Concerned about Scrappers.
By
Acemace,
Posted on: 2012-03-21 05:04 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
And Hide!
|
Originally Posted by Rikis
Mmmm delicious melee AT with a 775% damage cap, 3534 Max HP, and Criticals does have me salivating.
|
Quote:
Unless you're being facetious, I think he meant merging Stalkers with Scrappers, and Tankers with Brutes.|
Originally Posted by Rikis
Mmmm delicious melee AT with a 775% damage cap, 3534 Max HP, and Criticals does have me salivating.
|
.
Quote:
But what you want out of Tankers is different than what the intention of Tankers is.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
No, it's not.
The devs just buffed Stalkers because they had issues. They didn't tell people to roll Scrappers. I have several Tankers with years of commitment put into them. I also have several Brutes. I have a couple Scrappers, but only one Stalker. Having played all side of the melee argument, it's my opinion the game penalizes Tankers unfairly in some ways, especially compared to Brutes. Namely, the issues I have explained many times about defensive and offensive potential. Given the development history of Tankers, Fury being developed for them but hijacked for Brutes, I feel that, yes, Tankers are owed something. Furthermore, they don't reasonably reflect their comic counterparts as well as all of the other melee ATs do (and in a comic book superhero game that DOES matter). They also don't line up with their official description when it comes to "dishing out all kinds of damage" and being "devastating hand to hand" combatants. And I don't care if that description is old; the other melee ATs live up theirs, if not exceed them, and the fact that Tankers don't and haven't for so long just makes it worse, not more excusable. And, what angers me the most, is that so many people took BandX's advice. They gave up on trying to get Tankers fixed and defected to Brutes both when CoV launched and when side switching became a reality. Well I still give a damn, even if the people who used to support Tanker reform took off. So, if I have to be the diehard holdout, call me Captain Ahab. That's kind of you, but really, I don't care about convincing anyone at this point. If I annoy you, again, that's why we have an Ignore feature. . |
And Fury was never created for Tankers. It was an idea posted on the forums for them, that was used for Brutes.
The idea for Tankers is higher defense. You say that higher defense is pointless.
Go play with SO's see if you see a difference in survival (you should, I know I notice a difference).
But yes your right, Brutes CAN get themselves up to high enough levels of survival not to worry.
But that's through set bonuses and proper power picks. So, why not go about trying to get more +DMG bonuses, Procs, made, so you can give Tankers more +DMG opportunities.
Which also gives other ATs the ability to sacrifice getting up to "just enough survival" for "Ooooo MORE DAMAGE!"
And what Stalkers lacked was damage. That's why they got the buff they did.
Survival Scale
Tanker -> Brute -> Scrapper -> Stalker
DPS Scale
Stalker -> Scrapper -> Brute -> Tanker
That's how it should be. There is of course some edge cases that throw this all off.
+DMG bonuses for Scrappers, Gloom for Brutes, Fury effecting DMG Auras.
But before the Stalker changes, Stalkers were only above Tankers in damage, and still the least survivable of the melee ATs.
Tankers maintain the higher survival with SOs and even equal IO builds due to higher base resists and higher HP totals.
Of course, some Defense sets make the higher resists less of a thing (SR).
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
I thought this too. But I'd make them more like the Widows/Soldiers in branching to vary them up.
|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
I'm getting to the point where I think they should merge Tankers and Brutes and Scrappers and Stalkers. Actually I was at that point a few years ago, but I'm thinking that it makes sense now!
 |
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
I still find it incredibly ironic (and more than a little hypocritical) that Johnny has accused me of trolling him.....
.....when he is the one that has completely hijacked the thread I started and baited me into an argument. (Which I should have known better than to respond to)
Especially since the original topic of the thread was resolved by page 4.
If he approaches the devs the same way he does his fellow players, it's no wonder he's gotten nowhere.
(Hint for you: The devs do not take kindly to players taking the stance that they are OWED something. They will not respond to that by giving that player what they want. Ever.)
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:
Apparently he has and welcomed himself to /ignore.
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
If he approaches the devs the same way he does his fellow players, it's no wonder he's gotten nowhere.
|
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
Quote:
I've been telling him all of those things for literally years now. |
Originally Posted by BrandX
But what you want out of Tankers is different than what the intention of Tankers is.
And Fury was never created for Tankers. It was an idea posted on the forums for them, that was used for Brutes. The idea for Tankers is higher defense. You say that higher defense is pointless. Go play with SO's see if you see a difference in survival (you should, I know I notice a difference). But yes your right, Brutes CAN get themselves up to high enough levels of survival not to worry. But that's through set bonuses and proper power picks. So, why not go about trying to get more +DMG bonuses, Procs, made, so you can give Tankers more +DMG opportunities. Which also gives other ATs the ability to sacrifice getting up to "just enough survival" for "Ooooo MORE DAMAGE!" And what Stalkers lacked was damage. That's why they got the buff they did. Survival Scale Tanker -> Brute -> Scrapper -> Stalker DPS Scale Stalker -> Scrapper -> Brute -> Tanker That's how it should be. There is of course some edge cases that throw this all off. +DMG bonuses for Scrappers, Gloom for Brutes, Fury effecting DMG Auras. But before the Stalker changes, Stalkers were only above Tankers in damage, and still the least survivable of the melee ATs. Tankers maintain the higher survival with SOs and even equal IO builds due to higher base resists and higher HP totals. Of course, some Defense sets make the higher resists less of a thing (SR). |
He has ignored all of it, sweeping it all under the rug as though it is all irrelevant, when the truth is he knows damn well how much damage those FACTS do to his argument, so he ignores them in the hope that they'll go away.
They haven't gone away yet. And they won't, because the design of Tankers is set in stone, and no amount of caterwauling is going to change it. They will ALWAYS be the lowest damaging of the melee ATs, because they achieve greater survivability with virtually no effort.
The only way Tanker damage will see the kind of increase he is asking for is if the devs throw game balance out the window completely.
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:
Wrong. It was a mechanic the the lead designer of the game said Tankers were going to get.|
Originally Posted by BrandX
And Fury was never created for Tankers. It was an idea posted on the forums for them, that was used for Brutes.
|
Quote:
| But what you want out of Tankers is different than what the intention of Tankers is. |
The official AT description suggests damage is an important part of the equation. It calls Tankers "devastating hand to hand combatants" who "dish out all sorts of damage". The same lead designer from above said of the mechanic that became Fury "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."
Two official sources that are pretty clear the intent of Tankers was to reflect comic book Tankers and to, in part, have formidable offensive capabilities. If the lead designer of the game who was there when they created Tankers said it, what more proof do you need?
.
Since we're on the subject:
Blasters are in serious need of a major nerf.
When they are sitting at their caps to everything they achieve nearly the same survivability as a Scrapper, while outdamaging everything else in the game. And they can take Clarion Destiny and lose nothing.
Since Blasters spend so much time soft-capped with 75% resistance to everything, while sitting at their 500% damage cap 100% of the time, the only plausible solution is to nerf them because they're so overpowered.
Wait! Better yet, buff Defender damage so they can compete with Blasters at the caps Blasters are sitting at all the time! It's the perfect solution!
And if you disagree with me, well, you're all wrong and stupid.
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:
Maybe proof that said designer can run a game without it failing miserably? |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Two official sources that are pretty clear the intent of Tankers was to reflect comic book Tankers and to, in part, have formidable offensive capabilities. If the lead designer of the game who was there when they created Tankers said it, what more proof do you need?
|
When Jack was in charge CoH was declining rapidly. It didn't start picking up again until Positron took over.
Jack then went on to create a game using his ideas....that went on to LOSE over $10 million in it's first year.
So yeah, citing Jack as a source of what Tankers should be isn't putting things in a very good light.
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:
The same Positron that instituted ED, that caused the game to take it's steepest population dip ever? Oh yes, that was Positron, not Jack. Jack couldn't spreadsheet his way out of a paper bag, something like ED was beyond him. Posi masterminded ED and GDN from all accounts, all Jack did was take the flak for it.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
When Jack was in charge CoH was declining rapidly. It didn't start picking up again until Positron took over.
|
.
Quote:
Actually I think it was Geko. He was the lead powers guy at the time.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The same Positron that instituted ED, that caused the game to take it's steepest population dip ever? Oh yes, that was Positron, not Jack. Jack couldn't spreadsheet his way out of a paper bag, something like ED was beyond him. Posi masterminded ED and GDN from all accounts, all Jack did was take the flak for it.
. |
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
I agree. Tankers should, indeed, have formidable offensive capabilities. And from where I'm sitting, they do.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Two official sources that are pretty clear the intent of Tankers was to reflect comic book Tankers and to, in part, have formidable offensive capabilities.
|
Wait you are quoting the guy who was hated by the player base for misleading them?
Quote:
I've heard some say it was Geko, and some say it was Positron. Both from equally trustworthy sources. Either way, it wasn't Jack.|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
Actually I think it was Geko. He was the lead powers guy at the time.
|
.
Quote:
You don't REALLY believe that something like that would get done without the lead designer's approval, do you? |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
The same Positron that instituted ED, that caused the game to take it's steepest population dip ever? Oh yes, that was Positron, not Jack. Jack couldn't spreadsheet his way out of a paper bag, something like ED was beyond him. Posi masterminded ED and GDN from all accounts, all Jack did was take the flak for it.
|
Posi did the actual work, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Jack was in on every aspect of it, giving the go ahead for every numerical change.
Blaming Positron for ED is like blaming the cameraman when a movie sucks instead of the writer and director who told him what to do.
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:
Then you must be sitting in a cave. On Mars. With your head in a bucket. Tripping on space mushrooms.|
Originally Posted by Hopeling
I agree. Tankers should, indeed, have formidable offensive capabilities. And from where I'm sitting, they do.
|
.
Quote:
Actually, I'd equate Lead Designer more to a Showrunner in television than a writer or director, just based on my experience. A lot of high level control and general direction on the whole operation, but not much on the details.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Blaming Positron for ED is like blaming the cameraman when a movie sucks instead of the writer and director who told him what to do.
|
"Lead designer coordinates the work of other designers and is the main visionary of the game. Lead designer ensures team communication, makes large design decisions, and presents design outside of the team."
Not someone who proposes or comes up with numeric systems. At worst, he signed off on the wrong thing and trusted someone when he probably should have looked closer. But, it wouldn't have even crossed his desk without someone else creating it.
.
Quote:
Or, more seriously, we could try to define what "formidable" actually means.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Then you must be sitting in a cave. On Mars. With your head in a bucket. Tripping on space mushrooms.
|
If a character can defeat any foe they ever have to face in a timely manner, I consider that pretty formidable. If they can defeat enemies or even whole spawns that would otherwise pose a threat before that threat can materialize, I consider that formidable. If someone else on the team deals damage that is even more formidable, that doesn't mean I am no longer formidable. It just means they are even more formidable.
You are welcome to your own opinion of what "formidable" offense is, of course, but in my opinion and in my experience, Tankers already have it.
Quote:
You sure about that? |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Not someone who proposes or comes up with numeric systems. At worst, he signed off on the wrong thing and trusted someone when he probably should have looked closer. But, it wouldn't have even crossed his desk without someone else creating it.
|
Were you there? In his office? On the day ED was envisioned?
It's not surprising that you're defending Jack this tenaciously...the two of you have a lot in common.
And saying he can't do the work himself is preposterous. You don't get to be Lead Designer of a video game company without knowing your way around the code. You just don't. That's like managing a Jiffy Lube while having no idea how to change a car's oil.
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:
OK, you may want to reword this because that would technically include AVs and GMs, and that's out for most Tankers.|
Originally Posted by Hopeling
Or, more seriously, we could try to define what "formidable" actually means.
If a character can defeat any foe they ever have to face in a timely manner, I consider that pretty formidable. |
When you're the worst, and trail behind your peers (the other melee ATs) by a good degree, I don't feel that is formidable, or "devastating". Nor do I when the same melee attacks do more damage on guys are technically aren't even melee combatants, like Dominators and Blasters. That's not formidable to me either. It's like being so bad at track, the guys on the Baseball team running bases can outpace you.
.
Quote:
Well, you're the one calling him incompetent.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
And saying he can't do the work himself is preposterous. You don't get to be Lead Designer of a video game company without knowing your way around the code.
|
.
Why would a Tank do more melee damage then a blaster?
Blasters have a much smaller selection of melee attacks and have much lower serviceability.
Quote:
That would be why I said "have to face", not "can face". The only place I can think of anywhere in the game that you have to face an AV or GM to progress, but is not team-mandatory, is the Ouro TFs, which are designed and presented more as "TFs you can start solo, but beware, because they're still TFs" rather than "solo content you can do with a team". Most scrappers and brutes can't solo AVs or GMs without similarly high-end builds to what a tanker needs to do it, anyway, so they're not significantly behind in that category either.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
OK, you may want to reword this because that would technically include AVs and GMs, and that's out for most Tankers.
|
Quote:
| When you're the worst, and trail behind your peers (the other melee ATs) by a good degree, I don't feel that is formidable, or "devastating". Nor do I when the same melee attacks do more damage on guys are technically aren't even melee combatants, like Dominators and Blasters. That's not formidable to me either. |
Mmmm delicious melee AT with a 775% damage cap, 3534 Max HP, and Criticals does have me salivating.
Some of my characters