McBoo

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.

All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.

P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.

Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.

This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but if you nerfed Scrapper/Brutes' protections and buffed Tanker damage, why on earth would you ever play a Scrapper or Brute?

[/ QUOTE ]

The change to Scrapper/Brute protection would be in lieu of making any change to Tankers. Basically it's just coming at the perceived problem from the other direction.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I respect Johnny's tenacity I believe it's slightly self serving

[/ QUOTE ]

We are arguing changes to a game people play for pleasure.

Everything here is self serving.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately increased damage is neither unique among the archetypes' inherents nor is it a new idea for tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stalkers, Scrappers and Brutes. Three melee ATs. Their role is dealing damage, in different ways. Three very different playstyles because of the mechanics involved.

They're going to soon co-exist. There's no reason Tankers can't be as unique as they are from each other and also be able to be heavy hitters. It all comes down to mechanics, not roles.

If you accept that Tankers should conceptually be heavy hitters for the reasons I've stated before, then you can logically conclude Tankers can be both heavy hitters and unique among the melee ATs.


.

[/ QUOTE ]

I established quite some time ago that I do not agree with your proposal for a tanker damage mechanic because it is not necessary, it has been tried before and did not work and it will ultimately do more harm than good for tankers. As for your reasoning, other than waving a comic book in everyone's face, you mostly just insult, condescend and argue to turn a defensive oriented archetype into an offensive oriented archetype without regard to game design or game balance.

The three primarily offensive archetypes need different mechanics in order to make the selection of one over the others mean something. Tankers are not primarily offensive so they have no need for an offensive mechanic to make them stand out. If coexistence with blue side brutes means tankers need a bit of a spit shine than let's give them something that allows their primarily defensive role to stand out.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that most Tankers would not want to play with a damage boost against Boss, EB, AV, and GM class enemies is likely not true and borderline insanity, however, everyone is entitled to their opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is no one wants to know how much downward their defenses would need to go in order for them to get such a thing and still be balanced.

Because I have a hard time seeing Tanks getting more damage and still being pretty much unkillable... but, what do I know, the only tank I ever had I quit playing at 38.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say level 38 gives you the right to "talk tanker". By 38 you have the majority of your core powers in place and slotted and you're tactically savvy. Beyond that it's all icing on the cake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I may interject; said icing is pretty much what alleviates the Tanker Damage debates in that it is common to have some of your most cushy damage powers (or opportunities for more) beyond the level 38 threshold. Not to say his opinion doesn't count, but the level 38 discussion does signify a major turning point in character development, one which we often overlook - the advent of the Ancillary Pools lies beyond that threshold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I will admit that the icing is very good icing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My question regarding the idea was why did tankers deserve two inherents and the other nine primary ATs did not? IIRC, it was never answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brutes?

Who said two? This would wrap into Gauntlet.

Just like Defiance now does a couple of different things (pseudo mez protection and damage buffs) as does the Stalker's new Assassination(regular crits, hidden crits, demoralizing effect), there's no reason Gauntlet can't do something else on top of being a radial AoE taunt.


.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't Tankers also get -Range to their Taunt exclusively as well.

I don't mean to bash an arguement that might lend more power to my character, but it does well to bring up further issue with a possible debate of this nature. Beyond the -Range in Taunt, I do have to say that Johnny is right in so far as some other Archetypes getting double benefits and thus the idea is not entirely far-fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not! The idea of rolling something into Gauntlet to make tankers more unique is a very good one. Unfortunately increased damage is neither unique among the archetypes' inherents nor is it a new idea for tankers. While I respect Johnny's tenacity I believe it's slightly self serving, narrow of vision and I don't believe that it will really help tankers in the long run. Honestly I believe it will do more harm than good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying that most Tankers would not want to play with a damage boost against Boss, EB, AV, and GM class enemies is likely not true and borderline insanity, however, everyone is entitled to their opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is no one wants to know how much downward their defenses would need to go in order for them to get such a thing and still be balanced.

Because I have a hard time seeing Tanks getting more damage and still being pretty much unkillable... but, what do I know, the only tank I ever had I quit playing at 38.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say level 38 gives you the right to "talk tanker". By 38 you have the majority of your core powers in place and slotted and you're tactically savvy. Beyond that it's all icing on the cake.

It's not a question of whether people want another damage boost for tankers. If the latest MA brouhaha is any indication, players will take every advantage afforded them and capitalize on it to the Nth degree.

It's a question of whether a second damage boost is truly needed for tankers and what price will have to be paid to get it? If tankers are truly in danger of extinction because of blue side brutes than a token damage boost will do nothing to save them because by their very nature brutes and scrappers will always deliver more damage more consistently than tankers.

If the point of the exercise is to "save tankers" than they need something that brutes and scrappers do not currently have and can never duplicate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then a tank should spec into Pyre mastery if they want to do more damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Boo specifically asked for protective shields for Blasters. That's a very narrow concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so is increased damage for tankers. The tools to do so also exist in the game in several places. All of the tanker APP sets increase tanker damage. Against All Odds increases tanker damage. Rage increases tanker damage. Fiery Embrace increases tanker damage. Mud Pots and Icicles increase tanker damage.

As has already been pointed, making the right selection of power sets and powers even allows tankers to hit the damage cap. I don't think that anyone would disagree that hitting the damage cap allows tankers to be heavy hitters.

[ QUOTE ]
Then a tank should spec into Pyre mastery if they want to do more damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't want to be the one that said it. I figured Johnny would come to the same conclusion eventually.

[ QUOTE ]
I was inspired by Supe's little speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoJ2Bd41zsw

Which, as you said, is something that could speak to the Tanker's concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rousing speech but you might want to use a shortened version of the video clip to make your point. Based on the resultant collateral damage Superman landed two incredibly massive blows before he was convinced that Darkseid was defeated but apparently Darkseid wasn't even phased.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not surprising, as most don't want to have their tankers to "play" that way.

it's once again down to the "feel" issue. Aka, see the epic argument going on in the I5 dom buffs thread, related to /psi.

[/ QUOTE ]


If executed the way I proposed, the inherent I suggested wouldn't impact anyone who didn't want to use it ONE BIT. You could drag the icon off your tray and you wouldn't notice a difference between your Tanker then or before. Their playstyle
would remain the same if they wanted it to. Period.

That was one of my goals behind the proposal; not to take anything away from people who liked Tankers as is.


.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except possibly some more of their survivability because of game balance issues caused by those who are using your Tank-omination inherent. The GDN, though prompted by tanker's insane level of survivability at the time, was not applied only to tankers. Game balance dictated that everyone have their defenses reduced.

Also, let's look at how Tank-omination would affect the other archetypes. If Tank-omination goes into the game to "make tankers more like comic book heavy hitters" what do you think the blasters will have to say about not being able to generate their own protective shields just like in the comic books? For that matter why should controllers have to use multiple holds to defeat a mob when their comic book counterparts can easily achieve victory with a single hold? While we're at it why not take knockback protection away from scrappers since most scrapper types get tossed around like rag dolls during battle in the pages of comic books? I don't have an example for defenders but I believe that I have made my point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to go the other way, upping Tanker damage would compel the devs to up Scrapper defenses through sheer Scrapper whineyness ... which would lead to the samething.

All kinds of reasons Tanker damage shouldn't be touched and in some cases already impinges on that line between Tanker and Scrapper.

P.S. - This is me agreeing with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

To agree right back, the other possibility for fixing the "damage gap" is the lowering of scrapper and brute defenses so that their superior damage doesn't make them as survivable as tankers.

Here's another thought, Change status protection for brutes and scrappers so that it shortens the duration of the mez effects rather than resists it. Also, any status protection buffs would just augment the duration reduction for scrappers and brutes rather than provide resistance. Their superior damage should still see them through but they would become less likely to replace tankers in teams.

This tends fits the source material as scrapper types in comic books are constantly being pummeled and tossed around but they always come back to finish the fight.

[ QUOTE ]
Shield/SS/Fire Tanker with Assault. Hello damage cap.

[/ QUOTE ]

OUCH!

Your biggest stumbling block to a further buff to tanker damage is game balance. Most folks agree that more tanker damage=less tanker defense/resistance. This means that upping tanker damage only homogenizes them with the other melee archetypes while still leaving them bringing up the rear in damage output.

[ QUOTE ]
One thing some people dont get i see is that Brutes are not red side tanks Mastermind are the dev planed tanks. Brutes are more scrapper like. also stalkers ar kind like blasters for dmg heavy. This arch-types will not be replaced by other types but give more options on game play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The only replacements I can really see happening is in the hybrid population. "Scrankers" will go for brutes, "offenders" will go for corruptors etc...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The flags are already there. In the zone means you're flagged for PvP. Not in the zone means you aren't flagged for PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how these "flags" do anything to improve population numbers in the PvP zones.

[/ QUOTE ]

They won't. And honestly, the issue isn't whether or not one can be attacked in a PvP zone that's keeping people out (that'd be silly), but rather, the way people think keep them out of a zone.

If someone wants to go in Siren's Call and have a look around, by all means go for it. They still have to understand that they're in a PvP zone and subject to attack at any given moment. Getting upset that they got PvP'd in a PvP zone is just ignorant to the purpose of the zone. If I took a character to PI to look around, then got killed by a sniper, I wouldn't complain. Like the chicken said, "I knew the job was dangerous when I took it."

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough but seeing as we can't effectively change how or what people think we have to seek out other solutions.

[ QUOTE ]
Batman is such a bully. Dude beats up regular thugs like it was a career.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another good example! Though not what you would call a tanker, Batman uses fear as his chief weapon against the scum of Gotham. He doesn't have to deliver on the threat for small time crooks because "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot".

[ QUOTE ]
Number one, fighting guys weaker than you seems like the exact definition of being a bully to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most superheroes wind up fighting minions weaker than themselves on a fairly regular basis and most bullies rarely ever deliver on any of their threats. So philosophically speaking any brick\heavy hitter type hero in comic-dom is in effect a bully. They use their overwhelmingly superior physical strength to intimidate others. In fact if you think about it bullying really ties into your definition of a heavy hitter Johnny. They hold back for fear of hurting someone so instead they rely on being physically intimidating and making their opponent back down "Before 'someone' gets hurt." The Thing is a perfect example; he was used to physically intimidating people prior to his appointment with destiny and has continued to bully those around him based solely on the fact that he could turn them into paste with one punch.

Even Superman, the consummate Boy Scout, is no stranger to bullying techniques. He power poses until his assailants run out of bullets and then gives them a look as if to say, “Do you really want to see what happens next?” The fact that his bullying is done in the name of truth, justice and the American way is really just about the ends justifying the means.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that you can switch sides in the “mirror universe” as just because Statesman goes Rogue doesn’t mean I want my hero going Rogue hence they allow us to choose/switch sides in this mirror universe.

I don’t believe they will allow us to switch sides in the “real universe” cause you need to have CoH/CoV to play this expansion, imo means a level restriction (could be as low as level 2) which forces you to choose a side in the “real universe” that can not be changed when in the “real universe”.

Real Universe = Hero (born)
Mirror Universe = Villain (side switch)
(go from Mirror Universe back to Real Universe) = still a Hero

Other things to consider:
WW/BM - May not be available in mirror universe; which keeps things separated
SG/VG Bases – May not function in mirror universe

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood the new Praetorian zone to be a facilitator of the switch from hero to villain and vice versa. You travel from the Rogue Isles to the Praetorian zone, make mission choices that change your alignment from red to blue and then you can enter Paragon City to fight alongside other heroes.

The thing that I'm most looking forward to with the new expansion is going to be the ability to start your character out in the Praetorian zone as neutral and see where they wind up based on how you play and the decisions that you make. The only thing that would be better is if the Praetorian zone had some way of recording the generally accepted zone morality based on choices made by all characters in the zone and adjusted the requirements for a transition from one side to the other accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the idea of Tankers specializing in fighting groups for two reasons.

Number one, fighting guys weaker than you seems like the exact definition of being a bully to me. I don't find the idea heroic and fitting for a hero AT. Brutes, it's fine for. That's their concept.
Thematically, I can accept Tankers holding back on the lesser foes; minions, LTs...IF they were able to open up on the Bosses, EBs AVs and GMs.

Number two is the time when Tankers NEED offense the most beyond concept reasons, is the early levels BEFORE your defenses allow you to stand in crowds of foes and maximixe any AoE potential. At best you're fighting three guys at a time.

As for the idea of Critical Taunt, as I said before it's pointless spashing secondary effects to enemies who are already next to you and are in your taunt aura. It doesn't buy the team anything in a team situation. If you're next to the enemies and attacking to be splashing, they're already NOT attacking the team because of Gauntlet and your taunt aura. Solo, it increaes Tanker survivability, but frankly Tankers don't NEED more survivability solo.

I don't think the idea makes sense on a thematic level, and on another level, it feels like someone is just grasping to give Tankers something, any old thing, that Scrappers or Brutes wouldn't want at all or loose sleep over not getting. Tankers deserve better than the scrapings at the bottom of the barrel that the other melee ATs wouldn't touch. We already have Gauntlet for that.


.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually increased mez effects would help in team situations by stacking with mez effects from other players to overcome the mez protection of tougher foes like bosses, EBs, AVs and GMs. As far as concept is concerned it fits pretty easily for a hero that is singelhandedly taking on large numbers of foes at once in order to protect his teammates.

You state tankers need something better Johnny but all you offer is the same old damage increase as a way to make them more like scrappers and brutes. Whether you choose to accept it or not, the reality is that game balance will not allow tanker damage to be as good as scrappers or brutes. Therefore more damage won't make tankers stand out or more popular because if it's only about the damage than brutes and scrappers will still be able to deliver more damage more consistently.

[ QUOTE ]
The flags are already there. In the zone means you're flagged for PvP. Not in the zone means you aren't flagged for PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how these "flags" do anything to improve population numbers in the PvP zones.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit that the gankfest that is the PvP zones in this game is not something new. It's been around since PvP was first added.

While I appreciate the idea that PvP comes with it's own set of rules one has to admit that that those rules do little more than rationalize the chaos and anarchy of your average PvP zone.

The mantra of LRN2PVP doesn't apply when you enter a zone, locate a likely target, close for battle and get waylaid by 3 other folks before you throw the first punch. Or fight your opponent to within an inch of their life before getting skewered into oblivion by a passing stalker. Now I know, all's fair in blah, blah, blah and one can always avoid the PvP zones if they can't "handle it" but why should any zone be off limits to anyone simply because the majority of the population there chooses not to police their own behavior?

Outside of changes made or rolled back what the PvP zones need are PvP flags. One for open PvP, one for head to head PvP and one for no PvP. This way everyone can enjoy the PvP zones equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is one: Arena. Enter zone=get an effing team if you need one.

Honestly, I have zero problems finding duels if I want them in zone. I have zero problems finding kills in zone. Solo. That you can't do either of the above means you aren't trying. It means that you are whining instead of trying. You're here whining. You aren't learning anything by engaging in the activities you are engaging in. Except that you are doing it wrong.

Stop doing it wrong.

Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't misunderstand me. My post wasn't intended to be whining it’s just an attempt to brainstorm a solution for the reported population drop in the PvP zones. I personally don't play PvP in CoH very often mainly because it does nothing for the advancement of my characters and I pick my powers based on concept rather than game mechanics. When I do play PvP I understand the "rules" and roll with the proverbial punches. (No pun intended) I often join a team in the zones to compensate for my lack of PvP “skills”. I occasionally even win a solo battle or two. Not that it matters, I'm not part of some ladder or competing for bragging rights I'm merely having fun.

If the drop in PvP zone population is an issue than what's the harm in adding a system that allows for more people to enter and explore the zones without being subject to open PvP if they are not so inclined? Simply stating that someone can use the arena for one on one PvP does nothing to improve PvP zone population. As a matter of fact it actually adds to the problem.

I have to admit that the gankfest that is the PvP zones in this game is not something new. It's been around since PvP was first added.

While I appreciate the idea that PvP comes with it's own set of rules one has to admit that that those rules do little more than rationalize the chaos and anarchy of your average PvP zone.

The mantra of LRN2PVP doesn't apply when you enter a zone, locate a likely target, close for battle and get waylaid by 3 other folks before you throw the first punch. Or fight your opponent to within an inch of their life before getting skewered into oblivion by a passing stalker. Now I know, all's fair in blah, blah, blah and one can always avoid the PvP zones if they can't "handle it" but why should any zone be off limits to anyone simply because the majority of the population there chooses not to police their own behavior?

Outside of changes made or rolled back what the PvP zones need are PvP flags. One for open PvP, one for head to head PvP and one for no PvP. This way everyone can enjoy the PvP zones equally.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting idea, but I'm a bit shaky on what problem it's supposed to address... It's effects seem to be a bit to narrow in scope to make a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main thrust of the idea (called Critical Taunt for expediency) is to give tankers something that the other melee archetypes do not have. Group fighting specialization. Capitalizing on their impressive defenses tankers have honed their fighting skills to allow them to engage and attack multiple targets simultaneously whereas scrappers and stalkers attack with surgical precision and brutes fight with a single minded fury.

Critical Taunt is really meant to have a larger effect on a tanker's single target attacks. Basically there would be a percentage chance (equal to Scrapper's Critical Hit) to have the secondary effects of a tanker's single target attack applied to the surrounding mobs affected by the punchvoke for that attack.

The details of why the minor AoE effects are applied is left up to the individual player. EM, FM, DM and IM could all be splash damage whereas physical attacks like SS, BA, WM and DB would be more wide swung attacks that inadvertently strike multiple targets or just a domino effect due to the push of battle. The only place where I see this idea adding any extra damage would be Fire Melee as some of their ST attacks have a DoT component.

Existing cone and AoE attacks for tankers wouldn't be changed by critical Taunt since, as I understand it, punchvoke for those kind of attacks only applies to those who were hit by the cone and AoE in the first place. I suppose that it could increase the chance of applying the secondary effect but I don't really see that as necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying I agree with JB, but I think not all of his points are invalid.

It seems like *any* buff to Tanker damage is universally ignored (or maybe, any suggestion JB makes is ignored, and since that's his main suggeston, it is.. I don't know).

I think when CoH was launched, the view of the then-five AT's was radically different than it is now. Which meant Tanks had huge, ridiculous, incredible defenses and damage, and Scrappers did too. Steadily through the updates, things were changed (GDN and ED, most memorably now).

CoV comes out, and there's actually *two* melee AT's meant for damage. Gasp! How can that be!

I think Blueside could do well to be looked over as a whole to learn from some of the things they've done *right* with other sets, specifically those on the Redside.. Like balancing Melee damage better between Scrappers and Tanks. This could be done in several ways: Burst vs. Sustained DPS (With Tankers being the former), or AoE vs. ST damage (With Tankers, again, the former).

I think I'd be fine with it if Tankers had their damage buffed but had a metric much like WoW uses, where you have a global cooldown cycle between usages of certain things; in this case, it would be Tanker attacks. It could be, say, a 4 Second global cooldown, which activated as soon as you used the attack (so the power's animation/activation time would count as a part of the 4 seconds).

You could increase Tanker's damage by hard-capping how often they're able *to* attack, thus making them true heavy but slow hitters. Individual powers might need looking at (mostly, the quick, early-tier attacks) to help make sure they're not completely worthless with this method, but it'd give them more of a feel of being 'Tankers', while not marginalizing Scrappers (because they'd be slow, and in any sustained fight would not pump out as much damage).

It would make Scrappers still the boss killers, the ones that duel with the tough foes while Tankers go around smacking minions and liuetenants against walls, bullets being soaked without issue.

Which is not to say I agree with Johnny's incessant cries of "Buff tanker damage!"--I don't think it's that simple. I think it's a matter of considering that it isn't a binary situation: Scrappers are good at damage therefore Tankers can't be. Or: Tankers have better defenses, thus, their damage is fine as it is.

I think there's a distinct problem with how Tanker vs. Scrapper offensive potential and team contribution is viewed and is handled, whereas I don't see any such distinction between Brutes and Stalkers, who both have widely different methods of being good melee damage AT's.

Just my two cents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tanker damage has been buffed once and the suggestion for more powerful but slower attacks for tankers has been tabled but it was decided that it would ultimately make tankers more frustrating to play. For the most part tankers are doing well but this is not to say that they could not stand a tweak. On that note, I agree that tankers need to be more AoE oriented in their attacks than scrappers, I've been saying that for some time now. Ultimately though those kind of suggestions get brushed aside in the interest of rehashing the age old argument of yet another damage boost for tankers.

You make a valid point with the brute/stalker example and you are correct that simply buffing tanker damage is not the answer. Something needs to be done to make tankers and scrappers as divergent in play style as brutes and scrappers. Vox Populi had a good suggestion. I think taking that a step further and applying the increased debuff/control to any mobs affected by gauntlet would be a step in the right direction. While not increasing damage (accept maybe in the case of Fire Melee’s DoT) it would move tankers toward more of a group fighter role. Which, IMO, is where they should have been all along.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the other hero based MMOs are going to stick with the old model than CoX needs to once again blaze the trail and try something new.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you did there.



.

[/ QUOTE ]


?????