Tank passive/aggro changes

[Super Atom]

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.

[Octopud!]

Great idea. +1

 

Would make tanks different enough (and better enough) from brutes to make someone who is min/maxing make the switch when wanting to fulfill the tank role. As of right now with IO sets the way they are there is little reason to choose tank over brute for end game content in my experience.

[archgraves]

I agree fully.

[subbacultchas]

+1 from me too. I have a hard time playing tanks instead of brutes, the extra hp, slightly more def/res cap, and inherent taunt just aren't worth what brutes offer. I would like to see them differentiated in some way.

[Charistoph]

Tanker issues have been around for a long time.  One of the more interesting ones is that our Inherent doesn't rely on the Primary like every other normal Archetype does, it relies on the Secondary.  Admittedly, this is a huge difference from the "issue" of making gameplay boring for everyone else.  That having been said...

 

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.

 

Tanks already can taunt more in combat, normally, but I can easily see this being a thing.  It shouldn't be that difficult to reprogram, either, because it is just numbers.  Numbers, I should add, which were adjusted down once already.  Now, if they can just find out where that number is...

 

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.

 

This would be great, but would be a much harder programming task, as it involves getting in to AI responses, and those can be messy.

 

As a side note, and semi-related to this topic, would it be a bad thing if Tanker auras had a larger area of affect than their Scrapper or Brute versions?  Not a large degree, but say a 50% at most, 25% at a minimum.

[wheresmycow]

I would love an increase in radius.  I would also love it if Rise to the Challenge in WP had a better taunt duration, but that's a different story.

[Rylas]

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.

 

I don't think SO built Brutes can compare as easily as you imply with Tanks. The game is balanced around SOs, so if we want to make changes for tanks (and I'm not sure we really need to), the suggestions we make would need to keep that in mind.

 

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.

 

Are you suggesting that a whole spawn group of foes should be the new aggro limit? I'm not sure how this would work, seeing as team size determines spawn size, and the aggro cap is a hard number. Why not just find another tank to run with your team if you want to take on 34 foes at a time?

 

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.

 

There's already a -Range tied to Tankers' Taunt, but I wouldn't mind if we could actually get them to run into aggro aura range. So long as it wasn't something that could easily exploit AI into easy to beat scenarios.

[Super Atom]

I don't think SO built Brutes can compare as easily as you imply with Tanks. The game is balanced around SOs, so if we want to make changes for tanks (and I'm not sure we really need to), the suggestions we make would need to keep that in mind.

 

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.

 

Are you suggesting that a whole spawn group of foes should be the new aggro limit? I'm not sure how this would work, seeing as team size determines spawn size, and the aggro cap is a hard number. Why not just find another tank to run with your team if you want to take on 34 foes at a time?

 

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.

 

There's already a -Range tied to Tankers' Taunt

 

Basically just make this stronger :-)

[Valicious]

I think this is a great idea.

[SwitchFade]

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

All good, except brutes health swings wildly and faceplant far more rapidly than an invuln tank, not to even mention a stone tank. Also, tanks hold aggro far more effectively.

 

I agree that it would be nice to have a way to hold aggro just an eency bit better as we level from 30 on up, but overall, I can pretty much aggro hoard in most teams, and rarely lose aggro to anyone on my tank. A brute cannot. I've never had an issue tanking, taking and holding aggro. In fact, when brutes get the beat down, I often have to step in with my dwarf form keldian to take over.

[Noumenon]

I think the issue really is that the Brute passive is overperforming.

[Super Atom]

All good, except brutes health swings wildly and faceplant far more rapidly than an invuln tank, not to even mention a stone tank. Also, tanks hold aggro far more effectively.

 

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.

 

I think the issue really is that the Brute passive is overperforming.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

[SwitchFade]

All good, except brutes health swings wildly and faceplant far more rapidly than an invuln tank, not to even mention a stone tank. Also, tanks hold aggro far more effectively.

 

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.

 

I think the issue really is that the Brute passive is overperforming.

 

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.

 

I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.

[Solvernia]

A brute will die before a tank

 

[laughs in Invulnerability]

[Super Atom]

I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.

 

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?

[TotalThunder]

I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.

 

• All Brute attack sets include an auto-hit, multi-target taunt power. Most Brute defense sets include a toggle that includes a taunt effect. Additionally, all Brute attacks include a single-target auto-hit taunt.
  https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Taunt_(Status_Effect)
  

 

Brutes literally can't lose aggro to any other AT except a Tank, unless the person playing one is an idiot. They also have the same resistance caps and only slightly lower max health than a Tank. So saying they're less survivable is just plain making shit up.

 

You're right about one thing, though. Brutes are not Tankers.

They're better than Tankers.

[SwitchFade]

I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.

 

• All Brute attack sets include an auto-hit, multi-target taunt power. Most Brute defense sets include a toggle that includes a taunt effect. Additionally, all Brute attacks include a single-target auto-hit taunt.
  https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Taunt_(Status_Effect)
  

 

Brutes literally can't lose aggro to any other AT except a Tank, unless the person playing one is an idiot. They also have the same resistance caps and only slightly lower max health than a Tank. So saying they're less survivable is just plain making shit up.

 

You're right about one thing, though. Brutes are not Tankers.

They're better than Tankers.

 

I would encourage you to please be less insulting. We are fortunate enough to have the privilege to play again, let's be mature.

 

In regards to your statement, have yo looked at taunt mag?

 

Can brutes hit the caps they have without outside help? An invuln can hit 90% resist, soft cap defense and a much larger hit point base, let alone a click hp increase power.

 

Again, brutes are great, but they were not, and are not, tanks. They weren't intended to be. Alone, they cannot compare to a tank, in terms of tanking. In a group?, All AT's can role transition. A blaster can scrap, a controller can render a tank largely useless ... Etc.

 

Also, I may be mistaken, but I do believe that the 75% ranged debuff is aoe on a tank, and single Target on brute. So, a brute can aoe taunt and single Target debuff, a tank does aoe both. I believe. Also, punchvoke mag is lower than tanks.

 

In essence, it is patently false to say that brutes are better.

[Crimsanotic]

I would encourage you to please be less insulting. We are fortunate enough to have the privilege to play again, let's be mature.

 

In regards to your statement, have yo looked at taunt mag?

 

Can brutes hit the caps they have without outside help? An invuln can hit 90% resist, soft cap defense and a much larger hit point base, let alone a click hp increase power.

 

Again, brutes are great, but they were not, and are not, tanks. They weren't intended to be. Alone, they cannot compare to a tank, in terms of tanking. In a group?, All AT's can role transition. A blaster can scrap, a controller can render a tank largely useless ... Etc.

 

Also, I may be mistaken, but I do believe that the 75% ranged debuff is aoe on a tank, and single Target on brute. So, a brute can aoe taunt and single Target debuff, a tank does aoe both. I believe. Also, punchvoke mag is lower than tanks.

 

In essence, it is patently false to say that brutes are better.

 

Brutes with IOs and such can reach 90% S/L resistance, as well as defense softcap to everything (sans psi) with only one person near them with invincibility. Additionally, with dull pain, brutes can hit their HP hardcap which is about 300 hit points lower than the tank health hardcap.

 

Brutes also get AoE taunts in their primaries, like tanks get in their secondaries. The brute taunts also reduce the range of enemies by 75% and it is the same magnitude taunt. Brutes also have the same generic threat generation level of tanks. The only thing tanks have that assists them in holding and maintaining aggro better is that, yes, their attacks AoE taunt instead of taunting only the enemy hit.

 

Your statement that brutes are not tanks is false. What do you think villains did prior to Going Rogue? They were just able to do all of their content without a tank? No. They had brutes.

 

 

On topic: I like OPs proposed change. It allows tanks to tank better by allowing them to hold larger groups of enemies. So there is really a trade-off between the two ATs. Since both tanks and brutes can effectively tank the same but brutes currently do more damage, there is little reason to play a tank. This is especially true when min/maxed and the differences between their durability becomes entirely negligible. OP's suggestion carves a further niche for tanks that they should hold.

[Super Atom]

Can brutes hit the caps they have without outside help? An invuln can hit 90% resist, soft cap defense and a much larger hit point base

 

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.

[Solarverse]

I would simple say, this is incorrect. When compared to a tank, a brute is unable to manage aggro as well and is not as survivable. Having already used hero planners to make, and game play to test, as well as other teaming experience, I can say without doubt, that brutes are not tanks, and not preferred over tanks for tanking. A brute will die before a tank, a brute loses aggro to other AT's more easily.

 

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 second this. Brutes WERE the Tanks on Villain side. Aside for from that, I can get 84% vs Smash/Lethal, 69% vs Fire/Cold, 90% Energy, 47% Negative and Toxic and 90% Psionic resist on an /Elec Brute with relative ease using IO's...which is not too far off from a Tank. I'm sure I could do a bit better than those number if I tried. This was just something I tossed up on Mids. This is not to mention a Brute will do 3 times more DPS.

 

Brutes are Hulks in this game. Tanks are...well, meat shields, pretty much all they are good for. So why invite a Tank when you can have a Brute? Tanks shine in early levels where Brutes fall, however, after IO's, Brutes take the lead by a country mile.

 

I'm honestly not even sure how this is an argument.

[jack_nomind]

/signed for tankers having a higher (2x to 3x) aggro cap than other ATs

/signed for Tankers somehow absorbing AoE hits or having a "bodyguard" power, and sharing this effect among all Tankers on the team

/signed for tankers getting Bruising on all attacks

/signed for Bruising reducing critter mez protection

/signed for tanker Taunts having a mez or damage component

/signed for more Tanker AoEs in secondaries, especially AoE DoTs

/signed for Tanker attacks having additional effects on Bruised targets, regardless of the source of the Bruising

/signed for tanker T9 armor powers having offensive (or damage buff) components or being entirely offensive powers

/signed for tanker EPPs to be aoes (including aoe heal), nukes, team damage/offense buffs, and effective controls rather than garbage salads.

 

I'm not really a fan of the Tanker v Brute discussion.  Brutes don't make tankers obsolete any more than Corruptors make Defenders obsolete; the job they do is very similar and nine times out of ten the DPS version of the class is adequate, but there should be no problem bringing the defensive version.

 

I'd rather talk about Tanker vs Mastermind, Tanker vs Controller, Tanker vs Dominator, and worst of all, Tanker vs Tanker.  Neither Tankers nor Brutes are particularly necessary for most fights.  Because of the aggro cap, many Controllers are actually better at handling large groups of enemies; as has been pointed out elsewhere, you can only hold aggro on 17 things, but you can Confuse any number.  Powerful Dominators are even better for locking down most AVs than Tankers are, because the tanker merely absorbs the brunt of most powers while the Dominator typically stops them outright.  Masterminds can do either the large-group or AV job more than adequately.  As with Brutes, this really wouldn't matter except...

 

Tankers don't bring anything else to the force multiplication party.  Of all the "x makes Tanker obsolete on a team" claims, the worst one is one other Tanker.  I want Tankers to interact with each other mechanically, to be excited to see another Tanker on the team because it sets up some kind of combo.  I don't want a return to the server-crashing Striga or dumpster farms, but I do want to see "awesome Tanker" videos again.

 

It's fine -- desirable, even -- that teams don't need specifically Tankers to handle content.  What's not fine is putting the archetype out to pasture to do it.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

This myth of brutes being some kind of tank is really getting tiresome. BRUTES ARE NOT TANKS!

 

A brute can be a  damn solid front line fighter, and certainly could be seen as a a real rival to scrappers but never tanks.

 

Tanks do effectively 8 times their dmg in aggro draw. That means someone has to do 8 times the dmg of a tank to pull aggro. The reason this seems to happen is a great many bad tanks focus too much on their defenses and treat their attack powers like nothing. Its this that combined with the focus players give DPS on AT like blasters that lead to the result that even average blasters often do upwards of 20 times the dmg of a bad tank. Hence why many end up seeing tanks as useless. And ofcourse without good meat shields most blasters end up eating dirt more then they want and end up going scrapper corruptor or now sentinal.

 

However a well made and played tank can usually do about a 4th or even a 3rd of the dmg of even the best brutes, blasters etc, and that in aggro draw equals doing alot more then any taunt power in the game can do.

 

As far as brutes are concerned pff I can out tank a brute with a blaster.

[csr]

I think the issue really is that the Brute passive is overperforming.

 

I think the actual issue was giving Brutes the same Res cap as Tanks.  It made some sense when there were no Tanks red-side (and MMs proved to be a poor Tank  substitute), but the result is that Brutes are OP in content where their Res is capped.

[Charistoph]

I think the issue really is that the Brute passive is overperforming.

 

I think the actual issue was giving Brutes the same Res cap as Tanks.  It made some sense when there were no Tanks red-side (and MMs proved to be a poor Tank  substitute), but the result is that Brutes are OP in content where their Res is capped.

 

The cap is fine, it is how the Brute gets to it, that needs to be addressed.  A Brute should not match a Tanker's survivability without a matching Defensive powerset from a Corruptor, Mastermind, or Controller, minimum, present.  I would even consider that it would take a Defender or two of the others in order to match it.

 

That being said, I do like a lot of jack's list, especially adding a (very small) aoe component to all the Secondaries, and reducing the aoe radii of attacks on them...  Tankers should be all about spreading their love and reducing the hate against others.  (Gad, I just had an image of Puri Puri Prisoner activating Angel Mode pop in my head.  GAH!)

[Super Atom]

This myth of brutes being some kind of tank is really getting tiresome. BRUTES ARE NOT TANKS!

 

I'm just gonna repaste crims response to the other guy to you.

 

Brutes with IOs and such can reach 90% S/L resistance, as well as defense softcap to everything (sans psi) with only one person near them with invincibility. Additionally, with dull pain, brutes can hit their HP hardcap which is about 300 hit points lower than the tank health hardcap.

 

Brutes also get AoE taunts in their primaries, like tanks get in their secondaries. The brute taunts also reduce the range of enemies by 75% and it is the same magnitude taunt. Brutes also have the same generic threat generation level of tanks. The only thing tanks have that assists them in holding and maintaining aggro better is that, yes, their attacks AoE taunt instead of taunting only the enemy hit.

 

Your statement that brutes are not tanks is false. What do you think villains did prior to Going Rogue? They were just able to do all of their content without a tank? No. They had brutes.

 

Thats really all that can be said about the whole "brutes aren't tanks" thing.

 

The cap is fine, it is how the Brute gets to it, that needs to be addressed.

 

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.

 

 

/signed for Bruising reducing critter mez protection

 

Control is the job of support characters.

 

/signed for more Tanker AoEs in secondaries, especially AoE DoTs

 

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.

 

/signed for tanker T9 armor powers having offensive (or damage buff) components or being entirely offensive powers

 

Meltdown is a good example of this, the CoH Devs were going to rework all Godmodes but never got the chance.

 

/signed for tanker Taunts having a mez or damage component

 

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.