Warriors are behind the other two how, exactly? Certainly not in their ability to generate aggro, which is their main job. Warriors already have things they are best at, such as AoE tanking, which is why they are hands-down favorite for handling Sparkles adds. Snap aggro too. AoE force taunt that doesn't require a target. I have seen with my own eyes that a Warrior can hold their own with a Pally in aggro production, and though RL issues have kept me from testing my DK thoroughly since the update, others whom I trust say they are pretty good now--not overpowering but at least competative. I don't have to be the "****-of-the-walk." As long as I can be competative, I'm good with it. Sorry, but all this talk of changing tank classes to accomodate solo play is just wrong. We have just got the three tank classes fairly well balanced, at least balanced as good as they have been in a very long time--maybe ever. The last thing we need is to start monkeying around with them in order to make them better solo. Every class in this game can solo--yes, some better than others--but in a group game, that's just the breaks.
Why would it be so game breaking if warriors could solo decently? Not great, just on par with other average soloing classes. Does anybody care about soloing? I certainly do not (partially due to being lvl 55 on mine), but do create one and solo from lvl 1 to 30. Without massive twinking you will absolutely hate it - so pathetic it is. That's the reason warriors are the least played class right now. There are many ways to do that without affecting high end group/raiding game. Adding an out of combat heal for example and upping timer on "Stunning Bellow" from 8-14 to 30-50 seconds. Perhaps adding a root or snare ability too. And fixing Grim Determination, which right now does nothing. Oh and if they up rogues as well, it wouldn't hurt anyone either. I'd love to see more rogues
I disagree... this should be situational... for example.. Warriors should be better tanks in certain situations, where as Paladins maybe be better in other situations, and yet DK's better in even other situations.. The moment you change all 3 classes to make them identical in terms of taking damage, and aggro generation... you just made cardboard cut outs of them all..
I must both agree and disagree with this. Specifically, agree with your first paragraph and disagree with your second. Yes, it's best when you can choose which tank you want to use to best fit the situation. That adds depth. However, doing this by having different base abilities for the tank classes to absorb damage and generate aggro is a very dangerous way to go. Like if you make the warrior class have the best aggro but not be able to take hits as well, there's no reason to ever use either of the other 2 tanks provided you can keep the warrior alive. The raid can burn harder, kill stuff faster, and as long as you have the healing, you get things done more quickly and efficiently. You could say well okay then, you have to use a paladin (or DK w/e) if the mob hits too hard for the warrior to handle given the healing you have. So the paladin tanks, knowing full well that the only reason he is tanking that encounter is because the raid was forced to use him, instead of wanting to use him. Not good. You can't put the 3 tanks in front of a mob and have one of them not be able to take damage or hold it better than the others. Doing so just generates way too much room for problems. The best way to achieve depth and variation to tanking is through other factors. You could put an additional factor into play for a mob that inhibits direct aggro/tanking capability for one or more of the tanks, but you can't do it as an innate imbalance in the classes. Take the spider, for example. You don't want a warrior tanking the spider, and a warrior doesn't want to either. In this case the reason is not because they can't take the hits or hold the aggro, it's because of an element that is not directly related to their performance as a tank. The key is that given no extra factors, the choice of tank should only be based on gear, skill, or just preference.
so in that case dirkin, warriors should be given fear immunity and a real invuln just so that the choice of tank is, as you say, solely based on gear, player skill or preference.
Not necessarily, warriors not having fear immunity is an external factor that can be specific to some encounters. It has nothing to do with direct tanking ability across the board. As long as the fear mechanic doesn't get abused and only happens in certain fights, I'm cool with that. You are right though in that my post above would highlight our lack of invuln as a problem. Invuln abilities specifically are probably the biggest issue on the defensive side. What I really refer to as core ability to take damage is more just if you were to put the tanks, each with equal gear, in front of a mob and have them do nothing (maybe put self block combat buffs up) but stand there and get hit, you should see no difference between them. One of the tank classes should not naturally mitigate better in a situation such as this. But it's hard to not take invulns into account when talking about ability to take damage. I can point to encounters where invulns don't work but blocks do, which increases the value of Bastion over the invulns of the other classes, but the invulns can still be used as oh sh- life savers in more situations. It's tough. I suppose I'm contradicting myself a bit when I say I don't really mind our lack of invuln that much, provided we have strengths in other areas. It's the truth though. I guess I consider it more of a minor issue, and one that doesn't really affect overall balance all that much. I haven't run into all that many situation where it would have made a big difference. I'm not saying I'm right about it, it's all just my opinion. But hopefully you can see where I'm coming from with the overall point.
He specified that "given no other factors." What that means to me is that on most mobs, all three tanks can do their job equally well, but there will be a few mobs that favor one over the other. Like the reason Pallys are favored as main tank on Shendu, because they have multiple invulns that can be used when he is porting around. Or DKs having a high immunity to Deathbloom used by Varking, who is himself a DK. Or Warriors being preferred on Shendu wyrms or Sparkles adds, where their AoE force taunt without a target really shines. Pallys have advantages against undead. The differences should be based on the flavor of the class and their additional skills, not based on any one class being weaker at holding aggro or mitigation, which is their basic job on every mob. Making any class inferior in one of these areas will disadvantage them against every mob in the game. It seems that, even after an update, and the fact that Warriors can make aggro and take damage just as well as any other tank now, you are still very unhappy with your class. Why is that?
We posted at the same time more or less, but I wanted to point out that he's right about invulns, as I mentioned in my post above. You can use a pally for Shendu because of the invulns, but they apply to every other mob in the game just as much. It's the one real sticking point, though again I'll say that I don't particularly mind it that much, personally. Other than that though, yes. Also, Warriors do not have an AoE force taunt. Actually both Paladins and DKs get one, though the DK one is a rescue. Warriors get AoE taunt and a lot of AoEs, but no forces, it's all just hate and damage.
I certainly don't see anything wrong with the Warrior getting an invuln like our Aphotic Shield. Every tank should have one. Okay, gotcha on the AoE. Haven't played my poor ol' warrior much since the revamp. I'll get him through Trials one of these days--lol. Yeah, DK AoE force is a rescue so requires a defensive target, so can't really use it on Shendu blue/red wyrms for the pull.
because now that aggro is generally even across the board, the fact that the warrior class has no invuln or fear immunity still puts them behind the other two tanks until the top progression mobs don't require fear immunity,
That's the important part. If it's getting overused it causes problems. Some encounters utilizing fear is cool, all of them is not.
I'm actually happy with my warrior, and I think we're very nicely balanced with DKs at least in 50+ game, especially in groups where warrior is very fun and makes an excellent tank. PAL will still always be #1 raid tank due to their nature (invulns, higher damage), which I dislike and find to be just outright wrong. A tank that has multiple invulns and can't be feared is so much better tank than those who can be feared and lacks invulns. In ideal world they should either code mobs so there are certain PAL bosses, ones where DK is best used, and some for WAR. Will not happen due to obvious reasons (dev time, aging game etc.). So easiest solution would be to give each class exactly the same number of invulns and add fearless. In other words make them similar in tanking, with no clear winner or loser, because losers will quit, reroll or play a piss-poor dps, etc.
Ideally Warriors should have the highest sustained damage from Dual Wield, DK should have the best burst damage since they use 2H, and Paladins should have the lowest damage output due to sword/board. Defense wise should be the opposite Pal > DK > War...though a lot of games do tend to give Warriors a better hp buffer then other tanks to balance that issue.
Easy to fix, take away Pally Virtue Points and 2 hander access on every 2 hander weapon and give DK Virtue Points!
I'm sorry, but you are not virtuous enough to have virtue points. I know what you did last sunday ...
