NiKr wrote: » Zyllos wrote: » The fact that they debuff a single target (and sometimes AoE, depending) while dealing damage, slowing the target, just being hell to the target they are attacking, might make them actually become a target, which is kind of the point of the idea. It's not forced, but it at least makes a Tank almost *act* like a tank in that it wants enemies to target him over others. By that definition, any support class with even just a few debuffs "acts" like a tank. This is exactly why we've been saying that tank should feel more unique.
Zyllos wrote: » The fact that they debuff a single target (and sometimes AoE, depending) while dealing damage, slowing the target, just being hell to the target they are attacking, might make them actually become a target, which is kind of the point of the idea. It's not forced, but it at least makes a Tank almost *act* like a tank in that it wants enemies to target him over others.
Neurath wrote: » I'd rather have threat stacks reduce a target's attack. You can still ignore a tank with a durational taunt. You can't ignore a tank with an inherent debuff the longer the tank engages. It would force multiple players to target the tank to protect the debuffed target. Could add debuff healing output too.
Neurath wrote: » You don't need to make pve and pvp the same. The whole point of the threat in pve is to make the target face the tank. Thus, durational taunts are negated overall. Forced target in pvp is also rubbish because a taunt would last 10 seconds max in a 30 to 60 second ttk.
Neurath wrote: » Also, healers don't deal with healers. Healers are either a group effort or targeted by healer killer classes. A healer on healer fight can last for hours with good mana management.
NiKr wrote: » Neurath wrote: » You don't need to make pve and pvp the same. The whole point of the threat in pve is to make the target face the tank. Thus, durational taunts are negated overall. Forced target in pvp is also rubbish because a taunt would last 10 seconds max in a 30 to 60 second ttk. 30-60ttk was most likely in context of small battles or even 1v1s. In a party vs party or anything bigger, ttk will vary wildly and will also depend on a ton of factors. And a few well-placed taunts could save your mate from getting semi-oneshot, because your healer's animation managed to go off before your mate was popped - which happened cause you redirected a big hit or two. And the same could apply the other way. The enemy player could've been assist-killed faster, because you managed to taunt the enemy healer's strong single target cast once or twice. Or this was done to your healer and someone on your side died. General debuffs (especially stack-based ones) would be much slower in their effect and would most likely not prevent the things I mentioned. Or at least they'd prevent them in the later stage of the fight, where the tank might get some attention either way because everyone else is either dead is incapable of proper battle. Neurath wrote: » Also, healers don't deal with healers. Healers are either a group effort or targeted by healer killer classes. A healer on healer fight can last for hours with good mana management. I meant the "reduce incoming/outgoing healing on target", "change incoming healing to dmg on target", "burn mana (in all kinds, shapes and forms)" and all the other interactions between healer classes. I wasn't talking about just "kill the dude" stuff. Also, tanks being a more viable first stage target would work perfectly with a deeper inter-healer gameplay. Instead of the party's main goal being "just kill their healer and we're good", the pvp approach becomes "reduce their healer's viability, concentrate on the tank and protect our own tank". Add to this some short-range debuffs on the bards that synergize with the healer debuffs or tank's actions and you have yourself a pretty deep interconnected and complex pvp fight. "Assist-kill the healer before tank manages to stack his taunt" is not that complex imo.
Neurath wrote: » A forced target taunts does little in the way of good gameplay for a tank. It's just a gimmick. Your scenarios are rare at best.
Neurath wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Neurath wrote: » You don't need to make pve and pvp the same. The whole point of the threat in pve is to make the target face the tank. Thus, durational taunts are negated overall. Forced target in pvp is also rubbish because a taunt would last 10 seconds max in a 30 to 60 second ttk. 30-60ttk was most likely in context of small battles or even 1v1s. In a party vs party or anything bigger, ttk will vary wildly and will also depend on a ton of factors. And a few well-placed taunts could save your mate from getting semi-oneshot, because your healer's animation managed to go off before your mate was popped - which happened cause you redirected a big hit or two. And the same could apply the other way. The enemy player could've been assist-killed faster, because you managed to taunt the enemy healer's strong single target cast once or twice. Or this was done to your healer and someone on your side died. General debuffs (especially stack-based ones) would be much slower in their effect and would most likely not prevent the things I mentioned. Or at least they'd prevent them in the later stage of the fight, where the tank might get some attention either way because everyone else is either dead is incapable of proper battle. Neurath wrote: » Also, healers don't deal with healers. Healers are either a group effort or targeted by healer killer classes. A healer on healer fight can last for hours with good mana management. I meant the "reduce incoming/outgoing healing on target", "change incoming healing to dmg on target", "burn mana (in all kinds, shapes and forms)" and all the other interactions between healer classes. I wasn't talking about just "kill the dude" stuff. Also, tanks being a more viable first stage target would work perfectly with a deeper inter-healer gameplay. Instead of the party's main goal being "just kill their healer and we're good", the pvp approach becomes "reduce their healer's viability, concentrate on the tank and protect our own tank". Add to this some short-range debuffs on the bards that synergize with the healer debuffs or tank's actions and you have yourself a pretty deep interconnected and complex pvp fight. "Assist-kill the healer before tank manages to stack his taunt" is not that complex imo. You want to make the tank ill effective overall. A forced target taunts does little in the way of good gameplay for a tank. It's just a gimmick. Your scenarios are rare at best. A stacked debuff is rapid engagement with multiple sources of threat much like the current tank build. It can also be refreshed until a target is dead. Tank would be a rolling bulwark instead of a roaming glow stick.
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: » 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.
Azherae wrote: » 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 As I said before, Forced Target taunt is the 'easy' solution. I have been working on the 'Hard' one for literally years. I have spent way more hours designing/developing/testing the sort of thing you want, @Mag7spy than 'caring about how a Forced Target Taunt works'. Now, you can conclude that I just 'haven't worked hard enough at it' when I say that even after those years of design I'm still not confident that it would be better, but right now I'm only echoing what NiKr says. It is possible to put much more effort into thinking about this than into the 'posting in this thread' and still come to the same conclusions. I've been working on this technically 'longer than Ashes has been reasonably well known to the public' and the design still has holes. All you've done so far in this conversation is 'bring up solutions that have already failed to produce Steven's apparent goal'.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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 As I said before, Forced Target taunt is the 'easy' solution. I have been working on the 'Hard' one for literally years. I have spent way more hours designing/developing/testing the sort of thing you want, @Mag7spy than 'caring about how a Forced Target Taunt works'. Now, you can conclude that I just 'haven't worked hard enough at it' when I say that even after those years of design I'm still not confident that it would be better, but right now I'm only echoing what NiKr says. It is possible to put much more effort into thinking about this than into the 'posting in this thread' and still come to the same conclusions. I've been working on this technically 'longer than Ashes has been reasonably well known to the public' and the design still has holes. All you've done so far in this conversation is 'bring up solutions that have already failed to produce Steven's apparent goal'. It doesn't need to be perfect is the thing, looking at the other tools the class has is also important. The main core shouldn't be about forcing people to attack you but overall disruption and your effect on the battlefield. One example is if a line of dps go in and are dying quickly not able to do anything. Where if you have tanks and bruiser types going in not dying, some some dmg, and hampering the effectives of the enemies they are fighting stopping dmg being done to the rest of their allies, reducing their healing, wasting their cooldowns, causing additional movement etc. I'd say having features in the class that naturally provide both repulsive effects that push people away to be more defensive and also effects that cause people to want to attack them. That should be the identity at the core any the multiple means to approach that.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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 As I said before, Forced Target taunt is the 'easy' solution. I have been working on the 'Hard' one for literally years. I have spent way more hours designing/developing/testing the sort of thing you want, @Mag7spy than 'caring about how a Forced Target Taunt works'. Now, you can conclude that I just 'haven't worked hard enough at it' when I say that even after those years of design I'm still not confident that it would be better, but right now I'm only echoing what NiKr says. It is possible to put much more effort into thinking about this than into the 'posting in this thread' and still come to the same conclusions. I've been working on this technically 'longer than Ashes has been reasonably well known to the public' and the design still has holes. All you've done so far in this conversation is 'bring up solutions that have already failed to produce Steven's apparent goal'. It doesn't need to be perfect is the thing, looking at the other tools the class has is also important. The main core shouldn't be about forcing people to attack you but overall disruption and your effect on the battlefield. One example is if a line of dps go in and are dying quickly not able to do anything. Where if you have tanks and bruiser types going in not dying, some some dmg, and hampering the effectives of the enemies they are fighting stopping dmg being done to the rest of their allies, reducing their healing, wasting their cooldowns, causing additional movement etc. I'd say having features in the class that naturally provide both repulsive effects that push people away to be more defensive and also effects that cause people to want to attack them. That should be the identity at the core any the multiple means to approach that. Y'know what, fine, I'm in a 'mental autopilot' mode today anyway. The first wrong thing here is that in game balance for a properly competitive game, it DOES need to be perfect or as close to perfect as possible. A designer should be able to look at something and go 'within my goals, this is not perfect enough'. Most players can do that, which is why we're foolishly here arguing with you. Because YOU keep going 'The class kit should achieve the goal and not cause this specific problem we hate!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dKvletfSo So tell me this, are you up for a long conversation about all the details of this? I've got years of data to go through with you if you are. Or are you going to just go 'well the Devs should solve it, just not in a way that upsets me'. And one more time just in case you aren't focused on it, and I will repeat this as many times as is necessary:"I don't even want forced taunt, I just am not willing to ask Developers to try to make an Open World PvX Fantasy Trinity Based MMORPG without it. Here's the first (flawed) part of my group's design answer: "The Paladin can put a Mark on a Target. Whenever that Target attacks a target other than the Paladin, the Paladin gets to use an extra melee attack/recharges a resource/lowers a cooldown (depends on which form of the game is being considered). A Target can only have one Mark from one Paladin, and they have an indicator which Paladin applied the Mark to them." Based on your perspective so far, this + zone control should be enough. Basically, this 'should be able to replace a Taunt'.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » 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 As I said before, Forced Target taunt is the 'easy' solution. I have been working on the 'Hard' one for literally years. I have spent way more hours designing/developing/testing the sort of thing you want, @Mag7spy than 'caring about how a Forced Target Taunt works'. Now, you can conclude that I just 'haven't worked hard enough at it' when I say that even after those years of design I'm still not confident that it would be better, but right now I'm only echoing what NiKr says. It is possible to put much more effort into thinking about this than into the 'posting in this thread' and still come to the same conclusions. I've been working on this technically 'longer than Ashes has been reasonably well known to the public' and the design still has holes. All you've done so far in this conversation is 'bring up solutions that have already failed to produce Steven's apparent goal'. It doesn't need to be perfect is the thing, looking at the other tools the class has is also important. The main core shouldn't be about forcing people to attack you but overall disruption and your effect on the battlefield. One example is if a line of dps go in and are dying quickly not able to do anything. Where if you have tanks and bruiser types going in not dying, some some dmg, and hampering the effectives of the enemies they are fighting stopping dmg being done to the rest of their allies, reducing their healing, wasting their cooldowns, causing additional movement etc. I'd say having features in the class that naturally provide both repulsive effects that push people away to be more defensive and also effects that cause people to want to attack them. That should be the identity at the core any the multiple means to approach that. Y'know what, fine, I'm in a 'mental autopilot' mode today anyway. The first wrong thing here is that in game balance for a properly competitive game, it DOES need to be perfect or as close to perfect as possible. A designer should be able to look at something and go 'within my goals, this is not perfect enough'. Most players can do that, which is why we're foolishly here arguing with you. Because YOU keep going 'The class kit should achieve the goal and not cause this specific problem we hate!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dKvletfSo So tell me this, are you up for a long conversation about all the details of this? I've got years of data to go through with you if you are. Or are you going to just go 'well the Devs should solve it, just not in a way that upsets me'. And one more time just in case you aren't focused on it, and I will repeat this as many times as is necessary:"I don't even want forced taunt, I just am not willing to ask Developers to try to make an Open World PvX Fantasy Trinity Based MMORPG without it. Here's the first (flawed) part of my group's design answer: "The Paladin can put a Mark on a Target. Whenever that Target attacks a target other than the Paladin, the Paladin gets to use an extra melee attack/recharges a resource/lowers a cooldown (depends on which form of the game is being considered). A Target can only have one Mark from one Paladin, and they have an indicator which Paladin applied the Mark to them." Based on your perspective so far, this + zone control should be enough. Basically, this 'should be able to replace a Taunt'. I'm down to listen and ready but I don't want o go in circles, I had to do that already in this thread with 3 people. I said my part so I'm fine with leaving it at that over just debating it. our view points are different on things we most likely would have to have a longer talk to come to a better understanding but we have made some progress so far. I also don't view any game as perfect, even the most competitive games are constantly having reworks done with balances and adjustments. I'd said my view point on it with some methods that could be done and that there are other methods. The thing is what has irked me is the concept where there is only one way to do thing and nothing else can ever work kind of mentality, on top of picking the worse way to solve it without considering how others will feel and how it will affect gameplay.Your idea Could be one way to solve it for sure, I'd expect multiple since there will be augments that will make things feel a little bit more unique per class. Could be a more dmg focused tank type if you gain dmg or lowering your cooldowns, a lot of ways to view it tbh. Based on my suggestion of being within a certain range it could work like that with the mark as well. Though that alone isn't enough it depends on how the rest of the kit functions between your cc, snares, disrupting types of effects, dmg reduction types of effects, etc. Again i mentioned a lot of this stuff so i don't really want to repeat myself on everything again and we end up going back in circles. What i talked about was creating situations where it is beneficial to attack the tank and having skills around that. If something causes that, than that is good to me as the point we are trying to get across is have players not ignore the tank. If it does that is it not a successful class since people aren't just ignoring it? This is more than i wanted to write as well, since I'm working now.
Azherae wrote: » If you think of any flaws in that solution, lmk, otherwise let's just assume Intrepid will solve it, and you can count me as 'having provided an alternative'.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » If you think of any flaws in that solution, lmk, otherwise let's just assume Intrepid will solve it, and you can count me as 'having provided an alternative'. If we assume that the tank has to be close to the marked target, what happens if the target gets pulled/pushed/blinks/dashes outside of the range of the aoe? Would the mark stay? What about the effect? If effect stays, what's the grace period before it's removed? To me that seems like the biggest potential flaw so far. The biggest annoyance for the enemy with this mechanic would most likely be "the entire tank's party get incoming damage reduced by big % per hit from the marked target not against tank". The mark would then go on the highest enemy dps most of the time, to maximize its usefulness. And unless the aura's aoe is high or the grace period is long - the dps will just move or get moved away from the tank, at which point the tank either gets immobilized somehow or his Mark is just on CD so the enemy dps gets some good shots against anyone else. Pretty much any other boost to the tank wouldn't have enough annoyance (unless we're making an OP tank). This also disregards any buffer/healer-type class, so tank's role gets reduced somewhat, but I'd be willing to be ok with that considering that main goal is to just decrease incoming damage to your party (even if stopping buffer/healer accomplishes that in the long run).
Neurath wrote: » What would a ultra defensive tank hard counter? Nothing because it can't kill anyone.
