[ QUOTE ]
This still doesn't represent a reason for making tankers like brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Strawman.
Tanker offensive tweaks do not make them Brutes. Scrappers are not Brutes. Stalkers are not Brutes. All are damage dealers.
A mechanic can improve Tanker offense, soloability and viability against Brutes without "making Tankers like Brutes." Unless you define any melee AT with teeth as "being a Brute."
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
And Brutes and Tankers share two power sets. Althought they may not be matched primary to primary. This makes them even closer in roles.
Controllers are buff/debuff and control. Dominators are control and damage. They share one role: Control.
Brutes and Tankers share two roles, damage and aggro control. They're even more closely related than Controllers and Dominators.
Now, in the case of Dominators, so solve the issue they didn't invent a third role Dominators and give them debuffs or buffs. They improved the area they were weak in.
With Tankers, they're not weak in aggro control at all. In fact improving their aggro control or survivability would do little to help them or the issue. Their weakest area is offense, and that is what affects their soloability early on. The solution is to improve Tanker offense, but in a way that's distinct from Fury and Brutes.
.
[ QUOTE ]
In short, speak for yourself, do not claim to speak for others who do not share your ideas by pronouncing your personal preferences to be a universal truth.
[/ QUOTE ]
People in glass houses.
I'm seeking offensive improvements to make the AT more enjoyable to everyone, not just people who get their rocks off mashing Taunt over and over. I'm seeking to make the AT a little bit closer to their comic roots for the people, like me, who expected something a little more Brick-like(which is not Brute-like) but were forced to comply to someone else's preferences and be a decoy with mediocre damage.
I'm seeking a compromise solution; an offensive tweak that has no, or minimal impact on the people who enjoy Tankers as is.
You're demanding complaince to your preferences, the alternative being exile to another AT(Brutes/Scrappers) that doesn't really match the concept of a heroic heavy hitter either.
You're the one being unreasonable and telling people what they should play. Not me.
.
[ 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
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't distinguish IO set bonuses from "buffs" when discussing defensive stacking issues, though I suppose I didn't clearly state that this time. I realize temp powers and inspirations were instrumental in the example I parenthetically noted, but it is also one of the most extreme examples of survivability boosts that trivialize the game. I suppose a better example would be particular defenders soloing giant monsters without temps.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
I wasn't advocating that, and have actually directly argued against posters advocating making that problem more prolific. The solution to the problem is not to introduce the problem into every area of the game 
[ QUOTE ]
And Brutes and Tankers share two power sets. Althought they may not be matched primary to primary. This makes them even closer in roles.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, no. A brutes role is to deal damage, that is why their primary is damage and why their inherent increases their damage output. Therefore the role for which they were designed is offense not defense like a tanker.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
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).
[/ QUOTE ]
About this, I do find forcefield defenders to have similar problems as tankers, from my point of view, except for something worthy of a footnote like those that take sonic or radiation blasts. However, there is such massive differences in peak power between different powersets, that the problem isn't so much of defenders as a whole, and more a problem of particular powersets. At least, any problems with defenders is rather unspecific since a ff/energy defender can hardly be considered to have any of the same problems as a rad/sonic regardless of any changes that can ever be made that are AT specific.
Tankers, however, don't have an analogue to rad/sonic defenders, so I'm more comfortable with making claims that tanker issues are more AT specific.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm seeking a compromise solution; an offensive tweak that has no, or minimal impact on the people who enjoy Tankers as is.
[/ QUOTE ]
And yet you have advocated making tankers into single target, heavy hitting, boss killers in your search for a "compromise". You've also shot down ideas that include damage buffs that you don't personally feel are adequate.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, no. A brutes role is to deal damage
[/ QUOTE ]
They deal damage and tank.
They're used to take the alpha redside and their attacks have a taunt component, unlike Scrappers. They also have access to the same taunt auras as Tankers do (more than Scrappers). They also have Tanker level defensive caps specifically for Tanking on teams.
Brutes tank by virtue of the fact they run into the middle of a group of enemies and draw aggro onto them, and hold it. They tank and deal damage, the same as Tankers.
.
[ QUOTE ]
you have advocated making tankers into single target, heavy hitting, boss killers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have suggested improving Tanker ST or boss killing abilities to improve their soloing and "feel". Your point?
[ QUOTE ]
You've also shot down ideas that include damage buffs that you don't personally feel are adequate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I back a solution I don't find adequate?
.
[ QUOTE ]
They deal damage and tank.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is, sadly, a bit of...well, a somewhat big mistake by the Devs. Brutes having significantly strong aggro abilities built into the AT seems like a mistake to me. Yes, it seems "required" in order to build high levels of fury. However, I think that could have been dealt with by having a non-linear fury progression, allowing Brutes to get a decent damage bonus earlier with diminishing returns at higher levels. It also overtook Masterminds in their original purpose (to be the aggro management), which ended up putting Masterminds, oddly, in more of the soloist spot, though they are still potent for a team due to their buffs/debuffs.
[ QUOTE ]
I have suggested improving Tanker ST or boss killing abilities to improve their soloing and "feel". Your point?
[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that "feel" is up to the individual. I personally find that a power like Fault feels extremely powerful and yet I haven't done any damage whatsoever. Single target is not really a tanker's bailiwick.
[ QUOTE ]
Why would I back a solution I don't find adequate?
[/ QUOTE ]
In the interest of compromise?
.
"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'm seeking offensive improvements to make the AT more enjoyable to everyone, not just people who get their rocks off mashing Taunt over and over. I'm seeking to make the AT a little bit closer to their comic roots for the people, like me, who expected something a little more Brick-like(which is not Brute-like) but were forced to comply to someone else's preferences and be a decoy with mediocre damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is what you say now. You have changed your position so often and advocated so many mutually incompatible changes (many of them not conforming to what you write above) that it is hard to believe you now.
You have a credibility gap to overcome before people accept you as an honest advocate for anything. Right now, people will assume that you will say or claim anything to get what you want.
This time you're demanding an offensive buff that is so small as not to be a balance problem yet big enough to produce a major experience in how the AT plays. Kind of like producing a number that is both very small and very big.
[ QUOTE ]
You're demanding complaince to your preferences, the alternative being exile to another AT(Brutes/Scrappers) that doesn't really match the concept of a heroic heavy hitter either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't "demand compliance". I'm pointing out that your demands are unreasonable. I do expect that players who have chosen this AT because of how it currently plays do not suddenly find that they will be playing something entirely different. I am not at all opposed to actual problems being fixed (and have identified some in the past). I do not even have a problem with damage buffs as long as they don't result in messing up the design of the AT.
What I do not do and you do is to make universal claims about things that are only my personal preferences.
As to "being exiled to another AT" that doesn't really match the concept of a heroic heavy hitter, you're the one who has explained that brutes have everything that tankers have. With their availability blue-side, you will be having everything you wanted -- unless, of course, you were dishonest as usual and you don't really think of brutes as everything that tankers are and more. I was simply taking you by your word -- it's not my fault if your word can't be trusted.
[ QUOTE ]
In the interest of compromise?
[/ QUOTE ]
In the interest of compromise I would test and entertain any solution the devs implemented.
That does not mean I'll support any old suggestion or jump on the first idea floated.
I'm going to back and support the solution I think that best addreses concept, viability and performance issues.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the interest of compromise?
[/ QUOTE ]
In the interest of compromise I would test and entertain any solution the devs implemented.
That does not mean I'll support any old suggestion or jump on the first idea floated.
I'm going to back and support the solution I think that best addreses concept, viability and performance issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, basically, not compromising.
What you're saying you'd do is not at all within the definition of compromising.
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 ]
This time you're demanding an offensive buff that is so small as not to be a balance problem yet big enough to produce a major experience in how the AT plays.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pushing what I always have. An offensive change that allows Tankers to be heavy hitters compared to Brutes and Scrappers and better match up with their comic counterparts. Even if that's for a limited period at in Tank-omination or as in the case of Battle Stances, make a temporary sacrifice to do so.
How close they can get to that ideal, and not impact the people who like them as is, is a matter of negotiation and discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
With their availability blue-side, you will be having everything you wanted
[/ QUOTE ]
No, as I've said, Brutes don't fit the ideal of 'comic tankers' either.
Comic Brutes revel in fighting and their emotions fuel them. That is the core concept behind Fury.
Fury in many ways represents the opposite concept of what Tankers should be.
Comic Tankers hold back their true power, only unleashing it on tough foes.They pull their punches most of the time, but cut loose when need be, but it's not a 'ramping up affect'. It's more about 'throwing down the gauntlet' and taking the kid gloves off.
That is what CoH Tankers lack, conceptually. The ability to ever take the kid gloves off and show their true might.
I proposed the following conceptually before:
At their core, the comic Brute is the same at the comic Tanker, but they're like twin brothers raised by different mothers. They're both really tough and really powerful, but...
The Tanker is more heroic minded and protective. He pulls his punches on Minions and LTs. He could cause a lot of damage if he didn't keep himself in check. The Brute doesn't care about hurting people. He gives into his Fury and revels in it.
The downside to this is the Brute leaves himself open defensively, even though he has the same caps and limits, while the Tanker has spent more time thinking defensively and his will to protect drives him to keep standing through things the Brute buckles to without extra support.
Where the wheels come off in-game is that CoH Tankers lack the mechanic to ever "cut loose" and show what they can do offensively. That is exactly what I seek in a mechanic for Tankers.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the interest of compromise?
[/ QUOTE ]
In the interest of compromise I would test and entertain any solution the devs implemented.
That does not mean I'll support any old suggestion or jump on the first idea floated.
I'm going to back and support the solution I think that best addreses concept, viability and performance issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, basically, not compromising.
What you're saying you'd do is not at all within the definition of compromising.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, not compromising would be saying "Tankers need the same offense as Scrappers all the time and to keep their defenses the same because Superman is as strong as he is tough."
Which is not what I or anyone else is asking for, nor what I want. I can't speak for what anyone else wants.
I think Tankers should be closer to the ideal I outlined in my previous post to Sorciere.
I'm willing to negotiate how close they can get to that, but I'm not going to push for or support things that move away from that. I did not say I would not accept anything less.
I would test any solution regardless, because in the end, it's all about how it feels in game. The solution to Invulnerability was hardly what I would have called ideal at the time, but after testing it, and living with it, I agree it reasonably solved the issues it intended to.
.
I like gauntlet too, but I had an idea for a second inherent, It would work like old defiance but buff res and/or def. So basically when a tank is low on health he starts to become very hard to kill.
I think it fits the AT and would differentiate tanks more from brutes.
Be kinda like trying to kill a Paragon Protector after they pop MoG, but maybe not as extreme.
[ QUOTE ]
Comic Brutes revel in fighting and their emotions fuel them. That is the core concept behind Fury.
Fury in many ways represents the opposite concept of what Tankers should be.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's quite a shift from your complaints not too long ago that brutes got something (Fury) that rightfully should have been a tanker power (last seen in the "tankomination" thread, I seem to recall).
As always, you bend your arguments as you see fit to further your cause. Only a month ago, you wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much the original idea behind Fury; that Tankers hold back at the begining of a fight and cut loose as it wears on.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the same thread, of course, you complain about brutes being
[ QUOTE ]
rampaging savages leashed to a Fury bar.
[/ QUOTE ]
and that
[ QUOTE ]
And lastly, Brutes are hardly a substiitude for thoese tough, heavy hitting heroes I refer to since those heroes are most often NOT ruled by berzerker fury and rampages. Brutes are not heroic, even if you mash them into blue side.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the problem with you and your arguments. You feel comfortable saying both "A" and "not A" within shouting distance of each other. You take a position, then you drop it when it no longer suits your needs, and take one that's mutually exclusive with the one you had previously. Sometimes even within the same thread. Commonly within the same month.
The result is that you have a credibility problem, because you don't argue honestly.
[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much the original idea behind Fury; that Tankers hold back at the begining of a fight and cut loose as it wears on.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's correct. That was Emmert's original rationale behind Fury; the concept of Tankers "holding back their true power".
While I agree that's a great hook to justify Tanker damage being low most of the time, and similar concept assessment to mine of how comic Tankers operate, I disagree Fury was, or is, the best way to adapt that to the game/AT.
Tankers holding back their true power is the concept/idea. Jack's implementation was Fury. I disagree with that implementation. I think it's wrong for Tankers. The core idea and conceptual rationale behind it, however, is mostly right in my opinion.
They changed the conceptual rationale behind the mechanic when they brought it to Brutes and made it about anger and the Brute reveling in combat. That fits the mechanic and Brutes much better in my opinion.
The other two quotes support that stance 100%.
This...
[ QUOTE ]
That's pretty much the original idea behind Fury; that Tankers hold back at the begining of a fight and cut loose as it wears on.
[/ QUOTE ]
...within the context of the conversation is saying, "Oh yeah, the devs zeroed in on that concept of Tankers holding back too. Their original take was Fury."
.
what I would like to see is some kind of timer. Maybe a reverse of fury were the longer you wait before throwing a punch the more damage it would do. Something like..I am warning you..don't push it..okey dokey Bulk <SMASH> !
"...well I have wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor and I am happy to state I finally won out over it." Elwood P Dowd (from the movie Harvey)
[ QUOTE ]
what I would like to see is some kind of timer. Maybe a reverse of fury were the longer you wait before throwing a punch the more damage it would do. Something like..I am warning you..don't push it..okey dokey Bulk <SMASH> !
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to pintpoint your post here, but this is a perfect example of what I think the major problem is with combining game balance, with game concept.
Conceptually this is a fantastic idea that would help give more of a comic book feel to the game.
Balance/Game wise this is a horrible idea. How fun would it be in game to have to do nothing for an extended period of time just to be able to do additional damage. People don't like having breaks in their attack chain as is because it feels like you are just sitting there, imagine if that was enforced by a mechanic like this.
As I said I don't mean to rain on your idea, conceptually I like it a lot, I think it's just a great example of how we can't go to far towards concept and to far away from the actual game.
Ya know I have always thought it funny that the Brute class was based on the HULK. A Hero.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I would like to see is some kind of timer. Maybe a reverse of fury were the longer you wait before throwing a punch the more damage it would do. Something like..I am warning you..don't push it..okey dokey Bulk <SMASH> !
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to pintpoint your post here, but this is a perfect example of what I think the major problem is with combining game balance, with game concept.
Conceptually this is a fantastic idea that would help give more of a comic book feel to the game.
Balance/Game wise this is a horrible idea. How fun would it be in game to have to do nothing for an extended period of time just to be able to do additional damage. People don't like having breaks in their attack chain as is because it feels like you are just sitting there, imagine if that was enforced by a mechanic like this.
As I said I don't mean to rain on your idea, conceptually I like it a lot, I think it's just a great example of how we can't go to far towards concept and to far away from the actual game.
[/ QUOTE ]
It could work, the timer would only reset when you use an attack, so basically a tank wouldnt lose dps for taunting, or using his secondary powers.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what I would like to see is some kind of timer. Maybe a reverse of fury were the longer you wait before throwing a punch the more damage it would do. Something like..I am warning you..don't push it..okey dokey Bulk <SMASH> !
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to pintpoint your post here, but this is a perfect example of what I think the major problem is with combining game balance, with game concept.
Conceptually this is a fantastic idea that would help give more of a comic book feel to the game.
Balance/Game wise this is a horrible idea. How fun would it be in game to have to do nothing for an extended period of time just to be able to do additional damage. People don't like having breaks in their attack chain as is because it feels like you are just sitting there, imagine if that was enforced by a mechanic like this.
As I said I don't mean to rain on your idea, conceptually I like it a lot, I think it's just a great example of how we can't go to far towards concept and to far away from the actual game.
[/ QUOTE ]
It could work, the timer would only reset when you use an attack, so basically a tank wouldnt lose dps for taunting, or using his secondary powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it couldn't work. Just that it would be counter productive. Why would you want to entice a player to not use powers.
Considering a large portion of defensive powers for tankers are toggles, this makes it even worse. If that were implemented then I would actually agree with J_B... we would be taunt-bots. (waiting for lightning to strike nearby for actually saying that I would agree with J_B).
[ QUOTE ]
Ya know I have always thought it funny that the Brute class was based on the HULK. A Hero.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hulk isn't a hero, Bruce Banner is, but the Hulk is just a force of nature extremely loosely directed. But then again I am weird, I tend to think that the current incarnation of Batman more closely resembles a terrorist than a hero. Am I that old?
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 ]
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 ]
And they have also failed at that if their survivability was not high enough. You're using some very clever wording to dance around the fact that brutes ARE less survivable than tankers (assuming equal powersets). But clever wording does not change the fact that tankers have substantially higher health, regeneration, defense, and resistance and that this difference can matter.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 is YOUR problem, not mine, nor that of a lot of other people who play tankers. That is YOUR idea of fun, not mine, nor that of a lot of other people who play tankers.
I like that my defense can benefit others. It's the whole point of playing a support-oriented character. It's a major selling point for me. That you do not like it is again your own personal problem.
In short, speak for yourself, do not claim to speak for others who do not share your ideas by pronouncing your personal preferences to be a universal truth.
[ 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 ]
In short, you do not want a different balance between defense and offense that brutes could give you. You want better offense without sacrificing your superior defense. Having your cake and eating it, too, in other words.