Quote:
Right now, Defensive Sweep only does Bruising on the first target if the attack hits. I'm sure they could flag the bruising portion however they wanted, to stack or not from the same caster, or stack not from same caster but other Tankers etc...|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
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. . |
They could also add it to cones and AoE. But I'd think that a resist debuff of 20% added to every Tanker attack would be too much. I also think that if the amount were lowered, it should certainly be added to each attack, or even allowing Tanker's secondary effects to carry over via Gauntlet, would include Bruising from the T1.
That would make Tankers truely Melee-trollers, and allow them to debuff 5 mobs with Bruising so that even while solo, their following AoE / Cones would benefit.
I think some have hit the nail on the head with the areas that tankers, in general, could use improvements:
1. Since Tankers are meant for survivability over damage, that survivability needs to be increased in a way that other ATs can't reach no matter how many buffs or debuffs are being used.
-- Maybe increase HP and Resist/Defense numbers for tankers that allow them to reach a higher cap. With all of the incarnate content requiring better defenses, this would be a way to give tankers an edge. Also, give Tankers an inherent, moderate, "defense" against things like Hamidon which typically ignore such things. This inherent defense would not be anything amazing to the point of making EoE useless, but it would help the Tanker survive better against situations where "classic" defenses are less effective.
-- Make it harder for them to be affected by Mezzes and other negative effects. I would even make the case that the big "holds" used by enemies such as Siege and Nightstar should be less effective against a Tanker. Perhaps make it such that to be sequestered a Tanker needs to be hit twice. Or, conversely, make it such that the Tanker's taunt/threat makes it such that only the Tank gets hit with the sequester (a mob that is taunted has all of it's AoEs reduced in effectiveness).
2. Allow Tankers to generate threat more easily. This can be done by increasing duration and/or adding the taunt as a secondary effect to more of their powers (maybe spread it to more of their shields). And, increase the number of targets that can be hit by the "Taunt" power in their secondary. If most other AoEs have a "cap" of 16 (or whatever it is), then Taunt should be able to hit more than 5 at a time.
3. As part of #2, I think Tankers should be exempt from the "aggro cap". Or, increase the aggro cap by a significant amount. This would make a Tanker more valuable to teams as the true means of aggro management and make it clear that Tankers are the "kings and queens" of the battlefield.
In my opinion, if all of those things were improved (significantly), you would give Tankers an edge over everyone else for their role on teams. No, you should not feel like you "need" to have a Tanker for everything. That is one of the great parts of the game: being able to deviate from the "trinity" mentality. But, those who play Tankers should be able to claim ownership to being the best person to do the job.
@ 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:
So you want to force the AT further into that corner of the trinity?|
Originally Posted by DrGemini
That is one of the great parts of the game: being able to deviate from the "trinity" mentality.
|
That's hypocritical.
Quote:
| But, those who play Tankers should be able to claim ownership to being the best person to do the job. |
Getting aggro and surviving is already dead easy. I find it ironic that for all the people accusing me of wanting an 'I Win' button over the years, I'm not the one asking to be more unkillable than Tankers already are (people already AFK in combat with them) and making aggro management even easier than Gauntlet and Taunt already make it.
If they're that terrible at staying alive and keeping attention on themselves, perhaps Tankers aren't the AT they're suited for.
The bottom line is I want the AT to have the opportunity to do something it doesn't do very well a little better and other people want the AT to do something it already does better than anyone else by far better still.
Why? Maybe they're control freaks who can't tolerate a Brute or Scrapper pulling any aggro (despite the fact they were designed to do so)?
.
Quote:
Why do you say things like this so often when it's your most easily refuted point? Lots of people play tanks. I see them all the time. We've got a twenty-one-page thread right here full of them. Apparently, lots of people DO want the job. Anyone who wants a taunt and doesn't already have one in their primary takes the presence pool (see: Tankerminds, Crab tanks, Scrapper tanks).|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Nobody wants the 'aggro crown'. Nobody takes the Presence pool for any reason other than the Fear powers. They already ARE the best person to do the job and nobody else even WANTS the job. The hours suck, the pay is poor and Scrappers and Brutes keep stealing your food out of the break room fridge.
|
YOU don't want the job. YOU feel like Brutes and Scrappers are stealing from you. We get it. Can you stop projecting your own opinions onto us and everyone else?
Edit: Words out were of order
Quote:
Not saying that taking back ST aggro should be easy, (tanks are clear in front on aoe overall) just doable without having to dip into mickey mouse pool.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The bottom line is I want the AT to have the opportunity to do something it doesn't do very well a little better and other people want the AT to do something is already does better than anyone else by far better still.
Why? Maybe they're control freaks who can't tolerate a Brute or Scrapper pulling any aggro (despite the fact they were designed to do so)?. |
Damage:
Assuming most peoples tanking hours are 50+ where endurance never runs out which is an easy thing to assume. What if all tankers were altered in ways so that its not /SS thats particularly good for farming, all secondaries are? It doesn't have to mean an increase in DPE, nor a decrease in recharge just a change in what damage some AoEs do in some sets purely so that farming speed is more even. (It would mean an increase in EPS for some sets but you can play or build to plug that). Generally some of the weaker farming sets would feel like they perform better.
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:
Brutes generate more threat than Tankers do. Tankers can hold aggro over them if they Taunt and the Brute does not. If neither Taunts, the Brute wins. If both Taunt, the Brute wins.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
They already are. They have the best survivability of all the ATs, no matter how close the second place is, and they already pull and hold aggro better than anyone by far. Nobody wants the 'aggro crown'. Nobody takes the Presence pool for any reason other than the Fear powers. They already ARE the best person to do the job and nobody else even WANTS the job. The hours suck, the pay is poor and Scrappers and Brutes keep stealing your food out of the break room fridge.
|
Threat = ThreatMultiplier * Damage * (TauntRemaining * 1000) * ((Debuffs and AI Preferences here))
Brutes and Tankers have the same ThreatMultiplier (4) and taunt durations (for both Gauntlet/Gauntlet-lite and Taunt) which leaves damage as the only difference, of which Brutes are superior.
Quote:
Then it's clear that Brutes were designed and intended to be the aggro kings. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it better, would they?|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Brutes generate more threat than Tankers do. Tankers can hold aggro over them if they Taunt and the Brute does not. If neither Taunts, the Brute wins. If both Taunt, the Brute wins.
Threat = ThreatMultiplier * Damage * (TauntRemaining * 1000) * ((Debuffs and AI Preferences here)) Brutes and Tankers have the same ThreatMultiplier (4) and taunt durations (for both Gauntlet/Gauntlet-lite and Taunt) which leaves damage as the only difference, of which Brutes are superior. |
That sentence above is the same argument that people have been using against my assertion that Tankers were intended to do damage all thread long.
I'm not leveling that accusation at you personally, but I'm pointing out that the same un-logic is being used to deny Tankers were supposed to be heavy hitters, despite the fact the lead designer said so, website description says so and Statesman (the face of Tankers), is clearly modeled on the heavy hitters in comics.
"They aren't heavy hitting damage dealers now, so they were clearly never were supposed to be."
That's what the same few people keep saying.
Well, you say Tankers don't hold aggro the best now. Clearly they're not supposed to.
.
Quote:
Because it's bait. Don't take it.
|
Originally Posted by Hopeling
Why do you say things like this so often when it's your most easily refuted point?
|
What Tankers were originally intended to be doesn't much matter. Pointing out that the original devs intended something doesn't carry much weight in a community where some of the original devs, and their early decisions, are so reviled that some people to this day are upset about it. Showing that they were actually justified to intend such would hold some weight, but since even those devs apparently decided changes weren't justified after they went through the whole process, I don't think you'll be able to. Showing that they were justified, and that their vision still isn't met despite later changes like making Knockout Blow/Clobber/etc do strong damage and the addition of Bruising, is harder still.
Then there's equally no justification to touch Tanker aggro.
"Tankers aren't heavy hitters. So what? Just roll a Brute if you care about that."
"Tankers are trumped by Brutes for aggro. So what? Just roll a Brute if you care about that."
The irony here is, according to Sarrate anyway, that lack of damage (and Brutes even existing for that matter) is the source of both problems.
.
Quote:
It's not that simple. There are several ways to look at it, such as:|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The irony here is, according to Sarrate anyway, that lack of damage (and Brutes even existing for that matter) is the source of both problems.
|
- Tankers don't deal enough damage to equal Brutes in threat generation.
Problem: The only way to make them equal by damage balancing is to make Tankers deal as much damage as Brutes.
- Tanker's don't generate long enough taunt durations.
Problem: I don't think constantly raising the performance ceiling is sustainable. Further, I think taunt effects generate an absurd amount of threat as it is. This would exasperate the problem.
- Brutes (and to a lesser extent, Scrappers) have taunt durations that are too long.
This is my personal view. I am, obviously, biased.
There are more options than just those, too. An AT's ThreadModifier is another variable that could be tweaked up or down. A combination of the two is another possibility.
I don't think that Brutes simply existing is a problem, but their design (intended or unintended) to have massive performance ceilings in a game with the strongest buff/debuffs I've ever seen which actually allows them to realize their potential, is.
Quote:
No, that's NOT the point, and I don't get why you don't see that. Increasing Tanker AT Threat Mods, or upping the duration of the TauntDuration from Gauntlet/Taunt for Tankers would wrest Aggro back in the direction of tankers by a longshot. So Damage ISN'T the only way to get there.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Then there's equally no justification to touch Tanker aggro.
"Tankers aren't heavy hitters. So what? Just roll a Brute if you care about that." "Tankers are trumped by Brutes for aggro. So what? Just roll a Brute if you care about that." The irony here is, according to Sarrate anyway, that lack of damage (and Brutes even existing for that matter) is the source of both problems. . |
IF Brutes are able to get aggro from a tanker, or keep it, for that matter, then just giving Tankers more damage might not solve the problem. Giving Tankers higher AT Threat mods, or upping their TauntDuration factors would solve that part just as well.
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:
"Tankers aren't the best buffers. So what? Just roll a Defender if you care about that."|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
"Tankers aren't heavy hitters. So what? Just roll a Brute if you care about that."
"Tankers are trumped by Brutes for aggro. So what? Just roll a Brute if you care about that." |
"Tankers aren't the best stealthers. So what? Just roll a Stalker if you care about that."
Tankers are in fact not the best buffers or stealthers, and people so interested should indeed probably play Defenders or Stalkers.
Now hypothetically let's suppose that, say, a database typo buffed Controllers to be the toughest AT.
"Tankers aren't the toughest AT. So what? Just roll a Controller if you care about that."
In this case, Controllers being the toughest AT would be unintentional and directly contrary to basic design principles, so the "so what?" statement is faulty.
Plugging other words into a sentence does not guarantee that the sentence remains meaningful in the same way. You would like us to be straw men, but nobody is making the argument "Tanker damage is already this way and therefore it is balanced." Rather we are saying "it is already this way, and it is balanced."
The important distinction between your two sentences I've quoted is that Brutes are intended (note the distinction from "were originally intended") to hit harder than Tankers, just as Defenders are intended to buff better, and Stalkers are intended to sneak better. Tankers were not, however, explicitly designed to be trumped by Brutes - or anyone - at holding aggro.
I dont think that Brutes were even intended to be teamed with Tankers, which is why their aggro catching ability was not balanced against each other. Brutes were supposed to be the Tanker equivalent of the red side and the scrapper of the red side at the same time.
Quote:
Earth to Johnny, there is nothing wrong with having a "best" person to fill a job. It is how things work. Defenders get the best debuff/buff numbers. Blasters get the best damage numbers. There is supposed to be a "class" that does their "job" "better" than everyone else. Yes, it is VERY freeing that a Brute or Scrapper can step in and do a similar job. But, Tankers should be the cream of the aggro management and have the tools to survive it *better* than everyone else.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
So you want to force the AT further into that corner of the trinity?
That's hypocritical.. |
As it stands, Tankers don't have much more value to a team than a Brute or Scrapper. Yes, Tankers can generate threat easier and have better defenses. But, in a game which seems to be pushing more and more toward content which needs some solid tanking, this is the prime time to give Tankers boosts to separate them from their (good but) sub-par cousins.
It is not at all hypocritical to ask the devs to give Tankers the title of "best" when it comes to what *we* generally expect. Tankers should be the "go to" class for that role. That doesn't mean that a good Brute can't still do the job. In fact, I still want the flexibility to not *need* a Tank. But, there should be a very significant impact on the team when a Tanker is present such that people seek them out when they can.
Quote:
| They already are. They have the best survivability of all the ATs, no matter how close the second place is, and they already pull and hold aggro better than anyone by far. |
A Tanker should have no real competition for aggro. Period.
Quote:
|
Nobody wants the 'aggro crown'. Nobody takes the Presence pool for any reason other than the Fear powers. They already ARE the best person to do the job and nobody else even WANTS the job. The hours suck, the pay is poor and Scrappers and Brutes keep stealing your food out of the break room fridge. Getting aggro and surviving is already dead easy. I find it ironic that for all the people accusing me of wanting an 'I Win' button over the years, I'm not the one asking to be more unkillable than Tankers already are (people already AFK in combat with them) and making aggro management even easier than Gauntlet and Taunt already make it. If they're that terrible at staying alive and keeping attention on themselves, perhaps Tankers aren't the AT they're suited for. The bottom line is I want the AT to have the opportunity to do something it doesn't do very well a little better and other people want the AT to do something it already does better than anyone else by far better still. Why? Maybe they're control freaks who can't tolerate a Brute or Scrapper pulling any aggro (despite the fact they were designed to do so)? |
There is absolutely no reason why a TANKER, who's primary function is to be the defensive line, should have to worry about competing with any Brute or Scrapper. And, they should not need to be forced to dip into all sorts of other tricks to separate themselves from their cousins.
@ 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:
You are NOT competing with your melee teammates for aggro. They are meant to share it with you.|
Originally Posted by DrGemini
Or, you run up against however many other Brutes (even Scrappers) all competing for your aggro.
|
This is the entire problem with the mindset of people crying for more aggro/threat generation.
Scrappers and Brutes were given taunt powers in their secondary sets. Brutes effectiveness depends in part on them being attacked. Brutes have Poke-voke. Brutes are LISTED IN THE TANK CATEGORY at AT creation. Get the message?
They are fully intended to share part of the aggro. As Tanker, you are not the sole focus. The spot light is not on you. The other melee ATs were intended to shoulder some of the burden. How much ultimately doesn't matter as long as they can. If they can't, they will face plant and then you get to grab up whatever you want.
You shouldn't care if an enemy is not attacking the squishies because he's trained on you or because he's attacking the Brute next to you. If they are Taunting enemies onto themselves, that's their prerogative. Stop being a control freak.
If you must have the final say in everyone attacking you, roll a Brute if they're trumping Tankers.
.
Quote:
The very same could be said of your Tanker damage requests.| roll a Brute if they're trumping Tankers |
Which, even if done, would change nothing really for how Tankers perform their role.
You don't seem to like the role of an aggro control character class. Yes, it stems from the days of the "holy trinity" system of older MMOs.
Which fortunately, CoH is not. Yet, they still went an created the Tanker AT and gave it the most amount of aggro control for this type of character I'd seen in any game at the time all those tools were put into it.
So if CoH isn't designed to work around the need for a holy trinity, why make such an AT?
Because it can and does provide a particular game play mechanic no other AT in the game does, which is melee-centric control. It's a perfectly viable mechanic for gameplay.
It's pretty safe to say that the aggro control mechanic is here to stay. And as such, currently Tankers were designed to be the best at it. Yet, there's a problem if they were designed to be the best at it, when another AT either gets too close to that type of performance, equals it, or surpasses it, then something needs to happen.
Either the entire AT design of Tankers needs to be looked at and re-addressed from the ground up. Or, it's intended role needs to be looked at and adjusted inorder to ensure that it fulfills this role in a unique way and in some way that is superior to both Brutes and Scrappers.
This isn't simply because people want to be "aggro control freaks". Though that could be a problem if you're trying to ensure particular cones are directed away from squishies etc... It's because as of now, its what Tankers were designed to do.
Scrappers: consistant high melee damage, minor tanking ability
Brutes: start of low melee damage, up to high melee damage, tanking ability
Stalkers: very high single target melee damage, no tanking ability
Tankers: moderate melee damage, high tanking ability
It's clear that Scrappers, Stalkers, and Tankers have distinct roles. Brutes were meant to be a hybrid between Scrappers and Tankers. And they're pretty much designed do to so well.
Its just that originally, brutes were meant to be hanging around Tankers, and when that became possible, the devs should've addressed those blurred lines that exist between Brutes and Tankers so they were easier to detect.
Quote:
I know it could. And has been. I'm purposefully throwing the same argument back in the face of the people who use it against me (though DrGemini isn't necessarily who that's directed at) so they can choke on it.|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
The very same could be said of your Tanker damage requests.
|
Quote:
| Yet, they still went an created the Tanker AT and gave it the most amount of aggro control for this type of character I'd seen in any game at the time all those tools were put into it. |
Quote:
| So if CoH isn't designed to work around the need for a holy trinity, why make such an AT? |
My answer to that is, look what they're doing for Stalkers; rounding them out insead of pushing them further to the fringe. That's the right approach.
Quote:
| And as such, currently Tankers were designed to be the best at it. |
It's just your desires versus my desires. And guess what, no matter how many people feel either way, this is not a democracy. So I feel my reasons are just as valid to take my chances with, developer bias aside.
Quote:
| Either the entire AT design of Tankers needs to be looked at and re-addressed from the ground up. Or, it's intended role needs to be looked at and adjusted inorder to ensure that it fulfills this role in a unique way and in some way that is superior to both Brutes and Scrappers. |
Quote:
| Its just that originally, brutes were meant to be hanging around Tankers, and when that became possible, the devs should've addressed those blurred lines that exist between Brutes and Tankers so they were easier to detect. |
One with great survivability and good aggro control, great ST damage but AoE revolving around low damage/soft crowd control.
The other with good survivability, good AoE damage, good ST damage, attacks that lower enemy damage resistance and low aggro control.
Solo, one is tougher, but has worse AoE damage. They end up breaking even for ST damage.
Teamed, the first improves the survivability of the second by tanking and the second improves the damage of the first by weakening enemy resistances.
That can't happen now, but it's closer to what I think things should have been.
.
Quote:
No, what you're doing isn't throwing the same agrument back. You're argument is virtually baseless, at least in the way you want things changed. Particularly by trying to use either real word examples (military equipment like tanks) or comic book examples - to which don't apply to a video game. |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I know it could. And has been. I'm purposefully throwing the same argument back in the face of the people who use it against me (though DrGemini isn't necessarily who that's directed at) so they can choke on it.
|
The other argument provides plenty of actual in game evidence to support it.
Quote:
|
Good question. Here's another: Hybrid ATs already exist in the game and are very popular, arguably more so than their older, less flexible cousins. Do we really still need to keep the Trinity ATs as overspecialized as they are? My answer to that is, look what they're doing for Stalkers; rounding them out insead of pushing them further to the fringe. That's the right approach. |
Secondly, Stalkers aren't being rounded out so much as they're actually being given more of a niche - the exact oppossite of what you think is happening. The intent on the Stalker changes is to make them "the" single target dps AT.
Here's the thing, i put "the" in quotes. That's because with certain builds, Scrappers will have powerset combos that will out stdps Stalkers, Brutes will too. Heck, right now there are certain Tanker stdps chains that beat out certain Scrapper stdps chains. And those aren't necessarily the high end builds either.
Quote:
|
You have no more justification to say that than I have to say that Tankers were designed to be heavy hitters. You may want them to the best at aggro, but they're apparently not currently and there's nothing that says they have to be better at it than Brutes any more than there is that says Tankers are supposed to be "extremely powerful" heavy hitters. It's just your desires versus my desires. And guess what, no matter how many people feel either way, this is not a democracy. So I feel my reasons are just as valid to take my chances with, developer bias aside. |
My desire is only that Tankers are provided with some disctinction in their gameplay mechanics that will further set them apart from the other Melee ATs so that they provide a unique experience while playing them. Those ATs in particular are Brutes and Scrappers because Stalkers and Tankers are worlds apart.
My desire isn't purely based on what I think should work or not work for the AT by using ideas extrapolated from things outside of this game. Its based on what already exists within the game itself. For all I know the devs may come in and say they see one more problems with Tankers, outline what they are, and conclude the most feasable way to resolve it is by increases the raw damage output of Tankers. I doubt it, but they might. If that were the case, it would probably provide evidence that no one else has thought to look at over the 7 years of this AT being played.
Barring that, I'd bet that we'd see some tweaks or changes to some of the under the hood mechanics to how Tankers operate. If they were to take another step beyond that, they may decide to work with how Bruising works, and expand on their initial take on it.
Or they might go in a completely new direction by adding other features to the AT that won't change its design intent, but define it by allowing the AT to operate with another tool in its set.
Quote:
| There's a good case to be made all four melee ATs should be looked at from the ground up. What should happen and what can and will happen are two very different things. |
Quote:
|
I've stated before that I think if we could go back to the beginning, there should really only be two melee ATs and I stated how they could be balanced so that they're both powerful combatants and are a little closer to how things are in comics. One with great survivability and good aggro control, great ST damage but AoE revolving around low damage/soft crowd control. The other with good survivability, good AoE damage, good ST damage, attacks that lower enemy damage resistance and low aggro control. Solo, one is tougher, but has worse AoE damage. They end up breaking even for ST damage. Teamed, the first improves the survivability of the second by tanking and the second improves the damage of the first by weakening enemy resistances. That can't happen now, but it's closer to what I think things should have been. |
Quote:
As is theirs.|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
N You're argument is virtually baseless
|
Quote:
| Um...firstly there are not "trinity ATs" as this game has been designed. |
Quote:
| Secondly, Stalkers aren't being rounded out so much as they're actually being given more of a niche - the exact oppossite of what you think is happening. |
So yes, they are strengthening them towards the middle, allowing them to do more when not in Hidden (like the other melee ATs), more non-front loaded damage and to survive better. In short, to better 'scrap it up'. If they were making them more "niche-y" as you say, they wouldn't be touching their HP but would instead be buffing Assassin Strike to do more damage the longer the were Hidden or something like that.
Quote:
| Here's the problem, Tankers were never, once designed with the intent of being heavy hitters in this game. |
Quote:
| Stalkers and Tankers are worlds apart. |
Quote:
| I'm certain that people could craft excellent arguments to rebuilding the entire game from the ground up, and heck that might be happening since NCSoft grabbed the domain name of cityofheroes2 a while back. |
CoH is probably past the point where investing in a (good) sequel would be profitable. The "CCG Grab Bags" they announced at the Pummit do not bode well to me as an indicator of how much actual revenue the Market is bringing in for them. Also the Doom numbers were way down, at a second all time low IIRC, as of the last quarter(?). Is CoH going away anytime too soon? Likely not. But it's still not hot enough for the men in suits to throw money at a sequel.
Quote:
| I'd like the ideas if they weren't so rigid. I love the fact that there are 4 melee ATs each with working differently than the next, each with their own flavor if you will. It provides more options for people. |
.
Quote:
I don't really see the problem with Brutes having a higher overall threat generation, Tankers are better at gathering AoE aggro and Brutes are better at generating higher overall threat per target.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
|
There has to be space for each of them coexist in this dynamic, for the simple fact of how intrinsic aggro is to Fury.
I also do not see Brutes taunt-spamming, and while they might generate more threat on a single target in an extended fight, like an AV for example, I've had no problem playing hot potato with the AVs on BAF with Tanker & Brute leaguemates.
Does the Tanker have to use Taunt in that situation? Yes most likely.
Do I think all Tankers should always have Taunt? I think you can live without it, but its an exceptionally useful and powerful tool, that I would never skip.
However if someone really wants to be great at aggro control, and they refuse to take taunt, they'll have a hard time getting sympathy from me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
I don't think that Brutes simply existing is a problem, but their design (intended or unintended) to have massive performance ceilings in a game with the strongest buff/debuffs I've ever seen which actually allows them to realize their potential, is.
|
I'm not seeing this perfect situation at all in game.
Res buffers are fairly rare overall, I certainly don't see enough of them to keep my Brutes resistance capped all of the time.
Are people really playing on leagues filled with resistance buffers?
I mean what are there? 2 dedicated resistance buffing sets in the game?
Sonic & Thermal, and these are easily some of the lesser played sets.
Then you have two other sets that are also resistance buffers but to a much lesser extent overall; Dark (Shadowfall) & Kin (but only with ID).
Unless people are not playing on PUG leagues, and they are on these amazingly coordinated SG based leagues where everyone is on Vent/Teamspeak and they are counting down every 30s to stack Destiny buffs?
I'm not playing on those leagues.
My characters are playing on PUG leagues, leagues where I am often separated from the rest of my team because half of them decided to run off in different directions.
I'm playing on leagues where on any given Keyes trial, we are at most running around in small groups of 3 or 4 players, clearing terminals and bunkers.
What I have seen is leagues with plenty of Tankers, Brutes & Scrappers in fairly equal measure.
I'm seeing leagues where half or more of the league is usually melee ATs.
I'm seeing leagues with upwards of 8 Tankers finishing a BAF, Lambda or Keyes in basically the same time frame as leagues with Brutes/Scrappers - and no one really caring that we have so many Tankers.
Quote:
Oh my Zod. We are in agreement on something.|
Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus
I don't really see the problem with Brutes having a higher overall threat generation, Tankers are better at gathering AoE aggro and Brutes are better at generating higher overall threat per target.
There has to be space for each of them coexist in this dynamic, for the simply fact of how intrinsic aggro is to Fury. I also do not see Brutes taunt-spamming, and while they might generate more threat on a single target in an extended fight, like an AV for example, I've had no problem playing hot potato with the AVs on BAF with Tanker & Brute leaguemates. Does the Tanker have to use Taunt in that situation? Yes most likely. Do I think all Tankers should always have Taunt? I think you can live without it, but its an exceptionally useful and powerful tool, that I would never skip. However if someone really wants to be great at aggro control, and they refuse to take taunt, they'll have a hard time getting sympathy from me. |
.
Quote:
Because then you'd be right back in the position of being stuck with a crappy attack that you are forced to take, when everything else in the set is a better choice? |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
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. |
At least this way that attack you're forced to take does something useful for you, instead of just taking up a power pick.
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:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Oh my Zod. We are in agreement on something.
|
High five?
It's not on every tanker attack because it's meant to be a virtue of the t1 attack that makes it more palatable and rewards tankers who know how to play well with an improved output in their secondary. It's a skill-based mechanic right now.