Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Flanking bonuses are typically the purview of strikers, along with other effects that improve damage. Ranged attacks and spells can be defeated by anyone who can get into melee, notably monks. In PnP, they also get specific defenses against arrows, but not the armor to stand against a fighter in plate mail and tower shield, who drops to the wizard targeting reflex or anything versus touch AC, back to the monk.
Which person gets in front and engages the target depends on who the target it- we can make taunt an ability that everybody has access to, but not everybody uses all the time. Just from PnP, there are at least six primary defenses: AC, touch AC, three saves, and damage reduction. The barbarian might have 'imposing presence', penalizing somewhat enemies near him who attack someone else, while the fighter has a challenge ability targeting one opponent. Rouges might have a set of attacks that can only be used on somebody not engaging them, but not to the point that a pack of rogues beats all other combinations-maybe rogue attacks deal debuffs or bleeding, and don't stack with other rogues?
Goblin Squad Member
|
Flanking bonuses are typically the purview of strikers, along with other effects that improve damage. Ranged attacks and spells can be defeated by anyone who can get into melee, notably monks. In PnP, they also get specific defenses against arrows, but not the armor to stand against a fighter in plate mail and tower shield, who drops to the wizard targeting reflex or anything versus touch AC, back to the monk.
I think what he's saying, is if the mob ignores the fighter/pali/ranger/rogue and brushes past him to go smack the wizard, that fighter could be given huge bonuses to hitting the target in the back and thus either shoot way up in the threat category, or drop it dead in half the time.
IMO for this flanking should be entirely based on facing direction and not general attack as it is in the P&P game, the lack of facing direction in P&P is for simplicity, in MMO's facing direction makes things more simple,
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... but not to the point that a pack of rogues beats all other combinations-maybe rogue attacks deal debuffs or bleeding, and don't stack with other rogues?
This is an interesting problem.
It's tempting to make Rogue attacks open the target up to more deadly attacks from other players, if only for the way it would invalidate the typical e-peen contest of spamming damage logs. However, I don't really see that being satisfying.
I think that most physical damage dealers should deal on-par damage with each other. It's the other things about them that should make them interesting.
For my part in this discussion, I would much rather focus on ways to avoid implementing a Taunt mechanic, or something equivalent. I think it makes absolute sense to engage an enemy, and to be in a lot of trouble if you're engaged directly by multiple enemies, to the extent that you have to keep "falling back" to avoid getting encircled and becoming even more exposed. I can see a little room for having an array of abilities that will knock a significantly weaker opponent out of action for a couple of rounds, so that a significantly more powerful character can realistically engage 3 enemies, but I don't see a lot of room beyond that.
If the enemy I've engaged decides to ignore me and try to kill the cleric (or anyone else), then I should be able to deal significantly more damage because he's not actively defending against me. Likewise, if I'm ignoring another attacker in order to do this, I'm exposed to that same danger.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Flanking bonuses are typically the purview of strikers, along with other effects that improve damage. Ranged attacks and spells can be defeated by anyone who can get into melee, notably monks. In PnP, they also get specific defenses against arrows, but not the armor to stand against a fighter in plate mail and tower shield, who drops to the wizard targeting reflex or anything versus touch AC, back to the monk.
I think what he's saying, is if the mob ignores the fighter/pali/ranger/rogue and brushes past him to go smack the wizard, that fighter could be given huge bonuses to hitting the target in the back and thus either shoot way up in the threat category, or drop it dead in half the time.
IMO for this flanking should be entirely based on facing direction and not general attack as it is in the P&P game, the lack of facing direction in P&P is for simplicity, in MMO's facing direction makes things more simple,
We ALWAYS used facing in our PnP games. It was simple to do if you were using minitures....you didn't even really need them to do it...it just made it easier.
For the purpose of this discussion, I'm assuming that it's PvP and arggo mechanics don't exist or apply. I'm also assuming there is Collision Detection or some other method for preventing an attacker to simply "walk through" you to expose your back.
In that case, turning you back/flank on an enemy who opposes you in order to attack a different target...or putting youself in a position where you can be flanked would be something which would usualy be against a players self-interest because it would dramaticaly decrease thier survivability.
It's fine if certain classes (i.e. Rogue's) have more effective flank attacks then normal...but IMO any Melee attack against a flank should be harder to defend against and potentialy do more damage. This would model historical hand to hand combat, as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... but not to the point that a pack of rogues beats all other combinations-maybe rogue attacks deal debuffs or bleeding, and don't stack with other rogues?This is an interesting problem.
It's tempting to make Rogue attacks open the target up to more deadly attacks from other players, if only for the way it would invalidate the typical e-peen contest of spamming damage logs. However, I don't really see that being satisfying.
I think that most physical damage dealers should deal on-par damage with each other. It's the other things about them that should make them interesting.
For my part in this discussion, I would much rather focus on ways to avoid implementing a Taunt mechanic, or something equivalent. I think it makes absolute sense to engage an enemy, and to be in a lot of trouble if you're engaged directly by multiple enemies, to the extent that you have to keep "falling back" to avoid getting encircled and becoming even more exposed. I can see a little room for having an array of abilities that will knock a significantly weaker opponent out of action for a couple of rounds, so that a significantly more powerful character can realistically engage 3 enemies, but I don't see a lot of room beyond that.
If the enemy I've engaged decides to ignore me and try to kill the cleric (or anyone else), then I should be able to deal significantly more damage because he's not actively defending against me. Likewise, if I'm ignoring another attacker in order to do this, I'm exposed to that same danger.
Exactly, you might have certain classes/abilities that have an even stronger attack against an exposed flank....but in general anyone that's attacking someone from a flank should have a bonus to attack/damage.
Taunt doesn't generate threat. It temporarily puts you at the top of the hate list. Threat modifiers and threat generating abilities are the problem. If taunt doesn't give you any more control over the mob than any other form of CC does, there is no problem with taunt.
On flanking, if you give the tank a "huge bonus" when the mob isn't hitting him, you've just metagamed the tank into a striker. If that huge bonus deters the mob from attacking others, or consistently causes the mob to turn back to the tank, then all you've done is metagamed threat mechanics in a slightly different way.
More on flanking, generally positioning yourself behind a mob eliminates their ability to dodge or parry your attacks, effectively increasing your hit rating. It also enables whatever "backstab" ability a character might have. No need to reinvent this wheel IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Taunt doesn't generate threat. It temporarily puts you at the top of the hate list.
Totally depends on the implementation, although I believe you're correct with respect to most modern MMOs. I seem to remember EQ required spamming Taunt because it added a static amount of Threat, but I can't remember for sure.
But that's really immaterial because...
Threat modifiers and threat generating abilities are the problem.
Exactly! The "threat" should be calculated straight-up, based on what the mob perceives to be the greatest actual threat. There shouldn't be abilities that turn a fairly ineffective attack into an extremely threatening attack. There should be threat calculations, but they should only be meta-gamed to the extent that I can get a really nice Two Handed Axe swing at the back of the bad guy's head if he's ignoring me and trying to kill my buddy. That might make him reassess his threat calculations, or it might not.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Um, I'm talking about PvP mechanics, where the game is "What is my most effective strategy, given the information I have."
Typically, this is going to mean attacking the target which has the highest ratio of value to health- the enemy that is easiest to neutralize per unit of utility that they provide the opponent. That will typically be the guy in robes in the back, mostly because he is the easiest to kill.
The only ways the people between me and my preferred target can change that calculation is by making it more difficult to pass them, or by becoming a bigger threat themselves. The latter can be accomplished by threatening my own back line or by having a situational advantage against me. The former involves creating some cost to pass them, such as killing them in the case of simply respecting collision boundaries, or bull-rushing them, or taking an AoO each from them.
I'm worried that our end result will be lines of defenders that are mostly ineffective against each other forming walls, over which everyone else fights with each other. Simple collision detection is a perfect melee taunt; just stand between the enemy and whoever you don't want the enemy to attack.
An ability which instead applies a cost to attacking someone else is a less effective taunt; the issue is the risk of having a group composed only of characters with abilities which trigger 'when my target attacks somebody else'. A counter to that risk: If all of my enemies are challenging one of my allies, each daring him to attack somebody else, he need only do nothing, and allow me and my other allies to engage the defenders locking him down. If they divide their defending abilities, it can become a series of individual duels, or my entire side can attack one of the enemy, take a couple of retaliatory strikes, and become a man up.
If we have no problem with allowing a force two or three times larger consistently win, then there is no reason for one person to be able to beat two or three opponents at once.
So, an ability, "Intercept" which replaces the normal attacks, but allows the user to make an attack against the target whenever the target attacks somebody else. This attack is made with significant bonuses, but is not 'I win'. If the target attacks the interceptor, then the interceptor gains no benefit, not even a regular attack; if the target makes no attack, the same results apply.
If two people on one side both 'intercept' the same opponent, he simply shifts to a defensive posture and lets his ally defeat the enemy. If he doesn't have allies, then he is outnumbered by 100% and should lose. 'Intercept' is an ability that prevents one of one's opponents from freely choosing targets, at the cost of removing one from normal consideration. The complementary ability 'defend' might transfer all or most attacks directed at the defended to the defender, and would also be exclusive of making attacks.
I see.
What is the scale of the bonus? Is your normal attack when being attacked sub-par (but you obviously have better than average AC/HP), and then does Intercept increase your DPS to the value of normal DPS?
I suppose it depends on how active you want mitigation to be. If the fighter's AC/HP provides a certain amount of passive mitigation, active mitigation beyond that (Defend--an active parry or block that could be used on yourself or others) could be seen as preemptive healing. You might not even need to make Intercept situational--giving the fighter the choice between Defend or Intercept might be enough.
Then you have a fighter who floats between all three roles and still feels like a fighter. Add some CC/buff/debuff/utility/flavor abilities and you have my idea of the perfect fighter.
You also have a class that could survive (PvP or PvE) as an all-fighter group. 5 fighters trading off Defends on the current tank and trading off Intercepts on the target(s). Make Intercept work for melee and ranged attacks, so when they have to pull out their bows they are still viable DPS. Maybe make Defend work against magical attacks (or have a different ability for that).
That's my general class criteria wishlist--can float between the trinity roles and is viable as a group of the same class (or any combination of classes).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's my general class criteria wishlist--can float between the trinity roles and is viable as a group of the same class (or any combination of classes).
Oh yes. However the trinity roles play out or don't play out, I'd love a system where a group composed entirely of one archetype can fight. I didn't say fight as well as a group of mixed archetypes, just well enough to be effective in the wilderness.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The 'normal attack' IS the striker damage, since that is what is used when other abilities are not.
I would expect that there be somewhat overlapping equipment benefits for various roles; striker powers benefit from two-handed weapons, defend requires a shield, and intercept requires a sword?
But in general, give each class a way of doing most things, in a different way, with different types of cost. The way a fighter prevents an enemy from attacking an ally might cost that fighter fatigue, time and armor repairs; a wizard performing the same task would use spell components and magical energy.
Oh yes. However the trinity roles play out or don't play out, I'd love a system where a group composed entirely of one archetype can fight. I didn't say fight as well as a group of mixed archetypes, just well enough to be effective in the wilderness.
No problem--I'll say it. :) I think the power of mixed groups should be diversity rather than competence, just like in the single-class/multi-class debate.
The 'normal attack' IS the striker damage, since that is what is used when other abilities are not.
Ok, sure. So on a given cooldown you either hit Intercept or Defend. I wonder if there will be auto-attack in this game?
I would expect that there be somewhat overlapping equipment benefits for various roles; striker powers benefit from two-handed weapons, defend requires a shield, and intercept requires a sword?
I would prefer if the Defend ability was fighter dependent rather than shield dependent. But I can see the appeal of having out of combat strategical choices, especially for a weapons master. Hmm. Maybe different weapons should be situationally better, but not affect your skills? Or maybe the skill trees will be diverse enough that you can skill up "2H sword blocking" and not necessarily need a shield. We could see as much diversity in the fighter archetype as we do at the table. A sword & shield fighter could have Defend, a 2H fighter could have something else, and an archer fighter could have yet another ability. I guess it depends on how the general skills and archetype skills play out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't have the time at the moment to do more than skim the replies, so apologizes if anyone pointed this out, or the conversation has moved on. However, I think some people missed part of the conclusion I came to:
"Lower their health" = DPS
"Raise our health" = Healer
"Distribute damage to us so that the best target takes it" = Tank.
Everything else is unnecessary, although potentially useful.
My definition of tank does not imply taunting, massive pool of hp, damage absorption, or anything else. It's control of where that damage goes. In a MMO context, it could be a taunt or an aggro redirect ("we want the monster to beat on him"). In Pathfinder, it can be "Shield Other" and other damage sharing spells, "Hostile Juxtaposition" and other "foes take the damage instead" spells, or just good positioning ("I'll stand in front of it and trip it if it tries to reach you"). The oracle of life who acts as a damage sponge for the party from the back lines is as much of a Pathfinder tank as the front line fighter in full plate with a reach weapon and the Stand Still feat.
The other part of what people missed is that I explicitly didn't make the correlation that health == hp. Hit points are just one type of health. "Willingness to fight" could be another measure of health, provided that there is a mechanical way to lower it - damage to it could cause the enemies to run away or be willing to join you when it gets low enough. If there's no mechanical way to lower it, then it doesn't have any place in a Gamist system. Please note that it could, mechanically, be an amalgam of the general health of everyone involved. "Three of us are dead, two are at less than 20 hit points. We're losing, time to run." It doesn't have to be formally defined, and there doesn't need to be any direct way to affect it, but it would then have to be linked to other forms of health, which could be directly affected.
I wonder if there will be auto-attack in this game?
I hope in the name of [insert Pathfinder deity here, preferably a nasty one good at retribution upon those who annoy it] that there is not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple of comments:
Facing makes no sense in a tabletop game. How many directions can you face in 6 seconds?
The Tank problem is emergent. It's not just Taunt. It's over-development of the armor bonus too. The Tank becomes so grossly over-armored that if you don't build encounters to challenge him, he'll just slaughter everything with impunity. So after a few rounds of power inflation the Devs either are locked in to the Tank, they are forced to gimp the expensive and time intensive gear, or make the other classes equal to the Tank's defense (effectively a nerf). The only solution is to vigilantly stop the feedback loop every time it starts (I.e. you piss off the handful of advanced theory crafters for the benefit of the rest of the community).
The only solution is to vigilantly stop the feedback loop every time it starts (I.e. you piss off the handful of advanced theory crafters for the benefit of the rest of the community).
Thanks for the comments Ryan, here and elsewhere. Let me see if I'm following you (because advanced theorycrafter sure isn't me).
It sounds like the feedback loop starts immediately. I believe in WoW the cloth/leather/mail/plate ratios started at 1/2/4/6, and in Cata they nerfed them down to 1/2/3/4. You would have an easier time here, since you could start with light/medium/heavy at a 1/2/3 ratio, or maybe even less.
Then with the vigilance part, are you suggesting a periodic AC squish, periodic adjustment of when diminishing returns might kick in, or something else?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only solution is to vigilantly stop the feedback loop every time it starts (I.e. you piss off the handful of advanced theory crafters for the benefit of the rest of the community).Thanks for the comments Ryan, here and elsewhere. Let me see if I'm following you (because advanced theorycrafter sure isn't me).
It sounds like the feedback loop starts immediately. I believe in WoW the cloth/leather/mail/plate ratios started at 1/2/4/6, and in Cata they nerfed them down to 1/2/3/4. You would have an easier time here, since you could start with light/medium/heavy at a 1/2/3 ratio, or maybe even less.
Then with the vigilance part, are you suggesting a periodic AC squish, periodic adjustment of when diminishing returns might kick in, or something else?
Or you do not have gear inflation at all.
For a P&P analogy - How many times have you upgraded armor in a campaign. I have very rarely done it. In the last Star Wars campaign I was in, I NEVER upgraded armor. 12 lvls or so and I was still in the same robes I was at the beginning.
And with item decay you will not hurt the crafters as every one will need their gear repaired constantly.
This is my thought and I could be very wrong on it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
A couple of comments:
Facing makes no sense in a tabletop game. How many directions can you face in 6 seconds?
The Tank problem is emergent. It's not just Taunt. It's over-development of the armor bonus too. The Tank becomes so grossly over-armored that if you don't build encounters to challenge him, he'll just slaughter everything with impunity. So after a few rounds of power inflation the Devs either are locked in to the Tank, they are forced to gimp the expensive and time intensive gear, or make the other classes equal to the Tank's defense (effectively a nerf). The only solution is to vigilantly stop the feedback loop every time it starts (I.e. you piss off the handful of advanced theory crafters for the benefit of the rest of the community).
So, the solution to the overpowered tank is to not overpower the tank? There's no reason that "tank-exclusive armor" has to exist, much less be a broken improvement. But if there are meaningful choices about armor, then some armor will be more effective at reducing any given type of incoming damage. That must have some drawback. It could be that different armor provides different protection to different attacks, in which case there is no one tank which is effective against a group with diversified attacks; or it could be that defensive properties come at the exclusion of other properties.
Us advanced theory crafters realize that a fairly small absolute difference can have major effects. A perfect taunt isn't a small difference- it's the difference between the enemy being able to choose targets, and the allies being able to choose the enemy's targets. Good taunts provide disincentives to the enemy targeting in some form or another.
And everything needs a cost- and the only significant cost is opportunity cost. In the end, equally balanced sides should make a choice that says "If the enemy makes one of these choice and we play without error, we will win; but if the enemy makes one of those choices and plays without error, we will lose. If one side can win simply by perfect play, then there are no decisions, only calculations. If the rankings of tanks is well ordered, then there will be a number of 'best tanks' which are functionally identical.
Consider the benefits of "armor piercing", a quality which comes at the expense of some other quality, but negates the benefit of the target's heavy armor. Those weapons are demonstrably less effective than the alternatives versus anyone not wearing armor above some level, meaning they will never become the only weapon choice; against armor-piercing opponents, characters in heavy armor are demonstrably less effective than characters in lighter equipment, meaning that heavy armor will also never become ubiquitous.
Don't create a feedback loop of "tanks need to get better at tanking to tank the encounters which do more damage to challenge the tanks". Create the feedback loop of "Players need to get smarter about using the abilities they have to defeat players who use the abilities they have intelligently to defeat..."
For every single character, there should be a different character of roughly the same nominal power level that will steamroll him. The more specialized a character, the more gaping his weaknesses; and there is a character which focuses on attacking those weaknesses and defends against those strengths.
|
Or like the pnp there is no role/class specific armor. Anyone with the feat can wear it. And the pnp stats are probably a good starting point since they've been around for decades and are balanced. I like the idea of useing equipment similer to the pnp instead of scaling ever better gear, anyway. It shoud be the players chaacters that get better not the gear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple of comments:
Facing makes no sense in a tabletop game. How many directions can you face in 6 seconds?
The Tank problem is emergent. It's not just Taunt. It's over-development of the armor bonus too. The Tank becomes so grossly over-armored that if you don't build encounters to challenge him, he'll just slaughter everything with impunity. So after a few rounds of power inflation the Devs either are locked in to the Tank, they are forced to gimp the expensive and time intensive gear, or make the other classes equal to the Tank's defense (effectively a nerf). The only solution is to vigilantly stop the feedback loop every time it starts (I.e. you piss off the handful of advanced theory crafters for the benefit of the rest of the community).
Ryan,
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on a couple points here.
- Facing makes absolute sense in a table-top game. It's not that you couldn't concievable accompilsh turning around in 6 seconds....in the same seconds you could put away your weapons, sit down and calmy fill out a thank you card to your opponent.... with the same exact result ... you'd be dead before the round is over. The (table-top) game is supposed to simulate combat, in a real melee combat you take your eyes off your opponent for more then a split second...you're pretty much dead. "Facing" works the same way in a table-top situation, it's not that the character doesn't have enough time to turn one direction or another within 6 seconds...it's that the character has no realistic way of turning thier back to an opponent and expecting to survive... that's why you have the character pick a direction that they are choosing to focus thier attention on (i.e. turning is a free action). In most cases this will be the direction that thier attackers are attacking from....in some cases though they may not have opportunity to do so (i.e. that attack comes suddenly/unexpectedly from a flank or there is something locking them into position like thier feet being trapped/stuck). That's why facing is workable in a tabletop game.
- I would really argue that "tanking" is not neccesarly emergent in an MMO...for many it's built into the core design of the game. For example in LOTRO there is nothing emergent about players playing the Guardian class being "Tanks"....it's clear that the Developers designed that class specificaly to play the "Tank" role.... that's true of many MMO's I've seen.
It's really dependant (IMO) upon the design options that are available to a character...and the way combat is modeled. If given the choice, some players may choose to emphasize defensive abilities in thier builds, and there is nothing particulary wrong with that, but no one is going to purposefully choose to GIMP thier own offensive abilities if they don't have to do so. In a game like Skyrim you may take alot of perks in Heavy Armor and Blocking (I know I did with the character I built for it).... but you aren't likely to purposefully choose not to have any offensive capability.
"Tanking" (IMO) is really dependant upon 2 things existing in the game design...
1) Being able to focus in a narrow range of skills/abilities that are effective in defending against 95% of the challenges you will face in the game.
2) Being able to CONSISTANTLY direct attackers to yourself in the vast majority of combat situations.
Take either or both of those away...and you don't really have dedicated "Tanks" (nor the Trinity) anymore in a game....because you don't have a combat role that the character can CONSISTANTLY apply during thier play.... they can apply it to situations that fall into thier sweet spot (and there is nothing really wrong with that....just as there is nothing wrong with pikemen being well suited to defend against cavalry when they've had a chance to set thier weapons and control the direction cavalry will be attacking from)....but they are going to look for other ways to be usefull when not in that sweet spot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel (apologies to entire thread)
Via your logic:
So if you're flanked, you die
If you decide to run away at full speed (obviously not running backwards), you die
If someone blinds you, you die
If you decide to shoot at a distant target with a ranged attack while standing next to an opponent, you die
Combat in D20 is abstract. "Hitting" is abstract. "Damage" is abstract. "Saving Throws" are abstract. By becoming abstract the game can proceed without having to worry about a physics engine, or dealing with timing within a combat round. "Facing" needs to be abstract as well otherwise you restore much of the boring, game-slowing, fun-killing minutiae that the abstractness of the combat system was designed to remove in the first place.
D20 combat is not about "realism". It's about "fun".
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel (apologies to entire thread)
Via your logic:
So if you're flanked, you die
If you decide to run away at full speed (obviously not running backwards), you die
If someone blinds you, you die
If you decide to shoot at a distant target with a ranged attack while standing next to an opponent, you die
Combat in D20 is abstract. "Hitting" is abstract. "Damage" is abstract. "Saving Throws" are abstract. By becoming abstract the game can proceed without having to worry about a physics engine, or dealing with timing within a combat round. "Facing" needs to be abstract as well otherwise you restore much of the boring, game-slowing, fun-killing minutiae that the abstractness of the combat system was designed to remove in the first place.
D20 combat is not about "realism". It's about "fun".
RyanD
Ryan,
No offense...but what you are classifying as "game-kiling minutiae" others actualy consider "fun". It's part of the tactics that are applied to combat that make it fun and interesting.
If you wanted to completely abstract things...you need not have different types of armor or weapons, or feats/manuvers or spells etc. You could simply say...The Party has a combat value of 12, the Monsters have a combat Value of 8...somebody roll a die and we'll see who wins. That would be an abstraction that bogged down the game even less then the D20 rules....and some people would be perfectly fine witgh that...but I'd submit that the folks who actualy enjoyed and were interested in the game-play of combat and applying tactical options wouldn't be terribly interested in it.
The point of abstractions is that they attempt to represent "accurate" outcomes without going through the process of each individual step involved in reaching that outcome. If the mechanism you are employing actualy INTENDS to change the outcome significantly from what would be achieved if you did process all the steps (such as ignoring Flanking Attacks or the effects of Routing) then it's not really an "abstraction"...it's something else entirely... which may be perfectly fine if that's what your audience is looking for.
In my gaming group we actualy enjoy more detailed tactics in representing combat and seeing results that are at least "semi-realistic" (In the context of the world setting/logic that the game takes place under). The combat round is an abstraction of the events that would occur within that breif time span, being caught by an attack from a direction that you are not facing logicaly should have a pretty significant effect on the course of action during around. I see nothing wrong or unjustified with representing the general direction the character is choosing to face during the round and applying modifiers accordingly.
If someone else chooses not to apply such a mechanism because it isn't fun for thier players....that's fine but I do take issue with the statement that it doesn't make sense. Remember the very first rule in d20 (and really any PnP system)..."these rules are just a guideline, do what works for you and your players and modify them accordingly".
P.S.
Yes we also have rules/mechanics for using ranged attacks while engaged by an opponent in melee, and Routing (i.e turning your back and running away) and yes fighting while blind does entail a pretty significant penalty. The rules/mechanics aren't nearly as harsh as they would be in real life, it is a heroic fantasy setting after-all....but we do apply mechanisms to introduce consequences for things that would be tacticaly unsound or should logicaly make some difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Tank problem is emergent. It's not just Taunt. It's over-development of the armor bonus too.
I think the over-development of the armor bonus is a direct result of the Taunt, which required the Tank to tank everything at once. I sincerely hope that using a Shield and Plate Armor still makes me very difficult for one enemy to kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really argue that "tanking" is not neccesarly emergent in an MMO...for many it's built into the core design of the game. For example in LOTRO there is nothing emergent about players playing the Guardian class being "Tanks"....it's clear that the Developers designed that class specificaly to play the "Tank" role.... that's true of many MMO's I've seen.
This is why I focused on Taunt. This quote makes me think you're thinking of Tank as any fighter-class that's intended to stand toe-to-toe with a heavy-hitting enemy. You're right in saying that exists in the tabletop.
But the MMO-Tank is different, because he's explicitly designed to have every enemy hitting him at once. This is not something that really happens at the table.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone else chooses not to apply such a mechanism because it isn't fun for thier players....that's fine but I do take issue with the statement that it doesn't make sense. Remember the very first rule in d20 (and really any PnP system)..."these rules are just a guideline, do what works for you and your players and modify them accordingly".
Why are we bothering to go into a full out discussion on D20 mechanics, while this thread and forum have nothing to do with the rules of P&P at all. If we want to debate d20 rules that should be with James not with Ryan, and not in this forum :P.
Anywho to the topic at hand, I defiantly would like to see armor play a much more subtle role in the game, and for the armor types to have more of a difference on what skills etc... can happen. While I know nothing of the spell system in place I would like to see arcane spell failure and different kinds of magic working with different kinds of armor (say if a spell is set as bard spell it work in light, but have spell failure chance in heavy etc..)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really argue that "tanking" is not neccesarly emergent in an MMO...for many it's built into the core design of the game. For example in LOTRO there is nothing emergent about players playing the Guardian class being "Tanks"....it's clear that the Developers designed that class specificaly to play the "Tank" role.... that's true of many MMO's I've seen.This is why I focused on Taunt. This quote makes me think you're thinking of Tank as any fighter-class that's intended to stand toe-to-toe with a heavy-hitting enemy. You're right in saying that exists in the tabletop.
But the MMO-Tank is different, because he's explicitly designed to have every enemy hitting him at once. This is not something that really happens at the table.
Yes you are quite correct. It's also the case that in the table-top (depending upon the GM and system).... you'll also face a variety of opponents/attacks/situations... some of which the typical fighter in plate isn't particularly well suited to defend against.
Introducing those into a game/campaign is another way to de-emphasize the typical "Tank" situation. The heavy fighter type doesn't EXCLUSIVELY focus on "Tanking" type development/role because there are enough situations where it just doesn't work well for him...so he's going to want to develop some sort of skills/role where he is of some use in those situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Tank problem is emergent. It's not just Taunt. It's over-development of the armor bonus too.I think the over-development of the armor bonus is a direct result of the Taunt, which required the Tank to tank everything at once. I sincerely hope that using a Shield and Plate Armor still makes me very difficult for one enemy to kill.
I don't think they are talking about removing all bonuses of armor, I think it is a combination of taunt and over the top defense, the issue in normal MMO's is that a tank can handle 5-6 enemies at a time that would 1-2 shot anyone else. I think that the intention will be for 1. enemies not to be pumped up to the point that they 1 shot anyone who is not a tank in the ultimate pure defense 0 offense armor, and 2. A defensive build can survive more hits than a normal class, but more along the lines of 25-100% more hits, rather than 600-1000% more hits of the traditional MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the over-development of the armor bonus is a direct result of the Taunt, which required the Tank to tank everything at once.
Well this is kind of my point.
If you gave the Taunt ability to the Mage, it would still have value. If the front line fighters are getting their asses kicked but could recover if given a bit of a respite, the Mage could Taunt the opponents into alpha-striking herself, and in the resultant suicide, provide that needed window of time for the fighters.
As long as the Dev team didn't keep amping up the Mage's defenses so they could survive the result of the Taunt, Taunt would then be an interesting tactical choice with personal vs. group tradeoffs.
The emergent behavior is:
Taunt + Survivability + ( feedback loop: Amping Up The Power Level + Amping Up The Defense)
After just a few of those feedback loops, the Tank's defense is so good that nothing "mundane" can touch it so the Devs are forced to put mega-damage opponents into the encounter, and anyone who isn't Tanked can't withstand any attacks from the mega-damage opponents - requiring a Tank in order to complete the encounter.
The other two parts of the trinity just fill in the gaps left in the design. If you let the tank self-heal and do damage, you don't need them - the only reason they exist is that the Tank isn't allowed to be a complete all-in-one character.
So again, my response is, you limit the emergence of the trinity by stopping the feedback loop of the Tank. Don't give the Tank defenses far beyond that used by other classes, and don't present challenges that require those defenses.
RyanD
sage advice
Apology unnecessary. :) Rules refinement is always welcome.
stuff about emergent tank
I believe Ryan meant it emerged over a long period of time. IE, it is fully embraced now because it emerged years ago.
I seem to remember EQ required spamming Taunt because it added a static amount of Threat, but I can't remember for sure.
I think you're right, but I wasn't privy to detailed info like that while playing EQ like I am in WoW. But I seem to be wrong about taunt anyway. Unless it's on a prohibitively long cooldown, it could be gamed by lining up enough people with taunt and cycling through them. [Edit: unless they're all mages and they all die.]
My definition of tank does not imply taunting, massive pool of hp, damage absorption, or anything else. It's control of where that damage goes.
Agreed. If you can protect someone else who has aggro, you're tanking (and healing?) despite not having aggro.
"Tanking" (IMO) is really dependant upon 2 things existing in the game design...
1) Being able to focus in a narrow range of skills/abilities that are effective in defending against 95% of the challenges you will face in the game.
2) Being able to CONSISTANTLY direct attackers to yourself in the vast majority of combat situations.
Take either or both of those away...and you don't really have dedicated "Tanks" (nor the Trinity) anymore in a game....
Also agreed, although according to what Ryan said yesterday, both need to be taken away.
Which brings me to...
AC squish...diminishing returns...low ratios
...different armor provides different protection to different attacks...
Don't give the Tank defenses far beyond that used by other classes, and don't present challenges that require those defenses.
Any other ideas to nerf tank defense?
One other thing that comes to mind is healing throughput. I think this is also an emergent problem--the tank needs someone to keep him alive while fending off 6 bad guys, so he needs a dedicated healer. In other words, nerf healing, nerf tank defense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that the intention will be for 1. enemies not to be pumped up to the point that they 1 shot anyone who is not a tank in the ultimate pure defense 0 offense armor, and 2. A defensive build can survive more hits than a normal class, but more along the lines of 25-100% more hits, rather than 600-1000% more hits of the traditional MMO.
Yeah, this is why I'd rather the system revolve around far fewer hits, with each hit doing significantly more damage. The advantage to using plate & shield is that I can actively block with a shield and my armor. If there is more than one enemy hitting me, I don't really have the option to actively block both their attacks, so some of them are going to hit me in ways that I'd rather they didn't.
Rather than an epic duel where my hit points go down a little with every hit, I would prefer to see lots of blocks/parries with occasional hits that really mean something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are we bothering to go into a full out discussion on D20 mechanics, while this thread and forum have nothing to do with the rules of P&P at all. If we want to debate d20 rules that should be with James not with Ryan, and not in this forum :P.Anywho to the topic at hand, I defiantly would like to see armor play a much more subtle role in the game, and for the armor types to have more of a difference on what skills etc... can happen. While I know nothing of the spell system in place I would like to see arcane spell failure and different kinds of magic working with different kinds of armor (say if a spell is set as bard spell it work in light, but have spell failure chance in heavy etc..)
Onishi,
You are correct. The origional point was to discuss different mechanism that can be used to affect which target an attacker selects rather then the typical taunt/aggro system that most MMO's use (and that only tends to work in PVE).
I brought up flanking/positioning/facing because I think it's a potentialy effective mechanism for INFLUENCING the player to choose a target other then the one which is easiest for him to damage or the one that effects the overall combat the most.
If ignoring one particular target for another exposes the attacker to a significantly hazardous attack on themselves...then that MAY change thier decision of targets without taking away the decision from the player (the way a Taunt would...or a damage redirect would). I only mentioned table-top play because I use the exact same mechanism when GM-ing during table-top and it is generaly effective. Players usualy choose to face/attack those targets who are engaging them...but it is still a choice...and they may under exceptional circumstances elect to ignore them and go after a different target...but it has to be worth the risk for them to do so.
In general, I think it makes for a good/interesting combat mechanics to allow the defenders some method for influincing which target an individual attacker will elect to attack. At the same time...you don't want near perfect or near all encompasing influence over target election as THAT can lead to the Trinity dynamic with Tanks. Creating a system where the attacker can elect to attack a particular target...but the defenders can apply consequences for them making that choice...makes for an interesing combat dynamic. IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Any other ideas to nerf tank defense?
One other thing that comes to mind is healing throughput. I think this is also an emergent problem--the tank needs someone to keep him alive while fending off 6 bad guys, so he needs a dedicated healer. In other words, nerf healing, nerf tank defense.
I would say healing should be slightly nerfed vs other games, as well it just shouldn't be the ultimate option for a cleric. Clerics get some nice buffs, heals, CC and decent Damage spells, plus they are also half way competent with mellee, actually I would say to an extent DDO did this one of the best in most current MMO's, a cleric who stayed in the back and did nothing but heal was often considered a dead weight in a party, a real cleric could do far more and cast very few heals. As well they can always make the strongest heal channel energy, and work it just like it is in PF (Effects all living, friend or foe in reach), turning it into a primarily out of combat skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which brings me to...
AC squish...diminishing returns...low ratios...different armor provides different protection to different attacks...Don't give the Tank defenses far beyond that used by other classes, and don't present challenges that require those defenses.Any other ideas to nerf tank defense?
I think making it extremely difficult to deal with multiple attackers is the most important one.
Even as a fully-armored and shield-wielding Paladin, I should definitely have to yield ground rapidly to keep three attackers from flanking me and giving me a really bad day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think making it extremely difficult to deal with multiple attackers is the most important one.
In many theme park MMOs (and especially WoW) the Tank is just dealing with one really big, bad opponent. The rest of the PCs can usually mop up the mobs.
It's an evolution from EverQuest's Dragon Raids.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't give the Tank defenses far beyond that used by other classes, and don't present challenges that require those defenses.Any other ideas to nerf tank defense?
One other thing that...
I think it's really a matter of degree both in depth and in breadth.
A character should be able to train to be fairly effective in defense for a particular type of situation and the character should have some IMPERFECT method of influencing (though not neccesarly controling) the attackers target selection in SOME situations.
Not having that, I believe, makes for a combat dynamic that is every bit as unsatisfying as the Trinity...since it removes a good chunk of the tactics availble for players in influencing combat.
A character shouldn't be able to train to be fairly effective in defense against almost all types of attacks/situations they are likely to encounter in a game.
Nor should they have near perfect ability to direct the attacks to themselves in nearly all situations.
Making a guy in heavy plate with a shield and lots of melee training considerably more effective at defending against a shortsword wielding goblin in a narrow corridor then a guy in robes with a dagger and very little melee training will not lead to the Trinity.... unless the entire game boils down to pretty much those sorts of situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In many theme park MMOs (and especially WoW) the Tank is just dealing with one really big, bad opponent.Did you ever tank Halls of Reflection? *grins*
I don't think the rest of the party was meant to mop up those groups.
Yeah, I'm not sure about WoW...it's been a few years since I played it...but I do know that in LOTRO and most of the other themeparks I played... the "Tank" was expected to grab not just the boss but all the other mobs as well in most encounters...in many encounters the adds are just as lethal as the boss...and in some of the more deadly ones there isn't even really a boss.
In larger groups you may have an off-tank or secondary and tertiary tanks that are designated to pick up other individual mobs...or mobs that peel off from the boss.... it kinda depends on the encounter...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me the big discussion here is what role the "trinity" plays in a themepark MMO.
These same guidelines do not seem to appear in sandbox games. If I, as a human opponent, has a heavily armored guy in front of me and there is a robe wearing character 10 feet from me, I am ignoring the close one and going after the robe person.
Taunting and facing are not considered. It all comes down to, "I can kill that person in fewer swings". Or at least that is what I will be thinking at the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It all comes down to, "I can kill that person in fewer swings".
The concern is whether they do somethink like SWTOR did and give "tanks" an ability that makes you take more swings to kill the guy in the robes, or makes you more vulnerable to counter-attack if you aren't targeting the tank, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me the big discussion here is what role the "trinity" plays in a themepark MMO.
These same guidelines do not seem to appear in sandbox games. If I, as a human opponent, has a heavily armored guy in front of me and there is a robe wearing character 10 feet from me, I am ignoring the close one and going after the robe person.
Taunting and facing are not considered. It all comes down to, "I can kill that person in fewer swings". Or at least that is what I will be thinking at the time.
Yes, but what happens with that calculation if by exposing your back to the heavly armored guy in order to engage the guy with robes, the heavly armored guy can now kill you quicker then you can kill the robe wearer?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but what happens with that calculation if by exposing your back to the heavly armored guy in order to engage the guy with robes, the heavly armored guy can now kill you quicker then you can kill the robe wearer?
Based on the above scenario (and completely disregarding anything else being added to the situation) I am outnumbered 2 to 1. My goal is to at least take someone down with me before I die.
I have NEVER worried about facing when P&P role playing. My group of friends does not find the minutiae of realistic combat entertaining. We go for more cinematic games.
I cannot recall a fight that lasted longer than 5 rounds. Facing and taunting do not matter one bit when fights are that quick. Now, granted our group can include up to 8 people.
You cannot code taunting and force attacks into the game when the people controlling the characters are humans. No code in the world can control my movement keys.
It seems you are looking for a game system that you can theory craft and eventually "figure out". Because once you figure it out, then you can repeat steps and never worry again.
Sandbox games do not seem to lend itself to that line of thought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is a practical example of what I'd like to see...
Typical "Tank" build - Melee Fighter, in Plate with Heater Shield.
Situation 1 - A narrow corridor, our Fighter is in Front...can pretty much block the entire corridor himself. A horde of orcs armed with swords comes running down the corridor. They engage the fighter frontaly and he fights them...rest of the party behind lending support. That's a typical "Tank" encounter and something our Fighter SHOULD be good at doing because he's trained at it.
However, NEXT DAY we have....
Situation 2 - Same Fighter but now we're in a lightly wooded outdoors area. There is a thin mist and the ground is sodden and muddy from days of rain. We're anticipating a mixed patrol of enemies to come through the area and we'd like to stop them.
First thought, it'd be great if we could use the mist and the cover to setup an ambush of the enemy...we could hit them before they were ready to react (assuming surprise and tactical intelligence actualy have some value in this system). Slight problem...our "Tank" is about as stealthy as a Rhino in heat. We either set him back far enough that he'll take a few rounds to get to the fight...or we can forget about surprise.
Lets say we abandon surprise. Here comes the enemy. Fighter in Front? Oh crap, they've got casters who can use Lightning and some of thier archers have bodkin (armor peircing) arrows. They'll light up mister Tin Can like there is no tomorrow with those attacks. Oh well, he's got hit points and a big shield, maybe he can provide some buffer for our mages. Oh but wait...the enemy can just arc thier spell/missle attacks over the fighters head and nail the mages anyway. What about if the mage closed right up behind the fighter so the fighter could cover him with his Heater. Oh man...thier casters have Fireballs too... and now we've given them a nice tightly bunched group to target...better scratch that keep our spacing.
Ok, we've survived the initial volley. Now they've got flankers in leather stealthing around our flanks. Can our guy in full plate even spot them to engage with the visor of his helm down? Someone point them out to him...Ok he sees one...he's moving to engage. Darn in all that heavy armor he's moving about half the speed the leather clad flanker is on this sodden ground. He'll never intercept them. Ok lets have him move back to the mage and engage the flanker once he reaches our mage. Ok he's got him....oh wait...now the enemy is sending in thier main line...and the fighters back is exposed to them while he's trying to deal with the flanker...
Now, if our Fighter is a "one trick pony" (i.e. just a "Tank") then while he's great in situation 1, he's worse the useless in situation 2.
If on the other hand our Fighter can drop his heater and sword and pickup a crossbow to start engaging enemies from a distance...he actualy has some use in situation 2.
If the players can't count on predicting the situations they will be facing on a consistant basis....it's going to encourage them NOT to be "one trick ponies"...and it's going to encourage them to adjust thier tactics to each situation in order play effectively...which makes for interesting combat options and choices. At the same time, we still haven't taken away the ability for them to train to be effective in a particular role in particular types of situations (i.e. the narrow corridor with orcs). We still have people that can specialize....just that specializing into one of 3 roles isn't the dominating factor of the entire game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but what happens with that calculation if by exposing your back to the heavly armored guy in order to engage the guy with robes, the heavly armored guy can now kill you quicker then you can kill the robe wearer?Based on the above scenario (and completely disregarding anything else being added to the situation) I am outnumbered 2 to 1. My goal is to at least take someone down with me before I die.
I have NEVER worried about facing when P&P role playing. My group of friends does not find the minutiae of realistic combat entertaining. We go for more cinematic games.
I cannot recall a fight that lasted longer than 5 rounds. Facing and taunting do not matter one bit when fights are that quick. Now, granted our group can include up to 8 people.
You cannot code taunting and force attacks into the game when the people controlling the characters are humans. No code in the world can control my movement keys.
It seems you are looking for a game system that you can theory craft and eventually "figure out". Because once you figure it out, then you can repeat steps and never worry again.
Sandbox games do not seem to lend itself to that line of thought.
Not at all, I'm looking for a game where tactics and tactical options and the choices you make MATTER in combat. Nothing about that dictates that you can use the same tactics and choices and be EFFICTIVE in different situations. For me...the idea of "sandbox" style combat is that the situation is fluid and dynamic... and you have to adapt your tactics to the situation you are faced with at that moment. Not that the tactics don't exist or don't matter.
For instance...if you are outnumbered 2:1 maybe you withdraw rather then engage and die.....or you find a place to defend where the enemies approach is constricted so thier numbers don't matter...or even work against them.... or you break out some area of effect weapon that you were saving for a rainy day to reduce the advantage of numbers they have.
By the way...I've never once mentioned that I'm interested in seeing a "Taunt" mechanic be implimented.... but things like flanking bonuses, engagement, collision detection, attacks of opportunity, etc.... yeah I'm all over that.
It's not about controlling your movement keys....it's about presenting both the attackers and defenders with options that have CONSEQUENCES. Maybe you can attack the guy with robes...but doing so works out worse for you then engaging the guy in armor because of how the defenders will respond...or maybe the defense has even set it up so that you CAN'T effectively attack the guy in robes because you can't walk through the armored guy to get to him. Giving BOTH you and the defenders options that will effect the combat is the idea.....else what's the point of having a combat system at all?
In many theme park MMOs (and especially WoW) the Tank is just dealing with one really big, bad opponent.Did you ever tank Halls of Reflection? *grins*
I don't think the rest of the party was meant to mop up those groups.
This is a perfect example of the problem. Some of those guys could one- or two-shot just about anyone who wasn't the tank. Meanwhile, the tank could deal with all of them at once.
To compare this to what we're talking about, if you give someone a flanking bonus good enough to give a tank problems, they will destroy any other character.
If the players can't count on predicting the situations they will be facing on a consistant basis....it's going to encourage them NOT to be "one trick ponies"...
If I may rephrase...
Variable combat conditions reward generalized builds, and make the specialized defender build sub-optimal. Take away the script and tanks will "nerf" themselves, to a certain extent.
Maybe. I think there would still be people willing to make the tradeoff between being perfect in scenario A and useless in scenario B. They're probably the ones who would complain about scenario B's being in the game. I think if you nerf the specialized build, the generalized build would be relatively unaffected. Like Ryan said, piss off a few theorycrafters for the good of the game.
...our "Tank" is about as stealthy as a Rhino in heat.
You have just inspired my next half-orc cavalier. Thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Variable combat conditions reward generalized builds, and make the specialized defender build sub-optimal.
Exactly. As long as you can't guarantee who a monster will be attacking all the time, you can't specialize too much without risking becoming useless in most situations.
And as for guaranteeing targets in PvP... you can. Most strategies in PvP involve going for the squishy casters first, and most defensive strategies involve stopping the enemy from doing so. Guild Wars is an excellent example of how many varied class builds can make PvP, and to some extent PvE, much more versatile and less reliant on Tank-Healer-DPS. Instead of stopping the enemy from going for your "squishy" elementalist, have the elementalist grab a lot of Earth spells, and go Monk secondary, and suddenly he's harder to kill than the warrior! Oh, but the warrior went Ranger secondary, so he just pulls out a bow and starts laying down a few traps... you can see how this can go back and forth. I'd love it if PFO could have something like this; especially with customized armor, so it's really hard to tell what someone is capable of just by looking at them.
Did you ever tank Halls of Reflection? *grins*
Aw, damnit, you just made me remember that instance: Wave after wave of undead that can destroy a non-tank in 10 seconds flat. A case study in why the Trinity is silly; the tank does nothing but throw down low-damage, high-threat AoE's and taunts as many enemies as he can, while the healer mashes the healbutton as fast as he can and the DPS pick off targets one at a time. Success in that instance depends on the tank timing his taunts and rotating his taunt cooldowns so that he can keep all the monsters focused on him; if he can do that, it's easy. Now what if there were different roles...? The fight would instead be about dividing and conquering the undead that rise during the fight, while blasting them down as quickly as you can.
Something as simple as keeping most of tabletop Pathfinder's spells would help a lot, though some are easier to code than others (Unseen Servant and half the cantrips are probably not making it into the MMO, even though they're some of the more useful spells). But still, keeping the Summon Monster spells, Obscuring Mist, etc. would make debuffing and crowd control not only viable, but useful. And who needs a healer when you can just prevent the damage in the first place? I'm not sure an in-combat dedicated healer should be so important; instead, get another support/damage guy to help bring down enemies faster, so you don't need healing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there would still be people willing to make the tradeoff between being perfect in scenario A and useless in scenario B. They're probably the ones who would complain about scenario B's being in the game.
Actually, I can see quite a few people willingly creating a character that is very good in Scenario A but almost useless in Scenario B, and not complaining at all about B being in the game. There's definitely going to be a call for the "generalist" build, but I also think there's going to be a call for a party of specialists that complement each other to the extent that the party is now a generalist party.
...our "Tank" is about as stealthy as a Rhino in heat.You have just inspired my next half-orc cavalier. Thank you.
LOL!
... especially with customized armor, so it's really hard to tell what someone is capable of just by looking at them.
To me, this is one of the most important things PFO can do, right up there with making it possible for PCs to appear to be NPCs if they choose (i.e. not having different colored name tags, etc.) Anything you can do to make the enemy have to react to what they're seeing you do, rather than what they have learned to expect you to be able to do based on what you look like.
I'm not sure an in-combat dedicated healer should be so important; instead, get another support/damage guy to help bring down enemies faster, so you don't need healing.
Exactly! All else being equal, if three different characters spend the same effort (Skill Time) at becoming 1) better defensively, 2) better offensively, 3) better healer, then all of those effects should be equal. By that, I mean that gaining X Defense skills should allow me to last longer in combat to the same degree that gaining X Healing during combat would, or that killing the mob X faster would. Balance them all. Don't make Healing necessary, just make it yet another way to accomplish the goal, so that people play healing classes because that's what their character is, not because that's the necessary role that is guaranteed to get them a spot in the cool kids' party.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm writing this as someone who generaly generaly likes to play tanks/fighter types in RPG's but the implimentation is just completely brain dead in most MMO's.
The "Taunt" mechanic is a terrible design. It doesn't really work in PvP. It doesn't require much work or planning on the part of the Player to execute. It's far, far too effective at grabbing multiple opponents....and frankly the idea that you "taunt" some enemies and they decide to abandon all tactical considerations and come after shouldn't be seen anywhere outside of a Monty Python movie.
Change that mechanism to a physical positioning or engagement style system and you force the would-be tank to work much harder to focus the attacks of an enemy on himself, much greater opportunity for it failing and it really limits his ability to engage more then 1 or 2 enemies at a time. It also is workable in PvP and gives the opposition the ability to employ tactics to avoid being grabbed by the tank (i.e. it becomes a game of manuver and positioning).
When you do that you are going to design (or encourage players to train) the other classes with greater survivability because they are going to end up being engaged more often. If, in a build your own style system, someone chooses not to train in any physical defense because they want to hyper-specialize in some other area...then they really have only themselves to blame.
At the same time, MMO's avoid implimenting about 75 percent of the downsides that should apply with being the heavy armor guy....simply because thier engines are so narrowly focused and simplistic that they usualy don't build anything where those downsides would be realized. Instead they drop the "Tank"/fighters ability to deal physical damage....obviously because they don't want character to fill too many of the availble roles in combat, and because they only impliment/emphasize a handfull of the possible roles and they want to leave something for the other characters to do. Unfortunately this means that the "Tank"/Fighter has NO other role they CAN play...so they are going to expect that the "Tank" position to be neccesary in each encounter and ONLY effectively filled by them. In such a dynamic, "Tank" will RIGHTFULLY complain if other classes get too much self defensive abilities because it takes away from the one thing that the "Tank" is able to do in combat encounters.
If instead, you give the Fighter good physical melee defence and good physical melee offense...but impliment weaknesses in other areas (manuverability, stealth/recon, magical defense/offense) and make those weaknesses MATTER within the game, along with an engagement system described above.. the Player of the Fighter/Tank doesn't have much cause to complain about the other classes having access to decent (but not neccesarly as good) physical defenses.
- He has something to contribute in an encounter besides his physical defenses ....the ability to do decent physical damage.
- He knows he's not expected to grab the attention of every opponent in a fight...just one or two that might be most physicaly threatening...and he knows that he can fail to do that if he isn't playing well... so the other classes need some physical defenses.
In a standard Trinity system where the only things that are actualy important to combat are Healing, Doing Damage and Defending Against Damage... If I'm play a "Tank" and I'm only doing 20 percent of the damage of other classes and 0 healing. Then I'm going to RIGHTFULLY complain about the guy who does 100 percent damage or 100 percent healing getting 80 percent of my defenses.
If I'm playing in a system where there are a good dozen or more abilities that are actualy important in combat...and I'm good in two of them (melee offense/defense) I'm not really going to be that concerned if another guy is decent in some of those either...because I've still got something important/usefull to do in an encounter.