tanking

ArchivedUser

so at 1st ive been burned out on tanking and wwent for healing, but as time went for a year or so my tanking heart and soul seems to be reborn:3

at 1st i didt feel this would be nessecary, but oh for the hell of it  
what follows next is my combined tanking experience of about 10 -12 years. (not all of that is in here tho ;D)

one of the main complaints with tanking is either not being able to do enough damage/not being able to hold ur own in pvp, the other being the blaming stick for all kinds of things.
wich brings me to my intention for this post, tanking mentality.

there are a number of different types of tanks out there, the elitists, the kind guys, the strong and silent type of tank and etc etc.
tanks nowadays are either to lax or to tryhard on dps, its very rare to get a tank that is defence focused. dont get me wrong, an offence tank isnt bad, but if he pulls to much for his playstyle and ends up overloading the healers ability it kinda gets ppl less then happy.

so lets set priority, for new tanks and also because tanking isnt to defined in this game yet, as every game has its own twist on it.

-1st priority is making sure YOU are the one getting hate/aggro/hit, dead dps cant do their stuff and hell hath no fury like a healer scorned:D

-2nd priority, make sure the group can do their respective things for as much as you can help them with. (positioning, pre-emptive positioning for mechanics and also in pvp the intercepting of enemy's bound for more squishy allies)

-3rd priority you gotta know ur stuff, there are different approaches to tanking, but you cant EVER sacrifice your tankability (how you take hits efficiently). even with offensive styled tanking make sure to use a cooldown (depends on how many cooldowns we will have access to tho and what their timers are,) and when that 1 runs out just use another  to make sure you dont burden the healer. some healers like to do dps on the side you know<3

-4th priority. this ones a doosy, not because we have all been there, but kinda something we need in order to enjoy our role. its keeping a calm and open mind, we all had those ppl that rage at almost literally nothing, a boss position that makes little diff to how you would normally do it, a healer that wont use regens instead of shields (in this 1 i specifically refer to ff14, regen being more powerfull then shields in that game (unless crit ofc)).
basically, we need to keep a saltfree mindset, an open one so we can see what diff some things make. 

since this is a new mmo, thats litteraly playerdriven, so i think its a good idea to throw this out there. i hope this will limit some of the toxic/salt tanks their behaviors or help them or something, we've all been there right:D

ArchivedUser

Tanking seems quite popular.

ArchivedUser

I dunno why there are always people trying to limit how people should play their role.

In Ashes, we will first have to see how races and sub-classes affect each role.
There will be many types and flavors of Tank.

Once we're actually able to play the game, instead of trying to restrict the playstyle of the archetype, people who want to teach others how to Tank should focus on teach the best uses of the individual abilities and the usefulness of the various augments.

ArchivedUser

I don't understand who these priorities are for...
If you like playing a tank, and that's how you play, well done.
If you are playing the healer, and somehow trying to convince the tanks to play a certain way, what's the point?

I think the priorities in this thread are off.

ArchivedUser

i will admit that there are from my view, and thats its quite coloured by ff14 since thats the last 1 i played for a good amount of time.
there quite a large number of tanks in that game that just didnt use any cooldowns or chewed out healers for something that wasnt their fault, drama queens/kings, and a LOT of dps and healers that didnt know anything and just fired away their critisism (thingy), and all of that pissed off a good amount of ppl and made a third of all tanks you came across salty/toxic and worse.

my intention was to hopefully not see that in here, or those kinda ppl maybe see this and not do it in the future.
i apologise if it has some kind of undertone that im not seeing:)

edit: them priority's are mostly for pve and a little bit pvp, i didnt explain that, my bad:D

ArchivedUser

@dygz

i did say it wasnt defined yet, but if the dungeons/raids are hard to do then these do become relevant (mind that i didnt say necessary):) i also forgot to mention that.
and its jot that im trying to restrict ppl way of playing, its just some things to keep in mind, i hold no kind of authority (thank god for that as well:D).
its nothing else but good intentions, wether to use them or not is just entirely up to the player and i support that aswell.

ArchivedUser

Tanking is always fun, I hope, in the case of dungeons, it won't just be a roflstomp. And that you need CC and knowledge of the mechanics, as you said in your third rule.

Another hint/rule is to make the enemies turn their back to your allies. This does two things. Allows you to easily pick up stragglers (assuming threat is something you have to work on actively, think vanilla WoW) and it stops mobs from doing front attacks into the group as a whole. 

ArchivedUser

Fair enough, but drama queens will always be about.

I hope you Tanking and Healling experience is the best it can be @skearn!
Welcome to the community!

ArchivedUser

@ariatros, ah vanilla wow, brings back very fond memories of running stratholme for the 1st time   im really looking forward to tanking in ashes and i deff share the concern for the higher difficulties on pve. i love a good raid:D

@azatoth thank you and happy to be!:D i was an accomplished tank in wow vanilla and wotlk and in ff14 i did both tanking and healing in savage statics:D (raid groups on heroic mode basically:D). but with stormblood (expac) they changed the tanks in such a way it felt discombobulating >.<  REALLY looking forward to this! !

ArchivedUser

skearn said:

@dygz

i did say it wasnt defined yet, but if the dungeons/raids are hard to do then these do become relevant (mind that i didnt say necessary):) i also forgot to mention that.
and its jot that im trying to restrict ppl way of playing, its just some things to keep in mind, i hold no kind of authority (thank god for that as well:D).
its nothing else but good intentions, wether to use them or not is just entirely up to the player and i support that aswell.

The content of the dungeons will change rather than remain static, so again, it's really going to depend on the playstyles of the race/subclass Tank combos and how individuals choose to augment the base Tank abilities -in addition to the specific content of each dungeon- rather than on a cookie-cutter approach to each primary archetype.

Hopefully, we can get closer to a Log Horizon style approach, where groups adapt to the way individuals like to Tank rather than trying to get all Tanks to Tank the same way.
I'd tweak your suggestions for all roles and playstyles:

1: Know how to play your role. Have strategies for getting the most out of your rotation. (whatever most means for your role)
2: Help the individuals in your group do their respective things. Synergize abilities and tactics if you can. Especially if you can formulate co-op techniques like the Fastball Special.
3: Keep a calm and open mind. People have different playstyles and have different motives and objectives for grouping in a dungeon. Different people have different ideas about what makes dungeon delving fun. Not everyone is interested in killing mobs in the most efficient manner.
Remember that it's roleplaying and also a game. Some players might care more about the roleplaying experience. Some players might care more about the gaming experience.

ArchivedUser

Ariatras said:

Another hint/rule is to make the enemies turn their back to your allies. This does two things. Allows you to easily pick up stragglers (assuming threat is something you have to work on actively, think vanilla WoW) and it stops mobs from doing front attacks into the group as a whole. 

Ha! I wonder how that will work alongside a group member who uses Roots.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

skearn said:

@dygz

i did say it wasnt defined yet, but if the dungeons/raids are hard to do then these do become relevant (mind that i didnt say necessary):) i also forgot to mention that.
and its jot that im trying to restrict ppl way of playing, its just some things to keep in mind, i hold no kind of authority (thank god for that as well:D).
its nothing else but good intentions, wether to use them or not is just entirely up to the player and i support that aswell.

The content of the dungeons will change rather than remain static, so again, it's really going to depend on the playstyles of the race/subclass Tank combos and how individuals choose to augment the base Tank abilities -in addition to the specific content of each dungeon- rather than on a cookie-cutter approach to each primary archetype.

Hopefully, we can get closer to a Log Horizon style approach, where groups adapt to the way individuals like to Tank rather than trying to get all Tanks to Tank the same way.
I'd tweak your suggestions for all roles and playstyles:

1: Know how to play your role. Have strategies for getting the most out of your rotation. (whatever most means for your role)
2: Help the individuals in your group do their respective things. Synergize abilities and tactics if you can. Especially if you can formulate co-op techniques like the Fastball Special.
3: Keep a calm and open mind. People have different playstyles and have different motives and objectives for grouping in a dungeon. Different people have different ideas about what makes dungeon delving fun. Not everyone is interested in killing mobs in the most efficient manner.
Remember that it's roleplaying and also a game. Some players might care more about the roleplaying experience. Some players might care more about the gaming experience.
(for some reason it didnt quote properly o.O)

i agree with you, but id rather not tweak. i still mean what i said, albeit not entirely clear on its specific purpose >.>Dygz said:

Ariatras said:

Another hint/rule is to make the enemies turn their back to your allies. This does two things. Allows you to easily pick up stragglers (assuming threat is something you have to work on actively, think vanilla WoW) and it stops mobs from doing front attacks into the group as a whole. 

Ha! I wonder how that will work alongside a group member who uses Roots.

well actually:D in that situation the tank could move away from the rooted target but (as long as it doesnt beak the root) keep throwing a little pick me up at the rooted target thats away from its buddy's:D 

dunno if its still called that way but back then it was called a stasis tactic, putting a target out of the fight for some time to save the tank some hits and the healer some additional healing:)

ArchivedUser

Right.
So we need to know if there is a Root that not only prevents the target from leaving the spot, but also prevents the target from turning on the spot.
If there is, then someone else in the group may have the role of stopping mobs from doing front attacks into the group as a whole.

Which also makes me wonder about the possibility for a Mage/illusionist ability that creates a decoy to hold aggro, like in Fortnite. 
So, perhaps in some groups the Tank might be more focused on shielding the group from damage via Cover and Bulwark while some other archetype handles threat/hate/aggro.
And, then, we can have more unique groups rather than everyone prejudging what role each archetype must have.

ArchivedUser

it would be cool if some classes are capable of a decoy or something, think of the shenanigans for that xD

those are interesting idea's tho:D i remember when pet tanks were actually a thing in other games, or when certain rogue-like characters were able to dodge-tank for a limited time in case the tank died or even as a tactic for some fights<3

this game really just might hold endless possibility:3 summoning a siege golem in a dungeon or something XD

ArchivedUser

When I play a tank in PvP, I think of myself more as utility than anything else. I'm there to distract and frustrate opponents while my DPS friends kill them.

I may not get kills, but none of the players in the fight would say I don't hold my own.

As to different types of tanks, I'm sure we absolutely will.

However, if my time in EQ2 taught me anything, it is that classes that are 90% tank will be fine for group content - but for top end raid content, everyone will want the class that is 100% tank.

Since this game reminds me of EQ2, I can see that holding true. Any class that has tank as it's base will be fine for most content. People may have to adjust to the tank a little, and some healers may be better suited to some of these tanks than others (those from EQ2 - think Brawler tank with Cleric healer, recipe for bad times on tough content).

As a new game, there will be a lot of seeing what works. But in that process, that also means finding things that don't work. With 64 classes, of which 8 can easily be called tanks and 8 can easily be called healers, there absolutely will be combinations that don't work due to mechanics.

As players, if we find them, we need to accept them.

ArchivedUser

So quick reminder of how this game is going to work for classes.   Your primary class has said list of skills, the secondary class changes the primary classes skills a little.  You will still have all of the same skills it just a change on the effect of them.  here is the example using taunt.  Tank+Tank taunt has a damage reflect, while a Tank+Cleric has a bubble/health regen.  They both have the same effect to taunt, but depending on the type of mobs or just your simple play style they both are usable.  Since the tank+tank build has the heavy armor but it also adds damage.  If you add 10% to the damage the monster dies 10% faster that means you don't take 10% time worth of damage.  That by it's own right is a form of damage reduction.  DPS tanking works really well as long as you know the proper timing of CD's and the difference between preventive damage reduction and reaction damage reduction. Tanking have never always been about I adsorb every single hit so I'm awesome its about teamwork with other classes combining CC, focusing down mob order, and kiting when needed.  The best tanks know general mechanics of all classes and use them to overcome overwhelming odds. Remember the monsters will always overcome a really high defense built tank by having the other mobs in the pack support it, so you have to do the same.

P.S Tanks are the first to be blamed for everything and healers are second.

Edit:  changed this a bit so it didn't look like a rant, but more of a useful way to rethinking tank styles.  Hope these ideas help.

ArchivedUser

Cheap said:

So quick reminder of how this game is going to work for classes.   Your primary class has said list of skills, the secondary class changes the primary classes skills a little.  You will still have all of the same skills it just a change on the effect of them.  here is the example using taunt.  Tank+Tank taunt has a damage reflect, while a Tank+Cleric has a bubble/health regen.  They both have the same effect to taunt, but depending on the type of mobs or just your simple play style they both are usable.  Since the tank+tank build has the heavy armor but it also adds damage. 

While this is true, and Steven has pointed out that your role will be determined by the first class you pick, he also said that picking the same role as the second is like doubling down on that role.

Pick Tank as your first class and you are a tank regardless of your second class - but if you pick tank as your second class, you are a super-tank.

High end content (PvE at least, PvP is more of a FotM and R/P/S macro) will always prefer a super-tank over a tank. Step down a tier though, and people may prefer the additions a tank has over a super-tank in other areas.

If you add 10% to the damage the monster dies 10% faster that means you don't take 10% time worth of damage.  That by it's own right is a form of damage reduction.  DPS tanking works really well as long as you know the proper timing of CD's and the difference between preventive damage reduction and reaction damage reduction. Tanking have never always been about I adsorb every single hit so I'm awesome its about teamwork with other classes combining CC, focusing down mob order, and kiting when needed.  The best tanks know general mechanics of all classes and use them to overcome overwhelming odds. Remember the monsters will always overcome a really high defense built tank by having the other mobs in the pack support it, so you have to do the same.

I totally agree. Everyone in a group or a raid should be dealing damage if their other functions are satisfied - this includes both tank and healer.

If I see a healer that doesn't attack for an entire dungeon - unless we were *constantly* in need of healing - I won't invite them to another group. Same with a tank, you have aggro, now start working on killing the damn thing.

ArchivedUser

Noaani said:

While this is true, and Steven has pointed out that your role will be determined by the first class you pick, he also said that picking the same role as the second is like doubling down on that role.

Pick Tank as your first class and you are a tank regardless of your second class - but if you pick tank as your second class, you are a super-tank.

High end content (PvE at least, PvP is more of a FotM and R/P/S macro) will always prefer a super-tank over a tank. Step down a tier though, and people may prefer the additions a tank has over a super-tank in other areas.

He said it would be a physical tank, heavy armor and able to absorb lot of physical damage.  The reason it was stated that way is because he was explaining how a tank mage wold be good for magic mobs.

ArchivedUser

Doing additional damage as a tank is a no brainer....its just so inefficient compared to your tanking skills it can never be any more than a nice bonus.
If you are going to DPS check tanks....I think you need to revaluate your priorities.

My role as a tank is more to control the battlefield.
Specifically, my function is to give the group as much time as possible to do their thing.
How I go about that depends on what skills I have at my disposal.
As of now, we have no idea what skills we will get, nor how combat will be played in any kind of detail.

If the tank-tank becomes the only viable tank....then I would argue that the tank-tank needs removing as an option, to ensure we dont end up in another cookie cutter mess where 7 of the class options are instantly obsolete.
Better to lose one option than seven.

ArchivedUser

Cheap said:

Noaani said:

While this is true, and Steven has pointed out that your role will be determined by the first class you pick, he also said that picking the same role as the second is like doubling down on that role.

Pick Tank as your first class and you are a tank regardless of your second class - but if you pick tank as your second class, you are a super-tank.

High end content (PvE at least, PvP is more of a FotM and R/P/S macro) will always prefer a super-tank over a tank. Step down a tier though, and people may prefer the additions a tank has over a super-tank in other areas.

He said it would be a physical tank, heavy armor and able to absorb lot of physical damage.  The reason it was stated that way is because he was explaining how a tank mage wold be good for magic mobs.

Yeah, but that is basically what I'm saying.

A Spellsword (tank/mage) may well be better at tanking spellcasters. Thing is, they will be much worse at tanking non-spellcasters. If you are picking a tank to go in to a zone that has both, would you take the tank that is really good at one and really bad at the other, or would you take the Guardian (tank/tank, aka super-tank) that is only slightly less good at tanking one, but far, far better at tanking the other?

From the June 30th livestream from last year.

Q: Will every class be viable in multiple roles, or will each class have one role they excel at?

A: They will... it depends on your spec, right. Like, it ultimately always comes down to that. We've got the archetypes. Those archetypes, if you double down on them, their going to be... that's, that's their role.

Umm, if you want to hybrid out you can hybrid out, and you will be 'viable' as long as your build supports that and as long as your gear supports that.

Other tanks will have their place in all aspects of the game, I have no doubt. I came from a game that had 6 tank classes, yet managed to make raid level content for 8 different classes to tank.

While all classes can be viable at times, the bulk of top end raiding will be done by the class that is nothing other than a pure tank (guardian). Other tank classes will fill the roles of offtank, backup, DPS and potentially even healers and utility.

I mean, if all top end content can be done as easily with a hybrid class as it can with a pure tank, why even have a pure tank in the first place?

ArchivedUser

If the game devolves into everyone doubling down on their primary classes for efficiency both IS and the community have, imo, failed. Groups that only allow the 8 'pure' classes, or less if they say "no bard" and such, will have missed the point of the secondary classes completely.

@skearn and @Dygz are on the right track I hope (minus the op). Groups should be more dynamic, thinking more along the lines of "we have a Tank-Mage, perhaps we should balance that with a Summoner-Cleric for more potential damage absorb. and healing."

Otherwise, the game will eventually water down to seeing a majority of the same classes and raid groups. Ashes needs to go above and beyond the typical balancing issues and stigmata of needing 'pure' classes imo.

If players ever want the MMO industry to change they will have to embrace change first.
...but some players 'need' the most efficient way out and won't RP in a MMORPG.

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

If the game devolves into everyone doubling down on their primary classes for efficiency both IS and the community have, imo, failed. Groups that only allow the 8 'pure' classes, or less if they say "no bard" and such, will have missed the point of the secondary classes completely.

I don't see this as being likely at all. It doesn't follow with how MMO mechanics work, nor how top end guilds think.

I'll give you a quick breakdown of how I see raid guilds forming their main tank group - the first thing I see is a raid starting with a tank/tank and a cleric/cleric. My expectation is that the guardian will be the best overall tank (as said), and the high priest will be the best healer. I don't expect to see any other guardians at all in the raid, and at most, only one more cleric/cleric in a potential off-tank group (likely using a tank/fighter as the off-tank). Somewhere hiding in the remaining groups will be a few other tank/X classes whom are there for DPS, healing or utility as appropriate, and may be required on occasion to step up to more tank based roles if content determines it necessary.

So we have a tank and healer, however, that one healer won't be enough to keep the tank alive, so a second and third healer are needed. Since heals of the same type likely won't stack on the same character (makes sense), these healers would need to both be a different class.

Then the tank needs buffs. The logical place for this is a bard, it could be bard/bard, but I would expect bard/tank to have better buffs for a tank/tank, so that is why I'd put in my hypothetical raid. I can also see either the Paladin or the Keeper being a good buff class for the main tank, so put them in too. The last person I would put in here is a CC specialist - likely summoner/bard - but that is a personal preference from years ago.

Perhaps to be a bit more to the point; I expect this game to have class interaction akin to EQ2 - the game that has the most interaction between classes of any on the market - ever. If this is the case, I would see raid leaders doing two things when forming a raid - first, making sure they have one of each "pure" class in the raid, and then second, making sure they don't have any double ups of classes at all.

More variety means more buffs. And I mean, if you have two guardians in a raid, what is the second one doing while the first one is tanking? At least the other tank/X classes contribute something other than the ability to tank really well.

Going back to EQ2, Guardians were the best tanks, Clerics were the best healers, Assassins were the best Melee DPS, Wizards were the best caster DPS. A raid made up of only these classes (in any ratio you want) would fail miserably. The game had 24 classes and 24 man raids. A raid made up of one of each class would FAR outperform a raid made up of only the best of each.

Buffs, and therefore variety, is king. But a tank/tank is still the tank of choice.

Azathoth said:

@skearn and @Dygz are on the right track I hope (minus the op). Groups should be more dynamic, thinking more along the lines of "we have a Tank-Mage, perhaps we should balance that with a Summoner-Cleric for more potential damage absorb. and healing."

It's really weird... that is basically what I said.

Noaani said:

Any class that has tank as it's base will be fine for most content. People may have to adjust to the tank a little, and some healers may be better suited to some of these tanks than others

There are many types of gamers, as I'm sure you know. There are the RP'ers, explorers, socializes (I believe the devs were even talking about this recently).

One of the types of players out there are the power-players or min/max'ers. This is a group type that is as valid as any other, and they tend to concentrate in guilds that are working on top end content of what ever type takes their particular interest.

This is the group I am talking about when I say they will pick the tank/tank as their general, main purpose tank - and in talking about that I am also specifically talking about 40 man content as I already said that in 8 man - any tank will likely be fine (with the right healer, no doubt). The most likely scenario I see most guilds doing is having a tank/tank as their "main", a tank/fighter as a first string off-tank, and then situational tanks to fill in specific roles (specialist vs caster, specialist high mobility tank, avoidance based tank etc).

I totally agree the developers would have failed their players if they make it so that all tanks have a potential place in raid content (while being viable in group content and PvP). Thing is, a year after launch, I think we will all find that if someone says they are going to roll a tank to be their guilds main tank on raids, and they roll a Spellsword, they will be laughed at.

One thing I do find interesting - while obviously hypothetical - you said that your group has a tank/mage, and it would be a good idea to balance that with a summoner/cleric for what ever reason - how is that any different to wanting a specific tank to best fit in to the healer you already have?

I may be wrong, I admit. But if I am, should you not be asking why Intrepid put a single pure tank class in the game with no actual, practical advantages in tanking over the 7 hybrid tank classes?

ArchivedUser

Noaani said:

A Spellsword (tank/mage) may well be better at tanking spellcasters. Thing is, they will be much worse at tanking non-spellcasters. If you are picking a tank to go in to a zone that has both, would you take the tank that is really good at one and really bad at the other, or would you take the Guardian (tank/tank, aka super-tank) that is only slightly less good at tanking one, but far, far better at tanking the other?

While all classes can be viable at times, the bulk of top end raiding will be done by the class that is nothing other than a pure tank (guardian). Other tank classes will fill the roles of offtank, backup, DPS and potentially even healers and utility.

I mean, if all top end content can be done as easily with a hybrid class as it can with a pure tank, why even have a pure tank in the first place?

The reason to have a Tank-Tank is because that's how some players will enjoy playing that character, while other players will enjoy augmenting their Tank abilities with Mage or Rogue abilities. It's a key aspect of roleplaying.
Some people may want to play an Ice Tank or a Shadow Tank so that their characters can provide a different story experience than a cookie-cutter Tank-Tank. What's important is that they are still able to help a group sufficiently defeat challenges.

There is no reason for a Spellshield to be much worse at tanking non-spellcasters.
For all we know, Spellshields will be worse at tanking Mages because Mages are likely to be more resistant to magic than non-Mages.
Spellshields may have a significantly different role than a Guardian. We will have to figure out what the roles are as we play. And there may be times with high end content that we decide a Spellshield is a better choice to bring than a Guardian.
Or, since it's open world, we may want to bring both, since their won't be a cap on how many people we bring.

ArchivedUser

Noaani said:

[I]f you have two guardians in a raid, what is the second one doing while the first one is tanking? At least the other tank/X classes contribute something other than the ability to tank really well.

Even with the few abilities currently in the game, it seems as though Tank has a couple of roles: holding aggro and providing cover.

If there are two Guardians in a group or raid, that allows them to either time their cooldowns to tag-team aggro so that the boss mob is constantly shuttling between the two of them or one Guardian can focus on aggro while the other Guardian focuses on providing cover.

The difference between a Guardian, a Spellshield and a Nightshield is that a Guardian might double-down on aggro by augmenting Taunt with Taunt, while a Spellshield might augment Taunt with Ice Prison and a Nightshield might augment Taunt with Poison.

If the boss is being damaged through augments, the outcome will still essentially be the same as a double-down on Taunt. A Spellshield or Nightshield Taunt won't have to last as long as a Guardian Taunt because theirs are dealing damage at the same time they're holding aggro.

Same result, slightly different tactic.

Noaani said:

I totally agree the developers would have failed their players if they make it so that all tanks have a potential place in raid content (while being viable in group content and PvP). Thing is, a year after launch, I think we will all find that if someone says they are going to roll a tank to be their guilds main tank on raids, and they roll a Spellsword, they will be laughed at.

One thing I do find interesting - while obviously hypothetical - you said that your group has a tank/mage, and it would be a good idea to balance that with a summoner/cleric for what ever reason - how is that any different to wanting a specific tank to best fit in to the healer you already have?

I understood Azathoth  to be saying that the devs will have failed if everyone is thinking that Guardian is a "super-tank" and much more efficient at tanking than a Spellshield or a Nightshield. Spellshield and Nightshield should be just as efficient at tanking as a Guardian. All three will likely be using Taunt to hold aggro, but the first two will be applying DoTs to their Taunts, while the Guardian may just be doubling down on the duration of the Taunt. The first two may be adding DoTs to their Bulwark, while the Guardian may just be doubling down on the duration of Bulwark. So, the devs will have failed to be significantly different from detriments of previous MMORPGs if raid guilds are laughing simply because a Spellshield or Nightshield expects to be the main tank in a raid. Especially since their should be some high end encounters where a the boss is especially vulnerable to Ice or Fire or Shadow magic.

ArchivedUser

@Noaani
I didn't say it would be likely that everything devolves into the 8 'pure classes' or that it would happen, just if it does it would be imo a failure. In my opinion groups that pick classes first over players are missing the point of an RPG. Is it a 'wrong' way to play, no. I just don't agree with it. There are lot's of things I don't agree with that are not 'wrong.'

I also missed the part where you said that groups should be more dynamic. You seem to advocate for the Tank/Tank because it would be, as you said,

"If you are picking a tank to go in to a zone that has both, would you take the tank that is really good at one and really bad at the other, or would you take the Guardian (tank/tank, aka super-tank) that is only slightly less good at tanking one, but far, far better at tanking the other?"

I did see where you mentioned that "...other tanks will have their place..." so on that point we agree. Again, I never called you out or said you were wrong, so I don't know why it would be "weird" we had the same opinion on such a topic.

As for my suggestion "...summoner-cleric..." that was based on guilds that "need" Tank/Tank. Maybe instead of searching for, or convincing someone to play, a Tank/Tank they could adapt the roles of other classes since those groups seem to be class first player second.

Also, I don't have a group nor did I say "My group has a Tank/Mage so..." I was speaking, like you said, hypothetically about an imaginary group addressing other members as "we."

Again, I am not the type of player that looks for classes. Sure my eventual group might not be the 'most efficient' but it's a game. An imaginary setting where my accomplishments are meaningless on the real world so I fret less over the small details about maximizing my groups abilities. At best being efficient does what for me, impress strangers over the internet or maybe some rl friends?

ArchivedUser

Yeah, my hope is that it will be common for players to group and raid with characters they've bonded with, rather than focusing on optimal/most efficient class(es).
Because it's an RPG.

I prefer to puzzle through how to defeat challenges with the player characters I've bonded with via building up a node to the city level or via hanging out together on social media and/or twitch rather than find people using the most efficient class strategies.
I'd rather group with player characters who have some interesting flaws and quirky flair than play with cookie-cutter uber characters.
I would have more fun with a Nightshield as the main tank for my group than I would a Guardian because a Nightshield makes for a better story.
So my hope would be that a Guardian is not a "super-tank" - rather a Guardian is just a different flavor of Tank than a Spellshield or a Nightshield.

ArchivedUser

To bring it up one more time, I stated that a great tank isn't about trying to absorb all the damage.  It's about the group composition, if your group is set into a play style that has CC and DD you could use X-type tank. If your group has AOE burst you could use Y-tank.   A good tank can take a beating the best tanks know how to combine with the group makeup to quickly control and destroy the mobs.  That makeup trumps gear and keeps with the Devs claim to use skilled gameplay over geared gameplay. 

ArchivedUser

One thing that has become very clear to me is that no one other than myself posting in this thread has any experience in top end PvE raid content in a game that has class interaction.

If all you want to do is run with a few friends you met and try and see what you can do, have at it - be what ever class you want.

If all you want to do is run dungeons, whether with people you know or with whoever is looking for more for their group, have at it - be what ever class you want.

If, however, you want to participate in top end raid content, the type of content where even a few percent can mean the difference between winning and losing (especially in terms of the tank and their healers), then you will want to roll the single best class for the roll you want to fulfill. I'm not saying that person should, or will be forced too, I am saying that if a given player has the aim of being raid main tank for a raiding guild, they will WANT to take the class best suited to that role, because the class choice comes second to the role they want to fulfill in the raid.

If that isn't how anyone else in this thread wants to play for themselves, cool, no one is forcing anything on you.

Dygz said:

All three will likely be using Taunt to hold aggro, but the first two will be applying DoTs to their Taunts, while the Guardian may just be doubling down on the duration of the Taunt. The first two may be adding DoTs to their Bulwark, while the Guardian may just be doubling down on the duration of Bulwark.

So, a question.

If you have three tanks that all have a bulwark and taunt (assume all other abilities follow a similar pattern).

The first two tanks have 5 second duration on both, and a DoT. The third tank has no DoT's , but a 10 second duration on both.

Which of these classes is the best tank in terms of challenging content?

Now, even min/max'ers would be able to argue that the added DPS of the other tanks would be welcome in content that is less challenging, but on actual hard content you want the most tanky tank that ever tanked a tank to be your tank.

So, the devs will have failed to be significantly different from detriments of previous MMORPGs if raid guilds are laughing simply because a Spellshield or Nightshield expects to be the main tank in a raid. Especially since their should be some high end encounters where a the boss is especially vulnerable to Ice or Fire or Shadow magic.

First of all, I totally agree about your last point, as I stated here...

Noaani said:

Somewhere hiding in the remaining groups will be a few other tank/X classes whom are there for DPS, healing or utility as appropriate, and may be required on occasion to step up to more tank based roles if content determines it necessary.

It's almost like people are getting the term "main tank' confused with "only tank".

So while I agree about the different encounters making other tanks situationally required, I completely disagree with the notion that the developers would have failed if raid guilds all take tank/tank as their main tank.

There are two possibilities in terms of class design in this game. The first is that the difference between the classes of a given base class are insignificant. One tank does damage with a sword, the next when an axe, then with fire, shadow, cold etc. In my mind, this would be the biggest fail Intrepid could made in terms of the classes.

If there is any significant difference between the 8 tank classes, raiders will figure out what class is going to make the best main tank. That doesn't mean they will not have any other tanks, that just means that class will be the main tank until such time as the status quo changes.

To me, other than there being no significant difference between the classes, the developers will have failed if - when you take a step down in content - people are still demanding one specific type of tank or healer for all groups.Top end raids will take the best, even if it is only a minor difference. That shouldn't bother anyone - it doesn't even bother top end raiders.

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

@Noaani
I didn't say it would be likely that everything devolves into the 8 'pure classes' or that it would happen, just if it does it would be imo a failure. In my opinion groups that pick classes first over players are missing the point of an RPG. Is it a 'wrong' way to play, no. I just don't agree with it. There are lot's of things I don't agree with that are not 'wrong.'

I know I've said it before, but I'm going to reiterate. I'm only talking about top end PvE content.

Top end PvE content is run almost exclusively within a specific guild, and is more or less the same players every time, three to four nights a week. If you are looking for a new player, you do want someone that will make friends in your guild, and you also want a player that understands game mechanics and raid necessities. If there is a need for the main tank to be a specific class, and someone not of that class inquires, you know straight away that they don't have the understanding of mechanics and raid necessities that you are looking for - unless they are planning on switching to the class that is needed.

I'm not saying you turn down a good player because they have the wrong class, I am saying you bring them along as something other than your main tank.

Again, I am not the type of player that looks for classes. Sure my eventual group might not be the 'most efficient' but it's a game. An imaginary setting where my accomplishments are meaningless on the real world so I fret less over the small details about maximizing my groups abilities. At best being efficient does what for me, impress strangers over the internet or maybe some rl friends?

In top end raid situations, efficiency means winning or wasting 40 peoples night. So again, if that is not your thing, that's cool, most of what I am saying doesn't apply to you.

For groups, it shouldn't make a difference.

I predict there will be 10 classes able to tank most group dungeons (8 tank/X as well as fighter /tank and rouge/tank). I also agree that if in average group content, players refuse a specific class as a tank in general, then the developers have failed.

However, I also consider it a development failure if the classes are not significantly different from each other.

If the classes are different, it creates situations like the following; 

An avoidance based tank dodges most physical attacks (90%, as an example). but has little to no armor. Because of this, when they do get hit, the hit knocks of 3/4 of their HP, meaning they need heals fast, as one more hit will take them out. Now, if the groups healer is someone with big, slow heals, there are some obvious issues that could arise. If, however, the healer had smaller, faster heals or had wards and/or shields, these issues wouldn't be issues.

It isn't that the tank class is lacking, or that the healer class is lacking, it is just that the two of them don't combine overly well together.

ArchivedUser

As far as balancing mechanics go I stand behind my original statement regarding that if Tank/Tank is the first "top end PvE" option every raid guild goes for, something went wrong in development.

To me that is a failure of IS to balance all Tank/X classes as feasible.
If the Tanks are balanced by IS and raid guilds still only want Tank/Tank as their "main tank" I consider that a failure of the community.

ArchivedUser

Azathoth said:

As far as balancing mechanics go I stand behind my original statement regarding that if Tank/Tank is the first "top end PvE" option every raid guild goes for, something went wrong in development.

To me that is a failure of IS to balance all Tank/X classes as feasible.
If the Tanks are balanced by IS and raid guilds still only want Tank/Tank as their "main tank" I consider that a failure of the community.

To me, if the first thing above happened, I would consider it an understanding that Intrepid included damage potential, healing ability and utility alongside tanking ability when balancing the various tanks, but since raiders (and ONLY raiders) don't want damage or utility from tanks, they go for the tank that is balanced with only tanking things.

On your second point, however, I agree. I don't see the super-tank as being the best tank to take for 8 man content at all. It will be fine, but the extra damage or utility from one of the other tanks would be more useful than the ability of the guardian to tank 150% more than is needed.

My experiences in EQ2 specifically are that most players are happy with any tank in group content, however there are always a few ignorant - usually ex-WoW players - that insist only one of the six tank classes can actually tank.

Being ex-WoW players, they couldn't actually agree on which class that was though, which I always found funny.