[ QUOTE ]
Oh really? That's interesting... that means the math in my above post is pretty much all wrong for +4 AVs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, debuff oriented sets lose a lot of their luster against +4 AVs. Darkest Night, normally an extremely powerful debuff, is at less than half strength for the -DMG part (even worse if the AV has resistances against the damage type the AV is dealing, such as Ghost Widow or Lord Recluse), and the to-hit debuff portion becomes all but inconsequential.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, sorry, I mixed something up there -- I remembered having tested Disruption Arrow, but now I see that it's flagged as "ignores buffs and enhancements", not as "unresistable". Nevermind that part. 
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay! I was going to say, that would have been really, really weird if you were right. 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, debuff oriented sets lose a lot of their luster against +4 AVs. Darkest Night, normally an extremely powerful debuff, is at less than half strength for the -DMG part (even worse if the AV has resistances against the damage type the AV is dealing, such as Ghost Widow or Lord Recluse), and the to-hit debuff portion becomes all but inconsequential.
[/ QUOTE ]
I knew that the purple patch effects debuffs and that it really hits debuff sets hard; the only surprise to me was that it effected unresistible effects. (This is still something I want to test myself. I don't think you're lying or anything, but I want to confirm it.)
[edit: Actually, my math against +4 AVs is correct for resistible debuffs, I only got it wrong for the unresistible debuff since I didn't factor in the purple patch.]
[ QUOTE ]
The only Regen Debuff I could see Tanks getting is if they added Rad Armor/Melee.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I really don't see Castle going for it, but since it was brought up and I had put some thought into it before I wanted to share.
[ QUOTE ]
The only Regen Debuff I could see Tanks getting is if they added Rad Armor/Melee.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually think that a -regen debuff (even unresistable) is fairly unproblematic in the whole scheme of things. Unlike other debuffs, it's essentially a virtual fixed DPS increase; it doesn't increase the damage of other players, and other debuffs do not increase the benefit you derive from it. In short, it does not raise most of the usual problems you get from debuff stacking.
It also makes sense conceptually in that it would essentially mean that tanker hits are harder to recover from naturally; this is a different, grittier style of "hard hitting" that does not step on scrapper toes and is perfectly in line with an AT characterized by toughness and persistence.
What I wonder about, though, is whether it is actually worth it. Against critters below EB/AV status, it isn't going to buy you a whole lot. It could be marginally useful against Elite Bosses solo (making, say, soloing Nightstar a bit less painful with Ice Melee). But essentially it'd primarily be a niche debuff vs. archvillains. That's not without merit -- AV fights are the one use case on teams where two tankers don't stack well -- but may still be a bit too much of a niche thing for Castle & Co. having to add it to every single tanker secondary attack.
The -Regen debuff is interesting, but ultimately probably a no-go. The devs are loath to give tanks any debuffing ability at all. Frankly I was totally surprised they added some debuffing to their epics. I believe their complaint was that it would step on the toes of defenders.
Quite some time ago I posted and idea similar. Basically a minor resistance debuff is added to every ST attack a tank gets. Including pool powers and epics. Adding it to AoEs would be too much IMHO. This resistance debuff would be in the 1% range. It would be stackable, if the tank, or another tank landed a blow within a short time span (5-10 seconds). Also each rank of enemy would have a ceiling as to how much debuffing could be done this way, with GMs/AVs having a much higher ceiling than minions and underlings. Basically it's a tank wearing down the defenses of their enemies. Since it's -res, it would also add damage to tanker attacks w/o hitting the damage cap, or actually making the attacks hit harder. It would also help teams out and provide some incentive to have more than 1 tank on a team.
That idea was soundly shot down because it would step on the toes of defenders, and to some extent controllers.
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
[ QUOTE ]
The devs are loath to give tanks any debuffing ability at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
All the recently developed and proliferated tanker primaries and secondaries have debuffing abilities, actually. Generally minor ones, but debuffs none the less. Ice Armor and Ice Melee had them even before. Taunt explicitly got a -range debuff added to improve its functionality.
In any event, I don't think that history is a good predictor here. More important is whether Castle & Co. think that providing something like that to tankers actually improves the game.
This is true. Although I think the more important concern is whether or not they even get a chance to look at it - I haven't seen Castle on these forums since the Invulnerability buffs a while back.
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 ]
This is true. Although I think the more important concern is whether or not they even get a chance to look at it - I haven't seen Castle on these forums since the Invulnerability buffs a while back.
[/ QUOTE ]
Posting on the forums (or reading them) is not part of the developers' job description. From what we know, Castle and BAB do read them even if they don't post, but don't have the time to read every single post made here. (Probably even less so with the work for Going Rogue.)
Thus, if you want something to be seen, the best way to ensure that is to post it on the Suggestions and Ideas forum, not buried in the middle of a longish thread on an AT forum.
*Laughs*
Good point.
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!
Not to mention they can't really post much without people calling them every name in the book for not making the game exactly as they want it, rather than what would be the best compromise between all interests.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention they can't really post much without people calling them every name in the book for not making the game exactly as they want it, rather than what would be the best compromise between all interests.
[/ QUOTE ]
And then some....
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.
|
All I want to know is if an All-Tanker LRSF is possible. 
[ QUOTE ]
rather than what would be the best compromise between all interests.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Compromise" implies give and take, offering a concession or two. In this case there has been no such negotiation on the dev's part. They ignore one side and serve the other entirely.
There will be no compromise until there is a discussion.
There will be no discussion until the devs are willing to discuss.
Such is unlikely considering this is essentially an oligarchy.
.
Really? I've seen plenty of compromise. The repeal of the Rage crash change for one.
They aren't ignoring one side. They just aren't serving them exclusively, which is what seems to be the issue for some around here.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
[ QUOTE ]
Really? I've seen plenty of compromise. The repeal of the Rage crash change for one.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Rage crash wasn't repealed. The proposed change didn't test well, so it was backburnered until another change could be attempted.
The current crash isn't supposed to allow vet/temp powers to work during it, and the -def is still something Castle wanted to change as of last time he spoke on it.
Technically, the power is currently buffed from what it was before, and not intentionally. It was supposed to be temporary until he had time to work on it, but that hasn't happend yet, apparently.
I would offer Damocles and the sword as a metaphor, but it's not an impending nerf. It's an impending unbuff to correct a buff that wasn't supposed to happen.
.
Well said. Not having your every whim catered to does not mean you were not heard.
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
[ QUOTE ]
Well said. Not having your every whim catered to does not mean you were not heard.
[/ QUOTE ]
What about when one person is against blue side Brutes, and another is for them?
How is introducing Brutes to blue side a compromise there?
I'm sorry, but that in combination with the devs not doing anything about the Tanker situation demonstrates to me very much that no compromise has been made and that I have not been heard on one issue and ignored on another.
I also want to point out that I'm not the only one upset/disappointed about GR and that a lot of the general complaints are consistant. I bet those people feel they're not being heard as well. And I suspect the devs aren't listening to them either. They tend to lable anything they don't want to hear as "noise" and put their big ole earmuffs on. Which is fine if they want to gamble with their playerbase at a time when the competition is trying to snap them up.
GR holds nothing for me from what I see so far and actually has some things that would drive me away from the game. That and I'm currently of the opinion that the ability to throw a car and build a character closer to the way I want > anything I expect GR to ever offer.
.
#1 You know virtually nothing about what's going to be in GR.
Complaints based on fevered imaginations SHOULD be ignored.
#2 Not changing tanks means the devs are listening to the 9 out of 10 players here who like them as is.
#3 You have done nothing but gripe and moan for months, if you are so bloody displeased leave already. No one is making you stay. It is inevitable that every change will "drive away" some players.
#4 If you are so hung up on throwing a car roll a grav troller already.
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
Alright...,
- I guess I should put my two-cents worth in here. In regarding Tankers and Damage...you CAN spec a tank for pure damage - it's possible, I've done it (please see references regarding 'The Toggless Tanker' - a Inv/SS Build). The dps can easily be made on par with scrappers (if not blasters). You won't be group friendly and you most assuredly will not be leading the charge against AV's without a buff (or tier 9 activation)...but other then that, yes, you CAN make a Tanker deal damage.
- To put it simply...it's really all about slotting and power choices. If you want to be a standard 'Tank'...take toggles and a majority of what the primary powerset offers. If not, take only passive/click powers and focus primarily on the secondary (slotting for recharge/damage...accuracy optional) and there you go! See how easy that was?
- Okay, that was fun...next!
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but that in combination with the devs not doing anything about the Tanker situation demonstrates to me very much that no compromise has been made and that I have not been heard on one issue and ignored on another.
[/ QUOTE ]
See. I'm still not sure why you believe that you, above everyone else, should be "listened to" and that your vision of what tankers should be is the "solution to tanker problems". It comes across as very egotistical and you seem to throw more temper tantrums then my neighbor's spoiled 6 year old daughter. As I've mentioned before, even if I thought your overall idea had merits for tankers I doubt your ideas will at this point in time ever get anything more then a roll of the eyes as you've become sort of the "rabid dog" who won't let go of his "tanker-omination" chew toy. 
Before you go "I'm being a tank" on this idea, please stop and think. The general community has rebutted your every attempt at pushing this idea. Even though you probably won't ever believe it, maybe your idea isn't the best thing for tanks. Please, do yourself a favor and step back from the idea for a while. Look at it with fresh eyes and look at CoX as a whole. You may not change your mind about the idea, or you may come up with a better one. You may even figure a better way to present or prove that your idea is either a good one or the best one. And your continuing to use a four year old quote from the lead designer who no longer works on the game isn't going to help you win your argument no matter how much you'd like it to. That kind of argument doesn't work in divorce cases much either.
By the way, if you really think about it, Shield Defense has given tanks "moar damage". It may be only for that one powerset, but still it is "moar damage". So really, maybe in that way they did listen to you and the others who were calling for tanks to have more damage. And they did it in a manner that doesn't break the game balance. Think on that.
(corrected for spelling)
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 ]
Tankers and Damage...you CAN spec a tank for pure damage - it's possible
[/ QUOTE ]
And you will generally have fewer options and see less return for your effort than for building a Scrapper or Brute to be tougher.
Which is one of big arguments for Tanker change, because such a dispairity can't be addressed by the devs adding IOs and pool powers.
.
(QR)
There is a certain otherworldliness to how in this thread some people complain about the lack of damage tankers provide, while there is a thread about the LRSF in the general forum, where redside players wish for the durability of tankers and the strength of defender buffs/debuffs.
[ QUOTE ]
See. I'm still not sure why you believe that you, above everyone else, should be "listened to"
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe everyone should be listened to.
And I think you should heed comments coming out of left field when a number of people concede in many cases that they're valid points.
[ QUOTE ]
Before you go "I'm being a tank" on this idea, please stop and think. The general community has rebutted
[/ QUOTE ]
The general population prefers ham sandwiches to steak, therefore they are better than steak?
And by the "general population" do you mean the half dozen or so people who show up to troll any post I make? I assure you they're not the general population.
The general population of this game really doesn't care to argue either side. They, from my observation, are quite open to mild tweaks and additions to Tankers. The rabbid resistance to change you see here isn't so much a reflection of the community as it is a reflection of people who like to crap on any idea proposed.
The same people foaming in opposition to me, foamed and screamed at people proposing changed that were later adopted by the game. No less than half of the people screaming my proposals would ruin the game are the same people who screamed unlimmited respecs would ruin the game. Or that Flashback would ruin the game.
They like to moan about anyone suggesting change and they never propose anything themselves, because that would be exposing themselves to the same BS they like to fling.
.
Who are "they" again?
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
[ 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 ]
Actually, sorry, I mixed something up there -- I remembered having tested Disruption Arrow, but now I see that it's flagged as "ignores buffs and enhancements", not as "unresistable". Nevermind that part.
The purple patch, though, still fully affects otherwise unresistable powers.