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

Dygz

Yuyukoyay wrote: »

Naw that isn't the same as the information I got. Since I almost quoted it word for word in my post. Still no time to look for that crap so you guys can either live in your fantasy land or go find it. XD

You think you quoted it word for word.

Yuyukoyay wrote: »

I don't really care either way, but don't be surprised when it turns out I was the right the whole time. xD

Ditto

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

I'm not sure how you're going to accomplish that when most of your Active Skills are generating Threat and Damage Mitigation and CCing.
It's like a Bard\x trying to DPS and not Support.

And... that's not a "just".
At that point...why don't you just play a different game... perhaps one that also has a separate PvE-Only server, is P2W and has no Nodes?

Fine... Since you're so narrow-minded...
Because augments could "radically change an ability" and shift the extra mitigation into the argent planting a flag at a location giving all allies near the flag the defensive buff instead of just him. Welcome to support brought to you by tank/bard. He is literally a battlefield Commander to guide and support his troops but not actually fight.

Gimme a bard/fighter that can be a DPS (thinking a battle dancer motif for a tellsword), a bard/cleric that can heal (sounds like something a soul weaver could do anyways) and the other 6 bard/x are support. You don't like those options don't play them. You think a bard should only be support then play Bard/bard and be happy. Having these options won't hurt your image of this game at all, but they WOULD make it more enjoyable for others. I personally don't enjoy bards at all and don't plan on playing any version of Bard/X or X/bard doesn't mean I don't want them in the game, or want other people to be able to play that way...

Because I'm tired of all the games out there now, because I hate pay to win and what it does to games, because the node system sounds amazing if it works as advertised. If ashes has PvE servers I probably would choose that, if not then whatever I'll make it work. So much of the game looks and sounds fantastic which is why I'm so interested. But your understanding of somethings they have said kind of makes it sound less so... So basically I like their version of Ashes and the potential I see in this game. Your version, however, sounds like something I wouldn't waste time on... So please stay far away from this games design process.

But in other news:
That's a very interesting opinion you have...

Dygz

A Tank/Bard will be doing Support secondarily while primarily Tanking.
I didn't say anything like a Bard/x should only be Support.
A Bard/Fighter can DPS secondarily while primarily Supporting.

Secondary Archetype shifts you towards a secondary role. It just doesn't swap roles.
You're still primarily doing your primary role, while secondarily doing a secondary role. (unless you double down)
Hence, the terminology.

SirChancelot

Dygz wrote: »

.
It's like a Bard\x trying to DPS and not Support.

Dygz wrote: »

.
I didn't say anything like a Bard/x should only be Support.

Talking with you is a waste of time

SirChancelot

*casts rez*

https://youtu.be/FkWLLLOlm2E

46:40

"Augments essentially can create... I mean they are essentially creating brand new skills"

I see zero reason for anyone to say that augments couldn't be used to turn other archetypes into tanks if they wanted to.

Dygz

LMFAO
1: Augments can affect a multitude of things. It can drastically change the ability itself. It can change the damage type. It can change the cooldown period. It can change the damage values. It can change the distance. It can dramatically change it from a ranged effect to a melee effect. Augments essentially can create... I mean they are essentially creating entirely new skills. But, they're going to keep, obviously, some identity with what that primary active ability was.

2: x/Tanks are Tanks. They are Secondary Tanks, so don't expect them to main tank better than a Tank/x in an 8-person group.

3: Best if you place one dev quote in the context of all other dev quotes. Especially best if you don't cherry-pick one sentence out of an entire paragraph, but...

4: You can believe whatever you want. We will see what happens once augments are actually implemented.

Noaani

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I see zero reason for anyone to say that augments couldn't be used to turn other archetypes into tanks if they wanted to.

I agree.

If Intrepid wanted to, they could do that.

Thing is, they don't want to. That is the thing that needs to change in order for */tank classes to be able to actually tank.

SirChancelot

Noaani wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I see zero reason for anyone to say that augments couldn't be used to turn other archetypes into tanks if they wanted to.

I agree.

If Intrepid wanted to, they could do that.

Thing is, they don't want to. That is the thing that needs to change in order for */tank classes to be able to actually tank.

But that's the title of this thread SHOULD tank/X be the only tank.
I 100% feel that they shouldn't be, and if augments can be used to this scale then there is no reason to not make it that way.

Oh well, either way I guess we will find out eventually...

SirChancelot

Odal wrote: »

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?

If they stick with the "64 classes" which I think is an impossible feet. Then yes I think so. If not, maybe not.
Hard choice, it's always the "solo" build vs the "tank dungeon" build. I don't know how to solve it.

Personally I dislike the name "Tank". I think it sounds cooler to make up something unique for the game whatever that might be or take a classic type of name like "Templar" or "Shieldmaster". I don't know. Something. If you have "Tank" right, you might as well have a class called "DPS" and "Healer".
Meh.

The naming of tank as tank was touched on in that video too. it's relatively early if you wanted to look for it. Steven said that apparently there's pushback about that in-house as well, but made the point that it doesn't matter what they call the tank archetype, people will still say in group chat looking for a tank. Plus after 25 and you actually get a class you're probably going to say paladin sentinel or guardian etc...

McShave

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

The naming of tank as tank was touched on in that video too. it's relatively early if you wanted to look for it. Steven said that apparently there's pushback about that in-house as well, but made the point that it doesn't matter what they call the tank archetype, people will still say in group chat looking for a tank. Plus after 25 and you actually get a class you're probably going to say paladin sentinel or guardian etc...

I don't want to get into a huge debate over a side subject here, but if they called Tanks a Tank because that's what they are, then why didn't they call Cleric a Healer, because that's what they are. When you say "looking for healer", you are looking for Cleric. It's a lousy excuse for being lazy. Don't @ me.

Noaani

McShave wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

The naming of tank as tank was touched on in that video too. it's relatively early if you wanted to look for it. Steven said that apparently there's pushback about that in-house as well, but made the point that it doesn't matter what they call the tank archetype, people will still say in group chat looking for a tank. Plus after 25 and you actually get a class you're probably going to say paladin sentinel or guardian etc...

I don't want to get into a huge debate over a side subject here, but if they called Tanks a Tank because that's what they are, then why didn't they call Cleric a Healer, because that's what they are. When you say "looking for healer", you are looking for Cleric. It's a lousy excuse for being lazy. Don't @ me.

@McShave

Because Cleric aren't the only class with heals.

Gizban

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

What happens if another group comes in to contend the encounter?
Smokebombs and Invisibility might come in handy.

Sounds like a situation where you may want other primary classes capable of tanking/off-tanking for those situations <.<

What?
This discussion thread asked why would the Rogue ever take Smokebombs and Invisibility if the Tank is doing their job. My answer is that they might come in handy if another group comes in to the dungeon content...
And your answer is that the Tank should be able to Tank all of the dungeon mobs and rival PvP group so weel that a Rogue will not want use Invisibility?
That's pretty absurd.

Rogue's tend to like to use Invisibility in any case.
The reason a Rogue uses Smokebombs and Invisibility is because that's the way they like to fight.
But, we can expect that in Ashes, by Rank 2 or Rank 3, Smokebombs will be adding damage - possibly burst damage. And dealing damage while Invisible might also add a damage modifier - especially coming out of Invisibility Rank 2 or Rank 3.

All of the other members of the group will be fighting opponents the way they like to fight.
Tank won't be the only person in the group using CCs.

Also, if it's a group that thematically likes to stack Shadow damage, and there are several x/Rogues in the group, Smokebombs, especially, could be helping to stack Shadow damage by Rank 2 or Rank 3. Tanks don't make it so that Rogues don't want to use Invisibility or other Evasion skills.

Instance dungeon with a 4-person group is not the primary scenario the devs are designing encounters for.
In Ashes, you should not be expecting that the Tank will typically be able to hold off all attackers such that no other person in the group will be attacked. Other people in the group who rely on Evasion will still want rely on Evasion because that's how they like to play their characters. But, the Rogue may not always be close enough to the Tank to rely on the Tank's abilities.
You can't just think, "Well, this is the way tanking worked in other games so it's going to work exactly the same way in Ashes.
You hae to think about the overall Ashes gameplay design and gameplay philosphy.
And to do that, you should be very well versed in everything the devs say about their game design and their game design philosophy.

The way we're approaching it philosophically is not 1v1 combat. That would be an impossible thing for us to do and it's not really a direction we want to go with the game. We're really focused on mass PvP, not one 1v1 encounters; not really even party v party encounters, but these big, big fights around Nodes...these fights around Castles, these big fights around Caravans...
So, a lot of it is trying to figure out balancing ways for classes to work together synergistically. So that, your focus as a team is building out the comp that synergizes best for what you've got. And we balance it that way.
So, we balance party on party, group on group and different configurations of those things. We look at it more as a macro scale balance problem rather than a micro scale balance problem.
----Jeffrey

I just wanted to say that when I read your posts I hear a calm and reasonable voice. An arm chair, crackling fire, goblet of mulled wine.
Thought I would pipe up with that.

Dygz

Bards will also be able to heal.

Of course, Bards can also use magic and we have Mage as a primary Archetype.
Rogues can also fight and we have Fighter as a Primary Archetype.
Mages also fight from range, but we have Ranger as a Primary Archetype.
Clerics can summon whips, hammers and spears, but we have Summoner as a Primary Archetype.

ptitoine

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

I see zero reason for anyone to say that augments couldn't be used to turn other archetypes into tanks if they wanted to.

I agree.

If Intrepid wanted to, they could do that.

Thing is, they don't want to. That is the thing that needs to change in order for */tank classes to be able to actually tank.

But that's the title of this thread SHOULD tank/X be the only tank.
I 100% feel that they shouldn't be, and if augments can be used to this scale then there is no reason to not make it that way.

Oh well, either way I guess we will find out eventually...

I really hope X/Tank can be viable tank too depending of the build and gameplay chosen by the player. Like i enjoy tanking from time to time in games when i dont feel like healing. But I really dont like the classic warrior style tank that they offer.

I'd like another main archetype buy with a tank build

CruelCrusader

Vhaeyne wrote: »

TBH, I don't mind if a non-tank class could feasibly tank some things.

Something like a summoner's summon, being able to tank some things in some situations. That said, I think a "real" tank should always be better.

I hate when there are tank specs that get outplayed by non-tanks due to poor class design.

i agree with this statement, a summoner should be the only well rounded class, being able to summon a familiar that compensates for the lack of verity, but not strong enough to replace that variable entirely.

to the question at hand if the tank specs tank for the archetype then they should be a brick wall that can pull/maintain aggro fairly well. but if say you chose tank/summoner it should allow you to apply a bind to an ally that buffs defense and replenishes their health by sacrificing your own, or as a tank/bard the more aggro you acquire or successful blocks you do, you boost your teammates offensive capabilities. tank/rouge can, in a sense, blink between the aggroed player and the monster and intercept any damage.

but admittedly i didnt play alpha and im not familiar enough with the abilities and how drastic their changes will be when the archetype is applied to their existing skills.

Kesthely

I think that Tank is a fluid concept, and depends on what content your doing. Depending on your primary and secondary archtypes, you should end up with roughly 8 viable main tanks and 8 viable off tanks or roughly 1/4th of the classes beeing able to tank. There isn't any game where one tank is the best tank in every situation, and most games have encounters where you can't tank something, or where the tank is not a standard tank class. I don't think ashes will be different in that regard.

Yuyukoyay

I can repost in a different light and answer the thread question. I think there should be some secondaries that can primary tank. Like it doesn't make a lot of sense why a Fighter/Tank couldn't primary tank because they should both be relatively tanky classes by default. Tank is obviously going to be much tankier, but the tank augments should be able to fill in a lot of the weaknesses of fighter to primary tank.

So smart combinations should be able to primary tank. I wouldn't know what to expect if you picked mage/tank or bard/tank really. However those are probably never going to be able to primary tank because they are not smart decisions when it comes to tanking. They may still be good classes for other reasons.

If they use smart reasoning then I don't really mind a few of the tank secondaries to primary tank. Just not all of them. Since some of them don't make any sense when it comes to tanking.

SirChancelot

Yuyukoyay wrote: »

I can repost in a different light and answer the thread question. I think there should be some secondaries that can primary tank. Like it doesn't make a lot of sense why a Fighter/Tank couldn't primary tank because they should both be relatively tanky classes by default. Tank is obviously going to be much tankier, but the tank augments should be able to fill in a lot of the weaknesses of fighter to primary tank.

So smart combinations should be able to primary tank. I wouldn't know what to expect if you picked mage/tank or bard/tank really. However those are probably never going to be able to primary tank because they are not smart decisions when it comes to tanking. They may still be good classes for other reasons.

If they use smart reasoning then I don't really mind a few of the tank secondaries to primary tank. Just not all of them. Since some of them don't make any sense when it comes to tanking.

If they want to (the real IF associated with all this) you could easily make a mage/tank.

Read through this whole thread, there are lots of examples and possible variations... I liked the thoughts that every archtype with the proper gear and selection of augments should be able to do more than 1 role in the trinity.
I'm not saying that every combination of x/tank should tank, but it would be cool to have options.
It would also be cool to not make every combination of tank/x be a tank, like as I said earlier a tank/bard to be closer to a support role akin to a battlefield commander.

Optics2134

My 20 year mmo experience says MORE TANKS on a server is better, So the more diversity in playable tanks skills and (classes) the better

Noaani

Optics- wrote: »

My 20 year mmo experience says MORE TANKS on a server is better, So the more diversity in playable tanks skills and (classes) the better

While this has been true in most games, this is in part because of the group size of most games.

Look at WoW. A group there would consist of 1 tank, 1 healer and three DPS. This is fairly standard among MMO's, with some going up to 6 person groups, but the bulk sitting at 5.

Ashes will have 8 person groups, meaning that one tank and healer can take along 6 other players on group content.

This means that in WoW, if you have 300 DPS wanting groups, you need 100 tanks and 100 healers. Where as in Ashes, that 300 DPS only need 50 tanks and healers to all get taken along on groups.

If Ashes has the same mix of tanks, healers and DPS as other MMO's have, groups are going to have trouble finding DPS, not finding tanks or healers.

Child Item