Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Community Spotlight: Is Tanking Really Necessary?
MikeB
Community ManagerAdministrator RarePosts: 6,555
This week’s Community Spotlight focuses on the thread “PvE without a Tank System/Mechanics is simply a Zerg Fest! Prove me wrong otherwise” by MMOExposed. While MMOExposed doesn’t do much to elaborate on his point, sometimes a bold thread title can really get a discussion going. Are tanks or tanking mechanics really necessary? Let’s find out what the community had to say!
Tazarconan provides us with some in-depth thoughts on the matter:
“I had a huge conversation about this matter with some rl friends the other day.
I have reasons to believe that such a system could be way better than the usual tank and spank wow/style tanking system. Let me explain. I ll take as example ddo online .Tanking in ddo is something misty. There are tanking styles players paladins,warriors with shields and builds that support survivalability of the player and also a taunt . But there is the style of the combat and the combat mechanics that u almost never see all mobs being tanked by the tank. One of the reasons is that there are many sudden encounters where 1 mob spwns next to the mage 2 in front 1-2 from left side and 1-2 from right side and all these mobs u have to fight them by tanking them at least for some seconds by almost everyone in the party.
Such situations raise adrenaline keeps u tight and alert and ofc if the combat system is actually working its way more fun and intresting than the casual tank system.Combat is becoming that way more intresting and fun (that depends on player's taste cause many ppl nowdays want always to win easilly without the need to actually fight hard or think carefully to win something). Also that way u dont just put all your talents for max dps but you have to think carefully to build a character that is also having some good standards of survival (tough to kill).
And thats one of the more intresting things also in ddo many options for the character build feats skills extra feats racial feats etc. and its also something id like to see in more and more mmorpg's that are coming a deep character advancement system ..something more than just 3 talent trees.”
Read this week's Community Spotlight here.
Comments
Yall spotlighted someone that I have blocked and will keep blocked.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
The holy trinity was an invention of the EQ developers. Smedley and friends. They needed it because of the way they defined their character classes and to support their raid structure. I never was a big EQ fan, so I always wondered why everyone had to copy that design. Of course EQ was the 800 pound gorilla in the genre in the beginning. Pretty much what Wow was modeled after.
It did not exist in UO nor AC1. I actually thought AC1 was a far better game than EQ ever was. I had far more fun running group quests in AC1 than I ever did in EQ. And raiding, that pushed me over the edge in Wow, never got that far in EQ.
So I completely agree, the holy trinity is just one way of doing things in a MMO, there are other ways just as fun. In fact I think they offer more of a fun aspect, because you are not set into doing one thing in an encounter. You actually have to use your brain some.
EQ and Wow raids are mind numbingly boring once someone figures out the way to do the encounter. Why would anyone want to do an encounter the same way over and over again.
There is nothing worse than being told what kind of character build you need to raid. That is the absolute in absurdity for me.
WAR did a decent job introducing guard as a pvp element. It gave tanks a pretty important role.
As far as tanking mobs. It seems like a role that quietly grew roots in MMORPGs. The problem with tanking as a class is having to specialize a character in a way that is so boxed in that many players don't like the play style. Tanks with shields have always had hard times doing damage, which seems like a concept that doesn't translate to real-world combat.
The concept of "Tanking" is very old.
In terms of gaming it goes back to the original Dungeons and Dragons where some classes were better at fighting and others were spell casters. Before that I'd say it was probably a part of War Gaming where you would have your pikeman block for your archers.
Culturally the idea of "tanking" is as old as humanity. Warrior Castes would protect civilians or specialists like healers and medicine men. And the ingrained drive for men to protect women and everyone to protect children is the oldest form of tanking.
Now, with more open gaming systems that allow for a lot of customization set roles are obsolete although the archetypes still tend to have a lot of weight. These archetypes exist for a reason. They draw a concept to its logical extreme. In a Point Buy system I could make a warrior that's fairly durable with decent armor and hit points, good ability with a sword and can fire a bow. Or I could push any of those concepts to the extreme and move from a more well balanced character to a more extreme one and hit on the the classic archetypes of the Glass Cannon, Tank, or Buzzsaw,
From a game making perspective its easier to balance a game of extremes than it is to give the players the freedom to construct their guys however they like. So you tend to see Classes and these Classes tend to be more narrowly defined to keep the game balanced.
So yes, you don't need a Tank. Many times in regular groups in Everquest I would end up taking anyone available into my pickup group and we'd just adjust our tactics to keep the group rolling. But archetypes have their own reasons for existing. They show up in every form of entertainment from ancient oral traditions to modern videogames becuse they are timeless concepts. If you want to do away with tanking as a gameplay mechanic you need to create a completely Point Buy MMO that gives the players all the freedom and you'll still end up with tanking, it just won't be mandaated by the system.
Tanking is a dying art.. With many of todays game being focused on the individual and casual solo play, the need for a "tank" has diminished.. Now days people expect ALL classes to be able to withstand mobs onslaught just as well as the next, if not, they argue about "imbalances".. All classes are kinda melting together these days, not just the tank. Classic classes are simply becomming a thing of the past, while more "hybrid" roles are taking the front.
I think the next gen of MMO's coming out will erase the need for tanking, to a degree. Watch out for action styled MMO's like Vindictus and Tera, where the classes may suggest, "I am a tank," but in actual gameplay it is much more about strategy.
For example, big bosses thus far in Vindictus (currently in CBT), you have to deploy secondary weapons such as throwing spears to stun the boss and run in to DPS. My favorite is the grappling hook you HAVE to catch on the bosses legs (anywhere else won't work as the legs support the body), down he falls as you pull him slowly along, while your party members do as much damage as possible. Yes, there is a shield/sword wielding class, but the job of tanking is more of taking kiting damage instead of up front damage. There is so much strategy that is involved that the gameplay becomes intense and highly engaging.
Developers just have to think outside the box, as do the players. We've been molded into expecting certain MMO elements, which I personally believe has been only a great detriment to the genre.
I'm having more fun playing Vindictus than I've had in a long, long time on an MMO. I'm excited to see what the big developers have in store, if this F2P MMO can grab my attention so fully.
it did exists in UO, parry-warriors could block/wall bigger monsters just perfect. it perfectly fits in a game with strong role distinction . more action oriented games exsist without tank, like monster hunter. its totally dependend on how a game is set around its skills&itemization and actions.
I believe that a lot of people have their own idea of what "tank" really stands for and therefore this topic can go on forever. Truth of the matter is that the purpose of a tank is to absorb damage. In theory it makes sense to have the warrior/paladin tank. I mean would you ever put your least armored people in front of the group to take all the damage or the most armored person. Is this most armored person, who's wearing the heaviest armor going to be able to move as fast as the mage or scout who uses lighter armor... No. So don't expect the heavy tank to do more damage and to get around on the field.
Asking for their not to be a tank is like starting a war and putting your archers up in front to try to fight the meleers at point blank range and expect to win. It's just part of a strategy (Tanking is) that makes sense.
IMHO, I believe people want to make the tank roles disappear because it would make the game easier.
I like being able to fully customize a character like everyone else but even in ddo as one of the games mentioned, if you build a character that doesn't have survivability then you will just die more often unless if you have someone else in the group that can basically "tank" (yes, tank) for you. Or you have to rebuild the character to be have more survivability. You can call it survivability but what you are asking for is a better character that can absorb/avoid damage in essence.... you are asking for someone that can tank. As unrealistic as tanking in an mmo may be (1-2 heavily geared guys against a giant dragon that in theory would just swipe at you once and kill you or crush you), it is needed somehow in everygame for someone to have tanking skills for the builds that can't take the damage.
I want to say as well, in response to the games mentioned:
In DDO, it is nice to build the characters a million different ways, but it never feels epic to me, when I kill something big like when I kill something in EQ (Since this one was mentioned too).
Vindictus is fun yes, but exactly what you were mentioning about having to move away from the boss and hit him with spears, etc, thats exactly what you have to do with some bosses in eq (except in eq, they don't use spears like that, they use a bow to do the same exact thing). Granted, that eq doesn't let you pick up items from the environment but essentially the games haven't changed that much. If you think it has, than I can only imagine that you haven't played very far through a lot of the games you talk about.
In EQ, They came up with so many different types of situations and ways you have to fight bosses, I can't imagine why people sometimes talk about it like you can run up to every boss in the game and put a tank on him and win, contrary to that thought, you really can't. There are spank n tank bosses but not every boss is like that. As a matter of fact if you went through the whole game, with many expansions you'd realize that there is job for everyone. The idea is more teamwork. The classes are all specialized to do their own job (for the most part).
I think in general, what most people would like to see is a game where things change pretty regularly where you can't figure out exactly how to do it the first time every time. I don't think the problem is tanking, the problem is more about the games becoming stagnant, repeating the same things day in, and day out, everyday in the instance groups, and raids. The change that is required to make the games playable longer, is the same thing that would make many people quit. If they change the game to have more dynamic content. Bosses that may or may not appear. Changing the maze of the dungeon. Changing spawn locations. Figuring out a way to have more dynamic traps that you may run into one day, and never may run into the same trap again. If games were actually changed where you have take your time and play through it, and actually think, half the people here would not even play because they don't have time, or they will figure out some other excuses. My point is just that no matter what comes out, and what the developers do with their games, someone will always complain. The reason why the tanking idea has been around forever like someone else said, is because it's essentially needed in one way or another, you will never find a game where you don't need someone with survivability or that can take hits, avoid, them, or something, you will always need a tank regardless in some shape or form. Unless of course the game is super easy in which case... have fun playing that game because i'm sure the fun won't last, and there will be a lot less people playing it.
Are any group roles really necessary? No, it's not about what's necessary, it's about giving players complimentary roles to make grouping more interesting than just zerging. Its all contrived, the trick is just to make it contrived in a good way.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I find it funny he talking about the trinity as wow developed this, they copied it. EQ had this in the first place.
The funny thing is most games still use this. Why does everybody think the tank and spank came from wow.
The entire reason for a tank is hes the meat-shield, he supposed to be the one taking all the damage while the party can focus dps on the boss, mobs or whatever is being killed.
Unfortunately most games go this route so yes it is needed. Go to eq2 and try any hard mode zone like cela, or vigilant without a tank, your not going to win.
Some games have taken the standard tank, healer, dps and put soem interesting twists that blur the lines betweeen the three archtypes.
AoC, for example, has a cloth-wearing melee mage that uses a 2-handed sword, ranged-dps rogues, caster-style healers & melee-style healers, life-drain tanks that can summon their shadow to take the aggro off themselves while the heals catch up, even a class designed to be an off-tank/dps hybrid.
If everyone is a DPS class, the game becomes basically a FPS.
Saying that tanking is needed "because most games go this way" isn't answering the question posed by the OP. If the games were designed differently i.e. not with tanks in mind, then why would a tank be needed?
My personal opinion is that tanks are only needed in the current crop of games because it's how it's been done in the past and people are familiar with that game mechanic. There's a big BUT here. Let's have a look at myth, legend, folktales etc and really think about what the great warriors of those stories are famous for. Is it the fact that they took a damned good thrashing? No, it's because they were skilled warriors who killed their enemies.
I think too many games these days make their warrior/soldier class a "tank" that absorbs damage at the expense of dishing it out, and that's what warriors should be all about. Bringing the pain! I've often wished an MMO company would take a chance and remodel the whole genre to something more real and viceral than the "high fantasy" we have now. I'd like to see a classless game with no magic, no healers, and just choices between weapons and arnour types.
Never going to happen, nobody is quite that crazy to risk their money on a game like that, but GW 2 is heading that way with it's no tank, no healer class ideas.
So to answer the original question, is tanking really necessary, the answer is no. Not unless you design your game to require it. And why would you want to design a game that is so inherently flawed and unrealistsic? Because that's how it's always been done???
I think not!
Take a look at korean favourite Legend Of Mir 2, one of the most popular games in asia for many years and there is no threat/tanking system and no instancing. Not every successful mmo has to follow the WoW model.
This post is going to go completely out of the typical Fantasy RPG realm and into... Sci-Fi RPGs!
There are a couple of Sci-Fi MMOs that don't really focus on any one individual bearing the brunt of all damage with healers backing them up. In these, each team member is resposible to each other team member to provide support when needed. As a whole, it works just as well as any other system.
I speak specificly of EVE Online and the remote rep gangs. Now, I'll grant that the focus of the game is on PvP, but nearly all resources must be obtained through some form of PvE. Given the classless nature of the game and the limited abilities of any one ship, it requires a good bit of 'multiclassing'. (If everyone will pardon the broad use of the term, please. Thanks!) By this, I mean each pilot in the gang must provide survivability if they become the target, and then remote support (or healing/buff abilities in other games) and/or DPS.
One note: Until the release of Apocypha in 2009, a lot of the PvE was a traditional 'tank', but that was because of the dumb AI. They shot the first thing that aggroed, and didn't move leaving everyone else to open up with massive DPS. In apocrypha, PvE in wormhole accessed space become very PvP like (within the definitions of EVE's mechanics) with intelligent AI.
This isn't a system for every game, but it works for some. It is a great example of going without the traditional tank.
For the guy that mentioned EQ, EQ was based on DikuMUD concepts of classes and progression mechanics, where the tank-heal-dps was defined. D&D provided the basic concepts of this, but not because of taunts but through combat mechanics such as free attacks on anything attempting to move out of hand to hand range.
As far as the order of combat and formation movement, the pikemen were only in front of the archers if there was an incoming charge or other tactical advantage, otherwise you put the pikemen in range of your enemies archers and moved your archers out of range of hitting anything by doing that.
On the OP's topic:
As has been shown in a few posts here, the need for tanking relates directly to the game's design. Unless a company creates a system that varies from standard threat-based combat, then yes, it is. Though, I do agree that some form of dungeon randomization or other way of changing things up would be nice. But there are folks who enjoy taking a role and doing their part (though I hear some people who are healers complain of boredom. >.< ).
One of the things that causes the kind of stagnation mentioned earlier, I think, is people don't try boss fights or encounters or what have you for themselves anymore. One group does it, find s a system that works and then posts "Here's how we did it, do it this way" on a site. While this is useful for people only grinding for gear, it's kind of a cop out, in my opinion. There are some people who dislike having to repeat fights to learn how different mobs and bosses react. I actually enjoy it, but (and I risk getting called "old timer" for this) I remember old console games where you had to do bosses repeatedly and remember how they worked, what patterns they used, etc. (And yes, you still need to do this in games today, but strategy guides and FAQs weren't always as prevalent as they are today).
In short, depoends on the game. If you don't like tanking, for whatever reason, then find a game that suits your playstyle.
In regards to the post about wanting a classless game with no magic-users or tanks or healers, having to just pick armor and weapons - that's basically an FPS. Though I think your point was that games should be more about flexibility of character creation and less about class-roles. A game with absolutely no classes would need lots of customization options to make it appealing. Otherwise, it could (not WOULD, but COULD) turn into three million people all with the same weapons and armor vying for the same thing all at once. Though, thinking on it some more, what you are suggesting is akin to a few pen-and-paper games, though most of those deal with either high-fantasy or very, very high-tech sci-fi. An interesting idea, though.
i play a couple different games myself, including Runes of Magic and EVE Online.
In EVE, there's no set tank, however some people will be better at soaking up damage than others, based on ship types, skills, fittings, range, luck, speed, ammo types, etc. Working too well as a tank is actually bad in PvP because it means if you have a bunch of guys that cant take damage as well, the other guys will ignore you (and your probably tank-fit gimped DPS) and kill all your friends first before whittling you to pieces.
In Runes on the other hand, there's a specific class that tanks, and does it very damn well. besides having skills to increase survivability, they also have a skill to generate mass aggro AoE-style, one to reflect damage taken on magical attacks, a party wide 5 second immunity buff, another party wide "if someone dies you all can run away very fast while taking less damage" skill, a couple to increase base aggro generation, and all that before adding in secondary classes and the elites they bring to the table.
For example, Knight/Warrior elites focus on keeping you alive and in the field longer with less damage, granting you an immunity to Fears (being made to run around in circles uncontrollably) and large parry rate boosts to reduce damage taken, a straight up pdef buff when going sword+board and using shield-based tanking skills, and a taunt that also reduces damage taken temporarily.
Knight/Priest, aside from being able to spot-heal itself in a pinch, also gets a skill that reduces an ally's aggro generation, as well as the Priest's mana pool keeping him spamming aggro generators longer and a DoT combo inflicting large amounts of damage, godly HP self-buffing, an immunity to slows and roots, and more pdef self buffing.
Knight/Rogue gets crit rate boosts and the ability to use two swords instead of going "sword and board", with a relatively simple macro usable to switch back to the shield for AoE aggro generation, as well as a boost to the crit rate of the main aggro skill of tanks, increases to defense when that skill is used, and increases to dodge rates
Knight/Mage gets a couple damage-back skills and the ability to deflect damage away from their HP to their mana pool, and a DoT ability that also weakens the target's hit power.
Knight/Scout gets two aggro-table overriding ranged taunts, one single target and one AoE(which has a chance to reduce the target's damage), a large damage boost to the main tank skill, a shield blocking boost reducing the melee damage taken, and the ability to absorb a % of an attack on a teammate.
You know, if you just asked nicely, I could run around while you hunt the thing that wants my head on its dinner table...
But seriously, I wouldn't say tanking is "necessary". It only seems to be the first tactic most hunting parties would think of.
If anyone wanted to explore more elaborate tactics and have both the controls and the skills to execute such maneuvers, then they wouldn't really feel the need to do it the old "You hold 'em by the nose while we kick 'em in the rear!" strategem.
I know I use the run and gun tactic a lot. A whole lot.