WoW Stratics IRC Chat

[Skandranon]

Oh, the irony

Except that I'm explaining why druids are good, and you're whining.

You're not interested in discussion. Case closed.

[Taelas]

This is absurd. I've been through most of SSC and TK and anyone describing a bear tank as second-rate needs to get their head checked. We have a raiding bear who we use to tank nearly every fight in there, and that's even with 3 Prot warriors in the raid besides. Druids have clear advantages on nearly every fight in TBC raiding content. And as for paladins, they make excellent tanks for non-boss components of fights (and this isn't Molten Core, there literally IS no fight where you have just one boss and nothing else).

Saw this post a little late.

"Nearly every fight in there" except the ones that require resistance gear (the only kind comes in the form of 67 greens 'of [type] Protection" for druids). No craftables.

And, eh, have you ever fought Gruul? Single boss, no adds. He doesn't count?

I find the opposite (perhaps because I pug more than you). Much easier to get groups with the Warrior, easier to get chosen as the person who will be doing the tanking with the Warrior, the over-nukers have a better feeling for how long to wait before they start to unload and 2 seconds off Taunt cooldown is a life-saver.

I have zero trouble getting groups as a tank. None what-so-ever. I've been asked completely out of the blue if I wanted to come tank--by people I have never met before. Tanks are a rare breed, and are coveted in pretty much whatever form they show up in.

Agreed, my frustration is that druids are not capable of being the "star of the show" main tanks that we were capable of being in January. My frustration is compounded when people like Kalgan state that the reason we should not be so empowered is because the pure class should be better. What pure class? There are no pure classes in WoW. What he really means is Druids, as a hybrid class, can't be as good because fanboys of some other hybrid class get emo

I'm perfectly capable of main-tanking, thank you. The nerf, in retrospect, was not as serious as it was made out to be. Heavy, yes, but we're still around.

I can see that this may be the case but I can't see the situation in which it matters. I've not found threat generation of a Warrior to be lacking when both my Druid and a Warrior co-tank are ping-ponging aggro. What situations require more threat than a Prot Warrior generates while not taking damage?

It means quite simply that we're better off-tanks. We can generate higher threat than a secondary warrior.

The only meaningful number is damage taken. How much and how spikey. Everything else is fluff

I quite agree--and my total damage reduction is better than our main tank's by ~5%. Physical only, of course.

With what? The horribly reduced Swipe? Do you really feel that Swipe beats Thunderclap spam by so much?

I swipe-tank heroics. Let's see a warrior do that with Thunderclap.

Again I would dispute this. Bears in tank gear do not do much better damage than Prot Warriors, at least mine doesn't. If I'm in a 5 man generally the damage meter looks like this
dps 100
dps 90
dps 80
prot warrior or bear druid 50-60
healer 0-10
Admittedly my Prot Warrior is only 63 so it may change but those numbers also correlate to what I've seen then someone else is tanking with a Prot Warrior for us

We do more damage. Test it.

As do two large bosses plus the encounters with fear, with undead, with elementals that don't bleed, with stuff that can be interrupted and magical damage. Also compared with paladins Warriors are miles ahead on anything that silences or mana burns

Non-bleedable mobs are a non-issue since they changed Lacerate to give initial damage. The bleed damage is very little threat. It does mean we hold bleedable mobs better, but it really isn't that big a deal.

Not only are Warriors the best overall tanks but the situational tanking niches we were promised are all situations where Warriors tank better than one or both of the other two.

Both Gruul and Maulgar are pure physical damage fights where druids do better than warriors.

No, things aren't fantastic, and warriors are still king of the hill when it comes to tanking, but they are not the only ones capable of doing the job--most of the time. There are fights where warriors are pretty much required, but a Protection warrior really can't do much else than tank. I'm content to let them, as long as they allow me to tank whenever I'd be a better choice.

It was nothing so planned. I started TBC in a Hunter duo, we couldn't get instances done, I revived my old Druid, tanked to 70, tanked for my guild in Kara, got nerfed, got discouraged and gave up. At that time parity of tanking was not only something we had been promised but had also been implemented in the game

Take it back up. I'm doing just fine tanking, especially since 2.1. Threat isn't an issue.

[Artega]

Honestly, a Paladin would blow away Warriors and Bears in terms of threat generation on Undead or Demon targets. But Paladins already generate threat just fine.

[Brista]

No, things aren't fantastic, and warriors are still king of the hill when it comes to tanking, but they are not the only ones capable of doing the job--most of the time.

It's a matter of what you want and this sentence summarises why I don't want to play my Druid

I'm glad you're having good experiences and I can see that Feral Druids are well worth a raid spot but I'll settle for things being fantastic, being king of the hill and being capable of doing my job all of the time

I probably shouldn't have raked over this old wound, we discussed it before in detail but it's so annoying to see the Lead Designer so woolly on his reasons for a fundamental class balance shift. I'd rather he said "I dunno, seemed like a good idea at the time" than kept trying to push this pure class nonsense

[Arethor]

Maybe I'm a bit biased, being in the same guild as Skan, but our Feral tank has tanked 2 hydross adds before, OTs Gruul (taking Hurtful Strikes), he MTs a Kara run weekly and fwiw I just watched him save a wipe by stepping up to MT Voidreaver after the MT went down.

I'd agree that there are encounters where warriors or pallies outshine Druids, and that most boss encounters lend themselves to warrior MTs but I don't think by any means that Feral tanks are non-viable. In fact he's usually the first person I try to get to tank heroics.

Also from my experiences playing my warrior once your gear gets to a certain point your mitigation is so high that you don't generate as much rage from being hit. This causes warriors threat generation to be reduced. I had some issues tanking a regular Arcatraz run because i didn't have enough rage to generate threat. A druid is not limited by this which is one reason they are so great on trash or adds or an OT position.

Sorry if this doesn't make full sense, I'm a bit tired atm, but I refuse to believe that druids are not a viable tank.

[Tal]

And, eh, have you ever fought Gruul? Single boss, no adds. He doesn't count?

Think about it logically - would they be in Serpentshine and Tempest Keep if they hadn't done Gruul?

[Taelas]

Think about it logically - would they be in Serpentshine and Tempest Keep if they hadn't done Gruul?

It's called sarcasm, Tal.

And as for paladins, they make excellent tanks for non-boss components of fights (and this isn't Molten Core, there literally IS no fight where you have just one boss and nothing else).

Gruul IS "just one boss and nothing else".

[Skandranon]

"Nearly every fight in there" except the ones that require resistance gear (the only kind comes in the form of 67 greens 'of [type] Protection" for druids). No craftables.

Granted, Druids can't main-tank Hydross. However, with his adds, the best strat is to pick them up and AE them down. There are four, and unless you bring a lot of warriors, one tank will have to wind up with two at some point. Who's best at tanking two targets? Druid. Swipe works wonders, as I'm sure you well know, and you don't need any resistance to tank adds when they die before the 25% mark.

A protection warrior can do it, but it's harder. They have to swap between mobs, which is hard when four of them are piled on top of Hydross, and build approximately equal threat on each. Druids just swipe.

And, eh, have you ever fought Gruul? Single boss, no adds. He doesn't count?

Okay, there are in fact two boss fights where it's just the boss and no adds. Both of them (Gruul and Void Reaver) require significant threat to be generated in the off-tank position without taking much damage, an area in which druids and paladins excel. So even on the one-boss fights, there are some roles that warriors just aren't good for (in particular, off-tank on Gruul is terrible for a prot warrior, because their high avoidance can often result in not getting enough rage to stay in #2).

I should have said, there's no single-boss boss fight that's tanked by a single player, like in Molten Core. Even if it is just one mob, at least one other tank will be required, and that off-tanking role will heavily favour a non-warrior tank. At least one non-warrior tank is highly favourable in every raid encounter in TBC.

[Artega]

Maybe I'm a bit biased, being in the same guild as Skan, but our Feral tank has tanked 2 hydross adds before, OTs Gruul (taking Hurtful Strikes), he MTs a Kara run weekly and fwiw I just watched him save a wipe by stepping up to MT Voidreaver after the MT went down.

I'd agree that there are encounters where warriors or pallies outshine Druids, and that most boss encounters lend themselves to warrior MTs but I don't think by any means that Feral tanks are non-viable. In fact he's usually the first person I try to get to tank heroics.

Also from my experiences playing my warrior once your gear gets to a certain point your mitigation is so high that you don't generate as much rage from being hit. This causes warriors threat generation to be reduced. I had some issues tanking a regular Arcatraz run because i didn't have enough rage to generate threat. A druid is not limited by this which is one reason they are so great on trash or adds or an OT position.

Sorry if this doesn't make full sense, I'm a bit tired atm, but I refuse to believe that druids are not a viable tank.

The Rage issue is easily alleviated by swapping out defensive pieces for offensive pieces. I usually start with my trinkets, rings, and neck. Increases your threat generation by increasing both damage output and (ironically, for a tank) lowering avoidance:)

[Brista]

I'd agree that there are encounters where warriors or pallies outshine Druids, and that most boss encounters lend themselves to warrior MTs but I don't think by any means that Feral tanks are non-viable. In fact he's usually the first person I try to get to tank heroics.

Sorry if this doesn't make full sense, I'm a bit tired atm, but I refuse to believe that druids are not a viable tank.

These two views are not compatible to a purist like me

If you can accept that Warriors are generally better can you see why Druids are not viable for people who want to be the best?

The question is not Is there a raid spot for a second rate tank who brings a lot of utility? The question for each of us is Do I personally want to play a second rate tank who brings a lot of utility?

[Arethor]

Maybe your definition and my definition of what makes someone second rate varies. Try on this example. Mages are regularly towards the top of the DPS charts, however on certain fights it is nigh impossible for them to top the charts (See Al'ar) does this make them second rate to warlocks because of these encounters? In a fight with multiple mobs a shadow priest's DPS suffers, but in single-target encounters they melt face. Does this make them second-rate to other ranged DPS? In aggro sensitive encounters a DPS warrior has no way to reduce his threat and therefore often will have to meter his DPS so as to not pull aggro. Does this make him second rate to rogues?

My point is this. It's impossible to be king 100% of the time. Expecting that you can be would be a bit ridiculous because then the game would be lacking balance. I guess that's one reason I enjoy playing alts as much as I do. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Yes, I now prefer to play my pally instead of priest because of the efficiency (although less so now), but I lose out on PW:S and Renew. Yes I prefer my warrior to my rogue because the type of play varies (tank/dps) but I lose out on threat reduction, stealth and CC/stun capability.

Once again this is just pertaining to my views on the words second rate. Personally I simply see it as strengths and weaknesses and that each class has a place that they shine, but I find it comforting that no one class is the best all of the time. It means that everyone gets to enjoy some time in the limelight.

[Taelas]

My point is this. It's impossible to be king 100% of the time. Expecting that you can be would be a bit ridiculous because then the game would be lacking balance. I guess that's one reason I enjoy playing alts as much as I do. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Yes, I now prefer to play my pally instead of priest because of the efficiency (although less so now), but I lose out on PW:S and Renew. Yes I prefer my warrior to my rogue because the type of play varies (tank/dps) but I lose out on threat reduction, stealth and CC/stun capability.

The problem with that is that many feel that warriors ARE king 100% when it comes to tanking (and they certainly were so prior to TBC). I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it's still there.

[Cybit]

The problem with that is that many feel that warriors ARE king 100% when it comes to tanking (and they certainly were so prior to TBC). I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it's still there.

Yeah, and people feel priests are the kings of healing, rogues are the kings of dps, etc etc. It will take time for people to get used to TBC, but many of us know that druids can be completely badass tanks if geared. Just like a Gruul HS tank is best fulfilled by a druid due to rage generation and physical mitigation, and mages/warlocks tearing up the DPS meters (though I'd like to point out rogues are pretty damn badass in 2.1). But the fundamental problem is this: Feral druids can be brought along on a raid as DPS (not rogue level, but up there) and tanking or healing (as well as battlerezzes/innervates). A prot warrior can only be brought along to tank. Feral having DPS and tanking rolled into one gives them that utility. If you rolled, say, Fury and Prot into the same talent tree, then yes, I'd fully agree that druids should be as capable MTs as a warrior. But as long as warriors have to spec in a way to seriously gimp their DPS to tank, and druids don't, then I think they are right in making warriors the best raid MTs. Give Druids and Paladins roles in tanking any given encounter (OT, add tanking, high physical damage tanking, undead/demon tanking), but a warrior gives up darn close to everything to be a raid level tank.

Though from what I hear, paladins have to give up everything except buffs/decent healing with healer gear to tank, so maybe having undead/demon bosses could be a good way to let the paladin tanks get some work in. Not really sure how to best deal with that, most likely paladin tanks would know the best solutions for that...

[Taelas]

Yeah, and people feel priests are the kings of healing, rogues are the kings of dps, etc etc. It will take time for people to get used to TBC, but many of us know that druids can be completely badass tanks if geared. Just like a Gruul HS tank is best fulfilled by a druid due to rage generation and physical mitigation, and mages/warlocks tearing up the DPS meters (though I'd like to point out rogues are pretty damn badass in 2.1). But the fundamental problem is this: Feral druids can be brought along on a raid as DPS (not rogue level, but up there) and tanking or healing (as well as battlerezzes/innervates). A prot warrior can only be brought along to tank. Feral having DPS and tanking rolled into one gives them that utility. If you rolled, say, Fury and Prot into the same talent tree, then yes, I'd fully agree that druids should be as capable MTs as a warrior. But as long as warriors have to spec in a way to seriously gimp their DPS to tank, and druids don't, then I think they are right in making warriors the best raid MTs. Give Druids and Paladins roles in tanking any given encounter (OT, add tanking, high physical damage tanking, undead/demon tanking), but a warrior gives up darn close to everything to be a raid level tank.

Though from what I hear, paladins have to give up everything except buffs/decent healing with healer gear to tank, so maybe having undead/demon bosses could be a good way to let the paladin tanks get some work in. Not really sure how to best deal with that, most likely paladin tanks would know the best solutions for that...

Warriors should have the edge on most encounters, but all encounters should be tankable by a druid or a paladin, period. Otherwise they are not viable alternatives to warriors, which the devs claimed they should be.

There's absolutely no reason why the MT spot should always be taken by just one class. No other class in the game gets special treatment on that front, so why on earth should warriors?

Right now, druids are at least viable alternatives on most encounters (though not all; Nightbane sucks). Paladins however need a buff.

[Cybit]

Warriors should have the edge on most encounters, but all encounters should be tankable by a druid or a paladin, period. Otherwise they are not viable alternatives to warriors, which the devs claimed they should be.

There's absolutely no reason why the MT spot should always be taken by just one class. No other class in the game gets special treatment on that front, so why on earth should warriors?

Right now, druids are at least viable alternatives on most encounters (though not all; Nightbane sucks). Paladins however need a buff.

I agree with paladins needing a buff. That said, the devs have a problem if they design an encounter to be reasonably doable by a feral druid or protection paladin. Namely, if a feral druid can do it, a protection warrior might make it too easy. They seem to have the problem of making it hard for a protection spec warrior and a feral druid. If it is hard for a protection spec warrior, then a feral druid would probably require some serious healing mojo. Though by getting rid of crushing blows, they can force themselves to start designing encounters in such a way that it could be difficult for both. Right now, that's the main advantage warriors have; the ability to stop crushing blows. Get rid of that, and for purely physical fights, a druid is king. (Unless block starts stopping serious damage...). Hell, you could do a trio of bosses, one who hits hard as hell on physical, one who is undead/weak to paladin abilities, and one who uses physical + spell damage. Voila, each class is needed.

That, or simply merge the protection + retribution tree for a paladin, and merge the prot + fury tree for a warrior, giving them both the versatility of a druid. The idea of a tanking "spec" is actually one of the main drivers of all these issues...maybe the druid designer got it right with the druids by combing the DPS/tank tree into one?

[Skandranon]

Warriors should have the edge on most encounters, but all encounters should be tankable by a druid or a paladin, period. Otherwise they are not viable alternatives to warriors, which the devs claimed they should be.

There's absolutely no reason why the MT spot should always be taken by just one class. No other class in the game gets special treatment on that front, so why on earth should warriors?

Why not?

The "MT spot" as we define it, the tank that the boss is targeting most of the time, is only one role to be played in the fight. Almost all of the time, it's one of multiple tank roles being played in the fight. Why shouldn't a warrior be the best at it - since non-warriors are the best at other tank jobs? Yes the warrior gets special treatment for being the boss-target-tank, but druids get advantages on secondary threat generation, multiple target tanking, and periodic deaggro situations. Paladins...need a bit of tweaking, but their area-effect and secondary threat generation is still healthy. Paladin issues primarily rest in itemization; until recently, their tier sets were horrifically itemized crap. I can't imagine that a full-t5 paladin couldn't tank at least reasonably well.

Two prot warriors is basically the max for any encounter in SSC/TK, to fulfill the "get-beat-on-by-main-boss" requirement of the fight. For all the rest of the tanking, a warrior would struggle or be outright incapable of pulling it off. When you want something for the boss to target, a warrior is the best choice. For everything else, go druid, and in some cases paladin.

Suppose that the job of boss-target-tank is diversified across all tanking classes, as you wish. What do you give warriors in return?

[Taelas]

Why not?

Because no other class gets special treatment in this manner. You can scrap ANY class completely from a raid composition except for a warrior. It doesn't even have to be a Protection warrior, by the way, as the abilities which give warriors MT-spots are base, not talents. This is not on all encounters. It's on encounters which relies on those abilities.

Because they rely on those abilities -- Defensive stance, Shield Wall, Berserker Rage, just to name a few -- it's not just a benefit to have a warrior tank, it's directly detrimental NOT to have a warrior tank.

The "MT spot" as we define it, the tank that the boss is targeting most of the time, is only one role to be played in the fight. Almost all of the time, it's one of multiple tank roles being played in the fight. Why shouldn't a warrior be the best at it - since non-warriors are the best at other tank jobs?

That's an assumption. It's not even true. Paladins have threat generation going for them. That's it. Druids have slightly better physical mitigation (though no way of blocking crushing blows) and a slight edge on threat generation (and they deal more damage than Protection warriors as well, not that it's significantly different).

Yes the warrior gets special treatment for being the boss-target-tank, but druids get advantages on secondary threat generation, multiple target tanking, and periodic deaggro situations.

Agree on the first two points, but to the last... wha'? I assume you're talking about the disarming ethereals in Karazhan, but that's not enough to base a class strength on. It's probably not even intentional. Warriors have better tools to get back aggro than druids do, period. Faster taunt, secondary semi-taunt.

Paladins...need a bit of tweaking, but their area-effect and secondary threat generation is still healthy. Paladin issues primarily rest in itemization; until recently, their tier sets were horrifically itemized crap. I can't imagine that a full-t5 paladin couldn't tank at least reasonably well.

I haven't looked at the new tier sets, but unless they were completely redesigned, and I mean completely, they are still horribly itemized, wasting stats on spelldamage, spellhit, int, and MP5--all of which "benefits" paladin tanking, but they cost far too much in terms of mitigation.

Two prot warriors is basically the max for any encounter in SSC/TK, to fulfill the "get-beat-on-by-main-boss" requirement of the fight. For all the rest of the tanking, a warrior would struggle or be outright incapable of pulling it off. When you want something for the boss to target, a warrior is the best choice. For everything else, go druid, and in some cases paladin.

What, exactly, can a druid tank which a warrior can't? A paladin?

You're making stuff up now. Keep to the facts?

Suppose that the job of boss-target-tank is diversified across all tanking classes, as you wish. What do you give warriors in return?

In an ideal world, Protection warriors (and not just any warrior, only Protection warriors, as other warriors have specced for other tasks) should be a benefit to have for any raid. On the same token, it should not be directly detrimental not to have them, so that other people can fill the role.

All other roles and all other classes have this. Then there are the occasional stop-block encounter (non-Fear Ward Nightbane, Hydross, Doomwalker) who basically say, "Only for warrior tanks".

[Arethor]

All other roles and all other classes have this. Then there are the occasional stop-block encounter (non-Fear Ward Nightbane, Hydross, Doomwalker) who basically say, "Only for warrior tanks".

Nit. If you remember correctly I mentioned that the druid I was refering to MTed a Kara run. When I say this I mean that he's the MT for all trash and boss fights. My warrior is the only other person in that group with any tanking ability and only in a few cases do I strap it on and in most of those cases it's just precautionary, not even necessary. Currently the only times I tank is for building secondary aggro on Moroes for when the Druid is gouged and initially offtanking one add, for Opera if it's Romulo and Julliene and the 2-pull Mech guys in Curator trash. We do Nightbane without Fear Ward using the druid as MT. I play the role of OT, using Beserker Rage in case the Tremor totems pulse poorly. However even when I screw up (which I have) and miss my Beserker Rage it's still very doable with Tremor Totems.

If they do remove Crushing Blows I see no reason that a Druid would not be able to MT if Blizzard removes head from rear and also gives some Leather resist-tank gear.

The problem with that is that many feel that warriors ARE king 100% when it comes to tanking (and they certainly were so prior to TBC). I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it's still there.

You can't change how people feel about things, and I'm not trying to change how anyone feels. I'm just explaining things from my perspective and how I perceive druid tanking to be. From my experiences druids are far superior to warriors in multi-mob tanking situations. Even with a full prot spec thunderclap simply doesn't seem to hold mobs as well as a druid's threat building capabilities. Druids also have massive physical damage reduction and can also hit a very high dodge number. Our Druid tank loves to use his 2 minute cooldown "Bear Wall" where he pops his trinkets and has ~70% dodge. Druids also need less +Def to hit the uncrittable cap. Without the concern of crushing blows, druids would simply reign supreme on physical damage encounters.

I feel at this point i'm probably gonna just be repeating myself. It's up to everyone to form their own opinions, and I'm pretty sure that I've expressed mine clearly.

[Artega]

I haven't looked at the new tier sets, but unless they were completely redesigned, and I mean completely, they are still horribly itemized, wasting stats on spelldamage, spellhit, int, and MP5--all of which "benefits" paladin tanking, but they cost far too much in terms of mitigation.

They're still crap. Much better than they were, but they're still crap overall. While Intellect is valuable (allowing you to spam more frequently without relying entirely on SA for mana), it's generally too expensive. They put Parry Rating on a piece, which makes no sense; Pallies already struggle to juggle the needed stats on their gear as it is, and they give us Parry (which is more expensive) instead of Dodge?

As far as spelldamage goes, you need about 200-240 or so to generate solid threat. More than that would be great, but it's highly unlikely you could squeeze it in without hurting your mitigation or HP somehow. Contiuum Blade is the big weapon of choice for most Paladin tanks starting out; I've seen a sword from Skettis rep (or whatever the Apexis Shard thingies are from) that's superior to Contiuum Blade, but I've also heard it was removed before 2.1 went live. Slap on a +40 spellpower enchant (which, again, costs mitigation because it means we don't get the huge Agility boost that Mongoose grants), and you're looking at about 160 of your needed 190-210ish spellpower. If you want to be reliant on consumables, you can toss in wizard oil for another 40 or so; otherwise, you'll need to squeeze in the rest via enchants or gear pieces.

A lot of Palatanking's problems lie in its itemization, but part of that problem also comes from the fact that the Protection tree is horribly designed in several areas:(

[Taelas]

I've seen a sword from Skettis rep (or whatever the Apexis Shard thingies are from) that's superior to Contiuum Blade, but I've also heard it was removed before 2.1 went live.

It wasn't.

http://www.thottbot.com/i32660

Saw it being sold on trade yesterday.

There's also the HH/Thrallmar Exalted reward, which sports 159 spelldamage (though not nearly as much stamina). As an aside, why do Horde side have the best names? I mean, 'Stormcaller' versus 'Blade of the Archmage'...