I second this. There are spawns like the nemisis, or council, where, on a eight man team, the spawns are far larger than the tanks agro cap (17, not 16). So to keep a team alive, they would have to kill mobs fast enough to be taunted to you. You can smack em in the face and they still beat on the blaster, because mob 17 is beside him, and that one is agroed.
I don't think the way the designed tanks with the ED, that they can handle whole maps, or even more than two spawns. I would say a safe number would be 20.
Large enough to cover majority of the spawns, yet some spawns may have a couple of baddies that can wail on squshies, causeing a challenge on the tanks. I love challenges.
However a challenge is different than not being able to control a situation, no matter the skill of the player behind the AT.
protector-knight: lvl 50 invun/axe tank
Lillian Brick: lvl 50 stone/stone/pyre tank
Hybrid-knight: lvl 50 db/regen scrap
Vengful-Nature: lvl 50 spines/sr/bod scrap
Element-Wizard: lvl 50 fire/storm/stone troll
You can control the situation even past the aggro cap, if you taunt something it'll turn to you and one mob will stop attacking you, unless you taunted all the 17 mobs with something stronger than what you're doing to the one mob you want to aggro now. If anything, increasing the aggro cap would decrease the skill required as there'd be no longer any need to prioritize targets, just hit everything you see.
Just saying. I'm not against the idea expressed in the OP.
I don't struggle playing any tank, if there is a problem, there is often something that could of been done or shouldn't of been done by someone without any need to change anything about the aggro cap. In light of GR though I am just going to be wary of the impact of Brutes.
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 didn't mean to make it sound like it was a struggle to tank... I guess it came across wrong... Also the whole agro cap raise equals skill decrease, that is a very good point. Good show
protector-knight: lvl 50 invun/axe tank
Lillian Brick: lvl 50 stone/stone/pyre tank
Hybrid-knight: lvl 50 db/regen scrap
Vengful-Nature: lvl 50 spines/sr/bod scrap
Element-Wizard: lvl 50 fire/storm/stone troll
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by protector_knight
I didn't mean to make it sound like it was a struggle to tank... I guess it came across wrong... Also the whole agro cap raise equals skill decrease, that is a very good point. Good show
|
You didn't, your idea of fun may have more pace to it than mine.
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.
Generally don't herd, so I don't much care about aggro cap. Only time I herd is solo on my SD/SS. Any team with significant AoE can steamroll fast enough that a Tanker is more important as an alpha taker and to keep the groups packed tight. After that, they're there to keep the pace of the group balanced between action-packed fun and relatively safe.
Oh, and it's also nice to have a Tanker when facing AVs and such, assuming they know how to direct cones away from the team (also assuming the team doesn't stupidly run into said cones on their own...oy).
Quote:
Personally, I don't think Brutes should have been given Tanker hp/res caps to begin with, but that's a different story.|
Originally Posted by BlackBellatrix
In Light of GR and the addition to two ATs capable of taking a large amount of abuse, one of which has the same mitigation caps as a Tank, should Tanks be tweaked slightly?
|
Keep in mind, that even if their caps are the same, Tankers start much higher. This means they can survive situations with less buffing than a Brute can. This may not be as important for buffer overrun teams, but it can be a huge boon for unoptimized teams. Just something to consider.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BlackBellatrix
My thought was that since Tanks are the penultimate "Tanking" AT, that maybe they should have their aggro cap tweaked up slightly higher than the other ATs in the game? Say go from 16 to 20 or 25?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by protector_knight
I second this. There are spawns like the nemisis, or council, where, on a eight man team, the spawns are far larger than the tanks agro cap (17, not 16). So to keep a team alive, they would have to kill mobs fast enough to be taunted to you. You can smack em in the face and they still beat on the blaster, because mob 17 is beside him, and that one is agroed.
I don't think the way the designed tanks with the ED, that they can handle whole maps, or even more than two spawns. I would say a safe number would be 20. |
As for the "You can smack em in the face and they still beat on the blaster" line, it's completely false. You can Taunt mobs all day at the aggro cap and they won't turn to fight you unless a) one of the current mobs on you dies b) aggros something else. The moment you deal damage to it, however, aggro is yours. If you have 17 mobs on you, and you damage something, you'll immediately push one of the other mobs off the list. My suspicion is that it would prevent someone from aggroing 17 weak mobs then killing a tough mob without it being able to fight back.
So, to answer the thread, no, I don't think an increased aggro cap (to 20) would do anything.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Failsight
Generally don't herd, so I don't much care about aggro cap. Only time I herd is solo on my SD/SS. Any team with significant AoE can steamroll fast enough that a Tanker is more important as an alpha taker and to keep the groups packed tight. After that, they're there to keep the pace of the group balanced between action-packed fun and relatively safe.
Oh, and it's also nice to have a Tanker when facing AVs and such, assuming they know how to direct cones away from the team (also assuming the team doesn't stupidly run into said cones on their own...oy). |
lol at the cone bit.
Problem solved if Brutes get their taunt reduced to Single Target like Scrappers? This is assuming, though that there are Tankers switching sides, too...
- @DSorrow - alts on Union and Freedom mostly -
Currently playing as Castigation on Freedom
My Katana/Inv Guide
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. -Einstein
tanks get tweaked?..not likely..would be nice ...but i dont see castle doing anything for tanks anytime soon. hes not much for tanks imo
too busy fixing the ones he plays like doms
his dislike for fire tanks alone and his unwanting to actually play one past lvl 20 without deleteing it says volumes about how much he doesnt play tanks.
This suggestion has been brought up before, and in the previous one, I believe I said that it would not be a bad idea to boost the aggro cap up to 22. The 17 number is not a coincidence, it is one more than the number that can be hit by a single Blaster AoE. The average (or median, maybe 
) AoE across all ATs is 10 targets, though, so 17 is overkill against them. Another 5 targets, boosting the 17 to 22, would not be too extreme, and would allow Tankers to hold aggro on the foes hit by a Blaster's AoE as well as it can other "lesser" AoEs.
I don't think you can LOWER the aggro cap, as that would mean a Blaster would not aggro every target he hit with an AoE. AFAIK it's not that Tankers don't have a higher aggro cap than Scrappers and Brutes, it's that they have exactly the same aggro cap as everyone else. While I can understand the logic of not wanting them to hold the aggro for a whole room, I don't think 22 targets is a whole room.
The thing I see here is the issue of full man spawns not being all aggro'd on the tank. Unless you are in a smaller team setup with the rep set for 8 man spawns, if you are seeing large 8 man spawns, there are usually 7 other people on the team. Those 7 other people should be more than capable of taking care of the 2-5 more baddies that aren't aggro'd onto the tank, because of the aggro cap. A healthy mix of defenders and controllers can completely mitigate the damage from the whole spawn, let alone just those that the tank *can't* have aggro'd on them. Scrappers have been known to tank all by themselves, so surely they can handle a couple extra baddies. Hell, even Blasters can handle a couple extra baddies. PBs and WSs are their own separate beasts.
Even in the case of two spawns at one time, a scrapper with any kind of AoE ability will be able to keep a fair amount of aggro on himself while the tank (or tanks, you can have more than one on a team, ya know) fills their aggro cap. With just one spawn and one tank, even 7 blasters who manage to pull aggro off the tank shouldn't have issues, because when you have a team of 7 blasters, minions don't last long, LTs are gone almost as quickly, and bosses get melted soon enough. After the tank takes the alpha, the blasters can launch *their* alpha and there just won't be enough baddies left in the mob for the tank to reach the aggro cap. That's not even considering the whole "nuke" issue. 7 blasters can easily rotate 1-2 nukes per spawn, with some (archery and assault rifle) able to mini-nuke *every* spawn. I just don't see the aggro cap being any kind of issue for the average team make up.
Now, with the new rep settings, you can find 3-4 man teams fighting 8 man spawns, sure, and in that situation the aggro cap may be more of an issue. But unless those 3-4 players are pretty new to the game, or lower level, by the time that kind of a challenge becomes a valid choice, chances are that team will have more than enough ways to mitigate aggro beyond the tank standing and taunting.
Personally, what I'd like to see is tanks getting a damage bonus tied into their taunt ability. A tank could "mark" an enemy as their prime foe, by taunting them (and the mark would be the baddie with the highest "hate" for the tank) and would therefore do more damage against that enemy. This would help tanks with soloing, as the enemy they are currently fighting would always be marked and taking more damage, as well as making them more welcome on AV/GM teams, since they would focus on the AV and do more damage to them. Once GR hits, I can very easily see Brutes being wanted more in the late game than tanks, because by the late 30s on up, brutes can "tank" just as well and will do almost scrapper level damage. Why bring a tank along when the brute will do just as good a job with better damage? If the tank can pump out serious damage against *one* tough foe, and I mean serious as in near scrapper levels, why wouldn't you want one?
But that's another story. As far as raising the aggro cap? I wouldn't be against it, but I really can't see a reason why it would be needed. A full man spawn (or two) just really isn't that much of a threat to a full man team, IMO.
~WP
Just my opinion, feel free to disregard...
Goodie. Another "[x] AT IS WORTHLESS TO TEAMS WITH SIDE-SWITCHING!" thread.
Quote:
No. Brutes have a vested interest in having an instantaneous control of aggro, moreso than any Scrapper. I'd be rather displeased if say, my EM/EA suddenly had a useless Taunt.
|
Originally Posted by DSorrow
Problem solved if Brutes get their taunt reduced to Single Target like Scrappers?
|
Blue: ~Knockback Squad on Guardian~
Red: ~Undoing of Virtue on [3 guesses]~
Quote:
I kind of like that suggestion, only, it's a little hard to implement. You would essentially have to have one status effect for Taunt, and then another way of marking this "Taunt, plus the Tanker does extra damage to him". I don't think there's any in game way of saying "find the foe that has the highest hate", you would have to determine that separately and mark it so the power would know to apply the bonus. | A tank could "mark" an enemy as their prime foe, by taunting them (and the mark would be the baddie with the highest "hate" for the tank) and would therefore do more damage against that enemy. |
By way of comparison, Controllers already have a bonus to damage for any foe that is held, slept or stunned. This is applied simply by the attacks checking for those status effect when it hits. This Tanker Inherent would have to be implemented similarly. (Also, how does the Tanker know who he currently has the "mark" on?)
I must say, though, the concept does make sense, the Tanker concentrates all his energy on the foe he is fighting, which gets everyone else taunted as they try to come to the rescue of the Tanker's "victim". And adding extra damage to just that one target, not AoEs or if he "spreads around" his attacks, is different from the Brute behavior. (Which is to expend more and more energy as he continues to fight with his foes)
I suspect, though, that for the Tanker to gain an Inherent damage bonus, he would have to lose about 10% of his damage. In other words, his damage base would go down from 0.8 to 0.7, which is what it was before Gauntlet. The devs specifically said that the extra 10% damage was meant to compensate for Tankers not getting a damage boost from Gauntlet, similar to Fury. (Which was actually developed for Tankers, but given to Brutes instead, as it turned out too powerful in the hands of a Tanker)
It's certainly possible that a single target focused damage boost would be better for Tankers than the current arrangement, and maintain their ability to solo, or even make it better. However, there will likely be many people who would view the loss of damage base as a nerf, and refuse to see it any other way.
Maybe I'm wrong about that, since Scrapper, Blaster, Stalker and Dominator damage have gone up since that time. The "bar" may have moved. However, I'm still guessing that either the base damage will go down, or the Inherent bonus will not be significant, more in the area of another 10% or so. And if the Inherent is made too significant, along the lines of Controllers, the Tanker's AoE potential would probably end up being nerfed considerably.
Eh, you can't really say "in light of GR." We don't know exactly how it's going to work, or what changes it will bring to the game. They may have some AT changes planned already.
But it's much more likely that they will release GR and then address any AT balance issues that MIGHT crop up (most people saying that they will occur are jumping the gun a bit, as no AT is so badly off as they would like others to believe). Frankly, it makes a lot more sense to do so, as what if they change things for no reason? Bit silly, that.
And if they do need to change things due to balance issues, I doubt aggro cap is going to be the thing tweaked. It'll probably be survivability or something like that, since the aggro caps are designed to make teams not aggro too much at once.
Whether Tanks need something is much more up in the air. People here in the Tanker section talk like Scrappers are impinging on our territory too much, but they can't control aggro like we do, and if you're looking for damage on a team, you're much better off grabbing a Blaster than a Scrapper (ironically, someone tried to argue at one point that Scrappers were doing too close to Blaster damage, heh). Tanks have benefits that Brutes do not, so there is no guarantee that there will be an imbalance.
As I said, it's much more likely that GR will come out and Castle and co. will adjust from there. If that is what they do, that's them being practical, not having anything against tanks, too.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
Honestly, I wouldn't say that Tanks are useless even with Side-Switching called into question. I mean, most of the people I play with still use only SOs even after hitting 50 so it stands to reason that the extra inherent mitigation Tanks get is making a big difference in terms of standard play. I just think that the Gauntlet inherent, by itself, leaves a little bit to be desired. I think that a Tank being able to Tank more badguys and actually put that mitigation to use in having over 20% more damage incoming would be a nice, small way to tweak them.|
Originally Posted by LostHalo
Goodie. Another "[x] AT IS WORTHLESS TO TEAMS WITH SIDE-SWITCHING!" thread.
|
I mean, their toes will be stepped on by Brutes, just as they're stepped on a little by Scrappers now.
And rather than suggesting more damage so they are stepping on the other ATs toes, I figure give them something that makes them even more defined as a "Tanking" AT.
I expect some tweaks will be made if every AT becomes available for either side.
One way I've suggested to keep Tankers somewhat unique is to make them the best at control and debuffing- better chance for mez or longer duration, better debuff numbers than Scrappers and Brutes, AoEs hit more targets (including Taunt, it could be bumped to eight or even ten targets).
Quote:
That... actually sounds like a good idea; at least the increased AOE of Taunt. I could see bringing it up to 10 to match other AOE attacks. I'm not sure about higher AOE target caps than Scrappers of Blasters however... damage is their thing after all. Something as simple as increasing Taunt's AOE targets to 10 and leaving it at that would certainly give Tanks an inherent aggro advantage over Brutes.|
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
I expect some tweaks will be made if every AT becomes available for either side.
One way I've suggested to keep Tankers somewhat unique is to make them the best at control and debuffing- better chance for mez or longer duration, better debuff numbers than Scrappers and Brutes, AoEs hit more targets (including Taunt, it could be bumped to eight or even ten targets). |
That said with the higher defenses and higher HP Tanks are already tougher than Brutes out of the box. It isn't until you start bringing in outside buffs that Brutes can really match Tanker mitigation. This is comparing strong sets to strong sets, not something silly like Brute Granite and Tanker Electric.
COH has just been murdered by NCSoft. http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
I don't think penultimate means what you think it means
I don't really have anything to add, tanks will remain a bottom 4 AT (popularity wise, excluding epic AT's) after GR. If anything they'll dip a bit further, but probably not enough to warrant the Master of Spreadsheets attention.
I tank on my crab and I dont even worry about hitting aggro cap. Venom Grenade + Suppression and team AoEs, kills all of th minions and LTs, usually. For tanks it shouldnt be hard to handle groups past the cap with the various mitigations options you have. Super Strength can selectively knockdown sections with footstomp (thatsame technique applies to mace and axe I think), Ice can slow cones and taunt seperate chunks of enemies, Energy Melee can toss stuns around and taunt the non-stunned, the list goes on. If tankers are going to have to stand out over ED it'll just take some skill. Not to mention you're forgetting that you should have a team with you, which generally, each member can solo at least 1 enemy, not even factoring in whatever mezzes, lockdown or support they have.
@Mazzo Grave
Webmaster Grave, Virtueverse!
Energy/Energy Blaster Guide
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BackAlleyBrawler
you *******!!!!
|
Quote:
I'm not sure that a higher aggro cap would achieve anything other than to encourage sloppy play. Now, making Taunt hit ten targets rather than five might be worth doing, if only because it would largely erase the Willpower disadvantage. |
Originally Posted by BlackBellatrix
My thought was that since Tanks are the penultimate "Tanking" AT, that maybe they should have their aggro cap tweaked up slightly higher than the other ATs in the game? Say go from 16 to 20 or 25?
|
The main things I would want for Tanker buffs to keep them competitive would be:
- An across the board revision upwards of tanker Resistance values, to keep the resistance based sets (Fire, Dark, Electric) competitive with Defense based sets (Ice, Shields) and mixed sets (Willpower, Invuln, Stone) in survivability. My experience is that defense and mixed tankers are quite survivable, while resistance based tanks can be painfully squishy at times. I haven't been in a hurry to roll an Electric Armor tanker because of this.
(On the other hand, while Resistance is not the best for the high level game, it does tend to exemp down far better than Defense. But that's less of an issue in i16)
- Endurance issues still need work, especially at lower levels. (You knew I was going to say that.) The change to Brawl is a positive move, and seems to have helped quite a bit, though.
- Tier 8/9s need work. I question the value of self-rez powers and have never taken one on any tanker. Reverse-suicide powers like Unstoppable are a larger problem; the crashes need to be less punishing.
I suspect that when the Prætorian paid expansion comes out, it will be adding at least one new class with access to defense primaries or secondaries. At this point we can only guess whether this is going to step on Tanker roles or not.
<《 New Colchis / Guides / Mission Architect 》>
"At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison
Quote:
I wouldn't promote this because I think GR will influence it significantly (I can't say whether or not it does), I do agree with it because it's true (from what I've seen) now.|
Originally Posted by Heraclea
- An across the board revision upwards of tanker Resistance values, to keep the resistance based sets (Fire, Dark, Electric) competitive with Defense based sets (Ice, Shields) and mixed sets (Willpower, Invuln, Stone) in survivability. My experience is that defense and mixed tankers are quite survivable, while resistance based tanks can be painfully squishy at times. I haven't been in a hurry to roll an Electric Armor tanker because of this.
(On the other hand, while Resistance is not the best for the high level game, it does tend to exemp down far better than Defense. But that's less of an issue in i16) |
Quote:
| - Endurance issues still need work, especially at lower levels. (You knew I was going to say that.) The change to Brawl is a positive move, and seems to have helped quite a bit, though. |
Quote:
| - Tier 8/9s need work. I question the value of self-rez powers and have never taken one on any tanker. Reverse-suicide powers like Unstoppable are a larger problem; the crashes need to be less punishing. |
GIVE TANKS DARKNESS/ELECTRICAL MASTERY! =3
Level 50's: Komrade Kommunism (T); King Darksource (T); Burning Red Star (T); Komrade Kosmonaut (WS); Vredesbyrd (Br); Anarchery (Bl)
Quote:
I am rather displeased that my Kat/Inv scrapper has a useless Taunt. One of the best looking animations in the game, to aggro a single target? |
Originally Posted by LostHalo
Brutes have a vested interest in having an instantaneous control of aggro, moreso than any Scrapper. I'd be rather displeased if say, my EM/EA suddenly had a useless Taunt.
|
*sigh*
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
/signed
20 pls be very nice
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
In Light of GR and the addition to two ATs capable of taking a large amount of abuse, one of which has the same mitigation caps as a Tank, should Tanks be tweaked slightly?
My thought was that since Tanks are the penultimate "Tanking" AT, that maybe they should have their aggro cap tweaked up slightly higher than the other ATs in the game? Say go from 16 to 20 or 25?