Sarrate

I disagree. Having a power or two that are situational or skippable is one thing, having two thirds of the set being useless solo is another.

Those useless powers that give solo Empaths build flexibility? Consider this, would you rather have...

...Assault or Tar Patch?
...Invoke Panic or Fearsome Stare?
...Maneuvers or Darkest Night?
...Stealth or Shadow Fall?

Yes, skipping "useless" powers for a solo Empath build is a good idea, but that doesn't make them a boon considering what other sets are packing instead.

There are pros and cons to buffs and debuffs.

On one hand, debuffs are always useful solo or grouped, and they can be stronger than similar buffs. Resistance debuffs, for example, increase all damage (base + enhancement + procs + pets, etc) while damage buffs only buff base damage.

On the other hand, debuffs are effected by enemy resistance (purple patch and otherwise), need to hit (can be an issue with accuracy issue or mob placement), have a target cap, etc. Buffs will help you against anything you target, but can't always be used on yourself.


Dark Miasma in particular is great at soloing because it has many layers of protection:
* Control: fear (aoe), hold, stun (aoe)
* Avoidance: +def, -tohit (aoe, tons of it)
* Mitigation: -dmg, +res
* Heal
* Pet (aside from other abilities, it's a second target to soak harmful effects)
* Slow
* Offense: -res, -regen

On top of that, many of those effects are long lasting, so even if you get nailed with some form of CC, your enemies will still be feared, they'll still be tohit debuffed, your pet can still heal you, etc.

Personally, I found Rad more frustrating to play than Dark. I can respect how powerful Rad is, but I hated how a single CC could instantly knock so many of its survival tools offline.

Hey, hey!

A combination of being an MMO nomad and spending more time in meatspace than before. I haven't logged into CoX in a long time, but I still can't help but sneak a peak at the forums, especially to keep up with the more major new features and sets.

You'd probably hear slightly more from me, but most of the threads I feel like I could contribute to are behind the VIP barrier.

So, roughly +14% s/l, 9% f/c, and +2% to the others without even changing any sets? Well, they certainly didn't pull their punches...

Ironically, Willpower is one of the sets I'm most worried about. Right now, one of the things that keep it on par with Invuln (in my mind) is the fact it's weaker to burst damage... but start adding extra s/l resist to it and it becomes harder and harder to burst.

For example, a WP Scrapper / Brute has somewhere around 50% to 55% s/l resist. Adding 20% s/l resist to it will increase its survivability to it by ~66% - 80%.
A WP Tank has somewhere around 65% to 70%. Adding 20% s/l to that increases its survivability 133% - 200%. (ie: They'd be able to take 3x as much damage.)

It's a perfect example of the problem with non-linear survivability. Willpower is one of the heartier sets, but it has the potential to reap significant gains.

As I said before, the devil is in the details, but it is worrying, to me.

This is a false statement. The RNG will always catch up with you. No matter how much defense you have, you will eventually take damage, and you can't control when it comes in. It hopefully comes in at a steady stream, but it is just as likely to come in with large spikes.

Defense, without any other supporting mitigation (like +regen) is surprisingly brittle.

How in the world are you getting 600 DPS? A regen capped (2500%), hp capped (~3200, which you have said you are not) Brute maxes at ~333.33 hp/sec (MaxHP*Regen / 240). Further, with -300% resistance, mobs are hitting you 4x as hard as normal. So 100 dps would be amplified to 400 dps.

Buff/debuff saturation was one of the reasons I thought having large leagues (or teams larger than 8) wasn't such a good idea - and that's before Destiny.
[edit: But that's the subject for a different thread..]

Even if everyone "only" gets 5-10% res out of the change just by having random sets slotted, that's 5-10% higher on the non-linear mitigation scale. The next time characters get access to easy 5% res will be made more potent because of this.

I second the second half - which is what makes me so leery about it.

I can't speak for Starsman, but the first thought that came to mind was "power creep." Also remember that survivability is non-linear, so the sets with the higher inherent resistance will get more out of this change than sets with lower resistance. It also pushes characters closer to the caps, and that's where there are some distinct problem areas. For example, Brutes exceeding 75% res.

As usual, the devil is in the details. How strong are they, etc.

Defense is easier to get and it has a higher average mitigation, but it is also easier to bypass (cascading defense failure, tohit buffs, accuracy buffs (higher mitigation floor), tohit buffs, autohit powers, etc) and can just get unlucky sometimes. Resistance is much harder to strip off (it inherently resists resistance debuffs) and it provides much steadier mitigation.

I'm not saying that Res > Def, but don't sell its benefits short, either. Hard capped resistance can make a huge difference.

When I said "Scrappers", I meant "Scrappers with taunt auras." Sorry for not being clear.

Yes, the crux of my argument is based on how taunt enabled characters compare to one another. The reason, as you point out, is that taunt effects pretty much cause enemies to ignore damage based threat because of how large the multiplier.

Even in the situations of Tanker vs Blaster, Gauntlet's effect is minimized. Tankers have taunt auras, which pulse a 13.5 - 16.875s taunt in their radius every 0.5 - 2 seconds. That handles up to 10 targets standing still, or more than that if the Tanker actually moves (changing the targets effected by the aura).

Second, Tankers have AoEs that can effect multiple targets.

Then there is Gauntlet. As I mentioned, Gauntlet's AoE isn't standard, some as small as 3ft (Barrage) feet, others as larget as 17ft (Total Focus).

Between all three, there is going to be a lot of overlap. Since taunt effect effectively washes out purely damage based threat, Gauntlet is wasted unless it hits a non-taunted foe.

So, I find it very unimpressive against people without taunt effects and weaker than extra aoe damage compared to allies with taunt effects, what use does it serve? (I personally always use Taunt on Tankers anyways because it's the only way to hold aggro off Brutes and Scrappers with taunt auras.)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. That option did occur to me but seemed presumptuous.

Yeah, I assume (s)he would have seen it, too, but thanks.

Oh absolutely. I think the current setup is a good compromise... but that doesn't make it any less annoying sometimes.

I did not realize there was a license that could provide the benefit of forum access... interesting!

I believe the aoe portion of Gauntlet is overrated. All it does is generate an AoE taunt pulse that deals no damage, has a variable radius, and can miss. While this is extra AoE threat a Brute does not have, it is insignificant next to the extra damage output a Brute deals.

Rationale:

Threat = DMG * (TauntDurationRemaining*1000) * ThreatMod * AI Preferences * RangeMod * Debuffs

I'll assume that AI Preferences, RangeMod, and Debuffs will be static, which reduces the fomula to:

Threat = DMG * (TauntDurationRemaining*1000) * ThreatMod

We also know that a taunt effect applied that deals no damage functions as if it did one damage. That further simplifies the equation to:

Threat = (TauntDurationRemaining*1000) * ThreatMod

So a Tanker, with a ThreadMod of 4, would deal 4*TauntDurationRemaining with Gauntlet's aoe. That would be anywhere from 54,000 (13.5*1000*4) to 320,000 (80*1000*4, slotted Taunt) threat per application. If the player attacked once every 1.25 sec, that would be 43,200 to 256,000 threat per second. Over the course of 10 seconds, that would be 432,000 to 2,560,000 threat (note the high end would never be met since TauntDurationRemaining would be decreasing each second).

That sounds like a lot... except that is is the equivalent to dealing 8 extra damage. I'm serious.

Threat = 8 * (13.5*1000) * 4 = 432,000
Threat = 8 * (80*1000) * 4 = 2,560,000

Assuming a modest 60% Fury, that equates to roughly a 51.4% dmg edge over Tankers (no Bruising, aoe is the key here, and Bruising would boost Brute damage equally anyways). That's guaranteed to generate more than 8 damage for this example. Further, Gauntlet is limited by the number of activations performed - more power activations, more Gauntlet threat. Brute's aoe threat is dependent upon their damage, which can be increased far more significantly than activations/sec.

So, yeah.... Gauntlet sucks. I have never, never seen Gauntlet effect my threat. I can never remember it once turning a mob away from a Brute or Scrapper due to it.


[edit: Gauntlet's best case 10s threat generation of 2,560,000 is the equivalent of ~47.4 damage against a target with 13.5s duration (ie: a target the Brute hasn't Taunted).]

When Bruising was first introduced in Beta, it wouldn't reapply until it fell off. This was a significant performance loss, since:

1) Using the t1 attack too early would leave it on recharge when Bruising fell off, leading to low uptime.
2) Holding off using the t1 attack could potentially cause issues with an attack chain (some t1 attacks are better than others, and this would effect lowbie/non-IOed Tankers especially).
3) If you missed, there would be downtime as well.

It was later changed to refresh the duration if reapplied early. I tested it after the change was made and confirmed it.

Whether or not it still does, I don't know. I haven't tried testing it in a while.

True, but only for one Tanker at a time.

Brutes are still more survivable than Scrappers, though. They have extra hp (~12% more survivability there) as well as higher caps (at 85%, that would amount to taking 60% the damage of a Scrapper at their 75% cap).

No matter how you look at it, Brutes has way more perks than other ATs.

* They have the second highest base hp and hp caps in the game.
* They have the highest res caps in the game.
* They have the same threat mod and taunt durations as a Tanker.
* Taunt, not Confront.
* They have taunt built into all their auras and attacks. (No aoe gauntlet on single target attacks, but that effect is extremely weak.)
* Non-trivial damage output.
* Fury effects powers that can't crit (ie: damage auras).

Their high damage cap is a pro (a lot of breathing room for +dmg effects), but also has a con (very low base damage), so it's a bit of a wash.

They're, essentially, the perfect AT to benefit from the power creep going on - not just in Incarnate abilities, but also the prior change to make single target buffs aoe.


Note: I didn't say Brute are the most powerful AT, it could be argued that buffers/debuffers are that, I said they benefit most from the power creep.

Wait, what?

In absolute terms you're right, debuffs and damage can saturate - at least in some circumstances such as AoE steamrolling through content. Having said that, they saturate much slower than tanking does. How many damage dealers does it take to be able to wipe out a spawn so fast that an extra damage dealer doesn't help? Come to think of it, when things get pushed to that extreme, "tanking" itself becomes less useful and you just need someone to eat the spawns' initial alpha.

As for splitting the group, I don't personally see that as an especially useful tactic in general. Progressing through a mission is fairly linear and doesn't really encourage going in two separate directions. What is useful to me is steamrolling where the majority of the team sticks together and blows away spawn after spawn. You only 'need' one tank for that - they can leave the current spawn early and setup the next one while the group mops up and catches up.

I'm with Oedipus on this.

It's not how many you "need," it's how many are useful. While a debuffing Defender is usually better than a Blaster or Scrapper against AVs, all three are better than a second or third Tanker (accounting for unique fight mechanics).

Here's the problem I have with Tanker's utility:

*) Tanking, as a role, saturates quickly. You don't 'need' as many of them as you do other roles. For example, if you're fighting an AV, you may need 1, possibly two tanks (depending on mechanics like sequestering). After that, additional tanking provides no extra utility. Debuffs are always useful; damage is always useful, control can saturate, but is still useful for redudancy. Tanking... not so much. Heck, the one debuff Tankers provides doesn't even stack from different casters.

*) Tankers are well behind Brutes in terms of threat generation to the point that they cannot outthreat them if the Brute wants aggro. Even if Tankers are better at surviving damage than Brutes, they have to have aggro to do that in the first place. (I don't have issues with a Brute trying to hold aggro out-threating a Tanker who doesn't.)

*) Survival as a primary is most useful either when leveling up (having mature defenses before Brutes/Scrappers) or in single teams that aren't power gamed (ie: stacking Colds & Rads for the STF). The more high end you go, the more irrelevvant base defenses become due to buffs (now AoE and league sizes), debuffs, IOs, and Incarnate abilities.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think Tankers are terrible. Their perks just tend to "cap out" sooner / become irrelevent and they don't have anything to fall back on.

I thought Blasters and Stalkers needed more help than Tankers, but I think it's safe to cross off Stalkers now.

Note that I left out a lot of aspects of the threat equation in my above post. Not all taunt auras, even ones with the same duration, are equal. Debuffs are actually threat multipliers in and of themselves. This is why AAO is superior to Invincibility, even though their durations are identical.

Fun fact: Damage and resistance debuffs are actually 8 debuffs each, one for each damage type. This is why AAO is one of the best taunt auras in the game.

(No, Bruising doesn't count since the mob applies the debuff to itself.)

Another possibility occured to me that wouldn't involve messing with taunt durations: increasing the Tanker threat mod from 4 to 6 or 7 (50-75% threat increase). Of course, that still leads us down the path of threat inflation...

If you're just talking about threat, then you're mistaken. Brutes hold the crown for threat generation, and depending on circumstances, Scrappers can win, too.

Reasoning:
Note: Scrappers beat Tankers w/o Taunt, and they only lose there because Confront is inferior to Taunt. Brutes always win against Tankers. In fact, Brutes with a standard 13.5s aura win out against Tankers with longer auras (16.875s). Tankers are not the threat kings people mistake them for.

...I really need to get around to writing that threat guide.

[edit: The [ code ] tags still don't use unisized fonts? Gah!]

I say it's more likely aimed at Tankers because of how their survivability ramps up. Think about it this way, a Blaster has 1204.8 hp base, Tankers have 1874. That's a survivability advandate of ~55.5% just on raw hitpoints. HP capped, a Blaster has a meager 1606.4 and a Tanker has 3534, a survivability edge of ~120%.

It gets even worse when you start throwing reistance in the mix. Suppose a Blaster with base hp and 25% resistance, an effective hp pool of 1606.4. A Tanker with base hp would have 33.33% resistance, and an effective hp pool of 2811.2. That's a survivability bonus of 75%. Pull that same stunt at capped hp and the difference jumps to 148%.

These are pretty low numbers, compare the extreme, hp & res capped Blaster vs the same on a Tanker. The Blaster would have an effective hp pool of 6425.6 while the Tanker sports an effective hp pool of 35,340, or an additional 450% survivability.

If you're a designer trying to make a dangerous attack, what number do you use? If it's just dangerous to a Blaster, it will tickle a Tanker. Make it dangerous to a Tanker, it could insta-gib a Blaster.

RttC is actually 1.25s.

Threat mechanics are incredibly complex and haven't been fully explained (because of their complexity), but range does play a role - the farther away you are, the less threat you generate. Also, taunt effects, while they generate threat in and of themselves, are mainly threat multipliers. It's far more effective to Taunt something then hit it with a damaging attack than it is to just spam Taunt. It is also easier to hold aggro than it is to steal it. We've been told that stealing aggro requires building up double the threat the current target has.

Personally, I think that unresisitible damage was added to actually hurt characters that could get near/hit their resistance caps. By allowing Tankers to resist unresistible damage, it would dilute the effect for the AT it was most likely targetted at.

Just to be clear, the multiplier is based off the taunt effect's duration, so in order to make Tanker's have threat parity with Brutes and some Scrappers, Tanker taunt effects would need to be on the order of 50-66% longer than they are now to account for it. In other words:

Standard taunt auras: 13.5s -> 20.25s / 22.41s
Long taunt auras: 16.875 -> 25.31s / 28s
Taunt: 41s -> 61.5s / 68s

That's unslotted duration, mind you.

Given how much extra threat taunting characters swim in compared to tauntless characters, I think it would make more sense to lower Brute/Scrapper taunt mods rather than increase Tankers. Seriously, taunt auras that lasted 8-9s should still be plenty of extra threat to offtank / stop runners.

Btw, Gauntlet is pretty crumby. AoE Gauntlet produces less AoE threat than single target Gauntlet with harder hitting AoEs, especially since the AoEs apply taunt, anyways.

Yep; in other games, even if a character could purposefully outthreat the tank, they didn't want to because it meant they died. (Note that is just an observation on other games, not a comment about CoX.)

Rageface

I'm not following where you got the 13.3dps and 1.33x numbers. Could you please explain?


(I wish I had more time to respond to people, but I'm kinda pressed atm.)

No, there is a difference between not having a unique role and having that role stolen from them.

For example, the buff/debuff role isn't unique; there are three. Evne so, a Defender on a team isn't prevented from performing that role by a Corruptor.

The same cannot be said for tanking; there is a much smaller niche for tanking. Once someone is tanking, you don't need someone else performing it. A Tanker who wants to tank and is doing everything they can (solid build, good attack chain, utilizing Taunt) can have their threat surpassed by a Brute.

That is the problem. Tankers are designed to hold aggro and take less damage than anyone when punched in the face. They can't be punched in the face without holding aggro.


This is a terrible example, but I can't get it out of my head:
* Imagine Defender buffs/debuffs are stronger than Corruptors. (Easy, they are.)
* Imagine that Defender buffs/debuffs don't stack with one another. (ie: One Lingering Radiation for all Defenders.)
* Imagine that Corruptor buffs/debuffs do stack with on another.
* Further, Corruptor buffs/debuffs take precedence.

Defenders have better mods than a Corruptor at buffs/debuffs (likewise with Tankers and Brute mitigation).
Despite those mods, Corruptors stack better than Defenders because their debuffs stack (likewise, Brute damage stacks better than Tankers)
Defenders who enjoy buffing/debuffing can be left unable to perform that role (likewise with Tankers and Brute threat).

It's a contrived example, but it captures the essence of a Tanker's inability to hold aggro.

You have to be careful with this "only buff" mentality, it's not sustainable.

The reason I'm not worried about the "HARM" effect of lowering Brute/Scrapper taunt durations (note that auras/Gauntlet/Gaunlet-lite and Taunt/Confront use different tables) is that the only thing they really compete with is each other. A 7.5s taunt effect is generating a 7,500x multiplier in addition to threat for just applying that taunt. Further, since the equation uses (Longest)TauntRemaining, someone using Taunt is already overriding the duration of auras/Gauntlet/Gauntlet-lite.

Also, if you want a Tanker to generate an equal amount of threat to a Brute, their taunt durations would need to be X% longer than they are now:

Brute as 60% Fury: 51.44%
Brute at 80% Fury: 70.67%
Brute & Tanker Damage Capped: 81.64%

That range would place Tanker Taunt in the 62 to 74 sec duration base (current is 41s). On the other hand, that would place Brute Taunt in the 27 to 22.6 sec range. For comparison, Scrapper Confront is 21.3 sec, and I know you've tanked on a Scrapper (ThreatMod 3 instead of 4) with that.

When an AT is causing balance issues, you don't propagate those same problems to another AT.

A Tanker who uses Taunt and a Brute does not, yet. If the Brute Taunts, then no.

The problem is the Brute can take over the Tanker's role and there isn't anything the Tanker can do about it.

I don't consider it a sidetrack, I think it's critical to understand that the "Tankers are best at holding aggro" statement is a myth. If it were true, there would be less of a balance problem.

Having said that, this formula is based off information that Castle posted on the forums after doing some code diving with Ghost Widow. Having said that, he was also keen on making sure we understood that the equation is a simplification of what is really happening. The formula you see above doesn't exist in that form in the code.

Be that as it may, Taunt = 1 damage is how it works.

Debuffs are also a threat multiplier, but that starts getting into the murky water I mentioned above. (I tried to figure it out once, even asked Castle about it, but there was no simple answer for it.) I will say, however, that the more attribute you debuff, the stronger the threat modifier.

That's why damage and resistance debuffs are such potent multipliers - they each debuff 8 attributes (smash, lethal, energy, neg energy, fire, cold, tox, psi). You really notice it when trying to out tank Shield characters, or why, say, a Dark Defender can tick off mobs so well at low levels. :P

(trimmed for breivity, no other reason)

It doesn't take the perfect situation for it to happen. To be clear, I'm not saying it happens all the time.

When Brutes were first released, I don't think the imblance was a big deal. Even GR, in and of itself, wouldn't have been a big deal. There have been a lot of little changes over time that have made Brutes more and more problematic, and I can only see it getting worse. Let me explain:

When IOs were first released, there were a lot of options available - defense included, but there were significant restrictions that prevented mass defense stacking. Over time, multiple changes were made to defensive set bonuses (positional / typed cross over, grouped type bonuses, stronger typed bonuses), more set bonuses were added, etc. This paved the way for more and more people to stack +def. At first, this was a boon for Tankers, who had bigger defense mods. Due to the non-linear nature of mitigation stacking, they could reap the rewards well. As things progressed, it got to the point where more and more people could soft cap - even sets with no inherent defense to begin with. The Tanker's larger defensive mods started going to waste.

Then came Incranate Abilities. First was Cardiac with its resistance enhancement, but Resilience (I think?) is coming and it's even stronger. There is also Destinty to consider, for example Barrier's persistent +def/+res.

Also with Incarnates came Leagues. This brought more buff/debuff potential to bear. It was, however, limited as I doubt buffers would spend time buffing the entire league. Since then, buffs were changed to be AoE. This means that it doesn't even take as much effort by the buffer to apply it to people outside their team. Just stand in a large group, and there is a strong chance buffers will focus their attention there. (I know I tended to on my Kin. And do note that it was a huge QOL change for buffers. I'm not saying that it wasn't justified, just the consequences of it.)

These little changes, by themselves, aren't bad. It's their cumulative effect. Brute Invuln, for example, never used to be able to hit the Scrapper res cap, let alone the Tanker one. These changes are pushing them closer and closer to being able to hardcap s/l permanently. Does everyone build that way? No. Is everyone IOed/"purpled" out? No. I'm not daft.

We're only halfway through the Incarnate system, though. I don't see this trend reversing.

That's how they're designed, or more acurately, that's what may be intended. In practice, however, that's not how things work out. The AoE effect of Gauntlet is extremely weak. Let me explain:

Threat = ThreatMultiplier * Damage * (TauntRemaining * 1000) * ((Debuffs and AI Preferences here))

Let's drop debuffs and AI Preferences, since they're the same for both ATs. So the variables we're left with are:

Threat = ThreatMultiplier * Damage * (TauntRemaining * 1000) * (...)

Where am I going with this? Taunt effects, in and of themselves, are 1 damage attacks. So, if I have 40s of taunt on a target, a gauntlet effect would be worth 160,000 threat. Suppose a Tanker attacks every 1s for 10s. That'd be a total of 1,600,000 threat from Gauntlet. (Technically, it would be less, since every second would reduce the TauntRemaining, but I'm being really simple here.) With equivalent TauntRemaining, it would take just 10 damage to equal Gauntlet's AoE threat.

As you say, a Brute only has Gauntlet-lite... but I sure as hell bet their AoEs deal more than an additional 10 dmg over a Tanker every 10s.


Anecdotally, I can't remember ever seeing Gauntlet sway a mob against an AT with taunts. Taunt? Yes. Taunt + Damage? Yes. Gauntlet? Never.
Against an AT without taunt effects? It doesn't matter because they're trivially easy to hold aggro over.

Getting back to you, Deus, as you can see, your assumption is faulty. Tankers do not have the advantage in AoE threat. Tankers are at a threat disadvantage compared to Brutes. Honestly, the one thing that Tankers have over Brutes is an AoE -range debuff rather than single target.


Before I continue, don't misunderstand me, I don't think a Tanker having "iwin" threat is ideal. I like the idea of having to put some effort into threat. Likewise, I don't think Tankers should be the only AT that can stand up to an AV. That essentially destroys the game's entire heritage. I don't have an issue with a Brute putting more effort into tanking (like Taunting mobs, etc) and pulling aggro over a Tanker who is just scrapper-locked. That's fine.


No, my frustration is multi-faceted:

*) Brutes can deal more damage than a Tanker. Cool, they're supposed to be between a Scrapper and Tank.
*) Brutes can tank. No biggie.
*) Brutes stack better than a Tanker. Damage rarely goes out of style and Bruising doesn't stack. Ookay.
*) Brutes can hit Tanker survivability numbers. (Some easier than others, be it builds, teams, etc.) This is progressively getting easier. Err...
*) Brutes generate more threat than a Tanker. Wait, what?

So, Tankers have higher defense mods, otherwise they really don't have anything going for them over a Brute.


Do you see where I'm going with this? I can't help but feel like something has to give. What's worse is I can't say that Tankers are underpowered. They're very tough and forgivable when solo, so Tankers don't have to deal with much debt. They don't have any finicky prerequisites to deal damage like squishies (Defenders/Controllers/Corruptors) do. They don't have to deal with status effects. They have a (non-stacking...) force multiplier. They really aren't bad... but they're (one of) the easiest to render redundant, especially at end game.


(For the record: I have been turned down from Incarnate trials because they didn't want/need another Tanker. BAF no less...)

It's not that simple. There are several ways to look at it, such as:

• Tankers don't deal enough damage to equal Brutes in threat generation.
  Problem: The only way to make them equal by damage balancing is to make Tankers deal as much damage as Brutes.
  
  
• Tanker's don't generate long enough taunt durations.
  Problem: I don't think constantly raising the performance ceiling is sustainable. Further, I think taunt effects generate an absurd amount of threat as it is. This would exasperate the problem.
  
  
• Brutes (and to a lesser extent, Scrappers) have taunt durations that are too long.
  This is my personal view. I am, obviously, biased.

There are more options than just those, too. An AT's ThreadModifier is another variable that could be tweaked up or down. A combination of the two is another possibility.


I don't think that Brutes simply existing is a problem, but their design (intended or unintended) to have massive performance ceilings in a game with the strongest buff/debuffs I've ever seen which actually allows them to realize their potential, is.

Brutes generate more threat than Tankers do. Tankers can hold aggro over them if they Taunt and the Brute does not. If neither Taunts, the Brute wins. If both Taunt, the Brute wins.

Threat = ThreatMultiplier * Damage * (TauntRemaining * 1000) * ((Debuffs and AI Preferences here))

Brutes and Tankers have the same ThreatMultiplier (4) and taunt durations (for both Gauntlet/Gauntlet-lite and Taunt) which leaves damage as the only difference, of which Brutes are superior.

Silly question, but was the Tanker using Taunt or Provoke? (I was on a raid where the Tanker was using Provoke. Not fun.) Also, what AT/powersets were you playing at the time?

I know that it's theoretically possible, but even unslotted Taunt is worth over 41,000 threat (41s * 1,000 * X for the range debuff, though that wasn't present in your above example).

The only time I ever have aggro issues is when dealing with other ATs with taunt effects (Brutes, some Scrappers).

True, there are still several things with regards to threat that have never been explained, such as how threat decays.

The other, very strange, thing is that Taunt MAG doesn't really seem to behave as expected, either, considering Lord Recluse has MAG 100 Taunt protection and 1,000% Taunt resistance, but Tankers can still tank him with Taunt.

Just to be sure, are you talking about Taunt doing nothing but adding a threat modifier in the aggro capped case or general case. In the former, you are right, by itself it won't push any other mobs off the 17 aggro limit. If you're talking about the general case, then you're mistaken. Taunt (and other 0 damage taunt effects like Invincibility) count as an (1 dmg) attack themselves.**

It's why an Invuln character can do nothing but stand next to a mob and ensure that a Blaster won't be attacked. Old school Hamidon tanks spamming Taunt preventing the hold team from getting obliterated.

(I assume you know this, but I can't be certain based off how your post is worded.)


** I can try to dig up the quote from CoD's Dev Digest later, if necessary.