Addressing the Tanker Brute Connundrum.

[Auroxis]

9 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Those are what the AT has, not what it's trying to accomplish. It's not accomplishing Bruising or Gauntlet, it's trying to grab attention and hit the mob in the face. 

 

How is applying the effects of your secondary (for example, - dmg from Kinetic melee Burst or - ToHit from Shadow Maul) or applying taunt via these skills not support? And how is hitting your AoEs reliably being "more like a Brute"? 

The tools given to the AT have a direct correlation between what the devs were trying to accomplish with said AT.

 

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. By the way Tankers also have better debuff numbers, further insinuating their intended support role.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Auroxis

[Cutter]

Specifically looking at the "keep mob attention" aspect, I wonder (certainly don't know!) if there's room to tweak the aggro/threat code to make it harder to peel mobs off the tanker?

 

Something like "If a mob is under a taunt/gauntlet effect, any attacks against that mob that do not have a built-in taunt/gauntlet/brutevoke component add to the tanker's threat rather than the attacker's threat". Make it effectively impossible for another non-taunting AT to steal aggro.

[Voldine]

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

What about Bruising then? What about staying alive? What about Gauntlet?

 

You shouldn't ignore the design space of a class when performing balance changes. Tankers are clearly more oriented towards support than Brutes, judging by their inherent bonuses. If even someone as experienced as you only sees them as a "getting mob attention and hitting stuff in the face" class, clearly the changes should be about accentuating the class's support aspect rather than trying to make it more like a Brute?

Okay, So I took a minute to peruse a few numbers here.

 

Damage

Maximum

Maximum total Damage for players depends on Archetype and (usually) level.

Archetype	Maximum Damage
Brute	775%
Blaster, Corruptor, Scrapper, Stalker	210% at level 1 500% at level 21+
all others	200% at level 1 400% at level 21+

Notes:

1. Attacks do 100% damage to start with (i.e. base, or 1x normal), not 0%. The amount of Damage bonus needed to reach the cap is 100% less than the cap itself.
2. Enhancements count as damage buffs. If a character has +95% in damage enhancements, then, considering point number one, the character has 195% total damage buff.
3. The Brute damage cap is set significantly higher than the other Archetypes to accommodate the mechanics of the Fury inherent power, which functions by applying a Damage buff that scales proportionally with the Brute's Fury level.

I ported this over from good old ParagonWiki for the sake of absolute clarity. Here we can see that archetypes whose primary purpose is dealing damage have higher maximum damage buff numbers, with their primary purpose being defined by the function of their primary powerset.

 

A Brute has VASTLY increased damage buff potential over every other archetype in the game because of Fury and how it functions. I would hazard a guess of the top of my head that a Brute at max fury still has, say, 400% damage buff left to burn, ASSUMING THEY HAVE 0 DAMAGE ENHANCEMENTS SLOTTED. Base damage is 100%, and enhancements (plus alpha slot) can get you somewhere around another 115% (but what Tanker is going to slot their Alpha for damage?) so anything that doesn't have 'Deal Damage' as their Primary Powerset's function (Masterminds don't count, and tend not to directly attack with primary powers anyways aside from Beast, Demon, and maybe Necro) has already passed the halfway point on their buffed damage potential.

 

Knowing this, I decided to check on another bit of relevant data, damage scale values. https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Damage#Damage_Scale Now, according to this chart, Tankers ACTUALLY have a slightly higher BASE damage value than Brutes do, likely due to how fury functions and the fact that a brute is likely to never actually unleash an attack at 0% fury, due to enemy attacks causing fury to increase. It is simple to then come to the conclusion that the ONLY reason Brutes deal more damage than Tankers is the higher buff cap.

 

Since Tankers share the same maximum buffed damage value as every other 'primary powerset is not damage' archetype (plus Masterminds) it's easy to see that the damage scalar is the sole source of a deficiency in damage, but their damage scalar is higher than Brute baseline. Looking at these numbers and combining them with the maximum damage buff values from earlier, we can see that the Brute design space was clearly intended to be 'baseline moderate damage, but awesome when buffed to the sky' whereas Tanker design intent was strictly 'moderate damage' with the damage scalar on tanker attacks corresponding well to their '7' score in melee damage capacity.

 

Therefore, my proposal for any kind of buff/change to tankers would be to expand bruising to two other single-target attacks per powerset and make only half of it able to be resisted, but non-stacking from the same TANKER and maxing out at 30% -res (three tankers worth of unresistable 10% debuff). This way there would be a small benefit in having more than one tanker on a team, but not enough of one to be unbalancing when you factor in that having two debuffers on a team is going to probably offer more than that to more than one target at a time. (For sake of comparison, Venom Grenade offers a -20% res debuff to everything it hits, doubled for Toxic damage)

 

In other words: Baby steps, and realize that Tankers are most likely in a fine position at the moment. Stone Armor, on the other hand...

Edited August 7, 2019 by Voldine

[Leogunner]

1 hour ago, Auroxis said:

The tools given to the AT have a direct correlation between what the devs were trying to accomplish with said AT.

 

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. By the way Tankers also have better debuff numbers, further insinuating their intended support role.

Well we are certainly talking about the tools, but I've been broadening the discussion to what the AT's goals and actions are so as to present more possibilities with regards to tools suggested.

 

And yeah, giving more area and higher target caps does do more for their damage...which is lower than Brute.  Brute doesn't have a monopoly on territory with regards to damage.  The only way you encroach on Brutes is if they perform the same task in the same way.  So long as you don't give Tankers Fury, crits, containment, scourge, etc or something similar AND you don't make ATs obsolete, no encroachment will occur...and you tell me who else gets inherently better coverage AoEs compared to its counterparts.

 

Also, just checked:

Brute.KineticMelee_Burst (-12.75% damage debuff)

Tanker.KineticMelee_Burst (-14% damage debuff)

 

Brute.DarkMelee_ShadowMaul (-5.625% ToHit debuff)

Tanker.DarkMelee_ShadowMaul (-5.25% ToHit debuff)

 

Can we get a clarification on the better debuff numbers? I'm not sure if its just the City of Data site was always wrong or if the mods for buffs and debuffs are independent (with drawing numbers from a non-centralized "buff/debuff" modifier).

 

[Auroxis]

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

Well we are certainly talking about the tools, but I've been broadening the discussion to what the AT's goals and actions are so as to present more possibilities with regards to tools suggested.

 

And yeah, giving more area and higher target caps does do more for their damage...which is lower than Brute.  Brute doesn't have a monopoly on territory with regards to damage.  The only way you encroach on Brutes is if they perform the same task in the same way.  So long as you don't give Tankers Fury, crits, containment, scourge, etc or something similar AND you don't make ATs obsolete, no encroachment will occur...and you tell me who else gets inherently better coverage AoEs compared to its counterparts.

You may just be under-valuing the damage a tanker can deal. A 2x Rage SS Tanker isn't dealing that much worse damage than an equivalent Brute (about 30-40% less), and that's before bruising and pseudo-pet damage caps.

 

I'm not saying your suggestion is bad, just that I think it's a waste of design space the devs have given the class.

 

Quote

 

Also, just checked:

Brute.KineticMelee_Burst (-12.75% damage debuff)

Tanker.KineticMelee_Burst (-14% damage debuff)

 

Brute.DarkMelee_ShadowMaul (-5.625% ToHit debuff)

Tanker.DarkMelee_ShadowMaul (-5.25% ToHit debuff)

 

Can we get a clarification on the better debuff numbers? I'm not sure if its just the City of Data site was always wrong or if the mods for buffs and debuffs are independent (with drawing numbers from a non-centralized "buff/debuff" modifier).

 

I think the best examples I can give are Kinetic Melee (more -DMG), Titan Weapons (more -Res), and Street Justice (more -Res). It definitely isn't consistent across the board, but the most meaningful debuffs are better on a Tanker. That's just for attack sets mind you, the armors have better debuffs as well but you could argue that since it's the Tanker's primary it should be that way regardless.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

13 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

You may just be under-valuing the damage a tanker can deal. A 2x Rage SS Tanker isn't dealing that much worse damage than an equivalent Brute (about 30-40% less), and that's before bruising and pseudo-pet damage caps.

 

I'm not saying your suggestion is bad, just that I think it's a waste of design space the devs have given the class.

Again, I've not said their damage is under value, merely stating the fact it is lower which is a statement made in response to your observation that increasing their target cap and /or area of effect skills will also increase the Tankers damage. 

 

To put both of our points into perspective:

• Increasing target caps or areas of AoEs will indirectly increase the Tanker's damage. 
• Tanker melee damage is lower than Brute. Therefore there is room for change. 
• The Brute concept does not invalidate offensive improvements to Tanker. 

13 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

 

I think the best examples I can give are Kinetic Melee (more -DMG), Titan Weapons (more -Res), and Street Justice (more -Res). It definitely isn't consistent across the board, but the most meaningful debuffs are better on a Tanker. That's just for attack sets mind you, the armors have better debuffs as well but you could argue that since it's the Tanker's primary it should be that way regardless.

From what I can tell, the only debuffs that is better is -res and -res is a heavily regulated debuffs. How many -res debuffs are in AoEs? 

[Auroxis]

11 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Again, I've not said their damage is under value, merely stating the fact it is lower which is a statement made in response to your observation that increasing their target cap and /or area of effect skills will also increase the Tankers damage. 

 

To put both of our points into perspective:

• Increasing target caps or areas of AoEs will indirectly increase the Tanker's damage. 
• Tanker melee damage is lower than Brute. Therefore there is room for change. 
• The Brute concept does not invalidate offensive improvements to Tanker. 

There is room for change, but upping the damage is just one way to change things. In my opinion it wastes potential of the Tanker's identity set forth by the devs and makes it just more like a Brute. We can agree to disagree, that's fine.

 

Quote

From what I can tell, the only debuffs that is better is -res and -res is a heavily regulated debuffs. How many -res debuffs are in AoEs? 

There's Staff's Eye of the Storm, an AoE with -res (with perfection) that a tanker gets higher values for.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

34 minutes ago, Auroxis said:

 

There's Staff's Eye of the Storm, an AoE with -res (with perfection) that a tanker gets higher values for.

Any others? 

[William Valence]

7 hours ago, Leogunner said:

So then the change would be unnecessary.  At best, it would be an appeal to the perception that Brutes are superior tanks compared to Tankers and it'd just be throwing those particular players a pity bone but it wouldn't change that people see Brute as superior because damage is king.

This is something that I feel is incredibly wrong. Think about it this way please. Let's say that accuracy was in fact accidentally nerfed. People, other than @arcanaville of course, would be unable to notice or perceive the change, does that mean that fixing it would be unnecessary? Additionally almost any action is an appeal to a perception, the question being can you show the perception to be right through non subjective means. In the case of Brutes Vs. Tankers I think it's pretty easy to show that with the same aggro cap, resist cap, and effective defense softcap, that in buff saturation situations brutes get the best of both worlds and outdo tankers in both the things they're supposed to beat tankers at, but also in the things tankers should be better at.

 

7 hours ago, Leogunner said:

There are a lot more concerns of balance beyond Brute.  Are you telling me that Brute is just OP?  Then we should nerf them, right?  Or that Tankers are UP?  Well do they die too easily?

 

From my perspective, I don't see a balance concern between the two.  They are different playstyles (mainly talking about Brute), it just so happens that said playstyle falls in line with the meta and farming.

Of those very limited situations presented, I'm more leaning toward I'm saying tankers are underpowered. They are intended to be the most survivable and best at managing aggro. They are not in definable non-trivial situations. So their power in their intended areas should be addressed.

 

Do they die? That's a boring question. A better question is can you create sufficiently damaging situations to benefit the additional survivablility. For example an autohit, unresistable damage patch on KIR that you could pull AM into to dramatically reduce his defense and resist, even possibly damaging him. If tankers had the ability to mitigate those types of attacks then you create a situation where their survivability creates an option that the league didn't have before, without eliminating or modifying the leagues ability to run content like they currently do.

 

7 hours ago, Leogunner said:

Well now you are getting into complicated implementations.

 

I've seen such suggested before but why not post a full write up?

I should find a copy of the source to look at. To be honest I have no idea how easy or complicated it would be to do.

 

[Leogunner]

50 minutes ago, William Valence said:

This is something that I feel is incredibly wrong. Think about it this way please. Let's say that accuracy was in fact accidentally nerfed. People, other than @arcanaville of course, would be unable to notice or perceive the change, does that mean that fixing it would be unnecessary? Additionally almost any action is an appeal to a perception, the question being can you show the perception to be right through non subjective means. In the case of Brutes Vs. Tankers I think it's pretty easy to show that with the same aggro cap, resist cap, and effective defense softcap, that in buff saturation situations brutes get the best of both worlds and outdo tankers in both the things they're supposed to beat tankers at, but also in the things tankers should be better at.

 

Okay.  

 

So what?  Brutes have an advantage in buff saturated situations.  That's how they were designed.  There is nothing you can do here except nerf Brutes.  You can't push the resistance cap higher, you can't push the defense cap higher, you can't push the aggro cap higher.  Pointing to an old anecdote that doesn't relate to the situation doesn't change those truths.

 

52 minutes ago, William Valence said:

Of those very limited situations presented, I'm more leaning toward I'm saying tankers are underpowered. They are intended to be the most survivable and best at managing aggro. They are not in definable non-trivial situations. So their power in their intended areas should be addressed.

So you share the title of most survivable and best at managing aggro in certain buff situations.  Is that just not tolerable?  Or are you trying to make the argument that Tankers are underpowered? Because, hilariously, I'm having 2 different discussions at the same time: one person telling me I'm of the opinion that Tankers are underpowered and therefore underestimating them, and another person arguing that an imbalance has shifted Brutes into overpowered territory and Tankers into underpowered territory.

 

Apparently, both of you missed the memo when I said I just wanted Tanker to be fun and outlined why I considered my suggestion to be that.

 

58 minutes ago, William Valence said:

Do they die? That's a boring question. A better question is can you create sufficiently damaging situations to benefit the additional survivablility. For example an autohit, unresistable damage patch on KIR that you could pull AM into to dramatically reduce his defense and resist, even possibly damaging him. If tankers had the ability to mitigate those types of attacks then you create a situation where their survivability creates an option that the league didn't have before, without eliminating or modifying the leagues ability to run content like they currently do.

 

I should find a copy of the source to look at. To be honest I have no idea how easy or complicated it would be to do.

 

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.  You don't have to like my idea though but I feel I have defended it overall:

• It's not like a Brute (the closest thing Brute gets to such a change is Savage Melee's Rending Flurry at max blood stacks) so it isn't making Tanker "brutish" unless hitting things is just too uncivilized for the pallet of the prestigious selfless Tanker.
• It's not complicated.
• It's not overpowered and would barely bridge the gap (if at all) when you completely saturate AoEs among hoards of small sized enemies.
• It's not infringing on Brute.  If I'm to believe William Valence, in highly buffed scenarios, Brute will equal their survival and surpass their damage...
• Considering the circumstances with regards to buff/debuff numbers, Tanker would only pull drastically ahead with -res debuffs which is limited to a few (one) powers...but if I'm to believe the many proponents of unresistable Bruising, this shouldn't be a problem at all...
• It's novel.  Again, very few options exist that modify AoEs (see: Boost Range for cones, Rending Flurry).  Poll players of Dark Melee, Battle Axe, Elec Melee, and all your melee sets with narrow cones and ask how much time and effort do they put in lining up their narrow cones (or if they take some of the cones at all).  This would be like making Stalker AS usable in an attack chain...it changes the way you use the sets.

If you have anymore counter points, feel free to fire them my way.

 

Looking forward to reading and commenting on the ideas you post as well.  Good luck. 

[William Valence]

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

So what?  Brutes have an advantage in buff saturated situations.  That's how they were designed.  There is nothing you can do here except nerf Brutes.  You can't push the resistance cap higher, you can't push the defense cap higher, you can't push the aggro cap higher.  Pointing to an old anecdote that doesn't relate to the situation doesn't change those truths.

Interestingly enough my suggestion didn't push resistance, defense, or aggro caps. It provides mitigation for types of attacks that other ATs have no mitigation for. I don't need to change truths because I fully understand them and decided to use a different method to achieve the goal.

 

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

Apparently, both of you missed the memo when I said I just wanted Tanker to be fun and outlined why I considered my suggestion to be that.

People already think tankers are fun. Remember my approach is that perspective and balance don't have to be directly tied. Which seems to bear out despite your dismissal of my "Old anecdotes" Something that's in spec may not be engaging, or something that's out of spec may be fun. I'm not saying tankers aren't fun, you are, and while you don't have to like the way tankers are, that doesn't mean they have to be morphed into something you'd rather them be. They have a defined identity already. This varied AoE idea may just be better suited as a passive to your new AT suggestion.

 

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

Or are you trying to make the argument that Tankers are underpowered? Because, hilariously, I'm having 2 different discussions at the same time: one person telling me I'm of the opinion that Tankers are underpowered and therefore underestimating them, and another person arguing that an imbalance has shifted Brutes into overpowered territory and Tankers into underpowered territory.

I don't really care about your arguments with other people or what they're saying, I'm responsible for what I say not what they say, argue their arguments with them. Also if you paid attention I said in the limited options you provided it would be closer to underpowered. I think they are a good AT, and a fun AT that I've played a lot, that has important aspects out of spec in certain situations. Talking about what could put them better in line isn't unreasonable. I also don't think it would be the end of the world if nothing happened. In fact, I'd rather no change than your change.

1 hour ago, 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

I don't think you've handled anything. Honestly I don't think any argument could sway you, you seem pretty set that tankers need to be something else, because you don't think they're fun and don't seem concerned that others do.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't care about other people's opinions and just want to push to change the AT to match some Idea you had for an AT in the time the game was shutdown. You don't seem to be concerned with the fact that people who do like the AT keep telling you your idea is not only not better, but bad. It doesn't make Tankers better Tankers it makes them something different as long as:

 

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

It's not like a Brute

And you get a better shadow maul.

 

Something that I'm confidant that, and glad in that confidence, will never happen. Tankers are Tankers and it's incredibly unlikely that changes to them will push them away from what they are rather than improve what they're intended to do.

 

[Leogunner]

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

Interestingly enough my suggestion didn't push resistance, defense, or aggro caps. It provides mitigation for types of attacks that other ATs have no mitigation for. I don't need to change truths because I fully understand them and decided to use a different method to achieve the goal.

Which suggestion was that?  I saw you made a suggestion for bypassing aggro cap using pseudo-pets...

 

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

People already think tankers are fun. Remember my approach is that perspective and balance don't have to be directly tied. Which seems to bear out despite your dismissal of my "Old anecdotes" Something that's in spec may not be engaging, or something that's out of spec may be fun. I'm not saying tankers aren't fun, you are, and while you don't have to like the way tankers are, that doesn't mean they have to be morphed into something you'd rather them be. They have a defined identity already. This varied AoE idea may just be better suited as a passive to your new AT suggestion.

Firstly, if they are fun then what are we here for?  What conundrum is there?  I'm repeating myself, but if we're to figure out what the conundrum is, you just have to go back.  It's apparently that Tanks are invalidated in certain content.  That Brutes are chosen more.  That team buffs square the two (Tankers and Brutes) off in mitigation.  But if they are fun, should you really care?  I'm certain a Blaster can out DPS a Stalker and be looked over for something "better"...and how often do you think players care to argue this?  I'd say, it probably has to do with people enjoying Stalkers and them being fun that has something to do with it.

 

I'd postulate, if you are having fun with your Tanker, nothing is stopping you from enjoying it, it functions fine and still have a bit of a niche with its AoE Gauntlet effect...but if you're asking *me* if it's fun, I and others have bones to pick.

 

Secondly, no **** I'm the one saying Tankers aren't fun.  I've played some and while they aren't horribly slow, they aren't engaging solo and they are obnoxiously commandeering when played "officially" compared to most other ATs (they tend to be the ones saying "alright guys, stay here...", sure it's safer, but so is pulling...and you know what is pulling is? boring.  that's why it's used *strategically*, not every set of spawns lol).

 

Thirdly, I haven't asked them to be morphed into anything.  Giving them a melee hook to manage in combat isn't morphing them into Brutes or something else.  It's giving them more opportunities to keep track of rather than just who is and isn't taunted.  It's giving players a purpose to roll a Tanker over another melee counterpart.  I don't even understand why you're imagining some warped version of Tankers when I've literally just suggested amending to what already exists.  I can only assume you've adopted the ideology that, as a filthy non-vet Tanker player that is elitist meta focused, I'm trying to give Tankers equal damage to Brutes.  I'll just say, you've assumed wrong.

 

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

I don't really care about your arguments with other people or what they're saying, I'm responsible for what I say not what they say, argue their arguments with them.

That's fine.  I was just making you aware so you can partake in the irony of it.  I'm just saying, I can use their argument bring your argument into question.

 

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

Also if you paid attention I said in the limited options you provided it would be closer to underpowered.

And someone else was saying it was pushing them too close to Brute territory.  But then, I guess I'm not paying attention lol

 

2 hours ago, William Valence said:

I don't think you've handled anything.

But I have.  You didn't bring up any other counter points, did you?

 

It's fine, because I'm tired of talking about it.  I'd much rather discuss your suggestions.

3 hours ago, William Valence said:

Honestly I don't think any argument could sway you, you seem pretty set that tankers need to be something else, because you don't think they're fun and don't seem concerned that others do.

You must enjoy listening to me repeat myself: If Tankers are fine, sure, leave them alone...but if Tankers are *not* fine, and there is something they need, I FEEL they need to be made more fun to play, not "better" than Brute at something...because they already are better at something.

 

3 hours ago, William Valence said:

I'm pretty sure you don't care about other people's opinions and just want to push to change the AT to match some Idea you had for an AT in the time the game was shutdown. You don't seem to be concerned with the fact that people who do like the AT keep telling you your idea is not only not better, but bad. It doesn't make Tankers better Tankers it makes them something different as long as:

Now I'm pretty sure I've gotten under your skin.  It was probably the "my idea is better than yours" comment.  Well, if that's not going to get you to elaborate on your suggestion, then yeah, it's not that I don't care about other people's opinions.  I just have no qualms being frank and telling people when their opinions are half-baked or garbage.  I'm willing to present and defend my suggestions and take feedback.  What about you?

 

3 hours ago, William Valence said:

And you get a better shadow maul.

 

Something that I'm confidant that, and glad in that confidence, will never happen. Tankers are Tankers and it's incredibly unlikely that changes to them will push them away from what they are rather than improve what they're intended to do.

 

LOL, wut?

 

I'm sure you meant to end your post on a bang, but you've lost perspective.  A better Shadow Maul wouldn't push them away from what they are any more than stackable or unresistable Bruising.  You've come up rather short here since discussion from the very beginning has been trying to give Tanker something more to provide to a team.  It's like you've abandoned your entire reason for responding to the thread if you take that stance.  Or did you get blinded by your argument with me?

[Heraclea]

12 hours ago, Voldine said:

 (but what Tanker is going to slot their Alpha for damage?)

I have two 50 tankers.  Both of them slotted alpha for damage.  They had no reason to slot it for anything else; they're both at the resist softcap for S/L and fairly good against other types, so the resistance alpha is not all that useful.  Now, both of them do have Barrier, to serve as an extra trouble-bubble, and to give a further umbrella of protection to the team. 

[ryuplaneswalker]

17 hours ago, Kimuji said:

I still maintain that going on the more damage route will lead to a heavy redundancy between Tankers and Brutes or worse making one AT obsolete.

And Giving Tanks more sustain will do nothing, but here is the problem. Post IOs Brutes have the exact same sustain as a tank and do more damage, and mind you my idea is to give Tanks some sort of damage boost through IO sets. 

 

17 hours ago, Kimuji said:

But I fully agree that the debuff/team buff option is worth exploring.

This would be my general preference as well, if it were possible I would suggest something like sentinels have, where they have a bar and as the tank gets attacked it gets filled and once filled their next attack would give an unresistable low % debuff, with each attack having a different debuff. Tier 1 could be -regen, Tier 2 would be -damage and so on.

 

This would give Tanks something that brutes/scrappers can't easily duplicate without making them terribly overpowered.

 

13 hours ago, Voldine said:

In other words: Baby steps, and realize that Tankers are most likely in a fine position at the moment. Stone Armor, on the other hand...

There is a Stone Armor thread, stop trying to drive this conversation there, and Tanks are "fine" at So levels of power, they just get left behind by IOs. 

 

Finally : RE - the Debuff Numbers being thrown around. You all realize that those number differences are effectively the same after AV(really the only things that debuffs that aren't -res) debuff resistances right?

[William Valence]

36 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Now I'm pretty sure I've gotten under your skin.  It was probably the "my idea is better than yours" comment. 

Nope it was this part that annoyed me.

5 hours ago, Leogunner said:

Looking forward to reading and commenting on the ideas you post as well.  Good luck. 

The whole acting super superior like you're shooting down everyone's comments and you can't even be bothered to read their posts. 

On 8/3/2019 at 11:19 PM, William Valence said:

What I'd really like to see is the tanker actually be the more survivable class. Give them resistance/defense to unresistable/autohit damage that's in the game to just wreck the super survivable characters.

On 8/6/2019 at 5:49 PM, William Valence said:

My idea was to give tanks the ability to mitigate damage that was intended to bypass league levels of survivabilty without changing their normal resistance values.

And then it's funny to me the disingenuous presentation of your idea like it's there to save tanker players from the boredom of the AT they picked. 

On 7/13/2019 at 6:13 PM, Leogunner said:

The solution wasn't to bring parity or balance, I just wanted to have a Tanker with Dark Melee using Shadow Maul and hitting 5-8 guys without lots of positioning and herding.

45 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

Thirdly, I haven't asked them to be morphed into anything.  Giving them a melee hook to manage in combat isn't morphing them into Brutes or something else.  It's giving them more opportunities to keep track of rather than just who is and isn't taunted.

Well what is it? Do you want it to give more things to consider as a tanker, or is the idea just a thinly-veiled attempt to dumb down the use of powers you think are too annoying to have to deal with?

 

Like you said yourself, it makes you not have to think about things, so how would it give you more things to keep track of? You say you want it to be more engaging.

1 hour ago, Leogunner said:

I've played some and while they aren't horribly slow, they aren't engaging solo

What do you want? Do you want it to be more engaging or less? Do you want to have to interact with the game with actual decisions on what to target or where to position, the hooks as you put them, or do you want to remove those hooks to AoE powers, so you can have a tanker with shadow maul hitting 5-8 guys without lots of positioning? My problem is I actually read what you say; you're only consistent on your claim that balance is irrelevant to you.

 

And you obviously aren't concerned about balance, you said it yourself, you just don't want to think as much to use a power. As if not thinking as much to use something makes it more engaging.

 

So don't try to get fancy and say you're trying to make Tanker play deeper or engaging. This would do the opposite. Less positional play not more, push attack button, get more damage numbers, done. No hooks to have to think about, just more damage, and a refocus from being a survivability/aggro AT to an AoE damage primary AT. Because the change would make AoE damage the primary output, not the ability to survive or manage aggro. Just say what it is, melee cone AoEs are too hard for you and you don't want to have to think about them. No, you already said that, I guess just be more consistent with what you say.

57 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I just have no qualms being frank and telling people when their opinions are half-baked or garbage.  I'm willing to present and defend my suggestions and take feedback.  What about you?

This thread is essentially 9 pages of people doing two things:

 

1. Discussing ways to make tankers better at what they're primarily intended to be. Meaning Aggro management and survivability

2. People being frank and trying to tell you that pushing takers towards an AoE melee damage focus as a balance lever is a half-baked garbage idea

 

You aren't willing to take feedback; you are only defensive and dismissive. If people disagree with you, they either have an inferiority complex, are only going for balance rather than something that will be noticed (as if that's something bad, still can't figure out how that's a criticism but you've said it quite a few times), or are inexplicably opposed to the idea of increasing engagement by removing positioning and targeting decisions. Because everyone knows removing decision making and positioning is key to increasing engagement.

 

You talk out of both sides of your mouth to push an idea that would increase the work to implement AoE powers, and could potentially overpower tankers. Because of course I'm sure you considered there is a thing such as areafactor when assigning damage and recharge times to AoEs because you want to be careful about giving PBAoE powers 80% increases to their radius Like jumping soul drain from 10' to 18', increasing Footstomp or Spin's radius, or tripling the area of a power like shadow maul that was already upped in damage to violate the areafactor rule, so that it would feel better to use. 

 

Oh and of course not trying to increase damage, just increase the potential damage by doubling or increasing by 1.5x the number of targets that can be hit. I mean being able to output 1.6 or 1.2 scale damage with a power that a scrapper can output 1.125 scale damage with isn't out of line, right?

 

2 hours ago, Leogunner said:

You've come up rather short here since discussion from the very beginning has been trying to give Tanker something more to provide to a team.  It's like you've abandoned your entire reason for responding to the thread if you take that stance.  Or did you get blinded by your argument with me?

You know I gave you the benefit of the doubt so I decided to reread the thread. From post 1, hell from the title, the thread had been about trying to bring tankers into spec by using brutes as an example to show that tankers are under performing in areas they should be best.

 

And again if you would choose to read the things that people post in their responses, my reason for responding was that buff saturation eliminated the differences that were baked in, and intended, with a goal that they should be improved in the areas they are intended to be best. This to ensure that they are in fact the best choice for someone looking for that role. I have been incredibly consistent in that.

[Auroxis]

13 hours ago, Leogunner said:

Any others? 

So? Are you implying that there's too few instances of that? Wouldn't that suggest you'd be on board with increasing the number of instances where a tanker can provide more offensive support to the team?

 

11 hours ago, Leogunner said:

 

So you share the title of most survivable and best at managing aggro in certain buff situations.  Is that just not tolerable?  Or are you trying to make the argument that Tankers are underpowered? Because, hilariously, I'm having 2 different discussions at the same time: one person telling me I'm of the opinion that Tankers are underpowered and therefore underestimating them, and another person arguing that an imbalance has shifted Brutes into overpowered territory and Tankers into underpowered territory.

 

Apparently, both of you missed the memo when I said I just wanted Tanker to be fun and outlined why I considered my suggestion to be that.

I disagree with the statement that tankers aren't fun. I agree with the statement that tankers are underpowered. I dislike the idea of buffing their damage to address that, because Support is also part of the tanker's identity and it's being neglected in your suggestion in favor of making it (effectively) more of a damage dealer.

 

Quote

 

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.

I suggest you avoid making statements like that in the future and keep the discussion on point rather than lead it to toxicity.

 

I did post an idea in giving the tanker more offensive team support. And I put forth reasoning why I believe that's the best idea, which you haven't responded to at all.

 

Quote

 

  You don't have to like my idea though but I feel I have defended it overall:

• It's not like a Brute (the closest thing Brute gets to such a change is Savage Melee's Rending Flurry at max blood stacks) so it isn't making Tanker "brutish" unless hitting things is just too uncivilized for the pallet of the prestigious selfless Tanker.

It's effectively giving the Tanker more damage, which makes it more like a Brute.

 

Quote

• It's not complicated.

You may not think it's complicated to inspect, design, and change the radius, arc and range of about 20-40 AoE powers. You may not think it's complicated to have the AoE radius/arc/range inconsistent across AT's. But I do.

 

Quote

• It's not overpowered and would barely bridge the gap (if at all) when you completely saturate AoEs among hoards of small sized enemies.

It's not about being overpowered, it's about encroaching on another AT's identity and wasting the potential of an AT's design space when making balance changes.

 

Quote

• It's not infringing on Brute.  If I'm to believe William Valence, in highly buffed scenarios, Brute will equal their survival and surpass their damage...

Though the more you make Tanker like a Brute, the more you could hear Brutes complaining even if a Tanker isn't OP. Complaints like "Tankers have bruising and better armor, and now my tanker friend is clearing faster than me!" could crop up, though as I said before that's far from my primary concern with your suggested changes.

 

Quote

• Considering the circumstances with regards to buff/debuff numbers, Tanker would only pull drastically ahead with -res debuffs which is limited to a few (one) powers...but if I'm to believe the many proponents of unresistable Bruising, this shouldn't be a problem at all...

You may have misunderstood my intention. I'm not saying tanker debuffs are super powerful, but rather I'm saying that tanker debuffs are an indication that the class is oriented more towards support than just being a brute-like "tank and spank". Changes should be made expanding on the team offensive support aspect rather than the "tank and spank" aspect.

 

Quote

• It's novel.  Again, very few options exist that modify AoEs (see: Boost Range for cones, Rending Flurry).  Poll players of Dark Melee, Battle Axe, Elec Melee, and all your melee sets with narrow cones and ask how much time and effort do they put in lining up their narrow cones (or if they take some of the cones at all).  This would be like making Stalker AS usable in an attack chain...it changes the way you use the sets.

Perhaps the reason why there are very few options for modifying AoE's is because it's difficult to code? Perhaps Rending Flurry being essentially two different powers in one isn't as easy to implement as you might think?

Edited August 8, 2019 by Auroxis

[Leogunner]

5 hours ago, William Valence said:

Well what is it? Do you want it to give more things to consider as a tanker, or is the idea just a thinly-veiled attempt to dumb down the use of powers you think are too annoying to have to deal with?

 

Like you said yourself, it makes you not have to think about things, so how would it give you more things to keep track of? You say you want it to be more engaging.

What do you want? Do you want it to be more engaging or less? Do you want to have to interact with the game with actual decisions on what to target or where to position, the hooks as you put them, or do you want to remove those hooks to AoE powers, so you can have a tanker with shadow maul hitting 5-8 guys without lots of positioning? My problem is I actually read what you say; you're only consistent on your claim that balance is irrelevant to you.

I'm sorry, have you ever used Shadow Maul?  It's a pretty nifty animation if you're not too concerned about top d33Pz, however it's kind of a luck-shoot to hit 3 or more guys with it.  Like, to line up that many consistently, it requires a kind of server-lag hop to one side of the mob or back to widen the cone enough to hit that many.  that or you need to blast a bunch of mobs against a wall and use corners to bunch them together.

 

I still do it but this is what I'd clarify as "a lot of positioning or herding".  The rub is, even still, it's not *that* effective despite the work involved.  I'd like to be rewarded *better* for that effort along with a lot of other cones that get left behind.

 

The funny thing is, you're accusing me of being disingenuous with the presentation of my suggestion but I even gave you *numbers* to help you equate what I'm trying to convey but you've seemed to have gotten caught up on verbiage like "not a lot of positioning" and "engaging more" to push your argument that I'm attempting to dumb down powers.  If you could manage to put 2 and 2 together, I'm attempting to make the efforts of positioning and herding *more* rewarding than it is, giving you incentive to engage in such actions.  Do you feel that wouldn't be the case?

 

5 hours ago, William Valence said:

So don't try to get fancy and say you're trying to make Tanker play deeper or engaging. This would do the opposite. Less positional play not more, push attack button, get more damage numbers, done. No hooks to have to think about, just more damage, and a refocus from being a survivability/aggro AT to an AoE damage primary AT. Because the change would make AoE damage the primary output, not the ability to survive or manage aggro.

 

As I've clarified above, I disagree.  It wouldn't just be "push attack button, get more damage numbers" as cones and PBAoEs still require positioning to maximize their benefits (or do you believe you can just hit 4+ mobs with a 9ft cone?  Not even Flashing Steel which is also a 130 degree cone can hit its cap without positioning the mobs first), it would just be *more* rewarding for a Tanker who is mostly just hitting things to taunt them anyway.  Also, yes, it would benefit aggro.  Also also, what does it matter if an ATs damage comes from ST or AoE?  Tankers certainly aren't winning trophies for their ST damage...not even sure why you brought up that point.

 

5 hours ago, William Valence said:

This thread is essentially 9 pages of people doing two things:

 

1. Discussing ways to make tankers better at what they're primarily intended to be. Meaning Aggro management and survivability

2. People being frank and trying to tell you that pushing takers towards an AoE melee damage focus as a balance lever is a half-baked garbage idea

 

You aren't willing to take feedback; you are only defensive and dismissive. If people disagree with you, they either have an inferiority complex, are only going for balance rather than something that will be noticed (as if that's something bad, still can't figure out how that's a criticism but you've said it quite a few times), or are inexplicably opposed to the idea of increasing engagement by removing positioning and targeting decisions. Because everyone knows removing decision making and positioning is key to increasing engagement.

Perhaps you missed it in your circle +inf/like cycle with Auroxis, but there have been people that have agreed that my suggestion is alright or cool or interesting.  There have also been people criticizing it and me responding to their criticism.  Me responding to that criticism (like when someone mentioned it might not be workable because of mechanical or code reasons) isn't be being unwilling to take feedback.  I'm not defensive (projection much?) either.  I have been dismissive though, probably because your opinions suck and so do your ideas.

 

Oh, almost forgot to mention, your idea to give AVs more autohit damage to invalidate players' mitigation already exists and just emphasizes needing healers more.  I think its a sucky idea to push to implement more just so you can justify a survival boost for Tankers.

5 hours ago, William Valence said:

You talk out of both sides of your mouth to push an idea that would increase the work to implement AoE powers, and could potentially overpower tankers. Because of course I'm sure you considered there is a thing such as areafactor when assigning damage and recharge times to AoEs because you want to be careful about giving PBAoE powers 80% increases to their radius Like jumping soul drain from 10' to 18', increasing Footstomp or Spin's radius, or tripling the area of a power like shadow maul that was already upped in damage to violate the areafactor rule, so that it would feel better to use. 

And increasing their areafactor would be the product of their inherent.  You know?  Those little abilities built into an AT that violate certain rules that other ATs abide by?  Yeah, those.

 

The overall numbers I suggest could be exaggerations as I didn't plug them all into an excel to measure the precise effects, but the general premise is what I'm selling.

 

It's nice to know, however, that you've resorted to nitpicking minutia to attempt to dismantle my suggestion.  Can you state a specific balance problem pertaining to a set powerset so that I can narrow down what the numbers should actually reflect?  No one has asked me to be more precise yet but I can if that is what you desire out of my suggestion presentation.

 

5 hours ago, William Valence said:

You know I gave you the benefit of the doubt so I decided to reread the thread. From post 1, hell from the title, the thread had been about trying to bring tankers into spec by using brutes as an example to show that tankers are under performing in areas they should be best.

That has been up for debate (the "under performing" part).  It has been argued that Tankers don't under perform at what they do, it's just not a wide enough gap between them and Brute...or in some arguments, it's because the place they perform better at (aggro) isn't necessary.

 

5 hours ago, William Valence said:

And again if you would choose to read the things that people post in their responses, my reason for responding was that buff saturation eliminated the differences that were baked in, and intended, with a goal that they should be improved in the areas they are intended to be best. This to ensure that they are in fact the best choice for someone looking for that role. I have been incredibly consistent in that.

Well, elaborate and defend your idea then.  I'm glad you went back and read the thread though but there are better things you could be doing than everything short of direct personal attacks, to try and make your perspective seem ideal.  Good luck lol

Edited August 8, 2019 by Leogunner

[Leogunner]

3 hours ago, Auroxis said:

So? Are you implying that there's too few instances of that? Wouldn't that suggest you'd be on board with increasing the number of instances where a tanker can provide more offensive support to the team?

 

I'm implying that if -res debuffs are a problem with regards to my suggestion, then you can address that problem by addressing those particular powers with -res.  For example, if the issue is with Staff's PBAoE spreading too much -res, just make it so it doesn't increase the target cap by much and focuses mainly on the area.

3 hours ago, Auroxis said:

It's effectively giving the Tanker more damage, which makes it more like a Brute.

 

We'll just have to disagree on that then. Consider that it's already a consensus that Tankers don't do nearly as much damage as a Brute and they fall behind them on damage but retain a short lead on mitigation.  Walling your perspective options to anything offensive is just going to have to be a difference in opinion.

 

Consider the circumstance that current Tankers had been saddled with the same mods since the beginning as current except their melee mod was set to Defender level (0.65 I believe).  If Tanker damage was just that low, would adjusting it really be "just making it like a Brute" or would it just be putting it closer in balance with everyone else?  Now take that concept and add a unique gimmick to attain that damage that isn't Fury or Crits.

 

3 hours ago, Auroxis said:

You may not think it's complicated to inspect, design, and change the radius, arc and range of about 20-40 AoE powers. You may not think it's complicated to have the AoE radius/arc/range inconsistent across AT's. But I do.

And you'd be wrong.  Powers are already inconsistent among ATs.  I've given examples.  Changing the numbers on powers is something already being done, dynamically even with powers like Snipes.  I'm sorry you don't like being wrong but you're wrong on this one.

[Auroxis]

15 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

I'm sorry, have you ever used Shadow Maul?  It's a pretty nifty animation if you're not too concerned about top d33Pz, however it's kind of a luck-shoot to hit 3 or more guys with it.  Like, to line up that many consistently, it requires a kind of server-lag hop to one side of the mob or back to widen the cone enough to hit that many.  that or you need to blast a bunch of mobs against a wall and use corners to bunch them together.

Then buff it. No need to make the buff tanker-only.

15 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

I still do it but this is what I'd clarify as "a lot of positioning or herding".  The rub is, even still, it's not *that* effective despite the work involved.  I'd like to be rewarded *better* for that effort along with a lot of other cones that get left behind.

 

The funny thing is, you're accusing me of being disingenuous with the presentation of my suggestion but I even gave you *numbers* to help you equate what I'm trying to convey but you've seemed to have gotten caught up on verbiage like "not a lot of positioning" and "engaging more" to push your argument that I'm attempting to dumb down powers.  If you could manage to put 2 and 2 together, I'm attempting to make the efforts of positioning and herding *more* rewarding than it is, giving you incentive to engage in such actions.  Do you feel that wouldn't be the case?

Making AoE's have more radius/range/arc doesn't reward positioning, it makes it less needed. And please avoid statements like "if you could manage to put 2 and 2 together" which add nothing but toxicity to the discussion.

 

An example of positioning actually being rewarded is Cross Punch, which gives you a higher recharge buff the more targets you managed to hit with your tight cone.

 

15 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

 

As I've clarified above, I disagree.  It wouldn't just be "push attack button, get more damage numbers" as cones and PBAoEs still require positioning to maximize their benefits (or do you believe you can just hit 4+ mobs with a 9ft cone?  Not even Flashing Steel which is also a 130 degree cone can hit its cap without positioning the mobs first), it would just be *more* rewarding for a Tanker who is mostly just hitting things to taunt them anyway.  Also, yes, it would benefit aggro.  Also also, what does it matter if an ATs damage comes from ST or AoE?  Tankers certainly aren't winning trophies for their ST damage...not even sure why you brought up that point.

 

Tankers have lots of tools to deal with AoE aggro between Gauntlet, Taunt, Taunt Auras, their own AoE's, and PPP AoE's with a taunt component. Why do you think people are requesting increased aggro caps?

 

Again, increasing Radius/Arc/Range on their attacks does way more for their damage output than aggro control.

 

15 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

 

Perhaps you missed it in your circle +inf/like cycle with Auroxis, but there have been people that have agreed that my suggestion is alright or cool or interesting.  There have also been people criticizing it and me responding to their criticism.  Me responding to that criticism (like when someone mentioned it might not be workable because of mechanical or code reasons) isn't be being unwilling to take feedback.  I'm not defensive (projection much?) either.  I have been dismissive though, probably because your opinions suck and so do your ideas.

What +inf/like cycle? Why is this even relevant to discussion? Why even point stuff like this out?

 

"People like my suggestion" isn't a valid response, just like "your opinions suck" isn't. Now you're not just being dismissive, you're also being toxic.

 

[Auroxis]

2 hours ago, Leogunner said:

I'm implying that if -res debuffs are a problem with regards to my suggestion, then you can address that problem by addressing those particular powers with -res.  For example, if the issue is with Staff's PBAoE spreading too much -res, just make it so it doesn't increase the target cap by much and focuses mainly on the area.

 

-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.

 

Quote

 

We'll just have to disagree on that then. Consider that it's already a consensus that Tankers don't do nearly as much damage as a Brute and they fall behind them on damage but retain a short lead on mitigation.  Walling your perspective options to anything offensive is just going to have to be a difference in opinion.

You can disagree with numbers if you want, but making AoE's hit more targets means your AoE's are dealing more damage to the pack. Never once have I argued that it'd make Tankers somewhat OP when compared with brutes, but that you're just making the Tanker more like a Brute instead of expanding on its support aspect which makes it more like, well, a Tanker. And that the more it resembles a brute, the more you'll see cries about it being OP even though it might not be.

 

Quote

 

Consider the circumstance that current Tankers had been saddled with the same mods since the beginning as current except their melee mod was set to Defender level (0.65 I believe).  If Tanker damage was just that low, would adjusting it really be "just making it like a Brute" or would it just be putting it closer in balance with everyone else?  Now take that concept and add a unique gimmick to attain that damage that isn't Fury or Crits.

 

Let's consider that circumstance. You could:

 

1. Buff the damage effectively with a mechanic like you suggest

 

This helps the class in solo scenarios and puts it in direct competition with a Brute.

 

2. Buff the damage scale up a bit, and buff the support numbers

 

This helps the class in solo scenarios (which tankers right now do not need, since their damage modifier isn't that low) and lets it shine more in its other role of being an offensive support class.

 

3. Buff the support numbers up a lot

 

This slightly helps the class in solo scenarios but greatly helps make it a valuable member of a team.

 

You're trying to make me say a damage buff is fine, but in actuality the case for buffing the AT's support aspect just looks more appealing

 

Quote

 

And you'd be wrong.  Powers are already inconsistent among ATs.  I've given examples.  Changing the numbers on powers is something already being done, dynamically even with powers like Snipes.  I'm sorry you don't like being wrong but you're wrong on this one.

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.

 

You're not asking for a sweeping change, you're asking for a dev to spend time inspecting each and every attack with an AoE component and buffing it in either its radius/range/arc. Then implementing that change. Then testing that change. For about 20-40 powers.

Edited August 8, 2019 by Auroxis

[Widower]

Hello, friends. Please refrain from personal attacks and grandstanding, thanks.

[Heraclea]

If mass modification of powersets or complicated mechanics that increase tanker damage are out of the question, I'd propose something different: an across the board discount for endurance costs.   It's going to take the Tanker longer to defeat something, and require activating more attacks.  That's the way it always has been and should be.  So a tanker shouldn't spend more endurance than a brute or scrapper getting it done.  This small change would make levelling a Tanker much more inviting. 

[Vanden]

1 hour ago, Heraclea said:

If mass modification of powersets or complicated mechanics that increase tanker damage are out of the question, I'd propose something different: an across the board discount for endurance costs.   It's going to take the Tanker longer to defeat something, and require activating more attacks.  That's the way it always has been and should be.  So a tanker shouldn't spend more endurance than a brute or scrapper getting it done.  This small change would make levelling a Tanker much more inviting. 

When I was leveling my Tanker, fighting hard groups or targets was never a question of whether I could defeat them, but whether I'd have enough endurance to finish them off before I dropped all my toggles, so this would be nice. However, it doesn't really help the issue that Brutes can step all over Tankers' toes.

[Leogunner]

On 8/8/2019 at 7:33 AM, Auroxis said:

Then buff it. No need to make the buff tanker-only.

That is a possibility.  It's also a possibility to try something unique.  To say there's no need is you just trying to dismiss the suggestion because you have no other argument.

 

On 8/8/2019 at 7:33 AM, Auroxis said:

Making AoE's have more radius/range/arc doesn't reward positioning, it makes it less needed. And please avoid statements like "if you could manage to put 2 and 2 together" which add nothing but toxicity to the discussion.

 

And that's a possible perspective if the target cap stayed the same.  Adding buffs to powers is another possibility too (as you mentioned in Cross Punch).  Go make that suggestion then, it doesn't really pertain to my suggestion though.  Looking forward to reading your write-up of it.

 

Also, where were you when the poster that post was responding to said I lack the ability to pay attention?  So I can't say something but you can be a forum police and moderate only me?  Get the **** outta here with that lol

On 8/8/2019 at 7:33 AM, Auroxis said:

"People like my suggestion" isn't a valid response, just like "your opinions suck" isn't. Now you're not just being dismissive, you're also being toxic.

 

It is a valid response to someone saying "Everyone is telling you how your idea is wrong!"

 

Again, you're not a GM so stop trying to police other people's posts, especially if you're going to discriminate with the people you target with your policing.

 

I didn't have the time to respond because I was dealing with making sure deadlines were met.  I'll get back with you later.

 

Also, when you read things on a forum or online, don't take things to heart or personal.  People will criticize you in one thread, and be friendly and buddy with you in another.  This isn't targeted to just you, Auroxis, but to anyone discussing stuff online.

 

[Auroxis]

15 minutes ago, Leogunner said:

That is a possibility.  It's also a possibility to try something unique.  To say there's no need is you just trying to dismiss the suggestion because you have no other argument.

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.

 

 

Quote

 

And that's a possible perspective if the target cap stayed the same.  Adding buffs to powers is another possibility too (as you mentioned in Cross Punch).  Go make that suggestion then, it doesn't really pertain to my suggestion though.  Looking forward to reading your write-up of it.

Target caps are often never reached on tight cones, you know that otherwise you wouldn't suggest increasing their radius/arc/range. So making tankers reach those caps reliably while other classes can't increases the Tanker's effective damage against packs.

 

I already made my suggestion.

 

Quote

 

Also, where were you when the poster that post was responding to said I lack the ability to pay attention?  So I can't say something but you can be a forum police and moderate only me?  Get the **** outta here with that lol

It is a valid response to someone saying "Everyone is telling you how your idea is wrong!"

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

 

Quote

Again, you're not a GM so stop trying to police other people's posts, especially if you're going to discriminate with the people you target with your policing.

 

I didn't have the time to respond because I was dealing with making sure deadlines were met.  I'll get back with you later.

 

Also, when you read things on a forum or online, don't take things to heart or personal.  People will criticize you in one thread, and be friendly and buddy with you in another.  This isn't targeted to just you, Auroxis, but to anyone discussing stuff online.

 

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.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Auroxis