The true big difference between the statements is that he who refuses a second tank does so understanding that the tanker is the lest optimal addition to the team if something else is available.
The one that refuses a controller because he is no healer just does not understands the power of a controller.
[ QUOTE ]
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:
[/ QUOTE ]
Starsman: My idea started like that (but only buffing Tanks), but evolved. I thought it was interesting/clever and decided to share. Yours is a bit more elegant, but violates one of my premises:
Tankers are fine as the only Tank.
Your idea would make Tankers better. Now, what could be done instead is to make the Tank only have a passive power that targets allies (but not himself). It would buff the team (if a mode is set) and set the mode if the target was a Tanker.
Solo or as the only Tank, nothing would change. When grouped with another Tank, they would start eminating their leadership buffs. That is a simpler solution, but it may (or may not) be too much.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
G_Tanker: The only time that really becomes problematic is if teamed with a Kin OR you're a Shield/DM or Shield/SS Tank. I understand the concern, though.
I didn't go with -res because, as above, it would effect solo and single Tank teams. I also don't think it's possible to make the res debuff not self stack, but stack from different Tankers. (If it can be done, I've never seen it.)
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ironblade: A Blaster and Tanker running out of endurance are two completely separate things. For a Blaster, 100 endurance translates into dealing ~1203 damage base or ~3127.28 dmg slotted (3 dmg, 1 end - not counting Defiance which would increase that number). For a Tanker, 100 endurance is equal to ~855.5 dmg base or ~2223.8 dmg slotted. The Blaster has enough endurance for ~1.2 even con bosses at lvl50, the Tanker doesn't even have enough endurance to finish one.
A Blaster very well may run out of endurance very fast, but that's after dealing damage and finishing an encounter. A Tanker not only deals damage slower (30% or more with equal attacks) but they also can run out of endurance before completing tasks a Blaster could. In other words, the Blaster is over the finish line (or in the next race) before running out of end, the Tanker is still in the first.
(Controllers are trickier because they have three sets that provide endurance, pets, and Containment upping their efficiency. I only have one serious Controller, and she doesn't get much playtime.)
Personally, I'm not an especially picky player (for most things). If someone wants to run missions with 2-3 Tanks, that's fine with me. Having said that, I've never been in a situation where I've said "I wish we had another Tanker." Instead, it's either more buffs/debuffs or more damage. Never "more Tankers." Yes, Tankers can coordinate and leapfrog each other, but I can keep the pace just fine as the only Tank. When the current group is almost dead I head to the next. I don't need a second Tank for that.
Another avenue that could be taken is to make content that shines with multiple Tankers, but I'm not sure how that'd be done with the way mitigation currently scales...
I tend to agree with the two problems more or less as stated. I really feel the suggestions need to be kept a simple as possible to have any hope of inclusion.
RE: end usage. Tanks have a substantially longer green bar and we are familiar with the effect that has on mitigation. What if we simply lengthened the blue bar for tanks by say.....20 points. No buffs no complex calculations just a slightly larger base for the combined recovery buffs to work off of.
Tanker stacking is a far thornier problem. Nothing of substance to contribute there atm.
Taking It On the Chin I-16 Tanker Guide
Repeat Offenders
Okay, it's 3AM by me. So if I'm incoherent here, blame that. Not me. No. Not my fault at all. It's the exhaustion talking....yup!
Anyhow, if the devs, in their infinite *COUGH*wisdom*COUGH* decide to give tanks a buff, I'll shut my mouth and tank on. It won't really be NEEDED, but I have an aversion to views equine oral cavities.
OTOH, I think the root of the "idea" here is "When used stupidly, multiple *INSERT AT HERE* are redundant, or even detrimental on a team".
Notice I did NOT simply slot "TANK" in there.
On a team that knows what it is doing, multiple *INSERT AT HERE* (and even tanks) can be absolute steamrollers. But you have to be flexible and know how to adapt to the people you're playing with.
If you expect a tanker gang-bang to run like a Tank+2 Kins+Emp+2 Scrappers+2 Blasters, you're all going to die. Period.
The thing people keep getting confused about with tanks is the difference between "grabbing" aggro and "managing" it. A lot of tanks I've played with (and even myself at times) simply "grab" it and think that's enough.
So, if I'm right, and the root of the argument is that multiple tanks in stupid setups underperform a better managed and different combination of Tank+Other...
Sorry, the response this begs for is "WELL *BLEEP*ING DUH!"
Again, this may be the exhaustion talking. And I may be off in my assessment. If I am, please feel free to correct me.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, of course. Denigrate any who disagree.
Paragon City Search And Rescue
The Mentor Project
I agree about the end issues but in my mind these only really apply pre-Stamina.
I don't necessarily agree about the stacking issue (as someone else pointed out, this is more about group make up and set combo integration then it is about multiple Tankers).
Having said that, I'd stick to the endurance issues (or at least make them my priority). Your suggestion seems to be somewhat based on "stances" that tank types in some other games receive to switch between damage and defensive modes ... as I replied in Starsman's Gauntlet 2.0 thread, I have a hard time seeing the devs making any changes that involve Tankers doing more damage.
Not sure what I would recommend here except to address pre-Stamina end issues (I don't have many other issues with Tankers in general (specific sets aside)).
*EDIT* I'd like to amend that I could see a lot of merit with this type of change, were it be involved with a general AT upgrade (all ATs).
Had another thought ...
One of the main issues I see with higher level Tankers today is that they cannot ever close the gap damage wise with Scrappers (as it should be imo) but a Scrapper can become as tough as a Tanker with respect to what we can physically tank ... i.e the agro cap.
Lift the agro cap (but not the target limits per power). Give Tankers the ability to once again push their defenses to the maximum.
I think with the advent of the AE missions and the upcoming I16 changes (e.g. set your own level and group variance while solo) that archaic prejudices such as "herding" are and should be, a thing of the past. This is the one area where Tankers could outshine any other AT (and incidentally, this also side swipes the Tanker stackability issue).
Let them have it back.
[ 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 ]
Actually, seeing Kruunch's comments in here made me realize I was confusing this thread with the one about END issues pre Stamina/SO's. Also I was posting while eating breakfast and put off that the thread seemed to have turned 'jerk' faster than most.
I retract the comment about blasters and controllers (except in the early levels). However, I still dispute the premise that tanks have END issues. If my shield tank can run 7 toggles and use his heavy attacks non-stop (and he has all of the big ones), I don't see how there can be a problem. Now I'm sure someone will ask if I used IO's to achieve this. Sure I did. He's also got a lot of global recharge. Global recharge + Tough + Weave is a high performance build so, yes, it needs IO's to support it. I just don't see that the average tank has END problems. Or, at least, not worse than anyone else. The only way I see a problem is if the tank is expect to solo at a fast rate while running all toggles. This is not a reasonable standard since, if you're soloing, you don't need all your toggles. Also, as has been said many times, if you want to solo fast, play a scrapper. It's clear the devs don't intend tanks to solo fast and that seems entirely appropriate.
As a side note, I think END usage in general does need to be looked at. Stamina is still taken far too often to seem in any way optional for most AT's. But this isn't a tank-specific issue.
Paragon City Search And Rescue
The Mentor Project
[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, I think END usage in general does need to be looked at. Stamina is still taken far too often to seem in any way optional for most AT's. But this isn't a tank-specific issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not so sure about this. While better End efficiency WOULD be nice, and you won't catch me building without Stamina anytime soon, I realize that the Fitness pool IS still optional. To be honest, Stamina is merely a brute force method of obtaining End efficiency while retaining higher levels of Acc, Damage, and Recharge. You sacrifice additional attacks and/or other types of support powers in favor of keeping the little blue bar full longer and resting less.
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
/agree
[ QUOTE ]
So what say you, the Tanker community?
[/ QUOTE ]
- I say the proposal sounds overly complicated and not very fun, flashy or interesting.
+ It does improve Tanker endurance issues.
- It specifically doesn't improve Tanker soloing, which is an area they should be improved in.
- As you said, conceptually it fails. This does nothing to bring Tankers closer to their comic counterparts as the heroic heavy hitter. At least Starsman's idea had the correct concept at it's core.
So ultimately, I say "/unsigned".
***
Now that I've made it clear that I'm not interested in this idea, do you suppose I should burglarize your time with an endless series of pointless questions and strawmen and then imply you're an coward and fool if you don't respond to every single one?
I suppose not. I know I don't like it when someone does that to me.
.
Ya know I find it ironic that I got mod slapped for "trolling" J_B when he is easily the best troll on these forums.
/salute
[ QUOTE ]
I agree about the end issues but in my mind these only really apply pre-Stamina.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kruunch: In my experience, ATs only really have end issues from lvl10-20. Levels 1-10 are generally pretty painless compared to the teens where AT mods start having a more noticeable effect and mob hp starts scaling up.
Admittedly, my point of view is contaminated by vet rewards like SoM, though.
[ QUOTE ]
*EDIT* I'd like to amend that I could see a lot of merit with this type of change, were it be involved with a general AT upgrade (all ATs).
[/ QUOTE ]
Kruunch: Another reason I posted this, it may be the square peg for a round hole (Tanker ideas), but it may be just the thing for something else, be it a global change, mechanic for a new AT, boss fight for a TF, etc.
[ QUOTE ]
Lift the agro cap (but not the target limits per power). Give Tankers the ability to once again push their defenses to the maximum.
[/ QUOTE ]
Kruunch: I did think of that (raising the cap for just Tankers), but the problem that creates is it makes Tanker overlap even worse. Right now, if more than 17 mobs are pulled, a second Tanker can grab the extra mobs. If the aggro cap was raised to 25 (for example), taht would mean it would take 25 mobs before the second Tanker is useful again. That's the opposite direction I was aiming for. 
[ QUOTE ]
- It specifically doesn't improve Tanker soloing, which is an area they should be improved in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Johnny_Butane: Actually, I mispoke before. By increasing efficiency, you are boosting the speed most Tanks can solo at. By "most Tanks" I mean those that aren't IOed for end management.
This would speed up Tanker soloing before IOs since they'd have more end to attack with, but it wouldn't increase their maximum kill speed (which a dmg buff / res debuffs would).
[ QUOTE ]
Yours is a bit more elegant, but violates one of my premises:
Tankers are fine as the only Tank.
Your idea would make Tankers better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'd add a third item to the tanker issue list that has been noted a bit in the past:
The most dangerous place to be in a team that has a tank is by the tank. This is drastically counter, intuitive. You would expect standing by the tanker to be the safest place in the field because theoretically he has an easier time to cover you. The 4% def may be next to nothing on it's own with just one tanker, but still would alleviate that a tad.
That being told, as I noted, on their own, a single tanker would not be getting that big of a boost, its adding more tankers that becomes actually useful.
Also, a buff that only buffs other tankers (missed that bit the first time i speed read your proposal) really makes no conceptual sense, nor would give much reason to invite second tankers unless you planning to have 3 or 4 tanks and threatens making pure tanker teams way too powerful.
QR
Just my own anecdotal observations on tank stacking.
I've never been denied a team for being a tank or refused to accept a tank on a team, because we already had 2 or more. I do find that TFs w/too much melee (yes, scrappers too) tend to fare *on average* worse than those w/well, few melee. The only time I've failed a STF was when we had too many scrappers & tanks, not enough "support". It *generally* takes longer to do a LGTF or ITF w/too many melee toons.
Now, of course there are exceptions, but usually, those exceptions come in the form of "too many" controllers on a lousy team, not a fast moving all tanker team. And most ppl don't complain too much about "too many scrappers", because they add a whole lot of damage.
By comparison, what does that 3rd or 4th tank add to a team that another class would not do better? More protection? 2 tanks (1 really) is more than adequate. Or 1 tank and a controller. Or just a controller. More damage? Pretty much every other AT in the game adds more (sometimes in the way of buffs/debuffs). More support? Well, anyone can take Leadership, and there's like Grant Cover and Melt Armor and the like... but let's face it, tanks aren't exactly rocking the buffs or debuffs. Compare that w/controller or defender "superteams" or even a blaster heavy team w/like a single tank.
I love playing my tanks--they're my 2nd fav AT, but if there's already a tank or 2 on the team, I'm almost always switching over to something else. I never do this if I'm on my blaster/controller/defender on a b/c/d-heavy team, and am usually happy to see those. I'm sure others are perfectly happy to join tank-heavy teams, but for me, I'd like to see some small incentive to have extra tanks on a team, whether it's something that Sarrate or Stars suggested or some other benefit (actually leaning towards Stars' suggestion atm).
An Offensive Guide to Ice Melee
[ QUOTE ]
This would speed up Tanker soloing before IOs since they'd have more end to attack with, but it wouldn't increase their maximum kill speed (which a dmg buff / res debuffs would).
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh I understood you perfectly.
Increasing their kill speed against Bosses and EBs, and to a lesser extent LTs, is something that should be done. That is why I gave this the thumbs down.
With your solution to Tanker end efficiency, you're still trying to change the lightbulb by having one guy hold the bulb and two more turning the ladder.
The cause of Tankers being less endurance efficient than the next guy is because of their lower damage. Treat the disease, not the symptom.
.
No.
[ QUOTE ]
So what say you, the Tanker community?
[/ QUOTE ]
My Tankers have no problem with either end efficiency or stackability in teams. Someone would have to explain to me what exactly is the problem here (and I wouldn't agree that this is correct as a whole, as for at least my playstyle, both claims are wrong).
If anything, I'd argue 2 tankers is almost a necessity in some teams (nothing is necessary obviously, but if your teammates die every few minutes then they'll get bored and leave). Take a PuG running an AE lieut/boss mission set for 8 for example, if you aggro 2 groups at once some squishies are guaranteed to die. You could say "pull one group, don't aggro two groups at once" but that'd slow down the team. You could say "if squishies were really good they wouldn't die", but we're talking about a PuG and most people just aren't that good.
Frankly, as it is I'm rerolling most of my scrappers as tankers because the damage/survivability equations are heavily skewed towards tankers. I don't really understand why so many "tankers have problems" topics pop up on the tanker forum while everything on the scrapper forum seems fine. It might be because the normal game is too easy and there isn't enough reward intentive reasons to up the challenge, but I'm not sure that's a problem with tankers. If you actually go out of your way to look (or make, thanks to AE) for challenging content and don't only play with skilled friends, tankers are really an awesome AT.
Now, if you really want to buff my favorite characters, I won't complain...
[ QUOTE ]
Kruunch: I did think of that (raising the cap for just Tankers), but the problem that creates is it makes Tanker overlap even worse. Right now, if more than 17 mobs are pulled, a second Tanker can grab the extra mobs. If the aggro cap was raised to 25 (for example), taht would mean it would take 25 mobs before the second Tanker is useful again. That's the opposite direction I was aiming for.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, but I'm not seeing Tanker stackability as the issue you are. However I do see an issue with Scrappers encroaching on our territory but not vica versa. You can make a Scranker, but it will never be a Scrapper. However the reverse cannot be said. I can (and have) made Scrappers that can totally replace a tank in all circumstances. The largest reason being that as a Scrapper, I can achieve defenses/mitigation good enough to withstand the agro cap. Without the agro cap (and I think it should be removed entirely for all ATs) then a Scrapper can only be taken so far.
To me, this is the biggest issue Tankers have more then anything else mentioned (early level end issues being game wide imo).
P.S. - Yeah SoM makes a huge difference in early conventional levelling. Take a toon from 1-10 doing regular missions and not using a vet reward.
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ]
I personally like the idea, it provides some freedom of choice and does quite a good job of resolving the issues which you mention. Having said that I think that you will find that with this in place most folks will be building all tanker teams with everyone running their "Tanker Tactic Offense". I see this as a fairly significant stumbling block to your proposal.
Please bear in mind that I still believe it to be a good idea, I like all the options for different tactic toggles that you mention and if applied correctly this could make tankers more interesting to play and more unique among the melee archetypes. Your greatest hurdle Sarrate is the same one that all proposed systems have; the likelihood of exploit.
In order to minimize the exploits, I would suggest that the tanker toggles be assigned a team rank based on where the tankers fall numerically on the team.
1. Fire/Kin Controller
2. SD/SS Tanker (Tier I Tanker Tactic Control)
3. Elec/Elec Blaster
4. Rad/Energy Defender
5. Dark/Fire Scrapper
6. Invy/Axe Tanker (Tier II Tanker Tactic Offense)
7. Peacebringer
8. WP/Stone Tanker (Tier III Tanker Tactic Debuff)
So basically you assign a tactic to a given Tanker Tier, for lack of a better term, and multiple tankers can choose their role based on which tier they choose. In the case of an all tanker team or more tankers on a team then available tiers they still get the single tanker toggle choice.
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
Changes being proposed really need to follow the "KISS" theory. If something like this was to be included it should be designed along the lines of the Kheldian "buffs". No need to worry or think about it, it just happens. Just like most if not all inherent effects.
As for endurance, the cost for the same power across tanker/scrapper and brute sets (with a few minor exceptions) are the same. For example: Death Shroud costs the same 1.04 end/s for all of them so it's more a matter of the results you're getting for the same end cost. You guys know this so I'm not telling you anything new. Changing endurance costs for tanks alone doesn't follow the "KISS" theory for me.
If anything, there should be a consideration of making the lower tier powers less endurance heavy. Then adding the end. back in the costs for the higher tier powers when your able to manage the endurance better with SO's and IO's. With power proliferation I'm not sure if that would be easily worked as some powers that are lower tier for some AT's are higher for others.
Just my 3 cents worth....
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Tackling the Tanker<->Scrapper and 2TankerRequired2Pug sidepoints;
Kruunch;
[ QUOTE ]
True, but I'm not seeing Tanker stackability as the issue you are. However I do see an issue with Scrappers encroaching on our territory but not vica versa. You can make a Scranker, but it will never be a Scrapper. However the reverse cannot be said. I can (and have) made Scrappers that can totally replace a tank in all circumstances. The largest reason being that as a Scrapper, I can achieve defenses/mitigation good enough to withstand the agro cap. Without the agro cap (and I think it should be removed entirely for all ATs) then a Scrapper can only be taken so far.
[/ QUOTE ]
Er... that's kind of odd given just a thread over you wrote: Here's my L50 SD/DM Tanker build (per request). He was main tanking AE Boss farms (go go gnomes) in his 30s and was out performing Scrappers/Blasters (by and large) in DPS by his 40s.............Finally, I'm comparing the damage (subjectively of course) to the Scrappers I play with (of various makes and models) and my own Scrappers. This build doesn't out damage *every* Scrapper combo (of course) and really shouldn't out damage a really well built Scrapper, however more times then not (and especially against more single target oriented Scrappers) I pull away from Scrappers over the course of most boss fights.
FWIW, I can certainly think of tanker builds that are more damaging than various scrapper builds in various situations -- for instance, I was rather cheesed in the RCS farming days that my friend's fire/fire/pyre tanker (IO'd to the gills) was outfarming my broadsword/dark build (IO'd to the gills) -- but Rikti bosses have heavy lethal resist and no fire resist. If you compare apples to apples (or as close as you can), the proper AT always wins. But yes, scrankers can replace scrappers. As far as a your scrappers being truly superior to tankers "in all circumstances" ... my eyebrow's at the ceiling aboot now. That's a big generalization to throw out there.
It's mostly a social construct that people don't advertise damage spec'd tanks as damage dealers - the same way people pigeonhole emps as 'healers'. I have definitely invited a tank to a team purely to do damage (fire/ss) ... amusingly he thought, as the only tank on the team, he was supposed to tank, but he wised up pretty quickly.
Anyhoo. I don't think changing the agro cap upward is a solution (if anything I might recommend having the other 4 AT's go down to 12 - I don't disagree with the notion that only tanks should be able to hold highest number's attention, but I wince at upping it more than 17 given how much agro I can already manage on my fire melee tankers), but then again I was one of the people shortly after launch going, "Oh man. This is massively broken. It is getting nerfed so hard." about herding a map at a time. Took a while, but it happened.
Nihilii;
[ QUOTE ]
If anything, I'd argue 2 tankers is almost a necessity in some teams (nothing is necessary obviously, but if your teammates die every few minutes then they'll get bored and leave). Take a PuG running an AE lieut/boss mission set for 8 for example, if you aggro 2 groups at once some squishies are guaranteed to die. You could say "pull one group, don't aggro two groups at once" but that'd slow down the team. You could say "if squishies were really good they wouldn't die", but we're talking about a PuG and most people just aren't that good.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree insofar as yes, AE definitely makes 2+ tanker teams more desirable than ever before (at least post-agro cap:17 change). I disagree with the rest of your statement based on my experiences. Since AE came out I've run five characters to 50 purely leading or playing in pugs, and at no time were tanks required at all, let alone two of them. I can think of several memorable pugs that had no melee whatsoever where I was actively pulling 3 groups of 53-54 bosses at a time. Furthermore I find it rather odd the notion that a second group will wipe a team... support chars besides tankers can handle a spawn's agro (in a variety of ways) on their own, depending on level disparity and powerset. I do know you're talking about PUGs, but I've spent the last 2 or so months playing PUGs quite a lot in the leveling game.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Considering that my Tanker's slotting is to emphasize on recovery instead of endurance reduction, unless the endurance-per-second return rate with all three toggles active remains the same I would be very much against a recovery debuff.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
[ QUOTE ]
Tackling the Tanker<->Scrapper and 2TankerRequired2Pug sidepoints;
Kruunch;
[ QUOTE ]
True, but I'm not seeing Tanker stackability as the issue you are. However I do see an issue with Scrappers encroaching on our territory but not vica versa. You can make a Scranker, but it will never be a Scrapper. However the reverse cannot be said. I can (and have) made Scrappers that can totally replace a tank in all circumstances. The largest reason being that as a Scrapper, I can achieve defenses/mitigation good enough to withstand the agro cap. Without the agro cap (and I think it should be removed entirely for all ATs) then a Scrapper can only be taken so far.
[/ QUOTE ]
Er... that's kind of odd given just a thread over you wrote: Here's my L50 SD/DM Tanker build (per request). He was main tanking AE Boss farms (go go gnomes) in his 30s and was out performing Scrappers/Blasters (by and large) in DPS by his 40s.............Finally, I'm comparing the damage (subjectively of course) to the Scrappers I play with (of various makes and models) and my own Scrappers. This build doesn't out damage *every* Scrapper combo (of course) and really shouldn't out damage a really well built Scrapper, however more times then not (and especially against more single target oriented Scrappers) I pull away from Scrappers over the course of most boss fights.
FWIW, I can certainly think of tanker builds that are more damaging than various scrapper builds in various situations -- for instance, I was rather cheesed in the RCS farming days that my friend's fire/fire/pyre tanker (IO'd to the gills) was outfarming my broadsword/dark build (IO'd to the gills) -- but Rikti bosses have heavy lethal resist and no fire resist. If you compare apples to apples (or as close as you can), the proper AT always wins. But yes, scrankers can replace scrappers. As far as a your scrappers being truly superior to tankers "in all circumstances" ... my eyebrow's at the ceiling aboot now. That's a big generalization to throw out there.
It's mostly a social construct that people don't advertise damage spec'd tanks as damage dealers - the same way people pigeonhole emps as 'healers'. I have definitely invited a tank to a team purely to do damage (fire/ss) ... amusingly he thought, as the only tank on the team, he was supposed to tank, but he wised up pretty quickly.
Anyhoo. I don't think changing the agro cap upward is a solution (if anything I might recommend having the other 4 AT's go down to 12 - I don't disagree with the notion that only tanks should be able to hold highest number's attention, but I wince at upping it more than 17 given how much agro I can already manage on my fire melee tankers), but then again I was one of the people shortly after launch going, "Oh man. This is massively broken. It is getting nerfed so hard." about herding a map at a time. Took a while, but it happened.
Nihilii;
[ QUOTE ]
If anything, I'd argue 2 tankers is almost a necessity in some teams (nothing is necessary obviously, but if your teammates die every few minutes then they'll get bored and leave). Take a PuG running an AE lieut/boss mission set for 8 for example, if you aggro 2 groups at once some squishies are guaranteed to die. You could say "pull one group, don't aggro two groups at once" but that'd slow down the team. You could say "if squishies were really good they wouldn't die", but we're talking about a PuG and most people just aren't that good.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree insofar as yes, AE definitely makes 2+ tanker teams more desirable than ever before (at least post-agro cap:17 change). I disagree with the rest of your statement based on my experiences. Since AE came out I've run five characters to 50 purely leading or playing in pugs, and at no time were tanks required at all, let alone two of them. I can think of several memorable pugs that had no melee whatsoever where I was actively pulling 3 groups of 53-54 bosses at a time. Furthermore I find it rather odd the notion that a second group will wipe a team... support chars besides tankers can handle a spawn's agro (in a variety of ways) on their own, depending on level disparity and powerset. I do know you're talking about PUGs, but I've spent the last 2 or so months playing PUGs quite a lot in the leveling game.
[/ QUOTE ]
G_Tanker: That's against the average PUG that groups with us ... numbers wise however I can never match the DPS output of a Scrapper (or Blaster). Player wise, I tend to be a little more focused then the average PUG apparently.
[ QUOTE ]
My Mind/FF Controller has got tells asking if I heal a couple times
[/ QUOTE ]
This may seem like splitting hairs, but that isn't the entire archetype being refused. But, more importantly, that type of refusal isn't being done by someone that actually undertands how the game works. Ironically, people that pursue tankers do so quite often out of similar motivations to get a "healer". As much as I enjoy playing my tanks, I don't see that kind of popularity as positive feedback for the AT.
edit: I'll clarify that "healer" comparison as being my anecdotal experience from the types of situations certain types of players request a tanker. In typical play, when I see that, all requests for a tanker could be replaced by "healer" and it'd make as much sense for the situation. "We just lost our last tanker." "That's a big spawn, we need a tanker." It's sad sometimes.