I haven't played D&D since 2nd edition. Long time I know. But our group naturally fell into the Trinity. We all liked different classes and naturally settled into them. Different groups tend to do different things and different people like different things. I prefer group play and role/class interdependence.
And that's completely fine and those type of Tank skills can be present on many melee type classes to further their interest besides "alternative dps/debuffs". The problem is the flat out of refusal to account for all the needs of a potentially legendary mmo that also involves enjoyable and immersive PvP and conquest.
I think battlefield field control is important.
I also think designated roles and interference are critical else you end up with stuff like GW2 where everyone is just running around and their is no organization. Lots of people like that game play just not for me. I have little interest in Street Fighter online.
I never played BDO. When I left Rift several years ago I looked into it and didn't like the class design and combat system and moved on. Again people like it. Just not for me.
However Ashes is supposed to be based off of intended class roles and interdependence centered on group play. I like this and don't want it to change. At no point do I want everyone can do everything so people do. I don't want another single player shared world experience like a lot of newer MMO's have become.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
@bloodprophet I literally have no idea why you would be afraid of any of that if one sub type was removed, a sub type which could easily be adjusted to a degree in a fighter/warrior type spec.
It also stems down to selfishness in a sense, in a good PvE fight as a "dps" type character why can't their defense and guile be a potentially significant part of a mechnically interesting boss fight, besides their being some dog shite colored donut rings on the floor to avoid or silly little adds to destroy.
Games have gone up a significant level since the "reign of WoW", have you ever once considered a lot of people would perhaps critize a game that once all the building blocks are in place just makes PvE more so a strategy game and/or a chore?
There is a thrill to being focused and relying on oneself from time to time, put yourself in Legolas shoes in the fight for middle earth, would you really want to watch him forever in the background, up high and forever relying on Aragorn and Gimli's engage, tact and control and that in turn rarely results in a risky scenerio?
Give people their fantasies, not a "football manager" game.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Guess I just prefer team work over solo play.
Not everyone can be the quarter back. Someone has to hold the line. Someone has to run and someone has to catch. Gets boring being everyone on the not team.
Lots of my best memories from MMO's come from when things went sideways and we had to scramble to eek out a win. Sometimes I like playing single player RPGs but when I log into an MMO I want to play as part of the team not as the sole hero of the world shield surfing aside.
I prefer to see everyone having strengths and weaknesses. You have my back and I have yours vs picking up a ring and saving the world completely solo.
Hell I couldn't even finish Skyrim as it got old saving the world by myself.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
This "class" has some serious evolving to do if it is to meet the demands of competitive and immersive gameplay.
I'm not going to argue whether this is true or not.
All im going to do is state (as in, a statement of fact) that MMORPG's exist to be cooperative games, not competitive games.
Any competition in an MMORPG should exist solely to enhance cooperation between players wanting to cooperate with each other.
Look at the actual purpose of an MMORPG tank - they hold the attention of the target so that they are taking the bulk of the damage, making the healers job easier, and hold the mob as still as possible, making the DPS players jobs easier.
Tell me that isnt an outright cooperative gig right there.
The very notion that MMORPG's need to be more competitive - rather than more cooperative - is what is ruining the genre.
Dont believe me? Look at the longest running MMO's that are still live, and still getting updates. EQ and EQ2 - that between them have been live for 40 years, WoW and EVE.
Now, you may want to add L2 to that list, but ask yourself this - with more people playing on private servers than official servers for about two thirds of the games life (from what I can tell), would you really want to point to L2 as a game and suggest a new publisher should copy it?
Put a name to those games right now, I'll bet anything that they didn't live up to their potential for bigger reasons that were NOT related to gameplay!
So, you know better than this. More to the point, you know that I know better than this. I know that you know that I know better than this, so I can only conclude that you didnt know that I know that you know better than this.
No failed MMO (or game, honestly) fails for a single reason. Every single case has many reasons for its failure.
Essentially, what you are asking above is for me to name one game that failed in one specific way, only so that you can then point out the other ways it failed (that we all obviously know anyway), in some attempt to disprove that it failed due to the point I was making.
It's as if you think a game can only ever fail for a singular reason, and if you can point to any other reason why it may have failed, then the first reason is invalid.
If you do, however, agree that a game can dail for multiple reasons, feel free to disclose your logic behind asking the above question- as it literally makes no sense at all unless you assume the person asking the question believes games can only ever have a single point of failure.
why can't their defense and guile be a potentially significant part of a mechnically interesting boss fight
It is.
Some of the most interesting mechanics on raids have been exclusive to tanks.
Tanks also have the greatest need for accuracy in a tab target game like EQ2 or WoW. Not just accuracy of a single ability, but accuracy of an entire buildup, with the payoff coming at a specific point in time.
Accuracy of both positioning and facing is also super important for a tank. I recently sent one of my tanks a keyboard with optical switches, because his mechanical keyboard simply isnt fast enough for what we were trying to do.
Healers and DPS though? They have literally no need for that level of accuracy.
I think Bulwark would be a fitting alternative, naming the archetype after a medieval defensive wall. But I don't mind if its kept as tank either.
New Player: Hi guys, I'm new, and I want to be a Tank. What archetype should I choose?
Existing Player: Bulwark.
New Player: What's a Bulwark?
Existing Player: *sighs* It's a Tank.
I think Bulwark would be a fitting alternative, naming the archetype after a medieval defensive wall. But I don't mind if its kept as tank either.
New Player: Hi guys, I'm new, and I want to be a Tank. What archetype should I choose?
Existing Player: Bulwark.
New Player: What's a Bulwark?
Existing Player: *sighs* It's a Tank.
or
New Player: *wants to be a Tank, so chooses Tank*
I'm just going to say it - at this point, anyone that doesnt see this is going well out of their way to not see it.
Some people will never understand. Not because they are incapable, but because they are unwilling.
It also stems down to selfishness in a sense, in a good PvE fight as a "dps" type character why can't their defense and guile be a potentially significant part of a mechnically interesting boss fight, besides their being some dog shite colored donut rings on the floor to avoid or silly little adds to destroy.
Some of the most interesting mechanics on raids have been exclusive to tanks.
You're not (or perhaps refusing) to address the point I was making, which can be simply put as > "Why are defensive fundamental skills of other classes almost completely sacrificed and all put into the responsibility of 1 class/person".
I'm also not after an answer of what other particular mmorpg games (certain ones that have focused way too much on a caculated PvE strategy...) have done, I'm after an answer that incorperates some level of self awareness of what multiple players would enjoy that have experienced multiple spectrums of media, whether it be players who have experienced mmo's that include decent open world PvP, watching fantasy media or playing d&d.
I was running circles as a Tank in Lineage 2 for a particular grind spot where mobs could 3 hit me (a train of over 10 of them...) and I couldn't afford to make mistakes, I also need to throw in some skills now and again which would stop me briefly and circles are usually performed for over an hour and over 50% of tanks fail to do this.
Now why would I highlight such bullshit, why would you highlight a tank needing macro's and a mechnical keyboard to perform certain things? Finally, what kind of fool would ever advertise and highlight that as an enjoyable feature to their game...
There are levels of difficulty from games that can be very appreciated, I play Tekken and with enough training most people can access what pro players perform mechnically but the only difference is knowledge and reaction that seperates the vast majority and that is widely respected and displayed in the pro scene watched by 100,000's of twitch viewers.
So with all that said can you make a point which doesn't just dial us all the way back to ancient mechanics that under 1% of the games total population would only perform because they are likely pro raids/instances/areas which most gamers don't even get too, which means they are LARGELY untested from an enjoyment standpoint!
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They have said some raid content will only be doable by single digit percentage of the population.
Personally I don't like fighting games. I find them boring. The idea that someone is watching a twitch stream of someone playing a game for longer then just doing research to decide if they want to try it or not seems foolish to me but you do you.
I like the cooperative game play where the whole team is needed. A bunch of shaved monkeys running in circles throwing flaming poo at a loot pinata is not fun to me. Some people like this game play and some don't.
I just like some others here prefer the group working together to solve the problem put together by the dev team. Figuring out the safety dance and over coming the challenge and everyone having to do their part to make it work is a fun challenge. Especially if it requires communication and a minimum of errors to complete.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
They have said some raid content will only be doable by single digit percentage of the population.
I never said this kind of thing wasn't needed.
This kind of stuff generally wastes the time and energy of the "very hardcore" who are typically crammed with people who can't stop playing as opposed to the very skilled playerbase.
In regards to the example of fighting games and accessible difficulty much like Noaani you missed my point...and how said anything favoring something along the lines of a hack and slash game?? How can someone like myself who has referenced d&d possibly be biased against a decent degree of organised combat!
I just like some others here prefer the group working together to solve the problem put together by the dev team.
A simple glance at youtube to solve the problem...people being frustrated at others for not looking at the guides/vids...not to mention the sheer amount of work involved to keep things interesting that also incorperates an open world....this is SINGLE PLAYER/Small co-op game think.
For a world involving so many others you need to focus largely on replay-ability and engrossing mob AI.
You're not (or perhaps refusing) to address the point I was making, which can be simply put as > "Why are defensive fundamental skills of other classes almost completely sacrificed and all put into the responsibility of 1 class/person".
They aren't. Everyone has their own role to play in defense, just as they do in offense.
If all you are doing is taking on easy content (easy content is all that exists in many games) then this responsibility is minimal. However, if you are playing one of the 4 or 5 MMO's with actual difficult PvE content, and are playing that actual difficult content, then all players present are responsible for both offense and defense aspects.
Now, yours a PvP player more than a PvE player. In PvP, tanks as a concept are kind of lost in most games. However, this goes back to the point of MMORPG's originally being about player cooperation, not competition.
Your comments make it clear you have never played actual difficult PvE content in an MMORPG. Such content simply disproves the points you are trying to make. This isnt necessarily your fault, as only a handful of games have ever actually attempted hard PvE content (EQ, EQ2, WoW and to a lesser extent Age of Conan and Rift). No other game that I have played has anything even approaching difficult content where the trinity system of the genre is on full display.
However, that isnt your fault, nor is it the fault of the trinity system. That is the fault of the developers of basically every other MMO ever made. Most of them shy away from the prospect of attempting difficult content, because as hard as it is to take on, it is exponentially more difficult to produce.
So, your arguments as to the trinity system, and a tanks place within it are completely off the mark. Your points could all potentially be valid if you add the caveat "on easy content", as in, "why is it that on easy content, only the tank needs to operate defensively?" or, "why is it that on easy content, tanks dont get any interesting mechanics?"
All of a sudden you have a valid point. However, the answer to these two questions is as follows "because easy content isnt designed to offer up a challenge to players, and players needing to think both offensively and defensively is a greater challenge than developers want to give players on easy content".
As soon as you but difficult content though, all of these things you are saying should exist, do actually exist. This is why I am able to fairly confidently say you've not participated in actual difficult content in an MMORPG - but gain this isnt your fault, and with your proclivity towards PvP is actually expected.
While I am aware the above all comes out basically sounding as if I am saying "you havent taken on tol end content, so you cant really talk" what I am more trying to say is "the issues you have here are all addressed in top end PvE content, where the trinity system is able to fully flex its presence. Since you prefer PvP and havent played much - or any - top end PvE, I am simply going to inform you of this fact and hope you understand".
Well I've been through some crazy PvE shit in Ultima Online, which gameplay hour wise roughly 6 months of, mostly solo though and team based stuff for altar bosses and the PvP area. All 3 values of HP, Stamina and Mana can be knocked down hard and monsters actually cast player magic...and the magic in UO is still some of the most "naughty" and impactful in mmorpg's.
But no, I have never been interested in the most hardcore PvE content of mmo's which I would say the most popular are the highest difficulty WoW raids and FF14's ultimate raids and these "puzzles" don't interest me in the slightest because they aren't so much an interactive scenario but one of constant trial and error.
There are difficulties to be appreciated, whether you like it or not from even the "simple" or "easy" PvE mmo's in regards to optimization and speed. For example with fast level grinding people can go way beyond typical duty to maximize mob quantity and survivability which is a challenge in itself, some mobs will kill you incredible quickly, especially when you have a train of them and giving up your position in an open world with PvP potentially lurking leaves you exposed and dieing is mostly always NOT an option so always playing correct for many hours has its own unique achievement.
To survive with contest, optimal levelling and also keeping your party happy so no one leaves for a better one is essentially a form of PvE difficulty and its quite frankly immature to say "my PvE is superior and much harder than yours" when there aren't even any signs or indications from any of your posts to suggest you've even partaken in relatively hardcore scenerio's in Korean mmorpg's so to make assumptions of difficulty is pure ignorance but ofc in terms of "puzzle/wonder/unique mechanics" there's barely anything there but this type of content is more inline with attraction than difficulty.
More on topic, what interests me the most though is that you almost hold your hands up in defeat and basically say that Tanks concepts should only be optimal and mainly designed for PvE content but I am not in the mood for this defeatist and stubborn attitude in regards to evolving the genre or at least pushing it toward PVE+PvP+Open World focus (all 3, let's do this properly!).
It's like you don't want to even want to be a part of this games/Steven's vision and keep rattling on about "ideal PvE". Whatever aspects you think WoW and EQ have that could compliment in mmorpg's more like UO and Korea's L2/Archeage (all open world and subject to all player interactions) you should be kindly adding to because if you can't clearly see that Steven is more of a fan of Korean type mmo's, all of your damning opinions and verdicts on what is the "pinnacle" of PvE content just end up looking chauvinistic as opposed to a helpful insight on something that could actually improve.... player interaction....regardless of how successful you think WoW was (in an era before Youtube...) it's the player interactions which matter the most, not prattling on like "Grandpa Asmongold" and reminiscing about 100's of dungeons and boss+npc lores, it's just a single player/small co-op player game with a huge fanbase of discussion at that point!
It's like you don't want to even want to be a part of this games/Steven's vision and keep rattling on about "ideal PvE". Whatever aspects you think WoW and EQ have that could compliment in mmorpg's more like UO and Korea's L2/Archeage (all open world and subject to all player interactions) you should be kindly adding to because if you can't clearly see that Steven is more of a fan of Korean type mmo's, all of your damning opinions and verdicts on what is the "pinnacle" of PvE content just end up looking chauvinistic as opposed to a helpful insight on something that could actually improve.... player interaction....regardless of how successful you think WoW was (in an era before Youtube...) it's the player interactions which matter the most, not prattling on like "Grandpa Asmongold" and reminiscing about 100's of dungeons and boss+npc lores, it's just a single player/small co-op player game with a huge fanbase of discussion at that point!
Our discussion here isnt about Ashes content, it is about tanks. It also isnt about players trying to speed run easier content in order to add some artificial difficulty, as you mentioned for some reason.
You said that you wish tanks had more interesting mechanics. When I pointed out that they do have interesting mechanics in top end PvE content, you then shifted it to complaining that its only the tank that needs to think defensively. I then pointed out to you that this is also not the case in top end PvE content.
Now, if you wish to complain about tanks in low end PvE content, have at it. If you wish to complain about tanks in PvP content, have at it. However, you cant complain that the concept of a tank is the issue, when the issue you are pointing to is remedied in specific content.
At that point, your complaint becomes one of content, not class or role design.
Essentially, that is what I am pointing out to you here. Your complaints about how you think the tank role is lacking only exist due to the content you are playing.
I'm not making any observations at all as to what I think Ashes content will or will not be, I'm literally only posting in response to your complaints about tanks that obviously come from a position where the concept of a tank is obviously not needed.
If you need any further evidence that the issue here is the content you are playing - you referred to solo content in UO as "crazy PvE shit". UO existed at a time before PvE really even became a thing worth talking about, and obviously the concept of a tank in solo content is laughable.
I'm going to give you an example of what you are basically doing here - imagine you and I are talking about PvP, and you come to the conclusion that I have perhaps not played a whole lot of the PvP content in games you have played. Then, as an example of the "crazy PvP shit" I have played, I bring up Pong.
Pong is to current day PvP what UO is to current day PvE.
If that is the kind of thing you are talking about, we are not talking about the same thing - I'm fairly sure I've been telling you this for a while now.
I'll also add that I am not the biggest fan of puzzle encounters either. While they are fun on occasion, I prefer encounters that are difficult due to the games combat system. EQ and EQ2 have a higher proportion of these encounters to WoW (which is a big part of the reason why I consider WoW raiding to be the lesser experience), but all three games have a number of both.
Maybe they should change cleric base name to healer instead :P
As has been said in this thread (did you not read it all?), the issue with this is that clerics are not going to be the only archetype that heals, apparently. Bards will have an amount of that functionality.
Tank is a really poor name for a class and does not make much sense. Like pointed out several times, tank is a role like healer, support or damage dealer. Naming a class as a tank just shows lack of imagination. I cannot believe that the name is not changed yet. It was an okayish place holder at the beginning but nothing more tbh. However, naming classes have not been their strength anyway. Some are fine but some are just weird word combos.
Tank is a really poor name for a class and does not make much sense. Like pointed out several times, tank is a role like healer, support or damage dealer. Naming a class as a tank just shows lack of imagination. I cannot believe that the name is not changed yet. It was an okayish place holder at the beginning but nothing more tbh. However, naming classes have not been their strength anyway. Some are fine but some are just weird word combos.
Tank is a really poor name for a class and does not make much sense. Like pointed out several times, tank is a role like healer, support or damage dealer. Naming a class as a tank just shows lack of imagination. I cannot believe that the name is not changed yet. It was an okayish place holder at the beginning but nothing more tbh. However, naming classes have not been their strength anyway. Some are fine but some are just weird word combos.
Agree with that ! 0 fantasy... I hope the devs will have more fantasy for the rest of the game.
I already imagine my "tank" making FedEx quests... That's sad.
Tank is a really poor name for a class and does not make much sense. Like pointed out several times, tank is a role like healer, support or damage dealer. Naming a class as a tank just shows lack of imagination. I cannot believe that the name is not changed yet. It was an okayish place holder at the beginning but nothing more tbh. However, naming classes have not been their strength anyway. Some are fine but some are just weird word combos.
Agree with that ! 0 fantasy... I hope the devs will have more fantasy for the rest of the game.
I already imagine my "tank" making FedEx quests... That's sad.
The problem there is that you are imagining your character identifying with the game mechanic description of an archetype.
Complaints like this are on par with people complaining about how stats on gear is unrealistic, because you can't imagine your character equipping an item and feeling stronger or smarter.
Tank is a really poor name for a class and does not make much sense. Like pointed out several times, tank is a role like healer, support or damage dealer. Naming a class as a tank just shows lack of imagination. I cannot believe that the name is not changed yet. It was an okayish place holder at the beginning but nothing more tbh. However, naming classes have not been their strength anyway. Some are fine but some are just weird word combos.
Agree with that ! 0 fantasy... I hope the devs will have more fantasy for the rest of the game.
I already imagine my "tank" making FedEx quests... That's sad.
The problem there is that you are imagining your character identifying with the game mechanic description of an archetype.
Complaints like this are on par with people complaining about how stats on gear is unrealistic, because you can't imagine your character equipping an item and feeling stronger or smarter.
Is someone here asking for a realistic game ? I think no one here is waiting from AOC to be realistic... as the game is more a kind of fantasy D&D inspired MMORPG. A tank has nothing to see with the fantasy background of AOC.
And what the problem with attributes on gear ? I haven't play yet any MMORPG without attributes on gear...
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's like you don't want to even want to be a part of this game's/Steven's vision and keep rattling on about how everything Tank is immersion-breaking."
Is someone here asking for a realistic game ? I think no one here is waiting from AOC to be realistic... as the game is more a kind of fantasy D&D inspired MMORPG. A tank has nothing to see with the fantasy background of AOC.
And what the problem with attributes on gear ? I haven't play yet any MMORPG without attributes on gear...
The use of the word "tank" in our case literally only exists as a means for Intrepid to communicate with players as to what the point of the abilities bound within the archetype kit that the name describes are intended to do. It isn't an aspect of storytelling, nor is it intended to be a term your character associates with in game. Other than a piece of communication between Intrepid and players (and between players and other players, I guess), archetype names need not exist at all.
The moment you are taking that word and applying it to anything in game (as you yourself said you imagine seeing your tank doing FedEx quests), then you have taken a piece of communication between Intrepid and players and applied that to your character.
There is no problem with stats on gear. However, some misguided people have mistaken game mechanics (and the effective communication of those game mechanics) with game lore and storytelling.
I assume you can see the connection between what these people have done and what a few people here are doing.
Is someone here asking for a realistic game ? I think no one here is waiting from AOC to be realistic... as the game is more a kind of fantasy D&D inspired MMORPG. A tank has nothing to see with the fantasy background of AOC.
And what the problem with attributes on gear ? I haven't play yet any MMORPG without attributes on gear...
The use of the word "tank" in our case literally only exists as a means for Intrepid to communicate with players as to what the point of the abilities bound within the archetype kit that the name describes are intended to do. It isn't an aspect of storytelling, nor is it intended to be a term your character associates with in game. Other than a piece of communication between Intrepid and players (and between players and other players, I guess), archetype names need not exist at all.
The moment you are taking that word and applying it to anything in game (as you yourself said you imagine seeing your tank doing FedEx quests), then you have taken a piece of communication between Intrepid and players and applied that to your character.
There is no problem with stats on gear. However, some misguided people have mistaken game mechanics (and the effective communication of those game mechanics) with game lore and storytelling.
I assume you can see the connection between what these people have done and what a few people here are doing.
Second time I see you claiming that "Tank is used for "communication" purposes... And I have already answered you that it makes no sense because "Tank" is totally part of the storytelling as you choose your archetype when creating you character.
If, as you say, the term was used for communication purposes, it would not even belong in the game. The term would be used in a separate guide (or only the Wiki for example).
Second time I see you claiming that "Tank is used for "communication" purposes... And I have already answered you that it makes no sense because "Tank" is totally part of the storytelling as you choose your archetype when creating you character.
This doesn't make it part of storytelling.
It becomes a part of storytelling if a character in game refers to your primary archetype by name. Anything short of this, and it isn't a part of the story being presented to you.
If, as you say, the term was used for communication purposes, it would not even belong in the game. The term would be used in a separate guide (or only the Wiki for example).
Except it needs to, because that is where players select that archetype kit.
The developers can't exactly have a website with the abilities of each class kit, put the identifying labels on them on the website, but then leave those identifying labels off of them in game where players have to select one.
Comments
I think battlefield field control is important.
I also think designated roles and interference are critical else you end up with stuff like GW2 where everyone is just running around and their is no organization. Lots of people like that game play just not for me. I have little interest in Street Fighter online.
I never played BDO. When I left Rift several years ago I looked into it and didn't like the class design and combat system and moved on. Again people like it. Just not for me.
However Ashes is supposed to be based off of intended class roles and interdependence centered on group play. I like this and don't want it to change. At no point do I want everyone can do everything so people do. I don't want another single player shared world experience like a lot of newer MMO's have become.
It also stems down to selfishness in a sense, in a good PvE fight as a "dps" type character why can't their defense and guile be a potentially significant part of a mechnically interesting boss fight, besides their being some dog shite colored donut rings on the floor to avoid or silly little adds to destroy.
Games have gone up a significant level since the "reign of WoW", have you ever once considered a lot of people would perhaps critize a game that once all the building blocks are in place just makes PvE more so a strategy game and/or a chore?
There is a thrill to being focused and relying on oneself from time to time, put yourself in Legolas shoes in the fight for middle earth, would you really want to watch him forever in the background, up high and forever relying on Aragorn and Gimli's engage, tact and control and that in turn rarely results in a risky scenerio?
Give people their fantasies, not a "football manager" game.
Not everyone can be the quarter back. Someone has to hold the line. Someone has to run and someone has to catch. Gets boring being everyone on the not team.
Lots of my best memories from MMO's come from when things went sideways and we had to scramble to eek out a win. Sometimes I like playing single player RPGs but when I log into an MMO I want to play as part of the team not as the sole hero of the world shield surfing aside.
I prefer to see everyone having strengths and weaknesses. You have my back and I have yours vs picking up a ring and saving the world completely solo.
Hell I couldn't even finish Skyrim as it got old saving the world by myself.
I'm only replying to these two excerpts from your post, I'm sure you will agree nothing more is required. I'm not going to argue whether this is true or not.
All im going to do is state (as in, a statement of fact) that MMORPG's exist to be cooperative games, not competitive games.
Any competition in an MMORPG should exist solely to enhance cooperation between players wanting to cooperate with each other.
Look at the actual purpose of an MMORPG tank - they hold the attention of the target so that they are taking the bulk of the damage, making the healers job easier, and hold the mob as still as possible, making the DPS players jobs easier.
Tell me that isnt an outright cooperative gig right there.
The very notion that MMORPG's need to be more competitive - rather than more cooperative - is what is ruining the genre.
Dont believe me? Look at the longest running MMO's that are still live, and still getting updates. EQ and EQ2 - that between them have been live for 40 years, WoW and EVE.
Now, you may want to add L2 to that list, but ask yourself this - with more people playing on private servers than official servers for about two thirds of the games life (from what I can tell), would you really want to point to L2 as a game and suggest a new publisher should copy it?
So, you know better than this. More to the point, you know that I know better than this. I know that you know that I know better than this, so I can only conclude that you didnt know that I know that you know better than this.
No failed MMO (or game, honestly) fails for a single reason. Every single case has many reasons for its failure.
Essentially, what you are asking above is for me to name one game that failed in one specific way, only so that you can then point out the other ways it failed (that we all obviously know anyway), in some attempt to disprove that it failed due to the point I was making.
It's as if you think a game can only ever fail for a singular reason, and if you can point to any other reason why it may have failed, then the first reason is invalid.
If you do, however, agree that a game can dail for multiple reasons, feel free to disclose your logic behind asking the above question- as it literally makes no sense at all unless you assume the person asking the question believes games can only ever have a single point of failure.
It is.
Some of the most interesting mechanics on raids have been exclusive to tanks.
Tanks also have the greatest need for accuracy in a tab target game like EQ2 or WoW. Not just accuracy of a single ability, but accuracy of an entire buildup, with the payoff coming at a specific point in time.
Accuracy of both positioning and facing is also super important for a tank. I recently sent one of my tanks a keyboard with optical switches, because his mechanical keyboard simply isnt fast enough for what we were trying to do.
Healers and DPS though? They have literally no need for that level of accuracy.
New Player: Hi guys, I'm new, and I want to be a Tank. What archetype should I choose?
Existing Player: Bulwark.
New Player: What's a Bulwark?
Existing Player: *sighs* It's a Tank.
or
New Player: *wants to be a Tank, so chooses Tank*
I'm just going to say it - at this point, anyone that doesnt see this is going well out of their way to not see it.
Some people will never understand. Not because they are incapable, but because they are unwilling.
This "New Player" has clearly been influenced by a game or Youtube.
I'd also be super interested in the physcology of such a person if the game was World of Tanks.
You're not (or perhaps refusing) to address the point I was making, which can be simply put as > "Why are defensive fundamental skills of other classes almost completely sacrificed and all put into the responsibility of 1 class/person".
I'm also not after an answer of what other particular mmorpg games (certain ones that have focused way too much on a caculated PvE strategy...) have done, I'm after an answer that incorperates some level of self awareness of what multiple players would enjoy that have experienced multiple spectrums of media, whether it be players who have experienced mmo's that include decent open world PvP, watching fantasy media or playing d&d.
I was running circles as a Tank in Lineage 2 for a particular grind spot where mobs could 3 hit me (a train of over 10 of them...) and I couldn't afford to make mistakes, I also need to throw in some skills now and again which would stop me briefly and circles are usually performed for over an hour and over 50% of tanks fail to do this.
Now why would I highlight such bullshit, why would you highlight a tank needing macro's and a mechnical keyboard to perform certain things? Finally, what kind of fool would ever advertise and highlight that as an enjoyable feature to their game...
There are levels of difficulty from games that can be very appreciated, I play Tekken and with enough training most people can access what pro players perform mechnically but the only difference is knowledge and reaction that seperates the vast majority and that is widely respected and displayed in the pro scene watched by 100,000's of twitch viewers.
So with all that said can you make a point which doesn't just dial us all the way back to ancient mechanics that under 1% of the games total population would only perform because they are likely pro raids/instances/areas which most gamers don't even get too, which means they are LARGELY untested from an enjoyment standpoint!
Personally I don't like fighting games. I find them boring. The idea that someone is watching a twitch stream of someone playing a game for longer then just doing research to decide if they want to try it or not seems foolish to me but you do you.
I like the cooperative game play where the whole team is needed. A bunch of shaved monkeys running in circles throwing flaming poo at a loot pinata is not fun to me. Some people like this game play and some don't.
I just like some others here prefer the group working together to solve the problem put together by the dev team. Figuring out the safety dance and over coming the challenge and everyone having to do their part to make it work is a fun challenge. Especially if it requires communication and a minimum of errors to complete.
I never said this kind of thing wasn't needed.
This kind of stuff generally wastes the time and energy of the "very hardcore" who are typically crammed with people who can't stop playing as opposed to the very skilled playerbase.
In regards to the example of fighting games and accessible difficulty much like Noaani you missed my point...and how said anything favoring something along the lines of a hack and slash game?? How can someone like myself who has referenced d&d possibly be biased against a decent degree of organised combat!
A simple glance at youtube to solve the problem...people being frustrated at others for not looking at the guides/vids...not to mention the sheer amount of work involved to keep things interesting that also incorperates an open world....this is SINGLE PLAYER/Small co-op game think.
For a world involving so many others you need to focus largely on replay-ability and engrossing mob AI.
They aren't. Everyone has their own role to play in defense, just as they do in offense.
If all you are doing is taking on easy content (easy content is all that exists in many games) then this responsibility is minimal. However, if you are playing one of the 4 or 5 MMO's with actual difficult PvE content, and are playing that actual difficult content, then all players present are responsible for both offense and defense aspects.
Now, yours a PvP player more than a PvE player. In PvP, tanks as a concept are kind of lost in most games. However, this goes back to the point of MMORPG's originally being about player cooperation, not competition.
Your comments make it clear you have never played actual difficult PvE content in an MMORPG. Such content simply disproves the points you are trying to make. This isnt necessarily your fault, as only a handful of games have ever actually attempted hard PvE content (EQ, EQ2, WoW and to a lesser extent Age of Conan and Rift). No other game that I have played has anything even approaching difficult content where the trinity system of the genre is on full display.
However, that isnt your fault, nor is it the fault of the trinity system. That is the fault of the developers of basically every other MMO ever made. Most of them shy away from the prospect of attempting difficult content, because as hard as it is to take on, it is exponentially more difficult to produce.
So, your arguments as to the trinity system, and a tanks place within it are completely off the mark. Your points could all potentially be valid if you add the caveat "on easy content", as in, "why is it that on easy content, only the tank needs to operate defensively?" or, "why is it that on easy content, tanks dont get any interesting mechanics?"
All of a sudden you have a valid point. However, the answer to these two questions is as follows "because easy content isnt designed to offer up a challenge to players, and players needing to think both offensively and defensively is a greater challenge than developers want to give players on easy content".
As soon as you but difficult content though, all of these things you are saying should exist, do actually exist. This is why I am able to fairly confidently say you've not participated in actual difficult content in an MMORPG - but gain this isnt your fault, and with your proclivity towards PvP is actually expected.
While I am aware the above all comes out basically sounding as if I am saying "you havent taken on tol end content, so you cant really talk" what I am more trying to say is "the issues you have here are all addressed in top end PvE content, where the trinity system is able to fully flex its presence. Since you prefer PvP and havent played much - or any - top end PvE, I am simply going to inform you of this fact and hope you understand".
But no, I have never been interested in the most hardcore PvE content of mmo's which I would say the most popular are the highest difficulty WoW raids and FF14's ultimate raids and these "puzzles" don't interest me in the slightest because they aren't so much an interactive scenario but one of constant trial and error.
There are difficulties to be appreciated, whether you like it or not from even the "simple" or "easy" PvE mmo's in regards to optimization and speed. For example with fast level grinding people can go way beyond typical duty to maximize mob quantity and survivability which is a challenge in itself, some mobs will kill you incredible quickly, especially when you have a train of them and giving up your position in an open world with PvP potentially lurking leaves you exposed and dieing is mostly always NOT an option so always playing correct for many hours has its own unique achievement.
To survive with contest, optimal levelling and also keeping your party happy so no one leaves for a better one is essentially a form of PvE difficulty and its quite frankly immature to say "my PvE is superior and much harder than yours" when there aren't even any signs or indications from any of your posts to suggest you've even partaken in relatively hardcore scenerio's in Korean mmorpg's so to make assumptions of difficulty is pure ignorance but ofc in terms of "puzzle/wonder/unique mechanics" there's barely anything there but this type of content is more inline with attraction than difficulty.
More on topic, what interests me the most though is that you almost hold your hands up in defeat and basically say that Tanks concepts should only be optimal and mainly designed for PvE content but I am not in the mood for this defeatist and stubborn attitude in regards to evolving the genre or at least pushing it toward PVE+PvP+Open World focus (all 3, let's do this properly!).
It's like you don't want to even want to be a part of this games/Steven's vision and keep rattling on about "ideal PvE". Whatever aspects you think WoW and EQ have that could compliment in mmorpg's more like UO and Korea's L2/Archeage (all open world and subject to all player interactions) you should be kindly adding to because if you can't clearly see that Steven is more of a fan of Korean type mmo's, all of your damning opinions and verdicts on what is the "pinnacle" of PvE content just end up looking chauvinistic as opposed to a helpful insight on something that could actually improve.... player interaction....regardless of how successful you think WoW was (in an era before Youtube...) it's the player interactions which matter the most, not prattling on like "Grandpa Asmongold" and reminiscing about 100's of dungeons and boss+npc lores, it's just a single player/small co-op player game with a huge fanbase of discussion at that point!
Our discussion here isnt about Ashes content, it is about tanks. It also isnt about players trying to speed run easier content in order to add some artificial difficulty, as you mentioned for some reason.
You said that you wish tanks had more interesting mechanics. When I pointed out that they do have interesting mechanics in top end PvE content, you then shifted it to complaining that its only the tank that needs to think defensively. I then pointed out to you that this is also not the case in top end PvE content.
Now, if you wish to complain about tanks in low end PvE content, have at it. If you wish to complain about tanks in PvP content, have at it. However, you cant complain that the concept of a tank is the issue, when the issue you are pointing to is remedied in specific content.
At that point, your complaint becomes one of content, not class or role design.
Essentially, that is what I am pointing out to you here. Your complaints about how you think the tank role is lacking only exist due to the content you are playing.
I'm not making any observations at all as to what I think Ashes content will or will not be, I'm literally only posting in response to your complaints about tanks that obviously come from a position where the concept of a tank is obviously not needed.
If you need any further evidence that the issue here is the content you are playing - you referred to solo content in UO as "crazy PvE shit". UO existed at a time before PvE really even became a thing worth talking about, and obviously the concept of a tank in solo content is laughable.
I'm going to give you an example of what you are basically doing here - imagine you and I are talking about PvP, and you come to the conclusion that I have perhaps not played a whole lot of the PvP content in games you have played. Then, as an example of the "crazy PvP shit" I have played, I bring up Pong.
Pong is to current day PvP what UO is to current day PvE.
If that is the kind of thing you are talking about, we are not talking about the same thing - I'm fairly sure I've been telling you this for a while now.
I'll also add that I am not the biggest fan of puzzle encounters either. While they are fun on occasion, I prefer encounters that are difficult due to the games combat system. EQ and EQ2 have a higher proportion of these encounters to WoW (which is a big part of the reason why I consider WoW raiding to be the lesser experience), but all three games have a number of both.
As has been said in this thread (did you not read it all?), the issue with this is that clerics are not going to be the only archetype that heals, apparently. Bards will have an amount of that functionality.
If this wasn't the case though, I'd agree.
Tank is a archetype not a class.....
Agree with that ! 0 fantasy... I hope the devs will have more fantasy for the rest of the game.
I already imagine my "tank" making FedEx quests... That's sad.
The problem there is that you are imagining your character identifying with the game mechanic description of an archetype.
Complaints like this are on par with people complaining about how stats on gear is unrealistic, because you can't imagine your character equipping an item and feeling stronger or smarter.
Is someone here asking for a realistic game ? I think no one here is waiting from AOC to be realistic... as the game is more a kind of fantasy D&D inspired MMORPG. A tank has nothing to see with the fantasy background of AOC.
And what the problem with attributes on gear ? I haven't play yet any MMORPG without attributes on gear...
Oh dear, someones eat their weetabix today.
Come my way again if you have some classy input
The use of the word "tank" in our case literally only exists as a means for Intrepid to communicate with players as to what the point of the abilities bound within the archetype kit that the name describes are intended to do. It isn't an aspect of storytelling, nor is it intended to be a term your character associates with in game. Other than a piece of communication between Intrepid and players (and between players and other players, I guess), archetype names need not exist at all.
The moment you are taking that word and applying it to anything in game (as you yourself said you imagine seeing your tank doing FedEx quests), then you have taken a piece of communication between Intrepid and players and applied that to your character.
There is no problem with stats on gear. However, some misguided people have mistaken game mechanics (and the effective communication of those game mechanics) with game lore and storytelling.
I assume you can see the connection between what these people have done and what a few people here are doing.
Second time I see you claiming that "Tank is used for "communication" purposes... And I have already answered you that it makes no sense because "Tank" is totally part of the storytelling as you choose your archetype when creating you character.
If, as you say, the term was used for communication purposes, it would not even belong in the game. The term would be used in a separate guide (or only the Wiki for example).
This doesn't make it part of storytelling.
It becomes a part of storytelling if a character in game refers to your primary archetype by name. Anything short of this, and it isn't a part of the story being presented to you. Except it needs to, because that is where players select that archetype kit.
The developers can't exactly have a website with the abilities of each class kit, put the identifying labels on them on the website, but then leave those identifying labels off of them in game where players have to select one.