[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, the def/troller group should certainly talk about this if this would even be considered. It seems like a dramatic change that should be thought out and tested.
I do think it makes sense. Also, I wouldn't see this requiring tankers in particular since buffers would only need protection. Tankers might make a great choice (since that's their role) but Scrappers and Blasters could switch targets.
But the devil is in the details (i.e. what generates aggro, how much aggro etc.). For example, what if buffs only produce aggro in nearby bosses and lts since they are the "smart" mobs? They're the ones that figure out "hey, that Scrapper is still standing bc of the funny looking guy glowing green!" The minions act the same ol' stupid way, to avoid def/trollers being mobbed by everyone.
From a priority standpoint, I'd go with a less dramatic change like increasing non-S/L RES.
[/ QUOTE ]
The argument/idea does have merits though since the idea is supposed to be about being "active" and "at risk". These terms were used liberally through out the explanation of I5 and ED being necessities. I for one would like to see it tested (on a limited or event base scale).
Shell game: Arc_ID:417344: It can't be good for humanity if the Circle of Thorns, Banished Pantheon and The Vahzilok are making deals.
A Final Solution: Arc_ID:402587: Earth is under stress. Every being she has spawned and some she hasn't want to possess her. Some of her children believe they have a way to put a stop to this and bring a peace.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, the def/troller group should certainly talk about this if this would even be considered. It seems like a dramatic change that should be thought out and tested.
I do think it makes sense. Also, I wouldn't see this requiring tankers in particular since buffers would only need protection. Tankers might make a great choice (since that's their role) but Scrappers and Blasters could switch targets.
But the devil is in the details (i.e. what generates aggro, how much aggro etc.). For example, what if buffs only produce aggro in nearby bosses and lts since they are the "smart" mobs? They're the ones that figure out "hey, that Scrapper is still standing bc of the funny looking guy glowing green!" The minions act the same ol' stupid way, to avoid def/trollers being mobbed by everyone.
From a priority standpoint, I'd go with a less dramatic change like increasing non-S/L RES.
[/ QUOTE ]
The argument/idea does have merits though since the idea is supposed to be about being "active" and "at risk". These terms were used liberally through out the explanation of I5 and ED being necessities. I for one would like to see it tested (on a limited or event base scale).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. That seems like another step on the road to "fixed team requirements"
I do not believe a defender should need a tank any more than I feel a tank should need a defender.
One of the things I (and seemingly all the reviews I ever read) liked about this game was free flowing combat and easy teaming.
You shouldn't need the perfect team but when you have one you should bump up the difficulty. That is why there is no problem with tanks being powerful when buffed.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
No denying that it could lead there. No denying that it would be a bad thing if it did go there. On the other hand , however, it might tend to show up something that has bothered me from day one. That being the false necessity of interdependency that the game was designed on.
I know I'm going to get beat up on this but, how many people go through life wanting to depend on others as opposed to simply wanting others to be dependable?
What I mean is I'd have much rather had seen a system that everyone could be self sufficient reaching whatever soft caps were set by themselves( with an ATless structure gudied by power selection trees) but finding when teamed with others that they could be pushed well beyond it. People would team out of desire rather than necessity.
Now some people would say we already have this and I can see their point of view.
My perspective is that we don't quite have it and its by design that we don't and I really don't understand why it has to be this way. However be that as it may we have what we have.
A while back the call rang out for greater challenge. I think AI using typical human player tactics would definitely answer that call. If spawns did rush the Defenders and Controllers first then one possible solution would be to buff them so they could handle it. If you don't want to increase their power perhaps cut their recharge times again. This is all PvE theorizing by the way. Keep their abilities at the ready but the end costs remain the same. Sort of "the spirit is willing..." scenario. As for Tanks well then we'd soon know if the tools given for aggro management were sufficient.
Perhaps spawns without leaders would use the current AI. Given LTs and up they'd choose their target. Team dynamics would definitely come into play then. Slow powers would have even more value to teams.
There's more but I gotta do work stuff.
Shell game: Arc_ID:417344: It can't be good for humanity if the Circle of Thorns, Banished Pantheon and The Vahzilok are making deals.
A Final Solution: Arc_ID:402587: Earth is under stress. Every being she has spawned and some she hasn't want to possess her. Some of her children believe they have a way to put a stop to this and bring a peace.
[ QUOTE ]
Umm...so nowadays what do you call a tanker that is not inv or stone that can still take all the aggro for an 8 person rugged spawn without support?
A fluke?
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you responding to the person you hit reply to? If so he said nothing about Inv or Stone tanking and others not he said scrappers can tank just as well as tanks. I tend to agree with that.
Scrappers with a team of 8 as you say will have support in the form of their teammates. Even if all 7 are blasters. The sheer damage output of the team will be immense they should have little trouble destroying anything they find quick and easily. Actual tanking will be limited but what need there is for it the scrapper can handle Add in controllers and/or defenders and that scrapper can handle a whole lot more plus with controllers you get holds and possible pets to add to the aggro control equation. Sure a tank can tank but in our test on heroic we found no need for anyone to tank, we replaced the tank with scrappers and a defender and noticed no drop off in survivability. Strangly we also noted no drop off in XP/minute either. And by the way we did test Ice/Fire and Fire/Fire also not just Inv and Stone. Point was on heroic we simply didn't notice a real need for anyone to "tank". We are talking about testing on higher difficulty settings and seeing if that changes. That really will be the test. If we find that the tank does end up adding value to the team in the higher difficulty setting that would be something, if not then I think we may just have a problem. If there's no need to "tank" then what value does a tank have? But first we need to show that before we try and answer it.
However certainly on heroic the question really is what need is there for a tank or a defense buffing defender if there doesn't seem to be any real need for defenses?
Ill throw in my two Influence.
First off I want to say that I am not requesting nerfs of any sort. That being said, Tanks have come full circle. It used to be that tanks were seen as a drag to an average xp team. This was before sliders, AoE taunt, and the damage increase. We basically required less support, so a defender could buff and heal the squishies, while we used provoke, and auras to taunt minions and LT's, unable to do much damage, while the team did the actual arresting. The only time we really had a big roll was for AV's, unless you were Ice, and then you could be 1-2 shotted (sadly that is even more the case today).
Tanks were unhappy, and positive changes were made. Tanks had their damage upped so that they were more comparable to the scrapper damage/our defense- our defense/scrapper damage ratio. We were no longer required to take power pools to fullfil out our precieved role as taunt was now awsome. Life was good, and tanks were happy.
Yes Power leveling was a problem. Yes, tanks were guilty of it. However tanks were not the only ones who could herd. In fact, inspite of the nerfs, Dreck herd PL's still go on. Just in slightly smaller groups of mobs thanks to the aggro cap.
Thanks to I5 and I6 Tanks are right back to where we were I2. I now play a MC/Emp controller, and many times I have seen tanks leave and a scrapper come in to replace him. Most often, the group does better with the scrapper. Fights are shorter, meaning less heals, less endurance drain, less down time, and safer. Aggro Managment? Scrappers often have auras, and multiple AoE attacks. As long as the rest of the team knows how to manage their aggro, that works just as well as punchvoke or taunt. The only time a Tank becomes slightly better is on certain AV's. Even then, a controller can take care of that to a certain extent. Granted, this is an either or type situation. Of course the best option is having both AT's in the group. But if having to make the choice right now between a scrapper or a tank, it's not even a choice. The scrapper can tank and aggro about as well with my buffs, and add hugely greater dps.
States had issues with defenders feeling not needed in groups. This wasn't quite true. Non-Empathy were not needed for the most part, with occasional exceptions being Kinetics and Rad. I also have a high lvl 3D and I remember well the "RU A HEALER?" tells. He succeeded in his goal of making buffers/debuffers more wanted, needed in fact in large teams. It used to be that if you couldn't find a defender you would grab a good tank, as he didn't need the extra support. Now the tank needs defender suport most of all.
I think the solution is to either give us back our taunt, or increase our defenses/resists to get us back to being an alternative to having defender support. Specificly, bring our taunt up to 10 mobs, so that we are far and away better aggro control. You may say we are now, but really it isn't that noticible. A scrapper with his AoE's and auras is about as effective in a good team. Since we need support anyways, and as we are comparatively slow to kill stuff and have gelded defenses/resists, the added aggro won't go back to the old PL'ing days as we would need an active group to keep us alive and actually kill everything.
Or alternativley, keep our nerfed taunt, and up our defenses and resists so that we are once again we are an alternative to a team heavey buff/heal support. Maybe not quite I4 levels, but significant enough that an unbuffed tank can survive the alpha of a 10 +2 con mob group, and last several seconds as the balance of the team takes them out. He may need to use dull pain, and or a green inpiration. He may even be close to the red at the end. Thats not an unreasonable expectation, but a huge improvement over where we are today. A good benchmark to try for would be to have a buffed scrapper (non-stacking buffs) be equal defense and resist wise to a non-buffed tanker. That way the tanker can fill in for a lack of support.
I do not want nerfs, nor do I want more damage. What I want for my tanks is to not be marginalized.
So when do tanks get a better inherant power. theirs is th eonly one that doesnt do anything in PvP. I say tanks get a bar like domination that once full gives access to a Instant Healing type power.
[ QUOTE ]
That, should something like that go into effect, would be a step in the direction of undoing what states and company are trying to accomplish. And that is, a game where any group makeup is viable. Right now, tanks requaring support to "tank" is a step in the wrong direction, but the dev's seem oblivious to this. You add in the healer hate every other MMO seems to have, and it's a step FURTER in the wrong direction. Once you start having AT's depended on other AT's to do there job, you lose viritiy, and we become like everyone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
If tankers should require defenders, I don't see why defenders shouldn't require tankers.
Also, the aggro model in CoH is so childishly simple it's a [censored] insult for it to be any AT's primary job.
[ QUOTE ]
One taunt bot, one heal bot, maybe a buffer/debuff, then the rest damage, that would become the standered team makeup of CoH, just like it is everywhere else. The almighty "pull" would become the tactic of the day, and we'd basically end up being EQ in tights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Holy slippery slope, Batman. There is a vast tract of land between "healing and buffing generating hate" and "now we're all forced into the holy EQ trinity."
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)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heals and buffs should generate more aggro than they do.
The first reaction of most teams who confront a group of Tsoo is, "Find the sorcerer first! Kill the sorcerers!" The sorcerers will heal and buff the bad guys and debuff the team. They therefore must die first. Same way with Sky Raider Engineers. Same way with Devouring Earth, at least when emanators used to drop regularly.
The AI should operate somewhat similarly.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to fit right into the whole idea of "risk vs reward." Your presence provides a big boost to any team you're on. I don't see why there shouldn't be a bit more risk for that.
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)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heals and buffs should generate more aggro than they do.
The first reaction of most teams who confront a group of Tsoo is, "Find the sorcerer first! Kill the sorcerers!" The sorcerers will heal and buff the bad guys and debuff the team. They therefore must die first. Same way with Sky Raider Engineers. Same way with Devouring Earth, at least when emanators used to drop regularly.
The AI should operate somewhat similarly.
[/ QUOTE ]
While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to fit right into the whole idea of "risk vs reward." Your presence provides a big boost to any team you're on. I don't see why there shouldn't be a bit more risk for that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking directly to the statement of risk vs reward, I'd agree.
However I don't think they'd take that step because now it would force a confrontation between ideals, logic and their perceptions of "fun".
I want it understood that I'm not being "snarky" or whatever term is used to convey vitriol because I'm genuinely not.
Its easy to be true to an ideal to a point and even proudly espouse it from a particular perspective, however when that ideal is confronted with converse logic from another perspective it becomes harder to defend without deferring to personal subjectivity.
Such would be the case here. The idea was to make the game more challenging (I've got plenty of issues regarding this statement, but be that as it may) so to do so everyone suffered reductions in various forms. Upon further inspection it was decided that danger/damage mitigation provided by tanks was too much. Further reductions ensued.
Other ways were discussed to increase "challenge" however the approaches taken were I5 and ED for various reasons not the least of which was to ensure the viability of all ATs in a team so that none were rendered useless.
Tanks were hit quite hard. The Devs saw this as being necessary to achieve their goals using terms like "risk vs reward" as justifications for their actions. Also stating that Tanks should not be holding all of the aggro for 8 man teams for indefinite periods of time. Fine.
Tanks then can ask if challenge is the goal as well as risk vs reward being the justification then why not truly add challenge and have the mobs behave almost like human players in what and how they'd choose to fight /attack? In other words attack the squishies and leave the naugahide for last. Have the bad guys employ true "fight to win" strategies.
Various answers would ensue from all the affected communities as well as the Dev team itself however, to me , it would boil down to their subjective view point overiding an opposing perspectives objectivity. In other words it wouldn't be "fun" from their perspective.
Again my post is not in anyway intended to be construed as being harsh or antagonisitic. More just a statement of opinion. 
Shell game: Arc_ID:417344: It can't be good for humanity if the Circle of Thorns, Banished Pantheon and The Vahzilok are making deals.
A Final Solution: Arc_ID:402587: Earth is under stress. Every being she has spawned and some she hasn't want to possess her. Some of her children believe they have a way to put a stop to this and bring a peace.
[ QUOTE ]
In other words attack the squishies and leave the naugahide for last. Have the bad guys employ true "fight to win" strategies.
[/ QUOTE ] To clarify my thoughts, I wasn't suggesting that mobs ignore everyone else (like the Scrapper who's hitting them, the Blaster who's shooting them or the Tanker who just taunted them). That doesn't seem right either. But should buffs cause aggro? Makes sense to me. Again, the devil is in the details (what causes aggro, how much aggro).
As an unintended side effect, I also see that this could have an effect on buffing defenders who solo, since they may be subject to more heat than usual. OTOH, debuffing defenders have already lived with this.
My view is that this is a dramatic change and should be thought out before implementing. But the question arose out of the concern of "when is aggro management needed?" This suggestion was designed to increase the situations where aggro management is needed. But I think its a good question that should be answered.
Another possible answer: better mish design. For example, I was running in a pentad vs BP. The objective was to protect a tome. It was in the middle of this vast room populated with rows of columns. We took out the spawns on the fringes. We locked and loaded and assaulted the middle spawn whom we quickly defeated. Then we waited for the waves of BP to descend upon us...
This had the makings of an epic battle. We had only two melee fighters, a tanker (myself) and a scrapper. One defender. Two blasters. So we stood our ground to protect the tome. Scrapper on the north side. Tanker on the south. Squishes between us. I went into "full tanker mode", expecting that I would need to focus exclusively on getting baddies off the blasters so they could work their mojo. We expected we all would be fighting for our lives amidst a horde of enemies coming from all sides...
They didn't. They came through one door. And the waves weren't that big. So I stood by the door, held aggro, while the D3 debuffed em (and tar pitted the door), Scrapper sliced em and the Blasters AoE'd em into oblivion. What a let down.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In other words attack the squishies and leave the naugahide for last. Have the bad guys employ true "fight to win" strategies.
[/ QUOTE ] To clarify my thoughts, I wasn't suggesting that mobs ignore everyone else (like the Scrapper who's hitting them, the Blaster who's shooting them or the Tanker who just taunted them). That doesn't seem right either. But should buffs cause aggro? Makes sense to me. Again, the devil is in the details (what causes aggro, how much aggro).
As an unintended side effect, I also see that this could have an effect on buffing defenders who solo, since they may be subject to more heat than usual. OTOH, debuffing defenders have already lived with this.
My view is that this is a dramatic change and should be thought out before implementing. But the question arose out of the concern of "when is aggro management needed?" This suggestion was designed to increase the situations where aggro management is needed. But I think its a good question that should be answered.
Another possible answer: better mish design. For example, I was running in a pentad vs BP. The objective was to protect a tome. It was in the middle of this vast room populated with rows of columns. We took out the spawns on the fringes. We locked and loaded and assaulted the middle spawn whom we quickly defeated. Then we waited for the waves of BP to descend upon us...
This had the makings of an epic battle. We had only two melee fighters, a tanker (myself) and a scrapper. One defender. Two blasters. So we stood our ground to protect the tome. Scrapper on the north side. Tanker on the south. Squishes between us. I went into "full tanker mode", expecting that I would need to focus exclusively on getting baddies off the blasters so they could work their mojo. We expected we all would be fighting for our lives amidst a horde of enemies coming from all sides...
They didn't. They came through one door. And the waves weren't that big. So I stood by the door, held aggro, while the D3 debuffed em (and tar pitted the door), Scrapper sliced em and the Blasters AoE'd em into oblivion. What a let down.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope I didn't misrepresent your thoughts on the matter. If so I apologize. Actually you say that they shouldn't ignore the threat attacking them directly or even taunts. I would agree with this for some mobs. However, to me, there would be some who might given that they're too mindless (Vaz and Hydra zombies and blobs respectively) or given to single mindedness(Cot and Tsoo Demons/Spirits) and strictly disciplined (Council, Nemesis and Malta) under normal circumstances. I thnk a case can be made for some who would by pass normal aggro rules as a strategy for winning.
Does that mean assault of Defenders/Controllers as THE primary targets in all cases? Not necessarily. Some scripts may opt to target the highest damage dealers first in which case it could be a toss up between the Scrapper and Blaster. Some may use their own defenders (Cot and Tsoo) to try and scatter the team or keep them from their damage dealers. When was the last time Cot or Tsoo used rain powers on heroes? I can see Mort ordering 1 or 2 Zombies to stay near him and just spit at Tanks at range, as a viable strategy, even running away if the tank gets too close. Frustrating but viable.
Should buffs could cause aggro? Yes, if noticed by an officer or happen in close proximity to a mob. That'd be my feeling.
I agree that things like this would be a dramatic change but no more so than I5 or ED. After all the general feeling after these were introduced was bascially and rather callously "adapt or die". The same would be true here and for those truly seeking challenge then this would start to approach having it. This would truly test whether the tools given for aggro management are sufficent or even neccesary if the rule of the day is everyone should be responsible for their own aggro.
As to mission design in your scenario I don't know why it didn't behave like the Terra Volta Trial where they will sometimes spill out of two doors at once. Perhaps it had something to do with the difficulty slider? I don't know, just guessing.
Shell game: Arc_ID:417344: It can't be good for humanity if the Circle of Thorns, Banished Pantheon and The Vahzilok are making deals.
A Final Solution: Arc_ID:402587: Earth is under stress. Every being she has spawned and some she hasn't want to possess her. Some of her children believe they have a way to put a stop to this and bring a peace.
[ QUOTE ]
From Statesman on the Euro forums:
[ 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 ]
Sorry didn't read a lot of this thead but this caught my eye.
What Statesman says here is true by and large .... Tankers can still tank by the strictest of definitions.
What I think Statesman needs to do is play a Tanker for a solid 2 weeks, everyday (same Tanker). I would highly suggest him starting with an L20 Tanker.
Let him play his Tanker 2-3 hours (at a clip) everyday, 6 days a week (1 day off for good behavior) for 2 weeks.
Then let's hear his opinion of the Tanker from a "how much fun did he have playing it" perspective. I'd be really interested to hear his thoughts under those circumstances.
But he won't.
Why?
Who wants to be that bored for 2 weeks? 
[ QUOTE ]
What Statesman says here is true by and large .... Tankers can still tank by the strictest of definitions.
[/ QUOTE ]
And he's also admitted that anyone can Tank. So if Tanking is supposed to be the realm of Tankers, and anyone can Tank, then what again is so special about Tanks? (possible answers that have been disproven by these conversations: agro management, and higher health)
[ QUOTE ]
What I think Statesman needs to do is play a Tanker for a solid 2 weeks, everyday (same Tanker). I would highly suggest him starting with an L20 Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think he specifically has to play all 4 primaries from 10 through 20 as well. He's really completely crippled Tankers in this level range, and its in many respects due to the ordering of the powersets, and in some cases (Ice comes to mind) where some powers are simply too weak in some respects.
Then he should try 20+ on each Primary as you say.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the sentiment, but I forsee a likely outcome I am strongly opposed to: that having a healer/buffer requires a counter aggro magnet for that character to survive.
I see nothing about current conditions that warrant even risking that outcome.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see why it'd be a problem, actually. I meanif tankers are going to need defenders to survive the aggro they draw, why shouldn't defenders need tankers to hold the aggro. If anything, it'll give tankers more reason to hold that aggro.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd rather not see another AT crippled just because we're suffering.
Tanks shouldn't need defenders, making defenders need tanks isn't
going to make anything right in the world, it'll just make another
set of players unhappy. Not what CoH needs atm.
[ QUOTE ]
As to mission design in your scenario I don't know why it didn't behave like the Terra Volta Trial where they will sometimes spill out of two doors at once. Perhaps it had something to do with the difficulty slider? I don't know, just guessing.
[/ QUOTE ]
The diff was Unyielding. And the con lvl was not that important to me, it was the number of mobs and where they were coming from. I haven't done the TV respec so I look forward to tackling that one.
Good ideas in your post BTW. Increasing mob AI is something I support, tho I've been told and have read that dev's don't see this as a high priority atm.
They should get something like this:
The more tanks become injured, the more resilient they become.
A useful PvP inherent power too IMO.
[ QUOTE ]
They should get something like this:
The more tanks become injured, the more resilient they become.
A useful PvP inherent power too IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've already posted on this before, but while I agree that something like this would be great, I would prefer that it be an active measure, rather than a reactive measure as you suggest.
The performance of the type of power you are talking about would be hard limited at the survivability based on a large number of infinitesimal strikes. Whereas it's actual performance will fall below that and depend only on the hit sizes, a property of the mob rather than a property of the playstyle.
I would prefer an active measure (a la the oft suggested defensive Fury bar or something along those lines) that depends on the playstyle/tactics for the bonus such that our abilities can be improved through good play, rather than by the size of the hits we encounter.
To me the the fundamental difficulty in the AT design (completely aside from the entire balance issue right now) is the passive nature of the primary.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually you say that they shouldn't ignore the threat attacking them directly or even taunts. I would agree with this for some mobs. However, to me, there would be some who might given that they're too mindless (Vaz and Hydra zombies and blobs respectively) or given to single mindedness(Cot and Tsoo Demons/Spirits) and strictly disciplined (Council, Nemesis and Malta) under normal circumstances. I thnk a case can be made for some who would by pass normal aggro rules as a strategy for winning.
Does that mean assault of Defenders/Controllers as THE primary targets in all cases? Not necessarily.
[/ QUOTE ]
An interesting question in all this is what happens in PVP?
I don't do PVP at all, so maybe this isn't an issue. Is PVP usually soloists in "every man for himself" mode? Or do you get teams fighting each other?
I would certainly ignore the tank and go for the healer/buffer FIRST if I were in PVP, because that's just what makes sense. The tank has the least ability to *do* anything to you, and good luck taking his HP down if he's got someone heal-camping him or buffing him. The defender, however, even buffed is a squishy, and you could seriously increase your chance of winning by getting rid of him first. The controller has all those holds (and the ability to toggle-drop) and is therefore extremely dangerous.
I agree, some minons, like the Vahz, are mindless. These guys could easily follow the normal (current) aggro rules. But any villain with half a brain, and certainly those being directed by LTs or especially Bosses, should be smart enough to size up the danger and figure out the proper order of attacking things, and just by common sense that order is NOT always Tanker first Defender last... and is usually the reverse.
I'd be interested to know what happens in PVP. How do defenders on teams survive without the stupidity of the AI on their side? And if they can survive PVP, then why wouldn't they survive in PVE also?
I'm just curious really.. I don't expect any of this to change.
F
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually you say that they shouldn't ignore the threat attacking them directly or even taunts. I would agree with this for some mobs. However, to me, there would be some who might given that they're too mindless (Vaz and Hydra zombies and blobs respectively) or given to single mindedness(Cot and Tsoo Demons/Spirits) and strictly disciplined (Council, Nemesis and Malta) under normal circumstances. I thnk a case can be made for some who would by pass normal aggro rules as a strategy for winning.
Does that mean assault of Defenders/Controllers as THE primary targets in all cases? Not necessarily.
[/ QUOTE ]
An interesting question in all this is what happens in PVP?
I don't do PVP at all, so maybe this isn't an issue. Is PVP usually soloists in "every man for himself" mode? Or do you get teams fighting each other?
I would certainly ignore the tank and go for the healer/buffer FIRST if I were in PVP, because that's just what makes sense. The tank has the least ability to *do* anything to you, and good luck taking his HP down if he's got someone heal-camping him or buffing him. The defender, however, even buffed is a squishy, and you could seriously increase your chance of winning by getting rid of him first. The controller has all those holds (and the ability to toggle-drop) and is therefore extremely dangerous.
I agree, some minons, like the Vahz, are mindless. These guys could easily follow the normal (current) aggro rules. But any villain with half a brain, and certainly those being directed by LTs or especially Bosses, should be smart enough to size up the danger and figure out the proper order of attacking things, and just by common sense that order is NOT always Tanker first Defender last... and is usually the reverse.
I'd be interested to know what happens in PVP. How do defenders on teams survive without the stupidity of the AI on their side? And if they can survive PVP, then why wouldn't they survive in PVE also?
I'm just curious really.. I don't expect any of this to change.
F
[/ QUOTE ]
Well from what I've seen a lot of pvp tends to be divide and conquer with some (not all) outright gankfests. Now my experiences are admittedly limited to passer-by observations and the occasional pick ups.
So tactically try to imagine taking on a 5-8+ man spawn of even to purple con paragon protectors solo and that would give you an idea of what I've seen on occasion.
Usually at the center of it was a Brute or Tank, dying or escaping. How would Defenders or Controllers fare in something like that? Not too well I should think. Which would accurately reflect fighting a horde solo.
Look I truly dislike toggle dropping but if people say there is not enough challenge then implement more of it in pve as well.
Have the mobs go after the Defenders/Controllers/Blasters.
Have them try to Mez neutralize and overwhelm the Scrappers. Drop the Tanks toggles. Have them fight like they mean it.
Then after all of this if there still isn't enough challenge then double the spawn sizes and halve or quarter our defenses and offensive capabilities again. After all for some the magnitude of the abilities our characters have is unimportant. The fact that they have them at all is what makes them feel super.
Now to be a bit less draconian perhaps these measures could be taken on a new difficulty slider setting called nightmare. Those who truly want a challenge get set teams up for it and get greater XP rewards. I'd be all for making whole new storyarcs based on their uber eliteness at handling 2 AVs at once in a closed room with no exits that summoned 8 man spawns of bosses lt and minions at every 25% health drop. That is a challenge.
Shell game: Arc_ID:417344: It can't be good for humanity if the Circle of Thorns, Banished Pantheon and The Vahzilok are making deals.
A Final Solution: Arc_ID:402587: Earth is under stress. Every being she has spawned and some she hasn't want to possess her. Some of her children believe they have a way to put a stop to this and bring a peace.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Statesman says here is true by and large .... Tankers can still tank by the strictest of definitions.
[/ QUOTE ]
And he's also admitted that anyone can Tank. So if Tanking is supposed to be the realm of Tankers, and anyone can Tank, then what again is so special about Tanks? (possible answers that have been disproven by these conversations: agro management, and higher health)
[ QUOTE ]
What I think Statesman needs to do is play a Tanker for a solid 2 weeks, everyday (same Tanker). I would highly suggest him starting with an L20 Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think he specifically has to play all 4 primaries from 10 through 20 as well. He's really completely crippled Tankers in this level range, and its in many respects due to the ordering of the powersets, and in some cases (Ice comes to mind) where some powers are simply too weak in some respects.
Then he should try 20+ on each Primary as you say.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, Krunch, that an extended period is needed to get the feel for the AT now, not a test here with one configuration, and a test there with another. But I would also agree with Circeus that the levels before 20 are where the tank AT has been hit the hardest, and that range should also be played at length. I was going to reply and say back it up to lvl 14, at least, but lvl 10 would be the better starting point.
@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
True but L10-20 has always been the hardest levels for a Tanker. The mitigating circumstance (to me) here is that you can fly through the teens in less then a week if that's your desire.
But yeah I agree that these levels would be good to show how Tankers have been affected by the I5 + ED changes (then again, the way Statesman tanks, maybe not .... fuggin 2 mob hittin' pansy 
).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What Statesman says here is true by and large .... Tankers can still tank by the strictest of definitions.
[/ QUOTE ]
And he's also admitted that anyone can Tank. So if Tanking is supposed to be the realm of Tankers, and anyone can Tank, then what again is so special about Tanks? (possible answers that have been disproven by these conversations: agro management, and higher health)
[ QUOTE ]
What I think Statesman needs to do is play a Tanker for a solid 2 weeks, everyday (same Tanker). I would highly suggest him starting with an L20 Tanker.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think he specifically has to play all 4 primaries from 10 through 20 as well. He's really completely crippled Tankers in this level range.
[/ QUOTE ]
How sad so many people feel that the Dev's don't play the game, and I'm right there with them. I've only gotten my tank to lvl 44. I don't know if I will ever get any higher. The sad truth, I can't regularly find a team that wants/needs me. I went with a theme, invul/stone. Slow attacks, so not great damage versus anyone else. I seem to get aggro fine, but doesn't do any good now that I drop incredibly fast due to nerfed invul. Insp help out a huge amount, but in a big mission, I never get the ones I need after about 1/2 way though. And I'm now at the AV every other mission level, so going alone, not an option any more unless I leave and fill up on insp. multiple times. I enjoyed having a place, front line protecting everyone else, but the fun factor just isn't there now that I need just as many buffs as the squishies. I feel like I'm letting everyone down when it's me yelling "RUN". No real solution, just another opinion that doesn't seem to effect the Dev's. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually you say that they shouldn't ignore the threat attacking them directly or even taunts. I would agree with this for some mobs. However, to me, there would be some who might given that they're too mindless (Vaz and Hydra zombies and blobs respectively) or given to single mindedness(Cot and Tsoo Demons/Spirits) and strictly disciplined (Council, Nemesis and Malta) under normal circumstances. I thnk a case can be made for some who would by pass normal aggro rules as a strategy for winning.
Does that mean assault of Defenders/Controllers as THE primary targets in all cases? Not necessarily.
[/ QUOTE ]
An interesting question in all this is what happens in PVP?
I don't do PVP at all, so maybe this isn't an issue. Is PVP usually soloists in "every man for himself" mode? Or do you get teams fighting each other?
[/ QUOTE ]
Both. PvP is still in it's early stages, so you see less organized Team vs. Team, but you can routinely find people soloing and/or banded together in PvP zones (even if they're not specifically grouped together).
[ QUOTE ]
I would certainly ignore the tank and go for the healer/buffer FIRST if I were in PVP, because that's just what makes sense. The tank has the least ability to *do* anything to you, and good luck taking his HP down if he's got someone heal-camping him or buffing him. The defender, however, even buffed is a squishy, and you could seriously increase your chance of winning by getting rid of him first. The controller has all those holds (and the ability to toggle-drop) and is therefore extremely dangerous.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really depends the situation. Most people I'm sure would *MUCH* rather attempt to take a solo Tanker down before trying a solo Controller/Defender (both of which depending the builds can be among the hardest to overcome).
Also that's not precisely true about Tankers. Ice Tankers are a super threat in PvP because they act like uber buffed Controllers (slows are a killer in PvP). Imagine a Controller with 3k+ HPs, high defense (meaning everything has a hard time hitting), slow effects both ranged and PBAOE and virtually immune to status effects.
Or any Tanker with Port Foe (something every PvP Tanker should have btw) becomes a threat. Or intimidate/fear. Or Stealth and flying. Really depends on how you play and what you're going up against.
Not to mention all Tankers with Taunt can just be flat out annoying (Taunt in PvP switches your target to the Tanker in question for 5 seconds or there abouts).
And then sometimes just being yourself makes you target number one.
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, some minons, like the Vahz, are mindless. These guys could easily follow the normal (current) aggro rules. But any villain with half a brain, and certainly those being directed by LTs or especially Bosses, should be smart enough to size up the danger and figure out the proper order of attacking things, and just by common sense that order is NOT always Tanker first Defender last... and is usually the reverse.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're thinking from a game mechanics point of view. From an RP point of view, who would you consider the bigger threat, The Hulk or Iron Man using a med kit?
Also there is a certain amount of programming that goes into the AI for each type of mob (mins vs lts, as well as Vahz vs Family, etc ...) so the depth of the AI can only go so far (this holds true for any MMO and CoH in that respect isn't that different from most MMOs).
[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to know what happens in PVP. How do defenders on teams survive without the stupidity of the AI on their side? And if they can survive PVP, then why wouldn't they survive in PVE also?
I'm just curious really.. I don't expect any of this to change.
F
[/ QUOTE ]
Defenders survive PvP because while game AI is stupid, it never misses. A mob locks on to a Defender, fires as soon as the game allows for, gets up as soon as the game allows for, if it has flea code, fleas as soon as its triggered (i.e. it's not indecisive), etc .... Not to mention the Defender can just pick up and haul [censored] out of there (which happens a lot too).
In PvP you face real people with real (human) reactions and timing. So while most of us can fight better then the games' AI in theory, in practice we're actually not as dependable as the game's AI. That's why you have good PvPers and bad PvPers and why that can change over time and why battles aren't predictable boring affairs.
That's the sheer genius of PvP vs. PvE
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm now at the AV every other mission level, so going alone, not an option any more unless I leave and fill up on insp. multiple times. I enjoyed having a place, front line protecting everyone else, but the fun factor just isn't there now that I need just as many buffs as the squishies. I feel like I'm letting everyone down when it's me yelling "RUN". No real solution, just another opinion that doesn't seem to effect the Dev's.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can see where the fun factor is gone, and that can make the final push to 50 pretty tedious, but I have to say that at least on Triumph, I am easily able to fill up an A.V. mish by just sending tells to appropriate characters. It takes a little planning, because you will likely need appropriate SK'ing and such, BUT from what I've seen, the words "A.V. Mission" are like catnip for heroes. It's ALWAYS easy for me to find some level 50's that are willing to exemp down to take on an AV mission, but again, the real trick is finding the right level mix so exemps and sk's work out.
As for feeling a lack of fun when playing the mish, that is another matter entirely.
[ QUOTE ]
While I use the same approach to those spawns if the Devs decided to make things happen that way for the AI it wouldn't sit well with the Defender/Controller group. Not at all. Although it would be interesting to see ( in a limited testing phase) to see their actual reaction. I don't think they'd do it though.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, the def/troller group should certainly talk about this if this would even be considered. It seems like a dramatic change that should be thought out and tested.
I do think it makes sense. Also, I wouldn't see this requiring tankers in particular since buffers would only need protection. Tankers might make a great choice (since that's their role) but Scrappers and Blasters could switch targets.
But the devil is in the details (i.e. what generates aggro, how much aggro etc.). For example, what if buffs only produce aggro in nearby bosses and lts since they are the "smart" mobs? They're the ones that figure out "hey, that Scrapper is still standing bc of the funny looking guy glowing green!" The minions act the same ol' stupid way, to avoid def/trollers being mobbed by everyone.
From a priority standpoint, I'd go with a less dramatic change like increasing non-S/L RES.