Quote:
There just seems to be a lot of strange hitches in these new boards. The viewpost graphic is broken for me (I assume for others as well). That and some other things make me wary of the new setup. I'm backing up important posts and copying to clipboard whenever I hit the Submit Reply button for something more than a couple lines.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Well, I manually constructed that quote block. I found the post, the post number, and plugged it in. Looked fine in the preview, but I was just being doubly careful.
|
Quote:
| model 1 would be very vulnerable to power creep) |
I suspect the devs think so too, thus Posi's comments about new, more challenging content being on the way as well as ways to make existing heroes more powerful. As it's been said before, how challenging this new content is to players who've taken advantage of these methods to become more powerful remains to be seen.
If one calls existing content not challenging to current characters and if the new content is extremely challenging to existing characters, but merely challenging to characters using whatever new thing they have (being new power enhancers, universtal enhancement slots, etc), then that could be their way simultantiously allowing controlled power creep.
It makes me wonder if the difference is going to be as extreme that they're going to create a generation of characters who trivialize older content to the point that AVs to them are like EBs to current players. That would make the new diffuculty settings in i16 make more sense to me.
Quote:
| just because other ATs got boosted doesn't immediately mean Tankers are under performing and need buffs. |
.
Quote:
Because the quote in question conveys that the intent of Tankers were to represent a specific archetype of hero from comics, rather than being one made up for the game as some people allege. That's a designed conceptual intent, not a balance issue that changed with the introduction of IOs, ED or what have you.|
Originally Posted by Electronite
Why doesn't that stop you from bringing up even older quotes from Statesman?
|
I bring it up because there's a good number of people who agree Tankers don't match up with their comic counterparts now any better than they did then, after the devs said they should. The game may have changed and improved a lot, but Tanker concept sadly has not and that's the point of referring to the quote in question.
I'm going to envoke Castle's own "Cottage Rule" in this case.
My interpretation of the rule is that if a power described to do X, supposed to do X, then one day it shouldn't suddenly build a little cottage.
Correct? It's a question of expectations.
Well in the case of Tankers we have an AT that's supposed to be like X. And X has been described by the devs in that quote as being like comic Tankers and according to the official description is supposed to be "a devastating hand to hand combatant".
But almost from the start that AT started popping out very mediocre damage aggro-cottages that don't line up with many people's expectations of the AT based on many sources. That's in addition to the lead designer calling that a problem early on and saying it should be fixed.
So my question to Castle is this:
If the cottage rule is broken and remains broken for a long enough, does that grandfather the infraction agianst being fixed? Is it acceptable for it to keep spitting out cottages because then the cottage becomes the expectation? Despite many outside sources saying it's not about cottages and despite official descriptions?
Answering in the affirmative would seem very hypocritical to me.
.
And once you accept that X is closer to characters like Atom Smasher than it is to those like Superman you'll see that Tankers are already pretty much doing their job. But we all know that will never happen; you won't be happy until Tanker damage exceeds that of any other AT in the game, simply due to your kryptonian fixation. This thread is merely the most recent evidence to support that statement, since you refer to doing base damage as 'hitting like a girl' simply because it's less than what other melee classes can do.
Personally, I think Statesman was in error in that favorite quote of yours, and am glad he's no longer associated with this game. I don't feel Tankers need to one- or two-shot everything in the game simply because Superman could do it -- if he let himself go. And interestingly, in the JLU clip you love to post where Superman does let himself go, he still doesn't actually defeat Darkseid.
Quote:
Actually, I'm more of a Marvel zombie. I will admit however that I think DC's animated offerings tend to be better with a few exceptions.|
Originally Posted by Electronite
simply due to your kryptonian fixation.
|
I would be quite happy if Tankers related to Colossus and the Thing. They're supposed to, but they do not. Those characters are more that just decoys. They are the heavy hitters of their teams and can compete for demolising the hard targets without Daredevil and Wolverine running rings around them in every situation.
Quote:
| Personally, I think Statesman was in error in that favorite quote of yours, and am glad he's no longer associated with this game. |
I have no doubt Positron has the skills, but I think he would simply rather Blasters be Rangers, Arachnos be orcs and Tankers be knights armed with broken swords, so weighed down with plate armor they can't attack properly.
I can't really respect any designer who claims to read Invincible, yet is content with Tankers as mediocre hitting decoys. At least Emmert made claims about attempting to fix the problem, and seems to have done a more faithful job in his second try. Positron hasn't from what I can see, and under his tenure Tankers have remained bland rodeo clowns, no matter how much Robert Kirkman he says he reads and is a fan of.
.
Quote:
There is no way to properly execute giving the toughest defenses and the most damaging attacks to the same class while still having a dozen other characters classes be viable.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I personally think (Statesman) respected and understood comic book tropes better than Castle and likely better than Positron, even if he lacked the skills to communicate and execute them properly.
|
Quote:
Having consistantly the highest damage against everything all the time is not needed to do the comic Tanker concept justice.|
Originally Posted by Electronite
There is no way to properly execute giving the toughest defenses and the most damaging attacks to the same class while still having a dozen other characters classes be viable.
|
I have never called for that, nor has anyone I've seen in this or other threads on the subject.
They do however, need some offensive prowess beyond the bland, mediocre, consistantly medium damage Tankers have now to do them justice.
.
Quote:
Correction to the cottage rule: It's not what was expected, it's what the power actually does now.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I'm going to envoke Castle's own "Cottage Rule" in this case.
My interpretation of the rule is that if a power described to do X, supposed to do X, then one day it shouldn't suddenly build a little cottage. Correct? It's a question of expectations. Well in the case of Tankers we have an AT that's supposed to be like X. And X has been described by the devs in that quote as being like comic Tankers and according to the official description is supposed to be "a devastating hand to hand combatant". |
Ex:
The cottage rule states if Build Up is currently a dmg/tohit buff, it shouldn't build a cottage tomorrow.
The cottage rule does not state that a power named Build Up that currently builds a cottage (despite people expecting a tohit/dmg buff) should be changed to a tohit/dmg buff.
So, to apply that to Tankers, it means that Tankers being high def and medium offense should stay that way (and not be changed into Blasters or something).
It does not imply that people expecting Tankers to be X is reason for them to be changed to that.
Quote:
Take the rule further back to the point Tankers were actually designed and implemented.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Correction to the cottage rule: It's not what was expected, it's what the power actually does now.
*snip* It does not imply that people expecting Tankers to be X is reason for them to be changed to that. |
At that point "tank" carried specific connotations to comic book fans. Tough, hard hitting heroes. The "team big man" as the official copy described. Devastating hand to hand combatants.
Changing what "tank" meant, especially when it contradicts the official description and especially when the lead designer agrees and later confirms it was intended to mean the comic ideal, is a violation of the Cottage Rule in my opinion.
Yes it may have held different connotations to fantasy MMO players, but this is a genre specific case. Comic books and super heroes are the genre. MMO is just a platform. Had this been a shipping MMO, one would expect "tankers" to be large ships that carry fluids, not slow, poorly armed battle cruisers used to distract pirates while other ships do the fighting.
The core of the "Cottage Rule" is about not violating people's expectations. If a power did this one day, they expect it to do the same thing another, not build a cottage. The "letter of the law" might be your phrasing, but the spirit is about people's expectations.
Comic fan's expect Tankers to have devastating punch. Classic MMO fans expect Tankers to be good decoys. The expectations of the former do not preclude the expectations of the latter; there's no reason they can't be both. However, as the game currently is, the ideal of the latter have almost completely supplanted the ideal of comic fans and I don't feel the devs have made enough effort to make a compromise.
I'm confident the devs could and can serve both with Tankers if they wanted to, if the devs decided give Tankers attention.
.
A humble suggestion for Johnny: Advocate to lower the S/L resists of high-end enemies, rather than boosting Tanker damage in general. It is these high resistances that truly hurt the ideal you're looking for and not the overall damage of Tankers. And honestly, I don't think the damage of S/L sets is so much higher than that of other damage type sets to justify the discrepency.
I had a previous suggestion that made Gauntlet into a mode switch: one mode for aggro attraction, another that increased DPE either through end reduction or damage buff but switched off the taunt effect. Too complicated, apparently.
A simpler version would just give Tankers a damage buff when sufficiently far from allies. Just off the top of my head: +50%, -7% per ally within 40 feet. Conceptually: the Tanker can only safely use his full power when no allies are in harm's way. Mechanically: Helps soloing, especially at low levels when DPE is bad; gives the second tank something to do - run off and start rampaging elsewhere, using the superior survivability to gather and soften spawns before the rest of the team arrives.
Of course, this also makes Tanks the only AT directly penalized for teaming. And people tend to overvalue personal performance while undervaluing team performance, not realizing (or not caring) that sacrificing 10% of your own DPS to increase team DPS by considerably more is a net win.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
I agree with this. For that matter I don't think that there's enough enemy types especially vulnerable to S/L damage to warrant how widespread S/L resistance is among all enemies and potent it is.|
Originally Posted by Eikochan
I don't think the damage of S/L sets is so much higher than that of other damage type sets to justify the discrepency.
|
Quote:
| It is these high resistances that truly hurt the ideal you're looking for and not the overall damage of Tankers. |
If anything, I'd suggest -res debuffs in Gauntlet for all Tanker melee sets before I targeted any specific damage types.
But I wont. Not for this.
Because higher resistance resists debuffs, that wouldn't have the intended effect. Enemies that had high S/L resistance would still be bears for S/L dealing tanks while a Fire/Fire Tanker would be utterly destroying anything that didn't have extremely high Fire resistance to begin with, which is fairly rare.
I agree S/L resistance in PvE needs to be looked at, but that's a whole other issue from Tankers and their conceptual failings.
.
RE: Johnny Butane
First off, Johnny, did you steal my brain and use it to make the last few posts in this thread? They've been right on in my thinking since I started playing this game in closed beta.
Secondly, I wish you the best of luck in your arguments. However after years and years, I know they won't work on these devs, or players. Tankers are the exception to concept, and always will be. Players can have their Snikt bubs, and Cyclops blasters, and Storm like controllers, but they will never get the raw power exhibited by Colossus in this game.
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
Quote:
Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence. In me and in the devs. /sarcasm|
Originally Posted by sturm375
RE: Johnny Butane
However after years and years, I know they won't work on these devs, or players. |
As much as their current priorities lack any sympathy for Tankers, there's always the chance the devs can come around.
There's enough players on these forums and in the game who are of the opinion that Tankers need "something".
It's been my observation the majority of players will acknowledge Tankers don't measure up conceptually, but many of them have been convinced by a volcal few that the problem can't be fixed for balance reasons. That's utter bunk because almost every one of these kinds of threads generates suggestions and solutions a good number of people agree are worth following up and don't sound unbalancing. A smaller subset are just scared of change and have taken a "don't rock the boat" policy.
The only reason the discussion stalemates is because at this point the devs continue to ignore the issue and dismiss the complaints about Tanker concept, role and implementation. As long as there's enough Tankers to carry the teams that need them, there little motivation on the devs part. Progress wont be made until they have a change of heart and threads on the subject will continue, at least if I have anything to say about it.
.
Quote:
My tankers have plenty of offensive prowess. Stone Melee, Battle Axe, Super Strength, War Mace, Fire Melee. I've tried them all and they all have great damage potential. Bear in mind this is only considering SO slotting. I have yet to tap into the potential afforded by proper IO slotting.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Having consistantly the highest damage against everything all the time is not needed to do the comic Tanker concept justice.
I have never called for that, nor has anyone I've seen in this or other threads on the subject. They do however, need some offensive prowess beyond the bland, mediocre, consistantly medium damage Tankers have now to do them justice. . |
>
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
Quote:
Oh, I am confidant. I am confidant that the bean counters will tell those at Paragon Studios, that to make the changes you and I would like, to make Tanks a conceptual match to their comic book roots, would cost too much, and not bring in corresponding revenue. That, in the end, is the reason it won't be done in this game.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Gee, thanks for the vote of confidence. In me and in the devs. /sarcasm
As much as their current priorities lack any sympathy for Tankers, there's always the chance the devs can come around. . |
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
Quote:
I don't think it's a money issue at all. At least not directly.|
Originally Posted by sturm375
Oh, I am confidant. I am confidant that the bean counters will tell those at Paragon Studios, that to make the changes you and I would like, to make Tanks a conceptual match to their comic book roots, would cost too much, and not bring in corresponding revenue. That, in the end, is the reason it won't be done in this game.
|
I think it's a case that they simply don't care about the complaints.
The current intent is for Tankers to be medium-low damage decoys. Tankers are that, therefore, as far as Castle is concerned that translates to "working as intended".
For Positron, it's no skin off his nose if Tankers have concept issues or if Brutes take a huge chunk out of the Tanker population. As long as he isn't being inundated with complaints there aren't enough Tankers for the teams that need them or the forums aren't literally disintegrating in riots, I don't expect him to be moved.
Really, I can't think of an argument to convince either to address Tankers if they have no intent to ever do so. I don't think you can persuade someone into having respect for the source material if they just don't.
There's always the chance they change their minds on their own or defer to the people complanining even if they don't understand the complaints themselves.
There's also the chance of world peace in our lifetime. Neither is likely, but that shouldn't stop you or me from trying for it.
.
Sometimes I get quite close to saying Tanks could use a buff - as, indeed, I did in at least 3 recent posts that were largely ignored - and then I read something such as the above.
I need a word for someone who makes a position less attractive by earnestly advocating for it.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Butane'd.
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
I need a word for someone who makes a position less attractive by earnestly advocating for it.
|
Yeah, I can usually get behind ideas for some buffs to tanks, as long as they're not advocated along with some tinfoil hat logic, or outright angst, antagonism, and a need to rip into anyone that doesn't agree with the advocator's opinion. And this applies to anyone, not just one poster or two.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
Sweet, he's pretending to know the devs again! This was hilarious last time.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
For Positron, it's no skin off his nose if Tankers have concept issues or if Brutes take a huge chunk out of the Tanker population.
|
Okay so what have we got so far in the way of additional effects for Gauntlet?
Mez effects
Debuffs
Temp damage
Mode switch
I'm sure there were others, just hard to dig through all the replies.
>
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
Quote:
Obviously johnny doesnt know his CoH lore at all.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
[ QUOTE ]
<QR> One of the big misconceptions (I think) to playing this game is rolling up a Tanker and expecting to be Super Man or The Thing or Colossus. This isn't City of Marvel or City of DC, but City of Heroes, and the game and context must be confined to that for purposes of role play / lore discussion. For the same reason rolling a Wizard in EQ never produced Gandalf or Merlin. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, look at the game's lore. The Tankers in the CoH lore aren't low damage decoys like player Tankers are. Statesman? 'Nuff said. . |
Statesman is an Incarnate Archetype, not a Tanker Archetype.
Want comedy and lighthearted action? Between levels 1-14? Try Nuclear in 90 - The Fusionette Task Force!
Arc ID 58363!
Quote:
Enough to know Incarnate is an Origin, not an Archetype.|
Originally Posted by Cavatina
Obviously johnny doesnt know his CoH lore at all.
|
We went over that in this thread, but of course you read the rest of the thread already, didn't you?
From Paragonwiki:
Quote:
| Incarnate is a special origin not available to players. Incarnates are humans who have drunk from the Fountain of Zeus at the Well of the Furies, empowering them with the powers of the gods themselves. |
Quote:
|
Statesman Character Stats Secret Identity: Marcus Cole Origin: Incarnate Archetype: Tanker Primary Powers: Invulnerability (Tanker) Secondary Powers: Super Strength (Tanker) |
.
Quote:
And having said that players should not have any reasonable expectation to be like Statesman.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Incarnate is a special origin not available to players.
|
Alternately you could go with the information on Wikipedia:
Quote:
| In the game itself, this seems to correspond to the Tanker archetype class and the primary and secondary powers of Invulnerability and Super Strength, respectively. In actuality, however, official statements on the boards have indicated that Statesman and Lord Recluse both belong to an archetype not yet in the game - Incarnate. |
Now back to the conversation. As I have previously stated, any buffs to single target combat are going to be counterproductive for tankers as the game offers enough options in that direction. Going back to a suggestion made some months ago, adding AoE mez effects like stun and knockdown to Gauntlet would be a step in the right direction.
>
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
At that point, all ATs were still reeling from IOs in i9 only a couple months before. Castle's data was obviously from previous to that. The landscape of the game changed quite a bit in the time period. IOs definately affected statistics. It's not too much of a leap to suggest Tankers may not compare the same then as they do now.
I'm not dismissing your quote, but I am saying that's quite some time ago. Things have changed in the game massively. Things can easily have changed with Tankers.
And also, Castle says:
Besides Corrs and Defenders, Tankers are really the only ATs left because that leaves Scrapper, Brutes and Controllers.
I don't know which model accurately depicts Castle's methodology, however. I mention this because if he does use the second model (which seems to make sense to me, model 1 would be very vulnerable to power creep), just because other ATs got boosted doesn't immediately mean Tankers are under performing and need buffs.