PDA

View Full Version : Tanking Tanks + Exp + Hit + Ghostcrawler



nserafini
03-25-2011, 10:57 AM
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/165441/dev-watercooler-the-view-from-10000-feet

Maybe I missed the thread covering this, but part 2 of the 10K dev thread covers GC's thoughts on some possible ideas beyond 4.1 for tanks.

One topic we’ve been discussing lately is the role of Hit and Expertise on tank gear (or more precisely, plate tanking gear). The conventional wisdom is that Hit and Expertise are threat stats, and you may need to swap them out with some of your mitigation stats depending on the situation. Realistically, unless you severely overgear the content, we don’t think that is actually true. Tanks almost always worry about survival first and foremost, which totally makes sense, and are willing to trade off threat stats for better mitigation in almost all situations. It’s much harder to progress if the tank explodes than it is if the cat occasionally pulls aggro. (It’s not quite that simple, but I’m going to gloss over details and exceptions since I spent so much text on the preamble up above).

Once upon a time, taunts could miss, and so Hit was marginally more interesting than it is today. Once upon a time, having a boss parry your attacks could speed up its swing timer, which turned Expertise into a (often weak) survival stat. Boss parries felt very random though, both in the sense that sometimes the tank would suddenly take much more damage than anticipated and there was no easy way to know which bosses had parry speed up. (Today, you can assume none of them do.) Until recently, interrupts could miss, but asking a tank to stack a bunch of Hit just for those few opportunities when they were probably going to hit anyway but disaster would occur if they did not felt crummy too.

The problem is that there aren’t a lot of stats that are interesting to tanks. Stamina and Armor are great, but their stat budget is often in lockstep with item level. (It would be interesting to consider if we could make that not the case once again, but that’s the topic for another blog.) We got rid of Defense as a stat that tanks needed to worry about. We have managed to make Mastery pretty good to excellent for tanks, so that’s at least one stat they like to see. Dodge and (if you’re a plate-wearer) Parry are good, and slightly interesting because of talents like Hold the Line. But beyond that, it starts to go downhill. Sure Haste and Crit can sometimes be fun, but really they often aren’t worth the trade off. That leaves us with Hit and Expertise. We’d like to make them more interesting to tanks. But how?

One way is by turning them into defensive stats. They are defensive stats for Blood death knights, because the DK self-healing is tied into Death Strike, which can miss. It might be possible to do something similar for the other classes. Imagine if Shield Block had to actually hit the target. Presumably you raise your shield, but not high enough to intercept the incoming blow. Now hit becomes a mitigation stat for warriors as well. We might have to adjust the mitigation amount on Shield Block or give warriors a small Hit bonus so Hit capping wasn’t totally unreasonable, but you get the basic idea. You could do the same with paladins (make Holy Shield more interesting?) and druids as well (Savage Defense could proc on a hit).

Is this a good idea? We’re not sure yet. You won’t see this change in the 4.1 patch for certain. There are trade-offs to making Hit and Expertise more valuable. Gearing as a tank might be more fun for experienced players, but it also might be more challenging for less experienced players. The number of struggling tanks in your Dungeon Finder groups might go up. Some less knowledgeable players (and to be fair, this stuff doesn’t exactly explain itself on the character sheet) might stack Hit way too high at the expense of a more valuable mitigation stat, such as mastery.

It is the kind of thing we’re talking about though, and if you want to make a contribution to the tanking forums but aren’t quite sure on a topic, here is one potential possibility.

-Greg “Ghostcrawler” Street is the lead systems designer of World of Warcraft. He still has Buru’s Skull Fragment.

thecrazyman
03-25-2011, 11:11 AM
I didn't see a post up on it which I think it was because nothing was set in stone.

nserafini
03-25-2011, 12:56 PM
I didn't want to repost, but thought it was kosher food for thought :)

Petninja
03-26-2011, 06:13 AM
I don't see how this is an improvement. Gearing for mastery vs gearing for hit is not any more fun than the other. The suggested proposal does nothing to impact how the role is played, so does nothing to increase the enjoyment of playing the role (unless you love math).

For comparison, a Resto shaman can stack haste for quicker heals and more GCDs to work with. Other shamans prefer Mastery as it increases the value of heals on lower health targets (the closer to dead you are the more it heals). It changes the way you cast your spells and a shaman who used the haste play style on a mastery shaman wouldn't perform very well.

For a tank, making hit determine if your avoidance is going to work will only be noticeable to the healers and on fight parses. It won't change how your buttons are pressed and it won't change how you think about your role, except that you now have another stat to fill. It could work if Expertise gave you a chance on avoidance to activate one of your abilities or give you a buff that made you react differently. For example, perhaps 26 expertise could give a warrior a 10% chance to proc Impending Victory at any stage of the fight. Now the stat becomes a little bit more attractive since it can add to tank self healing. Obviously the numbers I suggested weren't done with balance in mind so they'd need to be tweaked :P.

I understand what GC is trying to do, but I feel tanks already have more stat juggling to do than most other roles without throwing another less interesting stat in the mix.

Edit: From a PvP perspective it would probably work better if something like Impending Victory procced on a chance from avoiding an attack so it doesn't just become a passive heal and remains more of a defensive/survival stat.

praetoria
03-26-2011, 07:00 AM
to a degree, expertise was a defensive stat before the parry haste mechanic was removed. Blizzard got rid of it. I think agility had a lot of potential for plate wearing tanks prior to the release of 4.0, but that also was removed. At the end of the day, Its just really hard to implament any 1 stat thats going to be apealing to all tanks out there. The idea of the defensive stat was great, that is, 1 stat having an effect on several other stats. However, at the end of the day ( in wrath ) stam was king. so it was really pointless. I would welcome a reworked defensive stat... somthing that perhaps increased armor values and/or avoidance. Or somthing that increases the parry and/or exp/hit value from strength, but only for the reason that "I THINK" it would be fun to play with. However, in a more practical sense, any added stat would probily be nightmare.

Theotherone
03-26-2011, 07:12 AM
One of the issues may be from the damage side. Other than stam, which applies to all damage taken, there really is not a stat to play with that effects magic/disease/poison etc type damage; we stack avoidance for physical, the old agility went to armor again physical, mastery goes to physical, but there's really no choice to make, other then stam, for non-physical type damage. Unless you look to trinkets, or the odd exilir. I don't know if it would be fun to play with a resistance type stat, but it just seems the playing field they're trying to improve is limited; but I like the fact that they think about it and try to improve.

Fetzie
03-26-2011, 07:26 AM
Which stat would need to be changed?

Currently we get:
Stamina = more health, more potential AP from vengeance
Strength = AP and parry rating
Agility = crit and dodge chance
Mastery = block chance/absorb mod/heal mod
Hit rating = chance to hit
Expertise = chance to not be parried or dodged

In essence, hit and exp are "boring". I don't think it is a good idea to have more than two stats deriving from a basic stat, that just makes it even more complicated to choose between two items, and we may end up with tier-below items being better than current tier items (like 245 epics beating 264 epics because they had ArP on them). However I don't like the idea that avoidance gets tied into a chance, stacking probabilities only makes for longer odds of something happening.

I could, however, see something like "your expertise increases the [damage blocked by your shield/absorbed by savage defense/heal from death strike by x%]" and "your hit chance increases the efficacy of your [demo shout/thunderclap debuffs] by x%". That would make for an extremely interesting discussion around what is better in the end, avoidance, parry, dodge, mastery, expertise or hit rating.

Chamenas
03-26-2011, 07:57 AM
Along the lines of Petninja's comments...

Stats in World of Warcraft have largely fallen into a category of being a gating mechanic. You need X amount of various stats to be able to survive, do enough damage or heal enough to move on through various tiers of raiding or what have you. Gating mechanics are not fun, not in the slightest, but they're important to games like WoW in order to make sure that people don't breeze through all of the content and then are left with nothing to do. They're required to keep people playing.

Still, if a game isn't fun, you're not likely to keep a large subscriber base for very long. There are little tricks that you can do to keep people coming back, small rewards and achievements that entice players to keep playing. However, in the end, if the game itself isn't fun, you'll struggle to maintain retention. This is the problem the development team is faced with. The best games can manage to streamline gating mechanics with fun mechanics, effectively masking the fact that you're doing "work" to "achieve" something.

Stats being effectively passive is the problem. If stats made an active difference in how you played your character, that's what would make them fun. Choice is a fundamental "fun" mechanic in a game. When you give players the option of doing things differently, of customizing play to their style, it becomes more fun for them. The problem is that, with the more choice and options you give, the more things you have to balance and the more of a headache it becomes for development teams (think back to their reasoning for paring down Deathknight options for tanking and DPS).

For instance, let's give Warriors an ability called Flurry, the ability scales with Haste. The more haste you have, the more attacks it gets off. Now we'll make another ability called Piercing Blow, this ability adds a multiplier to your crit rating for damage. The more crit you have the more damage it does in singular blows and the higher chance it has of landing critical blows.

Now we could get all mathy, but we'll assume the numbers are balanced so that comparative amounts of Haste and Crit would do the same amount of damage. Obviously, you want more than one ability in your rotation, but we're trying to simplify here (this should just go to show how complex it can get though!).

So, what's the problem? Haste affects Piercing Blow and Crit affects Flurry. This means that one ability is likely still "better" than the other, and min maxers are going to exploit that difference. You could code the abilities to not be affected by various stats, but that gets complicated, and, remember, that we're actually doing this for a handful of abilities, as, even if parts of the rotation are similar, you'll likely want to differentiate a couple of different abilities. Doing this for 3 specs for every class, for various stats, becomes unwieldy. And so it's easier to simply make most stats passive. But as long as they're passive, the only "fun" out of adding relevance to stats is for people who like to calculate the min-max potential of any given stat.

I don't see Blizzard finding an "easy" solution to this dilemma. If they want stats to be more fun, then they're going to have to deal with the complexity of making stats have an active role in playstyle.

Katzazi
03-26-2011, 08:03 AM
I think it's fine to have hit and expertise as "threat"-skills. Threat should be a part of what tanks are concerned about. At the moment most of us simply don't really care about it. Sure, it may be close in the first few seconds. But for the most part of most encounters threat is just meaningless for everybody. Just because Vengeance is so redicilous high compared with everything else we bring. Adding hit and expertise or switching around some talent points just alter how fast you will be unreachable by anybody else. But as soon as this point is reached, non of them really matter anymore.

That's something that could be changed. It would be much more interestiong as making stuff more dangerous in the next tier to make use of additional defensive mechanics and stats. Again. That would be some kind of Wrath again.

It's good that we don't need hit/expertise to beat special mechanics. But now they could get interesting for what they are. I think that balancing talents AND gear somewhere to get the best mix of threat and survival would be interesting.

Chamenas
03-26-2011, 08:19 AM
I have no desire for Threat to become a major part of what Tanks need to worry over. Tanks have enough to worry over if the encounter is balanced correctly. If an encounter is boring, it's boring, we shouldn't have to handicap our threat to suddenly make it interesting. Rather, the encounter should be made more dynamic for Tanks instead, more kiting and abilities to watch for. And if an encounter is designed properly I don't want to have to worry about dying, losing threat, and watching for X, Y, and Z of an encounter. That's not fun, just stressful.

swelt
03-26-2011, 08:47 AM
The problem is that all tank gear is ending up looking very much the same. We have 3 stats that we want (mastery/dodge/parry) and 2 we probably don't. We pick up items with hit and expertise for 'threat sets', but they aren't truly desirable rewards since they end up getting left in the backpack for the biggest baddest bosses. Loot is a huge part of the basic appeal of WOW, and if Blizzard can't make us feel excited about getting that next drop, they are in trouble*. "Yay, another mastery/parry boot drop" is not as compelling as "this item is particularly awesome because it has XYZ itemisation which is unusual and very good for my class".

* This video on the psych behind loot rewards is very interesting (and a little scary): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2487-The-Skinner-Box

So looking specifically about how to make hit + expertise interesting: I don't think I'd like to see the death knight model rolled out to other classes. I think something much simpler would work: simply give tank classes some extra mitigation/avoidance as well as the hit/exp. For example, you could give protection warriors an increase in their baseline expertise, but change expertise rating for them such that increases expertise AND parry. You balance the numbers such that a) it ends up being good 'value for ilvl' and b) the bonus it gives to parry works out favourably in the diminishing returns equation. That might mean something like getting 66% of the expertise that you would have had before, but also 50% of the parry. This ends up making a 'mastery+expertise' item pretty attractive for a warrior. You might want to do something similar but subtly different for paladins to make "x item better for paladins than warriors".

Chamenas
03-26-2011, 09:17 AM
For the record, I didn't suggest rolling out a Deathknight model on other classes. I used the history of the Deathknight class as an example of Blizzard's aversion to developing with increased complexity due to choice. More choice tends to be more fun, but also harder to balance.

The problem with simply giving expertise or other stats a bit of a modifier increasing yet another passive stat is that it simply remains passive. If it's passive, it's not fun. At its most basic level, a passive game would mean you run up to a monster and start auto-attacking it and it dies. Just because you get gear which allows you to better kill monsters as you progress doesn't necessarily make it more fun or exciting.

Operant Conditioning isn't scary, it works in every day life. It's how we learn to use things, how we're conditioned to follow basic societal rules of behavior, etc... it's a little trick they use to keep people playing, but if the game itself isn't fun then it has little appeal over the basic gamble, which most people can pull away from in time. Only those with the most addictive personalities need to be worried.

Petninja
03-26-2011, 09:47 AM
If the developers want to give tanks more stats to pick from they can just make threat matter again, and remove the freebie "can't miss" from some of the abilities. It doesn't even have to be as much of a razors edge as it was in TBC. They could set it up so that a perfectly executed rotation would hold threat a little above the highest threat dpser without hit and expertise, on average of course. After that you would basically choose the amount of expertise/hit you need to account for your margin of error/skill of your raiders. That would make it an interesting stat, since it would be tailored to your own personal situation.

I just don't think I've ever heard someone complain that they have too few stats to juggle. There were people in Wrath who thought that avoidance was superior to stamina, but they stacked avoidance at the cost of stamina, not alongside it. I don't think I've ever heard a caster complain that stacking all Int gems in gear wasn't fun (just perhaps expensive).

Petninja
03-26-2011, 10:00 AM
The other thing I don't get is why, with all the concern over "less experienced tanks" don't they just give their UI team the task of setting up a help menu. Starcraft 2 got one. It's not terribly useful for high level play, but it's more than enough to get a new player started. All it would have to do is explain the stuff they seem to be worried a new player wouldn't get on their own without a ton of research.

swelt
03-26-2011, 12:09 PM
For the record, I didn't suggest rolling out a Deathknight model on other classes.
I was responding to Ghostcrawler's blog, which does toy with the idea. I think the idea of a shield block that misses (his example) as simply introducing a new 'must have stat threshold', which is not fun. I think something that gives tanks another choice (not another barrier to entry) is a better model.

Illidra
03-28-2011, 07:37 AM
every time you hit a mob while hti and expertise capped your character grows ' fuck off massive angel / devil wings that grant 100% of hit and expertise rating as mastery'

simple, we gem for caps and keep our mitigation and look f'in awesome while doing it.

Chamenas
03-28-2011, 07:54 AM
I was responding to Ghostcrawler's blog, which does toy with the idea. I think the idea of a shield block that misses (his example) as simply introducing a new 'must have stat threshold', which is not fun. I think something that gives tanks another choice (not another barrier to entry) is a better model.

I agree fully. New stat thresholds just make the job harder, more frustrating, not necessarily more engaging. The best way to make stats interesting is to have them change how you play, but that's a lot of work, the question is: is Blizzard willing to put in that kind of effort? As much as I love Blizz, they've shown in the past that they'd rather pare things down rather than put more effort into making them more interesting.

Illidra
03-28-2011, 07:58 AM
and thusly i refer you, chemena my sc2 amigo, to my previous post in this thread.

Riz
03-28-2011, 10:14 AM
Sounds a bit "gimmicky" to me..I'm all for, individualism, and making each Class with the same spec have their own flavors and choices, to separate them from another player of the same class/spec (which was why i liked biugger talent trees) But everyone tends to just flock to the fotw and copy/paste the top guilds' players sheets anyway...I like the direction theyre goin witht his, but if I pop my Shield Block, i expect it to do its job...Adding avoidance to avoidance seems like a big headache...

Contravene
03-28-2011, 10:27 AM
I do want HIT/EXP caps to mean something again all the old school guys are confused by it. The fact that using HIT/EXP is also a viable strategy but that old school guys are using it for the wrong reasons is just a huge mess. Right now we need Expertise so we don't get dodged and although this helps with threat it is most beneficially used along with Holy Power strategies and is completely unnecessary to hold threat.

I understand they made the rotation more complex to separate the very good from the just ok players. More things to concentrate on and more areas to fail basically.. But the gear change wasn't necessary they can put whatever story line behind it but don't change the basic gear people have always used. I am a new comer MASTERY Paladin Baby and I say change it back to old school so the old school guys understand it.

Loganisis
03-28-2011, 11:50 AM
Honestly, I liked the way Exp was treated by the end of it in wrath. You geared so you 'had enough' for hard mode dragon fights. It was part of the hard mode choices made by top tanks. It was pretty meh otherwise, but it was critical for top-end progression tanks.

Towards this, I think a stacking parry-haste mechanic for some bosses might be interesting.

In hard modes, every time a boss parrys an attack, the boss gains a stack of Raging Intentions (made up name). At 5 stacks all Raging Intentions are consumed and the boss recieves a 100% attack speed buff for 15 seconds.

In this way parry-haste-gibbing isn't 'random' random, it's just kinda random. You hit 4 stacks you'd better be ready to use your CDs.

It would also affect the tanks who want the most challenge, hard mode progression tanks, rather than a 'must-have' cap that only serves to limit lower-end tank survability.

It would also make melee positioning that much more critical. A tank would build up stacks fairly slowly, but 2 or 3 melee out of place and some extra parries there.... especially a rogue or cat with very little expertise and quick swing timers, and BOOM, down goes the tank.

Illidra
03-28-2011, 11:55 AM
some bosses you HAVE to be in front for some reason.

RNG - this would be so rng that you could end up being raped by sheer bad luck despite being 0.1% off the cap, or someone with 0 hit could never get a parry.

also, i dont even know if its possible to hit the parry cap of expertise in this tier without gemmign full exp, gearing for exp and enchanting for experitse.

Loganisis
03-28-2011, 12:08 PM
some bosses you HAVE to be in front for some reason.

RNG - this would be so rng that you could end up being raped by sheer bad luck despite being 0.1% off the cap, or someone with 0 hit could never get a parry.

also, i dont even know if its possible to hit the parry cap of expertise in this tier without gemmign full exp, gearing for exp and enchanting for experitse.

And for bosses where you HAVE to be infront (or at least some portion of the raid) then stacking parry-haste would be turned off.

RNG - no it wouldn't. It would be RNG in how quickly it builds, but the RNG is dependent on the tank's gearing choices. The more emphasis placed on expertise, the slower it would grow.

The final 'stack' would be RNG when it happens, but you would know it's coming, it wouldn't be completely random like it was in WotLK.

The idea isn't that Hard Mode tanks would hit 56 expertise (to knock all 14% of parry off the map), but that they'd have the choice to knock some of it off, reducing the bad moments.

***

I personally don't want to see hit or expertise matter. I think tank gearing is already FAR more complex than DPS/Healer gearing, and far more fight-specific in the swapping of gear. Trying to say that tank gear is 'boring' and should be livened up but that DPS and healer gearing is fine is bassackwards.

But, if they do decide to go down a path, a path where it become more challeneging to the best players without negatively affecting the less proficient is the way to go in my opinion.

swelt
03-28-2011, 03:01 PM
Here's another way of looking at it.

I find my warrior more fun to play when my attacks don't regularly miss or are dodged or parried. I get annoyed when the buttons I press do nothing. But the game currently encourages me to eschew hit and expertise, because I don't need them to do my job, and I will do the job of surviving better without them. Ergo, the current game systems *encourage me to annoy myself*. That indicates flawed design.

I will be happy if they do something that either a) makes expertise and hit help me survive a bit better or b) makes hit/expertise less relevant for tanking in general.

Loganisis
03-28-2011, 03:21 PM
Here's another way of looking at it.

I find my warrior more fun to play when my attacks don't regularly miss or are dodged or parried. I get annoyed when the buttons I press do nothing. But the game currently encourages me to eschew hit and expertise, because I don't need them to do my job, and I will do the job of surviving better without them. Ergo, the current game systems *encourage me to annoy myself*. That indicates flawed design.

I will be happy if they do something that either a) makes expertise and hit help me survive a bit better or b) makes hit/expertise less relevant for tanking in general.

Swelt, the problem with hitting is a key part of having fun is there is role for that. DPS. Tanking isn't about not missing attacks, you've added that yourself as a requirement for enjoyment when in fact it's not a requirement at all.

I'm not going to say it's unimportant, because it is something that's important to you, but is it any more important than my desire, which is directly contradictory, that when I have to tank, I find them post pleasure by minimizing incoming damage (I liked to become invincible on PP wipes - SB + SW + LS + ER + etc, for 12 seconds). I honestly don't care a bit about missing my attacks (outside of a little extra stress on the pull) as long as I can maintain sufficient threat.

So when looking at, from a design standpoint, there's no design that's going to make both of us happy, because if hit/exp is required but adds less survivablity than dodge/parry/mastery I'm unhappy, whereas the status quo you're unhappy (at least for this small portion of the game).

So given that this idea is devicism among the community, Blizzard has 3 options:

1. Do nothing
2. Change it in a way they think balances gameplay
3. Look at the opinions and try to find a middle ground.

I think the idea of adding in HM mechanics that make hit/exp more important is the best option.

A) The tanks that most want this feature tend towards the HM progression sort.
B) The impact on growing tanks in minimal.
C) It adds complexity to HM fights by adding a semi-random/semi-predicitable damage spike that will put pressure on healers and tanks, and require melee to be very sure of their positioning (and it can be disabled for bosses that require attacking from the front).
D) It will act like a mini-chill of the throne debuff, helping to keep incoming damage down in order to minimize the growth of future ICC-like heal-bomb EHP fights. Either you take more damage from more stacks of parry-haste being activated or your take more damage from reduced avoid/mit.

It's not going to be what any single group wants probably, it's certainly not what I want (I don't want hit/exp to matter), but in terms of a middle ground, it seems like it's a pretty good one.

swelt
03-28-2011, 03:49 PM
I didn't say that I hit buttons to have fun, I said that hitting my buttons and them being ineffectual was annoying. The core role of tank is survival and control. Missed/Parried/Dodged attacks work against your ability to control, but since taunts never miss and threat mechanics shifted enough, they are an annoyance, not a dependency. Game systems should not be designed in ways that annoy the player for no reason. Stop thinking like a player.

Crittable
03-28-2011, 04:11 PM
So when looking at, from a design standpoint, there's no design that's going to make both of us happy, because if hit/exp is required but adds less survivablity than dodge/parry/mastery I'm unhappy, whereas the status quo you're unhappy (at least for this small portion of the game).

Optional filler talents to do this would satisfy both. One who wants them can get them and gain a little bit of a bonus, the other can talent away from them for a different bonus.

thecrazyman
03-28-2011, 04:38 PM
I find it funny that after they removed Defense on the gear now they are talking about another requirement again for tanks. I may be oversimplifying it but didn't they want to make it easier to figure out? Adding another stat for tanking to watch just means more people are turned off against tanking. It would be our actual 4 required stat for us - hit/dodge/parry/mastery what about the healing team then? They have crit/haste/mastery why not have them required to hit their target it too? Overall I just hope they scrap the idea unless they do it mildly so its not hard for new people to figure out.

Katzazi
03-29-2011, 01:12 AM
Healers have actually spirit/crit/haste/mastery.
Caster-dps and hunters have hit/crit/haste/mastery (I think they removed spell penetration, or it only works for PVP).
Melee-dps have hit/expertise/crit/haste/mastery.
Plate-tanks have dodge/parry/mastery with hit/expertise more like "fillers" (maybe with the exception of DKs where they can help survivability).
For bears it's ldodge/crit/mastery with hit/expertise as "fillers" and I'm not sure what they do with haste.

So plate tanks are at the low range of interesting ratings without hit and expertise while they would be at the high end when they are added.


I think one of the core issues why they removed defense was that it was such a hard cap. Just slightly below the cap you were a real reliability for your raid. While adding more was not attractive for all tanks. I think it was probably quite hard for Blizz to balance this stat on gear. Warriors were quite happy to get more defense, while it was bad for DKs (and bears did not need it at all). But even DKs needed to get enough defense to get to the cap.

A good idea would be to give every class more or less the same amount of ratings to balance. I don't want to come back to wrath were some classes (healers) only had 3 ratings to balance, while warrior tanks theoretically had to juggle with 7 (defense, parry, dodge, block rating, block value, hit, expertise).

So yes, it would be good to get hit and expertise into the mix for tanks, but I don't think that it's a good idea to give us a very high need on them. But I don't see how it will work to add survivability to them. Either they will be so good, that you actually need to connect every possible hit - than we are back at the hard cap again and it's not interesting anymore. Or they will be just worse than the survival stats we already have. Than it does not change how we treat them. They get last priority when we chose an item and for reforging.

The only way to get us to balance with hit and expertise is, when they do something else important that our outher stats cannot do. Like increasing our threat when it's actually relevant. Only in this case, they will be interesting (and maybe fun) stats.

Btw: There are already encounters where some tanks increase their hit and expertise because of threat. So for them those stats are actually important, interesting and working. From a design point of view the easiest and smothest way to deal with this stats is to get every tank there eventually. It would not confuse "new players" with stats other than the explicite mastery doing quite different things for different classes. And it would make our button-pressiong meaningfull again, over the whole encounter.

Maybe it would be just enough if they would switch on threat decay....

Loganisis
03-29-2011, 04:25 PM
Kat, you're stretching. Each class has one set of stats they like.

Fury = Crit > Mastery. Done (hit and expertise are just required minimum, but they do have a DIRECT effect on DPS)

Cats and Rogues don't even care about hit/exp do they?

Pally healers are what, haste and crit?

Resto Druids are Spirit and mastery with haste to a couple of key points?

Every spec has 2 stats basically they want to max. They might have a 3rd stat they want to max

***

When you paint a wide-brush stroke as to what other classes need it does look unbalanced, but when you look at the specifics of each role and what they really want, you'll see tanks are as complex as any other class, moreso than most, if not all.

The only reason Armor doesn't play into tanks is because blizzard removed armor from the equation with crappy amounts of green armor (seriously, 90k armor now to hit 75% DR I think, and the trinkets have less armor on them than all but the earliest raiding WotLK trinkets?)

So if you want to group 5 distinct healer classes together to 'prove' that healers have more stats they care about than tanks, go for it, but it doesn't prove anything.

Every class really boils down to 2 raitings they care about, plus minimum hit/exp levels (for some, but not all), while plate tanks have 3, plus until 4.1 hit does still matter for a 4th to take into account and expertise does still matter for hardmodes too, at least when first entering hard modes.

***

I've purposely ignored str/agi/int/sta because those cancel themselves out. But when you really look it tanks have the following to balance:

Mastery
Dodge
Parry
Theoretically armor, but right now we don't because Blizz has made bonus armor non-existant, and the few trinket with it are very low.
Hit (interrupt duty, so it is spotty)
Exp (if you are infact doing everything right and still need more push on hard-mode enrage timers)

And even stamina to an extent - since there are some fights where stamina becomes more important than a little extra avoidance.

***

What I don't understand is why tanks get singled out as having 'boring' gearing decisions when they have some of the most complex balancings to do to maximize themselves.

There probably is little arguing that outside of maybe one or two specs, that the gearing choices for every other class/spec combination outside of tanks is far less invovled than tanks.

DPS:
Does class need hit, if yes, go to 8% (and not even all melee classes value hit apparently)
Does class need exp, if yes, go to 26 (and not even all melee classes value exp apparenlty)
Stat priority #1
Stat priority #2
<everything else turn into #1 or #2>

Healers
Do you need spirit? (apparnetly H Pallys it isn't all that important)
Can you hit haste benchmarks?
Stat Priority #1
Stat Priority #2

Tanks:
Stat Priority #1
Stat Priority #2
Stat Priority #3
Need Stamina for a fight?
Need Hit for a fight?
Need Exp for a fight?

The only tank that doesn't fall into this category really are bears.

****

I think saying tanks need more rating choices because they have the 'fewest' is disingenous because while they have the 'smallest' group to choose from, they're all important, often require balancing on the micro level, and may even change several times within a raid.

Whereas every other non-tank role really has a couple of benchmarks that are MUST HAVEs and then 2 stats they care about with everything else being inferior.

Adding 'benchmark' stats to tanking is just a hidden attempt to stealth nerf avoidance/mitigation. If that's what Blizzard wants to do, just come out and scale the ratings required. Don't hide behind the lie that tanks don't have enough to gear for. Be upfront about it. In order to maintain the same level of challenge that's in the current tier, ratings ahve to be scaled back. If that's the issue, just be freaking honest about it. </end mini rant>

swelt
03-30-2011, 03:40 AM
Part of the point is itemisation. If tanks don't care about anything other than 3 stats, then all the desirable tank gear ends up looking identical: parry+dodge, mastery+dodge, mastery+parry. If your gear doesn't have those as their secondary stats, you take one look at it and think 'threat piece' or just 'bad'. The only items that end up having any kind of interest generated by their itemisation become trinkets. Compare that to a melee DPS class - each tier they are looking to keep their hit/expertise caps, so some pieces which themselves might be sub-optimal become very desirable because they allow them to cap a stat (for reference, rogues generally need to consider both melee and spell hit caps and expertise and get varying benefits out of haste, crit and mastery depending on spec). DPS tier sets can play a big part in this, as set bonuses may or may not be optimal vs offset pieces and may or may not carry hit/expertise. The net result: the gearing metagame for DPS helps distinguish the great from the good.

Part of the point is that the game designers intended/expected for tanks to follow a similar pattern to dps in their overall design of the game, but that in taking steps to eliminate the least desirable bits of 'RNG' from the game (parry haste, taunt fails) they pushed us further in a direction we were already headed.

Fetzie
03-30-2011, 04:02 AM
I find it funny that after they removed Defense on the gear now they are talking about another requirement again for tanks. I may be oversimplifying it but didn't they want to make it easier to figure out? Adding another stat for tanking to watch just means more people are turned off against tanking. It would be our actual 4 required stat for us - hit/dodge/parry/mastery what about the healing team then? They have crit/haste/mastery why not have them required to hit their target it too? Overall I just hope they scrap the idea unless they do it mildly so its not hard for new people to figure out.

Holy paladins that require Judgement to not miss get their spirit->spell hit conversion as a middle-deep holy talent, Disc priests that require Smite to always hit have that functionality from a glyph. I could see them possibly going down the same route, maybe a deep prot talent that causes you to gain expertise or hit at a faster rate (maybe so that you are hit-capped at 480 hit rating instead of 960) or simply add in hit chance as part of the prot specialisation (Protection and retribution paladins get 8% and 6% spell hit respectively through their specialisation).

Making us "need" hit and expertise caps simply makes us need 1600 gear stat points for threat. That is as much as I have parry rating in my full 359 gear or half of my total mastery rating. That is a lot of stat points that we currently can invest in defensive stats, that we couldn't use for defense if such a change went through. They either need to make hit/exp/haste/crit blatantly overpowered for tanks, change how the rating scale
for protection specced players or bake in a certain base hit/exp/crit/haste chance to give us a leg-up, right now I would definitely not choose to effectively reduce my parry chance to base % for a minor threat increase.

Chamenas
03-30-2011, 04:21 AM
Part of the point is itemisation. If tanks don't care about anything other than 3 stats, then all the desirable tank gear ends up looking identical: parry+dodge, mastery+dodge, mastery+parry. If your gear doesn't have those as their secondary stats, you take one look at it and think 'threat piece' or just 'bad'. The only items that end up having any kind of interest generated by their itemisation become trinkets. Compare that to a melee DPS class - each tier they are looking to keep their hit/expertise caps, so some pieces which themselves might be sub-optimal become very desirable because they allow them to cap a stat (for reference, rogues generally need to consider both melee and spell hit caps and expertise and get varying benefits out of haste, crit and mastery depending on spec). DPS tier sets can play a big part in this, as set bonuses may or may not be optimal vs offset pieces and may or may not carry hit/expertise. The net result: the gearing metagame for DPS helps distinguish the great from the good.

Part of the point is that the game designers intended/expected for tanks to follow a similar pattern to dps in their overall design of the game, but that in taking steps to eliminate the least desirable bits of 'RNG' from the game (parry haste, taunt fails) they pushed us further in a direction we were already headed.

This isn't very different from other classes. Most Holy Pallies see:
Haste + Crit, Crit + Mastery, Mastery

Katzazi
03-30-2011, 05:19 AM
Kat, you're stretching. Each class has one set of stats they like.

It's not that simple for everyone. Fury for example is not only crit>mastery as you say. They want hit and expertise even before crit and mastery. And they have to take both stats into the calculation for nearly every item they attain (at least everyone that either has hit/expertise on them or those that replace one with hit/expertise). So they care for both. All the time.

It's the same for all DPS. Hit (and maybe expertise) are not the most attractive stats, but nearly everybody wants to have them and nearly all DPS constantly move stats around to get those two values right before doing anything else with the gear.

And for healers there even is no fix value of spirit to aim for, it's more encounter and group composition dependent than any other stat. Some have fixed haste levels they want to have like it always was with haste or stuff like that. In most cases only one value falls completely way behind the others.

Only tanks at the moment completely neglect two of the five stats they get on gear in general. (Sure with the exception of special hard mode encounters). Sure fury warriors f.e. may neglect haste completely, but at least it's not "all melees don't care about haste ever". Blizz can fix stuff like that by changing something for this spec that makes it more attractive.

It's different with hit and expertise for tanks at the moment. At least as long as encounter design or Vengeance is not changed or something like that.

Bigbad
03-30-2011, 06:06 AM
Maybe if hit/expertise had some interaction with vengeance it could also solve some issues vengeance has.

Either a penalty for missing that would increase the value of hit/expertise and devalue the influence of vengeance. Or a bonus to vengeance for hitting mobs which would make it easier to keep up vengeance regardless of the encounter mechanics, shouldn't be that large of bonus since vengeance is powerfull enough already but just enough to give hit/expertise a nice bump in value.

Loganisis
03-30-2011, 08:43 AM
It's not that simple for everyone. Fury for example is not only crit>mastery as you say. They want hit and expertise even before crit and mastery. And they have to take both stats into the calculation for nearly every item they attain (at least everyone that either has hit/expertise on them or those that replace one with hit/expertise). So they care for both. All the time.

It's the same for all DPS. Hit (and maybe expertise) are not the most attractive stats, but nearly everybody wants to have them and nearly all DPS constantly move stats around to get those two values right before doing anything else with the gear.

And for healers there even is no fix value of spirit to aim for, it's more encounter and group composition dependent than any other stat. Some have fixed haste levels they want to have like it always was with haste or stuff like that. In most cases only one value falls completely way behind the others.

Only tanks at the moment completely neglect two of the five stats they get on gear in general. (Sure with the exception of special hard mode encounters). Sure fury warriors f.e. may neglect haste completely, but at least it's not "all melees don't care about haste ever". Blizz can fix stuff like that by changing something for this spec that makes it more attractive.

It's different with hit and expertise for tanks at the moment. At least as long as encounter design or Vengeance is not changed or something like that.

You're still arguing too generally.

Typically:

Melee classes grab hit/exp to benchmarks, then ignore it. <--- this is not interesting gearing, it's required gearing. Their stat priorities stay the same. Priority > Priority 2 > everything else.

RDPS > hit to benchmark, then Priority 1 > Priority 2 > everything else.

Healers > Haste and/or spirit to benchmarks (well haste and spirit for most), Priority 1 > Priority 2 > everything else

****

Tanks don't have that benchmark stat, unless you want to count stamina, but they do have 3 priorities (well, plate tanks). And they have to balance those priorities rather than DPS where P1 is always better than P2.

With tank gearing there are actual limits and balancing that needs to be taken into account.

Hit 97.4% dodge/parry/block? Additional mastery is now nearly worthless (I guess it still does give crit block). Dodge and parry need to be balanced, which can be tricky if there's DR invovled.

Maybe in the next tier if all shield tanks can hit 97.4% dodge/parry/block fairly easily it will become an issue as then it's going to be: Mastery to benchmark, then parry/dodge.


****

And personally, I don't have a problem with gearing choices being different between normal modes and hardmodes. Normal mode gearing = easier. Hard mode gearing = more complex. Seems to fix the purpose of the hard modes to me. You have the three stat priorities plus 3 more stats that may impact the ability of the tank to fulfill their role in the fight (sta, hit, exp).

Right now, plate tanks have 3 stat priorities. Blizzard isn't going to stop throwing out mastery/hit or dodge/exp gear. Tanks will avoid it when possible, just like a Fury Warrior will now avoid hit/haste gear when at the hit cap. Crit/Mastery is just better itmized.

Now, there might be a purpose to that hit/haste gear plate gear - I don't know DK or Ret priorities, but for Fury, Hit/Haste is usually going to be garbage. I don't see Blizzard waxing poetic about how to make haste more valuable to Fury since right now it's an ignore stat, or how to make hit/exp more exciting for Fury because right now they are benchmark and forget levels.

Gearing tanks is more complex than most/all other specs. Hit/Exp/Sta are already important for hard modes. Doing more, costing tanks surviability when they're still progressing, doesn't seem positive.

Make stats matter in hard modes, but not across the board. You want hit/exp to matter, work on hardmodes. It seems like a win-win scenario for everyone.

Loganisis
03-30-2011, 08:49 AM
Maybe if hit/expertise had some interaction with vengeance it could also solve some issues vengeance has.

Either a penalty for missing that would increase the value of hit/expertise and devalue the influence of vengeance. Or a bonus to vengeance for hitting mobs which would make it easier to keep up vengeance regardless of the encounter mechanics, shouldn't be that large of bonus since vengeance is powerfull enough already but just enough to give hit/expertise a nice bump in value.

Not really, at least in my opinon. The problem with Vengence is it simply acts as an artifical throttle that no amount of good play by the tank can overcome (basically they have to either have DPS throttle or get MD/TotT help) and then stacks too high to make maintaining a good rotation important unless there's a huge movement fight where it can become trickier.

Making hit/exp affect vengence isn't going to do much, because it's already so out-of-whack. The penalty would have to be huge to make it impact vengence after the beginning, but if the penalty was huge it would cause even more problems on the pull.

Bigbad
03-30-2011, 10:39 AM
Aye I agree that vengeance is so out-of-wack that it would need some big rebalancing if they want to have hit/expertise impact it. But it could use some redesign if you ask me. Seems more interesting then making hit a reliability for shieldblock, missing a shieldblock would just annoy me not fun at all.

Contravene
03-30-2011, 01:01 PM
My personal wish is fore more complex gear and one more thing to manage like this parry stacking sounds fun on top of it. It intrigues me because then a team would literally have to work together even on gearing!! But I have a sinking feeling we are closing the door on what a typical person can handle and thinning the available tanks to few. A nice safe polling and reaction from Blizzard would be nice.

Also I have a feeling because I am new this all sounds neat, fun and exciting!! Yes make it more complex!! But how long do I want to work this hard to take down a boss repeatedly. I get that complex can also mean grows old quickly I am already a little bored of 939.. Although I think I am bored because it takes no thinking anymore I just auto pilot it.

Chamenas
03-30-2011, 01:47 PM
I actually like the concept of vengeance. While a Tank isn't a DPS class, it doesn't hurt to have them doing a lot of damage. Not only does it make more sense from a threat standpoint, but, in theory, you could design encounters around tanks having comparable DPS to DPS since it would be hard to abuse (as only the active target would be able to get stacks, so it's not like you can go into an encounter with 7 or 19 Tanks).

Loganisis
03-30-2011, 02:00 PM
@Contrevene - It's called hard modes. :D

Regarding Vengence - Vengence as a concept isn't bad, it's just that it doesn't seem to be designed in a way that accomplishes the goal. There's too little of it to start with and too much of it afterward. It seems more of a hinderance than anything.

Kojiyama
03-30-2011, 03:04 PM
Vengeance as a rough idea of 'scaling threat based on situation' is a good idea. But, yeah, the implementation is pretty backwards and it really doesn't do what it needs to do. The fact that it fails to scale in any way proportional to DPS classes simply means threat is either way, way too easy or way, way too hard depending on the situation.

It really felt like something that was attempting to be clever but ended up as quite a blunt instrument.

Anyway, I don't feel like offering Hit as some kind of Mitigation stat will particularly help anything. I don't think tanks really need to think that way. Like the Vengeance thing, this feels backwards to me. I feel like a tank should get Hit/Expertise for other reasons without needing to stack them on gear.

If they are concerned about tank gear not having enough stats, I will question why the original tanking stat was removed from the game... But that's another issue, really.

Dragaan
03-30-2011, 03:13 PM
Just the other day, I was thinking how boring tank gear/stats would be if blizz kept making avoidance/mastery less and less valuable. If they tweak the numbers between raid tiers, tanks could end up having exactly the same avoidance/block during each tier. The thing is, if they don't certain classes (warriors) will end up way too strong later in the xpac. I guess this is what we have to look forward to to keep things interesting... I really don't like the idea too much, though I'm sure I'll get used to it if it happens. At least I'll have an excuse for raising my dps stats, heh.

Loganisis
03-30-2011, 03:25 PM
Just the other day, I was thinking how boring tank gear/stats would be if blizz kept making avoidance/mastery less and less valuable. If they tweak the numbers between raid tiers, tanks could end up having exactly the same avoidance/block during each tier. The thing is, if they don't certain classes (warriors) will end up way too strong later in the xpac. I guess this is what we have to look forward to to keep things interesting... I really don't like the idea too much, though I'm sure I'll get used to it if it happens. At least I'll have an excuse for raising my dps stats, heh.

Been thinking the same thing - if Pallys can hit the block cap of 97.4% in heroic gear (but they don't get crit block, do they?) and warriors can get to what, 93% (and have crit block), it does seem that they need to do something to prevent a case where it's back to ICC like damage intakes because there's so much mitigation.

That being said pretending to make hit and exp 'important' stats in order to do this sneakily (which is honestly, what it feels like to me) is wrong. If rebalacing is needed, rebalancing is needed.

thecrazyman
03-30-2011, 06:52 PM
They talked about scaling the boss requirement higher - i.e. you need 8% to hit now for current boss but the next one could be 10% hit to connect to the boss upping the percentage by 2% for example. So they may do that for boss tables for our dodge/parry and maybe mastery as well.

Stephanius
03-31-2011, 04:46 AM
While we previously had to balance between effective health, avoidance and threat, with EH being mostly static by ilvl and sustained threat being a non-issue it's indeed a bit boring.

With all the gear set merges (no more split between caster and healer mail and leather for example) I'd have hoped to see one gear set used for tanking and dps. In the same way as spirit works as hit for mail and leather damage casters, hit and expertise could work as dodge and parry. The only hitch are survival oriented enchants and gems, but that's a shared problem for the casters.

Katzazi
04-01-2011, 03:24 AM
You're still arguing too generally.

Typically:

Melee classes grab hit/exp to benchmarks, then ignore it. <--- this is not interesting gearing, it's required gearing. Their stat priorities stay the same. Priority > Priority 2 > everything else.

[snip]

Tanks don't have that benchmark stat, unless you want to count stamina, but they do have 3 priorities (well, plate tanks). And they have to balance those priorities rather than DPS where P1 is always better than P2.

With tank gearing there are actual limits and balancing that needs to be taken into account.


I think we are speaking about different things. You are speaking about interresting and boring decisions. While I don't think that either dps or tanks have it easier or more interesting than the others at the moment, that's not the relevant point for blizzard.

Blizzards approach is that they have to give us better gear for every better tier. Up until now, they tried to give items more attractive stat selections the farther you got through the content. Items of the first tier nearly always had less attractive stat combinations than those of the last tier. There are two things Blizz wants to avoid: creating only BiS items and creating items that nobody wants. Tanking items have less demand than dps-items in most cases. So it would be bad to create tanking items, that every tank would pass on because items of a lower tier are more attractive.

Now look again at hit and expertise. They may not be "interesting" or "fun" stats for dps classes. And you only want them up to a fixed value. But the important point is, that you actually want to have them up to that point. So more or less every dps would want to have at least some items with hit and/or expertise. So items with those stats would be considered at least as a valid choice by them, or as a sidegrade to get the option to be able to switch some other items around.

As long as hit and expertise keep as unattractive as they are for the majority of tanks (those not doing the hardmodes where you need to have more) it's not the case for tanks. Items of a lower item-level that are BiS would not be replaced with items of one level higher with hit and expertise. Just because the differences in stamina and strength probably would not be able to compesate the loss of 60% of the avoidance stat. Only items with mastery/parry and mastery/dodge (and tier items) would be considered by the majority of the tanks. Mastery + hit/expertise would be ok, too, since they also can be used for dps. But items with parry/dodge + hit/expertise would probably never get a chance (at least if those stats would be somewhat balanced).

It get's quite boring if you only get BiS items with odd mastery + hit/expertise thrown into the mix. Blizz does not want to drop only BiS items, because it would remove most of the reforging.

Loganisis
04-01-2011, 12:52 PM
I think you've got 2 contradictory points.

1. Blizzard doesn't want to create BiS
2. Blizzard wants players to grab higher ilvl pieces.

Also, I think there is a severe disconnect between the stated desire to not create BiS and reality.

First - gearing for DPS.
1. Is it higher item level - yes? Take it.
2. Is it the same item level but better itemized? Yes? Take it.

Now, gearing for tanks:
1. Is it higher item level - yes? Almost always take it if it has tanking stats (because while stamina isn't king, it is still going to be very good and you're not going to 'lose' much mitigation/avoidance).
2. Is it the same item level but better itemized? Yes? Take it.

I think from the macro stand point, this is a pretty decent description of the status quo when looking at tanking gear (or even hit/exp + mastery gear with DPS socket bonuses). At least outside of trinkets.

If you agree that this is the macro design, than any change to exp/hit to make them 'defensive' stats will have zero real world impact because, as in the status quo, you'll take (Master>Parry/dodge)/(hit/exp) gear if it's higher item level (typically) in the status quo, but you'll always replace same item level gear with better itemized (Mastery+dodge/parry) gear when the chance occurs.

The only difference, in reality, would be reforging. Instead of reforging into dodge/parry/mastery to max survability, you'd reforge into expertise (likely not hit unless they roll back the taunt/interrupt changes) unless the 'minimum needed to survive' is set high enough you need all the itmeization from gear you can get.

****

In any scenario, unless hit/exp somehow trumps dodge/parry/mastery, whether they are survival stats or not, you're always going to pick the better itemized gear, which will still leave tank gearing more involved than DPS gearing, at least for plate tanks, because plate tanks have 3 high-value stat priorities while DPS almost always has 2 clear high value stat priorities.

****

I can see the arguement for wanting to 'diversify' tank gear, but I think this arguement is flawed as tank gearing is actually more complex than DPS gearing since it's more of a balancing act and BiS fluxuates until you have BiS everywhere due to DR and interplay with talents.

I think a far more interesting way to 'diversity' tank gear, and all gear to be honest, is to add a 3rd rating to gear.

For example, instead of a hypothetical piece of gear having:

200 str
350 sta
2200 armor
120 dodge
120 parry

It would have
175 str
325 sta
2000 armor
110 dodge
130 mastery
100 expertise

And it would be compared against other gear (I'm not trying to balance, just show an example)
150 str
400 sta
2400 armor
100 dodge
150 mastery

Right now Blizz more or less holds stamina and armor and to an extent, strength, in lock-step by item level and # of sockets. If they really want to spice up gearing, they need to break this lock and let the stats that are attractive fluxuate within an ilvl.

Will this fix anything? I don't know - I doubt armor, unless there's loads of it, will really become attractive from the simple fact that 90k armor is the 75% cap I think, and tanks are in the 35-45k armor mark depending on gearing and even with a couple of tier, unlikely to hit 60k, so I don't know if armor would be 'valuable enough' to make a more floating system work. But in terms of making players think and choose, this is a far better design than establishing 'minimum hit/exp' levels for tanks.

Kojiyama
04-01-2011, 02:44 PM
The other thing to point out here is that the dynamic between Parry/Dodge/Mastery/(Bonus Armor) is pretty complex. It's already a bit difficult to choose optimal mitigation gear at a glance, honestly. Using tools or spreadsheets is almost a requirement for this.

Why do they want to make tank gearing more complex? I think they would really need to simplify Mastery in order to better facilitate eyeballing if they want to try adding two more strange 'damage as mitigiation' convert mechanics in some way. It almost certainly would just require additional support of tools to figure out what to use.

Leverage
04-10-2011, 07:33 AM
Vengeance as a rough idea of 'scaling threat based on situation' is a good idea. But, yeah, the implementation is pretty backwards and it really doesn't do what it needs to do. The fact that it fails to scale in any way proportional to DPS classes simply means threat is either way, way too easy or way, way too hard depending on the situation.

It really felt like something that was attempting to be clever but ended up as quite a blunt instrument.

Anyway, I don't feel like offering Hit as some kind of Mitigation stat will particularly help anything. I don't think tanks really need to think that way. Like the Vengeance thing, this feels backwards to me. I feel like a tank should get Hit/Expertise for other reasons without needing to stack them on gear.

If they are concerned about tank gear not having enough stats, I will question why the original tanking stat was removed from the game... But that's another issue, really.

This really seemed to sum up the issue. I thought the idea of cata was to make stats and specs more clear, easier to use etc. Most people feel vengeance is not working how it was designed... just remove it. Alter base prot threat to compensate. Make taunts missable while your at it, tanks have to cap hit again. Nerf boss damage a little to compensate for the hit capping, or just increase armor on tank gear a bit to compensate.

Fetzie
04-10-2011, 07:44 AM
If they are concerned about tank gear not having enough stats, I will question why the original tanking stat was removed from the game... But that's another issue, really.Yeah, I agree. They take away "the tank stat" on the grounds that it provides a barrier to beginner tanks starting to tank stuff. Then they want us to end up balancing 5 stats, and maybe even haste and crit too. Judging by the amount of "HALP" threads on this forum alone that are basically asking "how do dodge, parry and mastery work?", (and there are bound to be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people that never pluck up the courage to ask and give up tanking before they realise how awesome it is) I absolutely do not believe that tanks need more stats to balance. Make certain mechanics less clunky/more intuitive and add in nuances that make things interesting/slightly more complicated for the highly proficient tanks, but making the role even less accessible to the layman as it is now is the wrong way about it.