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

Dolyem

Atama 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.

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.

honestly thats all this post is about really. Not saying what tanking is, but what it potentially should be in this game as far as role assignment. Its interesting to see so many want to keep a single class cornered into one role, which ultimately may turn people off from playing it since it has the possibility to grow stale over time just doing the same thing. But that is simply speculation.

SirChancelot

Noaani 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.

So why take a fighter/tank at all?

There isn't one.
X/tanks are useless.

I mean if he can't tank and would only 'off tank' why would you want a class who isn't as good to be your off tank. Just get a second tank/x, they're a better tank, so they would be a better off tank too.
-___-

Elo

I know this discussion is really about roles for grouping, but a fighter might spec fighter/tank for some tough solo content. (e.g. a tough landscape mob designed for a 3-person group could potentially be soloed by a fighter/tank).

[Other archetypes will likely have a similar situation, with some of it classes better designed for solo play, but that is a different topic.]

Noaani

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Noaani 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.

So why take a fighter/tank at all?

There isn't one.
X/tanks are useless.

I mean if he can't tank and would only 'off tank' why would you want a class who isn't as good to be your off tank. Just get a second tank/x, they're a better tank, so they would be a better off tank too.
-___-

But why even have an off tank?

If the content calls for two tanks (single group content wont), then you take two tanks.

If it doesnt call for two tanks, you take one tank.

I dont see a place for the concept of an off tank at all.

Noaani

My expectation with almost all */tank classes is that they will be the high survivability build for your class.

If this is how it works out, it would mean a fighter/tank is a fighter that has a bit more in the way of survivability than a regular fighter/fighter, but is still a fighter, not a tank.

Since there is more to tanking than just survivability, this says to me that it is unlikely that a fighter/tank would be able to be an actual tank.

Same this with a mage/tank - it is a mage with higher survivability than the other mages. No one is going to expect it to be able to tank

The only exception to this that I see is the summoner - this is because summoners dont really have a "role" as such, so their role is the class they take as a secondary.

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

My expectation with almost all */tank classes is that they will be the high survivability build for your class.

If this is how it works out, it would mean a fighter/tank is a fighter that has a bit more in the way of survivability than a regular fighter/fighter, but is still a fighter, not a tank.

This is exactly how I think this will play out. Which is why I’m contemplating the Sentinel. Plus I know I prefer sword and board for melee anyway, so it might just make me a tougher ranger. Given the rigors of exploration I think it will come in handy.

Atama

Fighter/Tank might be a good solo build, and it might still be nice to have someone doing the heavy DPS of a Fighter but can stay and keep hitting during an AoE while another Fighter would have to take cover rather than die from spike damage. In that situation they might end up doing more damage than a Fighter/Fighter over the course of an encounter.

Just speculating here but wouldn’t that be pretty cool?

Dygz

Fighter has a specific role in an 8-person group. Just as the other 7 Primary Archetypes have a specific role.

"Fighters are going to be the DPS equivalent and counter-part of a Ranger. But, moreso in the way that dealing burst damage for Physical as opposed to consistent Damage Over Time that a Ranger might be doing. What we want the Fighter to do is to be able to cut through enemy lines, get to the support area of a raid perhaps and take out healers with some quick DPS burst damage. We want them to be masters of different weapons. We want them to be able to be versatile in whether or not they want to be a ranged fighter or melee one. It's going to be up to the player."
---Steven Sharif

If you primarily want to main tank, you should choose Tank for your Primary Archetype.
Fighter/Tank isn't useless for the group - being able to efficiently kill enemy healers is not useless. It is a different role than main tank.
You could try focusing on augments from the Threat and Damage Mitigation Schools and hope that the burst damage from the Fighter active skills make you a very good off-tank. You might also, perhaps, be able to get some healing augments Religions that effectively mitigate damage.

Especially in PvE, being able to use Threat augments to focus enemy healers on you rather than on healing the boss that the main tank is dealing with is a great role. Same for using Threat augments to focus enemy Mages on you instead of your allies - especially if you also have Damage Mitigation augments to help you survive the enemy Mages' DPS.

You get a Fighter/Tank to off-tank when what you want is someone to grab the attention of and fend off a bunch of enemies quickly rather than grab the attention of and fend off the boss for the duration of the encounter.
In some ways, the Fighter/Tank is the opposite of a Ninja. We expect a Ninja to use Stealth and burst damage, but the Dreadnought wants to be seen by the enemy as they do their burst damage. In some ways the Fighter/Tank is similar to a Swashbuckler, but the Dreadnought will be soaking damage rather than Evading damage.

All depends on how you want to play.
But, yes... if you want to be the main tank in an 8-person group, you should choose Tank as your Primary Archetype. There should be no confusion there. It's right there in the name.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

You get a Fighter/Tank to off-tank when what you want is someone to grab the attention of and fend off a bunch of enemies quickly rather than grab the attention of and fend off the boss for the duration of the encounter.

Only shit groups made from shit players would have an off tank do this.

Tanking mobs is the tanks job. It's right their in the name and the role.

If you get adds during an encounter, the tank takes care of them, and the healer takes care of the tank.

If there is a valid reason to have a fighter/tank in a group, this is not it. You are better off having a more DPS or support focused fighter here, in order to more quickly deal with the adds the tank is tanking.

Again, the entire notion of off tanking (significantly different concept to multi-tanking on content that specific requires it) is for actual, absolute amateurs - it is for people that do not in any way trust that their tank is any good.

If I were a tank in a group, and someone came along with tank as a secondary stating that they can off tank, I would be offended.

JustVine

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You get a Fighter/Tank to off-tank when what you want is someone to grab the attention of and fend off a bunch of enemies quickly rather than grab the attention of and fend off the boss for the duration of the encounter.

Only shit groups made from shit players would have an off tank do this.

Tanking mobs is the tanks job. It's right their in the name and the role.

If you get adds during an encounter, the tank takes care of them, and the healer takes care of the tank.

If there is a valid reason to have a fighter/tank in a group, this is not it. You are better off having a more DPS or support focused fighter here, in order to more quickly deal with the adds the tank is tanking.

Again, the entire notion of off tanking (significantly different concept to multi-tanking on content that specific requires it) is for actual, absolute amateurs - it is for people that do not in any way trust that their tank is any good.

If I were a tank in a group, and someone came along with tank as a secondary stating that they can off tank, I would be offended.

And here we see a meta forming before we even know the actual augments and skills in question just based on a preconceived notions of tanking, and one line from Intrepid. If they go this strict route and make augments this weak then yes there are only 8 classes and people will quickly optimize for a select few styles. What a bland ass game.

Dygz

As far as I can tell, Noaani believes that it's best for every Primary Archetype to double-down.
"Tank/Tank is the best Tank possible so it makes no sense to for a top end raid group to allow any other Tank class."

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You get a Fighter/Tank to off-tank when what you want is someone to grab the attention of and fend off a bunch of enemies quickly rather than grab the attention of and fend off the boss for the duration of the encounter.

Only shit groups made from shit players would have an off tank do this.

Tanking mobs is the tanks job. It's right their in the name and the role.

If you get adds during an encounter, the tank takes care of them, and the healer takes care of the tank.

If there is a valid reason to have a fighter/tank in a group, this is not it. You are better off having a more DPS or support focused fighter here, in order to more quickly deal with the adds the tank is tanking.

Again, the entire notion of off tanking (significantly different concept to multi-tanking on content that specific requires it) is for actual, absolute amateurs - it is for people that do not in any way trust that their tank is any good.

If I were a tank in a group, and someone came along with tank as a secondary stating that they can off tank, I would be offended.

And here we see a meta forming before we even know the actual augments and skills in question just based on a preconceived notions of tanking, and one line from Intrepid. If they go this strict route and make augments this weak then yes there are only 8 classes and people will quickly optimize for a select few styles. What a bland ass game.

It isn't one line from Intrepid - it is the entire concept of the game in which choice matters.

The first choice that you make is your class - if you pick tank, then you are a tank, if you pick mage, then you are DPS, if you pick fighter, then you are melee DPS. The augments don't change this, that is not the point of the augment system.

If it were the case that a fighter/tank were able to tank, then a fighter/cleric should also be able to heal. Why would you expect one without the other?

If this were the case, why then should a mage not expect to be able to tank if they are running tank as their secondary class? Or be able to heal if they are running cleric?

If this were the case, then that choice that we made at the start - our primary class - no longer defines our role, and as such no longer matters. Suddenly, we have just one more in a long line of games where every player can perform every role - THAT is bland.

And to be perfectly clear, I am not "forming a meta".

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

As far as I can tell, Noaani believes that it's best for every Primary Archetype to double-down.
"Tank/Tank is the best Tank possible so it makes no sense to for a top end raid group to allow any other Tank class."

Tank/tank will be best for raiding, almost without a doubt.

I don't expect it to be best for group content though, and it almost certainly won't be best for PvP of any kind.

You are also mistaken on your comment that "it makes no sense to for a top end raid group to allow" anything.

Once you are in a top end guild, all that matters is your performance. You are expected to be able to make the choice as to which build you run all by yourself, like a big boy.

Top end guilds don't dictate anything other than performance - mediocre guilds dictate builds.

JustVine

JustVine wrote: »

Melofeign wrote: »

I come from a perspective that I enjoy a variety of roles, and prefer to be able to fill a hole that the party has. If I go Tank (my favourite role) and don't have an offspec or a job or whatever can make me serviceable in another role, I don't enjoy it as much because if I have another Tank friend, we won't do some content together because you only need one per group. Alts can help with some of this, but with the slow travel that may not be viable either.

So if there are options to be viable, not necessarily top, at other jobs by swapping up your secondary, that will make me happy. If there isn't, then I'll have to make a decision on what role I prefer to play, and then base my social network around that role. If I go cleric and I want to do pve content, I will need tank friends. If I chose tank, the reverse. I would just feel bad not being able to do something because we didn't have the right toons available, even though we have the players.

This is the biggest reason for why I think /tank should grant people the ability to do most PvE tanking. I want people to be able to make up for the fact that they don't have a main tank AS A TEAM. Let people have the tools to have their teams unique style and approach depending on what everyone likes to play.

This doesn't mean you need to lessen tank in any way shape or form. If anything this means you should make main tank even more robust than is currently available. But similarly, the augment system should let a person who thinks about their build very carefully to pick complimentary main archtypes (cleric, summoner, rogue(evasion build only), fighter) and be able to work something out if their team mates are similarly aware and build in ways that can make up a little bit of the gap left by the person not playing tank but still looking to fulfill the role.

Any system that lacks the ability to have a team style like this is in my opinion tends to lead to cookie cutter meta builds and generally leads to unavoidable toxicity (as opposed to avoidable toxicity which is more likely if people are pushed less to have the absolute precise optimal build throughout an entire group.) The human tendency for 'forcing optimization' onto others is already high enough as is, it doesn't need assistance from uninspired game design.

This is why I say it'd be bland. Your pigeonholing people into singular role when roles are not so black and white innately. It inadvertently focuses builds down to one or two styles because those roles only have so many approaches when augments are as weak as you seem to want.

I am not arguing for 'ever class every role.' I am arguing for flexibility to tilt obviously synegistic concepts towards one another. Without it the game will be bland and have an extremely harsh and stale meta.

A game supposedly about teamwork taking away choices for teams to have their own unique mesh because of presuppositions of how the roles in question work. Whether you like it or not you are basically imposing a meta by 'deciding how a role is 'supposed' to function when done 'optimally''.

daveywavey

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

My expectation with almost all */tank classes is that they will be the high survivability build for your class.

If this is how it works out, it would mean a fighter/tank is a fighter that has a bit more in the way of survivability than a regular fighter/fighter, but is still a fighter, not a tank.

This is exactly how I think this will play out. Which is why I’m contemplating the Sentinel. Plus I know I prefer sword and board for melee anyway, so it might just make me a tougher ranger. Given the rigors of exploration I think it will come in handy.

I'm hoping that Bard/Tank can augment the Bard skills to provide additional survivability for the whole group. Plus, you get to be a shmexy Siren.

SirChancelot

@dolyem see what I mean when I said you're brave
Lol

SirChancelot

Noaani wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

You get a Fighter/Tank to off-tank when what you want is someone to grab the attention of and fend off a bunch of enemies quickly rather than grab the attention of and fend off the boss for the duration of the encounter.

Only shit groups made from shit players would have an off tank do this.

Tanking mobs is the tanks job. It's right their in the name and the role.

If you get adds during an encounter, the tank takes care of them, and the healer takes care of the tank.

If there is a valid reason to have a fighter/tank in a group, this is not it. You are better off having a more DPS or support focused fighter here, in order to more quickly deal with the adds the tank is tanking.

Again, the entire notion of off tanking (significantly different concept to multi-tanking on content that specific requires it) is for actual, absolute amateurs - it is for people that do not in any way trust that their tank is any good.

If I were a tank in a group, and someone came along with tank as a secondary stating that they can off tank, I would be offended.

And here we see a meta forming before we even know the actual augments and skills in question just based on a preconceived notions of tanking, and one line from Intrepid. If they go this strict route and make augments this weak then yes there are only 8 classes and people will quickly optimize for a select few styles. What a bland ass game.

It isn't one line from Intrepid - it is the entire concept of the game in which choice matters.

The first choice that you make is your class - if you pick tank, then you are a tank, if you pick mage, then you are DPS, if you pick fighter, then you are melee DPS. The augments don't change this, that is not the point of the augment system.

If it were the case that a fighter/tank were able to tank, then a fighter/cleric should also be able to heal. Why would you expect one without the other?

If this were the case, why then should a mage not expect to be able to tank if they are running tank as their secondary class? Or be able to heal if they are running cleric?

If this were the case, then that choice that we made at the start - our primary class - no longer defines our role, and as such no longer matters. Suddenly, we have just one more in a long line of games where every player can perform every role - THAT is bland.

And to be perfectly clear, I am not "forming a meta".

I'd be ok with fighter/cleric coming up with a build to heal. They have said the cleric augments will be able to heal themselves AND those around them.
But again just choosing your primary and secondary archetype isn't the only aspect of building your character if you make this character and don't dump enough points into mana pool and mana regen as a passive. If you weren't getting gear that gives bonuses for healing, then no you shouldn't be able to heal.
They would also have to expect that they are going to lose all of their DPS aspect.

In no way am I saying just because you have x/cleric mean you should also be able to heal on top of whatever your primary role was. More of that it should give you the option that if you build towards it (gear, stats, skill points, augments, etc ) you would be able to instead of DPS.

It does sound kind of funny going from "catch these hands" to "catch these healing hands" and punching health into your allies.

A melee healer sounds kind of interesting if the healing augment changes the charge ability to something like intercept where you dash to your lowest health Ally and apply a healing hand.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

A game supposedly about teamwork taking away choices for teams to have their own unique mesh because of presuppositions of how the roles in question work. Whether you like it or not you are basically imposing a meta by 'deciding how a role is 'supposed' to function when done 'optimally''.

No one is doing that.

If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role.

You can argue that, but those are Stevens words.

What I dont get is why you think this means the role of tank is the pigeonholed in terms of how it is supposed to function.

As a tank, you can opt to take tank as your secondary and double down on it. You are likely to be a better over all tank than any other class, but this is something that is likely not needed in group content, and not desired in PvP.

You can maybe take rogue as your secondary, and perhaps you are now an avoidance tank rather than a mitigation tank. This is a seriously different kind of tank - so different that very few games actually even have a build for this.

Perhaps you take summoner as your secondary, and now you are able to tank one mob yourself, and have a pet tank adds.

Maybe you take ranger, and you are able to tank mobs from distance - who knows.

But yeah, sure, saying that your primary class dictates your role is pigeonholing how all tanks in the game are supposed to function.

Sure, why not.

Ironhope

Noaani wrote: »

If you pick tank as your primary, you are a tank, that is your role.

Hope they wont take this to the extreme.

I hope that if you choose a dps sub-class, have dps gear, dps tattoos, dps affiliation and dps talents you'll be a viable tank-dps hybrid.

JustVine

'As a tank you get the PvE build, the PvP build, or the all around build that isn't as good as either of those things but makes you feel like you can do everything. So many options and roles for team work!'

Contrasted that with a strong augment system where you can pull your chosen archetype closer to another part of the trinity gradient where its more debatable what's optimal depending on team composition. If you don't have this classes and team compositions are rigid and will ultimately devolve into a single meta/countermeta. People will start complaining about someone not being tank/tank and thats all it takes.

'Pros can rise above it' as a 'solution' to the average humans desire to not be excluded just for wanting a certain play style neglects the average end users experience and leads to less enjoyable games.

Child Item