MasterGabriel

[ QUOTE ]
It would just make farming those tasks more profitable, and create an environment where people just did that. The recipes are supposed to be ultra rare, and they are. People only need to run through any normal content at level 47+ to possibly get them. What players are willing to pay for them is rather inconsequential, as it can change over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Respectfully, I disagree.

Farming the STF or LRSF for merits at this point seems inefficient as a great deal of other content can be speed run easier with less chance of failure. Numina, Manticore, LGTF, and ITF just to name a few. Two of those taskforces are set up to be ran at level 50 and are already a source of purple drops simply due to the level range. The timer suggstion was added due to prevent the same kind of blitzing that happened with KHTF in issue 9-12. The timer by itself may not be enough however, as shown by precedent the KHTF farmers back in the day simply ran the same content back to back on different characters to escape the restrictions. Perhaps the timer should be account wide.

The question is how ultra rare are these recipes intended to be? Do we want a system that encourages defeats per hour as the sole criteria for attempting to harvest ultra rares via farms? What players are willing to pay for these recipes is hardly inconsequential because as the price rises players interested in continuing to pay to play could become discouraged by the increasing prices or resentful of marketeers who generate enough influence to simply out bid those who play the game.

Yes, instead of merits or any other type of completion reward. Sorry if that was unclear.

I am sure this has been suggested before, but I cannot find a post where it is suggested in detail.

The price of ultra rare recipes has increased dramatically over the last 12 months due to improvements in the game such as AE, dual builds and Merit Rewards. All of these improvements have done a great deal to increase the replayability of this game but have had the unfortunate and perhaps unintended side effect of raising the price of ultra rare recipes. I completed my first build on my main roughly one year ago. In that build I utilized 10 ultra rare recipes. Those recipes were from the Armageddon and Hecatomb sets. The average price per recipe at that point was between 30- 50 million influence a piece. Now those recipes due to increased demand and inflation are running 150 - 180 million influence a piece. I find that this inflation is making the game feel more like a grind. I marketeer for anything I want but not all players want to play City of Stockbrokers. I believe the supply of ultra rare recipes coming to the market must be increased.

If this increase in price is not "working as intended" I propose that as a special reward the LRSF and the STF be allowed an additional special reward selection for a random purple recipe drop taken from the pool of available recipes weighted in the same manner as current Taskforce / Strikeforce pool drops. The purple recipe drop should be placed on a 3-7 day timer to prevent it from being blitzed in a manner akin to KHTF in issue 12.

I also believe that allowing a random purple drop for completing Hamidon raids should be considered and proposed by those more qualified than myself as my PC is unable to handle the raiding environment and therefore I have a lack of experience in the area to adequately gauge Risk V. Reward.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
I've never found this to truly be the case. Yes, a team might not Want the second tanker, but frequently the second tanker IS valuable. There are many many rooms with several groups easily aggrod but not close enough to keep taunted easily. The second tank is very useful there.


Definitely. Multiple Tanks can also pull those groups together to wipe them out with AoEs even quicker. Or you can split up the team to speed up a defeat all mission.

Or you can just go all Tanks and be a rolling ball of destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what this post touches on is an inherent flaw in the behavior of the player community not the archetype. Multiple Tankers on the team can be useful if the team adapts their tactics to utilize them. Teams with multiple tankers are capable of splitting their forces and steam rolling, but when was the last time you saw a PUG do this. Tankers are capable of it but team tactics and management seems to be coming up short. The development team when considering whether an AT is in need of rebalancing has to consider both median performance and peak performance. Since some Tanks are able to tank 8 man spawns supported by a 3 man team, Tankers must be balanced towards this extreme of performance.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused. When reading the descriptions from both powersets, they seem too similar at first glance which makes me wonder why they are separate sets. What is the goal of each? How are they different overall, meaning how my character plays?


[/ QUOTE ]

The two sets are similar in design in that both sets are based upon multiple layers of mitigation, as well as defensive powers that scale in effectiveness based upon the number of foes in range. However the differences between the two sets are more pronounced than first glance would indicate.

Invulnerability is primarily a Resistance and Defense based set that also has a temporary big + hit points power as well as a tier 9 that will bring you to the damage resistance cap with even one resistance SO slotted, and an equally dangerous crash where you are left bereft of HP and Endurance. These factors make Invulnerability a peak performer capable of the 2nd best peak resilience in the game with no loss of combat efficiency. Invulnerability pays for this with having more downtime where you are less than peak.

Willpower is more of a consistent performer with an auto power that increases hit point, a plethora of powers that increase regeneration and endurance recovery as well as a smattering of resistance and defense. Should you decide to take it there is also a decent self rez. Willpower however cannot reach the peaks of performance Invulnerability can and has a thinner line between struggling through mobs and overwhelmed.

The final difference between the two is age. Invulnerability has been part of the game since launch though it did get a revamp in Issue 12, Willpower was introduced in Issue 11 I believe.

I have them but they are already crafted into enhancements. Unless they have sold haven't checked since last night.

Actually Kinetic Combats have gotten much easier to find due to MA tickets. I have been trading in them on WW for the last week.

[ QUOTE ]
Hello everyone, I was just hoping I could get some feedback from a few broadsword users, and have you guys tell me which secondary blends well with broadsword. I pretty much have it narrowed down to Regen, and Will Power. So any opinions or feedback will be appreciated.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is yes. Either of those secondaries will synergize well. Both will stack well with the mitigation in parry. Regen is a bit more click happy and has a wider range of performance. Willpower is strong overall but lack peak performance and a heal.

[ QUOTE ]
Though I agree with most of your post, if the OP is interested in increasing his defense I think 3-slotting Eradication for the E/NE defense is a better choice than 6-slotting Obliteration. Both sets are very low in end reduction, but at least with Erad you can get the set bonus and still have room to slot it up with another set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankenslotting in a 3 set of Eradicate is a good choice if the sets are found on WW but last I knew early Taskforce drops are kind of rare. I was more interested in options than instruction though I will admit frankenslotting Eradicate is also a valid choice.

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.401
http://www.cohplanner.com/

[u]Click this DataLink to open the build![u]

Lord Gabriel: Level 50 Mutation Tanker
Primary Power Set: Invulnerability
Secondary Power Set: Energy Melee
Power Pool: Flight
Power Pool: Fitness
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Fighting

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Temp Invulnerability -- RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx:40(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:40(5), RctvArm-ResDam:40(7), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg:40(9)
Level 1: Barrage -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg:35(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx:35(3), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg:35(13), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:35(27), Zinger-Acc/Rchg:40(42), Zinger-Dam%:40(46)
Level 2: Dull Pain -- Numna-Heal/EndRdx:50(A), Numna-EndRdx/Rchg:50(3), Numna-Heal/Rchg:50(11), Numna-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg:50(15), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg:40(15)
Level 4: Bone Smasher -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg:35(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx:35(5), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg:35(7), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:35(34), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:40(37), Mako-Dam%:40(40)
Level 6: Hover -- LkGmblr-Rchg+:50(A)
Level 8: Unyielding -- RctvArm-ResDam:40(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx:40(9), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:40(11), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg:40(13)
Level 10: Taunt -- Zinger-Taunt/Rng:50(A), Zinger-Dam%:50(27), Zinger-Taunt:50(33), Zinger-Acc/Rchg:50(33), Zinger-Taunt/Rchg/Rng:50(34)
Level 12: Swift -- Flight-I:50(A)
Level 14: Fly -- Flight-I:50(A)
Level 16: Health -- Numna-Regen/Rcvry+:50(A), Numna-Heal:50(17), Mrcl-Heal:40(17), Mrcl-Rcvry+:40(46)
Level 18: Invincibility -- LkGmblr-Rchg+:50(A), LkGmblr-Def:50(19), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx:50(19)
Level 20: Stamina -- P'Shift-End%:50(A), P'Shift-EndMod:50(21), P'Shift-EndMod/Rchg:50(21), P'Shift-EndMod/Acc:50(46)
Level 22: Hasten -- RechRdx-I:50(A), RechRdx-I:50(23), RechRdx-I:50(23)
Level 24: Whirling Hands -- Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:50(A), Oblit-%Dam:50(25), Oblit-Dmg:50(25), Oblit-Acc/Rchg:50(34), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg:50(43), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:50(43)
Level 26: Boxing -- Amaze-ToHitDeb%:50(A)
Level 28: Tough -- RctvArm-ResDam:40(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:40(29), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx:40(29), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg:40(31)
Level 30: Weave -- LkGmblr-Rchg+:50(A), LkGmblr-Def:50(31), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx:50(31)
Level 32: Unstoppable -- Aegis-ResDam/Rchg:30(A), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:50(33), Aegis-EndRdx/Rchg:50(45)
Level 35: Energy Transfer -- Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:50(A), Hectmb-Dmg/Rchg:50(36), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:50(36), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg:50(36), Hectmb-Dmg/EndRdx:50(37), Hectmb-Dam%:50(37)
Level 38: Total Focus -- T'Death-Dam%:40(A), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:40(39), T'Death-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx:40(39), T'Death-Dmg/Rchg:40(39), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx:40(40), T'Death-Acc/Dmg:40(40)
Level 41: Resist Physical Damage -- RctvArm-ResDam:40(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx:40(42), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg:40(42), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:40(43)
Level 44: Tough Hide -- LkGmblr-Rchg+:50(A), LkGmblr-Def:50(45), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx:50(45)
Level 47: Resist Energies -- RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx:40(A), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg:40(48), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:40(48), RctvArm-ResDam:40(48)
Level 49: Resist Elements -- S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+:30(A), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx:50(50), Aegis-ResDam:50(50), Aegis-Psi/Status:50(50)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Gauntlet
------------
[u]Set Bonus Totals:[u]<ul type="square">[*]8% DamageBuff(Smashing)[*]8% DamageBuff(Lethal)[*]8% DamageBuff(Fire)[*]8% DamageBuff(Cold)[*]8% DamageBuff(Energy)[*]8% DamageBuff(Negative)[*]8% DamageBuff(Toxic)[*]8% DamageBuff(Psionic)[*]20.5% Defense(Smashing)[*]20.5% Defense(Lethal)[*]9.25% Defense(Fire)[*]9.25% Defense(Cold)[*]9.25% Defense(Energy)[*]9.25% Defense(Negative)[*]3% Defense(Psionic)[*]17.4% Defense(Melee)[*]6.13% Defense(Ranged)[*]6.13% Defense(AoE)[*]24% Enhancement(Accuracy)[*]6% Enhancement(Heal)[*]50% Enhancement(RechargeTime)[*]5% FlySpeed[*]217.9 HP (11.6%) HitPoints[*]5% JumpHeight[*]5% JumpSpeed[*]MezResist(Held) 2.75%[*]MezResist(Immobilize) 17.1%[*]MezResist(Stun) 2.2%[*]MezResist(Terrorized) 5.5%[*]9% (0.15 End/sec) Recovery[*]64% (5.01 HP/sec) Regeneration[*]2.52% Resistance(Fire)[*]2.52% Resistance(Cold)[*]3% Resistance(Psionic)[*]15% RunSpeed[/list]

Alright line by line here is what I would change on your build.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 1: Resist Physical Damage
§ (A) Steadfast Protection - Resistance/Endurance: Level 30
§ (3) Steadfast Protection - Resistance/+Def 3%: Level 30
§ (3) Steadfast Protection - Knockback Protection: Level 30


[/ QUOTE ]

You will not need the Knockback protection, so that slot is wasted. I would 4 slot RPD with reactive armor.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 1: Barrage
§ (A) Pounding Slugfest - Disorient Bonus: Level 30
§ (43) Pounding Slugfest - Accuracy/Damage: Level 30
§ (43) Pounding Slugfest - Damage/Recharge: Level 30


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why you picked this set go with Kinetic Combats.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 2: Temp Invulnerability
§ (A) Titanium Coating - Resistance/Endurance: Level 50
§ (5) Titanium Coating - Resistance/Recharge: Level 50
§ (5) Titanium Coating - Endurance/Recharge: Level 50
§ (7) Titanium Coating - Resistance/Endurance/Recharge: Level 50
§ (7) Titanium Coating - Resistance: Level 50
§ (11) Titanium Coating - Endurance: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

You never need to 6 slot armors. Never. Go with Reactive armor 30+ 4 slots

[ QUOTE ]
Level 4: Dull Pain
§ (A) Healing IO: Level 50
§ (17) Healing IO: Level 50
§ (17) Healing IO: Level 50
§ (37) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50
§ (37) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50
§ (37) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

If you go with 4 Numina or Doctored wounds and a Miracle triple for filler you can save a slot and increase your performance on one of your prime powers.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 6: Boxing
§ (A) Accuracy IO: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you taking this so early? Grab Bone Smasher. get a real attack.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 8: Unyielding
§ (A) Titanium Coating - Resistance/Endurance: Level 50
§ (9) Titanium Coating - Resistance/Recharge: Level 50
§ (9) Titanium Coating - Endurance/Recharge: Level 50
§ (11) Titanium Coating - Resistance/Endurance/Recharge: Level 50
§ (13) Titanium Coating - Resistance: Level 50
§ (13) Titanium Coating - Endurance: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]
too many slots. reactive armor level 40 learn it, live it, love it.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 10: Taunt
§ (A) Mocking Beratement - Taunt: Level 50
§ (15) Mocking Beratement - Taunt/Recharge: Level 50
§ (15) Mocking Beratement - Taunt/Recharge/Range: Level 50
§ (50) Mocking Beratement - Accuracy/Recharge: Level 50
§ (50) Mocking Beratement - Recharge: Level 50
§ (50) Mocking Beratement - Taunt/Range: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

6 slot taunt is a valid choice I would suggest however upgrading to perfect zingers. they are not the much more expensive and the bonuses are better.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 12: Combat Jumping

* (A) Serendipity - Defense: Level 40
* (46) Serendipity - Endurance: Level 40
* (48) Serendipity - Defense/Endurance: Level 40

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never for the life of me understood why people waste slots enhancing CJ. The defense bonus and endurance cost are too small to worry about adding more slots.

The next 2 picks look OK

[ QUOTE ]
Level 18: Invincibility

* (A) Luck of the Gambler - Defense/Endurance: Level 50
* (19) Luck of the Gambler - Defense/Recharge: Level 50
* (19) Luck of the Gambler - Endurance/Recharge: Level 50
* (40) Luck of the Gambler - Defense/Endurance/Recharge: Level 50
* (42) Luck of the Gambler - Defense: Level 50
* (42) Luck of the Gambler - Recharge Speed: Level 50

[/ QUOTE ]

you only ever need 3 slots in Invincibility

LOTG D/E
LOTG D/ Recharge
LOTG D/E/R

you hit the ED cap or close to it, save 3 slots, and get the really cool stuff out of LOTG.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 20: Tough
§ (A) Resist Damage IO: Level 50
§ (21) Resist Damage IO: Level 50
§ (21) Endurance Reduction IO: Level 50
§ (31) Endurance Reduction IO: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]
You won't have the endurance to run this before Stamina. Take it later. and reactive armor 4 slots or aegis 3 slots w/ steadfast R/Defense would be better slotting choices.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 22: Health
§ (A) Miracle - +Recovery: Level 30
§ (23) Miracle - Heal: Level 40
§ (23) Numina's Convalescence - +Regeneration/+Recovery: Level 50
§ (31) Numina's Convalescence - Heal: Level 50
§ (36) Regenerative Tissue - +Regeneration: Level 30


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be taking this earlier but the slotting is acceptable. I wouldn't use a spot for Regenerative Tissue but that is me.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 24: Stamina
§ (A) Endurance Modification IO: Level 20
§ (25) Endurance Modification IO: Level 50
§ (25) Endurance Modification IO: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]
Your taking this way too late. Devote 4 slots to Stamina and pick up 4 pieces of Performance Shifter
End Mod
EM / A
EM / R
Chance for + End


[ QUOTE ]
Level 26: Tough Hide
§ (A) Gift of the Ancients - Run Speed +7.5%: Level 40
§ (27) Gift of the Ancients - Defense: Level 40
§ (27) Gift of the Ancients - Defense/Endurance: Level 40
§ (40) Gift of the Ancients - Defense/Recharge: Level 40


[/ QUOTE ]

Remember what I said for Invincible it still applies here.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 28: Whirling Hands
§ (A) Scirocco's Dervish - Accuracy/Damage: Level 50
§ (29) Scirocco's Dervish - Damage/Endurance: Level 50
§ (29) Scirocco's Dervish - Damage/Recharge: Level 50
§ (31) Scirocco's Dervish - Accuracy/Recharge: Level 50
§ (39) Scirocco's Dervish - Accuracy/Damage/Endurance: Level 50
§ (40) Scirocco's Dervish - Chance of Damage(Lethal): Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer Obliterations here so Whirling hands comes up faster and the set bonuses are better but Scirroco is a valid choice and cheaper.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 30: Weave
§ (A) Kismet - Defense/Endurance: Level 30
§ (33) Kismet - Defense/Recharge: Level 30
§ (34) Kismet - Endurance/Recharge: Level 30
§ (34) Kismet - Defense/Endurance/Recharge: Level 30
§ (34) Kismet - Accuracy +6%: Level 30


[/ QUOTE ]
you shouldn't be taking Weave this early and I sure wouldn't be devoting this many slots to it.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 32: Hasten
§ (A) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50
§ (33) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50
§ (33) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

Hasten is a good choice though I wouldn't take it when you took it. I usually pick it up low to mid 20's.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 35: Resist Elements
§ (A) Resist Damage IO: Level 50
§ (36) Resist Damage IO: Level 50
§ (36) Resist Damage IO: Level 50
Level 38: Resist Energies
§ (A) Resist Damage IO: Level 50
§ (39) Resist Damage IO: Level 50
§ (39) Resist Damage IO: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF why on Earth are you delaying getting Energy Transfer and Total Focus? In your 40's when it is time to slot these two reactive armor 4 slots.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 41: Total Focus
§ (A) Crushing Impact - Accuracy/Damage: Level 50
§ (42) Crushing Impact - Damage/Endurance: Level 50
§ (43) Crushing Impact - Damage/Recharge: Level 50
§ (45) Crushing Impact - Accuracy/Damage/Recharge: Level 50
§ (46) Crushing Impact - Accuracy/Damage/Endurance: Level 50
§ (48) Crushing Impact - Damage/Endurance/Recharge: Level 50
Level 44: Bone Smasher
§ (A) Kinetic Combat - Accuracy/Damage: Level 35
§ (45) Kinetic Combat - Damage/Endurance: Level 35
§ (45) Kinetic Combat - Damage/Recharge: Level 35
§ (46) Kinetic Combat - Damage/Endurance/Recharge: Level 35


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before you should be taking these earlier. Kinetic Combats 4 slots plus two Mako works for me. Crushing Impacts are a cheap effective alternative but if you are really going for being a defensive beast I suggest kinetic combats. Oh and for Pete's sake 6 slot these two attacks they are your best after all.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 47: Unstoppable
§ (A) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50
§ (48) Recharge Reduction IO: Level 50


[/ QUOTE ]

I use unstoppable as an IO mule. This is a great place to put Stead fast or Aegis. Oh devote 3 slots to Unstoppable.

[ QUOTE ]
Level 49: Energy Punch

* (A) Accuracy IO: Level 50

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did you bother? Another under-slotted attack does you no good. Pick up build up or Conserve power.

I will be posting My Inv / EM's build for you to take a look at.

My grats as well.

Moments ago....

[ QUOTE ]
[BMT of Champion]SCyberTaz: feh, the bouncer's late picking up the stripper's pizzas

[/ QUOTE ]

it just never stops

What would I rather play. A Tanker, Brutes are too squishy by themselves.

What would I rather team with. Again probably a Tanker assuming I am not already playing one.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Castle is unlikely to respond to you



Castle is unlikely to respond to anyone.

Quote:
but if you feel the need, start your own thread with various suggestions



Been there, done that. The last general discussion thread on the issue that I launched was the one where Castle dragged it OT and got half of it nuked.

Quote:
It took a couple years but mace got a great buff



It did?

Quote:
You'd have to learn to talk with us rather then at us



You'd have to listen and share my general opinion instead of pushing for the exact opposite. I've got little interest in shoving Tankers further into a niche as aggro monkeys, which is where I see 85% of suggestions coming from by the people who who crap on my efforts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you really can't take feedback from anyone. Acemace, has SUCCESSFULLY lobbied for change of a Tanker power-set and he gives you encouragement as well as critical feedback IMHO and you spit at him for his efforts. I encourage anyone who is really interested in lobbying for changes in any AT to follow Acemace's example, and for your own sake don't act like JB.

[ QUOTE ]
While scrappers and brutes have thier own charms I find myself missing my aggro control when I play them.
The ability to go rogue will certainly not cause me to play tanks less, my almost four years of ingame experience (without breaks fwiw) tells me that the demand for my services will more than likely increase not decrease.
I am not opposed to change and evolution but I will vehemently oppose anything that I see as a threat to the feel and role of my favorite AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

/signed

[ QUOTE ]
I have personally argued in favour of three of those four items numerous times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet what we see argued most is the dead horse of Tankomination. Rather than going for ideas that seem to be drawing popular support you always draw discussion back to that.

[ QUOTE ]
Damage vs bosses and higher only got brought up recently because someone said they saw me suggest it a couple of times.


[/ QUOTE ]

You or Myrmidon. And as I said before the idea steps on Scrappers toes and I really think IF a global change of the Tanker AT is warranted a better solution can be found.

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers getting Defender/Controller level Leadership buffs? Again, something that came recently from I suggestion I made. Was I the fist to suggest it? Unlikely. But you're talking about it because someone saw me suggest it not to long ago in one of those threads of mine you guys say are so much garbage and brought it up again as a good idea for helping to address Tanker issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea to my knowledge first came about for general discussion last year. The idea was the result of a dialogue between yourself and I. What is garbage is when you beat dead horses and throw meaningless jibberish around rather than build consensus to identify, prove, and fix the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
So you are in favour of many of the things I'm calling for, while attacking me for what I call for. You really don't know much of what I've actually suggested beyond "Johnny wants more damage," do you?


[/ QUOTE ]

The part you seemed to have skipped over was the part where I said changes should be done on a power set basis and not an AT basis. That is what I was most in favor of and then worked my way down the list. It may strain something for you to know this, but who puts forth an idea pales in my regard to the validity of the idea. Since you take part in everyone of these threads, I imagine you have had some level of input directly or indirectly on every proposed "solution" on the subject. I am sorry keeping track of what you suggest is not my primary focus in these forum debates. My primary goal in these debates is to keep the debates going and point out negative tactics and fallacies of logic. Hence why I keep having to reply to you.

[ QUOTE ]
See. I'm still not sure why you believe that you, above everyone else, should be "listened to" and that your vision of what tankers should be is the "solution to tanker problems". It comes across as very egotistical and you seem to throw more temper tantrums then my neighbor's spoiled 6 year old daughter. As I've mentioned before, even if I thought your overall idea had merits for tankers I doubt your ideas will at this point in time ever get anything more then a roll of the eyes as you've become sort of the "rabid dog" who won't let go of his "tanker-omination" chew toy.

[/ QUOTE ]

How true.

[ QUOTE ]
Before you go "I'm being a tank" on this idea, please stop and think. The general community has rebutted your every attempt at pushing this idea. Even though you probably won't ever believe it, maybe your idea isn't the best thing for tanks. Please, do yourself a favor and step back from the idea for a while. Look at it with fresh eyes and look at CoX as a whole. You may not change your mind about the idea, or you may come up with a better one. You may even figure a better way to present or prove that your idea is either a good one or the best one. And your continuing to use a four year old quote from the lead designer who no longer works on the game isn't going to help you win your argument no matter how much you'd like it to. That kind of argument doesn't work in divorce cases much either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck on your attempt at reason. Good ideas are proposed all of the time for insuring Tankers have a role in this game. It is a sad fact that many are lost in the JB V. The World battles of the week.

Just because it has been pointed out that JB's "Detractors" never present any ideas of their own for fear of being flamed. let me post my thoughts on what could be done with Tanks to make them more attractive.

1st rule. Tankers defenses and aggro abilities must remain untouched. My first job is "rodeo clowning" AKA Tanking, not scranking AKA feeding my own ego.

1. Make no changes to the Tanker AT as a whole and focus balance efforts on individual powersets. Arguing for Tankomination, damage bonuses, or whatever might be unbalancing for some power sets but reasonable for others. Lets allow the Dev team the freedom to apply balance efforts where needed.

2. Allow Tankers to use Defender or Controller numbers for Leadership pool. This allows more build options without adding something for nothing so to speak.
Apply an additional inherent ability into Gauntlet such as those suggested in this thread or others like it. None of these are my idea and I take no credit for them. These ideas in no particular order include resistance debuff, regeneration debuff, Mez stacking., extra damage V. Bosses and higher.

[ QUOTE ]
See my earlier posts about what a heavy hitter really means.



I don't really care what you think being a heavy hitter means.

Consistantly hitting weaker than all the other melee ATs by 40% isn't being a heavy hitter.



.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, JB, usually you try once or twice to argue before throwing out fallacious arguments. The reason no one listens to you about Tank-omination or any of your other "fixes" is that you don't care about or consider other viewpoints. You just throw out meaningless jibberish and claim your being a "True Tanker." You have no concept of game balance or data-mining. What you do know is how to hold a grudge for the Devs and the player base no automatically jumping at your beck and call and how to toss fallacious arguments around until you alienate anyone who might disagree with you. Oh, and just to make it clear, I am not replying to this post in any silly vain attempt to educate you. I am replying to this post to point out the flaws in your methods to anyone who might reasonably think you are right.

[ QUOTE ]
How can they be "one of the best" at the latter when they are the lowest damage melee AT in the game, and now there are two ranged ATs with melee attacks that hit harder than the same ones on that Tanker?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can these other ranged AT's survive long enough to get use of their melee attacks? Defensive strength plays an important role in this equation.

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the melee ATs, the are the worst offensively by far, and out of all ATs that get melee attacks in their primary and secondary, they are favouring the lower end. You can't be in sixth place out of 10 and be "one of the best."

[/ QUOTE ]

You can be one of the best if your composite ability, offensive and defensive, is higher than the median. See my earlier posts about what a heavy hitter really means.

[ QUOTE ]
Nicely stated.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your welcome. Sorry if the grammar gets a little unclear at times.

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers already fulfull their core purpose too well in some cases. That is not the area causing deficiency, so it is not the area that needs attention.

Nor should we invent a "new area" for Tankers when then cannon, other media and other information sourses indicate Tankers and Tanker-like heroes should be heavy hitters; not debuffers or healers or anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

You state that the Tankers of this game are not the "Heavy Hitters" In the canon of this game Statesman an iconic Tanker is an Incarnate and therefore too powerful to use as a base point of reference. Tankers remaining in the canon for this game is Citadel and Back Alley Brawler. Arguably, neither is the most damaging member of Freedom Phalanx that honor goes to Synapse, Positron or maybe Sister Psyche. However what these Tankers do have going for them is that they are powerful enough to endure heavy combat and ultimately triumph since only by overwhelming force can these beings be defeated.

Are you familiar with the Wargame Warhammer 40K? In that game Tanks (the treaded kind) are often termed heavy support Heavy hitters so to speak. Most Heavy Support tanks in that game have 3-5 weapons and cost as much as a full squad of troops or more which have 10 or more weapons. In general if you compare the Heavy Support tank and the equivalent value squad of troops, the possible casualties inflicted in one turn so heavily favors the troops it is unreal until you consider that that squad of troops may have 1 weapon in 10 or less that can hurt that tank. Eventually that tank is going to win because no one can hurt it without the right kind of firepower..

Tankers in this game are no different from the tanks of Warhammer. A Tanker may not have the heaviest damage but without massive overwheming force they just don't go down. Eventually they will whittle you down and crush their opponents. That is why they are Heavy Hitters.

[ QUOTE ]
And how do you justify the hero teams's team big guy smacking around people smaller than him and then girly slapping the guys he should by all rights be able to lay into?


[/ QUOTE ]

A Tank is able to lay into all opponents in this game equally. A tanks attack does no more and no less damage versus everything from a AV to a pet . The fact that the Higher level Stuff is able to take it better is because these Villains begin to equal or exceed the Hero's own power. Our Tank is not "girly smacking" anyone some targets are just better at taking it.

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers holding back on minions and LTs with their current mediocre damage levels at least makes thematic sense if they can unload on Bosses, AVs, etc with high damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is thematic only because you choose to believe it is. It is your opinion. The fact that their damage is medium is a mechanic in this game. You have invented the fiction that your super strength Tanker is really so strong he has to hold back from hurting people but he unleashes against mightier foes. Same as that video clip you like. The fact that the mechanics of this game does not match the rules of your, my, or anyone else imagining is irrelevant past the individuals right to choose to pay to play the game. You equally have the right to modify your imaginings to fit the mechanics of the game and believe your opponents are worthy adversaries. You choose to interpret the mechanics of the game the way you do.

[ QUOTE ]
NOT being able to open up on Bosses and AVs and then brutalizing the squishy enemies not only doesn't make any thematic sense, it's not very heroic in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then perhaps you should redefine heroism. If I take a tank and beat down a Skull gang who is (in the rules of my imagination) much tougher than the average citizen I have certainly done something heroic for the next victim of their criminal activities. Now if I take down large groups of these minions and a few more powerful members of the Skulls that keeps even more citizens of Paragon City safe. That sounds pretty heroic to me. It may not be epic in your mind but again that is how you choose to interpret the mechanics of the game within your imagination.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Isn't all damage on non perma-Doms being improved not just melee? Since Castle stated that the Dominator's new purpose is damage and control consecutively.




And that just goes to show that an AT's purpose can change over time as the game changes.

Doms are an example of a defensive primary and an offense secondary AT that has now seen a shift to more offense. They could do both before, but now they do one better than they used to. Do they now control worse? If not, I fail to see how that is unlike Tankers. They didn't give Doms leadership abilities or invent them something new to do.



[/ QUOTE ]

I really can't debate the entirety of the Dom changes since I am really not following it so closely. Archetypes purposes may need to be evaluated in light of Going Rogue. Controllers and Dominators may now be competing for the same spots on teams. The Devs, to rebalance the AT in light of Going Rogue and the issues with the Jekyll and hide feeling of regular Dominators and Perma-Doms choose to modify an existing mechanic. Changing the benefit level of Tankers and leadership would follow that precedent. The Devs have also shown they will invent something new when damage just isn't enough as happened with Stalkers and their demoralizing strikes. Since Tankers have already been given a damage buff back in the early issues of the game and adding damage would only muddy the purpose of a Tanker as oppose to clarify, I think if the Dev team decided to do anything it would be to tie a new mechanic into Gauntlet.

Edited for grammar and punctuation.

[ QUOTE ]
What if we go with the idea of a damage boost against Boss/EB/AV/GM class mobs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Steps a bit on Scrappers toes. I wouldn't cry if it was added but I think there are better options.

[ QUOTE ]
For the simple reason that any change that doesn't affect Tanker damage, isn't going to help their concept deficiency, which is where I say they are lacking the most. Other areas where they're lacking (endurance use, the early-mid levels stretch, being called "boring" by many) can all be tied to damage and offense issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

You treat this concept deficiency as if it was fact. It is not. That statement is your opinion JB not, fact.

[ QUOTE ]
The recent revisions to the AT's inherents can be see as an attempt to make them more rounded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again opinion. My opinion is that the changes were made to make the AT's less frustrating and more attractive in a teaming environment.

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters, an AT primarily about damage, got a form of mez protection to make them more survivable in addition to increasing their damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blasters got Defiance 2.0 to allow the AT to use its primary defense (damage) more reliably. The damage buff you refer to actually lowered the possible damage buff since before a blaster below 10% hit points could hit the damage cap simply through defiance. The defiance change made the buff more reliable and in line with the purpose of the AT.

[ QUOTE ]
Stalkers, another damage AT, got the demoralizing effect which also helps their survivability, not to mention staying hidden from missed Assassination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again a change made to make stalkers more survivable in team environments and more attractive overall.

[ QUOTE ]
These changes improved the survivability for these primarily offensive ATs, making them more rounded and less frustrating to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

We agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Why then, should it be off the table for a primarily survivable AT to get improved offense to make them more rounded and fun to play?


[/ QUOTE ]

The changes with the other AT were made to enhance the core purpose of the AT. I.E. in these cases damage. The core purpose of Tankers is survivability. If a change to base damage were to be made it would have to be:
<ul type="square">[*]Small enough that their damage would still be under ever other damage primary melee AT[*]Not be so large as to lower tanker defenses or aggro control capability. [*]If meant to address leveling speed or endurance usage would have to be consistent and not burst (aka Tankomination) in order for the effect to be appreciable.[/list]
Given all of these conditions making Tankers more like other AT seems a lackluster solution. Since every other Melee AT would still have better damage. Tankers need to offer something or a conglomerations to the team that is uniquely them.

[ QUOTE ]
It should very much be on the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I t really shouldn't be on the table except as a last resort since it will be ineffectual.

[ QUOTE ]
And since Tankers currently do two things: they tank with their primary and attack with their offensive secondary, making them more rounded would involve improving on their secondary's offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good Tanker uses both their primary and secondary to tank. Making them more well rounded in this case would be an inadequate solution as Tankers are a specialist character by design. Tankers may need something that will make them more attractive in team play. This extra something should ideally help the tanker in solo play if possible within game balance. I still think being given Defender / Controller level leadership buffs is a good place to start. I agree with the earlier poster that Tankers should be better against groups as a means to preserve their role within the game. If you want a boss killer grab a Scrapper. If you want to take on an entire spawn grab a Tank.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention now there's a precident for improving a melee damage secondary:

Dominators.


[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't all damage on non perma-Doms being improved not just melee? Since Castle stated that the Dominator's new purpose is damage and control consecutively.

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm the only person who actually likes David Caruso.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the only one.