NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I can see it in L2 being a lot older tab based game though modern wise that wouldn't hold up people will not like it, even more sow hen you are talking about action camera. Also a taunt designed for hard pve content is different than a pvp focused mmorpg. My point was that taunts weren't created just for pve. Also, I'm not sure how a pve taunt is different from a pvp one (especially in the context of a tab game). At least when it comes to the main goal of a taunt, which is to make the target attack you. Also, it's very unfair to mobs that they're playing a tab game, while players are playing an action one. It's only fair to equalize those I support mob rights!
Mag7spy wrote: » I can see it in L2 being a lot older tab based game though modern wise that wouldn't hold up people will not like it, even more sow hen you are talking about action camera. Also a taunt designed for hard pve content is different than a pvp focused mmorpg.
Azherae wrote: » So I rescind that comment, this isn't some point you 'need to make', I expect you'll be happy as long as they get something working and don't end up with the usual 'weak PvP Tank'.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » All these have 0 impact on camera with tab or action. And unless that dmg reduction is nearing 50++%, I don't think all that many people would even attack the tank. It also does not influence non-dps classes AT ALL. L2's tanks could help against a healer with their aggroes, which was highly appreciated in pvp. And depending on how healers/supports are designed in Ashes, tanks could be valuable against them here as well. It all depends at the end of the day on balance and how devs want to approach it. There is a lot to consider between skills and itemization on the tank. 1. What does the kill time become on allies with a 50% dmg reduction. 2. What other skills does the tank have that can slow enemies down and zone control the area 3. What are secondary item effects having on the fight 4. What is the healing effectiveness on players with that level of dmg reduction, does it make them impossible to die, what is the healing effectiveness on the tank. 5. What are the movement skills like on the classes and ways to avoid dmg and their own cc 6. What is the kill time vrs players under the buff vrs the time on the tank. Tons more as well but some off the top of my head that have a big impact on the balance and what the numbers will mean. i'm going to focus on point 6 though. Lets say at 50% dmg reduction and low ball and say their kill time is 65% of the tank. If they are protection 4 other members they would have had to kill the tank about 2.5 times over and than fighting the tank as well would be like 3.5*. If they killed the tank first the other members would be a lot more squishy and faster to kill as long as none of them were tanks. So this comes tot heir balance and what they feel is effective and makes sense, they might only need 30-40%, maybe the kill times will be faster and 60% is better. Depends on their balance and their aim and player kill times. From a design perspective this makes no sense because your goal is always to kill the enemy that is likely to kill you or prevent your objective. Killing the Tank is not priority because usually the Tank is least likely to kill you. This is why people complain about Tank space/strength in PvP, and why only noobs try to kill the Tank still in games without a 'point' to contest like Overwatch. The only way to make this work is the "If you don't respond to my Taunt I will suddenly become the most likely to kill you'' type effect. That effect is very hard to build. There are currently no games where you can have multiple Tanks with an AoE damage reduction that doesn't result in the balance problem. BDO couldn't even manage this when Protected Area was on Mages and had to nerf it. Damage redirection to Tank is good but not a reason to attack the Tank, this does not work even in games with low healing. The thing that 'depends on balance' here is 'which way it fails/which way players play around it'. I would never ask a developer to go through the nightmare of trying to balance a Tauntless Tank with the goal of having people desire to attack them first in an open world game. I'd be setting them up to fail and just giving them the choice of which way they fail in. Protected area was broken do to balance and the fact you did like 0 dmg to everyone including the mage. It doesn't match in this case because you will do dmg to the tank, and less dmg to their allies. Killing the tank would allow you to more easily kill the healers and the dmg dealers not allowing them to have as much dmg reduction (while clearly seeing where the tank is and targeting him). So by default the dmg dealers can be more confident in their dmg and healers with heals because they have the protection leading tot he tank protecting his team and being a direct link to more dmg being done. BDO with wizards and witches protection, plus their teleport and having 0 weakness was the issue with that skill. In a scenario in AoC a tank shouldn't be teleporting around the map every second, combat should feel more tactical than the BDO sporadic combat. Also a tank isn't a taunt bot that should not be the purpose of the play style. Pressings a button and having something attack you it not not exactly peak fun gameplay with what the core of the class of its identity should be. What is fun is the other elements, you just design the game in ways to bring out use of those elements with the tank.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » All these have 0 impact on camera with tab or action. And unless that dmg reduction is nearing 50++%, I don't think all that many people would even attack the tank. It also does not influence non-dps classes AT ALL. L2's tanks could help against a healer with their aggroes, which was highly appreciated in pvp. And depending on how healers/supports are designed in Ashes, tanks could be valuable against them here as well. It all depends at the end of the day on balance and how devs want to approach it. There is a lot to consider between skills and itemization on the tank. 1. What does the kill time become on allies with a 50% dmg reduction. 2. What other skills does the tank have that can slow enemies down and zone control the area 3. What are secondary item effects having on the fight 4. What is the healing effectiveness on players with that level of dmg reduction, does it make them impossible to die, what is the healing effectiveness on the tank. 5. What are the movement skills like on the classes and ways to avoid dmg and their own cc 6. What is the kill time vrs players under the buff vrs the time on the tank. Tons more as well but some off the top of my head that have a big impact on the balance and what the numbers will mean. i'm going to focus on point 6 though. Lets say at 50% dmg reduction and low ball and say their kill time is 65% of the tank. If they are protection 4 other members they would have had to kill the tank about 2.5 times over and than fighting the tank as well would be like 3.5*. If they killed the tank first the other members would be a lot more squishy and faster to kill as long as none of them were tanks. So this comes tot heir balance and what they feel is effective and makes sense, they might only need 30-40%, maybe the kill times will be faster and 60% is better. Depends on their balance and their aim and player kill times. From a design perspective this makes no sense because your goal is always to kill the enemy that is likely to kill you or prevent your objective. Killing the Tank is not priority because usually the Tank is least likely to kill you. This is why people complain about Tank space/strength in PvP, and why only noobs try to kill the Tank still in games without a 'point' to contest like Overwatch. The only way to make this work is the "If you don't respond to my Taunt I will suddenly become the most likely to kill you'' type effect. That effect is very hard to build. There are currently no games where you can have multiple Tanks with an AoE damage reduction that doesn't result in the balance problem. BDO couldn't even manage this when Protected Area was on Mages and had to nerf it. Damage redirection to Tank is good but not a reason to attack the Tank, this does not work even in games with low healing. The thing that 'depends on balance' here is 'which way it fails/which way players play around it'. I would never ask a developer to go through the nightmare of trying to balance a Tauntless Tank with the goal of having people desire to attack them first in an open world game. I'd be setting them up to fail and just giving them the choice of which way they fail in.
Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » All these have 0 impact on camera with tab or action. And unless that dmg reduction is nearing 50++%, I don't think all that many people would even attack the tank. It also does not influence non-dps classes AT ALL. L2's tanks could help against a healer with their aggroes, which was highly appreciated in pvp. And depending on how healers/supports are designed in Ashes, tanks could be valuable against them here as well. It all depends at the end of the day on balance and how devs want to approach it. There is a lot to consider between skills and itemization on the tank. 1. What does the kill time become on allies with a 50% dmg reduction. 2. What other skills does the tank have that can slow enemies down and zone control the area 3. What are secondary item effects having on the fight 4. What is the healing effectiveness on players with that level of dmg reduction, does it make them impossible to die, what is the healing effectiveness on the tank. 5. What are the movement skills like on the classes and ways to avoid dmg and their own cc 6. What is the kill time vrs players under the buff vrs the time on the tank. Tons more as well but some off the top of my head that have a big impact on the balance and what the numbers will mean. i'm going to focus on point 6 though. Lets say at 50% dmg reduction and low ball and say their kill time is 65% of the tank. If they are protection 4 other members they would have had to kill the tank about 2.5 times over and than fighting the tank as well would be like 3.5*. If they killed the tank first the other members would be a lot more squishy and faster to kill as long as none of them were tanks. So this comes tot heir balance and what they feel is effective and makes sense, they might only need 30-40%, maybe the kill times will be faster and 60% is better. Depends on their balance and their aim and player kill times.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » All these have 0 impact on camera with tab or action. And unless that dmg reduction is nearing 50++%, I don't think all that many people would even attack the tank. It also does not influence non-dps classes AT ALL. L2's tanks could help against a healer with their aggroes, which was highly appreciated in pvp. And depending on how healers/supports are designed in Ashes, tanks could be valuable against them here as well.
Mag7spy wrote: » All these have 0 impact on camera with tab or action.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » All these have 0 impact on camera with tab or action. And unless that dmg reduction is nearing 50++%, I don't think all that many people would even attack the tank. It also does not influence non-dps classes AT ALL. L2's tanks could help against a healer with their aggroes, which was highly appreciated in pvp. And depending on how healers/supports are designed in Ashes, tanks could be valuable against them here as well. It all depends at the end of the day on balance and how devs want to approach it. There is a lot to consider between skills and itemization on the tank. 1. What does the kill time become on allies with a 50% dmg reduction. 2. What other skills does the tank have that can slow enemies down and zone control the area 3. What are secondary item effects having on the fight 4. What is the healing effectiveness on players with that level of dmg reduction, does it make them impossible to die, what is the healing effectiveness on the tank. 5. What are the movement skills like on the classes and ways to avoid dmg and their own cc 6. What is the kill time vrs players under the buff vrs the time on the tank. Tons more as well but some off the top of my head that have a big impact on the balance and what the numbers will mean. i'm going to focus on point 6 though. Lets say at 50% dmg reduction and low ball and say their kill time is 65% of the tank. If they are protection 4 other members they would have had to kill the tank about 2.5 times over and than fighting the tank as well would be like 3.5*. If they killed the tank first the other members would be a lot more squishy and faster to kill as long as none of them were tanks. So this comes tot heir balance and what they feel is effective and makes sense, they might only need 30-40%, maybe the kill times will be faster and 60% is better. Depends on their balance and their aim and player kill times. From a design perspective this makes no sense because your goal is always to kill the enemy that is likely to kill you or prevent your objective. Killing the Tank is not priority because usually the Tank is least likely to kill you. This is why people complain about Tank space/strength in PvP, and why only noobs try to kill the Tank still in games without a 'point' to contest like Overwatch. The only way to make this work is the "If you don't respond to my Taunt I will suddenly become the most likely to kill you'' type effect. That effect is very hard to build. There are currently no games where you can have multiple Tanks with an AoE damage reduction that doesn't result in the balance problem. BDO couldn't even manage this when Protected Area was on Mages and had to nerf it. Damage redirection to Tank is good but not a reason to attack the Tank, this does not work even in games with low healing. The thing that 'depends on balance' here is 'which way it fails/which way players play around it'. I would never ask a developer to go through the nightmare of trying to balance a Tauntless Tank with the goal of having people desire to attack them first in an open world game. I'd be setting them up to fail and just giving them the choice of which way they fail in. Protected area was broken do to balance and the fact you did like 0 dmg to everyone including the mage. It doesn't match in this case because you will do dmg to the tank, and less dmg to their allies. Killing the tank would allow you to more easily kill the healers and the dmg dealers not allowing them to have as much dmg reduction (while clearly seeing where the tank is and targeting him). So by default the dmg dealers can be more confident in their dmg and healers with heals because they have the protection leading tot he tank protecting his team and being a direct link to more dmg being done. BDO with wizards and witches protection, plus their teleport and having 0 weakness was the issue with that skill. In a scenario in AoC a tank shouldn't be teleporting around the map every second, combat should feel more tactical than the BDO sporadic combat. Also a tank isn't a taunt bot that should not be the purpose of the play style. Pressings a button and having something attack you it not not exactly peak fun gameplay with what the core of the class of its identity should be. What is fun is the other elements, you just design the game in ways to bring out use of those elements with the tank. Seems the conversation isn't gonna happen. Alright.
Mag7spy wrote: » The purpose of taunt is to aggro mobs to makes ure they attack you and not your team. Would you agree in a mmo focused around PvP, their taunt will not need as much strength or tools to deal with compared to a mmorpg focused on hard pve content?
Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'm sorry butt hat is not fun in a mmorpg, taunt wasn't designed for PvP, it was designed around PvE content. I haven't looked into the original Lineage, but L2 had taunt working on people back in 2004. Dunno if other mmos did as well at the time. Azherae wrote: » NiKr could too. Yeah, I just don't really know how at this point. My main point so far is "tank should have same protective tools in both pve and pvp. Taunt is one of those tools". And as for the forced camera move - I already pinged Vaknar with a suggestion to have a dev discussion on those kinds of mechanics (fear is probably the other biggest one of this kind). Oh, actually that's my misunderstanding (technically me trying to temper my arrogance). I'm used to my own group 'defining what they want and then handing it off to me to handle the details', and that causes me to offend people online by assuming they would do the same so I explicitly avoid doing it. I think your tendency is closer to theirs though. So I rescind that comment, this isn't some point you 'need to make', I expect you'll be happy as long as they get something working and don't end up with the usual 'weak PvP Tank'. Mag you can ignore my comments about making your case better too, because the 'levels' of conversation happening here aren't aligned. NiKr wants the same thing as you but 'is willing to accept the easy solution'. I 'want the same thing as you but I don't see the things you say as realistic or solutions' (and personally don't have a problem with the easy solution). Which raises a better question... At what point, in 'Dev Hours' would you be willing to give up and accept the Forced Target taunt? Basically, how many hours of balance do the Devs have to do to avoid this, for you? (assuming you care at all). Because I think you understand that balancing this isn't easy, at least.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'm sorry butt hat is not fun in a mmorpg, taunt wasn't designed for PvP, it was designed around PvE content. I haven't looked into the original Lineage, but L2 had taunt working on people back in 2004. Dunno if other mmos did as well at the time. Azherae wrote: » NiKr could too. Yeah, I just don't really know how at this point. My main point so far is "tank should have same protective tools in both pve and pvp. Taunt is one of those tools". And as for the forced camera move - I already pinged Vaknar with a suggestion to have a dev discussion on those kinds of mechanics (fear is probably the other biggest one of this kind).
Mag7spy wrote: » I'm sorry butt hat is not fun in a mmorpg, taunt wasn't designed for PvP, it was designed around PvE content.
Azherae wrote: » NiKr could too.
Mag7spy wrote: » Tank kit should work and be fun, have taunt increase the power of their kit and further build their identity (not from the taunt but their other skills). Meaning the core of the kit is more powerful and fun under taunt. Or the easier way is just have effects stronger when you are near players as a normal passive buff that doesn't require managing taunted enemies, etc. That would be the most easy solution. Or you do both under different classes. This issue doesn't seem like that big a deal (dev time) to solve as the time in designing the rest of the kit to be fun and interesting is where the bulk of it will be going regaurdless.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » The purpose of taunt is to aggro mobs to makes ure they attack you and not your team. Would you agree in a mmo focused around PvP, their taunt will not need as much strength or tools to deal with compared to a mmorpg focused on hard pve content? This is a very funny question, considering that my entire point for the past 7 pages has been "I want pvp taunt to work in the exact same way as the pve one does"
Mag7spy wrote: » Do you make pve tanking easier to manage for tanks with less effort involved and complexity? Do you give access to tanks a stronger version of taunt that is not balanced for pvp, as it works the same for tackling more complex pve content.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Tank kit should work and be fun, have taunt increase the power of their kit and further build their identity (not from the taunt but their other skills). Meaning the core of the kit is more powerful and fun under taunt. Or the easier way is just have effects stronger when you are near players as a normal passive buff that doesn't require managing taunted enemies, etc. That would be the most easy solution. Or you do both under different classes. This issue doesn't seem like that big a deal (dev time) to solve as the time in designing the rest of the kit to be fun and interesting is where the bulk of it will be going regaurdless. Oh, this brings up a point I missed before. Mag, have you played mmos with a proper support/bard class in them? Does BDO have that? I don't remember it having one. Cause so far I feel like what you're imagining for the tank gameplay is just bard gameplay, but with just a bit more thicqness on the character.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Do you make pve tanking easier to manage for tanks with less effort involved and complexity? Do you give access to tanks a stronger version of taunt that is not balanced for pvp, as it works the same for tackling more complex pve content. I've described it before. Tanks have a direct taunt ability, as a standalone skill. I want that thing to be usable in both pve and pvp, with the same effect. All the other abilities can have +aggro effects or stuff that Noaani mentioned in other tank gameplay discussions (switching aggro list placements, wiping the list, etc). And the aoe taunt can simply have different ranges between the two (just as I'm sure other abilities will).
Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Do you make pve tanking easier to manage for tanks with less effort involved and complexity? Do you give access to tanks a stronger version of taunt that is not balanced for pvp, as it works the same for tackling more complex pve content. I've described it before. Tanks have a direct taunt ability, as a standalone skill. I want that thing to be usable in both pve and pvp, with the same effect. All the other abilities can have +aggro effects or stuff that Noaani mentioned in other tank gameplay discussions (switching aggro list placements, wiping the list, etc). And the aoe taunt can simply have different ranges between the two (just as I'm sure other abilities will). Than taunts will be balanced around complex PvE content and has potential to be overpowered in PvP (aka constant access to camera control on many players and forcing them to only be able to attack the tank). But you can't nerf it because it is needed for pve?
Mag7spy wrote: » I'm not viewing the tank just giving buffs to his team but I could make a version that relate to that easily. The protection skill I'm directly reference the tank ability they showed and talking about how augments could work.
Mag7spy wrote: » Than taunts will be balanced around complex PvE content and has potential to be overpowered in PvP (aka constant access to camera control on many players and forcing them to only be able to attack the tank). But you can't nerf it because it is needed for pve?
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Than taunts will be balanced around complex PvE content and has potential to be overpowered in PvP (aka constant access to camera control on many players and forcing them to only be able to attack the tank). But you can't nerf it because it is needed for pve? I've already given an example of how I see the taunt working. A 10s debuff that pulls your camera (and retabs you) on cast and then every 5 secs (so 3 times overall), with a 1-2s-long effect. The pve part of it would come from how much aggro it generates per effect application, which can be balanced completely separately from pvp. And this would also turn the mob around towards the tank, if the mob was on someone else, but if the aggro application wasn't high enough to outpace the dps - the mob would then turn back around to their previous target (and then get turned around on the next effect application of the taunt). This would also add some flow to the pve (and potentially pvp at high skill play), where dpses might get backstab augments or just use their backstab abilities on each mob turn, while the overall aggro system would allow for a more random switching of mob aggro (at least in some encounters). in other words, a pvp taunt would only control your camera for 3-6 seconds out of its 10s continuation. The effect itself would be slow enough to allow you to adjust your movement to it (and not to be as jarring as a 180° snap turn).
Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Than taunts will be balanced around complex PvE content and has potential to be overpowered in PvP (aka constant access to camera control on many players and forcing them to only be able to attack the tank). But you can't nerf it because it is needed for pve? I've already given an example of how I see the taunt working. A 10s debuff that pulls your camera (and retabs you) on cast and then every 5 secs (so 3 times overall), with a 1-2s-long effect. The pve part of it would come from how much aggro it generates per effect application, which can be balanced completely separately from pvp. And this would also turn the mob around towards the tank, if the mob was on someone else, but if the aggro application wasn't high enough to outpace the dps - the mob would then turn back around to their previous target (and then get turned around on the next effect application of the taunt). This would also add some flow to the pve (and potentially pvp at high skill play), where dpses might get backstab augments or just use their backstab abilities on each mob turn, while the overall aggro system would allow for a more random switching of mob aggro (at least in some encounters). in other words, a pvp taunt would only control your camera for 3-6 seconds out of its 10s continuation. The effect itself would be slow enough to allow you to adjust your movement to it (and not to be as jarring as a 180° snap turn). I'm just going to give a easy example to show the point, instead of a normal cc having a longer cd like say 10+ secs. The taunts CD is much lowered and you have access to multiple skills meaning you have far more cc than intended for pvp. It needs to be like this for difficult pve challenges.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'm not viewing the tank just giving buffs to his team but I could make a version that relate to that easily. The protection skill I'm directly reference the tank ability they showed and talking about how augments could work. So when you say "taunt should make his kit better", what exactly do you envision? Cause I think that's what's been missing in this discussion. Mine is mainly several ways to defend singular and multiple targets few reposition abilities that target other players (push, pull, etc) a few reflective abilities (self/party buffs included) a variety of attacking skills with aggro effects a singular and an aoe taunt Those all together would comprise roughly 30 abilities (especially if we have a few general self buffs on top). To me these seem unique enough to create a truly tank archetype and I would expect only small general similarities on other archetypes (smth like "bards give a def buff too" or "mage has repositioning too, but it's self-targeted"). What do you have in mind, that would make tank unique and which would be then made better through taunt?
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Than taunts will be balanced around complex PvE content and has potential to be overpowered in PvP (aka constant access to camera control on many players and forcing them to only be able to attack the tank). But you can't nerf it because it is needed for pve? I've already given an example of how I see the taunt working. A 10s debuff that pulls your camera (and retabs you) on cast and then every 5 secs (so 3 times overall), with a 1-2s-long effect. The pve part of it would come from how much aggro it generates per effect application, which can be balanced completely separately from pvp. And this would also turn the mob around towards the tank, if the mob was on someone else, but if the aggro application wasn't high enough to outpace the dps - the mob would then turn back around to their previous target (and then get turned around on the next effect application of the taunt). This would also add some flow to the pve (and potentially pvp at high skill play), where dpses might get backstab augments or just use their backstab abilities on each mob turn, while the overall aggro system would allow for a more random switching of mob aggro (at least in some encounters). in other words, a pvp taunt would only control your camera for 3-6 seconds out of its 10s continuation. The effect itself would be slow enough to allow you to adjust your movement to it (and not to be as jarring as a 180° snap turn). I'm just going to give a easy example to show the point, instead of a normal cc having a longer cd like say 10+ secs. The taunts CD is much lowered and you have access to multiple skills meaning you have far more cc than intended for pvp. It needs to be like this for difficult pve challenges. Could you try this one again? Parser failed. I can mock up a really specific example situation if you like, I have a lot of them left over from design discussions on exactly this for my own.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Than taunts will be balanced around complex PvE content and has potential to be overpowered in PvP (aka constant access to camera control on many players and forcing them to only be able to attack the tank). But you can't nerf it because it is needed for pve? I've already given an example of how I see the taunt working. A 10s debuff that pulls your camera (and retabs you) on cast and then every 5 secs (so 3 times overall), with a 1-2s-long effect. The pve part of it would come from how much aggro it generates per effect application, which can be balanced completely separately from pvp. And this would also turn the mob around towards the tank, if the mob was on someone else, but if the aggro application wasn't high enough to outpace the dps - the mob would then turn back around to their previous target (and then get turned around on the next effect application of the taunt). This would also add some flow to the pve (and potentially pvp at high skill play), where dpses might get backstab augments or just use their backstab abilities on each mob turn, while the overall aggro system would allow for a more random switching of mob aggro (at least in some encounters). in other words, a pvp taunt would only control your camera for 3-6 seconds out of its 10s continuation. The effect itself would be slow enough to allow you to adjust your movement to it (and not to be as jarring as a 180° snap turn). I'm just going to give a easy example to show the point, instead of a normal cc having a longer cd like say 10+ secs. The taunts CD is much lowered and you have access to multiple skills meaning you have far more cc than intended for pvp. It needs to be like this for difficult pve challenges. Could you try this one again? Parser failed. I can mock up a really specific example situation if you like, I have a lot of them left over from design discussions on exactly this for my own. You will have more available access to taunts than CC in cooldown if game is designed around difficult pve content to hold aggro and taunts are the tool primary used for that.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Than taunts will be balanced around complex PvE content and has potential to be overpowered in PvP (aka constant access to camera control on many players and forcing them to only be able to attack the tank). But you can't nerf it because it is needed for pve? I've already given an example of how I see the taunt working. A 10s debuff that pulls your camera (and retabs you) on cast and then every 5 secs (so 3 times overall), with a 1-2s-long effect. The pve part of it would come from how much aggro it generates per effect application, which can be balanced completely separately from pvp. And this would also turn the mob around towards the tank, if the mob was on someone else, but if the aggro application wasn't high enough to outpace the dps - the mob would then turn back around to their previous target (and then get turned around on the next effect application of the taunt). This would also add some flow to the pve (and potentially pvp at high skill play), where dpses might get backstab augments or just use their backstab abilities on each mob turn, while the overall aggro system would allow for a more random switching of mob aggro (at least in some encounters). in other words, a pvp taunt would only control your camera for 3-6 seconds out of its 10s continuation. The effect itself would be slow enough to allow you to adjust your movement to it (and not to be as jarring as a 180° snap turn). I'm just going to give a easy example to show the point, instead of a normal cc having a longer cd like say 10+ secs. The taunts CD is much lowered and you have access to multiple skills meaning you have far more cc than intended for pvp. It needs to be like this for difficult pve challenges. Could you try this one again? Parser failed. I can mock up a really specific example situation if you like, I have a lot of them left over from design discussions on exactly this for my own. You will have more available access to taunts than CC in cooldown if game is designed around difficult pve content to hold aggro and taunts are the tool primary used for that. Alright, thanks, that's a difference in experience. I actually don't play that many games that have multiple or easily accessible Taunts, I'm really curious to see if Ashes turns out to be another game that just doesn't really have one. Note that I'm not suggesting that Ashes should be that way. Whatever works for them/the playerbase. I do prefer my games without Taunts but I feel that Ashes is already designed around having them for whatever reason Steven decided, and it's designed in a way that makes it hard to 'turn back now'.
