1.81C - Heavy Tank changes

[Vindicator]

It's not a fact that they're a huge benefit, it's your opinion. I for one disagree, compared to another charge/banelord tank I think it's not a benefit at all except for mids where it's close.

Where you get the idea that I would want to disprove that mids are the only ones who can fit them in group I don't know, as I've been saying the same thing in each reply. I can only assume you don't bother to read the posts except the part you take objection to and quote in a reply.

Haha! What are you like? You think compared to another charge / banelord tank its not a benefit? So having nothing is the same having something in your book? Heavy tanks have been given these abilities as opposed to another kick in the stones. That is a benefit no matter what sort of spin your trying to throw on it. As for what I 'said' I assumed you would read between the lines on that one but I was wrong, I'll be sure to spell it out next time.

BL's are better at interupting and killing than Heavy tanks..... ye we know this. What are you looking for? You seem to just want Heavy tanks to get BL or very similar BL abilities, not everything in this game is the same. If it were, it would be very boring. This is something of the equivalent of a defensive boost as opposed to offensive which is the way it should be really. If you gave an offensive boost, heavy tanks would still be lacking as they are simply out damaged by the light tanks / some hybrids etc.

and Fup off < thanks Father Ted> with your 'read' my posts comments, that just not worth a response.

 

[SethNaket]

Having nothing is not the same as having something, don't know what would make you say that. The new things are a big benefit to the heavy tanks but only a minor, if any, to a *group* since they have to give something else up to get it. My opinion is that banelord+charge is still more valuable than any of these new stuff except for mids since they get it on their "bg-bot".

As for what I 'said' I assumed you would read between the lines on that one but I was wrong, I'll be sure to spell it out next time.

"And" means that both statements are included in your "fact". If I say "it's a fact that red wine tastes better than champagne and there's alcohol in them"; the second part being a fact still doesn't make the first part anything more than my opinion. "Read between the lines" is a poor excuse, is it so hard to admit that you called your opinion fact in error?

and Fup off < thanks Father Ted> with your 'read' my posts comments, that just not worth a response.

You get what you deserve I guess, I said in the very first post that I believe only mids will ever get to see this effects in groups. The *fact* that you would come with some challenge for me to disprove that only shows that you didn't read it.

 

[Puppet]

First, if you're going to play as BGer you don't need shield. Second, if you're going to play a *good* BGer you will end up grappling a lot, cancelling your chants which defeats the purpose of trying to come up with a 48 chants spec to begin with.

You only need slam if you're going to play offensivly and if you're going to play offensivly you don't want your only damage to be a paltry 34 slash, you want 50 2hand and let your mercs to slam.

If you play defensively your job is to defend your support/casters, so way out of range of your merc (who are on the enemy support/casters). Guard actually adds another line of defense over BG (especially when MA trains switches, guards insta kicks in, BG takes a few seconds).

 

[Bracken]

You only need slam if you're going to play offensivly

Nope, slam is still an effective defensive tool in a number of ways.

 

[Dumle]

Well, Im really glad they went this way about it to boosting heavy tanks and not increasing damage or giving them damageabilitys or banelordlike interrupts.
A heavy tank is supposed to outlast light tanks, not outdamage them.

Now if they would only decrease the penalty of blocking against a dualwielder id be very pleased (not remove the penalty mind you, but just lower it a bit, 50% is a bit harsh, something like 25-30% would be fine.).
Not likely tho

 

[klasa]

Hmmm, perhaps it's time to introduce a new concept in this thread......diminishing marginal utility.

What does that mean? Well, the first banelord charge tank brings interupts and charge. Sinse it's the first additionto the group it brings alot of utulity to the group. The second charge banelord brings exactly the same thing, still it's a contribution to the group but since the group already has these abilties the it brings less utility than the first charge banelord tank. The third charge banelord tank, welll the group has 2 interrupters and 2 charge tanks so it brings even less utility to the group.....are you following me. All would agree that a 8th banelord charge tank would almost bring disutility to a group.

My point is that at one point the utility to swap a banelord tank for let's say a warlord heavy tank with group demezz (counter snaring tendrils for instance) , anti pet shout (yes it's stops enemy pets from interupting your support casters), a -25% mele damge buff that outlast the the ML10 banelord ability if I remember correctly, might actually bring more utlity to the group then adding another banelord.

I even think you could do some number crunshing to arrive to that conclusion. Remember the group demezz abiltiy actually comes for FREE. These abilities are all for FREE. In addition to them the heavy tank can buy RA's.

With determination 5 and warden recists I can't see that a heavy tank suffers that much in comparison to charge tanks. Yes they have to sprint to keep up they pace but hardly ever out of action. This is an advantage in comparison to for instance to champions that doesn't have either determination nor charge.

Hope this concept "dimisishing marginal utility" is not to complicated for people to understand and If you think it through I'll think you see that it makes sence. In this perspective I can't see how some people dismiss these heavy tank imrpovements without thinking it through. Perhaps some people are scared that there new FOTM chars will be out of fashion

I always smell hidden agendas when people dismiss imrpovements like this dissing them so harshly. Perhaps they just feel threatend.

 

[Gear]

100% agree on what Klasa said (i'd use the glasses of water example to make it more clear tho ).

 

[SethNaket]

I always smell hidden agendas when people dismiss imrpovements like this dissing them so harshly. Perhaps they just feel threatend.

Hidden agendas? You mean like how the only ones who seem to think this is awesome and will be great in groups are armsmen/heros?

I seriously can't understand why people can't just take points for what they are, critique of the abilities not attacks on YOU.
I'm not "dissing" them because I hate heavy tanks, I think they look too weak and won't bring much to groups. They still won't get armsmen into alb groups and probably won't get many heros into hib groups either. The group abilities need to be *stronger*. The way they are now they're not worth giving up a 2nd charge/banelord or a caster and your diminishing utility argument doesn't apply cause I never suggested any groups with more than 2 of any class.

The resist debuff shout as one example looks like it would be a perfect 30s ability instead of 10s, then it really would be able to make a difference against debuff-caster groups.

 

[klasa]

Well in a group with let's say 3 tanks some people tend to argue that the best solution is to throw in an extra banlord. My point is that perhaps this is not the case i.e. diminishing marginal utility.

Secondly, don't look at these improvements in isolation. This abilites are in addition to ML's and RA's. In that perspecive I definately would say that Heroes (well I am a Hib) can compete with Champs for the 3rd tanks spot.

I know that some of the people who argues that these imrpovements are to weak are Champs.

Just a thought, with darkness rising and a Hero who choose recists for subclassing, can that Hero not compete with let's say a warden?

And I strongly believe that a person who knows how to play he's char is an asset to a group and that grope composition can vary to some exctent.

And notice I'm not dissing Banelords and I'm not dissing charge tanks like blademasters, they are needed in a group . Just don't diss things until you have seen them through. And see the improvements in addition to their axcisitng RA's and ML abilites.

 

[SethNaket]

Well in a group with let's say 3 tanks some people tend to argue that the best solution is to throw in an extra banlord. My point is that perhaps this is not the case i.e. diminishing marginal utility.

A group with 3 tanks trying to decide on a 4th is already screwed. I'm talking about good hybrid setups with casters, tanks and hybrids. Heavy tanks need a boost that will get them a spot in those groups, not a boost that will get them a spot in the same groups they get now (like your 4tank pickup rp-cow groups).

So can you stop bringing up your law you learned in economics now? It doesn't apply here. Heavy tanks need to be able to edge out the 1st or the 2nd of another class, not the 4th.

 

[Vodkafairy]

good bger doesn't grapple much

 

[Marc]

good bger doesn't grapple much

Or grapples druids :d

 

[SethNaket]

good bger doesn't grapple much

You're saying you were a bad bger then?

 

[Lethul]

good bger doesn't grapple much

hmm, our oppinions differ there a good bger grapple quite a lot in the right situations imo! grapple can be an awesome tool both defensive and "offensive"

 

[klasa]

A group with 3 tanks trying to decide on a 4th is already screwed. .

Never implied that a group should run with 4 tanks, just saying that if you run with 3 tanks that perhaps 2 banelords are enough . People tend to favour 2 Blademasters as first choise in a 3 tank group set up. I don't argue with that, but if you are filling a third tank slot and you have the choise between a Champion a Blademaster and a Hero then the choise isn't obvious. And in that perspective a Heavy tank might be an option since it brings other abilities in to the group. For heavens sake Purge 2 cost's 15 RP to buy. A hero will get group purge for free.

And I do think that the law of marginal utility applies in this game still applies. You said it yourself, a group with 4 tanks is in alot of trouble.

 

[Vodkafairy]

You're saying you were a bad bger then?

well i definitely wasn't a good one, and never claimed to be

im not saying grapple in general is worthless, in the right situations ofcourse its a very nice tool. having to grapple much is only needed when the rest of the group isn't used to bg

i guess 'much' is a relative term tho, but i meant that spamming grapple is totally worthless but grapple is nice at the right situations (preventing him to reach mages that are trying to kill it etc). shouldnt be needed to grapple more than a few times in a fight

 

[SethNaket]

And I do think that the law of marginal utility applies in this game still applies. You said it yourself, a group with 4 tanks is in alot of trouble.

...because it lacks casters, not because the tanks have the same abilities.

 

[klasa]

...because it lacks casters, not because the tanks have the same abilities.

That is the law of marginal utility, the more you have of one thing the less you gain in absloute utility from a further addition of that sam thing, the higher the additional utlitity you get from soemthing different.

As you said it in this case a caster adds more utility than a tank i.e diminsishing marginal utility of a tank in comparison to the utility gain from a caster.

So we do agree on something

 

[Tizu]

so like my thing is. Mythic obviously spotted a groupability deficiency on the heavy tank class. Does that mean like archers/assasins/thanes/animist/necros/runeys/ments/VW/valkerie/ are more groupable than heavy tanks so they dont need to be given some abilities like this too?

no because then it will just make stealth zergs worse

 

[SethNaket]

That is the law of marginal utility, the more you have of one thing the less you gain in absloute utility from a further addition of that sam thing, the higher the additional utlitity you get from soemthing different.

No it's not. It could be, if we were comparing a group of 6 to a group of 7 to a group of 8. It still probably wouldn't since with 4 tanks you'd split them up in 2 assist trains and they would have twice the effect. It does not apply when replacing one class with another in a group of 8, and it's still beside the point because none of the groups of interest contain more than 2 of any class.

Many laws of economics (like this one) are only *assumed* to apply, that's why you should be careful when using them, especially about something outside that field.

 

[klasa]

Well the concept of utility is older than economics and was rather invented by the philospher John Stuart Mill before the field of economics was invented. You could try out he's book "utalitarianism".

I argue that with a constraint i.e the group is set to a maximum number of 8, 8 of the same thing is not good. It seems that you agree to that. Then you say that not more than 2 of anything is good, well I have never argued about that and it don't contradicts anything I have said so far.

And to be honest after that I can't follow you at all, casue I can't follow your argumentation. Two things are for sure, you don't want to agree with me and you don't like economics. You don't have to agree to me but perhaps you could explain it in a way for me to understand it.

So what is your position, are you saying that a group with 3 tanks are bad so 2 tanks is the maximum number? I argue that if you have 3 tanks, and some groups are built that way, an extra banelord might not be the biggest contribution to overall effectivness (hope you don't interpret effectivness as an economic term).

Don't you like heavy tanks regardless of changes or do they have to get banelord to compete?

Is champions a preferrable class to a Hero in every scenario and if so why?

I'm just trying to argue that perhaps with the new patch heroes can compete with for instance champions. I try to put forth my arguments in the context (and perhaps you are not one of them) that some people always argue that a banelord is better whatsoever than a non banelord class end of discussion.

I don't belive in that there is only one way to play this game and I try to explain why. And I'm not afriad to agree with you either, are you afraid to agree with me, but perhaps not on every thing but perhaps on some of the things I've said.

 

[SethNaket]

What I'm saying is that since the kind of groups you want to fit a hero/armsman in are the hybrid groups (since they are the best setups), it *doesn't matter* if diminishing marginal utility applies to tanks since 2 tanks is definately below the threshold even if it does. They will kill twice as fast or twice as many, they'll interrupt twice as often or twice as many (if talking about banelords).


> Don't you like heavy tanks regardless of changes or do they have to get banelord to compete?

They need charge to compete.

 

[klasa]

Finally we are making progress, so if I interpret what you are saying is that a Hero/Armsmen best fits in hybrid group (my interpretation 4 dmg dealers, 2 casters and 2 tanks).

Then you say that in this setup they don't qualify since they lack charge. Then only light tanks will compete in these groups since they are the only classes have charge. So in the hib case no champs since they lack charge.

With high determination spec the only difference I experince is perhaps the slower speed towards the target which I don't experience as a huge disadvantege so I might disagree on that point. And Heroes and Blademasters are better then champions since determination + stoicism is better than only determination. You might disagree to that and that's fine.

I'm arguing with the following group set up in mind: 2 druids, 1 warden, 1 bard, 1 caster and 3 tanks. In that group I would choose 2 banelord tanks preferrably dual wilders and THEN perhaps a heavy tank warlord. Reason being , 2 banelords for interupts are good, dual wilders do out damage 2-hand swingers. The warlord can stop pets interupting your support / casters you have a mele damage reduction buff and with this patch on top of this an interupt shout, a group demezz buff (might be handy with mezz blocker like GOLM or CB) and debuff recist shout.

I know that you hate this word but I'll say it anyway I argue the contribution or utility increase from this new opportunity set might be grater than a 3rd Banelord.

And as I said these new abilites are for free, no one says that blademasters are crap because they have flurry and that group demezz is better than flurry. I would not encourage such an argumentation either becuase it's crap. My point is that you have to look at all the tools in the box.

Now you might disagree to that but I believe the group is better of or on equally terms then with a 3rd banelord.

So the question is if you believe that a 2 caster / 2 tanks group is better then a 1 caster / 3 tank group. If so you've stated that in this case the group needs 2 charge, 2 banelord tanks. In that case only blademasters in Hib. If this is your point of view I respect that .

On a side note, I think that the climbing wall buff is instead of the siege ladders discussed when mythic asked for improvements in the game.

 

[Lethul]

personally i would take a banelord champ instead of a warlord hero

On a side note, I think that the climbing wall buff is instead of the siege ladders discussed when mythic asked for improvements in the game.

OT!: seige ladders would totally destroy siege in this game

 

[Vasconcelos]

mid boost :<

Ditto

 

[Jergiot]

climb wall on heavy tanks makes sense, or not xD

 

[SethNaket]

Finally we are making progress, so if I interpret what you are saying is that a Hero/Armsmen best fits in hybrid group (my interpretation 4 dmg dealers, 2 casters and 2 tanks).

No, I'm saying they DON'T fit in that group setup and that's the whole problem for the class. These new abilities are not enough to give them a spot in the current form, except for warrior (who already have a spot as bg bot).

Then you say that in this setup they don't qualify since they lack charge. Then only light tanks will compete in these groups since they are the only classes have charge. So in the hib case no champs since they lack charge.

They need charge regardless of setup, and tbh they should have had it from the start. The reason champs can still be used is that they have banelord (hey!) and ranged instas, plus an awesome rr5 that works.

 

[Dumle]

The main problem in hib and alb that makes armsman/hero obsolete is IMO that....

Hib.. You have BG on an essential class, the warden who is also needed for resists + warden is uber Battlemaster because of his ability to spam the very costly BM styles because of his endreduction buff, AND he has TWF.

Alb.. Albs have BG on 2 very important classes, Paladin well you need the big tincan for the endchant if nothing else, Friar is also needed for resists on very common damagetypes (Friar tho being probably the weakest of bodyguards and takes alot of tricks to play right it seems.)

And lets face it, a heavy tank is made for bodyguarding not much else, lack of charge makes them more suitable for hanging back and defending and their survivability before and definetly after these changes far outshines their damageoutput.

The problem in alb and hib isnt the usefulness of the armsman or the hero, its the sad "must haves" of other classes that will have to do their job because they have abilitys that needs to be squeezed into the group somehow.

Now Im also not saying that Hero and arms cant bring something to a group at all, Im sure they can with the right player controlling them, they will just have to work a little harder to do it.

I also think its fun to see that everyone thinks that every single midgroup has a warrior BG, actually quite a few runs with a savage Semidefensive BGer, its a choice in playstyle really.

 

[Bracken]

To be honest, we can't really judge these changes until they go live and we see how they work in the field. On paper the basic choice alb groups will have if they want a bg'er is one as an end bot, one as a resist bot or one that is tough to take down. All 3 also bring some situational tools which may help in certain situations - but in the case of the armsman we won't really know now useful the extra tools are until it goes live and they can be tried out "in the field". I hope some of the ranges and timers get adjusted (favourably ofc ). I'm just glad mythic are finally taking a serious look at heavy tanks for the first time really since release and looking forward to trying out the new stuff when it comes in

 

[Dumle]

I think that an arms as a BGer can be very nice in an alb castergroup, considering that casters will be messed for quite a while with no det and no stoicism, with an arms they have an extra purger