Even if Incarnates are added to the game, they're not going to be l33t tank mages, bulldozing through everything in their path. They will have to be balanced with the game's content, just like every other AT. That was the silly thing about calling Kheldians and "epic" archetype. The devs meant "story-centered," but to players, epic meant "l33t tank mage," so they had bad expectations.
It's a game, requiring balance to make it work. Comics and books require other types of "balancing" to make them work.
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:
Well then you only have to wait until the Incarnate archetype goes live.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The entry in question should be amended to say "not currently available."
Early on there was the intent to bring Incarnates to players. There were hints at it all throughout the CoV storyline. Like many things, crafting and power customization included, it fell to the wayside. More recently however, they are being brought up again by the devs. Starting with issue 12 they began reintroducing the concept. The whole Origin of Power arc teased at them and the overreaching story point of the "power web" experiments of Doctor Brainstorm indicating that power proliferation power customization are parts of a much greater whole. I would not be surprised if Incarnates became the next Epic character type. . |
>
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
Incidentally, could we just bloody well set aside fidelity to comic book models of heavies as a design goal? If we were being informed by comic book big guys, sure, Tankers would have high mitigation and high melee offense. They would also have no mez protection or knockback protection.
Alternatively, if I had the game to build again, Tankers would resemble Brutes and Scrappers would resemble Stalkers or Bane Spiders - moderate mitigation, high burst damage, reliance on ambush tactics.
But this is the game we have now. And in this game, Tankers were cursed with awesome - they have survivability that only ever matters against team-sized challenges, which benefits them little solo, and to compensate for this their damage was made moderate. To call it "low" would be an outright lie - for that, you'd have to look to Defenders, who are even more cursed with awesome due to their superior support capability. And unlike Tankers, many Defenders can't even leverage their superior primary to solo effectively.
Odd, isn't it, that the Holy Trinity ATs - Blaster, Defender, and Tanker - are the ones who have come off worst in the end? Precisely because they're the best at what they do, they can't be made better at the other thing they do. In this respect, Tankers probably got off easiest, at least until Defiance 2.0 - slow as they might be, they keep plugging along and never become difficult to play. I'm not sure if Defiance 2.0 changed that for Blasters, but if it did, it may be worth looking at to see exactly how D2.0 filled in Blaster solo deficiency, and how those lessons can be applied to Tankers and Defenders.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, so I'll just cut short and summarize:
1. CoH Tanks are not comics tanks, nor are they what they might be if we could start over knowing what we know now.
2. The Holy Trinity was cursed with awesome. Tanks got off light.
3. If Defiance 2.0 worked, then maybe Gauntlet and Vigilance 2.0 need to follow its lead.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Blasters really needed help, they were getting smacked around. Tankers as a whole don't have any real performance issues (certain sets or powers might), so I don't think there's much justification for an outright buff. Small changes to make them more interesting or fun to play are good though, there's always room for improvement.
Quote:
I disagree on two fronts.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Odd, isn't it, that the Holy Trinity ATs - Blaster, Defender, and Tanker - are the ones who have come off worst in the end? Precisely because they're the best at what they do, they can't be made better at the other thing they do.
|
The first being that Blasters got attention to bring them a little more towards center and shore up their survivability. Defenders are likely next given that if Domm/Controller viability was a concern for the devs, then Defender vs Corr will likely be getting be getting looked at in time for GR. I'd say the devs are more than willing to rework the Trinity, with the exception of Tankers.
The second front being that it's easier for Blasters and Defenders to obtain more survivability (a weak area for both of them) than it is for Tankers to obtain more damage. There are simply more pool powers, IO sets, temp powers and inspirations that will improve defenses and damage mitigation (both direct and indirect) than there are the will increase a Tanker's damage. Most (all?) pool attacks are inferior to Tanker standard attacks for damage purposes. Hasten is really the only option, with Assault being laregly an endurance hogging waste for a tiny boost.
Tankers are in the unique position of having the most survivability of any AT, and that unique trait penalizes them further compared to the other two trinity members.
Quote:
| 1. CoH Tanks are not comics tanks, nor are they what they might be if we could start over knowing what we know now. |
Quote:
| 2. The Holy Trinity was cursed with awesome. Tanks got off light. |
Power can be defined as the ability to affect the world around you or conversely the ability to resist the world around affecting you.
Blasters and Defenders being powerless to stop themselves from faceplanting is the same as Tankers having impotent damage.
Quote:
| 3. If Defiance 2.0 worked, then maybe Gauntlet and Vigilance 2.0 need to follow its lead. |
Gauntlet 2.0 can't really follow suit. Tankers weak area is damage. Unlike the case of the Blaster, giving Tankers more survivability will not increase their damage abilities or improve their soloing.
.
Quote:
To you, perhaps, but not to me, and not to enough players that the metrics for these three ATs ended up coming out very differently. Blasters got help first because, according to dev stats on AT performance, they were statistically underperforming. Defenders are rare by population in the 41-50 range (admittedly by some highly informal metrics), indicating some degree of issue with an AT that sacrifices some measure of personal survivability and a great deal of damage for unparalleled team support. By contrast, Tanks were doing better than average as of the last time these numbers were discussed, and since that time they haven't gotten any slower.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Says you. Considering what I said above, they got unquely screwed. I also consider soloing being slower because you have to slowly chip away at enemies to be just as bad as soloing being slow because you faceplanted.
[...] Blasters and Defenders being powerless to stop themselves from faceplanting is the same as Tankers having impotent damage. |
Leveling up my tanks, I may have noticed the damage disparity from time to time, but what kept me going was the certain knowledge that I was going to complete the mission, that I would not die on the way, and that the only direction I could go was forward. Debt is disheartening, and it's just not part of the solo tanker experience. That does seem to be worth more than you give credit for.
Quote:
|
Defiance 2.0 improved Blasters' weak area (survivbility) both directly (the mez protection) and indirectly by strengthening the Blaster's existing strong point of damage, so enemies could be defeated faster before they dealt as much damage to the Blaster. Gauntlet 2.0 can't really follow suit. Tankers weak area is damage. Unlike the case of the Blaster, giving Tankers more survivability will not increase their damage abilities or improve their soloing. |
Congratulations on focusing on the area where Tankers actually underperform, but there's not a lot that can be done about it if you're not willing to accept the idea that superior survivability actually has a value that can't be ignored when working around that issue. Well, let me amend that. There's plenty that can be done regardless of what you think. You just won't be a part of the solution, and you won't like what you get - which is a result I think I can live with.
@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:
Likely I did not. I spend the majority in my time in these threads arguing that these threads deserve to exist and deserve for the devs to pay attention to them. Without that, all the suggestions in the world don't make a lick of difference.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Did you even read my suggestions?
|
Also, I don't see how my opinion on your suggestion matters. In fact it's likely better I don't become associated with your idea.
Quote:
| The more complex one was a mode switch that turned off the bonus aggro generation from Gauntlet in return for a per-enemy-affected +dam buff. The simpler one was +50% damage, -7% per teammate within 80 feet. Both increase damage ability. Both improve soloing. Both are deliberately designed to reduce in value on teams, where Tankers already have a valuable job they're perfectly good at. And both address the second tanker issue by giving the second tanker something else to do - scrank in the first case, rampage ahead in the second. |
-I don't think Tankers need better damage against minions and LTs. A blanket, constant damage boost, as in this case, would be viewed by the devs and most players as unbalanced. I believe that Tankers being more damaging than they are now against only Bosses and up is more acceptable and there's plenty of conceptual rationale to support it.
This is my opinion mind you. It's hard to determine if the devs/players truly find one more acceptable than the other.
-Assuming the case of a "switch," I can easily see some conflict arrise, namely threads saying "I'm sick of Tankers on my team who refuse to run in 'Defense Mode'" or simply people accusing Tankers of being in the wrong mode when they're not, two Tankers not being able to agree who should Scrank, etc.
These are not show stopping obstacles, however. There just needs to be a clear visual cue to show the Tanker and his team what mode he's operating in. Beyond that, it's a personal issue that would be no more hard to solve than a Storm Controller who abuses their knockback/repel or a Blaster who's slacking off. Tankers who refused to act in a team friendly manner would get the same treatment; a warning followed by a swift kick.
-I would recommend instead of a 50% damage buff that a bonus of 50% damage be used instead. The former would count towards a Tanker's damage cap while the latter wouldn't. In this case, I don't think it counting to a Tanker's cap would be fair, and should a Tanker hit his cap (which is easy on a team with a Kin or two), he wouldn't be recieving more damage running in that mode but he would have the taunting element still turned off regardless.
.
Quote:
|
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. 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:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I don't think it's a money issue at all. At least not directly.
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. . |
The manufactured problem brigade.
It's nice you have a thread to play frustrated dev in.
"I think it's a case that they simply don't care about the complaints."
Wildly inflated issues are difficult to datamine.
They're working on a slide formula Al Gore used recently to find Manbearpig. So don't give up your quest little kipper.
You should probably delete that last sentence, Tank. It's pretty bad taste.
Having finally gotten around to rolling a tanker that I could bear to take well into the higher levels, I'll confidently say that tanks are just fine. Almost ridiculously strong overall. Any claims of being too weak are a fabrication. No, they don't hit as hard as the damage dealing AT. The fact that they can approach that AT in damage is scary on its' own.
QR
Weatherby_Goode - "Heck, Carrion Creepers negates the knockdown from Carrion Creepers."
No offense Washington, with all due respect I must concur that the vid was pretty bad taste.
Johnny's "obsession" is little more than an immature cry for attention. His tactics are more in line with the crazies who are disrupting town hall meetings on health care, and he's fallen into habit with it over the years so he's unlikely to drop it as long as he's getting responses. If everyone would quit addressing his presence entirely, he'd give up eventually. People draw power from being acknowledged, even if that attention is negative. That's precisely why Castle and the other developers don't address his "brilliant" ideas. Probably why they haven't been in these forums very often as of late either.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
Quote:
You're painting an extremely one sided picture here. You cannot count IO sets as offering mitigation without also counting them as offense. IOs have had a huge impact on Tanker damage output; it's night and day.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The second front being that it's easier for Blasters and Defenders to obtain more survivability (a weak area for both of them) than it is for Tankers to obtain more damage. There are simply more pool powers, IO sets, temp powers and inspirations that will improve defenses and damage mitigation (both direct and indirect) than there are the will increase a Tanker's damage. Most (all?) pool attacks are inferior to Tanker standard attacks for damage purposes. Hasten is really the only option, with Assault being laregly an endurance hogging waste for a tiny boost.
|
- Recharge is everywhere with IOs. I'm not just talking about generous recharge bonuses, but actual enhancement value itself. It's very easy to cram 8-9 SOs worth of enhancement into a power. For example, I have Greater Fire Sword slotted with four lvl33 Kin Combats and the lvl50 Mako triple/quad. That gives it 62.19% acc, 95.57% dmg, and 79.12% end/rech. Too expensive? Okay, five lvl35 Crushing Impact (all but dmg/end) and a generic lvl50 end reduc IO. That's 59.64% acc, 95.14% dmg, 78.19% end reduc, and 59.64% rech.
[edit: Change the dmg/rech for dmg/end and the lvl50 end reduc for a lvl50 rech and the numbers will be the same except for 78.19% rech and 59.64% end reduc. I was just copying the st slotting from my Fire/Stone Tank.] - Endurance management is also through the roof. This counts extra recovery and end reduction (such as the enhancement value mentioned above). Why mention this as a damage boost? Because a Tanker that doesn't run out of endurance can deal a lot more damage than one that does. Heck, the difference between having Stamina and not should be a good example of that. It's why many people consider it mandatory, even on sets like WP or Ice.
- Damage procs should not be ignored as an option, either. I'm not personally a big fan of them, but their effect over time (such as hard targets) is undeniable, especially some of the expensive procs like those in purple sets.
That's not even mentioning things accuracy/tohit boosting effects, either. In the general case this may not be too important, but fighting high def mobs (Rikti Drones), ones with tohit debuffs (Death Mages), or up level mobs shows how important it is.
Mix all that together and you can make some absolutely frightening characters, offense wise. For all the Tanks I've invested in IOs (even very minimally like my Ice/SS with only 4 sets of CI) I cannot understate the improvement over their baseline. It's almost like playing a whole new character.
Note: I'm not trying to discount how much mitigation you can get with IOs, I'm well aware of the silliness you can do with IOs in that regard. However, you are vastly downplaying how much offense you get from IOs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Says you. Considering what I said above, they got unquely screwed. I also consider soloing being slower because you have to slowly chip away at enemies to be just as bad as soloing being slow because you faceplanted.
Power can be defined as the ability to affect the world around you or conversely the ability to resist the world around affecting you. Blasters and Defenders being powerless to stop themselves from faceplanting is the same as Tankers having impotent damage. |
For me, death is far more frustrating that the slower kill speed. Death can cost me zoning time (twice), travel time, and the frustration of dying in the first place. My biggest problem with Blasters is not always just dying, either. Rather, dying because I missed something, the foe had stupid high burst damage, or I was out of inspirations. I hate surprise deaths like no other as much as I hate being chained to my inspiration tray. I just recently pulled out my lvl33ish Ice/MM Blaster for a few missions. After using the last of my inspirations to kill a Freak Tank, he rezzed and promply killed me. I logged out after that, don't think I even finished the mission.
A Tank killing slower? I'll take that any day because I know I'll be able to get the job done, even if I don't have a blue or red. I can't say the same for Blasters. That is my opinion. I'm sure Blaster players would disagree with me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Defiance 2.0 improved Blasters' weak area (survivbility) both directly (the mez protection) and indirectly by strengthening the Blaster's existing strong point of damage, so enemies could be defeated faster before they dealt as much damage to the Blaster.
|
I do not possess the time to read the entire thread, so if this has been proposed before - and shot down already - then I am sorry.
Has anyone considered adding a small chance (5% or less) for say, and 8-10 second Mag2 Fear, to the effects of Gauntlet? A sort of intimidation factor added into the attacks, to occasionally leave the weaker enemies quaking and unable to attack.
I think it would remain thematic, but still have a rare, but visible effect in solo situations.
Just a thought I had.
-This Space Intentionally Left Blank.-
Quote:
Thanks for posting.|
Originally Posted by OneWhoBinds
I do not possess the time to read the entire thread, so if this has been proposed before - and shot down already - then I am sorry.
Has anyone considered adding a small chance (5% or less) for say, and 8-10 second Mag2 Fear, to the effects of Gauntlet? A sort of intimidation factor added into the attacks, to occasionally leave the weaker enemies quaking and unable to attack. I think it would remain thematic, but still have a rare, but visible effect in solo situations. Just a thought I had. |
I would thumbsdown an idea like this because the only effect it would have is increase a Tanker's personal survivability, and that's something that simply doesn't need to happen.
Gauntlet taunts any enemy you attack. Any any you'd be attacking that got Terrorized is already aggroed onto you and thus not attacking a teammate. The fear effect would be largely pointless to the rest of the team.
I would also object for conceptual reasons. It doesn't make sense to me for any enemy to be intimidated by a Tanker's mediocre offense/damage and not the Brute who just one-shotted his buddy or the Blaster who just flash-fried his Lieutenant. I have the same criticism of the current Gauntlet mechanic.
.
Quote:
I don't think the subject of the picture is level to begin with.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
You're painting an extremely one sided picture here.
|
Quote:
| You cannot count IO sets as offering mitigation without also counting them as offense. IOs have had a huge impact on Tanker damage output; it's night and day. |
Recharge and Endurance I count as being neutral. They improve powers in both areas.
I've always felt damage procs are better suited to ATs with faster attacks due to their fairly low chance to proc. That's not the majority of Tanker sets. Also I'd like to remind you that while purple sets may have better chances to fire, you can only have one instance of that set in your build
Accuracy, as you say, is situational. Accuracy bonuses wont improve an Inv/SS's performace for example.
Quote:
| To use your own words, "says you." (I don't say this as an insult or anything, mind you. If you took it as such, then it's possible SpittingTrashcan did as well.) |
Quote:
| For me, death is far more frustrating that the slower kill speed. |
For me, it's not. On a Blaster I can pop three medium purple inspirations and death takes a holiday. On a Tanker, popping three red inspirations wont allow me to demolish a hazard sized spawn of Cimerorans in seconds like a Blaster can.
Quote:
| This is just a clarification / double check, but you know that Defiance isn't mez protection, right? |
.
Just a quick thought. We probably ought to leave IOs (set bonuses, procs, whatever) out of the balance argument. Theoretically, the game is supposed to be balanced with SOs in mind, so let's look at power pools but not IOs please.
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JadKni
Having finally gotten around to rolling a tanker that I could bear to take well into the higher levels, I'll confidently say that tanks are just fine. Almost ridiculously strong overall. Any claims of being too weak are a fabrication. No, they don't hit as hard as the damage dealing AT. The fact that they can approach that AT in damage is scary on its' own.
|
Which is the average experience most players have, especially as you get to the higher levels and access to ranged attacks, more damage, and more control (if that's your choice).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
You're painting an extremely one sided picture here. You cannot count IO sets as offering mitigation without also counting them as offense. IOs have had a huge impact on Tanker damage output; it's night and day.
That's not even mentioning things accuracy/tohit boosting effects, either. In the general case this may not be too important, but fighting high def mobs (Rikti Drones), ones with tohit debuffs (Death Mages), or up level mobs shows how important it is. Mix all that together and you can make some absolutely frightening characters, offense wise. For all the Tanks I've invested in IOs (even very minimally like my Ice/SS with only 4 sets of CI) I cannot understate the improvement over their baseline. It's almost like playing a whole new character. Note: I'm not trying to discount how much mitigation you can get with IOs, I'm well aware of the silliness you can do with IOs in that regard. However, you are vastly downplaying how much offense you get from IOs. To use your own words, "says you." (I don't say this as an insult or anything, mind you. If you took it as such, then it's possible SpittingTrashcan did as well.) For me, death is far more frustrating that the slower kill speed. Death can cost me zoning time (twice), travel time, and the frustration of dying in the first place. My biggest problem with Blasters is not always just dying, either. Rather, dying because I missed something, the foe had stupid high burst damage, or I was out of inspirations. I hate surprise deaths like no other as much as I hate being chained to my inspiration tray. I just recently pulled out my lvl33ish Ice/MM Blaster for a few missions. After using the last of my inspirations to kill a Freak Tank, he rezzed and promply killed me. I logged out after that, don't think I even finished the mission. A Tank killing slower? I'll take that any day because I know I'll be able to get the job done, even if I don't have a blue or red. I can't say the same for Blasters. That is my opinion. I'm sure Blaster players would disagree with me. This is just a clarification / double check, but you know that Defiance isn't mez protection, right? All it allows them to do is use 3 powers while mezzed (t1/t2 primary powers, t1 secondary power). Blasters still can't move, toggles still suppress, and offensive toggles still shut off. It's a nice perk, but most certainly not true mez protection by any stretch of the imagination. |
Ugh, my brain hurts, too many fact based clarifications.
Quote:
Recharge can boost both, yes, but it always boosts attacks. Also, Regen aside, I wouldn't say it increases survivability anywhere near the level it increases damage. (Speaking of Regen, recharge isn't even enough because it doesn't improve Regen's weakness, so people heavily layer it with defense, too.) Something like perma DP is nice, but you will not convince me it has the same impact as it does on attacks. (I say this because one of my high Recharge Tanks is Fire/Stone - a set which would benefit greatly from recharge due to Healing Flames.)|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I wont deny Tankers benefit offensively from IOs. I simply think other ATs benefit more from the mitigation.
Recharge and Endurance I count as being neutral. They improve powers in both areas. I've always felt damage procs are better suited to ATs with faster attacks due to their fairly low chance to proc. That's not the majority of Tanker sets. Also I'd like to remind you that while purple sets may have better chances to fire, you can only have one instance of that set in your build Accuracy, as you say, is situational. Accuracy bonuses wont improve an Inv/SS's performace for example. |
Endurance management doesn't improve survivability one bit. You could load up a Tank with Tough, Weave, Maneuvers, Combat Jumping, and Aid Self (note, no Fitness) and an SO of end reduc in each. You couldn't do much besides just sit there and Taunt / heal, but your mitigation wouldn't care at all. No, end management is an offensive boost.
As for Accuracy, Super Strength being the one of the few sets that operate like that. The other would be Dual Blades due to Blinding Feint. All the rest? No large, constant tohit buffs. I can get close to, or reach, 95% tohit chance with attacks against +4s. That's very helpful, to say the least.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
See, opinion.
For me, it's not. On a Blaster I can pop three medium purple inspirations and death takes a holiday. On a Tanker, popping three red inspirations wont allow me to demolish a hazard sized spawn of Cimerorans in seconds like a Blaster can. |
Here is the wrinkle, as I said before, the Blaster may get into a situation where they need to eat 3 purples to stay alive. A Tanker will never be in a situation where they must eat 3 reds or fail. I take that back, there are a very select few instances I could see it happening (like fighting Biff in AE, a Villain only EB/AV), but not even anywhere close to as often. (Btw, a Tanker eating 3 reds would have a damage mod of ~1.107, that's essentially a Blaster's damage mod without Defiance.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
It's not full protection, no, but you can't deny it improves Blaster survivability and perfromance significantly. If you wish to argue it isn't significant, tell it to Castle.
|
That's my experience. I wager the higher damage mod and the +dmg per attack gave a similar damage boost. Of course, it'd be impossible to decide by datamining which helped more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sturm375
Just a quick thought. We probably ought to leave IOs (set bonuses, procs, whatever) out of the balance argument. Theoretically, the game is supposed to be balanced with SOs in mind, so let's look at power pools but not IOs please.
|
Quote:
Tell that to an early level Rad Defender who's debuff toggles drop because they ran out of end or to a MM who can't summon his pets back in time.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Endurance management doesn't improve survivability one bit.
|
Quote:
| Here is the wrinkle, as I said before, the Blaster may get into a situation where they need to eat 3 purples to stay alive. A Tanker will never be in a situation where they must eat 3 reds or fail. |
Your opinion is that one is worse than the other. Good for you. That's not my opinion.
Quote:
| I'd say it helped, but I don't think it's as earth shattering of an improvement in my experience. Blasters can still die very easily against adds, they can still go from half health to dead in the blink of an eye, mezzes can still require them to eat breakfrees or die. |
.
Well, the game is supposedly balance around using only SOs, but the devs (Castle or BAB in particular, if I'm not mistaken) said that they'd be foolish not to take them into account when creating content. So you can factor them into the equation. Scrappers being able to soft-cap and get a good amount of mitigation from IOs is something we can take into account. How common and unexpensive such builds are might be more open to debate, but it is something you have to think about with game balance. At least to some extent.
Speaking of Blasters, I seriously have to wonder what tougher content will bring for them. The game is probably just about right in terms of difficulty for squishier ATs. You can get in over your head as a Blaster, but with the new Defiance, you can solo constantly from 1-50 if you're smart about it (especially if you have ways to mitigate bosses reliably: be it KB, or stacked disorient or holds). There are some minor tweaks that some of the sets could use, but I think Blasters are in a solid position, even after GR.
I used to feel Tanks were in the same spot, but they could use a little something to make them have a more solid role/ability/niche (not much, but enough so this whole "Scrappers and Brutes are better!" feeling can die down). Yes, I know they have a role, but they could stand out a bit more.
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:
I feel the need to point out that, coming from you, this advice is rich with irony.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Then I would suggest you not play Blasters if you don't find them enjoyable or go to the Blaster forums and try to convince Castle to revisit them.
|
As far as Tankers' unique role: this may be a lot to extrapolate from a single point of evidence, but I think it's worth noting that Tankers are the only melee AT to get Combustion. This suggests to me that Tankers can best leverage their survivability by taking on more enemies, and hitting them with more AoE - increasing DPS and DPE without increasing Tanker damage mods.
So: add AoE damage to all Tanker powers. Every ST attack becomes a 5-target AoE with all targets in Gauntlet radius receiving some percentage (I'm thinking 10-20%) of the original damage, with the main target receiving full damage. With care and skill, this would mean Tanks get up to twice the benefit from the same attack as any other AT. AoE centric sets still perform well over ST centric sets due to the target cap and relatively small radius, but ST sets see a good deal of benefit.
What the hell, I'm just throwing things out.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
I'm kind of on the side of "Tankers are fine", if I really think about it. My only blueside 50 is a Tanker, and she feels very super. She never faceplants (okay, maybe once when I wasn't watching and dropping 5 Carnies caused her Toggles to fall), she solos just fine, and just about the only thing I can't do is solo an AV - EBs aren't a problem, and the AV problem is simply that neither she nor the AV can damage the other enough to overcome regeneration. Since soloing AVs is pretty much elite++ gameplay and I haven't even tried IOing her out to increase DPS to give it another try, she feels quite adequate.
So Tankers overall feel pretty good to me. That said, she's WP/SS, which are two of the powerhouse sets, so it's entirely possible many (or even most) of the other Tanker sets do need some improvement, but that's an issue of power sets, not the AT.
Quote:
And Johnny moves the goalposts again. By the way, a 6th level Rad/* Defender with both RI and EF can run them both unslotted and still gain endurance if they don't attack.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Tell that to an early level Rad Defender who's debuff toggles drop because they ran out of end or to a MM who can't summon his pets back in time.
|
One last little thought.
There actually exists an effect in game right now, that works out to being the same as increased DPS that scales upward with the rank of the target. It doesn't work out to a lot of damage in day to day work, but it absolutely ensures that you will eventually defeat your target as long as you don't die and don't run out of endurance.
That effect is -regen/-healing.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Early on there was the intent to bring Incarnates to players. There were hints at it all throughout the CoV storyline. Like many things, crafting and power customization included, it fell to the wayside.
More recently however, they are being brought up again by the devs. Starting with issue 12 they began reintroducing the concept. The whole Origin of Power arc teased at them and the overreaching story point of the "power web" experiments of Doctor Brainstorm indicating that power proliferation power customization are parts of a much greater whole.
I would not be surprised if Incarnates became the next Epic character type.
.