Design goals or not there needs to be content that is hard.. straight up hard not everyone will be able to get to it / see it / complete it.. and chances are in that situation there will be a preformed "static" most likely in a "raid guild" for easy communication, direction, and coordination. Will people get lucky and a few of the 40 people can't make it on? Sure but for the most part your not doing challenging contents with the general population.
Edit: sorry got derailed there. Forgot this thread was for tank viability.
Design goals or not there needs to be content that is hard.. straight up hard not everyone will be able to get to it / see it / complete it.. and chances are in that situation there will be a preformed "static" most likely in a "raid guild" for easy communication, direction, and coordination. Will people get lucky and a few of the 40 people can't make it on? Sure but for the most part your not doing challenging contents with the general population.
Again, in Ashes a raid being all part of the same guild really isn't as important as in previous MMORPGs.
Most max level raids will be made up of citizens from the same city/metropolis who have been raiding together since becoming citizens.
In previous MMORPGs, it becomes difficult to stay in touch with 40+ people when individuals spread out all over the game world as they leave the starting city.
In Ashes, we will constantly be returning to the home node and banding together for cravan defense and siege defense - as well as raiding rival caravans and siegeing rival nodes.
Regardless of whether we're in a guild or in the same guild.
The people who raid together at a specific time will very likely be static.
Who acts as main tank may very well be quite dynamic, based on the boss mechanics of the raid - raids will probably not be a cookie-cutter design generally favoring Guardians.
Especially not to the degree that the general case is raids can only succeed if the Guardian is the main tank.
Not everyone will want to participate in the hardest content.
But, when that Ice Dragon is impeding crafting and trade due to an extended winter, citizens are going to be keen to go out and kill that Dragon, regardless of whether they belong to a guild. Especially, if the Dragon leaves its lair from time to time to raze buildings in the city/metropolis.
Steven has said content will change. Although the place will remain the same, its residents will change over time. How superficial or fundamental that is upon raid mechanics is unknown.
Steven has said raid content will be gated in a linear or vertical progression fashion. Although the challenge is welcome and self improvement encouraged, the danger is you have fewer and fewer people doing the hardest and most time consuming content to create.
I actually thought about this a while ago.
Since PvE raid content is the only content we know of that will be gated, I expect Intrepid to treat it slightly differently.
If they locate these areas outside of the influence of any nodes, it would mean that they wouldn't be subject to population shift like the rest of the world would be.
This has two MAJOR positive effects imo. The first is it means that keying on one server will be the same as keying on all others. This is only relevant due to Steven having said he wants PvE raiding to be a competitive scene in AoC.
The second major benefit is that it means the developers only need to populate the area once. If dungeons change based on the nodes near it - likely to be based on which nodes ZoI is influencing the dungeon - it would mean developers need to populate the dungeon potentially 24 times (4 node types, 6 levels of each node).
If this is how they implement raid content, it would actually mean that raid content is the least time consuming between the two content types - though only due to group content being a whole lot of work for them.
I am also of the opinion that if any one group of players of AoC are going to be actually fine with needing a specific class for a specific role, it will be competitive PvE raiders.
"I am also of the opinion that if any one group of players of AoC are going to be actually fine with needing a specific class for a specific role, it will be competitive PvE raiders." < This I agree with.
PvE/PvP will (most likely) only be competitive on the same server. I would personally not like to see static content that can't (specifically) be altered by nodes leveling and degrading. The one obvious exception being starting areas, unless they are done so that MOBs are both leveled with the node but scattered with low level stuff as well.
I don't see the need for one group to compare their success to another groups, but that's not how I play RPG's. I can understand the desire to do so, and the 'feelz' of winning bragging rights (especially for guilds), but I don't think Ashes needs to take special precautions to allow for that level of competition.
"I am also of the opinion that if any one group of players of AoC are going to be actually fine with needing a specific class for a specific role, it will be competitive PvE raiders." < This I agree with.
PvE/PvP will (most likely) only be competitive on the same server. I would personally not like to see static content that can't (specifically) be altered by nodes leveling and degrading. The one obvious exception being starting areas, unless they are done so that MOBs are both leveled with the node but scattered with low level stuff as well.
I don't see the need for one group to compare their success to another groups, but that's not how I play RPG's. I can understand the desire to do so, and the 'feelz' of winning bragging rights (especially for guilds), but I don't think Ashes needs to take special precautions to allow for that level of competition.
PvP will absolutely only be competitive on a single server basis - unless Intrepid open up server transfers (which I hope never happens).
I can see an argument for both sides in relation to PvE raid content being static or not though (I've obviously already given my argument as to why it could be possible).
With server populations of around 10,000 characters, I don't see there being more than one or two competitive PvE raiding guilds per server though. Now, I'm not saying there will be only one or two raid guilds per server, or only one or two guilds will see this content per server, but only one or two guilds will be in a position to "compete" as it were, for first kills of new content.
If this were dynamic content, only one or two guilds competing doesn't seem like a vibrant competitive PvE raiding scene to me, which is something Steven has said he wants.
Again, I am not saying that I think they will introduce static PvE raid content, I am not even saying I would favor static over dynamic, I'm just saying I can see arguments for both sides, and neither option would come as a surprise to me.
As an aside, I could see them having a raid dungeon that has a dynamic base population, but with various boss mobs that are static. This would still cater to what I consider the two biggest advantages of raid level static content (designing fewer boss encounters and allowing for logical comparison between servers), while also allowing the look and feel of the dungeon to alter as with the rest of the world.
The only proviso with that is the need to have a story based explanation as to why the bosses remain when the rest of the base population shifts.
I think you have stated your point well and have made some good arguments and you do seem well versed in the topic. Your last post I would take as a compromise
However, if there might be a max of 2 or 3 competitive guilds on a server I don't know if I would consider it worth IS's time to accommodate them. If IS doesn't though, I think they would have let part of their community down, likely a very vocal part.
Assuming you are talking about the potential way to have dynamic base population but static boss mobs, I wouldn't call it a compromise so much as an idea I had seconds before I was about to post the comment.
As someone who will (hopefully) spend at least 12 hours a week on progressive PvE raid content in AoC, I'd personally really like to see the potential for things to be changed up a little. I wouldn't want a complex boss mob that my guild and I had been working on for weeks to suddenly not be available, but having a base population change from, say, being mostly casters to being mostly melee DPS (I assume the changes would actually be less subtle that that), would actually be a really welcome move.
Thing is, I don't necessarily just post about what I want to do. I know all too well how much work goes in to some of the more complex raid encounters in some games - some raid encounters take more development time than entire group dungeons. I fully understand why they maybe wouldn't want to make content like that dynamic.
So I guess maybe it is a compromise after all, just not one between you and me and how we want things. It is, perhaps, more of a compromise for Intrepid.
However, if there might be a max of 2 or 3 competitive guilds on a server I don't know if I would consider it worth IS's time to accommodate them.
This is a discussion that happens in almost all MMO's.
Thing is, just because there are only one or two guilds per server at the competitive end, it doesn't mean they are the only people people that will use the content. Todays competitive raid encounter is tomorrows casual raid encounter.
It's going to be look, feel and boss tables altering with the rest of the world. With the players having to think on the fly to figure out the new mechanics/strategies to defeat the bosses. Some elitist guilds may choose to always start with a Guardian as main tank until they figure out the mechanics, but, it's unlikely to be the general case, even for top end raids. Because the devs won't be designing such that Guardian will be needed as main tank in order to succeed. And, while a Guardian is the tankiest Tank - that is not the same thing as being a "super-tank".
It's going to be look, feel and boss tables altering with the rest of the world.
As has been said, it may well be.
We know for sure that most - if not all - group content will be this way. However, we also know that most - if not all - group content will not be instanced or keyed.
We know that some raid content will be instanced, and we know that some raid content will be keyed. It stands to reason then that it is possible some raid content may indeed remain static - and until we hear otherwise, we have to assume it could be the case, but also may not be.
Along with the possibility I posted above (base population dynamic,bosses static) another possibility may be that the only keyed raid content is instanced, and instanced raid content is static.
I mean, if all raid content were dynamic and some of it were keyed, what is to stop content spawning on a given server before the key to that content has spawned?
Thing is, we don't know. And since we don't know, opening statements like "It's going to be" don't hold heaps of weight.
Noaani said: We know that some raid content will be instanced, and we know that some raid content will be keyed. It stands to reason then that it is possible some raid content may indeed remain static - and until we hear otherwise, we have to assume it could be the case, but also may not be.
Along with the possibility I posted above (base population dynamic,bosses static) another possibility may be that the only keyed raid content is instanced, and instanced raid content is static.
All raid content will be dynamic. No raid content will be static for months and years. Some raid bosses might remain for weeks. But even the way the same bosses behave will change from fight to fight - according to what Steven has stated about the design.
Noaani said: Thing is, we don't know. And since we don't know, opening statements like "It's going to be" don't hold heaps of weight.
Ditto for your claim: "Top end raids will not want an evasion main tank. They will want a mitigation/shield tank with the ability to hold aggro as best as possible. " Doesn't hold any weight at all.
This is you being argumentative for no reason, with no context, and without thinking.
You are talking about developer content and the way Intrepid WILL do things. You are taking comments about one type of content that may itself change in some ways anyway, and applying it to another type of content that we know will have some major foundationial differences that make it hard - if not totally illogical - to implement in the same manner.
I am talking about player choice and the way these specific few players (ie, those that set up top end, competitive PvE raids in this game where raid composition matters) think.
As one of the few people in that group, I am very well versed in how that choice will go.
Unless you are Steven in disguise, you don't know how his choices will go.
It's not me being argumentative.
Steven has spoken about the game design.
Steven has specifically outlined what will make the content hard: https://youtu.be/Pthi3qsonZE?t=1h14m33s What does hardest [content] mean? Hardest means your time spent to even access it and then, additionally, the time spent to be successful in completing it. So the challenge of the combat itself will be pretty intricate mechanics-wise. We're going to have different phases of the bosses, there's going to be a lot of adds, there's going to be random-oriented skill usage. We're not going to have telegraphed templates on the ground, but we will have telegraph animations. So, it's going to be location, mobility, strategic, it will be something that cannot be repeatable in the exact same way from raid to raid but has a variance between the combat, so raids are going to have to be fluid in thinking on their feet.
You aren't simply talking about player choice and how a specific few players think.
[W]hile you and your friends may well join up outside of a guild to raid, you are almost certainly not going to be taking on top end raid content - and how many times in this thread have I specifically used the three words top end raid ? If, however, you did manage to get to the top end of this PvE raid progression, you would then be faced with the same mechanics that the guilds there would be faced with, and likely need a super-tank as your main tank...
I have acknowledged that there will be some elitist players who think as you suggest. That is a subjective player perspective about the best way to play.
What I have stated repeatedly is that what's important is that the game is not objectively designed for Guardians to be required as main tank in order to generally complete top end raid content.
I don't care what a few elitist raid guilds think. I care about how the game is objectively designed. I have said repeatedly that you are talking about players in a specific type of guild while I am talking about the mechanics of the content and players outside of a guild. You repeatedly say that's just semantics.
Tank/ Tank = Most Consistency, Slight Versatility ( in regards to being a Tank )
Primary-Tank ( Tank/ x ) = More Consistency. Less Versatility .
In other words, Slightly less Consistency than a Tank/ Tank, but slightly more versatility than a Tank/ Tank
Secondary- Tank ( x/ Tank ) = Lesser Consistency, Most Versatility
Secondary-Tanks will either be Primarily a DPS or Healer
It's one way of looking at the spectrum, sure.
Guardian will be the tankiest Tank.
Warden, Spellshield and Keeper might also focus on controlling the battlefield in addition to holding aggro.
Knight, Nightshield and Spellshield might be focused on DPS in addition to aggro or control.
Paladin and Argent will probably be focused on healing and buffing the group in addition to holding aggro and control.
Secondary Tanks will be supporting the Primary Tanks.
What I'm really curious about is:
If you have a Paladin acting as main tank, how well can an Apostle's augments complement the Paladin's abilities?
If an Apostle hits a Paladin with Righteous Blessing augmented by Hatred, does that have the same result for aggro as a Guardian augmenting Hatred with Hatred?
Or would the Apostle's Hatred be self-only?
I prefer a different challenge every time I go in. What's the fun in making 10% of the way through, dying, learning the mechanic, getting 40% of the way through, dying, learning the mechanic, getting 80% of the way through and so on...
That's not a challenge, that's an exercise. If the content changes slightly every time, from Mobs to Boss attacks/abilities/tactics that's a challenge, imo.
It's not me being argumentative.
Steven has spoken about the game design.
Steven has specifically outlined what will make the content hard: https://youtu.be/Pthi3qsonZE?t=1h14m33s What does hardest [content] mean? Hardest means your time spent to even access it and then, additionally, the time spent to be successful in completing it. So the challenge of the combat itself will be pretty intricate mechanics-wise. We're going to have different phases of the bosses, there's going to be a lot of adds, there's going to be random-oriented skill usage. We're not going to have telegraphed templates on the ground, but we will have telegraph animations. So, it's going to be location, mobility, strategic, it will be something that cannot be repeatable in the exact same way from raid to raid but has a variance between the combat, so raids are going to have to be fluid in thinking on their feet.
Ok, lets wind this back a bit. So I said you claiming outright that all content will be dynamic is being argumentative without anything to back it up.
You used the above to attempt to back it up, which is not a description of dynamic content at all, let alone dynamic content in the way AoC is planning on implementing it.
Nothing in that quote from Steven says anything at all about a population being there one day and then replaced by a different population the next due to node changes. That is what we are talking about in terms of dynamic content in AoC. That is what we are saying will be difficult for them to do with both group and raid content, and that is what I personally think Intrepid will need to find a workaround for (I've suggested two possibilities in this thread so far).
Instead of something to that effect, what you have posted is more of a design goal for how each encounter will be designed and scripted. It says nothing at all towards dynamic or static content as a whole, and instead just talks about the content itself.
Interestingly, the description given perfectly fits with at least half a dozen end game raid bosses from EQ2 - no one was able to kill Byzola, Four Rune Rhoen Theer or even DMP in the exact same manner. Each pull was different, requiring all raid members to think on their feet, know the encounter, know their class and know their group.
I'm sure other games had encounters that also fit the description, but I never came across any in any of the other MMO's I've played.
So this thread has really run away with tank/tank vs tank/x. First off any speculations based from past games do not count, they are your own opinions not what we have heard from the devs. Now, lets go over some actual facts. Tank/tank was never ever called a super tank, Steven specifically said in the live cast it is the tank image that wears heavy armor and uses a big shield made for absorbing physical damage. Next, Steven also said that all classes will be viable. Finally the Sunday live stream at PAX he said that bosses are going to be on a random skill chart, they will have different attacks for each time you raid and raid will have to be able to think on the fly. In short trying to tell anyone that high end raiders will required one type of tank is not proven or even in the planning put out by the man who thought up this whole entire game that is just wrong. Let people choose there play style and adapt it to work.
P.S. It was also reviled that skills from different classes are going to combo, that is huge it can totally change the way tanking is done by mixing other party members into the calculations.
I lay claim to that moniker, and I'd thank people to remember as much when the game launches.
It is Stevens very claim of the super-tank using heavy armor and a big shield that tells me it will be every competitive raids go-to tank, simply for the reasons he stated. Raids want tanks that reduce variables, and that is what both mitigation and shields do. There may (hopefully will) be content where other tanks are a clear and obvious choice, but high mitigation tanks are mechanically speaking the most trustworthy.
This isn't a case of what previous games have done, this is a case of reducing all damage by 50% is inherently easier to heal than avoiding 50% of hits. One leaves a steady amount needing to be healed, the other leaves healers with "Oh shit" moments every few seconds. One is steady and consistent, the other is placing the tanks ability to survive on RNG - as two or three missed evasions in a row and the tank is dead with nothing anyone can do about it.
This is just one example of why the super-tank would be preferred over a different specific type of tank, but there are reasons for all other types of tank.
Your comment about how raids will be on a random skill chart - the exact quote is "[top end raid encounters] will be pretty intricate mechanics wise. We're going to have different phases of the boss, there's going to be a lot of adds stuff, random oriented skill usage..."
This doesn't mean that the encounters will be totally different each time you take them on, it means there will be portions of them that are different. With most top end raid encounters though, it isn't the skills that the bosses themselves have that make the encounter, it is the script that goes with it (the part described above as "pretty intricate mechanics wise" and "different phases") and/or the adds. For most encounters, you could take the bosses main AoE and replace it with almost anything else of a similar strength and it wouldn't make a different to how the encounter plays out.
And I mean, *if* Intrepid do take it further than that and make it so the entire encounter is randomized (they won't), then all that does is strip out the remaining reasons to use anything other than the super-tank as the main tank on a raid - ever. I mean, the only reason they would be the main tank is if we know the encounter needs it, but if we don't know what the encounter will do, we want out super-tank in place.
As to your last comment about skills combo'ing and that bringing other characters in - other characters and classes have always been a part of the discussion here, because buffs are going to be an actual consideration in this game. But the thing with combos, if they make one tank better at something, they also make the super-tank better at it.
You claim to call it a super tank even though the devs do not and you admit to this? You also want everyone to give you that credit for you calling something a super something when the makers of the game do not, again you admit to this. Do I really have to go on to debunk that line of thinking? I think I will, here a simple question. What makes a tank/tank a super tank? Armor an shields give mitigation, but what type? I'll give you a hint, I said it many times and it starts with a "P". All joking aside you are making a comparative to different game mechanics and not comparing the information this games devs are giving us. You don't know if you are going to get a total damage reduction of everything as only a tank/tank. It might be only one type of damage. Even if it is, do you think it will really be a stupid high damage reduction as 50%? No it won't, your numbers are not reasonable. What we do know is a tank/tank will use heavy armor and do a damage return to mobs. We also know that a tank/cleric will get a damage absorb. Which is more useful, we don't know they both are comparable. You know what happens when you assume right? Look at the spelling of assume you'll figure it out........ maybe
not to interrupt or anything but wether we call it super or heavy tank is a bit beside the point, i mean the classes have their names now, calling them anything beside their name feels a little redundant to me. even if just a term, for all we know diff kind of tanks might be better suited to diff kinds of encounters (taking into account stevens words on viability of classes).
I think what @cheap is trying to say is their is more than just penetration mitigation to tanking. 1. Resist damage. 2. Absorb damage. 3. Deflect damage 4. Refect damage 5. Fragment damage 6. Evade damage
Arguably those that return that damage or absorb energy from it would be far more OP than someone who simply resists it. Aka resists physical damage (note zero magical damage resistance too).
Tank + Tank = tankiest tank That is not at all the same thing as a super-tank.
Plate + Shield = "Heavy Tank" != "Super Tank"
Super-Tank implies that it is significantly superior to all other Tanks - which is a completely fabricated and unsubstantiated assertion.
If I wanted a moniker to suggest that the super-tank was in fact greatly superior to all other tanks at tanking without exception, I would have used ultra-tank, not super-tank - super meaning simply "beyond" and ultra meaning "on the far side of beyond".
We have tanks. Then we have the tankiest tank (your words). By it's very definition if it is the tankiest tank it is a super-tank, simply by virtue of being neyond the others. It doesn't have to be far, even a percent or two is beyond, and so qualifies for the prefix.
If the difference is vast between this tank and the next best, it could be called an ultra-tank. Since no one has the information to be able to say how great the difference in tankiness is between this tank and the rest though, calling it an ultra-tank would be hyperbole, and I am not a fan of that.
Calling it a super-tank is a dictionary perfect description of a class that is aimed at being the tankiest tank (your words). If people derive a different meaning from that term, that is their fault for not understanding the meaning of words.
I think what @cheap is trying to say is their is more than just penetration mitigation to tanking. 1. Resist damage. 2. Absorb damage. 3. Deflect damage 4. Refect damage 5. Fragment damage 6. Evade damage
Arguably those that return that damage or absorb energy from it would be far more OP than someone who simply resists it. Aka resists physical damage (note zero magical damage resistance too).
An intelligent post, thank you.
There are indeed many types of tanks. All tanks will hopefully have their place in all aspects of the game.
However, when setting up a raid, I want the tank that will require my healers to heal the least amount possible, but in the most consistent way possible (ie, eliminate spike damage).
In assuming Intrepid will make a balanced game, the tank that requires the least amount of healing will be the mitigation tank, as while the others all have other things they do, a mitigation tank is doing nothing but mitigating damage.
In extreme cases, this means I can even run a raid with fewer healers than I would need to with a different tank, meaning I can bring along more support or DPS.
I see no net gain in taking a tank that takes more damage itself, but reflects a portion back for a small amount of damage back to the target, a setup that requires me to bring another healer or two in order to keep the tank alive, meaning one or two less DPS that would have done more damage than the tank is doing via reflect.
Of course, we can make the assumption that Intrepid won't balance the game, but if we make that assumption then there is no point in these discussions (not that there is much of a point to 90% of t his thread anyway).
Comments
Edit: sorry got derailed there. Forgot this thread was for tank viability.
Most max level raids will be made up of citizens from the same city/metropolis who have been raiding together since becoming citizens.
In previous MMORPGs, it becomes difficult to stay in touch with 40+ people when individuals spread out all over the game world as they leave the starting city.
In Ashes, we will constantly be returning to the home node and banding together for cravan defense and siege defense - as well as raiding rival caravans and siegeing rival nodes.
Regardless of whether we're in a guild or in the same guild.
The people who raid together at a specific time will very likely be static. Who acts as main tank may very well be quite dynamic, based on the boss mechanics of the raid - raids will probably not be a cookie-cutter design generally favoring Guardians.
Especially not to the degree that the general case is raids can only succeed if the Guardian is the main tank.
Not everyone will want to participate in the hardest content.
But, when that Ice Dragon is impeding crafting and trade due to an extended winter, citizens are going to be keen to go out and kill that Dragon, regardless of whether they belong to a guild. Especially, if the Dragon leaves its lair from time to time to raze buildings in the city/metropolis.
Since PvE raid content is the only content we know of that will be gated, I expect Intrepid to treat it slightly differently.
If they locate these areas outside of the influence of any nodes, it would mean that they wouldn't be subject to population shift like the rest of the world would be.
This has two MAJOR positive effects imo. The first is it means that keying on one server will be the same as keying on all others. This is only relevant due to Steven having said he wants PvE raiding to be a competitive scene in AoC.
The second major benefit is that it means the developers only need to populate the area once. If dungeons change based on the nodes near it - likely to be based on which nodes ZoI is influencing the dungeon - it would mean developers need to populate the dungeon potentially 24 times (4 node types, 6 levels of each node).
If this is how they implement raid content, it would actually mean that raid content is the least time consuming between the two content types - though only due to group content being a whole lot of work for them.
I am also of the opinion that if any one group of players of AoC are going to be actually fine with needing a specific class for a specific role, it will be competitive PvE raiders.
PvE/PvP will (most likely) only be competitive on the same server. I would personally not like to see static content that can't (specifically) be altered by nodes leveling and degrading. The one obvious exception being starting areas, unless they are done so that MOBs are both leveled with the node but scattered with low level stuff as well.
I don't see the need for one group to compare their success to another groups, but that's not how I play RPG's. I can understand the desire to do so, and the 'feelz' of winning bragging rights (especially for guilds), but I don't think Ashes needs to take special precautions to allow for that level of competition.
I can see an argument for both sides in relation to PvE raid content being static or not though (I've obviously already given my argument as to why it could be possible).
With server populations of around 10,000 characters, I don't see there being more than one or two competitive PvE raiding guilds per server though. Now, I'm not saying there will be only one or two raid guilds per server, or only one or two guilds will see this content per server, but only one or two guilds will be in a position to "compete" as it were, for first kills of new content.
If this were dynamic content, only one or two guilds competing doesn't seem like a vibrant competitive PvE raiding scene to me, which is something Steven has said he wants.
Again, I am not saying that I think they will introduce static PvE raid content, I am not even saying I would favor static over dynamic, I'm just saying I can see arguments for both sides, and neither option would come as a surprise to me.
As an aside, I could see them having a raid dungeon that has a dynamic base population, but with various boss mobs that are static. This would still cater to what I consider the two biggest advantages of raid level static content (designing fewer boss encounters and allowing for logical comparison between servers), while also allowing the look and feel of the dungeon to alter as with the rest of the world.
The only proviso with that is the need to have a story based explanation as to why the bosses remain when the rest of the base population shifts.
However, if there might be a max of 2 or 3 competitive guilds on a server I don't know if I would consider it worth IS's time to accommodate them. If IS doesn't though, I think they would have let part of their community down, likely a very vocal part.
As someone who will (hopefully) spend at least 12 hours a week on progressive PvE raid content in AoC, I'd personally really like to see the potential for things to be changed up a little. I wouldn't want a complex boss mob that my guild and I had been working on for weeks to suddenly not be available, but having a base population change from, say, being mostly casters to being mostly melee DPS (I assume the changes would actually be less subtle that that), would actually be a really welcome move.
Thing is, I don't necessarily just post about what I want to do. I know all too well how much work goes in to some of the more complex raid encounters in some games - some raid encounters take more development time than entire group dungeons. I fully understand why they maybe wouldn't want to make content like that dynamic.
So I guess maybe it is a compromise after all, just not one between you and me and how we want things. It is, perhaps, more of a compromise for Intrepid.
This is a discussion that happens in almost all MMO's.
Thing is, just because there are only one or two guilds per server at the competitive end, it doesn't mean they are the only people people that will use the content. Todays competitive raid encounter is tomorrows casual raid encounter.
With the players having to think on the fly to figure out the new mechanics/strategies to defeat the bosses.
Some elitist guilds may choose to always start with a Guardian as main tank until they figure out the mechanics, but, it's unlikely to be the general case, even for top end raids. Because the devs won't be designing such that Guardian will be needed as main tank in order to succeed.
And, while a Guardian is the tankiest Tank - that is not the same thing as being a "super-tank".
We know for sure that most - if not all - group content will be this way. However, we also know that most - if not all - group content will not be instanced or keyed.
We know that some raid content will be instanced, and we know that some raid content will be keyed. It stands to reason then that it is possible some raid content may indeed remain static - and until we hear otherwise, we have to assume it could be the case, but also may not be.
Along with the possibility I posted above (base population dynamic,bosses static) another possibility may be that the only keyed raid content is instanced, and instanced raid content is static.
I mean, if all raid content were dynamic and some of it were keyed, what is to stop content spawning on a given server before the key to that content has spawned?
Thing is, we don't know. And since we don't know, opening statements like "It's going to be" don't hold heaps of weight.
But even the way the same bosses behave will change from fight to fight - according to what Steven has stated about the design.
Ditto for your claim: "Top end raids will not want an evasion main tank. They will want a mitigation/shield tank with the ability to hold aggro as best as possible. "
Doesn't hold any weight at all.
You are talking about developer content and the way Intrepid WILL do things. You are taking comments about one type of content that may itself change in some ways anyway, and applying it to another type of content that we know will have some major foundationial differences that make it hard - if not totally illogical - to implement in the same manner.
I am talking about player choice and the way these specific few players (ie, those that set up top end, competitive PvE raids in this game where raid composition matters) think.
As one of the few people in that group, I am very well versed in how that choice will go.
Unless you are Steven in disguise, you don't know how his choices will go.
Steven has spoken about the game design.
Steven has specifically outlined what will make the content hard:
What does hardest [content] mean? Hardest means your time spent to even access it and then, additionally, the time spent to be successful in completing it. So the challenge of the combat itself will be pretty intricate mechanics-wise.
We're going to have different phases of the bosses, there's going to be a lot of adds, there's going to be random-oriented skill usage. We're not going to have telegraphed templates on the ground, but we will have telegraph animations.
So, it's going to be location, mobility, strategic, it will be something that cannot be repeatable in the exact same way from raid to raid but has a variance between the combat, so raids are going to have to be fluid in thinking on their feet.
You aren't simply talking about player choice and how a specific few players think.
I have acknowledged that there will be some elitist players who think as you suggest. That is a subjective player perspective about the best way to play.
What I have stated repeatedly is that what's important is that the game is not objectively designed for Guardians to be required as main tank in order to generally complete top end raid content.
I don't care what a few elitist raid guilds think. I care about how the game is objectively designed.
I have said repeatedly that you are talking about players in a specific type of guild while I am talking about the mechanics of the content and players outside of a guild. You repeatedly say that's just semantics.
I ask because I'd like to know what others thing about it
Could arouse more ideas too >~>
It's one way of looking at the spectrum, sure.
Guardian will be the tankiest Tank.
Warden, Spellshield and Keeper might also focus on controlling the battlefield in addition to holding aggro.
Knight, Nightshield and Spellshield might be focused on DPS in addition to aggro or control.
Paladin and Argent will probably be focused on healing and buffing the group in addition to holding aggro and control.
Secondary Tanks will be supporting the Primary Tanks.
What I'm really curious about is:
If you have a Paladin acting as main tank, how well can an Apostle's augments complement the Paladin's abilities?
If an Apostle hits a Paladin with Righteous Blessing augmented by Hatred, does that have the same result for aggro as a Guardian augmenting Hatred with Hatred?
Or would the Apostle's Hatred be self-only?
That's not a challenge, that's an exercise. If the content changes slightly every time, from Mobs to Boss attacks/abilities/tactics that's a challenge, imo.
You used the above to attempt to back it up, which is not a description of dynamic content at all, let alone dynamic content in the way AoC is planning on implementing it.
Nothing in that quote from Steven says anything at all about a population being there one day and then replaced by a different population the next due to node changes. That is what we are talking about in terms of dynamic content in AoC. That is what we are saying will be difficult for them to do with both group and raid content, and that is what I personally think Intrepid will need to find a workaround for (I've suggested two possibilities in this thread so far).
Instead of something to that effect, what you have posted is more of a design goal for how each encounter will be designed and scripted. It says nothing at all towards dynamic or static content as a whole, and instead just talks about the content itself.
Interestingly, the description given perfectly fits with at least half a dozen end game raid bosses from EQ2 - no one was able to kill Byzola, Four Rune Rhoen Theer or even DMP in the exact same manner. Each pull was different, requiring all raid members to think on their feet, know the encounter, know their class and know their group.
I'm sure other games had encounters that also fit the description, but I never came across any in any of the other MMO's I've played.
P.S. It was also reviled that skills from different classes are going to combo, that is huge it can totally change the way tanking is done by mixing other party members into the calculations.
I lay claim to that moniker, and I'd thank people to remember as much when the game launches.
It is Stevens very claim of the super-tank using heavy armor and a big shield that tells me it will be every competitive raids go-to tank, simply for the reasons he stated. Raids want tanks that reduce variables, and that is what both mitigation and shields do. There may (hopefully will) be content where other tanks are a clear and obvious choice, but high mitigation tanks are mechanically speaking the most trustworthy.
This isn't a case of what previous games have done, this is a case of reducing all damage by 50% is inherently easier to heal than avoiding 50% of hits. One leaves a steady amount needing to be healed, the other leaves healers with "Oh shit" moments every few seconds. One is steady and consistent, the other is placing the tanks ability to survive on RNG - as two or three missed evasions in a row and the tank is dead with nothing anyone can do about it.
This is just one example of why the super-tank would be preferred over a different specific type of tank, but there are reasons for all other types of tank.
Your comment about how raids will be on a random skill chart - the exact quote is "[top end raid encounters] will be pretty intricate mechanics wise. We're going to have different phases of the boss, there's going to be a lot of adds stuff, random oriented skill usage..."
This doesn't mean that the encounters will be totally different each time you take them on, it means there will be portions of them that are different. With most top end raid encounters though, it isn't the skills that the bosses themselves have that make the encounter, it is the script that goes with it (the part described above as "pretty intricate mechanics wise" and "different phases") and/or the adds. For most encounters, you could take the bosses main AoE and replace it with almost anything else of a similar strength and it wouldn't make a different to how the encounter plays out.
And I mean, *if* Intrepid do take it further than that and make it so the entire encounter is randomized (they won't), then all that does is strip out the remaining reasons to use anything other than the super-tank as the main tank on a raid - ever. I mean, the only reason they would be the main tank is if we know the encounter needs it, but if we don't know what the encounter will do, we want out super-tank in place.
As to your last comment about skills combo'ing and that bringing other characters in - other characters and classes have always been a part of the discussion here, because buffs are going to be an actual consideration in this game. But the thing with combos, if they make one tank better at something, they also make the super-tank better at it.
Fighter + fighter = super-fighter.
Ranger + ranger = super-ranger
Rouge + rouge = super-rouge.
Mage + mage = super-mage.
Summoner + summoner = super-summoner.
Bard + bard = super-bard.
Cleric + cleric = super-cleric.
It's just a term, deal with it.
That is not at all the same thing as a super-tank.
Plate + Shield = "Heavy Tank" != "Super Tank"
Super-Tank implies that it is significantly superior to all other Tanks - which is a completely fabricated and unsubstantiated assertion.
edit: the point is we all like good ice cream
imagine a pet just doing a taunt just to catch a tankbuster with its teeth or something XD
1. Resist damage.
2. Absorb damage.
3. Deflect damage
4. Refect damage
5. Fragment damage
6. Evade damage
Arguably those that return that damage or absorb energy from it would be far more OP than someone who simply resists it. Aka resists physical damage (note zero magical damage resistance too).
If I wanted a moniker to suggest that the super-tank was in fact greatly superior to all other tanks at tanking without exception, I would have used ultra-tank, not super-tank - super meaning simply "beyond" and ultra meaning "on the far side of beyond".
We have tanks. Then we have the tankiest tank (your words). By it's very definition if it is the tankiest tank it is a super-tank, simply by virtue of being neyond the others. It doesn't have to be far, even a percent or two is beyond, and so qualifies for the prefix.
If the difference is vast between this tank and the next best, it could be called an ultra-tank. Since no one has the information to be able to say how great the difference in tankiness is between this tank and the rest though, calling it an ultra-tank would be hyperbole, and I am not a fan of that.
Calling it a super-tank is a dictionary perfect description of a class that is aimed at being the tankiest tank (your words). If people derive a different meaning from that term, that is their fault for not understanding the meaning of words.
There are indeed many types of tanks. All tanks will hopefully have their place in all aspects of the game.
However, when setting up a raid, I want the tank that will require my healers to heal the least amount possible, but in the most consistent way possible (ie, eliminate spike damage).
In assuming Intrepid will make a balanced game, the tank that requires the least amount of healing will be the mitigation tank, as while the others all have other things they do, a mitigation tank is doing nothing but mitigating damage.
In extreme cases, this means I can even run a raid with fewer healers than I would need to with a different tank, meaning I can bring along more support or DPS.
I see no net gain in taking a tank that takes more damage itself, but reflects a portion back for a small amount of damage back to the target, a setup that requires me to bring another healer or two in order to keep the tank alive, meaning one or two less DPS that would have done more damage than the tank is doing via reflect.
Of course, we can make the assumption that Intrepid won't balance the game, but if we make that assumption then there is no point in these discussions (not that there is much of a point to 90% of t his thread anyway).