Ghostcrawler dropped by the tanking topic on health on the WoW forums:
SourceOriginally Posted by Ghostcrawler, Lead Systems Designer
Got a question? Try here: Evil Empire Guides and here: Tankspot Guides and Articles Library first!
Looks like our friendly neighborhood game designer is having just a hint of despair when it comes to confronting the min/maxing playerbase boss.
Here's hoping they don't give up. I'm having a great time on my warrior, and I would hate to be relegated to trash tanking because of my class. The tanks do feel different, even warriors and pallys, at least to me.
Honestly -- they need to stop worrying about homogenization. Make the distinction between classes be based on ABILITIES, not stats.
風林火山陰雷
ಠ ,ಠ
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain - it's time to roll the dice
Well said Norrath, roughly balance the stats and increase class flavour through unique talents and playstyle!
I read many great ideas in the previous discussion paper threads that would make each tanking class so much more interesting to play!
I want more interactivity in my class. More options/chances to demonstrate skillful play rather than "spam this rotation/priority list of skills".
Eh, we'll see. I'm pretty confident they'll be able to bring things in check without making everybody play the exact same way.
Offtopic, but the discussion following the WoW version of TT#3 was both fascinating and painful to read.
They need to stop homogenizing classes.. every class has its little querks, thats what makes them fun. on the other hand. we shouldn't be penalized because of our class, but i don't feel as if it has or will be an issue.
why would i want my warrior to be the same as the pally, druid, or DK standing by me? we all are good tanks, some have things others dont. but for the most part one classes weekness is complemented by something other classes cannot do.
Make two lists, qualities a tank MUST have, qualities a tank CAN have.
Make sure no boss fight exceeds the first list unless it is a multi tank fight in which case throw in some parts of the fight that require things from list b in the 25 man version.
I don't think it is too much to expect every 25 man raid to have one of each tank.
Honestly paladins and druids could still use a bit of work, as they really lack unique list B abilities (except bubble and LoH and cleanse (though if your tank has to cleanse themselves in most cases you've already failed) but really, how are you going to work that into a boss fight).
List B would be things like charge, good interrupts (like shield bash), offensive dispells (like shield slam), insane defensive cooldowns (like dks), spell reflect, threat drops (pallys have it, but a holy/ret can cover that just as well, where as a dps warrior has to put on a shield and change stances, and really a main tank has a hard time using intervene considering the boss will then cleave and kill the dps he just used it on in MANY cases), fear break, etc...
Pallys are probably still the best AoE tanks, and if you want to consider that a list b thing, thats fine with me.
It seems like druid's current list b thing is having more HP than god.
But I consider the ability to AoE tank, and the ability to have enough HP to survive to be pretty firmly on list A (as well as enough single target TPS to hold agro on bosses), which means pallys will ALWAYS be called on for AoE tanking situations, and druids will be called on for progression tanking situations where other tanks may need a bit of gear from those bosses (or the healers need gear/knowledge of fight) before they can take over on that boss.
I really don't know what list B stuff you should add to give flavor to pallys and druids, but I don't think anyone would be harmed by bringing the list A things to an even state, particularly HP (non cool-down survivability in general) into line for all tanking classes...
The list A stuff, people need to KNOW they are getting that with any generic tank, and 5/10 man stuff should be built around that, as you are unlikely to bring one of each... Hard Mode/Achievements in 5/10 man feel free to require one type of tank, but in general avoid requiring 2 specific tanks, as then you run into situations where it is "not possible" for some classes to get the achievements at all (without having good offspec gear) and that is kind of lame.
Ghostcrawler sounds like an Amber Diceless GM trying to run a campaign for a bunch of hardcore D&Ders.
we never have nor plan on having a paladin tank, and i can guarantee a lot more guilds do not have a paladin tank than one of the other 3 classes
Way too much to expect. I don't think my guild will ever have a DK tank. we only have 1 Pally Tank, and 1 Druid Tank, plus 3 Warriors, including myself. Nothing against the other classes. This is just the composition we wound up with, and I don't see a need for more than 5 raid-ready tanks in the guild.
Don't POP a blood vessel... It's just a game.
Is it to much to ask that they have a warrior tank?
While I am of the opinion that warriors should continue to be the "default" tank, and if any, warrior should be the tanking class that that guilds should be relied on to have... but I catch a definite VIBE of "lets make the game better for me" rather than better over all/everyone from statements like that.
They can either homogenize to the point it no longer matters ever at all who you bring, or they can give another class a spell reflect and another class more cooldowns/survivability and have it be one from set a and one from set b, or they can make them all unique and force you to have them all...
Idiotic "Paladins tanked better than me in EQ, I'll be damned if I ever let a pally tank in my raid" type bitterness doesn't really help.
With Duel specs next patch, if a pally healer has to switch over to tank for a fight or two and the druid tank needs to switch to healing, I don't really see that as a big deal, and allows them to keep the classes both different AND viable.
If people want to be straight up prejudiced, I don't really care, and as a developer, unless I saw figures stating that >50% of the player base felt that way I wouldn't see any reason to accede to their demands either.
My guild doesn't have a pally tank either (other than an alt or two), and honestly I'd rather stick to my warrior anyway, but there are LOTS of pallys out there who have been trying to be a respectable member of the tanking community since 1.0 who'd like to see some content that requires them (as previous content has required every other tanking class at one time or another).
They've done a pretty good job of keeping these sorts of abilities fair between classes. I'm sure you've noticed that Spell Reflect doesn't help that much on raid bosses, for example...or they can give another class a spell reflect and another class more cooldowns/survivability and have it be one from set a and one from set b
Whoa whoa whoa, hold on a second. Pally tanks were practically mandatory for TBC, and it was terrible. Requiring a specific tank in any raid is a bad, bad idea and it's fantastic to see that they've gotten rid of it. No one deserves a raid spot just because of their class. Do I wish these hypothetical pallies can tank? Absolutely. But forcing them on raids is not the way to go.but there are LOTS of pallys out there who have been trying to be a respectable member of the tanking community since 1.0 who'd like to see some content that requires them
If it seems to you like warriors are asking for buffs (relating back to the EH topic...), maybe it's because they do in order to things to be "fair."
Tank spots in a raid is far fewer then healers and even fewer compared to dps. A raid that runs 1 tank of each class is seriously gimping itself since for naxx you need 2.5 tanks at most. So if you are expecting raids to have 1 of each you are expecting people to respecc and keep multiple gearsets up to date and that every guild have this option (which is not the case).
Personally I'm of the belief that every tank should be able to handle every encounter, some slightly easier then others but still very doable. And then let skill be the deciding factor on who you keep instead of what class they happen to play.
Paladin's may have been "Practically Manditory" but warriors WHERE Mandatory. But yeah, no class should be mandatory.
I think the issue is that when they were balancing tanks for 3.0, they thought that the ability to mitigate massive spell damage was in your column B, iow, that it was okay that two classes could handle massive spell damage easier than the others.Make two lists, qualities a tank MUST have, qualities a tank CAN have.
Sartharion +3D is disproving them.
Shields and the ability to block needs to give Paladins and Warriors some help on magical damage. They don't necessarily have to give shield classes similar health values (or allow druids and deathknights to block and/or parry). But they can't make us rely on our talents and our passive modifiers.
The corollary to the theorem "Bring the player, not the class" is that "Bringing class x cannot make the encounter significantly more difficult than bringing class y." Class variety can come from giving each class unique and different tools for the same situations.
I thought about this a bit, and I thought the answer might lie with Holy shield/Shield Block, or at least the mechanics.
1. Give warriors a short cooldown damage mitigation from spell reflect (and perhaps let them reflect a small % of that damage back to the target, wouldn't THAT be interesting)
2. Give Paladins either passive spell resistance from holy shield or allow them to blow all the charges on holy shield for a short massive damage mitigation buff.
Perhaps make these abilities scale with block?
Then raid leaders wouldn't have to disallow Paladins and Warriors from MT on this fight because they make an already difficult encounter 10 times harder.
Playing a pally tank I'm fairly biased towards my class, but that's mainly because I see a lot of "I AM WARRIOR I ARE BETTER TANK!" attitude.
The idea of "default tank" has gone out the window IMO. Paladins can tank as well as a warrior, in some cases better. In a few cases, worse!
I am yet to see a fight that having either a Paladin or Warrior is mandatory, both being able to do roughly the same job to the same degree. There are fights where neither is a good choice, such as Sarth 3D where it's better to have a DK or Druid tanking.
Having the 4 classes in one raid is a bit of a joke. We took 3 tanks to Naxx25 last night, Warrior Paladin and Druid. For most of the bosses the druid and warrior were DPS, and for Sapp I was healing. Trying to fit a DK in there as well would be a waste of time, if we needed an extra tank one of the DK's just chucked on tanking gear and went at it.
I loled.Ghostcrawler sounds like an Amber Diceless GM trying to run a campaign for a bunch of hardcore D&Ders.
We currently don't have a drood tank. I don't think you can guarantee "a lot more guilds" have anything.
Maybe I'm reading between the lines here but I don't think the sentiment was that all types of tanks would be needed but that with dual specs coming the potential for all tanks be covered could be present for most guilds without necessarily gimping dps or healing.
the last time i healed, it was on my priest in original naxx at 60. I tried healing a pug bt in full sunwell gear after 3.0, i failed, miserably
now tell me to go respec resto on a progression ulduar fight and see what happens.
just because a class is capable of respecing from a healer to a tank or a moonkin to a tank or from melee DPS to a tank, or from tank to healer, DOES NOT MEAN that that person will be good at the roll they are respecing too. the rest just flat out wont do it because they know they will be bad so they dont even collect the gear
i have been saying this a while now, just because a CLASS is capable of respecing and filling another roll, does not mean that player will be comfortable enough with that roll to help a guild progress
While that HAS been the case, I don't really see why it should be.
The best fight ever in the history of wow 25 man raiding IMHO (muru) took 4 tanks.
A Warrior was 100% required and a pally was "suggested".
We used 2 warriors, a bear and a pally, but I could easily see a DK in the role of the 2nd warrior.
While I don't think we'd want to see raids requiring 1/3 tanks, 1/3 dps, and 1/3 healers, I don't really see why most content should only require 1-2 tanks out of 25.
Wonder why there aren't any tanks for that heroic you want to run? maybe because there really isn't room for more tanks in the end game raiding, so why would someone play a tank?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks