Johnny_Butane

*shrug*

Even if they came to a (favorable) conclusion and put it on a normal priority track, it'll be a year or so before we seen anything of it, if it doesn't get vetoed for one reason or another in the meantime.



.

You may want to point out what part of the quoted text in your post is from Synapse, because it looks you just quoted what you sent him?


.

Oh snap.

"We came to a decision at the meeting. We're tired of dealing with Tankers so we're shipping them off to Aion. Your wings arrive next month."



.

You're confusing terminology.

DPS in terms of damage output per second: A measure of damage output over time. Damage per minute is probably a better yardstick in this game in most cases.

DPS in Mids: The damage an attack does versus it's cycle time. Not the same thing.

You said: "So I just poked my nose into Mids and did a powerset comparison between all the tank secondaries, specifically looking at base DPS numbers. Did you know that, with the exception of Energy Melee, all the tier 1 attacks do the HIGHEST ST DPS in each set?" That may be true, but Mid's doesn't calculate its "DPS" in useful terms for attack chains.

DPAn in Mids: AKA Damage per Animation. Better for determining your true damage output over time, IMO.



.

I don't care if your numbers are correct or not. 260% more theoretical survivability does not translate to "dies 260% more often".

I asked this before:

Of all the scenarios in the game, and that includes everything from fighting green con enemies to +4x8, what percentage exists that a Tanker can survive that a comparable Scrapper or Brute can not? 5%? 20%?

My guess is the number is lower rather than higher since the devs have said Scrapper and Brutes solo better.

Once you are above the immortality line, more survivability than that doesn't matter. And Scrappers and Brutes are well above the immortality line in far more than 50% of the content of the game that Tankers can also survive.

If every one of those situations, even in the ones that aren't even going to remotely threaten a Scrapper, they retain their damage advantage while the Tanker doesn't get anything more from superfluous survivability.



.

That's swell, but I tend to look at damage per animation when looking at attack chains.

If you're looking at one attack in a vacuum, the recharge of the power matters. When you're chaining multiple attacks, the damage the attack does versus the time it takes to cast it and fire the next attack seems more important to me. You put your best DPAn attacks at the front of the chain and then always use the best DPAn attack that's up. Of course, Bruising makes that more complex. You lead with your T1, then your best DPAn attacks until you need to refresh Bruising.


.

You should read my thoughts on Bruising here:


To clarify, in the post you're referring to, I'm not complaining that Bruising really isn't a 20% buff to ST damage. As you can see, I'm fully aware it has other advantages.

What I do take issue with is Bruising improving Brute and Scrapper damage (and improving it more than it does for the Tanker) in light of the current dynamic where Scrappers and Brutes benefit from the presence of a Tanker both to their personal survivability and their personal damage, and then get to go off and solo better to boot. Yet Tankers see no comparable reciprocation, they just get to see smaller damage numbers coming off the enemies they attack.


.

Also I don't want to increase Brute and Scrapper damage any more than I do now. I'm already nullifying any penalty they'd feel for their 'lesser defenses' and buffing their damage 20% with Bruising. And I don't even get a full 20% improvement myself from Bruising because I have to modify my attack chain to lead with a weak attack and spam it every 10 seconds.



.

Tremor hits for 86.72 on a Tanker and for 123-139.7 on a Brute rolling with 50-70% Fury

Hitting 40-60% harder isn't 'perception'.



.

Oh please.

Ok, how about this:

Tankers should hit more like this girl...



and less like this one...



Better?




.

Yes, they often are, melee-wise, but that's besides the point.

Wolverine, the patron Scrapper, was bad mouthing Colossus's fighting abilities so Colossus put his fist through him just to prove a point.

The Thing's catch phase is "It's clobberin' time!" not "It's time to distract th' bad guys so my team can clobber 'em!". Heck, the 1994 animated Fantastic Four theme song says it best: "Reed Richards is elastic, Sue can fade from sight, Johnny is a human torch, the Thing just loves to fight."

And Rogue isn't a Tanker. She hasn't had the Ms. Marvel flying brick powers for years now. She's whatever AT and power set she last touched.

Again, I disagree. Wolverine plows through groups of ninjas. Colossus is who they pair off against the opposing powerhouse. If we were to model things better in CoH, then Scrappers would be quick attack/AoE masters that would also debuff Resistance. Tankers would hit slower, but hit like trucks. Their AoE would be more about soft control.

I'm not saying Superman is or isn't a Tanker but...

That sounds shockingly close to Supes' famous 'World of Cardboard' speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etPYl1OQoqk

That is how the developers chose to define what a Tanker was originally. Again, we're back to the devs saying exactly what Tankers are supposed to be about, indicating what characters they were thinking of.

But you don't want to hear it.

The fact that Statesman, the game's BLATANT Superman/Captain Marvel expy is the face of Tankers, the very one chosen to represent them on the Tank character creation screen, should tip you off.


But all of that is besides the point. I didn't ask for Tankers to do more damage than everyone else. People can feel free to keep strawmaning otherwise.

I asked for their damage cap upped to be more comparable to Brutes and Scrappers and I asked for more options via the Epic/Ancillary pools and Incarnate powers to increase Tanker damage should people choose to build offensively.



.

Yeah, I disagree there. With or without IOs, Stalkers are in the same boat as Tankers, being overspecialized and hurting from Scrappers and Brutes existing while having Scrapper and Brute players telling them they're fine and don't deserve dev attention.

As you point out, Stalkers are getting looked at. Let's hope Tankers don't have to wait 10 issues between reviews like Stalkers did. Because I honestly have to wonder if we're going to see Issue 28.



.

No, the appropriate reply is: "So then Scrappers and Brutes see a downside to their lower defenses when they're not teamed, right? They don't? They're the best soloing ATs in the entire game and the devs have said so repeatedly? Oh snap! Someone dun ****ed up thinking that one through."

They never see a downside when teamed and solo the best while Tankers hit like girls for the 'privilege' of protecting them on teams. That is not even remotely balanced or fair in my book.



.

That is true and I do not care.

I want the option.

My story says that my Incarnate powers are so cool and Incarnate Charisma rolls so great that Longbow/Arachnos/Praetorians/Soldiers of Rularuu were impressed enough to follow me into battle.

Someone else's story may be that they broke into a Warworks warehouse, hacked their programming and hijacked some for themselves.

I'd rather powers give people the option to tell their own stories. More customization is always better than none.


.

What about that in addition providing options and tools (by way of Tanker Epic/Ancillary pool powers and Incarnate abilities) for Tankers to improve their damage should they choose?

Scrappers and Brutes get the Fighting pool, Barrier and Rebirth, Wedding Band, numerous other temp powers, Accolades, three kinds of Inspirations (more now?).


It doesn't help with Tanker redundancy issues, I've never been at a loss for it and I don't see the point of it other than for farming, which is something I oppose.



.

That's some fine glossing over of an inconvenient truth there.



.

Does it really matter what the devs think? They change their mind with every new person who gets rotated in and out of the drivers seat.

They went from this position:

...to throwing all of it on it's ear just to sell boxes of CoV.

Player opinions, at least they're somewhat consistent. I don't agree with many on their opinions where Tankers should be, but at least they don't often pull a 180.

You talk of the 'intent' of the AT and its role, The intent is clear from that very old post. Tankers are supposed to deal powerful damage and better reflect their comic counterparts. You find me a post or original development document that says otherwise.

But that's an inconvenient truth for the people who want to push the aggro agenda so they gloss over it. The fact of the matter is, they don't really care what the intent was for the AT at all.

In the end, the devs will either buckle to the majority, do whatever they feel like now or just not do anything. So it really doesn't matter what the intent was or wasn't.

And looking over the posts here, it seems a majority essentially want to return to a state closer to the days of herding maps into dumpsters and make Tankers better farm tools, aka Tractors. That's all increasing aggro caps will get us.


.

Except if you're talking Wolverine. Then Scrappers fit just fine. Or the Hulk Brutes. Or Human Torch Blasters. Or Invisible Woman Controllers.

Except, if you removed Tankers from the game and out of the equation, wouldn't Brutes then be the most survivable AT AND still hit like a truck? Why yes, they would. There's the double standard right there.

You mean 500%. The current cap is technically 400%. Yes, I know people ignore that the first 100% is base. The second 100% is usually taken up by Enhancements, for that matter.



.

Why ever roll a Tanker when as a Scrapper or Brute you can solo fine and not die and team with so many layered buffs and mitigation and not die and have better damage?

They're not at a loss for not having the 'toughness of a Tanker', because once you're above the immortality line (which is even easier now in a game with Destiny buffs, IOs, capped Defense and more mitigation improving accolades and temp powers that you can shake a stick at) more toughness isn't really needed. SO'd Scrappers and Brutes aren't exactly fragile, and that's where the whole balancing toughness versus damage thing falls apart.

What percentage of scenarios in the game can a Tanker survive that a comparable Brute or Scrapper can't?
5%? 20%?

Now, what percentage of scenarios does a Scrapper or Brute posses superior damage than a comparable Tanker?
100%


.

I would just like the option to turn off the ghostly transparency effects.




.

Let the record show Ace brought this up first.

The fact they considered and designed a damage mechanism for Tankers at all is a strong indicator to me that, at least originally, Tankers weren't supposed to be all about aggro as they are now.

Should I dredge up the quote?
Sure I can. It's been a year or thereabouts since anyone has. Thanks for reminding me, Ace.

Bolded for relevance and italicized for irony.

All that talk about Tankers reflecting their comic counterparts and being damagingly powerful must mean that Tankers weren't intended to be about offense at all.
Right...


.

No, it isn't. If people are avoiding Tankers and playing Brutes and Scrappers, pushing Tankers further into a niche only a small handful of people enjoy isn't going to accomplish anything. Very few players get their rocks off taunting.


Simply making Tankers more distinct isn't an end goal in itself. Again, I ask, what do you hope to accomplish by doing that?

If the aim is to bring more people to Tankers, aggro control and survivability haven't been working as bait, so using more of it wont work.

If the aim is to improve the soloing and teaming of existing Tankers, you could flag Tankers as 100% unkillable, it won't speed up their soloing if they're already not faceplanting. And increasing their aggro capabilties just creates more problems in the team dynamic. More than one Tanker is already viewed as redundant, so how will it be better if one Tanker can now handle even more aggro on his own?


.

Bruising is a sticky wicket. It's not exactly like straight 20% damage.

First, Bruising doesn't improve AoE damage, only ST.

Second, you have to modify your attack chain to utilize your Tier 1 attack in order for Bruising to take effect. That actually has the effect of lowering your ST damage output compared to if Tankers just had a 20% increase in damage and didn't have to lead with their T1 and use it every 10 seconds. There's still a net gain from what they were before Bruising, but it's not a full 20% improvement to ST damage.


But then, the flip side to both of those is how Bruising effects the team, increasing everyone's damage on a target 20%.

It also means your Tanker's Lore/Patron pets do more damage and you get a greater gain from Interface bonus damage.


Two major disadvantages Bruising has compared to being a straight 20% damage improvement, and two major advantages it has over it.

So, in my mind, it's a wash. How much does it matter? About 20%.
Which, in addition to the 10% better Max HP, is where 30% comes from.



.