Tank homogenization

[Subrias]

I have literally given up on the game after this comment. I have never heard anything more fucking stupid in my life.

I'm not sure what you are seeing as stupid, let alone that stupid.. I can think of a lot of things I've heard that are more stupid... like taunting a lion. Lol

[Subrias]

Paladins couldn't even taunt for a long while. Bosses like Illidan were nearly functionally impossible for any Tank but a Warrior because of Shear and how Crushing Blows worked at the time.

Paladin taunt came in bc. Also.. paladins had 99.9% uptime on 102.4% avoidance.. they didn't even have to pay attention to shear because it would have had to line up perfectly with their holy shield CD in order to have not blocked it. One of librams made your shield block chance super high and unlike warrior it lasted a number of blocks that illidan couldn't make go away on his own.

[Bright-Flower]

Paladin taunt came in bc. Also.. paladins had 99.9% uptime on 102.4% avoidance.. they didn't even have to pay attention to shear because it would have had to line up perfectly with their holy shield CD in order to have not blocked it. One of librams made your shield block chance super high and unlike warrior it lasted a number of blocks that illidan couldn't make go away on his own.

This is anecdotal and has no bearing on any of the raids beyond Kharazhan, but in bc I played a prot paladin. Mostly for RP but when I was asked to off tank I started doing Kara. On the last boss, there was a point where the boss would attack quickly and could get crushing blows (I think that's what it was called?) on our warrior main tank so they had me start tanking him with holy shield.

It was fun but we never really managed to break out of Kara and make much progress in ZA other than killing the bear boss.

[Subrias]

This is anecdotal and has no bearing on any of the raids beyond Kharazhan, but in bc I played a prot paladin. Mostly for RP but when I was asked to off tank I started doing Kara. On the last boss, there was a point where the boss would attack quickly and could get crushing blows (I think that's what it was called?) on our warrior main tank so they had me start tanking him with holy shield.

It was fun but we never really managed to break out of Kara and make much progress in ZA other than killing the bear boss.

He specifically said illidan, I told him he was wrong and that it was actually easier for a paladin to tank illidan. I main tanked everything in bc as a prot paladin except for kael thas in tk, archimonde in hyjal, and alar because well.. bubbletanking all the adds was just lol..

[Gariored]

Being unique for the sake of being unique doesn't lead to 'glory moments', it just leads to getting replaced by the class that has the tool you lack for the fight.

exactly.
but.... unless the class are EXACTLY the same people are still going to find reasons to exclude tank X over tank Y in PF

[NyneSwordz]

Moreso than with the previous expansions, there seems to be an earnest effort by SE to balance the tanks, which they have chosen to accomplish by homogenizing the crap out of them.

As of now, every tank has
- the same 20% damage reduction, taunt, shirk, etc
- a 10s, 30% damage reduction on a 120s CD
- an ultimate "I can't die" button
- a gap closer
- a 2-stage AoE combo
- a functionally identical pulling tool
- some flavor of AoE party support
- some flavor of single-target party support
- a Fel Cleave expy
- and probably more I'm not thinking of off the top of my head

This is completely unnecessary IMO, because disparity is what gives a job its flavor. Differences in toolkits create niches that an individual job can excel at, and using your tools correctly to excel in those niches is what connects you to your job so much more.

Looking over to WoW and my main, the Brewmaster Monk, just off the top of my head i can rattle off 6 things my class can do that my co-tank, a Protection Paladin, cannot. And I can think of another 6 things that his class can do that mine cannot.
Is it balanced? Not exactly, but people need to accept the fact that pitch perfect balance only impacts the top 0.1% of the player base - i.e. those in the world first race. So long as every job is capable of clearing the content without holding the group back (like say, HW PLD being a pain to work with for multiple reasons), there should not be a problem.

It's perfectly valid to design a job that has glaring weaknesses as long as its strength are both equally apparent and equally impactful.

I wish all 4 gap closers were exactly the same. They already made 3/4 the same. Might as well make Wars the same as everyone else. Or just make it a role action already at this point.

[Big-Isaac]

I wish all 4 gap closers were exactly the same. They already made 3/4 the same. Might as well make Wars the same as everyone else. Or just make it a role action already at this point.

Ugh... this is the mindset I want to see change
Why exactly does every tank need a gap closer, and WHY in the name of all that is holy does every tank need the SAME gap closer?
This is another area where the individual fantasies of the jobs could be portrayed, but instead we get 3 identical skills and 1 that's also identical but has a cost for no reason.

Just off the top of my head, what if instead of those 4 identical buttons, the tanks had something like this
PLD: Shield Charge: Running up to the target and smacking them with the shield. Makes perfect sense for the job, so this is the one I wouldn't change at all
WAR: Chain Yank: Conjures up the chain from Holmgang, but instead uses it to pull the target towards you. If used on a non-movable target, you are pulled to the target instead
DRK: Targeted Plunge: Same animation, but when you press the button, you get a targeting circle that lets you place your plunge wherever you choose. Upon landing at your desired location, you deal a burst of AoE damage
GNB: Black Hole Shoot: Fires a black orb at the spot halfway between you and the target. The orb then implodes, pulling you and all enemies within 10 yards of the target towards it. As with Chain Yank, if used on a non-movable target, you shoot the orb directly at the target, pulling you directly to it.

Would this be perfectly balanced? No. But as I've said several times now, it doesn't have to be. You could just as well get away with half of the tanks not having a gap closer at all, instead relying on better movement speed skills to get around.

[Cheremia]

Dark Knight is more of a magic tank with their AOE now being a magic defense up.

Paladin has a different gauge that let's them do different things than warriors.
Warriors is different than Dark knight.
Dark Knight is different from gunbreaker.

Yes, they have tools to mitigate damage, wow, so bad.
But Paladin has a heal, warrior has fell cleave, Gunbreaker gets a regen and Dark knight has... TBN i guess?

Their "Invulns" are completely different too. They all do the "same" thing but Dark knights is absolute garbage and Warrior can't even move.

And why ARE GAP CLOSERS A BAD THING??
They are absolutely not! YOu don't want to be that tank that has to make the add move to you because you slowly have to run up to them again after a pushback, they forcefully move somewhere etc. And Paladin was said tank, it's... really lame to run after Bosses just because you can't get close again fast.

I don't think Tanks have the worst thing going on with that.

[NyneSwordz]

Ugh... this is the mindset I want to see change
Why exactly does every tank need a gap closer, and WHY in the name of all that is holy does every tank need the SAME gap closer?
This is another area where the individual fantasies of the jobs could be portrayed, but instead we get 3 identical skills and 1 that's also identical but has a cost for no reason.

Just off the top of my head, what if instead of those 4 identical buttons, the tanks had something like this
PLD: Shield Charge: Running up to the target and smacking them with the shield. Makes perfect sense for the job, so this is the one I wouldn't change at all
WAR: Chain Yank: Conjures up the chain from Holmgang, but instead uses it to pull the target towards you. If used on a non-movable target, you are pulled to the target instead
DRK: Targeted Plunge: Same animation, but when you press the button, you get a targeting circle that lets you place your plunge wherever you choose. Upon landing at your desired location, you deal a burst of AoE damage
GNB: Black Hole Shoot: Fires a black orb at the spot halfway between you and the target. The orb then implodes, pulling you and all enemies within 10 yards of the target towards it. As with Chain Yank, if used on a non-movable target, you shoot the orb directly at the target, pulling you directly to it.

Would this be perfectly balanced? No. But as I've said several times now, it doesn't have to be. You could just as well get away with half of the tanks not having a gap closer at all, instead relying on better movement speed skills to get around.

Dude, I think your suggestion is fine.

BUT... seeing as how they made 3/4 gap closers identical, I'd rather they just make Wars the same too.

I'd like to get what you're talking about, but if I can't, I'd rather they just make all 4 the same.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that mindset...

I mean, we could keep demanding unique gap closers... I don't think that's gonna happen though... so the next best thing is just to make them the same. Maybe homegenzing the gap closers will open up slots for more unique actions for each of the tanks.

[Shurrikhan]

... seeing as how they made 3/4 gap closers identical, I'd rather they just make Wars the same too.

I mean, we could keep demanding unique gap closers... I don't think that's gonna happen though... so the next best thing is just to make them the same.

Why not, though? I mean, that's literally been the point of this thread, no?

Why shouldn't DRK's be about damage and APM, Paladin's be about protection, Gunbreaker's synergize with its ammo system, and Warrior's work integrally with its gauge.

Maybe homogenizing the gap closers will open up slots for more unique actions for each of the tanks.

It's a kindly hypothesis but hardly historical precedented. Sacrificing one thing on the hope of getting compensation elsewhere, against a current trend, rarely occurs over the expansions of an MMO.

Instead, the precedent merely solidifies, while the developers are free to spin our actions or opinions any ways they like: "Few if any players voiced concerns about homogeneity in regards to gap-closers thus we decided to further tie jobs in each role more closely together for ease of learning and so we'd need spend even less attention considered the practical balance of jobs across any given fight."