Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Deioth

Thoughts on Tanks?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I think that "really lacking outside of sieges" might be intentional design.

 

I don't think they're trying to differentiate roles in this, I think they're trying to differentiate what a character builds for as their base class.  If your class build is mostly AoE utility, a class build focused on single target damage will outclass you in a one on one, but your utility will have value in small and large groups both.  My experience thus far with a tank build is that I'm not really a tank, I just take a while to die after everyone else is killed because they pose a threat that I simply do not.  A tank drums up images of taking the brunt of your enemy's attacks, so in PvE they hold mob aggro.  However, in PvP a player can simply ignore the tank.  That's why in PvP a tank needs mechanics and a natural game play loop that allows them to force that focus.  Crowfall currently feels as if it is lacking that.  Every single class spec should bring value (damage, utility, healing, or protection) in all situations.  Yes, tanks shine in sieges, but if they aren't effective anywhere else then there is a problem with their inherent design.  I'm pretty sure they intend for balance in this game to mean that your class has value in all situations, but they have a certain situation they are best at in every case.  Coleman seems to be inferring that rather heavily.  If a class is only good in a specific situation, then there is a problem with that class's design, and being good at only one thing should come from discipline specialization rather than the base class and a chosen prestige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Deioth said:

I don't think they're trying to differentiate roles in this, I think they're trying to differentiate what a character builds for as their base class.  If your class build is mostly AoE utility, a class build focused on single target damage will outclass you in a one on one, but your utility will have value in small and large groups both.  My experience thus far with a tank build is that I'm not really a tank, I just take a while to die after everyone else is killed because they pose a threat that I simply do not.  A tank drums up images of taking the brunt of your enemy's attacks, so in PvE they hold mob aggro.  However, in PvP a player can simply ignore the tank.  That's why in PvP a tank needs mechanics and a natural game play loop that allows them to force that focus.  Crowfall currently feels as if it is lacking that.  Every single class spec should bring value (damage, utility, healing, or protection) in all situations.  Yes, tanks shine in sieges, but if they aren't effective anywhere else then there is a problem with their inherent design.  I'm pretty sure they intend for balance in this game to mean that your class has value in all situations, but they have a certain situation they are best at in every case.  Coleman seems to be inferring that rather heavily.  If a class is only good in a specific situation, then there is a problem with that class's design, and being good at only one thing should come from discipline specialization rather than the base class and a chosen prestige.

You may be right about the need for more peel and trying to draw focus, BUT you can't FORCE humans to give you agro like you can PvE MOBS in a raid.

Pve tactics against players don't work, because allowing a class to FORCE other players to play the game the way they want in all but minimal ways, would just suck for the player being forced.

The bold is pretty much also where you are wrong.  Did you even watch what I linked? 

Quote

"in the other areas,.... your going to get your ass handed to you... in most other situations, they are going to be some degree of not as good."

Classes are not supposed to be valuable in all situations, they are supposed to seek out the situations they are good in, and excel at them. There is a reason we all get more than one vessel slot to start out with.  Your crow/account can have a bunch of different options, but individually the vessels are supposed to be really good at one thing, and at best palatable in the others.

Part of getting good, is knowing how to avoid those situations you are weak in.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You may be right about the need for more peel and trying to draw focus, BUT you can't FORCE humans to give you agro like you can PvE MOBS in a raid.

Pve tactics against players don't work, because allowing a class to FORCE other players to play the game the way they want in all but minimal ways, would just suck for the player being forced.

The bold is pretty much also where you are wrong.  Did you even watch what I linked? 

Classes are not supposed to be valuable in all situations, they are supposed to seek out the situations they are good in, and excel at them. There is a reason we all get more than one vessel slot to start out with.  Your crow/account can have a bunch of different options, but individually the vessels are supposed to be really good at one thing, and at best palatable in the others.

Part of getting good, is knowing how to avoid those situations you are weak in.

Note:

City Of Heroes/Villains tanks did EXACTLY this. Taunts worked on players. When taunted your target was forcibly locked to the tank, and it lasted for full on pve length durations if you didn't cleanse the effect.

In practice its just a more annoying "all attacks miss"  blind type effect. You simply can't hit anyone but the tank, and 99% of the time you just retreat until it is over and save you cooldowns, making the "tank" part of "PvP tank" kinda redundant. Nobody was going to hit a pvp tank in that game because the tanks in that game wouldn't have taunted you if they didn't have all their good tanking skills ready to burst you down or become invulnerable or whatever.

GW2's version of taunt is a short lived CC, typically no longer than 5 seconds that functions as a reverse fear. Where fear in GW2 is a hard CC that forces you to run away from the target, taunt forces you to run toward it and autoattack it if possible. This made the "tank" part of "PvP Tank" actually kind of important as you essentially had a pull that also required you to take damage for a few seconds. This was a pretty cool CC that was thematic without being disrupting in that system (because that systems already had fears, and because that system had a wholly different set of goals for healing and class balance) but I'm not certain it would translate intact to something like crowfall.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way GW2 tanks work is pretty solid. A lil annoying at first. The bad part is ACE would probably throw some silly screen effect on top of it. Sigh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You may be right about the need for more peel and trying to draw focus, BUT you can't FORCE humans to give you agro like you can PvE MOBS in a raid.

Pve tactics against players don't work, because allowing a class to FORCE other players to play the game the way they want in all but minimal ways, would just suck for the player being forced.

Maybe you cant force them, but you can greatly encourage them.

Warhammer Online pretty much solved this by having their tanks taunt function as normal in pve and in pvp it would place a debuff on the enemy that would greatly increase the tanks damage vs that target until the taunted person struck the tank 3x. This left the decision of what to do up to the taunted target. Did they continue to attack their original target? or did they pause and hit the tank 3x to take 30% less damage from them for the 8s or so until the tanks taunt refreshed?

Then there was the "guard" mechanic. Where tanks could target a person in their group and take half of that players incoming damage. The tanks block, parry, dodge all reduced the incoming damage. This allowed tanks to further play a pve support role in a pvp situation by protecting their group from damage while not forcing the enemy to attack the tank. Tanks were the target of knockbacks (punts) and other CC as a means to separate the the tank and the guarded unit (it was fairly short range). This again "encouraged" players to target the tank, while not forcing them too.

All non-ranged archetypes that were traditionally melee were given a "throw" of some sort to allow them to pull mobs, it was very low damage. The tanks version also acted as a ranged "execute" doing hundreds of damage when the target was below 20% life (i forget) when the ability did like 15 damage otherwise. This encouraged the target to stay and fight the tank at low health instead of running away like they would from a dps class like a rogue. The choice whether to do so or not was always in the hands of the player and with terrain, ect there were times it made sense to run...but, for the most part, players were "encouraged" to target tanks in pvp.

And it was awesome.

Edited by Toadwart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toadwart said:

Maybe you cant force them, but you can greatly encourage them.

Warhammer Online pretty much solved this by having their tanks taunt function as normal in pve and in pvp it would place a debuff on the enemy that would greatly increase the tanks damage vs that target until the taunted person struck the tank 3x. This left the decision of what to do up to the taunted target. Did they continue to attack their original target? or did they pause and hit the tank 3x to take 30% less damage from them for the 8s or so until the tanks taunt refreshed?

All non-ranged archetypes that were traditionally melee were given a "throw" of some sort to allow them to pull mobs, it was very low damage. The tanks version also acted as a ranged "execute" doing hundreds of damage when the target was below 20% life (i forget) when the ability did like 15 damage otherwise. This encouraged the target to stay and fight the tank at low health instead of running away like they would from a dps class like a rogue. The choice whether to do so or not was always in the hands of the player and with terrain, ect there were times it made sense to run...but, for the most part, players were "encouraged" to target tanks in pvp.

And it was awesome.

I do like the direction of those, because it's not force, and leaves agency in the hands of both players.

There is a huge difference between "force" (As Deioth said in the quoted post) and what I would call, strongly encourage certain behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You may be right about the need for more peel and trying to draw focus, BUT you can't FORCE humans to give you agro like you can PvE MOBS in a raid.

Pve tactics against players don't work, because allowing a class to FORCE other players to play the game the way they want in all but minimal ways, would just suck for the player being forced.

The bold is pretty much also where you are wrong.  Did you even watch what I linked? 

Classes are not supposed to be valuable in all situations, they are supposed to seek out the situations they are good in, and excel at them. There is a reason we all get more than one vessel slot to start out with.  Your crow/account can have a bunch of different options, but individually the vessels are supposed to be really good at one thing, and at best palatable in the others.

Part of getting good, is knowing how to avoid those situations you are weak in.

I clearly stated my take away from what Todd was saying.  The question you time stamped suggested to me that they want players to have roles they are good at and simply not being as good in other situations, but in no way does it sound like he's trying to suggest that your role means you're only ever good in that one roll.  DPS is useful everywhere.  Peel/utility is useful everywhere.  Healing is useful everywhere.  Tanking is useful... just in sieges?  The example he gave even suggested more of a one-on-one situation.  There is a problem with the design of the tank if they can't make their survivability consistently valuable.  Every other class build/archetype is valuable in every situation and if tanks aren't then that needs to be addressed.  That is what I'm asking for feedback.  They obviously do not intend for builds to be good only at single situations and I doubt their intention of multiple slots is for people to swap characters just for specific roles (more likely it's because, like every other MMO, people like playing alts and seeing what they like).  Sure, you can have a set of characters all meant for a specific activity, but most players will stick to their "main".

 

1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I do like the direction of those, because it's not force, and leaves agency in the hands of both players.

There is a huge difference between "force" (As Deioth said in the quoted post) and what I would call, strongly encourage certain behavior.

I think you're reading too much into the semantics of the chosen word.  There needs to be reason for players to want to attack tank specs in PvP at all scales, otherwise they are a broken class that has only situational value rather than consistent value.  As you put it, players should be "strongly encouraged" to attack tanks and have a strategic choice in ignoring that encouragement just as there's a strategic choice to ignore that ranger or confessor nuking you from afar or ignore the healer keeping a squishie alive.

 

Lots of great ideas to pull from other games already listed here.  I was a big fan of how SW:ToR handled it as well.  IIRC taunting causing a damage debuff unless fighting the tank, plus there was a guard buff that shared damage between that character and the tank if the guarded player was attacked.

Edited by Deioth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Deioth said:

I clearly stated my take away from what Todd was saying.  The question you time stamped suggested to me that they want players to have roles they are good at and simply not being as good in other situations, but in no way does it sound like he's trying to suggest that your role means you're only ever good in that one roll.  DPS is useful everywhere.  Peel/utility is useful everywhere.  Healing is useful everywhere.  Tanking is useful... just in sieges?  The example he gave even suggested more of a one-on-one situation.  There is a problem with the design of the tank if they can't make their survivability consistently valuable.  Every other class build/archetype is valuable in every situation and if tanks aren't then that needs to be addressed.  That is what I'm asking for feedback.  They obviously do not intend for builds to be good only at single situations and I doubt their intention of multiple slots is for people to swap characters just for specific roles (more likely it's because, like every other MMO, people like playing alts and seeing what they like).  Sure, you can have a set of characters all meant for a specific activity, but most players will stick to their "main".

I'm not here to argue with you, I was only trying to let you know how it seems things have been designed given the statements of the devs, and that you seem to have a problem with the design goal of "fantasy fulfillment", rather than built for balance and utility.

Assume whatever intent you want, but if you think that "every other class build/archetype is valuable in every situation" then I really think you don't understand what the intent actually is. 

For example, the Templar has been described as excelling in tight quarters combat, and "area denial", after players complained that they didn't have the skill necessary to peel and being somewhat easy to escape from/hard to finish kills in an open field, despite being a very tank sort of class.  

The answer was essentially, "that's not really their role". 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I'm not here to argue with you, I was only trying to let you know how it seems things have been designed given the statements of the devs, and that you seem to have a problem with the design goal of "fantasy fulfillment", rather than built for balance and utility.

Assume whatever intent you want, but if you think that "every other class build/archetype is valuable in every situation" then I really think you don't understand what the intent actually is. 

For example, the Templar has been described as excelling in tight quarters combat, and "area denial", after players complained that they didn't have the skill necessary to peel and being somewhat easy to escape from/hard to finish kills in an open field, despite being a very tank sort of class.  

The answer was essentially, "that's not really their role". 

Either we're talking about two different things or we've gotten entirely different interpretations of Todd's spiel.  The point I am making, and the thought process I'm coming from, is that every class should have value in every scale of PVP.  Their core value should always have a positive impact, a role to fill.  That's what I am getting at.  If the Templar isn't good at chase, they must rely on others for lock down which is acceptable in a game like this, and they can punish if allowed to stay glued.  Alternatively, they can protect back lines or punish divers if they lack mobility.  I do not know what Templar has as a tank spec, so if they have one (as in, skills and talents built towards self sustain) I would hope they bring something valuable that is consistent in value.  If they do not (or the Templar in general underperforms) then that needs improving.  That is all I am saying.  Every class and prestige should have consistent value in all scales of PvP.  That is what I am really getting it.  It's one thing to be in a bad spot if you or your group is getting out kited because you lack chase, dive, or lockdown or are simply on a class that is not good at chase or dive against an opponent that can exploit that weakness.  That is NOT what I am saying I have a problem with.  What I have a problem with is that DPS/heal/cc utility has consistent value at all scales of PVP while the tank kinda does not because they lack a means of making value out of their survivability outside of the largest scales.

 

The tank's general purpose is survivability.  If they can't bring consistent value to that, then there is a problem with their design.  I'm not sure what ACE's current thoughts are on what role a tank should play because in their current state they don't seem to bring consistent value.  But, one thing is for sure, there is room in the game's design to have a "tank" role and there have been many implementations of tanking in PVP of various levels of success.  Crowfall completely lacks them at this time.  This really points towards tanks lacking a purpose.  Their survivability is where their value lies.  If they can't consistently apply that value, they are underpowered, because any other build can bring more CC or more damage.  Ideally, they should get mechanics that allow them to punish enemies that focus their team too hard or ignore them too long because right now a tank effectively can be ignored.  Ignore DPS, they burn you down.  Ignore healer, you can't kill.  Ignore CC utility, you get peeled.  Ignore tank... shrug?  Am I making sense or are we still talking past each other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Deioth Tanks don't exist in this game. At least not what I imagine some of us want or view as a Tank.

Some classes and promos increase sustainability and trade some dps, that's about it.

WAR is one of the few games that did it well along with decent collision which I'm surprised ACE hasn't done better. Really wasn't crazy ideas they went with, have a burly character that can protect friendlies and persuade enemies to go after them. Unfortunately seems like many/most never played it or anything similar so the concept of someone playing a Tank in PVP somewhat like PVE is not possible to them.

Crowfall's limited powers available to each class and the bar slots are part of the situation, but I can play and feel like a clearly defined Tank in Overwatch or Albion with fewer things to push. Giving most some form of CC and making it spammy doesn't help things.

This game falls in line like many others that are focused on being offensive. Almost every power has DPS and plenty with CC. Little to no buffs/debuffs or strategic group defense powers that aren't more of fire and forget. Considering how they talked up their use of physics and what not, it's unfortunate how little they actually have. 

As I like to play Tanks and Support, I find the full on DPS game models to lose their appeal. CU and AOC both seem to be going for the more clear cut roles so there's always that. Not sure about Shadowbane, but I don't believe it had what I consider a Tank either and unsurprisingly Crowfall seems similar in the mash together combat type.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Deioth said:

Either we're talking about two different things or we've gotten entirely different interpretations of Todd's spiel.  The point I am making, and the thought process I'm coming from, is that every class should have value in every scale of PVP. 

Todd and Blair have specifically said the opposite.  That's not even a realistic expectation.  I think that they're more going for is more "most classes should be able to make a respectable contribution to most PvP scenarios".  That doesn't mean that all classes will excell at all times, or that some classes will excell at no times.  It means that everyone has a place.  Some classes have more places and more impactful in more places than others, but everything can be played, its just that some choices, like Paladin healers in the open field, are going to hurt more than others.

 

You just keep ignoring the fact hat Pitfighter does, in fact, have a place in PvP - all scales, all scenarios - and their level of contribution and value is much higher than many other classes.  I'll have some videos coming out shortly highlighting this fact but I promise you, its you, not the tank.

Edited by Ble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Deioth said:

Either we're talking about two different things or we've gotten entirely different interpretations of Todd's spiel.  The point I am making, and the thought process I'm coming from, is that every class should have value in every scale of PVP. 

Yup, two different interpretations of Todd's spiel is a pretty good way to describe it. It really feels like a very strong case of confirmation bias actually.

Fantasy fulfillment does not line up, at least to me, with a goal which has never once been stated or even hinted at by the dev team of "value in every scale of PvP", especially since the linked video had these quotes.

Quote

"Your goal as a player is to seek out situations in the game where you are going to be strong, and try to avoid those situations where you are going to be weak".

That is the polar opposite of "every class should have value in every scale (situation) of PvP".

The only way to read it as you have been, is to assume that "situation" is more specific than scale of PvP, which is I think an interpretation that is only going to lead you to continuing disappointment.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ble said:

Todd and Blair have specifically said the opposite.  That's not even a realistic expectation.  I think that they're more going for is more "most classes should be able to make a respectable contribution to most PvP scenarios".  That doesn't mean that all classes will excell at all times, or that some classes will excell at no times.  It means that everyone has a place.  Some classes have more places and more impactful in more places than others, but everything can be played, its just that some choices, like Paladin healers in the open field, are going to hurt more than others.

 

You just keep ignoring the fact hat Pitfighter does, in fact, have a place in PvP - all scales, all scenarios - and their level of contribution and value is much higher than many other classes.  I'll have some videos coming out shortly highlighting this fact but I promise you, its you, not the tank.

"Respectable contribution to most scenarios" is basically what I am getting at.  To help clarify I'm also definitely of the opinion that every class should bring value to every scale of PVP, though not necessarily every PVP situation.  A templar can't bring much value against a bunch of kiters any more than a confessor can bring much value against melee divers and that is the balance of the base classes.  But if a templar prestige or confessor prestige can't bring the same consistency of value in scale as other prestige, that could be a problem.  A balance of roles on your side is always ideal, but won't always happen, that's part of the fun of it.  Not enough ranged support could leave you overwhelmed to kiters.  Too little front line means you're overwhelmed by melee.  That's all well and good.  The point is, every class should bring value to every scale and that's where it feels like thus far that tank specs feel lacking whereas others seem to have more consistent value.  Granted, I still have a lot to learn to get better at the game in general, and I definitely am getting better, and I am definitely bringing more value as a player the more I play, but it still feels like I cannot fulfill my tank role unless there're enough bodies and chaos of battle that I simply need to present myself as a target.  In those instances, yes, I see the value.  If the enemy learns I can be ignored, though, I'm not fulfilling a role, which makes me wonder what tanks like Pit Fighter are actually meant for.  If you have actual suggestions, give them rather than continuing this pretentious "L2P" perhaps?

10 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Yup, two different interpretations of Todd's spiel is a pretty good way to describe it. It really feels like a very strong case of confirmation bias actually.

Fantasy fulfillment does not line up, at least to me, with a goal which has never once been stated or even hinted at by the dev team of "value in every scale of PvP", especially since the linked video had these quotes.

That is the polar opposite of "every class should have value in every scale (situation) of PvP".

The only way to read it as you have been, is to assume that "situation" is more specific than scale of PvP, which is I think an interpretation that is only going to lead you to continuing disappointment.

I'd love some further confirmation from them, then.  Do they feel like tanks can play a consistent role?  Because that is what I am arguing for and seeking feedback or advice on: Consistency.  If the Alpha Warrior and Barbarian specs are consistent at all scales of PvP but the Pit Fighter is not, how much of that is actually intended?  All three can engage, all three can do some level of damage and CC, but the AW can always cause damage and the Barbarian CC when they're Can the same be said of the Pit Fighter?

 

Also, scale does NOT equal situation.  No Champion is going to be useful if they don't have the support to get into melee and stay there or break up the middle/back lines.  No ranged spec prestige will be useful against lock down divers if they lack a front line or their kite is countered by chasers.  Situations are one thing and are in no way what I am having issue with.  It is scale.  If I can't make use of my survivability consistently across scale I'm not bringing nearly the level of value AW or Barb would in the same situations, and that should absolutely be seen as a problem of balance.  It strikes me that the clear intent for the tank prestiges is to soak damage.  They need a consistent means to do so or they are simply underpowered.

9 hours ago, Marth said:

Pitfighters are amazing..... I think this is a user error.

Would anyone actually saying this please actually offer advice then!?  Cripes, people... you give this minotaur a serious disappoint ]:8\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Deioth said:

  If you have actual suggestions, give them rather than continuing this pretentious "L2P" perhaps?

I mean, thats really all you're lacking.   You're ranting about something that is not the case.  Pitfighters are fantastic.  They are among the top in ability to contribute, many other class/specs are way below them in every area.

Advice:

  1. As you play the class you'll learn when to use your barriers.
  2. As you play the class you'll learn how to manage sturdy.
  3. As you play the class you'll learn the power of initiation.
  4. As you play the class you'll learn the use and order of application for each of your CCs.
  5. As you play the class you'll understand that while you might do 60% of the damage of your alpha counterparts, you have way more than 60% more survivability.
  6. As you play the class you'll learn that "retaliation discs" are a waste.
  7. As you play the class you'll learn how to build synergy between your natural stats and available discs.
  8. As you play the class you'll learn to control the battlefield, meaning you're the target they hate that they must deal with, but must.
  9. As you play the class you'll learn when to CC healers or CC melee ball.
  10. As you play the class you'll learn to anticipate ult switches so you can neckbreak with the dps power play.
  11. As you play the class you'll learn that you are one of the most mobile fighters in every battle.
  12. As you play the class you'll learn that you can situate yourself in a doorway and completely deny it.
  13. As you play the class you'll learn that you can single-handedly counter ballista.
  14. As you play the class you'll learn that on the scale of survivability+damage, you win out over everything else in the game, by a large margin.
  15. As you play the class you'll learn to successfully use your racial abilities.
  16. As you read this list you'll learn that I've already mentioned each of these before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ble said:

I mean, thats really all you're lacking.   You're ranting about something that is not the case.  Pitfighters are fantastic.  They are among the top in ability to contribute, many other class/specs are way below them in every area.

Advice:

  1. As you play the class you'll learn when to use your barriers.
  2. As you play the class you'll learn how to manage sturdy.
  3. As you play the class you'll learn the power of initiation.
  4. As you play the class you'll learn the use and order of application for each of your CCs.
  5. As you play the class you'll understand that while you might do 60% of the damage of your alpha counterparts, you have way more than 60% more survivability.
  6. As you play the class you'll learn that "retaliation discs" are a waste.
  7. As you play the class you'll learn how to build synergy between your natural stats and available discs.
  8. As you play the class you'll learn to control the battlefield, meaning you're the target they hate that they must deal with, but must.
  9. As you play the class you'll learn when to CC healers or CC melee ball.
  10. As you play the class you'll learn to anticipate ult switches so you can neckbreak with the dps power play.
  11. As you play the class you'll learn that you are one of the most mobile fighters in every battle.
  12. As you play the class you'll learn that you can situate yourself in a doorway and completely deny it.
  13. As you play the class you'll learn that you can single-handedly counter ballista.
  14. As you play the class you'll learn that on the scale of survivability+damage, you win out over everything else in the game, by a large margin.
  15. As you play the class you'll learn to successfully use your racial abilities.
  16. As you read this list you'll learn that I've already mentioned each of these before.

tldr click ur buttons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lets see...   I have 2 Pitfighter accounts for siege, stone/mineral, and ore/gem harvesting and 2 Alpha Warrior accounts for siege, capping and gvg…   not OP but certainly very useful classes.  Just gonna play one or 2  accounts tho for 5.10 cycle.   

 

 

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2019 at 1:20 PM, Toadwart said:

Maybe you cant force them, but you can greatly encourage them.

Warhammer Online pretty much solved this by having their tanks taunt function as normal in pve and in pvp it would place a debuff on the enemy that would greatly increase the tanks damage vs that target until the taunted person struck the tank 3x. This left the decision of what to do up to the taunted target. Did they continue to attack their original target? or did they pause and hit the tank 3x to take 30% less damage from them for the 8s or so until the tanks taunt refreshed?

Then there was the "guard" mechanic. Where tanks could target a person in their group and take half of that players incoming damage. The tanks block, parry, dodge all reduced the incoming damage. This allowed tanks to further play a pve support role in a pvp situation by protecting their group from damage while not forcing the enemy to attack the tank. Tanks were the target of knockbacks (punts) and other CC as a means to separate the the tank and the guarded unit (it was fairly short range). This again "encouraged" players to target the tank, while not forcing them too.

All non-ranged archetypes that were traditionally melee were given a "throw" of some sort to allow them to pull mobs, it was very low damage. The tanks version also acted as a ranged "execute" doing hundreds of damage when the target was below 20% life (i forget) when the ability did like 15 damage otherwise. This encouraged the target to stay and fight the tank at low health instead of running away like they would from a dps class like a rogue. The choice whether to do so or not was always in the hands of the player and with terrain, ect there were times it made sense to run...but, for the most part, players were "encouraged" to target tanks in pvp.

And it was awesome.

I don't like this approach because it necessarily requires more gazing at status effect icons in a game with a combat style that does not lend itself toward gazing at status effect icons.

These are very complex mechanisms that don't translate well to a game without tab targeting with such a low native TTK and reticle targeting.

In fact any negative effect in this combat system needs to be immediately recognizable and with a very clear and immediate counter, and those counters must be immediately available e.g. a cleanse.

Buffs that require you to appraise two separate targets like the "guard" mechanism, or debuffs that require you to pick a single target out of a wad of people to counter it like WH taunt are bad fits for this combat system.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PopeUrban said:

I don't like this approach because it necessarily requires more gazing at status effect icons in a game with a combat style that does not lend itself toward gazing at status effect icons.

These are very complex mechanisms that don't translate well to a game without tab targeting with such a low native TTK and reticle targeting.

In fact any negative effect in this combat system needs to be immediately recognizable and with a very clear and immediate counter, and those counters must be immediately available e.g. a cleanse.

Buffs that require you to appraise two separate targets like the "guard" mechanism, or debuffs that require you to pick a single target out of a wad of people to counter it like WH taunt are bad fits for this combat system.

There are certainly ways to implement it all.  I, for one, hope it winds up thematic to each class that has a tank spec, because regardless it definitely feels like they could use a means of making consistent value out of their survivability mechanics.  Enemies would want to fight you, making a strategic choice to deal with you (at least enough to counter certain tank mechanics).  But, they also need to be as active as possible, or at least not innately passive (as in, always on like an aura), with as few additional active powers as possible depending on implementation.  There are still a lot of FX in this game that aren't fully implemented (not a clue what hits me and CCs me 99% of the time cuz the FX are just that limited) so it wouldn't be that hard I imagine for them to implement clear F/UX.  They could also make various debuff and buff categories more distinct as they continue to iterate UI.  If, say, purple debuffs were due to a tank effect you'd know you were under one of their effects, and then game knowledge will help fill in the rest on how best to handle it.

 

Some of it can be baked into basic attacks, such as, perhaps, generating a stacking slow and AP debuff on an enemy actively causing damage (so you can't "tank" a healer who only or mostly heals) until they've attacked you with hard CC or a full combo chain (this implementation would help give some extra value to Spirit Whip for example).  Alternative bake ins could be a stacking AP buff for yourself the more you damage an enemy that isn't damaging you.  Kick Sand on Pit Fighters could blind the enemy to everyone except the pit fighter and last a couple seconds longer; they could get really creative!  And, as already mentioned, Guard style skills could still work well (and probably be a discipline).  Maybe it would work that you'd target cast Guard on a friendly player and that skill refreshes its buff time after taking in so much damage and if you stay within range consistently, and the effect is half the damage they take is instead passed to you and your improved mitigation.  Other mechanics could involve using certain skills such as your ultimate (in Pit Fighter's case, the self heal Q) that could apply a debuff to nearby enemies on cast lowering their attack power against anyone not you until they damage you enough or escape the radius.  In large scale PVP, these various buffs and bonuses and the like would have significantly less impact, but the scale itself would lend towards value to our survivability because we lead the charge and become the target by default.  But, in smaller scale, we'd have a consistent means to make good use of our survivability and not feel like we're just a very very thick wet noodle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...