Depraved wrote: » Neurath wrote: » 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. how about a tab targetted game where a bunch of archers click you and you die instantly? how are you going to use the terrain against that? or ur kit? unless u just decide to stay hidden and don't come out. there's nothing wrong with a tank taunting to protect their allies. also, tanks building for damage..sure u can, but I'm talking about a character that doesn't die, can kill you in 2 seconds as if it was a dps hitting you, cc, etc. we don't want that to happen
Neurath wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Neurath wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Neurath wrote: » 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. how about a tab targetted game where a bunch of archers click you and you die instantly? how are you going to use the terrain against that? or ur kit? unless u just decide to stay hidden and don't come out. there's nothing wrong with a tank taunting to protect their allies. also, tanks building for damage..sure u can, but I'm talking about a character that doesn't die, can kill you in 2 seconds as if it was a dps hitting you, cc, etc. we don't want that to happen I can't tell you if you can die in 2 seconds. TTK was meant to be 30 to 60 seconds but of course we've seen very little pvp since people were dying in 5 seconds or less. That was in a 3vs3. In your scenario you'd need multiple rangers on one target. What use is one taunt for a set duration in such a circumstance?
Neurath wrote: » I'm not sure an aoe taunt with the same range as a ranger is good. It sounds extremely unbalanced in fact. Noaani mentioned summoners would be gimped if taunt worked on summons and combat pets but your taunt would gimp anyone in the range of a ranger...from one tank lol.
Neurath wrote: » I would call it a suicide dash/suicide button. Focused fire is a valid tactic in massed pvp. It is difficult to pull off due to positioning too. There is risk/reward. Why a tank would decide to throw an aoe taunt to take focused fire is beyond my capability to comprehend. I guess a tanks life is worth less than a healers life but a life would be lost either way. I guess we have combat res.
Neurath wrote: » Yes, I understand your position but the augments are a real issue. If you add damage to the tank then the damage augments add even more damage, if you add healing to the tank then the healing augments add even more healing to the tank. Thus, the parameters would be difficult to mitigate or balance. Its not a simple class system at all in ashes and I find a lot of suggestions are already in place when specific augments are chosen. Therefore, I feel most of the tank types are catered for without drastic change to the base class. It's all well and good to state the base tank is naff. I've done it several times but the base tank is only the base and not a finished class. Augments will finish the class. There must be a balanced approach to the base class so that the augments actually change the class. Its no good to amalgamate all the augment trees into the base class and then just add flavour when the secondary class is chosen. I find the debate rather futile until we see a full class shown. I see plenty of red flags all over, hence I try to choose my words with care.
Neurath wrote: » I'm not sure what your aim is in terms of the tank because from my stand point a tank can be melee or ranged.
Neurath wrote: » Sword and board should rely on active block and counter play. It makes no sense to make sword and board defensive.
Not required in Ashes due to the base class skill set. There are already ample methods of defense for the tank. You can build a control tank, evasion tank or protection tank. What we have seen isn't even the true tank. Its a shell of what the tank will become.
When any class can build defensive due to armour, stats and disposition there is less need for tanks to be so rigid in the disposition.
Neurath wrote: » I meant Active Block should be utilised by Sword and Shield rather than a Class Skill being placed on Sword and Shield for block/defense. I also believe Shield Bash should be removed from Tank and put onto Sword and Board. Shield bash isn't a defensive skill per say. Active Block is defensive but its not a class skill. Any class can use active block and it would make sense for active block to be better with a shield for any class. Hence why the focus was on active block, counterplay and attack for sword and board.
Mag7spy wrote: » If you put the same energy into writing these post, and looked for flaws on having skills that control people to different degrees and elements. Would you'd understand the issue and realize its not viable lol.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » If you put the same energy into writing these post, and looked for flaws on having skills that control people to different degrees and elements. Would you'd understand the issue and realize its not viable lol. We've already thought about how it'll influence the players. We just came to a different conclusion from yours
Mag7spy wrote: » But you also said tab is a solution xD
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » But you also said tab is a solution xD Tab is A solution. Moving in a way to keep your preferred target between you and the tank is another one, and an action one. I mentioned build-based stat solution before as well. And potentially a buff-based one, so that your party matters (cause the buff would come from a support or maybe your own tank). The game could have all 4 of those and you'd have yourself a huge range of solutions, from a purely skill-based to a "rely on others to save you" one. All w/o making tanks super OP, while keeping them with their unique playstyle that works in both pve and pvp.
Mag7spy wrote: » The thing is you are saying you thought about how it influences on other players and want to add a new feature where your solution is don't use action camera and start swapping back and forth. Do you still not see the issue?
