I wouldn't recommend making any case for Inherent changes for PvP based on the notion that it's not active/available all the time; the Dominator inherent, which is up 45% of the time in optimal conditions, seems to imply that this is a valid balancing tactic in the Dev's arsenal.
I'd rathe deal with scale ups then scale downs. On a scale down, you get used to something working real nice then get whacked by the nerf bat and have to readjust.
If you deal with scale ups, you get used to working under sub-par conditions and then get your strength boosted, so you are still good to go and even deadlier.
Why not just make it such that when taunted you auto target the person taunting you. If you tab off then you can target others, but your target instantly becomes the tank/scrapper/brute/whatever whenever taunt is applied.
Either that, or perhaps you become immune to taunt effects for several seconds to avoid a couple tanks ping ponging you back and forth.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we've only gone from a non-functional inherent to one that is, at best, 40% functional - and really something much less considering the 7% low end chance, and the fact that primary damaging powers don't Taunt.
Seems almost pointless.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really want to get into a debate on this, so I'll give a couple reasons for it, and go from there.
We're testing this. We don't want to go overboard on it, then have to reduce its effectiveness later, which is a very real concern with this. This lead us to start off low, and build up from there. What you folks are testing currently is the 'second draft' of PvP Gauntlet.
For those of you remember the CoV End of Beta event with the signature heroes battling all the players, we found a very curious problem during that event: It quickly became completely impossible to know who/where your target was. There were so many characters taunting continuously, that it was not only not fun, but essentially not playable.
So, we are trying to make sure that Taunt Ping Pong doesn't become a major concern in PvP. We want Gauntlet to be a bonus which helps, but it is not meant to replace Taunt or related powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not for sure why tanks are continually getting short-changed when it comes to PvP.
If the "taunt ping-pong" isn't acceptable as a tactic to use in PvE, then why isn't getting multiple Assassin Strikes within a few seconds? After all, we really don't have any defense against three or four stalkers coordinating their AS to hit at the same time. Why can't tanks use group tactics with other tanks?
Now it seems that only damage will cause an interrupt in a stalker's AS. Well, I can certainly tell you this...getting hit with three AS by coordinated stalkers time and time again isn't fun, either.
I guess now is the time to forget building an Invul/ tank for PvE, huh? The ONLY defense that they could possibly have against it is to be forced to take the Leadership pool and slot it out.
I'm sure that I'll hear it from the Stalkers about how weak they are and the limited health points they've got (and they've got every justification to say so). Well, why not nerf their Assassin Strike but give them more health points and/or boost their defenses.
PvE isn't fun when any one AT can be taken down with one or two strikes. A tank that can go up against an even-level Arch-Villain and can hold their own gets taken out by two sneaky stalkers with an AS. A stalker that's supposed to be sneaky gets taken out with two hits from a blaster.
The balance isn't there.
A stalker is supposed to be silent, getting in where the others can't. However, as defensively weak as they are, there would be no stalkers in any comic book universe that would last past the first three issues. A tank is supposed to be strong, getting knocked around by a Galactus size villain, only to get up and come back at them again. Without being forced to take the Leadership pool, a tank drops from a strike when he's not looking.
To me, this balance isn't working.
Give the stalkers some more hit points and buff their defensives. Give the hero ATs more defense against the Assassin Strike. I'd like to see it where it gets really hard to take down an enemy in PvE.
Why?
Aren't we the stars of our own comic book universe? Should we, as the star, be weak against others?
I see taking on other villains in PvE with my tank very much like going up against a Boss level enemy in the PvP portion of the game. It should be hard to take out another player to make it more worthwhile. I can't even name one of the LTs of a mission, which makes them non-important. Taking out a player villain (or hero, if you play CoV) should be treated as something important...not as a 1-2, they're gone.
Aw, just my thoughts on the matter. Sorry for sounding so grumpy.
[ QUOTE ]
So we've only gone from a non-functional inherent to one that is, at best, 40% functional - and really something much less considering the 7% low end chance, and the fact that primary damaging powers don't Taunt.
Seems almost pointless.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as perma-mez isn't considered a valid ability, Taunt will have to be limited. It's a status effect, just like those powers are. If you allow Jab to taunt 100% of the time, you're going to find yourself able to apply a status effect nearly permanently against an opponent, or, alternatively, have it last a meaningless duration.
I would rather not have Taunt suppress itself unless it's absolutely necessary - that would hurt Tankers where they don't need it, such as when trying to defend their allies from melee ATists that can stay and fight.
I don't see why Blazing Aura and RotP don't benefit from Taunt, though, or Icicles. That seems unnecessary, and one of the strong points of RotP is that you can reclaim aggro after a death. Likewise, the high end for these probably need to go up unless their Taunt duration is extremely long - if these powers only recharge once every twenty seconds, you won't have a chance to use them twice when trying to help an ally.
[ QUOTE ]
That's an acceptable answer. Sometimes I forget you're more responsive then other devs.
[/ QUOTE ]
you guys do realize that the other devs doesn't let _castle_ sit in the same launch table at the cafeteria right?
_castle_ has to sit down alone by himself...except when cuppa is feeling nice.
who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we the stars of our own comic book universe? Should we, as the star, be weak against others?
Aw, just my thoughts on the matter. Sorry for sounding so grumpy.
[/ QUOTE ]
"...when everyone is super, no one will be" - Syndrome, "The Incredibles"
If I'm the star of my own hero universe, then I'm going to win. If you're the star of your own hero universe, you're going to win. So if you and I meet up, we're always going to draw, or find parameters where we both win.
Arc #345863 - When The Bough Breaks
"Curse you Perry the Plata...wait, is that Love Handel?" - Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz, Phineas and Ferb
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we the stars of our own comic book universe? Should we, as the star, be weak against others?
Aw, just my thoughts on the matter. Sorry for sounding so grumpy.
[/ QUOTE ]
"...when everyone is super, no one will be" - Syndrome, "The Incredibles"
If I'm the star of my own hero universe, then I'm going to win. If you're the star of your own hero universe, you're going to win. So if you and I meet up, we're always going to draw, or find parameters where we both win.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say anything about winning constantly...you just assumed that was what I was talking about.
Heroes do fall, but they do valiantly. They fight a knock-down, drag-out rumble with villains and they sometimes lose. Notice the key word there...sometimes, not "all the time".
Villains...would any of them be any good if they lost all the time? Of course not. If they lose, they always vow to come back and get revenge, which they do.
The point I was trying to make is that the numbers of victories and defeats for each type of hero and villain are slanted to one side or the other. With my hero, I'm going to give you everything I've got and if I lose, then I lose. Getting taken out consistently time after time with my tank from two assassin strikes is not what I call fun. Playing a stalker and getting two-shotted time and time again by a couple of blasters after I come out of Hide isn't no fun either.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's an acceptable answer. Sometimes I forget you're more responsive then other devs.
[/ QUOTE ]
you guys do realize that the other devs doesn't let _castle_ sit in the same launch table at the cafeteria right?
_castle_ has to sit down alone by himself...except when cuppa is feeling nice.
[/ QUOTE ]
And Cuppa is out to E3.
Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net
Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.
My suggestion from the begining has been to give Taunt a higher chance (say 70%) for Gauntlet, but give it a very short duration, say 3 seconds, so that in order for a Tank to play 'bodyguard' he would need a steady attack chain on a fixed opponent.
[ QUOTE ]
That's an acceptable answer. Sometimes I forget you're more responsive then other devs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone should keep in mind only certain people are even allowed to respond on the forums. Publishers typically are very guarded about what statements are allowed into the general public because they're almost always taken as gospel. It's a bit of a catch-22. You don't want devs posting because they might say something they shouldn't. But you also do want them posting because it's better for the community if they feel the devs are responsive. The best solution seems to be limiting the number of people who can dialogue with the community.
But I bet they would if they could.
Formerly "Back Alley Brawler"
[ QUOTE ]
We're testing this. We don't want to go overboard on it, then have to reduce its effectiveness later, which is a very real concern with this. This lead us to start off low, and build up from there. What you folks are testing currently is the 'second draft' of PvP Gauntlet.
[/ QUOTE ]
First time I read this I bought it. But then it took almost a year to fix Trick Arrow (and its still not fixed if you concider its not live yet). As long as it stays on test and changes there I will still buy it, but i do will take it as a war lost if it gets to live with these numbers or something too insignificant.
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you remember the CoV End of Beta event with the signature heroes battling all the players, we found a very curious problem during that event: It quickly became completely impossible to know who/where your target was. There were so many characters taunting continuously, that it was not only not fun, but essentially not playable.
So, we are trying to make sure that Taunt Ping Pong doesn't become a major concern in PvP. We want Gauntlet to be a bonus which helps, but it is not meant to replace Taunt or related powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cant it be done so that once a taunt lands, you are imune to taunts of other enemies for a while? I mean, you may be retaunted by the same tanker, but no other tanker can land a taunt if you have taunt on you? Additionaly, can you change it so that taunt changes your targeting to the tanker that taunted you? (have not really seen if this happens now, have not been taunted to test it)
[ QUOTE ]
Give the stalkers some more hit points and buff their defensives.
[/ QUOTE ]
This idea, if implemented, would cause some very serious issues in PvE. Playing a stalker would become playing in super easy cheat mode. Like imagine if regen scrappers not only had never been nerfed at all, but had also had their crit rate boosted to 50% for minions, 75% for lieutenants, and 100% for bosses. It would be stupidly easy to play the game and thus become very boring very quickly.
In PvE stalkers are already very effective, just about perfect I'd say, don't screw that up for purely PvP reasons. That makes the baby Statesman cry.
/rant
[ QUOTE ]
If the "taunt ping-pong" isn't acceptable as a tactic to use in PvE, then why isn't getting multiple Assassin Strikes within a few seconds? After all, we really don't have any defense against three or four stalkers coordinating their AS to hit at the same time. Why can't tanks use group tactics with other tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old stalker defense. Tanks, last time I checked, had more hitpoints than stalkers, and therefore can handle their own aggro just fine.
[ QUOTE ]
If the "taunt ping-pong" isn't acceptable as a tactic to use in PvE, then why isn't getting multiple Assassin Strikes within a few seconds? After all, we really don't have any defense against three or four stalkers coordinating their AS to hit at the same time. Why can't tanks use group tactics with other tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this different from multiple blasters hitting you all at once? you have a little more reaction time, true. However the principle is always going to be true. Many will win over 1 or few. 1 on 1, can a stalker beat a tank? maybe, but the battle coudl also end in a stale mate. Or the tanker could be the stalker if he doesn't run all without tactics. Heck, a tanker one shotted my stalker before. (Rage + KB)
I just love when people on these boards never fully consider the entire post but rather pick and chose small tidbits here and there to accept that as your entire opinion instead of considering the post in its entirety...
Makes posting on these boards uber-fun and wants to keep me coming back for more and more.
[ QUOTE ]
Heck, a tanker one shotted my stalker before. (Rage + KB)
[/ QUOTE ]
Rage + Knockout Blow alone isn't enough to one-shot a Stalker - the Tanker was very likely buffed up the wazoo and you were probably also debuffed.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the "taunt ping-pong" isn't acceptable as a tactic to use in PvE, then why isn't getting multiple Assassin Strikes within a few seconds? After all, we really don't have any defense against three or four stalkers coordinating their AS to hit at the same time. Why can't tanks use group tactics with other tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this different from multiple blasters hitting you all at once? you have a little more reaction time, true. However the principle is always going to be true. Many will win over 1 or few. 1 on 1, can a stalker beat a tank? maybe, but the battle coudl also end in a stale mate. Or the tanker could be the stalker if he doesn't run all without tactics. Heck, a tanker one shotted my stalker before. (Rage + KB)
[/ QUOTE ]
Also the blasters aren't all hitting you with 400+ points of unresitable damage.
[ QUOTE ]
As long as perma-mez isn't considered a valid ability, Taunt will have to be limited. It's a status effect, just like those powers are. If you allow Jab to taunt 100% of the time, you're going to find yourself able to apply a status effect nearly permanently against an opponent, or, alternatively, have it last a meaningless duration.
[/ QUOTE ]
Blue, I did not even request anything to happen 100% of the time. My point was more one of, why is 40% good for some powers, and for others its only 7%.
In fact, I agree with what you've said. However, last I checked, mezzers (primarily Controllers) get Containment to supplement the fact that they have mezzed.
I'm saying if you can't let it work 100% of the time, you should be providing something that makes up for the missing percentage.
[ QUOTE ]
I would rather not have Taunt suppress itself unless it's absolutely necessary - that would hurt Tankers where they don't need it, such as when trying to defend their allies from melee ATists that can stay and fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why Blazing Aura and RotP don't benefit from Taunt, though, or Icicles. That seems unnecessary, and one of the strong points of RotP is that you can reclaim aggro after a death. Likewise, the high end for these probably need to go up unless their Taunt duration is extremely long - if these powers only recharge once every twenty seconds, you won't have a chance to use them twice when trying to help an ally.
[/ QUOTE ]
None of those powers are high End. BA and Icicles both had their End costs lowered significantly in I5. And RotP has no End Cost since you're dead when you use it and therefore have no End to spend. So I have no idea what you're trying to say in the last bit there.
I don't see why they don't Taunt either. I mean if Tremor, Whirling Hands, etc. Taunt, why can't other AoE damage powers. That Auto-hit powers (Invinc, CE, EA) don't Taunt makes sense to me, but still, that they don't means they should be stronger otherwise in PvP.
The Taunt duration for Gauntlet seems to max at around 6-8 seconds (some powers are less) before Enhancements in PvE, I'm figuring that tis about the same in PvP.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heck, a tanker one shotted my stalker before. (Rage + KB)
[/ QUOTE ]
Rage + Knockout Blow alone isn't enough to one-shot a Stalker - the Tanker was very likely buffed up the wazoo and you were probably also debuffed.
[/ QUOTE ]
agreed. Fully slotted rage and KO Blow is good for about 50% of a squishies HPs. I'm not sure that glutting yourself on damage buffs would even do it, the tanker cap for damage isn't that high.
Formerly "Back Alley Brawler"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the "taunt ping-pong" isn't acceptable as a tactic to use in PvE, then why isn't getting multiple Assassin Strikes within a few seconds? After all, we really don't have any defense against three or four stalkers coordinating their AS to hit at the same time. Why can't tanks use group tactics with other tanks?
[/ QUOTE ]
How is this different from multiple blasters hitting you all at once? you have a little more reaction time, true. However the principle is always going to be true. Many will win over 1 or few. 1 on 1, can a stalker beat a tank? maybe, but the battle coudl also end in a stale mate. Or the tanker could be the stalker if he doesn't run all without tactics. Heck, a tanker one shotted my stalker before. (Rage + KB)
[/ QUOTE ]
Also the blasters aren't all hitting you with 400+ points of unresitable damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Each individual Blaster? No. All together? Yep. Plus what is usually considered, and I quote: "a butt-load of resistable stuff too"...generally considered enough to take down the hardiest har-har.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we the stars of our own comic book universe? Should we, as the star, be weak against others?
Aw, just my thoughts on the matter. Sorry for sounding so grumpy.
[/ QUOTE ]
"...when everyone is super, no one will be" - Syndrome, "The Incredibles"
If I'm the star of my own hero universe, then I'm going to win. If you're the star of your own hero universe, you're going to win. So if you and I meet up, we're always going to draw, or find parameters where we both win.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say anything about winning constantly...you just assumed that was what I was talking about.
Heroes do fall, but they do valiantly. They fight a knock-down, drag-out rumble with villains and they sometimes lose. Notice the key word there...sometimes, not "all the time".
Villains...would any of them be any good if they lost all the time? Of course not. If they lose, they always vow to come back and get revenge, which they do.
The point I was trying to make is that the numbers of victories and defeats for each type of hero and villain are slanted to one side or the other. With my hero, I'm going to give you everything I've got and if I lose, then I lose. Getting taken out consistently time after time with my tank from two assassin strikes is not what I call fun. Playing a stalker and getting two-shotted time and time again by a couple of blasters after I come out of Hide isn't no fun either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also consider how hero/villain fights work in the comic books. Two people of similar AT tend to have fairly even chances. But then you see the people who aren't evenly matched in power type (NOT power LEVEL), and the exploit comes in. That's where teams come it.
On a similar note: people have mentioned being essentially forced to take Leadership for PvP. I, myself, am a tremendous advocate that people of ALL ATs should pick up Leadership (especially after ED -_-...), and see how much of a difference makes, not just in PvE, but PvP. However, I also see that forcing someone to take a power to be effective for a purpose or effectiveness seems weird, and is frowned on, "build locking", as it were. I'm all for the recent "resistances" they're throwing into the togs (Taunt, Placate, etc.), but wonder what this means for PvP: will players be truly sub-par without them, instead of alternately effective? This is a balance that should be carefully approached...the way Taunt effectiveness seems to be.
To be truly on topic: this taunt change seems good, overall, but like others I think is currently a bit low. Also, the "picking a power/slotting just for PvP" is part of the previously mentioned wall for casual players who PvE but aren't die-hard PvP. It's been mentioned that Perma-taunt is a perma-mez...but so is perma-debuff and perma-buff. These seem similar to me, since Taunt is NOT a hold, stun, or fear, but can be seen more like KB and Immobilize: it makes it harder for the target to do what they want, but not impossible while under the effect (okay, perm-KB is a tad different...). I think Perma-tuant SHOULD be possible...UNDER THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. Making a Tanker able to perma-taunt the target he/she is completely focusing on makes sense...a single Tank perma-taunting a team of enemies while targeting only one of them, especially if they're resistant, (unless they're all right on top of each other) does not.
Hope that's all not too confusing...
Sure, but taunt doesn't go away if you are hit or the taunter is hit by someone else. Placate doesn't even do this, unless it is one-on-one. But then again, why would a tank need to even taunt on one-on-one unless he is distracting someone until the blaster arrives... at which point, they can't retarget to the squishy.. e.g. "I Win Button."
Perma-taunt is rediculous.
[ QUOTE ]
If the "taunt ping-pong" isn't acceptable as a tactic to use in PvE, then why isn't getting multiple Assassin Strikes within a few seconds? After all, we really don't have any defense against three or four stalkers coordinating their AS to hit at the same time. Why can't tanks use group tactics with other tanks?
Now it seems that only damage will cause an interrupt in a stalker's AS. Well, I can certainly tell you this...getting hit with three AS by coordinated stalkers time and time again isn't fun, either.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.
[ QUOTE ]
i like the idea of not taunting off another taunter. but honestly i'm down for anything which makes it so tanks are pvp-able
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, and I personally feel PvPGauntlet is a step in the right direction and makes Tankers more valued in PvP scenarios.