[Review] [Tank] Focused Offense

[Tesq]

Spoiler:

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.

1-well other can provide heal debuff ppl keep play sorc /wl regardless
2-tanks are dangerous they have inner utility which is not accessible to melee and better durability and are cooler....yes they also are ppl will prefer use a big /shiny armored char than tiny little bw; tought this also open problems in what is what if tanks can take the place of dd then ppl will use all tank and no more DD.
3-some sm proposal failed exatly due to sm being able to go full off in tactics and hit like a truck while remain durable as other tanks due the fact it have limit support in other field and because KOBS exist is fine as it is.
4-because it have other hard to balance utility such CC and more group oriented morales with have a greater impact so you both take 1 char with no real downside exept it need a guard and have no cc immunity so basically 4x tank new meta could be a thing if it's not done properly; the exemple is a moba; 1 = 1 with some little difference but mmorpg is different story. And if you do not want to se the rvr roam by only tanks it's better be catious.

these are my answers and im neutral on the matter.

[GodlessCrom]

1: no tank does the burst of a sorc, so that's a bit of a false equivalency. And groups still take a heal debuffer even with a sorc, it's still necessary so I dont get your counter argument. The point is that heal debuffs at necessary and the only tanks with useful heal debuffs have to use a tactic slot on them and it's an outgoing hd anyways.

2: do people use all doks and no melee dps? Do they use all archmages and shammies and no sorcs or sws? More group comp variety is good Imo, not less.

3: had trouble deciphering this one.

4: You won't know unless you test it. You're not actually providing any evidence for your arguments, just babbling on about vague what-if scenarios that are unproveable because they contain nothing other than Tesqs random opinion.

[Luth]

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.

1. Maybe after you justified that your archetype is supposed to kill a target that is healed on your own and that tanks are supposed to be "quasidps" (whatever that means).

2. A DD-healer with an incoming healdebuff is an abomination that shouldn't exist in this game in my wierd opinion.

3. No one wrote that tanks have "dps level damage"; i wrote that 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".
Offtank =/= "dps level damage" and besides, that there are or are not "nerf xy" threads doesn't prove anything. Otherwise Engis should be nerfed hard i guess.

4. No, it's not irrelevant because the core game balancing is based on the simple fact that a tank has different strengths and weaknesses than a melee DD, range DD or a healer.
That post shows pretty good how some can't see the difference between WAR/RoR and GW2 and particularly that point shows the true intention behind this proposal.

[GodlessCrom]

Okay, your opinion is cool and all but dd healers with incoming hds do exist and indeed there have already been balance changes based on making at least one of these (warrior priest) more viable. So clearly it's in the game and accepted as a viable playstyle, and the devs have not only made no mention of nerfing it, they have buffed it.

[altharion1]

1. Maybe after you justified that your archetype is supposed to kill a target that is healed on your own and that tanks are supposed to be "quasidps" (whatever that means).

2. A DD-healer with an incoming healdebuff is an abomination that shouldn't exist in this game in my wierd opinion.

3. No one wrote that tanks have "dps level damage"; i wrote that 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".
Offtank =/= "dps level damage" and besides, that there are or are not "nerf xy" threads doesn't prove anything. Otherwise Engis should be nerfed hard i guess.

4. No, it's not irrelevant because the core game balancing is based on the simple fact that a tank has different strengths and weaknesses than a melee DD, range DD or a healer.
That post shows pretty good how some can't see the difference between WAR/RoR and GW2 and particularly that point shows the true intention behind this proposal.

1. The existence of FO, dps gear and the damage mastery trees in the first place shows that the Tank archetype was designed to be a damage dealer and/or defensive - Depending on what spec you choose. The healing spec for warrior priests works, but their dps spec is pretty gimped. A lot of work went into buffing it because that spec was not viable. In the same way a tank can spec dps and do a bit of damage, it just isnt competitive in that spec.

2,3+4. It seems you essentially want to play rock, paper, scissors?

[Tesq]

2,3+4. It seems you essentially want to play rock, paper, scissors?

i think it's quite the opposite; tank feel not a tank if it goes down vs caster, allow 1 class to be fully = to a diff archtype make things more rock /paper /scissor imo.

That's why tank are durable even vs caster and nerf to their durability always failed on war. I am a tank not a wanna be tank

Tank are by their name definition hard to kill , regardless what hit them they can manage some sort of exchange but they should remain tank; even allow a almost-dd build is dangerous due all the utility a tank bring back and if multiple spec exist they can potentially escalte in more issues when all those existing spec became used in a almost dd char. That said i agree that a viable way can always be found to make the tactic both worth in pve and also in pvp

[Luth]

Spoiler:

1. Maybe after you justified that your archetype is supposed to kill a target that is healed on your own and that tanks are supposed to be "quasidps" (whatever that means).

2. A DD-healer with an incoming healdebuff is an abomination that shouldn't exist in this game in my wierd opinion.

3. No one wrote that tanks have "dps level damage"; i wrote that 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".
Offtank =/= "dps level damage" and besides, that there are or are not "nerf xy" threads doesn't prove anything. Otherwise Engis should be nerfed hard i guess.

4. No, it's not irrelevant because the core game balancing is based on the simple fact that a tank has different strengths and weaknesses than a melee DD, range DD or a healer.
That post shows pretty good how some can't see the difference between WAR/RoR and GW2 and particularly that point shows the true intention behind this proposal.

1. The existence of FO, dps gear and the damage mastery trees in the first place shows that the Tank archetype was designed to be a damage dealer and/or defensive - Depending on what spec you choose. The healing spec for warrior priests works, but their dps spec is pretty gimped. A lot of work went into buffing it because that spec was not viable. In the same way a tank can spec dps and do a bit of damage, it just isnt competitive in that spec.

2,3+4. It seems you essentially want to play rock, paper, scissors?

1. I already posted why i think FO was high likely intended to be used in PvE and DD gear + mastery trees don't create a different class.

2. I don't want to sound like a broken record.

[Penril]

Ok, both sides have explained why they think it should be a PvE or PvP tactic. Let's all drop that discussion and focus on how to make FO interesting for RvR/PvP. In the end, Aza will decide if it is a PvP/PvE tactic and whether or not do something about it.

[Tifereth]

1. The existence of FO, dps gear and the damage mastery trees in the first place shows that the Tank archetype was designed to be a damage dealer and/or defensive - Depending on what spec you choose.

Nobody is denying that tanks were supposed to have a DPS spec. The logical fallacy is that you assume they were supposed to be just
as good in doing DPS as a regular damage dealer, which there is no proof of. From what we have now, they can clearly function as DD already, and bring other stuff to the table that justifies them doing less damage/have no heal debuff. You bring the WP dps changes on RoR into this, fully ignoring that the change was too good, suddenly everybody ran DPS Wp in their premade and the change got reverted for further adjustments. I don't think turning tanks into full DPS that can be swapped for SL/WL/WH will do the inner faction balance any good, nor will it make the game significantly more interesting either.

Edit: Just saw your post now, Penril. Sorry! Spoiler/delete if necessary, I will leave it up just in case.

[peterthepan3]

Melee healers* were too strong, not the DPS WP. I think what Althi is saying is that a tank should never exceed a pure DPS at doing damage, but be able to fill in for one - if played by an exceptional player. Whereas before I would say that wasn't the case in a competitive fight (meta 6v6), for most other occasions you can fill in for a DPS given the lack of competitive groups atm.