[ QUOTE ]
Poster: PorkchopXpress
.
I feel sorry for States sometimes.
.
He comes here and posts his results, probably in very good faith - and hoping to possibly help us to reach some AT determinations and move forward.
.
What he gets is a verbal beatdown that his tanking A) sucked and B) that the AT sucks. Well, both are probably true 
, but at least he tried. Maybe this will help to promote some future dialog amongst Devs and players about the seemingly widespread discontent amongst the Tankers AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel sorrier for the team that invited him expecting him to tank and all he did was target S/L minions (Strongmen) that were the least threat to the team. I mean $deity at least aggro an LT that is a little more dangerous.
I played blasters more aggressively then that and I avoided aggro.
Still when you play with lvl 45-50 beginners that aren't familiar with their chrs including both Inv tankers they did well as could be expected without a tank or strategy. Imagine if they had been playing them during the levels 1 to 44 as well. 
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
[ QUOTE ]
You know, everything I'm reading here tells me I have to take dull pain. I don't really want dull pain, it takes away fun power, like footstomp, handclap, whirlwind. Everything I've tried in practice tells me I need dull pain, so I took, a faceplanted tanker is no help at all to a team. I didn't want unstoppable, at all. Sadly, when I need to tank something, like my job description implies, I have to have it. This is from play testing. I would say this though, except for granite, tanks got hit to hard, you might be having fun, but are you doing your job. Are you keeping the team safe, cause that is your job. And States, thanks for letting us know your at least trying to find the issue we have. What I want to hear is your an inv/ss, sk'ed up to 49, taking on a lvl 52 Infernal. I want you to this on dial up, because I did it on dial up. I want you to experience to the two shot kill Infernal will put on you. And if you want my build, Pm me, because its all ED complaint. Also, before everyone says there is another crying tank, ED is fine, no problems with it what so ever. I5 is the real culprit here. ED would have served the devs needs for weakinging tanks all by itself. Both I5 and ED were to much, now, we aren't super anymore. We are bouncers. And States, next time you come in to let us know your working on something to figure why we are all on the boards throwing a fit, please, keep the tanker mentality in mind. We don't go after what we can take, its not our jobs, we go after what everyone else is afraid of.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never had dull pain until last Thursday when ED reared its ugly head.
Your statememt her kind of sums up what I think Jack is missing:
We don't go after what we can take, its not our jobs, we go after what everyone else is afraid of.
[ QUOTE ]
He "tanked" 1/3 of a spawn for 7. He took up a little more than twice his share. On a team with any sort of non-melee AT i'd expect any scrapper to at LEAST do this much. I think it's pretty clear that states' grand vision for tanks is nothing more than scrankers who draw a little more aggro than the vastly more offensively effective scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
And again, for clarity, he did this on the live servers where he's admitted (to me in email, not yet to the general public) that Invincibility is bugged giving three times the buff it should be.
And he said he was comfortable with the performance from the test above, yet Invincibility is about to get that bug fixed (he's also told me this in email).
So the test is mostly completely invalidated by that fact alone, because its meaningless to say that something is working well and as intended, but at the same time know you're about to cut it off at the knees yet again.
So I mostly find the example demeaning for the Tanker AT as a whole.
[ QUOTE ]
When properly fortified, I could tank quite well. The time that I wasn't, I died very quickly once the group was engaged. In fact, I'm pretty sure it provoked a few "wow"s. If properly buffed, I still took damage (sometimes into the red) from the alpha, but could cure it through either hoarfrost or the two emps.
[/ QUOTE ]
just for clarification, AettThorn, do you mean fortified literally, as in "Fortitude"? i would definitely be worried if you can _only_ survive with a buff of the magnitude of Fortitude.
i'm not sure everybody really realizes just how powerful some of these buffs are. what seems like a "little help" can sometimes really be a lot more help than is immediately obvious. so we have to be careful about differentiating between our capabilities without external influence vs our capabilities with help. its fine if we can reach greater levels of tanking with help, but we should be able to do some tanking without help.
last i checked, Fortitude 3-slotted with DefBuf is equivalent to having 20 foes in melee range of Invincibility (3-slotted with DebBuf, assuming a 1.5% base DEF per foe).
[ QUOTE ]
- A Tanker should not be a better soloer than a Scrapper. As good, maybe, but not better.
[/ QUOTE ]
I somewhat agree with this. Problem is that right now, as a person who plays Tanks, Scrappers, and Brutes (well heck so far the only things I don't play are Warshades, Corruptors, and Stalkers), I can tell you that Scrappers and Brutes solo much better than any Tanker I've ever played. When you're solo offense counts a lot more than defense, my level 50 Blaster can attest to that.
[ QUOTE ]
- A Tanker tanking for a team should take less damage from more aggro than any other single character. Yet, he should not be able to handle the whole spawn without help.
[/ QUOTE ]
How much less is the question right now. And its not one that's very clear. Its also not clear that this approach matters. If you're fighting 20 plus mobs and the Controller locks down half of them, is a Tanker really even a consideration?
[ QUOTE ]
- A Team should want a Tanker along to take the aggro. But they should not need one so badly that they can't go out without one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's my problem. No team needs a Tanker is a good idea, but my problem is that it doesn't go both ways. While no team needs a Tanker, a Tanker needs specific team members to function. And in a team environment all the other hero ATs (Scrappers, Blasters, Defenders, Controllers, PBs, WSs) all have larger roles to play now, to the point where they all overshadow what we do. They either do the same or better damage, and they have ways of outdoing our defenses.
The game currently makes Tanker powersets moot. And I have serious problems with that. If a Tanker is going to have marginally better defenses only with higher health and caps, but much less damage, why would anyone bother to play one over a Scrapper or a Brute? You can get less damage, yet contribute more to your team overall as either of those.
Ok, after reading the last 5 pages of posts, I think that people finally understand one of the things that I have been trying to get across over the last couple months in this forum and over the last year on the Test Server and AT Boards.
Here is the real information that was given to us yesterday from the DEVs:
THE DEVS NEVER INTENDED OUR TANKS TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID DURING THE NOVEMBER TO MAY PERIOD. ANYTHING WE WERE ABLE TO DO WAS AN UNINTENDED SIDE-EFFECT OF THE GAME NOT OPERATING IN THE WAY THAT THEY DESIGNED IT.
This leads me to believe, Da5id, that getting the roll-back that you want for the AT has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. The AT that we played has been permanently changed and will never go back to what it was.
The question, then, I pose, is same as the one I started with:
WHAT DO WE DO NOW WITHIN THE GAME?
I am beginning to think that there's not much chance of the redefining occuring at this time. There's a lot of anger, frustration, disappointment and I would be willing to be at this point a large percent of the people playing tankers are going to leave the AT.
It may be best to see what folks have come up with three months from now. It's a good possibility that the people who play the AT without knowing the history may have a better chance of creating a new role than we do.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, after reading the last 5 pages of posts, I think that people finally understand one of the things that I have been trying to get across over the last couple months in this forum and over the last year on the Test Server and AT Boards.
Here is the real information that was given to us yesterday from the DEVs:
THE DEVS NEVER INTENDED OUR TANKS TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID DURING THE NOVEMBER TO MAY PERIOD. ANYTHING WE WERE ABLE TO DO WAS AN UNINTENDED SIDE-EFFECT OF THE GAME NOT OPERATING IN THE WAY THAT THEY DESIGNED IT.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tom I don't think you are right here. The devs CHANGED their design when PvP illuminated flaws in the balance. Their vision for the various ATs has been a moving target since the beginning. Tanks were working as intended before, and it was their intention that changed.
Statesman and the devs are only human, and in designing the ATs originally, he made a big mistake in allowing a fundamentally defensive class to exist as it was. To say this was not originally his intent is to rewrite history.
There is no question this is no longer his intent. What I and others are trying to point out to him though, is that if he follows up on his current "vision" of what a tank is, he might as well just remove our AT altogether, as we bring virtually NOTHING to the table compared to other ATs.
Well put Tom. (well, the 2nd half at least)
I also would imagine that most "old time" tankers will move on, at least for the short term (if we hadn't already!). The new age Tanks have already shown in several recent posts that they don't feel as if anything is wrong. Of course most of those were high level Stoners, but still...
It is funny - I have said over and over that everything is cyclical. Before I4 hit Tanks were almost always the low AT on the boards as far as posters. I think that translated very well into the game - meaning that we were possibly the least played AT. I4 brought the great tanking explosion with everybody and their brother rolling a tanker. Especially the PL'ers or people that wanted to cut corners and make it to 50 as fast as they could. I vividly remember starting a thread remarking that I checked the forums one day and there were more people in the Tanker forum than any other AT. Unheard of up to that point! It was like the great California gold rush, the secret was out and everybody wanted to be us.
You can now see that those people were the first to bolt from the "new" tanker AT. The old schoolers that were around before we became the FOTM are the ones still trying to fight for some level of respect to return to the powers. In 3 months when I7 finally hits we will inevitably once again be the least played AT out there (at least in CoH). Maybe once we hit bottom again, then we can start to rebuild.
Hopefully. 
Tanks are definitely stuck between what they are, what they was, and what they should be.
To start off, no certain AT or Primary/Seconardary should be required for any team. Some may be more desirable, but none should be required.
No AT or Primary/Seconardary should be unwanted, undesired, or unequal in the grand scope of things. Some might not work as well, but they should not be rejected out of hand.
Tanks are in the unfortunate position of needing specialized ATs in order to function properly. As the group size increases, Tanks need more healing or ever greater buffs to survive.
Example
Croatoa mission, rescue 3 people and protect the Henge.
Leader of the team was lvl 31ish Peacebringer. The mission where hers, set on Invincible because it was old. I was the lowest unsked person in the group. Ranked by order: 33ish Scrapper, 31ish PB (stayed in Dwarf mode), Inv Tank, a Defender (sked to scrapper), Controller with Kin secondary, Empath (me), Stone tank (sked to PB), Blaster (sked to Inv).
The mobs were a tad low for the Scrapper, he kept complaining about all the greens.
PB never was seriously threatened by anything except once.
Inv Tanker without Fortitude fell a couple of times, did not die when Fort was up though he insisted on coming insanely close...
Stone Tanker died with or without Fortitude.
Scrapper never required more then minor healing, was never Forted.
Controller rarely got any aggro, but if he did he dropped instantly.
Blaster died a lot without Fort, otherwise yoyoed between red and green due to heals.
I was rotating Fort on the Tankers and Blaster.
Effectively, we had 3 tanks. PB was far superiour in damage and survival without Fort then the slightly higher level Inv Tanker with Fort.
The Stone tanker had connection problems, kept dropping, was never missed. We had to be reminded a couple of times that he had dropped and needed to be reinvited
The Inv tanker went afk once for a few minutes. Things was a tad bit more hectic without him, but we managed well enough.
Scrapper went afk for one battle -- everyone dropped except for the PB in that battle.
The Stone tanker needed the most healing, followed by the Inv tank. Even with 2 heals and an aoe heal, the Stone tanker would and could die.
After the mission, we spent a few moments talking before disbanding. The Stone tanker kept apologizing, the Inv tanker was asking the Scrapper about the build, and the Controller stated (and had a couple of amens) "Thank god I never started a tanker."
*** Yes, I know, this is not the best example, but it is the freshest in my mind.
The Devs effed up on the Tank AT from the beginning and they've never figured out a way to make it work properly.
"Tanks were meant to be aggro managers" - so they gave them single-target Taunt and slightly increased threat in their attacks? Meanwhile, they could also get >100% RES.
The design was broken from the start, and every subsequent change has been made in an attempt to figure out how they should work.
So never mind the "November to May" period, and the unfortunately high-horse tone of your post, Tanks have never worked the way their design intended, and their intended design has changed just as often.
Frankly, like I said previously, the Devs should just take some of that "Screw you if you don't like I5 or ED" courage and redo the entire Tank AT. Make it something that works and feels comic-booky, and doesn't look like a Scrapper that prefers to be hit than to hit things.
While Tom is sort of trying to pat his own back and say he was "right all along," and that rankles a bit, the state of the tanker is currently weak, basically Stone or scrank.
Each AT is supposed to have their own "flavor" and non-stone tanks are now tofu. No real flavor of their own, and just add some bulk to the team in for bigger spawns. Yes a tank can mix it up some, and can save a squishy with the occasional well timed taunt or attack, but right now they are blaster decoy or low damage scrapper.
I expect a lot of stone tanks, and a fair number of other tanks that hang up their capes around level 30-40. Lower levels are a bit deceptive, because AT differentiation isn't as obvious. It is kind of sad, since the way the game is set up, people don't realize what they are in for until they have invested a fair amount of time.
I expect that tankers will be reviewed again, and likely improved from where they are. I also fear some for Stone now, as last tank standing, since it is clear that Stone CAN take the beating that other tanks simply can't.
Looking for a role now, probably your best bet as non-stone is as Blaster taunt bot. Given the decrease in alpha strike capability that blasters have gotten with ED, they have a greater need for someone to deal with the aggro they generate.
Unfortunately, I don't think that is enough of a role for an AT.
I think the new Tanker will play much the same role as the old Tankers...just with smaller numbers.
Players who do not come to the boards (and who do not remember the 'old days') will not kick Tankers out of their group for Tanking one-third to one-half of a spawn. They will see that as the Tankers' fair share.
Now that Controllers can no longer perma-lock one third of a spawn (and since a large spawn can't usually be disposed of before an AoE Hold wears off), the Tanker's new, smaller role is still desirable and viable.
On Live, I still hear players advising the Leaders of groups, "We need a Tanker" right after "We need a Healer".
The new Tanker catchphrase is "Keep me alive, and I'll keep (17 of) them off you" as opposed to "Stay back here and start Blasting when I say go."
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
I think the new Tanker will play much the same role as the old Tankers...just with smaller numbers.
Players who do not come to the boards (and who do not remember the 'old days') will not kick Tankers out of their group for Tanking one-third to one-half of a spawn. They will see that as the Tankers' fair share.
Now that Controllers can no longer perma-lock one third of a spawn (and since a large spawn can't usually be disposed of before an AoE Hold wears off), the Tanker's new, smaller role is still desirable and viable.
On Live, I still hear players advising the Leaders of groups, "We need a Tanker" right after "We need a Healer".
The new Tanker catchphrase is "Keep me alive, and I'll keep (17 of) them off you" as opposed to "Stay back here and start Blasting when I say go."
[/ QUOTE ]
To say that it is only those that remember the I4 days that are having issues with is a red herring, and vaguely insulting to those of us who ARE doing objective analysis on this. The problem is that those "smaller numbers" have been reduced to the point of not actually contributing anything of substance.
If you honestly look at the role you played with your current non-granite tank, you'd see that another damage dealer or a defender would have brought much more to the team. There is almost NO normal situation where it is currently preferable to have a tank.
People just haven't realized this is the case yet.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the new Tanker will play much the same role as the old Tankers...just with smaller numbers.
Players who do not come to the boards (and who do not remember the 'old days') will not kick Tankers out of their group for Tanking one-third to one-half of a spawn. They will see that as the Tankers' fair share.
Now that Controllers can no longer perma-lock one third of a spawn (and since a large spawn can't usually be disposed of before an AoE Hold wears off), the Tanker's new, smaller role is still desirable and viable.
On Live, I still hear players advising the Leaders of groups, "We need a Tanker" right after "We need a Healer".
The new Tanker catchphrase is "Keep me alive, and I'll keep (17 of) them off you" as opposed to "Stay back here and start Blasting when I say go."
[/ QUOTE ]
That's silly. You're basically saying that people won't notice that a Scrapper can occupy the same amount of enemies as a Tank.
[ QUOTE ]
The new Tanker catchphrase is "Keep me alive, and I'll keep (17 of) them off you" as opposed to "Stay back here and start Blasting when I say go."
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, that's a heroic catch phrase.
I like the Blaster version better.
"Keep me alive, and they will all be defeated nice and fast."
[ QUOTE ]
Players who do not come to the boards (and who do not remember the 'old days') will not kick Tankers out of their group for Tanking one-third to one-half of a spawn. They will see that as the Tankers' fair share.
[/ QUOTE ]
This will be the case until they see a true Tanker in action, then they will KNOW what a Tanker is capable of and will KNOW whether the "Tanker" on their team is a benefit or just taking up a slot. If we are moving toward this sorry level of Tanking that Stateman shows himself capable of (and you yourself agree to), then dump the AT, add it into the Scrapper AT, and give us a new CoH one to replace it. Because, mark my words, if this sorry example that Stateman shows is the one that is accepted as Tanking by the gaming communtiy, then do everyone in the game a favor and DELETE your Tankers right here and now because you will be nothing but an xp leech in a team setting. Now, say what you like, Kitsune, but the fact of the matter is, you might want to listen to what the players that have invested thousands of hours in this game say over some Dev who can create a toon at any level and play might say. The Devs don't possess the skills that are learned playing this game over countless hours here. They don't even play the same game that we do. 
So, championing their subpar skills will just give them the incentive to destroy our AT instead of giving it the balance that it does not currently have. And if just leeching off of a team is the future of Tanking, then let me know so that I can delete mine and play a character that fits more into the forced teaming aspect of the game that these desingers want us to play by.
Kistune, put some more time into that Icer of yours, then come back and talk to us. Until then, play the game, learn something, and don't try to show your [censored] to people that know better.
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
I mean no disrespect to those who crunch the numbers. But I am saying that if I were not a board hound myself, I would not know that a supported Scrapper could occupy 17 enemies at once as well as a supported Tanker can.
...they can?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
The Devs effed up on the Tank AT from the beginning and they've never figured out a way to make it work properly.
"Tanks were meant to be aggro managers" - so they gave them single-target Taunt and slightly increased threat in their attacks? Meanwhile, they could also get >100% RES.
The design was broken from the start, and every subsequent change has been made in an attempt to figure out how they should work.
So never mind the "November to May" period, and the unfortunately high-horse tone of your post, Tanks have never worked the way their design intended, and their intended design has changed just as often.
Frankly, like I said previously, the Devs should just take some of that "Screw you if you don't like I5 or ED" courage and redo the entire Tank AT. Make it something that works and feels comic-booky, and doesn't look like a Scrapper that prefers to be hit than to hit things.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, for months I disagreed with Foo, but I find myself agreeing with him now.
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
Yes they can occupy 17 enemies. They cannot take 17 enemies worth of hits unanswered. Even with the damage mitigation of regen it will be buried under dmg before long.
If I had to and I mean HAD to occupy the enemies I'd aggro a spawn with dragon tail with my MA/SR then haul it out of there before being retaliated on using terrain to keep alive. If they are close I'd use terrain to limit attacks by having them chase me to hit me. If you can keep even a pole between you and them they will not be able to fire on you and will move around it for a clear shot/melee attack.
Breaking Line of Sight and using it to clump enemies was a tactic I learned from a fire tank that used it to maximize the burn patch and is not a beginner strategy. Using that same Strategy as an Inv tanker I set up a clump for Footstomp.
A smart and cagey scrapper can tank 17 enemies but it has to be done very very smartly with little room for error. Even then it can't be done very long because they can't take the unanswered shots a tank can.
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
Please don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying Tankers don't need improvement. I'm saying they DO need improvement. I just appreciate the fact that Mr. Emmert gave us a benchmark to work from, and that we should use this opportunity constructively to spell out what we want.
Should the aggro cap be 17 foes? yes/no
Should an average, non-min/maxed Tanker be able to tank at the aggro cap consistently? yes/no
Should a Tank be able to meat shield a third to half a 7-man spawn with support? What about without support? What about the roles of Defenders and Controllers in a group with a Tanker?
All I'm saying is we as Tankers should say something other than, "this is a lot less than we used to be able to do."
That last sentence reads kind of rough, but I mean it in a nice way.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
As it currently stands Tankers cannot handle 17 mobs without enough heavy support to enable a scrapper to do the same. The only difference is the scrapper kills things faster.
[ QUOTE ]
I mean no disrespect to those who crunch the numbers. But I am saying that if I were not a board hound myself, I would not know that a supported Scrapper could occupy 17 enemies at once as well as a supported Tanker can.
...they can?
[/ QUOTE ]
Kit, Statesman isn't handling 17 mobs in a spawn, he is handling 1/3, which is much less than a 7 player mission on Rugged generates. Scrappers can easily get the aggro of 1/3 of that spawn. Trust me, I have done it myself to prove that it can be done. No Tanks were there when I brought my Invul scrapper from 35 to 50, (which from 43 on, WAS ED Compliant and she hit hit 50 before ED was even active, btw. ) And the sad part is, it doesn't require all that much to do so either. The other day, I was in a tean with U-mann and he controlled MUCH MORE than 1/3 of the spawns from both Carnies AND the Asylum mission (which contains TWO Psi AVs). And when things got really crazy, my BS/Invul scrapper Tanked two +2 MIs with a single Empath backing me up so well, it was like having a Hamidon healing blanket. She was so damn good, that I even commented on it in team. (which is something I reserve for the those that I feel are truly worth it) Play your Icer, learn what you can, and have fun, but for Christ's sake, DON'T fanboi these Devs (who obviously have NO IDEA what they are talking about) to the rest of us that know better.
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
[ QUOTE ]
Please don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying Tankers don't need improvement. I'm saying they DO need improvement. I just appreciate the fact that Mr. Emmert gave us a benchmark to work from, and that we should use this opportunity constructively to spell out what we want.
Should the aggro cap be 17 foes? yes/no
Should an average, non-min/maxed Tanker be able to tank at the aggro cap consistently? yes/no
Should a Tank be able to meat shield a third to half a 7-man spawn with support? What about without support? What about the roles of Defenders and Controllers in a group with a Tanker?
All I'm saying is we as Tankers should say something other than, "this is a lot less than we used to be able to do."
That last sentence reads kind of rough, but I mean it in a nice way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mr Emmert's benchmark isn't one.
All it is a single anectdotal data point. And a disturbingly poor indication at that. The playstyle and role he demonstrates in his example is one that would be better served by a scrapper's powerset. His tank brought nothing to that team that wouldn't have been better done by another AT.
We are saying that what he presents as his "role" or his contribution really isn't. Not in an absolute sense of what players expect, nor in a relative sense to what another character could have provided. It's not a "benchmark" as you say we can really work from.
We are trying to talk in broad design terms. The AT and it's primaries SHOULD have a purpose. If he is unwilling to allow us that, he should have the courage to change the AT entirely rather than try to patch it back together with half measures.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, after reading the last 5 pages of posts, I think that people finally understand one of the things that I have been trying to get across over the last couple months in this forum and over the last year on the Test Server and AT Boards.
Here is the real information that was given to us yesterday from the DEVs:
THE DEVS NEVER INTENDED OUR TANKS TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID DURING THE NOVEMBER TO MAY PERIOD. ANYTHING WE WERE ABLE TO DO WAS AN UNINTENDED SIDE-EFFECT OF THE GAME NOT OPERATING IN THE WAY THAT THEY DESIGNED IT.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tom I don't think you are right here. The devs CHANGED their design when PvP illuminated flaws in the balance. Their vision for the various ATs has been a moving target since the beginning. Tanks were working as intended before, and it was their intention that changed.
Statesman and the devs are only human, and in designing the ATs originally, he made a big mistake in allowing a fundamentally defensive class to exist as it was. To say this was not originally his intent is to rewrite history.
There is no question this is no longer his intent. What I and others are trying to point out to him though, is that if he follows up on his current "vision" of what a tank is, he might as well just remove our AT altogether, as we bring virtually NOTHING to the table compared to other ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Da5id, I wish I had saved the discussion with Statesman. One of the reasons that I am so adamant about this is that in November 2004, I brought up the exact same issues as are there now.
Statesman's reply then was almost verbatim what they are now, (without the example of the mission.)
It was one of the first times he mentioned the 1 hero= 3 minions argument.
I don't need to pat myself on the back. The information was there all the time, it's just that people did not want to believe that that was the DEVs' vision for the tank.
I have never been sorrier about being right.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
Your right Porkchop, I was a bit angry in the reply. Statesman, I apologize. I will say this though, the line about, I taunted the carnie strongmen first cause I knew I coudl take their damage best, raised the hair on the back of a bunch of tankers necks. Let me try and say this nicely, Most tanks don't think that way. We would like a chance to show you how we tank. With you maybe playing a blaster. Maybe you could PM Ivy or Da5id. Get them to tank for you. I'll even do it, granted I'm not that good of a tank, but I get the job done. Again, thank you for the results, and I do apologize for the angry comments.
Prof