Good and Bad Intimitanking Designs

[Angelus_dead]

How about a game that allows that method one as an option but creates other equally valid options?

That's a theoretical possibility, but I can't currently think of a design that would cause that to happen. Do you have an idea for that?

I suppose enrage timers would be one approach to do that, but it seems undesirable for various reasons (for one thing, it would seem too derivative of Warcraft).

[eonfreon]

That's a theoretical possibility, but I can't currently think of a design that would cause that to happen. Do you have an idea for that?

I suppose enrage timers would be one approach to do that, but it seems undesirable for various reasons (for one thing, it would seem too derivative of Warcraft).

I don't know the how the coding works so I can only give ideas.
But couldn't a Toggle method works, perhaps?
Allowing Intimidate to function as it already does and allowing a Toggle to change it to the Hate Generating Method you prefer?
What would be the downside to such?
Would that not allow both methods to be used depending on the player and the circumstances?
This way nothing is changed about the current method, unless the individual or the group prefers it the other method.

[khaldan]

That's a theoretical possibility, but I can't currently think of a design that would cause that to happen. Do you have an idea for that?

I suppose enrage timers would be one approach to do that, but it seems undesirable for various reasons (for one thing, it would seem too derivative of Warcraft).

Possibly a stacking buff that grows in power over time?

'As you fight boss X, It gains more power from a nearby macguffin, and it's attacks increase in potency'?

Not sure how to balance that, though.

EDIT: Heck, in a few ways we already have this type of mechanic. DQ enrages at 20%, so the faster she dies, the less damage taken, and VoD has the firebats.

[krud]

I don't know the how the coding works so I can only give ideas.
But couldn't a Toggle method works, perhaps?
Allowing Intimidate to function as it already does and allowing a Toggle to change it to the Hate Generating Method you prefer?
What would be the downside to such?
Would that not allow both methods to be used depending on the player and the circumstances?
This way nothing is changed about the current method, unless the individual or the group prefers it the other method.

I would think just adding a hate generation boost whenever you click intimidate, and keeping the current setup would work fine. Those who want to hate tank will be able to, and those who prefer the boring approach can do that as well.

[zealous]

That you don't see that as an admission that the mechanic is boring is somewhat puzzling.

The mechanic? Absolutely not!
The quest design dictating that you need to stand still in one place and hold down a mouse button or alternatively stand in place spamming the button for heal and/or intimidate, that's boring imo.

That would be hate tanking, with the possibility of Intimidate as an emergency backup.

That's not intimitanking, which (as already explained) is the topic of this thread. The subject of this suggestion is tank builds who do not have a sufficient combination of DPS and percentage hate increasers to hold aggro, so they must instead depend on Intimidate.

And here I though the topic was good and bad designs comparing current intimidate with other options...

You yourself wrote:

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).

as an answer why option 2 wouldn't currently be possible.

I've tried to demonstrate that you're wrong, that it does work and why. I'm unsure if you haven't read my posts or if you do not understand them. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

To rephrase; It is possible to use intimidate and hate generation in tandem. It might not be possible to generate sufficient hate to hold aggro in the face of damage spikes, haste boost, streaks of crits etc. If you generally loose aggro when the monk get's a tripple ToD or the FB get's a really lucky streak of crits you would be able to buffer using intim.

Unless you really really need the DR of shield blocking 100% of the time there's really no reason not to keep swinging. And if you need the DR of shield blocking 100% of the time, well, how would you keep aggro in any other way except through a taunt?

Your option 2 stated in the OP is already possible.

Or is the thing that you explicitly want that ability tied to intimidate and not hate generation?

If so why?

[khaldan]

The limiting factor in (nearly) all current encounters is going to be healer resources. If you're going intim/swinging, and your damage taken while swinging doesn't outweigh the cost on healing, then you're better off holding down shift.

Now, where this breakpoint is, I'm not sure, but I'm doubting most method 1 tanks are at it.

[Borror0]

The mechanic? Absolutely not!
The quest design dictating that you need to stand still in one place and hold down a mouse button or alternatively stand in place spamming the button for heal and/or intimidate, that's boring imo.

It would be helpful if you included your reasoning explaining why you feel that it is the quests' design that is to blame.

To rephrase; It is possible to use intimidate and hate generation in tandem. It might not be possible to generate sufficient hate to hold aggro in the face of damage spikes, haste boost, streaks of crits etc. If you generally loose aggro when the monk get's a tripple ToD or the FB get's a really lucky streak of crits you would be able to buffer using intim.

That can be a good argument to change Intimidate to have a cooldown longer than the duration of the effect, like it functioned before Module 7, but that's not an argument for status quo. Since Intimidate's duration is the same as the cooldown, generating hate is largely superfluous.

[Angelus_dead]

I'm unsure if you haven't read my posts or if you do not understand them.

I have not been able to respond to everything you wrote, because it would be against the forum rules. Those rules do not support accurate discussion, but there's nothing I can do about that.

[Angelus_dead]

The limiting factor in (nearly) all current encounters is going to be healer resources. If you're going intim/swinging, and your damage taken while swinging doesn't outweigh the cost on healing, then you're better off holding down shift.

Yes, that is true, as I described in a post above:
If a tank is holding aggro with Intimidate, the value added by his weak melee attacks will frequently be less than the cost imposed by the higher damage he takes due to not shield-blocking. The more dangerous the boss's attacks are, the more likely that continuously blocking will turn out to be the tactically correct choice.

The point of this thread is whether or not the game designers should allow that method to continue to be an effective option. If holding prolonged aggro requires the tank also put out a moderate amount of DPS, then eternally shield-blocking would no longer be a viable choice.

That would return shield-blocking to its intended role: something the player does as an occasional reaction to an especially dangerous situation, not a mode a tank can sit in for the entire 2-10 minutes of a boss killing.

[khaldan]

Yes, that is true, as I described in a post above:
If a tank is holding aggro with Intimidate, the value added by his weak melee attacks will frequently be less than the cost imposed by the higher damage he takes due to not shield-blocking. The more dangerous the boss's attacks are, the more likely that continuously blocking will turn out to be the tactically correct choice.

The point of this thread is whether or not the game designers should allow that method to continue to be an effective option. If holding prolonged aggro requires the tank also put out a moderate amount of DPS, then eternally shield-blocking would no longer be a viable choice.

That would return shield-blocking to its intended role: something the player does as an occasional reaction to an especially dangerous situation, not a mode a tank can sit in for the entire 2-10 minutes of a boss killing.

That was a response to the post above my post, guess I forgot to quote it. My bad.

[redoubt]

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

Well, shoot... I've been doing it all wrong! lol...

I admit I'm only up to level 9 with my intimidator, but when I intim I keep swinging. TWF no less. I guess that's why I didn't understand the issue.

[khaldan]

Well, shoot... I've been doing it all wrong! lol...

I admit I'm only up to level 9 with my intimidator, but when I intim I keep swinging. TWF no less. I guess that's why I didn't understand the issue.

Going back to an earlier point: Swinging while intiming works only when you killing the mobs faster leads to less healer mana used. This is generally true at low levels, especially if you take a break from swinging every so often to pot up.

[eonfreon]

Yes, that is true, as I described in a post above:
If a tank is holding aggro with Intimidate, the value added by his weak melee attacks will frequently be less than the cost imposed by the higher damage he takes due to not shield-blocking. The more dangerous the boss's attacks are, the more likely that continuously blocking will turn out to be the tactically correct choice.

The point of this thread is whether or not the game designers should allow that method to continue to be an effective option. If holding prolonged aggro requires the tank also put out a moderate amount of DPS, then eternally shield-blocking would no longer be a viable choice.

That would return shield-blocking to its intended role: something the player does as an occasional reaction to an especially dangerous situation, not a mode a tank can sit in for the entire 2-10 minutes of a boss killing.

Yes, I can see what you're driving at.
I just think you're going at it wrong.
Why should Intimidate be changed in the scenario you describe?
Would not increasing damage dealt by one-handed combat also serve this purpose, coupled with a "hate-generation" toggle to Intimidate?

The reason I ask is that the scenario you describe, the shield-blocking, is but one very small usage of the Intimidate skill. The Instant Aggro-snagging property is also used in many different ways, including fighting Mobs in Firewalls and retaining their aggro. Or grabbing the aggro from a Mob that you can't hit that's chasing a kiter/caster.

I don't want to see Intimidate changed from how it is.
I have no objections to adding to it of course. But to erase it's instant aggro-snaring property, or to increase the duration of the cool-down and not also increase the duration of the effect, would get a resounding no thank you from me.

[nitronisto]

woot another intimi topic
ok so thoughts yes i do agree that the idea of somone just hiding behind the shield mashing 1 button every 6 seconds while holding down another = boring and just in need of a new class to try. i do agree and see where the poster of this thread is going but here are some things that *good tanks * in any game DDO WOW EQ, EQ2 understand, and playing all 4 of those games i will say that it seems to be a idea that is carried no matter what the game.
Active tank vs reactive tank.
Reactive tanks run in get the mob with intimi and then pop a squat holding shield block yellin at the clerics "HEAL ME!!!!" while the dps is beating on the mob adding nothing to the death of the mob. not the tank i play or like to play with.
Active tanks= goes in swinging, is awear of were the mob is where the best location is to put it so that dps have the best edge to do dps, while *keyword* LOS (line of sight) spells and heals can still actively land wile keepin the support classes safe and out of harms way. Active tanks dont just hide behind the shield but swing there weapons while usin intim even though it does cause us to stop swinging for 2 secondish delay i personally find annoying but W/E. and only bring the shield block up if they have to. But this isint a how to tank post or forum.
someone did post on page one that maybe the Devs should fix the perst class enhaments to make hate rather then revamp the system as a pali tank i personally think and pray and wish they would cause i hate!! the fact that DoS rk 3 is supose to generate 200% more hate and it doesnt work. I can only burn DR at 1 min at a time, when i know that if this glich was fixed and in theroy i should be makin +400% hate with the combo of the two burning, and yes some hard core DnD player will prob go its not like that in pin in paper. =P

[Auran82]

I think most people would agree that holding shift, pressing intimidate every 6 seconds and not attacking really is just plain stupid, it looks stupid and is rather boring to play.

The culprit here I think is not so much the intimidate skill, but an aftereffect of how AC and shield blocking work and are implemented in the game. The difference between a Stalwart Defender attacking and actively blocking is what, DR 6/- Vs DR ~40/- (been a while) and there is no way to do some kind of attack, "oh no big attack coming, I'd better block" ok, safe to attack again because most of the time the enemies are just doing what we're doing, turn on autoattack and having something to drop, every now and then hitting fireball or some other special ability.

In order for intimitanking or really any kind of S&B fighting to work it would require a pretty big overhaul how shields and AC in general work and would need to deviate from PnP D&D even more. There is a reason most other MMOs have stuff like passive block chances and their 'armour' amounts decrease incoming damage.

[zealous]

It would be helpful if you included your reasoning explaining why you feel that it is the quests' design that is to blame.

The situations were it remains remotely defensible to stand still shield blocking and spamming intimidate tend to be those situations where you have big bad mobs with loads of hp, immunities and AoE attacks.

That can be a good argument to change Intimidate to have a cooldown longer than the duration of the effect, like it functioned before Module 7, but that's not an argument for status quo. Since Intimidate's duration is the same as the cooldown, generating hate is largely superfluous.

Possibly, it's the way it used to be. It might be somewhat problematic since half-elves get a second clickie.

If standing still, blocking and spamming intimidate is undesirable there are other avenues to alleviating the problem. Reducing the benefit of blocking would be one, that would however carry drawbacks. Making combat more reactive and have clear visual cues would be another, you know, more like the game was on release before they moved the attack hooks to the beginning of the animations.

Also, are the content, situations and party compositions where intim+shield blocking is vastly more efficient than alternatives all that common?

I have not been able to respond to everything you wrote, because it would be against the forum rules. Those rules do not support accurate discussion, but there's nothing I can do about that.

There are other avenues of communication, feel free to drop a pm.

[Borror0]

The situations were it remains remotely defensible to stand still shield blocking and spamming intimidate tend to be those situations where you have big bad mobs with loads of hp, immunities and AoE attacks.

I asked for what lead you to think the quests' design is to blame, not for a list of what those quests/encounters had in common. By looking at your list, there seems to be nothing objectionable: high HP are unavoidable and even desirable when it comes to (raid) bosses, immunities are defensible on bosses, and AoE attacks make (or should make, anyway) healing less monotonous by forcing diversification of heals. Why is that combination the culprit?

It might be somewhat problematic since half-elves get a second clickie.

That ability of theirs can be changed to a second roll if the first roll failed. Alternatively, the new cooldown could be greater than twice the duration.

If standing still, blocking and spamming intimidate is undesirable there are other avenues to alleviating the problem.

Of course, but I don't consider the other alternatives to be superior.

[sephiroth1084]

I agree that intimidate should be improved upon in such a way as to promote active, rather than passive, gameplay, as you suggest, but it also really needs to retain the ability to yank aggro away from someone who shouldn't have it, or doesn't want it. The kiting example is one situation where this functionality is worthwhile, but not the only one.

The WoW Taunt seems interesting, but I'm not sure I fully understand how it functions. Does it put you at the top of the aggro list, by just a small margin, making continued DPS from someone else near the top likely to pull aggro back? I think I'd have to see that in practice.

In any case, one of the functions I'd prefer Intimidate to retain is the ability it grants for one character to take control of a poor situation by wrangling aggro and allowing everyone else to recover, such as when a Horoth tank goes down.

[rayflo]

steering clear of this one :P been through it with ang before

[zealous]

I asked for what lead you to think the quests' design is to blame, not for a list of what those quests/encounters had in common.

Because it leads to standing still in one place and doing monotonous things. Well that's really not only due to quest design but possibly to a large extent contingent on other "problems" with the game.

High HP are unavoidable and even desirable when it comes to (raid) bosses

High HP are "good" for increasing the duration, there are other ways.
A. For one it doesn't always have to be "one big mean boss".
B. There could be healing.
C. The boss could have bursts of damage so high that you don't want to stand and be hit, thus limiting the time spent damaging it.

These are all examples present in current DDO, problem is that
A. You only need one person to lock down the boss, e.g. sally/horoth or a few people to take care of adds.
B. This could be more prevalent and done in other ways. Gnolls in the shroud pretty much only "works" in a exciting way when you're down to just a few chars when deciding and coordinating offing of the gnolls becomes somewhat problematic.
C. Moving away generally costs a lot in terms of damage done, due to interplay of animations and attackhooks it is difficult to do efficiently. There is the possibility of using spells, range, kiting and body blocking, these generally combine somewhat poorly with melee.

immunities are defensible on bosses

If you find limiting options of players and reducing complexity defensible then yes. If not one might think of alternative ways such as reduced/shortened effects or additional layers of protection.

and AoE attacks make (or should make, anyway) healing less monotonous by forcing diversification of heals.

Quite the opposite I would say. Due to aoe heals carrying more or less the same cost as single target heals, in the face of AoE attacks this creates the incentive to stand still in a huddle. Due to healing being so potent this works well in many situations. One could in fact argue that the only limitation to healing is the relative willingness to spend mana potions.

When I healed as a capped lvl10 newb I primarily did that using consumables and taking care to not use more than I needed, saving mana for emergencies, then diversification of heals was challenging.

Nowadays I just spam masses and chuck the odd single target heal if someone is out of range, usually no problem with mana lasting.

Of course, but I don't consider the other alternatives to be superior.

You seriously do not think combat would be more fun if it was more reactive?
That it would be more involving if you could react to visual cues?
If hooks didn't take place at the beginning at the animation would there really be much of a reason to hold shift all of the time?
Wouldn't it be possible to either block or twitch away and wouldn't that make a more involved playstyle more rewarding?