Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Tank and spank. Can it be improved upon
Antipathy
Member UncommonPosts: 1,362
Alot of current generation games, such as WoW and Everquest 2 rely on the tank and spank model for party setup. A character with good defences uses special skills to attract the attention of a monster. Meanwhile another party member heals the tank and the rest are responsible for applying damage. It can be complicated slightly be adding options such as crowd control, buffs/debuffs, off-tanking etc, but the basic model remains.
This begs the question - is it a good model? It definitely has some advantages:
1) It is relatively simple to understand. This is especially important given the number of new players who have entered the genre over the last two years (although it is instructive to note how many people who play tanking classes still don't understand the basics of holding aggro).
2) It is quick to assign roles in the party. Have we got a prot warrior? Ok - you are the tank. People can advertise when forming groups with messages such as "Have tank, need healer and one random".
When I look back on playing a game such as Guild Wars, which doesn't have this traditional setup, I seem to remember that most groups ended up with the healer healing and everyone else going off and doing their own thing. The three roles (tank/healer/dps) had been reduced to two (healer/do your own thing).
I can understand some of the frustrations with this model. It can get boring to always fulfill the same role. DPS classes have clear advantages when it comes to soloing. But what are the alternatives? I see that some of the newer games are trying to break with the model - e.g. in TCoS every class will be able to heal to some extent. But then how will grouping work? Will there be a 20 minute discussion at the start of each mission where each player discusses how their character is set up and decides how they will contribute to the group today or (more likely) will everyone not feel like holding such a discussion and go off and do their own thing?
Even playing tabletop games, such as D&D, where the tanking role is less clear and character creation is much more flexible, there are some clear advantages to playing a cliche. If you turn up to a gaming convention with a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Rogue hybrid, your character may possibly be perfectly effective, but expect to be chosen for groups behind someone who can say "I am a plate-clad fighter" or "I am a rogue".
So what is the solution? It seems to me that we need stereotypes to quickly put together pick-up groups. So if the ones we've got aren't good enough, what alternatives are out there - particularly ones that will fit into fantasy based games.
This begs the question - is it a good model? It definitely has some advantages:
1) It is relatively simple to understand. This is especially important given the number of new players who have entered the genre over the last two years (although it is instructive to note how many people who play tanking classes still don't understand the basics of holding aggro).
2) It is quick to assign roles in the party. Have we got a prot warrior? Ok - you are the tank. People can advertise when forming groups with messages such as "Have tank, need healer and one random".
When I look back on playing a game such as Guild Wars, which doesn't have this traditional setup, I seem to remember that most groups ended up with the healer healing and everyone else going off and doing their own thing. The three roles (tank/healer/dps) had been reduced to two (healer/do your own thing).
I can understand some of the frustrations with this model. It can get boring to always fulfill the same role. DPS classes have clear advantages when it comes to soloing. But what are the alternatives? I see that some of the newer games are trying to break with the model - e.g. in TCoS every class will be able to heal to some extent. But then how will grouping work? Will there be a 20 minute discussion at the start of each mission where each player discusses how their character is set up and decides how they will contribute to the group today or (more likely) will everyone not feel like holding such a discussion and go off and do their own thing?
Even playing tabletop games, such as D&D, where the tanking role is less clear and character creation is much more flexible, there are some clear advantages to playing a cliche. If you turn up to a gaming convention with a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Rogue hybrid, your character may possibly be perfectly effective, but expect to be chosen for groups behind someone who can say "I am a plate-clad fighter" or "I am a rogue".
So what is the solution? It seems to me that we need stereotypes to quickly put together pick-up groups. So if the ones we've got aren't good enough, what alternatives are out there - particularly ones that will fit into fantasy based games.
Comments
I would like alternative solutions to the Tank, Healer, Nuker situation we have in games right now. In D&D I played more strategy type scenarios where we could use caltrops well, or take advantage of the environment. The warrior in D&D is so freakishly strong that there really is no need for the Triad setup.
I have seen some things pop up in games that could be interesting alternatives. Instead of a tanker you have a delayer who's purpose is to use annoying affects to slow down or stop an enemy so your other members can nuke, its alot more useful then a tank in PVP type gameplay. There are also the games removing the healer all together opting for field bandages or infirmiries making not getting hurt more of a priority. Also there is my favorite leming approach, where alot of weak guys huddle around a strong guy; and if the strong guy falls, they all fall. Also the twitch based combat games completely get rid of the triad over squad based tactics where player skill plays the most important role.
Don't both of these approaches just replace one cliche with another? In what way are they superior approaches?
I'd say that's the case in most tabletop RPG's that implement modern firearms (e.g. shadowrun). Normally in tabletop games not getting hurt involves a lot of emphasis on planning - I have been in groups where we would spend entire sessions planning and scouting missions without a shot being fired. However I'm not sure how this would work in an MMO. Many computer game players wouldn't have the patience for such an approach.
In practice isn't this likely to degenerate into "Everyone doing their own thing"? In many ways one of the things I find attractive about the current setup is that you have to work together as a team in order to survive.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Nah. Most squad-based shooters reward teamplay, not force it. Yeah, you can load up BF2142 and just lone wolf it. If you're in a good squad, though, your effectiveness will be hugely increased. Even if you're lone wolfing it, if you play off your teammates, your effectiveness is again increased. Choice isn't really a bad thing. Part of the problem with forcing teams is that they have to reduce it to work for the common denominator. Lets be honest, teaming is meaningless in most MMORPG's. Tank spams his aggro skills, healers watches health bars, mage spams nukes.
In any case, we have seen supposed alternatives to this in upcoming titles. DAoC and TCoS supposedly both discard the typical class roles. There are no dedicated healers in either game. Guild Wars definitely discards this. There are healers, monks, but there are no real tanks. If you have some uberously tough warrior, everybody in PvP will just ignore him entirely. That's why warriors need snares, which is what Cleffy is talking about. In fact, your warriors typically end up in the role of pressuring critical spellcasters like healers on the opposite team, rather than defending your own. In Guild Wars PvE, this is true to a lesser extent, but GW PvE is fairly easy anyway, so that's kind of irrelevant. You can do just about every mission with the AI party members.
Honestly, that was the main reason I left GW. To me, it was a great game which was made only good or mediocre by the fact that you had to play it with typical MMORPG players. No originality, no tolerance for difficulty, no desire for challenge, a huge ego, and an inability to do anything but shift blame when they failed. These things are only doubly true if you have the misfortune of ending up with a "hardcore" MMORPG player.
I think the problem is with the PvE and the design of the whole system in the first place.
Currently, 'tank and spank' is favoured because it is favourably efficient. Why is efficient good? Because you're facing mob after mob... after mob...after mob. When you have that design, efficiency is better.
Now, if you look at PvP. You have less tediousness because there is more challenge. Ok a healer is still healing but he isn't exclusively healing one person like the tendency of a PvE encounter could be. Also, the healer can contribute with more than just healing. Also notably with pvp the situation is dynamic, you may have weak challenges or strong challenges
rather than a set challenge with every single encounter in an instance capable of killing your group. So, what I'm saying is. More AI and this 'efficiency' model isn't so necessary. Have less repetitiveness and the aim is not to be efficient but to complete whatever challenge is presented in front of the group.
Lastly, I question this. Why is a healer necessary in every group? Because every encounter could kill you, so much so that every player's health is worn down. The obsessive aim of typical group combat is to watch healthbars. Why? Ok I haven't completely thought this through when you change the objective from survivability but lets say this; Inside a dungeon could be 'healing waters', the aim of your group to survive to there. Mobs won't necessarily kill you, but they could poison you slowly to death over the duration of the dungeon, or they could wound you, which is where you'll use other group members to protect the wounded. Something like that, although could be challenged as to it's 'fun' factor when you completely change the aim, it is something different.
Edit: sorry I just read back through this and my English is appalling,(You can tell I flunked English at school:p) Altered to make more sense.
Other games coming down the pipe are trying drastic changes to combat system. I hear AOC has a revolutionary dynamic combat system where your available skills change on the fly. Here is hoping it works well. I hope we also get a MMOFPS with the depth, imersive world, character development, and story of a modern day MMO with the combat system of an FPS. Huxley, Tabula Rasa, or maybe Hellgate London might give us this.
So, for PvE games I think you will see the old Trinity of Tank, healer, and dps. Blah. Snooze. Cry. This is why I am turning my back on PvE content in games these days. No innovation. Look to games with a more PvP focus for new ideas.
I was just thinking about this.
What if it was the tanks job to stay between the mob and weaker members of thier group. It would be a more strategic based combat system were positoning matters. The tank would have to have abilities that intercept hostile spells as well. Basically the tank should have to act like the meat shield they are, not use agro generating abilities but literally stand between the mob and it's taget. This would also require the other members of the group to not just be aware of the mob, but the tank as well; ensuring that they keep themselves behind the tank.
It's much smarter for the mob AI to attack the weakest member of a group as long as the tank is able to still protect that person.