Gunbreaker breaks my heart

[Imuka]

There is one thing that is the boon and the bane of tanking in this Game.
A boon for every Player who just plays them for faster Queues or are super new into tanking and a bane for every Tankplayer who goes for higher Difficulties.
Tanks are literally just blue Icon DPS Classes, with more bulk but the same mastery.

If we take a look at their Kits, they are focused around Damage and Damage Mitigation is just a Minor aspect covered by some OffCD Skills.
Keeping the Aggro is just a small side Task, often covered by Tanks using a single Aggro Combo at the Start of the Fight, before dropping into blue DPS Mode.
Their Specials are not focused around Damage Mitigation and Aggro Management, they are high Pot Specials, like Fell Cleave or Bloodspiller.
And now even the Spam of those Classes sells this. We spam Skills like Dark Arts and Fell Cleave. Skills that just have a higher Pot and nothing else.

The whole mastery of those Classes is to raise the DPS output after a Player memorizes the Basic Features of a Fight.
Some Raids even come with DPS Checks for Tanks, which again cements their Picture as blue DPS Classes.

And here comes something that might pop up in the Head of some DPS Players looking at Tanks.
"If tanking evolves so much around doing high DPS Numbers as the mastery, why should I not instead just play a DPS Class like Dragoon or Samurai?".

Stormblood even confirmed this Picture with 5.0, when the DPSfor the DPS Jobs made a huge jump and the Tanks felt weak because of small Numbers.
Especially with Kits, that sell Pot Numbers and some minor Effects of certain Attacks.

In the end one Class is fighting a blind but bulky Monkey and the other one fights a blind Money, that sometimes hits them.

And while this sounds super obvious to everybody, it seems often not so obvious for Game Devs.

Is there a MMO out there, who did this really really well?
I would love to see the Gameplay of that, because till today, I never saw a MMO doing this really well.

Would a real difference between those two Combat Roles make more Player play Tank?
Maybe...maybe not. Nobody really knows, but maybe it could make this Classes more interessting for Players who are interessted into tanking but after Leveling all of them move back to their DPS Class.
Maybe it would raise the Numbers of full time Tanks and reduce the Number of Part Time Tanks in the Game...maybe...maybe not, nobody knows for sure.

[kikix12]

Is there a MMO out there, who did this really really well?
I would love to see the Gameplay of that, because till today, I never saw a MMO doing this really well.

Doubtful. "Tanking" is unrealistic. The closest to tanks in real life was the roman phalanx.

For a "tank" to work, the concept of enmity would need to be completely removed and the enemy should always go after the weakest link in the party, except if opportunity struck. That means that a tank would need to use skills and actively move to stop attacks rather than draw the attention. That's possible, but it either would make positioning more important to a point where dodging is possible, and at that point why tank if it's easier for the victim to avoid the attack altogether, or tanking would require extremely high reflexes making it even worse to play.
If you want to know what I'm talking about, play a pen and paper RPG. When I did, I had to actively make stupid decisions as a game master to avoid wiping the party up with basic monsters like goblins or orcs, just because "tanking" is simply not realistic.


Also, most people don't play tanks because majority of people prefer dealing damage. It's as simple as that. Tanks would be played the most if they dealt the most damage, but at that point, why have DPS?! There's nothing really to consider here. Playing supportive characters is a less common interest and every single game in existence shows exactly that.

[Shurrikhan]

Doubtful. "Tanking" is unrealistic. The closest to tanks in real life was the roman phalanx.

For a "tank" to work, the concept of enmity would need to be completely removed and the enemy should always go after the weakest link in the party, except if opportunity struck. That means that a tank would need to use skills and actively move to stop attacks rather than draw the attention. That's possible, but it either would make positioning more important to a point where dodging is possible, and at that point why tank if it's easier for the victim to avoid the attack altogether, or tanking would require extremely high reflexes making it even worse to play.
If you want to know what I'm talking about, play a pen and paper RPG. When I did, I had to actively make stupid decisions as a game master to avoid wiping the party up with basic monsters like goblins or orcs, just because "tanking" is simply not realistic.


Also, most people don't play tanks because majority of people prefer dealing damage. It's as simple as that. Tanks would be played the most if they dealt the most damage, but at that point, why have DPS?! There's nothing really to consider here. Playing supportive characters is a less common interest and every single game in existence shows exactly that.

While I don't at all think that the Macedonian phalanx is particularly iconic of "tanking", let alone the limit of such a space-making role in real life, I have to agree that we cannot have actual tanking so long as AI considers only who stacked an alternate-damage value (enmity) highest. Tanking works well enough in games like Overwatch precisely because they have the ability to thwart offenses against their team (via interception paired with their mitigation) despite not necessarily being the most desired target -- certainly not in the long run.

[kikix12]

Tanking works well enough in games like Overwatch precisely because they have the ability to thwart offenses against their team (via interception paired with their mitigation) despite not necessarily being the most desired target -- certainly not in the long run.

Except those games are shooting games which use large-scale obstacles as shields, alternatively damage redirection. There are also many tanks that cater to the other side of what a "tank" is. As in, hard-hitting, tough characters that don't actually help other members. Except by happening to be in front of them.

Though yes, I did shoehorn this kind of games into what I said wrongly.

When talking about typical MMORPG however, tanking becomes more and more difficult as the distance between the enemy and the target shortens, or as the speed of their attack grows. This is assuming that there's no "accuracy" check simulating manual aiming typical of action titles. At that point it becomes another factor.


Now, don't get me wrong. There are numbers of skills that can work to deal with it (the aforementioned redirection of damage or large obstacle like barriers generation, mainly, but also automated 'blocking' when near someone and similar). There's a large amount of possible crowd control skills that would push, limit movement etc. of enemies making it harder for them to approach the target. But ultimately reality is that tanking in RPG's requires mechanisms that simplify it, otherwise it would require reflexes that are just incredibly rare.


As for the phalanx, I'd say that you should know that if you're to correct that, you should say that the Romans legionaries formation was no longer a phalanx (but derived of one), not latch onto that word and imply I mentioned the Macedonian one.
Especially when searching for Roman Phalanx in Google obviously shows plenty of the relevant content.

[Shurrikhan]

Except those games are shooting games which use large-scale obstacles as shields, alternatively damage redirection. There are also many tanks that cater to the other side of what a "tank" is. As in, hard-hitting, tough characters that don't actually help other members. Except by happening to be in front of them.

I think you'd have to avoid much about the game to come to quite that conclusion. There is no direct damage redirection among the tanks, for instance, but there is huge toolkit potential by which to open up the opportunities of non-tanks (however indirectly) and -- just as importantly -- decent threat, precisely because threat is what creates safety every bit as much as a barrier. A barrier prevents an action, forcibly, by denying lines of attack. Displacement prevents an action, forcibly, by denying lines of attack. Threat, however, prevents the (perceivable) viability of an action, and can ultimately act as either of the former, forcing enemies into ambushes and/or denying them space.

That's to say, however, that OW's tanks have sole proprietorship over these forms of manipulation -- that's precisely the point. Every "role" in some way manipulates -- through intimidation or feigned weakness, capturing or denying focus -- the position and attention of enemies. Tanks have the eHP and toolkits to push areas that other heroes would be unable to, opening lines of attack against enemy threat, but no role is denied whatever contribution its toolkit would rightly allow. The necessity of one role or another does not exist arbitrarily; it is determined precisely by whatever actions are necessary to win the fights given the time, enemy space, enemy charge, and enemy composition.

I feel like that's ultimately the direction XIV needs to go in if they want their tanks to at all feel like tanks. We should make and take opportunities, via every role in synergy. Tanks have the unique ability to make opportunities otherwise much more easily deniable -- not by rigid mechanic or some gimmick, but by diminished necessary caution (and therein waste of potential throughput) in the context of the actual fight. They do not need, however, to be the only thing an enemy force wishes to attack. Giving tanks passively reduced vulnerability to damage atop the ability to funnel all damage into them just takes away from what tanking ought to be about -- supporting through opportunities granted. Rather than having to know what your team most needs, and when, you simply pay your tax and let the system cover (read: invalidate) the rest. That's not to say that every fight ought to be overly complicated due to doggedly efficient or unique AI, but when the game boils down to just a scripted checklist of enmity and proceed as per striking dummy rotations, etc., the game boils down to a flavorless mush.

As for the phalanx, I'd say that you should know that if you're to correct that, you should say that the Romans legionaries formation was no longer a phalanx (but derived of one), not latch onto that word and imply I mentioned the Macedonian one.
Especially when searching for Roman Phalanx in Google obviously shows plenty of the relevant content.

Except the phalanx was never a name for an interlocking shield technique so much as, very specifically, a unit of long-reach infantry. It's literal meaning as the "fingers" of the army refers no only to its array, but also it's reach. The Romans rarely ever incorporated phalanx into their armies, and certainly never by name except when specifically using Greek (where since conquered by Macedonia) and Macedonian troops. It follows the same pattern as Hussar or Sarissophoroi/Prodromoi. We could metaphorically use either unit's name to describe what they did or was prerequisite to their being effective, but ultimately each was a name for a unit, conventionally sized (even if that convention was to have little convention at all, in the case of the Hussar), of a particular troop type. The pictures that surface in your link are misnomers. They are quite clearly of the Roman Legion (or, Maniple, as in manipular formation), and while there was certainly some derivation -- in the way that all to-be conquerors tend to learn from those who had conquered before, they were also a fundamental departure from the phalanx, favoring versatility and opportunity over fielding reach.

[kikix12]

...decent threat, precisely because threat is what creates safety every bit as much as a barrier.

Threat in RPG games is exactly what enmity is...so on one side you are agreeing with me that enmity can't be used for a right-proper tank, on another you are showing it off as a proper method of accomplishing a "tankiness" in characters.

If we'll remove the idea of enmity as threat and go for ACTUAL threat...we just made a tank that's superior to DPS in every single way...hence why even have DPS?! The only way for tanks to be a greater threat than DPS is by outperforming them in attack. In FPS that works, because you can limit their range, slow them down, slow their attacks down to make them easier to avoid etc. In non-action RPG games it does not, because the only penalty you really can do is extend the cooldowns, but at that time their DPS merely becomes more bursty, but still they end up being lower threat over time. And melee is a very common range in fantasy games to fight at so you can't really depend on decreasing it that much either. Except if you specifically made every melee a tank and non-melee a DPS...but that's not something viable in a game with more than a handful of classes.

Tanks have the eHP and toolkits to push areas that other heroes would be unable to, opening lines of attack against enemy threat, but no role is denied whatever contribution its toolkit would rightly allow.

I'll say this. I have not played Overwatch, only read the skills of most characters. And from what I remember, what you said is correct only for select few of them. The only universal thing about the tanks in that game is that they are harder to kill solo because all of them have some skill that increases THEIR survivability. Not all of them have skills that increase the survivability of others though.
In case of Wrecking Ball there is the denial with the mines (though I reckon they are not visible to most enemies, so they're more of a DPS thing) and in case of Roadhog there's the hook which relocates enemies to him, which CAN be done to save an ally from an enemy by breaking his line of fire or orientation momentarily.
However Junkrat alone have both of those. Concussion Mine both damages AND relocates enemies. It can also work to both decrease and increase the distance, unlike Roadhogs hook. And that shows that neither the area denial nor "crowd control" skills are limited to tanks. In fact, there are several characters using knockback. And then there's Bastion, which is a DPS with a literal "Tank" mode, with a self-repair (at a price) ability that is more typical of tanks. Not even barriers are actually tank-only. Symmetra have a powerful (seemingly) barrier with infinite range as an ultimate. Again, it's got its downsides (being "ultimate" as the biggest of them), but is a perfectly "tanky" skill.

So yes. Does Overwatch have tanks that work?! Yes. Are they clear-cut for that role?!...No. Their only really unique characteristic is them having more personal survival through one way or another than even most defensive DPS's (well, one could argue that Wraith Form of Reaper is better with its invincibility, though he cannot attack then). And all of that is still in a setting where it is viable to "tank" by standing between who you want to protect and who you want to protect them from. Something that can be done by literally anyone in a pinch with enough success. After all, eating some hits for someone near death as a DPS/Support won't really matter if you're going behind the corner with a healer nearby and both of you will be healed soon enough.

So sorry...but I still say that Overwatch and other shooters are a poor example of how tanks can work in RPG's. Especially non-action RPG's.

The necessity of one role or another does not exist arbitrarily; it is determined precisely by whatever actions are necessary to win the fights given the time, enemy space, enemy charge, and enemy composition.

The necessity or lack of it thereof is not part of the discussion. The poster to which I originally responded was merely asking whether there is an MMO that did "tanking" really, really well. Whether the tanks are mandatory or not is irrelevant here. In most action games (RPG and FPS alike) tanks are completely optional because it comes with the territory. As I said, if a player can avoid any and all damage by quick reflexes and utilizing the minimum defensive skills that just about anyone have in action games (rolls are common in RPG's), someone that "tanks" is never necessary. Just makes it easier to survive for those less skilled.

Except the phalanx was never a name for an interlocking shield technique so much as, very specifically, a unit of long-reach infantry.

Reread what I said in my last post, this time carefully. You latched onto the word phalanx which I agreed with you that I used wrongly. Then I provided reasons why people that don't know history too well and/or are not native English speakers may have done that mistake in the first place, because it's very easy to come across "sources" that are incorrect like that, only for you to state what is at that point obvious...that they are incorrect.

To simplify...What you should have said is not that "While I don't at all think that the Macedonian phalanx is particularly iconic of "tanking", let alone the limit of such a space-making role in real life (...)" but "While I don't at all think that the Roman Legionaries are particularly iconic of "tanking", let alone the limit of such a space-making role in real life (...)"...or however you think of Roman formations and tanking.

[Shurrikhan]

so on one side you are agreeing with me that enmity can't be used for a right-proper tank, on another you are showing it off as a proper method of accomplishing a "tankiness" in characters.

No. MMO "Threat" (Enmity) and actual threat (assessed risk) could scarcely be more different from each other. I mentioned all that I did in the previous post largely because it was seeming more likely that you were conflating the two. To be clear, I do not think XIV will be capable of making a decent tank so long as its enmity system remains a matter of alternate-damage (enmity) rather than even halfway decent AI accounting for threat (risk). At this point I have no idea what you find wrong with the current enmity system, only that it's probably different than what makes it fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

Threat in RPG games is exactly what enmity is....

I explained exactly what I meant by threat -- that it is perceived risk of action, by which to influence enemy behaviors, which is very, very different from anything enemies experience, or tanks are thereby allowed to manipulate.

Enmity is actually a good word for what we do have, which is almost the opposite of actual threat. Enmity is essentially... grudge, an active hostility, lingering longer the "deeper" it is. And here, increasing Grudge apparently makes enemies continue to wail fruitlessly on targets they should know they cannot kill given the conditions thus far, seemingly out of mere spite. Utterly stupid on the part of our enemies, but well labelled.

That said, a genre misnomer ("Threat") does not subvert what threat actually is, nor does a genre-conventional refusal to use any but the shallowest possible AI mean that MMOs can never have decent AI or experience tanking as actually tanking, rather than just damage-sponging and enmity-stacking. A boss's skills are threatening when they will kill you or cost additional resources you'd have been better off using later if you do not dodge or appropriately mitigate them. When you make an attack seemingly insurmountable so that it's not even committed to, that is threat -- threat of wasted resources. And when you lower that threat, baiting the enemy in, and then take advantage of their confidence, that, too, is a use of threat (albeit negatively). None of that has anything to do with stacking an alternate-damage metric, and yet it has far, far more nuance and potential for coordination among a party.

I have not played Overwatch, only read... from what I remember, what you said is correct only for select few of them.

You do realize that makes you definitively uninformed on this particular subject, no? But, I guess your having read a few tooltips better informs you than my having used the actual abilities competitively for up to some 3 years or the experience of anyone else who plays that game extensively? Is that the logic here?

In case of Wrecking Ball there is the denial with the mines (though I reckon they are not visible to most enemies, so they're more of a DPS thing) and in case of Roadhog there's the hook which relocates enemies to him, which CAN be done to save an ally from an enemy by breaking his line of fire or orientation momentarily.

You're going out on a limb of a limb here. The mines are visible, and even if they weren't that wouldn't particularly make them any more or less "a DPS thing". Again, tanking (any time you play against units with intelligence, be they actual players or just decent AI) is about changing the circumstances of a fight, primarily through TTK-, area-, or LoS-denial. Roadhog's Hook moves the fight against a particular enemy from the enemy's zone of control into yours, often enough drawing it behind your shield where you can kill it without risk.

Yes, killing is involved in that, but killing itself is not antithetical to a tank. If you weren't killing things, you generally wouldn't need a tank, either. When fighting enemies not driven by an "Enmity" system or the like, tanks are not damage sponges that see use through merely existing somewhere nearby; they have to control the term of the fight, generally through the same systems as everyone else, just with a toolkit better suited to such actions. You bring tanks to clear a particular objective. In XIV, there's only one: the boss's HP must hit zero before your whole party has been reduced to 0 HP. But even so, or especially so, tanks are inherently about, in XIV's case... killing.

However Junkrat alone have both of those. Concussion Mine both damages AND relocates enemies. It can also work to both decrease and increase the distance, unlike Roadhogs hook. And that shows that neither the area denial nor "crowd control" skills are limited to tanks.

I never said they were limited to tanks. I praised that they weren't. I said only that the tanks in Overwatch -- and I think it wise to include as much among "tanks" in any game -- have unique means of providing it. What they provide is not necessarily unique. How they do so is, and those means, in this case, are synergetic. How does a Junkrat get close enough in the first place to pull an enemy back into his lines? Usually via a tank. How does he have any "lines" to take advantage of all that, rather than they're being dispersed to minimize exposure? A tank. It may be a bit of a "you know it when you see it", but it takes only a bit of seeing tanks dying repeatedly and pointlessly when they try to focus themselves around their "survival skills" rather than a need to force the terms of fights in their party's favor to see that the toolkit, eHP-heavy or not, works towards certain pragmatic ends, even if far more flexibly than your typical MMO tank. And that's the kind of flexibility and pragmatism I'd like to see from tanks in general if we could just get some decent AI and finally have full-fledged PvP, rather than the watered down drivel we have now.