Super Atom

I do like the idea someone suggested of betraying him before killing the longbow, but that's a wider topic on a whole. If every story line had praetorian tiers of choice that'd be lovely.

I don't see how this arc is any different from Terra or blinding the two children so the guy can creep on their mother. If you can't see the connection i can't help you.

You're entirely avoiding the point just to dismiss me and its becoming annoying. I don't want this changed because i don't think its a problem and i wouldn't want anything else to be changed for the same reasons this one is suggested be changed for. Its not a leap or stretch to make the assumption that this will continue forward to more and more especially when its been boiled down to a claim of misogynistic writing.

I think changing something because people are offended by it, when I don't have a personal stake keeping it as is, seems appropriate to me. and thus the "slippery slope" argument represents itself.

I don't care if the story line gets changed. I do care that it could lead to more story lines being changed under the same premise. But this is where the slippery slope argument falls apart. 1.) It supposes that one change will most certainly lead to a 2nd change - no one who has suggested changing the storyline has made the insinuation 2.) It supposes that we can't have a separate discussion, based on the merits, when the next change is requested. So instead of discussion this storyline on IT's merits, we are discussion potential future storyline requests based on potential merits... If you don't care about this storyline, then just leave it at that. "I don't care if we change this storyline, but I don't want us to go willy-nilly and change every storyline..." is a perfectly valid opinion without jumping into a slippery slope. I've already answered you but you don't want to accept the answer. Idk how else to help you. The story line is fine IMO, changing it because some people are offended by the subject matter of a villain contact seems dumb to me. If you weren't in some way offended by the subject matter you would be a pretty cold person IMO.

and when you're killing all the men in the game, are they not just a prop with a weenie? agree 100% I don't care if the story line gets changed. I do care that it could lead to more story lines being changed under the same premise. this is exactly why I'm concerned eventually this topic will be about other Arcs. This arc is not unique and happens for both genders throughout the game. The carnival and dominatrix alone are all that really need to get mentioned to support the other side getting the same treatment. Like i said above, i agree with you on the nav text. She isn't his girlfriend and it shouldn't say she is. Also, isn't she apart of longbow and in arachnos's way? she would have to be killed just like all the other men and women "Fodder" of longbow to accomplish that.

and again i urge you to think for longer than 5 seconds. This arc is similar to the terra arc. She is forced to become a monster and lay eggs. Slippery slope absolutely applies because there is enough evidence to point that this is the next "This is sexist" arc to get changed hence "slippery slope". I don't think you understand this, yet... Slippery Slope NEVER APPLIES. It's a logical fallacy. Maybe someone will present the Terra arc as being problematic. Maybe they'll do it as a result of this discussion. But any argument about that is a separate argument. Not a "Continual Trend" And it absolutely won't lead to "Female Characters are Immune to attack!" See, it's that last part of it where you go from a reasonable discussion "If this arc is a problem, would this other arc also be a problem for similar reasons?" straight to "PANIC and DESTRUCTION!" "A is B. Is C also B?" is a continuing discussion. "A is B, therefore C, D, E, F, G, and all other letters are also and thus we can't have anything related to A or B unless we ignore A is B!" is a logical fallacy. It presents an emotionally charged potential outcome of -many- different discussions down the line as the logical outcome of making the current decision. It is maddening. Stop it. Also, the patronizing ad hominem "Think for 5 seconds"? REALLY not conducive to constructive discussion. You're arguing semantics at this point and trying to invalidate others opinions that this correlates directly with other story lines in doing so. Most of the arguesment in this thread are boiled down entirely to and in doing invites the comparison, if you don't like the term slippery slope then we won't use it for your sake. The concern that this will lead to more changes is absolutely valid however due to the sheer evidence from wording using in the arguments to change the story-arc. Maybe it was rude, i apologize for coming off as rude. I don't know you outside of this and it was wrong to attack you. What i should have said better and with more respect was don't assume our concerns are invalid just because of the term used. edit; my phone is just auto correcting everything. silly phone

Poor wording on my part, i apologize that this became your focus. People are being over dramatic ;) I'm not arguing FOR the story line, merely that changing it on claims of sexism is silly. I don't see an issue with the story line because It's not suppose to make you feel good about what you did. I don't see a problem in using a female character in tragedy in one direction or the other. We shouldn't immediately remove stuff just because it's against a women. If the storyline was killing her because shes a female and females don't deserve life then sure but that's not what this is.

and again i urge you to think for longer than 5 seconds. This arc is similar to the terra arc. She is forced to become a monster and lay eggs. Slippery slope absolutely applies because there is enough evidence to point that this is the next "This is sexist" arc to get changed hence "slippery slope". Don't strawman with the gay rights analogy either, it's kind of insulting.

I'm a second person over-reacting to this story line. It genuinely bothers me. Why? Do you get upset every time you have to kill a female in game purely because they're a female? Should females never be used in tragedy? Should we only allow men to have tragic FICTIONAL story lines that progress a dialogue about the entire situation? Not in this situation it isn't, it's directly targeting violence twords women which there are other arcs that do so. To assume eventually the same people would want those changed is not unreasonable.

It's exactly that. Soon we're changing terra arc and then the orphanage arc, and then we're removing "Hellion girlfriends" and soon there just won't be target-able women in the game. This entire thread is one person over-reacting to a story line. Changing this story line just because shes a women and therefor nothing bad should happen to her is probably more sexist than the actual story line. "Shes a women so she shouldn't get killed" ok bud On a side, the nav text could probably be changed to "Defeat the longbow" or "Defeat lt page". The girlfriend thing doesn't make too much sense given the story.

I'd be ok with this but only if before she teleported away she said "All. Men. Are. Pigs." and then every female character in the game showed up and started clapping as she left.

Full content, gonna respond in qoutes. Why? If we're talking about full team play to hit said increased limit, there would be more than enough people on the team to compensate for the extra enemies. One person wouldn't be able to hit all of them but 8 people sure could. All enemies not getting debuffed by a (single) person also wouldn't exactly be a problem if you had more than 1 debuffer. To hit the limits you're suggesting as unreasonable would require an 8 man team or just one person being brave, luckily we don't balance on one person being brave. Yeah like being able to control mobs and position them wherever they please without LoS ;) It's the opposite actually, what makes them less useful on a stacked team is power creep, which is an entirely different conversation. People don't complain about having two tanking specs on the team, the complaint is that tanker is made pointless by the brute due to tanking ability + damage increase. That wouldn't help anyone, it'd probably only make a lot of other things worse. I'm gonna combine these last two qoutes because it's the most upsetting about your tirade. So, you entirely fabricated this last part and I'm unsure as to why. If you bothered to read at all I main a brute. I don't want it changed so my character doesn't feel limited. The limitation was set in place long before brutes could go blue and vice versa. I wanted this change so the tanker class had more utility and global appeal. The tanker class only has 300 hp and slightly more res as a difference to brutes. That's basically nothing and with IO's the gap is closed quickly. This change would not make tankers the end all be all but instead it would have helped them have a purpose similar to their naming scheme. I'm sure there are plenty of ideas/ways to help the tanker gain an identity but so far most of them have been to change the class entirely to do stuff it never did. Your personal attack was pretty childish but more so your lack of actual understanding of what this change was even trying to accomplish was apparent the moment you made the personal attack. Edit; i briefly locked the topic? Didn't know i could my bad if anyone was trying to respond :o would never try to censor or stop anyone from getting their opinion in. Edit2; We've also beaten the topic of keeping aggro into the floor. Adjustments would obviously have to be made IF the aggro cap was increased for tanks to make sure they could keep said aggro but that's why there's a test server.

The other thread already got its answer, Aggro limits are global so all or none. With that in mind, raising the aggro limit for all i'd probably go with no personally. I think its fine where its at, the only reason i wanted it raised for tankers was to help with identity by way of utility.

RIP. Well, we still have the move into melee that could help. If they can't change aggro than that's the answer we have to accept.

Removing the 5% is a mistake. It wasn't arbitrary as previously mentioned by any means. This was put into place specifically to prevent people from doing what you want. I'm all for changes that help but this just seems like you want to not miss because it occasionally annoys you. :-\

wtf does this even mean

Now that we're on the same page and thank you for reiterating. If the aggro cap raising beyond a couple of enemies is too much of an issue, even the extra 4-5 enemies is still enough paired with the other change to help tankers on the road to standing out from brutes again. I'm not sure how difficult any of these changes would be to make though. Also yeah i'd never want either of my suggestions done to brutes. Brutes are in a pretty good place in my opinion. Most of this would have to be tested. A lot of what you suggested could happen could easily be undone by support sets. A tanker needing a support to full pull might not be the worst thing :P

If understand your point, which i think i might, you're saying their ability to just maintain aggro of anything larger than half a 8 man spawned group would need slightly more consideration than just "will tank die yes/no". I understand that point, but thats again why it would need to be tested and adjusted. The other side of your point, which again i could be wrong still, is it trivializing teammates. This one I'm unsure about because inside aggro cap it wouldn't change much i don't think? Aside from the occasional over pull i'm unsure much would change in the terms of whos doing what on the team. The amount of extra aggro for Tankers could easily be adjusted still with other things being taken into consideration.

Just so we're clear, you're using "Mob" as singular enemy right? I think i am missing you because I'm not understanding where the idea behind map herding is coming from. I understand the needing to adjust threat/aoe caps for tankers etc to take the new aggro cap into account but how does a brute factor in? Most teams power through enemies really fast as is in full 8 man teams. The tank being able to keep control of only a handful of extra guys probably won't increase that by very much. Keep in mind my suggestion -WAS- only for a single group, not 2-3 groups.

:-\ well you learn something everyday i guess. I updated my initial post to reflect what i meant thanks for pointing it out It would probably require a bit of testing and adjusting sure, what wouldn't? I don't think it wouldn't be "simple" though. Tanker/Brutes can reach unkillable levels as is and double up on enemies probably wouldn't change it for most IO'd characters. Naturally, we're gonna be speaking on a natural enemy scale setting and SO's as that's where the game is balanced. I don't think more enemies would be an issue at current power though, we wouldn't know for sure without testing. The ability to kill a tank is not necessarily the issue. If you double the aggro cap, then you will increase threat to all players when the strip aggro. So this would require a rework of threat retention, by increasing a tanks threat levels. Also, now you can aggro hold double the number of mez producing bosses, which can overcome a tanks mez protection, and that has to be adjusted up. Additionally, a shield tank can now produce enough defense bonus to effectively render the team unkillable by going over the soft cap for everyone. This in turn would protect the team, due to the increased aggro the tank can hold. Further, all I have to do now is throw three range enhances in taunt, and I can stand in one location and taunt baddies into melee from far away, as 1 of the 34 die off. Then, a fire tank can herd and kill indiscriminately. And we end up back at issue 3 and 4, where tanks we're imbalanced. That's not even taking into account 2 tanks on a farm map, and both running leadership. Now magnify that by 2 brutes, at 400% damage. Firstly, you can't take farming into account. Nerfing/buffing things around farming is pointless, people will always farm and if its stronger/weaker at the cost of regular enjoyment than you've made the wrong decision. Having 3 things killing mobs will be slower than just 1 brute in AE currently if you take the current prefered map/setup into account. What can already be finished in minutes does not need to go slightly faster at the cost of 2 extra people soaking XP. If you're fighting an enemy group that has mez heavy bosses, pulling a bunch of them would be in error. Just because you can doesn't mean you always should. Stripping aggro from a tank who has used taunt isn't exactly easy. This change isn't going to suddenly change the map layouts or increase group sizes. You're saying all of this as if the tank being able to grab ambushes or an extra pulled mob is literally going to change everything and its almost misleading.

:-\ well you learn something everyday i guess. I updated my initial post to reflect what i meant thanks for pointing it out It would probably require a bit of testing and adjusting sure, what wouldn't? I don't think it wouldn't be "simple" though. Tanker/Brutes can reach unkillable levels as is and double up on enemies probably wouldn't change it for most IO'd characters. Naturally, we're gonna be speaking on a natural enemy scale setting and SO's as that's where the game is balanced. I don't think more enemies would be an issue at current power though, we wouldn't know for sure without testing.

My first quote and comment wasn't in reply to you solar until the second quote in which i thought you had some solid advice, didn't know if you knew that so thought i'd clarify. I was speaking to the guy trying to relight a dead fight. Lets dial it back here. There is nothing wrong with currently having 3 tankers. I accept any and all who ask to join my TFs regardless of AT because you don't actually need an ideal comp to get through it only get through it quicker. With my change, a big room of lets say 9 mobs would all pulled and beat down with those 3 tanks, while 3 brutes would only be able to pull 6 of those while the others attack the squishes due to current aggro cap. Thats why the change would be appealing. More tank = more mob. It wouldn't exactly be the same as stand in a corner while the tank pulls the entire map. My only problem with some of these purposed changes it including too much for the tanker. The tanker needs love but it doesn't need an entire rework of how its played (in my opinion). People are passionate what can you do :P . I'm using mob as in a grouping of enemies...i didn't know people used that term for singular as the literal definition of mob is a large crowd of people. I'm not unpersuaded i just think baby steps need to be taken. If its changed too much too quickly it could have unforeseen effects. I'm open to the idea of further changes but we've already seen how the snipe change has riled everyone up, imagine if tankers got a sweeping change in one go.

Neat man. This is solid advice, thank you.

Well, that kind of falls short because having a reason to bring 3 of them means having less of a reason to bring others :P theres only 8 spots~ The earlier discussion was about ideal team not so much viable team. Theres not a lot of combo that isn't viable enough. You can have 7 tankers and 1 debuffer and get through literally anything. When i said utility in tanking, i was speaking entirely on a tanking perspective not so much general utility. I may not have been thorough enough in my wording. This idea was only to expand their role as the primary tank and not much else as there is a lot of conversations that could happen on how to make them more universally desired on a team. Theres some decent ideas on that topic in this thread though if you just ignore all the debate fluff :P