fix it so we are not forced to pick the t1 power in our secondary
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2010-10-21 09:32 in Suggestions and Ideas
Quote:
The issue of reinforcing the concept of secondary powerset's lower priority being irrelevant to the thread's argument about having to take a power.|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
The issue of having to take a power at all is irrelevant to the thread's argument about having to take a power....
|
Do pay attention.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
A tank does not need to take taunt. The power is NOT pivotal to the archetype, as taunting itself is built in to the AT's other powers. Your premise there is flawed badly.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
The Mastermind, at least, gets closer to the argument. Yes, they can skip pets, however they're still able to defend themselves, attack, and progress in the game from level 1 onward. They can leverage the debuffs to increase their survivability... part of which is designed into that first tier-2 power.
A Stalker not taking hide will, however, find themselves at a great disadvantage. Not only can they not start at Hidden status for an attack, but they become much more vulnerable - and the other part of their AT-defining power, Assassin Strike, a four-second interruptable single-target attack, becomes nearly impossible to use until well into the game when other defenses are in play... *assuming* you have a defensive set. That's a *big* sign pointing at Hide being deemed necessary. The devs have indicated the essential need of hide for the AT not just by placing it first in that Tier2 power, but by making it an END-cost-free toggle. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
If all you'll take is a specific redname statement in this thread, then we're through, as nothing can be argued with you.
|
Quote:
I'm not going to argue what you've "seen" or "haven't seen." I've played tanks enough - yes, including those without Taunt (the power) - to have seen things happen both ways. But you'll probably request redname confirmation on that as well. I'm not going to argue if you've seen a bunny in the clouds or not. I'm also not going to get into the necessarily vague definition of "normal play." |
Originally Posted by Quinch
I have yet to see a single tauntless tank which can prevent a blaster from pulling aggro off a tank via normal play.
|
Hell, I've had my tauntless SS/WP Brute (WP having what's considered one of the weakest Taunt auras of the sets) strip armor from a taunting, damage-aura-using Fire brute. Which is not what I wanted to have happen at the time, being a good ten levels lower than the person I was playing with.
Quote:
| Are you arguing that a Stalker, while not hidden, cannot fight with expectation of survival? If so, how do you reconcile that claim with Stalkers' role in any sort of team play, where a single Assassin's Strike will not have a crucial effect on the battle? |
Play one lately?
Yes, a stalker can fight *unhidden* and survive. I've done so. However, the Hide ability (and hidden state, more specifically) are a *key* part to the AT. Which is, of course, why you're "forced" to take it at level 1.
Do pay attention.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Quinch
No, but it is required for me to acknowledge authority you do not have nor speak for.
|
But, as mentioned in the prior statements, since you seem to insist on that as a burden of proof (as opposed to visible design and history,) well, I can see no further reason to continue this with you.
Quote:
Ummmm...I have. Many times. There's no such thing as melee range aggro. It's just aggro. As long as they are attacking, they'll be fine. A 13.5 second taunt effect from their attacks, * 1,000 generates a lot of Threat.
|
Originally Posted by Quinch
Correction; threat enhancement is built into the archetype's powers. Said threat enhancement consists of a melee range aggro increase. I have yet to see a single tauntless tank which can prevent a blaster from pulling aggro off a tank via normal play.
|
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
i like all this chatter.
fact: currently the t1 secondary that we may or may not want or is good or not good is a forced power. no option at all. none. yeah sure we can take slots out later but we are still stuck with that power. bad design.
fact: i have to wait 41 levels on many toons to get epp or ppp armors and i have to take crappy boxing or kick first to get something that resembles armor. why would i want kick or boxing when i have a whole primary or secondary or both with attacks? boxing and kick are melee attacks mind you which is really great for a squishy with no substantial armor until 41 lol but i must take one of them to get pitiful but better than nothing armor. bad design.
what should be done: make power choices more flexible or change/revamp all t1 secondary powers to be more useful compared or yeah lock in some slots or put in something more useful into the fighting pool besides boxing and kick. i really don't care, just do something about these bad designs.
A very sad story about War Witch and the neglected kitty. http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=219670
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Black_Barrier
Guess it's hard to click while actively trying to keep the drool away from the keyboard...
|
Quote:
It's a severe case that would require a more radical change than what's been suggested. Flash Arrow isn't going to mitigate anymore than Entangling Arrow. I suppose you could make the case that an AoE -ToHit is slightly more effective than a ST -Recharge Immo.|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
'Some sort' of mitigation is not 'effective' mitigation. Entangling Arrow immobilizing one of three minions does not stop it from shooting at you and does not mitigate the damage from the other two minions. Give me a second attack, please, or a heal, or a shield. Give me a hold to actually stop the attacks of that minion. Even Gale is more helpful than that.
That's a severe case. There should be no severe cases. When you can say, "This character, on it's own can solo very easily, but this one very difficultly", then there needs to be some sort of redress. |
I'm a fan of Gale. I'm not keen on having to take Infrigidate on a team build for a /Cold Corruptor. These isolated and purely subjective "problems" are not worth changing the game's mechanics. Especially not when only a few from the peanut gallery are calling for them.
@Gilia1
I play heroes on Champion.
I play villains on Virtue.
Quote:
Actually, I would concede this point if I had your confirmation. You state that you are in possession of tanks which can effectively hold aggro without taunt. Would you agree to an experiment? |
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
I'm not going to argue what you've "seen" or "haven't seen." I've played tanks enough - yes, including those without Taunt (the power) - to have seen things happen both ways. But you'll probably request redname confirmation on that as well.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
It won't? Taking down a boss or a troublesome minion/LT ahead of time - or damaging them to the point where they die much quicer - won't? The fear AOE from a successful assassin's strike (which requires hide) has no effect?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Play one lately?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Yes, a stalker can fight *unhidden* and survive. I've done so. However, the Hide ability (and hidden state, more specifically) are a *key* part to the AT. Which is, of course, why you're "forced" to take it at level 1.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
An authority *only you* are attempting to state I claim.
|
"The devs have indicated the essential need of hide for the AT not just by placing it first in that Tier2 power, but by making it an END-cost-free toggle."
You make assumptions and attribute them to your assumptions of developers' intentions. Do you dispute that?
Quote:
This is NOT true. It doesn't override anything. It just adds a heck of a lot of Threat. If someone else can generate more threat than Taunt can, they will get aggro. It also doesn't force mobs into melee range, it just brings them closer. Some mobs it won't do anything to (i.e., Snipers).|
Originally Posted by Quinch
Taunt is an autohit, zero-endurance AoE that overrides all current threat values with a hardcapped range debuff which forces the affected mobs into melee range where they can be more efficiently held by Gauntlet. Are you claiming that Taunt cannot be considered a key power in the tanker archetype?
|
It is not a key power for the AT, it just helps a lot.
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:
I'll admit to a level of mistrust on accepting anything here. And of course the definition of "normal play." (Hell, I'd worry about "Hold aggro." Is it "lost" if they ever turn from me or only if I don't regain it quickly?) |
Originally Posted by Quinch
Actually, I would concede this point if I had your confirmation. You state that you are in possession of tanks which can effectively hold aggro without taunt. Would you agree to an experiment?
|
Define the experiment. Especially the "loss" of aggro given the statement above.
Similarly, do you have any argument with the statement I made re: my experience that my *non taunting* (and not slotted for taunt) brute stripped aggro from another, AOE-using, taunting brute?
Quote:
| Even on a midsized team, there will be more than one "troublesome boss/lieutenant". On a large team, they will be one among a sea of other troublemakers. |
or trembling in fear, is that not easier?
Quote:
| No, but I have played with a few. |
Quote:
| Taunt is an autohit, zero-endurance AoE that overrides all current threat values with a hardcapped range debuff which forces the affected mobs into melee range where they can be more efficiently held by Gauntlet. Are you claiming that Taunt cannot be considered a key power in the tanker archetype? |
As for what exactly it does - your description is incorrect. I'll see if I can find the discussion Castle had where he and GW actually learned what Taunt was doing.
Quote:
|
"Who made that decision? The devs. And, chuckles, they *are* that important. They have set up powers at level one to ensure soloability and specific minimums for the AT or powerset." "The devs have indicated the essential need of hide for the AT not just by placing it first in that Tier2 power, but by making it an END-cost-free toggle." You make assumptions and attribute them to your assumptions of developers' intentions. Do you dispute that? |
Again, *you* are assigning a claim of authority to me that I, myself, have not claimed. There are times I will make direct statements of Developer statements - such as holding more than 10 enhancements during a respec, the POV of full respecs, etc - but at those times, by contrast, I will clearly state "This is what the developers have said." Until that time, do not assume or imply I'm making a similar assertion.
Quote:
Just my additional 2 inf.|
Originally Posted by OPTICAL_ILLUSION
i really don't care, just do something about these bad designs.
|
I disagree on the bad design. I view it as good design becuase the devs have to build a game around what is their vision/expectation of the ATs. Yes, at lvl41, you get APP/PPP or that you have to give up a power slot to take boxing, etc. But the devs can take that into consideration when designing mobs and content to keep us playing.
Giving players even more freedom/flexibility creates a larger matrix to cover for making things still challenging to us. Getting rid of boxing so we can pick up some more powerful (another attack from pri/sec) makes us overcome their obstacles more easily. So tougher mobs/content, which may or may not equal more fun. Like a suggestion to bring APP/PPP's into the 30's. Well, I guess those mobs we fight will get brought down too (I prefer not to fight Malta in the 30's although I know Carnies are in the 30's for redside) or should they toughen the mobs in the 30's since we will have APP/PPP's that cover the holes in our ATs? Egads, I really don't want to see the earth CoT casters made any tougher.
It is interesting Fitness is changing. It makes me wonder what new challenges are coming. Especially after going through Gold-side. Those extra powers are going to be more valuable.
Bill, in short, they found that it works like this:
Threat = Damage * DebuffMod * AI Mod * RangeMod * ATMod * (TauntDurationRemaining * 1,000)
Taunt, with a 45 second duration, gives the Tanker 45,000 Threat before anything else is even factored in.
A Damage aura or attack, with a 13.5 second Taunt, gives 13,500 Threat before anything else is factored in.
With Gauntlet, a Blaster would need to out-damage the Tanker by more than 27 to 1 (yay for AT mods) in order to strip aggro from them.
Now, what a lot of Blasters do see is that they throw out an AoE like Fireball (target cap of 16) at a group of enemies that the Tanker has engaged with either his own AoE or his aggro aura (target cap of 10), and see the other 6 look his way. That can happen. However, unless you had Taunted those exact 6 enemies before the Blaster threw the AoE, some of them would have looked at the Blaster anyways.
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:
Personally, I'm expecting an "adjustment" to come soon to Willpower/Regen/possibly Empathy because of it. (Fast Healing/Quick Recovery/the AEs.) |
Originally Posted by PennyPA
It is interesting Fitness is changing. It makes me wonder what new challenges are coming. Especially after going through Gold-side. Those extra powers are going to be more valuable.
|
Quote:
| Now, what a lot of Blasters do see is that they throw out an AoE like Fireball (target cap of 16) at a group of enemies that the Tanker has engaged with either his own AoE or his aggro aura (target cap of 10), and see the other 6 look his way. That can happen. However, unless you had Taunted those exact 6 enemies before the Blaster threw the AoE, some of them would have looked at the Blaster anyways. |
And that's why I'm hesitant to say "yes" to the challenge, especially with rather vaguely mentioned "normal" gameplay (as well as "loss" of aggro.) I may well hold aggro (the mobs turn, I get them back) where someone else sees me "lose" aggro at the same time. (Though I'd still like to know how my brute stripped aggro from the other - we weren't over the caps.)
(Edit: off to work...)
Quote:
Isn't Regen "adjusted" every issue? |
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Personally, I'm expecting an "adjustment" to come soon to Willpower/Regen/possibly Empathy because of it. (Fast Healing/Quick Recovery/the AEs.)
|
Quote:
I've ran an experiment once, about a year ago. Turned off my taunt aura and taunted a single CoT mage once. A blaster teammate wailed on him for the duration of the taunt; the mage constantly kept attacking me the whole time. It's possible that what you're saying is true, but the aggro generated would be so high, the distinction seems academic.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
This is NOT true. It doesn't override anything. It just adds a heck of a lot of Threat. If someone else can generate more threat than Taunt can, they will get aggro. It also doesn't force mobs into melee range, it just brings them closer. Some mobs it won't do anything to (i.e., Snipers).
|
You do have a point about the melee range and snipers, though. I've found that almost any mob that does move will try to close in for hand-to-hand attacks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
I'll admit to a level of mistrust on accepting anything here. And of course the definition of "normal play." (Hell, I'd worry about "Hold aggro." Is it "lost" if they ever turn from me or only if I don't regain it quickly?)
Define the experiment. Especially the "loss" of aggro given the statement above. |
A mid-level AE mission, ran in test mode with invulnerability, with +4x8 spawns with full complement of stone meelee/assault rifle primaries and invulnerability powers to ensure a protracted engagement. One tanker and one blaster, one spawn at a time. "Loss" of aggro may be defined as a mob closing the distance between the blaster and the tank, with severity according to mob rank, though I am open to suggestions. Demorecorded for subsequent analysis, fifteen-minute timer. First pass is with a tauntless/provokeless tanker {you}, second run with taunt and provoke {me}. Possible additional run with me using only aggro toggle, taunt and provoke for comparison purposes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill
Similarly, do you have any argument with the statement I made re: my experience that my *non taunting* (and not slotted for taunt) brute stripped aggro from another, AOE-using, taunting brute?
|
Quote:
This, even if the OP is a troll. The secondary thing does not accomplish anything.|
Originally Posted by Zombie Man
HAH!
I'm on the side of the OP!!!   The Responses to Avoiding the First Tier Secondary: 1. NO. Because we've been doing it this way for 6 years. OK, that's just dumb. It's like saying leave Faultline the way it was because that's the way it was. Or go back to old Vigilance or Defiance because that's the way it was. Or don't implement inherent Fitness because that's the way it was for 6 years. People who make this argument are the ones to be ridiculed and told they're not allowed to participate in discussions anymore.2. NO. People will skip HIDE! You mean like how some MMs skip Pets? Or 'Healers' skip attacks? Or Blasters skip melee attacks? Or Tankers skip Taunt? Why not let people hold off taking Hide until they have their Assassination power? And where's the indignation for "No! Controllers will skip GALE!"? Have you all heard the news that not all first tier secondary powers are equal in utility? How about giving people whose first tier secondary powers is nearly useless a chance to skip it?3. I'm Laughing. I've got an owl. I've got a brain.. |
The only response people are making to attempt to rebut it is 'it reinforces the concept of a secondary.' SERIOUSLY? Like the stats do not? Why is reinforcing such a concept even desirable?
Here's how you should think about it. If secondaries were currently open, would you suggest they be restricted just to make them feel more secondary? No, that would just be absurd and pointlessly restrict customization, in addition to being a very weird way to accomplish that goal. If it would make no sense as a new feature, why should it make sense in any case?
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!
Quote:
The stats don't always work, though. Controllers get a lot more benefit from the Storm Secondary powers than a similar Defender might, for instance. Certainly, the debuff potential is higher on the Defender, but with Containment, Controllers can do more damage.|
Originally Posted by ChaosExMachina
This, even if the OP is a troll. The secondary thing does not accomplish anything.
The only response people are making to attempt to rebut it is 'it reinforces the concept of a secondary.' SERIOUSLY? Like the stats do not? Why is reinforcing such a concept even desirable? Here's how you should think about it. If secondaries were currently open, would you suggest they be restricted just to make them feel more secondary? No, that would just be absurd and pointlessly restrict customization, in addition to being a very weird way to accomplish that goal. If it would make no sense as a new feature, why should it make sense in any case? |
Or look at Dominators and Brutes. Dominators have higher base damage on similar attacks.
So stats do not always make it so that the secondary powers are weaker.
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:
Well, outside the presence pool, Taunt powers have a -75% range debuff. Isn't there a distance at which most mobs are willing to come into melee? I seem to think it's ~60'... but I can't find any place where a solid number is written down. I'm convinced, at any rate, that it's between 80' and 20', where they are normally and where they will move to once Taunted. It seems anyone with a melee attack is willing to come in to use it once Taunted.|
Originally Posted by Quinch
You do have a point about the melee range and snipers, though. I've found that almost any mob that does move will try to close in for hand-to-hand attacks.
|
Longbow Eagles, or whoever is flying around, are one exception I know of. Those suckers will come in to do their basic Brawl then fly off again. It's so annoying.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
Ummmm...I have. Many times. There's no such thing as melee range aggro. It's just aggro. As long as they are attacking, they'll be fine. A 13.5 second taunt effect from their attacks, * 1,000 generates a lot of Threat.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Threat
Range Mod
In general, attacks in melee have a higher modifier. However, we know very few specifics about this value. |
@Gilia1
I play heroes on Champion.
I play villains on Virtue.
Well, range does generate threat at different values, but there's no final value for "melee aggro" versus "ranged aggro" which is what I was trying to say (and doing it badly, apparently).
Basically, Threat is Threat, no matter where it is generated from. Range just plays into the value a bit. Even still, knowing what most of the other values for the Mods in the formula normally go between, I highly doubt that range is as huge of a modifier as TauntDurationRemaining * 1000 is.
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
Castle himself called the new Dominators dual-primary. I ask again why you would even WANT to back up such a concept. Why should we care to emphasize secondaryness?
It's arbitrary and it does not work with a game that's supposed to embrace customization.
It also does not work with every powerset. Some of them have stronger tier 1s than tier 2s. Some are up to taste. If a controller prefers gale, have they broken the game by not acquiescing to your imagined secondary penalty? Should one type of taste be favored? If you want the tier 1 more does that make you overpowered?
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!
Quote:
Fury, remember?
| Or look at Dominators and Brutes. Dominators have higher base damage on similar attacks. |
Quote:
I understand Fury. I was merely pointing out that base stats are not always a differentiator between primary and secondary sets.|
Originally Posted by Tidbit Jr.
Fury, remember?
|
If you want another example, look at the traps set, which has a number of powers that work at exactly the same base values on both Corruptors and Defenders, thanks to the pseudo-pets.
There are a number of cases where the secondary set has better stats than the primary. In those cases, the slower progression of powers is the only thing making the secondary weaker than the primary powers.
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:
If that is the tac you want to take, then why shouldn't we be able to choose from the first three powers from our primary pool at level 1? Wouldn't that allow for more customization? Why not be able to take a power from any tier at level 2? That would allow for more customization, wouldn't it?|
Originally Posted by ChaosExMachina
Castle himself called the new Dominators dual-primary. I ask again why you would even WANT to back up such a concept. Why should we care to emphasize secondaryness?
It's arbitrary and it does not work with a game that's supposed to embrace customization. It also does not work with every powerset. Some of them have stronger tier 1s than tier 2s. Some are up to taste. If a controller prefers gale, have they broken the game by not acquiescing to your imagined secondary penalty? Should one type of taste be favored? If you want the tier 1 more does that make you overpowered? |
At some point, the line must be drawn. The current line works, and nobody here has shown any differently. If you move the line, you do have the potential for weaker characters, especially among newer players (ones who might not know that Stalkers are supposed to take hide, for instance), since because there was a choice, both must be okay choices to take at level 1.
Bruising would also likely be lost, since one of the reasons it was added to the tier 1 Tanker attacks was because you had to take the power. If you can make the choice, then logically you'd have to revert Bruising.
To sum up, the current system is:
Not broken, can't unintentionally gimp characters
Proposed system:
Also not technically broken (though sometimes out of Dev design), can unintentionally gimp characters.
And then you're asking which one I prefer? I prefer the one that is idiot-proof, thankyouverymuch.
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:
Good thing that I found other reasons why this change shouldn't happen. If that's all there was to it, I'd be fighting against leaving it as is as much as I harp on Khels not getting access to flight/tp. That actually Was put into place for nothing but idiot proofing.
| And then you're asking which one I prefer? I prefer the one that is idiot-proof, thankyouverymuch. |
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
My opinion has always been that a secondary powerset is every bit as important as the primary set. To that end I believe a new character should be required to take one power from each set. However other than that the only reasons I have for forcing the secondary power to be the T1 are that is provides a bit more differentiation between ATs who have swapped powersets (i.e. Tanker vs. Scrapper/Brute and Defender vs. Corruptor) and for Stalkers and Blasters the secondary T1 is designed to support their intended playstyle so for a new player being forced to take it is helpful. That being said I can definitely see merit to allowing either the T1 or T2 from secondaries for the first power but I doubt we'll see it happen.|
Originally Posted by ChaosExMachina
Why should we care to emphasize secondaryness?
|
Just to clarify on the Blasters comment above, Blaster secondary T1 powers are intended to aid a Blaster in keeping out of melee, for a new player this power is more useful, at least at low levels, than a melee attack would be (which every set except Devices has for the T2).
Quote:
| It's arbitrary and it does not work with a game that's supposed to embrace customization. |
Quote:
| It also does not work with every powerset. Some of them have stronger tier 1s than tier 2s. Some are up to taste. If a controller prefers gale, have they broken the game by not acquiescing to your imagined secondary penalty? Should one type of taste be favored? If you want the tier 1 more does that make you overpowered? |
Quote:
Actually most of the Defender powers got new pseudo-pets. Caltrops and maybe PGT (I can't recall for this one off the top of my head) are the only ones that got reused. Of course in the case of Trip Mine and Time Bomb the Defender versions are worse than the Corruptor ones which also demonstrates your point.
|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
If you want another example, look at the traps set, which has a number of powers that work at exactly the same base values on both Corruptors and Defenders, thanks to the pseudo-pets.
|
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides