Quote:
That's funny. | So, to me, it's hard to get worried about the tank issue. They haven't been made useless. Defenders have. |
You countered utter bullcrap with.......utter bullcrap.
Defenders are still plenty useful. Most people who play Defenders understand that their primary role on a team is to buff and debuff things.
A player who whines that Corruptors deal more damage than Defenders.....doesn't know how to play a Defender.
I know this because probably 75% of the Corruptors I see ignore their secondary and act like a lower damage Blaster. I would say those players don't know how to play a Corruptor either. Then they play a Defender and the only thing they see is the lower damage.
Hint: You don't invite a Defender when you want more damage. Unless you want the ENTIRE TEAM to deal more damage. Defenders get better values out of all their buffs and debuffs than any other AT.
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:
A mantra I've heard over on the corrupter board says they should be damage first and use their secondary to support themselves. I don't entirely subscribe to that, but then again I play a DP/Kin so on teams he's a defender with better AOE.
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
I know this because probably 75% of the Corruptors I see ignore their secondary and act like a lower damage Blaster.
|
Blood Widow Ricki * Tide Shifter * T-34 * Opposite Reaction * Shaolin Midnight * ChernobylCheerleader
I think the biggest reason why I like tankers over Brutes is that Brutes feel like Scrappers on roids. :P
Tankers need a few tweaks here and there, but I think that would be enough to increase their popularity.
I skipped 10 pages, I'm sorry, but I had an idea...
Would a progressive taunt aura be something a Tanker could be given? Think Fury for brutes, but the longer the Tank stays or engages in combat, it increases his max taunt cap (to within reason, no full map pulls with a maxed taunt bar). I was thinking a max cap of 32, maybe more...
What'cha think?
"You sir, have never been in a hammer fight, that much is clear."
-Blast_Chamber
*yeah, I quoted myself.
Quote:
Then you should stop mentioning brutes and scrappers at all as justification for your stance. Just be honest and say you want it because you want it, you think it would be more comic-like, and you don't care at all about game balance.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Just a heads up: If they did indeed lower Brute caps instead of fixing Tankers, I still wouldn't shut up about getting Tankers damage cap raised. The fact is, I think even Scrappers can get too much survivability for the damage they deal compared to Tankers.
Nerfing Brutes doesn't improve Tankers. At all. You just PO Brute players, and Tankers will be just as unpopular, overspecialized and kneecapped as before. Nobody walks away any happier. And I don't care what Castle said. Castle isn't here anymore. |
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
I never got the huge outcry when Castle tried to reduce Brute DR cap to 85%. My main is a Brute and I have no problem with this. I don't think 95% of Brute players would even notice.
Also, what would be huge problem with raising Tanker Damage caps to, say, 500%?
I think these two simple things would solve just about all the perceived issues
Quote:
I completely disagree.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
I would agree with this statement.
If Castle had been allowed to actually do what he wanted to do regarding Brutes, the vast majority of this thread we are currently in would not exist. I would also venture a guess that if Castle had been allowed to reduce the maximum potential of Brutes as much as he wanted to, Johnny would not be quite so up in arms about how they perform better than Tankers. Thanks for finding the actual quotes, I had no idea where to look for them. |
The problems tankers have would still be called problems by people who play tankers and couldn't care less about the other melee ATs.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
Those alone would NOT matter for some people, as already posted in this thread. The players who play Tankers would not mind the damage cap increase . . . except for the problem that regular solo tanks don't reach anywhere near that.|
Originally Posted by Socorro
I never got the huge outcry when Castle tried to reduce Brute DR cap to 85%. My main is a Brute and I have no problem with this. I don't think 95% of Brute players would even notice.
Also, what would be huge problem with raising Tanker Damage caps to, say, 500%? I think these two simple things would solve just about all the perceived issues |
Also the changes to brutes do what exactly to help tanks?
It doesn't make tanks any more wanted or needed. No AT in this game is really needed, so what exactly would be the point of changing another AT that has nothing to do with the AT you play.
That's like saying reduce the damage corrupters and other ranged toons do, raise the damage mod for blasters and all blaster issues are fixed.
That would not fly with blaster players. They would still be calling for changes to blaster nukes, snipes, etc.
Also: Let me put it this way. Had they reduced the abilities of all the other melee ATs right before the stalker changes, stalker players would STILL be asking for the buffs the eventually got. I think you put too much stock into how people view other ATs affect what they want for "their own" AT.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Raise Tankers Taunt to 10 targets max.
Raise Tankers aggro cap.
Raise Tankers damage cap.
(Possibly raise Tankers resistance cap to 95%)
Lower Brutes resistance cap to 85%.
Quote:
Now this . . . where the majority of the changes go to the ACTUAL ******* AT in question, makes more logical sense.|
Originally Posted by Vitality
Raise Tankers Taunt to 10 targets max.
Raise Tankers aggro cap. Raise Tankers damage cap. (Possibly raise Tankers resistance cap to 95%) Lower Brutes resistance cap to 85%. |
Just saying.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
That wouldn't be honest because I do care about game balance. Brutes having the same survivability potential as Tankers but much more damage potential while Tankers have their damage potential kneecapped is hardly balanced. Nor do I think it balanced if you penalize Tankers with much lower damage for having higher survivability numbers than Scrappers, but allow Scrappers to still have enough survivability that it's not that much of a disadvantage for them tor have less than a Tanker. It's like giving Person A three apples, one to eat at each daily meal, and giving Person B five apples, and then charging B an 'extra apples tax' and taking away three apples for getting more than they need.|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
Then you should stop mentioning brutes and scrappers at all as justification for your stance. Just be honest and say you want it because you want it, you think it would be more comic-like, and you don't care at all about game balance.
|
You say I don't care about balance, but consider that different people can view the same situation in different ways, and balance is in the eye of the beholder.
And in case you didn't notice, I have spoken at length that I think Tankers need to be more like their comic counterparts. I'm not exactly hiding the fact.
.
Im curious, is the aggro cap the same for brutes and tanks? If so, that seems like an obvious place to start for balance between the two. The tanks job is to keep aggro, the brutes job is...i gues to do damage and survive? Anyways, seems like a no brainer to me.
Reducing brute caps and what not would be alright with me but i don't think it would be a good idea. No point in pulling brutes down to make tanks happy. It should have been done in GR beta but thats in the past.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tyger42
Part of your "fix" requires nerfing another AT? Not only no, but HELL EFFING NO! And who the hell are you to say where Brutes are "supposed to be"?
|
I'm sorry, but you have no ground to stand on here. If you're going to post and post and post about how Tankers are useless because Brutes are so great, you can't come back now and act suprised that nerfing Brutes might be in order.
There is a culture in this game that thinks that we should never nerf anything, and the blunt truth is that it causes more long term problems than it fixes. For example, we can't let Dark Control be as good as Plant Control because Plant Control is overpowered, but people bug out if we mention nerfing Plant. It's untenable and with the introduction of pay-for powersets now likely to start affecting the bottom line.
And Brutes, frankly, need the nerf. They should have had their Resistance cap lowered back when, but the usual suspects went ballistic.
Quote:
*shrugs* I don't put much stock out how some extremist view ATs period. Reducing Brute DR to 85% cap was not world-ending. Castle thought it a *small* step towards putting ATs in their proper places relative to each other, and I thought he was right. Whoa, but the outcry over that piddly 5%...|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
...I think you put too much stock into how people view other ATs affect what they want for "their own" AT.
|
So, where we are right now, my Tankers have been retired permanently until something happens to make them stand out more from my Brutes. We know that 'more damage' isn't likely to be that something.
Quote:
For the record I wouldn't bat an eye if Brutes got hit, as an argument can be made for it.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
I'm sorry, but you have no ground to stand on here. If you're going to post and post and post about how Tankers are useless because Brutes are so great, you can't come back now and act suprised that nerfing Brutes might be in order.
There is a culture in this game that thinks that we should never nerf anything, and the blunt truth is that it causes more long term problems than it fixes. For example, we can't let Dark Control be as good as Plant Control because Plant Control is overpowered, but people bug out if we mention nerfing Plant. It's untenable and with the introduction of pay-for powersets now likely to start affecting the bottom line. And Brutes, frankly, need the nerf. They should have had their Resistance cap lowered back when, but the usual suspects went ballistic. |
However, doing only that and not making any other changes to Tanks other than a damage cap increase, and calling it a day, wouldn't solve anything for the Tank players who perceive that tanks have issues.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
I think you see where I'm coming from. If the devs turned around and said "we are reducing Brutes by 5%" I would not mind. What I would mind is if that were the end of the discussion. That reduction in 5% doesn't do jack squat to make any tank stand out more, and literally has NOTHING TO DO WITH TANKS. Those who still invited Brutes over Tanks for whatever reason would still do it. Those who didn't care for either way and just invite whatever is available would still do so. Generally the population in game wouldn't give a ****, generally.|
Originally Posted by Socorro
*shrugs* I don't put much stock out how some extremist view ATs period. Reducing Brute DR to 85% cap was not world-ending. Castle thought it a *small* step towards putting ATs in their proper places relative to each other, and I thought he was right. Whoa, but the outcry over that piddly 5%...
So, where we are right now, my Tankers have been retired permanently until something happens to make them stand out more from my Brutes. We know that 'more damage' isn't likely to be that something. |
Something to make Tanks stand out more than Brutes is something to make TANKS stand out more than Brutes. A nerf to just brutes and just a cap increase to Tanks would be pointless.
EDIT: That'd be like if they had reduced how much stealth other melee classes can get and just increased damage on stalkers while they are stealthed, without any of the other changes they made DIRECTLY to the stalker class and called that the fix to stalkers. I think a lot of stalker players would have called that "pure idiocy". Just saying.
Sure class balance is VERY important, but you don't focus solely on class balance if you want improvements to your AT.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
This.
|
Originally Posted by Vitality
Raise Tankers Taunt to 10 targets max.
Raise Tankers aggro cap. Raise Tankers damage cap. (Possibly raise Tankers resistance cap to 95%) Lower Brutes resistance cap to 85%. |
- Im Not Talking Fast, You're Just Listening Slow.
- To Each His Own
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
However, doing only that and not making any other changes to Tanks other than a damage cap increase, and calling it a day, wouldn't solve anything for the Tank players who perceive that tanks have issues.
|
I agree with you.
I don't think the fix is simple. Overall in it's current state I don't think this game has much room for either Tankers or Defenders. They overlap too much with other ATs without defining themselves.
But I still think Brutes need to take the Resistance cap hit. If Scrappers and Stalkers can make do with the same Resistance as a Blaster or Controller, Brutes do not need the same resistance cap as a Tanker.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure they're the same.|
Originally Posted by Abyssus
Im curious, is the aggro cap the same for brutes and tanks? If so, that seems like an obvious place to start for balance between the two. The tanks job is to keep aggro, the brutes job is...i gues to do damage and survive? Anyways, seems like a no brainer to me.
Reducing brute caps and what not would be alright with me but i don't think it would be a good idea. No point in pulling brutes down to make tanks happy. It should have been done in GR beta but thats in the past. |
However, I personally wouldn't want to lower their cap, just their ability to retain it. Being able to attract aggro is important for Brutes for Fury generation, though I have soloed (with solo numbers) and can generate Fury just fine. The fact that they have some aggro retention is how they keep it going in teams, where aggro can get spread all over. The main thing is that they have the same ammount of aggro retention as Tanks, making them able to 'tank' entire groups just as well.
With a weakened Threat rating, the Brute would still be able to generate enough aggro around themselves to get fury but in a large group, once damage starts flying, more of those mobs will peel off and attack their teammates.
I know this from my Willpower Tank having a Threat of 3 in his aura vs. my Invul and Dark Brutes having a 4 (the same as all other Tanks, except SR, which is also a 3). Happens quite often, even though I do retain a good ammount around me, I can't protect my teammates as much.
So making all Tanks at a Threat of 4 and Brutes at 3, give a modest increase to all the Tanker's caps (don't decrease the Brute's) would go a long way to making Tanks stand out again without any major nerf to anyone else. As a throw in, I'm not sure what Scrapper caps for Threat/aggro aura is, but those should be examined too.
I honestly think that'd make Tanks more desireable in teams, and give them back that 'something' that they specialize in.
See, to me it's not about Brute survivability, it's that they can tank enough to give the perception that there's no point to Tanks. Other than that, leave them alone.
I still get called in the few PuG's I get into sometimes about my Brutes not getting Taunt until later in the build (if at all). I politely remind them, I'm not a Tank, but I can switch to one if they want
"I play characters. I have to have a very strong visual appearance, backstory, name, etc. to get involved with a character, otherwise I simply won't play it very long. I'm not an RPer by any stretch of the imagination, but character concept is very important for me."- Back Alley Brawler
I couldn't agree more.
[QUOTE=Oedipus_Tex;4249192]I agree with you.
I don't think the fix is simple. Overall in it's current state I don't think this game has much room for either Tankers or Defenders. They overlap too much with other ATs without defining themselves.
But I still think Brutes need to take the Resistance cap hit. If Scrappers and Stalkers can make do with the same Resistance as a Blaster or Controller, Brutes do not need the same resistance cap as a Tanker.[/QUOTE]
Seriously. I mean how often the folks play at the cap? Such a change would not bother anyone who solos.
And if you are teaming you aren't going to notice.
Playing end game? Who give a *&^%? You're probably destinyed up the wazoo.
I never got the Brute ******** about the reduction Castle proposed.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
Because it meant that Elec armor and Fire Armor would be taking 50% more damage than before. Because those sets COULD hit the resistance cap for their respective damage types.
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
Quote:
And if you are teaming you aren't going to notice. Playing end game? Who give a *&^%? You're probably destinyed up the wazoo. I never got the Brute ******** about the reduction Castle proposed. |
Deamus the Fallen - 50 DM/EA Brute - Lib
Dragos Bahtiam - 50 Fire/Ice Blaster - Lib
/facepalm - Apply Directly to the Forehead!
Formally Dragos_Bahtiam - Abbreviate to DSL - Warning, may contain sarcasm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shubbie
Im very good at taking a problem and making it worse.
|
Tanks already got a slight buff and brutes got a slight nerf. What Brutes lost was mostly "abused" by AE ambush farms. Unless you teamed with a kinetics, it was pretty tough to hit the brute damage cap.
So what sort of changes can be done to tanks short of another "small tweak" to brutes.
1. Have taunt work on 8 targets instead of 5.
2. More damage (power creep)
3. Could make tanks tougher, but they are already plenty tough enough.
(I have the feeling it will come back to more damage)
H: Blaster 50, Defender 50, Tank 50, Scrapper 50, Controller 50, PB 50, WS 50
V: Brute 50, Corruptor 50, MM 50, Dominator 50, Stalker 50, AW 50, AS 50
Top 4: Controller, Brute, Scrapper, Corruptor
Bottom 4: (Peacebringer) way below everything else, Mastermind, Dominator, Blaster
CoH in WQHD
Quote:
This is the world. You will not satisfy all people. Saying that a fix would not matter for some people is irrelevant.|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
Those alone would NOT matter for some people, as already posted in this thread.
|
The goal of a fix is not to satisfy all people, it is to fix an issue.
In this thread the OP stated "which despite being fairly balanced as is have had their role muddled with the crossover of brutes."
the only issue stated is having their role muddled with the crossover of brutes. Pretty much everyone agrees with this. And therefore people are suggesting a fix to this problem.
If you want a different problem fixed you have to name the problem.
"some people are not happy" is not a problem that needs to be fixed.
Quote:
And of all those things (damage, (de)buff, control), how good are other melee ATs at doing any of those?|
Originally Posted by Tyger42
Sure, all those things at once aren't needed in a team. But any one of them is far more valuable than what a tank can do. That was my point. I honestly don't see why that was so hard to see, but whatever.
|
I don't see how it'd be so hard for you to comprehend. Overkill *MESSES* with *EVERYTHING* in the game. Overkill on mitigation, overkill on control, overkill on damage...it makes things screwy. And if you don't like it, then you should probably stop overkilling things. No one said we need a kinetic on every team, or to lock down everything, or capped defense, resist, regen, etc or rotating nukes and judgement damage. And when you do have those things, *WHY* view it like a necessity, an outlier occurrence or *anything* but a blessing?
Back to the topic: People keep bringing up changing aggro caps for Tankers and stuff. AFAIK, aggro caps are shared by every entity in the game, from pseudo-pets, pets, critters, defenders and dominators, brutes and blasters. There's probably not even capability to 'raise the aggro cap' without raising the cap for everybody. The only way to individually raise Tanker's aggro cap is to grant them pets that have aggro of their own.
Nerfing Brutes doesn't improve Tankers. At all. You just PO Brute players, and Tankers will be just as unpopular, overspecialized and kneecapped as before. Nobody walks away any happier. And I don't care what Castle said. Castle isn't here anymore.
.