Nonviable specs. Which are they?

[Specialka]

Yes I think everyone understands perfectly that druids could tank hateful strike and the reason why.

It's just literally every other boss in the game that did crit and crush that they couldn't tank, because the lack of a shield, crits and crushing blows meant that a druid tank would take close to twice as much damage as a similarly geared warrior tank, and were subject to much more dangerous damage spikes because of crit/crush RNG. Which is why druids only tanked fights they vastly outgeared.....and Patchwerk.

But seriously though, good job spending dozens of paragraphs explaining why druids could tank hateful strikes, which everyone knew already.

That idiot thought we were talking about Patchwerk in Wotlk. What a genius and an ignorant.

[Holian]

1: Warriors are -the- best tanks in vanilla, no one is arguing about that, ofcourse you take one if you can, this does not mean however that Druids CANT tank in vanilla, everything from personal experience (myself and several others here tanked in vanilla during current raid content just fine), to just plain math tells us that's incorrect.

2: Soaking Hateful Strikes isn't proper tanking, i'm actually inclined to agree with this, what it DOES do is demonstrate a Druids ability to soak very large hits and be just fine.
The issue people seem to have, like always, is with druids taking crits and crushing blows, they seem to think these would just instantly wreck a druid and leave them in the dust, and it's just infuriating that people keep believing this without actually EVER doing the math, it's not that hard folks.

So let's do some basic math, and make some basic assumptions about the gear and stats on a warrior and druid. We have a warrior with 60% damage reduction from armour and 8000 hp, and we have a Druid with 75% damage reduction, and 9000 hp, Now we let them both take a big hit, of let's say 15 000 unmitigated damage, this comes out to 6000 damage taken for the Warrior (minus a little bit from blocking) and for the Druid, it comes out to 3750 damage taken. This leaves the Warrior with 2000 hp and the Druid with 5250hp, in this scenario a Warrior can take 2 hits before Dying, and the Druid can take 3 hits before dying.

But what about those pesky crits? This brings the numbers over to 6000 damage taken for the Warrior, and 7500 for the Druid, leaving the Warrior with 2000hp and the Druid with 1500hp, This functionally makes them even, the druid has to take 2 crits in a row to die just as fast as the Warrior.

So how much damage does it take to oneshot the Druid then? that comes out to a crit for 36000 unmitigated damage (Nothing hits this hard in Vanilla), this would be a normal hit for 18000 damage, wich would do 7200 damage to the Warrior, leaving him with 800hp, and on a crit would bring down our druid exactly.
So i have to re-iterate, it would take a regular melee crit that deals -10 000- more damage than a Hateful strike to be a credible oneshot threat towards a druid.

Alright, whatabout lower end crits, chaining together quickly one after the other, does this make an appreciable difference in how many hits it takes to down a Druid vs a Warrior? Let's find out.
10 000 unmitigated damage, deals 4000 damage to the Warrior, 2 Hits to kill. Deals 2500 damage to the druid, 4 hits to kill, 5000 damage on chain crits, takes 2 hits to kill, worst case scenario, same time to die as the Warrior.

7 500 unmitigated damage, deals 3000 damage to the warrior, 3 hits to kill, deals 1875 damage to the druid, 4.8 hits to kill, 3750 damage on chain crit, takes 2.4 hits to kill, worst case scenario, the druid survives the same number of hits (the third one kills him) even if every single hit crits.

5 000 unmitigated damage, deals 2000 damage to the warrior, 4 hits to kill, deals 1250 damage to the druid, 7.2 hits to kill, 2500 damge on chain crits, takes 4 hits to kill, wirst case scenario, the druid survives the same number of hits.

I hope i've made my point here, any hit large enough to be able to crit a Druid to death in 2 hits, will also kill a Warrior in 2 normal hits. Nothing in Vanilla hits hard enough to oneshot an armour capped bear tank.
If you go down on the lower side of things, you start getting into territory where the damage is so low that it's simply not a threat to the tank, if you let a boss get in 5+ consecutive hits without a single heal inbetween, it's not the tanks fault if he dies.

So doesent all this mean that Druids are better tanks than Warriors? Absolutely not, what i have neglected to add up in my math above is shieldblock, now that doesent do much of a difference when calculating massive hits, but it's HUGE when blocking loads of smaller hits, and let's face it, the vast majority of hits a tank takes from a boss is going to take off like 2-3k damage.

Not to mention set bonuses, trinkets (lifegiving gem), last stand, shield wall, thunder clap, thunderfury etc, and finally the thing that actually kills tanks... spiky damage!

Druids might be fine tanks mathematically, but NO ONE wants to heal somone who goes from taking almost no damage to taking ALL OF THE DAMAGE, Warriors are the KINGS of -smooth- damage intake, every single hit they take is going to take off roughly the same ammount, no surprises wich is exactly what we want from our tanks.

3: Just because you did not see a class do certain things, does not make it impossible nor does it mean that other people didn't do these things, Vanilla has been -plagued- by stigmas against certain classes doing certain things ever since the game launched back in 2004.

4: Threat, Warriors generally have superior threat over Druids, but if you knew what you were doing, Druid threat was -beastly-, so if you are going to argue that, i assume you know how Warrior and Druid threat works (and how different it is) and can actually show us some math on the subject, your subjective experiences of someone being shit at it 14 years ago is not of interest, all the math is available for everyone.

5: "Only overgeared Druids could tank raids." /facedesk, this one really gets to me as it clearly shows you know absolutely -nothing- about Vanilla Druid tanking, you reached the armour cap as a druid, in BLUE gear, gear from BWL, AQ and Naxx just gave you a little bit more health, but mainly a CRAPTON of additional threat and dodge.
Base Druid mitigation didn't get any better during the raiding tiers, they just improved threat and avoidance with a relatively small health bump.

If anyone can show how any of this is incorrect, i would love to see it, where are these mythical crits that made it impossible for druids to tank?

Finally i want to re-iterate, -no one- is trying to argue that Druids are BETTER tanks than Warriors, they simply are not, what we ARE arguing, is that they CAN tank raiding content.

- - - Updated - - -

Sub Rogue was bad in raids then? I remember watching a lot of videos and seeing Rogues Backstab all day, was that in assassination spec? O.o

Sub wasn't very good in raids no, if you had the debuff slots you might be able to make a case for one Sub rogue to apply the Hemo debuff but even that would be iffy... Not that it actually mattered, vanilla is tuned quite leniently and you dont NEED to minmax to clear all the raids, it just makes things a heck of alot easier.

The backstab specs used in PvE was a deep assassination spec that was quite good because it performed well in PvE and was still very capable in PvP so you didn't need to respec between raids and spare time, and the other was a combat daggers spec, wich was mathematically superior in PvE, but absolutely boring as sin aswell, not to mention bloody useless in PvP.

[Gaidax]

The issue people seem to have, like always, is with druids taking crits and crushing blows, they seem to think these would just instantly wreck a druid and leave them in the dust, and it's just infuriating that people keep believing this without actually EVER doing the math, it's not that hard folks.

So let's do some basic math

Your math is worthless, you know why? Because it uses a bunch of completely random numbers and assumptions that can't be independently verified at this point.

For all we care you could have just made up stuff to make it look like you have a credible argument.

You want people to disprove your stuff? I don't see you mentioning word parry even once and as a druid your chance to get parried was higher than that of a warrior, which could result in much more occurrences of boss cleaving your face off with 2 consecutive attacks before any healer could say mommy.

Problem with Druid is that they gamble too much and when you had frikkin' 10 minute corpse runs, nobody wanted to take the chances of "oopsie bad luck there with crushing blows and parries there man". Got some consecutive crushing blows and parry? GG, go take a sleep. As a warrior, there was no such thing, simply, the whole Vanilla tanking was about eliminating random shit occurring chances first and foremost and warriors had that nailed.

That is besides the point that Warriors simply had superior gear options and as a whole a better skillset for tanking overall. Basically, Druid main tank would simply be a poor ass Warrior at best and is a thing of emergencies when there were no warriors around, not because it is genuinely something.

I am not even saying that your Druid tanking would require a shitton more healing and healers mana was far from infinite. So you would end up being a shit warrior which requires a boatload more healing... Things were painful as is, I don't think any serious guild would take that, as there is simply no benefit whatsoever over Warrior over there, aside from another warm body around.

[Epoch]

I apologize to any reader's of this thread for the incoming wall of text. I was going to respond to one poster at a time but this is much easier.

Your own evidence showed that druids take twice as much damage as a similarly geared warrior. That's why.

I can't decide if you are just incompetent, trying to troll and failing badly, or don't understand what it means to be a tank in general. The reason druid tanks were used to push progression content has been the same reason all throughout this game. Druid tanks in vanilla were used to push progression content because we could reach 75% mitigation and have such a high health pool that we could take more damage when compared to a warrior tank.

The reason that I used Patchwerk to back up this claim is because during Vanilla, Patchwerk was the hardest hitting boss in the game. Guilds pushing progression and world firsts used druid tanks for that damage and as a tank because we lived through it where equally geared warriors sometimes could not. I can't make this any simpler for you to comprehend unless I made the font size 50, in caps and a bright neon color.

Oh btw, you have yet to post any evidence which shows a druid couldn't be a main tank at anytime during vanilla.

Go flame somewhere else. Kthxbye.

I avoided this with a reason. Since all cores at which such a project were realized with, were not identical with the original live vanilla core. All adjustments on that cores were based on memories and facts which were still available in the web. This applies to a lot of mechanics (spells mechanics / attack table mechanics etc.). This is why there are amongst other things the huge differences in dps for example.

Stop with the excuses, just stop. You made an incorrect statement which you attempted to use as a reason why druids couldn't be a main tank whatsoever during Vanilla. You chose to not follow that statement up with evidence, if that wasn't enough you spoke of once having evidence, wasted everyone's time, couldn't respond to Halion with your "theorycrafting and practising", and ultimately mentioned your "evidence" isn't available.

At no time in your posts here have you once provided any evidence to backup anything that you have posted in this thread. What you have done is make a claim that is unfounded and try to skirt your way around the issue with:

"but i once had this evidence, even though I haven't shown anything to support any statement I have made on this thread...my evidence no longer exists."

We don't allow things like Hitchens's razor to occur here, the sooner you understand this, admit you have no clue about druid tanks and move on, the sooner everyone can go back to what they were doing before you wasted so much time accomplishing nothing.

I worked on a vanilla project which desided to do it as accurate as possible - which required a lot of investigation of all the mechanics and settings. Some questions were not answerable, because they didn't discussed back in the days. Topics which didn't require to discuss about, because the mechanic worked pretty much obviously.

I'm starting to doubt that you ever did such a thing. In the entirety of this game and previous games anyone who spent as much time theorycrafting as you claim to have done knows to keep a copy of the data as backup. Not only that, but people who spend so much time theorycrafting tend to remember at least a portion of said data...yet somehow you don't, what a coincidence. Because you chose to waste such a massive amount of time for no reason we are facing a few possibilities:

1. You didn't theorycraft anything regarding a druid tank.
2. You may have theorycrafted warrior tanks during vanilla, but not druid tanks.
3. You may have theorycrafted warriors during vanilla. Somewhere along the way since that time you decided that since you theorycrafted for warriors that your experience and data also applies to a druid tank. A spec which you did not main during vanilla, a spec which you know nothing about.

I'm leaning towards all of those.

You brought in this stuff which was against all the common stuff around without any proof. Maybe with some gimmick videos, but not a single druid tank or pala tank discussion from the old days, a single entry, a single mention or something (on the other hand there are stil dozens of old warrior tank sources from vanilla around, but not a single druid or pala thing).

I didn't bring in this "stuff". Your actions here created the conversation that we are now having. Maybe you got too used to the idea of being able to post whatever you want on the internet without backing up anything you have stated, I'm sorry but that doesn't fly here. As I have told you repeatedly if their is to be a debate/discussion one side is required to post evidence which backs up what they have stated. Something that you still have not done.

Yet once again I have to say this to you - you made a statement without any factual basis whatsoever. I responded and showed that druids were used to take the hardest hit in the game. You responded with double talk and not once have you provided evidence which backs up anything you have said in this entire thread.

You sir, failed to participate in the debate/discussion which you created the minute you chose to make illogical statements which lack any evidence whatsoever. What we are seeing now is the aftermath of your inability to backup your own statements. If you choose to continue with your double talk hoping you can skirt around the fact that you have yet to provide proof which backs up anything to have posted in this thread, know that I find your ultracrepidarian comments amusing.

I am not the person who needs to proof anything. You came up with the fresh idea that druids were usual main tanks back in the days. Give us something that we can believe in you! Once again, to eat hateful strikes makes you a punching pillow, not a main tank. hateful strikes couldnt crit nor crush.

I already did. I gave you evidence that showed druid tanks were used to take the hardest hit in the game. At that point the burden of proof turns to you, to support anything you have stated in this thread. I'm still waiting by the way.

When you find evidence that backs up anything you have posted in this thread which proves a druid could not be a main tank during vanilla post it here. I would like to have a intellectual debate. Until that time you are just stalling.

It would be a good idea for you to apologize to poster's in this thread for wasting everyone's time.

Next.

[Specialka]

Soaking Hateful does not make you a tank.

[Epoch]

Being a troll doesn't make you a contributor to a topic you can't even begin to comprehend. Kthxbye.

Ignore is a wonderful thing.

[Specialka]

You still can't tank decently a boss, you can soak, but not tank, kthxbye

[ydraw]

Druid tanks in vanilla were used to push progression content

No, they weren't.

The reason that I used Patchwerk to back up this claim is because during Vanilla, Patchwerk was the hardest hitting boss in the game.

But you didn't tank patchwerk. You soaked hateful strikes. Because hateful strike could not crit or crush.

I already did. I gave you evidence that showed druid tanks were used to take the hardest hit in the game.

Taking a hard hit in a soak mechanic doesn't make you a tank. It makes you a soaker.

[Xecks]

druids could def cap. so no they diddnt take crits. crushes yes they took them and if they were unlucky they could take 2 in a row and get ate. the thing is , all the offtanks in my guild diddnt know what shield block was so they took crushing blows too. the fact is a druid who has more armor 75% dmg reduction and more health could effectively take crushing blows better.

we offtanked in fury and arms spec so we could dps when we werent needed. so ya the content can be done with a druid tank.

the only thing they diddnt have was block and that still doesnt make them not able to do it.

they also diddnt "overgear" the content. they often were wearing dungeon blues some of which were 10+ levels below 60 gear.

but ya . keep thinking they diddnt . its really funny when people who diddnt do the content say shit they dont even know.

[Holian]

Your math is worthless, you know why? Because it uses a bunch of completely random numbers and assumptions that can't be independently verified at this point.

For all we care you could have just made up stuff to make it look like you have a credible argument.

You want people to disprove your stuff? I don't see you mentioning word parry even once and as a druid your chance to get parried was higher than that of a warrior, which could result in much more occurrences of boss cleaving your face off with 2 consecutive attacks before any healer could say mommy.

Problem with Druid is that they gamble too much and when you had frikkin' 10 minute corpse runs, nobody wanted to take the chances of "oopsie bad luck there with crushing blows and parries there man". Got some consecutive crushing blows and parry? GG, go take a sleep. As a warrior, there was no such thing, simply, the whole Vanilla tanking was about eliminating random shit occurring chances first and foremost and warriors had that nailed.

That is besides the point that Warriors simply had superior gear options and as a whole a better skillset for tanking overall. Basically, Druid main tank would simply be a poor ass Warrior at best and is a thing of emergencies when there were no warriors around, not because it is genuinely something.

I am not even saying that your Druid tanking would require a shitton more healing and healers mana was far from infinite. So you would end up being a shit warrior which requires a boatload more healing... Things were painful as is, I don't think any serious guild would take that, as there is simply no benefit whatsoever over Warrior over there, aside from another warm body around.

Using reasonable approximations of stats that have been around for what... 14 years now? At no single point here did you even try to form a coherent point about why a druid cant tank.

Druids have more health than warriors, giving the druid only 1k more than the warrior was lenient, armour cap was easily achieved at 75% for druids, and 60% armour for a warrior is being generous.

But sure, let's add some actual real numbers here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9iRC5DyFvA
There's a video of Kungen from Nihilium going over his old screenshots, among these are a few screenshots where he has his character panel open.
At 26:56 there's a screenshot of him in a mix of Naxx/AQ40 and a few BWL pieces, while progressing through Naxx, and he's at 9883 armour and 7107hp.
That comes out to 62.688% damage reduction from armour, so my estimates were less than 3% off an almost BiS endgame, end of vanilla Warrior tank, and i was too generous and gave him far too much HP.

A druid can easily reach the armor cap, and a druid has more health than a warrior, this is common knowledge, or do you want me to go digging through forums for old screenshots to prove that aswell?

And yeah you are right, Druids cant parry, and it's a HUGE deal having as much dodge as a Warrior has dodge+parry, it's not like it's functionally the same mechanic, avoidance.
**Edit, rereading your post i now realise you were talking about the actual boss parrying your attacks and getting a parry auto attack reset, i would love to know how a druid has a higher chance of getting parried than a warrior, especially considering a warrior attacks faster than the druid, genuinely curious here.

At no point in my post did i say that a Warrior was better than a druid, simply that a Druid CAN tank, now do you have any coherent reason as to why this is wrong? Or did you (as i assume) not even read my entire post and just decided to shitpost with no actual facts beyond "hurr durr everyone knows druids cant tank!"?

- - - Updated - - -

Soaking Hateful does not make you a tank.

Please read through the math i posted on the previous page, what magical situation changes the math so that a Druid cant tank any boss in the game?
Would love to see the math on that.

Note, no one is arguing that a Druid is better in any way, they are not, it is simply being argued that they CAN tank anything in vanilla, not that it's an advisable thing to do.

And if you have information to the contrary, i would love to hear it, because there is no mathematical way it makes any sense currently.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they weren't.

I would love to see the math on why a Druid can not tank any and every boss in vanilla, you can refer to my math on the previous page and point out where i made a mistake, would love to learn what i have misunderstood about damage mitigation and basic math.

Until you do, i will just assume that there is no such math and that you are simply spouting off the "common knowledge" that people have been saying for damn near 14 years now without ever actually doing the math themselves and applying logic to the situation.

[Specialka]

Soaking is not tanking, period.

And if Druid were really able to tank as well as warrior, we would not discuss their ability to do so, would we not?

[ydraw]

A druid can easily reach the armor cap, and a druid has more health than a warrior, this is common knowledge, or do you want me to go digging through forums for old screenshots to prove that aswell?

And yeah you are right, Druids cant parry, and it's a HUGE deal having as much dodge as a Warrior has dodge+parry, it's not like it's functionally the same mechanic, avoidance..

That's some great feelcrafting. Here's some actual numbers:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...E6Hub/pubhtml#

Go to the "damage taken" section and see the part where a druid takes twice as much damage per second as an equally geared warrior does. That is why druids can't tank progression.

And here's the same data in convenient graph form:



This is not new information. We've known about it for 12 years. Druids didn't tank progression in Vanilla because they took almost twice as much damage as warriors, and they took it in a much burstier fashion. Your druid tank will be a huge drain on your healers, assuming he doesn't straight up die to a streak of 2 big hits - something that doesn't happen to warriors because they have a shield.

Druids can tank content that the whole raid outgears, sure. But any serious raid needs a warrior tank. Class balance in Vanilla was bad. There is only 1 viable tanking class: Warrior.

Druid threat is very good and they'd be a good choice for farming content you vastly outgear for bindings and such. But coming up against a new boss is going to demand a warrior tank every time. Which is why all tanks in Vanilla were warriors.

[Holian]

Fantastic! Actual data, let's dig into it and get some proper numbers!

All of these stats are fully raid buffed.

Pre raid gear: Warrior, 8409 health, 8055 armour for 59.4% damage reduction, Druid comes in at 1072 health and 11838 armour for 68.3% damage reduction.
Over a 6min fight, the warrior took 199614 damage, with an average of 1348 damage per with and a maximum of 3094 damage.
The druid took 235870 damage, 1254 average hit and 2776 maximum.
So for pre-raid gear, the druid takes lower hits overall, but looses out in overall damage taken by around 18% i believe due to lower overall avoidance.

T1 gear: Warrior has 10708 health, 9302 armour for 62.8% damage reduction. Druid comes in at 11574 health, 12515 armour for 69.5% damage reduction.
Over a 6min fight the warrior took 211028 damage with an average hit of 1370 damage and max of 2860 damage.
The druid took 186375 damage with an average hit of 1187 damage and a max of 2416.
So in T1 gear, a druid has more health, takes smaller hits, and averages less damage taken overall.

T2 gear: Warrior has 13522 health, 10400 armour for 65.4% damage reduction. Druid comes in at 13957 health, 13478 armour for 71.0% damage reduction.
Over a 6min fight, the warrior took 137749 damage, with an average hit of 1138 damge and a maximum of 2834 damage.
The druid took 204412 damage, with an average hit of 1209 damage and a maximum of 2408.
So in T2 gear, the druid takes smaller hits overall, but the warriors avoidance kicks in and saves in a whopping 48% damage taken.

T3 gear: Warrior has 14646 health, 12332 armour for 69.2% damage reduction. Druid comes in at 15186 health, 15286 armour for 73.5% damage reduction.
Over a 6min fight, the warrior took 98935 damage, with an average hit of 810 damage and a maximum of 1720 damage.
The druid took 191524, with an average hit of 1107 damage and a maximum of 2298 damage.
And finally in T3 gear, the druid falls behind in all categories, he takes 94% more overall damage taken and the individual hits are on average higher aswell.

So with the gear used in these tests, the warrior becomes the winner in all categories in full T3, with every conceivable buff, cool.

Now let's list all the reasons this data is kinda misleading.

1, This is private server data.
2, Incorrect gearing options for the druid, even in full tier 3 he's not armour capped, something that can be achieved in blues, showing a clear lack of knowledge of how the class functions.
3, All testing was done against a boss (Sulfuron Harbinger) with relatively weak melee hits, something that heavily favors Warriors.
4, Every buff known to man was used, and the stats themselves are highly dubious, this warrior is competing statswise in his T1 with Kungen while he's progressing Naxx 40, this being on a private servers makes all of these numbers highly suspect.
5, Far too small sample size to be statistically relevant, even between the different factions samples, Alliance vs Horde Warrior tank in almost the same gear, in some cases here the damage intake varies by 20-40%, same thing happens with the druid in multiple samples.

But even IF we grant that these numbers are accurate, all this data shows is that Warriors are more mana efficient to heal than a Druid, someting we already knew.

So let's go over your statements.

1, Druids take almost twice as much damage as warriors. -In terms of overall damage, in T3, yes, If we compare average hits it's 810 damage vs 1107 damage on average... not exactly a mindblowing difference.
2, They take damage in a much burstier fashion. -This is very true, Warriors are the kings of smooth damage intake.
3, Your druid tank will be a huge drain on your healers. -Eventually in T2 and T3, yes a druid will require far more healing. But when progressing Onyxia/MC and BWL, not so much, and again, this is with a very poorly geared druid, what kind of druid doesent armour cap? Going from 70% to 75% damage reduction is an effective 20% damage reduction. (math example, 1000 unmitigated damage, 70% brings it down to 300 damage, 75% brings it down to 250 damage, 250-300 is a 20% difference.)
4, Assuming he doesen't straight up die to a streak of 2 big hits. -Complete nonsense, even factoring in crits, the statistics you yourself linked shows that the largest hits a Druid -ever- take, are comperable to those taken by a warrior. Any hits that can 2 shot a Druid, will also 2 shot a Warrior, even factoring in Crits on the Druid and regular Hits on the Warrior.

-------------------------------------------------------

Again, i have to stress that -NO ONE- is arguing that a druid is a better tank than a Warrior, simply that it absolutely CAN be done.
It's not optimal in any way, but it is certainly not impossible or something you would have to force your way through with sheer stubbornness.

Here we have a video from 2006, showing a druid main tanking Chromagus in BWL during progression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6zijYqbves


So after all this, all we have conclusively shown, is that a Warrior is a more mana efficient tank, wich again... we already knew.
It's a far leap from being draining on the healers, to being unusable.

- - - Updated - - -

Soaking is not tanking, period.

And if Druid were really able to tank as well as warrior, we would not discuss their ability to do so, would we not?

Please read through the last 2 pages or so where we go over the math of proper tanking and show where the math is done incorrectly and druids become unable to tank.

This is being discussed because people have preconceived notions about what can and can not be done in Vanilla that have been around for about 14 years now, it's sheer ignorance, propagated by people who never actually do the math but insist on spreading this misinformation through sheer hearsay

And again, -no one- is arguing that a Druid is as good or better than a warrior, simply that it absolutely CAN be done.

[Epoch]

That's some great feelcrafting. Here's some actual numbers

Data taken from a private server does not qualify as "actual numbers." You would have to mess with the "data" you posted above so much to make it work, even from a private server, that the end result would be so far out of whack it would be a waste of time.

Try again. Next time post data that pertains to the topic at hand, data that is not from a modified private server.

After going over this thread and reading responses that are similar to what Specialka has posted, responses which lack any sort of proof and boil down to: users sticking fingers in their ears while repeating "nananana i can't hear you" over and over again. I'm not saying you did that, don't take this as me ragging on you, I'm not. Unlike Specialka, (your above post) you attempted to go out and find data supporting your statements, even if it was data from a heavily modified private server, but you made an attempt to be in this discussion and thank you for doing so.

Specialka, on the other hand has gotten himself so deep in a topic and is too stubborn to apologize for posting on a topic he can't even begin to comprehend, the only thing he feels he can do is continue on spamming and posting incompetent statements.

[Specialka]

You do realize you did not prove anything, and you did not even back up your claim with actual number (even from pirate server, as modified as they are). You are the one who can not understand that soaking =/= tanking

[Holian]

You do realize you did not prove anything, and you did not even back up your claim with actual number (even from pirate server, as modified as they are). You are the one who can not understand that soaking =/= tanking

I have posted several times in regards to why Druids can tank and not just soak, backed up by basic math, personal experience and videos showing Druids maintanking progression bosses.

Now do you have -any- information other than opinion as to why this is incorrect?
Epoch is unnecessarily confrontational in alot of these posts, but his point stands.

[Epoch]

I have posted several times in regards to why Druids can tank and not just soak, backed up by basic math, personal experience and videos showing Druids maintanking progression bosses.

Now do you have -any- information other than opinion as to why this is incorrect?
Epoch is unnecessarily confrontational in alot of these posts, but his point stands.

My apologies for being confrontational. I've spent so much time on this topic over the last 13 years on forums in general that I have about given up hope of dealing with poster's who are so against something yet the only reason they can offer boils down to: "cause i said so hurr durr", ie. what Specialka has chosen to do in this thread. On the wow forum alone since 2005, if I took a guess, this same thing has occurred over 200 times (a generous guess at that, the real number being over 600) with the end result 100% of the time being that the user's who were against druids being a main tank provided no factual backing whatsoever for any of their comments, didn't understand druids in general, nor tanking as a druid and ultimately made themselves look like a fool.

Sadly, as you may have noticed, all you will get out of poster's like Specialka, who choose to spend the entirety of their time on this forum essentially equals pointless comments. They are too stubborn to admit they are wrong and apologize for wasting everyone's time because they chose to jump into a topic which they can't even begin to comprehend, don't have a inkling to try and understand, want to be a sheep and blindly follow other's who are clueless, or do so to get their post count up.

[ydraw]

user's who were against druids being a main tank.

None of us are "against" druids being a main tank. We are against the poor class balance that existed in Vanilla.

I think it would be great if Druids and Paladins could be main tanks. But they can't if there are no changes.

[Xecks]

None of us are "against" druids being a main tank. We are against the poor class balance that existed in Vanilla.

I think it would be great if Druids and Paladins could be main tanks. But they can't if there are no changes.

the thing is druids could mt. was it the best you could do? nope. but it could happen.

[Radaney]

I mean Druid Tanks are viable but Warriors were just better in 90% of all situations.

But yeh if you wanted to play a worse class for the role you want for some reason that can just manage to pass through the game then yeh go Druid tank.

Having a Druid Tank as a Lock was awful because they were also shit at group aggro.

Or just go Resto and heal, like a good Druid.