Tanker Changes Coming

To be fair, I'm not poking holes at his suggestion. A buff to caps or an adjustment to mods is all well and good but it'll only help those that it helps...and not help those that it won't...if you can get what I'm saying.

No, what I was arguing with Butane was his argument for his change. Comparing Tankers to Superman, how their role isn't actually 'comix' and how 'Brute terk err bffz'. None of that makes any difference to me. I don't care that Brutes kicked you in the nads and took your Fury or that aggro ain't in comic books or that no existing media character fits Tankers. I doubt there's a real-comic example of a Soldier of Arachnos or Kheldian either since, you know, they're unique to our game.

So yeah, don't care for trying to shoehorn Tankers to be comic book 'bricks' or what have you...just make them fun, unique, and remain focused on what they do. Keep em like they are, for all I care. I enjoy my Tankers *because* they're not offensive focused. What offense they're capable of (and they're capable of a decent amount) is just gravy to me.

Even pets are limited to the same aggro caps for AI enemies. The only way to buff Tanker's aggro cap is to give them pets that are targetable by enemies...or raise the aggro cap of everyone.

Although it might be possible to formulate an algorithm that increases everyone's aggro cap to something like 24 or some number but have threat dramatically taper off at the 15-18 foe marker so that it's *hard* to aggro that many unless there just isn't many players around to attract it. Make it so it literally takes taunt to do it...but that comes with consequences. I'd say the character who could either attract the most attention (taunt/gauntlet) or can affect the most foes at a time (most likely (de)buffers, crowd control and pet classes) get the aggro. So yeah, that'd be an overall nerf for those types if they cannot survive the extra attention.

That said, the reason I suggested altering Tanker AoEs is because it's been shown that *powers* can have their target cap raised...it's shown in Judgement powers who have varying target caps depending on which branch you take. So it's not directly increasing the Tanker aggro cap, but as foes go down, it's all about who's affecting more foes...and if those AoEs have mitigation tied in them like KD or debuffs, you're indirectly protecting teammates those foes might be shooting at.

They are universal and i'm not sure you could modify aggro caps to be different on a per character/AT basis without a lot of work recoding critter AI. Doing so could result in some "interesting" effects. (Past alterations to the critter AI code have occasionally been interesting.)

In any event i don't see it as solving a problem or addressing a need. It's more of "because i want this AT to be more different in a way that most people will never even notice in actual practice" change for the sake of changing something for the sake of change in my opinion. Still, it's not really me you need to convince, it's the Devs, and that requires more than saying, "well a bunch of people on the forums think this would be a good idea for some reason, but i don't actually have any sort of proof or analysis demonstrating that it would improve AT balance in way that would be noticeable in general use without causing other problems."

Not referring to your suggestion, but i just wanted to mention that i find amusing the number of posters in this thread and similar who attempt to justify lobbying for general AT changes or a lack of need for the same using things like Incarnate powers/content and other edge cases that are limited to a small number of situations or powerset combinations. Just because they spend most of their time running the Dig Dug Dominatrix Trial (The Triple D Trial) on their Carp Armor/Carp Melee Tanker does not mean that it should be the primary metric for evaluating AT balance and performance.

I shouldn't have to justify why a comic book super hero game should reflect the respect the conventions of the genre it claims to be in. Especially when the developers claim they're fans of said genre, but their design decisions demonstrate they don't really understand or care about it.

That's just how insane this situation is.

I shouldn't have to nag the developers of a MMO called 'Baseball Online' that their "Pitcher" kicks the ball, which isn't a ball but rather a pumpkin, and justify that yes, he should be allowed to stand on that mound. I really don't care you decided to call it the "Shortstop's mound".

And, if I'm truly a baseball fan, I'm REALLY not going to care that regardless (or even because) of punting pumpkins, the title has proven really popular with Facebook gamers who think Babe Ruth is a candy bar. Especially if the developers have the wontons to call the game "The Finest Baseball MMO in the World".



.

Don't know enough about SoAs to speculate, but I think a good example of a Kheld Would be The Martian Manhunter.


Thats a very interesting idea. Along with raising threat levels would accomplish the goal handily I think.
Remember when gauntlet applied the power damage to everything it effected? Good times.

i like this analogy for how well it illustrates your approach to analogies, as well as how much consideration and comprehension you have for anything outside of your own personal wants. On the negative side it does once again shatter that facade of compromise, rationality and a rudimentary understanding of game design and balance you'd worked so hard at building up the last couple of months. Ah well.

Carp Armor/Carp Melee is way to powerful.

This is a truthful statement.

I also completely agree, no out and out damage boost to tanks.

Don't feel old, great issues are great issues

True statement again and nice summary of the main problem.

See, I see a properly built baseball game, not what you keep trying to describe. Everything you keep attempting to justify in a nutshell; " the pitchers should be hitting home runs every time they come up to bat " because "I" saw it in a book. Stop trying to describe the Field of Dreams as a Rodeo to justify your vision.

If you think Tanks aren't doing enough dmg, or should have a higher dmg cap, please prove it. Use facts, not inflammatory hyperbole to distract. I do agree with you; at the caps Brutes are too resilient compared to tanks. That's a brute problem, not a tank problem. Fix that problem.

Originally Posted by PapaSlade Rangle's right....this is fun.

I don't think they are universal. I seem to recall these can be tweaked on an individual basis.

There are plenty of Tanks in comics. Juggernaut, for example, or The Thing. The Hulk would be more akin to a Brute. Godlike characters such as Superman, Wonder Woman, Thor, Powergirl, Omni-Man, Invincible, The Sentry and so on would be Tank-Mages when translated to MMO terms. Or specifically in CoH jargon, Tank-Blaster-Controllers. Iron Man would be a Tank-Blaster, who also has Stamina issues. So he's basically a Tank with ranged PPP. Apollo of the Authority also has Stamina issues like Tanks here.

And "translated" is a key point here. Although CoH is inspired by superhero comics, it's an entirely different medium which has different demands on it. Books translated into movies aren't one-for-one matches, so there's no reason to expect a book translated into a game be identical.

Tanks are actually a pretty good compromise between the classic MMO brick and the "take a ton of punishment" characters listed above. Personally, I'd like for Tanks to have one really hard-hitting power, but then I've been arguing for that for every AT over the years.

What's to fix? Why can't they be as resilient? When I play Brutes this is beneficial in large teams when I need that extra survivability to help the team. Brutes have a full taunt. They're not Scrappers and should be able to hold a bit of aggro, and then survive it. Where they match a Tank is in being able to control that aggro, and to me, that's the problem.

I also play Tanks (more than Brutes to be honest) and when I do, I can survive the aggro I generate, and can direct it pretty well. My WP Tank has some trouble, but that's where I got the inspriation. That's what should differentiate the Tanks from the Brutes. I don't care what my Brute can survive as long as I can generate Fury. My Tank doesn't care as much about damage as long as it can generate, and maintain all the aggro it needs to for whatever encounter, and survive. That's the difference.

That's the playstyle difference, and where they most stand out. When I play my Brute, I want to generate high Fury, and pancake the rest of the group if they can't keep up (maybe even losing some of that aggro would allow me to survive more). When I'm on my Tank, I'm always aware of my teammates and what's going on. I pride myself on being able to keep them safe, and gather mobs in ways they're most effective. To me, that should be the difference. While the villanous Brute and heroic Tank's motivations are obvious- just to emphasize; as a hero, my Brute's looking to steal the limelight and be the 'best' hero out of the bunch, as a villain, my Tank is biding their time as the distraction while my 'lackeys' (I mean... teammates) do what they're supposed to do.

That's just how I play them, and I think in some way that does define the difference from Tanks and Brutes. If Brutes get enough aggro to build Fury, they're not concerned with what peels off them after that, and the Tank's main goal is to manage the aggro for the most effective response (theirs or their team's). I think that needs to be played up to.

I also think it's the easiest way to make Tanks stand out without doing any real harm to Brutes. What does a Tank care about what the Brute can survive? It's the aggro management that counts. That's always been the Tanker's creed, and where it's getting stepped on. I easily solo my WP/Mace Tank at +1x8 (+more in DA, but granted he's probably one of my most expensive builds- and he's not even my 'main') but in teams all I want it to get all that aggro and keep my team doing what they do best!

I take out my enemies, I survive what they throw at me. I do the same on my Brutes and Scrappers (and frankly all the other AT's at varying speeds) solo. What more can I want?

What's in your Tank?

The problem here is that Superman *is not* a tank, he is an Omega slotted incarnate, you are not looking at a fair representation of the AT when you look at him. If you want a good example of how an actual tank is supposed to be look at Ben Grimm, the Juggernaut, or Andre the Giant.

A Punch from Ben Grimm sends someone through a wall, a Punch from Superman sends people into space.

(these were posted while I deliberated on my response)

This is the main point with Tanks and Brutes. In a 'comic book' world they could both be the same thing, or they could have Tank resistance/defense and Scrapper or Blaster damage. In a game world, that sucks. There's a certain level of balance and 'need' for any AT (or class) they bring into the world.

The merging of CoH and CoV AT's has blurred that a bit, but not completely. Not yet. That's why I think it's more a matter of 'fine tuning' than Nerf this, buff that.

While my suggestion is, effectually a nerf to Brutes, it doesn't effect their solo play, and I've given the caveat that if it affects Fury generation in teams then Fury needs to be tweaked a bit in response. Overall performance isn't an issue in my opinion; and the only place anyone is stepping on anyone's toes here is in aggro management in terms of AT recognition/role. With the proper adjustments, a Brute can hold more aggro than Scrappers in a team, while doing a little more damage than a Tank. That seems appropriate to me, and I play and love all three AT's.

I don't think intent is all that important. Superman's only true limitation is that he can't be in two places at once. A Tanker in CoH can't emulate the offensive capabilities of Superman.

I also think that Superman is a terrible character because of the ridiculous amount of power creep he's accumulated over the decades. Even when they depower him every once in a while during a reboot, he still bounces right back p to tank-mage status instantly. That's why they eventually said that he's extremely vulnerable to magic, because even kryptonite can't really affect him unless you're standing beside him. With his abilities, *why* would he ever get close?

When you get right down to it, he makes every other character redundant 99 times out of 100. Properly written, the guy is almost literally unstoppable in any conventional confrontation. He doesn't even need to be close to you to take you out. He can toss a pebble at you from 10 miles away and sever your spine. That would render your kryptonite dagger/bullets/suit of armor useless. In fact, having all those more-vulnerable characters is actually a detriment for Superman. He rescues people in trouble, and that's the surest way to draw him in close.

Contrast to the Thing, who is very much a Tank in the CoH sense. He can hit you pretty hard, but he's not going to pulp you into a fine red mist when he does so. He's not particularly agile and he can soak up a lot of damage. Beyond that he's not much of an offensive weapon. He can tear up a piece of asphalt and chuck it at you (which Tanks can do) and he can make someone so mad that they focus solely on him (ditto).

Hey, you added stuff!

I agree that Tanks should be the premiere purveyors of aggro management. As I said earlier, when a Tank is in the room, everyone should be focused on him. I've also been a longtime proponent of more endurance, because keeping their toggles up is vital. I think the classic motto of "First in, last out" is perfect for the Tank. When the mission goes south and everyone needs to catch their breath or visit the hospital, when they get back the Tank should still be standing there, trading blows with the bad guys, keeping them engaged.

It's just that this is the ideal and it's hard to get there given so many variables in so many different situations.

I also see no need to buff Tankers.

However, my suggestions to adjust Brute survivability had nothing to do with "making Tankers feel better". I play and enjoy both as well.

My concern was with the actual balance of it.

The balance point of Brutes has been stated to be intended to be between Tankers and Scrappers. In normal solo or small team gameplay, this is true.

But in heavy buff situations in leagues or large buff-heavy teams, Brutes can get very close to Tanker survivability while occasionally surpassing Scrapper damage output.

I don't want to screw with any Brute base values for anything, but I still feel their maximum potential should be dialed down a little bit. Not drastically, but enough so that their performance falls between Tankers and Scrappers across the full range, instead of equaling or surpassing them at the top end. The only real way to accomplish that is by reducing resistance and damage caps. Again, not drastically.

If damage and resistance caps were reduced, it would have little to no affect on solo and small team play, as I have never seen a Brute reach its respective caps on its own (other than through inspiration use, and that is limited in duration). But it would put Brutes closer to being between Tankers and Scrappers when heavily buffed, where they are allegedly supposed to be. (I say allegedly because I do not know where to find a dev quote that explicitly states it, but I do remember reading it coming from a dev)

(This is coming from someone who currently has 6 Brutes on the only server I play on, so AT bias has NOTHING to do with my reasoning. I state this because I've been accused being biased toward Scrappers in the past. It's not true.)

The only buff I would support to Tankers is a very slight damage scalar increase, from .8 to .85. It would help Tankers in a couple ways: 1) They would solo slightly better, and 2) They would hold agro better*. I'm not going to campaign for such a buff, but I support the notion of it.

I also concur with your suggestion of adjusting Threat levels so Tankers will hold agro better than they do now (which is already the best). It's debatable how much it would really accomplish in terms of a "fix", but it would reinforce the role of a Tanker as agro manager.

I also feel that it doesn't matter whether anyone agrees with how necessary a Tanker is on a team, because the game has never been about forcing people into one pre-determined playstyle. The role of tank is as necessary as the people playing them or forming teams feel it is, and not one bit more or less. I don't like Masterminds, but I will never say they are unnecessary or try to change the way they play so I will like them better. I just don't play them and let the people who enjoy playing that role do so without trying to force my preferences on them.

(*The bit about holding agro better is because damage dealt plays a role in how well agro is held by a given character. If it did not, it would be impossible for a Blaster to pull agro off a Tanker once it is established. And we've all seen Blasters pull agro before.)

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.

No. Both of those characters can deal substantial damage.

You'd have to be pretty ignorant of the character to think Juggernaut is low damage. He's fought and beaten guys like Thor and Hulk. He's well over the 100 ton range of strength.

And Ben Grim's very catchphrase is "It's clobberin' time!"
Not "It's time for me to stand here and be a decoy while Reed does the fighting".

I've listed the characters who are the closest to how CoH Tankers are currently. They're all joke characters or obscure nobodies because melee fighters who are poor at fighting aren't something most people want to read about. And if the popularity of Tankers versus Brutes or Scrappers is any indication, most people don't want to play one either.

Even if you point to specific, brief examples of "tanking" in comic, the fact is, at times, almost every super hero takes a hit for another. I can point you to panel of the Human Torch taking a hit for Iceman. It does NOT mean that is their primary focus above all they spend an entire fight doing to the point they're nigh useless for anything else.

Stop trying force comic characters into a stupid nonsensical design as rodeo clowns. That is the mistake the devs made. If you're going to evoke the genre, do right by it. They should have been trying to design the game to serve the needs of the genre instead of what they did in many cases, including Tankers. They beat the genre with a hammer and then mashed the square peg into their round design hole just to suit their ridiculous trinity and outdated fantasy gaming mechanics.



.

Of course not. You play Scrappers.



.

That applies to all non-Scrapper ATs.

However, how many times has Ben Grim(and the others) fought someone as a distraction while Reed worked on plot devices.

This is why I was thinking my "Tanker Inherent: Determination" was a good idea.

A Tankers main focus is protecting the team...but when they need to...they have the ability to do great damage.

Unfortunately it was widely dismissed.

How do you propose this as a game mechanic?

Regardless, unless the Tanker damage cap is raised in addition to it, it's largely pointless, which is why I'm fighting for the cap to be changed first and foremost.


.