Concerned about Scrappers.

When what they want is unreasonable and unbalancing, and their case is presented as though the devs OWE it to them? And when that person also acts as though anyone who disagrees with him hates the AT he wants things for?

Absolutely.

I don't hate Tankers, Johnny. I have 4 of them I'm actively playing right now ranging from level 11 to level 40. The level 40 Tanker would be 50 by now if it were not for the fact that I rerolled him when a new powerset became available.

My problem with what you keep asking for is that it's a selfish request, and that you always play the martyr when anyone disagrees, no matter how logical their disagreement is. Your request doesn't help ALL Tankers, just YOUR tankers and ones in similar situations that can consistently stay at the damage cap. The vast majority of Tankers in the game are not going to be sitting at the damage cap anywhere near frequently enough for your request to really benefit them much at all.

But, since I'm not entirely unreasonable, I would fully support an increase to the Tanker damage scalar up to .85. The math I did earlier in the thread supports it as being a reasonable buff.

That would help all tanks in all situations, not just those that can consistently hit the damage cap at level 50. And it would not be out of line since .844 would be exactly 75% of the Scrapper damage scalar. I figure it would even out since neither criticals or Bruising are factored into what the damage scalar actually is.

Since Scrappers get 75% of Tanker base values on defense and resistance, Tankers getting 75% of the scrapper damage scalar would be perfectly fair in my opinion.

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.

Tanker's don't really need (nor do I want) a straight damage buff.

First, I want the damage cap raised so pretty much all Tankers stop hitting it with a single Kin and some Leadership toggles on a team; that shouldn't cause you to not get the full benefits of Rage, Buildup or what have you. The fact that I can do it alone on four of my Tankers is incidental. This is also to bring them in line with Brutes who, like Tankers, are listed in the 'Tank' AT category. This is why I'm inclined to compare them more directly. And the fact of the matter is, Brutes having essentially the same survival potential as Tankers but way more damage potential is intolerable. The more buffs and Incarnate powers that are added to the game, the more relevant this becomes to ALL Tankers because they allow Brutes to access that survival headroom more and more, and puts Tankers ever closer to that damage cap which already isn't hard to hit. And despite the fact that some people here have called for it, I don't think MOST players want to see Brutes nerfed. I don't. I'd rather see Tankers fixed. So it's the Tanker damage cap that has to move, not the Brute resistance or HP caps.

When that is done, if people still want it, then a unique mechanic can be created to allow Tankers greater damage, because then all Tankers can get the full benefit of it without a Kin or Leadership making that mechanic pointless.


.

How would that compare to Brute caps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

Stalker SR is inferior to the brute scrap version.

Why? Scaling resists are lost without the passive as wll, as DDR resist.
This is something well known.

Brutes need a LOT more help to even approach them than tanks do.

An Invuln tank will be at 90% resistance to S/L without trying, all by himself.

An Invuln Brute can only do so with Barrier. It is mathematically impossible for an Invuln brute to hit the S/L resistance cap by himself without it. And even then, he can only do so for a maximum of 30 seconds at a time. Or for 2 minutes with a crash.

If you don't believe me on the mathematical impossibility, fire up Mids' and check it for yourself. I 6 slotted Resist Physical Damage, Temp Invulnerabilty, and Tough with 5xBoosted Resistance enhancements, AND added t4 Cardiac. The Brute topped out at 78.4% resistance to S/L.

There is no way for the Brute to reach 90% to S/L without outside help or taking and using Barrier, or using Unstoppable. Those all have downsides that the Tanker is not subjected to. The Tanker can choose Ageless and have the recharge to run a better attack chain than the Brute, or can choose Rebirth and have even MORE survivability that is unavailable to the Brute, because he picked Barrier. So, a Brute can cap S/L damage for 30 seconds, or he can cap it for 2 minutes with a crash. And the earliest the Brute can do it is level 38, while the Tanker can be capped to S/L damage as early as level 22. It makes a difference.

It's the base values I'm concerned about rather than the caps. And for the record, I still think Brutes should have had their resistance cap reduced like originally planned. The devs didn't do it because of all the uproar from the Brute players. I considered it irrelevant, because only Fiery Aura and Electric Armor Brutes can reach the cap on anything without outside help anyway.

There's also the fact that, due to the lower base values, a Brute has to expend IO slotting just to almost reach where a Tanker is on SOs. The tank can slot for recharge and run a better attack chain than the Brute, while STILL being more survivable.

The point when I realized that buffing tanker damage by any great amount would be overpowered was when I went AFK for 15 minutes in a mission with 9 guys beating on my Willpower tank. I expected to come back to a dead tank, but not only was I still alive, my health bar hadn't even noticeably moved. And this was at level 17, slotted with level 20 generic IOs. If a tank can casually survive doing that, giving them more damage would be unbalancing.

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.

Wrong. Unstoppable.

Wrong. Tanker Unstoppable has the same crash as Brute Unstoppable.

Willpower is OP.

My Brute runs on +4x8. My meaningless anecdote is better than your meaningless anecdote because I had a German Shepard out at the time and everything is better with puppies.


.

No. And I actually had started writing a reply, pointing out the real numbers of the powers and started scrounging for a link to a video...but by the time I was half done with the post, I looked and saw several others had already posted so I just set eff it and deleted the post.

Curious, what is the difference in Stalker and Scrapper survivability now? Almost a couple hundred HP? Of course there's the cap, but frankly I don't consider that particular cap in the grand equation since only some sets/builds ever get there.

I know the difference between a Brute and a Tanker is nearly 4oo which is quite a difference (HUGE in fact) but no one ever claimed the difference between Scraps and Brutes was big, often stating the difference between them is one is a bit more survivable than the other...but the gap between them is only, IIRC, around 150 HP. Isn't the gap between Scrappers and Stalkers only 120 HP? If that perceived difference scales as HP gets less, then that should still only be considered a 'bit'. Couple that 'bit' of difference with the fact they get the same defensive numbers and caps...I'm not seeing Scrappers being all that far more survivable. More survivable? Yes. 'Far more survivable'? *shakes head*

Quote by JB in reply:
The truth is that Tankers are able to withstand damage longer than any other melee AT. The design is that those not as tough were given more damage to make them survive better. The sense that this is imbalanced or that Tankers are getting the shaft is subjective as it's the devs that have the tools and their metrics for what they consider balance.

*edit*
I forgot to add that currently, JB seems to stick to only really advocating to a damage cap increase for Tankers. Not that this helps most primary and secondary combinations, does next to nothing for solo play (unless one constantly chews reds - which isn't how an AT shouldn't be designed to function -, and really minimal impact on team play as damage buffing isn't heavily supplied through many buff powersets)

A while back, Synapse said they'll be discussing Tankers. It doesn't mean any further changes will happen, but that at least the AT is worth discussing to see if any further changes are needed.

I find it telling that they last time Tankers were given any kind of change was Bruising. A debuff, which was an indirect way of increasing their damage vs. a single target, dealing with the length of time it took to defeat enemies in the early game (it cost Tankers more endurance on average to defeat an enemy because it took more hits to do so), and increase their team utility.

The devs did not just go and buff their damage. To me, its a clear indication of how the devs view Tanker design.

In my opinion, the devs apparent views on Tanker design is pretty crappy.

They let Brutes share the same survivability caps as them, but Tanker damage caps have to be way lower. Solo, Scrapper and Brute survivability is plenty adequate, enough that they're the best soloing ATs in the game, that's a fact, yet Tankers are punished with less damage for having more survivability than that, even when it's superfluous. On teams, the devs let defensive buffs and heals get handed out like candy to Scrappers and Brutes, and on top of that they get the heat taken off of them by Tankers. The result: they see very little downside, solo or teamed, to not being as tough out of the box as Tankers.

If that wasn't enough, add some IOs so Scrappers and Brutes can softcap their defense and while we're at it, Barrier, Rebirth and level shifts. So Brutes and Scrappers get tougher and tougher relative to all enemies in the game, don't really give up any damage for it, and keep the same damage advantage relative to Tankers. So, when it comes to the melee ATs, really only Tankers have to trade damage for their survival. I don't find that fair, and if the devs do, that only supports my assertion that they threw Tankers under the bus years ago.



.

Roll a Brute.

1) You forgot about Resilient Core Paragon.
2) Unyielding also provides Smashing/Lethal resistance.
3) The Brute ATO set provides Smashing/Lethal resistance.
4) Shield Wall: +3 Res all

So, 6 slots in RPD, 6 Slots in Tough, 6 slots in Unyielding, 6 Slots in Temporary Invulnerability (Two of them boosted to +5), the full set of the purple Brute ATO and Resilient Core Paragon.

OR, more expensively:

3 slots in RPD, 4 slots in Temporary Invulnerability, 3 slots in Unyielding, 3 slots in Tough, Shield Wall: +3 Res in Tough Hide, full Purple Brute ATO set, 3 full sets of Air Burst, and Resilient Core Paragon.

Flicka! No! You monster, she was already dead!

Fixed.



.

That does sound a lot more interesting than 'augh! Tanks!'

Well Johnny, if you have already informed the devs of these concerns via PM why are you hammering the forumites with this as they cannot change it the devs can? Why not make these posts to the devs and have this conversation with them directly.

As is you are well on your way to appearing like the child that called wolf.

They claim to read the forums every day. They can post here if they choose to. If they wanted to enter into a dialogue, the door is, and was, always open.


.

Ok I see I am going to have to be more direct about this.

While what you say is true, this is exactly the type of issue that begs for a different more personal approach. I think you would not only be able to convey your ideas better directly, but you will actually generate a direct response from them on the specific issues you have concerns with about tankers.

Right now what you are doing is hijacking any thread you enter with the tanker deal and that is pretty rude among other things that I will leave aside for now, in the hope that you get the point about directly contact the devs vs taking over every thread you enter.

?






.

It's a silly reply to what I thought was a silly suggestion. The developers are well aware of what I have to say about Tankers. As I said in an earlier post, they either don't care or they don't have the time/resources to do anything about it. Neither of those situations are going to stop me from trying to get the issues with Tankers looked at, especially until there's an actual commitment by the devs to do something. Because if I don't, who will? If it annoys you, consider it a form of civil disobedience. You know what you can do to help make it stop.


The original purpose of this thread was pretty much rescinded by the OP.There was nothing to "take over". Since then, the thread evolved into a general discussion of melee balance as a whole, of which Tankers and their issues are a part of.

Lastly, if you really don't like what I have to say or pictures (that you think shouldn't be allowed in a visual medium for some reason :\ ), there's an Ignore feature for that very purpose.



.

I thinkt he problem isn't the devs or Tankers, the problem seems to be you.

Everything you say you want, you say you can get from the Brute AT. If Brutes can surviva the 4/8 difficulty just as easy as Tankers, which is what you say, and lay waste to enemies faster, and that's everything you want, why aren't you rolling a Brute?

Before Freedom (though with Going Rogue you could of done it at lvl 20) I could understand it, but now, you can stay blueside and roll that Brute.

The fact that they rely on Fury shouldn't be a problem since you claim that Brutes stole it from Tankers.

So, everything you want is found in the Brute AT. And outside of Martial Arts, Ice Melee, and Ice Armor they share most of the sets.

You damn hippies. If you hate America so much, move to another country!



.