Maybe off tanks and extra support is silly to have in a "standard" group for dungeons
Off tanks in any situation are silly.
If a raid has a need for a second tank (aggro play from mobs in any form, bosses that need to be kept apart, adds that require a tank etc), then you take a second tank - not an off tank. I have never once seen a situation in which a half tank is needed. If the mobs are so weak that you don't need a full tank, then you also don't need a half tank.
I have always viewed the term off-tank to be a role and not a type of class. In a raid scenario an off-tank would usually be another Tank primary and in a group scenario it would be the best class you had that could take the damage other than the Tank.
I personally like the idea of off-tanks or secondary tanks/healers for single group content since that would mean that the content is difficult and requires more dmg-absorption/healing than what a single Tank/Cleric can provide thus its up to the other 6 classes to serve as secondary tanks/healers or use crowd control to deal with it.
In other games a Tank/Cleric/DPS group composition has promoted the gather and AOE everything until you get to the boss type of group combat and I personally liked it a lot more when worrying about wiping to trash mobs was a thing. This is specially important in open world dungeons since I want to see new groups work their way in rather than having mob trains all over the place from people coming in or going out.
Maybe off tanks and extra support is silly to have in a "standard" group for dungeons
Off tanks in any situation are silly.
If a raid has a need for a second tank (aggro play from mobs in any form, bosses that need to be kept apart, adds that require a tank etc), then you take a second tank - not an off tank. I have never once seen a situation in which a half tank is needed. If the mobs are so weak that you don't need a full tank, then you also don't need a half tank.
I have always viewed the term off-tank to be a role and not a type of class. In a raid scenario an off-tank would usually be another Tank primary and in a group scenario it would be the best class you had that could take the damage other than the Tank.
I personally like the idea of off-tanks or secondary tanks/healers for single group content since that would mean that the content is difficult and requires more dmg-absorption/healing than what a single Tank/Cleric can provide thus its up to the other 6 classes to serve as secondary tanks/healers or use crowd control to deal with it.
In other games a Tank/Cleric/DPS group composition has promoted the gather and AOE everything until you get to the boss type of group combat and I personally liked it a lot more when worrying about wiping to trash mobs was a thing. This is specially important in open world dungeons since I want to see new groups work their way in rather than having mob trains all over the place from people coming in or going out.
An off tank is someone that is sometimes a tank, sometimes DPS.
A second tank is someone that is always a tank, but is not always tanking - they are only called to tank when the content demands it.
Since an off tank is a half tank (half DPS), it is not as good of a tank as an actual tank.
The disconnect here is in some people thinking a half tank is needed for some content, where in my experience you either need a full tank or no tank. If a tank is actually needed, you want an actual tank.
If you take a full tank as a second tank with you on content that needs it, cool. If you then call them an off tank rather than a second rank, that is an issue of nomenclature, nothing more.
The notion that the need for a second tank or healer means the content is harder is just false. It just means the content has more mechanics that engage tanks and healers - which by definition means it would need less from DPS.
I'm planning to go Tank/Bard. So I'm guessing that most of my skills will apply a short Buff when cast. Something like: "+10% speed for 10 seconds after using Charge" & "bonus defense now applies to all allies within 20m after using Shield Wall"....Same skills, same feel, just with some added "bard buff effect".
An off tank is someone that is sometimes a tank, sometimes DPS.
I'm with the other guy on this one. An off-tank to me has always been a "real tank" who's role is to deal with the adds and not the main target. The discussion before the raid starts usually includes "You can tank and I'll OT." - "Sure, we can alternate if you want to practice tanking the boss."
A "sometimes tank, sometimes DPS" is a just a tanky fighter who likes to play solo or in small groups and needs to be able to absorb some damage but also wants to kill things on his own. He'll likely pretend to be a tank when doing dungeons with his friends because everyone else is a squishy DPS and it's him or nothing.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.
I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.
A "real tank" is anyone who would be considered a Tank for purposes of completing content that requires a Tank. So, unlike your definition, this would not include people just looking to deal with adds if those same people could not also tank the boss and fill the remaining duties of a Tank.
Case-in-point: An off tank should be able to step in and tank the boss should the main tank go down. A Ranger who said "I can deal with the adds" is not going to be able to step in and tank the boss. I would not consider this Ranger the "off tank" simply because his main goal is to deal with adds.
Anyone else think they'll scrap the class/secondary archetype system, or at least pare it down? It really seems like the whole system has been put on the back burner. Think about how much detail has been given on it (or lack thereof) in the past few years.
Anyone else think they'll scrap the class/secondary archetype system, or at least pare it down? It really seems like the whole system has been put on the back burner. Think about how much detail has been given on it (or lack thereof) in the past few years.
Nope. That's one of their main "selling points" that they've been advertising. We haven't seen much on it because the classes aren't done being designed. We'll see more when Alpha 2 comes out.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 2022
Steven is waiting until we get closer to having the features available to test - so that we discover most stuff in-game rather than having it spoiled early.
We will begin to see more about the class system shortly before the Alpha 2 announcement - whenever that is.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Case-in-point: An off tank should be able to step in and tank the boss should the main tank go down. A Ranger who said "I can deal with the adds" is not going to be able to step in and tank the boss. I would not consider this Ranger the "off tank" simply because his main goal is to deal with adds.
That's something that you are adding to the definition in the image you posted.
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.
This is how I always view what an actual off tank should be. I don’t feel like I’ve seen it ever done well and it always turns into either you’re a tank or not a tank as others have said.
My hope is that we see the x/tank classes in Ashes finally hit that mark. Managing adds, managing strays that peel off the tank, while also adding in a respectable amount of dps. Threat levels will definitely need to be tested and tweaked to make it so an x/tank will be able to peel off of dps, but still be able to eventually drop the mobs off with the tank/x which I assume could be baked into the augments the tank archetype provide.
I'm with the other guy on this one. An off-tank to me has always been a "real tank" who's role is to deal with the adds and not the main target.
The issue with what you have here is that you are talking about two things as if they are one.
Off-tanks are a thing, secondary tanks are a thing - the two are not the same thing.
if you want to conflate the two, I am not going to try and stop you. All I will do is point out to you that you are willfully conflating two different roles, and as a result of that I offer a polite suggestion that you avoid debate about either one of said roles.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Hmmn. Well, in Ashes Secondary Tank very likely is a conflation with off-tank.
The issue with what you have here is that you are talking about two things as if they are one.
Off-tanks are a thing, secondary tanks are a thing - the two are not the same thing.
I have been running the role of a tank across at least 17 MMOs and 20 years of playing. Never once have I heard "secondary tank" without it being corrected to the term "off-tank."
"Off-Tank" is simply someone that doesn't always tank, but brings the gear to do so for specific fights. Now they're a tank. Now they're not. You've turned off the tank role. They are tanking adds or a second boss off of the main tank. Or...."taunt off" the main boss to cover a tank buster skill or huge DOT. No matter which sentence you use, that has always been the source of the term "off-tank" for as long as I can remember.
I'm not trying to be mean or call you out. Just saying it's really weird to hear "secondary tank" used by someone that isn't just entering the MMO space. Maybe the guilds/groups you ran with do things differently, I dunno. But yeah...everywhere I have been, raid groups have main tanks and off tanks. Sometimes they call them primary and secondary, but only in raids that require two or more tanks for the entire run. Then any additional off-tanks put their tank gear away and do dps when not needed.
That said, Steven has, in a couple of videos now, said something to the effect of "someone with a Tank secondary can viably perform the Tank role. Just not as a main tank. Maybe an off-tank for mobs or something."
I remember this because I sent that question in at least 3 times and he finally answered it on stream. Secondary classes will be "viable" but not "ideal" in the role they chose as secondary. This means they can do a small role. Perhaps off-tank, if configured juuuuust right. Maybe an emergency tank while they res the main tank? Who knows how far. But they will be able to do it, if the design concept carries through to launch.
I have been running the role of a tank across at least 17 MMOs and 20 years of playing. Never once have I heard "secondary tank" without it being corrected to the term "off-tank."
I've been playing about as long.
If someone attempted to correct me in calling an off tank an off tank, I would then correct them.
A second tank (or secondary tank) is the second tank you use on content that requires two tanks.
An off-tank is someone that is not the main tank, but is running a tank spec (or half tank spec) on content that does not specifically call for a second tank.
I wonder what a "real tank" is when there is not a class/archetype named Tank.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.
A "real tank" is anyone who would be considered a Tank for purposes of completing content that requires a Tank. So, unlike your definition, this would not include people just looking to deal with adds if those same people could not also tank the boss and fill the remaining duties of a Tank.
Case-in-point: An off tank should be able to step in and tank the boss should the main tank go down. A Ranger who said "I can deal with the adds" is not going to be able to step in and tank the boss. I would not consider this Ranger the "off tank" simply because his main goal is to deal with adds.
What about a ranger/tank who is completely built out to be a ranged kite'ing tank?
The earliest instance of "off-tank" that I remember was in EQ with some bosses having an ability where damage was focused on the top 2 in the aggro list, this damage was not enough to require a heal rotation but enough to require focused healing. This job was usually given to your worst geared tank or your best geared dps class.
The off-tank was not expected to step in and tank the boss because that's not how things worked and he would be dead a couple of seconds later. If anything you probably didn't want your best tanks to take those spots if someone else could do it, that way you might have enough time to start your heal rotation on a live tank while the boss is busy killing his way down the aggro list.
Therefore an off-tank does not need to be able to replace a main tank, he is meant to absorb damage so healers have it easier.
1
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Speaking of general expectations I have a feeling that x/cleric is going to be one of, if not the most common secondary chosen if it provides any substantial amount of self healing. In large scale content or when traversing the world without having a pocket healer, being able to keep yourself healthy is going to be insanely valuable.
I think you’ll see this divide between x/cleric being most common among primaries that benefit more from dragging a fight out a bit longer, and x/whatever provides the most added damage (probably x/mage), on any burstier primary.
The earliest instance of "off-tank" that I remember was in EQ with some bosses having an ability where damage was focused on the top 2 in the aggro list, this damage was not enough to require a heal rotation but enough to require focused healing. This job was usually given to your worst geared tank or your best geared dps class.
The off-tank was not expected to step in and tank the boss because that's not how things worked and he would be dead a couple of seconds later. If anything you probably didn't want your best tanks to take those spots if someone else could do it, that way you might have enough time to start your heal rotation on a live tank while the boss is busy killing his way down the aggro list.
Therefore an off-tank does not need to be able to replace a main tank, he is meant to absorb damage so healers have it easier.
This is actually fairly accurate.
The reason a dedicated off tank is not necessary is because anyone (almost anyone) can step in and absorb that damage if it could help - but it is rare that this is the case. If that damage NEEDS to be absorbed, then you want a full and proper tank to do it, a second tank, as it were.
As such, dedicating a group or raid spot to an off tank has not made any sense since early EQ - when there were no limits on raid sizes so it was literally a case of "why not bring one?".
The term as some people misuse it today is a holdover from early EQ.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 2022
As main tank in an 8 person group, ranged kiting tank would be a Tank/Ranger.
A Ranger/Tank would be a Ranger who is kinda tanky.
Don't expect to be able to make a Ranger/Tank who is main tank in an 8-person group. The Tank/x will out-tank you.
I like the idea of secondary archetypes! As now you can tank, heal, etc in a slightly different fashion than others in your group, while still finding what is a best fit for you. I feel this gives each player more flexibility in finding and building the style they want to play and it not be so cookie cutter.
What I personally do in games is different then most players. I like my experience to be different for each and every game.. the biggest and easiest way to do that is not play classes I do in other games. In GW2 I run Warrior and Engineer- in WOW I run Warlock, Hunter, DeathKnight- In AOC I will likely run Rogue and a Paladin of some sort! This simple decision helps me to not compare as harshly in how each game interprets how a class should play... I never have the thought WOW warrior and GW2 warrior are so much better than AOC warrior.... As I have never and will never play the same class for all 3 games... these are different games, so I'm looking for different experiences!
I also tend to look for different races to Play in each game! To again not clone that same experience
Charr and Asura-GW2
Dark Iron Dwarf, Void Elf, Light forged Draenei- WOW
Dunir Dwarf and Vek- Likely choices for AOC
There are so many options to keep each gaming experience new and fresh! Why limit oneself in the decisions such as... well I always play a warrior dwarf... so here I come as a Warrior Dwarf... and I will complain how each one plays different and nitpick how the games should have took a little bit from each game to make the OP warrior Dwarf build.
AOC very well could be a nice fresh slate for everyone to try something different! From the world, to sieges, caravan escorts, classes, and races they play. It is up to them to truly look for a new experience.
But the debate is how far those 8 variations will actually vary from each other.
As has been said in the past by myself and others, the system allows for a massive amount of variation between different classes using the same primary.
Take WoW as an example here. The game has (iirc) 6 actual tank classes/builds - protection warriors and paladins, and I believe druids, monks, death knights and demon hunters all have a valid main tank spec.
Each of these plays drastically different.
In Ashes, a protection warrior is a tank/tank. A protection paladin is a tank/cleric, a brewmaster monk is a tank/rogue - and so on.
So, the scope for variation between different classes of the same primary is absolutely there, without a doubt. Intrepid have also stated that they want variety between the different classes of the same primary.
So, we know that the variety of playstyles exist, we know Intrepid want that variety and we know the system allows for that variety.
What more is there to discuss at this point?
I'm basing this comment off of the understanding that you disagree with my opinion where I support secondary archetypes being able to shift roles...
Summoner is the archetype for you, as its the exception to the rule.
But the debate is how far those 8 variations will actually vary from each other.
As has been said in the past by myself and others, the system allows for a massive amount of variation between different classes using the same primary.
Take WoW as an example here. The game has (iirc) 6 actual tank classes/builds - protection warriors and paladins, and I believe druids, monks, death knights and demon hunters all have a valid main tank spec.
Each of these plays drastically different.
In Ashes, a protection warrior is a tank/tank. A protection paladin is a tank/cleric, a brewmaster monk is a tank/rogue - and so on.
So, the scope for variation between different classes of the same primary is absolutely there, without a doubt. Intrepid have also stated that they want variety between the different classes of the same primary.
So, we know that the variety of playstyles exist, we know Intrepid want that variety and we know the system allows for that variety.
What more is there to discuss at this point?
I'm basing this comment off of the understanding that you disagree with my opinion where I support secondary archetypes being able to shift roles...
Summoner is the archetype for you, as its the exception to the rule.
You're probably right
And that's probably going to be my first choice. Followed by tank if I don't enjoy the summoner classes...
But here is my worry
If that is the ONLY archetype that has that level of flexibility, don't you think more players might gravitate to that archetype because of that flexibility that other archetypes don't have?
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
But the debate is how far those 8 variations will actually vary from each other.
As has been said in the past by myself and others, the system allows for a massive amount of variation between different classes using the same primary.
Take WoW as an example here. The game has (iirc) 6 actual tank classes/builds - protection warriors and paladins, and I believe druids, monks, death knights and demon hunters all have a valid main tank spec.
Each of these plays drastically different.
In Ashes, a protection warrior is a tank/tank. A protection paladin is a tank/cleric, a brewmaster monk is a tank/rogue - and so on.
So, the scope for variation between different classes of the same primary is absolutely there, without a doubt. Intrepid have also stated that they want variety between the different classes of the same primary.
So, we know that the variety of playstyles exist, we know Intrepid want that variety and we know the system allows for that variety.
What more is there to discuss at this point?
I'm basing this comment off of the understanding that you disagree with my opinion where I support secondary archetypes being able to shift roles...
Summoner is the archetype for you, as its the exception to the rule.
You're probably right
And that's probably going to be my first choice. Followed by tank if I don't enjoy the summoner classes...
But here is my worry
If that is the ONLY archetype that has that level of flexibility, don't you think more players might gravitate to that archetype because of that flexibility that other archetypes don't have?
Maybe depending on how challenging it is to tank or heal through pets vs doing it directly with tank or cleric.
I foresee the Summoner doing anything other then DPS being a challenge. Some people will rise to the occasion most will not.
Should a Tank/mage be able to compete with a mage/anything? In a dps kind of way.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
But the debate is how far those 8 variations will actually vary from each other.
As has been said in the past by myself and others, the system allows for a massive amount of variation between different classes using the same primary.
Take WoW as an example here. The game has (iirc) 6 actual tank classes/builds - protection warriors and paladins, and I believe druids, monks, death knights and demon hunters all have a valid main tank spec.
Each of these plays drastically different.
In Ashes, a protection warrior is a tank/tank. A protection paladin is a tank/cleric, a brewmaster monk is a tank/rogue - and so on.
So, the scope for variation between different classes of the same primary is absolutely there, without a doubt. Intrepid have also stated that they want variety between the different classes of the same primary.
So, we know that the variety of playstyles exist, we know Intrepid want that variety and we know the system allows for that variety.
What more is there to discuss at this point?
I'm basing this comment off of the understanding that you disagree with my opinion where I support secondary archetypes being able to shift roles...
Summoner is the archetype for you, as its the exception to the rule.
You're probably right
And that's probably going to be my first choice. Followed by tank if I don't enjoy the summoner classes...
But here is my worry
If that is the ONLY archetype that has that level of flexibility, don't you think more players might gravitate to that archetype because of that flexibility that other archetypes don't have?
Not really, because there have been dozens of games where players aren't given flexibility in terms of role, and most players are just fine with that.
In fact, even in games where players are given some flexibility in their role, most players stick to a single role per character - often preferring to roll an alt to perform a different role, rather than using a character they already have that would be able to perform said role.
It isn't like Intrepid are charting new waters here.
But the debate is how far those 8 variations will actually vary from each other.
As has been said in the past by myself and others, the system allows for a massive amount of variation between different classes using the same primary.
Take WoW as an example here. The game has (iirc) 6 actual tank classes/builds - protection warriors and paladins, and I believe druids, monks, death knights and demon hunters all have a valid main tank spec.
Each of these plays drastically different.
In Ashes, a protection warrior is a tank/tank. A protection paladin is a tank/cleric, a brewmaster monk is a tank/rogue - and so on.
So, the scope for variation between different classes of the same primary is absolutely there, without a doubt. Intrepid have also stated that they want variety between the different classes of the same primary.
So, we know that the variety of playstyles exist, we know Intrepid want that variety and we know the system allows for that variety.
What more is there to discuss at this point?
I'm basing this comment off of the understanding that you disagree with my opinion where I support secondary archetypes being able to shift roles...
Summoner is the archetype for you, as its the exception to the rule.
You're probably right
And that's probably going to be my first choice. Followed by tank if I don't enjoy the summoner classes...
But here is my worry
If that is the ONLY archetype that has that level of flexibility, don't you think more players might gravitate to that archetype because of that flexibility that other archetypes don't have?
Not really, because there have been dozens of games where players aren't given flexibility in terms of role, and most players are just fine with that.
In fact, even in games where players are given some flexibility in their role, most players stick to a single role per character - often preferring to roll an alt to perform a different role, rather than using a character they already have that would be able to perform said role.
It isn't like Intrepid are charting new waters here.
Sure
But in most games a class had multiple specs, and usually those specs can go for different roles if a player wants. Ashes won't have that abiding to you. So all those people who DO like shifting roles for different things will only have one archetype to choose from.
You don't see that skewing the archetype distribution at all?
Comments
I have always viewed the term off-tank to be a role and not a type of class. In a raid scenario an off-tank would usually be another Tank primary and in a group scenario it would be the best class you had that could take the damage other than the Tank.
I personally like the idea of off-tanks or secondary tanks/healers for single group content since that would mean that the content is difficult and requires more dmg-absorption/healing than what a single Tank/Cleric can provide thus its up to the other 6 classes to serve as secondary tanks/healers or use crowd control to deal with it.
In other games a Tank/Cleric/DPS group composition has promoted the gather and AOE everything until you get to the boss type of group combat and I personally liked it a lot more when worrying about wiping to trash mobs was a thing. This is specially important in open world dungeons since I want to see new groups work their way in rather than having mob trains all over the place from people coming in or going out.
An off tank is someone that is sometimes a tank, sometimes DPS.
A second tank is someone that is always a tank, but is not always tanking - they are only called to tank when the content demands it.
Since an off tank is a half tank (half DPS), it is not as good of a tank as an actual tank.
The disconnect here is in some people thinking a half tank is needed for some content, where in my experience you either need a full tank or no tank. If a tank is actually needed, you want an actual tank.
If you take a full tank as a second tank with you on content that needs it, cool. If you then call them an off tank rather than a second rank, that is an issue of nomenclature, nothing more.
The notion that the need for a second tank or healer means the content is harder is just false. It just means the content has more mechanics that engage tanks and healers - which by definition means it would need less from DPS.
I'm with the other guy on this one. An off-tank to me has always been a "real tank" who's role is to deal with the adds and not the main target. The discussion before the raid starts usually includes "You can tank and I'll OT." - "Sure, we can alternate if you want to practice tanking the boss."
A "sometimes tank, sometimes DPS" is a just a tanky fighter who likes to play solo or in small groups and needs to be able to absorb some damage but also wants to kill things on his own. He'll likely pretend to be a tank when doing dungeons with his friends because everyone else is a squishy DPS and it's him or nothing.
I think of an off-tank exactly as described in the posted image. A player character who concentrates on taking pressure off the main-tank by drawing off extra (usually weaker) mobs.
That could be any class that can successfully deal with the extra mobs.
A "real tank" is anyone who would be considered a Tank for purposes of completing content that requires a Tank. So, unlike your definition, this would not include people just looking to deal with adds if those same people could not also tank the boss and fill the remaining duties of a Tank.
Case-in-point: An off tank should be able to step in and tank the boss should the main tank go down. A Ranger who said "I can deal with the adds" is not going to be able to step in and tank the boss. I would not consider this Ranger the "off tank" simply because his main goal is to deal with adds.
Nope. That's one of their main "selling points" that they've been advertising. We haven't seen much on it because the classes aren't done being designed. We'll see more when Alpha 2 comes out.
We will begin to see more about the class system shortly before the Alpha 2 announcement - whenever that is.
This is how I always view what an actual off tank should be. I don’t feel like I’ve seen it ever done well and it always turns into either you’re a tank or not a tank as others have said.
My hope is that we see the x/tank classes in Ashes finally hit that mark. Managing adds, managing strays that peel off the tank, while also adding in a respectable amount of dps. Threat levels will definitely need to be tested and tweaked to make it so an x/tank will be able to peel off of dps, but still be able to eventually drop the mobs off with the tank/x which I assume could be baked into the augments the tank archetype provide.
Off-tanks are a thing, secondary tanks are a thing - the two are not the same thing.
if you want to conflate the two, I am not going to try and stop you. All I will do is point out to you that you are willfully conflating two different roles, and as a result of that I offer a polite suggestion that you avoid debate about either one of said roles.
I guess my worry is how the tank and heal role will play out in groups. Without knowing more all I know is they'll be in crazy high demand
I also worry about people not taking preffered roles in group. Can't wait until we get more info
I have been running the role of a tank across at least 17 MMOs and 20 years of playing. Never once have I heard "secondary tank" without it being corrected to the term "off-tank."
"Off-Tank" is simply someone that doesn't always tank, but brings the gear to do so for specific fights. Now they're a tank. Now they're not. You've turned off the tank role. They are tanking adds or a second boss off of the main tank. Or...."taunt off" the main boss to cover a tank buster skill or huge DOT. No matter which sentence you use, that has always been the source of the term "off-tank" for as long as I can remember.
I'm not trying to be mean or call you out. Just saying it's really weird to hear "secondary tank" used by someone that isn't just entering the MMO space. Maybe the guilds/groups you ran with do things differently, I dunno. But yeah...everywhere I have been, raid groups have main tanks and off tanks. Sometimes they call them primary and secondary, but only in raids that require two or more tanks for the entire run. Then any additional off-tanks put their tank gear away and do dps when not needed.
That said, Steven has, in a couple of videos now, said something to the effect of "someone with a Tank secondary can viably perform the Tank role. Just not as a main tank. Maybe an off-tank for mobs or something."
I remember this because I sent that question in at least 3 times and he finally answered it on stream. Secondary classes will be "viable" but not "ideal" in the role they chose as secondary. This means they can do a small role. Perhaps off-tank, if configured juuuuust right. Maybe an emergency tank while they res the main tank? Who knows how far. But they will be able to do it, if the design concept carries through to launch.
If someone attempted to correct me in calling an off tank an off tank, I would then correct them.
A second tank (or secondary tank) is the second tank you use on content that requires two tanks.
An off-tank is someone that is not the main tank, but is running a tank spec (or half tank spec) on content that does not specifically call for a second tank.
What about a ranger/tank who is completely built out to be a ranged kite'ing tank?
The off-tank was not expected to step in and tank the boss because that's not how things worked and he would be dead a couple of seconds later. If anything you probably didn't want your best tanks to take those spots if someone else could do it, that way you might have enough time to start your heal rotation on a live tank while the boss is busy killing his way down the aggro list.
Therefore an off-tank does not need to be able to replace a main tank, he is meant to absorb damage so healers have it easier.
I think you’ll see this divide between x/cleric being most common among primaries that benefit more from dragging a fight out a bit longer, and x/whatever provides the most added damage (probably x/mage), on any burstier primary.
This is actually fairly accurate.
The reason a dedicated off tank is not necessary is because anyone (almost anyone) can step in and absorb that damage if it could help - but it is rare that this is the case. If that damage NEEDS to be absorbed, then you want a full and proper tank to do it, a second tank, as it were.
As such, dedicating a group or raid spot to an off tank has not made any sense since early EQ - when there were no limits on raid sizes so it was literally a case of "why not bring one?".
The term as some people misuse it today is a holdover from early EQ.
A Ranger/Tank would be a Ranger who is kinda tanky.
Don't expect to be able to make a Ranger/Tank who is main tank in an 8-person group. The Tank/x will out-tank you.
What I personally do in games is different then most players. I like my experience to be different for each and every game.. the biggest and easiest way to do that is not play classes I do in other games. In GW2 I run Warrior and Engineer- in WOW I run Warlock, Hunter, DeathKnight- In AOC I will likely run Rogue and a Paladin of some sort! This simple decision helps me to not compare as harshly in how each game interprets how a class should play... I never have the thought WOW warrior and GW2 warrior are so much better than AOC warrior.... As I have never and will never play the same class for all 3 games... these are different games, so I'm looking for different experiences!
I also tend to look for different races to Play in each game! To again not clone that same experience
Charr and Asura-GW2
Dark Iron Dwarf, Void Elf, Light forged Draenei- WOW
Dunir Dwarf and Vek- Likely choices for AOC
There are so many options to keep each gaming experience new and fresh! Why limit oneself in the decisions such as... well I always play a warrior dwarf... so here I come as a Warrior Dwarf... and I will complain how each one plays different and nitpick how the games should have took a little bit from each game to make the OP warrior Dwarf build.
AOC very well could be a nice fresh slate for everyone to try something different! From the world, to sieges, caravan escorts, classes, and races they play. It is up to them to truly look for a new experience.
Summoner is the archetype for you, as its the exception to the rule.
You're probably right
And that's probably going to be my first choice. Followed by tank if I don't enjoy the summoner classes...
But here is my worry
If that is the ONLY archetype that has that level of flexibility, don't you think more players might gravitate to that archetype because of that flexibility that other archetypes don't have?
Maybe depending on how challenging it is to tank or heal through pets vs doing it directly with tank or cleric.
I foresee the Summoner doing anything other then DPS being a challenge. Some people will rise to the occasion most will not.
Should a Tank/mage be able to compete with a mage/anything? In a dps kind of way.
Not really, because there have been dozens of games where players aren't given flexibility in terms of role, and most players are just fine with that.
In fact, even in games where players are given some flexibility in their role, most players stick to a single role per character - often preferring to roll an alt to perform a different role, rather than using a character they already have that would be able to perform said role.
It isn't like Intrepid are charting new waters here.
Sure
But in most games a class had multiple specs, and usually those specs can go for different roles if a player wants. Ashes won't have that abiding to you. So all those people who DO like shifting roles for different things will only have one archetype to choose from.
You don't see that skewing the archetype distribution at all?