Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Aggro/Threat mechanics don't work in PvX

LodrigLodrig Member
edited May 2023 in General Discussion
MMORPG's have traditionally used a system of mob AI called Aggro in which a mob will preferentially attack player characters which perform certain actions, primarily that of dealing damage to the mob but later expanded to things like healing friendly characters. This was a simple AI which fit the constraints of early computer processor cycles while producing mob behavior which was better than the most primitive system of just attacking the nearest target or most recent attacker. Such simplistic AI would have allowed trivially easy control of what character a mob attacked making for dull and unchallenging PvE.

Under aggro systems Tanking classes were given special skills which move them up the mob priority list despite a low damage output from the Tank. In essence they break the otherwise effective AI of a mob and force it into inefficiently attacking the character most resistant to that attack. So long as mobs are balanced around this mechanic the gameplay is reasonably compelling mix of puzzle, timing and teamwork and it makes the Tanks role of being a meat-shield far more skillful and enjoyable then it would otherwise be if it was completely passive.

The problem is that these whole dynamic collapses when the opponent is not an AI but instead another player with full awareness of how the game works and full freedom to attack whomever they wish. And yet Tanking IS a viable class in most PvP games because Tanks are built differently in such games so as to make opposing players either rationally choose to attack the tank rather than another target or allow the Tank to create situations in which opponents have no other option but to attack them thus expending offensive potential inefficiently.

AoC would be far better off replicating Tank design from PvP games such as Overwatch and LoL and pairing them with mob AI's that seek to replicate the rational choices that a human would make in combat that cause them to attack Tanks. This will allow Tank gameplay to be consistent from PvE to PvP.

Well established PvP Tank mechanics include targeted pull effects, silence or other enemy DPS reductions, 'vaulting' into the middle of enemy groupings, increased damage potential when surrounded, projectile shields and movement barriers.

Some new methods which might be explored would be 'blinding' type effects on opponents which allow only nearby characters to be seen and attacked. An effect which leashes a melee opponent to remain within a short distance of the Tank. A damage redirection from nearby allies towards the Tank. I'm sure other skills can be created which provide control of enemy damage which would be effective on both players and AI.
«13456715

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    We've talked about this on the forum in years past. My opinion has always been that threat/hate/aggro is still the best method anyone has come up with for PvE, and so should remain for that reason alone.

    However, since it doesnt work in PvP, my thoughts are to turn that threat mechanic in PvP to a forced target instead.

    Perhaps make it as simple as taunts working as a forced target status effect on the target, with the strength of the taunt acting as a countdown timer to determine the duration.

    This is a much better solution that just dropping threat from PvE, imo. Since Intrepid seem fairly set on the idea of giving tanks a lot of CC (battlefield control is what they say), this seems to me like it would fit in just fine.
  • LodrigLodrig Member
    I'm not surprised it's come up before, it's such an obvious incongruity between PvE and PvP, as for Aggro being 'best' in PvE I'm inclined to think your preference is for the Dynamics of active Tanking and your comparing Aggro mechanics to the even more primitive AI's that preceded it or the uncontrollability of battle when a threat generating tank is absent from a mob which is designed to be handled with exactly that tool. I don't think anyone would question that Tanking needs to be control who is being attacked.

    But I do not see any reason why the PvP style Tank abilities would not make for good active Tank gameplay, if anything it should be better because it's more positional and dynamic rather than just pushing yourself up a 1-dimensional threat ranking.

    I'm a bit skeptical of trying to make the threat generation of a Tank effect a Player, first off, it's going to remove agency from the opponent is a very severe and frustrating way, even the most aggressive control mechanic I'm imagining give the opponent some counter-play options. Second an amount of threat from one target is only relevant with respect to another targets, aka to create a threat ranking to determine who to attack so all damage is going to need to be tabulated and managed and in a large battle that's going to be nigh unmanageable. Lastly a mob is going to attack someone every chance it gets and generally has unlimited attack potential, but a player, even if there forcibly tabbed over to the Tank can choose to not attack and reserve their mana for when they regain control, that could lead to both sides trying to wait each other out and make for excessively slow combat.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited May 2023
    Forced target taunts are acceptable. Other games have used them and others have too. The whole point of a forced target taunt is to limit the player agency of the target. It is to slow down the combat and it is to prevent someone from freely targeting a more valuable target. We are a PvX game, not just a PvP game.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Lodrig wrote: »
    But I do not see any reason why the PvP style Tank abilities would not make for good active Tank gameplay, if anything it should be better because it's more positional and dynamic rather than just pushing yourself up a 1-dimensional threat ranking
    The reason threat mechanics are better for PvE than anything anyone else has come up with is due to many things.

    However, probably the biggest point to make, at least imo, is that threat dynamics in a good MMO are not at all one dimensional.

    An example of this from a specific game I have played is in relation to hate generation not being static. Perhaps a mob hates fire more than most (treant, perhaps). On such a mob, attacks that deal fire damage generate two or even three times the hate. Or perhaps a mob is robotic in some manner, any healer using nature based heals generates much more hate against these mobs.

    As a mechanic, threat/hate/aggro can go REALLY deep.

    As to your concerns about players not having counterplays - in every game with deep hate mechanics that I have played, DPS and most healers have access to a de-taunt - an ability that lowers their hate towards the target.

    This is a clear counterplay to a taunt.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Also, the combat wouldn't slow down for the party. If anything, when one member is taunted - the other 7 gotta pick up the pace, because that one member might be dying any moment now. And if it's the healer that's taunted, oooohh - you're in trouble!
  • LodrigLodrig Member
    edited May 2023
    Noaani your statement 'that anyone else has come up with' would imply that you have compared my suggestion to the Aggro paradigm and found it inferior. But I don't think that's what you actually mean, rather you're trying to say that 'amongst published MMORPG's there exists no better method' and you're not interested in untested alternatives for AoC. Do I have that correct?

    As for differential hate generation from actions is still one dimensional because there is only one hate ranking list, don't confuse having many different +/- inputs to something with dimensionality.

    NiKr, why is a taunted player about to die? Taunts aren't damage and under the proposed forced-tabing the taunted player is still free to retreat, receive heals and presumably use self-targeting abilities or items. If taunting a healer means they can't heal any allies then that's going to make taunts effectively a silence on them and would probably be OP.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Lodrig wrote: »
    As for differential hate generation from actions is still one dimensional because there is only one hate ranking list, don't confuse having many different +/- inputs to something with dimensionality.
    HP pools are also singular in their nature, but there's a ton of ways of interacting with them (even if the main goal is to just bring it down). Same could be applied to hate lists.
    Lodrig wrote: »
    why is a taunted player about to die? Taunts aren't damage and under the proposed forced-tabing the taunted player is still free to retreat, receive heals and presumably use self-targeting abilities or items. If taunting a healer means they can't heal any allies then that's going to make taunts effectively a silence on them and would probably be OP.
    In my experience of playing a tank with a pvp taunt, it was used in 3 scenarios. I was either saving my healer from a rogue that wanted to kill him (which then led to assist hits on that rogue to remove him) or I was aggroing the enemy dps to stop them from dpsing, which usually let my own rogues close in on that mage and remove him. The third scenario was just taunting the enemy healer to prevent them from using single target strong heals, but healers are always a target to die so if I was on the healer - he'd be seconds away from dying or at least from my party assist hitting him.

    That was in a tab target game that moved your target to the tank every so often, if the aggro debuff was on you. We don't know how Intrepid will design their own taunts, so my experience might not apply here, but my main point was that the combat would not slow down, because the fight would now be 7v8, which requires those 7 players to output more. The same applies when a player dies and needs to be resurrected.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited May 2023
    Lodrig wrote: »
    Noaani your statement 'that anyone else has come up with' would imply that you have compared my suggestion to the Aggro paradigm and found it inferior. But I don't think that's what you actually mean, rather you're trying to say that 'amongst published MMORPG's there exists no better method' and you're not interested in untested alternatives for AoC. Do I have that correct?
    I abslutely are talking about all published MMO's, but also a number of unpublished MMO's that I have tested.

    The problem with your suggestion is that it is still relying on a threat list - because that is what people do in PvP. You are constantly assessing and reassessing which target is the most important to attack at any point in time - and that is literally what a threat list a mob in PvE is doing. At any given point in time I have a player that I consider the most important to try and take out, and the player that is next most important, and usually a third after that. That is a threat list.

    Threat lists as per PvE content exist as a means of emulating this.

    The only difference here is that the mechanic tanks have to put themselves at the top of the list is a taunt. Other players are still assessed via damage output, healing, buffing, debuffing and CC.
    Lodrig wrote: »
    As for differential hate generation from actions is still one dimensional because there is only one hate ranking list, don't confuse having many different +/- inputs to something with dimensionality.

    At the very least, the point I made above proves that hate lists can be two dimensional, rather than always having to be one.

    Having multiple hate lists is but one way of taking a one dimensional thing and making it two dimensional, but not the only way.

    This is kind of like looking at something with forward and backwards movement and saying the only way to make it two dimensional is to add up and down movement as well - totally ignoring left and right movement.

    That said, with the above suggestions, when you have a multi-mob encounter where different mobs within the same encounter have different modifiers to their hate list - yeah, it's kind of three dimensional because the fight contains multiple individual hate lists that are each functioning differently.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Lodrig wrote: »
    I'm not surprised it's come up before, it's such an obvious incongruity between PvE and PvP, as for Aggro being 'best' in PvE I'm inclined to think your preference is for the Dynamics of active Tanking and your comparing Aggro mechanics to the even more primitive AI's that preceded it or the uncontrollability of battle when a threat generating tank is absent from a mob which is designed to be handled with exactly that tool. I don't think anyone would question that Tanking needs to be control who is being attacked.

    But I do not see any reason why the PvP style Tank abilities would not make for good active Tank gameplay, if anything it should be better because it's more positional and dynamic rather than just pushing yourself up a 1-dimensional threat ranking.

    I'm a bit skeptical of trying to make the threat generation of a Tank effect a Player, first off, it's going to remove agency from the opponent is a very severe and frustrating way, even the most aggressive control mechanic I'm imagining give the opponent some counter-play options. Second an amount of threat from one target is only relevant with respect to another targets, aka to create a threat ranking to determine who to attack so all damage is going to need to be tabulated and managed and in a large battle that's going to be nigh unmanageable. Lastly a mob is going to attack someone every chance it gets and generally has unlimited attack potential, but a player, even if there forcibly tabbed over to the Tank can choose to not attack and reserve their mana for when they regain control, that could lead to both sides trying to wait each other out and make for excessively slow combat.

    you aggro their dps so that they are hitting you and not your healer. if their dps stops attacking you during the taunt duration, that's fine, you are doing your job...they arent hitting your healer. your healer just gotta be careful with aoes :D

  • DiamahtDiamaht Member, Braver of Worlds, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I would prefer to keep the traditional mechanics in PvE. Simply have the taunt abilities have different effects on players.

    SWTOR for example has the taunt abilities reduce the damage output of the enemy for the duration. I know some games have used taunt abilities to force opponents to drop targets or even to allow only the tank to be targeted.

    We wouldn't have to reinvent anything, just impliment pvp effects to existing abilities.

    Be careful about too much CC attached to things though. That can get out of hand and frustrating pretty quickly.
  • Argonath89Argonath89 Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    We've talked about this on the forum in years past. My opinion has always been that threat/hate/aggro is still the best method anyone has come up with for PvE, and so should remain for that reason alone.

    However, since it doesnt work in PvP, my thoughts are to turn that threat mechanic in PvP to a forced target instead.

    Perhaps make it as simple as taunts working as a forced target status effect on the target, with the strength of the taunt acting as a countdown timer to determine the duration.

    This is a much better solution that just dropping threat from PvE, imo. Since Intrepid seem fairly set on the idea of giving tanks a lot of CC (battlefield control is what they say), this seems to me like it would fit in just fine.

    I like the idea of taunts in PvP to cause target to switch in tab target way. It would only be temporary of course. If the game allows, a tank standing in front of a fireball or arrow should intercept that attack. Does AoC allow this?
  • GarrtokGarrtok Member, Alpha Two
    edited June 2023
    You dont say... There are plenty of pvp MMOs that gave tanks anyways a purpose like warhammer online or daoc. Nothing new, no need to look at lol or overwatch or such nonsense

    Most prominent mechanics are a "guard" function where you can absorb damage from your guarded teammate, and pvp taunts were your enemy is doing less damage against targets that are not you.
  • RazThemunRazThemun Member, Alpha Two
    They could simply create a taunt ability that forces another player to focus on you for lets say 15 seconds. During that 15 seconds they can not target anyone but the tank... tanks then would have some control but would still need to time it well so they can keep that focus for a short period of time
  • VaknarVaknar Member, Staff
    edited June 2023
    I appreciate the post!

    This is certainly a topic that has come up before and we know it is important! :)

    We want to make the Tank Archetype and Tank Classes feel impactful and fun to play in both PvE and PvP. We're excited to show off more of the Tank kit, and the Tank in PvP action as soon as it's ready! ^_^

    For the time being, seeing your thoughts and opinions on this subject certainly helps the team! ;)
    community_management.gif
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I`m not sure of the argument of why aggro does not work in pvp.

    I recall many intense fights in L2 where the enemy tank continually pulled my focus from the players I had targetted on to them.. I remember a 20min pvp fight with a tank with my hawkeye.. I could not kill him kiting, he could not catch me.

    Seemed to work fine..
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    akabear wrote: »
    I`m not sure of the argument of why aggro does not work in pvp.

    I recall many intense fights in L2 where the enemy tank continually pulled my focus from the players I had targetted on to them.. I remember a 20min pvp fight with a tank with my hawkeye.. I could not kill him kiting, he could not catch me.

    Seemed to work fine..

    Well, yeah.

    That is because L2's taunting worked that way specifically. The way they worked is one of the ways discussed in this thread.
  • IskiabIskiab Member, Alpha Two
    edited June 2023
    Garrtok wrote: »
    You dont say... There are plenty of pvp MMOs that gave tanks anyways a purpose like warhammer online or daoc. Nothing new, no need to look at lol or overwatch or such nonsense

    Most prominent mechanics are a "guard" function where you can absorb damage from your guarded teammate, and pvp taunts were your enemy is doing less damage against targets that are not you.

    Warhammer guarding led to some unintended consequences. Usually a tank would guard a bright wizard who would spam aoe, then an engineer would aoe pull people into the bright wizard.

    It worked amazing, but guarding a glass canon build was a little overpowered.

    Better to give a reason for people to not ignore tanks in PvP and leave PvE threat alone. People generally still ignored the tanks and it made bright wizards OP.
  • GarrtokGarrtok Member, Alpha Two
    Iskiab wrote: »
    Garrtok wrote: »
    You dont say... There are plenty of pvp MMOs that gave tanks anyways a purpose like warhammer online or daoc. Nothing new, no need to look at lol or overwatch or such nonsense

    Most prominent mechanics are a "guard" function where you can absorb damage from your guarded teammate, and pvp taunts were your enemy is doing less damage against targets that are not you.

    Warhammer guarding led to some unintended consequences. Usually a tank would guard a bright wizard who would spam aoe, then an engineer would aoe pull people into the bright wizard.

    It worked amazing, but guarding a glass canon build was a little overpowered.

    Better to give a reason for people to not ignore tanks in PvP and leave PvE threat alone. People generally still ignored the tanks and it made bright wizards OP.

    But then it's the people's fault. When they don't get the mechanic, that they should attack the tank instead of the DD then it should be strong
  • NuubNuub Member, Alpha Two
    edited June 2023
    I don't recall where i heard the idea, but it was suggested that tanks give protection to their allies in pvp. I imagine an implementation like party/raid near tank take x%less damage, or tank can intervene and force taunt a player for x sec. or AoE taunt players for x sec. that would be really effective as a tank. I'm sure the community and devs can come up with better mechanics, but I thought that was a great idea, and would make the tank a pvp priority similar to how the healer is, which is the whole point of being a tank, right?
  • FantmxFantmx Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I wrote an article 10 years ago about my idealized PvE system using Utility AI. Ah, Storybricks, I wish you had been made.

    In the absence of some like this I think the current process for PvE anyways is fine.

    As for PvP Steven has specifically said they are making the traditional PvE tank skills viable for PvP as well.
    q1nu38cjgq3j.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited June 2023
    Nuub wrote: »
    I don't recall where i heard the idea, but it was suggested that tanks give protection to their allies in pvp.

    The problem I - and some others - have with this is that it takes a tank class performing a tank role in PvE to a tank class performing a support/buff role in PvP.

    To me, all classes should perform the same role in PvE and PvP - or at least be designed to be able to perform the same role.
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    Most things I've read in this ongoing discussion have boiled down to a few points that I personally deem viable.
    1. The CC-machine

    On the battlefield a tank has a big disadvantage: He is less mobile than basically all other Archetypes and has lower damage potential. But just like in PvE encounters, the tanks primary objective is damage denial to the group and that wheel doesn't need to be reinvented for PvP encountered, Tanks simply need tools that allow them to do the same in these situations.

    So giving Tanks the ability to reduce movement speed, to temporarily disable mobility skills of others or to pull them back would be viable options to make them threats that are difficult to ignore.


    2. The Shieldbreaker

    A tank is an expert in defense so it wouldn't be too surprising if they also were expert in whittleling down defenses of others. This would make them especially dangerous against big, strong targets like other tanks, bruisers, bosses and structures. In a siege battle taking down tanks would make sense before they weaken the defense of structures too much. However, this effect should be - compared to others a slow build rather than a spike.

    And for all those wondering "how can just being beefy oneself make someone able to reduce other peoples defense?" I would point to the 'magical nature' of the Essence where continuous immersing in one mastery will increase ones power over this field of expertise.

    3. Commander

    A tank in the hero story sense often is the brave one jumping in first, leading his fellowship into battle. It would be an interesting mechanic to have the presence of tanks boost the defense of nearby allies, making the task of taking down a tank first a reasonable proposition to cut through the rest of the enemies faster.

    This might be a feature primarily explored through Cleric and Bard augments.


    I think with various combinations of these 3 solutions we could see incentives in PvP to not ignore tanks on the battlefield.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • Iskiab wrote: »
    Garrtok wrote: »
    You dont say... There are plenty of pvp MMOs that gave tanks anyways a purpose like warhammer online or daoc. Nothing new, no need to look at lol or overwatch or such nonsense

    Most prominent mechanics are a "guard" function where you can absorb damage from your guarded teammate, and pvp taunts were your enemy is doing less damage against targets that are not you.

    Warhammer guarding led to some unintended consequences. Usually a tank would guard a bright wizard who would spam aoe, then an engineer would aoe pull people into the bright wizard.

    It worked amazing, but guarding a glass canon build was a little overpowered.

    Better to give a reason for people to not ignore tanks in PvP and leave PvE threat alone. People generally still ignored the tanks and it made bright wizards OP.

    I's say, it that case, the problem was the lack of friendly fire (pun intended). Elemental AoE should be AoE, problem solved.
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    Taunts in pvp imo should reduce a player dmg output to everyone else but person who has taunted (just 2 debuffs works here to a degree one for the person who taunted the other whio was taunted. One reduces dmg output by x amount to everyone else who doesnt have the taunter debuff on them (taunter debuff should have a indicator for people who have the taunted debuff on though.

    Could even go with log horizon anime effect where taunt does a debuff on the player and if they hit anyone but the person who taunted they take dmg
  • superhero6785superhero6785 Member, Alpha Two
    I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.

    It may be difficult to balance with AoE's. A pure damage debuff would mean the AoE does less damage to other players, even if you 'target' the Taunter with the AoE.
    Ideally I think it should only reduce damage if the Taunter isn't INCLUDED in the targets. So if you hit the Taunter with a meteor, anyone nearby would also take full damage. This would create more strategy when fighting Tanks. DPS may want to hold their AoE until after they are Taunted, and then unleash them on the Tank in hopes to maximize damage to others. Likewise, the Tank would want to reposition to stay clear of nearby allies. Much more fun gameplay, IMO.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.
    The downside to this is that it would make a fast moving tank with as many CC breaks as they can get being a DPS debuffer kind of the tanking meta in PvP.

    Rather than being an actual tank and fulfilling the same role in PvP as they do in PvE (which is what the goal should be, imo), it would mean that a tank is best put to use in PvP by "taunting" DPS and just running away. This leaves DPS with the option of trying to follow the tank that is moving faster than they are able to move, or simply dealing with the damage debuff.
  • superhero6785superhero6785 Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.
    The downside to this is that it would make a fast moving tank with as many CC breaks as they can get being a DPS debuffer kind of the tanking meta in PvP.

    Rather than being an actual tank and fulfilling the same role in PvP as they do in PvE (which is what the goal should be, imo), it would mean that a tank is best put to use in PvP by "taunting" DPS and just running away. This leaves DPS with the option of trying to follow the tank that is moving faster than they are able to move, or simply dealing with the damage debuff.

    The main role for a Tank to fulfill in PvE is to maintain threat - keep the enemy attacking you, not your allies. How is that different than exactly what you described? Keep the threat (enemy player) focused on you and avoid standing on top of your allies so they don't get AoE'd...sounds EXACTLY like what a Tank should be doing.

    I think you're so used to Tanks fulfilling a different role in PvP than PvE that the idea of fulfilling the same role seems wrong.
  • IskiabIskiab Member, Alpha Two
    Percimes wrote: »
    Iskiab wrote: »
    Garrtok wrote: »
    You dont say... There are plenty of pvp MMOs that gave tanks anyways a purpose like warhammer online or daoc. Nothing new, no need to look at lol or overwatch or such nonsense

    Most prominent mechanics are a "guard" function where you can absorb damage from your guarded teammate, and pvp taunts were your enemy is doing less damage against targets that are not you.

    Warhammer guarding led to some unintended consequences. Usually a tank would guard a bright wizard who would spam aoe, then an engineer would aoe pull people into the bright wizard.

    It worked amazing, but guarding a glass canon build was a little overpowered.

    Better to give a reason for people to not ignore tanks in PvP and leave PvE threat alone. People generally still ignored the tanks and it made bright wizards OP.

    I's say, it that case, the problem was the lack of friendly fire (pun intended). Elemental AoE should be AoE, problem solved.

    That’s what another MMO did (I’ve forgotten the name of it) that added friendly fire. What I’ve noticed that happens is games make systems changes to fix one issue and end up creating 3 new ones.

    The trinity works, why mess with it? Don’t touch PvE. For PvP a tank means someone who’s hard to kill and low damage, give them a reason to not be completely ignored and good enough.

    For those who want tanks to be protectors in PvE, I’m sorry but MMO PvP has never been like this and never should be. Give tanks some cc so they can disrupt and that’s it.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    I've always wanted PvP Taunts to reduce incoming damage to players other than the Taunter. Increase in level would increase duration and damage reduction. This would make Taunt abilities actually useful in PvP.
    The downside to this is that it would make a fast moving tank with as many CC breaks as they can get being a DPS debuffer kind of the tanking meta in PvP.

    Rather than being an actual tank and fulfilling the same role in PvP as they do in PvE (which is what the goal should be, imo), it would mean that a tank is best put to use in PvP by "taunting" DPS and just running away. This leaves DPS with the option of trying to follow the tank that is moving faster than they are able to move, or simply dealing with the damage debuff.

    The main role for a Tank to fulfill in PvE is to maintain threat - keep the enemy attacking you, not your allies. How is that different than exactly what you described? Keep the threat (enemy player) focused on you and avoid standing on top of your allies so they don't get AoE'd...sounds EXACTLY like what a Tank should be doing.

    I think you're so used to Tanks fulfilling a different role in PvP than PvE that the idea of fulfilling the same role seems wrong.

    Right, so, the main role of a tank in PvP is to maintain threat - keep the enemy attacking you, not your allies.

    Yeah, totally agree there.

    However, if you read what I said, if taunts in PvP function as a debuff to damage, the way tanks will be used is as a DPS debuffer.

    These are very clearly different roles.

    The way tanks will be used if their tents simply debuff damage output wont stop the opposition going after a healer, it will just make it so the opposition does less damage while they do so.

    That debuff isnt enough in and of itself to make me want to focus on the tank first rather than a healer. There is no way it can both be balanced AND make me want to do that.
  • PercimesPercimes Member
    edited June 2023
    I don't see many ways for tanks to play the same in PvE and PvP, at least not as long as their core mechanic is "threat" management in its current form.

    If there was a threat source that could convince players to prioritize the tank as a target, it would be easy to simply convert mobs to find that offensive too, they'll believe anything their scripts tell them after all. But as long as PvE threat isn't acknowledge by players, tanks will have, if not a different role, a different playstyle in PvP.

    If tanking could be done without the need of threat, meaning protecting the group mates regardless of enemy attention, mobs could also be convince that this was offensive and should generate threat in the same manner healing generate threat.

    Yet, even with these changes, I'm not sure tanks will ever play the same because of a very different context between PvP and PvE: numbers of targets to keep "aggro" from. Keeping the focus of a limited number of compliant mobs isn't the same as a large numbers of players, each with their own weird aggro rules and none giving a hoot about you if you ask them.

    Edit: I know what would make players want to focus on the tanks... Downing a tank should award XPs and they should drop stuff, that'll surely get players' attention!
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
Sign In or Register to comment.