Addressing the Tanker Brute Connundrum.

[Leogunner]

On 8/8/2019 at 8:24 AM, Auroxis said:

 

On 8/8/2019 at 8:24 AM, Auroxis said:

 

-res debuffs aren't a problem with your suggestion, the problem with your suggestion is neglecting the support aspect of Tanker (which it clearly has, as evidenced by better debuff numbers and Bruising) and making it more like a Brute by making specific radius/range/arc (not sweeping like damage scale) changes to 20-40 AoE powers.

I asked you which debuffs you are talking about and you mentioned one. I didn't see any other AoE powers with debuffs that would cause a problem with my suggestion. I didn't neglect the support aspect, in fact I *acknowledged* the support aspect as a feature of my suggestion and how it can appeal to that part of Tanker. 

 

Unfortunately, you have dismissed that part and focus on the damage. I'll put it in perspective for you: my suggestion does BOTH! It increases damage And support. But apparently, if it touches damage at all, that's making it a Brute in your perspective, which is unfortunate.

On 8/8/2019 at 8:24 AM, Auroxis said:

Powers are already inconsistent in what? damage/debuff scale? that's the easiest thing to adjust since it's global to the class. The snipe change isn't changing each power individiaully, it's a sweeping change to the mechanic of snipes and their damage scale mechanic as a whole.

In a lot of ways. There are powers with differing debuff numbers, with varying damage components, with varying ranges and interactions with other powers. I've given examples. So stop pretending I am pulling statements out of thin air. 

 

The snipe parts is an example of a power that is dynamically varying on the buffs you have and what buffs the damage of it. 

 

The rest of your post is basically suggesting other stuff. That's fine, I can respond to it at some point. 

[Auroxis]

27 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I asked you which debuffs you are talking about and you mentioned one. I didn't see any other AoE powers with debuffs that would cause a problem with my suggestion. I didn't neglect the support aspect, in fact I *acknowledged* the support aspect as a feature of my suggestion and how it can appeal to that part of Tanker. 

 

Unfortunately, you have dismissed that part and focus on the damage. I'll put it in perspective for you: my suggestion does BOTH! It increases damage And support. But apparently, if it touches damage at all, that's making it a Brute in your perspective, which is unfortunate.

I definitely didn't dismiss that part:

 

On 8/7/2019 at 5:52 PM, Auroxis said:

Giving Tankers more AoE radius/range/target cap does way more for their damage than it does for their debuffs, it definitely encroaches on Brutes territory.

 

As for this:

 

Quote

In a lot of ways. There are powers with differing debuff numbers, with varying damage components, with varying ranges and interactions with other powers. I've given examples. So stop pretending I am pulling statements out of thin air. 

 

The snipe parts is an example of a power that is dynamically varying on the buffs you have and what buffs the damage of it. 

 

The rest of your post is basically suggesting other stuff. That's fine, I can respond to it at some point. 

Of course there are differing versions of powers, but what you're asking isn't just a simple sweeping change like a damage modifier. Adjusting radius/arc/range for 20-40 powers individually takes a lot more time than tweaking a damage modifier for a powerset.

 

I don't know about you, but I factor ease of implementation into my suggestions as well. If a suggestion is difficult to implement (like the snipe change), it had better be worth it. And in my opinion your solution is not only difficult to implement when compared with other ideas suggested in this thread, it also wastes the design space of the AT and makes it more like a Brute instead of expanding on the Tanker's offensive support aspect, which it currently exhibits in its slightly higher debuff numbers and Bruising.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

Making Tanker more of a DPS class doesn't make it more unique, it does the opposite. If your suggestion relies on certain AoE's being extremely weak then the AoE's should be fixed on all classes.

No, it doesn't make it the opposite. Not does it make it DPS. And it doesn't rely on certain AoE's being extremely weak. If you continue with this perspective, you're relying on arguments that take your opponent out of context and misrepresents them. 

 

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

I already made my suggestion.

Link the post, pls. 

 

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

Just because I point you out doesn't mean others are free from moderation. Toxicity is never a valid response

 

I'm not here to silence you or be offended. I'm here to have a discussion free of toxicity that could derail it and turn it into an insult-slinging waste of time that you as a Dev wouldn't want to read through.

It just means you're being dishonest and leave your observation wide open to criticism. 

[Auroxis]

4 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

No, it doesn't make it the opposite. Not does it make it DPS. And it doesn't rely on certain AoE's being extremely weak. If you continue with this perspective, you're relying on arguments that take your opponent out of context and misrepresents them. 

I didn't say it does the opposite, but that it does way more for damage than it does for debuffs.

 

4 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

Link the post, pls. 

 

4 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

It just means you're being dishonest and leave your observation wide open to criticism. 

No it doesn't, it means I want the conversation to stay on point rather than degrading to personal insults that waste everyone's time.

[Leogunner]

27 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I definitely didn't dismiss that part:

Then you're dismissing the points and presenting others out of context dishonestly.  If you acknowledge that it will increase the support, then don't present the suggestion as "Brute-ifying" the AT when doing such would likely be a straight offensive buff.  If your issue is with how much damage it adds, then say THAT.  Anything else and you're wasting my time getting me to repeat myself.

 

30 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Of course there are differing versions of powers, but what you're asking isn't just a simple sweeping change like a damage modifier. Adjusting radius/arc/range for 20-40 powers individually takes a lot more time than tweaking a damage modifier for a powerset.

 

I don't know about you, but I factor ease of implementation into my suggestions as well. If a suggestion is difficult to implement (like the snipe change), it had better be worth it. And in my opinion your solution is not only difficult to implement when compared with other ideas suggested in this thread, it also wastes the design space of the AT and makes it more like a Brute instead of expanding on the Tanker's offensive support aspect, which it currently exhibits in its slightly higher debuff numbers and Bruising.

OMG.

 

I KNOW THAT!

 

I know it's not an individual change to some powers modifier.  Regardless, it's still isolated to *only* changing the numbers of those powers.  That is a lot less work than making a new mechanic or rebalancing other ATs and mobs in relation to the entire game.  If you'd stop pretending I've got ulterior motives, maybe you'd know this.  Like I said repeatedly, I want Tanker to be more fun and unique.  I also would like to use some of the underused cones and help out the Tanker at the same time.  I feel my suggestion can facilitate all of these.

 

Your arguments are basically to pull certain points out of context, falsely represent them and then dismiss my rebuttals as toxic.  If that's how it's going to be, then so be it.  I'll just have to keep putting you in your place.

[Auroxis]

Just now, Leogunner said:

Then you're dismissing the points and presenting others out of context dishonestly.  If you acknowledge that it will increase the support, then don't present the suggestion as "Brute-ifying" the AT when doing such would likely be a straight offensive buff.  If your issue is with how much damage it adds, then say THAT.  Anything else and you're wasting my time getting me to repeat myself.

The issue is touching the damage in the first place when you have more appropriate ways to address the problem.

 

Just now, Leogunner said:

 

OMG.

 

I KNOW THAT!

 

I know it's not an individual change to some powers modifier.  Regardless, it's still isolated to *only* changing the numbers of those powers.  That is a lot less work than making a new mechanic or rebalancing other ATs and mobs in relation to the entire game.  If you'd stop pretending I've got ulterior motives, maybe you'd know this.  Like I said repeatedly, I want Tanker to be more fun and unique.  I also would like to use some of the underused cones and help out the Tanker at the same time.  I feel my suggestion can facilitate all of these.

It's not "only changing numbers".

 

Each AoE power is different, you have to choose which change to apply between radius/range/arc. And then test those changes, for 20-40 different powers.

Just now, Leogunner said:

Your arguments are basically to pull certain points out of context, falsely represent them and then dismiss my rebuttals as toxic.  If that's how it's going to be, then so be it.  I'll just have to keep putting you in your place.

I don't see how that's the case at all, I'm just trying to keep the conversation clean from personal attacks and insults. I hope you understand that I have nothing personal against you, this is just to help keep this topic afloat instead of letting it devolve into circular arguments and toxicity that waste everyone's time, including yours.

[Leogunner]

28 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

I didn't say it does the opposite, but that it does way more for damage than it does for debuffs.

 

 

No it doesn't, it means I want the conversation to stay on point rather than degrading to personal insults that waste everyone's time.

I was replying to your opinion that my suggestion makes Tankers less unique.  You literally said it would make the AT less unique and I responded with my opinion.  Like I mentioned before, if I enjoy cone powers and lining up mobs or using PBAoEs to spread CC, debuffs and controls (because on a Tanker, they're pretty much tickling the mobs with these anyway...even on offensive ATs, it's only doing moderately decent damage to minion types) and Tanker just so happened to be the AT that excels at that, that would be one reason to pick it over other ATs.  It also comes with the added SUPPORTIVE advantage of taunting things quicker, so if that Brute flies in and uses their PBAoE and taunts 6 mobs (because their PBAoE is capped at 10 and they couldn't manage to get all the mobs within it when used), the Tanker can follow and use their PBAoE and taunt 11, hitting 5 guys the Brute didn't even taunt at all.

 

It also has the handy mirror effect of Scrapper v Stalker.  Overall, their damage is close but Scrappers is better...until ST is focused on and some Stalkers quickly and unequivocally pull ahead of a similar set Scrapper.  Plug in Brute v Tanker and exchange ST for AoE and that's a hypothetical I'm trying to explore here.

 

As for pointing out personal insults, I see it's fine if you or someone else does it, but if someone you disagree with does it, that is an arguing point against them.  

 

Look here.  You are out of your bounds trying to police me.  Just leave it alone, okay?

[Leogunner]

39 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

 

 

I did read this and it doesn't so much have a suggestion as it does give someone else a spring board to make a suggestion related to your observations.  It's kind of brainstorming but still several steps away from an actual concrete idea.  Nothing wrong with that.

 

I actually used that (and others that made similar observations) springboard in another thread suggesting to change tier 9s.  While others were talking about removing the crashes or changing them to fill powerset holes, I suggested weakening the effects of the crashing tier9s (I used 33% strength as a starting point) and convert the rest into a team support/buff.  This could be something to do for only armor tier 9s in the primary set (so Tankers only) but that still requires some other points to implement to be concerned with, such as altering the powers to be PBAoEs, rebalancing sets to take the new effect into consideration, power FX and UI changes to make them customizable, etc.

[Auroxis]

Just now, Leogunner said:

I was replying to your opinion that my suggestion makes Tankers less unique.  You literally said it would make the AT less unique and I responded with my opinion.  Like I mentioned before, if I enjoy cone powers and lining up mobs or using PBAoEs to spread CC, debuffs and controls (because on a Tanker, they're pretty much tickling the mobs with these anyway...even on offensive ATs, it's only doing moderately decent damage to minion types) and Tanker just so happened to be the AT that excels at that, that would be one reason to pick it over other ATs.

If you enjoy dealing damage with tight cones, there's no reason to pick a tanker if those cones just take less skill to use. Why not use those cone skills of yours on a class that can make better use of them with higher damage scales?

 

If you want better debuffs on targets, I'm all on board but there are better ways to address it like changing Bruising to be AoE like has been suggested in this thread by others.

 

Just now, Leogunner said:

 It also comes with the added SUPPORTIVE advantage of taunting things quicker, so if that Brute flies in and uses their PBAoE and taunts 6 mobs (because their PBAoE is capped at 10 and they couldn't manage to get all the mobs within it when used), the Tanker can follow and use their PBAoE and taunt 11, hitting 5 guys the Brute didn't even taunt at all.

If you want better taunts, then I disagree with tankers needing that in the first place. Brutes want aggro even more than Tankers thanks to Fury, and tankers have no problem retaining aggro against other classes unless it's an AV fight (in which case you have the Taunt power itself).

 

 

Just now, Leogunner said:

 

It also has the handy mirror effect of Scrapper v Stalker.  Overall, their damage is close but Scrappers is better...until ST is focused on and some Stalkers quickly and unequivocally pull ahead of a similar set Scrapper.  Plug in Brute v Tanker and exchange ST for AoE and that's a hypothetical I'm trying to explore here.

Scrappers and Stalkers are supposed to have the same role of melee DPS, Brutes and Tankers are different in that Tankers were never supposed to be a damage-centric class but rather focused more on supporting your team. The problem is that with current end-game scaling, there is only so much a tanky character can do to support. Nowadays you need stuff like debuffs in order to be a reliable support character for multiple scenarios, which is where Bruising and my suggestion of improving on that aspect comes in.

Just now, Leogunner said:

As for pointing out personal insults, I see it's fine if you or someone else does it, but if someone you disagree with does it, that is an arguing point against them.  

 

Look here.  You are out of your bounds trying to police me.  Just leave it alone, okay?

Again, just because I point you out doesn't mean others are fine to do it. If you insult me, do you expect me to just take it or politely ask you to stop?

[Auroxis]

5 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I did read this and it doesn't so much have a suggestion as it does give someone else a spring board to make a suggestion related to your observations.  It's kind of brainstorming but still several steps away from an actual concrete idea.  Nothing wrong with that.

It leaves a lot of room for ideas, I just felt it necessary to explain why I feel that's the best approach and some pointers on how to approach it. I did offer a more concrete example in another thread a while ago:

 

 

[Leogunner]

14 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

The issue is touching the damage in the first place when you have more appropriate ways to address the problem.

That's an alright opinion to have.  Just have the self awareness to know not everyone will agree with your opinion.

 

Others are suggesting unresistable -res in Bruising.  I disagreed that it would change anything except in niche scenarios when facing mobs that resist debuffs.  I also disagree it would make me want to play Tankers anymore than now.  But that's just my opinion.  

17 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

It's not "only changing numbers".

 

Each AoE power is different, you have to choose which change to apply between radius/range/arc. And then test those changes, for 20-40 different powers.

I don't see how that's the case at all, I'm just trying to keep the conversation clean from personal attacks and insults. I hope you understand that I have nothing personal against you, this is just to help keep this topic afloat instead of letting it devolve into circular arguments and toxicity that waste everyone's time, including yours.

Each AoE power has a defined range, max number of targets it affects, effects numbers with attributes that allow or disallow to be affected by enhancements or buffs, etc.  These are *NUMBERS* and flags.  It's different with a power that is a ST or AoE and you're reverting it into the other as they don't have the built in attributes with appropriate numbers to change.  But I'm not advocating for ST attacks to be changed into AoEs, I'm suggesting the number already associated with its range to be changed for Tanker powers.  Yes, it will have to be done on an individual powers basis.  No, you're not going to railroad me into an argument of "Oh, the TESTING is going to be TOOO extensive!  It's WAY too much work!"  I never argued about playtesting.  So don't care.  Standard Code Rant works both ways.  I don't know how much testing it will be so I'm not touching it.

[Auroxis]

Just now, Leogunner said:

That's an alright opinion to have.  Just have the self awareness to know not everyone will agree with your opinion.

 

Others are suggesting unresistable -res in Bruising.  I disagreed that it would change anything except in niche scenarios when facing mobs that resist debuffs.  I also disagree it would make me want to play Tankers anymore than now.  But that's just my opinion.  

There are lots of ways to change Bruising. Making it apply to all your attacks, buffing the numbers, making it stack from multiple casters (pretty sure it doesn't), and more.

 

Just now, Leogunner said:

Each AoE power has a defined range, max number of targets it affects, effects numbers with attributes that allow or disallow to be affected by enhancements or buffs, etc.  These are *NUMBERS* and flags.  It's different with a power that is a ST or AoE and you're reverting it into the other as they don't have the built in attributes with appropriate numbers to change.  But I'm not advocating for ST attacks to be changed into AoEs, I'm suggesting the number already associated with its range to be changed for Tanker powers.  Yes, it will have to be done on an individual powers basis.  No, you're not going to railroad me into an argument of "Oh, the TESTING is going to be TOOO extensive!  It's WAY too much work!"  I never argued about playtesting.  So don't care.  Standard Code Rant works both ways.  I don't know how much testing it will be so I'm not touching it.

That's fine, I'm just giving my opinion and you've given yours. Let's leave this to the devs to figure out.

[Leogunner]

4 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

If you enjoy dealing damage with tight cones, there's no reason to pick a tanker if those cones just take less skill to use. Why not use those cone skills of yours on a class that can make better use of them with higher damage scales?

"If you enjoy [having the situation Brutes have in relation to Tankers], there's no reason to pick Tanker if [you think Brutes have as much survival/support] just [do more damage]."

 

I'm fine with you not liking my suggestion.  But don't pretend like that beats it or my argument.  If you're going to gatekeep changes to Tanker to your personal perspective, there's nothing stopping a Tanker purist from gatekeeping any changes you might think is necessary (and their arguments exist in this thread too).

 

9 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Scrappers and Stalkers are supposed to have the same role of melee DPS, Brutes and Tankers are different in that Tankers were never supposed to be a damage-centric class but rather focused more on supporting your team. The problem is that with current end-game scaling, there is only so much a tanky character can do to support. Nowadays you need stuff like debuffs in order to be a reliable support character for multiple scenarios, which is where Bruising and my suggestion of improving on that aspect comes in.

Again, just because I point you out doesn't mean others are fine to do it. If you insult me, do you expect me to just take it or politely ask you to stop?

I see a blindspot in your argument.

 

But anyways, I haven't insulted you, you just take frank disagreement as insults.  It's a difference of opinion. 

 

I'll advise you again, drop your tone policing.  I'm only saying so to preserve your state of mind.  I don't really give a ****, tbh.  It just makes you sound less dignified when you misrepresent a simple comment as an insult.

[Auroxis]

2 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

"If you enjoy [having the situation Brutes have in relation to Tankers], there's no reason to pick Tanker if [you think Brutes have as much survival/support] just [do more damage]."

That's not what I was talking about at all. If you care about cone positioning, there are better classes to make use of your preference even after your suggested changes. So this is only if you want to be tankier than a Brute and want your cones to hit more targets while still dealing less damage, which in my eyes isn't very appealing as well as neglecting the support aspect of the class.

 

2 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

I'm fine with you not liking my suggestion.  But don't pretend like that beats it or my argument.  If you're going to gatekeep changes to Tanker to your personal perspective, there's nothing stopping a Tanker purist from gatekeeping any changes you might think is necessary (and their arguments exist in this thread too).

The only one who can gatekeep are the devs, I never implied to be gatekeeping nor have I ever tried to moderate your arguments aside from when you're using an insulting tone.

 

2 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I see a blindspot in your argument.

 

But anyways, I haven't insulted you, you just take frank disagreement as insults.  It's a difference of opinion. 

 

I'll advise you again, drop your tone policing.  I'm only saying so to preserve your state of mind.  I don't really give a ****, tbh.  It just makes you sound less dignified when you misrepresent a simple comment as an insult.

When you use an aggressive and insulting tone against someone, you don't get to decide for them how they should take it. Posts like these can be seen as offensive so do take it into consideration in the future:

 

On 8/8/2019 at 12:47 AM, Leogunner said:

I do believe I've handily dealt with both you and Auroxis.  Not to sound egotistical, but I feel my idea is just better than yours' lol

 

Not because I'm better or anything, just that you haven't really posted much of an idea at all.

On 8/8/2019 at 2:06 PM, Leogunner said:

I have been dismissive though, probably because your opinions suck and so do your ideas.

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

I'll just have to keep putting you in your place.

 

[Leogunner]

1 minute ago, Auroxis said:

That's not what I was talking about at all. If you care about cone positioning, there are better classes to make use of your preference even after your suggested changes. So this is only if you want to be tankier than a Brute and want your cones to hit more targets while still dealing less damage, which in my eyes isn't very appealing as well as neglecting the support aspect of the class.

Again, I hope you have enough self awareness to understand that your opinion is personal.

 

I know plenty of players that just enjoy hitting lots of things (they tend to play Dominators).  I've read posts of players that just like the effects and animations.

 

The thing is, I'm not making the suggestion on the grounds you're trying to represent it as.  It's for those who already aren't laser focused on meta and may be more interested in diversity or alternative tactics.  Besides, you're flip-flopping between "too much damage/Brute-like" to "it's not going to be interesting/noticable and there are better, easier solutions".  For the latter side, Great!  go make those suggestions.  For the former, you'd have to prove it.

8 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

The only one who can gatekeep are the devs, I never implied to be gatekeeping nor have I ever tried to moderate your arguments aside from when you're using an insulting tone.

I know this, which is why I'm baffled why you think you know if a damage buff to Tankers is on or off he table.

 

9 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

When you use an aggressive and insulting tone against someone, you don't get to decide for them how they should take it. Posts like these can be seen as offensive so do take it into consideration in the future:

While those can be seen as aggressive, brash or egocentric, they still aren't "personal insult", which is what you've accused me of (I've not targeted anything at anyone's person, just criticized their ideas).  I don't believe being rude is as bad as lying.

[Auroxis]

13 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Again, I hope you have enough self awareness to understand that your opinion is personal.

 

I know plenty of players that just enjoy hitting lots of things (they tend to play Dominators).  I've read posts of players that just like the effects and animations.

 

The thing is, I'm not making the suggestion on the grounds you're trying to represent it as.  It's for those who already aren't laser focused on meta and may be more interested in diversity or alternative tactics.  Besides, you're flip-flopping between "too much damage/Brute-like" to "it's not going to be interesting/noticable and there are better, easier solutions".  For the latter side, Great!  go make those suggestions.  For the former, you'd have to prove it.

I know this, which is why I'm baffled why you think you know if a damage buff to Tankers is on or off he table.

I did use "in my eyes", this is all my opinion and I'm trying to persuade you using the logic that led to said opinion. If it still doesn't persuade you, and we've reached the point of repeating the same arguments, then it's time to stop and let others take the stage.

 

Quote

 

While those can be seen as aggressive, brash or egocentric, they still aren't "personal insult", which is what you've accused me of (I've not targeted anything at anyone's person, just criticized their ideas).  I don't believe being rude is as bad as lying.

Often insults don't appear that way for the speaker, being insulting isn't just about trying to insult someone but rather consequently doing so even without intent. It's not on you to decide whether someone should feel attacked or insulted. I'd like to point out again before you further insinuate that I'm some kind of liar, that calling someone's ideas bad and their opinions stupid, saying you "handily beat them" in an argument, and claiming that you'll "put them in their place again", isn't really critique as much as it's insulting their intelligence.

 

I hope you take that to heart and apply it in the future, there's not much else I can add.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

2 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

Often insults don't appear that way from the speaker, being insulting isn't just about trying to insult someone but rather consequently doing so even without intent. It's not on you to decide whether someone should feel attacked or insulted. I'd like to point out again before you further insinuate that I'm some kind of liar, that calling someone's ideas bad and their opinions stupid, and claiming that you'll "put them in their place again", isn't really critique as much as it's insulting their intelligence.

 

I hope you take that to heart and apply it in the future, there's not much else I can add.

I never suggested I should decide whether someone should or shouldn't feel attacked, so you can stop repeating that.

 

I didn't call anyone a liar, I described the act of lying which is intentionally misrepresenting someone.  If you're assuming I'm calling you a liar, maybe you should address the points that I said you're misrepresenting me, such as insinuating I've personally insulted someone.  Or do we need to define what a personal insult is?

 

Also, I never said the word stupid.  I said "sucks".  Stupid has far different connotations that can allude to someone's intelligence or mental deficiencies.  Saying someone's ideas suck means they are bad or not well thought out.  

[Auroxis]

3 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I never suggested I should decide whether someone should or shouldn't feel attacked, so you can stop repeating that.

 

You did:

 

50 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

But anyways, I haven't insulted you, you just take frank disagreement as insults.  It's a difference of opinion. 

 

If someone takes your words as insulting, you don't go "that's your opinion". You say "didn't mean to sound disrespectful" and possibly try to correct yourself in the future.

 

3 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Also, I never said the word stupid.  I said "sucks".  Stupid has far different connotations that can allude to someone's intelligence or mental deficiencies.  Saying someone's ideas suck means they are bad or not well thought out.  

 

I'll accept that correction, though I guess "your idea is stupid" and "your idea sucks" isn't that different for me.

 

3 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I didn't call anyone a liar, I described the act of lying which is intentionally misrepresenting someone.  If you're assuming I'm calling you a liar, maybe you should address the points that I said you're misrepresenting me, such as insinuating I've personally insulted someone.  Or do we need to define what a personal insult is?

I did just describe that your posts came off as insulting, didn't say they're "personal insults" but that's just semantics at this point.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

On 7/13/2019 at 1:25 PM, Xaeon said:

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).

Going back over this thread this caught my eye. No J.E. did not ever say that a fully decked out character should be challenged by 2 minions and an Lt. He said that for characters such as scrappers should be challenged by such numbers upon creation. Basically the in the box low lvl side kick era scrapper should be needing a knee after taking on a couple slammers and a mildly harder hitting gunner. Something that if you do much street sweeping on a busy day will notice a great many do meet that criteria.

 

Even in year one there were scrappers at cap soloing some of the rougher AVs of that era.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

On 7/14/2019 at 9:59 AM, Zolgar said:

 

Infact, quite the opposite. End game, a tank pulling the agro off a brute constantly is often going to hinder the brute and possible prove a detriment to the teams overall efficiency.

 

Let's say I'm running a rad/bio Brute. I am an AoE death and debuff machine. I am agro-capped and surrounded by foes, not only are they improving my survival, but I am I am debuffing their damage, damage resist, defense, etc. just by them being next to me, to say nothing of my damage output..

 

Tank pulls them all off of me. Enemies are now stronger, taking less damage, and my survival capabilities have been lowered.

The thing you missed is that is by design. All red side ATs were built with a more solo centric approach to play in mind. MM are better solo tankers, brutes are better solo scrappers, stalkers more soloable alpha strikers then blasters etc.

 

Villain AT actually are by design meant to feel chafed and annoyed by allies. Working together on TFs like LGTF and ITF were meant to feel more like argh I hate working with you inferior people but need is greater then want in this event.

 

Sure with going rogue things changed in how we can play them, but from an RP perspective the old villain ATs still represent a certain psychology that is not meant to play nice with others.

[Llewellyn Blackwell]

Ok I just got done re reading this entire thread. at first I was trying to tackle individual responses again but crikey!

 

So a whole lote of things are being thrown back and forth to use as why or why nots.

 

Fun Factor in 2 halves. The fun to play because?, and the fun is because of? One being called the game play loop which is not inaccurate. For those who tend to prefer playing more on auto pilot after long days and are mentally out of it, they want to usually keep active play pretty simple but feel very powerful. For those who tend to play very actively and focus, or try hard as some put it they want game play that keeps them engaged, and feeling like their given choice or action matters. These two types of gamers are basically incongruous. The laid back one might not mind some one doing all the heavy lifting but will likely also feel useless so keenly they see themselves as a piker and some may not want that or fear getting a reputation as a piker. While the very active gamer may well notice those not doing enough by their standard and become annoyed by them.

 

Virtually any change for one type of the aboves preference will piss off the other. Any thing added that makes tankers need to be more active will offend those that like the chill charge in grab aggro and let the party do the heavy lifting, and those that want something done but on a passive not really change game play approach will just infuriate all those that want to play a tank in a more active role.

 

Then we have the normal every day game play, the lvling game play, and the capped uber team game play camps . And they cant seem to see past their chosen hill they want to plant a flag on.

 

For example I see some posts saying things like well when groups of mobs die in 2 seconds what good is thise change or that change? Well when your talking about teams of basically completed super decked out characters your talking about a point where game play is purely for farming, helping others, for fun by playing a finished toon. When the blaster can be soloing the entire thing every one else is indeed basically redundant. You dont balance the game or make changes based on this far end of the spectrum.

 

So lets look ath the leveling up game play the one where changes really matter, and to most causal team centric MMO gamers is the real game.  While leveling up, most are not using sets, let alone attuned IO sets like myself.  I can solo TFs with leveling toons because that is how I slot. I basically am experiencing the feel most wait til 50 for from about lvl 17 on. Its those on common DO/SO builds or just using common IO that really tend to need the group to cover weaknesses and speed up killing, I lead TFs all the time in the mid lvl range, and take whoever wants to join. While sometimes Ill get a handful of those like myself and we just can each grab paths and solo maps etc, most who join even capped toons who didnt build with exemping in mind are not burning down hordes so fast as to render some of the decent mild suggestions here moot.

 

If your counter to an idea is well the mobs wont last long enough for it to matter, then why are you even here? Your regular play style basically is just rat pack blind mob rage mentality. Which is fine, When in a group of pure A gamers that is really the only option. Or play content that actually pushes that group to its limits. But expecting such a group of FINISHED characters to be challenged by much is silly.

 

Every AT is optional, if you like how a tank plays its the AT for you if not no biggy play something else. You know there are players who only play a single AT right?  and even if this was a trinity MMO, Tanks would be right up there with pure healers as the least played  arch types.  Just about every MMO ever mades metrics that have been made public show only a very small % of players ever touch non DPS classes. like in such vastly reduced numbers many MMO have had to throw out the trinity just to avoid the domino effect of not enough of this type of player leads to others logging off.

[GM Capocollo]

Both of you are dancing dangerously close to the line here.  This thread isn't the place to hash out your personal philosophies about the meaning of civility and the value of tone policing.

[Myrmidon]

4 hours ago, Bentley Berkeley said:

Ok I just got done re reading this entire thread. at first I was trying to tackle individual responses again but crikey!

 

So a whole lote of things are being thrown back and forth to use as why or why nots.

 

Fun Factor in 2 halves. The fun to play because?, and the fun is because of? One being called the game play loop which is not inaccurate. For those who tend to prefer playing more on auto pilot after long days and are mentally out of it, they want to usually keep active play pretty simple but feel very powerful. For those who tend to play very actively and focus, or try hard as some put it they want game play that keeps them engaged, and feeling like their given choice or action matters. These two types of gamers are basically incongruous. The laid back one might not mind some one doing all the heavy lifting but will likely also feel useless so keenly they see themselves as a piker and some may not want that or fear getting a reputation as a piker. While the very active gamer may well notice those not doing enough by their standard and become annoyed by them.

 

Virtually any change for one type of the aboves preference will piss off the other. Any thing added that makes tankers need to be more active will offend those that like the chill charge in grab aggro and let the party do the heavy lifting, and those that want something done but on a passive not really change game play approach will just infuriate all those that want to play a tank in a more active role.

 

Then we have the normal every day game play, the lvling game play, and the capped uber team game play camps . And they cant seem to see past their chosen hill they want to plant a flag on.

 

For example I see some posts saying things like well when groups of mobs die in 2 seconds what good is thise change or that change? Well when your talking about teams of basically completed super decked out characters your talking about a point where game play is purely for farming, helping others, for fun by playing a finished toon. When the blaster can be soloing the entire thing every one else is indeed basically redundant. You dont balance the game or make changes based on this far end of the spectrum.

 

So lets look ath the leveling up game play the one where changes really matter, and to most causal team centric MMO gamers is the real game.  While leveling up, most are not using sets, let alone attuned IO sets like myself.  I can solo TFs with leveling toons because that is how I slot. I basically am experiencing the feel most wait til 50 for from about lvl 17 on. Its those on common DO/SO builds or just using common IO that really tend to need the group to cover weaknesses and speed up killing, I lead TFs all the time in the mid lvl range, and take whoever wants to join. While sometimes Ill get a handful of those like myself and we just can each grab paths and solo maps etc, most who join even capped toons who didnt build with exemping in mind are not burning down hordes so fast as to render some of the decent mild suggestions here moot.

 

If your counter to an idea is well the mobs wont last long enough for it to matter, then why are you even here? Your regular play style basically is just rat pack blind mob rage mentality. Which is fine, When in a group of pure A gamers that is really the only option. Or play content that actually pushes that group to its limits. But expecting such a group of FINISHED characters to be challenged by much is silly.

 

Every AT is optional, if you like how a tank plays its the AT for you if not no biggy play something else. You know there are players who only play a single AT right?  and even if this was a trinity MMO, Tanks would be right up there with pure healers as the least played  arch types.  Just about every MMO ever mades metrics that have been made public show only a very small % of players ever touch non DPS classes. like in such vastly reduced numbers many MMO have had to throw out the trinity just to avoid the domino effect of not enough of this type of player leads to others logging off.

+1 (only because I can’t give more) for using “Crikey” in a sentence.

[Kimuji]

22 hours ago, Auroxis said:

It leaves a lot of room for ideas, I just felt it necessary to explain why I feel that's the best approach and some pointers on how to approach it. I did offer a more concrete example in another thread a while ago:

 

 

I like this. It's in the same vein as my team (but not self) def/res buff as teammates' health goes down suggestion.

[Vanden]

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. 

Edited August 10, 2019 by Vanden