Maybe it's the culture difference, class/job like witcher won't be like in the video, our witcher will pretend he is charmed by the evil and kill it without hesitate.
I have no problem with the Tank as a PvE class. The logic behind is ok. I also do not want smarter NPCs because that would cause the traditional PvE tank behavior (of attracting the hits) to fall apart.
What happens with the tank in PvP then? Is it still useful as a tank?
I'm good with both holy trinity tank or a reinvent tank, just if want reinvent tank maybe it should start think from monsters perspective to complete the new tank concept, that's it.
But result is obvious at least to me. Holy trinity still powerful in this time, the entrance is lower than other reinvent tank concepts. Like you said 'I also do not want smarter NPCs because that would cause the traditional PvE tank behavior (of attracting the hits) to fall apart.', boss/monsters fights to be dynamic and unstable is ok to me in a certain degree which means it's not a chaos and unable to control the fight. I also knew that people prefer a stable tanking experience, me too. But sometimes I feel the stable tanking experience kills the fun of boss fight and burns out boss fight design ideas too fast.
'What happens with the tank in PvP then? Is it still useful as a tank?', tank is a controller/defender then dps in my fantasy, less damage than dps classes but high control abilities(not stun and immobilized), I won't say it will work because it's just my imaginations.
I think this discuss won't go anywhere after reading other posts, so this will be my last post, thanks for your reply.
The tanking mentality has to shift from being the one getting hit to being the one preventing others being hit.
Yeah, I know, strictly speaking, if all the hits land on you others don't get it, but that's a PvE gimmick that doesn't fool other players.
I doesn't matter if you generate threat or not (from NPCs and players) so long as you can keep protecting others. The longer you're ignored the longer you can protect. No need being hit.
Well, maybe unless you're named Darkness...
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
6
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In a battle, a certain person becomes 'the objective' that you want dead, and in any sensible game that person is 'not easy to get to and kill' anyway. The Tank's only job is 'make sure that other person doesn't die'. If Tanks are good at 'making sure the Objective doesn't die', then the Tank must be killed before the objective is killed.
Tanks are technically a 'weaker' class in games when it comes to this because they don't have all the crazy tools that other classes have for avoiding dying. The thing that makes a Tank a Tank is that they don't need these, they just 'passively' don't die, and usually don't have too many strong adaptations around this.
Almost every class in these games can 'be spec'd to not die', often 'more effectively' than a Tank, Tanks just don't die while ALSO preventing other people from dying. The thing a Tank 'does' otherwise is increase the efficiency of healing magic and that's it. That's why we got them. That's where Tanks 'come from'. As soon as a game contains 'healing' someone is going to try to maximize their MP/Survivability Ratio, and whatever does that will usually become the new Tank.
As a D&D (Rogue) player.... I consider the tank's job to be acting as a decoy for the Rogue to Flank and Backstab. Also forces attention away from the Mage, who can do tons of damage with Fireball, but who is also super-squishy... so, basically the decoy for DPS.
The counter to that is to have multiple significant threats for the group to deal with, rather than just one big boss.
All that being said, one of the things I loved about the StoryBricks design was having individual mobs with "emotional" states that would decide who they wish to attack most. So, it's not always who is dealing the most damage or who is healing the most. Individual mobs might have an irrational hatred for all males or all Py'Rai or all Bards or for the person who has a specific resource or relic in their backpack. Could be a hatred for a specific type of mount or pack mule.
But... seems like AI still has not yet become robust enough to easily program that.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The tanking mentality has to shift from being the one getting hit to being the one preventing others being hit.
Yeah, I know, strictly speaking, if all the hits land on you others don't get it, but that's a PvE gimmick that doesn't fool other players.
I doesn't matter if you generate threat or not (from NPCs and players) so long as you can keep protecting others. The longer you're ignored the longer you can protect. No need being hit.
Well, maybe unless you're named Darkness...
Well, if the role is to prevent other's from being hit - yeah... that's not really a tank.
It's not really even a shield.
The concept of a tank is a heavily armored fighter with tons of xp to soak damage.
And deal enough in-your-face damage to hold the attention of the group's primary target.
That is certainly a very good PvE strategy that doesn't necessarily work well in PvP.
I'm not a PvP fan, so, I could easily be wrong, but...
It really falls on Crowd Control to fend off a group's primary target in PvP.
Blind, Fear, Snare, Root, Knock Downs... it's probably not going to be the role of a tank in PvP.
RPGs are not really designed for PvP, so....
In a battle, a certain person becomes 'the objective' that you want dead, and in any sensible game that person is 'not easy to get to and kill' anyway. The Tank's only job is 'make sure that other person doesn't die'. If Tanks are good at 'making sure the Objective doesn't die', then the Tank must be killed before the objective is killed.
Tanks are technically a 'weaker' class in games when it comes to this because they don't have all the crazy tools that other classes have for avoiding dying. The thing that makes a Tank a Tank is that they don't need these, they just 'passively' don't die, and usually don't have too many strong adaptations around this.
Almost every class in these games can 'be spec'd to not die', often 'more effectively' than a Tank, Tanks just don't die while ALSO preventing other people from dying. The thing a Tank 'does' otherwise is increase the efficiency of healing magic and that's it. That's why we got them. That's where Tanks 'come from'. As soon as a game contains 'healing' someone is going to try to maximize their MP/Survivability Ratio, and whatever does that will usually become the new Tank.
As a D&D (Rogue) player.... I consider the tank's job to be acting as a decoy for the Rogue to Flank and Backstab. Also forces attention away from the Mage, who can do tons of damage with Fireball, but who is also super-squishy... so, basically the decoy for DPS.
The counter to that is to have multiple significant threats for the group to deal with, rather than just one big boss.
All that being said, one of the things I loved about the StoryBricks design was having individual mobs with "emotional" states that would decide who they wish to attack most. So, it's not always who is dealing the most damage or who is healing the most. Individual mobs might have an irrational hatred for all males or all Py'Rai or all Bards or for the person who has a specific resource or relic in their backpack. Could be a hatred for a specific type of mount or pack mule.
But... seems like AI still has not yet become robust enough to easily program that.
I have programmed that. I programmed that YEARS ago. It isn't actually 'AI' at all, but I've ALSO made the 'AI' version (it doesn't work because most of what people call AI in games doesn't actually function without a preprogrammed base, given how AI works - to be clear, the thing you are suggesting is not 'AI' and no amount of 'AI' robustness would properly lead to it)
Then I didn't stick with it, because my test players abused it, just the way they would abuse it if Intrepid coded it today.
This is STILL part of the design of the hate mechanics in games I make, but it's also still not the primary/best one.
The mob is supposed to care HOW you hurt it, maybe how you hurt its friends, perhaps 'action types you take', but all your current examples are 'innates' (unless you're going to drop the resource or trade it around mid-battle, it's an innate).
I definitely understand that for many people, they have a specific concept of what Tank is and how it is defined based on their past experiences or desires and will come to say 'this is what it is', but since I don't have that experience and 'Tank' to me is mechanically 'does this', with a tendency for the character type you describe to be good at it, then I think others are the ones being restrictive, and what you're being restrictive to is PvE mob design.
In order for the 'heavily armored fighter' to be the Tank to the point where Steven gets to name the whole Archetype Tank and claim that they will be able to perform that role in most content, then PvE would have to revolve almost exclusively around that.
Maybe the related link no longer applies since it was Jeff speaking (you can barely even hear that he says Evasion Tank).
But I suppose I can't prove that when someone says 'Evasion Tank' they don't mean 'light armor distraction with a small chance of being hit by mechanics and basic attacks due to this, not actually standing around to take hits at all'.
Either way, as usual, I would be remiss in my duty to those who 'ask me to be here' if I did not point out that your perception of 'Game AI' is incorrect (more in the realm of 'not even informed enough to be wrong')
Having multiple significant threats does not change the situation either. Part of the difficulty of converting a TableTop game mechanic to a live MMO one is the capacity for players to move 'faster than the system' in terms of timing, the granularity of 'turns' and 'initiative' causes this to stop working.
Source: me, having poked at synchronizing the two in Cardinal for many years now.
But that's all I got, so technically, please ignore me, I make these posts not so much for you, but for the failing hopes of a desperate few...
Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the more people are present, the more specialized each person should become?
That should be down the players tact, whether that be from themselves or beknown or unbeknown to them a developers choice, it's convoluted.
If you're in a 2hr+ epic boss fight, the devs expect you to employ probably a lot more than 1 healer and the Healers would perhaps spec accordingly, one for HP filling and the other more prioritized in conserved mana for MP/Resource healing.
In certain games, perhaps EQ2, similar classes have completely different weaponry and armorment tied and each have their purpose in dealing with certain adds or a certain condition. I am not generally in favor of hardened constrictions within classes themselves, if you are a highly experienced Ranger you are highly experienced Ranger and I don't see the achievement or sense of fulfilling enjoyment from 2 rangers with different main/sub/armor choices performing drastically different things in a game with an already complex world, pve, pvp and skill system. If that game was classless like Ultima Online or Albion that would be a different story.
Ok, so you are against basic principles of the universe then, and expect game developers to somehow - magically - develop their game around them.
The fact is, the more people present, the more you need to specialize. This isn't a gaming thing, it isn't a developer thing, it is just a thing.
Look at bees, they do it. As do all hive animals. The more of them there are, the more each one focuses on a specific part of what is needed.
In order for a game developer to make a group of 40 players that have not specialized able to function on the same level as 40 players that have, each player in that first 40 would by necessity need to be significantly over powered. This is because that unorganized 40 players would - literally without any doubt - have large amounts of double up, where as the organized 40 players have none.
So, how is it you propose developers get around this? The organized players have simply looked at everything that is available to them, taken the defense, healing and utility they need, and put everything else in to offense. Since the most efficient means of maintaining defense and healing is to have one player take all the hits and thus concentrating almost all of the healing on them. This is just how organized players WILL organize things. Hell, I've seen games where the highest defense, highest hate class was a bard - so the bard became the tank.
I really don't get what it is you are arguing for here. Your argument here seems to be against basic math.
Fact is, a tank in small group content is responsible for pulling, for holding attention of encounters, for ensuring the group isn't surprised by wanderers, for reducing the amount of incoming damage received by the group as a whole (mostly by reducing the amount of damage they take, as they are taking most of the damage), for intercepting any adds, should they happen, for positioning the target mob in a manner that allows others to best do their job and for dealing an amount of damage.
As you move up to larger and larger sized groups and raids, other players take over some of those responsibilities, leaving the tank hyper-focused on holding attention and minimizing damage.
It just is how the universe is.
The only valid argument I can even imagine here is in regards to some players seeing top end tank specs that are hyper specialized, and simply assuming that is the best tank spec for all content (it must be right? If they are able to take on top end content with it, surely I can take on mid tier content with it!). At this point, you are basically just arguing that some players in MMO's are stupid, and will copy other players specs without thinking about what is best for them, or what their role is supposed to be.
This is an argument I would agree with, if it were the argument you were making.
Edit to add, the end of your post there seems to be calling for eliminating player choice in regards to character build.
Do you - perhaps - want to reiterate what it is you are saying there, or are you actually saying that you do not think players should have any say in their character build other than class choice?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I make these posts not so much for you, but for the failing hopes of a desperate few...
Yep. My reply was a "Yes... also..."
Tank, in Ashes is just as useful a descriptor as Fighter or Mage.
In Ashes... everyone is a fighter and everyone is a mage.
Tank is descriptive enough and also not restricted to its denotative meaning.
All that being said, one of the things I loved about the StoryBricks design was having individual mobs with "emotional" states that would decide who they wish to attack most. So, it's not always who is dealing the most damage or who is healing the most. Individual mobs might have an irrational hatred for all males or all Py'Rai or all Bards or for the person who has a specific resource or relic in their backpack. Could be a hatred for a specific type of mount or pack mule.
But... seems like AI still has not yet become robust enough to easily program that.
This kind of thing doesnt need AI, or a third party tool like StoryBricks.
All you need to do is program in variables to hate gain. Make it so that some mobs have +100% hate gain for a specific race, and you achieve that same end result.
That's why this thread is so weird, though I can't fault the OP for not having experiences.
(sideshow bob grumbles)
The lack of grasp from my venting over the Tank and PvE situation infact showcases your lack of experience in mmorpg's which incorperate both PvE and PvP.
All one has to do is look to the other genres where tanks exist to see why 'threat' doesn't matter one way or the other anyway.
It's that Threat values are a way of approximating what the sanest strategy is in PvE FOR the mobs, in a good game.
Sure, a lot of less good games copied the base idea and just went 'ok I guess we should have a meter to make sure the mob attacks a threat space'.
But it's irrelevant anyway. If you make mobs go for Clerics, you'll get Clerics in plate armor and the mobs will still be 'dumb'. No matter what you make a mob react to, it's arbitrary. If you take away 'Mob targets specific area/direction/enemy' you're back to the types of games that most people here don't like.
In a battle, a certain person becomes 'the objective' that you want dead, and in any sensible game that person is 'not easy to get to and kill' anyway. The Tank's only job is 'make sure that other person doesn't die'. If Tanks are good at 'making sure the Objective doesn't die', then the Tank must be killed before the objective is killed.
Tanks are technically a 'weaker' class in games when it comes to this because they don't have all the crazy tools that other classes have for avoiding dying. The thing that makes a Tank a Tank is that they don't need these, they just 'passively' don't die, and usually don't have too many strong adaptations around this.
Almost every class in these games can 'be spec'd to not die', often 'more effectively' than a Tank, Tanks just don't die while ALSO preventing other people from dying. The thing a Tank 'does' otherwise is increase the efficiency of healing magic and that's it. That's why we got them. That's where Tanks 'come from'. As soon as a game contains 'healing' someone is going to try to maximize their MP/Survivability Ratio, and whatever does that will usually become the new Tank.
Might as well just let us have the Trinity for all the people who don't play other Genres and don't want to have to understand the underlying principles that led to MMOs even having Tanks. PvP can be dealt with the other way. Tanks have stuff that blocks your advance or knocks you back, and take damage for people close to them. Done.
ofc a good post (if we're basing things off of the average dev work) that highlights, in a typical fashion the glaring weaknesses of when devs implement challenging or heavy stat PvE and when players are left with the devices they have at their disposal which could very well be without an official tank or an offical anything for that matter.
Accessibilty is a most important factor in the name of the game and that's why the likes of WoW and FF14 captured the hearts of the many as opposed to the vaguely drawn out path, hard and harsh rules of usually more contest focused mmorpg's that captured the hearts of the fewer, those with enough time and who craved knowledge, power and status.
(I go on...) The popular games leaning on either side of these extremes employed the Trinity system, the accessibilty/(easier to formulate a strategy with the class system) era had begun, definetly apparent from 2004 BUT the PvE factors that were implemented were argueably the biggest factors in their differences although lets not forget a second that Archeage and Lineage 2 especially had some very spammy healing mechanics and passive anti casting interuption buffs (+classes vamping back HP) that could also make a key difference but lets talk about targetting and gameplay choices in general based off of what you said...
"In a good game threat values need to approximate the sanest attack strategy for monsters"
So in a "good game", a monster always weighs up X (threat attackers have generated) roughly and applies Y (their attack) in relation to Z (their attack speed/recovery)? The "good game" has already been decided from the looks, best to label all talks of innovation and improvement "toxic" and adhere to the old faithful. Let's also weigh up the accessibility factor, my name is John, the healer and I've already concluded based off my classes instructions that wearing Robes provides me with more mana/recovery/casting speed yada yada and based off the games conditions, when I get hit I get HIT, so someone else better front up or I'm packing my bags and leaving this trashy ass game....PFFT "wear plate?" SAYONARA!
I don't blame John and I don't blame other classes wanting to maxmise their potential and its more fun to do so especially when most PvE elements of any mmorpg are as bleak as "we just came here to earn xp/loot" but my venting was not about changing the system but improving it, heightening the gameplay so that things can get more interesting and everyones many stats and niches can be further utilized.
digest this if you will:
Targetting using the threat system but with added variables/rng via using a "sense of fear" system and challenging the uses MEN (mentality) stat.
John is in the back performing his job but he has had very litte interaction or none with the monster and as a result there is an accumulating sense of fear from the monster getting battered by the party as a whole and this as an example can decide whether that evil creature decides to pursue a different strategy and dash away from the Tank and feast on a potentially vunerable target.
There's more, if we take the dodge mechanic as an example this is an often very unrewarding action in general PvE, instead we can promote such mechanics with a splash of flavoring IE the healer can perform the dodge action and upon immediately landing in a kneeled position extend their hand to extract the monsters life essence, aiding as an example in MP recovery or more (and afterwards incidently the Tank is gushing with deilght in using his chains to get that creature back in the fold!). If you provide people with a further incentive for mechanics you not only promote a further sense of growth, achievement and enjoyment but additionally more mechanics they can take with them when PvP comes there way which has ALWAYS been a drast contrast in fighting.
If you also take the example I've used in this post within the thread, the community will also learn a further appreciation and acceptance for class combo's out of the normal and optimal (ie things like DD main and Tank sub or Healer main and DD sub. "Tank+Tank/DD+DD is the only real tank/dd!" ).
One of the more modern spins on this is how they do it in Albion. You still have tanks, but anybody with a plate chest is a tank. This means you can have wizard tanks, ranger tanks, and tanks with daggers.
Another interesting aspect of the game that comes into play frequently is 'dropping aggro'. You can go into group dungeons without a tank, and as long as everybody has boots to go invisible and drop aggro, no tank is needed.
This doesn't address tanking in PvP, but it's interesting to think about in the context of PvE.
I enjoy Albion's ideas, it reminds me of how Ultima Online had skills linked to weapons but armors were purely resisted based, such are the interesting and argueably, in a sense further immersive systems of both of these classless games.
This spurs me on to think about what Ashe's can do with its class system...
Typically, flat out Rogues/Archers will get evasion passives or skills in mmos but lets just say that was those classes having Tank as a sub class (Shadow Guardian/Sentinel), those are the classes that will be obtaining the typical boost in evasion and for desires sake passives to aid them with medium armor or even half plate wear.
Those "damage dealers" will be sharing a tank skill called "Swift Intervention", for Tank mains its called Intervention but this is focused for the rangers/rogues. { Swift Intervention } - close range - Blind the target for xx% physical damage (reduced blind chance in PvP by certain gear factors) and increase evasion/pdef/mdef by 100% for x seconds.
If target is an NPC and has the debuff "out of control" the skill can be activated again for as long as the debuff remains active and you have 2 options:
- Pressing the skill again you will perform 'Dash, wound and Retreat' to the debuffed NPC and perform a special action (target small/medium sized: jump attack, large+: manuvear quickly to the head area), near completion you send out an attack with 500% increased p.atk, chance to increase blind duration and you perform an acrobatic disengage that eliminates all threat generation from the target towards you.
- Leaving the skill unpressed will increase threat on your attacks towards the NPC target by 300%. Furthermore, if you do not use any other skills while this is active your characters default attacks will be specialized, attack speed -50% but you'll be able to kite back and 'Swift Interventions' defense bonuses will remain until this skill ends or when 'Dash, wound and Retreat' is performed.
This is basically an idea for if Tanks cannot hold agro forever like they typically can or if something happens to them where they lose it in some way and then for characters with Tank as a subclass this is an example of how they can help vs harder enemies, for the rogue/archer at least. Out of Control is a debuff that appears on an NPC when the Tanks specialized threat skill is lost/interupted, providing a key opportunity for someone else or another Tank to intervene.
You could see this as literally the Legolas GIF or scene in the movie where he is evading/shooting/engaging/disengaging with the Cave Troll.
There are games that already do this. They are not necessarily common nor recent. By some standards they are not 'good'. By some people's standards who I have argued with in the past, they are 'not good' BECAUSE they don't do the 'standard Tank' thing.
The games I am talking about generally have a similar design form to Ashes. Freedom of weapon choice, decent to high flexibility in build choices depending on the game, and the part we don't have confirmed from Ashes yet, complex threat/hate mechanics that go a bit beyond 'hey you did a Taunt so it says you have the mob's attention now'.
Monster Hunter World has 'threat mechanics', they're complicated enough that they're hard to perfectly test, but not hard to theorize about (we know that this exists and isn't just imagination because they explicitly have a food buff that causes the monster to attack you more and we know it isn't a random statistic being changed because THAT part is testable). We also know that when they had their FFXIV crossover they used it more explicitly to make it more understandable to FFXIV fans who might want to try.
FFXI has complex threat mechanics that, in aggregate, make sure that for many fights, you can't 'just tank', and it has a group PvP activity where Tanks continue to tank more or less correctly, and this is a Tab Targeted Stat based early 2000s game.
Onigiri is an instanced-dungeon heavy MMORPG with weapon swapping and very little gear of note to speak of where tanking is similar to Monster Hunter and based on buffs and positioning, but there's almost certainly a hate/threat meter in that game, it's just good enough that only two bosses are susceptible to 'obviously cheesing it'.
That's why I say that it just seems weird/as if you lacked experiences. You're describing something passionately, and I 'already play this game' and I just 'want a new similar game'. I will gladly join your 'side' if this becomes a point of contention within community feedback/at Intrepid.
But so far, it doesn't seem to be.
Nearly everyone seems to share your opinion, so if Intrepid just makes a new version of what I already play, none of these concerns are relevant.
It ends up LOOKING like you just 'don't think these games exist so you want Intrepid to try something new or think outside the box'. But they do exist. I'm here because I know that Ashes actually has had at least some minor inspiration from them, and if you wanted to take 'the best part of each MMO', I think nearly everyone agrees that L2 and Archeage are not where to look for PvE of 'ye olde Era' so WoW, FFXI and EQ2 would probably have been the targets for that.
But as of now you're basically 'complaining that you want something to be done better' based on what MIGHT be your imagined interpretation of what it means when just the TERM is used, and technically perpetuating it and wasting your own time.
Nothing more to say to someone who holds fake facts based off of what I actually said, it's nothing but insulting and you refuse to think deeply enough and hold onto what you conceive from past experiences as already good systems that need no changing and anyone who doesn't like them "doesn't understand".
Nothing but a weakness and a lack of imagination and creativity, the fact you could gloss over my reply and give what you believe to be a good answer in an incredibly small fraction of time proves that.
Nothing more to say to someone who holds fake facts based off of what I actually said, it's nothing but insulting and you refuse to think deeply enough and hold onto what you conceive from past experiences as already good systems that need no changing and anyone who doesn't like them "doesn't understand".
Nothing but a weakness and a lack of imagination and creativity, the fact you could gloss over my reply and give what you believe to be a good answer in an incredibly small fraction of time proves that.
Ok I think the mods won't fault me for this one.
What the FUCK are you even talking about?
You gave me the shitty Mag7 tier answer, why would you want a specific and direct breakdown of your entire reply from ME of all people? Are you just trolling me?
Or are you doubly proving my point? Do you believe that your examples are hard to comprehend? Or is it that you're asking for something 'so far beyond your examples that it would be unreasonable to ask you to put it all into one forum post'? Cause I would totally understand that.
Are you just projecting? Because that's all I can see here. In my magnanimous arrogance I'm willing to overlook this non-answer and engage with you if you try again.
EDIT: And since I've been (quite successfully if intentional) trolled either by Nish or myself, I'm finally 'callin' in the squad' if the answer I get matches my Nish model.
The tanking mentality has to shift from being the one getting hit to being the one preventing others being hit.
Yeah, I know, strictly speaking, if all the hits land on you others don't get it, but that's a PvE gimmick that doesn't fool other players.
I doesn't matter if you generate threat or not (from NPCs and players) so long as you can keep protecting others. The longer you're ignored the longer you can protect. No need being hit.
Well, maybe unless you're named Darkness...
Well, if the role is to prevent other's from being hit - yeah... that's not really a tank.
It's not really even a shield.
The concept of a tank is a heavily armored fighter with tons of xp to soak damage.
And deal enough in-your-face damage to hold the attention of the group's primary target.
That is certainly a very good PvE strategy that doesn't necessarily work well in PvP.
I'm not a PvP fan, so, I could easily be wrong, but...
It really falls on Crowd Control to fend off a group's primary target in PvP.
Blind, Fear, Snare, Root, Knock Downs... it's probably not going to be the role of a tank in PvP.
RPGs are not really designed for PvP, so....
In my experience, tanks in PvP environments are heavily dependent on the situation, which is very far from PvE where tanks are nearly always useful no matter what.
In LoL for example, tanks are used in a couple different ways. First, they are sent into bushes and fog of war to check for ambushes. This provides 2 benefits - They can absorb some initial hits from the ambush, and stand in the bushes for a longer time providing sight for their teammates who are safely out of range.
The second good use for tanks is to body-block line skillshots. There are quite a few champions in the game that rely on having direct line of sight of their target, and if a big beefy tank is standing in the way, they can't do anything.
Of course, these uses for the tanks only work because of how the game is designed. None of this really translates well to Ashes. Yes there will be spell collision but without the narrow corridors that you find in LoL, I don't know how much use that will be for a tank.
So then, it comes back to the problem of how do you make tanks useful in large open areas without some kind of threat mechanic?
Are you just projecting? Because that's all I can see here. In my magnanimous arrogance I'm willing to overlook this non-answer and engage with you if you try again.
I don't need to try again and you've completely lost all my respect.
Your first post into this thread was a pretty negative opinion because it wasn't addressing my topic specifically and more addressing any changes to the fundamental trinity/class system or lack of spurs players on to fill those gaps and any changes to it whatsoever are fruitless.
If you simply address my concerns and read what I've said in a properly I'm willing, perhaps to overlook the way you've conducted yourself.
Are you just projecting? Because that's all I can see here. In my magnanimous arrogance I'm willing to overlook this non-answer and engage with you if you try again.
I don't need to try again and you've completely lost all my respect.
Your first post into this thread was a pretty negative opinion because it wasn't addressing my topic specifically and more addressing any changes to the fundamental trinity/class system or lack of spurs players on to fill those gaps and any changes to it whatsoever are fruitless.
If you simply address my concerns and read what I've said in a properly I'm willing, perhaps to overlook the way you've conducted yourself.
Alrighty, exactly as modeled.
Tanks a bunch.
EDIT: I am a Healer in FFXI. I wear this at the level 40 tier. I do not own other level 40 Tier gear because why would I when I have the glory of
For comparison the equivalent body piece for the 'Heavy Armor' classes.
Just more bonus stuff so that my posts don't end up being snarky pointlessness. I've learned from the past!
There's more, if we take the dodge mechanic as an example this is an often very unrewarding action in general PvE, instead we can promote such mechanics with a splash of flavoring IE the healer can perform the dodge action and upon immediately landing in a kneeled position extend their hand to extract the monsters life essence, aiding as an example in MP recovery or more (and afterwards incidently the Tank is gushing with deilght in using his chains to get that creature back in the fold!).
Now hold on just a sec here... I really need to know what manner of sad MMOs you've played that made YOU specifically think dodge is unrewarding in PvE. I think dodge is fun, I think it's rewarding and I've done and seen ridiculous uses of it in games. So depending on your answer here, it might simply mean you're not qualified to suggest improving things because this is sounding grim.
The rest of this segment is just flashy animation not mechanics, no issue with Intrepid doing that, their work on the Ranger animation is great, I am talking about the mechanic of dodge. 'Extracting life essence as a healer' is already implemented in Ashes I think, someone will surely correct me if wrong.
I don't want to make my post unnecessarily long so yeah, just that: why do you think dodge is unrewarding?
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
I don't want to make my post unnecessarily long so yeah, just that: why do you think dodge is unrewarding?
When I said "general pve" I'm specifically talking about non boss or non elite monster pve.
In games such as BDO you'd be a fool to say dodge isn't a rewarding enough mechanic in an open world boss fight or against a cyclops as you avoid huge damage and cc but in grind or many monster scenerio's where you often employ a functional group it isn't generally rewarding because the potential damage and interuptions from mistakes aren't enough to disrupt how functional your group is as a whole and can often be rectified although countless mistakes and a seasoned group might will be looking to replace you.
I'm talking about improving general PvE and improving mechnical reward more so as to not ever, for instance, find your healer in such a comfortable state with ideal gear and more bells and cherries, not bothering to use dodge because losing only 1/20th of your HP a couple of times from a few hits is insignifcant.
Yes I believe the healer does have some attack orientated abilities of that nature planned in Ashe's although I'm sure it is not connected to a bonus based solely off of a defensive reaction and close distance and it's just a skill to employ at your leisure at a relatively ranged distance and will likely gift an "ok and balanced" portion of hp/mp in a typical skill rotation in quite standard PvE we've seen from the past.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In my experience, tanks in PvP environments are heavily dependent on the situation, which is very far from PvE where tanks are nearly always useful no matter what.
In LoL for example, tanks are used in a couple different ways. First, they are sent into bushes and fog of war to check for ambushes. This provides 2 benefits - They can absorb some initial hits from the ambush, and stand in the bushes for a longer time providing sight for their teammates who are safely out of range.
The second good use for tanks is to body-block line skillshots. There are quite a few champions in the game that rely on having direct line of sight of their target, and if a big beefy tank is standing in the way, they can't do anything.
Of course, these uses for the tanks only work because of how the game is designed. None of this really translates well to Ashes. Yes there will be spell collision but without the narrow corridors that you find in LoL, I don't know how much use that will be for a tank.
So then, it comes back to the problem of how do you make tanks useful in large open areas without some kind of threat mechanic?
Again... RPGs were not designed for PvP, so there should be no surprise that tanking does not work well with PvP. That's what happens when you try to shove a square peg into a round hole...
"Guess what?! It doesn't fit well!!..." Duh!
Tanks will be useful enough in PvP. The "threat" mechanics they use in PvP will be CC Active Skills, like Javelin. The best Tanks will probably have (Secondary Archetype) augments that maximize their CC.
And they will probably also use whatever CC they can find from Social Org, Racial and Religion augments.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Now hold on just a sec here... I really need to know what manner of sad MMOs you've played that made YOU specifically think dodge is unrewarding in PvE. I think dodge is fun, I think it's rewarding and I've done and seen ridiculous uses of it in games.
Yeah... I mean... Dodge is irrelevant and unrewarding in a tab target game.
Dodge is fun and rewarding in PvE in MMORPGs with action combat - as long as the action doesn't get super-crazy like it could in Wildstar.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The most shocking thing I've read on the Ashes Forums is the accusation that Azherae doesn't think deeply.
@Wandering Mist I find it interesting the importance of threat tied in with an example like LoL as the game treats threat (Rammus/Galio etc) like a hard cc and I believe an mmorpg can grow more towards that fashion in PvE.
CC is a fun an interactive mechanic in comparison to a very systematic threat system that almost ensures a winning strategy right from the bat although I must say I have no problem with threat in an mmorpg as long as it helps to heighten gameplay and strategy and not slam the book shut on it ("Tank has taunted the target/s, kill, done, lets move on!").
Imagine a scenerio of a party in the open desert, armored lizards appear from the surface and poise their attack as a unit very close to the party, the wizard in party summons and channels a whirlwind, all of them are bunched together and the Tank employs a cool chain skill and sandwiches them together and follows up with that and most stragglers who break from the chains are met with an additional chain from a distance but perhaps this one can be dependant on rng/mobs skill action and nerfed due to a worthy aoe chain skill still in effect to most of the armored lizard group.
I'd like to discuss further how LoL incorperates great and involving gameplay for all roles involved but I'll leave it at that for now.
In my experience, tanks in PvP environments are heavily dependent on the situation, which is very far from PvE where tanks are nearly always useful no matter what.
This is 100% true, and is a lingering result of ham-fisting PvP in to a PvE situation.
The trinity system was designed purely with PvE in mind. Trying to get it to work in a PvP setting has always involved compromises. Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
In fact, any time a developer tries to put PvE and PvP together, there are compromises to both.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ultima Online and any Korean mmo would beg to differ.
Oh, and FF11 man (playing a Japanese mmo and a beta of FF14, yikes...) does think deeply, to his own agenda.
No. They wouldn't beg to differ.
They are just examples of trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.
Many games have tried that, some with better success than the vast majority of those who tried.
@NishUK I read your post and completely understand what you mean... skimmed through some others after noticing who had replied....the usual rude responses.
...with sympathy, there are a few individuals who may suffer from certain afflictions and are not able to think outside the box due to tunnel vision being a dominate trait of their suspected condition.
I would first have to suggest that the programming of NPCs would need an intelligence boost to properly identify threats and the abilities used in these encounters would have to change so that the boss doesnt just bounce around like a dummy.
Identifying strengths and weaknesses. Contested Stats. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Stats
That would have to be closely looked at and expanded upon, but I doubt it will get to the point where a character with plenty of strength will be able to interact differently with NPCs who also have high strength, when compared to fights with a lower strength Player vs high strength opponent. Like high strength players being able to grapple with their opponent while low strength resort to evasive means, or another stat that can indirectly support an ability to provide comparable opposition...
Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
I'm really intriged on why you believe that, can you elaborate on it or provide an example?
I feel no need to elaborate when literally every MMORPG you could point to supports my statement.
Talk to an MMORPG developer (hell, just ask Steven if you can't find one), they will tell you that combining the two will literally ALWAYS involve compromises.
The developers job is to navigate those compromises, they can't eliminate them.
Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
I'm really intriged on why you believe that, can you elaborate on it or provide an example?
Gonna take a guess and say one reason would be because he's unable to think out of the box and is confined to specific unchanging parameters...such as the approach to PVE combat.
Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
I'm really intriged on why you believe that, can you elaborate on it or provide an example?
Gonna take a guess and say one reason would be because he's unable to think out of the box and is confined to specific unchanging parameters...such as the approach to PVE combat.
You realize that my response to the post you are "taking a guess" on what my answer would be was posted half an hour before your "guess" as to what my response would be, right?
I go out of my way on these forums to be fairly vague. The reason for this is people like you (there are about a dozen or so people that are like this).
Such people are so adamant to be against what ever it is that I say that no matter how reasonable an opinion I hold on a matter, they feel an absolute need to oppose it. I can state an outright fact (such as combining PvP and PvE requiring compromises in both areas) and they will argue against that blatant fact.
Honestly, ask Steven in the next QA if combining PvE and PvP together involves compromises. He will give some PR answer about how they are trying to lessen those compromises, but of course there will have to be some, there will always have to be some.
Then when he has said that, be absolutely sure to come back and apologize for being a dick.
Comments
Maybe it's the culture difference, class/job like witcher won't be like in the video, our witcher will pretend he is charmed by the evil and kill it without hesitate.
I'm good with both holy trinity tank or a reinvent tank, just if want reinvent tank maybe it should start think from monsters perspective to complete the new tank concept, that's it.
But result is obvious at least to me. Holy trinity still powerful in this time, the entrance is lower than other reinvent tank concepts. Like you said 'I also do not want smarter NPCs because that would cause the traditional PvE tank behavior (of attracting the hits) to fall apart.', boss/monsters fights to be dynamic and unstable is ok to me in a certain degree which means it's not a chaos and unable to control the fight. I also knew that people prefer a stable tanking experience, me too. But sometimes I feel the stable tanking experience kills the fun of boss fight and burns out boss fight design ideas too fast.
'What happens with the tank in PvP then? Is it still useful as a tank?', tank is a controller/defender then dps in my fantasy, less damage than dps classes but high control abilities(not stun and immobilized), I won't say it will work because it's just my imaginations.
I think this discuss won't go anywhere after reading other posts, so this will be my last post, thanks for your reply.
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
The tanking mentality has to shift from being the one getting hit to being the one preventing others being hit.
Yeah, I know, strictly speaking, if all the hits land on you others don't get it, but that's a PvE gimmick that doesn't fool other players.
I doesn't matter if you generate threat or not (from NPCs and players) so long as you can keep protecting others. The longer you're ignored the longer you can protect. No need being hit.
Well, maybe unless you're named Darkness...
The counter to that is to have multiple significant threats for the group to deal with, rather than just one big boss.
All that being said, one of the things I loved about the StoryBricks design was having individual mobs with "emotional" states that would decide who they wish to attack most. So, it's not always who is dealing the most damage or who is healing the most. Individual mobs might have an irrational hatred for all males or all Py'Rai or all Bards or for the person who has a specific resource or relic in their backpack. Could be a hatred for a specific type of mount or pack mule.
But... seems like AI still has not yet become robust enough to easily program that.
It's not really even a shield.
The concept of a tank is a heavily armored fighter with tons of xp to soak damage.
And deal enough in-your-face damage to hold the attention of the group's primary target.
That is certainly a very good PvE strategy that doesn't necessarily work well in PvP.
I'm not a PvP fan, so, I could easily be wrong, but...
It really falls on Crowd Control to fend off a group's primary target in PvP.
Blind, Fear, Snare, Root, Knock Downs... it's probably not going to be the role of a tank in PvP.
RPGs are not really designed for PvP, so....
I have programmed that. I programmed that YEARS ago. It isn't actually 'AI' at all, but I've ALSO made the 'AI' version (it doesn't work because most of what people call AI in games doesn't actually function without a preprogrammed base, given how AI works - to be clear, the thing you are suggesting is not 'AI' and no amount of 'AI' robustness would properly lead to it)
Then I didn't stick with it, because my test players abused it, just the way they would abuse it if Intrepid coded it today.
This is STILL part of the design of the hate mechanics in games I make, but it's also still not the primary/best one.
The mob is supposed to care HOW you hurt it, maybe how you hurt its friends, perhaps 'action types you take', but all your current examples are 'innates' (unless you're going to drop the resource or trade it around mid-battle, it's an innate).
I definitely understand that for many people, they have a specific concept of what Tank is and how it is defined based on their past experiences or desires and will come to say 'this is what it is', but since I don't have that experience and 'Tank' to me is mechanically 'does this', with a tendency for the character type you describe to be good at it, then I think others are the ones being restrictive, and what you're being restrictive to is PvE mob design.
In order for the 'heavily armored fighter' to be the Tank to the point where Steven gets to name the whole Archetype Tank and claim that they will be able to perform that role in most content, then PvE would have to revolve almost exclusively around that.
But we've got a reference from the wiki.
Tanks will have different build options:[3]
Evasion tanks
Control tanks
Shield tanks
Maybe the related link no longer applies since it was Jeff speaking (you can barely even hear that he says Evasion Tank).
But I suppose I can't prove that when someone says 'Evasion Tank' they don't mean 'light armor distraction with a small chance of being hit by mechanics and basic attacks due to this, not actually standing around to take hits at all'.
Either way, as usual, I would be remiss in my duty to those who 'ask me to be here' if I did not point out that your perception of 'Game AI' is incorrect (more in the realm of 'not even informed enough to be wrong')
Having multiple significant threats does not change the situation either. Part of the difficulty of converting a TableTop game mechanic to a live MMO one is the capacity for players to move 'faster than the system' in terms of timing, the granularity of 'turns' and 'initiative' causes this to stop working.
Source: me, having poked at synchronizing the two in Cardinal for many years now.
But that's all I got, so technically, please ignore me, I make these posts not so much for you, but for the failing hopes of a desperate few...
Ok, so you are against basic principles of the universe then, and expect game developers to somehow - magically - develop their game around them.
The fact is, the more people present, the more you need to specialize. This isn't a gaming thing, it isn't a developer thing, it is just a thing.
Look at bees, they do it. As do all hive animals. The more of them there are, the more each one focuses on a specific part of what is needed.
In order for a game developer to make a group of 40 players that have not specialized able to function on the same level as 40 players that have, each player in that first 40 would by necessity need to be significantly over powered. This is because that unorganized 40 players would - literally without any doubt - have large amounts of double up, where as the organized 40 players have none.
So, how is it you propose developers get around this? The organized players have simply looked at everything that is available to them, taken the defense, healing and utility they need, and put everything else in to offense. Since the most efficient means of maintaining defense and healing is to have one player take all the hits and thus concentrating almost all of the healing on them. This is just how organized players WILL organize things. Hell, I've seen games where the highest defense, highest hate class was a bard - so the bard became the tank.
I really don't get what it is you are arguing for here. Your argument here seems to be against basic math.
Fact is, a tank in small group content is responsible for pulling, for holding attention of encounters, for ensuring the group isn't surprised by wanderers, for reducing the amount of incoming damage received by the group as a whole (mostly by reducing the amount of damage they take, as they are taking most of the damage), for intercepting any adds, should they happen, for positioning the target mob in a manner that allows others to best do their job and for dealing an amount of damage.
As you move up to larger and larger sized groups and raids, other players take over some of those responsibilities, leaving the tank hyper-focused on holding attention and minimizing damage.
It just is how the universe is.
The only valid argument I can even imagine here is in regards to some players seeing top end tank specs that are hyper specialized, and simply assuming that is the best tank spec for all content (it must be right? If they are able to take on top end content with it, surely I can take on mid tier content with it!). At this point, you are basically just arguing that some players in MMO's are stupid, and will copy other players specs without thinking about what is best for them, or what their role is supposed to be.
This is an argument I would agree with, if it were the argument you were making.
Edit to add, the end of your post there seems to be calling for eliminating player choice in regards to character build.
Do you - perhaps - want to reiterate what it is you are saying there, or are you actually saying that you do not think players should have any say in their character build other than class choice?
Tank, in Ashes is just as useful a descriptor as Fighter or Mage.
In Ashes... everyone is a fighter and everyone is a mage.
Tank is descriptive enough and also not restricted to its denotative meaning.
This kind of thing doesnt need AI, or a third party tool like StoryBricks.
All you need to do is program in variables to hate gain. Make it so that some mobs have +100% hate gain for a specific race, and you achieve that same end result.
This mechanic has been in games for decades.
(sideshow bob grumbles)
The lack of grasp from my venting over the Tank and PvE situation infact showcases your lack of experience in mmorpg's which incorperate both PvE and PvP.
ofc a good post (if we're basing things off of the average dev work) that highlights, in a typical fashion the glaring weaknesses of when devs implement challenging or heavy stat PvE and when players are left with the devices they have at their disposal which could very well be without an official tank or an offical anything for that matter.
Accessibilty is a most important factor in the name of the game and that's why the likes of WoW and FF14 captured the hearts of the many as opposed to the vaguely drawn out path, hard and harsh rules of usually more contest focused mmorpg's that captured the hearts of the fewer, those with enough time and who craved knowledge, power and status.
(I go on...) The popular games leaning on either side of these extremes employed the Trinity system, the accessibilty/(easier to formulate a strategy with the class system) era had begun, definetly apparent from 2004 BUT the PvE factors that were implemented were argueably the biggest factors in their differences although lets not forget a second that Archeage and Lineage 2 especially had some very spammy healing mechanics and passive anti casting interuption buffs (+classes vamping back HP) that could also make a key difference but lets talk about targetting and gameplay choices in general based off of what you said...
"In a good game threat values need to approximate the sanest attack strategy for monsters"
So in a "good game", a monster always weighs up X (threat attackers have generated) roughly and applies Y (their attack) in relation to Z (their attack speed/recovery)? The "good game" has already been decided from the looks, best to label all talks of innovation and improvement "toxic" and adhere to the old faithful. Let's also weigh up the accessibility factor, my name is John, the healer and I've already concluded based off my classes instructions that wearing Robes provides me with more mana/recovery/casting speed yada yada and based off the games conditions, when I get hit I get HIT, so someone else better front up or I'm packing my bags and leaving this trashy ass game....PFFT "wear plate?" SAYONARA!
I don't blame John and I don't blame other classes wanting to maxmise their potential and its more fun to do so especially when most PvE elements of any mmorpg are as bleak as "we just came here to earn xp/loot" but my venting was not about changing the system but improving it, heightening the gameplay so that things can get more interesting and everyones many stats and niches can be further utilized.
digest this if you will:
Targetting using the threat system but with added variables/rng via using a "sense of fear" system and challenging the uses MEN (mentality) stat.
John is in the back performing his job but he has had very litte interaction or none with the monster and as a result there is an accumulating sense of fear from the monster getting battered by the party as a whole and this as an example can decide whether that evil creature decides to pursue a different strategy and dash away from the Tank and feast on a potentially vunerable target.
There's more, if we take the dodge mechanic as an example this is an often very unrewarding action in general PvE, instead we can promote such mechanics with a splash of flavoring IE the healer can perform the dodge action and upon immediately landing in a kneeled position extend their hand to extract the monsters life essence, aiding as an example in MP recovery or more (and afterwards incidently the Tank is gushing with deilght in using his chains to get that creature back in the fold!). If you provide people with a further incentive for mechanics you not only promote a further sense of growth, achievement and enjoyment but additionally more mechanics they can take with them when PvP comes there way which has ALWAYS been a drast contrast in fighting.
If you also take the example I've used in this post within the thread, the community will also learn a further appreciation and acceptance for class combo's out of the normal and optimal (ie things like DD main and Tank sub or Healer main and DD sub. "Tank+Tank/DD+DD is the only real tank/dd!" ).
There are games that already do this. They are not necessarily common nor recent. By some standards they are not 'good'. By some people's standards who I have argued with in the past, they are 'not good' BECAUSE they don't do the 'standard Tank' thing.
The games I am talking about generally have a similar design form to Ashes. Freedom of weapon choice, decent to high flexibility in build choices depending on the game, and the part we don't have confirmed from Ashes yet, complex threat/hate mechanics that go a bit beyond 'hey you did a Taunt so it says you have the mob's attention now'.
FFXI has complex threat mechanics that, in aggregate, make sure that for many fights, you can't 'just tank', and it has a group PvP activity where Tanks continue to tank more or less correctly, and this is a Tab Targeted Stat based early 2000s game.
Onigiri is an instanced-dungeon heavy MMORPG with weapon swapping and very little gear of note to speak of where tanking is similar to Monster Hunter and based on buffs and positioning, but there's almost certainly a hate/threat meter in that game, it's just good enough that only two bosses are susceptible to 'obviously cheesing it'.
That's why I say that it just seems weird/as if you lacked experiences. You're describing something passionately, and I 'already play this game' and I just 'want a new similar game'. I will gladly join your 'side' if this becomes a point of contention within community feedback/at Intrepid.
But so far, it doesn't seem to be.
Nearly everyone seems to share your opinion, so if Intrepid just makes a new version of what I already play, none of these concerns are relevant.
It ends up LOOKING like you just 'don't think these games exist so you want Intrepid to try something new or think outside the box'. But they do exist. I'm here because I know that Ashes actually has had at least some minor inspiration from them, and if you wanted to take 'the best part of each MMO', I think nearly everyone agrees that L2 and Archeage are not where to look for PvE of 'ye olde Era' so WoW, FFXI and EQ2 would probably have been the targets for that.
But as of now you're basically 'complaining that you want something to be done better' based on what MIGHT be your imagined interpretation of what it means when just the TERM is used, and technically perpetuating it and wasting your own time.
Nothing more to say to someone who holds fake facts based off of what I actually said, it's nothing but insulting and you refuse to think deeply enough and hold onto what you conceive from past experiences as already good systems that need no changing and anyone who doesn't like them "doesn't understand".
Nothing but a weakness and a lack of imagination and creativity, the fact you could gloss over my reply and give what you believe to be a good answer in an incredibly small fraction of time proves that.
Ok I think the mods won't fault me for this one.
What the FUCK are you even talking about?
You gave me the shitty Mag7 tier answer, why would you want a specific and direct breakdown of your entire reply from ME of all people? Are you just trolling me?
Or are you doubly proving my point? Do you believe that your examples are hard to comprehend? Or is it that you're asking for something 'so far beyond your examples that it would be unreasonable to ask you to put it all into one forum post'? Cause I would totally understand that.
Are you just projecting? Because that's all I can see here. In my magnanimous arrogance I'm willing to overlook this non-answer and engage with you if you try again.
EDIT: And since I've been (quite successfully if intentional) trolled either by Nish or myself, I'm finally 'callin' in the squad' if the answer I get matches my Nish model.
In the meantime enjoy the description of a fight where we change tank between a Monk, Dark Knight and Healer while shifting around the responsibilities and sometimes order based on what day it is in game.
In my experience, tanks in PvP environments are heavily dependent on the situation, which is very far from PvE where tanks are nearly always useful no matter what.
In LoL for example, tanks are used in a couple different ways. First, they are sent into bushes and fog of war to check for ambushes. This provides 2 benefits - They can absorb some initial hits from the ambush, and stand in the bushes for a longer time providing sight for their teammates who are safely out of range.
The second good use for tanks is to body-block line skillshots. There are quite a few champions in the game that rely on having direct line of sight of their target, and if a big beefy tank is standing in the way, they can't do anything.
Of course, these uses for the tanks only work because of how the game is designed. None of this really translates well to Ashes. Yes there will be spell collision but without the narrow corridors that you find in LoL, I don't know how much use that will be for a tank.
So then, it comes back to the problem of how do you make tanks useful in large open areas without some kind of threat mechanic?
I don't need to try again and you've completely lost all my respect.
Your first post into this thread was a pretty negative opinion because it wasn't addressing my topic specifically and more addressing any changes to the fundamental trinity/class system or lack of spurs players on to fill those gaps and any changes to it whatsoever are fruitless.
If you simply address my concerns and read what I've said in a properly I'm willing, perhaps to overlook the way you've conducted yourself.
Alrighty, exactly as modeled.
Tanks a bunch.
EDIT: I am a Healer in FFXI. I wear this at the level 40 tier. I do not own other level 40 Tier gear because why would I when I have the glory of
For comparison the equivalent body piece for the 'Heavy Armor' classes.
Just more bonus stuff so that my posts don't end up being snarky pointlessness. I've learned from the past!
Now hold on just a sec here... I really need to know what manner of sad MMOs you've played that made YOU specifically think dodge is unrewarding in PvE. I think dodge is fun, I think it's rewarding and I've done and seen ridiculous uses of it in games. So depending on your answer here, it might simply mean you're not qualified to suggest improving things because this is sounding grim.
The rest of this segment is just flashy animation not mechanics, no issue with Intrepid doing that, their work on the Ranger animation is great, I am talking about the mechanic of dodge. 'Extracting life essence as a healer' is already implemented in Ashes I think, someone will surely correct me if wrong.
I don't want to make my post unnecessarily long so yeah, just that: why do you think dodge is unrewarding?
When I said "general pve" I'm specifically talking about non boss or non elite monster pve.
In games such as BDO you'd be a fool to say dodge isn't a rewarding enough mechanic in an open world boss fight or against a cyclops as you avoid huge damage and cc but in grind or many monster scenerio's where you often employ a functional group it isn't generally rewarding because the potential damage and interuptions from mistakes aren't enough to disrupt how functional your group is as a whole and can often be rectified although countless mistakes and a seasoned group might will be looking to replace you.
I'm talking about improving general PvE and improving mechnical reward more so as to not ever, for instance, find your healer in such a comfortable state with ideal gear and more bells and cherries, not bothering to use dodge because losing only 1/20th of your HP a couple of times from a few hits is insignifcant.
Yes I believe the healer does have some attack orientated abilities of that nature planned in Ashe's although I'm sure it is not connected to a bonus based solely off of a defensive reaction and close distance and it's just a skill to employ at your leisure at a relatively ranged distance and will likely gift an "ok and balanced" portion of hp/mp in a typical skill rotation in quite standard PvE we've seen from the past.
"Guess what?! It doesn't fit well!!..." Duh!
Tanks will be useful enough in PvP. The "threat" mechanics they use in PvP will be CC Active Skills, like Javelin. The best Tanks will probably have (Secondary Archetype) augments that maximize their CC.
And they will probably also use whatever CC they can find from Social Org, Racial and Religion augments.
Dodge is fun and rewarding in PvE in MMORPGs with action combat - as long as the action doesn't get super-crazy like it could in Wildstar.
CC is a fun an interactive mechanic in comparison to a very systematic threat system that almost ensures a winning strategy right from the bat although I must say I have no problem with threat in an mmorpg as long as it helps to heighten gameplay and strategy and not slam the book shut on it ("Tank has taunted the target/s, kill, done, lets move on!").
Imagine a scenerio of a party in the open desert, armored lizards appear from the surface and poise their attack as a unit very close to the party, the wizard in party summons and channels a whirlwind, all of them are bunched together and the Tank employs a cool chain skill and sandwiches them together and follows up with that and most stragglers who break from the chains are met with an additional chain from a distance but perhaps this one can be dependant on rng/mobs skill action and nerfed due to a worthy aoe chain skill still in effect to most of the armored lizard group.
I'd like to discuss further how LoL incorperates great and involving gameplay for all roles involved but I'll leave it at that for now.
Ultima Online and any Korean mmo would beg to differ.
Oh, and FF11 man (playing a Japanese mmo and a beta of FF14, yikes...) does think deeply, to his own agenda.
The trinity system was designed purely with PvE in mind. Trying to get it to work in a PvP setting has always involved compromises. Everything a developer does to make the trinity system work better for PvP means that it works worse for PvE.
In fact, any time a developer tries to put PvE and PvP together, there are compromises to both.
They are just examples of trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.
Many games have tried that, some with better success than the vast majority of those who tried.
I'm really intriged on why you believe that, can you elaborate on it or provide an example?
Aren't we all sinners?
...with sympathy, there are a few individuals who may suffer from certain afflictions and are not able to think outside the box due to tunnel vision being a dominate trait of their suspected condition.
I would first have to suggest that the programming of NPCs would need an intelligence boost to properly identify threats and the abilities used in these encounters would have to change so that the boss doesnt just bounce around like a dummy.
Identifying strengths and weaknesses. Contested Stats. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Stats
That would have to be closely looked at and expanded upon, but I doubt it will get to the point where a character with plenty of strength will be able to interact differently with NPCs who also have high strength, when compared to fights with a lower strength Player vs high strength opponent. Like high strength players being able to grapple with their opponent while low strength resort to evasive means, or another stat that can indirectly support an ability to provide comparable opposition...
I feel no need to elaborate when literally every MMORPG you could point to supports my statement.
Talk to an MMORPG developer (hell, just ask Steven if you can't find one), they will tell you that combining the two will literally ALWAYS involve compromises.
The developers job is to navigate those compromises, they can't eliminate them.
Gonna take a guess and say one reason would be because he's unable to think out of the box and is confined to specific unchanging parameters...such as the approach to PVE combat.
You realize that my response to the post you are "taking a guess" on what my answer would be was posted half an hour before your "guess" as to what my response would be, right?
I go out of my way on these forums to be fairly vague. The reason for this is people like you (there are about a dozen or so people that are like this).
Such people are so adamant to be against what ever it is that I say that no matter how reasonable an opinion I hold on a matter, they feel an absolute need to oppose it. I can state an outright fact (such as combining PvP and PvE requiring compromises in both areas) and they will argue against that blatant fact.
Honestly, ask Steven in the next QA if combining PvE and PvP together involves compromises. He will give some PR answer about how they are trying to lessen those compromises, but of course there will have to be some, there will always have to be some.
Then when he has said that, be absolutely sure to come back and apologize for being a dick.