Addressing the Tanker Brute Connundrum.

[Kimuji]

I'd rather have something that makes the Tanker's active Taunt (I mean the Taunt power) override other taunt/threat sources from other ATs (so everything except other Tankers) than removing the per hit taunt ability from Brutes.

Nerfing Brutes is asking for problems and ruinning legit builds. We can give Tankers an edge without breaking other ATs. Just read the previous post, 2 good suggestions there.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Kimuji

[Vanden]

2 hours ago, Kimuji said:

I'd rather have something that makes the Tanker's active Taunt (I mean the Taunt power) override other taunt/threat sources from other ATs (so everything except other Tankers) than removing the per hit taunt ability from Brutes.

All that would do is make the Tanker feel better about themself because the enemies are attacking the Tanker and not the Brute. It wouldn’t change the fact the the Brute could hold the aggro just as well if the Tanker wasn’t there.

 

It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but if we’re serious about “addressing the Tanker/Brute conundrum” we have to at least consider the idea. We can’t just buff everything all the time, that can only lead to power creep.

[Kimuji]

17 minutes ago, Vanden said:

All that would do is make the Tanker feel better about themself because the enemies are attacking the Tanker and not the Brute. It wouldn’t change the fact the the Brute could hold the aggro just as well if the Tanker wasn’t there.

 

It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but if we’re serious about “addressing the Tanker/Brute conundrum” we have to at least consider the idea. We can’t just buff everything all the time, that can only lead to power creep.

To be honest isn't that whole thread about making Tankers feel better about themself? Because Tankers are still perfectly able to fill their role and can still provide significant help to a team. They don't need any overhaul or buff for that. I've got several Tankers and I'm having a blast playing them.
 

Brutes were designed like (offense oriented) tanks from the start. They've always been tanks we're not going to take that from them now. Nerfing Brutes is just as bas as giving Tankers a damage boost. It would basically turn them into high Hit Points Scappers without a critical hit chance, that's terrible. There are reasonable suggestions on this thread that won't lead to power creep. They would still be less than a drop in the ocean compared to incarnate powers and IOs.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Kimuji

[Vanden]

23 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

Brutes were designed like (offense oriented) tanks from the start. They've always been tanks we're not going to take that from them now. Nerfing Brutes is just as bas as giving Tankers a damage boost. It would basically turn them into high Hit Points Scappers without a critical hit chance, that's terrible. There are reasonable suggestions on this thread that won't lead to power creep. They would still be less than a drop in the ocean compared to incarnate powers and IOs.

Brutes were designed as tanks because they had to be at first, since there were no Tankers for villains to team with. Now the ATs are completely side-agnostic, and they really should be reexamined.

 

Nerfing Brutes' auto-taunt is not as bad as giving Tankers a damage boost, because the former makes the ATs more distinct, while the latter makes them more alike. The only difference between Brutes' and Tankers aggro generation is that on single-target attacks, the Tanker can taunt enemies around the target too. Not even the taunt values are different, and since 90% of the enemies that will be affected by this AoE taunt are going to be in range of the player character's taunt aura anyway, it's almost no difference at all. Nerfing or removing the taunt effect from Brutes' attacks would make the difference in aggro generation between the two ATs actually meaningful in practice.

[Kimuji]

20 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Brutes were designed as tanks because they had to be at first, since there were no Tankers for villains to team with. Now the ATs are completely side-agnostic, and they really should be reexamined.

If we're going that way we have to rebalance the entire game because Brutes and Tankers are not the only ATs affected by this, all ATs are. 🙄
 

Quote

Nerfing Brutes' auto-taunt is not as bad as giving Tankers a damage boost, because the former makes the ATs more distinct, while the latter makes them more alike. The only difference between Brutes' and Tankers aggro generation is that on single-target attacks, the Tanker can taunt enemies around the target too. Not even the taunt values are different, and since 90% of the enemies that will be affected by this AoE taunt are going to be in range of the player character's taunt aura anyway, it's almost no difference at all. Nerfing or removing the taunt effect from Brutes' attacks would make the difference in aggro generation between the two ATs actually meaningful in practice.

Like I said you don't make Tankers better by making Brutes less appealing that's a terrible idea. We're not going to change ATs roles. Tank is one of the Brutes attributes if you remove it from them they lose their purpose as an AT. Seriously there are a lot of suggestions on this thread that don't require nerfing other ATs, it's not like destroying Brutes special spot in the game is the only option...

"All that would do is make the Tanker feel better about themself", these are your own words and yet this is exactly what you're recommending. Making Tankers feel better about themselves as the only tanks in the game by removing tanking tools from other ATs...

Edited August 10, 2019 by Kimuji

[Vanden]

8 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

If we're going that way we have to rebalance the entire game because Brutes and Tankers are not the only ATs affected by this, all ATs are. 🙄

No AT pairing is affected to the degree that Tankers and Brutes are. Defenders and Corruptors, for example: Corruptors' secondary powers are only about 75% as effective as the Defender versions. Tankers and Brutes, on the other hand, there's virtually no discernible difference in their ability to control aggro.

 

10 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

"All that would do is make the Tanker feel better about themself", these are your own words and yet this is exactly what you're recommending. Making Tankers feel better about themselves by removing tanking tools from other ATs. 

Not at all. Making Brutes less able to control aggro has a real, tangible effect on the value of a Tanker in a team, because now they're the only AT that can perform at that level. There's nothing psychosomatic about it.

[Kimuji]

You're turning Brutes into Scrappers that's what it is. And Scappers don't need another variation, we have Stalkers for that. You are just about making Tankers the only tanks in the game. That's very "make the Tanker feel better about themself" to me, so no it's not psychosomatic indeed it's the futile satisfcation of being the only AT to properly fill that role.

I'm a Tanker player, I have twice as many Tankers as I have Brutes. I like tanking so much that most of my Brutes end up being built like I would build a Tanker. I like that we've got different options regarding that role, you're just asking to remove diversity and flavors to the game.

[Vanden]

10 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

You're turning Brutes into Scrappers that's what it is. And Scappers don't need another variation, we have Stalkers for that. You are just about making Tankers the only tanks in the game. That's very "make the Tanker feel better about themself" to me, so no it's not psychosomatic indeed it's the futile satisfcation of being the only AT to properly fill that role.

I think you've jumped to conclusions about what exactly the changes I'd make would be. I wouldn't remove all taunt abilities from the Brute; the T1 and T2 primary powers would keep the single target taunts if it were up to me. The Taunt power itself would be unchanged. That's still a good amount of aggro management tools, the Brute just wouldn't be able to stand in a mob with a taunt aura running and throw out an AoE to grab all the aggro without even trying any more.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Vanden

[Kimuji]

I didn't jump to conclusions you only mentioned T1 and T2 keeping the taunt now. Though it is barely better if you're still removing it from aoes.

On the contrary the fact that you are rejecting all other options shows that I put the finger on right spot. You're more interested in nerfing Brutes into mediocre tanks (barely better then Scrappers in that role: they have a single target Taunt power and a taunt aura) than finding ways to make Tankers more appealing. Nerfing Brutes tanking abilities will not make Tankers more played.

And given how many times I've seen arguements about Defenders vs Corruptors vs Controllers vs MMs, Sentinel vs Blasters, Dominators vs Controllers I maintain that making ATs side-agnostic had an effect that goes way beyond than just Brutes and Tankers.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Kimuji

[Vanden]

10 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

I didn't jump to conclusions you only mentioned T1 and T2 keeping the taunt now. Though it is barely better if you're still removing it from aoes.

On the contrary the fact that you are rejecting all other options shows that I put the finger on right spot. You're more interested in nerfing Brutes into mediocre tanks (barely better then Scrappers in that role: they have a single target Taunt power and a taunt aura) than finding ways to make Tankers more appealing. Nerfing Brutes tanking abilities will not make Tankers more played.

I didn't mention T1 and T2 powers because we weren't talking about specific implementations of the idea until you said I wanted to turn Brutes into Scrappers; until then it was a more abstract discussion of the idea. And I haven't rejected any other ideas, I'm just arguing the merits of this one, because like I said, if we're serious about addressing the Tanker/Brute issue, it needs to be discussed. Brutes should be worse at grabbing aggro than Tankers, tanking is the whole point of the Tanker AT. Better than Scrappers but worse than Tankers at holding aggro is exactly the place a hybrid class like Brute should be, and it's definitely not where it is.

19 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

And given how many times I've seen arguements about Defenders vs Corruptors vs Controllers vs MMs, Sentinel vs Blasters, Dominators vs Controllers I maintain that making ATs side-agnostic had an effect that goes way beyond than just Brutes and Tankers.

Those arguments can be settled, because at the end of the day, all those ATs are noticeably better at something than the ATs they're being compared to.

[Leogunner]

59 minutes ago, Vanden said:

I think you've jumped to conclusions about what exactly the changes I'd make would be. I wouldn't remove all taunt abilities from the Brute; the T1 and T2 primary powers would keep the single target taunts if it were up to me. The Taunt power itself would be unchanged. That's still a good amount of aggro management tools, the Brute just wouldn't be able to stand in a mob with a taunt aura running and throw out an AoE to grab all the aggro without even trying any more.

Frankly, unless you remove all aggro holding capabilities from Brute, it likely wouldn't make a difference.  There are even Scrappers you can manage to rip aggro off of a Tanker with the proper auras alone.

 

Even if you were right, and the Brute couldn't just grab all the aggro in the span of jump in with aura + 1 AoE, they would still likely grab it with the 2nd AoE.  It'd likely be the difference of allowing the Tanker to "manage" the aggro for a couple extra seconds.  I don't feel that is a good trade off (lowering effectiveness of an off-tank that might have to be main tank in some groups) just so Tankers get their few seconds of fame.

 

But then I'm of the opinion that the job of aggro management isn't so glorifying when you've got multiple ATs with AoE soft and hard controls that neutralize aggro completely...other ATs have tools and roles to neutralize alpha strikes and maintain/manage aggro too.  If that's all Tanker has to hold onto, doesn't it feel like charity that the controller or dominator (or heck, even blaster) allow you to feel like you've maintained the aggro?  Why not look for means to synergize with groups rather than have the group conform to Tanker?

[Vanden]

26 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

Even if you were right, and the Brute couldn't just grab all the aggro in the span of jump in with aura + 1 AoE, they would still likely grab it with the 2nd AoE.  It'd likely be the difference of allowing the Tanker to "manage" the aggro for a couple extra seconds.  I don't feel that is a good trade off (lowering effectiveness of an off-tank that might have to be main tank in some groups) just so Tankers get their few seconds of fame.

Like I said, it's not about making the Tankers feel good about themselves. It's about what they bring to the team. If you invite a Tanker to your team, you know pretty much every enemy near that Tanker is going to be attacking them and not you. If you invite a Brute to your team, you know pretty much every enemy near that Brute is going to be attacking them and not you AND they'll also contribute a lot of DPS to the team. It's not a "More of A, Less of B" situation like it is with other similar ATs, it's more like "More of A, exactly as much B."

[Leogunner]

10 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Like I said, it's not about making the Tankers feel good about themselves. It's about what they bring to the team. If you invite a Tanker to your team, you know pretty much every enemy near that Tanker is going to be attacking them and not you. If you invite a Brute to your team, you know pretty much every enemy near that Brute is going to be attacking them and not you AND they'll also contribute a lot of DPS to the team. It's not a "More of A, Less of B" situation like it is with other similar ATs, it's more like "More of A, exactly as much B."

But B isn't needed in much doses anyway so why does it matter?

[Vanden]

4 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

But B isn't needed in much doses anyway so why does it matter?

It's what the Tanker AT is built to do, so unless we're gonna completely rework Tankers into something unrecognizable another AT shouldn't be able to do it exactly as well while also being better at damage.

[Myrmidon]

6 hours ago, Vanden said:

I’m just gonna be that guy: we should maybe consider removing or reducing the single-target taunt from Brute attacks. I think that’s the number one thing that makes Brutes step on Tankers’ toes in a team setting. Brutes would still have their high threat modifier and Taunt over Confront in their primaries, so they wouldn’t become completely useless for holding aggro, and Fury could be tweaked to build better when enemies aren’t attacking the Brute. I know this wouldn’t be popular, but I do think it would work. 

Although my first impulse is “Go Away!”, I’m willing to take a look at this idea.

[Leogunner]

50 minutes ago, Vanden said:

It's what the Tanker AT is built to do, so unless we're gonna completely rework Tankers into something unrecognizable another AT shouldn't be able to do it exactly as well while also being better at damage.

I had a whole other response questioning your post but I deleted it as really just continues a circular pattern of logic.

 

I'll just say it feels wrong making sweeping generalizations on "what the AT is built to do" when it's mainly the powers that do that.  When I play my Tankers, I'm not a babysitter pretending to support the team by being the "shield" for everyone.  I'm more like the leader directing the charge in place of the others who might be waiting on someone else to charge in first.  Anything else, in my book, is personal preference and current circumstances.  

 

I'm willing to consider taunt changes to both Tankers and Brutes if presented...but I disapprove of this notion of Vet Tankers holding the AT hostage with their personal agendas as leverage for what is and isn't Tanker.  I also think it's mean-spirited to aim that leverage for nerfs to another AT unless there's some consensus that said AT is overpowered and needs to be rebalanced.

[Vanden]

7 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I'll just say it feels wrong making sweeping generalizations on "what the AT is built to do" when it's mainly the powers that do that.

Maybe, but aggroing enemies is literally the entire purpose of the Tanker inherent (regardless of how that's actually implemented mechanically). There's a strong case for it. And there wouldn't be a Tanker/Brute conundrum if the only thing Brutes had was the potential to reach Tanker levels of survivability; Brutes' ability to grab and hold aggro just as well as a Tanker is an essential ingredient for that contentious soup.

[Kimuji]

1 hour ago, Vanden said:

It's what the Tanker AT is built to do, so unless we're gonna completely rework Tankers into something unrecognizable another AT shouldn't be able to do it exactly as well while also being better at damage.

Brutes have always been able to do it almost as well as Tankers, the only difference between Tankers and Brutes regarding aggro management since day one is Gauntlet, that's all. Brutes were noticeably squishier than Tankers, and they still are at early and mid game. What changed everything is the IO system. This is the culprit not the taunt capablities of Brutes, it's the stupid amount of bonuses you can squeeze out the IO system. So because IOs are broken we're gonna break some ATs in order to fix it? No it's just adding one more entry to the list of broken things in the game.

And this just for what? For a few players who can't suffer the presence of other competent tanks outiside their own Tanker. Just like Defenders have to deal with the existence of Corruptors, Tankers have to tolerate the presence of Brutes on a similar role.

No there is no big difference between the Tanker/Brute "connundrum" and the Defender/Corruptor situation, yes Defenders have higher bonuses but does it matter that much when you reach end game when everybody has accumulated tons of + def/res/recovery/recharge bonuses through IOs? No it doesn't, Defenders buffs/debuffs/heals become overkill just like the Tankers defenses become overkill and  allows Brutes to catch up. Just like Tankers Defender have a clear edge until end game. Same story.

You're just limiting players options. And it's not going to make Tankers more appealing, because let's not kid ourselves for a lot of people the main reason to make a Tanker is to feel immortal not to be the team protector the AT is supposed to be. Tanking is a playstyle, I've seen Brutes actually trying to protect the team and some Tankers not giving a shit when a purple boss start murdering the back liners. And I'm ready to bet that a lot of these Brutes players are also Tankers players. Even when tanking is your thing you can appreciate a bit a variety, that's what Brutes and Tankers are for. I as for one appreciate to be able to stop rerolling Tankers again and again and still do some good taking with another AT.

Again there are many suggestions on this thread let's not lie and pretend that altering the purpose of Brutes by making them barely better than Scrappers for aggro management beats them all...

Edited August 10, 2019 by Kimuji

[Leogunner]

1 minute ago, Vanden said:

Maybe, but aggroing enemies is literally the entire purpose of the Tanker inherent (regardless of how that's actually implemented mechanically). There's a strong case for it. And there wouldn't be a Tanker/Brute conundrum if the only thing Brutes had was the potential to reach Tanker levels of survivability; Brutes' ability to grab and hold aggro just as well as a Tanker is an essential ingredient for that contentious soup.

Like I said before, if only moderate non-specialized amounts of aggro management is necessary (people often get by quite swimmingly without a Tanker OR a Brute), it's like grasping at the fact Tankers could grab entire maps of mobs at one point in the game therefore that is the totality of their existence.  I just don't see it that way.  If all you're going to add to a team is being the aggro grabbing guy, you probably should just get a Dominator unless its an AV.

 

That aside, if your whole issue is that Brutes hold aggro AGAINST a Tanker (because if you've got a problem with sole-Brute holding aggro, I've got many other arguments to leverage against you) well, why not just focus on the hate algorithm?  I'm not sure exactly what or where this is centralized in the system but apparently every action has an affect on aggro compounded by modifiers that lower/increase aggro generation.  Again, if Brutes seemingly grab aggro so well, why not just drastically decrease how much damage applied affects aggro generation as a whole?  Then you'd get situations where debuffs, heals and controls draw lots of attention (more than damage) and taunt would be actually necessary.

 

That being said, you'd end up with situations where you put both these "aggro management" ATs (Tanker and Brute) in direct competition with their actual rivals for aggro management: control specialists.  Suddenly, those AoE slow patches, AoE immobs and knockbacks/downs might rip aggro off those melees.

[Vanden]

18 minutes ago, Kimuji said:

And this just for what? For a few players who can't suffer the presence of other competent tanks outiside their own Tanker. Just like Defenders have to deal with the existence of Corruptors, Tankers have to tolerate the presence of Brutes on a similar role.

Corruptors are not as good at buffing/debuffing as Defenders, and Defenders are not as good at dealing damage as Corruptors. That's a fact, and you can't close that gap with IOs. However, you can close the survivability gap between Tankers and Brutes with IOs, and when you do, you have two ATs of identical survivability with indistinguishable aggro generation abilities, but one does much more damage. That's not the same situation Defenders and Corruptors are in.

 

23 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Like I said before, if only moderate non-specialized amounts of aggro management is necessary (people often get by quite swimmingly without a Tanker OR a Brute), it's like grasping at the fact Tankers could grab entire maps of mobs at one point in the game therefore that is the totality of their existence.  I just don't see it that way.  If all you're going to add to a team is being the aggro grabbing guy, you probably should just get a Dominator unless its an AV.

This is really downplaying the value of having someone on the team to take alphas and hold aggro. It is incredibly useful. Dominators can't do that nearly as reliably as a Brute or Tanker can.

 

25 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

That aside, if your whole issue is that Brutes hold aggro AGAINST a Tanker (because if you've got a problem with sole-Brute holding aggro, I've got many other arguments to leverage against you) well, why not just focus on the hate algorithm?  I'm not sure exactly what or where this is centralized in the system but apparently every action has an affect on aggro compounded by modifiers that lower/increase aggro generation.  Again, if Brutes seemingly grab aggro so well, why not just drastically decrease how much damage applied affects aggro generation as a whole?  Then you'd get situations where debuffs, heals and controls draw lots of attention (more than damage) and taunt would be actually necessary. 

 

That being said, you'd end up with situations where you put both these "aggro management" ATs (Tanker and Brute) in direct competition with their actual rivals for aggro management: control specialists.  Suddenly, those AoE slow patches, AoE immobs and knockbacks/downs might rip aggro off those melees.

Well you kind of answered your own question here. Modifying the powers of one AT is also much less work and much less likely to have collateral effects that ripple through the whole game.

[Kimuji]

2 hours ago, Vanden said:

Corruptors are not as good at buffing/debuffing as Defenders, and Defenders are not as good at dealing damage as Corruptors. That's a fact, and you can't close that gap with IOs. However, you can close the survivability gap between Tankers and Brutes with IOs, and when you do, you have two ATs of identical survivability with indistinguishable aggro generation abilities, but one does much more damage. That's not the same situation Defenders and Corruptors are in.

You are not reading, I explained why the buffing/debuffing deference between Defenders and Corruptors doesn't matter once everyone is fully slotted with IOs. I didn't say it doesn't exist, I said it doesn't matter once we reach the end game. Just like the difference between Tankers and Brutes regarding defenses doesn't really matter in practice once you're fully geared. And just like Tankers, Defenders can't use IOs to match the damage output of a Corruptor. So yes the Defender/Corruptor and Tankers/Brutes situations are very similar.

At this point I suspect that the reason why some Tankers players are more frustrated than Defenders players is that buff/heals/debuffs can be stacked while aggro can't be shared. You've got the aggro or somebody else has it but you can't both have it. It means that in a team Tankers compete with other Tankers, it's not simply an issue with Brutes. Hell even Brutes compete for aggro between themselves. While support ATs don't compete with one another, they work together.
It's not entirely true though, tanks can cooperate, but in many cases one will absolutely want to be the MAIN tank. It's just that when a Tanker and a Brute are in the same team some Tankers will feel like they're more legitimate than the Brute... Which is more an ego issue than anything else.

But now if we're talking of situations when as a Tanker player I felt useless, it rarely involves another Tanker or a Brute being in the team. On this I agree with Leogunner, when a team has enough CC and massive DPS you will feel completely useless both as a Tanker AND as a Brute. Yes even Brutes will feel useless if mobs are permanently kept under control by Domi/Trollers and nuked from afar in mere seconds by Blasters and Corruptors.

Edited August 11, 2019 by Kimuji

[Leogunner]

3 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Corruptors are not as good at buffing/debuffing as Defenders, and Defenders are not as good at dealing damage as Corruptors. That's a fact, and you can't close that gap with IOs. However, you can close the survivability gap between Tankers and Brutes with IOs, and when you do, you have two ATs of identical survivability with indistinguishable aggro generation abilities, but one does much more damage. That's not the same situation Defenders and Corruptors are in.

Well, there are sets that don't have as hard a focus on buffing/debuffing and deal control or damage as a means of support.  I believe there are sets considered better suited to one vs the other...there's also a larger gap between the levels of support that support sets offer so the amount of buff/debuff to offer is more dependant on the powers, not just the AT.

 

6 minutes ago, Vanden said:

This is really downplaying the value of having someone on the team to take alphas and hold aggro. It is incredibly useful. Dominators can't do that nearly as reliably as a Brute or Tanker can.

I'm pretty sure there's a Dom out there that would tell you to hold their beer.

 

7 minutes ago, Vanden said:

Well you kind of answered your own question here. Modifying the powers of one AT is also much less work and much less likely to have collateral effects that ripple through the whole game.

But modifying the powers of said AT isn't necessary (you haven't proven that) so it's a wash.  I was at least trying to appeal to an idea that's not singularly focused on nerfing a particular thing for no reason while also trying to give some peeps a springboard for other ideas that might make taunt actually useful.  You say I'm downplaying aggro management via taunt; as it exists in game, I disagree.  It's nice to have but about as reliable as -rech vs a hold.

 

Also also, sorry if it seems I'm ganging up on you.  I just happen to be board BBQing with nothing to do but read the forums on my phone.

[JPax]

Given that the Tanker is designed to be the Spear of the team, bonuses that help the team along are a great idea as such:

 

- Bruising on every attack is a fantastic idea, so long as it applies to taunt auras too and taunts itself.

 

- Flanking bonus. If a team mate attacks, controls or debuffs a target affected by bruising it does additional flat damage that responds to +dam buffs.

 

Doesn't directly buff the tanker, but adds progression in a team setting.

Edited August 11, 2019 by JPax

[ZeeHero]

Tanker damage is already less than half of brute damage which is ridiculous and unbalanced. nobody is asking for tankers to do the same damage, but if they dont do more damage than they currently do then it remains that tankers are balanced poorly and are un fun to play outside group settings. an important consideration of MMO design is solability, yes. becuase nobody is going to team 100% of the time, at least for sure not most people. My experience in FFXIV has taught me that tanks can hit hard and still be balanced with the dps. a tank in that game hits about half as hard as an equally well geared and played dps and it makes being a tank fun, becuase you're not a glorified meat shield, you can hurt things. Pretending tanks dont need to do damage is just as ridiculous as pretending support dont. Damage is THE MOST BASIC element of all gameplay in an mmo and thus is everybodies job. the people specialized for it more so than others.

 

Tankers have the same resist cap as brutes and only roughly 300 more HP yet brutes do double the damage if not more. this is NOT balanced nor can it be claimed to be close. Lower brute resist cap to 80% or fix tanker damage. only 2 options which address the issue.

Edited August 11, 2019 by ZeeHero

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

Blimey. Alright ok what about this, give tanker an inherent power like vengeance and rush of victory at half power but also increases in effect based on team size like the inherent of defenders. So when solo it boosts them off kills and gives more dmg, and when on teams it grants less dmg but also has a team to buff up.

 

I imagine at least in theory something like this could be done with the games limits. It should make solo play of a tanker abit more fun, and when on teams allow them to offer something unique beyond just being a meat shield and also connects to the idea of tankers as inherent leaders by being akin to the ultimate powers of the leadership pool.