Tannim222

In the OP it was stated that a new drive was also tried but with the same issue.

My last PC began to have the same problem. I also placed a new rom drive and it would attempt to spin, but then stop. It ended being my PSU, which had also fried my GPU just after that (it's ram went kablooie).

I'd still try for the driver fix first, then if that fails, go with the psu. I hope everything turns out ok.

I seem to recall that one of the reasons for suppression in pve was due to people queueing attacks and straffing, and with enough recharge, were defeating encounters with a high degree of minium risk.

Many players tried to reason that there were quite a few AT powerset combos that let them defeat difficult encounters with minumum risk, but were put down stating that players that stayed in melee were still at more risk, or at least engaging in the contect the way it was intended.

Some of the talk in game at the time and note this is probably rumor, it basically came down to people saying that there was a way to do things that allowed people to gain xp at an extraordinary rate (this was pre AE, snowbeast babies, etc...days) so take that as you will.

I thought Memento was quite good. I own both Batman movies, and the Prestige. I'd own Inception as well, but haven't bothered to purchase any films form myself lately (kids ).

For me, he's 5 for 5. I'm not saying he's not able to foul up, because well he is human and all, but I'm betting that I'll end up thouroughly enjoying this film as well.

You're argument based on Stalker changes is blatantly false. They aren't being made close to Scrappers. They are being given a niche for which they were originally designed: Burst Damage.

I've clearly stated the issues with Stalker's assassinate strike tied to stealth on teams. People who play stalkers have brought them up since Stalkers were in CoV Beta. Back then the responce was that they might not be that good in pve teams, but they more than make up for it in PvP.


I agree, communication is key.

You always fall back on the only answer to the issue for Tankers is simply give them more damage. Did it ever occur to you that there may be other options? Perhaps, simply making them do more damage doesn't further seperate them from Scrappers and Brutes.

I know that in your perfect world, there would only be 2 melee ATs. The one that is extremely tough to defeat, and does the most damage per attack.

And the one that isn't as survivable, and has to do pull off multiple attacks to be near equal to that of the first AT's few.

But since Cox isn't built that way, you'd rather just give Tanks more damage. Tanks in this game have never been and probably won't ever be what you want them to be. What happens if the devs come in and don't give them a straight up increase in offense and whatever changes occur, pleases just about everyone else?

You'll go right back on to harping the same old tune simply becaus you can't seem to face the fact that this AT isn't what you want it to be.

Actually, Controllers have Containment (held, immoblized mobs have 2x damage done to them) and they have Overpowered, which applies +1 mag to their status effects. Overpowered was in place far before Containment, only it never had a word graphic to indicate it occured.

I completely disagree. You're premise is that the answer that Tankers don't do well enough in is melee damage. They do fine melee damage. Just not what you want them to do. One could build an argument that Tankers don't offer enough control methods just as much if not more than you want damage. Or buffs. Maybe Tanker attacks should provide a team only +heal effect once a Target is hit

What's really happened is that Tankers should provide a unique play experience that is different from Scrappers and Brutes. Right now, that experience is in aggro control. They should be the best at it, but aren't. It's as if Controllers didn't affect mobs as well as Defenders because Defender mag strength on status effects were initially made higher and never adjusted.

[quote]Stalkers hide better than anyone else. They've got stealth sewn up about as well as Tankers have got a handle on aggro. It was determined Stalkers needed buffing to stay competitive with Scrappers, but the devs are not doing it by making them even more stealthy. While that would further differentiate them from Scrappers, it wouldn't really help them, nor do they really need more stealth; that's not why they run into problems.[quote]

It has nothing to do with competiveness with Scrappers. Try playing a Stalker in a team. Stealthing to a single target to take it out may work in small teams, but the larger they get, the harder that is. Try standing in that long AS animation when everyone else starts AoE'ing, pulling, or defeating your target so that it's either interupted or the mob is dead before it goes off.

Stalkers were meant to hide in order to provide burst damage. It just doesn't work well with teams. So, finally that some new tech is availabe, its being tested out with Stalkers in the hopes that they'll finally have a particular team role, which is burst damage.

Which in case you don't understand, giving them a niche.

It's not that's why so many have shown that Tanker threat modifiers need to be changed. It's just that you don't want that to happen and only want Tankers to do more damage. You won't be happy until you see your particular powerset of choice popping bigger orange numbers.

Never mind that there are Tankers that can achieve high DPS chains and do quite respectable melee damage even when compared to Brutes. You don't want that though, do you? You want bigger orange numbers.

You many not like it JB, but Tankers from the very first version that players got to use, going back to the first Beta pre-launch, were melee-controllers. Look at the secondary effects to their attack powers, many had some form of control attached to them compared to the only other melee AT which. Only Martial Arts came close and at the time, MA was one of the lower performing Scrapper sets.

Going forward, Taunt was made aoe, guantlet was added, Tankers even had their base melee damage modifier increased - all in an effort to keep their threat generation up.

Is that suppossed to be some type of threat? That if we don't stop disagreeing with you, by stating the inconvenient truth you don't want to admit to, that you'll basically put on a forum tirade that's the equivilant of an internet tantrum?

The only thing you succeed in doing that is ending up on more people's ignor list. I highly doubt anyone is scared of you losing your mind and going off on the forums because you became "uncivil". So not impressed.

What about those people who choose to build their Tankers for high dps attack chains which can put out some impressive numbers? Not every Tanker can do it, but neither can every Brute build to the soft cap for all values or easily match those values of a Tanker either.

Even if we decided to completely ignor that fact (which some have apparently), then the answer to the question is to simply make Tankers do more damage because some people heavily invest in defense IO builds?

I'd say that instead of simply having more damage, Tankers should provide a different play experience than Brutes that provides a unique* mechanic on teams (*a mechanic others may be able to do, but done in a way that is unique to the Tanker experience).

*snip*
Hatred? That's a very serious word to use and its one more piece to a puzzle that is starting to show me that I think you've taken something that any of us may be passionate about (the game, an AT, etc...) and made have begun to take it more personally than is healthy.

I have not seen any posts here, or in the consildated ideas thread, nor elsewhere that would indicate someone hates Tankers. There are a few that have posted that they don't particular enjoy playing the AT, which is fine. Some people don't like Defenders, or Blasters, or Scrappers. Not liking a particular playstyle of an AT is very, very different than hatred. I've don't recall any recent threads in which someone stated they wouldn't invite a Tanker to a team. Some have posted that they feel multiple Tankers are redundant, but again, that's not an example of hatred.

The problem that was being addressed is that one should never propose an idea for changing one AT by nerfing another.

With regards to Stalker changes, the issues surrounding that particular AT have been well documented and brought up by the devs on multiple occaisions. Outside of early pvp, Stalkers have never worked how they were intended to, which is why the AT has had as many changes as its had. In othere words, changes for Stalkers are justified.

That's not to say that any change to Tankers isn't. There is a minority of players that feel there isn't a problem with Tankers. Its their opinion, their entitled to it, and entitled to post as such. I'm in rare agreement with you in that something needs to be done for Tankers.

What that is we differ on greatly. I doubt we'll see any new toggle or click powers, mass rebalancing of all the secondaries, etc...Most likely we'll see something done that's more...organic in nature. Something that players won't have to relearn or change tactics to how they play Tankers. I have serious doubts that whatever changes come it'll center around a direct buff to damage or damage potential.

I might be wrong though and I don't mind admitting to that nor would I complain. Its a game after all and I'll conintue to play Tankers even if no other change is ever done to them because I'm still having fun.

This has already been gone over going back years ago until recently in this thread. There are several problems with this idea.

First, the early levels: Tankers would be even more penalized with slower recharging attacks, and therefore having an even more lower leveling curve compared to other melee ATs while solo. This is but one of the bullet point reasonings being Bruising.

Second, attack chains: the entire set has to be taken into consideration, and given that you can string attack chains together, an attack chain could still be built around longer recharging powers that could still pull ahead dps wise.

Some Tanker sets already have very high dps chains.

2b, recharge builds: even with Hasten and SOs, a long recharge attack could still be made significantly shorter, given multiple attacks, doing this would still allow for a very high burst, and high dps attack chain.

At which point all you've done is given Tankers over-all more damage.

Something like this would require a high magnitude of dev hours to go through each and every Tanker secondary at which the "high recharge penalty" doesn't really end up a penalty at all for more damage.

Third, increased endurance cost: besides the balance issue and devs hours required to do this, again you've only hurt early level game play with several attacks strung together would still do high damage, but effectively cost more endurance to do this with. This was another early level issue with Tankers as it cost them more endurance to defeat a Target than other melee ATs. Bruising was also meant to lessen this curve to a small extent.

One way of inreasing each Tanker's attack damage and avoid attack chains would be to create a variable forced cool down or lock out of the entire secondary after an attack is triggered. Now you could have a very high damaging single attack, but wouldn't be able to immediatly follow it up with another attack. I think we could all agree that in game play, this would not be very fun.

Another would be to be increase the damage of all secondary attacks, but then have each attack proc a damage debuff for a short duration, so that there's burst damage, but attack chains would pull damage down to near current level for example. This could end up causing multiple issues and conceptually makes zero sense.