They kinda did something like this with Against All Odds. Taunting aura and +damage.
Tanks are not for dmg there for agro control. The Mastermind is its alt because it holds agro much better then a brute red side that is. Tanks are like controllers not heavy dmg but there abilities make them strong
------------------------------------------------------------ Stealth is your ally -------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------- Trust no one ------------------------------------------------------------------
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks are not for dmg there for agro control. The Mastermind is its alt because it holds agro much better then a brute red side that is. Tanks are like controllers not heavy dmg but there abilities make them strong
[/ QUOTE ]
And yet we can still produce Tankers that shine in the area of damage.
If you need your Tanker to do more damage, build it that way.
Otherwise pop a red or play a Scrapper.
That's my $0.02 (and I'd like change please).
Meh. Yes and no. I'd just rather see the damage cap raised. But not by a lot. And if they don't, I'd still consider tanks to be fine on damage.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Well, my idea was that Tankers would get a desired benefit (more damage) as a function of their archetype role (gaining and holding aggro). Yeah, it works like Against All Odds, but that's just one powerset. Plus, this would work even for enemies aggro'd at range.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, my idea was that Tankers would get a desired benefit (more damage) as a function of their archetype role (gaining and holding aggro). Yeah, it works like Against All Odds, but that's just one powerset. Plus, this would work even for enemies aggro'd at range.
[/ QUOTE ]A desired benefit is not necessarily an appropriate benefit.
Shield/SS/Fire Tanker with Assault. Hello damage cap.
When there is no room left in Hell, the Dead shall walk the earth.
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
Shield/SS/Fire Tanker with Assault. Hello damage cap.
[/ QUOTE ]
OUCH!
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.
All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.
P.S. - This is me agreeing with you. 
personally i like the idea, i don't hink there is a problem with tankers now, i love the darned things, but i wouldn't complain if they added a +dam buff 
it's like my macer, i loved the toon before acemace got the damage boost (i do give him ALL the credit, don't question me). but the toon is completely insane now....... YAY
Oh yeah, that was the time that girl got her whatchamacallit stuck in that guys dooblickitz and then what his name did that thing with the lizards and it cleared right up.
screw your joke, i want "FREEM"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.
All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.
P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.
Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.
This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
they already nerfed scrapper mez protection, they get held faster than a tank.
What would be nice is if Taunt (the power) had different additional effects for each set, OR was made inherent and another power was added to each set.
I am an ebil markeeter and will steal your moneiz ...correction stole your moneiz. I support keeping the poor down because it is impossible to make moneiz in this game.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.
All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.
P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.
Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.
This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok but if you nerfed Scrapper/Brutes' protections and buffed Tanker damage, why on earth would you ever play a Scrapper or Brute?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.
All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.
P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.
Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.
This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok but if you nerfed Scrapper/Brutes' protections and buffed Tanker damage, why on earth would you ever play a Scrapper or Brute?
[/ QUOTE ]
The change to Scrapper/Brute protection would be in lieu of making any change to Tankers. Basically it's just coming at the perceived problem from the other direction.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
they already nerfed scrapper mez protection, they get held faster than a tank.
[/ QUOTE ]Have you tried turning it on?
I like this idea, personally.
Of course, it doesn't solve one of the main issues with Tanks: The redundancy of having more than one on a team.
If it's based on the number of mobs you have aggro'd, most teams aren't fighting more than 20 mobs at once, I'd say. (I don't know actual numbers of an 8-man spawn, but that seems about right--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
That means one Tank will likely be gaining a large benefit, and the other will.. not, simply put.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, it doesn't solve one of the main issues with Tanks: The redundancy of having more than one on a team.
[/ QUOTE ]If you take attacks, you will find this less of a problem.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.
All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.
P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.
Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.
This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok but if you nerfed Scrapper/Brutes' protections and buffed Tanker damage, why on earth would you ever play a Scrapper or Brute?
[/ QUOTE ]
The change to Scrapper/Brute protection would be in lieu of making any change to Tankers. Basically it's just coming at the perceived problem from the other direction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or just give Tankers thier Tankiness back. Reset the armor values to reflect what had been possible AFTER the GDN but before ED. You could do this by increasing the base armor values or by changing the schedule on the enhancements.
As it is, most Tanks choose Fitness and IOs to get to the DEF softcap or RES hardcap and it really is overkill for the game. Once you've reach a line in survivability in the game any more is just fluffy icing except in extreme situations.
So as I see it, this would allow a greater variety of Tanker builds as players would not need to use Fitness or other power pools to enhance their basic survivability and could instead choose Concealment or some other pool not normally found on Tanks.
Sir Zane (Lvl 50, Inv/SS/Nrg Tank);Atomic Jake (Lvl 50, Kin/Rad/Elec Defender)
Nikolai (Lvl 50, DM/EA/GW Brute);Raging Stallion (Lvl 50 MA/SR/Weap Scrapper)
Archmage Tristam (Lvl 50 Ill/Son/Psi Controller)
--------------------------------------------------------------
-g=C800:5
[ QUOTE ]
Or just give Tankers thier Tankiness back
[/ QUOTE ]It has been what, four years, man, get over it.
I'd like this more then a damange hike personally. Especially for the squishier Tanker sets.
Tankers should have significantly more aoes than other melee types to make up for their craptastic damage. However they have many times stated that the will not completely replace powers. They will adjust them thats it. So that leaves us with the current mechanic doing nothing for tanks and any and all ideas have been rejected not only by the devs but alot of the playerbase.
A damage buff would generisize them to other melee types and possibly overpower them.
Reducing the end cost of toggles and attacks would overpower them (I disagree)
Tankomination as JB had suggested would have upped the ability that tanks are told time and time again that is their job. . . . holding agro. Again it was rejected ( I think it might have been a good idea with a few tweaks)
Giving debuffs to tanks would overpower them. (I disagree if they were done in moderation. I mean Sonic Blast hasnt over powered blasters so why not give something similar to tanks.) Again rejected.
Something needs to be done for them. Most people agree that something is needed to set them apart. However many good ideas get ripped apart by the regulars on the forums and I fear thats what has caused the devs to turn a deaf ear to our pleas.
Many of these ideas might encourage people to want them on a team then. As is a tank is a nice perk but easily replaced. When side switching hits anyone who plays a tank over a brute is nuts. Most good teams are only threatened by the actual AV in a mission. A brute can easily hold the agro on 60% of a mob and holding agro on a av or two is even easier. Why have a tank for that job when you can have someone that puts out almost 3 times the damage.
Oh and to the comment about brutes not holding agro well. Its all in how you play it. If you know how to hold agro you can do it with almost any toon. Not all toons can survive it though. Brutes can, tanks can. Well built scrappers also can.
My Iod Tanker has hit romy for about 900 on an itf.
My generic SO brute skd to 49 hit him for over 2k. I think it was 2056.
Both were running super strength and both teams had comparble debuffs. I will say that I do not tank anything with that particular brute. Its and SR and sucks for taking agro but I have other brutes who tank the itf just as well as my Inuvln SS. None of them are tricked out either and he is.
Longish rant I guess. Ah well when side switching hits I can delete my tank and reroll him as a brute to be useful.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.
All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.
P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.
Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.
This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
You cant do that. It would completely bone villain teams. Brutes are villain sides tanks no matter what people say about it being MM's.
MM's pets get one shotted by most AV/Hero aoe's. The MM then dies and so does the rest of the team.
Brutes are villains sides tanks and are needed as such.
The simple fact is Brutes are tanks done right.
While I might accept a nerf to brute damage (providing it wasnt stupidly over done like most nerfs) I will never support their durability being messed with.
If the damage cap on a brute was changed from 750% to 600% I wouldnt complain. However nerfing brutes is just going to piss alot of players off, so it would be a stupid thing to do.
Buff tankers to what they should be. Add a few more challenging difficulty settings to what we have for options and put something in that actually gives one incentive to run at those settings.
Off topic I know but for challenge 1 standard merits. Challenge 2 a 25% increase to merits. Challenge 3/50% challenge 4/75% challenge 5/100%.
IF there was a reason to run on challenge 5 maybe people would want to have the added durabitity and agro management of a tank. However when challenge 1 gives you the same rewards why bother. Yes you get more influence on the higher settings but it takes far longer so is it really faster.
Man i need to stop ranting lol.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.
All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.
P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.
Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.
This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
You cant do that. It would completely bone villain teams. Brutes are villain sides tanks no matter what people say about it being MM's.
MM's pets get one shotted by most AV/Hero aoe's. The MM then dies and so does the rest of the team.
Brutes are villains sides tanks and are needed as such.
The simple fact is Brutes are tanks done right.
While I might accept a nerf to brute damage (providing it wasnt stupidly over done like most nerfs) I will never support their durability being messed with.
If the damage cap on a brute was changed from 750% to 600% I wouldnt complain. However nerfing brutes is just going to piss alot of players off, so it would be a stupid thing to do.
Buff tankers to what they should be. Add a few more challenging difficulty settings to what we have for options and put something in that actually gives one incentive to run at those settings.
Off topic I know but for challenge 1 standard merits. Challenge 2 a 25% increase to merits. Challenge 3/50% challenge 4/75% challenge 5/100%.
IF there was a reason to run on challenge 5 maybe people would want to have the added durabitity and agro management of a tank. However when challenge 1 gives you the same rewards why bother. Yes you get more influence on the higher settings but it takes far longer so is it really faster.
Man i need to stop ranting lol.
[/ QUOTE ]
I must've been playing a different game because not once playing red side through several 50's did anyone take the "tank" role in a mission, SF, or anything and all those AV's I soloed and had attacking me in groups on my MM must've been an illusion.
I would MUCH rather have my tank playing the role of "tank" than my brute or my MM for that matter. It's not even a question to me so I'm not even remotely sure where you get that brutes are tanks done right. Brutes are melee damage dealers with nice survivability on a side of the game that has no defined roles like "Tank", "Support", and "Control".
Got this idea reading the side-switching thread.
I think it's fair to say that the Devs mean for Tankers to be, in general, the 4th most damaging melee class in a one-on-one fight, or soloing on heroic. Fair enough. But I was trying to think of a way for Tankers to get more damage in a way that encourages Tankers to team, or at least to get lots of enemies.
Brutes get Fury and "gauntlet-lite". So how about Tanks get Gauntlet and "Fury-lite"? Here's my idea -- give Tanker taunt (and only that, not pool powers or Brute and Scrapper versions) a self-buff component to damage, a short-term, self-stacking buff that gives a certain percentage damage buff for the number of enemies currently aggro'd to the Tanker.
I think that would be an interesting coding problem, perhaps, but it would mean that it's at least 5 if five are in range, and a cap of 17 -- so if you're at the aggro cap, you get credit for 17 enemies when hitting taunt for the self-buff. 5% damage buff for each enemy would be a 25% damage buff with a full taunt, and up to 85% at the aggro cap. Taunt's base recharge is 10 seconds, so make it a 10 second or 15 second buff (although the longer it is, since it's self-stacking, the lower the base number would probably be).
The goal here would be that, just through keeping as many enemies aggro'd as possible -- with gauntlet and auras and taunt -- for a Tanker to sustain something like a 100%-125% average damage bonus to themselves at the aggro cap and maybe a 25-45% average damage bonus if they have 5 enemies aggro'd to them.
Maybe don't make it taunt, but make it a secondary effect of Tanker attacks?
I don't know, you can rip the idea apart all you want, I just thought it might be a way to give Tankers a self-buff like a lowkey Fury.