Super Atom

I think I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're trying to say here. Could you perhaps expand on why you're comparing tanker against controllers?

I'm just gonna repaste crims response to the other guy to you. Thats really all that can be said about the whole "brutes aren't tanks" thing. This isn't the problem at all. Brutes being a tank alternative isn't the problem and never has been. The problem is with tanks not having true tanking utility over brutes. They don't need any help getting aggro and they don't need to do more damage either. They aren't bruisers and weren't design to be. This is why i believe the best course of action is to increase their aggro limit and give them more -range. Like i said in the OP, the ability to aggro more than anyone else and position mobs without needing to LoS would set them far above anyone else in tanking ability. Control is the job of support characters. Reworking sets is likely out of the question ATM, they also don't need to be brought up in damage as the Tanker is not a brute. Meltdown is a good example of this, the CoH Devs were going to rework all Godmodes but never got the chance. This is pretty much why i suggested raising the -range to 100%. It'd be a rather strong positioning tool and increase the tanks utility by a ton.

Sorry but no they don't soft cap by themselves. This is base without any IO sets and being generous with 10 stack invinc. The above post did a fantastic job of explaining everything else hope it helps you.

I'm not entirely sure how else to tell you that you're objectively wrong. I guess you could be shown in game? I dunno man. Earlier today not even 2 hours ago i watched a brute without a healer tank 3 54+2 AV's and not die at all. Brutes are extremely good tanks. How exactly do you think villains did anything before tanks could be villains?

I'm not sure what kind of brutes you've been playing with but they aren't a good rep of what brutes can do. Brutes are the preferred tanks in most content. Stone tank is an entirely different problem all on its own that even these changes won't fix. Tanks also don't hold aggro any better than brutes can, taunt pretty much makes sure of that. Kheldians have a lower res cap than brutes/tanks so unless you're min/max'd to have perma light form you'll be worse off than a brute and do far less damage. The main point of this change is to set tanks apart from brutes more than just their HP and a little extra resistance. City of Heroes is balanced around SO and in the SO based content, brutes and tanks are interchangeable when it comes to tanking ability and it gets worse when you include IO sets. This was never a problem until you could have both on either side. This change would only add utility to the tank to make it feel like "The main tank" as opposed to a tank. Also, soft cap def is soft cap def. You can't be better at only getting hit 5% of the time than another tank :P and in team play and end game content, neither of them die at all for the most part. So dying less than the other guy doesn't die is pointless. This is a utility change to make tanks have more tanking utility than their brute friend while still keeping brutes perfectly capable of tanking. Lowering the brute to the tank level is not the right decision. Fury does a solid job in setting it apart from the other classes and makes brutes really enjoyable and unique to play. Tanks just need some change to have the same feeling. Something that will set them apart from everything else and i feel this change would do that and make tanks untouchable when it comes to tanking utility as opposed to now where tanks preform the same as their villain counterpart but do less damage.

Even on the SO scale, in a team they certainly can/do/have. With buffs/debuffs or even just full damage they tank just as well as a tank in SO based content. The change wouldn't effect other classes ability to do anything just bring more appeal to the idea of a tank. This was more targeted at full team play rather than solo concerns. It has nothing to do with mobs spawned, more the tanks ability to control mob position/aggro beyond that of a brutes capabilities. Being a Tank should mean more than slightly more HP and less damage. Being able to actually hold more mob aggro than any class and position in where needed would bring a lot of appeal to the Tank over the extra damage of a brute for tanking. Basically just make this stronger :-)

Tanks for a long time now have kind of taken a back seat in a lot of content to brutes. A well built brute can tank as well as tanks and do more damage, so people usually prefer them over tanks at end game especially. My idea for a change would be to how tanks handle aggro to increase their role as "Tank" while leaving brutes unchanged. 1) Increase tank specific aggro cap to roughly an extra mob in size. This would allow for them to grab everything and anything else someone accidentally pulls. :Clarification: By "Mob" I mean the an entire extra group. Not a singular person. 2) Enemies taunted by the tank rush into melee regardless of their preferred range. You can already do this with pulling/Los but It'd give tanks a great utility over a brute in terms of tanking ability/mob positioning. This could probably just be done by making the -range on their passive taunt/taunt ability to be 100%. Edit: People seem to be misunderstanding the purpose, this has little to do with tanking power and more tanking utility. These changes wouldn't make it any stronger, just add extra utility to the tank as a tank. No changes would be made to their HP or damage.

Recluses Victory Flavor of the month: (-649.0 0.0 61.8) Paragon cities favorite spot to celebrate cinco de mayo. It's in front of the El Super Mexicano. FotM and PvP go together better than cookies and milk ;p