JamesSunderland wrote: » The people who are in favor of off tanking, what exactly do you want the limits of off-tanking to be? How better at tanking do you want a Tank/X to be in comparison to a X/Tank?
ptitoine wrote: » I dont think the main difference will be into Tank/X - X/Tank. But the way u build your character. Cause they said there is no limitation on usable gear. So I think tanking will vary in so many ways compared to other MMORPG. Like if you build your mage/tank with Plate and shield and put stats into Def and such. Maybe using earth magic to create shield and armor around him. With taunt added effect to his Original mage spells. Could be quite a viable way to tank. Same could be said with a Cleric/Tank wearing Plate and shield. His way of tanking would be more around self heal (Like Blood DK in WoW maybe) I really dont think tanking will be restricted to Tank/X but more in the way you decide to build your character. I might be completly wrong but thats what i understood when they said there would be no restriction on gear
JamesSunderland wrote: » I understand what your expectations are, but it's important to take in consideration what implications this could mean to the Trinity system, like a Tank/fighter through gear and 2° archetype fighter doing the same or very similar damage to a Fighter/Tank, the informations and statements we currently have don't support such ideas.
JamesSunderland wrote: » ptitoine wrote: » I dont think the main difference will be into Tank/X - X/Tank. But the way u build your character. Cause they said there is no limitation on usable gear. So I think tanking will vary in so many ways compared to other MMORPG. Like if you build your mage/tank with Plate and shield and put stats into Def and such. Maybe using earth magic to create shield and armor around him. With taunt added effect to his Original mage spells. Could be quite a viable way to tank. Same could be said with a Cleric/Tank wearing Plate and shield. His way of tanking would be more around self heal (Like Blood DK in WoW maybe) I really dont think tanking will be restricted to Tank/X but more in the way you decide to build your character. I might be completly wrong but thats what i understood when they said there would be no restriction on gear Even tho there will be no limitations on usable gear, the 1° archetype will have the core of your skillset in which augments from your 2° archetype will be applied, i don't think tank 2° archetype augments will be superior to Tank 1° archetype core skills in terms of tanking functionality (Aggro Generation, CCs, damage mitigation, passive skills and etc) and i don't think gear will be able to compensate for this gap enough to the point where a off-tank performs the same or very similar to an actual tank. I understand what your expectations are, but it's important to take in consideration what implications this could mean to the Trinity system, like a Tank/fighter through gear and 2° archetype fighter doing the same or very similar damage to a Fighter/Tank, the informations and statements we currently have don't support such ideas.
Azherae wrote: » While I don't disagree here, there's one 'problem' with this that is specific to Tanking and actually is probably the entire cause of the discussion.Right now what Tanks do is only distinguished from what other Archetypes do by a little bit. This may change, but that's where we are currently (discussions of base Archetypal stats aside). We have Javelin and Ultimate Defense. Everything else is 'I hit the thing and generate extra Threat' (dismissing the Block Chance one because Tanks could choose not to use Shields). So it's easy to come to the conclusion that if a different Archetype could get close to the base defensive stats of a Tank by putting on Plate Armor, they could just /Tank, 'generate additional threat' on their own abilities, and the result would be the same. I expect that once Intrepid unveils more Active Skills that seem like more than just 'Yep, here's some damage and threat Generation', people will naturally see whatever gap exists between Tank Primary and Tank Secondary. Until then, experience has taught many that in 'freeform' games, anyone can tank if they can get enough mitigation, it's just not always a good idea because they would be more effective gearing to do their primary role. But not that many games offer build freedom but don't also let you manage to do this, do they? But we can expect it, since the concept of the effectiveness of Tank in PvP scenarios also relies quite heavily on those things.
Nerror wrote: » JustVine wrote: » . I completely agree.
JustVine wrote: » .
Azherae wrote: » It's not hard to understand, we just all disagree on what exactly 'Primary' is. I perceive the primary ability of a Tank as 'Damage Mitigation', not 'holding attention'. The latter is just 'synonymous and somewhat required'.
Noaani wrote: » Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved.
ptitoine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved. Well its kinda Impossible to have real tank in PvP than in PvE setting. Cause in PvE the AI in meant for focus the one with the Highest threat. while in PvP player usually know there is no point to focus a tank. So When u play Tank in MOBA u have to really be in the ennemi legs to be a tank even tough u cant taunt or Taunt them for a few moment. The main issue is Threat system doesnt work well in PvP content. Otherwise any combo PvP agains one who doesnt would win or fight would be really boring.
Noaani wrote: » You realize I literally went over that in the post you quoted
Noaani wrote: » However, this doesn't mean hate has to be artificial, or has to be PvE only. All an MMO developer needs to do is make it so taunts force targets to target the tank for a second or two (basically turning taunts in to a soft CC), and most players in PvP would opt to target tanks first to get them out of the way. Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved.
Noaani wrote: » Azherae wrote: » However, this doesn't mean hate has to be artificial, or has to be PvE only. All an MMO developer needs to do is make it so taunts force targets to target the tank for a second or two (basically turning taunts in to a soft CC), and most players in PvP would opt to target tanks first to get them out of the way. Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved. I think Lineage2 did a very good job on the threat generating skill "Agression" work in PvE as well as PvP. Which would be similar to what you describe in the quoted text. In PvE generate X amount of agro or threat, for bosses and such, and in PvP would: Change the target's target to the tank and apply a de-buff that prevented the enemy to target another player for... 2 secs I think ? it was something like that. It had a 10 sec cooldown. ( No global cooldown in L2 ) Just as a side note, I played mostly Lineage 2 and i remember that we used to config our characters either for PvE or PvP. You used armor with HP and taunt enhancers for bosses and PvE and CC prevention ( stun resist, etc )for PvP. Which made the search for gear and special stuff very interesting. Every tank in L2 was playable, each with their own style, and unique skills, but the tanking was pretty much the same for all tanks, PvE and PvP wise. The Dark Avenger had a panther that made solo PvE awesome, and it was cool for PvP too, Paladins had buffs that increased the damage while on low life, so we used to limit heal them just to 30% health to use the buff. Shilen Templars had a variety of bleeds and defence debuffs. But they all could tank PvE content, with agression, and ultimate defence ( 30 sec buff that greatly enhances p.def), PvP was different. You used completely different strategies and weapons, and armors, depending on which class you were going to fight or if it was mass pvp like sieges and raid bosses or random small skirmishes outside in the hunting grounds or outside the big cities. ( in the instanced Olympiads like 1v1 or 3v3 ).
Azherae wrote: » However, this doesn't mean hate has to be artificial, or has to be PvE only. All an MMO developer needs to do is make it so taunts force targets to target the tank for a second or two (basically turning taunts in to a soft CC), and most players in PvP would opt to target tanks first to get them out of the way. Since most taunts are very short range, this would result in PvP playing out somewhat similar to PvE for tanks, which is something no MMO has really achieved.
Azherae wrote: » If the Ranger/Tank says 'I'd like to join, I'm a Ranger/Tank', and that darn 'elitist' goes 'We don't need a /Tank, go change your secondary to Rogue for this content', there's a certain set of people who now find themselves in a difficult and for some extremely stressful position. They want to Ranger/Tank, they want to group, but social anxiety demands they conform. Whereas a better design would cause this to happen less often and maybe make people with that condition or related conditions, who often play MMOs precisely to help deal with them, less likely to be put in these stressful situations. Which aspect of what I'm saying here, if any, do you consider to be 'the perspective that doesn't reflect reality'?
pyreal wrote: » Azherae wrote: » If the Ranger/Tank says 'I'd like to join, I'm a Ranger/Tank', and that darn 'elitist' goes 'We don't need a /Tank, go change your secondary to Rogue for this content', there's a certain set of people who now find themselves in a difficult and for some extremely stressful position. They want to Ranger/Tank, they want to group, but social anxiety demands they conform. Whereas a better design would cause this to happen less often and maybe make people with that condition or related conditions, who often play MMOs precisely to help deal with them, less likely to be put in these stressful situations. Which aspect of what I'm saying here, if any, do you consider to be 'the perspective that doesn't reflect reality'? 'a better design'? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Secondary class system hasn't been tested yet? None of us have first hand knowledge of how this feature will present itself. That being that case, isn't it premature to decry that its already lacking compared to 'a better design'? Can't we all just, get along? Honey rolls, anyone? /e looks around hopefully
Dygz wrote: » I don't think I missed anything. The reason that you need someone in an 8-person group is because you're missing one of the expected 8 Primary Archetypes. You don't really need a Secondary Archetype. You may want a Secondary Archetype for a variety of reasons. Secondary Archetype is mostly about how an individual player likes to player their Primary Archetype. You choose a Ranger/Tank when you need a Ranger/x. x/Tank is just the way that player likes to play Ranger/x.
Dygz wrote: » What happens if another group comes in to contend the encounter? Smokebombs and Invisibility might come in handy.
Dygz wrote: » Oh, no. I am not trying to heal any negativity towards the systems. I'm just sharing what the devs have said about the game design. Share your interpretations of the dev quotes - share counter dev quotes. And then we will see whose interpretation was more accurate once the game launches.
Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » What happens if another group comes in to contend the encounter? Smokebombs and Invisibility might come in handy. Sounds like a situation where you may want other primary classes capable of tanking/off-tanking for those situations <.<
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » What happens if another group comes in to contend the encounter? Smokebombs and Invisibility might come in handy. Sounds like a situation where you may want other primary classes capable of tanking/off-tanking for those situations <.< What? This discussion thread asked why would the Rogue ever take Smokebombs and Invisibility if the Tank is doing their job. My answer is that they might come in handy if another group comes in to the dungeon content... And your answer is that the Tank should be able to Tank all of the dungeon mobs and rival PvP group so weel that a Rogue will not want use Invisibility? That's pretty absurd. Rogue's tend to like to use Invisibility in any case. The reason a Rogue uses Smokebombs and Invisibility is because that's the way they like to fight. But, we can expect that in Ashes, by Rank 2 or Rank 3, Smokebombs will be adding damage - possibly burst damage. And dealing damage while Invisible might also add a damage modifier - especially coming out of Invisibility Rank 2 or Rank 3. All of the other members of the group will be fighting opponents the way they like to fight. Tank won't be the only person in the group using CCs. Also, if it's a group that thematically likes to stack Shadow damage, and there are several x/Rogues in the group, Smokebombs, especially, could be helping to stack Shadow damage by Rank 2 or Rank 3. Tanks don't make it so that Rogues don't want to use Invisibility or other Evasion skills.
Dolyem wrote: » So everything the devs have said aside, do you think this is a good system design then? As far as the Primary/Secondary has been described thus far? Is it perfect as far as what has been described to us until now? Should new ideas for it not even be mentioned even though the studio claims to encourage criticism from their players?
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » So everything the devs have said aside, do you think this is a good system design then? As far as the Primary/Secondary has been described thus far? Is it perfect as far as what has been described to us until now? Should new ideas for it not even be mentioned even though the studio claims to encourage criticism from their players? You can't put everything the devs have said aside. Rather, you have to focus on everything the devs have said because that is how they are designing their game. You are asking, should the game design be the game design or should we try to get them to change their game design before we even test it? And the answer to that is...you should test it before trying to change it. This is true for any of the mechanics, like Corruption. But, here, people are saying...we don't really have enough info to understand how combat dynamics work in Ashes, but...we should probably change the fundamental design of combat dynamics before we have a good vision of what that is...especially before we test it. There is no way to know whether the current system is perfect. But, there also is no way to meaningfully critigue it in a manner that says it must be changed. So far, the current design sounds reasonable. Tank should be the master of tanking. Other people in the group will also be doing some tanking. Mage should be the master of magic. Other people in the group will also be doing some magic. Cleric will likely be the master of healing. Other people in the group will also be doing some magic. Summoner should be the master of Summoning. Other people in the group will also be doing some "summoning". Why would we not expect the Tank/x to be designed to be the best at tanking?
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » So everything the devs have said aside, do you think this is a good system design then? As far as the Primary/Secondary has been described thus far? Is it perfect as far as what has been described to us until now? Should new ideas for it not even be mentioned even though the studio claims to encourage criticism from their players? -Should the Cleric Primary class be the only and/or most dominant healer choice? -Should other, not necessarily all, Primary Class variants have secondary options that make them just as viable as healers. -Should the Cleric Primary class have some variant options to focus more on other roles than simply healing all of the time? -Should the Cleric Primary class be renamed assuming it can fill other roles besides simply healing?
Dygz wrote: » You cannot critique tank in Ashes based on what happens in other games. Because Ashes is not trying to be other games. You should be critiquing the game design based on the Ashes game design philosophy. That's like saying, "Should Ashes have a separate PvE-Only server. Because that's what other MMORPGs have done." Again, people do start threads like that. And people participate in those threads. But, it's basically going to be a similar answer...we should let them attempt to implement their design and then test it to see what we think. At least, if you are going to start a thread that critiques how the Corruption system works, try to be cognizant of how it's intended to work in Ashes. You don't HAVE to do that, but...I mean... you know... Same with critiquing other systems, like Primary Archetype roles. I don't think I have said other people's ideas are trash. What I have said, if anything, is that does not seem to fit the game design or the game devs' gameplay philosophy.
