WoW: The Meatshield Inn

Did you just derail your own thread?

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Did you just derail your own thread?

We're still talking about tanking. I don't particularly want to talk about avoidance vs mitigation forever.

As for Seth's subject matter of the day!! I would agree to it that a tank is most often a raid leader because they see all. Also, this automatically equates to power hungry people just like to fill the jobs, like you suggested.

I was a GM for 2 years of a raiding guild. Also, I was a tank and a raid leader. I think the reason it is so easy for a tank (along with being aware and being able to call things out) is pacing. I mean a tank sets the pace, they are the one pulling and marking and keeping the raid moving. It is hard for a DPS or healer to lead when they are standing in the back waiting.

I will also say as for the "premadona" or power trippy person or whatever else sterotype you want to come up with, most are true. People complimented me on my leading, but I always inside felt like I was not very good at it. I was the "nice" guy. I would not bust out the slacking dps or the people standing in the fire. I would tell my officers in officer chat and they would yell at people for me, cause I felt bad about it. People saw me as a great nice guy...but in reality... I was just weak and scared. It worked for our guild and we got things done, but people did not realize how completely nessesary the "mean" officers were.

I guess there has to be some balance in people, but I do not think the "sterotype" that has come with tanks is a bad one, or and untrue one.

it's mostly experiential data, too. I know of healer RLs, and my raid leader for all of vanilla WoW was a rogue, and I think ghastly's a raid leader and he's usually a warlock. But I don't think anecdotal data in this claim is wrong -- I think my assumption that most raid leaders are tanks is a fair one.

I would agree to it that a tank is most often a raid leader because they see all. Also, this automatically equates to power hungry people just like to fill the jobs, like you suggested.

This sounds like tanks seek out raid leader positions because they are power hungry -- this is the part that I'm not sure about. raid leadership is a position naturally gravitating toward tanks because tanking is so easy that people can do their job in addition to supervising others. And I think that's a key point; tanking doesn't attract the powerhungry, but rather raid leadership causes people who enjoy tanking to become that way through an unfortunate coincidence.

it's mostly experiential data, too. I know of healer RLs, and my raid leader for all of vanilla WoW was a rogue, and I think ghastly's a raid leader and he's usually a warlock. But I don't think anecdotal data in this claim is wrong -- I think my assumption that most raid leaders are tanks is a fair one.

I'm the GM and the RL and the warlock.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

the warlock.

IMAGE(http://thisrecording.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg)

Seth wrote:

it's mostly experiential data, too. I know of healer RLs, and my raid leader for all of vanilla WoW was a rogue, and I think ghastly's a raid leader and he's usually a warlock. But I don't think anecdotal data in this claim is wrong -- I think my assumption that most raid leaders are tanks is a fair one.

My GM and RL is a tree druid.

We can all go find contradictions to my claim (even I did it!), which is super fun and ultimately pointless. No one can reasonably argue against the idea that tanks tend to be raid -- and group -- leaders more often than any other role.

Although I'd be happy to entertain that discussion, too. If we assume that raid leadership is more varied by role, then that means that raid leaders really are power hungry primadonnas, and tanking has nothing to do with it.

We can all go find contradictions to my claim (even I did it!), which is super fun and ultimately pointless. No one can reasonably argue that tanks tend to be raid -- and group -- leaders more often than any other role.

Can you show me data supporting your claim? What you are saying is anecdotal to your experience. In my experience I have yet to see a RL that was the tank, they were all healers and DPS.

So..data?

Also, the idea that someone leads because they are a power hungry primadonnas is a non starter. Maybe when you start your next discussion you can try not painting a sect of people as all douchebags from the beginning.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Also, the idea that someone leads because they are a power hungry primadonnas is a non starter. Maybe when you start your next discussion you can try not painting a sect of people as all douchebags from the beginning.

It's kind of funny to me that the meat of Seth's post is this -

Why am I bringing this up? Because here's my point: I think that the ease of tanking explains why many raid leaders are tanks. It's not en ego thing, it's not a primadonna thing, it's simply that the role of tank gives you the most "perepheral" time in game to survey the encounter.

And then five paragraphs (the largest one focusing on why the raid leader is actually under appreciated) supporting that in particular.

But of course, all we seem to be reading is the very last line, about 10% of the whole post -

Now, could an assumption be made that raid leaders, like many supervisors, are egotistical power hungry primadonnas? Of course. And maybe that's where the "primadonna tank" mentality comes from.

So yeah, Seth. Why don't you have data to back up this claim that you stated was an assumption that you had contradicted for the majority of your post. WHY!?

Seth wrote:

We can all go find contradictions to my claim (even I did it!), which is super fun and ultimately pointless. No one can reasonably argue against the idea that tanks tend to be raid -- and group -- leaders more often than any other role.

Emphasis mine. That's not an assumption.

Sorry, I guess I sent a mixed message on that one particular point.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

Also, the idea that someone leads because they are a power hungry primadonnas is a non starter. Maybe when you start your next discussion you can try not painting a sect of people as all douchebags from the beginning.

Well...stop declaring yourself a raid leader and then acting like a douchebag, and you might help change my assumption. Between you and me, I'm at 100% accuracy.

Okay then -- I've made the case why tanks tend to gravitate to raid leading (tanking's an easy job) -- go ahead and counterpoint me.

I think the Raid/Group Leader role has more to do with the individual than the role. I've lead as a dps, healer and tank. I just happen to like tanking the most, so that's what I lead with the most.

Some people just prefer that leadership role, and either accept the satisfaction of the successful kill, or accept the responsibility for the failure of said kill.

With that in mind, I tend to take the riens most of the time i'm in a tanking position simply due to setting the pace of the run, and the raid knowing that when I stop or slow down, it's because I'm trying to explain the next boss fight. When I'm healing or dpsing, I tend to sit back and see if someone else is going to do it first (not necessarily the tanks either), and will then take control if no one does, or if someone tends to be struggling with the strats (after asking them if they want help doing so).

So, as for the correlation between tanking and leading...

It's tough to say whether there is one. As a tank, you are planning on taking a slight amount of responsibility, that being that whatever is being pulled, it is your job to keep it focused on you, and maintain that control of the encounter. As a leader, you are doing something similar in outlining what needs to be done, and when so that the big baddy dies and you all live to collect its loot. I've known tanks that prefer to do both, to maintain control on different levels, but I've also known others that don't want that secondary level because of a number of different reasons. Again, personality. Logically, control is control, and those that prefer to have it either want to share in the risk/reward aspect, or don't. I don't think one can generalize that relationship in anyway, other than on the simplistic level that:

Tanks need to enforce a certain amount of control
Raid Leaders needs to enforce a certain amount of control

If A, then C
If B, then C

In no way can this be interpreted as A = B.

I would agree that tanking is a easy job in raiding. As the game sits at this very moment, tanking is an easy job anywhere. I just feel in Vanilla and BC tanking was more difficult. I think (from my experience) even more RL's back in the day were MT's.

If the reason for RL's being tanks is the difficulty level. Then why when the difficulty level was higher, were more RL's tanks?

omg i confused myself...

Really good points, Krindle. I think you've changed my mind on my idea from the end of page two. I especially think that the pacing thing (which Cheeto also brought up) is more important than I first thought.

That said -- it's 4 pm on a Friday so I'm going to digest your post a bit more.

Zablocki19 wrote:

Tanks need to enforce a certain amount of control
Raid Leaders needs to enforce a certain amount of control

If A, then C
If B, then C

In no way can this be interpreted as A = B.

(my emphasis)

This is a very elegant description, and I think it does a vastly more accurate job of explaining the coincidence between tanks and RLers than mine did. Although I would like to point out that I disagree with the "in no way" part -- the relationship certainly isn't causative, but it's definitely a correlation. I would rephrase it "A can equal B (and often does), but A is not required for B." Or some other college-logic-class stuff.

Krindle you and Bloo will like this section. Honor's Hammer has a great conspiracy theory based on the tense relationship that exists specifically between warriors and paladin tanks. I can't comment on this too much since I don't regularly play either of those classes, but his theory goes like this:

1) During TBC, Blizzard regularly claimed that their goal was to have three balanced tank classes. Tseric: Overall, they do expect Paladins, Druids and Warriors to fill tanking roles in end-game, whatever they may be. (March, 2007)

2) After TBC was over, Blizzard admittedly freely that they had no intention of tank balance prior to WotLK. Warriors were the tanks, and bears and paladins were the classes you chuckled at behind your hand while grinning and nodding and pointing at Shattered Halls and Gruul. Tank balance was a non-issue in classic and BC (that's 4 or so years of your 5 years) because warriors were designed to be the best tank. In other words, we made no attempt to balance the tank classes, so beating us up for not accomplishing what we weren't trying to do seems odd to me. September, 2009

3) In WotLK, Devs are sticking strong to the idea that all tanks are equal in current content. Warriors even got a slight buff to their dps (or, they will tomorrow). However -- Blizzard has a track record of purposely lying to its customers.

4) Maybe the truth is that Blizzard is intentionally sabotaging warriors in order to encourage the acceptance of non-traditional tanks into raids -- although we won't know for sure until Cataclysm, if then.

Original Post, btw. I used some different quotes than HH did. It's an interesting theory. Is Blizzard intentionally making warriors the weaker tank to promote a better tank balance -- a balance that exists in terms of parity of numbers and not necessarily a balance of abilitiy?

So because the perception is "Warriors is better" you're saying Blizzard is actually making them WORSE to combat that perception? Huh.

I'm glad I only tank heroics, then.

Warlock wrote:

So because the perception is "Warriors is better" Honor's Hammer is saying Blizzard is actually making them WORSE to combat that perception? Huh.

I'm glad I only tank heroics, then.

That's his theory, and he calls out its own implausbility. I think it's an interesting theory, although not one I can speak on with much accuracy. Bloo's on record stating that Paladins are more or less warriors "plus 5" in most any regard, and while prot warriors can face off against prot paladins until they get this thread locked, I think there's something to be said there. Prot paladin is certianly not an "i win" button, but they do bring a LOT of utility.

But as to there being a shadow conspiracy of Blizzard devs sabotaging warriors? left field, to say the least.

[edit] that said, after 2 years of being told that druid/paladins were on the same level as a warrior only to find out that Blizzard really didn't give a crap about non warrior tanks, I can see where this thread of craziness was born.

Are we still considering DK's as tanks? They are certainly the fail of the tanking class in comparison. They are great at getting aoe aggro and collecting mobs, they just can't take much of a hit compared to the other tanks. So I'd say they are the warriors "minus 5". Carry on.

Seth wrote:
Warlock wrote:

So because the perception is "Warriors is better" Honor's Hammer is saying Blizzard is actually making them WORSE to combat that perception? Huh.

I'm glad I only tank heroics, then.

NO. If you posted it, it becomes YOUR BELIEF. It's in the rules of the internets.

tundra wrote:

Are we still considering DK's as tanks? They are certainly the fail of the tanking class in comparison. They are great at getting aoe aggro and collecting mobs, they just can't take much of a hit compared to the other tanks. So I'd say they are the warriors "minus 5". Carry on.

DKs are probably the bottom of the barrel in Heroics right now, but honestly with the gearing and kill times people bring to Heroics now, "bottom of the barrel" is like being the guy who has to settle for a rocket launcher when everyone else has laser guns and all you're doing is shooting deer.

For raids, Blood Tanks are amazing. By virtue of Death Strike alone, they put out ridiculous effective health, and they bring solid raid utility. I think the main problem with DK tanks right now is that the strongest aoe/utility spec (Unholy) is easily the worst raid tank, especially in ICC. While there's certainly a totem pole for tanks in raids, right now the disparity between the specs is not gigantic. Really (and ironically), the gaps in effectiveness only seem to become sharp in meaningless content and trash pack aoe pulls.

Also, so that no one thinks that Seth is putting words in my mouth, I do in fact believe that right now Prot Paladins are pretty much Prot Warriors Plus Some More Stuff. I don't believe Warriors are bad and/or useless, though. I'm with Seth on thinking that while it's a little paranoid to believe that there's an unspoken edict to make warriors worse in order to make the other tanks feel welcome, it's certainly not a completely unreasonable thing to wonder given some of the things Blizzard has admitted to.

I certainly see a lot of these complaints (I probably read the mmo-champion forums more than is good, and as the article states, it's started to leak into tankspot forums some), but I guess maybe I have a different view on the whole problem. I tend not to worry about comparing myself to a prot pally or a bear or whatever. After all, this is a game; either I like playing the game or I don't, and either I like playing my toon or I don't. If I don't like playing the game, I should stop. If I don't like playing my toon, I should play a different toon or play the toon differently. Would I like to see warriors put out dps comparable to other tanks? Sure. (Side note: had a lol moment in a random heroic on my lock the other day when the first few pulls seemed to go really quickly. Glanced at recount to verify dps numbers, and saw what I expected when the top three bars were all even and all over 3k dps. Then glanced at the fourth line to see what the prot pally was doing, but it was the mage...). Am I going to stop playing my prot warrior because I do less dps? Hell no! So why should I worry overly much about it? Just a waste of time in my opinion.

I would like them to stop mucking with my signature ability because they can't balance PvP though...

robkid wrote:

I would like them to stop mucking with my signature ability because they can't balance PvP though... :-D

Being a PvE player and not a fan of PvP at all. I have always hated in the past 5 years, all the tweeking they have to do to abilities to make them "balance" in PvP. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT PVP!

I don't think anyone reading this thread belongs to a guild that would (or has the ability to) bench tank X because tank Y shows a marginal increase on paper. That said, the conversation is still important on a hypothetical level. And there will always be a hefty contingent of people who think tank X is the worst tank. In fact I can find you several threads in various places complaining about "how awful feral tank armor, health, and threat gen are." All of which is laughably false, of course, but if these things aren't discussed cogently, then people may mistakenly believe that tank balance really is skewed.

A lot of it depends, too, on what one considers the most important trait for a tank.

1) Surviveability. This seems like the most important trait, but you can make up this with better healers. That said, it's really the one thing tanks have control over, so they tend to bank on it pretty heavily. And right now I don't think any tank is really dominant in the surviveability game.

2) Threat generation. Here's where Paladins really excel compared to other tanks. That said, measuring TPS is similar to measuring overheal. If you're doing more TPS than your DPS it really doesn't matter if you're 1% better or 100% better.

3) Utility. People don't really talk about this very often -- but, again, this is where paladins shine. being able to bring both auras and blessing is pretty intense. That said, drums of kings has weakened that slightly, and the other buffs (abomination's might, hysteria, imp leader of the pack, mangle, sunder armor, commanding shout, spell reflection, etc) are not bad by any means.

4. Having a tank who can move out of the correct "death and/or flail you around" zones at the appropriate times.

[eyes Seth]

I must have missed it in the patch notes but Corroded Skeleton Key got bumped up to a 6400 damage absorb on-use. Pretty nice.

Reaper81 wrote:

I must have missed it in the patch notes but Corroded Skeleton Key got bumped up to a 6400 damage absorb on-use. Pretty nice.

That's pretty nice. I'm still not sold on the absorb mechanic vs the "more health" mechanic on satrina's scarab, but that at least makes it worth putting on your toolbar.

So I tanked Blackfathoms Deep as a Ret pally last night. I was a monolith of aggro grabbing and healer protecting, with a two handed sword.

Seth wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

I must have missed it in the patch notes but Corroded Skeleton Key got bumped up to a 6400 damage absorb on-use. Pretty nice.

That's pretty nice. I'm still not sold on the absorb mechanic vs the "more health" mechanic on satrina's scarab, but that at least makes it worth putting on your toolbar.

Generally, the more health mechanic involves losing the extra health when the effect ends. So if you gain 5k health on top of 20k for 20 seconds, for example, the normal effect usually means you lose 5k health off of wherever you are when the effect ends. So if you're topped off, it's no problem. But if you're at 15k, that means that you're losing 5k health, and drop to 10k health after the buff drops.

Absorb effects like shields and the Corroded Skeleton Key's bubble don't have that issue, since they just drop off. And since Blizzard allowed warriors and druids to get rage from absorbed damage, it's a better overall mitigation mechanic.