Tanking

I love the overall archetype class design that they're going for, and I know they have said that a tank archetype will be able to tank no matter what secondary class he chooses.
But does anyone know if any other classes if they choose a tank secondary will be able to tank?
For example a rogue/tank being able to do a Dodge evasion type build for tanking. Or a summoner focusing on tanky summons?

Or will the tank primary be the only tanking option?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

SirChancelot

First you should be saying 15 not 16... You're counting tank/tank twice

But that kind of what I've been trying to say. The system is either not going to change it enough to really be a different play style or it should change it enough to where it makes X/tanks viable tanks.
If the system only provides minor changes such as turning charge into a teleport charge or a shadow step charge the base archetype ability will still be charge and won't be changing the play style just a method... Now I agree that a rogue tank won't have a charge ability but that's what makes him a different playstyle tank than the tank archetype...
And again I didn't say every X/tank or X/cleric option should be able to tank or heal for some it doesn't make sense. But having a few different combinations out there outside of tank and cleric would prevent take and cleric from being mandatory archetypes for every dungeon group.

Could you imagine if every WoW dungeon required you to have a warrior and a priest because those are the only options for tank and heals, sure holy priest is different than disc priest and they play different.... But every group is still going to have a warrior and a priest... That would get dull very fast.

Dygz

There are 8 Tank/x and 8 x/Tank. That = 16.

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

There are 8 Tank/x and 8 x/Tank. That = 16.

You're counting tank/tank twice

Dygz

What you call "really different playstyle" in your own imagination before having even played any of the classes is irrelevant. What you call "minor changes" is also irrelevant.

Steven said, "indirectly there are some augments when applied to certain skills that can do this. But it would not replace a Cleric archetype."
So expect the same thing for Tank. x/Tank will have augments that indirectly allow for some tanking but will not replace a Tank/x.
That is the design. And that is the way the combat will be balanced.

Some individual players of x/Tank may find a way to main tank, sure. But, that is not the way the game is designed and is not the dev expectation - as in...the devs are not going to re-balance the game just because x/Tanks can't main tank and think they should be able..

There are already a few different combinations of main tank. And there are a few different combinations of secondary tank. Steven has said x/Cleric will not replace the Cleric Primary Archetype, so expect that x/Tank will not replace the Tank Primary archetype.
There are 8 types of Tank/x. There are 8 types of Cleric/x. The game is designed such that every group will want one of each Primary Archetype.
If you think that is dull - I guess you will find Ashes dull. But, that doesn't change the game design.

Yep. It might be 15 because I am not actually counting. Same difference.

Songcaller

There will be so many augments and so many skills to choose from that you could build a unique tank from the tank/x category. At face value, Ashes has 8 Tanks to choose from. That is more than WoW. I think we are getting hung up on the components either Tank/x or x/Tank when the classes will be defined by primary and secondary compositions. For sure, Secondary Archetype will only modify the primary skills but the modification can be 'radical' as Steven once put it. You can't really escape the need for Tanks from the Tank/x category. The Holy Trinity will be strong in Ashes of Creation. You would build a group and ask for a tank and a tank would eventually join, it is not a case where an off tank would be taken for a group dungeon unless the group dungeon is partial to off tanks over pure DPS.

It is difficult to understand the argument for X/Tank because we know very little about the dungeons and raids at this time. In my opinion 8 Tank options is plenty of tank options, the only problem will be is if Guardian will be ahead of the other 7 making the other 7 redundant for end game iterations. One would hope the Devs will build 8 distinct Tanks and all 8 will be viable. I don't need there to be 15 Viable Tanks, just 8 viable Tanks will be enough after augments.

Dygz

Steven says all 8 versions of Tank/x will be viable. That is the goal.
It's not impossible that an individual player could cobble together an x/Tank that could main tank - but that is not a dev goal.
And, I dunno how happy the group would be that an x/Tank is trying to main tank rather than do whatever their Primary role is.

Saedu

The problem is more than just the number of "viable tanks". I am a player that likes to tank, dps, and heal. I also like to do it competitvly so i need something that is both fun for my playstyle, but also viable for end game. I don't want to be a liability or sub par for my team. I don't expect to do more than one of these roles at a time, but I require the ability to change between them (perhaps only in towns of people feel there is a need to limit the changing (guess what, there isn't, but I'm willing to compromise) What single class do I pick in AoC for my main?

If @Dygz has his version of AoC the answer is I don't play AoC. I don't like that answer. I'm not asking for anything that is overpowered (I can only do one role at a time). I'm not doing anything that impacts other people's play (you can still choose the role you want).

Dygz... do you hate me?

. Why push for a subpar game when this system could be better? I don't think you realize it, but I think this decision could literally alienate millions of players (and therefore less funding for IS to make more content for you so it negatively impacts you). Don't start that "maybe this game isn't for you elitist attitude either." I have a lot of interest in this game, but I see risks like this one where the wrong game decisions could alienate a lot of really great people and not bring any actual benefit to the game.

I recommend archtype impacts your playstyle through what your core abilities actually are. It also drives your initial role in the lower levels. Augments should be powerful enough to modify your abilities to a degree that could change your role through buffs/debuffs. This would give the game so much more. This is true meaningful choice.

Oh and don't answer "alts" to my question about what class to play. I will do alts anyways, but there isn't the same time dedication for an alt vs a main. This game also doesn't look like it is going to be very alt friendly given how grindy it sounds like it may be. That's a separate problem of course.

Songcaller

The Cleric is DPS/Heal more than Heal. The Tank is Tank/DPS more than Tank. Of course, the numbers can be tweaked due to tests but the overall flavour is already present. Tank is also full of Hard CCs which will be changed according to tests. It is not a case of Tanking in isolation, you would build the tank to generate Higher Threat (either through higher threat generation or higher DPS). Most players do not want Tank/Heal/DPS all rolled into one toon. When WoW did this they lost millions of players. It is possible IS will give us two different skill sets which can toggle between but if they don't then you would have to play your primary role. If you are against a Tank which has to Tank why are you picking Tank as your main?

ThexBlackxKnight

Dygz wrote: »

Steven says all 8 versions of Tank/x will be viable. That is the goal.
It's not impossible that an individual player could cobble together an x/Tank that could main tank - but that is not a dev goal.
And, I dunno how happy the group would be that an x/Tank is trying to main tank rather than do whatever their Primary role is.

You don't know what combat will end looking like at launch , none of us do, as it is going through a lot changes already. Just because Steven has a design idea doesn't mean it won't change and he already shown that he willing to change things.

Saedu

Neurath wrote: »

The Cleric is DPS/Heal more than Heal. The Tank is Tank/DPS more than Tank. Of course, the numbers can be tweaked due to tests but the overall flavour is already present. Tank is also full of Hard CCs which will be changed according to tests. It is not a case of Tanking in isolation, you would build the tank to generate Higher Threat (either through higher threat generation or higher DPS). Most players do not want Tank/Heal/DPS all rolled into one toon. When WoW did this they lost millions of players. It is possible IS will give us two different skill sets which can toggle between but if they don't then you would have to play your primary role. If you are against a Tank which has to Tank why are you picking Tank as your main?

WoW had tank/heal/dps in vanilla WoW. They actually met that player need. This is not a key driver in their attrition over time. If anything it was probably one of the key reasons for their initial success.

Over time they have made it easier to switch between roles and I think this has probably helped with the longevity of the game, not hurt it. I generally do not see players complaining about this part of the game as it benefits all player types (even those who only like one role benefit from the flexibility others can bring to the group).

It's other issues like raidfinder and borrowed power systems that are causing the WoW problems in recent years.

Songcaller

You are talking about completely different skill trees. You could amalgamate the three skill trees but you would be abysmal at all three roles. I do not believe there will be separate skill trees for Heal, Tank and DPS on each toon. The toons will have a standard set of skills which you augment and select based on preference. You will also have weapon skills which will translate to another additional spec but there won't be healing staves like ESO. 64 Classes x 3 Skill Trees would be 192 Skill Trees with no differentiation between Primary Roles because all classes will have the same roles. There is no risk/reward in such a circumstance.

Percimes

Another aspect to consider in the tanking subject is PvP. One of the primary tool for tanking, threat generation, usually doesn't translate well against other players. It's easy to create a mechanic to convince mobs to focus on a high defence low offence target, but players are not fooled by this kind of artificial threat. So tanks are probably equipped with more tools than damage mitigation and threat generation and these tools are maybe easier to give in augments to the X/tanks.

Saedu

Neurath wrote: »

You are talking about completely different skill trees. You could amalgamate the three skill trees but you would be abysmal at all three roles. I do not believe there will be separate skill trees for Heal, Tank and DPS on each toon. The toons will have a standard set of skills which you augment and select based on preference. You will also have weapon skills which will translate to another additional spec but there won't be healing staves like ESO. 64 Classes x 3 Skill Trees would be 192 Skill Trees with no differentiation between Primary Roles because all classes will have the same roles. There is no risk/reward in such a circumstance.

It doesn't have to be done through skill trees. It could be done through some augments that have highly impactful changes. Some augments might just increase something by a moderate amount (e.g adds a fire damage dot to the ability). Others might bring trade-offs to the ability (e.g. reduce the damage of the ability by 50%, but create a buff that reduces damage taken for 12 seconds by 30%... i.e. a meaningful choice).

Choice of weapons could further impact the role specialization. E.g. equipping a shield makes you more tanky at the cost of dps.

WoW did this early on with its talent system. They evolved it into role selection first and then a smaller set if talents. Both systems worked well and have their pros/cons. I don't think AoC should do it through the talents. I think AoC should do it through augments + weapons + armor. This would make a very exciting system with lots of anti-meta meaningful choice (and the fun of continuously trying out different things. This is way more exciting/engaging than making the single Archtype once at the start. It also gives increased flexibility long term and more playability over time).

ViBunja

Neurath wrote: »

I don't believe x/tank will be able to tank. Only tank/x will be able to tank.

Cleric*Tank will be able to tank. Self healing and tank armor

Songcaller

If you are adding a new flavour (Augment) you are swapping some function for a different function or you are doubling down on the same function. It is not clear what Cleric/Tank would have to swap out for Threat Generation. There are no taunts in the game yet, I imagine taunts will be added. Neither Cleric nor Tank will have highest DPS because the main roles are not DPS. I do believe Tank/Cleric will be a strong tank but I do not think Cleric/Tank will be a good tank, it will still be considered a healer.

Saedu wrote: »

It doesn't have to be done through skill trees. It could be done through some augments that have highly impactful changes. Some augments might just increase something by a moderate amount (e.g adds a fire damage dot to the ability). Others might bring trade-offs to the ability (e.g. reduce the damage of the ability by 50%, but create a buff that reduces damage taken for 12 seconds by 30%... i.e. a meaningful choice).

Choice of weapons could further impact the role specialization. E.g. equipping a shield makes you more tanky at the cost of dps.

WoW did this early on with its talent system. They evolved it into role selection first and then a smaller set if talents. Both systems worked well and have their pros/cons. I don't think AoC should do it through the talents. I think AoC should do it through augments + weapons + armor. This would make a very exciting system with lots of anti-meta meaningful choice (and the fun of continuously trying out different things. This is way more exciting/engaging than making the single Archtype once at the start. It also gives increased flexibility long term and more playability over time).

We don't know much about the augments from the classes, little less the augments from Societies and Religion. There definitely will be radical changes from augments but the Hard Counters will remain. You can blend the Primary to lessen the gap but the gap will still remain. If you want to heal though, choose a Healing Class (Cleric or Bard), if you want to Tank, choose tank, if you want to DPS then you have the widest options there could be. The game does not have to cater to those people who want all roles on one toon. There is no reason to put all roles onto one toon. The idea is to group with others, not to make a one toon army.

Saedu

Neurath wrote: »

I do believe Tank/Cleric will be a strong tank but I do not think Cleric/Tank will be a good tank, it will still be considered a healer.

Imagine if a Cleric/Tank could use some augments that amplifies the threat generated by their heals and other augments that beefs up their survivability, but at the cost of their healing output. That could lead to some interesting gameplay. What about the whip having an augment that taunts and pulls the target to you?

Probably more of an off-tank/get all the adds rounded up type of spec than say a Shadow Guardian (Rogue/Tank) that could tank the boss through strong evasion, etc.

It could also be interesting in pvp where maybe you don't take the threat modify augment but you do take the augments to buff up your survivability.

Not every single */Tank needs to be a boss tank, but more than Tank/* should be (and some of the Tank/* should be better suited for a DPS role than a tank role so the tank has options).

Now imagine a Cultist (Rogue/Cleric) does less DPS than any of the Rogue/DPS classes, but has augments that causes the Rogue's damaging abilities to heal party members. Maybe some augments that directly heal only the rogue. You have the combat playstyle of the rogue abilities, but the outcome of your actions is different (less DPS with the tradeoff a group healing). Or maybe some of the augments changes one of your abilities to target a friendly instead of an enemy and heals/buffs them instead of damaging them (this might work better with a mage... e.g. turn your fireball that damages an enemy into a something that surrounds an ally in holy fire that protects them while damaging nearby enemies)...

So much possibility... so much meaningful choice...if the Augments are truly powerful.

Songcaller

Yeah, I understand your viewpoint but Hard Counters are in the game. The fact Hard Counters are in the game mean that the Augments will not be extremely powerful because you would risk the Hard Counters. The balance will be around 8 Players in a group, 8 archetypes in the primary role. It will be completely different if balance was based 1 vs 1 and the augments literally turned you into a whole new Hybrid Role. Once we know what the secondary archetype augments do we will be able to pinpoint the facts but we still wouldn't have information on societal augments or religious augments. You can gain augments from so many different areas that it will create unique flavours but whether those unique flavours can perform a whole new role can be debated.

DioTheHero

People are going to figure out different party setups that can clear specific content quicker than a party using a main Tank/X. It's just going to happen. This isn't a bad thing. It's part of being creative and enjoying the game. I fully expect 8 member Summoner/Tank Brood Warden parties, and maybe other Summoner/X combinations or Mage "mana burns", to steamroll through content that traditional party configurations require more downtime/setup for. BUT, there should and most likely will be raid tier content that's practically unachievable without one or more main Tank/X participants whereas other classes just aren't viable given that dungeon's mechanics.

We'll just have to wait and judge the whole role and meta possibilities once they're actually measurable in game.

KeeperBrGO

Nice topic

Songcaller

Jeff and Steven once had a brief correlation where they stated 'We won't have any group content which won't require a tank.' If the encounters are too simplistic, we might see 'silly' groups full of summoners, mages, tanks, clerics, rangers, rogues, or fighters but it would be a gimmick much like when Method perform such acts in WoW.

Child Item