Is it time to kill tanking?

The tanking system has long been somewhat problematic in World of Warcraft. While it scales to some degree, from 5-man dungeons to 10-man raids, the scaling falls apart when we get to 25-man raiding, which currently demands about the same amount of tanking as 10-man. You can get through most of Firelands with two tanks, no matter your raid size. Majordomo Staghelm only requires one tank, again, no matter your raid size. This means that the scaling from five to 10 works, but as soon as you go from 10 to 25, instead of needing 2.5 times more tanks, you need no more tanks.
The other problem is simply that there already aren't enough tanks for every 5-man group. When the Call to Arms feature was announced for the Dungeon Finder tool, it was created out of the simple fact that we're not seeing the distribution we'd expect in the playerbase. In order for the Dungeon Finder to work without significant group queues, we would need 20% of the people queuing up to be tanks (1 in 5 = 20%). This is not the case.
People simply don't want the perceived group responsibility of tanking. It's why changes were made to CC mechanics that allow groups to CC on the fly without pulling. It's why Call to Arms exists. And yet, despite both of these changes, tanking was still so unattractive to players that threat itself needed to be redesigned. All of this work to try and get people to tank. Maybe the problem isn't the players here, though. Maybe it's the role.
Outnumbered two to one
There are currently four tanking specs in the game, out of 30 possible specs. This is the lowest number of specs per role. Healing has five (discipline and holy priests, resto druids, resto shaman, and holy paladins), and DPS has 22, because one of the tanking specs can also be a DPS spec (the feral druid spec). This points to an already obvious fact: DPS specs outnumber the tanking and healing specs combined by a two-to-one margin. Why is this?
Well, for starters, while healing makes a certain amount of sense to people who've played other games, the idea of the tanking figure is fairly unique to the MMO genre and has more or less existed in that genre to help make up for the games' lack of intelligence. The original tank and spank encounters were designed around the idea that the game needed help to decide who the monsters would be hitting. After all, their roots are in pen and paper RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons, but there's no game master to tell the monsters what to do.
With modern encounter design often varying wildly from this formula, one of the reasons for the tanking role has been changed or removed. Tanks often find themselves switching targets, rounding up adds, taunt swapping to clear debuffs, kiting, and in general working on aspects of a fight far removed from the old keep the big, ugly thing punching me instead of the mage aspect of the role. This complexity was even mentioned in the recent Dev Watercooler as a reason that threat was being increased so that tanks don't necessarily have to worry about threat races or having to switch targets to intercept streaming adds.
Class archetypes and character preference
Let's consider, however. With four tank specs and 22 DPS specs, we're already at a significant disadvantage in terms of picking a character that tanks versus one who does not. If you enjoy certain class archetypes such as the demon-worshiping spellcaster or the companion to animals, you're locked out of the role even if you'd like to give it a try. Of course, the argument can be made to roll an alt, but if you simply don't like death-channeling necromancers in plate or turning into a bear, then you're not going to want to do so just so you can tank. Furthermore, there are people who play those four classes who simply don't find tanking as it stands particularly compelling.
There are ways to do without tanks, of course. One way would simply to make healing changes that allowed healers to cope with a boss's switching to whoever had aggro rather than having to have a limited number of people who are talented and geared to make healing them easier and who chose abilities and stances to make enemies want to hit them. Another way would simply to make tanking a choice a class could make by picking a stance, form or presence and opening it up to more classes -- a simple trade-off (you chose to tank, you do less damage and generate more threat) that makes all sorts of classes able to tank who never tanked before. There are plenty of classes that have abilities that could be used to tank -- warlock Metamorphosis, hunter pets, shaman weapon imbues like Rockbiter and their earth elementals -- with a little modification.
What change would be enough?
Whether or not either of these options or any others are really good for the game is what should really be discussed. Is it simply a matter of not enough tanking flavor, and can that be provided without messing up tanking balance? Should tanking be reduced to a simple toggle that more classes could flip, or would that water down tanking too much? Is tanking integral to the game or an outmoded idea no longer relevant with fight design as intricate as it has become, and can you get rid of it without rendering leveling content trivial? Tanking has been with the game since its inception and has seen a lot of design work to keep it a vital role, so abandoning or redesigning it to this extent would be a huge decision. But right now, it's no longer an unthinkable change to the game.
We've tried bribing tanks, changing CC, letting the instant queues tempt them, and even reducing how much they have to juggle to get them interested. Is it enough, and even if it is, is it a sign that tanking simply isn't worth the hassle?
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm has destroyed Azeroth as we know it; nothing is the same! In WoW Insider's Guide to Cataclysm, you can find out everything you need to know about WoW's third expansion, from leveling up a new goblin or worgen to breaking news and strategies on endgame play.
Filed under: Druid, Paladin, Warrior, Analysis / Opinion, Death Knight
Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria news





Reader Comments (Page 5 of 17)
Lemons Aug 25th 2011 6:16PM
"One way would simply to make healing changes that allowed healers to cope with a boss's switching to whoever had aggro."
Whoa boy. That would be insanely unbalanced in pvp.
I do think they could open up more classes to tanking. I've heard quite a few people say things like "if my mage could tank then I would." However, a dps spec would have to be sacrificed to make room for a tanking spec, which would inevitably lead to ragequits.
Perhaps a way to circumvent the entire issue would be to introduce a fourth tree for every class in next expansion and simply ensure most of the new introductions are tanking trees for classes who have traditionally not tanked.
Wallahalla Aug 25th 2011 6:44PM
4th spec would be absolutely amazing. I would love to see a dedicated tanking tree for shaman, ranged dps spec for paladins, healing spec on DK or mage...
This would, however, be very difficult for the development team. Essentially they would be introducing 3 new classes (10 classes now = 10 new trees/ 3 current trees per class= 3.3 new classes with a remainder of 1). If anyone recalls the shit storm that happened when DK's were released (and persisted all the way through WotLK), they will understand why this is unlikely. The DK problem wasn't even really resolved until Cata when blood was given the distinction of being the tanking spec, leaving frost and unholy the responsibility of dps.
I love the idea though.
Please Blizzard, give up all of your free time and give the people what they want 0.o
Ianmis Aug 25th 2011 6:57PM
Does this mean warriors will then get a healing spec? Won't we have to give some class five specs, I mean if we give them tanking, then it stands to reason that every class should have healing as well........
You people are ridiculous, just wait for Diablo 3 and play that. There you just do your own thing even when in group.
Faroth Aug 25th 2011 6:17PM
I think a large part of the problem is simply that players don't like carrying the weight of responsibility for other people's actions.
In Wrath the queue times for randoms were 15-20 minutes for a DPS, 30-45 from time to time, on my server. Now I hear they are 30-45 min at least. Obviously something has changed. Has the role of tanking changed? Not really.
However, the fact that tanks can no longer run into a group of 5 mobs, hit two abilities and then take a nap while DPS goes full bore AoE has changed. And it's not the tank that's doing anything different in terms of their role, it's that DPS can no longer go crazy for the highest numbers they can get.
So now we have tanks needing to tank less than 5 mobs at a time while others are CC'd. Yet if something goes wrong and that hunter is blasting away on an off target mob instead of the one the tank is focusing on and that causes a wipe, the burden falls on the tank as players, not the game, blame them for not doing their job. Nobody wants to be responsible for the stupidity of others. You can't change their play style, you can't MAKE them stop trying to obliterate whatever they want. But you'll often be blamed if they do and you don't handle it.
I think it's not the tanking role, it's the shift from BC to Wrath and now to Cataclysm. Wrath made things easy in heroics for various reasons and not just "because of poor design" or "easy mode" necessarily. Cataclysm tried to reach back towards BC and Classic for 5 mans, but may have overshot the mark.
If Blizzard can pull the game back to a sweet spot between BC's Heroic difficulty and Wrath's Heroic "easy-mode" difficulty, I think they'll find a balance that makes tanking an enjoyable role again.
I've tanked heroics, I tanked in Wrath, I just got to 85 on my tank in Cataclysm. I know a lot of people who enjoy tanking. They like handling the mob, keeping it off others, knowing when to use their tools to help a healer, etc. The idea of removing tanking would be greatly opposed by many players.
The idea of adding more tanking options? Perhaps.
DarkWalker Aug 25th 2011 10:37PM
"""I think a large part of the problem is simply that players don't like carrying the weight of responsibility for other people's actions."""
You said everything. Find a way to put the blame squarely with whoever deserves it, and you will most likely find less clueless players failing, and more players willing to try the roles with more responsibility.
I sometimes joke that every attack that does avoidable damage should also add an effect that turns the character bright pink and puts a neon "fail" sign above their heads. While a joke, it's only half a joke. It would, at least, make players realize how much (and when) they are failing.
Bodrake Aug 25th 2011 11:33PM
You have pretty much hit the nail on the head, Faroth.
The introduction of the LFD tool a year after Wrath launched and a year before Cata launched led to a huge uptick of PUGs in heroic dungeons. Combine that with the perfect storm of healers being able to keep the whole party alive without breaking a sweat, tanks holding aggro right from the start of every fight, huge damage from AoE, and no CC required. And then remember that all the players got to experience this situation for a full year.
Then the Cata Dev team decided to roll back each and every one of those items, and to top it off they made sure that even normal dungeons had some tricky fights. Players who had been able to see all the content of Wrath for a full year were now effectively held back from PUGing dungeons, and if you can't even PUG a dungeon, what chance do you have in a raid?
The lack of tanks is just one symptom of the real root cause - the Cata Devs abandoned the very large pool of casual players that had been created in the last year of Wrath. That large pool of casuals has been voting with their wallets ever since. It is obvious that they believe the answer is to provide grindy quest hubs like Firelands and Darkmoon Island. I honestly believe that in order to fix this problem, they are going to just have to embrace the fact that the majority of players want a short queue for a quick and easy dungeon run. Although they may be loath to admit it, easier tanking and easier healing are the only smart decisions for their business.
wat Aug 25th 2011 6:18PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember at the beginning of Cata the devs wanting tanking to be more engaged and threat to matter when 90% of the posts were along the line of "OMG it take 40 minutes to kill the first batch of trash in a heroic dungeon, due to EVERY damn mob having an insta-kill mechanic that will wipe you repeatedly."
So, now they realize that having to watch 5 mobs while juggling threat and defensive cooldowns is not 'fun'?
If they had came to this conclusion a few months earlier, they would have at least one more subscriber at the end of the month.
Noyou Aug 25th 2011 6:44PM
I have said it before, it's about as hard (or harder) to balance playstyles than it is to balance classes. One expac they "cater" towards casuals, then they "cater" towards hardcores. Instead of just making the game one way. And yes, it seems blizzard likes talking out both ends of their tails.
vocenoctum Aug 25th 2011 6:48PM
I would agree, except they're making "tank survival interactive" or whatever. Have to see what it's like of course, but the cooldowns already in place are fine I think. Next we'll have a bunch of tanks worrying about survival instead of DPS pulling and tanks will be spikier (which is a common complaint about DK's, the model they mentioned following).
SO yeah, tanking and healing will suck, and the dps that can't follow simple directions and makes the entire dungeon a chore? No effect on him...
Hey, maybe an article entitled "Is it time to kill DPSing" would be better.
DeathPaladin Aug 25th 2011 7:52PM
@Noyou
Another possibility is that they decided to do things one way, saw that it didn't really work out the way they wanted it to, and then changed their minds about it.
In fact, I think they came right out and said that when they made the threat changes. Something about how tank swapping, add wrangling, kiting, etc were much better ways of keeping tanks engaged than 'produce x threat or your healers and dps get one-shot.'
Kylroy Aug 26th 2011 8:47AM
@vocenoctum
To my mind, the answer is not "kill DPSing", but "Kill healing". I would guess that 90% of the healing DPS players receive in PuGs is avoidable. Imagine that there wasn't a healer class, and instead the DPS classes were all equipped with abilities that enabled them to restore their own health (think Recuperate, or a Ret Paladin healing himself). This would mean idiots who stand in the fire would spend more time and resources healing themselves than DPSing, meaning that crappy DPS players would actually do crappy Damage Per Second. Remove the nursemaid charged with saving players from their own stupidity, and I think DPS would get a lot better at avoiding what damage they can.
Granted, this is a massive paradigm shift that I don't think WoW would be able to make. That, and if they DID do it, I imagine they'd hemorrhage even more customers - I think really bad DPS players make up a sizable chunk of the subscriber base.
Puntable Aug 26th 2011 10:42AM
Here is a general concept for tanking.
Raid tanking should be a challenge. Dungeon tanking should be fairly easy.
Pretty much the opposite of the way it is now.
Noyou Aug 25th 2011 6:17PM
When I first read the title I was like, no way. But then I got to thinking, maybe it should. It would require the whole party to be responsible for damage, mitigation, and healing. I'm not sure it would be able to be done without a huge revamp of certain classes. Maybe the answer is to go with 6/12/30 man system. The 6th being a mitigating/buffing/healing class (bard or monk) that with song or with prayer, would help the group along. I've only been playing 2.5 years or so, and I like tanking, but I do not like being the scapegoat/whipping boy anytime someone's ideal of a perfect run doesn't happen. Another option would be to give the tank more heals and less dmg. Let the heals get aggro (not unlike they do now), you can give them an AoE heal that mitigates, aggroes and slowly heals the party over time. Not an OP heal but a steady one. Is it dumbing down the game? Perhaps. But let's face it, it's not working so hot as is, and our action bars are full of spells. I think consolidation would help things a good deal.
Architect Aug 26th 2011 11:28AM
Make dps more responsible for their own healing. Give dps a dk-like deathstrike.
If they stand in the fire or pull aggro, it's their own responsibility for healing themselves. But the healing comes at the expense of a massive drop in dps. This is similar to the way feign death works for pulling aggro.
Healers still take care of tanks, and would be necessary for raid-wide healing during punishing boss aoe pulses, but the responsibility for recovery from "stupid" or "unlucky" is placed on the dps.
Kaphik Aug 25th 2011 6:17PM
"the idea of the tanking figure is fairly unique to the MMO genre"
I have to disagree with this comment. As long as there have been roleplaying games, there has been the concept of a class or unit that is able to withstand huge amounts of damage while standing right in the face of the enemy. That's what a tank does. MMOs may have enabled tanks to take incredible amounts of damage thanks to being healed, but they didn't introduce the concept. We had everything from fighters to clerics to assault mechs doing the tanking. They sought to take the damage while the weaker classes and units tried to dish it out.
I know there are many people who are growing tired of the tank-healer-dps design, but there are many players who aren't and still enjoy it. The problem with WoW is that so many people have become too attached to the game, and they want to change the game to suit their own desires, instead of playing a different game altogether. Of course, Blizzard doesn't want to lose subs and money, so they capitulate.
WoW may change from the trinity concept, and that will make a lot of people happy. Others, like me, will move on to other games to continue playing that style. I already play several different games to fulfill different needs, i.e. I'm not going to play Madden when I want to roleplay or grind up some gear. As it stands, I'm not very happy with the proposed changes to tanking coming in 4.3, so in all likelihood I'm going to take a break for a while or perhaps even quit WoW altogether. And that's perfectly fine.
Matthew Rossi Aug 25th 2011 6:32PM
See, I played D&D all the way back to the Basic Set, and there were no tanks. Fighters didn't try and get aggro. There was no concept of same. Were fighters more heavily armored? Yes, but they weren't out there trying to make mobs hit them, they were simply out there to try and hit mobs. Armor did for fighters what the ability to dodge/evade did for thieves and which magic and hiding did for magic users.
So I'd argue yes, tanking is unique to MMO's. The idea of arguing that having high armor and health means you do less damage but generate threat is unique to MMO's, at least until 4th Edition D&D.
PeeWee Aug 25th 2011 6:42PM
"Tanking" in PnP RPG's didn't even emerge until after WOW was released.
To my knowledge, it's not even a common trait in PnP RPG's, there is nothing in an encounter preventing the GM from having all the NPC's "Kill the one in the dress". I believe one version or other of AD&D has some form of "taunts".
Sure, there's always been plate-wearers and shield-users, but they had no abilities whatsoever to force an NPC to attack them instead of the flimsy caster.
Mr. Crow Aug 25th 2011 7:23PM
D&D 4th Edition was the first edition to ever include mechanics that forced a monster to attack a particular target. This concept never existed previously in D&D, and was introduced after WoW was released because it was a method to attract WoW players back to PnP gaming.
The reason taunt mechanics were unnecessary was because if your GM was enough of a douchebag to coordinate the monsters to focus fire the clothies instead of the big angry barbarian with the battle-axe, that GM quickly found himself without players.
vocenoctum Aug 25th 2011 8:19PM
I'd say the idea of the "meat shield" was always in D&D, but that it was a part of the game that the guy with lots of health/armor would stand between you and the bad guy so you could sling spells or heal folks.
4e introduced the MMO mechanics to D&D, but the "idea" of a fighter being the guy that takes the hits and gets the heals was always around, it's just that players/ DM's could handle the "realism" in a way aside from having to invent "threat'.
Kaphik Aug 25th 2011 9:07PM
Ok, you're right about MMOs bringing in the idea of threat, but the idea of tanking goes way back.