BellaStrega

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously though, Jack falls into a category of modern "creative professional" that I can't stand. Along with him I lump Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, Michael Crichton, and that sort of mediocre talent that thinks financial success is equivalent to artistic preeminence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're assigning motives and attitudes here. It's not an uncommon attitude I see from people who feel that commercial success somehow devalues artistic endeavors, but it just doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

By no means do I think success devalues art. But I do think success doesn't value art, either, and it's easy to see from their attitudes that a lot of successful professionals feel validated by their income brackets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, of course. I've seen professionals use their success to try to validate their work...but that's not Neil Gaiman.

I don't really think it's Stephen King, either. Crichton, maybe. I don't know enough to say either way. I do believe that their fans might use their commercial success in that manner, but that's not the same thing.

I also don't feel that Jack is doing this. I may disagree with his statements and decisions on how to develop the game, but I don't think he's saying, "Oh YEAH, I'm so TOTALLY GONZO RICH that I'M THE NEW PICASSO."

Yes, that was a deliberately absurd statement. I don't think your characterization is fair, though.

I'm not saying anything on the mediocrity front, though. I'm leaving that alone.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yay, let's continue to crap on Statesman! We're at 10 pages now, keep it going!

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously though, Jack falls into a category of modern "creative professional" that I can't stand. Along with him I lump Stephen King, Neil Gaiman, Michael Crichton, and that sort of mediocre talent that thinks financial success is equivalent to artistic preeminence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're assigning motives and attitudes here. It's not an uncommon attitude I see from people who feel that commercial success somehow devalues artistic endeavors, but it just doesn't make sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Yay, let's continue to crap on Statesman! We're at 10 pages now, keep it going!

[/ QUOTE ]

So disagreeing with Jack Emmert = crapping on him? That's an interesting thesaurus you have there.

[ QUOTE ]

An individual game experience in front of a computer terminal sums up this final thought well. Players don't want a group shared experience but rather an individual gaming experience. If they have to give up something for the group then that design element is gonna flop and be hated by your playerbase.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of this relates to why people aren't all that happy with bases, though. To buy into that requires accepting the obvious and accurate as wrong.

It seems Statesman doesn't get why bases are so unpopular.

They just need to do something in the game (make raids operational, please) and they need to be affordable (nix upkeep entirely, reexamine prices).

Do these two things, and base popularity will probably increase.

Also, find other uses for bases for PVE.

I hope a dev reads this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I personally am very exited to see what the devs will do next. This MAY finally get the tanker rid of the Aggro Holding Bot role and into a more exiting play style, then again, it may just nerf us and leave us worse than we already are.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they make more changes like those revealed in this thread without giving Tankers some other kind of protective abilities (like a reverse bodyguard), I predict that Tankers will be as useful in AV fights as Dominators are.

P.S. Welcome back!

[/ QUOTE ]

Further, it will remove any rational opposition to the idea that debuff-oriented controllers and defenders are absolutely required for AV/GM fights, and no one would ever take a tanker over a scrapper.

What I want to know is: What difference does it make, aggro-wise vs. AVs, whether or not gauntlet works if all tankers end up taking taunt to AV fights? The end result is the same - AVs are aggro-locked on the tanker.

Of course, the real problems here are so thoroughly enshrined in the AT and power design, that making it fully workable in CoH is probably out of the question.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if tank folks heard, but the AVs are displaying massive resistance to nearly all debuffs during their "up arrows" cycle. They seem to blow off [u]everybody's[u] stuff while the Purple Triangles of Doom are going their way (except fo the sainted Rad set). I would guess they now get taunt resistance during the up arrows the same way they ignore attempts to mez them. You can probably taunt them just fine during the down arrows - if they aren't held at the time :P.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citation, please.

Speaking of which, Gideon, which pool attacks do your tankers have?

Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black
Tell 'em I ain't comin' back
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
There's no place I can be
Since I found Serenity
But you can't take the sky from me...

[ QUOTE ]
I almost hate to do it.. but please bear with me for a breif off topic..

Kali?

You gotta change that avatar.. lol

Im going crazy trying to figure out if it's River or Sarah Connors...

I'm betting River, though, based on your loc...

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, the quote in my sig is something River says in the series.

Either way, this image should clear things up for you.

That's a cool pic.

[ QUOTE ]
Given that Taunt auras aren't sudposed to work and Punch-Voke has little to no effect (leaning towards none) that must mean that I'm trumping the dmg output of Scrappers and Blasters I've teamed with then.

I really wish there would be an official stance on what the Tankers role in AV battles is. As it stands now the tankers role is "Take the alpha and spam taunt".

I get a feeling that Taunt-bot role is "working as intended" because a tanker doing nothing but spamming taunt seems to be part of the devs balance as shown by us being unable to hit moving targets for 3-5 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

(looks at the "Nerf Me" sign Gideon taped to his own back)

Prior to issue 5, I'd believe you're outdamaging scrappers. Not sure about blasters, though. Now? Who knows.

The aggro aura shouldn't make a difference as AVs are explicitly immune to it.

I did okay trick-or-treating today. I was able to stand in melee range with Eochais and Jacks, and keep my team alive while spamming a few powers.

Oh, that was my D3. Nevermind.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hear illusionists can tank pretty well, but I'm not sure how they do it without perma-PA.

[/ QUOTE ]

With 3 recharge SOs, I can usually have PA up by the next fight unless the previous one took 5 seconds due to a blaster nova. My illusionist controller is usually team recruiter when I play, and I have to admit I only look for a tank when I can't find a scrapper. As long as I have a defender, who my best friend is, to keep the scrapper alive, the scrapper is much more useful. I say this with my only level 50 being a tank who I love very much.

As a compromise, I like the idea of linking gauntlet with hold magnitude when it comes to AVs except when the AVs can't be held, they should be tauntable by gauntlet and when they can be held, they should not be tauntable by gauntlet.

Tankers should also get their damage increased (maybe 15%) in compensation for losing gauntlet against AVs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tankers really really really do not need a damage boost.

The triangle idea is kind of neat, though. I'm not sure I'd want to see it implemented, but it's better than what we have now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't mind that Illusionists can do some tanking. I don't mind that pets can substitute for a tank sometimes. I don't mind that a decent scrapper can do some tanking. But when any one of these three can tank better than I, a tank, for 90% of the content, there is something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't tank better. They can tank well enough with the support a tanker needs.

Well, scrappers can't. I hear illusionists can tank pretty well, but I'm not sure how they do it without perma-PA.

[/ QUOTE ]

With Spectral Terror and Phantom Army and Personal Force Field, I can main tank any spawn in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I can see how that'd work.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't mind that Illusionists can do some tanking. I don't mind that pets can substitute for a tank sometimes. I don't mind that a decent scrapper can do some tanking. But when any one of these three can tank better than I, a tank, for 90% of the content, there is something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't tank better. They can tank well enough with the support a tanker needs.

Well, scrappers can't. I hear illusionists can tank pretty well, but I'm not sure how they do it without perma-PA.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure - just like every other AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, every other AT has something they bring to AV fights. In most cases, their inherents improve that contribution. In the tanker's case, that inherent is explicitly denied.

[ QUOTE ]
There should not be a single mission where ANY AT is needed. Ever.

-- War

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between an AT being required and an AT contributing something that makes them useful additions to the team. You don't need tankers to take on AVs - you never have - but they should have something to bring to the table when you do bring them.

[ QUOTE ]

Indirectly, it did.

No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for letting us know.

Also, very nice sig. Your taste in television is impeccable.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm an Ice/Ice/Cold blaster. *shhhhh don't tell anyone* My powerset has largely been left alone except for ED. Well there was Hibernate but that was largely bleed off from a nerf to tanks. Does it suck for my blaster? Eh kinda, it is nice for a quick invincible rest. If I was less caring about concept on Cicle I'd swap it for probably electric. Can you imagine Emp pulse -> Blizzard? Can't run too far falling on your rear and disoriented. Yeah the recharge sucks (slower than a nuke), but I don't pop Blizzard too often anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever my blaster gets to 41, she's going to be Ice/Energy/Elec.

Not because I thought of EMP + Blizzard. Thanks, man! I actually had a concept for it and all. Plus, I love the look.

I believe all the blaster holds were hit after the defender holds were, but that may be it.

[ QUOTE ]


Hi.

I'm a blaster.

Most of us are still here 'cause we're used to getting rammed in the pooper anyway, so what difference does it make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, see... I just know I hit my limit with DA being unstackable at I3's launch...and it was only the fact that getting it two weeks later that kept me going.

I really need to take my blaster to 50...

To be fair, Castle doesn't respond immediately to PMs that deal with mechanical stuff like this. He doesn't always respond, but when he reads them you can bet he considers them.

That doesn't mean that you'll get anything through, though. I don't know if Castle is the last word on power changes.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, while this "Stealth Nerf" is a decidedly underhanded move on the part of the Devs (or even worse, another Bug), I think everyone needs to stop and take a breath.

To say that requiring one particular Power to take down a GM/AV is somehow unfair or borked fails to look at the bigger picture.

Can you take down a GM/AV without some form of -Regen?

No (some would argue that it is possible to accomplish this, but I don't consider a 30-60 minute whittle-fest an acceptable way to do it).

[/ QUOTE ]

It shouldn't be required either. Many of us posting in this thread said that AVs should not require that specific debuff to defeat.

[ QUOTE ]
And can you Tank (as in acquiring and holding aggro) a GM/AV without the Taunt power from any Tanker secondary?

No (at least according to recent personal experience & current Forum reports).

Are either of these situations fair & balanced?

I would say no to both.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Are either Game-Breaking?

I would say no to both.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are, however, AT-breaking, which isn't excusable either.

[ QUOTE ]
All we can gather from the current state of GM/AV encounters is that the Devs want them to be only achievable (or at least resonably achievable) with what they consider a 'Balanced' team (one with at least one -Regen Defender or Controller & at least one Tanker with Taunt to keep everyone else from getting pulped).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the devs have a clear idea of what they want from GM/AV fights, beyond having them be tough.

[ QUOTE ]
Although I must admit that I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here....all my Tankers have taken Taunt as early as possible, and use it regularly, and therefore are unaffected by this "change."

[/ QUOTE ]

Tankers had inherent taunt in their attacks prior to issue 3, and had punchvoke added to their attacks in issue 3, to reduce the need for all tankers to take taunt to manage aggro. Many people chose to skip taunt because they could accomplish aggro management with auras and attacks. The only fights where you really have use for a heal/buff/damage sponge are GM/AV fights, and now you are required to take taunt in order to hold aggro in those fights.

My tanker had taunt for 39 levels, and can get it again with a respec I already have banked. It doesn't really affect me all that much, either. However, that doesn't mean I can't argue against this shift in the game environment.

Meanwhile, in WoW: Burning Crusade, warriors are being given more non-taunt tools to generate and sustain hate.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cicle, could you repeat what you're trying to post?

I imagine it's about the difference between when scrappers didn't do anything well on a team and when they were overpowered and everyone wanted to nerf them, but without seeing your actual post, I can't have a decent conversation with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I have no idea how that happened.

I just said blasters still are

In regards to scrapper blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is axiomatic.

But blasters really need something. Seriously, if I were primarily a blaster player, rather than brute/scrapper/tanker, I would've been so gone forever last year.