in essence, from the way I am reading this, it would create a virtual form of stun locking the mobs.
that or it would just act like a slow, which can already be stacked by a dedicated debuffer.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad idea, just not sure how well it would catch on, or alleviate the current tank stacking issue.
Dark Armor is like that kid you knew in school that didn't know when to shut up, and no matter how bad he got beaten down, he got right back up again and kept on talking.
It would aliviate Tank stacking by giving a benifit to having more than one on a team beyond "oh hey a room with 50 guys" IE the Khan TF. True, the -slow isn't THAT huge a deal, but I'm specifically thinking of TF content and how sometimes a stray AoE can knock half a team senseless. If an AV is slowed down enough, they may never get the chance to do such a thing.
I was considering makigng Hesitation give a team-wide damage buff, but decided it might be over the top (and would essentially make Leadership: Assault useless), so i left it as a Tank-only option.
The current Tank stacking issue is that there is NO reason to have more than one on a team -short of a hami raid-, and in fact can be seen as counter-productive if there was. I'd like to think that a stacking debuff, plus a little extra damage, would help people change thier minds. Or I could be wrong, *shrug*
-STEELE =)
Allied to all sides so that no matter what, I'll come out on top!
Oh, and Crimson demands you play this arc-> Twisted Knives (MA Arc #397769)
I agree, there is definitely a problem with the current status quo. Anything that creates conversation on the issue is worthwhile.
Dark Armor is like that kid you knew in school that didn't know when to shut up, and no matter how bad he got beaten down, he got right back up again and kept on talking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
I agree, there is definitely a problem with the current status quo. Anything that creates conversation on the issue is worthwhile.
|
"Definitely" is too strong considering data mining shows that all of the tank sets perform well above most of the other ATs.
And the "tankers are broken" type threads you see, are mostly from under ten people who have regular issues with the AT, out of everyone who posts in this section.
Tankers are fine.
Tankers are not "broken". Some powersets have problems, but tankers as a whole are fine.
The endurance mechanic and mandatory Stamina are a major problem, though, especially since the pace of play they force for new players, and the non-obviousness of the fix, do not show the game at its best. This is hardly a problem confined to Tankers; it is general to all non-primary-DPS and some DPS sets.
<《 New Colchis / Guides / Mission Architect 》>
"At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison
I was alright with Tanks till this morning. How attractive will they be for teams when Brutes can cross over in Going Rogue? They'll practically be interchangeable given the right players except Brutes do more damage.
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 still see no reason to invite a Brute over a Tank, unless you want Vengeance bait.
Actually, I've seen a couple Brutes out-tank some Tanks >_> But those are outliers, of course.
There actually IS an issue with "why have more than one tank on a team?" A single Tank can handle just about anything, and adding a second or third is superfluous at best. Unlike say, an extra defender or controller or Blaster who help serve to multiply their individual effects, having multiple tankers actually takes AWAY from the one. Even if it's just a perception, it's a wide-spread one.
This only proves, however, that Tankers as a whole really don't need much help at all. They have their job, and they're SO GOOD at it that no team should want for another. And THAT, I think, is a problem. I've seen Tankers come to MoSTF Saturday on Virtue, and they get turned down because all the assembled teams already have "A" tank. You don't see teams turning down a second blaster or a second emp or a second kin or a second... anything. Besides tank. And when a team DOES take on two tankers? "Oh, hey, this guy's a stone tank. Hey mister shields, you wanna switch?" "Sure, i got a kin i can bring..." "Perfect!"
Well not always. Sometimes you'll have the "primary" tank and the "downgraded scrapper who will only jump in if something goes wrong with an AV" Tank.
Which is why I think Tanks should have some kind of stacking bonus. We don't need more damage... we need a good reason to have more than one on a team who's function or contribution wouldn't be insignificant compared to straight up more control or damage or debuffs.
-STEELE =)
Allied to all sides so that no matter what, I'll come out on top!
Oh, and Crimson demands you play this arc-> Twisted Knives (MA Arc #397769)
Quote:
Yep, I have been looking at builds for my brutes, and seriously, survivabilitywise, brutes are not very far behind tanks. |
Originally Posted by Shannon_EU
I was alright with Tanks till this morning. How attractive will they be for teams when Brutes can cross over in Going Rogue? They'll practically be interchangeable given the right players except Brutes do more damage.
|
Close to, if not softcapped defense, solid resistance, and a ton of damage. These are builds requiring no purple sets and are not that expensive. I have a build for my SM/WP brute with 50% resistance, @83hp/sec regen and 35-40% defense, depending on how I tweak it. My DA tank, for the purposes of comparison, when I get the last couple of IOs i need will have just over 45% defense, and 69% resistance. My ElecA brute, with the IO build I have come up with, will have 42.3% def, and 58.3% resistance, the biggest issue with that set is the lack of a self heal, which appears will be alleviated with I16. With IOs, my Shield brute will have better survivability than my Ice tank IOed out would.
A couple buffs, they are equal to tanks.
These are not that expensive of builds. A little farming, and they are easily achievable. They don't use any purples whatsoever.
Is the game built with SOs in mind, yes. Is the accumulation of Influence now trivial, if you don't think so, you are delusional. Are IOed builds the norm currently, no.
When is GR going to be released? 6 months from now would be the absolute earliest I would give it. In 6 months, there will be more IOed toons. In a year, it will be almost mandatory. People are still catching up in this game as far as loot based min/maxing. The effort required to max out a toon in this game is incredibly small. I am not saying this is a bad thing.
I love my tanks. I love TO tank.
I am not calling for anyone to get nerfed, I am not saying Tanks are broken. What I am saying, is that Tanks need some sort of adjustment to make them more relevant, specifically in the future. All classes are to a degree interchangable, I am not saying that is bad either, but seriously, unless there is some other means to make a tanker desirable to teams other than taunt botting meatshield, they are going to become obsolete.
Dark Armor is like that kid you knew in school that didn't know when to shut up, and no matter how bad he got beaten down, he got right back up again and kept on talking.
Here we go again with that BS.
Quote:
Well, having played on teams where tanks take turns herding up groups so that the team moves non-stop to continuous fishes in barrels, I can assure you, tank stacking isn't an issue. The amount of XP flow in a situation like that is a beautiful thing. And on the plus side, no one complains about the "wait here while I herd" syndrome.|
Originally Posted by EmperorSteele
There actually IS an issue with "why have more than one tank on a team?" A single Tank can handle just about anything, and adding a second or third is superfluous at best. Unlike say, an extra defender or controller or Blaster who help serve to multiply their individual effects, having multiple tankers actually takes AWAY from the one. Even if it's just a perception, it's a wide-spread one
|
If teams find a second tank to be superfluous, it's because we're not doing enough to show them its not. Instead of trying to come up with overly complicated answers to fix a problem that isn't there, we should instead be actively forming teams with 2-3 tanks and showing them how it works.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
By all means, tell us how you really feel.
|
Originally Posted by Atheism
Here we go again with that BS.
|
Quote:
You're right; but I think the highlighted part is the real wrinkle in your statement, because not everyone is the "right player," probably a lot fewer than we think here. Brutes have the tools to replace Tanks, but I'd wager the majority are focused on damage and couldn't care less about aggro.|
Originally Posted by Shannon_EU
I was alright with Tanks till this morning. How attractive will they be for teams when Brutes can cross over in Going Rogue? They'll practically be interchangeable given the right players except Brutes do more damage.
|
The second hurdle is that they'd need more buffs to be as strong as a Tanker. The good thing about Tankers is they're a lot tougher out of the box and don't require as much support to get things done. On a support light team (be it few support chars or few support who are operating optimally) the Brute will have more problems than a Tank will.
Will some Brutes replace some Tanks? Yes. Will all of them? I highly doubt it. I know I have no intentions of quitting mine.
As another point of view, there hasn't been a mass exodus from Defenders, despite what is said on the board about Controllers and Corruptors (post GR) being able to replace them while having more control / damage / etc. Defenders can be replaced, but they haven't been.
Quote:
Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to what will happen when GR is released. I am speaking from experience with other games where I have seen this exact scenario occur. One class gets buffed to hell, or one faction gets access to a class they didn't have before, they see the strengths and weaknesses, and say, well, the weaknesses are heavily outweighed by the strengths. I have seen classes completely reworked to deal with that exact problem, but the perception was already there, and that takes a long time to change. Sure tanks are tougher out of the box, I am not arguing they are not. As far as what is required for the current content tho, a well built, well played brute can easily stand in for a tank. |
Originally Posted by Sarrate
You're right; but I think the highlighted part is the real wrinkle in your statement, because not everyone is the "right player," probably a lot fewer than we think here. Brutes have the tools to replace Tanks, but I'd wager the majority are focused on damage and couldn't care less about aggro.
The second hurdle is that they'd need more buffs to be as strong as a Tanker. The good thing about Tankers is they're a lot tougher out of the box and don't require as much support to get things done. On a support light team (be it few support chars or few support who are operating optimally) the Brute will have more problems than a Tank will. Will some Brutes replace some Tanks? Yes. Will all of them? I highly doubt it. I know I have no intentions of quitting mine. As another point of view, there hasn't been a mass exodus from Defenders, despite what is said on the board about Controllers and Corruptors (post GR) being able to replace them while having more control / damage / etc. Defenders can be replaced, but they haven't been. |
Defenders can definitely be replaced, but that scenario plays out differently. The main job of the defender is keeping up those buffs, keeping up those heals, and so on. With corruptors and controllers, that is secondary. It requires them to think about more than their primary task, and split their attention between the enemies and their teammates. Yes, with multiple controllers, corruptors, and MMs on a team, they should, but often don't make up for that one defender. It is much easier for a tank to be replaced by a brute, and to a lesser extant a scrapper. All the brute has to do is keep doing what he would normally do, he has all the tools, including taunt. The scrapper would have to concentrate more on aggro control, as they don't have access to taunt, but generally wouldn't be that put out by it.
And that is really what it comes down to. The casual player base and the farmers will still want tanks, but those of us doing content, running the TFs and the like, well, perceptions may change.
Now, maybe they will push the envelope a bit, actually bring some challenge to the content. That alone would be enough to save tanks, and I believe would breathe new life into the game, but brings about the possibility of alienating the casual player.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Atheism
Here we go again with that BS.
|
I respect Serrate due to the fact that instead of just trolling and making stupid comments, she(or he, was just basing on avatar) actually states an opinion and backs it up with some justification. I may not entirely agree, but I concede she makes some valid points.
I am basing my prediction on actual experience, both with this game (I remember a time when NO one wanted a stone tank, now everyone wants one), and with others, specifically with tanking classes.
Dark Armor is like that kid you knew in school that didn't know when to shut up, and no matter how bad he got beaten down, he got right back up again and kept on talking.
But I think we can all agree Stalkers and possibly Scrappers are going away and never coming back. *Starts trouble* 
Quote:
Since you're basing your prediction that brutes will have IOs and can easily replace tanks, that's just BS. Not everyone in this game has IOs nor do they care for it. I highly doubt that the all of the brutes that do decide to go blue, will have IOs. Brutes will never be able to replace tanks because they are just that, brutes. The only archetype they can replace is the scrapper because they're the closest to them.|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
And, again, if you don't agree, instead of just calling it BS, at least do like Serrate and give some rationale to the decision, other than just saying you would never take a brute over a tank.
I respect Serrate due to the fact that instead of just trolling and making stupid comments, she(or he, was just basing on avatar) actually states an opinion and backs it up with some justification. I may not entirely agree, but I concede she makes some valid points. I am basing my prediction on actual experience, both with this game (I remember a time when NO one wanted a stone tank, now everyone wants one), and with others, specifically with tanking classes. |
No, I'm not trolling. I just call it like I see it.
Quote:
You're right, this is all speculation. Until GR goes live (or several months/years after the fact), we won't know for sure who is right. Still, what would the forums be without speculation? *smirk*|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to what will happen when GR is released. I am speaking from experience with other games where I have seen this exact scenario occur. One class gets buffed to hell, or one faction gets access to a class they didn't have before, they see the strengths and weaknesses, and say, well, the weaknesses are heavily outweighed by the strengths. I have seen classes completely reworked to deal with that exact problem, but the perception was already there, and that takes a long time to change. Sure tanks are tougher out of the box, I am not arguing they are not. As far as what is required for the current content tho, a well built, well played brute can easily stand in for a tank.
|
Anyways, I highlighted two very important phrases.
- Current Content - I didn't mention future content before, but this is a very good point. While a Brute might suffices now, we have absolutely no idea what content will look like in Going Rogue. I do have a quote for you in this regard:
It sounds like the players will have ways to make themselves more powerful (who knows how), but also face much more difficult content. How players scale compared the the content is anyones guess at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tanker survivability really comes into play.Quote:Originally Posted by Positron(From a SDCC vid taken by Zekiran_Immortal.)
"And we also want to bring a compelling new end game; everybody in this room probably has a level 50 or more, and wants something to do with them that's going to make them a more powerful level 50 - and with challenges that make current challenges in the game seem like a piece of cake. And that's really an area that we're focusing a great deal of development effort."
- Well built / well played - Again, I can't stress enough that I don't think this models the average player/group well. (I'm not saying that the general populace are idiots, but they aren't ravenous powergamers like a lot of forum goers are.) I have two bad habits:
- Inspecting people's builds
- Watching CoH videos.
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. A well built / played Brute can replace a Tank in most cases in current content. I just don't think they're prolific enough to kill off Tankers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
Defenders can definitely be replaced, but that scenario plays out differently. The main job of the defender is keeping up those buffs, keeping up those heals, and so on. With corruptors and controllers, that is secondary. It requires them to think about more than their primary task, and split their attention between the enemies and their teammates. Yes, with multiple controllers, corruptors, and MMs on a team, they should, but often don't make up for that one defender. It is much easier for a tank to be replaced by a brute, and to a lesser extant a scrapper. All the brute has to do is keep doing what he would normally do, he has all the tools, including taunt. The scrapper would have to concentrate more on aggro control, as they don't have access to taunt, but generally wouldn't be that put out by it.
|
The number of Brutes I see with Taunt is incredibly small. It's not a frequent build choice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
And that is really what it comes down to. The casual player base and the farmers will still want tanks, but those of us doing content, running the TFs and the like, well, perceptions may change.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
Now, maybe they will push the envelope a bit, actually bring some challenge to the content. That alone would be enough to save tanks, and I believe would breathe new life into the game, but brings about the possibility of alienating the casual player.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
she(or he, was just basing on avatar)
|
)
Quote:
Saying that brutes can only replace scrappers is garbage. Under the current content, Brutes can easily attain survivability levels high enough to replace tanks. The defense cap is not that hard to get to, or really even needed, and the difference in resistance, with the exception of Inv and Stone, is not that big. The biggest separation is in hp, and brutes can get Tank quality hp easily as well. Scrappers have a harder time with that. Just saying they can't do it because they are brutes is ludicrous. |
Originally Posted by Atheism
Since you're basing your prediction that brutes will have IOs and can easily replace tanks, that's just BS. Not everyone in this game has IOs nor do they care for it. I highly doubt that the all of the brutes that do decide to go blue, will have IOs. Brutes will never be able to replace tanks because they are just that, brutes. The only archetype they can replace is the scrapper because they're the closest to them.
No, I'm not trolling. I just call it like I see it. |
Like I said, of course not everyone will have IOs, but more people will by the time GR comes out, and chances are, the people that are going to jump on that content first will.
Is this conjecture, yes. However, I am basing my conjecture on reproducable facts and data, as opposed to just saying it is what it is, because thats the way I want to see it.
Of course some people will still favor tanks over brutes. But, I can easily see that becoming the minority.
Dark Armor is like that kid you knew in school that didn't know when to shut up, and no matter how bad he got beaten down, he got right back up again and kept on talking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
You're right, this is all speculation. Until GR goes live (or several months/years after the fact), we won't know for sure who is right. Still, what would the forums be without speculation? *smirk*
|
I speculate mostly because I have seen it before, would be nice to avoid it happening altogether.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
It sounds like the players will have ways to make themselves more powerful (who knows how), but also face much more difficult content. How players scale compared the the content is anyones guess at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if Tanker survivability really comes into play.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
[*]Well built / well played - Again, I can't stress enough that I don't think this models the average player/group well. (I'm not saying that the general populace are idiots, but they aren't ravenous powergamers like a lot of forum goers are.) I have two bad habits:
I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. A well built / played Brute can replace a Tank in most cases in current content. I just don't think they're prolific enough to kill off Tankers. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
I have to disagree with you on this paragraph. Your premise is that Controllers/Corruptors buff/debuff secondarily focusing on control/damage first. In my mind - that's exactly what Brutes do, focus on damage, not aggro. As I said, Brutes can do it, but I don't think it's as automatic as you make it out to be. What's very interesting is that you mention Taunt, which some Tanks are adamant on skipping when aggro control is their primary purpose. What makes you think that Brutes will take it?
The number of Brutes I see with Taunt is incredibly small. It's not a frequent build choice. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Agreed, the player base as a whole will 'dictate' whether Tankers go extinct or not. Powergamers will probably eschew Tanks for Brutes just like they'll pass up non-optimal sets. Brutes are definitely more open to power-gaming than a Tank is, but sincerely doubt most unlock their true potential.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
To stamp out ambiguity, he. My avatar was the first character I really took to, as well as my first 50. (Don't play her anymore, though. My playstyle has diverged from what she offers.
) |
I hope what Posi said is true, because that would definitely kill this whole arguement, or at the very least, make it a lot less likely.
Dark Armor is like that kid you knew in school that didn't know when to shut up, and no matter how bad he got beaten down, he got right back up again and kept on talking.
Quote:
I don't put anything passed anyone really and maybe I am being too optimistic with the player base (rather complimentary) but I do know that people do have their fotms and like the path to less resistance. Eventually such paths get found. Some people do like to choose people based on powersets in order to mow the grass at speed then word gets around and suddenly everyone is of specific powersets.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Brutes are definitely more open to power-gaming than a Tank is, but sincerely doubt most unlock their true potential.
|
Remember when a typical AVs regen was
? It was either find a Rad or fight the damn thing for 30 mins. Suddenly the world and his mum had a Rad and all I saw in globals was Rad this and Rad that. *throws up*Such things made me cringe hence now I don't like to care what people bring because I can make use of anyone.
"What shall I bring?" gets a "Whatever you like!!" and I prefer to see that.
/Device blaster "We have no defender"
Me "You are 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:
I'm curious to if brutes can do things tanks can without IOs. My guess is, probably not.
|
Originally Posted by _Deth_
Saying that brutes can only replace scrappers is garbage. Under the current content, Brutes can easily attain survivability levels high enough to replace tanks. The defense cap is not that hard to get to, or really even needed, and the difference in resistance, with the exception of Inv and Stone, is not that big. The biggest separation is in hp, and brutes can get Tank quality hp easily as well. Scrappers have a harder time with that. Just saying they can't do it because they are brutes is ludicrous.
Like I said, of course not everyone will have IOs, but more people will by the time GR comes out, and chances are, the people that are going to jump on that content first will. Is this conjecture, yes. However, I am basing my conjecture on reproducable facts and data, as opposed to just saying it is what it is, because thats the way I want to see it. Of course some people will still favor tanks over brutes. But, I can easily see that becoming the minority. |
Quote:
Throw in the right support and watch them go. Its about the caps really. Overall the Brutes have higher caps. I said overall meaning same def cap, same res cap, same hp cap and oodles more dam cap.
|
Originally Posted by Atheism
I'm curious to if brutes can do things tanks can without IOs. My guess is, probably not.
|
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.
Nothing in this game needs a specific AT. Having done sub-30 minute ITFs that happened to have three Tanks (And hey, two of those Tanks? They changed off their Brutes), I just don't see any AT disappearing in favor of another.
Perhaps you'll run into that on the "gotta have Stone, gotta have 'heal0rz', gotta have radiation" teams but you know, they get ridiculed for being blind fools for a reason... Seeking specific builds/ATs because they are somehow guaranteed to be "superior" is the hallmark of a bad leader, a bad team, and a bad player.
Blue: ~Knockback Squad on Guardian~
Red: ~Undoing of Virtue on [3 guesses]~
I've been reading the tanker forums for a while. And there seems to be a lot of desire to make Tanks "better", even though, IMO, Tanks are just fine (I'll concede however i only have one tank at level 50, and she's heavily IO'd out). One of the issues that comes up a lot is "why have more than one tank on a team?" Well, I think I've figured out a way to not only solve this problem, but other issues surrounding tanks overall.
I believe that, when an enemy is agrod by more than one source (over a certain agro value as to not allow blasters to butt-in), then they should be forced to "Hesitate" (I'm amenable to calling this mechanic something else). Basically, an enemy sees two (or more) threats and, suffering from fight or flight, is unable to choose who to attack and who to risk ignoring. This can take effect as an irresistible -recharge debuff that hits -20% at two tanks, and gains another 5% for each tank on the team who is actively attacking/taunting enough to hit a certain agro value. This way, the tanks are safer, the team is safer, and multiple tanks are effectively debuffing an AV.
Another facet of Hesitation would be that the affected enemies would not know where the next attack is coming from, leaving them open to a critical blow. The mechanic would be as such: If a tank does NOT have agro on an enemy as they attack, they get a +10% damage buff. This only applies if a second player currently has agro (could even be a non-tank). Also, with a buff in damage, the second tank risks taking agro away from the first, which balances this out a little bit.
Well, that's my idea. It does nothing for endurance consumption, but i figured adding in a +recovery or -end use property to this mechanic might make it overpowered.
Additionally, this would not replace Gauntlet... maybe ADDED to it, but I kinda like punch-voke *shrugs*
-STEELE =)
Allied to all sides so that no matter what, I'll come out on top!
Oh, and Crimson demands you play this arc-> Twisted Knives (MA Arc #397769)