lionsbane_EU

[ QUOTE ]
No, because whilst previously you lost 25-27.5 Endurance on a Rage crash, now you will lose 25-27.5 Endurance AND not be able to recover ANY endurance for 10 seconds. That includes the endurance that is eaten by your toggles, and any extra endurance that you use through attacking during that 10 second period.

It works out at anything from 50 to 70 Endurance, just for hitting that "Rage" Button. Do you actually expect a Dark, WP or INV Brute to deal with losing out on 60-70 Endurance every time they pop Rage? Like Tanker Ice/, Brute /NRG and /Elec get endurance drains... but the other secondaries (even Fire) will really struggle.

I don't even want to THINK about trying to double-stack Rage under the suggested new system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't understand how they, sitting in their offices, got together and thought that this would be a workable idea. Never mind get it to the stage where they actually mention it on the boards.

Can anyone see a logic here?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it's weaker without rage, it's been balanced around rage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rage is balanced around super strength NOT the other way round. Rage was a quite late add on to SS.
And, if you remove the accuracy buff, all it does is enable us to match MOST powersets damage output.
Not exceed them.

And for the extra accuracy and all that entails we get hit pretty good.

[ QUOTE ]
Making rage a situational power is fundamentally unfair because
a) it wasn't designed to be one

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine it was. A lot of powers were designed to be something completely different than what players eventually used them for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but after the perma unstoppable debacle (and hasten actually) I'd like to think the devs wouldn't make a power perma unless they wanted to and felt it right.
[ QUOTE ]
b) try playing an SS tank without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Any tank that's focusing on taking damage instead of dealing it is just fine without rage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct for so many reasons.
Firstly Tanker outcry at low damage output prompted the devs to give Tankers a blanket 10% damage increase in the first place and further down the line, added rage to SS because without it, SS underperforms.
In other words Tankers did not wish to be merely meatshields, something Statesman learned when he encountered Tankers anger at his suggestion that that's what they should be.

Besides, even if your point holds up, SS is weaker in terms of damage out put than most Tanker sets (minus rage.) We have no build up and the overall chain of powers is no where in comparison to, for example, energy melee. (Although I accept footstomp wipes the floor with whirling hands)

And thematically it's wrong, especially in a game like this. If anything SS should be the strongest Tanker set because of the images super strength conjures up in the super hero community.

That it isn't is one thing. But to say it doesnt matter qwhat damage we give out because we're meatsheilds is just plain wrong in my view. (And as I say, in the view of an awful lot of Tankers who brought us to where we are today.)

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt -recovery will survive long in testing.

Devs don't play like real people, they only turn on the shields they absolutly need.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about the way the devs play the game but I have a bad feeling about this. Castles attitude was too smug. "well, we could do this (-35) instead.."

I think this is in to stay. I just don't for the life of me understand why they would want to do it.
I don't see the net gain and I dont see why they would want to mimimise our playing experience when SS isn't overbalanced in the first place.

Bloody hell. Why do the devs have to give in the one hand and take from the other every time?

All we want is the ability to taunt during rage drop. That's it really.

Even though all rage does is grant a damage parity with SOME Tanker sets, accept the acc bump means we need a balancing penalty. 25% drop in endurance and defence drop plus the inability to do damage for 10 seconds every 2 minutes is pretty fair.

No end recovery isnt. It'll cause chaos, particularily amongst non experienced Tankers. Sometimes I toggle drop during rage drop. Who doesnt?
Imagine you cant get your toggles up for 10 secs.

Makes a joke of being able to hold aggro, doesnt it?

The big question is, assuming you have no blues, how do you prevent 10 seconds of toggle drop?
The only way is to decrease your attacks prior to drop, which reduces our damage output over time. In other words- reduce us by de fault.

Making rage a situational power is fundamentally unfair because
a) it wasn't designed to be one
b) try playing an SS tank without it.
That's why they gave Tankers rage in the first place.
Because SS was an underperforming set.
Not so we can situationally catch up other sets.
This is starting to feel like a nerf.

[ QUOTE ]
To me, it can mean that instead of "only affecting self" you do much less damage after suffering an endurance drop and losing some defense.

Teams don't suffer from tanks lacking in taunt control or timing (in my case timing ).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Castle defined it as being -9999% damage, which implies SS Tanks can still handclap, for example. And that description doesnt imply that the defence drop is still there. but either way I don't mind.

I personally found the bug bear was the lack of taunt and aggro. If you are 100% concentrating all the time, I guess you can mitigate it by launching taunt at exactly the right moment.

But to me it was a pain and they're doing away with it.

BTW, any other long standing forumite remember how I got flamed seriously for saying .9999% reoccuring? The walls of hell opened up as everyone argued, in an offensive way, that I was wrong for suggesting it's a legitimate term.

Yet another example of me being flamed and being right all along.

Unless someone feels like telling Castle that -9999% doesn't exist.

Sorry to bring that up but after all the flaming I get, when I'm shown to be correct I do feel the need to mention it.

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain why we shouldn't.

After all, the fact that we want all that lovely damage when we're a Tank is surely out of character enough, what harm is a little aggro loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am delighted to discover that the devs are indeed starting to listen to common sense.

Because of course it wasn't right that rage drop stopped aggro.

Finally!

Does this mean though that we keep full defense for the duration?
Well, that would be a bonus. I'm happy with the announced fix.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't use Rage if you don't want the drop. If you can work around it, do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

That rather obvious answer is slight overkill don't you think?

You don't think that a defence drop, 20% endurance drop (which frequently causes toggle dropping) AND a complete loss of all offensive abilities for 10 seconds is enough penalty for a power that basically helps us achieve offensive parity with MOST Tanker secondaries (that dont have this penalty) isn't enough?

Please explain why we should lose aggro management too.

After all, the fact we're willing to take the aggro in that spell, despite being so weakened surely is surely risk enough.

When rage drops you lose substantial endurance and you can't use any offensive powers.

I know this and accept it as part of the kickback for having the power up in the first place. i don't actually agree with this but I can live with it. Except...

Taunt. Taunt is identified as an attack power which is presumably why it is included in the 10 second can't use powers but it's this single angle I take issue with.

It really is one penalty to many in my eyes as it completely nullifies us for those seconds and can really put the team in trouble.

I think the overall penalty is fine wuithout the taunt hit as well.

At least with the taunt being active during rage drop we can do our job even if the personal risk is greater to us.

Without it we are in some cases actually a danger to our own team.

I mean, heck, I can be up and running about 3 seconds after an unstoppable drop.

I don't think, or see any benefit to the fact that taunt should be affected by rage.

Thoughts anyone?

[ QUOTE ]
Qick Recovery is better than Stamina, so if you would be fine with the latter you will be very pleased with the former. For some attack powersets taking both is an even better idea, though. (My EM/WP brute is living proof of this. )

[/ QUOTE ]

So the two combined are worthwhile? Ta.

Just took it so obviously I haven't put Sos into it yet.
So I can't tell yet how effective it is yet.

So my question really is:

So I still need to run stamina or is this power as good?
If I did take stamina as well, do they stack? Will I have virtually inexhaustable stamina?

Thanks

[ QUOTE ]
The bit I find most interesting is that distance is factored in when calulating threat. A Tanker taunting from melee range will generate slightly more aggro than an identical Tanker taunting from 50 feet away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, i know this is old now but doesnt that very factor say that we HAVE been operating on a wrong footing?

Loads of times I taunt from a distance then assume the effect has done its job. But in fact, under certain circumstances it actually hasnt, because its distance related.

Did i recently read some where that in fact there are instances where we wouldnt steal the aggro from, say a Scrapper, despite the fact we actually have been thinking we had? Or have I got it wrong?

Do i need to change the way i approach taunt or can i carry on as before?

a must read for Tankers

The old me would have pointed out how this vindicates my maintaining (in spite of some pretty nasty crititism) that the devs don't play or understand their own game.

The new me (spurred on by the exit of Cryptic) is encouraged that the devs are trying to clean up their act.

I'm not even going to rant about how this was missed all this time.

Bearing in mind taunts been running on a false premise for almost 4 years (including beta)this discovery must have taken some dedication and hard work to unravel.

So kudos to castle and ghost widow for taking the time.

But, have we all been THINKING that we've been pulling aggro off under seige team mates, when, in fact (because we THOUGHT taunt worked in a certain way) we actually haven't been?

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the info guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got to really, really want to play an energy melee.

But 35-39 make it all worthwhile...

[ QUOTE ]
The game would either take an excessive amount of time to create with all the signature heroes required to achieve that or become a very short game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say that?

[ QUOTE ]
What should be in between? Someone who can't hold aggro but still cares about team survivability? Well, I would call that a bad tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many players, particularily invul types, who picked the set, not so much because they want to Tank the CoH way, but because they want to emulate Superman or another suchlike hero.

That probably involves going one to one as well as protecting your team mates.

They're never going to be the model Tank.

But they're probably not Skrankers as such either.

[ QUOTE ]
A tank is someone who can hold aggro and cares about team survivability

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A scranker is someone who only cares about his own survivability

[/ QUOTE ]

There's an inbetween sort as well , you know. What are they then? *ankers?

[ QUOTE ]
refer to my mention on another thread about wanting to tank few, but hard enemies

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, that's what you do in almost every major MMO. CoH is fairly unique in the amount of foes you can fight at once, and I (and I know many others do as well) really enjoy that aspect of it. Getting floored just about every time when you're against more than 3 foes is not fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bit late replying to this but you're absolutely right.

There has to be a mix and match of us fighting "worthy" opponents and a whole slew of "cannon fodder" types to give us the illusion we're "super." Especially nowadays.

[ QUOTE ]
. Id have it though, unlike some pbaoes its useable in the air and so Id be like great! CoP trial! Fly up in the middle of those Rularuu buggers and Whirl!

[/ QUOTE ]

CoP trial? Hmmph, Time that comes out your Tanker will be an old and grey bunch of pixles on arthiritis pills.
But it's a cool image...

[ QUOTE ]
rather i think the opposite, a scranker wont be surrounded by those big group of mobs that makes this a useful power. While a tanker who gather a big group of enemies tight to him will.

The sound of WRRRAAPPAPAPAPAPAAP as it hits 5.6.7.8 enemies or more thats surrounded you after youve first jumped inside that big group, hit the Boss in the middle to get the others attention with your invincibility aura and then let loose with whirly hands is a beautiful sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

No question about its asthetic appeal. All this is tempting me again BUT, the damage is so derisable, and the aggro is covered by invinc so bottom line am I better off?

I hear what you're saying but just can't make up my mind. Don't forget, I'd have to drop something to get it.
Arrgh.

[ QUOTE ]
Apart from the benefits listed by Shannon, there always a use for a PBAoE when you have that mob you cant target because its stuck in a wall or that Arachnos who smoke grenaded you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yeah but that's too rare for me to take a power for.
Oh the pain..

[ QUOTE ]
So in the end it's all up to playstyle I think. If you prefer to play more as a Scranker, then I'd take it, but if you prefer being the Meatshield then I'd skip it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to think of myself as a meaty Scranker.

My Invul/ energy melee.. Tanker.

I dropped whirling hands a while ago. I liked the power but decided it was ultimately useless. It's damage is weak and any aggro I can get from guantlet, Taunt and my invinc AOEs cover anyway.
I kind of miss the ability to hit more than one at a time but felt, in view of my reasoning above, it's just not worth while.

Am I right or wrong?

Thx

[ QUOTE ]
this has slowly shifted the other way and Union now roughly have 50-75% more players online at peaktimes.

Union villains now has the same player population as Defiant heroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this true??? Cause that's almost scary.

[ QUOTE ]
we are talking about the STF if so they both laugh in the face of my invul tank, if we are talking about RV then thats a different matter altogether!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. On the STF the entire team couldn't dent GW. The team wasn't a perfect mix but even so! We threw everything and she just wouldn't drop.

Why are the "same" AVs so much more powerful on the STF?

[ QUOTE ]
This was a solo test, wansn't it?

I would imagine an 8 man team with correspondingly large mobs, a Fire/Fire Tank would outdamage a MA/Regen scrapper (for instance) by virtue of the stack of AoE attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual damage ratio for Tanks v Scrapper hould be 75%. However i believe the common concensous is that its working out about 60-65%. This is based on some current testing done on the USA boards.