---

Q u o t e:

Having "enough" DPS to be successful is about as ambiguous a statement as having "enough" EH at this point. Is 1k more DPS always better or can its effects have little to no real benefit if you're already at a certain point?

---

Past the "enrage lose" point, every point of DPS is more important than the one before it. every second you shorten the fight by increases sucess rate more than the one before it did.

Warriors need a health buff, i do agree with that. Out of all the tanking classes warriors have the least:
DK's get 8%, druids get 25%, paladins get they're 12%. and warriors get 6%, how is that fair? i say give them atleast 8%, or even better. 10%.

To the guy who said druids, and DK's need a buff? Theyre still nerfing DK's down. and druid are a copy of warriors.

warriors need a buff
paladins need a nerf
DK's are fine as is
druids are fine as is.

but i do believe blizzard said in another forum, that the scale went:
1) warriors
2) DK's
3) druids
4) paladins

Here are my points, don't bother disagreeing with them, i never check the forums anyways =P

---

Q u o t e:


Past the "enrage lose" point, every point of DPS is more important than the one before it. every second you shorten the fight by increases sucess rate more than the one before it did.

---

I disagree on the same premise that having more and more EH doesn't help you more and more, just as with any stat. You can decrease your time on the boss but decreasing boss time does not necessarily mean you decrease your chances of failure or increase your chances of success depending on the mechanics of the fight. If a boss is literally a Patchwerk style boss where NOTHING different ever happens, well then I think I'd be more inclined to agree but so many fights now have semi CD events that can be the major source of wiping or failure that a simple single point increase in DPS will have a nil effect.

---

Q u o t e:

I disagree on the same premise that having more and more EH doesn't help you more and more, just as with any stat. You can decrease your time on the boss but decreasing boss time does not necessarily mean you decrease your chances of failure or increase your chances of success depending on the mechanics of the fight. If a boss is literally a Patchwerk style boss where NOTHING different ever happens, well then I think I'd be more inclined to agree but so many fights now have semi CD events that can be the major source of wiping or failure that a simple single point increase in DPS will have a nil effect.

---

yes there are better ways to increase succes after the dps enrage point other than DPS. but that doesn't make my last statement false.

OK, there seems to be a lot of griping about how OP pallies are compared to warriors. Instead of getting consecration envy and whining about how warriors, lack this or that, or need to spend more talents to get the same effect take a step back and look at how each tank class works. Things aren't as simple as one class having an equivalent ability to another class. It is all fine and well to try and equate certain talents to see a reflection of your class in another that is playing the same role but don't expect them to be identical. If that were the case why have different classes.
A better Pally vs. Warr comparison would be to calculate the amount of mitigation difference between pally and warr including all factors such as warrior debuffs (T.Clap, Demo Shout) as well as contributive effect like sunder. VS the raw mitigation of a pally just being able to stand there and take more straight hits through internal CDs and talent procs.
Elaboration
By a warrior reducing the attack speed and attack power it works in essence as a reverse form of effective health, instead of being able to take more damage you instead reduce the amount of incoming damage that needs to be absorbed. By this same mechanic you in turn load of your healers. Another often overlooked factor in block VALUE, not just rating. Through the critical block talent a warrior's shield is far more effective a tool than the extra block rating that a pally will recieve through Holy Shield.

I in no way mean to discount the ability of a pally tank, I am just attempting to illustrate that each tanking class has it's own strengths and weaknesses. They are each unique tanking styles that need to be worked with instead of just seeing an ability that another tank might have and complaining that you don't have it. If you are a warr and want a consecration....roll a pally, don't whine and expect that blizzard will change the way that they have set out to differentiate the tanking classes because you want an "EZ Mode".

---

Q u o t e:
By a warrior reducing the attack speed and attack power it works in essence as a reverse form of effective health, instead of being able to take more damage you instead reduce the amount of incoming damage that needs to be absorbed.

---

Welcome to 3.2.

Pallys have an AP debuff and an attack speed reducer.

enjoy your stay.

Is this thread about Tanking, if so how did we get into DPS? Is it not more relevant to ask, in regards to swapping, wouldn't it be better to swap out a Tank that can absorb 1k more damage rather then can dole out 1k more damage? I must have missed something somewhere but in my schooling Tanking was about taking all the damage the Gods could inflict with a wry smile in reply.

---

Q u o t e:


Usually I can attribute those sorts of wipes to that retard Mage that stood in fire 20 seconds into the fight. I can't think of a single time where the Tank DPS was the make/break thing, even in anecdotal sense. Perhaps on Hodir maybe but even then any mistakes there were failures in fight mechanics like not breaking out the Mage or not properly spreading the Shaman buff.

I'm 99.99% certain that every boss fight in the game if done even mostly correctly (not even close to perfect) could be downed without ANY tank DPS. Then again GC could waltz in and say they assume some average DPS for the tanks on boss health and enrage timers and then Warriors would certainly have a leg to stand on with the big spread between all four of us on DPS.

---

My raiding experience is hardly comprehensive, but I can think of three specific instances (since 3.1) where having an extra 500 dps as a Warrior tank would have equaled a kill. :) Maybe I've just been unlucky though.

---

Q u o t e:


Yeah, that is pretty close. We wanted to boost tank dps even when tanking and wanted tanks to care a little more about dps stats. That was more important in earlier tiers than now -- as the dps keep stacking damage and the tanks keep stacking stamina it's understandable if the gap grows wider.

We still want tanks to care more about dps stats as secondary stats, but we're not sure making threat difficult to manage is a good way to do it and we're not sure making the tank dps critical for beating enrage timers is a good way to do it either.

---

I wouldn't want fights to be balanced around tank dps either.. and yet.. being able to do 40-50% the dps of.. well.. the DPSers would be nice. :)

---

Q u o t e:

My raiding experience is hardly comprehensive, but I can think of three specific instances (since 3.1) where having an extra 500 dps as a Warrior tank would have equaled a kill. :) Maybe I've just been unlucky though.

---

Everyone who has raided for any amount of time has had either
1. "near misses" where even only 500 more DPS would have been a kill.
Or.
2. "bearly mades it"s where 500 less would have been a wipe.

wither or not those events are statistically imporant is up for debate.

hell last week i had a H-NRB that was both!

We killed hiim AFTER the enrage stomp. lost an attempt off our counter, looted him, then after talking ot the NPC got NRB again.

---

Q u o t e:


Yeah, that is pretty close. We wanted to boost tank dps even when tanking and wanted tanks to care a little more about dps stats. That was more important in earlier tiers than now -- as the dps keep stacking damage and the tanks keep stacking stamina it's understandable if the gap grows wider.

We still want tanks to care more about dps stats as secondary stats, but we're not sure making threat difficult to manage is a good way to do it and we're not sure making the tank dps critical for beating enrage timers is a good way to do it either.

---

Please address the survivability numbers that have been posted in this thread and many others over the last few weeks. Players are seeing difference as high as 15% and we have yet to hear anything from the developers about these numbers.

---

Q u o t e:

I wouldn't want fights to be balanced around tank dps either.. and yet.. being able to do 40-50% the dps of.. well.. the DPSers would be nice. :)

---

That probably isn't going to happen unless we see some large changes to baseline threat modifiers:

A DPS (generally) deals 0.7 threat per point of damage. This means a Rogue hitting for 8000 DPS is generating 5600 TPS.

A tank (generally) deals 2.07 threat per point of damage. This means that for the tank to match 5600 TPS, he "only" needs 2704 DPS, which is a 66% difference.

If a tank was at half the Rogue's 8000 DPS, he'd be at something like 8285 TPS, or 47% higher than the Rogue's 5600 TPS.

For a tank to deal half as much DPS as a DPS and still match his TPS, a tank would have to deal 1.4 threat per point of damage.

The problem arises when we consider that 1.45 was already the threat modifier in Classic/TBC, and this wasn't always enough, especially given how a tank is going to look for tanking stats, while a DPS will always going to look for more DPS.

---

Q u o t e:


That probably isn't going to happen unless we see some large changes to baseline threat modifiers:

A DPS (generally) deals 0.7 threat per point of damage. This means a Rogue hitting for 8000 DPS is generating 5600 TPS.

A tank (generally) deals 2.07 threat per point of damage. This means that for the tank to match 5600 TPS, he "only" needs 2704 DPS, which is a 66% difference.

If a tank was at half the Rogue's 8000 DPS, he'd be at something like 8285 TPS, or 47% higher than the Rogue's 5600 TPS.

For a tank to deal half as much DPS as a DPS and still match his TPS, a tank would have to deal 1.4 threat per point of damage.

The problem arises when we consider that 1.45 was already the threat modifier in Classic/TBC, and this wasn't always enough, especially given how a tank is going to look for tanking stats, while a DPS will always going to look for more DPS.

---

I dare say that in Cataclysm, depending on how they itemize gear (perhaps throwing both avoidance AND lots of threat stats, etc, onto GOOD gear), that sort of change could happen. The problems with Classic/TBC (more so with TBC thanks to the inflation it saw) was that with the exclusion of the paladin class, no tanks had their threat scale very much. Not only was there like ZERO strength on any good gear (lolstamFTW!!), most of the threat abilities were extremely static. Actually, I'm not 100% sure about bears... forgive me. I just know that with warriors... we had very little if any Block Value (plus the STR-> BV conversion was what... 20str for 1BV?), so our shield slams were always roughly the same amount, and our Devastate did not a whole lot at all. The list goes on.


With how tank threat has the *potential* to scale much better than it has in past expansions, I could see a shift in tanking itemization to allow for tanks doing more threat. People need to realize, however, that that would then mean that it would be even more important for tanks to run optimal "rotations" as their increased DPS would be factored in on boss enrage timers.

Personally, I think that would be a GOOD thing because right now there are very few ways in a simple boss fight to determine what tank is good and what tank is bad. Our longevity is largely taken care of by healers, despite us staying alive through a beating being our key role. Tanks need something to add pressure to us. That is just my opinion though *shrugs*

---

Q u o t e:
You want easy mode...play a Death Knight.

Then you don't have to worry about being mana starved....or rage starved...

No need to go oom.

---

Woooooowwwww... this guy has clearly never played a DK. Your runes and RP are always spent, meaning that you either save them or wait 2-4 seconds before you can react to anything. Warriors get max rage every time they take a hit, I'd assume druids work the same, although I've never played those classes. Pallies have infinite mana that they don't have to worry about. From my experience, DK's certainly have a much more difficult time managing resources than pallies (I have played pally tank quite a bit in the past), and I can't imagine it's any WORSE than a warrior or druid.
You can easily be Runic Power Starved. Yes, we enter combat with all our runes up, but in about 3 GCD's it's pretty easy to suddenly be waiting 6 seconds before you can use another rune ability... plus we have to be concerned about having the RIGHT runes up.
Right now DK's have it hardest in threat, and the only way we can keep up with other tanks for survivability is through very good cooldown management. Blizz gave us more CD's than the other tanks for a reason, I'm not complaining about that, I think it's much more interesting than sitting there punching your same buttons like a pally.
Anyway, don't say DK tanking is easymode. There's a reason that the number of good DK tanks on most servers is drastically lower than the number of warriors and pallies.

Warriors are fine IMO, they def could use some more stam though.

However, I do also think pallies have it a little too easy.

If i were to put tanks on a scale of facerollability, it would go:

Paladin first
Warrior/Death Knight tied second
Bear Tank (Ursidae Cantharus) Currently on the endangered species list.

---

Q u o t e:
Warriors get max rage every time they take a hit

---

I lol'd.


Some fights yes, some fights no. Considering how insane avoidance is though... and the typical slow swinging boss, we get rage starved plenty. It isn't as bad as it used to be though.