Off Tanking

In all this talk of augments and secondary archetypes, the tank archetype is brought up quite often. Can xxx/tank classes main tank or only off tank? And similar questions, which leads me to this:

What is the role of an Off Tank in Ashes, and what do you expect them to be capable of?

I am basically curious to see if most people agree on what Off Tanking is and how it ties into the class system in Ashes. A tank in MMOs in general have two things they must be able to do, which is 1. keep the enemies away from the other people in the group as much as possible, and 2. be able to survive long enough for the enemies to die first. That's it. Everything else is fluff.

An Off Tank, to me, is someone who can offload some of the pressure from the main tank. They typically have less damage mitigation than a main tank, but also have either higher DPS or higher self-healing than the main tank, and they have some sort of mechanic to hold the attention of enemies. They are often used to handle adds in boss fights.

In some games I have seen the term "Off Tanking" being used in raid situations, where one main tank takes the aggro from another main tank in order to survive a certain boss mechanic. To me that's just tank swapping, not off tanking.

For Ashes, I expect one of the four schools of augmentation from the secondary tank archetype to add threat generation to a skill. And another school of augmentation will add some damage mitigation to a skill, perhaps through temporarily lowering the damage output of the enemy.

In other words, I think xxx/tank classes can off tank with the right gear and spec.

Can off tanks or xxx/tanks function as main tanks in group content (8 people)? Yes and no. If the group is near the minimum level for the content and don't have really good gear, then no. I think a tank/xxx is needed. If the content is on farm and the group is well geared, then absolutely yes; I think the off tank can handle the group bosses and adds in most cases.

I don't expect them to be able to main tank in raid content (40 people). Nor do I want them to. I can see a well geared off tank handle some raid boss adds perhaps, but not easily. I want the choice to go tank/xxx to be meaningful. I want them to be better tanks than any other class in pretty much all situations.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George_Black

Real off tanking is if there is a mechanic that weakeness the main tank, putting them on a little time out, at which moment somebody has to jump in and take the hits.
Usually done by having the tank suffer a debuff.

A good off tank is a build that can tank for the short amount required and then return at full strength being a dps or a healer or a support.

If the above isnt part of the development design/mechanic then off-tanking isn't real. It's just rp.

George_Black

The developers are also responsible to protect the role of off-tanking. If the players manage to bypass the need for an offtank the the devs need to rework the mechanic.

Dygz

It seems to me that people are thrown out of whack by having a Primary Archetype that is focused on tanking.
Expect Tank/x to have the best tool kit for taking compared to any of the other Primary Archetypes.
x/Tanks will also have access to similar tools, to a lesser degree.

Expect x/Tanks to have augments from some type of Threat school, and some type of personal Mitigation school and also from some type of Shield school.
But, those augments won't be as powerful as Active Skills. Expect a Shield Wall from an augment to be less powerful and have a lesser duration than a Shield Wall from an Active Skill.
Expect Threat generated from a Tank augment to be less powerful and have a lesser duration than Threat generated from a Tank Active Skill.

Expect a Rogue/x to be the best at Physical burst damage. Expect a Mage/x to be the best at Magical burst damage. Expect a Bard/x to be the best at buffs. Expect a Cleric/x to be the best at heals/life siphons.
Don't expect an x/Rogue to Rogue better than a Rogue/x in an 8-person group.
Don't expect an x/Mage to Mage better than a Mage/x in an 8-person group.
Don't expect an x/Cleric to Cleric better than a Cleric/x in an 8-person group.

When the devs say they are designing to encounters for 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype, that means they are designing with the expectation that there will be a Primary Archetype Tank using Rank 3 or higher Tank Active Skills.

"An Off Tank, to me, is someone who can offload some of the pressure from the main tank. They typically have less damage mitigation than a main tank, but also have either higher DPS or higher self-healing than the main tank, and they have some sort of mechanic to hold the attention of enemies. They are often used to handle adds in boss fights."
----Nerror

I pretty much agree with Nerror.
I think of the off-tank as the person in the group who assists the main tank by doing tanky stuff like maintaining aggro on side mobs, trash mobs and adds while the main tank is focused on maintaining aggro on the boss.
https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Off_tank

I'm not sure what "on-farm" means in Ashes of Creation.
"One of the design elements that we're implementing into our raids is that the raid will not be exactly the same every single time. You're going to have variables that can't necessarily be pre-planned out for. You can pre-plan out for a lot of the raid like how many DPS do you need and healers and support, and where they're going to be positioned, and all that kind of stuff; but I think the compelling aspect of Ashes raiding will be the difficulty in achieving this content and having that content change from session to session as well. We want there to be variables that get manifested by you know what type of node got developed elsewhere. Is he going to have acolytes or cultists? What acolyte skills will be available to them. What is the boss gonna have? What available skill repertoire will the boss be able to use? What mood is he in today?"
---Steve and Jeffrey

If you have two or three x/Tanks in an 8-person group with no Tank/x, you can probably defeat that encounter.
And, sure, one of those might technically be acting as main tank.
But, in a 8-person group with a Tank/x, expect the Tank/x to tank better than the x/Tank.

SirChancelot

Off-tank is usually described as someone who isn't a tank, filling the tank position. Which in a game like wow something like a hunter using a pet to taunt, then kiting through traps to slow or something similar.
If it's something like @georgeblack said, that's sounds more like a tank swap boss mechanic. Both tanks still need to be able to take the full brunt of the boss, therefore both need to be the same tier of "tanky'ness"
Now I'll agree in a raid you normally have one tank take lead and the other be second string. This USUALLY isn't determined by class, but by whoever has the better gear or is the better player, class playing into it only when a certain mechanic dictates.

If I have an x/tank filling the tank role, I don't think this would make a tank/x a meaningless choice. As every primary archetype is supposedly getting unique utility abilities. You might still need a tank/fighter to throw down a wall for a fight (or whatever else exclusive they have), even though he has built his character as a beefy DPS. Similar to the idea of I'd rather have a ranger for physical damage dealing, but I will still want a rogue in my group for disarming traps or unlocking doors. In wow, an elemental shaman isn't as strong as a mage, but he has bloodlust, so I still want him in my group.

*Sidenote from that idea*
What if a fighter augment for the charge ability adds a knock back, and if you knock them into terrain it stuns them. Throwing down the tank wall and then charging into it would be a cool combo.

Also I'm use wow as reference because I'm guessing it's the most widely accessed MMO. Most players in the genre have touched it at some point.

Nerror

For raids specifically, I would like to expand the importance of the tank/xxx classes, where raids are designed to need 5 of them for some boss encounters, to handle adds or bosses. Like we saw with those two big ancient bosses in Ashes that had to be killed within a certain time of each other. No reason not to have 3 bosses with many big adds spawning during the fight. Off tanks can obviously still help with those adds and fill in as needed, just requiring more help to survive.

SongRune

Dygz wrote: »

When the devs say they are designing to encounters for 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype, that means they are designing with the expectation that there will be a Primary Archetype Tank using Rank 3 or higher Tank Active Skills.

Do you have a source for this?

Sathrago

Well I would like to ask a question. Are Off-tanks apart of the Trinity system in the first place? The answer to this question differs according to the developers working on a game and I would really like to know what Intrepid's answer is.

Dygz

SirChancelot wrote: »

Off-tank is usually described as someone who isn't a tank, filling the tank position. Which in a game like wow something like a hunter using a pet to taunt, then kiting through traps to slow or something similar.
If it's something like @georgeblack said, that's sounds more like a tank swap boss mechanic. Both tanks still need to be able to take the full brunt of the boss, therefore both need to be the same tier of "tanky'ness"
Now I'll agree in a raid you normally have one tank take lead and the other be second string. This USUALLY isn't determined by class, but by whoever has the better gear or is the better player, class playing into it only when a certain mechanic dictates.

https://wowwiki-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Off_tank
I don't think what you wrote matches the descriptions in the link above.
The two descriptions, there, match what Nerror and georgeblack said.

WoW is not designed around an 8-person group with one of each Primary Archetype, where one of those is specifically Tank.
WoW is designed to have a 4-person group where several classes can fill the role of main tank.

SirChancelot wrote: »

If I have an x/tank filling the tank role, I don't think this would make a tank/x a meaningless choice. As every primary archetype is supposedly getting unique utility abilities. You might still need a tank/fighter to throw down a wall for a fight (or whatever else exclusive they have), even though he has built his character as a beefy DPS. Similar to the idea of I'd rather have a ranger for physical damage dealing, but I will still want a rogue in my group for disarming traps or unlocking doors. In wow, an elemental shaman isn't as strong as a mage, but he has bloodlust, so I still want him in my group.

If you consistently have an x/Tank as main tank in an 8-person group, that means that a Tank/x is not required.
It also means that x/Tank augments are more powerful than Rank 3+ Tank Active Skills - which is absurd and basically makes Rank 3+ Tank Active Skills meaningless.
A Rogue disarming traps and unlocking doors is icing on the cake. Those activities are not required.

SirChancelot wrote: »

What if a fighter augment for the charge ability adds a knock back, and if you knock them into terrain it stuns them. Throwing down the tank wall and then charging into it would be a cool combo.

Tank/x already has Onslaught Rank 3 which is a charge Active Skill that includes a knock down.
Seems like a Tank/x could probably already accomplish that feat without needing a Fighter augment.

We'll have to see if Fighter still has a Charge Active Skill and what types of effects are added with each Rank. Could be that Fighter/x could also set-up that scenario.
Should especially be possible with Tank/Fighter and Fighter/Tank synergizing their attacks.

SirChancelot wrote: »

Also I'm use wow as reference because I'm guessing it's the most widely accessed MMO. Most players in the genre have touched it at some point.

The problem with the way you use examples from WoW is that Ashes classes and groups are designed and balanced significantly differently than WoW.

Noaani

Off tanking is not a class based role, it is a thing forced on players by content.

If the content does not have the need for an off tank, the group or raid does not have an off tank.

If the content does require an off tank, the group or raid brings two tanks.

Groups or raids that bring off tanks as standard are chumps.

Nerror

Sathrago wrote: »

Well I would like to ask a question. Are Off-tanks apart of the Trinity system in the first place? The answer to this question differs according to the developers working on a game and I would really like to know what Intrepid's answer is.

I would like to know that too, but specifically to the point of off tanks and the trinity, then yes, it's still within the trinity spectrum. The Trinity isn't only about the 3 extreme points in the triangle, there is room for some movement within that triangle too.

Dygz

Yeah, I mean...
That's why I don't understand why there are people who act as though not being the main tank in an 8-person group means that you can't tank at all.
Any x/Tank is a Tank and will be able to tank to some degree.
Expect a Cleric/x or Fighter/x - maybe even a Rogue/x - to be able to tank some.
Just don't expect them to be able to main tank as well as a Tank/x in encounters designed for an 8-person group.

I'd say Off-Tank is tanking - just not as well as the main tank. So, yes, as part of the Trinity, it's either Tank or dialing closer to Tank with their customizations.

Nerror

Hah! In my chronological watch-through of their youtube, I just came across a part in a video where they talk about this. Watch from 57:38 - 59:20.

https://youtu.be/6CwaEg-b20k?t=3460
They pretty much say that tank/xxx are for the most difficult content like raids, where xxx/tanks can handle easier content. Well, there is more nuance to what they say, so watch the clip. Might be of interest to you @SirChancelot

Sathrago

Nerror wrote: »

Hah! In my chronological watch-through of their youtube, I just came across a part in a video where they talk about this. Watch from 57:38 - 59:20.
https://youtu.be/6CwaEg-b20k?t=3460
They pretty much say that tank/xxx are for the most difficult content like raids, where xxx/tanks can handle easier content. Well, there is more nuance to what they say, so watch the clip. Might be of interest to you @SirChancelot

So this all but confirms that you will require a primary tank archetype to main tank. Assuming they can design the game the way that they want it to be. Any fringe cases where a non-Primary tank class can main tank the "end game content" is not intended and subject to balance tuning.

Dygz

Steven: It's an 8-member party.
The way we balance content is around an 8-person party.
Your best position... Essentially, the best balance you can have as a party is incorporating all 8 base Archetypes into your party. So, that's going to be you best bet for completing content.

When we say Archetype, we're really talking mostly about roles. So essentially, you'll first choose one of the 8 Archetypes and that's going to be the Archetype that you can't change. So, that's Tank, Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Bard and Summoner. When you hit halfway point, up to Level 50, when you hit Level 25, you're going to select your Secondary Archetype which will combine with your Primary to create your class. That Secondary Archetype isn't going to give you new Active Skills. You're only going to get Active Skills from your base, Primary Archetype.
However, what it's going to do is give you augment abilities.

Summit1G:So, you can combine abilities a little bit. An augment ability essentially just changes one ability a little bit.

Steven:Right.

https://youtu.be/8AeuqaELjFg?t=3862
Mark: 1:04:22

There's more in the video, so I encourage people to watch the video.
The relevant key points here are that any time Steven mentions Primary and Secondary Archetypes, he stresses that you only get Active Skills from the Primary Archetype.
When you combine that with balancing around 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype, that means the way they will do that is with the expectation of an 8-person party with one of each Primary Archetype using Rank 3+ Active Skills.

"We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants, and again how you build those variants depends on how you spend your skill points. you can lean more into your subclass or less into your subclass depending on where you spend your points. There isn't as much variance between the 64 classes as you might expect. It's not like there are you know 64 different versions of... radically different classes. there are 8 archetypes 8 classes that all have the same chassis but they have different augments put on tto of that to change the performance of that chassis.
---Jeffrey

The dev quote above is telling us that they are not balancing around augments.
They are balancing around the Active Skills of the Primary Archetypes.
They are not balancing around the augments of the Secondary Archetypes.

It's not necessarily impossible for a Fighter/Tank to main tank in an 8-person group that doesn't have a Tank/x.
But, in an 8-person group with a Tank/x, don't expect the x/Tank to main tank better than the Tank/x.

Dygz

In that clip Nerror just posted:
Steven: To be clear, it's not just the Tank Archetype that can tank. It's just likely that they will be the most effective at tanking.

Which is why I keep saying... x/Tanks can tank.
Just don't expect them to be main tank in an 8-person group with a Tank/x.
Again, I don't understand why that gets any push-back.

SongRune

Dygz wrote: »

Steven:The relevant key points here are that any time Steven mentions Primary and Secondary Archetypes, he stresses that you only get Active Skills from the Primary Archetype.
When you combine that with balancing around 8-person groups with one of each Primary Archetype, that means the way they will do that is with the expectation of an 8-person party with one of each Primary Archetype using Rank 3+ Active Skills.

What you are you basing the part about Rank 3+ Active Skills on? Could you give me a timestamp for that? The video is pretty long.

Dygz

You don't have to watch the vid. Just read what I wrote.

SirChancelot

Nerror wrote: »

Hah! In my chronological watch-through of their youtube, I just came across a part in a video where they talk about this. Watch from 57:38 - 59:20.
https://youtu.be/6CwaEg-b20k?t=3460
They pretty much say that tank/xxx are for the most difficult content like raids, where xxx/tanks can handle easier content. Well, there is more nuance to what they say, so watch the clip. Might be of interest to you @SirChancelot

Yeah that works for me.
I have said a tank/tank should probably be the easiest tank to play. Having the lowest barrier to entry to learn and use, because he is the tankiest tank to tank with. But that should also have the lowest skill cap ceiling, the lowest damage output, and lowest raid support functions. If you're going to all in on being a tank, then that's all you should have.
I have said I'm all for some tanks being more difficult to use, having that barrier to entry (not for new to tanking players), but allowing for a higher skill cap ceiling (able to pull off more creative plays), more utility to offer the group, better DPS.

CROW3

Hm… my hope would be that ‘ease of play’ and ‘most effective in a role’ are two very different things. If I MT with a tank/tank, I want to have the highest ceiling v. all other class combos to tank a given encounter effectively. AND I don’t necessarily want that to be the easiest to play. I think it should be challenging to play and master a lead tank.

Just my two coppers.

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

Hm… my hope would be that ‘ease of play’ and ‘most effective in a role’ are two very different things. If I MT with a tank/tank, I want to have the highest ceiling v. all other class combos to tank a given encounter effectively. AND I don’t necessarily want that to be the easiest to play. I think it should be challenging to play and master a lead tank.

Just my two coppers.

Indeed, this is a problem that comes up in competitive games really often, and the solution to it is often difficult to handle, but given the design philosophy of Ashes I'm not terribly worried. My understanding was that Jeff intended people to adjust strategy based on enemy, so there will probably be things that the Tank/Tank is best at Tanking outright, where the simplistic 'all-in' form works optimally, and then there will be other things where that's not the case.

That fight with It Who Sunders the Land and It Which Rends The Sky (I might have the names wrong) was a pretty good indicator of that sort of thing, I think. I can see multiple ways to tank those, but I feel that a Spellshield of a certain build would have the 'easiest' time of it (think Teleportation Augment on something).

That fight might not be the simplest thing for a Tank/Tank to do, but in terms of actually 'just tanking' and protecting their group, I feel like they would still do the best, whereas the Spellshield would do things 'differently' and be able to do more overall.

It's hard to stop people from going 'well if you're not doing the most DPS while tanking and also protecting everyone perfectly, clearly you're not pulling your weight'. At least with the 'all classes use Mana' decision, the overall 'how good you are' effect may not be so hard to balance.

Child Item