Tanking: Should the "Tank" Primary Class Be the Be-All-End-All Tanking Class?

Interested in hearing all opinions on:

-Should Tank Primary classes be the only and/or most dominant tank choice?

-Should other, not necessarily all, Primary Class variants have secondary options that make them just as viable as tanks or even off-tanks?

-Should the Tank Primary class have some variant options to focus more on other roles than simply tanking all of the time?

-Should the Tank Primary class be renamed assuming it can fill other roles besides simply tanking?

Looking forward to what you all have to say!

Edit:
More questions resulting from this post I want to hear opinions on:

-Is role overlap so wrong? If it is should there really be 9 classes or even variants at all? If its so bad to have a role covered by more than one class, then shouldn't there be just 4 classes? Healer(support), Physical DPS, Magical DPS, and Tank?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Percimes

Atama wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

My worries are that tanks/x and cleric/x will be essential to every grouping scenarios and who cares about the rest of the group members' classes. It means both these classes will always be in shortage, which means pick up groups are much harder to form, which means people have to resort to soloing. Yes yes, get friends, get into a guild, roll these classes, yada yada... All personal solutions, not global ones, and not as effective as you believe.

I haven't heard it discussed for some time but I do remember Stephen saying that each class (sorry, "archetype", meh) will have a unique ability that it will bring to a party. I think I recall a video showing a cleric using an ability to cleanse poison gas out of a cave. So if nothing else, there will be that system which could potentially make any role important.

Personally, my expectation is that there will be certain content, like dungeons, where having a certain archetype-specific ability will either make it a lot easier, or provide bonus content (maybe both). For example, if you need a Rogue to bypass traps to take a side corridor, then that lets you skip a really tedious slog through the main corridor filled with swarms of annoying mobs. Or a Bard's lore ability lets you read a magic tome that reveals a treasure that gives bonus materials to the party. (Those abilities and scenarios are total hypotheticals; I have no idea what they will actually do. That stuff hasn't been in Alpha.)

I'm sure every classes will be built up to have something the devs think will be useful and fun. I'm just not so sure the players will care about these useful tools. Who's the say people, although acknowledging that a bard would make things easier for that section of the dungeon, won't prefer having 2 wizards because they kill things so much faster this way than they ever would if they had a bard instead of the second wiz? Or for this boss it's "better" to have 3 rangers. Fighters and rogues just make things more difficult against it. If you think the meta will be to have a group with one of each 8 main archetypes, I'm afraid it won't be that rosy balance.

So that covers half of the archetypes (Tank, Cleric, Summoner, Bard). The other 4 archetypes are primary damage dealers.

Aaannd you've mostly proven my point. Bases are covered, who cares about the exact 4-5 dps classes to fill that role.

All that is to say that it looks like Intrepid wants there to be value with each archetype. I don't anticipate a situation where a Fighter will be turned down because the group already has a Ranger; I am sure the Fighter will have something to provide that the Ranger doesn't, and will be wanted. I do think there's a chance that a group with a Fighter won't want another one due to redundancy. Augments may make a difference though. We'll have to see.

I, too, hope every classes are wanted, but I've played too many MMOs over the years. There are always classes that are under-appreciated. Considered weak, no matter if it's the case or not. Or simply unpopular and most people don't want to bother to adapt to incorporate them into their "work flow".

SirChancelot

Percimes wrote: »

My worries are that tanks/x and cleric/x will be essential to every grouping scenarios and who cares about the rest of the group members' classes. It means both these classes will always be in shortage, which means pick up groups are much harder to form, which means people have to resort to soloing. Yes yes, get friends, get into a guild, roll these classes, yada yada... All personal solutions, not global ones, and not as effective as you believe.

This is what I'm saying, if they don't open it up and give more options for various archetype combinations to fill Trinity role positions and they are going to end up with a very defined meta of required classes and a game where the developers have said they want to avoid a meta from existing at all.
Every party will need a tank and cleric and then however many else of whatever the eff else because it doesn't matter.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Maybe a Fighter/tank allows for a more mobile Tank that has kiting potential. A summoner tank simply has minions that can do the tanking for them(an assumption seeing as nobody knows what this class has in its arsenal yet).

A Fighter/Tank allows for a more tanky Fighter.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Maybe a Fighter/tank allows for a more mobile Tank that has kiting potential. A summoner tank simply has minions that can do the tanking for them(an assumption seeing as nobody knows what this class has in its arsenal yet).

A Fighter/Tank allows for a more tanky Fighter.

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

bigepeen

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Maybe a Fighter/tank allows for a more mobile Tank that has kiting potential. A summoner tank simply has minions that can do the tanking for them(an assumption seeing as nobody knows what this class has in its arsenal yet).

A Fighter/Tank allows for a more tanky Fighter.

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

So in order from most to least tanky:
Tank/Tank -> Tank/Fighter -> Fighter/Tank

Dolyem

bigepeen wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Maybe a Fighter/tank allows for a more mobile Tank that has kiting potential. A summoner tank simply has minions that can do the tanking for them(an assumption seeing as nobody knows what this class has in its arsenal yet).

A Fighter/Tank allows for a more tanky Fighter.

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

So in order from most to least tanky:
Tank/Tank -> Tank/Fighter -> Fighter/Tank

Pretty much yea, lmao

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Do you just willfully ignore or legitimately not understand what people say.
A tank/mage would be tougher than a fighter/mage. Making him more of a magic melee DPS bruiser than a magic melee DPS glass Cannon, because he can take some hits. Because as you point out his base skills add damage mitigation. But on the skill trees if I put more points into the mage secondary effect of augment of fire damage and big explosions on impact I'm going to deal more damage and be less tanky than if I put my skill points into my primary archetype activated abilities like the charge that adds the damage mitigation. Again I'm trading to deal more damage than have survivability.

This is the first mention of the word "tough" on this page, so I dunno why you're trying to front that anything has been discussed about "tough" before.

tough, tanky, durable, survivability, beefy, harder to kill, or any other synonym you can think of... all same same my dude.

Dygz wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by skill trees.
Tank/Mage only has Tank skills. You can put points into the Elemental School augments and add those onto your Tank skills, sure. But, that does not make your Tank "less tanky". It makes your Tank more Elemental.
The Tank skills that provide Damage Mitigation will also deal Elemental damage. You aren't trading anything.
You are augmenting the Tank skills that you have.

Ok, from the top.
There are skill trees for passive, active, and weapon skills, and then there are augments (which also require skill points to apply per the wiki)
I have a tank/mage, who has all tank abilities and mage augments. Instead of sinking all of my skill points into my passive skills for health and hp regen I put all of my points into DMG and CDR. Instead of putting skill points into my tank activated abilities I used all those points for unlocking, applying, or upgrading (whatever it will be called) every augment that a mage has to offer me.
I have just created a class that will play similarly to what people will expect a spellsword to play like a 'melee magic damage class'. BUT because my primary was tank and i have the tank abilities I will be more durable than a fighter/mage AT THE EXPENSE of dealing as much damage as the fighter/mage would. If i did a fighter/mage and made all the same skill point choices, i would be less durable but more mobile (probably more dps?) character now with the fighters set of activatable abilities instead of the tanks.

Dygz wrote: »

Glass canon is a Mage Primary Archetype.
Of course, a Tank Primary Archetype is not going to be a glass canon. Also, a Fighter Primary Archetype will not be a glass canon. A Mage/Tank who focuses on Damage Mitigation also will not be a glass canon and a Mage/Cleric who focuses on Life School augments also won't be a glass canon.

When i say glass cannon, i mean a character that goes all in on every point going towards dealing damage, and not a single point goes to defense. This is not exclusive to a mage I could apply this to anything. I can take this upgrade approach to a orc fighter and it would be tanky'er than if i did it with a elf wizard. Anyone could do this with any class... not that i suggest this build for anyone or anything, its just a mentality all the DMG no defense.

Dygz wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

The reason I would use the tank over the fighter for my primary art type is because he is tougher and I like the skill set that his primary archetype brings to use.

A Tank/Mage will probably be tougher than a Fighter/Mage because a Tank will most likely have more damage mitigation than a Fighter. I don't know where you think I said that wouldn't be the case.
Again, I don't know why you mention this as something you would individually do.
Sure. You can choose Tank as your primary because that will very likely have the most damage mitigation.

thats what i would hope and was trying to say. a player who wants a more durable version of this character could trade his mobility and dmg of fighter/mage for the tanky'ness of tank/mage.
This is what I was trying to explain above.

Dygz wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

All I'm advocating for here is flexibility for the players to build their classes how they choose. And that includes the guy that wants to make a rogue/tank and go all in on Dodge, Parry, evasion tanking. If you don't like that don't play with him, just like any other system in the game that they're going to be building if you're not a fan of that, just ignore it.

Well, a Rogue/Tank is already going to be going "all in" on Dodge, Parry, Evasion...because that's what their Active Skills do. They will be able to add some Threat and Damage Mitigation to their Rogue skills. They will be a tanky Rogue.
If what you want is a roguey Tank, you choose Tank/Rogue and add Rogue augments to your Tank skills.
Evasion Tank is a Tank/Rogue. Could also be a Tank/Mage.
Doesn't matter what I like - I'm just sharing the game design.

a tank/rogue will still have all the tank activated abilities and skill set, he wont have what rogues can do. he wont have (all hypothetical here) smokebombs to disorient, or shadowdance to increase his dodge. he will still have charge and shieldbash and with the rogue aguments mabye he could add poison effects, or combo chains, or shadow damage.... but this wont make him a dodge tank.
a rogue /tank could be made into a dodge tank though. have your skill points lean heavily into the acrobatic abilities of the rogue but use the tank augments for threat generation that you have speculated exist. that combination would be more of a dodge tank than tank/rogue would be.

Dygz wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I personally feel like it would be better for there to be different tank (role) playstyles than just the tank(archetype) playstyle.

I don't know what you mean by "just the tank (archetype) playstyle". There is not only one type of Tank (archetype) playstyle.

I know you dont understand, thats why we keep circling back to this debate. what i have been trying to get at is, as you keep pointing out all tank/X will have tank abilities and unless augments can do some crazy shit to change up these tank abilities then all tanks(party role) will feel the same to the group. people will quickly find what tank/x is most efficient and only want those because they are the easiest or most tanky... probably a tank/tank or a tank/cleric if i had to guess.
where as if players were able to build certain X/tank combos into efficient tanks as well there would be larger variations in play style for group play therefore even harder to build a defined meta

Dygz wrote: »

There are at least 8 different Primary Tank playstyles. More than that because each Secondary Archetype has 4 Schools of augments. So even 4 Spellshields could have 4 distinct playstyles. And there are also augments from Social Orgs, Religions, Races and Nodes.

yes, 4 schools of augments... but this does NOT mean 4 distinct playstyles. we have already established that the 4 are fire, frost, electric, and teleportation. the only application of these that we have seen is either change the charge to a teleport or add fire damage to your strike. we copy this out to the other 2 schools and that just means add ice damage or add shock damage... those two dont sound anything like distinct playstyles.

Dygz wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

This could go either way though and we have no idea because we have no idea what any tank secondary augments do for a primary activated ability. So again, I just feel this route would be healthier for the game.

We do have an idea of what Tank augments will do for a primary skill. Most likely, there will be Tank augments from a Threat School and there will be augments from a Damage Mitigation School. Along with two other Schools associated with Tanks.
You can't know if something is healthier if you don't understand the design.

let me quote this again for you

Dygz wrote: »

Most likely

you. have. no. clue.
you are merely taking a stab at, you're guessing, you're just making it up and saying it sounds right, this is your opinion, there are no facts here, there are no sources of reference to this.
none of this has been revealed to us players yet, so guessing is all we can do.
I understand the design plenty (of what has been revealed so far) what we dont know is the scale of a lot of things yet, so we dont know how it will all work out in the end. I dont know, and unless you recently got hired by intrepid, you dont KNOW either.
so as i said, I feel like having more player control in character creation and options for builds and playstyles would be better for the game.

Dygz

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

This is what I'm saying, if they don't open it up and give more options for various archetype combinations to fill Trinity role positions and they are going to end up with a very defined meta of required classes and a game where the developers have said they want to avoid a meta from existing at all.
Every party will need a tank and cleric and then however many else of whatever the eff else because it doesn't matter.

We know what you are saying. That doesn't mean what you are saying is accurate.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.

Well why shouldn't they both fill the need for a tank? Tank/tank can be the meta, but fighter/tank could work fine in the absence of the tank/tank class. To be honest I can see people running many group compositions to get around that very thing since finding dedicated tanks in many MMO's seems to be difficult as a majority of players play dps classes. Maybe Tank/Tank should be the MOST viable at tanking, but that doesn't mean it should be the ONLY viable tanking class.

George_Black

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.

Well why shouldn't they both fill the need for a tank? Tank/tank can be the meta, but fighter/tank could work fine in the absence of the tank/tank class. To be honest I can see people running many group compositions to get around that very thing since finding dedicated tanks in many MMO's seems to be difficult as a majority of players play dps classes. Maybe Tank/Tank should be the MOST viable at tanking, but that doesn't mean it should be the ONLY viable tanking class.

Mate if a tank/x can do what tank/tank does, without fear of failure, why would anyone choose a tank/tank when a tank/healer or a tank/bard or a tank/mage can offer more?

George_Black

The meta will be here, make no mistakes. There is a lot of wishful thinking and I am saying this because we have seen what games like eso or aa managed to do with their "play as you want". Nothing.
The meta was there. For pve and for pvp.
Anyway. When I was playing a dual wield warrior on tera online I loved being able to off-tank. It was satisfying gameplay. But I never demanded to tank the activities. It wasnt possible.

In eso I was tanking with dual wield and gear choices all the 4man stuff. In a raid setting? Without a shield? No. It didnt work.

When we get to test the 8x8 we will have more to say. Till then there are two types of people here.
Wishful thinking and past examining.

SirChancelot

bigepeen wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Maybe a Fighter/tank allows for a more mobile Tank that has kiting potential. A summoner tank simply has minions that can do the tanking for them(an assumption seeing as nobody knows what this class has in its arsenal yet).

A Fighter/Tank allows for a more tanky Fighter.

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

So in order from most to least tanky:
Tank/Tank -> Tank/Fighter -> Fighter/Tank

Maybe. if they build their characters that way. If the fighter/tank builds full tank skills,stats,gear he could be tanky'er than the tank/fighter that built to be a DPS.

I mean, if a cleric (life and death schools) could build to be a DPS instead of a healer, a tank (archetype) should be able to play as just a DPS instead of a tank(role)... Just double down on the bleed effects or CC instead of mitigation and threat generation.

SirChancelot

George Black wrote: »

Mate if a tank/x can do what tank/tank does, without fear of failure, why would anyone choose a tank/tank when a tank/healer or a tank/bard or a tank/mage can offer more?

I see this as a skill threshold and skill ceiling range at this point. In other games like LoL you have characters like echo or ezerel that players can pull of sick plays with because those champions have a really high skill cap. And then there are players that just play DR Mundo and refuse to die and just pummel something to death...
The tank/tank is the DR Mundo. Just there to be a rock.
The summoner/tank is the echo player with a higher skill cap that can do crazy shit IF he is good with his class.

The tank/bard or mage may be able to offer more than the tank/tank... But it's not going to be as face roll

You see this with other MMOs too in wow a demon Hunter takes zero skill to play. Where as the skill cap for playing a brewmaster requires more effort.

Risk v reward.

Atama

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.

Well why shouldn't they both fill the need for a tank? Tank/tank can be the meta, but fighter/tank could work fine in the absence of the tank/tank class. To be honest I can see people running many group compositions to get around that very thing since finding dedicated tanks in many MMO's seems to be difficult as a majority of players play dps classes. Maybe Tank/Tank should be the MOST viable at tanking, but that doesn't mean it should be the ONLY viable tanking class.

Just remember that it goes against the stated intentions of the game designers for it to work that way. They don't intend for anyone but an actual Tank to serve in the primary tanking role. It's early so they might change their mind, or maybe players might figure out some way to make a non-Tank work better than the developers intended, so I won't say that there is absolutely no chance of that working. But while it's fun to speculate about how things might work, we've already been told that they won't work that way.

Main healers will be Clerics. Main tanks will be Tanks. The best anyone else will do is to be a support role. That's what we've been told is how it is intended to work.

But I guess it's fair to talk about whether or not it should be the only viable tanking class, keeping in mind that we've been told it will be the only viable tanking class.

I'd like it if a non-Tank can serve as a tank in some content, if not all. Maybe teamed up with a Bard and a Rogue, the Fighter/Tank can serve just fine as they run around doing quests. The Bard has enough healing to keep the downtime low, and the Fighter can keep enough of the enemies off the others to get through content faster than they would solo. They're not pulling off dungeons or anything but they can have their own version of the "holy trinity". I think that might not be too much to hope for.

Dolyem

George Black wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.

Well why shouldn't they both fill the need for a tank? Tank/tank can be the meta, but fighter/tank could work fine in the absence of the tank/tank class. To be honest I can see people running many group compositions to get around that very thing since finding dedicated tanks in many MMO's seems to be difficult as a majority of players play dps classes. Maybe Tank/Tank should be the MOST viable at tanking, but that doesn't mean it should be the ONLY viable tanking class.

Mate if a tank/x can do what tank/tank does, without fear of failure, why would anyone choose a tank/tank when a tank/healer or a tank/bard or a tank/mage can offer more?

I never said they would offer more? I said they would just still be viable tanks in the absence of the best tank archetype, that goes for other classes with tank secondary's possibly as well

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Well why shouldn't they both fill the need for a tank? Tank/tank can be the meta, but fighter/tank could work fine in the absence of the tank/tank class. To be honest I can see people running many group compositions to get around that very thing since finding dedicated tanks in many MMO's seems to be difficult as a majority of players play dps classes. Maybe Tank/Tank should be the MOST viable at tanking, but that doesn't mean it should be the ONLY viable tanking class.

Any Primary Archetype is viable. Tank/Fighter is a viable main tank.
Fighter/Tank is primarily a Fighter - so while a Fighter/Tank can off-tank quite well. Fighter/Tank will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an encounter designed for an 8-person group.

Tank/Tank is not the only viable main tank class. Any Tank/x is viable as main tank.

Khronus

As a tank I HOPE that I am not the only one who can tank. I am very much interested in pvp (as you have to be if you plan on playing AoC). If I get stuck being a mitigation tank without the opportunity to pvp, CC, or do anything else, it's going to be boring AF.

I get it. I choose tank because I want to tank. No need to say "choose something else if you want to do something else". My point is, what a waste of time developing 64 classes if we all fall into 1 of 3 choices anyway. No missed opportunities.

"They have the time. They have the funds. They have the creative design and talent. Let's see some shit that blows our fuckin minds." - Khronus 2021

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Yes...thats what I said... in other words a fighter with potential to tank.

A Fighter/Tank can off-tank but will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Tank in an 8-person group.

So why take a fighter/tank at all?

Dygz

That's why you do Tank/X.
There's a whole bunch of ways to add more diversity to your Tank abilities.
Tank/Rogue or Tank/Bard should add a lot of variety - plus, again, all the Racial, Social Org, Religious and Node augments.

Child Item