The problem with the Dev's tank direction...

90 Tauren Warrior
10125
Can be summed up by Ghostcrawler's latest post in the last paragraph:


5) We don't think it's critical that all tanks have the same number and character of cooldowns. In fact, we think doing so would make all of the tanks play too similarly when what we actually want to do is give them each their own character, provided each can still tank any content in the game with a reasonably similar amount of effort. We give everyone a Last Stand and Shield Wall equivalent and try to have another option or two. It's okay that Blood DKs have a lot of cooldowns -- that has always been a DK thing -- as long as they aren't much more effective than other tanks.


We've gone from "Niche", to "Flavor", to "Character". They all mean the same thing.

And this is the design that keeps failing. Prot Paladins "aoe tanking" Niche in TBC. DK "cooldown/magic" Flavor in Sarth/Ulduar. Paladin AD's first incarnation. Druid "EH flavor" in ICC (particularly with how it scaled with the raidbuff). Paladin WoG "holy healing tank" flavor at cata's launch. Paladin and Warrior "Block flavor" made them superior to DKs for many jobs in tier 11+12 (aoe tanking things like nef+maloriak adds, or big melee hitters like beth). And so on to the current issues in tier 13 where absorbs trivialize mechanics that eat through blocks, ams trivializes tetanus, etc.

We keep running into encounters, and often entire tiers, where one tank's "Nicheflavorutilitycharacter" allows them to adjust the difficulty settings down a few notches. Sure, it was possible to do encounters without the 'favored' tanks; DKs could and did tank hardmode Beth, guilds went through Hyjal without a prot paladin, and not every LK kill sub 15% used a Bear tank on Arthas...but they were all doing it at a significantly higher difficulty level for no gain.

We need homogenized tank cooldowns, static mitigation and survival tools.

It's not worth the trouble to do otherwise, we get plenty of "flavor" by different playstyles; the warrior button mashing versus the DK rune/runic balancing versus the monk energy/chi style and so on. Playstyle, art style, resources and many more gameplay factors provide plenty of opportunity for "flavor" that doesn't interfere with a tank's ability to get their job done and not feel like they're holding their group back by class choice.

Ghostcrawler saying that they -want- DKs to be the tank that "has a lot of cooldowns --that has always been a DK thing --"...just seems so wrong. Especially when they follow it up with "as long as they aren't much more effective than other tanks". We've seen this design fail time and again, either DKs are overpowered for their number and frequency of cooldowns, or they're underpowered for their static mitigation being poorer as a balance to their cooldowns.

Yet here they are again trotting out that they want DKs to be defined as "having a lot of cooldowns". Their early designs are giving Bears the "EH Mastery". They're giving Warriors a banner that "CAN BE INTERVENED!!!" to give them more mobility. Why do we keep seeing the same mistakes?
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
9440
loling @ interviening to a flag on hagera. thats retarded. how about a non targeted movement speed increase? Or something like a " Blood of thing enemy" which for so many secondy seconds would heal you for like 50% of the damage you do. I mean that would be rad.
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Warrior
5755
Would you really want a game where all the tanks were homogenized to the point of just being copies of each other? I really enjoy tanking and part of the way I keep it interesting and fresh is that I have every tanking class at 85 and fully DS geared.

I enjoy the different play styles that come with the different tanks. If all tanks were the same just with different names to their abilities I would for sure be burnt out on tanking by now and I think that would be far worse for the game than having some tanks worse than others in different situations.

In the end I think it works out for the most part. Every tank class is capable of tanking anything in the game at the moment so it's not like some tanking class just aren't being utilized at all. Certain classes will be better on some fights but then other classes will be optimal for other fights. That's just the nature of a complex MMO. I truly thing that you take away from the game at some point when you homogenize to the extent that the difference between classes are aesthetic and not mechanical.
Reply Quote
1 Draenei Paladin
0
04/07/2012 12:54 AMPosted by Migol
Why do we keep seeing the same mistakes?


You 'keep seeing the same mistakes' because you purposely look for things you don't like and label them as mistakes.

Meanwhile, the game has been chugging along just fine.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Warrior
10125
Would you really want a game where all the tanks were homogenized to the point of just being copies of each other? I really enjoy tanking and part of the way I keep it interesting and fresh is that I have every tanking class at 85 and fully DS geared.

I enjoy the different play styles that come with the different tanks. If all tanks were the same just with different names to their abilities I would for sure be burnt out on tanking by now and I think that would be far worse for the game than having some tanks worse than others in different situations.

As I said before, it's fine to have all the differences in the world for playstyle, utility, direction, whatever. I'd simply like them to say "Ok, each tank starts at 15% magic and physical mitigation, has an ability that reduces melee attacks by 30% which occurs at the same frequency, their avoidance levels at equal gear should be within a percent or two, and they have the "Shield Wall" and "Last stand" cooldowns with mostly cosmetic differences".

That leaves plenty of room for "play styles". DKs work on runes for deathstrike via Rune Strike, tap, and watching rune cooldowns. Versus the Warrior who autoattacks and fishes for shield slam procs to reach enough rage to hit shield block. Versus the Paladin who builds up Holy power but starts with full mana. All of these are very different systems and playstyles, I just want to see the end result homogenized to where a DS/Block/Guard/SD is as effective as the other in all situations. And tbh, that's the least important part to me, I'd very easily settle for "equal mitigation, health/armor levels, and cooldowns", with variation to the block/absorb mechanics. It's the mitigation and cooldowns in particular that we keep stumbling on.


In the end I think it works out for the most part. Every tank class is capable of tanking anything in the game at the moment so it's not like some tanking class just aren't being utilized at all. Certain classes will be better on some fights but then other classes will be optimal for other fights. That's just the nature of a complex MMO. I truly thing that you take away from the game at some point when you homogenize to the extent that the difference between classes are aesthetic and not mechanical.


Again, we keep seeing places where one tank is at a very substantial advantage or disadvantage, that's the problem. My guild had all kinds of issues on heroic Beth'tilac for example because my DK offtank just kept falling over dead in phase 2. I use my DK for our alt runs and want to laugh at the night and day difference on the madness encounter when my DK can trivialize impales and tetanus, where my warrior may need a Bres.
Edited by Migol on 4/7/2012 1:54 AM PDT
Reply Quote
3 Blood Elf Paladin
0
04/07/2012 12:54 AMPosted by Migol
we get plenty of "flavor" by different playstyles; the warrior button mashing versus the DK rune/runic balancing versus the monk energy/chi style and so on

I would hardly call that plenty of flavor, tanking flavor IMO must come from, you know, tanking differently.
They're giving Warriors a banner that "CAN BE INTERVENED!!!" to give them more mobility. Why do we keep seeing the same mistakes?

Would you seriously suggest that say DK's get intervene, charge and heroic leap?
I mean that sounds stupid but the warriors mobility put them at the top pos for tanking/kiting bloods on spine. Clearly this 'flavor' of warrior mobility needs to be abolished.
We need homogenized tank cooldowns, static mitigation and survival tools.

AMS for all?
04/07/2012 12:54 AMPosted by Migol
ams trivializes tetanus, etc.

So does bubble and heroic leap, it is far from necessary.
04/07/2012 12:54 AMPosted by Migol
It's not worth the trouble to do otherwise,

Everyones charactor should just be automatically replaced by an equal level druid. Would really solve a lot of issues.
-All tanks/healers/ranged dps/melee dps would be equal with others of the same role.
-Less chance of loot going to waste when everyone uses leather.
-More loot options for all characters.
-Everyone has access to all 4 roles!

Then you could have glyphs like
-Glyph of DK, your barkskin now resembles a large green egg encapsulating you and your AoE moves have horrible spell effects and sounds.
-Glyph of Warrior, You learn a new ability called Heroic leap, it shares a cooldown with charge and does the exact same thing. You also have a shield on your back when in bear form, this gives you a 50% chance to block. Blocking does nothing.
-Glyph of Paladin, Rage is now called Holy Power and your fur turns into optic fibre.

Tanks having 'flavor' can create imbalance, but I think encounter design is really what can cause issues. You either make tanks different and try to make encounters not punish some tanks over others, or you can make tanks the same and not worry about balancing encounters between tanks,
The latter is safer and easier, but I would argue takes away the point of having different tanking classes, and makes the game feel kinda dull.
Reply Quote
3 Blood Elf Paladin
0
04/07/2012 01:44 AMPosted by Migol
My guild had all kinds of issues on heroic Beth'tilac for example because my DK offtank just kept falling over dead in phase 2

Well, the block tanks won't be block capped all the time now, so this may make things more balanced in situations such as this.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Druid
17755
You tried to make a point, made the wrong point, used bad examples, failed miserably and can't stop whining about one War Banner/Intervene comment to the point of bringing it into a discussion it has absolutely no place in.

Yep, classic Migol thread.
Edited by Slashlove on 4/7/2012 6:11 AM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
12800
GC's remarks on gameplay concern me more.

We are experimenting with a new proc, currently called Ultimatum, in which Devastate has a chance to make the next Heroic Strike or Cleave free.

This is not a good idea, as it fulfills the request without addressing the problem, creating another exception to an already inconsistent resource system and unwisely redefining a signature ability.

When tanks will always choose survival over damage-dealing, one can 1) re-categorize abilities so that almost all of them accomplish the former and some of them automatically accomplish the latter, making choices more difficult/complex; or 2) trivialize the opportunity cost of competing choices, eliminating most decision-making and placing gameplay on rails.

Option 2 is detrimental to a game's depth and appeal, yet it's modus operandi for Blizzard right now. I'm mystified.

.
Having Devastate lead to better mitigation would mean you had to prioritize the no-cooldown Devastate above other attacks such as Storm Bolt.

Well, of course Storm Bolt is devalued if a free attack improves mitigation!

This problem is mostly of Blizzard's recent making. Since the devs don't want other abilities to interfere with the Shield Block bucket, most attacks have zero rage cost. Because dead GCDs make Jack a dull boy, Devastate's cooldown was reverted. Add a mitigation component, and it's a no-brainer.

But if Devastate has a rage cost that forces a player to weigh its mitigation component against its resource sink (http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/4366246929) — well, suddenly a GCD on a free, high-damage ability looks attractive every 30 seconds or so.
Reply Quote
85 Worgen Death Knight
10585
Yet here they are again trotting out that they want DKs to be defined as "having a lot of cooldowns". Their early designs are giving Bears the "EH Mastery". They're giving Warriors a banner that "CAN BE INTERVENED!!!" to give them more mobility. Why do we keep seeing the same mistakes?


That leaves plenty of room for "play styles". DKs work on runes for deathstrike via Rune Strike, tap, and watching rune cooldowns. Versus the Warrior who autoattacks and fishes for shield slam procs to reach enough rage to hit shield block. Versus the Paladin who builds up Holy power but starts with full mana. All of these are very different systems and playstyles, I just want to see the end result homogenized to where a DS/Block/Guard/SD is as effective as the other in all situations. And tbh, that's the least important part to me, I'd very easily settle for "equal mitigation, health/armor levels, and cooldowns", with variation to the block/absorb mechanics. It's the mitigation and cooldowns in particular that we keep stumbling on.


Again, we keep seeing places where one tank is at a very substantial advantage or disadvantage, that's the problem. My guild had all kinds of issues on heroic Beth'tilac for example because my DK offtank just kept falling over dead in phase 2. I use my DK for our alt runs and want to laugh at the night and day difference on the madness encounter when my DK can trivialize impales and tetanus, where my warrior may need a Bres.


Do you think you could write a paragraph about tanking in which you don't try to make warrior tanking sound like some kind of titanic struggle, where warriors are thrown to the wolves by the dev's and in a brutally inferior position?

The grass is greener thing is old man, like you've been doing this for years old. Maybe its time to put aside some bias and make a post worth reading.
Reply Quote
90 Human Paladin
8390
04/07/2012 08:01 AMPosted by Nìkolus
Maybe its time to put aside some bias and make a post worth reading.


This. If you don't like it, gtfo. That's what I did when I wasn't happy with the game's direction. I'll never understand people who pay money to play something they hate.
Reply Quote
90 Pandaren Warrior
11615
<comes riding to Migol's defense on a NOT white horse, in far less then shiny armor>
Warriors have become the engineers of tanking.
Cool knick knacks, but less then solid on tank style.

Anytime a guild says "Bring your 392 DK tank over your 398 War tank" you know something somewhere went wrong.

-Glyph of Warrior, You learn a new ability called Heroic leap, it shares a cooldown with charge and does the exact same thing. You also have a shield on your back when in bear form, this gives you a 50% chance to block. Blocking does nothing.

I laughed. Welcome to MoP?

While I don't agree with Migol's theories; I support the fact that since the end of TBC warriors have generally been trivialized.
The OP period we had end of ICC and the H-version of ToC has really been our only time to shine.
Slowly by slowly (since TBC) alot of tanks seem to be migrating out of prot war to a different tank class (and not just because of differing the play styles).
Warriors aren't at a disadvantage, but we could stand to have a OP tool in our box.

(Was that some quality "titanic, struggle walk-to-school-in-snow-both-ways" posting?)
Reply Quote
90 Troll Warrior
16215
04/07/2012 01:32 AMPosted by Mancake
Would you really want a game where all the tanks were homogenized to the point of just being copies of each other? I really enjoy tanking and part of the way I keep it interesting and fresh is that I have every tanking class at 85 and fully DS geared.

Is all that keeps DK and Warrior tanking separate for you that your DK presses AMS, and you ask for a Sac?

I really don't understand how people feel that tank cooldowns we press three times a fight and completely passive defense mechanics are all that keeps the tanks feeling different.
Reply Quote
90 Night Elf Druid
13785
04/07/2012 01:44 AMPosted by Holybubble
-Glyph of Paladin, Rage is now called Holy Power and your fur turns into optic fibre.


WTB

That is all.
Reply Quote
17 Dwarf Paladin
70
04/07/2012 12:54 AMPosted by Migol
- that has always been a DK thing -- as long as they aren't much more effective than other tanks.


Guess they didnt pay attention to how DKs were much more effective on quite a few fights. War/pal vs a DK on yorsahj is the most glaring. AMS is a significant cool down that devs seem to like to ignore and pretend its not extremely powerful.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Death Knight
0
I agree with Migols first post but based on his other posts I think he wants to homogenize the classes too much. I think we could keep our current playstyles, like block tanks and DKs reactive/absorb model as long as they all affected the same attacks. Which is why I have been advocating balancing CDs and magic mitigation between all the tanks and making all boss abilities on the hit table physical and everything off magic.
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Warrior
5755
04/07/2012 10:03 AMPosted by Sildas
Would you really want a game where all the tanks were homogenized to the point of just being copies of each other? I really enjoy tanking and part of the way I keep it interesting and fresh is that I have every tanking class at 85 and fully DS geared.

Is all that keeps DK and Warrior tanking separate for you that your DK presses AMS, and you ask for a Sac?

I really don't understand how people feel that tank cooldowns we press three times a fight and completely passive defense mechanics are all that keeps the tanks feeling different.


Use those critical thinking skills you were supposed to learn in High School and maybe you'd realize that you can't homogenize tank CD's without homogenizing the rest of their rotation and still maintain a sense of balance among tanks.
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
9275
I disagree. This is not *the* problem with the Dev's tank direction. This is *a* problem with the Dev's tank direction.

I think a certain amount of homogenization among the tank classes is probably warranted. As Sildas has stated in multiple threads, cooldowns that are pushed two or three times per boss encounter should hardly be considered as "class defining". Uses a 2-hander? Class defining. Mauls faces? Class defining. Smacks things with shield? Class defining. Handing tools to each class that allow them to manage their damage intake in a similar fashion every couple of minutes does not inherently adjust the "flavor" of a class. However, failing to do so creates disparities among the tanking classes and inevitably makes certain classes more desirable than others.

Having said that, I honestly don't believe that this is the most important thing for the Devs to tackle in their iterations before MoP. I am far more concerned about the itemization issues that are going to be caused by the prioritization of hit and expertise as secondary stats. But that's another topic for another post.

Edit: I was rushed and the conclusion to the second paragraph didn't make much sense.
Edited by Sceilence on 4/7/2012 5:18 PM PDT
Reply Quote
85 Night Elf Warrior
1825
04/07/2012 12:10 PMPosted by Mancake
Use those critical thinking skills you were supposed to learn in High School and maybe you'd realize that you can't homogenize tank CD's without homogenizing the rest of their rotation and still maintain a sense of balance among tanks.


This.

There is no good reason tanks should have different CDs.
Reply Quote
90 Tauren Warrior
10125
04/07/2012 11:59 AMPosted by Deathtime
I agree with Migols first post but based on his other posts I think he wants to homogenize the classes too much. I think we could keep our current playstyles, like block tanks and DKs reactive/absorb model as long as they all affected the same attacks. Which is why I have been advocating balancing CDs and magic mitigation between all the tanks and making all boss abilities on the hit table physical and everything off magic.
]

Well, as I said in the other one "And tbh, that's the least important part to me, I'd very easily settle for "equal mitigation, health/armor levels, and cooldowns", with variation to the block/absorb mechanics. It's the mitigation and cooldowns in particular that we keep stumbling on."

Blocking mechanics may well be the part that would be impossible to homogenize without making the classes nigh identical. Ok, I can accept that as a valid line of reasoning.

But I don't buy any of the arguments as to why one tank needs to have so much higher passive magic mitigation, one tank needs to be the "cooldown" tank, and so on. Mitigation and EH levels should be equal, and cooldowns should be equal.

These are the basic metrics for tanks, there shouldn't be one tank who takes significantly less damage from a boss ability simply because of his class choice, and not because of any skill or reflexes on his part. There shouldn't be one tank who has multiple cooldowns available for a dragon's breath while another needs to hope his disc priest has pain suppression ready. There shouldn't be one tank who takes significantly more damage from melee to balance his high number of cooldowns.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]