Johnny_Butane

The developers seek to do the same for Stalkers, but that doesn't mean they're backing off on damage because "doing damage" makes them closer to Scrappers. It about how they do damage, unique mechanics. "If Tankers got improved offense it would automatically make their play style a carbon copy of Brutes" is a poor argument.

They are the best at it. Brutes don't get an AoE Gauntlet, and believe me, that has a real impact. I've tanked when Gauntlet was broken. Maybe there's some peculiarities with aggro mechanics that need dev attention, but that's a bug with aggro, not Tankers.

"Being the best" at basketball doesn't mean only you ever get the ball. So a Brute can take aggro from a Tanker? So what? They're tanking too. A Tanker using Taunt trumps that. If a Brute is actively using Taunt, they want to be attacked. If you don't like that, try coordinating with them. Communication is the best skill a Tanker can have in their repertoire.



.

We learned to crawl at level 1. We're walking by level 22 and at level 50, we should very well have mastered running. We're half way up the tree at this point. That alone invalidates the excuse about the rocks. Thrown rocks shouldn't have been an issue at level 50. They shouldn't have been a problem once we got an Alpha, and they sure as well shouldn't be a problem now.

On this path to power, as opposed to Recluse's for example, the Well only portions out power a bit at a time? Well, most of my level 50 characters were immune to thrown stones before this TPN nonsense. Before BAF, my Controllers could control Lieutenants. Before Battle Maiden, my Tanker didn't have to run like a coward from anything, least of all colored patches on the ground.

Sam is 100% right. There's no progression here, it is all very much a regression.

@Zwill
Trusting in Positron and that everything is going "according to plan" is a pretty ballsy thing to ask. We trusted in them for the Incarnate content in the first place, and we got these iTrials which, in my opinion, make you more of an anonymous mook who is anything but demigod-like than any content previously existing 1-50. We trusted "the plan" and got angry businessmen armed with sticks and stones.
Fool me once...




.

Damage isn't always(or only) balanced against survivability.

A Scrapper is more survivable than a Defender.
A Scrapper does more damage than a Defender.



.

The only thing anyone has 'shown' is that some people can't stand Brutes getting any aggro. Newsflash: they're there to share aggro with Tankers. They're listed in the Tank AT category too. Deal.

Tankers should have no problem keeping aggro off the squishes when they properly use the tools they're given (ie Taunt). If they are having problems, I honestly think it comes down to a player's failings and not the AT's.

Tanking is already braindead easy in this game. For the vast, vast majority of situations an 8 player team faces, one Tanker is sufficient for the team's aggro needs. What more do you honestly want? To herd 50 enemies at a time? A whole map? Hopefully the developers are smart enough not to allow those days to return.

I've seen ZERO complains from squishies that Tankers aren't good enough at keeping aggro off them. I've been on these forums for almost five years at this point, and the most complains I've ever seen about Tanker aggro has only been in the past couple weeks. Last year it was fine, all of a sudden, it's a major problem.

The fact is, I think people are grasping. The idea that the devs were 'looking into' Tankers has got people looking for things to improve when there's no need to improve those things.

They're already nigh unkillable, suggesting better damage is heresy, so they default to aggro and threat and look for problems that aren't really there.

Tankers are already amazing at protecting the team and managing aggro. They are. If Tankers truly need a boost, wouldn't the logical thing be helping them in an area they don't do so well in? Stalkers hide better than anyone else. They've got stealth sewn up about as well as Tankers have got a handle on aggro. It was determined Stalkers needed buffing to stay competitive with Scrappers, but the devs are not doing it by making them even more stealthy. While that would further differentiate them from Scrappers, it wouldn't really help them, nor do they really need more stealth; that's not why they run into problems.

Pushing for better aggro control for Tankers when they already control aggro extremely well just because it's something that won't step on Brute toes and is something Brutes don't really care about is, well, silly in my opinion.


.

I've got the world's smallest violin right here.





.

They're already run out of mine.

I have not touched a UG, TPN or MoM trial once it hit live, nor do I plan to ever. They're contrived trash full of cheat mechanics; a silly dance we're expected to perform for what? Nothing. There's no new Incarnate abilities to earn from doing them, and even if there were, I'd be running BAFs or waiting on the revamped Dark Astoria to get them, regardless of how much longer it takes. Not having to put up with bad content on a bloated league is worth the price.



.

Very much this. The trials were not used to deliver us the cosmic level threats worthy of demigods that we were promised. They've ended up simply as an excuse for the devs to put on their 'sadistic DM' hat and throw cheating mechanic after cheating mechanic at us while dressing them up as the same old, same old.

The trials are the worst way to do that in the first place. Nothing makes someone feel less super and godlike than being one of a hundred cogs in a machine that divides and shares any victory a hundred times. You will never face down Tyrant and get your 'Crane Kick' moment. Instead it'll be you and a bunch of strangers who gang bang him while running from colored patches.


.

That was my typical slant on it. Were they as overtly dismissive and condescending as actually telling people to 'L2P'?

No, but they gave no indication they saw a problem in what people were complaining about and basically told them not to play that way.


.

Whom are you addressing and trying to educate? I ask because this is not new information to me and is something we've discussed before, circa Spring 2007, IIRC.

My point is, well the same one you seem to be preaching to the choir; an AT can have as many 'inherents' as the devs think they need.

Stalkers have three distinct special abilities, although Demoralizing Effect is arguably just a further extension of Assassination. If they go ahead with the Assassin's Focus stacks, that will be a fourth. Which tangentially brings up an unrelated question I've had; will getting a Crit clear and reset all stacks of Assassin's Focus?



.

And Stalkers currently have three.

The original Assassination mechanic, the Demoralizing effect and Team Crits.


.

Not even. They defended the rocks. It's not that they can't fix the problem of demigods being slaughtered by citizens tossing stones, they don't agree there's a problem.

In other words...

Devs: "The customer is wrong."

They're cool with it and they even threw a little bit of "ur doin it wrong' and 'L2P' sentiment in as a reply to the complaints.



.

I've long wanted an "Earth Blast" powerset.

We've already got the Propel kind of earthbending the Legacy Chain uses, and the gravel cones the Minions of Igneous have. Wouldn't take much to cobble together a set from existing attacks and a couple new ones.

Tier 9: a swirling vortex of flying jagged rocks and sand that slices up everyone inside and leaves them blinded.




.

So when someone comes in with a different opinion, presents valid points that support it and even have people concede the point they are essentially correct, let's handwave it and focus purely on your PoV?

Some "discussion".

That's only 'being productive' in silencing the opinions and inconvenient truths you don't want to hear.

How about this:

It's X-mas time, I have valid points whether you like it or not. Other people's desires for the AT are just as important as yours, regardless of who's is more popular currently. Let's all be part of a solution that doesn't ignore everyone who's opinion differs from yours.

So no, I will not just roll over and agree with you just to "be productive". I am currently being extremely well behaved for me, as others have observed. I'm doing this so Tankers get the dev attention they deserve. But if you chose to make me a "problem", I can become one; and people will testify I can be a very disruptive, very annoying, very persistent problem indeed.


.

I disagree they were ever 'devastating'. The Tanker generally had inferior melee damage hit for hit than Blasters. I don't think they ever managed to be 'second only to Scrappers' for "sheer melee power" even when they were the only other 'melee AT'. Even now, the same melee attacks on a Dom hit harder even if you factor Bruising.


.

So you admit that one of the Tanker's intended roles was being a heavy hitter and 'devastating hand to hand combatant'.

You said it:

"Johnny, the tank's other role used to be melee damage and the lines you're emphasizing were true"


So answer me this question:

Why is it wrong to improve Tanker offense because it might "crowd" the Brute out of one of its roles, but it's OK that Brutes came into the picture and pushed the Tanker out of one of their roles?

Double standard much?

IMO, the Tanker was the one wronged first, by Brutes getting Fury, a mechanic originally developed and pitched for Tankers so they could better fulfill their description and the original 'spirit' of the AT and they were again wronged when Brutes came blue side and became direct competition for both aggro and damage.

Pushing Tankers further into an overspecialized niche doesn't fix what happened or right those wrongs and it doesn't do anything for the people who do care that Tankers were/are supposed to be more than aggro monkeys and do care that Brutes stole half of their role in show.



.

You discarded half of the the description to reach your 'conclusion'. That's like quoting a book (actually more than one book) as proof of something and omitting every third word to skew the intent.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary...to bear arms...in the name of...persecution...and we must be always vigilant against..amber waves of grain."

You didn't just 'word them differently', you tossed out the parts you didn't like. I call foul.
Even I acknowledged the parts of the description that don't particularly help my position.

The description speaks just as much of Tanker offense as it does their defense and aggro-ness.

"take it and dish it out all at once."
"irresistible force"
"dish out all sorts of damage"
"The Tanker is a devastating hand to hand combatant"

The above should not be ignored or glossed over if we truly want an unbiased discussion of the Tanker's intended role and wish to cite the AT descriptions.

Inconvenient as they are some some people to accept, these phrases were used.



.

.

Except, I have it on fairly good authority, he was closer to Captain America (sans Shield) before he was added to the game and mutated.

He was merely a mercenary treasure hunter who 'unlocked the power of inner will' and returned from the East a changed man. From what I heard, he was more of a "pulpy" mystery man when Jack actually played him.

The whole incarnation of Zeus came later, and a good portion of what we have as the "modern Statesman" and his backstory came from the novels, which Emmert didn't write.

Now, maybe the mutation was something Jack pushed for, or they simply needed an archetypal Big Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigGood) to be the poster boy for the game. The point is, the Statesman we know today was heavily influenced by outside forces long after Jack created him as a PnP character.


.

The "immovable object" refers to their stalwartness and resoluteness in battle. An "irresistible force" isn't something you'd apply to a character passively taking attacks, so I must conclude that part speaks of their offense.

The next paragraph clarifies that Tankers are not 'god mode'. They're not totally invulnerable, they can be downed, but they have enough survivability to allow the other ATs breathing room by taking the heat.

It also mentions they are "devastating hand to hand combatants" and "rank second only to the Scrapper in sheer melee power".

This was written long before Brutes and Stalkers entered the picture, but are Tankers devastating hand to hand combatants in most people's opinions?

The honest answer is no, they aren't. Set aside hyperbole and denial for a second. If you opened this question up to Broadcast or the general forums, most people wouldn't identify Tankers as "devastating". 'Adequate' or 'OK' at best, 'unremarkable' and 'meh' at worst.

Lastly, the descriptions states Tankers "proudly stand in the front lines of battle in order to protect their comrades and, of course, the innocent."

This is true. Tankers are the first ones in, last to fall. As far as I'm concerned, they meet expectations for this aspect. There's no language in there that says they have to be unkillable, or have vastly higher aggro caps than anyone else.

What I take from this:

Tankers don't live up to their own press when it comes to their offensive prowess. It's another argument altogether if they can or not, but the description is quite clear that offensive might was supposed to be an important part of their equation, or at least the developers want people who don't know any better to THINK it is.

Knowing the true current state of the AT, that strikes me as dishonest if the developers have no intent on making good on it; they paint a picture that really is half false and strongly suggest at something that isn't accurate by most people's reckoning. It plays to the uninitiated's expectations.

Newb: "Oh, this is the AT that gets super strength and is invincible (and isn't a savage hulking anger-fueled brute)? I know who that's all about!"

Wrong! /Kevin Spacey


Lastly, lets look at the main lore Tankers they present as examples:

Statesman and Back Alley Brawler.

The Brawler is all about fighting. That's his name, for crying out loud. He's supposed to be one of the biggest badasses with a reputation for wrecking anyone who goes against him. Does that resolve with the reality of Tankers as aggro sponges with mediocre damage? Not for me.

Then there's Statesman, who also has this image as a massive powerhouse. It's humorous to me: some people like to beat their drum over and over and say "Tankers aren't Superman". Well, the lore goes out of its way to say otherwise. It has for seven years, so maybe it's understandable where the idea comes from, especially when the game and developers work to cultivate it. But I digress. So do the most famous signature Tankers in the gamet fit with how Tankers are actually regarded? Again, I say they don't.


What do I conclude from all of this:

Regardless of what they're allowed to do mechanically, Tankers were supposed to evoke the heavy hitters from comics. Do they? Not especially. Feel free to poll the population of the game of what they think of Tanker damage, I'd be interested in seeing that. Regardless, they are there to protect the team first and be the team's backbone. They do, and they are when they're played correctly.

If Tankers fall short of anything they were given the tools to do, it's their offense, which their NPC role models and AT description are writing cheques that the Tanker AT and the developers can't cash.



.

I don't see how anyone can say this, and then argue that Tanker damage doesn't suck.



.

Right, but if the number isn't high, it won't cause more Threat generated. Doesn't that mean it would HAVE to put their damage higher than Brutes or Scrappers to generate more Threat in this way?


*sigh* I'm...with Arcana on this one.

It really does put out Stalkers, and in a situation like a BAF where a large group of Tankers can be beating down an AV, the Tankers will be doing more damage combined than all the remaining ATs.

6 Tankers, 5 of them are always not going to have aggro, right?
Then throw debuffs into the mix...yeah, not going to fly.


.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicFeather



.