Profit

To be fair, they only had to retcon because both rebirth and new52 are crap writing and the multiverse was brought back in the hackiest way possible. DC had the multiverse under control. It was fine. Then they epically and beautifully destroyed it in a massive act of awesome storytelling. And that singular universe was fine and had some epic story telling. Then we got the crap we have now.

Yes?

To be clear on the equal damage and healing: Both would be applied to the Enemy. You hit a Vortex Cor Adjutant for 150 damage. 0.1 seconds later the Adjutant gets a 40 point heal cast on him and takes 40 points of damage from the same attack. You get 920 points of aggro on that dude, he only actually loses 150 HP from the attack. Ok, I'm listening. So essentially a new mechanic to make fake damage to increase aggro on a enemy. How does that compare to simply upping the taunt magnitude of tanker powers? Are we achieving the same goal through different means? Which one is going to require less time and resources to accomplish? The mechanic does fit the design goal of not drastically changing the way tankers currently play. It seems like the two suggestions (mine and yours) are attempting to increase aggro control and generation. My suggestion would also encompass taunt auras, basically anything that adds taunt magnitude to an enemy effected by taunt magnitude from a power. It sounds like your suggestion is only going to work on damaging attacks. I'm willing to discuss logistics however to determine which solution is better.

This was not an issue when you couldn't cross over. Also let us know forget that the original devs intent was that masterminds were the tankers of COV. Not brutes. Granted the original devs dropped the ball on that one, the pets do not even give some form of aggro control. Which is something I wouldn't mind discussing in another thread, adding aggro and threat mechanics to mastermind pets to turn them into the villain tanks.

One of the stated design goals was to not change the way tanks play radically. People need to understand, tanks are on the line of overpowered as is. We have to be very careful about how we bring them in line so that the perception of brute > tank is more brute good but different than tank instead of tank > brute. Otherwise in a year from now we will be having this discussion again except it will be how to improve brutes because tankers are so much better. And with the vast majority of the players preferring to play brutes anyway, the small tanker population doesn't probably want to be in that discussion.

Equal damage and healing seems initially incredibly overpowered. I also did not ask to increase bruising. I did ask that after datamining to see about adding bruising to all the attacks and allow stacking in such a way that the same numbers are reached that a current tank can reach by repeatedly using the T1. The problem with bruising at the moment is that no tank uses it. Ever. Expanding the bruising mechanic with control effects would possibly change the way tanks are currently played radically. One of the design goals is to avoid changes for changes sake and to avoid changing the way tanks are. There are quite a few people happy with the way the tank plays in game currently.

I addressed the bruising the idea in the original post. Have to be careful adding bruising in such a way because Tanks are right on the edge of being brokenly overpowered as is. That's why I put bruising in the datamining section.

Brutes do not have AOE Gauntlet. What they have is a taunt effect that hits a single target every time they attack. So how this translates for them is, if a brute uses knockout blow then an automatic 400% taunt magnitude is thrown on the target. If a brute uses footstomp, then a 400% taunt magnitude is thrown on every enemy that is hit by footstomp. This is different than gauntlet. In the aforementioned scenario, taunt magnitude is applied the same way for a tanker using the same powers in the same scenario. Gauntlet is also calculated for every target, requiring a to-hit check. If the to-hit check is successful then up to 5 enemies around the effected enemy are hit with taunt as well. So in the knockout blow scenario, the target get's the exact same automatic 400% taunt applied when hit, then a to-hit check is calculated for the target, if it succeeds 5 of the enemies around the target are also hit with taunt.

Ok. I said I wasn't going to do this because I was tired of being shouted down. But I'm also tired of seeing suggestions that are going to radically alter the way my favorite AT is played currently. So I'm going to do this, this one time. This is how to fix the tanker/brute issue. Before replying, please read carefully to make sure you understand what I'm saying, don't infer the intent of the post, I've tried very hard to be very clear about how to do this. And I really don't want to be shouted down, yet again, over these suggestions because someone felt I was suggesting something I didn't even say. Fixes to follow. Goal - To bring tanks inline and valid with the modern coh meta while not making them grossly overpowered or drastically changing the way they currently play. Problem 1 - Tanks are invalidated by brutes at IO power levels making the decision a player or team leader has on which they would prefer to have in a team a 'no-brainer'. This invalidation occurs on all fronts - aggro control, damage, and survivability. Problem 2 - The game is balanced around SO power levels, and at these power levels brutes and tanks are balanced as with SOs brutes can not achieve the level of survivability tanks have. Many mechanics have been mentioned to 'balance' tanks with brutes and these suggestions would end up changing the dynamic of the AT into a new different playstyle, we need to avoid that if possible. This will be a two step solution process, with the steps having possible extra modifications depending on the datamining. This is meant to be a scalpel solution and as such is intended to not have any major drastic effects at the SO level while also not changing the tank role within the team or solo. Step 1 The aggro problem - With brutes having the same aoe auto hit taunt that tanks have, plus higher threat generation due to the large orange numbers generated by fury, brutes are able to maintain aggro in the same way a tank while having a higher damage output. Solution - Shy of altering brutes by replacing this taunt power with either the single target scrapper taunt or the provoke power from the pool power, altering brutes which we are actively trying to avoid, we are left with one simple option, an increase in the taunt magnitude of the tanker AT. This would serve the same purpose as the brute altering solution without altering brutes. This should have no effect at anything but the highest level of game play as in the lower SO levels one would generally not be asking a brute to manage aggro, so the tank is already managing at those lower levels. Additional Solution after datamining - Gauntlet (tank passive) currently suffers from having a to-hit roll. Brutes and Scrappers single target attacks have a taunt mechanic attached that does not suffer from a to-hit roll. Removing the to-hit roll from gauntlet serves to increase aggro management for the AT which helps to set them apart from brutes without invalidating brutes or changing the SO levels significantly. Step 2 The damage problem - Giving tanks more damage will grossly overpower them. Yet tanks are invalidated by brutes at IO levels because of the combination of aggro/damage/survivabilty that a tricked out brute can enjoy. Solution - Increase the tanker damage cap. This will allow a tank to reach high damage numbers when teammed if the team is willing to invest the buffs into the tank. This increase should be proportional to tank brute resist cap difference. This should not change the lower level, solo, or SO level game play of a tank significantly and helps to further close the divide at IO levels. This change coupled with the aforementioned aggro change re-enforces the roll of tanks on a team while still allowing the choice for the brute to perform the same role. Additional solution after datamining - Roll bruising into gauntlet as well. This would effectively increase tank damage with the -res rolled into every attack as opposed to just the t1. Very few players will use the t1 even though it is the sole source of bruising simply because it is not the optimal damage chain. Probably the -res will need to be lowered and the amount of stacking increased so that when following the attack chain the -res will equal and be able to be maintained at the current level just using the t1 repeatedly would accomplish. These two solutions should not be invasive to the way the AT currently plays and should also not invalidate brutes while buffing tanks to a proper level. These should also not grossly overpower tanks mechanically. As a third option, although we have been told with the code it is impossible to do but I think still deserves a seat at the idea table, is to increase the tanker aggro cap to allow them to hold the attention of more mobs than they do currently. This idea deserves mention in the talks, even though it is feasibly impossible, as it may spawn a possible idea that can also make this happen.

This is demonstrably untrue. Which part is untrue? The part about them not intending it to be perma. In places where a power isn't supposed to be perma, the recharge is always much too long for that to be possible. You could make the case that some permable powers are not actually intended to be perma, since they require heavy recharge set bonuses, but that's not the case with Rage. To keep rage from being perma'd it was saddled with heavy debuffs akin to a t9 crash. Even the end debuff in hasten wasn't initially there until the invention sets truly allowed perma hasten, then the end debuff was added to discourage it from being perma'd.

This is demonstrably untrue. Which part is untrue?

I think I finally nailed down my whole issue with this. Everyone in here wants to fix rage because 'it's to hurtful while I play'. Ok, I get it, you guys don't like the debuff. So here is the issue, the original devs never intended for Rage to be a perma power. It was meant to be turned on in tough fights to help clear a little quicker. Now... here is my whole problem. Because you guys are gonna come in here and say, 'at some point we need to let go of what the original devs intended'. And I agree. But the moment I pop up and question the AE xp nerf I get told, 'the original devs never intended AE to be equal to mission content so the XP nerf is good and right.' This is my problem, all of you want it both ways, you want to ignore original intent when it suits your purpose or prop it up as a holy relic when it suits your purpose. That is going to lead to us never coming up with an acceptable way rage 'should' work until we all either decide that original intent means something or screw original intent. So which way are we going on this, original intent means something and should be applied to everything equally or original intent needs to be dropped and we need to look at all things fresh? Because we can't have our cake and eat to and accomplish anything here.

Unslotters?

Your forum name makes no sense after reading this post... ;D Well, ya know, 40 mil on converters, auction fees, crafting fees, salvage i needed, etc and still came out 100 mil ahead. :D Tonight, if I'm not wore out from work I'll spend that 100 mil and come out 300-400 mil ahead. It's a nice system.

T B H I am surprised to find people who think vendoring the recipes is a good idea. I'm pretty lazy about making money but the return on investment for making all your yellows and oranges and converting them until something sells for a reasonable price (I aim for about 1.5 mil minimum; if it already sells for at least a million I don't bother converting) is usually pretty good. I would guess my average is about 500k to 1 mil profit per recipe, as opposed to... 1k or 5k for vendoring. Honestly, I only convert to 3 things to auction. I think I used 400 converters last night and did 25 enhancements to sell? Made close to 100 million after factoring in the cost of the converters.

Five minutes. If you were an actual programmer, and not a made up one, you could have done this already. ED! You really stepped up your troll game with that one. I think it was the editing on the quote text that really tickled me. It actually brought a smile to my face. Bravo sir! *golf clap*

Doing so might force people to use the AH who otherwise have no desire to do so. Buyback might consume more resources than needed, how about a confirmation "Do you want to sell this?" window? Might be easier to do and be completed quicker. Not exactly the original suggestion but would still provide that buffer of "Do I really want to vendor this?"

Oh, I have plenty of idea as to the scope of the task. Let us start with the first step. The Map texture. Every teleport spot in a map is baked into the texture, these are not handled by code, but referenced by the code as an exit point. So, first question, if we put a tp beacon in the zone, do we just the LFG drop off? Do we use the midnight club drop off? Do we make a new drop off? Since none of the other zones use the LFG drop off for their beacons, or train drop offs for their beacons, let's just say that for consistency we need to bake a new point into the map. Where should that point be? I personally don't think the docks would be bad, but I like the idea of being by the water when I come out of the teleport. So now we send the texture over the guys polishing the maps and ask them to do their thing and bake it in, this requires a lot of texture editing, getting loc numbers correct, and other things I've only glanced at in passing. Feel free to go check on how map textures are handled in the game engine as I'm not going to teach you all of it. So we have a spot, and we've enacted some helpful volunteer to edit the map texture, what next. We need to create the code to add cim to the TP destinations. But, are we creating a whole not button like you want that pocket d has? Or do we add it to the tunnel system? Luckily this code already exists in some fashion in midnighters club so we might be able to reuse that, but, like the powers revamp that corrected rage to work as intended, what are we going to break with this? Still think I have no idea how this actually works? Or just so selfish in your want you're willing to die on this particular hill.

Wrong, you obviously know nothing about coding, and selfishly impede real progress. Your trolling needs work sir, it's not subtle and I played a little to see if you had any tricks up your sleeves that would move your trolling to epic levels. Sadly you do not, please rethink your station in life. Unfortunately, your leveling of trolling is not enough to keep entertained and you don't even elicit a golf clap from this side.

It would take someone five minutes to implement this feature vs thousands endlessly hobbled and spending time quitting and rejoining groups to get to these zones. Wrong. Not wrong, just not lazy and entitled. Also how do you know how long it will take, have you been reading through this awful code behind this game? I have. And I program for a living, I can tell you that your five minute estimate is grossly mistaken.

You can't use LFG if you're already in a group, bro Oh, then let me revise, quit your group, lfg, scroll a little box, click three times, instant teleport, get invited back to group. Or the alternative to that, YOU CAN USE LFG IN A GROUP. The leader can open LFG, scroll a little box, click three times, and instant teleport then entire team. Have you guys even tried these options or are you just scared of something different that you've never looked into before.

Yes, it's a waste of resources to devote to this issue. You can use LFG, you will have to possibly scroll a little box, and click three times, and boom you're in cim or where ever. It's a perfectly functional alternative than to waste man hours coding a specific teleport spot to a zone map when there are more important things that need to be addressed by a completely volunteer staff.

You are absolutely right in the reason why nobody cared. You are also absolutely right in stating that the brute does invalidate both those ATs, I personally believe it invalidates Tanks more than Scrappers. However, any suggestion made to push brutes back redside, or lock the side swapping as it was before so it is a lot less common to see a blue side villain AT, will be met with such resistance. Knowing that, I think it still stands that the community at large honestly doesn't care about invalidating anything.

Why is this a concern? No one worried about invalidating tankers when brutes were designed. Why should it matter here?

@OP, also, you've been told twice now there is a way to change the game sounds without anyone else having sounds changed, yet you resist this option like it's the plague, why is that?