Yeah absolutely not, there is 1 set that has an effect when a taunt is used in PvP you can try that. It’s called Vanguards Challenge.

Difficult one as I personally don't want to see tanks being overpowering

If you've actually played PvP for enough, I'm sure your question of ''why PvP taunts does not exist'' , would answer itself.

Player's are not brainless cpu monsters. You can't just force them to act like one.

There already is a PvP taunt, just jump up and down a lot...

Vapirko wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Vapirko wrote: »

Yeah absolutely not, there is 1 set that has an effect when a taunt is used in PvP you can try that. It’s called Vanguards Challenge.

I agree that they should not be straight pulled across into PvP, but some use for the taunt (like more sets like Vanguard etc) would be good as Tanks have little place / role in PvP really. I know a few that that annoys.

I would have to disagree with that, tanks play a large role in PvP but less about taunting (since free will and all that lol) and more about wearing sets that provide group buff/enemy debuffs, aoe buffs/debuffs, cc, healing etc.

Yeah true I get the side benefits, but alpt of that Healers do too - and feel useful for the wild AP gain too. I know several tanks that would like to make a difference tanking I.e. Cries for Tanks to the ram or holding a breach etc. Right now tanky builds are just the annoying run around tree/rock/tower guys who offer little to their alliance.

As for free will, how would a taunt be any different from Fear etc? Could argue Same mechanics too just make it run towards.

To be clear I hate feat its crappy broken and last thing Id want is us all doing the Hokey cokey dance about Cyrodiil but just making a point lol

BejaProphet wrote: »

I think one easy way to apply a PvP taunt is simply make it where the taunted individual can no longer see the health bars of anybody but the taunter. Nothing big or unfair, doesn't remove the player's choice, but makes the player unable to identify the easy kill targets or know when to use executes.

That is also pretty broken. And it has absolutely nothing to do with ''taunting'' sadly.

Edit: I really don't know if I need to explain why, but knowing when to execute or when to burst is vital to PvP and your suggestion would instantly make the already risky glass cannon playstyles literally unplayable.

You want people to focus you? Just run around with less than 50% HP XD

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

If you've actually played PvP for enough, I'm sure your question of ''why PvP taunts does not exist'' , would answer itself.

Player's are not brainless cpu monsters. You can't just force them to act like one.

If you actually spent the time to digest my post, I'm sure you'd find your response is overlooking several of my points. I address the fact that players are not brainless.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Because sadly you'd only have two extremes.

• One where the 'view' changed, trying to force focus on the one doing the taunting, but easily ignored by any decent player with some self control.
• Or two, one where you truly force the other player to have tunnel vision, and this one would simply be too powerful.*

*The only way I could see #2 working is if it had varying effect based on distance, with true tunnel vision when up close and a huge damage multiplier towards the one doing the taunting, and faded out to be more like #1 if further away (no tank & hide, sorry)

It's kinda what they went for with Vanguard's Challenge.

I'm of the opinion that if you add an element of cognitive dissonance, a thing that must be ignored, the taunted player has been affected appropriately.

Will it provide an outcome as significant as in pve? Certainly not. Will it be without merit or benifit? Again, no.

If one man in a group of many carries a torch at dusk, you can ignore him and focus on the other men; however, that one torch carrying man has taken a portion of your attention, added a layer to your judgement processing and decreased your ability to react by a number of parsecs. In an even match, the smallest oversight can be the difference between winning and losing.

BejaProphet wrote: »

Making them angry to the point of having tunnel vision on one player, making them miss details in others that would have proven crucial in the fight? Such that it actually matters because it impacts choices made by the enemy?

You are correct, that doesn't sound like a "taunt" at all.

I'm going to file this ^ under the Sarcasm folder:
taunt
tônt. noun
1. a remark or action made in order to anger, wound, or provoke someone.

idk wrote: »

Gnozo wrote: »

Imagine 70k hp Tanks using range taunt from a keep and hide on the Wall.

Too much space for exploits

This is a great point.

I have seen taunts in other games cause the taunted target to do less damage to everyone but the tank who taunted him, but in AvA the tank could sit in safety and use his/her range taunt as you mention and it does not even require them to be a tank. (yes I know about the set bonus that does similar).

Just a pointless idea here.

To suggest that something is invalid on the supposition that it 'may' be exploitable is a fallacious argument.
We are also in a discussion to evolve the concept.

I acknowledge the worth of looking down the path for potential exploits; rather than serving as a reason to 'sink' an idea, I find them as reasons to strengthen, edit, and grow an idea.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Lunaugh wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

Because sadly you'd only have two extremes.

• One where the 'view' changed, trying to force focus on the one doing the taunting, but easily ignored by any decent player with some self control.
• Or two, one where you truly force the other player to have tunnel vision, and this one would simply be too powerful.*

*The only way I could see #2 working is if it had varying effect based on distance, with true tunnel vision when up close and a huge damage multiplier towards the one doing the taunting, and faded out to be more like #1 if further away (no tank & hide, sorry)

It's kinda what they went for with Vanguard's Challenge.

I'm of the opinion that if you add an element of cognitive dissonance, a thing that must be ignored, the taunted player has been affected appropriately.

Will it provide an outcome as significant as in pve? Certainly not. Will it be without merit or benifit? Again, no.

If one man in a group of many carries a torch at dusk, you can ignore him and focus on the other men; however, that one torch carrying man has taken a portion of your attention, added a layer to your judgement processing and decreased your ability to react by a number of parsecs. In an even match, the smallest oversight can be the difference between winning and losing.

But how, visually, would you do this, though?

• Does it make other players phase in and out, effectively giving them partial cloak/dodge?
• Does it change the perception of Ally locations, allowing precision only at the taunter?
• Does it create duplicates of the taunter, shadow images, or split like Wisp Mothers do? The shadows then must be dispelled or dispatched before others can take damage?
• Does it work like Blind, making actual dynamic dead zones on the players screen, with the exception of taunter?
• Does it increase miss chance (effectively the same as giving allies dodge chance)?
• Does it delay actions (casts) on all but the taunter?

I find it difficult to imagine an implementation where these not easy to train to ignore or were simply OP.

I think it would be either ineffective or impossible to balance, taking far too much away from the recipient. There would have to be guaranteed detriment on the side of the one doing the taunting, too, not just a chance of it (higher damage, if damage was received) This could be forced focus on the one being taunted too, making the taunter just as much of a target as the taunted. (Having the same visual effect/delay for the caster, taking other players, allies included, 'out of the picture' so to speak, while outsiders would see a visual effect on the taunter making them more of a target for the duration, as well.)

• Does damage to the taunter increase exponentially the longer it's active, leading to a one-shot? (Could even be a toggle)
• Does the taunter take damage automatically the longer it's active (think Chaosball)?
• Taunted would obviously need to be granted an immunity period, as well.

If not, it would have little negative effect on a health tank.

I feel that you have valid points, however I don't share your conclusions.

To better illustrate one of my earlier ideas:
X taunts Y. Y's visual representation of the play space is changed; a gaussian blur is applied to all character elements other than X. That is, targets A, B and C all appear blurry and target X is clear as day.
Certainly Y can still fire at the blurry targets, because Y knows what it is to be taunted and had a clear objective before the taunt took effect. This moment has impacted Y with at least a fraction of a second of delay that would otherwise not have been present.
In the above scenario, the taunt is effective at achieving its goal without breaking the game. Can you learn to ignore it, and fight through it? yes.
Can you learn to ignore pepper spray and fight through it to subdue a combative target? Absolutely. <- though extreme, and overly so, like pepper spray, the taunt should cause some form of irritation to the target.
Taunts shouldn't result in something opressivly powerful; you have things like rune prison or stop time for that. Taunts should be an irritation who's source is without question. Kill the tank, kill the taunt.

There are already many ways for a tank to help in PvP without what you're suggesting.

The Vanguard's Challenge set is effective as what it does, though requires skill to use and comes at more risk to the tank than the second option, which is...

The Alliance Skill Guard. (I wonder why it's in the alliance skill line >_>) this lets you trade some of your health to protect a single target in your group rather effectively.
Vanguard's on the other hand is more along the lines of a dedicated tank for a small group, protecting more people than just guarding a single one.

Both of these can work if you're trying to ride that specific definition of a "Tank" as a nigh-invulnerable brick, The "Titanium Teddybear" archetype (opposite of a glass cannon), as doing this will usually just get you ignored in favor of focusing more threatening allies. Guard, and Vanguard's, allow you to somewhat force enemies to take your durability into play even if they're not attacking you, and are powerful tools to fulfill that "Tank" role in PvP.

Alternatively, durable characters can do other things with their tankiness that benefit the group, such as diving enemy groups and applying CC and Debuffs.
This can force attention on you as well if you have a particularly frustrating or inhibiting CC like a heavy slow (70%+) or an AoE root with Minor Maim like DK talons, an AoE defile from Duroks or Warden's Corrupting Pollen, etc.
People will want that out of play, and will move you up their target priority list accordingly, allowing you to draw attention away from your allies and bringing your durability into play.

While yes, it would be nice for taunt to have some effect in PvP just on principle, I've yet to hear of, or even come up with myself, a way for it to do something without being either vastly underpowered and largely ignorable, vastly overpowered, or exploitable/abusable in some way.
Hell, even Vanguard's is borderline exploitable with Line of Sight and/or combined with other sets like Jailbreakers
It's a very, VERY fine line between adding additional functionality and layers of gameplay, and creating a new meta of "required roles" in groups and such.