The fact that the devs released a tanker primary that has an aggro aura that increases damage depending on the number of enemies nearby AND an AoE attack that does extreme damage tells me that the devs don't want tankers to do any sort of heavy hitting.
Yeah.
[ QUOTE ]
resort to personal attack...false blanket of discredit...fallacies
[/ QUOTE ]
The irony is so thick you could cut it with Dual Blades.
.
[ QUOTE ]
They already have aggro control abilities. They control aggro so well it makes more than one of them largely redundant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you ever done an ITF or an STF? Have you ever considered 2 tanks do an 8 man split, and each take half a team to clear the mission in half the time? heck have you even considered leap frogging tankers where 2 tankers continually alternate grabbing aggro through missions so the mobs are all nice and compact as blaster AoE bait and the team flies along non stop. Multiple tanks have been used in those TF's to isolate key AV's. Multiple tanks in much of the content of the game is redundant but many AT's have redundancy issues so that is hardly a Tanker exclusive issue. The problem is not that multiple tankers are inherently redundant, it is that some segments of the player base under-utilize tankers aggro control and damage mitigation capabilities by a stubborn adherence to inflexible team tactics.
[ QUOTE ]
If you can't tell the difference between me suggesting things like the Tanker Domination proposal and calling for a tank-mage, you're the one failing Game Design 101.
[/ QUOTE ]
Since I don't fully remember the numbers for Tank Domination I cannot say the idea in and of itself was flawed. However in Game design 101 another of the things you learn is that if it isn't broke don't fix it without a good reason. The only cause you have ever shown is that tanking does not match YOUR interpretation of comic book fights. A good designer tries to match the source material but not at the cost of game balance. I can also say that when you brought up Tankomination the Devs had just begun work on MA so they just might have been a little busy with that as a game affecting change for all AT's as opposed to tweaking one AT to match some players views of how that AT should work.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a little FYI. Brutes have demonstrated you can be more survivable than a Scrapper, and be able to hit harder than them some of the time. A Brute has Tanker resistance caps, more HP than a Scrapper and he's capable of hitting MUCH harder than the Scrapper at times.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait a minute "Mr. Brutes step on Tankers toes" is trying to use Brutes as an example of perfect design? Brutes have lower Hit points than tankers have the defense numbers of scrappers and to keep their fury bar high have to continually be fighting to achieve higher than scrapper level damage. Scrappers with their up front burst and consistent damage can still out do brutes unless the Brute is able to keep his fury bar at an average of 2/3 full through out the entire encounter. Tankers who have much higher mitigation numbers than scrappers or Brutes are able to consistently deal damage against larger groups than Brutes will ever be able to withstand. and yes their are elements of brutes as an AT that are broke. Those being the higher damage cap and mitigation caps in one AT makes them buff sponges. So I guess if you want to break Tanks we should make them more like Brutes with front-loaded damage with a Tank-Domination direct port.
[ QUOTE ]
How is that any different than my Tanker inherent proposal suggesting Tankers could hit harder than they do now some of the time? It's not.
Few argued my proposal was stright up over powered or unreasonable and I don't think ANYONE thought it was going to turn Tankers into tank-mages. But it allowed them to be heavy hitters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe it wasn't but the Devs were mite busy at that point what with Mission Architect and all being just a little revolutionary. It might be as simple as they had bigger items on their respective plates. And as far as Tanks being heavy hitters have you ever noticed that Tanks generally have 1 or two attacks per set with a higher brawl index than a comparable Scrapper set pop a few reds before unleashing these and look at the the big orange numbers. Have you ever had a Kin drop FS on you before you Energy Transfer. Big Orange Numbers
[ QUOTE ]
And had it fallen on the ears of devs who gave a damn about the AT's conceptual failings, I suspect it would have gotten more consideration.
[/ QUOTE ]
K your still holding a grudge that the Devs didn't immediately drop every thing they were doing to implement your idea for a problem that has yet to be proven exists. I do not feel feel that Tankers conceptually fail their comic progenitors within game balance concerns. So between my opinion and your opinion did it ever occur to you that insufficient evidence has been shown to exist to warrant a programming change such as the one you are suggesting?
So when countering this retort do you intend to use personal attack fallacies or do you intend to quote me out of context. I really would like to know how you plan on showing off your inability to reasonably argue ahead of time.
Post edited for grammatical error in 1st response to promote clarity of intent.
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
resort to personal attack...false blanket of discredit...fallacies
The irony is so thick you could cut it with Dual Blades.
[/ QUOTE ]
Still waiting for proof. If you cannot cite evidence leaving the implication of fallacies of logic is also an insufficient response. Is the implication that you are trying to leave that I am discrediting you with personal attacks or quoting out of context.
I think that if a reasonable person goes back and looks at every response I have made to you no quote has ever been taken out of context nor have I directly attacked you as a person on an unrelated issue.
[ QUOTE ]
So when countering this retort do you intend to use personal attack fallacies or do you intend to quote me out of context. I really would like to know how you plan on showing off your inability to reasonably argue ahead of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again: irony-slice-plop.
.
There's no irony there.
You're using the word incorrectly.
"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 ]
Again: irony-slice-plop.
[/ QUOTE ]
You become flustered when confronted with arguments of logic and resort to fallacies of logic to try to win the discussion.
Thanks for proving my point have a nice night. Enjoy your gaming.
and, Johnny
you still have never explained how such a failed class as Tanker still manages to be THE FOURTH MOST POPULAR A.T. IN THE ENTIRE GAME!
You've tried to explain it away as "user error" but, in the end, it is we who play Tankers who are making the final judgement. Most of us think that being a 'Rodeo Clown' is a fun time!
You're the one who's failing to get the *point* about this 
There is no such thing as an "innocent bystander"
[ QUOTE ]
you still have never explained how such a failed class as Tanker still manages to be THE FOURTH MOST POPULAR A.T. IN THE ENTIRE GAME!
[/ QUOTE ]
What do you think you can tell me about game design when I'm ONE HUNDRED FEET TALL!?
.
[ QUOTE ]
Geez, another drama thread in the tankers forum? C'mon guys/gals...not even the defenders forum is made up of such drama llamas.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Tanker forum aggros the trolls to protect the other forums.
[ QUOTE ]
The only cause you have ever shown is that tanking does not match YOUR interpretation of comic book fights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Four-year-old former dev quote in 5...
4...
3...
[ QUOTE ]
I bent my Wookie.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's nice, dear.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bent my Wookie.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's nice, dear.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman = Ralph Wiggum. Film at eleven.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Tankers (and indeed all AT's) have fewer options or options of poor quality, past selection of primary and secondary power selections for increasing damage. I suggested a while back giving tankers the same level of benefit from leadership pool as Defenders or Controllers. Other suggestions have been made including but not limited to a stacking damage resistance debuff inherent, a Domination style inherent (JB's idea) that would multiply damage and aggro radius when active. Also suggested a battle stance system allowing tankers to lower mitigation to increase damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
I also want to add to this that the problem above isn't something you can fix at the power pool or IO sets level. The simple fact is the ability to get more damage is easier to balance on some ATs more than others. It's got to be done at the AT level from what I see, and since the Tanker is the AT that's affected the most by the problem, they are what needs changing. With respect to this, the system works fine for all the other ATs.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, more damage is not the answer. As I have said before, what you have successfully done Johnny is point out a problem with the current "damage is king" state of the game. Allowing subdual and sapping to be as effective as damage in gaining experience will level the playing field for all archetypes across the game.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
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 ]
How is that any different than my Tanker inherent proposal suggesting Tankers could hit harder than they do now some of the time? It's not.
Few argued my proposal was stright up over powered or unreasonable and I don't think ANYONE thought it was going to turn Tankers into tank-mages. But it allowed them to be heavy hitters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most have argued that your suggested system isn't necessary. Giving tankers more damage still leaves them trailing behind brutes and scrappers in that department. So how does your "Tank-omination" scheme make tankers more attractive?
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
And again, more damage is not the answer. As I have said before, what you have successfully done Johnny is point out a problem with the current "damage is king" state of the game. Allowing subdual and sapping to be as effective as damage in gaining experience will level the playing field for all archetypes across the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
And how should a super strong hero or a guy with a huge mace "subdue" a giant robot?
By smashing the crap out of it. And that would be damage.
The second you have holds, mezzes and debuffs defeat enemies, that's damage.
.
[ QUOTE ]
There's no irony there.
You're using the word incorrectly.
[/ QUOTE ]
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"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 ]
Geez, another drama thread in the tankers forum? C'mon guys/gals...not even the defenders forum is made up of such drama llamas.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Tanker forum aggros the trolls to protect the other forums.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's right! All tankers, all the time!
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
And how should a super strong hero or a guy with a huge mace "subdue" a giant robot?
[/ QUOTE ]
Press the 'off' switch. Pull the battery. Give it an unsolvable riddle. Dump it in liquid nitrogen. Suspend it in the air with an electromagnet.
Ask it nicely?
"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
I thought it was using yo' momma jokes because eventually it would stop attacking and start using its own insults.
Edit: I really need to learn to stop repeating nouns in my sentences.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And again, more damage is not the answer. As I have said before, what you have successfully done Johnny is point out a problem with the current "damage is king" state of the game. Allowing subdual and sapping to be as effective as damage in gaining experience will level the playing field for all archetypes across the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
And how should a super strong hero or a guy with a huge mace "subdue" a giant robot?
By smashing the crap out of it. And that would be damage.
The second you have holds, mezzes and debuffs defeat enemies, that's damage.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
As far as tankers go they would use a combination of damage, sudual and sapping to take down their foes. The latter supporting the former in order to bring their combat effectiveness and leveling speed in line with an archetype that relies mostly on damage.
I disagree that defeating an enemy through holds, mezzes and debuffs equates to damage done. Let's say you use something like fossilize (without damage) to hold a mob. If you can hold said mob long enough to get a teleport beacon on him then he's defeated without a scratch on him. Similarly if a kinetics defender weakens them to the point that they can't fight back effectively while you package them up for the PPD they are defeated with no bloodshed. Finally if you use some form of fear inducing power to force them into a fetal position crying for their mommy it's simplicity in itself to apprehend them at your leisure without violence.
Damage is all well and good but, IMO, it represents a narrowness of vision in a world full of super humans.
"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 ]
And how should a super strong hero or a guy with a huge mace "subdue" a giant robot?
[/ QUOTE ]
Press the 'off' switch. Pull the battery. Give it an unsolvable riddle. Dump it in liquid nitrogen. Suspend it in the air with an electromagnet.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oooo! How very Batman-esque! You made a fabulous point! Btaman, a hero trained in several different styles of martial arts who frequently carries around any number of small explosives and sharp pointy things often uses his intellect to outsmart opponents. Spider-Man is the same way, undoubtedly possessing super strength, he chooses to use his mind to defeat villains rather than his muscles.
Very interesting....
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
Still haven't found that Shift key yet?
Keep looking! It can be a tricky little scoundrel!
[/ QUOTE ]
Nice try JB resorting to personal attack when unwilling or unable to invalidate a point of logic is no better. Since you can't invalidate the argument you must try to invalidate the messenger. When an arguer must resort to personal attack to invalidate the speaker and throw a false blanket of discredit over an issue it is a sure sign of the weakness of their own argument. You have to resort to fallacies of logic a lot on these boards, You know that right?
Oh and my grammar is not perfect, I know it already. You don't need to point it out. The credibility of my argument continues to stand.
So if you are capable of validating a point on any of this do so.