Throughout it all, I’ve tried to remain positive in the wake of something I was originally sceptical about during the BlizzCon presentation.
So it’s worth pointing out early what’s changed between then and now, what’s differed in my mind about the latest incarnation of the Protection warrior and how my opinion has altered regarding what looked, at first, to be a massive retrograde step in playing a warrior tank. I’ve read many threads, drafted many blogs and held many discussions over an extended period of time, so I feel I’m now quite rounded in my view.
So, what’s changed?
Nothing
Nothing? Seriously?
Well, okay, not nothing. I originally thought that the new talent system was bad and that active mitigation was a flop. Since then, I’ve drawn the conclusion that they’re terrible. To go from the fast-paced threat gameplay I loved in WotLK, one with a sophisticated priority queue and slew of quirky utility talents that could change the face of an encounter, was always going to be… Jarring. To arrive at a slow-paced, static rotation with all gameplay choices shoehorned out is, quite frankly, compelling me to quit.
It’s here that I must make a warning:
If you’ve come here expecting a scientific and bias-free analysis of how Protection has developed, you’re unlikely to see that here. If you’re expecting a storm of QQ with no basis in reality, you’ll be equally disappointed. All I can promise is that I’m going to get this off my chest so that anyone asking why I’m so down with warriors right now will have an easy reference.
What’s the problem with active mitigation?
Ultimately, throughout WotLK and Cataclysm, warriors already HAD an active, engaging and enjoyable playstyle. Our threat rotation consisted primarily of Shield Slam, Revenge and Devastate for beginners, while Concussion Blow, Shockwave and Rend could be slotted in for those who were developing. Defensively, we had the maintenance debuffs of Demoralizing Shout and Thunderclap, but also had Spell Reflect, Shield Bash/Pummel, charge-interrupts, Intimidating Shout and a DPS debuff in Sunder Armor.
Much of this made its way to Cataclysm which, in my view, was a perfectly fun expansion for Protection warriors. There was no change to the general way warriors played and despite being a poor man’s paladin for much of Deathwing’s jaunt, we remained a blast to play and garnered envious looks from Prince Fancypants as he enviously watched us zip around at a pace he could only dream of.
There was an exception.
Vengeance.
Almost every problem related to my current malaise with my warrior can be traced back to the introduction of this pointless, needless, self-licking lollipop of a mechanic that was introduced to solve a problem nobody actually had. Tanks were not routinely struggling with threat at the conclusion of Icecrown Citadel, and DPS toons had ways and means of helping their tanks out with clever and imaginative play. It’s common for players to cite the Blizzard-endorsed criticism of “threat dumps aren’t compelling, you just press them on cooldown” but, as with comedy, TIMING is everything.
Hiratha, an author on this blog, was a prime example. Streaming adds, or a bad pull that she noticed and I didn’t, would see her nuke the bejeezus out of what needed controlling, funnel it toward either myself or the other guild tank, plant them on top of said tank and then feign death. We planned around this in many an encounter and it formed a synergy between damage dealer and tank that’s all since been killed off, thanks to Vengeance.
What else did Vengeance “achieve”?
- - Made threat automatic for tanks.
- Ruined low-level dungeoneering.
- Contributed nothing to the ACTUAL problem with threat (on the pull).
- Needed PvP fixing thanks to tanks being too powerful.
- Utterly devalued hit and expertise.
- Destroyed threat as an encounter mechanic.
Remember the fun of Malygos P1 or Hodir’s hard mode and the mega-threat requirements? Forget them, you’ll never see their like again. Threat, something that every tank I knew enjoyed the gameplay value of, was taken away and a piece of what I loved most about this game was tossed on the pyre. The biggest embarrassment for Blizzard came when Ghostcrawler had to make a humiliating climbdown from his previous stance about threat needing to be a meaningful part of the game, and throw in the towel by buffing the crap out of Defensive Stance/Righteous Fury/Bear Form/Blood Presence.
Not only was threat removed as a meaningful part of the game, Vengeance was made wholly redundant.
The biggest indictment, of course, pertains to the utter devaluation of traditional threat stats. WotLK saw warriors routinely getting to at least the expertise soft cap, and sometimes more, because threat was one of their main contributions to the raid group. Positioning, control, interrupts and damage mitigation all played their part, but threat was a part of it too. Your attacks needed to land so that you could generate enough threat for your damage dealers to do their job, while also making your own contribution toward the Berserk timer.
With Vengeance still in the game, hit and expertise remained in the crapper. Essentially, Ghostcrawler posted again during 4.2 to say that, essentially, we needed another reason for hit and expertise to matter to tanks; and the most “fun” way of doing that was by making them a part of your defensive repertoire.
Genius. Let’s make taunts immune to resist, interrupts unable to miss and threat largely passive, just so that we can force a debate on how defence should be what tanks care about. Lo and behold, “active mitigation” was born and the tanking community, tentatively excited, wondered what that would entail (particularly given that death knights were heralded as the shiny, glittering, evolutionary standard) when the expansion after Cataclysm finally came around.
Then we end up at patch 5.0.4 and potentially the most resoundingly disappointing development in the history of tanking. Hit and expertise caps let you do little else other than block more or absorb more. Wonderful. Such depth. And not only was this particular development utterly underwhelming, it was doomed to fail from the very beginning because it doesn’t stand up to anything approaching logical scrutiny.
Either you make active mitigation a visceral part of defence and wholly chase away new players who’ll be overwhelmed by it, or you make its contribution small enough that undergeared or under-experienced tanks won’t feel so bad to their healers and those higher up the curve practically ignore it to contribute more damage.
“Active mitigation” is a resounding failure.
Threat was perfectly engaging gameplay that most tanks enjoyed, and we can assume it worked well during WotLK because there was never a shortage of them. Hit and expertise had value for tanks without the need for a completely worthless damage buff, and only paladins had a tanking system that could be considered largely passive. Even if we do consider all this to be fine, we still end up having to accept that ignoring hit and expertise caps for better stats (in our case mastery and parry) is going to have next to no effect on warriors that choose to simply bank rage for absorbs rather than actively try and micro-manage their rage.
And all thanks to Vengeance.
If I thought I could somehow kill it by stabbing its icon in my spellbook, I’d gladly cough up for a new monitor on the spot. Fun, engaging and meaningful gameplay all jettisoned for a stacking damage buff nobody needs.
Wonderful.
Okay, you hate active mitigation… What’s the problem with the talents?
As is common with recent development (as in, since Ghostcrawler took over), the community is being sold a gram of salt and having debates forced in certain directions. Let me put this clearly:
The talent redesign is a disgrace.
If you’re a Protection warrior who tailored your talents to your raid group, you’ve had one of the best talent trees ever made, one littered with meaningful decisions, taken away from you and replaced with the most shallow, underwhelming and meaningless talent “system” any MMO has ever had the gall to present to its players. Alas, too many players have been sucked in by Blizzard-endorsed drivel about these now being “real choices” instead of cookie cutter builds, or how “debates mean the system is a success”.
Blizzard are telling you that you now have more choice, and that the system is a success. What they’re not telling you is that those choices are forced upon you, and that the bar for success has been set extraordinarily low.
Basically, if there is any debate about which talent is best on a tier, they’re calling it a success. And if you’re buying this claptrap, you’re being duped. My apologies.
Let me paint this clearly by use of an example. I’m going to list a number of talents, and I’d like you to ask yourself what they have in common.
1) Incite.
2) Blood and Thunder.
3) Shield Specialization.
4) Gag Order.
5) Hold the Line.
6) Last Stand.
7) Concussion Blow.
8) Improved Revenge.
9) Impending Victory.
10) Thunderstruck.
11) Vigilance.
12) Heavy Repercussions.
13) Safeguard.
14) Blood Craze.
15) Cruelty.
16) Piercing Howl.
17) War Academy.
18) Field Dressing.
19) Blitz.
20) Second Wind.
21) Deep Wounds.
22) Drums of War.
In case you’re struggling, I’ll tell you.
They’re what we’ve just given up. They’re all optional, but situational. None are useless. They let you concentrate on a specific task. You can pick a limitless selection of them.
Now try comparing that to what you’ve just been given in 5.0.4 and you’ll see why this is the laziest piece of class design this game has ever had the bare-faced audacity to shovel at its players.
If I want to buff my movement, I get one talent choice. If I don’t want to buff my movement, I have to take the talent regardless.
If I want some self-healing, I get one talent. If I don’t want self-healing, I have to take the talent regardless.
I could go on.
And if I’m confronted with a talent tier that I’m flat-out not interested in (like, for example, the second because all three are pitifully weak), I’ll have to struggle to find which one is the least awful. Blizzard are calling this “success”. In what world is trying to figure out which talent is least offensive, then eventually giving up and picking one at random, a “success”?
In days gone by, I could take Second Wind, Field Dressing, Blood Craze and Impending Victory if I wanted self-healing. I could go for Drums of War and Gag Order if I was on interrupt duty. Maybe I was the utility man, so I’d pick up Vigilance, Piercing Howl and Safeguard.
The best part?
I could take combinations of these talents, depending on what my raid wanted.
Now, I have no choice other than to select between three dumbed-down meaningless talents that, in most cases, I don’t particularly want and be told by those lacking understanding that “these are real choices, not something you get off EJ”.
Sorry, but I didn’t get my spec from EJ. I got it from my raid group when presented with a problem and how we all, as a group, intended to solve it.
Please tell me you’re done now.
Not even remotely but, for this installation, I’m done. I’ve got it all off my chest. The fact we’re stuck with mechanics that don’t make sense or that we didn’t even come close to ridding ourselves of some of the needless action bar bloat we have are small potatoes, really. They’re the sticking plasters I hoped might be pulled off but, truthfully, don’t matter that much.
But active mitigation and the talent system redesign have really plumbed the depths for me, made worse by Blizzard apologists trying to tell everyone that everything’s better and that detractors just don’t know how they feel. Such arrogance is so far along the spectrum of delusion, I wouldn’t know where to start with it. But despite my class being designed into something I find boring, dull and emotionless, I totally accept why there are people that think active mitigation is great and that the new talent system is tip top.
This entire rant, this whole post, is entirely mired with how I feel, and shouldn’t be taken as some weird representation of the truth. It’s not. Equally, it’s not best to use any of the material as part of an argument that proves anything, other than it proving that the redesign isn’t a success for everyone and those that don’t like it aren’t merely bellyaching about a system they don’t understand.
I understand it perfectly.
And I hate it.
If you’re in the same boat, for any class, it’s perfectly okay to think so. It’s not that you don’t get it, it’s just that you weren’t sucked in by false promises that, yet again, this team failed to deliver on as far as you’re concerned. Hell, even the CM’s are mistaking the apathy of resigned acceptance for “people just taking more time to adjust to our improvements”. It’s more proof, if more were needed, that this team has no interest in feedback – only praise.
And while Protection warriors are probably stronger than they’ve ever been, and DPS warriors will do fine in raiding due to their powerful utility, nothing escapes the fact that my class has lost all of its enjoyment, and its identity.
I’ll play MoP because the content looks good.
Unfortunately, my vehicle to the content is ruined.
I just hope I can live with that.
You mention threat as being a non issue now and that touched a base with me because I feel it from the angle of a DPS.
ReplyDeleteAs a hunter I have always said we have the best threat management in the game. I would do things like the hunter you mentioned. A good hunter was a god send to a group when threat mattered. They could do more and help more.
Now, with that tooting my classes horn stuff over I would like to express why I believe the threat issue was treated as such. Remember, my opinion only.
It was because of random dungeons. I don't tank them. Have on occasion, but do not tank them. Why? Because of threat issues. I have not had a threat issue on my tank ever really but in a random I always felt like a complete noob. Mobs all over the place and me spending more time pealing the off others than I was doing anything else. This even happens with vengeance.
It is the fault of the go go go crowd and the DPS that are mostly part of it. They would see me making my step forward to the mobs to charge in and in the fraction of the second it took me to click alt 3 to charge I was in motion and three DPS were all attacking three different targets and none of them attacking the one I put the skull on that I charged.
That is why threat is a huge issue. Best case is I spent the next 10-15 seconds scrambling like madman happy I have the ultimate mobility that a warrior does and try to round things up only to loose the skull by the time I finally got all the others back.
See, it was not my fault, it was not the games fault, it was the fault of bad damage dealers that threat is a huge issue.
No one seems to remember count to five to stay alive and that is why threat is such an issue in randoms and why threat is such a non issue in premades. Premades know, let me charge, when they collapse, go hog while, but let me finish my charge first. Pugs, no such thing, they are attacking mid charge.
Threat was not buffed because tanks were having issues, threat was buffed because DPS were having issues with being bad.
Threat management is the job of a good damage dealer. You work within the capabilities of your tank. Just because you can do 40K if the tank can only safely hold the mob with you doing 30K guess what a good damage dealer does? 30K.
There are no good damage dealers out there any more. Threat changed because of them. Not because of the tanks.
Sorry to have gone on a little long there. Great post.
I did some tanking last night learning the new style and I must say I am loving active mitigation but I am missing a lot of those little things I am used to doing. Sometimes you can't put your finger on it but I feel like I have more to do now, with less options on what I do. If that makes any sense.
The thing is, where were these problems when we were all zerging down heroic dungeons during WotLK? Nowhere, that's where. Almost all the time, tanks were capable of managing or (at least) DPS toons had the resilience to withstand a few hits.
ReplyDeleteI'm of the opinion, though I can't guarantee, that DPS players LIKE being part of a synergistic relationship with their tanks. I think they get bored when they're almost solely expected to tunnel to ever higher numbers rather than playing more meaningful parts in the content.
And that's gone.
Oh! By the way! Your "100% aggravation" post ended up linked on MMO-C (not by me). Needless to say, some douchebag summarised it with "lol be scrub rofl" rather than higlighting the learning curve Blizzard omitted, but I'm in agreement that the number of buttons is getting ridiculous.
That is funny, it is also the reason why I never post on sites like that. You get a bunch of bad players that think they are good and they will either call you an elitist or a scrub depending on what you say. Rarely do you ever see anything worth reading from most of the commentors there. But it is still much better than the official site.
DeleteTrue, I do not remember those problems with wrath but I think that had more to do with the mobs in wrath. A mob in wrath could not one or two shot a damage dealer or a healer but in cataclysm they could.
As I mentioned on Twitter, I can understand your frustrations, and at the same time I disagree with many points about your perception of how the majority of people perceive tanking.
ReplyDeleteMy background is somewhat unique. I come from a large guild with more than 500 characters in it, of all-female players. Since vanilla days we have struggled with the amount of tanks we have. Tanks are the least played role in my guild, for a number of reasons. One of those reasons has mostly been eliminated: the threat game. I used the thrive on the threat meta-game, where you were battling mobs as much as your group, and in TBC days I was incredibly proud of my TPS output. When LFD was introduced in WotLK, I learned to hate the threat game, due to the blitz-style dungeoneering that was introduced with it. Many people in my guild were intimidated by the threat requirements, and I don't blame them for one bit.
You know as well as I do that Blizzard is trying to make the game more approachable and thus, the threat game died. I have started LFD tanking again, and I am kinda grateful for it. In TBC I remember careful pulls and marking, and kill order. In WotLK and Cataclysm, and very likely MoP people just hit whatever they want to, and it's up to the tank to deal with it.
I am sorry that you don't enjoy active mitigation, but I do. I feel it will mark the good tanks from the bad ones, but is not too challenging to understand for beginners. I always felt that warriors had maybe a few too many buttons to push. I don't feel tanking itself has changed very much. It's not a drastic change as it was going into WotLK.
As for the many talent options you mention in prior incarnations of the talent system, I know it's probably a bitter pill to swallow, but Blizzard designs for the masses. The masses didn't swap talents the way you used to, building a self-heal build or the like. The masses go to one of the sites like www.wowpopular.com and got their specs from there. I am pretty sure the two Daughters guilds on Bronzebeard are pretty representative for any casual guild.
As far as the class changes go, many people in my guild are now loving classes they used to dislike before, and it looks like warlocks and shadow priests are huge winners. What you perceive as apathy of acceptance, might not be 100% accurate.
Good luck finding a class you can enjoy MoP with, if it's at all possible. I have to say that my 10 months break from Kadomi was all kinds of refreshing.
The thing is, if someone disagrees with me (as you just have) and says that they're having a blast with new classes or with the new talents and mechanics, I don't grudge that at all - which is kind of new for me because I used to be pretty envious. I apologise to all and sundry if they didn't take from this rant that it was a hugely personal set of gripes, because that's what it is:
ReplyDeletePersonal.
If someone's on board with active mitigation, as you're saying you are, I have no beef. I can honestly see why they would like it and why they would find it more appealing than perhaps the older threat game that I prefer. My biggest hassle from a game design point of view is that they chose to remove the threat game altogether, rather than at least finding a way to make it work.
The game's poorer for it, all the while Vengeance (the cause) lies unscathed because of developer pride.
I think it also has a lot to do with when we started tanking. I did not start tanking until mid LK. A druid was my first tank, warrior my second. So I never had to deal with threat issues. Ever. So I do not have the same history to fall back on remembering as you do. I have heard lots of stories as many people in my guild, including the best warrior tank I have ever seen, have placed since the original beta.
DeleteOur histories alone will mean we look at things a different way. Nothing wrong with that. I do feel your pain however, like I said, I heard a lot of old time stories and while I do not personally know where you are coming from as I was never there, I can relate in a way.
BTW: Found the link, doesn't look really like it was meant as an insult. If anything, I think he said something he did not mean. He said, if people can pull the same DPS doing less why do it correctly. But he is right. If you can pull 30K hitting one button or 11 buttons would you hit 11 buttons just because it is the right rotation or 1 and get the same thing? 1 might be boring, but it sure is easier. lol
Kadomi's history, similar to mine, stretches back at least as far as the Burning Crusade when threat really was a gaming component for DPS players: tanks cannot generate more than 100% threat, so DPS took responsibility for threat more than tanks did, though indirectly.
DeleteWe both, however, played warriors - comfortably the worst threat tanks at the time, particularly in AoE and it was only in WotLK where we caught up a bit. The developers themselves stated that warriors were where they wanted tanks to be, so DK's and pallies were a bit overcooked.
Regarding the talents only, I've always thought that the protection warrior tree of Wrath and Cata was spectacularly well designed. It was probably the one tree in the game that truly fulfilled all the potential.
ReplyDeleteThe problem was that the other 29 trees in the game were nowhere near it. No DPS tree had anything other than the most trivial choices. Healing trees were pretty meh. The other tank trees were much more rigid than the warrior one.
If anything, I would say that the prot warrior tree was sacrificed to improve the system for all the other classes and specs.
I know that for my personal class, Holy Paladin, the old trees were always terribly boring with little choice. The new system is much more interesting. Heck, the choice between Sacred Shield and Eternal Flame alone will probably rage for months on the forums.
I think that's an extremely valid point, and one I really should have made in the post; I'm fully aware that not every class in the game was as lucky as a Protection warrior, more accurately... Probably none were.
DeleteWhat ticks me off is that I believe THAT should have been the standard to aim at, not the sacfificial lamb for a system with less choice, less depth and less individuality. Again, I do appreciate that for DPS specs, it can end up an awful lot harder than it might be for tanks.
Then again, one of my sorest points about 5.0 is the new Taste for Blood - imagine that was an optional talent for those who liked using Heroic Strike, while you could also decide that you liked Slam more and leave Taste for Blood out?
It just takes a little imagination. Alas, we have a relatively untalented team who had to come up with SOMETHING to justify being paid.
I think from having practiced a bit with the new Prot, I'm a bit underwhelmed with active mitigation. It mostly comes down to choosing between shield block or shield barrier when you have enough rage (OK, there's some rage management but we were doing that anyway).
DeleteI feel I used plenty of active mitigation before tbh. My main worry is prot warrior dps and how it will stack up against the other tanks while off tanking. Because I'm not really seeing much of an off tanking rotation and it is needed.
I've always thought that the key to an offtanking rotation would be a way to include Revenge (assuming it hits hard enough), and we do have that now - despite the rather long cooldown on it.
DeleteFor me, if you're finding that tanks are spending a lot of time off-tanking then that's a pretty good indication that you should look to shed a tank. Forcing a raid group to use two tanks via taunt switching needs to go DIAF.
Come up with a meaningful role for all the tanks in an encounter, or GTFO.
I'm sorry that the protection warrior has gone the way it has. Two of my friends, who had been prot warriors since BC are doing other things now. One only quests on his prot warrior, raiding on his shammy. The other has now gone dps on his warrior (I don't know if it is Arms or what). Now, he's leveling a mage. :(
ReplyDeleteAll this to say, I wish it could be different.
On the bright side, they will probably re-do everything again with the expansion after MoPs! ;)
Z
Haha, you might be right - we'll see where that expansion goes, assuming I'm still playing. :P
Delete"1) Incite.
ReplyDelete2) Blood and Thunder.
3) Shield Specialization.
4) Gag Order.
5) Hold the Line.
6) Last Stand.
7) Concussion Blow.
8) Improved Revenge.
9) Impending Victory.
10) Thunderstruck.
11) Vigilance.
12) Heavy Repercussions.
13) Safeguard.
14) Blood Craze.
15) Cruelty.
16) Piercing Howl.
17) War Academy.
18) Field Dressing.
19) Blitz.
20) Second Wind.
21) Deep Wounds.
22) Drums of War."
1. Glyph for it
2. Rolled into Thunder Clap effectively
3. Either passive or tuned around not having it, was completely passive anyway
4. Glyph for it
5. Either passive or tuned around not having it, was completely passive anyway
6. Should be gained at level 38
7. Replaced by shouts, very situational "cooldown" that had little to do with tanking anyway
8. Part of Revenge automatically
9. New talent
10. Either passive or tuned around not having it, was completely passive anyway
11. New talent (though obviously no longer a source of infinite taunts, so that actually IS a dramatic chance, for better or for worse)
12. Glyph for it
13. New talent
14. Either passive or tuned around not having it, was completely passive anyway
15. Either passive or tuned around not having it, was completely passive anyway
16. New talent
17. Either passive or tuned around not having it, was completely passive anyway
18. Either passive or tuned around not having it, was completely passive anyway
19. You seriously picked it up? Really?
20. New talent, even stronger now
21. Still exists
22. Pummel/Demoralizing Shout have no cost now anyway, do you really care about the other reductions?
" Either you make active mitigation a visceral part of defence and wholly chase away new players who’ll be overwhelmed by it, or you make its contribution small enough that undergeared or under-experienced tanks won’t feel so bad to their healers and those higher up the curve practically ignore it to contribute more damage."
Um, what? So those higher up on the curve will ignore Hit/Expertise in order to contribute more damage? Those are the best stats for damage and also expected for active mitigation. What part of active mitigation are you expecting tanks to ignore for more damage? What besides Heroic Strike even costs rage offensively now?
" In days gone by, I could take Second Wind, Field Dressing, Blood Craze and Impending Victory if I wanted self-healing. I could go for Drums of War and Gag Order if I was on interrupt duty. Maybe I was the utility man, so I’d pick up Vigilance, Piercing Howl and Safeguard."
So warriors being tuned around the expectation that they'll constantly be switching specs depending upon the fight while other tanks don't have to do that is a GOOD thing? More work to be *exactly in the same spot?*
" There are no good damage dealers out there any more. Threat changed because of them. Not because of the tanks."
Seriously, Grumpy? Please tell me you don't actually believe that because I really don't want to dignify it with a response.
Hi, Bal - I'll probs respond to both posts individually thanks to the short character limit. >.<
DeleteI'm not going to argue blow-by-blow about the 22 talents I listed, because a lot of them that are baked in, new talents or have glyphs are totally different to the way they worked originally. The list was to imply that, actually, Protection warriors had far, FAR more choice in their talents than they do now. That's because they could be more powerful in certain ways if they chose, rather than "you MUST have a bit of self-healing - choose between three crap talents". I'm not even covering glyphs because they're a totally different system that should have seen far better development than they have.
"So those higher up on the curve will ignore Hit/Expertise in order to contribute more damage? Those are the best stats for damage and also expected for active mitigation. What part of active mitigation are you expecting tanks to ignore for more damage? What besides Heroic Strike even costs rage offensively now?"
I may have explained this unclearly.
The point is that active mitigation contributes significantly to your defences, or insignificantly. If it does so significantly, it's going to be much harder to learn for newbies who will get pelters in dungeons for being too rough to heal. We saw how that turned out in Cataclysm. If it's insignificant, players in top guilds will realise that top healers are having absolutely no problem healing them so they'll Heroic Strike more than they'll Shield Block/Barrier (assuming they maintain hit/expertise caps). Personally, I think high-end warriors will continue to ram as much mastery and parry in as they can, and ignore traditional threat stats. We'll see.
To answer the second question, Execute.
"So warriors being tuned around the expectation that they'll constantly be switching specs depending upon the fight while other tanks don't have to do that is a GOOD thing? More work to be *exactly in the same spot?*"
No.
I'm suggesting that a far better talent system, as in the one we came from, should have been applied to the other tanks; are you arguing that six talents designed to be essentially meaningless is somehow better?
I totally disagree.
“The list was to imply that, actually, Protection warriors had far, FAR more choice in their talents than they do now. That's because they could be more powerful in certain ways if they chose, rather than "you MUST have a bit of self-healing - choose between three crap talents".
DeleteMy point was that besides Vigilance, Prot Warriors got nearly everything else automatically (I guess you have to choose between Impending Victory and Enraged Regen, assuming you don’t take Second Wind). It’s like you’re complaining that Blizzard gave you everything you used to have to choose between.
In addition, you’re saying Prot Warrior should be able to switch between having 6 points invested in self healing versus 6 points invested in AoE threat versus 6 points invested in pure mitigation. That’s incredibly hard to balance around and usually results in balancing around the extremes, which leads to weaker individual talents (because the net effect can’t be too large) and assumes warriors are constantly switching a half dozen out of 40 total points to optimize per encounter.
Is your complaint that you don't like the principle of the new system or you think the choices are bad? Aka, if the "crap talents" were actually powerful healing talents would you appreciate the idea of having to choose a specific brand of self-healing?
"The point is that active mitigation contributes significantly to your defences, or insignificantly. If it does so significantly, it's going to be much harder to learn for newbies who will get pelters in dungeons for being too rough to heal. We saw how that turned out in Cataclysm. If it's insignificant, players in top guilds will realise that top healers are having absolutely no problem healing them so they'll Heroic Strike more than they'll Shield Block/Barrier (assuming they maintain hit/expertise caps). Personally, I think high-end warriors will continue to ram as much mastery and parry in as they can, and ignore traditional threat stats. We'll see.
To answer the second question, Execute."
It's not Boolean period, and more importantly it can be less significant in 5 mans and more significant in raids. Taking 20% less average damage may not really matter in a 5 man but it sure would matter in a Heroic Raid.
If getting 1% more hit leads to 1% more Shield Barrier absorption, the question is whether that is better than 1% more parry, for example (less with diminishing returns, really). I think the point is that being able to ensure the highest Shield Barrier uptime will be more valuable in most cases than more passive defense -- aka it's the bad tanks who will stack parry/mastery as a way to minimize the impact of being bad at managing Shield Block/Barrier.
Re: Execute. More hit/expertise means more rage for Executes and Executes hit more often! In addition, if the Warrior is able to survive under 20% with using less Shield Blocks/Barriers, then sure they'll Execute instead.
"My point was that besides Vigilance, Prot Warriors got nearly everything else automatically (I guess you have to choose between Impending Victory and Enraged Regen, assuming you don’t take Second Wind)."
DeleteThat's just it, they didn't. The vast majority of the talents I mentioned can still be found, but mainly in name only; their functionality has all been changed and, in some ways, pointlessly.
Deep Wounds baked into Thunderclap is an example. How "compelling" is extra passive bleed damage? It's not compelling at all - to the point I don't even care about it.
"In addition, you’re saying Prot Warrior should be able to switch between having 6 points invested in self healing versus 6 points invested in AoE threat versus 6 points invested in pure mitigation. That’s incredibly hard to balance around and usually results in balancing around the extremes, which leads to weaker individual talents..."
You're forgetting mixtures of those sole 18 talent points (and we had a lot more), depending on what you wanted to prioritize and to what extent. That choice is removed.
Also, don't forget - arguing about "balance" falls on deaf ears with me because the Cataclysm Protection warrior was overpowered at no point in the expansion. So, despite having the best talent tree bar none, we were still extraordinarily well balanced.
All this proves is that the talent tree system isn't fundamentally flawed. Just the current class design teams.
"It's not Boolean period, and more importantly it can be less significant in 5 mans and more significant in raids. Taking 20% less average damage may not really matter in a 5 man but it sure would matter in a Heroic Raid."
Aye, that's fair - but I know a good few tanks (cross-class) who've tested just how good AM is... And the results are that it's barely being felt. Sure, a WoL parse will say the tank with his AM up constantly is a good tank, but I'd rather be the one sat at a full rage bar who absorbs all the spikes.
"More hit/expertise means more rage for Executes and Executes hit more often!"
I'm assuming tanks will cap their hit/expertise, because that's what Blizzard want. If they're routinely omitted, they'll just change something to make it non-viable.
This team doesn't like choice.
"That's just it, they didn't. The vast majority of the talents I mentioned can still be found, but mainly in name only; their functionality has all been changed and, in some ways, pointlessly.
DeleteDeep Wounds baked into Thunderclap is an example. How "compelling" is extra passive bleed damage? It's not compelling at all - to the point I don't even care about it."
If extra passive bleed damage is so uncompelling to the point where you don't even care about it, why did you want the choice to take it? Especially given your comments about tanks optimizing for damage anyway potentially.
" You're forgetting mixtures of those sole 18 talent points (and we had a lot more), depending on what you wanted to prioritize and to what extent. That choice is removed.
Also, don't forget - arguing about "balance" falls on deaf ears with me because the Cataclysm Protection warrior was overpowered at no point in the expansion. So, despite having the best talent tree bar none, we were still extraordinarily well balanced.
All this proves is that the talent tree system isn't fundamentally flawed. Just the current class design teams."
No, to me it sounds like what you're saying proves the system *IS* fundamentally flawed. I'll agree that except for Heroic Spine, Protection Warriors were never overpowered. Aka, they were always roughly equal to other tanks.
Consider a spectrum from 1 to 100. Let's make up some categories, say Damage, Burst Survivability, Self Healing, AoE damage, and Utility. Your point, I think, is that the warrior can focus on one or more of these categories and become more effective at them for given fights, right? So let's say for Heroic Spine you want to be at 60/90/90/60/80. Damage and AoE damage isn't important, surviving is. Whereas for Ultraxion you'd want to be 90/80/90/60/60. And so forth.
There are two key points here.
First, according to this model, *every other tank was always at roughly 90 in each category all the time.* ONLY warriors had to give up something else to be up to par for an encounter. If the other tanks are 90s across the board, why is it fair that a prot warrior isn't?
Second, in order to change a few specific talents (probably like 75% of the points were the same each time) you had to redo the whole tree. Again, most of which had nothing to do with the actual changes.
"Aye, that's fair - but I know a good few tanks (cross-class) who've tested just how good AM is... And the results are that it's barely being felt. Sure, a WoL parse will say the tank with his AM up constantly is a good tank, but I'd rather be the one sat at a full rage bar who absorbs all the spikes."
It's going to depend upon the fight, I think. And the most healing efficiency matters on an encounter, the more AM matters. Even saving the healers 5% mana of the course of the fight can be *huge.*
"I'm assuming tanks will cap their hit/expertise, because that's what Blizzard want. If they're routinely omitted, they'll just change something to make it non-viable.
This team doesn't like choice."
Actually, I mainly think they don't false choice. Or having to do stuff like put Protection Warrior talents in Arms and Fury to force a choice.
Only 4096 characters? Bah. Part 2!
ReplyDelete" I'm of the opinion, though I can't guarantee, that DPS players LIKE being part of a synergistic relationship with their tanks. I think they get bored when they're almost solely expected to tunnel to ever higher numbers rather than playing more meaningful parts in the content."
We don't like feeling limited by tanks. We don't like being unable to contribute as much as possible because the tank is bad or we outgear them. We hate feeling like we're playing against the tank versus the bad guys.
And when I was tanking on an alt, I hated feeling like I was playing around the DPS instead of the boss. I'm perfectly fine with constantly trying to figure out how to get even slightly MORE DPS on a fight and burst stuff down/coordinate cooldowns even more effectively rather than fight the tank.
" The game's poorer for it, all the while Vengeance (the cause) lies unscathed because of developer pride."
You're going to have to explain that. Let's look at Cataclysm. If we want to make threat important, we assume beginning tanks can generate equivalent threat to about 10k DPS as a reasonably fresh 85, right? Three tiers later, with DPS pulling 50k+, tanks need to be able to keep up on threat while also being geared with defensive stats. Mind explaining how tanks are going to quintuple their threat?
" Again, I do appreciate that for DPS specs, it can end up an awful lot harder than it might be for tanks."
Indeed. In fact, I had two talent points to spare. With them, I took 4% less spell damage. Um...yay. Talents were utterly meaningless. And there was no way to fix that with the old system. No way to fix make exclusive DPS choices that changed the way you play.
"We don't like feeling limited by tanks. We don't like being unable to contribute as much as possible because the tank is bad or we outgear them. We hate feeling like we're playing against the tank versus the bad guys."
ReplyDeleteThis is an underlying problem, and a HUGE one.
Cataclysm has taught DPS players that their only meaningful contribution is damage; tanks tank, healers heal, deepsers deeps. Just about every problem with Cataclysm raiding was solved with "moar damage" rather than more control, more healing, more tanking options. Hence, most hard encounters saw guilds find ways to ditch healers and tanks for more DPS, thus robbing endgame of depth in my opinion.
In this world, it's little wonder DPS players look at their utility talents with scorn because they're given so precious few chances to use them. Pick the roughest encounter from each tier; Sinestra, Ragnaros and Spine of Deathwing. Now tell me what's the most important thing in each of them?
You guessed it.
MORE DAMAGE.
I'm not arguing that it's nice to feel throttled by tanks, but you weren't throttled by tanks in WotLK and that was prior to Vengeance. We now also know that the developers will happily buff the threat modifiers on stances/presences/etc if they feel it's an issue. Vengeance, objectively, is entirely redundant. Entirely. There's also the logical problem of Blizzard saying:
"It's not fun for DPS to be throttled out of their best buttons".
Then compare that to:
"It's not fun for healers to be able to use their best buttons".
So threat was killed off as a mechanic, and tight mana management came in to lock priests out of Flash Heal.
What?
"You're going to have to explain that. Let's look at Cataclysm. If we want to make threat important, we assume beginning tanks can generate equivalent threat to about 10k DPS as a reasonably fresh 85, right? Three tiers later, with DPS pulling 50k+, tanks need to be able to keep up on threat while also being geared with defensive stats. Mind explaining how tanks are going to quintuple their threat?"
Sure.
Buff the modifier from stances etc, as they did in 4.2.
Job done.
No need for Vengeance, at all.
"In fact, I had two talent points to spare. With them, I took 4% less spell damage. Um...yay. Talents were utterly meaningless. And there was no way to fix that with the old system. No way to fix make exclusive DPS choices that changed the way you play."
I can't comment specifically on individual classes, because I don't know them anywhere NEAR well enough to do so. I am, however, constructing a post suggesting how I would have approached talent trees - once it's up, I'd really appreciate your input. :)
"Cataclysm has taught DPS players that their only meaningful contribution is damage; tanks tank, healers heal, deepsers deeps. Just about every problem with Cataclysm raiding was solved with "moar damage" rather than more control, more healing, more tanking options."
DeleteHow does better gear improve a DPS's ability to control mobs? Hint: it doesn't. Gear makes DPSers do more DPS. Crazy. Thus, highest DPS is expected of better DPS and better geared DPS.
In addition, how is requiring more healing any different than requiring more DPS? Blizzard could easily make an Ultraxion where there was so much damage half of the raid had to be healers, for example, if they thought it was a good idea. But since healing is inherently limited by the encounter, the skill of the tanks, and the overall ability of the raid, healers get less joy out of higher HPS, in and of itself. Because HPS only matters up to a certain point, whereas more DPS always helps.
"Hence, most hard encounters saw guilds find ways to ditch healers and tanks for more DPS, thus robbing endgame of depth in my opinion."
How would you avoid this without contriving mechanics to constantly force the raid to split up into x groups each having y healers? Or simply ratching up the incoming damage (which doesn't actually address your concern, it simply raises the minimum number of healers)?
"In this world, it's little wonder DPS players look at their utility talents with scorn because they're given so precious few chances to use them. Pick the roughest encounter from each tier; Sinestra, Ragnaros and Spine of Deathwing. Now tell me what's the most important thing in each of them?"
Sinestra: Kiting Slicers, managing whelp groups, interrupting Spitecallers, managing Wrack
Ragnaros: avoid Lava Waves/Magma Traps/Molten Seeds/World in Flames/Meteor, coordinate who was stunning/attacking which Son of Flame, figuring out a viable strategy of killing the seed elementals, handling meteor(s) in p4 without causing Geysers, handling Dreadflame, tanks handling Empower Sulfuras
Spine of Deathwing: Breaking grips properly, precision DPS on Amalgs (getting them as low as possible and then dropping them once at 9 stacks and in position), optimizing 20 second burst DPS on Spines, rolling efficiently, keeping bloods under control
"You guessed it.
MORE DAMAGE."
Oh, guess I was wrong about all of the above! :P
Sinestra has a DPS race for sure in p3, DPS really only matters for p3 Ragnaros, Spine of Deathwing is focused around Tendons and shaving off seconds of rolling/moving Amalgs/etc. But if Sinestra had a 5 minute buff timer, all that would happen is guilds would bring more healers to make things easier, meaning Healing would be easy and DPS would be easy. Instead, the timer forces strains both the healers and DPS.
Ragnaros only has one true DPS check, and not even that much of one in p3. Paragon only had trouble because they were considered severely undergeared. Otherwise, H Rag is about amazing coordination and execution, not raw numbers.
With Spine, shaving seconds off rolls/moving Amalgs helped the most along with optimizing burst for Tendons originally. DPS on Amalgs certainly mattered and helped, but sustained DPS certainly wasn't the focus. And Grips/9 stack Amalgs rewarded precision DPS, not high DPS.
Stupid limit.
Delete"There's also the logical problem of Blizzard saying:
"It's not fun for DPS to be throttled out of their best buttons".
Then compare that to:
"It's not fun for healers to be able to use their best buttons".
So threat was killed off as a mechanic, and tight mana management came in to lock priests out of Flash Heal.
What?"
There's at least two different points here.
First, DPS manage add/enrage timers while healers manage mana. DPS worry about doing damage to an external source while healers are limited to healing damage dealt to the raid. Entirely different goals. DPS are theoretically unlimited in most cases and can constantly improve, while healers are entirely limited and grow even more limited as the encounter gets easier through practice/gear/nerfs.
Second, poor/lazy play from DPS results in less DPS. Poor/lazy play from healers results in less mana efficiency. Flash Heal was intended to be an emergency "Oh shit!" button rather than a stable ability, otherwise there's no point in (Greater) Heal/Renew/etc. It's to give healers a way out of a bad situation every so often if they use their mana carefully but if they do it constantly they'll go OOM. It's basically the equivalent of a defensive cooldown for DPS. Gets you out of a hairy spot if you make a mistake but can only do it so often.
"Sure.
Buff the modifier from stances etc, as they did in 4.2."
So...
4.0 Defensive Stance gives 100% more threat
4.2 Defensive Stance gives 400% more threat
4.3 Defensive Stance gives 700% more threat
5.0 Defensive Stance gives 100% more threat
5.1 Defensive Stance gives 400% more threat
etc
That seems like good game design for you? Finding a way to make tank threat naturally scale seems like a much better idea. You might not like the implementation of Vengeance, but can you agree the *concept* of it is much better than constantly shifting threat modifiers?
"I can't comment specifically on individual classes, because I don't know them anywhere NEAR well enough to do so. I am, however, constructing a post suggesting how I would have approached talent trees - once it's up, I'd really appreciate your input. :)"
Sure thing.
The inherent problem with the old style is you really can't force exclusive choices, so people tend to just pick up everything good. The new style is all about exclusive choices and focuses on the key points.
If you can figure out a way to force exclusive choices in a way that isn't horribly contrived (like putting an amazing tanking talents in t2 Arms and t2 Fury solely to ensure Prot can't take both) I am all ears.
"How does better gear improve a DPS's ability to control mobs? Hint: it doesn't. Gear makes DPSers do more DPS. Crazy. Thus, highest DPS is expected of better DPS and better geared DPS."
DeleteThe thing is, I don't think gear helps anyone do anything better from a purely philosophical point of view. As you gear up for each tier, bosses that you're technically geared for should all require roughly the same output. To be clearer ('cos that's a cack sentence):
Tier one = tank has 100k health, boss hits for 50k, healer can heal 25k.
Tier two = tank has 200k health, boss hits for 100k, healer can heal 50k.
Tier three = tank has 400k health, boss hits for 200k, healer can heal 100k.
The numbers get bigger, but the actual percentages don't. In this way, concepts such as "moar output" can be a bit misleading.
"How would you avoid this without contriving mechanics to constantly force the raid to split up into x groups each having y healers?"
I'm not implying they should do this constantly, just try and do it more often; at the moment, they're not trying at all.
"Sinestra has a DPS race for sure in p3, DPS really only matters for p3 Ragnaros, Spine of Deathwing is focused around Tendons and shaving off seconds of rolling/moving Amalgs/etc."
Sinestra P1 is a race to avoid an extra rack, P2 is about killing eggs in one go and P3... You mentioned. Ragnaros P1 is about less Magma Traps, P2 is about less Molten Seeds and P4 is about Dreadflame. Lastly, I agree with your commentary on Spine, but the defining characteristic was bursting down tendons.
I want to see encounters where squeezing out more DPS doesn't solve most of a raid's problems.
"4.0 Defensive Stance gives 100% more threat
4.2 Defensive Stance gives 400% more threat
4.3 Defensive Stance gives 700% more threat
5.0 Defensive Stance gives 100% more threat
5.1 Defensive Stance gives 400% more threat"
Just go for 700% and leave it - Blizzard have stated threat isn't meant to be a part of gameplay anymore, so why not?
I'll see if I can do something about this dumb character limit. I don't want conversations stymied because of nuisances.
"The numbers get bigger, but the actual percentages don't. In this way, concepts such as "moar output" can be a bit misleading."
DeleteTrue, but the whole point is you have to figure out how to meet a certain goal. It pushes the DPS to be better.
"I'm not implying they should do this constantly, just try and do it more often; at the moment, they're not trying at all."
Do you mean in Dragon Soul or in all of Cata?
"Sinestra P1 is a race to avoid an extra rack, P2 is about killing eggs in one go and P3... You mentioned. Ragnaros P1 is about less Magma Traps, P2 is about less Molten Seeds and P4 is about Dreadflame. Lastly, I agree with your commentary on Spine, but the defining characteristic was bursting down tendons.
I want to see encounters where squeezing out more DPS doesn't solve most of a raid's problems."
I wasn't under the impression that Sinestra p1 and p2 were such tight DPS races. I mean, they required high DPS, but I thought the main nail-biter was p3. I never fought her while she was current content, best in t11 was Heroic Nefarian, so...
Magma traps never mattered for Heroic Ragnaros, nor Molten Seeds (not since they upped the enrage until 18:00, at least). p4 seemed to be more about controlling the Dreadflame properly than pure DPS. We had quite a few early kills with basically no fire.
And while bursting down tendons was important, that was very different from overall DPS, it presented a new challenge (good or bad).
"Just go for 700% and leave it - Blizzard have stated threat isn't meant to be a part of gameplay anymore, so why not?"
So keep tank DPS and TPS basically the same throughout the expansion is your recommendation?
I'll see if I can boil this down to one post, Bal.
Delete"If extra passive bleed damage is so uncompelling to the point where you don't even care about it, why did you want the choice to take it?"
Because it WAS a choice. Now it's not. I didn't always take Blood and Thunder, it depended on the boss whether I wanted it or not. I tended, for example, not to take it during T11 because I wanted points for Drums of War (I was on interrupt duty) and Gag Order.
Plus, no bleeds makes mobs easier to CC.
"First, according to this model, *every other tank was always at roughly 90 in each category all the time.* ONLY warriors had to give up something else to be up to par for an encounter. If the other tanks are 90s across the board, why is it fair that a prot warrior isn't?"
I liked the example you gave, but I think you're missing my point - EVERY tank should have been made this way, not just warriors. Clearly, given Cataclysm's history, warriors were just weak paladins for the majority of it. But I'm talking about a talent design for all classes, not just warriors.
"Second, in order to change a few specific talents (probably like 75% of the points were the same each time) you had to redo the whole tree. Again, most of which had nothing to do with the actual changes."
One of the fair complaints about the old system was that spending multiple points in a talent just to make it do something was a bit rubbish, depending on the talent. The talent tree could, however, have retained the "tree" and just made the talents all single-pointers rather than '2/2 Cruelty'.
"It's going to depend upon the fight, I think. And the most healing efficiency matters on an encounter, the more AM matters. Even saving the healers 5% mana of the course of the fight can be *huge.*"
I think we should maybe leave this discussion until we're in T14 - honestly, it's not really meaningful right now.
"True, but the whole point is you have to figure out how to meet a certain goal. It pushes the DPS to be better."
And:
"Do you mean in Dragon Soul or in all of Cata?"
Tiers 12 and 13 were the culprits of "more DPS > any other solution"; I think tier 11 actually had a lot of encounters where control was far more important than raw damage. In fact, in the case of fights like Maloriak, high (and mindless) application of raw damage could be definitively bad.
"So keep tank DPS and TPS basically the same throughout the expansion is your recommendation?"
Keeping the modifier the same would work fine. Remember, it's not that tank DPS doesn't go up AT ALL, just that it doesn't go up as quickly. And again; WotLK didn't have this problem, it was introduced in Cataclysm.
"I'll see if I can boil this down to one post, Bal."
DeleteBOO! BOO!
"Because it WAS a choice. Now it's not. I didn't always take Blood and Thunder, it depended on the boss whether I wanted it or not. I tended, for example, not to take it during T11 because I wanted points for Drums of War (I was on interrupt duty) and Gag Order."
Why do you find that interesting? Blood and Thunder/Thunderstuck are obviously kind of worthless on single target fights. So what value do you see in dropping those talents for something else in a no-brainer situation? Just to force people to switch talents as a test to see whether they have a brain stem?
What's the inherent value in an obvious "choice?"
"I liked the example you gave, but I think you're missing my point - EVERY tank should have been made this way, not just warriors. Clearly, given Cataclysm's history, warriors were just weak paladins for the majority of it. But I'm talking about a talent design for all classes, not just warriors."
Fair enough. I'm not sure that's really possible under the old system for most classes, though, without doing some really weird things.
"One of the fair complaints about the old system was that spending multiple points..."
Actually, I meant more that you had to redo the whole tree to change potentially one or two talents. Which had to potentially be done constantly, not a matter of fine-tuning.
"Tiers 12 and 13 were the culprits of "more DPS > any other solution"; I think tier 11 actually had a lot of encounters where control was far more important than raw damage. In fact, in the case of fights like Maloriak, high (and mindless) application of raw damage could be definitively bad."
The same is very true of Spine/Madness/Rhyolith, though (in terms of damage at the wrong time will completely screw things up).
Magmaw: more DPS/healing
Omnotron: more DPS/healing
Atramedes: more DPS
Chimaeron: except for the 20% mark and handling that correctly, MORE DEEPS
Maloriak: don't push 25% until two green phases, then MORE DEEPS
Nefarian: had to synchronize add deaths on the platforms, I guess, and potentially hold DPS for a second if healers weren't ready for Crackles.
But Maloriak still only had one threshold of DPS control at 25%.
What am I missing here?
"Keeping the modifier the same would work fine. Remember, it's not that tank DPS doesn't go up AT ALL, just that it doesn't go up as quickly. And again; WotLK didn't have this problem, it was introduced in Cataclysm."
It basically wouldn't go up at all. Your DPS gain would be from inherent strength on gear and more weapon damage.
Heroic Souldrinker has 1572 DPS, a 333 blue has 725 DPS. Comparing a 359 weapon to a 397 weapon is a 42% increase. Strength on items has a similar increase.
So you'd be looking at something like DPSers tripling or quadrupling in damage while tanks gain like 50%.
"BOO! BOO!”
DeleteMan, I just can’t win with this community. :P
"Why do you find that interesting? Blood and Thunder/Thunderstuck are obviously kind of worthless on single target fights. So what value do you see in dropping those talents for something else in a no-brainer situation? Just to force people to switch talents as a test to see whether they have a brain stem?”
Ah, but this isn’t correct. Blood and Thunder/Thunderstruck WERE valuable on single-target fights, because it was a noticeable DPS increase to keep Rend up with Thunderclap, assuming you had the capability and sense of timing to manage it. That’s what made the talent so compelling. The choice wasn’t, therefore, obvious.
"Fair enough. I'm not sure that's really possible under the old system for most classes, though, without doing some really weird things.”
I keep meaning to get to my suggested talent design system posted, but I have a lot going on. x_X
Hopefully that will clarify what I’m trying to suggest.
"The same is very true of Spine/Madness/Rhyolith, though (in terms of damage at the wrong time will completely screw things up).”
Aye, I’d go with that; but I think Firelands was abjectly short on legitimate depth – including heroic Ragnaros. Difficult to execute? Sure. Depth of gameplay? Not so much.
“What am I missing here?”
If we argue about this, it’ll be largely subjective. But I liked the add control of Magmaw, the target-switching and control for Omnotron, Maloriak I mentioned and Nefarian was also far more about control than just bursting through – to this day, people still cock it up. The Conclave of Wind had no DPS requirement to speak of really, the Ascendant Council was all about control and Cho’gall was made possible by awareness prior to P2.
"It basically wouldn't go up at all. Your DPS gain would be from inherent strength on gear and more weapon damage.”
You could improve scaling in similar ways you do with DPS classes; that’s a far more sophisticated solution than a dumb enrage mechanic they can’t balance properly. You can pretty much make a reasonable guess at how much the discrepancy will be by the final tier and set the threat modifier accordingly.
Again, to repeat – there was no problem in WotLK. Vengeance is utterly needless.
"Ah, but this isn’t correct. Blood and Thunder/Thunderstruck WERE valuable on single-target fights, because it was a noticeable DPS increase to keep Rend up with Thunderclap, assuming you had the capability and sense of timing to manage it. That’s what made the talent so compelling. The choice wasn’t, therefore, obvious."
DeleteBut it was essentially obvious. You might not realize it right away, but when you go to EJ they'll tell you and you pick up the talent. There is a clear answer one way or the other and all it seems to do is test whether someone read the EJ guide.
"I keep meaning to get to my suggested talent design system posted, but I have a lot going on. x_X
Hopefully that will clarify what I’m trying to suggest."
I eagerly await.
"Aye, I’d go with that; but I think Firelands was abjectly short on legitimate depth – including heroic Ragnaros. Difficult to execute? Sure. Depth of gameplay? Not so much."
What is "depth" here? The interplay between Wrath and Ragnaros and Magma Traps, figuring out ways to stun/control Sons, finding a solution for Molten Seeds, figuring out a good meteor strategy, handling the meteor and geyser correctly in p4, the whole "soft enrage" of Dreadflame...all of those seem fairly in depth. Lots of control, target switching, and other things, which is what you mention below.
“If we argue about this, it’ll be largely subjective. But I liked the add control of Magmaw, the target-switching and control for Omnotron, Maloriak I mentioned and Nefarian was also far more about control than just bursting through – to this day, people still cock it up. The Conclave of Wind had no DPS requirement to speak of really, the Ascendant Council was all about control and Cho’gall was made possible by awareness prior to P2."
Rohash's platform says "Hello!"
And yes, I really adore Heroic Nefarian.
"Again, to repeat – there was no problem in WotLK. Vengeance is utterly needless."
Ghostcrawler had a blog that said
"Vengeance was designed for a single purpose, which is to make sure tank threat scales as other players improve their gear. Imagine a raid of reasonably geared level-85 characters. In the absence of Vengeance, the tank might generate about 50% of the damage of a DPS character. With the tank’s threat modifiers this should be sufficient for her to generate enough threat to keep her targets stuck to her (unless something unusual is going on in the encounter). The problem is that in later tiers the mages and rogues in the raid accumulate gear that continues to increase their damage, while the tank chooses gear that increases her survivability."
Was that not an issue? Issue being DPS threat overtaking tank threat by the end of WotLK? It is worth pointing out that when they created Vengeance they wanted threat to matter. If they don't give a damn about threat anymore then removing Vengeance and increasing the threat modifier might be possible.
"But it was essentially obvious. You might not realize it right away, but when you go to EJ they'll tell you and you pick up the talent.”
DeleteThe Grumpy Elf spoke about this recently; whether or not doing something that’s a theoretical improvement is worth the additional hassle of actually doing it, and B&T is a good example of this. That’s why B&T was optional – some players simply skipped over it in single target builds because they found it too cumbersome to manage.
It was a damage/TPS buff, but not a necessary one. Perhaps there was something that your raid needed more, such as Blood Craze or Impending Victory?
"What is "depth" here? The interplay between Wrath and Ragnaros and Magma Traps, figuring out ways to stun/control Sons, finding a solution for Molten Seeds, figuring out a good meteor strategy, handling the meteor and geyser correctly in p4, the whole "soft enrage" of Dreadflame...all of those seem fairly in depth. Lots of control, target switching, and other things, which is what you mention below.”
By “depth”, I mean the number of ways in which you can defeat an encounter. If a boss can be defeated by stronger healing, stronger damage or more accurate control, then it has depth. If it’s just “do this properly or wipe for eternity”, with no option to tackle it different a la Lord Rhyolith, then it lacks depth. A sort of puzzle-solving aspect, if you will (something SW:TOR does very well, actually). I loved guilds on heroic Cho’gall getting their mages fully corrupted for the damage it offered, as it was unconventional but efficient.
“Rohash's platform says "Hello!"”
Haha, yeah. :P But you see my point. It was more about control than just raw damage.
"Was that not an issue? Issue being DPS threat overtaking tank threat by the end of WotLK? It is worth pointing out that when they created Vengeance they wanted threat to matter. If they don't give a damn about threat anymore then removing Vengeance and increasing the threat modifier might be possible.”
See, here’s where I get cross. People read what Ghostcrawler says, assume it must be true, and forget the evidence of their own eyes. I played a warrior in WotLK, the worst threat tank by a distance, yet still had no problems in Icecrown with good deepsers never overtaking me on threat. I KNOW it wasn’t a problem, because I never experienced it. Nobody I know did. Yet, because Greg Street said it was an issue, people are supposed to just believe it. They tried to use Vengeance to solve a theoretical issue that, in reality, didn’t exist.
Threat mattered in WotLK, and it didn’t need Vengeance to make it work. Now, we’re in a world where threat isn’t supposed to matter which means buffing threat modifiers from Defensive Stance is THE way to achieve it, without a pointless damage crutch that messes up other parts of the game. Incidentally, Theck’s also managed to prove that they STILL couldn’t save hit and expertise for warriors, even with active mitigation.
Bad developers are bad.
"The Grumpy Elf spoke about this recently; whether or not doing something that’s a theoretical improvement is worth the additional hassle of actually doing it, and B&T is a good example of this. That’s why B&T was optional – some players simply skipped over it in single target builds because they found it too cumbersome to manage.[/quote]
DeleteCumbersome? It's "Press Thunder Clap every 12 seconds or less."
"By “depth”, I mean the number of ways in which you can defeat an encounter. If a boss can be defeated by stronger healing, stronger damage or more accurate control, then it has depth."
Except we assume control is basically 100% accurate for the hardest bosses already. So you're saying a boss with depth should be beatable with either 5 DPS and 3 healers or 6 DPS and 2 healers, more or less?
"Haha, yeah. :P But you see my point. It was more about control than just raw damage."
So was Warlord Zon'ozz (void and adds)? And Hagara (lances, tombs, ice phase, lightning phase)? And Blackhorn (intercepting barrages, lots of add swapping)? And Spine? And Madness?
"See, here’s where I get cross. People read what Ghostcrawler says, assume it must be true, and forget the evidence of their own eyes."
Problem solved, I took a break from the end of TBC to the end of WotLK, so I don't really have any evidence to forget!
"Now, we’re in a world where threat isn’t supposed to matter which means buffing threat modifiers from Defensive Stance is THE way to achieve it, without a pointless damage crutch that messes up other parts of the game."
What other parts of the game does it mess up?
It seems that, inherently, tank damage staying at the same ratio as DPS which is balanced by making tank damage stay proportional to how hard enemies are hitting isn't flawed?
Is is that idea you object to or Vengeance specifically?
"Cumbersome? It's "Press Thunder Clap every 12 seconds or less."”
DeleteNot necessarily – it’s “use Thunderclap to refresh Rend during your filler (2 GCD’s after Shield Slam), or prior to it just dropping off”. And, yes, people do find that cumbersome, depending on what else they’re doing in an encounter. It’s unfair to judge everyone on what we think is easy or difficult.
"Except we assume control is basically 100% accurate for the hardest bosses already. So you're saying a boss with depth should be beatable with either 5 DPS and 3 healers or 6 DPS and 2 healers, more or less?”
A gross-oversimplification, perhaps, but that’s essentially my point. Hell, why not 4 DPS and 3 healers? I should also clarify; I’m fine with raw damage being one such solution, I just object to it being the sole solution.
"So was Warlord Zon'ozz (void and adds)? And Hagara (lances, tombs, ice phase, lightning phase)? And Blackhorn (intercepting barrages, lots of add swapping)? And Spine? And Madness?”
I think Blackhorn was probably the best fight in the tier, for reasons discussed.
"Problem solved, I took a break from the end of TBC to the end of WotLK, so I don't really have any evidence to forget!”
Haha, oki. :P
"What other parts of the game does it mess up?”
They had to take it out of PvP due to tank damage, it wrecks balance in lower level dungeons because tanks do too much DPS, and it causes awkward tank-switching in legitimate endgame content. None of that needs to happen by simply removing Vengeance.
“Is it that idea you object to or Vengeance specifically?”
Erm, bit of a two-parter question that.
I like threat and feel that it was a meaningful mechanic that players, tanks particularly, enjoyed. As in, not only were tanks making themselves felt by their healers, they could make themselves felt by deepsers with their contribution to the berserk. Obviously, this also meant that conventional threat stats had value (which, incidentally, they still don’t for warriors – even with active mitigation). This isn’t an absolute, obviously, it’s just my opinion based on what I found “fun”. Don’t forget, for warriors, we’ve also effectively lost all meaning for Heroic Strike to the point where it had to get a proc shoved onto it for tanks.
Secondly, I AM against the idea of threat scaling via damage taken as compensation for damage dealing stats from deepsers. I’m against it for the stated reason above; threat should be a gameplay mechanic. My ideal is that threat can throttle deepsers if a tank deliberately gears/specs/plays in lieu of it, or they can’t be throttled if a tank deliberately gears/specs/plays for it. Let me paint it like this:
Raid A has strong deepsers, a strong tank and strong healers.
Raid B has strong deepsers, a strong tank and weak healers.
Raid C has weak deepsers, a weak tank and strong healers.
Raid D has weak deepsers, a weak tank and weak healers.
All three of these raid groups could approach the same encounter a different way. Raid A are your mega-hardcore guild and they, rightly, have the most options. Raid B might have their deepsers consider threat dropping talents so that the tank can concentrate on defensive utility to make up for weak healers. Raid C might have their deepsers ignore threat dropping talents while the tank picks up as much threat as possible, because strong healers can work through the extra damage. Raid D is probably screwed, regardless.
My point is that the game should be designed around what the PLAYERS want, and not Blizzard. If deepsers don’t want throttled, the tank (or raid group) can make that happen. If they don’t mind being throttled because a tank is weak or playing defensively, they can work around that.
If you take threat out, it simply removes the concept from everyone. Nobody gets a choice. There’s every chance my beef with Vengeance could lie here but, much like CRZ’s, it doesn’t actually achieve anything – it’s a self licking lollipop and nothing more.
"And, yes, people do find that cumbersome, depending on what else they’re doing in an encounter. It’s unfair to judge everyone on what we think is easy or difficult."
DeleteNot really. Because the extra DPS only matters on hard (heroic) bosses and only good players will be able to kill those bosses.
"A gross-oversimplification, perhaps, but that’s essentially my point. Hell, why not 4 DPS and 3 healers? I should also clarify; I’m fine with raw damage being one such solution, I just object to it being the sole solution."
In that case you'd need to add a soft enrage to everything since hard enrages would be impossible with 6 DPS/2 healers versus 5 DPS/3 healers versus 4 DPS/4 healers. You'd also make fights with something like Lich King's Valk's impossible, since one group will have like 50% more DPS for each Valk if you can't assume a set number of DPS.
"I think Blackhorn was probably the best fight in the tier, for reasons discussed."
Agreed.
“I like threat and feel that it was a meaningful mechanic that players, tanks particularly, enjoyed. As in, not only were tanks making themselves felt by their healers, they could make themselves felt by deepsers with their contribution to the berserk.[/quote]
By "contribution to the berserk" you mean "DPSers were pissed if the tank didn't do enough threat?"
“Don’t forget, for warriors, we’ve also effectively lost all meaning for Heroic Strike to the point where it had to get a proc shoved onto it for tanks."
You mean in Mists specifically?
That said, I think that Prot Warriors had too many buttons to push in Cataclysm. Especially if you also had to mash Heroic Strike.
It's entirely possible they removed too much in MoP (I haven't played my warrior much yet), but I think it was overloaded in Cata.
"Raid A are your mega-hardcore guild and they, rightly, have the most options. Raid B might have their deepsers consider threat dropping talents so that the tank can concentrate on defensive utility to make up for weak healers. Raid C might have their deepsers ignore threat dropping talents while the tank picks up as much threat as possible, because strong healers can work through the extra damage. Raid D is probably screwed, regardless."
To me, it sounds like every guild is screwed except A.
Guild B can't do enough DPS because they picked up threat dropping abilities.
Guild C can't do enough DPS because the DPS are bad.
Guild D is just screwed.
It just also seems really odd to me to have this idea of "Good DPS and bad tank" should equal "Bad DPS and good tank" in terms of DPS. Shouldn't the DPS be on the DPS/utility, the tank worries about control/survival, and healers worry about keeping everyone alive?
"Not really. Because the extra DPS only matters on hard (heroic) bosses and only good players will be able to kill those bosses."
DeleteThere's an argument to be made for worse/casual guilds needing more damage from their tanks in order to pick up a bit of slack. I have personal experience of exactly that.
"In that case you'd need to add a soft enrage to everything since hard enrages would be impossible with 6 DPS/2 healers versus 5 DPS/3 healers versus 4 DPS/4 healers. You'd also make fights with something like Lich King's Valk's impossible, since one group will have like 50% more DPS for each Valk if you can't assume a set number of DPS."
A soft enrage, or no enrage at all - not every boss needs an enrage and, honestly, the learning curve in raiding is horribly broken at the moment. Earlier bosses should probably be in lieu of specific enrages.
But things like Deathbringer Saurfang are a good example of how you can prioritise control instead of just raw damage to limit the marks going out.
Equally, there's no reason why things like Arthas' valks should be taken out. You're going to the extremes of "all or nothing" and that's not what I'm saying.
Blend, choice, options. I'm in support of all this.
"By "contribution to the berserk" you mean "DPSers were pissed if the tank didn't do enough threat?""
No, that's not what I mean at all. I mean that tanks should feel that their damage contribution can be meaningful, completely outside of threat mechanics. The two are not mutually inclusive.
"It's entirely possible they removed too much in MoP (I haven't played my warrior much yet), but I think it was overloaded in Cata."
This would be another post in and of itself, but warriors (Protection included) have not made the transition well. As discussed, the talent change is a huge loss but a lot of the other changes don't make sense. If they couldn't come up with a compelling role for Heroic Strike in and of itself, they should have simply removed it rather than using a proc to keep it on bars.
"It just also seems really odd to me to have this idea of "Good DPS and bad tank" should equal "Bad DPS and good tank" in terms of DPS. Shouldn't the DPS be on the DPS/utility, the tank worries about control/survival, and healers worry about keeping everyone alive?"
Guild A are heroic raiders, in my view - everything below that should be viable in normal modes, with reasonable expectations increasing throughout the tier and assuming some imagination in design.
The snag is that tanks, healers and damage dealers are effectively all having to deal with mechanics in raids, but two of the roles are dependent upon each other. Damage dealers are dependent on themselves, and nothing else.
I know your view relatively well, and we flat out disagree here - damage dealers should have more things to manage than simply pumping out as much as possible when required.
"There's an argument to be made for worse/casual guilds needing more damage from their tanks in order to pick up a bit of slack. I have personal experience of exactly that."
DeleteSo you're basically saying a better tank should be able to do more damage and compensate for a DPS being bad. Keep that in mind, we'll get back to it.
"Equally, there's no reason why things like Arthas' valks should be taken out. You're going to the extremes of "all or nothing" and that's not what I'm saying."
How? With Valks, you have X seconds to do Y damage or the people get dropped (since we're assuming they're slowed).
Let's look at a 10 man raid with 6 DPS, 2 tanks, and 2 healers. Let's even assume a DPS gets grabbed. That leaves 5 DPS and a tank, basically.
On the flip side, what if they have 4 DPS and 4 healers? Now, if a DPS gets grabbed, you have 3 DPS and a tank. Plus whatever damage 2 healers can put out, which is definitely far less than 2 DPS.
If you make it so that the 5 DPS plus tank can barely get it down in time, how in the world is it possible that 3 DPS and a tank and two healers will get it down?
"No, that's not what I mean at all. I mean that tanks should feel that their damage contribution can be meaningful, completely outside of threat mechanics. The two are not mutually inclusive."
It currently is meaningful. In fact, *very* meaningful with Vengeance. Which means us back to "What value does threat offer?" Also, are we assuming we have a threat meter in all of this?
"If they couldn't come up with a compelling role for Heroic Strike in and of itself, they should have simply removed it rather than using a proc to keep it on bars."
I'd drink to that.
"Damage dealers are dependent on themselves, and nothing else."
If the tank is good, how is that any different with threat?
Also, what about mechanics like the Black Adds/Mana Void on Yor'ashj (DPS need to kill them quickly, especially on Purple/Black/Red, to avoid the healers blowing up the raid), adds on Zon'ozz (DPS need to kill the adds fast so the healers don't get overwhelmed), Ice Tombs/Ice Lances/Running the lightning on Hagara, breaking grips with precision DPS on Amalgs on Spine, and Blisterings/Bolts on Madness.
In each of those cases, the healers are depending on the DPS to do something to prevent them from being overwhelmed.
And that's not even counting using defensive cooldowns, just like tanks, which all classes have.
"I know your view relatively well, and we flat out disagree here - damage dealers should have more things to manage than simply pumping out as much as possible when required."
Like...what? Honest question. Damage dealers are usually 50-60% of a raid as is and usually tasked with doing the miscellaneous stuff. What else should they be managing? Because with a good tank, threat should never really be an issue, right?
In addition, earlier you argued that a good tank could perform better to make up the slack of a weaker DPS. Why isn't the reverse true? Why can't a DPS push himself and excel to make up for a tank doing less than he should? If said DPS is threat limited because the tank is bad, that simply wouldn't be possible.
Very quickly, this discussion now has practically nothing to do with the original post (Protection warriors have gotten the shaft with 5.0).
DeleteThat said, I'm going to try and wind this down because the discussion isn't going anywhere.
"If you make it so that the 5 DPS plus tank can barely get it down in time, how in the world is it possible that 3 DPS and a tank and two healers will get it down?"
What are you arguing this for? I've already stated (and you quoted it) that comp-related limitations are fine in some encounters.
"It currently is meaningful. In fact, *very* meaningful with Vengeance. Which means us back to "What value does threat offer?" Also, are we assuming we have a threat meter in all of this?"
In MoP, it's designed to not be meaningful and it's not been meaningful outside of heroic raiding guilds throughout Cataclysm. Remember; not everyone is trying to kill heroic bosses they're not geared for.
"If the tank is good, how is that any different with threat?"
Because the tank has to be good, and you have many more options in encounter design than you do if you remove threat entirely. Which they've done.
"In addition, earlier you argued that a good tank could perform better to make up the slack of a weaker DPS. Why isn't the reverse true?"
The reverse IS true. You're assuming that anything less than a very good tank wouldn't generate enough threat, and that's not the barometer I'm working from. There are a great many more standards than just "good" or "bad".
Also, don't forget that's not how encounters are balanced and you're deliberately making far, FAR more of enrage timers than is actually important.
Posting in threat post.
Deleteexperienced death knight tanks an absolute bastard to heal in dungeons during Cataclysm, so I won't be thanking the devs if there's as big a disparity between skilled/not skilled tanks in Mists of Pandaria. I'm optimistically (!) hoping that it hits a happy midpoint between "driving healers batshit" and "trivial" but only time will tell about that.
ReplyDeleteThreat
I'm fairly sure I've mentioned that I personally would have preferred the threat game remained as it was. I enjoyed it as a tank, and it gave a very clear sign to the *majority* of the players in the raid whether the tank was bad, good, or REALLY good. Active mitigation is only going to inform the healers whether the tank's any good, and no-one listens to us/them. >.> Hard to quantify! I'd prefer the threat game to stay in, in some form, even if it had its importance downgraded and mixed up with active mitigation.
Perhaps Blizzard should never have caved to tanks whining on the forums about having to gear for hit cap to get taunts and interrupts off? I think it sort of devolved from there.
HOWEVER. I can guarantee you through my personal experience of pugging the bejeezus out of WotLK from the beginnning of the expansion through to the end of TotC (with a fair amount of activity in the Icecrown patch, too) on a high dps, high threat spec (Survival) that no, really, most tanks just weren't that good at threat. I can count on one hand the number of tanks I felt comfortable with, and I have fingers left over - and one of those people is a LFG pugge named (I think) Snuzzle who was a warrior in blues (BUT SO AMAZING OMG /WORSHIP). There's been a sharp uptick in in people being able to hold threat since the introduction of Vengeance, though somewhat counteracted by the sharp uptick in dpsers who are totally incapable of waiting even one GCD. (To be fair, those existed in WotLK, too, but more sensible types usually outnumbered them and could tell them off.) I'm not, at all, saying its a great mechanic, but it has served the purpose of making tanking in LFG less difficult, and really, that's all it was designed for imo.
As a dps player who was really quite fond of other skills... No, I'm not happy those skills are now so fallen into disuse I'm not sure I could competently navigate a dungeon that required them anymore. I *liked* using my threat to help, I *liked* Misdirection being meaningful, I *liked* trapping, I *liked* kill orders. I'd like that stuff back! Maybe they could disable Vengeance in Challenge modes? :-/
Talents
Honestly, I think they chucked out most of the interesting choices for most of the specs I play when they brought in the Cataclysm version of the talent trees. I had quite a few point to play with and experiment around in WotLK - but maybe, like, two to four in Cataclysm? I'm not a huge fan of the new talent system, and most of the choices don't feel especially meaningful, but its not so different from the Cataclysm trees in that respect. I see that the Prot Warrior tree appears to have survived the Cataclysm transition better than my classes did, though, so I can understand the disappointment of moving to a system like this. I do wish the choices were... More interesting, relevant, and less situational to the point of uselessness, but it doesn't feel like a downgrade (except the druid one, I don't understand how that ended up going live). I guess you could chalk me up as indifferent. I find the glyphs more interesting at the moment.
I do think Blizzard seriously underestimates how satisfying adding straight up increases to abilities/stats is. I realise that things like 5% crit are baked in now, but dammit I liked putting in those talent points/slotting in that glyphs. It may not have been rocket science to figure out, but it meant something when you did it and was, frankly, more meaningful than most of the talents we have now, if less of a choice.