+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77

Thread: Tank Classes Differentiation, Viability and Encounter Design

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72

    Tank Classes Differentiation, Viability and Encounter Design

    Tank Classes Differentiation, Viability and Encounter Design


    I'd like to share a thought I had about current class balance and how it affects encounter design. This is a bit of a Wall'o'Text, and I'm sorry for that (bored at work), but the idea might be hard to understand. The game has some balancing issues. Not major issues, but they do exist. The frequent changes we see each patch are clear evidence for this imbalance. Since the introduction of WotLK Blizzard stated that each of tanks should be different yet viable for any encounter.


    When you want four different viable tanks, you need to A) make them all viable. B) Create differences between them. This is what Blizzard does, but in a way that has restriction and some balance issues.



    Currently:


    1) Differentiation is created by each class having different tools to tackle encounters.
    2) Viability is then achieved through balancing encounters to suit all four tanks.



    Seems reasonable, but the here's the catch: Let's say each tank had three skills, for the sake of simplicity. Now we all know that different tanks do possess some quite similar skills. Let's say that skill A, and B are relatively similar enough between the four classes (though not identical). However, skill C is quite different. What currently makes it interesting is that each tank possesses a different skill "C".
    If we look on the other side of this equation, there's viability. Each encounter must be designed to be overcome by any of the four tanks, using their A, B and C skills. A and B are quite similar, so encounter design is restricted only by these two. Skill C however, is different enough to present a problem. The problem being that now instead of being restricted by three skills, there are A, B (2) + four different C's (4) = 6 skills.[Clarification: The more skills an encounter requires, the more interesting it gets. But I am talking about restrictions, since it's 3 additional DIFFERENT rather than SIMILAR skills.]


    The game is much more complex, and has many more skills, some of which don't really restrict anything. But this simple example shows how differentiating skills between classes can restrict encounter design. In addition, we currently have skills that can be used in interesting ways, but have no use in current content. This is probably because these interesting skills are present in only one single tanking class, so basing an encounter on these would mean the other three will not be as viable.


    Encounters would have been much more interesting had there been more similarity between the different tanking classes' skills. Just an example of how it can work: If every tank could disarm, and every boss would be disarmable, there would be yet another interesting dimension to tanking.



    And here is how it can be implemented:


    1) Viability is achieved through balancing encounters around fewer restricting skills. Further complexity is achieved by having more skills on which an encounter may rely on.
    2) Differentiation can be restored by having the existing, relatively similar skills differentiate in the same way for each class. Explained below.



    What I mean is that while effectively possessing the same set of tools, each skill would be used in different way to achieve the same primary effect. Example: Vindication vs. Demo Shout. They basically do the same primary thing, only in a different way. Now this may be unfair to some people. Why does someone get an automatic version of the other's GCD requiring skill? It might also be that class differences would be less noticeable and apparent.
    An interesting addition to this solution would be something that already exists in the game, but not in a way that distinct between classes: Varying the focus of attention for each class, it would mean that classes would experience different difficulties in different encounters. According to such a model each class will have one 'automated' tanking element, and one focused tanking element. Automated elements are those that need little attention, while focused elements need more attention to be maxed out. One important guideline should be that every tank would have the same potential for each of the elements when the tank's skill is maxed.


    Just an example of how such a model could work:


    Druid: Automated DPS, focused TPS.
    Warriors: Automated TPS, focused Survivability.
    Paladins: Automated Survivability, focused TPS
    DKs (Frost): Automated DPS, focused Survivability.
    DKs (Blood): Automated Survivability, focused TPS.



    For those who love automation: tough luck, work is liberating.
    To all the labor-loving warriors out there: everyone's attention is limited. Dividing it too much result in lesser performance, it has been scientifically proven.


    End result:
    Variation through the level of attention dedicated for each element, and different difficulties for different encounters. We would still see some tank classes having to work harder on some encounters, but it will be balanced between classes and encounters, not the current 'some tank classes have to work harder – PERIOD'.
    Encounters would become more interesting. I like the example of disarmable bosses (by any tank class), but there's plenty more.


    We lose the unidentified way in which tanks are different, and get it into some kind of frame that makes it easier to understand. Maybe the devs prefer tanks to be "just different", but in the long run I think it just means we're not seeing the full potential of encounter designs and balance in the game.



    The End!


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    The game has some balancing issues. Not major issues, but they do exist. The frequent changes we see each patch are clear evidence for this imbalance.
    First, I think you're using the right idea for the wrong intention. Constant changes are a sign of imbalance the way that a human being standing still has muscles firing constantly to keep the appearance of balance, which is in fact a constant state of trying to correct towards a zenith that is never actually maintained, it is "dynamic" balance. When people are speaking in terms of game imbalances they usually mean a state that is not reasonably even or favors one element over another.

    Blizz is playing within a state of dynamic balance that occasionally veers off a bit for a particular encounter because they didn't expect some combination of interplaying elements. The game isn't always imbalanced for that sense, so much as Blizz is constantly trying to keep an even keel with their changes. So tricky language here.

    Balance in a simple system, such as the physical item a balance, you have two elements that you are keeping a desired keel between (maybe 50/50 even, maybe 70/30 for one element, etc). In a complex system such as WoW there is no such simple balancing point. Balance instead is a complex act of plate spinning. As tanks we have an assortment of elements that need to be balanced and while we can try to reduce them for simplicity of consideration they actually are not readily simplifiable, nor do they lend themselves to a A vs B balance.

    One of the simplest examples would be the interplay of Mitigation (compound of armor, stance, resistance and considered in both passive and burst via CDs), Avoidance (easy to lump all the elements together though they come from many internal and external sources), and Health as played against damage the tank takes with the elements of hit size, hit frequency/speed, and special abilities or increased periods of damage. We've seen this play out with elements such as Chill of the Thrown.

    If Avoidance is too high for fixed Armor and Health, then to keep a consistent level of damage taken by the tank the hits have to be very large (leading to boom/bust tank health and spammed healing required to not lose the tank to an couple hits without heals in the middle). There are a great many elements that contribute, and toying with any one of them will require adjustments in every other, not just an A vs B trade off. This is the intrigue of playing the game as well, as a simple A vs B balance is easy to read and boring, it leaves little room for the player.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    When you want four different viable tanks, you need to A) make them all viable. B) Create differences between them. This is what Blizzard does, but in a way that has restriction and some balance issues.
    I think you're looking at it from the opposite angle that Blizzard gets here. Their design is to have 10 classes, each with 3 specs, that each play differently. Within the same class there will be common elements and flavors, but each tree should have it's own nuance and play style. With the further separation of roles we get 6 tanks (Prot Warrior and Paladin, Bear Druids, and Blood/Frost/Unholy DKs).

    Ideally each tank will be coming from its unique class and semi-unique tree. I think they did an admirable job in making the three DK trees feel as different as they do for the common root elements and tools. The post-BC drive is that each tank should not be incapable (as the true inverse of viable, which is a horribly misused buzzword in the WoW community) of completing any encounter because of their class/spec mechanics.

    We all get there by a different means but that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't be equally capable of addressing the challenge in our own fashion. At the same time, no class/spec mechanic should offer a benefit so significant that it trivializes other elements in the equation. For example, the tank should not have a cooldown that matches an important encounter element so significantly that you can bring a noticeably under-geared tank of that class/spec and have an easier time of it than a much better geared tank of another class/spec. This is always flavored by the very hard to quantify player element, where a very skilled player may figure out hot to use their tools in such a fashion where many others don't.

    I am fairly certain that encounters are not designed to meet the tanks, but rather the encounters are designed to meet a raid team and they then check it against the considerations of all 10 classes/30 specs as needed. Maybe a semantic difference, but you get my distinction?


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    1) Differentiation is created by each class having different tools to tackle encounters.
    2) Viability is then achieved through balancing encounters to suit all four tanks.

    I would disagree slightly (again semantics) on #1. Differentiation isn't achieved through having different tools, but by having similar tools that are applied, achieved or function slightly differently. For example, every tank *could* offer a melee de-haste debuff. For some this requires talents to get (Paladins/Bears), some it requires talents to get the fully improved version (Warriors/DKs), and each tank applies it differently and with different ramifications. Warriors can apply it instantly to everything in a close radius once every 6 sec. DKs can spread it with diseases (which takes at least 2-3 GCDs at the start of a fight) but can maintain it so long as diseases are present. Bears can apply it with specific moves, but those moves are normally target restricted to one at a time, but with no cooldown. With smart use of their abilities they can spread it to multiple targets, and can/will do it in the course of their normal activities, but it requires a lot of attention to maintain it on groups. Paladins can only ever apply it to a single target and with an 8-10 sec CD between applications.

    The flavor is that everyone can apply it, but with varying concerns on how and how many. In order to keep that balanced the encounters simply only need to require that the debuff not be 100% crucial as a make-or-break detail. For example, if you would need to debuff 3 targets at once or the tank will die 80% of the time (random %, 30% or even less would probably suffice), then the Paladin's version of the tool would be insufficient as a tanking toolbox item, and you would be legitimately able to say, "a Paladin tank is not viable in this situation."

    As I said above, RE: #2, I don't believe encounters are balanced to meet the tanks, but rather tanks tools are balanced such that it shouldn't be a concern to change encounters to face any possible combination of raid team compositions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    In addition, we currently have skills that can be used in interesting ways, but have no use in current content. This is probably because these interesting skills are present in only one single tanking class, so basing an encounter on these would mean the other three will not be as viable.

    Encounters would have been much more interesting had there been more similarity between the different tanking classes' skills. Just an example of how it can work: If every tank could disarm, and every boss would be disarmable, there would be yet another interesting dimension to tanking.


    This is something of a side point, but Disarm is only available from one tank, but from a few classes. There are disarmable mobs and bosses in current progression content, but it is true, I would agree that they don't want it to be an essential ability for make-or-breaking the encounter since it is hard to rely on its availability. Generally, this is an ability that has been reserved for greatest significance in PvP.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    1) Viability is achieved through balancing encounters around fewer restricting skills. Further complexity is achieved by having more skills on which an encounter may rely on.

    2) Differentiation can be restored by having the existing, relatively similar skills differentiate in the same way for each class. Explained below.


    What I mean is that while effectively possessing the same set of tools, each skill would be used in different way to achieve the same primary effect. Example: Vindication vs. Demo Shout. They basically do the same primary thing, only in a different way. Now this may be unfair to some people. Why does someone get an automatic version of the other's GCD requiring skill? It might also be that class differences would be less noticeable and apparent

    This is an example of the differentiation in the tools. Each has its merits and its disadvantages. Vindication is single-target only, requires a sometimes out of the way talent to get for Prot Paladins, and has a limit restricted by the availability of Judgment for use. But as you said, Protadins are judging constantly anyway so its an added benefit to what they do rather than a new thing they have to add to the rotation.

    Demo Shout on the other hand is an AoE ability that will apply it everywhere in a close range (which can be improved by talents for range and in scale to match Vinidication's size of reduction). It does require a GCD though, and may not be an attractive item to use if the debuff isn't otherwise required.

    But, as an example this is a big pointer at another important detail: What do you identify as a tanking toolbox item, and what is a raid buff?

    There are 3 easy tanking debuffs that contribute to the survival of the tank in a meaningful way: melee de-haste, AP reduction, and miss chance. The first can be applied by all tanks (with the distinctions above, every tank can maintain it on a boss easily, but some cannot apply it to a large group, or at least not easily/reliably), to that end you could assume that Blizzard considers it an obligatory anti-boss tool, but a privilege against large groups. This debuff can also be delivered in the full or reduced form by some DPS specs removing the tank's obligation. The AP reduction can be offered by multiple sources, but it can only be applied by 3 of the 4 tanks (poor DKs got the short-end). That said, again, the Paladin can only apply it to one target. You could say one of two things then: it is an obligatory tool on bosses and the tank should be able to provide it themselves (then DKs need a fix), but not on large groups. Or, that this is a perk provided by your raid. It is secondary whether it is provided by your tank or by someone else (in which case DKs are not in need of a fix). Just to contrast, now consider the 3% miss chance debuff. There are 4 class/specs that can deliver it and 1 pays a particularly higher price to do so (MM hunters pay the worst price, Boomkin and BM/Surv Hunters could still trade dps to maintain it). This debuff cannot be delivered by a tank, but it impacts our survival in an important fashion.

    The fine print here, I think, is that with tools that are available to more than just the tank we have to remember that these elements are not encounters being balanced against each tank, but rather against the range of what raids can bring, and what is reasonable to expect them to have access to. It is reasonable to expect that a raid could have a Hunter or Balance Druid, but it is a calculated issue of whether or not you are applying the 3% miss. Similarly, the other two debuffs can likely be applied by multiple people in your raid, so it is on your team to figure out how you are doing, if at all. As I said, the melee de-haste is available to every tank at least on single targets so it is easy to say Blizzard assumes you have it covered all the time, but how is a matter for your raid team. If you have a dps DK who can provide it, then your Prot Warrior doesn't have to Tclap on a boss, for example. It is all a careful trade.

    Alternatively there are the tools that are central and essential to our job as tanks: threat and survival. Threat is one issue that is usually contested over single target vs AoE tools. The critical threshold is never who does it best, but that every tank *can* do it. That is the measure of "viable." Some would say Prot Warriors or Blood DKs are poor at AoE threat compared to a Paladin, Druid, or Frost DK, but that does not make them no longer "viable" it just makes them less appealing for those situations. It is not Blizzard's prerogative to make every tank equal in terms of AoE threat, they only need to be better than the DPS so that it is not an issue if you don't have a favorable alternative.

    Alternately there is the concern of single-target threat. Here the concern is the same: a tank only has to be able to out-tps the damage dealers. However, having them able to go toe to toe with each other allows fights like Deathwhisper's hard-mode. There is a concern that tanks are able to perform to a similar standard, if only to keep all the class/specs attractive, but simply because one spec is lower than another in an absolute scale does not mean it is not "viable."

    So in terms of threat, provided every tank can reasonably out-threat their damage dealers, it is not a crucial detail (in general, specific situations it may be) that they can be out-threated by another tank. And at that we get a skewed and personal sense of threat. Stats, specs, and the effort of the player make a big difference. It is not usually fair to say, "I cannot out-threat X when I'm playing Y, so Y or X must be broken or unfair, please fix it." Generally speaking the regulation will be done at an objective level by Blizzard but it is something of an Archimedean point, as you are never free of the variables of player skill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    An interesting addition to this solution would be something that already exists in the game, but not in a way that distinct between classes: Varying the focus of attention for each class, it would mean that classes would experience different difficulties in different encounters. According to such a model each class will have one 'automated' tanking element, and one focused tanking element. Automated elements are those that need little attention, while focused elements need more attention to be maxed out. One important guideline should be that every tank would have the same potential for each of the elements when the tank's skill is maxed.

    Automation is not a nice solution because it takes the player out. The thing that makes the game hard to maintain in balance (i.e. the Player/Human factor) is also what makes it fun to play. If you take the player out of it, even in part, you are stripping away the fun, bit by bit.

    Trying to fix one variable in the equation can also cause its own balance issues.

    The last thing here is that is "max player skill" the smart place to balance performance to? Some class/specs may be harder to get peak performance from. To use completely arbitrary examples, if 90% of Paladins reached 90% of the class's potential or better, but only 30% of Warriors reached 90% of the class's potential, should the 100% mark for the two classes be the same? That is another of the factors that is easy to miss, and hard to gauge, making it that much trickier to find the right balance point for developers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    End result:
    Variation through the level of attention dedicated for each element, and different difficulties for different encounters. We would still see some tank classes having to work harder on some encounters, but it will be balanced between classes and encounters, not the current 'some tank classes have to work harder – PERIOD'.
    Encounters would become more interesting. I like the example of disarmable bosses (by any tank class), but there's plenty more


    It is exactly my previous point why this isn't really reasonable. If you balance the highest potential of every tank class/spec against every encounter (assuming that is possible which it isn't really) but many more (to use the same arbitrary example) Paladins could play at a higher level than Warriors, then the Paladin would be considered the only "viable" class by players (who abuse the term), and you'd see the forums full of dismissals for the poor fools who want to Warrior tank that encounter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    We lose the unidentified way in which tanks are different, and get it into some kind of frame that makes it easier to understand. Maybe the devs prefer tanks to be "just different", but in the long run I think it just means we're not seeing the full potential of encounter designs and balance in the game.

    Here, for the many reasons I mentioned above, I disagree.

    Reducing the elements that make tanks "just different" does not make the game better, it strips the things that are fun out of it. Without room for the fully-human experience, or the closest you can approximate that in a computer-scripted game, it is easy to lose the draw and you might as well go play Roulette.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    The End!

    Nevah!
    The (Old) Book on Death Knight Tanking
    The New Testament on Death Knight Tanking
    -----------------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by Horacio View Post
    Who f-ing divided by zero?!?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    When you want four different viable tanks, you need to A) make them all viable. B) Create differences between them. This is what Blizzard does, but in a way that has restriction and some balance issues.

    Well, yes. There are balance issues. If there weren't, they wouldn't be making changes to the classes with every patch. I don't see this ever truly coming to a stop either unless they homogenized the classes, which would be truly boring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    Seems reasonable, but the here's the catch: Let's say each tank had three skills, for the sake of simplicity. Now we all know that different tanks do possess some quite similar skills. Let's say that skill A, and B are relatively similar enough between the four classes (though not identical). However, skill C is quite different. What currently makes it interesting is that each tank possesses a different skill "C".
    If we look on the other side of this equation, there's viability. Each encounter must be designed to be overcome by any of the four tanks, using their A, B and C skills. A and B are quite similar, so encounter design is restricted only by these two. Skill C however, is different enough to present a problem. The problem being that now instead of being restricted by three skills, there are A, B (2) + four different C's (4) = 6 skills.[Clarification: The more skills an encounter requires, the more interesting it gets. But I am talking about restrictions, since it's 3 additional DIFFERENT rather than SIMILAR skills.]

    Each encounter can be overcome by any of the tanks. One of the things I think that you're missing is that the tank does not operate in a vacuum. What is the build of the raid/instance group? The skill level of the players involved? I mean, through my personal experience, and no offense if meant here, I've seen the following:

    Pally: Lot of them as tanks. Most people can tank with them adequately. VERY few REALLY shine as a pally tank and the ones that do.... are sick.
    Warrior: Less than pally. Tanking with them is a little more challenging, but used well, and done with a person who is well-skilled, amazing. The best are flat out scary.
    Druid: About the same as warrior. A smaller number of people who tank with. Those that do are adequate. The rare few that are well-skilled... flat out amazing to watch.
    DK: Very few of them (from my perspective). Appears to be the hardest to tank with, and tank well. In fact, as of last night, I've only seen one other DK tank in almost two months worth of random pugs. They did well, but after the heroic was over, I got to listen to the healer complain about the tank's squishiness.

    There's so many variables outside of class design that go into this though. What class is the healer? Do they understand the mechanics of the heals well? DPS.... what is the dps portion comprised of?
    Do they understand their roles? How does the group as a whole react/adjust to the tank leading the run?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    The game is much more complex, and has many more skills, some of which don't really restrict anything. But this simple example shows how differentiating skills between classes can restrict encounter design. In addition, we currently have skills that can be used in interesting ways, but have no use in current content. This is probably because these interesting skills are present in only one single tanking class, so basing an encounter on these would mean the other three will not be as viable.

    Restrict encounter design? I don't see that. As for basing an encounter on the existence of a single class and it's unique ability, I think there are some encounters that are leveraged towards that, but I don't think any are truly out of the realm for any of the tanks to perform well in. Again, I think so much of it boils down to the skill of the tank.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    Encounters would have been much more interesting had there been more similarity between the different tanking classes' skills. Just an example of how it can work: If every tank could disarm, and every boss would be disarmable, there would be yet another interesting dimension to tanking.

    Interesting? Or the "homogenization"? Part of what makes each encounter interesting IS the different approaches available to each tank class. If each could disarm, it'd make the encounter a clear "tank shall A then B then C, regardless of class". Name the ability what you want, the underlying mechanics of the fight hasn't changed. Yes, you create "viability". You also reduce "variability", which is part of what makes the game fun. Sure, as a DK, I can't disarm. But I do have two nice little abilities that I use in raid that I think go overlooked... my interrupts like Mind Freeze and Strangulate have come in handy in controlling encounters that are normally feared due to certain effects that normally don't get put in check. The warrior who struggles to pull that caster who is outside of their range, isn't as much a problem for me as I Death Grip that sucker into my little circle of death. On the downside? I don't have the loveliness of Thunderclap that I can spam for snap AoE threat. So, I have to approach a fight differently. What I think trips up people is that, they're used to running it with a warrior or pally and don't have the experience of running a certain run differently, so it's uncomfortable to them.

    And that, I think is key to the perceptions we have towards the various classes, including myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    And here is how it can be implemented:


    1) Viability is achieved through balancing encounters around fewer restricting skills. Further complexity is achieved by having more skills on which an encounter may rely on.
    2) Differentiation can be restored by having the existing, relatively similar skills differentiate in the same way for each class. Explained below.



    What I mean is that while effectively possessing the same set of tools, each skill would be used in different way to achieve the same primary effect. Example: Vindication vs. Demo Shout. They basically do the same primary thing, only in a different way. Now this may be unfair to some people. Why does someone get an automatic version of the other's GCD requiring skill? It might also be that class differences would be less noticeable and apparent.
    An interesting addition to this solution would be something that already exists in the game, but not in a way that distinct between classes: Varying the focus of attention for each class, it would mean that classes would experience different difficulties in different encounters. According to such a model each class will have one 'automated' tanking element, and one focused tanking element. Automated elements are those that need little attention, while focused elements need more attention to be maxed out. One important guideline should be that every tank would have the same potential for each of the elements when the tank's skill is maxed.


    Just an example of how such a model could work:


    Druid: Automated DPS, focused TPS.
    Warriors: Automated TPS, focused Survivability.
    Paladins: Automated Survivability, focused TPS
    DKs (Frost): Automated DPS, focused Survivability.
    DKs (Blood): Automated Survivability, focused TPS.



    For those who love automation: tough luck, work is liberating.
    To all the labor-loving warriors out there: everyone's attention is limited. Dividing it too much result in lesser performance, it has been scientifically proven.

    But isn't this already how it's set up?

    Example: A warrior/pally has the automated armor buff of a shield. My DK has the automated buff of frost presence. The druid gets the armor bonus from dire bear.
    My automated threat element is diseases + pestilence. Well, somewhat automated. The druid has swipe and their one roar effect as an instant AoE threat pull. Pally has
    consecrate and righteous fury. Warriors have thunderclap and challenging shout.

    We all have tools to do the job. The skill comes in learning the class and understanding the mechanics of each, and how they should be used in each encounter, the drawbacks and advantages of each.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post

    End result:
    Variation through the level of attention dedicated for each element, and different difficulties for different encounters. We would still see some tank classes having to work harder on some encounters, but it will be balanced between classes and encounters, not the current 'some tank classes have to work harder – PERIOD'.
    Encounters would become more interesting. I like the example of disarmable bosses (by any tank class), but there's plenty more.


    We lose the unidentified way in which tanks are different, and get it into some kind of frame that makes it easier to understand. Maybe the devs prefer tanks to be "just different", but in the long run I think it just means we're not seeing the full potential of encounter designs and balance in the game.


    The End!

    All tanks have to work harder on certain encounters. But again, the tank does not operate in a vacuum. What are the other players doing to help adjust for these changes? Yes, it's important to know your own class and the mechanics, but again, you need to have a basic understanding as to the challenges a tank faces. Maybe this is intuitive for me since I do tank with my DK, but when I go into raids as dps, I look at the upcoming fights in a "what can I do to help the tank?" instead of, "ok... when this fight kicks off I'm gonna hammer this mob as fast as I can, I have my rotations down pat". Yeah, I do some risky stuff at times, death grip that caster in next to the warrior so that next thunderclap seals aggro and keeps it in range for the melee classes. Or use my interrupts to help prevent healers from dragging out a fight or to break cc's before they even hit our team.

    I see what you're getting at, but I think a lot of the issue at hand is your "team composition" and their understanding of how to function as a group.

    Example: How would you approach tanking Halls of Reflection with these two groups? We'll keep the tank the same for simplicity sake.

    Group A:
    Tank: Paladin
    DPS1: Fury Warrior
    DPS2: DK
    DPS3: Enhance Shaman
    Heal: Resto Druid

    Group B:
    Tank: Paladin
    DPS1: Arcane Mage
    DPS2: Destro Warlock
    DPS3: Boomkin
    Heal: Priest

    Thoughts? Ideas? What do you see as pros and cons?

    To me,
    group A:
    -lower dps (generally)
    -better survivability
    -"extra" heals

    group B:
    -AoE and higher dps
    -"soft" targets
    - potential for things to go bad in a hurry

    How these two different groups approach a run and work together can be the difference between success and failure. SAME tank.... but very real possibility for different results.
    And if you switched out a warrior, druid tank, or DK for the pally.... each group would need a slightly different approach.

    And back to the idea that some tank classes have to work harder.... period. I think that's true to some degree. But those classes at which you have to work harder, I think the issue in those cases comes down to this:

    How good of a tank do you want to be?

    The best with each class really make their classes shine. You KNOW what I'm talking about. They're that pally that runs through the Occulus without stopping, pulling targets with them and destroying everything in their path. They're the druid that goes on a rampage through Halls of Stone as IF they were a rabid bear. They're the warrior that runs through crushing targets in Pit of Saron like they're on a timer.

    I think I understand where you're coming from on your ideas of balancing out the tanking classes. And from how you describe it, I'm guessing you're either a warrior or DK, because in my experience, both of those take a lot more work to tank well (I've tanked as a druid, warrior, and learning as a DK). I think Satorri hit on something very important though when he said:

    "Blizz is playing within a state of dynamic balance that occasionally veers off a bit for a particular encounter because they didn't expect some combination of interplaying elements. The game isn't always imbalanced for that sense, so much as Blizz is constantly trying to keep an even keel with their changes. So tricky language here."

    As they add new content, despite all play-testing, when stuff gets into real-time, something always comes across not as intended.

    At any rate......just my thoughts.

    Edit:

    Just wanted to add. I still think the real key is this:

    1) Tanks don't operate in a vacuum
    2) The tank has to understand the mechanics of his group, and the group needs to understand the mechanics of the tank.
    3) Group interaction/coordination can make or break a tank, regardless of how good they are.
    4) Each encounter will change based on the make up of the group involved
    Last edited by Leucifer; 03-01-2010 at 02:40 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Heroic Anub'arak (after the fiasco of sartharion 1.0 and Vezzax to a lesser extent) show that the Dev team isn't very interested in the "bring the player," or universal viability theory anymore. If you are a tank, dedicated to his class or not, you should be ready for another roller-coaster out of Cataclysm. Encounter design has never completely met completely with tank balance. Let's just hope we don't have another set of encounters that encourage (if not force) veteran tanks to sit out or re-roll in the name of progression.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Proletaria View Post
    Heroic Anub'arak (after the fiasco of sartharion 1.0 and Vezzax to a lesser extent) show that the Dev team isn't very interested in the "bring the player," or universal viability theory anymore. If you are a tank, dedicated to his class or not, you should be ready for another roller-coaster out of Cataclysm. Encounter design has never completely met completely with tank balance. Let's just hope we don't have another set of encounters that encourage (if not force) veteran tanks to sit out or re-roll in the name of progression.
    Bad news for ya then........

    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...d=1&pageNo=1#0

    This was just released today.

    Of note from it:

    Stamina - Because of the way we will be assigning Strength, Agility, and Intellect, non-plate wearers will end up with more Stamina than before. Health pools will be much closer between plate-wearers and other classes.

    Haste - Haste will become more attractive for melee classes by allowing them to recover resources such as energy and runes more quickly. Our intention is for Haste to let you "do stuff" more often.

    Block Rating - Block is being redesigned to scale better. Blocked attacks will simply hit for 30% less damage. Block rating will improve your chance to block, though overall block chances will be lower than they are today.

    Parry - Parry no longer provides 100% avoidance and no longer speeds up attacks. Instead, when you parry an attack, it and the next attack will each hit for 50% damage (assuming they hit at all). In other words, Dodge is a chance to avoid 100% of the damage from one attack, Parry is a chance to avoid 50% of the damage from two attacks, and Block is a chance to avoid 30% of the damage from one attack.

    Armor - The way Armor mitigates damage is not changing, but the Armor stat has been rebalanced to mirror changes to the armor curve in Cataclysm. As a result, bonus Armor will go down slightly overall. We are also changing the mitigation difference among armor types so that plate doesn’t offer so much more protection than mail, leather, and cloth.

    Strength, Agility, Hit Rating, Expertise, and Critical Strike Rating - These will all still appear on gear as well. Aside from situations mentioned elsewhere in this list, in general these will function similarly to how they do now, though the details -- such as how much Hit Rating you might need to effectively combat high-level creatures (more on this below) -- are likely to change.

    Attack Power - This stat will no longer be present on most items as a flat value, though it will still show up on some process. Strength and Agility, which will be present on items, will grant the appropriate amount of Attack Power (generally 2 Attack Power per point of Strength or Agility) depending upon which stat a particular class favors. Agility may provide less Crit than it currently does.

    Armor Penetration - This stat will no longer be present on items. Armor Penetration will still exist in talents and abilities.

    Shield Block Value - This stat will no longer be present on items, since the amount blocked is always proportional to the amount of damage done. Talents and other effects might still modify the damage-reduction percentage from 30%, however.

    Defense - Defense is being removed from the game entirely. Tanking classes should expect to become uncrittable versus creatures just by shifting into Defensive Stance, Frost Presence, Bear Form, or by using Righteous Fury.

    Combat ratings - All ratings will be much harder to "cap out" at maximum gear levels. Ratings will be steeper in Cataclysm, and creatures in later tiers of content will be harder to hit or crit, similar to how level-83 mobs are harder to hit or crit than level-80 mobs.

    Reforging - While these changes will go a long way to making a wider variety of stats more attractive, we understand that sometimes you simply don’t want more Hit Rating on your gear or you’d rather have more Haste than more Crit. In Cataclysm, we are going to give players a way to replace stats on gear as part of the existing profession system. As a general rule of thumb, you’ll be able to convert one stat to 50% of another stat. While some conversions (like converting Stamina to Strength) won’t be permitted, the goal is to let you customize your gear more.

    Gems - We are changing the gem colors of a few stats as a result of these adjustments. For example, Hit is likely to be blue instead of yellow. We'll have more details on this in the future.

    If you are a tank (druids excepted), expect to see:

    No more Defense on gear. Existing Defense becomes Dodge, Parry, or Block Rating.
    No more Block Value on gear. Existing Block Value becomes Block Rating.
    You’ll have as much Stamina as you’re used to, though you may notice your tanking plate has a bit less Stamina than a comparable piece of DPS plate, since we tend to take the gem budget out of your most attractive stat.
    Bonus Armor on gear will go down slightly.

  6. #6
    I dont get it? A part of this game and your development as a tank is pickup up gear and gearing up. Becoming defense capped is part of that imo. Why are they making everything so gay easy?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Prinnyraid View Post
    Why are they making everything so gay easy?
    Wait...what?

    The point of them removing certain stats and changing how others work are partly related to stat inflation, or for example why for the last 2 expansions they've added a "radiance" to the late-game raids to reduce avoidance so the bosses don't have to hit for absurd numbers.

    Removing Defense allows them to shape the growth of avoidance through item tiers in a way they feel is easier to handle, less inflation, less gimmicks due to players not having insanely high avoidance, easier to balance boss fights.

    I personally like the idea of not having to juggle gear to remain at the defense minimum, I can use any piece of gear I see fit for an encounter without risk of dropping too low. As an example, albeit an old one, if I ever needed to use the crafted Frost Resist gear (first time my guild tried Hodir, I did) I had to gem every slot of those pieces with raw defense gems and enchants (where applicable) just to remain AT the 540 minimum.
    Jalousie: Two ovaries walk into a bar.
    "Hey, can we get some cervix over here?"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    Should've known that this Wall'O'Text would provoke yet more walls

    Didn't have time to read everything, but I will.

    @ Satorri: I agree with most of the insights in the first part of your post, and will not address everything due to time limitation. However, I'd like to focus on two things:

    If there's an X% of paladins who max out their class and Y% of warriors doing it then there might be something wrong. Maybe one class is harder to play than the other? and this is the part of the slight imbalance we see in the game. This is one of the things I was trying to address. Tank A should not be easier to play than tank B. Off course, one intelligent TankSpot member could say that the difference we see is due to the human factor, and not the game mechanics. I don't know if this is the case. I suspect that there is such a difference between X and Y because of the game mechanics.

    I fully agree that automation is not good for the game. It reduces the level of difficulty (and fun imo), yet we cannot say that all the tanks are manual right now. Some abilities are automatic, this is bad for the game, I agree. I simply want to make this 'automation' even. I'd be fine with a solution that would take automation out of the equasion, and play the way I have been playing for the past
    ~5 years

    EDIT: All tanks are viable (with the correct use of the word). There are no 'levels' of viability, it's a binary thing imo.

    But:


    The amount of focus required by players for achieving their inherit tanking viability changes with class.


    Would've gladly tried to disprove it if I had a psychology lab.

    I think I would've failed.

    Blizzard should start a psychological research on attention focus and raiding.
    Last edited by Adrael; 03-02-2010 at 02:54 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    If there's an X% of paladins who max out their class and Y% of warriors doing it then there might be something wrong. Maybe one class is harder to play than the other? and this is the part of the slight imbalance we see in the game. This is one of the things I was trying to address. Tank A should not be easier to play than tank B. Off course, one intelligent TankSpot member could say that the difference we see is due to the human factor, and not the game mechanics. I don't know if this is the case. I suspect that there is such a difference between X and Y because of the game mechanics.
    And the catch is that if you think it's hard (or maybe you don't) to balance the in-game factors of one tank next to another, it is a terribly complicated challenge to balance the ease of play from one class to the next.

    To that end, I don't think easier is better. More on this below the next section as they relate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    I fully agree that automation is not good for the game. It reduces the level of difficulty (and fun imo), yet we cannot say that all the tanks are manual right now. Some abilities are automatic, this is bad for the game, I agree. I simply want to make this 'automation' even.
    GC recently had a great post regarding a very important distinction between Depth and Complexity. In short, Complexity is a matter of how much is going on, how many elements are involved, and how many things you have to be on top of at once. On the other hand, Depth is a matter of having the potential to get more out of your class/spec than you necessarily need. The two are linked but not synonymous.

    The ideal is that the class is relatively simple (as opposed to unnecessary complexity), but has the depth to reward extended periods of play. If you can pick up the class/spec and be functional, but with years of play there is still room to learn and develop, *that* is the ideal balance of depth vs complexity. I think they really did a wonderful job with DKs in that respect.

    Automation is a problem because it is a sacrifice of depth to reduce complexity. That may not necessarily a bad thing, universally, but there are ways to simplify without sacrificing depth, which is my reticence in regards to automation. A challenge to players should not be answered with taking responsibility out of their hands and giving them a cookie. The solution is to make things more intuitive, or more easily attended to, while trying to preserve the depth you can.

    I know part of what I love most about tanking is that there are a LOT of things going on that I have to be on top of. It never gets old (though there is the occasional tank n spank boss encounter that I start getting highway hypnosis around the 10th-20th time tanking it).


    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    EDIT: All tanks are viable (with the correct use of the word). There are no 'levels' of viability, it's a binary thing imo.
    Right! Easily missed semantics. =)



    (PS thank you for bringing level-headed and intellectual discussion to the boards, I really appreciate it next to the complaints or blind talking point yelling matches)
    The (Old) Book on Death Knight Tanking
    The New Testament on Death Knight Tanking
    -----------------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by Horacio View Post
    Who f-ing divided by zero?!?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrael View Post
    The amount of focus required by players for achieving their inherit tanking viability changes with class.


    Would've gladly tried to disprove it if I had a psychology lab.

    I think I would've failed.

    Blizzard should start a psychological research on attention focus and raiding.
    Oops, I forgot.

    I bet there is already some published wisdom on the topic, if not publicly, then in the game development world. Particularly cognitive distinctions of attention.

    For example, you know why phone numbers (in the US anyway) are 7 digits? That was found to be a reasonable number of discrete and simple items that could be stored in the short term memory. What is also interesting is that we find ways to compress that information, like groupings of numbers that are intuitive, or pairings. Rather than 1-2-5-8-0-0, we could compartmentalize it as two 3 digit numbers 125 and 800, to be stored as single items. It's fun,

    WoW is no exception, but there is always a range of cognitive aptitude for how many things you can keep track of, and there is actual value in playing a game like WoW if it tests your limits. If you are constantly trying to keep track of more items than you would have been comfortable doing you can develop your brain and reflexes to address more than you would have.

    WoW as a tool for cognitive development, imagine that?
    The (Old) Book on Death Knight Tanking
    The New Testament on Death Knight Tanking
    -----------------------------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by Horacio View Post
    Who f-ing divided by zero?!?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    @Satorri - I made such a good post quoting everything you wrote... but now it's gone. Wasn't logged in when I clicked 'Submit'.

    Well... regardless. You got me wrong on some things, maybe I should have been clearer. I agree with most of what you wrote. I think I should have underlined something there:


    Attention focus for tanking players is not balanced right now, and should be taken into account. I'll try to remake my wonderful reply later

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    Ye, I know.

    I'm a psychology B.Sc
    Last edited by Adrael; 03-02-2010 at 05:38 AM.

  13. #13
    There is another key component to judging the relative difficulty of gameplay though, and that is that the type of player playing each class is different.

    As a simple evidence of this, remember the extremely low Druid population all the way through the earlier game (no clue whether it still exists) despite their power in certain areas?
    It couldn't be explained in any rational fashion, and was most likely down to appeal-issues. Having to roll NE/Tauren, form-changing, position compared to other classes.

    And that is the tip of the iceberg. There's much more, like underdog-players who will always gun for spec/class they thing is weaker but still reasonably good at the job to "show the mainliners!" (I admit I'm guilty of this and if they hadn't bugged Necrosis to no longer work with Rune Strike I'd still be playing Unholy Tank!), like players who reroll because they cannot stand the animations of their race anymore and while there decide to try out whether there's any grounds to all the claims that Pallytanks are overpowered, like people who cannot stand the classcolour pink, like people who do or do not like the looks of the plate armor sets and decide Druid vs anything-else based on that, like Death Knights who are easier to level up than other classes, bla bla bla bla bla.

    Completely ignoring actualy in-group/-raid tankbalance, the classes are already imbalanced from the get-go. They have different numbers of players - hence different exposure and hence different degrees in which Healers/DPS are used to working with them - and different types of players. From different types of players come different percentages of players per class hitting different tiers of skill-percentages.

    And mind you, we're still not actually at the part where we zoned into the instance, much less pulled anything.


    Satorri has one VERY important point: There is no state of balance. There is a perpetual imbalance which gets prodded to move the other way each time it tries to slide off the table. Like a single drop of designdecision water being dropped into a hot frying pan of customer expectations, and all it does is zip around, never standing still. And if you keep the heat turned up long enough it's gone entirely, but now we're getting philosophical.
    SQUEAK.
    -- (The Death of Rats, Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by KnThrak View Post
    Satorri has one VERY important point: There is no state of balance. There is a perpetual imbalance which gets prodded to move the other way each time it tries to slide off the table. Like a single drop of designdecision water being dropped into a hot frying pan of customer expectations, and all it does is zip around, never standing still. And if you keep the heat turned up long enough it's gone entirely, but now we're getting philosophical.
    This perpetual imbalance is what keeps WoW alive. Every patch we get a slightly different game, every expanssion we get a whole different game. For us players, it's a perfect world that never gets old (or will get old, but only after a very long time). It's also good for the devs, since they constantly change things, create new challenges and balance our world in creative ways. Balance will never be achieved completely and that's a good thing. A balance world is an unchanging one, and unchanging worlds get boring.

    I like your observation about the players personal preferences. These different preferences are derivatives of us being different people. But the 'lazy-ass' players shouldn't get the option of playing a class which offers more automation than other classes. It seems like that now, when the devs balance out things, they pay little regards to the most basic resource a gamer has. Attention should be in the focus of any class balance. I'm not saying that there's this one class that can just do everything while auto-attacking, but the differences between some classes are too big when it comes to automation.

    I also would like to see more order in the way tanks are balanced (as suggested above), but that's a matter of taste

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    Bad news for ya then........

    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...d=1&pageNo=1#0

    This was just released today.
    How is that bad news? Block gimmicks are out and avoidance is getting a face-lift. Sounds like wins all around to me. Details will be nasty (dks without block, bears without parry) for some classes, but if they're balancing around a % block there should be fewer problems.

    I think the halarious part is, with the change to block.. Anub's hardmode adds may be all but impossible to tank by anyone. I guess by then we'll have dps who can kill them before stun wears off, but still, I am just in awe of how little effort was made to reform that encounter. Just reeks of fail.
    Last edited by Proletaria; 03-02-2010 at 09:39 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by KnThrak View Post
    Completely ignoring actualy in-group/-raid tankbalance, the classes are already imbalanced from the get-go. They have different numbers of players - hence different exposure and hence different degrees in which Healers/DPS are used to working with them - and different types of players. From different types of players come different percentages of players per class hitting different tiers of skill-percentages.
    Again, this takes me back to my first point: tanks don't operate in a vacuum.

    You touch on what I think is a key point here. The different exposure/experience with which healers/dps are used to working with a particular class. Again, back to my earlier post, I kid you not, I've only seen one other DK besides myself tanking on the random daily heroics over the past MONTH. I usually run as dps, so the tank spot is wide open. Out of over 100+ pugs, only ONE had a DK tank. And in that case, the healer had remarked on how they didn't like the run because the tank felt "squishy".

    Quote Originally Posted by KnThrak View Post
    Satorri has one VERY important point: There is no state of balance. There is a perpetual imbalance which gets prodded to move the other way each time it tries to slide off the table. Like a single drop of designdecision water being dropped into a hot frying pan of customer expectations, and all it does is zip around, never standing still. And if you keep the heat turned up long enough it's gone entirely, but now we're getting philosophical.
    Agreed.

    But then again, balance should exist as a whole. The priest that cries about not being able to "blow up" people in battlegrounds, maybe should re-examine why they selected a healer. The hunter that cries about not being able to melee with a warrior, should maybe re-examine what they are trying to do.

    I see it time and again. Groups of people who understand that their CLASS PLAYS A ROLE AS PART OF A GROUP usually kick ass, take names, and run off with the flag or take Wintergrasp or smoke that raid boss that gives everyone such a hard time. The place this is usually witnessed is in battlegrounds, where a lot of times, it's a loose mob of individuals instead of a group of people working in concert.

    There CAN be balance in that sense. That several different classes teamed up can form an effective group.

    The idea that each class can, or even should, balance out with every other class..... I don't agree with. Each class is supposed to be a specialist... and under each class, a sub-specialty. Each is supposed to be able to bring something to the table, not bring the whole 4 course meal on its own.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Leucifer View Post
    Each is supposed to be able to bring something to the table, not bring the whole 4 course meal on its own.
    That was the orignial design intent. It doesn't work unless you assume every raid has access to every tank. That usually isn't the case. It leaves you with magic-immune dk tanks, warriors who can take nearly zero damage from nerubian burrowers, paladins who can produce absurd tps with little to no threat stats, and bears who can nearly double any other tank's hp with glyphed Survival Instincts.

    Are all of these things problems? Sure.
    Which one is more important? I guess that is up the the devs.
    Is it ironic the only one of these things that got a significant nerf was the DK's magic niche? lolyes

    I'm one of two, yes two, raiding dk tanks on a server of 30k+. Doubt the patch is going to change that much.
    We may as well leave our opinions until Cata. Fresh imbalance to crow over should be fun.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Proletaria View Post
    How is that bad news? Block gimmicks are out and avoidance is getting a face-lift. Sounds like wins all around to me. Details will be nasty (dks without block, bears without parry) for some classes, but if they're balancing around a % block there should be fewer problems.
    Those details might make or break those classes for tanking for a while.

    Bears seem to benefit in that "leather and mail armor will scale better". However, for the DK, the fact that they are reducing the value of plate armor in comparison to mail/leather/cloth, puts them at a disadvantage since they don't have block or use a shield. Right now, frost presence is our "shield" effectively.

    Again though, if I reduce the value of plate armor vs. mail/leather/cloth...... bring the stamina of classes closer together..... reduce the value of block.... reduce the value of parry.... improve dodge....
    well, that to me makes it seem like rogues might even become viable tanks, so long as they can keep their dodge % up high enough.

    Yeah, I know. Crazy talk. Right? We've already seen a rogue tank Illidan. His dodge/avoidance was high enough to make up for any armor issues. Armor became a critical factor in WotLK as so many things hit so hard, that the difference between plate/mail/leather/cloth become more apparent. Of course, they plan to make defense stance/frost presence/bear form/etc "uncrittable".

    I'm starting to ramble now.
    I think Satorri touched on a point here that reflects my concerns regarding the changes for Cataclysm:

    Quote Originally Posted by Satorri View Post
    GC recently had a great post regarding a very important distinction between Depth and Complexity. In short, Complexity is a matter of how much is going on, how many elements are involved, and how many things you have to be on top of at once. On the other hand, Depth is a matter of having the potential to get more out of your class/spec than you necessarily need. The two are linked but not synonymous.

    The ideal is that the class is relatively simple (as opposed to unnecessary complexity), but has the depth to reward extended periods of play. If you can pick up the class/spec and be functional, but with years of play there is still room to learn and develop, *that* is the ideal balance of depth vs complexity. I think they really did a wonderful job with DKs in that respect.

    Automation is a problem because it is a sacrifice of depth to reduce complexity. That may not necessarily a bad thing, universally, but there are ways to simplify without sacrificing depth, which is my reticence in regards to automation. A challenge to players should not be answered with taking responsibility out of their hands and giving them a cookie. The solution is to make things more intuitive, or more easily attended to, while trying to preserve the depth you can.

    I know part of what I love most about tanking is that there are a LOT of things going on that I have to be on top of. It never gets old (though there is the occasional tank n spank boss encounter that I start getting highway hypnosis around the 10th-20th time tanking it).
    It feels like Blizz is reducing the depth of the game.

    Again..... my point that I raised earlier that a tank does not operate in a vacuum.... that each class plays a larger role.... Blizzard seems to be blurring those lines and "homogenizing" the playing field.

    Just feels to me like Blizzard is making World of Warcraft a little less colorful.
    That to me is a loss.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Proletaria View Post
    That was the orignial design intent. It doesn't work unless you assume every raid has access to every tank. That usually isn't the case. It leaves you with magic-immune dk tanks, warriors who can take nearly zero damage from nerubian burrowers, paladins who can produce absurd tps with little to no threat stats, and bears who can nearly double any other tank's hp with glyphed Survival Instincts.

    Are all of these things problems? Sure.
    Which one is more important? I guess that is up the the devs.
    Is it ironic the only one of these things that got a significant nerf was the DK's magic niche? lolyes

    I'm one of two, yes two, raiding dk tanks on a server of 30k+. Doubt the patch is going to change that much.
    We may as well leave our opinions until Cata. Fresh imbalance to crow over should be fun.
    Feel your pain. I'm one of a few people who even attempts top tank with my DK on mine. The stats you tell me.... shocking.

    Agree with you on Cataclysm. I'm going to hang up my hat (minus the post I just dropped.... slow repsonse. heh) on the topic.

    Yeah..... I agree with the basic gist of what you say.
    LMAO.... and yes... should be interesting to see what happens next.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    168
    It feels like Blizz is reducing the depth of the game.
    I think it is shaping up to have a lot more depth than it currently does. Currently too many classes seem to fall into the same setup: cap one or two stats (def/hit/exp) then go all in on your one big power stat. The large selection of stats available on gear gives the illusion of depth but it's been a while since I've had to make any hard gearing decisions. The "fewer but better" stats approach they are taking has the potential to bring back actual gearing decisions and the ability for all tank classes to put together specialized sets for encounters.

    I'm really looking forward to the changes and all the theorycrafting and experimentation that they'll bring.

+ 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