[ QUOTE ]
Then remove Burn.
Or you could do what was explained to you prior to Issue 1:
Add Accuracy a requirement to Burn
Make it unaffected by Recharge or Hasten
Or you could do something entirely backwards and render the defining power of an AT unusable.
Blasters also have Burn. Are they overpowered?
When was this epiphany decided? How does it stick with your "Vision" in Issue 3?
[ QUOTE ]
Based upon the great feedback on these forums, as well as conversations with Tankers in and out of the game, I felt that we needed to revisit some old issues and try some new solutions. The great thing about MMP's is that they can grow and evolve. Even better, the community can give us both qualititative (opinions) and quantitative (data) information.
So here's what we discussed.
1. By and large, the change to Tankers' Taunt is viewed positively. Instead of a single target Taunt, Tankers will have a Provoke in their Secondary Power Sets. Plus, the mob targeted will be autohit (just like Taunt). So you can pretty much guarantee that'll be done soon. But, as many have said, it's not enough. So that's why Geko and I talked at length.
2. Tankers damage is way out of whack compared to Scrappers' Resistance. Previously, I stated that Scrappers couldn't reach the Resistance cap. And they can't - UNLESS they resort to the Power Pool. That was my error. A correctly built Scrapper (with a lot of Enhancement slots) CAN reach the 90% cap. But a Tanker can NEVER do the same amount of damage as a Scrapper. This needs to be rectified. A Tanker should be as good at Resistance as a Scrapper is at Damage.
3. Some people don't mind the traditional role of a Tanker as a meat shield, other do. Most importantly, however, is that people seemed not to like to be a "provoke bot". It appeared that a Tanker's role was to sit there, take damage, and occasionally hit Provoke. A Tanker's attacks were nice, but pretty much an afterthought in the grand scheme of things. Well, that's not much fun after all. Provoke is fine; but the Tanker's attacks should be MORE important when combat gets started in holding aggro than shouting at various mobs.
4. The Burn change is a little too inconsistent with the role of a Tanker. A Tanker wants to keep aggro, not chase them away. Though it makes sense in terms of AI (bad guys fleeing damage), the power becomes not very useful for the Tanker. We'll probably be making a change to that soon.
In other words, I've said in the past that we weren't going to look at damage and that we weren't going to add any aggro to Tanker attacks. Well, I think I need to put my thinking cap on and come up with some solutions to the points above. I can't thank all the Tankers enough for sharing their thoughts & ideas.
Now - the change to Burn can happen relatively quickly - but the other stuff needs internal testing. I don't want to rush something out over the holidays. That testing will be a priority post Thanksgiving - so I'll keep you posted next week on the status.
[/ QUOTE ]
When did this change?
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the embodiement of my entire feelings with Issue 5, thank you for having that quote handy, without it, I don't think I would have been able to put my garbled thoughts to print.
I am on of the elusive non-MMORPG players that was brought in my CoH's promise of "Being a Hero". Heck, I had never even played a CPU game; I had to buy an entirely new CPU to run CoH. Statesman has always said he hoped his game would appeal to the casual gamer, and it hooked me big time. I have played probably around 3000 hours of CoH since launch (Been here since Day One), and maybe 20 of Console games (My normal beloved).
Being that my only experience with MMOG's is City of Heroes, perhaps I can give a view on this that hasn't been presented...
I am not used to all of these tweaks. I think its great when new content is added, but the Devs have been tweaking since Day One, when I have felt that the game was not broken.
Every tweak before this has, for the most part, increased the enjoyment of the game. It was unnatural for Scrappers to be as resilient as Tanks, it was wrong to negate 8 other powers with one, etc. But, when does it stop? These Burn changes are perfect examples... It no longer does what an established definition over the past year says.
My biggest qualm with this issue is it makes CoH an entirely different feeling game. It revives feelings of the first 20 levels, which everyone is just glad to get over with.
The reason I loved CoH was the fast pace, the overwhelming odds - it hadn't gotten too easy, and it was nice not dying every single time you got an in-mission ambush or added aggro group(can you imagine the outdoor Malta Kronos mission now?).
If this slow and plodding pace is more inline with how other MMORPG's play, then that is the reason casual-type gamers do not play them. I really hope these changes work themselves out, because I love Issue 1-4 CoH - I would hate for Issue 5 to change the game that has been out for over a year. I mean... Tekken 5 is different than Tekken 2, but its overall base and system has remained basically unchanged.
Thanks for eight fun years, Paragon.
Well Im respecing out of Burn. Its a situational power at best on test now and not worth picking up for just immobilize protection at level 18 IMO Add Knockback protection and +defense to burn and take away all its damage!. Or make Temp Protection a passive resist with Immobilization and Knock Back protection please! Hell move TP to a lvl 26 Power even. Push Fiery Embrace to 18 with its nerfing and Burn can go anywhere for what its worth now!
With these changes to Burn and mob AI a Fire/Non Ice tank can drop Blazing Aura, drop Taunt, and build a Scanker! When the stacks overcome Combat Jumping use a Break Free or volley range attacks. I will get the 2 AoEs from the Fire Secondary for my tank and pick up Hasten, with the 3 powers that serve me no purpose come I5. Fireball for the win!!!!
CoH
Radion-50 rad/rad
Dyre Knight-50 ill/storm
Shadow-Fall-50 kat/reg
Iceomatrix-50 ice/nrg tank
Goth-Chylde-50 dark/dark scpr
Stealth Man-50 fire/dev blas
CoV
Old Dirty Blaster-50 Rad/Rad
Vampiro-50 SS/Nrg
Repo Man-50 EM/Nin
Under Boss-50 Thugs/Dark
Violet Burn-50 Fire/Psi
(54 other lvl 50 toons)
sorry States, gotta call bs on this one
most fire tanks typically take Superjumping anyways for acrobatics, so combat jumping is also used for immobilization protection and a minor defense buff.
again: whats the point of burn?
if it had been changed to a single hit attack instead of leaving it a PbAoE, it might still be usefull, even with the long recharge. as it stands the damage is gone, the recharge is much longer and it just became something that many might use once in a while.
it was the point of being a fire tank, trading defense for offense.
you've turned this into a team only power, if the duration makes up for the longer recharges.
Why Burn will not be in my build Statesman.
1. It is not a fun power to use. Can you not see that the last thing a tanker wants is to chase villains?
2. It is not a safe power to use. Running villains along with the incapability to hold agro will get teammates killed.
Statesman, just remove the Immobilization protection and put it in something else and I will be a happy camper but Burn in its present state is not worth taking. Come on who are you trying to kid.
Truth is I am not even upset about one bit it. Is Burn too powerful just get rid of it and give us something we could actually use.
My choices are
1. Burn villains run, I lose agro and get frustrated.
2. Blazing Aura, Build Up, Whirling Hands, and Fire Ball.
Think I will choose number 2. I will just carry some Break Frees and at least it will be fun.
So to sum it up
1. Decrease the endurance cost of Blazing Aura.
2. Provide Immobilization Protection to Plasma Shield.
3. Knock Back Protection to Plasma Shield.
4. Get Rid of Burn because I'm not buying what you selling.
I'm not being critical here just having a little fun it's almost Friday.
I can understand these changes Statesman, but there are still some major problems in my opinion.
The recharge and lessening of damage hasn't really upped the ire too much. I think alot of the fire tanks can live with that, albeit grudgingly so. I know I won't like it, but I can, indeed, live with it.
The fear change, along with these changes, is just a massive pain to deal with. I understand the logic that yeah, a person in a fire is gonna run out as soon as possible, and unlike the current Issue, they rarely even seem to attack.
However, it also stands to reason, like many of the posters above noted, that they would indeed catch fire. A DOT component, in this instance, would be understandable.
The biggest problem here isn't so much that it's overpowered. The new changes took care of that problem.
The biggest problem lies in two areas
- It creates a power that is no longer fun. It's just a big pain in the keister to use anymore. Having to chase these guys down after lighting up a burn patch is, well, frustrating. I can use a patch with a controller, which leads to the second part...
-People don't like to have a non buffing power they can't use autonomously. In the past, I've loathed teaming with a controller on my fire tank, due to the fact that I can't get the mobs in position without a good portion of them getting held. I've been on the other side of the fence as well with my controller - I've had to wait for the tank to get them in just the right spot before I fire off holds.
Now, this sort of thing becomes a must to use the power effectively. Not alot of fun 
Lvl 50 Fire/fire tank
Lvl 50 Fire/kin controller
Lvl 50 En/En blaster
Lvl 50 Ar/dev blaster
Lvl 50 Emp/el defender
Lvl 25 Sonic/Sonic defender
[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would appear yet again that the current vision of tanks is that they all REQUIRE assistance in order to function. Far as I know stun, hold, immob are not tanker powers. Does the mean that an I5 tanker must carefully choose who to team with and exclude others so that those necessary hold, immob etc. powers are there?
Additionally there is the AI question of why the fear on burn in the first place. When using other powers the enemy only occasionally runs away from a fight when taking damage. Why should damage from burn be much different per opponent than damage from Greater Fire Sword, or any other attack by any AT? In fact, since the start of punchvoke, tank attacks generally have an element of provoke in them, not fear.
Perhaps the issue here is the DPS of burn as a power. If DPS is the problem then wouldn't the logical solution be to simply lower the damage done per burn cycle? Tanker primaries are typically all about defense with elements of taunt thrown in. Fire is unusual because it uses fire as its taunt which means that damage dealing is inherent in it.
If change is required for burn because it is just too much damage for the AT why not simply scale back its damage so that instead of 11-13s it is only dealing out 2-4s? Leave the cycle time alone, strengthen its KB protection time so that it is more in line with Tanker Defenses (right now you MUST pick accrobatics if you don't want to be a tank-pinball).
Better yet, instead of the added Fear, you could put in some taunt so that it works like a tanker power should!
IMO a much better solution and MUCH more in line with the rest of the AT expectations.
[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
I need to take issue with one item here States, and that is the effect of Stunning/Disorienting a mob and the behavior of that mob under the effects of Stun/Disorient.
While testing my L32 Fire/EM Tanker in Croatoa, even playing as is on Live, when I Stun/Disorient an opponent with one of my melee attacks, the mob will wander away from me at a pace that is faster than any Player Character will be able to move under a similar effect.
Now, apply Burn and guess what happens? They actually move away faster! Guess what else they can do? Fly or Jump away at such a rate! This is simply not right and indicated to me that even when a mob is Stunned/Disoriented, they can react to the Fear Effect of Burn. Perhaps this is intended but if it is then it certainly is no sort of equalizer for the Solo Fire/EM Tanker.
Please take a look into this to see if the movement rate of a Stunned/Disoriented mob is where it should be.
Now, I have a suggestion for how you could fix Burn.
Start from this position : Scrap the power as we know it.
Next, decide to have it still provide the Immobilization Protection it currently has in it. Then, add an Immobilization Effect to it that conforms to your new AoE rules. Leave the Fear in place (this way, mobs not Immobilized will run) but those that are held will still attack in melee or ranged if need be. Now, determine how much damage you want it to do.
Voila. Fixed. Now, we can still Tank, hold Aggro and still fulfill our role as slightly damage dealing Tanker. Sure, we seem slightly controller-ish but then again, that's what a Fire/Ice Tank is already.
Give it some thought. Thanks for your efforts.
Sign It : http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not make burn light enemies on fire, so when they run out of the patch, they'll take some DoT... I don't think this would make it overpowered, and it makes sense... Who can stand in the middle of a fire, and walk out without some part of their body on fire afterwards?
[/ QUOTE ]
That is what the power should have done from the start. It's the most logical effects that can be implemented. 5 stars 4 u!
[/ QUOTE ]Except that just enhances the fear problem. Mobs would run even further away.
[/ QUOTE ]
So long as the fleeing minions die, that is not a big problem.
I suggest changing Burn so that it does even less damage, but inflicts a long enough DoT that it still effectively defeats white minions. Basically, change it to a back-loaded damage power.
This would allow Burn to be a primary source of damage for Burn Tanks (which it should, as a Primary power) and increase it's utility as a soloing power (basically fire and forget, pardon the pun) but discourage Burn Tankers from using it as the 'one trick pony' power (because of the scatter and the time delay in defeating foes).
The power would not be welcome in groups, but then it already isn't in it's current form.
I do beleive the Fear duration should not outlast the Burn patch itself.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters also have Burn. Are they overpowered?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh come on, Blasters can't make hordes of mobs stand in one place while tehy are burned to death without dying. Blasters with Burn and Tanks with Burn are two entirely different things.
[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this change at all. If tanks aren't supposed to be able to do damage with Burn, why do they still have it in their Primary? That's the sum of your explanation, Tanks shouldn't be able to cause damage with Burn.
I know, I know, they can team up with somebody else and get good damage out of Burn. They also get good damage just out of teaming up with somebody else w/o all the stuff. Burn isn't adding much here.
And in any event, I'm left wondering why, if it's OK for a Fire Tank to do that much damage on a team, it isn't OK to do that much damage solo? It sounds like the answer is, Fire Tanks shouldn't do that much damage.
IMO, just replace it with something useful and more tankery, or leave it alone.
[ QUOTE ]
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
[/ QUOTE ]
In my experiance, this is simply not true. Sure, Burn makes short work of minions but dropping a boss and some LTs with Burn alone is painfully slow. Most AVs acctually recover health faster then Burn does damage so I need to make sure I have a scrapper or blaster on my team. Of course I can't really use Burn on a team because all of the squishies will probably end up dead if I do.
[ QUOTE ]
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
The real answer to that question: "There is none". In order to for Burn to do any damage, I need to have a controller on my team and as previously stated, Burn is no longer a good idea when teamed. The only effective benifit is the imob protection when solo. That's not good enough to waste a power and slots on.
More importantly, the power that made Fire Tanks fun and unique is no longer fun.
Edited to add the following... just for good measure....
[ QUOTE ]
4. The Burn change is a little too inconsistent with the role of a Tanker. A Tanker wants to keep aggro, not chase them away. Though it makes sense in terms of AI (bad guys fleeing damage), the power becomes not very useful for the Tanker. We'll probably be making a change to that soon.
In other words, I've said in the past that we weren't going to look at damage and that we weren't going to add any aggro to Tanker attacks. Well, I think I need to put my thinking cap on and come up with some solutions to the points above. I can't thank all the Tankers enough for sharing their thoughts & ideas.
Now - the change to Burn can happen relatively quickly - but the other stuff needs internal testing. I don't want to rush something out over the holidays. That testing will be a priority post Thanksgiving - so I'll keep you posted next week on the status.
[/ QUOTE ]
Jack,
Respectfully, have you played with Burn on test? The fear effect is NOT the same as what is on live at the moment. The I5 test server AI reaction to Burn makes it completely counterproductive to the tank's role.
Please test this for a bit before dismissing the complaints about I5 Burn. 30 minutes or so in a mid sized group should be convincing, especially if you are the only tanker and there aren't any controllers. The I5 scatter effect is just too great. Balance is fine, variety is great, but making the power completely go against the principles of the Archetype is too much.
For the record I approve of the damage change, and overall the recharge change though I think its a bit too high, possibly needing dropped by 6-10 seconds base.
Also, please consider how many people are suggesting that if this fear effect must stay, that they would rather burn be removed from the tanker set altogether. Surely those who play this AT day in and day out would not be making this request in such earnest if it were not well founded.
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, just replace it with something useful and more tankery, or leave it alone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen to that, fire tanks now have one useless power (temp protection), 2 now-near-useless powers (burn and fiery embrace) and a top level power that we have to die to use (rise of the phoenix). Half this set kinda sucks (maybe I shouldn't complain about that, it lets me focus on my attack powers).
Shorten the animation time, and have it remove immob and add +res knock down/knockback. I don't want it to do damage if it causes fear. Come to think of it, this would make it somewhat less useless for my fire/fire blaster as well.
u know i was just thinking. does a person on fire actually run away? when i play, there are numerous times that my character would be caught on fire by a flame thrower or something, and i dont run. i actually stand there and try to kill whatever is shooting at me. i only run once my hp's are in red. bad guys should have the same logic. irregardless of what is happening, a character (player or computer) does not run until absolutely necessary. if the dev's are using this reasoning to support the fear factor that burn will cause, then why dont they do the same for the rest of the attacks? would it make sense for one to stand around while being blasted or knocked out into oblivion? no. any meelee attack should invoke some fear and cause the bad guys to run and try to kill from afar. but as it stands, the fear caused by burn will cause them to run out and stand out of meelee reange and just shoot me. whereas, if i were just to stand there and kill them one by one with my meelee attacks, then no one would run. hmmm makes sense to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration).
[/ QUOTE ]
So now I don't even really need combat jumping, I can't stand jump kick, but have to have acrobatics. Same old wasted power slots.
[ QUOTE ]
The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
[/ QUOTE ]
ummmm, the burn patch does the defeating? well, no offense, but how else do we do any damage at all? As has been said, to even be considered a tank at all, a fire tank needs 3 powers from the fighting pool, 3 powers from the jumping pool, and 3 powers from the fitness pool. So where do you fit more attacks in there when you're 9 powers in the hole before you start? Put knockback protection into the fire power set so we don't have to take acrobatics, put better defense into the power set so we're not FORCED into tough and weave, and then maybe nerf burn and force us to take more attacks
I'm all for the Burn changes. OMG that power is awesome. I quit playing my Fire Tank because it was just so ridiculously overpowering. I felt sorry for the poor Blasters in my group that were barely hurting the bad guys as I roasted them all.
This might be my second post - if it is my apologies.
This is what they should do...IMO of course...
Scrap all changes to burn.
Decrease the damage by half or 1/3rd and increase the end cost. Leave the recharge at 11s or 12s and take out the fear factor. {decrease the damage by decreasing the ticks per second.}
If it costs 25% to 35% of your endurance to cast then you probably will not be able to lay to many multiples down. Especially if you try to do anything else.
That is my two cents so take it for what it is worth...
By the way... I have a lvl 37 Fire/stone tank.
Let the flaming begin...
Mike
So is the name going to be changed to "City of Nerfs". Also is the goal of serving COH to make it impossible to level. Most people who play coh have a life and do not want to grind away for days to get a new power. Power leveling is a fair way for those who have the capability to help others acheive quick levels. Developers are killing the game by killing the fun. Fire tank herders who herd massive mobs and burn them arent cheating the game. They are excelling at it. How about instead of ruining the game with your constant changes work on making the game more fun to play instead of a freaking grind. Future nerfs and rediculous changes will result in my discontinuing paying and playing along with MANY other players. If the devs goal was to ruin the game i would have to say that you are on the right track so keep it up
[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry Statesman, but the changes to burn by and large make the power very ineffective for general use.
You are correct in stating that burn could be used with little or no other ability then taunt. However, in many sitations, including teamming, my Fire tank still went down to a group of mobs and no amount of damage that burn was doing (let us not forget that damage scales down agains higher level mobs) made up for the lower resistances a fire tank has and no defense. My fire shield is six slotted for resists by the way, and all mobs (Council) were brought in to do melee damage. But I suppose its the team's fault because we only had a storm defender who didn't make everything run away or get knocked away so I couldn't tank them then huh?
Perhaps with the changes in I5 the damage had to be brought down because fire resistance fares well in I5. Fine lower the DPS.
But when you say that the burn provides immoblization protection - which will be getting a boost in duration, what good is immobilization protection when if I lay down a burn patch, the mobs run away anyway? What happens if the team I am in does not have someone who can hold or immoblize the mobs in the patch?
And stun? The last I checked, stunned mobs still do wonderful things like spin off at high speed, jump objects, and even fly. Let alone that all stunned mobs would stand in a daze in the burn patch.
While I am at it, even though you haven't stated so in the above quote, you have said that it was not realistic for mobs to stand in the burn area to get burned. Yet, how is it realistic that mobs, when burned, can simply move out of the burn area and no longer be on fire at all? Pretty much every other fire power provides a DoT component to it no matter where the mobs may run to.
The current fear effect on test is so strange that sometimes mobs run immediately when burn is activated. So how is that burn does "a lot of damage" as you said, when this occurs.
Please, really take a look at all of the scenarios I have provided above. Go back and take a look at Fire tankers on test and come up with something better than this.
I always felt that Burn was overpowered. It definitely needed tweaking. Now let me share MY vision.
I have a dream. I dream that all AT's should be able to excel in their primaries, and accomplish their intended goals by focusing on such. I have two high level Defenders, both of them have filled their roles by not blasting, and generally speaking, people love it. I also have a fire tanker. The fire tankers reputed role is to be more offensive at the cost of defense. Burn filled that role, perhaps too well. With the exception of Taunt being in the secondary sets, every tanker could fill their role in the party without needing to slot their secondary. Any invuln, earth or ice tanker can do their job with all their powers in the primary. A fire tanker, on the other hand, used burn as their trump card BECAUSE it was what made them offensive, and powerfully so. You have spayed the power that made fire tankers...well, fire tankers. Unfortunately for the powerset, you also cut off the legs of the set during the neutering process. I've loved this game from day one, and I accepted the differences in the sets, that some were more powerful than others, especially when people min/maxed. It seems to me that the people being hurt the most with I5 are those that break from the norm. Now, fire tankers are forced to rely on their secondaries to be offensive tankers, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TANKER POWERSET. At the very least, get rid of Rise of the Phoenix and put another useful offensive power in there. I've heard it stated before that the tier of the power is in no way related to the utility or strength of the power therein, and yet Fire tankers seem to be the only ones that have to be duly punished, first with death before the activation of said power, and second with the sheer uselessness of the power. The few times I've used it, I immediately died afterwards because the power gave me a few seconds of respite before restoring me to the state I was before I died in the first place. Something was wrong for the tanker to die to begin with, how useful is a power that gives them 5 seconds to have partial restoration before their life is beaten in again.
On the whole, I'm drastically disappointed with the potential changes, so much so that I don't look forward to playing anymore. I've pretty much lost faith in the developers to deliver on what I paid for, and I'm too afraid to start playing characters for fear of the incessant cutbacks, over a year after launch. SEVERE cutbacks.
Instead of making each of the powersets equal, give each of the powersets a defining power! Make it a power that any group can say "Oooo, so and so is an ice tanker, so they probably have (insert defining power here)." Then they become welcome additions to any group. Instead, you have powersets that desperately need tweaks for group play *ahem, storm, force field* and the only thing I see are negative changes to other AT's. So, is the point of these changes to make all of the AT's suck equally?
Jack, I trusted you. I trusted in your experience as both a gamer and a comic book guru to deliver an incredible super hero MMORPG. Because of the overwhelmingly negative changes, especially in comparison to the minor positive changes, I feel like I can't trust you anymore. Make me believe that this game is where I should be.
Reduced damage? As I stated, I'm totally fine with that: we did too much damage.
Increased Recharge? Again, I'm cool with that.
Fear? Not ok with that.
What Burn has become is Immobilization protection. I already have that in Combat Jumping. This is a serious, SERIOUS oversight. Please, we are BEGGING you, don't take away the only unique thing about Fire tanks.
"I see your words..." ~The most menacing thing a forumite could say
Man... I thought we covered this LAST issue.
States... I wanna have faith in ya, man, I really do. I just wish you wouldn't keep testing me.
Burn was strong, no question of that. Drop damage, increase recharge, make it pink and lavender, I don't care. But don't do all that AND make it a mob aversion zone. You did that in I4 test instead of reducing damage and so forth, and it was determined that the change was detrimental to the Tanker's primary purpose.
That has not changed.
Drop the AI aversion - which, I should note, CuppaJo was not aware of when the patch went live and was trying to collect data on, so I'm thinking it was not 100% intentional in the first place - and we'll see how it goes.
But on a personal note... I'd like this to be the last time. Burn has been adjusted more than any other single power (well, except maybe something out of Regen, I dunno. Or maybe Invuln.), so get it where you like it, then LEAVE IT ALONE, PLEASE.
[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah whatever, what's the [censored] POINT of a TANKER power that SCATTERS mobs? so that they can murder the tanks team mates. jesus jack. It makes no [censored] sense. whay don't you just replace the damned power and give tankers immobile and protection from knockback in some other power? you people [censored] KILL me with your jack [censored] reasoning.
Oh give your brother my best wishes for a safe return....
this still sucks though.
[ QUOTE ]
Wanted to explain the reasons for changing Burn...
It became apparent that Burn was the trump power...with it, a Tanker needed to do nothing else. He could lay down a Burn patch and Taunt foes in and out of it. The damage was so great that the Burn patch itself would do the defeating; the Tanker only needed to hit Taunt.
The question has come up - "what's the point of Burn now?" Well, it still offers Immobilization defense (we're actually going to increase that duration). And Burn does do a lot of damage. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Statesman, but I don't see it. A tanker has to make choices evaluating two questions:
(1) Does this make me stronger for a group?
(2) Does this make me stronger solo?
The answer to question (1) for Burn is an unequivocal no. Most fire tankers take CJ, so the immobilization aid is marginal. Burn drives enemies away from you, causing you to 'spread aggro' around and potentially getting your teammates killed. Moreover, the amount of damage Burn does on a team is fairly minimal unless your team is VERY defensively oriented. My experience with Burn was that it was fun to lay down here and there, but by and large, only sped things up ever so slightly; that's very different from the solo experience where Burn was my bread and butter vs non-bosses.
The answer to (2) is an even MORE unequivocal no. Fire/Ice tankers might answer in the affirmative; they are the exception, rather than the rule. As a Fire/EM tanker, for example, there's very little point to Burn.
A. I cannot hold anyone
B. I cannot immobilize anyone
C. I can stun enemies, but they walk dizzily out of the Burn patch anyhow (or, despite being stunned, they JUMP out)
So with stuff fleeing away, it makes no sense to bother. I have precious little room in my build for fluff; it makes more sense to just take whirling hands sooner, and then take buildup or fiery embrace rather than taking Burn at all.
I've analyzed Fire Tanks and tanks in general at length, so you can review my previous comments; I'd like to add, however, that it is key to note that Fire Tanks have no resistance to knockback, which means to be a strong defensive tank, we need our 2 main shields, plus 5 pool powers - 3 to get Acrobatics, 2 to get Tough; and then the toggles are so expensive, we need Stamina to be able to use them. So that's a 10-power defense, basically, and that's not counting healing flames or burn itself. So their "strength" was their offense; but Burn, frankly, adds almost nothing. When it's useful (teamed), you don't need it, especially now that it has been nerfed; when you're solo, it's just useless.
I suggest you just scrap the power entirely, and come up with something balanced that doesn't conflict with the AI. In fact, if you want to REALLY do something nice:
(1) Change burn to a straight DoT or damage effect; make it whatever damage you feel is appropriate for a power in the slot.
(2) Add +res(knockback) to it.
You're golden. Just start from scratch, make it balanced, make it useful. If you add +res(knockback) even as it is, it might be worth it - after all, better a primary than a pool, and damage is a bonus.
If you leave it as it is currently, you are making a terrible mistake, I feel. And I am not much for saying the sky is falling; I have 11 characters on 2 accounts, from L6-L50 across all ATs. I was fine with most changes. I really think you need to re-address the changes to Ice Tanks and the Burn issue. I know that Burn was too good before. Rather than making it a useful shadow of its former self, start from the ground up and think outside the box a bit.