Quote:
Does it really matter what the devs think? They change their mind with every new person who gets rotated in and out of the drivers seat.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
So what then, do we do? We want to understand what both the Devs and Players think that the role of Tankers should be, and how they differ in both current implementation and desired implementation by both of those group.
|
They went from this position:
Quote:
| 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. |
Quote:
| The Tanker doesn't "feel" like a comic book Tanker should. |
Player opinions, at least they're somewhat consistent. I don't agree with many on their opinions where Tankers should be, but at least they don't often pull a 180.
You talk of the 'intent' of the AT and its role, The intent is clear from that very old post. Tankers are supposed to deal powerful damage and better reflect their comic counterparts. You find me a post or original development document that says otherwise.
But that's an inconvenient truth for the people who want to push the aggro agenda so they gloss over it. The fact of the matter is, they don't really care what the intent was for the AT at all.
In the end, the devs will either buckle to the majority, do whatever they feel like now or just not do anything. So it really doesn't matter what the intent was or wasn't.
And looking over the posts here, it seems a majority essentially want to return to a state closer to the days of herding maps into dumpsters and make Tankers better farm tools, aka Tractors. That's all increasing aggro caps will get us.
.
Quote:
Fine so toss that aggro cap changes out - though say 20 instead of 15 isn't going to herd any maps.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
And looking over the posts here, it seems a majority essentially want to return to a state closer to the days of herding maps into dumpsters and make Tankers better farm tools, aka Tractors. That's all increasing aggro caps will get us. |
An the intent is there, no matter what you cite - the tank has lower offense to compensate for greater survivability. Any offensive tweak will just mess up having three melee ATs. Either do nothing, or the Devs need to find something creative.
Frankly, the more I consider it, I can't figure out why there was a PM to a dev on the topic in the first place. There really isn't any great problem to fix.
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
Quote:
That's some fine glossing over of an inconvenient truth there.|
Originally Posted by Chyll
An the intent is there, no matter what you cite
|
.
Also, another thing that gets glossed over by a lot of people, Johnny in particular:
You cannot adjust the base performance of an AT because of what another AT can do with extensive use of IOs and Incarnate powers. Base damage and damage caps are part of an AT's base performance.
The game is STILL balanced around SOs. And it's more important than ever before to keep it that way. A good number of new and returning players are playing through the game with no access to the things that Johnny is justifying a tanker buff with. On SOs alone, tankers survive better than anything else in the game, by a wide margin. They are the only AT that can reach the defense softcap by themselves, with no IO use at all. With no IOs, tanker's HP is much higher than brutes, because their base HP is 400 points higher. On SOs alone, there is really no comparison when you're talking about survival.
If you can prove that scrappers and brutes are reaching tanker levels of survivability on SOs alone, maybe your argument will hold some weight, but you can't justify an increase to tanker damage levels simply because a scrapper or brute can reach comparable levels of survivability when IOed up the wazoo and using Incarnate powers. You just can't.
Base it on how the ATs compare using nothing but SOs to see if a buff is justified, because SOs are the baseline performance iof the game, and are available to Free, Premium, and VIP players 100% equally.
Making changes based on performance differences using things that are not equally available to ALL players is just unfair.
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:
Increasing the aggro limit for Tanks to twice the current value won't lead to dumpster diving. The AoE target caps will prevent that anyways, and 34 mobs versus 17 won't increase killing speed by all that much. The people who suggest this certainly DO care about the original intent of the AT, which was to take the punches for the team. Making enemies and going to hyperbole is par for the course for you, I know, but won't make you any friends.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Does it really matter what the devs think? They change their mind with every new person who gets rotated in and out of the drivers seat.
They went from this position: ...to throwing all of it on it's ear just to sell boxes of CoV. Player opinions, at least they're somewhat consistent. I don't agree with many on their opinions where Tankers should be, but at least they don't often pull a 180. You talk of the 'intent' of the AT and its role, The intent is clear from that very old post. Tankers are supposed to deal powerful damage and better reflect their comic counterparts. You find me a post or original development document that says otherwise. But that's an inconvenient truth for the people who want to push the aggro agenda so they gloss over it. The fact of the matter is, they don't really care what the intent was for the AT at all. In the end, the devs will either buckle to the majority, do whatever they feel like now or just not do anything. So it really doesn't matter what the intent was or wasn't. And looking over the posts here, it seems a majority essentially want to return to a state closer to the days of herding maps into dumpsters and make Tankers better farm tools, aka Tractors. That's all increasing aggro caps will get us. . |
Do the Devs change their minds on occasion? Sure. I think that's natural based on other changes in the game. I know that you're still hurt that they gave Brutes the inherent that you wanted for Tankers, but you can always just create a Brute if that's what you want. The reality is that we need to suggest changes for the Tanker AT based on the current game, not how it was back in I5. We have to account for all of the other melee ATs, not just Scrappers like there were back then. The reality is that Brutes exist, and aren't going away. The reality is that Tankers have the best defenses, and so won't have devastating damage, because that would be imbalancing.
Do I think that Brutes are well-balanced? No, I think they could use a few tweaks. Do I think that Tankers are in a bad place? No, I think that overall they're fine, but a few sets need some changes to work wit this AT.
If you're going to suggest that players are asking for the Tanker to do dumpster-diving, when that's clearly NOT what they're asking for, then you're going to get some pushback. If you're going to continuously push the idea that the Devs in I4-I5 suggested something about the Tanker AT that doesn't fly for the game in I21, then you're going to get some pushback. I can't believe you're surprised by that.
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:
^This! Massively, this.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Also, another thing that gets glossed over by a lot of people, Johnny in particular:
You cannot adjust the base performance of an AT because of what another AT can do with extensive use of IOs and Incarnate powers. Base damage and damage caps are part of an AT's base performance. The game is STILL balanced around SOs. And it's more important than ever before to keep it that way. A good number of new and returning players are playing through the game with no access to the things that Johnny is justifying a tanker buff with. On SOs alone, tankers survive better than anything else in the game, by a wide margin. They are the only AT that can reach the defense softcap by themselves, with no IO use at all. With no IOs, tanker's HP is much higher than brutes, because their base HP is 400 points higher. On SOs alone, there is really no comparison when you're talking about survival. If you can prove that scrappers and brutes are reaching tanker levels of survivability on SOs alone, maybe your argument will hold some weight, but you can't justify an increase to tanker damage levels simply because a scrapper or brute can reach comparable levels of survivability when IOed up the wazoo and using Incarnate powers. You just can't. Base it on how the ATs compare using nothing but SOs to see if a buff is justified, because SOs are the baseline performance iof the game, and are available to Free, Premium, and VIP players 100% equally. Making changes based on performance differences using things that are not equally available to ALL players is just unfair. |
The other argument I see is that Brutes and Scrappers can reach Tanker levels of survivability if they have X AT supporting them. Well, then we're looking at 2 characters being as powerful as one defensively. Then if we bring up the fact that we could just give the Tanker a damage buffer or resistance debuffer, and they can do more damage, we're somehow not comparing apples to apples.
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:
AT performance should be based on how that AT performs by itself, with no outside help. Because there is no guarantee you will have the exact same teammates at all times. Balancing an AT around another AT being on the team 100% of the time is just dumb. |
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
^This! Massively, this.
The other argument I see is that Brutes and Scrappers can reach Tanker levels of survivability if they have X AT supporting them. Well, then we're looking at 2 characters being as powerful as one defensively. Then if we bring up the fact that we could just give the Tanker a damage buffer or resistance debuffer, and they can do more damage, we're somehow not comparing apples to apples. |
By itself, without IOs, a brute won't come close to tanker survival. Fact.
Sure, they can get there using inspirations.......1 minute at a time. But if brute is eating enough purples and oranges to reach tanker survivability, there isn't enough room in their tray to carry reds as well to keep their damage advantage.
The tank could just eat reds and equal brute damage output.....1 minute at a time.
If the brute were to eat a bunch of reds instead, their damage would blow a tanker's out of the water...but it won't help their survivability any.
The ATs are actually remarkably well balanced if you look at it from the perspective of using only SOs and no outside buffs.
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. |
There is absolutely NO reason to want to increase Tanker aggro caps.
-ONE Tanker can already successfully tank for a team of 8 in the vast, vast majority of situations.
-Increasing the aggro cap of one Tanker just makes additional tankers even more superfluous than they are now.
-It's bad enough that when teamed with a Tanker, Scrappers and Brutes feel no heat for their 'lesser defenses' yet continue to flout their damage. Making them even safer is something I will never sign off on.
If anything is to be done with aggro, Scrappers and Brutes should generate more aggro than Tankers with a mega Gauntlet-like effect that Tankers can only strip off with the use of Taunt. Tankers can still keep aggro of the squishy ATs just fine, but Brutes and Scrappers get to feel the heat and face a downside for once.
.
To keep this a little more productive, one of the biggest problems that I have with Tankers is that their DPE is much lower than the other ATs with the same sets. This is mostly due to the fact that a power's endurance cost is not tied to the actual damage the power does, just the base scalar damage. So while a Tanker gets more for the same endurance cost on it's defensive powers, it is losing a significant amount more damage for the same endurance cost on its attack.
Defenders, Corruptors, and Blasters deal with this by having the attacks also have different debuff mods on their powers (actually a function of the debuff mod scalars), but Brutes, Scrappers, and Tankers don't. Basically, Scrapper attack secondary effects are just as strong as a Tanker's. So while Defenders at least get something for doing less damage, Tankers don't.
My other major problem is that while the intention (regardless of what some may think) of Tankers is to take hits, they don't get any reward for doing so. Brutes, however, do get a reward in the form of Fury for doing a Tanker's job and their own. This seems a bit backwards, but I'm certainly not going to suggest changes to that mechanic here. Most other ATs seem to have similar inherents, that reward them for doing their intended functions.
So Tankers have less DPE for no gain on their attacks (okay, except the Tier 1 power), while also not being rewarded for doing their job like most other ATs are. How do we fix this? How about a function like Fury that lowers a Tanker's endurance cost from powers the more they are attacked? Getting attacked by a full spawn for a bit basically halves the endurance cost of powers, allowing them to keep swinging for longer before they'd need a rest. If that's still not enough, pair it with a Recharge buff on a smaller scale, so that they can use their AoEs and other attacks more often than other melee ATs, for less cost.
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
I don't think it would break anything if a tanks damage cap was raised to by an extra 100%.
I don't think it would break anything if a tanks aggro cap was raised either. Especially as there are missions out there that break the spawn rules.
However I am quite happy with my tanks.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
Quote:
What about that in addition providing options and tools (by way of Tanker Epic/Ancillary pool powers and Incarnate abilities) for Tankers to improve their damage should they choose? |
Originally Posted by Jagged
I don't think it would break anything if a tanks damage cap was raised to by an extra 100%.
|
Scrappers and Brutes get the Fighting pool, Barrier and Rebirth, Wedding Band, numerous other temp powers, Accolades, three kinds of Inspirations (more now?).
Quote:
| I don't think it would break anything if a tanks aggro cap was raised either. |
.
Quote:
Why do scrappers/brutes 'flout' their damage, while blasters are squishies deserving of protection? If anything, when I play a brute or scrapper and team with a tank, I feel kinda penalized - most of my secondary isn't doing much and I might as well play a blaster, or better yet something with buffs or debuffs.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
-It's bad enough that when teamed with a Tanker, Scrappers and Brutes feel no heat for their 'lesser defenses' yet continue to flout their damage. Making them even safer is something I will never sign off on.
|
Quote:
Like what? we already get decent ranged damage and AoE attacks in these pools. What else would you suggest?|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
What about that in addition providing options and tools (by way of Tanker Epic/Ancillary pool powers and Incarnate abilities) for Tankers to improve their damage should they choose?
|
Quote:
| Scrappers and Brutes get the Fighting pool, Barrier and Rebirth, Wedding Band, numerous other temp powers, Accolades, three kinds of Inspirations (more now?). |
Quote:
| It doesn't help with Tanker redundancy issues, I've never been at a loss for it and I don't see the point of it other than for farming, which is something I oppose. |
There are plenty of times in this game where you'll find spawns within sight distance of one another, but if you've only got a single Tanker on an 8-person team, that Tanker can't hold the aggro for the team, and there is a lot of spill-over of aggro onto squishies. I can think of at least 6 different map types where this kind of thing happens, and those map types are frequently used. It is NOT just for farming.
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:
Scrappers and Brutes may not burst like blasters but their dps and survivability whilst dishing it out should make up for things. Then again if I am not reading this right and there is another way to take this, Brutes and Scrappers can be made very sturdy and easily step in for a failing Tanker on pretty much anything.
|
Originally Posted by Hopeling
Why do scrappers/brutes 'flout' their damage, while blasters are squishies deserving of protection? If anything, when I play a brute or scrapper and team with a tank, I feel kinda penalized - most of my secondary isn't doing much and I might as well play a blaster, or better yet something with buffs or debuffs.
|
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:
The point he was referring to was J_B's statement that with a Tanker on the team, Scrappers and Brutes have high damage, and since the Tanker is taking all of the hits, the Scrappers and Brutes don't need to worry about their lower defensive numbers.|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
Scrappers and Brutes may not burst like blasters but their dps and survivability whilst dishing it out should make up for things. Then again if I am not reading this right and there is another way to take this, Brutes and Scrappers can be made very sturdy and easily step in for a failing Tanker on pretty much anything.
|
To which the appropriate reply is: good, that's how it's supposed to work. With a Tanker doing his job right, the other ATs can maximize performance. This is true for any other AT out 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:
Right, I'm not saying scrappers/brutes are bad in general. When teamed with a tank, though, their defenses become less important.|
Originally Posted by New Dawn
Scrappers and Brutes may not burst like blasters but their dps and survivability whilst dishing it out should make up for things. Then again if I am not reading this right and there is another way to take this, Brutes and Scrappers can be made very sturdy and easily step in for a failing Tanker on pretty much anything.
|
I'm mostly asking why brutes/scrappers filling their primary team role of doing damage is described as "flouting", as if it's some kind of personal insult to the tank, while a blaster filling their primary team role of doing damage is good, expected, and deserving of the tank's protection.
Quote:
Don't forget that to achieve full blossom, the Brute needs some aggro love.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
-It's bad enough that when teamed with a Tanker, Scrappers and Brutes feel no heat for their 'lesser defenses' yet continue to flout their damage. Making them even safer is something I will never sign off on.
|
Quote:
Not so much. The actual deeper philosophy - you are right.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
That's some fine glossing over of an inconvenient truth there.
|
Game implementation. Doesn't much matter, which was kinda your point. And now, there isn't much wiggle room as a result.
City of Heroes was my first MMO, & my favorite computer game.
R.I.P.
Chyll - Bydand - Violynce - Enyrgos - Rylle - Nephryte - Solyd - Fettyr - Hyposhock - Styrling - Beryllos - Rosyc
Horryd - Myriam - Dysquiet - Ghyr
Vanysh - Eldrytch
Inflyct - Mysron - Orphyn - Dysmay - Reapyr - - Wyldeman - Hydeous
Having played a fire/fire tank over the last year, there's really only one issue I'd like to see addresses.
Taunt/punchvoke
When I am teamed with a brute and I taunt, the baddies come to me for about 3 steps until the brute walks in the room. I taunt again -and they ignore me until the brute is defeated. I have to run to the brute and use burn - which sometimes aggravates me because the brutes in a spot where I can't see the rest of my teammates.
This is not an occasional thing. This is every single time. They took the ability to slot taunt into blazing aura, and as a result, on teams, my role is essentially undefined if there's a brute on the team.
All I want is for when I taunt a baddie - I don't care if another tank taunts - I want the baddie to be after me. If a brute arrives first and taunts, that's fine and dandy. But when I show up, if I taunt (because he may be losing ground) the NPCs should divert their focus on me.
But, this doesn't happen.
What I don't want is for things to be changed in such a way as to make any role on a trial or team useless.
"Most people that have no idea what they are doing have no idea that they don't know what they are doing." - John Cleese
@Ukase
Quote:
No, the appropriate reply is: "So then Scrappers and Brutes see a downside to their lower defenses when they're not teamed, right? They don't? They're the best soloing ATs in the entire game and the devs have said so repeatedly? Oh snap! Someone dun ****ed up thinking that one through."|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
The point he was referring to was J_B's statement that with a Tanker on the team, Scrappers and Brutes have high damage, and since the Tanker is taking all of the hits, the Scrappers and Brutes don't need to worry about their lower defensive numbers.
To which the appropriate reply is: good, that's how it's supposed to work. |
They never see a downside when teamed and solo the best while Tankers hit like girls for the 'privilege' of protecting them on teams. That is not even remotely balanced or fair in my book.
.
Quote:
End game the game is not balanced around SO's. Also Stalkers do fine when compared to other ATs with SO's its with IO's they start to lose a ton....|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Also, another thing that gets glossed over by a lot of people, Johnny in particular:
You cannot adjust the base performance of an AT because of what another AT can do with extensive use of IOs and Incarnate powers. Base damage and damage caps are part of an AT's base performance. The game is STILL balanced around SOs. And it's more important than ever before to keep it that way. A good number of new and returning players are playing through the game with no access to the things that Johnny is justifying a tanker buff with. On SOs alone, tankers survive better than anything else in the game, by a wide margin. They are the only AT that can reach the defense softcap by themselves, with no IO use at all. With no IOs, tanker's HP is much higher than brutes, because their base HP is 400 points higher. On SOs alone, there is really no comparison when you're talking about survival. If you can prove that scrappers and brutes are reaching tanker levels of survivability on SOs alone, maybe your argument will hold some weight, but you can't justify an increase to tanker damage levels simply because a scrapper or brute can reach comparable levels of survivability when IOed up the wazoo and using Incarnate powers. You just can't. Base it on how the ATs compare using nothing but SOs to see if a buff is justified, because SOs are the baseline performance iof the game, and are available to Free, Premium, and VIP players 100% equally. Making changes based on performance differences using things that are not equally available to ALL players is just unfair. |
And they are being buffed. The game being balanced around SO's is ancient history, we got a new developer team now.
Quote:
Stalkers lose with Ios?|
Originally Posted by Ultimus
End game the game is not balanced around SO's. Also Stalkers do fine when compared to other ATs with SO's its with IO's they start to lose a ton....
And they are being buffed. The game being balanced around SO's is ancient history, we got a new developer team now. |
No I think IOs help stalkers catch up more than anything.
The disparity is worse with SOs.
When something good happens to me, I can never enjoy it....
I am always too busy looking for the inevitable punchline...
BEHOLD THE POWER OF CHEESE!
Quote:
Tanks fit just fine too. |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Except if you're talking Wolverine. Then Scrappers fit just fine. Or the Hulk Brutes. Or Human Torch Blasters. Or Invisible Woman Controllers.
|
The problem you can't seem to wrap your head around is this: Superman is not a tank.
Superman is an overpowered Mary Sue. He's invulnerable to everything, and can single-handedly level an entire city in a matter of minutes. His only weakness is a mineral so obscure and rare that only the most well-connected and resourceful villains can even hope to acquire some. If he is sent to handle a situation, the rest of the JLA might as well stay home and play video games for all they're actually going to contribute.
That's not a tank. That is the very definition of what a tankmage is. A character who can do anything with no realistic weakness. The only way Superman's weakness would actually BE a weakness is if you routinely found chunks of kryptonite laying by the railroad tracks. Since it's so rare, for all practical purposes he has no weakness at all.
As far as tanks in comics go, you're looking at the the wrong character and pinning the "tank" tag on him.
Think more along the lines of Colossus, or the Thing, or even Rogue if you want to find examples of tanks in comics. They're tough, but they are not the most damaging members of their respective teams. Unless you expect me to believe a punch from Colossus is going to do more damage than an optic blast from Cyclops, which has been proven to not be the case. Those characters take the hits for their less sturdy teammates, and they are decidedly NOT the ones doing the most damage in a given fight.
(With apologies to any Superman fans out there, I'm not bashing your favorite character just to be bashing him, but you have to realize yourselves that he doesn't fit the definition of what a tank is)
I notice that Johnny hasn't addressed my point about ATs being balanced around SO performance. Wonder why that might be.......
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:
Yeah, I disagree there. With or without IOs, Stalkers are in the same boat as Tankers, being overspecialized and hurting from Scrappers and Brutes existing while having Scrapper and Brute players telling them they're fine and don't deserve dev attention.|
Originally Posted by Ultimus
End game the game is not balanced around SO's. Also Stalkers do fine when compared to other ATs with SO's
|
As you point out, Stalkers are getting looked at. Let's hope Tankers don't have to wait 10 issues between reviews like Stalkers did. Because I honestly have to wonder if we're going to see Issue 28.
.
However, if there were going to be a buff to Tankers, I think that the discussion needs to start at the very base levels: what separates a Tanker from a Scrapper or a Brute, and what is the intended separation between a Tanker and a Scrapper or a Brute.
Without a full understanding of those two items, I think that any proposed changes are just shots in the dark, and have little chance of being implemented.
I also don't think that's it's necessarily a good idea to get buffs that a majority of Tankers won't notice. For instance, the damage cap increase: if you're not a /SS Tanker, or constantly on a team with a Kin, you're probably not bumping up against the current limit, and so an increase in the top amount won't affect you.
So what then, do we do? We want to understand what both the Devs and Players think that the role of Tankers should be, and how they differ in both current implementation and desired implementation by both of those group. Without that understanding, this will go the same way the last several dozen threads like this went.
The tank is designed differently than other melee sets for a reason. Buffing tanks DPS would... change that and then make there be less distinction and reason for the different ATs - watering down the varying play styles more than they are already.
That said, as IOs have allowed the other sets to get strong to the point of weakening the base of tanks some options remain that do not involve damage tweaks. They could raise the aggro cap for tanks while keeping it the same for for other ATs. They could introduce some primary power set options that may had more of a team buff or debuff angle - extending the tank's role for team survivability (not just a heal aura - never a heal aura, but something akin to what shield does with [Grant Cover]).
Other than some things like that... I think it is rough ground trying to approach a change to tanks.