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

Gizban

Azherae wrote: »

I personally don't see Rogue's main role in a group as 'Damage', but according to Dygz that's what it is.

Rogues go stabby stabby, everyone knows that.

Azherae

Lemme get weirdly philosophical, then, @pyreal .

Lots of people who play specific classes in games, do so because of their psychology. Pretty obvious, right? You can use it to predict them with fairly high accuracy, even down to the way they talk and the way they make their points.

So we've got Dygz, a Cleric/Rogue who constantly tries to 'heal' any negativity toward the systems by just 'casting healing as fast as possible' and then 'evading or ignoring anyone else's perspective'. Me, who could be described as doing the same, honestly, no need to be charitable there.

And you, a High Priest who doesn't even do the evading. You're just also 'casting heal as powerfully as possible'. I actually responded to you before thinking you were a Bard, that's what I misremembered, so I 'moved to disrupt your song' and expected 'the Bard reaction'. But you're not a Bard.

So your response is, in my mind, just the 'instinctive heal-shield cast on a person you perceive to be under attack without justification'. This is so consistent across people that I subtly joke about it, or can predict what class someone plays from the way they argue quite often.

The only thing surprising about your post is that you bothered to make it. Of course the 'Holy Priest who doesn't even care about using a mace' has the response of 'a straightforward, no frills system in which we challenge ourselves not through freedom, but through refinement of our constraints'. It's almost Roleplaying levels, and I have to constantly remind myself that just because data allows people to be predicted does not make the people less real.

But Dygz doesn't really need your heals, and it mostly just won't work. The Templar will swing their weapon with 'righteous fury' against the complacency, the Tank will shield from the dogma, the Shadow Disciple will undermine the responses with redirection and control, and if it all gets too silly, I'm sure I can find the right thing to say to make the 'Samurai' show up and spend a whole page trying to line up the perfect cut by walking Dygz into a position where evading is no longer possible.

Honestly, I sometimes wish reality wasn't like this, it causes me to suffer from low-grade solipsism. Even this post is intended to elicit a specific reaction that fits my models. Were you 'healing yourself'? Because the way you did it has a lot of signs of that, but your other option was 'Protector', which comes through pretty well in the 'backup with vague snipe but don't make any strong point'. Good shot, but I 'dodge' well. Or maybe I'm wrong about all of this, after all, what kind of person believes that you can break down someone's entire philosophy based on a class choice in an MMO, right?

But even if I'm crazy, I'm completely unable to see your post in any other light. Spend enough time crunching data trends, and anything that matches your models becomes just an abstraction. Something you just gloss over while looking for outliers.

Surprise me.

Dygz

Oh, no. I am not trying to heal any negativity towards the systems.
I'm just sharing what the devs have said about the game design.
Share your interpretations of the dev quotes - share counter dev quotes.
And then we will see whose interpretation was more accurate once the game launches.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Oh, no. I am not trying to heal any negativity towards the systems.
I'm just sharing what the devs have said about the game design.
Share your interpretations of the dev quotes - share counter dev quotes.
And then we will see whose interpretation was more accurate once the game launches.

And that is the evade-style I needed to get you to.

Unfortunately it will probably not help in getting other people to stop engaging with your superficial smokescreens, but at least I'm not so rusty that I can't manage this particular movement.

I know you can't be 'pinned down' given your 'movement style', though, I'm just gathering the data on if you are trolling people, enjoying this, or if your apparent lack of empathy, repetitive responses, signs of distress at potential changes in expectation, etc, are a sign of something else.

The internet is always a complex place, people will put on elaborate facades just to troll others and take up their time, in the hopes of getting a 'gotcha' scenario when the person finally 'falls for it' and takes someone for what they have portrayed themselves to be, that whole time.

It can be quite disconcerting until one really internalizes the perspective that 'falling for those things' is not a failure in yourself.

Don't you think so?

Gizban

Azherae wrote: »

Lemme get weirdly philosophical, then, @pyreal .

Lots of people who play specific classes in games, do so because of their psychology. Pretty obvious, right? You can use it to predict them with fairly high accuracy, even down to the way they talk and the way they make their points.

So we've got Dygz, a Cleric/Rogue who constantly tries to 'heal' any negativity toward the systems by just 'casting healing as fast as possible' and then 'evading or ignoring anyone else's perspective'. Me, who could be described as doing the same, honestly, no need to be charitable there.

And you, a High Priest who doesn't even do the evading. You're just also 'casting heal as powerfully as possible'. I actually responded to you before thinking you were a Bard, that's what I misremembered, so I 'moved to disrupt your song' and expected 'the Bard reaction'. But you're not a Bard.

So your response is, in my mind, just the 'instinctive heal-shield cast on a person you perceive to be under attack without justification'. This is so consistent across people that I subtly joke about it, or can predict what class someone plays from the way they argue quite often.

The only thing surprising about your post is that you bothered to make it. Of course the 'Holy Priest who doesn't even care about using a mace' has the response of 'a straightforward, no frills system in which we challenge ourselves not through freedom, but through refinement of our constraints'. It's almost Roleplaying levels, and I have to constantly remind myself that just because data allows people to be predicted does not make the people less real.

But Dygz doesn't really need your heals, and it mostly just won't work. The Templar will swing their weapon with 'righteous fury' against the complacency, the Tank will shield from the dogma, the Shadow Disciple will undermine the responses with redirection and control, and if it all gets too silly, I'm sure I can find the right thing to say to make the 'Samurai' show up and spend a whole page trying to line up the perfect cut by walking Dygz into a position where evading is no longer possible.

Honestly, I sometimes wish reality wasn't like this, it causes me to suffer from low-grade solipsism. Even this post is intended to elicit a specific reaction that fits my models. Were you 'healing yourself'? Because the way you did it has a lot of signs of that, but your other option was 'Protector', which comes through pretty well in the 'backup with vague snipe but don't make any strong point'. Good shot, but I 'dodge' well. Or maybe I'm wrong about all of this, after all, what kind of person believes that you can break down someone's entire philosophy based on a class choice in an MMO, right?

But even if I'm crazy, I'm completely unable to see your post in any other light. Spend enough time crunching data trends, and anything that matches your models becomes just an abstraction. Something you just gloss over while looking for outliers.

Surprise me.

My First reaction: You write very cleanly! Not clean as opposed to a blue-collar mud slinger or ex-con Automotive Service Technician, rather cleanly in a way that doesn't make my left eye twitch and curse the 'electronic device' generation with the back-forty neurons.

My Second reaction: I think you really enjoy this. Not as a masochist enjoys the swish before the strike, or the budding-psychopath the flailing of the insect, rather simply a good argument thoughtfully presented.

My Third reaction: However elegant and vocabular your position, I hope it doesn't weigh on you past the moment. [Through my own experiences (I'm only 38 and say this matter-of-factly: I have been broken and had to put myself back together) I feel that people worry about things that ought not be worried about. I realize this is just POV, but its mine. My chin whiskers are turning grey: it is what it is.]

For a certainty I agree with your first paragraph. I grew up protecting my three-year elder brother. Unjust treatment sparks in me a deep anger, and it was with the same 'vague snipes' that I would pull the aggressor to myself. I commend you!

Once upon I tried to understand exactly why people did what they did, why the words they spoke didn't match their actions. I desperately tried to understand the motives behind and between words. A word said in this way meant this, a word said with the eyes there meant that.
Like an old dead guy, I realized I was chasing the wind.

There are too many probable sources for any given action or word, and to cherry the float, everyone lies! I gave up in failure. A resoluteness came upon me then. Though everyone was an enigma to me, I wouldn't be. I was plain, I was direct. No more did I guess at motives, I took everyone at face value and with open hand. I was always ready but not expectant. Cut me, then I knew your sort.

In this way too, I hope that the fickle ways of people don't burden you over much, for in your perhaps involuntary examination of purpose and motive I remember a worrisome time, and wish it on noone.

Azherae

Like you, I am still 'a healer'.

And I have many within my 'sphere' to heal and protect still. You are right, it's worrisome, but as you did, I embrace my nature, and to enjoy one's nature is perhaps among the best things one can learn to do, perhaps.

Thank you for your "Heal Over Time", it will certainly take effect the moment the solipsism wears off, and I'll rest then.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

Don't you think so?

I don't think that at all. No.

JustVine

Ironhope

bloodprophet wrote: »

Less important by how much?

I think they should matter but not as much as the primary archetype. Even add together they should be no more then 30% of the classes over all power and ability.

30% is way too little

Race choice.
Talent choices.
Gear choices.
Tattoo (stat redistribution) choices.
Node affiliation.
Religious/organization affiliation.
etc

All these are not only stuff the player has invested tons of time and effort into.
The player has invested his very spirit into them.

If all he gets from them is less than a third of his character... that's pretty bad in my opinion.

It should be at least 50%.

Player choices should matter. Its an mmo-RPG.

If you will hardly be able to tell appart a player who put tons of consideration, attention, effort, time, etc into his character from one who just made random choices with a ''whatever'' attitude (which will happen if the importance of all this is less than a third of total performance), that is bad design.

bloodprophet wrote: »

It was a response to this post. Your have been throwing around the Hybrid thing since the start. Have you not? If you go watch the videos I linked with Kevin Jordan and look at what the WoW developer said about hybrids it will make more sense.

Its a topic about tanking, which obviously involves off-tanking which would involve a hybrid by definition so no, I wasn't the one rolling the topic of off-tanking from the start, I wasn't even here from the start, I joined the topic late.

But yeah, to stay on game development.

I think off-tanking should be a thing.

First and foremost for leveling (would make the ''looking for tank'') purgatory-scenarios far rarer and the experince better for players.

Secondly, would be cool to see a scenario where, if the main tank dies, people can throw the ''hot potato'' (boss) from one another, each off-tanking for short durations.

In PvP too I think it would be cool to have guys who can actaully front-line (mitigate all that damage and keep going) so pvp off-tank, while still being relevant in the front-line (I mean, if they deal no damage it doesn't really matter if they're there or not...).

maouw

Azherae wrote: »

Lemme get weirdly philosophical, then, @pyreal .

Lots of people who play specific classes in games, do so because of their psychology. Pretty obvious, right? You can use it to predict them with fairly high accuracy, even down to the way they talk and the way they make their points.

So we've got Dygz, a Cleric/Rogue who constantly tries to 'heal' any negativity toward the systems by just 'casting healing as fast as possible' and then 'evading or ignoring anyone else's perspective'. Me, who could be described as doing the same, honestly, no need to be charitable there.

And you, a High Priest who doesn't even do the evading. You're just also 'casting heal as powerfully as possible'. I actually responded to you before thinking you were a Bard, that's what I misremembered, so I 'moved to disrupt your song' and expected 'the Bard reaction'. But you're not a Bard.

So your response is, in my mind, just the 'instinctive heal-shield cast on a person you perceive to be under attack without justification'. This is so consistent across people that I subtly joke about it, or can predict what class someone plays from the way they argue quite often.

The only thing surprising about your post is that you bothered to make it. Of course the 'Holy Priest who doesn't even care about using a mace' has the response of 'a straightforward, no frills system in which we challenge ourselves not through freedom, but through refinement of our constraints'. It's almost Roleplaying levels, and I have to constantly remind myself that just because data allows people to be predicted does not make the people less real.

But Dygz doesn't really need your heals, and it mostly just won't work. The Templar will swing their weapon with 'righteous fury' against the complacency, the Tank will shield from the dogma, the Shadow Disciple will undermine the responses with redirection and control, and if it all gets too silly, I'm sure I can find the right thing to say to make the 'Samurai' show up and spend a whole page trying to line up the perfect cut by walking Dygz into a position where evading is no longer possible.

Honestly, I sometimes wish reality wasn't like this, it causes me to suffer from low-grade solipsism. Even this post is intended to elicit a specific reaction that fits my models. Were you 'healing yourself'? Because the way you did it has a lot of signs of that, but your other option was 'Protector', which comes through pretty well in the 'backup with vague snipe but don't make any strong point'. Good shot, but I 'dodge' well. Or maybe I'm wrong about all of this, after all, what kind of person believes that you can break down someone's entire philosophy based on a class choice in an MMO, right?

But even if I'm crazy, I'm completely unable to see your post in any other light. Spend enough time crunching data trends, and anything that matches your models becomes just an abstraction. Something you just gloss over while looking for outliers.

Surprise me.

@Azherae
Excuse me,
I enjoyed this very much.

Can I request that you create a sort of MBTI personality quiz? At the very least, I'm sure buzzfeed would publish it.
ialsoreallywanttoknowwhatmymmoclasspersonalityis

Also, I will unabashedly admit that I'm offtopic, but often the tangent is worth it - so don't mind me, carry on!

(P.S. I'm about to dig up all your class compilations that I missed - coz I love them and I want to input too)

Azherae

Hm? You're exactly what you purported yourself to be, for the most part. A Bard. It's really obvious even without much observation, you literally just did it in that post, which reads to me as.

"Hey, listen to me so you get the full buff."
"Support!"
"Encourage and increase positivity toward current actions through a much stronger and elaborate tale/song structured to show worth to the world."
"Backstep!" - This is the /Rogue part of you talking, I assume.
"Second unrelated buff."
"Disengage before drawing attention."

It's your most common 'forum playstyle'. It comes up a lot in your responses in the same two threads I use for Compilations, but you use it other places too. Sometimes you use the 'Slow All' debuff in place of the 'Encourage' buff when a topic is getting too stale and the rhythm has been lost, then try to guide everyone back into their positions, before you disengage again.

Your other style is the "Full Performance" which you use to make suggestions, with all your bullet point 'notes'. I honestly wish more Bards would just use the bullet points, they'd probably feel better about it. (notice that I didn't just 'compliment you on doing it', even though I'm thinking that, because I'm not a Bard, I'm just 'casting Hallowed Ground' at this point on anyone who 'stands near you' and assuming you'll also receive any effect if you care). I'm also subtly hinting to my own Bard that she should consider this, and emulate you, as she'd probably be more comfortable, though I could just tell her this directly, it's more fun this way.

Anyways, a quiz isn't necessarily useful, even a full psychological evaluation thing has around 600 questions and then still takes an analyst to draw conclusions. The internet is full of them anyway.

(and now, the smokebomb)
In case anyone thinks I'm [Insert Offended Conclusion You Can Draw Here], I definitely think it's absolutely cooler and more 'useful' (for everyone) that people are like this. Embrace it! Know what you are like so you don't get caught in your own weaknesses when trying to converse with people. Self-awareness is one of the most valuable things humans can have.

[Insert distracting joke about other valuable things to reduce seriousness of post so I can slip past all the people who feel the need to say something because signs of deviation from 'normal' mental models make them uncomfortable]

SirChancelot

Ironhope wrote: »

In PvP too I think it would be cool to have guys who can actaully front-line (mitigate all that damage and keep going) so pvp off-tank, while still being relevant in the front-line (I mean, if they deal no damage it doesn't really matter if they're there or not...).

If it's PvP your supposed to be killing people. So if I'm trading damage output for defense you aren't doing damage you're tanking. Why wouldn't you just want more tanks in your group then instead of an off tank.

I guess that's why I don't understand the concept of an off tank with this character build system. If you need someone to tank something for whatever content and tank/X is going to be better than any X/tank at tanking. Then why would I want a take an X/tank in my group rather than get a second tank/X to tank?

If you've got seven of eight people in your group(one of everything except for fighter, no fighters online right now) and you need someone for this off tank position. Then two more people asked to join a sentinel and a warden, ranger/tank and a tank/ranger.
Sure the ranger/tank MIGHT be able to get the job done but we know that the tank/ranger WILL be able to get the job done... I don't see groups ever choosing the 'maybe' option.

SirChancelot

Azherae wrote: »

Lemme get weirdly philosophical, then, @pyreal .

Lots of people who play specific classes in games, do so because of their psychology. Pretty obvious, right? You can use it to predict them with fairly high accuracy, even down to the way they talk and the way they make their points.

So we've got Dygz, a Cleric/Rogue who constantly tries to 'heal' any negativity toward the systems by just 'casting healing as fast as possible' and then 'evading or ignoring anyone else's perspective'. Me, who could be described as doing the same, honestly, no need to be charitable there.

And you, a High Priest who doesn't even do the evading. You're just also 'casting heal as powerfully as possible'. I actually responded to you before thinking you were a Bard, that's what I misremembered, so I 'moved to disrupt your song' and expected 'the Bard reaction'. But you're not a Bard.

So your response is, in my mind, just the 'instinctive heal-shield cast on a person you perceive to be under attack without justification'. This is so consistent across people that I subtly joke about it, or can predict what class someone plays from the way they argue quite often.

The only thing surprising about your post is that you bothered to make it. Of course the 'Holy Priest who doesn't even care about using a mace' has the response of 'a straightforward, no frills system in which we challenge ourselves not through freedom, but through refinement of our constraints'. It's almost Roleplaying levels, and I have to constantly remind myself that just because data allows people to be predicted does not make the people less real.

But Dygz doesn't really need your heals, and it mostly just won't work. The Templar will swing their weapon with 'righteous fury' against the complacency, the Tank will shield from the dogma, the Shadow Disciple will undermine the responses with redirection and control, and if it all gets too silly, I'm sure I can find the right thing to say to make the 'Samurai' show up and spend a whole page trying to line up the perfect cut by walking Dygz into a position where evading is no longer possible.

Honestly, I sometimes wish reality wasn't like this, it causes me to suffer from low-grade solipsism. Even this post is intended to elicit a specific reaction that fits my models. Were you 'healing yourself'? Because the way you did it has a lot of signs of that, but your other option was 'Protector', which comes through pretty well in the 'backup with vague snipe but don't make any strong point'. Good shot, but I 'dodge' well. Or maybe I'm wrong about all of this, after all, what kind of person believes that you can break down someone's entire philosophy based on a class choice in an MMO, right?

But even if I'm crazy, I'm completely unable to see your post in any other light. Spend enough time crunching data trends, and anything that matches your models becomes just an abstraction. Something you just gloss over while looking for outliers.

Surprise me.

That could explain my fascination with broodwarden. I've been a tank for so long I don't think I could stop that mentality. But. I'm just tired so instead of wanting to do it myself I want do outsource to minions.
Lol

Azherae

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Ironhope wrote: »

In PvP too I think it would be cool to have guys who can actaully front-line (mitigate all that damage and keep going) so pvp off-tank, while still being relevant in the front-line (I mean, if they deal no damage it doesn't really matter if they're there or not...).

If it's PvP your supposed to be killing people. So if I'm trading damage output for defense you aren't doing damage you're tanking. Why wouldn't you just want more tanks in your group then instead of an off tank.

I guess that's why I don't understand the concept of an off tank with this character build system. If you need someone to tank something for whatever content and tank/X is going to be better than any X/tank at tanking. Then why would I want a take an X/tank in my group rather than get a second tank/X to tank?

If you've got seven of eight people in your group(one of everything except for fighter, no fighters online right now) and you need someone for this off tank position. Then two more people asked to join a sentinel and a warden, ranger/tank and a tank/ranger.
Sure the ranger/tank MIGHT be able to get the job done but we know that the tank/ranger WILL be able to get the job done... I don't see groups ever choosing the 'maybe' option.

That depends on your expectation of Tank Augments.

They could suck, yes, but they could also be Damage Mitigation abilities applied directly to offensive abilities, which is my expectation for one main option, anyway. Then the /Tank is literally helping with Tanking by making things easier for the Tank you have.

They become part of a 'Tanking Team', one that actually takes the hits, and another that adds to various forms of 'mitigation' uptime. Useful when your group doesn't have a lot of other players who spec for that. This is a way to give /Tank more survivability when solo, the capacity to completely fill in for a Tank in situations where you can stack a lot of mitigation or aren't fighting very strong enemies, etc, while still having them add meaningfully to a party.

This also gives a clean option for an Augment type that can be used both by 'classes that want to occasionally actually Tank', and 'classes that just want more survivability but don't much want to actually Tank'. Thirdly, it allows Tank/Tank to have a specific aim. Tank wouldn't need to have a lot of 'apply mitigation effects' skills, but could get that with their Augments later if they go Tank/Tank. This would probably be a balanced (strength wise) aspect without changing the Tank/Tank much (and I assume they would not want much transformative change, if they are doubling down). It wouldn't make people instantly go 'Tank/Tank is better in all situations'. Sometimes 'enemy damage mitigation' is not the entirety of a battle. But it still counts as 'doubling down' on 'what a Tank is'.

Everyone wins.

Ironhope

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

If it's PvP your supposed to be killing people.

Yes and killing them with support and tanks is the way to do it.
Not to count pvp scenarios where tanks can be a must.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

So if I'm trading damage output for defense you aren't doing damage you're tanking.

Depends.
If you're trading 20% of your damage so you can live 40% more, thats a good trade, you will end up doing far more damage.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Why wouldn't you just want more tanks in your group then instead of an off tank.

Not sure about ''more'' tanks, but a few are often good.

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I guess that's why I don't understand the concept of an off tank with this character build system. If you need someone to tank something for whatever content and tank/X is going to be better than any X/tank at tanking. Then why would I want a take an X/tank in my group rather than get a second tank/X to tank?

PvP doesn't work like PvE tho.
You will need people who can both frontline and dps.
So adding dps archtype+tank as second might be a very good option.

Dygz

In general, you don't accept an x/Tank because you need an x/Tank. You accept the x/Tank because you need the Primary Archetype's primary role. You might make some adjustments for how that specific individual plays their Primary Archetype.

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

In PvE, the Fighter/Tank might choose to take out the NPC Clerics by using Threat augments to focus the NPC Healers on her/himself.
In PvP, the Fighter/Tank might choose to take out the PC Mages by using Damage Mitigation augments to soak the Mages' burst damage.

Secondary role is secondary. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

Azherae

It's not hard to understand, we just all disagree on what exactly 'Primary' is.

I perceive the primary ability of a Tank as 'Damage Mitigation', not 'holding attention'. The latter is just 'synonymous and somewhat required'.

But 'holding attention' is something I view as no one's role in particular. It's not actually 'required' in some games' designs, it's just a very convenient specialization to have in a world with strong melee attackers who, for some reason, focus all their attacks on one person.

In MOBAs for example a Tanking champion focuses on 'denying the enemy access to strike points on their allies'. The allies have the enemy attention, the Tank is just 'preventing them from dealing damage to the one who has that attention'.

So a Fighter, who is doing a lot of damage, and therefore holding attention, is not 'Tanking'. They are 'holding attention'. If they aren't built defensively, they will fall, or the healer might, depending on how the healing is spread out. In a "Trinity' designed game, enemies may be built to make this a bad idea, but it's not required.

The Fighter could choose to, for whatever reason, spec toward increasing the enmity the enemy has for them, and hold attention even better. Are they 'Tanking' yet? In my mind, no, they're not mitigating enough damage.

In fact, 'Tank' only technically implies 'Armored Damage mitigation', whereas 'Guardian' or similar implies 'actually doing this stuff'.

I'm sure that Tanks will have lots of 'hey, leave them alone!' abilities, but that's still viewable as 'mitigation applied to the enemy's current target'.

This is the thing to consider. The reason any character who wishes to Tank cannot do so simply by 'putting on enough Armor' is that they put on the Armor to help the party with Damage Mitigation, and if they do not do enough damage or generate enough enmity, they are not the target, so that specific method of Damage Mitigation is not happening.

A 'Tank' by game definitions is effective when they are efficient at mitigating damage. Mages are not generally good Tanks because their damage mitigation is often inefficient, or they simply aren't allowed to wear gear that would allow them to do it.

If they run out of MP, they no longer generate enmity. If they no longer generate enmity, they are not the target, and any defensive skills they are using, don't matter, unless they can apply those skills toward the current target of the enemy, which most Mages cannot do.

The continual oversimplification of this complex and interesting game dynamic is starting to wear thin. Dygz probably isn't even trying to oversimplify it. Dygz just 'repeats what is said'. Just... stop engaging.

@SirChancelot11 - You may be more of a Summoner naturally than you think. I'll sum up the way you interact on forums and maybe it'll resonate.

"No matter how many little Point-Of-Confusion 'bugs' (can I call these Whywoulds?) you summon, some people will just ignore them."

Percimes

To add to Azherae post. Holding attention, generating threat or aggro, whatever you want to call it, is artificial for tanks. That's why it only work in PvE because to mobs AI has to have a targeting priority. And that's why it translate poorly in PvP.

I understand the draw to play the guardian or protector type, the defensive builds, but to make sense in a global context it needs to have something else than threat generation at its core.

As an aside, I'd like to know my class now. Damn you! hehe

Azherae

Percimes wrote: »

To add to Azherae post. Holding attention, generating threat or aggro, whatever you want to call it, is artificial for tanks. That's why it only work in PvE because to mobs AI has to have a targeting priority. And that's why it translate poorly in PvP.

I understand the draw to play the guardian or protector type, the defensive builds, but to make sense in a global context it needs to have something else than threat generation at its core.

As an aside, I'd like to know my class now. Damn you! hehe

You're not in my data set for some reason, and you don't post that often, so I'd have to guess. So let's have some 'fun' with that. With a complete cold-call, not even going back to check a single of your posts and going entirely off what I remember...

You're a Ranger, probably with Mage secondary. I have very vague recollections of you carefully 'sniping at people' but with extreme precision targeted at emotional centers and sometimes you use overarching terms that imply 'AoE'. You also tend to 'explain things without any appeal to anyone else's emotions', but also without any hard stance of your own. Could also be /Rogue based on that.

And now, to avoid making two posts and possibly demonstrate how far off 'guessing' would be without data, I'll check a little...

I still say 'Ranger', and I still can't tell if /Mage or /Rogue, but the fact that I can't tell actually gives /Rogue more weight, to me. Since it's all just 'representation of things I can expect from the way people approach conversation', I usually consider this 'enough' and don't feel the need to pinpoint it. People will talk, it will give more data, etc.

(I'm considering this post ok because it's not likely to derail)

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

In general, you don't accept an x/Tank because you need an x/Tank. You accept the x/Tank because you need the Primary Archetype's primary role. You might make some adjustments for how that specific individual plays their Primary Archetype.

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

In PvE, the Fighter/Tank might choose to take out the NPC Clerics by using Threat augments to focus the NPC Healers on her/himself.
In PvP, the Fighter/Tank might choose to take out the PC Mages by using Damage Mitigation augments to soak the Mages' burst damage.

Secondary role is secondary. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

You missed it again by reading what you wanted.
In my example I didn't need either primary archetype. The only primary we were missing was a fighter and there weren't any fighters around, a fighter/tank would have been perfect.

This dungeon we're heading to has a boss that summons ads that you have to tank away from him. So we need something for that job.
We already have a primary tank and we already have a primary ranger.

Now I get a ranger/tank and a tank/ranger offer to join our group. What I was saying is no one's ever going to choose the ranger tank and that scenario.

Nerror

JustVine wrote: »

.

I completely agree.

Dygz

I don't think I missed anything.
The reason that you need someone in an 8-person group is because you're missing one of the expected 8 Primary Archetypes.
You don't really need a Secondary Archetype. You may want a Secondary Archetype for a variety of reasons.
Secondary Archetype is mostly about how an individual player likes to player their Primary Archetype.

You choose a Ranger/Tank when you need a Ranger/x.
x/Tank is just the way that player likes to play Ranger/x.

Nerror

Azherae wrote: »

Honestly, I sometimes wish reality wasn't like this, it causes me to suffer from low-grade solipsism. Even this post is intended to elicit a specific reaction that fits my models.

You really fascinate me @Azherae . I mean nothing negative. It's just the way you approach things and see people. Adding datapoints and categorizing and such

SirChancelot

Holyshiet... You really are missing it... I really don't know how to break it down Barney style for you anymore than that you're still not understanding the question I'm asking...

Go read my post again but slower and then answer the actual scenario...

Azherae

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Holyshiet... You really are missing it... I really don't know how to break it down Barney style for you anymore than that you're still not understanding the question I'm asking...

Go read my post again but slower and then answer the actual scenario...

Let me help a bit, perhaps...

Dygz wrote: »

You choose a Ranger/Tank when you need a Ranger/x.
x/Tank is just the way that player likes to play Ranger/x.

If you needed a Ranger, and it is true that you need 'only a Ranger' for some explicitly 'Ranger' thing that a Ranger does, but you are one of those darn 'elitists', then you don't take 'the Ranger/X', you take 'the Ranger/most effective secondary'.

If the Ranger/Tank says 'I'd like to join, I'm a Ranger/Tank', and that darn 'elitist' goes 'We don't need a /Tank, go change your secondary to Rogue for this content', there's a certain set of people who now find themselves in a difficult and for some extremely stressful position. They want to Ranger/Tank, they want to group, but social anxiety demands they conform.

Whereas a better design would cause this to happen less often and maybe make people with that condition or related conditions, who often play MMOs precisely to help deal with them, less likely to be put in these stressful situations.

Which aspect of what I'm saying here, if any, do you consider to be 'the perspective that doesn't reflect reality'?

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

It's not hard to understand, we just all disagree on what exactly 'Primary' is.

Um. This is like saying we disagree on exactly what a class is.
I'm sticking as closely as possible to the Ashes definitions.

Azherae wrote: »

I perceive the primary ability of a Tank as 'Damage Mitigation', not 'holding attention'. The latter is just 'synonymous and somewhat required'.

But 'holding attention' is something I view as no one's role in particular. It's not actually 'required' in some games' designs, it's just a very convenient specialization to have in a world with strong melee attackers who, for some reason, focus all their attacks on one person.

This is fine, I suppose but... I'm talking about primary ROLES not primary ABILITIES.
In Ashes, the primary role is defined by the Active Skills. The secondary role is defined by augments.
In response to the question - If i use secondary cleric can i heal others?
Steven answers - indirectly there are some augments when applied to certain skills that can do this. But it would not replace a cleric archetype

Steven must mean Primary Archetype Cleric, otherwise we have circular logic with secondary cleric replacing secondary cleric. He and Jeffrey have also said something similar about the need for Primary Archetype Tanks in an 8-person group.

Steven also says: Certain archetypes are capable of moving the gap between their counterpart per-se. If I am a Tank archetype and a Mage is my counter, I can take a Mage secondary and kind of bridge the divide slightly; and then move my identity that direction ever so slightly.

This is strong indication that Active Skills help fulfill the Primary Archetype role - the primary role.
And augments help fulfill the Secondary Archetype role - the secondary role.
Relying on augments will not replace the need for that representative Primary Archetype.
Cleric augments will not replace the need for a Primary Archetype Cleric in an 8-person group - by design.
Many of the Tank Active Skills specifically generate Threat, so we should expect Primary Archetype Tanks to be the best at generating Threat due to their Active Skills.
Threat School augments are unlikely to compete with those Active Skills.
Just as Steven indicates that Life School augments will not be able to compete with Cleric Healing Active Skills.
Cleric Active Skills help fulfill the primary role of Cleric/x. Cleric augments help fulfill the secondary role of x/Cleric.

Azherae wrote: »

In MOBAs for example a Tanking champion focuses on 'denying the enemy access to strike points on their allies'. The allies have the enemy attention, the Tank is just 'preventing them from dealing damage to the one who has that attention'.

Ashes is not a MOBA.

Azherae wrote: »

So a Fighter, who is doing a lot of damage, and therefore holding attention, is not 'Tanking'. They are 'holding attention'. If they aren't built defensively, they will fall, or the healer might, depending on how the healing is spread out. In a "Trinity' designed game, enemies may be built to make this a bad idea, but it's not required.

In Ashes, a Fighter/Tank who is using Tank augments is tanking. Most likely they will not be tanking as well as a Tank/x.

Azherae wrote: »

The Fighter could choose to, for whatever reason, spec toward increasing the enmity the enemy has for them, and hold attention even better. Are they 'Tanking' yet? In my mind, no, they're not mitigating enough damage.

What's in your mind is fine. But, if an x/Tank is using Tank augments, they are tanking. Especially if they are using augments from a Threat School or a Damage Mitigation School.
You can try to assign some arbitrary measure of how much mitigation is true mitigation, if that's what you like to do, sure.
But, if the x/Tank is using augments that specifically state the effect is added Damage Mitigation, the x/Tank is using damage mitigation.

Azherae wrote: »

In fact, 'Tank' only technically implies 'Armored Damage mitigation', whereas 'Guardian' or similar implies 'actually doing this stuff'.
I'm sure that Tanks will have lots of 'hey, leave them alone!' abilities, but that's still viewable as 'mitigation applied to the enemy's current target'.

I don't think I'm talking about implication.
It's not about the labels. It's about the Active Skills and augments.

Azherae wrote: »

This is the thing to consider. The reason any character who wishes to Tank cannot do so simply by 'putting on enough Armor' is that they put on the Armor to help the party with Damage Mitigation, and if they do not do enough damage or generate enough enmity, they are not the target, so that specific method of Damage Mitigation is not happening.

That is not the thing to consider, but of course, you may consider that if you wish.
The thing to consider is what Active Skills the Primary Archetype has and what augments (in this case Secondary Archetype augments) are being used with that character.

Azherae wrote: »

A 'Tank' by game definitions is effective when they are efficient at mitigating damage. Mages are not generally good Tanks because their damage mitigation is often inefficient, or they simply aren't allowed to wear gear that would allow them to do it.

In RPGs, Mages are designed to be glass canons while tanks soak (mitigate) damage. Mages tend to have much less Constitution than tanks.

Azherae wrote: »

If they run out of MP, they no longer generate enmity. If they no longer generate enmity, they are not the target, and any defensive skills they are using, don't matter, unless they can apply those skills toward the current target of the enemy, which most Mages cannot do.

OK.

Azherae wrote: »

The continual oversimplification of this complex and interesting game dynamic is starting to wear thin. Dygz probably isn't even trying to oversimplify it. Dygz just 'repeats what is said'. Just... stop engaging.

Yeah, you ran out of steam there and became increasingly irrelevant to anything I've said.

Dygz

Azherae wrote: »

If the Ranger/Tank says 'I'd like to join, I'm a Ranger/Tank', and that darn 'elitist' goes 'We don't need a /Tank, go change your secondary to Rogue for this content', there's a certain set of people who now find themselves in a difficult and for some extremely stressful position. They want to Ranger/Tank, they want to group, but social anxiety demands they conform.

Whereas a better design would cause this to happen less often and maybe make people with that condition or related conditions, who often play MMOs precisely to help deal with them, less likely to be put in these stressful situations.

Which aspect of what I'm saying here, if any, do you consider to be 'the perspective that doesn't reflect reality'?

It's a cute assertion.
Let's play and see what happens.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If the Ranger/Tank says 'I'd like to join, I'm a Ranger/Tank', and that darn 'elitist' goes 'We don't need a /Tank, go change your secondary to Rogue for this content', there's a certain set of people who now find themselves in a difficult and for some extremely stressful position. They want to Ranger/Tank, they want to group, but social anxiety demands they conform.

Whereas a better design would cause this to happen less often and maybe make people with that condition or related conditions, who often play MMOs precisely to help deal with them, less likely to be put in these stressful situations.

Which aspect of what I'm saying here, if any, do you consider to be 'the perspective that doesn't reflect reality'?

It's a cute assertion.
Let's play and see what happens.

Nah, never mind. It's just helpful to position relative to others who take longer to get you to these positions. Hopefully this is enough for now and the rest of us can move back to talking about something else.

ptitoine

Dolyem wrote: »

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?

I think Off tank should be viable to tank high end scenario Depending on the way you build your character.
Cause unlike most other MMO in this one u can wear whatever you want. So im guessing if you a Mage/Tank (Like Npc in Warcraft 3) And wear Plate and shield. Im thinking you could tank properly cause the tank offspec would probably add taunt and Prot effect to your spell.

Thats just what I think i may be wrong tough

JamesSunderland

The people who are in favor of off tanking, what exactly do you want the limits of off-tanking to be?
How better at tanking do you want a Tank/X to be in comparison to a X/Tank?

Child Item