I think one point needs to be clarified once again, because part of the discussion is still going in a direction that is not what I was talking about.
I am not talking about solo play, and I am absolutely not asking for the game to be balanced around 1v1.
I used the example of a DPS facing a full defensive tank only as a theoretical example to isolate the intrinsic characteristics of the two roles. It is a way of looking at what defensive investment actually produces, not a demand regarding solo gameplay.
For me, a tank is obviously meant to be played in a group. Its role is to protect its group, control space, control enemy players, use Guard, Challenge, CC, positioning, collision, etc. On that point, I think we almost all agree.
And contrary to what some replies seem to assume, my conclusion is not: “tanks need to be buffed.”
I actually start from the assumption that tanks are currently fairly well balanced overall.
What I find much more interesting after reading all the replies is the interaction between tank defenses and the offensive tools available today.
Several people have raised this point as well: undefendable attacks, proc damage, damage that bypasses certain defensive mechanics, extremely high offensive pressure, very short TTK in some situations, etc.
And that is probably much closer to the question I was trying to ask.
If a tank invests heavily in block, parry, disrupt, armour and other defensive stats, but an increasing portion of incoming damage goes through regardless of those investments, then perhaps the issue is not that the tank lacks defense.
Perhaps it is simply that the effective value of defensive stats is reduced against certain forms of damage.
That is an important distinction.
Directly increasing tank defenses could create tanks that are far too resistant when they are properly supported by their group. I completely understand that argument, and I do not want that.
However, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether all the methods that currently allow defenses to be bypassed or neutralised have gradually changed the balance between offensive and defensive investment.
That is also why the comments about Guard, positioning, control or group utility do not really contradict what I am saying. Yes, that is exactly what a tank is supposed to do. And yes, its defensive investment can bring enormous value to its group.
The question is rather: do offensive and defensive systems still interact in a sufficiently coherent way?
I also found the comments from Jajcek12 and nocturnalguest very interesting on another point: rewarding tank gameplay is not necessarily a matter of raw survivability.
A good punt, a Guard swap at the right moment, a Challenge, body blocking or good positioning can completely decide a fight, while their impact is much less immediately visible than the damage dealt by a DPS.
That is probably also part of the problem when we talk about whether defensive tank gameplay is “rewarding.”
So today, I would reframe the discussion like this:
Are tanks too weak? Probably not.
Do tanks need to be buffed overall? I do not think so.
But is the amount of undefendable damage, proc damage and mechanics that allow defenses to be bypassed currently too high?
And above all:
when a player invests heavily in a defensive stat, should that stat have a sufficiently coherent response to the opponent’s offensive investments, rather than simply being ignored by part of the incoming damage?
That is the interaction I find interesting to discuss.
Because ultimately, the goal is certainly not to make tanks immortal.
The goal would rather be to ensure that defensive and offensive choices remain genuinely meaningful, and that there is a clear logic of trade-offs and counterplay between the two.
And I think that is much more interesting to discuss than reducing the topic to “just another solo player who wants to make his tank impossible to kill.”
