[removed]
[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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Only fools and Fire/Ice solely relied on Burn, especially with the rubberband effect in I4 currently on live. My typical attack chain was Taunt, Fire Sword Circle, Combustion, Burn with BA running the entire time. Rarely ever used a second Burn. LT's and Bosses are then taken down by Incinerate and GFS. You would be sitting there all day if you solely relied on Burn for damage.
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've never relied on Burns Immob protection, since we are pigeon-holed in the leaping pool for acrobatics, only the insane would not take CJ for its Immob and early mini-travel power combined with Hurdle. Burn doesn't do alot of damage on live unless you are a Fire/Ice or teamed with a controller, the current rubberbanding on live prevents the massive damage seen prior to this. In most instances in teams, the majority of the mobs are eliminated prior to burn even finishing or even starting. The only time you see the massive damage or the appearance of it, is when teams allow the tanker to herd large groups in missions, whether door or instanced outdoor. I don't team with these tanks, with my non-tank alts, I find it rather boring.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
With the current AI on test, nothing will bring mobs back to the burn patch, they will leave and focus on ranged attacks, sometimes back at the Fire Tank, sometimes on your teammates. Please add that last sentence to the description of Burn, basically to let players know that they will require a controller on their team to get the most potential out of this power.
I'd like to also find out why this thought process on burn was reversed?
[ 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 ]
With I5, scrappers got an increase to base damage, did tanks see a similar increase since we should be 75% of their base damage. Tanks and scrappers were both handed lowered resistance and defense with I5, scrappers received a bump in damage, it should only be fair to give the tanks and equal bump.
Here is what I see Fire/Fire tanks getting hit with I5, it is a fairly significant amount of power degradation and increased recharge and end costs.
Primary Powers:
Burn - Increased Fear, can now only hit 10 enemies, lowered damage, increased recharge, only useful when teamed with a controller. Using this power while soloing in pointless, since you will see only a small fraction of the damage seen on live.
Fiery Embrace - Increased recharge time, Decreased damage buff time. It is now no better than Buildup.
Temp Protection - Nothing has been done with this power, no one takes it since Fire Shield and Plasma Shield already take us over the cap for Fire Resistance, and for just its cold resistance, it is not worth wasting a valuable power pick on. I recommend adding Knockback and Immobilization protection to this power and slightly raise the cold resistance.
Rise of the Phoenix - Not far behind Temperature Protection in its usefullness. To be the top power in our Primary, I feel we are cheated, it doesn't even compare to Unstoppable or Granite Armor. We have to die to use it, and more than likely will die again after using it. Now if we came back like someone who was revived from a radiation defender/controller, it may have some appeal. A revive as the highest power is a primary is telling us that we will more than likely die alot. Its a power that can be had for 250 influence or a quick trip to the hospital, barring you are in a hazard zone. If I was fighting something that tough that I thought I was going to die, I would more than likely have some manner of defender on my team.
So the changes in our primary actually lessen and almost eliminate what makes this primary different from the other tanks. This description of this primary should be changed, since we no longer make up for our lack of resistance and defense with offense.
Secondary:
Fire secondary was greatly affected with I5. Combustion and Fire Sword Circle can now only hit 10 enemies. Fire Sword Circle is a very end heavy attack (around 26 end). So less damage with our secondary AoE's, but no reduction in the end cost. Also none of the tank secondaries were give a boost to damage like the scrappers, even though we both suffered decreases in defense and resistance.
Pool Powers
These are the most common pools taken by Fire/Fire and really most every Fire/combination:
Fighting:
Tough - Lowered resistance and increased end cost. If end wasn't a problem already. Stamina and Consume will become staple powers of all Fire Tanks. Lowered resistance means an extra slot in Tough for resistance and possibly another for end reduction. Thats 2 slots that will come from our attacks.
Weave - Lowered defense and increased end cost. Almost not worth taking now. More end costs for an already end heavy set and minimal defense. I'd say save the 5 slots and power choice and use 2 for attacks that were lost to Tough.
Speed:
Hasten - No defense, but will be mandatory for those that want to keep Fiery embrace and Burn.
Leaping:
Not much to say except CJ defense was lowered, more than likely its end was increased as well. Fire is still forced into this pool if they want to be an effective tank. Some say take hover, but you will be still flipped, maybe not knocked back, but it is downtime. I don't believe hover will help when those Avalanche Shamans and COT's throw down that earthquake. I believe you will be constantly flipping. With the lowering of our offense, we need knockback and immobilization either in our shields or temperature protection. Granted you may see more Flying Fire Tanks, those who have totally given up on Burn if they haven't already deleted their character or left the game.
Fitness:
Stamina will, without a doubt, become a mandatory power. You will not be able to survive on consume alone. Attacks are too costly, and the pool powers needed to function had their end costs increased.
Bottom Line, Fire Tanks were hit severely hard in I5 with no compensation. The fear has to go, or burn will die out. It is no longer the Trump card with the increased recharge and lowered damage. With the end cost increases to necessary pool powers, we will not be able to attack as often, which most will have to rely on, since Burn, is really not an option for damage. We are not seeing a bump to damage to bring us to an appropriate percentage of scrapper damage. We need compensation for our losses, our description doesn't fit our primary, and we are now the anti-tank if we take burn in its current form on test.
I never herded with my fire tanker and I got used to the fear with the last issue so it's not a big deal to me. However the new recharge timer on Burn is insanely long. I was already forced to take CJ just so I wouldn't go flying around the map from knockback and thus force the perps to run out of my Burn patch just so they could stay in melee range with me. I can even accept the damage reduction as it's still enough damage to do the job. But combined with the long recharge timer Burn has been reduced to an extremely situational power. I'd rather you reduced the damage even more and cut the recharge timer. That would be a better solution. Now I've returned to the same problem I had before I4, running out of endurance before I can finish off mobs becuase I ahve to rely on my secondary powers for offense too much. This means now I will also have to pickup the Fitness pool just to control my endurance. Fire Tankers are the weakest "tank" and Burn was our redemption, and now it's our curse.
[ 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 ]
If the damage is too great.. lower the damage. There, see how easy that was? All the burn tankers agree that the damage needs to be ramped down, we just don't understand why you have done everything to burn EXCEPT toning down the damage! We're tanks. We want to hold aggro, and do damage. Make burn do somewhat more damage over time than Fire Sword Circle, bump up the End cost a touch, remove the fear and recharge changes, and then LEAVE IT ALONE!
As to holding and immobilizing, two points: One, a major part of your I5 nerfage is to attempt to REDUCE the use of AoE holds. Two, Tanks don't have holds or immobilizes, and taking a power that ONLY works if you are teamed with a specific AT that is not you, is just not a good option.
As for Disorient, I've never seen a mob move faster or jump higher than when he was disoriented, you ever going to fix that bug? 
This game used to be fun. I hope it remains successful despite the Fun nerfs, because I'd like it to be around long enough for someone to correct the damage you are doing.
Again: Thanks for one year of a very enjoyable game. Call me if that game ever returns.
[ 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 ]
Ok from this it appears that burn wasn't doing what you quite wanted it to do. I feel the original intent of the power was to be a damage aura that damaged foes for engaging you in melee very similiar to what blazing aura does (I think). Would it be possible to actually change the power into a damage aura that does damage upon foes engaging in melee? This power could possibly be set with damage similiar to burn (possibly a DoT applied upon contact) or it could be variable damage based on the amount of damage you received. And on top of this you could even keep the name 
since effectively the power is doing about the same thing just a different way which would involve a bit more risk since you would have to be hit before the power could take effect. As a bonus it wouldn't have the annoying fear effect to scatter mobs about making it harder for tanks to do their thing.
[ 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 ]
Statesman,
I get one post, so here it is. I've been a Fire/Axe tanker since before Issue #1 went live. I have experienced every change to Burn, every time it was neutered, and every time most of those changes were rolled back to make the power more useful.
Up until this point, I honestly thought I understood your (yourself and Geko) concept for Fire tanks. Fire Tanks are supposed to be more "squishy" than other tanks, and as a trade off, they get more damage. This has been the core concept for Fire Tanks since Beta.
Now with I5, you are effectively reducing all other tankers to the Fire Tank level of "tankiness" and reducing the amount of damage Fire Tanks do.
Can you PLEASE tell us when your "vision" changed and why? If you truely are trying to bring Fire Tanks in line with all other tanks, PLEASE JUST SAY SO instead of beating around the bush like this. Just LET US IN ON THE LITTLE SECRET. I mean, we've been through 5 issues worth of changes to Burn (over a year) and through all that time, Burn's damage potential has basically been stated as "working as intended" or "we are happy with the way things are now". For changes like these to take place after so long indicates to me that either someone was asleep at the swtich, or there is something else going on in the background that we aren't being made aware of.
Capt. Conduit - lvl 50 Elec/Elec/Elec Blast
Demonik - Fire/Axe Tank
Arctic Pyre - Fire/Ice Blast
Candi Stryper - Emp/Eng Def
Ehrlicht - Ill/Rad Cont
xx Raptor xx - Claws/Regen Scrap
Chemotherapist - Rad/Rad Def
Evangelique - Peacebringer
Freedom
I am not a DOOOM sort of person. However, I built a Burn tank beacuse I solo 99% of the time and they were solo machines. Overpowered and in need of a nerf, but great fun to solo.
Now, according to statesman, the vision is that I cannot keep MOBs in the Burn patch with just my own taunt powers - I need someone to hold/mezz/stun them.
This nerf changed my solo friendly tank into a team dependant tank. Not arguing with the concept or numbers, but it stinks for people who usually cannot team due to RL time constraints.
Kinda stinks - my highest level toon is now team dependant - that is a major league nerf.
I'll try to use the respec to build up my secondary attacks and maintain this as a solo tank, but it ain't as much fun.
Ah well - back to the scrappers 
When you see yourself in a crowded room / do your fingers itch,are you pistol-whipped
Will you step in line or release the glitch / can you fall asleep with a panic switch
[ 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 ]
Have you played a burn tanker after level 35? You can't tell me my level 41 tanker can walk into a group, hit burn and expect to kill anything. The regeneration factor is so high in the end game, and enemies have so many hit points if I don't use my attacks, I die, they live.
Hence my suggestion switch Burn and rise of the pheonix.. so by the time you can use burn it does what you want it to do. Or just delete rise of the pheonix.
In your balance vision you said:
[ QUOTE ]
No single build or Archetype should be quantifiably better than another; each might be circumstantially better because of certain power sets. But the real difference should lie in the hands of the player his skill and strategy.
[/ QUOTE ]
As far as primary powers go, the only circumstance in which we are superior to other tanks is when we are up against less common elemental damage. When we are up against the big S/L hitters, and baddies that are more than happy to chain KB across the zone, we are quantifiably WORSE when it matters most. What is the trade off
what is the element that truly makes us equal? Lets read some more of your statements, this time from the Tanker thread:
[ QUOTE ]
Fiery Aura is better than Invulnerability
Invulnerability has superior Resistance to Fiery Aura in Smashing and Lethal Damage the two most common damage types in the game. Invulnerability also has a better resistance to Cold Damage. Fiery Damage is better in the other Damage Categories, but it lacks ANY Defense Powers. Invulnerability, on the other hand, supplements its resistances with Defense (Tough Hide, for example).
[/ QUOTE ]
Im going to assume you meant Fiery AURA and just mistyped the name of our set. In your oops here though, you inadvertently answered my question. DAMAGE. Eliminate the incoming damage by removing the threat. The best defense is a good offense. That has always been the explanation for the shortcomings of the set.
I5 Strategy: You are cutting defense across the board.
What does this mean for burn?
Burn does not have a quantifiable defense value; it cannot be adjusted or tweaked. You cannot scale what you cannot quantify; therefore it must be removed or made to suffer the same fate as other defense powers in I5
give it a value or chance of success so low as to not be of any perceivable value. You have effectively achieved this through your addition of high magnitude fear.
What does that mean for the Fiery Damage, Oops
Fiery Aura set as a whole in Burns current condition?
We now have lower resistance to S/L then any other set
We have no defense powers
We have no powers that offer knock back protection
Our marginally better resistance to elemental simply does not balance all of this. Your compromise of adding longer immobilization protection to burn does not achieve this either. Its time for you to take a long look at the effectiveness of the Fiery Aura primary and find that balance within the set. I believe burn as it is on test, if given I4 level fear, achieves that balance. It is up to the player to decide when and how to use burn, thus the player decides how much defense benefit the power provides. Sounds like it fits into your vision just fine.
But, if burn is not the answer?
You are game designers. It is what you do. It is what pays your bills yes, but is your livelihood. It gives you a sense of pride, knowing you use your skills do the best job you can. It involves creativity, artistic flare, and sometimes tough decisions. I challenge you right now, take a look at the set
use that creativity
and make the set work. Effectively crippling a set by making a power worthless does not show me the level of effort I would expect for a world class game designer.
Be creative, show me what you've got.
[ 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 ]
Now I don't have any fire tanks so take what I say with a grain of salt. Playing with fire tanks with my illusion/kinetics controller, I found it annoying that burn could not be buffed. What you say here sounds like you want burn incorperated more with teamwork (which I understand sucks for a fire tanker to be dependent on).
My thoughts are that if you're going to nerf burn, like you have, you should make it be buffable. Let fulcrum shift, and other buffs, actually increase it's damage output. It's quite depressing in it's current state when you fulcrum shift a huge group around a fire tank and it really means nothing.
And fire tanks, i'll hold everyone in your fire for you in just a bit, flash is still recharging!
Burn is not a team friendly power to begin with, and now I must be in a team to use it effectivily? One poster said he felt sorry for blasters that teamed with him as a fire tank. Sir? Do we even play the same game? if two blasters can not drop 12 minions in less than 10 seconds, you should feel sorry for them, but dont blame yourself.
Burn is a unreliable power to use in a team unless your concentrating on a boss, the minions are knocked around, held just outside of the patch, or generally dead before it does 10 ticks. Now I must have a team to use it, or not take it, tough choice.
I dont just use burn to arrest mobs, I use a combination of burn and my secondary powers. Feel free to datamine it. In fact, the only fire tanks I know that dont take and slot up many secondary's are the ones that are not really effected by the fear anyways. Hard to run if you cant even stand up and walk.
Its funny what we as players are willing to deal with just to play this game. My friends are dissapearing, my SG is decimated(I4). These people dont come here to post goodbye posts. They dont threaten to leave. They just leave.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Hello, this may be a bit long but please bear with me.
First I am a casual player and started on a friends account in Nov 2004, got my own account at Xmas. I have about 2 dozen chars from 11 to 31 in lvl. My highest are a rad/dark def 28 and a spine/inv scrapper 31. I solo and team about equally. As a casual player I do not spend much time on the boards finding out the specific details of the game. I think the developers should TELL me enough to make informed decisions. Obviously they disagree .
Reading the posts on fire tankers<mine is lvl16 fire/ice> it seems that burn is the biggee problem child. I have been invited to team with fire tankers just to increase the size of the mobs they were slaughtering. Good xp but boring. Other complaints are the large number of additional power pools most characters seem to feel they need.
One of the problems I see is that the developers want characters not to be able to reach their power caps independently. Instead characters are supposed to team their tanks with support characters in order to be most effective. This is a solution to characters who are min/maxing their powers. Characters who are here using theme based characters are actually hurt disproportionately. Characters designed to have 'Just enough' powers find that they must respec and make their characters carbon copies of the min/maxers just to survive. My scrapper has only maxxed one power out with dr enh, unyielding. I have not put anything else into defenses and feel fine with a 60 dr vs sm/l and a 50 dr vs everything else but psionics. Not everyone wants to max out a few poers and have nothing else. Many of us want to be a little different and still be playable.
For what it is worth here is my solution. The developers vision of burn is totally at odds with the players. Drop the power and replace it with something more fun.
NEW POWER
LEAPING FLAMES
Toggle
.1 end/sec
Run speed Bonus equal to Swift or Sprint
Jump Bonus equal to Hurdle or Combat Jumping
Defense All Bonus +5
Damage Reduction Psionic 12.5
Status Defense Immobilize, Hold, Sleep, Knock/down/back
This power would be useful in lots of different ways without being overpowering. Players would be far less likely to have identical builds. Everyone feels we need Status defenses and don't like having to take power pools to get them. Since Fire is fast and slippery, it is hard to hit and even psionic attacks are at reduced effect, the only Tanker power with this. Greater speed and jumping makes the Fire Tanker lighter and more able to get where he needs to be.
Leaping Flames is not an uber power, but players will get numerous advantages that they currently need pool powers for. The Fire tanker would be the fastest tactical character and have the choice of emphasizing Defense, Psionic Damage Reduction or movement.
Sure, this is not the best possible solution, but I think it addresses most of the complaints at the moment.
Developers do not want Fire tankers to do massive damage.
Players want Status defenses.
Players want more mobility.
Players do not want to have to take Fighting and Jumping Power Pools just to survive.
[ QUOTE ]
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 was afraid of this. Without explicitly saying it, Statesman has just said that to be effective, Fire Tanks must team with a controller to hold or immobilize the mob (anyone that actually plays this game knows that mobs have no problem running, jumping or flying away while stunned). Of course, controller AoE holds were also nerf'd. They will not hold the mobs for long, and thanks to the fear effect of burn, the mobs will likely run straight for the controller when the hold wears off. I sure hope controllers like debt.
This further proves solo play is apparently "not what was intended" for City of Heroes. It appears any toon capable of solo play gets nerf'd so that they are forced to join teams. What I find so funny is that you want us to see all this great mission content, yet when you play in a full teams, you level up so fast you are lucky to complete even one story arc from your own contacts. And even then the story is disjointed and random since you bounce from one player's missions to another. I was having a great time with my MA/Regen scrapper, but she was nerf'd in I4 and can now only survive in teams. I made a fire/ice tank and was having a great time seeing all the mission content. Yes, I solo'd with this toon on the nights my SG did not group. Now she will be nerf'd in I5 and will be useless solo and in teams. Guess I will never seen the 40+ content in this game. After I5, I won't have a Fire Tank any more. I'll have a bridge for someone to help power level their buddies. Not all that fun, but at least I will be in a team, and that is apparently the only way we are supposed to play this game.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Burn was the only thing that let a Fiery Aura/non-Fiery Melee Tanker deal better damage than Ice Armor & Stone Armor Tankers. Well Blazing Aura deals slightly more damage than Icicles and Mud Pots but not by much. I'd say that a Mud Pots + Granite Armor Tanker is better in overall defense + Damage than a BA + Fire Shield + Plasma Shield + CJ + Acro + Tough + Weave Tanker.
And as have been said before, Burn is usually not good in a team even if we take the I3 version. The Blasters and Scrappers will often defeat at least half the mobs before the Burn animation finishes. While people can wait for Burn and let it do it's rather endurance efficient damage you'll rarely find that happening outside PL teams.
[ 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 ]
As many others already have said: Fire Tankers need Acrobatics for Knockback protection (you try tanking without that) and to get that they go through Combat Jumping which already gives Immobilize protection.
Now Fire Tankers have a choice between two different Immobilize protections, one is a low cost toggle with no adverse effects on the nearby mobs and the other is a slow recharge click which causes anything in melee to run away and possibly refocus on a squishy. One is useful to a Tanker, the other in antithetical to tanking.
What was the point of Burn once again? An Immobilize protection which can only be used in a team with a Controller who is willing to risk a lot of extra aggro? Why not team with a Defender or Controller who can give this from his/her primary/secondary set instead? Or just rely on Combat Jumping and have it done with?
As is a Fire Tanker needs, beyond Stamina, 6 pool powers (CJ, SJ, Acro, Boxing or Kick, Tough & Weave) to get to the same level of tanking as other Tankers, one of these will usually double as travel power (Super Jump). 6 out of 21 possible powers (Stamina takes 3) locked down by almost forced power pool choices. 3 power pool selections out of 4. That doesn't leave much room for "fun" powers or variety. It also doesn't leave room for the secondary powers you now want Fire Tankers using for damage.
A sample build up to level 28, Burn spec:
01 : Gash Empty(01)
01 : Fire Shield Empty(01)
02 : Healing Flames Empty(02)
04 : Taunt Empty(04)
06 : Combat Jumping Empty(06)
08 : Consume Empty(08)
10 : Hurdle Empty(10)
12 : Plasma Shield Empty(12)
14 : Super Jump Empty(14)
16 : Health Empty(16)
18 : Burn Empty(18)
20 : Stamina Empty(20)
22 : Acrobatics Empty(22)
24 : Boxing Empty(24)
26 : Tough Empty(26)
28 : Weave Empty(28)
There's room for 2 secondary powers, one is the forced level 1 and the other is Taunt. No Blazing Aura or you'll be forced to delay Consume, Acrobatics or Stamina, all powers you don't want to delay too much. Box/Tough/Weave could be called optional but if you want to tank they are almost required and you'll want them soon. This isn't a definitive Fire Tanker build, but it's a decent demonstration of how tight an optimal build is and how few actual choices there are.
If you're fixated on gutting Burn then add Immobilization & Knockback protection to Temperature Protection so that we only have 2/3 less than mediocre powers in the Fiery Aura set (Burn & Rise of the Phoenix, Fiery Embrace for non-Fiery Melee) and aren't forced to take Acrobatics.
[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.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is why people are more or less happy with burn's damage being reduced. Burn should complement tanker secondaries rather than overshadowing them.
[ 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 ]
This part is nonsense. If the damage is still devastating, then fire/ice tankers will still be too powerful while leaving the power essentially useless to anyone else. So what should have been obvious is that the damage on Burn needs to be set right if its still too high, but the fear isn't team friendly and is antithetical to what tankers are designed to do. Sure, controllers could theoretically hold/immobilize a crowd for burning but, as many others have mentioned, that is only actually useful on a small team without an AoE scrapper or blaster. This makes the power highly situational except to the presumably broken fire/ice tank.
[removed]