The concept of Multi and single target tanks [Archive]

Raidyen

01-12-2009, 07:01 PM

I want to get a real discussion going on this subject. I have seen it brought up in several other threads, but i would like to try and get a good debate going about the pro's and con's about a system like this.My opinion on the matter is that this idea needs to be tossed out.I really don't understand why we need to add even more barriers for tanks. Every tank should have the same agro management ability, period. Switch up with some different snap taunts or taunts over time, but in the end of a fight every tank should have the same ability to maintain agro on any encounter. That includes Bruiser and Monks. In addition, it has already been pointed out based on the information we are getting and the testing we are doing, that the multi target tanks have a massive advantage over the single target tanks.Diversity should only be in style, buffs, debuffs, dps, healing, and survivablity. Agro management is NOT something you mess with in order to create diversity between the classes. This change is extremely dramatic. Even though tanks are the ones getting the majority of the spell changes, agro management is going to trickle down to each and every player that has ever grouped and plans to continue grouping with a tank.

Full_Metal_Mage

01-12-2009, 08:04 PM

I both agree and disagree. I think the concept of being either a multi-target or a single-target tank should get tossed and replaced with the concept of a tank class being designed to be either the MT or the OT, since that is the way raiding works in this game.I'd go further and recategorize the brawlers as scouts. Then rework the bards slightly to make them tanks. Taunts should be easy to design for bards, since it seems that everyone is a music critic anyway. (This is part of my masterplan for getting my dirge into plate armor. Oh, and for world domination also.)

Dasein

01-12-2009, 08:12 PM

<cite>Full_Metal_Mage wrote:</cite><blockquote>I both agree and disagree. I think the concept of being either a multi-target or a single-target tank should get tossed and replaced with the concept of a tank class being designed to be either the MT or the OT, since that is the way raiding works in this game.I'd go further and recategorize the brawlers as scouts. Then rework the bards slightly to make them tanks. Taunts should be easy to design for bards, since it seems that everyone is a music critic anyway. (This is part of my masterplan for getting my dirge into plate armor. Oh, and for world domination also.)</blockquote>focusing on multi-mob encounters vs. single-target encounters, or MT vs. OT should be done via AAs. All tanks should have a base level of functionality in their primary group role, with specializations handled by AA choices. Since AAs can be respecced, and multiple profiles stored, this gives players much more flexibility.

Gwarsh

01-12-2009, 08:18 PM

I agree, multi vs single is going to create one preferred class for each and another left out in the cold. if they want to box the tanks in like this they should at least consolidate classes. Merge berserker and gaurdian ,bards, enchanters, wizard and warlock, druids, clerics, brawlers, etc. there are really too many classes anyway.

Landiin

01-12-2009, 09:07 PM

Mentalep

01-12-2009, 09:30 PM

I think it's totally fine for tank damage to focus on single or multiple targets (note that I'm pretty sure my guard is not gonna outdamage a berserker on a single target), but all tanks should be able to produce similar threat on multiple or single targets. As has been said dozens of times before, an "aoe tank" MUST by design be able to hold at least a single target, or else it's not a tank. For the aoe tank to be able to additionally hold more mobs than the single target tank is a significant advantage, not a "different focus."And, of course, any aoe taunt works just as well on one target as a single target taunt would. You can't directly compare taunts to aoe attacks. Aoe attacks obviously do more damage when more mobs are around, making the encounter go more quickly - but the taunt's only purpose is to keep everything on the tank. Whether 'everything' is one mob or seven really doesn't make any difference.As far as I can tell, the single target tanks are defined more by a particular deficiency (aoe threat) than by any real comparative strength.All fighters need to have a reasonable and similar degree of survivability AND threat generation. Balance them based on secondary factors - their group buffs, their utility (feign death, resurrection), and so on.Whatever happened to "defensive tanks" versus "offensive tanks?" Remember that? When did that turn into "this class can tank ten mobs, but this one can only tank one?" Whose insane idea of balance was that? Which tank would you rather have in your group?I might sound bitter here, but I don't think it's that bad currently. I'm a guardian, and my aoe threat is okay. As long as I don't get an overzealous warlock in my group (especially more than one, as I only have one Moderate), it's adequate - but it's totally irrational to "balance" tanks this way. Imagine if an "aoe tank" class routinely lost aggro on single mobs after two or three moderate nukes from a wizard. Do you think anyone would want that class tanking for them?

Faelgalad

01-13-2009, 12:26 AM

Single or Multi should be choice of AA.Forcing people inbto a role they didn't rolled is no fun.This game is about fun.Multi vs. Single:On either end of the stick it will break.- An AE Tank with high Survive and Threat will extinct Single Target with high Threat.- An AE Tank that cannot survive multiple opponents is without purpose, so he has to have high surive or is getting extinct.- An AE Tank not suitable for single targets will not get into instances and will become as rare as Troubs, an special Raidchar.- As there are a lot of Zerks/SK, an reduction on Troub-player number means lot of people lost fun = Dev should be fired.Equal threat and equal rights!

RafaelSmith

01-13-2009, 10:48 AM

The concept of Multi -vs Single target tanks is flawed and impossible to "balance". Tanks that can lock aggro on multi-mobs will always...100% of the time be superior to a single target tank for all but a small % of the games content. Less HP, less Mit, Less avoidance can easily be overcome while mobs running wild killing off group members cannot.That plus the fact that we were just given an expansion that is almost entirely biased toward AE puts tanks that struggle at holding aggro on more than one mob on the bench.

Sir Longsword

01-13-2009, 10:50 AM

ALL TANKS should be able to TANK both single and group encounters in the game with character tweeks coming through aa. I cannot grasp the reasoning of segregating fighters in this manner. DPS classes can be divided into 2 groups for the most part, one more AOE and one more single target, but they can still function properly and enjoy themselves. Fighters should fight it out for MT and OT jobs in raids, and all fighters should to be able to hit heroic instances and survive them, or natural selection will weed out the classes that cannot.

Anfauglith

01-13-2009, 11:09 AM

<cite>Hammerfist@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>ALL TANKS should be able to TANK both single and group encounters in the game with character tweeks coming through aa. I cannot grasp the reasoning of segregating fighters in this manner. DPS classes can be divided into 2 groups for the most part, one more AOE and one more single target, but they can still function properly and enjoy themselves. Fighters should fight it out for MT and OT jobs in raids, and all fighters should to be able to hit heroic instances and survive them, or natural selection will weed out the classes that cannot.</blockquote>You're basicly saying there's 6 classes that should be 1 and the same...I also agree that having 6 classes might have been a mistake...but that can't be changed anymore so they have to find ways to make them different.

Dasein

01-13-2009, 11:12 AM

<cite>Onucia@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammerfist@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>ALL TANKS should be able to TANK both single and group encounters in the game with character tweeks coming through aa. I cannot grasp the reasoning of segregating fighters in this manner. DPS classes can be divided into 2 groups for the most part, one more AOE and one more single target, but they can still function properly and enjoy themselves. Fighters should fight it out for MT and OT jobs in raids, and all fighters should to be able to hit heroic instances and survive them, or natural selection will weed out the classes that cannot.</blockquote>You're basicly saying there's 6 classes that should be 1 and the same...I also agree that having 6 classes might have been a mistake...but that can't be changed anymore so they have to find ways to make them different.</blockquote>I don't see why they need to make them different for the sake of making them different, especially if that makes some classes less desirable. Keep in mind that without tanks, there are no groups, so if suddenly, half the tanks become less desirable for TSO zones, there will be a lot of people left looking for a group, and that's not good for anyone. Everyone has an interest in making sure all tanks are viable choices for all content.

Sir Longsword

01-13-2009, 11:19 AM

<cite>Onucia@Crushbone wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Hammerfist@Blackburrow wrote:</cite><blockquote>ALL TANKS should be able to TANK both single and group encounters in the game with character tweeks coming through aa. I cannot grasp the reasoning of segregating fighters in this manner. DPS classes can be divided into 2 groups for the most part, one more AOE and one more single target, but they can still function properly and enjoy themselves. Fighters should fight it out for MT and OT jobs in raids, and all fighters should to be able to hit heroic instances and survive them, or natural selection will weed out the classes that cannot.</blockquote>You're basicly saying there's 6 classes that should be 1 and the same...I also agree that having 6 classes might have been a mistake...but that can't be changed anymore so they have to find ways to make them different.</blockquote>They need to be able to do the same job, they don't all have do it like Guardians. The job description is to hold aggro and survive, how each fighter completes the job can be done 6 different ways for all I care.

CrazyMoogle

01-13-2009, 12:07 PM

Suraklin

01-13-2009, 12:17 PM

<cite>Gwarsh@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote>I agree, multi vs single is going to create one preferred class for each and another left out in the cold. if they want to box the tanks in like this they should at least consolidate classes. Merge berserker and gaurdian ,bards, enchanters, wizard and warlock, druids, clerics, brawlers, etc. there are really too many classes anyway.</blockquote>I agree also. 24 classes was too many to balance from the start and the devs still show they don't know how to do it. I think the devs are too afraid to do it though because people will scream it's another NGE like they did to SWG. Eventhough merging classes in this game would probably benefit it a lot more than what happened in SWG.

Raidyen

01-13-2009, 12:52 PM

I am personally ok with the large number of classes available to us in EQ2. I also want to see each class be as unique as possible. However in the process, you cannot take a core mechanic that has exsisted in every MMO since the beginning, and decide to completely redesign the wheel.I have yet to really see anyone anywhere think that this concept is a good one. I would really like to hear from somebody, somewhere about the pro's of this concept. At this point that will prolly have to be a dev because i think they are the only ones still thinking this is a good idea. The only pro i have seen so far is that it brings a little diversity to the tanks, which IMO is not a pro at all. The tanks have plenty of diversity now, between AA builds, gear selections, thier own buffs/debuffs, combat arts, healing spells or lifetaps, walls of stone or divine aura's, DPS, or lack of. Why you want to add even more diversity to an already diverse group is beyond me, particularly when diversity means closing of content to players.Make my swash as diverse as you want, i better still be able to DPS and debuff with the best of them, in every situation, with the exception of maybe some special scripted named fights.

JinjAB

01-13-2009, 01:00 PM

Multi target vs single target tanking ought not be down to the class, but to AA and/or weapon. For instance most multi mob encounters are of the trash variety, so most tanks could comforatbaly use a 2hander. When you equip the 2 hander, all your single target taunts now hit the closest 4 targets as you have longer reach (it's just an alternative idea ok!) and there is a reason to use 2handers again <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Guards hold agro with far better taunts (but by doing so, they buff their group to do more dps) vs Zerkers hold agro with far more personal DPS (overall, the group does same DPS)Knights (SK/Pally) enhance agro handling by their lifetaps (transfer hp from mob) or self heals (higher heals but no mob damage)Brawlers enhance agro by dodging & infuriating mobs. [I can't think how to differentiate them atm, and my main is a monk! but am at work]Upshot, there have to be alternate ways to get to whatever the desired effect of these changes are.

Terron

01-13-2009, 01:42 PM

The aim of the balancing seems to be that all fighters should be able to do the job of raid MT, which I think is reasonable.To do that they must all be very close in survivability as a raid MT. and in the ability to hold aggro on the toughest encounters. If one class has even a small advantage that will be come the favoured MT class of the hard core guilds.So they all need to be able to tank both single target and multimob encounters. Any difference must be small.The DPS done when tanking should also be pretty much the same. Higher DPS with the same aggro control and survivability would make a tank the favoured one, shutting out the low DPS ones. You can't balance survivability when tanking vs DPS when tanking since surviving is a primary function of a tank and DPS is a secondary one.How the aggro control and survivability are achieved can vary a bit, but too much variation would make balancing them too difficult.If an aggressive multi-target tank can do the job on single targets such tanks will be chose ahead of single target and defensive tanks. If they can't do the job on single targets they won't be chosen.Agressive/defensive and multi/single target can't be significantly different for fighters when tanking if the classes are to be balanced in for their primary role.If tanking has to be done in defensive stance then that opens up the possibility of using offensive stance to give them a secondary role, which might give fighters a chance to get onto raids as non-tanks. Maybe berserkers might get a T2 DPS role + group melee buffer as they sometimes had a few years ago. Maybe monks could have their raidwide buff boosted when in offensive mode.

Gwarsh

01-13-2009, 01:47 PM

<cite>Jinj@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Multi target vs single target tanking ought not be down to the class, but to AA and/or weapon. For instance most multi mob encounters are of the trash variety, so most tanks could comforatbaly use a 2hander. When you equip the 2 hander, all your single target taunts now hit the closest 4 targets as you have longer reach (it's just an alternative idea ok!) and there is a reason to use 2handers again <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" />Guards hold agro with far better taunts (but by doing so, they buff their group to do more dps) vs Zerkers hold agro with far more personal DPS (overall, the group does same DPS)Knights (SK/Pally) enhance agro handling by their lifetaps (transfer hp from mob) or self heals (higher heals but no mob damage)Brawlers enhance agro by dodging & infuriating mobs. [I can't think how to differentiate them atm, and my main is a monk! but am at work]Upshot, there have to be alternate ways to get to whatever the desired effect of these changes are.</blockquote>they already have the mechanics for this in the game, where successful dodge/shield block or whatever proc's a heal. I believe its a wrist adornment. Should be easy to modify that mechanic to proc hate. the shadowknights wont heal themselfs enough to hold hate unless there is a theat component added, same with paladins. add in the fact that paladin heals are interrupted all the time and that idea gets further complicated. this whole thing screams SWG to me, but I'll see what i can do with it when it comes live. I have a sinking suspicion that it will wipe out the tank population in the game, which is already dreadfully thin

Raidyen

01-13-2009, 02:06 PM

<cite>Gwarsh@Befallen wrote:</cite><blockquote> this whole thing screams SWG to me, but I'll see what i can do with it when it comes live. I have a sinking suspicion that it will wipe out the tank population in the game, which is already dreadfully thin</blockquote>I have the same fears. I saw what happened to SWG, and this concept change here has a real chance to be a game killer. This change will effect every single person in EQ2. Force tanks to tank in Dstance, i am fine with, remove most hate transfers, while i dont like loosing one of my primary abilities as a swash, i can deal with it, Turn all tanks into [Removed for Content] agro managers that will only excel in certain situations, gamekiller. All 6 tanks should be somewhat close in the ability's of survivablity, and in agro managment. Honestly, this would be like saying "Ok we need to add some diversity to assassins and rangers. So what we are going to do is make it so rangers can only get thier big damage attacks off on 4 legged mobs, and assasins can only get thier big damage attacks off on 2 legged mobs."Or how about some healer diversity. "We are going to make it so Priest types can only single target heal on Non tanks, while Shamans can only single target heal on tanks, and we will just make it so druids can heal everyone, just not very well." I know, sounds rediculous, but think about it, thats exactly whats happening to ALL tanks right now.

Loxus

01-13-2009, 03:10 PM

Narrator: Lets return to Alrick's cubical where we find Alrick diobalically plotting his next move...Alrick: while rubbing his hands together says "With the success of the tank balancing on single vs. Multi target agro, I will do the same thing with Healers!Clerics will be single target heals for 3,000 to 4,000. No no no! "All their group heals will only heal for 150 you fool!" /slap Kristie Druids will be group heals, but they will have 10,000 point heals to each member of the group! MUHAHAHA!and Shammy's... Well, they can hang out with the Bruisers in the corner."Brilliant! Call Blizzard tell them they can expect 10,000 new accounts next month.Que /lightening flash /Thunder ONNarrator: This concludes our feedback of GU51.

Huntress Jellica

01-13-2009, 03:22 PM

<cite>Loxus@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Lets return to Alrick's cubical where we find Alrick diobalically plotting his next move...Alrick; while rubbing his hands together says "With the success of the tank balancing on single vs. Multi target agro, I will do the same thing with Healers!Clerics will be single target heals for 3,000 to 4,000. No no no! "All their group heals will only heal for 150 you fool!" /slap Kristie Druids will be group heals, but they will have 10,000 point heals to each member of the group! MUHAHAHA!and Shammy's... Well, they can hang out with the Bruisers in the corner."Brilliant!Que /lightening flash /Thunder ON</blockquote>As a warden.. I'll take it.. Maybe I could top the heal parse! =D

Raidyen

01-13-2009, 05:25 PM

Be careful, don't get my thread locked <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />Still want to hear from somebody, ANYBODY that thinks this concept is a good one in EQ2.

Ocello

01-13-2009, 06:07 PM

That is because there isn't a SOUL who thinks it is a good idea.OOOOO I just got a good idea: /Brainstorm...SCRAP single target taunts. Scrap em. Give us a Green (AE) Taunt and a Blue (AoE) Taunt (similar to a zerker's Insolence) to go with our AoE damage attack (BTW lower the cast on this more...we aren't casting spells here). Then there is no "single target tanks"! You use your Combat arts on one mob to hold Single target aggro. Garsh, almost makes too much sense.

Elanjar

01-13-2009, 06:12 PM

<cite>Full_Metal_Mage wrote:</cite><blockquote>I both agree and disagree. I think the concept of being either a multi-target or a single-target tank should get tossed and replaced with the concept of a tank class being designed to be either the MT or the OT, since that is the way raiding works in this game.I'd go further and recategorize the brawlers as scouts. Then rework the bards slightly to make them tanks. Taunts should be easy to design for bards, since it seems that everyone is a music critic anyway. (This is part of my masterplan for getting my dirge into plate armor. Oh, and for world domination also.)</blockquote>There are too many tanks as is. Although i agree (sorry brawlers) brawlers should be classified as high-end T2 dps similar to a rogue, bards should not become tanks. Bards should remain where they are. That would reduce us down to 4 "tanks".As for the multi vs single target issue, it makes things almost impossible to balance but they did that because with the other way what ends up happening is players will choose to only take the easiest one to heal, which (according to class descriptions) should always be the guardian.

RafaelSmith

01-13-2009, 06:52 PM

<cite>Elanjar@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>t makes things almost impossible to balance but they did that because with the other way what ends up happening is players will choose to only take the easiest one to heal, which (according to class descriptions) should always be the guardian.</blockquote>Yeah well from what ive been experiencing in TSO instances....I am only "easier" to heal because the healer has to focus more on healing the AE dps group members =P

Melli

01-13-2009, 07:11 PM

Hate generation should be even across the board, regardless of the type of encounter - otherwise, the AE tank will have a huge advantage since they can always hold a single, versus the Single Target tank being unable to hold multiples.Survivability should be even across the board. If the class is a tank class (and this includes brawlers), they must by definition be able to stand up to the beating. They may take their beatings in different ways, but they should be able to take the beating. If brawlers cannot take a beating, reclassify them as a DPS class and put them on an even footing with other dps classes.Differentiate the tanks in how they deal out damage and in the flavor of the class, not in the ability to generate hate or survive the beating, which ALL tanks must be able to do.

Gwarsh

01-13-2009, 07:19 PM

<cite>Loxus@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Narrator: Lets return to Alrick's cubical where we find Alrick diobalically plotting his next move...Alrick: while rubbing his hands together says "With the success of the tank balancing on single vs. Multi target agro, I will do the same thing with Healers!Clerics will be single target heals for 3,000 to 4,000. No no no! "All their group heals will only heal for 150 you fool!" /slap Kristie Druids will be group heals, but they will have 10,000 point heals to each member of the group! MUHAHAHA!and Shammy's... Well, they can hang out with the Bruisers in the corner."Brilliant! Call Blizzard tell them they can expect 10,000 new accounts next month.Que /lightening flash /Thunder ONNarrator: This concludes our feedback of GU51. </blockquote>wouldnt mind checking out the dev's portfolios... maybe they all recently bought stock in blizzard?

Bookbunny

01-13-2009, 07:33 PM

Tank diversity should not be based on WHAT they can tank, but on HOW they can tank.The model for this diversity is already in place with the healer archetypes, let's use this model and apply it to fighters. Every healer is able to heal in every fight. They all have direct healing spells, then the diversity comes in with druids/regens, shamans/wards and clerics/vitaes. Every fighter should be able to tank in every fight. They should all have basic taunt spells, then the diversity comes in with Warrior/Crusader/Brawler specific aggro management styles.Simply allow all fighters their basic taunts, then change how they each maintain aggro to make them different, FUN, and still useful in ALL content the game offers. An example: Warriors use massive threat increases to maintain aggro (taunting as we now know it); Crusaders use hate position spells and taunts over time to manipulate the hate ladder; Brawlers could get abilities that detaunt for their groupmates, or disperse the group's hate evenly among them and allow their taunts to push them ahead. (There is a healer spell that disperses all damage done to a target and spread it among the group, do the same with hate).Changing the style of the fighter's hate manipulation will make them diverse, fun and challenging without the current issue of limiting content and lowering group desireability.

Detor

01-13-2009, 07:49 PM

<cite>Deekin@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>Or how about some healer diversity. "We are going to make it so Priest types can only single target heal on Non tanks, while Shamans can only single target heal on tanks, and we will just make it so druids can heal everyone, just not very well." I know, sounds ridiculous, but think about it, thats exactly whats happening to ALL tanks right now.</blockquote>SHHHH! I think I read the healer "rebalancing" is going to come up next, stop giving them ideas!I think the difference in classes should be a difference in how they achieve their goal of keeping all mobs on them, staying alive, and maybe doing some damage. The difference in classes should NOT include making some able to do single and multi target encounters (which is currently what multitarget tanks are able to do), while making others who certainly didn't sign up to be called this, single target tanks who have it very hard holding multitarget aggro now.

Lethe5683

01-13-2009, 08:14 PM

<cite>Deekin@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I want to get a real discussion going on this subject. I have seen it brought up in several other threads, but i would like to try and get a good debate going about the pro's and con's about a system like this.My opinion on the matter is that this idea needs to be tossed out.I really don't understand why we need to add even more barriers for tanks. Every tank should have the same agro management ability, period. Switch up with some different snap taunts or taunts over time, but in the end of a fight every tank should have the same ability to maintain agro on any encounter. That includes Bruiser and Monks. In addition, it has already been pointed out based on the information we are getting and the testing we are doing, that the multi target tanks have a massive advantage over the single target tanks.Diversity should only be in style, buffs, debuffs, dps, healing, and survivablity. Agro management is NOT something you mess with in order to create diversity between the classes. This change is extremely dramatic. Even though tanks are the ones getting the majority of the spell changes, agro management is going to trickle down to each and every player that has ever grouped and plans to continue grouping with a tank.</blockquote>The whole concept is completly rediculous and should be scrapped before it does further damage to classes. Each class used to be it's own style, while not all were equal they were all unique. They needed to be balanced, yes but that doesn't mean they had to be sorted into 2 different types then made all the same.

Ocello

01-13-2009, 08:38 PM

<cite>Bookbunny wrote:</cite><blockquote>Simply allow all fighters their basic taunts, then change how they each maintain aggro to make them different, FUN, and still useful in ALL content the game offers. An example: Warriors use massive threat increases to maintain aggro (taunting as we now know it); Crusaders use hate position spells and taunts over time to manipulate the hate ladder; Brawlers could get abilities that detaunt for their groupmates, or disperse the group's hate evenly among them and allow their taunts to push them ahead. (There is a healer spell that disperses all damage done to a target and spread it among the group, do the same with hate).</blockquote>I actually think this is a good start, for real.My monk has an (albeit [Removed for Content]) aa ability that is basically a groupwide Detaunt. It never got upgraded since EoF and is worthless now, but if they upped this amount and added something to it, it could work. However, I think you are only looking at this from a Raiding standpoint. I don't think Crusaders would like this idea for grouping, because tank metality says they should NEVER lose aggro, even momentarily...it DPS loss most of the time.Otherwise I think this is a fantastic idea and would like the devs to look into it.

Raidyen

01-13-2009, 09:16 PM

<cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bookbunny wrote:</cite><blockquote>Simply allow all fighters their basic taunts, then change how they each maintain aggro to make them different, FUN, and still useful in ALL content the game offers. An example: Warriors use massive threat increases to maintain aggro (taunting as we now know it); Crusaders use hate position spells and taunts over time to manipulate the hate ladder; Brawlers could get abilities that detaunt for their groupmates, or disperse the group's hate evenly among them and allow their taunts to push them ahead. (There is a healer spell that disperses all damage done to a target and spread it among the group, do the same with hate).</blockquote>I actually think this is a good start, for real.My monk has an (albeit [Removed for Content]) aa ability that is basically a groupwide Detaunt. It never got upgraded since EoF and is worthless now, but if they upped this amount and added something to it, it could work. However, I think you are only looking at this from a Raiding standpoint. I don't think Crusaders would like this idea for grouping, because tank metality says they should NEVER lose aggro, even momentarily...it DPS loss most of the time.Otherwise I think this is a fantastic idea and would like the devs to look into it.</blockquote>Brillaint idea. might need a little bit of tweaking, but this is the direction we need to be pushing for.Still want to here from a single person that thinks multi/single target tanks is a good idea. I am starting to beleive that the Devs' are the only ones in that sinking boat. Maybe they should take notice?

Appollyon

01-13-2009, 11:52 PM

<cite>Deekin@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ocello wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bookbunny wrote:</cite><blockquote>Simply allow all fighters their basic taunts, then change how they each maintain aggro to make them different, FUN, and still useful in ALL content the game offers. An example: Warriors use massive threat increases to maintain aggro (taunting as we now know it); Crusaders use hate position spells and taunts over time to manipulate the hate ladder; Brawlers could get abilities that detaunt for their groupmates, or disperse the group's hate evenly among them and allow their taunts to push them ahead. (There is a healer spell that disperses all damage done to a target and spread it among the group, do the same with hate).</blockquote>I actually think this is a good start, for real.My monk has an (albeit [Removed for Content]) aa ability that is basically a groupwide Detaunt. It never got upgraded since EoF and is worthless now, but if they upped this amount and added something to it, it could work. However, I think you are only looking at this from a Raiding standpoint. I don't think Crusaders would like this idea for grouping, because tank metality says they should NEVER lose aggro, even momentarily...it DPS loss most of the time.Otherwise I think this is a fantastic idea and would like the devs to look into it.</blockquote>Brillaint idea. might need a little bit of tweaking, but this is the direction we need to be pushing for.Still want to here from a single person that thinks multi/single target tanks is a good idea. I am starting to beleive that the Devs' are the only ones in that sinking boat. Maybe they should take notice?</blockquote>I fully agree with these suggested hate management ideas, it gives diversity to the tanks while it doesn’t put one class or classes out in front. Now only if we can get them to make all the fighters tank all content equally if that’s even possible.Now if they want to keep this AE and Single Target Tank concept they should make it so the AE taunts do significantly less to no hate at all to the tanks target. This way using AE taunts on a single target will cause minimal hate and not give AE tanks an unfair advantage. The only problem with this idea is that content isn't designed as all single targets or all AE targets so groups might need to bring both types of tanks along especially on raids. I don’t take credit for this idea I believe I saw in another thread or maybe earlier in this thread.

Elanjar

01-14-2009, 01:37 AM

<cite>Melli wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hate generation should be even across the board, regardless of the type of encounter - otherwise, the AE tank will have a huge advantage since they can always hold a single, versus the Single Target tank being unable to hold multiples.Survivability should be even across the board. If the class is a tank class (and this includes brawlers), they must by definition be able to stand up to the beating. They may take their beatings in different ways, but they should be able to take the beating. If brawlers cannot take a beating, reclassify them as a DPS class and put them on an even footing with other dps classes.Differentiate the tanks in how they deal out damage and in the flavor of the class, not in the ability to generate hate or survive the beating, which ALL tanks must be able to do.</blockquote>If you do this then the only tank chosen by raids and the prefered tank by groups will be the one that does the most damage or if that is equal too then which one provides the most utility.If you're gonna even all that up then you really just have 1 tank and they should just merge them all... Unfortunately this game has more tank classes available than required tanking positions so they have to use something like AoE vs Single to differentiate.

Faelgalad

01-14-2009, 05:48 AM

The only way to bring more Tanks in is to make them symbiotic, a team. Like that all Tanks buff each other Life, Avoidance, DPS... in the range of 50-100% of the current buff up, so that the current buff givers are not become extinct.Would lessen a bit the constrains of max. Tank equip. With the team Tank buffs equal for all, given by AA. But with the limitation, only effectiv when used by different classes.So you take 4-6 Tanks into your Raid, and those Tanks discuss, who takes which Teambuff role for them.But that an optimal Raid needs 4 from 6 Tanks because of symbiotic Tank buffs. Also working more as an Tank-Team could be an challenge and fun.Aggro-Transfers from Tank-to-Tank would have been some nice motion to increase Tank desirability for Raids. Would have been opened up a minimum of a third tank spot (MT, OT, Transfer-Tank). With a simple "Transfer not to same class" for enforcing diversity.