Concerned about Scrappers.

Lets take a step back. If we're saying that Brutes might be a bit too powerful, we can't turn around and say "compared to brutes, tankers need a buff." That's illogical. If tankers need a buff, it has to be compared to stalkers and scrappers. Compared to stalkers, no they don't. Compared to scrappers, its very debatable that they need a buff. Quantitatively, I don't see it.

Going back to brutes, even setting aside that most people think they are at least performing higher than likely originally intended, if not outright overperforming, the question is what sort of buff would it dictate to tankers even if that fact is neutralized. Having identical defensive caps is not the same thing as having the same defenses, no matter how much people like to compare to maximal conditions that occur in 1% of the actual game (in teams with the levels of buffing commonly considered to be normal on the forums no one would ever die unless they deliberately used self-destruct, but we know they do). For the most part, with a few corner case exceptions, brutes have about half the defensive survivability of tankers. The offensive gap is closer to 40%.

If you're an offensively minded player, its better to have 40% more damage and 50% less survivability, but if you're a defensively minded player the reverse is true: its better to have 100% better survivability 29% less damage (the numbers are relative, which is why they are different going in the opposite directions). What happens if you are offensively minded and pick a tanker? Then you picked wrong.

There's no singular quantitative way to say X% more offense is equal to Y% defense any more than there's a way to say that A% regen is exactly equal to B% resistance: they not just quantitatively different, but qualitatively different. So the question is whether they are *close enough* by important metrics that are quantitatively measurable, and if the qualitative option they present to the players addresses a valuable gameplay option.

Or to put it simply, the question is not whether Tankers should have less offense and more defense relative to Brutes in the way they do. If its *too* far out of whack that it affects overall performance that should be addressed. But once the difference in performance enters an acceptable range, the question becomes should we *allow* players to decide, for themselves, to select more offense and less defense, or more defense and less offense. If the answer to that question is yes we think its a reasonable choice and yes we want to offer it, then the "trade" is a good trade to *offer* players. Its up to the individual players to decide which way they want to go, and there's no justifiable reason to take that choice from them.

Which choices we present to the players is design prerogative for the devs. But the only choices provably bad are choices where the options are qualitatively congruent and one is quantitatively superior to the other (in other words, one is in all respects calculably better) and choices where unknown to the players the combination of factors will create a situation where they will underperform in a way the game deems unacceptable, for example by statistically being likely to level vastly slower than other players.

Ah, but the devs just gave Brutes an ATO that helps them build Fury even easier. And the last change to Brutes improved their Fury building speed as well (at the cost of maximum Fury...which the Brute ATO seems to correct...wait, what?)

The devs' actions seem indicate they disagree with you.




.

For the record, I don't think they are.

If the Tanker damage cap was increased to be comparable to the Brute damage cap (minus 30-25% damage output to make up for Tankers having 10% better HP and Bruising) I'd have no big issue with Brutes.



.

Then role a Brute. If you don't think you need the superior toughness, and can get that feeling you're looking for from a Brute, roll the Brute

I see your call to buff tankers (and Im not against it), and really I think what you want can be found in the devs making IO sets that give more +DMG potential, but you want to play the Superman, you say you want that feeling of playing Superman...

If you can get that feeling by playing a Brute, why are you so fixated on playing a Tanker for that role? Is it just because of the game mechanics of Fury? Is it just because that seems the closest ideal to Superman?

I do wonder why they didnt use the ATO as a way to increase Tankers damage. A Proc that gives stackable +DMG.

In the trinity era, yes. Tankers had less damage and more survivability as a calculated measure to make them dependent on the offense of others, in the same way Blasters were given high damage and no survivability, to make them dependent on the defense of others.

Current tanker damage bears absolutely no resemblance to the notion that they rely on the damage of others. Their damage modifier plus the effect of bruising places them in striking distance of Dominators, and Dominators are declared damage dealers.

Yeah, 'threat' doesn't smash Lex Luthor's giant robots. In fact, it makes you less threatening IMO, since they're more willing to attack you.

And no amount of pretending will make Tankers, as they are currently, a powerhouse. I sincerely hope nobody with more than a month of gameplay and one Tanker under their belt can be that deluded.

But I will admit, held up against Superman, I find Tankers (and eye beams) very offensive. Not in the way you mean though, I think.



.

Or, the devs are not good at fine tuning. I should point out that the original version of the Brute ATIO did almost nothing. Was their original intent to deliberately do nothing?

That would do Shield Tankers, and anyone with SS and Hasten, or anyone with a Kin on their team, little with the current damage cap.

Maybe, if they upped the cap, for the next round of ATOs.



.

Agreed.


(Just kidding! I like Scrappers.)

I don't know that for a fact. They might on average, but the offensive difference in Tanker primaries might be higher than the difference between the average tanker and average scrapper, say. If the overlap is high enough, and the overall average difference is not high, the difference may be within the acceptable limits of a game that cannot exactly match the performance of every powerset combination identically.

It may also seem that way to me because it seems (mater of perception) that they take longer to have a good attack chain, or enough attacks to suit me. Someone with more experience on tanks would have to chime in on leveling while solo.

Depending on the server though, 1-20 on a DFB with an XP boost is trivial.

You say that.

And the first thing you said in this thread was this:


Tell us another one Johnny.

I've responded to your attitude plenty, and we've all seen that I'm not shy about it.

Never once have I come into one of YOUR threads with the intention of starting a fight. And if you didn't mean to start a fight, why did you post in the thread I started the way you did? Certainly looks like someone trying to start a fight to me.

I disagree with you. You take it personally, and the fight is on. Every. Single. Time. That's how it has started every time we've gone 'round.

If anyone cares enough to search our post histories they can verify it for themselves. I've been actively AVOIDING you for months now because I'm sick of having the same damn argument every week.

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.

I wonder how many casual players who don't know much about the game and who team infrequently realize the same thing you mention above and thus tend to take more secondary attacks than primary defenses as they are leveling up, only taking defenses when they feel they have enough offense. That may mitigate some of the attack chain gap issues, at least for enough of the player population to shift the averages.

If the people who team more than they solo tend to take more defense, and the people who solo more than team tend to take more offense in the early levels, then they would be self-selecting themselves to avoid the worst of this problem.

No one is owed "reparations" for anything in CoH remotely close to the area of archetype design. That you hold such an attitude and express it regularly (though in various ways) contributes meaningfully to the way other forum regulars view your opinions. If your perspective on things makes your fellow players take your opinions with a chunk of salt the size of Minnesota, do you really think its convincing to the devs?

Understand that I hold it's not impossible that you could have a good idea, or that you might point out a legitimate problem with the game. I do read your posts. I don't think you're dumb. I think you have a completely unreasonable set of expectations about not just what Tankers should be, but what the devs owe you or any other player.

It's one thing to want something, no matter how much other folks might feel it's unreasonable. It's another to proclaim, in effect, that you're owed it.

Apparently, at least as recently as the last update to Blaster defiance, Blasters leveled slower, even solo.

I do.

I also say you've blown off Brutes stealing Fury from Tankers how many times in the past? So I find you taking issue with Stalker criticals hilarious.

I also find you making any complaints and suggesting someone else's perspective on AT balance is skewed, after having seen you gloat about Pylon soloing on both Scrappers and Brutes, also giggle worthy. I'm sorry your Porsche isn't fast enough.

And here you are now, laying flame bait and trying to reignite things when the discussion has moved past that. Good luck with that.



.

Brutes did not steal Fury. Tankers never had Fury for it to be stolen.

I'm with you that Scrappers don't need a buff, though.

I'm far past trying to convince the devs of anything. They're either fully aware if the problem and don't care about it, or don't have the time/resources to address it. To the latter, five years on, patience is running a little short. To the former, there's no point in trying to even be reasonable.

There's been some talk about looking at Tankers I'm very skeptical given their collective past treatment of the AT. I think that's justified. If you don't, fair enough.


I think wanting the damage cap adjusted and there to stop being a double standard with the melee ATs is very reasonable.

I also want for Tankers to meet the same expectations set by their comic Tanker counterparts as reasonably well as Scrappers meet the expectations set by that short hairy guy with the claws and as Brutes do for the big green guy with the anger issues, without having to pretend being a decoy means you're a powerhouse because some guy played too much DnD designing the game instead of referring to guys like Kirby, Lee or Bruce Timm.

Why those ATs are allowed to, but Tankers have to get the shaft for "balance" that I don't think is really balanced isn't something anyone will ever convince me of.



.

You've committed a logical fallacy here: False dichotomy. There is a third option: There is no problem.

In a way they did. The idea of fury originated on the tanker boards, and was even said by Geko (who I am sure we all remember and love /sarcasm) to be a good idea. Then all of a sudden it turned up on the Brute. So I can see where he coming from.

I also think we have moved past saying scrapers need a buff, and more towards scrappers need/want something unique to them. I have been very vocal about what I feel the best path is and why.

If one person sees something then it may be an issue their perception. If multiple people see something, then there may actually be something there. I am not the only person saying scrappers should have something uniquely theirs. I am just the most vocal. I am sick, school is on hold because of it, and I am not physically able to do much. Expect me to be more and more vocal about this issue (and costumes) every chance I get.

I also apologize in advance as the radiation kicks in, I may be more of a jerk than normal.

The saddest thing is the dev post about Tankers possibly getting a mechanic like Fury was almost eight years ago. Kids have grown up and finished college in that time.

Not to mention that Tankers got a significant damage increase instead of that idea, which was probably better because with Fury they would have kept the really low base damage.