Shifting Perspectives: Why the tank Q&A sucked

Don't get me wrong: It's not that I don't like the developer Q&A sessions. They're a great idea, and although they don't make up for Ghostcrawler's absence from the forums, they're a nice insight into the developers' thought process and a peek at the issues that matter most to players. The effort's appreciated even when players ask pointless questions (of which the need to do so appears to be a congenital disorder) or use the opportunity to grandstand about issues no one cares about.
But the tank Q&A was ... not Blizzard's best effort. To borrow a phrase from Harry Knowles, I love hard-working Blizzard, I'm blown away by creative Blizzard, and I'm in awe of big-dreaming and overreaching Blizzard.
But I freaking hate lazy Blizzard.
In the tank Q&A we had the perfect storm of questions that didn't need to be asked, evasive answers to the questions that were asked, and on occasion, a complete lack of answers to questions that did need to be asked.
Ask the Devs #9: Tank Q&A
Q: Have you considered normalizing initial Rage for feral druid tanks? For example, when a warrior uses Charge, it generates 15 points of Rage, which lets them use another aggro generating ability quickly, something that Feral druids tend to be a bit short on. Why in Cataclysm was the bear bonus health pool was reduced, as well? Their survivability always depended on the amount of health since they don't have parry or shield block. Do you have any plans to improve bear tanking in the future? At the moment, it's considered to be the weakest tank. Have you considered giving druid tanks an additional tool to pull casters at range? It's the only tank class that doesn't have a talent or spell to help in those situations. – Pødêrøsø (LA), Вирко (EU-RU), Амелья (EU-RU), Condenacion (EU-ES), Whitewnd (KR)
A: Bears are getting a significant mitigation buff in 4.2 and we're retuning their damage such that it's a little easier to hold aggro at low gear levels, and a little harder at higher gear levels. While we definitely don't expect the community to ever agree on anything, we've seen little evidence of a widespread concurrence that druids are "the weakest tank." There are plenty of druid tanks out there, handling everything from Grim Batol to Sinestra. Tank balance overall is in a really good place. Players may focus on potential problems that could arise in the future but we also have ample time to address those problems should they occur. Gone are the days when we would just release a class into the wild and refuse to touch it again until the next expansion.
A: Bears are getting a significant mitigation buff in 4.2 and we're retuning their damage such that it's a little easier to hold aggro at low gear levels, and a little harder at higher gear levels. While we definitely don't expect the community to ever agree on anything, we've seen little evidence of a widespread concurrence that druids are "the weakest tank." There are plenty of druid tanks out there, handling everything from Grim Batol to Sinestra. Tank balance overall is in a really good place. Players may focus on potential problems that could arise in the future but we also have ample time to address those problems should they occur. Gone are the days when we would just release a class into the wild and refuse to touch it again until the next expansion.
Let's take this train wreck station by station:
- Rage normalization for feral tanks Not answered, and this is a real issue in any situation where you can't depend on an oversupply of rage from a boss that hits like a truck. Feral rage gain is simply not the equivalent of protection warrior rage gain, and it's not going to be as long as we're getting 3 rage per dodge, blowing rage for Feral Charge, and praying for Enrage to come off cooldown before the next pull. Hell, it took us until the most recent patch just to get Blizzard to yank the damage penalty off the damn skill. Compare this to the warrior's 15 rage for Shield Specialization and rage generation with Charge. While you can make the argument that the bear has Primal Fury to compensate, crit's rage generation doesn't reliably cover the difference. When you have to dodge five times to generate the same amount of rage that a warrior does with a single block -- and when you lose everything to shift out for anything else -- that's not good.
- Bear bonus health This one is all on the players and didn't need to be addressed yet again. Asking the developers the same question over and over again in the hopes that they'll somehow answer differently is pointless.
- Ranged silence Not answered. This is a perennial sore point for bears, as we're unquestionably worst-off while trying to make a clean pull with caster mobs. Every other tanking class has gotten DPS players accustomed to the practice of DPSing straight off a pull with a high-threat, ranged ability that forces a caster mob to move -- Death Grip, Heroic Throw, or the ne plus ultra of pull abilities, Avenger's Shield -- and the idea of waiting while the bear ducks behind a wall somewhere is completely foreign to modern groups. I have not had a single 5-man PUG since Wrath where every player was on board with the idea of waiting patiently for a line-of-sight pull.
- Everything else Nothing concrete or truly informative was said about bears here.
But not all tanks are created equal with respect to resource generation, rotation interest, utility, or multi-target tanking, and the two legitimate issues raised above show no signs of being addressed. It is enormously frustrating to see two decent questions wind their way through the approval process only to get picked but not answered.
Ask the Devs #9: Tank Q&A
Q: Have you ever considered adjusting DPS HP? Seems that while their large pools of health help them on "accidental" situations, a fair portion of the time they can take aggro and tank adds without consequence. – Jainel (LA)
A: We're generally happy with how well DPS are able to tank (which is to say, not very well). We like that they can take a hit or two (depending upon content) before dying, and that the penalty for that happening is a huge drain on healer mana.
A: We're generally happy with how well DPS are able to tank (which is to say, not very well). We like that they can take a hit or two (depending upon content) before dying, and that the penalty for that happening is a huge drain on healer mana.
Ask the Devs #9: Tank Q&A
Q: What are your intentions with each tank's mastery and mastery in general? – Migol (NA)
Druids: We're pretty happy with how mastery has turned out. It scales well, doesn't have any unintuitive or unfortunate interactions with other stats, and provides solid performance value.
Druids: We're pretty happy with how mastery has turned out. It scales well, doesn't have any unintuitive or unfortunate interactions with other stats, and provides solid performance value.
If tanks have achieved an acceptable level of parity with respect to single-target tanking, but two of them take significantly more damage from add packs, that's not balanced. That the two tanks concerned are also much less represented right now than their shield tank colleagues is also worrisome.
Ask the Devs #9: Tank Q&A
Q: Protection Paladin is not only the most desired tank because survival abilities for groups and various utilities, but players also generally consider Paladins as an indispensable Class in raids. I know all tanking Classes are being equalized constantly, but survival abilities of Protection Paladins give huge advantages compared to other tanking Classes. Can we expect that other Tanking classes will see more survival abilities for groups in terms of equity? – 디아소르테 (KR)
Because they can fill many roles and still provide a lot of utility, it's not surprising that you see a lot of druids and paladins in your raid groups ... Protection paladins do bring a lot of utility, but it is quite difficult to make a table comparing a paladin's Divine Guardian to a Protection warrior's mobility or a bear druid's ability to cast Innervate or even Rebirth during lulls in an encounter. They are fundamentally different abilities that have greater or less utility depending on the encounter and your individual raid comp. We don't want to just hand out a Divine Guardian equivalent to every tank class, just like we don't think warriors or paladins need the ability to battle rez. It's a fine line to walk. Homogenization really rankles some players (as it should), but being unable to tank (or heal, or DPS) an encounter because of lack of tools is equally unacceptable to many players.
Because they can fill many roles and still provide a lot of utility, it's not surprising that you see a lot of druids and paladins in your raid groups ... Protection paladins do bring a lot of utility, but it is quite difficult to make a table comparing a paladin's Divine Guardian to a Protection warrior's mobility or a bear druid's ability to cast Innervate or even Rebirth during lulls in an encounter. They are fundamentally different abilities that have greater or less utility depending on the encounter and your individual raid comp. We don't want to just hand out a Divine Guardian equivalent to every tank class, just like we don't think warriors or paladins need the ability to battle rez. It's a fine line to walk. Homogenization really rankles some players (as it should), but being unable to tank (or heal, or DPS) an encounter because of lack of tools is equally unacceptable to many players.
The first observation I can make in any discussion concerning tank "utility" is that the bear automatically starts at a heavy disadvantage relative to its plate tank colleagues. Why? Because every bit of utility we provide with the exception of Leader of the Pack is something that can't be done in bear form. In other words, you cannot be actively tanking in order to provide Innervate, pop Tranquility, or Rebirth a fallen player. While you can make a case for Stampeding Roar, in practice even melee DPSers are rarely within 10 yards of you given the size of the average boss' hit box.
Almost by definition, the utility that a bear druid provides to a raid is determined by the extent to which encounter design permits them to leave bear form. Not surprisingly, this is a strong disincentive to use a druid in a main tank capacity. The raid's better off relegating a bear player to the off tank role in order the maximize the number of opportunities he/she will have to leave form, and each time the druid will sacrifice all of his/her rage and Vengeance to do it. No other tank is asked to dump all of his/her resources or Vengeance stacks to, say, Raise Ally or Intervene.
And, as several players pointed out, comparing the feral Innervate -- a ghastly ~5,000 mana return to a single caster -- to a 20% reduction to damage taken by the entire raid (Divine Guardian) is somewhat irritating.
Ask the Devs #9: Tank Q&A
Q: As far as I remember, about five tanks were required in a 25-man group in Burning Crusade. However, the number of tanks in raids has been decreased to one or two since WotLK. I think this is one of the reasons heroic parties suffer from lack of tanks. What if raids have required more tanks? – 명장한니발 (KR)
A: We don't actually recall many four+ tank fights in Burning Crusade, and that includes fights like High King Maulgar where non-tanks could perform the tanking role. While we do find some elegance in a design where a 5-player group scales perfectly up to a 10 and 25-player group, that introduces some problems as well. It could potentially extend the tank shortage we see in 5-player dungeons up to raids (to be fair, it's also possible needing more tanks for raiding would create more tanks for dungeons). A larger problem is that we just don't want to over-constrain encounter design to always require 4 or 5 tanks. Sometimes it's nice to have a fight that's just a single bruiser without requiring a tank swap or meteor-style cleave. Nearly every raid fight in Cataclysm asks for two tank-specced characters, with a few requiring one or three. That's likely the model we will continue to use. If we wanted to do a fight with many tanks, we'd likely let some of the DPS specs step in.
A: We don't actually recall many four+ tank fights in Burning Crusade, and that includes fights like High King Maulgar where non-tanks could perform the tanking role. While we do find some elegance in a design where a 5-player group scales perfectly up to a 10 and 25-player group, that introduces some problems as well. It could potentially extend the tank shortage we see in 5-player dungeons up to raids (to be fair, it's also possible needing more tanks for raiding would create more tanks for dungeons). A larger problem is that we just don't want to over-constrain encounter design to always require 4 or 5 tanks. Sometimes it's nice to have a fight that's just a single bruiser without requiring a tank swap or meteor-style cleave. Nearly every raid fight in Cataclysm asks for two tank-specced characters, with a few requiring one or three. That's likely the model we will continue to use. If we wanted to do a fight with many tanks, we'd likely let some of the DPS specs step in.
The game needs far more tanks for 5-mans than it needs at the raid level, and Blizzard is essentially asking the majority of tanks out there to play at the 5-man level with no real hope of advancement unless they start their own raids. The problem is guaranteed to grow worse as an expansion winds on because no tank in blues -- or even the piecemeal assembly of epics to which they'll have access as more badge gear opens up -- can realistically step into future raids in the same fashion that a DPSer or healer can.
To Blizzard, if you're reading: No one needs answers to questions that didn't need to be asked, and if you don't intend to answer a selected question, then please answer something else. I understand that highly-voted questions are the most likely to be selected, but that does prejudice question choice in favor of whichever questions are asked the earliest because most players don't have the time to trawl through dozens of later pages.
To players: Read the freaking patch notes!
Shifting Perspectives helps you gear your bear druid at 85, tempts you with weapons, trinkets and relics for bears, then shows you what to do with it all in Feral Druid Tanking 101. We'll also help you gear your resto druid.
Filed under: Druid, Analysis / Opinion, (Druid) Shifting Perspectives
Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 news





Reader Comments (Page 3 of 5)
DragonFireKai Jun 14th 2011 6:58PM
@Loop
You don't know what you're talking about. The question was one of the few that came from the Latin American realms. None of them were highly rated, as you can see here.
http://us.battle.net/wow/es/forum/topic/2592639835
The question about the taunts came from Martymadigan, a paladin tank in a guild that is well into heroic raiding. It was better suited as a bug report, but he was pointing out that Righteous Defense was still missing targets. After the shitstorm erupted, he showed up in the english thread to explain.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2649805301?page=15#287
"My question got missinterpreted and was not accurately translated from Spanish to English. What I wanted to ask is why Righteous Defense can still miss (on Maloriak adds for example). I know Hand of Reckoning does not."
Blizzard failed to properly translate the question, which led to a question, which was not highly rated, to be mangled and turned into a completely different question. Which was then given a patronizing answer.
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2649805301?page=17#333
"The question about Righteous Defense turned into an investigation of the code around Righteous Defense, and it was found to be bugged.
It was unintended for Righteous Defense to miss, so the bug was tracked down. It is being fixed immediately. "
The patronizing answer turned out to be wrong. So people are upset. This was a failure on every level.
loop_not_defined Jun 14th 2011 10:05PM
http://tinyurl.com/4yejoyv
TRANSLATION: http://tinyurl.com/4yejoyv
It was mistranslated? Prove me wrong. He even states "all" taunts in the original question. Whatever he says afterwards is irrelevant, as Blizzard cannot travel back in time.
LACK OF VOTES:
Blizzard tries to incorporate questions from all regions. As such, even some votes on a relatively small list are likely to get a question included, as seen here.
FAILURE ON ALL LEVELS:
Bullshit.
loop_not_defined Jun 14th 2011 10:11PM
...and seriously, how can you even mistake what his original question was regarding?
1) Todos = everything. All taunts. Every one of them. That's not a fucking mistranslation.
2) "Like interrupts". Y'know, when interrupts got all got changed to not miss? The big sweeping change?
The more likely reality is that he assumed all taunts miss because he had Righteous Defender miss. Now he's trying to save face.
loop_not_defined Jun 14th 2011 10:17PM
Translation break down:
Porque no hacen que = Why not make...?
los taunts (todos) = THE TAUNTS. It's already in English! And he said all of them!
Righteous Defense = http://es.wowhead.com/spell=31789. Defensa recta. Where the hell does he mention this spell in his original question? He doesn't.
Xaklo Jun 14th 2011 10:18PM
@Dragon,
Except, his question did NOT get misinterpreted. What was translated for the Answers Thread was exactly what he asked, there was no screw-up on Blizzard's (or whoever they may have hired to translate) part. They very much did answer the question they received. It was Madmartygan who was not clear on what his question was in the first place.
The first link that you provide say nothing about Righteous Defense. In fact, actually says "Can you make it so that (all) taunts doesn't miss, just like you did for interrupt abilities?"
Either he made that statement about Righteous Defense afterwards to defend himself and his credibility, since people were obviously reprimanding him for it, or /tinfoilhat! Blizzard went back and changed the question in the LA forums to fit the answer in the Answers thread!
Sterb Jun 15th 2011 12:49AM
Loop, rage much?
Xaklo Jun 15th 2011 2:23AM
@Sterb
I think it's completely validated "rage." He's getting downvoted and he's telling the truth. I know most (well... all) of this article is focused on how Blizzard got it wrong in this Q and A. But just because they messed up on several other questions doesn't mean you have to go bashing on someone trying to ease off just a small bit of misguided Blizz-hate.
Dragon wrote a very convincing argument (with citations at that!) and so most people would have thought that to be the "truth" and thus voted it up. I think the only reason people are voting Loop down is because he's against Dragon's arguement, and must therefore be "false."
Anyone who has learned some Spanish (or just bothered to look up the translations on Google) would have seen right away that Loop was correct. Voting Dragon up was just plain ignorance (or perhaps, laziness) on several readers' part.
DragonFireKai Jun 15th 2011 4:40AM
Regardless of the translation, the fact remains that not only did Blizzard post a cheesy response to a question that didn't need to be put in there, but their answer was wrong on multiple levels. They referenced a patch that did not exist, and there were taunts that were still missing, despite their assurances that "patch 3.9" fixed it all. All these flaws in an answer to a question that didn't recieve 1/10 as many votes as many more qualified questions that didn't make the cut. The majority didn't think that taunts miss, hell, not even the palty dozen upvotes required to highlight a post as highly rated were tallied. That question slipped through because Blizzard failed to properly weigh their input sources. You vote simply didn't matter as much as the votes that got that question on there. Which is contrary to their stated methodology prior to this firestorm.
People aren't angry because Blizzard put out some amazing brief that left out a question they wanted answered. They're angry because the document was done in a very unprofessional manner. It was fundamentally flawed from the ground up, not only in the manner in which they chose the questions that were posed to the developers, but in the manner in which those questions were asked. It was not proof read, it was not given any degree of fact checking, it didn't ask the questions that the majority voted on, it didn't answer all the questions that it posted. People are angy because Blizzard hyped this as our only chance to get assured time with the devs on these topics, and Blizzard made the absolutely minimal effort that could still be considered having actually done something. They were either lazy, or incompetent, and the fact that there are people like Allison Robert pointing this out is a serious indictment on the value of the whole AtD system.
If Blizzard is smart, they'll cut their losses and not even release the DPS Q&A if they follow the same half assed methodology.
loop_not_defined Jun 15th 2011 6:36AM
DragonFireKai: "the fact remains that not only did Blizzard post a cheesy response to a question that didn't need to be put in there"
It was the most highly voted question for the region. One of Blizzard's *stated goals* with the Q&A is to be more inclusive with the other forums, something that had been a major sticking point for years. As someone who does follow Blue Tracker, I saw this complaint come up on the EU forums almost daily.
DragonFireKai: "but their answer was wrong on multiple levels. They referenced a patch that did not exist, and there were taunts that were still missing, despite their assurances that "patch 3.9" fixed it all."
Patch 3.9 existed internally, and was *regularly* referenced publicly...until the last minute when they announced 4.0.1. The fact that Cataclysm had *two* pre-expansion patches (4.0.1 and 4.0.3) caught a lot of people by surprise.
DragonFireKai: "All these flaws in an answer to a question that didn't recieve 1/10 as many votes as many more qualified questions that didn't make the cut. The majority didn't think that taunts miss, hell, not even the palty dozen upvotes required to highlight a post as highly rated were tallied. That question slipped through because Blizzard failed to properly weigh their input sources."
So Latin American players shouldn't ever count then? That's toeing racism.
DragonFireKai: "it didn't ask the questions that the majority voted on..."
Yes, it did. You're assuming that the LA answer took up some "slot" of questions. The more likely reality is that if it had never been asked, the Q&A would have been one question shorter.
DragonFireKai: "...it didn't answer all the questions that it posted."
Bashiok: "Bashiok: "If we haven’t made an announcement on a topic yet, then chances are good we don’t yet think a change is necessary, or we’re not yet sure how we want to fix a problem. Therefore, it should not be surprising that many answers are going to say “we’re still considering it but have no announcements at this time.” If we have an upcoming change to announce, we’ll do that. We're not waiting for a player to ask just the right question."
Seriously, why am I having to repost something I've already provided for you?
At the end of the day, your attitude towards the whole thing, as well as Allison's and many other players', just reaffirms that Blizzard talking to the community might actually be doing more harm than good. The inability to take these Q&As for what they are, or to apply some perspective to their answers, is just causing a lot of distress.
Mstrwiggles Jun 15th 2011 12:01PM
I think the problem with this question was more the misinterpretation then the mistranslation. He asked if they could make *all* taunts unable to miss. This is a legitimate question because not *all* taunts are unable to miss, only *most* of them. While he could have asked the question in a less ambiguous way, it was still a fairly unnecessary question to include in the Q&A before more research was done.
Xaklo Jun 15th 2011 1:24PM
I think the real problem was the lack of questions offered in the Latin American forums in the first place. I have no idea what the number is for the player base in Latin American areas, but what I DO know is that not all Latin Americans speak Spanish. That may have been one reason why the LA forums were so poorly represented, as you're essentially leaving out any Portuguese-speaking players from the Q and A (as well as the many different dialect-speaking players).
Or maybe not very many players in Latin America peruse the Blizz forums. Yet another possibility is that these same players were not aware that they were even given the chance to "Ask the Developers," (although to be fair, I don't frequent Blizz's forums much either).
Whatever the case may have been, the fact remains: on THIS question, the problem was the question itself. Not necessarily Blizzard's fault.
For the record, I know they very much did mess up on the rest of the Q and A as well. I'm not trying to be a fanboy, just explaining this issue was just one of poor circumstance.
Xaklo Jun 15th 2011 1:31PM
"...another possibility is that these same players were not aware that they were even given the chance to "Ask the Developers," -like myself**-..."
sorry, left that out.
TonyKP Jun 14th 2011 4:46PM
Kudos for telling it like it is. I find your willingness to give unvarnished opinions, especially in recent months when they've been badly needed, both refreshing and absolutely necessary.
I don't know what it's like to be a game designer/developer, but I think they've become a little insulated from outside points of view and I can tell that there's a bit of a disconnect between what Blizzard is seeing and what a large portion of their player base is seeing. The more well-reasoned feedback they receive the better.
helfarchwow Jun 14th 2011 4:49PM
I agree - the tanking Q&A was mediocre at best. With regards to bear tanking, I'm also pretty disillusioned. The change to Natural Reaction is something, boring as it is. By way of a comparison I got my warrior to max level the other day and already, with no raid gear, a couple of crafted epics and a combination of 333 and 346 items I feel "safer" tanking the Zandalari hc's with a pug compared with my 359+ geared druid tank. The biggest difference I've noticed is the mastery. On my warrior it not only makes sense but it feels right. On my druid the whole concept feels muddled; almost as if Blizzard was caught short with mastery for bears and its just feels such a shame. I'm yet to decide if I will replace my Druid with my warrior come Firelands, perhaps the buff to NR and maybe some more appropriately itemised gear might make up my mind.
ahsanali Jun 14th 2011 6:02PM
That is weird. I have a 348 geared bear and a 354 geared prot warrior.
The bear is *MUCH* easier to tank on. I don't have a ranged silence but by god the bear is stronger on AOE threat. I HATE the last boss in ZG on my warrior - but on my bear it is just so easy.
The eagle/fire boss in ZA - its so very easy to pick up the birds as they come out with swipe and thrash, on the warrior, I have thunderclap (with blood and thunder) which on paper is as effective, but the longer CD on it makes the bear the more responsive tank in that situation.
The tiger boss in ZG, being able to battlerez when the boss vanishes, the superior swipe/thrash combo again, makes the bear vastly easier to tank on.
Not to mention I LOVE mangle spam with berserk - it just puts the damage output of my warrior to shame.
The bear lacks a ranged pull and I wish we could cast hibernate and rebirth in form (maybe make our dodge chance zero when casting as a fair tradeoff) but other than that, the bear is an incredibly fun tank to play in 4.1.
We'll see how 4.2 goes, for starters it will be fun being super strong against magic damage.
A good article Alison, I really enjoy your writing style and your analysis is thought provoking.
Ashwan Jun 15th 2011 12:34PM
Your point about Mastery is correct. It certainly good on a prot warrior and works more or less intuitively. On bears, mastery is only our 3rd (maybe 4th if you include stamina) best stat and works in weird ways.
But I definitely disagree about tanking heroic dungeons, my bear who is slightly worse geared than my warrior is far far better on holding threat on trash and usually ends up contributing a lot to damage too!
Narkondas Jun 14th 2011 4:59PM
In honor of such a rageful analysis of the situation - an item for you Allison:
http://www.wowitemcreator.com/view/388638/Tantrum_of_Allison.html
Seriously - great post!
Sally Bowls Jun 14th 2011 5:08PM
Thank you for the column!
I would quibble on the DPS health question.
Cata healing changed and mana matters and you don't top of the health of the raid at higher content.
So you can pick one:
make mana not matter as much
remove most unavoidable damage for non-tanks
have DPS have a health pool to survive even without top off ( and to survive having a pally healer in a 5-man. I joke. jk )
Giving DPS enough health to allow avoidable damage in the game means that in other situations, agro mistakes are not fatal.
The Association of Grumpy Cataclysm Healers currently votes no on lower health pools.
----
I also point out that any time you allow recount meters to be posted in your run, you are sending a clear signal to the DPS. Am I better off wiping occasionally and always make the tank work harder or am I better off doing well on the damage meters? Most groups send the message loud and clear to the DPS that the answer for them is the latter, even though that is bad for the group. Think of every recount post in chat as a request for DPS to make your life worse.
GhostWhoWalks Jun 14th 2011 10:15PM
As a melee DPS, I can whole-heartedly agree with this. Venoxis is a perfect example of unavoidable non-tank damage: Anti-Magic Shell can protect me from most of the damage from the first Toxic Link...but what about the second? And the third? AMS has a 45-second cooldown, and even while decked out in average ilevel 354 gear, taking a few ticks and then an explosion from Toxic Link brings me to low health; if DPS had their health reduced, I'd AMS the first Link...and then croak when I get targeted for the second.
I most definitely agree with 90% of the issues here, but I do have to point out that tanks seem to forget that they're not the only ones in the group taking damage. They could have full threat on all the mobs in the area, but the moment one of them uses an AoE (which seems to be quite common in many of these heroics) one of your melee DPS is taking damage, and we don't particularly enjoy it when half of our health gets lopped off by an attack we can neither avoid, prevent or protect ourselves from.
Blizzard seems to have put the melee DPS in the PvE penalty box with this expansion, we don't need the tanks turning on us too.
Udderpowered Jun 14th 2011 5:12PM
My druid would give his right tuskisckle for a ranged silence. :(