[Warwench]

^ not to mention we've tanked the same encounters with our DK, and With me, and EVERYONE, DPS and Healers have said "your a cool guy, but please let him tank, it's just easier".. i now play a Shaman.

[Hit Me]

Source: Horacio Allow me to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment. How much of the difference between classes is on paper, in raw statistical numbers versus hands on experience? I will admit when a group of players decide to form a guild, a raiding team or piece together a pug, those things matter in their minds unless there is a tank available to them that they know intimately and trust implictly. Most of the players that post here are not in the top 2% of guilds pushing achievements and world first and even if they are, how many times have you been in a situation where the prevailing wisdom is "Gee, we totally had that. If only our tank had been an X instead of a Y, we'd be passing out loot right now" There is something to be said for going into battle knowing you may not be the best equipped to do your job. It can be a matter of principle. I don't know how many warriors have lost their job to another class but to me, it seems as if the most likely answer is "I'm still the MT, but this is BS that an XYZ could do better than I could" For my part, I show up and raid. I've been doing it for 4 years and I am trusted to do my job. We fail if I or our other warrior tank who is the nominal MT make a mistake. We probably have a smaller margin of error in some respects like AoE tanking. From Blizzard's perspective, they want to see a spread of classes filling all sorts of roles. If they believe warriors are over represented in the tanking department, I'm not sure how else they should manage that if their goal is both class and population balance. I guess I'm a little bit different in that if a warrior can serve as a tank even if its more difficult to match another class's performance, then I will stick it out. I mean, tanks in general are not exactly the lowest common denomonator. I've raided on all sorts of classes and in all kinds of roles. Tanking is intense. DPSing as a DK is not so much. Many other classes consist of spamming high damage attacks and are in relative terms simple. We chose to tank knowing or even because it was involved and intense and yet we complain because other classes tank tank with fewer button presses and less resource management? I understand that, I really do. It is a little frustrating. I guess my point is that while we could stand to see some attention paid to our class and some improvements, its not that bad, we aren't broken, and we are perfectly capable of tanking anything and everything.

Most of issues addressed aren't really buffs as much as they are fixes. I agree that warriors shouldn't be put over the edge and probably aren't that far off from other tanks. They shouldn't do anything that might make Warriors OP compared to other tanking classes, but to disregard things like rage starvation and heroic strike because more people play warriors just doesn't make sense.

It reminds me of how they handled the technical issues with WG. They decided that making it less appealing to players would reduce the numbers participating and solve the problems with lag and server crashes. Now, it seems like they're keeping warriors the way they are in hopes it will bring the other tanking classes in line with warriors in representation.

It's a backwards philosophy because the reason so many people play warriors is because they've been viable tanks for as long as the game has been out, not because of any imbalance with the class itself. You can't punish an overrepresented class when the reason it's over represented has nothing to do with current performance of the class itself.

I think if the devs changed their philosophy and began prioritizing actual class performance over class representation, they would take a huge step in the right direction.

I'm all for balance. I don't want to see warriors become a face roll and I don't want to see other classes get nerfed into the ground. I just don't like how heavily representation seems to be influencing these decisions.

[Mhoram]

I'm just wondering how much of this is being pushed aside because of the new MMO they're working on. They may be figuring "Why put so much energy into a five year old game, when we'll have a new game, with new mechanics such, for them to jump to".

Even a company with the resources Blizzard has at its disposal has to be looking at what they can reasonably do in a reasonable period of time. They don't want to push expansions out too far, I'm sure.

Perhaps, though, they should take a break from pushing all this content and spend the next big patch fixing these mechanics and problems. But that would upset the hardcore (or maybe progression would be a better term) raiders, who would have nothing to do after blazing through the current stuff. There's pros and cons either way.

[cen1]

Source: Hit Me I'm all for balance. I don't want to see warriors become a face roll and I don't want to see other classes get nerfed into the ground. I just don't like how heavily representation seems to be influencing these decisions.

This is pretty much where I am at.
I just can't understand how representation can have such a huge factor in coming up with balancing solutions, especially when it really has no direct correlation to performance... or the amount of money blizz makes every month.

[Ohhnose]

But successful guilds tend to stick with their MT once they find one that works. Many MTs have been doing the job for years, and if they stopped doing it, it's because they typically burned out or something, not that the raid leadership decided another class was a better MT now so it was time to retire the last guy.

Problem with this part of the blue post is that the feeling that you might be holding back your guild by wanting to tank is a huge contributer to tank burnout.

[Aerona]

Source: Horacio I guess my point is that while we could stand to see some attention paid to our class and some improvements, its not that bad, we aren't broken, and we are perfectly capable of tanking anything and everything.

This is dangerously veering to a class vs. class comparison but I thought this needed to be said:

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it's probable or even a good decision.

It is possible to raid with all ranged dps and every healer being the same class. You're not playing strengths, but it's possible. That's the big difference. I would argue that there are some encounters that a warrior flat out cannot tank but that's another issue. The point is not that you need another class to be able to do the encounter, you just need another class to make the encounter exponentially easier. Not playing those strengths because someone has been in the MT slot for a long time is disrespectful to the entire raid who are wasting time making a fight harder than it has to be.

It's like an additional hard mode to the raid.

[capo2727]

Source: Darksend We are pushing 0 watcher yogg in 10 man. Our warrior MT was tanking the encounter. After several sub 10% wipes because heals went off our warrior MT said on vent "If i was on my DK I would have so many more tools to pick up adds we would never have a heal go out or have dark die because I cannot pull the one that healed off him". Maybe we still have some strat flaw but he was genuinely upset about his ability to pick up adds because of his class. But yes, as you said, he is still our MT and he contstantly talks about his lack of tools compared to other classes.

I am a warrior tank and have tanked Yogg and picked up mobs fine. The prob may not be the warrior tank but your dps is to slow. If he has to pick up more then 2 at a time dps is to low. Don't blame the tank 100% for the wipe.

[Azuae]

last night we downed General Vezax for the first time without our DK tanking it, and instead had our usual MT, a warrior, tank it. He's been a MT for a long time, and is good at it (and is also the guild/raid leader). There was a world of difference in the ease in which we dropped Vezax with a DK vs the warrior (and the warrior is better geared). I'd watch his HP drop to about 1% regularly only to be pulled back up slowly. With the DK things were NEVER close like that. Both are very good tanks and highly skilled players, but if our warrior hadn't been quite as well geared as he was, we'd have never killed him last night. When we were learning the fight, having the DK tank it made the fight go from impossible to fairly easy..

These are the things that I hate. When one class makes it SO much easier to do a fight than another class. It brings back memories of Hyjal without a prot pally for the trash waves.

I gave up tanking at the beginning of WOTLK and am now a fury warrior. I LOVE my warrior, and I still love tanking. I knew at the start of WOTLK that the guild would be better off with me not tanking and steppign aside so that we'd have room in our roster for a DK tank.

[Honorshammer]

Source: Aerona That's the big difference. I would argue that there are some encounters that a warrior flat out cannot tank but that's another issue.

I would challenge your assement. As far as I know (afaik) Every fight can and has been tanked by every tank class.

[Honorshammer]

Source: Aerona The point is not that you need another class to be able to do the encounter, you just need another class to make the encounter exponentially easier.

Kind of like Tanking as a Paladin throughout tBC. (Boss tanking, not Trash tanking.) You could do it but Warriors made it exponentially easier.

[Kiyah]

Wow...some things GC said on there just pissed me off and concerned me even more. It's almost like he's laughing at the issues warriors are bringing up, and even turning them around and making them in to snide remarks and nonconstructive comments...

I hope some other dev besides him reads this website and the poster's comments, because they are definitely valid comments and suggestions. Just because warriors were great tanks in the past, does not mean we should get the short end of the stick today. Basically what I gathered is because our class was popular, they are balancing our tanking abilities around # of people playing the class and past experiences instead of numbers, facts, and future issues.

[Horacio]

I guess part of my issue is that I have not yet run with a DK tank. Not even on alts. I have no basis for comparison as every DK I know is lolDPS. I haven't bothered with seriously taking mine to tank spec because i already have that covered.

So I am biased in that regard. Frankly, in the circles I run in, no one thinks to challenge the tanking regime because we are devout Tankspotters and constantly on top of our gear. The fact that our guild doesn't push progression hard reinforces that fact.

And in practice, now that I think about it, it may be true. We have had issues keeping tanks alive. Its a running joke that I end up tanking all guild firsts because our MT dies half way through. Sometimes its too much and we wipe but its not on either one of us. Sure, we make mistakes, everyone does but our gear is top notch and our threat is well above where it needs to be.

But.....if a DK were injected into the mix, would it change? I have a lvl 80 DK in full DPS epics from Naxx and Ulduar 10. But to hell with that, I love my main and it will be a cold day in hell before I give up and swap.

Point is, I have no basis for a side by side comparison. the raid seems to be rather pleased to have three solid tanks (3rd being a pally) and the wipes we had where the tank died were solved with changes to healing.

[Honorshammer]

I agree it's odd to balance around population numbers. They started doing that with Arenas (buffing or nerfing based upon representation in different brackets). They have to realize that approach doesn't carry over to PVE for obvious reason.

[Conreeaght]

This smells like a case of using starvation to cull the over-represented amount of warrior tanks. It stinks to be told 'if you want warriors to be buffed, pray more people pick up a different class.'

I'm dying to know what they are lifting their statistics from for tanking representation? I mean, there's lots of variables to use - some better then others. How do they determine representation or are they pulling figures from thin air or sideline musings? I'm forced to assume they're basing it on 'number of x class specced protection/feral/frost' which is extemely flawed.

[Surfie]

I'm pretty sure the ATTT buff is really only a neutral compensation for the nerf to Inspiration. It might even be a negative gain in attack power -- has anyone done the math?

[Hit Me]

Source: Surfie I'm pretty sure the ATTT buff is really only a neutral compensation for the nerf to Inspiration. It might even be a negative gain in attack power -- has anyone done the math?

I haven't done the math, but I'm not sure how it could be a reduction in AP. I think somebody said it was +200 earlier or something like that.

[Conreeaght]

Inspiration used to grant +25% armor (there's a shaman healing equivalent as well). As such, AttT would gain AP on that extra 25%.

It's being changed to a flat damage reduction instead, hence where the 'loss' figures are coming from.

[Warwench]

Source: Surfie I'm pretty sure the ATTT buff is really only a neutral compensation for the nerf to Inspiration. It might even be a negative gain in attack power -- has anyone done the math?

It's more of a buff for me in Tank mode than as Fury.

Tank - about 350 AP
Fury - about 250 AP (but i lose 6.5% Crit)
Fury in leather - about 150 AP

[Ghladum]

Assuming 26,000armor, Inspiration grants an extra 6500 armor. At the 180ac=3AP, that's a gain of 108 AP, the way things are today.

Assuming a gain of 250AP once the 108ac=3AP goes live, that'll be a net gain of ~150AP, static.

[Lugor]

My guild is probably rather odd in the fact that we tend to have 6 tanks that show up regularly: 3 warriors, 2 druids and a DK. When you recruit, you tend to have a certain percentage stay, but for some reason, our tanks always stuck. Anyway, having the flexibility to swap tanks out has shown us any class can tank it, but it is much easier if a druid or death knight does it. Our progression wouldn't stop tomorrow if we lost our DK, but it certainly would set us back. Any fight that can kill a tank in 2 hits or less is best tanked by a druid or DK. A warrior can do it, but your risk factor goes up.

On a side note, we don't like our druids tanking either, because they are such great DPS now. We get much better raid synergy from having a warrior tank it, and the druid going kitty, than the other way around.

Lugor