of this forum, Tankers are not viewed as favourably as they are here. Some of the people here need to take their blinders off to see that, but regardless.
Tankers are a niche AT. Brutes are far more wll rounded. Joe Blow will likely gravitate towards the Brute. Especially considering for the most part, blue side enemies are more forgiving. With four possible buffing ATs behind them, Brutes will do well enough at tanking for most people's needs.
Lastly, I view this as just the latest in the devs' abuse of Tankers. This is NOT a good thing to happen to Tankers. I've seen what's around the corner, I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you, you fools won't have nothing to celebrate. And no, I won't get there with you. I'm going to Champions.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much sums up my thoughts. I also am seriously looking at Champions.
I will however try Going Rogue. However If I like it enough over Champions that i would continue playing CoX my tanker will be getting deleted and rerolled as a brute.
Unless something is done to tankers to make them unique and give more to a team and to solo play Going Rogue will be the death of tankers imo.
On the upside a year after going rogue the devs might look at the fact that almost no one but the die hards are still playing tanks and finally get around to doing something about it. However for most of us that will be too late. We ll have had enough time to look at other options.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I am gonna guess that a stone/stone *tank* might well hold them all at once. There's still a fundamental anything-you-can-tank-I-can-tank-better truth to the Tanker archetype that Brutes nor Scrappers can touch.
Blueside, it'll be Brutes and Scrappers that are the interchangeable parts for most teams, not Brutes and Tanks, at least no more or less than they see Scrappers and Tanks and interchangeable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rofl
.
.
(give me a min still laughing)
.
.
There we go I can breath now. Do you really think that the slight differance in surviveability will allow you to hold them all.
Stone Armor tanks have running the hp accolades, Stone skin, rooted, granite, health and weave (tough is redundant) and all SO's have 39% Defense to all but psi. 90% resistance to smashing leathal and 78% resistance to all others but psi with hp at 2248 and hp per second at 35. If Earths Embrace is used your at 3212 hp and 50 hp per second.
Stone armor brutes running the same thing but adding tough are at 29% defense instead of 39%. Resistance for smashing leathal is at 87.5% (Id say thats close enough) while the rest of the resitances are at 58.5%. Hp is at 1798 with hp per second at 28. With earths embrace those jump to 2683 and 41.8.
So roughly 500 hp 10% defense and 8 hp more makes you think you can handle all of the freedom phalanx. *edit* forgot the 20% exotic damage resitance.
Oh one more thing. Brutes can choose Darkest Night from their epics. That adds a 16.6% to hit debuff and a damage debuff of 21% that not only helps you hold and survive agro it also helps your team survive any that might get away from you.
Now take into consideration Io's. Your Tank is allready near the caps so not much room for improvement. A brute however can push his surviveabilty levels VERY close to what yours are with a bit of investment while still having darkest night. Imo the brute is now just as surviable if not more so and puts out far more damage. Io's can never buff a tanks damage to a brutes level but a brute can buff its surviveability to tanker levels with Io's.
So no. I do not think your stone armor tank could hold the entire freedom phalanx.
I do however believe that my DM/Stone brute with darkest night once fully IO'd might stand a chance of at least doing it for a good period of time. The fact that I want to try that is the only reason I am still playing cox. Ill let you know how it works out.
*readies fire extinguisher*
Well I read about half of this thread before I gave up. Ironicly its not JB's posts that bug me. Maybe thats because I agree with alot of his ideas just not how he says them. However I believe its more because Im tired of reading a good point by anyone, and then having to read 4 pages of JB bashing.
One thing that I would like to point out is it is disgraceful how the devs/moderators will put up with 30 pages of people bashing someone they dont like (in this case its JB).
However if that person retaliates at all against one of their favorites the post gets deleted.
Ive seen this happen many many times. In the past I read page after page of someone insulting me or another over and over. Finally when I or someone else has enough and tells them off they wine to there moderator/dev friend and the post is deleted, thread locked and you get this nice message in your mail box stating how you broke the rules. For when it happened to me my reply was. . . . Maybe you should read the thread instead of just responding to your toadie. I did however say it a little more politely than that. Waiting for it in this thread. Rather uncool and very unprofessional.
At this point of the game fresh ideas are slim and far between. Not because they are not out there but because this forum community will not tolerate them.
Many players avoid these forums completely. I have tried to relay their ideas (while giving credit where it is due) but it always gets drowned out by those wishing to keep the status quo.
The simple fact is that this game is getting to the point that it cannot move forward while it is listening to these forums. It needs to have something in game. Account based surveys or some such that is completely anonymus.
Many times have I seen a dev respond "I am done with this thread" or some similar phrase with the same intent. Then shortly after they say it you see a fresh new idea from someone. One that will never be seen because the dev got tired of reading through all the sniveling people were doing about their OP toons getting nerfed. While I cannot entirely blame them (after all that is pretty much what this post is about) I do fault them for not nipping it at the bud. Forum rules are too lax for some and strict for others. Allowing most threads to spin out of control.
In short it is rather sad how many good ideas get buried and never seen on these forums because 20 people feel it was more important to rant about someone the do not like because they are allowed to do it. When they could have done something productive by simply saying I do not agree with you JB but player X has a great idea.
Just imagine what the game could be like if you people allowed the devs to read the good ideas instead of the flame wars.
I am done with this thread 
with the exception of checking now and then to see if a moderator has deleted this post.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking up an alternative that meets the criteria I met in my last post and I figured I'd toss this out there (although I'm sure this has been suggested in the past in some form):
Breakdown: Enemies affected by Gauntlet (not Taunt) suffer a percentage of loss to their regeneration and recovery. For kicks, we could say this is non-stackable with other Gauntlet effects in the party (multiple Tankers), or the inverse - the amount of Gauntlet in place (more attacks over time) causes a scaling Regen reduction in targets.
The idea is simple: Instead of increasing Tanker Damage, make it so that Tankers (or teams with them) have one less obstacle to contend with against foes of increasing strength and HP: Their high Regeneration values. Minions would barely feel this. LTs would probably be barely phased by it. Bosses would require fewer blows (in the early game, this would make things far less taxing for the current endurance-heavy Tanker), and AVs would seem far less resiliant. Further complicating the mix, faster attacks (usually weaker ones) would provide a better benefit to this inherit than constantly using the strongest attacks in your arsenal, creating an option for alternating attack styles to keep opponents softened up.
It's said that the little things are what truly break a man down.
And, in the case of dealing with AI opponents, I've always considered regeneration to be an absurd obstacle. It exists solely to remind you that no matter how well you can break through their resistances or defenses, they're still better than you because you can't deal enough DPS to stay above the damage treadmill.
In PvP, this would obviously have be reduced (or removed entirely). Any thoughts?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oops I lied im not done with this thread. Lol this is one of those good ideas that I mentioned that get missed because its buried in 30 pages of flame wars.
Only reason I seen this was I hit the back button instead of what I wanted to hit. Glad I did.
I agree that the regeneration mechanic is one of those annoying absurdities in MMO's. It is a very uncreative way to make an encounter difficult.
I like this idea. However imo it would have a very minimal effect for soloing. Regular mobs simply do not have enough regen to really be worth mentioning. However I think it would be great when fighting AV's. I still like the fellow who had the idea for a single target anchor that boosted his damage against that one target.
However I would not complain one bit if this idea was implemented. I can deal with the slow soloing because I usually team anyway. And I do belive that this would be good for end game content. Where I think tankers would stand the most danger of being replaced.
*edit* Decided to look up who had the idea.
Rangle_M_Down
Informant
Reged: 05/18/08
Posts: 36
Re: Nutty Tanker Damage Idea [Re: LifeGuardian]
#13527180 - 05/22/09 06:19 PM
Reply Quote Quick Reply
I threw out an idea similar to this in another thread awhile a go. I didn't call it "fury-lite" but "single target fury (STF)".
The idea would be that the longer you fight against a single target that you're "fury" would build until that target was defeated. That way you would slowly unleash the full might of your "tankdom" against only the biggest foes. You're first foe would become a pseudo anchor for your STF. If you switched to another target you wouldn't get the fury on the new one until the "anchor" was defeated. That way you wouldn't penalize you for punchvoking or taunting the surrounding targets to hold aggro. It would force you to make sure you attacked the biggest and baddest foe right off the bat so that you're STF would be on them, but it certainly would be a pain if that target ran, just like it does with other anchors.
I'm certainly not thinking it would be brute fury level of damage bonus, but a little probably wouldn't hurt. Once you're original target/foe was done, the STF would drop waiting for the next big target to build it up. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Mind you, that idea had about as much of a positive response as asking all your friends to help you move.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I would like to point out is it is disgraceful how the devs/moderators will put up with 30 pages of people bashing someone they dont like (in this case its JB).
[/ QUOTE ]
Some folks enjoy any kind of attention they can get, the mod[s] have probably figured that out.
As for the need by some to have Tankers modified, just remember (as with the coming Dom change) Castle gives [u]&[u] takes away.
Animation times got 'buffed', and certain powers get longer recharge and heavier end drain, for example.
Castle's data mining tells him that tanks already over perform (you can disagree, but that wont change his assessment), so any changes would be balanced in a way that puts tanks right where they are now.
Add a debuff, he'll lower damage, raise damage, he'll increase recharge, that's exactly his pattern the last three years.
Personally I like tanks as they are. ymmv
Uh oh. He quoted me. Does that mean I'm in trouble now?
*ducks*
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Vicar,
I respectfully agree with your opinion and have been trying to veer in that direction myself as of late. I have been attempting to only post when endorsing or presenting constructive ideas regarding Tankers. I think we should all start focusing less on retaliating against the few individuals who tend have disruptive habits and focus more on creating and supporting ideas.
To add to your second post: thank you very much for the endorsement. The idea was definitely to detract from souping-up Tankers against softer targets (which are largely met in Soloing) as my observations have been that they are not the issue at hand. The -Regeneration idea stemmed from a couple of things: A) Johnny's consistent basis that Tankers should appear more fearsome against bigger foes, but also acknowledge the fact that mundane foes are scarcely an issue. Bosses, EBs, AVs, and Giant Monsters are notorious opponents by virtue of their regeneration, and these foes are most prominently fought in teams. B) -Regeneration is, to my knowledge, scarcely used in the game but quite powerful where it is seen. I think Radiation sets are the only ones that really have a viable -Regeneration element, if any at all, and they can floor regeneration in foes to nearly zero. I would not want a Tanker to reach that level of utility, but chopping off a solid fraction of a GM or a AV's Regeneration would make it possible for smaller teams to go against these monsters without increasing their damage directly.
In conclusions, the idea was to grant the advantages of having a Tanker in the vicinity to permit requiring fewer members to be necessary to defeat more powerful opponents and give them the added benefit of appearing more fearsome against tougher types of enemies. Scrappers and Brutes can surely deal more individual damage, but -Regeneration assists an entire team, just like Gauntlet, which increases team utility.
To add to the other suggestion: It's also a very good alternative but it seems like it would require a great deal of creating coding to implement.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I am gonna guess that a stone/stone *tank* might well hold them all at once. There's still a fundamental anything-you-can-tank-I-can-tank-better truth to the Tanker archetype that Brutes nor Scrappers can touch.
Blueside, it'll be Brutes and Scrappers that are the interchangeable parts for most teams, not Brutes and Tanks, at least no more or less than they see Scrappers and Tanks and interchangeable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Snip
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right about one thing. You won't see much gap between a Tank and Brute using Granite through the s/l resists. But what about the exotic resists? Tanks (I think) have about 20% higher in exotic resists than Brutes do which makes them more easily survivable.
[ QUOTE ]
So roughly 500 hp 10% defense and 8 hp more makes you think you can handle all of the freedom phalanx. *edit* forgot the 20% exotic damage resitance.
[/ QUOTE ]
500 hp gap, more defense, better exotic resistance. Ya, I could easily survive better than a Brute could against the FP.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh one more thing. Brutes can choose Darkest Night from their epics. That adds a 16.6% to hit debuff and a damage debuff of 21% that not only helps you hold and survive agro it also helps your team survive any that might get away from you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't argue against this one. Tanks really don't have great epics except for Fire Mastery.
[ QUOTE ]
Now take into consideration Io's. Your Tank is allready near the caps so not much room for improvement. A brute however can push his surviveabilty levels VERY close to what yours are with a bit of investment while still having darkest night. Imo the brute is now just as surviable if not more so and puts out far more damage. Io's can never buff a tanks damage to a brutes level but a brute can buff its surviveability to tanker levels with Io's.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I find this the most amusing out of this entire post. My Tank has no room for improvement? Where did you pull this information from? Tanks can easily improve themselves with IOs to the point they don't even need buffs, backup from other players, or inspirations. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even need their tier 9, which I couldn't say for Brutes.
But, instead of using Granite, let's use a different powerset. Let's say WP because my only Invul is at 28. Without SOs, a Brute would eat dirt pretty fast while the Tank would still stand. Now once we get into IOs, said Tank can pretty much never be killed again.
With IOs, a WP Tank can hit the hp cap, increase their defense to the point they won't even need their tier 9.
With IOs, a WP Brute can not cap their hp, can increase their defense. Yup, Brutes can surely be as survivable as a Tank with IOs, lol!
[ QUOTE ]
So no. I do not think your stone armor tank could hold the entire freedom phalanx.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since I've done it with my Stone Brute before, I'm pretty damn sure I could do it with my Tank quite easily since I'm more survivable.
[ QUOTE ]
Unless something is done to tankers to make them unique and give more to a team and to solo play Going Rogue will be the death of tankers imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
No it won't. When GR comes out and even though I rarely invite players, I would still invite a Tank over a Brute because Tanks are good at not dying. Something I can't say about Brutes.
[ QUOTE ]
Vicar,
I respectfully agree with your opinion and have been trying to veer in that direction myself as of late. I have been attempting to only post when endorsing or presenting constructive ideas regarding Tankers. I think we should all start focusing less on retaliating against the few individuals who tend have disruptive habits and focus more on creating and supporting ideas.
To add to your second post: thank you very much for the endorsement. The idea was definitely to detract from souping-up Tankers against softer targets (which are largely met in Soloing) as my observations have been that they are not the issue at hand. The -Regeneration idea stemmed from a couple of things: A) Johnny's consistent basis that Tankers should appear more fearsome against bigger foes, but also acknowledge the fact that mundane foes are scarcely an issue. Bosses, EBs, AVs, and Giant Monsters are notorious opponents by virtue of their regeneration, and these foes are most prominently fought in teams. B) -Regeneration is, to my knowledge, scarcely used in the game but quite powerful where it is seen. I think Radiation sets are the only ones that really have a viable -Regeneration element, if any at all, and they can floor regeneration in foes to nearly zero. I would not want a Tanker to reach that level of utility, but chopping off a solid fraction of a GM or a AV's Regeneration would make it possible for smaller teams to go against these monsters without increasing their damage directly.
In conclusions, the idea was to grant the advantages of having a Tanker in the vicinity to permit requiring fewer members to be necessary to defeat more powerful opponents and give them the added benefit of appearing more fearsome against tougher types of enemies. Scrappers and Brutes can surely deal more individual damage, but -Regeneration assists an entire team, just like Gauntlet, which increases team utility.
To add to the other suggestion: It's also a very good alternative but it seems like it would require a great deal of creating coding to implement.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dark Miasma has -regen in twilight grasp and howling twilight.
Kinetics has -regen in transfusion.
Poison has it in one of the debuffs. Sad that I cant rember that one because my first 50 red side was a thugs poison lol.
Cold and Therm might as well. Cannot remeber, not really a fan of the sets so I stay away from them.
Anyway those are about the extent of the -regen mechanics I believe. I could easily be mistaken. Even if I am you are correct that it is one of the less used debuffs.
The more I think about that the more I like it. AV regeneration has been the bane of a few tfs that I have been on. Sometimes you just cannot get the right mix and you end up short damage or debuff and that regen kills ya.
If a -regen component was put into gauntlet I do not think it would need to be removed for pvp. For example brutes and tanks have the same base damage in pvp now but brutes still get their fury. So I do not think it would be completely out of line to keep that effect.
I havent been paying much attention to the pvp discussions of late. I heard that heal decay might be coming out. If so maybe a VERY minor form of heal decay on the gauntlet inherrent might work. To prevent the perma healing of blasters and dominators. With the ridiculous 40% base resistance they get killing them through someone able to spam heals on them would be nearly impossible.
That last bit is pure speculation though and would not have any bearing on pve. Pve is what I am mainly concerned with.
On the brute survivability topic. My DM Stone at 47 is able to withstand Babs, States, Citadel, and Synapse all at once as level 51 heros. If I could have found Manticore on the map I had made I think I could have it him into that as well. That was solo, no buffs and no inspirations. If I put Posi, Numina or Sister Psyche into the mix bad things were done to me.
So if a brute, admitedly imo the most surviveable brute build you can make, can survive 4 or even 5 avs at once I dont think they will have any issue for most teams and TF's running as the "tank". Also that character is only about halfway Io'd. He has a ways to go yet.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
Your Tank is allready near the caps so not much room for improvement.
[ QUOTE ]
And I find this the most amusing out of this entire post. My Tank has no room for improvement? Where did you pull this information from? Tanks can easily improve themselves with IOs to the point they don't even need buffs, backup from other players, or inspirations. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even need their tier 9, which I couldn't say for Brutes.
But, instead of using Granite, let's use a different powerset. Let's say WP because my only Invul is at 28. Without SOs, a Brute would eat dirt pretty fast while the Tank would still stand. Now once we get into IOs, said Tank can pretty much never be killed again.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
*sigh* Look what I said. I said not much room not no room. Also was talking about YOUR tank the stone armor. Was not talking about others in that instance. You are correct that the other sets the tanks outstrips the brutes surviability by what 20% or so. Meanwhile the brute does how much more damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Since I've done it with my Stone Brute before, I'm pretty damn sure I could do it with my Tank quite easily since I'm more survivable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your telling me that your stone brute stood up on the platform with the entire freedom phalanax with no buffs and coulld not be killed. I call BS on that. There is nothing you could ever do to make me believe you could stay up there indefinately. The psi damage would shred you if you were in granite and everything else would shred you if you were not. If you pop inspirations and go in with debuffs blazing then of course you can. With that many buffs and debuffs you do not need the added surviveabity a tank would give. You do need the added damage a brute would give.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless something is done to tankers to make them unique and give more to a team and to solo play Going Rogue will be the death of tankers imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
No it won't. When GR comes out and even though I rarely invite players, I would still invite a Tank over a Brute because Tanks are good at not dying. Something I can't say about Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I keep hearing this same arguement. However other than pug groups where the brute is a speed runner and trys to go ahead of the team and solo everything I just dont see it.
Come to think of it Ive seen alot of tanks play the same way as those brutes. They tend to die just as often as the brutes do.
A bad tank is a bad tank. A bad brute is a bad brute plain and simple.
*readies fire extinguisher*
Why is it people always freak out when they're being given MORE options? Good jumping Christ on a cracker.
Let GR come. The people who like tanks will play tanks. The people who like brutes will play brutes. Both have a place on the team (see co-op zones). Both can co-exist. Neither is going to 'replace' the other. Each AT brings their own strength to a team.
Stalkers have the awesome alpha debuffing and massive spike damage, scrappers flip out and kill people, brutes are runaway trains, and Tankers are the rock in which the waves crash down upon. Yeah, we could sit here for days and postulate how one is better than the other, but the fact is, they all have a strength.
What dumbfounds me is the: "Teams are going to pass you over." What server are you people playing on? Even on virtue, most the time finding a full team is like pulling teeth and you take what you can get.
Virtue:
Miserya - 50 EM/ELA Brute (Perma-shelved)
Adriana Rayne - 42 Katana/Dark Scrapper
Cyberpulse - 26 Super Strength/Willpower Brute
Steel Heart - 24 Invuln/Super Strength Tanker
[ QUOTE ]
Unless something is done to tankers to make them unique and give more to a team and to solo play Going Rogue will be the death of tankers imo.
[/ QUOTE ]
Baseless hyperbole.
Take a stroll through the games history, and you'll find tankers on the verge of extinction (in someones opinion) with regularity, when Brutes were introduced, when Scrappers got a buff when... etc, etc..
But if you really know this will happen, maybe you can pm some good stock tips for six months from now. ;T
--------------------
Tanker Fun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas I am gonna guess that a stone/stone *tank* might well hold them all at once. There's still a fundamental anything-you-can-tank-I-can-tank-better truth to the Tanker archetype that Brutes nor Scrappers can touch.
Blueside, it'll be Brutes and Scrappers that are the interchangeable parts for most teams, not Brutes and Tanks, at least no more or less than they see Scrappers and Tanks and interchangeable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Snip
[/ QUOTE ]
You're right about one thing. You won't see much gap between a Tank and Brute using Granite through the s/l resists. But what about the exotic resists? Tanks (I think) have about 20% higher in exotic resists than Brutes do which makes them more easily survivable.
[ QUOTE ]
So roughly 500 hp 10% defense and 8 hp more makes you think you can handle all of the freedom phalanx. *edit* forgot the 20% exotic damage resitance.
[/ QUOTE ]
500 hp gap, more defense, better exotic resistance. Ya, I could easily survive better than a Brute could against the FP.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh one more thing. Brutes can choose Darkest Night from their epics. That adds a 16.6% to hit debuff and a damage debuff of 21% that not only helps you hold and survive agro it also helps your team survive any that might get away from you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't argue against this one. Tanks really don't have great epics except for Fire Mastery.
[ QUOTE ]
Now take into consideration Io's. Your Tank is allready near the caps so not much room for improvement. A brute however can push his surviveabilty levels VERY close to what yours are with a bit of investment while still having darkest night. Imo the brute is now just as surviable if not more so and puts out far more damage. Io's can never buff a tanks damage to a brutes level but a brute can buff its surviveability to tanker levels with Io's.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I find this the most amusing out of this entire post. My Tank has no room for improvement? Where did you pull this information from? Tanks can easily improve themselves with IOs to the point they don't even need buffs, backup from other players, or inspirations. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even need their tier 9, which I couldn't say for Brutes.
But, instead of using Granite, let's use a different powerset. Let's say WP because my only Invul is at 28. Without SOs, a Brute would eat dirt pretty fast while the Tank would still stand. Now once we get into IOs, said Tank can pretty much never be killed again.
With IOs, a WP Tank can hit the hp cap, increase their defense to the point they won't even need their tier 9.
With IOs, a WP Brute can not cap their hp, can increase their defense. Yup, Brutes can surely be as survivable as a Tank with IOs, lol!
[ QUOTE ]
So no. I do not think your stone armor tank could hold the entire freedom phalanx.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since I've done it with my Stone Brute before, I'm pretty damn sure I could do it with my Tank quite easily since I'm more survivable.
[/ QUOTE ]
A couple of things, solo wise tanks are better then brutes at surviving, but teams change that. Brutes have the same caps that tanks do, so a well built team will make the differences very minor. Then again on a team a tank has better aggro control potential then brutes, especially with the "general" brute hatred of taunt and over all aggro control besides auras.
I also have to wonder if brutes changing sides would even have their patron pools. It is kind of hard to be trained by your patron when they are your enemy.
Dirges
[ QUOTE ]
Cold and Therm might as well. Cannot remeber, not really a fan of the sets so I stay away from them.
Anyway those are about the extent of the -regen mechanics I believe. I could easily be mistaken. Even if I am you are correct that it is one of the less used debuffs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say that regen debuffs are really that rare. Here's the ones I found with a quick look through CoD (I remembered about 2/3 from memory):
<ul type="square">[*]Cold/Benumb (120s rech, 30s dur): -500%[*]Dark/Twilight's Grasp (8s rech, 20s dur): -50%
Dark/Howling Twilight (180s rech, 30s dur): -500%[*]Kinetics/Transfusion (8s rech, 20s dur): -50%[*]Poison/Envenom (12s rech, 30s dur): -50%[*]Rad/Lingering Radiation (90s rech, 30s dur): -500%
Rad/EM Pulse (300s rech, 15s dur): -1000%[*]Thermal/Heat Exhaustion (120s rech, 40s dur): -500%[*]Traps/Poison Trap (90s rech, 10-40s dur): -1000%[*]Trick Arrow/EMP Arrow (300s rech, 15s dur): -1000%[/list]
Keep in mind those are all resistible, so the values scale down against higher levels and AVs (15% effectiveness vs lvl50s). I've actually considered the -regen component for Tanker attacks previously. The "problem" with high order regen debuffs (like those >=500%) is they're strong enough to completely shut off regen to anything short of an AV, I'd say that's too strong for a Tanker to have. If you make the regen debuff weaker, however, then it would be completely inconsequential against AVs.
What I'd do is make it a small order, unresistible regen debuff, something like 10% to 15%. It would barely help at all against weaker enemies (minions / lieutenants), but start to be helpful against bosses, and very helpful against EVs/AVs. If possible, I'd make it unstackable from a single Tank, but stackable from multiple Tanks. (Not sure if that's possible, if not, it could grant a short duration temp power with a limit per entity of 8. It would be short enough that a single Tanker would have to continuously attack to keep it up but never stack it. A second Tanker who kept attacking would be able to keep the second stack up.)
The catch? Unresistible debuffs are very dangerous because they ignore everything that causes them to scale down (resistance, purple patch, etc). This is another reason I suggested such a small value. Against an even con AV, a 10% unresistible regen debuff is equal to a 66.67% resistible regen debuff, at 15% it would equal a 100% resistible regen debuff. Rarely do we fight +0 AVs, so let's take a look an an extreme example, +4 AVs (think STF). An unresistible 10% regen debuff would equal a 160.25%, at 15% it would equal a resistible 240.38% regen debuff. So a worst case scenario, it would still be weaker than a normal debuffer.
(If Castle wanted to make an enemy that was completely immune to regen debuffs, he'd be unable to, though. That is not an insignificant point - still, some unresistible debuffs exist such as Flash Arrow and the Assassination's tohit debuff.)
The only Regen Debuff I could see Tanks getting is if they added Rad Armor/Melee.
[ QUOTE ]
The catch? Unresistible debuffs are very dangerous because they ignore everything that causes them to scale down (resistance, purple patch, etc).
[/ QUOTE ]
That is not entirely true. The purple patch will affect even unresistable debuffs (this is because the purple patch effects are combat modifiers, not actually resistances). There are also some additional special cases, such as unresistable resistance debuffs still being resisted by resistance (hey, say that three times fast?).
[ QUOTE ]
That is not entirely true. The purple patch will affect even unresistable debuffs (this is because the purple patch effects are combat modifiers, not actually resistances).
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh really? That's interesting... that means the math in my above post is pretty much all wrong for +4 AVs.
[ QUOTE ]
There are also some additional special cases, such as unresistable resistance debuffs still being resisted by resistance (hey, say that three times fast?).
[/ QUOTE ]
You lost me here, how can an unresistible resistiance debuff still get resisted by resistance? Wouldn't that make it a plain old resistible resistance debuff? Can you give an example of this?
[ QUOTE ]
What if we go with the idea of a damage boost against Boss/EB/AV/GM class mobs?
[/ QUOTE ]
Steps a bit on Scrappers toes. I wouldn't cry if it was added but I think there are better options.