Tank passive/aggro changes

[Sura]

At least part of the conversation had to do with no great reason to have two Tankers on the same team, so I think for that we're assuming non-solo. 

 

Gotta say, I teamed with a Brute today that might as well have been a tank, except he was dishing out damage on top of grabbing aggro and taking hits (I was playing a Corruptor).  I suspect for a very large percentage of the game a Brute is a much better choice than a Tanker, which is bumming me out.

[marcussmythe]

Tanks remain better for unbuffed survival at low levels, and for aggro management.  IOs or team buffs consume the survival advantage in large part, and the aggro management advantage is nice on large teams when things are falling apart - its a little easier to put it all back together.

 

So if your intended playtime is ‘8 man teams doing really hard things’ (because the thing is hard, or because your team makes them hard’, a single tank per team still has a role.  If you plan on spending much playtime at all outside of that scenario, you will probably be happier on a brute.

 

This is unfortunately a common tradeoff between the original hero and villian ATs - the Villian AT tends to trade a little of the Hero ATs raw survival or team power for a large advantage in utility or damage output, probably due to the idea of the Villian ATs as ‘selfish solo’ builds.  The low difficulty ceiling on CoH, and the lack of ‘Raid or Die’ (and these are -positives-) results in less draw for the ‘slightly better at teaming at large costs elsewhere’ ATs.

[Super Atom]

otta say, I teamed with a Brute today that might as well have been a tank

 

Thats because they are tanks. They were the red side tank and since they've been capable of being blue side the tanker has just fallen short since it doesn't really do anything better than the brute other than have some more HP.

[jack_nomind]

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 could've sworn I responded to this post a while ago, but evidently that was an alternate reality.  (Or I composed then closed.  Nice to see I'm still sharp.)

 

Yeah, this accomplishes the general intent.  The reason I keep saying Bruised is, one, it's better for solo Tankers; and two, it's easier for me to imagine implementing "addtl effect on target when having an effect named Bruising" vs "addtl effect on target when taunted by another player if that other player is a Tanker."  In my ideal world, the specific additional effect varies from one Tanker secondary to another, but a general shared debuff would be fine too.  Since this is generally supposed to help team utility, I do prefer debuff to buff if the effect is universal.

 

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?

 

As above, the Bruising utility would occur while solo; and the aggro cap increase would also be a solo benefit (at least at high levels).  Adding Bruising to all attacks (earlier proposal in my list) would also be a solo buff.  Primarily, though, as Sura said this is about team role utility.  I'm absolutely adamant that every AT should be able to solo 1-50, but I'm fine with some efficiency differences and I don't think this is out of any Tanker build's reach.

[Sarrate]

Tanks remain better for unbuffed survival at low levels, and for aggro management.  IOs or team buffs consume the survival advantage in large part, and the aggro management advantage is nice on large teams when things are falling apart - its a little easier to put it all back together.

 

So if your intended playtime is ‘8 man teams doing really hard things’ (because the thing is hard, or because your team makes them hard’, a single tank per team still has a role.  If you plan on spending much playtime at all outside of that scenario, you will probably be happier on a brute.

 

This is unfortunately a common tradeoff between the original hero and villian ATs - the Villian AT tends to trade a little of the Hero ATs raw survival or team power for a large advantage in utility or damage output, probably due to the idea of the Villian ATs as ‘selfish solo’ builds.  The low difficulty ceiling on CoH, and the lack of ‘Raid or Die’ (and these are -positives-) results in less draw for the ‘slightly better at teaming at large costs elsewhere’ ATs.

 

I'm not convinced Tankers have an advantage when it comes to aggro control, and if they do, it's pretty minor. Tankers and Brutes have the same threat modifier (4) and they have the same taunt durations (auras, attacks, Taunt, etc). The only advantage Tankers have is Gauntlet, which is overrated (imo). Consider:

 

1) It only effects single target attacks. So a set like Titan Weapons with a plethora of AoEs gets less benefit from it.

2) Its radius changes based on a power per power basis, with longer recharging powers having a wider radius. Take a look at Tanker Energy Melee. Look at Barrage (I know it's a weak power), Gauntlet's radius is only 3 feet. That's less than half melee range. If your target isn't holding hands with someone, they're not getting hit by Gauntlet. (In fairness, Energy Transfer and Total Focus have much larger radii, 11 and 17 ft respectively.)

3) It's likely only hitting things in melee, which are more likely already hit by your aura(s) and/or AoEs anyways.

 

Okay, so it sounds like they're marginally better AoE tanks than Brutes because they do have extra AoE taunt effects. However:

 

1) Brutes deal more damage than Tankers. More damage = more thread. More threat = more aggro.

2) Taunt effects are heavily based on duration, and Gauntlet's duration (well, all other taunt effects) is completely outstripped by Taunt - which as I said, is equal to Tankers. If a Brute is Taunting, anything other than Taunt will not pull aggro.

 

 

Tankers shine when playing in sub-optimal groups (not bashing these groups, just stating a fact), non-tricked out builds, more casual tanking (eg: less/no active Taunting), and overbuilding survivability. If you're going for maximum performance (builds, teams, etc), then a Brute has the edge.

 

Prior to CoH's shutdown, one of my most played / invested characters was a tank, and I enjoyed being reliably survivable in a wider range of situations, so I'm not trying to hate on Tankers, here.

[marcussmythe]

Tanks remain better for unbuffed survival at low levels, and for aggro management.  IOs or team buffs consume the survival advantage in large part, and the aggro management advantage is nice on large teams when things are falling apart - its a little easier to put it all back together.

 

So if your intended playtime is ‘8 man teams doing really hard things’ (because the thing is hard, or because your team makes them hard’, a single tank per team still has a role.  If you plan on spending much playtime at all outside of that scenario, you will probably be happier on a brute.

 

This is unfortunately a common tradeoff between the original hero and villian ATs - the Villian AT tends to trade a little of the Hero ATs raw survival or team power for a large advantage in utility or damage output, probably due to the idea of the Villian ATs as ‘selfish solo’ builds.  The low difficulty ceiling on CoH, and the lack of ‘Raid or Die’ (and these are -positives-) results in less draw for the ‘slightly better at teaming at large costs elsewhere’ ATs.

 

I'm not convinced Tankers have an advantage when it comes to aggro control, and if they do, it's pretty minor. Tankers and Brutes have the same threat modifier (4) and they have the same taunt durations (auras, attacks, Taunt, etc). The only advantage Tankers have is Gauntlet, which is overrated (imo). Consider:

 

1) It only effects single target attacks. So a set like Titan Weapons with a plethora of AoEs gets less benefit from it.

2) Its radius changes based on a power per power basis, with longer recharging powers having a wider radius. Take a look at Tanker Energy Melee. Look at Barrage (I know it's a weak power), Gauntlet's radius is only 3 feet. That's less than half melee range. If your target isn't holding hands with someone, they're not getting hit by Gauntlet. (In fairness, Energy Transfer and Total Focus have much larger radii, 11 and 17 ft respectively.)

3) It's likely only hitting things in melee, which are more likely already hit by your aura(s) and/or AoEs anyways.

 

Okay, so it sounds like they're marginally better AoE tanks than Brutes because they do have extra AoE taunt effects. However:

 

1) Brutes deal more damage than Tankers. More damage = more thread. More threat = more aggro.

2) Taunt effects are heavily based on duration, and Gauntlet's duration (well, all other taunt effects) is completely outstripped by Taunt - which as I said, is equal to Tankers. If a Brute is Taunting, anything other than Taunt will not pull aggro.

 

 

Tankers shine when playing in sub-optimal groups (not bashing these groups, just stating a fact), non-tricked out builds, more casual tanking (eg: less/no active Taunting), and overbuilding survivability. If you're going for maximum performance (builds, teams, etc), then a Brute has the edge.

 

Prior to CoH's shutdown, one of my most played / invested characters was a tank, and I enjoyed being reliably survivable in a wider range of situations, so I'm not trying to hate on Tankers, here.

 

Id not claim a substantial advantage for Tanks in the aggro control department - and your point about increased damage meaning increased threat may well consume even that.

 

Im a former heavy player of tanks (Invuln/EM, I have strong feelings) who keeps stalling out leveling tanks because I keep looking at them, squinting, trying to find some regard in which the Brute is not a better choice - and having great trouble doing so - so I bring up a Brute instead.  Ive very mich tried to squint at tanks until the numbers change and a magical justification for their existence falls out, beyond ‘maybe slightly better at grunting on teams assuming a bad team, bad play, or bad character design’

 

Thats an awfully small hat for a launch Archetype to have.

[HelenCarnate]

Have gauntlet cause a small -resist and cause taunt on tankers to have a larger -range debuff to the point where ranged attackers need to get 15 feet minimum to attack.  The aggro cap is not going to change unless it changes for everyone so odds are that is not happening.  This would make having multiple tanks on a team less of a slow down and makes tanks able to heard into melee range without having to break LoS. 

[Super Atom]

Have gauntlet cause a small -resist and cause taunt on tankers to have a larger -range debuff to the point where ranged attackers need to get 15 feet minimum to attack.  The aggro cap is not going to change unless it changes for everyone so odds are that is not happening.  This would make having multiple tanks on a team less of a slow down and makes tanks able to heard into melee range without having to break LoS.

 

If the aggro thing is truly not possible, adding the -resist into gauntlet on top of the -range i suggested is probably the fastest way to make tankers have something to set them apart from brutes. As we've seen, theres plenty of good ideas about how to further tanker identity but a lot of them would require a lot of dev-time and testing. It would be a good step in the right direction though.

[Sarrate]

Im a former heavy player of tanks (Invuln/EM, I have strong feelings) who keeps stalling out leveling tanks because I keep looking at them, squinting, trying to find some regard in which the Brute is not a better choice - and having great trouble doing so - so I bring up a Brute instead.  Ive very mich tried to squint at tanks until the numbers change and a magical justification for their existence falls out, beyond ‘maybe slightly better at grunting on teams assuming a bad team, bad play, or bad character design’

 

Thats an awfully small hat for a launch Archetype to have.

 

For the most part, I agree. I brought up those other circumstance because not everyone plays the same way. (Time to invest, influence to spend, time to get Incarnate abilities, play in teams with lots of support, etc.) So there is a niche for Tankers as they stand, but outside that niche, yeah, they struggle to compete.

 

It's just tough trying to find a way to improve them without going too far. Improve their taunting abilities and multiple still aren't needed on a team. Increase their aggro cap (already off the table, just using as a thought exercise) and it disincentivizes multiple Tankers in teams even more (1 could do the work of 2 today). Increase their damage too much, and they encroach on Brute/Scrapper domain while being tougher. Increase their buffing or debuffing potential and they could interfere with other classes (Defender, Controller, VEATs, etc) while being tougher, and potentially giving them more damage (in the case of stacking Bruising).

 

Heck, even if you gave Tankers stances (offensive/defensive stances), it could get to the point of "why play a Brute/Scrapper when I can choose between comparable offense and superior defense as a Tanker?"

 

 

You know what I mean?

[Charistoph]

-Resist comes with the issue that some of the Support Powersets come with it already, as well as all the Sonic Blasts.  How do you address it to make it useful, while also not taking over the roles of those Powersets?

 

What could be interesting is doing -Resist to Debuff and Control Resistances.  Of course, that's only really useful when fighting against Bosses, AVs, Heros, and the occasional Monster.  It's not as useful against Minions and most Lts.  On the other hand, it would make what control powers the Tanker Powers come with that more effective as well.  It could be a devil to program in, though.  I don't know what access they have to the Inherents.

 

I do have a problem with the name, though.  Gauntlet brings to mind one of two things: an armored glove OR an onslaught.  While it could be attributed to the armored glove (throwing down the gauntlet in challenge), I've usually seen it as the Tanker's role to face the oncoming onslaught as well, and as someone back before Sunset stated, Tankers are the only one whose Inherent is focused on their SECONDARY.  Something rather odd for a class dedicated to the Defense.

[jack_nomind]

What could be interesting is doing -Resist to Debuff and Control Resistances.  Of course, that's only really useful when fighting against Bosses, AVs, Heros, and the occasional Monster.  It's not as useful against Minions and most Lts.  On the other hand, it would make what control powers the Tanker Powers come with that more effective as well.  It could be a devil to program in, though.

 

Absolutely.  Perhaps a little tactless, but I'm going to quote my list from earlier in this thread.

 

/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.

 

As far as difficulty to program in... I think the damage sharing and aggro cap changes are probably the hardest things on that list, but changing Bruising is more 'tedious' than difficult.

 

 

I've usually seen it as the Tanker's role to face the oncoming onslaught as well, and as someone back before Sunset stated, Tankers are the only one whose Inherent is focused on their SECONDARY.  Something rather odd for a class dedicated to the Defense.

 

Most "inherent powers" aren't separate "powers" at all, but exist as additional effects within other powers.  For example, Scrappers' inherent power Critical Hit exists as a proc chance that's added to most Scrapper attacks, and not an independent ability that attaches on somehow.  All of Tankers' inherent powers are similarly encoded as effects within other powers, and they actually have quite a few of these types of changes.  While "Gauntlet" and "Bruising" both have special names, Tankers also have a Taunt aura added to each of their Primaries.

 

Nor are Tankers the only ones whose inherent powers incorporate their secondaries.  Notably to your point, Defenders' Vigilance has a very large damage buff component, which is really only relevant to their secondary sets -- but every Stalker secondary includes Hide, Blasters' Defiance works across primary and secondary, etc.  Several Inherent powers (notably all EATs') aren't tied to either Primary or Secondary at all.  Focus on the role first, and names or conventions second.

[Charistoph]

As far as difficulty to program in... I think the damage sharing and aggro cap changes are probably the hardest things on that list, but changing Bruising is more 'tedious' than difficult.

 

...

 

Most "inherent powers" aren't separate "powers" at all, but exist as additional effects within other powers.  For example, Scrappers' inherent power Critical Hit exists as a proc chance that's added to most Scrapper attacks, and not an independent ability that attaches on somehow.  All of Tankers' inherent powers are similarly encoded as effects within other powers, and they actually have quite a few of these types of changes.  While "Gauntlet" and "Bruising" both have special names, Tankers also have a Taunt aura added to each of their Primaries.

 

Possibly.  I'm just saying I don't know where in the code the Inherents are set up to do this in, as I'm not hip deep in to the code.  If all Tanker Secondaries are in a separate database from Brute and Scrapper Primaries, and, as you said, programmed individually to perform the Inherent's actions, then all it is is manually going in and changing each appropriate power to do it.  However, I see the Inherent listed as a separate power, and I don't see the Taunt on either my Brute or Tanker's attack listing, so that's why I'm not making an assumption as to the ease of changing the Inherent.

 

Still, all and all, if the Tanker Secondaries are all in their own database to be individually tweaked, just adding that "Bruise" affect without even considering Inherent interaction wouldn't be that much more difficult once one notes how to program that affect in.

 

Your original list was definitely one to look at for possibilities in increasing Tankers groupability.  I still think having a small splash damage akin to Radiation Melee's ability (though, obviously not as good as its proc or raise Radiation's proc to be the strongest) would provide a reason to include Tankers as they bash and bruise the minions gathered round.  It wouldn't kill Blaster's thunder as much, as their aoe melting would still be superior, but it would be something we could be doing while also keeping the Bosses off their arse.

 

I've usually seen it as the Tanker's role to face the oncoming onslaught as well, and as someone back before Sunset stated, Tankers are the only one whose Inherent is focused on their SECONDARY.  Something rather odd for a class dedicated to the Defense.

 

Nor are Tankers the only ones whose inherent powers incorporate their secondaries.  Notably to your point, Defenders' Vigilance has a very large damage buff component, which is really only relevant to their secondary sets -- but every Stalker secondary includes Hide, Blasters' Defiance works across primary and secondary, etc.  Several Inherent powers (notably all EATs') aren't tied to either Primary or Secondary at all.  Focus on the role first, and names or conventions second.

 

Admittedly, that statement was made before Defender's Vigilance was changed to affecting their Blasts.  Stalker's Inherent depends on Hide, but still only affects the Primary Powerset.  While Blaster's Defiance will work on their Secondaries, the output of their Primaries puts the focus on that from the design perspective, despite what all those Blappers will tell you.

 

My point was that a lot of fixing on Tankers tends to focus only on the Secondaries, while ignoring the Primaries.  The Inherent should be focusing more on the Primary than just the one power aura (and maybe the self-rez a few have).  Part of that would be differentiating just how effective Tankers are at taking those mobs' onslaught that the Tank gets instead of just Taunting a little better over the Brute.

 

I am focusing on the role, and the Tanker is to be the ideal of what you are looking at for the Tank role.  This isn't discounting Brutes doing Tanking, just that they should be doing it different than the easy ideal, is all.  Oddly enough, that's why I brought up WoW earlier, is because they currently have 6 classes that all Tank very differently from each other as an example that YES, how they handle the role is different and it should be considered instead of just looking at flat numbers.  When WoW first launched, Paladins and Druids could tank for small encounters, just not very well, often lacking basic tools that Warriors had in completion, while not considered effective at all for the Raids.  Unfortunately today, they either have those tools, or the tools just simply aren't as required in the game.

[jack_nomind]

However, I see the Inherent listed as a separate power, and I don't see the Taunt on either my Brute or Tanker's attack listing

 

Gauntlet as a power is a placeholder.  If you look at its detailed info, it is an auto, self, single-target power with no effects.  If you look at the detailed info of any of your attacks, you will the +400% Taunt listed (duration and range varies by power).

 

Still, all and all, if the Tanker Secondaries are all in their own database to be individually tweaked, just adding that "Bruise" affect without even considering Inherent interaction wouldn't be that much more difficult once one notes how to program that affect in.

 

Bruising is already an effect in-game; a -20% resistance debuff on the first attack of all Tanker secondaries.

 

The Inherent should be focusing more on the Primary than just the one power aura (and maybe the self-rez a few have).

 

Why?

[Triggerhappy938]

I'm all for solutions that buff Tankers while leaving my Brute alone.

 

Brute already got the nerf bat back during live. It was a fair change but lets leave it at that.

[SwitchFade]

I'm all for solutions that buff Tankers while leaving my Brute alone.

 

Brute already got the nerf bat back during live. It was a fair change but lets leave it at that.

 

What if brutes being OP was the cause of tanker superfluousness?

[Cutter]

Can Gauntlet have its effects list expanded to work in a way similar to Vigilance? First pass at the inherent's effects:

 

1. Downscaling damage buff (highest while solo, scaling down with more teammates and the extra damage is theoretically less required).

2. Upscaling brusing effect (attached only to T1 solo, scaling up +1 power/teammate to end up being attached to all powers (excludes Taunt) on a full team)

3. Upscaling bodyguard / team damage redirection effect (0% while solo, scaling up with more teammates, somewhere between .5% and 1% per teammate). Based on this idea I posted a couple pages ago:

 

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").

 

Tear it apart!

[Charistoph]

However, I see the Inherent listed as a separate power, and I don't see the Taunt on either my Brute or Tanker's attack listing

 

Gauntlet as a power is a placeholder.  If you look at its detailed info, it is an auto, self, single-target power with no effects.  If you look at the detailed info of any of your attacks, you will the +400% Taunt listed (duration and range varies by power).

 

Still, all and all, if the Tanker Secondaries are all in their own database to be individually tweaked, just adding that "Bruise" affect without even considering Inherent interaction wouldn't be that much more difficult once one notes how to program that affect in.

 

Bruising is already an effect in-game; a -20% resistance debuff on the first attack of all Tanker secondaries.

 

Hunh, I've missed that for a long time.  Thanks for pointing that out.

 

The Inherent should be focusing more on the Primary than just the one power aura (and maybe the self-rez a few have).

 

Why?

 

Hmm, possibly because they are to be the ultimate shield of the group?  Their AT is the only one that really ties in to their Role without exclusion.

[jack_nomind]

Can Gauntlet have its effects list expanded to work in a way similar to Vigilance? First pass at the inherent's effects:

 

1. Downscaling damage buff (highest while solo, scaling down with more teammates and the extra damage is theoretically less required).

2. Upscaling brusing effect (attached only to T1 solo, scaling up +1 power/teammate to end up being attached to all powers (excludes Taunt) on a full team)

3. Upscaling bodyguard / team damage redirection effect (0% while solo, scaling up with more teammates, somewhere between .5% and 1% per teammate). Based on this idea

 

I don't really see the need to scale these effects based on team size, to be honest.  For 1), tanker solo-ability isn't really in question right now.  I don't think it's needed at all, and it somewhat conflicts with 2) (since a solo tanker would need to still rely on an otherwise-inefficient attack chain while solo, but could shift into higher-efficiency chains while teaming).  For 3) -- and I think a lot of us in this thread like the idea of a bodyguard effect, even if we don't know if anything like that can be attached to a team this way -- either no scaling or scaling in the opposite direction makes more sense.  As proposed, the largest team also has the highest % of damage redirection, which makes the incoming damage the tanker has to mitigate scale up multiplicatively (from 1x0.01 at duo to 7x0.07  at full).  I would rather see a flat value (something like 5%), but if it were to scale then something like 25-50% while duoing to ~5% while on a full team.

 

Hmm, possibly because they are to be the ultimate shield of the group?  Their AT is the only one that really ties in to their Role without exclusion.

 

Okay but... why does that mean their inherent should change?  Their current inherent does do that job.

[Solarverse]

Can Gauntlet have its effects list expanded to work in a way similar to Vigilance? First pass at the inherent's effects:

 

1. Downscaling damage buff (highest while solo, scaling down with more teammates and the extra damage is theoretically less required).

2. Upscaling brusing effect (attached only to T1 solo, scaling up +1 power/teammate to end up being attached to all powers (excludes Taunt) on a full team)

3. Upscaling bodyguard / team damage redirection effect (0% while solo, scaling up with more teammates, somewhere between .5% and 1% per teammate). Based on this idea

 

I don't really see the need to scale these effects based on team size, to be honest.  For 1), tanker solo-ability isn't really in question right now.  I don't think it's needed at all, and it somewhat conflicts with 2) (since a solo tanker would need to still rely on an otherwise-inefficient attack chain while solo, but could shift into higher-efficiency chains while teaming).  For 3) -- and I think a lot of us in this thread like the idea of a bodyguard effect, even if we don't know if anything like that can be attached to a team this way -- either no scaling or scaling in the opposite direction makes more sense.  As proposed, the largest team also has the highest % of damage redirection, which makes the incoming damage the tanker has to mitigate scale up multiplicatively (from 1x0.01 at duo to 7x0.07  at full).  I would rather see a flat value (something like 5%), but if it were to scale then something like 25-50% while duoing to ~5% while on a full team.

 

Hmm, possibly because they are to be the ultimate shield of the group?  Their AT is the only one that really ties in to their Role without exclusion.

 

Okay but... why does that mean their inherent should change?  Their current inherent does do that job.

 

Wait, didn't I read somewhere that a Tank's inherent ability is bugged and does not work properly? Or was this fixed?

[Cutter]

Can Gauntlet have its effects list expanded to work in a way similar to Vigilance? First pass at the inherent's effects:

 

1. Downscaling damage buff (highest while solo, scaling down with more teammates and the extra damage is theoretically less required).

2. Upscaling brusing effect (attached only to T1 solo, scaling up +1 power/teammate to end up being attached to all powers (excludes Taunt) on a full team)

3. Upscaling bodyguard / team damage redirection effect (0% while solo, scaling up with more teammates, somewhere between .5% and 1% per teammate). Based on this idea

 

I don't really see the need to scale these effects based on team size, to be honest.  For 1), tanker solo-ability isn't really in question right now.  I don't think it's needed at all, and it somewhat conflicts with 2) (since a solo tanker would need to still rely on an otherwise-inefficient attack chain while solo, but could shift into higher-efficiency chains while teaming).  For 3) -- and I think a lot of us in this thread like the idea of a bodyguard effect, even if we don't know if anything like that can be attached to a team this way -- either no scaling or scaling in the opposite direction makes more sense.  As proposed, the largest team also has the highest % of damage redirection, which makes the incoming damage the tanker has to mitigate scale up multiplicatively (from 1x0.01 at duo to 7x0.07  at full).  I would rather see a flat value (something like 5%), but if it were to scale then something like 25-50% while duoing to ~5% while on a full team.

Good points, thanks! This really was a rough first pass. Great catch on the scaling on 3), gonna blame work distractions for that. As far as how to attach it to the team, I am not a programmer but I imagine it would be simpler to just have a static piece of code in the AT that says "redirect x% of teammates' damage to self". If there are no teammates, it just won't do anything. Just have to be careful of a multi-tank team endless redirect loop. Either that, or proliferate the effect of Shield's Grant Cover ability but change it to "you grant +res to your teammates".

[Herotu]

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%.

 

As a tank main;

I like 1, but and entire group seems rather a lot of enemies,

I don't like 2 because I think LoS technique is cool as something you can choose to do.

 

I believe that if you implement both of these you make tanking too easy, with choice of target and positioning becoming less meaningful.

[Kimuji]

Alright this is very close to the "brutes vs tankers" thread so instead of posting another wall of text and repeat myself I'll get right to the conculsion.

 

I think that the Tanker's Taunt could get a buff. Currently you can build a very good tanker without Taunt, which is an absolute nonesense to me. It shouldn't be, it's the Tankers iconic power. Taunt has to be more desirable.

 

There are several options:

- larger area of effect

- set max targets to 8 or 10

- increase the -range debuff (but not to 100% that would be broken)

- add a small -to hit (or -damage) debuff

 

We could probably combine two or three of these options. But not all four, that would be broken.

[jack_nomind]

Wait, didn't I read somewhere that a Tank's inherent ability is bugged and does not work properly?

 

I don't know; did you?  It does do what it's advertised to do.  "Properly" might be a judgment call.

 

I am not a programmer but I imagine it would be simpler to just have a static piece of code in the AT that says "redirect x% of teammates' damage to self".

 

I too would like to be able to put a button on my car that says "ignore police scanners and don't hit anything."  But no matter how simple the idea is in my head, I couldn't have that without changing a lot of other things about how cars and traffic work.  Similarly as just one of the problems with the 'simple' idea, your character doesn't know who your team-mates are unless some other piece of code knows to tell it, doesn't know how much damage they're taking unless it has some way to ask and be told, and those other characters don't know not to take that x% of damage themselves unless the game tells them not to.

 

People throw around 'spaghetti code' as a kind of pejorative -- I do it too -- but the truth is that consolidating the number of places you have to change in order to implement something brand new requires both an enormous amount of work or oracular prescience.  Sometimes both.  In this case, 'redirect' isn't a thing that's ever existed before, and it would have to be done from scratch.

[OEM61]

Just want to add that this weekend I saw someone in the LFG channel trying to put together a TF, but tanks need not apply.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that they really meant tankers, and that if a brute asked to come along they would have been welcomed.

 

So nothing has changed for me.  Tankers are tasked with a job that many think is no longer necessary.

It is the one thing they are built to excel at.

 

Brutes may not be able to tank quite as well for whatever reasons, but so what?  They can deal a lot more damage and in a game that needs tanks less and less, a class that is a tank first, last, and everything in-between is going to struggle more and more to justify it's existence.

 

So I don't want more and better tanking out of tankers, I want something else.

 

"I can aggro more mobs at once" just doesn't matter if no one cares about "classic" tanking.

If they are going to overwhelm the mobs with controls or just nuke them outright then who cares if the tanker can grab aggro on more mobs?

 

I went back-and-forth for a while with my tanker, deciding that that AT felt more appropriate from an RP standpoint and that I would maybe roll a brute later with some different powers, but now?

 

Tanker just seems like a brute on hardmode, and I think that a lot of players see the tanker as an impediment to their earning max XP in minimal time.

 

I do not enjoy that sort of play, but the game is the game and the community the community.

If the majority of players would prefer anything other than a tanker then tankers are going to feel that.

As long as the game makes anything more than one tanker redundant then the tankers are going to feel that.

 

Once upon a time the idea was that if you enjoyed grouping in MMOs that you needed to make a tank or healer class because more others would be DPS, so there would always be room in groups.

In many MMOs this may still be true.

 

Here it has become the opposite as far as tankers are concerned.

If you must play something with taunts and old-fashioned aggro management then roll a brute, because their extra DPS is more important than whatever tankers might be better at.

 

[jack_nomind]

"I can aggro more mobs at once" just doesn't matter if no one cares about "classic" tanking.

If they are going to overwhelm the mobs with controls or just nuke them outright then who cares if the tanker can grab aggro on more mobs?

 

Three complimentary reasons.  First, most AoE powers have a fairly small target limit.  So you can only nuke so many targets at once, and you want un-nuked targets hanging around and not switching aggro over to support or w/e.  Second, for powers with much higher target limits -- like Judgements -- you want to have as many targets in range as possible to maximize their use.  Third, while not everyone here is talking about truly large aggro caps, I am.  I'm fully in favor of somewhere between triple and unlimited aggro for Tankers.  Herding the map is an incredible tool for 'overwhelming' things as well as, imho, incredibly fun.