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.
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 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 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.
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 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.)
Interupts and stuns to make you more of a threat to casters and able to prevet melee from wrecking your DPS players. Include a guard ability so tanks can soak up some of the damage output. Slows and snares to allow for your casters/melee DPS to retreat. And collision detection so you can Stun -> Slow -> and plop yourself inbetween them and your squishies.
I don't think taunt is a must in a pvp-game. The ideas they had in Warhammer were quite good about taunt but no need for it when facing other players. I rather hope they have protectionskills so that a tank can protect his allies but needs to be close. That way the tank really needs to pay attention.
Some games have had some type of protectionskill that takes away half of the damage and transfer it to the tank. I am no fan of that. Especially not after playing a sorcerer in Warhammer with a personal tank and a personal healer and AOE specced. It was ridicolous how hard it was to take me down and how much damage I did. Smart groups knew how to do but when it was zerg vs zerg and Order had like ten brightwizards with the same setup it was getting old pretty fast. I rather have that the blocking skill of the tank helps if they put guard on the target. So that every time the protected player is attacked the tank rolls for block to see if he actually blocks the attack.
I loved that in DAOC. I was a defensive specced Paladin and my duty in our "gank group" was to protect the Clerics with shieldslams(stuns) and guard. Since I was specced high in shield I blocked a LOT of attacks if I was close enough and sometimes so much that they changed target. And so did I. It was one of the few times in PVP that I have actually felt like a true tank and I have played tank in most games released after.
Originally posted by PerfArt 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 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.)
There is a lot of talk about "no fun"...
Yes, definitely, and it's because historically, when this contrived mechanic is applied to PVP it has consistently proven to be no fun. From the pre-2000 UO bard to the modern day PvE 'warrior', taunt has been little more than a frustration in PvP, sometimes even proven to be more tactically sound as a griefing tool.
Seeking to put a band-aid on a band-aid on a band-aid is a terrible idea.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
"Proven to be no fun?" I am not arguing the point, but that is a very opinion-based, subjective statement masquerading around as a fact.
Don't get me wrong: I am all for alternatives. Hell, I asked for them. However, anything that helps one class and hurts another can be considered "little more than frustration in PvP."
In CU, I would not mind seeing the whole mechanic scrapped at all. I just want the big dudes in armor to be able to do more than run around trying to get someone to pay attention to them.
I had a lot of fun playing Warrior in rvr. Being able to shield/protect my dps/healers if I felt the need, being able to slam targets off of them, and be defensive, all the while being able to follow my train slamming their targets, switching to 2hander and ripping them apart. I would constantly go back and forth from offensive to defensive in a fight, sometimes fights would last 10minutes with the right opponent. Bodyguard with toa was pretty lame, even though we used it a lot.. Bodyguard pbaoe and aoe stun, being a pure bodyguard bot was fun for a while, but it got old.
"Proven to be no fun?" I am not arguing the point, but that is a very opinion-based, subjective statement masquerading around as a fact.
Can you share examples of MMOs where taunt is enjoyed in PVP? I gave you examples and explained the reason and history behind taunt. I'd be interested in a counterpoint if you have one.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Lokto: we are speaking about a game that has yet to begin development and theorizing ways to make it work. Plus, enjoyment varies from person to person. My Example? I enjoyed tank taunts in daoc rvr it allowed tanks a chance to close the gap. Maybe a bit too much range, but not unenjoyable.
I am all for alternatives, though, as I have stated repeatedly. I would actually PREFER alternatives other than taunts.
What I don't want is taunt yanked and replaced with nothing.
There is a reason that taunt doen't exist in any GOOD pvp games. It FORCES monster AI to behave a certain way.
It has no place in pvp.
I'm not sure what people's issue with forcing something in PvP is. A stun or mez forces a player to do nothing, which is worse than changing targets. Disarm or silence forces a player to not attack at all, which again is worse than changing targets. Root forces players not to move at all, which can be worse than changing targets. Why are some forms of CC ok, even when some cause the player to completely lose control (stun) and other forms of CC are not, when in comparison they seem considerably more mild. Would it be better f you automatically reaquired your original target after the taunt ended?
@killion: Forcing someone to change targets is inherently worse than making them stand still while you slash at them with positionals for 9 seconds just... Just because. It's wrong to make people do stuff unless it's certain stuff. Just because.
There is a reason that taunt doen't exist in any GOOD pvp games. It FORCES monster AI to behave a certain way.
It has no place in pvp.
I'm not sure what people's issue with forcing something in PvP is. A stun or mez forces a player to do nothing, which is worse than changing targets. Disarm or silence forces a player to not attack at all, which again is worse than changing targets. Root forces players not to move at all, which can be worse than changing targets. Why are some forms of CC ok, even when some cause the player to completely lose control (stun) and other forms of CC are not, when in comparison they seem considerably more mild. Would it be better f you automatically reaquired your original target after the taunt ended?
Those are effects, not behaviors. You can mezz and disarm mobs. Taunt forces a behavior, which is different.
The problem with the massive taunt debuff in WAR was that combined 2 roles into lackluster and lame one.
I make a thread 2 weeks ago or so about heavy tanks being the grand master champions of peeling due to they hardly ever missing, as well as them being highly resistant to CC themselves. Peeling / interupts / free-casting = the meta-trinity that works extremely well and is very worthy of copying.
PvP taunt is honestly just unimaginative, lazy, and unsatisfying.
There is a reason that taunt doen't exist in any GOOD pvp games. It FORCES monster AI to behave a certain way.
It has no place in pvp.
I'm not sure what people's issue with forcing something in PvP is. A stun or mez forces a player to do nothing, which is worse than changing targets. Disarm or silence forces a player to not attack at all, which again is worse than changing targets. Root forces players not to move at all, which can be worse than changing targets. Why are some forms of CC ok, even when some cause the player to completely lose control (stun) and other forms of CC are not, when in comparison they seem considerably more mild. Would it be better f you automatically reaquired your original target after the taunt ended?
Those are effects, not behaviors. You can mezz and disarm mobs. Taunt forces a behavior, which is different.
The problem with the massive taunt debuff in WAR was that combined 2 roles into lackluster and lame one.
I make a thread 2 weeks ago or so about heavy tanks being the grand master champions of peeling due to they hardly ever missing, as well as them being highly resistant to CC themselves. Peeling / interupts / free-casting = the meta-trinity that works extremely well and is very worthy of copying.
PvP taunt is honestly just unimaginative, lazy, and unsatisfying.
Changing the target of a taunt is an effect as well. I could just as easily say that standing and doing nothing is a behavior and it is forced by a mez or stun.
What would be the counter for 2s forced targeting? Purge? Leave the short duration cc out, it's opening up for more short duration soft and hard ccs that are imbalanced.
Forced targeting is really not a very good idea. If the duration is too long, it would be overpowered. If the duration was very short, you might as well treat it like a disarm and not even bother attacking the tank who taunted you. I think there are much better ways of letting tanks do their job in pvp.
I think dark age of Camelot system worked really well in dark age of Camelot. However worth copying one idea is, it wouldn't kill anyone to do something different if it ended up being equally as fun and complex, and there is a possibility of having some parts of a successful combat system and some parts of another and not some parts of each may end up giving Camelot unchained a frankenstein combat system that would be a big mess. I think people are just as guilty of projecting the success of elements of Camelot onto a new game with a potentially wildly disparate combat system as others are of plugging their ears to such mechanics.
Having said that, I'd like to think of a tank in a pvp game more as a protector than a tank. Their role in combat is to protect their allies, and prevent them from dying. If they specialize in buffing, they'd get defensive buffs. If they specialized in debugging, they'd get debuffs that are defensive in nature. If they specialized in cc, they'd be great at peeling. If they specialized in offense, their critical hits could lower enemy damage, and taking hits for allies could increase there damage/hit chance/critical chance. The point is, give people options on how to fill a role. Having only one way to do anything, no matter how well balanced or fun or perfect for a system will get old eventually.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how it is such an offensive idea, especially in comparions to other CC abilities. Just like how killion compared them. I guess I am just used to such forms of cc, I have played games where tanks could taunt in pvp and had mobs that could taunt in pve. I personally do not see a difference. The arguement saying that taunt removes control of the player is bogus. No different from mezz/stun/daze/stile or disarm. Seriously it boils down to personal opinion, and everyone has one. My opinion is that I like the idea of taunts for tanks so they can help protect allies. Just because.
Herein lies the conflict, fellow RvRers: we all think we know what is best for CU. I would like to make a few points regarding this:
Knowing, as we all do, how conflicting the opinions of mmorpg players are, we should somewhat accept the fact that real game designers (especially those freed from publisher restraints) know how to make a fun game.
Furthermore, if we all keep bitching and complaining about every freaking issue, we run the risk of getting a spazzy, cater-to-everyone game. This is not supposed to be that game. This game is supposed to a badass, unapologetically hardcore motherfucker of an mmo.
This is the (ostensibly) last time we will get a chance to play a game made by the main force behind one of the best games we have ever played. This might be an unpopular suggestion, but might we tone it down a bit? I am not excluding myself from the frenzy, either. We are all kinda excited.
In the case of taunts, I doubt there will be any, as they have little place in rvr. We tried to discuss ways in which it COULD be a viable mechanic, and a freak out ensued.
Shot down. Big surprise.
In the end, we are all just discussing maybes and what-ifs. If anyone here thinks for a second that winning an argument against an early adopter-laden, small niche forum is going to fundamentally change this game's dynamics, that is kinda silly.
Granted, I am sure CSE will listen to the backers and use any useful ideas if they make sense within the framework of the game they have envisioned, but I really think that they should primarily make their game.
Why else would we all be so excited if we thought they couldn't?
Comments
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.
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.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
You make me like charity
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
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.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
1. Interupts and stuns
2. Guard to split damage
3. Slows and snares
4. Collision detection
Interupts and stuns to make you more of a threat to casters and able to prevet melee from wrecking your DPS players. Include a guard ability so tanks can soak up some of the damage output. Slows and snares to allow for your casters/melee DPS to retreat. And collision detection so you can Stun -> Slow -> and plop yourself inbetween them and your squishies.
I don't think taunt is a must in a pvp-game. The ideas they had in Warhammer were quite good about taunt but no need for it when facing other players. I rather hope they have protectionskills so that a tank can protect his allies but needs to be close. That way the tank really needs to pay attention.
Some games have had some type of protectionskill that takes away half of the damage and transfer it to the tank. I am no fan of that. Especially not after playing a sorcerer in Warhammer with a personal tank and a personal healer and AOE specced. It was ridicolous how hard it was to take me down and how much damage I did. Smart groups knew how to do but when it was zerg vs zerg and Order had like ten brightwizards with the same setup it was getting old pretty fast. I rather have that the blocking skill of the tank helps if they put guard on the target. So that every time the protected player is attacked the tank rolls for block to see if he actually blocks the attack.
I loved that in DAOC. I was a defensive specced Paladin and my duty in our "gank group" was to protect the Clerics with shieldslams(stuns) and guard. Since I was specced high in shield I blocked a LOT of attacks if I was close enough and sometimes so much that they changed target. And so did I. It was one of the few times in PVP that I have actually felt like a true tank and I have played tank in most games released after.
There is a lot of talk about "no fun"...
Yes, definitely, and it's because historically, when this contrived mechanic is applied to PVP it has consistently proven to be no fun. From the pre-2000 UO bard to the modern day PvE 'warrior', taunt has been little more than a frustration in PvP, sometimes even proven to be more tactically sound as a griefing tool.
Taunt wasn't a feature that devs created. It was a solution to a particular problem - the lack of positional relationship between mobs and players in MUDs. The entire trinty exists to compensate for the new problems that taunt introduced.
Seeking to put a band-aid on a band-aid on a band-aid is a terrible idea.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
"Proven to be no fun?" I am not arguing the point, but that is a very opinion-based, subjective statement masquerading around as a fact.
Don't get me wrong: I am all for alternatives. Hell, I asked for them. However, anything that helps one class and hurts another can be considered "little more than frustration in PvP."
In CU, I would not mind seeing the whole mechanic scrapped at all. I just want the big dudes in armor to be able to do more than run around trying to get someone to pay attention to them.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
Bige - Bors.
Bigge, Zmallz, Reiggn, Faty)
(Everquest(99-02), Lineage(01-02), DAoC(02-09), WoW(07), WAR(10-11), Rift(11)
Nothing Current.
Can you share examples of MMOs where taunt is enjoyed in PVP? I gave you examples and explained the reason and history behind taunt. I'd be interested in a counterpoint if you have one.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
There is a reason that taunt doen't exist in any GOOD pvp games. It FORCES monster AI to behave a certain way.
It has no place in pvp.
I am all for alternatives, though, as I have stated repeatedly. I would actually PREFER alternatives other than taunts.
What I don't want is taunt yanked and replaced with nothing.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
I'm not sure what people's issue with forcing something in PvP is. A stun or mez forces a player to do nothing, which is worse than changing targets. Disarm or silence forces a player to not attack at all, which again is worse than changing targets. Root forces players not to move at all, which can be worse than changing targets. Why are some forms of CC ok, even when some cause the player to completely lose control (stun) and other forms of CC are not, when in comparison they seem considerably more mild. Would it be better f you automatically reaquired your original target after the taunt ended?
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
Those are effects, not behaviors. You can mezz and disarm mobs. Taunt forces a behavior, which is different.
The problem with the massive taunt debuff in WAR was that combined 2 roles into lackluster and lame one.
I make a thread 2 weeks ago or so about heavy tanks being the grand master champions of peeling due to they hardly ever missing, as well as them being highly resistant to CC themselves. Peeling / interupts / free-casting = the meta-trinity that works extremely well and is very worthy of copying.
PvP taunt is honestly just unimaginative, lazy, and unsatisfying.
Changing the target of a taunt is an effect as well. I could just as easily say that standing and doing nothing is a behavior and it is forced by a mez or stun.
Forced targeting is really not a very good idea. If the duration is too long, it would be overpowered. If the duration was very short, you might as well treat it like a disarm and not even bother attacking the tank who taunted you. I think there are much better ways of letting tanks do their job in pvp.
I think dark age of Camelot system worked really well in dark age of Camelot. However worth copying one idea is, it wouldn't kill anyone to do something different if it ended up being equally as fun and complex, and there is a possibility of having some parts of a successful combat system and some parts of another and not some parts of each may end up giving Camelot unchained a frankenstein combat system that would be a big mess. I think people are just as guilty of projecting the success of elements of Camelot onto a new game with a potentially wildly disparate combat system as others are of plugging their ears to such mechanics.
Having said that, I'd like to think of a tank in a pvp game more as a protector than a tank. Their role in combat is to protect their allies, and prevent them from dying. If they specialize in buffing, they'd get defensive buffs. If they specialized in debugging, they'd get debuffs that are defensive in nature. If they specialized in cc, they'd be great at peeling. If they specialized in offense, their critical hits could lower enemy damage, and taking hits for allies could increase there damage/hit chance/critical chance. The point is, give people options on how to fill a role. Having only one way to do anything, no matter how well balanced or fun or perfect for a system will get old eventually.
Knowing, as we all do, how conflicting the opinions of mmorpg players are, we should somewhat accept the fact that real game designers (especially those freed from publisher restraints) know how to make a fun game.
Furthermore, if we all keep bitching and complaining about every freaking issue, we run the risk of getting a spazzy, cater-to-everyone game. This is not supposed to be that game. This game is supposed to a badass, unapologetically hardcore motherfucker of an mmo.
This is the (ostensibly) last time we will get a chance to play a game made by the main force behind one of the best games we have ever played. This might be an unpopular suggestion, but might we tone it down a bit? I am not excluding myself from the frenzy, either. We are all kinda excited.
In the case of taunts, I doubt there will be any, as they have little place in rvr. We tried to discuss ways in which it COULD be a viable mechanic, and a freak out ensued.
Shot down. Big surprise.
In the end, we are all just discussing maybes and what-ifs. If anyone here thinks for a second that winning an argument against an early adopter-laden, small niche forum is going to fundamentally change this game's dynamics, that is kinda silly.
Granted, I am sure CSE will listen to the backers and use any useful ideas if they make sense within the framework of the game they have envisioned, but I really think that they should primarily make their game.
Why else would we all be so excited if we thought they couldn't?
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt