Aett_Thorn
-
Posts
4231 -
Joined
-
Quote:Edit to get in the posts that my browser decided to skip:Originally Posted by Siolfir
Granite (0.26/sec) + Rooted (0.208/sec) + Mud Pots (0.78/sec) = 1.248/sec.
Dark Embrace (0.208/sec) + Murky Cloud (0.208/sec) + Obsidian Shield (0.208/sec) + Cloak of Darkness (0.26/sec) + Death Shroud (0.52/sec) = 1.404/sec.
That's without Cloak of Fear (0.52/sec) and Oppressive Gloom (0.078/sec) in Dark Armor.
Some people don't like the penalties of Granite Armor, and develop builds without it. Doing so leads to higher endurance costs than Dark Armor, and those people aren't idiots. -
Ultimus,
One of the reasons I'm kind of against the idea of making Tankers into melee buff/debuffers is that it's one are where I think that the Devs can make a new AT. Basically, I've seen calls for a (de)Buff/Melee AT before. If we make this kind of change to Tankers, and then get a new AT that is a (de)Buff/Melee AT, then Tankers are back in their current situation. -
Quote:Well, since the target is giving themselves the debuff, I'm not sure it'd work like that. But in general, if the debuff was like other debuffs associated with an attack, the answer would be yes.Originally Posted by New Dawn
So I should be pulling mobs off of a Brute with Jab then
I think this is one of the reasons we haven't seen a whole melee set with a -res secondary effect. You get an attack here or there, but a whole set with it would blow others out of the water in terms of aggro generation. -
Quote:Taunt magnitude does very little, actually. It only determines if the Taunt duration will be applied to the mob in question. And very few mobs have any real protection from Taunt Mag (Banished Pantheon masks are the only exceptions that I know of). The real Taunt to Threat determiner is the TauntDurationRemaining value. Meaning that it's the duration of the Taunt that has the most significant effect on aggro.Originally Posted by Rodion
Another possibility is to increase the Taunt magnitude of tankers in some way.
Currently the magnitude of Taunt (the power and the Gauntlet effect) on tanker, peacebringer and brute attacks is 4. One way to give tankers a more important role in combat is to direct more aggro to tankers by increasing tanker Taunt and Gauntlet magnitude.
Originally brutes and tankers never teamed together, so giving them the same taunt magnitude made sense because they filled the same role for their respective alignments. Now that tankers and brutes are no longer limited to alignment, that may no longer be the case.
There are problems with this brute force method: brutes could be "starved" for aggro and their damage would decline. It might be impossible for tankers to yield aggro to a brute when needed (as in the BAF).
So another possibility would be to add a mechanism to allow the tanker to selectively turn on increased taunt magnitude for a limited duration. Tankers could have a clickable Gauntlet power that would increase the magnitude of their taunts by +1 or +2, whatever would make sense. Whether it would be a normal rechargeable power or something that builds like Fury or Domination is another question. I'd go for simple and predictable recharge myself.
This would allow tankers to forcibly take aggro from other ATs on demand. It would also help when multiple tankers are involved: one tanker could attract more aggro by firing off this command as needed. Being the main tank could actually mean something.
This builds on the original design of tankers and gives them another means of controlling the flow of combat, rather than introducing completely new mechanisms. -
Quote:It depends on the debuff. For instance, a -Res debuff is actually 8 different debuffs, and each one adds to the threat formula. That is why -Res debuffs are such great aggro generators.Originally Posted by New Dawn
Debuffs won't add to the threat equation by much.
If a persons acquirable threat was assisted by their total hitpoints that might be good, but then Brutes might lose aggro to an autowin by Tankers. -
I had a different name originally, just couldn't remember it.
-
1) Not that I know of. I think the hook is only available for the left hand.
2) The best Cutlass weapon is actually (IMO) the Valkyrie Blade, available to Dual Blades and Broadsword. -
I can't find my old post on this, but I had at one point proposed a change to Tankers which gave them a power similar to Domination in terms of how it was used. Called something similar to "Battle Commands," it built off of a Tanker's inclination to lead the charge.
Basically, Tankers get a bar that fills up as they are attacked, like a combination of Fury and Domination. When in the 90-100% range, Tankers can click on a new power that was an minor AoE team buff, but affected the Tanker with a stronger buff. While the team may get a decent recharge, EndRed and +DMG buff, the Tanker got a much stronger one. In this way, it would help the Tanker out while solo, but would also help them out on teams. Having two Tankers on the team would mean that they could alternate this buff, or stack it. -
Good find, Ultimus. Did you PM this to Synapse?
-
Ultimus and Bop,
I think I know where you two are going, but would you mind giving me something a little bit more condensed to add to the front posts? I want to make sure I capture your ideas well. -
Quote:Level 10. It then scales up from there. It's the only inherent I know of that doesn't work in the very low levels. But as you said, that might be a good thing.Originally Posted by Diellan_
Last I checked, Gauntlet doesn't even function until level 20 (because lower level tanks don't have the tools to survive tanking for full teams).
-
Quote:Might be rude, but is not always out of place. Constant buffs to ATs can lead to power creep. While I don't think that Brutes are exactly 100% balanced, I think it's their HP and Resistance caps that are the problem, not their damage.Originally Posted by mauk2
(sigh)
Please don't nerf call against other AT's. It's very rude.
More importantly, the thread is about Tanker Improvements, not Brute Nerfs.
If 4 ATs are in balance, but one is well ahead of them in terms of performance, buffing the four ATs might not be the best way to go about things. Bringing the one back in line may be the right way to go. -
Quote:It negatively impacts survivability that we already have too much of, according to you?Originally Posted by Johnny_Butane
I agree.
This is why I'm against touching the aggro cap. It negatively impacts survivability and causes too many problems.
. -
Quote:When Castle and Ghost Widow first dived into the aggro formula, they discovered that it was more complex than either of them thought. I don't know if either of THEM ever fully got their hands around how it actually works, or whether either of them created some documentation of how it worked (because the previous documentation was flat out wrong). We do know that there is basically a huge spreadsheet filled with values out there somewhere, but that's all we know.Originally Posted by Wrend
I think part of the problem is that the aggro formulas in CoH are *not* totally understood. Arcanaville, who has more knowledge of the inner workings of this game than just about anyone you will ever meet on these forums, confesses to uncertainty of the aggro mechanics. Remember also that the original code for CoH was written by people who are no longer working on it, and sometimes things break for no obvious reason when something else is changed.
As an example.. the way our zone maps become greyed out when we log in.. I am pretty sure that they did nothing new to the maps, some other changes to the game caused this bug, and the chances are that the change in question had almost nothing to do with the maps, except in some previously unknown snippet of code.
The same sort of thing might be involved with aggro. So much has changed in this game since launch that it might be like walking into a minefield if they attempt to adjust the "core" of the aggro mechanics in the game. I would expect that there is a certain amount of "unless it is really broke, don't fix it" with the devs. As long as aggro is working mostly as desired then they are hesitant to mess around with it much. "Perfect is the enemy of good enough"
That said, I would like to see some tweaking done to aggro and taunt, but I think that is what the Devs would call "a non-trivial task"
Since we've never been told critical factors of how aggro works and decays, it's very tough to test to figure out the values we don't have. -
SR is almost pure Defense, plus the +recharge power. Ice will offer you less pure defense, but can still be easily softcapped to S/L/E/NE, while also giving you two aggro auras, including a damage aura, a -DMG/-RCH aura, almost unlimited endurance, and a self-heal/_HP power.
-
Quote:I honestly don't know if any of the current Devs know enough about the aggro formulas to be able to fix it if it is broken.Originally Posted by Broomhilda
I personally would just like to see taunt work right. It is broken right now, and has been for a few issues now. Well that or they nerfed it and didn't tell us. But after the borked up thing that was the patch before this last one I am pretty sure its bugged...
In case anyone hasn't noticed anything can make a con break off taunt including a healer coming in range and just healing. Something is way wrong with taunt.
Still, if this is true, it does need to be fixed. -
Quote:Gotcha. I'll add it to the list!Originally Posted by Aramar
Hence why I would like it re-visited. If taunt duration designs are open to revisit, it would be nice for a at least a pass back through the original sets for strange things like this.
I don't expect all the old sets to be completely comprehensive, but some stuff was just silly even when it was launching (thinking back to some explanations BaBs offered of why Shield's protections were so complete). -
Quote:It's also hard to do mechanically, since the reason that Tough and Weave are as high as they are on Tankers is because Tankers have a higher Res and Def Mod in the spreadsheet. Tough and Weave have a base value that is multiplied by the Tanker Res and Def mods to give us those values. If they were to decrease the Res and Def mods, then any Def pool power that the Tanker took would be lowered by a similar percentage.Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
My concern with including this kind of a change: It would short change resistance sets that don't come with defense powers who use Tough/Weave to layer in more mitigation.
Then they'd need to raise the Tanker armor values independently of any other ATs that shared the armor set, since those are based on the mods as well. -
Quote:There's a fairly simple reason for this, actually. The "legacy" armor sets: Fire, Invuln, Ice, Stone, Regen, SR, Dark. You'll notice that almost none of them has "comprehensive" status protection. That's because in the early game, almost no enemy mobs had any fear or confuse powers to use against us, and therefore we didn't need protection from them. When CoV came out, there were a handful of mobs that were given confuse/fear powers, so new sets were created with those in mind, but the older sets were never revamped.Originally Posted by Aramar
I'd like a review of the various status protections between powersets. For example, I am still confused why Shield was given fear protection, but Invul (either in Unyielding or Unstoppable) and Granite (you are a nearly indestructible rock) were not. Just one example...there may be others.
-
Quote:Downloaded the client at work just to make a TW/DA character to play tonight. I will be following your career (and build) quite closely, Dechs.Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
Just rolled my TW/DA last night.
I plan on being end sustainable without incarnate goodies. Erads will help.
I plan to forgo building defense this time around and go for recharge and damage where I can. -
Quote:Synapse, my question on this is that SR's Taunt Aura wasn't designed to be weaker on Brutes, so why was it done that way for Tankers? If WP is to continue to have a weak aggro aura, could you at least maybe double the time on it? Currently, against higher-level enemies, the Taunt lasts less than a second, and that ain't right.Originally Posted by Synapse
The taunt auras in question were originally designed to be a weaker than others. That said, I think it might be a good time to reconsider this stance. Once again, great feedback guys. Feel free to PM me as this evolves. Tankers will be the next archetype I take a look at.
Synapse -
Quote:Thanks Synapse! I'll try to keep you guys abreast of any really neat ideas, or at least poke you every once in a while once I've added a decent amount of new items.Originally Posted by Synapse
Interesting thread. These are EXACTLY the kind of consolidated chunks of feedback we like to see. Great job! Definitely some things to chew on in here.
Synapse
Also, it took me over 23,000 posts to say this: first post after a redname! -
Quote:I agree completely. The Lightning and the A-10 are my two favorite military aircraft. I don't know why, but to me they seem much cooler than something like a Spitfire or F-22.Originally Posted by dugfromthearth
p38-lightnings are so much cooler looking than a spitfire
I know spitfires were good planes, but they are pretty dull to look at -
TW is end-heavy because it has a lot of AoE abilities. It's most noticeable on sets that are already heavy on endurance, like Dark Armor. /SR isn't known for being an endurance hog, so you should be okay. However, you also won't get any power in /SR to help you with endurance, so you won't be as well off as, say, an Elec, Energy, or Willpower character.
-
Quote:Yeah, might not be as easy to soft-cap to Melee on a TW/Dark, but the EndRed will be necessary, and the extra E/NE protection will help out. I'm thinking of going with this combo, too, and it seems like it's going to be a tricky one to slot.Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
Eradication is the better option for TW, in my opinion, if your secondary benefits from the e/n defense. That way you can do four pieces of erad, the scirocco's triple and the multi-strike dam/end/rech. Or I guess MS has a acc/dam/end too heh, might as well save money now that I think about it.