Quinch

That's what I did.

All if it? Not likely. Trust me on this.

I've ran an experiment once, about a year ago. Turned off my taunt aura and taunted a single CoT mage once. A blaster teammate wailed on him for the duration of the taunt; the mage constantly kept attacking me the whole time. It's possible that what you're saying is true, but the aggro generated would be so high, the distinction seems academic.

You do have a point about the melee range and snipers, though. I've found that almost any mob that does move will try to close in for hand-to-hand attacks.

Of course. The experiment would be as follows;

A mid-level AE mission, ran in test mode with invulnerability, with +4x8 spawns with full complement of stone meelee/assault rifle primaries and invulnerability powers to ensure a protracted engagement. One tanker and one blaster, one spawn at a time. "Loss" of aggro may be defined as a mob closing the distance between the blaster and the tank, with severity according to mob rank, though I am open to suggestions. Demorecorded for subsequent analysis, fifteen-minute timer. First pass is with a tauntless/provokeless tanker {you}, second run with taunt and provoke {me}. Possible additional run with me using only aggro toggle, taunt and provoke for comparison purposes.

I find it unlikely, but not entirely implausible. Also, does Brute taunt power work differently than the Tanker variant?

Actually, I would concede this point if I had your confirmation. You state that you are in possession of tanks which can effectively hold aggro without taunt. Would you agree to an experiment?

Even on a midsized team, there will be more than one "troublesome boss/lieutenant". On a large team, they will be one among a sea of other troublemakers.

No, but I have played with a few.

Taunt is an autohit, zero-endurance AoE that overrides all current threat values with a hardcapped range debuff which forces the affected mobs into melee range where they can be more efficiently held by Gauntlet. Are you claiming that Taunt cannot be considered a key power in the tanker archetype?

"Who made that decision? The devs. And, chuckles, they *are* that important. They have set up powers at level one to ensure soloability and specific minimums for the AT or powerset."
"The devs have indicated the essential need of hide for the AT not just by placing it first in that Tier2 power, but by making it an END-cost-free toggle."

You make assumptions and attribute them to your assumptions of developers' intentions. Do you dispute that?

The issue of reinforcing the concept of secondary powerset's lower priority being irrelevant to the thread's argument about having to take a power.

Do pay attention.

Correction; threat enhancement is built into the archetype's powers. Said threat enhancement consists of a melee range aggro increase. I have yet to see a single tauntless tank which can prevent a blaster from pulling aggro off a tank via normal play.


Are you arguing that a Stalker, while not hidden, cannot fight with expectation of survival? If so, how do you reconcile that claim with Stalkers' role in any sort of team play, where a single Assassin's Strike will not have a crucial effect on the battle?


No, but it is required for me to acknowledge authority you do not have nor speak for. If you wish to change my mind on this issue, you will need to present your own arguments, rather than call on unsubstantiated claims to insight into the devs' minds, and what you doubt or assume through cursory looks bears no logical weight unless you bother present the chain of reasoning which led to those assumptions.

I was speaking subjectively - there is no power in the game that a player will not consider useless or unnecessary. The lack of consensus on value of any power makes determining an objective value impossible. I believe I stated it clearly enough in my previous post - I am spelling it out now.

Are you arguing against the change because it would facilitate creation of suboptimal builds? Because if that's the case, I do have to warn you that you're standing on treacherous ground.

And how do you determine the baseline? If you define it by present state, doesn't that mean that any change to gameplay would be detrimental by virtue of deviating from that baseline?

The only argument I see beyond "I use all my T1 powers, therefore any change is unnecessary/detrimental" is that it serves to reinforce the secondary powerset's role as secondary which is a non sequitur.

The secondary powerset already has lower effectiveness index as well as having a slower unlock rate. The issue of having to take a power at all is irrelevant to the argument presented.


I challenge you to demonstrate a significant difference between a tank, mastermind and stalker skipping taunt, pets and hide respectively in terms of their archetypal role. In each three scenarios, the power{s} not taken are pivotal to the archetype.

They have, however, yet to appear in this thread and corroborate your statement, especially as countless previous decisions have since been reevaluated and adjusted. Until such time, I must admit difficulty in accepting you as their spokesman.

Each archetype is designed to be soloable, despite varying effectiveness in doing so. That I agree with, in both factuality and desirability. What you are arguing for, however, is that every build must be soloable, regardless of a player's own choice of playstyle.

I'm fairly sure you don't get any points for arguing against a case I didn't make. I don't remember saying that a self-heal is obsolete - always, unconditionally. Nor did I say so for hide. Or immobilizes.

Then again, assumed it didn't need saying.

The fact is, you are arguing, or from where I'm standing, convincingly appear to argue, that usefulness, or obsolescence, are objective. The fact that you choose to utilize every first-tier secondary power forced on you is utterly irrelevant. No single player, yourself certainly included, has the authority to dictate another player's playstyle. Certainly, I may choose not to use the mandatory power, as I often do. And yet I cannot choose not to take it at all. I cannot choose to take another available power in its stead. I can choose to play your way. And I ask to choose not to.

Nobody argues against a Tanker's choice not to take Taunt if he didn't want it. Nobody argues against a Mastermind's choice not to take his pets, should he not want them. And nobody would argue against a Stalker's choice not to take Hide. Nobody except you.

And you're not quite that important.

This seems to be the crux of your argument - that even if a power is useless to a playstyle in general, it is essential to have offensive power {even though blasters only get ST immobs in the secondary} at the start.

My counterargument is one described well enough in the game itself:
When all else fails, you have only your two fists to depend on.


And let's be fair - those mandatory, essential-at-level-one powers become obsolete around the same time you can no longer brawl enemies in submission.

And yet so many ignore Taunt completely.