World of Warcraft - English (NA) Forums -> Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all?

Josin

< Maniacal >

Steamwheedle Cartel

20. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 11:04:46 AM PDT

There's a lot of issues being debated here, and I think a lot of them may be leading the OP astray. Here's the long and short of it:

Q u o t e:
Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all?

Nope.

Q u o t e:
We made no attempt to balance the tank classes, so beating us up for not accomplishing what we weren't trying to do seems odd to me.

-Ghostcrawler, on Classic WoW Tanking Balance

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

21. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:03:35 PM PDT

I am going to attempt to explain the disconnect the community and the developers have over effective health.

When I first learned to tank, long before I came to Blizzard, I learned that effective health is a measurement of your stamina in relationship to your armor. This is a pretty easy number to generate. It's reasonable to include say shield block and other simple forms of mitigation into the calculation.

However, you cannot directly translate effective health into best tank. Avoidance matters. If it didn't, we would have no reason to nerf it in Icecrown. Good tanks don't depend too much on avoidance, but great tanks understand its value.

Furthermore, your estimations of effective health become less and less accurate the more variables you try to factor in. Most saliently, you can't easily account for cooldowns. You can't compare a short duration that reduces damage by 80% to a long duration that reduces damage by 10%. Mathematically they might generate the same effective health number, but in reality they work pretty differently and each has their own benefits in certain situations, which vary depending on boss mechanics. (I'd generally take the first one though.)

We purposely made the cooldowns difficult to compare from class to class. You shouldn't then be surprised when we take your effective health calculations based on direct comparisons of said cooldowns with a grain of salt.

It's fine to compare health, armor, avoidance or cooldowns. I would not recommend putting too much faith in one ubernumber that you generate by combining all of them.

Ghostcrawler
Lead Systems Designer

Josin

< Maniacal >

Steamwheedle Cartel

22. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:05:22 PM PDT

Plus, if you take away 20% avoidance up front....

Q u o t e:
We made no attempt to balance the tank classes, so beating us up for not accomplishing what we weren't trying to do seems odd to me.

-Ghostcrawler, on Classic WoW Tanking Balance

Kalisti

< BIoodIine >

Frostmane

23. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:07:06 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

Furthermore, your estimations of effective health become less and less accurate the more variables you try to factor in. Most saliently, you can't easily account for cooldowns. You can't compare a short duration that reduces damage by 80% to a long duration that reduces damage by 10%. Mathematically they might generate the same effective health number, but in reality they work pretty differently and each has their own benefits in certain situations, which vary depending on boss mechanics. (I'd generally take the first one though.)

It's quite easy to factor cooldowns into EH once you realize that EH isn't static, but varies over time.

Migol

< Artifice >

Shadowsong

24. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:08:52 PM PDT

Why can't you compare cooldowns though? Shield Wall=shared by DKs+Paladins almost exactly, Druids have one that's at 1/2 effectiveness for 1/2 cooldown. Last Stand is shared almost exactly by most DK tanks (most DK tanks are blood and have vampiric blood), and Druids (survival instincts). Only the "third" cooldowns really vary much, and they're usually the least potent.

edit: You didn't really answer the question now that I read it again either...but the implication is "No, no EH changes are currently being discussed". Would you be able to move fast enough to change the situation if it became an issue though? We'd hate to see a "well, sorry Warriors and DKs, that you're not able to tank this encounter, but we'll make sure it's fixed by cataclysm".

Again, there's a lot of very easy math, which can include cooldowns, that Druids+Paladins have a sizeable advantage over the other two classes, which will scale even higher with new gear. Unless you know that IC encounters won't focus on tank EH (which would be a big departure from previous dungeons), it seems like it's a big issue.

[ Post edited by Migol ]

Surfiehbk

< After Life >

Whisperwind

25. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:09:53 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
I am going to attempt to explain the disconnect the community and the developers have over effective health.

When I first learned to tank, long before I came to Blizzard, I learned that effective health is a measurement of your stamina in relationship to your armor. This is a pretty easy number to generate. It's reasonable to include say shield block and other simple forms of mitigation into the calculation.

However, you cannot directly translate effective health into best tank. Avoidance matters. If it didn't, we would have no reason to nerf it in Icecrown. Good tanks don't depend too much on avoidance, but great tanks understand its value.

Furthermore, your estimations of effective health become less and less accurate the more variables you try to factor in. Most saliently, you can't easily account for cooldowns. You can't compare a short duration that reduces damage by 80% to a long duration that reduces damage by 10%. Mathematically they might generate the same effective health number, but in reality they work pretty differently and each has their own benefits in certain situations, which vary depending on boss mechanics. (I'd generally take the first one though.)

We purposely made the cooldowns difficult to compare from class to class. You shouldn't then be surprised when we take your effective health calculations based on direct comparisons of said cooldowns with a grain of salt.

It's fine to compare health, armor, avoidance or cooldowns. I would not recommend putting too much faith in one ubernumber that you generate by combining all of them.

Paladins have 15% more EH than Warriors if you include their 2% extra defensive stance, more HP scaling, and AD. To counterbalance this, Paladins have 3% more avoidance and a 50% Shield Wall compared to a Warriors 40% shield Wall, which requires glyphs and two talent points that are hard to fit into most Prot builds.

So GC, I don't see how it is hard to compare EH in this scenario since the other variables you listed also favor the Paladin.

Kerberus

Whisperwind

26. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:11:44 PM PDT

Tank EH IS being looked at in 3.3.

Its called 20% lower dodge on all tanks.

This allows Blizzard to introduce more incoming damage to tanks in more steady streams, therefore making EH less of a crutch since tanks will be taking less burst damage now that Blizzard can balance around lower avoidance.

Is it going to solve all EH discrepancies? No.
Is it going to improve things? Yes.

[ Post edited by Kerberus ]

Guldalman

< Scripted Encounter >

Mal'Ganis

27. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:13:04 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
...Most saliently...

Why do I keep thinking this is just a terribad pun, marine biologist and all....

Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.

-Winston Churchill

Breenn

< One Hell of a Posse >

Zangarmarsh

28. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:18:09 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

Why do I keep thinking this is just a terribad pun, marine biologist and all....

I won't be able to see it any other way now.

Migol

< Artifice >

Shadowsong

29. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:19:56 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
Tank EH IS being looked at in 3.3.

Its called 20% lower dodge on all tanks.

This allows Blizzard to introduce more incoming damage to tanks in more steady streams, therefore making EH less of a crutch since tanks will be taking less burst damage now that Blizzard can balance around lower avoidance.

Is it going to solve all EH discrepancies? No.
Is it going to improve things? Yes.

20% lower dodge doesn't do a thing to change the need for EH. The only way it would is if all the bosses hit for low amounts on the hard modes, and that won't happen; they've even said that they're going to still have fights that test tank gear and healers.

Kerberus

Whisperwind

30. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:34:39 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
20% lower dodge doesn't do a thing to change the need for EH.

Actually it does. Its a small thing, but it does a thing.

If you expect Blizzard to make bosses hit as hard in ICC hardmodes as in Ulduar Hardmodes (factoring in the EH difference between when Ulduar was endgame content and now when ICC is going to be) with 20% less avoidance on tanks, then the short answer is: No, you're wrong. They won't.

Don't get me wrong, i don't mind warriors receiving a small EH buff, but saying it doesn't do a thing clearly is equivalent to saying "Come on, buff me, my class sucks". We both know that isn't true.

[ Post edited by Kerberus ]

Migol

< Artifice >

Shadowsong

31. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:37:50 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

Actually it does. Its a small thing, but it does a thing.

If you expect Blizzard to make bosses hit as hard in ICC hardmodes as in Ulduar Hardmodes (factoring in the EH difference between when Ulduar was endgame content and now when ICC is going to be) with 20% less avoidance on tanks, then the short answer is: No, you're wrong. They won't.

Why? What do you base this on? This is the last tier of raiding for the expansion, are you saying that you don't expect tank health to be challenged? Sure, they may drop the incoming damage a little relative to stats for the dodge decrease, but that doesn't change the fact that tanks will still be challenged and that a big EH discrepancy won't still exist.

They did exactly the same thing with sunwell radiance. That was the same raid that included Brutallus.

Kerberus

Whisperwind

32. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:43:53 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
Why? What do you base this on? This is the last tier of raiding for the expansion, are you saying that you don't expect tank health to be challenged? Sure, they may drop the incoming damage a little relative to stats for the dodge decrease, but that doesn't change the fact that tanks will still be challenged and that a big EH discrepancy won't still exist.

And thats why i said that this didn't solve EH discrepancies, but it sure as hell do lessen them.

Q u o t e:
They did exactly the same thing with sunwell radiance. That was the same raid that included Brutallus.

Exception is that back then avoidance didn't have DR's. Druids, for example, could still hit 70% avoidance back then INCLUDING Sunwell Radiance if they gemmed agility.... which they did, btw. Many druids adopted agility gemming for Sunwell in the top raiding guilds back then.

Even if Sunwell Radiance was 25% compared to ICC version being 20%, its going to matter more since tanks can't compensate in the same way.

Aixelsyd

< Reckless Ascension >

Garithos

33. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:47:48 PM PDT

Q u o t e:

They did exactly the same thing with sunwell radiance. That was the same raid that included Brutallus.

That was also a raid where Warriors were the only main tanks by design, and Paladins and Druids were AoE and OT's by design. So ... the design has shifted, and it's hard to really say that because Sunwell Radiance existed that it will be the same thing now with Icecrown Radiance.

Rowanna

Shandris

34. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:47:55 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
Good tanks don't depend too much on avoidance, but great tanks understand its value.

Great tanks understand that maximising EH is all that matters at the moment. You've designed encounters with major boss cooldowns that are undodgeable (Impale, Frozen Slash, etc.). Avoidance literally means nothing for these key moments. Saying that great tanks value avoidance is not only hyperbole, it's untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm8oHYRS6hA

Still the best of all time.

Kalibur

< Awakened >

Andorhal

35. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:51:14 PM PDT

GC, could you please respond on how this new change to ICC, the 20% less dodge, is going to effect a Death Knight's threat in a raid environment.

This is a pretty big concern right now because a ton of our threat comes from Rune Strike. Will there be any changes to Frost Presence to compensate for this change concerning threat, because if this goes live it will be a huge threat nerf to us.

My better smells like french toast.

Nasgrim

< Divine Twilight >

Llane

36. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:51:25 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
I am going to attempt to explain the disconnect the community and the developers have over effective health.

When I first learned to tank, long before I came to Blizzard, I learned that effective health is a measurement of your stamina in relationship to your armor. This is a pretty easy number to generate. It's reasonable to include say shield block and other simple forms of mitigation into the calculation.

However, you cannot directly translate effective health into best tank. Avoidance matters. If it didn't, we would have no reason to nerf it in Icecrown. Good tanks don't depend too much on avoidance, but great tanks understand its value.

Furthermore, your estimations of effective health become less and less accurate the more variables you try to factor in. Most saliently, you can't easily account for cooldowns. You can't compare a short duration that reduces damage by 80% to a long duration that reduces damage by 10%. Mathematically they might generate the same effective health number, but in reality they work pretty differently and each has their own benefits in certain situations, which vary depending on boss mechanics. (I'd generally take the first one though.)

We purposely made the cooldowns difficult to compare from class to class. You shouldn't then be surprised when we take your effective health calculations based on direct comparisons of said cooldowns with a grain of salt.

It's fine to compare health, armor, avoidance or cooldowns. I would not recommend putting too much faith in one ubernumber that you generate by combining all of them.

Sooooo, how do you explain paladin cool downs being superior and them having the most EH?

Also, are you guys going to do something about rune costs on DK cool downs? Or heck, can you at least make IBF free?

Ghostcrawler

Blizzard Poster

38. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:54:29 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
Great tanks understand that maximising EH is all that matters at the moment. You've designed encounters with major boss cooldowns that are undodgeable (Impale, Frozen Slash, etc.). Avoidance literally means nothing for these key moments. Saying that great tanks value avoidance is not only hyperbole, it's untrue.

If that were true, then the Icecrown aura would be a Mortal Strike debuff instead of an avoidance nerf.

Ghostcrawler
Lead Systems Designer

Tarmaniel

< Epic Weapons Vendor >

Khadgar

39. Re: Tank EH being looked at in 3.3 at all? 10/29/2009 12:54:52 PM PDT

Q u o t e:
Sooooo, how do you explain paladin cool downs being superior and them having the most EH?

Also, are you guys going to do something about rune costs on DK cool downs? Or heck, can you at least make IBF free?

I mean, I could understand his argument if Warriors didn't exist in their current state. DKs have less EH than Paladins, but more avoidance and better cooldowns. Druids have more EH than Paladins, but again Paladins have more avoidance and far better cooldowns. Warriors are just flat out worse then Paladins (and probably DKs) in every conceivable way. At least you can claim they have better cooldowns than Druids, but that's a real stretch.

Forum > CLASS ROLES > TANKING