Gauntlet and Taunt Auras don't work on AVs anymore
By
Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2006-10-15 21:38 in Tankers
[ QUOTE ]
No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope so Mr. Castle. The pinnacle of COH is battling AVs in the end game. It seems just a tad ridiculous that I have to purchase a power (taunt) to keep their attention. So if I don't do the former my level 50 tanker is nothing more then a knock-off scrapper with allot of hit points versus an AV?
Juzam
Tanker aficionado
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.
[ QUOTE ]
38% (and that's 3 slotting combat jumping) defense to all but Psi and Toxic
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your s/l resistance is what 15% base for tough? thats like 25% at best when slotted up. Its not the 39% you posted ( more on that later)
38% defense to smashing lethal and energy and negative, handles most attacks, and with a solid EA you are soft capped on defense(45%). Meaning most mobs will have a 10% or less chance to hit you.
You should have 12.5% ( frozen armor) + 15%(permafrost) resistance to fire (27.5%).
Also CE is a 14% damage debuff as well as a .32 recharge debuff.
CE effectively gives you 14% resistance to all damage types and the - recharge helps reducce incoming attacks by a third.
HF is 20% resistance to toxic.
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.
We are obviously sitting on 2 different opinions. My idea of survivability is different from yours. CAN I run without Fighting and/or medicine. Sure. This gets into the "is stamina" needed conversation as well.
I'm looking at the numbers. I thinks its rediculous (or even extreme) that I have to take that many powers to reach those numbers. My issue isn't with the requirements. I was ready to do it. It's that now I have to squeeze taunt into an aggro magnet build.
Ice/SS with icicles and CE shouldn't need taunt EVER!!! some builds do need taunt in my opinion. Ice isn't one of them.
This bug is making where I have to give up haymaker, my second best ST attack for taunt.
[ QUOTE ]
The big question that has never been answered, even though it was asked when Issue 7 came out... is WHY? Why was the change necessary?
[/ QUOTE ]
It was needed because tanks removed the challenge of AVs. Just sit around holding its aggro via gauntlet and taunt auras and no one else had to worry about taking hits.
So they nerfed tanks ability to hold aggro ( the only thing they actually seem to want tanks to do ).
The fact of the matter is tanks are mostly uneeded in COH these days, and this nerf reduced thier ability to handle one of the few situations where a team would really want a tank.
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.
I already told you - you can skip permafrost or aid self for taunt and you should still be perfectly fine. you dont need to skip haymaker.
Also I was just correcting your numbers a bit , as a few were wrong ish.
With tough and weave, you should be able to not need aid self - just hit hibernate more often ( remeber to taunt before hand to maintain aggro).
My idea of survivablity is not dying 
Currently I dont think Ill need tough or weave or aid self, but im only 34, and I often have a healer or buffer helping me.
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.
Let's be real honest - when is ANY particular AT needed given a team of competent players?
Seriously - are we asking too much that there be situations when a given AT is required or needed?
It's one thing to have an AT desireable, another to have it needed.
Personally, when taking down an AV, I have, and still do, prefer to have a Tank around. I feel it's just safer that way.
-- War
[ 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 ]
Thanks for looking into this Castle.
[color=gold][b][size=5]♪ Sometimes you feel like a Tank, Sometimes you don't! ♪[/size][/color][/b]
[url=http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=114726][color=black][b][size=5]Moon [color=red]Hazard [color=black]Zone![/size][/color][/color][/color][/b][/url]
[ QUOTE ]
It was needed because tanks removed the challenge of AVs. Just sit around holding its aggro via gauntlet and taunt auras and no one else had to worry about taking hits.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except that's not what happens. AVs have tons of area effect attacks, so the other guys are going to inevitibly take a few hits, especially if they're squishy types that have to stay in close proximity to their enemies. This is true of most blasters, on account of their heavy third attack, and many defenders. The tanker is there to soak up the brutal single target attacks that AVs throw out.
The only reason this change was made, apparently, was because 40 brutes managed to taunt-lock the player-controlled heroes in the CoV beta event such that they couldn't attack at all. This isn't really a limitation that AI opponents have, and I've never seen a giant monster in the past that had trouble picking targets with lots of tankers taunting it. Paladin will trash you just as badly, six tankers or not.
And the other thing to consider. If the tanker isn't hogging the aggro, where is it going to go? The blasters and controllers. The guys doing the most damage, and the guys stacking the most effects in each attack. I don't think I need to explain the problem there.
Arc #41077 - The Men of State
Arc #48845 - Operation: Dirty Snowball
[ QUOTE ]
Let's be real honest - when is ANY particular AT needed given a team of competent players?
Seriously - are we asking too much that there be situations when a given AT is required or needed?
It's one thing to have an AT desireable, another to have it needed.
Personally, when taking down an AV, I have, and still do, prefer to have a Tank around. I feel it's just safer that way.
-- War
[/ QUOTE ]
So the new team role for Tanks is to be a placebo?
Can I switch Gauntlet out for "Warm Fuzzy", then?
Life - a sexually transmitted terminal condition.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's be real honest - when is ANY particular AT needed given a team of competent players?
Seriously - are we asking too much that there be situations when a given AT is required or needed?
It's one thing to have an AT desireable, another to have it needed.
Personally, when taking down an AV, I have, and still do, prefer to have a Tank around. I feel it's just safer that way.
-- War
[/ QUOTE ]
So the new team role for Tanks is to be a placebo?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure - just like every other AT.
There should not be a single mission where ANY AT is needed. Ever.
-- War
[ QUOTE ]
Indirectly, it did.
No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for at least looking into it, it is appreciated.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Yeah, and if you slot to max damage and accuracy, you can't also slot to max endrdx and recharge ... sooo, there isn't one build who can do everything the best. This is bad how?
Off topic, but I thought this was a weird complaint, sorry.
If a Tank can take all of the aggro from a threat and survive (albeit with a Defender's help), then they have negated all of the danger to the team. This contrary to how many players would like it, is not actually the Tanker's job.
Tankers, Controllers, Defenders are all supposed to REDUCE, not eliminate, the damage from an encounter. An AV fight should be more than having a tauntbot, a healbot, and 4 damage bots. AV fights should also be much rarer, but that's a seperate issue...
This reminds me of the situation that led to the creation of the dreaded Purple Triangles. Should it be possible to Hold an AV? Yes. Should it be possible to Hold one throughout a fight? No. Same deal here.
So it seems that a Tanker needs to be able to grab the aggro of an AV, but when the AV decides to attack, there should be a chance that it goes after the most dangerous foe. This chance should be small, and get smaller based on the skill of the Tanker, but not vanish entirely.
Of course, this all assumes that due to range, debuffs, or other factors, that the AV is not going to one-shot the Blaster that's been sniping him all this time.
The other corollary is that while I can see AVs having increased resistance or Defense to an AT's powers, I don't beleive it should have outright Immunity to Gauntlet. Even the Purple Triangles don't grant Immunity to holds and mezzes.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Though I don't play Tankers and have supported many of the anti-tank changes made since Issue 4, I find this change to be completely out of line. There is no justification for this and it is typical overreaction of due to behavior that never occurs in game. By that I mean the supposition that this was added post COV beta due to the way the taunt effects caused the devs driving the HEROs difficutly attacking specific targets.
I find this nerf completely ego driven and having no basis in reason.
-Teklord
[ QUOTE ]
Sigh...so controllers become 2nd rate defenders and get to be controlelrs for 1/3 of an AV fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
My controllers tank AVs. Controllers are not second rate defenders ever. During the approach I use my AOE controls to hold the entire spawn surrounding the AV, I then use the spawn to fuel my fulcrum shift before slaying them. I have no problems with AVs as a controller, dominators are another story.
-Teklord
I weep for my lvl 50 Inv Tanker who is basically just a bank now.
<sarcasm>
But hey, I know my Dominator can hold AV aggro by just blinking...at least until she's dropped one shot later.
</ sarcasm>
It really is quite pitiful that my Dominator can pretty much aggro steal from any other villain AT, but that is whole nother thread.
[ 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. The inherent taunt of melee attack powers for both ATs does not work on AVs/GMs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Classic. The devs do love their tankers.
-Teklord
Yeah, I kinda want another crossover event to happen so we can have teams of Dominators and Tankers trying to deal with AVs. 
With that much suckage coming at them, won't the AVs just fall over laughing so that you can just defeat them while they're down already?
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ 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 for letting us know.
Also, very nice sig. Your taste in television is impeccable.
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 ]
Sure - just like every other AT.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, every other AT has something they bring to AV fights. In most cases, their inherents improve that contribution. In the tanker's case, that inherent is explicitly denied.
[ QUOTE ]
There should not be a single mission where ANY AT is needed. Ever.
-- War
[/ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between an AT being required and an AT contributing something that makes them useful additions to the team. You don't need tankers to take on AVs - you never have - but they should have something to bring to the table when you do bring them.
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 ]
Indirectly, it did.
No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for looking into this Castle.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would also like to say thanks, Castle, for replying to the thread, and reminding everyone that someone on the Dev team cares about our concerns.
However, I want to point out to everyone else, in case anyone thought differently, that he didn't say he was "looking in to this" like he has when other issues he was unaware of came up. He knows this change was made, or he'd be surprised. He's compiling notes. If it was his decision to make, I don't think he'd be compiling notes-- he'd just read the thread and make a decision. I think he's trying to find a way to convince someone else.
This isn't a bug, you guys, or Castle would be saying "wow, that's not supposed to happen". Brutes' auras still working is the bug. This was an intentional stealth nerf, and I get the impression that in order to reverse or change it, Castle needs some good arguments and reasonable alternative solutions. That's why I think he's taking notes. So don't stop making rational arguments against the change, or reasonable alternative suggestions for making AV fights more interesting while still allowing a Tanker to serve a purpose beyond "less extra damage than a Scrapper or Blaster" without being forced into a specific power choice.
I'm not trying to say what anyone is thinking, I'm just trying to make sure that one dev post doesn't make posters with good ideas assume that change is coming, and stop giving feedback.
Anyway, I have what I consider to be a great argument against the implementation of the change: Taunt still allows us to make an AV fight just as easy as Gauntlet and Auras did, so this change does not serve its purpose. Also, it defeats the purpose of all of the changes made in the attempt to prevent Taunt the power from being mandatory.
That's my argument. Unfortunately, I have no solutions yet other than "reverse the changes" that don't either render Tankers even less useful in AV fights, or require a complete overhaul of the AT or AVs themselves. I hope someone else can come up with something acceptable to the decision maker(s), I'll continue trying myself.
Thanks again, Castle.
Please try my custom mission arcs!
Legacy of a Rogue (ID 459586, Entry for Dr. Aeon's Third Challenge)
Death for Dollars! (ID 1050)
Dr. Duplicate's Dastardly Dare (ID 1218)
Win the Past, Own the Future (ID 1429)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was needed because tanks removed the challenge of AVs. Just sit around holding its aggro via gauntlet and taunt auras and no one else had to worry about taking hits.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except that's not what happens. AVs have tons of area effect attacks, so the other guys are going to inevitibly take a few hits, especially if they're squishy types that have to stay in close proximity to their enemies. This is true of most blasters, on account of their heavy third attack, and many defenders. The tanker is there to soak up the brutal single target attacks that AVs throw out.
The only reason this change was made, apparently, was because 40 brutes managed to taunt-lock the player-controlled heroes in the CoV beta event such that they couldn't attack at all. This isn't really a limitation that AI opponents have, and I've never seen a giant monster in the past that had trouble picking targets with lots of tankers taunting it. Paladin will trash you just as badly, six tankers or not.
And the other thing to consider. If the tanker isn't hogging the aggro, where is it going to go? The blasters and controllers. The guys doing the most damage, and the guys stacking the most effects in each attack. I don't think I need to explain the problem there.
[/ QUOTE ]
A blaster that enters AOE range of a AV or GM will die in 2 hits, if that. I'm sorry a squishy shouldn't be in range of an AOE, period. Well unless they feel like faceplanting. A blapper is more than just /em.
Also who nukes AV's or GM's? Ok I've done it in the past, but that was way past the point of anyone surviving in general. If I'm going to go out, might as well go out with a bang .
[ QUOTE ]
No comments on the gauntlet issue at the moment -- but I am reading the threads and taking notes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Save the Tanker; save the world!
[ 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 God. When the AV aggro changes were made in I7 that forced me to use taunt I was more than a little irritated. I only took taunt in the late 30s as a "filler power" because nothing else fit my character concept.
Good thing, too, otherwise I'd have to be doing a respec trial just to be viable in the late-game that pits you against AVs with incredible frequency.
The big question that has never been answered, even though it was asked when Issue 7 came out... is WHY? Why was the change necessary?
My Going Rogue Trailer
Virtue (blue) - Wes The Mess
Virtue (red) - Jess The Best
@Razoras