[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-Buff a tank's primary in some way
[/ QUOTE ]
You'd have to show that every Tanker primary set needs a buff.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't have to be a buff to def/res, could be an endurance reduction or something. Or, like I said above, small, scaling (with level), unenhancable, unstackable, resistance to the unresistable.
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if, in addition to gauntlet, we got something that buffed our primary? You know, just like every other AT in the game has?
[/ QUOTE ]
Except for controllers and defenders. Controllers inherent buff their damage, it is based on their primary to do damage, but it does not buff it. Defenders though are the complete opposite, their inherent is based on them ignoring their primary, since it only works when team mates are not supported.
[/ QUOTE ]
Controller's primary controls and does some damage. Containment buffs the damage portion of that. Thus it buffs their primary.
Defender's buffs/debuffs cost endurance to run and cast. Vigilance buffs their primary by reducing it's endurance cost. It's not great, and in fact should be up above tanks in getting a better inherent, but this isn't the defender's forum.
Let me be totally clear. I'd not touch gauntlet. However any additional inherent should address some, if not all of these issues:
-Buff a tank's primary in some way
-Have an effect in PvP
-Not diminish anything tanks currently do
-Provide flavor and fun, especially at lower levels before those new to tanks give up on them. (should be effective and noticeable at level 1)
[/ QUOTE ]
Tanker primaries have powers that taunt, so using your reasoning their inherent already buffs their primary.
Dirges
QR
I'd much rather go with some kind of endurance reduction than a damage boost or survivability boost. I'd also definitely take some kind of control boost, but I think that might be harder for the devs to get right across sets (some will have unfair advantages over others).
Tankers often end up more endurance limited than damage or survivability limited. This can cut both ways, though: on the one hand, it'd be a great addition to the AT; on the other, it might be so significant that there might be issues balancing it. I'll have to think about it more, especially about a mechanism (that is not Vigilance) that works.
In the past, I've always thought that Gauntlet was about as sucky an Inherent power as there is.
But that always came from a guy who never took a Tank above level 15 or so.
Now that I've finally got one in the mid-30's, I'd like to throw out this idea:
Have Gauntlet increase the aggro cap by X amount per Y level, say, for example, 2 per 10 levels, increasing the aggro cap to a new maximum of 26 (if the cap is 16, which I think it is, or 14, then to 24). Also increase the Magnitude of the Taunt affect in gauntlet as you rise.
As your Tanker gains experience in leading the charge into battle, he or she becomes more able to grab and hold aggro.
[ QUOTE ]
Tanker primaries have powers that taunt, so using your reasoning their inherent already buffs their primary.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's unreasonable to use gauntlet as the justification of the taunt effects in powers like invincibility and blazing aura when brutes, who you'll notice don't have gauntlet, have the same taunt effect (with different AT modifiers) on their version of the same power, and those taunt effects predated the inherent concept as a whole and gauntlet specifically, and the description of gauntlet specifically states "Each time the tanker attacks", and it effecting the "target, and those around him", neither of which apply to any of the tanker powers available in the primaries that taunt.
As well, historically, when tankers got the meaningles grey icon named "gauntlet", that technically doesn't do anything, tanker single-target attacks from their secondary only (not pools or epics) received an AE taunt effect in addition to the taunt effect on the target hit; the taunt-what-you-hit portion being shared by brutes, as well.
So, no, using his reasoning Gauntlet does not buff the tanker primaries, because by no logical explanation (historically with respect to power changes, comparatively to brutes and scrappers, intentionally according to the power description, or technically according to actual effects of specific powers) does gauntlet "buff" tanker "primaries".
Nope. Ain't gonna happen. The aggro cap came into place to stop higher level Tankers from aggroing massive amounts of enemies and defeating them all at once. Tankers were doing dumpster dives after pulling entire maps way back in the day. I doubt the devs will go anywhere toward that direction.
I always thought that a tanker's inherrent should buff the tank based on the amount of team aggro he/she is soaking. Something like 0.5 end rec per mob with a max of 5. It would make playing a low lvl tank alot more fun without overpowering the AT.
Just so I'm sure we're on the same page, the 'problem' here that needs 'fixing' is 'I don't like and cannot spell Gauntlet'?
[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Ain't gonna happen. The aggro cap came into place to stop higher level Tankers from aggroing massive amounts of enemies and defeating them all at once. Tankers were doing dumpster dives after pulling entire maps way back in the day. I doubt the devs will go anywhere toward that direction.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am fully aware of why the aggro cap was put into place, in spite of what my registration date shows (newish account), I've been playing non-stop since early '05.
It doesn't really appear as if you actually took the time to see that it was a suggestion to slowly raise the aggro cap over a level range, and my suggestion was 2 per 10 levels. This is nowhere near watching a level 35 Fire/Fire Tank, pre-ED, herd a map and stand there without any real danger of dying and wipe out an entire mission solo. It isn't even close.
Going from the current cap, which is equal at level 1, 25, and 50, and slowly increasing it over the lifetime of a Tanker to 10 over the current cap, can hardly be considered equal to "dumpster diving" and holding aggro for 50, 75, 100+ mob's.
At least take the time to understand what is suggested before you presume the person who posted it is too stupid to know the history of some of the game changes.
Considering how few Tankers actually make it to 30, 40 and 50, compared to farm-friendly AT's, I don't think its too large a leap to at least consider upping the aggro cap (considering, thematically, as a Tank gains experience, he or she should be able to grab more aggro and hold it (though the latter aspect you didn't knee-jerk a /jranger to)) to 10 more than the current cap over the full 50 levels of a Tank.
[ QUOTE ]
Considering how few Tankers actually make it to 30, 40 and 50, compared to farm-friendly AT's,
[/ QUOTE ]Prove it.
[ QUOTE ]
I always thought that a tanker's inherrent should buff the tank based on the amount of team aggro he/she is soaking. Something like 0.5 end rec per mob with a max of 5. It would make playing a low lvl tank alot more fun without overpowering the AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
This sort of idea has been suggested before and, if the devs did decide to give Tankers some sort of Endurance boost, I agree it's the way to go. I don't think the devs see it as much of an issue as players do, though. Especially the players who wildly exaggerate the problem.
Also, since it's not just Tanker players who complain about Endurance and "needing Stamina", they'd probably look for more game-wide changes than AT-specific.
But I could be wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Considering how few Tankers actually make it to 30, 40 and 50, compared to farm-friendly AT's
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, wait. You're going to assume AT balance based on some assumption that Tankers don't often make it to those level ranges? That's...pretty terrible.
EDIT: Oh, and raising aggro caps just exacerbates the perceived problem that "more than one Tanker isn't very necessary on a team" by...literally making more than one Tanker less necessary, since one can hold so much aggro by the end game.
I simply can't see any reason to raise the aggro cap.
[ QUOTE ]
Just so I'm sure we're on the same page, the 'problem' here that needs 'fixing' is 'I don't like and cannot spell Gauntlet'?
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem is the way buffs and debuffs stack in this game promotes inneffective defenses at low levels that provide negligible benefits to solo or team play, and yet also providing obviously overpowered defensive capabilities by even the weakest of characters by 50 (grats to the blaster that soloed the ITF). The ability to trivialize content with certain powers or powersets, even sometimes accidentally, while retaining damage or damage-multiplicative capabilities well beyond what is available to tankers creates a situation where tankers themselves are obviously suboptimal by anyone that understands how the game works compared to several, or even all, alternatives.
But, not every team is mix/max'd
For the common idiot that can't take advantage of such builds, they are using attacks that have one damage enhancement and no endredux, then run out of endurance before being able to solo a single boss at the end of a mission. They die to a full team spawn's initial attack. Or, if they survive, they collect an entire team's worth in defense debuffs, endurance drain, tohit debuffs, slows, and anything else that gets thrown around in addition to the damage, producing a play experience that is often very frustrating as their character is effectively unable to accomplish anything under such circumstances... aside from using taunt and a taunt aura... if such powers are available and have been chosen.
Then, they look at the benign little icon in the corner of the screen. Gauntlet. A fascinating inherent that explains a taunt radius on some powers so small it won't even cover the tanker himself/herself, let alone provide any taunting on something beyond the range of taunt auras or a real AE-attack. And that'd be fine and all if, in addition to the often incredibly small taunt raidii, players could see if and when it actually worked, like absolutely every other inherent in the game, even if they have to resort to the combat attributes menu. How it is, the common player won't know to look at power details to see that jab only covers about 3ft for its inherent taunt radius. They'll use the power and see nothing happening that can be explained by gauntlet while the gray words "critical" and "containment" float above their head.
As entertaining or capable as tankers can be for anyone that can figure out a percent sign, no one wants to be the guy chosen "because no one else was looking" or to be the debuff sponge so the scrapper, who can sometimes take damage just as well, actually does something to further the mission.
All of these complains are appropriately answered by the OP. [edit: I know someone won't read that as sarcasm]
Though, I think any chance for getting a useful boost to tankers, as opposed to trivial changes akin to upping passive resists by 2.5% damage res, are squashed by the repeated and ceasless hounding of certain posters that a) don't like how the game works at its core with respect to the environment, opponents, and other players and b) cannot stand that someone else does "more damage" than his pet AT. If brutes didn't exist, I'd fully expect a lot more positive changes to tankers not because of some perverse masochistic attitude towards tankers or favortism towards brutes among the developers, but because too many people see brutes and are fixated upon brute damage, rather than any mechanical or content obstructions to superior tanker defenses being a legitimate benefit to teams and a balancing factor to ATs as a whole.
But now I'm rambling, so I'll go to bed.
[ QUOTE ]
Controller's primary controls and does some damage. Containment buffs the damage portion of that. Thus it buffs their primary.
[/ QUOTE ]
It also buffs the damage portion of their secondary, though. Inherent powers rarely can be that neatly compartmentalized. Insisting that inherent powers always and everywhere apply to the primary only (or even primarily) out of a sense of aesthetic purity is neat, but not necessarily very useful for an actual game. There's no "players rights bill" that states that inherent powers have to buff the primary; all you can reasonably expect is a game that aims to be both interesting and balanced.
More importantly, saying that a tanker inherent should ALSO buff the tanker primaries is not going to get you anywhere. To get a buff (that doesn't go along with a commensurate nerf elsewhere) you have to demonstrate first that tankers are underpowered and second that said buff fixes it. If tankers don't have problems, they don't need buffs, in their inherent or otherwise. You may be able to convince yourselves, but you won't be able to convince the developers, and they are the ones who have access to the CoH source code.
That is where a lot of this goes wrong. For example, a common complaint is that you only need one tanker on a team. Making taunt effects from Gauntlet stronger or tanker survivability stronger does not fix that -- if anything, it makes it worse. Tankers, to be blunt, are not underpowered. They are actually one of the more solid archetypes.
Thus, if you want something buffed in a way that makes tankers measurably more powerful, then there's a good chance that you have to pay for that with a nerf elsewhere, whether the buff is related to tankers' inherent power or not. That any individual power is weak does not exempt changes to it from balance considerations; if the AT as a whole is balanced right, then making a weak power stronger is still going to make the AT overall stronger than it should be.
What you would have to argue is either (1) that tankers in general are underpowered and need a buff and that the buff you propose fixes that (which then could be or could not be attached to an inherent change) or (2) propose a change that isn't a buff to the AT, but simply leads to more interesting and varied gameplay.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is the way buffs and debuffs stack in this game promotes inneffective defenses at low levels that provide negligible benefits to solo or team play, and yet also providing obviously overpowered defensive capabilities by even the weakest of characters by 50 (grats to the blaster that soloed the ITF).
[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, that blaster soloed the ITF with an expensive IO build, Shivans, lots of inspirations, and lots of stealthing. Buff and debuff stacking had pretty much nothing to do with that -- you don't really get buff and debuff stacking beyond the intended level while solo, especially when not playing a buffing/debuffing AT.
Castle already has said that (1) buff/debuff stacking is broken and (2) that he can't do much about it without breaking the game. What you can't expect is to have everything buffed to the same level of brokenness. Buff/debuff stacking is not a valid benchmark of where the game should be.
[ QUOTE ]
As entertaining or capable as tankers can be for anyone that can figure out a percent sign, no one wants to be the guy chosen "because no one else was looking" or to be the debuff sponge so the scrapper, who can sometimes take damage just as well, actually does something to further the mission.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with that line of argument is (1) that there are actually people who enjoy the role of being in the thick of things and taking hits for the team, (2) that tankers ARE a force multiplier, both defensively and offensively.
As a tanker, you are a defensive force multiplier by redirecting attacks towards you so that they hit you (with your superior survivability), not your teammates.
Offensively, you work as a force multiplier by absorbing debuffs that then similarly won't hit your teammates who can then produce better damage output because they aren't encumbered by -recharge or -to-hit or -DMG.
The general problem that you are having with this is that you don't need a whole lot of defense for most of the content; thus, having more than one tanker is generally not a huge benefit (or, more than one FF defender, for that matter, another defensively oriented type of character). But that is not the same as claiming that a tanker doesn't actually do "something to further the mission".
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that line of argument is (1) that there are actually people who enjoy the role of being in the thick of things and taking hits for the team, (2) that tankers ARE a force multiplier, both defensively and offensively.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you seem to miss the point that Brutes act as the same force multiplier, take hits for the team, do so with minimal support BUT unlike Tankers and the end of the day get to go solo with excellent speed and damage.
Even if Brues were faceplanting each spawn, and they're not generally, they're still filling the role as aggro sponge, have been doing so for as long as CoV has been around, and unlike Tankers, they're not half-crippled offensively for the dubious privilege.
Given that Brutes and Tankers share the exact same roles, just in different proportions:
Damage/Aggro and Aggro/Damage.
...Tell me why is Controller/Dominator viability an issue worth making AT adjustments when those ATs only share a controlling aspects, while the rest of the AT is completely different, and Tankers vs Brute isn't an issue even though they share more power sets and their roles are more similar?
Brutes and Tankers are way more similar, and there's just as much popularity gap between Controllers and Doms as there is between Brutes, the most rolled AT on their side, and Tankers, the 2nd least rolled AT on their side.
With that in mind, Brutes have it over Tankers in the offense and soloing department. So if there were any changes to Tankers over viability concerns, the changes would be to solve the issues of offense and soloing.
You want a problem to warrant a change? There you go. You want to see how said change fixes said problem? Any offensive-minded inherent change would improve offense and soloing. Done.
You can commence with the backpedaling and blanket dismissal now. There's the goal post, you'd better move it quick.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with that line of argument is (1) that there are actually people who enjoy the role of being in the thick of things and taking hits for the team, (2) that tankers ARE a force multiplier, both defensively and offensively.
[/ QUOTE ]
And you seem to miss the point that Brutes act as the same force multiplier, take hits for the team, do so with minimal support BUT unlike Tankers and the end of the day get to go solo with excellent speed and damage.
Even if Brues were faceplanting each spawn, and they're not generally, they're still filling the role as aggro sponge, have been doing so for as long as CoV has been around, and unlike Tankers, they're not half-crippled offensively for the dubious privilege.
Given that Brutes and Tankers share the exact same roles, just in different proportions:
Damage/Aggro and Aggro/Damage.
...Tell me why is Controller/Dominator viability an issue worth making AT adjustments when those ATs only share a controlling aspects, while the rest of the AT is completely different, and Tankers vs Brute isn't an issue even though they share more power sets and their roles are more similar?
Brutes and Tankers are way more similar, and there's just as much popularity gap between Controllers and Doms as there is between Brutes, the most rolled AT on their side, and Tankers, the 2nd least rolled AT on their side.
With that in mind, Brutes have it over Tankers in the offense and soloing department. So if there were any changes to Tankers over viability concerns, the changes would be to solve the issues of offense and soloing.
You want a problem to warrant a change? There you go. You want to see how said change fixes said problem? Any offensive-minded inherent change would improve offense and soloing. Done.
You can commence with the backpedaling and blanket dismissal now. There's the goal post, you'd better move it quick.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
According to Castle changes to dominators have been in the works for quite a while with no mention of Controller/Dominator viability.
I'm continually confused why improving tankers appears to mean making them emulate existing archetypes rather than doing something to make them more unique in their own right. IMO, it's a very sad state of affairs if the best that tankers can aspire to is archetype envy.
"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 if, seeing as we are the only AT with a Self Defense primary, we got a scaling, minor, resistance to the unresistable? Hami Damage, Crystal Titan Damage, PvP (Blasters unresistable damage, scrappers unresistable crits, defenders unresisable debuffs.......). Basically anything in the game, that is either unresistable or untyped, we'd get a scaling, minor resist to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like the spirit of this more than anything else I've ever heard as an addition to Gauntlet. It demonstrates that the Tanker is the absolute best at absorbing punishment, by shrugging off things that no other archetype in the game can shrug off.
The only issue there is: how much of the damage in game is untyped or unresistable? Those three examples are all I can think of, and it's not something Joe Blow Tanker encounters every fight. So while I like the concept, it's not terribly practical.
An endurance reduction for every enemy in range, like an inverse Vigilance, would make sense. Or even a +tohit for each enemy in range would rock. Everyone's around you, they're easier to hit 
Might make up for those psychotic pbaoe tohit debuffs that CoT and the like get, that drop me into negative tohit 
[ QUOTE ]
According to Castle changes to dominators have been in the works for quite a while with no mention of Controller/Dominator viability.
[/ QUOTE ]
According to this:
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...age=0&vc=1
...you're wrong.
.
[ QUOTE ]
And you seem to miss the point that Brutes act as the same force multiplier, take hits for the team, do so with minimal support BUT unlike Tankers and the end of the day get to go solo with excellent speed and damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not miss the point. Brutes do trade off defense for more personal offense. Therefore, brutes do NOT act as the same force multiplier (defensively), simply because they have weaker defense. You may claim that the difference is inconsequential for the content that you do, but you cannot honestly claim that brutes and tankers provide the same defense.
[ QUOTE ]
Even if Brues were faceplanting each spawn, and they're not generally, they're still filling the role as aggro sponge, have been doing so for as long as CoV has been around, and unlike Tankers, they're not half-crippled offensively for the dubious privilege.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the problem is that you don't like playing a primarily defensive character. That, however, is your problem, not that of the developers. There are others who prefer the defense/offense trade-off that a tanker has over that of a brute. The world does not revolve around you, I'm afraid. The developers are well advised providing a variety of different ATs and powersets to cater to people with different playstyles instead of making tankers essentially the same as brutes, which would reduce the number of character options a player has.
Luckily for you, as soon as Going Rogue comes out, you will be able to play a brute blue-side (I am assuming that the only reason you currently don't play a scrapper instead of a tanker is that Super Strength isn't available as a scrapper primary). That should solve your problem, since you will be able to play exactly the type of character you want to play, right?
J_B's already stated he doesn't like Brute mechanics. He's just going to have to wait until Super Strength goes Scrapper.
Me? I like big damage numbers as much as the next person, but then I either go and make another AT or I make an offensively built Tanker. My SD/SS is still my favourite Tanker to play.
[ QUOTE ]
I do not miss the point. Brutes do trade off defense for more personal offense. Therefore, brutes do NOT act as the same force multiplier (defensively), simply because they have weaker defense.
[/ QUOTE ]
That weaker defense has not stopped them from filling the exact same team role as Tankers do. Weaker defense =/= weak defense, and Brutes are strong enough even without minimal support to tank for teams. They've been doing so in CoV since day 1.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the problem is that you don't like playing a primarily defensive character.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the problem is for a Tanker, their defense doesn't benefit them, it benefits others, and at the expense of a Tanker's concept, ability to solo and for the people who think Tankers should have some teeth, fun.
[ QUOTE ]
That, however, is your problem, not that of the developers.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is an admitted flaw in the AT by the lead designer who was in charge of their creation.
[ QUOTE ]
The developers are well advised providing a variety of different ATs and powersets to cater to people with different playstyles instead of making tankers essentially the same as brutes, which would reduce the number of character options a player has.
[/ QUOTE ]
The developers should also be advised to realize that being a niche with limited popularity isn't something they should strive for on any AT and should be reminded they have in fact made efforts in the past to make ATs like that slightly more rounded and more enjoyable to a greater number of players.
Blasters and Stalkers getting buffs that improve survivability comes to mind.
As do Dominators, a control (defensive) primary getting buffs to it's offensive secondary. A defensive primary and offensive secondary? Sounds a little like Tankers to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily for you
[/ QUOTE ]
UN-luckily for you, perhaps, Going Rogue is only going result in me pushing harder and being louder about Tanker reform now that there's the direct and increased threat from Brutes.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to Castle changes to dominators have been in the works for quite a while with no mention of Controller/Dominator viability.
[/ QUOTE ]
According to this:
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...age=0&vc=1
...you're wrong.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
I stand corrected on the Castle quote. This still doesn't represent a reason for making tankers like brutes. As I have stated before, if the advent of blue side brutes represents a threat to the tanker population than whatever is done to "improve" tankers can't simply be to make them more like, but not as powerful as, brutes.
The idea that two archetypes that share the same primary, like control, and will soon be working side by side should be balanced against one another makes perfect sense. The idea that an archetype with damage as their secondary should have that damage balanced against any archetype with damage as their primary does not make sense and doing so could lead to game balance issues.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
Punchvoke = Gauntlet. Saying those are two things is like saying brawl is the best power twice over because you can punch with either hand.
[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't Punchvoke the inherent taunt affect that both Tankers and Brutes have on their attacks and Gauntlet just makes it AoE?