Gauntlet and Taunt Auras don't work on AVs anymore
By
Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2006-10-15 21:38 in Tankers
[ QUOTE ]
Tank sustained DPS, on a team where they get +Recovery boosts so that they can afford to use their heavy hitters whenever they recharge, is not as bad as people make it out to be, by saying "Tanks have no use vs AVs except to Taunt".
[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't saying that tanks have no use without taunt, just that there are better choices if the tank can't hold AV aggro.
My issue here is power choices. I'm currently playing ( or was) an Ice/SS tank. Figuring CE/Icicles/Footstomp would give me more than enough aggro control (and for everything but AV's it has). I was trying to build the toughest Ice tank possible to handle AV's etc.
To attain the highest defense/most survivalbe build I planned
All 9 primary powers
Fighting for 3
fitness for 3
medicine for 2
leaping for 2
Rage, Jab, Haymaker, KO Blow and footstomp.
Thats all 24 powers. Because I feel I have to take medicine AND fighting to maximize my character. Now I have to drop the medicine pool in order to take taunt.
So basically if I want the most survivable tank, I can't have the best aggro control....but if I want the best aggroing tank, I can't be the most survivable....... 
Just drop permafrost, not too many AVs have slows or cold / fire damage. Losing Permafrost wont really hurt you .
I am an ebil markeeter and will steal your moneiz ...correction stole your moneiz. I support keeping the poor down because it is impossible to make moneiz in this game.
but his concept is to be the most survivable.....and there are AVs/GMs that do those things. infernal does fire dmg. there is another AV that uses LR. the punkin giant monster does fire dmg. alos in the encounter with chimera having permafrost helps deal with the caltrops nicely. i noticed this when i was next to my bro's ice tank without it....when i would hit EA i would ignore the movenment debuff from caltops. he was still slowed when he hit his EA. but i guess he could drop SJ for taunt 
and i know that we can just take taunt to bypass this.....but we were given our inheirent so the we DON'T have to take taunt to hold agro.
[ QUOTE ]
My issue here is power choices. I'm currently playing ( or was) an Ice/SS tank. Figuring CE/Icicles/Footstomp would give me more than enough aggro control (and for everything but AV's it has). I was trying to build the toughest Ice tank possible to handle AV's etc.
To attain the highest defense/most survivalbe build I planned
All 9 primary powers
Fighting for 3
fitness for 3
medicine for 2
leaping for 2
Rage, Jab, Haymaker, KO Blow and footstomp.
Thats all 24 powers. Because I feel I have to take medicine AND fighting to maximize my character. Now I have to drop the medicine pool in order to take taunt.
So basically if I want the most survivable tank, I can't have the best aggro control....but if I want the best aggroing tank, I can't be the most survivable.......
[/ QUOTE ]
If the goal is most survivable then why not drop an attack like Haymaker? If survivability is your primary goal then sacrifices need to be made. Personally I'd rather watch paint dry but I've seen people who like playing Emp defenders with just one attack - in the end it's your money so do what you want.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My issue here is power choices. I'm currently playing ( or was) an Ice/SS tank. Figuring CE/Icicles/Footstomp would give me more than enough aggro control (and for everything but AV's it has). I was trying to build the toughest Ice tank possible to handle AV's etc.
To attain the highest defense/most survivalbe build I planned
All 9 primary powers
Fighting for 3
fitness for 3
medicine for 2
leaping for 2
Rage, Jab, Haymaker, KO Blow and footstomp.
Thats all 24 powers. Because I feel I have to take medicine AND fighting to maximize my character. Now I have to drop the medicine pool in order to take taunt.
So basically if I want the most survivable tank, I can't have the best aggro control....but if I want the best aggroing tank, I can't be the most survivable.......
[/ QUOTE ]
If the goal is most survivable then why not drop an attack like Haymaker? If survivability is your primary goal then sacrifices need to be made. Personally I'd rather watch paint dry but I've seen people who like playing Emp defenders with just one attack - in the end it's your money so do what you want.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup. Like now my warrior in WoW is level 13....That's where my money is going now. 
Yes I agree with dropping an attack. I can run Icicles, Jab, Boxing, Foot Stomp and KO Blow. But why not make it where I don't feel like I'm loosing survivability if I didn't have aid self or fighting.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
make taunt a clickable innate, and move gauntlet to a powerchoice in secondaries?
I'm curious if that's what you're suggesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, why not? I mean Brutes don't have Gauntlet, can hold as much agro as a Tanker does as easily. And according to iakona their auras still work vs the AV/Hero class of mobs.
That means Gauntlet is far less needed that Taunt. Which means it should be the inherent.
[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds vaguely familiar.
[/ QUOTE ]
iakona is right about that the aggro auras for Brutes. The Brute is really what everyone has been asking for from Tankers since I3 was on test. It's a dynamic AT that is alot of fun to play with good synergy overall. Any Tanker worth the name can hold aggro while playing a Brute and (here's the key ) ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE A SUPERHERO. I know, feeling like a superhero is far to much to ask in a SUPERHERO MMO, right?
Maybe they should make Gauntlet inherent and add some form of Def ramp to Tankers similar to Brutes. Wouldn't that solve most of the Tanker issues? Also, what if we are able to overcome some of our current limitations with Invention?
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
To both individuals who responded to my tanker vs scrapper damage, thank you. I agree with what your saying.
To my poor prison, um, female dog blaster friend, condolences.
The only teams I have ever felt needed or wanterd were blaster teams. 50% of my PUGs have been 3-5 blasters on a team (maybe a controller or scrapper).
Sadly, I think the tanker AT is here to protect the blaster AT. I notice though, strangely, most blasters do much better at PvP with their AT, than in PvE. sad (to me).
Honestly, to me, the blaster is the only AT who can gripe more than tanks. 'Range is your defense' -- what idiot came up with that.
I have a lvl 28 en/dev blaster, who cant seem to get out of debt, so I do understand.
Strange, on the forums heal/hurt the AT's, the last 2 were tanks and blasters, the 2 who seemed to be illegitimate children of coh.
But I will say this, on all the teams I have been on, its the blasters with the best sense of humor (must come from all the face plants).
50 Tanks: Invul/ss, Fire/ice/fire, Ice/em, Stone/fire
WP/Stone, dark/dark, shld/mace
50 Other: WS, SS/dark/sc brute, BS/Regen/WM scrpr, fire/fire/force blaster, rad/kin corr, mind/rad ctrl, ill/storm cntrl
[ QUOTE ]
iakona is right about that the aggro auras for Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I have dev confirmation that this a bug. Of course, it'll probably take months to get fixed.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except AVs ignore threat rating as of I7, do they not?
[/ QUOTE ]Yeah, forgot about that. Post re-edited now.
I think the Gauntlet change came in sometime after the CoV end-of-Beta event, as I remember the devs talking about how all the taunt effects basically shut down the AV/GM ability to attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming this is true, the change has been around for a year now.
I don't mean to be confrontational, but for the past year have any of you found that a balanced team was unable to take down an AV? Have you felt that your tank was useful on AV teams for the past year?
Personally, I can't think of a time in the past year when a tank wasn't welcomed on an AV team. I completed an AV-a-thon run to 50 with my controller a few months ago, and every time we had a tank on the team, that tank made a huge difference in the survival of the other team members.
I'm not saying the change is a good thing, but if we've been living with it for the past year, it certainly isn't game breaking.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to be confrontational, but for the past year have any of you found that a balanced team was unable to take down an AV? Have you felt that your tank was useful on AV teams for the past year?
Personally, I can't think of a time in the past year when a tank wasn't welcomed on an AV team. I completed an AV-a-thon run to 50 with my controller a few months ago, and every time we had a tank on the team, that tank made a huge difference in the survival of the other team members.
I'm not saying the change is a good thing, but if we've been living with it for the past year, it certainly isn't game breaking.
[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming, as I do, that there is a middle ground between "game breaking" and "inconsequential", I find the point that this isn't "game breaking" to be...inconsequential. In the same way Defense improves exponentially as it nears cap, the little secret nerflets that the devs apply to Tanks- whose rapidly diminishing raison d'etre is already threadbare- also loom bigger and bigger until utter obsolesence of the AT. More and more people are giving up on this AT in general, people who used to post here and contribute a lot to this forum, because what remains of Tanks is just too meager for them. That being the case, this nerf is not "game breaking", but still bears criticism.
Life - a sexually transmitted terminal condition.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying the change is a good thing, but if we've been living with it for the past year, it certainly isn't game breaking.
[/ QUOTE ]
It hasn't been game-breaking because there is a certain percentage of Tankers who do take Taunt and use it in AV encounters. It IS however game-breaking to all the players who listened to the "[Gauntlet] is the minimum necessary. Taunt adds flexibility" explanation from _Castle_ and yet are now being told in their finest hour (read: AV/GM battles) they better have Taunt or they can't do their job. Some validation on this would be nice though, before we all go grabbing up our pitchforks.
But assuming this is indeed the state of things, moving Taunt over as a clickable inherent is sounding better eh? 
Here's the thing.
Originally, Tankers were Taunt-bots (using the Taunt power consistantly / auto-fire) and had little else they could do to manage agro.
Many times many players felt that this was not an active enough role for the AT. In fact, that it wasn't very comic book like for what the AT represents.
Gauntlet is devized to allow Tanks an active way of performing their designed function within the game.
Since this change was put in, all Tanks are good for in AV fights are being Taunt-bots again.
It certainly isn't for their DPS. Although in my opinion damage is damage and as long as it is being done enough to win. But Tankers aren't on teams for DPS, that is what Blasters and Scrappers are for. Tankers are there to agro-control (iow TANK of the mob).
The Tanker function for their role has come full circle, back to the beginning (at least for AV encounters).
The tools given to a Tanker to perform their function are barely useful in PvP.
So the only place a Tanker can really utilize its tools to perform its main design function is on regular XP missions vs. minions, lts, and bosses.
I really believe that Taunt (the power) needs to go away. It has done nothing but skew the dev's point of view on how to work with this AT.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iakona is right about that the aggro auras for Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I have dev confirmation that this a bug. Of course, it'll probably take months to get fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the bug? Brute aggro aura's working or Tank aura's not working?
I'm guessing Brute aura's working but I can hope it is tank aura's not working.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes I agree with dropping an attack. I can run Icicles, Jab, Boxing, Foot Stomp and KO Blow. But why not make it where I don't feel like I'm loosing survivability if I didn't have aid self or fighting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because you have an extreme view of what survivability is and a game shouldn't be designed around extremes.
No offense but you've taken a theme or idea to the extreme and are upset because you feel you need to make a sacrifice to get all the toys you want. Concept or idea builds are fine but I don't see any difference between your idea of a max survival build and the person who wants a totally passive Empathy defender and they get upset because they are forced into tanking a level 1 blast.
Numerically I can't argue that adding aid self and Tough will make your Ice/ tanker more survivable. But that's totally different from saying you NEED those pools to survive. A FF defender can take Leadership and Medicine to make their character more of a team protector but that doesn't mean that if they don't take those pools they aren't protecting the team. Likewise it doesn't mean they should feel like the devs screwed up or the game is messed up because they took all those pool powers and couldn't take their 38 nuke power as a result.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iakona is right about that the aggro auras for Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I have dev confirmation that this a bug. Of course, it'll probably take months to get fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the bug? Brute aggro aura's working or Tank aura's not working?
I'm guessing Brute aura's working but I can hope it is tank aura's not working.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whichever is the most beneficial is the bug. And yes, Circeus is right about the fix. It will take forever to fix because any bug that is a detriment to an AT takes forever to fix while and bug that might add some fun and flavor to the an AT is a priority.
"I never said thank you." - Lt. Gordon
"And you'll never have to." - the Dark Knight
My idea of survivability may seem extreme, but look at the numbers it actually represents.
38% (and that's 3 slotting combat jumping) defense to all but Psi and Toxic...not counting EA. so the only way to max out defense is with a GOOD application of EA.
39% resist versus Smash Lethal
Max resist to cold
15% resist to fire (this could be off, correct if wrong)
And Resist to toxic in hoarfrost.
That's my SUPER SURVIVABLE build.
So you may think I'm going to the EXTREME. But numerically, that's not that extreme. I4 invul was extreme.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
iakona is right about that the aggro auras for Brutes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I have dev confirmation that this a bug. Of course, it'll probably take months to get fixed.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the Lord Recluse Strike Force is gonna that much harder. Brutes won't gonna be able to keep aggro w/ just their taunt araus. No taunt == splatted squishies x8.
Well put, Crowley. Well put.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just rechecked this. It looks like Brute taunt auras (invincibility, mud pots) are exempt from this restriction. The inherent taunt of those powers apparently is set to work on all NPCs, but the Tanker equivalents do not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I hope your "source" works both ways and gets that problem to a Dev.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indirectly, it did.
No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.
Damn, and I called it a sucker bet. Silly me, shoulda taken it.
Too many alts to list.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just rechecked this. It looks like Brute taunt auras (invincibility, mud pots) are exempt from this restriction. The inherent taunt of those powers apparently is set to work on all NPCs, but the Tanker equivalents do not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I hope your "source" works both ways and gets that problem to a Dev.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indirectly, it did.
No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, _Castle_.
Life - a sexually transmitted terminal condition.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just rechecked this. It looks like Brute taunt auras (invincibility, mud pots) are exempt from this restriction. The inherent taunt of those powers apparently is set to work on all NPCs, but the Tanker equivalents do not.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I hope your "source" works both ways and gets that problem to a Dev.
[/ QUOTE ]
Indirectly, it did.
No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Give Tankers Confront to go along with Gauntlet. Tanker wants to be uber aggro magnet they'll still take taunt. Everyone else will be able to do their job in most circumstances.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ QUOTE ]
My idea of survivability may seem extreme, but look at the numbers it actually represents.
38% (and that's 3 slotting combat jumping) defense to all but Psi and Toxic...not counting EA. so the only way to max out defense is with a GOOD application of EA.
39% resist versus Smash Lethal
Max resist to cold
15% resist to fire (this could be off, correct if wrong)
And Resist to toxic in hoarfrost.
That's my SUPER SURVIVABLE build.
So you may think I'm going to the EXTREME. But numerically, that's not that extreme. I4 invul was extreme.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I said before:
[ QUOTE ]
Numerically I can't argue that adding aid self and Tough will make your Ice/ tanker more survivable. But that's totally different from saying you NEED those pools to survive. A FF defender can take Leadership and Medicine to make their character more of a team protector but that doesn't mean that if they don't take those pools they aren't protecting the team. Likewise it doesn't mean they should feel like the devs screwed up or the game is messed up because they took all those pool powers and couldn't take their 38 nuke power as a result.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're build is extreme because it's adding two pools and at least 4 powers (IIRC) to what is already a very survivability primary set. You're going with around 13 powers to make a defensive or survivable build. To me that's extreme especially when you may only need 7 or 8.
It's fine if that's what you WANT to do but it's not required. It's also not the fault of the game (imo) that as a result you're left with few attacks and no room for taunt. Otherwise I don't see why the FF/ defender in my example couldn't make the same complaint. Shrug.
[ QUOTE ]
Their purpose is to not have one apparently.
[/ QUOTE ]
The purpose... the purpose of life is to end, Mister Anderson.