Aggro/Threat mechanics don't work in PvX

MMORPG's have traditionally used a system of mob AI called Aggro in which a mob will preferentially attack player characters which perform certain actions, primarily that of dealing damage to the mob but later expanded to things like healing friendly characters. This was a simple AI which fit the constraints of early computer processor cycles while producing mob behavior which was better than the most primitive system of just attacking the nearest target or most recent attacker. Such simplistic AI would have allowed trivially easy control of what character a mob attacked making for dull and unchallenging PvE.

Under aggro systems Tanking classes were given special skills which move them up the mob priority list despite a low damage output from the Tank. In essence they break the otherwise effective AI of a mob and force it into inefficiently attacking the character most resistant to that attack. So long as mobs are balanced around this mechanic the gameplay is reasonably compelling mix of puzzle, timing and teamwork and it makes the Tanks role of being a meat-shield far more skillful and enjoyable then it would otherwise be if it was completely passive.

The problem is that these whole dynamic collapses when the opponent is not an AI but instead another player with full awareness of how the game works and full freedom to attack whomever they wish. And yet Tanking IS a viable class in most PvP games because Tanks are built differently in such games so as to make opposing players either rationally choose to attack the tank rather than another target or allow the Tank to create situations in which opponents have no other option but to attack them thus expending offensive potential inefficiently.

AoC would be far better off replicating Tank design from PvP games such as Overwatch and LoL and pairing them with mob AI's that seek to replicate the rational choices that a human would make in combat that cause them to attack Tanks. This will allow Tank gameplay to be consistent from PvE to PvP.

Well established PvP Tank mechanics include targeted pull effects, silence or other enemy DPS reductions, 'vaulting' into the middle of enemy groupings, increased damage potential when surrounded, projectile shields and movement barriers.

Some new methods which might be explored would be 'blinding' type effects on opponents which allow only nearby characters to be seen and attacked. An effect which leashes a melee opponent to remain within a short distance of the Tank. A damage redirection from nearby allies towards the Tank. I'm sure other skills can be created which provide control of enemy damage which would be effective on both players and AI.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

a target that cant get away.

What is stopping the target getting away?

A taunt

Taunts wouldn't stop you getting away at all.

As I said, you have made some assumptions here.

Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.

How about you instead read what has been suggested?

It's funny, you said the issue is that I refuse to see and understand the other sidfe - you literally can't even repeat what it is I have been telling you.

You are the one the quoted me but i didn't read the entire post I'm skimming through things and looking at things through action combat and how it affects it which is why I'm talking about camera being moved within it as you are taunted.

So if it relates to you than you would be quoting me for a reason.

And what you have told me is about a camera being forcefully moved, which again is terrible.

The only camera movement that has been suggested as a possiblity is camera spin in action combat (as a possibility).

Even then, in action combat your camera being spun does not move your character. You will be able to move independently of the direction your camera is facing.

Literally no one has suggested anything to do with character movement.

As an aside - if all you are willing to do is skim read a post, perhaps dont suggest other people refuse to see and understand the other side.

You skim reading posts is literally you not trying to even comprehend what the other side is.

You do this exact same thing in far too many threads. You are tiring to deal with, honestly.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

a target that cant get away.

What is stopping the target getting away?

A taunt

Taunts wouldn't stop you getting away at all.

As I said, you have made some assumptions here.

Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.

How about you instead read what has been suggested?

It's funny, you said the issue is that I refuse to see and understand the other sidfe - you literally can't even repeat what it is I have been telling you.

You are the one the quoted me but i didn't read the entire post I'm skimming through things and looking at things through action combat and how it affects it which is why I'm talking about camera being moved within it as you are taunted.

So if it relates to you than you would be quoting me for a reason.

And what you have told me is about a camera being forcefully moved, which again is terrible.

The only camera movement that has been suggested as a possiblity is camera spin in action combat (as a possibility).

Even then, in action combat your camera being spun does not move your character. You will be able to move independently of the direction your camera is facing.

Literally no one has suggested anything to do with character movement.

As an aside - if all you are willing to do is skim read a post, perhaps dont suggest other people refuse to see and understand the other side.

You skim reading posts is literally you not trying to even comprehend what the other side is.

You do this exact same thing in far too many threads. You are tiring to deal with, honestly.

So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.

YEs i didn't quote anyone i skimmed and said my view point and you wanted to go against it and then try to argue with me. You literrialy just said

The only camera movement that has been suggested as a possiblity is camera spin in action combat (as a possibility).

This is exactly what I'm saying will be bad. The taunt doesn't move your character to them that is good, still doesn't change the issue that you are suggesting for game play which is camera flipping during fights.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.

If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.

So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.

You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.

JamesSunderland

Forced Target acquisition is definitely the best taunt functionality for mainly Tab Target PvP MMORPGs like L2.
I dislike the idea of locking/spinning the camera(in the tanks direction) as a taunt fuctionality against Action skills as it doesn't necessarily deter the player from still damaging your allies with properly positioned AoEs.

In a game like Ashes where we will theorically be able to either go 75% tab skill or 75% action skills, i see the necessity of including a damage reduction debuff(general or excluding the taunt user) in the taunt alongside the forced target acquisition like it is present in ArcheAge even tho classes in ArcheAge would have around ~50% action skills.

Here are the taunts present in ArcheAge as examples:

Both forcing target acquisition for 4 seconds(Provoke) and having a debuff that helps tanking(Shaken/Distressed) with a separate duration on top of it.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.

If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.

So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.

You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.

Doesn't matter what the core was, that is the type of stuff my comment is related to be it coming up or not. And clearly it did. If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.

I've read every word you have written in this thread (I'm sure my IQ is lower as a result).

The problem is, you often make no sense. Any time I attmpt to try and get clarification as to what it is you are saying, instead of just clarifying, you start up some tangent about some random thing.

SunScript

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.

If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.

So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.

You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.

Doesn't matter what the core was, that is the type of stuff my comment is related to be it coming up or not. And clearly it did. If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.

Clarity isn't something YOU get to unilaterally decide about your posts. Your readers decide if you're being clear and then they tell you if you're not. And then you get to decide whether it's worth it for you to try and be clear, or whether you are capable. Which it seems you've decided you're not.

For whatever it's worth, you're not clear to me either.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.

I've read every word you have written in this thread (I'm sure my IQ is lower as a result).

The problem is, you often make no sense. Any time I attmpt to try and get clarification as to what it is you are saying, instead of just clarifying, you start up some tangent about some random thing.

You should be the one clarifying (also making me lose IQ) You are the one responding to my post so you should be well aware of what I'm talking about or should further ask more questions so you can understand. Though the pattern is you don't really ask questions you make assumptions.

Instantly your first response talking about camera movement should have made it clear what I'm against.

Mag7spy

SunScript wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.

If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.

So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.

You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.

Doesn't matter what the core was, that is the type of stuff my comment is related to be it coming up or not. And clearly it did. If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.

Clarity isn't something YOU get to unilaterally decide about your posts. Your readers decide if you're being clear and then they tell you if you're not. And then you get to decide whether it's worth it for you to try and be clear, or whether you are capable. Which it seems you've decided you're not.

For whatever it's worth, you're not clear to me either.

What is not clear about this post with what I'm saying.

No one wants to play a game having their camera spun around every second from aoes taunts everywhere. If you are one of the few that are fine having someone affect you camera direction every second do not assume that is the majority

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

You should be the one clarifying]

Why would I clarify when you aren't even reading the post in the first place?

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

What is not clear about this post with what I'm saying.

No one wants to play a game having their camera spun around every second from aoes taunts everywhere. If you are one of the few that are fine having someone affect you camera direction every second do not assume that is the majority

The part that isn't clear is that you are saying no one wants a thing that no one has said could happen.

Let's imagine that taunts are added to the game where the taunt value of the ability dictates the duration of the forced target in PvP. If you are taunted, you can't then be taunted by another tank. If that taunt wears off, you would gain an immunity to taunt for at least a few seconds.

In reality, this means you are not going to be taunted more than once every 8 - 10 seconds or so - and that is the actual worst case scenario.

The problem is, you are too busy yelling and screaming (in text form) actual nonsense that makes no sense (hense nonsense). When you are doing this, people can't get to the root of the misunderstanding that you have made (which is the case literally every time), because you are too busy screaming that we aren't listening to you.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You should be the one clarifying]

Why would I clarify when you aren't even reading the post in the first place?

I've told you I'm not skimming when I'm quoting. Or are you not doing basic reading now as you quote?

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You should be the one clarifying]

Why would I clarify when you aren't even reading the post in the first place?

I've told you I'm not skimming when I'm quoting. Or are you not doing basic reading now as you quote?

Yeah, but that was a lie.

I mean, even if it wasn't, ideas are not contained wihtin one post most of the time. You may skim read a few things then get to one post that you want to reply to.Even if you did read that entire post, you aren't reading the entire conversation.

As such, you are not informing yourself before you speak.

if you arent reading the whole discussion, you can't demand others inform you of the things you have missed - that is assuming you are even capable of articulating which aspects you need clarification on (I've yet to see this - you just start yelling).

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You should be the one clarifying]

Why would I clarify when you aren't even reading the post in the first place?

I've told you I'm not skimming when I'm quoting. Or are you not doing basic reading now as you quote?

Yeah, but that was a lie.

I mean, even if it wasn't, ideas are not contained wihtin one post most of the time. You may skim read a few things then get to one post that you want to reply to.Even if you did read that entire post, you aren't reading the entire conversation.

As such, you are not informing yourself before you speak.

if you arent reading the whole discussion, you can't demand others inform you of the things you have missed - that is assuming you are even capable of articulating which aspects you need clarification on (I've yet to see this - you just start yelling).

Imagine jumping on here to try to argue what someone is thinking and keep doing it to derail a thread.

The only lie here is you trying to force your thinking on someone else and try hard to put words in some ones mouth.

No one needs to read a whole discussion to have their own view point, the moment you decided to quote me we are talking about the camera being forcefully not other points in the thread as was the disccusion that was brought up in your reply.

If you want to talk about the rest of the thread do it with the others that are talking about it, if you are going to quote me on a certain point with what I'm talking about, expect that to be the conversation not the rest of the thread.

All you needed to do was stick to talking about camera and me being against anything that can affect it in a strong negative way in terms of action camera.

Why is it so hard for you to understand, i thought you were more capable than that...

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

No one needs to read a whole discussion to have their own view point

Indeed - if you are happy having an uninformed opinion on the matter, sure.

The thing is, if you aren't going out of your way to inform your own opinion, you shouldn't really argue that opinion against people that have gone out of their way to inform themselves.

If you are entering a debate with an uninformed opinion and others in said debate have an informed opinion, you should be taking part in that debate with the actual expectation that your opinion will be changed. In fact, that is the only reason you should enter such a debate - in order to have your uninformed opinion challenged.

Some people here think that I do exactly what I said not to do above. Thing is, I dont enter debates (or even discussions, really) unless I am already somewhat informed on the topic. Additionally, if I am going to debate a topic, I commit to learning more about it.

An example of each over the last few years have been the fact that I initially hated the idea of PvE cage fights. NiKr was the person that first told me about them, and at first I thought they sounded stupid. However, I listened to what he had to say about them, questioned him on a few things, and now I think they would be a great addition to any MMO with open world PvP and PvE together.

In terms of committing to learning, ever since I started debating the merits of solid PvE within a game like Ashes, I've committed myself to learning more about L2 specifically (and a little more about BDO as well), since they are games that often come up.

While I wouldnt say I am an expert on either (I know more about BDO thiugh, as I played it for a good while), I at least went out and learned about it so I am at least a little informed when debating or discussing.

All you needed to do was stick to talking about camera and me being against anything that can affect it in a strong negative way in terms of action camera.

I mean, I'd love to, but you need to do the same.

What you have done in this thread is stated your stance, but then refused to clarify anything at all about it. I mean, we get it, you are against the idea, you think its clunky and you dont want to have tour camera spin every second. Cool, that much is clear.

What you havent done is explained why you think any of the above.

I mean, as I pointed out in an above post, the absolute worst case scenario is that you would be taunted once every 8 - 10 seconds - but that is assuming you are in a bad situation and are not trying to get yourself out of it.

You've not bothered to comment on that at all - choosing instead to accuse me of derailing the thread, despite me having just handed you a blatantly clear means by which to further the discussion.

I'm waiting for you to say "I didnt see that post" because or course you didnt, you don't think you need to read in order to participate in a forum discussion.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

No one needs to read a whole discussion to have their own view point

Indeed - if you are happy having an uninformed opinion on the matter, sure.

The thing is, if you aren't going out of your way to inform your own opinion, you shouldn't really argue that opinion against people that have gone out of their way to inform themselves.

If you are entering a debate with an uninformed opinion and others in said debate have an informed opinion, you should be taking part in that debate with the actual expectation that your opinion will be changed. In fact, that is the only reason you should enter such a debate - in order to have your uninformed opinion challenged.

Some people here think that I do exactly what I said not to do above. Thing is, I dont enter debates (or even discussions, really) unless I am already somewhat informed on the topic. Additionally, if I am going to debate a topic, I commit to learning more about it.

An example of each over the last few years have been the fact that I initially hated the idea of PvE cage fights. NiKr was the person that first told me about them, and at first I thought they sounded stupid. However, I listened to what he had to say about them, questioned him on a few things, and now I think they would be a great addition to any MMO with open world PvP and PvE together.

In terms of committing to learning, ever since I started debating the merits of solid PvE within a game like Ashes, I've committed myself to learning more about L2 specifically (and a little more about BDO as well), since they are games that often come up.

While I wouldnt say I am an expert on either (I know more about BDO thiugh, as I played it for a good while), I at least went out and learned about it so I am at least a little informed when debating or discussing.

All you needed to do was stick to talking about camera and me being against anything that can affect it in a strong negative way in terms of action camera.

I mean, I'd love to, but you need to do the same.

What you have done in this thread is stated your stance, but then refused to clarify anything at all about it. I mean, we get it, you are against the idea, you think its clunky and you dont want to have tour camera spin every second. Cool, that much is clear.

What you havent done is explained why you think any of the above.

I mean, as I pointed out in an above post, the absolute worst case scenario is that you would be taunted once every 8 - 10 seconds - but that is assuming you are in a bad situation and are not trying to get yourself out of it.

You've not bothered to comment on that at all - choosing instead to accuse me of derailing the thread, despite me having just handed you a blatantly clear means by which to further the discussion.

I'm waiting for you to say "I didnt see that post" because or course you didnt, you don't think you need to read in order to participate in a forum discussion.

I think you really need to go back over your post that started this conversation and really take a second look at what you are saying. You disregard my post as a bad take when i outline cam being moved around is clunky in effects and disorientating in combat when you have wars with a crap ton of people around.

Instead of talking about the exact points u change the entire direction of the conversation the devs are going to do it right and not put broken things in the game. "I agree devs will do a good job and your idea is very consumer based and devs would not implement something that would make action based camera worse.

This has nothing to do with being uninformed you are straight up just being ignorant and disregarding concerns and not attempting to understand the concern. Or talk about how a feature like that would not be a issue. Instead you beat around the bush saying things that don't get us anywhere and the most obvious things. Another example "CC is a bad thing if it is done in excess" everyone is aware of that and it doesn't change the experience being ruined losing control of your camera....

If you want more exact details on my train of thought, instead of arguing, being passive aggressive, putting words in my mouth ask on the exact certain points with questions so you can be better informed and lead to a proper discussion. You are the one quoting, not the other way around that started this.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

. You disregard my post as a bad take when i outline cam being moved around is clunky in effects and disorientating in combat when you have wars with a crap ton of people around.

How many people are around has no impact at all on this discussion.

How often you can be taunted however, does.

If you can only be taunted once every 10 seconds or so, why would it matter if there is only one other person around or 100 other people around?

Now, if you think it does indeed matter, you need to explain why you think it matters.

This has nothing to do with being uninformed you are straight up just being ignorant and disregarding concerns and not attempting to understand the concern

In order for me to be able to disregard your concerns, you would first need to communicate what they actually are.

So far, you havent done that. The above portion of this post is my THIRD attempt to get you to move this conversation on by explaining why you think the above is an issue.

The way you have worded your objections makes it seem like players would be able to bounce a rivals camera around essentially at will - yet that would clearly not be possible. However, rather than assuming you think that, I have been trying to get you to clear it up

In terms of putting words in people mouths, you are the one that rewrote a point that I made, altering words key to portraying the meaning and then demanded I answer yes or no to your rewrite. That is putting words in someones mouth.

What I am doing is simply pointing out where there may be a disconnect, and asking you to explain what you mean, using as many or as few of your own words as you like.

Literally the opposite of putting words in your mouth - I am trying to get you to speak for yourself.

KingDDD

Tanks should fill a variety of roles in pvp while still having the minimum viably necessary tools for pve;. I'd like to see different tank specs have the ability too initiate fights, mitigate damage, setup cc for kills, group utility like aoe run speed increase, physical battle field control, counter initiation, damage reflection/punishment, etc. Each of these can take many forms and doesn't necessarily mean you character has the classic high armor/high health pool/low move speed of yesteryears tanks.

Ashes should think about how fights evolve and what the specific roles in those fights look like as the fights themselves shift.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

. You disregard my post as a bad take when i outline cam being moved around is clunky in effects and disorientating in combat when you have wars with a crap ton of people around.

How many people are around has no impact at all on this discussion.

How often you can be taunted however, does.

If you can only be taunted once every 10 seconds or so, why would it matter if there is only one other person around or 100 other people around?

Now, if you think it does indeed matter, you need to explain why you think it matters.

This has nothing to do with being uninformed you are straight up just being ignorant and disregarding concerns and not attempting to understand the concern

In order for me to be able to disregard your concerns, you would first need to communicate what they actually are.

So far, you havent done that. The above portion of this post is my THIRD attempt to get you to move this conversation on by explaining why you think the above is an issue.

The way you have worded your objections makes it seem like players would be able to bounce a rivals camera around essentially at will - yet that would clearly not be possible. However, rather than assuming you think that, I have been trying to get you to clear it up

In terms of putting words in people mouths, you are the one that rewrote a point that I made, altering words key to portraying the meaning and then demanded I answer yes or no to your rewrite. That is putting words in someones mouth.

What I am doing is simply pointing out where there may be a disconnect, and asking you to explain what you mean, using as many or as few of your own words as you like.

Literally the opposite of putting words in your mouth - I am trying to get you to speak for yourself.

The more people around the more that can cycle the taunt, to want a taunt to work the same as PvE you have going to have target and aoe taunts. The more people that have skills like that more the often you will be taunted off the protection and more people it will affect in larger wars.

We don't know the balance they are going for with cc protection so the protection could be less that 10 seconds, i view it at being around 5 seconds since 10 seems pretty long to not b cc'd base on having limited amount of skills and the game will have a faster pace so more cc will be needed. But still something we will have to see later on but 10 secs seems like you are trying to stretch it pretty far and doesn't seem realistic.

So again the more people around the more will have their taunts off cooldown and more quickly catch you off your protect timer. As well as be able to taunt more people I'm unsure why you don't see this connection.

I have said this atleast 5 times already but ill repeat again.... if the game is a bit faster pace and you are trying to keep track of a lot of things and focus on combat. Physically having something move your camera suddenly in the middle of the fight and lose control of it adds immensely clunky gameplay. That is one of the worse feelings you can have, sometimes games have it sprinkled in, the only notable one I can think of is smite. Though that kind of thing isn't being spammed on you nor in ever single game as only a few character have it again. In a mmorpg where their are tanks everywhere it is going to be a bad feeling of life dealing with a lack of control at times that will throw people off and make gameplay feel not good.

I'm going to ignore the bottom part of the post so we can just focus on actual meaningful discussion around the taunt and why I feel that does not work with action camera in making things feel bad.

The moment this taunt does not affect or move your camera i have 0 issues.

Kilion

Azherae wrote: »

But the distinction between a Tank and a 'Fighter' is specifically that the Tank is built to take hits and damage. That's what I am talking about in general.

You can absolutely always build a Tank to be a 'CC and debuff menace'. The problem is that you then don't need to make a Tank, you could make a Fighter that does this, and honestly most players would be happier. Nor will the person who tanks in PvE by drawing the attention of the mob and taking hits, actually do any of that.

You don't need to hit the Tank because they're a menace, unless they are the biggest menace. If they are the biggest menace then what you need is more Tanks.

If you have some reason/method to counter the menace of 'Many tanks' we'll be back in the loop. This is precisely the problem that MOBAs have been working on for years. There's nothing 'ineffective' about what you're suggesting, it's that the gameplay doesn't actually work out this way.

Honestly I feel this is half the reason we got all that homogenization in games and discarding the Trinity in class design to begin with. MOBA Tank design is almost nothing like this, it goes right back to the 'Let's make CC Bruisers and call them Tanks', and it's only recently that most games built any true Tanks (again, from the Perspective that you actually need to kill them instead of just treating them as another source of CC that you really need to avoid).

Again, if you're saying 'well that's fine just make them CC Bruisers that's close enough' then I have no problems with this at all, but to me, until the Tank has a reason in PvP to use their personal damage reduction skill and expect it to actually not get ignored, they're not a Tank.

I think I see where we differ on this one. Fighters to me are higher in mobility, higher in damage potential, lower in CC potential, have a bigger range of damage types they can apply, more buff options and lower healthpools, lower resistances and almost no options in regards to taunts and forced attention pulls.

Not everyone likes the parallels made there but I think looking at the differentiation we can for example see in MOBAs between tanks and bruisers, it becomes clearer why one would make these decisions. Bruisers are there to actually take assassin type enemies down fast, tanks are more of a continuous damage source with little damage spike potential. Of course one can discuss whether such a distinction is necessary, but seeing that these two archetypes are part of the game design, I think they are already - as Steven put it - "not up for debate" in the context of this particular game. Let's hope they make both viable, for now I remain cautiously optimistic.

Child Item