How will we make the game great for our tanks, healers and supports?

Can we help ourselfs out and make these roles great so enough people will play them?
As usual in most MMO:s, we will have an abundance of damage dealing players. And as usual, there will be less healers, supports and even less tanks. The reasons for this are many, ranging from how impactful the playerbase perceives these roles to be, to how fun they are to play. It is in everyones best intrest that we have a sufficient amount of tanks, healers and supports, but also, that they are having fun!

In this post, I would like to hear from our dedicated community what you think would make tanks, healers and supports feel rewarding, fun to play and impactful in the game. I will also share my view on how to make these 3 roles good.

Tank, 8 combinations, all the same?
For tanking, it's all about what role they will play in encounters. Will they be a stereotypical "bullet sponge" simply keeping aggro and staying alive, or will they have more to do than this?

In my opinion, limiting the tank role to holding aggro, switching aggro between the other tank and using defensives when you take big damage is pathetic. Give the tank more to do in an encounter. Both in PvP and pve.

Tanks are protectors. They should have to throw themselves at granedes to save people. They should have to deflect powerful abilities. Their gameplay should be high intensity, blocking, dodging and parrying blows at a fast pace stops tanks from falling asleep. The more a tank can do, the more a good tank will stand out. The more a good tank can stand out, the more motivated people will be to play as and improve as tank.

Also, try to make the different tank classes stand out from each other. Make them strong at different things. One could be great at healing himself, another at dealing damage, one could offer high utility, while another could make simply be a massive wall. Make them have unique playstyles that stand out.

Healer, whack-a-mole simulation?
In World of Warcraft, the 6 healing choices are divided like this:

Holy Priest: Well Rounded healer. Not the best in anything. Not the worst.
Discipline Priest: Specializes in AOE burst healing and damage reducing barriers. Deals damage to heal
Holy Paladin: Specializes in large and quick single target heals and single target immunities. Deals damage to boost healing.
Restoration Druid: Specializes in healing over time heals. Has a flexible toolkit with situational abilities.
Restoration Shaman: Specializes in aoe healing in a specific zone. Has a very large toolkit with many utilities.
Mistweaver monk: can either specialize in massive single target healing, or massive AOE healing. Has insane mobility.

This is a great thing to learn from. AoC healing specs need to be unique and offer a variety of number output/utility. I want healers to be unique enough that we are never in a situation in world of warcraft, where you sometimes stack healers instead of using different ones. For this to work, all the healing specs in AoC should offer something vital to the group.

Supports, a walking aura?
In most MMO:s, there is always a class or few classes that bring that massive raid wide buff that is irreplaceble in a raid. For example heroism in world of warcraft that gives the whole raid 45% more power. This is what the bard, and only the bard should have. Based on many polls and data from other games with support specs, this will be the least played class.

To make the bard actually have a large enough playerbase, the most important thing is gameplay. We need to make them fun and engaging. You as the bard need to feel the differece you make. We dont want a passive aura bot. The bard should have to dance around dealing damage, boosting peoples damage, boosting healing, increasing movement speed, sabotaging the enemy. They should be fast paced and impactful.

We want something that makes every single DPS, Healer and tank say "damn, this bard is so damn useful" or "We definatly need a bard for our party".

What do you think?
How will we make the game great for our tanks, healers and supports?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Saedu

Biccus wrote: »

Saedu wrote: »

I just don't get why some people think a single character being able to do only one role (especially only tank or only healer) is a good idea/better for the game. It simply is not. People will get bored faster as the variety on the role they can do on their character is limited.

Because I want my choice of Archetype to actually mean something. If I pick tank I'm making that commitment. Maybe picking a more damage focused augment class could scratch a dps itch if I ever feel inclined.
Maybe it incentivises trying another archetype if you want a change. If you could do everything on a single character, why would you even bother trying something else?

Your choice is still going to mean a lot. Bring able to have classes that can change between roles doesn't take away from that. There is still a ton about the archetype that would define the playstyle. There are lots of different ways to tank, dps, or heal. And the games better if you have some variety.

It's a problem if only the tank archetype can be a viable tank in high end content. That limits player choice. What if I want to be a top tank (role) but I don't like classes that use shields? Am I just out of luck? (Most my tanking in WoW has been with a brewmaster monk or a guardian druid. Neither use shields...)

Same idea for healers. There are some heal playstyles I enjoy and some that are boring. I want a game with multiple option.

Why would we want a game with 5 archetypes (styles) of DPS, but only one for tank, heals, and support? Seems like less meaningful choice to me...

Biccus

Saedu wrote: »

It's a problem if only the tank archetype can be a viable tank in high end content. That limits player choice. What if I want to be a top tank (role) but I don't like classes that use shields? Am I just out of luck? (Most my tanking in WoW has been with a brewmaster monk or a guardian druid. Neither use shields...

Tanks will have different build options:
Evasion tanks
Control tanks
Shield tanks

Jayma

If dps aren't too much self-suficient, they will find soon that have a party for pexing is good for them too. And after that tank and healer will have ton of people to play with.
I guess that xxx/tank or xxx/cleric will be the official offtanks/offheals of the game that can be used as spare tank/heal for low/medium requirement content.

Percimes

bloodprophet wrote: »

Tried GW2?
It has everything you are looking for. They removed tank and healers and just made everyone DPS. This is the number one reason I hate that game with a passion. I prefer defined rolls and having people work together not just be a shaved monkey throwing flaming poo at a loot pinata.

Why do people hate working together in MMO's?

I did try GW2 when it launched, don't remember the specific reason I stopped that one, but I remember it clicking many of my boxes.

Working together? Sure! Depending on 1 or 2 classes? Hell no. Why is it ok for a group to require a tank and a cleric but not also require a warrior, a ranger, a rogue, a mage, a bard, and a summoner? Either you have:
1) more than one class that can fill completely the roles of tank and healer;
2) classes that only perform part of these jobs but can work in a group dynamic to fill the roles completely;
3) no role essential and it's for the group to figure out how to work together to be functional;
4) there are only 3 specialized classes (tank, heal, dps) that only perform one role and groups are limited to 3 members only, each essential, each performing its role.

It's not about not wanting to work with others, it's the opposite. It's about having every classes desirable in a group. It's about being able to work together no matter the people available. I can't count the number of time I was prevented from working with others because there were no tank or healer available at the time, and many of these times I was a healer, some of these times I was a tank.

Daerax

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

bloodprophet

If everyone is special no one is special.
Heard of a WoW vanilla private server that allowed everyone to pick what ever skill they wanted from what ever class they wanted. The vast majority all had the same build. Everyone could tank/heal and DPS. I think this is boring. Allowing people to pick from two roles as Rift did at launch was ok. I played healing mage for dungeons and PvP end went fire for exploring/solo stuff. When all of the sudden they could tank to and watered down the pool as now every class can fill any role at any time with no cost to switch making all choices meaningless.
Having to depend on others to get stuff done is life. We can't be good at everything and focusing on to much make people bad at everything.
Like you playing heals and not finding a tank can be a challenge. My answer was to build up my friends list focusing on tanks I liked playing with vs expecting everyone to be able to fill the role. I looked to the community and made more friends. I started healing when I couldn't find a healer way back in GW. That was the only reason I switched from mage(elementalist).

The biggest problem I see with hard set defined roles is the community. People need to relax more and offer more grace to players when mistakes are made.Help people become better. You'll probably make a new friend and maybe just maybe you will have a new player ready to fill the needed roles vs standing around huffing and puffing nobody wants to play these roles cause they are to hard and they are tired of getting yelled at.

I am not afraid that leveling as a Cleric will be harder or easier then Mage. I'll figure it out.
I am more concerned the game will end up a watered down mess where every class is basically the same with maybe at most different animations like so many other games out there.

Last thing I started WoW a week before BC came out. I switch servers a few times and ended up on Burning Blade a PvP server. I leveled a priest as Discipline and stayed healer all the way through raiding and PvP. I never respecced. During Wrath I decided to level my Priest first and got the 100 quest's completed achievement In the second zone because I never did quests after I could get into group content. I stayed heals and ran group stuff all the time.

Vhaeyne

bloodprophet wrote: »

If everyone is special no one is special.
Heard of a WoW vanilla private server that allowed everyone to pick what ever skill they wanted from what ever class they wanted. The vast majority all had the same build..

Big true, I actually tried that private server for a day just to see it sometime last year. My problem with it was the same problem I have with Darkfall 1. The PvP meta becomes everyone using the same omni build end game. Which is just not something I like.

Saedu

Vhaeyne wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

If everyone is special no one is special.
Heard of a WoW vanilla private server that allowed everyone to pick what ever skill they wanted from what ever class they wanted. The vast majority all had the same build..

Big true, I actually tried that private server for a day just to see it sometime last year. My problem with it was the same problem I have with Darkfall 1. The PvP meta becomes everyone using the same omni build end game. Which is just not something I like.

That sounds like it would be terrible gameplay. The game designers need to properly balance the pros/cons of a class/role. There is a huge difference between being able to do dps/heals/tank all at the same time vs having to switch specs, to do them on a single toon.

Percimes

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

Vhaeyne

Saedu wrote: »

That sounds like it would be terrible gameplay. The game designers need to properly balance the pros/cons of a class/role. There is a huge difference between being able to do dps/heals/tank all at the same time vs having to switch specs, to do them on a single toon.

It was, and what made it worst was that old school vets of the game grew to love that style of PvP so any attempts to change it just ended up getting tons of backlash.

Daerax

Percimes wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.

Saedu

Percimes wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

there is a problem with this argument... who cares about the easy "normal" content? All classes need to be viable for the hard content or the game isn't balanced. There should be multiple class options for each role in the high-end content.

I don't know about most others on these forums, but my time playing the game will be spent mostly against the tough content... who wants to just sit around doing only "normal" content?

maouw

Daerax wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.

This spawned an idea:

what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?

Wandering Mist

maouw wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.

This spawned an idea:

what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?

I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.

maouw

Wandering Mist wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.

This spawned an idea:

what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?

I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.

Oh, what made it a bad experience for you? Do you think it could be improved?

Noaani

maouw wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

Yeah, totally agree. And the bard thing sounds pretty neat.

This spawned an idea:

what if the "enrage" mechanic was the responsibility of the bard?
similar to how a "threat" mechanic was the responsibility of the tank?

I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.

Oh, what made it a bad experience for you? Do you think it could be improved?

For me, it was over used.

It is the sort of thing that should be on maybe one boss out of 20.

Any single mechanic that is used as much as enrage was in early WoW is something many people won't be a fan of.

Jayma

Saedu wrote: »

there is a problem with this argument... who cares about the easy "normal" content? All classes need to be viable for the hard content or the game isn't balanced. There should be multiple class options for each role in the high-end content.

I think he was talking about group/raid size, not really hard or easy content. And i agree with him have required classes for a group of 40 or 8 , it's not the same problematic.

Saedu wrote: »

I don't know about most others on these forums, but my time playing the game will be spent mostly against the tough content... who wants to just sit around doing only "normal" content?

Honestly at this point of what we known, nobody can say this kind of stuff. You don't known how the hard content will be unlocked, in which type dungeon (open or instanced)?

Percimes

Saedu wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Daerax wrote: »

The game has 8 archetypes and 8 player group size for a good reason I think. Optimal group should consist of 1 player of each archetype. If only for non combat utility like lock picking or tracking to not make even dps classes interchangable that easily. That said, I am pretty sure you will be able to make your group work without any of the primary archetype if you fill in the blanks correctly with right builds/secondary archetypes, which would be a good thing. On the other hand, with this system of archetypes as we see it now, where you have one archetype primarily for healing and one for tanking, you really need to make them somewhat mandatory and not easily replaceable by other classes which could fill the role just as well to make them desirable at all. I just hope it starts with content for multiple groups (16/40 players). I don't really see an issue with requiring at least 1 primary tank in 16 player dungeon or multiple in 40 player raid. But the same thing happening in content for 8 players or less could really be an issue.

Yep, my point was that no class should be essential for the "normal" group content. I've already mention any raids, world bosses or dungeon bosses was a different matter. Who knows, maybe the only way to get through a particular world boss will require a bard to sooth it with music.

there is a problem with this argument... who cares about the easy "normal" content? All classes need to be viable for the hard content or the game isn't balanced. There should be multiple class options for each role in the high-end content.

I don't know about most others on these forums, but my time playing the game will be spent mostly against the tough content... who wants to just sit around doing only "normal" content?

Well, obviously I care

In fact, what I don't really care about is the raid content, so for me the only content is the "normal" content. For many people the game is the leveling and the more casual dungeoning. Some simply don't have the time to invest into the more demanding aspects, but they still love the time they can spend.

All classes need to be viable for all levels of content or the game isn't balanced.

Wandering Mist wrote: »

I'm personally not a fan of those kinds of enrage/soothing mechanics. You used to see them a lot in WoW raids back in the day and I'm glad they got rid of it.

Noaani wrote: »

For me, it was over used.

It is the sort of thing that should be on maybe one boss out of 20.

Any single mechanic that is used as much as enrage was in early WoW is something many people won't be a fan of.

Ok, now, for my moment of triumph... Why do you guys consider this a... gimmick...(?) and don't consider tanking an overused mechanic that we could get rid of ?

Daerax

I think it really depends on how you define enrage. I am personally a fan of enrage-like mechanics of some sort. DPS checks are important in both burst phases and for consistent damage output through the whole fight. But hard enrage as specific arbitrary time limit when boss suddenly starts one shotting people seems dumb and outdated. But soft enrage (eg. stacking buff, that stacks over time and boss also gets extra stats when you fail fight mechanics or progressively increasing number of adds that spawn during the fight) is fine in my opinion. And it's one of ways to prevent stacking tanks/healers, which needs to be done for every fight in one way or another anyway. Having a class, which has unique ability to manipulate that in some of the figts seems like an interesting idea.

Saedu

Yes: All classes should be viable for all levels of content. The reality is that if the most difficult content is viable, then by default that viability trickles down to the easier content (most of the time).

I have no problems with some encounters that have an enrage/soothe mechanic, but I agree you don't want it to be every encounter. There are two things to consider here:
1) balance may be tricky. If it's too strong, then you are now forced to bring the bard (which is probably going to have low representation anyways) so there is less flexibility in the group comp (or you give the soothe to 2 - 3 of the classes)
2) it's still a simple mechanic/gimmick. You can't really compare it to tanking. With this, if boss enrages you push a button to soothe... that's it. Tanking is much more complicated (threat management, taunts, active mitigation, boss damage timing, coordinating big CDs with healers, pull size and pace, healer management, etc).

Child Item