Quote:
Even I'll admit that Blasters need it first.|
Originally Posted by newchemicals
I think blasters will get fixed before tankers.
|
Quote:
| Some of the problem that tanks have is that with incarnates brutes and scrappers keep getting tougher and tougher without having to give up the wonderful high damage. Tanks are soildly tough enough already. (I won't mention iTrial gimmicks) |
But the problem existed long before the Incarnate system. Incarnates just highlight how absurd it's gotten.
Then you've got Hybrid, the upcoming Performance Amplifiers, even purple IOs going on the market. Tankers get the least from power inflation because most of that inflation has been aimed at increasing survival. Even level shifts.
A Brute with a level shift is tougher against all the enemies in the game, which is what counts. He goes from being able to survive against 90% of anything in the game to let's say 95% of anything in the game. A Tanker with a level shift...does the same damage relative to a level shifted Brute as they both did without one. To point to an extreme: almost nothing in the game would be capable of killing either a 50(+8) Tanker or a 50(+8) Scrapper, but the Scrapper's damage will still be just as superior.
.
Forget high end IO builds and incarnate builds. They have nothing to do with how an AT is balanced.
AT ALL.
Outside those things, which the majority of the game, and for which the ATs were designed for, you look at SOs.
Brutes can't reach the caps like many Tankers can, nor can they reach the relative values of survivability that Tankers can - on their own.
The same goes for Scrappers. Those ATs have to do the damage they do in order to just survive. And many times, in the late game, with running SOs even on teams, Scrappers and Brutes will end up relying more on buffs, or even inspirations to last longer than they normally could.
Tankers don't need to rely on those things as much.
JB's previous post is just a long winded, beating around the bush, failed logical attempt at saying that the only way Tanks would be better is if they did more damage either with a straight up damage increase and / or a damage cap increase.
Just so he can see the orange numbers he's been wanting for so long on his double stacked rage SS tanker.
Such postings end up with nothing to do with game balance, but a singular desire to make Tankers something they're not suppossed to be.
Quote:
I don't know, I was ok with my i4 one man armageddon burn tank. | but a singular desire to make Tankers something they're not suppossed to be. |
;]
.
Honestly, I'd be happy if they adjusted Gauntlett to add to damage like it did with Defenders Vigilance in solo, 2 and 3 players. That would make them feel a lot more powerful solo and just as useful in teams. Maybe increase the aggro cap for them as well. Even as Johnny_Butane said, their survivability is good enough, I really do feel my 'weakest' when playing a Tank is solo, and when Elec/Shield Scrappers can steal my WP/Mace Tanks aggro...
While I'm thinking about it, fix the aggro auras on WP and SR for Tankers too. I can taunt all day, but damn, I still lose aggro to Fire blasters and such.
TL;DR The best fix would be more cemented aggro all around; a higher aggro cap (maybe even nerfing the aggro cap for Scrappers and Brutes who get it because of damage but don't really care as much) and scaling damage attached to Gauntlett like Vigilance for Defenders.
That's my two cents anyway. I love all the AT's (not the Controller or Dom as much but I keep trying) and really love the Tanker as a concept, and would play more if I could solo a little better with them, while being as valuable on teams as they used to be.
Lyc~ the "more than one of my namesakes is a Tank on any given server by a majority" werewolf
EDIT: While I had intended, I didn't mention that while I like them all for the most part, my favorite AT conceptually was Tankers. That is all. 
"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:
Meh I do not miss the "good old days" - I will take all the advances etc that have been added over the "good old days." |
Originally Posted by Iannis
Maybe they'll restore Tanker RES cap back to 99%, pre-Statesman nerfage. Brutes are muddy since they have Tanker resist caps but scrapper damage--best of both worlds!
Remember when they could pull 1/3 of Brickstown onto themselves and then stand there whistling while the whole zone Mapserver'd due to that many mobs being defeated at once by their blaster teammates all nova'ing together? lol, the good old days. That or give tanker Taunts -RES or -DEF in addition to that 1st secondary attack swing debuffing a single target? |
I actually just deleted my tanker - MA/Invul. I am cutting the number of toons down I had from each "class" and I have melee toons that are just as sturdy but actually do much more damage. (Also deleted my controller because my dom is much better at control and can dish out the damage better).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Paladiamors
I love you, I Burnt the Toast!
|
The problem is that brutes are 'tanks done right'. They have an ability that outright rewards them to scoop up as much aggro as possible.
What a tanker should be is a Brute....the damage should be lowered from the actual Brute we have now, so it's worse than a Scrapper except at the very highest Fury levels, Fury should only go up due to enemy attacks, and it should have the same level of current Tanker suvivability. Then you have Scrappers still having their role as melee damage-king, but Tanks are also far more interesting to play with a mechanic that encourages them to do their job, but they still hurt enough to both be useful and more fun to solo.
Instead, because they needed all new classes for City of Villains, Brutes ended up as the Villain Scrapper/Tank expy instead of being what they really should have been: a Tank update.
Alternatively, perhaps, you could change it so Brutes can only build up Fury from attacks and have, like they do now, less defense with more offense. Tanks only build up Fury (name it resolve or something pithy if you want) when they receive attacks, and have higher defense and lower attack than Brutes. Different sides of the same coin.
Chairman of the Charity of Pain; accepting donations of blood and guts.
Prophet of the Creamy Truth; "If it's empty, fill it with cream."
Changing Brutes, frankly, is a really stupid idea. Why? Because it's changes to another AT entirely, with it's own separate issues and balance stuff, and not actually working on the target AT, i.e. the Tank.
Brutes seem to function pretty well on their own right now. That's fine; leave them alone. Or else you'll just end up pissing off a whole other bunch of players and probably not actually 'fix' Tanks one bit.
It's Tanks that need looking at, so look at Tanks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Changing Brutes, frankly, is a really stupid idea. Why? Because it's changes to another AT entirely, with it's own separate issues and balance stuff, and not actually working on the target AT, i.e. the Tank.
Brutes seem to function pretty well on their own right now. That's fine; leave them alone. Or else you'll just end up pissing off a whole other bunch of players and probably not actually 'fix' Tanks one bit. It's Tanks that need looking at, so look at Tanks. |
Brutes have the same survivability caps as Tankers. They are only shy 10% max HP of a Tanker at the caps.
Brutes have much higher damage caps than Tankers. Tankers aren't shy 10% of Brute damage at the cap, for AoE or ST.
If it's OK for Brutes to have potential for high survivability and high damage, it' would be OK for Tankers.
If it's NOT OK for Brutes, it shouldn't be allowed.
Allowing it for one AT and not the other, as the situation is now, is not in anyway fair. It's a blatant double standard.
You say Brutes are fine as they are.
So then you can not object to having the Tanker damage cap increased to bring them in line with Brutes. Because it's either that or gut Brute survivability.
.
Quote:
Brutes got a buff a few years back because they ended up being the Tanks/Scrappers for Redside (lol poor stalkers back then). Are you saying that now since they are available on blueside they should be nerfed back down again? Shouldn't we just improve Tankers and not dial brutes back to what they were roughly 4+ years ago?
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Brutes have the same survivability caps as Tankers. They are only shy 10% max HP of a Tanker at the caps.
Brutes have much higher damage caps than Tankers. Tankers aren't shy 10% of Brute damage at the cap, for AoE or ST. If it's OK for Brutes to have potential for high survivability and high damage, it' would be OK for Tankers. If it's NOT OK for Brutes, it shouldn't be allowed. Allowing it for one AT and not the other, as the situation is now, is not in anyway fair. It's a blatant double standard. You say Brutes are fine as they are. So then you can not object to having the Tanker damage cap increased to bring them in line with Brutes. Because it's either that or gut Brute survivability. . |
I'd say tankers have a clear survivability edge over brutes and scrappers, and that is their niche. If someone wants to do more damage, then make a brute or scrapper, don't expect tankers to compete damage-wise vs. scrappers and brutes, or then they'd have to boost brute and scrapper survivability, and then all 3 ats would be pretty damn identical.
I share the opinion that it is preferable to have damage over survivability, but that's why I always go brute or scrapper. Some people prefer to have survivability, and that's why you still see plenty of tankers running around coh.
There is nothing wrong with tankers right now. Leveling up, it's great to have a good tanker on the team to draw aggro, and there are plenty of opportunities in end game content for tankers to shine in, specifically those that require aggro-management and survivability. The only thing that's wrong in this argument, is someone who wants to do more damage on a melee toon picking the tanker at to play. That's simply not what it is designed to do.
Quote:
I would argue that you never experienced the full potential of an pre-nerf -fire tank in particular- slotted with 50% HOs, it was fierce, ridiculously fun and, obviously broken. =\ | Meh I do not miss the "good old days" - I will take all the advances etc that have been added over the "good old days." |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Changing Brutes, frankly, is a really stupid idea. Why? Because it's changes to another AT entirely, with it's own separate issues and balance stuff, and not actually working on the target AT, i.e. the Tank.
Brutes seem to function pretty well on their own right now. That's fine; leave them alone. Or else you'll just end up pissing off a whole other bunch of players and probably not actually 'fix' Tanks one bit. It's Tanks that need looking at, so look at Tanks. |
It's an issue that extends beyond the most resilient melee classes, why play a Blaster or Defender when there are Corruptors, or Stalkers when there are Scrappers, Trollers when there are Doms....
One thing Floyd used to talk about to address inequity was reducing a particular set that's both perceived and statistically overachieving to equal out the performance of the spectrum of an ATs power choices, whether you agree with that approach depends on what AT and power set is affected, your personal preference being the least favorite to get touched, but even so since he's been gone I don't know that this issue commands anyone's top priorities like it did with him, and BaB (who helped with all the melee animation rooting and cast time performance enhancements in 07-on).
.
.
.
Quote:
That's the problem. The devs don't appear to want to improve Tankers. Not in a meaningful way to bring them in line with Brutes. |
Originally Posted by Tater Todd
Are you saying that now since they are available on blueside they should be nerfed back down again? Shouldn't we just improve Tankers and not dial brutes back to what they were roughly 4+ years ago?
|
And there's a vocal group of players that just keeps mindlessly repeating "increase Tanker survivability further to distance them from Brutes and Scrappers". This ignores the fact that Scrappers and Brutes aren't fragile at all. They'll still be surviving just fine and doing better damage, even if they made Tankers utterly unkillable; that's not where the bottleneck is for Tankers.
Bring Brutes and Scrappers down or Bring Tankers up. Those are the options.
The devs wont do either and you have noisy players against both.
Since Brutes are more popular than Tankers, they win.
They go on having their cake and eating it too with high survivability and high damage, and Tankers get ignored or they get a pointless token buff to survivability. The problem remains.
.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
That's the problem. The devs don't appear to want to improve Tankers. Not in a meaningful way to bring them in line with Brutes.
|
I think the problem is with people like you, who only have their sights set on *ONE* particular improvement or looking at *ONLY* a specific metric of performance.
You're not trying to make the AT fun and unique, you're trying to make them Brutes. So if the devs appear to not want to mess with Tankers is probably because they don't want to be dumb and copy what Brutes are like you seem to want to do.
I have no problem improving the quality of damage dealing on a Tanker but pointing at Brute and whining about what they get shouldn't be an avenue action to starting the process of Tanker improvements...or any AT improvements for that matter.
Quote:
I don't have any objections that make Tanks a bit less slow solo.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Brutes have the same survivability caps as Tankers. They are only shy 10% max HP of a Tanker at the caps.
Brutes have much higher damage caps than Tankers. Tankers aren't shy 10% of Brute damage at the cap, for AoE or ST. If it's OK for Brutes to have potential for high survivability and high damage, it' would be OK for Tankers. If it's NOT OK for Brutes, it shouldn't be allowed. Allowing it for one AT and not the other, as the situation is now, is not in anyway fair. It's a blatant double standard. You say Brutes are fine as they are. So then you can not object to having the Tanker damage cap increased to bring them in line with Brutes. Because it's either that or gut Brute survivability. . |
HOWEVER; just because Brutes have the same res cap does NOT mean that they always reach it. Tankers get far, far better def/res numbers than Brutes do. It's beyond easy to S/L cap my Invul Tank without even touching IOs. I cannot say the same for Brutes.
I'm not going as far as some to say that Tanks are 'broken', because they still do what they are designed to do; the best def/res with moderate damage. That said, no, I would not be against QoL improvements to make them a bit more hitty, both teamed and solo, and for the devs to have another look at their numbers in comparison to other ATs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
Eh, I actually think that's partially true. I'd differ with the parallels though.|
Originally Posted by Acemace
It's an issue that extends beyond the most resilient melee classes, why play a Blaster or Defender when there are Corruptors, or Stalkers when there are Scrappers, Trollers when there are Doms....
|
Why play a Corruptor when Blasters do better damage and Defenders buff more? But why play a Blaster when Scrappers etc. are as damaging and way more survivable? Why play a Blaster (a problem I've run into now, this one) when I can blast and blap just as much with a Dominator, and I get a mez shield AND I get mez and control?
I find it funny, though, how I've never got the Stalker/Scrapper comparisons that people keep bringing up. I find the two balance out pretty well and, ultimately, they are two takes on the same theme which let Players chose which they prefer, with Scrappers being maybe a bit more straight-forward while Stalkers do more burst damage and are a bit sneakier. I wouldn't say either is *better*, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
|
Quote:
Tankers, like all the melee ATs, pretty much only do two things: they hit things and they get hit by things.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
I think the problem is with people like you, who only have their sights set on *ONE* particular improvement or looking at *ONLY* a specific metric of performance.
You're not trying to make the AT fun and unique, you're trying to make them Brutes. So if the devs appear to not want to mess with Tankers is probably because they don't want to be dumb and copy what Brutes are like you seem to want to do. |
Tankers get hit by things better than anyone. Improving that isn't really going to help them. That only leaves one other option.
Unless you want to invent something entirely new and turn Tankers into something they're not.
I'm against that.
I don't want my Tanker to become a melee buffer-healer, or a walking force multiplier that's just going to make any Brutes around me even more brokenly OP.
Tankers already increase the survivability and damage of everyone around them. They already give more than they get from many ATs, that includes all the other melee ATs.
Don't try to turn Tankers into something they were never intended to be. I'd rather they were more like their official AT description: "an irresistible force," a "devastating hand to hand combatant" that can "dish out all sorts of damage".
.
I think a lot of players have already come up with some cool ways of improving Tanker damage without taking away the Tanking Feel of the AT.
Johnny I think the reason why Tankers aren't popular is because of Responsibility. A lot of players do not want the responsibility of being a Tanker weighing on their shoulders. They just want to jump in and kill things. Heck 90% of players who pug don't even want to start a team or be the leader of a Team...which has some relation to what a Tanker is all about. Scrappers, Stalkers and Even Brutes most of the time don't have to worry about that.
Tankers in my opinion feel like a Support Melee AT more than anything...we all know that most PUGers shy away from playing support.
Personally, I don't regularly play Tankers. I have all of two, one at 50, the other stalled at 17. In general, I see them as being just as team-centric as a Defender or a Blaster. They aren't designed to be the ones doing all the damage, but they can still dish it out as necessary. What would benefit them, if they decided that what a tanker really needs is damage, is some manner of minor damage on Gauntlet. It would help to increase the damage a Tanker is doing in general, while not stepping on the Buffer/Debuffers toes too much.
Or, as an alternative, put a small -Res on all Tanker taunt abilities, which would stack with Bruising. It would also give them some incentive to do the job of drawing attention, and make the Taunt abilities useful in solo play.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Venture
I'd never use a nuke in a superhero universe. You nuke a city, you kill 1.5 million people minus one. The last guy not only gets superpowers from the explosion, but ones that let him survive a nuke...and wow, is he torqued off
|
PPD Mastermind
Quote:
Yeah, you're against not getting what you want. We get that.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Tankers, like all the melee ATs, pretty much only do two things: they hit things and they get hit by things.
Tankers get hit by things better than anyone. Improving that isn't really going to help them. That only leaves one other option. Unless you want to invent something entirely new and turn Tankers into something they're not. I'm against that. |
Tankers are also aggro management which is a form of control. I've made suggestions in the past to aid them in that regard (besides the obligatory 'increase aggro cap') but the response from someone like you is "That just makes them a farmer."
Lol I see quite a few alternatives to improving Tanker's capabilities that don't involve buffing or healing. I'm sure others can see them too. You're just intentionally keeping yourself oblivious to the obvious.
The only 50 I ever have deleted was a Tank - he was boring.Survivabilty is great but damage is laughable the way it is now.
Everyone knows the reason to play tanks is because of Ice Armor.. 
Thats something Brutes & Scrappers don't have...
This is the negative part of giving all the powers to all the similiar AT's..
/sarcasm
Post Comic book Fan Films that ROCK!
Fight my brute
Quote:
To reiterate some past ideas about improving Tankers:|
Originally Posted by Kadmon
Or, as an alternative, put a small -Res on all Tanker taunt abilities, which would stack with Bruising. It would also give them some incentive to do the job of drawing attention, and make the Taunt abilities useful in solo play.
|
I've always felt there should be mainly 2 ATs that force enemy formation. Blasters and Tankers. Blasters should force the AI to try to come in close if they want to do meaningful damage and Tankers should force the enemy to engage close because of foe crippled offense. Basically, adding -range to all their attacks (and taunt auras) could force foes from standing back and firing to move (readjusting to get at the target).
This actually gives Blasters a defensive measure = range. For Tankers it gives them a meta-mitigation measure = scurrying foes. Beyond that, I'd probably be more inclined to adjusting the quality of Tanker attacks, namely the endurance and recharge of their ST attacks and the ranges, target caps and degrees of their AoE powers on a set-by-set basis. Because, to me, being a Tanker isn't about being a 'irresistable force'...sure, a Tanker *might* be that...if they were offensive oriented. But offense is secondary to a Tanker. Rather than literally making their offense substantial, Tanker offense should simply be 'easy'. They do great without even trying. They don't have to line up cones, their cones just hit lots and more things...they don't have to huddle everything to 8ft...they can hit things within 15ft and beyond. They're an 'irresistable force' if they actually tried...so they're great without actually trying.
Quote:
What is frankly stupid is pretending the problem is not a result of previously systemically seperated powersets now being able to directly compete with each other. The problem is precisely that these archetypes are not balanced in relation to each other, which requires taking stock of the entire picture and restoring broader balance instead of throwing random s*** at merely one aspect.|
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Changing Brutes, frankly, is a really stupid idea. Why? Because it's changes to another AT entirely, with it's own separate issues and balance stuff, and not actually working on the target AT, i.e. the Tank.
Brutes seem to function pretty well on their own right now. That's fine; leave them alone. Or else you'll just end up pissing off a whole other bunch of players and probably not actually 'fix' Tanks one bit. It's Tanks that need looking at, so look at Tanks. |
Without touching Brutes you are, at this point, left with no other option than lamely throwing mechanics at the Tank which will ultimately make it do more damage, which addresses the issue only by turning the three melee classes into a homogenous damage/defense slider, with Scrappers at one end, Tanks at the other and Brutes in the middle.
I in no way expected my musing to be a definitive solution, but the real stupidity is a position that entirely rules out balancing changes across the Archetypes, despite the problem being entirely one of a lack of balance across the Archetypes. A solution that rebalances the melee Archetypes and clears up their particular roles is vastly more preferable than "d00d needz moar dmg".
Chairman of the Charity of Pain; accepting donations of blood and guts.
Prophet of the Creamy Truth; "If it's empty, fill it with cream."
I like tankers as they are now, but even then I think the best change they could make is to remove the AT. It attracts too many entitled drama queens who believe they should be the star of the show and/or take themselves way too seriously - not just in this game either. I don't know what it is with certain people and tanks. Overcompensation maybe?
I think blasters will get fixed before tankers.
Some of the problem that tanks have is that with incarnates brutes and scrappers keep getting tougher and tougher without having to give up the wonderful high damage. Tanks are soildly tough enough already. (I won't mention iTrial gimmicks)
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