Liquid

[ QUOTE ]

Moreover the way the PvP ratings system works, there is strong incentive to be the one that wins first, even if after that you lose second.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you're talking about the arena, right? I was thinking Siren's Call, where one fight is really just one of many. Yeah, I can see how they'd be an issue in the arena, but that's what the "no temp powers" option is for, right? If only one side has them, you can use that.

P.S.
[ QUOTE ]
In PvE, the length of missions and the number of fights guarantees that no matter how many of these things you have, you will ultimately have to fight without them eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anyone that uses those outside of AV/GM/EB fights though, so unless my friends are outliers, that doesn't apply.

[ QUOTE ]
In PvP, the unit of combat is the engagement: PvP has to be balanced within that shorter time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but it's also important to note that PvP requires any "rewards" to be beneficial in a shorter time frame as well, or they are not very useful.

I think the Warburg Nukes are good for PvP-- you can only carry 3 total (one of each type), and they have an immediate and significant benefit. They take time to get, but can really turn the tide of a single team vs team PvP fight. It may be that the time requirement would need to be lowered if they were PvP only (again, I'm not advocating this right now, just analyzing it) by making them require two codes instead of 3, but I think the powers themselves are spot on for PvP play.

Shivans... not so much.

[ QUOTE ]
Ever since the last time I got into one of these discussions, I've been trying to stay out of it, but I just don't learn.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know how you feel. Really.

Just so you know, that post wasn't there to promote the idea of making the temp powers PvP only. It was there to explain to Arcanaville why most people suggest that, because I don't believe her assumptions to be correct at all.

I agree with your observation that Shivans aren't used in PvP very often, though I'm not sure that it is because they are worthless in it-- I think they may not be used because they are *more* useful in PvE, so people save them for that. However, my opinion isn't particularly strong on that topic, so I'd say that if they were made PvP only, they should be examined to see if they need to be given mastermind-like controls or something else to make them more useful in it.

Regardless of their effectiveness in PvP, my point wasn't that *they* make PvP more interesting, but that the act of getting them does. It's the "game" of Bloody Bay, like Hotspots and bounties are in Siren's. It just happens to be that Siren's Call's game is *far* more fun, despite SOs not really being all that great of a reward.

I'm almost getting into another topic here (what makes PvP more desirable, rewards or fun gameplay?), and I don't really want to start *another* subthread, so I'll stop there.

I don't like suggestions that make content useless either. I'm not actually making that suggestion, though, just explaining the more likely thought process behind it.

I'm not interested in debating which group counts more than which other group. I said what I did because Arcanaville objected to the idea that one group counts less than another, and I was trying to show that this is actually one of the same problems that her opponent group has. Obviously some groups count more than others: those who comprise the larger portion of the playerbase (or perspective playerbase), and therefore deliver a larger return on investment are going to be more important.

I wasn't objecting to the idea that some people are more important than others when considering changes to the game, I just wanted to show her how her theories look from the other side of the fence: exactly as she thinks things look on their side from her side.

[ QUOTE ]
Here it comes.....

Ready for it? Say it with me now!

Bull.

I hear lots of people going on about how the devs do not want people soloing AVs.


[/ QUOTE ]

The devs specifically said they don't want anyone soloing AVs, multiple times. AVs on Invincible, if I remember correctly, were added because people complained about not being able to even try. That the *attempt* was important to them.

Anyway, it looks like the devs may have decided that using PvP temp powers is an exception they will allow. They haven't specifically said that though, so Ultimus' threads got people pretty worried. I think Castle's second post has calmed them down, for now at least.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is the devs, who made the difference between optimal and suboptimal the difference between 50 and 550.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having minor anxiety over arguing with you so much in the last couple of days, so I feel the need to say that I agree with this. Just so you know that I don't mean to just be combative.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It's really not like that. Asking for bell peppers to be no longer served is like asking for PvP to be removed from the game entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, "it" is really like that, because the "it" the passage you quote specifically refers to the sentence immediately preceding it, which you didn't quote with this passage:

[ QUOTE ]
If I absolutely hated PvP, I might tell the devs that, speaking as one person, I would prefer the game focus on other things. But I would not suggest that the game itself would be automatically better if it didn't have it, unless I had a much better reason than that.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Then that's a strawman, because that request wasn't presented by anyone else that I saw. If I'm wrong, however, you did do a good job debunking it, and I apologize for misinterpreting your target argument.

[ QUOTE ]

1. If Shivans and Nukes are seen as too powerful, why would anyone advocate allowing their use in PvP? PvP has stronger balance requirements than PvE, and if Shivans and Nukes are overpowered, the *first* place to ban them is specifically in the PvP zones. Suggesting the reverse, that they be used *only* in PvP zones, but allowed elsewhere, is untenable unless you believe PvP balance is irrelevant, because PvP is significantly less important, and its fine to make it the dumping ground for balance issues. Lets just say I happen to disagree.


[/ QUOTE ]

PvP doesn't have stricter balance requirements, it has *different* ones. Radically so. That's why people don't like it when changes are made to powers because of PvP, when they didn't need to be made in PvE. The perfect example is Hibernate. Being able to sit there forever, invulnerable but unable to move or affect anything, in PvE is not an advantage (once Taunt wears off, anyway). Being able to do so in Siren's Call to deny people bounty for amusement, or after beating someone in an Arena match to ensure a 1/0 victory, is.

Things work the same in the shard as they do everywhere else. If Kora Fruit are unbalanced in the Shard, they are unbalanced everywhere else, unless they made Rularuu harder to counter the existence of Kora Fruit (or vice versa). Under those circumstances, you might expect people to suggest the idea, but Malta and Carnies really can be just as hard, and are found outside of it as well.

This is not the same with PvP zones: Player Characters are VERY different from mobs.

[ QUOTE ]

2. The design *purpose* of the Shivans and Nukes is obviously to be allowed to use in the most challenging circumstances the player might face. Restricting them from being used in those situations circumvents their design purpose. Why continue to have them at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

To make PvP more interesting.

[ QUOTE ]

The presumption is that the only people who get them are people who are willing to tolerate PvP, and such people don't count.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this worse than the current situation where the only people who *don't* get them are those who can't stand PvP, and *those* people don't count?

[ QUOTE ]

Saying "you can still use them in PvP" is a discriminating brush stroke: it says "you are willing to get them, therefore you are a PvP person, so you shouldn't mind if we restrict some of your activities to PvP only."

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is better than discriminating against players who don't like PvP and can't complete the LRSF without those powers how?

[ QUOTE ]

I don't use shivans or nukes in PvP. Moreover, I would be totally happy if they were barred *from* PvP, because of balance issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're okay with "PvPers can't use these powers in PvP" but not "PvPers can't use these powers in PvE"? What the hell?

[ QUOTE ]
So for me, restricting shivans and nukes to the PvP zones only, is the absolute worst of all possible options. It only looks good because the dumping ground for the problems is largely in PvP, and that of course doesn't count.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it looks good because they are obtained in PvP zones, and spice up PvP.

You are assigning malice to the reasoning. The reasoning behind the request is not malice, but a desire to help PvE balance without removing all interesting activity from Bloody Bay and Warburg. That desire may be misinformed, as the devs may not rebalance the LRSF without them, and the Devs may not be concerned with people soloing AVs with them, but it's the desire.

[ QUOTE ]

The irony is that this suggestion takes something away from the PvE experience, but doesn't replace it with anything. Its an Anti-PvE suggestion, it just doesn't look like one because of (what I believe to be) the mistaken belief that without Shivans and Nukes, the devs would improve the PvE experience in ways a lot of people seem to believe they are currently *prevented* from doing, but which I would assess as having essentially zero probability of occuring. So its an anti-PvP suggesstion, and an anti-PvE suggestion simultaneously. I seem to be in a minority of one that sees it that way, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that, when people suggest they be restricted, it is because they know the devs don't want us soloing AVs, and are hoping to provide a suggestion that prevents the powers from being made worthless in PvP. Also, many people making the suggestion do believe that the Devs might lower the difficulty of the LRSF if those weren't usable in it.

It's a pro PvE suggestion that is intended to remove any impact on PvP. Again, it may be made using false assumptions, but it's not made for the reasons you think it is.

You totally missed Street Fighter and the Daily Show. I didn't plug those for nuthin'.

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of the distaste for PvP is really manufactured: many players see the game as "us" players verses "them" the developers, and they see players hunting players as a form of treason.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for others, but that's not what I'm thinking. It has everything to do with: PvP being un-fun due to character build imbalance (often, but not exclusively resulting from PvE builds being much less effective from PvP ones), population imbalance in pvp zones (it seems every time I go in one side is outnumbered dramatically), and that percentage of jerks that do crap like kill-and-runs on the defender.

I thoroughly enjoy PvP in games like Quake and Street Fighter, so it's not just about playing against other players.

[ QUOTE ]

If NCSoft hired a bunch of employees to control the NPCs in a special zone that had similar rewards as the PvP zones, with strict instructions to kill as many players as possible, I don't think most players would see that situation in the same light as PvP, even factoring out the trash talk. Because now the humans doing the killing are "just doing their jobs." Its not a form of treason, its just another form of game challenge.

An amazing form of perspective reversal, just because of a paystub.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how they did it. If they were told to kill players *by whatever means possible*, then you'd still have ganking, griefing, and cheap tactics. I most certainly would not want to play if a dev was running Eochai all over Croatoa and ganking people as they try to complete their kill tasks, or if devs controlled spawns, and 4 of them ran their spawns up to the front of the mission and repeatedly killed players as they zoned in.

It would take a very well managed team of dev players for such a situation to work well.

[ QUOTE ]

Its like suggesting that Pizza Hut stop serving bell peppers, because not everyone likes bell peppers, and if they did, they could spend more time making their pepperoni and mushroom toppings better. Its totally irrelevant as to whether the statement is a true statement or not: the question is whether its a reasonable suggestion even if true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really not like that. Asking for bell peppers to be no longer served is like asking for PvP to be removed from the game entirely.

What it is like, is like going into Pizza Hut after enjoying their vegetarian pizza for a year, and finding that it tastes radically different, and makes you a little queasy. You then notice that they have 3 new Meatlovers pizzas, and you wonder... are they cooking the pizzas on the same pan as the Meatlovers?

They *say* they aren't, and give you other reasons for why the vegetarian pizza is different, but it's still hard to stomach. (ba-dum-tch)

[ QUOTE ]
All I was trying to say was, if they wanted, they could put them in just the PvP zones so that they don't have to be changed and don't affect the PvE the way they do now (all of this before Castle's QR). End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of the bit about 2:14 into this Daily Show clip where Jon Stewart shows a picture of John McCain with glowing red eyes.

[ QUOTE ]

What is it about PvP that makes people justified in even suggesting that PvP-related rewards should be confined to PvP-related situations. If someone said Amy should only work in Croatoa task forces, they'd be laughed off the boards.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you actually want an explanation or not, but I'm going to try to give one in case you do.

PvP smack talk and insults aside (that's what the ignore feature is for), Mary Macomber will not show up in Croatoa while you are doing your kill X task, trying to find Sally, or whatever other activity you are interested in doing at the moment, and kill you in 2 seconds with no chance of survival or retaliation. She also will not then decide to repeat it until you leave the zone if you ask her to stop, just to piss you off.

She will not get 7 of her buddies to kill you while you are solo, or camp the Tram so you and a few other random people (who may not want to team with you to help you out) can't get out into the zone.

If you actually decide to try to deal with the issue by getting a team (which usually won't help, given that team in those zones usually want to PvP, not help keep PvPers off of you while you do your PvE task), she will not continually teleport you out of the team so that her friends can kill you in half a second before yours can react.

She will not show up, kill you instantly from stealth because your friends don't have 3 sets of tactics, and then jump/teleport away before your teammates can even retaliate. All. Night. Long.

These are things I learned that Mary will not do during one of the few times I've either tried giving PvP in this game "another chance", or when I had to be in Siren's for 5 hours on my Brute for the Born in Battle Accolade.

So yeah, the Croatoa TF just doesn't tend to foster loathing quite the same way that PvP does, because while it may make you fight an AV 10 times in a row, and only give you one SO drop, you have a much larger population to draw from to deal with it (PvEers), and Mary doesn't turn into a cheap-[censored] when she's losing (or just because she enjoys it).

Also, let me know if I'm mistaken here, but I believe once you run out of Amy uses, you can never get her again, while you can always restock Shivans. This makes Amy a toy of sorts, and Shivans a tool that can be used whenever you like, as long as you're willing to spend the time and PvP risk to get it.

If Amy was replenishable, I think 8 free empaths might make staying alive on the Statesman TF pretty trivial. Would you see calls to have her "nerfed"? Probably not by many, as the Croatoa TF is actually pretty fun in the same way that the Statesman TF probably will be. So, people would just do it, because they don't have to deal with Mary being a jackass and camping the Missile Command thingie with Hurricane on, while her teammates keep her alive for just the 5 minutes needed to make you start all over again.

Note: this is not a logical argument in an attempt to get you to agree with my opinion about PvP. It's just why people feel justified in wanting PvP and PvE to be separate: they feel like completely different games to some people, and one of those games isn't one they want to be playing. Many also believe, even though you don't, that PvP shoved into a PvE game often negatively impacts PvE game mechanics. Some believe that the power of the PvP temp powers is affecting the difficulty of a PvE task that they want to be involved in, because they can't see another reason why it would be so freaking hard. You've explained to me an alternate reason (the Devs just want it to be so freaking hard, and aren't necessarily concerned about the PvP temp powers), and I accept that as a likelyhood, but others may not.

You may think they are wrong-- but that is why they feel justified.

[ QUOTE ]
take it for what you will, but an all MM (that is their VG concept) VG beat it without shivans or nukes on Infinity. No doubt this will be ignored by a lot of people, but whatever, just spreading the word on their accomplishment to show something other than a corrupter+stone team or a nuke/shivan team can do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd really like to hear from a mixed team that beat it, instead of extremes like 8 MMs or 1 brute + 6 corruptors + <charity slot>. I'm not discounting their accomplishment, but I'd really, really like some evidence that my SG, who will have a mixed bag with no radiation and definitely at least one dominator (if not 2), might actually have a shot at it without having to deal with PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression they were absolutely necessary for the LRSF.

[/ QUOTE ]

So was I, but I was informed that people have resorted to just loading up with Corruptors (particularly Rads). So, in essence, those temp powers aren't necessary unless you and your friends are more interested in picking ATs and Powersets for concept reasons, instead of whatever allows you to complete the endgame content without them.

I'm in that boat, and I'm out of slots, so I couldn't make a Rad Corruptor or Stone Brute if I wanted to, and honestly, I don't want one of either. I already have a Radiation Emission user hero-side, and I have no interest in playing a rock monster, let alone a character that can't step up a curb without risking stun-lock. We don't have any active characters of either type in our villain SG, because, just as Positron once suggested we should, the majority of us don't think of our characters as a set of numbers and stats. We pay attention to the numbers, and optimize the builds we have, but very few of us pick ATs or powersets for mechanical superiority.

So, personally, *I* feel they are required for it, because they would be for my SG. But from what I've been told, the people doing them now are loading up with buffs and debuffs (particularly Radiation), and probably a Stone Brute.

Awesome. These animation changes are fantastic, and the communication on them is wonderful too.

I want to repeat my opinion that setting a balance point like "all self only buffs do not root" and applying it is a great thing, and any continuation of this design method will improve the game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When CoH came out it was City of Blasters and that had to be adjusted. We don't want to see that skewed dynamic again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Historical note: the very first "numbers post" I ever made on the forums was one of my first posts ever: having read the "City of Blasters" discussions that were going on at the time, and not quite seeing that for myself, I conducted census tracking of my server in various zones at various times of day. My conclusion was that blasters at the time made up between 30% and 40% of all logged in characters depending on zone, with the number rising to a peak in the mid 20s, and falling off above 30. My conclusion at the time was that blasters were levelling out of the single digits and teens very fast, which depleted blasters in the low levels slightly, and piled them up in the 20s. But then levelling speed levelled off, and from that point forward they tended towards their true percentage, which was about 30%-35% of all logged in characters. Which is high, in a game with 5 archetypes, but not ridiculously so, given the natural conceptual attraction of playing a blaster when the game was very new.

If I recall correctly, the ones much lower than the expected average were scrappers and (especially) controllers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been wanting to say this for a while now.

CoH was City of Blasters at release not because of Smoke Grenade as so many seem to be saying these days, but because range actually was a defense below level 20, and they got full benefit of their defense at level 1. They also, at the time, put out more DPS and DPE (they had a 20% endurance discount over all other ATs) than any other AT within that level range, which is always popular.

It was City of Blasters at launch because from 1-20 Blasters were the best performing AT all around, and 95% of the players were between level 1 and level 20. The story was completely different once you hit the 30s, but very few people had figured that out yet.

P.S. I'm not disagreeing with you, Arcana, just adding to it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, while researching this problem, I discovered that Gauntlet from pool powers like Boxing or Air Superiority have, apparently, never worked. That'll be fixed as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
now that's weird! i know in my tests i get aggro from Boxing and not from Brawl. i had always assumed it was Gauntlet, tho it sounds like it might just be hate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's single target Taunt in the pool attacks. I'm pretty sure they've had those since around issue 1 or maybe even in beta, and I thought it was by design that they never got the AoE of Gauntlet. At one point they just did damage, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
_Castle_ just acknowledged that Invincibility is bugged. The taunt is apparently not working properly either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correction:
All aspects of Invincibility EXCEPT the taunt effect are working. The Taunt effect, however, appears to only be effecting minions. This is true for all auto-taunt effects, including Gauntlet.

Interestingly, while researching this problem, I discovered that Gauntlet from pool powers like Boxing or Air Superiority have, apparently, never worked. That'll be fixed as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you so much, Castle.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh... and if you get the full test server notes, some other archtypes are getting reigned in bit as well. (Impale range change to 40', Fire Imps summon at -1 level to the controller).


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get in here ahead of the goofballs and just say that, as a scrapper, I think the Impale change is a very good one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. So uh, is Spines no longer considered a mistake with this?

If so, does that mean we can get Pistol Scrappers now, and have them work like the new Spines?

(I know, give me an inch and I take a mile :P)

I'm here because it's the only superhero MMO in town, and there is (so far) no "loot" until level 47, leaving me free to just do things for the sake of fun. And by "things", I mean experiencing PvE combat with different ATs and powersets, none of which were on the list.

So, I chose costumes, since it was in a close tie for me with "storyline" out of things that actually were on the list, and I don't like the Phalanx/Arachnos centric direction that the storyline has taken since CoV, leaving our characters as bit players in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All of these, very much including the name slip, invariably leads one to conclude that there's a certain level, "Meh, [censored] 'em." attitude going on. [/rant]

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all true. If that were my attitude, I wouldn't even be trying to get some changes through. I can understand why you think that would be the case, though.

In an upcoming patch, here are a few things you'll see:
Increased minimum ranges for attacks like Blaze.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would go a long way towards helping Blasters. They need a ranged single target attack chain, or it cancels the whole idea of "range = defense", because they have to spend so much time in melee.

[ QUOTE ]

Some improvements for */Fire (No, no powers were switched out. No Fiery Embrace, I'm afraid. )

[/ QUOTE ]

Great to hear.

[ QUOTE ]

Some improvements for Fire/*


[/ QUOTE ]

Really odd to hear, though I don't spend much time in the blaster forums, so maybe they have problems that I haven't witnessed in game. Or did you mean to say "some improvements for AR/*"?

[ QUOTE ]

A very minor improvement for Gadgets...I mean, Devices! (Yeah, it was a dumb mistake -- typing in haste and all of that.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Great! Hopefully what you consider "minor", we consider "just what it needed".

[ QUOTE ]

I have some ideas for other changes/improvements, but there is no ETA on when or if I'll get them in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I suggest one? Could you consider changing the Knockback on some (particularly Energy) or all Blaster AoE/Cones to Knockdown so that they can be used in teams without disrupting other people's powers? Also, could you push for a (Dam, Acc, Rech, or EndRed)/Knockback enhancement in inventions that is cheap to make, to allow those who prefer knockback to keep it without being forced to sacrifice much?

Or even better, is it possible to make a (Dam, Acc, Rech, or EndRed)/-Knockback enhancement to keep from forcing any change on anyone, and giving people who don't like the knockback the ability to remove it?

Thanks for all that you do, Castle.

Aside from fixing the cost issues, Statesman, I want to say that having some missions on the Mission Computer would make bases used a lot more.

You don't need them to be crazy awesome original stuff even, if you made the equivalent of Newspaper missions on them designed for groups (and I don't mean "click 4 glowies at once"), and always had a mission type that would have one of several AVs as the climax, I know they'd get use.

It would be nice to get crazy awesome original stuff, but this would be a start.

[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, iakona, what about the Epic Pools? If Epic Pools still have it too, then we've solved another problem: Tankers stealing Hamidon aggro from the Taunter, when using an epic power (and probably in combination with a pool attack).

[/ QUOTE ]Tanker Epic Pool attacks all have inherent taunt that works on all critters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. You reading this Quatermain?

Thanks, iakona!

P.S. Sorry Gideon, you have taunt effects on both Tankers. You may not be holding aggro for the reasons you think. Hopefully this means you won't get nerfed.

[ QUOTE ]

Luckily for me my method of aggro control is an extremely violent beatdown of the AV so they don't care as much about Blasters and Scrappers


[/ QUOTE ]

And uh... Air Superiority. You did say Neil had it, and that he was the one you brought out for the AV fights.

Gideon, I'm totally not trying to put you down or anything. Just trying to get to the bottom of the difference between your experience and mine. Air Superiority having a taunt effect would be it, as our builds are apparently very similar otherwise.

So, iakona, what about the Epic Pools? If Epic Pools still have it too, then we've solved another problem: Tankers stealing Hamidon aggro from the Taunter, when using an epic power (and probably in combination with a pool attack).

Interesting.

Note that I did zero testing on GMs, and never noticed one way or the other because their AoEs are so massive that aggro control doesn't feel like it matters much.

It's possible this Eochai (as opposed to the one in Croatoa), since it was created 2 years ago, doesn't have the explicit immunity to gauntlet and/or taunt auras.

It would be nice to get confirmation on that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: docbuzzard
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: Gideon "Heavy Assault Scrapper" F
.
I've been playing alts mainly but i have been called in to smash AVs. Since I generally dish out dmg on par with the Blasters and Scrappers. They don't trump my aggro very often.

[/ QUOTE ]
Problem is, that's only possible for energy melee. Other tanker secondaries would be surpassed by blasters and scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope the main one I bring out for AV smashing is my Inv/SS. With Perma Rage you can out dmg or come close to the Blaster/Scrapper damage barring the cooling off periods.


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. I'm Inv/SS and I run perma-rage, and I sure can't, and neither can my two Inv/SS tanker sgmates. At least, I assume we can't, because we can't hold aggro without Taunt anymore.

Are you slotted with 3 damage 3 recharge, and/or are you using hasten, by any chance? Because I don't have hasten, nor do I have more than one recharge per attack.

Also, my DM/Regen had no problem taking Nightstar's aggro from one of my SS Tanker friends the other night.