Dersk

[ QUOTE ]
My fire/fire blaster, if I'm going all out with no regard for my own safety (is there any other way?) can and does pull agro off of anything but an Ice tank running both auras and taunting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure your experiences with overcoming taunt auras have nothing to do with the size of a fire/fire blasters AEs compared to a tankers taunt aura radius.

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers historically never "taunted" as much as the DEVs intended.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tanks used to take provoke instead of taunt, because it was an AE, and taunt was single target. Geko was actually surprised at people wanting provoke, since it caused the user to be attacked more. The developers didn't expect players to sit still with their immobilizing status protection spamming provoke just to hold agro, and I'm honestly surprised you're under the impression that kind of behavoir somehow wasn't taunt-centric enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Since tanks weren't taking Taunt, the provoke-punch in their attacks were added.
When the inherent powers were added, the Tanks were still not "hogging" the agro enough so they were stuck with an inherent that made them do their "job" better.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't find it here anymore, so here's a link to Badge-Hunter that archived a quote by Statesman: "Some people don't mind the traditional role of a Tanker as a meat shield, other do. Most importantly, however, is that people seemed not to like to be a "provoke bot". It appeared that a Tanker's role was to sit there, take damage, and occasionally hit Provoke. A Tanker's attacks were nice, but pretty much an afterthought in the grand scheme of things. Well, that's not much fun after all. Provoke is fine; but the Tanker's attacks should be MORE important when combat gets started in holding aggro than shouting at various mobs."

Tankers have always been hogging plenty of agro. The player-driven ideal of how a tanker should perform required dependence upon a pool power that didn't promote activity, and that is why tanker attacks were changed from only taunting what they hit (which they always did) to having AE taunt effects, as well has having Taunt the power itself changed from single-target to an AE.

[ QUOTE ]
[Tankers] weren't acting as designed

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. They weren't designed to be taunt-bots, but some players made built them that way regardless of their intended design.

Statesman explained that one "very valid concern" with tankers was that players felt: "1. Without Provoke, they are not a real Tanker. Those people who enjoy the MMP role of "meat shield" have trouble holding aggro properly." This was a player concern.

Yes, they expected tankers to take damage instead of teammates. The original availablility of taunting effects strongly suggests tankers weren't originally designed to take all the damage (and certainly not from an entire map all at once). To state that the players weren't living up to the developers' expectations of taunting tanks is nothing short of revionist history.

We didn't get gauntlet because we weren't taunty enough. We got gauntlet because we were too taunty, and that was unintended.

edit: I suppose this is a popular topic

[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't all the ATs have inherents that benefit you in some way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should is a very subjective term that is only answered by the developers, who have spoken very loudly with their actions (and inaction).

[ QUOTE ]
and you say that is works sometime? what does it do?

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a running streak of patches where it'd get fixed then broken a few times. Due to the lack of precise information concerning taunt mechanics, and the complete lack of any visual que of the range or targets affected by gauntlet, determining what, or if something, is wrong with gauntlet is difficult.

Gauntlet isn't really a power; it's really the area-effect taunt that's built into every tanker single-target attack from their secondary. Arguably, gauntlet includes the taunting effects on all the remaining tanker powers, like "agro auras" and pool powers. Brutes get that too, so the only real difference there is the AE taunt on the single-target attacks.

Oh, and it doesn't start at level 1, but level 6, and the duration increases with level in such a way that at low levels the duration is completely irrelevant to actual play.

I.E., it's best to just consider that the inherent doesn't actually exist.

[ QUOTE ]
Did "cone warp" allow you to break the target cap for cones?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[ QUOTE ]
Who says the devs don't read the forums

[/ QUOTE ]

...a lot of paranoid schizophrenics in the tanker forum.

Y'know, the timing here isn't exactly something that I can get rid of by a long hot shower.

[ QUOTE ]
"Fixed a bug where cones could hit significantly more enemies than intended."

I haven't kept on top of it so I don't know which cones this effects. p/n

[/ QUOTE ]

Well [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
One experience I had with Hover tanking Dark Melee, is that the Z-axis (seems) to mess with the cone geometry. I got HUGE Shadow Mauls and Sands of Mu consistantly.

Then again circle strafing seems to do the samething around large packs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be surprised to see just how far it can be stretched.

[ QUOTE ]
and plants.

[/ QUOTE ]

You kids and your new fangled toys.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's not so much the holds you want as the immobilizes, which most controller primaries other than Mind seem to have in abundance. Also, if you go defender or corruptor, Dark has that cone of immob. The thing is, the duration and recharge on mass holds is pretty harsh, so you need the immob to fill in between holds if you're going to use a lot of knockback powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Illusion doesn't have immobilizes, and the immobs in gravity don't prevent knockback. While that allows freezing rain to continue to knock opponents down while they remain immobilzed, the only way gravity has to mitigate knockback is through its holds, which are no more abundant than any other controller's.

For the purposes of giving opponents knockback protection, the choices are earth, ice, and fire.

Nova.

k

I'm going to hazard a guess and say he means Midnight Grasp.

[ QUOTE ]
Quicksand + Burn is the only possible (performance) reason I'd take Earth over Pyre. It's something I've never tested, though, so I can't say how good or bad it works. [edit: I concede it could be amazing - I've never personally utilized it.]

[/ QUOTE ]

Enemies can take a bit more damage from burn before they manage to run outside of its field of effect, but they also take longer to run back into the field of effect, which some enemies often do once or twice during burn's duration.

I've had decent use out of the immobilize for a single target, but slows in general aren't anything approaching amazing when combined with burn.

[ QUOTE ]
Postulate 1: Inf sinks aren't keeping up with the inf sources. That is, the amount of inf in the game is ever-increasing.

Postulate 2: Reduction of inf would be a good thing.

Now these postulates are not necessarily true- they've been argued about extensively, in fact.

However, if they WERE true...

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss one eventual effect, even if the first postulate is true.

Since market fees are a percentage of the volume of transacations by inf., as the amount of influence in circulation increases, and therefore the prices of items due to inflation, market fees will continue to increase until fees are so large that inf. is no longer accruing.

So, you then have an option of "do nothing and wait until fees = inf. produced". Whether that is a decent option or not would likely depend on exactly how much inflation would need to occure before we see fees taking enough inf. to balance out the actual amount of inf. added to the market.

The failure of that would obviously be an ever increasing rate of inf. gain, but that's much more unlikely and is more of a content specific issue than one related to the market.

[ QUOTE ]
Lot of tanks read these boards. Only a couple disagreeing with me. Probably because most of them don't care ... they play the game to play the game.

Might wanna take a hint.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with almost everything you say, but I usually don't bother mentioning it because you seem to not care about anyone's experiences (edit: here) but your own. Then, to see your comments about controlled experiments only reinforces my opinion of the uselessness of debating with you. You're welcome to believe in abiogeneis, alchemy, a flat earth, and geocentrism when they fit your "real world" experiences. Just don't expect others to stop their pursuit for understanding.

I'm sure everyone else that hasn't commented agrees with you, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they don't want me to hit ten targets with golden dragonfly, then they can change the target cap.

[/ QUOTE ]

They want you to be able to hit that many target max, provided you struggle doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly struggle, but now it's more of a possibility without forcing that many opponents to stack, which is all but impossible itself. Without this feature/exploit, I'd say it was practically impossible to hit 10, struggling or not.

I vote for extending the target cap of shadow maul to 10!

[ QUOTE ]
I was working Reactive Armour:resistance this last week

Recipe 1 million, enhancement 10 million. Margin has been squeezed right now

[/ QUOTE ]

I had been working on those for the past few weeks on one of my 70 characters, when I take the time to log onto him. The margin has been experiencing various amounts of squeeze for a while~

[ QUOTE ]
My gut says it's an exploit

[/ QUOTE ]

If they don't want me to hit ten targets with golden dragonfly, then they can change the target cap.

[ QUOTE ]
There goes your chance at the bug hunter badge

[/ QUOTE ]

If I thought badges were worth anything I might find that disheartening.

[ QUOTE ]
If alphas are a problem, the easiest solutions include liberal inspiration use and the Medicine pool.

[/ QUOTE ] If you have enough time to fire off aid self, alpha strikes aren't your problem.

[ QUOTE ]
That said...I'm rather surprised more than anything at these longtime players from the melee AT boards that have never seen this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it rather amusing that I avoided sets that coincidentally use melee cones, mostly due to activation times (claws, axe, katana, broadsword, etc) that have recently been changed. My regen scrapper avoided getting large groups in melee range, and my stone/axe tank isn't very light on his feet. I'm rather dissapointed I didn't realize this a long long time ago.

[ QUOTE ]
tremor takes 3 seconds to cast, and most of us dont bother to take the power at all

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see you make a poll for that. Seriously, I'd find it fascinating, regardless of how it's presented.

... because having two AE knockdowns in stone melee has destroyed the game.

I have noticed that it's much easier to do this if I activate the attack while moving. Stopping, even for the shortest period of time, makes extending the range much harder. As far as I can tell, the enemy moving doesn't matter, at least not as much.