Sarrate
-
Posts
1774 -
Joined
-
Quote:MAG only determines whether the target is effected by the taunt effects, not how strong their actual effects are. To the best of my knowledge, these stack from the same user & powers, but I can't think of a real way to test it.Originally Posted by _Pine_
Tankers should have Mag 5 or 6 taunt, to be able to out aggro even Phantom Army (which has Mag 5 Taunt).
The "strength" of taunts (ie: their threat multiplier) is all about their duration. Phantom Army has ~22s taunt effects iirc while Gauntlet is 13.5s and most auras are 13.5s or 16.875s. Of course, Taunt blows them all out of the water with a 41s duration.
The other key to threat generation is damage output, and Tankers should do a hell of a lot more of that than Phantom Army - even in defensively oriented ones. -
Quote:The highlighted portion ensures that Degenerative's -MaxHP is vastly inferior to Reactive's -res. Unless the cap is lifted, I would not recommend it.Originally Posted by JayboH
Speaking of Degenerative, the MaxHP has been retooled to correctly apply to all possible targets. Against most enemies in the game, Degenerative will apply a fairly sizeable MaxHP debuff. Against very high-health/strong targets, Degenerative will apply a fixed debuff of 150 hp per stack. This helps keep the ability on par with reactive when fighting targets like Hamidon Mitos, Reichsman, etc.
-
You can run SS and Sprint at the same time, and the two stealth effects will stack.
-
Quote:I do believe this was covered in my "nonlinear stacking" statement. :POriginally Posted by Starsman
There is another gotcha.
...
Just like +MaxHP has an inherent diminishing return, -MaxHP% has an oposite ... whats the right math term? Dont think exponential cuts it... but something on that ballpark.
In this particular case it's pretty easy - cap it at either 9% or 10%, so that it's roughly the same strength as Reactive' Interface.Quote:Originally Posted by Starsman
So it gets insane fast. So: where to cap it? How to assign numbers so that one stack of the debuff is not too weak without making 2 stronger than intended?
Now, if they have plans to add more -maxhp debuffs to new sets, then all I could say to them is "don't." -
Quote:I said "similar" because -maxhp has two properties that -res does not:Originally Posted by Arcanaville
A -maxhp of X% functions mathematically identically to a -res debuff of (1/(1-x)-1)%.
It doesn't matter how much health the target has. It doesn't matter how much regeneration the target has. It doesn't matter how much damage resistance the target has. Nothing matters because these two situations are numerically congruent. It also doesn't matter if the debuff hits, and then expires while the target is still alive. So long as it lands at the same time as a hypothetical resistance debuff, and expires at the same time as that hypothetical resistance debuff, the effect is still congruent.
In fact, in a hypothetical version of the game in which all the numbers were removed from combat chat and floating text, it would be impossible to distinguish -res from equally strong -maxhealth just from looking at the motion of your health bar. That's what makes them both effectively the same effect, just implemented in different ways (they stack differently with themselves and one is typed and the other obviously untyped, but that's separate from what the effect of a specific max health debuff would be verses a specific resistance debuff against its explicit type).
But what about...? Doesn't matter. Numerically congruent. Even if...? Yes, even if whatever.
Clearly, the devs let us resistance debuff AVs but are worried about us health debuffing AVs, so I'm guessing they just don't know this. Keep in mind that if the -maxhealth debuff was uncapped then the problem would be a theoretical -100% maxhealth debuff would be equal to an infinite resistance debuff and the target would essentially be immediately dead. But a capped debuff that cannot exceed X will always have an equivalent resistance debuff cap of (1/(1-x)-1) just as above, which means you can always guarantee the maxhealth debuff does not exceed the maximum debuff allowed by reactive.
An *uncapped* maxhealth debuff is dangerous to have around because it can quickly build to immense strength. But as long as its limited, its limits can be made identical to resistance debuff limits.
1) -Res stacks linearly, while -MaxHP stacks nonlinearly. (As you say, not an issue with the stack cap we have.)
2) -Res stacks additively with itself, but -MaxHP stacks multiplicitively with -Res.
Yeah, in isolation with equivalent quantities, they behave the same, but I was speaking more as a whole.
Sorry, I was trying to illustrate how -maxhp would function if the cap didn't exist to show it wouldn't be too strong. I'm well aware of that (silly) limitation. :PQuote:Originally Posted by MagicFlyingHippy
You would be correct, except that Degenerative does not do -10% max HP with four stacks on an Archvillain or Giant Monster or what have you. It does a flat -600. It's worthless. -
Quote:Actually, the -maxhp once again functions very similarly to -res.Originally Posted by MagicFlyingHippy
It does, but this means less than you might think. An AV at level 50 has 28271.7HP, and regenerates 20% per minute - this translates to 94.239/second. Debuffing that by the 600 permitted leaves their max HP at 27671.7, and thus their regen at 92.239. The equivalent of 2 DPS, assuming you can maintain four stacks at all times, is not worth it.Quote:Originally Posted by JakHammer
I am curious, do Monsters and AVs have their HP/sec regeneration based off their current Max HP like Players do?
If so debuffing max HP would also reduce Regen/sec and might make a max HP debuff somewhat more valuable.
Jak
To equal an AV's regen of 94.239 hp/sec with a -11.111% res debuff, it would take ~84.815 dps.
That same AV hit by -10% max hp would drop from 28,271.7 hp to 25,444.53 hp, and its regen thus lowered to 84.815 hp/sec ((MaxHP*regen) / TimeToRegen, or (25,444.53*1)/300).
Further, all the hp regenerated during with the debuff would scale back to normal if the debuff ever wore off. -
Quote:I believe it's -2.5% per stack, for -10% when saturated, just like Reactive.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Well, a reasonable amount would be 5% per stack, or 20% max debuff.
I think you're falling into the same mental trap the devs are. The more health a mob has, the more the maxhp is reduced by. This is misleading, however. What is the difference between reducing the amount of hp you need to damage to kill a mob and increasing the amount of damage you deal to a mob?Quote:Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
If your target has 60,000 HP, that lowers their max HP by 12,000 points. If it were a straight percentage it would get MORE powerful as the targets HP goes up, instead of less.
I can see why they'd be concerned about it.
Answer? None.
For example, suppose we have a mob with 200,000 hp. You have the choice between an 11.111% res debuff or a 10% maxhp debuff.
The 11.111% res debuff is the same as increasing damage dealt by 11.111%. So, before the resistance debuff, we would need to deal ~180,000 dmg (200,000 / 1.11111) to kill the mob.
The 10% maxhp debuff would reduce the mob down to ~180,000 hp - the same amount of damage necessary to kill the mob with the res debuff.
Also, just like powers that increase maxhp (Dull Pain, Frostworks, etc), when a mob's maxhp changes (up or down) their hp scale to stay in the same proportion. So if the mob had full hp, after the debuff it would have 180,000 / 180,000. If we allowed the debuff to wear off, it would go back to 200,000 / 200,000.
The change in hitpoints (current and max) is just a visual indication of how much an equivalent amount of -res would be worth.
The -150 hp cap (per stack) would be like degrading the strength of Reactive's -res when mobs have more hp. (Against a mob with 60,000 hp, it would be down to a 1.01% res debuff.) -
Quote:Correction, there used to be no such thing. The delay you speak of was caused by weapon attacks taking the same amount of time to cast whether your weapon was drawn or not. Now all sets (sans Spines/Thorns, iirc) have removed that extra activation time, but now when they redraw their weapon actually adds time to the powers activation.Originally Posted by Ultimus
Edit: Redraw Penalty? There is no such thing. The only changes to redraw was to smooth out animations to make it eliminate the pause at the end. For there to be a penalty, there would have to be two separate animations. Maybe Arcanaville can chime in
In other words:
Quote:Originally Posted by Sarrate
How it used to work:
Redraw: 1s
Animation: 3s
Weapon Out: Animate power (3s) then sit in the idle position (1s)
Weapon Sheathed: Animate redraw (1s) then animate power (3s)
Result: Power always takes 4s to animate. The redraw penalty is baked into every attack, but there is no cost to redraw when playing.
How it works now:
Redraw: 1s
Animation: 3s
Weapon Out: Animate power (3s)
Weapon Sheathed: Animate redraw (1s) then animate power (3s)
Result: Power is much stronger because it doesn't have a built in delay. There is now a cost to redrawing your weapons when playing. -
Quote:The cap on the Degenerative proc makes it weaker than Reactive against anything with more than ~6,000 hp. Once mob health is gets above ~60,000 hp the -maxhp debuff is worth less than a 1% res debuff [edit: with 4 stacks, or -600 max hp].Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Yeah, kind of eliminates it's usefulness. For most things.
The targets a debuff like that would be useful on have WAY more than 600 HP.
Maybe it should be a straight percentage?
Gonna go with Spectral I think, maybe if it procs often enough with Midnight Grasp I can immobilize an AV (not sure how useful that will be though.....)
It should just be a straight percentage, regardless of mob health, but the devs seem to think it would be too powerful; I don't understand why. -
Quote:Quick look at it in City of Daata shows that it is indeed only 1s taunt. Specifically, it's a scale 1 taunt using the "Melee_Ones" table. Most other auras have scale 1 taunts but use the Melee_InherentTaunt table. The Brute version uses Melee_InherentTaunt, too.Originally Posted by Call Me Awesome
A small update on my SR tanker; last night I was playing with a friend's StJ/Energy Armor brute and noticed a disturbing trend. I was first into melee and had the mobs clumped tight then he'd attack and I'd immediately loose about half the spawn. I've NEVER seen that happen with an Invuln tanker and I conclude that the SR taunt aura must have gotten the Willpower treatment; it doesn't appear to hold aggro well.
After a couple of missions I grabbed my StJ/Invuln scrapper and had no difficulty holding aggro from my buddy. Mid's claims MAG 4 on SR's aura... seems like the Dev's set it's duration extremely low. I do notice Mid's mentions a 1 second duration for Evasion (the taunt aura/AOE def toggle) and a 0.75 second duration for the other toggles. If that's true then SR is actually worse than WP for aggro.
My guess is it's a bug and not intentional. -
Quote:You're right, in leagues reactives will likely saturate. On the other hand, the Degenerative's dot deals less damage (by design) and toxic damage is more frequently / heavily resisted than some of the other dot options (Preemptive / energy, Spectral / negative energy). Of course, the benefit of their non-damage components (Preemptive / end drain, Spectral / immobilize) aren't nearly as universal.Originally Posted by Vauluur
Yes, but...everyone has Reactive already. And the debuff in it has a stacking limit of 4 while the DoT has a stacking limit of 8. So, since so many people have Reactive it would be good to pick something that isn't Reactive. Of course, that balance of people might change now that there are more options. In any case, I see the -hp and toxic damage being more useful than -res and fire damage in a lot of PvE content (AVs being an exception because of the numbers.) The actual gameplay utility of the two powers is probably much closer than the numbers indicate on paper against a single hard target.
The more that I think about it, you may be right. The question becomes:
* For the non-reactive interfaces, does a better damage dot outweigh the -maxhp debuff for lvl50+ mobs with sub 6,000 hp.
...I don't know how to answer that question.
Don't get me wrong, I want Degenerative to be good and not just the "well reactive is saturated" option - it has so much potential. -
Quote:At this time, I wouldn't suggest Degenerative. Its maxhp debuff has a cap of -150 per stack, or -600 with 4 stacks. This makes it roughly equivalent to Reactive until you fight mobs with ~6,000 hp. After that, Reactive beats the crap out of it.Originally Posted by Vauluur
Interface: Pick one that deals some type of DoT. Degenerative might be fun, haven't seen the numbers on it yet though.
Against a normal AV with 28,000 hp, it's only equal to a ~2.19% res debuff.
[edit: Against something with 200k hp, it would be equal to a ~0.3% res res debuff.] -
Quote:Activate period 5 secondsOriginally Posted by Eislor
I don't see the pulse rate
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Starsman
They tend to have rather prolonged recharge making sure you cant use them too frequently, though, and also dont eliminate debt.
I can see those two points as actual issues. Then again, I would say the power can grant the user strong survival buffs, like fully cap max HP.
The main reason I would give the power offensive penalties is so it does not become too powerful in the soloing realm. Also like the thematic feeling of the hero that keeps standing up, every time he is in worse condition and seems to be able to do less, but still seems to take as many hits to take down every time he stands up.
Do note, I did suggests a temporary immunity, but not long enough to cover the retoggling timing Sarrate suggests, nor to make up for potential loss of dull pain.
I still don't like it because it incurs, at least 4.884s of activation time; practically it's more like 8+s. That time is an offensive debuff in and of itself since it's time not spent attacking.
Retoggling, quite frankly, sucks. -
Quote:Yeah, I should have included the "probably not possible to implement with current tech" disclaimer, too. :POriginally Posted by Arcanaville
A long while ago, someone suggested "reactive heal" for Regen: if you hit zero, a heal would fire instantly to bring you back above zero without dying, and this could happen once per some interval. The problem then and now is that the tech doesn't exist to do it. In fact, back then the best we could say was "the tech doesn't exist to do it" and now I can say "I'm not sure how you would do it even if the devs wanted to add the tech." "Dying" is a difficult thing to override.
I'm not a fan of this suggestion for two reasons:Quote:Originally Posted by Starsman
How about modifying Revive to do this:- Lower recharge to 60s (that way it can be used every 30 seconds with SOs, enough to have it for every alpha)
- Remove debt protection, but instead somehow pay back debt equivalent to what you just lost. (suppress this effect for 60 seconds)
- Add a Taunt Pulse that makes sure foes around you once more pay attention to you.
- Lower heal %, so it requires 3 SO slotting for you to get 75% health back.
- A stackable 60 -max endurance debuff (temp power that persist death.)
- 60 - 30% damage debuff for 30 seconds (again temp power that stacks)
- Half the heal suppresses for 60 seconds.
(...)
There will be lots of people that will still hate the dying, but some one that gets into it will not see it as death, but as a knockdown and start of round 2.
1) Self-rezzes have, as far as I can remember, universally positive effects. Willpower's has self buffs, Fiery Aura's deals damage, and Dark Armors has a massive stun. If you're dead, they're buttons you like pressing. That modification listed above? I would never look forward to pressing that button. I mean, if we're balancing the set asssuming the set will die often enough to need a good self rez, don't tie it up with debuffs.
2) One of the reasons I suggested the "cheat-death" mechanism is because dying has a very annoying effect: detoggling. Depending on the build, that is not an insignificant penalty. With just two toggles, it would take 8.052s to get back into the fight, not including using any self heals like Reconstruction:
* Revive - 1.716s (1.5s)
* Integration - 3.168s (3.1s)
* Tough - 3.168s (3.1)
That's a really painful timeout, especially if you're expected/balanced around using it often.
[edit: Keep in mind that dying means losing Dull Pain, too.] -
The powergamer in me thinks "scaling resistances? That could be leveraged in awesome ways." The other part of me thinks "Regen's health should spike all over the place. Even back in the days of toggle-IH, your health yo-yoed all over the place."
So, this morning I had a wacky, probably unbalancable, idea and I figured I'd share.
Take IH and instead of it applying a single buff, it would apply several (4?) temp powers that provide +regen. Whenever you would normally die / drop below X% health / etc, IH would eat a stack of IH and instantly heal you. This would allow a Regen's health to fluctuate madly, but give it some insurance against spike damage. The design would encourage you not to rely on it, though, since it would reduce your regeneration and make you more likely to get spiked down again.
I say it's probably unbalancable is because it could cheat mechanics meant to kill a player (ie: Nova Fist, Disintigration, etc). Still, I think it'd be a neat effect. -
Quote:Then you know that knockdown is a colloquialism for a knockback effect with a MAG of 0.7 or less. We know it's classified as knockback, but the result is knockdown.Originally Posted by MikeRobe
Of course I'm splitting hairs. I know how the mechanism works. But the fact of the matter is if you look at the power it is KB. The anti KB crowd can say it isn't as long as they give it a new name - but that's not the power effect.
It'd be like saying "fear" doesn't exist in the game... it's actually "terrorize."
Burn patches didn't "fear" mobs... it's actually an "avoid" effect.
"Defense Debuff Resistance" doesn't exist... it's just Defense Resistance, but it only effects debuffs because buffs are flagged as unresistible.
It doesn't matter because everyone understands the vocabulary being used.
Why would anyone want to say "knockbacks with MAG 0.7 or less are superior to knockbacks with a MAG greater than 0.7" instead of "knockdown is superior to knockback"?
So, since both sides knew what the other was saying, exactly what was the point in nitpicking in the first place? -
Quote:You're splitting hairs. Yes, Punch, Haymaker, and Footstomp are technically knockback effects. They're designed and implemented to be knockdown. In fact, they used to be knockback but their MAGs were specifically reduced to make them knockDOWN.Originally Posted by MikeRobe
Ok oh wizard of the power set... what happens if you slot 2 kb enh in Footstomp? Doesn't matter that nobody would or does.... what happens? Tell me its still knockDOWN because if it were KnockDOWN KB enh couldn't possibly change that.Quote:Originally Posted by EvilGeko
What set are you looking at?
Jab - Stun
Punch - KnockDOWN
Haymaker - KnockDOWN
Taunt - Taunt
Hand Clap - KnockBack
Knockout Blow - KnockUP
Rage - Buff
Hurl - KnockBack
Footstomp - KnockDOWN
I'm seeing two powers with KB. The same two everyone skips.
This is actually a very common thing among the release Tanker melee sets. Super Strength, Stone Melee, Battle Axe, and War Mace all did high MAG knockback, but they were slowly all reduced to MAG ~0.67 (aside from a few token powers like Hand Clap).
Actually, that's an interesting example:
What is one of Stone Melee's signature powers? Fault.
What is one of Super Strength's most skipped powers? Hand Clap.
The main difference? MAG 0.67 knockdown vs MAG 5.19 knockback. -
Quote:Also, Taunt has a range debuff.Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
No. Tanker Taunt is autohit in PvE, while Provoke requires a to-hit check.Quote:Originally Posted by Vitality
Is the duration of the taunt the only difference between these powers?
I'm not going to describe this well, but the double handed beckoning. I believe DM's Taunt uses it.Quote:Originally Posted by Vitality
Side Question: What animation does Provoke use? -
Quote:Actually, Cainus was on a Scrapper, not a Brute, so no taunt effects from him at all.Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Just for the record, here is the very simplified aggro formula:
Total Threat = Damage * AT Mod * AI Mod * RangeMod * DebuffMod * (TauntDurationRemaining * 1,000)
So it's more than just you having your AoE attacks going. You should have "Gauntlet-lite" on your AoEs, though, giving you about 13 seconds of Taunt to everyone hit. However, if your compadre was throwing out a bunch of AoEs, including debuffs, then they might attract some attention.
The sticking point is that Dark Miasma has a lot of debuffs (off the top of my head):
-tohit
fear
-regen
slow
-dmg
-res
The last "two" being the worst offenders. We consider a res debuff like Tar Pit to be one debuff, it's actually 8 (smash, lethal, energy, neg energy, fire, cold, psionic, toxic); same deal with -dmg. So his threat was being amplified far more than yours was. -
Quote:Come on, Starsman, that's being overly melodramatic. It's not a remarkable power, but far from the worst:Originally Posted by Starsman
wow.. that was one big buff! Well deserved too... Resilience was the worse passive... if not the worse power, in the entire game.
* Flurry - Why would you pick this up instead of Hasten? Ever?
* Sonic Repulsion - Toggle radial knockback that you can't use solo and can't control. (Target can proceed to be a bonehead with it.)
* Invoke Panic - Terrible uptime, accuracy, end costs, and prerequisites. [edit: Also, it's only MAG 2.]
[edit: Or for a more direct analogy: Blasters / Munitions / Body Armor - 8.75% res. No toxic, stun resistance, or stun protection.]
As for Regen on a Tank, at this juncture, I wouldn't touch it. (Who knows what's coming down the pipe with future Incarnate Abilities, IOs, content, etc.) -
Quote:It's actually pretty funny, but at release, the only difference between Katana and Broadsword was that Katana attacks recharged faster and did less damage. It was essentially in the same spot Broadsword is now.Originally Posted by EvilGeko
I'm not sure how long you've played, but when the game first launched, there was NO mechanical difference between Katana and Broadsword. IIRC they even had the exact same names for their powers. This was changes so that there was more than an aesthetic difference between the sets. But when they did that, they introduced a mechanical advantage to Katana. When they added proc damage via Inventions, they made it worse. This is not a statement of my opinion. This can and has been shown.
-
Quote:I think you're playing up Stalkers single target capabilities too much.Originally Posted by GuyPerfect
As a Blaster
When it comes to damage, Stalker's functionality blurs a bit and isn't strictly apparent. The bottom line is that they're not enough stronger than Scrapper to make much of a difference.
On the one hand, Stalkers do slightly more average damage per target than Scrappers--that's a curious fact. Scrapper base damage is actually 12.5% higher than Stalker, which is not an insignificant amount. But a change was eventually implemented that gave Stalkers the ability to deal critical hits while not hidden; based on a random chance exactly the way Scrapper does. The difference is that Stalker's crit chance is lower than Scrappers while solo, but goes up for each of the first three teammates to the point that Stalkers actually have a higher average crit chance than Scrappers. Combine this with the already-existing criticals from Hide and Assassin Strike that can be triggered on demand with Placate and... well, you get the picture. Against the targets that Stalker attacks, he'll somewhat out-damage Scrapper.
In practice, Scrappers still deal out more total damage because they get AoE attacks where Stalkers don't. When a Scrapper can run in with Blazing Aura, pop Fiery Embrace and Build Up, then drop Burn, do a Spin and some Eviscerate and finish by jumping up to launch a Shockwave, everything that doesn't con orange or higher is going down. Stick a Stalker in the same situation, and he can defeat one, maybe two enemies in that amount of time. Maybe he'll get lucky with Slice or something. The opportunities that Scrappers get for affecting targets are incredibly skewed in their favor compared to Stalkers, who only get to fight one thing at a time.
It's worth noting that this seems to have been an issue with the original powers designers for City of Villains. Recently, Stalkers have been getting fairer treatment when it comes to offensive sets. Stalkers do get Burst. Stalkers do get Spinning Strike. But for all the older sets (tier-9s like Throw Spines and Lightning Rod notwithstanding), Stalkers seem to have universally lost their PBAoE attacks to make room for Placate (and Eviscerate is single-target, but that's another story). That said, you're still not going to see any damage auras in Stalker secondaries, quite simply because those draw aggro. Stalkers--by design--will forever deal less AoE damage than Scrappers, and their damage output per target currently isn't enough higher than Scrapper to compare in benchmark tests.
Against individual tough targets like Giant Monsters and Arch-villains, Stalkers notably out-perform Scrappers as long as Placate is in play. But again, it's not so much more that people think, "Man, we could really use a Stalker."
As you say, Scrappers have a damage mod of 1.125, and they crit 5% of the time against minions/underlings and 10% against others. (Some attacks have a flat 15% chance.)
Stalkers have a damage mod of 1 and a flat crit rate of 10% plus 3% per teammate within 30 feet.
In order for a Stalker to deal comparable damage to a Scrapper, they need to have ~3-4 teammates within 30', depending on the rank of the target. While it's true Stalkers have Placate, it's not as good as you might originally think. For one, it takes time to cast, time that could have also been spent animating a different attack. Further, the higher the Stalker's crit rate, the lower the benefit of Placate's crit. For example, assume Stalkers could only crit after Placate. Now consider that a Stalker could crit 50% of the time. Much less of a boost.
Further, Scrappers have abilities that increase their sustained dps that Stalkers don't have access to. Consider damage auras, while they shine in aoe situations, they're still extra damage that a Stalkers has to work to make up. Another difference is Scrappers have access to long duration / persistent damage buffs. Pretty much all Stalkers primaries get Build Up, but Scrappers get abilities like Follow Up, Blinding Feint, Soul Drain, and Power Siphon. (Not to mention other corner cases like Against All Odds and Fiery Embrace.) If memory serves, Stalker Street Justice lost the res debuff that Scrappers have.
Stalkers, to me, have an extremely narrow band where they out perform Scrappers, which I think is a shame. -
Quote:The reason is Taunt lasts so long, it's easy to spread the effect among the whole spawn. Not only that, but Gauntlet-lite applies to AoE attacks, as well. So, jump into a spawn using Taunt, use an AoE. Taunt's recharge isn't too long, esp with rech enhancement / global bonuses, so it can be used pretty quickly.Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Taunt hits up to five at a time. RttC hits up to ten. With the aggro cap at 17, I don't see why you wouldn't want both operating efficiently. On a Tanker, with full Gauntlet going, I can understand this, but with Brutes' Gauntlet-lite only hitting the enemies they hit, I would think that having a passive AoE-threat generating power would be nice.
Will Taunt completely overshadow the threat generated by any aggro aura? Yes, but the aggro aura is going to help you hit the other enemies that you need to have aggro on.
When I was talking about Taunt, I was talking about the WP Brute (in this case, you) using Taunt. If you're going Tauntless, then yes, I'd recommend it. If not, I (personally) don't think it'd be that valuable.Quote:Originally Posted by Vitality
Right, so if you're are not teaming with someone with Taunt...then slotting a taunt IO in RttC is worth it?