Galactiman

The wiki is completely unofficial. From the home page of the wiki: Unless it cites an official source anything on there is no more official than me, you, or anyone else. However, from the official Homecoming Issue 26 page 4 patch notes: So at the very least the Homecoming devs, which is about as official as we get, refer to attacks that taunt as "PunchVoke." But again, this is pedantic and irrelevant to your ultimate point that Dwarfs shouldn't have Taunt or additional threat added to their attacks, to which I responded they already do.

There is no official source for the definition of the word "punchvoke" (just because someone added something to a wiki doesn't make it official) and it's generally used interchangeably with Gauntlet to imply the ability for attacks to "taunt"* the target (which is how the OP to whom you were replying used it). However, from a technical perspective, Gauntlet doesn't just "increase threat" and it is not "by definition" an AoE Taunt and currently does more than just grant "punchvoke" since it also increases AoE target caps. Concerning the aspect of Gauntlet that provides "punchvoke": it's a global enhancement that provides two separate powers, one that afflicts the target with the Taunt status effect, and one that casts an AoE that ignores the main target and afflicts all targets in a 10 ft radius around the main target with the Taunt status effect. Also, threat and the Taunt status effect are not the same thing. Threat is a value applied to each critter that is used to determine a player's likeliness to be targeted by said critter. There are many factors in the threat formula, one of which is the Taunt status effect, which is simply a very large multiplier in the formula. As far as Brutes and Dwarfs go, Brutes have "punchvoke" because Fury provides a global enhancement similar to the one provided by Gauntlet, which grants a power that afflicts the target with the Taunt status effect. This global enhancement lacks the additional AoE taunt power that Tanks have. Dwarf's "punchvoke" is baked into each attack, causing them to afflict every target with the Taunt status effect. All of this is pedantic and irrelevant because the point is that the OP to which you were responding was requesting that Dwarf attacks have the ability to "taunt"*, and you explicitly stated you disagreed that such a thing should be added. My response to you was to indicate that it doesn't matter whether or not you agree, because it's already there. *I put "taunt" in quotes here to distinguish how it's generally used in conversation. Most people, including the OP, use it to mean "force the target to attack the caster" and not "inflict a status effect which acts as a large multiplier in the threat formula." Also, first you said: is not the same as Gauntlet. Then you said: and: So it seems you are confused on the point you are trying to make here.

I don't agree with you. I merely acknowledge that you stated a fact. One that is irrelevant.

You're being very pedantic. Technically, Gauntlet is the name of the tanker inherent power which does more than provide punchvoke. It goes without saying that no AT gets another AT's inherent power. Colloquially, many people use punchvoke and Gauntlet interchangeably, and based on context it's pretty easy to tell when they are doing so, as is the case for the original post that sparked this rabbit hole. You also went on to say: I was pointing out that they already have it.

White Dwarf attacks already have punchvoke, as do Brutes. They just don't get AoE punchvoke on single target attacks like Tankers do.

If you can point me to a better place to report bugs then I'll gladly post there.

It may be intentional or it may be an oversight, which has happened plenty of times before. I'd rather the devs take a look and decide. Not sure what is even the point of randos coming into a bug report thread and deciding something is or isn't a bug.

All you did was repeat what the other person said. My point is that the power not being tagged to accept those enhancements IS THE BUG.

I would think the bug is that those tags aren't on the power. The +MaxEnd component isn't tagged "ignores buffs and enhancements", which is usually the case for aspects of a power for which enhancements can't be slotted.

Nothing else to say really.

Bro went off about some undocumented nerf that he didn't realize had no functional impact to gameplay and now he's scrambling around trying to dig up anything he can to justify his rant instead of just saying "oops, my bad."

In fact, HP, regeneration, and resistance stack multiplicatively with each other. So increasing your resistance will actually increase your time-to-live by more than the pure resistance math tells you, unless the raw incoming damage is orders of magnitude higher than your HP, at which point you will see resistance increasingly become the only relevant factor (since it is the only factor which continues to scale proportionally due to being a percentage of incoming damage and not a static value). It will never go below the resistance "math." Of course, when the damage is that high, increasing your time-to-live by fractions of a second doesn't mean much, even though in percentage terms it looks like a lot. Example with 100 raw incoming dps: HP Regen % HP/s Resistance TTL Difference % 1000 1.00% 5.00% 11.765 seconds 1000 1.00% 10.00% 12.500 seconds 6.25% Now with 1000 raw incoming dps: HP Regen % HP/s Resistance TTL Difference % 1000 1.00% 5.00% 1.064 seconds 1000 1.00% 10.00% 1.124 seconds 5.62% Now with 10000 raw incoming dps: HP Regen % HP/s Resistance TTL Difference % 1000 1.00% 5.00% 0.105 seconds 1000 1.00% 10.00% 0.111 seconds 5.56% As you can see, as the incoming damage increases, the TTL difference tends toward the isolated resistance calculation of 5.55%. For the practical scenario (i.e. you're not fighting something that will kill you instantly no matter what), the increase in resistance is actually more valuable than an isolated calculation tells you. tldr; Due to the multiplicative interaction with other game mechanics, increasing your resistance will have even greater returns than the isolated resistance "math" indicates, for all practical scenarios.

No need to concede it since it's already my belief. I also don't think I'm moving the goal post. When you're building your character, especially if you're doing it organically while leveling and not using a tool to min/max, it's good to know how much effect your next choice is going to have relative to your current power level. It's good to know about some of the quirks of the math that may be unintuitive. For instance, the fact that damage resistance and defense have increasing returns. Going from 5% resistance to 10% resistance increases how long you survive by roughly 5%, but going from from 85% to 90% increases how long you survive by 50%.

If you are currently doing 100 damage per minute and you increase that to 200 damage per minute, then you have doubled your damage. If you are currently doing 300 damage per minute and you increase that to 400 damage per minute, you only increased your damage 33%. Assuming the cost is the same to go from 100 to 200 as it is to go from 300 to 400, then that is a diminishing return on investment.

It's pretty damn lame. Oh look another button to press. I guess that boss was defeated slightly faster? Also I guess I'm Tech origin now?