Shadow knight aggro

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Building an agro buffer means that you are more likely to hold agro. If you have +500 over the rogue, the mob is less likely to flip. Adding to the buffer is always better, since you can't see the numbers in the agro list. You have no idea if you are +1 or +500. For all you know the +1 hate from taunt every 6 seconds is the only thing keeping you at +7 over the rogue.

But you do still agree that the approach for which you advocate is less optimal than saving taunt to use strategicly, if you're trying to minimize the frequency of losing aggro and not flipping it right back with a successful taunt, right?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I sure as heck do normally have a feel for when I have a good threat lead or not. I've also been doing the tank job a long flippin' time, and that's something that only comes with the experience of mastery at a job. Maybe some other players might not have the same instinct for the job if they haven't been doing it as long. So, yeah, if you're new to the job and uncertain of yourself, or playing in such a way that you're sometimes shaky on aggro, link those abilities if you like. If you don't need to, then don't do it.

I have a good feel for it too. I've also tanked for years. Nor am I suggesting you do not have a good feel.

My point is simple: More agro is better, as it decreases the chance of a flip. There is no downside to adding more agro, only upsides. Unless of course you don't want agro hehe.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But you do still agree that the approach for which you advocate is less optimal than saving taunt to use strategicly, if you're trying to minimize the frequency of losing aggro and not flipping it right back with a successful taunt, right?

I don't know why you keep asking. You should read the thread, I have answered this question multiple times. https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=276 is the latest answer, which was last page.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know why you keep asking. You should read the thread, I have answered this question multiple times. https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=276 is the latest answer, which was last page.

I want you to either admit it is less optimal, or use some math to prove it is more optimal.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I want you to either admit it is less optimal, or use some math to prove it is more optimal.

Thank you for admitting that is what you are fishing for.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=276

That has the answer you are looking for.

[Danth]

I do not agree it reduces chance of a flip. If I want aggro, chance of a flip is already zero--can't go below zero. I understand where you're coming from in theory, but this is a case where theory and real practice are not precisely the same.

I get a feeling that you and I probably play our characters a little differently and I probably "go at it harder" than you do as a matter of habit. At least that's the impression I get re-reading some of my own posts, and yours. Neither is right, nor wrong--just, perhaps, an insight into our relative differences in opinion. Likewise, we know from past interaction that you, to some extent, enjoy eeking out every advantage whether its needed or not just for the fun of doing so, whereas I'm more likely to stop caring at those last few percent when we're hitting diminishing returns territory.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That has the answer you are looking for.

No where in that post do you claim that the approach for which you advocate is optimal over strategic taunting. Thank you for conceding that it is non-optimal behavior.

[Vivitron]

Originally Posted by Snaggles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It’s not nearly the threat of a stat tap or pre-nerf DC. Probably 1/3 or 1/4th as much. For 20m it’s a great utility spell, for delaying pulls or stopping runners.

Clinging is however currently the same aggro as a shadow vortex or shroud of hate. (edit: Oh you mentioned stat taps. I've tested it. You get full aggro for "didn't take hold" and "immune to changes in runspeed" too.)

It's too bad about DC. There are patch notes (after our era) about slow first getting moved to disease, then slow having too much aggro and that aggro getting fixed. I assume that's where DC's aggro should be nerfed, and that it's a bug that it's nerfed on p99.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thank you for conceding that it is non-optimal behavior.

I am not conceding anything, because I never made that argument. Please stop being silly.

[bcbrown]

Silly is making over a hundred posts, almost 40% of the posts in a thread, advocating for an approach that is sub-optimal to the approach that almost everyone else in the thread advocates for.

By not making an argument that your approach is optimal, you concede by default that the other approach almost everyone else favors is optimal.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Vivitron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's too bad about DC. There are patch notes (after our era) about slow first getting moved to disease, then slow having too much aggro and that aggro getting fixed. I assume that's where DC's aggro should be nerfed, and that it's a bug that it's nerfed on p99.

It's definitely a bug (or a deliberate out-of-era nerf to the game) because the loss of counter aggro also trivializes aggro from some other spells on other classes that absolutely should not be trivial aggro. Intended or not, we have to deal with it until such a time as it's changed. For now, DC's junk. Main reason you might not use Clinging on a charm pet is if you don't want the pet dotted (it can be annoying at times) but Clinging has a short enough duration that's usually not a problem. It was more annoying with DC's long duration.