SwitchFade

Depends on the bank... Perhaps you robbed the sperm bank and now you must protect the blood bank.

Lord Nemesis.

Nerf Regen.

It's not.

I was just thinking... That if i take the thread title seriously... The events here are beneath my notice.

Regen tank. 😋

Hmm. Does it strike anyone as ironic that the debate bout this is just about as silly as the practice itself? Being actually offended or defending it is like yelling at the rain for falling on your newly cleaned car. I mean really, this is where memes come from.

I have a 50+ elec/elec... While I think elec on sentinels is the best ranged elec version, it's still slightly underwhelming, slowish cast times, lower damage vs water, fire etc. Elec secondary is.... Ok. The 75% cap hurts. Other than that it's fun, when I want to play elec blast. I don't recommend elec secondary.

*Cough* ^^ *cough*

Long standing bug. Sad 🐼

Hmm. Pie>cake.

The REAL question is... Nerf regen now... Or in issue 7?

A well built triform will usually only nova in human form attacks, as there will be no slots left over, thus, only one kb io. All buffs from human do not kb. So, again, you shouldn't be kb io slotting anything but nuke, for a Tri-former.

Warshade Tri-former here, before Tri-forming was cool 😋 I earner my epic slot the hard way on live, so, plenty of Kheldian experience... The only power you need the KB to KD io in, is your human form nuke. All squid blasty powers, you'll be hovering up, so the trajectory causes vectored knock, meaning they knock into the ground. This is positioning. Black Dwarf doesn't KB. No issue there. If you're truly Tri-forming, human form has no slots in any attacks, save ebon eye and nuke, as mentioned above. All human buffs/summons, no KB. So, you need exactly one io in nuke. If you have more than that... Bear hug Mids again.

Aaahaha. Nice. Sad, but nice.

Maxillary Fracture

Stone/staff tank... Named... Sticks 'N Stones Stick in the Mud

It has one really incredible use: skipping it for any other power

Spinny stick of doomsauce. 'splaind 😉

I rarely do this, because it's time consuming to do... But I did, just for you guys 😂 I dug through one of the threads @Glacier Peak linked for a post I made and copied it here, as this was the fullest explanation/point I posted on the subject... Heres my old post, because it's relevant, no disrespect @oedipus_tex... Removing the aggro cap would not solve any of the issues being discussed. A tank that can afk 17, can afk 200. This was proven on live. The only result of removing the aggro limit would be the return to a tank now being able to control the aggro of everything, thereby eliminating any potential threat to anyone. On live, before the aggro changes, I was able to hold aggro of limitless foes and never be harmed. This made game play for all other players single faceted. My tanks are now actually tougher than live and if they can stand on GM island with 10 GMs pounding away and afk, then there's no number of minions and LTs that could be a threat that the game engine could get within perceptual range. The aggro cap doesn't remove risk, it ADDS risk to all other toons. Anything above 17 will aggro someone ELSE, so every other non-tank type is going to feel the pain. This introduces tactical gameplay. The argument that "we run in, kill one group and move on," is not an issue of aggro, but of spawn design. Let me be clear, spawn size, spawn spacing and spawn density are the issue many mistake for "omg 17 aggro makes game nofunz." Next time you think this is not true, run a map that puts 30 MOBs in close proximity and watch how the tank cannot protect the team. Remove the cap? I can now trivialize all other players. Tanks were the INDIRECT target of an aggro limit. Tanks should NEVER be able to control all the aggro. The target was to balance risk, reward and dynamic gameplay and it did just that. Now, before rushing in everyone needs to be aware of just how many MOBs there are and the very real possibility that a tank can't just be an I win button. This is the same reason controllers had their AoE hold adjusted, a single power or AT could effectively neuter all MOBs. Make no mistake, if you raise or remove the aggro cap all that would result is less risk to everyone, less dynamic gameplay and less for everyone to do. Further, mob spacing, mob size, mob density and more would all have to be adjusted. Even more to the point, any team that didn't have a tank would have a really bad day, as the increased threat that no other AT can handle would instantly dirt nap them. Let's take the "realism" argument and put it in a nice glass case called reality of gameplay: in the real world, that stupid, lumbering unthreatening tank would be ignored as I rapidly Gank support toons. Really, in the real world, defenders and controllers go down first, always. None of this debate should even consider lvl 50 "zerging" gameplay with twinked sets. Load up a lvl 25 team on SOs and it will become very clear that a limit of 17 is very well designed aspect of gameplay, because virtually no AT can even handle 17, let alone 30, 50 or no limit. I'm sorry, but fighting groups of MOBs from factions like council, freaks or even carnies on maps that isolate groups from each other in different rooms and break line of sight is not "solvable" by increasing aggro cap; even if aggro cap were raised, the additional MOBs can't see you. Want proof the aggro cap makes things more dynamic? Go fight banished pantheon at level 50+ where groups of MOBs spawn close to each other and watch how the cap makes everyone a target. Remove that cap? Now, no threat to anyone but the tank. One dimensional gameplay again. So yeah, enjoy textwall! 😁

Thank sweet baby Atlas. You'll notice I frown on AE and am not always thoroughly conversant with the redonk exploits. 😂

Hopefully this exploit was fixed.

Ah, no. Sorry.

I'm very sorry... Absolutely no vote.

There seems to be several confluent, yet dissimilar, problem statements in juxtaposition. So, without any derision, it may be best to simply state the problem in a single sentence. I bet there will be differing opinions here. Further, are our perspectives aligned on foundation, such as in an SO environment? I bet not... What exact problem are we trying to solve? Is it one of basic fundimental blueprint? If we look at a scale of damage dispensation vs mitigation, where extreme dispensation in all forms results in less mitigation, it stands to reason that extreme mitigation would result in less dispensation. By comparing all ATs on a scale, the sentinell is at neither extreme of tank --- blaster. A sentinel gains mitigation at the expense of dispensation. Should dispensation increase, mitigation would summarily decrease, meaningfully. If I inspect all ATs on this slider they fit numerically, including a sentinel, with each possessing different methods of dispensation and mitigation. Ok so, perhaps the issue is one of identity? Sure. Have we solved that basic issue in majority? I bet not. This one is much more difficult to solve, as it is subjective. Support? Primary damage dispensation? Support damage dispensation? New player friendly? Solo artist? Team only? Reconnaissance? Hybrid? What problem are we solving here? Perhaps it's one of purpose. This one seems quite clear, yet, I would wager there's not consensus. A sentinel offers easy to reach satisfactory damage mitigation, whilst also offering medium ranged satisfactory damage dispensation potential in an easy to understand package, for the average player. This is complimented by offering a team a benefit by way of making content easier through offering an increase in team damage dispensation. If our intent (over many threads) is crafting a coherent and viable solution, we would begin with an equally cogent problem statement. I'm not convinced we, as a team, have clearly and completely defined the problem we are trying to solve. If I inspect the raw data and comparison of AT metrics, it's quite evident that the AT is balanced well and has a very clear design purpose that is not incorrect. However, playing one does, in fact, give me the perception that there is an x factor missing and/or misadjusted. I do think that there is a case for change, due to the fact it has garnered little market share among ATs. What form that change is, though, requires a clear problem statement based on factual data. I'm not quite sure we are there, yet.