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 6 of 17)
nymrohd Aug 25th 2011 9:41PM
Actually the marks used in 4E do not compel the NPC to attack your defender, they merely make it a strategically sounder choice. Taunts did exist in 3.5 in the form of the knight class in PHBII which had challenges that worked very much like wow taunts.
Cynwise Aug 25th 2011 9:50PM
I'm surely not the only one to remember the standard D&D marching order: melee in front AND back, casters in the middle, scouts on the flanks and ahead.
We did this not because the melee were tanks, but because they were physical obstacles to take the initial rush of whatever we encountered. They took up physical space with a lot of armor. Fighters, Barbarians, Cavaliers, Paladins - they were meat shields for the casters and archers.
The lack of collision detection in MMOs negates the value of this simple, yet logical arrangement. You can't put your head down, shield up, and barrel through a group of mobs to push them back, away from the clothies in WoW. Threat was an interesting innovation to compensate for the lack of solidity in the game, but it doesn't make much sense in an RPG where you can, oh, enforce the laws of physics.
It actually makes me sad that the concept of tanking has been added to D&D 4E. I like my monsters smarter than that. :-(
Telwar Aug 25th 2011 10:50PM
Vocenoctum is correct. While there was no incentive for the monsters to attack the fighter or paladin, they were generally expected to interpose themselves between the monsters and the squishies. This worked pretty well in dungeons, where there was very little mobility (the "conga line of doom" of monsters attacking plate-wearers in a doorway while the mage fireballs everything) is an example), but doesn't really work well outside without significant terrain obstacles. And flying, teleporting, or incorporeal monsters can ignore even those. Pretty much, you had to rely on the DM having the monsters act suboptimally by engaging the fighter or barbarian instead of ripping the mage in half and *then* wheeling onto the fighter.
4e has the Defender role, classes of which encourage monsters to attack them, primarily because their marks penalize the marked monster attacking anyone other than the marking defender. I'm of mixed feelings about this; it does lessen the value of that social contract, but I have had enough RBDMs that ignored that that I don't mind a rules mechanic that helps. And it's not like the monster has to attack the fighter; it can choose to turn and savage the rogue or cleric and just accept the penalty to hit.
Tom Aug 25th 2011 6:18PM
Two thoughts:
First, tanks are rare only because of the community, in my opinion. It's the asshats' fault, not the role's.
Second, I wonder if cutting healers would would be a more robust design. I don't think either would be cut in a game that already has them, but I'd love to see a game where everyone's responsible for their own healing and avoiding/mitigating damage, where the tanks are simply the guys who sacrifice DPS for more mitigation and healing ability. Hell, if I could get that wish then I'd also love to see threat done away with and collision turned on! :P
Tom Aug 25th 2011 6:28PM
Oooh, ooh, third thought!
I love MOBA "tanking" so very much. I want my Paladin, DK, and Warrior to be more like Taric, Shen, and Jarvan. Rather than having straight-up tanks, having "tanky DPS" and fight initiators could be the way to go.
kook Aug 25th 2011 7:14PM
I think the idea of removing dedicated healers is very interesting and bears serious consideration.
As an added bonus, being responsible for your own health would remove the problem of DPS chart-toppers who like to stand in fire - the measure of a good player would move more towards the way it is for tanks and healers currently: if you don't die and the boss does, you're doing it right! If you die, you're not :P
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the upcoming GuildWars 2 has done more or less exactly that; every class will have some healing skills and the ability to res others.
I'm really keen to see how it pans out.
Pocky Aug 25th 2011 9:50PM
Drop healers. That would make me a sad panda. My healer is my favorite toon, even though I basically quit healing in Cata after hitting a few Heroics. I'd love to go back to healing, but it's simply not fun to me any more. I've thought of trying to tank, but I still can't get myself to go in. So, I just dps, which has become very very boring. I'm pretty much down to logging in to do some dailies (mindlessly now), and missing the days when I was healing ICC and loving it, even though it was challenging.
Sigh... I miss WoW being fun.
DarkWalker Aug 25th 2011 10:42PM
"""Second, I wonder if cutting healers would would be a more robust design. I don't think either would be cut in a game that already has them, but I'd love to see a game where everyone's responsible for their own healing and avoiding/mitigating damage, where the tanks are simply the guys who sacrifice DPS for more mitigation and healing ability. Hell, if I could get that wish then I'd also love to see threat done away with and collision turned on! :P"""
Are you describing GW2?
- No healing role. Each player has a self heal and is responsible for avoiding damage and healing himself.
- AFAIK, it won't have the traditional threat.
- Not sure if collision is turned on, but players can actually use their party members to break the opponent's line of sight.
I'm sure curious to see how this will work out.
Gazpacho Aug 25th 2011 11:16PM
Cutting out heals and tanks is exactly what intrigues me about GW2. Read up on their site why they took out heals. They polled healers to see what people liked and hated about the role. They found that supporting others through spells and abilities was fun, whackamole with life bars was not. So, every class can heal and support. You can shield an ally, boost their damage and toss out a heal. Example: elementalist throws up a flame wall to block mobs, and the ranger shoots through the wall, lighting her arrows on fire to boost damage.
Tom Aug 25th 2011 11:24PM
...
Wow. I'm really, really excited about Guild Wars 2, now.
Heather Aug 26th 2011 3:47AM
If WoW ever cuts healers out, that will be the last day that I play the game.
I've always been a healer, from day 1. I started as a Priest (I currently have not one, not two, but THREE), and I also play a H Pally, Resto Shaman (my current main), and Resto Druid.
GW2 has completely lost my interest precisely BECAUSE it doesn't have dedicated healers.
incoming00 Aug 25th 2011 6:18PM
the problem i see is that there is always going to be a need for tanks.
a game i played before WoW was Last Chaos. it was a grindfest and was very soloable, even the dungeons. up until the 4th map(which i forgot the name to) it was so difficult that anyone wanting to go would need to be in a group. everything and anything can one shot you easily. thats when i noticed and first came across the role of a tank. one man to absorb the damage with a healer keeping him up while everyone downs the mob.
in WoW, there will always be a mob that will do insane damage, and there will always need to be someone with the right about of armor and gear to absorb it. its been going on for ages in these types of games. and to eliminate it from a game based on it would be difficult. to bring a game up that may or may not need the tank roll, i can see Star Wars The Old Republic not using tanks since its more sci-fi driven with light sabers and blasters(i havent followed that game or franchise so i could be wrong). WoW has been created from the ground up with the tank/heal/dps model for instance/raid content. quests are more easily soloable, even ones that feel like they needed a party, and even party quests are easy without a tank.
this is definitely a great topic to discuss and i would love to read other users feedback, but i feel the game would be 'too different' without a significant role, even though that roll has less users.
mastaflask Aug 25th 2011 6:22PM
Not one of these points is valid. Tanking has been around since 40 man raiding were u only need 4 tanks at most, this is just another QQ from someone who is complaining to make the game even more easy then it is now, and can't stand pressing 1 button and waiting a bit as oppose to having to go in trade and look for a group like you use to.
I hate RDF for so many reasons including this, This game has become less of an MMO with the RDF and now with random raid finder coming in 4.3, blizzard has made it so you can play the game with out ever having to leave sw or be in a guild at all.
Plainswander Aug 25th 2011 6:28PM
You should probably look up the word "brainstorming", and compare/contrast it's meaning versus words like "complaining"... just sayin.
B1ue Aug 25th 2011 7:44PM
@mastaflask
You might also want to become more familiar with your object of scorn. Mr. Rossi plays warrior rather frequently, and only waits in queue when he chooses to wait.
Jamus Aug 25th 2011 6:24PM
I'd advocate that we modify one of the Hunter specs and one of the Warlock specs (most likely Demonology) so that they become "pet tank" specs, with reduced survivability but higher dps and threat mechanics based on the character and not the pet's damage. This would add two more classes that can become tanks, and gives the role specs a more balanced 6 tank/5 healers/20 dps distribution.
DonNochay Aug 25th 2011 6:40PM
I fully endorse this. Fully. This was my precise thought when I saw the title "Is it time to kill tanking?". It would not only inject new life into 2 pure dps classes, it would open up an awful lot of options for the devs when it comes to designing spells and encounters.
I'm coming back from a 3-4 week break from the game next week, and my main is a paladin whom I've been compiling a tanking set for, but have been unwilling to relearn pally tanking (haven't tanked since early-mid ICC) due to the atrocious groups I get matched with in the LFD finder. The threat change is a very welcome change for myself, but I can understand people having issues with it.
Noyou Aug 25th 2011 7:04PM
See, if you want to rely on a pet to tank that's basically saying make it so easy an NPC can do it. Then just have an NPC in your party to be the tank. He will never make mistakes and you can have 4 DPS and one heal or 3 DPS and 2 heals. Hell, that might work.
DonNochay Aug 25th 2011 10:08PM
It's easy to determine the IQ level of WoW players based solely on comments like this. Do you think anyone interested in Hunter/Warlock tanking would want it to be a pet that simply acts as a meatshield that has a dps toon attached to it? No. The tanking spec for each class would have to include spells and abilities that utilized the player character almost as a support class, assisting the pet while it's tanking. Bigger, pet only heals would also be great. I know that someone has already made mention of the fact that this could lead to pvp balancing issues, but do you really believe that the WoW developers, of all people, couldn't overcome this? I don't understand why this is over so many folk's heads.
MattKrotzer Aug 25th 2011 10:36PM
Probably because in the past, they've shown an inability to balance for PvP, or even in PvE between tanking classes.