Aggro/Threat mechanics don't work in PvX

Zyllos wrote: »

Just an idea.

I'm going to state that as an idea, it is not the worst in this thread (by a long shot).

However, what it will result in is me telling my tanks that their role in PvP is not to get attacked, but to debuff as many players as they can. It would take the tank class from also having the tank role, to it having a support role instead.

That does mean tanks would at least have a role in PvP, but I am of the opinion that every class should have the same role in PvP as they have in PvE.

You are welcome to disagree with that notion of you like.

Kind of over it at this point, Already mentioned one skills in the game devs have put in the game and being said it needs to be on supports.

Overall i feel like this is something out of joint in how classes and augments will work, and people not caring just wanting a version of what they want even if it doesn't exist, or its negative impacts to the game.

My guild and I all thing taunt and skills controlling player cameras forcefully and over durations is cancer. I'll have faith devs aren't putting things in the game to diminish the experience of player play styles from a mechanical stand point.

I've talked about it enough at this point lol.

Mag7spy wrote: »

My guild and I all thing taunt and skills controlling player cameras forcefully and over durations is cance.

If "your guild" all have the same gaming experience as you, then yeah, I could see how they would think that.

As we've said in this thread (and others), your objections to things are almost always based on you making some early bad assumptions, and then never being willing to to have those assumptions cleared up.

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

My guild and I all thing taunt and skills controlling player cameras forcefully and over durations is cance.

If "your guild" all have the same gaming experience as you, then yeah, I could see how they would think that.

As we've said in this thread (and others), your objections to things are almost always based on you making some early bad assumptions, and then never being willing to to have those assumptions cleared up.

My guild has PvP experience, we have a pretty good handle on understanding things you won't see.

Objections are based on facts, the dialogue of this discussion has down a desire to add a bad feature to a game that does not have it lol. You are fine with it being clunky, do nto understand how it is clunky, tab based mentality thinking switching is the solution, wont accept other methods besides a new method of your own idea. We all view it as a bad take lol.

We have gone over this experience discussion before as well, i have more experience than you playing more games and open to more things. And why i can see a bigger picture you can not.

Mag7spy wrote: »

My guild has PvP experience

So do I.

However, this statement illustrates that you are not actually aware of what the point of experience is.

The point of experience is to understand many different ways of achieving a similar goal.

If, for example, every game you have ever played has a similar camera scheme, then when it comes to talking about camera schemes in other games, you have limited expereince in the matter.

Sure, you may hve played dozens of PvP games - but the important thing in regards to experience is the differences between the games you have played, not the similarities.

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

My guild has PvP experience

So do I.

However, this statement illustrates that you are not actually aware of what the point of experience is.

The point of experience is to understand many different ways of achieving a similar goal.

If, for example, every game you have ever played has a similar camera scheme, then when it comes to talking about camera schemes in other games, you have limited expereince in the matter.

Sure, you may hve played dozens of PvP games - but the important thing in regards to experience is the differences between the games you have played, not the similarities.

You pride yourself as a pve players so that is very debatable for me, meaning you focus on pve mmorpg, everquest included than playing pvp sorts of mmorpgs.

Not just PvP but PvE as well. Which includes action (far more than you) and tab since everquest.

You are quick to make assumptions trying to lower the value of another as if it is a goal post in your point. Even if it is unfounded assumptions of your own not backed by anything but what you want to believe. Thinking you are right and will only will do the one idea you want, and are not open to different solutions.

It shows since you try to mention a guild full of people all have the same experience as me when they have less and maybe more in some cases on different elements of mmorpgs, as if in a negative light. Ie trying to say a whole group of people don't have experience and their opinion is not valid.

Personally I'm not going to judge someone opinion based on experience but based on the points they bring up (unless they try to be negative against me). Everyone has value, and everyone is open to having good and bad takes. Again from my own group they all think yours is a bad take, with how the mmorpg genre is they just don't want people to ruin another one.

Though I suppose we can all say we are all wrong and point fingers and see who can point more lol. As i said before I'll trust the devs and see what they do and not add random features that have players take camera control of others.

Mag7spy wrote: »

You pride yourself as a pve players so that is very debatable for me

No I don't.

That is something others have decided I must be, simply because I do indeed enjoy top end PvE, and see it as being vital to Ashes long term success.

People often "forget" that I have played more PvP MMO's than I have PvE MMO's, because that doesn't fit in with the narrative they want to tell. You do this too, I have told you in the past that I have fairly extensive PvP experience, yer you are still trying to paint me as a PvE player because that better suits your motive.

Personally I'm not going to judge someone opinion based on experience but based on the points they bring up

This is what we do here.

We bring up experience to point out why you can't see what it is the rest of us are talking about. It isn't a matter of needing experience to come up with a good idea (though good ideas without experience do indeed happen, they are generally luck), expereince is needed to recognize one.

If your ideas were good, we'd let you know.

not add random features that have players take camera control of others.

See, this is another part of why it can be really hard to discuss things with you.

I don't know if the above is you simply not understanding English very well (I assume it is a second language), or if you do not understand the suggestion.

The phrase "take camera control of others" suggests the other player is in control of your camera. That isn'tthe case, and has never been the case.

Again, I don't know if the above is poor English, or if it is just a lack of understanding.

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You pride yourself as a pve players so that is very debatable for me

No I don't.

That is something others have decided I must be, simply because I do indeed enjoy top end PvE, and see it as being vital to Ashes long term success.

People often "forget" that I have played more PvP MMO's than I have PvE MMO's, because that doesn't fit in with the narrative they want to tell. You do this too, I have told you in the past that I have fairly extensive PvP experience, yer you are still trying to paint me as a PvE player because that better suits your motive.

Personally I'm not going to judge someone opinion based on experience but based on the points they bring up

This is what we do here.

We bring up experience to point out why you can't see what it is the rest of us are talking about. It isn't a matter of needing experience to come up with a good idea (though good ideas without experience do indeed happen, they are generally luck), expereince is needed to recognize one.

If your ideas were good, we'd let you know.

not add random features that have players take camera control of others.

See, this is another part of why it can be really hard to discuss things with you.

I don't know if the above is you simply not understanding English very well (I assume it is a second language), or if you do not understand the suggestion.

The phrase "take camera control of others" suggests the other player is in control of your camera. That isn'tthe case, and has never been the case.

Again, I don't know if the above is poor English, or if it is just a lack of understanding.

If you don't understand "not add random features that have players take camera control of others" based on this conversation you need to look inwards on that one bud. I'd be asking if you don't understand English yourself.

We are clearly talking about taunting taking control of camera and suddenly you are telling me you don't understand what I'm saying. I get you are on your limit on being respectful, this one is still reaching hard

I wish i could believe your experience, but some of the points you are bringing up seem to be lacking experience. Mixed with an absolute attitude and not seeing the bigger picture, while backing yourself with excuses (ie deciding something should be "support class" by your own bias view point even if part of that feature is already a skill shown in game). You will ignore valid points and logic and try to rework things around to your singular view point.

You are not a person anyone is looking validation for on ideas, you have some bad takes this being one of them (bunch of other people agreeing with me immensely on this one). And a lot of people don't want to spend the time to argue with you because it isn't worth it and how you approach things in a pretty negative attitude 50% of the time..

Mag7spy wrote: »

We are clearly talking about taunting taking control of camera and suddenly you are telling me you don't understand what I'm saying. I get you are on your limit on being respectful, this one is still reaching hard

To take means I take a thing that you have, and then I have it.

Thus, in order for me to take control of your camera in game, it would be required that I then have control of your camera.

That isn't the case.

This is why I am not sure if it is a language thing or an understanding thing. It could be either.

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

"Tank reduces dmg" is the most tab targety design ever, even if it's in an aura around the tank (cause tab games have auras too).

While I get what you're saying here, I disagree with this.

Tanks shouldn't reduce damage on others in a tab target game - perhaps redirect damage to the tank, but not reduce it.

Damage reduction in a tab target game should be the split betewen healers and support.

Obviously some games have tanks that can offer damage reduction to allies, but in general that seems to me to be because

Neurath wrote: »

I feel threat and aggro doesn't need to work on players, only on summons and combat pets. That way, the tank will be very useful indeed on the battlefield without loss of agency for the player.

This would make summoners near useless in PvP. Additionally, if I am coming up against a guild that I know happens to run several tanks, I'd just tell my summoners to log in on an alt for this fight - rendering the tanks useless as well.

I think any form of damage reduction buff that can be applied to others is a slippery slope. I also think it's a bard skill. I'd rather not have auras to contend with either because I hate static combat.

In regards to player agency, the term is kind of undefined. It has meanings ranging from players being able to affect change in the world, to players being in control.

The only consistent thing with the various definitions of player agency is that they all have no place at all in PvP discussions. Player agency in Ashes is in regard to the node system, not PvP.

Truthfully, as a term, player agency has no real place outside of tabletop RPG's, as that is still the only place it can be realized.

Nothing is worse than a one vs one when your opponent is actually 4+ vs one. It's the reason multiboxing is so controversial. We can't state whether a summoner would be useless because we haven't seen summoner, furthermore, the summoner can control the summons so player agency does come into the equation.

In a real situation no one is forced to attack anyone else in a battle. Forced target taunts are a piss poor way of implementing threat in pvp. The natural order of threat is support, dps then tank. To artificially change the dynamic means the tank is just bad all round.

Neurath wrote: »

We can't state whether a summoner would be useless because we haven't seen summoner, furthermore, the summoner can control the summons so player agency does come into the equation.

Control isn't what player agency is.

Player agency is the ability for players to say "lets build a village here", working towards that, and then there being a village there. It is about making change in the games world.

In a real situation no one is forced to attack anyone else in a battle. Forced target taunts are a piss poor way of implementing threat in pvp. The natural order of threat is support, dps then tank. To artificially change the dynamic means the tank is just bad all round.

If you are in a PvP situation, are rooted or snared in place and only have one player in your attack range, that is the exact same situation as being taunted (except you are rooted or snared). If you have no one in your attack range, you are in a worse situation.

Neither of the above two situations are at all uncommon - they happen multiple times a day to melee characters in PvP.

The point of this thread literally is to change that dynamic you are talking of above, because it makes tanks useless in PvP, and means they are the only class that has a different role in PvP and PvE. That is a dynamic that needs to be changed.

So, tanks have hard cc right now. You're saying the hard cc is pointless and needs to be changed? The whole point of tank having hard cc is because hard cc is effective. You want to make tanks have some sort of absorb damage ability. Sounds like a method to make pvp like pve in my eyes. In fact, hard cc has more place in pvp than in pve. Which means the current tank is more pvp focussed which it should be for pvx.

You can claim my view point relates to why the tank is bad in the current form but I'd rather have a pure tank than a bastardised version. Player agency relates to any action a player wishes to perform. For a pvp player who I attack is the epitome of player agency. You might not grasp player agency because of your rigid disposition to raiding and raid groups in general. However, in pvp player agency is key because there are personal targets and group targets. Not just group targets.

A forced target taunt would be bad because raids could field scores of tanks and pull an opposition raid to pieces. Or, damage absorption would mean the whole TTK will be extended whilst a tank is on the field, only problem would be you can have multiple tanks again and always have a tank on the field. These sorts of methods are good on paper but in actual terms they are bad because they affect the game overall and not the interactions between classes. Player agency is an important part of any MMORPG not just table top. After all, MMORPG is based on table top.

Depraved

Neurath wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

"Tank reduces dmg" is the most tab targety design ever, even if it's in an aura around the tank (cause tab games have auras too).

While I get what you're saying here, I disagree with this.

Tanks shouldn't reduce damage on others in a tab target game - perhaps redirect damage to the tank, but not reduce it.

Damage reduction in a tab target game should be the split betewen healers and support.

Obviously some games have tanks that can offer damage reduction to allies, but in general that seems to me to be because

Neurath wrote: »

I feel threat and aggro doesn't need to work on players, only on summons and combat pets. That way, the tank will be very useful indeed on the battlefield without loss of agency for the player.

This would make summoners near useless in PvP. Additionally, if I am coming up against a guild that I know happens to run several tanks, I'd just tell my summoners to log in on an alt for this fight - rendering the tanks useless as well.

I think any form of damage reduction buff that can be applied to others is a slippery slope. I also think it's a bard skill. I'd rather not have auras to contend with either because I hate static combat.

In regards to player agency, the term is kind of undefined. It has meanings ranging from players being able to affect change in the world, to players being in control.

The only consistent thing with the various definitions of player agency is that they all have no place at all in PvP discussions. Player agency in Ashes is in regard to the node system, not PvP.

Truthfully, as a term, player agency has no real place outside of tabletop RPG's, as that is still the only place it can be realized.

Nothing is worse than a one vs one when your opponent is actually 4+ vs one. It's the reason multiboxing is so controversial. We can't state whether a summoner would be useless because we haven't seen summoner, furthermore, the summoner can control the summons so player agency does come into the equation.

In a real situation no one is forced to attack anyone else in a battle. Forced target taunts are a piss poor way of implementing threat in pvp. The natural order of threat is support, dps then tank. To artificially change the dynamic means the tank is just bad all round.

well, tanks in PVP should be able to protect their supports and dps. one way is to have the tank give shields, reduced damage their teammates take, or take damage instead of them. debuff the opponents, cc the opponents, etc

tanks also need a way to make the enemies attack them instead of the supports and dps, because you are tankier and can take more punishment. otherwise whats the point?

forcing aggro is perfectly fine. the other options are giving the tank enough damage to kill enemies so that they are forced to dispatch you first, and we don't want that since we've seen what that does in other games, or give the tanks the ability to perma shield, cc, reduce damage for teammate, etc and just become another support that never dies plus now his teammates never die, and you also don't want that either. pick your poison.

a healthy mix of all of them Is reasonable though.

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

We are clearly talking about taunting taking control of camera and suddenly you are telling me you don't understand what I'm saying. I get you are on your limit on being respectful, this one is still reaching hard

To take means I take a thing that you have, and then I have it.

Thus, in order for me to take control of your camera in game, it would be required that I then have control of your camera.

That isn't the case.

This is why I am not sure if it is a language thing or an understanding thing. It could be either.

You are trying to argue semantics on forums right now, why waste pages and time doing this? Or is it that your bad attempt at a insult failed so you need to keep going with it.

This you talking about forced camera control?

Depraved wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

"Tank reduces dmg" is the most tab targety design ever, even if it's in an aura around the tank (cause tab games have auras too).

While I get what you're saying here, I disagree with this.

Tanks shouldn't reduce damage on others in a tab target game - perhaps redirect damage to the tank, but not reduce it.

Damage reduction in a tab target game should be the split betewen healers and support.

Obviously some games have tanks that can offer damage reduction to allies, but in general that seems to me to be because

Neurath wrote: »

I feel threat and aggro doesn't need to work on players, only on summons and combat pets. That way, the tank will be very useful indeed on the battlefield without loss of agency for the player.

This would make summoners near useless in PvP. Additionally, if I am coming up against a guild that I know happens to run several tanks, I'd just tell my summoners to log in on an alt for this fight - rendering the tanks useless as well.

I think any form of damage reduction buff that can be applied to others is a slippery slope. I also think it's a bard skill. I'd rather not have auras to contend with either because I hate static combat.

In regards to player agency, the term is kind of undefined. It has meanings ranging from players being able to affect change in the world, to players being in control.

The only consistent thing with the various definitions of player agency is that they all have no place at all in PvP discussions. Player agency in Ashes is in regard to the node system, not PvP.

Truthfully, as a term, player agency has no real place outside of tabletop RPG's, as that is still the only place it can be realized.

Nothing is worse than a one vs one when your opponent is actually 4+ vs one. It's the reason multiboxing is so controversial. We can't state whether a summoner would be useless because we haven't seen summoner, furthermore, the summoner can control the summons so player agency does come into the equation.

In a real situation no one is forced to attack anyone else in a battle. Forced target taunts are a piss poor way of implementing threat in pvp. The natural order of threat is support, dps then tank. To artificially change the dynamic means the tank is just bad all round.

well, tanks in PVP should be able to protect their supports and dps. one way is to have the tank give shields, reduced damage their teammates take, or take damage instead of them. debuff the opponents, cc the opponents, etc

tanks also need a way to make the enemies attack them instead of the supports and dps, because you are tankier and can take more punishment. otherwise whats the point?

forcing aggro is perfectly fine. the other options are giving the tank enough damage to kill enemies so that they are forced to dispatch you first, and we don't want that since we've seen what that does in other games, or give the tanks the ability to perma shield, cc, reduce damage for teammate, etc and just become another support that never dies plus now his teammates never die, and you also don't want that either. pick your poison.

a healthy mix of all of them Is reasonable though.

I'm all for tanks supporting the support and the dps. However, support and dps need to learn to use the terrain, class and skills properly. Not rely on a tank to shield them except when the shit hits the fan. There should be ways to dismantle the opposition raid through target selection, not through gimmicks because the gimmicks look better than pure damage. There is nothing stopping a tank building for pure damage - never has been and never will be. The issue remains on what skills the tank has to build around and a forced target taunt with support skills means the tank will be a one dimensional hump of junk.

Neurath wrote: »

So, tanks have hard cc right now. You're saying the hard cc is pointless and needs to be changed? The whole point of tank having hard cc is because hard cc is effective. You want to make tanks have some sort of absorb damage ability. Sounds like a method to make pvp like pve in my eyes. In fact, hard cc has more place in pvp than in pve. Which means the current tank is more pvp focussed which it should be for pvx.

You can claim my view point relates to why the tank is bad in the current form but I'd rather have a pure tank than a bastardised version. Player agency relates to any action a player wishes to perform. For a pvp player who I attack is the epitome of player agency. You might not grasp player agency because of your rigid disposition to raiding and raid groups in general. However, in pvp player agency is key because there are personal targets and group targets. Not just group targets.

I'm not really saying any of that.

What I am saying is that tanks exist to be the ones to take the bulk of hits from enemies.

That isn't the case for MMO PvP - meaning MMO PvP is broken in this regard.

Broken to the point where people don't even realize it is broken.

A forced target taunt would be bad because raids could field scores of tanks and pull an opposition raid to pieces.

Lets dissect this.

If a raid fiends scores of tanks, that means they have few DPS and healers. Since tanks can't really do a lot of damage or healing, just kill the tanks. Since you can't be taunted off of a tank if you are fighting it (as per the suggestion), the balanced raid shouldn't have an issue absolutely dismantling this tank heavy raid that can't heal or fight back.

If they do have a good number of tanks and healers, then they must be significantly outnumbering you. If they outnumber you AND have the coordernation to pull off the above, then you lost before the engagement even started.

Noaani wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

So, tanks have hard cc right now. You're saying the hard cc is pointless and needs to be changed? The whole point of tank having hard cc is because hard cc is effective. You want to make tanks have some sort of absorb damage ability. Sounds like a method to make pvp like pve in my eyes. In fact, hard cc has more place in pvp than in pve. Which means the current tank is more pvp focussed which it should be for pvx.

You can claim my view point relates to why the tank is bad in the current form but I'd rather have a pure tank than a bastardised version. Player agency relates to any action a player wishes to perform. For a pvp player who I attack is the epitome of player agency. You might not grasp player agency because of your rigid disposition to raiding and raid groups in general. However, in pvp player agency is key because there are personal targets and group targets. Not just group targets.

A forced target taunt would be bad because raids could field scores of tanks and pull an opposition raid to pieces. Or, damage absorption would mean the whole TTK will be extended whilst a tank is on the field, only problem would be you can have multiple tanks again and always have a tank on the field. These sorts of methods are good on paper but in actual terms they are bad because they affect the game overall and not the interactions between classes. Player agency is an important part of any MMORPG not just table top. After all, MMORPG is based on table top.

I,m not really saying any of that.

What I am saying is that tanks exist to be the ones to take the bulk of hits from enemies.

That isn't the case for MMO PvP - meaning MMO PvP is broken in this regard.

Broken to the point where people don't even realize it is broken.

A forced target taunt would be bad because raids could field scores of tanks and pull an opposition raid to pieces.

Lets dissect this.

If a raid fiends scores of tanks, that means they have few DPS and healers. Since tanks can't really do a lot of damage or healing, just kill the tanks. Since you can't be taunted off of a tank if you are fighting it (as per the suggestion), the balanced raid shouldn't have an issue absolutely dismantling this tank heavy raid that can't heal or fight back.

If they do have a good number of tanks and healers, then they must be significantly outnumberings you. If they outnumber you AND have the coordernation to pull off the above, then you lost before the engagement even started.

I'm not talking about an imbalanced raid, I'm talking about the core of tanks in general. If there are 500vs 500 you might have 50 tanks. That means 1 of 50 tanks can be in the thick of battle for the entire battle. Which means any auras, absorbs or group effects can almost always be activated. Its why WoW Paladin was bad in Vanilla for PvP. The WoW Paladin was extremely difficult to kill and could respawn and be back in the fight within seconds, thus, the fight boiled down to an eternal fight with a WoW Paladin.

An amalgamated tank will equal WoW Paladin in Vanilla. Its not good for pvp in any way. There must be strengths and weakness for a class and a raid in general. We have bard to boost the general effectiveness of a force, we don't also need a tank to do the same thing. The debate is quite difficult to have because I'm reliant on limited knowledge of Ashes tank and tanks in other games. I haven't seen all the classes for ashes or even seen the new classes in pvp. Thus, the debate on how tank should operate is haphazard at best.

Neurath wrote: »

I'm not talking about an imbalanced raid, I'm talking about the core of tanks in general. If there are 500vs 500 you might have 50 tanks. That means 1 of 50 tanks can be in the thick of battle for the entire battle. Which means any auras, absorbs or group effects can almost always be activated.

This is essentially why I am against the damage reduction suggestion in this thread, but it wouldn't really work for the taunt suggestion.

I agree with you that there must be strengths and weaknesses to all classes.

Healers heal others, but cant really deal any damage. DPS deal damage, but can't heal or take a hit.

A tanks strength is it's ability to take a hit. It cant heal or deal any real damage.

If players can just ignore tanks (as we all know we do), then tanks simply have two weaknesses and a strength that is just bypassed.

This is why it is broken - at least to me.

The only fix is to make it so players do not want to bypass tanks. This means that without adding damage or healing to a tank, something needs to be worked out to make players change their thinking to where tanks are who they want to kill first.