Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
... LastLast
  1. #1

    the what if locks could tank thread

    i want to start off with a disclaimer that i dont believe 'blues' should respond to this. i dont believe this should be a petition for wow devs. i dont believe this should be taken so seriously someone needs to rage. just a 'what if and how would you go about it'

    that being said, i believe if a lock were to tank it would be either a mechanic that has shared hp w/ the minion or the lock themselves would be tanking in metamorphasis. i think the meta version would be similar to a dk in that it would rely on self heals, where as the minion version would be based on the locks stats (and there would need to be some form of conversion for stats like int = dodge on the minion, etc, etc.


    any ideas or am i drinking to much?

  2. #2
    Stood in the Fire Queen Ultima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ireland, home of the Potato, Whisky, Drunks and Drunk Fighting Tournaments
    Posts
    485
    Ok, let me preface this by saying that I'm one of the most staunch anti-Warlock tank arguers you'll meet.... But I do think the idea can be fleshed out to see how it could mechanically function and whether or not it's viable.

    Warlock Mechanics
    Firstly, anything to do with the pet has to allow all three grimoires equally (at least in theory), assuming this is to be a new tree entirely and not just Demo changed into a tank. There is a talent that shares HP between Lock and Demon: Soul link. One can argue that what you want could be an upgraded form of a Demo warlock with SL using his/her Voidwalker/lord to tank and using Health Funnel. Demons, however, are fickle. People will tell you that part of the reason Sacrifice was so popular was that it got rid of the dependancy on AI. I don't think a tank could fully depend on an AI/micromanaged pet tanking a boss. So I'd go for a Warlock taking on a boss, with a demon either acting like Bloodworms or the Monk's Ox statue.

    Tank Mechanics

    Incase you don't tank on the five current classes, the current model is that of Active Mitigation, in that the tanks use their abilities to gather resources to improve their survivability. If a Warlock was to get this, it would probably work better with the Warlock him/herself tanking, and gaining something not too unlike Demonic Fury, Fury being arguably easier to pool than Holy Power, Chi or Rage. You'd also need abilities that use up Fury (for lack of a better mechanic to work off of) for the mitigation side, possibly a reworking of Fury Ward and an added dodge mechanic

    Personally, I'd rather they'd kept the class to the roles they currently have, and make fun new mechanics for any new classes they make (which may or may not have a tanking spec). Easier to make a new class than adding 9 new specs in total to the various non-Druid current classes (since they said if they have to add a 4th for one, they'd have to add a 4th for all, druids being the exception since Feral was always half-and-half)

  3. #3
    what if locks could tank: I would be pretty disappointed, people are going to expect you to have a tank spec, i dont want that. I rolled pure DPS for a reason. I also like to play all 3 specs occasionally, so im very against changing one into a tank spec.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Morgromir View Post
    what if locks could tank: I would be pretty disappointed, people are going to expect you to have a tank spec, i dont want that. I rolled pure DPS for a reason. I also like to play all 3 specs occasionally, so im very against changing one into a tank spec.
    I don't think anyone expects paladins, dks, druids, warriors or monks to have a tank spec. Why would warlocks be different?

  5. #5
    my suggestion: split demonology in two specialization: "dps caster/demon > demonology" and "tank > demon hunter". A warlock can choose between demonology dps caster and demonology melee tank.

    drood have 4 specialization, melee specialization is "tank > guardian" and "dps > feral"

    -sorry for my bad english

  6. #6
    Bloodsail Admiral Skayth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Backwards Country
    Posts
    1,074
    First and for most, I am for warlock tanking and have been since vanilla, as we were the go to range tanks.

    Second, how a warlock would tank? It would be like any other tanking class. But since they would make warlocks the Demon Hunters of wow (if they made them tank), then you would have to highly developed the new spec to be reminiscent and "lorely" correct to the demon hunter, meaning they would be the duel wielding tanks, and would want parry>mastery>dodge. (as duel wielding, realistically, you want to parry then do damage). The mastery could be worked around the "demonic" runes that they have tattooed on their bodies to decrease the damage they take or make the second "blade" basically a shield through this mastery.

    And to the person who says, oh then you should always have a tank spec.... really? Really? you are going to use that argument? I know warriors that have a pve and pvp spec, not tanking. I know pallys that are either ret and holy rather than tank. I know druids that are double dps (boom/kitty). Monks, mw/ww. -.- plz do not pull that card. it is not a smart move.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Morgromir View Post
    what if locks could tank: I would be pretty disappointed, people are going to expect you to have a tank spec, i dont want that. I rolled pure DPS for a reason. I also like to play all 3 specs occasionally, so im very against changing one into a tank spec.
    or maybe the whole idea of pure dps classes will simply go away

  8. #8
    Stood in the Fire Queen Ultima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ireland, home of the Potato, Whisky, Drunks and Drunk Fighting Tournaments
    Posts
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
    First and for most, I am for warlock tanking and have been since vanilla, as we were the go to range tanks.

    Second, how a warlock would tank? It would be like any other tanking class. But since they would make warlocks the Demon Hunters of wow (if they made them tank), then you would have to highly developed the new spec to be reminiscent and "lorely" correct to the demon hunter, meaning they would be the duel wielding tanks, and would want parry>mastery>dodge. (as duel wielding, realistically, you want to parry then do damage). The mastery could be worked around the "demonic" runes that they have tattooed on their bodies to decrease the damage they take or make the second "blade" basically a shield through this mastery.

    And to the person who says, oh then you should always have a tank spec.... really? Really? you are going to use that argument? I know warriors that have a pve and pvp spec, not tanking. I know pallys that are either ret and holy rather than tank. I know druids that are double dps (boom/kitty). Monks, mw/ww. -.- plz do not pull that card. it is not a smart move.
    Firstly, Blizz has said that they only gave Druids 4 specs as they always had 4 roles. I know it was Xanatas who said that and not who I'm quoting, but still, the fact remains that arguing to ger more specs because of Druids isn't fair because Blizz has stated that Druids are the exception that proves the rule of three spec per class. Druids always had four specs with Feral serving as two-specs-in-one, Warlocks have not. Maybe "Hero" classes might get 4 to make them special, but not adding newly made specs.

    Ok, so I was just thinking. If you make a Demon Hunting spec, where we wield glaives which we don't know, use demonic tattoos and essences and have intricate new resource systems.... What's the point? Seriously? Why would Blizz combine a potential new Class, which if it was a new class could have 2 other specs (3 if they wanted to make it special) to refine the system, make unique abilities and potentally class lore (especially when there is a potential for a new Demon Expansion pack), and put it into an already defined class that has no lore ties with Demon Hunters and then stick that particular class/lore into a single spec, not class, spec. It's changing too much to gain too little.

    As for the idea of Pure DPS classes... Wiser people should talk about this than me, but I say that pure DPS classes are a good thing when the specs feel distinct from one another, which is what Warlocks have. Personally, I feel that Hunters, Rogues, Mages and Warlocks have something that no other class has: The ability to switch between all of their specilizations based purely on preference without changing gear [sans minmaxing reforging and Rogue's weapons] or roles. I'm not saying every class should be pure, I'd even say any new classes should have a healing or tank spec to help diversity, but I am saying that adding not only a new specialisation out of the blue (again,the druid changes do not count as all that was changed was that already existing mechanics were transferred to a seperate spec wholesale) which Blizz has NEVER done before isn't worth it, when they can focus on making new classes that have those specs and mechanics and can incorporate them more successfully, and wouldn't have to make new stats on cloth items OR have the tedious and potentially broken task of having to convert certain cloth stats into tanking stats.

    Also, merely adding tank/healing specs wouldn't improve populations or wait times by much, because those that want to heal probably already do. The point of playing a Pure class is that you don't want to do those roles, at least not on that character. #

    Can we please stop having this argument. Warlocks are warlocks, they are what they are, can't we enjoy them as they are?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by deviantcultist View Post
    or maybe the whole idea of pure dps classes will simply go away
    or maybe people rolling a pure and then thinking there's a problem with pures not being able to tank, as opposed to a problem with their decision making will go away.

    A man can only dream.

    There's nothing wrong with pures, it gives a person who wants to dps a class they can roll that has three potential specs. When the rotation of one (or all) is changed up heavily, they're far less likely to be left with zero options, as you would if you simply didn't like Ret. It also gives you the option to play a different spec depending on fight mechanics, I'd likely have ended up leveling up an alt for H-Spine if my only option was affliction back in Cata, thankfully - being a pure, I was able to go demo (despite not liking how it played) and at least function.

    Why some people act like pure dps classes are some obsolete standard that needs phasing out is beyond me, they still fit into the game perfectly - if you rolled one and want to tank or heal, that's not an excuse for horseshoeing in a 4th spec, you knew it was a pure when you rolled it, you clicked the wrong button.

    Also, to expand on Queen Ultima's mention of the ramifications of a 4th spec, something I posted in a "Warlocks should get a demon hunter" tree thread, which I'm sorely tempted to copy to a notepad file it gets thrown up so often.

    1) Do they use caster or melee gear - both have huge ramifications.

    a)Tank tree uses caster gear, at which point it becomes the only tank to be using cater gear, having to transform caster stats into tank stats, a balancing nightmare and exactly what blizzard DON'T want to do with holy paladins - they prefer holy plate to this, which says a lot.

    b) Tank tree uses leather (presumably, I don't see us getting plate), at which point warlocks become the only class in the game to be using a different armor type between one spec and another, a complete nightmare for gearing on multiple fronts.

    b 1) How will LFR distribute loot? Will you be trying to gear up affliction and getting leather pieces constantly? Terrible.
    b 2) Your gear between specs is completely uncompatible - something no other pure dps class has, and one of the major draws. Hybrids can switch specs to perform different roles, pures get to pick a spec based on what's best for the fight, you lose that if your gearset is none-existent. You're also now competing with agi users on gear - you'll probably need to pass on either cloth / leather depending on what you MS.

    2) is it a 4th spec or does it replace demonology

    a) If it replaces demonology, suddenly you've flat out killed a spec that a huge part of the warlock population was playing, it's been stolen from then in favor of something most of them never asked for

    b) It's a 4th spec - this risks making every "deserve" a 4th spec. This flat out can't happen, suddenly the gear issues mentioned in 2) is magnified 10x as the problem applies to every class now, the lines between classes start to blur and any hope of having balance goes out the window, since blizzard can barely manage to balance what they have now, let alone 11 more specs, additionally classes start stepping on each others toes. Where does the line between the ranged rogue spec and the melee hunter spec start to blur? They have enough trouble making each rogue spec feel unique without adding more across the board.

  10. #10
    Bloodsail Admiral Skayth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Backwards Country
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Queen Ultima View Post
    Firstly, Blizz has said that they only gave Druids 4 specs as they always had 4 roles. I know it was Xanatas who said that and not who I'm quoting, but still, the fact remains that arguing to ger more specs because of Druids isn't fair because Blizz has stated that Druids are the exception that proves the rule of three spec per class. Druids always had four specs with Feral serving as two-specs-in-one, Warlocks have not. Maybe "Hero" classes might get 4 to make them special, but not adding newly made specs.

    Ok, so I was just thinking. If you make a Demon Hunting spec, where we wield glaives which we don't know, use demonic tattoos and essences and have intricate new resource systems.... What's the point? Seriously? Why would Blizz combine a potential new Class, which if it was a new class could have 2 other specs (3 if they wanted to make it special) to refine the system, make unique abilities and potentally class lore (especially when there is a potential for a new Demon Expansion pack), and put it into an already defined class that has no lore ties with Demon Hunters and then stick that particular class/lore into a single spec, not class, spec. It's changing too much to gain too little.

    As for the idea of Pure DPS classes... Wiser people should talk about this than me, but I say that pure DPS classes are a good thing when the specs feel distinct from one another, which is what Warlocks have. Personally, I feel that Hunters, Rogues, Mages and Warlocks have something that no other class has: The ability to switch between all of their specilizations based purely on preference without changing gear [sans minmaxing reforging and Rogue's weapons] or roles. I'm not saying every class should be pure, I'd even say any new classes should have a healing or tank spec to help diversity, but I am saying that adding not only a new specialisation out of the blue (again,the druid changes do not count as all that was changed was that already existing mechanics were transferred to a seperate spec wholesale) which Blizz has NEVER done before isn't worth it, when they can focus on making new classes that have those specs and mechanics and can incorporate them more successfully, and wouldn't have to make new stats on cloth items OR have the tedious and potentially broken task of having to convert certain cloth stats into tanking stats.

    Also, merely adding tank/healing specs wouldn't improve populations or wait times by much, because those that want to heal probably already do. The point of playing a Pure class is that you don't want to do those roles, at least not on that character. #

    Can we please stop having this argument. Warlocks are warlocks, they are what they are, can't we enjoy them as they are?
    wow. the rage. I can feel the flames. Please. Calm down. #1, i didnt say my idea was great. I didnt say my idea was that all uncommon either. And i never said my idea was going to happen.

    #2 You really think I could care less if 1 class got 4 spec,and not the others? My idea of tanking (not demon hunting) since vanilla. We have always been tanky and drainy. Honestly, I was hoping they would make affliction the tank spec all throughout bc. why? Because of SL/SL (hope you know this). Since the inception of the Class Questline (if it still happens) then lore can be given towards the inception of the demon hunter.

    #3 Demon Hunter and WoW player (note some npcs are also the same, but others are greedy, while the player could either way, pending his or her idealolgy) warlocks share common attributes. You cannot tell me they dont, when we know they do. Some warlocks gain more power to kill the evil that go against them, and fight fire with Fire. (pretty much the same), yet then there are the types that go for power gain simply for more power, to the point of corruption. With the council of the Black Harvest, we go an indepth look at some real lock lore. kanthrend, the silent xinnen, and blood elf, seemed to realize the ramifications of playing with such powers, and how they effected them to point of the blood elf being afflicted and xinnen seeing the "horrors" of the end, and yet they still go out to seek more power to fight larger and eviller enemies.While the orc and gnome seemed to simply want more power, and the undead really unknown.

    #4 Like u said, adding a tanking class wouldnt improve the population. But why not simply add the spec, that everyone wants to play, to a poorly represented class? Well, tanking will surely go up, and class will go up. why? Because instead of making a class with 3 different specs, where they can go oh I am a dps demon hunter, they say demon hunter, they mean lock tank. >.> pretty easy? Our class would easily skyrocket with the inclusion of the spec.

    #5 gear? really? Your going to bring up gear? ww and bm use similar gear. Feral and Guardian use similar gear. >.> *Cough* *cough* hell, right now Prot pally and Ret pally use similar gear (prot wants lots of haste). They wouldnt have to use new stats on cloth, just use the same. Works for druids monks and pallys.

    #6 yes warlocks are warlocks, but, blizz, well gc, has stated that they may look into making some pures not be pures.

    Lastly #7 It doesnt matter, either way, we will either get a new class called demon hunter (or something similar, ie monk=brewmaster) or a lock spec come legion expasion, and idc. I am simply for lock tanking. If we dont get it, and we get demon hunter class, Ima reroll dh. end of story. It doesnt matter.

  11. #11
    The Lightbringer Seezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Capua
    Posts
    3,454
    I'll be a millionaire before locks can be fully functional raid tanks. And I'm not going to be a millionaire anytime soon.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
    And to the person who says, oh then you should always have a tank spec.... really? Really? you are going to use that argument? I know warriors that have a pve and pvp spec, not tanking. I know pallys that are either ret and holy rather than tank. I know druids that are double dps (boom/kitty). Monks, mw/ww. -.- plz do not pull that card. it is not a smart move.
    If you consider the gear to be the same for warlock tanking and warlock dpsing, then it would be like a balance druid dpsing / resto druid healing. In which case I find it quite reasonable to expect them to be able to heal if that was required. Warriors and everything else you mentioned requires seperate gear sets and I doubt warlocks would get that, if we were to tank. Cloth with parry on".... really? Really?"

    I thought tanking on Illidan, Council and that guy in SSC was fun, but I see no reason to add a sixth tanking class to the game. Death Knights were supposed to replace us spelltanking warlocks, when they were introduced and it seems that they've done so.

  13. #13
    Then we'd have 1 good dps spec.
    Your comments are duly noted and ignored.
    I punch a hobo every time someone says 'it's not a rotation it's a priority list lol'.

  14. #14
    Step 1: Restore Aura of Weakness to 20%.
    Step 2: Give us 6% Crit Immunity when in tank spec.
    Step 3: Make our taunt function against Raid Bosses.
    Step 4: Give us 50% of [Stat] to Dodge.
    Done. Raid Tank Viable.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Iry View Post
    Step 1: Restore Aura of Weakness to 20%.
    Step 2: Give us 6% Crit Immunity when in tank spec.
    Step 3: Make our taunt function against Raid Bosses.
    Step 4: Give us 50% of [Stat] to Dodge.
    Done. Raid Tank Viable.
    Pretty much. I think they might have to buff twilight-ward in dark apoth and reduce the passive mitigation some in addition to those changes, so that it's more of an active mitigation/drain life rotation, but they already pretty much have a fully working tank setup in Dark Apoth.

  16. #16
    The Lightbringer nightfalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    It's a 4th spec - this risks making every "deserve" a 4th spec... Where does the line between the ranged rogue spec and the melee hunter spec start to blur? They have enough trouble making each rogue spec feel unique without adding more across the board.
    As a past big supporter of warlock tanking that now is more indifferent than before, I'll add to this:

    There's a ton of "4th spec ideas" out for classes with some minor glyph/talent support: Ranged rogue (shuriken toss), Holy DPS for both priest and paladin (Chakra: Chastise, and several paladin glyphs), Rockbiter tank for shaman (perhaps with or without a shield) are the main ones that come to mind. The ranged rogue is really a favorite among several (though probably hated by others) and probably deserving of Blizzard's attention seeing how monotonous rogue specs are. Even then, changing one of the three specs (say, assassination) into a "ranged" spec will probably still generate tons of hate.

    That said, Demon Hunting is probably the more polished one since after all, it was originally conceptualized as a full tank spec (don't forget this fact). So a lot of features that have been sort of waysided (fury ward mitigation, is a big one) were originally intended to be tank mechanics based on the new active tanking model. A Vengeance system that scales SP instead of AP is nothing new. Paladin mitigation works off of SP, which is converted from AP at 1:2 from Vengeance.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspark View Post
    As a past big supporter of warlock tanking that now is more indifferent than before, I'll add to this:

    There's a ton of "4th spec ideas" out for classes with some minor glyph/talent support: Ranged rogue (shuriken toss), Holy DPS for both priest and paladin (Chakra: Chastise, and several paladin glyphs), Rockbiter tank for shaman (perhaps with or without a shield) are the main ones that come to mind. The ranged rogue is really a favorite among several (though probably hated by others) and probably deserving of Blizzard's attention seeing how monotonous rogue specs are. Even then, changing one of the three specs (say, assassination) into a "ranged" spec will probably still generate tons of hate.

    That said, Demon Hunting is probably the more polished one since after all, it was originally conceptualized as a full tank spec (don't forget this fact). So a lot of features that have been sort of waysided (fury ward mitigation, is a big one) were originally intended to be tank mechanics based on the new active tanking model. A Vengeance system that scales SP instead of AP is nothing new. Paladin mitigation works off of SP, which is converted from AP at 1:2 from Vengeance.
    Blizzard have enough trouble differentiating the 3 rogue specs already, how can they fit a 4th in? Does it need to be a tank or healing spec, both of which sound ridiculous, or should it be a ranged spec? At which point, where does the line between the supposed ranged rogue spec and melee hunter spec start to blur? Can the other 2/3 rogue specs remain competitive considering the inherent advantage ranged has on many encounters? Does it make any sense to have a ranged, agility class that DOESN'T use guns / bows, but then - that seems to clash even more with hunters, since you've lost the flavor of shurikens, which at least fits with the rogue archetype.

    That's without going into all the gearing mess, the one good argument for Demon Hunters not being their own class is there isn't enough of a niche for another dual wielding melee class, which I can appreciate. But by that logic there isn't enough room for 10 or so more specs in the game, you're avoiding adding one class in favor of adding more than 3.

    I'm also hesitant to believe that they can fit a balanced tanking model within the warlock gearing options, it's either going to require different gear or will be doing some messy conversions (which blizzard prefer having spirit plate to converting str -> healer stats) that make balancing it seem challenging, probably doable, but I'd be surprised if it didn't tend to be great on some fights and garbage on others.

    Warlocks getting a 4th tanking spec is worrisome almost purely because it opens the way to more, and the game can't handle everyone having a 4th spec. Warlocks don't have years of precedent like druids do.
    Last edited by Nagassh; 2013-02-05 at 02:43 PM.

  18. #18
    I don't care if its a tank but I want to play a fully operational Warlock Demon Hunter melee themed spec.

  19. #19
    The Lightbringer nightfalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    3,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    Blizzard have enough trouble differentiating the 3 rogue specs already, how can they fit a 4th in? Does it need to be a tank or healing spec, both of which sound ridiculous, or should it be a ranged spec?
    When did I say that it had to be a 4th spec? I'm actually wondering how much rogues would like it if one of their specs became a "ranged rogue" spec, while the other specs remained melee? I think most people will agree that Blizzard absolutely failed at differentiating the 3 rogue specs, but how many would like it if Blizzard actually fucking did something about it and turned one of the three specs into a ranged spec?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagassh View Post
    But by that logic there isn't enough room for 10 or so more specs in the game, you're avoiding adding one class in favor of adding more than 3... Warlocks getting a 4th tanking spec is worrisome almost purely because it opens the way to more, and the game can't handle everyone having a 4th spec. Warlocks don't have years of precedent like druids do.
    I don't see what logic dictates that a one-role, limited class getting a second role option somehow means that all the classes in the game get 4th specs, including those with 3 role options (instead of 2, let alone just one).

    And while there isn't "precedent," there's certainly an argument. As I gave above.

  20. #20
    When did I say that it had to be a 4th spec?
    You didn't but for the same reason it would be a terrible idea to remove demonology for a tank spec, I imagine it would be dangerous ground to remove a rogue spec and tell the section of the rogue community that like playing it to deal with it, now it's a ranged spec, would rub plenty the wrong way.

    Quote Originally Posted by voidspark View Post
    I don't see what logic dictates that a one-role, limited class getting a second role option somehow means that all the classes in the game get 4th specs, including those with 3 role options (instead of 2, let alone just one).

    And while there isn't "precedent," there's certainly an argument. As I gave above.
    Oh I'm not trying to say there's no argument for a warlock tanking spec, we've been tanking things for ages - well before the glyph was introduced (or there even was a glyph system), albeit not in a normal format. Just that the argument might not be enough justification for the ramifications that might ensue.

    If people see other people getting something they'll clamor for "fairness". If Warlocks cease to be a pure and get given a second role, it's not far fetched to assume the other pures might want similar treatment. After that, you've got around half the classes in the game with a 4th spec, that's enough ground for some people to be demanding the same fair treatment for their own. God knows there are enough people asking for a 4th spec before druids even got theirs, all adding more 4th specs does is give them some ground to stand on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •