Quote:
You, good sir, owe me a clean keyboard, a bomb of computer screen cleaning foam and the fifteen minutes of my life I spent explaining to my boss why I sprayed company property with a mouthful of water then proceeded to laugh myself sick. |
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
 |
Quote:
That would get my vote, if I got a vote |
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
1) Raise the Tanker damage cap to +300% (a 100% increase)
3) Raise the Tanker aggro cap to anywhere between 20 and 34 |
And if I had to pick just one I would ask for the aggro cap to be raised. I probably wouldn't notice an increase to the damage cap but I do notice the aggro caps. When my team mates ***K up and aggro the next couple of spawns I would like to do something about it.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
Just to let everyone know, I am going to create a consolidated Tanker improvement thread. I currently have the shell going, and am putting all of the ideas in this thread into one (well, actually, four) posts. Hopefully we can build off of that, get it stickied, and have someplace to go for all of these.
However, it is slow going, and I'm on page 3. But I'll try to get everything in there.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
Tanker-level mitigation is easy enough if you do your homework, especially in a team environment where the buffs flow like candy. Some of us like to solo more often than not.|
Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus
If Tanker-level survivability is available to everyone "at the endgame" freely and easily, then why are you not playing FA?
Otherwise you are simply playing EA "just cause", to use your own words. If Tanker mitigation is so easy, free and cheap to come by and is basically the standard for any and all content - the clear choice is always FA and every other set is a complete waste of time. Except on Scrappers, they can play SD. (Arcana already covered this, but it made sense to say it again). |
I'm playing EA because I had never gotten one very high in the past, and hadn't tried it since the buffs.
I'm not playing FA because FA is a very specifically themed set, and doesn't fit the majority of my concepts. We don't all play to min-max. Not everybody takes fireball on their tankers or gloom on their brutes regardless of background.
My next planned toon actually will be FA; I've had a FA/Axe tanker for ages that I never managed to get past the mid-20's, mainly because I have altitis, but also due in part to him being a bit slow to level. He's going to be reborn with titan weapons, which is much more fun and engaging of a set than axe, and also fits the concept a bit better. Along with new costume options that weren't availabe when he was originally made, I'll be much happier to play him. My biggest decision now is between FA/TW, and TW/FA, but I'm definitely leaning towards the latter.
Having played CoH for more than 6 years, and tanks for much of that time, I can say that these are the only real changes that the tanker sets need:
Raise the base damage of all attack sets, but leave off any moves to utilize fury or critical hits. This would preserve the major differences/benefits of rolling a scrapper or a brute, and yet make it easier for tankers to solo without having to GRIND their way through large groups or chip away at a +3 boss for half an hour.
I can see no conceivable reason for regeneration and willpower tanks to have such weak taunt auras. I haven't rolled a regeneration tank, as of yet, but I've played quite a few willpower tanks, and I can state that much of the time it's almost impossible for a wp tank to fill a truly "tanking" role on a team. Almost any weak-sister-of-mercy teammate can peel agro off of a wp tank. Hanging such a weak taunt aura on a tanker primary is one of those inexplicably retrograde decisions that needlessly handicap an otherwise fine primary set. There is absolutely no need to hang a taunt aura of 1.25 of a second on any tank primary. If this was done to shore up willpower's vulnerability to burst damage then the developers used the wrong approach, and created a second problem which did not address the first problem. They should mitigate, but not eliminate, wp's weakness to burst damage and increase the duration of it's taunt aura to at least 8 seconds.
Lastly, increase the number of mobs that all tanker sets can aggro, which will allow tanks to play a more useful role on teams. In those situations when a team is about to be overwhelmed with 2 or even 3 large groups this would permit a tank to control the situation and prevent the mobs from overwhelming his teammates.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dark_Impact
Tanker-level mitigation is easy enough if you do your homework, especially in a team environment where the buffs flow like candy.
|
Tanker level mitigation is more than Softcapped defenses.
Let's use Ela as an example:
On a solid build you could be looking at an extra 400-600 HP on something like an Ela build, as well as the difference between 60-65% SM/L Res and 80-90% SM/L Res.
You can't just hand-wave that away as much as you'd like to.
Buffs that usually "flow like candy" are generally +DEF, +Rech, +To Hit, +Recovery & +Damage.
Buffs that usually don't flow like candy are +Res and +HP.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dark_Impact
I'm playing EA because I had never gotten one very high in the past, and hadn't tried it since the buffs.
|
According to you, its a waste of time. According to you, the buffs flow like candy. You can just play FA and call it a day.
Or maybe there are players who play things like EA because its fun, maybe they play other blast sets than Fire Blast.
Maybe they play Tankers because they like having ludicrous levels of mitigation, whether its always literally applicable in every single situation or not.
Maybe their concept just isn't fulfilled by the relatively squishier but more damaging Scrappers & Brutes.
Quote:
You realize that asking for a taunt aura to have its taunt pulses increased to 8 seconds and claiming anyone can "peel" the aggro off of a tanker without a strong taunt aura is contradictory. Gauntlet taunts for longer than that.|
Originally Posted by Shuckins
Having played CoH for more than 6 years, and tanks for much of that time, I can say that these are the only real changes that the tanker sets need:
Raise the base damage of all attack sets, but leave off any moves to utilize fury or critical hits. This would preserve the major differences/benefits of rolling a scrapper or a brute, and yet make it easier for tankers to solo without having to GRIND their way through large groups or chip away at a +3 boss for half an hour. I can see no conceivable reason for regeneration and willpower tanks to have such weak taunt auras. I haven't rolled a regeneration tank, as of yet, but I've played quite a few willpower tanks, and I can state that much of the time it's almost impossible for a wp tank to fill a truly "tanking" role on a team. Almost any weak-sister-of-mercy teammate can peel agro off of a wp tank. Hanging such a weak taunt aura on a tanker primary is one of those inexplicably retrograde decisions that needlessly handicap an otherwise fine primary set. There is absolutely no need to hang a taunt aura of 1.25 of a second on any tank primary. If this was done to shore up willpower's vulnerability to burst damage then the developers used the wrong approach, and created a second problem which did not address the first problem. They should mitigate, but not eliminate, wp's weakness to burst damage and increase the duration of it's taunt aura to at least 8 seconds. |
Quote:
| Lastly, increase the number of mobs that all tanker sets can aggro, which will allow tanks to play a more useful role on teams. In those situations when a team is about to be overwhelmed with 2 or even 3 large groups this would permit a tank to control the situation and prevent the mobs from overwhelming his teammates. |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
What I'd like to be able to do is grab the attention of a full 2 groups of x8 spawns.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
So, you're asking for the aggro limit to increase from 17 to 50?
|
As it is now, I have no guarantee I won't snag most of the minions and leave a boss to immediately aggro-kill the poor blaster who happened to splash an AoE on him.
There are enough maps where you have 2 full groups bunched way WAY too close together to properly aggro control them all (the junction at the bottom of the hole in the Lost/Rikti/Argot'BurWot map is a prime example of this, as are some of the tip mission cave maps).
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
What I'd like to be able to do is grab the attention of a full 2 groups of x8 spawns.
As it is now, I have no guarantee I won't snag most of the minions and leave a boss to immediately aggro-kill the poor blaster who happened to splash an AoE on him. There are enough maps where you have 2 full groups bunched way WAY too close together to properly aggro control them all (the junction at the bottom of the hole in the Lost/Rikti/Argot'BurWot map is a prime example of this, as are some of the tip mission cave maps). |
I'm of the opinion that this is the responsibility of the team, and not the sole responsibility of the Tanker to keep the "poor blaster" alive.
I'm also of the opinion that letting tankers aggro more enemies or basically anything that allows Tankers to mitigate even more risk to teams then they already do (which is pretty considerable), just encourages bad, boring play.
There's also the issue that the average Tank player probably doesn't want the attention of more than 16 enemies, especially certain groups.
(Or they may think they do, but will change their mind once they get it.)
Quote:
So in essence you're saying they should nerf brute resistance caps to make it fair? |
Originally Posted by mauk2
Well, Claws didn't run this for a brute, so I guess I will....
Okay, same assumptions as Claws made. Brute damage scalar is .75, cap is 775 percent, so on a 100 point attack that's, uh, 581 damage. Fighting an enemy with 10,000 hitpoints, the brute takes 18 attacks to defeat the baddy, darn near the scrapper, as Claws states. Now for survivability: The brute hitpoint cap is 3212, and their resistance caps at 90 percent. With the same 1000 point shots, the baddy requires 33 hits to drop the brute. Let's make a chart! (whee!) Tanker: Dies in 36 attacks, Wins in 27. Brute: Dies in 33 attacks, Wins in 18. Scrapper ies in 10 attacks, Loses.Interesting. Both the Brute and the Tank win! But how convincing is this victory? The Tanker has sustained 2700 points of damage when the bad guy drops, and has 853 hitpoints left. The Brute has sustained 1800 points of damage, and has 1412 hitpoints left. The brute can immediately engage a second such foe and will be able to hit it 15 times before defeat. The Big Bad wins the rematch with 1215 hitpoints remaining. That means the brute will come scary-close to beating TWO of them. (If you add in passive regen, it's nearly certain.) The tanker launches into the rematch and can make 9 attacks before defeat. The Big Bad has 6544 hitpoints when it floors the Tanker. The Tanker will somewhat dent the second foe before defeat. Meanwhile, the poor scrapper has been on the floor, muttering about the whole situation. This illustrates what I mean about performance envelopes. Brutes simply have a HUGE range of performance. In my mind, other archetypes should have their performance likewise broadened, but in different ways. Also, note for the record that I did not choose the parameters here. Yell at Claws if you don't like it. |
Since a few of you took my above comment WAY to seriously. Let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR!
It was "HUMOR"... a "JOKE"... something to lighten the angst running rampant here. Which, obviously there's plenty of angst here.
(I hope some of you can find your funny bone, as obviously it needs to be located.
)Now, go back to the regularly schedule shark feeding.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
That would only be relevant if actually playing at the resistances cap all of the time were a reality.|
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
So in essence you're saying they should nerf brute resistance caps to make it fair?
|
It's not a reality for most brute sets.
I want to see that example run again, with numbers that Brutes, Tankers, and Scrappers can realistically get and sustain on their own.
edit: On SOs and without Incarnate abilities, please. You know... the play level ATs are balanced around.
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
I want to see that example run again, with numbers that Brutes, Tankers, and Scrappers can realistically get and sustain on their own.
edit: On SOs and without Incarnate abilities, please. You know... the play level ATs are balanced around. |
That's crazy talk, how will we lobby for Tanker buffs and Brute nerfs simultaneously if we don't summon a whirlwind of conjecture and hyperbole???
Quote:
Oh, anyone who complains will just be told to L2P and drop some of their attacks to build more sturdily.|
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
There's also the issue that the average Tank player probably doesn't want the attention of more than 16 enemies, especially certain groups.
|
But you raise a point. Tankers, with a higher aggro cap, would be facing more potential damage than Brutes or Scrappers. All they could ever get is 17 guys attacking them, while Tankers could and would be attracting more.
When you think about it, upping the aggro cap is more or less akin to asking for a nerf to Tanker survivability.
.
Quote:
You can guarantee that by actually hitting the boss with an attack. If you don't, then even with unlimited aggro caps and taunt, aggro can still be stolen from you. Taunt amplifies the hate generated by damage. Taunt without damage doesn't do anything unless you happen to be the only thing around to attack.|
Originally Posted by Hyperstrike
What I'd like to be able to do is grab the attention of a full 2 groups of x8 spawns.
As it is now, I have no guarantee I won't snag most of the minions and leave a boss to immediately aggro-kill the poor blaster who happened to splash an AoE on him. |
In either event, increasing the aggro limit just to allow tankers to control two full spawns seems to be addressing a problem that doesn't demand attention. No other archetype is specifically designed to single-handedly handle an entire add-in spawn.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Also, Tankers got a mention on the Coffee Talk today.
"We're looking into stuff."
I think I'm afraid of stuff.
.
Quote:
Just to be sure, are you talking about Taunt doing nothing but adding a threat modifier in the aggro capped case or general case. In the former, you are right, by itself it won't push any other mobs off the 17 aggro limit. If you're talking about the general case, then you're mistaken. Taunt (and other 0 damage taunt effects like Invincibility) count as an (1 dmg) attack themselves.**|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
You can guarantee that by actually hitting the boss with an attack. If you don't, then even with unlimited aggro caps and taunt, aggro can still be stolen from you. Taunt amplifies the hate generated by damage. Taunt without damage doesn't do anything unless you happen to be the only thing around to attack.
In either event, increasing the aggro limit just to allow tankers to control two full spawns seems to be addressing a problem that doesn't demand attention. No other archetype is specifically designed to single-handedly handle an entire add-in spawn. |
It's why an Invuln character can do nothing but stand next to a mob and ensure that a Blaster won't be attacked. Old school Hamidon tanks spamming Taunt preventing the hold team from getting obliterated.
(I assume you know this, but I can't be certain based off how your post is worded.)
** I can try to dig up the quote from CoD's Dev Digest later, if necessary.
There nothing wrong with Tanker, they should never be buff, they are Aggro Holders and they do that better then any Arctype. They are use for tanking and taunt the foe and take's the hits so the team stay alive.
Never play another NcSoft game, If you feel pride for our game, then it as well, I Superratz am Proud of all of you Coh people, Love, Friendship will last for a lifetime.
Global:@Greenflame Ratz
Main Toons:Super Ratz, Burning B Radical, Green Flame Avenger, Tunnel Ratz, Alex Magnus
lol, at some of this thread anyway.
really? raise the aggro cap?
Come on why dont you people just come out with it.
1.) burn gets de-nerfed
2.) Raise the aggro cap!
3.) make a thread about how to IO your fire/ice tank with maximum recharge and survivability in mind
4.) go back to I3 and profit
I mean, thats all fine i wouldnt mind it- so long as the target caps for attacks dont change, and they dont undo the mob stacking changes they made years ago. but if they do this, then I want IH as a toggle again too. Just sayin.
i mean really, theres a thread called burning fish in a barrel on page one of the tank forums- at least that one is up front and honest.
Liberty server
Eldagore lvl 50 Inv/ss, co-founder of The Legion of Smash
3.5 servers of alts....I need help.
May the rawk be with you.
Arc #'s
107020 Uberbots!
93496 A Pawn in Time
Quote:
I know they count as something, but I don't specifically remember the dev statement that they count as 1 dmg attacks in the aggro formula. And believe me: its theoretically possible to yank aggro from something that is just taunting if you dump enough damage into it. *I* yanked aggro once from a tanker taunting Hamidon. Whatever I did, even after I stopped attacking for a whole minute while phase shifted, as soon as I popped out Hamidon opened fire on me and me alone for a few more shots.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Just to be sure, are you talking about Taunt doing nothing but adding a threat modifier in the aggro capped case or general case. In the former, you are right, by itself it won't push any other mobs off the 17 aggro limit. If you're talking about the general case, then you're mistaken. Taunt (and other 0 damage taunt effects like Invincibility) count as an (1 dmg) attack themselves.**
It's why an Invuln character can do nothing but stand next to a mob and ensure that a Blaster won't be attacked. Old school Hamidon tanks spamming Taunt preventing the hold team from getting obliterated. (I assume you know this, but I can't be certain based off how your post is worded.) ** I can try to dig up the quote from CoD's Dev Digest later, if necessary. |
Aggro is strange, because there's weirdness in the AI that I think still hasn't seen the light of day yet. Back when I was testing taunt and aggro, I discovered that if you actually try the obvious experiment: have a tanker taunt the target and another character try to yank aggro away by hitting the target with as much damage as possible (without killing it) the target will often run away completely. I hypothesized at the time that what was happening was the AI wanted to attack the shooter, the aggro mechanics were "forcing" it to attack the taunter, and when the AI couldn't attack who it wanted to attack for a long enough period of time a timer went off and the AI assumed that it was somehow incapacitated or neutralized (because it couldn't attack who it wanted to attack) and that triggered a flee response.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Silly question, but was the Tanker using Taunt or Provoke? (I was on a raid where the Tanker was using Provoke. Not fun.) Also, what AT/powersets were you playing at the time?|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
I know they count as something, but I don't specifically remember the dev statement that they count as 1 dmg attacks in the aggro formula. And believe me: its theoretically possible to yank aggro from something that is just taunting if you dump enough damage into it. *I* yanked aggro once from a tanker taunting Hamidon. Whatever I did, even after I stopped attacking for a whole minute while phase shifted, as soon as I popped out Hamidon opened fire on me and me alone for a few more shots.
|
I know that it's theoretically possible, but even unslotted Taunt is worth over 41,000 threat (41s * 1,000 * X for the range debuff, though that wasn't present in your above example).
The only time I ever have aggro issues is when dealing with other ATs with taunt effects (Brutes, some Scrappers).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Aggro is strange, because there's weirdness in the AI that I think still hasn't seen the light of day yet. Back when I was testing taunt and aggro, I discovered that if you actually try the obvious experiment: have a tanker taunt the target and another character try to yank aggro away by hitting the target with as much damage as possible (without killing it) the target will often run away completely. I hypothesized at the time that what was happening was the AI wanted to attack the shooter, the aggro mechanics were "forcing" it to attack the taunter, and when the AI couldn't attack who it wanted to attack for a long enough period of time a timer went off and the AI assumed that it was somehow incapacitated or neutralized (because it couldn't attack who it wanted to attack) and that triggered a flee response.
|
The other, very strange, thing is that Taunt MAG doesn't really seem to behave as expected, either, considering Lord Recluse has MAG 100 Taunt protection and 1,000% Taunt resistance, but Tankers can still tank him with Taunt.
Quote:
Here Aett a couple ideas I sent to Floyd last year before he left.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Just to let everyone know, I am going to create a consolidated Tanker improvement thread. I currently have the shell going, and am putting all of the ideas in this thread into one (well, actually, four) posts. Hopefully we can build off of that, get it stickied, and have someplace to go for all of these.
However, it is slow going, and I'm on page 3. But I'll try to get everything in there. |
Stack Bruising capped @ 50% for 5s (10s)-Increases the usefulness of multiple tanks on a team - Rangle
brought this point up in this thread and I argued pointlessly for stacking during c/beta last year.
-if no to stacking:
Make it 20% unresistible damage resistance debuff for 15s (10s) and add minor resistible 10% -tohit debuff - Thematically the impact of the tank attack weakens shielding and unbalances an enemies ability to retaliate.
Stacking would increase the Tankers teams overall damage against AV's and hard targets, while also elevating their role.
Damage-Throwing added damage at the chalkboard is to me a lazy accepted wisdom - which is (by itself) rarely a good way to make decisions
to possibly improve the unique role of any AT, and simply homogenizes each new melee character created down to multiple choices of
similar options.
Issue 4 Tanker Burn was aggressively toned down because the AT wasn't intended to make Blasters & every other teammate irrelevant, which if you weren't around it certainly did (besides of course Jacks love of pen&paper ATs & antipathy towards p/lvling), even so Tanks current damage potential lies within acceptable parameters.
That said:
Tier one attacks-Raise the damage and reduce the recharge time by 1 second on powers above 2secs, reason, will help soloing speeds at lower levels, it also provides better functionality to an attack all Tanks must take.
The actual damage increase percentage would have to be determined during beta, but the desired result would be akin to Super Strengths Jab being reclassed from minor to moderate while War Maces Bash would go from moderate to high, and the adjustment to the end modifier would have to be fleshed out depending on the damage %.
To a lesser degree of importance (to me anyway):
Taunt-Lower the animation cast time to 1.57s (1.67s) increase the base range to 75ft (70ft) and radius to 17ft (15ft).
Tanks are not meant to be 100% effective as an aggro magnet, just as a controller is not meant to be 100% effective as Crowd Control, though both come pretty close as is.
But Taunt potentially maximizes offensive and aggro management efficiency and slightly increasing the base range and radius would be a minor adjustment, also Castle had already spoken openly about making it's animation faster.
In that vein:
Raise the aggro cap for tanks to 22 (17)-Minorly emphasizes differences between Tanks and the other three melee classes, especially solo and unbuffed it's resistance to defeat by multiple npcs is an attribute, and the cap being raised would highlight that albiet in a small way, though a cap needs to remain to avoid anti-Tank stacking.
.
I mentioned before tanks to me are within acceptable balance, and that based like many of you on having played ad nauseum every AT, certainly with all the means currently of boosting performance there have not been teams of any combination of other ATs that left me feeling my Tanker character was lacking, but like you I'm not against a small upgrade to something I like playing.
Quote:
No. Firstly, I don't call for nerfs. Secondly, the Epic AT's make it pretty impossible to lower Brutes resistances. (And for REALLY broken performance envelopes, check THOSE guys out, holy hannah!) |
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
So in essence you're saying they should nerf brute resistance caps to make it fair?
|
Try to read what I freakin' said.
Here, I'll say it again:
"In my mind, other archetypes should have their performance likewise broadened, but in different ways."
Brutes are fine, even if they are stepping all over the performance space of other archetypes. The game has plenty of room to expand other AT's performance in other directions.
For example, re-run those numbers but bump the Tankers resistance cap to 93 percent. A different picture emerges. Similarly, bump the Scrappers damage cap by a hundred percent, and see what emerges. Both of those changes are things I've been advocating for weeks now. (They may not be enough to match a brutes total envelope, but they will allow both those AT's an area of uniqueness.)
Way to totally misrepresent my whole point for a throw-away one-liner.
Jerk? Or troll?
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.