Addressing the Tanker Brute Connundrum.

[Zepp]

Let me be clear. I do not think Tankers need to be changed. I think they are sufficiently different from Brutes and actually more advantageous on a team. It would be difficult to run the numbers to check team efficacy, but in theory, their bruising and taunt mechanics are superior to what Brutes can offer a team, even if they approach the damage cap. That being said, I was suggesting minor, reasonable changes, that would minimize the effect outside of high-end team content, but make Tankers "feel" their contribution in a more visceral sense.

[Leogunner]

And as I stated before, I'm not trying to make tankers into Brutes or even compensate for some perceived inadequacy compared to other ATs. My angle, when making and playing melee characters is considering how the set differs because it's not uncommon to play the same set on a different AT and I do that often because of how differently they often play (MA Brute is different from MA scrapper, Kinetic on stalker is different from the others, spines offers unique advantages between the melee). 

 

The reason I focused on cones and AoE's is because some of those powers are underutilized or limited because of the ATs that use them. I think it would just be fun and I don't think it would suddenly rocket Tanker into top farm ranks besides niche builds like Fire melee. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Leogunner

[Zepp]

I think some MT attack changes would be interesting, and could give Tankers a bit of a different feel. They are among the most reasonable proposals made (although still difficult to implement). Many of the proposed changes would either be impossible to implement reasonably, or change game dynamics in a manner that would result in reverberatory balance issues that could result in weeks or months of realignment.

[Auroxis]

19 hours ago, Leogunner said:

 

But I still like to hear how players explain Bruising as a concept for the AT. Apparently you hit them soft enough that you don't break bones or maim but instead leave a nasty bruise? Not sure how that equates to a moderate amount of - res that all other melee are incapable of duplicating. But sure 😂 

Maybe it's like when a boxer only uses jabs to taunt his opponent, it bruises their ego and opens them up.

[Leogunner]

49 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Maybe it's like when a boxer only uses jabs to taunt his opponent, it bruises their ego and opens them up.

That could be an explanation, but any melee could conceptually do that and it relies on the incompetence of the foe rather than the aptitude of your character. You can say that a Stalker distracts foes to leave their vulnerabilities open... Or say your stalker is keen at spotting openings. 

[Auroxis]

1 minute ago, Leogunner said:

That could be an explanation, but any melee could conceptually do that and it relies on the incompetence of the foe rather than the aptitude of your character. You can say that a Stalker distracts foes to leave their vulnerabilities open... Or say your stalker is keen at spotting openings. 

Well the aptitude of the tanker is taunting, and good taunts bruise egos after all.

[Leogunner]

16 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Well the aptitude of the tanker is taunting, and good taunts bruise egos after all.

And inept insecure foes would be susceptible to that. If we were role-playing and you tell me your taunts bruise my ego, thus I am vulnerable, that's godmode'ing

Edited August 29, 2019 by Leogunner

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Zepp said:

Let me be clear. I do not think Tankers need to be changed. I think they are sufficiently different from Brutes and actually more advantageous on a team. It would be difficult to run the numbers to check team efficacy, but in theory, their bruising and taunt mechanics are superior to what Brutes can offer a team, even if they approach the damage cap. That being said, I was suggesting minor, reasonable changes, that would minimize the effect outside of high-end team content, but make Tankers "feel" their contribution in a more visceral sense.

Nerfing Brute resistance caps by 5-10% isn't reasonable or minor.

 

How would you then fix all the brutes built for max res that are now past a new imposed cap loaded with expensive set bonuses that now are meaningless?

 

How do you then fix those brutes utilizing incarnate system to cap resistance.  I pick resilient and then melee hybrid to get me to those caps.  At vet level 48 when you are T4 across the board, restarting at that point to fill the role in a more meaningful way than a power that's not past a cap that wasn't there before isn't efficient at all.

 

Raise the tank res cap to 95% for all I care but leave brutes alone.  There's nothing wrong with either AT.

 

Tinkering with res caps either way looks like a nightmare to roll out. Because too many build are built to a different standard with late game content that isn't easy to get or change once you get to a certain level.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Infinitum

[Auroxis]

20 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

And inept insecure foes would be susceptible to that. If we were role-playing and you tell me your taunts bruise my ego, thus I am vulnerable, that's godmode'ing

Obviously you'd have to pass a wisdom saving throw first. Insults in D&D are actually a thing.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

Just now, Auroxis said:

Obviously you'd have to pass a wisdom saving throw first. Insults in D&D are actually a thing.

Well I didn't realize Tankers were Bards...

 

...but seriously, you're getting into very specific character-centric super powers there.  Not every Tanker is a psionic or adept in psychological warfare that they can unsettle the hardiest and most powerful beings in the world.  Like, how much sense would it make that a Tanker can "bruise" the ego of Statesman or Lord Recluse (let alone being able to do so in an irresistible manner if we made Bruising to be unresistable).  

 

I'm not saying that Bruising or Gauntlet don't make sense or can't be explained on a per-character basis.  I'm arguing that it's a kludge.

[Auroxis]

50 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Well I didn't realize Tankers were Bards...

 

...but seriously, you're getting into very specific character-centric super powers there.  Not every Tanker is a psionic or adept in psychological warfare that they can unsettle the hardiest and most powerful beings in the world.  Like, how much sense would it make that a Tanker can "bruise" the ego of Statesman or Lord Recluse (let alone being able to do so in an irresistible manner if we made Bruising to be unresistable).  

 

I'm not saying that Bruising or Gauntlet don't make sense or can't be explained on a per-character basis.  I'm arguing that it's a kludge.

Well if that's a kludge then so is repeatedly convincing Statesman or Lord Recluse to only attack you instead of the squishy blaster that's giving them a hard time. It doesn't have to be completely realistic, it has to be plausible.

[Galaxy Brain]

The rp behind bruising is going sideways here. And if it's taunting, why not add bruising to all their taunt effects like I suggested?

 

If I had to boil down all the suggestions so far, I think that changing certain powers in Tanker sets would be the best bet, Blaster-Style.

 

Blasters uniformly had Sustain Powers added to their secondaries in a generally uniform manner. They generally come at lvl 20, are generally a toggle, but all grant some form of Regen or Absorb, and a hefty Recovery boost (or end discount for /nrg). So no matter the blaster, they all have the ability to pick up a sustain power that more or less helps them all equally.

 

Tankers already have Bruising on their T1 attacks that is not skip-able.  This applies a 20% res debuff on targets hit, and for all sets except TW this is also a ST application. This seems like an oversight, but maybe Bruising could be applied as a small AoE like with TW on all T1's? That would certainly help out in big-team scenarios. Alternatively, all T1 attacks could maybe have a small AoE damage component like Contamination / Baby Thunderstrike to help spread Bruises?

 

Speaking of wide spread, Tankers also all get an AoE Taunt in their secondaries. Being tanks, you could argue this is also a must-have for their game play. Why not add Bruising to this power as well? Tankers already will bruise small batches of targets with their T1 power, and with Taunt they could apply a much wider net for -Res on targets. This would stack with the T1 power of course, which by proxy will raise Tanker damage but also provide a very useful debuff for teams.

 

Currently, Bruising does not stack from multiple tankers. Earlier in the thread it was proposed to have some portion of bruising be stack-able while another portion is not. This could work well here if both were about the same in power:

Bruising: your T1 power and Taunt power apply -20% Res on targets. 10% is unresistible and unstack-able from any source (the same or other Tankers), while the other 10% is resistible and stack-able. 

 

Example:

A Tanker taunts a group (-20% res on them, unless they have resistance than 1/2 of that value is resisted), then starts pummeling individuals with their T1 power to apply further -Res. On punched targets, they would go from 20% -> 30% -Res on one hit, and the next will be -40%, and so on. 

 

With multiple Tankers in a group, this would constantly be stacked up as they fight and taunt, applying portions of -Res on top of one another to effectively increase not only their own damage, but the team's damage while also corralling enemies together.

 

 

 

On top of this, I think that alterations to actual powers in the secondaries could always be nice to stand out from other melees, especially Brutes who share all the same powers. Fire Melee already has an example where it has a PBAoE instead of a powerful ST attack that Brutes have, but tweaks here and there could always be welcome. One that I would like to see is that Primary sets get more examples like Grant Cover from shield, where tanker powers buff the team in a small way here or there. 

 

In any case, Tankers should be the melee AT that is the center of attention for both enemies and the team to focus on. They're the force of personality that should batter down the opposition and bolster their team's morale. Changes like these are already present in Tanks as of now, but are not really uniform or they could be exaggerated further.

 

Thoughts?

[Auroxis]

I think making it stackable from the same source is a bit much, but I would definitely like making it stackable from multiple casters.

 

As for giving more powers like grant cover, I think it would be a bit tricky to alter all the powersets like that. An easier implementation is one I suggested before, an inherent team (but not self) auto aura that buffs the damage of nearby allies.

[Galaxy Brain]

54 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I think making it stackable from the same source is a bit much, but I would definitely like making it stackable from multiple casters.

 

As for giving more powers like grant cover, I think it would be a bit tricky to alter all the powersets like that. An easier implementation is one I suggested before, an inherent team (but not self) auto aura that buffs the damage of nearby allies.

I would still like something for T1 + Taunt at least while solo... not sure what's the best ratio for that though. Even something like you can stack T1 + Taunt, but you cannot keep stacking beyond that would be nice?

 

A passive damage boost would be nice, but that could also be part of the primary changes. Maybe one offensive and one defensive team boost per set? Like in Shield you already have Grant Cover, but then you also have Phalanx Fighting which could give +damage to the team near you.

 

Invuln could give maybe defense and tohit

 

Dark could increase damage and resist

 

Etc

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Galaxy Brain

[Leogunner]

48 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Well if that's a kludge then so is repeatedly convincing Statesman or Lord Recluse to only attack you instead of the squishy blaster that's giving them a hard time. It doesn't have to be completely realistic, it has to be plausible.

It is a kludge. 

 

That is what I built the premise of my suggestion on to help that kludge make more sense. 

[Megajoule]

The role of the Tanker is one of the bits of "the Trinity" (which was extant/the rule in MMO design back in the early 00s) that was changed the least in its implementation in CoX, and thus it shows its age and flaws more than most.  Unfortunately, as this thread shows, I'm not sure it can really be fixed without making it superfluous, redundant and/or unrecognizable.

[Galaxy Brain]

9 minutes ago, Megajoule said:

The role of the Tanker is one of the bits of "the Trinity" (which was extant/the rule in MMO design back in the early 00s) that was changed the least in its implementation in CoX, and thus it shows its age and flaws more than most.  Unfortunately, as this thread shows, I'm not sure it can really be fixed without making it superfluous, redundant and/or unrecognizable.

 

The role is still viable, but the game is not designed for it and thats where connundrum happens. Crowd Control AT's (Doms/Trollers), high damage mitigation from support stacking, and a direct competitor from Brutes all encroach on the "Tank" role but that does not mean Tankers can't still stand out 🙂

[Megajoule]

The essential role of the Tanker in the Trinity is a taunt-bot, a giant block of armor and meat that absorbs all attacks for the group while the healer(s) keep pouring water on it to put the fires out. Only the DPS players get to do something different, and that's if their optimal rotation can't be reduced to a macro.

 

It boggles me sometimes that anyone thought this gameplay was fun. Maybe it wasn't, and everyone just accepted it as the way things were and/or what you had to endure to get the shinies.  I'm glad CoX broke with so much of the conventional wisdom of the time - consider defenders, in contrast to "healers" - but I'm also aware that a lot of that is because they didn't really know what they were doing and were mostly "winging it".  It's sadly ironic that we now have to deal with one of the few places they got it "right" according to the state of the art in 2000-2005.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Megajoule

[Profit]

2 minutes ago, Megajoule said:

The essential role of the Tanker in the Trinity is a taunt-bot, a giant block of armor and meat that absorbs all attacks for the group while the healer(s) keep pouring water on it to put the fires out. Only the DPS players get to do something different, and that's if their optimal rotation can't be reduced to a macro.

 

It boggles me sometimes that anyone thought this gameplay was fun. Maybe it wasn't, and everyone just accepted it as the way things were and/or what you had to endure to get the shinies.  I'm glad CoX broke with so much of the conventional wisdom of the time - consider defenders, in contrast to "healers" - but I'm also aware that a lot of that is because they didn't really know what they were doing and "winging it".  It's sadly ironic that we now have to deal with one of the few places they got it "right" according to the state of the art in 2000-2005.

I'm sad that you are unable to see the battlefield control strategies a tanker can employ and believe all the work is being done by taunt. This gameplay is fun for me, and it doesn't make it wrong because you don't find it fun. It sounds like you don't really have a dog in this fight and would be happier playing a brute. As the OP asked for absolutely nothing to change on the brute AT then why bother posting in the thread? If there changse advocated for to the brute AT then yes I could see wanting to get your opinion in here, but there weren't.

[Megajoule]

*shrug*

What I'm saying, or trying to, is that IMO the Trinity is broken and unfun, we're all better off without it, and the Tanker is one of the unfortunate relics of it that we're all trying to find a way to live with, 20 years later.

 

I mean, it's un-comics! I'm sure you can find characters who are durable but not able to deal damage in equal measure, but IMO they are very much the exception. The comic archetype is the Brick (or Brute), who can dish it out as well as standing there and taking it.  The ambulatory meatshield with tiny T. rex arms is a game artifact that I can trace directly to the text MUDs that were the evolutionary predecessors of the first MMOs.

 

For what it's worth, I do have skin on this game (so to speak). Two of the live characters I've recreated here are Tankers (one Inv/SS, one Stone/Stone). My love of their concepts has been enough to carry me through despite all the issues with their powers and gameplay, as discussed in this and other threads. Can they be salvaged, improved, made more fun to play, without fundamentally altering them or eliminating their role? Has it already been eliminated by changes in the meta, and we're only now catching up and realizing it? I don't know.

[Profit]

Broken and unfun are opinions and not reasons to have things changed because not everyone shares your oninion.

 

The trinity tanker doesn't survive in this game play. But I contend that our tankers do not play like trinity tankers. As I also played on muds etc I completely understand what your getting at but I do believe your premise is flawed. We have a different breed of tanker here and you are focused only on the taunt aspect of their gameplay. And to verify, again from the original post, Tankers and Brutes are completely balanced when only SOs are taken into account. It is IO incarnate gameplay where we have a conundrum, and any changes that are suggested or considered should not change the balance at SO level in any appreciable level. To many suggestions in this thread do not consider the SO power level balance field.

 

I still contend you would probably be much happier taking your tanks and rerolling them as brutes instead of trying to change the tanker AT so you are happier with it.

[Leogunner]

Just now, Profit said:

Broken and unfun are opinions and not reasons to have things changed because not everyone shares your oninion.

 

Well, that entirely depends on what changes you're talking about.  I think you're right, there aren't any tangible reasons to change anything at all and if a conundrum is present, a measure of what harm the problem causes to the game's balance is required to move forward (hint: that Tankers aren't golden children of the ATs doesn't harm anything).

 

Just now, Profit said:

And to verify, again from the original post, Tankers and Brutes are completely balanced when only SOs are taken into account. It is IO incarnate gameplay where we have a conundrum, and any changes that are suggested or considered should not change the balance at SO level in any appreciable level. To many suggestions in this thread do not consider the SO power level balance field.

 

You might want to take into consideration that some view Tankers as "team players" and on many teams, there are buffs thrown around and when you got a Kinetic Corr capping that damage and a Controller bubbling everyone to round out their defense...basically, people have issues with caps and caps are reachable without IOs too.  Not my argument, but it's something people have concerns with.

Just now, Profit said:

I still contend you would probably be much happier taking your tanks and rerolling them as brutes instead of trying to change the tanker AT so you are happier with it.

 

Also, not sure why you keep saying that.  Some people like playing various ATs too just so that they can see what they are about or genuinely created the character concept for them.  Just because they have an opinion that doesn't line up with you doesn't mean they need to delete their characters or drop them.  If you want to be a gatekeeper to the AT, that's fine.  I'll just make a note to remind you that you're gatekeeping.   

Edited August 29, 2019 by Leogunner

[Profit]

As I made the OP I am aware. I have at times even made the argument that tankers and brutes are flip sides of the same coinc with one being a team tank (tankers) and one being a selfish tank (brutes).

 

Perhaps at this point, 17 pages in, everyone should go back and reread the OP because I noticed at page 14 most people seem to be arriving at variations or exact copies of the changes I suggested on page 1.

[Jeuraud]

3 hours ago, Profit said:

As the OP asked for absolutely nothing to change on the brute AT then why bother posting in the thread?

Because the Conundrum is no more a Tank/Brute issue than it was a Tank/Scrapper issue.

 

The Conundrum is that the CoH Tank is not a Trinity Tank

 

not because it cant do this

3 hours ago, Profit said:

I'm sad that you are unable to see the battlefield control strategies a tanker can employ and believe all the work is being done by taunt.

because it can, but because the rest of the CoH ATs do not need the CoH Tank to do this, unlike the Trinity MMOs.

 

You are trying to get the feel of a Trinity Tank in a non-Trinity MMO, and your change will no more give you that than Gauntlet and Bruising did. The only way to give you the feel of a Trinity Tank in CoH is to turn CoH into a Trinity MMO, and that is the dog I have in this fight. I don't see it likely happening, especially in CoHH, but if I don't state that I want nothing to do with a CoH Trinity, then I have no one to blame but myself if somehow it happened.

 

I'm all for tweaking the Tank to make it more fun or interesting to play.

 

[Profit]

13 minutes ago, Jeuraud said:

Because the Conundrum is no more a Tank/Brute issue than it was a Tank/Scrapper issue.

 

The Conundrum is that the CoH Tank is not a Trinity Tank

 

not because it cant do this

because it can, but because the rest of the CoH ATs do not need the CoH Tank to do this, unlike the Trinity MMOs.

 

You are trying to get the feel of a Trinity Tank in a non-Trinity MMO, and your change will no more give you that than Gauntlet and Bruising did. The only way to give you the feel of a Trinity Tank in CoH is to turn CoH into a Trinity MMO, and that is the dog I have in this fight. I don't see it likely happening, especially in CoHH, but if I don't state that I want nothing to do with a CoH Trinity, then I have no one to blame but myself if somehow it happened.

 

I'm all for tweaking the Tank to make it more fun or interesting to play.

 

Just FYI, the only mmo I've ever played  (re more than a day or two after COH shut down) was COH. I played exactly one mud. So The only real reference I have for tanking honestly is here because I was a striker in the mud I was in. I am not trying to get the feel of a trinity tank in this environment despite what you think you read into my words. The conundrum here is that once IOs and incarnates are involved the clear choice is to take a brute over a tank every time. This is an effort to make changes that will effect the IO level of power without effecting the SO level of power because at that level brutes and tanks are balanced together and there is a choice to be made at SO level. And furthermore, I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I am not trying to turn COH into a classic Trinity MMO. I am simply trying to make the decision between brute and tanks at IO levels a hard one instead of a no brainer. So no, you do not have a dog in this fight.