Cuffzter

I assume it is this you are referring to earlier.
[ QUOTE ]
13) Duration and AoE for Gauntlet are hard coded but vary from power to power using the End costs and/or Levels (Tier) of the powers as a guideline, but not a hard and fast rule because there are exceptions. Example: Total Focus has a radius that is 50% larger than Energy Transfer.

[/ QUOTE ]

By adding the and/or he is saying that "guantlet is based on the tier of the power, with the possibility of a modification by the endurance cost of the power"
and that only as a speculation as all powers dont even follow that as a general guideline. But saying that: [ QUOTE ]

Gauntlet applies to any attack a tanker will make. The greater the amount of endurance the attack costs the greater the level of gauntlet. High endurance attacks are usually of long recharge and the only decent gauntlets you would have providing they dont miss.

[/ QUOTE ] where only the endurance cost is mentioned as deciding the level of gauntlet is clearly a oversight.

[ QUOTE ]
Go out turn off your aura and jab, box and brawl something and see how easy it is to keep aggro with that off a blaster, then imagine that when your blazing aura misses because of a tsoo sorceror or a storm shaman or even your out of endurance due to gauntletting so much and having -end effects you cant use anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a attack chain of a level 6 (in a level 20+ enviroment)
Whenever someone builds a herd tanker, only picking the basic attacks and commenting on how poor gauntlet seems to be my only response can be summarized as "well, duh!"

Compare this with a /em tanker with Build upped ET and/or TF that generates high levels of "hate" or "threat" with the gauntlet of a level 35 and 38 tier power.

(i know, maybe its sounding like im biased here, its just that its the secondary with which i have the most experience.)

id just like to say, I dont condone hacking the files in any way....

until someone points out a post which describes EXACTLY how gauntlet works.. all this is speculations anyway.
preferably a dev, but someone who has hacked the code will suffice.

For the type of tank and type of tanking you will do, I would pick up taunt.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so, youre telling me that ET, that costs no endurance.. isnt affected by gauntlet?

[/ QUOTE ]
If ET = Enrgy Transfer, I must say that it deffo costs some endurance, it looks like 10-12, a lot less than Total Focus, but still it has an endurance cost.

[/ QUOTE ]

aha, clearly a misunderstanding on my part. For some reason i believed ET only cost hit points instead of endurance. (I thought it was weird you could slot it with endredux when there was no end cost at all..)

on another note, i thought the level of gauntlet wasnt from the end cost, but from the actual damage as i recall Bridger saying something about it..

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I felt I could hold aggro reasonably well so far (level 6) and it should get easier once Gauntlet starts working and I get some better acc enhancements slotted.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it shouldnt get easier, it does in fact get harder depending on who you come up against as your aura will miss. Gauntlet applies to any attack a tanker will make. The greater the amount of endurance the attack costs the greater the level of gauntlet. High endurance attacks are usually of long recharge and the only decent gauntlets you would have providing they dont miss. Go out turn off your aura and jab, box and brawl something and see how easy it is to keep aggro with that off a blaster, then imagine that when your blazing aura misses because of a tsoo sorceror or a storm shaman or even your out of endurance due to gauntletting so much and having -end effects you cant use anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

so, youre telling me that ET, that costs no endurance.. isnt affected by gauntlet?

never mind.. i was thinking of quantum flight.. ignore me please.. its late

afaik it wasnt getting any reduction whatsoever..

not saying it wont. just that i have never heard of any.

source please, max

By coincidence, a SG mate of mine planned manticore today as well. First at 1700 but then decided on 1900.
Seeing as not many others have shown interest so far i gather theres still room in team for us, or for you in ours
The people will be me, officer cuffz, (see sig)
and firefighter frank, controller.
see you there.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How long can you keep this topic running? lol

[/ QUOTE ]'till the end of time, or forums, whichever comes first

[/ QUOTE ]

..or till someone mentions nazis...

aw darn, I did it now didn't I?

The US forums only got to about 3 pages..

This horse must be undead..

It still moves!


or maybe its because people keep kicking it.

depends on who you ask..

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
In a team they are a pillar of the Gods but cant be very mush fun to solo.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ha hahaha!!



[/ QUOTE ]
(oooh gawd what a long and boring post filled with words I cannot even begin to comprehend. Oh look, a typo! I must now ridicule him and show off how superior I am, Go me!)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) You cant tank without taunt.
Clearly this has been proven wrong by now. Why else people say that they have been able to "tank" as Defenders, Controllers, Scrappers, Kheldians in Dwarf form, Brutes and Masterminds. I dont believe for a second that either of them would have been as efficient as a Tank, but obviously good enough to warrant the duty of "tanking".

[/ QUOTE ]

They are misusing the word tank to define what they do as tanking.

[/ QUOTE ]

hence my use of quotation marks.

Clearly the definition of "tanking" varies, but it doesnt help when there are people who are trying to push for their own biased definition.

After 20+ odd pages of this thread I believe we have come to the conclusion that A) Some tanks need taunt. B) other tanks dont need taunt but the general consensus is that his or hers efficiency will be improved by taking taunt.

I know for sure that personally I didnt NEED taunt when leveling up my inv/em tank, although I admit that access to it would have at odd times improved my ability to tank slightly. I have taunt now, but honestly I usually rely on my taunt aura.

What I do find offensive however is as I read the name of the topic "Is a Tank without Taunt a Tank?" I suddenly realised that this implies aither of two things.

1) You cant tank without taunt.
Clearly this has been proven wrong by now. Why else people say that they have been able to "tank" as Defenders, Controllers, Scrappers, Kheldians in Dwarf form, Brutes and Masterminds. I dont believe for a second that either of them would have been as efficient as a Tank, but obviously good enough to warrant the duty of "tanking".

2) Taunt maximises your efficiency.
This is where I find it offensive, because in conjuction with the topical question ("is a tank without taunt a tank?) we get the implication what unless you arent maximizing your efficiency as a tank your clearly not a tank.

This would be like telling a Storm defender that unless they have O2 boost theyre clearly not worth calling defenders.
(a defenders purpose is to keep the team alive, O2 will improve your ability to do so)

A Broadsword Scrapper cant possibly be a scrapper unless he has Build up. (the purpose of scrapping is to do damage, without build up the scrappers damage will decrease)

With this kind of twisted logic a blapper would be more worthy to be called blaster than the pure ranged if we base the definition on pure damage.

Some tankers prefer to herd, others want to pull, and some just happily takes the alpha. All of these methodologies would gain benefit of taking taunt.

Any AT can pull, all you need is a ranged attack, and lacking even that you can always doing a "presence pull" just by going close enough within the mobs perception range.
When it comes to alpha it limits down possible ATs who can do this, a tank being the most suitable due to his excellent defences, but in a pinch or depending on size of team and support other ATs can do it as well. Just remember, just because a SR scrapper can take the alpha from sky raiders in a team of 4 doesnt mean he can take it against CoT in a team of 8.
Few apart from Tankers can herd however. While I deem it a possibility that a Inv scrapper can try it, or a Storm defender can push mobs into corners and actually get a fair sized groups of mobs packed with the aid of Hurricane, herding is still the tanker speciality. Combining Survivability with aggro managament herding epitomizes the TANK.

Where am I going with this?

Narrowmindedness I guess.

Some players building their tanks for optimal herding, only taking the bare minimum of attacks to make room for better defences and aggro management tools, having the versatility of a brick. In a team they are a pillar of the Gods but cant be very mush fun to solo.

Other players maximize their offence, losing their ability to herd and quite possibly would be better off rolling up a scrapper instead. They can still tank a bit and when the team splits the scranker moves on to solo abit.

In reality, most players fall somewhere withing these two types of tank.


What worries me is that by stating that "by not taking taunt you are clearly not maximizing your efficiency (because you're incapable of herding properly)"

Naturally this rigid way of definition upsets people and is why we still debate it after 23 long pages of going nowhere.

I say Nay to defining a tank as per having to prerequisitive being having Taunt due to the reason of it ostracizing players from their own Archetype.
I would admit that having taunt would most likely make them better tankers, but we shouldnt go so far as denying them their identity and purpose.

I run with Air superiority and Fly on my inv/em.
AS is pure juggle goodness and can keep bosses up in the air.
With Fly i laugh at Earth thorns mudpots, Tsoo and Knives of artemis caltrops.

At level 22, the other teammembers think that the Kheldian AT is so much more powerful than theirs, just because you neglected to tell them that your fully enhanced with +3SOs bought with those 5 million influence you transferred over from your 50 while they are happy about that they just about are able to be fully equipped with DOs..

[ QUOTE ]
a lot...

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear ya. basically what youre saying is that, while taunt may be just another tool in the toolbox or weapon in the arsenal.. it just happens to be such a incredible versatile tool or weapon that it just doenst make sense not to take it.
It is without doubt that the presented scenarios shows the usefulness of taunt. Without taunt one would have to come up with different tactics to solve the problem.

This is not the issue.

The problem is the lack of respect towards tauntless tanks from the taunt-camp. They are told that they are "bad" and "careless" and "not fulfilling their potential".

Should even the tauntless tanker present their experience of tanking and that they never recieved any complaints and did pretty well they are met with scepticism. Their knowledge and experience disregarded and refused to be taken seriously.

This is what set me off and makes me play the devils advocate in this matter, the inability and refusal to accept and respect someone elses style and just depreciatory proclaim them "Scrankers", barring them from the "Gentlemans Club of Proper Tanking"
It is nothing short of Elitism, something i find despicable.

I can play a tanker with taunt.
I can play a tanker without taunt.
I overcome the problem.
I find the solution.
I dont rely on a crutch.
I use the tools at my disposal.
If for some reason I am unable to use a tool, I use another.
I achieve my purposes.
I tank.

Mindset E

it depends on the combination of Primary and Secondary.


All the primaries are different since they at various degrees trade Survivability for Damage dealing.

Stone is high on survivability but low on damage. Fire is the opposite, lower on survivability but higher on damage.
Ice and Invulnerability are somewhere in between.

When you then pick your other powers including secondaries you have the choice to increase your defensive abilities (what most people refer to as "True tanking") or increase your offensive capabilites (aka "Scranking")

The stone, who is already a very defensive set, will then have a higher threshold to overcome if you want to make it a offensive set. Therefore, its much easier and more suitable to simply improve on the strong points and become a Bastion on the battlefield, the ultimate Survivor, last man standing.
Fires strong point is as we have said that it can deal damage very well. But what it lacks is survivability. And since damagedealing in tanks is looked down upon these tanks try to make up for their shortcomings and still be quite pissy "tankers" instead of actually improving what theyre good at.

Ice and Invuln are either way, theyre just as suited to defensive build as offensive, without any natural drawback or inclination towards either type of play. They can be built pretty offensively and still retain a modest amount of survibality to satisfy the "true tanking" camp as well as be built as defensively as it can be.

My and some others biggest problem is with comments like:
[ QUOTE ]
It may give you more damage... it will certainly make you more soloable. But it will also make you a worse tank.


[/ QUOTE ]
A "worse" tank...
we clearly see what kind of tank Cognito think is best..
Lets all just rank the different tanks from the "best" to the "worst"...
It makes for a ugly elitism where some will always be better than others.. Something that makes up for the darkest chapter in human history.
Humans are above animals, Ubermenschen and Untermenschen, Master and slave.
Me, im a believer in "different."
We are not always equal.. lord knows ive met enough stupid people, but we can be differently skilled or talented.
Just because im smart, educated, artistic or rich does not give me the freedom to look down on anyone else.

Same thing with the Tanker, I dont believe you can measure how good a tanker is on how high survivability he has, I have seen plenty enough Stone tankers still standing when the rest of the team is wiped. Theyre still crappy tanks because they evidently wasnt able to manage all the aggro.

Then theres tanks who have no trouble holding aggro... its surviving it thats the problem. so clearly you cant rate how good a tanker is by aggroholding.

A good tank is the one who can walk the tightrope between gathering just the right amount of aggro and remain standing.

This has nothing to do with "taunt" other by being yet another tool to help you achieve this goal.

Some people swear by it, other hate it, and the rest is in-between meaning it has its uses.

Myself i think it depends on the primary.
Id never trust a stone tank without it.. they better have that power on auto.. and i wouldnt mind provoke to.
For a ice or invulnerable i would appreciate if they had it, but wouldnt hold it agains them if they skipped it.
For a Fire i would only suggest them to use it to pull with or to save a team member who is in trouble if ever.

My advice would be, if your set has a natural affinity for a certain kind of play, use it, improve it, excel at it. Dont try to be something your not supposed to be.
This is what makes you a better tanker.. everthing else just makes you a different tanker.

My point is that you said that a high damage scrapper would work just as effectively as a tank to keep bosses of the remainder of a team.
All i did was give a example of a actual event (and not a hypothetical one) where you were proven wrong.

Some tanks are better equipped to deal with a horde of minions, other tanks are better suited to tank the heavy hitters of the mobs. The latter of these two tanks have less use of Taunt than the former. Notice that i said he has "less" use for it, not that its useless.. just so much less useful that it can be skipped without to much loss of efficiency.

Some would argue that boss killing is the task of scrappers because of their high damage to kill of the boss/elite boss/AV quickly. I dont necessarily agree with this. In fact, i see scrappers as minion killers, bouncing between mobs like a pinball.

[ QUOTE ]
In that case, the unyeilding tank.

But would you rather have a tank with unyeilding and taunt, or just unyeilding.

The scenario is deliberately picked with deliberate options to force me to pick your choice! [img]/uk/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

actaully, the scenario more or less to a 90% degree were the actual makeup of the Positron task force from this weekend, and not something i made up, and as Shannon said, it wasnt exactly the most balanced team for posi either [img]/uk/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

and yes, of course taunt + unyielding would be to be preferred (I have taunt.. just not when exemped down to level 15 [img]/uk/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] )

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And invunerability is far from underpowered. Against Smash / Lethal damage it will outshine all the other sets at any level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, even against pure smashing/lethal, stone has invulnerability beat. Invulnerable tanks make good scrankers or secondary tank. Fire is a little on the fragile side for primary tanking imho; ice or stone ftw... providing they have taunt [img]/uk/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree full-heartedly (even on the bit about taunt). At least until level 18 when the INV tank gets invincibility...
thats where he can start keeping larger amount of mobs busy.
It also has excellent status protection which can keep bosses busy.

[ QUOTE ]


And yep, Gauntlet will keep big bad boss of the group. But to be honest, so would a high damage scrapper.


[/ QUOTE ]

"the team runs through the office besieged by the Circle of Thorns. Around the corner stands a group of cultists, they constists of:
1 Ruin mage (boss) level 16
2 energy/force mage (lieutenants) level 16
5-6 minions Archers and spectres also level 16

now, your team has 2 inv/nrg tanks, one with taunt, the other with unyielding.
you then have a AR/dev blaster, a fire/rad 'troller, a katana/SR scrapper and a claws/reg scrapper.
all around level 14-15 due to exemping and SK:ing

which one of these are most suited to take care of the big bad boss? You are only allowed to pick one team member as the other team members will have enough to do to take care of themselves.
BIG HINT: neither of the scrappers have any status protection...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doing the positron trial the other night we got 2 tanks, one with taunt, the other without. (at least at level 15 to which i was exemped down to) Both inv/nrg.
The tanker with taunt used his taunt as little as possible, because in his own words, using it killed him since he couldnt handle the aggro... or rather, his defences couldnt.

i'd say thats a tanker that tanks better without taunt.. because a dead tanker dont tank anything at all. a alive tanker at least keeps mobs busy.. even if its not as many as the tanker with taunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tank with taunt: Has OPTION of using taunt to control amount of aggro.

Tank without taunt: Is out of options....


Im sorry, its technically impossible to be a better tank without taunt, providing you dont take it in lieu of a defence in which case it is arguable. But a tank with taunt and all his defence powers is always going to be a better tank than a tank with all his defence powers and no taunt. Its just not a debate it my book.

A tank without taunt may be a better SCRANKER, but not a better tank. Not even an equal tank.

And level 15 is not really representative of most of the game. The jounrney from level 22 to level 50 is probbaaly 95% of your game time and its when tanks get single origins and start to become super tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

At level 15 a Ice tank has a aura that slows and debuffs mobs damage.. Stone immobilizes the mobs, fire damages the mobs around them, killing them off faster.
Invulnerability has nothing of the kind, its defences are slightly better than its scrapper counterpart. So hell yes, its better off scranking.
Give me a stone, ice or even fire and ill take taunt at level 10. Give me a empath whos sole purpose is to heal me and Ill take it at that level with a invulnerable tank.