Vandraad said:Vade said:While it is the job of a Warrior and such to hold aggro it's not a Warrior's job to keep the DPS from doing stupid stuff, like, a Wizard unloading within seconds of contact. The Wizard deserves to have their face ripped off. Or the Rogue who goes backstab happy before the Warrior can blink. etc. Give the Warrior a chance of properly insulting the mob before going overboard.
I'd take that statement a bit further and say it is the job of the warrior to set the pace and direction of the encounter. The tank determines positioning, directs mob movement if/when needed. This isn't to say he's the group/raid leader, but that everything hangs off of what the tank does. So yes, that idiot wizard who just unloades immediately causing the mob to flip around and go after him/her (which then causes all the melee, who were attacking from behind happily, to start dying rapidly from eating eating ripostes and directional AoEs) deserves to die. To have it this way with the tank it does really separate the good players from the bad, from those who can think and adapt and most importantly extrapolate from previous experiences into future events.
You don't need special mechanics or whatever convoluted set of special spell that or ability this. You just need a brain.
I personally think CC should be the job of the Tank, but I know that might hit peoples gag reflex pretty hard. *shrugs* But for the most part Vandraad you've got it right on the nose. Positioning is a big deal, just how big will be determined by VR. I hope Tanks don't feel boring, its something I am truly concerned about.
-Todd
Pulling and positioning have always been two of my favorite aspects of tanking. The longer pulls can be extra challenging as you have to be pretty confident in your ability to make it back to the group with the risk of respawns popping up in your path. Roots, stuns and fears can also cause some serious damage if you're caught out of position from your group. Once the baddies are rounded up and you make it back to your camp in one piece, it's time to position the mobs for optimum threat generation (for tank) and DPS for your group. This should involve having their backs turned toward your DPS, and having all of the NPC's in front of the tank. This kind of positioning should be critical -- if an NPC or 2 isn't positioned correctly, they would have free attacks on the tanks back and he would be unable to parry/block/riposte them which could cause some serious damage spikes.
As far as aggro is concerned, I have always played in a way that allows my DPS to go all out. If we're talking about group content, unless we're fighting stuff more than 5 levels higher, or a boss, they can splurge on the mob all they like and I should generally be able to keep it under control. Worst case scenario if the mob does snap aggro toward a nuker, a quick stun lock should incapacitate it long enough for the squishy to reposition and buy me a couple seconds to regain aggro. That's just how I play ... I enjoy the challenge of keeping aggro. I never ask people to hold back. A part of my job is allowing my DPS to go all out as much as possible ... it's all about the hyper grind!
When it comes to boss fights or raiding in general, obviously those rules are a bit different. One bad timed nuke at the beginning can cause serious issues with the flow of the battle so it's generally advised that the DPS give tanks at least a few seconds to establish their aggro control and positioning before they start unloading. For the most part though, when it comes to grinding levels or standard group content, I think aggro should mostly be the tanks job. Other classes can obviously have an impact with their aggro modifiers and whatnot, but aggro should primarily be the tanks job. Timing is obviously super important here and most classes should know to hold back while the mob is on the move ... but once it's in position, go ham! We'll see how it works out ... either way, I want tanking/aggro to be as difficult as possible. I want it to be tedious.
I know some people don't like the idea of tanking being difficult as it might turn people off ... to that, I'm sorry, but it needs to be that way. We need challenge. I don't want to see easy peasy aggro control ... I want it to require flawless execution starting from the pull, into the positioning, and then maintaining it from every point beyond that. I want to be kept busy and understand that my job will be pretty demanding and intense at all times. The more difficult tanking is, the more rewarding it will feel when you have a great tank in your group. The same can be said about heals, DPS, and CC. The entire game should be difficult and having those who can consistently overcome the obstacles of challenging gameplay will feel like a blessing in your group. I have zero interest in any level of challenge being dumbed down to encourage other people to want to tank. If someone can't handle it, play a less intense class ... but let's not water down the experience for the tanks out there who enjoy this kind of demanding gameplay. If a tank wants easy mode stuff, go farm stuff that is significantly lower level. If a mob is higher level, it should be difficult!
tehtawd said:Vandraad said:Vade said:While it is the job of a Warrior and such to hold aggro it's not a Warrior's job to keep the DPS from doing stupid stuff, like, a Wizard unloading within seconds of contact. The Wizard deserves to have their face ripped off. Or the Rogue who goes backstab happy before the Warrior can blink. etc. Give the Warrior a chance of properly insulting the mob before going overboard.
I'd take that statement a bit further and say it is the job of the warrior to set the pace and direction of the encounter. The tank determines positioning, directs mob movement if/when needed. This isn't to say he's the group/raid leader, but that everything hangs off of what the tank does. So yes, that idiot wizard who just unloades immediately causing the mob to flip around and go after him/her (which then causes all the melee, who were attacking from behind happily, to start dying rapidly from eating eating ripostes and directional AoEs) deserves to die. To have it this way with the tank it does really separate the good players from the bad, from those who can think and adapt and most importantly extrapolate from previous experiences into future events.
You don't need special mechanics or whatever convoluted set of special spell that or ability this. You just need a brain.
I personally think CC should be the job of the Tank, but I know that might hit peoples gag reflex pretty hard. *shrugs* But for the most part Vandraad you've got it right on the nose. Positioning is a big deal, just how big will be determined by VR. I hope Tanks don't feel boring, its something I am truly concerned about.
-Todd
I agree with you to a point though I wouldn't want tanks to be to mez things, but roots/stuns/snares/fears/blinds and other status effects that allow positioning and encounter control.
I think it's the tanks job to interrupt healer/caster type mobs and such, though that might just be because I played a paladin in EQ.
Especially since we thus far there seems to only be 1 CC/utility class (eenchanter)... Though we haven't seen class reveals so I'll hold my breath.
I think it was cool to see a ghetto CC setup rolling along without an Enchanter or the fabled Bard (which should be a utility / CC / hybrid class). It accentuated how much easier life is having an Enchanter around, yet workable without so don't despair if you can't find one (or a Bard which 'should' be the 2nd best CC class).
ROG apparently used up about 1/3rd per mob of their stamina ghetto mezzing stuff and that's going to detract from DPS in the long run so while you CAN ghetto mez here and there ... it's not ideal, and I can live with that.
Then there's root, and root at least in EQ was entirely random in duration and rarely ever lasted its full duration not to mention more resistant than mez since it had zero debuff modifier built in unless you were using some special Wizard ability, nor did any of the casting classes of root have a means of debuffing that resist line (magic) except Enchanters, IIRC.
All very balanced. Don't need an Enchanter, but if you want supreme CC, well, find an ENC. Much like if you want the best DMG mitigation tank, get a Warrior. Don't have to have one ... but it helps.
I like how Pantheon is inherently anti-zerg by design so far. Weed out the kiddies (can be any age)! Speaking of which, my 15 year old son was in the back of his class watching the live stream and sent me an IM at work ... where I was watching the live stream! "I really like how this game looks like it's going to be hard." There IS an audience in the 'lower level' age range today. ;-)
Disclaimer: I'm an ENC 1st, WAR 2nd. (because I like hitting things after casting spells for so long)
I was talking from personal opinion on Tanks being a CC class.
Honestly if I was making an MMORPG (some of you may think 'thank god he's not') I would make Tanks the premier CC class. There's a lot of reasons I would do this, but the main one is because I think its the Tanks job to control the battlefield. So magic or non-magic ways of rooting, stunning, snaring, knockbacks, pulls. If it involves control, and opening opportunities for the DPS to shine, its the Tanks job.
I'm not going to derail the topic selfishly, I just wanted to restate it was an opinion, not something I think would work within Pantheon.
What I think CAN work in pantheon is to focus on the fact TANKS 'bottle-neck' incoming damage. Meaning. a way for Tanks to play a control-like way, is to make sure they can through magical or non-magical means take the damage of somebody else, threat or no threat.
-Todd
In addition to the Tanks aggro increasing skills classes such as the Rogue had aggro reduction skills and weapons. Always said there was little point in new skills increasing my Rogues DPS without concurrently increasing the ability to dump the aggro it generated. Before the Aggro meter you had to monitor your DPS and skills (did it work) and modify accodingly - even down to stop attacking for a bit - as your key role was damage without getting aggro.. at high end (Raid etc) you quickly learned not to do this as you generally died instantly if you did. Its the fundamental group dydnamic from a DPS perspective IMO, you needed to get to know your Tank and modify your play accordingly to maximise the DPS without getting aggro and visa versa for the tank.
I do recall that in Pantheon some classes and races have increased agrro generation Vs specific mobs.. presumably at its core its just an aggro multiplier? so this will add even more combat depth... I liek the sound of that tbh.
I disagree with making tank have cc..
the tank's job is not specifically battlefield control (which is what cc is)... implicitely you do get battlefield control from controlling the party's position and timing of engagements, managing adds etc., but that is moreso about leading the group - about leading the pace of the group, being group aware (i.e healers mana status) but the tanks main job is to tank the damage. The leadership side + tanking role is a lot of a role for 1 member of a team... so sharing out the cc makes sense.
If you have a dedicated cc class, you can then make the content harder than it could be otherwise... i like more division of roles rather than less - look at GW2... with no trinity, it becomes a spamfest with everyone having self-healing and diving around... the start of 'harder group stuff' was just chain dying, respawning and go in again! There is a limit to the difficulty of content in that sense.
If a warrior can do 80% the dps of a rogue does this diminish the rogues roll in the group even with the addition of a bit of cc and maybe a trick or two for the rogue ?
Should tanks be more defensively focused than in previous games ?
How do you make hybrids like Dire Lords competitive if they can tank content and still achieve high dps ? This one seems incredibly hard to balance and I don't think it was ever really figured out in EQ.
These days I'm thinking that doubling down on the strengths that make each archtype strong without allowing much bleed over might be the right thing to do.
Honestly I hope that rogues aren't needed for their cc and you don't bring a chanter because charm dps is better than 2 players.
I would like to see something like this tried:
Warrior - Best single target tank (50% dps of a dps class)
Paladin - Best tank vs caster mobs and undead (40% dps of a dps class and can cast heals/stuns)
Dire Lord - Best tank vs many targets at once (60% dps of a dps class with offensive spells to hold agro on multiple targets)
Rogue - Highest potential dps given positioning
Ranger - Highest steady dps in general delivered from range
Wizard - Highest burst dps depending on mana
Cleric - Best direct heals
Shaman - Mediocre heals with debuffs to make up the difference
Druid - Mediocre heals with utility to make up the difference
Enchanter - Low dps best CC
Monk - Puller (70% dps of a dps class)
Summoner - Hard CC with pet and utility from summoned items (70% dps of a dps class)
This is just a quick, simplified example... I'm just hoping that some of these problems i felt ran deep in EQ1 and Vanguard can get ironed out this time around.
Thanks for reading,
Kiz~
Distinct roles for most classes, if not all, is important. Better to have crowd control a fourth role instead of dumping it on the tank who has other things to do. Assuming a 6 person group, tank, healer, crowd control a few DPS and one "whatever" isn't a bad mix. If a group is four people on the other hand you don't really have room for a dedicated crowd controller.
We definitely want trade-offs in any class. A class good in one thing needs to be bad in others so there are no "best" classes. That said, any class should be able to solo. This is a group focussed game but few people will want to play a class that can't go out and do something when a group is unavailable or the player doesn't have enough time or has too many interruptions to group. Thus a good healing or tank class needs to have less DPS than a DPS class but no so pathetically low that it cannot kill enemies on its own (any resemblance to the Midgard healer in DAOC is purely intentional).
I have to disagree with the idea of warriors being the CC class. Tanks in my eyes have one job, to keep the mobs on themselves, through positioning, and aggro skills, but NO aggro through damage. Aggro through damage is a lazy/cheap mechanic maintaining aggro, modifiers and passives IMO are a better long-term solution. If DPS understand their job and understand aggro, there never should be a problem, but you always get that DPSer that thinks they need to flex and enter a burn phase just as the tank starts the encounter. Part of me hopes that the death penalty will curtail this, or the player's reputation, but am sceptical.
As for CC people keep acting like it's just going to be the Enchanter, the Wiz has a root, Rogue has smoke and mirrors (I think it was called that), Necros can fear (and am hoping with a talent they fear them in place), and don't forget Bards!! I had a Bard in EQ and pulled in most LDoNs, pulling and parking mobs for the group to take on.
This is the only area a warrior should CC, in that they designate the targets for CC. I really don't think we need to give a warrior a CC ability. We just all have to communicate in a group, and dare I say it......control our aggro.
Have a good one. 8)
In regards to all classes being able to solo ... I agree, but only to a point. I think most classes should struggle to solo with any consistency and that their primary roles should be built around grouping. That said, I feel that specializations could be opened up over time that will allow players to become more versatile. I don't expect clerics to have much solo capability but maybe after someone plays it for awhile, gets some situational DPS gear, acquires some rare or exotic DPS enhancing spells, or learns a "Battle Cleric" specialization ... then they should be able to solo. I think it's something we should be able to work towards over time for certain classes while others might be proficient right out the gate.
@Jazz I disagree that warriors shouldn't have CC. You mentioned that we should just have 1 job ... and that's keeping aggro on mobs. It's an important job but it shouldn't be as simple as spamming taunt or abilities that have +threat modifiers automatically built in. We should absolutely have CC in our kit and it can be used to help accomplish our job. I think warriors should have a stun or two, maybe a snare, maybe a silence, maybe a disarm, maybe a limited fear of some sort. Warriors had all of these in WoW and were never considered a "CC Class." I am hoping that aggro in Pantheon will be a challenge that tests our reaction speed/accuracy. For example ... our silence or interrupt can generate bonus threat IF a mob is successfully interrupted while casting. The stun could generate bonus aggro IF the NPC is targeting anybody other than the warrior. Keep in mind that a warrior would never have ALL of these abilities at the same time due to limited hotbars. We would have to pick and choose which abilities make the most sense for any specific fight.
Let's consider the class description for warriors: "The Warrior seemingly defies limits of physical strength, ability and resilience. However, not content with fortitude alone, he also refines his mind, becoming a master strategist in battle." Master strategist sounds like an opportunist. We should have abilities that allow us to CONTROL the pace of battle. We most likely won't be able to mezz or AoE fear or charm or any long-term CC like sleep. But short-term opportunistic CC abilities like silence/interrupt/disarm/stun/daze/paralyze/snare or maybe a single target fear would be right up our alley. If we bash their knee in they should walk around hobbled ... if we unleash a primal roar maybe they piss their pants and run in fear. Guardians had a nice ability in EQ2 called plant. It allowed them to root up to 4 enemies in close proximity for a few seconds, while also rooting the warrior himself. I guess we'll see ... I have maxed out a warrior in every MMO I have ever played and in my experience I think it's very important that warriors be able to control the battlefield.
I tend towards tanks in most games I play. Specifically, paladins - yeah yeah, I'm one of "those" people. (My second characters are usually healers)
The way I see it, the job of a tank is, in fact, a form of CC - but it's a very focused form of CC. You're keeping a single mob focused on you and positioned such that the rest of the party can attack it with impunity. You're soaking damage so that the healer can stay focused on you, and not have to try to constantly heal everyone else in the group.
In most games I have played, I would also argue that the tank has to know the fight better than anyone else in the group. You have to know when to turn the mob, when to stack with everyone else, when to interrupt, when to dodge and when to stand there, and you have to know without anyone telling you so that you can react instantly, because if you don't, the entire group ends up out of position.
Tanks should have abilities that aid in these roles. I mean there's the obvious things like taunts, but stuns/interrupts (to stop the mob from doing something terrible), rescues, and so on - those are the province of tanks.
That's the primary role of tanks - that's what they should excel at. CCing multiple enemies - not a tank thing. Healing, or doing lots and lots of damage - also not a tank thing. However, it's ok to hybridize as long as the classes that are focused on that thing are better at it. For example, in most games, my paladin could heal - just not as well as a real healer. But it was useful for saving someone in a pinch. My paladin could root in EQ - not like a real CC class could, but I could use it to lock down a mob temporarily while the enchanter got stuff under control. In FFXIV I can stance switch and go into damage mode - useful in raiding when another tank has the mob and I don't want to be fighting them for aggro, but I'm still not doing as much damage as a "pure" dps class would.
To me, all of those things are ok. It's all about balancing so that each class is best at *something*, and so that they all feel somewhat unique.
My 2gp.
In part, this is a question of tools, right?
As a tank, I might need to:
- Take agro (Taunt)
- Reduce damage I'm taking (Hunker down)
- Slow down a mob that is running away, or running toward a group mate (Snare)
- Prevent a harmful cast made against a group mate (silence)
- Prevent a harmful melee attack made against a group mate (disarm)
- Other stuff...
AND...
In part, this is a question of being a trutly player interdependant game, or not, right?
- As a DPS I might need to hold off a bit if I think I'm about to pull agro (a concious decision to make the tank's job easier)
- As a tank I might need to mitigate the damage I am tanking (a conscious decsion to make the healer's job easier)
- As a CC I might need to sacrifice all to keep that ONE SINGLE MOB locked down (a concious decision to give up anything else I could be doing for the one thing the group really needs)
Things like giving tanks massive DPS came (in my opinion) in response to player demands in games to be more self sufficient. Self sufficient out of groups, and self sufficent in goups. Everybody needs to be able to do damage. Everybody needs to be able to rescue themselves from some degree of trouble. CC... well, it's too hard to think about CC... so games just threw the concept out the window. Such things are not components of interdependant game play. They are components of independant game play.
The answer here, I think (and I think the devs have as much as said this) - is to give people the tools they need to do their jobs... to understand that some tools will need to be shared across classes and perhaps across roles for the sake of gameplay synegy (and also for the sake of trying not to end up with the red-headed step-child class that nobody needs or wants)... but NOT to give each role the hallmark abilities and capabilities of other roles.
DPS should DPS
Healers should heal
Tanks should tank
CC should CC
Much of this discussion assumes that mobs are going to be dumb and only attack whoever is at the top of the agro list.
There have been strong hints that Pantheon mobs, at least bosses, are going to be more strategic in their selection of who they want to take out of the encounter first, based on the makeup of the party, the nature of the environment, the mood the mob is in or other factors that aren't going to be immediately apparent to us. They could decide that the healer must die or the druid who's casting cold protection buffs needs to go, etc. They may ignore taunts, dps or other factors if they sense an Achilles heel or a different type of threat in your party. CC or skills to make you less noticeable to the mob may play a much larger factor.
It's going to be interesting to see to what extent our traditional strategies will need to be adjusted from encounter to encounter.
Celandor said:Much of this discussion assumes that mobs are going to be dumb and only attack whoever is at the top of the agro list.
There have been strong hints that Pantheon mobs, at least bosses, are going to be more strategic in their selection of who they want to take out of the encounter first, based on the makeup of the party, the nature of the environment, the mood the mob is in or other factors that aren't going to be immediately apparent to us. They could decide that the healer must die or the druid who's casting cold protection buffs needs to go, etc. They may ignore taunts, dps or other factors if they sense an Achilles heel or a different type of threat in your party. CC or skills to make you less noticeable to the mob may play a much larger factor.
It's going to be interesting to see to what extent our traditional strategies will need to be adjusted from encounter to encounter.
they have alrdy showed this in previous videos, but only after they got to their grp did they randomly select another party member, grant this mechanic could obviously select a raoming player not in the grp by accident, but that another topic entirely, so yes we know they will be smarter but when it come to chasing down the puller to get to the grp it wouldnt make much sense if the targetted another player without even knowing if they are there. so initial pull they have puller on the hate list, than it get to the grp hopefully the tank gets it and from their it starts its random selection of targets. and im sure there will be plenty more of other things we will have to ake into consideration from the npc's as well, like charm, mezzes, blinds, long stuns, maybe even a mini teleport to somewhere in the zone, there is an endless amount of possiblities that they could happen to us that we have no idea about.
Building on Celandor's post, with mobs possibly having aggro based on different stimuli, I think it would be a great opportunity for different classes to have different group roles based on they type of enemy they are fighting. It makes plenty of sense for the bulky knight to stand before a horde of goblins and block the tide of battle, protecting her physically vulnerable teammates from certain doom. The arcane casters intense mental power just dominates and stifles the minds of his lesser foes but the hobgoblin lieutenant scoffs at an unfocused mental attack. The agile skilled combatant slips past the defenses of the lieutenant and incapacitates it with abilities honed through years of training.
This is the standard epic mental image that usually pops up when one imagins high magic fantasy combat. The real question is what happens when you are fighting a group of water elementals that can easily slip into the joins of the knights armor and pulverize their insides, with minds that do not work the same as other sentient beings, bodies with no real physiology to exploit. Now the arcane caster steps forward to hold back the flow of water with force and fire, the knight rushes about swinging the flat of her blade through the streamers of water that escape the containing efforts of the caster to spray them to mist keeping them useless while agile fight combines rare ingredients to create a solvent that will permanently dissolve the elemental construct.
The roles change around based on what different mobs attack strengths and vulnerabilities are, allowing for more dynamic game play and encounter creation without watering down the classes themselves. This could be approached from a design stand point as a rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock without the Spock cause OP is not fun.
If combat is broken into a test of strength, a test of speed, a test of arcane power and a test of spirit then what each class is good at could be different without watering down the abilities.
As a general example of a tanking ability chart (using my preconseptions and biases of the classes)
Tanks
DPS
Support:
Only Strong indicates the ability to efficiently tank and neutral indicates average damage taken and weakness is a damage taken multiplier.
As always these are just thoughts and to create class balance the Warrior would need to be able to DPS in Arcane fights and Support in Spirit fights or some such combination.
Trasak
Trasak said:
Tanks
- Warrior : Strong against Strength and Speed, Neutral against Arcane and Weak against Spirit
- Paladin: Strong against Strength and Spirit, Neutral against Speed and Weak against Arcane
- Dread Lord: Strong against Arcane and Spirit, Neutral against Strength and Weak against Speed
- Monk: Strong against Speed and Arcane, Neutral against Spirit and Weak against Strength
I like the idea of tanks having different strengths, but I've never been a fan of those strengths being determined by "mob type".
Rather, I'd prefer each tank to be proficient in different forms of aggro generation, overall damage mitigation, and pulling (placement/CC)
As in:
Warrior
Paladin
Dire Lord
I don't know, these are just thoughts. I'm a big fan of finding differences in aggro generation and tanking abilities, as opposed to simply saying one tank is better at fighting this mob and this tank is better at fighting that mob. When strengths and weaknesses are determined by aggro and mitigation, that also helps to ensure the remainder of the party is an active part of a tanks job as well (aggro management/utility/healing/etc.).
Tralyan said:Trasak said:
Tanks
- Warrior : Strong against Strength and Speed, Neutral against Arcane and Weak against Spirit
- Paladin: Strong against Strength and Spirit, Neutral against Speed and Weak against Arcane
- Dread Lord: Strong against Arcane and Spirit, Neutral against Strength and Weak against Speed
- Monk: Strong against Speed and Arcane, Neutral against Spirit and Weak against Strength
I like the idea of tanks having different strengths, but I've never been a fan of those strengths being determined by "mob type".
Rather, I'd prefer each tank to be proficient in different forms of aggro generation, overall damage mitigation, and pulling (placement/CC)
As in:
Warrior
- Strengths
- Insanely Good Single Target Aggro
- High Armor Class potential (heavy armor mitigation)
- Can generate burst of high aggro on all mobs at initial pull
- Weaknesses
- Needs to constantly switch targets to keep up group aggro (having along an off tank would help!)
- Low avoidance to susceptible to magic
- Horrible at single pulls / has a longer aggro range (having along a CC class would help!)
Paladin
- Strengths
- Great AoE aggro, generated through maybe AoE HoT's / battle cry / etc
- High self-sufficiency (healing) and strong against magic
- Able to break up groups of mobs with ease
- Weaknesses
- Has to work much harder to keep aggro on single mobs (making aggro management for DPS classes more important)
- Due to low avoidance and slightly lower AC than warrior, has to decide to focus on either aggro or healing him/herself
- Generates low amount of burst aggro and needs time to build aggro table
Dire Lord
- Strengths
- Generates aggro through aggro leeches (of other party members) and DoT's
- High avoidance mitigation to both spells and melee
- Skeleton pet to act as offtank and to delay mobs (CC)
- Weaknesses
- Aggro is heavily determined by number of mobs fighting at once. The more mobs, the more aggro leeched from other party members
- Susceptible to crits and heavier hits when landed (making a good healer necessary)
- Healing is spread between Dire Lord and Pet
I don't know, these are just thoughts. I'm a big fan of finding differences in aggro generation and tanking abilities, as opposed to simply saying one tank is better at fighting this mob and this tank is better at fighting that mob. When strengths and weaknesses are determined by aggro and mitigation, that also helps to ensure the remainder of the party is an active part of a tanks job as well (aggro management/utility/healing/etc.).
I do like where your going with this, but even though it just a thought and nothing has been proven, i would love for the paladin didn't have healing spells that they felt they had to use to be able to survive in encounters, i would much rather them cast AC buffs and such to bring them close to warriors and such and maybe get a weak heal on hit type of a things or something to this effect, granted i can admit this seems over powered and i have to agree but i would rather it be something to this effect than have to constantly healing myself becuase im such a gimp tank that a healer by himself would have a hard time keeping me up without my help.
I understand we need something to make these tanks different I'm sure direlords will probably be the lifetap type of tank which make them different all by themselves, than you got warriors probably the ones with the highest rating of parry/dodge/riposte/most types of tuants, battlecries and such things like this. I see Paladins being your master of shield type attacks and block, mild buffers, and keep building off of these kind of ideas, basically sacrafice the paladins healing ascept to increase his offense and defense portion of his gameplay so they dont feel like the same class they were in EQ1 granted they make awesome tanks but excepting them to kill anything i could literally drive to taco bell and come back and still have time to eat what i bought before he kills it lol just saying.
I may be in the minority, but I never want to see a DPS/cc/heal slot tanking. That is getting close to the Rift mentality of all classes can do everything. It's a slippery slope, as Rift found out. Players complained that Clerics could tank, DPS, and heal, what followed over time is that Warriors can heal, Mages can tank, Rogues can heal, it's insanely stupid. I truly believe in the traditional group format, GW2 messed with it and it was terrible, an instance involved repeatedly throwing yourself at it till you overcame it.
I believe already that VR has strengths and weaknesses for the different tank classes, if not why have the Warrior, Paladin, Dire Lord? Hopefully, there are small differences. Sometimes finding a tank is tough, but finding the perfect tank for an encounter would be beyond tedious. Yes, certain tanks will be stronger in certain encounters, but please make it a marginal difference.
So VR have a tightrope to walk, they cannot have classes be totally unique, as building a group would be a nightmare, but they cannot be all the same as it would kill the interdependence and community.
Am glad I don't have that headache 8)
Have a good one!
Riahuf22 said:Tralyan said:Trasak said:
Tanks
- Warrior : Strong against Strength and Speed, Neutral against Arcane and Weak against Spirit
- Paladin: Strong against Strength and Spirit, Neutral against Speed and Weak against Arcane
- Dread Lord: Strong against Arcane and Spirit, Neutral against Strength and Weak against Speed
- Monk: Strong against Speed and Arcane, Neutral against Spirit and Weak against Strength
I like the idea of tanks having different strengths, but I've never been a fan of those strengths being determined by "mob type".
Rather, I'd prefer each tank to be proficient in different forms of aggro generation, overall damage mitigation, and pulling (placement/CC)
As in:
Warrior
- Strengths
- Insanely Good Single Target Aggro
- High Armor Class potential (heavy armor mitigation)
- Can generate burst of high aggro on all mobs at initial pull
- Weaknesses
- Needs to constantly switch targets to keep up group aggro (having along an off tank would help!)
- Low avoidance to susceptible to magic
- Horrible at single pulls / has a longer aggro range (having along a CC class would help!)
Paladin
- Strengths
- Great AoE aggro, generated through maybe AoE HoT's / battle cry / etc
- High self-sufficiency (healing) and strong against magic
- Able to break up groups of mobs with ease
- Weaknesses
- Has to work much harder to keep aggro on single mobs (making aggro management for DPS classes more important)
- Due to low avoidance and slightly lower AC than warrior, has to decide to focus on either aggro or healing him/herself
- Generates low amount of burst aggro and needs time to build aggro table
Dire Lord
- Strengths
- Generates aggro through aggro leeches (of other party members) and DoT's
- High avoidance mitigation to both spells and melee
- Skeleton pet to act as offtank and to delay mobs (CC)
- Weaknesses
- Aggro is heavily determined by number of mobs fighting at once. The more mobs, the more aggro leeched from other party members
- Susceptible to crits and heavier hits when landed (making a good healer necessary)
- Healing is spread between Dire Lord and Pet
I don't know, these are just thoughts. I'm a big fan of finding differences in aggro generation and tanking abilities, as opposed to simply saying one tank is better at fighting this mob and this tank is better at fighting that mob. When strengths and weaknesses are determined by aggro and mitigation, that also helps to ensure the remainder of the party is an active part of a tanks job as well (aggro management/utility/healing/etc.).
I do like where your going with this, but even though it just a thought and nothing has been proven, i would love for the paladin didn't have healing spells that they felt they had to use to be able to survive in encounters, i would much rather them cast AC buffs and such to bring them close to warriors and such and maybe get a weak heal on hit type of a things or something to this effect, granted i can admit this seems over powered and i have to agree but i would rather it be something to this effect than have to constantly healing myself becuase im such a gimp tank that a healer by himself would have a hard time keeping me up without my help.
I understand we need something to make these tanks different I'm sure direlords will probably be the lifetap type of tank which make them different all by themselves, than you got warriors probably the ones with the highest rating of parry/dodge/riposte/most types of tuants, battlecries and such things like this. I see Paladins being your master of shield type attacks and block, mild buffers, and keep building off of these kind of ideas, basically sacrafice the paladins healing ascept to increase his offense and defense portion of his gameplay so they dont feel like the same class they were in EQ1 granted they make awesome tanks but excepting them to kill anything i could literally drive to taco bell and come back and still have time to eat what i bought before he kills it lol just saying.
Good ideas, as well. Shield block/parry/riposte/etc kind of slipped my mind when trying to think of strengths vs weaknesses.
I also admit that this is a thinly veiled attempt at trying to re-create my favorite class of any MMO to date - the Warden in Lord of the Rings On-line. A medium armor, spear wielding tank that relied on avoidance mitigation. Aggro was generated through aggro leeches, and they were incredibly self-sufficient with Heal leeches and heal over time skills to make up for the lack of armor mitigation. It was a fresh take on tanks that I dearly miss. Then you also had your cookie cutter tank, the Guardian, that relied on heavy armor mitigation and force taunts. The mantra for the two tanks in LOTRO was:
You ask for a Guardian by class, but you ask for a Warden by name.
Sigh, I miss those days.
Good discussion.
Aye, Jazz. I wouldn't want to have that design/balance headache either. That's why the devs at VR are making the BIG bucks. :-)
Tralyan said:
Good ideas, as well. Shield block/parry/riposte/etc kind of slipped my mind when trying to think of strengths vs weaknesses.
I also admit that this is a thinly veiled attempt at trying to re-create my favorite class of any MMO to date - the Warden in Lord of the Rings On-line. A medium armor, spear wielding tank that relied on avoidance mitigation. Aggro was generated through aggro leeches, and they were incredibly self-sufficient with Heal leeches and heal over time skills to make up for the lack of armor mitigation. It was a fresh take on tanks that I dearly miss. Then you also had your cookie cutter tank, the Guardian, that relied on heavy armor mitigation and force taunts. The mantra for the two tanks in LOTRO was:
You ask for a Guardian by class, but you ask for a Warden by name.
Sigh, I miss those days.
Good discussion.
I just had to respond to this. I played a Champion tank in LOTRO :P (At least, up until the point where they made it *really* unviable to do that and relegated the Champion class to being DPS always).
I think there's an important theme here though - if you're going to have multiple classes that function within a role, those classes should go about that role in different ways.
So for tanks, it makes sense that one class is going to be the heavy-armor-wearing, taunt-based damage sponge. And when we think about it the three announced tank roles we tend to think of variations on that theme.
But what if we approach damage mitigation differently. We've talked a lot about aggro generation and situational fights (paladins are best vs. undead, etc). Let's extend that.
What if Dire Lords, for example, mitigated damage not through heavy armor, but through a passive debuff effect on their opponents? The aura of fear that surrounds them causes attacks to miss, blows to land with less force, that sort of thing? Because of this, the Dire Lord can forego heavy armor and instead use massive weapons and sweeping attacks that other tanks would struggle to pull off with all that armor getting in the way.
What if Paladins, instead of being armor-plated shield walls like they are in so many games, sacrificed some armor weight for passive reactive heals or regen effects. This means that a paladin would be more vulnerable to big hits, but much more difficult to wear down over time with smaller strikes when compared to a warrior.
I would love to see an evasion-based tank but from previous games I know that evasion tanking is *really* hard to balance right when you get into boss fights, just because evasion doesn't always stop the monster from landing that massive blow on you. For normal encounters it can balance out but when you have a single monster that just hits like a truck, it makes it pretty tough on the healer trying to keep that evasion tank standing. I think that's why Monk hasn't been specifically called out as a tank role even if there's been some discussion about how they'll potentially be able to off-tank via evasion.