Gauntlet 2.0

So this is still going on. I do not mean that in a negative way it's good to see you guys kept up the good fight. Ive just been absent for a good while, even before champions came out (yes I am playing it) but I have kept my sub here active and I tinker with my tank now and then.

Ive seen a few interesting ideas in this thread though quite honestly I would settle for anything being done to gauntlet to make it useful to an actual tank. Doing something for tanks is about the one thing I know would pull me back to coh full time from champions.

What I would like to ask though is have any of you received any indication that they will look into doing something for gauntlet. The last thing I recall reading was a post by Castle saying something to the effect of him still not seeing the need for a change like this. Thats not a direct quote heck I may have even misinterpreted the post when I read it since I was rather frustrated with the game in general at the time.

The only recent Gauntlet related response that I have seen from any developers was during I16 closed beta when a bug caused only the visual FX for tanker ST attacks to be displayed on any mobs affected by Gauntlet.


Castle reportedly said it was a bug and BAB said....

I just wanna throw this out for everyone's consideration. I've only been playing for a few months, so I have a relatively new perspective on the game.

I really like the "brown bar" mechanic -- I actually think every AT should have one. That said, I have two ideas, both of which are similar to the Dominator's inherent:

A) Some kind of "power boost" mechanic for non-damaging power effects like stun (duration), DoT (duration), etc, based on attacks withstood (not damage taken). This could either be proportionate like the Brute's damage bonus, or "KAPOW" like the domination inherent.

B) A massive damage boost which would be activated with a Domination-like inherent click power. Obviously this raises the concern over "perma-dom" attainability, but I really don't think that should even be possible for them, regardless of how much money they spend on IO sets. I consider it an outstanding issue.

The reason I like option B (although A would be fun) is that it would fill its own niche -- scrappers do higher sustained DPS, brutes have a "momentum" factor to their DPS, and tanks would have a "burst" factor, which would be in keeping with the "let loose" and "throw down the gauntlet" feel that a lot of people seem to be looking for in this thread.

Thoughts?

Regarding the Tanker VS Brute concerns:

It is my opinion that the reason we are seeing so many opinions stating that Brutes are in some way better or comparable to Tankers in various forms of functionality is simple: Most Tanker power combinations possess incredible over-the-top survivability at the expense of other forms of combat utility. Meanwhile, Brutes have "enough" survivability coupled with more well-rounded damage output which gives them the perception of being better off in the eyes of many - which may not be entirely untrue. Therefore, the primary concern for the Tanker vs Brute debate is when and where is "enough" survivability equivalent in value to "maximum" survivability - and how this will affect player opinion on numerous levels of gameplay. So far as that goes, it is unrelated to this topic and not a catestrophic issue in my opinion.

But in so far as this thread's main topic is concerned, the fact that Brute Fury is much more flexible in various combat situations is a concern of mine, a valid issue related to Gauntlet, and the potential defining diversifier between these two archetypes. Inherit abilities have been a point of contention for some time since they are more varied (and integrated) on red-side than blue-side and mixing these two together will only make the diversity (and arguably, the entertainment value and utility) of villain-side inherits more obvious than ever.

In short - the problem in my eyes is not which archetype is better, but if the flavor of the Brute Fury inherit overshadows Tankers and their fairly generic and useless-in-solo Gauntlet inherit power now that all of the games' content will be available to all archetypes with Going Rogue. And, if so, what sort of effect can Gauntlet provide to set Tankers further apart from Brutes.

Granted, as others have stated, other Archetypes have equal or greater concerns which should have a high priority on the Developer radar momentarily. But that does not negate the fact that this is a valid topic for Tanker development, namely the current somewhat uncreative application of Gauntlet and numerous proposals to modify it into something more exciting and flavorful.

Game on, people.

Personally I don't get this overall tank vs. brute mentality. It really should be more of a scrapper vs. brute.

Base defense for scrappers and brutes are equal. Same numbers folks.

Base damage for scrappers is higher then brutes without fury. (and that doesn't include crits) It takes until the fury bar hits in the mid 30's for the base damage of brutes to equal the base damage of scrappers, not that that is hard to maintain. Again, this doesn't include criticals. I'm sure that with a constantly high fury bar that the brutes do out damage scrappers in the long run.

So if scrappers with their equal defensive numbers to brutes and quite high damage haven't killed off tanks I really don't see how brutes will do it either. If anything I would think more players would want to play brutes as they can achieve higher overall damage compared to scrappers thus threatening the scrapper AT, not the Tank AT.

As for Gauntlet 2.0, I've already put my two cents worth in before.

I think there are several changes that can and should be made to brutes and tanks, but exaggerating the differences to the point where they no longer look like the same game only detracts from the problems and fights to make change more difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicar As usual people like you only quote the parts they can twist to what they wish them to say. You completely cut out the mention of damage caps or where I go over the fact that the brute does not have the endurance issues that a tank does because their damage per endurance is so much higher.

I didn't challenge the endurance efficiency differences because they exist, and are completely irrelevant to whether or not brutes do three times as much damage as tanks. 55% more damage is 55% more endurance efficiency when using the same attacks and slotting.

You still haven't shown how you came up with brutes doing three times as much damage as tanks. Because, you know, it looks like you have no idea and pulled a number out of your [censored] to convince others the situation is worse than it is.

I suppose I should throw away my play experience and just trust you, even though you have nothing beyond perception and opinion.

Quote:

Ill go play the game instead and tell you how it is.

With your utter disrespect for numerical values and math, I don't think I'd trust anything you had to say that wasn't backed up by herostats and a screenshot of a character's build.

To be honest, I've recently found that it's sometimes better to debate things from perception and experience rather than rely on hard math for my theories until the situation in question has been better established. Not to say math is not important or that I don't follow some estimates, but rather that few people carry the talents of Serrate, Starsman, and Arcanaville with a spreadsheet - and I most certainly do not. And Math discussions prove far more confrontational, which hinders (if not negates) all progress in discussion and theorycrafting. Seems that the trend has also sparked more arguments than it has solved. (See: Nerdrage) Besides, math has its own set limitations as it's based on certain control factors which are sometimes better described than calculated.

The End-User Perception is sometimes just as important as the math involved.

While I understand there's going to be disagreements in our perceptions, perhaps it would be better to try and levy experiences and define case examples and then do the math research to back it afterwards rather than wage a numeric war upfront. After all, the perception of Brutes VS Tankers is extremely situational. For example, Tankers will obviously fare better in certain high-risk situations without external assistance than some Brutes.

But let's face it - Brutes do get a really cool Inherit toy.

EDIT: I would like to add that I have heard that Masterminds tend to fill the role of Tankers on Villain-side fairly often since they can distribute damage they receive between all of their minions, giving them higher HP values than initially perceived. I cannot confirm this as I have barely touched villain-side content. However, from a functionality standpoint Brutes do resemble Tankers more closely and there is a fairly wide belief that Brutes are "Villain Tanks" - so even if those of us here understand otherwise, the general populous may be swayed by a different, perhaps flawed perspective. I doubt it will damage Tankers at a critical level, but the basis of my argument is that their inherit abilities and Gauntlet-lite capacities have led me to feel that a revision of our own Gauntlet is justified in some way since they now have access to our content and will be stepping on our toes to some degree.

A friend once told me that during a brainstorming session, when asked what makes a GOOD video game, his team could only find a handful of results. When he switched the topic to what makes a BAD video game, the ideas piled on high. So in the case of Gauntlet, a bit of reversal may be necessary to come out with better ideas or justifications to why it needs to be changed. I'm sure each of these have been mentioned at some point in this long thread, but it'd probably be a good idea to consolidate them for reference:

What is wrong with Gauntlet:

* Useless when solo
* Works better with faster execution and recharging attack chains / power sets (slower sets like Energy Melee do not benefit as well)
* Brutes have a less effective version (so it has competition / isn't unique)
* Minimal effect on efficiency / survivability / management (most Inherits carry this theme)
* Arguably detrimental to early-level Tankers prior to obtaining adequate survival tools or the incremental stat gain for higher HP that is more noticeable after many levels
* Does not feel thematic
* Can significantly lose importance in large teams mid-to-late game (Their enemies usually die before you grab all aggro)
* Almost never equates the benefits of taking the power "Taunt" - more so for long activation / recharge attack chains (see above) - also makes its function easy to replace
* Only works on Secondary Power Set abilities and not on Pool or Veteran attack powers (please correct if I'm mistaken)

* Question: Does it activate when you use Taunt or only with attacks? How about with self-buffs? I believe it only works on secondary power set abilities but how about those that don't do damage? Call it morbid curiosity.

What's good about Gauntlet:

* Stacks well with other aggro-management tools
* Can negate need for Taunt on small or low-DPS teams
* Debatable subject: Has unwritten benefit of giving higher HP to Tanker (I argue this is more due to Defensive/Offensive power set selection than the Inherit)
* Works well on fast attack chains

Let me know if I missed anything and feel free to add and lend your thoughts.

Thank you all for the feedback, information and updates.

William, I think I've heard a similar suggestion in the past regarding resistance bypassing as a suggested addition. It's a pretty interesting idea, though probably a hard sell at this stage.

Regardless, thank you for bringing it up. It's good to see some positive energy pumped back into this thread.

On another note, I am starting to really lean heavily on Dersk's major point - the part of the Gauntlet component which Brutes do possess is the most important piece, and the additional effect held by Tankers is so barely noticeable that we hardly realize when it's broken. Of all the reasons, for me this is perhaps the most troubling.