Good and Bad Intimitanking Designs

[redoubt]

I'm just building my first character with intim, so I'm not really sure what the current issue is with intim. From the quests I've run with intimitanks and the 9 levels I've done with intimidate it seems to work well to me.

Could someone explain the issue we are trying to fix in this thread?

Thanks.

[Borror0]

Could someone explain the issue we are trying to fix in this thread?

"Intimitanking some encounters is boring because it amounts to holding shift, standing still, and pressing Intimidate every six seconds."

[ManchesterLad]

Another optoin is to give intimidate a longer cooldown and have it use the model of WoW taunt abilities: providing aggro equal to the highest on the mob's table plus the excess required for it to change aggro.

So what's a solution that is in the framework of DnD? Higher skills in dps as a aggro mechanic; a specific new enchancement (something akin to what EQ2 does with aggro management, where actual dps isn't required but button pushing various taunts that do damage instead); aggro generated by existing enhancements (e.g., Paladins with high diplomancy, turning it into a dual ability much like LoH can kill undead and heal allys)?

Since DDO already divides specific enhancements based on race and class, perhaps if a player is X class, they can have Y abilities. So instead of diplomancy working like it does with paladins to thwart threat, instead, that class it'll seek the player. Where for a casting class it'll work as it does now.

It's a much more elegant design, while still preserving the DnD rulesets.

[diamabel]

Can't you already combine 1) and 2)? Do all that you described with suggestion 2) and additionally hit intimidate whenever needed/the timer has expired?

[sirgog]

My preferred approach:

Activating Intimidate generates an amount of instantaneous threat, that is determined by how much you beat the mob's Intim DC by.

Under this system, Epic Lailat might have a DC of 65 (it's presently 80). If you roll a 72, you've beaten the DC by 7, so you generate a small amount of threat (perhaps equal to dealing 7x7x7 = 343 damage). If you roll an 81, you generate 16x16x16 = 4096 threat.


(These numbers may need to be modified, but the basic idea remains - attacking and intiming is more effective than attacking alone).

[Visty]

/not signed

nerfing builds is never good

[DToNE]

The concept of intimitank doesn't make sense at times either. For -CERTAIN- creatures like demons and such, they would logically aim for the weakest and squishiest first (no Fortification Rogues and Casters come to mind).

Players pick off the weakest to strongest.
NPCs pick off the strongest to weakest.

Strategically, NPCs are at a major disadvantage.

[Aaxeyu]

Option 2
"A high Initimidate lets my attacks hold aggro on this boss, despite doing under half the damage of some teammates. I will press shift to shield-block whenever I see an especially dangerous situation, such as:
* the boss winding up a special attack
* an extra monster attacking me
* the healer being distracted
* my AC buff wearing off
* getting a healing-immunity curse
* or simply me having low hitpoints.
At other times I will attack the boss, both to help win faster and as a necessary part of holding aggro, because Intimidate by itself isn't enough."

What stops anyone from doing this right now?

[MrWizard]

if the group does not want intim, just don't do it.

if they are wiping, then ask again.


intimidate is the skill of presenting yourself as the biggest threat to the monster.
Possibly even goading the monster if they are intelligent.

if one hates intim, then just ask for no intims, or for no one to use it..its really no biggie.


as for the people who are just intim and never do battle, I think they need to learn more about the game, not nerf intim.

without intim some raids are near impossible for some groups.
ditto with some other play types

[Angelus_dead]

nerfing builds is never good

That is not nearly true.

The concept of intimitank doesn't make sense at times either.

Yes, but that's a much bigger question than is relevant here (it's one that game designers have certainly discussed a lot). There are verisimilitude and gameplay problems with the idea of players using non-supernatural abilities to manipulate the behavior of their enemies, but at this point is it strongly accepted that DDO's Intimidate and Diplomacy skills have functions to modify monster aggro. That's not something that can be reasonably changed at this point- to change it would require a lot of work in many other areas.

What stops anyone from doing this right now?

What stops them currently is the fact that it doesn't work. Intimidate does not currently work together with attacks to hold aggro:
1. If your DPS is enough to hold boss aggro, then pressing Intimidate is just a waste of time you could be swinging. 2. If your DPS is not enough and you must use Intimidate, then your DPS doesn't matter and may as well be zero. (Meaning you may as well hold shift and cover your face for the battle).

if the group does not want intim, just don't do it.

This is not a suggestion about what method players should do to be successful in DDO encounters; it's about how well the game designers should allow various techniques to work.

without intim some raids are near impossible for some groups.

The suggestion was not to remove Intimidate, but to change it from absolute to relative aggro.

[Angelus_dead]

Activating Intimidate generates an amount of instantaneous threat, that is determined by how much you beat the mob's Intim DC by.

Yes, that's the other workable approach to making Intimidate work in conjunction with damage-threat to determine aggro (meaning it gives relative aggro instead of absolute).

For Intimidate to give a relative improvement means it has to increase your damage aggro, which could be done either multiplicatively or additively. Whichever arithmetic is used, the designer is aiming for about the same number: the bonus provided by Intimidate should cover the difference in DPS between a defensive build and offensive build (plus a little more so the tank is on top, and not just tied)

Either could be made to work, but which one is easier to design (and easier to explain) will depend on what the relationship between the DPS of offensive and defensive builds is: is the advantage of a high-DPS guy more usefully expressed as a +X addition or a *Y multiplication? Generally it is the latter: abilities such as GTWF pretty clearly give the offense character a damage lead of around 180% of the S&B guy, and an important buff like Haste gives a percentage bonus to everyone's DPS. (So does the new Jade Strike!)

It would be very complicated to demonstrate this further, but having Intimidate provide a multiplicative bonus will probably work out as easier to balance than an additive one (and the additive might turn out to need to be multiplication in disguise)

[Aaxeyu]

What stops them currently is the fact that it doesn't work. Intimidate does not currently work together with attacks to hold aggro:
1. If your DPS is enough to hold boss aggro, then pressing Intimidate is just a waste of time you could be swinging. 2. If your DPS is not enough and you must use Intimidate, then your DPS doesn't matter and may as well be zero. (Meaning you may as well hold shift and cover your face for the battle).

I was more refering to this part:
"I will press shift to shield-block whenever I see an especially dangerous situation, such as:
* the boss winding up a special attack
* an extra monster attacking me
* the healer being distracted
* my AC buff wearing off
* getting a healing-immunity curse
* or simply me having low hitpoints."

Tank builds can do just that. Hold aggro with their extra hate and shield block when needed. And intimidate if they lose agro or to get aggro from multiple mobs.

Changing intimidate to replace extra hate bonuses seems rather pointless.

[Angelus_dead]

Tank builds can do just that.

Currently tank builds who have enough Intimidate to work on the boss do not need to "do just that", and if they do it's minimal improvement and carries a risk.

Consider the results of two different Intimitanking techniques in the current DDO rules:
1. You sit there holding shift and pressing Intimidate every 10 seconds.
2. You Intimidate every 10 seconds and attack in between, only shift-blocking if it seems necessary.

Method 1 has the benefit of you being safer due to higher DR and AC. That both reduces healer resource usage over time, and reduces the chance that you might take too much damage and get killed (or that someone else will get killed while the healer is focusing on you).
Method 2 has the benefit of the fight ending faster because of the DPS you put out- but that is a minimal improvement, because getting into a defensive loadout reduces DPS a lot. No offhand weapon, no Power Attack, no Tharne damage, and probably a lot of other sacrifices. It creates the risk not only of taking more damage or being tripped, but also there's an increased chance you'll miss clicking Intimidate at the right time and the boss will hit someone else.

Sure, if your group is powerful compared to the opposition so that the drawbacks of method 2 don't really matter, then you can go ahead and use it to finish faster. But if the enemies are actually dangerous then method 1 is more effective because it's safer- and that's what I'd like to see changed: To hold shift and click Intimidate every 10 seconds should not be a functional way to hold aggro on a boss that's being heavily damaged.

Hold aggro with their extra hate and shield block when needed. And intimidate if they lose agro or to get aggro from multiple mobs.

Changing intimidate to replace extra hate bonuses seems rather pointless.

So you're claiming that all S&B tanks can already hold aggro from equivalently-geared FB, KOTC, and Kensei just by swinging a sword? That does not appear to be the case.

[Aaxeyu]

Currently tank builds who have enough Intimidate to work on the boss do not need to "do just that", and if they do it's minimal improvement and carries a risk.

Consider the results of two different Intimitanking techniques in the current DDO rules:
1. You sit there holding shift and pressing Intimidate every 10 seconds.
2. You Intimidate every 10 seconds and attack in between, only shift-blocking if it seems necessary.

Method 1 has the benefit of you being safer due to higher DR and AC. That both reduces healer resource usage over time, and reduces the chance that you might take too much damage and get killed (or that someone else will get killed while the healer is focusing on you).
Method 2 has the benefit of the fight ending faster because of the DPS you put out- but that is a minimal improvement, because getting into a defensive loadout reduces DPS a lot. No offhand weapon, no Power Attack, no Tharne damage, and probably a lot of other sacrifices. It creates the risk not only of taking more damage or being tripped, but also there's an increased chance you'll miss clicking Intimidate at the right time and the boss will hit someone else.

Sure, if your group is powerful compared to the opposition so that the drawbacks of method 2 don't really matter, then you can go ahead and use it to finish faster. But if the enemies are actually dangerous then method 1 is more effective because it's safer- and that's what I'd like to see changed: To hold shift and click Intimidate every 10 seconds should not be a functional way to hold aggro on a boss that's being heavily damaged.


So you're claiming that all S&B tanks can already hold aggro from equivalently-geared FB, KOTC, and Kensei just by swinging a sword? That does not appear to be the case.

Would it not be better to simply increase S&B DPS (and fix the stances)? That way they can geat aggro from attacking and constant shield blocking will have a significant cost.

[krud]

"Intimitanking some encounters is boring because it amounts to holding shift, standing still, and pressing Intimidate every six seconds."

But that's a play style choice. Should this be changed because some people choose the boring, yet easier approach? If people wanted excitement instead of their easy loot button, they would do it. Nobody complains about the cleric/FvS who chooses to play healbot at some point during a raid.

[eonfreon]

Currently tank builds who have enough Intimidate to work on the boss do not need to "do just that", and if they do it's minimal improvement and carries a risk.

Consider the results of two different Intimitanking techniques in the current DDO rules:
1. You sit there holding shift and pressing Intimidate every 10 seconds.
2. You Intimidate every 10 seconds and attack in between, only shift-blocking if it seems necessary.

Method 1 has the benefit of you being safer due to higher DR and AC. That both reduces healer resource usage over time, and reduces the chance that you might take too much damage and get killed (or that someone else will get killed while the healer is focusing on you).
Method 2 has the benefit of the fight ending faster because of the DPS you put out- but that is a minimal improvement, because getting into a defensive loadout reduces DPS a lot. No offhand weapon, no Power Attack, no Tharne damage, and probably a lot of other sacrifices. It creates the risk not only of taking more damage or being tripped, but also there's an increased chance you'll miss clicking Intimidate at the right time and the boss will hit someone else.

Sure, if your group is powerful compared to the opposition so that the drawbacks of method 2 don't really matter, then you can go ahead and use it to finish faster. But if the enemies are actually dangerous then method 1 is more effective because it's safer- and that's what I'd like to see changed: To hold shift and click Intimidate every 10 seconds should not be a functional way to hold aggro on a boss that's being heavily damaged.


So you're claiming that all S&B tanks can already hold aggro from equivalently-geared FB, KOTC, and Kensei just by swinging a sword? That does not appear to be the case.

Oh so you basically want to remove the chance of a Player choosing method 1?

[zealous]

Currently tank builds who have enough Intimidate to work on the boss do not need to "do just that", and if they do it's minimal improvement and carries a risk.

Consider the results of two different Intimitanking techniques in the current DDO rules:
1. You sit there holding shift and pressing Intimidate every 10 seconds.
2. You Intimidate every 10 seconds and attack in between, only shift-blocking if it seems necessary.

Method 1 has the benefit of you being safer due to higher DR and AC. That both reduces healer resource usage over time, and reduces the chance that you might take too much damage and get killed (or that someone else will get killed while the healer is focusing on you).
Method 2 has the benefit of the fight ending faster because of the DPS you put out- but that is a minimal improvement, because getting into a defensive loadout reduces DPS a lot. No offhand weapon, no Power Attack, no Tharne damage, and probably a lot of other sacrifices. It creates the risk not only of taking more damage or being tripped, but also there's an increased chance you'll miss clicking Intimidate at the right time and the boss will hit someone else.

Method 1 creates the risk of missing a intim by a bit or things going haywire in case you are somehow unable to do so. Thus carrying the same risks as you claim method 2 does.

Method 2 on the other hand creates a two layered defense; given sufficient hate generation in case intimidate fails you will still have hate.

What stops them currently is the fact that it doesn't work. Intimidate does not currently work together with attacks to hold aggro:
1. If your DPS is enough to hold boss aggro, then pressing Intimidate is just a waste of time you could be swinging. 2. If your DPS is not enough and you must use Intimidate, then your DPS doesn't matter and may as well be zero. (Meaning you may as well hold shift and cover your face for the battle).

That would be a somewhat narrowminded way to look at it.

You might lack the DPS but still have sufficient hate generation.

Same as in other MMOs you have hate generation through attacks and taunts for snap aggro.

If you wing it another way you can use intim to huddle mobs up and give a buffer of time to establish aggro as well as having something to fall back on in case someone grabs aggro.

What ddo currently lack is a way to efficiently generate hate on more than one target.



Since hate generation currently can be made quite efficient while still going mostly defensive, removing the snap aggro capacity of intimidate would probably be counter productive in that it would reduce the worth of the skill.

Changing intim to provide both snap aggro as well as a decent addition of hate based on success would probably be better.

[eonfreon]

Changing intim to provide both snap aggro as well as a decent addition of hate based on success would probably be better.

Yes, I like this suggestion:
Retaining snap aggro and a decent addition of hate based on success.
This is keeping in line with one of A_D's suggestion, except that snap aggro will always occur on a successful Intimidate like now, not just a couple of times and then only counts for additional hate with some arbitrary cool-down timer until snap-aggro is allowed again.
This is a much better suggestion to me.
Therefore Method 1 and 2 can still be played if a player enjoys either of those styles and yet they both have their drawbacks and benefits.

[Borror0]

If people wanted excitement instead of their easy loot button, they would do it.

Having effective extrinsic rewards (ie loot, and XP) is no excuse to have a gameplay void of or light on intrinsic rewards (ie boring).

[krud]

Having effective extrinsic rewards (ie loot, and XP) is no excuse to have a gameplay void of or light on intrinsic rewards (ie boring).

The intrinsic reward is there for them, they just choose not to use it.