[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is why people are more or less happy with burn's damage being reduced. Burn should complement tanker secondaries rather than overshadowing them.
[ QUOTE ]
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
This part is nonsense. If the damage is still devastating, then fire/ice tankers will still be too powerful while leaving the power essentially useless to anyone else. So what should have been obvious is that the damage on Burn needs to be set right if its still too high, but the fear isn't team friendly and is antithetical to what tankers are designed to do. Sure, controllers could theoretically hold/immobilize a crowd for burning but, as many others have mentioned, that is only actually useful on a small team without an AoE scrapper or blaster. This makes the power highly situational except to the presumably broken fire/ice tank.
