Maybe, maybe not lol

I hear a lot of outlandish ideas thrown around here that scare the crap out of me to the point I prob wouldn't play.

This isn't close to one of them, but it stems from one of my biggest beefs with ToA ( imo ) so it would sting a lot to have these types of things implimented.

 

My biggest fear started when people talked about FPS target system, that was scary. Don't think they got the support to get a Darkfall playstyle, but I cringe when hearing it.

I personally didn't like the way the taunt/detaunt system worked in WAR.  I thought it felt clunky and forced.  I'd much prefer a Gaurd/Block system similar to DAoC but with larger range.

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

You guys are just talking about other abilities a "peeler / melee support class" might have... Labelling it taunt is inaccurate and don't know why you have to have an ability called "taunt"

Stop calling it taunt and throw around ideas, DAOC's taunt system is still unmatched imo, having an ability to force someone to attack you is forcing them to not control their character ( in a different way than stun/mezz ) and not in a good way.

Please don't make this game just a mash of pushing people back, pulling them around, forcing them to do things... There is only so much CC that is needed.... I don't think you guys understand because it seems all the games you played didn't have mezz / stun / root system. WIth these there are plenty of tactical choices to stop someone to get heals off, etc.

 

But continue idea mashing, just stop calling it taunt lol

 Call it Fruit Salad, does that make you feel better?  You sound very upset.

You talk about all these other abilities, why  not taunt?  We understand it makes you very emotional to have it, but why not other than your opinion on it?   I don't want over powered stealth but I suspect will we end up with invisistealth.

I am upset, because there are a lot of people on these forums throwing around crazy ideas without thinking of all the ramifications of them first, and it scares me to see some of them in this game.

I talk about other abilities and think I've already described the why behind them already, and the why I don't like forced target swaps.

Again like a lot of people have said Stealth isn't over powered, you move slow as balls, get no speed bonuses and basically rarely have a chance to win unless you get your opening. Granted openings are generally are too high, but that's no reason to kill invisistealth as you call it.

 No, you are blaming them for not thinking when all you are doing is riding on your high horse. 

I don't support mounts in this game sorry

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

Are you trying to tell me it wasn't designed as a PVE ability?

Taking someones target away isn't tactical skill, people will just make macros to spam to reaquire targets, it will end up being a pointless ability.

The definition of tank people are describing in this thread was designed and required for a PVE game and PVE components of games. The only reason some games made alterations to make viable in RVR was because people complained about being required to spec a certain way for PVE and respec for PVP.

This game won't have that complication so don't over complicate things.

plus juan

Lol Niix well-played. We may differ on opinion, but that made me genuinely laugh.

If the taunt works lik ein PVE, where you are forced to attack and can't control your character not a big fan of that.

I'd rather have tanks that use more physical forces, such as being able to knock people back/down, blocking people with collision detection (so you have to fight them to get by closed in areas, etc).

Having mitagion can work, where a tank has an ability to "protect" an ally for "x" time or dmg, where the damage done to the player is put onto the tank instead (the tnak has to be CLOSE to the player though, you shouldn't be able to say use the ability from 20 feet away, that would look strange).

So tanks would need to stick near an ally to protect them with that ability.

Originally posted by aesperus

I'm sorry, but 'taunt' is a grandfathered mechanic meant for a simplified PvE setting. While there are ways you can shoehorn it into PvP, it really doesn't have a role in a PvP environment. At best, it could be a debuff or forced target drop, but it really doesn't solve ANY of the problems tanks typically have in PvP.

The real solution is simple, and has already been done by multiple games with target-based combat. Give tanks the bulk of CC abilities / mobility. This makes tanks hard to avoid (kite), and difficult to ignore (since they're interrupting your abilities constantly, thus reducing your effectiveness).

Unfortunately, few people seem to understand how to handle tanks that are actually viable in a PvP setting, and will rage nerf them into the ground.

^^ This.

 

Just give "tanks" a good bit of cc, and make them hard to kite, but less damage than other classes. If their cc can interrupt mages (which i would hope it would) or stun a squishy for a moment, that makes them valuable to a realm, but the cost of reduced damage means without someone behind them doing damage they are mostly useless because of their lack of damage output. Heaven forbid we are forced to use teamwork.

Agreed to most poster in this thread I'd like to see a pvp-taunt in CU in the same way it was use in warhammer.

I am fine with the above options as well. As long as the game is built around wholly-conceptualized rvr dynamics, I will play independent of any "mechanic dogma" :)

This is a really good chance for an MMO to completely reexamine the mechanics of heavy melee fighters.

 

I say, let 'em act as a type of CC and mobile defense.  Give them a short range snare and stun (Trip and Shield Bash).  Give them the ability to link up with other warriors to block movement and line of sight (Shield Wall).  If they go two-hander, they should get the ability to break a shield wall (Charge).

 

I hope MJ and co. put some serious thought into this. ;)  I'd really like to see a bit more ... uhm... not 'realism'...  but 'reasonability' in the mechanics, that lets gameplay reflect how the classes might work if the gameworld was real.

 

if you are wanting to act as if the gameworld was real... If you were fighting someone in real life and out of the corner of your eye you see someone rushing at you with a sword and screaming, you would stop for a second or two to pay them some attention. lol

Originally posted by Vanshoodie

Since CU is not going to have any pve and MJ said that they are still going to work on roles for tank classes. In the majority of games with pvp, a tanks taunt does very little in pvp. How about letting a tank fill their role by tanking pvp? Let taunts effect players in pvp, for a short amount of time of course. It can be used to save a fellow commrade, esp healers who get beat on pretty hard. EQ2 used this mechanic and I thought it was pretty awesome. Maybe that technique can be a glimmer of hope for those who enjoy to tank and can continue to do so in a pvp based game.

 

So continue to discuss that idea..... GO!

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck no!

Taunt in PvP is horrible bleh. Whats wrong with peeling? Slam, guard, backside snare, CC cleanse allies. I think that would make tanks threatening enough for people to want to focus down.

Originally posted by Niix_Ozek

Originally posted by killion81

Originally posted by PerfArt
Agreed, Van. Taunting can serve a purpose if designed for RvR from the ground up. A way for tanks to protect people can exist outside of shield bashing.

Example: if you have an ability (taunt) activated, every time that you strike an enemy, they target you despite what their current target is. Perhaps Taunt mode could reduce your damage dealt by these strike to reflect that you aren't going for killing blows, but trying to save your ally.

They could keep manually targetting after each hit, but tgeir attacks would A) be slowed and B) be likely to hit you oftentimes instead.

Kinda cool.
 

 

Clever way to implement taunt.  Another simple way would be to force the person being taunted to target the taunter for a specified period of time, maybe 2 seconds (give or take depending on the speed of the combat).  This pulls them off someone long enough that a well coordinated heal could turn the tide of the battle.  Could even use AoE taunts that last 1 second, once again used to provide a comrade with a slight break in damage received, used for escape or survival.  Probably have to put diminishing returns on this to prevent tanks from chain taunting a single target.

There are definitely ways that a taunt mechanic could work in PvP.

That's a terrible idea ugh, Changing someones target is taking the pure control out of the players hand. Not just Stalling them ( like mezz / stun ), but you're forcing their characters hand and it just doesn't make sense in my mind. There are other ways of dealing with saving someone that inputting 100 abilities like these.

 

I know this thread has progressed a bit, but I completely disagree that such a mechanic is a terrible idea.  It could even be a channeled ability that requires proximity to the target, allows movement while channeling and can be interrupted.  This would add quite a bit to the PvP meta, I would think.  Tanks could focus on getting in your face, drawing your attention to them (which in a game is changing targets).  The tank player would have to make an effort to stay near the enemy they are taunting, the taunted player can either interrupt the tank, create enough distance to break the taunt (using snares, knockbacks, escape abilities) or just go to down dishing out damage on the tank until the taunt wears off.  The taunted player also has to reaquire their original target once the taunt has worn off.

There are just so many places where skilled players could outperform unskilled players in the sequence described in the previous paragraph.  I don't think adding mechanics that reward player skill to PvP is a bad thing.

Volatile issue. I do not envy CSE in finding a way to give tanks a role. Holy hell guys lol.

The problem with a tank being able to "taunt" a real player by forcing them to lose their current target and become disorientated, this would be a must have in any group. Also that is such a powerful mechanic, it would be need to be in a specialized skill tree, a high end realm ability etc...or you got a decent damaging dealing melee acting as crowd control that can take damage like a tank, which is overpowered. 

The cooldown would have to be quite long, because it's no fun *having* to attack someone other than your target.  Just like it's no fun being feared all the time.  Taunting is purely there for agro mechanics, which don't (and shouldn't) exist in PvP.  What should exist is collision detection, which would give tanks strategical advantages.

Not sure if this is going off topic, but maybe what should be discussed before we start looking at specific mechanics that tanks should or should not have is what the tanks themselves would be like. As MJ stated in FP #10- "In a perfect world we would create three different tanks, each with their own advantages and disadvantages (so that no tank is perceived as the perfect choice)" I perceive the Tuatha De Danaan as perhaps possessing an innate utilization of nature and magic in their tanking such as combining Tera's Lancer with Rift's Tempest. Vikings would be most suitable as ferocious berzerkers wielding massive two-handed battle-axes or swords to fend off attacks, Whilst the Arthurians would easily lend themselves to the knight in plate armor with sword and shield. Just my ideas of what could be a good mix of different styles that could all be effective in their own way.

There is a lot of talk about "no fun" as if this is not a very subjective concept. I would like for us to all remember this while we discuss these topics.

I respect that some folks do not like the target-swapping mechanic in any form, even if limited.

That's fine. I'll bite. Let's assume that "taunt" is an antiquated mechanic in the context of RvR (which it is as the mechanic currently works, and why some here have suggested just changing the name. Mmo players do so seem to get hung up on semantics.)

In light of this, why do we still need "tanks?" Why should we require the antiquated (in the context of PvP) roles if that role's primary purpose is to get enemies to hit them instead of squishy allies. Tanks have been A) primarily a PvE boon and B) problematic to balance in PvP without all kinds of contrived tools that don't really fit their roles (ranged taunts that interrupt a an example.) So why do we still need them in CU?

Balance. RPS.

So now we have them ostensibly grandfathered in.

Now, if you want to take one of the main strengths of a class type that was developed for PvE purposes away in order to not see that purpose adapted to RvR, then there are only two options:

1) Fuck tanks, let's just make melee classes that have other abilities than "tanking"

2) Address issues that don't allow tanks to tank in RvR and issues that those of the player base who don't want them to do so because of the inconveniences the possibility presents.

So, let's get creative with options in the middle ground (and I hate the middle ground. That's where vanilla is in Neopolitan ice-cream, and why I love MJ's FPs.)

There seems to be an equal hate for knockbacks and target-swapping. So both of those are out. Snares seem to be ok, so that's a start. Stuns too, if short duration.

So we have a tank who does relatively low damage and relies on snares and short-term stuns now. Fair enough. I can deal with this in return for the best survivability in the game (and indeed that's the only way I personally would.)

So in a RvR setting, what other non-taunt tank abilities can we expect to make up for this "Rock" role's place in PvP, because we all know these mechanics don't equate in a primarily RvR system without angelic genius (see below.)

Seige? Only good enough if it is enough of a commonly-occuring priority. If so, count me in.

Squishy protection? Nope. It seems like the only things non-tank players want tanks to be able to do is apply low damage and take tons of damage no one cares about dealing to them on account of the low threat they represent because of their low damage. Awesome.

Give them gimmicky tools that make no sense in a RvR environment but briefly placate the legions of complainers who are only going to bitch about something else that inconveniences them once you fix what they whined about.

My solution: have a vision for your game and, despite all the shouting, realize that you know more about making games than them and see your vision realized. The best part about playing a new game is being surprised and inspired by a developer's ambition (this is purely subjective, and I only say it assuming that gamers like unexpected, new experiences.)

So yeah. Taunts.

And I almost never play tanks. Just thinking of the game.