[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Ah, glad to see my skepticism in that thread was justified then. Still, I would not be surprised if shields/dm could outdamage some scrapper combos even after IO's - say, take on a spines/sr at single target damage, I think you'd win. Fire/fire/pyre certainly outdamages some scrapper combos.
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends your idea of "outdamage". If you're going to hold up an all AOE build Tankers (Fire/Fire/Pyre) against a ST Scrapper then yeah, in raw numbers it outdamages the Scrapper.
But just by comparing extremes you kind of make my point ... I can build any Scrapper to effectively group tank, and many Scrapper builds to replace a Tanker entirely in virtually any scenario. Currently my Spines/Fire Scrapper (probably the weakest defensively) tanks my L52 boss mission just fine.
ED, GDN and the agro cap normalized the roles of Scrappers and Tankers for awhile. IO sets and positional defense have returned Scrappers nearly back to what they once were. The same can't be said for Tankers.
*EDIT* Mind you I like where Scrappers are. Tankers just need to fill a larger role again imo.
I think that going for this sort of 'toggle' idea is going -way- outside the design of the game, and pidgeonholes Tankers into roles that might be at odds with their powersets.
That said...
1) Too many tankers take only 1, 2, or 3 of their attacks. No wonder you're not contributing to the team. It's just like when defenders don't take their blasts.
2) I agree that there should be more dovetailing involved in the class. To that end, look at Shield Defense, which is designed with this in mind. You have a PBAoE -DMG debuff which, even if you're not taunting the mobs, still reduces the damage of the team and makes the primary tank better. The only complaint about a power in this set is Grant Cover. If it gave the user more than a small defense debuff resistance, some reason to take it, then you'd see it more in teams. This -too- makes your other tank better. If they're a resistance tanker, then this helps them avoid hits more.
As well, look at Fiery Aura, which is effective at burning the opponents even if you're not grabbing agro.
3) Use your second build. Set one build for main tanking, second build for side tanking/offense, and you're good to go. Seriously.
Bumping this thread for further discussion...
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
I disagree with the postulates, so here's a minor threadjack.
You believe there is a problem with Tanker END efficiency. The root problem is with the Tanker's role. They're the first into combat in most team settings, so they spend more of their time actually fighting than most other ATs. Their lower damage table means it takes them longer to defeat opponents solo. Compared to other ATs, they spend a disproportionately high amount of time in combat, which usually means spending END at a high rate. Any AT that spends as much time as a Tanker attacking is going to see the same issue.
There is one side issue as well. Tankers are more likely to be hit by END draining attacks simply because they're more likely to be hit by any attacks.
HP and END are the big two limiting factors on how fast a character can mow down mobs. Make a good Tanker and HP really isn't a problem. That means END is really the limiting factor, and I doubt the Devs are going to loosen that. Every AT is limited by END. Try making an AV soloer who can attack non-stop for several minutes and you'll find that END is a big factor.
The addition of IOs means Tankers can now kill faster than ever (ignoring the pre-target-cap era). You can ED cap your damage while significantly reducing the END cost of your attacks and toggles, and you can increase your END and Recovery on the side. Willpower Tankers with Quick Recovery helped as well. I suspect Dev datamining indicates that Tankers are doing just fine (compared to before Update 9), and improving as time goes by. That trend will continue as more and more Tankers start using IOs to help with their END problem.
As to stacking Tankers, I know they stack just fine, but that's just me. Here's a little anecdotal evidence (which of course means nothing). I participated in a few AE boss farm with my 42 Rad/Rad Defender over the Double XP weekend. I demorecorded the runs and fed them into my demo parsing script that calculated Damage Per Minute (DPM) for the entire team. The Fire/Kin was on top, big surprise. But the Ice/SS Tanker was a close second, and well above everyone else. Now my Rad/Rad is no slouch. I was in there getting Fulcrum Shift and spamming AoEs constantly. I was well slotted and had a pretty complete build. But the Tanker still did considerably more than me and the damage oriented ATs on the team.
Why did the Tanker do so well? To start, he had Icicles and Foot Stomp. Between Rage and Fulcrum Shift, he was doing great AoE damage. But he was also the first person into combat every spawn. Apparently the squishies were fairly smart, as they waited for the Tanker to establish agro before attacking. But in those first few seconds, the Tanker got a massive head start on damaging the mobs with his AoEs. It takes a Fire/Kin or AoE heavy Blaster to make up for that. In other words, datamining will likely show that Tankers do plenty of damage in teams. Granted the playstyle and build probably had a lot to do with it. But the key point is that Tankers CAN open with AoEs safely, and they have a significant advantage in the damage dealing department because of that. More Tankers means more chars opening with AoEs, and mobs going down faster.
So what's the real problem? Just the impression that people have of Tankers in teams. If I clean up my demorecord parsing program so people can actually see how much damage different people in a team do, then the impression may change. But for now, everyone KNOWS that all Scrappers and Blasters do more damage than Tankers on paper. That means they MUST do more damage in the game, whether or not it's actually true.
Goodbye and thanks for all the fish.
I've moved on to Diablo 3, TopDoc-1304
One small problem with your post, TopDoc: The game isn't supposed to be balanced around IOs. If it is, then the devs need to stop telling us it isn't.
Quote:
I would need more convincing to agree with those two claims. Personally, I think they are mostly just symptoms of bigger issues.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
As the title suggests, I see two main problems with Tankers:
1) Their endurance efficiency 2) They don't stack well on teams |
Let's start with team stacking. Two tankers do stack just fine on a team. Splitting aggro significantly increases the team's survivability. The bigger issue is that defensive contributions appear to be undervalued because content isn't sufficiently challenging.
You could probably make an argument that more than three tankers do not stack well; however, I'm not sure if making a large number of tankers stacking on a team is a high-priority issue.
As to endurance efficiency, I would argue that the game would have been better if endurance had never been introduced in its current form. The endurance mechanic is a poor fit for the genre (superheroes generally only get fatigued only in extreme situations or where there particular kryptonite is concerned, not as a matter of course); it is poorly calibrated, meaning that normal use of powers will make you run out of endurance easily unless you take extra steps to prevent that.
As far as I can tell from reverse engineering its effects, the main purpose of the endurance mechanic is to put a simple cap on solo efficiency. It does not exist in order to make players consider trade-offs between powers (because the endurance cost/effect is generally normalized), nor for any other game-mechanically interesting purpose that I can see.
The endurance mechanic was, by all accounts, a quick-and-dirty solution to the problem of how to put a cap on a player's performance. And it doesn't even solve that problem well (if at all), because there are numerous buffs in the game that allow you to pretty much ignore it.
I'm not sure if the whole endurance mess can be fixed, as the mechanic is currently too ingrained in the game. But I doubt that generating a single solution for tankers is the best way to start.
I don't get why people complain about this...As stated what is the tankers job? to tank or be a back up tank *if 2 etc*. DPS is not your goal keep your focus on holding the aggro or keeping an eye on wild players. 2 tanks or more on a team is amazing if the two tankers are not having an epen0r war or fighting over who should be the Alpha Male(It also depends on what missions are going to be done etc.)...When my girl and me are on our Willpower/Invuln tanks we rip through mobs and destroy even harder with a team of course.
Now we come down to playstyle. New to tanking? played scrapper or blaster alot before? you probably won't notice yourself but you'll be attacking like one. And notice the end going down. Want some end help? Step away from AE and get accolades!? *GASP! what are those?* look it up.
Not every AT is going to play through a mission the same. You all should know this. All AT have weakness and strengths. Some have end drain protection(DA). Some can refill their own or give others END (FA,Kin). Some AT can solo faster then others.
USE your Inspirations lol they gave us inspis for a reason.
~Amidst the blue skies, a link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector~
Quote:
Well, then, there you go. Now you know why you don't get it. Tanks shouldn't care about endurance costs because they tank. What dismissive and wonderfully circular logic. You don't happen to work for a government agency, do you?
|
Originally Posted by Volkz
I don't get why people complain about this...As stated what is the tankers job? to tank or be a back up tank *if 2 etc*. DPS is not your goal keep your focus on holding the aggro or keeping an eye on wild players.
|
Pardon my multiple successive posts in a row; some of my replies got long and I wanted to keep things separated more for easier reading.
Quote:
The problem is with efficiency, not the time it takes them to kill something. Damage is one factor of efficiency, while end costs are another. Efficiency is Dmg/End, afterall, so altering either will effect it. Let's compare Tanker efficiency to Scrappers since their damage is also very consistent. A Scrapper with a damage mod of 1.125 (ignoring crits) will deal ~12.03 dmg / end base; 31.27 slotted (3 dmg/1 end). A Tanker with a damage mod of 0.8 will deal ~8.555 damage per end; 22.24 slotted (3 dmg/1 end). A Scrapper can accomplish 40% more than a Tanker can with the same amount of endurance.|
Originally Posted by TopDoc
You believe there is a problem with Tanker END efficiency. The root problem is with the Tanker's role. They're the first into combat in most team settings, so they spend more of their time actually fighting than most other ATs. Their lower damage table means it takes them longer to defeat opponents solo. Compared to other ATs, they spend a disproportionately high amount of time in combat, which usually means spending END at a high rate. Any AT that spends as much time as a Tanker attacking is going to see the same issue.
|
That statistic is completely time independent. Suppose, for a moment, that Tanker damage and endurance were increased proportionately to keep end efficiency the same. (0.8 dmg scale -> 1.125 dmg scale, 5.2 end per 1 scale attack -> 7.3125 end per scale attack.) The Tanker would deal as much damage as a Scrapper, finish fights just as quick as a Scrapper, but run out of endurance much faster.
A lvl50 boss has 2570.2 hp. A Scrapper would require 213.65 end to kill it base, 82.19 end to kill it slotted (3 dmg/1 end). A Tanker would require 300.43 end to kill it base, 115.56 end slotted (3 dmg/1 end). Again, that's time independent. Whether they kill in 10s, 30s, or 60s doesn't change that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TopDoc
Every AT is limited by END.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TopDoc
The addition of IOs means Tankers can now kill faster than ever (ignoring the pre-target-cap era). You can ED cap your damage while significantly reducing the END cost of your attacks and toggles, and you can increase your END and Recovery on the side. Willpower Tankers with Quick Recovery helped as well. I suspect Dev datamining indicates that Tankers are doing just fine (compared to before Update 9), and improving as time goes by. That trend will continue as more and more Tankers start using IOs to help with their END problem.
|
I remember when I was leveling her before IOs, endurance was a major concern - and she had an end management tool (Consume), which most Tankers (Invuln, Stone, Shield, Dark) don't. The existence of IOs shouldn't preclude balance without them. (I argued baseline Shield could stand some love, even though I knew it would be powerful when powergamed.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TopDoc
As to stacking Tankers, I know they stack just fine, but that's just me. Here's a little anecdotal evidence (which of course means nothing). I participated in a few AE boss farm with my 42 Rad/Rad Defender over the Double XP weekend. I demorecorded the runs and fed them into my demo parsing script that calculated Damage Per Minute (DPM) for the entire team. The Fire/Kin was on top, big surprise. But the Ice/SS Tanker was a close second, and well above everyone else. Now my Rad/Rad is no slouch. I was in there getting Fulcrum Shift and spamming AoEs constantly. I was well slotted and had a pretty complete build. But the Tanker still did considerably more than me and the damage oriented ATs on the team.
Why did the Tanker do so well? To start, he had Icicles and Foot Stomp. Between Rage and Fulcrum Shift, he was doing great AoE damage. But he was also the first person into combat every spawn. Apparently the squishies were fairly smart, as they waited for the Tanker to establish agro before attacking. But in those first few seconds, the Tanker got a massive head start on damaging the mobs with his AoEs. It takes a Fire/Kin or AoE heavy Blaster to make up for that. In other words, datamining will likely show that Tankers do plenty of damage in teams. Granted the playstyle and build probably had a lot to do with it. But the key point is that Tankers CAN open with AoEs safely, and they have a significant advantage in the damage dealing department because of that. More Tankers means more chars opening with AoEs, and mobs going down faster. |
As for the second paragraph, if I was trying to powergame a group, I'd never have a need for more than one Tanker. A single one can hold more than enough aggro to make aggro holding of a second quite redundant. Even the 'leapfrogging' tactic isn't really necessary - I can do that by myself. When the current group is getting close to defeat I move on to the next spawn while letting the group wipe up the remnants of the last.
Keep in mind I'm not saying I would quit 2 Tank groups or anything silly like that. They can be great fun. I'm saying that multiple Tanks offer less to a group than other ATs.
Quote:
Another way to look at it is buff/debuff stacking and mitigation scaling. Very moderate buffing can effectively make a single Tank immortal. Even 'lowly' Fire Tanks can be extremely durable when paired with, say, Sonic Resonance (perma res cap).|
Originally Posted by Sorciere_NA
Let's start with team stacking. Two tankers do stack just fine on a team. Splitting aggro significantly increases the team's survivability. The bigger issue is that defensive contributions appear to be undervalued because content isn't sufficiently challenging.
|
I can't help but wonder how content could be made difficult enough to make two Tanks desirable (or 'necessary') without completely crushing anything that wasn't a Tank. From a video I saw from SDCC, it sounds like they're putting a lot of dev time into character advancement / harder content, so we'll have to see where that leads.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sorciere_NA
As to endurance efficiency, I would argue that the game would have been better if endurance had never been introduced in its current form. The endurance mechanic is a poor fit for the genre (superheroes generally only get fatigued only in extreme situations or where there particular kryptonite is concerned, not as a matter of course); it is poorly calibrated, meaning that normal use of powers will make you run out of endurance easily unless you take extra steps to prevent that.
As far as I can tell from reverse engineering its effects, the main purpose of the endurance mechanic is to put a simple cap on solo efficiency. It does not exist in order to make players consider trade-offs between powers (because the endurance cost/effect is generally normalized), nor for any other game-mechanically interesting purpose that I can see. The endurance mechanic was, by all accounts, a quick-and-dirty solution to the problem of how to put a cap on a player's performance. And it doesn't even solve that problem well (if at all), because there are numerous buffs in the game that allow you to pretty much ignore it. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sorciere_NA
I'm not sure if the whole endurance mess can be fixed, as the mechanic is currently too ingrained in the game. But I doubt that generating a single solution for tankers is the best way to start.
|
Quote:
If you're not attacking as a Tanker, then you're not contributing as much as you could to a group. That's extra damage the group doesn't need to deal and it's also extra threat (which is important when dealing with other taunting chars like Brutes and Invuln/Shield Scrappers) you're not generating. Not to mention attacking generally comes with a significant amount of extra mitigation in the form of controls/debuffs.|
Originally Posted by Volkz
I don't get why people complain about this...As stated what is the tankers job? to tank or be a back up tank *if 2 etc*. DPS is not your goal keep your focus on holding the aggro or keeping an eye on wild players. 2 tanks or more on a team is amazing if the two tankers are not having an epen0r war or fighting over who should be the Alpha Male(It also depends on what missions are going to be done etc.)...When my girl and me are on our Willpower/Invuln tanks we rip through mobs and destroy even harder with a team of course.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Volkz
Now we come down to playstyle. New to tanking? played scrapper or blaster alot before? you probably won't notice yourself but you'll be attacking like one. And notice the end going down. Want some end help? Step away from AE and get accolades!? *GASP! what are those?* look it up.
|
The snide comment about AE and Accolades? Completely unnecessary and not an acceptable solution. Besides, one of the two +End Accolades can't be acquired naturally until lvl45+ because of Dimensional Warder.
If I joined a team that had a anonymous tank I leave. I think whoever that tank is they need to get experience time in for tanking for 7 non tankers. If I joined a team and there is another tanker I know then I know we might be able to up the pace of the team. There is a tipping point where too many tanks is on average a bad thing but unless the "Tanker AT outnumbers all the other ATs in popularity" I don't see a problem.
Tanks do stack well in some ways, not just with grant cover but add CE to a Willpower tank; and that Willpower and his/her team could be better off from that than having a Claws/SR scrapper in the team; I know situations exist. Its a tricky subject where I feel getting the scaling right in terms of what people would prefer to change comes from starting with an average model of every AT.
I don't get all tanker teams I really don't. I've learned more about tanking from playing other ATs, learning from peoples mistakes as much as their jobs well done and its better to not be in teams with other tanks when your learning to tank but its okay to do the occasional 2 tanker teams.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
Well, consider that CoH has difficulty settings. Just because everybody is currently running on Invincible or Unyielding -- largely because those settings have become "more XP" rather than actual "increased difficulty" settings doesn't mean it will always have to be the case. The basic idea is that a defensively oriented team can reap comparative rewards despite less offense because they can handle the more rewarding higher difficulty settings better.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Another way to look at it is buff/debuff stacking and mitigation scaling. Very moderate buffing can effectively make a single Tank immortal. Even 'lowly' Fire Tanks can be extremely durable when paired with, say, Sonic Resonance (perma res cap).
I can't help but wonder how content could be made difficult enough to make two Tanks desirable (or 'necessary') without completely crushing anything that wasn't a Tank. From a video I saw from SDCC, it sounds like they're putting a lot of dev time into character advancement / harder content, so we'll have to see where that leads. |
Nor does content that keeps more than one tanker busy have to be soul-crushingly hard: scattered spawns, fast-paced ambushes, or mechanics that manipulate aggro can make a fight more complex to manage without disproportionately ramping up the damage output of critters.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
I could be convinced of a lot of what you wrote here. I'd love to hear what kind of alternative mechanic you would have used instead of endurance. Yes, I know it would never be implemented at this stage of the game, but I like to keep my mind open.
|
But endurance is -good- for the game. It sets limits on what you can accomplish in a given time frame, and forces the player to make strategic and tactical choices within the resources they have.
Learning how to tackle the problem of endurance is a part of learning the game itself. When you have endurance 'problems' you learn how to manage your resources effectively, making you a more effective player than if you simply learn 'faceroll to win game.'
Quote:
Other games follow a business model that limits the total number of characters you can have active. These ganes deliberately create slow paces of advancement, mandatory timesinks, and frustrating, failure-filled endgame content to keep you playing to gear up your main after it hits maximum level. That's why I don't play them any more.|
Originally Posted by ThePackage
But endurance is -good- for the game. It sets limits on what you can accomplish in a given time frame, and forces the player to make strategic and tactical choices within the resources they have.
|
This game explicitly invites every player to create - at minimum - twelve characters on every server if they feel moved to do so. Personally, I view this game as a sort of character creation sandbox; I experiment with concepts and power sets, and keep and play the ones I like.
The endurance mechanic as currently implemented is a drag on gameplay that's inconsistent with the things that make this game unique. This game has far less of a need for mechanics to make character building a time-sink. Mandatory stamina at 20 prevents me from exploring the actual power sets I choose. Mandatory stamina encourages power levelling to get those levels over with and pass by the content written for them.
The endurance mechanic is inconsistent with the things that make this game unique. It is specifically bad for this game.
<《 New Colchis / Guides / Mission Architect 》>
"At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison
I'm not sure if this shouldn't go in its own thread, but it is an idea that addresses tanker stacking, end efficiency, and the unwanted threat problem.
The latter deserves a bit of explanation. Suppose a team including two tanks, or a tank and a scrapper, encounters an enemy that one tank is specifically deficient against: a psi AV versus an Inv tank, for instance, or a Stone/Ice and a Fire/EM fighting the same enemy. Clearly one of the tanks wants to be the aggro target, and the other just wants to deal damage efficiently. However, it can happen that the damage-dealing tank generates more threat through damage and Gauntlet than the aggro-grabbing tank/scrapper can overcome. In this case, what the damaging tank would want is some way to turn the threat generation of Gauntlet off.
So, this is my idea. Gauntlet becomes a zero-cost toggle. When it is off, attacks generate threat as normal. When it is on, attacks do not generate additional threat. Instead, the Gauntlet effect grants a short-duration endurance discount buff to the attacking Tanker for each enemy in its effect. The discount should have a larger initial component and then a smaller additional component for each enemy in radius - purely off the top of my head, say, 15% + 2% per enemy. The discount buff could also scale by enemy type, so that a greater discount is gained from fighting higher ranks.
The disadvantage, of course, is that this is complicated to use and possibly difficult to program. The advantage is that it addresses many tanker issues in one stroke. A solo tanker activates Gauntlet to offset the Tanker DPE disadvantage and gains an efficiency benefit from their ability to take on more enemies at a time. In a group with other tankers, the most survivable generates threat and absorbs damage, while the others pile on efficient damage. And when it is not desirable to generate threat, a tanker switches to endurance discount mode and attacks.
The endurance discount could, instead, be a damage buff. The reason why I don't suggest that right off is due to Castle's apparent disinclination to grant damage buffs to Tanks as their inherent, and also because it might be bad to excessively incentivize tanks to turn off their threat generation...
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Before re-inventing the wheel...fix aggro control, 1) all Tanker aggro arua's should be compairable to Chilling Embrace when holding aggro. 2) If the aggro cap is 16 then Taunt for Tanks should taunt 16.
Wild Cards
@BLASTWAVE
@BLASTWAVE2
Quote:
Excellent post, and I wholeheartedly agree.
|
Originally Posted by Heraclea
The endurance mechanic as currently implemented is a drag on gameplay that's inconsistent with the things that make this game unique. This game has far less of a need for mechanics to make character building a time-sink. Mandatory stamina at 20 prevents me from exploring the actual power sets I choose. Mandatory stamina encourages power levelling to get those levels over with and pass by the content written for them.
The endurance mechanic is inconsistent with the things that make this game unique. It is specifically bad for this game. |
Quote:
I had stated myself before that endurance works as an effective cap on your soloing speed; however, the point that you are not addressing is that it is an extremely poor solution. Certain powersets/ATs can fairly easily bypass it, and on most teams it just disappears because there are so many +recovery powers in popular powersets (e.g., Speed Boost, Transference, Recovery Aura, Accelerate Metabolism, Heat Loss). In short, endurance it is a limiter on effectiveness that does its job poorly (because it can be bypassed so easily on teams) and is a poor fit for the genre (how often do superheroes really get too tired to fight while at full health)?|
Originally Posted by ThePackage
But endurance is -good- for the game. It sets limits on what you can accomplish in a given time frame, and forces the player to make strategic and tactical choices within the resources they have.
|
Quote:
| Learning how to tackle the problem of endurance is a part of learning the game itself. When you have endurance 'problems' you learn how to manage your resources effectively, making you a more effective player than if you simply learn 'faceroll to win game.' |
Quote:
Doesn't matter what character you create. The game is set up to make a certain amount of powers as desirable as possible to anyone. One can't fit them all in and have a build for everything. If I could taunt control 16 with my aura alone I wouldn't have to gauntlet or taunt that extra few more when gaining the numbers of enemies in order to maximize the output other players debuffs and aoes.
|
Originally Posted by BLASTWAVE
Before re-inventing the wheel...fix aggro control, 1) all Tanker aggro arua's should be compairable to Chilling Embrace when holding aggro. 2) If the aggro cap is 16 then Taunt for Tanks should taunt 16.
|
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Heraclea
The endurance mechanic as currently implemented is a drag on gameplay that's inconsistent with the things that make this game unique. This game has far less of a need for mechanics to make character building a time-sink. Mandatory stamina at 20 prevents me from exploring the actual power sets I choose. Mandatory stamina encourages power levelling to get those levels over with and pass by the content written for them.
The endurance mechanic is inconsistent with the things that make this game unique. It is specifically bad for this game. |
I have to disagree with this. First: there are options to stamina, specially with IOs. Frankenslotting is an option. Taking more attacks and slotting for endurance, damage and accuracy instead of going recharge heavy with few attacks is another approach. Arcanaville proved it worked even before IOs, although I think she did use HOs.
Again: as long as endurance exists you will have people that will insit that they "require" to get any option that gives them moar.
This game was heavily balanced around endruance. Certain sets get intentional endurance advantage at a cost, arguably some sets may not be properly penalized in that department (*cough WP*) but the root of certain builds disadvantages are based around their endurance advantages. For instance, Masterminds barely use endurance because their pets are doing the job for them, as consequence every mastermind action has increased endurance cost (25% more end cost.) Removing stamina from the game entirely would force all these sets to be redesigned.
All that being told, I don't have a big issue with stamina as a limmiting factor, but I do have an issue with specific ATs having worse endurance efficiency than others in equivalent builds.
Quote:
Not to mention: If castle ever went to normalize "aggro control" capabilities, he would go for the lower end possible, not the high end. I doubt he is extremely happy with tankers and brutes just turning on their aura and auto following and still be effective tanks.
|
Originally Posted by Shannon_EU
Doesn't matter what character you create. The game is set up to make a certain amount of powers as desirable as possible to anyone. One can't fit them all in and have a build for everything. If I could taunt control 16 with my aura alone I wouldn't have to gauntlet or taunt that extra few more when gaining the numbers of enemies in order to maximize the output other players debuffs and aoes.
|
Quote:
Actually I do...quit stalking me.|
Originally Posted by Dersk
Well, then, there you go. Now you know why you don't get it. Tanks shouldn't care about endurance costs because they tank. What dismissive and wonderfully circular logic. You don't happen to work for a government agency, do you?
|
-Yes I agree tankers need to be attacking to contribute to holding aggro and such but it doesn't need to be every second.
~Amidst the blue skies, a link from past to future. The sheltering wings of the protector~
Quote:
Endurance isn't supposed to be a cap on soloing speed, that's not the point of it. It regenerates -really- quickly in comparison to other mechanics. I think that Rest or some equivalent could be up more often, but it's not as big a problem as you think so long as you learn how to manage Stamina.|
Originally Posted by Sorciere_NA
I had stated myself before that endurance works as an effective cap on your soloing speed; however, the point that you are not addressing is that it is an extremely poor solution. Certain powersets/ATs can fairly easily bypass it, and on most teams it just disappears because there are so many +recovery powers in popular powersets (e.g., Speed Boost, Transference, Recovery Aura, Accelerate Metabolism, Heat Loss). In short, endurance it is a limiter on effectiveness that does its job poorly (because it can be bypassed so easily on teams) and is a poor fit for the genre (how often do superheroes really get too tired to fight while at full health)?
|
An interesting comparison is with other games that also have similiar systems. Ever play a Protection Paladin in WoW? You get (and use) your mana at about the same rate as endurance flows in this game. It's hardly a problem if you manage it right. Perspective is in order. You have to spend something to get something, you have to have a resource to manage.
Endurance is supposed to encourage you to either watch your bar, learn to strategize between attack and defense, and cause you to value teammate buffs that increase your efficiency in the same way you appreciate recharge, damage boosts, and regeneration.
Quote:
| There is not much to learn about "tackling the problem of endurance". In your build, you grab Stamina and/or Quick Recovery, and you slot for endurance reduction where applicable. It's not rocket surgery. |
Seriously, CoH is already easy enough. If you have trouble reaching level 20 in short order, I don't know what to say.
Quote:
| But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been a better design originally. (I'm not blaming the original developers here; they had to create a huge powers system from scratch, so they didn't have the luxury of debating for months over how to perfect every aspect of the game mechanics, so they obviously had to cut some corners to put out a playable product.) |
The big game at the time CoH was released was Everquest. Everquest (and games like it) had a mana system that works surprisingly like CoH. You spend mana on spells, and regenerate it over time. Sounds exactly the same, right?
The thing is, EQ's mana regenerated.... very.... very... slowly.... so you'd be meditating (a skill you had to level up by literally staring at your spell book for a few minutes) and then you'd be good to go to unleash your big bad voodoo. As a result, mana-regenerating buffs were literally refered to as 'crack' and if you were a magic-using class, you begged for your crack before you went out to level.
And it took a LONG time to level.
CoH was one of the first games to revolutionize this. It gave the players the ability to regenerate their endurance (same as mana, remember) from lowest to highest in sixty seconds, rather than minutes. You also got this rate of replenishment in battle and outside battle. No looking at a status screen! And on top of that, every so often you could reduce that time down to mere seconds.
Oh, and your powers use about as much endurance for what they do as a mage's spells did in EQ.
And yet, on top of that, you -still- have 'crack' available! You can get buffs from other players, or even supply your own by purchasing some powers.
In this respect, CoH was revolutionary, and was one of the forrunners in minimizing down-time by making sweet sweet endurance flow like water for all classes and builds, by giving melee classes abilities and techniques same as the ranged spell-types do, and by making buffs matter for the level they are cast.
Since then, powers have had their endurance costs cut, and cut again, and still people complain.
Complaining about the flow in of your primary resource for ability use is a mainstay of MMO communities since the dawn of time. People complain in WAR that Power doesn't come back fast enough. WoW players complain their rogues and druids don't recharge energy at near the rate they 'should'.
The only thing I think could stand to change is more availability of some equivalent to 'Water' like they have in WoW to keep downtime to a minimum.
Short of that, seriously. You don't have much downtime as it is. Ten seconds doesn't kill your soloing rate. Learn to manage.
[ 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 ]
Ah, glad to see my skepticism in that thread was justified then. Still, I would not be surprised if shields/dm could outdamage some scrapper combos even after IO's - say, take on a spines/sr at single target damage, I think you'd win. Fire/fire/pyre certainly outdamages some scrapper combos.