Concerned about Scrappers.

this is very true!

If an argument is weak, then you're doing no favours by ignoring it. A weak argument is not a very convincing argument unless the person you're trying to convince already agrees with you.

Actually, experiments show that stacking debuffs and defensive cascade failure tend to occur very early in fights above a certain scale, because critter AI tends to deploy such effects early, which then tends to escalate them on a timescale short enough for them to be considered effectively frontloaded most of the time.

Which is why I mentioned the part about melee farming. Its one practical example of the principle in action, but certainly not the only one. The only reason I haven't written this theory up as a separate article quite yet is because I'm still conducting experiments on it to fully characterize it.

Also, I'm quite certain that over large enough cross sections of experience, the actual game supports the quantitative analysis. Its not like I'm lacking in the former just because I happen to be able to add without using my toes.

Damage equals mitigation is one of the few remaining myths that goes back a very long way, and is generally accepted even though there are obvious problems with the theory, like the fact that high damage rarely actually makes things more survivable. Its actually the case where the theory itself is a case of numbers trumping experience. Most players seem to see that higher damage doesn't automatically make them more survivable outside of alpha strike burst damage, but the numerical argument seems so compelling they just assume the effect is difficult to see.

Its actually the reverse that's true: its difficult to see because its almost not there, and the numerical argument supporting it is flawed. Because things are not as cut and dried in practice as they are when looking at numbers, especially when you're looking at them wrong. The critical error is that the amount of damage you take is not directly relevant to survival, what is directly relevant is the damage *rate* you take, which is a function of damage taken and the duration of the fight. Increasing offense decreases both, so it should not be presumed to be true that survivability always goes up.

That's nice, I guess. Maybe. Personally, I think its valuable to point out logical flaws in posts, even if I have no stake in the discussion. It's not because I enjoy suggesting people are mistaken, but because if I think they're posting something that's incorrect, they're not likely to get what they want even if they get what they ask for.

Arcana is doing me no great service and I'd rather they went away.


.

Actually it's been you that has has been doing you no great service in your last four or five posts in this thread. At best you're reducing your credibility and undermining your own position.

It's no fun when you do all the discrediting yourself. Dr. Van Kruglor's robots don't need the competition.

I think you're mistaking Arcanaville pointing out when you do yourself a disservice for Arcanaville doing you a disservice. If you aren't open to even the possibility that anything is wrong with your own assertions or arguments, I can see where you might feel otherwise, though I don't think that necessarily follows.

I might add that I think there are significant differences in the two threads. The Blaster thread is about whether Blasters actually survive long enough to perform the role they have (to the extent that they actually clearly have a role). In contrast, Tankers seem to have a very specific role: aggro management. You seem to disapprove in at least some ways with that role being their primary remit, but don't actually seem to feel that they have special problems performing that role. You want a wider or even different role for them.

Well, and of course the Blaster thread started as a Blaster thread, and this was a Scrapper thread that you coopted.

You mistakenly assume I'm out to prove anything to anyone. I could produce and airtight case and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

You also wrongly assume that Arcana gives a damn about Tankers or my efforts beyond self-amusement.

I understand that some people have issues with Brutes and Scrappers sealing aggro from Tankers. I'm not convinced it's a problem because as I've stated before, both ATs are intended to share tanking duties with Tankers and as long as the aggro isn't on the squishes, there's no problem. Plus, as I said before, it's a self correcting issue; if they can't handle the aggro, they wont be pulling it after they faceplant. Naturally, this is no consolation to some Tanker players. All I can say to them is that only goes to show that putting all of the Tanker eggs into the aggro control basket was and is a dumb thing to keep doing when Brutes and Scrappers (and even other Tankers) aren't going away any time soon and the former wants and needs aggro as well to fuel their own gameplay. Aggro control can't be the Tanker's exclusive domain so suck it up and don't oppose them pitching in on the damage dealing more instead of them making a paltry contribution.


I only regret it wasn't a Brute thread that was hijacked for more poetic justice.


.

You haven't yet.

If you aren't trying to "prove anything to anyone", if your hypothetical "airtight case" still wouldn't make a "lick of difference" to the developers, why are you still posting about it?

Because nobody ever got anything by giving up.


.

And yet you abandon your efforts of constructing an airtight case.

Bahah!

By your definition no one does, but I've been posting about Tankers since before you probably heard about the game. I care a lot more about the Tankers we actually have than you do; you only care about remaking Tankers in your image. You don't, by your own admission, care about anyone who thinks of Tankers as defensive aggro control specialists. Everyone who cares or has ever cared about Tankers in this game is, as you put it, part of the problem.

I'd rather be in their company.

Because he is getting what he wants...all of the people's attention that are involved with him arguing tankers in a scrappers thread. I will say in his defense some arguing with him are seeking the same attention he is as well so it is like peas in a pod.

You know what? You're so far past the point of anything resembling sanity at this point that really the only point at which your posts don't contradict each other is that pointless little dot you stick at the end of every single post.

Instead of putting together this airtight case that you claim you could make or doing anything else that would lend the slightest plausibility to your claims you just keep insisting that you don't have to prove anything since i guess you know it's true and that's all that counts. Or something. i guess.

There are many cases where an AT or powerset was buffed because players offered well-reasoned arguments as well as evidence and analysis to back it up. They didn't flail their arms wildly in the air claiming that they weren't going to bother offering any evidence because they were persecuted advocates of a change that the Devs refused to make out of spite. The only thing that approach gets you is being ignored as an incoherent fool, and rightly so.

*ugh* No more J_B for me. He's finally gone so far around the bend i can't even see where the gibbering emanates from any more.

(Or, as they used to post in the now archaic usenet parlance, *plonk*)

True enough, and that point has been made many times for similar threads in the past, both for J_B's insanity and others with similar behavior, but to give him credit he has succeeded to the extent that i'm not even going to read the posts any more. i'll leave that thankless task to those who don't get headaches when they see someone descend into self-contradicting irrelevancy.

And my Scrappers still rawk regardless!

By definition, a point can't be pointless.

It is extremely hard to build a case that something is lacking qualitatively.

I can't produce numbers that say Tankers don't suitably live up to the image their official description and their four colored counterparts evoke. You can't find that on a spreadsheet.

I could, suppose, conduct a survey, show what a large enough sample of players think, but that is as much against the rules as what I'm accused of.

Indeed, there may not even be that many that disagree with me on that point, because the most common responses I get to that seem to indicate they don't dispute Tankers fall short conceptually, they just don't care.

As Megajoule put it: "many tank players have simply become resigned to doing the kind of damage they do. I'm one of those"

Obviously, feelings and subjective opinions don't go far in convincing the devs or anyone. Even when I dredge up a quote from the lead designer saying plainly Tankers should be powerful and capable of doing a lot of damage, that gets dismissed derisively.

So I look for some quantitative justification. Perhaps there's something in the numbers that would justify Tankers damage being looked at. Oh, look Brute damage survivability caps. If high survival caps and high damage caps are OK for them, why isn't it OK for Tankers?

Nope, that's handwaved too. Why? Because, just because.

Pointing out the decreasing value of increasing survivability over the immortality line? Nope. Pointing out the increasing abundance of survivability buffs, the relative lack of damage improvement options and the fact Tankers can't even make use of all of them? Nope. Comparison with Scrappers giving them some wiggle room? Nope.

Well ****. Oh, and here comes Arcana, the answer to a question nobody asked to crap all over everything.

It's like being sat down in front of 4chan and being told to prove the justice of our culture.

I get nothing but trolled, deliberately misquoted and misinterpreted and scrutinized endlessly every single day. Just for pushing for something I believe in and not caving.
And unlike the devs, I don't even get paid for it.

:\



.

Kewl.

If by that you mean I don't like that they have been made the buttmonkey of the game and were thrown under a bus by the devs in favor of Brutes, then yes, because they have been.

And when I see some Tanker players that are unhappy about the damage they do but are resigned to it and make excuses for things they know are unfair, I have to conclude that they are very much "part of the problem".



.