[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you guys really listen to our suggestions for powersets, costume options, map, etc....? If so can we have a example?
Oddly, ED came as a suggestion for diminishing returns on the forums. Archery and Sonics were both mentioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to know the name of the person who suggested this...
He also confirmns that a shield powerset is on it's way and that it will be for tanks and scrappers
Overall he dodge alot of the more interesting ED-questions and nowhere does he adress the problem with tankers being obsolete...
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I think a system of diminishing returns is good. It makes everyone very close to equal in effectiveness. The only thing I wouldn't have done is scroll back defenses like they did in I5.
Diminishing returns though makes it so someone that 6 slots their passives, gets that boost in defense, but they also won't be head over heels better than someone who only decided to 3 slot. The MMO that I played before this had a very similar system to this, and it makes balancing a lot easier. Now they can balance for people with 3 slots, letting those with 6 be powerful and know that it won't be as glaring of a difference as it was in I4, where anyone that 3 slotted was considered unwise.
[/ QUOTE ]
You sure you're lookin' at the same difference in 3 slots compared to 6 slots that I am? For example...
3 slotted, RPD is what, around 12% RES S/L, right?
6 slotted RPD is what, around 13% RES S/L, right?
Give or take a few hundredths of a point.
And considering we don't have a diversification option for slotting with passive, resist only powers, your boost in defense, yet no head over heels difference is a mighty 1 percent.
"Letting those with 6 be powerful and know that it won't be as glaring of a difference as it was in I4, where anyone that 3 slotted was considered unwise."
That's funny. That's downright hilarious. Wait, that wasn't considered a joke? 
Yeah, well another problem is that they kind of messed up by making it dimish so much after 3 slots.
Were those the numbers before I5?
I've played in a ton of pickup groups myself and it often will work out just as Tom layed out. About the only other I sometimes do in those circumstances is hit /follow to start moving towards the battered teammate: I like to scan around to make sure it isn't more than one baddie on him.
As for State's views on tankers, all I can say is that I've agreed with every other change they've made in this game to date, despite how bad they may have sounded at first (and I can even get my arms around ED for the most part), but I just can't fathom how they can still conclude that tanks have enough defensive power right now (Defense and Resistance in combo). I've been waiting since I5 hit test for them to post that "aha, we never accounted for this" thread, their mea culpa, where they roll back the defensive numbers closer to the I4 levels (in particular, roll back the non-S/L Resist numbers to a point somewhere in the 55-65% range): it still hasn't come, and I'm starting to think it will be a long time before it does - perhaps never.
Right now, the tank AT is not very sexy. Heck, it never was sexy, except that they attracted that breed of player that would do anything for their teammates, to figuratively 'lay their bodies down' for the good of the team: except it now went from figuratively to reality. The game within the game used to be trying to keep on me every bit of attention of every badguy that had any current desires on me or my teammates, and stand there and take it as long as I could while the team whittled them down. I really can't do that and survive anymore as a rule (I can, of course, do it with some sets of badguys).
But I can't not try to be the center of their attention. I just can't adhere to any 'keep one third of the spawn occupied' standard. I play a lot of low end tanks, and what I've learned along the way is every single trickster meneuver I can think of. And boy, do your really need them when you don't have enough healing to stay in there and duke it out. I do what I can to piss off baddies, and move to positions where they cannot readily attack me: seconds they lose moving to find me while my teammateds batter their backsides can make the difference in some encounters. My tanks have become the masters of yellow spine kiting: but I ask you, is this the vision of what a tank should be?
I never wanted to round up entire maps worth of baddies (and, frankly, hated doing it: was boring for me, too, and I found it was never any faster, and most definately not nearly as fun), but I do want to be able to stand there and take as much focus from the bad guys as I can, and be able to survive it. They've already got our damage output appropriate for someone who can survive the damage (ie, it stinks - don't listen to the folklore that I4 tanks could solo ATs: I tried many times, and could never dent them over time because of their regen rate .... and, if I tried long enough, they did kill me), now they just need to get our defenses back up a bit.
I'm still praying for that day, still hopefull they will realize how little a tank can contribute right now. In the meantime, if tanks are to have 2-ply toilet paper defenses and moderate at best damage over time, then brutes, with their 1-ply toilet paper defenses but the ability to dole out so much damage that they can solo Elite bosses (again, something my I4 tanks couldn't do at comparable levels), are a much much more attractive solution to me. They are more of tank to me right now than any of my yellow-spine kiting trickster Tankers because they have a reason to stay in the belly of the beast: they can hang, toe to toe with the worst. I sure wish my Tanks still could.
@Greblaja, @Greblaja 2, @Greb, @Greb 2
Player of (lvl 50s) Blue Hammer, Action Lass, Autumn Gale, Crimson Hammer, Thundertoe, Blast Hammer, Crimson Clash, Greblaja, Wabu, Gray Hammer, Briar Pyre, Electro Gal, Rooftop Sentinel, and many, many more
[ QUOTE ]
if tanks are to have 2-ply toilet paper defenses and moderate at best damage over time, then brutes, with their 1-ply toilet paper defenses but the ability to dole out so much damage that they can solo Elite bosses (again, something my I4 tanks couldn't do at comparable levels), are a much much more attractive solution to me. They are more of tank to me right now than any of my yellow-spine kiting trickster Tankers because they have a reason to stay in the belly of the beast: they can hang, toe to toe with the worst. I sure wish my Tanks still could.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really? I've found my brute a lot more fragile than my tank. Fury is nice, but it doesn't help a lot when leading a charge (as it has to build up momentum).
[ QUOTE ]
TomTrumpinski
.
[ QUOTE ]
Well I can't recall any good examples where a Tank started taunting bad guys AFTER someone went red. Any decent or good tanks that I've played with tend to actively control aggro so that people don't take lethal damage not taunt after they are near dead or closer.
[/ QUOTE ]
.
Gideon, I really love pick-up teams. Since they're not quite as good, generally, as those who play together a lot, I adopted a technique when I scranked on those teams.
.
I would concentrate on initially taunting the spawn to keep them around me and then did as much damage as I could while keeping an eye on my teammates' health bars. When I saw a teammate fall into the yellow (usually through their own inexperience more than anything else), I would target through them and taunt the enemy they were focused on.
.
Nine out of ten times, this would pull away the guys giving them the most trouble and they'd recover in the breathing space they got.
.
So, there are a few of us who have done this. For the most part, it's not necessary in a good team unless things really start to go south.
.
On a large team, it's really not as possible now to keep aggro away from everyone on the team and survive at the higher difficulty levels. Therefore, more of the team *are* going to be falling into the yellow and red than they used to.
[/ QUOTE ]
To me the taunting seemed to be more an after thought then an actual tanking practice. Reactions that are slow like that seldom save the person in time. This is how I attack a spawn. This is not gospel or a "must do" strategy just the way I work.
1: Quick scan of the spawn. Sappers, Mezzers, Bosses in that order. Pick the target and plot its death in 3 attacks or less.
2: Flank the group or attack from behind. Cones and AoEs will not hit the team if they are launched away from the team. Seen that mistake often where a cone goes through the tank and hits the guys hiding behind him/her.
3: Set up with click powers and Inspirations. Kinda part of the plotting death of your target bit this time the team can see you powering up.
4: Attack the cluster drawing as much aggro as you can handle and usually the rest as well. 
4b: View the team as much as possible to see what they are doing. If you see one guy drawing a lot of attention then he is the guy you have to keep an eye on. classic example is a blaster with an AoE and suddenly 3 guys say "Blaster must die". When you see the AoE you know he took aggro so take it back or intercept his "fan club".
5: When you finish attack the next closest thing going towards the team or looking at anything that isn't you.
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
[ QUOTE ]
the point blank fact of the matter is that tanks didnt need to be nerfed as hard as they were and we do deserve some compensation as per the fact that our primary powersets are very undiversifiable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Note: Scrappers received a damage buff of 12.5% to their base damage as a result of i5. Tankers received a limit to taunt.
I agree, tankers should get something more. Maybe a 12.5% base HP increase?
[ QUOTE ]
To me the taunting seemed to be more an after thought then an actual tanking practice. Reactions that are slow like that seldom save the person in time. This is how I attack a spawn. This is not gospel or a "must do" strategy just the way I work.
1: Quick scan of the spawn. Sappers, Mezzers, Bosses in that order. Pick the target and plot its death in 3 attacks or less.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats great and all, and similar to the old attack plan from Beo.......but States was pretty clear in his vision. We should apparently be targeting ONLY the smashing/lethal dealers that we actually have resists to and letting the team take care of defending itself from everything else. The example seemed pretty clear on that. I would expect our remaining Elements/Energy resists to be nerfed again any time. 
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: PorkchopXpress
.
Thats great and all, and similar to the old attack plan from Beo.......but States was pretty clear in his vision. We should apparently be targeting ONLY the smashing/lethal dealers that we actually have resists to and letting the team take care of defending itself from everything else. The example seemed pretty clear on that. I would expect our remaining Elements/Energy resists to be nerfed again any time.
[/ QUOTE ]
My Energy resists are 24.6%. As for Elemental I pretty much treat that as Psi which I have 14.6% less resistance to.
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
Great post. Gives me a baseline of performance. Wish more threads would focus on this.... how do tankers actually tank?
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: gWrath
.
Great post. Gives me a baseline of performance. Wish more threads would focus on this.... how do tankers actually tank?
[/ QUOTE ]
I can give you 3 examples from my experience.
1: (Beligerent drunk mode) Go in hit stuff. Start off with a taunt and an AoE and then take out whatever you deem most offensive.
Example: Whaa da hell uuuu lookin at huh. you wan sum of me. huh you wan sum of me. I'm (hic) I'm gonna kick yer [censored].
2: (Annoying person you can't kill despite how hard you try) Taunt bot every defense possible AND 6 slotted regardless of how little defense the slots give. Usually having 1 attack they were forced to take at level one that is no longer in their power tray. focuses on AoE, aura, and taunt aggro.
Example: What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin? What cha doin?
3: (Tactician) Person that plans the quickest and most efficient overkill. Usually aggro is not a problem because the group is dead by the time taunt hits.
Example: You see those 4 guys over there with the bats? Well we will start off with the tear gas then we will lay in support fire from both of the howitzers. By that time the jets should arrive and bomb them. Any survivors we hit with 5 volleys of missiles. With this plan there should be minimal casualties on our side and negligable property damage outside our 7 block perimeter.
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
[ QUOTE ]
(Annoying person you can't kill despite how hard you try)
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought this one was always saying "I'm not touching you."
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys really listen to our suggestions for powersets, costume options, map, etc....? If so can we have a example?
Oddly, ED came as a suggestion for diminishing returns on the forums. Archery and Sonics were both mentioned.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to know the name of the person who suggested this...
[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly am not presumptuous enough to think that any of my suggestions were listened to by themselves or had any affect on design changes. However, I was certainly one of the people on the forums calling for diminishing returns for enhancements, since about the time I got SOs at first, and saw how easy they made the game.
HOWEVER, in the defense of not only myself but the other people (there were some) calling for diminishing returns, some mitigating circumstances:
- Mission difficulty settings did not exist back then -- everyone was playing on Heroic, and Heroic was a complete joke once you got a full set of SOs (as we all know, since many of us talk about playing on Rugged+ both solo and in teams on this very forum).
- This was like I1 or maybe I2... there had not only been no defense nerfs but base defenses were buffed around that time for, e.g., SR scrappers and some others.
- Nobody ever suggested a steep drop like they have now. People were talking gradual drops, such as, 33% for SO#1, 30% for #2, 25% for #2, 20% for #4, etc. Not 33, 33, 33, 5, 5, 5 or whatever they did now.
- So far as I know, *all* discussion of diminishing returns was restricted to 'schedule A' (we didn't call it that then)... that is, the 33% adders, on the theory that tripling the base was not reasonable, because it forces people to enhance a certain way (and it does). I don't recall anyone complaining about defenses because defenses, at best, could only be slightly more than doubled. The concern was the RANGE, that the weakest a "schedule A"-enhanced power could be was X, and the strongest it could be was 3X, and how in the world coud the devs possibly balance an enemy for the guy with X and the guy with 3X?
- I, at least, and I know a few others did as well, proposed that they RAISE the base while LOWERING the enhancements. The idea was, make it less critical exactly how you enhance your powers because they start out decent to begin with.
I am quite sure that *nobody* at the time (or ever) suggested slashing the base powers of defenses by 50% or more and THEN slashing the enhancement ability by 50% at the same time. Nobody was asking to lower the total maximum allowable offense or defense. People were trying to argue that the RANGE was making it very hard to balance, and that once you got SOs into all your slots the game (pre-difficulty "slider") was thus too easy.
Once they'd nerfed defenses and added a difficulty slider, neither I nor, most likely, anyone else who had been suggesting diminishing returns on enhancements would've thought it was necessary any longer.
This is all a way of saying that Statesman's comment was technically accurate (I and others did suggest "diminishing returns" for enhancements) but it's totally out of context, because we were suggesting it in a totally different setting, 3 or 4 publishes ago... NOT post I-5.
F
Ah, Statesman's just trying to blame the victim.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Pretty much, Kali.
Too bad for Statesman I have a memory like an elephant. 
F
While my answer is flip, and while it may be true from a certain point of view that ED was inspired by forum suggestions, I would also suggest that using it as an example that the devs listen to our suggestions and implement them is frelling insane. The announcement on the CoV beta forums provoked one of the nastiest prolonged responses to any change ever, that spilled onto the official forums in a wave of NDA-breaking posts that had to be deleted, and the whole plan had to be announced early because there was no way they could possibly keep the lid on the whole thing. The response once it hit the live forum continued to snowball, and as far as I can tell, has not stopped.
Had this been introduced at any time other than CoV's launch, I suspect that they would have seen people putting their money where their mouth is. To be honest, once the shine wears off, I think they'll be seeing it anyway.
If anything, it's a resounding example of how, when the devs make up their mind about something, they tune us out. They can point to how they offered an absurdly nerfed regen in issue 3 and said they rolled it back when we didn't like it...but they nerfed regen multiple times afterward, to the point that it iis actually weaker than it was with unstackable Integration and Instant Healing. Much weaker. The same with Burn and Taunt, and how they went ahead with the I3 change later on, after they moved status protection into the shields and addressed the main complaint - that Burn causing flee made it impossible to tank.
ED's scale isn't really as bad as it looks, but the impact of it hitting right on the heals of issue 5 was incredibly bad timing...except, as I said, City of Villains took a lot of the edge off. Had they waited until issue 7 the reaction would've been much, much worse.
I'm not saying this is unversally true - both Castle and Jonyu have been extremely responsive to player concerns. Castle's willing to offer all kinds of information and has taken feedback from the forum to change the game. Jonyu's arranged for changes to armor sets to make them much less annoying, among other things.
I'm also not saying that everything players on the forum want are necessarily good things. However, it seems that the devs are willing to implement changse that, admittedly, suck like a vaccuumx and only pay lip-service to the idea that they listen.
Also, happy with Vigilance? Do they even play the same game?
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
I do remember a debate in the closed beta about SO being too powerful. I also talked to Jack, face-to-face, at a GenCon about adjusting SO's since they were the problem. He said it was too difficult to do.
Kali needs to keep posting the truism she has used in the past. The Devs will have three solutions for a problem. Any one of which would solve it. They will implement all three.
Well, Kali, I've been complaining that the game has been broken since November of 2004 because of easy early access to SOs.
Maybe it's a good thing that the DEVs incorporated ED rather than some of the stuff I suggested:
Making SOs and influence untradable
Making SOs only available by drops
Rolling back the value of all enhancements by 30-50%
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."
I still think my limited enhancement idea would have been better than ED. The power levels would be very similar though.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could care less about toggle dropping in PVP wish they would lower the NPCS so my brutes/tanks and scrappers would not get stunned on large teams unless they have the right helpers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Eh? Even with the mez resistance hit, tanks and scrappers still have a pretty good mez protection. And if you're on a large team, odds are you're going to see more mez buffs from controllers/defenders.
[/ QUOTE ]
Got held twice in PI with my 50 Fire/Ice against 2 Death Mages. Faceplanted. Went back and they did it again. Same two guys! After that I "arrested" 40 with no problem and ran up to 6 at once. Go figure.
Last night with my Axe/Fire I was toggle dropped once - I got to run away. Once actually killed by freeze by a Cryo Scientist. Sure, cold is a problem for him, but that was a very quick death.
I have been toggle dropped with my scrapper many times lately. At least with him, his primary is so powerful I can still destroy the enemy. My tanks primary is his powerful side too but is toggle heavy. Toggle dropping needs to end cuz in PvP my tanks are fodder, bad enough it is done in PvE, but PvP it happens with almost every encounter.
I am Airman America... Super Hero... and I approve this message!
[ QUOTE ]
His one posted test involved using the broken version of Invincibility. He also completely glosses over the fact that when buffed, any AT can Tank, so what then is so special about Tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of the game is to make sure there isn't an ideal team composition. So, yes, a Scrapper, with buffs, can tank, but not as well as a Tanker. Why? Because 1) a Tanker starts with higher resistances/defenses and 2) he has Punchvoke and thus can manage the aggro better.
come to Champion's Tanker Tuesday to see whats special about tanks!
States, I think the biggest issue that tankers seem to have is that scrappers appear to be able to find defenders to assist, and make the need of a tanker secondary. If you have a scrapper, defender and controller in a group, and you have an AV, why get a tanker when you can get a defender who can buff everyone's damage/debuff mobs, along with adding enough to make the scrapper be able to tank the AV?
Likewise, with the reductions in i5, scrappers got a 12.5% damage buff. Tankers got a taunt cap and agro cap in i6. Tankers are feeling neglected, and the climate here is bad. Offering us something, anything, that will buff our defenses comparable to scrapper offenses would be lovely. As it stands, many tankers feel they must have a defender to tank AV's. That's an inversion of what the climate was like in i4, when defenders felt that they were not needed. Likewise, with defenders and controllers both being able to buff, there is more than enough options to helping a scrapper do what a tanker could. While tankers do have an edge, some scrappers can have higher resistance/defense to some attacks and more HP than tankers (see Fire tankers opposed to Invuln scrappers against a S/L/Cold mob). And that's without any buffs.
We're trying to tank, States. Give us something to let us do our job better, and we'll be happy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His one posted test involved using the broken version of Invincibility. He also completely glosses over the fact that when buffed, any AT can Tank, so what then is so special about Tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of the game is to make sure there isn't an ideal team composition. So, yes, a Scrapper, with buffs, can tank, but not as well as a Tanker. Why? Because 1) a Tanker starts with higher resistances/defenses and 2) he has Punchvoke and thus can manage the aggro better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Must ..... resist ....... pointless ...... comment.
Ahhhhh, I just can't resist.
He called it Punchvoke, not Gauntlet. Proof Positive that Punchvoke is the proper name, and Gauntlet should go away. 
Sorry 'bout that States, but I just couldn't resist, it's one of my many weaknesses.
I do have to say, that is one of the great strengths of this game. I love joining a Pick-Up Group, and finding a way to adapt my abilities with the mostly random group make-up. It is great fun to find the "groove" for a partictular group.
There is still a problem, and maybe it's only in the early levels. As a tank, If I don't go the a-typical Taunt+Massivly stressing defence (especially HP increasing powers like dull pain), I end up being much more of a drag on the team, as opposed to a benifit.
I suppose that in the upper levels, Punchvoke increases effectiveness to the point where it will draw the ire of villians. This is not the case in the early levels. I, for one, have basically given up teaming with my tanks until much later in levels because of this problem. There is nothing I hate more than being a drag on a team. It's embarising.
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His one posted test involved using the broken version of Invincibility. He also completely glosses over the fact that when buffed, any AT can Tank, so what then is so special about Tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of the game is to make sure there isn't an ideal team composition. So, yes, a Scrapper, with buffs, can tank, but not as well as a Tanker. Why? Because 1) a Tanker starts with higher resistances/defenses and 2) he has Punchvoke and thus can manage the aggro better.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the problem that I see. On heroic in a 5 man team during our testing I really didn't see the need for anyone to "tank" for the team. Each of us was more then capable of handling whatever aggro came our way and or supporting each other if a need arose. So if there is no need for anyone to "tank" on that difficulty what job does the tank have on a team playing on heroic?
I am personally beginning to think that at higher difficulty levels a tank might find a place were he needs to "tank" for the team because of the increased danger but while he has punchvoke to grab aggro does not a scrapper's high damage output also grab aggro and since that scrapper does have the highest brawl number doesn't he do enough to ensure he has that aggro over other members of the team. And while sure the tank has higher caps the only caps that really matter are resist ones and not every defender/controller can even buff these.
In your ask stateman section you just about say the reason tanks got nerfed in I5 was so sonic defenders had a place, but with ED coming were they not going to have a place anyway so was I5 really needed to do that?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: Circeus
.
[ QUOTE ]
I've responded to the tanker issue - I've played builds myself, described my tactics. I'll gladly try different builds and circumstances...but all in all, I feel a tanker can still Tank.
[/ QUOTE ]
.
And I still call BS. His one posted test involved using the broken version of Invincibility. He also completely glosses over the fact that when buffed, any AT can Tank, so what then is so special about Tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
I call BS because in his example he didn't do anything my Blaster couldn't do. Strongmen don't have ranged attacks that I can remember so keep just out of melee reach and pepper his buddies with dmg.
If you see someone going after a person and their health goes red blast them and they will turn on you easily enough.
If a decent Blaster can do the same thing Statesman did with little risk then he wasn't doing anything that required a tanker to do successfully.
As for the tanking......
Well I can't recall any good examples where a Tank started taunting bad guys AFTER someone went red. Any decent or good tanks that I've played with tend to actively control aggro so that people don't take lethal damage not taunt after they are near dead or closer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Gideon, I really love pick-up teams. Since they're not quite as good, generally, as those who play together a lot, I adopted a technique when I scranked on those teams.
I would concentrate on initially taunting the spawn to keep them around me and then did as much damage as I could while keeping an eye on my teammates' health bars. When I saw a teammate fall into the yellow (usually through their own inexperience more than anything else), I would target through them and taunt the enemy they were focused on.
Nine out of ten times, this would pull away the guys giving them the most trouble and they'd recover in the breathing space they got.
So, there are a few of us who have done this. For the most part, it's not necessary in a good team unless things really start to go south.
On a large team, it's really not as possible now to keep aggro away from everyone on the team and survive at the higher difficulty levels. Therefore, more of the team *are* going to be falling into the yellow and red than they used to.
Mr. Lithuania
Jessica to Nathan in bed: "I'm not really bad, Isaac just drew me that way."