Super Atom

and again i urge you to think for longer than 5 seconds. This arc is similar to the terra arc. She is forced to become a monster and lay eggs. Slippery slope absolutely applies because there is enough evidence to point that this is the next "This is sexist" arc to get changed hence "slippery slope". Don't strawman with the gay rights analogy either, it's kind of insulting.

I'm a second person over-reacting to this story line. It genuinely bothers me. Why? Do you get upset every time you have to kill a female in game purely because they're a female? Should females never be used in tragedy? Should we only allow men to have tragic FICTIONAL story lines that progress a dialogue about the entire situation? Not in this situation it isn't, it's directly targeting violence twords women which there are other arcs that do so. To assume eventually the same people would want those changed is not unreasonable.

It's exactly that. Soon we're changing terra arc and then the orphanage arc, and then we're removing "Hellion girlfriends" and soon there just won't be target-able women in the game. This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line. Changing this story line just because shes a women and therefor nothing bad should happen to her is probably more sexist than the actual story line. "Shes a women so she shouldn't get killed" ok bud On a side, the nav text could probably be changed to "Defeat the longbow" or "Defeat lt page". The girlfriend thing doesn't make too much sense given the story.

I'd be ok with this but only if before she teleported away she said "All. Men. Are. Pigs." and then every female character in the game showed up and started clapping as she left.

Full content, gonna respond in qoutes. Why? If we're talking about full team play to hit said increased limit, there would be more than enough people on the team to compensate for the extra enemies. One person wouldn't be able to hit all of them but 8 people sure could. All enemies not getting debuffed by a (single) person also wouldn't exactly be a problem if you had more than 1 debuffer. To hit the limits you're suggesting as unreasonable would require an 8 man team or just one person being brave, luckily we don't balance on one person being brave. Yeah like being able to control mobs and position them wherever they please without LoS ;) It's the opposite actually, what makes them less useful on a stacked team is power creep, which is an entirely different conversation. People don't complain about having two tanking specs on the team, the complaint is that tanker is made pointless by the brute due to tanking ability + damage increase. That wouldn't help anyone, it'd probably only make a lot of other things worse. I'm gonna combine these last two qoutes because it's the most upsetting about your tirade. So, you entirely fabricated this last part and I'm unsure as to why. If you bothered to read at all I main a brute. I don't want it changed so my character doesn't feel limited. The limitation was set in place long before brutes could go blue and vice versa. I wanted this change so the tanker class had more utility and global appeal. The tanker class only has 300 hp and slightly more res as a difference to brutes. That's basically nothing and with IO's the gap is closed quickly. This change would not make tankers the end all be all but instead it would have helped them have a purpose similar to their naming scheme. I'm sure there are plenty of ideas/ways to help the tanker gain an identity but so far most of them have been to change the class entirely to do stuff it never did. Your personal attack was pretty childish but more so your lack of actual understanding of what this change was even trying to accomplish was apparent the moment you made the personal attack. Edit; i briefly locked the topic? Didn't know i could my bad if anyone was trying to respond :o would never try to censor or stop anyone from getting their opinion in. Edit2; We've also beaten the topic of keeping aggro into the floor. Adjustments would obviously have to be made IF the aggro cap was increased for tanks to make sure they could keep said aggro but that's why there's a test server.

The other thread already got its answer, Aggro limits are global so all or none. With that in mind, raising the aggro limit for all i'd probably go with no personally. I think its fine where its at, the only reason i wanted it raised for tankers was to help with identity by way of utility.

RIP. Well, we still have the move into melee that could help. If they can't change aggro than that's the answer we have to accept.

Removing the 5% is a mistake. It wasn't arbitrary as previously mentioned by any means. This was put into place specifically to prevent people from doing what you want. I'm all for changes that help but this just seems like you want to not miss because it occasionally annoys you. :-\

wtf does this even mean

Now that we're on the same page and thank you for reiterating. If the aggro cap raising beyond a couple of enemies is too much of an issue, even the extra 4-5 enemies is still enough paired with the other change to help tankers on the road to standing out from brutes again. I'm not sure how difficult any of these changes would be to make though. Also yeah i'd never want either of my suggestions done to brutes. Brutes are in a pretty good place in my opinion. Most of this would have to be tested. A lot of what you suggested could happen could easily be undone by support sets. A tanker needing a support to full pull might not be the worst thing :P

If understand your point, which i think i might, you're saying their ability to just maintain aggro of anything larger than half a 8 man spawned group would need slightly more consideration than just "will tank die yes/no". I understand that point, but thats again why it would need to be tested and adjusted. The other side of your point, which again i could be wrong still, is it trivializing teammates. This one I'm unsure about because inside aggro cap it wouldn't change much i don't think? Aside from the occasional over pull i'm unsure much would change in the terms of whos doing what on the team. The amount of extra aggro for Tankers could easily be adjusted still with other things being taken into consideration.

Just so we're clear, you're using "Mob" as singular enemy right? I think i am missing you because I'm not understanding where the idea behind map herding is coming from. I understand the needing to adjust threat/aoe caps for tankers etc to take the new aggro cap into account but how does a brute factor in? Most teams power through enemies really fast as is in full 8 man teams. The tank being able to keep control of only a handful of extra guys probably won't increase that by very much. Keep in mind my suggestion -WAS- only for a single group, not 2-3 groups.

:-\ well you learn something everyday i guess. I updated my initial post to reflect what i meant thanks for pointing it out It would probably require a bit of testing and adjusting sure, what wouldn't? I don't think it wouldn't be "simple" though. Tanker/Brutes can reach unkillable levels as is and double up on enemies probably wouldn't change it for most IO'd characters. Naturally, we're gonna be speaking on a natural enemy scale setting and SO's as that's where the game is balanced. I don't think more enemies would be an issue at current power though, we wouldn't know for sure without testing. The ability to kill a tank is not necessarily the issue. If you double the aggro cap, then you will increase threat to all players when the strip aggro. So this would require a rework of threat retention, by increasing a tanks threat levels. Also, now you can aggro hold double the number of mez producing bosses, which can overcome a tanks mez protection, and that has to be adjusted up. Additionally, a shield tank can now produce enough defense bonus to effectively render the team unkillable by going over the soft cap for everyone. This in turn would protect the team, due to the increased aggro the tank can hold. Further, all I have to do now is throw three range enhances in taunt, and I can stand in one location and taunt baddies into melee from far away, as 1 of the 34 die off. Then, a fire tank can herd and kill indiscriminately. And we end up back at issue 3 and 4, where tanks we're imbalanced. That's not even taking into account 2 tanks on a farm map, and both running leadership. Now magnify that by 2 brutes, at 400% damage. Firstly, you can't take farming into account. Nerfing/buffing things around farming is pointless, people will always farm and if its stronger/weaker at the cost of regular enjoyment than you've made the wrong decision. Having 3 things killing mobs will be slower than just 1 brute in AE currently if you take the current prefered map/setup into account. What can already be finished in minutes does not need to go slightly faster at the cost of 2 extra people soaking XP. If you're fighting an enemy group that has mez heavy bosses, pulling a bunch of them would be in error. Just because you can doesn't mean you always should. Stripping aggro from a tank who has used taunt isn't exactly easy. This change isn't going to suddenly change the map layouts or increase group sizes. You're saying all of this as if the tank being able to grab ambushes or an extra pulled mob is literally going to change everything and its almost misleading.

:-\ well you learn something everyday i guess. I updated my initial post to reflect what i meant thanks for pointing it out It would probably require a bit of testing and adjusting sure, what wouldn't? I don't think it wouldn't be "simple" though. Tanker/Brutes can reach unkillable levels as is and double up on enemies probably wouldn't change it for most IO'd characters. Naturally, we're gonna be speaking on a natural enemy scale setting and SO's as that's where the game is balanced. I don't think more enemies would be an issue at current power though, we wouldn't know for sure without testing.

My first quote and comment wasn't in reply to you solar until the second quote in which i thought you had some solid advice, didn't know if you knew that so thought i'd clarify. I was speaking to the guy trying to relight a dead fight. Lets dial it back here. There is nothing wrong with currently having 3 tankers. I accept any and all who ask to join my TFs regardless of AT because you don't actually need an ideal comp to get through it only get through it quicker. With my change, a big room of lets say 9 mobs would all pulled and beat down with those 3 tanks, while 3 brutes would only be able to pull 6 of those while the others attack the squishes due to current aggro cap. Thats why the change would be appealing. More tank = more mob. It wouldn't exactly be the same as stand in a corner while the tank pulls the entire map. My only problem with some of these purposed changes it including too much for the tanker. The tanker needs love but it doesn't need an entire rework of how its played (in my opinion). People are passionate what can you do :P . I'm using mob as in a grouping of enemies...i didn't know people used that term for singular as the literal definition of mob is a large crowd of people. I'm not unpersuaded i just think baby steps need to be taken. If its changed too much too quickly it could have unforeseen effects. I'm open to the idea of further changes but we've already seen how the snipe change has riled everyone up, imagine if tankers got a sweeping change in one go.

Neat man. This is solid advice, thank you.

Well, that kind of falls short because having a reason to bring 3 of them means having less of a reason to bring others :P theres only 8 spots~ The earlier discussion was about ideal team not so much viable team. Theres not a lot of combo that isn't viable enough. You can have 7 tankers and 1 debuffer and get through literally anything. When i said utility in tanking, i was speaking entirely on a tanking perspective not so much general utility. I may not have been thorough enough in my wording. This idea was only to expand their role as the primary tank and not much else as there is a lot of conversations that could happen on how to make them more universally desired on a team. Theres some decent ideas on that topic in this thread though if you just ignore all the debate fluff :P

I know you did, I liked it and think it'd be a good idea to rebring it up for discussion ;) I think it'd be a good start on the road to tanker redemption. Especially if it were to be paired with the increase of aggro limit. When i made my tanker build, I had the same exact thought process. I COULD have a bunch of extra Survivability but..why? It'd be nice to have a reason for that extra toughness.

neat dude, A+ spinning. Just for clarification since the spin doctor has derailed everything a lot. If you have an opinion on my suggestion, I'd be glad to talk about it. If you bring up another tanker issue and i disagree with you then thats my opinion on it and not a matter of fact about if that would be a good change or not. Other topics brought up that could also be discussed. - Increasing tanker aura radius's. - Adding some sort of extra effect on hit, i didn't like the original idea of the bruising thing but the concept is interesting.

As they are now, the aggro cap for tanks especially those on a team isn't a threat. Adding additional incoming damage likely wouldn't make it one either. In lower content on smaller teams it is possible they could be overwhelmed but the game already scales mobs based on desired difficulty and team size. At max (IO's / Incarnate) A tank still probably wouldn't have a tough time in +4 x8 content. If raised too much it might become a possibility but that's why i suggested roughly a mob in size. I'm sure it would need to be tested if raised any higher than that to find a sweet spot. IO'd tanks will usually have soft cap defense to a handful of things (Even resistance based sets) and the size won't matter because soft cap is soft cap and their chance to be hit is still 5%. Since City of Heroes is based around SO for balance though, like i said earlier there's a difficulty slider for smaller team sizes or odd-team comps if the need did arise.

Literally never did i imply that. For someone throwing around bullshit like "blind" you certainly didn't read anything. You must be trolling at this point. World of Warcraft pre-max level content is beyond rushed through. Even with the changes made to leveling that allow you to try and finish one or two storylines before advancing the content is overpaced to match the 120 levels you have to go, it's a shame coh doesn't have some sort exemping system to let you do old content even at max level..oh wait. I'm completely uninterested in arguing with you because it's clear you're uninterested in having a conversation and instead want to change the conversation to push some sort of power trip of "I know everything look at me" I'm completely done with your assumptions, hostility and misquoting to self-high five. Neat. go make your own suggestion thread. I haven't said nobody is agreeing with me. Every time someone tries to hijack the thread to push their own ideas instead of actually contributing to the idea put forth, I try to steer it back. This isn't "What can tankers get done to them to help their overall lackluster feeling" It's "Hey this might be cool". I appreciate open discussion but thats not whats going on here. I disagree, if you think they need help in other fields go make another topic. As i said before, thats about all the time I'm giving someone who is only interested in mud-slinging and putting words in peoples mouth.

Hi, I'm also giving you a final reply in regards to our circle arguing before no longer doing so. You're misunderstanding (again) the relation. You've basically implied that Tanker = the tank and because of that brutes shouldn't do it as opposed to how you should be using it where Tanker = A tank. This is how I've taken what you're saying and if its not your intention than it's only a misunderstanding. Not really sure what you're on about here. Nobody said they did, only that they've changed how powers function (see snipe, web nade etc). World of Warcraft content starts and stops at the max level. Leveling is a joke, old raids are a joke, old dungeons only relevant during time-walking. WoW is "Balanced" around max level in raid gear. All of their high end content is designed in DPS/Healer/Tank in mind. Sure, you can get around that in open world no problem. You can also get around basic dungeons once you're fully geared up. Thats about where it stops. Raids/Mythic + dungeons (which is like, 50% of the content btw) absolutely require a healer and a tank. To say otherwise would be 100% incorrect. WoW tanking is a lot different than CoH tanking. It requires a bit more effort than just jumping into the mob and using an aoe taunt. Theres also usually gimmicks attached to boss fights while in coh thats probably the rarest thing in the game. Tanking as a core might be the same idea but the differences are staggering. Nobody is shutting it out because its WoW, only because it's irrelevant as a comparison due to the differences in the games. The core idea of tanking is the same across the board, but how you do it and how the abilities make it possible are just too different. Thats my final thoughts on WoW, i don't have anything else for you. My only problem is this is effectively increasing their damage and i don't think the damage is the problem. The tanker as it is now isn't really shunned just not preferred until its time to tussle with hamidon. I feel my change would just make them more interesting to play/play with than it would make them any stronger. They're plenty strong and depending on what EPP you pick you could have more AoE or even debuffs. A good example of this would be a Fire/Fire tank with the Fire EPP. Combustion, FSC, Burn, Breath of fire and then having their epp of fireball and a debuff in melt armor. Not every set would be this aoe thick but enough would be. They don't need that much help in the way of AoE/cones in my opinion. (Whirling hands needs some love, poor EM)

Thats pretty much why i wanted to end it right there and go back to the topic :P not looking to argue or fight with people i just want/hope someone in the dev team will see my suggestion and either say why it wouldn't work or take it into consideration.

Well if you don't want practical answers then how about fighting tyrant in the trial? Also do remember, we're also talking about changes that would help non min/maxed situations.

They serve a purpose in more content than they don't. The example given, ernesto, is a lower level TF you can usually just blindly do. It's true for a lot of things but not everything. A lot of content does need a tank and while it needs a tank it usually don't need a tanker purely based on overall performance. My proposal would look to change that by adding in how many enemies they can aggro and the ability to group them without needing LoS tactics. It won't fix all of the problems but it will help. I'll give you an example. The number six arc constantly puts the team at above aggro cap. It doesn't matter how tanky a brute is you can't outdo aggro cap. It would give tankers a advantage in large-mob situations like Incarnate content, Trials, and some end-game TFs. Pair it with their ability to then also cause those mobs to move into melee and thus be grouped better for AoE damage and it brings some serious weight to the idea of the Tankers superior tanking ability.