Memphis_Bill

But you *could* resummon. You didn't have them stand there, non-controlled and force any new summon to fail.

And then you cross the zone, enter the mission and have them do the same thing.

Yes, it is that difficult/annoying. *Especially* now when, on exit, I might be stepping into a zombie invasion and really, really would like to do so with bodyguard active while I load.

Little side note, friend and I did some testing the other night.

It looks like if you're in the same 5-level range (20-25, 10-15, 45-50,) you'll get the drops even if SSK'd. If you're outside (15-25, 30-50, etc,) you won't. Though clothes horse/etc, will get the progression.

For something to be a myth, it has to not exist/not happen.

I can state from personal experience that it has.

And others are perfectly fine with it. If they tried making a set everyone was 100% happy with, we'd have - wait, let me figure this out, carry the 7... zero sets.

Not even bothering at this point. Are you going to argue, next, that Ice based powers need to be nerfed because they interfere with Brute fury generation? (They slow down enemy recharge, making them attack the brute less.) Or that controllers and dominators overall need to have a "no-hold" toggle option for the same reason?

You refuse to see knockback as anything but interference. Even with your "I'm not anti-KB" bit, sorry, but you are acting like it. *Poorly used* KB can be bad, yes, just like poorly-placed AOE immobs (say, on an ice patch.) KB in and of itself, no. And if *A* mob gets knocked out of your precious auras, I have not just made your tank as vulnerable as a -10 AFK squishy.

"What about fire blast?" Well, heavy AOEs, according to some, can strip aggro completely from a tank/brute. Sounds like it's interfering even more in that case. And if your argument is "That doesn't always happen," well, stop telling me my argument (which is quite bluntly the same thing) is "invalid" in some fashion.

I think Leo summed it up - and part of my arguing is from being put in a very similar position with Defenders (and Controllers) and being told to "heal" (or getting kicked when, say, my TA showed up, or I *dared* actually attack something.)

And I question the sanity of anyone who says the SOA have a better storyline for an Epic using the reasoning that it basically *doesn't exist.*
You just don't want to admit that that's heading down a very *bad* path. Everything I've mentioned has come up as "problems" with those powers, or they're just as relevant as they *are* knockback powers.

Or do you just want to nerf specific sets? Where's the fairness there?

Robots do knockback with their powers. I've sent enemies flying plenty of times.
Illusionists do knockback - and *can't* control it, past trying to position a pet 0 and people complain. Going to nerf them as well?
Force bolt does knockback. Same question. Is it on your nerf block?
Hurricane (right in there with Gale) does Repel, and *does* scatter mobs if not used properly... you know, like KB does, and immobs won't counter it. That sounds like it should be even higher up on your nerf list.

Yes, I am against nerfing powers for people who don't want to learn how to work with them. People have to learn how to use and direct knockback through targeting and direction, just like they have to learn not to use an AOE immob (generally) on Ice Slick, or put MM pets in bodyguard, or any of the numerous other little things anyone who pays the *slightest* attention should be able to pick up.

No, Knockdown is *not* as good of an option. It *is* a nerf. Knock something down, it's still right where you left it and getting back up to attack sooner. Knock*back* gives you extra time, and forces the enemy to attack from range or spend even more time getting back into melee (generally meaning you're safer from their more damaging attacks.)

Oh, and as for your other post:
No, it is not. *Improper use of KB,* yes. *KB without paying attention to what you're doing,* sure. But KB interferes? No. Believe it or not, Geko, you can knock enemies *into* tank/brute auras, placed damage patches, etc. I do it *all the time.* It's not difficult to figure out.

Your fact, in other words, isn't one.

Inv/Soul Drain/quills? Aim at the *near* side of the mob. Mob is KB'd to the other side of the tank/brute, at worst. No loss to you.
LR/SC? Are you opening or closing with it? Opening, wait for the tank/brute/scrapper to charge in. Pick target on near side. Start firing. Closing, who's to say MY damage *won't* kill them?
Ice storm - See first statement. Find mob trying to get out from near side of storm, fire so they're knocked back into it.

Wow, look at that, your very situations and... no loss on your part. Unless you'd like to complain that my Kheld's damage killed a mob you could have used Soul Drain on? Or that my killing that mob lowered your defenses?

Great. So now we can get the people who can't get that defenders can do more than heal also telling anyone with Energy blast how to play.

"Just stand there and heal! I don't care that you are Force Fields, you should heal! If I see you blast again, I'm kicking you! Heal!"
"Turn off your KB!"

No.

And removing the effect would NOT be for "the good of the team."

Besides, where do we stop this? Do we now nerf (as that's what it would be) Illusion as well? Robots MMs? How about removing the repel from Hurricane completely, as that can scatter mobs? Oh, and lower the mag on it on ice patch, as it can fling some mobs away (most notably Clockwork.) How about Force Bolt - it's not really a damage power, it's entire raison d'etre is to knock things back, and it would look damn silly to have this big bolt hit and just kind of "wiff" someone to the ground. (Don't forget to do it to everyone with the Nemesis Staff, too.) Psychic Thrust? Sorry, being a Tier1 secondary on my /MM blasters, I WANT that knocking things back, not down, so they're not in melee range if I'm held/immob'd.

Just how far down this path do you want to go? How many sets do you want to nerf so YOU don't have to "deal with" knockback?

I just toured a few of the events over the last two days. There seems to be roughly as much interest in them as there is in getting dunked in dog vomit. *shrug*

(In other words, about as much interest as there is during the *rest* of the year.)

Just to corroborate -

45 controller, playing with a 50 defender. I'm SK'd, obviously.

Zero costumes in the tray.
Clothes Horse awarded.

Look later, the badge for 25 costumes has 18 showing - still no new ones (except for one I got when I left the team for a moment.)

Matches this.

So, how about letting us purchase (or craft with this ton of halloween salvage) *a* costume, since the tip is dependant on having one?

... I'm sorry, this was supposed to be under *normal* gameplay conditions?

I'm not referring to the "players = invulnerable" part, that's understandable as part of the test (not going for kill speed, etc.) if I'm on +4/+8 for some reason, I'm probably on a decent (4 person or more) team. Not a duo with mobs set for "maximum engagement time per spawn."

Are there some that run that way? Sure. Think that's BillZBubba's normal setting. I wouldn't call that "normal" gameplay, though, any more than I'd call the space shuttle "normal air traffic."

Could some folks do that? I'd throw, say, Dechs Dark/Fire tank, built for that sort of thing, at that challenge. (Not sure if he has taunt or not.)

That, to me, sounds more like a stacked deck.

Personally, I'm expecting an "adjustment" to come soon to Willpower/Regen/possibly Empathy because of it. (Fast Healing/Quick Recovery/the AEs.)

Thanks.

And that's why I'm hesitant to say "yes" to the challenge, especially with rather vaguely mentioned "normal" gameplay (as well as "loss" of aggro.) I may well hold aggro (the mobs turn, I get them back) where someone else sees me "lose" aggro at the same time. (Though I'd still like to know how my brute stripped aggro from the other - we weren't over the caps.)

(Edit: off to work...)

I'll admit to a level of mistrust on accepting anything here. And of course the definition of "normal play." (Hell, I'd worry about "Hold aggro." Is it "lost" if they ever turn from me or only if I don't regain it quickly?)

Define the experiment. Especially the "loss" of aggro given the statement above.

Similarly, do you have any argument with the statement I made re: my experience that my *non taunting* (and not slotted for taunt) brute stripped aggro from another, AOE-using, taunting brute?

Thus the AOE fear that was put in. And do you dispute that removing one makes the rest of the group easier? If I'm, say, running Cim walls with you and defeat the Legionnaire Surgeon (or perhaps Engineer,) is it not easier? If I take the Sapper out first, is that not easier? If I've redirected the aggro (via AS) and several other "troublemakers" are now either firing an alpha at *me*
or trembling in fear, is that not easier?

Play one to a significant level.

Yes. And I'll point you over to the Tanker forums. I agree it's a USEFUL tool to have, I make no argument about that, and I *prefer* having it - but I do not agree it's 100% necessary.

As for what exactly it does - your description is incorrect. I'll see if I can find the discussion Castle had where he and GW actually learned what Taunt was doing.

I point at history and actions. But you refuse to take that. I don't speak for the devs any more than I speak for, say, the Aerospace industry when I point out design directions they've taken over time. I can point out trends and history and extrapolate from that without claiming to be a spokesperson. The trends (or assumptions as you choose to call them) I claim reveal intent through that history and/or consistent nature.

Again, *you* are assigning a claim of authority to me that I, myself, have not claimed. There are times I will make direct statements of Developer statements - such as holding more than 10 enhancements during a respec, the POV of full respecs, etc - but at those times, by contrast, I will clearly state "This is what the developers have said." Until that time, do not assume or imply I'm making a similar assertion.

In this case, it's because that's going to be a huge change for quite a number of characters.

Unfortunately, I'm already burned out on the zombie thing. And pre-burned-out on Winter and V-day, too. But I'm not arguing for changes for them this year *because* of GR, I19 and I20. Our dev team is quite properly involved in other things.

Just search for anything with a "Debt protection" spot and consider adding some +Res there. Just for someplace to start. >.>

I'm not going to argue what you've "seen" or "haven't seen." I've played tanks enough - yes, including those without Taunt (the power) - to have seen things happen both ways. But you'll probably request redname confirmation on that as well. I'm not going to argue if you've seen a bunny in the clouds or not. I'm also not going to get into the necessarily vague definition of "normal play."

Hell, I've had my tauntless SS/WP Brute (WP having what's considered one of the weakest Taunt auras of the sets) strip armor from a taunting, damage-aura-using Fire brute. Which is not what I wanted to have happen at the time, being a good ten levels lower than the person I was playing with.

It won't? Taking down a boss or a troublesome minion/LT ahead of time - or damaging them to the point where they die much quicer - won't? The fear AOE from a successful assassin's strike (which requires hide) has no effect?

Play one lately?

Yes, a stalker can fight *unhidden* and survive. I've done so. However, the Hide ability (and hidden state, more specifically) are a *key* part to the AT. Which is, of course, why you're "forced" to take it at level 1.

Do pay attention.

An authority *only you* are attempting to state I claim.

But, as mentioned in the prior statements, since you seem to insist on that as a burden of proof (as opposed to visible design and history,) well, I can see no further reason to continue this with you.

The issue of having to take a power at all is irrelevant to the thread's argument about having to take a power....

A tank does not need to take taunt. The power is NOT pivotal to the archetype, as taunting itself is built in to the AT's other powers. Your premise there is flawed badly.

The Mastermind, at least, gets closer to the argument. Yes, they can skip pets, however they're still able to defend themselves, attack, and progress in the game from level 1 onward. They can leverage the debuffs to increase their survivability... part of which is designed into that first tier-2 power.

A Stalker not taking hide will, however, find themselves at a great disadvantage. Not only can they not start at Hidden status for an attack, but they become much more vulnerable - and the other part of their AT-defining power, Assassin Strike, a four-second interruptable single-target attack, becomes nearly impossible to use until well into the game when other defenses are in play... *assuming* you have a defensive set. That's a *big* sign pointing at Hide being deemed necessary. 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.

If all you'll take is a specific redname statement in this thread, then we're through, as nothing can be argued with you.

Dev design > player choice. I highly doubt they want unsoloable characters, given their choices (those made rather obvious by even a cursory look at what they've given us in the game.)

Oh, wait, you won't listen to anyone who (a) doesn't agree with you or (b) isn't a redname, that's right.

It does, however, allow you to pull away and keep that third minion from attacking further, or getting into typically more damaging melee range. Incoming damage is thus reduced, survivability increased. It also provides an immobilize option for two sets (Illusion and Mind) distinctively *lacking* it, and sets up containment for all Control sets.

Or, to take another example - Gale pushes back and knocks down enemies (min/lt) while doing damage (and preventing them, or most of them, from being able to do so for a period of time.) O2 boost does *absolutely nothing* for the player. Which is a better universal option? (not "do min/maxers like this more than that.")

Show a secondary where that's the option - where the first option is not also an attack. (Since you've just asked for gale)
See above - one that affects YOU,
See above.
See above.
[/quote]
Even Gale is more helpful than that.[/quote]

Which, strangely enough, is one of the powers being complained about. Which is it?
Which, entangling arrow or gale?
And there are none.
Incorrect. Should my controllers solo at the speed of my scrappers or tankers? Should my Emp/Rad? No. Should all the combos within an AT solo at the same speed? No. At that point, just get rid of ATs and powersets completely and make them all animation options - sounds like a damn boring game. Should they be *able* to solo? Yes. And they all can.

My Earth/FF solos much slower than my Fire/SS tank. I do not call my Earth/FF "broken," nor do I feel it needs any redress - any more than my Fire/SS needs to be nerfed to compensate.

Even then you're not tauntless. You have brawl. Brawl will trigger gauntlet. Gauntlet applies the "taunted" status to an enemy. (Plus, of course, you *must* take an attack on both Tanker and Brute ATs, which will also trigger it.) You may not be *using* it, but you still have the ability to taunt.

Though you did see precisely what I was saying - and the devs will build tank sets with the assurance that, yes, you will be drawing aggro to you in some form (which Fury should be the obvious example of.)

Similarly, with the forced secondary Tier1, they know you're going to be able to defend yourself (or mitigate incoming damage in some way, even if it's killing faster - the Hidden status from Hide, or Sonic Resonance's -res from Sonic Siphon.) So they can go from a base set of assumptions.

(Flip side being "... which they couldn't do with the alpha, free-choice build.")

And *that* is my point behind arguing against making the tier1 secondary power non-optional. Yes, in some cases it makes little difference (Defenders - they're both ranged attacks,) in others a severe one. But it still gives a basis for saying "this character, on its own, can solo from level 1. It has offense and some sort of defense/mitigation."

/this.

The most made comment among myself and COH-playing friends recently is "I19 needs to be here now."

I've respecced a few characters, put off respecs on a few others, just for some of what I19's going to do - and with some exceptions, it's going to make me use dual builds less often.