But golly, Pep, what about all the people who want to play indestructible Tankers and also be able to saunter up to Lord Recluse and one-shot him?
WHAT ABOUT THEM? WHY ARE YOU SO SELFISH, HUH???
[ QUOTE ]
I like protecting my teammates(aka being a decoy, or rodeo clown), and smashing enemies, and Tanks are the best at the former, and one of the best at the latter.
[/ QUOTE ]
How can they be "one of the best" at the latter when they are the lowest damage melee AT in the game, and now there are two ranged ATs with melee attacks that hit harder than the same ones on that Tanker?
Of all the melee ATs, the are the worst offensively by far, and out of all ATs that get melee attacks in their primary and secondary, they are favouring the lower end. You can't be in sixth place out of 10 and be "one of the best."
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't mind a slight increase in damage, and I would love to see a decrease in endurance cost of Tanker attacks
[/ QUOTE ]
Then stop torpedoing the efforts of people trying to bring that about.
[ QUOTE ]
but any suggestion that makes Tanks more "gimmiky", or more/less powerful depending on some timed mechanic
[/ QUOTE ]
And as I pointed out numerous times, if implemented as I proposed, my suggestion for a Domination-esque damage boost wouldn't impact a player one bit if they chose not to take advantage of it. You could drag the icon off your tray and ignore it forever and ever and play your Tanker exactly as you do now with no loss.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not against some proposed Tanker changes because I want to protect some vague status quo
[/ QUOTE ]
Your actions and words demonstrate otherwise.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like protecting my teammates(aka being a decoy, or rodeo clown), and smashing enemies, and Tanks are the best at the former, and one of the best at the latter.
[/ QUOTE ]
How can they be "one of the best" at the latter when they are the lowest damage melee AT in the game, and now there are two ranged ATs with melee attacks that hit harder than the same ones on that Tanker?
Of all the melee ATs, the are the worst offensively by far, and out of all ATs that get melee attacks in their primary and secondary, they are favouring the lower end. You can't be in sixth place out of 10 and be "one of the best."
.
[/ QUOTE ]
YOU can't. But I can.
�Life's hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.� ― John Wayne
�Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!� - George Carlin
[ QUOTE ]
How can they be "one of the best" at the latter when they are the lowest damage melee AT in the game, and now there are two ranged ATs with melee attacks that hit harder than the same ones on that Tanker?
[/ QUOTE ]
Can these other ranged AT's survive long enough to get use of their melee attacks? Defensive strength plays an important role in this equation.
[ QUOTE ]
Of all the melee ATs, the are the worst offensively by far, and out of all ATs that get melee attacks in their primary and secondary, they are favouring the lower end. You can't be in sixth place out of 10 and be "one of the best."
[/ QUOTE ]
You can be one of the best if your composite ability, offensive and defensive, is higher than the median. See my earlier posts about what a heavy hitter really means.
[ QUOTE ]
See my earlier posts about what a heavy hitter really means.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really care what you think being a heavy hitter means.
Consistantly hitting weaker than all the other melee ATs by 40% isn't being a heavy hitter.
.
I really don't understand how this argument can now keep going and going and going and going.
With the future update where you can swap sides I can't see how anyone is complaining about damage in tanks anymore. If you want more damage... play a brute. Simple as that. It should be that answer now with scrappers, but it will be doubly so when brutes can come blue side.
Let people who want to play tanks continue to play them as is, and everyone who wants a tank but with more damage can go play the brute. If as you all seem to think there are no tanks left then maybe the devs will do something about it, but it's all supposition and opinion until then. There seems to be a large portion of people who still like playing them at this point, so arguing about it constantly and needlessly is quite irritating, and bordering on spam considering the mod's usually lock these posts anyway.
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand how this argument can now keep going and going and going and going.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because the devs don't do anything to resolve it.
Brutes aren't a solution to Tanker concept/design issues.
.
These discussions drag on because.....
"I don't really care what you think "-Johnny_Butane
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
The dev's are not required to have a resolution to your perceived problem that Tanks do not have enough damage. You seem to think you are entitled to something from them. You can play the game as they design it... or you can leave. They are not required to make any change that you or anyone else comes up with.
Brutes are tanks that do more damage.
You're being pedantic for no reason whatsoever. The resolution to your problem is to play another class that is effectively the same but plays the way you want this class to play.
Tankers are obviously not for you in their current incarnation in the game but there clearly are a group of people who like them as is. You're mandating that the devs should listen to you over others and that is both childish and wrong... and the fact that no changes have been made regardless of your opinion over the years (as you continually bring up) should be a clear sign that the dev's have no intention of listening to you and so you should probably stop with the endless and nonstop badgering of anyone who doesn't have exactly the same opinion as you.
[ QUOTE ]
These discussions drag on because.....
"I don't really care what you think "-Johnny_Butane
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you're right. I really don't care about how someone crafts a ridiculous definition of "being a heavy hitter" to justify calling Tankers that as they are now.
Or the nonsense people use to validate the disparities that exist and defend the team's heroic heavy hitter/big gun being shafted conceptually with a role primarlily as a decoy/rodeo clown with piddling vanilla damage.
@Alabaster12:
[ QUOTE ]
The resolution to your problem is to play another class that is effectively the same but plays the way you want this class to play.
[/ QUOTE ]
No class exists to be the heroic heavy hitter.
We've got the scrappy little mutants with knives coming out of his hands.
We've got the stealthy dark knights who strike hidden from the shadows.
We've got the brutish gamma irradiated monsters who are ruled by anger.
And we've got medium damage decoys who don't do justice to any hero with super strength and don't fill the role as the team big guy.
Tankers should be that class. The lead designer of the game even said that they should be and confirmed they were intended to be the kind of heavy hitting hero in question. I suspect the majority of people wouldn't call Tankers heavy hitters as they are now by any means. So, why isn't that something that should be looked at? Because some people other than me settled for less?
.
[ QUOTE ]
any suggestion that makes Tanks more "gimmiky", or more/less powerful depending on some timed mechanic, I would be against because I like the fact that Tanks are just a solid framework, and it's up to the player to make the most out of it. Nothing fancy, just effective.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree 100%.
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand how this argument can now keep going and going and going and going.
[/ QUOTE ]
One very persistent troll.
[ QUOTE ]
The general population prefers ham sandwiches to steak, therefore they are better than steak?
[/ QUOTE ]
You do like to constantly use overly exaggerated metaphors don't you?
Actually I think it's closer to looking at two different steaks. One 10 oz. porterhouse and a 11 oz porterhouse with lots of marbling. Although the 11oz steak looks bigger, once you trim all the fat away you may have had a tastier steak, but you really ended up with only 9 oz of meat.
And why do you keep trying to order a 11oz steak at a sandwich shop anyway?
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 ]
These discussions drag on because.....
"I don't really care what you think "-Johnny_Butane
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you're right. I really don't care about how someone crafts a ridiculous definition of "being a heavy hitter" to justify calling Tankers that as they are now.
Or the nonsense people use to validate the disparities that exist and defend the team's heroic heavy hitter/big gun being shafted conceptually with a role primarlily as a decoy/rodeo clown with piddling vanilla damage.
@Alabaster12:
[ QUOTE ]
The resolution to your problem is to play another class that is effectively the same but plays the way you want this class to play.
[/ QUOTE ]
No class exists to be the heroic heavy hitter.
We've got the scrappy little mutants with knives coming out of his hands.
We've got the stealthy dark knights who strike hidden from the shadows.
We've got the brutish gamma irradiated monsters who are ruled by anger.
And we've got medium damage decoys who don't do justice to any hero with super strength and don't fill the role as the team big guy.
Tankers should be that class. The lead designer of the game even said that they should be and confirmed they were intended to be the kind of heavy hitting hero in question. I suspect the majority of people wouldn't call Tankers heavy hitters as they are now by any means. So, why isn't that something that should be looked at?
.
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't get it.
People play this game to have fun.... not for your opinion of what each class should be. They also don't play it for what a lead designer said 3 years ago about a class that has changed constantly.
If a large group of people are having fun playing tankers exactly the way they are why do you feel entitled to taking that away from them.
Conceptually this game is what you make it. That is how people can fit just about any story and/or character into virtually any model. As evidence, just walk around and take a look at some of the crazy yet also amazingly creative stories people have to fit their powers into their own imaginations.
Your rigid definitions of each class do not work at all, and the fact that you can't mold your own definition of a heavy hitter in to a class (brute) that is clearly begging for the definition shows a clear lack of imagination. On top of that you are expecting others to fit into your idea for what each class should be.
Given options for two classes that have solid defenses and damage, where one has higher base damage and lower defense, and one that has higher base defense and lower damage... you feel like you can't fit your concept into the playstyle that you want.
I say again... if you are so unhappy... find another class that fits your definition and use your imagination to make that work for you.
If you can't make that work for you, there are plenty of other games out there for you to enjoy.
Neither of these options includes spamming and irritating everyone who is trying to get help on a message board for a class they like and for a game they like and having to deal with someone who drones on with the same topic week after week after week.
[ QUOTE ]
See my earlier posts about what a heavy hitter really means.
I don't really care what you think being a heavy hitter means.
Consistantly hitting weaker than all the other melee ATs by 40% isn't being a heavy hitter.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Gee, JB, usually you try once or twice to argue before throwing out fallacious arguments. The reason no one listens to you about Tank-omination or any of your other "fixes" is that you don't care about or consider other viewpoints. You just throw out meaningless jibberish and claim your being a "True Tanker." You have no concept of game balance or data-mining. What you do know is how to hold a grudge for the Devs and the player base no automatically jumping at your beck and call and how to toss fallacious arguments around until you alienate anyone who might disagree with you. Oh, and just to make it clear, I am not replying to this post in any silly vain attempt to educate you. I am replying to this post to point out the flaws in your methods to anyone who might reasonably think you are right.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
How true.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good luck on your attempt at reason. Good ideas are proposed all of the time for insuring Tankers have a role in this game. It is a sad fact that many are lost in the JB V. The World battles of the week.
Just because it has been pointed out that JB's "Detractors" never present any ideas of their own for fear of being flamed. let me post my thoughts on what could be done with Tanks to make them more attractive.
1st rule. Tankers defenses and aggro abilities must remain untouched. My first job is "rodeo clowning" AKA Tanking, not scranking AKA feeding my own ego.
1. Make no changes to the Tanker AT as a whole and focus balance efforts on individual powersets. Arguing for Tankomination, damage bonuses, or whatever might be unbalancing for some power sets but reasonable for others. Lets allow the Dev team the freedom to apply balance efforts where needed.
2. Allow Tankers to use Defender or Controller numbers for Leadership pool. This allows more build options without adding something for nothing so to speak.
Apply an additional inherent ability into Gauntlet such as those suggested in this thread or others like it. None of these are my idea and I take no credit for them. These ideas in no particular order include resistance debuff, regeneration debuff, Mez stacking., extra damage V. Bosses and higher.
I believe the dev's do listen to the ideas that are floated out there when they're brought to their attention. Whether it's by them reading posts, having posts pointed out to them, or by someone sending them an email with suggestions.
I suspect they're fully aware of JB's suggestion as he's made quite a bit of noise about it, much to the detriment of the thread topics he's posted it in. But whether or not the dev's feel it has as much merit as JB would like to believe is a different thing. JB feels he's struck gold with this idea of his and can't understand why the majority of the vocal tank group opposes it. Said vocal group evidently sees his idea as pyrite.
In the end the dev's will make changes they feel improve the game and the AT's involved. Inevitably, there will be hits and misses and great debate as to which is what. I'm looking forward to Going Rogue as I will play a tank redside. I'll grab a powerset I haven't played with yet and go to town. I'm looking forward to seeing how it will play out in the long run. In the end, it still just a game. A fun game, but a game none the less.
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.
|
Let me put it this way. I currently have 9 tanks covering every primary and secondary ranging from 28-50 the majority being 40+. I lead two all tank SG for the RO network covering both freedom and virtue. I've tanked every story arc, trial, tf, and many MA arcs. I've tanked through ED, GDN, a handful of taunt changes, IOs, and a couple versions of pvp. To say I have a feel for the AT is an understatement.
For comparison I have half a dozen scrappers across the secondaries, most of the 50. I also have two level 50 brutes and a handful of babies. At one point or another I have tanked with every one of those alts as well.
While scrappers and brutes have thier own charms I find myself missing my aggro control when I play them.
The ability to go rogue will certainly not cause me to play tanks less, my almost four years of ingame experience (without breaks fwiw) tells me that the demand for my services will more than likely increase not decrease.
I am not opposed to change and evolution but I will vehemently oppose anything that I see as a threat to the feel and role of my favorite AT.
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
[ QUOTE ]
Apply an additional inherent ability into Gauntlet such as those suggested in this thread or others like it. These ideas in no particular order include resistance debuff, regeneration debuff, Mez stacking., extra damage V. Bosses and higher.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have personally argued in favour of three of those four items numerous times.
Damage vs bosses and higher only got brought up recently because someone said they saw me suggest it a couple of times.
Tankers getting Defender/Controller level Leadership buffs? Again, something that came recently from a suggestion I made. Was I the fist to suggest it? Unlikely. But you're talking about it because someone saw me suggest it not to long ago in one of those threads of mine you guys say are so much garbage and brought it up again as a good idea for helping to address Tanker issues.
So you are in favour of many of the things I'm calling for, while attacking me for what I call for. You really don't know much of what I've actually suggested beyond "Johnny wants more damage," do you?
.
[ QUOTE ]
I have personally argued in favour of three of those four items numerous times.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yet what we see argued most is the dead horse of Tankomination. Rather than going for ideas that seem to be drawing popular support you always draw discussion back to that.
[ QUOTE ]
Damage vs bosses and higher only got brought up recently because someone said they saw me suggest it a couple of times.
[/ QUOTE ]
You or Myrmidon. And as I said before the idea steps on Scrappers toes and I really think IF a global change of the Tanker AT is warranted a better solution can be found.
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers getting Defender/Controller level Leadership buffs? Again, something that came recently from I suggestion I made. Was I the fist to suggest it? Unlikely. But you're talking about it because someone saw me suggest it not to long ago in one of those threads of mine you guys say are so much garbage and brought it up again as a good idea for helping to address Tanker issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
The idea to my knowledge first came about for general discussion last year. The idea was the result of a dialogue between yourself and I. What is garbage is when you beat dead horses and throw meaningless jibberish around rather than build consensus to identify, prove, and fix the problem.
[ QUOTE ]
So you are in favour of many of the things I'm calling for, while attacking me for what I call for. You really don't know much of what I've actually suggested beyond "Johnny wants more damage," do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
The part you seemed to have skipped over was the part where I said changes should be done on a power set basis and not an AT basis. That is what I was most in favor of and then worked my way down the list. It may strain something for you to know this, but who puts forth an idea pales in my regard to the validity of the idea. Since you take part in everyone of these threads, I imagine you have had some level of input directly or indirectly on every proposed "solution" on the subject. I am sorry keeping track of what you suggest is not my primary focus in these forum debates. My primary goal in these debates is to keep the debates going and point out negative tactics and fallacies of logic. Hence why I keep having to reply to you.
[ QUOTE ]
You really don't know much of what I've actually suggested beyond "Johnny wants more damage," do you?
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever buffs you think you can get away with, usually, often appropriating ideas and concepts proposed by other people. By all appearances, this is not because you find them more sensible, but because you expect more success from a piecemeal approach.
There's no coherent vision from a game design perspective behind your proposals, other than a consistent theme of getting tanker damage output buffed (covering 90% of your proposals), which is where people get that idea.
[ QUOTE ]
While scrappers and brutes have thier own charms I find myself missing my aggro control when I play them.
The ability to go rogue will certainly not cause me to play tanks less, my almost four years of ingame experience (without breaks fwiw) tells me that the demand for my services will more than likely increase not decrease.
I am not opposed to change and evolution but I will vehemently oppose anything that I see as a threat to the feel and role of my favorite AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
/signed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand how this argument can now keep going and going and going and going.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because the devs don't do anything to resolve it.
[/ QUOTE ]
No the real answer is a certain poster found another redundant thread to latch onto. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but really, broken record dude.
Castle is unlikely to respond to you, but if you feel the need, start your own thread with various suggestions like I did with war mace way back when and muster support for it. It took a couple years but mace got a great buff and Castle said it was directly because of the support that thread had, and how long we kept it going.
You'd have to learn to talk with us rather then at us, but it could be a fun project, if you're that passionate about whatever.
/chin up
[ QUOTE ]
Castle is unlikely to respond to you
[/ QUOTE ]
Castle is unlikely to respond to anyone.
[ QUOTE ]
but if you feel the need, start your own thread with various suggestions
[/ QUOTE ]
Been there, done that. The last general discussion thread on the issue that I launched was the one where Castle dragged it OT and got half of it nuked.
[ QUOTE ]
It took a couple years but mace got a great buff
[/ QUOTE ]
It did?
[ QUOTE ]
You'd have to learn to talk with us rather then at us
[/ QUOTE ]
You'd have to listen and share my general opinion instead of pushing for the exact opposite. I've got little interest in shoving Tankers further into a niche as aggro monkeys, which is where I see 85% of suggestions coming from by the people who who crap on my efforts.
.
I like Peanut Butter, and Jelly sandwiches.
I can't speak for everyone, but I like Tanks. I like their plain straightforward solidness. I don't like being a slave to mechanics like Fury, or Domination to be affective, or having to spam clicks to hold enemies before I can attack them, or get killed because I aggroed too many enemies.
I'll play those ATs to have some variety in my play, and to get the most out of CoX, and I've played Tanks, scrappers, defenders, controllers, blasters, brutes, and stalkers to lvl 50, but I always keep coming back to Tanks.
I like protecting my teammates(aka being a decoy, or rodeo clown), and smashing enemies, and Tanks are the best at the former, and one of the best at the latter.
I'm not against some proposed Tanker changes because I want to protect some vague status quo, but because I like Tanks, and know, not just believe, that they can be a huge asset to teams, as well as good soloists.
I wouldn't mind a slight increase in damage, and I would love to see a decrease in endurance cost of Tanker attacks, but any suggestion that makes Tanks more "gimmiky", or more/less powerful depending on some timed mechanic, I would be against because I like the fact that Tanks are just a solid framework, and it's up to the player to make the most out of it. Nothing fancy, just effective.
There are other ATs if you want fancy.