+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 234

Thread: PTR 3.3.3 - Death Knight - Tanks

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    I don't really buy that statement. Just looking at the top 5 kills of 25 man LK at world of logs, at least 2 of them use DK's as tanks. I would agree they are used less, but not at all is really stretching it. It is probably better to cut the hyperbole/misinformation down some in favor of facts. There are may be better ways to tank certain things, but that doesn't make DK's limp in the encounter.

    On Topic: The buffs DK's got were very nice. I guess we'll have to wait and see how the WotN buff plays out, but I know our main DK tank is definitely excited.
    Once again, seek out the information about pestilence and necrotic plague bug and you will understand why DK tanks were utilized there. It was not hyperbolic to suggest that was the sole reason to bring them (talk with a few of these top DK's if you want more infomation, you can find most of them on the EJ benefactor's forum). I'm certainly excited about the wotn buff, and the Icy Touch buff too.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,021
    I was more referring to the assertion that DK's aren't used at all, which isn't really true. Used less, maybe yeah, but not at all seems reaching is all. For one there really isn't even any evidence of that, plus you know there are still going to be people who do non-optimal things and still succeed, regardless of the issues. Warriors are probably the worst off tank in terms of relative survivability, but people will still use warriors to tank everything because they can and they like warriors. I think the same will hold true for DK's, again though, there is no evidence to support the statement in either direction.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Esch View Post
    I have noticed a number of "WotN will be OP" comments, but I found out last night that AD is actually very similar now. The major differences are AD's GS aspect and that AD functions at 20%, rather than WotN's 15%. Was AD changed at some point and I missed the note? It does lend credence to WotN 3.3.3 going live as it is on PTR if AD is already performing the same 'full' reductions on hits that cross the 35% threshold as that implies WotN will be comparatively balanced to a talent already in game.
    One of the other big difference is that the 20% reduction only applies to damage below the threshold. It doesn't knock 20% off of the entire hit, just the part that is below 35%.

    As an example, if you have 50k HP and get hit for 50K damage as a paladin, then you will take the first 32500 damage of that hit at 100% damage and the last 17500 damage will be reduced down to 14000. So instead of taking a full 50k damage, you would take 46.5k damage after AD, for a net savings of 3500 damage. If a DK with the new WotN took that hit they would take .85*50000 = 42500 damage for a savings of 7500 damage.

    There are probably also situations where AD reduces damage better than WotN. I was just using that situation so you could see the difference in how the two abilities are applied. I am not trying to imply one is better/worse than the other at this time, just trying to illustrate the mechanics.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    There are probably also situations where AD reduces damage better than WotN.
    Yup. Specifically, any time more than 75% of the pre-reduction damage you take is below the 35% threshold, AD will reduce more damage than WotN will.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    15
    I seem to be confused about how WotN works on strikes that hit you while you are already under 35%. One guy, and I can't recall where, posted that his logs showed the WotN as an absorb and that they continued so long as the resultant hp total was under 35% regardless of whether or not the hp total prior to the strike was above 35%. If he is right, and not merely talking out his arse, the removal of the CD is a major improvement to WotN, since this would mean any hit while below 35% will be reduced on top of the hit that actually dropped you accross that thresh hold.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    98
    That's how it used to work and does work with the current PTR. On live, it is nearly impossible to remain below 35% and proc WotN again. The initial hit that took you below the 35% threshold procced the original absorb and started the 15s cooldown.

    This is not a major buff though. If you spend more than 2-3 seconds below 35% or are constantly dipping down there, your raid is probably heading to a wipe because the boss is about to kill you.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    15
    Well, if you take a cleave from Marrowgar full on and survive, it most assuredly will have dropped you below 35%. That will trigger the 15% reduction. I don't think he ever cleaves back to back, so perhaps the 15% reduction on the follow up swing might actually save you if the healer got spiked or for whatever reason couldn't top you off right away after the cleave....not that you should ever take a cleave full on, but it is an example.

    Edit: And this means that PvPers will QQ over the 15% dmg reduction in that last 35% health on a DK.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    One of the other big difference is that the 20% reduction only applies to damage below the threshold. It doesn't knock 20% off of the entire hit, just the part that is below 35%.
    I had to double double check, and I'm going to have to metion this tonight. The 'fine print' eluded me when I was discussing this last night. We (myself & raidmate) misconstrued the tooltip. Blargh.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,378
    I'll admit I misconstrued the tool tip on Ardent Defender as well since textually they seem the same as WOTN.

    READ THIS: Posting & Chat Rules
    Quote Originally Posted by Turelliax View Post
    I will never be a kaz.. no one can reach the utter awesomeness of you.
    http://i.imgur.com/3vbQi.gif

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    I was more referring to the assertion that DK's aren't used at all, which isn't really true. Used less, maybe yeah, but not at all seems reaching is all. For one there really isn't even any evidence of that, plus you know there are still going to be people who do non-optimal things and still succeed, regardless of the issues. Warriors are probably the worst off tank in terms of relative survivability, but people will still use warriors to tank everything because they can and they like warriors. I think the same will hold true for DK's, again though, there is no evidence to support the statement in either direction.
    I think it's poor form to assume that dk tanks being used in so few LK kills is fine. Sub-optimal arguments are really straw-men here. You cannot talk about top 200 kills and sub-optimal compositions in the same line of reasoning. As far as warriors go, they have a VERY important role in LK tanking in safeguard/intervene MT for soul reapers as well as stunning valks like a champ. Two things that deathknights cannot do in any form or fashoin. You could argue this isn't tanking the lich king, that it is a secondary role, or any number of red-herring issues, but the fact is warriors have a niche on the lich king encounter and (much like anub'arak before him) the deathknight is fairly sub-standard at any tanking role for the encounter (wotn changes may change this).

    There is plenty of evidence regarding tank usage in the logs. Feel free to point out dk tank usage that I missed. According to Zarko's thread on the WoW tanking boards dk representation at the lich king was sub 10% pre-plague gimmick nerf, i'd shudder to think what it is at right now.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,021
    I never said the situation was fine (I never said how I thought the situation was either way). However, it isn't nearly as dire as you make it sound either. Saying no DK's tank the LK is simply wrong. There's not much more to that. Is it worse for them? I am not arguing that either way, however, I don't think misrepresenting something is going to help your argument. Hopefully the WotN changes will help out DK's for the LK if it is bad for them.
    Last edited by jere; 02-23-2010 at 04:13 PM.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    785
    Personally I have no problems tanking the LK, the problem is just the huge variance in performance. It isn't as bad as Anub'Arak was, but warriors are still definitely the singular best OT for the fight.
    Also I really get annoyed at warriors that complain about being the "OT". The "OT" job is the important job. Nothing about the lich king himself is difficult, it's everything the warriors end up tanking that cause problems. Diseases/Enrages on shamblers, dealing with Valkyrs during defile, and Raging Spirits. I doubt many guilds have issues with Soul Reaper past night 1.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    I don't really buy that statement. Just looking at the top 5 kills of 25 man LK at world of logs, at least 2 of them use DK's as tanks. .
    They weren't used for tanking, but for a cheap method of disease stacking. His statement WAS a little exaggerated, but a lot of the (already very low representation) numbers of DK tanks used on LK in the top 200 kills were probably skewed from this result. I would expect in the 10% range now.

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,021
    Yep, I could see that. I agree about the OT comment too. I think sometime people just get hung up on the OT/MT mentality and forget where the importance lies for an encounter.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    Yep, I could see that. I agree about the OT comment too. I think sometime people just get hung up on the OT/MT mentality and forget where the importance lies for an encounter.

    You're misunderstanding me. They were off-tanks because of the gimmick. How do you think a no-block tank fares tanking a dozen ghouls and two shamblers? It isn't pretty, and I can assure you that no dk was the "off-tank," in those parses. They were there solely to get plauged, spread it with pest.

    I'm not suggesting "oh we got relegated to OT duty!" Far from it. I would relish the idea that i was a highly effective OT. As i mentioned earlier about warriors, between stuns and mobility, intervene/safeguard for reaper, they have a niche. I like the idea of having a niche, but exploting a bug (repeat: BUG, fixed bug) with pestilence is not a niche.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Proletaria View Post
    You're misunderstanding me. They were off-tanks because of the gimmick. How do you think a no-block tank fares tanking a dozen ghouls and two shamblers? It isn't pretty, and I can assure you that no dk was the "off-tank," in those parses. They were there solely to get plauged, spread it with pest.

    I'm not suggesting "oh we got relegated to OT duty!" Far from it. I would relish the idea that i was a highly effective OT. As i mentioned earlier about warriors, between stuns and mobility, intervene/safeguard for reaper, they have a niche. I like the idea of having a niche, but exploting a bug (repeat: BUG, fixed bug) with pestilence is not a niche.
    He was talking to me, which agrees with you.
    Silly bear.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Edgewalker View Post
    He was talking to me, which agrees with you.
    Silly bear.
    I didn't take that from his post (even after re-reading it), but i'll take your word for it. Anyhow, to respond to what you said earlier, our representation was fairly low even with that bug live. I find it fairly illogical to assume they went up after the fix.

    On the bright side, frost with chillblains is nice for saurfang hardmode if you don't have enough snares... =/

  18. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Proletaria View Post
    I didn't take that from his post (even after re-reading it), but i'll take your word for it. Anyhow, to respond to what you said earlier, our representation was fairly low even with that bug live. I find it fairly illogical to assume they went up after the fix.

    On the bright side, frost with chillblains is nice for saurfang hardmode if you don't have enough snares... =/
    I would expect the representation to go up as more casual 10 man / 25 man guilds with less options got to him. Even on encounters like Vezax HM you saw non-DK tanks gradually rise as guilds with less options got to him / started trying him. Weird phenomenon that doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the class.

    I think "I agree about the OT comment too. I think sometime people just get hung up on the OT/MT mentality and forget where the importance lies for an encounter." was referring to me saying Warrior OT's make a bigger difference in the fight than having any other MT. I wish I had AOE Stun, Demo, and Sunder

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,021
    It was in agreement with your statement on how the OT job is the most important in that situation (and I extrapolated to other situations). I think people get too hung up on thinking OT < MT and get riled a lot.

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    It was in agreement with your statement on how the OT job is the most important in that situation (and I extrapolated to other situations). I think people get too hung up on thinking OT < MT and get riled a lot.
    The stigma of being an 'OT' still lasts from MC content, where two tanks handled 'trash' until the raid could deal with the 'boss'. Until WotLK, if you weren't the MT, you were a lesser tank and thus 'not as good'. I have seen paladins react to this in WotLK by insisting to be the MT, even if fight mechanics favor another tank, or the adds favor sustained AoE tanking. It's not that MT is a more important job, but the fear that doing the OT work will devalue that tank.

    My complaint is that DKs are still lacking the AP debuff in the toolbox, and I dislike how in all the changes, that still not on the Dev radar. That lack makes add tanking far more difficult as a result.

+ 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