My eyes are opened!

[ QUOTE ]
The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The need to be fast for a scrapper is directly due to its lowered mitigation. If it takes too long, it dies and fails the race.

It's balanced. No change needed.

---

Be well, people of CoH.

[ QUOTE ]
You're still completely ignoring that the tank has the mitigation to allow him to slow his attacks down, thus allowing more time for his recovery to do its thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Foes also regenerate though, I dont necesarely agree but It's a worthwhile test:

The tanker would have to slow down to 63% of his normal killing speed for recovery do do enough for him to kill the same challenge the target can kill. This is equivalent of gutting the tanker damage to .504. The net tanker damage ends up being 42% of the scrapper damage and that's against minnions. Against anyting else it's at 40.7%

That's not noting that even end heavier armor sets (I'm testing with the end lightest armors here) would be forced to slow even more. These sets are not necessarily more survivable.

Despite what others may say: the tanker WAS designed to solo, soloing was just not their main thing. When the game came out tankers and scrappers both were listed as solo ATs, but the tanker was noted to do so slower. Dev hearsay back in the day was that the intention was for the tanker to perform at 75% of the scrapper speed (witch btw, it does not, base tanker damage is at 67.7% of the scrapper damage vs minions, 64.6% vs everything else)

Do you actually agree the Tanker should kill at 40% the scrapper speed?

Edit:
Correction: against anything other than minions the tanker has to actually go down to 60% of the speed to achieve the same, taking the tanker all the way down to 38.7%. not 40%. I forgot to take into account the higher regen rate of non-minions.

For time perspectives: this means the tanker would be forced to take 85.74 seconds to defeat what the scrapper defeats in 32.47 seconds. That's 53.27 extra seconds, almost an extra minute to kill what the scrapper killed in nearly half a minute, not because the tanker lower damage but because his endurance became a bottleneck.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this quote just a bit hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only slightly. "Shut up if all you going to say is Shut Up" may sound hypocritical but is rather valid. It's like "never say never."

---

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually agree the Tanker should kill at 40% the scrapper speed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that a well built tank can herd up to the aggro cap and then go for a smoke while a scrapper doing the same will faceplant?

Sure.

---

Be well, people of CoH.

Herding is only effective if the set has heavy AoE therefore very powerset based. It's a mid to high level phenomena that only certain builds can do. At those levels scrapper survivability is also robust enough to herd, by witch point the scrapper shows an even higher disparity against the tanker.

If you don't have one of the select sets at the proper level ranges you are forced to do loads of St damage and may be better off just going from one foe to the next.

Super Strength is pure ST all the way to 38! 39 if you consider the thing is unslotted until that level.

Now, they could modify all tanker secondaries to be AoE heavy from an early level, thing I also have suggested in the past but would require too much redesign and likely the addition of new powers into the set, something that is very unlikely to happen.

---

He's referring to mitigation capability and the lack of risk in solo situations.

---

It's all moot, man. I understand that you don't feel that tankers' greater mitigation is enough to account for their lower damage.

I understand that you believe tanker damage should be raised because of this.

I disagree.

I don't play tanks because they are too slow on the killing front for me. I'd rather have Just enough mitigation to get keep me standing long enough to take the spawn in question out.

Tank mitigation is high enough that they get to be leisurely as they destroy spawns. It doesn't matter if all I have is whirling hands when I can set it on auto and go drink a beer while the spawn gets slowly pulverized.

If you want tank damage to be higher so that they kill faster, fine, let's do it. But you have to give up an equal amount of mitigation to get it.

---

Be well, people of CoH.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want tank damage to be higher so that they kill faster, fine, let's do it. But you have to give up an equal amount of mitigation to get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait for Going Rogue and just make a Brute (or Corruptor), play it heroside. All issues resolved.

Or if you somehow still have issues with that, then you should campaign for benefits to those ATs.

/thread

---

[ QUOTE ]
If you want tank damage to be higher so that they kill faster, fine, let's do it. But you have to give up an equal amount of mitigation to get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't believe he's asked for an increase in Tanker damage anywhere. He's asked for a strange and roundabout method to give tankers an extra 40% endurance efficiency to bring the end DPE of their attacks to Scrapper levels.

---

[ QUOTE ]

I understand that you believe tanker damage should be raised because of this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually don't.

Asking for a damage buff would actually help, but I actually agree with you partially on being able to use our longevity at surviving without counter-intuitive slow downs.

For the record: if the devs were to sustain the "75% scrapper of damage" that has been tossed around, the tanker damage should actually be .9. But again, I personally would just rather ask for the endurance efficiency required to sustain the tanker slower killing speed.

---

I listen to Starsman. I just use a freaking plate of salt because of statements like "In certain situations, range made this blaster more survivable than my tanker, and no, that's no hyperbole. "

In certain situations, melee gets you identical damage to ranged. But we aren't fighting 100% Gunslingers and Rikti Drones from level 1 to 50, are we?

My rough estimate (I remembered the result, forgot the methodology) was that an Inv scrapper at level 35-ish was SIX TIMES HARDER TO KILL than a Blaster, NOT COUNTING THE MEZ PROTECTION.

Back to your "Tankers should use 40% less endurance for their attacks, because... um... it sounds good in my head" discussion.

---

Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.

So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understand that you believe tanker damage should be raised because of this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually don't.

Asking for a damage buff would actually help, but I actually agree with you partially on being able to use our longevity at surviving without counter-intuitive slow downs.

For the record: if the devs were to sustain the "75% scrapper of damage" that has been tossed around, the tanker damage should actually be .9. But again, I personally would just rather ask for the endurance efficiency required to sustain the tanker slower killing speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flip side to that is the fact that scrappers don't have 75% the survivability of tankers, do they?

I hear you, Starsman. I really do. But nothing you've shown me so far has been enough to sway me from the belief that for X amount of endurance, tankers shouldn't be more efficient with toggles just as scrappers shouldn't be more efficient with attacks.

---

Be well, people of CoH.

That's why I note "if the devs sustain", it was tossed about in a time that they themselves didnt understand the game mechanics. The first time they said that they also said scrappers should be 75% as survivable, but ironically that would indeed be broken because making scrappers take only 25% more damage than tankers would allow them to be full tanks.

The same does not hold true with damage, though. Either way, I'm staying away from asking more damage.

[ QUOTE ]
tankers shouldn't be more efficient with toggles just as scrappers shouldn't be more efficient with attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity though, why do scrapper gets stronger -tohit than tankers? RTTC is stronger for scrappers than tankers, for one, as are all -tohit and -damage debuffs (that would be noticed when Ice Armor gets proliferated)

Out of curiosity: how can some one that agrees dominators that can lock down everything do as much damage as they are going to do now be so against a simple endurance boost?

If castle came out tomorrow and said tankers go their damage boosted to .95, would your next post be how broken it is or how you are going to now play a fun tank? I'm seriously curious if you would be upset with him stating such a buff was in.

If one thing that change shows is that the devs don't intend to balance survivability vs damage output anywhere near as low as I propose here.

---

NOTE: Consolidated post replies

[ QUOTE ]
The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to inform you since you seem to not know about this little tidbit...

There are 5 ATs Hero side. 4 of those 5 ATs are team oriented ATs. That means that they function more efficiently when they are doing their job rather than everyone elses.

The Defender's job is to buff/debuff. Not to deal or take massive amounts of damage.

The Tankers job is to take massive amount of damage. Not to deal it, or buff/debuff.

The Blaster's job is to deal massive amount of damage. Not take it or buff/debuff.

The Controller's job is crowd control. not to deal or take massive amounts of damage. Although, they can buff/debuff, its not their primary function.

Scrappers were designed to be the solo oriented AT. That means that they were designed to deal and take damage. However, since they do both, they won't do it as well as Blasters and Tanks with their specialties.

You really shouldn't compare apples and meatloaf.

note: I do understand that there are some cases where an AT will perform beyond their roles admirably. That isn't the standard though.

[ QUOTE ]
The tanker would have to slow down to 63% of his normal killing speed for recovery do do enough for him to kill the same challenge the target can kill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow and steady wins the race?

[ QUOTE ]
Despite what others may say: the tanker WAS designed to solo, soloing was just not their main thing. When the game came out tankers and scrappers both were listed as solo ATs, but the tanker was noted to do so slower.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand. ALL the ATs were designed to be played solo all the way to 50. They just don't solo as well as the Scrapper. Also, just because you can play an AT solo, doesn't mean that you can solo everything in the game.

---

There I was between a rock and a hard place. Then I thought, "What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity though, why do scrapper gets stronger -tohit than tankers? RTTC is stronger for scrappers than tankers, for one, as are all -tohit and -damage debuffs (that would be noticed when Ice Armor gets proliferated)

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea. Seems broken to me. Tanks should get more benefit from all debuffs while scrappers should get more benefit from all buffs in my mind. Debuff = mitigation, Buff = offense.

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity: how can some one that agrees dominators that can lock down everything do as much damage as they are going to do now be so against a simple endurance boost?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm for is having the damage buff removed from domination and used to buff the base damage of dominators. I do not believe that doms can "lock down everything." Dom controls are their mitigation and I consider it massive hyperbole for someone to state that dom controls are as good as tank mitigation at keeping a player alive.

[ QUOTE ]
If castle came out tomorrow and said tankers go their damage boosted to .95, would your next post be how broken it is or how you are going to now play a fun tank? I'm seriously curious if you would be upset with him stating such a buff was in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would tell Castle to quit mainlining cocaine and then ask where the scrapper mitigation buff was.

---

Be well, people of CoH.

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand. ALL the ATs were designed to be played solo all the way to 50. They just don't solo as well as the Scrapper. Also, just because you can play an AT solo, doesn't mean that you can solo everything in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of the ATs and all power sets were designed to be playable from 1 to 50. This doesn't mean they'll be particularly good at it or do it particularly fast. Castle and multiple other devs have stated this as one of their basic balancing tenets. Capable of soloing. Not designed for soloing.

And, honestly, the Scrapper's role has changed a bit in the lifetime of the game. Way back when, the Scrapper was designed to be a soloing monster. That's why he got good damage (but less than the Blaster) and good defenses (but less than a Tanker). He didn't contribute as much on a team as either a Tanker or a Blaster, but he was designed not to.

Later on, many of us Scrappers threw a fit because Blasters got to deal their damage with the protection of range (and the lower damage of ranged attacks), better damage and and better AoE potential. There was very little reason to roll Scrapper unless you wanted to solo. This was when we got the very first inherent power: Critical hit. The devs gave Scrappers this to specify their role on groups: Boss killer. It was a slight damage buff over all but was most effective on nice hard targets that individuals needed greater survivability to stand toe-to-toe with.

There have been some other changes (Blaster hp increase to improve their solo capability, Defiance changes to improve ST damage and mez tolerance), which have blended their roles a bit more, but, as it stands, a Blaster and a Scrapper are pretty much on equal functional footing on a team. When you're looking for damage, you're no longer ignoring a Scrapper because a Blaster will contribute substantially more, and Blasters can actually solo reasonably well.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Slow and steady wins the race?

[/ QUOTE ]

The tanker by default is already moving slowly at 64% the speed, you also want him to stop every few steps to catch a breath on top of moving slow? The final speed is 38% the speed. That's drastically slower and definitively not steady if you have to pause.

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand. ALL the ATs were designed to be played solo all the way to 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

At first this was not true.

<ul type="square">[*]Controllers specifically were designed to not be able to solo, they had next to no attacks.
[*]Defenders were meant to be originally horrendously inefficient to solo due to extremely low damage.
[*]Blasters were meant to be dangerous to solo but, with smarts and perhaps the right power set, soloable. The devs actually feared kiting would become the norm and certain critter xp was specifically nerfed due to blaster hunting them exclusively.
[*]Scrappers were the best well rounded soloist, with enough survivability to stand toe to toe with the foe and enough damage to kill fast.
[*]The tanker was meant to last against the same foes as the scrapper but kill them at a slower speed with increased safety. The fact that tanker damage has already been boosted in the past is testament to damage being one of the tanker's main roles even if it's not their dedicated team role.[/list]
After design intention, though, the devs found the greatest virtue of the game was soloability and decided everyone should be able to solo at comparable speeds, although certain ATs should have advantages the advantages should not be extreme. I dare bet the devs don't expect scrappers to have a +160% advantage over tankers. My endurance bottleneck suggestion still gives scrapper +56.5% advantage, due to pure superior damage.

The fact that endurance cost does not change with damage modifiers, if I recall correctly, was an artifact that was not designed upon, it was something that actually happened on it's own. Arcanaville posted her full load of evidence on the matter a while back on a thread on the same topic at the tanker forums.

---

You can write as much as you want but your argument still sucks because you still ignore everything else.

Damage efficiency is the only thing in your eyes right now, mitigation and other benefits mean nothing to you.

---

@Mojo-
Proud Member of Fusion Force.

[ QUOTE ]
Lethal Damage = fail at higher levels, especially redside. My claws stalker sort of tapered off into uselessness in the 20s against Longbow.

[/ QUOTE ]

My claw/regen stalker is level 47 and can hunt AVs solo.

Not agreeing with the OP that it's the most powerful set, but it's far from useless at high levels.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this quote just a bit hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only slightly. "Shut up if all you going to say is Shut Up" may sound hypocritical but is rather valid. It's like "never say never."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to keep the thread from devolving into unproductive attacks and demands that we stop discussing the topic. I would simply like everyone to contribute productively, as most have. Telling us to stop discussing it isn't productive.

By all means, disagree with the ideas, but tell us why you disagree (or agree). Make suggestions of your own. Present ideas. That would be productive, and very much welcome.

As I said, I'm delighted to hear what people think.


(btw, calling people names does nothing to make your position stronger, so do try to restrain the namecalling. I'm not "greedy" or "stupid" for example.)

---

[ QUOTE ]


I would tell Castle to quit mainlining cocaine and then ask where the scrapper mitigation buff was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Werd.

anyone who thinks that this would happen in any reality (with tanks getting such high a buff while NOT giving up ANYTHING), has

a) never seen Castle post
b) needs to stop mainlining the cocaine themselves.

---

Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!

I'm sorry, Ultimo, but I think "close your eyes and start having fun instead of trying to fix nonexistent problems" is a valid point of argument. There isn't anything wrong, but you're insisting on seeing something that isn't there so you can get a buff that you don't need. Rather, it's a buff you want, and you're trying to reason why this "want" is actually a "need".

He didn't tell you to stop discussing it. He merely stated that there is no problem and, therefor, there is no fix required. It was probably also written in the way it was because of your usual threads and your tendency to ignore basic facts about the game. That is, it was made short and to the point because, frankly, trying to argue anything with you is almost always an exercise in futility. What I mean here is, you assume that the way you play the game, and what you think the game should be, is how everyone plays the game or how the game should be and... most of the time, the things you notice are faults in your character design/playstyle and have nothing to do with the game at large.

In short, I'm agreeing with him: there is no problem to fix, so go back to playing the game.

---

Main Hero : Annilixxion -- Lv50 Blaster
Main Villain : Menkaura -- Lv41 Mastermind
@Laxx
"You will bend to my will, with or without your precious sanity." --Dragon Mage

What I'm after isn't necessarily a buff, it's a more level playing field. That might even mean a NERF, though I honestly think that would only compound the problems with endurance.

The problem I see is that endurance is not an issue for some characters and is positively gamebreaking for others. I was just hoping to find a way to alleviate the problem in a balanced fashion.

---

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm after isn't necessarily a buff, it's a more level playing field. That might even mean a NERF, though I honestly think that would only compound the problems with endurance.

The problem I see is that endurance is not an issue for some characters and is positively gamebreaking for others. I was just hoping to find a way to alleviate the problem in a balanced fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case, you wouldn't be comparing scrappers and tanks. Or brutes and tanks.

You'd be comparing powersets with endurance management tools and those without.

An invul/stone tank is going to run dry far more often than a willpower/dark tank, won't he?

Chasing after this concept of "damage should equate to end expenditure" won't get you anywhere. Not in this game.

---

Be well, people of CoH.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, Ultimo, but I think "close your eyes and start having fun instead of trying to fix nonexistent problems" is a valid point of argument. There isn't anything wrong, but you're insisting on seeing something that isn't there so you can get a buff that you don't need. Rather, it's a buff you want, and you're trying to reason why this "want" is actually a "need".

He didn't tell you to stop discussing it. He merely stated that there is no problem and, therefor, there is no fix required. It was probably also written in the way it was because of your usual threads and your tendency to ignore basic facts about the game. That is, it was made short and to the point because, frankly, trying to argue anything with you is almost always an exercise in futility. What I mean here is, you assume that the way you play the game, and what you think the game should be, is how everyone plays the game or how the game should be and... most of the time, the things you notice are faults in your character design/playstyle and have nothing to do with the game at large.

In short, I'm agreeing with him: there is no problem to fix, so go back to playing the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

---