Quote:
No. If tanks need help, buff tanks. Saying look at Brutes first pretty much means you are putting them and scrappers ahead of looking at Tanks. To me that's just stupidity. That's like Blasters saying "we need a buff, but look at corrupters and any other AT that's ranged first."|
Originally Posted by khorak_EU
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.
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". |
That makes no logical sense.
EDIT: My ideas: The longer a tank fights the shorter time it takes for their powers to recharge and the less end their powers cost. In addition their ability to let mobs stick to them increases. I would also give tankers a toggle or click power called "UNLEASHED". Once they click it or toggle it on, it lasts for 30 secs and recharges in 2 minutes. During that time their damage is increased significantly (above any other ATs) and their threat rating jumps above anything and anyone.
The devs can work out the numbers.
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!
Or instead of adding damage what about what someone said earlier in this thread maybe a recharge boost as well so their heals come up more often and they can dish out more hurt?
No no no, obviously gauntlet needs the Big-****ing-Fist treatment. 
All tanker AoEs get an area/degree/target-cap boost. So it'd help get more aggro or hit more foes if you're past the aggro cap anyway. Their ST attacks get END and Rech discounts.
I really like the idea for reducing End costs and increasing AoE area and caps of Tanker attacks rather than just upping their damage. I have a 50 Stone/Stone Tanker that was difficult going in the 30s and early 40s, mainly because I kept running dangerously low on Endurance in even short fights - without Granite and usually without the elemental armors, mind you. (I wanted to go Stone/Stone/Stone for concept, but had to go Stone/Stone/Energy because I desperately needed Physical Perfection)
... mind you, I certainly wouldn't complain about a straight-up Tanker damage increase, but I don't think it's the answer to the Tanker "problem". All it would do is make them more similar to Brutes, and that line is pretty thin already.
Quote:
Eh, I might as well - I do sort of agree with this.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
No no no, obviously gauntlet needs the Big-****ing-Fist treatment.
|
My problem with Tankers in terms of their "role" on a team is that their role is stupid, at least as enacted by game mechanics. See, Tankers are not dangerous in the traditional sense. An enemy gains nothing by taking out, say, a perma-Granite Tanker because that Tanker is not threatening. All you really need to do to defeat him is walk faster than he does. And that should be actually quite obvious to any thinking, trained enemy like the many hyper-intelligent veteran soldiers. What possible reason would an enemy have to NOT walk around a Tanker and stick his taser right into the Blaster's suggestive themes?
Oh, right, Taunt. Taunt is what makes enemies stupid and acting in irrational ways by continuously slamming their heads against something they clearly can't kill and clearly isn't by far the most dangerous thing on the field. So can't we come up with a mechanic for taunt that ISN'T irrational? Well, let's see, why are tanker type enemies so fearsome in comic books and movies? Well, because they actually are the most dangerous. Turn your back on the Thing and he'll snap you in half like a matchstick. However, turn to face him and you can dodge his attacks and generally play keepaway.
So why not make Taunt work the same way? Once a Tanker taunts an enemy, that enemy starts taking CONSIDERABLY more damage from the Tanker UNLESS that enemy is actively targeting A Tanker somewhere on the field. This would actually make fighting the Tanker the smart idea. If the enemy goes for the Blaster and turns his back on the Tanker, then the Tanker gets a free shot for massive damage since the enemy isn't paying attention. If the enemy wants to avoid this massive damage, he'll attack the Tanker and keep him suppressed.
Or how about something else? How about if Tankers have reverse Fury. They start out with a lot of damage, but this gets "suppressed" as more enemies attack them. If enemies stop attacking the Tanker, his damage grows until they do, thus giving a VERY compelling reason to keep attacking the Tanker.
Basically, I want to see a taunt mechanic that makes sense.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
People need to stop saying things are stupid, when they're so stupid that they keep just making up things people haven't said.|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
No. If tanks need help, buff tanks. Saying look at Brutes first pretty much means you are putting them and scrappers ahead of looking at Tanks. To me that's just stupidity. That's like Blasters saying "we need a buff, but look at corrupters and any other AT that's ranged first."
That makes no logical sense. EDIT: My ideas: The longer a tank fights the shorter time it takes for their powers to recharge and the less end their powers cost. In addition their ability to let mobs stick to them increases. I would also give tankers a toggle or click power called "UNLEASHED". Once they click it or toggle it on, it lasts for 30 secs and recharges in 2 minutes. During that time their damage is increased significantly (above any other ATs) and their threat rating jumps above anything and anyone. The devs can work out the numbers. |
Go find where I said 'look at Brutes first'. You can't. But you wrote a whole post on that. That is stupid, and makes no logical sense. Even more stupid than entirely ruling out looking at broader Archetype balances on an issue built entirely on a foundation of Archetype imbalances.
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."
The bottom line is that altering Brutes will not fix Tankers because people who aren't satisfied with Tankers won't magically become more satisfied by them if people who play Brutes are less satisfied with their characters. AT balance is a guiding directive, but it is not a solution to AT-specific problems.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Thankfully the dev's don't subscribe to the mmo design theory that goes 'Class X is underpowered, better nerf class Y.'
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Quote:
Where's that damn 'Like' button gone...?
|
Originally Posted by Nihilii
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?
|
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.
 |
For me it comes done to how well they can be played solo or on a 2-man team with my wife, when not on a larger team.
I have played every Tank Armor except SR, and have 3 of them at 50 and the rest stuck in the low 40's. On the flip side I have more Brutes at 50 and have played the same armor set a few times on Brutes.
I usually play on PUG's and lots of TF's, but a lot of times my wife and me will do radios for safeguards or other arcs.
I always work on defense first for a tank so at the lower levels it is just painful trying to take down a few guys. Even at higher levels it can be a pain compared to a brute.
With most teams you don't need a tank, its nice to have one, especially if I'm playing a blaster or dom knowing I can go crazy.
I would love to see a change where you get a damage bonus for smaller teams, but get a little survival boost when on bigger teams, or even a larger number for agro cap or taunt is raised to 7 or 8.
Freedom Server - Main = Lil Bug & way too many alts to list
Quote:
Actually, it makes perfect sense.|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
No. If tanks need help, buff tanks. Saying look at Brutes first pretty much means you are putting them and scrappers ahead of looking at Tanks. To me that's just stupidity. That's like Blasters saying "we need a buff, but look at corrupters and any other AT that's ranged first."
That makes no logical sense. |
Tankers and Scrappers are already balanced reasonably well with each other.
Scrappers have 75% of the base values for survivability (defense, resistance, max HP), and the relative caps reflect this as well.
Tankers have 75% (roughly, it's not exactly 75%) of Scrapper base values for damage. The relative caps also reflect that balance point.
Scrappers and Tankers are almost exactly where they should be, relative to each other.
Brutes, on the other hand, have 75% of the base values of a Tanker for survivability, with the same caps. They can also deal slightly more damage than a Scrapper at their cap.
When you start talking about balance between all 4 melee ATs, the only real outlier is Brutes.
When Stalkers finally got the love they've needed for quite a while, they fell in line roughly where they needed to be. That's 3 ATs balanced with each other, and 1 AT that is not balanced with ANY of the other 3.
That's a problem, and buffing Tankers up to the level of the unbalanced AT is not the solution.
As much as I know it's going to piss people off, the answer to balance between the 4 melee ATs is to bring the outlying one back into line with the 3 that are already reasonably balanced.
The only suggestions I have for that is to reduce the resistance cap of Brutes to 85% or so, and probably reduce the damage cap slightly. That would make them not quite as tough as a Tanker, and not quite as damaging as a Scrapper. Which is where they were supposedly intended to be at from the beginning.
Neither of those will be popular moves, and will generate much hatred. But, in my opinion, they are necessary if you want to even pretend that there is balance between the 4 melee ATs.
And this is coming from someone who has at least 3 of each AT. A Brute nerf will hurt me just as much as anyone else, and I STILL think it should be done.
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:
This was tried by Castle a couple of years ago, but didn't make it out of beta.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
The only suggestions I have for that is to reduce the resistance cap of Brutes to 85%
|
Quote:
| or so, and probably reduce the damage cap slightly, |
I really should do something about this signature.
Quote:
I disagree.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Tankers and Scrappers are already balanced reasonably well with each other.
|
Quote:
| Scrappers have 75% of the base values for survivability (defense, resistance, max HP), and the relative caps reflect this as well. |
Here is the problem: Not 100% of your survivability and damage mitigation comes from your defense, resistance, HP or regeneration. A huge portion that can't be ignored comes from secondary effects on your attack set. Stuns, knockdowns, etc. As an example, Foot Stomp is a huge form damage mitigation. Generally speaking, these powers and effects are the SAME on a Scrapper as they are on a Tanker (or the same on a Brute and a Tanker). War Mace, all the stun Mags and durations are identical, as another example. In a few cases when they're not exactly the same, they're still way more than 75% of a Tanker's values on a Scrapper.
Since Scrappers get the same amount of mitigation out of these powers as a Tanker, and this goes towards their total survivability, the truth is a Scrapper's actual survivability is closer to that of a Tanker's than those "75%" numbers would suggest alone. This goes for Brutes as well.
Quote:
| Tankers have 75% (roughly, it's not exactly 75%) of Scrapper base values for damage. The relative caps also reflect that balance point. |
Quote:
| Scrappers and Tankers are almost exactly where they should be, relative to each other. |
.
Quote:
The problem is this really isn't going to make people who want to play Tankers enjoy them any more. I do agree with a Brute resistance cap decrease, as well as a damage cap decrease, but again - whatever problem this solves, fixing Tankers won't be among them.
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
As much as I know it's going to piss people off, the answer to balance between the 4 melee ATs is to bring the outlying one back into line with the 3 that are already reasonably balanced.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
There honestly never has been a lot of reason.
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
It's not just Brutes. On average, we're just more powerful now than we used to be. Teams steamroll though mobs, and there's not a lot of reason have a dedicated tank AT.
|
Virtue Server
Avatar art by Daggerpoint
Quote:
People who WANT to play Tankers (with a few exceptions) are enjoying them just fine as they are. They play them because they want to tank. And the Tanker AT fills that role better than any other AT. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
The problem is this really isn't going to make people who want to play Tankers enjoy them any more.
|
Arguments that tanking is an unnecessary role fall pretty flat in the face of the fact that people can play the game however they like, and if they see it as a necessary role, then it is. Regardless of whether anyone agrees with their viewpoint or not.
The fact of the matter in this case is: 90% of the players of the game could not give a crap less what the people here on the forums say. They are not going to stop playing their Tankers because some people on a forum they don't care about and don't read say the role they were designed to do is unnecessary.
Quote:
| I do agree with a Brute resistance cap decrease, as well as a damage cap decrease, but again - whatever problem this solves, fixing Tankers won't be among them. |
Note the use of the terms "reasonably well" and "roughly". I am aware of, and fully understand that no 2 ATs in this game will ever be perfectly balanced with each other. There are too many variables for that to happen.
At the moment, 3 of the melee ATs are close enough to balanced that no one of them is getting screwed over by the other 2 in a given category (Johnny's disagreement notwithstanding).
That leaves the last melee AT, which is outperforming ALL THREE of the others at the same time. I fail to see the logic that is saying that isn't the AT that needs to be looked 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. |
Tyger42 is right. I think the real problem is that the tank was created for a specific role that has never really been much needed in CoX. Aggro-gathering ability is the only special talent a tank has, and that's only worth having on a large team. I leveled my first tank during the first year of the game, and even then defenders and controllers quickly made a tanker pointless on large teams as well. Once melee shielding was reduced, that became even more true.
There was the farming-a-whole-zone thing, but almost nobody ever thought that was a good idea, including me. Really boring.
Proud member of Heroes Inc.
I'm not like other moms.
Quote:
That isn't necessarily true. I want to play Blasters, but I can't bring myself to stick with one because they have a lot of problems.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
People who WANT to play Tankers (with a few exceptions) are enjoying them just fine as they are.
|
Quote:
| They play them because they want to tank. |
You also assume that being completely specialized at "just tanking" at the cost of being able to do anything else is an interesting and "worthwhile" enough niche for most people playing this game. Considering Tankers aren't the most popular AT overall and more generalized ATs are, that assumption would be wrong.
Anecdotaly, most of my Tankers exist because for the majority of this game's lifespan, and for the majority of the time I've been playing it, Tankers were the ONLY option for certain power sets if you were on a certain side.
The fact that side swapping exists now is irrelevant to the fact that I've invested years in some of these characters. I'm not re-rolling because they let Brutes have their cake and eat it too; because they deny Tankers the same offensive potential as Brutes while allowing Brutes to have the same defensive potential as Tankers.
That wasn't fair before they turned Brutes loose on Blue side, it's still not fair now.
As for tanking itself, I certainly don't mind tanking and filling that role for a team. What I DO mind is that unlike Brutes who also tank, that's ALL I can do and I'm punished for doing it with crap damage.
Quote:
| And the Tanker AT fills that role better than any other AT. |
Quote:
|
The fact of the matter in this case is: 90% of the players of the game could not give a crap less what the people here on the forums say. They are not going to stop playing their Tankers because some people on a forum they don't care about and don't read say the role they were designed to do is unnecessary. |
.
Quote:
Be straight with me. Do you honestly believe tankers do crap damage?|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
As for tanking itself, I certainly don't mind tanking and filling that role for a team. What I DO mind is that unlike Brutes who also tank, that's ALL I can do and I'm punished for doing it with crap damage.
|
Crap damage. Not less than scrappers and brutes. Crap damage.
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.
Quote:
There are 12 AT's based on forums (counting Khelds as 1, SOA's as 1)|
Originally Posted by Tyger42
There honestly never has been a lot of reason.
|
There is not a lot of reason to want any of the AT's on a team. But tankers add more to a team (at least below 50) than several other AT's. And less than several other AT's.
Quote:
Please explain your logic here, because it makes NO sense. |
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Since Scrappers get the same amount of mitigation out of these powers as a Tanker, and this goes towards their total survivability, the truth is a Scrapper's actual survivability is closer to that of a Tanker's than those "75%" numbers would suggest alone. This goes for Brutes as well.
|
You assert that Scrappers, Tankers, and Brutes get the same amount of mitigation out of their offensive powers. I won't argue with that, in fact I will agree with it.
What doesn't make sense here is your assertion that because the mitigation from offensive powers is exactly the same across all 3 ATs, that means that Scrappers somehow get MORE than 75% of Tanker mitigation.
If the mitigation from offensive powers is identical in all 3 cases, it adds nothing to the relative amounts of mitigation for the 3 ATs.
Meaning: If Scrappers have 75% of Tanker mitigation before mitigation from offensive powers is calculated, and the mitigation from offensive powers is identical, then Scrappers STILL have 75% of Tanker mitigation, because the offensive mitigation being identical has not changed it.
If Scrappers got MORE mitigation from offensive powers than Tankers, you may have had a point. But they don't.
Looks to me like you couldn't find a valid argument to my assertion, so you made some crap up that doesn't hold water.
Quote:
| This is incorrect. Tankers are actually lacking in AoE last time I looked at the numbers. Bruising reasonably brings their ST damage close (but not right) to 75% of a Scrapper at the cap, but their AoE lags behind. |
Quote:
| No, actually they're not. That's why I said that if Tankers don't get their damage cap raised, Scrappers should have to take a survivability hit along with Brutes. |
Oh, and for the record: I never said that 90% of the people in the game play Tankers. I said 90% of the players don't care what is said on the forums. Of that 90%, the people who DO play Tankers aren't going to stop because the forums say their role is unnecessary.
Stop trying to twist what I say in an attempt to prove me wrong. My meaning was clear and you know it. So does everyone else.
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. |
My 2 inf.
I think Tanker improvements should be aimed at the low end. In high end, team/trial content - either there is so much damage that mobs melt before individual damage contributions become really noticeable OR there are enemies tough enough that aggro control matters.
The Tanker AT mechanic: helps the AT perform their role, but does not reward for doing so.
Possible improvement: gauntlet and taunt grant their targets a short duration PBAoE damage buff that only affects Tankers.
Purpose: Tankers will be rewarded for building aggro and being "in the thick of it".
Tankers in teams: bruising was added to make multiple Tankers useful in teams but it is only really useful on tough single targets. When a team can blow up spawns easily, Tankers become unneeded.
Possible improvement: increase tanker AoE caps and area, add some -range to Tanker AoEs.
Purpose: Tankers become best at making spawns get close together so they can be blown up. And higher AoE area/cap translates into higher overall damage.
Also, I like the previously mentioned idea of reducing end costs. But I think it should be on the primary powerset side. If anything, Tankers should be encouraged to keep their toggles, especially the aggro/damage ones, running.
I do not suffer from altitis, I enjoy every character of it.
Quote:
Lets' assign an arbitrary "survivability" number to a fictitious defensive set: Carp Armor.|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Please explain your logic here, because it makes NO sense.
You assert that Scrappers, Tankers, and Brutes get the same amount of mitigation out of their offensive powers. I won't argue with that, in fact I will agree with it. What doesn't make sense here is your assertion that because the mitigation from offensive powers is exactly the same across all 3 ATs, that means that Scrappers somehow get MORE than 75% of Tanker mitigation. If the mitigation from offensive powers is identical in all 3 cases, it adds nothing to the relative amounts of mitigation for the 3 ATs. |
Carp Armor gives 100 units of survivability on a Tanker, and 75 on a Scrapper.
Follow?
Now, lets introduce Carp Melee. Carp Melee has a lot of disorient adds an additional 50 survivability units to both a Scrapper and Tanker.
The Tanker's total survivability, combining both what they get from their primary and secondary power sets would be 150 (100+50). The Scrappers total would be 125 (75+50).
125 is not 75% of 150.
Quote:
| Then raise the Tanker damage scalar to .85. That is approximately 76.3% of the Scrapper scalar, and being slightly ahead should make things more even in the AoE department. |
And even if you did raise the scalar for Tankers to .85, the Brute cap would still be too high. Brutes would still need to be brought back in line, either by lowering either their damage cap or lowering their resistance caps.
.
Why is it that on the forums everyone discusses the Higher Extremes of what an AT or Set is capable of but they don't realize that 90% of PUGers never reach that cap? It's only the old heads and the forumsters that reach the cap or come anywhere close.
*cough people wanting to nerf Stalkers cough* :P
Even suggesting that an entire AT get nerfed is terrible. It does nothing but upset that portion of the playerbase, set a poor precedent for this game, and provide fodder for bad press either by word of mouth or articles in mmo sites.
Taking a look at Brutes "as the problem", usually stems from the thinking that this AT is capable of operating at its peak performance for the majority of time it is played.
Consider that Brutes cannot do this without outside benefit and / or tremendous amounts of influence poored into a few particule build types.
Even so, if a Brute needs assistance to achieve it's peak performance for the majority of the game (i'd go so far as to say throughout any and every portion of the game for it's maximum performance) than I'll concede that Tanks should do the same.*
Tankers retain their 400 damage cap for self damage buffs / inspiration use. However they can obtain an additional 200 damage cap from outside sources only.
*this is completely toungue in cheek.
I don't honestly believe that a net damage increase is necessary for Tanks.
Nor do I advocate providing them with team buffing or healing abilities as a core mechanic.
I do agree that Tanker aggro cap should be increased slightly.
I also believe that Bruising should be changed to be used by all attacks, including cones and AoEs, but the value is adjusted based on the over-all recharge time of the powr+aoe mod.
Longer recharging single target attacks get a higher Bruising debuff that lasts longer. AoEs get a smaller Bruising debuff that has a short duration.
The effect is stackable for the Tanker.