Tank passive/aggro changes

[jack_nomind]

I've noticed in many of your posts that you have a penchant for backhanded disrespectful comments. Please do not misquote me by snipping out a small section of a whole sentence, as you did, and create straw man arguments.

 

It's a bit off-topic, but after you suggested you don't make judgey comments I wanted to take a look and see if I was perhaps confusing you with another person, or reading a bit too much into your comments in this thread.  And, well...

 

Maybe your acquaintances are a bit.... Melodramatic?

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

Are you being facetious? Or am I being sarcasm pranked?

I'm sure we can find a better way to discuss, without posting about how each other's opinions or comments are "chicken little"?

I don't appreciate, however, your rather rude comments about my understanding of statistics. I would ask that you please be more polite in the future and refrain from making unfounded assumptions of which you know naught.

You, my good sir, should seriously consider reigning in your aggression. Stop being disrespectful. There is no room for this behavior. Please be respectful, or leave.

 

I think those were all to different people.  I'm not so sure the problem's me.

 

So I'll try again. 

 

Thanks for the find memories, I have no need to take time to "learn," a as you mention concerning this subject, as I experienced, grew wiser and already know the ins-and-outs. I do hope you'll perhaps take the time to not be assumptive of my depth of knowledge concerning issues I post about? I would greatly appreciate it, and you'll note, I make no assumptions as to your prowess.

 

You ought take that time, as I mention concerning the subject of learning, because your earlier claim (that increasing the aggro cap simply can't be done without changing other factors as well) was false given the evidence (that the aggro cap was in fact different without those other factors being different).  That's... not a strawman.  That's really what we were discussing.

 

I fully anticipate that your response is simply that you aren't wrong and I am.  And that's what I meant about an impasse -- we're not talking about logic at this point, but about a feeling of personal investment in a position.  I get that it's easy for these topics to derail in this way, and that you have a...

 

/Jranger

/Jranger

I'm gonna have to Dodge this one with a /jranger.

I would vote no on this...

+1 /jranger

I would heavily /jranger this.

Again, I vote no.

 

...particular style of approaching proposed changes...

 

(although I did find a 'yes' vote in regards to dfb nerfing, so there's that)

 

...but I'd prefer if we could have a bit of a broader discussion than, uh... what was it we got to before? "Yuh-huh, nuh-uh?"  In essence, anyway.

 

So hey, this topic's dead.  I'm sure we'll have lots of conversations in the future.  Consider... considering?  Not just with me, but in general.  Dive in.

 

(and uh hey, making a purely helpful post once in a while might not kill ya either, just go make some builds for newbs or research some code or w/e.  Dig up old forum links.  Anything.  That was kind of a depressing half-hour looking at your comments.)

[jack_nomind]

The aggro cap is global, it can't be raised for only one AT. Either it goes up for everyone, or it doesn't at all.

 

Warrants a separate response.  I realize I'm uh, diving in above my pay grade at the moment, but --

 

The loop that determines the aggro cap is currently global, but it doesn't have to be.  I don't know what the efficiency cost of another conditional would be in that mess, but I do know it's not in "impossible" territory.

[Super Atom]

The aggro cap is global, it can't be raised for only one AT. Either it goes up for everyone, or it doesn't at all.

 

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.

[Mezmera]

I was thinking how a tank could get a little bit of a buff making it useful again in comparison to decked out brutes without changing the whole feel for it around.  What I was thinking could be done is to add a unique passive debuff to the tankers version of their defensive aoe taunt power that each powerset has like unyielding. 

 

As time goes on the targets that maintain contact within that toggle defenses range gradually get a debuff kind of like a morale debuff because the tank is fending them all off and they get annoyed by it.  It could be a low start of -5% resist/defense to the enemies in range within the first 30 seconds of the fight increasing to a max of -15% over two minutes, kind of like the opposite of how the incarnate buffs degrade. 

 

Wonder if this is something others would think would be viable and keep it within reason not to be OP enough that brutes start complaining now. 

[Coyote]

I think that it's not reasonable to discuss about aggro or AoE limits being different for one AT compared to others. Tanks have a limitation on how many mobs they can aggro... Blasters can only hit a limited number of targets, Defenders can only debuff a limited number of targets, and so on.

 

I don't see why a Tank should be able to aggro 34 targets... and then the Defender cannot debuff all 34 with Radiation Infection. Conceptually, the idea of setting Tanks up as a special exclusion feels wrong to me. It does seem likely that they could use a role refining, but expanding their aggro limit doesn't seem to be a useful way to refine their role on teams. Rather, it feels more like someone finding something they don't like in the game, and then wanting it changed so that their character doesn't feel limited... by a limitation. But that's the point of limitations.

 

Tanks could probably use something interesting to make them more interesting to play. I'm not sure that there is much that could be added to the concept of "damage-absorbing sponge" to make it interesting, but just letting it absorb more aggro is not the kind of refining that they need. It's more of the same ability that is just failing to make them useful when stacked on teams. Then we'll have people complain that their Tanker is made superfluous by the other Tanker on the team, which is exactly the problem now. Frankly, I wonder if a SMALLER aggro cap, which would make having multiple Tankers become more useful, might not be a better solution to the problem of Tankers on a team.

 

And as for the problem of a single Tanker wanting to be the hero and hold all the aggro... I don't think it's a problem any more than one Controller may have difficulty mezzing 30 mobs, or a Blaster blasting 30 mobs, and so on. As the team gets larger and multiple spawns are aggroed, I think it's reasonable that one character can no longer fulfill all of the tanking, mezzing, or debuffing needs for the team.

[SwitchFade]

I was thinking how a tank could get a little bit of a buff making it useful again in comparison to decked out brutes without changing the whole feel for it around.  What I was thinking could be done is to add a unique passive debuff to the tankers version of their defensive aoe taunt power that each powerset has like unyielding. 

 

As time goes on the targets that maintain contact within that toggle defenses range gradually get a debuff kind of like a morale debuff because the tank is fending them all off and they get annoyed by it.  It could be a low start of -5% resist/defense to the enemies in range within the first 30 seconds of the fight increasing to a max of -15% over two minutes, kind of like the opposite of how the incarnate buffs degrade. 

 

Wonder if this is something others would think would be viable and keep it within reason not to be OP enough that brutes start complaining now.

 

Hmm. It may have to be more immediate, as some fights are over quickly. Many of them, actually, so the effect may not do much.

 

So perhaps it's best to think of a tank, in real world terms. What is the unique facet? He's intimidating. He's impossible to ignore. It's evident that if you turn your back on him, your survival is in jeapordy. His presence is so imposing that he makes you pause, you become afraid and mind locked.

 

Now, I bet there's little things that can be added to taunt and aggro auras that can illicit effects around these that are hugely beneficial. A fear effect in taunt aura? Leaves them trembling in place. A "pull gravity type effect" in ranged taunt to pull foes off Squishies? Like a pseudo gravity power. A delay to initiate attack type effect? When confronted but something so imposing, foes stand and stare in awe.

 

Foes that turn away from the tank, like when aggro is lost, take double damage from the tank, forcing them back.

 

The mechanics exist. Perhaps utility adds to auras and taunt can focus not on aggro increase, mag increase, damage or any other such existing component, that brutes also have, but on unique utility provisions that would materially make a real noticable impact.

 

That said, Dev time is limited, and the priority on the work required is questionable.

[SwitchFade]

I think that it's not reasonable to discuss about aggro or AoE limits being different for one AT compared to others. Tanks have a limitation on how many mobs they can aggro... Blasters can only hit a limited number of targets, Defenders can only debuff a limited number of targets, and so on.

 

I don't see why a Tank should be able to aggro 34 targets... and then the Defender cannot debuff all 34 with Radiation Infection. Conceptually, the idea of setting Tanks up as a special exclusion feels wrong to me. It does seem likely that they could use a role refining, but expanding their aggro limit doesn't seem to be a useful way to refine their role on teams. Rather, it feels more like someone finding something they don't like in the game, and then wanting it changed so that their character doesn't feel limited... by a limitation. But that's the point of limitations.

 

Tanks could probably use something interesting to make them more interesting to play. I'm not sure that there is much that could be added to the concept of "damage-absorbing sponge" to make it interesting, but just letting it absorb more aggro is not the kind of refining that they need. It's more of the same ability that is just failing to make them useful when stacked on teams. Then we'll have people complain that their Tanker is made superfluous by the other Tanker on the team, which is exactly the problem now. Frankly, I wonder if a SMALLER aggro cap, which would make having multiple Tankers become more useful, might not be a better solution to the problem of Tankers on a team.

 

And as for the problem of a single Tanker wanting to be the hero and hold all the aggro... I don't think it's a problem any more than one Controller may have difficulty mezzing 30 mobs, or a Blaster blasting 30 mobs, and so on. As the team gets larger and multiple spawns are aggroed, I think it's reasonable that one character can no longer fulfill all of the tanking, mezzing, or debuffing needs for the team.

 

Exactly. Which is correctly stating why aggro cannot simply be changed, nor should it be done so arbitrarily. As I have tried to impart, the domino affect of such a change is astronomical.

[jack_nomind]

I don't see why a Tank should be able to aggro 34 targets... and then the Defender cannot debuff all 34 with Radiation Infection.

 

...I don't think it's a problem any more than one Controller may have difficulty mezzing 30 mobs...

 

The thing is, the Controller already can mez 30 mobs at once.  And, sure, Radiant Infection can't hit 34 targets, but Freezing Rain or Tar Patch can -- your example is specific to a type of behavior that wouldn't change, just like Blazing Aura wouldn't.

 

Your point about difficulty is taken; it is difficult to mez 30 mobs at a time.  So wouldn't "difficult" be a more appropriate position for Tankers holding aggro against 30 targets, rather than "impossible"?

[Coyote]

I don't see why a Tank should be able to aggro 34 targets... and then the Defender cannot debuff all 34 with Radiation Infection.

 

...I don't think it's a problem any more than one Controller may have difficulty mezzing 30 mobs...

 

The thing is, the Controller already can mez 30 mobs at once.  And, sure, Radiant Infection can't hit 34 targets, but Freezing Rain or Tar Patch can -- your example is specific to a type of behavior that wouldn't change, just like Blazing Aura wouldn't.

 

Your point about difficulty is taken; it is difficult to mez 30 mobs at a time.  So wouldn't "difficult" be a more appropriate position for Tankers holding aggro against 30 targets, rather than "impossible"?

 

No, I think that you're conflating two kinds of effects and taking only the side of the argument that is beneficial to Controllers, and ignoring the side that is beneficial to Tanks.

 

Yes, Controllers can mez more than 17 mobs, by using multiple mezzes, but the mezzes generally don't have an uptime of 100%. Very few Controllers can perma-mez 2+ spawns without using Sleep powers. So while their max number of mezzed targets is higher than 17, their control uptime is not 100%. The Tank is limited to 17 at one time, but easily maintains 100% uptime on the aggro control. Same with Defenders with aura debuffs.

 

It could be an interesting calculation to see, with 50 mobs in the area, what % of those mobs would be free to act under the influence of a Tanker (33/50, 100% of the time) versus some Controller builds (different numbers at different times, and also we may have to make huge assumptions, like how likely is a Controller to hit two completely different sets of mobs with two AoE controls)... this may give a better idea of the actual control ability of Tanks vs Controllers. However, the main point is to just be aware that such a calculation is warranted, rather than assuming that because a Controller can mez 34 mobs at one time... he can do it all the time. A Tank is limited to 17, but can do it all the time, and this needs to be considered when comparing their controlling abilities.

 

Also, if we compare the controlling abilities... should we, or should we not, include the ability of a Tanker to keep more than 17 mobs from attacking the team, by including their attacks that also have control effects? It would be quite difficult, given that we wouldn't know which mobs just got knocked down by Footstomp while aggroed on the Tanker, versus while over the aggro cap and aggroed on someone else.

 

The point is that the damage mitigation provided to a team by one character is very complicated, and I think that it's a design weakness to only look at one factor (aggro cap for an AT that uses aggro control as its main source of damage mitigation for the rest of the team), and then use that to argue that a major change should be made to the game. For the amount of effort that will be required to calculate the situation and then make a change, I think we'll get a better game if that developer effort is spent towards coming up with some new ability that will make Tanks useful in other ways than just making them more able to do what they already can do.

[jack_nomind]

The Tank is limited to 17 at one time, but easily maintains 100% uptime on the aggro control.

 

Assuming that would extend easily to 34 or 51 is kind of the core assumption here.  How is it you make it?  Again -- there's no target cap changes being suggested, and aggro is FIFO.  How is a tanker hitting 34 targets more easily than anyone else is?

 

Yes, Controllers can mez more than 17 mobs, by using multiple mezzes, but the mezzes generally don't have an uptime of 100%.

 

Every Controller primary except Gravity, Ice, and Illusion, who rely on their pets for supplemental control, has at least one AoE "strong" (manages aggro/prevents attacks) control with a potential uptime of 200% or better.

 

• Darkness: Heart of Darkness (stun) and Shadow Field (hold)
  
• Earth: Volcanic Gasses (hold) and Stalagmites (stun)
  
• Electric: Synaptic Overload (confuse).  Also Static Field, which is a sleep, but attached to an effect that periodically recasts it.
  
• Fire: Flashfire (stun)
  
• Mind: Terrify (terror), Mass Confusion (confuse)
  
• Plant: Seeds of Confusion (confuse)

 

Many of these take pretty high levels of recharge to achieve 200% -- which was my point about "difficult" vs "impossible."  The pet-control sets are a little different, but even those still can manage it.

 

Also, if we compare the controlling abilities... should we, or should we not, include the ability of a Tanker to keep more than 17 mobs from attacking the team, by including their attacks that also have control effects?

 

You mean currently?  ...I'm not sure what you're getting at.  Under current rules, the new attack bumps old entries off the aggro list quickly.  With a revised cap, it still doesn't seem to change anything.  Nor does it for our purposes matter whether or not the tanker is preventing attacks to themself with active mitigation, which is the difference between 5 KD'd targets in their aggro list and 5 standing targets in their aggro list.  ...I don't think I'm understanding what you mean to say here, just tossing out responses to what I might guess was your intent.

 

The point is that the damage mitigation provided to a team by one character is very complicated, and I think that it's a design weakness to only look at one factor (aggro cap for an AT that uses aggro control as its main source of damage mitigation for the rest of the team), and then use that to argue that a major change should be made to the game. For the amount of effort that will be required to calculate the situation and then make a change, I think we'll get a better game if that developer effort is spent towards coming up with some new ability that will make Tanks useful in other ways than just making them more able to do what they already can do.

 

I'm proposing an aggro change in conjunction with several other Tanker changes, earlier in this thread.  (But again, none of them get at AoE caps.)  I totally agree that they need more than just a higher aggro cap; that merely brings them to effect parity with support ATs in aggro management.  Being more than "nearly as good a tank as a Controller" takes a step or two further. 

[Super Atom]

I think that it's not reasonable to discuss about aggro or AoE limits being different for one AT compared to others. Tanks have a limitation on how many mobs they can aggro... Blasters can only hit a limited number of targets, Defenders can only debuff a limited number of targets, and so on.

 

I don't see why a Tank should be able to aggro 34 targets... and then the Defender cannot debuff all 34 with Radiation Infection. Conceptually, the idea of setting Tanks up as a special exclusion feels wrong to me. It does seem likely that they could use a role refining, but expanding their aggro limit doesn't seem to be a useful way to refine their role on teams. Rather, it feels more like someone finding something they don't like in the game, and then wanting it changed so that their character doesn't feel limited... by a limitation. But that's the point of limitations.

 

Tanks could probably use something interesting to make them more interesting to play. I'm not sure that there is much that could be added to the concept of "damage-absorbing sponge" to make it interesting, but just letting it absorb more aggro is not the kind of refining that they need. It's more of the same ability that is just failing to make them useful when stacked on teams. Then we'll have people complain that their Tanker is made superfluous by the other Tanker on the team, which is exactly the problem now. Frankly, I wonder if a SMALLER aggro cap, which would make having multiple Tankers become more useful, might not be a better solution to the problem of Tankers on a team.

 

And as for the problem of a single Tanker wanting to be the hero and hold all the aggro... I don't think it's a problem any more than one Controller may have difficulty mezzing 30 mobs, or a Blaster blasting 30 mobs, and so on. As the team gets larger and multiple spawns are aggroed, I think it's reasonable that one character can no longer fulfill all of the tanking, mezzing, or debuffing needs for the team.

 

Full content, gonna respond in qoutes.

 

I think that it's not reasonable to discuss about aggro or AoE limits being different for one AT compared to others. Tanks have a limitation on how many mobs they can aggro... Blasters can only hit a limited number of targets, Defenders can only debuff a limited number of targets, and so on.

 

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.

 

Tanks could probably use something interesting to make them more interesting to play

 

Yeah like being able to control mobs and  position them wherever they please without LoS ;)

 

It's more of the same ability that is just failing to make them useful when stacked on teams. Then we'll have people complain that their Tanker is made superfluous by the other Tanker on the team, which is exactly the problem now.

 

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.

 

I wonder if a SMALLER aggro cap, which would make having multiple Tankers become more useful, might not be a better solution to the problem of Tankers on a team.

 

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.

 

And as for the problem of a single Tanker wanting to be the hero and hold all the aggro.

 

it feels more like someone finding something they don't like in the game, and then wanting it changed so that their character doesn't feel limited... by a limitation. But that's the point of limitations.

 

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.

[Mezmera]

I was thinking how a tank could get a little bit of a buff making it useful again in comparison to decked out brutes without changing the whole feel for it around.  What I was thinking could be done is to add a unique passive debuff to the tankers version of their defensive aoe taunt power that each powerset has like unyielding. 

 

As time goes on the targets that maintain contact within that toggle defenses range gradually get a debuff kind of like a morale debuff because the tank is fending them all off and they get annoyed by it.  It could be a low start of -5% resist/defense to the enemies in range within the first 30 seconds of the fight increasing to a max of -15% over two minutes, kind of like the opposite of how the incarnate buffs degrade. 

 

Wonder if this is something others would think would be viable and keep it within reason not to be OP enough that brutes start complaining now.

 

Hmm. It may have to be more immediate, as some fights are over quickly. Many of them, actually, so the effect may not do much.

 

So perhaps it's best to think of a tank, in real world terms. What is the unique facet? He's intimidating. He's impossible to ignore. It's evident that if you turn your back on him, your survival is in jeapordy. His presence is so imposing that he makes you pause, you become afraid and mind locked.

 

Now, I bet there's little things that can be added to taunt and aggro auras that can illicit effects around these that are hugely beneficial. A fear effect in taunt aura? Leaves them trembling in place. A "pull gravity type effect" in ranged taunt to pull foes off Squishies? Like a pseudo gravity power. A delay to initiate attack type effect? When confronted but something so imposing, foes stand and stare in awe.

 

Foes that turn away from the tank, like when aggro is lost, take double damage from the tank, forcing them back.

 

The mechanics exist. Perhaps utility adds to auras and taunt can focus not on aggro increase, mag increase, damage or any other such existing component, that brutes also have, but on unique utility provisions that would materially make a real noticable impact.

 

That said, Dev time is limited, and the priority on the work required is questionable.

 

Yeah I think utility is the way to go with the tanker rather than buffing aggro caps or damage and such.  With a debuff in the pbaoe defensive taunt power and in their taunt power it would equate to a substantial damage increase anyways but also for your team. 

 

I agree maybe front load the debuff with a gradual build up to a max of a minute since that's where you'd be fighting an AV most likely.  The pbaoe defensive taunt could have an initial debuff to all caught in its range of say -10% resist and -5% defense and after another 20 seconds it grows to where at the minute mark its up to -20% resist and -10% defense for anything that have maintained the aggro connection. 

 

As for the taunt yes that could be a debuff specific to tankers as well.  Not sure about a fear aspect or anything but another res/def debuff would work.  But this one can work a bit different than your defensive one. 

 

Basically your taunting a group of enemies to attack you ferociously so in theory they should be attacking you harder with more vigor so you'd want to represent that in their attacks on you as the tank.  You wouldn't want to buff the enemies dmg and tohitt because your teammates could get the brunt of that.  So what you could do is have it so if you have taunted within the last 10 seconds you debuff yourself say -8% resist and -4% defense, on a tank this is a bit marginal and can be built back up.  But on that same token you debuff everyone taunted by double the debuff you do to yourself so you debuff a whole group -16% resist and -8% defense for the duration they are taunted by your taunt power. 

 

None of this is stackable nor enhanceable mind you in either the defensive one or taunt.  They can stack onto the other powers but you can't debuff a group you've already taunted more and you can't debuff yourself more its the flat rate for the duration for both sides.  I do realize powersets like radiation get a debuff to -defense which is enhanceable whereas this addition would add to that but not be enhanceable. 

 

This would put a tank in good value again as opposed to rather having a decked out brute with all of these team friend debuffs.  The values can be adjusted to whatever feels significant but not stupid OP. 

[Sura]

I wonder if examining and changing (possibly) the T9 powers could be a one stop shop for improving Tankers. 

 

As it is, in the T9 powers you have:

 

Powers that Buff and Crash You

- Electric Armor

- Invulnerability

- Shield

- SR

- Willpower

- Energy Armor

 

Powers that Rez You

- Dark Armor

- Fire Armor

 

 

Powers that Buff You

- Bio Armor

- Radiation Armor

- Regeneration

- Stone Armor (not sure about this one, but I'd consider it a buff)

 

Other

- Ice Armor (Hibernate seems way too selfish to be a Tanker power IMO; it's completely self centered and counter to the Tanker role)

 

What ideas could we come up with to change those T9's to improve Tankers?  What if Brute T9's didn't change (so they crash for a lot of things) but Tanker T9's did?  Maybe Tanker T9's should normalize away from crashes?  Maybe they should (as proposed earlier) have some sort of offensive component?  As a Tanker especially I'd always be leery of taking and using a power with a crash; shouldn't the T9 be something you cheer when you get it? 

 

Other than some of the Blaster nukes, I can't think of other AT's where the primary T9 is something you're hesitant to use.  And the Blaster nukes could kind of be considered the ultimate expression of Blasterness, where most of the Tanker T9's aren't very Tankery (IMO of course).  Anything with a crash, or which requires you to faceplant to use it, and Hibernate, seem un-Tankery.

 

Thoughts?

[jack_nomind]

Well... sure, I agree all the T9s should be crashless and have a significant offensive component.  Shield, Radiation, Fiery Aura and Dark Aura already do (in conjunction with their other powers).  Bio's off the hook (it's an all-nine set and distributes the offensive effects) and Stone (and Regen, if proliferated) can't reasonably change much.  That leaves SR, WP, Invuln, Ice, and Electric.

 

• Stone: Even though Granite can't change *much* it probably can lose its -dmg component.
  
• SR: Elude should probably be cottaged.  It doesn't really add anything to the set.  I've proposed "speed echoes/duplicates" for SR generally before.  A less-significant change would be to make it like Speed Boost or Adrenalin Boost, a Hasten-like power with move speed, regen (or Absorb), recovery, recharge, and maybe a bit of +dmg.
  
• WP: The "tier nine" of comic book "willpower" heroes like The Punisher is always an implacable rampage that leaves a visible swath of destruction.  I'd love to see this (in addition to making the character virtually debuff-proof and... how about a fear aura?) add an AoE proc to the character's attacks somehow.
  
• Invuln: It should be the Juggernaut Charge.  C'mon.  Long cone attack that teleports the character to the endpoint.
  
• Ice: Ice is terrible for Tankers and needs attention generally.  Having a Hibernate effect might be fine as long as it forced enemies in range to continue attacking the undamageable character -- and then, you know, exploded at the end or something.  Fairly traditional "tanky" power from action RPGs.  I don't like the 'damage at the end' effect so much in CoH, so maybe ease the back-loading of the damage with a DoT during the effect?
  
• Electric: Technically this has an offensive component but it's terrible.  Exploding at the end is bad, actually damaging only robots is bad, and the damage that it does even under those constraints is miserable.  Can't we have like a thunderstorm pet follow the character around, or give them a new teleport-shock power (mini-Lightning Rod) that only works during Surge like the teleport from Arcane Flight does?

 

But... as fun as all of these might be, they'd still scale on Tanker damage and existing AoE caps.  They'd make the AT more interesting, but wouldn't solve any of the issues discussed in this thread -- making a Tanker do more damage once in a while is making them "like a Brute, but with less uptime" and going the other route and making them even more tanky wouldn't help them in any way at all.  So rather than a "one stop shop," this is more like, "and ice cream on the way home."

[Cutter]

• Ice: Ice is terrible for Tankers and needs attention generally.  Having a Hibernate effect might be fine as long as it forced enemies in range to continue attacking the undamageable character -- and then, you know, exploded at the end or something.  Fairly traditional "tanky" power from action RPGs.  I don't like the 'damage at the end' effect so much in CoH, so maybe ease the back-loading of the damage with a DoT during the effect?

Turn Hibernate into a damaging Glacier? Shorten the duration while still providing a full or near-full heal/recovery. Make it a giant "pause" button.

[jack_nomind]

Turn Hibernate into a damaging Glacier? Shorten the duration while still providing a full or near-full heal/recovery. Make it a giant "pause" button.

 

Maybe!  I do worry that might be a bit too much like Black Hole, often voted "most skippable power."  Pause buttons aren't terribly popular in CoH -- most people are looking for the fast forward.

[Cutter]

Whoops, guess I wasn't totally clear!

 

The intent was that you, the Tanker, gain Hibernate's "can't touch this" bubble, while the mobs around you get hit with a short-duration, damaging Glacier hold.

[Sura]

• Ice: Ice is terrible for Tankers and needs attention generally.  Having a Hibernate effect might be fine as long as it forced enemies in range to continue attacking the undamageable character -- and then, you know, exploded at the end or something.  Fairly traditional "tanky" power from action RPGs.  I don't like the 'damage at the end' effect so much in CoH, so maybe ease the back-loading of the damage with a DoT during the effect?

Turn Hibernate into a damaging Glacier? Shorten the duration while still providing a full or near-full heal/recovery. Make it a giant "pause" button.

 

I've always thought it'd be cool to put in some kind of Ricochet, so you pop the T9 Ice power, it encases you in ice, and any damage aimed at you is partially negated and partially directed back to its source.  In fact I've always thought that should be Ice's "spin": the ability to turn some damage back on its source.  I have no idea whether that's possible, but I think it would work well as a defining characteristic for the set.

 

Stone: Even though Granite can't change *much* it probably can lose its -dmg component.

SR: Elude should probably be cottaged.  It doesn't really add anything to the set.  I've proposed "speed echoes/duplicates" for SR generally before.  A less-significant change would be to make it like Speed Boost or Adrenalin Boost, a Hasten-like power with move speed, regen (or Absorb), recovery, recharge, and maybe a bit of +dmg.

WP: The "tier nine" of comic book "willpower" heroes like The Punisher is always an implacable rampage that leaves a visible swath of destruction.  I'd love to see this (in addition to making the character virtually debuff-proof and... how about a fear aura?) add an AoE proc to the character's attacks somehow.

Invuln: It should be the Juggernaut Charge.  C'mon.  Long cone attack that teleports the character to the endpoint.

Ice: Ice is terrible for Tankers and needs attention generally.  Having a Hibernate effect might be fine as long as it forced enemies in range to continue attacking the undamageable character -- and then, you know, exploded at the end or something.  Fairly traditional "tanky" power from action RPGs.  I don't like the 'damage at the end' effect so much in CoH, so maybe ease the back-loading of the damage with a DoT during the effect?

Electric: Technically this has an offensive component but it's terrible.  Exploding at the end is bad, actually damaging only robots is bad, and the damage that it does even under those constraints is miserable.  Can't we have like a thunderstorm pet follow the character around, or give them a new teleport-shock power (mini-Lightning Rod) that only works during Surge like the teleport from Arcane Flight does?

 

I like all of those ideas.  And I agree that the T9's would be more like icing on the cake than a pure fix, but I do think improving them would help.  Especially if you left the Brute T9's alone.  For the larger issue though I still think (agree with you) that maybe the most compelling question is how to get Tankers to cooperatively and effectively coexist in groups.  I feel like examining that issue could really shed light on where Tankers could go.

 

[Cutter]

One of the suggestions up-thread was a "Bodyguard" like mechanic, where the Tanker chooses a teammate (via toggle I'd assume?) and then takes a share of that teammate's damage.

 

I wonder if a spin on that could be implemented into a passive ability or tacked onto an existing Def/Res power. Something along the lines of "Whenever a non-Tanker teammate within X distance of the Tanker takes damage, 5% (example only obv) is negated and redirected to the Tanker." This would provide a real reason for multiples on the team, as they're now preventing 2x/3x/etc. damage to their team. It could either be a small pbaoe to defend whoever is close, OR a large "non-pbaoe" to better protect the ranged squishies (e.g. "teammates between 20 and 60 feet from the tanker").

 

Also on the "make more than one Tanker desirable" train of thought, what about tweaking Gauntlet and/or Taunt to include "When you taunt/gauntlet a foe that is under the effect of another Tanker's taunt/gauntlet, you instead apply a minor debuff to that foe for n seconds. This effect can be applied once every m seconds." (where m > n by prolly 5 or 6 to 1, e.g. 5 sec debuff every 25-30 seconds). The debuff could be -def/-res, or (perhaps more thematically) a small -tohit to reflect the tank's threatening presence.

[jack_nomind]

I'd like Tankers to have a bonus when hitting (or Taunting?) a target Bruised by themselves or another Tanker, but I don't like them unable to taunt targets away from other Tankers.

 

I love the idea of Tanker powers getting a field effect that splits some portion of damage taken by anyone on the team with all Tankers on the team.

[crabion]

I say just double the aggro cap. Also I'd like to see tanks get a damage boost, maybe as a team buff, more damage per teammate.

[arcanaville]

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.

 

The whole tanker vs controller vs brute vs mastermind thing was an interesting debate back in the day: unfortunately it is unresolvable in the general case because there's some fundamental irreconcilable issues you can't address without making severe changes to the game as a whole.  This is less a question of how to address the issues, and more a question of whether you can convince everyone to accept a suboptimal compromise that fails to address most of the issues while targeting a narrow set of them.

 

Short version:  Everything must be soloable.  Tankers must survive multiple players' worth of aggro.  No archetype should cap out radically lower than any other when progressed via inventions or incarnate abilities.  Logically, you can only keep two of these.

 

As to resistance debuffs.  Resistance automatically resists resistable resistance debuffs.  There's no special resistance debuff resistance.  Resistance itself is resistance debuff resistance.

 

This one used to confuse players all the time.  There are defense attributes.  There are defense attribute debuffs: these reduce your defense attributes.  There is defense attribute resistance.  These resist any attempt to debuff (change) your defense attributes.  This all makes sense.

 

But resistance is different.  There aren't actually any resistance attributes.  There are actually damage type attributes.  What we call "resistance" is resistance to changing those attributes, just like defense attribute resistance is resistance to changing *those* attributes.  So if you try to use smashing damage to lower your target's health via the smashing attribute, smashing resistance would lower that damage.  Think of smashing damage as a health debuff.  Smashing resistance "resists that debuff."

 

How do you debuff resistance?  Well, in the game engine you implement that by trying to lower the resistance aspect of that attribute - the "resistance" aspect of the "smashing" attribute (or whatever).  And what could possibly resist that change?  Well, you're trying to change some aspect of the smashing attribute, so smashing attribute resistance should resist that change.  But smashing attribute resistance is what we players call "smashing damage resistance."  So damage resistance is its own resistance to debuffing.

 

Because damage resistance *is* damage-resistance-debuff resistance, there's no way to make something more resistant to resistance debuffs without increasing their actual resistance to that particular damage type (there's some technical gotchas in there, but this is the simple version).

[jack_nomind]

The whole tanker vs controller vs brute vs mastermind thing was an interesting debate back in the day: unfortunately it is unresolvable in the general case because there's some fundamental irreconcilable issues you can't address without making severe changes to the game as a whole.

 

I dunno how they do things in Hawaii, but

 

it would violate the design method behind the class.

 

My new band name is "violating the design method."

 

And welcome back, ma'am.

[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.

 

The whole tanker vs controller vs brute vs mastermind thing was an interesting debate back in the day: unfortunately it is unresolvable in the general case because there's some fundamental irreconcilable issues you can't address without making severe changes to the game as a whole.  This is less a question of how to address the issues, and more a question of whether you can convince everyone to accept a suboptimal compromise that fails to address most of the issues while targeting a narrow set of them.

 

Short version:  Everything must be soloable.  Tankers must survive multiple players' worth of aggro.  No archetype should cap out radically lower than any other when progressed via inventions or incarnate abilities.  Logically, you can only keep two of these.

 

As to resistance debuffs.  Resistance automatically resists resistable resistance debuffs.  There's no special resistance debuff resistance.  Resistance itself is resistance debuff resistance.

 

This one used to confuse players all the time.  There are defense attributes.  There are defense attribute debuffs: these reduce your defense attributes.  There is defense attribute resistance.  These resist any attempt to debuff (change) your defense attributes.  This all makes sense.

 

But resistance is different.  There aren't actually any resistance attributes.  There are actually damage type attributes.  What we call "resistance" is resistance to changing those attributes, just like defense attribute resistance is resistance to changing *those* attributes.  So if you try to use smashing damage to lower your target's health via the smashing attribute, smashing resistance would lower that damage.  Think of smashing damage as a health debuff.  Smashing resistance "resists that debuff."

 

How do you debuff resistance?  Well, in the game engine you implement that by trying to lower the resistance aspect of that attribute - the "resistance" aspect of the "smashing" attribute (or whatever).  And what could possibly resist that change?  Well, you're trying to change some aspect of the smashing attribute, so smashing attribute resistance should resist that change.  But smashing attribute resistance is what we players call "smashing damage resistance."  So damage resistance is its own resistance to debuffing.

 

Because damage resistance *is* damage-resistance-debuff resistance, there's no way to make something more resistant to resistance debuffs without increasing their actual resistance to that particular damage type (there's some technical gotchas in there, but this is the simple version).

 

Thank you for that concise discussion.  Inasmuch as most AVs do not have unusual resistances, most AVs do not display unusual resistance to defense debuffs - unlike the case for most other debuffs, where AVs benefit from an additional, very high, degree of resistance to the debuff.

 

As far as 'everyone caps out in a similar state' - at SOs, Tanks have a meaningful survival advantage over high damage ATs.  IOs and Incarnates consume that survival advantage until all ATs can reach the same level of practical survivial - Didnt die and killed them all is really all the survival that matters - but that no combination of IOs and Incarnates allow the Tank to consume the firepower advantage of their formerly squishy peers.  This may be unavoidable, inasmuch as base damage is fixed by AT, but softcap defense is softcap defense whoever you are.

 

If, for purpsoes of argument, DEF was limited to, say, incarnate softcap for tanks, 'normal' softcap for Brutes, and then declining pretty rapidly from there, you might see more value in the heavy ATs.  You would also see a revolution by the majority of players who are used to having their IOed/Incarnated non-tanks tank +4/x8 and AVs and the like, so the idea is a non-starter, and we have to either address the back side of things (By giving the Tank more damage, directly or otherwise), or accept that Tanks are not, and never will be, noteworthy performers outside of having aggro management advantages while grunting on teams.

 

 

[Cutter]

I'd like Tankers to have a bonus when hitting (or Taunting?) a target Bruised by themselves or another Tanker, but I don't like them unable to taunt targets away from other Tankers.

 

It might be just as easy to change that wording to "When you taunt/gauntlet a foe that is under the effect of another Tanker's taunt/gauntlet, you ALSO apply a minor debuff to that foe for n seconds. This effect can be applied once every m seconds."?

 

Or perhaps just give tanks a +hit/dmg bonus when they attack an enemy under another tank's taunt, if you're looking for a buff to the tank rather than a debuff to the mob?

 

I love the idea of Tanker powers getting a field effect that splits some portion of damage taken by anyone on the team with all Tankers on the team.

 

Yeah, in conjunction with other tweaks I think this "team bodyguard" mechanic would really help to reinforce the tank's role as "absorber of damage" in a way that goes beyond just sucking up the alpha strike. Downside is that it would hurt more on def-based sets than res-based, unless the redirected damage is somehow flagged as "ignores resists".

 

The thing that neither of these suggestions addresses is solo performance. In both cases these are things that would only trigger in a team setting. Then again, given the premise of the thread was to address tanker utility, which in my mind implies a team setting, maybe solo performance help isn't necessary in this specific discussion?