[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I can assume that shield tankers are roughly what you would want out of baseline tankers in terms of long term performance?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not about long term. It's about being able to cut loose the deal some serious damage occasionally.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can do this now with my tankers. Hold back and use my lower level attacks to manage my endurance until I feel like letting loose. Then I fire off Build Up and hit with my big attacks.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please find a new name for your proposal. Smackdown, Overpower, Bulldoze. Anything but Tank-omination, it isn't very descriptive as it could be misconstrued as some form of ESP for tankers and it's far too silly to say.
[/ QUOTE ]
But the point is you remembered it because of the silly nickname. The actual proposal I dubbed Gauntlet 2.0, IIRC.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't remember it. You mentioned it in the post to which I replied.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
I can do this now with my tankers. Hold back and use my lower level attacks to manage my endurance until I feel like letting loose. Then I fire off Build Up and hit with my big attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the doesn't make you a heavy hitter like comic Tankers. You're not doing anything close to Brute or Scrapper damage for the same sets even when you're not "holding back". You're the same mediocre-hitting meatshield with bland offense.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can do this now with my tankers. Hold back and use my lower level attacks to manage my endurance until I feel like letting loose. Then I fire off Build Up and hit with my big attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the doesn't make you a heavy hitter like comic Tankers. You're not doing anything close to Brute or Scrapper damage for the same sets even when you're not "holding back". You're the same mediocre-hitting meatshield with bland offense.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
And tankers never will do "anything close to Brute or Scrapper damage for the same sets". Brute and Scrapper damage will always be far superior to Tanker damage. Trying to make them more comparable will only wind up making two of the three sets mentioned obsolete.
If Tankers get a damage buff with no defense reduction than why play a Brute or Scrapper?
If Tankers have their damage increased and defenses lowered so that they are more in line with Brutes and Scrappers than Tankers and Brutes become obsolete.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
.
[ QUOTE ]
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
which is total BS
you have absolutely no idea about balancing a multi player game. not a single clue.
[ QUOTE ]
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually you still haven't actaully answered the question I asked.
And you didn't "show me" that it would be balanced. You just said it would be. You didn't prove it. There's a major difference.
"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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
which is total BS
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, why don't you ask Castle what he thinks of it.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
which is total BS
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, why don't you ask Castle what he thinks of it.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
a change like this which would have a far-reaching impact on the games balance across all melee toons would most likely not be up to Castle alone.
you cant have even spurts of brute levels of dmg unless whatever mechanic gave it to you set your resistances, defenses and base health to that of a brute.
and even if any such mechanic were given, it would need a 10 minute unenhanceable recharge just to start
your constant justifcations of 'that's how it is in the comics' is total BS. the big huge-sized tanker types werent always the most powerful entities - Phoenix/Dark Phoenix would be an uber controller as an example. clearly to conform to your vision that this game be exactly like the comics and have no originality, our controllers should be able to eat entire suns (which would hose your weaksauce character), turn your brains to mush and dissassemble mobs at the molecular level.
and the only way in hell a tanker gets this mechanic and if this mechanic does not completely lock out the ability to take and use a tier 9 while the power is active, i want an inverse of the mechanic given to brutes - a dmg reduction in order to hit tanker levels of defense, resistances and health.
since a teamed tanker can hit it's damage cap right now in game with a single fulcrum shift, your idea wouldnt work without an inrease in the tanker damage cap - and that would be just shy of being totally moronic.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Tanker damage cap raised eventually.
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Tanker damage cap raised eventually.
[/ QUOTE ]
Raising the cap accomplishes nothing.
It would bring Tankers into closer pairity with Brutes, but it wouldn't make them more interesting or fun to play, wouldn't help with Tanker role or concept, nor fix any Tanker problems.
Neither does lowering Brute survivability caps. That doesn't make anyone happier either.
There's also been talk of increasing Tanker damage from the 0.8 multiplier to a 0.9 multiplier. Arcanna even suggesed I push for that as it was more likely, which is true even if her tongue was firmly in cheek when saying so. Even that wont help with making Tankers heavy hitters, in my opinion and still doesn't elevate Tanker offense from plain vanilla to something more intersting and unique. In fact, such a move is in my opinion, WAY more unbalanced than anything I ever suggested, and that includes my inherent proposal.
.
It seems to me that the original conception was wrong. All characters should do the same damage, except that class intended to do damage in groups.
I'll explain briefly how I might have done it.
I would have started by designing the power sets so they were all roughly the same. There would be two types of sets, offense and defense. Anything that does damage is offense, anything that mitigates damage would be defense.
Each offensive set would be arranged the same basic way, with the same basic attacks. The only significant differences would have been the special effects (eg. knockback, slow, debuff, etc.), and the presence of one special power unique to that set (for flavour). Ranged attacks would do less damage than melee attacks because of the inherent advantages of being at range. Melee sets would have at least one ranged attack consistent with the nature of the set. There would be combined sets (like the Assault sets of Dominators), but they would be less powerful in general to compensate for the increased versatility.
Defensive sets would be similar, in that they would all mitigate damage to the same degree, although usually by different means. Note that Buffs, Controls and Debuffs would all be considered defenses. Note that healing is a buff. Armors are buffs that affect only the user (eg. Temporary Invulnerability). Buffs that affect others (in ADDITION to the user) would be less powerful than those that affect only the user.
Note that all the power sets would be available to all characters! If they're all balanced, there should be no issues.
Once all the powers are set and balanced against one another, we would look to the character.
I would begin from a "Prototype." This character would not have any "Archetype" powers or attributes. He would be the starting point for all the ATs. The point of ATs would be to encourage players to team by making them particularly good at something that helps teams, but it should also be something of use to the character solo, and it would be distinctive to the AT. This would be achieved by Inherent powers.
Tankers - Their point is to get aggro and survive it so others don't have to take the damage. To accomplish this, we give them the Gauntlet aggro aura. However, since this is as much a drawback as an advantage, and since it doesn't help them solo, we add a large bonus to health. Note that this does not increase his defenses, and this does not decrease his damage.
Scrappers - Their point is to do damage. Thus, we give them something similar to Defiance or Fury, to enhance their damage output. Since this is useful to teams and also solo, this is enough. Note that this does not increase his defenses, they would be the same as the Tanker's. He wouldn't have as much health, though.
Defenders - Their point is to buff. Thus, they would have an increased effect from their buffs. For example, a Tanker with Temporary Invulnerability might get 30% resistance from this type of buff, while a Defender might get 50% from the same buff. Similarly, if a Scrapper had a Dispersion Bubble, it might provide 10% Defense, while the same power in a Defender's hands would generate 15%.
Note that these numbers are for illustration only.
Controllers - Their purpose is to debuff. Controls would be a debuff, as they would not generally be binary in nature. They would be accumulate until the target was held. The Controller's inherent would be increased effect from debuffs, similar to the Defender's inherent.
Commander - This is the only class different from the others. Like the Mastermind, his focus is on pets. In all honesty, I haven't considered how I'd do this to keep it balanced.
That's right, there's no Blasters. You would make a Scrapper instead, but take ranged attacks, if that's your preference.
Every character would be constructed by taking two power sets, one offense and one defense. You would be able to take anything you wanted, so you could make a Tanker with Super Strength and Force Fields, or Super Reflexes and Martial Arts.
Tankers and Defenders are similar, you may say. I say, yes, they are. A Tanker and a Defender, each with Super Strength and Invulnerability, would perform similarly. The Tanker would have more health, but his defenses would be lower. The difference would be how they perform in a team. The Tanker would be more desirable because he can control aggro via his inherent.
Yes, you could gimp yourself by making a Controller with no debuffs, for example, but this would be a choice up to the player. Choice always wins over forcing people to do things.
Anyhow, this is rough, but this is how I'd have done it. More or less.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Tanker damage cap raised eventually.
[/ QUOTE ]
Raising the cap accomplishes nothing.
It would bring Tankers into closer pairity with Brutes, but it wouldn't make them more interesting or fun to play, wouldn't help with Tanker role or concept, nor fix any Tanker problems.
Neither does lowering Brute survivability caps. That doesn't make anyone happier either.
There's also been talk of increasing Tanker damage from the 0.8 multiplier to a 0.9 multiplier. Arcanna even suggesed I push for that as it was more likely, which is true even if her tongue was firmly in cheek when saying so. Even that wont help with making Tankers heavy hitters, in my opinion and still doesn't elevate Tanker offense from plain vanilla to something more intersting and unique. In fact, such a move is in my opinion, WAY more unbalanced than anything I ever suggested, and that includes my inherent proposal.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
You were asking for, over time, a 24% increase in damage (I know you're concerned primarily with burst, but against single hard targets you should be more concerned with damage over time). A 24% increase of a .8 modifier brings you to a .992 modifier over time. So asking for a .9 base modifier causes, over time, the tanker to do less damage over a period of time. Of course a .9 modifier comes with other benefits that yours does not, specifically that all damage boosts would be more beneficial and damage enhancements would be more beneficial.
I think most of your problem is based more around the fact that tanker secondary sets tend to be ordered in a way that your hardest hitters don't come before 35 with meaningful offensive slotting not coming until later. Honestly, that's the only thing I would like to see changed, but even that , I don't think, is that big a deal.
"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 ]
I think most of your problem is based more around the fact that tanker secondary sets tend to be ordered in a way that your hardest hitters don't come before 35 with meaningful offensive slotting not coming until later. Honestly, that's the only thing I would like to see changed, but even that , I don't think, is that big a deal.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not. I have several 50s of varying combos and all with varied builds generated on Test. Even the 50's with fully slotted attacks, in many cases heavily IOed out, don't perform offensively to a point I would call them heavy hitters compared to similar quality Brutes or Scrappers.
Even if they flipped Tanker primary and secondaries in terms of picking order and left the actual stats of the powers the same, the end result would be the same.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course a .9 modifier comes with other benefits that yours does not, specifically that all damage boosts would be more beneficial and damage enhancements would be more beneficial.
[/ QUOTE ]
You also forgot to mention that my proposal doesn't increase Tankers max theoretical damage. They still hit the cap. With a .9 mod, the damage being dealt at cap would be higher.
.
if you want a heavy hitter, roll a brute.
tanks are not an offensive at and no amount of non-sensical and hypocritical whining from you will change that.
This isn't to trick you into saying so, but would a 0.9 mod fly with you? Despite what you said, I still consider my proposal way more tame than that.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think most of your problem is based more around the fact that tanker secondary sets tend to be ordered in a way that your hardest hitters don't come before 35 with meaningful offensive slotting not coming until later. Honestly, that's the only thing I would like to see changed, but even that , I don't think, is that big a deal.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not. I have several 50s of varying combos and all with varied builds generated on Test. Even the 50's with fully slotted attacks, in many cases heavily IOed out, don't perform offensively to a point I would call them heavy hitters compared to similar quality Brutes or Scrappers.
Even if they flipped Tanker primary and secondaries in terms of picking order and left the actual stats of the powers the same, the end result would be the same.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
See that's the issue I think I and other people have with your proposals. You *want* to be as hard hitting as a scrapper or a brute and you want to be able to do it without outside help.
Scrappers, even with help, will never be as tough as a tanker, because of the caps, because of HP caps, and because they have lower defense modifiers. I play scrappers, I play a few of them, and they're tough. But they're not tanker tough. The fact that scrappers "everywhere" are soloing AV's tend to get lost in the fact that most people who try it die. A lot. The fact that everyone on the forums claim to be able to do the RWZ challenge ignores the fact that I'm betting that most players in this game who try it probably die a lot. You don't notice their defeats because they don't brag about them. The same things, in fact, that they're bragging about, can be trivial for a tanker built the same way, or at least similarly. I'm less impressed by a dark/shield tank soloing an AV. Why? First off, they have a load more HP. Secondly they're easier to self defense cap with IO's than a shield scrapper. Thirdly they're going to get more out of Aid Self if they have it.
Mostly you wave it off and say that it doesn't matter. Scrappers are tough, yes. Scrappers on the forums tend to be a bit tougher. Fine. Well built tanks laugh at most of the situations my soft capped SR scrapper boasts about being able to survive.
But you don't notice these things. Instead you simply say "Scrappers have survivability that's 'good enough'. Good enough for what? Good enough to tank an ITF without buffs? Probably not. Good enough to tank the majority of the STF? On a pug? Probably not, not unless they're very very good.
You're complaining about what a tanker can't do because you're looking at the other forums and saying "Well they can!" Yet the first thing I noticed going from scrapper to tank was, even at low levels, was times when I would faceplant on my scrappers I wasn't even a little bit worried on my tank. That's on a stoner before granite, and for the majority of that character's leveling career, the damage was 'good enough' to get me through the rough spots.
But I don't think that concerns you. And I think that's where the majority of my problems with your balance concerns bother other people.
Mind you I am not against changing tankers if it can be shown that there's a problem. But I have never felt like anyhting but a powerhitter on my tankers once the powersets matured.
"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
I think a case could be made for a slight buff from 0.8 to 0.84, to bring Tanker damage back to 75% of base Scrapper damage.
It's not really needed, and the outcry for small buffs to other ATs would probably make it more of a headache than it's worth, but I think it's a valid case.
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't to trick you into saying so, but would a 0.9 mod fly with you? Despite what you said, I still consider my proposal way more tame than that.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it would.
I would be a little concerned about how that played with blaster/tanker balance, and I'm not exactly Arcanaville or Starsman, but I would tentatively say yes. I think it would help a lot of lower level tank damage issues, and not change the higher levels quite as much.
But I might be wrong about everything :P.
"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
A .9 increase in damage would not make Tankers broken.
It's a 12.5% damage buff from what we got now.
It's would take tanker to 76% the damage of a scrapper (and that's low enough for no one to pass on a scrapper in favor of a Tanker)
Heck, it would be nothing compared to the buff Dominators are getting despite of having Controller primaries.
However it's too boring of a buff. It would still keep tankers being "the lowest damage melee AT" and people would still whine, specially after power proliferation is complete (if it ever happens.)
If the tanker is found to need an offensive boost, I would like that to come in a more original form than just more damage. And No, fury is taken so think of something else!
[ QUOTE ]
And I just explained to Blue_Mourning how Tankers could occasionally appoach Brute damage and not make anyone obsolete.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your assumption is not taking into account the fact that players will always take the path of least resistance. In my first example Tankers would trump Brutes and Scrappers because they would offer superior defenses with comparable offense. In my second example Scrappers would eclipse Tankers and Brutes because their damage output is fairly constant with no need for Fury management or waiting for a Tank-whatsit bar to fill up.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
To be fair, J_B's suggestion was a clickable burst boost to damage that was equivalent to (slightly less than) a 25% damage increase over time.
Other than tweaking it to make it dev balanced, there still is the issue that it overall doesn't seem to be warranted for any reason but to add flavour and fun. Without Tankers falling behind in purpose or play, especially on teams, there's little to no reason for a major system upgrade such as would be required in adding a new (or re-used) mechanic to the AT as a whole.
[ QUOTE ]
Other than tweaking it to make it dev balanced, there still is the issue that it overall doesn't seem to be warranted for any reason but to add flavour and fun. Without Tankers falling behind in purpose or play, especially on teams, there's little to no reason for a major system upgrade such as would be required in adding a new (or re-used) mechanic to the AT as a whole.
[/ QUOTE ]
Plus I don't think a lot of players would consider another click power to manage all that fun. Adding an ability similar in function to the least popular AT probably isn't the best idea.
[ QUOTE ]
However it's too boring of a buff. It would still keep tankers being "the lowest damage melee AT" and people would still whine, specially after power proliferation is complete (if it ever happens.)
If the tanker is found to need an offensive boost, I would like that to come in a more original form than just more damage. And No, fury is taken so think of something else!
[/ QUOTE ]
This echos my feelings. A unique mechanic would allow Tankers to hit harder than any blanket buff/multiplier change could.
In my opinion any offensive change for Tankers would have to:
-Allow them to be heavy hitting like Brutes and Scrappers.
-Make Tanker offense more interesting and distict. Of the melee ATs, Tankers' offensive distinction is that they don't have anything dinstinct. They are Scrappers without the puntuation of Criticals, Stalkers without Assassin's Strike. Brutes without Fury. In a sea of many flavours, they are plain vanilla. At least give them sprinkles.
-Have minimal impact on players who like Tankers as is.
-Be conceptually suitable.
.
[ QUOTE ]
In my mind, that's what Rage and Build Up was for. Perhaps what would be better is a modification of those specific powers?
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you mean removing them from every other AT, or making special versions for Tankers, how would that be something that conceptually serves Tankers?
Why should Tankers, again, have to share something that's supposed to be conceptually special and inherent to them with Brutes like they do with Gauntlet?
.