Tools for Tanks in small scale group PvP

One of the least fun things to experience as a tank in PvP is simply being a weak damage dealer with insufficient ability to protect your team mates, and watching your entire group being picked one by one. Being the last man standing on the losing team is a pretty bitter pill when you know that if you were a healer or even just a full damage dealer, you could have been on the winning team. Tanks are unique in their PvE trinity role in that the moment you step into PvP territory, the main tool in your arsenal - building threat - stops to function entirely, as it should, removing agency from other players would be worse than tanks being weak in PvP.

There are scenarios where tanks can be quite good in PvP regardless: 1v1, anything objective based (CTF or hold the ground), and large scale PvP (Javelin should do well there), but this is not this threat. This is small scale group PvP (3-8 people per group) where the only objective is to wipe the other team.

One game I think did tanks justice there was Warhammer Online, where all tanks shared the following two abilities:

Guard - which was a stance that transferred portion of the damage taken from a friendly target to the tank. This was plenty strong (though one had to be careful with it since getting aoe cleaved with the target you are guarding could kill you, and fast), and as far as I remember it didn't have a duration limit (though there was a hefty cooldown so you couldn't swap targets at will). Two healers would still be better protection than a tank and a healer, but the tank could still function as a (weak) damage dealer while guarding, which made quite a difference.

Taunt - on top of forcing the enemy NPC to attack the tank, taunt applied a damage output debuff on the target. This debuff didn't apply if the taunted person was attacking the tank, and it would disappear in few hits when the taunted person attacked the tank. This worked quite well in that it didn't force people to attack the tank (no loss of agency), but it heavily incentivized doing so, at least for a couple of seconds.

I'd be quite happy to see one or both of those appear in AoC in some form. If active Taunt is not a thing in AoC, having threat generating skills apply a stacking damage debuff on the target that you can reset by switching targets to the tank for a while could work just as well.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Honshu wrote: »

I'm personally always interested in ways to smooth that jarring gameplay jump from PvE to PvP effects. I don't like "PvE only" effects, because as others have mentioned, it creates a stronger divide between PvE and PvP, which should be avoided in AoC because one of its goals is to draw both types of players into a common world. The fewer gameplay differences there are between those worlds, the more readily and easily players will be able to engage with both sorts of content.

This is exactly my point as well.

It makes no sense from any perspective if a tanks role in PvP is anything other than drawing the attention of the enemy.

I mean,if you have a situation where a group is PvE'ing, and is then attacked by another group, the DPS Carrie's on DPS'ing, the healer Carrie's on healing, the support Carrie's on supporting, what sense does it make at all for the tank to not carry on tanking?

The fact that most other games don't facilitate tanks being able to actually tank in PvP is a mark against those games, not an excuse as to why Ashes should follow suit.

Maezriel

Honshu wrote: »

Honestly, I liked the way Warhammer Online handled it; taunting a player means the tank gets a damage bonus to that player for a short period of time, or until the taunted player hits the tank a couple times. Likewise, I enjoy the notion @Maciej posed; as a Tank attacks a target, he gains a buff that lets him deal more damage to that target; as he is attacked by that target, he loses the buffs that give him extra damage, roughly evening out to no damage bonus as long as the enemy target keeps his full attention on the Tank.

I greatly prefer this idea to the "forced target" one especially in Ashes where the camera seems to be locked right behind your character. If you're forced to target something it could end up whipping your character that way which just sounds more frustrating than fun.

I understand stuns, fears, and similar effects are necessary but I'd far rather buffs and debuffs such as rogues getting a stacking damage multiplier the more backstabs they get on you than a slew of hard CCs b/c I've played a LOT of PvP in games like WoW where you end up having a single trinket and once that's popped you've either won or walked away and honestly it doesn't feel that rewarding to have fights come down to who has the most stuns.

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

Honshu wrote: »

Honestly, I liked the way Warhammer Online handled it; taunting a player means the tank gets a damage bonus to that player for a short period of time, or until the taunted player hits the tank a couple times. Likewise, I enjoy the notion @Maciej posed; as a Tank attacks a target, he gains a buff that lets him deal more damage to that target; as he is attacked by that target, he loses the buffs that give him extra damage, roughly evening out to no damage bonus as long as the enemy target keeps his full attention on the Tank.

I greatly prefer this idea to the "forced target" one especially in Ashes where the camera seems to be locked right behind your character. If you're forced to target something it could end up whipping your character that way which just sounds more frustrating than fun.

I understand stuns, fears, and similar effects are necessary but I'd far rather buffs and debuffs such as rogues getting a stacking damage multiplier the more backstabs they get on you than a slew of hard CCs b/c I've played a LOT of PvP in games like WoW where you end up having a single trinket and once that's popped you've either won or walked away and honestly it doesn't feel that rewarding to have fights come down to who has the most stuns.

So, your arguement basically boils down to "you dont want a thing because you once played a game with a poor implementation of a similar thing".

I dont want a poor implementation of any system in Ashes, and any arguments I put forward are based on the assumption that Intrepid would implement then as well as is possible.

Now, my issue with taunts being a damage buff are that tanks are not there for dealing damage, they are there to control the battlefield, to protect their friends.

As far as I am concerned, anything that doesn't allow tanks to be tanks is not the appropriate thing to give to tanks. Since tanks are tanks, not DPS, giving them something to increase their DPS rather than make them better tanks is a non-starter to me.

Maezriel

Noaani wrote: »

Maezriel wrote: »

Honshu wrote: »

Honestly, I liked the way Warhammer Online handled it; taunting a player means the tank gets a damage bonus to that player for a short period of time, or until the taunted player hits the tank a couple times. Likewise, I enjoy the notion @Maciej posed; as a Tank attacks a target, he gains a buff that lets him deal more damage to that target; as he is attacked by that target, he loses the buffs that give him extra damage, roughly evening out to no damage bonus as long as the enemy target keeps his full attention on the Tank.

I greatly prefer this idea to the "forced target" one especially in Ashes where the camera seems to be locked right behind your character. If you're forced to target something it could end up whipping your character that way which just sounds more frustrating than fun.

I understand stuns, fears, and similar effects are necessary but I'd far rather buffs and debuffs such as rogues getting a stacking damage multiplier the more backstabs they get on you than a slew of hard CCs b/c I've played a LOT of PvP in games like WoW where you end up having a single trinket and once that's popped you've either won or walked away and honestly it doesn't feel that rewarding to have fights come down to who has the most stuns.

So, your arguement basically boils down to "you dont want a thing because you once played a game with a poor implementation of a similar thing".

I dont want a poor implementation of any system in Ashes, and any arguments I put forward are based on the assumption that Intrepid would implement then as well as is possible.

Now, my issue with taunts being a damage buff are that tanks are not there for dealing damage, they are there to control the battlefield, to protect their friends.

As far as I am concerned, anything that doesn't allow tanks to be tanks is not the appropriate thing to give to tanks. Since tanks are tanks, not DPS, giving them something to increase their DPS rather than make them better tanks is a non-starter to me.

I mean, all of our arguments are based on past experiences. I don't want too much hard CC b/c I've played games w/ exactly that and it's just not fun to be stun locked for half a fight. The only real counterplay to stuns is to build for diminishing returns, pop a trinket, or just wait and twiddle your thumbs and I just don't find it fun.

I can understand some but I

Smite actually does it pretty well IMO where you have a good balance of slows, debuffs, and silences that are largely area control effects so smart positioning is a big part of the match.

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Maezriel wrote: »

Honshu wrote: »

Honestly, I liked the way Warhammer Online handled it; taunting a player means the tank gets a damage bonus to that player for a short period of time, or until the taunted player hits the tank a couple times. Likewise, I enjoy the notion @Maciej posed; as a Tank attacks a target, he gains a buff that lets him deal more damage to that target; as he is attacked by that target, he loses the buffs that give him extra damage, roughly evening out to no damage bonus as long as the enemy target keeps his full attention on the Tank.

I greatly prefer this idea to the "forced target" one especially in Ashes where the camera seems to be locked right behind your character. If you're forced to target something it could end up whipping your character that way which just sounds more frustrating than fun.

I understand stuns, fears, and similar effects are necessary but I'd far rather buffs and debuffs such as rogues getting a stacking damage multiplier the more backstabs they get on you than a slew of hard CCs b/c I've played a LOT of PvP in games like WoW where you end up having a single trinket and once that's popped you've either won or walked away and honestly it doesn't feel that rewarding to have fights come down to who has the most stuns.

So, your arguement basically boils down to "you dont want a thing because you once played a game with a poor implementation of a similar thing".

I dont want a poor implementation of any system in Ashes, and any arguments I put forward are based on the assumption that Intrepid would implement then as well as is possible.

Now, my issue with taunts being a damage buff are that tanks are not there for dealing damage, they are there to control the battlefield, to protect their friends.

As far as I am concerned, anything that doesn't allow tanks to be tanks is not the appropriate thing to give to tanks. Since tanks are tanks, not DPS, giving them something to increase their DPS rather than make them better tanks is a non-starter to me.

I mean, all of our arguments are based on past experiences. I don't want too much hard CC b/c I've played games w/ exactly that and it's just not fun to be stun locked for half a fight. The only real counterplay to stuns is to build for diminishing returns, pop a trinket, or just wait and twiddle your thumbs and I just don't find it fun.

I can understand some but I

Smite actually does it pretty well IMO where you have a good balance of slows, debuffs, and silences that are largely area control effects so smart positioning is a big part of the match.

Due to the way the class system is designed in this game, Intrepid will have to have some form of limiting system to CC in Ashes. The game simply won't funciton without it.

Any issues any of us have with the game having too much CC should be directed at that system that they will have to have, not at any specific class.

To me, the best such system (or least bad system) is where you are immune to CC for a period after being CC'ed. This is not exactly a rare mechanic in MMO's.

If we assume that this period is 4 times the duration of a CC, that means that if you are taunted for 2 seconds, you are then immune to taunts (and potentially other forms of CC, at the developers discretion) for the following 8 seconds.

They could even have the immunity duration be based on the type of CC, so if you are stunned for 2 seconds, you have an 8 second immunity to all CC, if you are taunted for 2 seconds you have a 6 second immunity, if you are rooted you have a 4 second immunity, if you are slowed you have a 2 second immunity.

Now, this is not the only system they could have in place, a diminishing return on duration of CC is also viable. The immunity though is just my preferred.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you in that the game needs to be designed in a way where players can't just be CC locked. That's shit, and nobody likes it. What I'm saying is that you can't make sure that doesn't happen on the class level, as if there is only one class with any CC in the game and no system to prevent CC locking, then you will see masses of that one class running around CC'ing everyone.

If you disagree that such a system is needed, I am interested to hear what you think will stop people CC-locking others with the few classes that will have CCs. On the other hand, if you do agree that such a system is needed, I am interested to hear why you think it would mean the game would then be too CC heavy if tanks had taunts that forced target - I mean, the system that caps CC is there anyway.

Maezriel

No I think we mostly agree w/ each other @Noaani.

When I said limit how much there is I meant that I'd rather not see every single Archetype have a stun (I'd put sleep, daze, etc all in the same line) and maybe let them play around w/ other forms of interactioins such as damage increases (or for Tanks perhaps damage mitigation if he's not attacked by his main target) or things of that nature.

Noaani

Maezriel wrote: »

No I think we mostly agree w/ each other @Noaani.

When I said limit how much there is I meant that I'd rather not see every single Archetype have a stun (I'd put sleep, daze, etc all in the same line) and maybe let them play around w/ other forms of interactioins such as damage increases (or for Tanks perhaps damage mitigation if he's not attacked by his main target) or things of that nature.

Here's the thing though.

There are 8 classes, each having around 30 abilities. Each ability has 4 options of augment based on the specific class chosen, of which each class has 8 to chose from.

Then there are at least 3 social organizations, as well as each specific race. Each of these offer up more augments. On top of that we have religion that has more augments.

When all added up, there are going to be thousands of different abilities in Ashes - far more than in any other game.

There absolutely will be CC effects on some of the augments for skills, as opposed to the CC being a core part of the base skill.

On top of that, you have the bard class. As a support class, CC is about as core to that class doing it's job as a taunt is to a tank doing their job. They won't just have one or two CC's, they will have perhaps a dozen different skills that will have some form of CC either as a part of the base skill, or as an augment.

Intrepid won't make the game in a way where each class has one or two CC's and that is it. That simply doesn't gel with what Ashes is.

Instead, they are going the diminishing returns route (not my first choice, but it is what they have decided).

What all of this means is that there will be more CC available to players than they will be able to use, due to those diminishing returns. Under that assumption, making tank taunts force players to target them in PvP has no real negative effect in terms of how much CC the game will have - as the game will have exactly the same amount with or without this change.

Nerror

Noaani wrote: »

What relevance does anything in regards to DPS have to do with the argument that you put forward in regards to healers?

The relevance is that my first point included all classes, not just healers. You just cherry picked one sentence out of two paragraphs and tried to call it my first point. That's a super dishonest debating technique.

There is also zero evidence we're going to get friend and foe targeting in the game, so that's a moot point until we hear they plan to do it.

I think @Maezriel actually came with the best argument against forced target lock though, which is that it messes directly with the UI and player choice by force-clicking another target for the player. It breaks the 4th wall. None of the other common types of CC do that.

Can it work? Probably. Is it a bad idea? Definitely.

Also, your whole premise is flawed. We agree that skills in PvE and PvP should be similar in effect. The thing is, so far we have seen no evidence of a hard taunt in PvE that forces the mob to turn to the tank. It's all been soft taunt, which is threat based. That means that DPS or healers can have aggro, and the tank has to work harder to be perceived as the bigger threat to the mob.

And that is really it. Perception of threat. Check out all the tank skills in the video or on the wiki. It's all about generating more threat, which a means a hate/threat table, and the mob turning towards the one at the top of the table, because it perceives that person as most threatening. There is no forced target lock. Even if the tank gets one later on in level, that's just one skill out of many and isn't at all representative of the core class dynamic.

So if we want skills in PvE and PvP to be similar, tanks need to be *perceived* as the bigger threat in PvP by players, as long as they are played well. How that is accomplished is all about class balance and skills, and is certainly not just trying to brute force people to target the tank for a couple of seconds, a skill we don't even know a tank will get in PvE. It's about damage/durability and support skills and CC that doesn't break the 4th wall. A debuff on the target hit by a tank (or buff for the tank) is actually much more in line with how the PvE mechanic works, because of how it changes the perception of the threat from the tank (no brute forcing target lock).

Nerror

To get back to the topic at hand, my suggestion for a tanks role in small scale pvp (and pvp in general), is that in order to mimic the PvE mechanic of threat, which builds up over time, the "threat" mechanic does one of three things:

1. The more the tank hits you with his threat generating skills, the more debuffed you get. The first couple of hits won't be too bad, but the longer you ignore the tank, the more it stacks and the worse it gets for the targets. To get rid of the debuff you have kill the tank or stay out of reach for X amount of seconds. And I don't mean just debuff the targets damage, also debuff the healing and other support skills.

2. Instead of a debuff, the tank gets increased damage on the affected player(s) for every time his threat generating skills hit them, until he becomes a super hard hitting juggernaut if just ignored. As in 1. kill the tank or otherwise stop him from hitting you in order to reset it.

3. Combine the two, just to half the effect for each obviously. I think this one is the better option personally.

So going with option three in small group fights, the tank can go straight for the healer and both debuff the healer's healing output, and actually kill him if not peeled off quickly. Or he can stay back and protect his own healer from the enemy tank the same way. Perhaps with an added buddy guardian ability that soaks up some of the damage on the healer, for those who prefer playing tanks defensively in PvP.

Maciej

@Nerror having to kill the tank is pretty punishing I think. I quite like the WAR mechanic for removing the taunt: hit the tank 3 times to remove the debuff (or wait it out).

Nerror

Maciej wrote: »

@Nerror having to kill the tank is pretty punishing I think. I quite like the WAR mechanic for removing the taunt: hit the tank 3 times to remove the debuff (or wait it out).

Sure, that might be good yeah. That's a playtesting thing for sure

Noaani

Nerror wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

What relevance does anything in regards to DPS have to do with the argument that you put forward in regards to healers?

The relevance is that my first point included all classes, not just healers. You just cherry picked one sentence out of two paragraphs and tried to call it my first point. That's a super dishonest debating technique.

Honestly, I assumed you were mostly joking with the rest of that point. There is nothing dishonest about not wanting to debate points that are not thought out.

I mean, why would a tank use a limited resource (taunt on a cooldown), that has a very limited effect by itself (can go back to what you were doing in literally 1 or 2 seconds) and then just run away? I mean, a rant for a se one or two isn't going to throw people off by itself.

Even *if* someone did this, and actually managed to gain some form of advantage from it, then that is just good play by them.

If it was deemed that this was giving tanks an unfair advantage (which it isn't), Intrepid could very easily add the condition that the taunt only forces the target if the tank is stationary. Since the idea of a taunt is to encourage others to attack you, this works in well with the basic idea.

Songcaller

Tanks will be a hard counter for some class or other (If the situation hasn't changed). The Tank would be best to kill the class it hard counters. I doubt a Tank will Hard Counter a Healer because low DPS does not rival Healing Outputs. I hope the Hybrid System works because I won't enjoy 100% Tab. To me its going backwards but I digress.

League of Legends is very popular and it uses a Tank Taunt. I personally don't see an issue with Tank Taunts. Tank Taunts would be balanced like all other CCs. The argument against is the same argument I have in which, nothing will make me fight a Tank unless my class Hard Counters the Tank. In Warhammer Online I used to pull healers from the back lines into my raid and we'd nuke the healer.

I feel Javelin would perform much like the healer pulls in Warhammer Online. I'm all for tactics and strategies. In my mind, a Taunt will add more in-depth tactics and a grander scope for skill based PvP. We haven't seen Fighters yet but more often than not, Fighters replace Tanks in PvP. I think it would be a shame if Tanks are not taken to PvP Encounters.

maouw

I think you could redeem Hard-CC Taunt if you turn it into an ability that limits combat options, rather than forcing one option only (must attack the tank).

Building on what @Maciej suggested: when you get taunted, if you don't hit the tank 3 times then the tank gets an opening to stun you - but he needs to actually hit you to trigger the stun.

That gives a lot of room for different playstyles and choices for taunt interactions.

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

when you get taunted, if you don't hit the tank 3 times then the tank gets an opening to stun you - but he needs to actually hit you to trigger the stun.

The problem with this is that there is no real reason to assume every class will have the same casting speed.

3 attacks from a rogue could be over in a little more than a second, while the same could take a mage 6.

maouw

@Noaani
I dont think it has to be a level playing field. Mages being particularly vulnerable to a taunt is fine - I assume this only happens if a tank gets close to the back lines - so a mage should be disengaging anyways.

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

@Noaani
I dont think it has to be a level playing field. Mages being particularly vulnerable to a taunt is fine - I assume this only happens if a tank gets close to the back lines - so a mage should be disengaging anyways.

Some level of a gap is fine, but that kind of a level is a bit too much.

I mean, with mages being the class must vulnerable to melee attacks anyway, they don't also need to be the most vulnerable to taunts.

A three hit mechanic would mean that tanks are basically anti-mage, but near worthless on melee classes.

Also, I wouldn't assume that all taunts would be close range. I would imagine that both the tank/ranger and the tank/mage (as well as potentially the ranger/tank and mage/tank) would have some long range taunts.

maouw

@Noaani
Yeah definitely would need to be tested for balance. imo, it increases the scissors-paper-rock dynamic and increases the threat of the tank to the backline - because quite honestly a team should not allow an enemy tank to reach the back lines at all.

I know what you're saying about a ranged taunt - but if the tank has to deal a final blow to trigger the stun, then a taunt that the tank can't reach can be ignored. I haven't really thought about a tank wielding a bow though... hahaha, perhaps a new meta.

Voidwalkers

I'd suggest adding mechanics that allow tanks to take damage for teammates & blocking projectiles.

1. Allow a tank to activate a skill (or toggle a "shields up mode") and take all non-aoe damage (and may be reduce cleave damage) for a friendly, when the tank's in front of & within melee range of the friendly.

2. Allow a tank to activate a skill (or toggle a "shields up mode") and block (but take reduced damage from) any projectiles (and may be frontal cone aoe) aimed at friendlies behind the tank, provided that the tank's actually on the path of the projectile.

Immersion-wise this feels more "right" IMO as the tank needs to actually get between the attacker & the friendly in order to protect the friendly, and in this case it also makes perfect sense that attackers can't magically penetrate the tank and attack the squishies behind.
But I'm not sure about the effort to implement 2. -- all projectile skills (including tab targeting ones) now need to have collision detection (if they don't have already), and latency problem might make the whole experience terrible.

I have some doubts about making taunts work in PvP though. In PvE situations, "taunting forces the mob to attack the tank" can be explained away by "the mob's stupid / less intelligent / not capable of tactical planning" (otherwise who would want to attack the tank? it's hard to kill, it's less threatening than dps/healer/ccer). But when used against a player ... unless you add some sort of "magical debuff that makes target go berserk" to the taunts, otherwise I'd wonder what prohibits the player from ignoring the taunt and stay on his previous target (the squishies)?

Warth

PvP Taunts in past games i have seen (which worked somewhat well):

The Taunted Player deals reduced damage to everybody but the tank. Conceptually, its the same as protecting a player with an ability that soaks parts of the damage he receives, just that instead of tanking parts of the incoming damage one player receives from all enemies you reduce the damage one target deals to all Allies. Same concept, just flipped around and focussed on the enemy through the taunt instead of the Ally through the protect Ability.
Taunted players receive added Damage / extended CC Effects from the Tank.

Threat based abilities are another story entirely imo.

Child Item