Curse

DarklingKiller · Sep 16, 2008, 02:27 AM // 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshuarodger

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.

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.

Chasing Squirrels · Sep 16, 2008, 02:35 AM // 02:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajc2123

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?

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....

TurinPT · Sep 16, 2008, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by ntherblast

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.

Vilaptca · Sep 16, 2008, 03:10 AM // 03:10

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.

HawkofStorms · Sep 16, 2008, 04:25 AM // 04:25

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."

draxynnic · Sep 16, 2008, 05:40 AM // 05:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vazze

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).

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

tmakinen · Sep 16, 2008, 05:51 AM // 05:51

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.

mazey vorstagg · Sep 16, 2008, 06:10 AM // 06:10

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.

Shadow · Sep 16, 2008, 06:18 AM // 06:18

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.

deya · Sep 16, 2008, 06:28 AM // 06:28

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

draxynnic · Sep 16, 2008, 07:08 AM // 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow

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.

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.

4thVariety · Sep 16, 2008, 08:15 AM // 08:15

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.

EPO Bot · Sep 16, 2008, 08:55 AM // 08:55

What would a warrior taunt skill do for GW?

bhavv · Sep 16, 2008, 10:00 AM // 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by EPO Bot

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.

Gli · Sep 16, 2008, 10:31 AM // 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

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.

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.

Lest121 · Sep 16, 2008, 10:36 AM // 10:36

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

zwei2stein · Sep 16, 2008, 10:45 AM // 10:45

Warriors have frenzy to attract aggro in PvP.

tmakinen · Sep 16, 2008, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Skills like: "If target attacks or targets anyone other than you with a spell, your attacks to target deal +X damage" could make sense

"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

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Warriors have frenzy to attract aggro in PvP.

That, too

draxynnic · Sep 16, 2008, 10:55 AM // 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by underverse_ninja

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

[Bull's Strike]?

[Bull's Charge]?

["None Shall Pass!"]?

HawkofStorms · Sep 16, 2008, 02:52 PM // 14:52

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.