Amanda, you seem to think that when we say "There is a right way to play" that we are suggesting "THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO PLAY AND IF YOU DO NOT PLAY THAT WAY THEN YOU KNOW WHERE THE CHEMICAL BATHS ARE, SIEG HEIL!!!!! SIEG HEIL!!! SIEG HEIL!!!!!" No, when we say "There is a right way to play", we are talking about a blanket term referring to "all ways that fit into the spectrum of the original design concept". Prefer more gold find than DPS? Fine. Prefer more DPS than gold find? Fine. Prefer one type of crusader over another? Fine. The issue comes about in the results, not the method used. If you're tanking, you're playing wrong. That doesn't mean "LOLOLOLOLOLOL U US TANKS NEWB", it just means that the end result - excessively tanking monsters - is wrong, not that the use of tanks AT ALL is wrong. I've had a debate with you before and I've seen you have a very....extremist mindset. You tend to take everything to it rational (or irrational) extreme and then blame the other person for your own misinterpretations. It is one thing to not understand someone's argument. That makes sense. What DOESN'T make sense is not understanding someone's argument because you purposely take their point way, way, WAY too lopsided, often conveniently-ignoring important factors of their debate or aggrandizing and exaggerating half of a point while ignoring or belittling the other half of the same point. When we say "There is a right way to play", we are saying that there is such thing as a right and a wrong way. However, you pick that apart. You aggrandize "a right way" by focusing too strongly on syntax to pull from it "a single right way", meanwhile ignoring the syntax of the latter section "a wrong way" since acknowledging that the words look like "a single wrong way" would require you to argue against us saying "there is a single wrong way" when you know that we're not saying that. You HAVE to ignore one half in order to inflate the other half.

"There is no holy grail at the end of a tunnel here or an end of the maze in your Pac Man scenario." This is a perfect example of that. What I described above amounts to "You're using a strawman argument" but I HAAAAAAATE using the term "strawman argument" because people overuse it to borderline-comedic levels. Still, that's what it is. You try to argue "There is no endpoint, and you're saying that there needs to be an endpoint for there to be a right way to play." No. Nobody said that. You said that. What *I* said was that running headlong into death repeatedly for it's own sake is the wrong way to play a game. What part of that sounds like "There needs to be an endgoal"? You're putting words I did not say into my mouth to have an argument to debate against.

"Is the goal to grab as many idols as you can? Or is the goal to finish all objectives? Or finish all achievements? Or collect all 'saders? Or get all 'saders to legendary?" Yes, to any and all of those. Again, like I mentioned above, there CAN be more than a single right way to play a game, but you're too focused on being an argumentative snowflake to realize that you contradicted yourself. Previously, you were making a "There doesn't need to be an endgoal to validate a playstyle" and then in the next paragraph, you make the argument "The right way to play depends on each person's own unique, personal endgoal." Your point is unfocused and unstructured because your sole interest in being belligerent. I have O.D.D. I know belligerence when I see it.

"If tanking isn't suppose to be such a big part of the game then the devs wouldn't keep releasing new 'saders that do well in or add value to a tank formation." ...This is easily the silliest sentence in your entire post. Supposedly, your ENTIRE argument is "Freedom of choice and customization" and then you fail to work out that the devs put more of ANY type of crusader in for the sake of choice and customization? They don't release more tanks to push the message "Tank formations should be used more often!!", they release more tanks to give players more options of what KIND of tank they prefer. Littlefoot is not nearly as good of a tank at Thalia is, but Littlefoot's abilities (ignoring legendary abilities, obviously) allow him to also act as a DPS buffer, so if someone wants more defense, they'll put Thalia in front, but if they want to sacrifice some defense for more DPS, they use Littlefoot. How did this personalization factor slip your mind when that is your ENTIRE point? I know I keep saying that, but it just tickles me so much.

The above sentence did make me laugh, but your list wasn't far behind. It made me laugh almost as much. Your argument is so logically skewed that it is hilarious. Like...AMAZINGLY biased. Let me break this down for you simply...

What you are trying to say: "Why would devs release so many crusaders that work so well with tanks?"

What you are actually saying: "Tanks keep your formation alive, so damn near literally ANY other crusader would be more useful while they are NOT DEAD."

Who'd have thought that positive formation stats are...positive? NOT dying is better than dying? Woah. What a revelation. Let me try a few other list ideas...

Why the devs keep pushing the importance of gold-finders: Healers keep you alive longer to kill more monsters at higher areas, tanks allow you to more effectively keep more of your crusaders alive at once, DPSers allow you to kill stronger enemies faster, defense buffers can make any crusader more resilient.

Why the devs keep pushing the importance of healers: Tanks are more capable of receiving healing over longer periods of time, gold-finders are most effective typically when surrounded by or in formations of lots of other living crusaders, DPSers often depend on buffs from other crusaders which would die without healers.

Why the devs keep pushing the importance of DPSers: Healers keep more crusaders alive to be able to buff DPSers, tanks protect the formation to keep buffers and DPSers safe, gold-finders work best when paired with strong DPSers so that they can buff the gold find of higher-level monsters.

Your list only proves one thing: Positive formation effects are positive. DUH?! Trying to make it sound like the devs have been pushing tanks is just your own bias making you ignore the INCOMPETENCE of the point you were trying to make.

"he wants something, that something is not unreasonable". Yes, it is! That's the whole point! Tanking is without ANY doubt the wrong way to play the game (if you're debating that, we are playing different games), therefore any suggestion that pertains solely to tanking SHOULD be ignored. Actually, let me rephrase that: if those changes were possible by waving a magic wand around, then sure, let's do that. But since fixes require TIME and effort on the devs' part, those issues that are (or should be) irrelevant MUST be ignored. Even if it took 10 minutes to fix, this request is not worth those 10 minutes (and it's gonna take a lot more than that, let's be honest here!).

We ARE sticking to the point here. The point is, since tanking should almost never be used, this is not worthy of a fix. The whole discussion about tanking is absolutely pertinent, because it's about the extremely low priority that any fix related to tanking should have.

get lost animenut.

"You list includes a lot of crusaders that have nothing to do with tanking, such as those with magnify or savage strikes. And clicker crusaders, that are notoriously useless with the exception of the Bush Whacker. Other crusaders may have taking abilities, but that's never the reason they are used (littlefoot, thalia, etc.) You even put Mindy in there, just to get your list longer!"
Magnify increase the effect of firestorm, royal command, click-o-rama, savage strikes, alchemy, and gold-a-rama which are all useless abilities if you are instakilling. That makes a crusader in Kaine's slot valuable in any tank build. Savage Strikes and clicking can usually get me an extra 15-20 levels. As for Mindy she is usually mimicing Merci and Montana in my tank builds, so I view her as essential. But I will admit that Ghraham is useless in any build and shouldn't be on that list or any list. I'm not entirely sure how I missed him...

Please, don't get me wrong I am not saying no did I ever say that tanking should be the way this game is played. I am just pointing out that this game CAN be played multiple ways and has quite obviously been designed to allow a player to push against a wall. Nor am I saying that you can push very far while tanking. However, with a good build and several buffs 30 extra levels is possible and that is speaking from personal experience.(that is with all crusaders maxed, of course tanking could get you further if your crusaders could still be leveled up) By no means should one spend days tanking but an extra hour or couple hours is not going to cripple anyone.

"any suggestion that pertains solely to tanking SHOULD be ignored."
I've found from experience that formations are pretty useless. I can easily get to 950 in events with a thrown together formation. With a thought out formation and a little tanking at the end getting past 1,000 is a walk in the park. Is a paltry extra 50 levels worth the time and effort of building a thought out formation? Probably not, especially if you have looked at all the statistics out there. In fact one shouldn't even be going to thier wall if they can easily max out thier crusaders. If I recall correctly it is more efficient to reset when the 16th slot is maxed and then to reset after. Building formations and tanking are a couple of the few interactive parts of this game. Over 90% of objectives can be set to an auto clicker and walked away from once set up. So why should suggestions relating to tanking be ignored when it is one of the few times that a player actually gets to interact with the game? Seems like it should be the opposite.

Oddly enough I am not a big fan of tanking, it is fairly pointless, but it can be a fun way to amuse oneself from the monotony of endless FPs and objectives so every couple runs I'll amuse myself and see how far I can get. Yes, I know that comes off as a little contradictory, but it is the truth and very mood dependant. I have just been playing devil's advocate since I saw another player being unfairly put down for a perfectly valid suggestion. A suggestion that I can see the value in and think should be given a fair shake. Especially when the only objection that is being made is variations of 'tanking is stupid.'

With that I bid you adieu.






@Animenut making accusations at me while simultaneously doing exactly what you are accusing me of? Priceless!

A lot of general-purpose gameplay (free play runs / idol farming / chest farming) does cater towards "efficient play" (ending a run not too long after instakills can no longer be maintained or after reaching level caps). This will tend to make up a larger portion of the game experience in the long run because free plays are the generic and infinitely repeatable path for power growth while objectives are "one and done" tests against the power you've accumulated so far.

Objectives impose a variety of conditions meant to add challenge to the game, and in some cases these conditions do create situations specifically designed to favor a tanking strategy.

The developers have also created more than a few crusaders who only really show off their full potential in those types of situations. Characters designed to provide healing, to withstand heavy attack, to provide damage reduction, to periodically snipe a random target / multiple random targets, to periodically damage all targets, to hit enemies with movement slowing effects*, to throw out some form of retaliation in response to an ally's death, or anything else I've forgotten to list.

*(I experimented with slowing effects pretty heavily in the tier 2 superhero objective with the variety of specialty enemies. I had Arachnobuddy's webs and Gloria's polymorphs both slowing down groups of enemies and then I had Greyskull and others in there to shoot them up. I think I had Mindy copying both slows as well. And I had Karl splitting the DPS so the tank enemies wouldn't be eating all the DPS. It was a really effective combo... Which I probably won't use again until I try another objective similar to that one.)

As was pointed out, click damage and some of the active abilities also don't really do much for you while you're instakilling. Enemies have to stay on the screen longer than it takes for formation DPS to take them out before such abilities can become relevant.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the devs are NOT going to ease off on creating new objectives or new crusaders built around tanking. It IS an intended part of the game, and concerns around it DO have their place. It's just that in the long term the repeatable power grind portion of the game overshadows the non-repeatable challenge portion of the game. A player might clear all of the objectives, or at least everything that they're currently strong enough to handle, and then they fall back on free play as the default game mode.

Well said, Muljo.

Indeed, there IS good reason to tank; certain objectives practically require it.

Therefore, MrWizard's suggestion is a good one, and he should not have gotten 'jumped on' with derision and unsolicited advice for making it imho.

Amanda, quick shout out to irony. Muljo says "Tanking has a use, but only in specific, isolated, uncommon cases, and so the devs aren't going to bother with such a rarely-relevant complaint, even if it makes sense" and you jump on that ship in a hurry to praise his "way with words". Meanwhile several other people say "Tanking has a use, but only in specific, isolated, uncommon cases, and so the devs aren't going to bother with such a rarely-relevant complaint, even if it makes sense" and you break out the flaming pitchforks because you're unable to put away your emotional bias.

Someone you're not trying to oppose says the exact same thing as the people you're trying to oppose; you agree with the former and attack the latter. Sounds distinctly like contrarianism to me. Not that I expect you to acknowledge that because I said it and, as you've demonstrated, you are incapable of agreeing with anyone you've decided to oppose on anything, not just regardless of, but seemingly IN SPITE OF the facts that you, yourself, admit to. Yeah yeah, call all of this "derogatory remarks" if that makes it easier for you to cope with being told the truth.

FingerDemon, Muljo said that the original issue IS an issue, but is not an issue that will be "fixed" by the devs because it is far, far, far too rarely relevant to merit the effort it would take to fix. He's agreeing with Teschio and I.

Whether or not a suggestion is relevant or worth the developers' time is up to CNE, not us.

I can see how you think he is saying the same thing as you. Of course I could also say he reiterated all of the points I had made... I'm not going to get into an argument on what Muljo meant by his carefully chosen words b/c he did a brilliant job of summing up everyone's viewpoint with out coloring it by saying things like "you're unable to put away your emotional bias" or "you didn't understand our position, or you didn't understand his"

I said in one of my earlier posts "No one is saying that tanking is an efficient way to play, rather what happens when when one does tank. Whether you are tanking b/c you are new, trying to unlock a new 'sader, unlock a new talent tier, pass an objective, get an achievement, or just for fun and to amuse yourself when you have millions idols is irrelevant." A point I reiterated a few times in subsequent posts. You for some reason seemed to think I was advocating for tanking. I would love to see where you got that from when all of my posts were about how tanking is an integral part of the game and that any suggestion that pertains to tanking shouldn't be dismissed just b/c tanking is inefficient.

Guys, can we please leave this be, now? CNE very likely has added the idea to the players' suggestion list already and you have moved quite significantly off topic for a while.

Cheers!