[ QUOTE ]
How does this help make tankers more effective when they are running solo?***
How does it address their endurance woes?***
How does it make them stand out from brutes and scrappers?***
[/ QUOTE ]
*cough*
[ QUOTE ]
---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 onÂ…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%
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But only against bosses and above....
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends which proposal you're talking about.
Stars' original one at the begining of this thread doesn't care about con. It was a moderate bonus to any enemy affected. So in that case, no.
Others suggested making the bonus con based. I suggested that if it was con based, you could give a greater bonus against the higher cons and less against the lower ones. Mins the LTs would get a minor bonus, Bosses and up increasing bonuses. That way you could have higher bonuses against the foes that need it the most and it would continue with the theme that Tankers only unleash on the guys who can take it.
Reading onward, Great_Briton seems to be thinking the same thing.
Castle's seen the proposal. His reply indicates dev action is unlikely. I don't know if Starsman contacted Positron, but that might be something to do in the future if he has another idea. The nature of the recent Domm changes were a result of Posi and Castle talking. But then again, Posi has often said he's got a soft spot for Domms.
.
After reading most of this thread I've come to the conclusion that Gauntlet as it is now should stay as it is. Not all comic book tanks are super INV/SS Tankers. (as his two examples is) but should be set as a power in either a secondary set or better an APP set. I personaly don't see tankers, especially in this game, as people that are "holding back"
But in either case this power should have a really long recharge, buffs the player slightly, debuffs a single target moderatly, and is either a long durration click or a high end cost toggle. basicly that is something that when used is thought twice about before being clicked. Making this power function thematicly for super strength charicters where they can say. "With you I don't have to hold back, cause you, you can take it."
Really I'd love to see Tanks get more APP sets to choose from. especially a set that will mesh well with their new coming power sets, Electric =P. oh, and scrappers too
V-Tronix - Angry Angels
V-Tron Elec/EM - V-Tron X EM/EA
To Build a Better Hero #53098 [Newly edited and looking for Feedback] - Renegade Robots: V-Tron's Task Force # - A Summer Song and A Winters Tail #104106
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oddly, as someone who plays a lot of defenders (more so than any other hero AT), I like Vigilance. But I also team almost all the time and tend to play with all-out-balls-to-the-walls teams where I'm using powers non-stop. The fact that I never have to worry about endurance, w/o slotting things like Numinas and Miracles, makes me very, very happy.
[ QUOTE ]
Castle's seen the proposal. His reply indicates dev action is unlikely. I don't know if Starsman contacted Positron, but that might be something to do in the future if he has another idea. The nature of the recent Domm changes were a result of Posi and Castle talking. But then again, Posi has often said he's got a soft spot for Domms.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues. There are two mayor issues and you may not agree with them at all but they are the true issues I can justify from a very analytical and objective point of view:
1) Teams. In teams a second tanker just brings 64% the damage a scrapper or blaster would (stalkers and brutes and now Dominators can be considered to be in the same ballpark,) while bringing none of the utility a defender or controller would(corruptors and masterminds also can bring the utilities and worse: Masterminds are designed to tank.)
2) Solo the tanker is the most endurance inefficient AT in the game. Defenders may in theory be close but other than force fields, all have a form of damage increase or resistance debuff that can increase their output enough. The order they get these tools may not be the most optimal, though, but they all get them.
A damage boost of sort would help team slightly by making the tanker team damage contribution a bit more acceptable even if not the reason for the invite while solo it would adjust endurance efficiency.
I am not sure if Castle agrees with these issues, I been wanting to get his feedback on this but either he never been open to comment in PMs or my inbox been too full for him to do so 
. either way, got to admit, I would respect a PM enough to keep silent about his opinion in the open, would not make me agree with a dismissal, though.
Now, lets just pretend Castle agrees with these issues: he is definitively (based on his response here) not sold on a damage boost, and if we can't sell it to Castle, we may be even less likely to sell it to Positron mainly because these guys got to agree in meetings about what they going to do. Posi has the final "nay", but the "yay"s tend to require agreement.
Now, this does not mean I think this thread is suddenly fail, but alternative ways of thought may be needed.
For the time being, I'm pushing back to the drawing board and try to craft a more specific proposal for the issues (separate proposals for the team and solo issues.)
This is not me giving up, this is me changing approach, as my goal is not getting tankers more damage but to improve tanker stack-ability in teams and make solo play a bit more fair.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Castle's seen the proposal. His reply indicates dev action is unlikely. I don't know if Starsman contacted Positron, but that might be something to do in the future if he has another idea. The nature of the recent Domm changes were a result of Posi and Castle talking. But then again, Posi has often said he's got a soft spot for Domms.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues. There are two mayor issues and you may not agree with them at all but they are the true issues I can justify from a very analytical and objective point of view:
1) Teams. In teams a second tanker just brings 64% the damage a scrapper or blaster would (stalkers and brutes and now Dominators can be considered to be in the same ballpark,) while bringing none of the utility a defender or controller would(corruptors and masterminds also can bring the utilities and worse: Masterminds are designed to tank.)
[/ QUOTE ]
About the damage .... so?
About the utility ... I don't necessarily agree since there's too broad a scope in your statement here. Adding another Ice/FF Troller to a team that has one would not make the team more efficient then adding another Fire/Fire Tanker. Assuming by efficient, you mean speed and/or survivability.
[ QUOTE ]
2) Solo the tanker is the most endurance inefficient AT in the game. Defenders may in theory be close but other than force fields, all have a form of damage increase or resistance debuff that can increase their output enough. The order they get these tools may not be the most optimal, though, but they all get them.
A damage boost of sort would help team slightly by making the tanker team damage contribution a bit more acceptable even if not the reason for the invite while solo it would adjust endurance efficiency.
[/ QUOTE ]
Or we could just adjust the endurance for Tanker version of powers across the board (or do the fast fix of adding a 20% endurance saving to Gauntlet or something similar).
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if Castle agrees with these issues, I been wanting to get his feedback on this but either he never been open to comment in PMs or my inbox been too full for him to do so . either way, got to admit, I would respect a PM enough to keep silent about his opinion in the open, would not make me agree with a dismissal, though.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the past, I've found Castle to be fairly responsive and not evasive (that whole secrecy thing). He's also been self correcting when he's been in error. Unfortunately the devs can't answer every question a player might bring up to them directly. In this instance he did answer yours and did so in a way as to not mire himself down in debate about it.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, lets just pretend Castle agrees with these issues: he is definitively (based on his response here) not sold on a damage boost, and if we can't sell it to Castle, we may be even less likely to sell it to Positron mainly because these guys got to agree in meetings about what they going to do. Posi has the final "nay", but the "yay"s tend to require agreement.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mom said no, so we're going to ask Dad now? The thing I surmise from Castle's response is that he doesn't think Gauntlet needs a damage boost, and from the shortness of his post, I don't think he regards Gauntlet as having any outstanding issues that need to draw upon resources right now.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, this does not mean I think this thread is suddenly fail, but alternative ways of thought may be needed.
[/ QUOTE ]
No "may" about it. But I agree that I don't think this means "fail".
[ QUOTE ]
For the time being, I'm pushing back to the drawing board and try to craft a more specific proposal for the issues (separate proposals for the team and solo issues.)
This is not me giving up, this is me changing approach, as my goal is not getting tankers more damage but to improve tanker stack-ability in teams and make solo play a bit more fair.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm your goal was *definitely* trying to improve Tanker damage ... since adding damage was the sole point to your thread.
My feeling is that anything that mentions damage (or adversely effects what little damage balance there is) and Tankers is going to be fairly ignored (if politely).
Endurance issues, while effecting damage output over longer periods of time I think might be more open to discussion and this is the area I would approach (especially within the first 20 levels).
I'm sort of on the fence with Tanker stackability within teams. While there is definitely diminishing returns on average with adding each additional Tanker to a team, the only thing it really impacts is the speed of the team (specific situations not withstanding) and I'm not sure that the devs really care if an optimal team does a map in 1:30 and an all Tanker team does a map in 2:30.
Soloing: There isn't a single Tanker combo that can't solo. So I assume your issue is the speed with which they solo. In that case, they're in the same boat as Defenders and Controllers (two other non-damage priority ATs) at the early stages of levelling (L1-30) and at the later stages this becomes more dependant upon how the player has built their toon and what set combos they've chosen (for Tankers, Controllers and Defenders).
In other words it's either a non-issue or an issue that impacts half of the ATs blue side. My recommendation would be not to go the solo route in your discussions (and the endurance route would apply to solo play so not even worth mentioning it).
P.S. - I wouldn't be opposed to your original idea here, but it would have to be in the context of a change of vision for both Tankers and Scrappers. My thinking is the opposite of others in that I think Tanker's should have the best single target melee damage and their AOEs should be mitigation based with low or no damage (i.e. Fault, Handclap, etc ...) and Scrappers should have more damaging AOEs and less then Tanker base damage versus single targets with regards to base damage (criticals still apply though) and no AOE mitigation at all.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, this does not mean I think this thread is suddenly fail, but alternative ways of thought may be needed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't call it a fail thread. The battle is lost but the war continues.
Every thread like this that pops up just fuels the fire and every time people like you and Briton agree on the concept of comic Tankers being the heavy hitters who take on the big bads, it just adds strength to the argument of what Tankers are supposed to be and that them not being that is failure on the designers' part.
[ QUOTE ]
This is not me giving up, this is me changing approach, as my goal is not getting tankers more damage but to improve tanker stack-ability in teams and make solo play a bit more fair.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good. Don't give up. My motivations are not exactly the same as yours, but I'm confident both of our ultimate goals can be reached with the right balanced mechanic for Tankers.
.
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. - I wouldn't be opposed to your original idea here, but it would have to be in the context of a change of vision for both Tankers and Scrappers. My thinking is the opposite of others in that I think Tanker's should have the best single target melee damage and their AOEs should be mitigation based with low or no damage (i.e. Fault, Handclap, etc ...) and Scrappers should have more damaging AOEs and less then Tanker base damage versus single targets with regards to base damage (criticals still apply though) and no AOE mitigation at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
That would be my ideal Scrapper/Tanker dynamic, and what I was trying to convey to Statesman in that PM all those years ago.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, this does not mean I think this thread is suddenly fail, but alternative ways of thought may be needed.
For the time being, I'm pushing back to the drawing board and try to craft a more specific proposal for the issues (separate proposals for the team and solo issues.)
This is not me giving up, this is me changing approach, as my goal is not getting tankers more damage but to improve tanker stack-ability in teams and make solo play a bit more fair.
[/ QUOTE ]
And IMO this is what separates you from J_B and why I was trying to respond in kind. I somewhat agree with your issue list (moreso about stacking than end... pre-20 end is an issue on almost all AT's in my experience, so I'm not sure I agree with that one as much) but didn't agree with your solution to it.
Bravo, on continuing to work towards a more widely acceptable solution and not just getting into a sulk and continuing to spam the forums about it (like J_B does). I look forward to seeing your updates and new ideas. 
In an ideal world, Id make the tanker a heavy hitter on purely single target mode.
His AoE would be mute.
The Blaster would be focus towards AoE, huge ground coverage AoE attacks that get rid of huge groups fast.
The scrapper would be an in-between. Some one that would focus on cone AoE or very small radius, technically making him kill groups faster than the tank but slower than the blaster, unlike the blaster, he can actually stand in between those foes without need of some one to keep their attention (most of the time.)
[ QUOTE ]
1) Teams. In teams a second tanker just brings 64% the damage a scrapper or blaster would (stalkers and brutes and now Dominators can be considered to be in the same ballpark,) while bringing none of the utility a defender or controller would(corruptors and masterminds also can bring the utilities and worse: Masterminds are designed to tank.)
[/ QUOTE ]
In that respect, any solution that requires one of the tankers to assime the role of a damage dealer is a non-solution, as far as I'm concerned. I generally play tankers in order to (primarily) tank. A "solution" that requires me deal damage as a tank is no more a solution than one that required me to heal in order to contribute.
Secondly, as I've pointed out before, the lack of stackability is simply a matter of content being insufficiently difficult. When you DO sufficiently hard content (such as certain MA missions), then a second tanker does become very useful. When the problem is that tankers do not contribute on a metric that almost completely neglects survivability, the actual problem is that there is a reason that such a metric is commonly used, and that is what would have to be fixed.
[ QUOTE ]
2) Solo the tanker is the most endurance inefficient AT in the game. Defenders may in theory be close but other than force fields, all have a form of damage increase or resistance debuff that can increase their output enough. The order they get these tools may not be the most optimal, though, but they all get them.
[/ QUOTE ]
I will wait for what the adjustable teamsize difficulty slider in I16 does to tanker soloing myself. Endurance efficiency is greatly affected by area effects (an AE hitting more mobs means better DPE), and tankers both have solid AE capability and the means to survive using them solo effectively.
[ QUOTE ]
And IMO this is what separates you from J_B and why I was trying to respond in kind. I somewhat agree with your issue list (moreso about stacking than end... pre-20 end is an issue on almost all AT's in my experience, so I'm not sure I agree with that one as much) but didn't agree with your solution to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Endurance consumption of tankers deserves an extremely in depth analysis, I done such in the past, I was actually going to pursue a proposal I had around it when I got sold on the damage idea after reading Great_Briton's post. I never been one to propose damage boosts for tankers outside of a stance system (that I don't think will happen.)
The basic raw of it: Tankers are basically expected to fight longer than scrappers, killing slower because they can fight longer.
That sounds all nice in paper: tankers kill slower but can fight longer.
Issue is, they CANT fight longer since fighting longer means they burn more endurance directly (via attacks) and indirectly (via toggles) not to mention they are exposed to debuffs and end drains (if they exist in the encounters) for much longer.
A tanker can't even hope to defeat the same size of encounter as a scrapper before running out of endurance, yes, there will be a subset of these encounters the tanker will be able to finish, but the ones that push the scrapper endurance bar to it's limit (without tickling its survivability) will not be completable by the tanker without aid (insps or other end sources.)
Note that the desire to defeat the same encounter as the scraper is not even asking to defeat this encounter at the same speed, just to be able to leverage our ability to survive the encounter for longer by defeating it slower, but do so without running out of endurance.
I have various raw ideas for this, from higher base endurance to endurance discounts to making the tanker primary "inherent" (end free defensive toggles or extremely low end cost defensive toggles) I will experiment with these in some simulacrum environments I been working on as soon as I have them ready.
My only Tanker is WP, so I guess I don't see it, except when fighting Carnies and other things that directly drain endurance (especially Carnies, who take pretty big chunks when their death blow hits). Is endurance really that big an issue for other primaries?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Teams. [...]
[/ QUOTE ]
In that respect, any solution that requires one of the tankers to assime the role of a damage dealer is a non-solution, as far as I'm concerned. I generally play tankers in order to (primarily) tank. A "solution" that requires me deal damage as a tank is no more a solution than one that required me to heal in order to contribute.
[/ QUOTE ]
My favorite idea for this is the Reverse-Bodyguard mechanic where the tanker would absorb team damage, this would make multiple tanker work in interesting ways as each would theoretically make the primary tanker harder to kill while making the rest of the team less likely to die due to splash damage.
Secondary favorite is some form of inherent leadership, its even taken by most teams that the tanker should lead into the field, and in comics the mere precense of these mytho inspired heroes tends to inspire the rest of the team to do stuff they would not do otherwise, so an inherent leadership that boost team survivability and damage more the more tankers are in the team makes sense in both ways, as long as it does not become stronger than controller level buffs. Intimidation auras could also work.
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, as I've pointed out before, the lack of stackability is simply a matter of content being insufficiently difficult. When you DO sufficiently hard content (such as certain MA missions), then a second tanker does become very useful. When the problem is that tankers do not contribute on a metric that almost completely neglects survivability, the actual problem is that there is a reason that such a metric is commonly used, and that is what would have to be fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even in the MA, I found the most draconian of missions just make more defenders/controllers desirable to keep the first tank alive. Other than having the main tank fail at it's job (due to self issues or lack of support) and die, the secondary tank does not help much. Content that encourages second tankers could be made by forcing splits, but making the third tanker useful at all is harder as it requires specific content. In the end, we cant expect the dev to tweak content for specific ATs outside of special TFs. The same was said a lot about stalkers and they ended up changing stalkers instead of content precisely due to the same hurdles: changing content is not a viable option.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Solo ...
[/ QUOTE ]
I will wait for what the adjustable teamsize difficulty slider in I16 does to tanker soloing myself. Endurance efficiency is greatly affected by area effects (an AE hitting more mobs means better DPE), and tankers both have solid AE capability and the means to survive using them solo effectively.
[/ QUOTE ]
I tested some stuff like this on the early MA, when a lot of stuff allowed for insane spawns. I had similar theory but in the end, my tankers had not the endurance to keep going compared to my scrapper, yet the scrapper had enough survivability to do more than my tanker before he faceplanted. My tanker also faceplanted attempting to tie but due to running out of endurance and, consequently, detoggling.
I look forward to test this in average missions but I think the sliders will actually encourage tanker team desirability less. The chain of thought I expect from optimized teams will be:
We already running a 8 team size group, but have 7 members, whats available to fill the spot?
Tanker? We already have one/two, an additional one wont help us kill any faster nor be more survivable so we better off with just 7 until a buffer/debuffer or a true damage dealer shows up.
[ QUOTE ]
My only Tanker is WP, so I guess I don't see it, except when fighting Carnies and other things that directly drain endurance (especially Carnies, who take pretty big chunks when their death blow hits). Is endurance really that big an issue for other primaries?
[/ QUOTE ]
Roll one up and level via paper missions. Especially solo ... you'll see what we mean *really* quickly.
[ QUOTE ]
My only Tanker is WP, so I guess I don't see it, except when fighting Carnies and other things that directly drain endurance (especially Carnies, who take pretty big chunks when their death blow hits). Is endurance really that big an issue for other primaries?
[/ QUOTE ]
A WP with both, Quick Recovery and Stamina can fare very well. Secondary can also make a huge difference (fire is extremely endurance efficient)
A WP with just QR may actually feel the issues normal tankers face, it also depends how far you try to go. If you hold back, you technically can keep going longer but you also kill extremely sloooooowweeeer comparatively to scrappers and blasters, much more slower than intended (less than half the speed.)
Edit: You can also try it yourself by using a free respec at test and removing Quick Recovery from your build.
For the record, she's WP/SS, and I'm currently working on getting her over 4end/sec recovery. I'm a little spoiled.
[ QUOTE ]
Noted.
I still don't believe anything like this is necessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, some of us back in beta and the early issues worked hard to get tankers to where they are now by giving really good ideas.
What this idea would be suited for is perhaps an Arena only accolade.
Finally, when I saw the title of the thread I was hoping to read items like: "Red Wizard needs food badly" or "Yellow elf shot the potion!"
ArchRex Dojhrom x ?
* Sidus Loricatus: B-NRG2, S-BS/Reg, T-Fire/Ice, MM-Bots/FF, St-NRG2, Dom-Psi/NRG, Cor-Son/Traps, Cor-Ice/Kin, Ctrl-Fire/Kin, PB-LB/LA
* Arachnos Loricatus: Soldier, Widow
* Praetoria Loricatus: B-DP/Dev, Cor-Elec/Elec
[ QUOTE ]
There are three melee ATs you can go toe toe on four if you include stalkers.
All of em smack stuff.
Only tanks can take the brunt of an AVs fury with only SOs and no external teamate support.
Only tanks can reliably mitigate damage for an entire team through an inherent and two power picks(taunt/aggro toggle).
Call me what you will I agree with _Castle_ tanks are fine mechanically as an AT.
How well they hold up conceptually is dependent on the imagination of the player, not the devs.
For those with argumentative ADD. CONCEPT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MECHANICS.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT. I have 5 tankers and they are all good enough and they can solo fast enough and they can hold agro on teams.
Tankers are just fine. Thank you Castle for telling J_B once again.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, she's WP/SS, and I'm currently working on getting her over 4end/sec recovery. I'm a little spoiled.
[/ QUOTE ]
Super Strength is the second most endurance effective tanker set, followed by Energy Melee. Rage's buff pump up your damage and the crash every so often is not hard enough to bring that down to normal endurance levels.
In my last calculator, SS benchmarks 2.6 on endurance efficiency. Fire Melee 2.3 and the normal tanker 3.1. (lower numbers are better.)
The worst scrappers benchmarks at 2.3 with scrapper fire melee benchmarking at 1.8.
That is the sets on isolation, though, no armor toggles accounted for.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only Tanker is WP, so I guess I don't see it, except when fighting Carnies and other things that directly drain endurance (especially Carnies, who take pretty big chunks when their death blow hits). Is endurance really that big an issue for other primaries?
[/ QUOTE ]
Roll one up and level via paper missions. Especially solo ... you'll see what we mean *really* quickly.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a reason why I forced my wife to roll an empath . . .
ArchRex Dojhrom x ?
* Sidus Loricatus: B-NRG2, S-BS/Reg, T-Fire/Ice, MM-Bots/FF, St-NRG2, Dom-Psi/NRG, Cor-Son/Traps, Cor-Ice/Kin, Ctrl-Fire/Kin, PB-LB/LA
* Arachnos Loricatus: Soldier, Widow
* Praetoria Loricatus: B-DP/Dev, Cor-Elec/Elec
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, she's WP/SS, and I'm currently working on getting her over 4end/sec recovery. I'm a little spoiled.
[/ QUOTE ]
Super Strength is the second most endurance effective tanker set, followed by Energy Melee. Rage's buff pump up your damage and the crash every so often is not hard enough to bring that down to normal endurance levels.
In my last calculator, SS benchmarks 2.6 on endurance efficiency. Fire Melee 2.3 and the normal tanker 3.1. (lower numbers are better.)
The worst scrappers benchmarks at 2.3 with scrapper fire melee benchmarking at 1.8.
That is the sets on isolation, though, no armor toggles accounted for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Small correction ... SM is more end intensive then EM. EM is actually one of the better endurance efficient sets (mostly because of the long animation times of a few powers).
[ QUOTE ]
Even in the MA, I found the most draconian of missions just make more defenders/controllers desirable to keep the first tank alive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you could stack more defenders and controllers; alternatively, you could split aggro between two tankers and make each defender and controller up to twice as effective with regards to mitigation. That you can employ the first solution does not make the second unworkable or less effective.
[ QUOTE ]
In the end, we cant expect the dev to tweak content for specific ATs outside of special TFs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not talking about making specific ATs more useful; I am talking about content that requires more than the absolute minimum of defense, because when you have a game where only offense matters, than you're discarding an entire dimension of the game. That includes a whole bunch of defender and controller types, too. That has nothing to do with tankers specifically, but with making the game more than just mashing attack chains. It's like playing soccer with the net in front of your own goal rather than behind it.
[ QUOTE ]
I tested some stuff like this on the early MA, when a lot of stuff allowed for insane spawns. I had similar theory but in the end, my tankers had not the endurance to keep going compared to my scrapper, yet the scrapper had enough survivability to do more than my tanker before he faceplanted. My tanker also faceplanted attempting to tie but due to running out of endurance and, consequently, detoggling.
[/ QUOTE ]
I had been doing this for a long time using herding tactics solo; I didn't run out of endurance, though. The key here is to prioritize your area effects and damage auras over your single target attacks because of their much superior DPE when they hit, say, 5 or more targets at once (damage auras are even better).
If I want to, I can pretty much always run out of endurance. Heck, I can run out of endurance on a /Regen scrapper with Quick Recovery and Stamina and only one toggle if I want to. Unless you've done some heavy +recovery IO slotting, and aside from a few powersets (such as Ice Armor), the game generally forces you to cut back on your attacks (either by not taking all of them or not using all of them) if you don't want to run out of endurance eventually. Being able to run out of endurance is normal; the game gives you only about 2.5 EPS with Stamina, and it's not hard to burn more than that. And if that is the case, you need to prioritize those of your attacks that have maximum DPE.
i like how people seem to always skip over me when i post 
[ QUOTE ]
---keep the current taunt stuff in there
---60-80% reduction to end cost for all Tanker primary powers.
---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 aggrod = 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%
[/ QUOTE ]
no one has anything to say about it?
[ QUOTE ]
What astounds me is that every time Johnny rears his head, everyone falls into his trap and destroys the thread for him. When will the world learn that he's probably just another Twixt building up "research" for a paper or something at our expense.
[/ QUOTE ]
I tried to call him on the fact that all he does is derail threads to his view and then uses it as evidence that everyone keeps complaining about it because these threads just keep popping up.
Actually... no... these threads don't keep popping up. No matter what someone offers as a suggestion to change tankers, he decides to move it towards his vision of them and the original idea is lost in the aftermath. That isn't everyone agreeing with him, that is him being a nuisance.
Big shocker, he decides not to address this particular issue.
I genuinely wish the mods would do something about him, since it seems like no one can actually have a discussion about anything to do with tanker changes without him turning it into the exact same troll-fest.