I just dont get this. The major concern is that the fear affect is overkill. No one is saying it didnt need damaged lowered and most people said the recharge is manageable. Just that the fear affect is overriding.
And the responses are ignoring this factor. Its too much change in the OTHER direction. This isnt Balance.
The hard things I can do--- The impossible just take a little bit longer.
If numbers are so much more important than a teammate who is fun to play with, forget about the game altogether and go play with a calculator instead. -Claws and Effect-
[ 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 ]
Like I said in the pm I sent to you, get rid of it and replace it with a passive defense bonus like tough hide and add resistance to immobolization and knockback to it so that fire tanks are not required to take three powers in the leaping pool just to get the same resistances that other tanks have in their natural build. Because in order to make fire tanks balanced with other tanks I see this as the best solution.
its called "fire tank envy"
jack has it.he wants it.cant have it!
plus jack knows that with every new issue.we need to nerf the fire tanks to make invul's have some use.after all.we all know they kinda lame,thats why states is one.
burn and c.j. are the same power...you made it that way.now i got 2 powers that are the same...[censored] are you smoking.
on a side note states..your an [censored] to make yourself a lvl 54 in the tyrant mission.sad thing is.
even at lvl 54 .YOUR [censored] STILL GOT CAUGHT!!!..hahahahaha
come see me in your arena jack..and i wont even use burn.bet i win.then we'll see how your "vision" is
okay, what the hell is going on here, i spent a lot of time on my post and now it's gone. and i see more than one posts from many people. why is my post missing, what kind of censoring is going on here?
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ] because from 18-32+ alll we do is take power pools to cover holes that you have left in the set a trade of for a power that you now have nerfed to uselessness[ 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)
[/ QUOTE ] got a few words for you, break frees, CJ and hover how's that for immobalization defense. I call bolderdash on that one[ QUOTE ]
. And Burn does do a lot of damage
[/ QUOTE ]with the right babysitter build the "right" way[ QUOTE ]
. Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
correction taunt will not bring them back plain devastating with 5 times the recharge and 25% less damage, who are you trying to fool? So now let's be honest what's the real offense that we have for the holes that are in the set. Fiery embrace oh yeah you nerfed that to a point that to even fire/fire it's the equivalent of build up. Since the fear was clearly intended and you wanted to rid of the power would you at least fix the weaknesses that you gave us to make up for our now gone offense.
[ QUOTE ]
Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
No.. No it's not.
Not with the long recharge timer on Burn.
Not with the nerf to holds.
Please, just change the power into a PBAoE DD, at least that way the mobs wont scatter and defeat the purpose of being a Tanker in a group.
Burn was too good, OK.. We can handle that. But don't change the power three ways to hell and tell it that it's "devastating". Everyone who's gone to test the new Burn will agree it's far from that.
And what about the solo Fire Tankers that just want to play for a half hour or so? The ones who try to play the game the right way and not herd 100s of mobs? You're assuming Fire Tankers will always have a Controller in their pockets and I can tell you first hand they most certainly do not.
Burn is done, please, just give us something else in it's place.
[removed]
Problem:
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
You are going in the wrong direction, States.
You are penalizing Fire Tankers for effectively using a power. Causing fear in this fashion does not thematically fit in with the AT.
It is a slap-patch excuse to force people to NOT use the power.
Rather than nerf the power into a bunch o' crap (because of the fear element), if you want to get rid of it - BE DONE WITH IT AND GIVE US SOMETHING WORTHWHILE. Make the new power 'tanky', please, and fit in with the idea of a Fire Tank.
By the way, what IS your vision of the purpose of a Fire Tank? What should it's strength and weaknesses be?
Is your vision of Burn truly: a power that gives good immobilization protection, that must be used in conjuction with a controller to fully utilize the damage, or you risk losing agro on your team?
If so, I will be respecing out of Burn. What a worthless power.
Consider some alternatives:
Move the immobilize element to temp protection (previously a fairly useless power anyway.) Maybe toss us a few bones in temp protection so more of us take it.
Switch Rise of the Phoenix with Burn (so that Burn is our hi end power.)
Make it so that when you use Rise of the Phoenix, the DEBT of your last death is negated. Man, I LOVE the idea of the hellbent for death fire tanker. YEE HA! THAT, along with some massive damage when I rise from the dead, would make me look forward to a little martyring. Oh! Oh! I died! YES!! Take that you <bleep bleep bleep bleep!!>
Make Burn the high end power. Guess what? We just had to get through 32 levels with other attack powers. We now have our burn 'pet'. Leave it at the longer recharge and reduced damage, remove the fear element. The amount of baddies it can now effect has been reduced, correct? So we can't herd tons of mobs and burn em at once.
Does any other tank power cause mobs to flee, REQUIRING a controller to assist? Ah.. I thought that you were suppose to be able to CHOOSE whether you wanted to team or not? Since when was it required for a tanker? Or a specific tanker power?
Seems to me you're just not happy with the amount of damage Fire Tanks can crank out. So you're penalizing the power. And all of the players.
DON'T.
If you think it's that wrong, do the whole AT a favor and create us a nice new, balanced power to replace it.
I don't want another crappy power in my primary set. That would make three that I don't think are worth taking. Rise of the Phoenix (nice animation but a waste to take), Temp Protection (er, don't really need it just for cold resist), and Burn (wee! Look at em run!)
[removed]
[ 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 ]
Heh... part of me honestly thought that you guys were gonna come through in this fiasco... that once the damage was lowered, and the recharge time increased, the fear effect was going to be removed, but apparently I was wrong.
It's all about having fun... that's what you always say... I see your opinion of fun differs from mine. Having a useless power is not my idea of fun.
I don't get how you can sit there and say "oh, it's all good, working like we want it to now." Burn does almost NO damage because of how quickly they run out of it now... ok, maybe if I could hold the entire group before hand, sure, but when i'm SOLOING (which I do 90% of the time), I DON'T HAVE HOLDS.
I've been around since the beginning... I not one of the herding power levelers you're trying to "stop" (as evidenced by the fact that my Fire/Fire tanker is still only 36th level and I've had him as my primary since launch), I'm a casual player without much time to play, who has done every story arc that is available to me, because I enjoyed the back history of the game. Thanks for ruining the game for me.
I'm officially unsubscribed.
Combining:
-The increased Fear in Burn
-The cap of 10 mobs
-The 4x reset time
-The reduced damage
Is overkill. Just reducing the fear effect would help a lot. And I am sorry but no one should be buying into the "Run out of Burn cause it's a fire!" schtick. They don't run out of my AR/Dev's ignite. They stay in melee with someone who is on fire the whole time! Or getting hit with poison spines, or......
The "realism" of people running out of Burn does not fly when you look at all the other instances of suicidal mob behavior.
I went onto test and i tried out the new burn. It's now pointless. Totally worthless to both a soloing tanker and a grouping tanker. Why?
1. AI and fear changes make the mobs scatter after 2 damage ticks. Tested on level 42 Rikti, level 50 rikti and level level 51 Paragon Protectors (7th Gen). Effect was same for all of them, from Minion through Boss. Solo i cannot use it if i want to use my other attacks and in a group Burn in conjunction with accuracy based, aoe limited and shortened duration holds wont be sufficient to let me use it as part of my tanking role.
2. Recharge 30 seconds. Every 30 seconds i get to scare every mob away from me and encourage them to kill my buddies? Ok.. About the only feasible tactic i can see for burn for the soloer is at the end of an attack cycle.
In it's current for Burn is useless to me. I played my fire/fire to 50 over approximately 400 hours completed a large number of story arcs and acquired many, many badges. I was by no means "a one trick pony", my attacks were FSC, Combustion, Scorch, GFS and Burn. I teamed for maybe a quarter to a third of his career.
That in conjunction with the adjustments to pool defences, the necessity to take take an entire pool just to stop myself being knocked down every 3 or 4 hits makes him no longer fun.
Pre I5 i could never solo AV's, had to be careful tanking for large teams and over time learned to play my build to the best i could, and be good enough to make friends want my help with their builds. Post I5 though i have no clue. I spent days and days of time committed to making a character fun and survivable as i played through the game. From my testing so far on the training room, that wont hold true in the more balanced world.
[ QUOTE ]
Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating
[/ QUOTE ]
FALSE
Devastating? Uh? Have you tried it?
Even if a mob is held and takes full damage, that damage is still awefull when compared to any other AoEs.
States, my friend, you need to take recharge time into effect here!! Any power that takes that long to recharge should have a tremendous effect!
The unslotted damage pales in front of Combustion, frost, or any other AoE damage. My Kheldian Footstomps for twice that damage unslotted!
It is NOT devastating. What kind of group do you hang with, that damaging 33% of a mob's life with 6-slots in damage every 30 seconds is strong???
A power's efficency is: Effect x cost x recharge.
So: Low damage + fear x low end cost x huge long forever recharge = NOT devastating.
Have a nice day.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, wasn't that the point? I mean, what else was the point of a massively damaging power besides to defeat foe?
Or are you saying you feel that its boring to drop burn and taunt? IE, being a tauntbot, the reason behind the I3 changes to the tanker, Punchvoke, etc?
I think its different here- the player has a *choice*, whereas before the changes to tankers, nobody had the option to do anything but taunt constantlly.
However, if you really feel the need to change the style of play, altering the functionality of the power on a core level (IE, making it a totally different power) Might improve the situation, as opposed to neutering it, as done here, Which will just make it mostly unused.
[ 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).
[/ QUOTE ]
That's fantastic. A defense against a status effect that's mildly inconvinent at best. Add in knockback, fear and confusion protection, and maybe you'll have something semi-worthwhile. Almost.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Of course, this means that Tankers will now be getting PBAoE Stuns, Holds, and Immobilizes, right? Since, you know, otherwise we'd need another archetype to make our signature power useful?
Oh, and Stunned mobs won't be able to run away full speed, jump and fly anymore, right?
Tygara - 50 Claws/Regen/Power Scrapper, Virtue- Member of Kitties on the Prowl.
Shadeburn - Dark/Rad Defender, Virtue- Member of Catch 'Em Crew
Nature Boy' - Elec/Ice Blaster, Virtue - Member of Young Phalanx
Test
Defeat Battle maiden
Team
Level 50 Fire/stone Tank
Level 50 Mind/Rad Controller
Mission Slider set to Invincible - neither one of us could afford the 110K to change setting, lol
Ok, before this test, I needed some inf to replace a damage slot with a recharge slot to see how fast burn would recharge.
Well, that wasn't like it was earlier today. So, I took another damage out and replaced with a recharge redux (level 50 SO).
In facing the AV, I found that I could still hold aggro - but she was just one foe. My HP did not drop very much at all. I only wish the controller (Yil) had been on Triumph, my server instead of Justice so we could have compared the experience.
Here's the only truly objective suggestion I can make.
If we are supposed to get close to cap or reach our caps (resistance and defense caps) with buffs from teammates, why not work it so that with o2 or AM the recharge for burn be fast enough so that there is less than a 20 second delay for the recharge. With 6 slotted hasten (50++ So's) and 4 level 53 damages and 2 level 50 Recharges, the delay was too long in my opinion. The delay did encourage me to use my stone secondary, however, with the increased drag on endurance, this was noticed quickly. I had plenty of 50% CAB's, so I wasn't too worried.
On a bright note, even with only 4 damages in burn, it still melted a herd of even cons with one burn. (recall, I have level 53 SO's)
Additionally, my blazing aura is slotted with 2 taunts and one accuracy. SO the only other damage from BA is the base amount.
Summary
Consider reducing the recharge time for burn to be close to what it is now if given buffs.
"Most people that have no idea what they are doing have no idea that they don't know what they are doing." - John Cleese
@Ukase
Its been said b4 & the main trade off for burn is that to be an effective tank for a 8 player team a fire tank needs to take power pool powers that result in an endurance nightmare if we have to attack too often.
with 7 toggles running, 1.blazing aura, 2.fire shield, 3.plasma shield, 4.combat jumping, 5. tough, 6.weave, 7.acrobatics, +taunt, even w/ 6 slotted stamina & consume, endurance is still an issue in long battles not to mention kiling bosses. let alone a MOGed PP.
To be honest this change in burn it will not stop fire tankers from herding, but instead it will promote us to herd even more. why? B/c the best part of burn is that we were able to constantly use that power w/ all of the above toggles listed w/ consume + stamina, & not have to panic about running out of endurance.
B/c burn will no longer be effective, that means we need to get the most targets killed not by using burn but by other AOE attacks.
Sure maybe we won't herd as many but it all depends on what AOE powers we figure out work out the best w/ recharge rate/end cost/dmg dealth/radius. but being able to kill 20+ non boss targets in the time it takes to kill/end cost 1 boss is more effective & better xp.
This still has not solved the problem, the problem is that fire tanks lack in the defense/resistance department of their primary sets where they have to rely on atleast 2 power pool sets to make up for it.
i mean sure the other sets could also use cj, acrobatics, tough, weave, but not all of them take those in addition b/c their primaries are not lacking.
The solution unfortunetly is to make fire tanks more in tune w/ the other tank sets so that we are able to have more than 1-2 attacks 6 slotted w/o having to worry about our def/resistances lacking.
making burn having the same accuracies of other attacks won't solve the issue either b/c the power does damage per second.
so unless the power is changed from an attack completely & armor, & a fire tank is given knock back/immobile + resistance/def. so that we won't have to resort to the fighting pool, (so that we have more slots to use on attacks & won't waste slots on pre-req powers we don't even use.)
Ok the above poster got there just before me but here goes....
Thanks for the update on why you believed that Burn needed amending, in reality you are repeating what you said before, and adding that immobilisation duration is being extended.
That's fine, sometimes people need to be told a few times before they accept a change, except, one thing you haven't answered that has been raised a few times is why a tanker set, that is supposed to generate and hold aggro, should have a power that causes fear?
If you look at the power set logically, it's a little odd that a tanker has a power they need to die to use (bad for the team), and one that causes bad guys to flee (also bad for a team).
And this is a generic set you want to team more, to make sure that any AT remains wanted by another.
Having done some limited testing on the test server (I lag badly on there but that has already been sent as a different problem
.) burn still seems to have in the most simplistic terms, increased its magnitude on the fear factor, or taunt has lost its magnitude from current live environment.
And this is testing on no more than 5 mobs at a time, since that is the maximum I can taunt with Auto taunt to do realistic tests, that dont require a to hit function that can skew the tests results.
So my first question to you would be:
Is the current test environment working as you planned it, is the magnitude of fear as you expected and planned it to be, and I say this as someone that has not heavily slotted taunt (1 recharge reduction, 1 taunt enhancement)?
My next question is simply, with the reduction in the powers damage and the increase in the recharge reduction, which technically reduces its real time damage output further do you think that the Fear aspect is still justified?
Logically, a tanker shouldnt have a power that generates fear, and from the illusion controllers I have teamed with, their fear generation causes the bad guys to stand and tremble.
I know you said that when used with a stun/hold/disorient the power is a strong one, but that doesnt hold true as they bad guys still run like a rabbit if they are stunned/disorientated and in the burn patch and that would only happen when, yups, we team or we have taken an epic power pool.
I know for my own fire/axe tanker, I was more concerned with slotting defences than attacks (inc burn) until fairly late on, since I teamed (which is what you want us to do) defence was more important than attacks.
So to repeat my question, with the ability to use burn less frequently for less damage (significant damage reduction) do we really need to keep the fear factor in?
Another part to this is simply, I do not feel we can use burn if we have +5 people around us due to the very long animation time, generally after I have applied it in test, the bad guys have jumped out of it before the animation has finished.
With a more limited taunt, I can, potentially (not all respond to the taunt) bring some back in, up to a maximum of 5, but I cannot punchvoke them to keep them in, since they have already jumped outside the melee range during the animation time.
So using it on more than 5 baddies, in a team environment, is increasing the risks to the team, which again, goes against the nature of a tank, believe me, I take it personally if someone dies on my shift, even if there wasnt anything I could realistically do.
In I4, at least I can punchvoke them to keep the attention after using Burn and therefore maximise its effect.
My point is, when you add the recharge increase, damage reduction and fear aspect it is making it a very limited power to use and lessening its value as a 7th primary power.
I can live with the recharge and damage reduction, but can you remove the fear, or at least justify why, with all the other changes Fear should stay part of the power and how that fits with you vision of a tanker.
And I will re-iterate for people that didnt read it and think this is a fire tank rant I can live with the recharge increase and damage decrease
Then there is the immobilisation issue, this feels like it was overlooked by the developers, which is fine, we are all human and it seems like you are now looking into this issue with another tweak, which is good, but before you put it into live, can I take you on a little roundabout discussion of a fire tank?
I know you must have data mined a lot to come up with these changes that balance the ATs, so did your data mining not show that proportionally fire tanks use leaping pool far more than any other?
Doesnt that tell you something, personally, I dont use burn to protect me against immobilisation and here is why:
Burn (current I4 as far as I am aware):
End use 7.0
Recharge 10 secs
End use/sec = 0.7 for immobilisation defence
Combat jumping (current I4 as far as I am aware)
End use/sec 0.08
That means I have a click power that costs more end to use, since is does damage as well so thats understandable or an always on power that costs a lot less.
If that was the only reason for Combat jumping, then it wouldnt be the reason to use that above burn, but I also, as a fire/axe tank, feel that if I want to be effective, then I cant be sat on my butt all day, especially in the I5 world as I need to use punchvoke more to keep my team safe.
If I need to use punchvoke (which I do in I4 anyway) I have to be standing and participating in battle, therefore to do my job I need knockback protection, ergo, I have to have a pool power, and even more so in I5.
With I4 and my ability to deal a good damage from burn/axe combos it was a trade off I was happy to make, but let me ask you, since we are no longer the offensive tanker we once were, is there any other AT/Class that cannot operate effectively without a pool power?
Where is the trade off now to not having knockback defence in the Fire tank class?
So to make an effective tank, (in my view this becomes even more critical in I5) I need to take Acrobatics and therefore 2 earlier powers from the leaping pool
my fate for travel power is therefore fixed
especially if I want a reasonable number of attacks so I can use punchvoke.
Which leads onto a final point, (sorry for the length of this post, thanks if you are still reading to this point).
If, as most people do on a fire tank, you take Combat jumping for immobilisation resistance/extra damage mitigation and Acrobatics for knockback resistance you will most likely be running Fire Shield and Plasma Shield at a minimum as well.
In addition, you are probably (if you can) running Blazing Aura for the added taunt effect (again, more so in I5 as you need to keep the aggro more effectively)
So this means:
Blazing Aura
0.75 end/sec unsloteed
0.56 end/sec 1 end reduction SO
Fire Shield
0.38 end/sec unslotted
0.25 end/sec 1 End red SO
Plasma Shield
0.41 end/sec unslotted
0.30 end/sec I end red SO
Combat Jumping
0.08 end/sec unslotted
0.06 end/sec 1 End Red SO
Acrobatics
0.32 end/sec unslotted
0.24 end/sec 1 End Red SO
Sub Total
1.94 end/sec unslotted
1.41 with 1 End Red SO in each power
Natural end gain 1.62 end/sec
Gain/loss
-0.32 end/sec unslotted
+0.21end/sec with End reduction SO's
Additional powers that most Fire tanks run to supplement defence
Tough
0.22 end/sec unslotted
0.16 end/sec 1 End Red SO
Weave
0.20 end/sec Unslotted
0.15 end/sec 1 End Red SO
Overall defence total Net End use
-0.74 end/sec unslotted
-0.10 end/sec with End Red SO's
So in effect if I want to be the toughest little fire tank I can be, without having major endurance issues I need to use end reductions, but even at 1 SO level I am draining endurance without attacking.
So I take stamina, and hey presto, I can now punchvoke effectively as I am now adding 1.25 end/sec (6 slotted even SOs) meaning with my end reductions that I gain 1.15 end/sec.
But wait a minute, there is a downside to my little defensive tank build
. I am required to take 9 power pools to get there, and if I want to keep punchvoking in a tough team situation, my attacks will drain my end quite happily, so I take Consume from the primary, and boy it's a life saver.
So now, I can start thinking about other powers but out of 24 slots, in addition to my Primary and secondary choices, I have taken 9 semi mandatory pool powers for a tank, which defeats the point of them being pool powers
I can skip CJ if I use burn as my immobilisation freeing power, but that increases my end use and I still need acrobatics.
Since burn isnt such an offensive giant anymore, which again, I am happy to live with, can we not put knockback protection into one of the base shields?
At least then a fire tank could choose to use burn as an immobilisation shield and free 1 slot (previously acrobatics) for powers to use punchvoke with (I am assuming 2 would have been used for a travel power anyway) and provide more choices of travel powers to the Fire tank without compromising their Tanker ability.
So my final question is, after tweaking burn for immobilisation and making fire tanks less scrapper like in comparison to other tanks, is there justification for not giving knockback protection in the primary set?
Go on, you know you want less cookie cutter builds out there 
[ QUOTE ]
Combining:
-The increased Fear in Burn
-The cap of 10 mobs
-The 4x reset time
-The reduced damage
Is overkill. Just reducing the fear effect would help a lot. And I am sorry but no one should be buying into the "Run out of Burn cause it's a fire!" schtick. They don't run out of my AR/Dev's ignite. They stay in melee with someone who is on fire the whole time! Or getting hit with poison spines, or......
The "realism" of people running out of Burn does not fly when you look at all the other instances of suicidal mob behavior.
[/ QUOTE ]
/agree
Here is the problem that I see: you state that burn with some sort of immobilize is devasting. I would agree. However, can you name me an immobilizing power that fire tankers get that we can really depend on? Or are we now supposed to take a certain secondary, team with a certain AT (with certain powersets) to get this? That sounds kind of...well sad. If you are going to force any powerset to play with other powersets it takes some, ok a lot (imo) of fun out of the game. Plus, if you are going to do this, you REALLY need to stop changing the way powersets work every issue. You have some hard core gamers no doubt, but you also have the casual gamer that cannot start all over every time you make a change like this that ruins a dou or trio team they had.
I still maintain that you can leave burn the way it is, expect remove the fear portion. If you do that, I would say that burn would be a much more balanced power. I would also rather see the immoblization protection moved to a different power (as I still don't see a lot of fire tankers taking burn), and knockback added into the set as well.
I think before you had a good thing going with the 4 tanker powersets. Each of them could do their job (I still don't want to get into ice...), but they all did it a different way. Why are we trying so hard to make each tanker powerset tank the same way? At least it feels that way.
[ QUOTE ]
if anyone read George Orwell's 1984, the dictatorship of Oceana kept on introducing new editions to the english dictionary called newspeak--in each edition there were less and less words, so that the population would have less thoughts and less ways to express themselves--they were being dumbed down. AND SO ARE WE WITH ALL THIS NERFING.
[/ QUOTE ]
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
NERFS ARE FUN
SH*T IS SHINOLA
(yeah, it's going to get deleted, but it had to be done... 
)
"But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses."
-- Bruce Leverett, Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers
[ 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 ]
Allright, given this outlook on Burn... per my first post I still say it doesn't synergize well with the Tanker secondary...
But, if you see it as still usefull as an offensive power when combined with other powers from other AT's, I STRONGLY suggest letting us enhance ACCURACY!!
Why? In teams you are often fighting higher level minions and burns unenhanceable ACC make it much less useful.
Another significant problem with using it in a team setting (assuming lockdown of some kind of the mobs) - its long DOT often makes it superflous in a team setting compared to a blaster's Fireball, Frost Breath, ET, Lighting Ball, etc., or a scrappers whirling sword, Quills, etc.
Frankly, it lacks utility in a team setting in most situations. Is it worth it to me to spend 5 slots on this power on the off chance I get a team without a blaster or scrapper?
Look, if you are taking the time to change this power, do it right. Make it fun. Make it useful. If you are keeping the fear, then decrease the Dot duration (and increase damage and recharge accordingly), and let us add ACC enchancers to it.
If no other changes are made to Burn, I'll give you my antecdotal response:
I will not be slotting burn and I will probably drop it from my build in order to pick up a power, such as Build-up, that I will use more often and to greater effect.
I fear this will be a common reaction.
Is this really what you want to happen?
Regards,
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the problem that I see: you state that burn with some sort of immobilize is devasting. I would agree. However, can you name me an immobilizing power that fire tankers get that we can really depend on? Or are we now supposed to take a certain secondary, team with a certain AT (with certain powersets) to get this? That sounds kind of...well sad. If you are going to force any powerset to play with other powersets it takes some, ok a lot (imo) of fun out of the game. Plus, if you are going to do this, you REALLY need to stop changing the way powersets work every issue. You have some hard core gamers no doubt, but you also have the casual gamer that cannot start all over every time you make a change like this that ruins a dou or trio team they had.
I still maintain that you can leave burn the way it is, expect remove the fear portion. If you do that, I would say that burn would be a much more balanced power. I would also rather see the immoblization protection moved to a different power (as I still don't see a lot of fire tankers taking burn), and knockback added into the set as well.
I think before you had a good thing going with the 4 tanker powersets. Each of them could do their job (I still don't want to get into ice...), but they all did it a different way. Why are we trying so hard to make each tanker powerset tank the same way? At least it feels that way.
[/ QUOTE ]
you made an awesome point, that im not sure you are aware of... get this... statesmen and all the devs say they dont want soloing as much, right?... that we should be in teams
and yet they are nerfing burn so that even teaming it isnt useful. you pointed out that fire tankers cant do immobilize effects, but other AT's can, so by statesmen saying that its a bad thing, hes actually disagreeing with himself that we should team more.
[removed]
[removed]
[ 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 ]
Jack, you should remove burn from the powerset then. If it is being used as a "trump" power take it out, up our resistance in fire and plasma shield, and add a resistance to immobilization. It was my understanding that burn existed because resistances for fire tanks were weaker than the other tanker primaries. Was that incorrect?
Additionally, taking burn out of the picture will require us to depend more on our secondary powerset and free up 6 precious slots.