+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 77 of 77

Thread: Tank Classes Differentiation, Viability and Encounter Design

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    24
    Imo the real issue that caused Icecrown radiance was warriors and paladins being capable of gearing for unhittable without seriously gimping their tanking ability.

    Taking away 20% avoidance made it nearly impossible (if not impossible) to get to 102.4% dodge, parry, miss, block.

    Obviously being viable with unhittable would not be something they could reasonably balance bears and dks around.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Strucker View Post
    Greetings

    Thought I'd add my 2 cents. I currently have an 80 of each tanking classes and have MT ICC 25 groups with three of them, (The other, my pally, is not yet geared for it).

    In my expierence there is little difference in the capability of each class to tank in ICC, they each have there strong and weak aspects but overall I have yet one of the classes at more then a marginal disadvantage at any point.

    The dodge debuff struck me as the proper way to lower overall avoidance as it reduces the avoidance off all tank equally. Alot of the percieved inbalance of the debuff seems to be oriented around the fact that some tank classes rely more on dodge then others but as the debuff is a fixed amount a druid with 45% dodge will still have 25% comapred to a warrior with 25% dropping to 5%, so the class that has always relied more on dodge still have the same margin of dodge more then others.

    The block mechanic seems equally countered by the druids crit shield and the DKs shorter CDs. The DK's shorter CDs even give the tank more control then the RNG based block and crit shield mechanics.
    Interesting to hear, and glad to get input from someone with all 4. And yes, it does lower overall avoidance...... but again...... WHY DO IT?.......

    Which leads to.........

    Quote Originally Posted by xulev View Post
    Imo the real issue that caused Icecrown radiance was warriors and paladins being capable of gearing for unhittable without seriously gimping their tanking ability.

    Taking away 20% avoidance made it nearly impossible (if not impossible) to get to 102.4% dodge, parry, miss, block.

    Obviously being viable with unhittable would not be something they could reasonably balance bears and dks around.
    And here is where I think part of the answer lies. I really think in beta testing, they were finding an issue with some tanks being able to run the content without the "end game" experience that Blizzard was looking for. As much as I like to think Blizzard puts out good quality product, I think the ICC nerf was a quick fix that while, not a great solution, was the most realistic and expedient for a deadline. I think they happened to peg dodge, vice parry or some other mechanic due to two things: rogues and hunters. The added benefit being that in addition to bringing tank avoidance down, it brought these two classes more in line with their clothie counterparts survival-wise in ICC.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    396
    First off I this discussion has to be my favorite, simply because it is a discussion and not an argument like most other threads. Hope more threads are like this in the future.
    Secondly, I believe that with all the changes that Blizz makes a lot of, if not all, people will have to learn how to get the most out of their gear again. Some will understand how to do this faster than others and those that get it the fastest will shine first. As for me being a DK tank i have come to LOVE armor and the changes to armor that Blizz will be making kinda worries me for the simple fact of I / we don't yet understand how the new armor system will work. As for clothies having more stamina I'm all for that as long as they don't take away my health in the name of leveling the playing field.
    Third, I've noticed Blizz trying to level out the playing field in PVP by nerfing/ buffing classes abilities. I see this as fundamentally flawed. To me PVE is group based and needs each class to be able to bring something different to the table, where as PVP is a solo based aspect of the game meaning each toon in theory should be equal. Maybe thats just my p.o.v. considering I HATE PVP. So I have to say to Blizz, if you want ppl to have a "fair" fight in PVP make your changes on PVP servers and leave our PVE servers alone.
    Lastly, to me the difference in the different tanking styles/ abilities of each tank is what makes the game. The way I see it is me being a DK tank I have an easier time picking up adds simply because of deathgrip and our famous placeable AOE aggro known as DND. Take Gunship for example, it is much easier for my warrior co-tank to jump across than it is for him to pick up the adds on our ship. Yes we can switch roles and it is fun to do so so you dont get highway hypnosis as one poster said. To me this doesn't mean that since I have an easier time on adds than I'm any less of a tank, it simply means that i have a different set of skills.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    I just got mail saying this thread got revitalized (TS mailing system is a bit late). I have two things to add to this discussion:

    1. I suppose everyone who said that DKs & Druids are more affected by the TCC radiance meant that since these two classes have more avoidance on their hit table, they get hurt more from avoidance nerfs. If that's the case, it's pretty much the opposite if we simplify things (we shouldn't be doing that though - I'll relate to that later). Paladins and warriors get hurt more from the ICC aura. I'll explain through a short and simple example:
    There's another tank A with 80% avoidance, and (yet another) tank B with 40% avoidance. ICC debuff == 20% less avoidance for the sake of simplicity.
    What did both tank lose?
    Tank A: now 60%. A 25% loss.
    Tank B: now 10%. A 66% loss.

    So tanks with less avoidance lose more.

    If both tanks have similar avoidance, they lose the same amount. If one assumes that having a shield gives a notable advantage, then this advantage only persists.


    2. Do not compare passive stats without taking skills into account. The classes are just too different for proper comparison. At the end of the day it's a question of viability. Can the tank live? and we get constant proof of that whenever we see that all four tanks survive encounters. For some tanks it's harder, for some it's easier - depending on the encounter. And that is an issue that should be further fixed in the future. Yet we're all viable, and that's the true test of tanks (and healers).

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    I just got mail saying this thread got revitalized (TS mailing system is a bit late). I have two things to add to this discussion:

    1. I suppose everyone who said that DKs & Druids are more affected by the TCC radiance meant that since these two classes have more avoidance on their hit table, they get hurt more from avoidance nerfs. If that's the case, it's pretty much the opposite if we simplify things (we shouldn't be doing that though - I'll relate to that later). Paladins and warriors get hurt more from the ICC aura. I'll explain through a short and simple example:
    There's another tank A with 80% avoidance, and (yet another) tank B with 40% avoidance. ICC debuff == 20% less avoidance for the sake of simplicity.
    What did both tank lose?
    Tank A: now 60%. A 25% loss.
    Tank B: now 10%. A 66% loss.

    So tanks with less avoidance lose more.

    If both tanks have similar avoidance, they lose the same amount. If one assumes that having a shield gives a notable advantage, then this advantage only persists.
    This is a fine example of how statistics and logic can be twisted (not that you intended to).

    "Avoidance" is used freely to describe ONE specific thing in this case..... dodge.
    Dodge is the only thing nerfed in ICC.

    I'll explain it in another short and simple example.


    So, as you can see here, tank 1 clearly loses 40% of their defensive ability total versus tank 2 who only loses 33.33%.

    Then again, this is even twisting the facts to my own ends as really, block is not avoidance. However, from a defensive standpoint, block does allow an automatic reduction of incoming damage for tank 2 that tank 1 does not have access to.

    My point here being......
    1) Yes, the ICC nerf affects all tanks equally as it pertains to dodge directly, and equally as it pertains specifically to avoidance, where avoidance is specifically abilities that enable a tank to effectively mitigate 100% of incoming damage......

    .........BUT......

    2) The ICC nerf affects some tanks greater as avoidance counts as a greater percentage of the sum of their base defensive abilities in relation to their peers, where the base defensive abilities include
    dodge, parry, block (which reduces incoming damage), defense (improves miss chance, dodge, parry, and block), and armor (which reduces incoming damage).

    What I perceive would be the effect of this is:

    1) All tanks getting hit more often.
    2) Tanks of tank 1 category, will see more overall damage, and more damage spikes
    3) Tanks of tank 2 category, will see more hits thus more overall damage, but should see less spikes as the block mechanic is still in play and may proc on some of those hits that may have been avoided if dodge was higher.

    The three points above are my hypothesis. As for testing in real time? It'd be a matter of comparing combat logs for a tank of category 1 and 2, both running identical instances outside of ICC for a baseline, and then running ICC to serve as the test. What I think you'd find is at least a pattern that would reflect my three assertions ,where tank 1 would be seeing more damage spikes, and tank 2 would see a little less spikey-ness. Which.... I have to say, would also coincide with what I've had several healers comment to me on.

    Just all theory though.

    Side note: In response to those healers, I've become even more rhythmic and have worked on timing my death strikes in ICC to compensate for some of those spikes when I can, sort of like a healer assist. Problem is, healing immediately after a hit isn't quite the same as preventing some of that damage. You can't heal after a hit that takes you down to zero health, whereas blocking some of that damage might prevent you from hitting zero. I have WotN on my toon which HELPS GREATLY, but the simple problem still exists. Of course..... to be completely fair, once I'm down to that point where "one hit to zero" is an issue, things were usually going badly anyways.
    No one tanks in a void.........

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,022
    You can't really just sum those up like that. Block defensive capabilities are a lot lower than avoidance. It isn't an equal % addition. You have to reduce the effective contribution of block.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by jere View Post
    You can't really just sum those up like that. Block defensive capabilities are a lot lower than avoidance. It isn't an equal % addition. You have to reduce the effective contribution of block.
    Depends on the tank. I have a friend on my server whose block % is better than my parry as a DK.
    Even then, block only reduces some of the incoming damage. I'm well aware, hence why I said:
    Then again, this is even twisting the facts to my own ends as really, block is not avoidance. However, from a defensive standpoint, block does allow an automatic reduction of incoming damage for tank 2 that tank 1 does not have access to.
    I intentionally twisted things to show a particular "bend".
    Still, it could be argued both ways on the ICC radiance. And that doesn't take into account other factors. Another example: Rune Strike versus Revenge. Revenge can proc off dodge/parry/block.Rune Strike procs off dodge/parry. Yes, the warrior loses out on the dodge aspect, but still has two other defensive mechanics to trigger this. The DK, we get rocked pretty hard on one of our two defensive abilities that allow us to use one of our highest threat generators.

    Anyways..... please realized I played "devil's advocate" to a degree to expose a fallacy in Adreal's post. By taking something and oversimplifying it and applying a selected application of math to give an example to support his/her idea out of the context from which it was taken (i.e. - dodge being the only defensive stat whereas there are MANY things that interplay in tank effectiveness). It is one of the most common things done with statistics. Goes back to the old saying "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." (Benjamin Disraeli)

    However.... to mention only avoidance.... and neglect the mechanics of block as an automatic damage reduction effect, paints an incomplete picture of the situation. They are two sides of the same coin..... damage mitigation..... where one side is complete damage mitigation, and the other side being incomplete, or partial damage mitigation. All of these tools work together to perform one VERY critical role for the tank..... survival.

    Final note:
    And the math wasn't even accurate. Tank A who originally had 80% "avoidance" (?) and lost 20%, resulting in a final 60% "avoidance", did indeed lose 25% of their total. Tank B, who started with 40% "avoidance", loses 20% for a final of 20%(yes.... 40 - 20 = 20), lost out on 50% of their total "avoidance".
    No one tanks in a void.........

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    Final note:
    And the math wasn't even accurate. Tank A who originally had 80% "avoidance" (?) and lost 20%, resulting in a final 60% "avoidance", did indeed lose 25% of their total. Tank B, who started with 40% "avoidance", loses 20% for a final of 20%(yes.... 40 - 20 = 20), lost out on 50% of their total "avoidance".

    I'm a "he". Yeah, I meant writing it's 30%, but the point was clear enough. As I also wrote in my post, I was oversimplifying things. I neglected block because it's mechanism is not as effective in damage mitigation as that of avoidance - and that's the main thing, not the math itself. If you neglect talents, skills, and encounters, why not neglecting block? The world of tanks isn't just dodge/parry/block. The most accurate way to assess sustainability (and not viability) would be to check how much potential damage mitigation each class have per encounter. I believe you'll find that it varies for different encounters.

    So no one in these forums ever discussed balance in detail. In order to do just that, one has to do a lot of math, show many figures, and choose a specific encounter to work with. It's just too much data processing for anyone with a regular job/life/whatever, but I suppose Blizzard does it for us (they get paid, aren't they?). For us simpletons the best way of assessing sustainability is through viability (to some extent), quality of life, and "how hard is it to tank X with class Y" sort of questions.

    Simply saying "I take more damage because of ICC aura compared to shield tanks" == "I have a feeling I take more damage because of the ICC aura compared to shield tanks". And having a feeling is something you need proof for. If you choose a theoretical path to prove it, then you'll need to think about more than just plain avoidance (or avoidance + block).

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    I'm a "he". Yeah, I meant writing it's 30%, but the point was clear enough. As I also wrote in my post, I was oversimplifying things. I neglected block because it's mechanism is not as effective in damage mitigation as that of avoidance - and that's the main thing, not the math itself. If you neglect talents, skills, and encounters, why not neglecting block? The world of tanks isn't just dodge/parry/block. The most accurate way to assess sustainability (and not viability) would be to check how much potential damage mitigation each class have per encounter. I believe you'll find that it varies for different encounters.
    Oh. Spot on. Avoidance is CLEARLY more effective in damage mitigation. It's 100% vice block's lesser percentage. In that sense, it's applied equally. Avoidance is nerfed for everyone. However, my point is this: how much of a particular tank's total damage mitigation and defense, or tanking capability, is tied in to avoidance? For a warrior, it is a significant part. For a DK or druid, it is MORE significant to that class because they have fewer "basic" damage mitigation tools.

    Again.... warrior and paladins have dodge, parry, block, defense, armor. Druids and DK's have dodge, parry, defense, armor. Then again, you could always look at it from a different perspective. All tanks have dodge, parry, defense, armor. Maybe I am biased because when I look at my DK's defense bar on the "paperdoll", I see "Block...... 0%". A simple perspective shift is needed maybe?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    So no one in these forums ever discussed balance in detail. In order to do just that, one has to do a lot of math, show many figures, and choose a specific encounter to work with. It's just too much data processing for anyone with a regular job/life/whatever, but I suppose Blizzard does it for us (they get paid, aren't they?). For us simpletons the best way of assessing sustainability is through viability (to some extent), quality of life, and "how hard is it to tank X with class Y" sort of questions.
    Oh. Agreed. Lol.... Not sure we're "simpletons" .... but hey... we AREN'T getting paid. True. My counter to this though is, why was Savage Defense implemented? And why is Blizzard now looking to tie in a damage mitigation tool into a DK's self heals?
    Healing Absorption: When you heal yourself, you'll receive an additional effect that absorbs incoming damage.
    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...62356308&sid=1

    I think the reason why is that Blizzard is finding a real performance difference due to block being "missing" from druids and DK's. Well, HAD in the druid's case. I think they have identified something "quantifiable". If they hadn't, why the change?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    Simply saying "I take more damage because of ICC aura compared to shield tanks" == "I have a feeling I take more damage because of the ICC aura compared to shield tanks". And having a feeling is something you need proof for. If you choose a theoretical path to prove it, then you'll need to think about more than just plain avoidance (or avoidance + block).
    You are correct. Very logical assertion. It's one of the reasons I've taken an interest in this post:

    http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.p...ation-Analyzer

    I'll be honest. I SUCK at the whole combat logs thing. Hell, I honestly tank with no add-ons or UI's beyond the very basic WoW setup. (I know..... suicide, right? lol) But the author of that post has an interesting tool that can give some data showing whether boss attacks hit, miss, avoided and/or blocked.

    You're completely right. Beyond the basic defensive combination of dodge, parry, defense, armor, (block)...... I'd have to factor in the defensive cooldowns of each class, the self heals available to each, gear, gear sets and bonuses, gems, and so on. So many different things factor in, that establishing balance is tricky if not outright impossible, hence, why we see changes between the tanks from patch to patch (which, also, drags me back to the insane idea of PvP balance..... >.<)
    What I do know, is that frequently healers complain about DK's being "squishy". Yes, I know..... qualitative, not quantitative. However, as the old saying goes, "Once is chance, twice is coincidence, and the third time is a pattern." BUT...... at the same time, your assertion that the warrior is affected more by the ICC debuff is unproven also and would be subject to the same standard as my own, correct? At this point, your assertion has as much proof as does mine.

    To quantify.... well.... to determine this, I'd imagine we'd need a DK and Warrior, specced out in "vanilla" tank gear (titansteel plus standard tank pieces from heroics), pull any sigils or ranged weapons, no trinket activated abilities, and comparable weapon/shield selection. That last part would be the trickiest since a 2H weapon rarely (if ever) has defensive stats. (My one thought here though would be..... either let it ride or go dw with the DK, and just match item levels. I'd personally rather go with the "let it ride" route, as I'd be interested in seeing if the dps makes a difference as a shorter fight might equal less damage.)

    Then throw both into a couple heroics with the same group.... and see what comes out.

    Again.... I am playing devil's advocate (haha... get that?) to some degree. I still am of the belief that Blizzard found serious issues with tanks in regards to ICC, and had to enact a rather "quick 'n' dirty" solution to try and make the encounters work as they had intended. I think they were experiencing tanks that were running through ICC relatively unthreatened and realized they had to fix it, and quick.
    No one tanks in a void.........

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    I think the reason why is that Blizzard is finding a real performance difference due to block being "missing" from druids and DK's. Well, HAD in the druid's case. I think they have identified something "quantifiable". If they hadn't, why the change?.
    Yup. If changes are made, either there is currently some sort of imbalance, or they expect one in the future. However, they just might be smart enough in Blizzard to understand that WoW sells more when there is constant change. An unchanging game is not as interesting.



    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    You're completely right. Beyond the basic defensive combination of dodge, parry, defense, armor, (block)...... I'd have to factor in the defensive cooldowns of each class, the self heals available to each, gear, gear sets and bonuses, gems, and so on. So many different things factor in, that establishing balance is tricky if not outright impossible, hence, why we see changes between the tanks from patch to patch (which, also, drags me back to the insane idea of PvP balance..... >.<)
    What I do know, is that frequently healers complain about DK's being "squishy". Yes, I know..... qualitative, not quantitative. However, as the old saying goes, "Once is chance, twice is coincidence, and the third time is a pattern." BUT...... at the same time, your assertion that the warrior is affected more by the ICC debuff is unproven also and would be subject to the same standard as my own, correct? At this point, your assertion has as much proof as does mine.

    To quantify.... well.... to determine this, I'd imagine we'd need a DK and Warrior, specced out in "vanilla" tank gear (titansteel plus standard tank pieces from heroics), pull any sigils or ranged weapons, no trinket activated abilities, and comparable weapon/shield selection. That last part would be the trickiest since a 2H weapon rarely (if ever) has defensive stats. (My one thought here though would be..... either let it ride or go dw with the DK, and just match item levels. I'd personally rather go with the "let it ride" route, as I'd be interested in seeing if the dps makes a difference as a shorter fight might equal less damage.)
    Never rely on healers opinions just because they are healers, it's usually just a hunch. We often work with hunches, and I don't believe in that. There is always a reason for these hunches and they don't just come from nowhere. But often enough these reasons are illogical. We just don't know it. It's a hunch


    Last note:
    Assuming everything is balanced when it comes to every tank, it means we have to assume that the block mechanic is balance by another mechanic (or mechanics) on DKs and druids. If this is the case, then when analyzing the ICC debuff effect on tanks the conclusion is that shield tanks are affected more by it. We also have to remember that 'no one tanks in a void'
    So... now that encounters involve bosses that hit for less, block's effectiveness grows higher. And maybe that's how they balance the ICC aura's greater effect on shield tanks. Who knows...
    Last edited by Adrael; 04-16-2010 at 11:29 PM.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    Yup. If changes are made, either there is currently some sort of imbalance, or they expect one in the future. However, they just might be smart enough in Blizzard to understand that WoW sells more when there is constant change. An unchanging game is not as interesting.
    True enough. It's a way to generate discussion and "excitement" (hence, webpages like TankSpot and Elitist Jerks). Then again, when you have a significant amount of time invested in something and then it's changed to the point where it's no longer fun, that amounts to piss-poor customer relations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    Never rely on healers opinions just because they are healers, it's usually just a hunch. We often work with hunches, and I don't believe in that. There is always a reason for these hunches and they don't just come from nowhere. But often enough these reasons are illogical. We just don't know it. It's a hunch
    True enough. But at the same time, when you seem to be getting back a lot of feedback like that, it's never a bad thing to make sure you're not missing something. Me, I reviewed my use of cooldowns, which got better as I became more familiar with particular fights. I still get the occasional healer with whom I'm watching my health bar dance like and equalizer synched to techno music.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    Last note:
    Assuming everything is balanced when it comes to every tank, it means we have to assume that the block mechanic is balance by another mechanic (or mechanics) on DKs and druids. If this is the case, then when analyzing the ICC debuff effect on tanks the conclusion is that shield tanks are affected more by it. We also have to remember that 'no one tanks in a void'
    So... now that encounters involve bosses that hit for less, block's effectiveness grows higher. And maybe that's how they balance the ICC aura's greater effect on shield tanks. Who knows...
    WHOOOAAAAAA!!!!! That's one hell of a leap in logic. How do you figure? The VERY BEST that you could even conclude by your own statement is that ALL TANKS ARE AFFECTED EQUALLY.

    Let's break this down.

    First - You assume all tanks are balanced. This means everything they have currently plays together putting them all on a level playing field. Right? So, even though a warrior tank has dodge, block, and parry, they're on par with a DK who has just dodge and parry, because there's some "other" mechanic to make up for block. Correct?
    So.....

    A) All warriors, pally, DK, and druids are tank classes
    B) All tanks are balanced. (your VERY first assumption)
    C) All tanks have dodge, parry, defense, armor
    D) Some tanks (DK+D) have "Other" and do not have block
    E) Some tanks (W+P) have block and do not have "Other"
    F) The "Other" mechanic is balanced with Block, making the two equal (your other assumption)

    Now, let's add in our modifier:

    All tanks are affected by the ICC debuff of -20% dodge

    We've already establish that they are balanced. We already went along with your assumption that the mechanics of all tanks are equivalent. And, it is simple fact that the -20% dodge affects all tanks.

    SO HOW DO YOU FIGURE THE TANKS WITH BLOCK ARE ANY MORE AFFECTED THAN THE TANKS WITH "OTHER"?

    It's because you're making two leaps in logic that 1 - tanks that have block have lower avoidance and 2 - tanks without block have higher avoidance without anything to back it up!

    Then add to it that you JUST SAID that
    So... now that encounters involve bosses that hit for less, block's effectiveness grows higher.
    You're contradicting yourself! And with that statement, you've given more credence to my earlier position that tanks with block have an advantage in ICC over tanks without. Add to that that you've yet to identify this "other" mechanic. What is it that balances with block?

    Let's go back and look at your earlier argument:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    I just got mail saying this thread got revitalized (TS mailing system is a bit late). I have two things to add to this discussion:

    1. I suppose everyone who said that DKs & Druids are more affected by the TCC radiance meant that since these two classes have more avoidance on their hit table, they get hurt more from avoidance nerfs. If that's the case, it's pretty much the opposite if we simplify things (we shouldn't be doing that though - I'll relate to that later). Paladins and warriors get hurt more from the ICC aura. I'll explain through a short and simple example:
    There's another tank A with 80% avoidance, and (yet another) tank B with 40% avoidance. ICC debuff == 20% less avoidance for the sake of simplicity.
    What did both tank lose?
    Tank A: now 60%. A 25% loss.
    Tank B: now 10%. A 66% loss.

    So tanks with less avoidance lose more.

    If both tanks have similar avoidance, they lose the same amount. If one assumes that having a shield gives a notable advantage, then this advantage only persists.
    You start with an assumption that
    since these two classes have more avoidance on their hit table
    ..... without discussing that they ONLY have avoidance on their defense table. They don't have block. And again, we've yet to identify this "other" mechanic. Again.... you make the two leaps in logic that 1 - tanks that have block have lower avoidance and 2 - tanks without block have higher avoidance

    Counter to your argument:
    If you assert that the ICC debuff hits tanks with less avoidance more, then WHY wouldn't a warrior or pally tank start selecting gear that is more favorable to avoidance ONLY? If it's SUCH a huge disadvantage, then why take gear with block on it at all? You DO have a choice.You CAN choose to take gear that doesn't have block. Let's not kid ourselves. Yes... you have Wrynn's Greathelm of Conquest which has block on it.... but at the SAME TIME.... you also can choose Faceplate of the Honorbound. Or how about t10 set? Let's see..... Ymirjar Lord's Greathelm versus Scourgelord Faceguard. WOW! look at that! They're both itemized IDENTICALLY.

    REALLY, when you get down to it, the warrior/pally tank has MORE options because they DO have block. The DK and Druid have fewer and sink our resources into our avoidance because it's all we get! Warriors/Paladin....you can choose, "do I really want to equip this gear with block?", where the DK looks at that same piece and gets LESS VALUE out of it because we can't even USE block.

    So, if you're a warrior/pally who REALLY thinks that the ICC debuff hurts you more as a tank because you have block and "lower avoidance", change your gear and GET MORE AVOIDANCE. Don't bemoan the fact that you HAVE more options.
    No one tanks in a void.........

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    We also have to remember that 'no one tanks in a void'
    That is the one thing out of your previous post that is closest to an immutable truth.

    Yes. No tank functions alone. We rely on healers to do the right things, to heal us, not draw aggro, keep the raid/group alive. We rely on dps to burn down the targets in a timely manner before healers run OOM or before enrage timers kick in. In turn, they count on us to hold aggro/threat, and survive the wrath of the enemy. All classes and roles have their place.

    Man.... I wonder where you got such timeless wisdom..........
    No one tanks in a void.........

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    You've taken theorycrafting a bit too... well.

    You seem to have misunderstand a thing or two. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

    On my initial post I said we're assuming that non-shield tanks have greater avoidance. Regardless, when I wrote that I had druids in mind and not DKs. Druids DR and mechanics enables them to stack more avoidance than equally geared shield tanks. DKs have the same DR values of shield tanks as far as I know. So you are right in the sense that DKs will lose out the same mitigation from ICC aura as warriors and paladins, druid lose less. And if you insist on a backup, you should read this: http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.p...urns-avoidance .

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    You've taken theorycrafting a bit too... well.
    And yes.... I see you are strong in the Force also....... lol

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    You seem to have misunderstand a thing or two. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

    On my initial post I said we're assuming that non-shield tanks have greater avoidance. Regardless, when I wrote that I had druids in mind and not DKs. Druids DR and mechanics enables them to stack more avoidance than equally geared shield tanks. DKs have the same DR values of shield tanks as far as I know. So you are right in the sense that DKs will lose out the same mitigation from ICC aura as warriors and paladins, druid lose less. And if you insist on a backup, you should read this: http://www.tankspot.com/showthread.p...urns-avoidance .
    Ah. I will agree with that. Fair enough.

    I would go so far as to suggest that the ICC debuff hurts warriors and DK's the most due to avoidance and two little things.......

    Rune Strike and Revenge

    For a DK tank, Rune Strike is golden. It supplies a LOT of damage, which translates to threat. It can't be dodged/blocked/parried, which is a guarantee of threat. And lastly.... the toolkit says "this generates a high amount of threat".... which directly ties it to being one of our tank tools. But, it's availability is tied directly to dodge/parry...... same as Revenge. Really, both of these are "bread and butter" threat items for the DK/Warrior.

    Anyways....... I think it's time to stop beating the dead horse on this one.

    My final comment is that I still think it was a "quick fix" done by Blizzard to make ICC work as "intended". I think they put a lot of time and effort into ICC but when they did the PTR.... the results they got surprised them and they needed a good workable solution pronto.
    No one tanks in a void.........

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    168
    Blizzard was very up front about the reason for Chill of the Throne - the decision mid-expansion to add heroic levels of gear threw off the curve (which was an unfortunate, but foreseen side effect) and this was indeed their "quick fix".

    Speaking for myself, my uptime on Revenge is extremely high (pretty much whenever I want it) because it also procs off of blocks.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    I suspect that the ICC aura is a step towards the Cataclysm healing mechanics. It has been suggested that it might take several seconds to bring tanks to full health, which probably means we'll see a notable decrease in the damage/tank HP ratio. The ICC introduction made it possible for blizzard to do the same pre-Cata, on a smaller scale.

    Regarding Cataclysm,
    It looks like they put more emphasis on balancing tanks vs. the raid and themselves. We might see smaller fixes in Cataclysm, because the devs now have the possibility of fine-tuning through vengeance. And that's good news for everyone. If one of the tanks deals an awful lot of damage compared to the others, just tune it via vengeance. Same for threat. DKs will also gain their Demo Shout, which evens out their tool box with other tanks (as I suggested in the OP). Furthermore, DKs will have a single tree - just like the other tanks. DKs were the 'special tank' for good and bad. But now they will come in line with the others and balancing will be made easier.

    Unlike TPS and DPS, viability (sustainability) is not quantifiable. So there can't be a vengeance-like solution to that. In this department I believe we'll continue seeing changes as more patches come out through cata. There is a good example of how they make things more similar yet difference with the new block changes. It will be different, something that is more like armor, and not a special thing unique for paladins and warriors. Increased similarity between the tanks will do good to WoW, and I hope they'll take it a bit further and give tanks more interesting-yet similar tools when it comes to sustainability.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Bladesong View Post
    Blizzard was very up front about the reason for Chill of the Throne - the decision mid-expansion to add heroic levels of gear threw off the curve (which was an unfortunate, but foreseen side effect) and this was indeed their "quick fix".

    Speaking for myself, my uptime on Revenge is extremely high (pretty much whenever I want it) because it also procs off of blocks.
    To the first part, that doesn't surprise me. Sounds about right. We discussed earlier in this thread the issue of "escalation" in gear.

    >.< Pain.... and just as I thought I could walk away from the issue of block. lol
    Well, that fantastic for warriors. I notice a big difference with Rune Strike in ICC. In heroics, it's up a lot. Enough where I can work it in with tab-striking (since it's highlighted/darkened). In ICC.... it's uptime is noticeably reduced. Now you've got me wondering how much of a quantifiable difference it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    I suspect that the ICC aura is a step towards the Cataclysm healing mechanics. It has been suggested that it might take several seconds to bring tanks to full health, which probably means we'll see a notable decrease in the damage/tank HP ratio. The ICC introduction made it possible for blizzard to do the same pre-Cata, on a smaller scale.
    Yeah. That was mentioned in the previews. It'll reduce the value of some talents (like Blood Gorged.... not that I expect it to survive the overhaul). Kinda does make you wonder if ICC is a prelude to what is to come?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    Regarding Cataclysm,
    It looks like they put more emphasis on balancing tanks vs. the raid and themselves. We might see smaller fixes in Cataclysm, because the devs now have the possibility of fine-tuning through vengeance. And that's good news for everyone. If one of the tanks deals an awful lot of damage compared to the others, just tune it via vengeance. Same for threat. DKs will also gain their Demo Shout, which evens out their tool box with other tanks (as I suggested in the OP). Furthermore, DKs will have a single tree - just like the other tanks. DKs were the 'special tank' for good and bad. But now they will come in line with the others and balancing will be made easier.
    Yep. Like it or the change is inbound. On the bright side, the changes mean we shouldn't see such a wide gap in tank performance. With all tanks having similar basic tools, like Vengeance and Demo, it SHOULD improve encounter design too. We should never see a particular tank class being left out in the cold in Catacylsm. I mean really, there is not going to be much of an excuse for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    Unlike TPS and DPS, viability (sustainability) is not quantifiable. So there can't be a vengeance-like solution to that. In this department I believe we'll continue seeing changes as more patches come out through cata. There is a good example of how they make things more similar yet difference with the new block changes. It will be different, something that is more like armor, and not a special thing unique for paladins and warriors. Increased similarity between the tanks will do good to WoW, and I hope they'll take it a bit further and give tanks more interesting-yet similar tools when it comes to sustainability.
    Viability is quantifiable. Easy. Did the tank's health go to zero? Binary code right there. 1 for yes. 0 for no. Now... how hard the tank/healer had to work to keep it that way.... lol.... that's different. }:>

    Agree though..... increased performance similarity is good..... and to give more interesting-yet-similar tools, ensuring that each tank has a different "flavor" is fantastic. More similarity in the base abilities/function.... but have more options/color in the talents, and give options. Give each "tank tree" the ability to change tank's flavor. "Hey... I want to be an anti-magic warrior"..... or ..... "I want to be the physical tank DK"..... allow some customization in the talent trees. Leave it to the player to decide "the price they want to pay" for specialization/generalization.
    No one tanks in a void.........

+ 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