Given the poor stackability of tanks it would be nice if gauntlet came with 10% -res on all targets.
[ QUOTE ]
Given the poor stackability of tanks it would be nice if gauntlet came with 10% -res on all targets.
[/ QUOTE ]
The stackability of -resist makes this a big no-no.
In before J_B :P
It is an interesting idea. I assume that the flag would only be set by a direct taunt and not the "splash" effect?
How would this function with more than one tank? If I taunt target A, my buddy taunts target b, then I fire FootStomp would both mobs get the higher damage?
I don't think Gauntlet needs to be changed. If added damage is what you're after, I think these things should be addressed in the sets (i.e. Ice Melee).
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that, the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I marked the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
.
[ QUOTE ]
It is an interesting idea. I assume that the flag would only be set by a direct taunt and not the "splash" effect?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, only the direct taunt, no splash.
[ QUOTE ]
How would this function with more than one tank? If I taunt target A, my buddy taunts target b, then I fire FootStomp would both mobs get the higher damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ideally, the tag would be personal only but I already asked Castle and it seems that the personal tag thing is extremely hard to get to work properly. In that case it would mean if a fellow tank is there and he hits foot stomp, he gets to do that 20% damage bonus against your target too.
Two tankers focusing on the same foe, though, will not go past 25% because this is an on/off thing, not a +damage deal.
Serious response now.
1) Your rationalle for why this should be done wasn't good enough when I used it, so why is it now?
Once again, this is me being Devil's advocate and trying to get you to strengthen your argument.
2)
You say that:
[ QUOTE ]
when Superman decides he is really going to let it all out against one foe, he really goes out at it. He will pick his target, usually a very tough foe, and just go wild, mostly because the foe can take it, off course.
[/ QUOTE ]
and
[ QUOTE ]
Id say scale damage 1 against him
[/ QUOTE ]
and also
[ QUOTE ]
Two tankers focusing on the same foe, though, will not go past 20% because this is an on/off thing, not a +damage deal.
[/ QUOTE ]
These three statements are contradictions, if I understand what you're trying to say.
First off, I don't think a 20% damage buff will increase Tanker damage to Scale 1 levels, especially when slotting is taken into consideration.
Second, a character with super strength "going wild" and not holding back in this game, would translate to a Brute at near peak Fury. This suggestion for Gauntlet wouldn't put a Tanker into that range of damage. They would still be doing sub-Scrapper damage, even before Criticals if I understand you correctly. How does that demonstrate Tankers are "holding back" their true strength?
"Don't tick me off or I'll unleash my awesome power...which is still below the base power of the other melee ATs."
I mean, if he's not hitting harder than a Scrapper, why would he even hold back?
This is why I opted for a short duration of increased damage. Because you could go beyond Scrapper levels into the higher tiers of the Brute range.
Then you can say that both Brutes and Tankers are capable of shaking the pillars of Heaven, just like their comic counterparts. Provided the Brute gets pumped up and angry enough and provided the Tanker cuts loose.
If I understand the level of damage increase your suggesting, I don't think it's enough to show Tankers have any kind of awesome offensive might they're holding back, or to even give them a reason to be holding back to begin with.
.
If the Brute reaches Tanker survivability only through outside buffs, Tanker damage should only reach Brute levels through outside buffs as well. Tankers buffing their own damage to Brute levels isn't well balanced.
The best comics are still 10�!
My City of Heroes Blog Freedom Feature Article: "Going Rageless?"
If you only read one guide this year, make it this one.
Super Reflexes: the Golden Fox of power sets!
WARNING: I bold names.
Question: Would this only work by having Taunt the power set the flag? Or would any taunt-like effect set the flag?
If you need to have Taunt to get this to work, isn't that kind of odd, since you'd be requiring people to take a specific power in their secondary to take advantage of part of their inherent?
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
Also, I wish you had presented this at a better time and not when all the devs are in San Diego.
They dismiss my threads, but would consider yours if they were around to see it.
They may still see it, but why hurt your chances needlessly.
.
[ QUOTE ]
1) Your rationalle for why this should be done wasn't good enough when I used it, so why is it now?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your rationale came along with requests of requiring to do more damage than scrappers in any situation. The few times you toned down your requests (with things like the uber attack every few minutes) your proposal was so toned down it meant nothing outside of PvP.
Also, this post by Great_Briton, a re-posted a very old proposal that actually sold me on the idea of tankers not being over-powered if they get JUST a single target damage boost and no AoE boosts, as it would refrain the tanker from being able to solo huge maps any much faster.
Was very well outlined from both perspectives, comic inspiration and actual balance.
[ QUOTE ]
These three statements are contradictions, if I understand what you're trying to say.
First off, I don't think a 20% damage buff will increase Tanker damage to Scale 1 levels, especially when slotting is taken into consideration.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a damage buff, it would be baked-in higher base damage. Like stalkers do double extra damage if the target is stealth, the tanker would just do 25% extra damage if the target is challenged.
[ QUOTE ]
Second, a character with super strength "going wild" and not holding back in this game, would translate to a Brute at near peak Fury.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is why your proposal always goes wrong. Forget "SUPER" Strength and focus on balance. 1 damage mod is high, once you experience that extra damage you will see a huge difference. With enhancements, rage and this, KoB would hit for 522.65 damage at level 50 instead of 435.54.
Also note that I used superman as an example of concept there, not an example of balance. I also made sure to note later in the post I was not looking to replicate superman or allow anyone to go liquefying AVs in 2 punches.
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, if he's not hitting harder than a Scrapper, why would he even hold back?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because the comic-type tanker, even if he can't do more damage than the comic-like scrapper, tends to be more concious than the scrapper.
Example of a tanker holding back would be colossus knocking back people.
An example of a scrapper would be wolverine slashing the guts out of anyone just because they looked at him funny. Scrappers are deadly, and they don't hold back.
Tankers don't have to be deadly to still hold back.
That being told, not only is all this true but you also got to keep balance. You can't justify scrapper level damage with tanker level survivability even in single target levels. Stalkers, for one, are about there too, they actually get gutted on AoE. How are you going to justify tankers doing stalker DPS when they have tanker survivability? It's just not possible.
[ QUOTE ]
Question: Would this only work by having Taunt the power set the flag? Or would any taunt-like effect set the flag?
[/ QUOTE ]
Either the Taunt Power sets the flag, or a new click inherent (but I'd say that would be redundant) sets the flag.
The fact that you can taunt a minion, one shot him and likely have to wait for an un-enhanced taunt to still recharge would be part of the balance of this. "Wasting time" on an initial challenge also would be part of the balance in this.
[ QUOTE ]
If you need to have Taunt to get this to work, isn't that kind of odd, since you'd be requiring people to take a specific power in their secondary to take advantage of part of their inherent?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why I noted at the end I'd plug in Taunt being moved as an inherent, but the same goes for stalkers. Yea, stalkers get to use their inherent with hide (that they are forced to take at lvl 1) but they also need placate to do ultimate usage of their inherent (assassinate/placate/stealth crit.)
If taunt is not made an inherent, I still can see being forced to take taunt in your build as an additional balance point in all this.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I wish you had presented this at a better time and not when all the devs are in San Diego.
They dismiss my threads, but would consider yours if they were around to see it.
They may still see it, but why hurt your chances needlessly.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
You think I'd post this and not PM at least Castle about it? Tsk Tsk Tsk
I don't see this as necessary but if it's being proposed... then purely for the sake of this discussion, using the gauntlet inherent to increase its solo validity and for the purpose of increasing single target damage, why not not add a damage % with diminishing returns based on the amount of gauntlet splash checks per attack? And no, I'm not proposing a stacking effect either.
[ QUOTE ]
If the Brute reaches Tanker survivability only through outside buffs, Tanker damage should only reach Brute levels through outside buffs as well. Tankers buffing their own damage to Brute levels isn't well balanced.
[/ QUOTE ]
First, I'm not advocating Tankers hit at high as Brutes at peak damage. Speaking purely conceptually, it should be lower than that but higher than a Scrapper's damage though.
But a couple of counter points:
-A Tanker buffed to the max both offensively and defensively is still dealing less damage than a Brute. They may share the same theoretical survivability caps, but the Brute wins in Max theoretical damage from his higher damage caps.
If you're going to bring outside buffs and max limits into this, the Brute trumps the Tanker currently.
-Let's say a Brute averages 75% Fury. Let's say a Tanker could temporarily match that level of damage on his own. The Brute can still go beyond that level of damage by maxing his Fury and from outside buffs. Correct?
How is that any different than a Brute using his tier 9 to temporarily meet Tanker levels of survivability? Yes, a Tanker can hit their Tier 9 and get more survivability than a Brute + T9, just as the Brute can max out their Fury and get more damage than the Tanker and even have a higher damage cap.
.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as necessary but if it's being proposed... then purely for the sake of this discussion, using the gauntlet inherent to increase its solo validity and for the purpose of increasing single target damage, why not not add a damage % with diminishing returns based on the amount of gauntlet splash checks per attack? And no, I'm not proposing a stacking effect either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because that would force the tanker into herding practices for one.
Also: if the buff requires herds, what happens in AV fights where the foe is only one? That's the points where this feature is the most useful at as the fight can last long with rather low damage.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as necessary but if it's being proposed... then purely for the sake of this discussion, using the gauntlet inherent to increase its solo validity and for the purpose of increasing single target damage, why not not add a damage % with diminishing returns based on the amount of gauntlet splash checks per attack? And no, I'm not proposing a stacking effect either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because that would force the tanker into herding practices for one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well what level of damage bonuses to base are we talking here? Did I miss this number on your OP? If I did sorry and I'll reread. Well instead of diminishing returns what about an inverse bonus based on the amount of gauntlet splash checks with max splash checks = 0 damage bonus and by calculating what this damage bonus would be so that aoe>ST in total damage+end efficiency.
On another note what about an increase based on relative con and rank? Hmm, wait I already see an issue with all tank GM teams.
25% against flagged foe (remember you must set flag with Taunt)
[ QUOTE ]
On another note what about an increase based on relative con and rank? Hmm, wait I already see an issue with all tank GM teams.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its not entirely a bad idea to have the bonus be slightly higher for EBs, AVs or GMs, but I'd never go past 30% if so as that would suddenly jump into scrapper territory.
[ QUOTE ]
Because the comic-type tanker, even if he can't do more damage than the comic-like scrapper, tends to be more concious than the scrapper.
Example of a tanker holding back would be colossus knocking back people.
An example of a scrapper would be wolverine slashing the guts out of anyone just because they looked at him funny. Scrappers are deadly, and they don't hold back.
Tankers don't have to be deadly to still hold back.
[/ QUOTE ]
And this is why I wont back this suggestion.
Not only are you still saying Tankers must hit like girls even when not holding back, they also have to be scared about it as well.
There's no point in them holding back their power when their power is still dwarfed by Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes and Blasters.
You miss the entire point of the "holding back" concept. Tankers wanting to keep themselves in check when they've got the potential to destroy little guys like raging Brutes makes them prudent. Them being gun shy when they're still only packing a BB rifle just makes Tankers timid wusses.
If you can't execute that concept with this suggestion for balance considerations, then I'm not going to back the suggestion. Let me know if you come up with a suggestion that allows for the proper implementation of the concept.
.
[ QUOTE ]
Also: if the buff requires herds, what happens in AV fights where the foe is only one? That's the points where this feature is the most useful at as the fight can last long with rather low damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I meant. Less damage bonus with more foes being splashed checked by gauntlet. Sorry it didn't come out that way.
[ QUOTE ]
If you didnt, you either had more of a classic MMO background or are in the minority.
[/ QUOTE ]
Proof please. This is my first MMO. I don't know how you are so SURE I'm in the minority. I didn't roll my tank to do damage, I rolled it to play on a team and provide a support roll of absorbing damage... (since a lot of these arguments are conceptually based... aka to play the "Tough" guy, not the necessarily the heavy hitter). I would assume that isn't something uncommon for people who play the tank AT, however I have as little proof as you do so I'll stick with my personal experience.
I wouldn't be completely opposed to gauntlet having an additional affect, but to me just increasing damage is boring, and has already been done. It also does absolutely nothing to help with the reason I play my tankers... it provides no additional benefit towards helping support a team. Just my opinion, but I'd rather have something unique that helps tanker stacking (which I believe is a REAL problem being masked by a lot of "GIVE MOAR DMG!" threads) rather than just moving the scale closer towards scrappers or brutes.
I appreciate your point of view, but don't agree.
[ QUOTE ]
And this is why I wont back this suggestion.
Not only are you still saying Tankers must hit like girls even when not holding back, they also have to be scared about it as well.
There's no point in them holding back their power when their power is still dwarfed by Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes and Blasters.
You miss the entire point of the "holding back" concept. Tankers wanting to keep themselves in check when they've got the potential to destroy little guys like raging Brutes makes them prudent. Them being gun shy when they're still only packing a BB rifle just makes Tankers timid wusses.
If you can't execute that concept with this suggestion for balance considerations, then I'm not going to back the suggestion. Let me know if you come up with a suggestion that allows for the proper implementation of the concept.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see what J_B is saying. In his words, why hold back even if you know you hit like a girl.
I'm afraid I'm somewhat underwhelmed by the proposal. It seems to be a somewhat complicated way (using a mini combo effect) for giving tankers a single target 20% damage bonus.
I also find the game-world justification somewhat problematic. Taunt is already a somewhat artificially-feeling power as is; I'm not sure I want to exacerbate that by making it more artificial and on top of that see it being used more frequently for reasons that do not relate to its primary purpose.
Why not go for 33% extra damage and make it really shine against AVs ( the kind of foes that would require a tank to not hold back). Or perhaps a short duration but maintainable +rech in addition to the 20% damage.
I'm certainly not a fan of moving Taunt to unenhanceable status, that's the only power I throw my taunt sets into (as other powers deal damage or buff defense etc so taunt sets would be under using the power).
I've always been a fan of moving powers like Taunt and Hide to inherent but still slot-able status because being jipped out of a power selection to make use of what your AT does naturally seems counter productive. Also with issue 16, we could even choose which Taunt animation to use.
Alternately if they do not get moved to inherent, then give them additional effects for each set to make them stand out instead of being carbon copies.
Overall this seems like a good idea, it's just ironing out the specifics that needs handling.
I am an ebil markeeter and will steal your moneiz ...correction stole your moneiz. I support keeping the poor down because it is impossible to make moneiz in this game.
Im going to break my own rules here for a bit, but not too much. The tanker does has a perceived comic counterpart. Its not a true counterpart but its what people have in their minds when they roll tankers. Chances are, unless you were rolling specific exclusive sets, when you rolled your tanker you were thinking Superman or The Thing. If you didnt, you either had more of a classic MMO background or are in the minority. I have to admit that although I had in mind that balance mechanics would force the tanker to be as it is, I too had a Superman-like idea in the back of my head when I rolled my first tanker.
"Tanks" in comics
Now, many state that tankers, if based of this comic counterpart, should do high damage. But every time we see these guys, they dont go out ripping heads off. Superman can theoretically liquefy most foes with a single finger swipe, but he still holds back and just hits them hard enough to not break anything, sometimes he does it so softly he needs to do it again.
Technically, tankers work just like that right now. Only thing is, when Superman decides he is really going to let it all out against one foe, he really goes out at it. He will pick his target, usually a very tough foe, and just go wild, mostly because the foe can take it, off course.
Gauntlet
Now, what does Gauntlet stands for? The name of our inherent was based off the classic dueling term Throw down the gauntlet. Well, how about we start giving it a bit more meaning?
Here is my proposal:
Taunting a foe literally throws down the gauntlet. Gloves are off; you no longer hold back against that target and inflict extra damage against him. Id say scale damage 1 against him; however anyone else will just receive regular damage.
How to implement:
<ul type="square">[*]Taunt sets a Gauntlet flag on the target (ST, no area) for 10 seconds.[*]Any subsequent attack, be primary or secondary, will refresh the Gauntlet flag for 5 seconds but only if the flag was already there.[*]If the target of any attack, even AoE, has this flag, you will do the extra damage needed do inflict a 25% "crit" (would not call it crit, though, perhaps "Unleashed damage")[*]If you are forced to stop attacking for too long you may be forced to reuse taunt to reset the flag. [/list]
Balance
The neat thing about this: it only works on single target, it requires you to taunt to engage the duel making Taunt an offensive tool, and it wont make the tank into a farmer because it just helps you kill single foes faster, AoE damage will still be hindered by your old modifiers. If anything, it balances against Kheledians that in dwarf form have a base damage of 1 and can at will shift to squid to do much stronger damage if they are not threatened with death.
I want to Quote Great_Briton who actually seeded this entire idea and sold me on why ST damage boost is not only balanced but also thematic:
[ QUOTE ]
[...] What seems obvious to me is that the Tankers - if we follow established Comic Book mythos - are designed for heavy damage one-on-one. The "Slug It And See" fighters. They're not particularly well-designed for fighting the masses. The X-Men send in Colossus to take out the single larger foe, for example.
But that's fine, because as mighty as Colossus is, he can't do it all alone. The rest of the team don't sit back and say "Well... who watched 'Lost' last night?"[...]
[/ QUOTE ]
It wont make you liquefy your foes, but the point is not to shoot to superman levels but instead to make your single target damage competitive when you need it the most.
I may plug in making Taunt The Power an inherent here too, replacing it with a new power, but along the same lines I would make Placate inherent for stalkers so will hold back on that for now due to the amount of work that requires.