[Review] [Tank] Focused Offense

[Tesq]

but every healer that wanna dps even ranged one have an anti cc immunity with 1 min CD with M2 the same it have every melee classes.

tanks need the armor becuase they have no snare/root immunity and it could be very dangerous give them one

elaborating all, the dmg buff should be 10% more than the armor debuff and the armor debuff need not to be too much the exemple is mara crit tactic 20/10 so something like

-dmg you do increase + 20%
-dmg you recive increase/armor reduced by +10%
-agro generated - 50%
-guard loose the chance to remove 50% dmg ( so 50% dmg from the guarded became a -50% agro)

50% less agro but cannot 50% remove dmg from other=0%
20 dmg -10 dmg = 10% of buff

this should be kind in line with all other tactics in game not?

in addition:

-challenge became aoe detaunt with a propper CD
-taunt do not interrupt anymore just dmg increase


This should make the dps pure spec viable in both pvp and pve not?

[Luth]

My point was that imo there is no need for a viable +15% damage increase tactic for the tank archetype in PvP.
Furthermore the tactic can be used by any tank with any spec or weaponry, unlike the 2h only +10% damage/5% parry tactics that some classes have and need to spend 12 mastery points in their offensive paths for.
The impact on the general game balance can no one foresee. Balanced archetypes are the base of the games PvP and therefore changing something on this low level has the potential to affect everything else.

[GodlessCrom]

My point was that imo there is no need for a viable +15% damage increase tactic for the tank archetype in PvP.
Furthermore the tactic can be used by any tank with any spec or weaponry, unlike the 2h only +10% damage/5% parry tactics that some classes have and need to spend 12 mastery points in their offensive paths for.
The impact on the general game balance can no one foresee. Balanced archetypes are the base of the games PvP and therefore changing something on this low level has the potential to affect everything else.

Is there any need for divine fury? And isnt the point of alpha to test things? It's a minor change to a useless tactic that many people still won't take no matter how we alter it, so what's the big deal? The "balanced archetypes" of this game are laughable: already we have classes that can break their archetype and assume another, and the archetypes themselves are hardly balanced to begin with.

[blaqwar]

My point was that imo there is no need for a viable +15% damage increase tactic for the tank archetype in PvP.
Furthermore the tactic can be used by any tank with any spec or weaponry, unlike the 2h only +10% damage/5% parry tactics that some classes have and need to spend 12 mastery points in their offensive paths for.
The impact on the general game balance can no one foresee. Balanced archetypes are the base of the games PvP and therefore changing something on this low level has the potential to affect everything else.

As can be said with most bigger career/mechanic changes (WP/DoK ones for example). That's why this is alpha and we're testing things. I don't think shying away from balancing the game and utilising mastery trees (tanks, just like healers all have a DPS mastery tree) because it might change the game is RoR's way of doing things.

I have to agree with Penril here, just because a tactic seems to be poorly designed or designed for PvE only doesn't mean it couldn't be changed to increase it's viability in PvP. After all, this is WAR we're talking about and considering PvE will be developed and tested later it can be tuned around balanced PvE/PvP hybrid tactics instead of having pure PvE tactics that serve no purpose in the other 80% of the game.

If you consider FO as a purely PvE tactic and want to keep it that way then tanks will remain the only archetype with 2 purely PvE tactics (FO and Menace), while all other archetypes have 1 purely PvE tactic at most (Sleight of Hand, Subtlety). Oh and also if you're claiming that all archetype tactics are decent/viable then Jagged Edge and Clever Recovery would like a word with you

[Penril]

Spoiler:

Jagged Edge is pretty good for being core and low level. Sure, you don't use it at lvl 40 because there better tactics available, but in T2 i think it serves its purpose just fine. Same with several other core tactics; imho they are meant to be used while leveling (that's why they are core). Making all tactics equally good for T4 is pretty much impossible.

Spoilered myself for going off-topic

[altharion1]

I'd like to see some proper justification by the people against this suggestion:

1. Justify that tank damage is "enough" already (don't post sc screenshots, they mean nothing without context). Without a heal debuff you need massive burst to kill anything that's being healed ie sorc burst. Thus for a tank to be considered a quasidps it requires a more significant increase than 15%.

2. Why should a dok have a viable competitive dps spec (enough to take a spot as dps in 6v6) but tanks do not have this option?

3. If tanks already have "dps level damage" then why should they be able to use all their utilities, CC and guard at the same time? Why are there no "nerf tanks" threads?

4. How would the game be unbalanced if a SM could do the same damage as a true dps (if it was subject to FO proposals by peterpan a few pages back)? Whether I log in on SM, WL or BW and kill you - its pretty irrelevant. Variety keeps the game from going stale.

[Luth]

About alpha: ofc things can be tested; i just expressed my concerns, which emerge from my understanding of how WARs balancing is structured, i.e. in several layers.

If you consider FO as a purely PvE tactic and want to keep it that way then tanks will remain the only archetype with 2 purely PvE tactics (FO and Menace), while all other archetypes have 1 purely PvE tactic at most (Sleight of Hand, Subtlety). Oh and also if you're claiming that all archetype tactics are decent/viable then Jagged Edge and Clever Recovery would like a word with you

Tanks are the only archetype who want to draw the attention of NPCs or avoid it, depending on their spot in the group.

[bloodi]

I think most people who are against it are agaisnt it losing the armor debuff, yeah the armor debuff makes it usless currently but if you simply get a 15% damage increase with no reduction in tankyness, is definetly way too much, specially on SM/BO.

Yeah they dont have detaunts but you can still crossguard, have a lot more toughness and armor than the average guy and good avoidance. So its definetly not a matter of just being like divine fury, , healesr cant get anywhere near close the levels of mitigation a tank can get.

[blaqwar]

Tanks are the only archetype who want to draw the attention of NPCs or avoid it, depending on their spot in the group.

I'm not really satisfied with that answer, do I get an inherent disadvantage of less archetype tactics in PvP simply because of the archetype's role in PvE? I don't see what prevents the devs from balancing those tactics to make them viable in both situations? Heck I'd argue that all archetype tactics should be usable in both environments and I'd push for a utility component on Subtlety.

Spoiler:

Jagged Edge is pretty good for being core and low level. Sure, you don't use it at lvl 40 because there better tactics available, but in T2 i think it serves its purpose just fine. Same with several other core tactics; imho they are meant to be used while leveling (that's why they are core). Making all tactics equally good for T4 is pretty much impossible.

Spoilered myself for going off-topic

Spoiler:

I don't mind them not being equally good in T4 but I'd like them to at least be viable (as in not straight outperformed by other tactics) in some situations. Which Jagged Edge clearly isn't. And I'm pretty sure most MDPS use Jagged Edge in T2 because they lack other DPS tactics, at least I swapped to Inquisitors Fury/Pack Synergy/Subvert Strength/Brute Force as soon as I got them on my characters.

Couldn't help but reply.

[GodlessCrom]

Healers can heal themselves though, which helps, especially with lifetaps being unaffected by hdebuff and in fact buffed by Divine Fury.

That being said, I still think some of the argument is coming from people assuming the tactic is for different things. Some people are assuming it's just to boost the damage of offensive tanks while still letting them tank; and others are it as the Divine Fury equivalent and a tank with FO is no longer a tank but instead an mdps.

I agree that buffing tank damage while not debuffing their ability to perform normal tank roles would potentially be OP, but i see no reason why, if healers can assume a dps role, that tanks (if similar sacrifices are made) should not also be able to.

So again, and maybe devs could weigh in and say what they want to do, we need to define what FO is for: is it meant to simply make tanks do more damage while still tanking, or is it meant to make them assume an mdps role like melee dok?