I love how this thread went from, "Okay, now before rumors start....." to "ERMERGERD!!!!! NERFZORZ EVERYTHING!!!" to "Everything is WAI. Nothing to see here, move along." LOL.
Personally I never saw anything wrong with Tanks or Brutes or Scrappers, OH MY! If I want something to dish out massive damage I roll a Brute or Scrapper depending on my mood. If I want high survivability I roll up a Tank. The instances where a Brute can outsurvive a Tank have been very few and far between for me.
Personally, I don't like to rely on buffs. So I try to design my builds to not rely on them as much as I can. Perhaps I'm an outlier when it comes to this, but I love to run in and just start tearing things up as fast as I can and run on to the next mob without having to stop for a buff party after every mob.
About the only thing I can say about this thread is that I do wish the Gauntlet inherent was removed and Tanks were given something else instead. Between Taunt and a Taunt Aura I just don't see the point to Gauntlet. As to what to replace it with? No idea, but something that's actually useful would be nice.
Quote:
I just wanted to take a moment to address this bit. Taunt is very useful, but still limited. No Tanker wants to just be a taunt-bot, so they have other tools for holding aggro. As for 'taunt auras', only Invulnerability and Super Reflexes explicitly have 'taunt' as part of their auras, and SR's taunt is horrifyingly weak. Gautlet is actually one of the most Important Tanker tools for gaining and maintaining aggro.|
Originally Posted by oOStaticOo
... About the only thing I can say about this thread is that I do wish the Gauntlet inherent was removed and Tanks were given something else instead. Between Taunt and a Taunt Aura I just don't see the point to Gauntlet...
|
All Tanker 'auras' are either debuff, damage, or both. That effect is enhanced by varying amounts of 'taunt' cooked into the code and the Damage auras also benefit from Gauntlet (At least I presume so - I could be wrong about that). The strength and the Length of this +taunt varies and is amplified by debuff and damage factors.
Invulnerability, for instance, has a to-hit debuff, coupled to a very potent 17 second, Mag 4 taunt. Invulnerability Tankers may not 'need' Gauntlet to hold aggro... Unless the Fire Blaster decides to uncork Everything at once, in which case the Damage aggro is likely to trump the Tanker's 'grip' on the enemy... Except, if he's a smart Tanker, he's been thumping on the baddies and Continues to thump on them and Gauntlet (+proximity) keeps the mobs glued tight, while the Blaster pops some blue-pez and prepares to do it again.
On the other hand, Willpower also has a to-hit debuf, but it only has a 1.25 second, Mag 3 taunt... In a situation similar to what I described... the smart Tanker is Desperately flailing around, trying to maximize Gauntlet AND Taunt, because when the Blaster unloads... the Tanker is going to be standing alone.
Once they finish splattering the Blaster, those mobs won't even remember him and he'll have to gather their attention all over.
Tankers have Gauntlet because they don't get Taunt until level 10 and they might not get their 'taunt aura' until level 18. They get Gauntlet because not all taunts are created equal and something is needed to help make up the difference.
Be Well!
Fireheart
So make all the Taunts equal as well as all Taunt Auras. Really shouldn't be a difference anyways. Sounds like Taunt is broke if that is the case.
And from what I can see all of the Damage Auras, Debuff Auras, and Buff Auras take Taunt enhancements in them. None of them say they are specifically for Taunting. Besides Ice does the best Taunting with Auras, better than Invuln or SR.
Quote:
Actually, I began that discussion when I noticed the thread...I just got a reply a few days later. Additionally, I was/am extremely irked that the only thing most of you could even remotely agree on was that an AT that is WAI, needed to be nerfed. Here is the ATs golden chance to get something useful...and all you guys want to do is nerf something else. Even then that wouldn't fix the issues you're complaining about. There seems to be no consensus that anything is wrong with them to begin with. Which supports what I have personally thought all along, but if a slight damage buff makes all the tanks of the world sleep better at night, I am cool with that. I just dislike this thread talking about "brootz r = win intarwebz, nerfzorz!!!"|
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
I'm still rather amused that you're so worked up about this. IF over the life of your Brute as you say, you only see the caps during 1%, why were you so being so "panicked" about the idea of lowering the caps by 5%? You were so stressed out at the thought, you had to check with a dev to make sure Brutes weren't going to be touched! Once you found out they weren't, you came back with a very vindictive snark. Nice. You win an internet!
|
Quote:
|
Anyway, I've already mentioned my thoughts about improving tanks a few times, not that anything I've mentioned is likely to get implemented. But, you never know, I could get close to the target. The changes Arcana and Starsman mentioned would probably make the game more balanced, but I'm not sure how they would go over with the player base this late in the games life. |
If it continues to derail, you'll all likely get left on the back burner, as nothing in here really points to any solution...or even a problem looking for a solution for that matter.
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
I started that thread to get a consensus from people who play brutes more than tanks and see if my mindset was an outlier...or if I was feeling mostly the same things they were about the ideas...|
Originally Posted by Rylas
If you like that, you should see the thread he started in the Brute forums. Give him two internets.
|
I am not an outlier...the only one who agreed with this thread, was posting in this thread all along.
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
Happily, Taunt itself, is completely consistent for every Tanker and and Tanker Secondary. It has been suggested and argued and promoted before, that all auras, especially non-damage auras, be normalized towards the top, rather than having Willpower and Super Reflexes suffering such weak effects. Aett Thorn started a Consolidated thread, which is stickied at the top of the Tanker Forum, and collected Many different ideas about how to 'fix' Tankers. |
Originally Posted by oOStaticOo
So make all the Taunts equal as well as all Taunt Auras. Really shouldn't be a difference anyways. Sounds like Taunt is broke if that is the case.
|
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=279524
This one got started because somebody wasn't content with that, so now were arguing it all over again.
Be Well!
Fireheart
Quote:
Asheron's Call used that system. It worked very well.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
A 100 rating resistance power would be twice as strong as a 200 rating resistance power. Meaning you'd live twice as long with the 200 power. That's really easy for the casuals to figure out. The *math* is a lot harder for the min/maxers to deal with, but tough.
|
You added your armor rating, but it got harder and harder to make it meaningfully better.
Quote:
You use that phrase a lot like it's a golden ticket; WAI. Just remember, there have been many things that were WAI that players found imbalanced and through constructive feedback were able to bring into a more balanced form. Invincibility comes to mind. Aggro being without a cap. Hitting more than 15 targets with AoEs. And that's just a small part of the list, I'm sure. |
Originally Posted by planet_J
Additionally, I was/am extremely irked that the only thing most of you could even remotely agree on was that an AT that is WAI, needed to be nerfed.
|
WAI does not equate to being free of ever being changed.
Quote:
| Here is the ATs golden chance to get something useful...and all you guys want to do is nerf something else. |
Quote:
| If it continues to derail, you'll all likely get left on the back burner, as nothing in here really points to any solution...or even a problem looking for a solution for that matter. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by planet_J
I started that thread to get a consensus from people who play brutes more than tanks and see if my mindset was an outlier...or if I was feeling mostly the same things they were about the ideas...
|
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
Weren't things WAI before ED and before the GDN? |
Originally Posted by Rylas
WAI does not equate to being free of ever being changed.
|
Anytime someone mentions that things are "Working as Intended..." a voice in the back of my mind adds the phrase "...for the moment".
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
Something can be working as intended, and then changed when the circumstances surrounding it change. The devs intended to make Elude permaable in I2, even though they knew they were going to eventually address perma tier 9s down the road. The intent was to give SR comparably powerful tier 9 to the top level performance you could generate at that time with Invuln and Regen. Then it changed in I4 when all tier 9s were adjusted, because the intent at that time was to rebalance all of them to be non-perma (among other things). And then its numbers were reduced in I5 because the intent was to perform global defense balancing.|
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
Weren't things WAI before ED and before the GDN?
Anytime someone mentions that things are "Working as Intended..." a voice in the back of my mind adds the phrase "...for the moment". |
No game designer's intent is ever to make something that will last until the pyramids turn to dust. Intent is always transitory based on current context. Everything in an MMO is subject to change based on the requirements of the game's evolution.
Also, developer intent doesn't cover all possible consequences. A developer can explicitly intend to do something, but not intend a side effect that is unavoidable when they do that thing.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Some of those things likely shouldn't have been changed honestly...but people complaining too much opens a "pandora's box" if you will...once it's open, you can't close it back. So, likely many people "pointing out balance issues"...got exactly what they foolishly wanted...or the inverse of their true desire. Either way, it has added to the evolution of the game to this point...just because you think some of those things are more "balanced" now...there have been a few suggestions in this thread alone about undoing some "balance". |
Originally Posted by Rylas
You use that phrase a lot like it's a golden ticket; WAI. Just remember, there have been many things that were WAI that players found imbalanced and through constructive feedback were able to bring into a more balanced form. Invincibility comes to mind. Aggro being without a cap. Hitting more than 15 targets with AoEs. And that's just a small part of the list, I'm sure.
WAI does not equate to being free of ever being changed. |
Sometimes change is good...other times it is to the detriment of the experience. Be careful what you wish for is the best mantra to have in matters such as these...because you never really get exactly what you want...it's usually a compromise...and one you're luke warm about at best.
Quote:
| Stop equating balancing to nerfing. If people bring it up, you're better off just ignoring it rather than bringing more attention to it. I think that's what Starsman was trying to say. If people feel one AT is encroaching on Tanks strengths to the point of being too much, you should just assume that eventually the topic of limiting they're ability to do so will come up. The only thing you have to fear is if the devs think it has weight, which you obviously have an answer to. |
If you can't that's fine...Maybe just delete the Tanker AT all together, and consolidate all Tanks into Brutes by conversion of values and call it good. Have the only outstanding sets that were not yet proliferated to brutes carried over before the changes take effect...then you won't have to level a brute up to 50...since that's likely the only thing stopping most of the ones complaining about it from playing a brute, if half of what they say is true I can't imagine why all the other ATs haven't ceased getting playtime with brutes in the mix...but I guess they are all wearing rose colored glasses...cause I don't see it.
Quote:
| I doubt this thread is going to convince the devs one way or the other if they want to touch Tanks. There was never a promise of it, and I doubt they haven't come up with their own ideas anyway. I'll agree with what has been said by others. Tanks aren't broken. And I've said I'm not worried if they get anything done. But not being broken doesn't mean they still can't be improved, so I'm glad people are brainstorming. Whether I like their ideas or not. |
Quote:
| You should really avoid using the forums as a form for taking consensus. It's just the people that like being vocal. That doesn't mean I represent populations accurately. And for the record, I've been playing Brutes more than Tanks and I'm willing to admit there's a balance issue. Whether it will get touched so far along doesn't seem likely, but that doesn't mean I can't admit it's there. |
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Well since we're getting all meta, anything you do is kind of a crapshoot. Take the best odds you can, but there's no reason to get mad if it turns out, say, the most optimal solution to making Tankers more desireable is to nerf Brutes, rebalance saturation buffing, and give Masterminds mandatory police hats. Roll again.
I'm pretty sure none of those are needed here, whether or not they're a good idea independently, and I've argued to that case. That discussion seems exhausted. We are now having the discussion of whether or not it's a good idea to have had that prior discussion, and man, it just blows my mind.
Life is like, a journey, man. It's like a winding road. Everyday. Everyday, it's just... it's just like, a winding road, man.
Quote:
Do you mind listing those things that shouldn't have been changed to help give a better perspective of where you coming from?|
Originally Posted by planet_J
Some of those things likely shouldn't have been changed honestly...but people complaining too much opens a "pandora's box" if you will...once it's open, you can't close it back.
|
Quote:
| I think the adjustments and emphasis make all the point I need to here... |
Are you implying that while I don't represent the player base accurately, you do? And are you trying to say I'm the only one who's admitted there's an imbalance? I remember a few others in here who have said the same. Or are you saying you refuse to admit there's an imbalance? And I'm not clear why you bolded the "It's just the people that like being vocal." Did you take that as an insult? That's what we are, the vocal players of the game. That doesn't mean we're crackpots or anything. We're just willing to take the time to discuss things. It's not like were elected officials, so we can't say we represent the player base. It also means you don't either.
So instead of "adjusting" other people's words, just use your own. Your point will be less ambiguous.
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
Actually, this one got started to try to prevent exactly this discussion that is happening. Little good that did. |
Originally Posted by Fireheart
This one got started because somebody wasn't content with that, so now were arguing it all over again. Be Well! Fireheart |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
I can't believe someone with as many posts as you would could start a thread like this genuinely believing what happened wouldn't happen.
Honestly, what did you expect starting such a controversial topic? That people would go "oh, ok, thank you for this important announcement Aett Thorn, good thing you're here to tell us what to think because you're such a greater mind than us all and oh gosh how would we ever survive without you" and move on? There is little to no value in the OP, hence it's obvious people would move on to the logical, much more interesting topic related to it, that is, tanker balance.
I'd bet dollars to peanuts if you didn't create this topic, nothing would have happened. If you truly intended to play backseat community manager, you can look at this as a lesson to what good it does.
Quote:
Riddle me this:|
Originally Posted by planet_J
"Balancing" is either a nerf or a buff...if it isn't a buff...it's a nerf...
|
At one point Unyielding had a self -def debuff and invincibility granted more defense per target than it does now.
At further point, Unyielding's defense debuff was removed, but Invincibility's per-target defense was lowered for an equal amount.
The net result is the same as earlier, with some edge case changes in both directions, super-saturated and no enemies in range.
This is balancing. Would you say it was a buff or a nerf? It was one change. If balancing can only be buff or nerf, what was this?
Quote:
| Can the primary fans of this AT not find something constructive to adjust it and make it more to their liking without making serious changes to the other ATs? |
Quote:
| Look at all the blaster threads...but they had constructive focused criticism and feedback about real issues that effected the AT, they didn't call for nerfs to anything or anyone (at least not en masse, like this thread)...just changes...completely different mindset I suppose. |
Tankers are indeed not broken. They have no issues. Not directly. Their "issues" are two fold:
1) Quoting Johnny_butane: "tankers were designed for a game that no longer exists"
2) Brutes fill in the one role "reserved" to tankers, even character creation tells you Brutes are a tanking AT.
It is inevitable for comments to come up that suggest the "offending" Brutes be nerfed out of the role. It's too late for that, it wont happen, but the comments will come. And again: if you make a big deal about those comments, you make the comments a big deal.
Blasters didnt do much nerf-herding if any because they had no AT specifically step in thir role (other than all of them)
Quote:
Wow. Wake up on the wrong side of the forum, this morning? My last comment was in jest, hence the little smiley face. Did I think that this could happen? Yes, of course. Did I hope that it wouldn't? Also yes.|
Originally Posted by Nihilii
I can't believe someone with as many posts as you would could start a thread like this genuinely believing what happened wouldn't happen.
Honestly, what did you expect starting such a controversial topic? That people would go "oh, ok, thank you for this important announcement Aett Thorn, good thing you're here to tell us what to think because you're such a greater mind than us all and oh gosh how would we ever survive without you" and move on? There is little to no value in the OP, hence it's obvious people would move on to the logical, much more interesting topic related to it, that is, tanker balance. I'd bet dollars to peanuts if you didn't create this topic, nothing would have happened. If you truly intended to play backseat community manager, you can look at this as a lesson to what good it does. |
And, given the Dev comments that sparked this, I am betting that SOMEONE would have started a thread like this even if I didn't, and may have started off more controversial. The point of the OP was merely to say that the Devs might be looking at Tankers, and to inform people that the Devs never promised that they would do anything or actually look at us, only that we may be next on the list. That's not something that has no value, especially when someone with as many posts as I have has seen Dev comments taken completely out of context before.
Was I trying to play backseat community manager? Absolutely not. I was just trying to relay accurate information to the community it would potentially impact. Why is that a bad thing?
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Also, in addition to what Starsman said above, there are sometimes cases where an AT can be improved with reductions to another, and other cases where the easiest way to buff an AT is to directly improve it. If you have 9/10 ATs that are roughly in balance, and one that is outperforming them all by a wide margin, do you buff the 9 ATs, or do you balance the outlier? If 3/4 of the melee ATs are fairly balanced, and one is not, why not bring the one back in line?
Blasters clearly lagged behind the other ATs, so there was no need to contemplate reducing other ATs. Whenever Tanker issues are brought up, and math becomes involved, people inevitably compare them to the other melee ATs, because people view Scrappers and now Stalkers to be fairly well balanced, and some feel the same way for both Brutes and Tankers. So then it becomes a mathematical exercise which seems to suggest that Brutes at their top end of performance seem to be higher than where they should be. So it becomes logical to discuss that issue.
And, just to be honest, I saw more than a few posts discussing the Blaster changes where their damage was compared to Scrappers and Brutes, and saying that those two ATs needed their damage potential lowered. I just think that most people just felt that Blasters needed buffing more than those ATs needed lowering. That does not always need to be the case, though.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
Death of the author, Aett.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
And, given the Dev comments that sparked this, I am betting that SOMEONE would have started a thread like this even if I didn't, and may have started off more controversial. The point of the OP was merely to say that the Devs might be looking at Tankers, and to inform people that the Devs never promised that they would do anything or actually look at us, only that we may be next on the list. That's not something that has no value, especially when someone with as many posts as I have has seen Dev comments taken completely out of context before.
Was I trying to play backseat community manager? |
And I've definitely noted the irony of the topic pretty much each time I've looked at this thread.
Quote:
Same here, sadly. Am I surprised that it went the way it did? No, not really. Still was hoping it would just be a quick post, people would read it and move on (i.e., just a quick, informational post regarding current comments by the Devs). Do I mind that it went the way it did? Not really, because it has sparked some good discussion.
|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
Death of the author, Aett.
And I've definitely noted the irony of the topic pretty much each time I've looked at this thread. |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
Still, for starting this fiery inferno of flaming, you must be subject to 30 lashings with a wet carp.
|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Same here, sadly. Am I surprised that it went the way it did? No, not really. Still was hoping it would just be a quick post, people would read it and move on (i.e., just a quick, informational post regarding current comments by the Devs). Do I mind that it went the way it did? Not really, because it has sparked some good discussion.
|
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
There were also less scrappers or brutes going to that thread and arguing about them.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
And, just to be honest, I saw more than a few posts discussing the Blaster changes where their damage was compared to Scrappers and Brutes, and saying that those two ATs needed their damage potential lowered. I just think that most people just felt that Blasters needed buffing more than those ATs needed lowering. That does not always need to be the case, though.
|
Here is the way things either work:
Guy1 proposes nerf to AT-B.
No one replies to him, it gets forgotten.
Or B:
Guy1 proposes nerf to AT-B
AT-B player gets worked up and start nerf-herding name-calling or making WAI claims
Guy1 feels forced to repeat and elaborate his point.
AT-B player once more feels forced to rephrace his previous statement.
Cycle repeats to infinity, usually with more poeple joining in.
Quote:
Understood. As soon as Carp Melee is put into the game, I will accept my penance.
|
Originally Posted by Rylas
Still, for starting this fiery inferno of flaming, you must be subject to 30 lashings with a wet carp.
|
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
I consider that a buff, as unyielding's penalty was removed, so while it was a buff for a net gain of 0...you lost a debuff. Opposite of debuff is buff.|
Originally Posted by Starsman
Riddle me this:
At one point Unyielding had a self -def debuff and invincibility granted more defense per target than it does now. At further point, Unyielding's defense debuff was removed, but Invincibility's per-target defense was lowered for an equal amount. The net result is the same as earlier, with some edge case changes in both directions, super-saturated and no enemies in range. This is balancing. Would you say it was a buff or a nerf? It was one change. If balancing can only be buff or nerf, what was this? |
Quote:
| Some are trying, but every time an individual or two brings up "maybe we should nerf that other AT" suddenly some posters jump into a flame war about it and then the entire thread becomes about nerfing brutes, entirely drowning all other options. |
Quote:
|
There is something you (and many others) need to understand: Tankers are indeed not broken. They have no issues. Not directly. Their "issues" are two fold: 1) Quoting Johnny_butane: "tankers were designed for a game that no longer exists" 2) Brutes fill in the one role "reserved" to tankers, even character creation tells you Brutes are a tanking AT. It is inevitable for comments to come up that suggest the "offending" Brutes be nerfed out of the role. It's too late for that, it wont happen, but the comments will come. And again: if you make a big deal about those comments, you make the comments a big deal. Blasters didnt do much nerf-herding if any because they had no AT specifically step in thir role (other than all of them) |
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
They did that in Issue 3.