Quote:
On my 'soft skins'?|
Originally Posted by SinisterDirge
I would argue that they shouldn't need to dip into fighting first. Of course even if they adjusted the tanker numbers so that they would have the same coverage as enhanced tough and weave, how much do you want to wager most tanks would still grab both?
|
OH HELL YES.
Man, hardcapped smash-lethal on a FIRE tank? I'd take that in a micro-second.Of course, that begs the much larger issue of exactly how mandatory the fighting pool is on any toon that does serious melee.... Effectively puts all melee toons three power picks 'behind' AT's that don't need that sort of thing.
Quote:
Even many non-melee builds still take the Fighting pool. Melee are pretty much expected to get shot at by lots of dudes, so they usually take Fighting. Other types of builds aren't universally expected to be able to do that, but the ones that want to often use Fighting as well, especially in the world of Inherent Fitness.|
Originally Posted by mauk2
Effectively puts all melee toons three power picks 'behind' AT's that don't need that sort of thing.
|
If it were widespread enough, you could make an argument similar to Fitness that base survivability should be adjusted and Fighting go away (or just make the whole thing inherent), but I don't think Fighting is nearly as mandatory as Fitness ever was. Even if it's unquestionably the best pool, you can still make a functioning character without it.
Quote:
Yes we're back to you wanting holy trinity gaming where your primadonnna Tankers gets to have the spotlight and be the only one who can ever hold aggro.|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
Brutes and Tankers do not have to share roles. The role of the Brute can be the grey between Scrapper and Tanker.
|
Aside from the fact that the Brute inherent simply functions better when they have enemies attacking them, your idea is to give them the tiniest slice of nothing for a role.
Which is basically what dedicated Tanker players always want in this kinds of threads.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
That is what I want, that is my opinion that will not change no matter how much you reply to me.
|
You've done that, and they've responded.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
Thats a VERY POOR summary of what I am asking for, which to me makes this little debate, very wasteful of my time. You would need to be more precise about what I am asking for, I want Tankers to have greater threat potential than Brutes, not an auto win.
|
Taunt, for both of these ATs, is probably already too strong to begin with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
I just want Tankers to be the undisputed leaders at tanking.
|
Ah now we get to the crux of it "The undisputed leaders at tanking".
Tankers are the undisputed mitigation specialists. I think you'll just have to live with that, and the idea that you will sometimes have to share the limelight with other ATs and even with other Tankers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
Its alot like asking for peacebringers to be the undisputed leaders at peacebringing.
|
Tanker, Healer, DPS.
That's what you are asking for, although what you are really asking for is a clarity of roles that looks more like this:
Tanker, Who cares what else the rest of you do.
This is the sentiment, the one where Tankers are to be the only ones solely guaranteed their role - first above all other ATs (since no other AT really gets this).
Do you think the Tanker is the defacto leader of the team, and that when a Tanker joins the team everyone else should follow the tanker and listen to their instructions?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
I see absolutely nothing wrong with Tankers having better threat control. Games like these come from table top games in a way, using templates and what not, so what if some tankers don't make as good a choice as what some brute might, I like to tank with my Brute but at the end of the day Tankers should have the potential to be the undisputed leaders at threat level versus all my Brutes.
|
Why should they get something else to be the undisputed leaders at?
Yep, Nihilii nailed it on the first page.
Support Guides for all Corruptor secondaries and Fortunatas
The Melee Teaming Guide for Melee Mans
The Melee Teaming Guide for Melee Mans
Quote:
No, it isn't. If people are avoiding Tankers and playing Brutes and Scrappers, pushing Tankers further into a niche only a small handful of people enjoy isn't going to accomplish anything. Very few players get their rocks off taunting.|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
Now that Freedom allows you to start on either side with any AT the best thing to do to widen the field is the most extreme
|
Simply making Tankers more distinct isn't an end goal in itself. Again, I ask, what do you hope to accomplish by doing that?
If the aim is to bring more people to Tankers, aggro control and survivability haven't been working as bait, so using more of it wont work.
If the aim is to improve the soloing and teaming of existing Tankers, you could flag Tankers as 100% unkillable, it won't speed up their soloing if they're already not faceplanting. And increasing their aggro capabilties just creates more problems in the team dynamic. More than one Tanker is already viewed as redundant, so how will it be better if one Tanker can now handle even more aggro on his own?
.
Quote:
Contrary to this posters constant fear mongering for some sudden extinction of tankers, I see no shortage of Tankers on both Freedom and Virtue server where I run 2-4 Incarnate Trials per night.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
No, it isn't. If people are avoiding Tankers and playing Brutes and Scrappers, pushing Tankers further into a niche only a small handful of people enjoy isn't going to accomplish anything. Very few players get their rocks off taunting.
|
I easily see as many Tankers as I do Scrappers and Brutes.
Quote:
Why make tankers into brutes?|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
I have to ask... for all the suggestions that would make a Tanker more Brute like.
Why not roll a Brute? |
If there were changes to be made, shouldn't they involve making tankers more tankerly?
Quote:
Totally agree. It's worth noting that I play mostly corruptors, so I'm conditioned to agree with everything Silas posts.
|
Originally Posted by Silas
Yep, Nihilii nailed it on the first page.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
<johnny butane></johnny butane>
|
Odd, you didn't have to say his name three times to make him appear.
Also it should be noted the developers define Brutes as a Tank when you are creating a character. However, they also define them as a melee DPS.
I personally think its melee damage flexibility that Tankers lack. A Brute can be built to be a tank or a DPS machine, a Tanker can really be built only to Tank.
Quote:
Conjecture, it's such an airy place in witch to live. [j/b]
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
No, it isn't.
If If If . |
Quote:
The Brutes main damage mechanism was a Tanker idea we all pushed years ago which was fettered off to give cov an intriguing counterpart to this AT, just btw. |
Originally Posted by Ultimus
Also it should be noted the developers define Brutes as a Tank
|
Some of us have successfully pushed for quite a few Tank improvements that were actually implemented from cast times to Burn to weapon sets and more, and while I'd never appose any buff to the AT, I'm of a similar opinion as Vox especially when on a fire tank with the myriad of enhancements available it rarely feels like most of the game offers any challenge.
The one caveat to that is that it would be welcome to see more primaries with a damage aura or an attack (and that exclusively be offered to tanks where the power is shared by Brutes / Scraprs) so that a particular set offers more then only resistance to attacks.
& ps, don't feed the trolls after midnight.
Quote:
Let the record show Ace brought this up first.|
Originally Posted by Acemace
The Brutes main damage mechanism was a Tanker idea we all pushed years ago which was fettered off to give cov an intriguing counterpart to this AT, just btw.
|
The fact they considered and designed a damage mechanism for Tankers at all is a strong indicator to me that, at least originally, Tankers weren't supposed to be all about aggro as they are now.
Should I dredge up the quote?
Sure I can. It's been a year or thereabouts since anyone has. Thanks for reminding me, Ace.
Quote:
|
As promised, I've been looking into the issues facing Tankers; I thought I'd explain the direction we're going. As we analyed it, Tankers have three very valid concerns (aside from the issues with specific power sets): 1. Without Provoke, they are not a real Tanker. Those people who enjoy the MMP role of "meat shield" have trouble holding aggro properly. 2. The Tanker's defense stats can be matched by a properly slotted Scrapper - but the Tanker can not approach the Scrapper in damage. 3. The Tanker doesn't "feel" like a comic book Tanker should. And frankly, this one really, really bothered me. Because our game is a comic book MMP. So - here's the solution we're going to try internally. We went through a ton of possible solutions, and we weighed each one against how well they answered the three points above as well as how long it would take to get done. 1. Tankers will get a "provoke" like AOE effect on their melee attacks. The more a Tanker lands his blows, the more and more mobs he'll attract. The bonus here is that it's not exactly like Provoke (it's not ranged) - but it makes a lot of sense. Some huge monstrosity is bashing the heads of a villain group - they're going to get more and more concerned about taking him/her out.... 2. As a Tanker lands more and more blows, he'll start doing more and more damage. The longer the fight, the more powerful the Tanker becomes. I can't say that the Tanker will do as much damage as a Scrapper - but it'll certainly be more than he does now. This ability really gets to the core of a comic book Tanker. He's extremely powerful - but at the start of a fight, he holds himself back some. As the battle progresses, he lets loose....I prefer this system to a power because this way it's inherent. It's simply the nature of the Archetype. And it also sets the Tanker apart from the Scrapper's criticals. Of course, the thought in your minds must be....WHEN?...I'm afraid I don't know. First, we need some code for this. Then we've got to test it thoroughly. Finally, it'll go on the Test Server for awhile to gather data and impressions. This is going to take some time; but I thought you'd like to know at least where we're going, even though we don't know when we'll get there. |
All that talk about Tankers reflecting their comic counterparts and being damagingly powerful must mean that Tankers weren't intended to be about offense at all.
Right...
.
Yup, they gave Fury, the original player posted idea, to Brutes during the internal design phase intended for Tankers. Wasn't it around that time that they changed the Tanker base damage as well? I honestly don't remember when that exactly happened and don't feel like digging through all the old patch notes to find it.
With regards to those pointing to the Tanker DPS thread, please note, that those chains are pretty well geared for the extreme. Even then, if they're compared to some other melee extremes, there's but perhaps a few examples of chains occuring in the same neighborhood. It's by no means should be used as an example to state that Tanker damage is perfectly fine.
Do I think Tanker damage is fine? Mostly. I'd still think that something needs to be looked at to make them a little more competative without necessarily bringing them into the Brute / Scrapper arena. Which brings back the point of a unique mechanic for Tankers. A way to play that seperates them from the other melee sets. I think Bruising was a great place to start, but was too short sighted in its implementation.
The question we, as players then, should be asking, as it seems to have come up in this thread, is should Tankers be able to do more damage (in some form or fashion besides simply increasing damage caps or base damage)? - Team assistance via debuffs, and damage.
Or do they need more agro control mechanics (which may include given them an increased agro cap}? Team assistance via agro management.
Quote:
They also gave Brutes lower Base DEF, and lower base RES, and lower base HP.|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
Yup, they gave Fury, the original player posted idea, to Brutes
|
Let me know if the Tanker contingent is ready to eat the nerfs it would require to give them fury.
Let me know if for you to have fury you would accept Scrapper Base numbers for mitigation.
Maybe the reason they didn't give Fury to Tankers is because they didn't want to also give them the nerfs it would require for that to be even remotely balanced.
In all honesty.. I dont see anything seriously wrong with tanks. If I want more damage I play one of my brutes. If I want survivability I play a tank.. simple...
and you know what.. most times I just play whatever I feel like playing..
The hard things I can do--- The impossible just take a little bit longer.
If numbers are so much more important than a teammate who is fun to play with, forget about the game altogether and go play with a calculator instead. -Claws and Effect-
Quote:
agreed.. there is no shortage of tanks..I have several and trying to figure out which one I will team with Titan Weapons shortly.. I dont have a Stone Tank yet... hmmm big rock guy.... big weapon....|
Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus
Contrary to this posters constant fear mongering for some sudden extinction of tankers, I see no shortage of Tankers on both Freedom and Virtue server where I run 2-4 Incarnate Trials per night.
I easily see as many Tankers as I do Scrappers and Brutes. |
hmmmmmmmmmmm
The hard things I can do--- The impossible just take a little bit longer.
If numbers are so much more important than a teammate who is fun to play with, forget about the game altogether and go play with a calculator instead. -Claws and Effect-
Quote:
I'm not asking for Tankers to have Fury. I never stated such in my posts. I was only agreeing (rarely so) with JB about where Fury originally came about. It was before CoV, where the devs (at the time) aparently agreed with the majority of Tanker posters on the board that there was an issue with Tankers. Players bantered about ideas, and something akin to Fury was the one that caught on with the devs. |
Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus
They also gave Brutes lower Base DEF, and lower base RES, and lower base HP.
Let me know if the Tanker contingent is ready to eat the nerfs it would require to give them fury. Let me know if for you to have fury you would accept Scrapper Base numbers for mitigation. Maybe the reason they didn't give Fury to Tankers is because they didn't want to also give them the nerfs it would require for that to be even remotely balanced. |
It was originally to be tested out for Tankers, but as CoV began, it was instead given to Brutes. There was no talk about nerfing Tankers in order to give them "Fury" originally.
If Tankers were all well and fine since then, why were they given Bruising?
It wasn't just a random buff to the AT for the heck of it. It's because there (was?) a problem with Tankers, particularly at the early levels. Two things, first lower damage, and more endurance usage to defeat mobs (measured by whatever metrics the devs use).
Either Bruising has resolved these issues altogether in its current implementation, or it quite hasn't. I'm in the opinion of the latter.
Compare the 4 melee ATs and look at what distinguishes them. This takes into account how that AT was designed to be played (iow, the mechanics and stats that define its role). Take that and compare how they level throughout the game.
Tankers: extremely safe, lower damage
Brutes: very safe, lower to higher damage (which can in turn make them almost just as safe as Tankers)
Scrapers: safe, higher damage (which can in turn make them almost just as safe as Tankers)
Stalkers: barely safe*, extreme ST damage (hopefully to soon be resolved, with increased hp caps, and correcting the ST damage issue to the point where the damage leverages their survivability a bit more)
This is an extreme generalization, but shows the range of the melee ATs from one end of the spectrum to the other. I have no problem with Tankers surviving tough situations in order to control agro and as a result, do less damage than Brutes or Scrappers.
But when Brutes, can on their own, control he same amount of agro (with just a bit more work than Tankers), survive said agro because the do more damage, theres a disparity that exists.
When Scrappers can, on their own, control a bit less agro (which takes a larger amount of work in most cases when compared to Tankers), but do a consistantly high amount of damage to defeat mobs in order to mitigate team threat, theres a disparity that exists.
When it takes Tankers more endurance in order to defeat the same amount of mobs, it should be seen as a problem. Bruising is intended to do this, but it only works for single targets and doesn't address the same issue that occurs with AoEs.
I'm pretty firm in the beleif that Bruising was a step in the right direction, but it needs some further implementation in order to address these issues.
All in all, I'm keenly aware that in the grand scheme of the game, it's not a large an issue as other ATs have. Definetely Stalkers are in need of looking into (again to hopefully be resolved soon). Blasters still need some looking into as well. I'm not certain if the Peacebringer changes are all the way there (its one of the few ATs I haven't bothered to play at all, much less through all the game content like the other ATs).
I would say after all of that is done, then Tankers should be looked into, but wouldn't go so far as to say there isn't any problem with the AT whatsoever.
Quote:
The fact that they considered it, designed it, then didn't implement it after all is a strong indicator to me that, having analyzed it in detail, they decided it wasn't actually a good change to make.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The fact they considered and designed a damage mechanism for Tankers at all is a strong indicator to me that, at least originally, Tankers weren't supposed to be all about aggro as they are now.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tannim222
When it takes Tankers more endurance in order to defeat the same amount of mobs, it should be seen as a problem.
|
Of course, there's a question of degree - if a tank is sucking wind halfway through a fight with a single minion, that's a big problem - but just using more end at all isn't automatically a balance problem.
All that said, I pretty much agree with the main thrust of Johnny Butane's first post in this thread:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
What problems do you feel Tankers have?
-Tankers sacrifice too much damage for a survivability edge that doesn't come into play all that often. Brutes and Scrappers aren't exactly fragile solo, and on teams they're smothered in lots of buffs and heals. |
Fury was a bad idea that showed how little planning went into the PvP part of the game, which is why it kept getting tinkered with for years.
But that's ancient history, let's not turn this into an old folks home.
Quote:
Well, before you get off mah lawn take a look at my minor change suggestions. |
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
Fury was a bad idea that showed how little planning went into the PvP part of the game, which is why it kept getting tinkered with for years.
But that's ancient history, let's not turn this into an old folks home. |
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:
Mr. Johnny Butane does not speak for all tanks, so don't take him as "our voice." |
Originally Posted by Deus_Otiosus
They also gave Brutes lower Base DEF, and lower base RES, and lower base HP.
Let me know if the Tanker contingent is ready to eat the nerfs it would require to give them fury. Let me know if for you to have fury you would accept Scrapper Base numbers for mitigation. Maybe the reason they didn't give Fury to Tankers is because they didn't want to also give them the nerfs it would require for that to be even remotely balanced. |
I don't believe tanks need major changes, I think minor tweaks would be fine. See one of my original posts in this thread.
I don't think every team "needs" to have a tank, but I certainly do my best to make sure my presence is appreciated by the rest of the team. Mind you, that's the way I feel about any AT I play. I've got most of them covered by alts.
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.
|
One of the issues of Tanker survivability stats and the agro cap begs the question, are Tankers too survivable when Brutes and even Scrappers can (in most cases, w/ out IOs - there are some outlier sets that are very difficult to do this with) survive the agro cap as well.
If that's true, then is it okay that Tankers are any more survivable? The only advantage would seem to be at increased levels of difficulty (above +0), where the higher Tanker values come into play. Or do those values come into play with sustained agro cap over time?
That is, when as mobs within the agro cap are defeated, more add in, at some point, Tankers will survive longer than either Brutes or Scrappers. And if that's true, is it beneficial for a team to have a Tanker be that survivable by that point, or does the team (we're talking normal content, at normal levels of play including builds) provide sufficient levels of mitigation and or damage that they wouldn't notice the difference between a Tanker, Scrapper, or Brute managing agro (again, we're looking at sustained agro cap over time, very large mobs)?
If that answer is yes, than Tankers are pretty much fine where they're at. If that answer is no, there's a problem.
With regards to the idea that its ok that using more endurance to defeat a mob because it takes more attacks that do less damage, but the Tanker can survive longer - look to the questions above. If a Brute and a Scrapper can go through the same levels of difficulty (within normal game play) than isn't that lower damage and higher endurance usage actually causing a player using a Tanker to level more slowly? Keep in mind, this is part of the reason as to why Bruising was given to Tankers. I don't know if Bruising solved this issue, it may have at least for single targets, but there's an inequity when it comes to AoE attacks.
The best times I have on my Tanker (Electric/MA) are where I can ignore my own health bar, despite being surrounded by +3 enemies, and focus on the team's health bars.
I take it for granted that I'm in no danger, and play Melee Controller, peeling enemies off anyone in danger so they can do the bulk of the damage. Once a group is mainly down, I jump off to the next and keep up a good fast pace.
The worse times I have are when my own survivability comes into question via Psi or Toxic damage, or my taunting gets saturated. (Imagine a Controller who could only hold 17 enemies, and once they were held further mezzes had no effect. Thats what Tankers get currently.)
I'd join the suggestion to boost a Tanker's survivability and taunting ability. If I want good defences and good damage, I can roll a Brute or Scrapper.
And No Tankers should never need to dip into Presence. Brutes will only start doing it to annoy me
I dislike the idea of Tankers tanking for Tanks let alone Brutes tanking for tanks. Heresy.