Pretty obvious that Burn is not really liked so how about getting rid of it completely? Instead I prepose a tough hide like defense power passive as tough hide is as well, nothing major but add some knockback and immobolize resistance here or place it on Plasma shield and make it not required to get leaping pool because if you want to balance tanks then fire should not be required to get combat jumping and acrobatics since the other tanks have these resistances in their respective armor sets.
This is not the first time the devs are trying to nerf fire tankers...but i still do not understand why? I have been here since launch... and since then this game has broken numerous boundaries in the mmorpg experience. The main one creating a SUPER hero that makes you feel like a badass. Taking away powers that give you that feeling of being a SUPER hero is detrimental to the whole point of COH. Why give us these great powers...only to strip them away and make them pointless?? THese over the top powers is what makes this game so fantastic...from the fire controllers imps to the tankers burn ability it all comes together to make a fantastic game. Please dont destroy the greatness that you have built so far.
well, i tested my fire tanker on test last night, and i have to say that with the burn changes, you take away offense from the firey aura set
right now i have blazing aura, fire shield, plasma shield, and burn... if burn drops to temperature control (or whatever the name was) levels of usefulness, then fire tankers get 2 powers they can avoid (3 if you found rise of the phoenix) seriously guys.... can you really keep messing up powers so that people dont take them?
[ QUOTE ]
can you really keep messing up powers so that people dont take them?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep... look at ice armor.
Takes his news paper and rolls it up and Hits the Dev's on the nose while saying, " Bad devs... bad devs.". I am already running my tanker to 50 from 44 and to find out that the Fire in my ice is going to be NERF'd. You have just given me the excuse I was looking for to POWER LVL... Is that what this game is about... Everytime you DEV's change something I have always hoped for the better, but Burn is just about all a Fire/Ice tank has to quickly get out of trouble. I got the villian running thing... who wants to be burned..hinch I use the Ice patch as a fix against running foes. But to tone down the one thing that helps fire tanks out... NOT COOL!. I use to justify everything you did with..."Come on.. They are trying to get us in alignment with the CoH and the CoV merge"...But dude...How does Burn nerf fit in?
Think about the changes you do to the game first... then ask yourself.... Would I play it with this change?
I just don't get it.
I can understand wanting to balance City of Heroes with City of Villains. Honest. I will never understand trying to balance hero against hero. In the arena, sure. In PvE? No.
I played my Martial Arts/Regen Scrapper to 50. It wasn't easy. Copper Cobra was meant to be something other than an offensive powerhouse - which he obviously never was in comparison to some other scrapper sets.
After that I wanted a chance to actually do some damage and have a fun character. I chose a Fire/Ice tank because I had teamed with someone and had fun playing with him.
Now this change is sucking the flavor right out of the character.
A "tweak" is where you make little adjustments, over time, to get to a desired effect.
This is massive, wholesale nerfage on a grand scale to nearly all AT's.
You want teams and I'm good with that. I like to team with people.
Let's see....yesterday there were 3 people in Crey's Folly. 5 after my partner and I got there.
Today there were 11 people in Independence Port.
If you want teams bring people in, don't continue trying to drive them away. I don't want to have to run around trying to find a team when I'm only going to be able to play 30 minutes.
Give the game flavor. Make it different. Stop trying to make everyone the same. Please.
Ok here is my one post here.
First off if you want to make a big change like this, why not add something to it.
Shorten the duration... Fine
Decrease the damage... O...K...
Change the AI so that even the above "tweaks" are ineffective... Well isnt that special!
How bout this. When we set the ground on fire, and the mobs run out, have them.... Stay on fire! you know actually setting them on fire for the duration... If you want have the colision set up so that if they bounce into a mob that mob is set on fire... you know make a change not just reducing the power. This way the tank can at least watch the minions run around burning!!!
The changes you make to tankers wont chase away alot of players. It is the changes you make to Tankers, Controllers, Blasters etc etc etc while still turning a blind eye to some blantant underpowered sets.
[removed]
I fear that the "vision" of the devs is to make every AT identical with the exception of different graphics and animation. At least that is what it is starting to feel like. After hearing things like "Burn is way over powered" or "Controllers are too strong" or "Invincible is too tough"... what's really the point of having multiple ATs? All the attacks are becoming more uniform and quite frankly... boring. Shouldn't each AT have its nitche? Okay, there are some good examples between ATs, such as the Blaster versus the tank, but how about between the different types of Tanks. To me it sounds like you (devs) are just trying to make everything ... well... the same.
Next Point...
Don't you think that all (3) nurfs on Burn is a bit much? I mean really, you take away 50% of its damage... sucks but Okay... but then you double the recharge rate... OUCH! but to top it off, add the Fear effect??? I am trying to imagine a case when this would be helpful at all! Is fear ever an attractive power? The only exposure I have had to fear powers so far has been in teams when some blaster drops "Rain of Fire" and scatters the mobs--to the extreme unhappiness of the rest of the team. We then had to chase them all over the map trying to take them out. In my humble opinion, any fear effect is nothing more than an annoyance. Rarely helpful except in the case of an ambush.
Okay, maybe I can see the fear effect on another ranged AT, but on a tank? As a melae character, making them run away from me is the last thing I want to do--not to mention all my squishy teamates that are counting on my keeping argo. Makes any "FEAR" power (IE burn) quite pointless unless your point is to irritate (and end up killing) your teamates.
Okay, lets just say that you (devs) go through with the I5 burn-nerf. Now fire tanks have no need to even pick burn and are left with very little offensive powers--at least of any real consequence (pea shooters at best). What is our job now? Jump into a batch of guys and just sit still while our (now manditory) team kills them off? I'm getting bored just thinking about that. Why not just change the graphics of the tank hero into a punching bag with litle feet that waddles from mob-group to mob-group?
I very much enjoy soloing in this game. Take away my primary offensive power and what do I have left? The squishiest tank type with no "real" attack ability and the NEED to group with other people. It annoys me to spend 10-20 minutes trying to find or organize a team. Sometimes I only have 15-20 minutes to play--I don't want to spend the whole time trying to find a team only to have to log off 2 mintues later.
And about "Rise of the Phoenix"...
What were you thinking when you guys created this power? I can buy Awakens that do the same thing. But as one previous poster here suggested, the only way to make use of it is to DIE! Kinda sucks to have to count on dieing in order to make use of a power. I'm sorry, but this power is just utterly useless and especially not worthy as the top power of the set. DEVS... PLEASE RECONSIDER THIS!!!
May I suggest that if you MUST nerf something at least keep the primary speciality of that AT and take away from another part. The burn power was the only power that led me to create a tanker in the first place. After this nerf I realy won't have a desire to play him at all. On top of that the thought of all the hours that I have invested into him only to have him nerfed into the Easter bunny, is not only depressing, but it annoys me to no end?
Why should I even bother creating another toon only to have it nerfed in another 2 months. I am beginning to see this game as nothing more than a big waste of time.
Devs please listen when I say that I am a real fan of CoH. I have playing this game more (and longer) than any other game including Everquest. But with this new virus (i mean I5), I am more annoyed than I am having fun. Isn't the point of video games supposed to be FUN???? Look at the number of complaints that people are posting on these boards. May I remind you that they (and I) are your paying customers? Without happy gamers, you will lose subscribers, in turn, revenue, jobs, etc. I don't really see this as a good move in the game or your company. But then again, I am just one (of apparently many) unhappy paying (for now) customers.
Call me crazy but I guess I enjoy doing things that are actually FUN! Go figure.
I play many toons. I've tried them all with the exception of a Stone Tank and an Illusion controller. I just couldn't come up with a concept for either of those types. I have built toons for solo play and for team play. Four nights a week I played with my friends in teams. The other 3 nights I mostly solo as pickup teams tend to result in massive amounts of debt. Because of the proposed changes, many of my friends have quit and I am forced to play solo more often. But apparently solo play is "wrong" and any toon that shows an ability to solo gets nerf'd.
Fire Tanks are weaker than other tanks, with maybe the exception of the seldom played Ice Tank. In order to match the abilities of other tanks, fire tanks must take the fighting pool to get tough and weave. Because there is no knockback protection built into their primary powers, they are forced into the leaping pool and must take acrobatics. Because all their powers are toggles, they have to take the fitness pool to get stamina. This means 9 pool powers just to match the ability of some of the other tanks. If the fire tank is going to survive in combat and tank for a full team, all those pool powers must be taken before even considering secondary powers for offense. The weakness built into the fire tank was offset by the burn power. They couldn't survive the amount of punishment other tanks could, but they could actually contribute to defeating the mobs.
Now swings the mighty nerf bat, again. It was bad enough when the fear factor was added in I4, now they make it worse in I5. But apparently that wasn't enough. The recharge time was horribly increased and the amount of damage it could do was reduced. The fear factor alone severely reduced the damage possible as everything runs out of the burn patch. I couldn't understand why all three of these nerfs were applied. Then I heard that people were actually stacking burn, getting as many as 3 burn patches going at the same time. 3 burn patches at once would slaughter virtually everything except AVs. Now I could finally understand the nerf, but not the way it was implemented. Controller pets were not functioning "as intended" (multiples at the same time). They were changed so that if pets were cast again before the previous set expired, the old pets would simply vanish as the new pets appeared. Why wasn't the same approach taken with Burn? If a tank tries to drop a second burn before the first finishes, simply make the first disappear. That already happens with the Devouring Earth when they drop their eminators. If the DE moves to a new location out of range of the previously dropped eminator, they tend to drop it again and the original disappears. Simply snag a copy of that code and apply it to burn. And if the burn damage must be decreased, then reduce it, but don't include the fear factor which prevents most of the damage from occuring. If the fear must be left in, then I think the damage should actually be increased as the villians run out of it so quickly they only take a few tics before fleeing. As it stands now, burn takes so long to recharge it can't be used for immobilization protection anymore. Anyone that has fought Earth Thorn Casters know how fast they stack their stone prison and stone cages. Without Burn, I'll have to skip the entire Circle of Thorns story arcs. Wait, the Crey have those pistols that immobilize as well, guess I'll have to skip the Crey story arcs too. Hopefully there aren't many other groups with immobilization as I enjoy doing the missions. Without a burn that can recharge fast enough to give me immobilization protection, I'm stuck, unable to hold agro for the team. I won't be able to solo either, so I guess I park even more toons that have been made unplayable.
One of the things I enjoyed with City of Heroes was the ability to make a unique look for my hero. The other thing was being able to pick my powers and not simply be given the next power in the set. Unfortunately that often meant a toon that wasn't truly playable as they couldn't survive solo or in teams. Thanks to the respec missions, some toons were brought back to life. But now, with all these I5 nerfs, everyone is being forced into cookie cutter builds. There will be little if any difference between toons as there will be only one build that can survive. Now my fire tank will be forced to take hasten. I don't like the glowing fists, but without hasten my chances at being immobilized are greatly increased. Because I need hasten now, I can no longer take Rise of the Phoenix as I just don't have space for it in my build. So much for the "Phoenix" concept I created when I designed Tiny Phoenix (currently level 40 Fire Tank). Up until now, I never understood why players wanted to power level. I think I finally understand it. If you don't power level, you won't make it to 50 before your toon gets nerf'd to the point of being unplayable.
I actually feel bad for the developers. They appear to have lost focus on what this game is all about. The players want to be super heroes, not super zeroes. What appears to be happening is they see the game being played differently from what they expected. They notice the power levelers out there and say "That ain't right!" Then they proceed to nerf what those players are doing so they can't do it any more. That doesn't stop it though. The power levelers simply find a new way to move fast through the levels. And thus begins the vicious cycle of nerfs. I ran into this myself as a content developer for a Neverwinter Nights persistent world. We had a great module and most of the players loved it. Some players however cared about nothing other than reaching the maximum level as fast as possible. When we attempted to apply any form of nerf, those power levelers simply found a new way to level up. Whatever we did to nerf the few bad players, the good players that enjoyed the game suffered. We spent so much time nerfing the "bad" players we didn't have time for making new content. We eventually lost our "good" players to other servers that were making new content. The lesson was learned to late and we eventually shut down our Neverwinter Nights server due to lack of players. While I don't see City of Heroes shutting down anytime soon, it is strange to see the same type of thing happening in what was once an excellent MMO.
Keeping this short and to the point
I have no issue with us fire/* tanks having to take power pools to cap defense or resistance, it is a choice we make. My tanker does fine with the build I have (which does not include hasten).
As a tank my responsibility on a team is not damage output but damage absorption. That said as far as the burn power goes... it is a primary offense for me wile solo, and it works well with ice patch. However, considering burn is DoT, and I have to use burn twice on anything more than an even level minion, and even with ice patch enemies can still attack me, and the fact that on a team more often than not the bad guys are pushed off the ice patch and out of the burn patch it really isn't as usefull a power as it is when I am solo.
Other tankers have powers that offer resistance to immob/hold/sleep/knockback as well as toxic resistance without having to use a power pool to achieve this. This is my biggest complaint about the fiery aura set.
Having read through a lot of the other posts, and listened to other fire/* tanks, were I a dev I might do this. Since Blazing Aura offers higher damage at a lower damage per second rate and lower accuracy than burn, basically making burn a somewhat redundant power. Increase the DPS of blazing aura OR increase it's accuracy. Drop burn as a power entirely. Change burn in the set to another toggle shield (say "Magma shield") that offers the knockback/knockdown/immobilization/slow resistance the power set lacks. It doesn't seem to me that the burn power ever really has been what the devs wanted it to be anyway.
Overall I have liked the game, and I continue to like the game even though I disagree with some of the changes made, I have also liked some of the changes made. Nothing is perfect. I do believe that some of the proposed changes in I5 are far more reactionary to complaints about power levellers or people that feel one type of "toon" is more powerful than they should be. I haven't read the proposed changes for scrappers, but my understanding is that they will do more damage, making them a better blaster than a blaster since they have defense/resistance, and higher hit points, defiance for blasters included. One of the major selling points of CoH for me was the diversity of characters one could create or team with, and the challenges those choices presented. For example, I need to defeat the Psychic Clockwork King, do I find an empathy defender, invulnerable tank, and a */regen scrapper OR do I try to find a dark defender, a stone tanker, and a */dark scrapper. It is exactly these choices that make the game enjoyable.
It seems to me that if the end of the quest to balance the game means that all the characters classes of all at's have the same health, resistance, defense, controlling ability, and damage output then there really is no thought process to the game, no need to strategize, just pick a character any character and play. Really, if I want a mindless game to sit in front of to kill an hour or two I can slap HALO into my xbox and accomplish that.
Just my two cents worth, find another $3.50 and you can buy a cup of stale burnt coffee at your local corner coffee shop.
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.
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?
While I agree that the only thing a fire tanker needs to do is lay down ice patch and burn...you haven't really given us alot of options. For enough res/def to stay alive with this (currently) 2nd most squishy tanker set, we have to take 4 power pool sets. There simply are not enough slots left to take a bunch of attacks as well as the defenses (both res AND def meant by that) to stay alive and attack well. Honestly, for the amount of damage that this particular power set supplies vs. the protections offered (even FULLY slotting every defensive power) I think it would be better suited to the scrapper AT.
The fact that you choose to pile 3 penalties onto this power smacks of overkill. People are putting down too many burns at once? As one person in this thread suggested, make it so that burn CANNOT overlap. That will get RID of your obsessive need to increase recharge times on this power, at least. Decrease damage? Certainly. When fully slotted with 50++ I can do 9 tics of damage...reduce so that comes to around 5, it will balance the output/cost of the power much better. Get rid of fear. The whole purpose of a tank is to gather and hold aggro. With fear in this power, you negate the ABILITY to do this job for the fire tank. And, btw...you will just make the almighty fire/ice tank a more frequently taken combination, as only ice slick will help maintain the damage long enough to take out the enemies. It will eliminate the very thing that most people found so innovative and amazing about this game...the ability to be the hero YOU want to be, not a "toon" forced into a cookie-cutter mold that negates any origionality and thought being devoted to a truly enjoyable and individualized character concept.
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 ]
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 ]
And be bored. Also, if you're fighting mobs that aren't all the same level/class (i.e., you've got some lieutenants or bosses in the group), using other attacks to help bring them down faster becomes attractive.
Part of the problem, though, is that in order to be able to function as a Tanker, a Fire/xxx Tanker has to dedicate a significant fraction of their power choices to pool powers -- the Leaping pool to get Acrobatics for its knockback resistance, the Fighting pool for Tough and Weave to cover the weaknesses in your defensive abilities -- that they don't have room to take other attacks until late in the game -- they'll generally have Brawl, their first-level attack from their secondary, and either Boxing or Kick from the Fighting pool, and maybe one other attack -- and the slots they've been getting almost always go into other powers first, so the attacks are fairly weak. Not much to encourage anything but Burn usage.
[ 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 ]
Stunning, holding, or immobilizing mobs and then slapping down a Burn patch with them in it so they can't get away? Sounds like efficient and effective teamwork to me... However, aren't you already addressing this by the AoE target limit, AoE mez duration halving, and AoE mez recharge time doubling? If we can't lock as many mobs down in a Burn patch as long, or as often, then that already addresses your concern, doesn't it?
"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 ]
Read : Make a FIRE /ICE Tanker
[ 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 ]Yeah that wasn't good.
[ 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 ]But we can get that more reliably from combat jumping, especially since we need Acrobatics for knockback protection.
[ 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 ]That's a big but, and the stunning one isn't even true. Area holds and roots are fairly rare, and with the new AoE limits there's a good chance not everything will be locked down.
Burn just makes you lose too much aggro, and then the spawn is heavily spread out, making it nearly impossible to regain aggro.
[ 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 ]
Hey at lease he gave you guys a responce, scrappers are still in the Dark.
Later,
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
[ 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 ]
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 ]
Burn was the trump power. With I5 it is now useless.
If you find 3 ways to fix a power that you believe is overpowered anyone of the 3 fixes will work.
All 3 are implemented
AI Change.
Less damage
Longer recharge duration.
Effect only 10
Frankly the AI change alone with I5 were a killer for the power, now topped off with the other changes its pointless to take.
[ QUOTE ]
Taunt alone might not bring mobs into Burn continually, but stunning, holding, immobilizing mobs in Burn is just plain devastating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Taunt will not bring mobs back into burn at all. A stunned mob will wonder out of burn nearly as quick as a non-stunned mob will run out. As for holding, immobilizing mobs, your telling me I have to be a Fire/Ice Tank or have to have a controller running with me always. 
[color=gold][b][size=5]♪ Sometimes you feel like a Tank, Sometimes you don't! ♪[/size][/color][/b]
[url=http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=114726][color=black][b][size=5]Moon [color=red]Hazard [color=black]Zone![/size][/color][/color][/color][/b][/url]
[removed]
I agree with this change, Statesman. Back when my Fire Tanker was little and didn't have it, I was torn between taking this anti-Immobilize power or not. Then I read that it had good damage so I took it and discovered that, as you say, it was the trump power.
In builds where the mobs just stand in it on their own, I didn't even need to Taunt them. They would die quickly. It was just silly.
I can accept that I need a Controller on my team to get the most out of Burn. It is still handy to keep me mobile, and if I can lock them down with my own knockdown powers, it's still pretty good.
...Now, if only it would also protect me from knockdown....
[ 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 ]
This is how we get into trouble.
If burn is too powerful when it is used to maximum effect don't make it harder to use at maximum effect - only to nerf it again when too many people figure out how to do it.
Think long and hard on this: if ALL fire tankers figured out a way around the burn changes, and they were incinerating things just as well as they do now, would you consider that a problem?
If the answer is 'yes' don't do it. Do not give the players a problem and then punish them for solving it. If you don't care how effective burn is as long as it takes a certain skill level to use it, then its fine. If you are merely assuming that the change will lower the effectiveness of burn because people will not be able to overcome the obstacle, that's a bad assumption.
If its ok for fire tankers to have burn's damage, but you believe it should take more skill to get it, say so specifically, and be done with it. If you're only assuming people won't be able to leverage burn successfully, don't - just take burn away and give fire tanks something that they can use in a tanking role: hot feet seems to fit that role perfectly, and the fire blasters are more than happy to let us have it.
I think it would be very bad if three months from now we were here again, saying "all fire tanks need to do is lay down burn and stun things to keep them from running out of it, so we need to nerf burn again."
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
I've been posting on one of the other burn threads... Thought I would go ahead and post here...
First.. I really like this post by generic_cleric
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showt...Number=3414933
Below is part of a post that I did...and just so you know... I have a level 36 Fire / Stone tank.
...I actually have different tactics depending on baddies and the team Im with. My normal mode of attack is to go around / over the baddies and turn around and face the team-so I can see what is happing - Then I start with an AoE attack [tremor is one I use the most now] Then I hit taunt, burn, stone fist, boxing, tremor and repeat. I through in buildup, healing and consume as I need. I have hasten so I can cycle through the attacks pretty fast. I try not to have multiple burns going at the same time due to the fear factor. If a baddie breaks for the group I single it out and taunt [run and attack if I have to] Even doing this Ive had blasters in the group kill things faster than me which they should be doing [scrappers too by the way]. I will agree, burn is a minion dicer but against Lts and bosses it is very slow going
Do I think burn is a little too powerful? Yes. And to fix this all they would have to do is triple the end cost [to about 25% or 30% of a toon's total] and half the damage or increase time between ticks. Leave the recharge at 12s [or decrease the burn time]. A person would run out of end very quickly especially before stamina. Oh and drop the fear... I never quite understood that.
Also PLing is not limited to fire tanks. Not much is needed to do it with fires tanks except knowing how to zigzag but that in itself is no reason to burn them at the stake.
... and
Concerning the balance statement by the Devs. I dont agree with it. I think the ATs are pretty much balanced as is. Would tweaking help? Sure nothing is perfect. However, Ive said this before and Ill say it again. Each AT does exactly what it is supposed to do. When I think about the different ATs I think of a straight line. On this line are the ATs with Blasters on one end and Tanks on the other.
Blasters-----------Defenders---Controllers------------Scrappers-------fire tanks--- other Tanks
[I seperated fire from the other tank! s becaus e of burn's strenths and FT's defense weaknesses-which put them closer to a scrapper [maybe it should be a scrapper class...hmmm?]
They are balanced because each AT has a particular job function. Can some survive with the others sure Do some really need to team to do anything yes. If it wasnt for teams my Empathy Defender [Sister Venus] would not be 39.
Thanks and let the flaming begin...
Mike