McBoo

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since neither Superman nor Wonder Man nor The Thing are tanks, I'm not so sure that your argument provides the idea any more weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Errr if you were to make a CoH comparison to those characters what would you classify them as?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only one in that group that is close to a CoH tanker would be Wonder Woman. I'd put her down as a WP/SS tanker. Supes and Ben are Incarnates, hands down.

Invulnerability is your best straight forward bet in my opinion. It has a good suite of resistance and defense with solid aggro management. Add Stone Melee for some decent damage and added aggro management tools.

Stone/Ice is a another good combo for pure tanking. Your damage won't be great but you will be an aggro magnet. If you slot for regen and make regular use of Ice Patch you shouldn't need Granite except in the most extreme cases.

Ice/Stone also looks to provide good defense and aggro tools with decent damage.

Welcome to the game... I'll reiterate the suggestion that you should really find your own way to start. I think that this game lends itself quite easily to experimentation with powers, slotting and game play and that you're missing out by not taking advantage of that. If you are still interested in following in the footsteps of others as a baseline then a guide for your chosen combo does exist.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're looking for damage, Pyre. It's AoE Fire Ball is superior in every way compared to Stalagmites; recharge (32s vs 64s), target cap (16 vs 10), accuracy (1 vs 0.8), range (80ft vs 70ft), damage (scale 0.9 and 80% chance for 0.3 more vs 0.9), and it's fire damage, which benefits more from FE (larger, longer lasting dmg buff). The only thing that Stalagmites has in its favor is a 10% chance for a MAG3 stun. The chance of it going off is incredibly weak.

Pyre and Earth both gets st holds (Char and Fossilizeand immobs (Ring of Fire and Stone Prison) - note Earth's hold requires lvl44 and 1 other pick while Pyre can get it at lvl41.
Pyre gets a ranged blast (Fire Blast) and Earth gets an AoE sleep (Salt Crystals)
Pyre gets an AoE res/def debuff (Melt Armor) and Earth gets Quick Sand).

The only unique thing Earth offers that Pyre can't do (and better) is Quicksand - of whose benefits I'm dubious.

[/ QUOTE ]

If simply increasing damage is the goal then Pyre Mastery is a good choice. The OP seems interested in finding a way to increase the effectiveness of Burn. Earth Mastery is a better choice for that and adds some damage mitigation to boot.

[ QUOTE ]
I was wondering if quicksand would be a viable option with enough slows...with Burn?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd have to do some play testing to discern the effectiveness of Quicksand+Burn over Fireball if your main purpose is to increase your damage output. I'm not sure that the fear effect from Burn in any way modifies the slow from something like Quicksand.

Felony and bribery,
live together in perfect villainy.

Now you sing....

If you are looking for more AoE options I would go Earth Mastery. It also comes with the bonus of adding some damage mitigation with it's holds and debuffs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It always amazed me that they wouldn't think players wanted it. I mean, they knew we would want to customize the appearance of our characters, and gave us the most amazing character design system extant, then dropped the ball with customizing the powers themselves...

[/ QUOTE ]

While it's definitely a shame they did, and I agree they dropped the ball, well, remember that post of mine you so heartily agreed with. It really shouldn't be surprising when taking the history of this game's development. Disappointing, yes, but there's not very much that even the devs can do now except change values, animations (animations and powers are quite different things) and add new systems. The old stuff, in many ways, is practically set in stone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the "set in stone" thing may be a result of going from one extreme to the other. When the game was first in development Cryptic had a much more free form style of character generation and power selection in mind. That proved to be too unwieldy so they went in the opposite direction, perhaps the concept of power customization got lost in the shuffle. This is, of course, pure speculation and I hope to see an announcement in the near future that NCSoft/Paragon Studios is working on CoH 2. With a sequel they can start from scratch as it were; new engine, more customization, a seamless world, etc...

With Champions Online and DCUO lining up to join the ranks and Marvel still trying to tap the MMO market I would think that we are already on the rails to a sequel.

You missed a couple....

[ QUOTE ]
What players should do :
Design content....CHECK!
Upgrade menu systems...CHECK!


[/ QUOTE ]

Relax and have fun...CHECK!

[ QUOTE ]

What players shouldn't do :
Question Dev decisions.
Give negative feedback on bad design.


[/ QUOTE ]

Take things too seriously and overreact.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I prefer a nice rich BBQ sauce with a hint of garlic and a healthy dose of Sarachi sauce mixed in for a nice bite.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all about the honey and chille sauce nubcake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are failing to see that the Sarachi is a chili sauce nublette.


Honey isn't a bad choice if you're going for more of a honey BBQ. I've tasted some nice BBQ sauce that included Saffron as a seasoning as well. As always YMMV

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but tankers don't need more damage.

(If we're going to threadjack, let's get serious!)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Superman would be a tank if he played CoH, and who doesn't want to be Supes? ;]

[/ QUOTE ]
Playing Superman is what's kept me with this game for five years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no! In the name of all that is holy, please stop! If you say it three times he will appear!

[ QUOTE ]
Superman would be a tank if he played CoH, and who doesn't want to be Supes? ;]

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh oh! You've done it now......

Two words... Bring it!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all disclaimers: A. I have no idea if this is even mechanically feasible within the CoX game engine. B. I'm not sure that it's really needed, and C. if it might break game balance. That being said, let me try and define what my pea brain is thinking.

The reason I called it a pseudo-anchor is because you would want/need some sort of visual representation within the game of who your Single Target Fury (STF) was attached to or else it would be fairly useless if you had to keep switching targets to figure out who had it. Talk about creating a headache. I don't see it as a true anchor because I'm not looking at is as a debuff, but really following the fury mechanic of the damage building over time/attacks.

Mechanically it might need to be something like the inherent Dom power button so that you could set the STF target, but I don't see it as building up and giving you the same Inspie style boost that the Dom inherent does.

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked your idea. Though I think I'd keep it more simple.

Single Target Fury, like you said, but if they change targets then it resets.

Really, for Minions/LTs/Bosses, you don't need it as much (when ona team anyways), but this Fury Lite would really shine on AVs/EBs/GMs.

Seeing as how Brutes get the tankers inherit (at a lowered amount), I don't see why Tankers couldn't get Brutes at a reduced amount.

Just keep it to attacks you do on one target. Not attacks they do on you. If you switch targets, it automatically resets.

I like it

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about a mechanic for tankers that is tied to a single target. It's counterproductive to a tanker's job. Most of the other archetypes have inherents that are tied to their main abilities so why should a tanker be any different? If their main ability is defense than their inherent should somehow support that or augment it.

This is why I like the idea of allowing tankers to have a defender level Maneuvers buff tied to Gauntlet. It allows the tanker to proactively protect his or her teammates without necessarily having to rely on Taunt or draw all the aggro. As mentioned before you could even have it switch to an Assault style self buff (12%) for the tanker running solo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your points except your last one.

Sadly in CoH your character's future at L50 is of a very limited scope (more then in most MMOs).

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it limited? You can, now, go back and do every piece of content in the game, on every level 50 that you have, as much as you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the MA has opened up a near inexhaustible supply of new post 50 content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I14 has more clearly demonstrated what's been the problem with CoH since its inception then any other debate or issue I've heard talked about.

The fact that the designers of this game, past and present can't break away from their world builder tool enough to expand the content in the game the way it should be is appalling. Giving it to us as a "content update" is insulting.

But to each his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define content for me as you see it. I'm having trouble seeing MA and new content as mutually exclusive of one another so I'm interested in expanding on your point of view.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your points except your last one.

Sadly in CoH your character's future at L50 is of a very limited scope (more then in most MMOs).

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it limited? You can, now, go back and do every piece of content in the game, on every level 50 that you have, as much as you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limited in character growth. IOs and badges (and by proxy Accolades) are the only form of character growth at L50 and both are extremely finite.

For the PvP oriented there is a bit more robustness at being at L50 and for doing said earlier content, however PvP is an extremely small part of this game and for most, not a viable alternative to lack of stimulating content.

Also the idea of being able to do the "content" that you've missed (or worse, re-doing content that you've already done) is a fairly ornery chore at best. "Content" in CoH being as extremely limited in scope as it is (as in "kill all enemies and click all blinkies").

As for the interest of the content itself (the story lines) some are interesting while most tend to be extremely basic and rehashes. This is of course my opinion. But one thing that does hold up is that the popularity of MMOs are based on "living worlds" with content that's interacted with. This is the basis by which MMOs (and gaming in general) supersede static content mediums such as books and television. CoH in this regard does a very poor job of bringing a "living world" to the player. This has always been its biggest problem in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had an idea that it would be great to add new to the game on a quarterly basis. Have them open originally as hazard zones only accessible to levels 45 and above but over time their threat level is reduced until they are normal hazard zones set at whatever level or city zones open to anyone.

The idea is to have the higher level players be an advance exploration force that establishes a beachhead and secures the area for other heroes. The zone would change in relation to the time spent doing missions and exploring areas within the zone based on several way points on the map. As time goes by the higher level heroes will have made the zone safe enough to adjust the level and zone type to match it's original intent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your points except your last one.

Sadly in CoH your character's future at L50 is of a very limited scope (more then in most MMOs).

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it limited? You can, now, go back and do every piece of content in the game, on every level 50 that you have, as much as you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the MA has opened up a near inexhaustible supply of new post 50 content.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Probably not but a reduction to brute defenses would be the most likely outcome if blue side brutes are truly a threat to tankers. It may not be popular but the developers have a 5 year track record of balancing downward.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as I said before, that does nothing to help the issues Tankers have.

Two of the goals of the Dominator tweaks:

[ QUOTE ]
Improve "feel" of low level play.
Increase Dominator vs. Controller viability

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't accomplish this by nerfing Controllers. Nor did they improve Stalkers with the recent changes by nerfing down the rest of the melee ATs.

In the case of Brutes vs Tankers or Scrappers vs Tankers for that matter, balancing Brutes/Scrappers down doesn't make ANYONE feel better about playing Tankers or Brutes/Scrappers.


.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm merely pointing out that the track record speaks for itself.

I personally see no reason to worry about blue side brutes. The only real effect I see it having is all the scranker types will dump their scrankers for brutes. In my opinion that is a good thing for tanker popularity because you will have fewer bad team tanker experiences.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I stand behind the point that the quickest way to getting a shield reduction in Brutes is to keep yammering in the Tank section about how brutes are just as sturdy while doubling the damage.

*snip*

No, then what is he going do, he's going to "take a look at" Brutes, or haven't you paid attention to how he's dealt with balancing powers & ATs?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nerfing Brutes will not improve Tankers, make them more fun to play or fix their issues(mechanical, role, conceptual or otherwise).

It wouldn't make Brutes happier. I don't think it would make anyone else here any happier. I know it wouldn't make me any happier.



.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not but a reduction to brute defenses would be the most likely outcome if blue side brutes are truly a threat to tankers. It may not be popular but the developers have a 5 year track record of balancing downward.

Then I would suggest you try an energy/energy blaster. Iron Man tends to let his repulsors do most of his talking anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...On a team they hold back because someone might get hurt, that someone being one of their teammates, but solo they can really let go and hang the collateral damage...

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to dislike this line of thinking as the explanation for low Tank Damage. 'Holding Back...', 'Pulling Their Punch...'

What? Are Tanks the only thoughtful ATs out there? What don't Blasters ever give any thought to the collateral overkill they may be causing.

I explain my SS tanks lower damage by saying that, yes, she is Super Strong, but can't build any speed when she punches. Kind of like a regular Human hitting with Brass Knuckles. It's gonna hurt more, but not break the target in half.

Lots of Tankers wouldn't hold back if they could do more

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, explanation of powers and effects is really up to the individual player. I just tossed that in to add some flavor.

[ QUOTE ]
What don't Blasters ever give any thought to the collateral overkill they may be causing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be snarky, I'd have to say no based on my experience.

I would add mini-costume creator for all of the armor toggles that would allow players to mix and match and come up with unique versions of their armors.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I personally like the idea of attaching any new mechanic for tankers, whatever it may be, to Gauntlet. That way it becomes more of a proactive thing.

Originally tankers complained that their taunt auras and taunt really weren't enough to make them feel that they were actively adding value to their team. Gauntlet has fixed some of that but I still feel like it's a largely transparent thing.

I think a Competition/Opposition buff effect that is applied as a tanker attacks would be great. Say for the first attack in melee the tanker and all teammates within a certain radius of the tanker (large enough to keep squishies outside of AoE splash damage) get a 120 second defense buff. The buff power would then have a cool down period of 110 to 115 seconds before being available again. This would mean that in extended battles the buff remains in place as long as the tanker is still attacking.

Fix it so that buffs from the same tanker will not stack but those from multiple tankers will. The code for this already exists somewhere in the game so it shouldn't be too difficult.

Here's a nod to Johnny, allow Competition/Opposition to afford solo tanks a built in Assault buff (say 12%) that switches to Maneuvers when teamed. This way the mechanic would help tankers both in teams and out as well as be indicative of how their strategy changes for each situation. On a team they hold back because someone might get hurt, that someone being one of their teammates, but solo they can really let go and hang the collateral damage.

My apologies if someone has already gone over this particular permutation of the ideas suggested.

[ QUOTE ]
Suggestions need to take a few things into account.
1.Is it balanced mechanically.
2.Is it a conceptual fit with the existing game(not every individual player's vision).
3.Can it be put in place with a minimum of new code.

Frankly the first point seems to dictate that whatever happens should have a minimal effect on a solo tank. The second point is strictly a matter of choosing a fitting name.
After considerable thought how about this......

Competition.

Your foes recognize the threat you pose to their leaders. This weakens their ally buffs and foe debuffs when they are near you.

Visualize kind of an inverse of mastermind supremacy. This effect would be particularly noticable when faced with stacked enemy buffs such as nemesis veng or cimeroran status resistance. This would also come into play when faced with DE emenators, multiple tsoo sorcs, and cot mages.

This would greatly increase the appeal of a tank, or indeed multiple tanks, on a team across the level spread. So long as the effect is not too obscene, say 30% or less effect reduction, it should have hardly any effect on a solo tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has some definite possibilities. While I would personally like to see a new tanker mechanic be something more tactile and proactive I can't really fault this idea. I vote for a name change from Competition to Opposition. It's a better PR move.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, weird idea time. What if tanker base damage was boosted by, say, 15%, but for every enemy in melee range to a max of 3, they suffered a 5% damage debuff? I think this would serve to increase tanker damage against single targets (presumably the ones that stay alive the longest -- Boss class and above), but quickly reduces their damage potential in crowds to the levels that currently exist.

1 foe in range = +10% damage
2 foes in range = +5% damage
3 or more foes in range = no change from before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Creative but it's in direct conflict with most of the powers and effects that are already in place for tankers. It does effectively display the fact that extra damage for tankers will almost certainly require a sacrifice of their primary ability.