Next tank

[BabyYoda]

We can't be creative with the current design sorry but that's the truth

Even game designers for biggest Japanese company fell short with current encounter design

Most games tank is a CC job who stun fear or root enemies

[CKNovel]

Most games tank is a CC job who stun fear or root enemies

We played vastly different games...
It's true XIV is a number game and should be changed.

But MMO tanks aren't necesseraly jobs that Crowd Control opponent, that's something true for MOBAs where tanks can't have the same design in a pvp setting. I mean, taunt is literally a form of crowd control anyway.
The general definition of tanks in game, mostly RPGs, is to be the frontline able to receive and soak the most damage.

Also, could you imagine if tanks had more CCs? It would be useless against bosses as they're immune and we'll never see a tool to skip a mechanic.
And in dungeons? Healers would cry even more.

[Tunda]

We played vastly different games...
It's true XIV is a number game and should be changed.

But MMO tanks aren't necesseraly jobs that Crowd Control opponent, that's something true for MOBAs where tanks can't have the same design in a pvp setting. I mean, taunt is literally a form of crowd control anyway.
The general definition of tanks in game, mostly RPGs, is to be the frontline able to receive and soak the most damage.

Also, could you imagine if tanks had more CCs? It would be useless against bosses as they're immune and we'll never see a tool to skip a mechanic.
And in dungeons? Healers would cry even more.

Many RPGs have this formula.. tanks do cc and also supports do.. it is not about moba only.

Some RPGs give tanks a CC that cost MP others use cc instead of damage.. tanks are not suppose to deal damage they suppose to be tanks first who have engaging dps rotation rather than dps jobs having mitigations

[Carighan]

Many RPGs have this formula.. tanks do cc and also supports do.. it is not about moba only.

Some RPGs give tanks a CC that cost MP others use cc instead of damage.. tanks are not suppose to deal damage they suppose to be tanks first who have engaging dps rotation rather than dps jobs having mitigations

That's true, when WoW heralded the swap from 6 MMORPG roles to just 3 (the thereafter-called "trinity" of roles), CC mostly went to tanks, buffing mostly went to healers, and debuffing got spread around the jobs. There are exceptions of course, but by and large there was a significant focus in moving defensive utility components to the already supportive jobs.

[TouchandFeel]

That's true, when WoW heralded the swap from 6 MMORPG roles to just 3 (the thereafter-called "trinity" of roles) ...

The concept of the tank, healer, damage dealer trinity was primarily established in MMOs by the first Everquest, which was obviously way before WoW.
The roots of the trinity system comes from even before that, going back to archetypes that evolved in fantasy pen & paper RPGs like DnD. It's simply a reflection of the most common fantasy party setups of a big heavily armored fighter/knight character, a healer/priest/cleric and a long range but physically weaker damage dealer like a wizard.

WoW may have popularized MMOs in the West, but it certainly didn't invent anywhere near as many things for the genre as people seem to believe it did.

Here is an article from Game Developer magazine that talks some about the history and evolution of the trinity system as well the general pros/cons of it from a game development viewpoint as well as potential design alternatives or variants.
The pros/cons and general musings on how or how not to implement such a system are of course the opinions of the writer and I agree with some points while disagreeing with others, but the history part is accurate to my recollection.
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design...-of-mmo-design

[Carighan]

The concept of the tank, healer, damage dealer trinity was primarily established in MMOs by the first Everquest, which was obviously way before WoW.
The roots of the trinity system comes from even before that, going back to archetypes that evolved in fantasy pen & paper RPGs like DnD. It's simply a reflection of the most common fantasy party setups of a big heavily armored fighter/knight character, a healer/priest/cleric and a long range but physically weaker damage dealer like a wizard.

WoW may have popularized MMOs in the West, but it certainly didn't invent anywhere near as many things for the genre as people seem to believe it did.

Interesting.

So, let me ask you this, then. If EQ1 was so "trinity", how come the following:

- The label was unknown, as was the concept of a "trinity" of RPG jobs? In faaaact, there was a "trinity", but it meant something else, namely that you needed a Warrior, a Cleric and an Enchanter (which, if you were to reduce it to jobs, would be Tank + Healer + CC, DPS/Buffer/Debuffer came after that, though Enchanter also had some debuffing elements of course, and one of the most important buffs in the entire game to do dungeon farming at all).
- EQ1 itself described its classes in the concepts of six archetypes?
- WoW in beta still described its classes as six archetypes? (for example Priest was the dedicated CC class)

I mean, I get that most here are too young to actively remember their forays into these old games, but genuinely, WoW cemented the reduction from 6 to 3 archetypes. This was not without reason. It was difficult to have "pure" debuffer jobs for example. Usually these were mixed with DPS, see EQ1's Necromancer that then inspired WoW's "Debuff"-focused job (see beta 4), the Warlock. Which then got turned into DPS first and foremost, with their debuffs mostly just being 2 kinds of DoTs though they had some options back in the days. Likewise in EQ1, the dedicated buffer, the Shaman, also had some healing inspiration, and this wasn't uncommon either for buff-centric classes, though other combinations existed like debuffers also dipping into healing or tanking. Other games tried some other setups, like DAoC's CC-centric specs on Hibernia's and Albion's primary healer to contrast with Midgard's buff-centric spec.

It's also telling the way the article you link deals with the whole history in just two ultra-short sentences, quite clearly the author doesn't have any personal experience of really old D&D or EQ or M59 or so. :') Just saying, it's okay. By now Tank/Heal/Damage is established, we don't need to abolish the other three primary roles from the history books just because they have become secondary roles in modern design. And for good reason. Your old D&D Bard would be mighty pissed if you called him a healer or damage, however.

[Carighan]

Also, could you imagine if tanks had more CCs? It would be useless against bosses as they're immune and we'll never see a tool to skip a mechanic.
And in dungeons? Healers would cry even more.

Wouldn't have to be. Seen how GW2 does it, even on 100+ people open world mobs? The mob gets a CC-"bar", while slowly casting something. Each CC move is ignored, but applies a certain amount of "damage" to the bar (stuns for example have a higher base damage than snares, also duration plays into the effective number). Once broken, the mob is CCed, usually in a pre-defined way but sometimes it's just the first "real" CC like Stun or Mezz or Fear going through after the bar is down.

And then there's often an immunity when the bar comes back up until it can even be damaged again.

And that's just one example of how it can be done on bosses. It's all just a matter of the class designers talking to the encounter designers and vice versa. "Easily" done (as easy as things can be in game dev) then.

As for the dungeon thing, other MMOs make their mobs and bosses deal non-trivial amounts of damage at non-trivializing intervals. That already solves the healer problem entirely.