Curse

Yichi · Mar 04, 2008, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

Lots of people tank wrong. Tank is effective when used properly.

I said tanking used to be effective. The key words in there being "USED TO". Face it, in all reality it isn't as effective as pure damage with a little party support is, especially with paragons being introduced. 1 paragon can provide enough party support as well as almost the same DPS but ranged as the warrior, that there is no need for a tanking warrior anymore. Builds have evolved, times have evolved, players have evolved...

Well most of us...

Flem · Mar 04, 2008, 09:59 PM // 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yichi

I said tanking used to be effective. The key words in there being "USED TO". Face it, in all reality it isn't as effective as pure damage with a little party support is, especially with paragons being introduced. 1 paragon can provide enough party support as well as almost the same DPS but ranged as the warrior, that there is no need for a tanking warrior anymore. Builds have evolved, times have evolved, players have evolved...

Well most of us...

Never said it wasn't good.

Stormlord Alex · Mar 04, 2008, 10:01 PM // 22:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yichi

Well most of us...

And for those of us who don't C-space things with an imbagon, there's Ursan. Tanking is long past it.

Yichi · Mar 04, 2008, 10:06 PM // 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

Never said it wasn't good.

no but you're trying to come up with underdeveloped reasons as to why tanking is as effective as it used to be, which it clearly isn't.

Asha Rai · Mar 04, 2008, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormlord Alex

That makes him a smart frontliner. The definition of 'tank' around here is a guy who wastes his bar on defensive trash and can't hurt anything.

That is a very narrow minded, and I think unhelpful definition of tank. Although I note that you qualify your statement by saying that this is the tanking definition 'around here'. With that in mind, I can agree with all the anti tank sentiment I see posted 'around here'.

To tank (the verb as compared to the noun) implies taking and surviving aggro. And I think a more useful definition of a tank (noun) is "one who tanks (verb)". Loading up on 'defensive trash' that slows you down and buffs your hp so mobs run right past you makes you pretty useless, since you aren't tanking, but standing there looking stupid.

A final two points: A skill bar in itself does not define a tank, but only aides in the business of tanking. Secondly, tanking is not mutually exclusive to dealing damage.

Stormlord Alex · Mar 04, 2008, 10:49 PM // 22:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asha Rai

That is a very narrow minded, and I think unhelpful definition of tank.

Narrow-minded, yes - but it helps differentiate the 'tank' types from the warriors with decent bars. Basically, any warrior can run in and take initial aggro (covered by a few prots, if needed) - it's the smart thing to do, we've got the toughest armour and can take that initial hit before the passive defenses are up. Essentially, warriors are tanks just by wearing their armour, so it goes without saying.
However, if you ask for a tank in-game, you'll basically end up with a bar packed with lame and unnecessary defenses - think Ob Flesh tanks or, worse, Glad's Defense/Mending guys, which are quite obviously bad builds that slow things down; as opposed to a frontliner killing shit and covered by a few spot prots - which is why we split 'tanks' from Warriors hitting things with weapons.

Flem · Mar 05, 2008, 01:32 PM // 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yichi

no but you're trying to come up with underdeveloped reasons as to why tanking is as effective as it used to be, which it clearly isn't.

lol, what is underdeveloped about "it works equally as effective as the alternative according to the situation" ?? I don't know how better to explain that too you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormlord Alex

Narrow-minded, yes - but it helps differentiate the 'tank' types from the warriors with decent bars. Basically, any warrior can run in and take initial aggro (covered by a few prots, if needed) - it's the smart thing to do, we've got the toughest armour and can take that initial hit before the passive defenses are up. Essentially, warriors are tanks just by wearing their armour, so it goes without saying.
However, if you ask for a tank in-game, you'll basically end up with a bar packed with lame and unnecessary defenses - think Ob Flesh tanks or, worse, Glad's Defense/Mending guys, which are quite obviously bad builds that slow things down; as opposed to a frontliner killing shit and covered by a few spot prots - which is why we split 'tanks' from Warriors hitting things with weapons.

That's your opinion and, imo, not accurate. Having a tanking format for PvE does not slow things down.

Bobby2 · Mar 05, 2008, 01:35 PM // 13:35

Now you're saying it doesn't take more time if you stand there trying only to stay alive as opposed to, you know, actually trying to beat stuff? You're about covered in gasoline, aren't you?

Flem · Mar 05, 2008, 02:22 PM // 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby2

Now you're saying it doesn't take more time if you stand there trying only to stay alive as opposed to, you know, actually trying to beat stuff? You're about covered in gasoline, aren't you?

lol, I'm not saying a solo tank...

A tank "setup" refers to 1 person taking all the damage and keeping the atten. of the enemies, while the 7 other professions fully utilize their roles (i.e. SS, Nuker, Healer, etc...)

Crom The Pale · Mar 05, 2008, 02:37 PM // 14:37

The biggest problem with Tanking today is that the AI changes make if much less efficient than it used to be.

When you could hold agro and drop Echo Meteor Shower + Arcane Echo Firestrom on a mob and they would just stand under it and die Tanking was very fast and effective. Now however mobs scatter and they pick targets better than just the guy that hit me first so it becomes a much more tedius method of play.

- Tain - · Mar 05, 2008, 02:56 PM // 14:56

No, the biggest problem with tanking is the same as it's always been - it's hugely inefficient.

You can gather aggro and group enemies without dedicating 1 characters bar to sitting there picking his nose. Saying that it lets the other 7 professions fully utilize their roles is silly - why not let 8 professions run at max efficiency and drop your nose-picker?

Flem · Mar 05, 2008, 02:58 PM // 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

The biggest problem with Tanking today is that the AI changes make if much less efficient than it used to be.

When you could hold agro and drop Echo Meteor Shower + Arcane Echo Firestrom on a mob and they would just stand under it and die Tanking was very fast and effective. Now however mobs scatter and they pick targets better than just the guy that hit me first so it becomes a much more tedius method of play.

Yes, the mob scattering made it to where tanking does not dominate the playing field like it used to. I think that nerf is what made the other options viable. I don't feel, however, that tanking can not be done as effective as the other in certain situations. To combat the nerf, all you need is an AOE snare and all the enemies jump back on to the tank, that's IF they even survive the first spike, which hardly ever happens in standard game play. With so much damage concentrated in one area, it makes the play quite fast.

The down side to playing without a tank is the same thing, but it a different way. When there is no set tank, the enemies will scatter and pick random enemies. This makes mutiple kills at once, much harder. You have to target each enemy individually.

Both options have downsides and counters, as well as the rest of GW.

Flem · Mar 05, 2008, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by - Tain -

No, the biggest problem with tanking is the same as it's always been - it's hugely inefficient.

You can gather aggro and group enemies without dedicating 1 characters bar to sitting there picking his nose. Saying that it lets the other 7 professions fully utilize their roles is silly - why not let 8 professions run at max efficiency and drop your nose-picker?

That's not a proper tanking format at all.

1.) Have 1 character with def. skills is not a waste, because he will be taking all the dmg... 1+1=2

2.) Hitting the buttons 1-8 for def. skills or offensive skills is the exact same, he doesn't go out there and not use any skills...

3.) All 8 professions are running at max efficiency. 1 person pisses off the foes, 7 other people can have there build completely full of skills that will make the job go by faster.

- Tain - · Mar 05, 2008, 03:06 PM // 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

That's now a proper tanking format at all.

1.) Have 1 character with def. skills is not a waste, because he will be taking all the dmg... 1+1=2

2.) Hitting the buttons 1-8 for def. skills or offensive skills is the exact same, he doesn't go out there and not use any skills...

3.) All 8 professions are running at max efficiency. 1 person pisses off the foes, 7 other people can have there build completely full of skills that will make the job go by faster.

The difference there is that the player with 8 defensive skills is doing nothing that couldn't be accomplished with a half-decent monk (wtb prots?) supporting someone who is, you know, doing something - killing mebbe? Even without SY! spam you don't need a tank, you just need to not fail.

Flem · Mar 05, 2008, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by - Tain -

The difference there is that the player with 8 defensive skills is doing nothing that couldn't be accomplished with a half-decent monk (wtb prots?) supporting someone who is, you know, doing something - killing mebbe? Even without SY! spam you don't need a tank, you just need to not fail.

Well, if your in an area of a game where no def. skills are needed and a protection monk can handle all of the incoming damage given to the tank, then there ya go. A tank and he has offensive skills.

But doesn't that leave another member of the team focusing on keeping the team alive via protection when that's the same principle as a tank?

Bobby2 · Mar 05, 2008, 03:28 PM // 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

A tank and he has offensive skills.

It's called a warrior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

But doesn't that leave another member of the team focusing on keeping the team alive via protection when that's the same principle as a tank?

Monks support the party, not just themselves.

Flem · Mar 05, 2008, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby2

It's called a warrior.

Monks support the party, not just themselves.

Not only warriors can be tanks.

Tanks support the whole party as well.

Tyla · Mar 05, 2008, 03:33 PM // 15:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

A tank and he has offensive skills.

Ugh...I wish people read that thread I made about why people call Warriors / Dervs tanks...

Quote:

Originally Posted by flem

Tanks support the whole party as well.

Nope, they just give bad Monks a reason to gloat, and bad teams to fool-proofly pass stuff.

- Tain - · Mar 05, 2008, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

Well, if your in an area of a game where no def. skills are needed and a protection monk can handle all of the incoming damage given to the tank, then there ya go. A tank and he has offensive skills.

First of all, I never said having no defensive skills - as was mentioned earlier WY, Shields Up, and para shouts are very effective to mitigate damage. Yes, a good monk can keep anyone upright - PS and SoA alone will make damage = 0 if they're taking heavy fire. And I'm not necessarily saying to go full prot; hybrid monks are infinitely more efficient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flem

But doesn't that leave another member of the team focusing on keeping the team alive via protection when that's the same principle as a tank?

Are you saying that you don't bring monks when you have a "tank"? Having prot and having a tank are definitely not the same principle. Monks support the party, and provide a critical element. No one is denying that your tanking works as a play style, but WHY the hell would you want to deal less damage and slow yourself down.

Flem · Mar 05, 2008, 03:42 PM // 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyla salanari

Ugh...I wish people read that thread I made about why people call Warriors / Dervs tanks...

Nope, they just give bad Monks a reason to gloat, and bad teams to fool-proofly pass stuff.

Tanks support the whole party but helping them stay safe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by - Tain -

First of all, I never said having no defensive skills - as was mentioned earlier WY, Shields Up, and para shouts are very effective to mitigate damage. Yes, a good monk can keep anyone upright - PS and SoA alone will make damage = 0 if they're taking heavy fire. And I'm not necessarily saying to go full prot; hybrid monks are infinitely more efficient.

Are you saying that you don't bring monks when you have a "tank"? Having prot and having a tank are definitely not the same principle. Monks support the party, and provide a critical element. No one is denying that your tanking works as a play style, but WHY the hell would you want to deal less damage and slow yourself down.

I personally like hybrid as well.

I'm not saying that. I was asking a question in a way to prove a point.

In the end, going with a tanking party does not deal less damage. The tank may not be doing it, but the rest of the party is.