The Care and Feeding of Warriors: Speculation on tanking design

Last week, I talked about new warrior tanks at level 85 and promised this week to talk about what a new 85 tank can do to increase his or her threat. This week, Blizzard increased all tank threat significantly. The increase is so significant, in fact, that I don't see any real benefit to writing what I was going to write. If you were having trouble holding threat, I can't imagine you are now. Even if as a tank you do less than 6k DPS, that 6k DPS will become 30,000 threat per second, which will require your DPSers to put out 33k DPS sustained to pull threat off of you. Some 8-10k tanking DPS, which is what I usually see in most PUGs, will require between 44-55k DPS to pull threat.
In short, I expect to see threat issues marginalized to the point of absurdity. With tanking heading toward the active mitigation model currently used by death knight tanks, it's probably the best time we could possibly have during an expansion's life cycle to contemplate sweeping changes. The issue I have with that is, frankly, protection warriors are probably the best-designed tanks in terms of toolkit and involvement. Prot warriors are a strong leveling spec, good at their primary role, and have a well-designed suite of abilities for just about any contingency. I neither wish to see them become more or less than they are now. So how, with active mitigation about to roll out as a concept, should warriors change? What follows are some of my ideas, because I love to speculate about this class.
Frankly, protection is such a well-designed spec in terms of overall ability that I really fear what the active mitigation approach might do to it.This isn't to say that Blizzard isn't capable of redesigning it to work well with that approach. After all, Blizzard designed it in the first case. But frankly, I've had a dream since the 2009 warrior Q&A, a dream Blizzard planted in my mind and which I haven't been able to shake. If you'd asked me a month ago if my dream was a possibility, I would have said no, that it flew in the face of current tanking design.
Clearly, that's no excuse. Blizzard has proved it'll abandon tanking design that it doesn't think works for the current game. So I think it's time to revisit this idea from the Q&A: With the death knight, we allowed all three trees to more or less be able to tank. There is a desire among some players and designers to see Arms tank with a two-hander while Prot tanks with a shield. We're still not sure that's the direction we'll go -- it's a ton of re-design and will never work for say the druid or paladin classes.

How would you make it work? Well, for starters, we'd have to make another, even more sweeping change to how the various tanking stances, presences, forms or what have you work. Currently, they all provide increased threat. (Each currently provides five times the threat that the tank puts out as DPS, in fact). What would be needed for across-the-board warrior tanking viability would be for Defensive Stance to also provide critical hit immunity, an ability currently provided by talents, or for critical hit immunity to be removed entirely from tanks.
That would be a huge change, of course, and it would mean that tanks would take more and spikier damage, which on the face of it is not at all desirable. If you asked any serious raiding tank if he wanted to take critical hits, he'd tell you no, no he does not. The problem with allowing critical hit removal to be attached to a talent is two-fold. The first is that it makes that talent required. No tank is going to not take Bastion of Defense or the equivalent. The addition of the chance to enrage on that talent is purely to sugarcoat the medicine, nice though the sugarcoating may be.
Now, imagine an active mitigation model where you want to encourage tanks to actively reduce their incoming damage. In such a model, allowing critical hits to tanks serves as incentive. In essence, in order to prevent an active mitigation system from devolving into using the same ability over and over again, especially with threat almost not even an issue, you need to provide the tanks with either more than one way to mitigate damage (in which case, the tanks will always prefer the method that mitigates the most overall damage whenever possible), or you provide the tanks with more than one kind of mitigation. If you make critical hit removal wholly active rather than making it a passive talent, tanks will have to decide, "Is taking 10% more damage over the course of the fight better than taking less overall damage but letting myself take a critical hit now and again?" Incorporating critical hit reduction into an active mitigation system not only makes for another level of mitigation in the system, it allows for off-spec tanking to return to viability for tank/DPS-only hybrid tanks.

Despite the design difficulties in designing classes to be able to perform as either tank or DPS in all three of their specs, I believe it's a worthwhile and elegant goal and one that should be attempted again. Even going for simply making DPS specs viable, and not equivalent, could go a long way toward alleviating tanking/DPS/healing disparity, while allowing the protection tree to remain the well-designed tree it currently is. And I firmly believe that removing passive critical hit resistance is the key towards not only designing viable 5-man off-tanking for arms and fury but also crucial for giving depth to an active mitigation system. If not critical hit, then some other form of distinction that makes mitigation choices more interesting than "Do I use my mitigation ability or not?" must be introduced.
Next week, unless Blizzard suddenly comes out with an entirely new rage mechanic (which it could, for all I know), we'll switch gears to PVP. Is fury PVP viable? (My experience this past week says yes.)
Filed under: Warrior, Analysis / Opinion, (Warrior) The Care and Feeding of Warriors, Cataclysm






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
walkman222222 Aug 20th 2011 6:03PM
What is that sword in the first picture. I NEED IT.
ShadowX Aug 20th 2011 6:16PM
The original Ash'kandi, Greatsword of the Brotherhood off Nefarian in BWL.
walkman222222 Aug 20th 2011 6:39PM
Thank you :D I'm a wrath baby and want this on my dk.
Coco Aug 21st 2011 12:27PM
Honestly I've thought that if they just moved Bastion of Defense to where arms and fury could sub-spec into it, it would allow fury and arms to do some heroic tanking. Fury has glyphed self heals, titan's grip, and die by the sword. And I think we all want to tank with Bladestorm someday. I can't imagine this would upset pvp much.
Moobs Aug 23rd 2011 7:44AM
The original sword according to wowhead has a 9% drop rate the "reclaimed" versionhas a drop rate of 1.1%
Looks like I will be killing my way BWL with a friend!
sigstealer Aug 20th 2011 6:10PM
What is that wep I have to have it. Anyone know?
OT: Does blizz plan to do anything pre- 4.3/5.x?
I mean, atm I can literally roll my face over 3 keys as my DK and nearly the same for my warrior if im doing hc's, raids are better but the threat increases do trivialize things a bit. Are we just going to have a lul for a while?
SleepySlug Aug 20th 2011 8:08PM
More than like 4.3 will last us a good while, similar to how long ICC lasted (tho personally I pray not nearly as long). Besides that, from what's been announced so far, it sounds like there won't be anything significant in Cataclysm after 4.3 until whatever launch event will usher in the next expansion.
jobby Aug 20th 2011 6:36PM
http://www.wowhead.com/item=19364 the origional
Stella Aug 20th 2011 6:46PM
I don't know. I just re-read Ghostcrawler's post http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/707179-Death-Knights-will-tank-as-Blood-in-Cataclysm and I doubt that the changes in threat will impact on the reasons he gives for wanting dedicated tanking trees.
Of course his vision for tanking has obviously changed so i wouldn't rule it out altogether.
Sleutel Aug 21st 2011 11:27PM
This is exactly my thought. It was taking too time to make multi-tree tanking work when they designed a class for it *from the ground up*; there's no way they'd be able to balance it properly when trying to shoehorn it into an existing tree structure.
msawyer93 Aug 20th 2011 6:50PM
im not sure how i feel about the active mitigation part, as ive played prot since forever and short of blizz completely breaking it ill stick with it, but i had the idea that doing what matt said would be a new incentive to bring along more melee dps, since in that case any of the warrior DPS could be an "OH SHIT THE TANK DIED" pinch tank to hold off the boss long enough for some1 to b-rez and heal the main tank back up
vocenoctum Aug 20th 2011 7:58PM
I'm not a fan of the "active mitigation" thing on the scale they're speaking of. A tank's job is taking hits and surviving, sure, but there's also taunt swapping and positioning and other things depending on the fight. Right now we have cooldowns and such anyway, a more active system just means more pressure on the tank and more pressure on the healers should the tanks mistime something. All around, I don't see the advantage to redesigning tanks this way. I'd already cut back tanking due to idiots in dungeons, so this will most likely get me to just abandon tanking. I'll give it a look at least, but geez.
OTOH, I don't think 3 spec tanking is going to happen at all, and while I wouldn't mind it, what I'd really like to see is a Protection Warrior DPS spec. :) Something inside me just wants to bash things with a shield for damage, not just to take a hit.
Redielin Aug 20th 2011 7:12PM
If we learned anything from the Death Knight, it is that multiple tanking specs in one class don't work very well. Sorry, I think we're all going to have to tank as Protection for the forseeable future.
Sqtsquish Aug 21st 2011 12:57AM
what we learned is it is hard to simultaneously make all 3 specs viable for pve and pvp while being balanced against the other 27- essentially that "tanking" talents make a spec too hardy for pvp if that same spec is expected to perform in another role in pve.
wolfmanuva Aug 22nd 2011 9:51AM
Yeah, when the foundation of the entire article is multi-tree tanking (something that seems extraordinarily unlikely to happen again) I think any further speculation beyond that point is kind of a waste of time. It's just too shaky.
Still, I sympathize with having your previous subject effectively invalidated by the threat changes, so Mr. Rossi is still okay by me. :)
Carthum Aug 20th 2011 8:50PM
Great article with a great insight into the direction Blizzard could take.
Active mitigation could elavate boss design. With the threat changes, a tanks main concern is standing in the right in the right place.
Secondly, re-introducing hybrid specs would add depth. A fight where a DPS burns phase 1, and tanks phase 2 sounds good to me.
Dan Aug 20th 2011 7:12PM
I have to disagree with the idea of allowing Arms and Fury to be viable tanks. Giving players the idea that all three DK specs were able to tank in Wrath was enough of a disaster, considering all the DKs that slapped on Frost Presence (now Blood Presence) with pure DPS specs and gear and called themselves tanks. That was one of the big reasons why DKs got such a bad reputation - one they still haven't completely shaken off. I don't want that happening all over again with warriors as well.
Cobalt Aug 20th 2011 7:37PM
I wholeheartedly agree with Dan.
Speaking as a DK who tanked in WoTLK from heroics up until heroic 10-man ICC, I can say that the idea of three specs with tanking talents and playstyles was a neat idea, but in practice was a disaster. You had one spec that was outright ignored (Unholy tanks), and Frost tanking was considered worse than Blood. It was as if there was only one definite tanking tree that you could go to, otherwise you'd be handicapping yourself.
And it was EXTREMELY frustrating to be unable to tank 10-man content as well as my warrior/paladin counterparts due to the balancing act of trying to make each tree viable for DPS while keeping tanking talents in there. We didn't have blood shield back then; we healed something like 25% of our max HP for each death strike landed. While it was GREAT for killing rogues and melee classes in PvP if I was wearing my tanking set, it was TERRIBLE for the boss paradigm back then (which can be summarized as 3 boss AUTOATTACKS = death). This was eased up as we went into the ICC era, but it was very much the case during Ulduar. For me, there was nothing as frustrating as having to switch to a DPS spec and have your tanking spot replaced by a protection paladin because your class wasn't designed to tank Algalon without overgearing the instance.
Blizzard learned its lesson and consolidated the tanking talents and abilities into the Blood tree, and gave Death Strike a facelift to make it better for raiding, but worse for PvP. If they were to do the same thing to warriors, it'd be a headache to balance. But take a long-time DK player's word for it, having three 'viable' trees for tanking will only result in grief for the warrior class.
Luke Aug 20th 2011 8:25PM
I have to politely with Dan and Cobalt to varying degrees.
The reason why Death Knights got such a bad rap is not because they were designed for two roles. It's because when you start off a class at level 55, and then almost immediately jump into a tanking role, when you've never tanked before... you're probably going to suck at it. And this is why they still have a bad reputation in level 60 dungeons.
It's not that Death Knights were poorly designed, it's that your average player didn't know how to gear and choose their talents properly. Blizzard has implemented a better design for all classes now but I don't think that necessarily means it was horrible, just not intuitive.
Hell I remember seeing what would be considered otherwise talented players at the end of Wrath gemming and enchanting for spellpower if that tells you anything.
When they redesigned the DK trees, I lost my favorite tanking model which was Frost DW. You have no idea how badly I wish Fury could tank effectively at end game.
All Blizzard would have to do with Warriors is expand on mechanics that have already existed and still do to a degree. The moment a Warrior goes into defensive stance she could acquire active mitigation and or healing abilities, each perfectly suited to the talent specialization in question.
In fact they could add a "tanking" interface that pops up much like a pet bar, so it's bloody obvious to the player, "Hey, these are your tanking abilities, f'n use them."
That coupled with a few tweaks to the talent trees and bam! We're in business. And when Blizzard finishes up this project they can start working on making Frost the tanking tree for Mages.
Yeah, that's right. Frost Tanking Mages. That's what I want.
Boobah Aug 20th 2011 8:34PM
I mostly agree with Dan, though I take exception to "Giving players the idea that all three DK specs were able to tank in Wrath was enough of a disaster" since all three trees COULD tank quite effectively in Wrath; that folks with a DPS mindset (the big issue), spec, and gearset thought that they could effectively tank heroics (much less raids) was kind of disastrous, but you saw some of that with ret paladins and DPS warriors, too, and to a lesser extent with DPS-specced healers.
Admittedly, late in the cycle it was more-or-less justified... although watching an ICC-geared ret get et by the enraged Arakkoa in Violet Hold was amusing, even if it wasn't ALL his fault.