Tank passive/aggro changes

[Solarverse]

blah blah im bitter

 

blah blah blah, I didn't have anything constructive to say, so I left a rude comment, blah blah blah.

 

Neat man.

 

 

If I see a request that I don't like, I say my peace with a post or two and leave. I won't sit there and debate it to death. Endless debates accomplish nothing, people.

 

This is solid advice, thank you.

 

You're welcome.

[OEM61]

I want them to add a reason to want to bring a second or even third tanker along.

 

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

 

Does having a reason to bring three controllers cause a problem?

Bringing three defenders?

Bringing three brutes?

Bringing three of anything but tankers?

 

Why is it okay for every other AT to "take" a spot that could have went to a different AT but it's apparently not okay for a second or third tanker to take a spot that could have went to a different AT?

 

Unless the design moves towards all-different ATs being desirable if not necessary to accomplishing team missions then why, again, I ask is it okay that tankers be the one and only archetype that no one wants more than one of, if they even want that one?

 

Making them better at aggro isn't likely to change that.  If a brute can tank now then a brute will be able to tank after they change tanker aggro abilities and there would still be room on a team for two or more brutes.

 

And yeah, maybe 7 tankers and one of the "right" AT/powerset can get through stuff, but if you are playing that "other" AT and are trying to get a TF started, how many tankers do you accept after you put out the call that you are looking for others to join you?

 

My guess would be one, and then after that the rest get a "No thanks.  Already have a tank.  Need other roles" but if a second brute volunteers then they get accepted with no questions.

 

I do not want to see a return to the days of "okay, everyone wait here while I drag the map to you" tankers.

I would rather see an increase in actual tanker utility that makes them as welcome in groups as every other AT.

 

[Auroxis]

Tanker's Assurance

Auto: PBAoE, Team (but not self) +DMG, +ToHit

 

Being near a Tanker puts your mind at ease, increasing your damage and chance to hit.

[Noumenon]

I've played other titles where Taunt would give you 30% damage on the target until the target hit you 3 times.

So for the sake of ballancing defence and ressist it could be that Gauntlet gives you X% extra damge on taunted target as long as you have Y% or more HP.

 

[jack_nomind]

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

 

You're getting a bit beat up in comments and I think you've actually been fairly respectful this entire thread, even though you and I disagree about exactly what the ideal profile for Tankers is.

 

Your initial suggestion for changing the aggro cap for tankers is absolutely the first step, though.  If you wanted to correct anything, it's just that "mob" refers to a singular enemy NPC, not a group of them.

 

Now if we can persuade you that Tanker utility absolutely does require further steps and get you to link to some of the ideas in this thread from an edit in your top post...  8)

[Super Atom]

Neat man.

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.

 

 

Does having a reason to bring three controllers cause a problem?

Bringing three defenders?

Bringing three brutes?

Bringing three of anything but tankers?

 

Why is it okay for every other AT to "take" a spot that could have went to a different AT but it's apparently not okay for a second or third tanker to take a spot that could have went to a different AT?

 

Unless the design moves towards all-different ATs being desirable if not necessary to accomplishing team missions then why, again, I ask is it okay that tankers be the one and only archetype that no one wants more than one of, if they even want that one?

 

Making them better at aggro isn't likely to change that.  If a brute can tank now then a brute will be able to tank after they change tanker aggro abilities and there would still be room on a team for two or more brutes.

 

And yeah, maybe 7 tankers and one of the "right" AT/powerset can get through stuff, but if you are playing that "other" AT and are trying to get a TF started, how many tankers do you accept after you put out the call that you are looking for others to join you?

 

My guess would be one, and then after that the rest get a "No thanks.  Already have a tank.  Need other roles" but if a second brute volunteers then they get accepted with no questions.

 

I do not want to see a return to the days of "okay, everyone wait here while I drag the map to you" tankers.

I would rather see an increase in actual tanker utility that makes them as welcome in groups as every other AT.

 

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).

 

You're getting a bit beat up in comments and I think you've actually been fairly respectful this entire thread, even though you and I disagree about exactly what the ideal profile for Tankers is.

 

Your initial suggestion for changing the aggro cap for tankers is absolutely the first step, though.  If you wanted to correct anything, it's just that "mob" refers to a singular enemy NPC, not a group of them.

 

Now if we can persuade you that Tanker utility absolutely does require further steps and get you to link to some of the ideas in this thread from an edit in your top post...  8)

 

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.

[Solarverse]

Neat man.

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.

 

 

 

Gotta love the forums, lol. Sorry, I didn't see a name attached to the quote, and the quote under that one was mine, so I thought for sure you were referring to me. Okay, we can go back to being friends!  :)

[SwitchFade]

A MOB or mob in mmo terminology is a mobile, in this case a baddie in the game.

 

Increasing aggro by one mob is one foe.

 

If a suggestion of increasing aggro cap by one "mob" in the English language, that is one entire group of mobs. That would be effectively doubling the aggro cap from 17 to 34.

 

This would require dramatically rebalancing much of the game, as the aggro cap and defense, resist, range, damage and power utility were all reworked together over years.

 

So, the suggested increasing of aggro cap in a vacuum is not something so simple.

[Super Atom]

A MOB or mob in mmo terminology is a mobile, in this case a baddie in the game.

 

Increasing aggro by one mob is one foe.

 

If a suggestion of increasing aggro cap by one "mob" in the English language, that is one entire group of mobs. That would be effectively doubling the aggro cap from 17 to 34.

 

This would require dramatically rebalancing much of the game, as the aggro cap and defense, resist, range, damage and power utility were all reworked together over years.

 

So, the suggested increasing of aggro cap in a vacuum is not something so simple.

 

:-\ 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.

 

[SwitchFade]

A MOB or mob in mmo terminology is a mobile, in this case a baddie in the game.

 

Increasing aggro by one mob is one foe.

 

If a suggestion of increasing aggro cap by one "mob" in the English language, that is one entire group of mobs. That would be effectively doubling the aggro cap from 17 to 34.

 

This would require dramatically rebalancing much of the game, as the aggro cap and defense, resist, range, damage and power utility were all reworked together over years.

 

So, the suggested increasing of aggro cap in a vacuum is not something so simple.

 

:-\ 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.

[Super Atom]

A MOB or mob in mmo terminology is a mobile, in this case a baddie in the game.

 

Increasing aggro by one mob is one foe.

 

If a suggestion of increasing aggro cap by one "mob" in the English language, that is one entire group of mobs. That would be effectively doubling the aggro cap from 17 to 34.

 

This would require dramatically rebalancing much of the game, as the aggro cap and defense, resist, range, damage and power utility were all reworked together over years.

 

So, the suggested increasing of aggro cap in a vacuum is not something so simple.

 

:-\ 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.

[SwitchFade]

A MOB or mob in mmo terminology is a mobile, in this case a baddie in the game.

 

Increasing aggro by one mob is one foe.

 

If a suggestion of increasing aggro cap by one "mob" in the English language, that is one entire group of mobs. That would be effectively doubling the aggro cap from 17 to 34.

 

This would require dramatically rebalancing much of the game, as the aggro cap and defense, resist, range, damage and power utility were all reworked together over years.

 

So, the suggested increasing of aggro cap in a vacuum is not something so simple.

 

:-\ 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.

 

I feel you, but you're missing me.

 

Any map with 8 players produces enough mobs to make this possible. This effectively makes the other 7 players superfluous, as now a brute can mow through mobs 3 times as fast, due to how the upward changes to threat and me, would affect the game. To account for threat and mez, a whole host of changes have to be made. They're geometric.

 

Any group spawn with 8 players will spawn 1-2 bosses. Groups spawn on 8 man, from 9-17 mobs. Now, I can hold aggro of 4-7 bosses on a regular map, just from random boss spawn. 4-7 bosses can overcome tank mez protection. This will happen routinely. It DID happen routinely when the original devs were playing with aggro cap. It wasn't always as low as 17.

 

You've got to realize that doubling aggro cap has nothing to do with tank levels of res and def. It has to do with threat, mez, and other players. Make the aggro cap higher... A whole host of other adjustments.

 

Make those adjustments? Tanks are now supreme, and I can map herd.

 

Now, increase aggro cap by 1-3 mobs? That's possible. Any more than 5 and things get skewwed. More than 7, bonkers.

[Super Atom]

I feel you, but you're missing me.

 

Any map with 8 players produces enough mobs to make this possible. This effectively makes the other 7 players superfluous, as now a brute can mow through mobs 3 times as fast, due to how the upward changes to threat and me, would affect the game. To account for threat and mez, a whole host of changes have to be made. They're geometric.

 

Any group spawn with 8 players will spawn 1-2 bosses. Groups spawn on 8 man, from 9-17 mobs. Now, I can hold aggro of 4-7 bosses on a regular map, just from random boss spawn. 4-7 bosses can overcome tank mez protection. This will happen routinely. It DID happen routinely when the original devs were playing with aggro cap. It wasn't always as low as 17.

 

You've got to realize that doubling aggro cap has nothing to do with tank levels of res and def. It has to do with threat, mez, and other players. Make the aggro cap higher... A whole host of other adjustments.

 

Make those adjustments? Tanks are now supreme, and I can map herd.

 

Now, increase aggro cap by 1-3 mobs? That's possible. Any more than 5 and things get skewwed. More than 7, bonkers.

 

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.

[SwitchFade]

Mob is a singular foe, yes.

 

Moving aggro cap from 17 up to 20 or 22 would not require much rework.

 

Moving beyond 24 would require moderate rework.

 

Moving to 34 would break everything, and require significant rework.

 

If I can hold the aggro of 34 foes, I can render every teammate pointless. I can also herd whole maps.

 

If I can hold 34 foes of aggro, I need double the mez, double the threat mag and duration. If you did that, the Cascade effect of how peeful I become requires a rework of everything.

[Super Atom]

Mob is a singular foe, yes.

 

Moving aggro cap from 17 up to 20 or 22 would not require much rework.

 

Moving beyond 24 would require moderate rework.

 

Moving to 34 would break everything, and require significant rework.

 

If I can hold the aggro of 34 foes, I can render every teammate pointless. I can also herd whole maps.

 

If I can hold 34 foes of aggro, I need double the mez, double the threat mag and duration. If you did that, the Cascade effect of how peeful I become requires a rework of everything.

 

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.

[SwitchFade]

Mob is a singular foe, yes.

 

Moving aggro cap from 17 up to 20 or 22 would not require much rework.

 

Moving beyond 24 would require moderate rework.

 

Moving to 34 would break everything, and require significant rework.

 

If I can hold the aggro of 34 foes, I can render every teammate pointless. I can also herd whole maps.

 

If I can hold 34 foes of aggro, I need double the mez, double the threat mag and duration. If you did that, the Cascade effect of how peeful I become requires a rework of everything.

 

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.

 

Essentially, you have it. The issue with raising aggro cap isn't the extra aggro, it's the domino effect.

 

Aggro has mag and duration, so having to manage more foe aggro means that more spillover would occur. Right now, on an 8 man team, a tank loses aggro of a few foes to high damage squishy AT's, and a good tank is watchful, taunting them back. Everyone has examples of teaming with a good tank. A bad tank, let's that aggro spill kill his teammates. Now, imagine doubling the aggro cap.

 

Aggro limits the amount of mez at any given time as well. If a group spawns 1-2 bosses, even if a tank accidentally pulls 2 groups, or the bosses from 2 groups, he can still usually remain unaffected by mez stacking. Double the aggro cap, and this is not the case. Everyone has had situations where groups are close together, double group aggro occurs for the team, and if the tank aurataunt can take all their attention... Mezzed and stunned. All aggro lost. Team must now contend with a tank that cannot, in the old method, hold the aggro of at least half that accidental double pull.

 

So now we see that if aggro cap goes up, mez protection must go up, as the tank will catch the attention of more bosses, whether he wants to or not.

 

Along with that, now, we must also increase taunt mag, duration and range, because those foes will be more spread out, and fringe foes will be easily aggro stripped from the tank which already happens, and it would be doubled.

 

So, we increase mez protection, we increase taunt mag, range and duration. If we did that, I would instantly make a fire tank, max the range on taunt and be able to pull group after group from one spot, virtually, and melt everything, as my teammates play pachinko. Other AT's can farm, but this would be far superior.

 

To make it worse, I would switch my travek power to teleport, and just port between groups and heard non stop.

 

This is not even beginning to delve into foes that spawn pets, and if I aggro cap at 34, and even 5 of them spawn pets i cant keep aggro of... Team wipe. Except for me.

 

Now imagine if this was also raised in a brute... They already speed clear maps. Make it twice as fast.

 

So the aggro cap is very intricate, and the applications are about the team. If you increase it by one, two or three foes then the likely hood of pulling too many bosses, or losing too much aggro to Squishies, or becoming a tank mage is not an issue.

 

Increase aggro by more than 4... Issues.

[jack_nomind]

If I can hold the aggro of 34 foes, I can render every teammate pointless. I can also herd whole maps.

 

Aggro evasion already makes this possible; you can't hold aggro on every mob on a map, but (with enough duration) you can Hold every mob on a map.  I'd also like to point out that historically, CoH had no meaningful aggro cap until Issue 6 when it was set at 17 (down from, afaik, "float").

 

So, we increase mez protection, we increase taunt mag, range and duration. If we did that, I would instantly make a fire tank, max the range on taunt and be able to pull group after group from one spot, virtually, and melt everything, as my teammates play pachinko. Other AT's can farm, but this would be far superior.

 

This is... wrong.  There's no suggestion on increasing the number of targets affected by Burn or Fiery Aura.  You wouldn't be able to kill things as fast as you can taunt them -- or any faster than you already can.  There's also no suggestion to increase mez protection, despite your belief it must be.  Tankers are going to have to deal with that issue organically.

[SwitchFade]

If I can hold the aggro of 34 foes, I can render every teammate pointless. I can also herd whole maps.

 

Aggro evasion already makes this possible; you can't hold aggro on every mob on a map, but (with enough duration) you can Hold every mob on a map.  I'd also like to point out that historically, CoH had no meaningful aggro cap until Issue 6 when it was set at 17 (down from, afaik, "float").

 

So, we increase mez protection, we increase taunt mag, range and duration. If we did that, I would instantly make a fire tank, max the range on taunt and be able to pull group after group from one spot, virtually, and melt everything, as my teammates play pachinko. Other AT's can farm, but this would be far superior.

 

This is... wrong.  There's no suggestion on increasing the number of targets affected by Burn or Fiery Aura.  You wouldn't be able to kill things as fast as you can taunt them -- or any faster than you already can.  There's also no suggestion to increase mez protection, despite your belief it must be.  Tankers are going to have to deal with that issue organically.

 

You're misunderstanding. Increasing aggro cap necessitates changes in mez, taunt, range, duration and other things.

[Super Atom]

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

[SwitchFade]

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

 

I would totally +1 a raise in aggro cap to 21ish, for sure.

[jack_nomind]

Increasing aggro cap necessitates changes in mez, taunt, range, duration and other things.

 

well, have i got an

for you, then.

 

I mean, I get it -- it's easy to look at a system and think it's impossible it was ever different, or ever could be different.  But the game's been around for a while!  If you take some time to learn about its past, you'll probably find out things you never realized.

[SwitchFade]

Increasing aggro cap necessitates changes in mez, taunt, range, duration and other things.

 

well, have i got an

for you, then.

 

I mean, I get it -- it's easy to look at a system and think it's impossible it was ever different, or ever could be different.  But the game's been around for a while!  If you take some time to learn about its past, you'll probably find out things you never realized.

 

 

Interesting, indeed. Having been around since issue 2 I remember tank-foolery. Can't happen now, as we have GDN, ED, Travel suppression, and a whole host of changes that dialed down tankiness... In fact I recall when unyielding rooted a toon immobile...

 

Then other things were tweaked based on those tweaks.

 

Thanks for the find memories, I have no need to take time to "learn," a as you mention concerning this subject, as I experienced, grew wiser and already know the ins-and-outs. I do hope you'll perhaps take the time to not be assumptive of my depth of knowledge concerning issues I post about? I would greatly appreciate it, and you'll note, I make no assumptions as to your prowess.

 

Hence, why my words of wisdom are presented in such a way that advises such changes are not simple.

[jack_nomind]

I have no need to take time to "learn,"

 

Well, be that as it may, it might be helpful to consider at some point.  I think we're kind of at an impasse otherwise.

[SwitchFade]

I have no need to take time to "learn,"

 

Well, be that as it may, it might be helpful to consider at some point.  I think we're kind of at an impasse otherwise.

 

I've noticed in many of your posts that you have a penchant for backhanded disrespectful comments. Please do not misquote me by snipping out a small section of a whole sentence, as you did, and create straw man arguments.

 

I'll ask again, please discontinue being disrespectful, as this just reenforces your general incapability to amicably coexist with other people.

 

In the future, I hope to see you post in a more respectful manner. In regards to your blatant misrepresentation of my sentence, we can both clearly see the meaning, and I do not engage in straw-man arguments.

[Widower]

The aggro cap is global, it can't be raised for only one AT. Either it goes up for everyone, or it doesn't at all.