Quote:
Touch the cap maybe: stay there relatively consistently? If its happening often elsewhere, Triumph must be under a perpetual damage debuff.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I feel I can be bold enough to say that any Tanker (with the exception of Stone Armor) will hit the cap when teamed with one decent Kin and one or more SoA.
Build Up for sure will ram them into it. On a league, chances are very good both of those will be present. And Kin the only buff set that would do it, but is the one that will do it the easiest. Plus there's anyone who brings Assault. Leadership pool is very popular nowadays. . |
[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:
Yeah, but so will the Kin and SoA. Do their caps also need raising? You say Kinetics isn't the only support set that can cap damage, but of the support sets that even HAVE damage buffs, all except Kin are relatively small (the highest is Forge, at 50% for defenders) and often single-target. With 95% damage slotted, and let's even assume a t4 core musculature for another 30%, tankers need +95% in damage buffs to even reach the cap during Build Up. That is not an all-the-time or even most-of-the-time occurrence, even in leagues.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I feel I can be bold enough to say that any Tanker (with the exception of Stone Armor) will hit the cap when teamed with one decent Kin and one or more SoA.
Build Up for sure will ram them into it. On a league, chances are very good both of those will be present. And Kin the only buff set that would do it, but is the one that will do it the easiest. Plus there's anyone who brings Assault. Leadership pool is very popular nowadays. |
Frequently running into the damage cap is not an issue unless you're playing Super Strength, and I don't see why /SS Raging to the damage cap is any different, or any more of an issue, than a Kin Fulcrum Shifting themself to the cap.
Quote:
Arcana hit the nail on the head. To further drive the point though, how would the change affect the archetype in the rest of the game outside of trials? |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I feel I can be bold enough to say that any Tanker (with the exception of Stone Armor) will hit the cap when teamed with one decent Kin and one or more SoA.
Build Up for sure will ram them into it. On a league, chances are very good both of those will be present. And Kin the only buff set that would do it, but is the one that will do it the easiest. Plus there's anyone who brings Assault. Leadership pool is very popular nowadays. . |
Virtually not at all. It certainly won't help solo, and small groups. It would only benefit if the Tanker were teamed with a Kinetic using AT and they maxxed out their difficulty, or everyone else in the group went AFK and then the Tanker's damage was absolutely necessary for success. Even then, with the longevity provided by the Tanker's survivability, even being buffed to its current cap, in those same conditions, would still be sufficient for success.
Simply put, raising the caps isn't what Tankers need. I'd highly doubt it'd make that much on an impact on trials and only serve you're particular need to see particular character's pop bigger orange numbers.
Would I balk at the change? Nope, but I don't believe it to be necessary by any means.
First off I'll just put it out there I don't like playing tanks. I don't really care for melee AT's in general so I'm not just picking on tanks. I know they're survivable since I leveled a Shield/DM to 50 and an Ice/Fire to 38 but I just wasn't that impressed with the damage. Both are great for keeping aggro while surviving and dealing some damage but I just couldn't stand playing them solo. Playing them on teams wasn't to bad but tanks just aren't for me. My point is I may not like playing them but I don't mind having them around on teams.
I would like to see their aggro cap raised a little and possibly getting a little more max hp but other than that I think tanks are fine.
Elec/Cold Troller AV/Pylon/GM/TF/SF Soloing Antics
everytime...he gets me everytime.... DAMN U BOOMIE
-- _Ilr_
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Quote:
I agree with this right here. In fact this is the CORE of my problem with JB's attitude on the subject. |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
And what if you want to play Super Strength/Invulnerability but that option doesn't exist for Scrappers. You take the next best archetype option and go Brutes, or you take the next best powerset option and go Street Justice. Or you advocate for proliferation. Or for the devs to make a whole new archetype just for you. But you don't advocate taking options away from other players just to satisfy your own personal agenda.
I should say, a reasonable person shouldn't. You can do whatever you want; I'm simply going to continue to remind the devs what their design obligation here is. And its not to honor your sense of tankers or my sense of tankers or even their sense of tankers. Their first responsibility is to honor the sense of tankers of the existing players playing tankers. Only a genuine balance problem should override that. |
If *I* don't like the way something plays, or it doesn't meet my expectations, but the vast majority of the other players like it the way it is, I damn well play something else that does meet my expectations of it.
It boggles me that JB keeps saying that tanker damage is too low, their survivability advantage is unnecessary, and he doesn't like being expected to be a meatshield, and yet he refuses to just play brutes instead. The things he has a problem with regarding tankers are ALL solved by the brute AT's very existence.
Nope, he thought it would be better to play tanks and be unhappy with them, and spam the forums for four years with demands to change an AT that 99% of the rest of the playerbase is perfectly fine with the performance of into something he feels is closer to what the comic books say it should be.
I have NEVER seen the devs make sweeping changes to an AT just to please one, or a handful of people. If there is a legitimate balance problem, sure. But not to make an extremely small number of people happy.
But, if JB wants to waste his time spamming the forums with demands to make tanks into Superman clones, that's his prerogative.
(I'm speaking of JB in third person instead of talking TO him because I'm pretty sure he has me on ignore.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
Cannonball and all of the new mutants are a good example of what you're talking about.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
** Actually, maybe not even that. Would you consider Cannonball to be basically a flying brick while he's in motion? He's not really a puncher, he's *literally* a brick thrown at someone.
|
When the New Mutants first came along 30 years ago, one of the things I marveled at was the sheer raw power of this team. When they were at the height of their manpower at 9 members, I used to think if they ever learned to use their powers well, they would level any other team in the Marvel Universe.
But, of course, Wolverine could probably have taken on the whole team then and dispatched them in a minute or two. But Wolverine would be the equivalent of a level 50 IOed to the gills Scrapper. At the time, the New Mutants were level 1-10s of various classes.
Cannonball today, is certainly a high level brick, flying or not. He has much more fine control of his blasting field and so can use it both offensively and defensively. As someone above said, he took on Gladiator and won (although that's partially writer's privilege at work), and he may be quite literally immortal.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Me, I'm amused by the talk of tankers who feel the aggro cap needs to be higher so they can rescue other people from their mistakes. As if the tank is the only person in the group who should be expected to play well, and as if the same scenario wouldn't just happen again if the knot of guys around the tanker was twice the size.
Quote:
That's not the reason why its being asked for. Right now, the Tanker's game play mechanic revolves around aggro control. Yet, Brutes also have the same tools as Tankers, only Tankers have the ability to Taunt / Aura-taunt / Gauntlet-taunt more mobs, except for the fact that they'll hit the aggro cap. |
Originally Posted by Talen Lee
Me, I'm amused by the talk of tankers who feel the aggro cap needs to be higher so they can rescue other people from their mistakes. As if the tank is the only person in the group who should be expected to play well, and as if the same scenario wouldn't just happen again if the knot of guys around the tanker was twice the size.
|
Brutes can hit the aggro cap just as easily. So when the Tanker's design function is to control aggro, and they're designed to withstand the most amount of damage for a longer duration of time, but are at the same limit of what another AT can aggro, the defined role of the Tanker begins to get muddled in game. Not to mention when that other AT is almost as survivable and does more damage.
Throughout the discussion of this thread, this realization was brought to the surface and really, it isn't too unreasonable to say, if Tankers have the tools to aggro 20 foes (Taunt+Aura+Guantlet), then let them be able to do just that. Some have asked for even higher aggro cap, but without additional tools to do so, it's rather moot. Though an idea or two have been posted about how to change those tools. It's really up to the devs at this point.
Quote:
Ding.
|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
How did they 'Raise' scrappers and brutes? Scrapper damage and toughness hasn't changed in years, outside specific sets, and brute damage was reduced.
On SO's there's NO comparison between tanker toughness and brute/scrapper toughness. I've got a level 19 inv tanker I'm tinkering with at the moment and his smash lethal resistance on DOs surpasses most brute sets running toughness on SOs at level 50 (all but inv and elec). If it weren't for IO defensive bonuses there still would be no question in roles. An SR tanker softcaps on SOs. An SR brute on SOs gets his teeth kicked in trying to tank with his mid 30% defenses. You can't really count outside buffs in this kind of comparison, as they turn any AT into an invincible juggernaut that make both Brute and Tanker a waste of a team slot. The largest problem with Tankers vs the world these days isn't that the other ATs have been buffed to make them obsolete. It's the abundance of defense bonuses in IO sets, and even support power sets, being bad game design. |
Quote:
Who gets to decide what's realistic and what's reflective?|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
The second thread will include the more "realistic" ideas that come out of the consolidated suggestion thread, or at the very least the changes that we think are more reflective of what the Tanker community wants the Devs to really look at.
|
Tanker community is going to be made up of people who will always want more damage, even if its wanting their secondary to potentially farm as well as /SS or /Fire.
Throw everything summarised into one thread and trust in a Dev just to skip/skim "the never in a million years (unrealistic) parts" and then no one will feel excluded because their ideas have been excluded into the unrealistic thread.
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:
You seem to be new here. Lemme try and unpack it for you; the nature of this game is one where every single character is non-required. Everyone's roles overlap and you can beat any content, pretty much, by just throwing more of everything at it. So yes, the tanker's role will be muddled because there are at least four archetypes who are designed to do the same job, more or less.
|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
the defined role of the Tanker begins to get muddled in game.
|
So back when they did the Big Tanker Nerf that coincided with the Big Enhancement Nerf (all in the name of FUN!) playing a tanker was a miserable, miserable experience. Especially if you were Inv.
But these days I think they're pretty good. It used to be I would FALL ASLEEP trying to bring down a lieutenant because it would take so freaking long to do, but that's not the case any more. Bruising was an awesome addition to the Tanker set, because it makes them single-target debuffers not just solo, but for the entire party. I mean we still don't do Brute or Scrapper damage, but that's OK by me. That's why there are Brutes and Scrappers.
Scrapper Jack (SJ/WP Brute), Sky Commando (WP/SJ Tanker), Curveball (Rad/DP Defender), and a bunch more.
Quote:
You should stop to consider that maybe that is the problem.|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
That's not the reason why its being asked for. Right now, the Tanker's game play mechanic revolves around aggro control.
|
That controlling aggro in and of itself isn't compelling enough for 99% of the players in the game and maybe isn't deep enough or is too artificial to build an AT around.
In other words: do most of the people playing CoH enjoy dragging Anti-Matter around with Taunt? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and says 'no'.
Newsflash: Tankers aren't the most popular AT in the game. That's common sense. They're an extremely specialized AT that does a job most people don't care about as long as someone is doing it. And that overspecialization is what alienates people from them.
Pushing them further and further in that direction isn't going to improve things for them. That is counter to logic. I said before, they aren't improving Stalkers by making them turn more invisible. The proposed changes are in fact, from what I see, pushing them a little bit back towards the middle without taking anything away:
They improving their damage out of Hide, (instead of making them Hide more for their damage).
They're giving them what I can only call the unholy child of Criticals and Fury.
They're upping their max HP (instead of making them more fragile).
They aren't making them "more Stalkery", they're making them more 'rounded' and stronger towards the middle while keeping their fringe capabilities intact (but without pushing them further to the fringe). That makes sense. That's a logical approach to increase their wide appeal and competitiveness while not taking anything away from players who liked 'Stalkery' gameplay.
So why shouldn't Tanker improvements take a similar approach?
Quote:
| Not to mention when that other AT is almost as survivable and does more damage. |
.
Quote:
Whew, boy was it ever. I quit the game for two years due to Jack's sweaty panic over tankers. Freakin' rooting Unyielding Stance, what a jack-hole move....|
Originally Posted by Curveball
So back when they did the Big Tanker Nerf that coincided with the Big Enhancement Nerf (all in the name of FUN!) playing a tanker was a miserable, miserable experience. Especially if you were Inv.
|
It's also revealing that this same time period was when brutes, with their gigantic performance envelope, were crafted.
Quote:
| But these days I think they're pretty good. |
Quote:
| It used to be I would FALL ASLEEP trying to bring down a lieutenant because it would take so freaking long to do, but that's not the case any more. Bruising was an awesome addition to the Tanker set, because it makes them single-target debuffers not just solo, but for the entire party. |
Quote:
| I mean we still don't do Brute or Scrapper damage, but that's OK by me. That's why there are Brutes and Scrappers. |
As Claws' 'edge' model demonstrates clearly, in the continuum 'Tank-Brute-Scrap', there is not just overlap, there's complete and utter dominance by one AT, lackluster performance by another AT, and very poor performance indeed by the third.
As more and more people become Incarnates, this is only going to get worse.
On a 24 person trial, it's not craziness to expect a sonic and a kin to show up, and with all the other buffs flying about, that's about all it takes for people to be running at the edge of the envelope for the entire thing. (Looking at the UG. Oh, how I love the UG....)
Now are there larger issues? Absolutely. Stacking buffs and debuffs are SEVERELY broken. So badly broken the Dev's had to implement MARTy to keep the RMT'rs from crushing the game economy completely. (Well, sorta....)
Are there smaller issues? Absolutely. The 'heavy weapon' sets have been lagging for a while, and are getting to be non-competitive. Broadsword and ax in particular could use some tweaks.
However, none of that invalidates THIS discussion.
Wasn't someone compiling a list for an aggregate thread somewhere?
Quote:
Do you have any data to back that up? Tankers are clearly not the MOST popular AT, true. They're also clearly not an UNpopular AT: I see at least two Tankers on almost every trial I run. And it isn't just people playing their old 50s due to attachment, I've seen plenty of Tankers while leveling my latest character too.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
You should stop to consider that maybe that is the problem.
That controlling aggro in and of itself isn't compelling enough for 99% of the players in the game and maybe isn't deep enough or is too artificial to build an AT around. |
You've brought up the Stalker changes comparison again, so let's look at what those changes are doing:
-Making Stalkers better at single target, which is already their niche
-Allowing them to take full advantage of the +hp powers they've always had
And let's look at what those changes are not doing:
-Making them tougher than Scrappers
-Giving them better AoE
So no, Stalkers aren't becoming more invisible, but they ARE getting better at what they're already good at, and NOT getting much better at the things they aren't already good at. Extending that philosophy to Tankers will get you better aggro management, maybe some new ways to protect your team besides aggro, but little or no change to damage.
Quote:
Stalkers are the opposite of Tankers, both at extremes of the damage-toughness spectrum (for melee).|
Originally Posted by Hopeling
You've brought up the Stalker changes comparison again, so let's look at what those changes are doing:
-Making Stalkers better at single target, which is already their niche -Allowing them to take full advantage of the +hp powers they've always had |
So, if they're increasing Stalker survivability via Max HP cap and increasing their ST damage...
That would be comparable to improving the Tanker damage cap and increasing their survivability.
I don't care either way about the latter, only the former.
.
Quote:
I read over some of the other posts briefly and have to laugh. Far too many people seem to fail to understand what a Tanker is. Describing a Tanker as the prime meat shield doesn't even come close to the value a well-build and well-played Tanker has.|
Originally Posted by Ultimus
I asked if he's ever looked into it and he said he has not but he is willing to consider it. I thought I'd stop by before sending off a reply at what he needs to look at. Tankers don't have an egregious level of underperformance but there is room for improvement. With that being said, here's my questions:
What problems do you feel Tankers have? Why do you feel this is a problem? What would you do to Tankers to improve them? Why? And what quantifiable data would you use to justify such a change? |
If you want to see how good a tanker has to be, go role an Ice tank.
That being said, my biggest "beef" right now is that I believe Ice Armor is due for a buff to its numbers. Not necessarily a big boost. But something to help us keep up with the incarnate content.
@ Dr Gemini
Quote:
| �If we would come together and be great role models, it would be amazing to see how the next generation turns out.� |
Quote:
Only if you assume that every problem Stalkers have is also a problem for Tankers, but exactly reversed. Which is not true. WHY are these Stalker changes being made? There's 2 things here, the HP cap and the AS/Focus changes.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Stalkers are the opposite of Tankers, both at extremes of the damage-toughness spectrum (for melee).
So, if they're increasing Stalker survivability via Max HP cap and increasing their ST damage... That would be comparable to improving the Tanker damage cap and increasing their survivability. |
First, the current Stalker HP cap is too low. A Stalker with accolades can cap their HP with IOs, without even particularly trying, using any power sets. Even with no accolades, no IOs, and no enhancements at all, a Stalker runs over the HP cap by using Dull Pain. The HP cap is an issue for every Stalker set, and especially severe for /Regen, /Ice, /WP, and /EA.
By comparison, only one Tanker secondary can (barely) reach the damage cap under its own power, and to do so requires a high-end IO build specialized in recharge, along with a Musculature alpha, some set bonuses, and fully slotted attacks.
Second, on a team, Scrappers outperform Stalkers even at the one thing Stalkers are supposed to be good at: putting down a single hard target. AS changes will presumably bring Stalker ST DPS up to a level that makes them competitive with, if not slightly ahead of Scrappers.
But Tankers are NOT outperformed at surviving. They're at least slightly ahead of Brutes in that regard. So again, it isn't a valid comparison.
Quote:
First, it is only your assertation that aggro control is the problem for Tankers. Its what the AT was designed for, and those design mechanics are here to stay. |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
You should stop to consider that maybe that is the problem.
That controlling aggro in and of itself isn't compelling enough for 99% of the players in the game and maybe isn't deep enough or is too artificial to build an AT around. In other words: do most of the people playing CoH enjoy dragging Anti-Matter around with Taunt? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and says 'no'. Newsflash: Tankers aren't the most popular AT in the game. That's common sense. They're an extremely specialized AT that does a job most people don't care about as long as someone is doing it. And that overspecialization is what alienates people from them. Pushing them further and further in that direction isn't going to improve things for them. That is counter to logic. I said before, they aren't improving Stalkers by making them turn more invisible. The proposed changes are in fact, from what I see, pushing them a little bit back towards the middle without taking anything away: They improving their damage out of Hide, (instead of making them Hide more for their damage). They're giving them what I can only call the unholy child of Criticals and Fury. They're upping their max HP (instead of making them more fragile). They aren't making them "more Stalkery", they're making them more 'rounded' and stronger towards the middle while keeping their fringe capabilities intact (but without pushing them further to the fringe). That makes sense. That's a logical approach to increase their wide appeal and competitiveness while not taking anything away from players who liked 'Stalkery' gameplay. So why shouldn't Tanker improvements take a similar approach? If this assertion is wrong when I use it to justify improving Tanker damage, why is it correct when you use it to justify aggro changes? . |
With regards to Brute damage and aggro control mechanics. First Tankers are not designed to be a high damage dealing AT. Should they do more damage? Well Bruising tells us that something was off, but that a simple increase in damage mods was not the way to go. So while the answer is or was yes, it came with one or more caveats.
Secondly, some of the Brute gauntlet changes were made after CoV came out. Giving Brutes more tools that Tankers had. It'd be as if Scrappers were given the ability to crit when using any form of stealth. Its a tool for another AT.
It is your steadfast refusal to see and accept what Tankers are designed to do and how they don't meet up to your expectations of what you "think" they're "suppossed to do" is the problem. Look, I can understand sticking to your guns for a right cause, but there are situations in life where if more than one person says the same thing to you about something, it may be time to consider your stance.
You're saying the problem is this way < and then there are many people, who are quite knowledgable (far moreso than I) who are saying it isn't but its this way )))))))))))))))). You need to look at the common denonimator in this circumstances and if signs point back to you only having the problem, then perhaps it isn't the issue that's the problem, it may just be your perceptions of the issue.
And I apologize, I'm not trying to berate you are anything, but its been years of seeing this go on
Quote:
Wait. Seriously? A Chewbacca defense?|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Stalkers are the opposite of Tankers, both at extremes of the damage-toughness spectrum (for melee).
So, if they're increasing Stalker survivability via Max HP cap and increasing their ST damage... That would be comparable to improving the Tanker damage cap and increasing their survivability. I don't care either way about the latter, only the former. . |
Clicking on the linked image above will take you off the City of Heroes site. However, the guides will be linked back here.
I thought about brutes and what made fury generate so fast and just so good to play. Fury is broken up into two parts.. attack generating fury and being attacked generating fury. Everything is all about the brute a selfish sort of AT, he's not concerned with protection of a team but increasing his own power.
Now a tanker is more about protecting a team, but they also rise to the challenge of what is thrown at them. In terms of power they do less damage then a brute but are debuffing resistance stripping away at at the defenses of whatever it is they are fighting, so that everyone else does better against that foe.
Expand on what the tanker is doing.
Apply bruising to every single target melee power. This represent stripping away the defenses of a harder target. Let the effects stack. This allows multiple tankers to each add to a team by making a singular strong foe go down easier. By restricting it to single target melee powers only you reduce the impact this would have on farming potential.
Reasoning.. Multiple scrappers, stalkers and brutes all get to do their things, but two tankers attacking the same target are not adding anything. This leads to an issue either real or perceived that multiple tankers on a team beyond one are a waste.
Expand Taunt. Scrappers confront works on 1 target, brute's taught hits 5 targets. Let Tanker's taunt 10 targets. Expand gauntlet to 7 mobs rather then 5 mobs are effected by gauntlet. This means that a tanker is more likely able to get closer to the taunt cap faster then the other ATs as well as gives them the ability to pull it away.
Reasoning.. It just makes it easier to fall into the tanker's role of crowd control through taunt and defenses by a natural extension of just playing the AT.
Expand defenses/gauntlet.. Apply a -acc and -damage effect onto gauntlet so it expands on the thoughts that a tanker is protecting their team better while also reducing incoming damage for themselves and everyone teaming with them.
Reasoning: This flattens tankers out a bit in terms of defense(defense and resistances), as well as scaling them for team play, multiple tankers being on a team, as well as stacking even better with the buff/debuff ATs then their other melee counterparts. It adds them more clearly into a support sort of role rather then seen as a weakest melee damage dealer role.
Overall I think that these changes to the Tanker would make for an even more interesting character to play then it already is.
It provides gameplay on multiple levels allowing someone to go out full out on the damage/defense aspects or to play around with the debuffing/control aspects of the AT and everything in between.
As much as I advocated having Bruising stack earlier in this thread, my understanding of how bruising works in the game has changed. Bruising can be flagged as it is now, not to stack, or it can be set to stack even from the original "caster". For it to be viable within the game to stack, I would think that they would probably have to do a couple of things.
Reduce the duration to a point where a single tank couldn't spam it to a high enough level on a single target, and reduce the -res percentage so that even with a full team of tanks the -res doesn't become ridiculous. Could they create a cap on how much the bruising could reach? I don't know. Should they change bruising I would expect one, if not both of the changes I mentioned to happen. There maybe another work around that I'm not thinking of.
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.
|
Making bruising stack would further encourage tankers to use their worst attack as often as possible. I've played games where there's a single attack you absolutely want to spam every time it's up, and when that power is as unexciting as the bruising attacks are, that's not a good thing.
No more Bruising.
Unless they're going to uncouple it from the T1 and put it on every attack, no thanks.
In fact, doesn't Titan Weapons Defensive Sweep demonstrate you can put Bruising on a Cone (and logically by extension an AoE) attack and still have it only effect one target?
In light of that, I don't see why they shouldn't just add it to every Tanker attack.
.
Most of my toons will hit the cap when buffed by a kin. More damage for everyone!
I thought we were talking about being able to self cap here. A single kin caps my elec/da brute.
Why are we positioning ourselfves for buffs based on teammates who may or may not be able to cap our damage?