[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't exist.
Just acknowledge that what you're saying is always subjective and try to back it up with provable facts. That's what people aren't doing in this debate, pretty much on either side.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately it does exist. You saying it doesn't, shouldn't make people think their posts are less objective. You don't control opinion. And your being pretentious in believing you do. What I post is fact. I want change in any field, not just tanker offense. Though it would be nice.
Objective ;expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. By this definition, anyone asking for more overall tanker dmg is purely objective by what kind of dmg the devs give to tanks. Besides the "Medium" dmg branded on them and the overall lack of high dps should be enough.
[ QUOTE ]
The mechanics aren't perfect; but I don't know how you would change it, and I don't think that the ones proposed here, in this thread and in others, are the way to go if a direction is at all necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ideas friend, Ideas. As radical as it seems, the radical in many an industry has been the reason things have changed, and usually for the better. Shutting down ideas just because they don't fit into your reasoning doesn't mean they should be halted. You may not see it as a change thats needed, but others do.
Lastly, Ideas need to be stated, be it objective or subjective. If any idea exists it should be something that expresses an option for all to decide. It's just not about having it "my way" but merely a way that is beyond the now. I just don't see why so many hate the idea. After all history has been one radical idea change to another. Change HAS to happen. It is after all a super hero game based off Marvel and DC that much is obvious. So why not continue and develope some new powers, more additions, and more "comic like" tanks. I suppose thats what Champions Online is for, but time will have to prove us all wrong.
"If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything"
"You're like Giraffe's, the way you look down on me, with your vegetarian scorn."
Sure, ideas need to be stated. But I can't really agree with yours. Objectively.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't exist.
Just acknowledge that what you're saying is always subjective and try to back it up with provable facts. That's what people aren't doing in this debate, pretty much on either side.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately it does exist. You saying it doesn't, shouldn't make people think their posts are less objective. You don't control opinion. And your being pretentious in believing you do. What I post is fact. I want change in any field, not just tanker offense. Though it would be nice.
Objective ;expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. By this definition, anyone asking for more overall tanker dmg is purely objective by what kind of dmg the devs give to tanks. Besides the "Medium" dmg branded on them and the overall lack of high dps should be enough.
[ QUOTE ]
The mechanics aren't perfect; but I don't know how you would change it, and I don't think that the ones proposed here, in this thread and in others, are the way to go if a direction is at all necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ideas friend, Ideas. As radical as it seems, the radical in many an industry has been the reason things have changed, and usually for the better. Shutting down ideas just because they don't fit into your reasoning doesn't mean they should be halted. You may not see it as a change thats needed, but others do.
Lastly, Ideas need to be stated, be it objective or subjective. If any idea exists it should be something that expresses an option for all to decide. It's just not about having it "my way" but merely a way that is beyond the now. I just don't see why so many hate the idea. After all history has been one radical idea change to another. Change HAS to happen. It is after all a super hero game based off Marvel and DC that much is obvious. So why not continue and develope some new powers, more additions, and more "comic like" tanks. I suppose thats what Champions Online is for, but time will have to prove us all wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Change does have to happen, lest things stagnate and die but those changes can't be made in a vacuum. In the medium where any proposed changes are going to be made there is a balance that has to be maintained or else changing becomes as dangerous as not changing.
A change to tanker offense would be nice. I don't personally believe that simply increasing damage will do anything to help tankers as a whole because, in the interest of game balance, they will always be bringing up the rear in melee damage. The best change would be something that makes tankers unique, not just another damage mechanic. Preferably something that could easily be tied to Gauntlet to make it more visible or palpable.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
What I post is fact.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's really not. You have yet to show us any data that shows that Tankers are hurting. Even if you did, you'd then need to show that the hurt would be fixed, in the general public's eyes, by replacing powers currently in the set with ranged options. If you haven't done that, then you have shown us no facts to back up your opinion that Tankers having ranged attacks would help them.
All you have done is said that you'd like Tankers to have ranged attacks, and think that other people would like this. Those aren't facts, they're opinions.
[ QUOTE ]
Objective ;expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. By this definition, anyone asking for more overall tanker dmg is purely objective by what kind of dmg the devs give to tanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. No. That's just completely wrong. People have come here and said that tanker damage is fine. Others have said that it's not. Neither have presented any facts to back themselves up. That means that it's pretty much completely a subjective opinion, and not based on objective facts.
[ QUOTE ]
Besides the "Medium" dmg branded on them and the overall lack of high dps should be enough.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...enough for what? To give you some intangible 'fact' that Tankers need ranged damage? Tankers are high survivability, medium damage. That's what they are in game. I see nothing wrong with that, and you have given no facts, let alone any that might come close to changing my mind on it.
[ QUOTE ]
Ideas friend, Ideas. As radical as it seems, the radical in many an industry has been the reason things have changed, and usually for the better. Shutting down ideas just because they don't fit into your reasoning doesn't mean they should be halted. You may not see it as a change thats needed, but others do.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have an idea for all characters in-game to get cupcakes. Throwing cupcakes at an AV would one-shot kill it. Throwing it at any other enemy deals no damage. As ridiculous as this sounds, I'm betting that I could get a few people behind it.
Having a little support for something doesn't make it a good idea. Want to present a case that it is a good idea? Get some facts to back you up. Not some 'others' opinions, that you haven't even come close to analyzing the general population. You think that a lot of people would be behind giving Tankers more ranged attacks, while replacing some of the current powers in the set? Go and ask the general population whether they'd like it or not. You don't even seem to have a consensus in the tanker forum, though. I'd probably say that the majority of tanker players, including those not on the forums, would resent having current powers stripped to get the ranged attacks.
But here's a nice, neat concept for you: burden of proof. If you're the one advocating for a change over the status quo, then the burden of proof is on you to present facts that state the status quo needs changing. If you don't have them (and you don't), then try to find ways to get them.
Changes to the game can sometimes be good, and sometimes be bad. We've seen both in this game. Advocating for any change, no matter what the merits of the change are, is not a good way to go. Certainly, the devs aren't going to go for that. Why would they? Put every change into the game that people suggest? First off, there's not enough time. Secondly, there are some bad suggestions. There are some suggestions put forth by players in the Suggestions forum that would drive large amounts of the playing population away from the game. There are suggestions that I've seen that would make it ridiculously easy for RMTers to spam the heck out of you. Would those be changes that you'd get behind, just because they're radical ideas? Probably not.
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see why so many hate the idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
People disagreeing with the idea does not mean that they hate the idea. I do not like the idea posted by Ultimo in this case. I don't hate the idea. I have problems with it. I have stated them in this thread. To make me dislike the idea, the issues that I have with it need to be addressed. That's called either a) compromise, or b) changing the idea to suit the population you're aiming it for.
[ QUOTE ]
After all history has been one radical idea change to another. Change HAS to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
And change IS happening in this game. However, people have the right to say what direction that change goes. If somebody says that they have an idea that they'd like to see, others have the same right to say that they'd rather not see that idea implemented. People have differences of opinion. You seem to be saying that people don't have the right to voice an objection if somebody posits and idea that they don't like. And that, my friend, is folly. People have the right to agree or disagree with any idea posted in this forum.
[ QUOTE ]
It is after all a super hero game based off Marvel and DC that much is obvious. So why not continue and develope some new powers, more additions, and more "comic like" tanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
WE get new powers and more additions with each issue, pretty much. Asking for more 'comic like' Tankers is like asking for a more cereal-like breakfast. Which cereal are you talking about? Are you talking about oatmeal (technically a warm cereal), or Frosted Flakes? Or maybe Apple Jacks? Or maybe Raisin Bran?
Comics are notorious for having different power levels for their characters. The things that they have going for them over an MMO is a story-teller, and a non-persistent world. The story-teller gets to adjust the power level of the character at any time, bringing them up or down depending on how they want the story to go. The bevy of powers that Superman got in the 50s alone should be enough to show you that the story-tellers could just about give him whatever the frick they wanted to if they needed it to fit the story.
Living in a non-persistent world allows the stories to be isolated. Character X might never see Character Y, so you don't need to worry about how powerful Character X is to Character Y, even if they have the same Foe, A. Character X might be able to beat Character Y every single time, but both can beat Foe A because they never have to be compared.
In an MMO, you have neither the persistent world nor the storyteller. Our characters can interact with each other. We'll handle the same missions at different times. We'll fight the same foes in the same place on different occasions. To handle that, you need balance. Balance both between ATs and within an AT. You want to have your character options be different but roughly equal. Character X should be able to defeat Foe A just like Character Y can, but they can do it in different ways.
Allowing Character X to be able to defeat Foe A the same way that Character Y can, in addition to being able to do it his own way, while Character Y cannot do the same thing creates problems.
In this way, giving Tankers more blasts, while not giving Blasters more defenses at the same time, is a bad idea. You'd be allowing Tankers to do some of what Blasters can do, while not allowing Blasters to do some of what Tankers can do. Even with the damage multipliers factored in, you'd be creating a safer Blaster, potentially an infinitely-safe, lower-damage Blaster, out of Tankers, while giving nothing back to Blasters to equalize this.
If you DO give Blasters some armors, then you need to do something for the other 4 Hero ATs (counting Khelds as one AT for this, though they're really not). IF you do that, and keep bringing the ATs closer together (after all, why shouldn't tankers, if they have melee damage and ranged damage in their secondaries, not also be allowed some controls or debuffs?) then you do away with the AT system in general. They tried that in the Alpha phase of the game, and it didn't work out too well.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
The point is, subjective and qualitative rationale were the stated reasons for Dom changes.
You saying "no, ignore that, don't even bring that up" doesn't dismiss that.
If subjective qualities such as "feel" are good enough motivation to make changes to one AT, they should be good enough motivation to re-examine another.
And for Rao's sake, try to use some capital letters. Make an effort at least to demonstrate you earned a pass from elementary school.
.
Changes are made to improve the "feel" of the game, but buffs always have hard numbers behind them.
That even goes for zone changes- I'm sure there was a lot of datamining behind Faultline and the Hollows' facelift.
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, subjective and qualitative rationale were the stated reasons for Dom changes.
You saying "no, ignore that, don't even bring that up" doesn't dismiss that.
If subjective qualities such as "feel" are good enough motivation to make changes to one AT, they should be good enough motivation to re-examine another.
[/ QUOTE ]
This may or may not have been done already for all we know, and Tankers may have passed whatever litmus test the devs used to determine 'feel.'
But if subjective rationales are now a valid reason for changes to happen, I'd like to say that tankers feel too powerful and need a serious damage nerfing. 
[ QUOTE ]
It is after all a super hero game based off Marvel and DC that much is obvious.
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't catch this line before, but this is so very problematic that I had to bring it up. There's no reason to say that it's based off Marvel or DC universes. There's actually more evidence to say that it's based off the Champions universe than Marvel or DC specifically. Just because the game allows you to build "tough guys" doesn't mean it's based on certain highly recognisable tough guys in certain highly recognisable IPs that are not being used for this game due to legal reasons.
Saying this game is based off Marvel and DC is very much like comparing apples and oranges on the sole basis of both being fruit. All you're pointing out is the "fact" that CoX is a game about superheroes, and that Marvel and DC universes are also about superheroes. Tropes cross that genre boundary, but thinking that should dictate game design decisions when the IP is completely separate is...well...to be nice, "not so obvious."
This game is based off Marvel and DC in the same way Marvel and DC are based on greek myth. Ie, they're mostly stories about larger-than-life people who don't have to deal with the annoying ramifications of their actions and can focus on the cool ones.
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, subjective and qualitative rationale were the stated reasons for Dom changes.
You saying "no, ignore that, don't even bring that up" doesn't dismiss that.
If subjective qualities such as "feel" are good enough motivation to make changes to one AT, they should be good enough motivation to re-examine another.
And for Rao's sake, try to use some capital letters. Make an effort at least to demonstrate you earned a pass from elementary school.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
I...actually agree with Johnny, the world will end 
.
Subjective is not a filthy word. This whole entire forum is subjective - we're talking about tankers in a tanker forum. Can you back up subjective opinion with fact? Sometimes. Sometimes you can't - and sometimes just because you can't back up your opinions or ideas with objective facts doesn't mean that you can't incite change or invite intelligent discussion (intelligent discussion on the internets....I know). The facts are objective. You bringing it up isn't. Also at least one person on this thread needs to look up the definition of the word "Fact".
As for this entire debate the majority of my issue is this: those suggesting that tanker damage increase, and some of those suggesting (and I don't think Ultimo is one of those people for the record) to add range attacks to tanker secondary sets is that they're claiming to be completely objective and have objective facts to support themselves and then don't provide any. Some will say it's not about numbers, it's about presentation. Others have said that the damage tankers put out is fine but the presentation is off. Both sides are saying their objective and both sides evidence appears to be a collection of youtube videos and wikipedia articles. Not that those don't provide clues to what the medium should be representing, but you have to be aware that the medium will not represent your character directly and some amount of imagination must be used.
I would love to have offense/defense stances in this game. I'm silent about it because I don't see a need for it in my playstyle. I actually found Johnny's suggestion for tank domination interesting, but ultimately disagreed with it because I disagreed with some of his reasoning.
Most interestingly, the Knockback that the characters in comics and clips engage in doesn't work well with the melee mechanics in this game and if it were implemented there would be hellfire and brimstone on these forums. Seriously. How often do people ask for the KB hole to be closed in DA or FA (and actually just for the record I would like to see KB resistence added to those sets, but I have no numbers to back myself up)? The two powersets that most closely show the knockback mechanic in the comics are occasionally maligned for htat reason. What I would really like to see if Knockback protection kept in the mez protection toggles, most or all of the KB resistence gone. Granite for instance...some AV's and Nemesis units can knock me back in granite, but that's about it. And I like that mechanic very well.
Also, just for the record Lacrymosa? You can call me pretentious or you can call me friend, but you can't call me both. As for you posting facts, well, I'll believe that when I see it.
"Be a beacon?"
Blue Mourning: lvl. 50 Katana/DA
Bree the Barricade: lvl 50 Stone/Axe
Last Chance for Eden: lvl 50 Fire/Kin
Myra the Grey: lvl 50 Bots/Traps
1 Minute to Midnight lvl 50 Spines/DA
Aett:
I don't think he's talking about the ranged attacks for tankers proposal from the beginning of the thread. It's wandered away from that a few times now. I believe he's on the mode damage for tankers bandwagon now (though I could be wrong, correct me if so).
The game is based on the comic book genre. Champions drew its inspiration from the same source. As it stands, the main source of comic books is Marvel and DC, therefore, the main source of inspiration is Marvel & DC.
They do draw a degree of inspiration from greek mythology, but it's nowhere near as direct an inspiration as from comics to CoH.
Oh, and to go on record with a simple mnemonic: Objective=Fact, Subjective=Opinion.
MOST of what is posted here, and particularly in this thread, is OPINION, ergo, subjective and NOT objective.
[ QUOTE ]
Aett:
I don't think he's talking about the ranged attacks for tankers proposal from the beginning of the thread. It's wandered away from that a few times now. I believe he's on the mode damage for tankers bandwagon now (though I could be wrong, correct me if so).
The game is based on the comic book genre. Champions drew its inspiration from the same source. As it stands, the main source of comic books is Marvel and DC, therefore, the main source of inspiration is Marvel & DC.
They do draw a degree of inspiration from greek mythology, but it's nowhere near as direct an inspiration as from comics to CoH.
Oh, and to go on record with a simple mnemonic: Objective=Fact, Subjective=Opinion.
MOST of what is posted here, and particularly in this thread, is OPINION, ergo, subjective and NOT objective.
[/ QUOTE ]
this game was sued by marvel and DC at launch and could have been potentially shut down.
the marvel and dc argument is old, tired and was put to rest years ago. leave it there.
[ QUOTE ]
Aett:
I don't think he's talking about the ranged attacks for tankers proposal from the beginning of the thread. It's wandered away from that a few times now. I believe he's on the mode damage for tankers bandwagon now (though I could be wrong, correct me if so).
The game is based on the comic book genre. Champions drew its inspiration from the same source. As it stands, the main source of comic books is Marvel and DC, therefore, the main source of inspiration is Marvel & DC.
They do draw a degree of inspiration from greek mythology, but it's nowhere near as direct an inspiration as from comics to CoH.
Oh, and to go on record with a simple mnemonic: Objective=Fact, Subjective=Opinion.
MOST of what is posted here, and particularly in this thread, is OPINION, ergo, subjective and NOT objective.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would even extend that.
Most of what has been said here is anecdotal opinion which is even worse.
That is what I mean when I say base it on data and not 'feel'.
Data:
In a poll of tankers (with the following representative numbers to back it up) xyz % of them felt that their tankers weren't doing enough damage.
Tankers are played xzy % less than other AT's and here is the most common reason why.
Tankers do xyz % less damage in game.
What is happening in this thread:
I, and many others like me, feel that tankers aren't doing enough damage.
The last one is a completely invalid argument and yet that seems to be the most commonly used one for this "give tankers more damage" opinion.
The reason you get dismissed so quickly is because you assume that the majority of players of the AT have exactly the same opinion as you do, which you have absolutely no idea if that's the case or not. The only evidence for them not "feeling" right is anecdotal.
[ QUOTE ]
In a poll of tankers...
[/ QUOTE ]
There's your mistake right there.
You don't poll just Tankers. Any poll would have to sample everyone who plays the game. Most players who think Tanker damage is too low, or their offense too boring, aren't going to be playing them. If you have trouble with getting customers into your restaurant, you don't ask your regulars what the problem is, you ask the people who aren't coming.
There have been several recent Brutes vs Scrappers vs Tankers threads, and the main complaint about Tankers by people who don't like playing them, and from the playing public in general is that they're boring to play and lack any punch in the offense department.
Any thread posted in the Tanker forum is only going to be read by people who are already die hard Tankers, and chances are most of them are going to be a little biased.
If you take this same exact conversation outside of this forum and either to the AT and Powers forum or to some place neutral like an in game chat channel, you get a much more measured and moderate response from the vast majority of responders. That response has been, in my experience:
"Yeah, Tankers could stand to have a little more damage. Just as long as they don't get OP."
or
"Yeah, Tankers could use something to make them a little more fun to play."
This is telling me the majority of players don't reject a damage increase for Tankers, or even other additions.
The simple fact is the majority of players don't involve themsevles in conversations and debates on the forums, and the majority of people in this forum likely have a bias.
So yeah, if the devs want to post a poll in the City Life forum asking "Do you think Tankers could stand to have a little more damage?" or "Do you think Tankers could be more fun offensively?" and put a link to it on the front page of the game launcher, I'd be down with that.
And, FWIW, the majority of players don't look at the numbers. The majority of players play on "feel".
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a poll of tankers...
[/ QUOTE ]
There's your mistake right there.
You don't poll just Tankers. Any poll would have to sample everyone who plays the game. Most players who think Tanker damage is too low, or their offense too boring, aren't going to be playing them. If you have trouble with getting customers into your restaurant, you don't ask your regulars what the problem is, you ask the people who aren't coming.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the end all I have ever seen for the argument about tankers needing more damage is "I think they do", and "I also think that everyone else thinks they do".
Pointing towards a brute forum is just as bad as pointing towards only a tanker forum. Brute players by their very nature are players who enjoy dealing more damage (as do most players), so of course when they play a tank it is going to feel underwhelming damage wise by comparison.
Regarding the rest of your post, you still haven't been able to support your claim with any kind of data backing it up (even including data about how other players feel) so in the end until that happens the "argument" is quite simply invalid.
You will always have someone who's experience says that they are fine, and someone who's experience says they need more damage, neither of which has been backed up at all by a majority of players in the forums, the majority of players who have never even visited the forums, active tanker players, or non-tanker players, support role players... etc. Until you have a sense of that information there is no evidence that a change should happen.
I realize that is partially what you were saying in your above post, but as someone who has campaigned for an increase in damage you don't have all the information either.
It's all just supposition, but the problem is that as someone who wants a change the burden is on you to show that it is needed and I don't believe you've done that.
QR
It's been said before and it'll be said again: there's practically no reason for Tankers to get an offensive boost without changing their role on teams. Solo, Tankers are one of the strongest ATs, due to their great survivability and moderately good (better than most Defenders and a large number of Controllers') offence. On teams, they generally provide significantly more benefit than Scrappers do, and allow other ATs to work at a higher potential.
Also, there is enough variance in the set to account for a wide range of Tanker playstyles, from Granite taunt bots to Fire and Shield "Scrankers" that can outperform some Scrapper builds. Giving an overall damage boost is out of the question (and J_B says so, last I recall), but any other addition, without changing Tankers' main role, would be far more for flavour than efficacy.
And it seems evident from AT changes in the past that the devs require both interesting flavour and provable numbers, the latter of which is still at best dubious.
Tankers lack a whiz-bang gimmick, but adding one now means subtracting elsewhere. At (almost assuredly necessary) significant amounts, such adding here and subtracting there (for the sake of game balance) requires a team role change, as well as solo re-balance. I simply don't think the devs believe Tankers warrant that kind of attention when there's a list a mile long of things that are far, far more problematic than Tankers' lack of "viscerality."
The simple fact is you cannot adjust a AT to a point where everyone is happy. If you up the damage on a tank and "adjust" the mitigation level accordingly you MIGHT interest folks who normally play brutes and scrappers but you WILL alienate folks like myself who play tanks for their aggro control and mitigation levels.
To be perfectly frank there is no need. If you like more damage with slightly lower mitigation play a brute or scrapper, with side switching coming out there is no reason not to.
Put very simply.....
Making tanks into a third damage centric AT leaves the players who enjoy tanking now with nowhere to go.
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
[ QUOTE ]
Pointing towards a brute forum
[/ QUOTE ]
No one said anything about the Brute forum. Read more carefully.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pointing towards a brute forum
[/ QUOTE ]
No one said anything about the Brute forum. Read more carefully.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny from someone who selectively reads posts to pull out a single out of context point instead of addressing the meat of the argument. Perhaps you should take your own advise.
I read your post before I responded (insert "Posts on the forums comparing brutes tanks and scrappers" for brute there if it makes you feel better) clearly you only read one sentence from mine.
[ QUOTE ]
If you up the damage on a tank and "adjust" the mitigation level accordingly you MIGHT interest folks who normally play brutes and scrappers but you WILL alienate folks like myself who play tanks for their aggro control and mitigation levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
One of the specific goals in my search for a solution to the Tanker offense issue is that anything added to Tankers shouldn't take anything away from players who like Tankers as they are. With my Tank-omination proposal, Tankers would have played exactly as they do now if you chose to never activate the power. When I suggested battle stances, you could run in your defensive stance all the time and see no difference.
Regardless, I think there is more than enough room to adjust Tanker offense with a mechanic without the need to touch their mitigation levels.
Why is there room?
For one thing the actual survivability between a Tanker and a Brute for example is much closer than just their Resistance and Defense values in their defensive power sets would have you believe. A Tanker and a Brute both take the same damage when they knock all the enemies on their butt with Foot Stomp. A Scrapper using Invoke Panic isn't squishy by any means. Scrappers and Brutes take less damage just due to the fact they can defeat enemies faster before they can deal damage. Defensive power sets just don't tell the whole story.
.
But such a change (regarding stances) would still practically mean obsolescence for Scrappers (and for some Brutes). Why? Because you'd have Tankers who can tank and solo at much closer to Scrapper levels. There'd be no reason to actually have a Scrapper AT, or at the least, they'd run into the issue that you say Tankers run into now: lack of flavour.
As for the Tank-omination, I've previously stated that a reasonably balanced version of it could be feasible (and I believe a few others have said the same), but I (and others) have also said that such a change would need to justify the dev time warranted in making it happen as well as testing it, which it honestly doesn't. Not while there are Fire/* and Shield/* builds that rip through missions and climb the XP ladder faster than a fair number of Scrappers.
Just to clarify my own position on this, since people seem to be confusing me with others here...
I do not think Tankers need any boost to damage. I wouldn't object to one, but I honestly think they perform just fine.
I think they should each have at least one ranged attack from their secondary pools.
I think certain sets (notably Super Strength) could use a cosmetic facelift, making them appear more powerful by use of debris, damage decaling and so on.
That's really about it.
I also think Tankers could really be helped by having Electric Melee added, but that doesn't really help the other sets much. From what I've noticed, Electric Melee is ridiculously popular on red side.
I'm sure a fair amount of it is because it's got a lot of AoE damage but I think another big chunk of it is how fun the set is to look at. Especially with the tier 9 attack which for a decent amount of time was fairly unique (I think, anyway). And now Shield Defence has a similar skill and that seems to be a popular set now too (although not just because of that one skill). It's too late to change the older sets to have more unique skills like some of the newer sets but I agree that more eye candy would probably go a long way for the non power games out there.
Aett, like I posted before, No one is really "hurting", then again I would need your definition of that word in game context. Besides that, AT's don't need to be "hurting" for a change to be made, or even for additions to be put in. Were WP and DA Tanks put in because tanks where hurting?, no. It was an idea, a conept. People want at the very least, something different. I'm not asking for Overpowered this or that. Merely more addition's that add to the heroic feel of tanks, or any other AT for that matter. It's not a matter of "fixing", I never said they needed to be fixed, you need to read my posts again.
Its fine that you see Tankers "fine the way they are". Thats your opinion, your obviously entitled to it. So why bother posting?, I'm not here to argue so your looking at the wrong post. I'm here to post my opinions on said matter.
[ QUOTE ]
I have an idea for all characters in-game to get cupcakes. Throwing cupcakes at an AV would one-shot kill it. Throwing it at any other enemy deals no damage. As ridiculous as this sounds, I'm betting that I could get a few people behind it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see you just want to be cynical and argumentative. But It's not working, I'm not here to feed your need to insult or berrate people or their opinions, you don't like what I'm posting?, then move on, this thread is not for you. On that note, radical ideas and ridiculous ideas that don't make sense are two different things. A radical idea based of the game makes more sense. Sure you could offer your cupcake idea, but in comparison more tanker offense would be more valid and less outlandish than the cupcake idea.
My idea isn't as radical as most people think, especially since I'm not askinf for an "I win" button or overpowered defense. I understand you may not like mine or anyone else's ideas but being sarcastic about it won't help your case. You want numbers, but as I stated in past posts, somethings don't need numbers to prove that they need to be changed.
[ QUOTE ]
I think they should each have at least one ranged attack from their secondary pools.
I think certain sets (notably Super Strength) could use a cosmetic facelift, making them appear more powerful by use of debris, damage decaling and so on.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT.
Lastly, I'm not asking for a total revamp of the whole tanker AT, maybe you misunderstood, I'm asking for a very small addition compared to what the expansion will bring. My idea isn't game breaking or even monumental. I guess thats the whole problem here, even a small idea is deemed "wrong" or unsound due to people disliking change. In a way I understand you don't want to change whats already been made whole, but to accept the opinion, that it will always stay like this, is naive.
"If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything"
"You're like Giraffe's, the way you look down on me, with your vegetarian scorn."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are not being objective at all. The burden of proof is on the people who want change to prove that it's necessary, using hard data like in-game numbers recorded in controlled conditions, not subjective arguments such as personal interpretations of comic books, how tankers 'feel' to play, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Stated goals for the recent Dominator changes, Castle's words:
[ QUOTE ]
Eliminate Jeckyll and Hyde feeling.
Improve "feel" of low level play.
Have minimal impact on "perma-dom" players.
Increase Dominator vs. Controller viability.
[/ QUOTE ]
The first two of the stated reasons for the Dominator changes are very subjective.
The last, is arguably so at least in part.
Castle uses words like "feel," which is a qualitative term, not a quantitative term.
Changing Dominators so they feel better in low level play or so there's less of a Jeckyll and Hyde feeling is no different than changing Tankers so they feel more like their comic counterparts and there's more of a feeling of them being heavy hitters.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah i'm sorry but dont even attempt to bring doms into this. they needed this change. unlike controllers, doms bring no additional utility outside of holds that in general arent even needed in teams. at least now they can bring damage when the team is efficient now to make any holds, immobs or sleeps completely redundant.
the mitigation of a tool like footstomp is completely negated by a controller/dom aoe immob unless the targets are easily stunned. one doesnt realize how great of a mitigation tool knocking everything in range on it's butt every 7 seconds is until you cant do it anymore and the mobs are immune to the stun.
but no - leave doms out of this. having to build for 70% global recharge just to be moderately playable at 50 means the at was horribly broken. now they just have to slot for enormous amounts of recovery.
and why did someone up top say 'tankers wanting their pre i4 dmg back'? um..tankers didnt get a dmg buff until issue 4. only burn tankers were godly damage dealers before that and they still were in issue 4 because yo ucould use taunt to override the burn fear.