[ QUOTE ]
It'd stay useful and make more sense than a flat-out damage buff.
[/ QUOTE ]You have to convince players it's enough to be noticeable and feel powerful, developers that it's not too much to be noticeable and feel overpowered, and marketing that it's worth bothering with at all to try and capture an almost locked-in section of the market. I ain't holding my breath.
Here's a thought, just off the top of my head, perhaps lack of sleep talking, but here goes...
What if Tankers "spread" their damage (perhaps as a toggle)?
That is, they would get a damage buff (not too much, but noticable). Then, whenever they were in combat, any damage they do would be divided evenly among however many targets are in range.
Thus, fighting Lord Recluse one on one, the Tanker's KO Blow does 100 damage (say). However, if there are 4 targets in melee, that 100 damage would pread evenly between them, so if Recluse was accompanied by 3 summoned minions, each would take 25 damage.
That would do a couple of things. First, it would give Tankers a slight buff to damage. Second, it would make them somewhat more capable against AVs and the like (which also is more in keeping with how the comics seem to have it). Third, it would make Tankers the kings of AOE melee (albeit with low damage, since it would be forever being divided up).
Just the seed of an idea. I'll sleep on it, and see if it matures any...
Unfortunately, your idea would just make Tanks a better farming AT.
Max survivability and King of AoE Melee is a very bad idea. Unless, by King of AoE Melee, you just mean that hit alot of critters for anemic damage.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stepped content. Design higher end content for max level toons that require IO sets and Accolades to be able complete. This gives those rewards a "real" meaning while at the sametime gives your population a purpose and goal to aspire to even at max level.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, thank you.
I am quite glad that IOs simply make the game easier and are not required for anything.
And the WoW system of raids that you do to get gear to do raids to get gear so you can do raids, SUCKS and is the least solo friendly game system I have ever seen.
No, that sort of tiered end game system has No place in this game, thank heavens.
Several of your ideas that I did not quote however have significant merits.
Wavicle, Energy/Energy Blaster, dinged 50 in Issue 4, summer of 2005.
@Wavicle, mostly on the Justice server.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tankers are fine as is. That's my opinion. Just like everything stated in this thread is just that.
And yes, in this game, to convince THESE devs you DO need numbers.
Your failure to realize that means you haven't been paying attention these last couple of years.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, yes, yes they were. Well, at least WP was, and Shields. How were Tankers hurting? Before Powerset proliferation, Tankers had not gotten a new set since the game released. Same was true for Scrapper secondaries. Scrappers also had the fewest Secondary options of any AT, and Tankers were tied for having the fewest primary set options. The Devs wanted to create new sets, because people like those, and as such, they decided to give them to the ATs that needed new sets the most.
So, yes, WP was designed BECAUSE Tankers and Scrappers were seen as hurting.
Also, adding new, balanced sets does not disrupt the inter-AT balance as much as adjusting the balance of all of the Tanker secondaries.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are asking for a change which would directly throw off the balance between ATs. I know you don't seem to see this, but I have mentioned it before, that with the recent change to Taunt giving it -range, adding Ranged attacks to Tankers earlier on, allowing them to develop a fairly full ranged attack chain in the upper levels, would allow them to Blast at range with potentially little to zero chance of incoming damage. That's a huge balance factor right there.
In addition to this, you would need to remove current powers in the set to add these ranged attacks. No matter what you do, or what power you replace, there's going to be balance issues there. Take a look at this list of powers that would 'likely' be removed if ranged attacks were added to each set. You'd be advocating for either a loss of damage or loss of utility from each set, to gain an unequal amount of utility. There's another balance issue.
With that in mind, in order for this change to be seen as keeping Tankers balanced with other ATs, you need to show one of two things: 1) Tankers are out of balance right now, or 2) That this change would alter Tanker balance, but not enough to imbalance it. As of now, you have not shown either of those two things.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
So, you are allowed to post your opinions on the matter, but I am not, just because I disagree with it? I don't think so.
I will advocate for changes that I believe in. I will advocate against changes that I think will hurt the game. This is one of the latter. I am fully entitled to post my feelings on the subject if I disagree with a matter.
I also do not think that all Tanker sets are fine as they are (this is true both historically and currently). At this time, I think that Fire Armor could still use some help. Not much, but a little. I have also historically been for changes to Invuln post-ED (and especially once the Devs fixed the bug in Invuln which was the problem in the first place), and to Ice Melee. I am NOT against all change. I am against THIS change.
[ QUOTE ]
I see you just want to be cynical and argumentative.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm really not. I have pointed out specific problems with the OP's idea that I see. I have tried bringing up specific examples of what I'm talking about when I could. That is not being argumentative. That is actually trying to show the OP exactly what I'm talking about, so that maybe he can see where the opposition is coming from. I give credit to Ultimo_ for sticking through this thread as much as he has with the various threadjacks that have gone on about increasing Tanker damage. That was not what this thread was about. I have tried to keep talking about the actual suggestion of the thread where I can.
If you think that is cynical and argumentative, then you're welcome to your opinion, but it was not my intention.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
1) I have pointed out exactly where this could imbalance Tankers. Please try to refute those claims before saying that you're not looking for overpowered Defense. A Tanker, with their higher HP, higher defensive numbers, and a decent number of ranged attacks, combined with -range on Taunt, could be extremely imbalanced. Sure, they won't do as much damage as a Blaster, but they could do it in absolute safety, which is imbalancing.
2) Yes, my idea was sarcastic, but it was an analogy to prove a point. Not all ideas are good ones, even ones that have some support. And it is perfectly okay to point out potential flaws in an idea.
3) If you are asking for a change to an entire AT, it generally helps to have data to back you up. Even the Devs don't do anything unless they have some numbers to back them up. Players can dislike the feel of an AT. But if the AT is still played a lot, it might not be a problem. Changing balance solely on feel tends to not be such a good thing, as it can quickly lead to an out-of-balance AT.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, stop trying to say that people don't want changes. We don't like THIS change specifically. We might be for other changes. As odd as it may sound, I don't think that Johnny's Tank-omination idea was all that bad. Sure, the numbers would need to be tweaked here or there, but the idea wasn't all that bad, and I said so in that thread. It was a change that, while I don't think it's really needed, could work if Tankers were shown to be behind the curve.
What I DO have a problem with is people saying things like, "this wouldn't be imbalancing," when it has been pointed out how it could be, with no rebuttal to that.
What I DO have a problem with is other people mischaracterizing arguments, and dismissing them based on that mischaracterization.
What I DO have a problem with is people thinking that disagreement = insulting.
In short-ish: IF people avoid playing Tankers because of a playstyle issue or because of a lack of damage, then that is not necessarily a problem. For instance, I have a problem with Dominators. The playstyle just doesn't attract me, and I've given up on each one that I've made. Does that mean that there is a problem with Dominators because of that? No. It means that they might not be for me.
IF Tankers are out of balance with other ATs, then that IS a problem. If that is the case, then a change needs to be made to Tankers. What change that is should be based on a few criteria:
1) The change should bring the AT most in balance with other ATs.
2) The change should bring the least disruption to current players.
3) The change should be made that draws the most players to the AT.
Now, it's usually impossible to meet all three of those criteria. Sometimes it's possible, but often times it is not.
My problem with the proposed suggestion is that it meets NONE of those criteria.
1) I believe that it throws off balance in terms of flavor, and potentially vastly imbalances the AT as a whole, especially in the upper levels as the character can get more ranged attacks.
2) Replacing current powers outright can be hugely disruptive to current players.
3) If your problem with Tankers before was that they did poor damage or that the playstyle didn't suit you, this change would do little to alter that.
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
[ QUOTE ]
I have also historically been for changes to Invuln post-ED (and especially once the Devs fixed the bug in Invuln which was the problem in the first place), and to Ice Melee. I am NOT against all change. I am against THIS change.
[/ QUOTE ]
No you weren't Aett.
You used to come in my threads about Inul and argue against every change suggested by me or others. INCLUDING the changes Castle eventually went with. That's how I first encountered you, for crying out loud.
You, and a handful of others in this forum, don't seem to post unless it's to oppose a change or suggestion.
That's not true? That's the front you present. That's exactly what it seems like you're doing here.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have also historically been for changes to Invuln post-ED (and especially once the Devs fixed the bug in Invuln which was the problem in the first place), and to Ice Melee. I am NOT against all change. I am against THIS change.
[/ QUOTE ]
No you weren't Aett.
You used to come in my threads about Inul and argue against every change suggested by me or others. INCLUDING the changes Castle eventually went with. That's how I first encountered you, for crying out loud.
You, and a handful of others in this forum, don't seem to post unless it's to oppose a change or suggestion.
That's not true? That's the front you present. That's exactly what it seems like you're doing here
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I argued with your suggestions to Invuln. I was not opposed to all changes to Invuln, and supported a fair number of them.
I have posted for changes to Tankers before. If fact, I supported your Tank-omination suggestion as decent, if I still don't think it's completely needed. I posted for THREE YEARS trying to get Ice Melee fixed up.
So, yeah, I'm completely against Tanker changes.
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
[ QUOTE ]
So, yeah, I'm completely against Tanker changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that. I said that's the front you most often present.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, yeah, I'm completely against Tanker changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that. I said that's the front you most often present.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am against changes that I think will unbalance things, either individual sets or whole ATs. That's the only front I present.
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
Yea, that's more or less right. The more foes he's facing, the less damage he would do.
In my example, if he was at the aggro cap of 17, he would only be doing 6 damage to each foe.
The trick would be to find a good starting point for damage output before division (ie single target damage) that would not step on Scrapper or Brute toes. This number would likely need to be higher than current for Tankers.
Of course, this would be a rather significant change to the class, and I don't really think it would happen. Just thinking out loud.
If you are serious about your suggestion then you should give it more thought. Then make a post about the suggestion that states your desired goal and outline the revisions with facts and stats to support the change.
Basing the suggestion of opinion and personal want will not get very far around here...I'm sure you know that by now.
I thought I stated the goals, but ok.
1. There's a lot of commentary about Tankers "needing" a damage buff. This would provide that.
2. I've seen it noted before that in the comics, the Tankers are often the heavy hitters that go toe to toe with the biggest guns the enemy has, giving as good as they get. In CoH, that's the AVs. However, Tankers really can't solo against an AV, their damage is far too low. Since this would be a buff to single target damage, this would help with this "problem."
3. Part of this is to maintain the Tanker's group role as not being called upon for damage. Since teams mean larger spawns, it means the Tanker's damage would be thinned out more, thereby maintaining group balance and dynamics.
4. Keeping the attention of the enemy might be best accomplished by smacking them around. Thus, AOE might have been considered the Tanker's forte. It wasn't done that way, but it was mentioned in this thread already, so I add it as a consideration.
For the sake of theme, I'd say the AOE should be limited to at most the 180 degrees in front of the Tanker (he's sweeping his attacks across several foes, but he can't reach all the way behind himself).
However, as I said, I'm not really serious about it, I'm just putting it out there for discussion. It's just an idea.
[ QUOTE ]
If you are serious about your suggestion then you should give it more thought. Then make a post about the suggestion that states your desired goal and outline the revisions with facts and stats to support the change.
Basing the suggestion of opinion and personal want will not get very far around here...I'm sure you know that by now.
[/ QUOTE ]
How are these as goals?
Eliminate feeling of Tankers not being heavy hitters.
Improve "feel" of low level play.
Have minimal impact on "aggro-sponge" players.
Increase Tanker vs. Brute viability.
How do they sound as goals? Are they far too "subjective" as reasons to change an AT?
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...age=0&vc=1
.
[ QUOTE ]
However, Tankers really can't solo against an AV, their damage is far too low.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just wanted to point this out: AVs are not meant to be soloed. Yes, some players can solo AVs. However, using them as a balancing point probably isn't your best track. AVs are meant to be team content.
In order to even get a solo mission to spawn one, you need to set your difficulty to the highest point, which should say something.
I'm also not thrilled by the idea of doing 1/10th the damage to each foe just because there are ten around me. I'm betting that this would make Tankers feel worse than they do now about the damage they do.
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
Possibly, but the damage would have to be adjusted upwards a bit so the damage done in an "average" spawn (solo) would be roughly where it is now. I'm not sure what the numbers would be, and I'm frankly not inclined to carry the idea on and do the crunching if there's no interest in the idea in principle.
I'm unclear, JB, did you mean you liked my budding idea?
[ QUOTE ]
I'm unclear, JB, did you mean you liked my budding idea?
[/ QUOTE ]
I was asking if those are reasons enough to make any kind of change. Or to even reason enough to get the Tanker offense/damage issue re-examined.
As to your idea (I assume you mean the one about Tanker damage diffusing with more enemies):
I thought about something similar before.
When I thought about it, the way it would have to work to satisfy me wouldn't fly with most people, so never posted about it.
The way I think it should have worked, is that with three foes in melee range range (10'), the Tanker would have been dealing the same damage as now.
With only one foe in range, the damage would have to be pretty high for me to consider the Tanker a heavy hitter. Much higher then I think the devs would be willing to allow in this instance. Not as much as I think they would allow with something like my Tanker-domination proposal where the time the damage effect is in play is much more limited.
Also, the debuff penalty for having more than 3 enemies in range would either have to cap fairly low (at like 6 enemies) or the debuff effect would have to be disproporionatly more mild than the buff effect.
Why?
Because lowering a Tanker's damage output is going to seriously effect survivability in large mobs. I can easily see a "slippery slope" effect where survivability gets exponentially lower the more mobs you add because the Tankers damage (and ability to neutralize incomming sources of damage) keeps going down as the incomming damage and debuffs from enemies keep going up.
I could see such a sharp decline rendering Tankers no more survivable solo in large mobs than a Scrapper or Brute.
Now, unless the upside of the power renders Tanker output and damage caps nearly as high as a Scrapper or a Brute, reducing Tanker survivability to nearly their levels doesn't seem fair to me one bit.
But "fair" or not, increasing Tanker offense to that level is something I doubt the developers would ever do.
In short:
I don't think the developers would ever let the advantage of the power be strong enough to do Tankers any more justice than they are being done now.
And
I can forsee circumstances rendering the disadvantage of the power much to harsh for the advantages the developers would be willing to grant.
So, I let the idea die on the drawing board.
.
[ QUOTE ]
However, Tankers really can't solo against an AV, their damage is far too low. Since this would be a buff to single target damage, this would help with this "problem."
[/ QUOTE ]<ul type="square">[*]It's not a problem.[*]Yes they can.[*]This is only a problem to those people with scrapper envy who can't be arsed trying to solo AVs.[*]They shouldn't be able to.[*]Did I mention this isn't actually a problem?[/list]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, Tankers really can't solo against an AV, their damage is far too low. Since this would be a buff to single target damage, this would help with this "problem."
[/ QUOTE ]<ul type="square">[*]It's not a problem.[*]Yes they can.[*]This is only a problem to those people with scrapper envy who can't be arsed trying to solo AVs.[*]They shouldn't be able to.[*]Did I mention this isn't actually a problem?[/list]
[/ QUOTE ]
[*]Why not?
[*]One, maybe two combos are capable of the feat. Saying Tankers can solo AVs is like saying mammals are ocean-dwelling just because a couple of orders are. But try putting a gorilla in a tank of water and see what happens.
[*]This sentence doesn't make sense to me.
[*]Says who?
[*]Yes, but your opinion of what does and does not constitute a problem is hardly qualified.
[*]Your avatar is broken.
.
Also, does anyone else think it slightly rude when you leave someone a message politely asking a genuine question, and you know they've read it, but they just don't reply?
.
It's still not a problem. How many builds of anything can solo AVs? That Tankers even have any already puts them above a number of other ATs.
[ QUOTE ]
It's still not a problem. How many builds of anything can solo AVs? That Tankers even have any already puts them above a number of other ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Tal, Fail, I invite you two to have a discussion with Fernandes and ask about his thoughts on soloing AVs and if players should be allowed/able to.
I'll be happy to just watch, thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
They shouldn't be able to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just Tankers shouldn't be able to?
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's still not a problem. How many builds of anything can solo AVs? That Tankers even have any already puts them above a number of other ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, Tal, Fail, I invite you two to have a discussion with Fernandes and ask about his thoughts on soloing AVs and if players should be allowed/able to.
I'll be happy to just watch, thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
They shouldn't be able to.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just Tankers shouldn't be able to?
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right now, most AT's as a whole can't. Some controllers can - most don't have the damage/survivability -; some scrappers can - some combo's don't enough end management tools/survivability against a single strong target [DA/FA I'm looking at you] and the ones that do need heavy IO slotting - ; Some tankers can - some don't have the damage, some don't have the end management - ; Some defenders can - although most don't have the damage output and most don't have the survivability - ; I would imagine some khelds can, but I have no idea.
All of this is, of course, assuming not temp powers, because with a shivan/nukes all bets are off.
And since AV's are meant to be team content anyway, the fact that only some combos can and many can't should be telling.
What that's telling some is that everyone should be able to solo AV's (huh?) what that's telling others is that the ones that can are probably Single target outlier sets.
YMMV and I don't give a [censored].
"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
[ QUOTE ]
And since AV's are meant to be team content anyway, the fact that only some combos can and many can't should be telling.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, I spent all morning trying to explain this to someone who felt soloing AVs was their privilage for picking the "right" combos and AT and that changing AVs in anyway was taking something away he was entitled to, and giving myself a headache in the process.
.
Just rambling, don't put any stock in the idea, but it would be interesting if Gauntlet included a stacking debuff against anything hitting the tanker. Very small -Res/-Def, maybe -2%/-1%. It'd stay useful and make more sense than a flat-out damage buff.
Something else would probably get the nerfbat though. Tankers aren't exactly the weakest hitters, they're just not scrappers.
QR
Weatherby_Goode - "Heck, Carrion Creepers negates the knockdown from Carrion Creepers."