[Review] [Tank] Focused Offense

[Ninepaces]

Someone said this before but I will repeat:

A tactic should not allow a class to fulfil two archetypes at once, like tanking and damage. So the penalty part of FO is fine and necessary. Maybe up the damage FO provides by 10% so it becomes useful if the player wants to play that kamikaze style faux dps.

[altharion1]

Someone said this before but I will repeat:

A tactic should not allow a class to fulfil two archetypes at once, like tanking and damage. So the penalty part of FO is fine and necessary. Maybe up the damage FO provides by 10% so it becomes useful if the player wants to play that kamikaze style faux dps.

I dont think anyone is asking for this though...

Talking as a Chosen, I simply don't see which tactic give up for FO anyway. Crit, ap regen on parry, crit suppression, and already choosing between toughness, quick discord, hastened dismissal, destined for victory.

You would never take FO tactic in its current form, whether you wanted to be dps or tank.

If you want to be a useful "tank" ie provide guard, utility skills/effects/buffs and CC you would never use my proposed FO tactic.

If you wanted to be DPS you would slot my proposed revised FO tactic and drop one of the utility tactics ie hastened dismissal or destined for victory. And thus focus entirely on dps.

[Tesq]

not like im worried for the meta just.. to get the idea where we want this tactic to be; if the idea is for all to be like a button swap between tank and dd then be it, ye removing guard sound cool. Bear in mind that tank have no immunity so even if a tactic like this should have a downside then if really want to make it viable then the tank cannot loose armor.

x % buff to dmg and guard removed or alternatively

x% buff dmg + x% armor reduction+ no guard but juggernaut became like the melee version and last 10 sec (jaggernaut tactic will reudece it to 40 sec instead 20 )

the first is more in line with give the tank the option to dd but not have the same tools of the melee (since anyway to have taunt/challenge)

the second would put em more in line with melee tought dok/wp can use m2 as the melee anti snare/root (duration is the same, cd too). This one seems fill the dream of every wanna be dps but is a bit dangerous especially considering some tanks like sm that have m2 with aoe snare/pounce.

so remove armor only if an anti cc as the melee is given otherwise the only trade off should be the use of guard (unless as said the def tools tanks have justify anyway the remove of some armor). More damages for the use of guard (tough i suggest if this get implemented to put a symbol near the name to make easier organize party in sc and that the queue setting take into account these ppl as DD and not as tanks).

another thing is should be able tanks that get FO spec for s+b? s+b give hold the line and other classes tools; maybe tanks should be also restricted to 2h? (tough SM would have a bit more of advntage this way but would still be limited to self def only).

[Ugle]

+25% dmg, - 25% armor, -50% guard. Big plus bigger minus, but still worth it. Need to find the right tradeoff, else none will use it, and you might just as well leave it as it is.

[peterthepan3]

Perhaps slightly increase dmg component, keep armor debuff, make it require a 2h, but also turn Challenge into a detaunt if user decides to slot tactic?

If you slot FO, you should be more of a quasidps than you are a tank. Guard should also be nerfed/unavailable if FO were to be given 20% dmg, but then you have access to a detaunt.

Similar to wp/dok in that you could then get similar numbers to a dps, but you keep inherent weaknesses (dok/wp lack of anti snare/cc, tank lack of a gap closer) lest they outperform dps at their own role.

[Sigimund]

Reducing the guard damage transfer (and eliminating the guard aggro transfer when FO is slotted) would even make this more useful for offtanking in PVE. Less chance of asploding from too much damage, less aggro compromise for MT, less extreme survivability boost for the MT but a definite niche for DPS specced offtanks.

Granted PVE is lower priority but the hate modifier is a strong clue that PVE was part of the design intent for FO.

[Luth]

After 12 pages almost everyone seems to think that this tactic was created for PvP and not exclusively for PvE.
Something to think about:
The tactic has an aggro reduce component and the armor debuff is so huge that it doesn't make sense to use it against enemies who don't behave like an NPC/bot (should be a huge part of the playerbase). High likely it was originally created to give tanks the possibility to fill the role of a melee DD in PvE, to make it easier to fill the group with 6 players for dungeons etc.
Otherwise the design of the tactic makes no sense and while there are many useless tactics and abilities in this game, the core archetype abilities and tactics work very well and fulfill their purpose.
As already mentioned by a minority here and by myself generally very often: to mix archetypes too much creates major problems/imbalance in PvP instead of solving them.
Archetype abilities and tactics shouldn't be touched if there is no glaring need/a major imbalance and even then it should be carefully done.
In the current meta, i can't see any evidence that tanks (the archetype as a whole, not a single class) are doing not enough damage when they want to fulfill their secondary role as "offensive tank".

[Ugle]

Perhaps slightly increase dmg component, keep armor debuff, make it require a 2h, but also turn Challenge into a detaunt if user decides to slot tactic?

If you slot FO, you should be more of a quasidps than you are a tank. Guard should also be nerfed/unavailable if FO were to be given 20% dmg, but then you have access to a detaunt.

Similar to wp/dok in that you could then get similar numbers to a dps, but you keep inherent weaknesses (dok/wp lack of anti snare/cc, tank lack of a gap closer) lest they outperform dps at their own role.

Agree with everything but removing guard entirely, reducing guard efficency will open for more group setups. The exact numbers could be juggled to find the proper sweetspot in regards of making it useful but not op.

[altharion1]

Perhaps slightly increase dmg component, keep armor debuff, make it require a 2h, but also turn Challenge into a detaunt if user decides to slot tactic?

If you slot FO, you should be more of a quasidps than you are a tank. Guard should also be nerfed/unavailable if FO were to be given 20% dmg, but then you have access to a detaunt.

Similar to wp/dok in that you could then get similar numbers to a dps, but you keep inherent weaknesses (dok/wp lack of anti snare/cc, tank lack of a gap closer) lest they outperform dps at their own role.

Liking this suggestion and it sounds pretty balanced to me.

- Taunt becomes basically a suped up single target primal fury
- Challenge would no longer be a group utility skill
- Nerfed guard effectiveness
- No gap closer, outgoing heal debuff, snare immunity - so the standard dps classes still generally out perform a tankdps
- No use of s+b and reduced armour would mean you would be reliant on being guarded when focused as per other dps.

[Penril]

After 12 pages almost everyone seems to think that this tactic was created for PvP and not exclusively for PvE.
Something to think about:
The tactic has an aggro reduce component and the armor debuff is so huge that it doesn't make sense to use it against enemies who don't behave like an NPC/bot (should be a huge part of the playerbase). High likely it was originally created to give tanks the possibility to fill the role of a melee DD in PvE, to make it easier to fill the group with 6 players for dungeons etc.
Otherwise the design of the tactic makes no sense and while there are many useless tactics and abilities in this game, the core archetype abilities and tactics work very well and fulfill their purpose.
As already mentioned by a minority here and by myself generally very often: to mix archetypes too much creates major problems/imbalance in PvP instead of solving them.
Archetype abilities and tactics shouldn't be touched if there is no glaring need/a major imbalance and even then it should be carefully done.
In the current meta, i can't see any evidence that tanks (the archetype as a whole, not a single class) are doing not enough damage when they want to fulfill their secondary role as "offensive tank".

If the tactic is useless for PvP, then let's discuss how to make it useful for PvP. This is why this discussion exists. As it has been pointed out, a healer with Divine Fury is basically a DPS class (more damage, horrible healing due to negative effects from tactic, offensive renown points/talismans, etc.), and it doesn't have an aggro-management component because healers already have Subtlety (something that tanks lack). FO is the obvious choice for a similar tank tactic.

If tanks are doing enough damage already (I agree), then keep the damage bonus of FO as it is (like I suggested several pages ago) and focus on the armor debuff. Currently, it is too much. Specially if you consider that tanks don't have a Detaunt (DPS healers do).