Tanking: Should the "Tank" Primary Class Be the Be-All-End-All Tanking Class?

Interested in hearing all opinions on:

-Should Tank Primary classes be the only and/or most dominant tank choice?

-Should other, not necessarily all, Primary Class variants have secondary options that make them just as viable as tanks or even off-tanks?

-Should the Tank Primary class have some variant options to focus more on other roles than simply tanking all of the time?

-Should the Tank Primary class be renamed assuming it can fill other roles besides simply tanking?

Looking forward to what you all have to say!

Edit:
More questions resulting from this post I want to hear opinions on:

-Is role overlap so wrong? If it is should there really be 9 classes or even variants at all? If its so bad to have a role covered by more than one class, then shouldn't there be just 4 classes? Healer(support), Physical DPS, Magical DPS, and Tank?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Nerror

My guess is a Broodwarden can tank group bosses with good healing, but will struggle with raid boss tanking. It might be perfect for tanking the adds the raid bosses spawn though. We'll have to wait and see ultimately. My guess/hope is that the Broodwarden summon get threat mechanics and taunt added, like a tank, and that the effectiveness of the tanking summon depends on how much tanking gear the Broodwarden is wearing. In other words, a transference of character stats to the summon, to some degree.

As for the whole "Why only 1 tank when we get 4 DPS types" argument, well, those 4 DPS types aren't the same. As you can see on the classes page we have arcane and martial classes, which I translate into physical damage and magical damage. We also know players have different defenses against those two types, so it stands to reason monsters/bosses have the same.

So even though ranger and mage are both ranged DPS, they are not the same at all even if only looking at DPS. Both may be needed for a dungeon run, where they shine in different encounters. One does physical damage and the other does magical damage. And that's ignoring all the other stuff that differentiates the two ranged DPS classes, like the ranger traps, roots, bleeds, and burning, and the mage with the snares, knockdown and higher AOE damage.

Where I see the augment system coming in is, for example, adding magic damage to a ranger skill, so it does a mix of physical damage and magical damage. In this case it adds versatility against different monsters (or player gear/specs) at the cost of doing even more physical damage with a different augment. Or for a mage, it can add a physical damage element to the fireball for example, so they still do some damage to monsters with really heavy magical damage mitigation.

SirChancelot

@nerror
I posted some thoughts on a broodwarden a while ago
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/50881/a-different-type-of-tank#latest

A ranged tank that could tank through pets sounds fun.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Elo wrote: »

In a way, it might be more interesting if class x/x (tank/tank, mage/mage, etc) was not an option, forcing you to diversify. Not gonna happen, but just pondering...

There's still at least 4 different ways to play a Tank/Tank and at least 4 different ways to play a Mage/Mage, etc.
Many ways to diversify even when you double-down on Archetype.

I'd actually like to make a point about this which I want your opinion on explicitly, because I see it as a contradiction and I want to know how your specific style of thinking resolves it.

So, it's implied that Ashes will be balanced/designed such that an 8-person group takes one of each Archetype. Let's assume for a moment that this won't be 'for their special skills in a dungeon run', stuff outside of the combat (if this is your resolution for what I ask, just say and move on and you can ignore the incoming essay altogether)

How does this interact with the multiple ways to play, specifically the 'ability to take builds that are drastically different from some expectation'. It seems a contradiction to me, particularly in the case of Clerics and Rogues, but it applies to all. I'll use them as the example though.

If a Rogue's Active Skills are evades and smokebombs and similar, and a party is marching through an open area with strong enemies, fighting for exp, and the Tank is doing a good job at tanking and therefore holding attention all of the time... what did you need the Rogue for? If they 'didn't take Backstab' and 'didn't take heavy Bleed related skills' and let's say the enemy is spiders or anything with so much health or so relatively 'little' health that poison/attrition skills, even if taken, don't matter.

Why is that Rogue there? It's a valid build of Rogue, possibly, but this isn't a question about balance, valid builds, etc. It's entirely 'what did they mean about the strong suggestion to take every Archetype?', unless they mean for one or two skills that either 'are always available to the Archetype' or 'every member of the Archetype is expected to unlock'.

The opposite situation happens with a DPS Cleric, and I mean full 'mace swinging Templar who basically just heals as an incidental thing'. You've certainly met one now, potentially. How many direct healing abilities does this Templar 'have to take' before they are 'what is expected in the Cleric slot'? Are they supposed to be in a DPS slot instead? But that would mean 2x Cleric and -1 of something else. But let's be 'generous' and remove our 'no backstabs, evasion-master Rogue' since they were going to do about as much damage as this DPS Cleric anyway.

I'm sure that it's fine for this party composition to exist. In the open field, fighting Trolls or Griffons or Sladeborne... what are they 'losing' that would make them ever go 'man it would be nice to have a Rogue now'?

Ironhope

Dygz wrote: »

It makes no sense for the Secondary Archetype and secondary role to be more important than the Primary Archetype and primary pole.

Dygz wrote: »

Primary Archetype determines your primary role and Secondary Archetype allows you to have a lesser, secondary role.

And what about secondary class combined with talents combined with gear combined with tattoos, combined with node affiliation combined with organization/religious affiliation, racials, etc?

Should all these less important than base class (original choice of class) or not?

Less important by how much?

Dygz wrote: »

But... you can create lots of variations of a Primary Archetype with customization via Secondary Archetype augments, along with Racial, Social, Religious and Node augments and gear and Weapon Skills.

Whats important is that they be viable variations, not memes like WoW Classic's enhancement shamans/retribution paladins/dps druids/etc

Ironhope

bloodprophet wrote: »

Not you Ironhope keeps throwing it around.

How did I throw what around?

You're the one (one of the people) throwing it from game development to personal attacks all the time?
Accusations which, of course, when asked to support, you fail to.

bloodprophet wrote: »

As to the first point they devs have a vision let them fill it.

Then why did they open an early Alpha forum and explicitly ask us to say how we would like things to be?
Why didn't they open a late Alpha or Beta forum?

Ironhope

And seriously, if you can just balance the game by balancing the 8 base archetypes, doesn't that mean that the secondary archetypes basically do nothing as they don't factor in to balance?

And people got mad because I have concerns and suspicions without seeing a more final product.

Of course I get suspicious when it is implicitly said the secondary archetype implicitly won't matter much.

Gizban

Azherae wrote: »

If Brood Wardens can't actually tank most content, don't expect any serious meta-freedom in this game.

I'm just looking forward to the game that is Stephen's vision.
I have found that some of the best things are the realization of one person's passion.

I have also found that working around and through constraints add to the enjoyment, challenge, and ultimately the overall experience of an undertaking.

Azherae

pyreal wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If Brood Wardens can't actually tank most content, don't expect any serious meta-freedom in this game.

I'm just looking forward to the game that is Stephen's vision.
I have found that some of the best things are the realization of one person's passion.

I have also found that working around and through constraints add to the enjoyment, challenge, and ultimately the overall experience of an undertaking.

I fully agree that many of the best things are the realization of one person's passion.

But that's a fallacy in its own way. That's like saying 'some of the greatest games of all time were on the Super Nintendo'. It has no bearing on the average quality of games, or the quality of any given SNES game. 90% of them were terrible.

It's just natural curation. One person working alone can have terrible ideas, mediocre ideas, great ideas, suspiciously plagiaristic ideas, etc. A group may have the same outcomes.

To each their own, but you basically took two entirely subjective stances and gave them as response to a much less subjective stance.

To put it much more harshly, weak logic never saves anything that wasn't already going to do well. There are many people like you who 'look forward to a thing that is someone's vision' and the thing turns out to be not worth their hope. That outcome is completely unconnected to both the things you said. If you prefer to 'have weaker opinions on subjects and take what you are given', that's valid, like 'trusting a chef to make something you will like'. But there's no argument that 'doing so will result in something you like' unless you're just not very picky, and that approach has no benefit to people who are.

EDIT: My data indicates your preference is High Priest, and that you had this response type there too. There's no need to respond to anything I said, I should have checked the data before saying anything.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

If a Rogue's Active Skills are evades and smokebombs and similar, and a party is marching through an open area with strong enemies, fighting for exp, and the Tank is doing a good job at tanking and therefore holding attention all of the time... what did you need the Rogue for? If they 'didn't take Backstab' and 'didn't take heavy Bleed related skills' and let's say the enemy is spiders or anything with so much health or so relatively 'little' health that poison/attrition skills, even if taken, don't matter.

The Tank is supposed to hold attention so that the Rogue can gain extra burst damage via flanking and backstabs and Bleeds. We will have to look at the Rogue Active Skill tree to know how many Active Skills don't also apply burst damage or a Bleed.
Similar to the Tank Active Skills - most of them generate Threat or provide Damage Mitigation.
As with Cleric, many of the Active Skills Heal and deal damage or deal damage and also Heal.

Azherae wrote: »

Why is that Rogue there? It's a valid build of Rogue, possibly, but this isn't a question about balance, valid builds, etc. It's entirely 'what did they mean about the strong suggestion to take every Archetype?', unless they mean for one or two skills that either 'are always available to the Archetype' or 'every member of the Archetype is expected to unlock'.

The primary role of a Rogue is Damage. You seem to be discussing a Rogue who chooses not to perform their primary role? This sounds like what Ironhope was asking for... a Rogue who wants to be able to switch their primary role from Damage to Support...or...Tank? That doesn't seem wise to me, but sure, someone could try that.
If I were to group with such a person, I would try to have some x/Rogues who focus on DPS/Bleed augments along to compensate.

I don't understand your question about one of every Archetype.
The design expectation is that a Rogue/x will fulfill the primary role of Damage.

Azherae wrote: »

The opposite situation happens with a DPS Cleric, and I mean full 'mace swinging Templar who basically just heals as an incidental thing'. You've certainly met one now, potentially. How many direct healing abilities does this Templar 'have to take' before they are 'what is expected in the Cleric slot'? Are they supposed to be in a DPS slot instead? But that would mean 2x Cleric and -1 of something else. But let's be 'generous' and remove our 'no backstabs, evasion-master Rogue' since they were going to do about as much damage as this DPS Cleric anyway.

I don't really understand what you mean by a DPS Cleric who basically heals as an incidental thing.
The primary role of a Cleric is Support. DPS would be a secondary role.
So, we should be expecting any Cleric/x to be primarily providing Support and secondarily providing Damage.
If what a person wants to do is primarily deal Damage and incidentally Heal, they should choose a Primary Archetype whose primary role is Damage and, perhaps, Cleric as their Secondary Archetype.
If I were to group with such a person as you describe, I would try to have some x/Clerics who focus on Life augments along to compensate.

Azherae wrote: »

I'm sure that it's fine for this party composition to exist. In the open field, fighting Trolls or Griffons or Sladeborne... what are they 'losing' that would make them ever go 'man it would be nice to have a Rogue now'?

The devs are balancing the game for an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype who fullfills their primary role. Anyone could try to find alternatives. That doesn't mean they will be successful.
If they are successful - that's great!!
But, the devs are not designing the game to ensure that Primary Archetypes trying to make a secondary role their primary role will find success. They are balancing the game around Primary Archetypes and their primary roles...while allowing some ability to move closer to a secondary role via augments. It's still expected that each class will primarily fulfill their primary role - but adding a secondary roll in addition to the primary role creates diversity.

Azherae

Thank you @Dygz. That precisely fulfills my requirement in every way.

What I'm about to say may be ... 'offensive' to you by certain standards (I don't know for sure) so I put it in tags in case you prefer to read it at a time when you are less likely to perceive it as an attack on you, just in case that helps.

I asked this because you are my litmus test for something. I don't like your designs, or your ideas. I'd never be willing to play a game you made, and that's fine. But there are a lot of things you support, believe, or such, that I would never have thought possible. That I consider obviously contradictory or in defiance of formal and informal logic. I do not mean to disrespect your position by saying this (any more than is unavoidable by saying I consider you illogical). It can just as easily be my failing. But what it gives me is insight. It is always possible that there is a designer, somewhere, perhaps even at Intrepid, who is able to hold the exact same mindsets as you, and justify things I would think of as failures in logic in the exact same ways you do.

And that would mean that Ashes has the potential to be developed with this (in my mind) lack of internal logic. So it's concerning. It fosters 'fear' as you have pointed out multiple times. Yes. I outright fear the concept of a game developed by someone with your ability to bypass things I consider logical. Now, this is obviously no big deal, I don't have to play it, but I started without this insight. I saw what Intrepid offered, and I followed my own logic. Only through you, have I been offered this looking-glass into a world that I can fear. The illumination of my ignorance.

It is possible that Ashes will be designed from the mindset that you use to speak, and so, I cringe, and I doubt, and I consider my options. Because whether you are right or wrong to hold the perspectives you do, you are the reminder. Caveat emptor.

Knowing your flow, it won't matter, I will hope for just the usual dismissive 'lmao' equivalent.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

Knowing your flow, it won't matter, I will hope for just the usual dismissive 'lmao' equivalent.

LMAO
Yep. That was all fine with me.

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If a Rogue's Active Skills are evades and smokebombs and similar, and a party is marching through an open area with strong enemies, fighting for exp, and the Tank is doing a good job at tanking and therefore holding attention all of the time... what did you need the Rogue for? If they 'didn't take Backstab' and 'didn't take heavy Bleed related skills' and let's say the enemy is spiders or anything with so much health or so relatively 'little' health that poison/attrition skills, even if taken, don't matter.

The Tank is supposed to hold attention so that the Rogue can gain extra burst damage via flanking and backstabs and Bleeds. We will have to look at the Rogue Active Skill tree to know how many Active Skills don't also apply burst damage or a Bleed.
Similar to the Tank Active Skills - most of them generate Threat or provide Damage Mitigation.
As with Cleric, many of the Active Skills Heal and deal damage or deal damage and also Heal.

What he is saying is why would the rogue ever take evasion or smokebomb style abilities if the tank is doing his job. All those skills are useless in the dungeon

Songcaller

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

What he is saying is why would the rogue ever take evasion or smokebomb style abilities if the tank is doing his job. All those skills are useless in the dungeon

Most of the boss areas will be open world. Evasion and stealth will be useful in PvP. You could face PvP anywhere and its difficult to say whether the rogue would be gimped without evasion and stealth because we haven't seen the Rogue breakdown yet.

Azherae

Neurath wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

What he is saying is why would the rogue ever take evasion or smokebomb style abilities if the tank is doing his job. All those skills are useless in the dungeon

Most of the boss areas will be open world. Evasion and stealth will be useful in PvP. You could face PvP anywhere and its difficult to say whether the rogue would be gimped without evasion and stealth because we haven't seen the Rogue breakdown yet.

What I'm saying is 'there's the potential that the developer working on the Rogue breakdown might not think about this either'.

And then you get some set of people that goes 'Rogue is for damage, just put everything into damage, who needs evasion and smokebombs while leveling? Just re-spec later'.

And some set of people that goes 'you noob, why did you put more points in smokebomb and evasion before level 40? Don't come into my exp party with that garbage'.

And based on Dygz' general responses, if we imagine Dygz as the developer, the answer will be:

"You don't have to do anything they say, it's your choice if you give in to peer pressure."

Songcaller

All I want is a Rogue which is not backstab related. I don't like backstab builds. I will accept backstabs if they are required, but, if backstab is the main damage the gameplay will suck. I still believe we don't know enough to claim whether evasion and stealth will be required. In my mind, stealth and evasion often go hand-in-hand in a rogue's repertoire.

There will be options to create a personalised Rogue though, so, I'm not too concerned at the current disposition. I've used the stealth in Apoc and its better at range than up-close. Not even sure how effective stealth will be in the MMO.

Dygz

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

What he is saying is why would the rogue ever take evasion or smokebomb style abilities if the tank is doing his job. All those skills are useless in the dungeon

Why would they be useless in a dungeon?
You take those skills because it's an RPG and that's the way you like to play your Rogue.
You seem to be saying, "why not just play the meta?"
It's an RPG. You don't have to play the meta. Tank doing their job does not mean the Rogue never gets hit by anything. What bonuses do Smokebomb give to Damage? Does Smokebomb also add Snares that can stack with the Ranger and Mage Snares?
Again, we would have to know how the Rogue Active Skills actually work to weigh in any meaningful way.

What happens if another group comes in to contend the encounter?
Smokebombs and Invisibility might come in handy.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

What I'm saying is 'there's the potential that the developer working on the Rogue breakdown might not think about this either'.

I think it's highly unlikely that Steven is not thinking about that.

Azherae wrote: »

And then you get some set of people that goes 'Rogue is for damage, just put everything into damage, who needs evasion and smokebombs while leveling? Just re-spec later'.

That is an OK decision. Especially since Damage is the primary role of a Rogue.
Much better decision than the Rogue/x trying to play with Support as their primary role.

Azherae wrote: »

And some set of people that goes 'you noob, why did you put more points in smokebomb and evasion before level 40? Don't come into my exp party with that garbage'.

It either works or it doesn't. People will know before level 40 if it doesn't work and adjust accordingly.
And, yes, that there problem is the fault of the elitists; not the fault of the person who can get a unique build to actually work.
If someone can get having a secondary role to work well as their primary role - great.
But the devs aren't designing to ensure that that will work. Rather they are designing to ensure that all Primary Archteypes/x are viable in their primary roles.

Azherae

Neurath wrote: »

All I want is a Rogue which is not backstab related. I don't like backstab builds. I will accept backstabs if they are required, but, if backstab is the main damage the gameplay will suck. I still believe we don't know enough to claim whether evasion and stealth will be required. In my mind, stealth and evasion often go hand-in-hand in a rogue's repertoire.

There will be options to create a personalised Rogue though, so, I'm not too concerned at the current disposition. I've used the stealth in Apoc and its better at range than up-close. Not even sure how effective stealth will be in the MMO.

How do you want to do damage, if not by Backstab?

I personally don't see Rogue's main role in a group as 'Damage', but according to Dygz that's what it is.

So how would you do enough damage to fulfill the 'requirement' of 'your main role' if not Backstab, that wasn't also just being overpowered in terms of attack output as a whole?

I'm genuinely asking, because I have not yet been able to come up with a Damage focused Rogue build for anything I design that does not take Sneak Attack/Backstab (I can easily come up with builds that have other goals and purposes within a group, but I'm going by what Dygz said... also this is a derail of this thread's main line so just in case you care to answer elsewhere)

Oddly my data has you listed as Magician. Did you reconsider, or is that an alt or the backup for if stealth isn't effective? As always, more data plz.

Songcaller

I theory crafted a lot and determined that with the current stats available, one can't min/max a hybrid toon effectively. Of course, the stats could change and you could switch physical damage for magic damage through crafting. So, not knowing what type of skills a Bard has, knowing what skills the Mage currently has and knowing that weapon skill trees will be added, i came to the conclusion that a straight up physical damage dealer would be the best min/max choice.

I settled on Rogue because I played Rogue in Age of Conan and in Guild Wars 2 (Older build). Also, I believe a Bard even when coupled with Mage could not perform as well as a Rogue in Bounty Hunting.

In my mind, I would link Poisons, Bleeds and executors for the main damage. It would be a cross between the Guild Wars 2 Assassin and the Age of Conan Assassin. Though backstab could be an execution ability, I would prefer stuff like Artery Slash or Neck Slash or Lotus Bomb...something other than backstab.

Edit: Spelling mistakes.

Azherae

Neurath wrote: »

I theory crafted a lot and determined that with the current stats available, one can't min/max a toon effectively. Of course, the stats could change. So, not knowing what type of skills a Bard has, knowing what skills the Mage currently has and knowing that weapon skill trees will be added, i came to the conclusion that a straight up physical damage dealer would be the best min/max choice.

I settled on Rogue because I played Rogue in Age of Conan and in Guild Wars 2 (Older build). Also, I believe a Bard even when coupled with Mage could not perform as well as a Rogue in Bounty Hunting.

In my mind, I would link Poisons, Bleeds and executors for the main damage. It would be a cross between the Guild Wars 2 Assassin and the Age of Conan Assassin. Though backstab could be an execution ability, I would prefer stuff like Artery Slash or Neck Slash or Lotus Bomb...something other than backstab.

Ah yes, that can of worms has not yet been opened.

Quite frankly I believe their choices of stats are wrong, at this time. I can get behind a lot of different systems, but the current setup screams 'I haven't thought this one through fully yet'.

I'm sorry to hear that you weren't able to build your Magician, genuinely. I'll kick up a fuss about it if you want, when the time comes, assuming you didn't find the Bard Compilation concept schema unappealing too.

I wouldn't have too much faith in Rogue being more effective with the current stats, it'd either be so overpowered that it would get nerfed (it always gets nerfed. Always), or kind of meh.

Child Item