[ QUOTE ]
No but i think the very first version of Rage had the player dropping all toggles and be disoriented when buff duration expired. ( maybe im mixing stuff with the old Unstoppable power... All this is so far behind... ).
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you are correct. Could not find the proof, all the good CoX data sites are blocked at work :'(
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No but i think the very first version of Rage had the player dropping all toggles and be disoriented when buff duration expired. ( maybe im mixing stuff with the old Unstoppable power... All this is so far behind... ).
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe you are correct. Could not find the proof, all the good CoX data sites are blocked at work :'(
[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I remember as 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
[ QUOTE ]
The 'only' way to get a full chain is by 'spamming' hasten? What does that even mean? Who takes hasten but doesn't keep it up as often as possible?
[/ QUOTE ]
Considering that you'd need to drop out of Dwarf form to use it, I'd wager a fair amount of Khelds in Dwarf form would have periods where it's down, especially if they're trying to tank.
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
No actually now that you say that I think you are right, it did stun and it was "unfair" to sets without status protection (then fire) and entirely over-wirable. The detogling cmae from the stun if you were not running status protection (I think.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 'only' way to get a full chain is by 'spamming' hasten? What does that even mean? Who takes hasten but doesn't keep it up as often as possible?
[/ QUOTE ]
Considering that you'd need to drop out of Dwarf form to use it, I'd wager a fair amount of Khelds in Dwarf form would have periods where it's down, especially if they're trying to tank.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. Besides, with some characters, it's sometimes not worth spamming Hasten every time it's up unless you have a long recharge clicky you care to get back up again quickly to go along with it. I find Hasten spamming more annoying than it's worth unless you've got a high end recovery build, so I don't do it unless I have good reason.
[ QUOTE ]
That's awesome Talen, however how many people who are trying out a new AT are going to wait 38 levels (footstomp). Maybe 39-40 (footstomp fully slotted). Hell Shield Charge and Rage don't come into play till what mid-late 20's?
[/ QUOTE ]Foot stomp isn't how I wiped out bosses. It was Punch, haymaker, jab and knockout blow. The single target attacks. The ones you get at 1, 2, 10, and 20.
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks are the only AT I've played that I don't feel their essence within the first 5-7 levels. That's a problem IMHO.
[/ QUOTE ]Can you provide a more airy-fairy outline of the problem? Because my tanks feel like they can take a pounding right out of the gates, and the fact their offense scales up is the same as for everyone else.
Again: Twenty seconds to chew through four +1 bosses. That's not a normal spawn for crying out loud. Do you know how many bosses you face doing normal missions? One per mission tops until you start dialling up the difficulty.
I fear that too many people have been spoiled by playing the high end game that they don't realise it's not what things are balanced around. I fear even more that when I make a point and ask a question, people blithely ignore it because it's inconvenient to try and say 'Yes, you should be defeating +1 bosses, without IOs, faster than twenty seconds each, because otherwise I won't feel Super.' It does sound a little silly.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 'only' way to get a full chain is by 'spamming' hasten? What does that even mean? Who takes hasten but doesn't keep it up as often as possible?
[/ QUOTE ]
Considering that you'd need to drop out of Dwarf form to use it, I'd wager a fair amount of Khelds in Dwarf form would have periods where it's down, especially if they're trying to tank.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. Besides, with some characters, it's sometimes not worth spamming Hasten every time it's up unless you have a long recharge clicky you care to get back up again quickly to go along with it. I find Hasten spamming more annoying than it's worth unless you've got a high end recovery build, so I don't do it unless I have good reason.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dropping out of dwarf to hit hasten isnt that hard for a skilled kheldian player. You can easily do it in between spawns, since neither hasten nor form switching roots you, or you can do it in the midfight, more safely at some points (right after you footstomp, or when you have a lot of teammate buffs/debuffs/control helping at the moment) than others.
If you don't have powers on long recharge that you want coming back faster all the time, then why did you take Hasten?
Wavicle, Energy/Energy Blaster, dinged 50 in Issue 4, summer of 2005.
@Wavicle, mostly on the Justice server.
I IO'd out my Dwarf attacks to make a viable chain, so I took one of the options that is not Hasten (though both Kheldians have it for other reasons), and only hit Hasten for those other reasons not attack chain related. I can keep Hasten constantly running as well as any good Kheldian player, but I don't do it for attack reasons.
The point is that Kheldians cannot form an unbroken attack chain without these methods (sacrificing other slotting for recharge, using IOs, or using Hasten constantly). Tankers can. There's also the diversity and excitement of a larger number of attacks, and the need to either hit Dwarf's Taunt and/or PbAoE all the time to keep aggro.
The point was that I don't think Kheldians step on other ATs toes because of their limitations. They can emulate other ATs to a very limited point, but those modes in-and-of-themselves don't rival those other ATs.
A stancing Tanker would come a lot closer to Scrappers than a Dwarf comes to a Tanker or Nova to Blaster, simply due to having entire powersets at their disposal.
From what Starsman is saying about his proposal, though there would be ways to "make it work," it seems a bit too complicated, given the way this game generally seems to strive to simplify.
So while I personally think stances would be lovely, I simply don't think that at this time it's ever likely to happen.
Overall, I just don't think that Tanker offence is the bugaboo that some people make it out to be. Assuming balance with IOs, Tankers, when they do bloom, can run at high difficulties with little concern. Even the non-power players can pick up a higher level Tanker and solo missions on Unyielding or Invincible, regardless of build. Most Defenders, Blasters, and Controllers in the same situation will have far more difficulty, taking both a solid build and a good player to succeed.
The only "issues" with Tankers that I see are:
1) low levels, though quite doable, are boring. That's unfortunately tied to the number of attacks you're likely to have. I'm not quite sure what to do about that, to be honest. It's a problem of having your "active" offensive powers in your secondary (or to a larger picture, having set patterns across all ATs for power progression);
2) Tankers are lacking a highly visible gimmick. All villain ATs have a visible gimmick, and most hero ATs too. The only other extremely low visibility gimmick AT are Defenders. It should be no surprise people complain about Vigilance.
Whatever is done to Tankers by the devs to spruce them up likely needs to be pointed at 2 (since 1 isn't easily fixable without some major power set or game-wide revamp). But there really is no need for it to have anything to do with damage, directly.
[ QUOTE ]
The point was that I don't think Kheldians step on other ATs toes because of their limitations. They can emulate other ATs to a very limited point, but those modes in-and-of-themselves don't rival those other ATs.
A stancing Tanker would come a lot closer to Scrappers than a Dwarf comes to a Tanker or Nova to Blaster, simply due to having entire powersets at their disposal.
From what Starsman is saying about his proposal, though there would be ways to "make it work," it seems a bit too complicated, given the way this game generally seems to strive to simplify.
[/ QUOTE ]
Other than cast time there is no recharge between shape shifting. I see quite a few shades switch shape to human and back only to add more attacks. The time out of dwarf is so short it tends to not be deadly. This way they can sustain constant offensive.
Now, as for the idea, it would be way easier to implements than it sounds, as for simplicity, this game does not strive towards it that badly. Look how Mastermind Bodyguard works, it's not a "simple" mechanic, nor is Kheledian shape shifting.
The way I portray stances the Tank would be less than a threat to scrappers than brutes or stalkers. I don't even think it's impossible for it to happen, it almost happened for blasters. Castle actually proposed it for them but they complained it was too big of a swtich from what blasters are and they needed that buff.
It's not that different from what tankers do, though specially if you play stone, you are already used to "stances" if you do.
I'd have a problem with dropping secondary effects and Gauntlet switching to offensive stance.
Oh, and they simplified Masterminds over time. By default, all a player needs to do is fire an attack and generally, the rest of the fight takes over for itself (pets retaliate, you go and buff/debuff and squeeze some more attacks in if you like). All complexity is added on to that.
Kheldians are a design oddity. There are still, to this day, players who need to come to these boards just to figure out where their attacks went when they shapeshift. If there was a way to redesign Kheldians to be simpler without redoing the entire AT, I think it'd get done. Castle has also recently done some streamlining to the AT, as well. It certainly isn't getting any more complex.
Again, while stances would be cool, the main portion of it (changing stance) "simple" enough technically, having to mess around with secondary effects for each attack (Gauntlet included) makes far too much work for devs, and will probably confuse the heck out of many players not in the know (what happened to Footstomp's knockdown? Where's Clobber's stun?) and sometimes plain look odd.
All for...boosting damage to an AT that statistically, though low population, has an historically excellent level progression rate.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd have a problem with dropping secondary effects and Gauntlet switching to offensive stance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning the penalties are real and not trivially ignored!
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and they simplified Masterminds over time.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they complicated them with Bodyguard. They been fixing AI but you still have to handle those critters to provide you with bodyguard.
[ QUOTE ]
If there was a way to redesign Kheldians to be simpler without redoing the entire AT, I think it'd get done.
[/ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt it. The AT has been buffed but complexity was never touched even if it was possible to do so.
[ QUOTE ]
All for...boosting damage to an AT that statistically, though low population, has an historically excellent level progression rate.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to see your source of statistics. What I recall seeing from devs was that the AT levels slow but not the worst performers in the game and definitively not outside of the "must rebalance because they suck" bounds.
With the MA removing travel time from leveling and putting much more emphasis on mission combat, I ponder how that has changed, though...
Anyways, they also noted that tankers actually DO fall in the red zone at the low levels, think something between 5 and 18. I'd be curious if the average data-mining makes them better after 18 due to how many just gave up eliminating them from future level data-mining.
Like I said, one of the main issues with Tankers is that it's dull in the low levels. Even disregarding the number of attacks, they simply just don't tend to feel strong, both in damage and animation.
However, the damage portion doesn't mean the entire set or AT is too low on damage, but that Tankers don't get any of their strong, interesting attack powers until the 20s. Adding on to that the fact that it's very hard to play your role before the 20s due to either not being able to keep enough aggro or not being able to survive it, and yes, Tanker low levels are a pain.
As for the statistic, I'm referring to the numbers that were provided a long while ago by one of the devs. Tankers were doing fine. I think Arcana's number crunching also showed that the progression of Tankers--at least those that made it out of low levels--was perfectly fine. It may have changed since then MA, but it seems to be far more of an issue with MA farms requesting more Fire/Kins, etc. and not Tankers. I don't think that should be a reason to be changing Tankers.
I honestly don't have a problem with mission combat speed in regards to Tankers when comparing them across all possible builds and all ATs. I just don't see them falling behind many other ATs in levelling speed.
Lastly, I still think getting rid of secondary effects for attacks in offensive mode is a bad move. Yes, it's a real penalty. But again, what's Footstomp without the knockdown? Stun without...stun? What happens to Dark Melee without the -ToHit? Do you get rid of its fear and heal? It seems like a big pain to try and rebalance that, and more than likely, a confusion to players as to what kept what secondary and what lost it.
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, one of the main issues with Tankers is that it's dull in the low levels.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did not say dull, I noted the devs admit there are performance issues with Low level tankers, not fun factor issues, just "they level too slow at that range compared to everyone else". And not only tanking but doing solo or teaming.
[ QUOTE ]
As for the statistic, I'm referring to the numbers that were provided a long while ago by one of the devs. Tankers were doing fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I been trying to get those again, they were purged from the forums. Know some one that has them but not available right now. Tankers were at the bottom of the hero side ATs in those numbers, though. They were not doing fine. Well, to be fair, they tied up with Defenders, both did rather bad in those numbers (note those were popularity numbers, not performance numbers.)
[ QUOTE ]
I think Arcana's number crunching also showed that the progression of Tankers
[/ QUOTE ]
Her crunching, that was also purged by now, attempted assume AT migration based on creation/played ratios among other stuff. What she noted about tankers, if i recall right, was that players that make tankers tend to stick around more often than players that make other ATs. She ended up noting that the numbers were not enough to guess trends, though.
[ QUOTE ]
what's Footstomp without the knockdown?
[/ QUOTE ]
A high damage AoE with high reach?
[ QUOTE ]
Stun without...stun?
[/ QUOTE ]
Stun's stun is not a secondary effect. It's the primary effect. Same goes for the Fear in Dark Melee. The heal is a secondary effect, though.
[ QUOTE ]
I did not say dull, I noted the devs admit there are performance issues with Low level tankers, not fun factor issues, just "they level too slow at that range compared to everyone else". And not only tanking but doing solo or teaming.
[/ QUOTE ]
Source?
.
I'm still shocked that we're debating dropping secondary effects from powers for the sake of stances. Maybe I'm the only one, but it just screams bad design to me.
And, again, I know I've said this before, but I honestly can't see 1-50 damage as being the culprit, especially if we're saying that 18+ Tankers have a higher tendency to progress further.
What that clearly points out to me is that the 1-18 game for Tankers needs tweaking, not the entire AT's balance numbers.
Again, a good portion of this is due to Tankers being the only AT that has melee offence as a secondary, compared to the 2.5 other main ATs (Stalkers are the 0.5, by the way, since their versions are different). Heck, maybe that's where the key lies: forget about standardisation between Scrappers, Brutes, and Tankers, and only worry about it where Scrappers and Brutes are concerned. Tankers have their own needs, so re-balance the secondaries to give a more even attack progression, thus mitigating somewhat the 1-18 pains without having to completely revamp underlying mechanics and overall balance for the AT as a whole. It sounds like a pain, but it seems to me to be less of a pain that having to have separate tables for offensive and defensive mode Stancers.
This could be accomplished either by moving powers around (unlikely) or just mucking about with values a la Dominators right now.
Of course, Dominators are always easier to mess with regarding their Assault sets because they are not shared with any other ATs in the game (though they do need to follow specific parameters in regards to their related powers, the set's overall balance is its own thing). Perhaps it would be best for Tankers to follow something similar, despite the powers being called the same as their other melee counterparts'. If necessary, build into the AT an endurance discount for lower tier attacks, allowing them higher DPE for the low level game. Its level of effect could be made to be balanced against the DPE of its later powers, or the effect fades over level progression.
Yes, it is a somewhat inelegant solution, but I honestly think no less so than your stance suggestion, Stars. It would certainly be easier to balance. I'm simply maintaining that Tanker issues are far more related to getting into the 20s than they are across the entire lifespan of the character.
YOU want to dismiss a statement about tanker underperforming on a level range because of an unlinked source?
Anyways, the link is gone but City of Data has it here
Minor correction to my statement is that at least at the time, the sets with issues were not dimmed anywhere near the true horrendously worst performers. But this was before Stalker buffs, Kheledian buffs, Blaster buffs and Dominator buffs.
It's almost a 2 year old quote now, though. Things likely have changed a lot since, but other than buffs to almost everyone else, little has come to tankers other than Invuln.
[ QUOTE ]
Datamining shows that, at level 50, no Tanker powerset performs below average when compared to all AT powersets. Only at very low levels do Tankers perform sub par, and even then, Invulnerability is not the worst performer.
So, while there are definitely issues with various Tanker powers and power sets, they aren't anywhere near the ones which need attention most.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
YOU want to dismiss a statement about tanker underperforming on a level range because of an unlinked source?
[/ QUOTE ]
I want to strengthen your argument by prompting you to produce a source because doing so helps the common cause of getting Tankers attention and needed changes from the devs.
.
I was being sarcastic. I was sure all you wanted was for me to give you some more ammo.
[ QUOTE ]
I was being sarcastic. I was sure all you wanted was for me to give you some more ammo.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your sarcasm and the humour in it is lost on me.
I'm coming from a position of being constantly attacked and opposed for what I say, including by you. I'm called a liar, a child, an idiot and a villain. All for pushing for Tanker issues. The developers themselves troll my threads when they're not ignoring them. What kind of attitude do you think that would foster?
.
Personally, I don't think illl of you for trying to improve Tankers. It's more that you do such a poor job of supporting your arguments with numbers and game design, and yet still insist that your ideas are good. The onus for change always needs to be backed up by convincing evidence, not heresay and personal opinion. You simply haven't been convincing enough.
Again, I don't think the AT as a whole, 1-50 needs a fix, just the low levels. Ideas for that are greatly welcome.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm coming from a position of being constantly attacked and opposed for what I say, including by you. I'm called a liar, a child, an idiot and a villain.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because you tend to treat others in similar way and refuse objectiveness. You often go to extremes in your statements and tend to be armed with little more backup than "but comic book tankers..." which even the devs have noted is not a valid statement.
You say people that don't agree with you are blind or make smart statements as pitting them for enjoying the game. Heck even I expect it when some people slash at me due to my posts and tone. You really should not be shocked at the way people treat you seeing how you treat everyone else.
If you were a bit more civil to others, and more objective (like realizing this is not a comic book and balance is required and try to stay within the parameters) people would not troll you so bad.
[ QUOTE ]
...little more backup than "but comic book tankers..." which even the devs have noted is not a valid statement.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with this. We're playing a game based on comic books, so it seems to me that the expectation that the game should behave like the comic books is paramount. That said, Game Balance MUST be retained.
As I've noted before, I don't think Tankers are in a bad position. There are ATs FAR worse off than Tankers.
Basically, the game should be as comic-book-y as balance allows. Game balance is paramount, making it resemble comic books fits wherever and whenever possible.
The medium being used is that of an MMO. Thus its rules trump those of comic books, from which this game only takes its inspiration from.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which still doesn't sound like a bad penalty to me. It'll be perfectly fine both solo and teamed, especially considering Tankers have better AoE mitigation tools as part of their secondaries, as well as buffs on a team, while still being able to manage aggro like a champ.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I recall in that post (it was long i just scratched my memory here) noting secondary effect and taunt shutdown while in the offensive mode.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like its own headache right there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Probably the biggest reason why people don't play Kheldians as full replacements for Tankers or Blasters is the limited, non-progressing number of attacks. They get what they get and that's it, when it comes to those modes.
[/ QUOTE ]
They get enough to do full attack chains.
[/ QUOTE ]
Only assuming one of: having weaker attacks, using IOs, or spamming Hasten. Especially for Dwarf.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, and ultimately (for me), I don't think going ape-[censored] offensive (but not quite Scrapper) with less defence than a Scrapper says "Tanker" to me at all. You'd have to change the name of the AT while you're at it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it does double way. Many MMOs tanks have the mode precisely due to the mutli-tank issues, so mechanically it makes sense.
Conceptually, its not that rare when tough guy tanks go in blind rages and become much more vulnerable but devastating offensively (compared to their norm) something Rage sort of mimics for Super Strength. I'm not sure why the devs never gave Rage a persistent survivability debuff, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
WoW at least has the decency to call their stance-based class something other than Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 'only' way to get a full chain is by 'spamming' hasten? What does that even mean? Who takes hasten but doesn't keep it up as often as possible?
Wavicle, Energy/Energy Blaster, dinged 50 in Issue 4, summer of 2005.
@Wavicle, mostly on the Justice server.