[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Yes, because tankers are chosen for their damage-dealing potential. I'm sorry, I totally forgot the fact that there aren't any other AT's that deal more damage than tankers, I don't know what I was thinking.
Move along.
[ QUOTE ]
Taunt: taunts foe and casts +Dmg on tanker for 4-5 seconds
[/ QUOTE ]
I threw out an idea similar to this in another thread awhile a go. I didn't call it "fury-lite" but "single target fury (STF)".
The idea would be that the longer you fight against a single target that you're "fury" would build until that target was defeated. That way you would slowly unleash the full might of your "tankdom" against only the biggest foes. You're first foe would become a pseudo anchor for your STF. If you switched to another target you wouldn't get the fury on the new one until the "anchor" was defeated. That way you wouldn't penalize you for punchvoking or taunting the surrounding targets to hold aggro. It would force you to make sure you attacked the biggest and baddest foe right off the bat so that you're STF would be on them, but it certainly would be a pain if that target ran, just like it does with other anchors.
I'm certainly not thinking it would be brute fury level of damage bonus, but a little probably wouldn't hurt. Once you're original target/foe was done, the STF would drop waiting for the next big target to build it up. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Mind you, that idea had about as much of a positive response as asking all your friends to help you move. 
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 ]
[ 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".
[/ QUOTE ]
I really do not run TFs with pugs very often. If I do the lead brute is never someone I do not know. That way you do have someone who is playing the role of "tank". If I am not playing my brute I am playing my kin. I do bust out my Tank on the odd itf because he was my first 50 and is my favorite. However if the team is a little low on damage I get one of my brutes. Accomplish the same role and do 2 and a half times more damage.
You get what you pay for as they say. If you run with a pug you will get hit and miss teams. If your brutes are not "tanking" then you are obviously missing.
I play tanks and brutes. I can tank nearly as well with a brute as I can with a tank. I will admit that a tank is slightly better and I have to work a bit at agro management with a brute but I can easily hold agro on 60% of the mob or an AV with my brute. Thats all that is nessesary if the other 7 people cannot handle 40% of the agro they need to learn how to play their toons. I belive the extra damage the brute supplies is well worth my having to work a bit to manage agro. Its also far more fun (for me). I get to hit really hard and I have a challenge in managing agro.
*readies fire extinguisher*
Oh and about the MM thing Alabaster12. Sure you can solo AV's. Lots of brutes can do that too.
However Ill belive you are a "tank" when you tank the RSF.
Ive soloed avs with my MM as well. (thugs poison) I have also played on RSF teams with him and keeping your pets up is a chore and I do not believe there is any way in hell I could tank the RSF with an MM.
Im not the worlds greatest player though. I wouldnt be surprised if there are people who can do it. However for a class to be considered a tank then it has to be possible for the majority of the players not just the elite.
I can tank alot of things with my D3 defender. That does not make defenders tanks though. I can tank regular mobs and solo AV's. Mutliple AV's chew me up and spit me out where my brute's or tank's keep on chugging.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
I threw out an idea similar to this in another thread awhile a go. I didn't call it "fury-lite" but "single target fury (STF)".
The idea would be that the longer you fight against a single target that you're "fury" would build until that target was defeated. That way you would slowly unleash the full might of your "tankdom" against only the biggest foes. You're first foe would become a pseudo anchor for your STF. If you switched to another target you wouldn't get the fury on the new one until the "anchor" was defeated. That way you wouldn't penalize you for punchvoking or taunting the surrounding targets to hold aggro. It would force you to make sure you attacked the biggest and baddest foe right off the bat so that you're STF would be on them, but it certainly would be a pain if that target ran, just like it does with other anchors.
I'm certainly not thinking it would be brute fury level of damage bonus, but a little probably wouldn't hurt. Once you're original target/foe was done, the STF would drop waiting for the next big target to build it up. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Mind you, that idea had about as much of a positive response as asking all your friends to help you move.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually really like this idea. The idea of taunt giving a damage buff isnt bad either but this could be a more interesting idea.
So if I am understanding your suggstion you are suggesting an inherrent power button like dominators get. But this one would act as a single target anchor. That would essentially be a debuff to the targets resistance but only toward you and not the whole team. This would help solo play, increase the effectiveness in a team while IMO not overpowering the set. You would not be suddenly doing gads of aoe damage for farming nor would it adversely affect pvp. It would give a counter to the brutes fury in pvp though since damage has been normalized Brutes have the same base damage as tanks in pvp. Admitedly its hard to get fury in pvp but when you do you hit very hard as a brute. This would add something to tanks.
Another idea that I have seen in many mmo's are abilites or taunts that effectively debuff the damage output of a target if it attacks anything but you. Ie. you taunt Lord Recluse. For a certain duration he would hit you for full damage but if the blaster pulls agro he would only hit the blaster for maybe 60% of his normal damage.
However that would still do nothing for the solo tank. It would make them more popular in teams though and since the devs seem VERY resistant to doing anything that will up tanker damage.
In short though the second option that I gave would satisfy me by giving tanks something unique. I would MUCH prefer your idea. It is also unique and would help out solo and low level tanks a ton.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suggested this same mechanic to Castle as a possible change to Defiance when they redid it a while ago. Basically he said something along the lines of - the game can't modify powers off of AI states or something.
Edit - although giving a +dmg component to the taunt power itself would work as someone above suggested.
-Hesh
38 FF/Sonic Def
35 Ill/Storm
35 DM/Regen
1 pan of fresh brownies/gallon of milk
First of all disclaimers: A. I have no idea if this is even mechanically feasible within the CoX game engine. B. I'm not sure that it's really needed, and C. if it might break game balance. That being said, let me try and define what my pea brain is thinking.
The reason I called it a pseudo-anchor is because you would want/need some sort of visual representation within the game of who your Single Target Fury (STF) was attached to or else it would be fairly useless if you had to keep switching targets to figure out who had it. Talk about creating a headache. 
I don't see it as a true anchor because I'm not looking at is as a debuff, but really following the fury mechanic of the damage building over time/attacks.
Mechanically it might need to be something like the inherent Dom power button so that you could set the STF target, but I don't see it as building up and giving you the same Inspie style boost that the Dom inherent does.
Hope that makes some sort of sense.
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.
|
I don't know... I guess this idea seems to diminish the idea of having balanced teams. If the tanks already can take a lot of damage, w/ a little (taunt) crowd control, then you add damage based off of crowd control... to me it seems to raise that age old question: "Why does Superman even need the rest of these Justice League guys" lol
Imagine this power on an 8 man team of Tanks. Would they even need anyone else or any other AT type. They all would get damage buffed every time they taunt and some already get defense buffs based off of how many enemy NPC's are around them.
Now don't get me wrong... I've already heard of the 8 man Rad/Rad defender teams that mowed through mobs. maybe that has been nerfed since last I've heard. but even that I felt defeated the essence of each team needing a good balance in order to flow well. A balance that goes into putting go teams together but a balance that isn't too strict.
I think this idea takes away from that balance and would kinda even make the scrapper AT seem gimp and almost unnecessary in comparison
As a matter of fact I think the scrapper is the AT that is suppose to have Tank like defense to a degree, but deal out massive amounts of damage with good chances to critical a foe.
Neither Rangle's idea or how I interpreted it would be game breaking. It would simply allow you to do more damage to one specific target.
Also I am fairly sure neither of us was suggesting something that would allow a tank to do as much damage to that one target as a scrapper.
As for the fire rad team. It hasnt been nerfed and is still stupidly over powered.
CoX boils down to one thing. Debuffs are king. If you have them you win. If you dont you lose.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
....Tankers to get more damage in a way that encourages Tankers to team...
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like by teaming with archetypes that are damage dealers?
I keep seeing these threads pop up about tankers needing to do more damage.
Tankers need to understand their archetype, learn their position/place/advantage for a team, or pick another archetype that does damage.
No archetype is supposed to be the end-all uberest. Each Archetype is supposed to rely on the others.
I've said it all along that I think tankers are the most over-powered of all the archetypes. I still hold that stance.
A tanker that wants to do more damage should team with a blaster or a scrapper (if it is a heroes only team) - even a kheldian!
If a tanker can't beat them down fast enough by themselves, then a defender or controller can heal the tanker, buff the tanker, debuff the enemy, hold the enemy, etc. so that the enemy can e defeated faster or, at least, the tanker doesn't fall.
The game really has in-build advantages of being on a team.
I'm against seeing tankers being given any more damage than they already have, their resistance to most attacks tends to be over-powering for the archetype enough as it is in PvE and way over-powering in PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
I keep seeing these threads pop up about tankers needing to do more damage.
Tankers need to understand their archetype, learn their position/place/advantage for a team, or pick another archetype that does damage.
No archetype is supposed to be the end-all uberest. Each Archetype is supposed to rely on the others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said. Issue4 was the closest tankers came to being gods of damage and indestructibility, literally not requiring any player but the tank on a team of eight set on invincible, to do anything.
BaB's has said Castle's data mining on tanks shows them still out performing all the other AT's (within his metric).
If you can't get into a tank as it plays right now, I'd suggest playing something else, problem solved. ;]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
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".
[/ QUOTE ]
I really do not run TFs with pugs very often. If I do the lead brute is never someone I do not know. That way you do have someone who is playing the role of "tank". If I am not playing my brute I am playing my kin. I do bust out my Tank on the odd itf because he was my first 50 and is my favorite. However if the team is a little low on damage I get one of my brutes. Accomplish the same role and do 2 and a half times more damage.
You get what you pay for as they say. If you run with a pug you will get hit and miss teams. If your brutes are not "tanking" then you are obviously missing.
I play tanks and brutes. I can tank nearly as well with a brute as I can with a tank. I will admit that a tank is slightly better and I have to work a bit at agro management with a brute but I can easily hold agro on 60% of the mob or an AV with my brute. Thats all that is nessesary if the other 7 people cannot handle 40% of the agro they need to learn how to play their toons. I belive the extra damage the brute supplies is well worth my having to work a bit to manage agro. Its also far more fun (for me). I get to hit really hard and I have a challenge in managing agro.
[/ QUOTE ]
I recently did a fantastic MA arc on my tank that I would challenge a brute to handle without extreme buffs to the entire team in the game. The last mission had 7 of the nastiest AV's I've seen all in the same room. Since your arbitrary mark for dismissing MM's as tanks is the ITF, once a brute can hold on to and tank all these guys all at the same time without losing a party member, then I'll concede they are tanks.
40% of the agro goes to the team huh? I would love to see you keep that stat on this mission... and these things are becoming increasingly common now with MA.
Also I can't help but laugh when people still compare Scrappers and Tanks. I couldn't tell you how many scrappers have gotten killed in like 2-3 hits from splash damage in the MA let alone actually taking a legitimate hit from the mob. The game has gotten harder, and this is a very good thing for tanks. That is exactly why the min/maxers are all but begging for stone tanks, and all of a sudden it has started to become the FoTM.
About the only thing I would say is needed for tanks, is some kind of mechanic that would make it acceptable (or not) to stack them. Right now a team needs one tank, and that is realistically about it. Anymore adds both confusion on who is trying to hold agro and is pretty useless. A mechanic that would allow the tanks to split damage taken, or some other mechanic that keeps with the damage absorption nature of tanks would be very nice.
[ QUOTE ]
I recently did a fantastic MA arc on my tank that I would challenge a brute to handle without extreme buffs to the entire team in the game. The last mission had 7 of the nastiest AV's I've seen all in the same room. Since your arbitrary mark for dismissing MM's as tanks is the ITF, once a brute can hold on to and tank all these guys all at the same time without losing a party member, then I'll concede they are tanks.
40% of the agro goes to the team huh? I would love to see you keep that stat on this mission... and these things are becoming increasingly common now with MA.
Also I can't help but laugh when people still compare Scrappers and Tanks. I couldn't tell you how many scrappers have gotten killed in like 2-3 hits from splash damage in the MA let alone actually taking a legitimate hit from the mob. The game has gotten harder, and this is a very good thing for tanks. That is exactly why the min/maxers are all but begging for stone tanks, and all of a sudden it has started to become the FoTM.
About the only thing I would say is needed for tanks, is some kind of mechanic that would make it acceptable (or not) to stack them. Right now a team needs one tank, and that is realistically about it. Anymore adds both confusion on who is trying to hold agro and is pretty useless. A mechanic that would allow the tanks to split damage taken, or some other mechanic that keeps with the damage absorption nature of tanks would be very nice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never used the itf as an arbitrary point negating the tanking abilites of an MM. I said Most AV's/Hero's one shot an MM's pets with an aoe.
Also, are you forgeting recluses strike force. Brutes do "tank" that. So I dont care what you say you did in the MA that a brute couldnt.
Also the only way a tank could do something a brute couldnt is if you had a team that was doing nothing but watching. Of course i your taking AV's all your going to be able to do is stand their and soak damage so you are not really "doing" anything.
Tanks and Brutes have the same caps. So since this is a team based game you ARE going to have buffs on the team. Ignoring that fact is not going to make it go away. With the buffs a brute is just as survieable as a tank and as many have said. Dead enemies hurt no one.
However If those of you who play tankers are content to remain niche meat shields that have no other purpose. Are not always wanted on a team, even when on a team you only want one. Well thats fine by me. Ill be playing and tanking on a brute on many many teams.
If my brutes can tank the LGTF, ITF, and the RSF on relentless I am not concerned that someone will choose a tank over me to tank any of the new content that comes out. Yes their are lots of players that couldnt hold agro on a wet paper bag as a brute. Thats because they are not playing a "tanker role" they are playing the "scrapper role".
Ive seen scrappers tank the STF therefore they can tank any hero side tf in the game. Ive tanked a few of the lower ones myself on a fire fire scrapper with no Io's.
Ive tanked many task forces hero and co op with my D3 defender. I will admit I have to carry break frees or have someone keeping mez protection on me.
I have tanked several SF's with my MM. I can do it I just dont like it. Constantly respawning pets irratates me. I much prefer to be actively using my poison powers at all times. When a Brute is tanking my pets pick up the 40% of the agro he isnt managing and I can easily keep them alive as well as debuff multiple targets.
I have done many TF's/SF's on both sides with all defender, all controler, and all corruptor teams.
So yes, I believe that as is tanks are completely unnesesary. Which is why I want something done about them.
Then again something is being done, brutes are coming to blue side. Though I would not be surpised if there was some kind of level limit to it.
Also for those who were wondering about the patron pools. IMO they should still have access to them providing you have completed that arc. Villains are notorious for getting what they want from a partner and then double crossing them.
Learning from one of them and then jumping ship fits in well with the concept IMO.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recently did a fantastic MA arc on my tank that I would challenge a brute to handle without extreme buffs to the entire team in the game. The last mission had 7 of the nastiest AV's I've seen all in the same room. Since your arbitrary mark for dismissing MM's as tanks is the ITF, once a brute can hold on to and tank all these guys all at the same time without losing a party member, then I'll concede they are tanks.
40% of the agro goes to the team huh? I would love to see you keep that stat on this mission... and these things are becoming increasingly common now with MA.
Also I can't help but laugh when people still compare Scrappers and Tanks. I couldn't tell you how many scrappers have gotten killed in like 2-3 hits from splash damage in the MA let alone actually taking a legitimate hit from the mob. The game has gotten harder, and this is a very good thing for tanks. That is exactly why the min/maxers are all but begging for stone tanks, and all of a sudden it has started to become the FoTM.
About the only thing I would say is needed for tanks, is some kind of mechanic that would make it acceptable (or not) to stack them. Right now a team needs one tank, and that is realistically about it. Anymore adds both confusion on who is trying to hold agro and is pretty useless. A mechanic that would allow the tanks to split damage taken, or some other mechanic that keeps with the damage absorption nature of tanks would be very nice.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never used the itf as an arbitrary point negating the tanking abilites of an MM. I said Most AV's/Hero's one shot an MM's pets with an aoe.
Also, are you forgeting recluses strike force. Brutes do "tank" that. So I dont care what you say you did in the MA that a brute couldnt.
Also the only way a tank could do something a brute couldnt is if you had a team that was doing nothing but watching. Of course i your taking AV's all your going to be able to do is stand their and soak damage so you are not really "doing" anything.
Tanks and Brutes have the same caps. So since this is a team based game you ARE going to have buffs on the team. Ignoring that fact is not going to make it go away. With the buffs a brute is just as survieable as a tank and as many have said. Dead enemies hurt no one.
However If those of you who play tankers are content to remain niche meat shields that have no other purpose. Are not always wanted on a team, even when on a team you only want one. Well thats fine by me. Ill be playing and tanking on a brute on many many teams.
If my brutes can tank the LGTF, ITF, and the RSF on relentless I am not concerned that someone will choose a tank over me to tank any of the new content that comes out. Yes their are lots of players that couldnt hold agro on a wet paper bag as a brute. Thats because they are not playing a "tanker role" they are playing the "scrapper role".
Ive seen scrappers tank the STF therefore they can tank any hero side tf in the game. Ive tanked a few of the lower ones myself on a fire fire scrapper with no Io's.
Ive tanked many task forces hero and co op with my D3 defender. I will admit I have to carry break frees or have someone keeping mez protection on me.
I have tanked several SF's with my MM. I can do it I just dont like it. Constantly respawning pets irratates me. I much prefer to be actively using my poison powers at all times. When a Brute is tanking my pets pick up the 40% of the agro he isnt managing and I can easily keep them alive as well as debuff multiple targets.
I have done many TF's/SF's on both sides with all defender, all controler, and all corruptor teams.
So yes, I believe that as is tanks are completely unnesesary. Which is why I want something done about them.
Then again something is being done, brutes are coming to blue side. Though I would not be surpised if there was some kind of level limit to it.
Also for those who were wondering about the patron pools. IMO they should still have access to them providing you have completed that arc. Villains are notorious for getting what they want from a partner and then double crossing them.
Learning from one of them and then jumping ship fits in well with the concept IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
In reading this forum there is a large disconnect between the way the game actually is, and the way people report it. I have played many tanks. I have never been denied entry into a group just because I was a tank, and I've never felt like I wasn't contributing to the team. Just logging in for a length of time produces a large number of tell's in game asking me if I want to join a group. All of this subjective opinion that tanks are bad or unable to fulfill a role in the game seems to come from people who dislike them, and therefore never play them anymore so it seems very suspect to me.
Since as you said the problem is being fixed for you in that brutes are coming blue side hopefully we can start to see an end to these silly arguments and the people who like tanks can stick with them, and the people who want more damage can go play a brute.
Or play a version of a tank that does more DPS like fire etc. My fire/fire/pyre makes lots of orange numbers fly. My Stoner, not so much.
That's what's nice about variations within each AT. You do get a nice range.
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.
|
There are a number of ways to tweak the damage of your tank by dipping into the pool powers, but you generally pay a price in endurance usage. By choosing Willpower this penalty can be offset with the selections of Quick Recovery at level 12 and Stamina at level 20.
Having done that, take Assault from the Leadership Pool and Hasten from the Speed Pool. Hasten will grant you a substantial reduction in the recycle times of your attacks, yielding a greater damage per second. This combo works well with Super Strength and Fire Melee. Both of these attack sets have some nice aoe attacks which Hasten buffs up nicely in terms of damage.
Shield Defense probably yields the greatest dps, due to Against All Odds and Shield Charge, of any tanker attack set, with the exception of Fire/Fire.
Some tanker builds, as you will see, give up little to scrappers in terms of damage.
Assault is regarded as a poor choice for boosting Tanker damage by most.
It only grants a 10.5% damage boost, which is less than half of a single red inspiration. It costs between .27 and .2 endurace to run, using up two slots for the latter. It locks you into a power pool, and as many may overlook, the power accepts no IO enhancement sets, which is something that should be considered.
It is simply not a very good option for Tankers increasing their damage.
That's fine because the power is intended as a team buff and is balanced as such.
Tanker damage is an issue that has to be delt with on the AT level.
.
Johnny, that criticism of Assault is certainly true IF you are talking about it's buff of single-target attacks. However, when used in conjunction with Hasten and a solid aoe attack one begins to see a noticeable, if not great, increase in damage per attack activation and in dps. Certainly, it may not justify the endurance drain, but if one is only interested in squeezing the maximum amounts of damage out of one's attacks, then this is one way to do it.
An aoe such as Foot Stomp which hits ten foes for 100 damage each at the higher levels yields a damage per activation of 1000. With Assault it would yield 1100 damage per activation. Hasten greatly increases the recharge times of all attacks for two minutes. I don't remember the actual recharge time reduction, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's 50%. Over two minutes an aoe that would normally fire off 4 times will fire off six times with Hasten. So, that attack would yield 4000 damage against 10 targets without the benefits of Hasten or Assault, and 6400 with Hasten and Assault. Assault yielding 400 of that totaly may not seem like an efficient use of endurance for many, but if one is only interested in maximizing damage and endurance is unimportant then it is an option.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I keep seeing these threads pop up about tankers needing to do more damage.
Tankers need to understand their archetype, learn their position/place/advantage for a team, or pick another archetype that does damage.
No archetype is supposed to be the end-all uberest. Each Archetype is supposed to rely on the others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said. Issue4 was the closest tankers came to being gods of damage and indestructibility, literally not requiring any player but the tank on a team of eight set on invincible, to do anything.
BaB's has said Castle's data mining on tanks shows them still out performing all the other AT's (within his metric).
If you can't get into a tank as it plays right now, I'd suggest playing something else, problem solved. ;]
[/ QUOTE ]
*cough* Issue 1 *cough*
I'm actually pretty okay with Tanks as they are... I was pitching it mostly as a sop to the complaints than out of any real genuine need.
I've got my Invuln/Energy up to level 35 -- thinking I would just like to see if Energy Transfer is any good. Even unslotted, I was impressed. And I don't really mind the animation (I miss the old one though).
I'm still not sure I wouldn't rather build the WP/SS I thought of, but I think I'll play the Invuln up to level 50. I kinda wish that Total Focus had the same kind of AOE as Thunder Strike, though.
[ QUOTE ]
You mean like by teaming with archetypes that are damage dealers?
I keep seeing these threads pop up about tankers needing to do more damage.
Tankers need to understand their archetype, learn their position/place/advantage for a team, or pick another archetype that does damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I agree, tanker damage is fine, and can be built to accomodate solo play, I think your general sentiment towards tankers is way off. Quoting from another thread (one started on a bogus idea, I will admit):
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the reasons that I generally try to avoid inviting tankers to teams.
It is good to see this kind of post, it helps me reaffirm my belief that a good many of them are just too full of themselves.
Some tankers need to take a chill-pill, ease up, and learn to work with a team.
[/ QUOTE ]
For starters, there's no one place for any AT. You're basically displaying the same attitude you seemed to loath in that other thread. Stop labelling a whole AT for individual players. It never makes you look good.
Second; Calling tankers over-powered is a stretch. Calling it the most over-powered, is worse. Any AT out there has the potential to become overpowered. Fire/Kins and Perma-Doms come to mind. Tanker resistance is just fine, just like it's damage is. If you're going to call it over-powered, you're going to need to back that up with some numbers, and not just you basic bias toward tanker players.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
[ QUOTE ]
First of all disclaimers: A. I have no idea if this is even mechanically feasible within the CoX game engine. B. I'm not sure that it's really needed, and C. if it might break game balance. That being said, let me try and define what my pea brain is thinking.
The reason I called it a pseudo-anchor is because you would want/need some sort of visual representation within the game of who your Single Target Fury (STF) was attached to or else it would be fairly useless if you had to keep switching targets to figure out who had it. Talk about creating a headache. I don't see it as a true anchor because I'm not looking at is as a debuff, but really following the fury mechanic of the damage building over time/attacks.
Mechanically it might need to be something like the inherent Dom power button so that you could set the STF target, but I don't see it as building up and giving you the same Inspie style boost that the Dom inherent does.
Hope that makes some sort of sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
I liked your idea. Though I think I'd keep it more simple.
Single Target Fury, like you said, but if they change targets then it resets.
Really, for Minions/LTs/Bosses, you don't need it as much (when ona team anyways), but this Fury Lite would really shine on AVs/EBs/GMs.
Seeing as how Brutes get the tankers inherit (at a lowered amount), I don't see why Tankers couldn't get Brutes at a reduced amount.
Just keep it to attacks you do on one target. Not attacks they do on you. If you switch targets, it automatically resets.
I like it
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Taunt: taunts foe and casts +Dmg on tanker for 4-5 seconds