Addressing the Tanker Brute Connundrum.

[Snakebit]

I don't think anything needs to be changed in regard to tanks. 

 

I think Fury should have a global endurance cost multiplier. I always have. It fits, and it balances an AT that is over powered. By a lot. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by cejmp

[Chrome]

On 7/28/2019 at 4:06 PM, LaconicLemur said:

My crazy, stupid idea below.  But hear me out!

 

First off, I agree with the idea that tankers and brutes need to be differentiated better.  And I really like the structure the OP used to put forward the argument. After having read 4 pages of the replies, no new suggestions seem any better.  There is a lot of talk about giving tanks -res abilities.  But then doesn't that take away from the support-themed AT's? 

 

I know this might sound stupid but: why not keep both (and all) AT's as-is?  Instead, create a new Task Force / Trial setting that has a required team size of 5 (for example).  Add in difficulties similar to those in the TF options, but built-in.  Balance mission debuffs and spawn sizes so that Tanks are useful, and balanced for IO's, not SO's.  Add the -res buffs to tank in that setting only, or whatever else that could be possible that's either team or AT specific.   Give very good bonus rewards for completion. 

 

From reading the OP, it seems the main challenge is post-50, there's more content that is friendlier to brutes.  So instead of adjusting the tank AT, why not adjust and add more content?  Not only can it make tanks relevant again, but I can imagine it challenging other AT's as well.  And personally, I would like to see something like that instead of the speed x TF's that get dull after a while.

this is literally the only idea that make real sense...any responses to its to hard or what not...well then dont do it... but if tankers have lost there identity due to IOs than change the enemy.  We no longer need to have silly discussions about this and then  tankers can feel special because they are NEEDED end game...but be warned one of the selling points of this game to me and alot of other people is that any makeup can do the job...all controller teams can do the job... all MM teams can do the job ... yes as a min maxer i agree that tankers are under developed but ...i also understand that it doesnt effing matter...in this iteration of the game you have 1000 slots...for free...make something else if you dont have fun on tankers...i feel the same way about Dominators...with incarnates and damage potential through the roof why bring a squishy dom when you can bring ...anything else...same with defenders ...you do not need to play tankers...you are not limited to 8 slots and have to pay for more...play something else and then see what happens ....or ACTIVELY join the all volunteer team of devs we have now and help them ADD more difficult content that REQUIRES tankers level of survival.

[ryuplaneswalker]

On 7/30/2019 at 9:02 PM, cejmp said:

I don't think anything needs to be changed in regard to tanks. 

 

I think Fury should have a global endurance cost multiplier. I always have. It fits, and it balances an AT that is over powered. By a lot. 

Brutes are not Overpowered in a Post ATO world.

 

The problem with tanks in a post IO world is that IO's themselves were terribly balanced (not in comparison to SOs, IO set bonuses compared to other IO set bonuses) In all reality there are only two ways to IO. "Recharge" and "Survival" and tanks don't benefit greatly from getting "perma" dull plain, they can't really boost their damage massively through IOing because most damage bonuses off IOs are not very good, and are hampered by Tankers low damage modifier. 

[Voldine]

3 hours ago, ryuplaneswalker said:

"tanks" - "can't really boost their damage massively through IOing because most damage bonuses off IOs are not very good, and are hampered by Tankers low damage modifier."

Not just a low modifier, either. Tanks have a miniscule damage buff cap as well.

 

Tanks, at their maximum damage buff still deal less damage than a solo scrapper with only accuracy enhancements and no crits.

[Jeuraud]

7 hours ago, Chrome said:

this is literally the only idea that make real sense...

Really... lets make a TF that is AT centric... makes sense?

Are you going to make one for Red as well as Blue side? Are you going to make them for various levels or just 50. Are you going to make AT centric TFs for other ATs as well; because this non-Tank player does not think that CoH Tanks have a real problem (Other than them being fricken boring to play.), and if you get your own TF then my favorite AT should get their own TF.

 

8 hours ago, Chrome said:

but if tankers have lost there identity due to IOs than change the enemy.

How many times does this need to be said... Tankers lost their traditional MMO identity pretty much as soon as they stepped out of the CoH box.

This same argument used to have Scrapper in place of Brute. Hells, this same argument used to have Defenders and Trollers, in place of Tanks and Scrappers/Brutes.

Players found that unlike other MMOs... in group... there was no need for any specific AT.

CoH turned the traditional MMO roles on their heads, and many MMO players could not/cannot handle that. Many of you want to turn the CoH Tank into a traditional MMO Tank, and the only way to do that is to turn the other ATs into their traditional MMO counterparts.

 

As far as I care the non-traditional MMO roles within CoH is part of what makes CoH... CoH, and is a good thing, and trying to force us back into traditional MMO roles is most definitely not a good thing.

 

 

[Snakebit]

10 hours ago, ryuplaneswalker said:

Brutes are not Overpowered in a Post ATO world.

Post ATO makes the disparity even more glaring. Spend an equal amount of inf/merits on a Tank build, a Scrapper build, and a Brute build. 

 

The Brute is going to have damage output comparable to the scrapper but much deeper mitigation. He's going to have a significant damage advantage with comparable mitigation to the tank, plus he gets the benefit of dipping into the real reasons Tanks are an AT.

 

And he doesn't have to give up anything to do it. 

 

Can tanks farm? Sure.

Can scrappers farm? Surely.

Can either AT match the speed of a Brute? Nope. I'd be willing to bet hard cash that if a server poll were conducted the number of 50 Brutes would be double Scrapper and treble Tanks. 

 

Tanks have the same role they did at launch. Scrappers have the same role as at launch. You had scrappers that could mitigate aggro but not really control it, and you had tanks that were kind of damagey but not really going to clear a whole lot of spawns. So you take the damage, the damage mitigation, and the aggro management(slightly lowered) and you put them all in one AT and you throw in a janky mechanic that only requires that you participate to reach its peak and what do you get?

 

An AT capable of filling 2 different roles with no downside. The only reason to pick a Tank over a Brute is for specific gameplay reasons that involve aggro management to a high degree. There is no reason at all to pick a scrapper over a brute. 

 

Tanks are fine where they are.  Scrappers are fine where they are. Brutes are out of whack. 

[LaconicLemur]

3 hours ago, Jeuraud said:

Really... lets make a TF that is AT centric... makes sense?

Are you going to make one for Red as well as Blue side? Are you going to make them for various levels or just 50. Are you going to make AT centric TFs for other ATs as well; because this non-Tank player does not think that CoH Tanks have a real problem (Other than them being fricken boring to play.), and if you get your own TF then my favorite AT should get their own TF.

 

 

 

Just to clarify: my original suggestion is NOT an AT-centric TF, but a TF SETTING. A new "Extra Difficult with Cheese on Top" version for all current TF's and Trials that is not customized for each AT.  That being said, a new TF would also be great. But the suggestion is to add content to address the issues brought up by the OP instead of tuning AT's. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by LaconicLemur

[Infinitum]

53 minutes ago, cejmp said:

Post ATO makes the disparity even more glaring. Spend an equal amount of inf/merits on a Tank build, a Scrapper build, and a Brute build. 

 

The Brute is going to have damage output comparable to the scrapper but much deeper mitigation. He's going to have a significant damage advantage with comparable mitigation to the tank, plus he gets the benefit of dipping into the real reasons Tanks are an AT.

 

And he doesn't have to give up anything to do it. 

 

Can tanks farm? Sure.

Can scrappers farm? Surely.

Can either AT match the speed of a Brute? Nope. I'd be willing to bet hard cash that if a server poll were conducted the number of 50 Brutes would be double Scrapper and treble Tanks. 

 

Tanks have the same role they did at launch. Scrappers have the same role as at launch. You had scrappers that could mitigate aggro but not really control it, and you had tanks that were kind of damagey but not really going to clear a whole lot of spawns. So you take the damage, the damage mitigation, and the aggro management(slightly lowered) and you put them all in one AT and you throw in a janky mechanic that only requires that you participate to reach its peak and what do you get?

 

An AT capable of filling 2 different roles with no downside. The only reason to pick a Tank over a Brute is for specific gameplay reasons that involve aggro management to a high degree. There is no reason at all to pick a scrapper over a brute. 

 

Tanks are fine where they are.  Scrappers are fine where they are. Brutes are out of whack. 

I have seen Scrappers tank, blasters tank, controllers, corrupters, Brutes, just about any AT tank stuff that you could not do before IO and incarnate content.

 

People always bring up farming, and thats not a fair point because farming rarely translates to the rareity of content you would face in the game.  Plus I have a fire tank that is faster than any brute I have seen clearing the fire farms. And hes also strong enough to tank any content in the game - but neither would be possible without IO Set bonuses and incarnate content.

 

Its not a AT issue, well to me its a non issue, I have 4 tanks various builds and they dont have issue clearing mobs at all, and are not boring or unenjoyable to play.  The only issue I have is rage crash occasionally making life difficult, but thats a different discussion.

 

Pre IO brutes nor any other AT could pull off the tank roll, but even then there were all controller teams that everyone was screaming about being overpowered because their buffs and debuffs stacked and didnt "need" any other ATs on team.

 

So no its not a brute issue, or a tank issue, or an AT specific issue.  If its boring to you, play something else theres plenty to choose from and many many ways to slot and design, but dont fault rhe AT because people like me that spend a lot of time making a brute or any at strong enough to main tank, because its not easy getting there and building enough inf to accomplish it. 

 

Even as strong as my brute is I still get overlooked in the favor of a tank occasionally because tanks can do some things better still.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Infinitum
Added info

[Kimuji]

There's an easy fix before all these suggestions that doesn't put any balancing at risk (because it's a fix not an added feature): Makes all taunt auras 400% with a decent duration for Tankers!

Seriously what is the idea behind making Willpower's Rise To the Challenge so stupidly bad at holding aggro (only 300% with a ridiculously short duration) ? Why is Radiation Armor's Beta Decay 400% on Brutes and only 300% on Tankers? (figures checked with city of data, 13.6s taunt mag 4 for Brutes vs 13.6s taunt mag 3 for Tankers)

 

It doesn't make sense at all. These are easy fixes and shouldn't even be debated.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Kimuji

[Vanden]

Also, why does Against All Odds have a taunt aura on Scrappers? And how is it always stealing aggro from my Tanker?

[Liam1986]

Give tanks More HP as standard and higher HP cap...done

 

 

[Williwaw]

2 hours ago, Liam1986 said:

Give tanks More HP as standard and higher HP cap...done

 

Tankers already have the highest base HP and the highest HP caps.  How will raising those numbers further alleviate any of the issues being discussed?

[Liam1986]

1 hour ago, Williwaw said:

 

Tankers already have the highest base HP and the highest HP caps.  How will raising those numbers further alleviate any of the issues being discussed?

Yes but endgame with a brute putting most their eggs in the defensive basket do they not in most regards come very close to the same HP levels and yet still out DPS tanks? I'd like the distinction in the roles to be more accutely defined and I think a flat rate base/cap raise on HP would be the easiest to implement and tweak by the developers instead of all these varying opinions and ideas. Whenever a suggestion or idea is raised its implementation should be factored and i think the HP/CAP raise would fall in line with the playstyle and thematics of what most tanker players pick a tanker for.

 

Me personally i just wanted to be an unkillable Little yellow bee who liked a scrap and could taunt things off Friends and ideally with web nade and some pvp tweaks do same in the odd kickball or open pvp zones with tankers being nigh invincible but lacking punch power you put them squarely into the support role or shot caller class that can call targets and not get 2 shotted given the HP raise. I still find tankers to be underwhelming in open PVP and making them more survivable would make them extremely disruptive and chosen more often.

[William Valence]

My two most played characters in incarnate content were my Necro/Dark MM, and my Dark/NRG Tanker. When it came to incarnate content, I never had the feeling of being the Tankier class, mostly because the content was designed to kill people buffed to the gills by a league. If my tanker is next to an NRG/Dark Brute with and endgame build, it will have at most 10% more health and less damage in the trial. And that's despite having 45% S/L/E/N on top of Dark Armor resists to start. So at that point, aside from the fact that "Why not", what benefit would my tanker bring over that brute? Just mechanically speaking.

 

The brute has aggro control and with league buffs, the same mitigation numbers as the tanker, with a higher damage buff. What I'd really like to see is the tanker actually be the more survivable class. Give them resistance/defense to unresistable/autohit damage that's in the game to just wreck the super survivable characters.

 

They are the most survivable 1-50 class, easy, and they trade the damage for the higher mitigation, but once you get to the mega buff numbers of trials, the buff saturation really just muddled everything up, and the little cheats the devs used to keep things threatening are, in my opinion, the best lever for fixing the issue. 1-50, however, I feel is an appropriate trade. More margin for error and less damage.

[Williwaw]

8 hours ago, Liam1986 said:

Yes but endgame with a brute putting most their eggs in the defensive basket do they not in most regards come very close to the same HP levels and yet still out DPS tanks? I'd like the distinction in the roles to be more accutely defined and I think a flat rate base/cap raise on HP would be the easiest to implement and tweak by the developers instead of all these varying opinions and ideas. Whenever a suggestion or idea is raised its implementation should be factored and i think the HP/CAP raise would fall in line with the playstyle and thematics of what most tanker players pick a tanker for.

 

But raising Tanker's HP caps doesn't solve the problem of a Tank being less effective than a Brute. Considering that Tankers already have almost 400 more base HP than Brutes (1875 vs. 1500) and over 300 more Max HP than Brutes (3534 vs. 3212), how is another 200 or 300 HP going to make so much of a difference that they'll suddenly become wanted?  Or are you proposing something absurd, like Tankers getting 5000 base HP and 10000 max HP?  That still wouldn't fix the issue.

 

A well-built Brute is already just as nigh-unkillable as a well-built Tanker.  They're both effectively taking 0 damage most of the time anyway, so more HP is not going to be the gamechanger you claim it would be.

[Leogunner]

8 hours ago, Liam1986 said:

Yes but endgame with a brute putting most their eggs in the defensive basket do they not in most regards come very close to the same HP levels and yet still out DPS tanks? I'd like the distinction in the roles to be more accutely defined and I think a flat rate base/cap raise on HP would be the easiest to implement and tweak by the developers instead of all these varying opinions and ideas. Whenever a suggestion or idea is raised its implementation should be factored and i think the HP/CAP raise would fall in line with the playstyle and thematics of what most tanker players pick a tanker for.

 

Me personally i just wanted to be an unkillable Little yellow bee who liked a scrap and could taunt things off Friends and ideally with web nade and some pvp tweaks do same in the odd kickball or open pvp zones with tankers being nigh invincible but lacking punch power you put them squarely into the support role or shot caller class that can call targets and not get 2 shotted given the HP raise. I still find tankers to be underwhelming in open PVP and making them more survivable would make them extremely disruptive and chosen more often.

 

8 hours ago, William Valence said:

My two most played characters in incarnate content were my Necro/Dark MM, and my Dark/NRG Tanker. When it came to incarnate content, I never had the feeling of being the Tankier class, mostly because the content was designed to kill people buffed to the gills by a league. If my tanker is next to an NRG/Dark Brute with and endgame build, it will have at most 10% more health and less damage in the trial. And that's despite having 45% S/L/E/N on top of Dark Armor resists to start. So at that point, aside from the fact that "Why not", what benefit would my tanker bring over that brute? Just mechanically speaking.

 

The brute has aggro control and with league buffs, the same mitigation numbers as the tanker, with a higher damage buff. What I'd really like to see is the tanker actually be the more survivable class. Give them resistance/defense to unresistable/autohit damage that's in the game to just wreck the super survivable characters.

 

They are the most survivable 1-50 class, easy, and they trade the damage for the higher mitigation, but once you get to the mega buff numbers of trials, the buff saturation really just muddled everything up, and the little cheats the devs used to keep things threatening are, in my opinion, the best lever for fixing the issue. 1-50, however, I feel is an appropriate trade. More margin for error and less damage.

 

An appeal to a perspective of inferiority, or what I'd call an inferiority complex, demonstrated not by merely stating the fact that Brute can often steal the role of a tanker but by suggesting one be nerfed or by proposing something that doesn't functionally change the dynamic between the two.

 

I'll say it again, I severely doubt people are dropping Tankers from groups just to reserve the spots for Brutes.  The game isn't that challenging to require such micromanagement.  At the end of the day, it is on the player if they want to make a Tanker, Brute or Scrapper and if you don't like the trade-offs Tanker makes, then don't play it.  The main disparity that I could see being remedied is the inequality of distribution (i.e. how many play Brute vs Tanker) and the only way to fix that is to make the two more unique in their styles of combat.

[Chrome]

I am also beginning to realize that this is not so much a balancing discussion, as it is a why cant i do damage on my tanker discussion, i can build a dominator with capped positional defenses too, why arent they in this discussion...i am sure i can easily build sentinels to be as tanky as needed to tank 99% of the game...why arent they in this discussion?  I have no issue with making Tankers more Tanky and having more content that requires that tankiness.  but as said the traditional trinity roles are weird in this game ...so why is this even being discussed...if you want more damage go with a brute if you want more defense/res go tanker.  This isnt rocket surgery, i understand that a tiny (un-detectible) group of people min max there speed run ITFs and bring Brutes over tankers, but most ITFs or other task forces that i see are usually looking for anything ...a few months ago before this got leaked, i remember having a discussion about this game and feeling joy at the fact that you could have an all troller team  or an all defender team and making it work.  Tankers can fill the role they are designed to do, brutes can do it as well, so i feel that this is really a personal inferiority issue ...not an ACTUAL issue that needs fixing .

[Williwaw]

It's being discussed because "if you want more damage go with a brute if you want more defense/res go tanker" is false.  Brutes and Tankers have the same defense and resistance at the high end, but Tanker lags behind in damage, offering nothing unique that Brute doesn't do better.  Dominators and Sentinels are irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Other than "have 300 more base HP", what can a well-built Tanker do that a well-built Brute can't?

 

... and I see why Profit is so hesitant to bring this up.  So many people (deliberately?) misunderstand it and drag in unrelated topics.

[Chrome]

no...the issue is that this entire discussion is pointless...nobody cares in game...nobody is being sent away because they are tankers...nobody is being turned away from anything because tankers are doing less damage... Dominators and sentinels ARE relevant because they also can be slotted to attain the same tankiness as tankers and do more damage...the fact that you are ignoring this is the reason why i begin to realize this is not because balance, but because of some imagined slight that Tankers are ALWAYS turned away in favor of brutes and this simply is not true.  the reason this guy gets mad is because the more the threads go on the more people realize is that he wants his favorite class to be something that it isnt.  the conversation devolves because Tankers feel like they are not needed when in fact no class is needed.  we can either accept that we love this game because of the freedom that allows us or complain because Tankers should be X when they are Y.  if this were any other game i would be joining with the OP in his fight for class balance and design but this is city of heroes where i can be a tank on any class and kill things the way i want to nobody has to be left out.  

[William Valence]

3 hours ago, Leogunner said:

 

 

An appeal to a perspective of inferiority, or what I'd call an inferiority complex, demonstrated not by merely stating the fact that Brute can often steal the role of a tanker but by suggesting one be nerfed or by proposing something that doesn't functionally change the dynamic between the two.

 

Just to make sure I can understand the rules you've got. I'm allowed to observe that brute can take the role of tanks, I'm allowed to observe that brutes and tankers have the same functional mitigation in league situations due to buff saturation, but I'm not allowed to propose a change that actually makes tankers more survivable in league situations but doesn't change their 1-50 power?

 

[Galaxy Brain]

1 hour ago, Chrome said:

no...the issue is that this entire discussion is pointless...nobody cares in game...nobody is being sent away because they are tankers...nobody is being turned away from anything because tankers are doing less damage... Dominators and sentinels ARE relevant because they also can be slotted to attain the same tankiness as tankers and do more damage...the fact that you are ignoring this is the reason why i begin to realize this is not because balance, but because of some imagined slight that Tankers are ALWAYS turned away in favor of brutes and this simply is not true.  the reason this guy gets mad is because the more the threads go on the more people realize is that he wants his favorite class to be something that it isnt.  the conversation devolves because Tankers feel like they are not needed when in fact no class is needed.  we can either accept that we love this game because of the freedom that allows us or complain because Tankers should be X when they are Y.  if this were any other game i would be joining with the OP in his fight for class balance and design but this is city of heroes where i can be a tank on any class and kill things the way i want to nobody has to be left out.  

Sentinels and Doninators also play very differently than each other, as do Doms and Controllers, Sentinels from scrappers, scrappers from stalkers and so on.

 

What is a problem is that tanks gameplay is not different than a brute.

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, William Valence said:

Just to make sure I can understand the rules you've got. I'm allowed to observe that brute can take the role of tanks, I'm allowed to observe that brutes and tankers have the same functional mitigation in league situations due to buff saturation, but I'm not allowed to propose a change that actually makes tankers more survivable in league situations but doesn't change their 1-50 power?

 

You can suggest all day.  I'm just stating what the suggestion is: an appeal to the perspective that Tankers are inferior to Brutes, a complex that isn't hindering either ATs from playing or enjoying the game and content and does nothing but gives said complex a pity rub of the shoulders.

[William Valence]

Well I'm glad I have your expertise to tell me what I'm doing when I make my suggestions. And here I thought I was attempting to address a situation where the inherent differences between AT's are being eliminated observably due to buff saturation.

 

Thankfully you're here to tell us that the games too easy to care if there's disparity between AT's.

[Leogunner]

14 minutes ago, William Valence said:

Thankfully you're here to tell us that the games too easy to care if there's disparity between AT's.

Don't forget about the criticism that the suggestion makes no perceivable difference to the majority of players.

[Galaxy Brain]

Nah it does make a difference. Given that you dont *need* any given ATs to play, the tanker feels a bit weird to play.

 

Other melee characters can be just about as safe especially when you factor in kill speed as a form of mitigation. The feeling of jumping in and wrecking face which enemy attacks bounce off you is fun! But if both ATs can do it, but one AT is able to bop foes left and right and make the fight easier faster the gap in defenses doesnt feel as meaningful. 

 

There isnt much different in the gameplay loop between a brute and tanker mechanically. A Scrapper at least can react around crits taking down certain mobs and keeps things fresh compared to a stalker who plans out crits. A brute just plays like a faster tank that can easily get as tough as one when in a team setting, with the benefit of being able to kill faster. If Tanks had some sort of thing they could do *significantly different* than brutes, they'd be in a similar state when looking at scrapper vs stalker. That's not to mention that scrapper and stalker sets are differently made, while the brute and tank sets are identical.