The Care and Feeding of Warriors: Some Thoughts About Tanking

This week The Care and Feeding of Warriors has some thoughts on tanking as it currently exists in the game. While these are general thoughts, we will of course make an effort to approach them from a warrior standpoint. Because that's kind of the whole point of the column.
I make no pretense of being a raid tank nowadays: I mostly DPS in raids, and only switch to tank when we're down one for whatever reason (real life issues, connection problems) or a fight demands more than three tanks (Auriaya, sometimes Mimiron if cooldowns are a concern, psuedo-tanking the Faction Champions, adds on Anub'arak). Most of the tanking I do, I do in 5 mans and 10 mans where we just go with whoever is on. (I also do a fair amount of tanking on my DK alt, including 10 mans and 25 man PuG raids, but this is a Warrior column, not a "holy heck my DK is ridiculously OP" column.) However, recent discussions about tanking here at the WoW.com orbital defense platform HQ, combined with a recent very interesting thread on the forums with lots of Ghostcrawler input, have me thinking about where tanking is, and where it's going.
One of the things I see in tanking presently is that the general tendency inherited from Legacy content is at an all time high: tanking is currently two entirely separate games, one at the 5 man level and another at the raid level, and that tendency is exacerbating as raiding itself splits into 10 and 25 man (and their respective hard modes). At present, the 10 man raid experience is in fact undergoing a series of shifts that moves it away from the 5 man but also away from 25 man, simply due to the amount of responsibility that can and must be shared in each kind of raiding. In short (too freaking late, Rossi, too freaking late) 10 man raiding cannot afford the luxury of 25 man raiding's potential of tanking if it actually wants to kill anything.
I make no pretense of being a raid tank nowadays: I mostly DPS in raids, and only switch to tank when we're down one for whatever reason (real life issues, connection problems) or a fight demands more than three tanks (Auriaya, sometimes Mimiron if cooldowns are a concern, psuedo-tanking the Faction Champions, adds on Anub'arak). Most of the tanking I do, I do in 5 mans and 10 mans where we just go with whoever is on. (I also do a fair amount of tanking on my DK alt, including 10 mans and 25 man PuG raids, but this is a Warrior column, not a "holy heck my DK is ridiculously OP" column.) However, recent discussions about tanking here at the WoW.com orbital defense platform HQ, combined with a recent very interesting thread on the forums with lots of Ghostcrawler input, have me thinking about where tanking is, and where it's going.
One of the things I see in tanking presently is that the general tendency inherited from Legacy content is at an all time high: tanking is currently two entirely separate games, one at the 5 man level and another at the raid level, and that tendency is exacerbating as raiding itself splits into 10 and 25 man (and their respective hard modes). At present, the 10 man raid experience is in fact undergoing a series of shifts that moves it away from the 5 man but also away from 25 man, simply due to the amount of responsibility that can and must be shared in each kind of raiding. In short (too freaking late, Rossi, too freaking late) 10 man raiding cannot afford the luxury of 25 man raiding's potential of tanking if it actually wants to kill anything.
At present, all four tanking classes can 'do something else' in a raid. Two of them can do anything that needs doing, be it DPS, heal or tank. One of those two can even DPS in either a melee or ranged role. The other two can only DPS or tank. Still, that means in any 25 man raid these classes are often expected to provide tanking if necessary (as I stated before, if a normal tank is unavailable or extra tanking is needed for a specific encounter). In a 10 man raid, however, if you already have your tanks, it can often be difficult to ask a third tank-capable player to do so due to the DPS and healing thresholds necessary to successfully complete an encounter. If you have 2 tanks, 2 healers and six DPS and the only other available potential tank is a resto druid healing your raid, it's simply inadvisable to ask him to switch unless you so completely outgear the encounter that a sing;e healer can heal it, and in that case you probably don't need a third tank anyway.
Basically, what we see happening here is that 10 mans combine the inflexibility of a 5 man run (since it is very rare that a 5 man will ask someone to off tank - all four tanking classes therefore must be capable of tanking whatever will be tanked be it trash packs of large size or a single boss) with the fight mechanics of larger, 25 man raids, especially once 10 man raids begin exploring hard mode raid content. This means that 10 man raids often have to deliberately be designed around the limitations of a 10 man group, and thus encounters have to lose complexity or stress the raid group beyond its depth of selection.
Meanwhile, at the 25 man level, raid tanking is more and more about two unrelated kinds of play itself. Trash between bosses is basically just a boring, autopilot experience for everyone involved as tanks grab as much threat as they can on as many mobs as possible and the DPS burns them down. Occasionally there will be trash pulls that require CC or discipline from the DPS such as the trash packs before XT-002 (let the tanks move the adds out of the big glowy shields please) or General Vezax, but these are infrequent, and even when there are specific mechanics (try to kill the statues at the same time or they go Supermode) they usually don't provide much in the way of real difficulty for the tanks. Either the DPS adapts or you pop some cooldowns.
Boss tanking, however, is more and more about conditionals. Some bosses hit very hard with a specific ability that requires more than one tank to eat the effect, like Meteor Fists or Auriaya's Sonic Screech. (In the case of Auriaya, on 10 man at least we just put the entire raid in front of her and split the damage that way, but on 25's since we often have four or even five tanks we just have them eat the damage and the raid stands behind her). Other bosses, like Gormok or Thorim have a specific attack that requires tank rotation to remove either by resetting or allowing it to tick off. Still other bosses just hit ridiculously hard with an ability (Sartharion with 3 drakes comes to mind) requiring a tank to use his cooldowns (and often, the cooldown abilities of his or her healers as well) to survive.
So we have a tanking game that is divided into two (and congealing into three) parts. We have five man dungeons, even heroic dungeons, wherein 1 tank per party will tank everything that is tanked, be it trash or bosses. In this milleu, even the hardest content currently available, any one of the four current tanking classes is capable and there is no significant perception of tanking inequity. Some players may prefer the Death Knight's ability to generate AoE threat or significant cooldowns (depending on their individual spec) while others might like seeing a warrior tank with their strong cooldowns and variety of unique options like Vigilance, Intervene, Heroic Throw (with a silence if talented), and Warbringer. Still others might prefer Druids or Paladins. In the end, the 5 man game is wide open and any tank can tank here just fine. More importantly, the player base is aware that any tank can tank here: there's no sense that some tanks are just leaps and bounds superior for tanking heroic Trial of the Champion, for instance.
Now, in raiding, we see a different situation. To discuss some of GC's points:
Typically one of three outcomes happens:
1) Players generally accept that tank class choice has little bearing on the fight.
2) Player suspect tank class choice has a small bearing on the fight, but it isn't usually worth the hassle of swapping out.
3) The typical way to do the fight is to swap out for the class that makes the fight much easier.
Ghostcrawler's second option, in my experience, is rare to the point of vanishing. There is no raiding guild that will hesitate to make a swap if they believe it will make a fight even 1% easier, especially if they're learning a fight for the first time. That leaves us with numbers 1 and 3 of his example.
There are a great many fights in Ulduar and Trial of the Crusader/Grand Crusader where we roll with the tanks we have instead of seeking some magical perfect tank that will make the fights easier. Part of that is, we generally have our dedicated tanks at a level of gear that makes them the clear choice for survivability and threat. Furthermore, those dedicated tanks are accustomed to the roles: they know the healers and the healers know them, there's no having to stop and explain what cooldowns which will be using or to go over what to expect in a fight. I would argue that it is easily the case that in the vast majority of cases, you'll not swap out a tank if you don't see a reason to. Inertia rules, and people will most likely want to remain in the roles they're accustomed to (with exceptions based on the occasional feeling of stagnation in a role or what have you.)
For Sartharion and for Vezax (to name just two encounters) it felt* this way with DKs. Enough* guilds seemed like they were swapping to DKs for those fights because they made the encounter just so much easier. In fact, they made a lot of fights easier, so the conventional wisdom seemed to be just tank everything with a DK. (As another example, the conventional wisdom in BC heroics and Mount Hyjal seemed to be to use a paladin tank because of their huge AE threat advantage.)
I wanted to emphasize this paragraph because it seems to me to be the crux of the matter: namely, that this is not a case where a tanking class has to have a massive advantage over others. I've now tanked Sarth+3 on both a DK and a warrior in 10's, and this is this patch, where DK's have lost a good deal of the insane cooldown flexibility they had previously. My healers stil prefer the DK over the warrior, because the DK can hold threat on both Sarth and a drake (as well as quite a few adds) and can cycle through several cooldowns to stay upright. This is despite my warrior's advantage in health and armor (my warrior is significantly better geared than my DK) and in fact, is despite the fact that the DK's advantage in both AoE threat and cooldowns is minimal at best.
Filed under: Druid, Paladin, Warrior, Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, News items, Classes, (Warrior) The Care and Feeding of Warriors, Death Knight






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Heii Sep 11th 2009 8:03PM
Good article, but fyi; You have shits in there instead of shifts.
Just thought I'd say that.
Sir7 Sep 11th 2009 8:06PM
Hahaha, a series of shits. Oh Rossi, you silvertounge'd bastard.
Barak Sep 11th 2009 8:06PM
might wanna edit some of this
"undergoing a series of shits that moves it away "
Kung Fu Hamster Sep 11th 2009 8:25PM
How long until a Wow related 2 girls 1 cup pun gets made?
"...series of shits..."
tehehehehehe
Jeff Sep 11th 2009 8:26PM
Yes I think we've all undergone a series of shits a few times.
Sir7 Sep 11th 2009 8:58PM
I almost died when I read this. Man, if only I had a Rossi column everytime I'd undergone a series of shits. Now open for misinterpretation.
Zach Sep 11th 2009 8:28PM
Excellent article. I must admit, I fear that your views will be misinterpreted (sometimes deliberately) by angry, illogical people. Ghostcrawler's statements certainly are on a regular basis.
Matthew Rossi Sep 11th 2009 9:02PM
Thanks to a rather astonishingly bad typo in the post, I don't have to worry about THAT. Instead, I have to worry about how many people will focus on that dropped F over, say, the article itself.
I'm thinking a lot.
ratbuddy Sep 12th 2009 10:03AM
Matthew, that's far from the only typo in the article. Just as any resume with an error will be shitcanned, it's hard to take you seriously as an authority on ANY subject if you can't even be bothered to run a simple spellchecker over your work before posting it. Maybe even have someone else proofread it.
Matthew Rossi Sep 12th 2009 1:55PM
Ratbuddy,
As someone who has published two books and spoken with literally hundreds of editors and industry professionals, let me be the first to inform you that while the goal is to catch all typographical errors, it is not one that is ever fully attained. Pick up a copy of the Wall Street Journal, a first edition of any published book, you will find typographical errors.
We scan these articles with spellchecker. In fact, there's one built into the interface we use to compose them. And yet, despite that, despite reading the post over multiple times, errors WILL get through. It's simply unavoidable in a piece that's over 3k words.
The analogy you chose (a resume) is simply not applicable. As my publisher's proofreader put it to me: perfection is the goal. It's unattainable, but it's the goal.
ratbuddy Sep 13th 2009 1:09AM
Heh, I like how you downrated my comment so much. It was 'bright' just a little while earlier, and somehow, it's 'dark' now after you responded.
Seriously, a spellchecker didn't catch this?
"If you have 2 tanks, 2 healers and six DPS and the only other available potential tank is a resto druid healing your raid, it's simply inadvisable to ask him to switch unless you so completely outgear the encounter that a sing;e healer can heal it, and in that case you probably don't need a third tank anyway."
A "sing;e" healer?
Right.
token Sep 11th 2009 8:29PM
You use more then 3 tanks on Auriaya? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm just surprised to hear that. We typically use three, but have gone down to two at times.
Xiol Sep 11th 2009 9:48PM
On ten man I've never seen or heard of it done with any more than two tanks. One for the boss, one for the initial adds and "move from raid, stun and burn" the Defender, though even then we usually just ignore the defender and kite Aury when it dies. That void zone doesn't hit too hard on 10m.
BrandonB Sep 11th 2009 8:44PM
"the 10 man raid experience is in fact undergoing a series of shits"
I am not a fan of shits in series.
QQinsider Sep 11th 2009 8:54PM
An interesting read for any tank. Not much Blizzard can do about the percieved flavour-of-the-month tank though, it's human nature. If they nerf or boost classes trying to change it then all that happens is that there's a new flavour next month.
Rob Sep 11th 2009 10:10PM
Interesting read. Agreed, most of it is human nature. However, I tank with two classes, the druid and DK. The druid is quite easy to get the hang of, and I think I'm a pretty good druid tank. The DK on the other hand, i have no clue, no scratch that, i have some clue, but i haven't really scratched the surface yet. There are so many CDs and oh shit abilities, that I have only used the most critical CDs. The rest, i know they are there, but i'm often too busy tanking to deal with them.
The DK is so highly gear dependant its not funny. In the early days of me being 80, i was a horrid tank bc my dps was so low, meaning threat was very low. Now it's higher and i'm a far better tank (ie i dont lose aggro as much). Maybe i'm more skilled, but honestly its not that.
Whereas with the druid, i slap on some polar gear, gem and enchant it, and wala, i'm a tank with almost 40k hp, and decent dps (enough to hold aggro). So...both have gear challenges, but for druids its more about grab whatever you can steal from the rogues, whereas the DKs really have two sets of gear dedicated to the tank and dps.
I think overall the DK could use less gear differences and less CDs, while the druid could use more tank specific gear and more CDs. I kinda hope that comes in Cataclysm, but i know which way the wind is blowing. Still its very easy to say that Blizz is totally ignoring druid tanks because there is zero gear for them.
Which would i rather tank on? The druid, its funner. The DK may be a better tank, but w the druid I can heal at the drop of a hat, and have buffs, and rez people. Druids are jsut much more verstile, which is why they are so popular I guess.
Big Shoe Sep 11th 2009 10:40PM
As a warrior tank since vanilla, I found this an engaging read even though I can't help but roll my eyes whenever GC or any Blizzard dev speaks of "balance" between classes. Blizzard has been failing abysmally at this since November 2004 and shows no sign of stopping now. But sarcasm aside, all the tanking classes should ostensibly be viable for PvE, barring a handful of annoying gimmick fights. Blizzard stated that one of their goals with WotLK was to make all tanking classes viable and fun, and they have largely succeeded. Player perceptions are beyond Blizzard's control, but design and tuning are not. Tanks are the class most often shuffled out of boss fights as it is, and if poorly designed encounters make any tanking class come to be regarded as "the clear favorite", all the rest will be in trouble.
As a raid leader, I would rather wipe a dozen times than kick someone out of a raid for a specific fight because they are "not the right class" to make it easy mode. Our guild doesn't run on epics; it runs on loyalty. Luckily, our members all agree on this point and some have made alts to swap in for a fight, so the character can be shuffled out if absolutely necessary, but the player still won't be. Going all the way back to Karazhan, which was many BC era players' first raid experience, we can see bad design at work. Most guilds used two tanks for Kara, with fights like Attumen and Moroes pretty much demanding it. The off tank was not really necessary on Maiden, but the fight was still doable with even with a Prot warrior DPSing (which was a sad and worst-case scenario in those days). All was well until you got to Curator, the first true gear check of the instance. This was the point where if one of your tanks wasn't a feral druid who could change to cat for DPS, one of the guys who worked and wiped to get you this far was forced to respec or go home. It didn't help that Curator dropped a tier token and the best tanking leggings in the game up to that point, either. Later in the same instance, the Prince and Nightbane broke up the group again, with one dropping a tier token and the other droppng a tanking chest, and it was no fun tanking all the trash only to get swapped out right before getting a chance at the epics. In short, being an OT in Kara was a "thanks, but now get out" experience and nobody wanted to do it.
I'd like to think that three years of testing, tuning, and design experience since then has made this a thing of the past, and Blizzard will design more of the ten man (and even 25 man) raids with the mindset being to keep the same group together for the entire run and allow for some flexibility in tactics, rather than adotping a "best in slot" mentality for raid groups where one group composition is ideal and anything else is doomed to fail. Time will tell if they will succeed, but every time I hear a raid leader casually say "Okay, kick one of the tanks and bring in another DPS," it makes me cringe. Dual spec has gone a long way toward addressing this problem for those who can afford it; now all we need are bigger bags for that second set of gear!
tim Sep 11th 2009 11:41PM
"Blizzard has been failing abysmally at this since November 2004 and shows no sign of stopping now."
To be fair, they have gotten MUCH better since 2004.
Big Shoe Sep 12th 2009 12:07AM
"To be fair, they have gotten MUCH better since 2004."
Yes, I definitely agree that they have. What puzzles me most about class balancing issues is that Blizzard has stated that when creating items, they use a "point system" where every stat and even unique proc powers have a numerical value, and once the item reaches its cutoff point, nothing more is added, and existing powers are tweaked and tuned (again, always with the point system used) until it feels just right. Thus, all level x items are created equal. Why don't they attempt to quantify talents and use this approach to "even out" talent trees and class abilities? Barring the variable element of players speccing and gearing in different ways, some classes are so uneven at the talent tree level that an experienced WoW player can look at the talent trees for classes he has has never even played and instantly spot a few glaring inequalities, such as Shield Wall versus the current iteration of Ardent Defender. At Blizzard, balance seems to be a pendulum that swings from one extreme to the other, but never stops in between. Until it does, tanks of all classes with have to fight an uphill battle for raid slots against the "flavor of the month" class.
Savant Sep 12th 2009 12:21AM
What I don't understand is why Blizzard started changing things to begin with. GC openly admitted that the warrior was designed to be the best tank for the first 4 years. They never attempted to make other tankable classes comparable. We were also told that warrior was/is the most popular choice in the game. So why not leave it the way it is with warriors tanking everything? If a person wants to tank, they roll a warrior. The other tanking classes would still OT, and 5-man, but the big stuff would be warriors. People were used to it, and everyone managed just fine.
The problem with mutiple tanks is that since tanks are such a key component, if a tank is even a FRACTION better than another, people will go for it since that fraction can mean you don't wipe.
This is not an issue with DPS. If they are 10% off on DPS compared to another class, then you won't wipe because of it.
This is not an issue with healers. If a healer is 10% off compared to another healer, you can word through it.
With a tank, if one tank is inherently 10% worse than another, you are going to wipe. Boom, you are done. That's the difference here, and that is why people will always choose the best tank. GC may think people will choose the best PERSON for the role, but in reality the best person usually will pick the tank class that is the 'best' at that time. rying to screw around with tank balance has caused a number of guilds to lose great tanks.
In the end, there was no pressing reason to mess around with the tanks. They said that adding tank classes would make finding tanks easier, but that never happened.
Tanks were fine. It's unfortunate that they had to screw with them.