[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Which is it? Are Tankers worthless because a scrapper can be just as survivable, or are they needed on teams.
Your contradictions of yourself show no bounds.
Thing is, scrappers aren't "as survivable" as tanks. Can they be made to survive situations that tanks could? Absolutely, but they won't have the same survivability as a tank just as tanks putting out the amount of damage needed to defeat the same enemy as a scrapper doesn't make them as damaging as scrappers.
"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
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Very few scrappers actually do what you suggest. Almost every scrapper I play with in game dreads being asked to tank AVs and even still fewer would ever consider going near them solo.
Tankers have very little to fear from scrappers treading into their territory, because tankers are staggeringly better at surviving and aggro generation. No buff yet made can make a scrapper generate and hold aggro like a tanker.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
[ QUOTE ]
Thing is, scrappers aren't "as survivable" as tanks. Can they be made to survive situations that tanks could? Absolutely, but they won't have the same survivability as a tank just as tanks putting out the amount of damage needed to defeat the same enemy as a scrapper doesn't make them as damaging as scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was saying just what Mr. J_B said. Not what I agree with. I agree with you completely. Not that he would ever respond to it, but nontheless you are 100% right.
Oh, I know. I probably should have made it clearer that it was more of a <QR> response to the general idea that scrappers were magically as survivable as tanks.
"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
[ 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 ]
How bout increase the damage cap on tanks to 400%? (or 500-750% but im trying to be reasonable.....)
[ QUOTE ]
How bout increase the damage cap on tanks to 400%? (or 500-750% but im trying to be reasonable.....)
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the damage cap on tanks IS currently 400% (depending on how you calculate it, of course).
In any event, don't count on any caps being raised. If you were to ask me, I'd actually suggest lowering the magnitude of certain caps.
Is this to make changes to a superhero MMO or is this about changes to an unnamed superhero simulator?
Butane seems to want a simulator instead of a reason to create desire for team gameplay.
My new Youtube Channel with CoH info
You might know me as FlintEastwood now on Freedom
[ QUOTE ]
Thing is, scrappers aren't "as survivable" as tanks. Can they be made to survive situations that tanks could? Absolutely, but they won't have the same survivability as a tank just as tanks putting out the amount of damage needed to defeat the same enemy as a scrapper doesn't make them as damaging as scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Survivability is a binary thing. You survive, or you don't. Once you're above the threshold level of survival, and have some buffer room, more survivability isn't really helpful.
Damage for the most part isn't binary. In most cases, it's a question of time. Time to defeat an enemy. How much time to clear a spawn. Unless your're dealing with something with high regen, then it's binary to a point. Either you either have enough damage to over come it's regeneration, or you don't. Once you cross that point, more damage just gets better and better. Until you get to a point where every one of your attacks can 1 shot anything in the game. Bosses, AV, the Hamidon. But no one can ever get near that point. So in other words, more damage is always better than less.
Scrapper survivability threshold is high enough to solo most of the content in the game. And for the most part, anything they survive they defeat it faster than a comparable Tanker would. That margin of stuff in the entire game a Scrapper can't survive but a Tanker can and can defeat it is pretty narrow and fuzzy. Much more narrow than the Tanker/Scrapper damage gap.
On teams, Scrappers are even more suvivable because they're likely to be supported by teammates.
Given this, and the fact it's much easier in the game to build for better survivability than to build for more damage, is it any wonder why a medium damage AT with high survivability could be considered at a disadvantage to a high damage AT with medium survivability? It's very easy to start to close that survivability margin. Not so easy to do the same for the damage gap.
.
Well, I'd like to make a suggestion based on the whole making taunt an auto power. I think that is a bad idea, there are two kinds of tanks people play. The kind that are the meat shields, there to take every hit they can for the team (and when I play this, taunt is used as fast as it recharges, needed or not), and the tankers that are played like scrappers, usually there to attack, maybe even skipping some of the defenses.
Requiring players to get a power is no good, and some people arent going to want an entire mob to turn on them just for a little more damage.
Instead, make a single target power tankers get at level one that is a taunt, has the bonuses suggested in this thread, and has like a 3 minute recharge on it. Like said before, as long as the player keeps attacking the target the flag doesnt drop, but that restricts the tanker from using this all the time as well, make it a little more special, like Domination.
So it would be something like:
-All tankers get this power at level 1
-Only effects one target
-Taunts that target (not replacing existing taunt, but adding a second)
-3 minute base recharge
-No damage, but auto hit (no accuracy check)
-+25% damage to enemy so long as the flag is up
-If flag is placed on another enemy, first is automatically cleared
-Flag lasts 10 seconds, but timer is reset every time player attacks.
Right now the existing taunt powers are all a very broad "I'll take you all on" kind of animation, I could see this one being the tanker pointing to the target as if calling that one out.
My biggest fear is that the devs would think this would unbalance PVP, but there are a few ways it could be done. Adding an accuracy check, reducing it from a 25% damage bonus to say, 10%, ect. There is also to take into consideration that brutes can have up to a 200% damage bonus from Fury, stalkers do twice or four times normal damage (depending on starting attack) when hidden, Corrupters do more damage to weaker targets, and Mastermind pets do more damage when close to Mastermind so even as it is in PVE it might not be totally unbalanced.
In all honesty, for a while I felt that Tanks got completely ripped off with Guantlet, but now that I play a tank, I can see heads turn when I do aoe attacks, I see the usefulness. The problem is that every attack power already has a taunt feature in it, not only on tanks, but brutes as well, so when brutes get the same auto power as tanks PLUS fury...that is when the balance is broken.
I dunno, just my take on it all.
@Incarnadine - 50s on Victory:
Electric-Boogaloo (Electric/Psy Dominator) | Floating Flame (Fire/Psy Blaster) | Guldo Golem (Stone/Mace Tanker) | Hornak (Elec/Elec Brute) | Insatiable Greed (Demon/Dark Mastermind) | Solar Explorer (Plant/Thermal Controller) | TimeTraveler (Kin/Ice Defender) | Verranil (Emp/Archery Defender)
[ QUOTE ]
In all honesty, for a while I felt that Tanks got completely ripped off with Guantlet, but now that I play a tank, I can see heads turn when I do aoe attacks, I see the usefulness. The problem is that every attack power already has a taunt feature in it, not only on tanks, but brutes as well, so when brutes get the same auto power as tanks PLUS fury...that is when the balance is broken.
[/ QUOTE ]
Few if any will dispute Gauntlet's usefullness on teams.
The fact is, it does nothing anywhere else. In PvP it's pointless and solo it does nothing.
It's not an exciting or flashy power, either visually or gameplay-wise.
Regarding Brutes, Fury and their ST taunts, Tankers did get ripped off.
Fury was designed with Tankers in mind. It was intended to solve the very problem we're still complaining about today in threads like this. I don't think Fury was the optimal solution, or even that it's something Tankers should have now. But the fact remains, Brutes got it and they got a watered down version of the inherent they did give Tankers. I call that a rip off.
It's been perfectly acceptable for Brutes to have both and have the same survivability caps as Tankers and higher damage caps since day one.
Who is it going to make happier if the devs take anything away from Brutes? Not Brutes. Not me. Not most Tankers I've talked with.
.
Gauntlet (along with Vigilance) has got me to think a lot
Over all, I feel (imho) this would benefit Tankers the most:
---keep the current taunt stuff in there
---60-80% reduction to end cost for all Tanker primary powers.
------tanks are made to survive and should be the best at doing it, to make it seem effortless even. (I hate how I need to micro manage what toggles I have on
tanks should be able to just run them all while brutes and such need to still micro manage their secondary)
---add a bar that adds buffs to tanks based upon what they have aggrod:
0 aggrod = 49.99% damage buff
1 aggrod = 33.33% damage buff
2 aggrod = 16.66% damage buff
3 agrrod = n/a
4 aggrod = 3.33% buff to primary powers (kinda like power boost)
5 aggrod = 6.66% buff to pp
6 aggrod = 9.99% buff to pp
7 aggrod = 13.33%
8 aggrod = 16.65%
9 aggrod = 19.98%
This means that a Tank would have a 50% damage buff (a big red) for one attack before it lowers to 33% (a medium) against the single target, or less if there are more targets.
This allows multiple tanks to play on a team very effectively
one tank tanks (holds aggro and buffs his defenses) while the others can attack (probably not with their taunt auras on) with their damage buffed.
This also feeds into what a tanks needs at that time
tanks defenses are overkill against mobs of 3 or less, it rarely comes into play then
this is when tanks need damage.
Also, it can give a tank essentially, an SOs worth of buff power when they have a large number of foes aggrod
this is when they need survivability.
tl;dr version: lower primary endurance cost and buff damage and primary powers based on how many foes are aggrod
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that every attack power already has a taunt feature in it, not only on tanks, but brutes as well, so when brutes get the same auto power as tanks PLUS fury...that is when the balance is broken.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood the taunts on the Brute powers compared to Tanker powers, but I thought that Fury was the auto power for Brute, and their attacks only taunted the enemies affected by the power where the Tanker's attacks have a more AoE effect with the Taunting.
At least thats what the wiki says: http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Brute
THATs the difference between Brutes and Tankers. As someone mentioned before, Tankers, to a degree, could be considered 'melee controllers' in that they have a better ability to control aggro from the mobs. Scrappers can be better damage dealers. Tankers can take hits better and stir up the aggro more effectively. Brutes are in the middle of the two. Brutes can do very good damage, but not as consistently high as Scrappers without a constant group of mobs to attack. In large groups and teams, it can even out but not always. While they can take a hit like Tankers can, their ability to manage aggro isn't where Tankers' is.
All 3 ATs can amplify their ability to do those by taking and/or slotting different powers and pools to put them in line with the other, but they could end up sacrificing some of their other strengths. That is another important part of the game: You can't have it all. You can be great at some things, not great at others, or you can be OK at everything. Deciding that is part of the game.
Edit - And as far as the argument that maybe aggro management isn't as important as resistance and damage and they are still unbalanced, maybe instead of buffing Tankers, Brutes should get a slight resistance cap reduction, like from 90% to 85%. That would still make them more survivable than scrappers resistance wise, but not as well as tankers. Their damage wouldn't always be as high as scrappers, but it would sometimes, but they have better resistance. It would still let tankers be the AT with the most resistance, thus not taking the place of them once the ATs can cross over.
[ QUOTE ]
Noted.
I still don't believe anything like this is necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would be nice if you looked at Viligance. I know the Defender community is a much quieter, easy to please bunch but if any inherent needs an ounce of dev time is Viligance. It is appallingly bad.
Sorry.
Mainly what I was referencing there was the fact that tanks and brutes can both slot Taunt enhancements and sets into most if not all attack powers, as they all have a taunt effect. The fact that every attack that these two ATs have has a taunt effect eliminates the need for Guantlet to an extent, making the slight AoE effect the only advantage.
I honestly dont know how much this helps, I would have to play a tanker with it, and then without it, and it's unlikely I will have that ability given to me for testing purposes.
@Incarnadine - 50s on Victory:
Electric-Boogaloo (Electric/Psy Dominator) | Floating Flame (Fire/Psy Blaster) | Guldo Golem (Stone/Mace Tanker) | Hornak (Elec/Elec Brute) | Insatiable Greed (Demon/Dark Mastermind) | Solar Explorer (Plant/Thermal Controller) | TimeTraveler (Kin/Ice Defender) | Verranil (Emp/Archery Defender)
[ QUOTE ]
Mainly what I was referencing there was the fact that tanks and brutes can both slot Taunt enhancements and sets into most if not all attack powers, as they all have a taunt effect. The fact that every attack that these two ATs have has a taunt effect eliminates the need for Guantlet to an extent, making the slight AoE effect the only advantage.
I honestly dont know how much this helps, I would have to play a tanker with it, and then without it, and it's unlikely I will have that ability given to me for testing purposes.
[/ QUOTE ]
The taunt effect IS the guantlet power showing its face. You take out Gauntlet and the 'pokevoke' with the fury inherent there would be no taunt effect on the powers. They aren't separate. The thing different is the taunt effect from Gauntlet and Fury is (I think) the only inherent that you can actually apply slots to directly. Thats what you're slotting in the attacks. The inherent taunt effect. Slots in the brute powers only increase the taunt for the enemies hit. Slots in the tanker powers increase the taunt effect on enemies in the AoE.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thing is, scrappers aren't "as survivable" as tanks. Can they be made to survive situations that tanks could? Absolutely, but they won't have the same survivability as a tank just as tanks putting out the amount of damage needed to defeat the same enemy as a scrapper doesn't make them as damaging as scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Damage is a binary thing. You kill the enemy, or you don't. Once you're above the threshold level of an enemy's HP, and have some buffer room, more damage isn't really helpful.
Survivability for the most part isn't binary. In most cases, it's a question of time. Time to survive against an enemy while you defeat it. How much damage to taker per alpha to clear a spawn. Unless you're dealing with something with high burst damage, then it's binary to a point. Either you either have enough mitigation to over come it's damage, or you don't. Once you cross that point, more mitigation just gets better and better. Until you get to a point where your defenses can infinitely withstand anything in the game. Bosses, AV, the Hamidon. But no one can ever get near that point. So in other words, more survivability is always better than less.
Tanker damage output is high enough to solo most of the content in the game. And for the most part, they can survive anything easier than a scrapper could while maintaining the ability to defeat it. That margin of stuff in the entire game a Tanker can't defeat but a Scrapper can survive and defeat it is pretty narrow and fuzzy. About the same as the Tanker/Scrapper damage gap.
On teams, Tankers defeat enemies faster because they're likely to be supported by teammates.
Given this, and the fact it's much easier in the game to build for sufficient damage than to build for peak survivability, is it any wonder why a medium damage AT with high survivability could be considered in higher demand compared to a high damage AT with medium survivability? It's very easy to start to close that damage margin. Not so easy to do the same for the mitigation gap.
[/ QUOTE ]
See, I can do it too.
"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
Starsman, have you considered proposing a more limited version of this idea? Something like this:
All Tanker single target melee attacks would apply a stackable -10% resistance for 10 seconds and do +20% damage vs EBs, AVs, Monsters and Giant Monsters only.
This accomplishes several things:
1) Doesn't really increase soloing speed, except against those certain hard targets. This is good because Castle appears to be dead set against allowing Tankers to have any increase in soloing speed.
2) Helps Tankers with teaming. Some people have mentioned how "unnecessary" Tankers are nowdays. This can help them be more attractive to teams, especially when said team might be encountering an AV. Also makes it a little less "mandatory" to have a Rad or a Shivan on the team.
3) Helps multiple Tankers to "stack" better than they do currently.
4) Conceptually accurate. The Tanker only unleashes on those hard targets that can take it.
5) Since it's not a click power it's not "gameable." (One of Castle's favorite words.)
[ QUOTE ]
Starsman, have you considered proposing a more limited version of this idea? Something like this:
All Tanker single target melee attacks would apply a stackable -10% resistance for 10 seconds and do +20% damage vs EBs, AVs, Monsters and Giant Monsters only.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not against the idea of Stars' idea being a blended damage bonus and -res debuff. That would sweeten it slightly for me.
But speaking realistically, 10s of stackable -10 res isn't as fair for sets with slower activation times and could easily be overpowered on sets with shorter times.
SS with enough +recharge for a seamless chain of its first three attacks could be rocking a sustained -80% res debuff if my math is right.
A -80% debuff per Tanker is too much in my opinion. Maxing out at something lower like 20% is too little in my opinion.
A stacking -5% 10s debuff would be about right. You'd want to err on the side of keeping the duration at 10s to help Tankers who don't have their chains filled out yet.
The numbers need work, but I like the idea myself. I'm betting Starsman doesn't, as he said before when -res debuffs were suggested.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How bout increase the damage cap on tanks to 400%? (or 500-750% but im trying to be reasonable.....)
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the damage cap on tanks IS currently 400% (depending on how you calculate it, of course).
In any event, don't count on any caps being raised. If you were to ask me, I'd actually suggest lowering the magnitude of certain caps.
[/ QUOTE ]
Im refering to the number you see that blues out when you pop a bunch of reds or some other huge damage buff.
[ 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.
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 ]
this takes away from what stars is saying... it's up to the tank to decide who to throw the gauntlet down not the "system"
[ 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.
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 ]
this takes away from what stars is saying... it's up to the tank to decide who to throw the gauntlet down not the "system"
[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't.
The Tanker still decides who he opens up on, but how much he opens up on them could be con based, as befits the concept.
No self respecting Tanker would fully cut loose on a minion. Ben Grimm doesn't put all his might into punching a simple bank robber just to see them explode into a find red mist.
.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
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 ]
this takes away from what stars is saying... it's up to the tank to decide who to throw the gauntlet down not the "system"
[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't.
The Tanker still decides who he opens up on, but how much he opens up on them could be con based, as befits the concept.
No self respecting Tanker would fully cut loose on a minion. Ben Grimm doesn't put all his might into punching a simple bank robber just to see them explode into a find red mist.
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on your definition of a tanker.
I would say the HULK doesn't give a rat's [censored] about who or what he's hitting when he gets pissed. And before you say he's a brute, no. No tanker in this UNIVERSE/GAME can take the amount of epic damage (read there IS NOT LIMIT to what he can take--I don't know of any brutes like that.) that the HULK can.
Ofcourse then we get into the absolute silliness of trying to use marvel or dc characters (or hell any [censored] universe other than coh) to define GAME BALANCE or talk about what tankers CAN DO IN THIS UNIVERSE/GAME.
Ofcourse this will go in one ear and out the other.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ 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. 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 ]
Agreed... where do I sign?
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?
.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bwuh?!?
AoE damage (melee or not) is a niche no one else wants?!?
What game are you playing?!?