i entirely agree! a tank that can stay alive and dish some damage to boot is far more beneficial to a team than a tank who stands there and auto taunts! also a tank that can attack is far more flexible than a taunt-bot for any situation that a team may encounter
Tanks that can dish and take damage are often called Scrankers. Fire/Ice tanks do most of their damage through PBAOE's and hold damage in, so are most often referred to as 'Tankers', but the secondaries do allow for a lot of damage.
A Tankers main purpose is to hold damage in though, and keep it away from the stronger damage dealers, and supports. Actually doing damage is very much a secondary thought. Tankers damage attacks tend to divert away protecting the others, so it's often frowned upon.
Saying that, Blasters are supposed to be at range, Def/Con aren't meant to be in melee, so it's really whatever floats your boat.
A Tanker built purely to damage though is not utilising it's best strengths(Scrapper being more offensive for less slotting); therefore people who want a 'Tanker' often want it for it's defensive capabilities, so get annoyed when it wants to go offensive.
EM especially is a great offensive power set, so next time they ask, describe yourself as a Scranker and they'll get the message you like to belt a few mobs as well. 
I don't agree that a tanker shouldn't attack. If that was the case a tanker wouldn't have the secondary powerset.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually doing damage is very much a secondary thought. Tankers damage attacks tend to divert away protecting the others, so it's often frowned upon.
[/ QUOTE ]
While is is true that they don't do the greatest amount of damage, every hit that a tanker lands on a target adds to the agro control by taunting that same target and those around it. This is facilitated by the inherent power 'Gauntlet'. It's not as strong a taunt as the dedicated 'Taunt' power, but every little helps. I've never encountered any point in which a tank attacking was unwanted or frowned upon. I can say this from both tanker's point of view and that of other ATs.
It's all a matter of player preference at the end of the day but to write-of a tanker as a damage dealer would be hasty to say the least.
PANGAEA - Lvl 50 stone/stone Tanker
NX-02 - Lvl 50 robotics/force field Mastermind
DEUTERON - Lvl 50 Warshade
My three highest toons
[ QUOTE ]
Tanks that can dish and take damage are often called Scrankers. Fire/Ice tanks do most of their damage through PBAOE's and hold damage in, so are most often referred to as 'Tankers', but the secondaries do allow for a lot of damage.
A Tankers main purpose is to hold damage in though, and keep it away from the stronger damage dealers, and supports. Actually doing damage is very much a secondary thought. Tankers damage attacks tend to divert away protecting the others, so it's often frowned upon.
Saying that, Blasters are supposed to be at range, Def/Con aren't meant to be in melee, so it's really whatever floats your boat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um where are all these should-be's coming from? The official coh guide published like 2,5 years ago or what? That is awfullly out-of-date you know... I hope the GvE edition got a better one but I dont have GvE so I dont know..
Personally Im all for variety, despite my sometimes big arguments with Extragonk about scranking..
Where all should-be's come from. Players mouths who haven't played the character 
Time for a superhero quote I think:
"Now listen to me, lad. You keep giving us these how-to's and would-have-been's and I'm gonna give you THIS right where you least want it."
- Nigel Keane aka Hellstrike, of Stormwatch
[ QUOTE ]
Why do people obsess over this premonition that tanks aren't supposed to attack?
I read a lot of builds on tanks because I love them and in almost every one there is some mention of; "tanks are not supposed to attack"...
I really want to know why!
I personally favour the tank that can give it and take it at the same time, rather than just taking it. I try and base my tanks on an equal amount of shielding and attacking just as a scrapper would take attacks equal to shields or as a controller would take control powers aswell as buffs / debuffs.
I can understand that there IS a stereotype of the tank as standing there and taking hits, but it really doens't have to be like this! Tanks can hit just as well as any other archetype.
How boring would this game be if every archetype took their role literally like tank players seem to. Controllers with only control powers, defenders with no attacks or a scrapper with only attacks.
I know I'll get "pwned" for this post, but I just wanted to voice my opinion.
Disclaimer: This post obviously doesn't apply to ALL tanks, just a select majority (In my opinion).
[/ QUOTE ]
Where have you read that tanks arent supposed to attack?
You do need to hit things to gauntlet, and gauntlet is the minimum requirement of any tanker, plus its good to have some soloability imo.
Alvan is the only tanker around that i know of that due to his concept reasons has got to be slow on missions soloing, but note i said slow.
Attacking reduces fight durations which increases survivability. High burst damage attacks are good in the short fights and all aoes are great attention getters in any fight and great in the long fights.
Some tanks are attacking a minion taunting too little and doing too little damage to really be as much of an asset as a scrapper could be which is not good, i mean why make a tank of your going to be a halfwit scrapper?
Mobs could become more of a controllers game and controllers love it (i personally enjoy teams with no tank at times but i also know that my butt should be more likely handed back to me on a plate without one).
The other day just after i thought i had already seen the worst tank possible, it got worst but this guy was a 7 year old bless him (its alright he wont be offended he doesnt read or speak english). He had one armour, some single target attacks, fitness pool, grant invis and a travel power and prerequisite. There i was with my force field bubbler scared to attack his so called herded (grouped but anyone who wants to take thems mob) i bubbled him and had to stand near him using stimulant (no rooted) and aid other (he had no heal) constantly while he did poo damage. Gauntlet was atrocious to rely on, if i put in a blast i pretty much got attention and it may of took him a couple of strikes to get the foe to turn around back onto me, i could throw in an aoe but then i would have to go personal force field. So being able to keep attention is very important.
Yesterday i was on a team with my 22 scrapper fighting 26-27 missing alot due to hurricanes on a PuG and they had no tank, i said shall i get my 24 tank to be more useful, no one said anything (nobody knows me and knows that my tank would of mowed through that mission making it cake), we had a controller and then i said "shall i get my 24 controller (i dont have one) and they said a controller would be good. I thought "but we have a controller? why do we need another one?". My controller has controls which maybe pointless using cos another controller has done the same thing or used a power that cancels mine out so half the time i'd of been contributing whats there anyway. Are tanks detrimental? No because i could of turned that mission on its head into a super easy one of no deaths if everyone played their toons well. But i guess the controller wanted his "i am more needed" day over the safety of everyones toons or simply "tanks ruin my fun and i dont mind people getting debt and levelling slower". Truth is in that team going from a 22 to a 24 against 26 and 27 with changing to any AT was a good idea for the team xp/time wise.
You are meant to get hit, take damage and give damage but keeping foes of other people is your primary concern because what the tanker can do that no other AT can possibly do even half as well is redirect line of fire and keep it redirected. Most often your attacks and aura alone without taunting can do that. Taunt offers more flexibility and more chance of consolidation. In the low levels tanks need to build up their armours (especially for the teams with no defender, with no controller etc) attacks wouldnt be contributing half as much as taunt control would anyway as atleast, by tight grouping you get all the teams aoes to stack on as many foes as possible.
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 ]
i entirely agree! a tank that can stay alive and dish some damage to boot is far more beneficial to a team than a tank who stands there and auto taunts! also a tank that can attack is far more flexible than a taunt-bot for any situation that a team may encounter
[/ QUOTE ]
id like to see this proven, i really would. i SERIOUSLY disbelieve it.
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 ]
Saying that, Blasters are supposed to be at range, Def/Con aren't meant to be in melee, so it's really whatever floats your boat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Blasters are Blappers too, they do more damage blapping, Def and controllers have pbaoes. You say "arent really" but its more about timing of when is a good time to be melee and not in melee.
An example is I like blasters to blap AVs but due to their lack of mezz protection and armours i MIGHT have to direct fire away from the blappers so they dont get held by kiting. Theyd do far more damage over time hitting the AV safely than unsafely with me attacking, so by standing far back from team soaking up damage id be doing a good thing as a tank redirecting fire away and blasters are doing more damage as a result and the team is doing more damage overtime because atleast they arent getting held or dead.
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.
I see posts about it now and again... I've tried to find one but I'll post again when one comes up.
You, Shannon, of all people, surly must have read this somewhere?!
You other guys can back me up right? We have all read this at some point or another and it tires me out.
[ QUOTE ]
I see posts about it now and again... I've tried to find one but I'll post again when one comes up.
You, Shannon, of all people, surly must have read this somewhere?!
You other guys can back me up right? We have all read this at some point or another and it tires me out.
[/ QUOTE ]
i see alot of disillusioned people mainly....who think game mechanics dont apply and cant see past their own toons noses and have 1 tactic for everything and believe that certain sets are ftw and that because they have a 50 means they know everything and look to make things so that they are "teh best" and look like "teh best" and hate to see others do well by providing as good support as they can.
The team to me is all that matters no matter what its made up of and there is no I in it.
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.
Ultimately, A tanks primary is better than his secondary.
Whilst no tank will be optimal in any team, all toons should normally focus on their primary first (bacause they do that much better) and their secondary.. umm... second...
I have an idea, I'll put a suggestion in to get rid of all secondery powers sets. That should make the game even more interesting! 
[ QUOTE ]
Ultimately, A tanks primary is better than his secondary.
Whilst no tank will be optimal in any team, all toons should normally focus on their primary first (bacause they do that much better) and their secondary.. umm... second...
[/ QUOTE ]
My empath is pure empath, when invited to a team people were expecting a defender not a second rate blaster, and if i want a blaster i would of been one. All power picks were to help me with my primary and make it more there when needed either through +rechg, stamina, the fact i am not dead or travel ability. Taunting Dominique once i waited a full 10 seconds before an empath healed me, their tickling of the AV with their attack chain came before whether i went down and anyone else after like a pack of cards. Thats not to say they shpuldnt be attacking but its a question of when is best to be attacking.
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 ]
a tank that can attack is far more flexible than a taunt-bot for any situation that a team may encounter
[/ QUOTE ]
Errrm.... not really
My Tanking experience is a bit limited, only having a lev 29 INV/SS Tanker However ... I have found it beneficial to the team if I dish out a bit of damage as well as taunting.
I have a very strong defence and I can keep full attention of the mob and keep a Boss or Lt on his backside using Air Sup or Knockout.
Surely this can't be a bad thing?
Granted if a Tank turns up with sheilds missing, no Taunt and only attacks then thats not much use. IMHO thats down to the player using bad judgement when taking powers.
As long as a Tank has a sound defence and taunt, then there is no problem with them having a pop at the mobs.
Proud member of FOXBASE ALPHA and coalition associates.
Hero 50's - 25
Villain 50's - 1
[ QUOTE ]
a tank that can attack is far more flexible than a taunt-bot for any situation that a team may encounter
[/ QUOTE ]
Indeed, not really. There isnt a situation in existence in which the best way for tank to proceed in team wouldn't be taunting..
Tanks can scrank, and defenders can blast and so on. Im not against that. But When I see a empath im expecting to be fortituded.. That kinda sums it up
(However, if I see a high lvl tank without taunt though they are gonna get the eeevil eye)
[ QUOTE ]
Why do people obsess over this premonition that tanks aren't supposed to attack?
I read a lot of builds on tanks because I love them and in almost every one there is some mention of; "tanks are not supposed to attack"...
I really want to know why!
I personally favour the tank that can give it and take it at the same time, rather than just taking it. I try and base my tanks on an equal amount of shielding and attacking just as a scrapper would take attacks equal to shields or as a controller would take control powers aswell as buffs / debuffs.
I can understand that there IS a stereotype of the tank as standing there and taking hits, but it really doens't have to be like this! Tanks can hit just as well as any other archetype.
How boring would this game be if every archetype took their role literally like tank players seem to. Controllers with only control powers, defenders with no attacks or a scrapper with only attacks.
I know I'll get "pwned" for this post, but I just wanted to voice my opinion.
Disclaimer: This post obviously doesn't apply to ALL tanks, just a select majority (In my opinion).
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't recall how many times i've been told in my mid levels im not meant to do damage. If theres no good DMG dealer on the team, then sure the tanks are needed to do that. But the fact that Tankers are supposed to aggro and keep the enemies held has got it into peoples minds that "Tanks DON'T do damage". Tankers wouldn't be given high damage attacks if they weren't meant to be doing damage.
So ignore your teammates, do some damage!
Catz
Well, with some AVs being resistant to gauntlet, Taunt has become pretty much necessary at high levels but that's a different matter.
A question for those who say tanks shouldn't attack: What do you do once everything is taunted and/or sat in your taunt aura?
Being able to take a lot of damage and control the agro should not not preclude you from doing some damage yourself.
Octavian Vanguard
@ohmsEU and @ohms 2
Badging character: Bimble on the Union server, Badgehunter.com and City Info Tracker.
[ QUOTE ]
I have an idea, I'll put a suggestion in to get rid of all secondery powers sets. That should make the game even more interesting!
[/ QUOTE ]
Didnt say that. I said one should generally focus on your primary. Thats an absolutely different thing from ignoring your secondary.
Indeed.
Even a toon taking every single primary power and slotting them optimally will still have plenty of powers to take from secondary, or even pool, and the slots to put on them.
Clearly, providing you have the endurance and the time, you should use every power in your disposal. This goes just as much for defenders who blast. Once you have buffed / debuffed / healed, you may as well contribute to taking down the enemies by doing damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Taunting Dominique once i waited a full 10 seconds before an empath healed me, their tickling of the AV with their attack chain came before whether i went down and anyone else after like a pack of cards. Thats not to say they shouldnt be attacking but its a question of when is best to be attacking.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to ask - Did you not posess any greens or Dull Pain at this point?
As far as Im concerned when Tanking (or playing any AT) you should always be able to get yourself out of trouble, just in case the empath fails to heal or the Scrapper suddenly becomes afk at the wrong moment etc, etc.
There are times when if you dont evacuate the immediate area the whole team ends up face down in the dirt. (and having a few awakens is always useful) even if its just to rest and then come back and 'collect' the mobs to allow everyone else to get up and get ready again.
I wouldnt say its a stereotype, just a basic ingrained job description 
One more thing before I put this rant away
What the Hell is a Blapper or a Scranker?? Are we to have a defroller or a Scrafender??
So some people like to be a little different (by sometimes using their Secondary Powerset ) why try and define it with a merged AT title? I dont get it! So a Blaster uses its close combat attacks does that mean that it is no longer a blaster?
Why change the title of the Tanker when going on the offensive? (Is it just me or does 'Scranker' just sound like it should be censored?)
Tank by the very definition of the word A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle, designed to engage enemy forces by the use of direct fire. That to me does not mean roll up to the enemy and stand still...
Rant over
We now return you to your your scheduled topic...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taunting Dominique once i waited a full 10 seconds before an empath healed me, their tickling of the AV with their attack chain came before whether i went down and anyone else after like a pack of cards. Thats not to say they shouldnt be attacking but its a question of when is best to be attacking.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to ask - Did you not posess any greens or Dull Pain at this point?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not everything gets done with a rad in the team when the AVs regen rate is too high as your taunting with a super reflex scrapper for a full 45 mins especially with Dominique flying around.
[ QUOTE ]
As far as Im concerned when Tanking (or playing any AT) you should always be able to get yourself out of trouble, just in case the empath fails to heal or the Scrapper suddenly becomes afk at the wrong moment etc, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, no matter what you are except for granite tanker with aid self against a non AV that definately isnt psi. You dont get to do everything without support.
[ QUOTE ]
There are times when if you dont evacuate the immediate area the whole team ends up face down in the dirt. (and having a few awakens is always useful) even if its just to rest and then come back and 'collect' the mobs to allow everyone else to get up and get ready again.
[/ QUOTE ]
Id much rather a tactical retreat. Good PvPers know when to back off as you dont want to give the opposition wins at all. Against artificial intelligence there is no excuse for being defeated apart from not being too bright or not getting the support you'd expect.
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt say its a stereotype, just a basic ingrained job description
[/ QUOTE ]
I dont get it.
[ QUOTE ]
One more thing before I put this rant away
[/ QUOTE ]
Rant? A load of verbose made upon assumptions especially if you think that the number of boxes in the inspiration tray is always enough.
[ QUOTE ]
What the Hell is a Blapper or a Scranker?? Are we to have a defroller or a Scrafender??
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh i see maybe your new! Blappers are blasters that prioritise in melee range (nothing necessarily wrong with that). Scrankers are tankers with the intention of playing like scrappers (sometimes people need to know in this case). Defrollers wont exist as any form of controlling is defending and scrafenders you have also made up.
[ QUOTE ]
So some people like to be a little different (by sometimes using their Secondary Powerset ) why try and define it with a merged AT title? I dont get it! So a Blaster uses its close combat attacks does that mean that it is no longer a blaster?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because people like to, even blasters prefer to call themselves blappers as its more what they do. Melee ranged attackss from a blaster doesnt look like a blast.
[ QUOTE ]
Why change the title of the Tanker when going on the offensive? (Is it just me or does 'Scranker' just sound like it should be censored?)
[/ QUOTE ]
No its nothing to do with offense its to do with lack of taunt control. That which sets the tanker apart from other sets in this MMO.
[ QUOTE ]
Tank by the very definition of the word A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle, designed to engage enemy forces by the use of direct fire. That to me does not mean roll up to the enemy and stand still...
Rant over
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats an OK definition for a military tank, the rest of the post has assumed much incorrectly.
And thanks alot IF you've stereotyped me in order to feel a rant to direct at me.
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.
<qr>
Oh dear God... here we go again....
UNION
Officer Cuffz lvl 50 Inv/Nrg Tank
Badge lvl 50 dwarf/human Peacebringer
Dark Air lvl 50 Ice/Cold Corruptor
Ayre lvl 50 Storm/Elec Defender
Total Cat: @Officer Cuffz
"When I say interview, I mean engage in combat and defeat..." -Laura Brunetti, on how to deal with Warriors.
Why do people obsess over this premonition that tanks aren't supposed to attack?
I read a lot of builds on tanks because I love them and in almost every one there is some mention of; "tanks are not supposed to attack"...
I really want to know why!
I personally favour the tank that can give it and take it at the same time, rather than just taking it. I try and base my tanks on an equal amount of shielding and attacking just as a scrapper would take attacks equal to shields or as a controller would take control powers aswell as buffs / debuffs.
I can understand that there IS a stereotype of the tank as standing there and taking hits, but it really doens't have to be like this! Tanks can hit just as well as any other archetype.
How boring would this game be if every archetype took their role literally like tank players seem to. Controllers with only control powers, defenders with no attacks or a scrapper with only attacks.
I know I'll get "pwned" for this post, but I just wanted to voice my opinion.
Disclaimer: This post obviously doesn't apply to ALL tanks, just a select majority (In my opinion).