DarkSide and Lycan,
Glad someone is actually willing to look at the prospect. Disassociating damage with strength is very much needed here. Although I'd like J_B to answer the point straight too, otherwise it seems like he's got blinders on and his main motive is to out-do Brutes rather than help Tankers.
Power and effectiveness need not be linked directly to damage numbers. But how can be an interesting topic (moreso than a back and forth of 'who came first' and 'who shoulda got what', IMO).
J_B,
While I admire your passion on making Tanks more comic book like, you need to step back just a sec. Double check all your points, then begin the assualt anew for the changes you want.
As a fellow tank player, I can agree with you that some things on tanks need to change. Yes, fury was developed for tanks and then handed to Brutes to be the new shiny. I remember being part of the whole discussion with tankers and Statesman, many of whom are no longer playing the game for whatever reason. Yes, brutes can achieve survivability that rivals a tanks survivability. Yes, because damage is such a big part of the aggro mechanic, brutes can steal aggro from tanks. Should those things be happening? No, but they are. You are receiving a lot of pushback from everyone on the changes you would like made. The focus of the push back is the damage descrepancy. While it would be nice to have more damage, or at least a higher damage cap, the thought of giving tanks more damage is what causes people to disregard your points. I myself can make an arguement against it by noting that I get 400+ dmg every 8 seconds with knockout blow. That doesn't count haymaker or any other attach I throw while knockout blow is recharging. You have many good points, while I personally do not agree that more damage would fix the issue, but your make a compelling arguement. Don't stop trying to get some changes for tanks, just adjust your tactics a hair. To give an example of what I see when I read your posts,
Man wades into a river to dam it with a big board. River sweeps man away.
You should be more,
Team of beavers grabs lots of small sticks and successfully dams the river.
Thanks,
Profit
Having said that, I can only think of three changes I want right now for my INV/SS.
1. I want Tough Hide swapped with Resist Physical Damage
2. I want a higher aggro cap and stronger aggro generation.
3. When running SOs, I would like to reach 34% resist to F/I/Nrg/NgNrg with all toggles and three slotted passives
One of those things benefits all tanks, two of those benefits my tank and other INVs.
Quote:
I want exactly one change: to have the Tanker damage cap raised. To 545%, if my numbers are correct. I'm willing to negotiate for less than that and meet half-way with Brutes and Scrappers seeing some reduction.|
Originally Posted by Profit
J_B,
While I admire your passion on making Tanks more comic book like, you need to step back just a sec. Double check all your points, then begin the assualt anew for the changes you want. |
Quote:
|
Don't stop trying to get some changes for tanks, just adjust your tactics a hair. To give an example of what I see when I read your posts, Man wades into a river to dam it with a big board. River sweeps man away. You should be more, Team of beavers grabs lots of small sticks and successfully dams the river. |
In short, I'm not looking to bend over backwards for support from other forumites or the devs and I never expected success. But I'm just too damn obstinate to give up.
.
Quote:
Except you know tankers have modestly better potential survivability and, even if you deny this latter one, they have better survivability in general teaming situations as well.|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
No, it is not irrelevant. Brutes have a indisputable advantage over Tankers with having the same potential survivability and higher damage. It is a double standard to deny Tankers the same.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Your suggestion that we should allow it and just all play Brutes is an insult to reasonable balance and is not fair to people who've invested in their Tankers.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
No, we are not. You're a hypocrite if you wont admit that punishing Tankers with low damage for having high survivability while allowing Brutes to have high damage and the same high survivability is wrong.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Brutes should not be allowed to be better than Tankers just because you like them more.
|
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.
Don't play enough tankers to justify giving too much input, but one question:
are damage calculations vs brutes taking into account "bruising" or in practice is the -20% debuff too often resisted where it matters.
As an outside observer, it'd seem that a resist debuff of that magnitude would be particularly useful in a group: sure, the tanker's damage isn't that great, even when hitting a debuffed foe, but he also adds a bonus to all other teammates' dps as well. Something the brute doesn't
Then again, its resistable, so I guess that if its resisted too often, particularly in the high-end game when stuff maxes out, it won't contribute enough to be meaningful.
What are your experiences?
I try to work within the mechanics when possible, so would adjustments to bruising (less resistable, more debuff, longer debuff, etc) help to distinguish tank performance vs brutes?
Quote:
Tankers have 10% better max HP at cap. That's way too close for the damage difference.|
Originally Posted by StratoNexus
Except you know tankers have modestly better potential survivability and, even if you deny this latter one, they have better survivability in general teaming situations as well.
|
Quote:
| I could accept tanker changes that helped differentiate them from brutes, but you only seem to want more damage. If that is what you want, you got it. Play a brute. |
Second thing: Would you accept Tankers getting their damage cap increased if they also got a mechanic that was distinct from Fury?
Quote:
| It is a game where balance is important. You do not get to handwave away tanker advantages over brutes while stressing brute's one advantage over tankers. If you do not like the tanker's advantages or feel they are not useful to you and your playstyle, but think the brute's higher damage is awesome, play a brute. |
Quote:
| I like tankers more than brutes. Tankers should not be made the same as brutes because you like brutes more than tankers. Play a brute. |
.
I'm not sure if it was suggested in this thread (or prior threads) but would giving Tankers something similar to what Defenders got be an acceptable compromise?
Wiki entry:
Quote:
Also, for what it's worth, ever since we got Brutes on blue side, I haven't given Tankers a second look. Scrappers, kinda-sorta-depends, but if I'm going melee, I'm going Brute.
| In Issue 17, in addition to the endurance discount, Defenders gained a variable damage bonus based on level and team size, with the largest bonus for being solo and level 20 or higher. A defender on a small team or by himself has more freedom to concentrate on his enemies, which allows him to increase his damage output by up to 30%. Each additional team member reduces this bonus, to a minimum of no buff at all at three or more teammates. |
[ @Zombie Fryer ][ @Zombie Smasher ]
| Home Server: Virtue |
Twitter: @ZFLikesNachos Save City of Heroes (Titan Network) [Successful "The Really Hard Way" runs: 4] [Click ^]
| Home Server: Virtue |
Twitter: @ZFLikesNachos Save City of Heroes (Titan Network) [Successful "The Really Hard Way" runs: 4] [Click ^]
Quote:
I am. I've suggested increasing a Tanker's damage cap to 545%. That would, if my math is correct, put their single target damage (after Bruising) at the cap around 90% of Brute damage at their cap. Tanker AoE damage would still lag behind, but shy of adding Bruising to all attacks, or removing it altogether, there's nothing that can fix that.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Don't play enough tankers to justify giving too much input, but one question:
are damage calculations vs brutes taking into account "bruising" or in practice is the -20% debuff too often resisted where it matters. |
I think that this is fair, considering only 10% max HP separates a Brute from a Tanker defensively at the caps.
.
So what your counting on is stacked bruising allowing tanker attacks to take advantage of the higher cap which would in effect give them a psuedo dmg boost instead of just boosting dmg and being done with it. I am hoping you also took into account that on a team of 8, mobs don't often last long enough for bruising to stack on any one target which would mean dmg for a tank in a 8 man team would still be closer to what it is today.
Looking at in the stand point, you would see a fairly decent increase in dps from bruising and the higher cap when solo and on a team of say, up to 4, but once you break 4 then the dmg should come back down to the levels they are at now just based on the time to live of the mobs.
Did I interpret that right?
Quote:
To be fair, I was kinda joking but here's a couple ideas off the top of my head:|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
DarkSide and Lycan,
Glad someone is actually willing to look at the prospect. Disassociating damage with strength is very much needed here. Although I'd like J_B to answer the point straight too, otherwise it seems like he's got blinders on and his main motive is to out-do Brutes rather than help Tankers. Power and effectiveness need not be linked directly to damage numbers. But how can be an interesting topic (moreso than a back and forth of 'who came first' and 'who shoulda got what', IMO). |
The problem J_B has with adding more -resistance or team buffs is that it makes the Brute's more effective (*HISS*). What about the opposite route? Giving tankers different debuffs such as -Damage, - Range, -Tohit, or even -level shift to make mobs more reasonable to deal with (Yes, I'm aware that -level shift would make brutes better, J_B, don't bother pointing it out).
Also, I'd be in favour of increasing aggro/taunt caps for several ATs, and allowing tankers to reach a number like 40. (Brutes, Khelds (Dwarf Form) could be at 24-32)
Oh, and giving Tankers Defender (or at least Controller/Corrupter) values for Leadership would be great, thanks.
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.
|
Quote:
What about OTHER bonus damage that bruising can bring to a team?|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I am. I've suggested increasing a Tanker's damage cap to 545%. That would, if my math is correct, put their single target damage (after Bruising) at the cap around 90% of Brute damage at their cap. Tanker AoE damage would still lag behind, but shy of adding Bruising to all attacks, or removing it altogether, there's nothing that can fix that.
I think that this is fair, considering only 10% max HP separates a Brute from a Tanker defensively at the caps. . |
... Assume an 8-man team with a tank leading, applying 'bruising liberally. The debuff means that all other teammates hitting his targets are also taking advantage of that debuff. Total damage output for the team as a whole should benefit from the tank's debuff. (barring too much debuff resistance).
... A brute in that same role has more individual dps, but doesn't give any debuff bonus for his teammates to capitalize on.
How do they compare?
Is the team-wide bonus that a targeted debuff applies taken into account when weighing the overall effectiveness of the Tank? Should it? Does the constant use of the lowest-damage tanker attack (the one that applies bruising) mean that he sacrifices dps by breaking the cycle of his heavier-hitters? Is it too heavily resisted, so the effect is moot when dealing with the high-level large-group foes?
Quote:
True. The devs have repeatedly altered ATs by adding damage, like they have done for tankers three times over the game history (more if you include buffs to individual powersets). I likely should stop fighting against that trend, but I have this notion that people should want blasters and scrappers on a team because they deal better damage than everyone else. This may be outdated thinking, as you and others have noted. I prefer the team game and I like roles (not hard, strict ones, but at least noticeable if wishy-washy roles).|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Two things. One: Stalker changes actually made them more like Scrappers in a few ways, and everyone agrees Stalkers are better now. Different doesn't always make something better, or more popular.
|
I love that CoH does not require the "trinity". But I also like when there is value to the roles within the trinity. I think the game as it exists now still has that and I am glad.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
Second thing: Would you accept Tankers getting their damage cap increased if they also got a mechanic that was distinct from Fury?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
You haven't been acting like it, IMO. Telling me to give up on Tankers and play Brutes. Making excuses for Brutes.
|
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:
If mobs don't last long enough, then the team is effective and whose damage output is what doesn't matter, in my opinion of course. Bruising, to me, is most effective when fighting the bigger things that take a while to bring down. That's when these little buffs make the biggest difference.|
Originally Posted by Profit
So what your counting on is stacked bruising allowing tanker attacks to take advantage of the higher cap which would in effect give them a psuedo dmg boost instead of just boosting dmg and being done with it. I am hoping you also took into account that on a team of 8, mobs don't often last long enough for bruising to stack on any one target which would mean dmg for a tank in a 8 man team would still be closer to what it is today.
Looking at in the stand point, you would see a fairly decent increase in dps from bruising and the higher cap when solo and on a team of say, up to 4, but once you break 4 then the dmg should come back down to the levels they are at now just based on the time to live of the mobs. Did I interpret that right? |
I'd honestly like to see a smaller but stackable brusing effect in every Tank attack, not just the first one. That means more chances for it to go off, the potential for stacking increasing the longer the fight goes on against any target, or in the case of cones and AoE's, every target. This would make them more desireable on teams (particularly ones fighting big bags of hit points like AV's and Giant Monsters) and also really be a nice damage boost for them when soloing without actually giving them a direct damage buff.
That's probably the easiest change they could make without having to re-balance powersets.
And again, have them re-examine aggro retention and caps for Tanks, Brutes, and Scrappers. If Brutes can hold aggro better than a Tank, or can even hold aggro well enough to be indistinguishable from a Tank in that regard, something is probably wrong.
Of course if you really want to add flair, they could bring back that bug that had guantlet causing the attack's damage to land on every target guantlet affected, every time an attack was made. Tanks would really stand out then!
Yeah, it was broken, but it was fun...
EDIT: Also, a mechanic like Brusing is more heroic 'team' oriented trait, like most hero benefits tend to work out, wheras most villain ones tend to be self-buffing (I.E. the difference between Call to Justice and Frenzy, for example)
"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.
Give Tankers a chance to crit, with the crit making their attack damage unresistable?
"I do so love taking a nice, well thought out character and putting them through hell. It's like tossing a Faberge Egg onto the stage during a Gallagher concert." - me
@Palador / @Rabid Unicorn
Quote:
This I can answer. Yes, having to maintain Bruising does sacrifice your personal DPS. The Tanker himself gets less of out of Bruising than anyone else attacking that same target because they don't have to modify their attack chain to use their T1 every 10 seconds.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Does the constant use of the lowest-damage tanker attack (the one that applies bruising) mean that he sacrifices dps by breaking the cycle of his heavier-hitters?
|
Bruising is still a net gain for the Tanker in most cases, but it's three steps forward, one step back.
Quote:
| Is it too heavily resisted, so the effect is moot when dealing with the high-level large-group foes? |
For the purposes of discussion, I treat Bruising as 20% straight damage addition to a Tanker. Despite the fact it requires maintaining and disrupts attack chains, and doesn't do a thing for the Tanker's AoE. It has advantages that offset those drawbacks. Like helping the rest of the team, and buffing any pets the Tanker may be packing solo. That's specifically why I let the AoE discrepancy with Brutes slide when I was figuring where I think the Tanker damage cap should be, relative to Brutes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lycantropus
Also, a mechanic like Brusing is more heroic 'team' oriented trait, like most hero benefits tend to work out, wheras most villain ones tend to be self-buffing (I.E. the difference between Call to Justice and Frenzy, for example)[/i]
|
Brutes are not automatically evil or savage, nor are Tankers automatically selfless or the team's Big Daddy.
.
I don't know if anything has changed with this regard recently, but in the past it has been stated that adding unresisted damage to the pve game ends up breaking things. I don't recall which dev said it, but I believe it was Castle back when discussions were going on about changing Blaster's inherent.
Simply giving Tankers the chance to crit doesn't resolve anything either. Any change that is done to the AT should make the AT more distinct in how it plays than compared to other ATs.
I completely disagree with JB's statement that the Stalker changes makes them more like Scrappers. He completely ignores the reasoning behind all the changes that have been done to Stalkers and the goal intended for those changes to reach.
Stalkers were always inteneded to provide melee single target burst damage. Solo, this wasn't an issue - except when it was (ambushes for example).
On teams, the stars had to all align for Stalkers to consistantly use the Hide+assassinate combo. Which often left Stalkers providing sub-par damage when compared to pretty much anyone one else in melee.
So they added more chance to crit based on team size with a tether for team mate range to give Stalkers a better ability to deal damage on a team with the consideration that Stalkers wouldn't be able to use the Hide+Assassinate combo to provide that single target burst damage they were designed for.
Again the stars had to all align for this to work out well.
Now, fortunetely new tech made it possible for Stalkers to perform their role of single target burst damage more reliably in all scenarios.
It isn't that Stalker were changed because they are suppossed to "scrap it out" on teams. It's due to the limitations for how Hide operates within the game's systems that forces this scenario. But are only now finally able to fulfill the role they were meant to fill all along, single target burst damage.
Tankers were designed to be melee centric aggro controllers. That's they're role. Some may not like it, but if they don't then what they want out of the Tanker AT isn't what it's designed for.
So its either they should
A: Look elswhere to see if another AT can fulfill they're desires for playing the game
or
B: Insist that Tankers be changed to fulfill they're idea - game balance and anything else be damned.
You see, there is a danger to constantly going over and reviewing damage as they only way to resolve an issue.
People have mentioned Defenders getting a solo friendly damage increase. There is a reason for this. Defenders (that is across the breadth of the possible powerset combinations) were actually slower and at times much more difficult to solo than any other AT. Their inherent did absolutely nothing to address this concern.
The consideration wasn't compared to other ATs with ranged attacks only. It considered the game as a whole and since being solo friendly is at times a considerations for the devs regarding this game, a change was done.
So comparing Tankers sole on their damage output isn't the only way to look at them. Comparing them purely to melee characters isn't be best way to look at them.
Taking what they're intended role is, how it's fulfilled, and how it operates within the wide range of play possibilities is how they should be viewed.
Simply increasing Tanker damage as to how it compares to Brutes is flawed because it ignores 1. The Tanker's designed role (it's not about melee damage) 2. how that affects the rest of the game.
What happens if Tankers are damaged buffed and start out damaging Blasters? Or if they begin to compete with many of the Stalker single target capabilities?
What happens when Defenders are bottom of the pack for solo damage again and players begin to noticed they're relative slower soloing speed?
These are just a few scenarios and does not remotely cover all of them.
I think the best thing would be to increase Tankers Taunt to hit more enemies, raise the aggro cap and damage caps.
Therefore...taking the same Tanker and Brute...completely teamed buffed...damage capped and survivability capped...it equals out to the 10% difference.
The Brutes can still hold aggro just like they can now...but the Tanker will "always" be better at it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
This I can answer. Yes, having to maintain Bruising does sacrifice your personal DPS. The Tanker himself gets less of out of Bruising than anyone else attacking that same target because they don't have to modify their attack chain to use their T1 every 10 seconds.
Bruising is still a net gain for the Tanker in most cases, but it's three steps forward, one step back. Bruising is currently never "resisted". It is uniformly a 20% increase to damage the affected target takes regardless of level, con or powers. For the purposes of discussion, I treat Bruising as 20% straight damage addition to a Tanker. Despite the fact it requires maintaining and disrupts attack chains, and doesn't do a thing for the Tanker's AoE. It has advantages that offset those drawbacks. Like helping the rest of the team, and buffing any pets the Tanker may be packing solo. That's specifically why I let the AoE discrepancy with Brutes slide when I was figuring where I think the Tanker damage cap should be, relative to Brutes. I'd like to point out that as of Going Rogue, there's no such thing as a "heroic" or "villainous" AT anymore. Save perhaps the HEATs and VEATs. Brutes are not automatically evil or savage, nor are Tankers automatically selfless or the team's Big Daddy. . |
Thanks for the answers, Johnny. that clears up a lot.
Now question #2:
Rather than make tanks more brute-like by increasing damage, would it be better to improve them by increasing their role as group protector?
I know we can't boost the resists or defenses beyond what they are, but what about adding more/better crowd control procs to their attacks? More stuns from the heavy hits, maybe the axe-wielding giant that just sliced into my teammate has an aoe fear effect, etc. Crowd control is, essentially, a form of aggro management, so would giving more melee crowd control make them more valuable?
Or is the problem NOT team performance, but solo/small group, where the low damage output makes leveling a slog (though would the "damage cap" increase really help in groups that aren't buffing the tank to the cap?)
the tanker soloing problem is that being tough only helps you solo if you can use AoE's to take down groups of foes.
This is where JB's complaint about effective survivability comes in. At the end of the day it does not matter if your defense is 10% or 90%, what matters is if you get defeated.
A scrapper has enough toughness for soloing. On the spreadsheet the have less survivability than tankers. On the scoreboard of times defeated soloing they have the same survivability as tankers.
Tankers need more toughness than scrappers because they take longer to defeat foes solo. They don't benefit from being tougher, they just can survive the extra time it takes to defeat foes.
Extra toughness helps if you can up the difficulty and benefit from that. If a tanker could go to x2 and take down twice as many minions just as fast, then they would benefit from being tough enough to take on twice as many foes. I only play tankers with a damage aura for that reason.
Some sets such as Mace once you get to 28+ and super strength at higher levels get good AoE. But for the most part a tanker just gets to let more foes pound on them while they pick them off one by one.
Quote:
Still ringing on my Gauntlet change. If that basically amounted to bigger AoEs, one would be able to affect more foes and thereby protect teammates better.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Rather than make tanks more brute-like by increasing damage, would it be better to improve them by increasing their role as group protector?
I know we can't boost the resists or defenses beyond what they are, but what about adding more/better crowd control procs to their attacks? More stuns from the heavy hits, maybe the axe-wielding giant that just sliced into my teammate has an aoe fear effect, etc. Crowd control is, essentially, a form of aggro management, so would giving more melee crowd control make them more valuable? |
Super Strength- Probably already well enough with Foot Stomp but just to hammer the nail in...might improve the stun chance in Hand Clap
Hand ClapThat Axe example- Improving the KD chances in these attacks too
Range: -
Radius: 15ft >> 25ft
Degree: -
Target Cap: 10 >> 16
Footstomp
Range: -
Radius: 15ft
Degree: -
Target Cap: 10 >> 16
Whirling AxeDark Melee- Adding a chance of terrorize or -ToHit to these might be good. Maybe even lower the self buffs a bit in return.
Range: -
Radius: 8ft >> 15ft
Degree: -
Target Cap: 10
Cleave
Range: 10ft
Radius: 10ft
Degree: 19 degrees >> 60 degrees
Target Cap: 10
Pendulum
Range: 7ft >> 10ft
Radius: 7ft >> 10ft
Degree: 180 degrees
Target Cap: 5 >> 8
Soul DrainMartial Arts and Energy Melee- Improve the KD and Stun on their repsective AoE.
Range: -
Radius: 10ft >> 20ft
Degree: -
Target Cap: 10
Dark Consumption
Range: -
Radius: 8ft >> 15ft
Degree: -
Target Cap: 10 >> 16
Shadow Maul
Range: 7ft >> 15ft
Radius: 7ft >> 15ft
Degree: 45 degrees >> 90degrees
Target Cap: 5 >> 10
Dragons Tail
Range: -
Radius: 8ft >> 15ft
Degree: -
Target Cap: 10 >> 16
Whirling Hands
Range: -
Radius: 8ft >> 20ft
Degree: -
Target Cap: 10 >> 18
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dugfromthearth
the tanker soloing problem is that being tough only helps you solo if you can use AoE's to take down groups of foes.
This is where JB's complaint about effective survivability comes in. At the end of the day it does not matter if your defense is 10% or 90%, what matters is if you get defeated. A scrapper has enough toughness for soloing. On the spreadsheet the have less survivability than tankers. On the scoreboard of times defeated soloing they have the same survivability as tankers. Tankers need more toughness than scrappers because they take longer to defeat foes solo. They don't benefit from being tougher, they just can survive the extra time it takes to defeat foes. Extra toughness helps if you can up the difficulty and benefit from that. If a tanker could go to x2 and take down twice as many minions just as fast, then they would benefit from being tough enough to take on twice as many foes. I only play tankers with a damage aura for that reason. Some sets such as Mace once you get to 28+ and super strength at higher levels get good AoE. But for the most part a tanker just gets to let more foes pound on them while they pick them off one by one. |
It sort of hits on several aspects of 'strength'...beating/hurting lots of foes, more likely and wider secondary effects, striking through/past enemies with your powers, and being at the center of it all.
Quote:
Actually, for the most part, tanker sets do decent AoE. Stone, Energy, MA, and Dark are the stand-outs that lack AoE (maybe Axe).
|
Originally Posted by dugfromthearth
Some sets such as Mace once you get to 28+ and super strength at higher levels get good AoE. But for the most part a tanker just gets to let more foes pound on them while they pick them off one by one.
|
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:
I don't think that all Scrappers have the same survivability as all Tankers. But, to run with your analogy and phrasing, I insist that there's a discrepancy between the "spreadsheet" and the "scoreboard". Enough of one that there is some wiggle room to justify Tankers getting a damage cap increase, rather than just bringing Brute caps down (either resistance or damage).|
Originally Posted by dugfromthearth
This is where JB's complaint about effective survivability comes in. At the end of the day it does not matter if your defense is 10% or 90%, what matters is if you get defeated.
A scrapper has enough toughness for soloing. On the spreadsheet the have less survivability than tankers. On the scoreboard of times defeated soloing they have the same survivability as tankers. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Aaaaaaannnndd...if Tankers' AoEs were larger and could hit more foes, they could effectively take down more foes faster and possibly break even with Scraps/Brutes, possibly even pulling ahead on minions but beginning to lag when Lts and Bosses are introduced. That's where Bruising comes in. If Tanks also had adjusted rech and endurance costs on their ST powers, it's possibly this might have an affect on powers cycled to make up for inserting the tier 1 in every so often.
|
I also don't like it because it only encourages farming, which is a big problem I see Tankers presently being abused for; players running them like Tractors, taking them back and forth across a farm, slow but steady and safe, usually to bankroll their Brute's IO build.
.
Quote:
Yes.| They were ripped off for Fury |
Quote:
| and most of the people who cared about Tankers measuring up to their comic counterparts either left the game or jumped ship to Brutes. |
Quote:
|
I want exactly one change: to have the Tanker damage cap raised. To 545%, if my numbers are correct. I'm willing to negotiate for less than that and meet half-way with Brutes and Scrappers seeing some reduction. Tankers have been the butt monkey of the melee ATs for a long time. |
The thing is a majority who come to the boards are beyond experts with this game, a step away from the devs even in knowing every important facet, having leveled, experimented, mixed matched every enhancement set on all the archetypes and with few exceptions every power option, while running every mission trial task force or street sweep in all the pixelated nooks and crannies of CoX.
So saying something like "Tankers have been the butt monkey of the melee ATs" just doesn't add up to a large number of us.
Could it use some more attention since Castle's last pass, I think it could, the higher damage tank sets like the fire primary of which I made one back in 04 and play regularly are still holding up in any mixed group, never lagging behind even when paired with brutes, but like everyone else here that has something to do with the player, experience, tempo, slotting and so on.
The less offensive tanker sets have lagged the AT in general since the Brute crossed over for one, and also the homogenization of power choices has led to some discontent because you no longer have to play a Tanker if you want Super Strength etc.
Anymore there's little that's unique per classes and that's been needing to be addressed a lot more thoroughly then it has been for years now, and not only for melee archetypes.
But in general the lower dps Tank sets need to be improved while the Brute versions should be left as is, however a simple damage over damage band aid nudging up to Brutes cap would be lazy and uncreative.
Some have the perception that Tanks have lost some of their own flavor, so I think all tanker sets should have something they don't share with Brutes, like new powerful impact animations unique to tankers only, and one pbaoe that knocks down everything within a 10ft radius including AVs, the specifics aren't important to this wishlist but stone melee's powerful smashing effects have always felt like how a Brick should hit, powerful with debris flying everywhere.
Bruising should also stack to a % cap (think I sugjested 40% cap once), we couldn't get Castle to do it before he left but even thematically it makes sense, as the tank is smashing the foe it's quickly softening it's resistance and making it almost as easy to defeat by debuffs as the Brute would with max Fury, and in the process making easier defeats for teammates.
A lot of longtime players I know have always played the Tank as a shock trooper, and that's what a tank is to me too, diving in first to try and corral the next group as much as possible to set up the rest of the team and occasionally jumping around to aid group mates getting battered.
What it's not is a Taunt bot, with teammates standing in a hallway waiting while the Tank rounds up rooms and drags NPCs around, that playstyle is not what should guide whatever Synapse and co do, or don't do with my favorite AT.
.
Quote:
I like this idea. That little extra spread with some possible boosts to the 'control' component (fear, stun, knockdown, etc). This is what I was referring to my earlier posts.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Still ringing on my Gauntlet change. If that basically amounted to bigger AoEs, one would be able to affect more foes and thereby protect teammates better.
*snip* Aaaaaaannnndd...if Tankers' AoEs were larger and could hit more foes, they could effectively take down more foes faster and possibly break even with Scraps/Brutes, possibly even pulling ahead on minions but beginning to lag when Lts and Bosses are introduced. That's where Bruising comes in. If Tanks also had adjusted rech and endurance costs on their ST powers, it's possibly this might have an affect on powers cycled to make up for inserting the tier 1 in every so often. It sort of hits on several aspects of 'strength'...beating/hurting lots of foes, more likely and wider secondary effects, striking through/past enemies with your powers, and being at the center of it all. |
Don't know if they'd want to re-work powersets just for Tanks, but if it wouldn't be a lot of trouble, I could definitely stand behind something like this.
"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.
Tankers fearing brutes. So sad. So unnecessary. Maybe you just need to lose the fear and instead enjoy both ATs (or pick one and enjoy that if you can't do both).
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.