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

Noaani

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

.
A death knight plays different than a bear plays different than a brewmaster. And they bring different things to the table.

But Ashes will have this.

A tank/tank will play differently to a tank/rogue, or a tank/mage.

I've said this multiple times.

A tank level 24, no augment. Basic opener:
I'm going to onslaught to charge target
Shockwave for some aoe DMG and threat
Myrmidon strike to get the DMG reduction
Then lacerate a lot for the bleed n stuff...

I hit lvl 25 and choose mage for secondary
That rotation won't change.

No it wont.

Nor should it.

By level 50 though, it will be totally different.

Dygz

Khronus wrote: »

I know you are coming in from a different angle and trying to make light of the topic but this comment dumbs down the conversation. Not trying to be rude but no shit a mage tank should not be able to main tank the giant ogre boss swinging a club lol. Why not expand the options mages have and allow them to main tank an enemy spellcaster boss? Or possibly pick up mage adds that just sit back and blast our raid members (thus giving us more dynamic boss mechanics)? Why not give mages the option to spec mage/tank and provide magical mitigation or even deflection from timed cooldowns for their allies? The same can be said for a rogue evasion tanking.

Because Tank is not the primary role of a Mage. And the primary role is defined by the Primary Archetype.
If the player wants to main tank, they should choose Primary Archetype Tank.
A key part of Risk v Reward is that choices matter and have consequences.
If the Mage wants to dabble with tanking, they can choose Tank as their Secondary Archetype and have a secondary role as tank - which inherently means they will not be primarily tanking.
The Tank/x would still main tank the boss, but a Mage/Tank might indeed be great at off-tanking adds.
The Mage won't be able to main tank because they won't have Tank Active Skills.
Mage/Tank will be able to provide magical Damage Mitigation. But augments are not as powerful as Active Skills.
Active Skills are primary and augments are secondary - by comparison.

Khronus wrote: »

On the flipside. Why does mage/tank only gain the opportunity to last.....a few more hits? Are we really going to be excited for a system that let's you spec into EIGHT different options but they are just slight adjustments of the primary/primary role? Do you think people are going to choose less dps (when they chose a DPS class) so they can survive against a rogue/ranger/fighter better? Yeah some will, but it would be a terrible choice and you "should" opt in for higher damage, more CC, escapes instead. I'm all for empowering players to make their own unique choices but when those choices end up clearly inferior, what then?

Who is saying slight adjustments?
Steven says "radical" and "fundamental" adjustments.
What does choose less DPS mean? And how are you measuring less DPS?
I think what you're asking is why not choose Mage/Mage to maximize DPS by adding Elemental augments to your Elemental Active Skills. But, some Mage/Mages might not choose to maximize their DPS anyways.
Again, Mage has 4 augments Schools to choose from. A Mage/Mage could choose to add Teleport augments to their Active Skills instead of Elemental augments. Or augments from one of the other 2 Schools.
It all depends on how the player wants to play their Mage.
Most likely, a Mage/Tank is going to want to be in the thick of melee instead of staying on the outskirts hoping to avoid damage. Most likely they don't want to be a glass cannon, and instead want to be able to soak damage.

As a Mage/Tank, I might, indeed, in PvE choose to focus on the Mage adds by Snaring them with a Frostbolt that has a Threat augment. Those Mages would be focused on me, rather than the Rogue or Ranger moving into position to attack them from behind. Again, my Frost Snare might also synergize with the Snares of the Rogue and Ranger. And augments from the Damage Mitigation School would allow me to soak the burst damage from those Mages.
It's not just about how I play as an individual - I'm a Rogue so I have to strive for maximum personal DPS.
Rather it's about how I synergize with the other members of my group - while I customize my character in a way that is not cookie-cutter.

Khronus wrote: »

This system should be what is glorious. They have literal years before launch. Plenty of time and opportunity to delve deep into an engaging and comprehensively robust class system that will set them apart from the competition. There is ZERO reason to settle on subtle adjustments to the holy trinity.

Which is precisely why they aren't settling on subtle adjustments.

Dolyem

Here's a question....What harm would there be to have 1 or 2 different primary classes that */tank as an archetype, and be able to be a viable tank for content? And what harm would there be to allow a tank primary to alter its role by choosing 1 or 2 certain secondary's? Not all, just a few options. Looking forward to hearing everyone's reasoning.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Here's a question....What harm would there be to have 1 or 2 different primary classes that */tank as an archetype, and be able to be a viable tank for content? And what harm would there be to allow a tank primary to alter its role by choosing 1 or 2 certain secondary's? Not all, just a few options. Looking forward to hearing everyone's reasoning.

There is no harm, that is what a summoner is for. This works because summoners have no primary role - as far as we know.

With something like a cleric, ranger or mage though, it would mean they have two defined roles- and would be the only primary class that does.

Dygz

I don't know why you're using the word harm.
The game is being balanced for any Tank/x to be viable. Balancing for any Tank/x and any x/Tank to be viable would be way too much work. Especially as that gets expanded to all of the possible class combos.

Secondary Archetype already allows a Primary to alter their role by moving it closer to the role of the Secondary Archetype. But, secondary is secondary; not primary. Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class. And that makes it way easier for the devs to maintain balance.
But, there are tons of augments: Archetype, Racial, Social, Religious and Node, that allow players to significantly affect how they play the Primary Archetype. 2 "secondaries" is unecessary.

There are already tons of options.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

I don't know why you're using the word harm.
The game is being balanced for any Tank/x to be viable. Balancing for any Tank/x and any x/Tank to be viable would be way too much work. Especially as that gets expanded to all of the possible class combos.

Secondary Archetype already allows a Primary to alter their role by moving it closer to the role of the Secondary Archetype. But, secondary is secondary; not primary. Secondary Archetype creates a sub-class; not a dual-class. And that makes it way easier for the devs to maintain balance.
But, there are tons of augments: Archetype, Racial, Social, Religious and Node, that allow players to significantly affect how they play the Primary Archetype. 2 "secondaries" is unecessary.

There are already tons of options.

Specifically didn't say any, I said 1 or 2 options.

Dolyem

Also I use the word harm because it sounds like people think it will hurt the game to have a viable tank role to be done by anything besides the class named tank. And also it sounds like people feel the game may be harmed by allowing the tank class to subclass out of the role of tank in any way.

Nerror

Dolyem wrote: »

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

Yes

JustVine

There is a set of people in here who go 'you can change your tank by your subclass therefore play tank if you want to be that.'

So let me ask a different question. Why is it acceptable to have 4 clear distinct dps classes that play differently spec differently look different?

If I want to be an evasion tank. You all are telling me to play tank/rogue, but quite frankly, Rogue/Tank suits that role and mindset way better.

What kind of evasion tank wants to grind through a tanks early game vs a rogue one. Maybe there are some but I bet you their fun is lessened. You don't ask ranger to play the fighters early game, and they would at least actually be able to enjoy themselves because they still have access to a bow. The evasion tank has to wait 25 some odd levels maybe more just to get blind so they can dodge properly. Why is this acceptable?

bloodprophet

JustVine wrote: »

There is a set of people in here who go 'you can change your tank by your subclass therefore play tank if you want to be that.'

So let me ask a different question. Why is it acceptable to have 4 clear distinct dps classes that play differently spec differently look different?

If I want to be an evasion tank. You all are telling me to play tank/rogue, but quite frankly, Rogue/Tank suits that role and mindset way better.

How? You will only get skills from your primary archetype. So with out the threat management tools and damage mitigation tools that ONLY the Tank class will have. Again how? How will Rogue/Tank control the battlefield?
Way is is so bad that the game have rules?

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I hit lvl 25 and choose mage for secondary
That rotation won't change.
I'm going to onslaught, but now it's a teleport.
Shockwave, but now there's some extra magey burn damage.
Etc etc...
I'm still going to use the same abilities, those mage augments aren't going to change the playstyle of the tank. Yes there are extra effects, and those can be very useful, but those changes won't change the way I'm playing the character.

A teleport on Onslaught does change how you play the Tank because you can now avoid obstacles thrown between you and your target. Your target basically cannot Evade you, even if they go Invisible. You would teleport past any wall placed between you and your target. Getting hit by a Snare would be irrelevant because you immediately teleport to your target.
Your Tank/Mage would be better vs Rogues and Rangers specifically than a Tank/Tank would be.
And you would likely choose to focus more on foes with Evasion than you would if you were a Tank/Tank.

Shockwave with an extra Magey burn means that you can partner with the Mage to stack Elemental damage instead of partnering with the Rogue to stack Bleeds if you're a Tank/Rogue.

Then, you say etc, etc as if there's just two options to make a difference in how played up through Level 24.
You have augments from 4 distinct Schools that you could choose to place on Onslaught.
A different player may choose to place different Mage augments on Onslaught - and they will play distinctly differently from you - even though they are using the same Active Skill.
Even if a different Tank/Mage stays with the Elemental School and adds a Frost augment to their Shockwave, that would add a Snare to the target...which could stack with a Rogue's or Ranger's Snare. So they might choose to partner and synergize with the Rogue and Ranger rather than synergizing with the Mage.
Or, they could choose to augment Shockwave with an augment from one of the other 3 Mage Schools - and that would, again, have a very different result.

Yes. You will still be using the same Active Skills.
How you augment your Active Skills will significantly change how you choose to deploy those Active Skills - especially in synergy with other people in your group.

You did notice how I said those changes can be very useful, right? I'm not discounting that they make a difference. What I said is they're not going to change how I play the class. Changing how I play the class or changing how I use that activated ability in a fight would be a "significant change".
Neither of those are a "significant change", I'm still going to use the same abilities in the same order I just now get some extra goodies... And yes I said etc etc because I didn't want to write more... You can add shock and frost to your abilities and sure it may synergize with other classes better but I'm still using the same abilities in the same order for the same gameplay, nothing is changing...

@Noaani change 25 to 50. My argument still stands. The augments that have been given as examples don't change the class play.

Maybe they will once they start releasing more of them, but for what's out right now... Not really.

Dygz

Dygz wrote: »

Specifically didn't say any, I said 1 or 2 options.

That doesn't change the answer.
Balance is by Primary Archetype because that makes it easier on the devs.
Rather than trying to balance by class combos.
Balance is by the 8 Primary Archetypes - hence the term primary.

Dygz

JustVine wrote: »

So let me ask a different question. Why is it acceptable to have 4 clear distinct dps classes that play differently spec differently look different?

Of course I don't even understand what that question is supposed to mean.
Ashes is an RPG. There should be a wide variety of ways to play differently, spec differently and look different.

JustVine wrote: »

If I want to be an evasion tank. You all are telling me to play tank/rogue, but quite frankly, Rogue/Tank suits that role and mindset way better.

Tank/Mage can also be an Evasion Tank. Py'Rai Tank/x might also be Evasion Tanks. Thieves Guild Tank/x might also be Evasion Tanks.
I suppose you could call a Rogue/Tank an evasion tank if you want to but, it does not fit the mindset way better because Rogue/Tank is primarily a Rogue. So what you actually have is a tanky Rogue.

JustVine wrote: »

What kind of evasion tank wants to grind through a tanks early game vs a rogue one. Maybe there are some but I bet you their fun is lessened. You don't ask ranger to play the fighters early game, and they would at least actually be able to enjoy themselves because they still have access to a bow. The evasion tank has to wait 25 some odd levels maybe more just to get blind so they can dodge properly. Why is this acceptable?

What? If you want to main Tank, you play a Primary Archetype Tank.
If you want to primarily Evade, you probably play a Primary Archetype Rogue or a Primary Archetype Mage.
If you want to be an Evasion main Tank, you choose Primary Archetype Tank and pick up augments that allow you to Evade.
If you want to primarily Evade, but also off-tank, you choose Primary Archetype Rogue or Primary Archetype Ranger --- possibly even Primary Archetype Fighter --- and then pick up augments that allow you to tank.

If you want to play a Ranger who also does some "fighting", you choose Ranger/Fighter. If you want to play a Fighter who also does some "rangering", you choose Fighter/Ranger.

A Tank\x does not necessarily have to wait 25 Levels to begin gathering Evasion augments and Evasion gear.
You can mostly likely get Racial augments that allow you to Evade before Level 25, if that's really the path you want. We also don't know what Level(s) we can start acquiring Thieves Guild augments.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Also I use the word harm because it sounds like people think it will hurt the game to have a viable tank role to be done by anything besides the class named tank. And also it sounds like people feel the game may be harmed by allowing the tank class to subclass out of the role of tank in any way.

It's counter to the game design and harms the devs who are trying to maintain balance.
I'm not aware of anyone saying "the game may be harmed".
You can't really sub-class out of a role. You could theoretically dual-class out of a role. But, Ashes doesn't have dual-classes. And they aren't going to have dual-classes because that would be too difficult for the devs to balance.

SirChancelot

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Here's a question....What harm would there be to have 1 or 2 different primary classes that */tank as an archetype, and be able to be a viable tank for content? And what harm would there be to allow a tank primary to alter its role by choosing 1 or 2 certain secondary's? Not all, just a few options. Looking forward to hearing everyone's reasoning.

There is no harm, that is what a summoner is for. This works because summoners have no primary role - as far as we know.

With something like a cleric, ranger or mage though, it would mean they have two defined roles- and would be the only primary class that does.

I by no means think that a tank/cleric or cleric/tank should be able to tank AND heal. OR, I've been very clearly saying OR.
I've been saying this because I don't believe that archetype is the only choice in building your character, the only thing that primary archetype gives you is all of your base activated abilities. From there your character grows and development can still vary depending on which secondary augments you choose, or social, or religious, or node, or racial, augments, what gear you put on, how you distribute your skill points, tattoo system(?)... With all of these options it's possible to have a cleric/tank play half a dozen different builds what's wrong with one of those builds being a tank?
(Plus a lot of what I saw from alpha one looks like it was harder to kill a cleric than kill a tank, 😂)

SirChancelot

Dolyem wrote: »

Here's a question....What harm would there be to have 1 or 2 different primary classes that */tank as an archetype, and be able to be a viable tank for content? And what harm would there be to allow a tank primary to alter its role by choosing 1 or 2 certain secondary's? Not all, just a few options. Looking forward to hearing everyone's reasoning.

I don't think it would harm the game at all, I think it would make it better if it worked that way... Call it a meaningful choice.

Dygz

Primary role of a Summoner is Support, but...
You can have a Summon that is more of a Tank type a Support type or DPS type.

Dygz

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I don't believe that archetype is the only choice in building your character, the only thing that primary archetype gives you is all of your base activated abilities. From there your character grows and development can still vary depending on which secondary augments you choose, or social, or religious, or node, or racial, augments, what gear you put on, how you distribute your skill points, tattoo system(?)... With all of these options it's possible to have a cleric/tank play half a dozen different builds what's wrong with one of those builds being a tank?
(Plus a lot of what I saw from alpha one looks like it was harder to kill a cleric than kill a tank, 😂)

Primary Archetype is not the only choice in building your character.
Primary Archetype determines your primary role through the Active Skills.
Your character can grow and develop in lots of ways to make how you play that primary role fairly unique, but... none of that will switch your primary role to some other role. You have lots of choices with regard to secondary roles...but those roles will remain secondary to the primary role.
A secondary role cannot become primary.

Cleric/Tank is by definition a tank. Just don't expect them to be main tank for an 8-person group.
Because augments are secondary compared to Active Skills. Active Skills are more powerful than augments.
The primary role of a Cleric/Tank will be Cleric.

Sathrago

Dygz wrote: »

Primary role of a Summoner is Support, but...
You can have a Summon that is more of a Tank type a Support type or DPS type.

What? Can you point to where it actually says summoners are a support role?

because I read this and came to a different conclusion that Summoners can play all roles.

Dygz

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Classes

https://youtu.be/KtVUiS7yAHE?t=6191
"The way Summoning works is:
Players have Active abilities as a Summoner to Summon a particular type of Summoning. And those types of Summons you can Summon will be adherent to the Trinity class system. So, you'll have a more Tank-oriented Summon available to you, as well as a more Support-oriented Summon and a DPS-type Summon.
So, you'll want to choose which one you're going to want to use at any given encounter, based on the necessity of the encounter."
---Steven

Child Item