Tanking

What I mean is this (I'm often the tank or the healer or sometimes both for my group in nearly any MMO).

Let's assume that I have one DPS player who is doing 200 damage every 30 seconds.
My tank character does 100 damage every 30 seconds, generates the equivalent threat of 200 damage through abilities, and takes only 75 damage, in that 30 seconds.

I hold the enemy.

If that DPS player does a big ability and takes attention for 10 seconds, and then take 50 damage, multiple things happen (you're a tank so you're obviously familiar with all of this but humor me).

1. I didn't take that 50 damage so I now have 50 additional 'hate'.
2. They lost 50 'hate'.
3. The healer got a little more (but probably not because they'll use Regen instead of a heal)
4. The enemy returns to me. This is a given. The gap between my DPS and their DPS is 100. They lost 50 'hate' and I got to 'keep' an extra 50.

There's only a certain amount of time before that disparity returns the enemy to me, because if it does not come back to me, then it means I wasn't generating much more than they were to begin with, and therefore I was failing at tanking.

So, right after that big burst, which we can say brought them to 'some amount of hate higher than mine', I 'lose control of the enemy'. But this is a whole strategy that is employed quite often. Let the DPS go a little wild, you get more damage and the healer often uses LESS mana relative to the fight length.

DPS characters have to be so squishy for this to be a bad idea, that it's a little weird to be concerned about it (because if they are, PvP will suck).

Point of all this is, Tank doesn't currently have any abilities other than Ultimate Defense that will definitely cause the damage mitigation to be so much higher than damage mitigation available to other classes, to go 'this is definitely the only tank for all content'.

What they have is all of the 'I can stand even when things are going bad and I have no support' damage mitigation. Other tanks are often better, when supported, than the 'standard tank class'. All you have to do is change the 'random DPS' in the above scenario to 'X/Tank'.

In most games, almost the only thing determining 'if a class is actually a Tank' is if they can manage DPS on the target and not take more resources than a 'standard tank' to keep alive. And what stops most from getting that designation is that the enemy, in some way, prevents them from doing the DPS, and the 'true tank' shines because they just use an ability to generate threat instead, that can't miss, or something.

Well, I have raised concerns about the threat tables, aggro swapping and the fact Tank has no taunt (up to level 10). If Tank gets a taunt, either from class abilities or through Shield Weapon Abilities, then you can pull the boss/mobs back from the DPS easier though most likely the healers will have higher threat generated than the DPS. Because there won't be DPS Meters to hand (most likely) we can't prevent someone taking the threat pole position, it could even be a secondary tank or someone who generates threat like a x/Tank. It is not a major problem if the aggro swap can be controlled but if the boss/mobs must be held in a specific location, then deviations from the initial tank can be catastrophic.

In most circumstances, Tanks who main Tanks are rare. Often times, a DPS will turn into a Tank Player once the dungeon mechanics are on farm. It can be difficult for Tank Players to expand their skills/reaction times/prestige once the dungeons/raids are on farm. It is a difficult life for a Tank Main irrespective of the base classes used to create the tank. The Tank Mains will suffer the first wipes, could cause the first wipes and could learn from the first wipes. It can be difficult for a Tank to recover the trust from group members if the Tank loses Aggro, causes a wipe or doesn't understand the dungeon mechanics.

At a functional level, it won't matter what you choose to tank on so long as you can mitigate damage, create threat and learn the dungeon/raid mechanics. It could be a rockier ride for an x/tank than it might be for a tank/x (Except Guardian Tank - Tank) but Tank Players have a penchant for mad juju. I hope I make sense and have answered the question.

Edit: From my theory crafting, you would make sure most mobs/bosses have their back to the DPS/Healers. Normally, you should have a tank group who will stand the same side of the tank. The reason for this is because the DPS get Critical Damage/Increased Damage when we strike the back of Players/Mobs. If the Clerics have the appropriate range on heals, then you wont need a tank group and you can stand on the boss alone from the front. Just make sure you dodge and move out of higher damage moves. You should also Taunt/Goad/Irritate/Generate Threat on adds too. You must learn which adds you should tank and which adds you can allow off-tanks to tank.

I think that the main thing here might be a philosophy thing, (from Intrepid's side/Steven's mind, rather than between the posters discussing things here).

I can tank in many groups as the healer because of community. My group knows what to do, they know how to rotate things, they know what to expect and when to hold off on their abilities because of my rotations.

In short, the social aspect of the game has opened new opportunities. Sometimes opportunities that other groups don't even have because 'this fight requires more healing than usual so the healer is in danger' so the tank choices are limited or need really incredible gear or skill.

I can't say if Tank will get a true taunt, or if they'll be expecting people to rely on Weapon Throw. And we don't know right now, if the ability can miss in a way that cause zero threat generation, do we?

I guess in the end, we're both (tentatively) reassuring people that X/Tank works in way more situations with even minor tweaks, and we've probably said enough. Those who are still really worried after this point, I really hope you don't get too discouraged.

Know that even if you don't have the time to give a ton of feedback on it yourself if it somehow doesn't get designed right, you've got some Alpha Tester 'tank mains' on your side.

You would use Weapon Throw to initiate/pull the mobs/bosses. I'm not sure if it can be dodged or evaded, but, at the very least you will have the first threat generated from the pull if not the ability. Otherwise, I believe we're on par for the current information we have access to.

Azherae wrote: »

This is an equation though.

If I ask 'why can't a Fighter/Tank be a tank', here's what prevents that overall.

1. Can they do more DPS than a tank?
Probably, or we may not see a lot of Fighters...
2. Can they find a way to take near or less damage than a tank?
Probably harder, but most of the tank abilities so far don't do damage reduction consistently, or other classes can help provide a lot of this.
3. Can they control adds (for some this might even be optional)?
Dunno, but this is pretty binary.
4. Can they match a Tank/X's bonus to Threat?
Not saying I know, here, but if the answer is yes via augments, then the equation's done.

This class has all the abilities of a Fighter, and outperforms the Tank at Tanking in at least some groups, where 'Ultimate Defense' isn't necessary for whatever reason.

Are we assuming that Bulwark and Ultimate Defense are such powerful damage mitigation tools that nothing can match them?

1: We have Steven's statement: "Some cleric augments applied to certain skills will indirectly provide the ability to heal others. These will not replace the need for a cleric archetype." We can assume this will also apply to Tank augments.

2: Steven always feels compelled to state that Secondary Archetypes do not provide new abilities; instead you get augments that reflect on of the Primary Archetypes. So...augments are not as powerful as abilities.

3: A Fighter/Tank can be a tank. They will certainly be a secondary tank. Tank will be their secondary role. But, the devs are not going to be balancing the tank augments to ensure that a Fighter/Tank can main tank. And, again, if Steven points out that x/Cleric will not replace the need for a Cleric (primary) archetype, we can assume the same will be true for Tanks.

4: That does not mean it will be impossible for an individual Fighter/Tank to find a way to main tank. There could be exceptions to the rule. The point is that the devs are not going to be listening to complaints from Fighter/Tanks that they can't main tank because the expectation is that x/Tanks are not main tanks. If you want to be a main tank, you should choose Tank/x.

5: It's highly unlikely that a Fighter/Tank will have Tank augments that can out tank Tank abilities because Tank abilities typically do multiple tank things and Tank augment will probably only do one tank thing. The devs are not designing augments to compete with abilities. Again, this is why Steven says that x/Cleric will not replace the need for a Cleric/x.

Neurath wrote: »

At a functional level, it won't matter what you choose to tank on so long as you can mitigate damage, create threat and learn the dungeon/raid mechanics. It could be a rockier ride for an x/tank than it might be for a tank/x (Except Guardian Tank - Tank) but Tank Players have a penchant for mad juju. I hope I make sense and have answered the question.

If you look at the abilities for Tank, almost all of them generate threat.
The real question with regard to Fighter/Tank would be whether the Fighter/Tank (with no Primary Tank in the group) would be able to generate enough threat to keep the boss off the Mage or Summoner, etc.

Dygz wrote: »

If you look at the abilities for Tank, almost all of them generate threat.
The real question with regard to Fighter/Tank would be whether the Fighter/Tank (with no Primary Tank in the group) would be able to generate enough threat to keep the boss off the Mage or Summoner, etc.

I'm very familiar with the tank skills. I know all the tank skills up to level 10 can generate threat except Ultimate Defence. I'm also aware there are social and religious augments which will provide threat generation. It is not impossible that at a functional level the Tank could lose aggro and thus would have to rely on the off tank or secondary tank if they have generated more threat. What you don't want is the healers or dps to take second place in the threat order. If the off tank is a fighter/tank then I would aim to relieve the off tank as soon as possible.

I still believe we need a goad/taunt for aggro swapping, otherwise the threat generation would mean the tank can never lose aggro unless the tank dies. From what I know of the planned boss encounters, less than 10% of people will be able to do all boss encounters so aggro swapping will have to be available. If a tank wants to use a class different than Tank then it is not our place to dissuade, we can only advise. I would believe Tank Augment will have these four schools: Threat, Mitigation, Damage or Damage Reflection. I could be wrong on the augments but I struggle to think of any others that would be relevant to a tank.

Neurath wrote: »

I'm very familiar with the tank skills. I know all the tank skills up to level 10 can generate threat except Ultimate Defence. I'm also aware there are social and religious augments which will provide threat generation. It is not impossible that at a functional level the Tank could lose aggro and thus would have to rely on the off tank or secondary tank if they have generated more threat. What you don't want is the healers or dps to take second place in the threat order. If the off tank is a fighter/tank then I would aim to relieve the off tank as soon as possible.

1: I don't know how you are aware that there will be social and religious augments that are designed to generate threat. We can expect a Threat School of Tank augments - which will very likely not generate as much threat as Tank abilities - but, I'm not aware of there being any indication that social or religious augments will have anything like a Threat School.
Do you have a dev quote for a Threat School of augments for social and religious augments?

2: This discussion is not about what's impossible. The only way for that to really be a thing is for the devs to actively design to make it impossible for anything except a Primary Tank to main tank. And, even then, a few people would probably be able to find exceptions.

3: The design is for x/Tank to be able to do some tanky things, but not replace the need for a Tank/x.

I still believe we need a goad/taunt for aggro swapping, otherwise the threat generation would mean the tank can never lose aggro unless the tank dies. From what I know of the planned boss encounters, less than 10% of people will be able to do all boss encounters so aggro swapping will have to be available. If a tank wants to use a class different than Tank then it is not our place to dissuade, we can only advise. I would believe Tank Augment will have these four schools: Threat, Mitigation, Damage or Damage Reflection. I could be wrong on the augments but I struggle to think of any others that would be relevant to a tank.

People can try anything they want. There's nothing being said in this discussion that can dissuade an x/Tank from trying to build a character that can out-tank a Tank/x or from trying to fill the role of an absent Tank/x.
The point is that it's unlikely they will have the tools to do so. It's not impossible that some individuals will be able to find a mix of augments and player skills that will allow them to do so, but...it's highly unlikely to be a general or even uncommon thing. It will likely be a rare thing. And, more importantly, the devs are not designing augments with the intent for them to allow an x/Tank to replace the need for a Tank/x.
And complaining that you (hypothetical you; not you-you) want them to design augments with the intent to allow an x/Tank to replace the need for a Tank/x is highly unlikely to change the dev philosophy because they are balancing 8 versions of Primary Tank to be viable as main tank - they are not going to want to have to balance 15 versions of x/Tank/x to be viable main tanks.
If you want you're character to be main tank - choose Tank as your Primary Archetype.
If you choose Tank as your Secondary Archetype - expect that you will be an off-tank, rather than primary tank.

While the above should not dissuade anyone from giving it a try, I have a feeling that Apostles who try to out tank a Tank/x will probably be reprimanded by their group and told to concentrate more on their Cleric role.

I'm happy with the 8 Main Tanks from the Tank Class, but, I can only play one because I don't want alts you see. Here is the quote I referenced:

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Tank
The game hosts a wide array of progression paths, and some of those paths will grant additional paths to augmenting your threat generation. This can be in the form of enchantments and stats ... and even in the form of augments granted from societies and religions. Gear and skills choice are also a big component.[5] – Steven Sharif.

It is completely down to the build and if someone wants to build from scratch then I think it would be feasible to expect X/Tank to cause problems in the threat tables if someone really wants to create a PvE Tank out of a Rogue/Tank or Fighter/Tank. I also am aware the Devs stated all Tank/X will be viable Main Tanks. I feel we don't need to debate the fundamentals I just wouldn't write off certain people who are adamant they want to tank a different way to Tank/X. If they find a way I say more power to them but I will be happy with Guardian, Paladin or Knight. I only offered my experience and some guidance. I don't want to argue over the fundamentals because Steven has given two different approaches once on livestream and once in the quote above.

I'm using hypothetical/general you, not you-you.
I know you know about the devs stating all Tank/x will be viable main tanks.
I'm using that to contrast that the devs are not balancing x/Tank to be viable main tanks.
And, Steven strongly implies that we should not expect x/Tank to be able to replace Tank/x.

I don't think anything I've said "writes off certain people" trying to main tank as an x/Tank.
I don't think anything I've said claims it's impossible for any person to find a way to get an x/Tank to main tank.
I agree, if someone can create an x/Tank that can consistently out-tank a Tank/x, that's great.
All I'm saying is don't expect that to be a common or even uncommon thing. Rather, expect that to be a rarity.

(Thanks for finding and sharing the quote, btw.)

Yeah, we're in agreement. I mean I have a Guild and our tanks are definitely all going Tank/X. I do not think I will meet a X/Tank except Guardians because I won't do pick up groups and require a tank - I'll be the tank. I won't run PuG Raids in Ashes because of the nature of the game. I did used to run PuG Raids in other MMOs but we must adapt to the situation at hand. I'm still not sure how my Guild Clerics will spec though, it will determine whether I must go Paladin or whether I can be free to choose Knight. If the Tank Augments are too good to miss though I will roll a Guardian.

RocketFarmer

My take away on the character class and the interpretation from AoC’s change in definitions and concepts from what an average player would comprehend from the genre is there are only eight classes.

The design is a system of augments to the base class, with different themes for those augments.

One theme I would call Multi-classing. Appears you will have four potential augments from this theme, with maybe a couple being worthwhile depending on the player’s desire for shaping their character.

Other augment themes would be Religion, Social Organizations, Race, etc. Combine that with Gear augments and you get the idea.

The safe choice, if you want to go as a specialized, dedicated main tank would be choosing Tank as the primary archetype. I would not get too wrapped up on the primary/secondary archetype combinations or the “class” names they use for those. Those aren’t classes in the traditional sense, they are options for augments to maybe make the character a little more versatile or to reskin an ability to match a theme, specifically a Multi-class theme.

I think a comparison, since people keep bringing Pathfinder up, is the feat system of that game. It doesn’t create a new class, it just tries to make the class “better” or take it in a direction to make the player feel it is more varied. That said, while Pathfinder has a lot of feats to choose from, a lot are suboptimal and could be considered false choices. Hopefully the augments, which should do a little more than feats, have more meaningful choices.

Overall I view multi-classing as either something a player wants to make up for their boredom of a single class or an attempt to create an over powered character. These augments may provide the flavor of multi-classing without offering too much. I find that most games fail at multi-classing.

Will there be enough augments from various sources to make a decent tank that is not a primary archetype tank? We will have to see. Perhaps there is a God of Tanks, organization of tanks plus gear that provides these augments.

Kalv1441

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I've played death knights and dark knights and want to try something with a different approach. Not a standard plate and shield tank.
Because even if all the tank/x combinations are viable and have different flavor, they will all still be plate wearing sword n board tanks... And that seems kind of dull for a game with such high goals. .

I think they made it clear tanks won’t be forced into sword and board play style. They’ll be able to use a variety of weapons

Right. Armor and weapons are not locked by class.

SirChancelot

Kalv1441 wrote: »

I think they made it clear tanks won’t be forced into sword and board play style. They’ll be able to use a variety of weapons

I didn't mean anything towards them being locked to certain weapons or gear... I was referring to a playstyle
I am just going off of the video release and the lineup of skills that they'll have and they all lead towards a certain playstyle of tank. So far any description of secondary augments don't do anything to change that play style for the tank archetype... That's why I started this whole mess, to see if there will be any variations in how you can go about tanking that you can choose from...

So far the two answers seem to be either:
No, only the tank archetype can tank and secondary augments don't change him much.
Or
We don't know, we don't have enough information yet.

Well, what would you like to do, exactly? It's easier for a designer to reverse engineer wishes into a balanced thing, than to 'stab in the dark and hope they manage to make something you like'.

Assuming you have a wish, even an extremely specific wish, it's very likely to be considered because there are lots of ways to 'make sure you have a path to what you want' without necessarily overcomplicating the whole class.

If you just 'want to try something different', what would you consider 'different enough'?

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

So far the two answers seem to be either:
No, only the tank archetype can tank and secondary augments don't change him much.
Or
We don't know, we don't have enough information yet.

Um. No.
You keep saying only Primary Archetype can tank.
Primary Archetype Tanks are primary/main tanks.
Secondary Archetype Tanks can off/tank.
Augments significantly change the ways the Primary Archetype Tanks play but do not change the primary role.
But augments are attached to and triggered by the abilities of the Primary Archetype.
Secondary Archetypes do not provide abilities.

It's inherent in the names:
Primary Archetype Tanks have a primary role of Tank
Secondary Archetype Tanks have a secondary role of Tank.

Also, Secondary Archetype Tanks are not the only variations of Primary Tank.
Primary Tanks can also have significant variations of playstyle based on racial augments or social augments or any other category of augments.
But, they will all be using the same ability tree.

If I were playing a Py'Rai Warden, I would not be wearing plate with sword and board.
I would still be using Tank abilities, yes. But, I would also be using Py'Rai and Ranger augments.
And that playstyle would be significantly different than a Vek Spellshield using Vek and Mage augments.
My Niküa Keeper also would not be wearing plate with sword and board and would be using Niküa and Summoner augments.

Even my Nikua Guardian would not be wearing plate with sword and board - I would have a Niküa Guardian wearing leather armor and very likely wielding a spear - and would be using Niküa augments.
And that playstyle would be significantly different than my Empyrean Guardian using Empyrean augments.

SirChancelot

Azherae wrote: »

Well, what would you like to do, exactly? It's easier for a designer to reverse engineer wishes into a balanced thing, than to 'stab in the dark and hope they manage to make something you like'.

Assuming you have a wish, even an extremely specific wish, it's very likely to be considered because there are lots of ways to 'make sure you have a path to what you want' without necessarily overcomplicating the whole class.

If you just 'want to try something different', what would you consider 'different enough'?

I've given a few example in earlier posts in this thread, such as a summoner tanking through his summons.

Ah, sorry, yes.

Have you played FFXI? I'm trying to understand if you have this wish because you have had the experience before, or because you specifically haven't, since the 'concern type' is different.

That's a game where it isn't too difficult to find all sorts of ways to tank, at least respectably, using just basic game mechanics. Two or three clearly defined tanks, at least seven alternate special tanks for tanking enemies with particular mechanics or attack styles.

Our summoner does not do much tanking in that game, but she could have. We expect that the way she tanks in that game will be the same in Ashes, and would also be concerned if it wasn't possible.

But the devs would have to go completely out of their way, to make it not possible, and that's why we're not worried and why so many posters might seem to be misunderstanding you. It's possible they all just 'can't see how it would be difficult' since they've done it before in other games.