www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Class balance in PvP vs. PvE
Another readers' letter, this one I'm going to quote in its entire length. Except for the name at the end, because I only do that if I either have explicit permission, or the signed name is a pseudonym to start with.
Dear Tobold,Good analysis of the problem, but I have doubts whether the solution will work. I could see how you could make a taunt ability work temporarily, forcing somebody to switch target. But forcing the whole opposing group to target the tank of your group isn't going to go down well with the PvP crowd. Where is the fun if you can't even make choices of who to target?
I am a regular reader of your blog. Had an idea recently, and I think that your blog is a much better place to discuss it rather than the cesspit that is the official forums.
It is regarding class balance. In my opinion, one of the main difficulty in balancing the classes is the need to balance for 2 very different situation, PvE and PvP. The mechanics are too different between the 2, thus balancing becomes much much harder. Just one example out of many, the priest SW:Death is meant to be a burst damage skill, of much more utility in PvP. However, many shadow priests are incorporating it into their raid dps spell cycles, ignoring the mirrored damage because VE will heal them sufficiently anyways over the cycle, thus boosting their dps significantly. This is not the intended nor anticipated use of SW:D. Hence, it was nerfed recently - the cooldown is doubled now.
What is the central difference between PvP and PvE mechanics? The answer of course is the existence of threat tables for the opponent you are fighting. The opponent's choice of whom to attack is constrained. Now what if both the opposing PvP team AND your own team are similarly constrained. If properly implemented, the situation of the fight will be quite similar, designated tanks try to force the opponent to attack them, allowing damage dealers to maximize their dps in peace, while the healers try to keep the tanks alive. However, the main implication is that PvPers cannot freely target whom they attack in a group fight situation. Now, people may argue the free-for-all of the current PvP is more fun etc. However, when I imagined PvPing under these rules, I see possibility of the fights becoming much more interesting and tactical than it is currently.
What is your opinion?
But I'd be interested to hear what you think of it. The discussion is open.
- posted by Tobold @ 12:16 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Ive only been researching WAR loosely, but they seem to be going in another direction. Instead of having the holy Three og tank, heal, dps , they seem to make everyone able to do all 3, thus making everyone able to PvP.
Im not sure how this will balance out, but that seems to be a better way. Make BOTH PvE and PvP freeflowing affairs. where they target who they want.
-zutimac the minstrel
Im not sure how this will balance out, but that seems to be a better way. Make BOTH PvE and PvP freeflowing affairs. where they target who they want.
-zutimac the minstrel
# posted by 
: 14/6/07 13:17
: 14/6/07 13:17
I don't know. This could be doable, and there is precedent, albeit tangential.
A Hunter can feign death, and that forces anyone who's targeted them to drop them as a target.
"Where is the fun if you can't even make choices of who to target?" Take the argument further then... Where is the fun if you can't hold on to any target you want to. A Hunter can choose to lose you. Powerful stuff that. This works in PvE and pretty much the same in PvP, no? At least in group situations. One-on-one who falls for the stupid dead hunter trick? "Just keep whacking till brain spills out." is my strategy.
If a hunter can purposefully untarget himself, then why not give the warriors the ability to force others to target him?
The warrior could click their PvP Taunt "Look at me, NOW!" button and all eyes (and targeting) turns to, and locks on, them. And then he becomes the epitome of the very class he's supposed to be. Pally's and Druid Bears should have the same ability.
Those fighting him would then have to take a few extra steps to go out of there way to retarget their original (squishy) targets.
Does a Rogue's Vanish or Blind drop targeting?
Does a Warlock or Priests Fear? Why not?
How about a Mage's sheep. Sheeping something should detarget them. Yes, they can, sometimes, easily retarget, but make them do that step.
So far:
Class - attention move
Hunters - off of
Rogues - off of
Warlock - off of
Priest - off of
Mage - off of
Warriors - on to
Pallys - on to
Bears - on to
Druid Casters - off of
Cats - off of
Roots to disengage, combat vanish for cats like rogues have.
Leaving Shamans.
Well, who knows about them. Whatever it is it should be a hard, hard nerf. You'll only disappoint them showing them any love.
A Hunter can feign death, and that forces anyone who's targeted them to drop them as a target.
"Where is the fun if you can't even make choices of who to target?" Take the argument further then... Where is the fun if you can't hold on to any target you want to. A Hunter can choose to lose you. Powerful stuff that. This works in PvE and pretty much the same in PvP, no? At least in group situations. One-on-one who falls for the stupid dead hunter trick? "Just keep whacking till brain spills out." is my strategy.
If a hunter can purposefully untarget himself, then why not give the warriors the ability to force others to target him?
The warrior could click their PvP Taunt "Look at me, NOW!" button and all eyes (and targeting) turns to, and locks on, them. And then he becomes the epitome of the very class he's supposed to be. Pally's and Druid Bears should have the same ability.
Those fighting him would then have to take a few extra steps to go out of there way to retarget their original (squishy) targets.
Does a Rogue's Vanish or Blind drop targeting?
Does a Warlock or Priests Fear? Why not?
How about a Mage's sheep. Sheeping something should detarget them. Yes, they can, sometimes, easily retarget, but make them do that step.
So far:
Class - attention move
Hunters - off of
Rogues - off of
Warlock - off of
Priest - off of
Mage - off of
Warriors - on to
Pallys - on to
Bears - on to
Druid Casters - off of
Cats - off of
Roots to disengage, combat vanish for cats like rogues have.
Leaving Shamans.
Well, who knows about them. Whatever it is it should be a hard, hard nerf. You'll only disappoint them showing them any love.
# posted by : 14/6/07 13:35
: 14/6/07 13:35
Ahhh many thanks to Tobold!
Hmmm... just from Tobold's comment I realize immediately something is not stated clearly.
While WoW is used as an example, the discussion I hoped for is not restricted to the question of whether it is viable to force WoW PvP to adopt the exact threat mechanics of PvE mobs, although that is interesting in itself I think. I kinda hoped more for a discussion on whether it is viable to design a MMORPG with the explicit goal of achieving more or less uniform mechanics for both PvE and PvP (but still following the spirit of the tank-spank-heal trinity).
Funnily enough the first comment talked of the possibility of removing entirely the tank-spank-heal trinity and thus achieve uniform mechanics from the "other direction", so to speak. Interesting also!
Hmmm... just from Tobold's comment I realize immediately something is not stated clearly.
While WoW is used as an example, the discussion I hoped for is not restricted to the question of whether it is viable to force WoW PvP to adopt the exact threat mechanics of PvE mobs, although that is interesting in itself I think. I kinda hoped more for a discussion on whether it is viable to design a MMORPG with the explicit goal of achieving more or less uniform mechanics for both PvE and PvP (but still following the spirit of the tank-spank-heal trinity).
Funnily enough the first comment talked of the possibility of removing entirely the tank-spank-heal trinity and thus achieve uniform mechanics from the "other direction", so to speak. Interesting also!
# posted by : 14/6/07 13:44
: 14/6/07 13:44
From my experience in BGs it is very often the case, that although there is no taunt in PvP normally the 'tanks' go to the front and are healed while range DDs stand behind and try to nuke anyone in range.
So by just choosing your position you can influence your part of the fight - unlike in the raid, where the healer might stand right next to the MT sometimes...
So by just choosing your position you can influence your part of the fight - unlike in the raid, where the healer might stand right next to the MT sometimes...
# posted by : 14/6/07 14:03
: 14/6/07 14:03
Something like this could be implemented but with out forced targetting. Instead of forcing a particular target, you could make different opponents less or more attractive. Either by damage/protection buffs on targets or more (honour) etc.
If pvp had agro mechanics like pve, how would it really be any different than pve? I mean if everyone had to beatdown the tank first, then the mage/rogue, then the healer (agro tables usually go tank, dps, healers), it would just be bad pve where you played yourself and a monster at the same time.
You cannot constrain the PVP game just to make it more like PVE. No genuine PVPer wants to fight players who are forced to behave like bots.
The other approach makes more sense : Enhance the PVE game to make it more like PVP.
Guild wars has done a pretty good job of this. There is no taunt mechanism. Instead there is collision detection so tanks can physically stand in front of squishies to protect them. Mob AI is also pretty good which leads to interesting tactics like making your tank appear weak (low health or perhaps a death penalty) in order to tempt mobs to attack the tank.
The other approach makes more sense : Enhance the PVE game to make it more like PVP.
Guild wars has done a pretty good job of this. There is no taunt mechanism. Instead there is collision detection so tanks can physically stand in front of squishies to protect them. Mob AI is also pretty good which leads to interesting tactics like making your tank appear weak (low health or perhaps a death penalty) in order to tempt mobs to attack the tank.
Don't think there is any real issue there. One can design PVP scenarios that favor tanking behavior. Think of flag carrier in WSG. Druids and also plate wearers tended to be preferred for the job, though you'd see other classes carry too.
WAR may promise to be interesting. I don't see there being sense in actual target changing via taunts, but retarget enticing via debuffing sounds good.
Actually WoW does have this through immunities. If a pala BoP a current assist-trained target, the other team is inclined to switch targets. It's part of WoW group PVP strategies to try to ignore warriors to avoid hitting plate and feeding rage. This makes protecting the healers a strategic part of PVP which is actually good. You really don't want DPS and healers to be safe, you want them to be targets and contested.
WAR may promise to be interesting. I don't see there being sense in actual target changing via taunts, but retarget enticing via debuffing sounds good.
Actually WoW does have this through immunities. If a pala BoP a current assist-trained target, the other team is inclined to switch targets. It's part of WoW group PVP strategies to try to ignore warriors to avoid hitting plate and feeding rage. This makes protecting the healers a strategic part of PVP which is actually good. You really don't want DPS and healers to be safe, you want them to be targets and contested.
# posted by : 14/6/07 15:08
: 14/6/07 15:08
In games like LoTRO (where PvP is only in a special zone) I was thinking it would be a neat idea to apply buffs / nerfs to classes for that zone only. For example, if a guardian was found to be balanced in PvE but lacking damage in PvP, they could get a damage buff in the PvP zone. Once they leave the zone, they lose the buff. If a class had too much damage, a similar nerf could apply.
It gets a tad harder in games like WoW with world PvP right along side PvE. I like Warhammer Online’s ideas about collision detection and some of the other things I’ve heard. If the “tank” class in a game with collision detection has a large enough model, one could foil an enemy’s attack via LOS by jumping between them and their intented target. (Though it sounds like Warhammer’s class structure will be a little different, one could still designate a “beat-on-me” target who just runs interference and gets most of the heals while others do their thing.)
I like some of the other suggestions here too. Target / retarget abilities sound neat. Even if it’s not for a long duration but forces a quick retargetting, it could spoil someone’s casting time. Also adding additional honor, as mentioned above, for killing the tanks first could provide an incentive.
Personally, I’d be leery of implementing things like the letter suggests. Temporary taunts give the player an option to retarget at some point (either immediately or after a short time period). What they are proposing sounds too programatic to me – making players too much like mobs. Maybe I’m reading too much into it.
It gets a tad harder in games like WoW with world PvP right along side PvE. I like Warhammer Online’s ideas about collision detection and some of the other things I’ve heard. If the “tank” class in a game with collision detection has a large enough model, one could foil an enemy’s attack via LOS by jumping between them and their intented target. (Though it sounds like Warhammer’s class structure will be a little different, one could still designate a “beat-on-me” target who just runs interference and gets most of the heals while others do their thing.)
I like some of the other suggestions here too. Target / retarget abilities sound neat. Even if it’s not for a long duration but forces a quick retargetting, it could spoil someone’s casting time. Also adding additional honor, as mentioned above, for killing the tanks first could provide an incentive.
Personally, I’d be leery of implementing things like the letter suggests. Temporary taunts give the player an option to retarget at some point (either immediately or after a short time period). What they are proposing sounds too programatic to me – making players too much like mobs. Maybe I’m reading too much into it.
I have been avoiding pvp in CoX but doesn't taunt work on players there? But with more resistance and less duration?
I don't see how it's a bad idea, think about it: athletes trash talk and get in the head of another player to throw them off their game, or make them concentrate on the trash talker instead of what they should be thinking about. Dennis Rodman is a good example, the other player would be busy scrapping with him instead of being ready for the ball or a rebound.
But then again what I would like the most is to get rid of the holy trinity classes to begin with. It's why I like CoV so much.
I don't see how it's a bad idea, think about it: athletes trash talk and get in the head of another player to throw them off their game, or make them concentrate on the trash talker instead of what they should be thinking about. Dennis Rodman is a good example, the other player would be busy scrapping with him instead of being ready for the ball or a rebound.
But then again what I would like the most is to get rid of the holy trinity classes to begin with. It's why I like CoV so much.
# posted by : 14/6/07 15:11
: 14/6/07 15:11
if you have class-balance like wow you have:
Pve = chess
PvP = chess with random pieces. 5 queens, 3 bishops, 1 epon, 7rooks.
vs 4kings, 4queens, 4peons and 4knights
a perfect PvE is chess
a perfect PvP is more like checkers.
Pve = chess
PvP = chess with random pieces. 5 queens, 3 bishops, 1 epon, 7rooks.
vs 4kings, 4queens, 4peons and 4knights
a perfect PvE is chess
a perfect PvP is more like checkers.
I totally agree about needing to make PvE and PvP more similar to simplify balancing, but I'd got about it totally the opposite way. Threat tables are an anachronism, a weirdly artificial mechanism (and yes, MMOs in their entirety are weirdly artificial mechanisms where you're chucking fireballs around and hefting swords the size of a small country in one hand, but hey) where some bloke goes "YO MAMA", and someone else goes "well, I was attacking your friend over there, but now you've said 'yo mama' I feel compelled to ignore them entirely and instead focus my attacks solely upon you", so trying to stretch them onto PvP is a step backwards.
Course, you can't do anything about it in WoW or existing games where it's baked so deeply into everything, but WAR, unless I'm more vastly mistaken than a man who thinks Hillaire Belloc is alive, has collision detection in there. You physically block your opponent from getting to the squishies at the back. How that'll actually work out I'm not sure, it might be a complete disaster, they might still have a whole "YO MAMA" threat table on top of it anyway, but if you can combine collision detection with, say, something a bit like D&D style "Attacks of Opportunity" so people can't just bounce around and bunny hop (and circle strafe, dear god, please someone stop circle strafing in melee combat, give them a "dizzy" debuff and make them vomit after a couple of circuits), I think you'd go a long way to bringing PvP and PvE closer together.
[And in the time it took to write this: sounds like Guild Wars has that too. And yeah, CoH has forced-target-taunts, and it's pretty horrible. Then again, PvP as a whole in CoH is horrible, but hey, its PvE is a thing of great beauty.]
Course, you can't do anything about it in WoW or existing games where it's baked so deeply into everything, but WAR, unless I'm more vastly mistaken than a man who thinks Hillaire Belloc is alive, has collision detection in there. You physically block your opponent from getting to the squishies at the back. How that'll actually work out I'm not sure, it might be a complete disaster, they might still have a whole "YO MAMA" threat table on top of it anyway, but if you can combine collision detection with, say, something a bit like D&D style "Attacks of Opportunity" so people can't just bounce around and bunny hop (and circle strafe, dear god, please someone stop circle strafing in melee combat, give them a "dizzy" debuff and make them vomit after a couple of circuits), I think you'd go a long way to bringing PvP and PvE closer together.
[And in the time it took to write this: sounds like Guild Wars has that too. And yeah, CoH has forced-target-taunts, and it's pretty horrible. Then again, PvP as a whole in CoH is horrible, but hey, its PvE is a thing of great beauty.]
tbh, i favour more a world with tons of minions (warriors, hunters, thiefs), some wizards, no healing whatsoever, just protection and big fireballs :)
like old swg where you unlock your jedi you should be able to unlock your wizard somehow.
like old swg where you unlock your jedi you should be able to unlock your wizard somehow.
Leave WoW PvE alone!!!! It's great the way it is. If you want to mess with PvP, fine.
PvE players have suffered a lot because of all the whining by PvPers on the official forums. How many more nerfs must we suffer?
PvE players have suffered a lot because of all the whining by PvPers on the official forums. How many more nerfs must we suffer?
# posted by : 14/6/07 15:57
: 14/6/07 15:57
I personally feel there should be little change in PvE vs. PvP mechanics. This really seperates the game and makes it feel less unified. I think I wrote a responce to a post on there, or maybe it was on pallysucks. The point I made was to have a tanks "taunt" work in PvE and have the PvP just switch targets. So i'm casting a fireball on your priest, tank comes and taunts me, my fireball is now casting on the tank. If I am paying attention I can then proactivly re-target the priest. This would cause tanks to be very usefull in PvP, and use skill. By watching my casting bar they can apply the taunt right before the fire ball goes off, and maybe have a spell reflection ready for me. I feel all of the CC mechanics that are in effect for PvP, should carry over to PvE. A warlock shouldn't be able to kill elites 3 levels above him by simply fear and dots.
Blizzard has responded about the use of taunt in PvP before.
There stand is that taunt "interferes" with a players ability to control their character and will never be implemented in pvp.
The question, "what about priest MC then?" was raised but as usual we got nothing but silence from the devs on that one.
Cheers
There stand is that taunt "interferes" with a players ability to control their character and will never be implemented in pvp.
The question, "what about priest MC then?" was raised but as usual we got nothing but silence from the devs on that one.
Cheers
# posted by : 14/6/07 16:22
: 14/6/07 16:22
From Yunk: I don't see how it's a bad idea, think about it: athletes trash talk and get in the head of another player to throw them off their game, or make them concentrate on the trash talker instead of what they should be thinking about.
I think the main issue is player control. The original letter sounds too much like making players into mobs to me. A taunt retarget (where the player could re-retarget if they wanted to) or buff / debuffs would work.
So if the tank's taunt also buffed the caster of the spell against the tank (simulating a "trash talk" situation where the player is really mad at the trash talker) - it would be within the player's interest to hit the tank but it still wouldn't force that player to hit the tank if they didn't want to. They would be free to retarget and shoot the priest if they caught it in time.
On a side, but semi-related note, I wonder if it would be feasible / desireable to implement PvP / PvE so that there was no target locking. Players would have to aim their attacks manually (think Oblivion or many fps games. Instead of a taunt, give a class a mass interrupt ability. A class with that kind of ability would probably be fairly high on a player's "aggro list" and thus a defacto pvp tank.
I think the main issue is player control. The original letter sounds too much like making players into mobs to me. A taunt retarget (where the player could re-retarget if they wanted to) or buff / debuffs would work.
So if the tank's taunt also buffed the caster of the spell against the tank (simulating a "trash talk" situation where the player is really mad at the trash talker) - it would be within the player's interest to hit the tank but it still wouldn't force that player to hit the tank if they didn't want to. They would be free to retarget and shoot the priest if they caught it in time.
On a side, but semi-related note, I wonder if it would be feasible / desireable to implement PvP / PvE so that there was no target locking. Players would have to aim their attacks manually (think Oblivion or many fps games. Instead of a taunt, give a class a mass interrupt ability. A class with that kind of ability would probably be fairly high on a player's "aggro list" and thus a defacto pvp tank.
You may introduce the threat tables via a back door:
Threatlist = point list for pvp.
top of threadlist = most points
bottom of threadlist = fewer points
After every kill move the points 1 rank down (so by killing lowbies first, you yield in a very low output of pvp points, because after the first kill, rank 1 now have the worth of rank 2, rank 2 the worth of rank 3 and so on).
Small change, very big impact.
Threatlist = point list for pvp.
top of threadlist = most points
bottom of threadlist = fewer points
After every kill move the points 1 rank down (so by killing lowbies first, you yield in a very low output of pvp points, because after the first kill, rank 1 now have the worth of rank 2, rank 2 the worth of rank 3 and so on).
Small change, very big impact.
# posted by : 14/6/07 17:08
: 14/6/07 17:08
Taunt in CoX is a target lock. However, in PvP mode it's got a significant miss chance, something it doesn't have in PvE, so while you can slot it for accuracy it'll only work that way in PvP.
It (and the stalker Placate, which is a "you can't target me" tool) are also treated the same way as other forms of crowd control - if you break out you have about half a minute of immunity, and powers which free you from other forms of crowd control can also work on Taunt and Placate.
A couple archvillains will actually placate the tank rendering them untargetable while they carve up the back ranks, unless the tank has other nearby enemies to splash on or a lot of hit buffs in his damage aura.
--GF
It (and the stalker Placate, which is a "you can't target me" tool) are also treated the same way as other forms of crowd control - if you break out you have about half a minute of immunity, and powers which free you from other forms of crowd control can also work on Taunt and Placate.
A couple archvillains will actually placate the tank rendering them untargetable while they carve up the back ranks, unless the tank has other nearby enemies to splash on or a lot of hit buffs in his damage aura.
--GF
In PvE, taunt and aggro/threat tables are used to simulate a real state condition that is much harder to implement in game, collision detection. Melee in PvP is thus reduced to stealth/ambush and burst damage roles. There is no strategy involved in geography or group placement when people can simply run through one another. Until such a time when collision can be implemented without detrimental effects of latency, there will always be imbalances because a player will not respond in the same manner as an NPC.
The other key in discussing balance isn't necessarily in making the class respond differently in PvP vs PvE, rather, it should be rewarded for its contribution to group PvP objectives. How do you quantify tanking or crowd control in pvp to award it in the same manner that you can damage and healing? This to me seems as where the focus needs to be spent rather than on creating some detrimental effect to the PvE experience.
The other key in discussing balance isn't necessarily in making the class respond differently in PvP vs PvE, rather, it should be rewarded for its contribution to group PvP objectives. How do you quantify tanking or crowd control in pvp to award it in the same manner that you can damage and healing? This to me seems as where the focus needs to be spent rather than on creating some detrimental effect to the PvE experience.
PVE always suffers when the classes are balanced against PVP.
As an example, the lame and insulting short timer for mage invis, in WoW.
As an example, the lame and insulting short timer for mage invis, in WoW.
# posted by : 14/6/07 18:48
: 14/6/07 18:48
The answer is even simpler. Just make it that one abilities doesn't have the same effects when affecting a player or when affecting a mob. For example while a fireball does a 100 damage to a mob maybe it would do only 200 to a player to reflect players lower health totals.
I think one of the big problems is that games are trying to mesh PvP and PvE together. Don't! Just make them completly seperated. Want to nerf some PvP stuff? Then nerf only the PvP version of the ability, this way you don't impact PvE. Because of the human factor PvE and PvP will never be the same.
I think one of the big problems is that games are trying to mesh PvP and PvE together. Don't! Just make them completly seperated. Want to nerf some PvP stuff? Then nerf only the PvP version of the ability, this way you don't impact PvE. Because of the human factor PvE and PvP will never be the same.
Where is the fun if you can't even make choices of who to target?
Where is the fun in PvP as the two other trinity members, healers and tanks?
People don't play healers in PvP because they are ALWAYS targetted first, and they have no recourse, no protection.
People don't play tanks in PvP because they are always targetted last, and they have no recourse, no means to do the job that they are specced for, protecting their friends.
I'm a nearly epicced-out Protection spec warrior, yet I am largely useless in a BG or Arena, save as a small annoyance to a healer for stuns and shield bashes. I can't protect the people around me, enemies simply ignore me and dps down a healer. When all my healers are dead, then they dps down the dps. Then when I'm the only one left, they can finish me off at will like a boring old pet rock only to be played with when all the cool toys are broken.
Where is the fun in PvP as the two other trinity members, healers and tanks?
People don't play healers in PvP because they are ALWAYS targetted first, and they have no recourse, no protection.
People don't play tanks in PvP because they are always targetted last, and they have no recourse, no means to do the job that they are specced for, protecting their friends.
I'm a nearly epicced-out Protection spec warrior, yet I am largely useless in a BG or Arena, save as a small annoyance to a healer for stuns and shield bashes. I can't protect the people around me, enemies simply ignore me and dps down a healer. When all my healers are dead, then they dps down the dps. Then when I'm the only one left, they can finish me off at will like a boring old pet rock only to be played with when all the cool toys are broken.
I think it would be really cool to have a taunt make me target a tank, even if only to distract me from what I was healing/dps'ing. That's powerful stuff, even if it was just long enough for me to try to re-locate my previous target either by clicking/tabbing or raid frame selection.
I don't see how a taunt interferes any more with player control than any other form of CC. In all honesty, I'd rather have to retarget than be chain feared to death.
AV would be really fun if a tank I was healing charged in and taunted, giving us a moment of chaos to capitalize on. Interesting idea.
I don't see how a taunt interferes any more with player control than any other form of CC. In all honesty, I'd rather have to retarget than be chain feared to death.
AV would be really fun if a tank I was healing charged in and taunted, giving us a moment of chaos to capitalize on. Interesting idea.
I've yet to see anyone post about the method that has been touted as the "PvP taunt" for WAR. As has already been pointed out is the collision detection, which will make things very different just from the start.
In addition they are planning on giving at least some of the tanking classes (not sure if they are going to give this ability to all the classes). The "PvP Taunt" works by inflicting a debuff on the target (or targets, again unsure) that reduces their damage to any of your allies by something like 75%. Basically the enemy can continue to attack any target it wants, but it will do such reduced damage it's not worth it. So the best option is to attack the "tanking class" until it's dead thus removing it's ability to "taunt" you. Then you're free to attack whoever you want with no potentially issues. But obviously the tank will the the toughest class to kill.
It's a very interesting approach to a problem which has long plagued PvP... If it ends up working out, woot!
In addition they are planning on giving at least some of the tanking classes (not sure if they are going to give this ability to all the classes). The "PvP Taunt" works by inflicting a debuff on the target (or targets, again unsure) that reduces their damage to any of your allies by something like 75%. Basically the enemy can continue to attack any target it wants, but it will do such reduced damage it's not worth it. So the best option is to attack the "tanking class" until it's dead thus removing it's ability to "taunt" you. Then you're free to attack whoever you want with no potentially issues. But obviously the tank will the the toughest class to kill.
It's a very interesting approach to a problem which has long plagued PvP... If it ends up working out, woot!
So fear, sheep, counterspell, dispell magic, roots, interrupts, mind control, etc. are ok, even though they take away a player's control of their character, but a warrior's taunt or threat generating skills aren't?
What's wrong with taunt or threat enhancing skills generating an effect that is like "anti-fear" or berskerker rage where the effected player is forced to attack another (as opposed to fleeing from them)?
Absent a complete rethink of the whole threat fallacy, I think giving warriors a valid taunt skill in PvP is loooooong overdue.
What's wrong with taunt or threat enhancing skills generating an effect that is like "anti-fear" or berskerker rage where the effected player is forced to attack another (as opposed to fleeing from them)?
Absent a complete rethink of the whole threat fallacy, I think giving warriors a valid taunt skill in PvP is loooooong overdue.
# posted by : 14/6/07 20:08
: 14/6/07 20:08
I also think there's a subtle but imporant difference between "Being taken out of combat in a way that is either temporary or dispelable" and "Being forced to attack a certain target". First off, every ability in WoW that is spammable suffers from diminishing returns in PvP, and is dispellable in one way or another. If it's not dispellable, it's not spammable. It's how the devs balance it. In order for tanks to be effective in PvP their taunt cannot have diminishing returns nor can it have a longer cooldown than it's duration. Otherwise it will be rendered useless either immediately or eventually, and the value of the tank is annulled again. Since there is no way to balance out the lack of control placed on a taunt like ability the way people are suggesting it (force you to target the enemy tank) it's an extremely imbalanced ability.
This is especially true, in light of other abilities like Intercept. First you taunt, then you intercept away from the taunted enemy and they can't attack anyone else and you are out of range. So it's either stand around and get hit while waiting for taunt to wear off, or run after the tank and pray you can take down the stone wall before you die.
Also, counterspell and other spell interrupts do not take control away from your character, it just denies you the ability to cast. You can still melee (if you're a hybrid) or run away (if you're a pure caster). Interrupts are a very bad example.
This is especially true, in light of other abilities like Intercept. First you taunt, then you intercept away from the taunted enemy and they can't attack anyone else and you are out of range. So it's either stand around and get hit while waiting for taunt to wear off, or run after the tank and pray you can take down the stone wall before you die.
Also, counterspell and other spell interrupts do not take control away from your character, it just denies you the ability to cast. You can still melee (if you're a hybrid) or run away (if you're a pure caster). Interrupts are a very bad example.
So it sounds like taunts to just "switch targets" for a second might be ok, but not the target lock. That sounds better than forcing a player to stay targeted on someone he doesn't want to.
After all feign death causes a detarget. This screws up long casts, and also while you can just click and target them again, most hunters have macros where they FD - scatter shot and you don't have a chance to. I don't mean to rag hunters just saying it is very useful in pvp to cause a detarget even for a second.
Or adding a tohit debuff. Maybe in pvp "taunt" is "distract" and just gives them huge debuffs to their hit ability vs anyone but the taunter. Feint type skills would be the same but the debuff only applies to the feinter.
Oh someone said that's how WAR might work. Hmm
The collision detection is nice, it would be good if you had pushes and other type of moves to keep others away, not just to try to stand in front. (only if, as someone said, there are penalities for jumping around like bunnies)
Post a Comment
After all feign death causes a detarget. This screws up long casts, and also while you can just click and target them again, most hunters have macros where they FD - scatter shot and you don't have a chance to. I don't mean to rag hunters just saying it is very useful in pvp to cause a detarget even for a second.
Or adding a tohit debuff. Maybe in pvp "taunt" is "distract" and just gives them huge debuffs to their hit ability vs anyone but the taunter. Feint type skills would be the same but the debuff only applies to the feinter.
Oh someone said that's how WAR might work. Hmm
The collision detection is nice, it would be good if you had pushes and other type of moves to keep others away, not just to try to stand in front. (only if, as someone said, there are penalities for jumping around like bunnies)
# posted by : 15/6/07 15:46
: 15/6/07 15:46<< Home
