[ QUOTE ]
Noted.
I still don't believe anything like this is necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
then can you explain why invul is ok to buff to s/l cap with tough and fire is not?
cause im STILL trying to figure out how you justify that one
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
a) Why?
b) How is that balanced?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noted.
I still don't believe anything like this is necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
then can you explain why invul is ok to buff to s/l cap and fire is not?
cause im STILL trying to figure out how you justify that one
[/ QUOTE ]
FA adds more damage output, has a fast heal and an endurance recovery power and Invuln does not.
That was easy 
[ QUOTE ]
then can you explain why invul is ok to buff to s/l cap with tough and fire is not?
cause im STILL trying to figure out how you justify that one
[/ QUOTE ]
Fiery Aura is a scranker set, so to speak. It trades some mitigation for additional offensive capabilities.
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman isn't a Tanker. He's an Incarnate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incarnate is an Origin, not an AT.
He's a Tanker.
[ QUOTE ]
Hero 1 was a Scrapper. He was a Broadsword/Invuln Scrapper, I believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. The CCG lists him as an Invulnerability Energy Melee Tanker.
That's also how the comic depicts him and also the powers he has in game, with the exception of his new Rikti-tastic psionic abilities.
The CCG also has Statesman unsurprisingly as being the cover boy for Tankers.
[ QUOTE ]
Back Alley Brawler was known for his toughness.
[/ QUOTE ]
As are comic Tankers and CoH player Tankers. He's also known for his brawling and extensive fighting ability, as are comic Tankers but not so much CoH player Tankers.
[ QUOTE ]
Citadel definitely tries to keep the foes on him over others, and is known to be a Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is odd because Paragonwiki identifies him as a Blaster. He's got the Energy Blasts (ones Tankers don't get) on top of his Energy Melee and is set to fight at range. He's got an Energy Aura shield as one of his signature powers however, which may have lead to confusion.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Primal Earth's version of Infernal is the same way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Both Infernals kind of cheat with their very MM like Demon Summoning abilities, but all things considered, I agree, he'd be a Tanker.
.
i know... but i wanted castle to tell me he hates fire tanks himself :P
plus g says fire cant tank so i must be broke :P
oh and states IS a tank ingame..ive personally seen him on guardian back in the day ( dont care about the comic wolrd..that doesnt imply here..when you see a dev ingame their not incarnates. heroes barely ever)
lvl 20ish doing the striga tf invul/ss and he drew a crowd :P
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
then can you explain why invul is ok to buff to s/l cap with tough and fire is not?
cause im STILL trying to figure out how you justify that one
[/ QUOTE ]
Fiery Aura is a scranker set, so to speak. It trades some mitigation for additional offensive capabilities.
[/ QUOTE ]
Some of it's mitigation IS it's offensive capabilities, aside from meaning you defeat enemies faster before they damage you as much. That's partially why Burn makes enemies run away and stop attacking you for a while. That's a from of mitigation. An annoying one perhaps, but still...
.
I don't think this idea is necessarily BAD in concept, but definitely could use some tweaking.
Tying it to the power taunt is very limiting. Even stalkers had their inherent changed so that it wasn't completely reliant on a power from their sets, let alone one that many feel is optional.
I do like the single target, non-AoE aspect of it. It could help some solo-woes of Tanks in terms of pacing without pushing the AoE mass death capabilities that they are capable of handling.
Personally, I don't believe tanks need a damage buff to be improved, but if they were to get one, this is pretty close to how I'd like it to look.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
I don't think Tanks need much of anything outside of proliferation, and an end cost rebalancing of dark armor.
What if you used this idea on TAUNT instead of Gauntlet, thus making the power more desirable and would also give incentive to perform better on teams on top of it?
Actually, going with that idea, why not instead make it a damage nerf to that single target, as they are feeling threatened with the taunt (not gauntlet.)
My new Youtube Channel with CoH info
You might know me as FlintEastwood now on Freedom
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noted.
I still don't believe anything like this is necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
then can you explain why invul is ok to buff to s/l cap and fire is not?
cause im STILL trying to figure out how you justify that one
[/ QUOTE ]
FA adds more damage output, has a fast heal and an endurance recovery power and Invuln does not.
That was easy
[/ QUOTE ]
Not as easy as you would think.
In the beginning we had 4 Ice sat at the Defense/Passive mitigation end with it's ability to slow and sleep Inv and Stone sat in the middle with a good mix of Resistance, Defense, and various forms of mitigation
Then there was Fire, sitting on the other end with only Resistance and Damage as mitigation.
Things have changed a lot since then.
Stripping all things aside should a Resistance only set not be able to get the highest unassisted resistance of all sets?
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman? 'Nuff said.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "'Nuff said" do you mean "Doesn't count"? Because Statesman is not a tanker. He's an Incarnate... as in "living incarnation of a god".
[ QUOTE ]
Still, nice try by Starsman. As I said, let me know if you have any other ideas.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know nobody, Including Starsman, needs, nor necessarily even wants your approval, right? Especially on the topic of tankers. Taking the attitude of "I oppose any buff that doesn't make my tank "super enough" by my standards" over and over again has pretty much guaranteed that.
Let me spell it out for you:
You will never get what you want out of a tanker, unless you temper your expectations.
Or, for that matter out of any class/AT in any game that cares about balance and quality.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, technically, taunt (at least the ST section) will change from "hey, yommaa!" to "hey, you better take me down cos I'm now going to kick bellow the waist"
[/ QUOTE ]
Would taunt retain the agro generation(aoe)?
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman? 'Nuff said.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "'Nuff said" do you mean "Doesn't count"? Because Statesman is not a tanker. He's an Incarnate... as in "living incarnation of a god".
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Incarnate is an Origin, not an AT.
He's a Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
^^^This
Say Stars, how about tying the con of the enemy being targeted into the damage boost? Tiny extra damage for minion, respectable extra for EB, massive boost for AVs and GMs.
A) It fits with the concept of holding back less on the bigger opponents who can take it.
B) It's a risk vs damage thing. Scrappers are more at risk than Tankers from most enemies, so they get higher damage in general. Tankers are more at risk from higher con foes then lower con foes, they could maybe get more damage against the former.
C) Just as ST damage is less obtrusive to Scrappers than a flat damage boost, less of a buff against most enemies would be even less so, IMO. You could then give Tankers a higher damage bonus then you could if it affected all cons of foes evenly.
.
[ QUOTE ]
Say Stars, how about tying the con of the enemy being targeted into the damage boost? Tiny extra damage for minion, respectable extra for EB, massive boost for AVs and GMs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suggested that on page one.
And I'm still thinking about making it dependent on the amount of available gauntlet splash checks. More for single targets (again allowing for some other modifier higher ranks: GM's, AV's, EB's and down the heirarchy if you guys think this is necessary) and less for groups. But it should be a single amount and not one that stacks with each mob checked.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman? 'Nuff said.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "'Nuff said" do you mean "Doesn't count"? Because Statesman is not a tanker. He's an Incarnate... as in "living incarnation of a god".
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Incarnate is an Origin, not an AT.
He's a Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
^^^This
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, considering at one point there were hints at an epic Incarnate AT...
Virtue:
Miserya - 50 EM/ELA Brute (Perma-shelved)
Adriana Rayne - 42 Katana/Dark Scrapper
Cyberpulse - 26 Super Strength/Willpower Brute
Steel Heart - 24 Invuln/Super Strength Tanker
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Say Stars, how about tying the con of the enemy being targeted into the damage boost? Tiny extra damage for minion, respectable extra for EB, massive boost for AVs and GMs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suggested that on page one.
[/ QUOTE ]
I missed that.
To Stars' response:
[ 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 ]
So why aren't Scrappers being survivable enough to solo content intended for Teams with Tankers like AVs and hazard sized spawns treading on "Tanker territory"?
How are Brutes and Stalkers being blueside not treading "Scrapper territory" either?
My response is that melee damage isn't the exclusive domain of Scrappers, just as survivability isn't Tankers'. Scrappers should get used to sharing "their terriroty" and complaint-wise have no leg to stand on as long as they can stand up to foes they were not intended to be able to and polish them off faster than the guys who were.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman? 'Nuff said.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "'Nuff said" do you mean "Doesn't count"? Because Statesman is not a tanker. He's an Incarnate... as in "living incarnation of a god".
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Incarnate is an Origin, not an AT.
He's a Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
^^^This
[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of whether it is his origin or not, the fact that he is an Incarnate by definition makes him more powerful than any player is capable of being, and therefore doesn't count on the list to show "real" tankers in the lore.
The whole idea of "real" tankers in lore is bogus anyway since comparing player made characters to lore is ridiculous since they can have powers that not only are outside of their power sets but have powers and buffs that are not available to anything else in the game.
In short, I have no idea what anyone is getting at with this line of thinking...
I understand the conceptual reasons for wanting higher single-target damage, but when it comes to separating Tankers from Scrappers and Brutes, I believe AoE is the way to go. The best example is already in the game: Combustion/Cremate.
Tankers are melee Controllers and I think that should be played up- their AoEs should hit more targets, possibly a have larger radius, and better mez/debuff effects (than Scrappers/Brutes.)
Not that I don't think the idea of "tagging" an enemy for extra damage is a bad one, I think it's neat. I'm just not sure if it's appropriate for Tankers in this game.
[ QUOTE ]
So why aren't Scrappers being survivable enough to solo content intended for Teams with Tankers like AVs and hazard sized spawns treading on "Tanker territory"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you actually re-read anything you write and not laugh hysterically?
Does the fact that blasters can nuke an entire spawn tread on defenders? I mean... blaster primaries are basically defender secondaries, doesn't that mean defenders are useless?
Tankers are a team support AT, as are Defenders. Comparing them to solo ability is beyond foolish, but I guess I should have expected that by now from you.
[ QUOTE ]
My response is that melee damage isn't the exclusive domain of Scrappers, just as survivability isn't Tankers'. Scrappers should get used to sharing "their terriroty" and complaint-wise have no leg to stand on as long as they can stand up to foes they were not intended to be able to and polish them off faster than the guys who were.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny you don't seem to get it:
Tankers... primary bonus is survivability and they do it better than anything in this game, they have some melee damage but it is still nothing compared to Scrappers.
Scrappers... primary role is melee damage, and they do it better than anything (blueside) in this game, they also have some survivability, but it is still nothing compared to Tankers.
Does that make it at all clear to you? (rhetorical I know, there is no way this concept would ever make sense to someone as troll-ish as you).
[ QUOTE ]
In short, I have no idea what anyone is getting at with this line of thinking...
[/ QUOTE ]
The point is, there a good number of people who find Tankers conceptually lacking due to their damage output and a number of problems Tankers have that are a result of their lower damage and current implementation.
The devs could make Tankers more faithful to the lore counterparts and to their comic counterparts, make them more fun to a greater number of people, fix some of their other issues to boot and still have them work within the boundries of game balance.
So why shouldn't they?
.
[ QUOTE ]
The point is, there a good number of people who find Tankers conceptually lacking due to their damage output and a number of problems Tankers have that are a result of their lower damage and current implementation.
The devs could make Tankers more faithful to the lore counterparts and to their comic counterparts, make them more fun to a greater number of people, fix some of their other issues to boot and still have them work within the boundries of game balance.
So why shouldn't they?
.
[/ QUOTE ]
They shouldn't because you're comparisons are invalid. You're supposition about what the "player base wants" are invalid, and you have never made a single case for it other than the fact that it is something you want.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statesman? 'Nuff said.
[/ QUOTE ]
By "'Nuff said" do you mean "Doesn't count"? Because Statesman is not a tanker. He's an Incarnate... as in "living incarnation of a god".
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Incarnate is an Origin, not an AT.
He's a Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
^^^This
[/ QUOTE ]
... is wrong.
Back in the day, there was talk of us getting access to other Epic ATs. Amongst those listed? Incarnates.
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the conceptual reasons for wanting higher single-target damage, but when it comes to separating Tankers from Scrappers and Brutes, I believe AoE is the way to go.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Because it's the niche no one else wants?
There are lots of conceptual reasons for Tankers to have better ST damage than they do. There are less reasons conceptually to justify better AoE.
If Tankers are "holding back" for fear of hurting people, they wouldn't be unleashing it on masses of lesser enemies in AoE attacks. Guys who specialize in fighting guys weaker than them are bullies by my definition. Be it Giant Man or Colossus or the Thing, the lesser enemies swarming them are the ones they are going to use extra care on. The big bad is the one they cut loose against.
You say you understand this conceptually, but you don't act like it.
For non-conceptual considerations, there are more reasons to improve Tanker ST damage than to up their AoE.
Tankers hurt for damage most in the lower levels, before AoE really comes into play. You're not fighting large crowds then and on many sets the AoE attacks aren't in play at that point.
As it's been noted, Tankers already leverage their existing AoE and their scaling defenses very well. We don't need to be making Tankers better farmers/tractors than they are.
AoE does more in a team situation. We don't need Tankers doing much more damage on teams than they do because Scrappers are already hard up for a role on teams. More ST damage on Tankers is less obtrusive to Scrappers in a team situation and will only really come into play with an AV. Many teams already have a Tanker along to tank the AV, so I don't see it as stealing a Scrapper's spot at that point.
[ QUOTE ]
Tankers are melee Controllers and I think that should be played up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Says who? Not me. The official description I'm looking at on the CoH website says Tankers are "devastating hand to hand combatants." I happen to think that should be played up.
[ QUOTE ]
Not that I don't think the idea of "tagging" an enemy for extra damage is a bad one, I think it's neat. I'm just not sure if it's appropriate for Tankers in this game.
[/ QUOTE ]
In my opinion it's more appropriate than them having low damage but not as suitable as it could be in the suggestion's current state.
I'm hoping Starsman keeps working on it.
.
Although thematically it doesn't fit well (I yell at you and somehow I use less endurance?!) the idea aleviates one of the bigger problems for Tankers (endurance). I like this better then a damage hike.
The reason I'm not crazy about a damage hike (to 80-84% of Scrapper dmg) is that it would be blurring that line a little too much between Scrappers and Tankers (not to mention Brutes once the expansion comes out). One could argue that you can build a Scrapper that can be as survivable as a Tanker and they would be right for all intents and purposes ... but you don't cure one ill be making another.