Quote:
I've actually considered this in the past, but there are several snags that kept rearing their face to me.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
One last little thought.
There actually exists an effect in game right now, that works out to being the same as increased DPS that scales upward with the rank of the target. It doesn't work out to a lot of damage in day to day work, but it absolutely ensures that you will eventually defeat your target as long as you don't die and don't run out of endurance. That effect is -regen/-healing. |
If the debuff is too weak, it will be of questionable value. If made too strong it still wouldn't stack (since one would flatline everything's regen) except against AVs, where other ATs would be better anyways. I considered making it a smaller, unresistible regen debuff, but that means it would probably be small enough not to be noticeable against anything except AVs. It would be a huge boon to soloing AVs, but that wouldn't be the point of it.
I like the idea behind it and that it would be a static dps boost instead of amplifying all of the Tanker's damage (as +dmg would do)... but I'm not sure it would help Tankers where they need it. I'll have to think about it some more.
[edit: How the debuff is applied isn't simple, either. Debuffs can be set to not stack from the same power from the same user, but afaik not a single debuff from the same caster. If they make the debuff a short duration, but stackable (like Defiance) then it would benefit quick animating sets more than slow ones. If they want to make it just long enough for a Tanker to keep 1 on (say a 2.5 to 3.5s duration), then if the Tanker stops attacking for any reason (Taunt, BU, etc) the debuff would fall off. Considering the efficiency issues of Tankers, that's pretty harsh.]
The way I see it, any boost to Tanker damage, either in the pure numbers or the DPS categories, would push a fair number of only lightly-built up Tanks into the "soloing AVs" range - and I'm absolutely convinced the Devs will never go for anyone soloing an AV in SOs.
So if the big Tanker problem is Endurance efficiency, fixes almost certainly need to be on the endurance side of the equation, because tweaks the other way might push Tankers into wholly unacceptable territories.
Thanks, that's a good analysis. The only reason I brought it up was because of J_B's mention of "some kind of scaling damage that increases with enemy rank". -Regen has that effect, more or less. I agree that it doesn't solve any of what I see as the chief Tanker issues, though. And FWIW I still think Tankers are okay as is, for many of the same reasons you do. I'm growing to like the idea that an AT having niche appeal is not a strike against it.
For what it's worth, if -regen were given to Tankers, I'd put it in Taunt, not Gauntlet, have a fairly generous duration, and not stack from same caster. That may be overloading Taunt a bit, though.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Masterminds. Very slowly.
|
Originally Posted by Eikochan
I'm absolutely convinced the Devs will never go for anyone soloing an AV in SOs.
|
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
QR
I tried to keep up with this, but a few days with no internet and I'm a 100 posts off again...
Anyways, what about this: damage boost based on # of enemies within range? inverse correlation of course. Max boost at 1 enemy, minumum/none at X enemies. I'm thinking of the scaling resistances that /SR gets as it drops below 60% health...
Pro's: turns you into a heavier hitter, speeds up soloing.
Con's: not tied to rank/con of enemy just their numbers, defining "what's in range", is a damage boost, exploitable?
Hmmm...complicated twist: base it on number of allies? 0 allies = max boost, 7+ allies = 0 boost? (7+ to take into account pets, and tank dropping from team in a mish to gain benefit...)
Pro: there is already an ally proximity+number dmg buff auto-power (kheld inherent) so no "new" coding, improves solo speed, turns you into a heavier hitter.
Con: is a damage boost...?
Probably because Tankers, as a whole, are doing quite well, and of all the possible improvements to them, damage is probably pretty low on the list.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
Quote:
I've bolded the problem point. See it's very subjective. "Doing Quite Well" could mean occasionally soloing an AV to one person, and something much lower to someone else. The devs have never (to my knowledge) quantified what "Doing Well" means to them in terms of AT performance.|
Originally Posted by Reiraku
Probably because Tankers, as a whole, are doing quite well, and of all the possible improvements to them, damage is probably pretty low on the list.
|
What murkies the waters even more is that there are some ATs that do much better than tanks. The devs have as much as said that debuffing ATs can be too powerful, but they don't have any balance fixes in the works for those.
When this happens, you get "Haves" and "Have Nots." Even if the "Have Nots" are "doing quite well" according to someone's opinion/metric, they see what the "Haves" have, and naturally want it.
I'm tired, and have little more point than one person's "doing quite well" is not everyone's.
Help make America #1 in Broadband: www.broadband.gov
Take the survey/test (like a Census for Broadband): http://broadband.gov/qualitytest/about/
If soloing AVs is the new measure for doing well enough not to be dissatisfied with the state of one's AT, then quite a few ATs are in miserable condition.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
I'm fairly certain that "doing quite well," or as Castle put it "do better than average" is with respect to earning rewards. Those rewards could be xp, inf, drops, etc. (I'm sure Arcanaville would be able to explain it better than me.)|
Originally Posted by sturm375
I've bolded the problem point. See it's very subjective. "Doing Quite Well" could mean occasionally soloing an AV to one person, and something much lower to someone else. The devs have never (to my knowledge) quantified what "Doing Well" means to them in terms of AT performance.
What murkies the waters even more is that there are some ATs that do much better than tanks. The devs have as much as said that debuffing ATs can be too powerful, but they don't have any balance fixes in the works for those. When this happens, you get "Haves" and "Have Nots." Even if the "Have Nots" are "doing quite well" according to someone's opinion/metric, they see what the "Haves" have, and naturally want it. I'm tired, and have little more point than one person's "doing quite well" is not everyone's. |
The problem with a lot of the opinions of people on the board (myself included, no doubt) is we're seeing the game through the lense of a powergamer. People may look at a Scrapper and say "better damage, buffable (buffs/IOs/etc) to have more than enough mitigation," or even do something like tank the STF with a Scrapper. It can be done, no doubt, but it is far less common than we think it is.
You have to be able to step back and try to picture the game populace as a whole - powergamers, concept, casuals, marketeers, farmers, PvPers - all of these people are being data mined. Everytime you read a bad PUG horror story realize those are the other side of the game compared to the people here. I'm positive there are far more of them (people who aren't min/maxing things to the teeth) than there are of us.
Taken from that point of view, it's not too hard to see why Blasters would be underperforming - they're extremely unforgiving. It may not even mean death, it may be as simple as getting low on health a lot and having to wait for it to regen. (As much as people gripe about end problems, health problems are a lot worse. Don't forget it takes four times as long to comeback from low health than low endurance base.) Tankers may be slow, but they're far more stable and forgiving of mistakes - both build and playstyle.
I'm not going to say that Tankers are perfect, they're not. I just don't find it hard to believe that Tankers are doing "quite well" in the grand scheme of things. If not "quite well," at least "above average."
(Oh, as an aside, Tankers can solo AVs. Maybe not every build combination and not as fast as other ATs, but it can be done. That could be said for several ATs, actually.)
How about making it so that Taunt is changed into just single target like the Scrapper "Confront", and when it hits its intended (now only single) target, not only does it give you a damage buff (and perhaps moreso than what was initially suggested here)... but on the other hand, the tanker loses aggro (drops any "gauntlet" aggro that has been generated) and loses the ability to generate any more (beyond the single target currently "challenged") so long as this special "challenge" effect is in place?
Then you could justify giving the tanker significant extra damage for that temporary duration... maybe even closer to our commonly envisioned "superman" strength levels, and also in line with comic-book protector-types with crazy super power... when they decide to go berserker with a foe, they are no longer in the mindset of protecting others for that period of time and as such there is a risk to the team.
Of course if it's an AV and you have already cleaned up other foes before he does this, he still has the aggro of the AV and then it would not be much of a (new) problem.
It would also help soloing tanks who dont need to be protectors of anybody else... and are often without good damage capability
/rare poster but 36-monther between issue 1 and now
/not noobified
Quote:
A change like this would destroy my current favorite character - a WP/Fire Tank. Right now I have heavily slotted and use Taunt as crucial method of holding aggro. This is not only as compensation for RttC, but also as a way to hold aggro over Brutes and Scrappers (with aggro auras). Further, I frequently use it as a way to shape the shape the battlefield with the range debuff - something I couldn't do without the 5 target cap.*|
Originally Posted by daves
How about making it so that Taunt is changed into just single target like the Scrapper "Confront", and when it hits its intended (now only single) target, not only does it give you a damage buff (and perhaps moreso than what was initially suggested here)... but on the other hand, the tanker loses aggro (drops any "gauntlet" aggro that has been generated) and loses the ability to generate any more (beyond the single target currently "challenged") so long as this special "challenge" effect is in place?
Then you could justify giving the tanker significant extra damage for that temporary duration... maybe even closer to our commonly envisioned "superman" strength levels, and also in line with comic-book protector-types with crazy super power... when they decide to go berserker with a foe, they are no longer in the mindset of protecting others for that period of time and as such there is a risk to the team. Of course if it's an AV and you have already cleaned up other foes before he does this, he still has the aggro of the AV and then it would not be much of a (new) problem. It would also help soloing tanks who dont need to be protectors of anybody else... and are often without good damage capability /rare poster but 36-monther between issue 1 and now /not noobified |
I can't speak concretely for anyone but myself, but I suspect that I'm not the only one who loves playing Tanks for the aggro control (among other things). Changing Taunt in this manner would be a very unwelcome change to me - possibly to the point of shelving my Tank(s) - my most played AT I'm recent months.
Players who want to deal more damage have other options, but those who enjoy tanking do not have other equivalent options.
Quote:
I again have to point out that any mechanic that forces tankers to concentrate on a single target is counter productive to their current role in the game. IMO, if the point of the exercise is to address any perceived tanker issues without changing their current aggro management capability then single target suggestions need to be left out. |
Originally Posted by daves
How about making it so that Taunt is changed into just single target like the Scrapper "Confront", and when it hits its intended (now only single) target, not only does it give you a damage buff (and perhaps moreso than what was initially suggested here)... but on the other hand, the tanker loses aggro (drops any "gauntlet" aggro that has been generated) and loses the ability to generate any more (beyond the single target currently "challenged") so long as this special "challenge" effect is in place?
Then you could justify giving the tanker significant extra damage for that temporary duration... maybe even closer to our commonly envisioned "superman" strength levels, and also in line with comic-book protector-types with crazy super power... when they decide to go berserker with a foe, they are no longer in the mindset of protecting others for that period of time and as such there is a risk to the team. Of course if it's an AV and you have already cleaned up other foes before he does this, he still has the aggro of the AV and then it would not be much of a (new) problem. It would also help soloing tanks who dont need to be protectors of anybody else... and are often without good damage capability /rare poster but 36-monther between issue 1 and now /not noobified |
>
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
Quote:
I don't disagree, as my WP/energy heavily uses taunt for aggro-control for the same reasons... and my WP/energy can deal mad damage, can hardly be scratched and never goes below about 80% end... WP rocks my world... |
Originally Posted by Sarrate
A change like this would destroy my current favorite character - a WP/Fire Tank. Right now I have heavily slotted and use Taunt as crucial method of holding aggro. This is not only as compensation for RttC, but also as a way to hold aggro over Brutes and Scrappers (with aggro auras). Further, I frequently use it as a way to shape the shape the battlefield with the range debuff - something I couldn't do without the 5 target cap.*
I can't speak concretely for anyone but myself, but I suspect that I'm not the only one who loves playing Tanks for the aggro control (among other things). Changing Taunt in this manner would be a very unwelcome change to me - possibly to the point of shelving my Tank(s) - my most played AT I'm recent months. Players who want to deal more damage have other options, but those who enjoy tanking do not have other equivalent options. |
I guess I was trying to imagine a way that could help for the goals of the people looking for such changes while thinking of the so-called Comic World tanker-types, and at the same time suggest something that would hurt their primary function in giving them a stronger secondary function.
(I would say I fit best in the camp of "Tankers don't *need* changes"... except when I'm playing a tank with a non-WP primary)
I could maybe understand the idea of debuffing a single target, but making Taunt ST to do it really doesn't make sense. Taunt was made an AOE because Tankers were grabbing Provoke instead to do their jobs as tanks. Making it into an ST tank would roll that back and make Tanks have a harder job controlling aggro, which is a BAD idea.
Really, if any kind of debuff was implemented, you'd want to make it an AOE of some sort... you could still use it against ST.
Guide: Tanking, Wall of Fire Style (Updated for I19!), and the Four Rules of Tanking
Story Arc: Belated Justice, #88003
Synopsis: Explore the fine line between justice and vengeance as you help a hero of Talos Island bring his friend's murderer to justice.
Grey Pilgrim: Fire/Fire Tanker (50), Victory
Quote:
Here is a problem with giving Tankers the ability to change functions, especially to the degree you seem to be implying (apologies if I misinterpreted): crossing too far into the damage role. Let me to explain.|
Originally Posted by daves
I guess I was trying to imagine a way that could help for the goals of the people looking for such changes while thinking of the so-called Comic World tanker-types, and at the same time suggest something that would hurt their primary function in giving them a stronger secondary function.
|
Right now, Tankers have a role in a group, stronger than I think some give them credit for. They take the alpha, hold aggro, cluster mobs for AoEs (damage and debuff), and set the pace for the group while dealing decent damage. (Many sets offer a significant amount of control, too.) Yes, a buffed Scrapper can take the alpha and possibly set the pace, but they don't cluster mobs or command aggro like a Tank does. I've been on teams that have been support light, buffer overload, and many things in between. I've found groups with a Tank (esp a good one) really helps a lot.
On the flip side, Scrappers have a much more ambiguous role - dealing lots of damage and light tanking duties. (I'm speaking in general here, so Scrappers take no offense. They're still fine teammates.)
Now, if you add the potential to deal heavy damage to the Tankers repetoir, the Scrapper's role is marginalized. Why take a Scrapper when you could take a Tanker instead? They may not deal as much damage, but they're a helluva lot sturdier and they have the ability to perform the above roles as well.
That's the problem with adding straight up damage to Tankers.
Of course, right now Tankers don't stack quite as well as other ATs and they have endurance efficiency issues, but if those are to be addressed, they should be in a unique fashion rather than just "more damage."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daves
(I would say I fit best in the camp of "Tankers don't *need* changes"... except when I'm playing a tank with a non-WP primary)
|
To be fair, the other Tankers I've played to high level have had some form of end management (Consume, EA).
Quote:
It's actually a role that redside lacks. I play redside more than blue, and most Brutes are much more like Scrappers than Tankers in these regards - especially in regards to "taking alphas" and "clustering mobs". On redside teams, there's often a question of who will rush in first, until I take charge with my MasterMind (whom, after BG mode, I contend are far more Tanker than Brutes) and rush in. But even my TankerMind can't hold aggro and do many of the other things with the ease my Tanker can. I can do it, but it's a lot more work for the MM than it is for the Tanker.|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Right now, Tankers have a role in a group, stronger than I think some give them credit for. They take the alpha, hold aggro, cluster mobs for AoEs (damage and debuff), and set the pace for the group while dealing decent damage. (Many sets offer a significant amount of control, too.) Yes, a buffed Scrapper can take the alpha and possibly set the pace, but they don't cluster mobs or command aggro like a Tank does. I've been on teams that have been support light, buffer overload, and many things in between. I've found groups with a Tank (esp a good one) really helps a lot.
|
It'll be nice to have actual Tankers redside once GR comes out.
Well I just think that while Tankers don't *need* changes (admittedly in my own view, and from limited experience)... I can empathize with what others are stating as problems.
My experiences with tankers left a bad taste in my mouth after Inv got turned into a pygmy in I5 all the way up untl the WP set came in... and when I try to play non-WP tankers I cannot handle it for long - they feel weak to me. I can choose to either be super-defensive and take damage and... yeah that's it... or leave half my toggles off and be able to actually chain attacks without becoming a "need END!" junkie... but then die like something between a scrapper and a squishie.
Even in the traditional medieval MMO space, the tanker class is usually something like a paladin that has something in addition to *just* having the claim to fame of "I soak damage and don't die TOO fast" (holy damage / bonus vs undead / etc)... I would say tankers could use something else to help them along even if it's not specifically this suggested damage boost.
Quote:
I don't disagree that Tankers have end issues, which is why Tanker efficiency is usually stated as a problem. There are many ways to go about easing Tanker end constraints (decrease end costs, increase max end, give Tankers an end management tool click / passive, etc). It's one of the two main problems Tankers have, I think.|
Originally Posted by daves
My experiences with tankers left a bad taste in my mouth after Inv got turned into a pygmy in I5 all the way up untl the WP set came in... and when I try to play non-WP tankers I cannot handle it for long - they feel weak to me. I can choose to either be super-defensive and take damage and... yeah that's it... or leave half my toggles off and be able to actually chain attacks without becoming a "need END!" junkie... but then die like something between a scrapper and a squishie.
|
The problems can be mitigated now with Stamina, CP, Accolades, IOs, etc, but some of those come late in the game (CP, Accolades) and the other (IOs) aren't (as far as I know) balanced as baseline. End-game Tankers with end under control are very nice, but I don't think we should have to wait that long for it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daves
Even in the traditional medieval MMO space, the tanker class is usually something like a paladin that has something in addition to *just* having the claim to fame of "I soak damage and don't die TOO fast" (holy damage / bonus vs undead / etc)... I would say tankers could use something else to help them along even if it's not specifically this suggested damage boost.
|
Having said that, some sort of non-damage perk to make multiple Tankers more attractive on a team? I'd listen to the ideas.
Quote:
Okay how about this variation on a theme?|
Originally Posted by Sarrate
Well, as I said, most Tankers have some potent crowd control (most notably knockdowns) or other debuffs (EM's stuns, DM's tohit debuffs/fear, Ice's slows). It's not consistent, though. (It could be argued that it shouldn't be.) Having said that, some sort of non-damage perk to make multiple Tankers more attractive on a team? I'd listen to the ideas. |
Stick with the Critical Taunt idea that applies secondary effects from any single target attack to all mobs effected by Gauntlet for that attack but add in a small endurance drain that adds to the tanker's endurance. You would have to play with the numbers to make the endurance drain low enough that a single tanker cannot completely drain a mob and the +recovery from five mobs would be enough to be effective without being overpowered. Thematically it would simply be an indication of the mobs losing their nerve when they realize that they are outmatched and the tanker getting psyched up as he gains the advantage.
This would also make multiple tankers more attractive in teams as you stack the endurance drain effects. The AoE mez effects would just be there for flavor and to give the tanker a more powerful feel.
>
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
Quote:
Critical Taunt. Interesting.|
Originally Posted by McBoo
Okay how about this variation on a theme?
Stick with the Critical Taunt idea that applies secondary effects from any single target attack to all mobs effected by Gauntlet for that attack but add in a small endurance drain that adds to the tanker's endurance. You would have to play with the numbers to make the endurance drain low enough that a single tanker cannot completely drain a mob and the +recovery from five mobs would be enough to be effective without being overpowered. Thematically it would simply be an indication of the mobs losing their nerve when they realize that they are outmatched and the tanker getting psyched up as he gains the advantage. This would also make multiple tankers more attractive in teams as you stack the endurance drain effects. The AoE mez effects would just be there for flavor and to give the tanker a more powerful feel. > |
This "Psych-Up" ability is an intriguing proposal.
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
Quote:
I can't take 100% credit for the Critical Taunt idea but I do think that it would work out quite well. The extra mez effects shouldn't be unbalancing and the added endurance would definitely be a boon.|
Originally Posted by Sylph_Knight
Critical Taunt. Interesting.
This "Psych-Up" ability is an intriguing proposal. |
>
"I am a Tank. I am your first choice, I am your last hope." -- Rune Bull
"Durability is the quintessential super-power. " -- Sailboat
I don't see how it couldn't work or why it would be so hard to implement. TankerA hits FreakshowA with Taunt. TankerA receives "Gauntlets Off" (for 5-7 seconds, refreshing on striking afflicted target, and receives scaled damage bonus) and FreakshowA is afflicted with Taunt(from TankerA).
TankerA gets scaled damage if:
-------------------------------
-Mob has taunting Tanker's Taunt afflicting them.
-TankerA has "Gauntlets Off" active.
As to the issue of two tankers taunting same target? TankerA and TankerB taunt FreakshowA. TankerA and TankerB receive "Gauntlets Off", while FreakshowA is afflicted with 2 separate Taunts(each flagged to owner). Both tankers fight normally until one either breaks off and buff expires, or FreakshowA is no longer on this plane of existence.
Obviously I can say this, and make it sound overly simple...but to be fair, I did NOT program the game. I was not involved in writing or editing the code, so I do not know how well or poopy the coding structure is setup. I am only relaying what seems to me, at this moment, what would be the logical step(s).
Quote:
From what I have gathered of Developer talks in the past, I would assume the code is a horrendous mess in some places. So it may not be as simple to implement as it first seems.
|
Originally Posted by Bobtheamerican
I don't see how it couldn't work or why it would be so hard to implement. TankerA hits FreakshowA with Taunt. TankerA receives "Gauntlets Off" (for 5-7 seconds, refreshing on striking afflicted target, and receives scaled damage bonus) and FreakshowA is afflicted with Taunt(from TankerA).
TankerA gets scaled damage if: ------------------------------- -Mob has taunting Tanker's Taunt afflicting them. -TankerA has "Gauntlets Off" active. As to the issue of two tankers taunting same target? TankerA and TankerB taunt FreakshowA. TankerA and TankerB receive "Gauntlets Off", while FreakshowA is afflicted with 2 separate Taunts(each flagged to owner). Both tankers fight normally until one either breaks off and buff expires, or FreakshowA is no longer on this plane of existence. Obviously I can say this, and make it sound overly simple...but to be fair, I did NOT program the game. I was not involved in writing or editing the code, so I do not know how well or poopy the coding structure is setup. I am only relaying what seems to me, at this moment, what would be the logical step(s). |
Raid Leader of Task Force Vendetta "Steel 70", who defeated the first nine Drop Ships in the Second Rikti War.
70 Heroes, 9 Drop Ships, 7 Minutes. The Aliens never knew what hit them.
Now soloing: GM-Class enemy Adamaster, with a Tanker!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sylph_Knight
From what I have gathered of Developer talks in the past, I would assume the code is a horrendous mess in some places. So it may not be as simple to implement as it first seems.
|
To illustrate this point, we didn't actually know how Threat worked in this game until about 2 years ago, when Castle and Ghost Widow went digging through the code, and found out that it wasn't how we thought it was.
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
Master Minds are a quirky beast because they can, if they so choose, get their damage for free by letting their pets do all their damage for them. They don't have to raise a finger and could save all their endurance for mitigation or summoning pets. I know I can't play that passively, but they can.
At any rate, this has relevance to how end management relates to Tankers, how? If you want to go down this line, I may as well say Assault is awesome because Master Minds have up to 6 pets benefiting from it.
Your opinion is that one is worse than the other. Good for you. That's not my opinion.
Yes, that is my opinion and nothing more. Likewise what you're writing is your opinion. So long as you recognize it as such. Of course, an opinion alone isn't enough justification for a change.
However, for the sake of discussion, I rarely play Blasters because I don't enjoy them. I play characters that I get joy and satisfaction from playing. I will not play characters I don't enjoy or am not in the mood to play. I have an Ill/Therm Controller idling at 44 or so. It wouldn't be too hard to push her to 50, but why bother if it's not fun? I also rarely visit the Blaster forum at all except for when a dev posts there, there is an interesting topic title from the forum list, or I'm bored.