Just a thought on the old single target vs multiple target tank argument [Archive]

View Full Version : Just a thought on the old single target vs multiple target tank argument

urgthock

08-12-2010, 03:52 PM

Something someone said in another thread sparked my thoughts on this matter and I was curious as to what others may think of these thoughts.What if tanks were separated into these 2 categories as was previously mentioned with a few changes. Give all fighters the same amount of single target taunts, linked group taunts and AoE target taunts. Then give the ST tanks a huge modifier to their single target taunts (say x5?) and AE tanks a somewhat largish modifier (say x2?)to all the targets the taunt hits. Wouldn't this in essence make it so that ST tanks would still be able to tank groups of mobs just fine, with a serious aggro lock on the single target they have targeted, whereas AE tanks would not be able to have the serious aggro lock on any one single target but a bit better aggro on the group in general? Combine this with including taunts on most of the combat arts the tank uses (similar to SKs) and you might just have a system that works well after a bit of testing, adjustment and careful thought. For example, perhaps increasing the reuse on single target taunts might be needed so as to not guarentee a taunt lock regardless of the DPS of others in the group. But I am sure that many of the different variables could be "massaged into place" so as to have a somewhat balanced and working distinction.I am interested in hearing what others think but please withhold any flames you might have; I fully admit that I have probably not thought of every conceivable detail that would need to be addressed. As a result, please feel free to make any changes or adjustments you think would be needed to make this idea even better. I like the idea of this distinction, but with the way taunts and CAs/DPS works currently, the original argument that AE tanks do well with single mobs but ST tanks don't do well with multiple mobs is very true. I am trying to come up with a way that this distinction would work the way it is supposed to. ST tanks would do better against single target than an AE tank and AE tanks would do better against multiple target than an ST tank... but they could both do well against either. Thank you for your time.

Aull

08-12-2010, 04:08 PM

I think it is a great idea. I would like to stress that these taunts need the ability to crit very high. Nothing like an ice comet critical for 85,000 and my taunt crits for 11,000.Like the idea otherwise.

Aule

08-12-2010, 04:50 PM

As a brawler I feel I'm a bit of an AE tank, it sure isn't my taunts that do it though. It's the 4 blue aoe's and my crane twirl proc, and temp 100% trample attack. If ST vs AE tank is going to mean anything due to taunts, then those AE tanks need to have blue taunts too. Otherwise we'll just see people continue to hold aggro through dps and ignore the whole taunt aspect of things. Who knows though, maybe if my taunt was 20k vs 3.7k base I'd be inclined to use it more.

urgthock

08-12-2010, 05:00 PM

Here's another thought. If you combine the ideas from my earlier post with the ideas in this post by Vinka:<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now, say they design content next expansion to where there are a great many fights which encourage/require a minimum of 3-4 fighters. How do we deal with the tendency to bring a dps for any fight that doesn't require the extra fighters and just have alt fighters? Simple: make fighters useful when they aren't tanking, by upping their dps. Now, obviously, fighters should not be able to do T1 dps AND tank simultaneously. Otherwise, why bring a class like a predator/sorcerer? Fighters can have very high dps and not be overpowered, but only if they cannot tank while they are doing it. In order to make having 4 fighters/raid viable, what we need to do is impose some fairly extreme tradeoffs between survivability and dps. I would suggest the following to do so:<div></div><div><ul><li>Tie all uncontested (i.e. raid) avoidance to stance. This is already the case for brawlers, but can easily be implemented for plate tanks by making the avoidance from a shield contested unless its bearer is in defensive stance.</li><li>Tie big dps boosts and big survivability penalties to the offensive stance. I would suggest modifying the base autoattack damage, since that is something that not many abilities can make up for and which all of the other offensive stats will increase even further. Then give the offensive stance a significant mit penalty as well.</li><li>Continue to give tanks 2 seperate sets of gear, one for dps and one for survivability</li></ul><div>Basically, fighters should be able to completely destroy their survivability to get some major dps boosts--not quite T1, but at the rogue/summoner level minus all the debuff utility (instead of debuffs, a fighter's utility is the ability to switch stance, throw on a shield, change their gear and tank).</div></div><div></div><div>So there you go--thats my plan to make 4 fighters on a raid with a minimum of one of each archetype a reality. Not that hard to implement, the game for heroics remains more or less unchanged, all 6 fighters get to be capable of both high dps and tanking but without being overpowered, and 4 fighters are welcome on raids regardless of whether they're actively tanking at any individual moment.</div></blockquote>and some of the ideas in this post by Bruener:<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters should all have equal survivability and agro.There should be offensive oriented tanks and defensive oriented tanks.Defensive oriented tanks have more agro thru raw threat and bring more defensive oriented utility to their group/raid. (Guard, Pal, Monk)Offensive oriented tanks have more agro thru DPS and bring more offensive oriented utility to their group raid. (Zerk, SK, Bruiser).Stick to these types of roles and the natural choice for MT type tanks becomes Guard/Pal/Monk while the natural choice for OT becomes Zerk/SK/Bruiser. And the reason it works out this way is for a couple reasons...oh and lets not forget that same survivability and agro means that tanks can cross to either MT or OT easily for raids and all Fighters can tank heroic equal. So the reason that the defensive utility based tanks would be more likely to be chosen for the MT role is because they can still hold a mob just as good, but they can also protect their group more which is the most important group in a raid. The reason that the offensive utility based tanks become the better OT choice is because they do have more DPS which means burn down adds fast and offensive based utility means they will be in a group designed for DPS (any of the other groups outside of MT group).</blockquote>and some of the ideas in this post by Ambrin:<cite>Ambrin@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>My personal opinion on fighter balance goes something like this:Give all fighters the exact same survivability. That is, if you lined all 6 fighters up against 6 identical mobs the amount of incoming damage would be equal among all of them once you consider their avoidance, mitigation, and self healing capabilities. The exact methods through which they would reduce incoming damage would be what could vary between the 3 tank classes (warrior, crusader, brawler).This leaves you with DPS, utility, and agro to balance between the three classes and six subclasses. A breakdown of how this could be balanced might be as follows:DefenseWarrior: High mitigation, medium-high avoidance, low self healing.Crusader: High mitigation, medium avoidance, medium self healing.Brawler: Medium-high mitigation, high avoidance, low self healing. <snipped>UtilityWarrior: Medium all around. Guardians could buff their group defensively while berserkers buff their group offensively.Crusader: Medium-high. Both crusaders could buff their groups offense and defense, paladins would be slightly more defensive while shadowknights would be slightly more offensive. The amount of buffing for offense or defense would still be slightly less than a guardian or berserker, but they buff both at the same time giving them a slight advantage here.Brawler: Medium-low. Primary utility would come from the amounts of snaps available to brawlers. Monk could provide some defensive utility while bruisers could provide offensive utility.What I have just outlined would give each tank something to excel at while making sure they are all viable and wanted for different things. Brawlers would bring some extra personal DPS and snap agro, but not much else. They can hold good ST agro, but might still need to rely on snaps very occasionally. Warriors would offer good specialized utility and agro management (AE vs ST), but wouldn't be very adaptable. Crusaders would be a jack-of-all-trades when it comes to agro and DPS, being able to adapt to different encounters easily, but would have trouble when needing to specialize. Things can of course be tweaked from here, but I think my outline gives a good start to balance the fighters.</blockquote>and you start to come up with some (IMO) really good synergistic ideas. All tanks with equal survivability via different methods. All tanks with equal aggro generation via different methods (for the most part). 3 tanks would be slightly better at single target aggro and 3 tanks would be slightly better at multiple target aggro so 3 Single target tanks, 3 Multiple target tanks. 3 tanks that buff the offensive characteristics of their group, 3 tanks that buff the defensive characteristics of their group (perhaps only while in Defensive stance? i.e. while tanking). Perhaps another point of distinction could be personal DPS. Much like the distinction in aggro generation 3 tanks would be slightly better at single target DPS and 3 tanks would be slightly better at multiple target DPS so 3 Single target tanks (high single target DPS and moderate multiple target DPS), 3 Multiple target tanks (high multiple target dps and moderate single target DPS). So yes, in a multiple mob situation an AE tank would do slightly better, but not night and day above an ST tank and vice versa. Yes, you will still have some players that will only ever run heroic content with an AE tank due to the simple fact that most of the heroic content is multiple mobs and they simply would rather spend 45 mintues specifically looking for an AE tank so they can run the zone in 15 minutes. But by increasing the ST tanks ability to at least a moderate level against mulitple targets, PUGs would more than likely just grab whatever is available within the first 5 minutes and run the zone in 25 minutes (as an example).Again, I am interested in hearing what others have to say. Thank you again.

BChizzle

08-12-2010, 05:07 PM

They just need to make it so an AE tank doesn't hold better single target agro then a ST tank. The difference should be just as much as a ST tank trying to hold AE agro.

urgthock

08-12-2010, 05:15 PM

<cite>Aule@Guk wrote:</cite><blockquote>As a brawler I feel I'm a bit of an AE tank, it sure isn't my taunts that do it though. It's the 4 blue aoe's and my crane twirl proc, and temp 100% trample attack. If ST vs AE tank is going to mean anything due to taunts, then those AE tanks need to have blue taunts too. Otherwise we'll just see people continue to hold aggro through dps and ignore the whole taunt aspect of things. Who knows though, maybe if my taunt was 20k vs 3.7k base I'd be inclined to use it more.</blockquote>Yes, as I stated they would need to start out with a base of the same amount of taunts. As an example, all fighters get 1 red (single target) taunt, 2 green (encounter AoE) taunts and 2 blue (AoE) taunts (not counting any snaps that any one class should have or need).If one were to incorporate all the suggestions in the post I just made, I would say aggro would be added to certain single target and AE combat arts as well. Large amounts on the ST combat arts and moderate amounts on the AE combat arts for whichever is the ST tank. And vice versa for the AE tank.Overall, it would require quite a bit of restructuring of the classes, but I truly think that if it is well thought out, diversity can be maintained with no one or 2 subclass or tank types being overpowered versus another.

Loendar

08-12-2010, 05:15 PM

<cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Here's another thought. If you combine the ideas from my earlier post with the ideas in this post by Vinka:<cite>Vinka@Antonia Bayle wrote:</cite><blockquote>Now, say they design content next expansion to where there are a great many fights which encourage/require a minimum of 3-4 fighters. How do we deal with the tendency to bring a dps for any fight that doesn't require the extra fighters and just have alt fighters? Simple: make fighters useful when they aren't tanking, by upping their dps. Now, obviously, fighters should not be able to do T1 dps AND tank simultaneously. Otherwise, why bring a class like a predator/sorcerer? Fighters can have very high dps and not be overpowered, but only if they cannot tank while they are doing it. In order to make having 4 fighters/raid viable, what we need to do is impose some fairly extreme tradeoffs between survivability and dps. I would suggest the following to do so:<div></div><div><ul><li>Tie all uncontested (i.e. raid) avoidance to stance. This is already the case for brawlers, but can easily be implemented for plate tanks by making the avoidance from a shield contested unless its bearer is in defensive stance.</li><li>Tie big dps boosts and big survivability penalties to the offensive stance. I would suggest modifying the base autoattack damage, since that is something that not many abilities can make up for and which all of the other offensive stats will increase even further. Then give the offensive stance a significant mit penalty as well.</li><li>Continue to give tanks 2 seperate sets of gear, one for dps and one for survivability</li></ul><div>Basically, fighters should be able to completely destroy their survivability to get some major dps boosts--not quite T1, but at the rogue/summoner level minus all the debuff utility (instead of debuffs, a fighter's utility is the ability to switch stance, throw on a shield, change their gear and tank).</div></div><div></div><div>So there you go--thats my plan to make 4 fighters on a raid with a minimum of one of each archetype a reality. Not that hard to implement, the game for heroics remains more or less unchanged, all 6 fighters get to be capable of both high dps and tanking but without being overpowered, and 4 fighters are welcome on raids regardless of whether they're actively tanking at any individual moment.</div></blockquote>and some of the ideas in this post by Bruener:<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters should all have equal survivability and agro.There should be offensive oriented tanks and defensive oriented tanks.Defensive oriented tanks have more agro thru raw threat and bring more defensive oriented utility to their group/raid. (Guard, Pal, Monk)Offensive oriented tanks have more agro thru DPS and bring more offensive oriented utility to their group raid. (Zerk, SK, Bruiser).Stick to these types of roles and the natural choice for MT type tanks becomes Guard/Pal/Monk while the natural choice for OT becomes Zerk/SK/Bruiser. And the reason it works out this way is for a couple reasons...oh and lets not forget that same survivability and agro means that tanks can cross to either MT or OT easily for raids and all Fighters can tank heroic equal. So the reason that the defensive utility based tanks would be more likely to be chosen for the MT role is because they can still hold a mob just as good, but they can also protect their group more which is the most important group in a raid. The reason that the offensive utility based tanks become the better OT choice is because they do have more DPS which means burn down adds fast and offensive based utility means they will be in a group designed for DPS (any of the other groups outside of MT group).</blockquote>and some of the ideas in this post by Ambrin:<cite>Ambrin@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>My personal opinion on fighter balance goes something like this:Give all fighters the exact same survivability. That is, if you lined all 6 fighters up against 6 identical mobs the amount of incoming damage would be equal among all of them once you consider their avoidance, mitigation, and self healing capabilities. The exact methods through which they would reduce incoming damage would be what could vary between the 3 tank classes (warrior, crusader, brawler).This leaves you with DPS, utility, and agro to balance between the three classes and six subclasses. A breakdown of how this could be balanced might be as follows:DefenseWarrior: High mitigation, medium-high avoidance, low self healing.Crusader: High mitigation, medium avoidance, medium self healing.Brawler: Medium-high mitigation, high avoidance, low self healing.UtilityWarrior: Medium all around. Guardians could buff their group defensively while berserkers buff their group offensively.Crusader: Medium-high. Both crusaders could buff their groups offense and defense, paladins would be slightly more defensive while shadowknights would be slightly more offensive. The amount of buffing for offense or defense would still be slightly less than a guardian or berserker, but they buff both at the same time giving them a slight advantage here.Brawler: Medium-low. Primary utility would come from the amounts of snaps available to brawlers. Monk could provide some defensive utility while bruisers could provide offensive utility.What I have just outlined would give each tank something to excel at while making sure they are all viable and wanted for different things. Brawlers would bring some extra personal DPS and snap agro, but not much else. They can hold good ST agro, but might still need to rely on snaps very occasionally. Warriors would offer good specialized utility and agro management (AE vs ST), but wouldn't be very adaptable. Crusaders would be a jack-of-all-trades when it comes to agro and DPS, being able to adapt to different encounters easily, but would have trouble when needing to specialize. Things can of course be tweaked from here, but I think my outline gives a good start to balance the fighters.</blockquote>and you start to come up with some (IMO) really good synergistic ideas. All tanks with equal survivability via different methods. All tanks with equal aggro generation via different methods (for the most part). 3 tanks would be slightly better at single target aggro and 3 tanks would be slightly better at multiple target aggro so 3 Single target tanks, 3 Multiple target tanks. 3 tanks that buff the offensive characteristics of their group, 3 tanks that buff the defensive characteristics of their group (perhaps only while in Defensive stance? i.e. while tanking). Perhaps another point of distinction could be personal DPS. Much like the distinction in aggro generation 3 tanks would be slightly better at single target DPS and 3 tanks would be slightly better at multiple target DPS so 3 Single target tanks (high single target DPS and moderate multiple target DPS), 3 Multiple target tanks (high multiple target dps and moderate single target DPS). So yes, in a multiple mob situation an AE tank would do slightly better, but not night and day above an ST tank and vice versa. Yes, you will still have some players that will only ever run heroic content with an AE tank due to the simple fact that most of the heroic content is multiple mobs and they simply would rather spend 45 mintues specifically looking for an AE tank so they can run the zone in 15 minutes. But by increasing the ST tanks ability to at least a moderate level against mulitple targets, PUGs would more than likely just grab whatever is available within the first 5 minutes and run the zone in 25 minutes (as an example).Again, I am interested in hearing what others have to say. Thank you again.</blockquote>I like the idea(s) as a step towards a system the could replace what we have now... we need SOMETHING to replace it as it is drastically broken in favor of AE tanks. I'm not a fan, at all, of the distinction of ST vs. AE tank - it seems to me that the ST-based model will allows get screwed in the system, but the ideas presented above do mitigate it a bit.The real problem is that any system that factors in DPS (offensive vs. defensive tank) as a method for holding aggro, as Bruenor suggests above, has the inherent flaw of allowing the AE-based offensive tank to kill everything faster simply by their presence. And who cares about the rest of the equation if the mob is dead in half the time?The best thing SOE could do is scrap the ST/AE concept for tanks and make all of them viable for either.

urgthock

08-12-2010, 05:29 PM

<cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They just need to make it so an AE tank doesn't hold better single target agro then a ST tank. The difference should be just as much as a ST tank trying to hold AE agro.</blockquote>I think my original post would probably do that.<cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Give all fighters the same amount of single target taunts, linked group taunts and AoE target taunts. Then give the ST tanks a huge modifier to their single target taunts (say x5?) and AE tanks a somewhat largish modifier (say x2?)to all the targets the taunt hits.</blockquote>Using made up numbers, if the base taunt amount on a single target taunt was 1000 then it would hit for 5000 for a ST tank and only 2000 for an AE tank. Conversely, a mutiple target taunt having a base taunt amount of 1000 would taunt for 1000 for a ST tank and for 2000 for an AE tank. With this set up using both taunts, an AE tank would taunt for 3000 against a single target and in an encounter, would taunt the mob targeted for 3000 and the rest of the group of mobs for 2000 each. An ST tank using both taunts would taunt for 6,000 against a single target and in an encounter, would taunt the mob targeted for 6000 and the rest of the groups of mobs for 1000 each. Again, these are made up numbers and would probably need to be somewhat adjusted (math), but I think the theory is sound.Add into that a similar scale for DPS and you start to see how an ST tank would DPS and Aggro better on a single target, and an AE tank would DPS and Aggro better on multiple targets, but that each could still be a viable tank in the opposite style of content if their ability in the opposite style of DPS and Aggro isn't drastically lower as is the case currently.

urgthock

08-12-2010, 05:35 PM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote>and some of the ideas in this post by Bruener:<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote>Fighters should all have equal survivability and agro.There should be offensive oriented tanks and defensive oriented tanks.Defensive oriented tanks have more agro thru raw threat and bring more defensive oriented utility to their group/raid. (Guard, Pal, Monk)Offensive oriented tanks have more agro thru DPS and bring more offensive oriented utility to their group raid. (Zerk, SK, Bruiser).Stick to these types of roles and the natural choice for MT type tanks becomes Guard/Pal/Monk while the natural choice for OT becomes Zerk/SK/Bruiser. And the reason it works out this way is for a couple reasons...oh and lets not forget that same survivability and agro means that tanks can cross to either MT or OT easily for raids and all Fighters can tank heroic equal. So the reason that the defensive utility based tanks would be more likely to be chosen for the MT role is because they can still hold a mob just as good, but they can also protect their group more which is the most important group in a raid. The reason that the offensive utility based tanks become the better OT choice is because they do have more DPS which means burn down adds fast and offensive based utility means they will be in a group designed for DPS (any of the other groups outside of MT group).</blockquote></blockquote>I like the idea(s) as a step towards a system the could replace what we have now... we need SOMETHING to replace it as it is drastically broken in favor of AE tanks. I'm not a fan, at all, of the distinction of ST vs. AE tank - it seems to me that the ST-based model will allows get screwed in the system, but the ideas presented above do mitigate it a bit.The real problem is that any system that factors in DPS (offensive vs. defensive tank) as a method for holding aggro, as Bruenor suggests above, has the inherent flaw of allowing the AE-based offensive tank to kill everything faster simply by their presence. And who cares about the rest of the equation if the mob is dead in half the time?The best thing SOE could do is scrap the ST/AE concept for tanks and make all of them viable for either.</blockquote>Yea, I wasn't actually wanting to push that part of his idea forward. That's why I said if you take "some" of the ideas from his post. Primarily the whole one type of tank can buff the offensive capabilities of their group and one type of tank can buff the defensive capabilities of their group. I just left it all in there because I didn't want anything to necessarily be taken out of context. But no, I am not advocating DPS being a distinction. I think type of DPS could be. As a very rough example using made up numbers, if a ST tank can hit 1 mob for 10k and an AE tank can hit 4 mobs for 2500 each, and if each mob has 10,000 hit points, then the ST tank kills 4 mobs in the same amount of time as the AE tank. Its a very very rough example and the differences shouldn't be that drastic on either end but its an exaggeration that I hope gets the point across. I think a good balance could be worked out so that it is closer to balanced as it should be with some work. Thanks again!

urgthock

08-12-2010, 05:53 PM

<cite>Loendar@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>The best thing SOE could do is scrap the ST/AE concept for tanks and make all of them viable for either.</blockquote>That could work too. I'm not married to any one particular idea. As I said, this is really just a beginning conceptualization rough draft per se. Maybe ST tank versus AE tank isn't a necessary distinction.

BChizzle

08-12-2010, 06:38 PM

<cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>BChizzle wrote:</cite><blockquote>They just need to make it so an AE tank doesn't hold better single target agro then a ST tank. The difference should be just as much as a ST tank trying to hold AE agro.</blockquote>I think my original post would probably do that.<cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote>Give all fighters the same amount of single target taunts, linked group taunts and AoE target taunts. Then give the ST tanks a huge modifier to their single target taunts (say x5?) and AE tanks a somewhat largish modifier (say x2?)to all the targets the taunt hits.</blockquote>Using made up numbers, if the base taunt amount on a single target taunt was 1000 then it would hit for 5000 for a ST tank and only 2000 for an AE tank. Conversely, a mutiple target taunt having a base taunt amount of 1000 would taunt for 1000 for a ST tank and for 2000 for an AE tank. With this set up using both taunts, an AE tank would taunt for 3000 against a single target and in an encounter, would taunt the mob targeted for 3000 and the rest of the group of mobs for 2000 each. An ST tank using both taunts would taunt for 6,000 against a single target and in an encounter, would taunt the mob targeted for 6000 and the rest of the groups of mobs for 1000 each. Again, these are made up numbers and would probably need to be somewhat adjusted (math), but I think the theory is sound.Add into that a similar scale for DPS and you start to see how an ST tank would DPS and Aggro better on a single target, and an AE tank would DPS and Aggro better on multiple targets, but that each could still be a viable tank in the opposite style of content if their ability in the opposite style of DPS and Aggro isn't drastically lower as is the case currently.</blockquote>Taunts aren't the answer. ST tanks need their DPS and taunts upped significantly to even out for AE tanks massive damage and taunt difference. AE tanks don't need any type of adjustments because they hold AE agro and single target agro great. Basically the problem with ST tanks is just simply they aren't powerful enough. You guys are overcomplicating a problem that has a very simple solution.

Yimway

08-12-2010, 07:04 PM

You can divide tanks up by ST vs AoE with survivability and dps. It is possible to make a class more survivable in aoe vs st just as its possible to make them do more damage st vs aoe. Its something SoE hasn't had much success implementing, but that does not impact that is indeed feasable.However, all fighters should have aggro generation / capacity for both situations. How fast they kill each, and how well they mitigate it should be variations we see.

TheSpin

08-12-2010, 07:31 PM

Just my 2 cents. Single target versus aoe tanking should be scrapped in my opinion. I'd rather see defensive versus offensive.... and make it a noticeable difference. defensive tank could run an instance with a single healer, but it would take 2 healers for an equally geared offensive tank. Offensive tank would do more dps, and healers dps pretty well now too, so overall group dps would be good. Defensive tank could bring an additional dps since they only have 1 healer and their dps could be about the same as the group with the offensive tank.

Aule

08-13-2010, 03:56 AM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Just my 2 cents. Single target versus aoe tanking should be scrapped in my opinion. I'd rather see defensive versus offensive.... and make it a noticeable difference. defensive tank could run an instance with a single healer, but it would take 2 healers for an equally geared offensive tank. Offensive tank would do more dps, and healers dps pretty well now too, so overall group dps would be good. Defensive tank could bring an additional dps since they only have 1 healer and their dps could be about the same as the group with the offensive tank.</blockquote>I think this could have happened once upon a time, but MUDflation has gotten to the point where practically no matter what you do, high end healers will be able to single heal a high end offensive tank and the zone will get cleared faster that way than if you brought a defensive tank.Unless the zone were to basically be a one-group raid level zone. Then you get problems the other direction where classes get excluded from going due to group makeup requirements until the core group is able to basically 5-man the zone and has a filler spot they can put anybody into.

urgthock

08-13-2010, 10:58 AM

<cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can divide tanks up by ST vs AoE with survivability and dps. It is possible to make a class more survivable in aoe vs st just as its possible to make them do more damage st vs aoe. Its something SoE hasn't had much success implementing, but that does not impact that is indeed feasable.However, all fighters should have aggro generation / capacity for both situations. How fast they kill each, and how well they mitigate it should be variations we see.</blockquote>From a balance standpoint, I like your ideas. But to me it just "feels" like we would end up with 1 tank with 6 different names. The simple fact of having 6 different tanks "feels" like it would require having some sort of distinctiveness. My basic underlying premise of what I would like to see SoE do is, make it so that one type of tank will do better in one situation than another type of tank but not to such an extent as to give a general feeling that the other type of tank is incapable. Currently this doesn't really seem to be the case except in certain situations and high end raid guilds.Yes, everyone can probably come up with an example of monk x bruiser y or guardian z that tanks just as good as any Sk or Pally or Zerker. But IMO those are really exceptions to the rule within the general populace. There is a reason why a general attitude has come around that SKs, Pallys and Zerkers are "better tanks" than the others. That reason (again IMO) is because the other types of tanks require far higher levels of gear and player skill in general to effectively equal the capabilities of SKs, Pallys and Zerkers. This is where the current outcry calling for class balance is coming from and needs to be changed. I am not in any way shape or form trying to say that I know the best way to bring about this change. I am merely trying to spark discourse within the tanking community to get some sort of change made. Thank you again.

Aull

08-13-2010, 11:30 AM

This "end up with 1 tank with 6 different names" is what I am totally opposed to happening. If this happens there is absolutely no reason to have six fighters.Years ago I knew that a guardian would be tougher and could tank mobs that my zerker couldn't handle from a defensive stand point. I did not complain when I could not handle a mob that was more than my zerker could handle. I knew I was more offense and less defense. We simply called on a guard to get the job done. No biggie.However over time my zerker attained defensive abilities like adrenaline that catapulted my zerker from being an offensive fighter to a near perfect combination of chaotic destruction with guardian durability. Wrong move. If anything adrenaline should have been given to the guardian.Offensive fighters should not receive defensive abilities that are better than what the defensive fighter has. Another example would be bruisers getting a better than tsunami spin off on their mythical. Again wrong move. Before the mythicals my bruiser never had a defensive ability that could even touch monk tsunami. Tsunami owned anything my bruiser had but that should never entitled my bruiser to have a similar ability. Tsunami was a class defining for the monk. It should have never been given to bruisers. However I did see how great tsunami was and I did roll a monk.Six fighters with individuality not all being clones is what I support.

TheSpin

08-13-2010, 11:50 AM

<cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can divide tanks up by ST vs AoE with survivability and dps. It is possible to make a class more survivable in aoe vs st just as its possible to make them do more damage st vs aoe. Its something SoE hasn't had much success implementing, but that does not impact that is indeed feasable.However, all fighters should have aggro generation / capacity for both situations. How fast they kill each, and how well they mitigate it should be variations we see.</blockquote>From a balance standpoint, I like your ideas. But to me it just "feels" like we would end up with 1 tank with 6 different names. The simple fact of having 6 different tanks "feels" like it would require having some sort of distinctiveness.</blockquote>This is exactly how I feel about it. I think personally that there should be a warrior defensive tank and a crusader defensive tank, then a warrior offensive tank and a crusader offensive tank. I really do feel like monks need to be made into something other than straight up tanks. 4 tanks is enough, 6 is too many.Here is my own personal idea of how each fighter could fit into a raid if the classes were redesigned slightly. They key to making my suggestion work is this: I think that they should give all plate tanks a passive ability that causes them to absorb a higher percentage of aoe damage than their groupmates. Also all plate fighters should get a buff that they can cast on a fighter in another group which would allow them to take the extra damage that the fighter would normally take. For example, A berserker in a non tanking position could cast it on the MT and then the MT would take reduced aoe damage and the zerker would take both extra aoe damage from his group and from the MT's group. This idea is kinda central to my whole suggestion for fighter balancing.Guardian - MT because he straight up has the best avoidence and takes the least damagePaladin - OT because he's the other defensive tank and takes the 2nd least damage. Because of amends and other abilities he doesn't need as many hate buffs as the guardian.Berserker/Shadowknight - One into a melee oriented group,the other into a spell oriented group. Each of them takes a higher percentage of any aoe damage that hits their group and also they use the buff I described above on the MT and OT to reduce the damage the MT and OT take. These tanks would then be taking signifigantly more aoe damage than anyone else in the raid, but because they both have self heals of some sort and have higher HP/mitigation they can still take the damage, and fulfill a valuable role for the raid.Monk - Goes into Melee group and gets abilities added to allow them to act as power batteries. 2 power transfer abilities (one group, one single target) as well as a temp buff that allows them to regenerate their own power as a portion of their dps output. Bruiser - Goes into MT group and acts as THE hate transfer class, also has some defensive buffs for the tank. Lastly has enough surviveability and snap aggro ability to step in for the MT for a limited time if he goes down. One way I've thought about this working is to allow bruisers to get an ability that transfers buffs put on them to the MT. That way all the cool buffs that people normally put on a MT goes on the bruiser instead, and he uses his 1 ability to transfer those buffs to the MT. Then if the MT drops the buffs return to the bruiser and he will have the benefit of them while the MT recovers. Once MT is ready again the bruiser could then put the buffs back onto the MT.

Kota

08-13-2010, 02:41 PM

most aoe's are non melee. zerk heals don't work against non melee. besides, fighter heals are being nerfed. i like how you typed out like 6 lines for bruiser but 2 for monks. looks like you're shafting them ! turn brawlers into scouts imo. shoulda been there to begin with tbh. way easier to level their dps with scouts than it would be to make avoidance tanking really work. they just keep piling mit on the avoidance tanks haha. anyway

Draylore

08-13-2010, 03:57 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote>This "end up with 1 tank with 6 different names" is what I am totally opposed to happening. If this happens there is absolutely no reason to have six fighters.Years ago I knew that a guardian would be tougher and could tank mobs that my zerker couldn't handle from a defensive stand point. I did not complain when I could not handle a mob that was more than my zerker could handle. I knew I was more offense and less defense. We simply called on a guard to get the job done. No biggie.However over time my zerker attained defensive abilities like adrenaline that catapulted my zerker from being an offensive fighter to a near perfect combination of chaotic destruction with guardian durability. Wrong move. If anything adrenaline should have been given to the guardian.Offensive fighters should not receive defensive abilities that are better than what the defensive fighter has. Another example would be bruisers getting a better than tsunami spin off on their mythical. Again wrong move. Before the mythicals my bruiser never had a defensive ability that could even touch monk tsunami. Tsunami owned anything my bruiser had but that should never entitled my bruiser to have a similar ability. Tsunami was a class defining for the monk. It should have never been given to bruisers. However I did see how great tsunami was and I did roll a monk.Six fighters with individuality not all being clones is what I support.</blockquote>QFE.Some claim that today the fighters are more "balanced" than ever. I believe that is not true......instead today the fighters are more "identical" than ever. Thats not balance.....in fact its proof of massive failure at balance because to give the illusion of being balanced the best they could come up with was basically making everyone the same.

Rasttan

08-13-2010, 05:04 PM

They could probobly set taunts up per class to power up or down based on the number of targets, so a single target tank taunts for 12k on a single target, but only 8k per mob on 2 targets, 4k per mob on 3, 3k per mob on 4+ ...etcAnd do the reverse for AE tanks there taunt hits a single target for 3k, 2 targets 6k each, 3 9k each, 4+ 12k each ...etcHave single target tanks have a 4-6 mob limit to ae taunts and attacks and ae tanks true bluesBut that still wont solve the content Issue the last 2 expansions which are so heavely AE based that Single target tanks are hardly needed for anything.

Aull

08-13-2010, 08:23 PM

<cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite>QFE.Some claim that today the fighters are more "balanced" than ever. I believe that is not true......instead today the fighters are more "identical" than ever. Thats not balance.....in fact its proof of massive failure at balance because to give the illusion of being balanced the best they could come up with was basically making everyone the same.</blockquote>Well stated. I couldn't agree more. I would really hate to read this as the new descriptions for the fighters."Guardians are the anchor of any group of adventurers, providing leadership and protection for their allies. Combining durable armor with an impressive array of defensive skills, Guardians can remain standing after absorbing substantial amounts of physical damage from their enemies".Berserkers are the anchor of any group of adventurers, providing leadership and protection for their allies. Combining durable armor with an impressive array of defensive skills, Berserkers can remain standing after absorbing substantial amounts of physical damage from their enemies".Shadowknights are the anchor of any group of adventurers, providing leadership and protection for their allies. Combining durable armor with an impressive array of defensive skills, Shadowknights can remain standing after absorbing substantial amounts of physical damage from their enemies.Paladins are the anchor of any group of adventurers, providing leadership and protection for their allies. Combining durable armor with an impressive array of defensive skills, Paladins can remain standing after absorbing substantial amounts of physical damage from their enemies.Monks are the anchor of any group of adventurers, providing leadership and protection for their allies. Combining durable armor with an impressive array of defensive skills, Monks can remain standing after absorbing substantial amounts of physical damage from their enemies.Bruisers are the anchor of any group of adventurers, providing leadership and protection for their allies. Combining durable armor with an impressive array of defensive skills, Bruisers can remain standing after absorbing substantial amounts of physical damage from their enemies.If that is what it takes to have so called balance then why have six fighters?

Obadiah

08-14-2010, 03:52 PM

<cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite>QFE.Some claim that today the fighters are more "balanced" than ever. I believe that is not true......instead today the fighters are more "identical" than ever. Thats not balance.....in fact its proof of massive failure at balance because to give the illusion of being balanced the best they could come up with was basically making everyone the same.</blockquote>Well stated. I couldn't agree more. I would really hate to read this as the new descriptions for the fighters.<snip>If that is what it takes to have so called balance then why have six fighters? </blockquote>I'm one that has made that claim here. I agree with you, but I would opine that that IS balance. Not GOOD balance, but balance. I mean, how can sameness NOT be balance?<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOdWxf1tRmI" target="_blank">That was the theme of TSO for Fighters! </a>Oh, you don't have a Stoneskin? Take it! Oh, you don't have a death save? Here ya go. Vanilla IS still the most popular flavor, after all. But the game doesn't have roles for 6 Fighters. The game doesn't have roles for 3 distinct Fighters types. So instead they are all vanilla albeit with a few differences. To shift to something like that is going to please some while losing others. If I'm a Berserker MT, and that's not where Berserkers wind up on the backside of the New Grand Explanation of class roles, I can betray or quit or handicap my raid force until they kick me. If I'm a Paladin or SK in that same spot and the NGE of class roles doesn't allow for either of those to be the MT, my choices are even more limited.

Bruener

08-14-2010, 05:12 PM

<cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite>QFE.Some claim that today the fighters are more "balanced" than ever. I believe that is not true......instead today the fighters are more "identical" than ever. Thats not balance.....in fact its proof of massive failure at balance because to give the illusion of being balanced the best they could come up with was basically making everyone the same.</blockquote>Well stated. I couldn't agree more. I would really hate to read this as the new descriptions for the fighters.If that is what it takes to have so called balance then why have six fighters? </blockquote>I'm one that has made that claim here. I agree with you, but I would opine that that IS balance. Not GOOD balance, but balance. I mean, how can sameness NOT be balance?<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOdWxf1tRmI" target="_blank">That was the theme of TSO for Fighters! </a>Oh, you don't have a Stoneskin? Take it! Oh, you don't have a death save? Here ya go. Vanilla IS still the most popular flavor, after all. But the game doesn't have roles for 6 Fighters. The game doesn't have roles for 3 distinct Fighters types. So instead they are all vanilla albeit with a few differences. To shift to something like that is going to please some while losing others. If I'm a Berserker MT, and that's not where Berserkers wind up on the backside of the New Grand Explanation of class roles, I can betray or quit or handicap my raid force until they kick me. If I'm a Paladin or SK in that same spot and the NGE of class roles doesn't allow for either of those to be the MT, my choices are even more limited. </blockquote>People keep claiming that Fighters are becoming so vanilla and I just don't see it.My Bezerkers has tons of differences from my SK. And yet they can both do the same job. The SK has lifetapping abilities and spells, the Zerker has all CAs and damage reduction abilities. Yes both push buttons to do what they need to in the game....just like every other class.Are you going to claim that Paladins play like Guards? I mean they have completely different abilities that in theory give the same end result. How about Brawlers? I mean they have a ton of "oh crap" abilities on a fast recast...other tanks don't have that.Yes, the same is that each of the fighters should be able to get the same end result. That means they can do their job of tanking. They use different tools to get there, in other words different means. People seem to think having a same end result means vanilla...I suppose they really liked it when 1 tank had the right end result while all others didn't (RoK).Why don't we take a look at Wizards and Warlocks and how they get their results...oh guess what they push the buttons that do the most damage first every time and go down the line. What about Predators and Rogues. Guess what they do to maximize their DPS...they push the buttons that do the most damage first and pause for an auto attack. What about priests...I mean how much different really are priests, lets say shamans compared to templars. They put up their wards/reactives, they cure, they heal.The vanilla argument is a weak argument and is used mostly by those that would luv to see the game rewind like 3 years when Guards had complete easy mode, and everybody else had to scratch to even come close to competing.

Landiin

08-14-2010, 10:00 PM

<cite>Bruener wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Kurgan@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Draylore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Aull wrote:</cite>QFE.Some claim that today the fighters are more "balanced" than ever. I believe that is not true......instead today the fighters are more "identical" than ever. Thats not balance.....in fact its proof of massive failure at balance because to give the illusion of being balanced the best they could come up with was basically making everyone the same.</blockquote>Well stated. I couldn't agree more. I would really hate to read this as the new descriptions for the fighters.If that is what it takes to have so called balance then why have six fighters? </blockquote>I'm one that has made that claim here. I agree with you, but I would opine that that IS balance. Not GOOD balance, but balance. I mean, how can sameness NOT be balance?<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOdWxf1tRmI" target="_blank">That was the theme of TSO for Fighters! </a>Oh, you don't have a Stoneskin? Take it! Oh, you don't have a death save? Here ya go. Vanilla IS still the most popular flavor, after all. But the game doesn't have roles for 6 Fighters. The game doesn't have roles for 3 distinct Fighters types. So instead they are all vanilla albeit with a few differences. To shift to something like that is going to please some while losing others. If I'm a Berserker MT, and that's not where Berserkers wind up on the backside of the New Grand Explanation of class roles, I can betray or quit or handicap my raid force until they kick me. If I'm a Paladin or SK in that same spot and the NGE of class roles doesn't allow for either of those to be the MT, my choices are even more limited. </blockquote>People keep claiming that Fighters are becoming so vanilla and I just don't see it.More Bla bla bla</blockquote>Thats because you live in a fantasy land where you actually believe SK are not OP.

Striikor

08-15-2010, 10:17 AM

<cite>TheSpin wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>urgthock wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Atan@Unrest wrote:</cite><blockquote>You can divide tanks up by ST vs AoE with survivability and dps. It is possible to make a class more survivable in aoe vs st just as its possible to make them do more damage st vs aoe. Its something SoE hasn't had much success implementing, but that does not impact that is indeed feasable.However, all fighters should have aggro generation / capacity for both situations. How fast they kill each, and how well they mitigate it should be variations we see.</blockquote>From a balance standpoint, I like your ideas. But to me it just "feels" like we would end up with 1 tank with 6 different names. The simple fact of having 6 different tanks "feels" like it would require having some sort of distinctiveness.</blockquote>This is exactly how I feel about it. I think personally that there should be a warrior defensive tank and a crusader defensive tank, then a warrior offensive tank and a crusader offensive tank. I really do feel like monks need to be made into something other than straight up tanks. 4 tanks is enough, 6 is too many.Here is my own personal idea of how each fighter could fit into a raid if the classes were redesigned slightly. They key to making my suggestion work is this: I think that they should give all plate tanks a passive ability that causes them to absorb a higher percentage of aoe damage than their groupmates. Also all plate fighters should get a buff that they can cast on a fighter in another group which would allow them to take the extra damage that the fighter would normally take. For example, A berserker in a non tanking position could cast it on the MT and then the MT would take reduced aoe damage and the zerker would take both extra aoe damage from his group and from the MT's group. This idea is kinda central to my whole suggestion for fighter balancing.Guardian - MT because he straight up has the best avoidence and takes the least damagePaladin - OT because he's the other defensive tank and takes the 2nd least damage. Because of amends and other abilities he doesn't need as many hate buffs as the guardian.Berserker/Shadowknight - One into a melee oriented group,the other into a spell oriented group. Each of them takes a higher percentage of any aoe damage that hits their group and also they use the buff I described above on the MT and OT to reduce the damage the MT and OT take. These tanks would then be taking signifigantly more aoe damage than anyone else in the raid, but because they both have self heals of some sort and have higher HP/mitigation they can still take the damage, and fulfill a valuable role for the raid.Monk - Goes into Melee group and gets abilities added to allow them to act as power batteries. 2 power transfer abilities (one group, one single target) as well as a temp buff that allows them to regenerate their own power as a portion of their dps output. Replacing chanters?Bruiser - Goes into MT group and acts as THE hate transfer class, also has some defensive buffs for the tank. Replacing Swashy's? Lastly has enough surviveability and snap aggro ability to step in for the MT for a limited time if he goes down. One way I've thought about this working is to allow bruisers to get an ability that transfers buffs put on them to the MT. That way all the cool buffs that people normally put on a MT goes on the bruiser instead, and he uses his 1 ability to transfer those buffs to the MT. Then if the MT drops the buffs return to the bruiser and he will have the benefit of them while the MT recovers. Once MT is ready again the bruiser could then put the buffs back onto the MT.</blockquote>It may be viewed as trolling but so be it. The only tank I have left is a T8 Zerker, though I have tried them all. But it seems to me that all the plate tanks have a role and can MT or OT. Brawlers cannot and probably should not be sought after for MT, I have seen some who do an admirable job at OT.They have nothing to make up for the short coming.I would agree that the group logic today makes it very tough on them. Both should generate more dps than they do. In fact I think they should clearly be the highest DPS fighters. But they do not need and should not have abilities that encroach on other classes.They should instead get some out of the box thinking that makes them desirable.They should have unique abilities that recommend them for groups.They could both have a low level group hate transfer similar to how the Ranger hawk is supposed to work in siphoning hate for all none fighters, but let them target an out of group fighter to receive a transfer that reflect a portion of the amount drained from non fighters.Monks should provide a desirable addition to survivability, maybe adding group avoidance and/or mitigation along with snap contro and maybe the ability to intervene, shortening curse durations and/or damage. Or a straight mitigation to focus damage with their meditative techniques. And Bruisers should add additional Damage and debilitation to a group. Perhaps in additional triggers and procs. Maybe an increase to debuffs for group members.Brawlers, Ranger and Brigands have no no logic today that recommends them for a particular group and that needs to be fixed. It would be nice if those classes had abilities that complemented each other.

dalponis

08-21-2010, 01:21 PM

I like the original posters ideas.