Addressing the Tanker Brute Connundrum.

[Profit]

Ok. I said I wasn't going to do this because I was tired of being shouted down. But I'm also tired of seeing suggestions that are going to radically alter the way my favorite AT is played currently. So I'm going to do this, this one time. This is how to fix the tanker/brute issue.

 

Before replying, please read carefully to make sure you understand what I'm saying, don't infer the intent of the post, I've tried very hard to be very clear about how to do this. And I really don't want to be shouted down, yet again, over these suggestions because someone felt I was suggesting something I didn't even say.

 

Fixes to follow.

 

Goal - To bring tanks inline and valid with the modern coh meta while not making them grossly overpowered or drastically changing the way they currently play.

 

Problem 1 - Tanks are invalidated by brutes at IO power levels making the decision a player or team leader has on which they would prefer to have in a team a 'no-brainer'. This invalidation occurs on all fronts - aggro control, damage, and survivability.

Problem 2 - The game is balanced around SO power levels, and at these power levels brutes and tanks are balanced as with SOs brutes can not achieve the level of survivability tanks have.

 

Many mechanics have been mentioned to 'balance' tanks with brutes and these suggestions would end up changing the dynamic of the AT into a new different playstyle, we need to avoid that if possible.

 

This will be a two step solution process, with the steps having possible extra modifications depending on the datamining. This is meant to be a scalpel solution and as such is intended to not have any major drastic effects at the SO level while also not changing the tank role within the team or solo.

 

Step 1 The aggro problem - With brutes having the same aoe auto hit taunt that tanks have, plus higher threat generation due to the large orange numbers generated by fury, brutes are able to maintain aggro in the same way a tank while having a higher damage output.

• Solution - Shy of altering brutes by replacing this taunt power with either the single target scrapper taunt or the provoke power from the pool power, altering brutes which we are actively trying to avoid, we are left with one simple option, an increase in the taunt magnitude of the tanker AT. This would serve the same purpose as the brute altering solution without altering brutes. This should have no effect at anything but the highest level of game play as in the lower SO levels one would generally not be asking a brute to manage aggro, so the tank is already managing at those lower levels.
  
• Additional Solution after datamining - Gauntlet (tank passive) currently suffers from having a to-hit roll. Brutes and Scrappers single target attacks have a taunt mechanic attached that does not suffer from a to-hit roll. Removing the to-hit roll from gauntlet serves to increase aggro management for the AT which helps to set them apart from brutes without invalidating brutes or changing the SO levels significantly.
  

 

 

Step 2 The damage problem - Giving tanks more damage will grossly overpower them. Yet tanks are invalidated by brutes at IO levels because of the combination of aggro/damage/survivabilty that a tricked out brute can enjoy.

• Solution - Increase the tanker damage cap. This will allow a tank to reach high damage numbers when teammed if the team is willing to invest the buffs into the tank. This increase should be proportional to tank brute resist cap difference. This should not change the lower level, solo, or SO level game play of a tank significantly and helps to further close the divide at IO levels. This change coupled with the aforementioned aggro change re-enforces the roll of tanks on a team while still allowing the choice for the brute to perform the same role.
  
• Additional solution after datamining - Roll bruising into gauntlet as well. This would effectively increase tank damage with the -res rolled into every attack as opposed to just the t1. Very few players will use the t1 even though it is the sole source of bruising simply because it is not the optimal damage chain. Probably the -res will need to be lowered and the amount of stacking increased so that when following the attack chain the -res will equal and be able to be maintained at the current level just using the t1 repeatedly would accomplish.
  

 

These two solutions should not be invasive to the way the AT currently plays and should also not invalidate brutes while buffing tanks to a proper level. These should also not grossly overpower tanks mechanically.

 

As a third option, although we have been told with the code it is impossible to do but I think still deserves a seat at the idea table, is to increase the tanker aggro cap to allow them to hold the attention of more mobs than they do currently. This idea deserves mention in the talks, even though it is feasibly impossible, as it may spawn a possible idea that can also make this happen.

 

[Kilrane]

Was the Brute given AoE Gauntlet in i24 or i25? Because I thought they only were single target taunts while relying on their aura effects to aoe taunt.

 

https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Brute#Inherent_Power

 

[Xaeon]

My own suggestion would be to expand on bruising because it's a cool enough mechanic that doesn't really come into much use due to its limitations. I was thinking like giving each attack bruising, with the first attack having 30-40%, other attacks having 20-25%, and AoEs having 5-10%. This would help give the Tanker a very "tarpit" feel and also make having more than one tanker on a team more useful as they spread out that -resistance love to weaken enemies and make them take incoming hits harder.

 

That's the big thing about tankers at the moment; more than one tanker is extremely redundant in a way you don't get with any other AT.

[Steampunkette]

I think increasing the Tanker Damage Cap isn't going to be terribly useful, in the end. It's still going to result in a lower damage output simply because their baseline damage is -so- abysmal compared to other ATs. The only reason the Brute gets away with it is the absolutely MASSIVE damage cap and the presence of a Fury Bar.

 

Increasing the Bruising Mechanic to more attacks is an interesting suggestion... I feel like it's a decent one? Though I would expand it to do some different things. Like Hamstringing enemies with an AoE power to apply a movement slow effect so they can't break off as quickly. It would also contribute to the aforementioned "Tar Pit" feeling!

 

The aggro cap is definitely a thing that we can't reasonably change. I'm 90% sure it's a global combat mechanic to which the cap was jury rigged to avoid further Herdfarms. For those who don't remember those: There used to be no aggro cap and people would use the Atta Hollows map filled with enemies whose only attacks were Smashing/Lethal or Energy or whatever, run alllllll through the map to aggro EVERYTHING, then drag it all around a single corner in a massive cluster of "Holy Crap everyone start killing them before I die!"

 

How about an area and target cap increase to Taunt for Tankers? 10 targets in a wider area would make them much more able to grab aggro and force targets to focus on them, as well. No amount of Brute Fury gets through that without actively using their own taunt to take Aggro off the tank.

 

I wonder if it would be possible to throw on an invisible "Equal Damage and Healing both ignoring enhancements and buffs" effect for Tankers? Like... You smack the dude with Beheader for 150 damage, but there's a further 40 untyped damage and healing that proc together, neither of which requires an accuracy check, creating another 40 points of aggro-generating damage and 40 points of aggro-generating healing?

 

Might be worth looking at.

[Primantis]

I do think giving tanks some sort of 'force multiplier' would be a step in the right direction. This also has the added benefit of not really changing their playstyle much.

 

 

Improving Bruising is a good start. Also/or maybe something in the same thematic vain as Defender's vigilance.

 

Tanker's Aegis: "Having a Tanker on their team eases the minds of your allies. Allowing them to focus more on their offenses. Increases Damage and Accuracy". Stackable with diminishing returns.

 

 

Force Multipliers also make sense in class theme. Tankers are there to protec the team. So the team can do their thing. Thus allowing them to do it better.  Brutes are there to do moar damage by drawing aggro for more Fury. Protecting the team in the process.

[OldSchool SC Fight Club]

An age-old issue between tanks and brutes... Even when you couldn't cross one over to the other side.

[Profit]

Was the Brute given AoE Gauntlet in i24 or i25? Because I thought they only were single target taunts while relying on their aura effects to aoe taunt.

 

https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Brute#Inherent_Power

 

Brutes do not have AOE Gauntlet. What they have is a taunt effect that hits a single target every time they attack. So how this translates for them is, if a brute uses knockout blow then an automatic 400% taunt magnitude is thrown on the target. If a brute uses footstomp, then a 400% taunt magnitude is thrown on every enemy that is hit by footstomp.

 

This is different than gauntlet.

 

In the aforementioned scenario, taunt magnitude is applied the same way for a tanker using the same powers in the same scenario. Gauntlet is also calculated for every target, requiring a to-hit check. If the to-hit check is successful then up to 5 enemies around the effected enemy are hit with taunt as well. So in the knockout blow scenario, the target get's the exact same automatic 400% taunt applied when hit, then a to-hit check is calculated for the target, if it succeeds 5 of the enemies around the target are also hit with taunt.

[Profit]

My own suggestion would be to expand on bruising because it's a cool enough mechanic that doesn't really come into much use due to its limitations. I was thinking like giving each attack bruising, with the first attack having 30-40%, other attacks having 20-25%, and AoEs having 5-10%. This would help give the Tanker a very "tarpit" feel and also make having more than one tanker on a team more useful as they spread out that -resistance love to weaken enemies and make them take incoming hits harder.

 

That's the big thing about tankers at the moment; more than one tanker is extremely redundant in a way you don't get with any other AT.

 

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

[Profit]

I think increasing the Tanker Damage Cap isn't going to be terribly useful, in the end. It's still going to result in a lower damage output simply because their baseline damage is -so- abysmal compared to other ATs. The only reason the Brute gets away with it is the absolutely MASSIVE damage cap and the presence of a Fury Bar.

 

Increasing the Bruising Mechanic to more attacks is an interesting suggestion... I feel like it's a decent one? Though I would expand it to do some different things. Like Hamstringing enemies with an AoE power to apply a movement slow effect so they can't break off as quickly. It would also contribute to the aforementioned "Tar Pit" feeling!

 

The aggro cap is definitely a thing that we can't reasonably change. I'm 90% sure it's a global combat mechanic to which the cap was jury rigged to avoid further Herdfarms. For those who don't remember those: There used to be no aggro cap and people would use the Atta Hollows map filled with enemies whose only attacks were Smashing/Lethal or Energy or whatever, run alllllll through the map to aggro EVERYTHING, then drag it all around a single corner in a massive cluster of "Holy Crap everyone start killing them before I die!"

 

How about an area and target cap increase to Taunt for Tankers? 10 targets in a wider area would make them much more able to grab aggro and force targets to focus on them, as well. No amount of Brute Fury gets through that without actively using their own taunt to take Aggro off the tank.

 

I wonder if it would be possible to throw on an invisible "Equal Damage and Healing both ignoring enhancements and buffs" effect for Tankers? Like... You smack the dude with Beheader for 150 damage, but there's a further 40 untyped damage and healing that proc together, neither of which requires an accuracy check, creating another 40 points of aggro-generating damage and 40 points of aggro-generating healing?

 

Might be worth looking at.

 

Equal damage and healing seems initially incredibly overpowered.

 

I also did not ask to increase bruising. I did ask that after datamining to see about adding bruising to all the attacks and allow stacking in such a way that the same numbers are reached that a current tank can reach by repeatedly using the T1. The problem with bruising at the moment is that no tank uses it. Ever.

 

Expanding the bruising mechanic with control effects would possibly change the way tanks are currently played radically. One of the design goals is to avoid changes for changes sake and to avoid changing the way tanks are. There are quite a few people happy with the way the tank plays in game currently. 

[Profit]

I do think giving tanks some sort of 'force multiplier' would be a step in the right direction. This also has the added benefit of not really changing their playstyle much.

 

 

Improving Bruising is a good start. Also/or maybe something in the same thematic vain as Defender's vigilance.

 

Tanker's Aegis: "Having a Tanker on their team eases the minds of your allies. Allowing them to focus more on their offenses. Increases Damage and Accuracy". Stackable with diminishing returns.

 

 

Force Multipliers also make sense in class theme. Tankers are there to protec the team. So the team can do their thing. Thus allowing them to do it better.  Brutes are there to do moar damage by drawing aggro for more Fury. Protecting the team in the process.

 

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

[Profit]

An age-old issue between tanks and brutes... Even when you couldn't cross one over to the other side.

 

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

[Steampunkette]

Equal damage and healing seems initially incredibly overpowered.

 

I also did not ask to increase bruising. I did ask that after datamining to see about adding bruising to all the attacks and allow stacking in such a way that the same numbers are reached that a current tank can reach by repeatedly using the T1. The problem with bruising at the moment is that no tank uses it. Ever.

 

Expanding the bruising mechanic with control effects would possibly change the way tanks are currently played radically. One of the design goals is to avoid changes for changes sake and to avoid changing the way tanks are. There are quite a few people happy with the way the tank plays in game currently.

 

To be clear on the equal damage and healing: Both would be applied to the Enemy.

 

You hit a Vortex Cor Adjutant for 150 damage. 0.1 seconds later the Adjutant gets a 40 point heal cast on him and takes 40 points of damage from the same attack.

 

You get 920 points of aggro on that dude, he only actually loses 150 HP from the attack.

[Profit]

Equal damage and healing seems initially incredibly overpowered.

 

I also did not ask to increase bruising. I did ask that after datamining to see about adding bruising to all the attacks and allow stacking in such a way that the same numbers are reached that a current tank can reach by repeatedly using the T1. The problem with bruising at the moment is that no tank uses it. Ever.

 

Expanding the bruising mechanic with control effects would possibly change the way tanks are currently played radically. One of the design goals is to avoid changes for changes sake and to avoid changing the way tanks are. There are quite a few people happy with the way the tank plays in game currently.

 

To be clear on the equal damage and healing: Both would be applied to the Enemy.

 

You hit a Vortex Cor Adjutant for 150 damage. 0.1 seconds later the Adjutant gets a 40 point heal cast on him and takes 40 points of damage from the same attack.

 

You get 920 points of aggro on that dude, he only actually loses 150 HP from the attack.

 

Ok, I'm listening.

 

So essentially a new mechanic to make fake damage to increase aggro on a enemy. How does that compare to simply upping the taunt magnitude of tanker powers? Are we achieving the same goal through different means? Which one is going to require less time and resources to accomplish?

 

The mechanic does fit the design goal of not drastically changing the way tankers currently play. It seems like the two suggestions (mine and yours) are attempting to increase aggro control and generation. My suggestion would also encompass taunt auras, basically anything that adds taunt magnitude to an enemy effected by taunt magnitude from a power.  It sounds like your suggestion is only going to work on damaging attacks. I'm willing to discuss logistics however to determine which solution is better.

[Steampunkette]

Ok, I'm listening.

 

So essentially a new mechanic to make fake damage to increase aggro on a enemy. How does that compare to simply upping the taunt magnitude of tanker powers? Are we achieving the same goal through different means? Which one is going to require less time and resources to accomplish?

 

The mechanic does fit the design goal of not drastically changing the way tankers currently play. It seems like the two suggestions (mine and yours) are attempting to increase aggro control and generation. My suggestion would also encompass taunt auras, basically anything that adds taunt magnitude to an enemy effected by taunt magnitude from a power.  It sounds like your suggestion is only going to work on damaging attacks. I'm willing to discuss logistics however to determine which solution is better.

 

I'm not certain Taunt multiplier can be applied at greater than 400%. Otherwise I figure there'd be at least a few mechanics where the real numbers show the magnitude as 500+% to show how much more "Taunty" they are. And based on that reasoning I think we have to go to the base numbers that are being multiplied.

 

Which are damage and healing. But we can't really increase the Tanker's damage that much without risking other (larger) implications, so I figure adding in the secondary healing/damage is a good solid way to increase the 'Base' that the multiplier gets added to without changing the game's balance in any meaningful way.

 

As to whether it can be done: Lightform (PB Tier 9 Defense) has a crash that heals you for 100% of your maximum hit points then immediately damages you for 50% of your maximum hit points. It's where I snaked the idea from!  The only difference is using set and unresistable healing and damage values that are perfectly equal to ensure the target neither gains HP nor loses HP from the secondary effect.

 

You COULD make the healing and damage equal to the baseline damage of the attack itself if you'd like Tankers to get flatly triple the amount of aggro that they normally do, but I wouldn't recommend it. Aiming for around 1/3rd of the attack's normal damage ensures you get around half the increased aggro.

 

150x4 = 600 (Main damage)

40 x 4 = 160 (Secondary Healing)

40 x 4 = 160 (Secondary Damage)

[DSorrow]

Another interesting feature I'd really look at giving Tanks: across the board debuff resistance in PvE. In the high-end enemy groups the most troublesome enemies are the ones with strong debuffs and I feel like it would make sense for tanks to be less susceptible to those than Brutes. The magnitude of most debuffs is also big enough that you can most of the time effectively counter it only by buffs so it doesn't matter whether your tank is a Tanker or a Brute. Having a Tank require less buffs to counter the debuffs would incentivize playing one, and it would make several powersets with mediocre Debuff Resistances much stronger on a Tanker than a Brute. This is also a neat power gap a Brute couldn't effectively bridge with IOs.

 

Having unstackable Bruising in all attacks would be pretty cool, too.

[Redlynne]

My own suggestion would be to expand on bruising because it's a cool enough mechanic that doesn't really come into much use due to its limitations. I was thinking like giving each attack bruising, with the first attack having 30-40%, other attacks having 20-25%, and AoEs having 5-10%. This would help give the Tanker a very "tarpit" feel and also make having more than one tanker on a team more useful as they spread out that -resistance love to weaken enemies and make them take incoming hits harder.

 

That's the big thing about tankers at the moment; more than one tanker is extremely redundant in a way you don't get with any other AT.

 

Bruising

Bruising is a damage resistance debuff that was added to the game in Issue 18.

 

On a successful hit, any tier 1 Tanker secondary power set attack will bruise an enemy target. This bruising effect causes a resistible 20% damage resistance debuff which lasts for 10 seconds. Bruising cannot stack, even if there are multiple tankers attacking the same target; thus, it is a good idea for multiple tankers to spread attacks out on the whole spawn.

 

Functionally, Bruising works via Grant Power, meaning that the $Target casts the Bruising effect onto themselves.

Unfortunately, the relevant page was not saved in the Wayback Machine from City of Data, so we can't reference there to get the exact coding, but given the description given we can easily surmise that the Grant Power: Bruising is structured to work as a "cast on self" by the $Target onto the $Target and that the coding includes Effect does not stack from same caster so as to prevent any kind of Bruising cascade from happening via multiple Tankers hitting the $Target ... or even a single Tanker hitting the $Target "fast enough" to multi-stack Bruising within the 10 second duration of the effect.  In terms of stacking the debuff with this coding, at best you'd be adding -5% (2.5+2.5=5) if Bruising is applied faster than every 10 seconds, so hardly world breaking compared to other Resist debuffing options.

 

 

 

If you're wanting to alter the way that Bruising works for Tankers in order to allow them to "catch up" to Brutes (kind of) on the Taunt side of things, there's some relatively simple options you could pursue.

 

 

 

Option One:

Edit Bruising to feature a more complex set of game mechanical results for the -Resist debuff.

• -7.5% Resist (all) debuff, coded as being both Unresistable AND Effect does not stack from same caster.
  
• -7.5% Resist (all) debuff, coded as being both Resistable AND Effect does not stack from same caster.
  
• -2.5% Resist (all) debuff, coded as being both Unresistable but omitting the Effect does not stack from same caster modifier.
  
• -2.5% Resist (all) debuff, coded as being both Resistable but omitting the Effect does not stack from same caster modifier.

In essence, this would give Bruising a LIMITED amount of Resistance debuff stacking in a way that makes it possible for additional Tankers to "deepen the debuff stack" without resulting in an overpowered runaway condition.  In terms of applying Bruising ONCE per 10 seconds, the yield would still be (7.5+7.5+2.5+2.5=20) 20% total, but with 10% of that being Unresistable while 10% is Resistable (for whatever difference that makes).

 

 

 

Option Two:

Edit all Tanker Secondary powers to have increased Taunt (+150% ...?) duration against $Targets with Bruising on them.  This way, Bruising doesn't just increase damage, it also increases Aggro Magnetism via the Tanker's attack powers.  The degree of increase would need to be determined by playtesting/datamining and a decision as to whether or not the objective is to deliver "Taunt Parity" with Brutes or whether to give Tankers an "edge" in Taunt generation relative to Brutes.

 

 

 

Note that it would be perfectly possible to implement BOTH of these options, since they are not exclusionary to one another.

[Herotu]

An age-old issue between tanks and brutes... Even when you couldn't cross one over to the other side.

 

This was not an issue when you couldn't cross over. Also let us know forget that the original devs intent was that masterminds were the tankers of COV. Not brutes.

 

I find that hard to believe : maybe they said it before fleshing out the classes archetypes, but they certainly didn't design or implement them that way - Brute is clearly the villains' Tanker.

 

I like the OP's suggestions.

 

As a tanker playing hero side (probably not relevant info), I find that people tend to want a tanker that has "Tanker" over their heads - I guess they consider that a tanker will know and (wilfully) accept their role in the party, whereas with a brute you have no idea what that person is going to do.

[Sura]

Ok. I said I wasn't going to do this because I was tired of being shouted down. But I'm also tired of seeing suggestions that are going to radically alter the way my favorite AT is played currently. So I'm going to do this, this one time. This is how to fix the tanker/brute issue.

 

Before replying, please read carefully to make sure you understand what I'm saying, don't infer the intent of the post, I've tried very hard to be very clear about how to do this. And I really don't want to be shouted down, yet again, over these suggestions because someone felt I was suggesting something I didn't even say.

 

Fixes to follow.

 

Goal - To bring tanks inline and valid with the modern coh meta while not making them grossly overpowered or drastically changing the way they currently play.

 

Problem 1 - Tanks are invalidated by brutes at IO power levels making the decision a player or team leader has on which they would prefer to have in a team a 'no-brainer'. This invalidation occurs on all fronts - aggro control, damage, and survivability.

Problem 2 - The game is balanced around SO power levels, and at these power levels brutes and tanks are balanced as with SOs brutes can not achieve the level of survivability tanks have.

 

Many mechanics have been mentioned to 'balance' tanks with brutes and these suggestions would end up changing the dynamic of the AT into a new different playstyle, we need to avoid that if possible.

 

This will be a two step solution process, with the steps having possible extra modifications depending on the datamining. This is meant to be a scalpel solution and as such is intended to not have any major drastic effects at the SO level while also not changing the tank role within the team or solo.

 

Step 1 The aggro problem - With brutes having the same aoe auto hit taunt that tanks have, plus higher threat generation due to the large orange numbers generated by fury, brutes are able to maintain aggro in the same way a tank while having a higher damage output.

• Solution - Shy of altering brutes by replacing this taunt power with either the single target scrapper taunt or the provoke power from the pool power, altering brutes which we are actively trying to avoid, we are left with one simple option, an increase in the taunt magnitude of the tanker AT. This would serve the same purpose as the brute altering solution without altering brutes. This should have no effect at anything but the highest level of game play as in the lower SO levels one would generally not be asking a brute to manage aggro, so the tank is already managing at those lower levels.
  
• Additional Solution after datamining - Gauntlet (tank passive) currently suffers from having a to-hit roll. Brutes and Scrappers single target attacks have a taunt mechanic attached that does not suffer from a to-hit roll. Removing the to-hit roll from gauntlet serves to increase aggro management for the AT which helps to set them apart from brutes without invalidating brutes or changing the SO levels significantly.
  

 

 

Step 2 The damage problem - Giving tanks more damage will grossly overpower them. Yet tanks are invalidated by brutes at IO levels because of the combination of aggro/damage/survivabilty that a tricked out brute can enjoy.

• Solution - Increase the tanker damage cap. This will allow a tank to reach high damage numbers when teammed if the team is willing to invest the buffs into the tank. This increase should be proportional to tank brute resist cap difference. This should not change the lower level, solo, or SO level game play of a tank significantly and helps to further close the divide at IO levels. This change coupled with the aforementioned aggro change re-enforces the roll of tanks on a team while still allowing the choice for the brute to perform the same role.
  
• Additional solution after datamining - Roll bruising into gauntlet as well. This would effectively increase tank damage with the -res rolled into every attack as opposed to just the t1. Very few players will use the t1 even though it is the sole source of bruising simply because it is not the optimal damage chain. Probably the -res will need to be lowered and the amount of stacking increased so that when following the attack chain the -res will equal and be able to be maintained at the current level just using the t1 repeatedly would accomplish.
  

 

These two solutions should not be invasive to the way the AT currently plays and should also not invalidate brutes while buffing tanks to a proper level. These should also not grossly overpower tanks mechanically.

 

As a third option, although we have been told with the code it is impossible to do but I think still deserves a seat at the idea table, is to increase the tanker aggro cap to allow them to hold the attention of more mobs than they do currently. This idea deserves mention in the talks, even though it is feasibly impossible, as it may spawn a possible idea that can also make this happen.

 

I'm not sure what changing the Tanker taunt magnitude is going to do.  Giving Tankers the ability to take aggro from Brutes isn't going to change Tankers' desirability on teams; as long as Brutes can effectively take the aggro and tank for a team they, and the much (MUCH) higher damage they bring, are going to be preferred over Tankers.  If you're looking to make it easier for Tankers to keep aggro from Brutes (which seems a small subset of the Tanker/Brute problem) you might be able to move things in the right direction simply by increasing the number of targets hit by Tanker Taunt, or Tanker taunt auras, or both.  But again, I don't think the problem here is Tankers not being able to take aggro away from Brutes, it's that Brutes can handle aggro as well as Tankers.  And changing the magnitude doesn't change that.

 

Adjusting the aggro cap might be a bit more effective in distinguishing Tankers from Brutes, but I'm pretty sure the cap not AT specific and not an option for adjustment.

 

I feel like the "why EVER have more than one Tanker on a team?" question is relevant and revealing.  As mentioned earlier in the thread, there's only one AT for which that question can be asked, and that's Tankers.  Defenders suffer from damage deficit disorder too, but no one even starts to question their worth as force multipliers.  Maybe that's where Tankers should be adjusted as well.

 

 

[Xaeon]

An age-old issue between tanks and brutes... Even when you couldn't cross one over to the other side.

 

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

People keep saying that and Jack Emmeret certainly believed it but Jack Emmeret was also a dithering idiot who genuinely believed that three minions should be a challenge for a twinked out endgame build. His dream of MM tanks simply did not work out that way, MMs do not have the aggro management to make good tanks but Brutes have plenty of aggro management. Most MMs also go for DPS and support, basically serving as super corruptors; few ever try taking hits for anyone else on the team.

 

And finally, in I18 when side crossing was allowed...Brutes and Tankers shared ancillary/patron pools while Scrappers shared theirs with Stalkers and Masterminds shared theirs with Blasters (or close enough to Blasters anyway).

[Replacement]

Numbers vat-grown in a lab, and not reflective of any particular power.

 

Using the base melee modifier multiplied by max damage bonus, you get the following comparison when at +damage cap:

 

For every 5.8125 points of damage the brute does, the tanker will have done 3.2 and a scrapper would deal 5.625 (not counting crits).

 

This tells me an increase to tanker's max damage would definitely be ok, but understand the razor's edge you walk with that suggestion. If you try to make it more than a Brute (clear incentive structure: "I get more out of party buff to damage), you run the risk of catching up to Scrapper... And that would be bad.

 

Ideas in this thread I really like:

-increase to damage cap just for QoL. Getting that number up to at least 4.5 would be fantastic.

-increasing taunt mag. Someone asked what the point was: my understanding is it works as a hate multiplier, so it means you can hold hate longer against an AV that is somehow invalidating most of your aggro generation (-recharge comes to mind).

-Resistance to debuffs. This is a really really cool idea.  It feels like right around the time Brutes start solving their survivability problems is around when bad guys start really piling on the debuff cocktails, so this would be a really subtle way of helping a tanker keep their crown.

-Removing the accuracy check from gauntlet.

[Ry]

Sounds good to me, Profit.

[Xaeon]

Numbers vat-grown in a lab, and not reflective of any particular power.

 

Using the base melee modifier multiplied by max damage bonus, you get the following comparison when at +damage cap:

 

For every 5.8125 points of damage the brute does, the tanker will have done 3.2 and a scrapper would deal 5.625 (not counting crits).

 

This tells me an increase to tanker's max damage would definitely be ok, but understand the razor's edge you walk with that suggestion. If you try to make it more than a Brute (clear incentive structure: "I get more out of party buff to damage), you run the risk of catching up to Scrapper... And that would be bad.

 

Ideas in this thread I really like:

-increase to damage cap just for QoL. Getting that number up to at least 4.5 would be fantastic.

-increasing taunt mag. Someone asked what the point was: my understanding is it works as a hate multiplier, so it means you can hold hate longer against an AV that is somehow invalidating most of your aggro generation (-recharge comes to mind).

-Resistance to debuffs. This is a really really cool idea.  It feels like right around the time Brutes start solving their survivability problems is around when bad guys start really piling on the debuff cocktails, so this would be a really subtle way of helping a tanker keep their crown.

-Removing the accuracy check from gauntlet.

Not fond of expanding brusing?

[Leogunner]

I think, back in the day, when I was suggesting possible solutions, mind was simply to have Gauntlet's "secondary effect" be that it improves on the AoE ranges and target caps of their abilities.

 

The solution wasn't to bring parity or balance, I just wanted to have a Tanker with Dark Melee using Shadow Maul and hitting 5-8 guys without lots of positioning and herding.  It would give a reason to play "Tanker Melee" vs "DPS Melee" solely because it has a fun new dynamic you can play around with.  Would also have the additional affect of spreading secondary effects more easily with that being either taunt, -ToHit, Knockdown or some sort of buff.

[HelenCarnate]

I like the idea of stacking resist debuffs.  As long as it is set to a reasonable level, it would make multiple tanks more attractive on teams.  Right now if you have 2 tanks on a team and have 7 people ready to go on a TF, the last thing you want in that last spot is another tank.  But if all 3 of those were constantly debuffing resistance by around 7-10% each (average, not per hit) then suddenly it's not so bad.  I would also like to see the -range on taunt increased on tanks to force mobs near melee range instead of just somewhat closer.

 

Basically their taunts are so powerful it causes the enemy to be so focused on the tank that they are not able to defend themselves as well against other attacks which only magnifies when there are more tanks.

[Leogunner]

I like the idea of stacking resist debuffs.  As long as it is set to a reasonable level, it would make multiple tanks more attractive on teams.  Right now if you have 2 tanks on a team and have 7 people ready to go on a TF, the last thing you want in that last spot is another tank.  But if all 3 of those were constantly debuffing resistance by around 7-10% each (average, not per hit) then suddenly it's not so bad.  I would also like to see the -range on taunt increased on tanks to force mobs near melee range instead of just somewhat closer.

 

Basically their taunts are so powerful it causes the enemy to be so focused on the tank that they are not able to defend themselves as well against other attacks which only magnifies when there are more tanks.

 

Really?

 

People are going to actually notice an extra 10% resistance debuff difference?  And if they have a Poison Defender/Corruptor, anyone would actually care? Or that that Tanker will hold the aggro for a couple seconds longer before it rolls down to the guy with the next amount of taunt layered on?

 

Perhaps I don't understand the purpose of this suggestion (the thread, not the quote).  Do you want people to play Tankers more or do you just want numerical justification to use in forum arguments as to the existential crisis of Tankers?