Dechs Kaison
-
Posts
6223 -
Joined
-
Quote:I'm not sure what you mean by "Mainly applies to the secondary," but I think stacking of tankers on a team is something we just have to live with. It's part of the design of the AT.Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Problems now:
Stacking of Tankers on a team
Mainly applies to the secondary
Stacking brutes is likewise bad; it's downright counterproductive.
Aside from the support ATs, no AT really stacks well. -
St0n3y, thanks for all the work you've put into this.
-
I saw the title, not noticing who created the thread and thought: Great, we already have people asking for the new version.
I was going to go with the standard reply. "You know, St0n3y delays release by a week for every one of these threads." -
Quote:Fair enough.Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Even if your experience is more common than mine, you're still saying saying that there would be little change in playstyle thanks to this change? If they are already doing what you are saying, than there would be no need to change playstyle. It would not matter if there were two Tankers on the team or not, if they're going to break into smaller groups anyways. So there continues to be no benefit to adding a second Tanker to the team.
I'd still get behind almost any suggestion to up the tanker aggro cap. We have the survival, nothing can challenge us in the current game. Let me protect the team when that second ambush shows up, or in the AV room in the first mission of the Kahn TF.
If I can rotate my taunts and attacks well enough to keep that much aggro and my tank can survive it and my team can't exploit it because they still have target caps, then let me hold the bloody aggro. -
Quote:Then you don't play on my TFs, or you don't play redside. Two tanks or no, my teams tend to run in two or three directions until there's an AV to fight.Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
I do not often see the team break into two sections just because there are two Tankers on the team. As such, this may not be such a fallacy.
-
Quote:Still a fallacy, because you are assuming that players will not adapt to the new limits.Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
The situation I proposed is that having the second tanker provides, under this situation, minimal benefits. When the first tanker can provide all this additional control (up to 31 people), what is the point of a second? Only when you have more than 31, and that is exceptionally rare, hence the 0.01%.
-
Quote:Good catch. Chocolates will be sent via email as soon as I figure out how to fit them through this USB port...Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
You are multiplying by 4 in your formula instead of 2. Feel free to actually solve your own formula and see why your answer doesn't equal your equation. I will accept your apology in chocolates.
-
Quote:Fair enough. If you plan to be snarky in response to a topic, though, I suggest you be ready for the same.Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Please no need to be rude by saying I am not approaching this intelligently.
I don't see how the formula could be viewed as incorrect, unless you're forgetting that multiplication is always done before addition when no parentheses are present.Quote:Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Also, before you insult someone's intelligence and blow your own horn, you should make sure your formula you write is correct. It is not, however your answer is true.
Think outside the box for a moment. Two tanks can now go two directions, each with three "squishies" in tow.Quote:Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
If you have one tank capable of holding 31 people's interest, what need is there for the additional control? In almost every situation: absolutely none.
This is a fallacy. The proposed buff here would buff the tanker AT any time he teams. I doubt tankers team on average 0.01% of the time.Quote:Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
If you want to buff an archetype, why buff them for 0.01% of the time? You want to look at a general purpose buff that actually applies to real situations. -
Quote:One tank, seven others. Tank's aggro cap is now 17 + 2 * 7 = 31Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Wouldn't this just even further diminish the point of having more than 1 tank?
Two tanks, six others. Tanks' aggro caps are each 17 + 2 * 6 = 29, but since there's two tanks, that lets them keep hold of 58 baddies. -
Quote:I don't think this is going to be the case much longer, as the end game is going to get a lot tougher.Originally Posted by Valkyrie_EU
The problem however is this survivability goes pretty much to waste except on very few occasions.
That said, I still very much agree with this:
But "dumpster diving" and herding entire maps for one nova was a bit ridiculous and needed to be stopped. Either target caps or aggro caps would have fixed this, but the devs implemented both. I think that's a bit overkill. Leave the target caps in place, because I can realistically only hit so many people with my sword in one swing. But I guarantee I can keep more that 17 people pissed at me.Quote:Originally Posted by Valkyrie_EU
I myself am convinced the Tankers greatest enemy is the aggro cap.
This is one of the most unique solutions I've heard. I'd get behind it, for sure, although I'd be for anything increasing tanker aggro cap.Quote:Originally Posted by Valkyrie_EU
But then I had an idea how about tieing this aggro cap increase to Gauntlet and make it work like vigilance?
~The Tankers determination to protect everybody rises through his sense of responsibility: For every team-mate which is not a Tanker, Scrapper, Brute or Stalker the maximum number of foes the Tanker can attract rises by 2. -
Wait, you want a PB build that exemplars well, but you don't take nova at all and you take Dwarf at level 47?
-
Quote:Every time I say that 300M figure, I mention a lot of merits. The Kinetic Combats ate my merits.Originally Posted by Alef_infinity
Goodness know you couldn't get Dech's build for 300M anymore--the Kinetic Combat triple alone seems to be going for at least 100M.
-
Defense is simply better mitigation than resistance for anybody but tanks, and even then, only for a few tanks that can reach the 90% resistance cap. For everyone else, defense prevents more damage.
A resistance based set can become ridiculously more survivable than a defense based set, this is true. See my video for a reference point.
But defense based sets can already be tough enough, which is all you really need. Considering that, they allow for more offensive building. You can get more +recharge, +damage, or +regen and +HP if you really do need more survivability. -
Quote:You are correct! I was just in game and checked the numbers there. I can now confirm that both AoEs are the same radius. AllYourBase is likely correct as to the reasoning, as well.Originally Posted by Microcosm
'Upon second read, I have a minor nitpick, though I might be wrong. Mids and Tomax are both saying the Dwarf Mire is the same radius as the Human: 15 feet. The Dwarf Mire does look bigger, but I'm not sure it really is.
-
How about a walk forward animation for teleport? No waving my arms... just take a step forward and suddenly be somewhere else.
I'd really like for blasts to have sideways firing animations. Rather than facing forward, your hero could turn to his side and extend one arm, perhaps even look away as he fires from his palm. -
Just the ability to chose which hand my blast came from would be nice.
This may be a bit of a stretch: But can I kick a fireball at someone? -
Elemental melee sword/no sword choices.
I want every one of my fire tank's attacks to use the fire scimitar.
I want every one of my ice melee tank's attacks to not use an ice sword. -
Quote:Yeah, Eclipse is unique. It trades a crash for requiring multiple foes and being accuracy dependent. In fact, it restores endurance, and unlike other T9s, can be made permanent.Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA
Mine goes to Eclipse.
I think that's why it slipped my mind. I stopped viewing it as a T9 and more as a way of life. -
Quote:As you seem to have a ton of inf to spend, I think I should suggest creating The MFing Warshade.Originally Posted by Metatron_NA
Further thoughts?
Quote:Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
At its height, The MFing Warshade will have 300% damage bonus, 85% resist all, well over 50% tohit bonus, three damage dealing pets in tow, a ranged AoE attack chain, and the ability to refill both bars more often than I blink. It can also perma stun ten targets, perma hold one, and even stun bosses in a single shot. It has mez protection with an 80% hitpoints bonus on demand. It can even shrug off defeat twice every five minutes. -
No! You leave my Triage Beacon alone!
Unless you really want to give it +recovery, that I'll allow.
But don't let it move!
When do I need Triage beacon? When I or my team is fighting an AV.
Does an AV move? Not when I've got it webnaded down like a *****.
I can keep my pets on one side of the beacon, safely away from AoEs that hit me, but still in range of the +regen to heal back the shared damage they take, while I sit comfortably taunting from the other side of the beacon, likewise in range of the +regen and close enough for bodyguard mode to stay in effect. -
Quote:Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you were trolling in any way.Originally Posted by RedSwitchblade
I'm just here to give props and throw in my .02 on corroborating your viewpoint. Not troll. I just found Emberly's comment humorous and couldn't let go of it.
It was more of a prod for more anecdotal evidence, as I find epic tales of Mastermind glory to be entertaining. -
Quote:Yeah, but I had links and anecdotal evidence.Originally Posted by RedSwitchblade
I came back here after leaving from coming back after leaving to back up this statement. Again.
-
-
I'd say 305%, because you likely have 95% damage enhancement in your powers.
-
My MFing warshade is already toeing the line of good and evil.
The human is good. The Nictus voice he hears is evil.
It's only a matter of time before his mind breaks...