Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,192
# 11
08-19-2012, 10:46 PM
I think it should be part of the threat skill in skill tree. That if you are under effect of Attack Pattern Delta you get increased threat generation. That could allow other ships to cast it continuously on the tank.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,390
# 12
08-20-2012, 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eradicator84 View Post
Ooh, nice idea. Having tc applied to the caster should be ok too. Like applying apd to a freighter to buff its defences, and makes you more of a priority target over the freighter which helps it more.

To yourself a threat buff, maybe to others a threat debuff? (along with current benefits)

Whoah, now we're talking about threat control as an actual game mechanic that can be used tactically.
I agree, the concept put into that light does seem very appealing.

Allowing a ship, to simultaneously draw threat, reduce an ally's threat and increase that target's survivability seems like a very interesting mechanic.

I'm not sure how often it would actually be used because using a power with +500% threat generation on yourself might simply be enough to grab the attention of an NPC in most situations.

That being said more options are better, imo.

Last edited by ussultimatum; 08-20-2012 at 08:08 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,390
# 13
08-20-2012, 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalnar83 View Post
I think it should be part of the threat skill in skill tree. That if you are under effect of Attack Pattern Delta you get increased threat generation. That could allow other ships to cast it continuously on the tank.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that allowing Player A to increase Player B's threat is a good idea as it has potential for griefing or causing accidental deaths.

I see what you're saying, that it would work according to Player B's ranks in threat control (so they already have decided to handle some level of threat) - but I just think it has too much potential for problems.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 387
# 14
08-20-2012, 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussultimatum View Post
As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that allowing Player A to increase Player B's threat is a good idea as it has potential for griefing or causing accidental deaths.

I see what you're saying, that it would work according to Player B's ranks in threat control (so they already have decided to handle some level of threat) - but I just think it has too much potential for problems.
No potential for griefing if its tied to tc skill. Apd from griefer to escort w/ 0 tc= dmg resistance but no tg.
When in doubt, (hehe) c4!
This sig dedicated to the many random objects the Mythbusters crew has blow to smitherines
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,390
# 15
08-20-2012, 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dood98998 View Post
No potential for griefing if its tied to tc skill. Apd from griefer to escort w/ 0 tc= dmg resistance but no tg.
Right, but let's look at this situation:

Cruiser (A) with 9 ranks in threat control is on the ropes, shields are at under 20% all around, hull is 30% or lower. Cruiser has popped several resistance powers.

Escort (B) decides to help his team mate. Escort has zero ranks in threat control, tosses APB with +500% threat onto the Cruiser that has 9 ranks in threat control. Escort's goal was to give Cruiser a damage resistance buff.

Having popped several resistance buffs already, Cruiser only receives a very tiny increase in resistances - but now has an unshakable level of threat nearly guaranteeing their demise.


This is a situation where Escort was genuinely attempting to assist Cruiser, and instead only ends up causing the likely death of cruiser.


My opinion is that it is a very bad idea to allow Player B to increase Player A's threat level.


Now let's look at it another way.


Cruiser (A) with 9 ranks in threat control is on the ropes, shields are at under 20% all around, hull is 30% or lower. Cruiser has popped several resistance powers.

Escort (B) decides to help his team mate. Escort has zero ranks in threat control, tosses APB generating an additional +500% threat onto himself. Escort is at full health and shields thanks to Cruiser's current predicament. Escort draws fire from Cruiser, giving Cruiser breathing room.

Last edited by ussultimatum; 08-20-2012 at 10:18 AM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 387
# 16
08-20-2012, 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussultimatum View Post
Right, but let's look at this situation:

Cruiser (A) with 9 ranks in threat control is on the ropes, shields are at under 20% all around, hull is 30% or lower. Cruiser has popped several resistance powers.

Escort (B) decides to help his team mate. Escort has zero ranks in threat control, tosses APB with +500% threat onto the Cruiser that has 9 ranks in threat control. Escort's goal was to give Cruiser a damage resistance buff.

Having popped several resistance buffs already, Cruiser only receives a very tiny increase in resistances - but now has an unshakable level of threat nearly guaranteeing their demise.


This is a situation where Escort was genuinely attempting to assist Cruiser, and instead only ends up causing the likely death of cruiser.


My opinion is that it is a very bad idea to allow Player B to increase Player A's threat level.


Now let's look at it another way.


Cruiser (A) with 9 ranks in threat control is on the ropes, shields are at under 20% all around, hull is 30% or lower. Cruiser has popped several resistance powers.

Escort (B) decides to help his team mate. Escort has zero ranks in threat control, tosses APB generating an additional +500% threat onto himself. Escort is at full health and shields thanks to Cruiser's current predicament. Escort draws fire from Cruiser, giving Cruiser breathing room.
Alas, the cruiser didn't deserve saving- it must have been a serious noob at the pilot seat to ever drop below 50 percent in pve (one hitters aside). We don't want somethhing to make pve easier, its already a faceroll. What we want is a buff to a skill that makes it easier to direct the npc's attention.
When in doubt, (hehe) c4!
This sig dedicated to the many random objects the Mythbusters crew has blow to smitherines
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,390
# 17
08-20-2012, 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dood98998 View Post
Alas, the cruiser didn't deserve saving- it must have been a serious noob at the pilot seat to ever drop below 50 percent in pve (one hitters aside). We don't want somethhing to make pve easier, its already a faceroll. What we want is a buff to a skill that makes it easier to direct the npc's attention.
Alas your attempt to devalue my example devalues your own argument.



1) Not being able to put threat onto other players, has absolutely nothing to do with making PvE easier. I'm not sure what could possibly have lead you to this conclusion.

2) You don't want PvE to be easier but you want it to be easier to direct their attention. Which is it? Do you want things to be easier or you don't want them to be easier?

3) You, rather randomly, decide to toss out the "PvE is a faceroll" argument. If PvE is a faceroll, then we do not need the suggestion you support, putting threat onto others, either. In fact, if it's a faceroll then we can happily continue without any threat mechanics at all.


So are you here to actually discuss why threat control would be good, or is PvE a faceroll and you can safely leave this thread as it serves no purpose for you?

Last edited by ussultimatum; 08-20-2012 at 01:48 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 387
# 18
08-20-2012, 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussultimatum View Post
Alas your attempt to devalue my example devalues your own argument.

Let?s walk through it, shall we?

1 Not being able to put threat onto other players, has absolutely nothing to do with making PvE easier. I?m not sure what could possibly have lead you to this conclusion.

2 You don?t want PvE to be easier but you want it to be easier to direct their attention. Which is it? Do you want things to be easier or you don?t want them to be easier?

3 You, rather randomly, decide to toss out the ?PvE is a faceroll? argument. If PvE is a faceroll, then we do not need the suggestion you support, putting threat onto others, either. In fact, if it?s a faceroll then we can happily continue without any threat mechanics at all.


So are you here to actually discuss why threat control would be good, or is PvE a feroll and you can safely leave this thread as it serves no purpose for you?
1. My bad. That's whhat I get for posting in my sleep . However, it is true.
2. I do not want it to be easier- I just want tanks to be able to tank.
3. Then why are you here?
When in doubt, (hehe) c4!
This sig dedicated to the many random objects the Mythbusters crew has blow to smitherines
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 426
# 19
08-20-2012, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssargon View Post
Can't APD be cast on allies as well? Seems you could use an Escort's high Tac slots to designate an ally with a larger TC boost, too.
You're supposed to be able to cast it on an ally, but it doesn't work. It buffs your ship, even if you target someone else. I tried it this afternoon in a fleet alert.
Demons run when a good man goes to war.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,390
# 20
08-20-2012, 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dood98998 View Post
2. I do not want it to be easier- I just want tanks to be able to tank.
Agreed.

I think the ability to use APD to draw threat onto yourself would be sufficient (backed up with at least decent damage dealing & Threat Control Skill)


Quote:
Originally Posted by dood98998 View Post
3. Then why are you here?
I'm here because I started the thread...

Seriously though, I'm here because I think there is a need for there to be at least 1 method of spike threat generation through boff skills.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:23 PM.