Tank passive/aggro changes

[Galaxy Brain]

I'm just gonna jump in here, but does anyone else feel that tankers got hit harder by IOs given nearly anyone can softcap now and make their defense tanker-esque? With their claim to fame taken away, other melee classes (brutes) just way outshine them

[Super Atom]

You implied that they have completely changed since Homecoming launched

 

Literally never did i imply that. For someone throwing around bullshit like "blind" you certainly didn't read anything.

 

That's a bull's load.  Might as well claim that Hamidon and Oroboros is the only real content in City of Heroes.  Trust me in that I've leveled up every single class in WoW.  All that "leveling is a joke" is about training you how to do your job when you reach the latest content, if anyone bothered to pay attention.  To be fair, though, to get to the latest content, you're talking about 2x the levels to progress through than City of Heroes has had, and three times expansion's worth of content.  But I guess, you're one of the ones that only ever focuses on Hamidon or Miss Liberty's TF in City of Heroes, right?

 

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.

 

Then you are blind, but then you've already demonstrated that, repeatedly.  No one has discounted or dismissed the idea of increasing the aggro-gathering ability of the Tanker.  In fact, I think that aside from the coding difficulties, everyone who posted in this thread was on board with doing so.  Your problem is only focusing on that one aspect, which is blinding you to other possibilities which could be added on in addition to it.

 

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.

 

Damage is a Tanker problem.

 

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.

 

 

[Blastit]

If the aggro cap was doubled for Tankers, how might this impact their survivability? Is the amount of incoming damage usually enough of a problem on a heavy-duty team that twice as much of it is over the top?

[Super Atom]

If the aggro cap was doubled for Tankers, how might this impact their survivability? Is the amount of incoming damage usually enough of a problem on a heavy-duty team that twice as much of it is over the top?

 

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.

[Charistoph]

You implied that they have completely changed since Homecoming launched

 

Literally never did i imply that. For someone throwing around bullshit like "blind" you certainly didn't read anything.

 

You said, "We are dealing with a current build", to dismiss a suggestion someone made about changing how something has been since classic.

 

That's a bull's load.  Might as well claim that Hamidon and Oroboros is the only real content in City of Heroes.  Trust me in that I've leveled up every single class in WoW.  All that "leveling is a joke" is about training you how to do your job when you reach the latest content, if anyone bothered to pay attention.  To be fair, though, to get to the latest content, you're talking about 2x the levels to progress through than City of Heroes has had, and three times expansion's worth of content.  But I guess, you're one of the ones that only ever focuses on Hamidon or Miss Liberty's TF in City of Heroes, right?

 

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.

 

And you can go back a solo any of that content from the previous expansions without breaking a sweat (with a couple of exceptions).  But again, still missing the entire point of why I brought up WoW.  Thank you for continuing to do so and further proving me right.

 

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.

 

Projection is an ugly practice.  You have completely dismissed anything else that anyone has said about Tankers in the game because you want to completely focus only on your aggro changes.  If you bothered to even consider paying attention to them instead of dismissing them out of hand, then you would know that I have repeatedly made statements regarding that.  And if we're not giving you high-fives on the subject, you are completely dismissive of it in trying to push your own power trip.

 

Then you are blind, but then you've already demonstrated that, repeatedly.  No one has discounted or dismissed the idea of increasing the aggro-gathering ability of the Tanker.  In fact, I think that aside from the coding difficulties, everyone who posted in this thread was on board with doing so.  Your problem is only focusing on that one aspect, which is blinding you to other possibilities which could be added on in addition to it.

 

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.

 

Then go read what I quoted to you to understand what you quoted.  The only person who is being dismissive of open discussion has been you because we aren't only focusing on your Taunt suggestion.

 

Damage is a Tanker problem.

 

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.

 

And cutting out the part that actually ADDS to the concept of the original topic.  Way to go.  Talk about not wanting to have an open discussion and putting words in other other people's mouths. 

 

I didn't misquote.  I provided context for what I quoted.  You may have not intended it to be taken that way when you quoted, but then you are taking everything I say out of context and putting your own spin on it, so...

[Super Atom]

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.

 

 

 

[jack_nomind]

If the aggro cap was doubled for Tankers, how might this impact their survivability? Is the amount of incoming damage usually enough of a problem on a heavy-duty team that twice as much of it is over the top?

 

This is an interesting question even if the short answer is "we're not considering that."

 

The reason we aren't looking at it is because Tanker survivability can be so over-curve as to be irrelevant.  Right now, many Tanker builds are sacrificing "tankiness" because it's just not contributing to the team; it's better to get 5% more damage than 30% more mitigation.

 

I think in practice, some of the higher-damage current Tanker builds would feel a bit of a survivability hit since they tend to rely on AoE damage to contribute (which is part of why one of my suggestions a page or two ago was to to step this aspect up).  But I think they'd correct easily, and end up feeling a lot more superheroic as a result.

[Charistoph]

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.

 

Considering I was just countering your spin doctoring, that's the Black Cauldron calling the pot dark.  And the only derailing was that you didn't focus on what I said, but other subjects associated with them.

 

Other topics brought up that could also be discussed.

 

- Increasing tanker aura radius's.

 

Oddly enough, I DID bring that up right after approving your original ideas.

 

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.

 

Didn't see anyone much talking about it.

[Super Atom]

Oddly enough, I DID bring that up right after approving your original ideas.

 

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.

 

I think in practice, some of the higher-damage current Tanker builds would feel a bit of a survivability hit since they tend to rely on AoE damage to contribute (which is part of why one of my suggestions a page or two ago was to to step this aspect up).  But I think they'd correct easily, and end up feeling a lot more superheroic as a result.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Lucious]

I didn't read every post here so do not know if these have been suggested but to list some ideas that could maybe work and make them unique and a valuable member of any team in PvE/PvP....

 

Give tanks a guard mechanic that they can swap from team mate to team mate when ever they want? What ever team mate they choose to guard, that team mate then receives a % reduced damage if he/she is within 100ft of the tank for example.

 

Give Tanks the only reliable way to taunt and hold aggro on Hero's/AV's.

 

Make them immune to taunt ( pvp ).

 

Can carry more enhancements and/or have access to unique team buffing enhancements.

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nihilii]

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.

 

I find these ideas excellent. Rather than change the wheel, tweak values to let tankers be the undisputed kings of aggro management.

 

Also, why not extend previous changes. Tankers once got -res added to their first attack. It wasn't enough. Perhaps Taunt could do -res to enemies as well. Encourages tankers to play to their strengths, useful solo, useful on teams, and would likely further divide tankers and brute builds, the former taking Taunt systematically and the latter infrequently.

[marcussmythe]

Once Deep Purple and Incarnates, a Scrapper or a Brute can survive anything they are going to meet in solo or team play.  The Tanker is tougher, but its wasted toughness, and the Scrapper/Brute is doing all the more damage.

 

Buffing Tanker Damage is not the answer (those ATs need jobs).  Nor is making changes at lower levels.

 

But how do we get a Tank to add value (offense) in the endgame without breaking it for lower levels (when they DO have a survival advantage, and it matters!)

 

Suggestion:  ATO Set Bonus, on an existing ATO set or new ATO set.  6 Piece.

 

Effect of Bonus:  "Bruising" now applies to all targets hit by any attack in the Tank's Secondary.  Bruising applies a 20% Debuff to Resistance and Regeneration.  5% of this debuff is unresistable.  The debuff will stack with itself from the same or different sources, to some limit (Id suggest no more than -50% Res and Regen)

 

Impact:  Only appearing in the very late game, when the scrappers and brutes are doing anything the tank can do, and doing it with triple the damage output, it changes Tank performance against super-hard targets.  It wont make it a super-farmer or minion masher (they die too quickly for it to matter), but it will give them some team value not duplicated by a tough, ultra-high-damage scrapper or tougher, high damage brute.

[Auroxis]

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.

 

Good idea, but also not very noticeable for most people. Would need something extra besides this.

 

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%.

 

I think this lowers the skill cap on tanking just a bit too much. LoS management is a very important and fun skill to have.

 

Something simple like buffing the Leadership pool to Defender levels would be a nice touch, alongside the aggro cap increase.

 

 

[marcussmythe]

Its been pointed out to me that AVs apparently DO NOT get their magical debuff resistance against resistance debuffs - at least according to the article discussing them.

 

Ive also been spending quality time looking at DPS differences between the melee classes.

 

In light of above, allowing bruising to stack freely to 50% RES Debuff looks about right.  A tank would be (on a single target, after beating on it a while) about as damaging as a Brute, and would still not be within shrieking distance of the Scrapper or Stalker - but would provide added value to the team in terms of increased damage out to the targets.

 

20% is insufficient for this purpose.

[Galaxy Brain]

Adding bruising to gauntlet would be cool, they would add *team damage* specifically on top of aggro.

[trogenion]

If it can be done, i like it, plus it ciuod make knockback at least somewhat less annoying when used improperly.

[OEM61]

 

A good 8 man team wouldn't have 2 tanks. You don't even need 1 tank at the moment and if you did have another tank, it'd only be there to grab additional aggro.

 

Would a good 8-man team have two Brutes?  Two Defenders?  Two Peacebringers?  Two Dominators?

 

Why deliberately single Tankers out as "the only AT that we currently and will always want one or fewer of"?

 

This is the question that I think needs to be addressed.

 

If in a game where the design idea moves towards "play what you want.  Every class is fun and every group should be viable" then there shouldn't be any asterisks and footnotes saying "except for tankers".

 

 

Would a good 8-man team have two Brutes?  Two Defenders?  Two Peacebringers?  Two Dominators?

 

Why deliberately single Tankers out as "the only AT that we currently and will always want one or fewer of"?

 

 

Because in an 8 man team, ideally you would only want 1 person handling the tanking. If you want to do another job, play a different AT. This doesn't mean you -have- to follow this because you don't. I've done TF's filled with nothing but brutes/tanks and it went just fine. Changing the tank to be something other than a tank is just silly.

 

We're here to discuss improving tanker utility. If the admins don't have the time to read the post then It's whatever. Tankers as a whole are mostly fine, they just in my opinion need something to set them apart from other ATs capable of tanking. My suggestion for doing so has been stated a couple of times. If you'd like to discuss how those specific changes could help, I'll be more than glad to expand my position on the change otherwise I have little interest in arguing semantics or opinion on other classes.

 

So wouldn't expanding the utility of the tanker improve tanker utility?

 

I mean, it may sound silly but you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth here.

 

"Expand tanker utility" and "If you want to do another job then play another AT" is at least somewhat contradictory.

 

Every other AT is welcome in multiples.  This includes brutes.

Tankers should be welcome in multiples too.

 

How to accomplish this?  By expanding their utility.  As in, give them something to do other than taunting for aggro.

 

More AoE attacks?  I wouldn't want this to become too widespread but having one or two AoEs in each secondary would help them grab/keep aggro.  It would not, however, expand their utility.  It just makes them better at the one thing they currently do.

 

Higher aggro cap?  Well, I guess if you like to aggro the entire map then this is fine.  But again, it still doesn't expand tanker utility.  Again, this just makes them "better" at the one thing they already do.

 

 

I want them to add a reason to want to bring a second or even third tanker along.

 

So one idea that comes to mind is to have them offer a protection field.  To provide a +resistance bonus to all teammates within a certain range.  This would have to stack, or course, for multiples to be welcome, and so may not be a huge bonus, but it would be something.

 

Another possibility could be a +damage bonus to a tanker based on the presence of other tankers.

Two tankers together would each do a little more damage, making each more valuable to the team if there are two or more.

 

That, to me, is adding utility.

Those are ideas that I think would make multiple tankers more welcome in groups.

 

More welcome enough?  Enough to make people want a second tanker instead of some other class?  Maybe not, but maybe, just maybe, enough so that if a group has been trying to get a TF going or whatever and a second tanker volunteers that the group might go ahead and let them run instead of saying "no thanks, we already have a tanker".

[Solarverse]

You know, it is absolutely amazing ANYTHING in this game gets accomplished with the way we debate things to a point that it just ends up being petty arguments. Like, we have went from a request to make Tanks be the better aggro grabbing force in this game, to now trying to compare them to controllers, and making them more like Controllers. We already have Blasters who have Controller and Defender powers, (Dark Blasters) Let's not make it any worse. We went from a game that had roles, to multi roles, and now we are pushing forward to an era where there are no roles.

 

The idea the OP had was a good one...let's not debate it to oblivion, please? Nothing gets accomplished this way. Kryptonians sat and debated the eminent destruction of their planet until it was too late. Debates can literally go on forever, and most reason why, is somehow we all seem to think that we are the authority of what happens in this game and what does not. I think that should be left up to the Devs.

 

An idea gets brought up, ultimately it is the choice of the Devs who will consider it or not. No amount of bickering back and forth is going to sway them either way...if anything, it will make them say, "forget it..."

 

People are afraid of change in this game of any kind. Regardless of the request people make. It has gotten to a point, that I cringe at an idea I would like to put out there, because I know at least half of you will shoot it down by overthinking it and trying way too hard to over analyze it. If the Devs would ONLY implement ideas we all agree with, guess what...no change would ever take place in this game.

 

I for one hope they read the OP of these posts, then stop reading there and discuss it between themselves...because if they actually read all of this over analyzing, never ending debate with between people who feel their way of looking at it is superior to yours...nothing will ever happen.

 

This endless debate stuff needs to end. It's gotten so bad that you can't even ask people what they would do differently if they were in charge of the game about something, even when you aren't trying to make a change, that people will come in and over debate your personal ideas of what you would have done differently and why. People are way too defensive about this game...the very game we all love.

 

If I see a request that I don't like, I say my peace with a post or two and leave. I won't sit there and debate it to death. Endless debates accomplish nothing, people.

[Blastit]

I kind like the suggestion of giving tankers the same values for the leadership pool as defenders, tho I don't know how much relevant utility that is in the contexts tankers have problems in. The Tanker Tuesday crew would appreciate it, even if they'd have to pick a specific power pool.

[jack_nomind]

You know, it is absolutely amazing ANYTHING in this game gets accomplished with the way we debate things to a point that it just ends up being petty arguments.

 

This isn't a democracy.  This "debate" isn't about coming up with a singular idea so that we can then go implement it.  It's a show of interest in some change, and an examination of as many possibilities or permutations as we can manage specifically so the very small number of people who control the server's code can decide what they want.  Having five, or ten, or thirty pages of (polite and reasonable) discussion is actually ideal, since it helps to show the general interest.

 

But I will say... unlike you, I'm here because I enjoy it; even if nothing happens from the discussion, I like talking about this stuff.  If you'd rather make your point and move back to playing... that's absolutely a sane and reasonable thing to do.

 

I want them to add a reason to want to bring a second or even third tanker along.

 

110%.  Did you happen to see my earlier suggestions?

[Solarverse]

You know, it is absolutely amazing ANYTHING in this game gets accomplished with the way we debate things to a point that it just ends up being petty arguments.

 

This isn't a democracy.  This "debate" isn't about coming up with a singular idea so that we can then go implement it.  It's a show of interest in some change, and an examination of as many possibilities or permutations as we can manage specifically so the very small number of people who control the server's code can decide what they want.  Having five, or ten, or thirty pages of (polite and reasonable) discussion is actually ideal, since it helps to show the general interest.

 

But I will say... unlike you, I'm here because I enjoy it; even if nothing happens from the discussion, I like talking about this stuff.  If you'd rather make your point and move back to playing... that's absolutely a sane and reasonable thing to do.

 

Except it almost never stays a debate, it turns in to bickering. I only wish it stayed as a friendly debate.

[marcussmythe]

You know, it is absolutely amazing ANYTHING in this game gets accomplished with the way we debate things to a point that it just ends up being petty arguments.

 

This isn't a democracy.  This "debate" isn't about coming up with a singular idea so that we can then go implement it.  It's a show of interest in some change, and an examination of as many possibilities or permutations as we can manage specifically so the very small number of people who control the server's code can decide what they want.  Having five, or ten, or thirty pages of (polite and reasonable) discussion is actually ideal, since it helps to show the general interest.

 

But I will say... unlike you, I'm here because I enjoy it; even if nothing happens from the discussion, I like talking about this stuff.  If you'd rather make your point and move back to playing... that's absolutely a sane and reasonable thing to do.

 

I want them to add a reason to want to bring a second or even third tanker along.

 

110%.  Did you happen to see my earlier suggestions?

 

I like your earlier suggestions.  Id just add ‘let bruising stack’ to your list.  Lets multiple tanks beat down one target very, very thoroughly, and would add real value to multiple tanks firing off their otherwise fairly low damage AOEs.

[Super Atom]

I want them to add a reason to want to bring a second or even third tanker along.

 

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

[Charistoph]

You know, it is absolutely amazing ANYTHING in this game gets accomplished with the way we debate things to a point that it just ends up being petty arguments.

 

This isn't a democracy.  This "debate" isn't about coming up with a singular idea so that we can then go implement it.  It's a show of interest in some change, and an examination of as many possibilities or permutations as we can manage specifically so the very small number of people who control the server's code can decide what they want.  Having five, or ten, or thirty pages of (polite and reasonable) discussion is actually ideal, since it helps to show the general interest.

 

But I will say... unlike you, I'm here because I enjoy it; even if nothing happens from the discussion, I like talking about this stuff.  If you'd rather make your point and move back to playing... that's absolutely a sane and reasonable thing to do.

 

Except it almost never stays a debate, it turns in to bickering. I only wish it stayed as a friendly debate.

 

Some of it turned in to bickering because one person kept focusing on only one thing (their original suggestion), and started vehemently rejecting anything else, especially if it came from other experiences, without considering how it would even affect their suggestion.

 

I want them to add a reason to want to bring a second or even third tanker along.

 

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~

 

And yet, get any number of Defenders in a Team, and it always runs well, and no one gets offended (unless you didn't get on the team).  A second Tanker only gets on a team if no one else wants to join.  No other AT has that issue.

[Super Atom]

blah blah im bitter

 

Neat man.

 

 

If I see a request that I don't like, I say my peace with a post or two and leave. I won't sit there and debate it to death. Endless debates accomplish nothing, people.

 

This is solid advice, thank you.