Off Tanking

In all this talk of augments and secondary archetypes, the tank archetype is brought up quite often. Can xxx/tank classes main tank or only off tank? And similar questions, which leads me to this:

What is the role of an Off Tank in Ashes, and what do you expect them to be capable of?

I am basically curious to see if most people agree on what Off Tanking is and how it ties into the class system in Ashes. A tank in MMOs in general have two things they must be able to do, which is 1. keep the enemies away from the other people in the group as much as possible, and 2. be able to survive long enough for the enemies to die first. That's it. Everything else is fluff.

An Off Tank, to me, is someone who can offload some of the pressure from the main tank. They typically have less damage mitigation than a main tank, but also have either higher DPS or higher self-healing than the main tank, and they have some sort of mechanic to hold the attention of enemies. They are often used to handle adds in boss fights.

In some games I have seen the term "Off Tanking" being used in raid situations, where one main tank takes the aggro from another main tank in order to survive a certain boss mechanic. To me that's just tank swapping, not off tanking.

For Ashes, I expect one of the four schools of augmentation from the secondary tank archetype to add threat generation to a skill. And another school of augmentation will add some damage mitigation to a skill, perhaps through temporarily lowering the damage output of the enemy.

In other words, I think xxx/tank classes can off tank with the right gear and spec.

Can off tanks or xxx/tanks function as main tanks in group content (8 people)? Yes and no. If the group is near the minimum level for the content and don't have really good gear, then no. I think a tank/xxx is needed. If the content is on farm and the group is well geared, then absolutely yes; I think the off tank can handle the group bosses and adds in most cases.

I don't expect them to be able to main tank in raid content (40 people). Nor do I want them to. I can see a well geared off tank handle some raid boss adds perhaps, but not easily. I want the choice to go tank/xxx to be meaningful. I want them to be better tanks than any other class in pretty much all situations.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

McShave wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If content requires two tanks, two tank/* will be present.

This leaves no content left for a */tank to tank.

I disagree with this. What gives you the authority to say this, at least phrase it as a suggestion since we don't actually know how this will play out.

I explained my reasoning in another thread just recently.

Noaani wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking, what if there is an encounter where you have a huge boss and partway through the encounter adds appear. If you had a character with the ability to pull a group together so they can be burned down quickly with AoEs, and be tough enough to briefly survive the attention of those adds, then maybe you could be a useful off-tank.

I could see augments making that possible. I don’t think you’d need to be a real Tank as an archetype. You wouldn’t be able to take the place of the real Tank on the boss though.

As a hypothetical, this is about as realistic as it could get, so a perfectly valid and good question imo.

If the adds don't hit hard enough that a main tank is needed, if you spread those same adds out over even just four or so DPS (as tends to happen when you put a number of AoE DPS on to a large group of adds), their damage is manageable by those few healers. If that damage can't be managed with three or four DPS taking it on, then you need an actual tank - as an off-spec tank wouldn't stand a chance if they tried to tank all of those adds, if that is the damage output they are producing.

So, with adds like this, I do one of two things. I either assign my AoE DPS on to it, along with my AoE healers (5 DPS, 2 or 3 healers). If that is not sufficient, I assign an AoE spec'd main tank, two healers (one single target healer, one AoE healer), and three AoE DPS (unless there is a time component, then as many as is needed).

There is no grey area in the middle where an off tank is needed, nor where one is desired.

And then was challenged there, and had this to say.

Noaani wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Because Noanni thinks Ashes is going to be exactly like the MMORPG he plays.

Not at all.

However, the raid content in every MMO essentially comes down to the same basic things.

As does balance.

If an off-spec tank is able to take on the damage that four non tank classes can't while they have three AoE healers spamming them, and if there is a survivability gain to be made as a tank going on-spec rather than staying off-spec, then on-spec tanks are damn near invincible.

With the exception of creating content specifically to force class choice, and making the assumption that we are smart enough to give those DPS some survivability gear as is appropriate, feel free to try and find a gap in there.

I actually dare you, honestly.

Now, I am not saying anything is 100% the case. I am very clearly talking about things from my own experiences and perspective.

However, if you are able to find that gap in my thinking here, feel free to chime in.

Dygz

Again, it has nothing to do with what is required or needed.
People using Tank augments will be tanking. They just won't be main tank.

NishUK

Shouldn't need a full and proper tank for general group fighting, other classes have some Agro spells usually. If a Tank and 100% monster stability is very necessary then the other classes must be gimped in versatility and defensive/mobility measures.

I don't appreciate lazy and non experimental players, sometimes I want people in that are only from my guild and sometimes it's difficult to get a proper tank, then you adapt for other things and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what works. The only issue should be that the DPS can't watch netflix while spamming their skills (usually while the poor tank does all the work).

I'm not surprised that some...particulars in this thread are adamant about needing a proper tank at all times, so boring and lazy, no shame at all.

bloodprophet

While this is from a while ago is still relevant to this discussion.
21:13 they start talking about how the tank will play for the PAX event and how to project how it will play at launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYn9in9UrEs

How the tanks Wall ability went from being a Tank primary skill to everybody get a wall is really confusing.

At 23:10 in the video above Jeff states"Our tank is about battlefield control"
If you have a mage/tank wearing plate that can kite for a short time while others kill stuff in a random offshoot way one could claim this is off tanking. But this will also depend on the mage/tank being able to hold aggro long enough for this to happen. With the absence of active ability taunts this seems to be a very large challenge.

Dygz

Expect x/Tanks to have some form Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools.

bloodprophet

Why?

Edit:
More importantly. IF they do will it be enough to hold aggro?

Sathrago

Look, this is how I see things will work.

Tank/X will be designed with the intent to tank any and all content. Period. Be it as a main tank or an off-tank. There might be a -best- tank but they should all be able to do it.

X/Tank will be designed with the intent to tank up to a certain amount, be it as a main tank or an off-tank with some cases being able to off tank at the highest level of play, but never a main tank.

If there are deviations from the above then whatever build is deviant, is subject to balancing as it was not intended to preform at that level.

Dygz

bloodprophet wrote: »

Why?

Edit:
More importantly. IF they do will it be enough to hold aggro?

Why what?
Expect x/Tanks to have Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And damage Mitigation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And whatever allows the creation of Shield Wall as one of their 4 augment schools.

How long an x/Tank can hold aggro will probably depend on several factors, including Passive Skills and possibly racial attributes as well as how many skill points are used for the augment.
Expect it to not be as long a duration as a Tank/x Rank 3+ Active Skill.

What do you think the 4 augment schools for x/Tank will be?

bloodprophet

Dygz wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Why?

Edit:
More importantly. IF they do will it be enough to hold aggro?

Why what?
Expect x/Tanks to have Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And damage Mitigation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And whatever allows the creation of Shield Wall as one of their 4 augment schools.

How long an x/Tank can hold aggro will probably depend on several factors, including Passive Skills and possibly racial attributes as well as how many skill points are used for the augment.
Expect it to not be as long a duration as a Tank/x Rank 3+ Active Skill.

What do you think the 4 augment schools for x/Tank will be?

Really???
Why what? In relation to your post
"Expect x/Tanks to have some form Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools"
Why should we expect that?
Why do you think those will be the augments? What proof do you have?

I have no idea what they will offer as augment schools.. but then none of us do. Unless you have insider information?

Why is shield wall an augment and not a primary archetype skill? AND where did this information come from? Is this making stuff up or is there a source?

SirChancelot

bloodprophet wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Why?

Edit:
More importantly. IF they do will it be enough to hold aggro?

Why what?
Expect x/Tanks to have Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And damage Mitigation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And whatever allows the creation of Shield Wall as one of their 4 augment schools.

How long an x/Tank can hold aggro will probably depend on several factors, including Passive Skills and possibly racial attributes as well as how many skill points are used for the augment.
Expect it to not be as long a duration as a Tank/x Rank 3+ Active Skill.

What do you think the 4 augment schools for x/Tank will be?

Really???
Why what? In relation to your post
"Expect x/Tanks to have some form Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools"
Why should we expect that?
Why do you think those will be the augments? What proof do you have?

I have no idea what they will offer as augment schools.. but then none of us do. Unless you have insider information?

Why is shield wall an augment and not a primary archetype skill? AND where did this information come from? Is this making stuff up or is there a source?

Making up stuff

Boanergese

Dygz wrote: »

bloodprophet wrote: »

Why?

Edit:
More importantly. IF they do will it be enough to hold aggro?

Why what?
Expect x/Tanks to have Threat generation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And damage Mitigation as one of their 4 augment schools.
And whatever allows the creation of Shield Wall as one of their 4 augment schools.

How long an x/Tank can hold aggro will probably depend on several factors, including Passive Skills and possibly racial attributes as well as how many skill points are used for the augment.
Expect it to not be as long a duration as a Tank/x Rank 3+ Active Skill.

What do you think the 4 augment schools for x/Tank will be?

I think you reading into things too much. A modifier is not the same as an ability. They are not going to give the mage/tank the ultimate defense ability or shield wall. They might give the mage/tank some kind of taunt ability, a stun, or maybe some kind of mana shield for mitigation, but the problem is going to be that a cloth wearer who has half the hit points of a tank and less defense will get one shot with certain raid bosses. If the mage/tank was as good as the tank, then everyone would play that for the ability to dps and tank. It would break the tank class which the developer doesn't want.

As Steven mentioned in a video the tank ability Onslaught which is a charge ability, if it was augmented with a mage augment like blink instead of the tank taking 3 seconds to close the gap of his target the tank would close the gap instantly and might also stun the enemy with a lightning shock. That is more how the augments are going to work. I think people are hyping up the X/Tank too much. I think people who tank with be Tank/X for the most part and it will be fun to see how the tank can be augmented for different roles whether it be absorption, dodging, self-heals, etc.

Dygz

bloodprophet wrote: »

Why should we expect that?
Why do you think those will be the augments? What proof do you have?

I have no idea what they will offer as augment schools.. but then none of us do. Unless you have insider information?

Why is shield wall an augment and not a primary archetype skill? AND where did this information come from? Is this making stuff up or is there a source?

Because it falls in line with the augment schools we know for Cleric: Life; Death
And the augment schools we know for Mage: Elemental, Teleport

Based on the Cleric Active Skills we know, we can expect one of the 4 Cleric augment schools will be devoted to Holy damage.
Based on what we know of the Mage Active Skills we know, we can expect one of the 4 Mage augment schools will be devoted to managing Mana.

Do we know for certain what they will be? No.
But, we can expect them to reflect the types of Active Skills we know.

Fireball is a Mage Active Skill hurls a ball of fire towards enemies which burns them. (Rank 3 burns them for additional damage over time)
Thundershock is a Mage Active Skill that shoots forward a beam of lightning that damages enemies.
Steven has given us the following example:
"Let's say you are a Fighter. As a Fighter, you have an Active Skill that let's you charge
a target over x distance. And upon reaching the target, you deal x damage and some condition modifier. If you were to choose Mage as your Secondary Archetype to create your class, you would have access to Mage augments. So, there's going to be 4 Schools of augmentation for each Archetype...If you were to apply the Elemental School to your [Primary Archetype Active Skill], you would then Charge x distance, upon reaching your target, you would set the target ablaze if it's Fire, you would electrocute them and deal damage over time..."

If x/Mages have augments that burn and electrocute enemies, even dealing damage over time, despite there being Active Skills that also burn and electrocute enemies, we can expect x/Tank to similarly have augments that reflect Tank Active Skills.

If we contemplate how the Mage augments are applied to Tank abilities, a reasonable example is:
Just as a Tank/Mage might be able to create a Shield Wall that also deals Elemental damage, a Mage/Tank may be able to deal Elemental damage that also creates a Shield Wall.
The key words there being might and may. These are speculative examples. The x/Tank augment might create some other form of barrier, sure.
Don't expect that barrier to be as durable or the duration to be as long as the Tank/x Active Skill.

Expect x/Tanks to be able to generate Threat and hold Aggro and Mitigate damage, just as x/Clerics can heal and x/Mages can Teleport and wield Elemental damage.
Just don't expect the augments to be as effective as the Active Skills.

George_Black

Get back to topic instead of talking about meta tanking vs x/tank.
Ffs

CROW3

George_Black wrote: »

Get back to topic instead of talking about meta tanking vs x/tank.
Ffs

It’s literally the topic. If you’re talking about ‘off tanking’ you’re automatically contrasting it to main tanking. If you don’t have main tanking, you can’t have off tanking, you just have tanking.

Don’t make me get the spray bottle…

Ok. So…

Exactly how big of a shield can my Ranger wield? 😂

Nerror

Another dev stream, another bit about main tanking and off tanking, essentially confirming the previous video.

Watch from 1:12:02 - 1:13:58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDbsYYuUtxM&t=4321s

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

Shouldn't need a full and proper tank for general group fighting, other classes have some Agro spells usually. If a Tank and 100% monster stability is very necessary then the other classes must be gimped in versatility and defensive/mobility measures.

I don't appreciate lazy and non experimental players, sometimes I want people in that are only from my guild and sometimes it's difficult to get a proper tank, then you adapt for other things and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what works. The only issue should be that the DPS can't watch netflix while spamming their skills (usually while the poor tank does all the work).

I'm not surprised that some...particulars in this thread are adamant about needing a proper tank at all times, so boring and lazy, no shame at all.

If content doesn't need a proper tank, then that content is trivial with a proper tank.

if all of Ashes group content is trivial with a proper group setup, what is the point of group content?

Steven has already said they are working on the assumption that a group will strive to get one of each primary archetype. This is the aim, and this is what the content is being balanced for. They are specifically adding in non-combat penalties to groups that do not take one of each primary archetype, so groups will strive to take one of each with them.

As to your concerns from other games, a really important factor to keep in mind is the group size of Ashes in relation to other games.

In a game like WoW, if you have a tank and a healer, they can take 3 others along with them on group content. In Ashes, that same player on a tank and healer can take 6 others along with them on group content. This means your guild needs fewer tanks present in order to take the same number of players along on group content.

As to your comments on lazy and non experimental players - I don't play MMO's to experience with group make up. I play to be efficient as possible while playing with friends. You saying that people that don't want to experiment with group setups when they have one that works for them are lazy is the same thing as saying that anyone that doesn't play the game your way is playing the game wrong.

JustVine

I don't like mmo's that only have one solution to PvE content. If the game is built in a way where there is a 'clear and definitive best answers' then it's not the type of game I like. They don't have to be built that way either.

I respect people's preference for that kind of game. It's just not for me. A game that has multiple answers allows for more experimentation. It increases the playability time for another set of people. But it also means that there can be all kinds of different groups who have different archtype combinations and specs that are efficient for their groups play style, rather than forcing everyone to eventually conform to 'the meta/'correct' style, and that's my jam. You wanna play in a group where only the tank needs to tank? That's cool with me, I just hope there is room for a group where the one that has an off tank and they have good reasons to do it, like a higher damage output on the tank since they can focus a little less on absolute mitigation, or better burst capacity, or a better clear rate on adds (just randomish concepts, since we don't have any ideas of augmented abilities.)

If the game let's you, as Jeff said, 'build your party in the way you build your character' that SHOULD mean, in my mind, that there are multiple ways to approach building a party. I can think of fairly good conceptual reasons why an off tank is a good thing to have around. The main one is that it let's tank have time to generate more damage or activate an ability that has a longer animation instead of focusing purely on enmity. Perhaps to go for their weapon proc.

Voidwalkers

It really depends on the encounters, but I'd expect an off-tank to be a role for:

1. Temporarily protecting dps/support/heals from fight mechanics specifically designed to kill them, e.g.
- tanking side/trash mobs that're going after the backlines,
- tanking abilities/attacks that are aimed at the backlines. e.g. an action-targeting non-piercing fireball that can be eaten by a */tank character with a damage-reduction ability. This scenario probably applies in group pvp too.

2. ~80% capability at performing a dps/support/heal role when they're not doing 1.

3. Saving the day and hold the boss for a short period (10~20s?) if the main tank dies, while the group can battle-rez the MT or burn the boss down if it's on the last 1~2% health. It's probably reasonable if you need multiple off-tanks to achieve this and a couple of them die in the process.

Noaani

JustVine wrote: »

If the game let's you, as Jeff said, 'build your party in the way you build your character' that SHOULD mean, in my mind, that there are multiple ways to approach building a party. I can think of fairly good conceptual reasons why an off tank is a good thing to have around. The main one is that it let's tank have time to generate more damage or activate an ability that has a longer animation instead of focusing purely on enmity. Perhaps to go for their weapon proc.

I don't disagree with anything you have said.

The thing with creating a group the same way you create a build is that there is going to be a single best way to do both.

This is just a fact, and I think that anyone that thinks about it would realize that this is just how it is going to be.

However, the "best" way to do a thing will be dependent on a number of factors. If you are not expecting any PvP, and are planning on going after just a single specific raid mob, I would wager that the best build for the raid, and for each individual character within the raid, would be fairly obvious.

However, you and I both already see the issue with the above.

Specific builds that diverge from the optimal - both in terms of individual builds and in how a group or raid is built - will largely depend on what opposition is expected.

If the target you are going after is a world raid mob, you would likely want to ignore PvE all together and go for the best PvP build you can, as PvP is what determines the outcome of a world boss.

Other content will fall somewhere in the middle of just wanting the best PvP build and just wanting the best PvE build.

However, even within all of that, I still do not see a place for an off tank. I see a place for a second tank even if the PvE encounter only asks for one tank (the PvP may well ask for a second tank). I can also see a place for builds in this that are */tank, but that is as more resilient versions of the * part of the build, not to function as some form of psuedo tank.

Where I do see off tanks being capable of being used is if you have a group of players you want to run content with, and have no actual tank. You could assign a */tank as the tank, and a second */tank as an offtank.

Players are always going to be able to run content using random groups. I'm not against people doing this at all. What I am saying is that there is no situation where an offtank would be the desired situation.

It will always be - at best - a compromise.

If you are in a situation where that is a compromise you are happy to make, good for you. As I am sure you would agree (having had a few discussions in the past), I don't much care, and wish you the best.

However, that makeup isn't ever likely to be a specifically desired group setup.

Dygz

Thanks, Nerror.
I think the dev quotes in that vid pretty much say what I've been saying:
X/Tanks can tank to some degree, but don't expect them to replace the need for a Tank/x main tank in an 8-person group.
It's not necessarily impossible. But, the devs are not trying to ensure that it is possible.
If you want to try to create an x/Tank build that can main tank better than a Tank/x, go for it. If you succeed - great. Expect that if that build becomes so popular that it interferes greatly with the ease of Tank/x to find a group, it might get nerfed.

Child Item