Lock Tanking "Why's"

100 Worgen Warlock
12565
lol =D
i stopped raiding awhile ago so im okay with that
Reply Quote
02/26/2013 04:25 PMPosted by Divergent
You sound really bitter about a significant portion of the community wanting or agreeing with the concept of Warlock tanks.


With all due respect; but where do you see a "significant" portion of the community agreeing with this concept?

@Spirit, isn't LFR gear acceptable to raid in or were you just trying to call someone out because their warlock isn't as geared as yours?
Edited by Gloninn on 2/27/2013 12:12 PM PST
Reply Quote
100 Human Warrior
14420

I can get my shaman to tank stone guards if I really wanted to. Doesn't mean it's viable to consider. I remember a resto shaman "tanking" Prince Melchazar in Kara back in BC by keeping healing aggro on him. And no, he wasn't overgeared.

They also don't have the crit reduction talent so if you want to play the game of "Why are they given this if not meant to tank" I'll counter that with "Why aren't we given crit removal if we are intended to tank."

Quite frankly don't be surprised if/when Blizzard removes the DA glyph in the next expansion and labels it a failed experiment at giving players fun stuff.


Okay, so since your shaman doesn't have 500% threat increase, AC increase, or a taunt, your comparison is 100% invalid (factual statistic).

Second, the lack of crit reduction is in no way comparable to the inclusion of taunt, threat increase, ac increase, ETC. Including items which are directly linked to tanking eludes to the possibility of tanking as a warlock. Why include them if it's not an intended use? What purpose would that serve?

See, how I see it from your posts is. You are bitter for some reason and don't want warlocks to tank. You fail to make any valid arguments and instead just simply result with rah rah negative negative.

I ask that we please be constructive and productive going forward so a thread which could be valuable isn't locked for such.
Edited by Nethril on 2/27/2013 7:43 PM PST
Reply Quote
Why include them if it's not an intended use? What purpose would that serve?


The glyphs intended use was to make warlocks have the ability to tank in case the "real" tank went down for whatever reason. The glyph was horribly unbalanced at first and made warlock "tanks" into gods. That's the reason it was basically nerfed into oblivion.
Reply Quote
90 Orc Warlock
10375
IT GIVES YOU PERMA WINGS DURRR ONLY REASON IT'S THERE
Reply Quote
100 Orc Warlock
12975
I'd personally love to have the option, and I can't see why any warlock main would resist additional OPTIONAL utility if it was done in a reasonable way and didn't gimp the current demo spec.

There are those that feel having the ability to tank would put pressure on the warlock to tank for their guild (and they seem to be players "vacationing" on warlock alts to get away from tanking/healing on the classes they actually care about as often as not). To that I can only say... grow some stones. There are plenty of hybrids that refuse to tank/heal, and I doubt most of them would qualify as beacons of heroic willpower for that reason alone.
Reply Quote
90 Undead Warlock
14460
Took much longer than expected for Divergent to post. For shame.

I took the DA glyph in my Demo spec purely for the ability to grab and kill groups of mobs easily, or save a possible wipe in a Heroic Dungeon. I would never think to subject innocent people to dealing with me tanking a raid.
Reply Quote
100 Gnome Warlock
15120
The point of the DA glyph is to make up for the mistakes of your tank being dumb on spirit kings when one of the healers decided to derp it up with annihilate early on.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Warlock
14465
02/27/2013 07:29 PMPosted by Nethril
Okay, so since your shaman doesn't have 500% threat increase, AC increase, or a taunt, your comparison is 100% invalid (factual statistic).


No, but he does have a fixate, shield, and 30% increase threat/5% less damage through rockbiter. Clearly we have the foundation for tanking. Blizzard just totally needs to give it to us!

02/27/2013 07:29 PMPosted by Nethril
Second, the lack of crit reduction is in no way comparable to the inclusion of taunt, threat increase, ac increase, ETC.


Kind of is because getting instagibbed because you got crit typically means a wipe, or a sloppy/barely missed kill.

Why include them if it's not an intended use? What purpose would that serve?


Because everything given must be viable for end-game. Why does Blizzard give tanks vengeance if it can't be used in PvP? I mean, why do tanks even need to do damage. It's called threat modifying attacks.

You are bitter for some reason and don't want warlocks to tank. You fail to make any valid arguments and instead just simply result with rah rah negative negative.


I don't want my pure to be turned to a hybrid. Just that simple. Just because you don't like my arguments doesn't make them invalid. Yes, there are mechanics available for warlocks to tank. Part of it is there, and they could make it work if they wanted. Part of it is in shamans too, but guess what? They can also use 2Hs, yet it's completely unsupported by Blizzard.

Like I said before I think the DA glyph was a mistake on Blizzard's part to introduce a bit of flavor, fun, uniqueness, and whatever. I won't be the slightest bit surprised to see it get removed some point in time with the label of failed experiment.

02/27/2013 07:29 PMPosted by Nethril
I ask that we please be constructive and productive going forward so a thread which could be valuable isn't locked for such.


IE: If you don't support warlock tanking then get out.

02/26/2013 06:08 PMPosted by Divergent
I still couldn't find the GC quote that said this after looking at his twitter. Lok brought it up and I do trust him, but I'd very much like to see the wording of his tweet before I take it at face value.


I don't know if GC was the one who said it. I saw it on MMO.

02/26/2013 06:08 PMPosted by Divergent
I can see nothing in that reaction of theirs that would contradict my assertion. While I may have exaggerated a tad, as it may of course have a slight impact


The post I was referring to in which Blizzard doesn't even believe that people can simply ignore a new spec without getting dragged into it was of a different post. Again, I saw it on MMO. If I wanted to dig it up I could, but that's a lot of work, and I really don't care if you believe me or not because it doesn't change that it happened. It was posted by a blue, and it's on MMO champ somewhere within the last month or so.

the logical decision on Blizzard's part would be to leave the specs as they are and give the tankign spec as a fourth spec.


If by logical you mean "If Blizzard went through with warlock tanking", but then again of course they would do that if they went through with it. They tried balancing dps and tanking for druids and gave up. That doesn't change the point of the post in that people simply don't get the ability to ignore an aspect of their class unless they are more casual. The higher up you are in the progression raiding roster the less ability you have to say no to particular ideas/strategies/respec. Go fill out an app for a heroic raiding guild sometime and let me know if they don't ask you are you willing to respec for the guild. And then let me know how it goes when you tell them no. To think everyone and anyone can just ignore a spec because they don't like it is naive.

02/28/2013 03:26 AMPosted by Moonisagano
IT GIVES YOU PERMA WINGS DURRR ONLY REASON IT'S THERE


This too.
Edited by Varlth on 2/28/2013 8:35 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Human Warlock
16820
I don't know how to feel about this issue. IF they only changed it so that taunt worked and we had crit reduction yes it's be pretty great and I'd actually tank some, but if they changed dps demo in ANY way there'd be huge backlash.

As for the point of the glyph, mostly for fun/5 mans right now. Plus I forget which but a blue even mentioned it was for "oh !@#$" moments, like an arms warr going sword and board and popping defensive cds when a tank goes down.


I saw that post actually. My issue there is, the only times when "oh !@#$" moments really come up and would need a tank to go into action are on raid bosses. If I am arms and I have an oh S moment, sword / board, taunt, shieldwall. Wouldn't work for the lock because the boss is immune.


Of course it works for the lock, all things being equal, the lock should be the second on threat. They don't need the taunt to actually "taunt" the boss, if they're worth their salt as an actual dps lock, they're extremely high on threat due to very good damage coupled with the added threat locks get from self healing, and the high amount of threat that their taunt still gives, the threat still happens, it just doesn't force a target switch like other taunts.

How do you think these, "I was the hero of lfr, 5 man heroic dungeon" posts even exist?

It's the same uninformed reasoning behind the "i hold threat better then other tanks in lfr and 5 mans". Of course those locks do, they leap into the fray with 500% threat, the other tanks have NO vengeance, kinda makes it tough to build up threat for them.

We know peeps like the idea, and the forum search function could easily have illustrated that, so unless someone has some vids of them tanking current end game content, not trivial 5 mans or lfr, because pretty much any spec with some decent self healing and damage mitigaton cds can do that. (Like half of them in game) This topic has been beaten to death like others have said.

Something new, or just add to one of the other threads, would help eliminate alot of this clutter.

Also, probably best to remember to bring this up during the next beta, that's the only time a change of this caliber would happen.
Reply Quote
100 Human Warrior
14420
02/28/2013 08:32 AMPosted by Varlth
No, but he does have a fixate, shield, and 30% increase threat/5% less damage through rockbiter. Clearly we have the foundation for tanking. Blizzard just totally needs to give it to us!


Which just furthers my point, why? It makes no sense what-so-ever.

02/28/2013 08:32 AMPosted by Varlth
Kind of is because getting instagibbed because you got crit typically means a wipe, or a sloppy/barely missed kill.


You missed the point. Including an item is different than excluding. The argument of exclusion doesn't apply to counter or explain the question of inclusion.

02/28/2013 08:32 AMPosted by Varlth
Because everything given must be viable for end-game. Why does Blizzard give tanks vengeance if it can't be used in PvP? I mean, why do tanks even need to do damage. It's called threat modifying attacks.


Taunt also doesn't do anything in PVP. 500% threat doesn't apply to PVP. It applies to no aspect of the game that is applicable, and appears to be a huge waste of effort on blizzards part and the cause of a lot of frustration to people in the capacity it currently is.

02/28/2013 08:32 AMPosted by Varlth
I don't want my pure to be turned to a hybrid. Just that simple. Just because you don't like my arguments doesn't make them invalid. Yes, there are mechanics available for warlocks to tank. Part of it is there, and they could make it work if they wanted. Part of it is in shamans too, but guess what? They can also use 2Hs, yet it's completely unsupported by Blizzard.


What is being "pure" other than a names-sake? Who really cares if it's pure or hybrid? That serves no purposes but limits others enjoyment for the purpose of ...... limiting their enjoyment? It does nothing to affect you if they add it without affecting the 3 current DPS spec's.

02/28/2013 08:32 AMPosted by Varlth
Like I said before I think the DA glyph was a mistake on Blizzard's part to introduce a bit of flavor, fun, uniqueness, and whatever. I won't be the slightest bit surprised to see it get removed some point in time with the label of failed experiment.


It should have been removed instead of giving people hope then snatching it away.

02/28/2013 08:32 AMPosted by Varlth
IE: If you don't support warlock tanking then get out.


Actually, your input has been helpful.. Other than the fact that you started aggressive in your first post and continued to do so. The portions that weren't constructive were when you chose to initially post a response to one snippet of my post, neglecting to mention the supporting facts surrounding it, and doing so in a derogatory fashion.

02/28/2013 08:32 AMPosted by Varlth
If by logical you mean "If Blizzard went through with warlock tanking", but then again of course they would do that if they went through with it. They tried balancing dps and tanking for druids and gave up. That doesn't change the point of the post in that people simply don't get the ability to ignore an aspect of their class unless they are more casual. The higher up you are in the progression raiding roster the less ability you have to say no to particular ideas/strategies/respec. Go fill out an app for a heroic raiding guild sometime and let me know if they don't ask you are you willing to respec for the guild. And then let me know how it goes when you tell them no. To think everyone and anyone can just ignore a spec because they don't like it is naive.


They can ignore spec's. Ret pallies ignore Prot. Ele shamans ignore Resto. It happens all of the time..... I'm not sure how anything about it is naive. Except your post that it is naive.

Which falls back onto the constructive portion. Saying the opposite of your opinion is naive is an example of what I am referring to. Stating your opinions, which again have had some value, are good, just not while being derogatory.

As a good friend said. There is nothing wrong with giving more abilities. If you don't want to use them, then don't use them.
Edited by Nethril on 2/28/2013 12:52 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Warlock
14465
Which just furthers my point, why? It makes no sense what-so-ever.


Because Blizzard is silly. Either that or Blizzard wants to leave those half-tank mechanics in the game for when they create unique caster tank encounters.

You missed the point. Including an item is different than excluding. The argument of exclusion doesn't apply to counter or explain the question of inclusion.


Not when the class can use an item that is practically exclusive to tanking. Shamans were designed to be off-tanks in Vanilla. So they have several old mechanics still in them. Shields is one of them.

What is being "pure" other than a names-sake? Who really cares if it's pure or hybrid? That serves no purposes but limits others enjoyment for the purpose of ...... limiting their enjoyment? It does nothing to affect you if they add it without affecting the 3 current DPS spec's.


The right to be at the top of the charts. I already pointed this out earlier. Blizzard doesn't have a hard set-in-stone hybrid tax. They used to in WoTLK when they said we want all pures to be at least 5% (I believe) above hybrids because hybrids have the ability to respec and be whatever the situation calls for. Then they recanted and said...ok...reality is being a hybrid isn't that much more advantageous because once the encounter starts you're either a DPS, tank, or healer...HOWEVER, we still want pures to be slightly ahead considering that they can do nothing but DPS.

02/28/2013 12:51 PMPosted by Nethril
It should have been removed instead of giving people hope then snatching it away.


Blizzard keeps saying no to warlock tanking. They have always said no. Any hope people have is their own self-created hope and dreams. Don't blame Blizzard for that.

I'm also really upset that Blizzard made warlocks scale with spirit in WoTLK. I totally thought that meant I might get a healer spec someday.

They can ignore spec's. Ret pallies ignore Prot. Ele shamans ignore Resto. It happens all of the time..... I'm not sure how anything about it is naive. Except your post that it is naive.


It's naive because it shows that you've never experienced high end content besides normals, nerfed normals, and maybe nerfed heroics. I don't know how else to explain it to you. If you ever raid content at a serious level you'd understand. That's what makes it naive.

There is more leniency in 25s because you have more options and a bigger roster, but that's about it.

As a good friend said. There is nothing wrong with giving more abilities. If you don't want to use them, then don't use them.


Doesn't work that way in the competitive or even semi-competitive raiding world. I'm not that fond of Demo, but I'm in a 10 man guild and Demo does great AoE DPS. Think I'll be able to just ignore Demo for an AoE fight in 5.2? "Yeah sorry guildies, I know Demo is great for this fight, but I hate it. Sorry, the rest of you will just have to work a lot harder on AoE DPS. What do you mean I've been replaced by another Aff/Demo warlock?"
Edited by Varlth on 2/28/2013 1:24 PM PST
Reply Quote
100 Human Warrior
14420
Rather than quoting and responding, I will just respond.

I have alot of experience with high end raiding and end game content. My current progression is so short because I had taken a break from WoW. I do not raid "Hard Core" any more because I don't have that kind of time, but believe me, I understand the challenges with raiding.

With that said, we have to draw a distinction between role and spec. When it comes to raiding end game content, you will always get to choose your role. You may be asked to perform another role, but you always have the option of which role you wish to play (Roles being Tank, Heals, DPS). You are most certainly correct that within the DPS roles, it is very common a class is locked into a single spec to perform adequately. Still, you wouldn't be forced to tank if you are performing adequately at your DPS role. As for the last point of "if you don't like it, don't use it" - that is referring to tank abilities vs dps abilities. If you don't want to tank, don't tank. If you don't want to DPS, don't DPS.

I for example have a DK in my group that is an extraordinary tank. She however is also an amazing DPS (the top DPS in our group). Due to her ability to perform at either role, I allow her to choose which one she wishes to play as.

Since hybrid tax no longer exists, the purity desire is..... not something I understand at all. If they were to try to add a third option to warrior (my main character of choice and typically only class I play), I would not be against it what-so-ever. I'm not sure what a healing warrior would do and how that would work, but I wouldn't be against having more options available.

As for saying no to tanking, we fall back on: why add all of those abilities and give the warlock class the ability to be that close then? I couldn't see a company putting time into something they never intended to be applied to any practical use in the game. They wasted an entire glyph on .... nothing of value? It just seems ...... odd and impractical.

Now as for Shamans. Old left over abilities from a failed attempt is different than newly added abilities which aren't just resembling the role, but in fact place that class nearly directly into that role with the exception of 1 abilities function, which isn't even outlined fully in the tool tip. On top of that, if Blizzard never considered having Warlocks tank, why did they PTR a warlock tank with working taunt and crit reduction.

Thank you for your input though man, it at least has given me and the other Warlocks who expressed this desire to me to think about. I unfortunately can't find any real reason why this was done this way, why Blizzard hasn't taken the step, and a good reason why they shouldn't. I see no harm in adding additional abilities. Guess it's a good thing I'm not a decision maker for Blizzard eh? LOL
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Warlock
10405
02/28/2013 03:26 AMPosted by Moonisagano
IT GIVES YOU PERMA WINGS DURRR ONLY REASON IT'S THERE


It's why I have it. (Yeah, I'm not Demo at the moment. Experimenting with the Destro.)

Beyond the visual effect, the glyph is interesting but not something I'd use in raid. If a tank goes down, I'd rather soul stone them and get them on their feet.

Now, for leveling and soloing old content, it's a fun glyph. I love the play style.

All in all, given Blizzard's comments, I don't feel we will see a warlock tank spec. It doesn't fit their view of warlocks.
Reply Quote
100 Undead Warlock
10360

Because they don't want warlocks to tank. They made the glyph for fun, and a bit of a different pace. Not to give them another role. It's highly unlikely they ever intend to change a pure into a hybrid.

They gave an inch, and now you want a mile. That's really the moral of story with DA.

Basically this.
Reply Quote
100 Worgen Warlock
12565
Just because you don't want it doesn't mean you can speak for everyone who plays our class
Reply Quote
90 Orc Warlock
10375
Garalon soaking ftw
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Warlock
14465
03/01/2013 05:12 AMPosted by Nethril
I have alot of experience with high end raiding and end game content.


No you don't. I really don't care assert my superiority to people over the internet, but downing ICC content the last month of WoTLK doesn't count as high end. Nor does doing heroic cata raiding 1-2 tiers old, or with a 35% nerf. And the only 2008 TBC achievements you have Kara, Mags, and Gruuls.

That's casual, and I see lots of people like to assert that they've been hardcore before simply because they've been in a 25 man guild, or downed a heroic boss (and sometimes been oblivious to the fact that the stuff has been gutted by nerfs, or is old).

03/01/2013 05:12 AMPosted by Nethril
Since hybrid tax no longer exists


You clearly didn't read what I said. It's not set in stone, but it still exists.

As for saying no to tanking, we fall back on: why add all of those abilities and give the warlock class the ability to be that close then?


03/01/2013 10:06 AMPosted by Moonisagano
Garalon soaking ftw


I forgot about this, so there you go. DA soaking Garalon is fairly common. It has a purpose in raiding. It's just a very small niche. And nothing more. You don't have to like it.

You are most certainly correct that within the DPS roles, it is very common a class is locked into a single spec to perform adequately. Still, you wouldn't be forced to tank if you are performing adequately at your DPS role. As for the last point of "if you don't like it, don't use it" - that is referring to tank abilities vs dps abilities. If you don't want to tank, don't tank. If you don't want to DPS, don't DPS.

I for example have a DK in my group that is an extraordinary tank. She however is also an amazing DPS (the top DPS in our group). Due to he


All you've done this entire time is continue to say the same thing over and over regardless of what myself, and others have told you to contradict it. You continue to present nothing new, and the difference between your argument and mine is that Blizzard agrees with me.

Old left over abilities from a failed attempt is different than newly added abilities which aren't just resembling the role, but in fact place that class nearly directly into that role with the exception of 1 abilities function, which isn't even outlined fully in the tool tip. On top of that, if Blizzard never considered having Warlocks tank, why did they PTR a warlock tank with working taunt and crit reduction.


Perfect, we'll throw warlock tanking onto the PTR, Blizzard can slap a failed experiment label on it, and leave the glyph in the game. I'll contact them now.

03/01/2013 09:45 AMPosted by Spirît
Just because you don't want it doesn't mean you can speak for everyone who plays our class


I don't recall ever sending an email to Blizzard with content along the lines of "I, Varlth the leader and speaker of warlocks, have learned that everyone hates tanking so don't put it in."
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)

Reported!

[Close]