Tanks and GW/GW2

I realized and have accepted the fact that Tanks are kinda.....bleck....for Guild wars. I find that this is due to the lack of skills that increase a threat or danger level of mobs and also...Warriors are better at damage anyways. And I do not mean tanking by using corners or skills like SY that will probably make you a target. I mean PURE gain this targets attention skills.

But I want to ask you, the players of Guild wars. Do you WANT a Tanking Role in this game or the next? Personally I love playing the role (In other mmo's) where I absorb all the damage and use skills that attract mobs by increasing their threat, danger, or an invisible meter that decides what the monster should attack. It makes me feel like I am helping the rest of the party out more by surviving and not having to heal others since...I don't like to play the Full support role.

I hope this kind of a role is added into GW2. While I realize they are doing away with Support players, they can't TOTALLY remove it. What do we have left? Just a bunch of different kind of damage dealers? I would propose an effect where if you are soloing, you can do more damage, while in a party your more set up to take damage and attract aggro. Just like monks in the future GW2 should have GOOD smiting skills in Solo play but be able to play support in a party where needed.

Do you players like Tank roles or do you not even care to see this addition into the game?

i like to see pretty yellow or blue numbers, depending on the class i'm playing at the time. standing in one spot, not doing anything is not fun.

BAH I know the way I talked made it seem that thats ALL you would do but thats not what I meant sorry.

Most of the time when you tank you also do a good amount of damage (If not a HIGH amount). Usually it's something like, Aggro skill, damage damage damage aggro skill, damage damage damage check placement/aggro skill. Stuff like that. It's basically the warrior the way it is now but able to attract aggro away from the group and doing, probably slightly less damage.

there is an 'invisible threat meter,' the less max health, armor, and enchantments you have the more likely the enemies are to attack you and keep their focus on you.

threat inducing skills? no. that literally sounds more brainless than HB monking.

I know exactly what you mean.

that warm fuzzy feeling of doing something purposeful
and seeing lots of flashy numbers fly across the screen in different colours helps

i like being a tank, as long as it doesnt inolve doing absolutley doing nothing (Aka obs tank here)

Nope. I always thought that sort of combat mechanic was kinda... silly. I mean, it kinda breaks the 4th wall a bit to have monsters so stupid that they only target a guy with tons of buffs and high armor on him. Combat is much more "realistic" and fast paced as is.

Stand in one spot and not do anything, LOL. Its obvious that you have never played a tank in a game with good threat/aggro system.I love guild wars and think that it is a great game but tanking is one area that it is lacking. Playing a tank in a game with a good threat/aggro system is a tough job which requires the timing of both defensive and threat generating skills as well as the management of proper stances. Generaly the main tank in a guild in such a game is one of the better players as the whole party relies on him for thier survival. Ranged DPS is the class that is EZ mode to play. I should know, I have a level 20 ele as my main as well as a 70 warlock in WoW.

If we're going to add "tank" role, I'd much rather see it done right.

4th Edition D&D has turned fighters into actual tanks, but they don't do it with AI-altering gimmicks or forcing the DM to send monsters after you. Rather, they have abilities that punish foes for attacking someone other than themselves. A fighter can "mark" a single foe so they get a penalty to attack anyone other than themself, and they also get extra attacks against foes trying to run away from them. So opponents have to make a choice of chasing the squisher target, or putting pressure on the harrassing fighter.

One difference, other than avoiding boring gamplay down to "contain DPS to keep the stockpile on the tank", is that you could make this a strategic part of PvP play. Linebackers already do this function somewhat, but it would be more interesting if the option of sometimes attacking the warrior made more sense than it currently does. Yeah, that would have to be an entirely different PvP game than GW1 to work, but that level of difference is what I'm expecting anyway.

Hmmm, the one thing I like about GW most is that they don't try to be like the standard MMO's. If I wanted the same tank-n-spank gameplay, I'd play one of the million-and-one other MMO's out there. I like the fact that warriors in this game shine as damage machines and killers, not as the, "take your time guys. I got the aggro covered," statue used in other games. You want that, there are plenty of other games out there with that option. This game seems to be pretty popular without it.

What I find irony in, is that on the battlefield, the tank is the one machine people try to avoid, and is the big damage-dealer on the ground.

I wouldn't have so much a problem with it if it had HM too, since tanking really doesn't work as much in HM.

That would at least show players that like tanking that there's something better to do out there.

I love WoW, *HATE* tanking and aggro. I loved being a Warrior class in every single RPG I've played in except for WoW. If GW2 goes down the route of tanking and threat meters, then I'm done, ungh. Such a silly idea...

Guild Wars 2 does not need the item trick again, nor any other lame threat control mechanic.

I understand AI has its limits, but I do strongly feel that the limit should be somewhat beyond "Durr this guy yelled at me, I'll ignore everything except him." This kind of worked in Everquest, but it is one of the holdovers that I really wish MMO's would stop using: the blatant "this skill makes monsters attack you."

I kind of wish they would implement different versions of AI, especially with the nature of creating builds that GW has. Ones that go after low armor first, ones that go after melee first, ones that go after casters first, ones that attempt to avoid combat all together. If done properly it would make PvE more difficult and entertaining without the standard more mobs, higher levels, more damage that time and time again has been shown to still be easily push button farmable.

I'm for anything that does away with the need or want of monks. I look forward to self supporting roles where everyone can deal damage as well as heal themselves like in Anarchy Online. I can go anywhere and do anything without a monk as they have kits that heal and give you energy, though there is a Doctor class in AO they are not required to team play either.

I think alot of us like seeing thoes beautiful yellow numbers fly across the screen in vast numbers.

So... No.

Everybody who likes tankNspank should leave GW asap. I can't believe there was a time when the game even promoted this combat style (gear/book trick). The argument is the same as for ursan: why do we have skills if ursan better/easier than anything else, similarly why do the mobs have skills if it is completely irrelevant what they throw at the tank....?

Tanks....they're kinda like
LEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRROOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYY JEEEEEEEENNNNNNNKIIIINNNNNSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

Exactly. Don't want to see another WoW...although the "classical" definition of tanking being implemented to a smaller degree would be fine.

Thing is there shouldn't be tanks fantasy wars isn't about tanking it's about dps and that's the way they should make them. Everyone should independently be a power not just warriors and eles and monks. Anarchy Online does it so well that's why I have been enjoying playing it again and I don't need 7 heroes or a monk.

No No way Never, tanking is the most boring and stupidest role in gaming. Whats the fun in standing there while everyone else kills stuff. You have weapons for a reason.

I seem to remember reading in a tactics section for a WW2 miniatures game (I think that was it, anyway) once that had the line 'tanks are not tanks' - tanks actually being relatively fragile for their cost.

Actually, 4th Ed does have those gimmicks - the fighter has a variety of skills like "Come And Get It" - which forces every enemy within a short distance to come within range of the fighter's weapon and get hit, without even requiring an attack against the target's Will defense to do it. That's right, the squishy, bloodied mage will ALWAYS walk up to fighter and take the hit just because the fighter dared them to.

However, the general idea is sound: Taunts and other 'aggro-influencing' mechanics are a bad thing - would you expect a human team to exclusively gang up on the 'tank' just because he was shouting insults, even when they're taking massive damage from nukers and can't do any real harm to the tank when the tank's healers are healing them? No, they're going to shout at the tank that they'll be back for them later and go take out the support. Instead, the fighter needs to be a real threat in its own right, and have more tangible incentives for not ignoring it - skills like Bull's Strike to stop people from simply running past, and like Frenzy to punish people who don't attack them. Possibly even make it happen directly - replace the 'armour piercing on skills' effect of Strength with something that does extra damage to targets that aren't attacking the warrior.

Certainly, Guild Wars could do with a more complicated targetting mechanism than "go for the lowest armour and hit points, monks first" - possibly including such things like how much damage a potential target is doing, how much healing, how much annoyance it is causing through interrupts, hexes, enchantments and conditions. However, this system should be as opaque as possible so it can't be abused, and have enough randomness so as to remain unpredictable, and there certainly shouldn't be skills that directly influence this mechanic. Furthermore, the mechanism shouls ALSO be able to recognise 'attacking this target is futile, time to try for something else.'

Ideally, it shouldn't know the actual AL and hit points of the players, but should have to decide this based on the same observations of the players - how much damage its attacks deal and how much the player's red bar drops in response to that damage, starting from basic assumptions from the player's profession and equipment.

I carry attack skills as well as a couple defensive skills. Pure tank builds are just gay. The monks should be able to keep you alive with PS and some heals, maybe even SoA.

If they add this the guild wars players will go nuts because it is something from WoW and we all know how much guild wars players hate WoW....

Who cares they copy from us we copy from them.
Also, the tanking system is one of the few things WoW does right, makes warriors fun and challenging to play.

No thanks.

Gear trick made GW incredibly lame. We don't need that again. I'd rather see them add a new mechanic that required skill instead of one that requires absolutely none at all.

I don't think he's suggesting we add it back to GW1. The game's gameplay mechanics just don't allow for that style of play.

What he's saying is, if you are designing a whole new game (ie, GW2) would you want a system like this in play (keeping in mind that all the skills and aggro system and the combat system would be designed around working with said system of aggro management)?

Now, my answer to that is still no. But at least answer the question he is asking people instead of saying "no don't put this in GW1."

That was an unintended consequence, not a deliberate choice on the part of the game designers.

No, just no. I want monsters that are more intelligent than in GW, not less. Also, if PvP is an integral feature of the game and not a mere afterthought, 'threat management skills' don't make any sense.

In WoW and CoH tanking are both the roles I love, in fact in WoW both my pala and druid are tanks. It's the best role there is in a group, it's involving, very important and darn cool. If you're not doing your job the rest of the group goes down, you're the only person who can take the damage and not die.

I feel this is one of the bigger problems in GW, the combat system just doesn't contain well defined roles: there's healers: monks and rits, and support chars like warders, paras and prot monks. Everyone else is just another sort of damage dealer, one it makes finding a group difficult without a clear leader stepping forward and saying 'I want a ranger' and two it is boring. I play earth elementalist before it's the closest thing GW has got to a tank, I can take the damage and get all those most powerful spells a mobs's got out of the way on me before my crazy H/H run in and attack.

If GW2 doesn't bring tanks it will still have the same problems as GW1. All combat only has three solutions: nuke the group before they kill us, prot ourselves up and hope they can't kill us, snare/blind/daze the group and kill them afterward. These tactics arn't clever they're just blanket tactics. GW needs CC or at least tanks (the human form of CC) to create roles and tactics in gameplay.

At the moment GW is just, disable-nuke, out-prot or NUKE! and that's it.

I think that the enemy AI should target the weakest units. It makes the game more challenging and fun when your back lines are being ravaged and you can't do anything about it.

If you want to play WoW, go ahead and start playing WoW.

But you CAN! You can bodyblock. You can snare. Assassins and Dervishes can apply conditions. Heck, just attacking the enemy melee rather than passing them on the way to their backline can get them to turn and attack you back.

Opponents should act intelligent. Enemies are of no use if they are puppets lead around strings the player controls with aggro management skills. It might be fun if the players were able to pull one string here and there, but not all at once the way it is done in other MMOs or by Obsidian tanks these days.

"Feign Death" and "Hide" were good skills in the BMP, because they were defensive aggro management skills. The real problem is with offensive aggro management, because it is good for one thing only: farming. Offensive aggro management also tries to minimize the risk to zero. But once the risk is gone, the suspense is gone and without suspense the game will quickly turn boring and little more than tedious.

Compare CryWay (or ANY other tanking build) to former Ursan. Sure Ursan was very hack & slash like, but at least people were moving. The robotic execution of the trinity builds has nothing to do with skill. If a bot or a script can play the game, then the game is too dumb. Offensive aggro management does that to every game, that's why it is bad.

What would a warrior taunt skill do for GW?

Make the enemies attack you instead of your monk.

It would be an awesome idea. Wammos could use taunt in RA along with Charge and Mending.

Skills like: "If target attacks or targets anyone other than you with a spell, your attacks to target deal +X damage" could make sense, with an AI advanced enough to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of ignoring this effect.

Skills that just 'magically' help draw aggro, because they say so, are a big no-no for me.

Tanks in GW need an Aggression move to keep targets locked on to the tank when some of them break aggro

Warriors have frenzy to attract aggro in PvP.

"I Demand Recognition!" 5e 20r Shout. For 1..16 seconds you do +1..11 damage in melee when you hit a foe who is not targeting you (Tactics).

Could live with that, if for no other reason than the humour value

That, too

[Bull's Strike]?

[Bull's Charge]?

["None Shall Pass!"]?

The difference between GW and all other MMOs that prevents tanking from being needed is...

Protection prayers.

The healers in GW do a lot more then make red bars go up. Prot makes the need for a tank character non-existant (since they make melee training ineffective and can protect any character who gets aggro). For GW2 to have tanks, monks would have to be weakened considerabley.