What would you recommend for people who disagree with your postulates?
This isn't what you're looking for, but I think (de)buff stacking is a larger concern than making multiple tankers appealing. Multiple tankers still contribute to a team, the problem is survivability is so easily achieved in multiple ways teams that an archetype that utilizes it's own personal survivability for the good of the team is itself redundant.
In the end, such a change won't (probably) alter the situation where min/max teams have no desire or use for a tanker above most, if not all, other archetypes; this will likely only reduce the the magnitude of the "error" in inviting mutliple tanks rather than make them appealing.
But, also, from my perspective on the issue, adequate changes there would be heavy handed nerfs that would have made ED and GDN uneeded.
One interesting tidbit I saw mentioned in this thread was mechanics in another game where someone like the tanker would do additional damage against opponents not actively fighting the tanker (or thier counterparts), giving opponents a legitimate reason to fight the tank type character beyond the AI-hack of a system we have now with taunt mechanics. I would think that, if such an attempt were made to create such a situation in CoH, it would mean multiple tankers would be more beneficial as an enemy obviously can't be actively fighting two targets at once, so there'd always be a tanker inflicting bonus damage on those not focusing on him.
It wouldn't even have to be damage, necessarily. It could be debuffs, controls, knockdowns, or whatever. So, rather than tankers buffing each other, we'd se bonuses if anyone other than the tanker were a target. A kheldian or scrapper grabbing agro wouldn't be quite so bad. A tanker stopping someone from attacking a blaster would be doing something more interesting than grunting.
Ok. That's a long enough post for a threadjack. Sorry 
I agree with your postulates.
I think Tankers do poor damage-per-endurance, and an across the board end cost reduction wouldnt go astray, let alone a toggle to do so.
I also agree that too many Tankers can become a bit redundant, but so too can too many FF defenders, or too many Controllers, oir a combination thereof. This problem exists across any archetype who trades damage for safety.
I kind of like your stances solution, but feel that its already covered a bit with dual builds. The most obvious use for dual builds for most Tanks would be a solo build (attacks slotted for end redux and dam, defensive powers underslotted) and a team build (less damage, better defences, one attack swapped for Taunt).
Switching builds is do-able often enough to account for variable team composition during one play session, but has the extra hassle of visiting a trainer and setting it up in the first place.
The Tanker toggles idea is ultimately a bit too fiddly and AT specific - a better solution would be a stances system across all AT's, which I somehow doubt will happen, especially now that dual builds are here.
[ QUOTE ]
Short Version
The basic gist is that Tankers would have multiple (mutually exclusive) Tanker Tactics toggles available, each one would provide different benefits while other Tankers are around.
[/ QUOTE ]
So... paladins? Been a while since I played WOW, mind you, but same effect as auras iirc.
I mostly agree with your points; caveats being...
<ul type="square">[*] The endurance woes are not unique to tankers, they're just hit harder than most in the pre-22 world. Post SO levels it gets much easier. Slotting for end it gets much easier. Etc.
[*] Tankers are actually a better pick in the ae world than they were in the radio mission world simply because there's enough hard hitting content (typically in boss farms) that having another someone with high innate defense is a good thing for an extra spawn or low buffer teams. I still view them as a low tier pick, but in PUGs I join I see 2 (or 3!) tankers much more often. Of course, the Dev's probably didn't intend to increase their value through boss farms in AE...[/list]
Also, I want to requote this as it is an excellent point:
[ QUOTE ]
I kind of like your stances solution, but feel that its already covered a bit with dual builds. The most obvious use for dual builds for most Tanks would be a solo build (attacks slotted for end redux and dam, defensive powers underslotted) and a team build (less damage, better defences, one attack swapped for Taunt).
Switching builds is do-able often enough to account for variable team composition during one play session, but has the extra hassle of visiting a trainer and setting it up in the first place.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, this wouldn't address the 'multi-tanker' issue (I don't actually think that's a huge problem - multiple Tankers means a denser 'aggro wall' between the baddies and the squishies), but I have an idea about Tanker Endurance.
Why not simply make Gauntlet check for the number of enemies that are taunted/aggroed to the Tanker and return an Endurance discount based on that number? If the Tanker has 3-4 enemies on him, then he gains additional efficiency, so that he won't poop-out before he takes them all down. Or, better, for the multi-tanker team, it just checks for how many enemies are in the Tanker's area of influence?
Hmm, except that latter idea wouldn't take into account the bastiches with the Rifles...
And there's still the GM/AV issue...
Frankly, I think that in any case of damage modifiers less than 1, the AT should get an Endurance discount in scale with their reduced damage. Tankers and Defenders (for instance) would then have more endurance available for their Primary powers... well, or for more applications of their Secondary powers.
Be Well!
Fireheart
[ QUOTE ]
What would you recommend for people who disagree with your postulates?
[/ QUOTE ]
Talen_Lee: Feel free to, I only ask that you explain why. Criticism can be utilized, /jranger cannot. 
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. That's a long enough post for a threadjack. Sorry
[/ QUOTE ]
Dersk: No apology needed. I agree with you about min/max teams (that's a lot broader in scope than just Tankers, though). It may not make multiple Tanekrs a staple, but it would lessen the grumbling a bit.
The ideas in that thread about Tankers being dangerous to entities not targetting them was interesting, I admit. (It was also explored a bit in AoC.) Two things:
1) My understanding could be off, but I don't think there's a way for an attack to check the target's target to make sure it's attacking the Tank (or not).
2) It would requrie rebalancing of some encounters. For example, if Tankers couldn't threaten Hamidon, he'd cut through the rest of the raid very fast. (Honestly, no matter what the Tanker did, he wouldn't be a threat to Hamidon.) Same idea for Lord Recluse in the STF or the Freedom Phalanx in the LRSF.
[ QUOTE ]
The Tanker toggles idea is ultimately a bit too fiddly and AT specific
[/ QUOTE ]
DrMike2000: Yep, it is very fiddly and specific. I probably should have titled the thread "brainstorming" instead of "tackling," oh well.
[ QUOTE ]
So... paladins? Been a while since I played WOW, mind you, but same effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
G_Tanker: Sorry, I wasn't clear. It would be a self only buff for the Tanker. For example, solo or soo tanking: no benefit (sans the end reduction tactic). Two Tankers: Self Buff x1. Three Tankers: self buff x2, etc.
[ QUOTE ]
2) It would requrie rebalancing of some encounters
[/ QUOTE ]
Any content that would be appear to be broken by taunt mechanics being removed or replaced by something that actually makes a small amount of sense is something I'd consider broken already; we simply have beneficial means to ignore the broken parts.
I was thinking something similar but much more simpler: every tanker gets a passive Leadership skill that does not affect self.
This leadership skill would roll up all 3 Leadership powers into one innate power that costs no endurance but suppresses when mezed, with slightly better numbers:
Dmg: 15%
ToHit: 7
Def: 4
So, all these things do next to nothing for the team with one tank, but start adding tanks and things get different:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Tanks Dmg ToHit Def
1 15.0 07 04.00
2 30.0 14 08.00
3 45.0 21 12.00
4 60.0 28 16.00
5 75.0 35 20.00
6 90.0 42 24.00
7 105.0 49 28.00
</pre><hr />
Since the tank does not buff self you technically can never get to 8 tank buffs. Truth is you still would never take a tank over a defender just for these buffs, nor would you take a tank over another damage dealer. You would take another tank because it offers something different to the team.
As for the endurance woes, that's another easy one: tankers are expected to fight longer, well, here is an easy one: all ATs have an endurance consumption modifier. Not sure what the raw base is, but make tankers 75% of the base value. 80% would actually normalize tanker damage end usage with the baseline damage modifier of 1, but 75% would actually allow the tanker go longer than others and that's what tankers are supposed to be all about: durability.
With a lower base endurance usage, the tanker may also find himself able to consider diving into the Leadership Pool to stack on top of it, on team only secondary builds that sacrifice in other departments.
Edit to add:
Although I am not sure i can justify a toggle approach conceptually or mechanically, I can justify a passive one both ways:
<ul type="square">[*]Tanker-like characters in comics tend to be inspiration to most heroes, their presence alone tends to motivate others into doing things they would not be able to otherwise. heck, their existence alone tends to motivate other heroes to exist. [*]Not all teams, but most teams that have a tank expect him to lead them into a fight, and they grow dependant on the tank even if in truth they may not necesarely need him. I admit I done stupid things as a tank, like forgetting to turn on toggles a few times after an endurance crash. This gets me killed. The team, though, always had enough support to keep going, yet, in way too many cases I see them just go crazy, they all seem to think if the tank died, they will follow suite. So the tanker is a natural leader for many, and leadership inherent would fit that perfectly.[/list]
Although both points would support your approach, well, the neither really is something you can turn off or change. Even the best of tankers, even when expected to lead, cant ever expect the team to do as he said. They choose to be inspired by the tanker (or tank like character in the case of comics) the tanker is not the one literally telling them how or when to be inspired.
[ QUOTE ]
G_Tanker: Sorry, I wasn't clear. It would be a self only buff for the Tanker. For example, solo or soo tanking: no benefit (sans the end reduction tactic). Two Tankers: Self Buff x1. Three Tankers: self buff x2, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting notion, and certainly would make all tanker teams a bit more intriguing. Of course, let's look at the +300% cap, the fact 95% comes from SO's, and postulate that with 8 tankers running this (if we go with +dambuff) with perhaps +10% per tanker you get +70% damage per tank all the time. Which is sort of nice, until you run into a kin.
I still like the idea of gauntlet (ie: I pissed this off, now it's focused on me and not defending itself from you) getting a -res component to all the folks it effects. Even as small as -5 or -10% would make a bigger impact on team play, and if it was set so that the same effect didn't stack from the same tanker (ie: I combustion, gauntlet, then fsc, re-gauntlet, but no stack) you'd basically be getting a damage boost to hitting anything that is already taunted on the tanker. Frankly I'd prefer to see a -20% resist debuff and -10% defense debuff for 5 seconds to all targets impacted by gauntlet per tanker (not self-stacking, but multi tankers could stack it, and remember the purple patch comes into play). (( And yes, in my scenario the 8 tanker team would be pretty darn scary, I realize ))
Until they 'fix' fulcrum shift (which, like rage, is likely never to happen) the idea of +dambuff seems shortsighted for an offensive tank-style buff, particularly if the goal is stacking them on a team.
I just don't see any issues with Tanker stacking. I've been on teams with multiple Tankers and it's worked great. I did an ITF with two other Tanks and we'd pull three groups of enemies to one spot for mass destruction.
And it's not just the rest of the team wiping them out- some Tankers have very good AoE damage. That's one reason all-Tank teams are rolling balls of destruction.
[ QUOTE ]
all ATs have an endurance consumption modifier. Not sure what the raw base is, but make tankers 75% of the base value
[/ QUOTE ]
This wouldn't just make tankers last longer, it would put some tankers over a thin line into sustaining their rate of damage, and bring many more close enough to it to not matter. Not that I think that's a bad thing, necessarily, but I think reducing endurance costs and recovery rates, either for particular archetypes or for everyone, at an equal ratio would make lasting longer easier by default without affecting what is or is not sustainable in the long term, effectively making the 100 max end a larger influence in a fight than recovery rate.
As far as provinding leadership-style buffs, I'm just going to reiterate my unpopular opinion that there's already enough buffs in the game, and adding more only makes things worse.
Vox, many suboptimal teams in this game work, but they are still suboptimal and in many dual or triple tanker teams, the main reason to have them is because you just need some one to fill in so you can get more critters to spawn. Only reason you "need" the tanker in those teams is to fill, and most (not all) content in the game is easy enough that you just don't care who you invite.
Come I16 you wont need people to fill those spots as difficulty settings will do. Not sure how many will min/max their teams then and just get members that trully boost their performance and entirely pass on sub-optimal choices once thats out, but it sure is a possibility.
Oh and:
[ QUOTE ]
some Tankers have very good AoE damage
[/ QUOTE ]
Some scrappers can tank.
Some controllers can tank, grav can even herd already held foes.
Those are exceptions and no reason to ignore the true issue.
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see any issues with Tanker stacking. I've been on teams with multiple Tankers and it's worked great. I did an ITF with two other Tanks and we'd pull three groups of enemies to one spot for mass destruction.
And it's not just the rest of the team wiping them out- some Tankers have very good AoE damage. That's one reason all-Tank teams are rolling balls of destruction.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think the issue mentioned here isn't so much how effective tankers are with respect to the content, but how effective tankers are with respect to other archetypes (which is why I'm in the nerf-it-to-hell camp). Popular complaints about tankers are related to the mode in which they utilize their survivability for the benefit of others (taunt), and how other archetypes and powersets enhance the playing experience and effectiveness of others more than tankers (buffs).
edit: in short, buffs are more effective than taunt, and a lot of people enjoy buffs more than taunt.
I won't question the validity or accuracy of what tankers can do. I play tankers mostly and love doing so. The relevance to the aspect of teaming contribution isn't just what tankers can do, though.
[ QUOTE ]
Vox, many suboptimal teams in this game work, but they are still suboptimal and in many dual or triple tanker teams, the main reason to have them is because you just need some one to fill in so you can get more critters to spawn. Only reason you "need" the tanker in those teams is to fill, and most (not all) content in the game is easy enough that you just don't care who you invite.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whether Tanks have a place on min/maxed teams seems pretty irrelevant to me. For one thing, it's more of a forum exercise than something that actually happens in-game, and also because min/maxing teams is more about what combos are overpowered rather than who's underpowered.
[ QUOTE ]
This wouldn't just make tankers last longer, it would put some tankers over a thin line into sustaining their rate of damage, and bring many more close enough to it to not matter. Not that I think that's a bad thing, necessarily, but I think reducing endurance costs and recovery rates, either for particular archetypes or for everyone, at an equal ratio would make lasting longer easier by default without affecting what is or is not sustainable in the long term, effectively making the 100 max end a larger influence in a fight than recovery rate.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would have to bring out serious number crunching to spit out the true repercussions of this in builds that have access to more than just stamina for endurance recovery this change would be about on spot relative to scrapper endurance consumption assuming equivalent builds.
The only other way I can see to make it so that the one set with Quick Recovery performs to better is to lower even further but give tankers lower recovery rates, the number to get there would require a bit more math than I can do right now. I'd say the same for endurance drain but they have ONES modifers. Only way to make those "weaker" is to make tanker Endurance bar higher (instead of lower end use modifiers) so they fill less of the bar along with an equivalent end recovery tweak so that things end better than now but not too better for sets with Quick Recovery.
Overall, though, I'm not sure that's a huge issue, extremely optimized characters may already almost eliminate their endurance woes, the issue is casual players and characters that are still in development, specially low level tanking situations where the tanker is forced to just taunt if he wants to go about using toggles and tank.
[ QUOTE ]
For one thing, it's more of a forum exercise than something that actually happens in-game
[/ QUOTE ]
How often it happens is a debatable topic highly tainted by one's point of view and anecdotal experience. It happens. It happens to and bothers some people more than others, but so does being kicked for not being a healing defender.
I've been refused invites to SG teams that simply didn't want any tanker at all (boy did I quit that SG). I have been refused an invite to a TF because the team already had a tanker. While it problably saved me heartache from teaming with idiocy, I've never seen or heard of that issue with anything other than a tanker.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vox, many suboptimal teams in this game work, but they are still suboptimal and in many dual or triple tanker teams, the main reason to have them is because you just need some one to fill in so you can get more critters to spawn. Only reason you "need" the tanker in those teams is to fill, and most (not all) content in the game is easy enough that you just don't care who you invite.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whether Tanks have a place on min/maxed teams seems pretty irrelevant to me. For one thing, it's more of a forum exercise than something that actually happens in-game, and also because min/maxing teams is more about what combos are overpowered rather than who's underpowered.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not just a forum exercise when the devs are setting out to make content that is harder... I just had an Stephani... i mean epiphany...
Bit off topic but feel obliged to toss it here:
Going Rogue takes place in a different dimension...
Different dimension gives room for even physics to behave different, why not powers...
Castle noted at some point the Diminishing Returns mechanic we see in PvP MAY be used in new future content exclusively...
Positron claims we will see end game content in Going Rogue that will make all CoH content look extremely easy...
Are you guys pondering what I'm pondering right this very minute?
Resuming my line of thought:
Harder content is in development, content may not require specific AT usage but may definitively leave any sub-optimal characters out of the game.
This actually happened a lot when Lord Recluse SF was released, many sub-optimal characters, specially Stalkers and Doms, just received pity slots when no one else was available, or would be invited only to VG runs, and this was not just forum community, this was what happened in game. VG Runs may still be "options" but not everyone relies on those, I would dare bet PUG TFs/SFs are a big majority.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For one thing, it's more of a forum exercise than something that actually happens in-game
[/ QUOTE ]
How often it happens is a debatable topic highly tainted by one's point of view and anecdotal experience. It happens. It happens to and bothers some people more than others, but so does being kicked for not being a healing defender.
I've been refused invites to SG teams that simply didn't want any tanker at all (boy did I quit that SG). I have been refused an invite to a TF because the team already had a tanker. While it problably saved me heartache from teaming with idiocy, I've never seen or heard of that issue with anything other than a tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it matters, I recall my scrapper being told no once because they already had another 6 scrappers and a tank and needed a fender or controller 
[ QUOTE ]
As the title suggests, I see two main problems with Tankers:
1) Their endurance efficiency
2) They don't stack well on teams
[/ QUOTE ]
Right off, I disagree. I think blasters and controllers have worse END issues than tanks do. For the most part, the tanker END issue isn't because of the AT - it's because of no Stamina and lousy enhancements - but everyone has the same problem.
As for stacking on teams, the situations where they don't stack well are a failing of the PLAYERS, not the ARCHETYPE. Multiple tanks can be extremely effective if they know what they are doing and work as a team.
Paragon City Search And Rescue
The Mentor Project
[ QUOTE ]
I'd say the same for endurance drain but they have ONES modifers. Only way to make those "weaker" is to make tanker Endurance bar higher (instead of lower end use modifiers) so they fill less of the bar along with an equivalent end recovery tweak so that things end better than now but not too better for sets with Quick Recovery
[/ QUOTE ]
Even more off topic, but I long thought that if tankers are intended to take a team's share of debuffs, knockback, status effects, and damage, they should be given the tools to take those effects without crumbling. For the time being, that really only applies to mitigating status effects and damage. Knockback situationally so. But, taking a spawn of Mu, or anything else with relevant endurance drain, and being sapped of endurance to the point that the tanker's ability to mitigate damage is compromised is a terrible way to encourage tanking or reward teaming.
Though, a universal reduction in endurance costs and endurance recovery would logically require an equivalent reduction in the value of enemy-used endurance drains, to be fair. I think that's more of a data entry problem than a balance problem, though.
[ QUOTE ]
I think blasters and controllers have worse END issues than tanks do
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd love for you to clarify how blasters have worse endurance issues than tankers. I may not be too keen on blaster issues, but endurance efficiency isn't one of them.
[ QUOTE ]
Even more off topic, but I long thought that if tankers are intended to take a team's share of debuffs, knockback, status effects, and damage, they should be given the tools to take those effects without crumbling. For the time being, that really only applies to mitigating status effects and damage. Knockback situationally so. But, taking a spawn of Mu, or anything else with relevant endurance drain, and being sapped of endurance to the point that the tanker's ability to mitigate damage is compromised is a terrible way to encourage tanking or reward teaming.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agree whole heartedly, SPECIALLY endurance drain, but also other debuffs like -endrecovery.
Another half baked idea I had (but it would treat all builds differently) was to make all defensive toggles cost no endurance. At least that way endurance drains would never be something that would cause detoggles followed by instant death.
[ QUOTE ]
How often it happens is a debatable topic highly tainted by one's point of view and anecdotal experience. It happens. It happens to and bothers some people more than others, but so does being kicked for not being a healing defender.
I've been refused invites to SG teams that simply didn't want any tanker at all (boy did I quit that SG). I have been refused an invite to a TF because the team already had a tanker. While it problably saved me heartache from teaming with idiocy, I've never seen or heard of that issue with anything other than a tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
My Mind/FF Controller has got tells asking if I heal a couple times (no invite came after I said "no", of course), and on teams the same Controller is often asked for Speed Boost. This doesn't mean I think Force Fields should get a heal or Speed Boost, it just means some players have a very limited view of the game.
So yeah, I agree with the "save you the heartache" response.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think blasters and controllers have worse END issues than tanks do
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd love for you to clarify how blasters have worse endurance issues than tankers. I may not be too keen on blaster issues, but endurance efficiency isn't one of them.
[/ QUOTE ]
The kid just does not know what he is talking about.
As the title suggests, I see two main problems with Tankers:
1) Their endurance efficiency
2) They don't stack well on teams
Their damage is fine for soloing (while they have endurance) and a single one is useful to groups. The problem starts when multiple Tanks are in the same team. Now, what could be done to modify end efficiency while also making more than one attractive to a group?
An idea struck me today while reading another thread, have Tanks buff one another in some way. This wouldn't modify soloing / solo tanking, but would make multiple Tanks less of a turn off. That simple premise evolved into a form of "Tanker Tactics."
Short Version
The basic gist is that Tankers would have multiple (mutually exclusive) Tanker Tactics toggles available, each one would provide different benefits while other Tankers are around.
Gritty Details
The Tanker Tactics toggles would simply enable modes on the Tanker similar to how Kheldian Forms work (note the "Enable Bright Nova mode" line). This would flag the Tanker as being in a certain mode.
Tankers would also get an auto power like Kheldian Cosmic Balance that targets teammates, but each buff would check "if target is a Tanker" AND "if in Mode_Whatever."
With that framework in place, we can create whatever Tanker Tactics we want. For example, we could create a 'Tanker Tactic: Offense' which would set an offensive mode. The passive would then give Tankers a +X% damage buff for each Tanker in range.
Another idea I had was Tanker Tactic: Control, which would boost the control effects of their powers by Y%. (Could make this boost Taunt, as well, to help the "main tank" hold aggro.)
Where does endurance fit into this whole mess? Well, there would be a single Tanker Tactic that could be used solo and wasn't modified by the presence of other Tankers. All it would do is provide a static +Z% (I'm thinking somewhere between 10%-15%) end reduction. This Tactic would allow for Tankers to solo with fewer end concerns, but they could switch if off in a multiple Tanker team in favor of other benefits if they want.
(If so desired, you could create a 'Tanker Tactic: Debuff' that enables a "Mode_Debuff," then the passive enables a "Mode_Debuff_Enabled" when "Mode_Debuff" is active and a Tanker is in range. Then Tanker attacks could then, say, have a Regen debuff that only fires when "Mode_Debuff_Enabled" is active. That's getting pretty ugly, though. :P)
Potential Problems
<ul type="square">[*]Complexity, not to put too fine a point on it. It may not be the most intuitive for someone to pickup. ("I'm running TT: Offense, why aren't I dealing more damage" when solo, for example.) It might also hit servers a bit too hard.[*]Conceptually, I'm a little hard pressed to come up with a good reason for this to be added.[/list]
If I admit this concept has a couple failings, why post it? Two reasons:
1) People may be able to improve upon.
2) If the above isn't possible, then to generate ideas. I won't be heartbroken if this is never implemented, but it may turn the gears in someone else's head that will lead to a more elegant solution.
So what say you, the Tanker community?