+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Instead of Rage on Avoidance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    16

    Instead of Rage on Avoidance

    Now I realise it's currently an "in-thing" in the Warrior community to hate on Vigilance. Unnecessarily IMO, frankly. The complaint about it being that the non-damage linked threat from Vigilance will feedback into less damage output from a Warrior tank compared to another type of tank. This relies on the totally flawed assumption that TPS is derived entirely from DPS, which is obviously not the case. Some abilities have static modifiers, some have extra multiplicative dps->tps modifiers, some abilities have none. There is no reason that 10-15% threat from Vigilance could not come at the expense of a slightly lower hidden threat value than it would from Damage Done.

    With that out of the way, what Warriors typically want to see now is a Rage on Avoidance mechanic. We used to have it from Paladins. Druids have it. Paladins still have it. Looks like DKs will be getting it too. So why can't we get it? One possible answer is that it's yet another similarity between every tank class that brings us closer together instead of emphasising the differences. What if instead of rage on avoidance, we got another source of rage that was comparible in output, but had a different requirement. IE, what if we got x rage every time the target of our Vigilance ability landed a critical. Thematically, I love it. Vigilance on someone is the Warrior's way of keeping aggro from them. If they crit, they're doing more threat, and the Warrior has to push himself harder to maintain that threat lead, which translates in game to more rage to use.

    It could have a drawback in that if your target isn't attacking or isn't critting, then you get no return unlike the other tanks. But when is this realistically going to happen? If there's a period where no-one is attacking the boss, then it's unlikely that you will be or the boss will be attacking you. Even if this were the case, if no-one is attacking the boss, you should not be suffering any threat issues that would require the extra rage from Vigilance.

    I'd like to see either Vigilance changed to grant this kind of mechanic, or at least the Vigilance glyph changed from the 5% extra threat transfer to bonus rage on crit. Or does this mechanic suffer from any real drawback that a rage on avoidance talent would not?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    14
    i do like the idea of having x rage everytime ur Vigilance target Crits, as u said it push u as a tank to keep the threat up, i dont know if this looks like a good idea to some of other tanks, the idea of depending on someone else to generate rage and threat its... i dont know.. lame.

    I still think that we warriors still need something... the homogenization its letting us way behind some of the other tanks since we have not improved as much as them (Still love tanking as a warrior but hate the fact that Paladins / DKs have a Higher DPS ouput and a considerable TPS in any scenario)

    Last time i readed i think i saw something to buff Vigilance.. (i think it was 20% now) i dont think thats a solution, but might give us a hand in the meanwhile.
    Still i would like to see a new mechanic to make our life easier.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wales, United Kingdom
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Redk View Post
    the idea of depending on someone else to generate rage and threat its... i dont know.. lame.
    You hit the nail on the head, its completely lame.

    Warriors should be self sufficient without this stupid buff but currently we need to put it on a player with high threat assuming the warrior player has omen and recount installed before it becomes slightly useful and increases our threat, even then the threat produced is often lower than any other tank class.

    Just stating fact.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    16
    Again, senseless bashing of Vigilance. Warriors should be self sufficient? Since when is self-sufficiency of any concern to a tank? Threat by it's very nature is a group concern. Without the group, there is just DPS. And you'll find that a lot of your precious threat from damage is dependant even more heavily on your group. That 20% haste, 10% ap, 5% crit, etc, etc. All depend on your group. The idea that tanks should be self sufficient in what is a number only relevant in a group is ridiculous.

    Also Ricovega, you need to get with the times. Omen is now just a nice front end to the threat calculations done on the server. You do not need your DPS to install Omen to see which of them is doing the most threat. You just need to have Omen yourself.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wales, United Kingdom
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Potta View Post
    Again, senseless bashing of Vigilance. Warriors should be self sufficient? Since when is self-sufficiency of any concern to a tank? Threat by it's very nature is a group concern. Without the group, there is just DPS. And you'll find that a lot of your precious threat from damage is dependant even more heavily on your group. That 20% haste, 10% ap, 5% crit, etc, etc. All depend on your group. The idea that tanks should be self sufficient in what is a number only relevant in a group is ridiculous.

    Also Ricovega, you need to get with the times. Omen is now just a nice front end to the threat calculations done on the server. You do not need your DPS to install Omen to see which of them is doing the most threat. You just need to have Omen yourself.
    you completely misunderstood the context of self sufficiency in relation to threat and totally missed the entire point. and when u said i need to get with the times you made me laugh and again completely missed the point and misinterpreted everything. Go back and read my post again properly. read it out aloud if you need to.

    EDIT: just to add that you initially put forward the idea of changing vigilance in your initial post so you have clearly indicated that in your opinion it needs to be changed. the oxymoronic attitude displayed in your second post is baffling
    Last edited by Ricovega; 03-15-2009 at 01:01 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    332
    Let's break it down: Vigilance is a buff to warriors. A small buff, perhaps, but still a buff.
    Would you rather have a buff, or not a buff?

    Also, I read the following 5 times now and I'm still not sure what you meant by it.

    "There is no reason that 10-15% threat from Vigilance could not come at the expense of a slightly lower hidden threat value than it would from Damage Done."
    Last edited by thedrawrf; 03-15-2009 at 02:51 PM.
    Playing a warrior tank well is its own reward.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    240
    Hmm...I was thinking of something else altogether, like a free white attack or a shield slam or something after avoiding an attack. Sure...tie it into Vigilance. I'd choose that over just straight rage.
    Stay strong. Stay smart. All heart.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by thedrawrf View Post
    Also, I read the following 5 times now and I'm still not sure what you meant by it.

    "There is no reason that 10-15% threat from Vigilance could not come at the expense of a slightly lower hidden threat value than it would from Damage Done."
    People have been complaining about warriors getting less damage output because of Vigilance and tank balance. Potta is implying that the balancing need not necessarily take place in the damage portion of abilities, but rather in the non-damage threat portion. In which he is, of course, perfectly right.



    I like the idea you are putting forward. I have shunned Vigilance until recently because I never felt I needed it, and have only taken it for the chain taunting on Sartharion's adds. In fact, apart from this application, I find it to be rather lackluster, as I have never had any threat problems.
    Perhaps adding a fourth effect to Vigilance is pushing it a little, though one might argue that at least the -3% damage taken is not even remotely useful in most situations and might as well be dropped entirely.

    By granting rage on crits, Vigilance would become a little more strategic in use. You may have to consider not putting it onto the high-threat warlock that keeps rolling DoTs and instead put it on the rogue that's third in threat, but attacks with two fast weapons, granting you a lot more rage to work with. I think this kind of consideration makes the ability just so much more interesting and less passive feeling than it is now. I support this idea!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    56
    The hate on Vigilance right now is because it's limiting our ability to do threat via damage, not because the ability itself isn't useful. If Blizzard makes our damage and threat output equal to the other classes and then gives us Vigilance on top of that then we'll be so far ahead of our brother tanks in threat that it wouldn't be fair. Blizzard would have to make fights where threat is a challenge either a cake walk for warriors and a challenge to the other three classes or a challenge to warriors and impossible for the other three classes.

    I would much rather see us do threat through damage and help the raid kill a boss then do threat through a bunch of +threat abilities and leave it to the raid to kill the boss. It's a new design philosophy of Blizzards and I completely embrace it: threat through damage.

    Personally I would like to see the damage on our abilities go up and the threat siphon on Vigilance completely removed and changed to a buff much like Blessing of Sanctuary. This would remove the problem where raids are required to bring a Protection Paladin if they want BoSanc and help us keep doing threat through damage instead of threat through +threat.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    14
    i dont know, in threat i belive that warriors still need a little buff, looking at our "Brother" tanks, Paladins can hold Very Easy 4 mobs, and overthreat any Warrior tank in that scenario, Their Hammer hits 4 targets almost for the same ammount of one of our shield slams, and they still have their own Shield for the main target, so why cant we have one Little Buff at least to be the best in Single target?
    Warriors have alot of Buttons to Press for almost any fight, interrupts, stuns, fear... and all that stuff, but for some reason, most of those skills cant be used in alot of fights, mobs tend to be immune to stun, silence, they dont use weapons, immune to fear... i have found that i cant reflect alot of spells (single target, recall the Shades on Karazhan) so whats the meaning of every those skills?

    Vigilance, personally i dont see too much diferience with it or without it, i rather have it on the highest DPS than dosnt have it at all, its 1 talent point ... and if that keeps my DPS happy i will use it all the time.
    Still think that something more "active" should make everyone use it (since the idea is that u use it as a core talent to the tanks)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,908
    The reason rage on avoidance is a good idea in my mind is because it makes sense. The better your gear gets, the better you should be at tanking. You should generate more hate and mitigate more damage. Thats what tanks do.

    It also makes sense, to me at least, that if you are dodging all over the place, blocking, parrying, dodging your attackers every effort, then it's going to piss them off. Frustrating Defense is what I have called it.

    I think it needs to be a Glyph for Damage Shield. Damage shield is great except in situations where you avoid a lot, it doesnt generate as much rage or threat.

    So add a Glyph for it that increases the threat for the same amount that damage shield would hit for, on a dodge/parry/block. Don't have it generate rage, get right to the point, have it generate threat, much like sunder armor does, for the same amount that the damage shield hits for.

    This lets it scale with the same stats as damage shield, but not over power our damage entirely.

    It will greatly help out in AoE packs aswell.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by Durnic View Post
    The hate on Vigilance right now is because it's limiting our ability to do threat via damage, not because the ability itself isn't useful. If Blizzard makes our damage and threat output equal to the other classes and then gives us Vigilance on top of that then we'll be so far ahead of our brother tanks in threat that it wouldn't be fair. Blizzard would have to make fights where threat is a challenge either a cake walk for warriors and a challenge to the other three classes or a challenge to warriors and impossible for the other three classes.

    I would much rather see us do threat through damage and help the raid kill a boss then do threat through a bunch of +threat abilities and leave it to the raid to kill the boss. It's a new design philosophy of Blizzards and I completely embrace it: threat through damage.

    Personally I would like to see the damage on our abilities go up and the threat siphon on Vigilance completely removed and changed to a buff much like Blessing of Sanctuary. This would remove the problem where raids are required to bring a Protection Paladin if they want BoSanc and help us keep doing threat through damage instead of threat through +threat.
    100% agree, atm we are basically limited in threat by GCD and the threat our abilities make, which obviously at this point isn't enough compared to other classes. Extra rage generation will only help us on off-tanking, not on main tanking, which is something we need as well, but I'm personally more concerned about the threat issue as that would benefit us both in the MT or OT role.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    439
    I do not mean to bash, but I think this idea is terrible. I put vigilance on who ever has highest threat, but if it changed so I got rage on their crits it would compelety change the ability. I would immediately put it on the nearest frostfire mage or elemental shaman.
    also it removes the viability for putting it on an offtank or possibly the maintank(sarth for example) for taunts and -3% dmg.

    Vigilance is good the way it is now, its a good ability, not an amazing ability. That means it is optional, and if the person you put it on dies ... it is not game breaking you're not going to stop functioning immediately.


    The reason that rage on dodge block and parry is popular is that you get better(or at least not worse) as you get better gear, not you get better as your group gets better gear. Also having rage on dodge block and parry would be a good buff for grinding and soloing where as the other is not.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    213
    Sounds like a threat issue and not as much of a dps issue. So if yall could put out more threat with the same set up, would everyone be happy? Not really, also in an OTing situation, unless you were on the same target, you'd be tanking just fine. Unless the boss you are tanking with the MT is not tauntable I never see a huge issue with the OTing putting out less threat (that makes sense to me) no matter the class.

    The deal is/seems to be, that it's not quite equal in all regards between all the classes. But I don't see blizzard fixing much until threat really becomes an issue. I doubt we'll see fights/situations where a warrior's dps wiped the raid. But who knows.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by blackhand View Post
    Sounds like a threat issue and not as much of a dps issue. So if yall could put out more threat with the same set up, would everyone be happy? Not really, also in an OTing situation, unless you were on the same target, you'd be tanking just fine. Unless the boss you are tanking with the MT is not tauntable I never see a huge issue with the OTing putting out less threat (that makes sense to me) no matter the class.

    The deal is/seems to be, that it's not quite equal in all regards between all the classes. But I don't see blizzard fixing much until threat really becomes an issue. I doubt we'll see fights/situations where a warrior's dps wiped the raid. But who knows.
    I think you're completely missing the point of the thread, this is not at all about not enough threat. this is about inverse scaling with gear, warriors start to get worse after you over gear something. the DPS is a side issue that always comes up with the vigilance topic.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,105
    Vigilance if fine and a very nice talent. It also should have nothing to do with generating rage. Warriors need to be rage-sufficient when they are soloing, or when they are doing 5-mans and are by far the best geared. They need to not see an ridiculously asymmetrical fall off in their DPS output just because they overgear content (you know, like all other tanking classes...).

    The idea of getting rage from vigilance would not help many of these situations, and if those were fixed (i.e. getting rage from avoidance) then the changes to vigilance would be pointless.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    31
    Personally I do like the idea of rage on avoid. Not only is us not having rage on avoid hurting us but its making wars look like tools at the very least. Its stopping us from being way better then we actually are. If we had rage on avoid we could finally not shy away from getting the best avoid we could which at the same time would bump up our EH. At this point we really cant have a high avoid due to at the end of the day we are going to rage starve ourselves.

    On the other hand i dont really like the idea of vig helping out too much on threat. Maybe Bliz could give US that extra 10-20% buff on threat without any skills?(But i may just be trying to buff us too much). It would be nice to not have to rely on the highest dps to push our threat high enough to keep up with the other tanks. Thier is no doubt we need a threat buff/Vig change but i guess they will do what they think is needed and we will just have to get used to it.

    It just doesnt seem right to me that we dont want a high amout of avoid because of the rage starving, everyother class can bump up on avoidance and not worry about it. I guess ill throw on some blues from northrend so i have no avoid, so then maybe i can keep up with my rage.
    Last edited by Littlejoe3000; 03-16-2009 at 03:32 AM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    317
    Prot warriors also need a way to get rage when not taking damage. Some encounters call for one tank. It would be nice to do some damage without having to rely entirely on white swings for rage gen.
    "I played hard to avoid mistakes, but now I can play hard to capitalize on opportunities." -Arold, on the 3.0 Protection Warrior.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,630
    Just going on record to say that the reason I don't like vigilance (and the glyph) is because it feels like a giant bandaid. It's quite a lackluster 31 point talent in terms of design. Further, I think it will open itself up to potentially "exploitive" mechanics because of it being a threat siphon.

    I also hate having to remember to buff it, since my warrior has never been a long-term buffing class before
    Xav
    Formerly Xavastrasz
    Quote Originally Posted by Rak View Post
    control+c control+v amirite?
    Quote Originally Posted by Magnuss View Post
    Hell no, its Xav, he is gonna type that bitch till his fingers fall off.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    740
    Vigilance doesn't have to cause low damage - you can just tweak the def. stance modifier to be a little lower and poof! You can tank with more DPS.

    Personally, I love it. It lets the highest threat person really push, gives us the ability to OT decently, even though we lack rage, and provides a healthy TPS increase.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts