Tanks in group content - In a group setting, what responsibilities of a tank role do you think should be solely on the tank?
---For me as long-time tank class player, the obvious responsibility is to attempt to taunt an enemy(s) to steal their attention and make myself appear the major threat to free up the other classes in party to be able to quickly reduce the enemy numbers, heal and whatever else needs doing that would otherwise be hindered if I wasn't there; ostensibly to soak up all of the incoming damage and hopefully mitigate much of it.
Are there any responsibilities that are usually put on the tank role that you feel should be shared between members of the group?
---No, most of the time the expectations of the tank are taunt, mitigate damage and damage share. I've never seen any other roles foisted onto a tank in a group setting.
Tanks in raid content - Would you prefer more traditional MMORPG main and off-tank roles, or would you prefer to see combat experiences with several tanks fighting?
----For my part, I would prefer traditional tank/off-tank roles, but I don't think there isn't room for change either.
What is an acceptable level of tank specialization?
---Tough question, I think it should be at least partly story driven, then there's no need to pontificate about what's acceptable. If the lore says something is possible, then how can I argue with that? As long as each level of specialization is viable for solo, and group play then fair enough.
How many of our 8 tank classes should be able to main tank a boss for a raid force?
---Maybe 2 or 3, that way there are tank variations that are specialized for PvP or small group PvE content as well who can each dish out more DPS than the raid tank but not as adept in damage sharing, mitigation, or taunting. Tough one.
If a tank cannot main tank a raid boss, what should they be able to do to make up for that?
----In that situation the abilities and whatever else the player has at their disposal should lend themselves towards a balance of mit/dps/self-heals. This would increase solo/group PvX survivability under the right conditions, but ofc this will not always be the case, not should it be. Tanks shouldn't be invincible, but they should give an attacker pause to be careful of the engagement when one vs one. In group situations it should also mean the tank is still sought after regardless of his Raid-worthiness.
Tanks in PvP situations - What feels good and what doesn’t feel good about tanks in player vs player situations?
---What feels good is being able to mitigate the explosive damage of the first 2-3 seconds of a rogue/ranger/caster's initial onslaught. To then be able to get your bearings and engage the target and close the distance to target to begin the PvP.
---What doesn't feel good is either not surviving the initial explosive damage (kind of humiliating for a tank), or surviving only to never be able to touch the other player because they are so mobile, and so far away you never had a chance from the beginning.
Tanks in solo situations - When soloing as a tank, what are things you like, and what are things you’d like to see us avoid.
---Love to see the tank continue to be able to solo what is intended to be soloed (e.g. grinding mobs or killing a tough mob at the end of a quest) and to avoid any situation where players of the same level, different class, can easily take down mobs with little threat to their lives while a tank needs to ask for help in the same situation when solo, which has certainly happened to me and others in the past and I'm sure still does.
Discussion of tank abilities - From your experiences in other games, what feels good, and what doesn’t, regarding a tank’s class kit?
---For me, the feel good is always mitigation abilities that work for solo, group and raid, damage sharing for party members of group/raid, taunts for each style of play and one or two emergency taunts to prevent group/raid wipes. Also like to have at least one good self-heal at higher levels for the same reason. Shield bashes and distance closing abilities would be great too.
---What doesn't feel good is always having to sacrifice normal foot speed for mitigation. I can imagine a world where a trained person in a fantasy setting gets little to no penalty for wearing heavy armor if they have spent a lifetime training to do it, to say nothing of magic's contribution. Who's to say that the tank isn't so strong and flexible physically that there isn't any difference to them wearing their armor than there is for the rouge or ranger wearing leather? Just a thought.
0
Options
MissionCreepMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited September 2022
I think an 8 person team should be able to function just fine without a true tank , while using an off-tank or good CC, or maybe a good melee + healer combination.
Honestly, IMO in those 8-person quests/dungeons ANY team comp should work. Literally ANY.
You claim to have 64 (presumably distinct) classes...why not also make the bold claim that there's 64^8 (280 trillion) ways to complete your Dungeons?
If people want to run that content with 8 Falconers...they should be able to. I mean, sure, maybe they all the players need to be good Falconers to make that happen...but it should be possible.
I guess what I'm saying in part is, if you're going to give players 64 choices but in the end there's really only 3...what's the point?
Please, let each class pair have a personality!
You have up to 15 tanky classes Primary or Sec. Let some have another strategy other than just let me help you. A point rarely discussed is that while tanks can be tanky, it doesn’t have to be their main motivation, it can simply allow for their purpose where one may need to use it as a safety rather than as a stat check to abuse. They can be selfish in their motivation too, NOT JUST A SAVIOR.
I’m new to the mmorpg genre, but I do play tanks in League of Legends as well as fighters, sustain usually. I enjoy personalities and exploring potentials by asking variations of already stable questions. The first question is what makes a tank a tank? The core values? Certainly tankiness, cc, and mobility, with a damage ramp up potentially. How is it valuable to a team? Setup. Setup to prepare and setup to live.
________
One of my favorite of my own archetype imaginings is for a NIGHTSHIELD/SHADOW GUARDIAN. A fine example where being tanky affords one to take this strategy as a setup class behind the enemy line and yet afford a cost with the invis stealth. They can be fast, cc heavy and only tanky vs burst then vulnerable for sustained fights. Exposed/exhausted invis if you combo wrong is the potential cost.
SCENARIO: It gets in fast being mobile and lives long enough to leave a carry vulnerable with a conditional death mark, a setup for a true assassin if you will, then tries to get out. It's not meant to be a one shot but maybe sets a conditional and delayed death. I'm sure there'd be people who like to play with prey. The truest taunter. A sign of incoming death. With a tank rogue, they get a heads up that the real rogue is looking right now. It warns the enemy carry and support to keep an eye out. It counters a one shot from fog of war by giving a silver surfer to a galactus. They have a chance to fight the one shot and don’t feel cheated by a random one shot. It also makes the assassin more skilled than just one shot because they have to 1v2 with a setup condition to work with. Force good peel gameplay as to stop the damage carries from being locked in place to be picked off soon after by a rogue or wtvr. Force supports to support and be sure the carries are safe from lock down in preparation for the exec from the prim rogue. Force a carry to be careful and not just dance from max range but also keep a sharp eye and be attentive. The Tank Rogue uses the fact it can live as a function to set up for an assassin.
__________
PALADIN/WARDEN/GUARDIAN: Could be fast to buff teammates but has to rotate buffs between person to person because of shorter buffs that need refreshing.
I think tank dealing damage leads to unpleasnt state like league of legends where playing role like ADC is just annyoing, tank should be tanky for sure, but also his relevance should come from high cc and slight armor buffs to a team and damage debuffs for enemy team, its utlity role, not damage role
Given that Ashes has so many class variants, I'd really hate to see dungeon or raid setups force a group to have 1/8 of those variants be a requirement for each activity (i.e. Tank/Figher, Tank/Cleric, Tank/XXX). At the same time, the Tank archetype needs to have value so that people want them over just another pure dps.
The best example I can think of is looking at Lost Ark's group setup. You have 4 man groups, with 8 man raids and bosses don't require a single person to hold boss' attention otherwise the group dies. As other have said, it makes encounters too binary. You either have a tank on the boss, or you wipe. In that game, the "tank" class is desired because it deals decent damage, AND brings utility and forgiveness for team mistakes.
I think breaking that traditional mold gives more freedom to players to play the classes they want. I also think by having Tanks being pseudo-dps classes with beefier utilities, it makes them feel like they can contribute in different ways. Groups succeeding in content should be possible in a multitude of ways.
Things I'd like tanks to have in AoC.
mobility to rapidly shift from being on a boss to being on an ally some meters away
boss pattern disruptions, i.e. a very short duration taunt to cancel / redirect a dangerous attack on an ally
ACTIVE blocking with a cooldown. Think of a turret overheating, except that's it's the shield absorbing damage. The tank must be selective on when to use it to save themselves or allies.
Shield interactions with aoe. Imagine a frontal cone breath of fire. If the tank is close enough to the boss and deploys their shield, it actually splits the cone and creates a safe space behind the tank for a period of time. Another example would be a reflection augment that redirects a portion of the damage back to the boss. Finally, you could have an augment that absorbs a portion of the damage to supercharge the tank for a brief period of increased damage. This creates risk/reward, by putting themselves in danger and timing a skill correctly, they can now deal extra damage.
Shields also feeling like weapons. Bash attacks, stuns. Make a tank feel like they are actually dual wielding in combat, rather than just swinging a 1 hander with the occasional defensive ability.
Only have one big wish for tanks, and that is that they will get True Taunt.
The ability to taunt in PvP, making opponents that are targetted or in range, lose control of their character, as it will automatically go into a flurry, trying to attack the Tank with basic attacks (only).
This is major risk vs reward move, as it will make the tank receive far more damage because of the taunted enemies all attacking, however - if the Tank survives the frenzy for long enough, it can be a setup for major AoE damage spells that are normally not effective because they are easily avoided and has longer casting time.
Narc was posing the question of how to make Tanks engaging and useful. I know I answered this before, but the way he worded it got me thinking. Here is the thought:
The place of tanks is easy, and Narc touched on it but didnt quite touch it. Tanks should have the crowd control. They should be beefy. Their damage should be shit. But players should want one around to control the battlefield and the enemies. Enemies should want to kill them to stop the annoying CC machine. That's what taunts are when you get down to mechanics. It's a crowd control system. To make tanks fun, you cant just pigeon-hole them into taunting all day. Grabs, stuns, cripples, knockdowns, knockbacks, walls. Make the Tank the biggest asshole in the world. Make it so the pvp players that ignore them wont die to their damage, but wont be able to have fun killing the DPS. Easy.
Dev Discussion - Tank Participation
Would you prefer more traditional MMORPG main and off-tank roles, or would you prefer to see combat experiences with several tanks fighting?
-More "Tanks/X or X/Tanks" fighting, here's why:
Traditional MMORPG role for main and off-tanks has 2 major problems:
Role bottlenecking and PVP vs PVE balance.
1. Role bottlenecking:
Role bottlenecking occurs when you can't get the right combination of players to do content. When you require 1 AND ONLY 1 of a main tank in an 4,8, 20, 40 person environment, it creates a situation where a lot of fun content is missed out because main tank just had a baby, or a new job, or quit the game. It's also a problem for the tank if another tank shows up and the party doesn't need them at all that night.
If half the characters can fill this role, but still be able to do other things, it's not a big bottleneck. The devs can still make some sort of cost for multiple /Tanks to fill the role of one Tank/X. If 1/8 characters can fill this role and not fill any other role, then it's a problem. And it's not a "fun" problem.
2. PVP vs PVE balance:
One of the main reasons that PVE and PVP are traditionally difficult to balance with tanks is precisely because they are designed to main/off tank through use of threat/agro tables. They control the damage flow in a way that you cannot control with PVP. If you create the PVE environment such that all classes will somehow take damage, and the "Tanks", be it main or 2nd, have ways to control the flow of damage that isn't reliant on agro tables, you make your balancing issues a lot easier.
What is the expected role of a Tank/X or an X/Tank?
To direct and mitigate damage received.
Some ideas for potential fundamental ability types for Tank/X and X/Tank.
Redirect Damage from ally(s) to you (could be cast on ally or enemy)
Closing distance (so that you are the first target available)
Collision blocking
CC effects (typical stun, snare, silence, etc.)
CC reduction/removal
Shield Blocking
Invulnerability
Damage reduction
Spell effect reduction/removal
Game devs probably have a much bigger list but there are some ideas. These could be put into certain classes in interesting ways. Like maybe the Keeper can summon a tall shield wall with HPs that physically blocks movement in an area and LOSing projectiles. Spellshield can redirect 50% magic damage sent from an enemy to itself. Brood Warden summons a group of monsters that swarm the battlefield, blocking movement. Spellstone has an invulnerability. Shadow Guardian gets snare removals etc.
I know that some of the idea behind the secondaries was to not drastically change the main that much, but i still like the idea of multiple "X/Tank's" having a way to pull off a tank role with some big brain thinking and coordination. And if you need to switch secondary you should be able to switch it that night to fill a role, even if the cost is a few hours of alternate gameplay to switch back. Diversity of roles is fun, role bottlenecking not as much.
I believe that if you are to choose the tank secondary archetype you should be able to be viable for small-scale dungeon diving type content and an "off-tank" type role (have access to a single target taunt at a minimum) so it is much more accessible but reserve the need for the real deal tank for larger scale bosses. Also please for the love of god don't make active blocking like New Worlds design, it needs to be a cooldown even if it is a short one because the gameplay style of take aggro and hold your shield up is very boring
My personal feeling on Tanks and tanking is its old and stale in MMO's I feel the word tank should even be removed as depending on a situation a rogue could be the so call tank or should we call them the Party Protectors or PP for short. Even a Ranger style class or Mage Spellcaster caster style could fall into the PP role depending on the situation. Party dynamics should be fluid and planning or communication well fight should be ever present. It should boil down to Physical Damage Dealers, Ranged Damage Dealers, Magical Damage dealers and then you have Healers which can have variants. The PP role can change during a fight or be based on the mob or mobs your fighting. Eg being a Rogue could be the PP as he moves quickly and his tool kit includes things that distract or confuse or slow the enemy. You can have the very heavily armours Physical Damage dealer who is slower but when he/she hits you feel it. They could also be loud which battle cries and such that grab a mobs attention. Or you could be a lightly armoured Physical damage dealer who just quick stinging slices that irritate the mob enough to focus on them. and then there is the ranged non magic classes who are constantly pelting out damage to possibly very weak points and always keeping the distance which makes the mob focus on them. I enjoy a system where a mob has a weakness or vulnerability to a damage type and until you have fought a monster and inflicted that damage type you wont know what it is or there could be a skill that teaches you the info or makes it easier to find out.
I'm definitely leaning more towards the traditional tank roles in MMO's.
One thing I'm definitely not a fan off is the concept that off-tanks simply are another form of dps, with no role outside of damage alone.
They should have other roles including regulating threat for party members, dealing with trash mobs, giving buffs, swapping with the main tank and other reasonable things.
I've heard people talking about tanks in the large scale pvp setting, having aura buffs for nearby team mates. This is not something i would think is very fun, rewarding or skill-based as a tank player. The focus should be around CC and being the big threat that the people in the battlefield are scared of, although the tank would be limited in regards to movement abilities compared to dps.
Just having an "aura" of a buff, would simply make the tank useful by existing, instead of having something be based off an ability. An example would be "Intervene" for warrior i WOW. The ability is a dash which goes through a friendly target/ally, that then absorbs any incoming damage while they remain close. (more skill-based than an aura). Permanent auras are boring in my opinion.
There is a TLDR at the very bottom-
as well as an index that has the topics listed in the order they are covered.
******= over-arching concept
***=sub concept
***Intro
I am going to present a comprehensive proposal on what it means to be a viable tank and how to make it fun to play- from both pvp and pve perspectives
I would like to add something I didn't really talk about much in my first answer, because i wanted to go more in-depth. This is the most important post I have made in the forums so far, so I wanted to take my time with it, and I hope it is really considered since I believe that the route they choose with the tank will affect many core gameplay aspects that will make or break the game for a lot of people- it will affect the class balance, combat relevance, and how fun the meta strategies are to play, so these all need to be considered as a whole before considering the best approach
A lot of the suggestions from others have been with good intentions, but only really look at surface level issues and less at core problems and solutions- so I am going to try to summarize the core problem and core solution, which I think will help in understanding the variation and differences of opinion in the solutions presented by others.
There have been many suggestions on how to go about balancing the roles and making them fun- my advice is that many different things can be made to work within the whole, because each aspect is relative to how it fits into the overall system- so its much more important to understand the whole and shift that whole picture as needed, in order to create the overall experience that is desired.
*******What tank role I would like to see?
***survivability and lethal damage over time
In both pvp and pve, the role of the tank is to survive and to help others survive as well, as a way of providing more time to damage and kill the opponent. Through survivability time passes, and passing time allows for damage, tanks should be a serious long-term threat and have the tools to play a long-term game, and it should require attempting to extinguish them asap to prevent them from becoming a serious problem.
******What makes tanking fun part 1
***Fun is top priority- skill expression and strategy is fun
I think that pvp balanced should mainly revolve around strategy and skill in every facet, including 1v1. In a system that is measuring one player against another, there should never be a problem that is unsolvable by one of those two things in any aspect of combat, solo or group. So in that sense the game absolutely needs to be balanced enough for that to be the case, in order to have a good experience in every aspect of the game- but whether or not that results in every single class being equally effective against each other at all times is going to be something I explain next.
***Balancing class roles is important for making a viable and fun tank-
If tanks are going to be fun, people need to use them, if they aren't viable nobody will use them, for them to be viable they need to be balanced with the other roles. Here is how to balance them properly while maintaining the role identities:
******What roles are, how classes can be different
The class interplay just boils down to whether or not you can survive against the other player/enemy and whether or not you can kill them- the answer to those questions for each class has to be addressed before balancing can take place.
***Relativity of roles, how true 1:1 class balance means no roles:
Here is an example of how your fullfilled role is dependent on the matchup at hand, regardless of how your character is built, it is only possible to perform your role and achieve your "role outcome" if the matchup allows for it
-Just looking at 2 separate entities that can deal damage and have health- survivability and kill potential are relative to the enemys attributes in those same aspects.
survivability of one is dependent on the dps of the other, and the kill potential of one is dependent upon the survivability of the other
this means that you can have 2 completely opposite ratios of damage potential and survivability, with both ratios being able to compete in survivability and kill potential when facing each other
essentially this would look like both of them having a health bar that depletes at the same rate- but with one having a much higher health and mitgation with the other having much higher dps in this example.
***Class diversity- class roles achieving unique "role outcomes"
So, lets say you decide to have unique roles- in that some are deigned to survive (kill over time) and others are designed to kill (kill asap)- this creates a conundrum when trying to define the class roles, because certain roles focus on not getting killed, and others focus on killing.
***Class role vs Class role- there are two outcomes you can have, which I will refer to as "role outcomes" a lot throughout this post
role outcome 1- tank role
A tank can outlast and kill a dps- but then the dps isnt a true dps role geared toward killing
role outcome 2- dps role
The dps can kill the tank before the tank has time to survive long enough to get the kill- but then the tank isn't really a true tank that can outlast the dps
-sustain/support fits into this by simply being a factor in determining which of these 2 outcomes will happen.
-This creates a balance conundrum that I am going to discuss solutions for
***the conundrum of balanced roles
This means that its impossible to allow for survivability of one class without removing the kill potential of the opposing class in that matchup. This makes it impossible to have true survivability while still allowing the opponent to perform their role of killing that class.
***The solution to the balanced roles conundrum
-the solution to this conundrum is manageable conditional requirements for achieving your "role outcome". This essentially allows both roles to have situations where they can beat each other for perfect balance, if the proper conditions are met. The higher the quality these conditions are through being "player-driven", and higher quantity of conditions, the more depth there will be. This will create a diversity in the different matchup nuances that can take place for a very dynamic environment consisting of various classes
***Matchup diversity
Matchup diversity will allow classes to be different in the aspects of survivability and kill potential (with support being a determining factor of each outcome), while still being capable of getting their desired "role outcomes" of survivability/kill potential, depending on the given matchup. This will allow the potential for classes to have identity through different "role outcomes", while balancing them through each "role outcome" having matchup-based counter-play, which can be driven by skill and strategy of the player.
-"but I thought all roles could beat each other? they could- through conditions- what class you choose is a condition- so the more you can make class choice strategic and skill-based, the better a condition it can be.
All else equal- this one is more about having certain matchups that act as a "soft-counters" meaning classes can counter each other by achieve their particular "role outcome" in that specific matchup (all else equal), but you don't automatically win simply by choosing that counter, you still have to fullfill skill/strategy-based conditions for that counter to work effectively (such as being effective enough in combat).
-This counter would be based on its ratio of survivability/kill potential, as I explained in the "relativity if roles" section of how matchups determine whether or not you can achieve your "role outcome".
- obviously if its desired for all roles to be relevant at all times, then there would always need to be a way of fullfilling your role through a different matchup option when you are in a disadvantageous matchup that stops you from achieving your "role outcome".
******Conditional requirements for achieving role outcomes
As stated earlier, there should be conditions on your ability to achieve your "role outcome" for your class in given matchup.
Here are some examples of such conditional requirements, I will go more in-depth after this list of examples:
1. condition #1 strategic choice of class to account for matchup diversity
2. condition #2 combat skill level- combat exists and is therfore tied to the ability to perform your given role. So, if combat requires skill, then skill is a determining factor in effectively achieving your role outcome. The level of skill involved can create matchup diversity against players of varying skill levels, therefore affecting the ability for players to achieve their respective "role outcomes" in that matchup. One class might normally be a counter through design at a meta level, but the difference in skill reduces the potential for that class to be an effective counter in that matchup.
3. condition #3 level of progression- one class may counter you at meta level, but if their build is unoptimized or underleveled then they may fail at being an effective counter.
*** "Role outcome" condition #1- making class choices utilize strategic matchup management, for a viable and fun tank role
Since the matchups would be the determining factor in achieving your "role outcome", the ability to manage the matchups to a degree is important for maintaining a sense of consistency in your role, rather than being completely rng on whether you can perform your role based on the matchup at hand.
Some ways of adding management could include:
1. encouraging and giving opportunities to make counter-picks whenever possible,
2. Having in-game matchup management methods- That way you still have the option to play as a particular role when you find yourself against disadvantageous matchups- through your preparation and adaptation
**Addressing method #1: Strategic class choice
-The fact alone that classes are CHOSEN, is an important element to providing this management aspect, since you can make judgements on what classes are likely to be chosen, through understanding how the classes work and the psychology of predictions and adaptation to other peoples' selection strategies- and you will be able to use this to make a strategic choices yourself, using your initial character class choice on your account or through alt characters. This gives you the ability to manage your matchups to a degree, in order to strategically optimize how often you can achieve your role outcome, which is a good thing.
-Another way of allowing for counter-picking, would be through possibly encouraging the use of switching to character alts whenever possible in both 1v1 and group content
-This one is more about in-game adjustments by encouraging skill-based matchup management through changing your "role dial" before and/or during combat to affect your "role outcome
You could have the option to "move the dial" for your role, this control also allows you to shift the role outcomes you want to achieve for a given matchup, based on how you want to spec your character. The ability to do this on the fly can provide a degree of matchup management, though not as drastic as a class counter-pick.
Before combat-
This could be more about how you spec you character. For instance, if there is a dps tthat invalidates your evasion tank from being abke to fulfill its "role outcome", then maybe your control tank can counter that particular dps build to allow you to still have a viable tanking role against that dps build.
-Type advantages could also be leveraged for this same reason, such as having gear that has an element that is weak to the element that dps is using, wheras if you switch elemental gear then you can tank that particular dps element
During combat-
additional way to have control over your matchups would be to have the ability to change your "stance" during combat, to shift your dial between survivability and dps, to adapt to different matchups to achieve a different "role outcome" through your ability to manage this.
*All potential matchups to consider
-Including these matchup management methods will allow for classes to be different from each other, while still having your class choice be more strategic and less RNG when going against different class matchups.
In a system where classes have counters, this works strategically for the same reason that assembling different team compositions works - you would have the ability to optimize different combinations of class options except instead of being through several players in a group, it would be through having several consecutive opportunities as an individual to form that combination. (this is just an example as to how the counter-picking system adds strategic elements and helps remove some rng, this could obviously be applicable in both 1v1 and group content)
For example, in a 1v1, maybe allow for 3 separate rounds where you can switch to a different character to add even more control to your matchup management- with the same idea applying to a 3v3 for teams to change their composition. This is not neccessary for balance, as I explained the simple choice of class is enough, but this kind of mechanic could further imrove things, and could also be situationa to something like arenas, or something more competitive focused where you want the player to have the most amount of control possible.
-So far the points are in regards to the standard core roles themselves and how they interact with each other to create a diversity in the potential matchups- these are for the most extreme representations of each role. Each class will have the ability to "move the dial" toward another role- these will essentially create many more matchups than just each standard role against each other. This will allowing for more matchups to affect the ability to achieve your "role-outcome" in the given matchup, which creates a lot of depth in trying to strategize and manage the matchups, and gives lots of opportunites for your role to shine in having advantageous matchups.
***"Role Outcome" condition #2- The role that combat has in balancing a viable and fun tank
**combat is a means to an end, with the end being the achievement of "role outcomes"
-Of course, none of this would matter if the combat doesn't play its role in this class balance design. Keep in mind that the class identity would come through the "role outcomes"- so the combat needs to be balanced to allow for the roles themselves to shine in a given matchup.
- Obviously the combat system is static and would not change across matchups- so the matchup variation would come through the different numerical values around each classes survivability/kill potential.
-There are ways to balance different combat styles, in order to allow for the combat to support the role of each class, without compromising the "role outcomes" and matchup-balance on the numerical end.
So if the tank was able to achieve the "role outcome" of survivability to apply damage over time to kill the opponent in the matchup, then (all else equal) the combat system (through combat skill) would result in those values occuring in order to achieve its "role outcome" vs. the opponent's class values.
**combat should be skill based, so that skill is a major factor in class balance- alongside class selection and matchup management.
Skill in combat should be another player-driven tool for managing whether your role-outcome takes place- by making the skill matter as much, if not more than the strategy of class selection. This allows for their to be a way of overcoming a disadvantageous matchup, while allowing the combat to actually be relevant regardless of whether your class is at a disadvantage. It also allows for different types of players to shine, through having differemt types of skills be a major factor in victory, through overall class stratrgy and optimization, or combat skill and technique, all having a weight in the end result.
- A player's level of mastery over combat system should be a conditional requirement to achieving the designated "role outcomes" in a given matchup at a "meta" level- with all sorts of "in-between" matchup possibilities amongst various combinations of player-skill, progression tiers, and "matchup management". This allows for there to be balanced class roles from an "all else equal" perspective, while giving the player a greater sense of control- while also creating more of a diversity in the matchups where the player can acheive their "role outcome" when all else in NOT equal. Which adds to that role play aspect and rewards the time and effort put in to the class against others who haven't.
**How to make skill relevant in combat- and subsequently, relevant in achieving your "role outcome"
In order for this to be a reality- the level of combat skill needs to play a relevant part in determining the result of a match when compared to matchup advantage provided by the class "role outcome". Skill needs to have a weight, as in, it needs to have a percentage of impact that it contributes toward each class achieving the "role outcome" of the class. This would be through having the "skill difference" between players be used as the skill factor that would be weighted against the numerical class advantages.
The "skill difference" would be measured by the player who wins the "interactions" that can occur within a balanced combat system
Combat "interactions" directly correlate with skill expression. "Interactions" are just the opportunities for outplays during a fight, based on the combat tools available. So any time you can be damaged or deal damage based on the range and timing of your tools at a given position, this would create an interaction between combatants. In one way or another, each interaction is an opportunity for an outplay during a fight, and if these outplay opportunites are take ino account then skill can be made to have the desired impact alongside the other factors that impact the overall acheivement of "role outcomes" to allow for balanced class roles, driven by skill and strategy.
So the percentage "weight" that combat skill has in determining your "role outcome" should account for a reasonable gap in skill that is likely to occur between different players- which can be observed through the various "interactions" (outplay opportunities) during a fight- if the weight of skill as a condition to achieving "role outcomes" doesn't account for this then it might require an unreasonable amount of outplaying the opponent to actually make a difference during a disadvantageous fight, to where the battle was over before it began.
******Ensuring the combat meta is fun- for a fun and viable tank role
-lastly a balanced combat system also means that if you want to avoid unhealthy gameplay such as boring infinite stalling and stalemates between classes.
"Stalemates" are when neither class has kill potential on each other.
The combat system needs to reward proactive-play and engaging the enemy. Otherwise it won't matter how well the class roles are balanced and how viable tanks are if the combat system can be exploited and optimized for unhealthy types of gameplay.
So just like the "role outcomes" on the mathmatical end should never allow for stalemates- neither should the combat reward that type of gameplay. Assuming combat is mutually agreed upon- Infinitely retreating away from the enemy, as a way to passively stall and not engage, is unhealthy for combat. Defensive and evasive options and overall survivability should be encouraged- it just should eventually result in the battle ending at some point with a victor.
For example, the survibility "role outcome" means you are surviving the incoming damage enough to eventually secure the kill, which means the battle will end if that "role outcome" is achieved.
On the flip side, if both players have infinite survivability through combat tools then there is no forced end to a battle and no victor if that strategy is pursued by both parties.
Retreating should have diminishing returns, in order to avoid camping out bad matchups (in a 2d fighting game the edge if the stage has this function, in an open world game, there needs to be an enviornmental obstacle or a movement penalty to avoid inifinite avoidance of combat, otherwise it will be a very boring meta).
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #1: CLASS roles and why stalemates are bad- for a fun and viable tank
To answer the question of whether or not a role can survive or kill- there should never be 2 roles that just permanently survive against each other, creating a stalemate.
-The reasons why infinite stalemates are bad-
A) it is more fun to have that impact as a player
B)It incentivizes engaging in combat, which means good pacing, less passivity and "campy" boring gameplay
**Adressing "reason A" the player as an agent of change
In general (out of the context of traditional mmorpg stereotypes)- for a more enjoyable experience one needs to be able to actually defeat their enemies in combat (this seems obvious but some offered suggestions to the contrary)- if both players can't do that then there isn't really a win-condition at an individual level, so you are never really having the opportunity to triumph in the battle and let your skill expression result in victory in combat- this applies to group content as well, because without the ability to do so, everything is 100% reliant on the others in your group- instead of reliant on each individual being an agent of change who is empowered to be effective individually- with them all working cohesively as one more powerful group entity- so you can have individuality while still having groups increase your effectiveness and require teamwork.
for example- all else equal- if you can't actually kill an individual opponent by yourself, that is less favorable than being able to do so. Both scenarios allow for group play to be impactful, since a group of individually effective players working together will always be more optimal than a lower quantity of players using less quality of teamwork/coordination/strategy/tactics.
**Adressing reason "B"- Combat pacing for survivability based roles- the meta needs to be kill oriented to promote active play
It can be okay for one class to not have kill potential on another (all else equal) in that matchup, that is the point of the survivability "role outcome"- just as long as there is never a situation where neither of them can potentially kill each other
-As long as at least one of them has that advantage through having the ability for the one class to kill the other, then this rewards direct interaction and aggression (in other words rewarding "playing the game" during combat instead rewarding avoidance of combat indefinitely)
-This kill potential to avoid stalemates doesn't neccessarily have to be tied to direct damage since the more polarized you can make the survivability/kill potential ratios between classes- the more room you have in that "in-between" space to have more matchup variation.
there could be different mechanics to prevent boring overly defensive stalemates- where the longer a battle goes on, the likelier the mechanic is to kick in to incentivize engaging and rewards you with kill potential- this would need to be done without hampering those survivability roles (tanks) against other matchups that dont actually result in stalemates. If the tank can survive long enough to eventually get the kill, then he should be rewarded for that survivability, not punished by this potential mechanic.
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #2: COMBAT playstyles for a fun and viable tank
Combat consists of two components- defense and offense (With ovement linking and shifting between these components)
Following the premise that the battles should come to an eventual end by rewarding engagement with the enemy- tools that provide both defense and offense should be rewarded the most. These tools are any tools that protect you while having damage potential, so pretty much any attack at all performs this role, since it should either
1. interecept an incoming attack/stun the enemy, preventing them from attacking for that defensive component
2. while also dealing damage and setting up for kill potential for that offensive component
So- the combat system should revolve around allowing and encouraging players to land attacks on an enemy.
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #3: How to balance VARIOUS combat TOOLS and playstyles for a fun and viable tank
Different classes have different combat tools with different ranges and timings, which can make it tough to keep all the tools balanced This can throw off the class balance, making certain classes obsolete when they might otherwise be viable on the numerical end of balancing.
Based on this- this means that when different attacks are introduced, they will all need to be viable. Just looking at attacks hy themselves in a vacuum- the fact that certain attacks will outrange others will make the rest useless without the support of the rest of the combat system, because you would always be outranged and vulnerable to being damaged while never being able to get into a range that you can deal damage. Therefore, the balance method of different ranges of attacks is through giving options to defend when you are outranged and options move to a closer when you can't be hit, in order to get into range for your own shorter-ranged attacks, that can outspeed the longer ranged ones.
-This method encourages engaging combat that rewards simultaneously defending youself while attacking the enemy, while also allowing for classes to have varied playstyles at different ranges that are still balanced well, which can ensure the whichever style the tank falls into can be a viable one.
**Kiting: how it plays a role in playstyle balance and how it can be addressed
kiting is more of a combat balance issue that has to do with not properly balancing the various combat tools and playstyles within the combat system- caused by longer ranged playstyles not being balanced with shorter ranged ones- this can be accounted for through the playstyle balancing suggestions
*******What makes tanking fun part 2
We went over why strategy and skill- based systems are fun and healthy design choices for mastering and balancing different classes- So what else is fun and could be used for good tank design?
***making combat "active": using dynamic situations as a means of fun
People always advocate for something to be more "active" than just clicking a button, what does this mean? This means making real-time decisions. I think the best way to do this is by making tools situational, and dynamically changing the situations the player finds themselves in, to encourage this real-time decision making for a more fun and active experience. This is because it requires a concious effort to actively recognize different situtations you find youself in during a fight, and you have to respond accordingly. If it requires a lot of moment-to-moment observation and decision making, then it is a lot more fun to click a button as a result of that.
***variety of tanking tools
Based in this, I think tanks will be fun if they have a variety of situational options in combat, there should be various different tools that are useful in various different situations, to allow for fun and active gameplay.
Of course, this also hinges on the ability to test the player's situational understanding, which can only be done through presenting dynamically changing situational challenges, to force them to adjust and adapt to each situation and to respond accordingly.
- If the tank's "role outcome" is surviving to deal damage over time- then think of various situational tools that can do this. Situations can be to encourage making anything from large scale grand strategic decisions to very small scale niche tactical decisions- by managing your tools with various uses and risk/reward ratios.
******Index of topics covered in order for reference-
(TLDR afterwards)
***survivability and lethal damage over time
******What makes tanking fun part 1
***Fun is top priority- skill expression and strategy is fun
***Balancing class roles is important for making a viable and fun tank-
******What roles are, how classes can be different
***Relativity of roles, how true 1:1 class balance means no roles:
***Class diversity- class roles achieving unique "role outcomes"
******Class role vs Class role- there are two outcomes you can have, which I will refer to as "role outcomes"
***the conundrum of balanced roles
***the solution to the conundrum
***matchup diversity
******Conditional requirements for achieving role outcomes
***"Role outcome" condition #1- making class choices utilize strategic matchup management, for a viable and fun tank role
***"Role Outcome" condition #2- The role that combat has in balancing a viable and fun tank
**combat is a means to an end, with the end being the achievement of "role outcomes"
**combat should be skill based, so that skill is a major factor in class balance- alongside class selection and matchup management.
**How to make skill relevant in combat- and subsequently, relevant in achieving your "role outcome"
******Ensuring the combat meta is fun- for a fun and viable tank role
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #1: CLASS roles and why stalemates are bad- for a fun and viable tank
**Adressing "reason A" the player as an agent of change
**Adressing reason "B"- Combat pacing for survivability based roles- the meta needs to be kill oriented to promote active play
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #1: COMBAT playstyles and why stalemates are bad- for a fun and viable tank
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #3: How to balance various combat TOOLS and PLAYSTYLES for a fun and viable tank
**how kiting plays a role in playstyle balance and how it can be addressed
******what makes tanking fun part 2
***making combat "active": using dynamic situations as a means of fun
variety of tanking tools
TLDR
1. The role of a tank-
A tank needs to survive and be a more serious threat the longer he is alive
2. what makes tanking fun
- skill expression
- strategy
- "Active" gameplay- through situational decision making (both small scale fast-paced, and large scale slower-paced)
3. Class balance is important for supporting fun gameplay
-even if the tank is fun to play, the tank needs to be viable, because players will optimize the fun out of anything.
4. What the different class roles are and how they interact with each other
- role #1 you either survive and deal damage over time, or
- role #2 deal damage asap (burst damage) to secure the kill
-these are referenced as "role outcomes"
-When these two roles face each other- only one can win- which one wins depends on the matchup at hand (how much survivability or dps each has)
- support/sustain just affects which of these outcomes will occur in a given matchup
5. Balance these roles by having skill/strategy based conditional-requirments to achieving the outcome for the role- through managing the matchups at hand, skill based combat, and progression
6. strategic matchup management
Allow matchups to be managed as much as possible, creating strategy-based class balance
7. skill based combat
-Allow combat skill to have an equal weight that class advantages have- in achieving "role outcomes"
-Make the skill gap reasonable, so you have room to outplay your opponent in order to overcome class disadvantages
8. Combat balance- balancing Class tools
-Class role balance and combat balance affect each other
-class tools should be tied to achieving your "role outcome" of that class, with the rest of the combat system being balanced in order to maintain that role balance
9. Combat balance- balancing Universal tools
- tools that eventually lead to a victor should be rewarded and meta- infinite avoidance of combat should not be viable (assuming both parties are mutually engaging in combat), evasion/retreating should have diminishing returns
- (class tools are balanced separately through "role outcomes") so COMBAT tools that should be rewarded are tools that lead to damaging your enemy, or protect yourself while leading to damaging your enemy (basically attacks of any kind)
-combat tools are a means to achieving your "role outcomes"
10. Combat balance- balancing Unique tools
- combat attacks are different from each other, they need to be balanced against each other
- longer ranged attacks both protect and attack, so if they need to allow opportunity for shorter ranged attacks to get closer to then outspeed.
-Defensive and evasive options should be used for this: defensive options protect when you are in danger, movement closes the gap.
A few of these comments mentioned the core role of a tank - to mitigate damage. There's other ways to mitigate damage that would fit the bill here.
So for context - my favourite class *ever* is the Guild Wars 1 mesmer. Most players didn't know what a mesmer 'did' ... they just knew they succeeded more often with a good mesmer. Actually there were no tanks in GW1 (warriors didn't have taunt). My role in PvE was to diable enemies and counter spells - effectively mitigating damage by preventing the enemy from attacking.
... which gets me thinking. This is the 'tank' role - but in an indirect way. Maybe this is the angle we need for some of the magic-style tank secondaries. Bard/tank, cleric/tank, mage/tank. Also wards and sheields on allies - think Discipline Priest in WoW or an Abjurer in Pathfinder (love casting Mage Armour on monks, and shield on most of the front liners. Don't get me started on Resiliant Sphere!) these would fit well on Cleric/Tank and Wizard/Tank.
I was also ideating on the idea of Tank/Summoner potentially creating floating shields around allies - like animated shields that would block damage. Potentially also summoning a clone of himself to soak damage, which could both be good in PvP too if done right.
Disclaimer:
So I put some thought into the concept of tanks and got some ideas of possibilities/directions they can go to. I'm going to use both references to other games (mainly MOBAs like Smite and League of Legends), as well as using extremes as that would encapsulate possible pathways to go to and leaves a lot of grey area to play around with. None of these archetypes has to be specifically be the Tank Class or use Tank as a secondary Class. However, most of them will be tied to this class.
So lets get started:
Agressive Tanks
Agressive Tanks would be tanks that are more likely on the front line. These can be DPS Tanks or Engage Tanks.
DPS Tanks will sacrifce some offensive abilties/stats to deal a good amount of damage, while also gain the capability to be tanky with HP/Armor, as well as skills that could make them (temporary) more tanky.
These could be, but not limited to, classes that uses the Tank class as a secondary or have a more damaged focussed class augments from other classes.
Engage Tanks are usually the first one starting the fight. They're good in picking the right moments and will use gab-closers and (AoE) stuns to lock targets down. Good examples of Engage Tanks from other games would be Amumu, Leona and Zac from League of Legends, as well as Ares from Smite.
These could be classes like Tank/Tank.
Passive Tanks
Passive Tanks would be tanks that would make use of buffs to assist those around them or have skills that are more focused on protecting their teammates like Supports in most games.
Braum and Taric from League of Legends would be a good examples of this type.
This can be achieved by many class combinations and doesn't have to be limited to Tank or Bard as primary or secondary class.
Mixed Tanks
Mixed Tanks would have a combination between these two extremes mentioned above.
They can be a trick of all trades like Thresh and Rakan from League of Legends
Both being able to start fights as well as assisting those around them with CC and supportive skills.
This is where people could go wild in making all kinds of dirrent builds.
Unique Tanks
There's plenty of room to make Unique Tanks in this game so here is a list of possibilties:
Evasion instead of blocking. Many people have mentioned this already as this is just another way of mitigating damage.
Creating temporary Terrains like the Ice Wall/Crystallize from Ymir (Smite) and Anivia (League of Legends) or a shield wall like Unbreakable from Braum (League of Legends).
This doesn't have to be limited to classes like Summoner or Mage, but it's more likely to fit these classes.
Creating illusions of yourself or teammates. I cannot emphasize enough how much I loved playing Memser in Guild Wars 2 by creating illusions to trick the mind of my opponent.
An example would be Summoner/Rogue that could temporary make you or your teammate invisible and leave a decoy behind.
Creating domes. These could be fighting domes that people can't escape from or shield domes that protect people from incoming/outgoing projectiles.
Rangers/Ranged weapons could create those areas from a distance if possible.
Classic Tanks
Even though I'm personally not a fan of the Classic Tanks in most MMORPGs, that doesn't mean this shouldn't be a thing at all. I wouldn't be surprised if there're still people who like the Classic Tank archetype or it can be a good way to get into the Tank archetype in general. Even though I personally think the Classic Tank needs some tweeks for PvP, as this has always been the problem, the archetype by itself seems to be good in most games.
P.S. Feel free to contact me to discuss this more. I love to think outside the box or discuss possibilities, even if it's just conceptually.
People only believe in the beautiful view behind the tunnel, if they walk into the light at the end of the tunnel to see it for themselves.
Long thread so this may have been discussed but my 2c:
- Allies within X meters of the tank take X% less damage except the tank and other tanks. This incentivises attackers to go for the tanks first if they want to remove this buff.
- Allies attacking the same target as the tank get a small damage buff, giving them the incentive to go with how the tank wants to control the fight.
- Allies attacking the tanks target or other enemies within a few meters of the tank generate less threat (a smaller reduction for those near the tank that the tank hasn't targeted). Again this incentivises players to go with how the tank wants to control the fight but if they go for other targets with AoE, as long as it's next to the tank it's no too dangerous.
I feel like currently Tank balance jumps between tanks being insanely boring to play or overwhelmed with the amount of responsibility on theirs shoulders, performing the same mechanics as other players and deal optimal damage.
In pve
- I feel like Tanks should feel like a hero, facing the boss/enemy effectively alone while everyone else either does damage or heals. Usually this boils down to "use % damage reduction cooldowns" when big mechanics are coming which I don't feel is that compelling. While this is still the direction AoC will probably go I would urge adding some spice to make the tank gameplay at least feel interactive. Maybe a short window parry that allows additional damage reduction vs physical attacks and rewards skillful and not lazy gameplay.
- Heavy armor and beeg shields. I think that's a given, unless we will be working with some bear druid tank alternative which i am not foreseeing at this moment.
- In current MMO's aggro generation is brainless, most of the time all it takes is press one button and you are guaranteed to have mobs' attention for the whole encounter. Abilities with specifically lower dps but higher aggro generation could be a good way to make people actively think about their rotation. Granted this might cause accidental aggro drops due to people being greedy with damage but I still think that riskless aggro management is near pointless.
In pvp
- From what I understand there is a concern that tanks will be ignored during combat due to their... tankiness and lower damage output. Some people pointed out that one way to deal with it would be changing tanks effectively to aurabots that need to die before people start killing priority targets.
- I would suggest giving tanks tools to hinder enemies instead and naturally "generate aggro" by the virtue of being annoying. Stunning, weakening, interrupting, silencing, knocking down, knocking back. Additionally tanks could be given additional damage to siege units, additionally making them a dangerous priority target. They go through lines of enemies like a wrecking ball and if they get to trebuchets then it's bad news for the attackers ?
If to determine the "final boss" encounter for the original game release? Probably better to have a more interesting, multi tank fight than to have a single mob encounter with 1 Main tank.
Depends how you guys design the classes and the abilities everyone has really.
If a Lich is the final boss, personally I feel it would be better suited to have a Caster, or multiple casters, be the "MTs" of that kind of fight, and the "tanks" can go "tank" the summoned undead monstrosities, and keep them at bay. Or you can choose to go the melee tank on Lich boss route, just have to handle it differently.
Seems cooler when there are bosses that require different classes to be the main class to take them on.
You could have a main raid force, with an assassinate portion, where a group of assassin classes break off from the main raid and do their own thing elsewhere, which ultimately makes the raid easier to complete. You could have achievements for foregoing that action and for completing it.
We need tank against magical damage too.
The normal tank absorbs damage using his armor and health.
The magical tank would have an energy shield & defense.
We also need healers for this kind of magic shields.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
Right click > Open in new tab for full size image.
Among the tank abilities mentioned in this wonderful post, I'd especially love to see these 3 implemented in Ashes:
- AOE protection bubble - Active ability to create a defensive zone around the tank and avoid/reduce incoming damage for allies.
- Guard - Actively defend one of your party member and split incoming damage, as long as they're in range.
- Hold the line - Self defense buff (e.g. raise the shield) and defend all allies behind within a set distance.
These abilities significantly improves group play (in both PvE & PvP), and makes it near-impossible for opponents to ignore the tank in PvP, without having to rely on more frustrating mechanics like "taunt that work on players". (technically you can see it as just another cc, but hey it doesn't make sense! What if I'm a wise & cool-headed mage? you can't taunt me unless you overpower my magic defense and mind-control me!)
These active-defenses can also double as high-threat-generating abilities in PvE, and helps make the traditional PvE threat mechanics more believable. (since now the tanks actively prevent the mobs from attacking other squishies, and are hence real "threats" now)
With just a quick look through I see a lot of people with "THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE" when in reality 90% of comments here have no idea what they are talking about. Opinions are just that, opinions, but a lot of them seem very one dimensional. A tank does not have to be just a tank, you already have 8 optional tanking "Classes" so one thing does not need to be good at everything. A tank dealing same damage as a DPS? What??? The benefit of a Tank has been and always will be its longevity within a fight through sustain, control, or both.
Just as I mentioned above, opinions are opinions and that's what people are expressing here and I'm under no illusion that I myself, have any idea about perfect balance but I do have experience at the upper end of Pvp across various titles within 3v3, 1v1 and open world. These are all scenarios that must be considered and afaik the balance of classes within AoC is based around Mass-OWPVP which only futher questions the balance of a tank outside the role of a traditional tank.
Rock-Paper-Scissors indicates that one must be better than another and splitting that across 8 possible class combinations for tanks can open the role away from its traditional one dimensional path in ways that isn't "A dps should never beat a tank!" "A tank should have passive mitigation!" "A tank should have the constant ability to block others attacks!". Why are things always one or the other? Why can't a tank have passive mitigation as well as a block function? Passive mitigation is usually the by-product of gear i.e. plate gear, shields or talent passives whereas active mitigation is through the use of skills, on use abilities etc. You can have both and achieve a desirable result.
In the end it all just comes down to what you want x to do in y scenario and I guess that's why this discussion exists. Walk through all the class combos and determine what makes an Argent fundamentally different to a Nightshield and build off that foundation, even if you have to go backwards. That way you can determine what a "Tank" primary requires for all of its classes to be viable in one way or another.
As for the general discussion, my opinion ofc but I like the tank+spank playstyle. I much prefer a long-lived ranged class to "lead" in group play due to several reasons and I'm all for giving DPS more of a role than just optimal dps button mashing(meaning the addition of crowd control). Tanks should be long-lived meaning mitigation and anti-cc while not be walking murder machines. Basically, don't make a Top Laner Tank(LoL) and you won't have 75% of your playerbase(dps) screaming at you because of tank damage with no gear requirements.
Tl;dr
A lot of people have strong opinions that seem to be very one dimensional, my opinion is that with a system that has access to 8 total classes stemming from the tank primary a foundation should be considered after determining their role throughout the game, or specifically versus other class combinations. As for the role of tanks I prefer to let tanks tank damage through both passive and active mitigation, allowing the dps to deal damage, crowd control while the healers lead(or ranged dps) while assisting with mitigation or recovery.
Once again my opinions are my own and if you had an opinion I called one dimensional it's not in an effort to discredit your opnion, but to widen the discussion beyond "this or nothing".
Traditional MMORPG main and off-tank roles.
Tanking is about controlling the battlefield and being able to take hits.
More than one or two tanks being the standard, will complicate coordinating control in groups.
Control is precious because something called "timing" exist.
More tanks will devalue timing, it will make fights longer without contributing in the fun department, and like I said, will make coordinating control a mess.
I have played tanks for 20 years, because I like strategy and tactical thinking. If you add many tanks, I think it will devalue the experience of control and timing, and by proxy, strategy and tactical thinking.
I like the cerebral part of tanking, the responsabilities that come with it and the high and positive impact I can have in a group. An raid with more than one or two tanks, will make the thing that makes tanks attractive, well, less attractive.
Think of control, timing, positioning, responsabilties, awareness, resilience. If there are many tanks, then there is plenty of control around, timing won't matter that much, neither positioning. If you die you don't have to worry, there are 3-4 tanks more. You don't have to be aware of threats, or if one of your dps pulled mobs and is running for dear life and you need to save him.
I think one or two tanks as the standard is good, creating a need for single tanking and aoe tanking might be healthy. It can allow two tanks to coexist and share responsabilities without devaluing what they bring, by having different intended targets: single and aoe.
I really appreciate this as a discussion topic! I am a serial MMO player, a lover of D&D, and a big believer in integrating roleplay into game mechanics.
I only have one comment for consideration. I believe the most unique and captivating approaches to tanking mechanics are those that encourage but do not force or require attacks be directed toward a specific target. Having tanks impose some sort of disadvantage to a raid boss or an enemy player who chooses to attack the tank's allies, or makes the choice to attack the tank directly appear to be the path of least resistance to deal damage in the short and long term of a fight, have been mechanics that in my experience give players flexibility to use one, two, or many tank-architype characters in a given encounter.
I understand the added complexity to NPC reactions to player actions than simply using a threat meter of some kind, but at it's core these alternative mechanics I mentioned above give more power and opportunities for interesting play to the players themselves.
Thank you for keeping this process so inclusive to your player base! I always enjoy updates from the team, and look forward to keeping along with future development.
Late to the discussion but my thoughts on what I want from tanks in Ashes. I tanked for several years through wow and then tank/control roles in other games like mobas and action rpgs and my favourite ever tanks have been highly mobile and impactful, you have good control options of mobs/players that synergise with other players for wombo combos, you actually do respectable damage, not near as much as a dedicated dps but not be a wet noodle in the world.
I feel good tanks should be rewarded for good play, higher threat, more control, damage, mitigation. I like the archetype of a main tank and then off tanks as people have clear roles. When people fight for threat on a boss that has big cleave like a dragon it can be very dangerous as it bounces between people. I hope there is room for these to allow for all that.
I also hope we get the augment system giving us new abilities but that feels like a lot to ask as it would be a balancing nightmare. 64 combinations and different skills each. That said, it would allow for huge customisation which I think is where games like PoE really thrive and would be a lot of fun. As long as we get good customisation options I'll be happy, some people like the slow beefcake tanks, others like me liked highly mobile but more control oriented tanks.
I am concerned with only 1 dedicated tank and 1 dedicated healer role with the 8 variants each. Just have to see it in action, fingers crossed the ranger dev update shows us how augments are going to work.
I would prefer to have multiple tanks be viable, and I would like to see encounters where different tanks should be geared for different elemental resistances. I think it would be interesting to have some limited inter-tank synergy as well.
Some tangentially related things I would like to see in regards to tanking:
1. Tanks Counter Tanks
Tanks should have relatively high armor penetration and access to "tank-buster" abilities to ensure tank vs tank fights in PvP are pivotal instead of stagnate. Note that this includes the Summoner's tank summons.
Choosing Tank or Summoner as your secondary class should avail some "tank-buster" augments in addition to the expected augments. I would have the Dreadnaught class (Fighter + Tank) thematically specialize in pressuring tanks in this way.
In case it's needed, simple "tank-buster" examples include: armor piercing attacks, slow + strong attacks, attacks that deal more damage to healthy targets, critical vulnerability debuffs, defense down debuffs, healing received / regen down debuffs, block hindering debuffs.
2. Crowd Control Specialization
There is a general consensus that tanks should be good at applying CC, but I want to ensure that tanks can mitigate CC as well. In particular, I would give the Tank class an ability that briefly grants them improved defense, immunity to hard CC, and immunity to forced motion (such as from pulls). I would not grant this ability to the Summoner's tank summons.
When combined with the "tank-buster" abilities granted in the section above, tanks should focus on controlling squishies while harming other tanks.
3. Threat Based Cleave
I would like large monsters to cleave groups with their basic attacks, and I would like threat to be a factor in damage distribution with higher threats taking the brunt of the attack.
Mechanically, whenever a group of players are cleaved by an instant attack, they should be damaged in the order of their threat, with each player benefiting from a portion of the defense of players harmed before them in the sequence. This allows higher threat players to passively decrease cleave damage dealt to nearby allies, adding some utility to off-tank threat management.
I'm not sure how threat will translate into PvP, but giving players this type of cleave would give it some purpose.
4. Threat Decay on Block
Whenever the player with the highest threat blocks an attack, their threat decreases, but it will not fall below the second highest threat level. This is intended to punish main-tanks for just holding block, make tank-swapping easier, and grant every player an intuitive way to manage threat if they step out of line.
I'm mostly curious to see whether this works in practice. It could be annoying, pointless, nifty, or busted depending on a number of factors. Alternatively, "threat decay on block" could be a boss mechanic or a class passive instead of an intrinsic trait.
5. Tank Rename
I saw a suggestion about renaming the Tank class to something like Vanguard. I agree with this from an immersion perspective, and it should help people distinguish between the class and role in future discussions. I expect the class would still be called Tank colloquially.
"A tank Should actually TANK. Under no circumstances a DPS should be able to kill a tank 1v1 in PvP with similar gear - a Tank should have enough damage mitigation to feel like a tank, to make a DPS not want to engage and a fight between tanks or tank vs healer should be a stalemate."
lol, There is no fun in that, it should be skill based a really good tank should be able to survive most attacks. but unkillable, that can be abused.
I would like to see a lot of tank roles and a reason for hybrid builds as well.
Tanks should make up for their lack of damage and should get a lot of CC to actually control the battlefield, taunts, and stuns. Possibly even buff and heals.
As a future player in the world of Verra. I personally believe I want to see allowance for combat allowing for several tanks or up to 10. There will be times when two are enough but for 15 to 40-man Raids, Dungeons, or other content like World Bosses we should have multiple tanks to protect and dish out damage for entire parties. Aggro should be able to be dispersed between all the tanks or even all at once for every tank if they need to. As a tank player in many MMO versatility and room to play freely as a tank is essential to me. I will love the two tank moments but when I pull with 6 other tanks and we all are the big horses ready to stomp I wanna know we're about stop every attack and our party can more than trust us.
This isn't specific to tanks as I guess it could apply to Fighters too, but I'd like to see shields employed in a more offensive fashion. Obviously shields mitigate damage and allow block, but maybe throwing in some damage abilities as well instead of just relying on the main hand weapon for damage and the shield for protection and stuns.
The old world is dying, the new world struggles to be born, now is the time of monsters.
Comments
---For me as long-time tank class player, the obvious responsibility is to attempt to taunt an enemy(s) to steal their attention and make myself appear the major threat to free up the other classes in party to be able to quickly reduce the enemy numbers, heal and whatever else needs doing that would otherwise be hindered if I wasn't there; ostensibly to soak up all of the incoming damage and hopefully mitigate much of it.
Are there any responsibilities that are usually put on the tank role that you feel should be shared between members of the group?
---No, most of the time the expectations of the tank are taunt, mitigate damage and damage share. I've never seen any other roles foisted onto a tank in a group setting.
Tanks in raid content - Would you prefer more traditional MMORPG main and off-tank roles, or would you prefer to see combat experiences with several tanks fighting?
----For my part, I would prefer traditional tank/off-tank roles, but I don't think there isn't room for change either.
What is an acceptable level of tank specialization?
---Tough question, I think it should be at least partly story driven, then there's no need to pontificate about what's acceptable. If the lore says something is possible, then how can I argue with that? As long as each level of specialization is viable for solo, and group play then fair enough.
How many of our 8 tank classes should be able to main tank a boss for a raid force?
---Maybe 2 or 3, that way there are tank variations that are specialized for PvP or small group PvE content as well who can each dish out more DPS than the raid tank but not as adept in damage sharing, mitigation, or taunting. Tough one.
If a tank cannot main tank a raid boss, what should they be able to do to make up for that?
----In that situation the abilities and whatever else the player has at their disposal should lend themselves towards a balance of mit/dps/self-heals. This would increase solo/group PvX survivability under the right conditions, but ofc this will not always be the case, not should it be. Tanks shouldn't be invincible, but they should give an attacker pause to be careful of the engagement when one vs one. In group situations it should also mean the tank is still sought after regardless of his Raid-worthiness.
Tanks in PvP situations - What feels good and what doesn’t feel good about tanks in player vs player situations?
---What feels good is being able to mitigate the explosive damage of the first 2-3 seconds of a rogue/ranger/caster's initial onslaught. To then be able to get your bearings and engage the target and close the distance to target to begin the PvP.
---What doesn't feel good is either not surviving the initial explosive damage (kind of humiliating for a tank), or surviving only to never be able to touch the other player because they are so mobile, and so far away you never had a chance from the beginning.
Tanks in solo situations - When soloing as a tank, what are things you like, and what are things you’d like to see us avoid.
---Love to see the tank continue to be able to solo what is intended to be soloed (e.g. grinding mobs or killing a tough mob at the end of a quest) and to avoid any situation where players of the same level, different class, can easily take down mobs with little threat to their lives while a tank needs to ask for help in the same situation when solo, which has certainly happened to me and others in the past and I'm sure still does.
Discussion of tank abilities - From your experiences in other games, what feels good, and what doesn’t, regarding a tank’s class kit?
---For me, the feel good is always mitigation abilities that work for solo, group and raid, damage sharing for party members of group/raid, taunts for each style of play and one or two emergency taunts to prevent group/raid wipes. Also like to have at least one good self-heal at higher levels for the same reason. Shield bashes and distance closing abilities would be great too.
---What doesn't feel good is always having to sacrifice normal foot speed for mitigation. I can imagine a world where a trained person in a fantasy setting gets little to no penalty for wearing heavy armor if they have spent a lifetime training to do it, to say nothing of magic's contribution. Who's to say that the tank isn't so strong and flexible physically that there isn't any difference to them wearing their armor than there is for the rouge or ranger wearing leather? Just a thought.
Honestly, IMO in those 8-person quests/dungeons ANY team comp should work. Literally ANY.
You claim to have 64 (presumably distinct) classes...why not also make the bold claim that there's 64^8 (280 trillion) ways to complete your Dungeons?
If people want to run that content with 8 Falconers...they should be able to. I mean, sure, maybe they all the players need to be good Falconers to make that happen...but it should be possible.
I guess what I'm saying in part is, if you're going to give players 64 choices but in the end there's really only 3...what's the point?
You have up to 15 tanky classes Primary or Sec. Let some have another strategy other than just let me help you. A point rarely discussed is that while tanks can be tanky, it doesn’t have to be their main motivation, it can simply allow for their purpose where one may need to use it as a safety rather than as a stat check to abuse. They can be selfish in their motivation too, NOT JUST A SAVIOR.
I’m new to the mmorpg genre, but I do play tanks in League of Legends as well as fighters, sustain usually. I enjoy personalities and exploring potentials by asking variations of already stable questions. The first question is what makes a tank a tank? The core values? Certainly tankiness, cc, and mobility, with a damage ramp up potentially. How is it valuable to a team? Setup. Setup to prepare and setup to live.
________
One of my favorite of my own archetype imaginings is for a NIGHTSHIELD/SHADOW GUARDIAN. A fine example where being tanky affords one to take this strategy as a setup class behind the enemy line and yet afford a cost with the invis stealth. They can be fast, cc heavy and only tanky vs burst then vulnerable for sustained fights. Exposed/exhausted invis if you combo wrong is the potential cost.
SCENARIO: It gets in fast being mobile and lives long enough to leave a carry vulnerable with a conditional death mark, a setup for a true assassin if you will, then tries to get out. It's not meant to be a one shot but maybe sets a conditional and delayed death. I'm sure there'd be people who like to play with prey. The truest taunter. A sign of incoming death. With a tank rogue, they get a heads up that the real rogue is looking right now. It warns the enemy carry and support to keep an eye out. It counters a one shot from fog of war by giving a silver surfer to a galactus. They have a chance to fight the one shot and don’t feel cheated by a random one shot. It also makes the assassin more skilled than just one shot because they have to 1v2 with a setup condition to work with. Force good peel gameplay as to stop the damage carries from being locked in place to be picked off soon after by a rogue or wtvr. Force supports to support and be sure the carries are safe from lock down in preparation for the exec from the prim rogue. Force a carry to be careful and not just dance from max range but also keep a sharp eye and be attentive. The Tank Rogue uses the fact it can live as a function to set up for an assassin.
__________
PALADIN/WARDEN/GUARDIAN: Could be fast to buff teammates but has to rotate buffs between person to person because of shorter buffs that need refreshing.
The best example I can think of is looking at Lost Ark's group setup. You have 4 man groups, with 8 man raids and bosses don't require a single person to hold boss' attention otherwise the group dies. As other have said, it makes encounters too binary. You either have a tank on the boss, or you wipe. In that game, the "tank" class is desired because it deals decent damage, AND brings utility and forgiveness for team mistakes.
I think breaking that traditional mold gives more freedom to players to play the classes they want. I also think by having Tanks being pseudo-dps classes with beefier utilities, it makes them feel like they can contribute in different ways. Groups succeeding in content should be possible in a multitude of ways.
Things I'd like tanks to have in AoC.
The ability to taunt in PvP, making opponents that are targetted or in range, lose control of their character, as it will automatically go into a flurry, trying to attack the Tank with basic attacks (only).
This is major risk vs reward move, as it will make the tank receive far more damage because of the taunted enemies all attacking, however - if the Tank survives the frenzy for long enough, it can be a setup for major AoE damage spells that are normally not effective because they are easily avoided and has longer casting time.
The place of tanks is easy, and Narc touched on it but didnt quite touch it. Tanks should have the crowd control. They should be beefy. Their damage should be shit. But players should want one around to control the battlefield and the enemies. Enemies should want to kill them to stop the annoying CC machine. That's what taunts are when you get down to mechanics. It's a crowd control system. To make tanks fun, you cant just pigeon-hole them into taunting all day. Grabs, stuns, cripples, knockdowns, knockbacks, walls. Make the Tank the biggest asshole in the world. Make it so the pvp players that ignore them wont die to their damage, but wont be able to have fun killing the DPS. Easy.
Would you prefer more traditional MMORPG main and off-tank roles, or would you prefer to see combat experiences with several tanks fighting?
-More "Tanks/X or X/Tanks" fighting, here's why:
Traditional MMORPG role for main and off-tanks has 2 major problems:
Role bottlenecking and PVP vs PVE balance.
1. Role bottlenecking:
Role bottlenecking occurs when you can't get the right combination of players to do content. When you require 1 AND ONLY 1 of a main tank in an 4,8, 20, 40 person environment, it creates a situation where a lot of fun content is missed out because main tank just had a baby, or a new job, or quit the game. It's also a problem for the tank if another tank shows up and the party doesn't need them at all that night.
If half the characters can fill this role, but still be able to do other things, it's not a big bottleneck. The devs can still make some sort of cost for multiple /Tanks to fill the role of one Tank/X. If 1/8 characters can fill this role and not fill any other role, then it's a problem. And it's not a "fun" problem.
2. PVP vs PVE balance:
One of the main reasons that PVE and PVP are traditionally difficult to balance with tanks is precisely because they are designed to main/off tank through use of threat/agro tables. They control the damage flow in a way that you cannot control with PVP. If you create the PVE environment such that all classes will somehow take damage, and the "Tanks", be it main or 2nd, have ways to control the flow of damage that isn't reliant on agro tables, you make your balancing issues a lot easier.
What is the expected role of a Tank/X or an X/Tank?
To direct and mitigate damage received.
Some ideas for potential fundamental ability types for Tank/X and X/Tank.
Game devs probably have a much bigger list but there are some ideas. These could be put into certain classes in interesting ways. Like maybe the Keeper can summon a tall shield wall with HPs that physically blocks movement in an area and LOSing projectiles. Spellshield can redirect 50% magic damage sent from an enemy to itself. Brood Warden summons a group of monsters that swarm the battlefield, blocking movement. Spellstone has an invulnerability. Shadow Guardian gets snare removals etc.
I know that some of the idea behind the secondaries was to not drastically change the main that much, but i still like the idea of multiple "X/Tank's" having a way to pull off a tank role with some big brain thinking and coordination. And if you need to switch secondary you should be able to switch it that night to fill a role, even if the cost is a few hours of alternate gameplay to switch back. Diversity of roles is fun, role bottlenecking not as much.
THAT IS THIS THREAD.
here is the issue at hand that destroyed my personal experience with many friends who fancy them selves a tank main.
tank: you cant do this dungeon without me so i get loot on reserve! (INSERT WEAPON NOT RELATED TO TANKING AT ALL AND FOR OFF SPEC)
fighter: but that is why im doing this dungeon to obtain that weapon.
tank: well ill leave and u wont have a tank, now you'll have to wait for another tank to proceed!
Healer whom made the party: sorry fighter your a dime a dozen well find other dps,
Healer / KICK Fighter
THIS WILL HAPPEN and will ruin game play for any melee dps
One thing I'm definitely not a fan off is the concept that off-tanks simply are another form of dps, with no role outside of damage alone.
They should have other roles including regulating threat for party members, dealing with trash mobs, giving buffs, swapping with the main tank and other reasonable things.
I've heard people talking about tanks in the large scale pvp setting, having aura buffs for nearby team mates. This is not something i would think is very fun, rewarding or skill-based as a tank player. The focus should be around CC and being the big threat that the people in the battlefield are scared of, although the tank would be limited in regards to movement abilities compared to dps.
Just having an "aura" of a buff, would simply make the tank useful by existing, instead of having something be based off an ability. An example would be "Intervene" for warrior i WOW. The ability is a dash which goes through a friendly target/ally, that then absorbs any incoming damage while they remain close. (more skill-based than an aura). Permanent auras are boring in my opinion.
There is a TLDR at the very bottom-
as well as an index that has the topics listed in the order they are covered.
******= over-arching concept
***=sub concept
***Intro
I would like to add something I didn't really talk about much in my first answer, because i wanted to go more in-depth. This is the most important post I have made in the forums so far, so I wanted to take my time with it, and I hope it is really considered since I believe that the route they choose with the tank will affect many core gameplay aspects that will make or break the game for a lot of people- it will affect the class balance, combat relevance, and how fun the meta strategies are to play, so these all need to be considered as a whole before considering the best approach
A lot of the suggestions from others have been with good intentions, but only really look at surface level issues and less at core problems and solutions- so I am going to try to summarize the core problem and core solution, which I think will help in understanding the variation and differences of opinion in the solutions presented by others.
There have been many suggestions on how to go about balancing the roles and making them fun- my advice is that many different things can be made to work within the whole, because each aspect is relative to how it fits into the overall system- so its much more important to understand the whole and shift that whole picture as needed, in order to create the overall experience that is desired.
*******What tank role I would like to see?
***survivability and lethal damage over time
******What makes tanking fun part 1
***Fun is top priority- skill expression and strategy is fun
***Balancing class roles is important for making a viable and fun tank-
******What roles are, how classes can be different
***Relativity of roles, how true 1:1 class balance means no roles:
-Just looking at 2 separate entities that can deal damage and have health- survivability and kill potential are relative to the enemys attributes in those same aspects.
survivability of one is dependent on the dps of the other, and the kill potential of one is dependent upon the survivability of the other
this means that you can have 2 completely opposite ratios of damage potential and survivability, with both ratios being able to compete in survivability and kill potential when facing each other
essentially this would look like both of them having a health bar that depletes at the same rate- but with one having a much higher health and mitgation with the other having much higher dps in this example.
***Class diversity- class roles achieving unique "role outcomes"
***Class role vs Class role- there are two outcomes you can have, which I will refer to as "role outcomes" a lot throughout this post
A tank can outlast and kill a dps- but then the dps isnt a true dps role geared toward killing
role outcome 2- dps role
The dps can kill the tank before the tank has time to survive long enough to get the kill- but then the tank isn't really a true tank that can outlast the dps
-sustain/support fits into this by simply being a factor in determining which of these 2 outcomes will happen.
-This creates a balance conundrum that I am going to discuss solutions for
***the conundrum of balanced roles
***The solution to the balanced roles conundrum
***Matchup diversity
-"but I thought all roles could beat each other? they could- through conditions- what class you choose is a condition- so the more you can make class choice strategic and skill-based, the better a condition it can be.
All else equal- this one is more about having certain matchups that act as a "soft-counters" meaning classes can counter each other by achieve their particular "role outcome" in that specific matchup (all else equal), but you don't automatically win simply by choosing that counter, you still have to fullfill skill/strategy-based conditions for that counter to work effectively (such as being effective enough in combat).
-This counter would be based on its ratio of survivability/kill potential, as I explained in the "relativity if roles" section of how matchups determine whether or not you can achieve your "role outcome".
- obviously if its desired for all roles to be relevant at all times, then there would always need to be a way of fullfilling your role through a different matchup option when you are in a disadvantageous matchup that stops you from achieving your "role outcome".
******Conditional requirements for achieving role outcomes
Here are some examples of such conditional requirements, I will go more in-depth after this list of examples:
1. condition #1 strategic choice of class to account for matchup diversity
2. condition #2 combat skill level- combat exists and is therfore tied to the ability to perform your given role. So, if combat requires skill, then skill is a determining factor in effectively achieving your role outcome. The level of skill involved can create matchup diversity against players of varying skill levels, therefore affecting the ability for players to achieve their respective "role outcomes" in that matchup. One class might normally be a counter through design at a meta level, but the difference in skill reduces the potential for that class to be an effective counter in that matchup.
3. condition #3 level of progression- one class may counter you at meta level, but if their build is unoptimized or underleveled then they may fail at being an effective counter.
*** "Role outcome" condition #1- making class choices utilize strategic matchup management, for a viable and fun tank role
Some ways of adding management could include:
1. encouraging and giving opportunities to make counter-picks whenever possible,
2. Having in-game matchup management methods- That way you still have the option to play as a particular role when you find yourself against disadvantageous matchups- through your preparation and adaptation
**Addressing method #1: Strategic class choice
-Another way of allowing for counter-picking, would be through possibly encouraging the use of switching to character alts whenever possible in both 1v1 and group content
**Addressing method #2: In-game matchup management
You could have the option to "move the dial" for your role, this control also allows you to shift the role outcomes you want to achieve for a given matchup, based on how you want to spec your character. The ability to do this on the fly can provide a degree of matchup management, though not as drastic as a class counter-pick.
Before combat-
This could be more about how you spec you character. For instance, if there is a dps tthat invalidates your evasion tank from being abke to fulfill its "role outcome", then maybe your control tank can counter that particular dps build to allow you to still have a viable tanking role against that dps build.
-Type advantages could also be leveraged for this same reason, such as having gear that has an element that is weak to the element that dps is using, wheras if you switch elemental gear then you can tank that particular dps element
During combat-
additional way to have control over your matchups would be to have the ability to change your "stance" during combat, to shift your dial between survivability and dps, to adapt to different matchups to achieve a different "role outcome" through your ability to manage this.
*All potential matchups to consider
-Including these matchup management methods will allow for classes to be different from each other, while still having your class choice be more strategic and less RNG when going against different class matchups.
In a system where classes have counters, this works strategically for the same reason that assembling different team compositions works - you would have the ability to optimize different combinations of class options except instead of being through several players in a group, it would be through having several consecutive opportunities as an individual to form that combination. (this is just an example as to how the counter-picking system adds strategic elements and helps remove some rng, this could obviously be applicable in both 1v1 and group content)
For example, in a 1v1, maybe allow for 3 separate rounds where you can switch to a different character to add even more control to your matchup management- with the same idea applying to a 3v3 for teams to change their composition. This is not neccessary for balance, as I explained the simple choice of class is enough, but this kind of mechanic could further imrove things, and could also be situationa to something like arenas, or something more competitive focused where you want the player to have the most amount of control possible.
-So far the points are in regards to the standard core roles themselves and how they interact with each other to create a diversity in the potential matchups- these are for the most extreme representations of each role. Each class will have the ability to "move the dial" toward another role- these will essentially create many more matchups than just each standard role against each other. This will allowing for more matchups to affect the ability to achieve your "role-outcome" in the given matchup, which creates a lot of depth in trying to strategize and manage the matchups, and gives lots of opportunites for your role to shine in having advantageous matchups.
***"Role Outcome" condition #2- The role that combat has in balancing a viable and fun tank
**combat is a means to an end, with the end being the achievement of "role outcomes"
- Obviously the combat system is static and would not change across matchups- so the matchup variation would come through the different numerical values around each classes survivability/kill potential.
-There are ways to balance different combat styles, in order to allow for the combat to support the role of each class, without compromising the "role outcomes" and matchup-balance on the numerical end.
So if the tank was able to achieve the "role outcome" of survivability to apply damage over time to kill the opponent in the matchup, then (all else equal) the combat system (through combat skill) would result in those values occuring in order to achieve its "role outcome" vs. the opponent's class values.
**combat should be skill based, so that skill is a major factor in class balance- alongside class selection and matchup management.
- A player's level of mastery over combat system should be a conditional requirement to achieving the designated "role outcomes" in a given matchup at a "meta" level- with all sorts of "in-between" matchup possibilities amongst various combinations of player-skill, progression tiers, and "matchup management". This allows for there to be balanced class roles from an "all else equal" perspective, while giving the player a greater sense of control- while also creating more of a diversity in the matchups where the player can acheive their "role outcome" when all else in NOT equal. Which adds to that role play aspect and rewards the time and effort put in to the class against others who haven't.
**How to make skill relevant in combat- and subsequently, relevant in achieving your "role outcome"
The "skill difference" would be measured by the player who wins the "interactions" that can occur within a balanced combat system
Combat "interactions" directly correlate with skill expression. "Interactions" are just the opportunities for outplays during a fight, based on the combat tools available. So any time you can be damaged or deal damage based on the range and timing of your tools at a given position, this would create an interaction between combatants. In one way or another, each interaction is an opportunity for an outplay during a fight, and if these outplay opportunites are take ino account then skill can be made to have the desired impact alongside the other factors that impact the overall acheivement of "role outcomes" to allow for balanced class roles, driven by skill and strategy.
So the percentage "weight" that combat skill has in determining your "role outcome" should account for a reasonable gap in skill that is likely to occur between different players- which can be observed through the various "interactions" (outplay opportunities) during a fight- if the weight of skill as a condition to achieving "role outcomes" doesn't account for this then it might require an unreasonable amount of outplaying the opponent to actually make a difference during a disadvantageous fight, to where the battle was over before it began.
******Ensuring the combat meta is fun- for a fun and viable tank role
"Stalemates" are when neither class has kill potential on each other.
The combat system needs to reward proactive-play and engaging the enemy. Otherwise it won't matter how well the class roles are balanced and how viable tanks are if the combat system can be exploited and optimized for unhealthy types of gameplay.
So just like the "role outcomes" on the mathmatical end should never allow for stalemates- neither should the combat reward that type of gameplay. Assuming combat is mutually agreed upon- Infinitely retreating away from the enemy, as a way to passively stall and not engage, is unhealthy for combat. Defensive and evasive options and overall survivability should be encouraged- it just should eventually result in the battle ending at some point with a victor.
For example, the survibility "role outcome" means you are surviving the incoming damage enough to eventually secure the kill, which means the battle will end if that "role outcome" is achieved.
On the flip side, if both players have infinite survivability through combat tools then there is no forced end to a battle and no victor if that strategy is pursued by both parties.
Retreating should have diminishing returns, in order to avoid camping out bad matchups (in a 2d fighting game the edge if the stage has this function, in an open world game, there needs to be an enviornmental obstacle or a movement penalty to avoid inifinite avoidance of combat, otherwise it will be a very boring meta).
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #1: CLASS roles and why stalemates are bad- for a fun and viable tank
-The reasons why infinite stalemates are bad-
A) it is more fun to have that impact as a player
B)It incentivizes engaging in combat, which means good pacing, less passivity and "campy" boring gameplay
**Adressing "reason A" the player as an agent of change
for example- all else equal- if you can't actually kill an individual opponent by yourself, that is less favorable than being able to do so. Both scenarios allow for group play to be impactful, since a group of individually effective players working together will always be more optimal than a lower quantity of players using less quality of teamwork/coordination/strategy/tactics.
**Adressing reason "B"- Combat pacing for survivability based roles- the meta needs to be kill oriented to promote active play
-As long as at least one of them has that advantage through having the ability for the one class to kill the other, then this rewards direct interaction and aggression (in other words rewarding "playing the game" during combat instead rewarding avoidance of combat indefinitely)
-This kill potential to avoid stalemates doesn't neccessarily have to be tied to direct damage since the more polarized you can make the survivability/kill potential ratios between classes- the more room you have in that "in-between" space to have more matchup variation.
there could be different mechanics to prevent boring overly defensive stalemates- where the longer a battle goes on, the likelier the mechanic is to kick in to incentivize engaging and rewards you with kill potential- this would need to be done without hampering those survivability roles (tanks) against other matchups that dont actually result in stalemates. If the tank can survive long enough to eventually get the kill, then he should be rewarded for that survivability, not punished by this potential mechanic.
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #2: COMBAT playstyles for a fun and viable tank
Following the premise that the battles should come to an eventual end by rewarding engagement with the enemy- tools that provide both defense and offense should be rewarded the most. These tools are any tools that protect you while having damage potential, so pretty much any attack at all performs this role, since it should either
1. interecept an incoming attack/stun the enemy, preventing them from attacking for that defensive component
2. while also dealing damage and setting up for kill potential for that offensive component
So- the combat system should revolve around allowing and encouraging players to land attacks on an enemy.
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #3: How to balance VARIOUS combat TOOLS and playstyles for a fun and viable tank
Based on this- this means that when different attacks are introduced, they will all need to be viable. Just looking at attacks hy themselves in a vacuum- the fact that certain attacks will outrange others will make the rest useless without the support of the rest of the combat system, because you would always be outranged and vulnerable to being damaged while never being able to get into a range that you can deal damage. Therefore, the balance method of different ranges of attacks is through giving options to defend when you are outranged and options move to a closer when you can't be hit, in order to get into range for your own shorter-ranged attacks, that can outspeed the longer ranged ones.
-This method encourages engaging combat that rewards simultaneously defending youself while attacking the enemy, while also allowing for classes to have varied playstyles at different ranges that are still balanced well, which can ensure the whichever style the tank falls into can be a viable one.
**Kiting: how it plays a role in playstyle balance and how it can be addressed
kiting is more of a combat balance issue that has to do with not properly balancing the various combat tools and playstyles within the combat system- caused by longer ranged playstyles not being balanced with shorter ranged ones- this can be accounted for through the playstyle balancing suggestions
*******What makes tanking fun part 2
***making combat "active": using dynamic situations as a means of fun
***variety of tanking tools
Of course, this also hinges on the ability to test the player's situational understanding, which can only be done through presenting dynamically changing situational challenges, to force them to adjust and adapt to each situation and to respond accordingly.
- If the tank's "role outcome" is surviving to deal damage over time- then think of various situational tools that can do this. Situations can be to encourage making anything from large scale grand strategic decisions to very small scale niche tactical decisions- by managing your tools with various uses and risk/reward ratios.
******Index of topics covered in order for reference-
(TLDR afterwards)
******What makes tanking fun part 1
***Fun is top priority- skill expression and strategy is fun
***Balancing class roles is important for making a viable and fun tank-
******What roles are, how classes can be different
***Relativity of roles, how true 1:1 class balance means no roles:
***Class diversity- class roles achieving unique "role outcomes"
******Class role vs Class role- there are two outcomes you can have, which I will refer to as "role outcomes"
***the conundrum of balanced roles
***the solution to the conundrum
***matchup diversity
******Conditional requirements for achieving role outcomes
***"Role outcome" condition #1- making class choices utilize strategic matchup management, for a viable and fun tank role
**Addressing method #1: Strategic class choice
**Addressing method #2: In-game matchup management
***"Role Outcome" condition #2- The role that combat has in balancing a viable and fun tank
**combat is a means to an end, with the end being the achievement of "role outcomes"
**combat should be skill based, so that skill is a major factor in class balance- alongside class selection and matchup management.
**How to make skill relevant in combat- and subsequently, relevant in achieving your "role outcome"
******Ensuring the combat meta is fun- for a fun and viable tank role
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #1: CLASS roles and why stalemates are bad- for a fun and viable tank
**Adressing "reason A" the player as an agent of change
**Adressing reason "B"- Combat pacing for survivability based roles- the meta needs to be kill oriented to promote active play
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #1: COMBAT playstyles and why stalemates are bad- for a fun and viable tank
***Balancing meta for good combat pacing part #3: How to balance various combat TOOLS and PLAYSTYLES for a fun and viable tank
**how kiting plays a role in playstyle balance and how it can be addressed
******what makes tanking fun part 2
***making combat "active": using dynamic situations as a means of fun
variety of tanking tools
TLDR
A tank needs to survive and be a more serious threat the longer he is alive
2. what makes tanking fun
- skill expression
- strategy
- "Active" gameplay- through situational decision making (both small scale fast-paced, and large scale slower-paced)
3. Class balance is important for supporting fun gameplay
-even if the tank is fun to play, the tank needs to be viable, because players will optimize the fun out of anything.
4. What the different class roles are and how they interact with each other
- role #1 you either survive and deal damage over time, or
- role #2 deal damage asap (burst damage) to secure the kill
-these are referenced as "role outcomes"
-When these two roles face each other- only one can win- which one wins depends on the matchup at hand (how much survivability or dps each has)
- support/sustain just affects which of these outcomes will occur in a given matchup
5. Balance these roles by having skill/strategy based conditional-requirments to achieving the outcome for the role- through managing the matchups at hand, skill based combat, and progression
6. strategic matchup management
Allow matchups to be managed as much as possible, creating strategy-based class balance
7. skill based combat
-Allow combat skill to have an equal weight that class advantages have- in achieving "role outcomes"
-Make the skill gap reasonable, so you have room to outplay your opponent in order to overcome class disadvantages
8. Combat balance- balancing Class tools
-Class role balance and combat balance affect each other
-class tools should be tied to achieving your "role outcome" of that class, with the rest of the combat system being balanced in order to maintain that role balance
9. Combat balance- balancing Universal tools
- tools that eventually lead to a victor should be rewarded and meta- infinite avoidance of combat should not be viable (assuming both parties are mutually engaging in combat), evasion/retreating should have diminishing returns
- (class tools are balanced separately through "role outcomes") so COMBAT tools that should be rewarded are tools that lead to damaging your enemy, or protect yourself while leading to damaging your enemy (basically attacks of any kind)
-combat tools are a means to achieving your "role outcomes"
10. Combat balance- balancing Unique tools
- combat attacks are different from each other, they need to be balanced against each other
- longer ranged attacks both protect and attack, so if they need to allow opportunity for shorter ranged attacks to get closer to then outspeed.
-Defensive and evasive options should be used for this: defensive options protect when you are in danger, movement closes the gap.
So for context - my favourite class *ever* is the Guild Wars 1 mesmer. Most players didn't know what a mesmer 'did' ... they just knew they succeeded more often with a good mesmer. Actually there were no tanks in GW1 (warriors didn't have taunt). My role in PvE was to diable enemies and counter spells - effectively mitigating damage by preventing the enemy from attacking.
... which gets me thinking. This is the 'tank' role - but in an indirect way. Maybe this is the angle we need for some of the magic-style tank secondaries. Bard/tank, cleric/tank, mage/tank. Also wards and sheields on allies - think Discipline Priest in WoW or an Abjurer in Pathfinder (love casting Mage Armour on monks, and shield on most of the front liners. Don't get me started on Resiliant Sphere!) these would fit well on Cleric/Tank and Wizard/Tank.
I was also ideating on the idea of Tank/Summoner potentially creating floating shields around allies - like animated shields that would block damage. Potentially also summoning a clone of himself to soak damage, which could both be good in PvP too if done right.
So I put some thought into the concept of tanks and got some ideas of possibilities/directions they can go to. I'm going to use both references to other games (mainly MOBAs like Smite and League of Legends), as well as using extremes as that would encapsulate possible pathways to go to and leaves a lot of grey area to play around with.
None of these archetypes has to be specifically be the Tank Class or use Tank as a secondary Class. However, most of them will be tied to this class.
So lets get started:
Agressive Tanks
Agressive Tanks would be tanks that are more likely on the front line. These can be DPS Tanks or Engage Tanks.
Passive Tanks
Passive Tanks would be tanks that would make use of buffs to assist those around them or have skills that are more focused on protecting their teammates like Supports in most games.
Mixed Tanks
Mixed Tanks would have a combination between these two extremes mentioned above.
Unique Tanks
There's plenty of room to make Unique Tanks in this game so here is a list of possibilties:
Classic Tanks
Even though I'm personally not a fan of the Classic Tanks in most MMORPGs, that doesn't mean this shouldn't be a thing at all. I wouldn't be surprised if there're still people who like the Classic Tank archetype or it can be a good way to get into the Tank archetype in general. Even though I personally think the Classic Tank needs some tweeks for PvP, as this has always been the problem, the archetype by itself seems to be good in most games.
P.S. Feel free to contact me to discuss this more. I love to think outside the box or discuss possibilities, even if it's just conceptually.
- Allies within X meters of the tank take X% less damage except the tank and other tanks. This incentivises attackers to go for the tanks first if they want to remove this buff.
- Allies attacking the same target as the tank get a small damage buff, giving them the incentive to go with how the tank wants to control the fight.
- Allies attacking the tanks target or other enemies within a few meters of the tank generate less threat (a smaller reduction for those near the tank that the tank hasn't targeted). Again this incentivises players to go with how the tank wants to control the fight but if they go for other targets with AoE, as long as it's next to the tank it's no too dangerous.
In pve
- I feel like Tanks should feel like a hero, facing the boss/enemy effectively alone while everyone else either does damage or heals. Usually this boils down to "use % damage reduction cooldowns" when big mechanics are coming which I don't feel is that compelling. While this is still the direction AoC will probably go I would urge adding some spice to make the tank gameplay at least feel interactive. Maybe a short window parry that allows additional damage reduction vs physical attacks and rewards skillful and not lazy gameplay.
- Heavy armor and beeg shields. I think that's a given, unless we will be working with some bear druid tank alternative which i am not foreseeing at this moment.
- In current MMO's aggro generation is brainless, most of the time all it takes is press one button and you are guaranteed to have mobs' attention for the whole encounter. Abilities with specifically lower dps but higher aggro generation could be a good way to make people actively think about their rotation. Granted this might cause accidental aggro drops due to people being greedy with damage but I still think that riskless aggro management is near pointless.
In pvp
- From what I understand there is a concern that tanks will be ignored during combat due to their... tankiness and lower damage output. Some people pointed out that one way to deal with it would be changing tanks effectively to aurabots that need to die before people start killing priority targets.
- I would suggest giving tanks tools to hinder enemies instead and naturally "generate aggro" by the virtue of being annoying. Stunning, weakening, interrupting, silencing, knocking down, knocking back. Additionally tanks could be given additional damage to siege units, additionally making them a dangerous priority target. They go through lines of enemies like a wrecking ball and if they get to trebuchets then it's bad news for the attackers ?
Depends how you guys design the classes and the abilities everyone has really.
If a Lich is the final boss, personally I feel it would be better suited to have a Caster, or multiple casters, be the "MTs" of that kind of fight, and the "tanks" can go "tank" the summoned undead monstrosities, and keep them at bay. Or you can choose to go the melee tank on Lich boss route, just have to handle it differently.
Seems cooler when there are bosses that require different classes to be the main class to take them on.
You could have a main raid force, with an assassinate portion, where a group of assassin classes break off from the main raid and do their own thing elsewhere, which ultimately makes the raid easier to complete. You could have achievements for foregoing that action and for completing it.
The normal tank absorbs damage using his armor and health.
The magical tank would have an energy shield & defense.
We also need healers for this kind of magic shields.
Among the tank abilities mentioned in this wonderful post, I'd especially love to see these 3 implemented in Ashes:
- AOE protection bubble - Active ability to create a defensive zone around the tank and avoid/reduce incoming damage for allies.
- Guard - Actively defend one of your party member and split incoming damage, as long as they're in range.
- Hold the line - Self defense buff (e.g. raise the shield) and defend all allies behind within a set distance.
These abilities significantly improves group play (in both PvE & PvP), and makes it near-impossible for opponents to ignore the tank in PvP, without having to rely on more frustrating mechanics like "taunt that work on players". (technically you can see it as just another cc, but hey it doesn't make sense! What if I'm a wise & cool-headed mage? you can't taunt me unless you overpower my magic defense and mind-control me!)
These active-defenses can also double as high-threat-generating abilities in PvE, and helps make the traditional PvE threat mechanics more believable. (since now the tanks actively prevent the mobs from attacking other squishies, and are hence real "threats" now)
Just as I mentioned above, opinions are opinions and that's what people are expressing here and I'm under no illusion that I myself, have any idea about perfect balance but I do have experience at the upper end of Pvp across various titles within 3v3, 1v1 and open world. These are all scenarios that must be considered and afaik the balance of classes within AoC is based around Mass-OWPVP which only futher questions the balance of a tank outside the role of a traditional tank.
Rock-Paper-Scissors indicates that one must be better than another and splitting that across 8 possible class combinations for tanks can open the role away from its traditional one dimensional path in ways that isn't "A dps should never beat a tank!" "A tank should have passive mitigation!" "A tank should have the constant ability to block others attacks!". Why are things always one or the other? Why can't a tank have passive mitigation as well as a block function? Passive mitigation is usually the by-product of gear i.e. plate gear, shields or talent passives whereas active mitigation is through the use of skills, on use abilities etc. You can have both and achieve a desirable result.
In the end it all just comes down to what you want x to do in y scenario and I guess that's why this discussion exists. Walk through all the class combos and determine what makes an Argent fundamentally different to a Nightshield and build off that foundation, even if you have to go backwards. That way you can determine what a "Tank" primary requires for all of its classes to be viable in one way or another.
As for the general discussion, my opinion ofc but I like the tank+spank playstyle. I much prefer a long-lived ranged class to "lead" in group play due to several reasons and I'm all for giving DPS more of a role than just optimal dps button mashing(meaning the addition of crowd control). Tanks should be long-lived meaning mitigation and anti-cc while not be walking murder machines. Basically, don't make a Top Laner Tank(LoL) and you won't have 75% of your playerbase(dps) screaming at you because of tank damage with no gear requirements.
Tl;dr
A lot of people have strong opinions that seem to be very one dimensional, my opinion is that with a system that has access to 8 total classes stemming from the tank primary a foundation should be considered after determining their role throughout the game, or specifically versus other class combinations. As for the role of tanks I prefer to let tanks tank damage through both passive and active mitigation, allowing the dps to deal damage, crowd control while the healers lead(or ranged dps) while assisting with mitigation or recovery.
Once again my opinions are my own and if you had an opinion I called one dimensional it's not in an effort to discredit your opnion, but to widen the discussion beyond "this or nothing".
Just saw this today. Thanks for putting together this summary
Tanking is about controlling the battlefield and being able to take hits.
More than one or two tanks being the standard, will complicate coordinating control in groups.
Control is precious because something called "timing" exist.
More tanks will devalue timing, it will make fights longer without contributing in the fun department, and like I said, will make coordinating control a mess.
I have played tanks for 20 years, because I like strategy and tactical thinking. If you add many tanks, I think it will devalue the experience of control and timing, and by proxy, strategy and tactical thinking.
I like the cerebral part of tanking, the responsabilities that come with it and the high and positive impact I can have in a group. An raid with more than one or two tanks, will make the thing that makes tanks attractive, well, less attractive.
Think of control, timing, positioning, responsabilties, awareness, resilience.
If there are many tanks, then there is plenty of control around, timing won't matter that much, neither positioning. If you die you don't have to worry, there are 3-4 tanks more. You don't have to be aware of threats, or if one of your dps pulled mobs and is running for dear life and you need to save him.
I think one or two tanks as the standard is good, creating a need for single tanking and aoe tanking might be healthy. It can allow two tanks to coexist and share responsabilities without devaluing what they bring, by having different intended targets: single and aoe.
I only have one comment for consideration. I believe the most unique and captivating approaches to tanking mechanics are those that encourage but do not force or require attacks be directed toward a specific target. Having tanks impose some sort of disadvantage to a raid boss or an enemy player who chooses to attack the tank's allies, or makes the choice to attack the tank directly appear to be the path of least resistance to deal damage in the short and long term of a fight, have been mechanics that in my experience give players flexibility to use one, two, or many tank-architype characters in a given encounter.
I understand the added complexity to NPC reactions to player actions than simply using a threat meter of some kind, but at it's core these alternative mechanics I mentioned above give more power and opportunities for interesting play to the players themselves.
Thank you for keeping this process so inclusive to your player base! I always enjoy updates from the team, and look forward to keeping along with future development.
Cheers!
I feel good tanks should be rewarded for good play, higher threat, more control, damage, mitigation. I like the archetype of a main tank and then off tanks as people have clear roles. When people fight for threat on a boss that has big cleave like a dragon it can be very dangerous as it bounces between people. I hope there is room for these to allow for all that.
I also hope we get the augment system giving us new abilities but that feels like a lot to ask as it would be a balancing nightmare. 64 combinations and different skills each. That said, it would allow for huge customisation which I think is where games like PoE really thrive and would be a lot of fun. As long as we get good customisation options I'll be happy, some people like the slow beefcake tanks, others like me liked highly mobile but more control oriented tanks.
I am concerned with only 1 dedicated tank and 1 dedicated healer role with the 8 variants each. Just have to see it in action, fingers crossed the ranger dev update shows us how augments are going to work.
Cheers
Some tangentially related things I would like to see in regards to tanking:
1. Tanks Counter Tanks
Tanks should have relatively high armor penetration and access to "tank-buster" abilities to ensure tank vs tank fights in PvP are pivotal instead of stagnate. Note that this includes the Summoner's tank summons.
Choosing Tank or Summoner as your secondary class should avail some "tank-buster" augments in addition to the expected augments. I would have the Dreadnaught class (Fighter + Tank) thematically specialize in pressuring tanks in this way.
In case it's needed, simple "tank-buster" examples include: armor piercing attacks, slow + strong attacks, attacks that deal more damage to healthy targets, critical vulnerability debuffs, defense down debuffs, healing received / regen down debuffs, block hindering debuffs.
2. Crowd Control Specialization
There is a general consensus that tanks should be good at applying CC, but I want to ensure that tanks can mitigate CC as well. In particular, I would give the Tank class an ability that briefly grants them improved defense, immunity to hard CC, and immunity to forced motion (such as from pulls). I would not grant this ability to the Summoner's tank summons.
When combined with the "tank-buster" abilities granted in the section above, tanks should focus on controlling squishies while harming other tanks.
3. Threat Based Cleave
I would like large monsters to cleave groups with their basic attacks, and I would like threat to be a factor in damage distribution with higher threats taking the brunt of the attack.
Mechanically, whenever a group of players are cleaved by an instant attack, they should be damaged in the order of their threat, with each player benefiting from a portion of the defense of players harmed before them in the sequence. This allows higher threat players to passively decrease cleave damage dealt to nearby allies, adding some utility to off-tank threat management.
I'm not sure how threat will translate into PvP, but giving players this type of cleave would give it some purpose.
4. Threat Decay on Block
Whenever the player with the highest threat blocks an attack, their threat decreases, but it will not fall below the second highest threat level. This is intended to punish main-tanks for just holding block, make tank-swapping easier, and grant every player an intuitive way to manage threat if they step out of line.
I'm mostly curious to see whether this works in practice. It could be annoying, pointless, nifty, or busted depending on a number of factors. Alternatively, "threat decay on block" could be a boss mechanic or a class passive instead of an intrinsic trait.
5. Tank Rename
I saw a suggestion about renaming the Tank class to something like Vanguard. I agree with this from an immersion perspective, and it should help people distinguish between the class and role in future discussions. I expect the class would still be called Tank colloquially.
lol, There is no fun in that, it should be skill based a really good tank should be able to survive most attacks. but unkillable, that can be abused.
I would like to see a lot of tank roles and a reason for hybrid builds as well.
Tanks should make up for their lack of damage and should get a lot of CC to actually control the battlefield, taunts, and stuns. Possibly even buff and heals.