Making a case for Ranged Tanking in WoW

[datguy81]

I genuinely don't think this is trolling. Some troll posts by OP? Yeah, no doubt about it. But the premise they are pushing is not trolling - they just have extremely limited understanding of tanking, m+, pvp, and gameplay in general.

It's the kind of concept what would work fine in open world content, but has literally no purpose there.

The core gameplay systems in wow are raids, m+, and pvp. OP has entirely failed to show how this would or could work in any of those situations, without completely removing it's one unique feature - tanking from range.

The thread was made to be a tinker thread. The op is unable show how it would work in m+ or pvp or even address other issues.

[kenn9530]

MoP proves otherwise.

Are you serious, for one brewmaster tanks were stupid OP no other tank was anywhere near as good, also some dps classes just blew everyone out of the water and not to mention disc was the most OP healing spec in the whole history of WOW, so dont spout of complete nonsense.

You do realise what class balance means right, no matter what class or spec you play it shouldnt play at best 10% better than anything else.

[arkanon]

It is amazing that after hundreds of posts you still believe that.



And nothing in this concept prevents them from doing that.



Wouldn't a skilled player know when to avoid those mechanics? For example if you're entering a phase where a mechanic would one-shot a player at range, why wouldn't this tanking concept merge into melee range until that phase ends? The same would apply to a melee 1-shot mechanic.

Once again, it's as if you're not even reading the concept and just making ridiculous judgement calls and assumptions.

A skilled player would play a class that doesn't require him to deal with twice the mechanics compared to every other tank in the game. You claim people would play it purely for the gimmick of being able to deal damage at range, but acknowledge yourself that for the majority of the time, to be competitive with other tanks, they would be playing "merged" (a melee tank).

You won't properly discuss how M+ would work, because it simply doesn't. You refuse to discuss pvp because this paper thin concept completely falls apart in every way when you try to put it into any pvp scenario.

I find your requirements for discussing pvp to be very telling. "I will discuss pvp if you completely dismiss all of the issues you have raised in pve". Anyone can see what you are doing there, you don't want to discuss pvp because it simply does not work.

The only way you can make this silly idea work is if you completely remove literally the only thing making it unique from a range tank - the range part.

This topic was supposed to be about range tanking, and yet your solution to pretty much all the concerns raised is "oh, you just play in melee for that part".

[Teriz]

Are you serious, for one brewmaster tanks were stupid OP no other tank was anywhere near as good,

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...t-Tank-For-5-4

This poll says otherwise.

[arkanon]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...t-Tank-For-5-4

This poll says otherwise.

Did you just use some shitty poll off a 3rd party fansite forum, with 30 votes to prove a point? Omg that's a new level of desperation.

[threads]

ranged tanks are the dumbest idea, everytime.

[arkanon]

ranged tanks are the dumbest idea, everytime.

No, it's a cool idea, it simply does not work in practice.

[Darkeon]

Seems it would go one of two ways:
- It would too much of an hassle to handle a companion's AI, which has been proven true in WoW previously. And therefore rendered either a sub-par choice or a completely unpleasant one.
- The AI would be so good that it would blow the other tanks away.

All in all, does not seem to work in the current WoW.

[kenn9530]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...t-Tank-For-5-4

This poll says otherwise.

A poll means nothing because its all subjective and doesnt even include actual information and performance, Monk was the best tank in MoP it had the best movement and best active mitigation, it was king in CMs and great in heroic raiding.

[Teriz]

Did you just use some shitty poll off a 3rd party fansite forum, with 30 votes to prove a point? Omg that's a new level of desperation.

The point was to show that at the time Monk was definitely not viewed as an OP tank.

- - - Updated - - -

A poll means nothing because its all subjective and doesnt even include actual information and performance, Monk was the best tank in MoP it had the best movement and best active mitigation, it was king in CMs and great in heroic raiding.

Well then please provide evidence to back up your claim.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems it would go one of two ways:
- It would too much of an hassle to handle a companion's AI, which has been proven true in WoW previously. And therefore rendered either a sub-par choice or a completely unpleasant one.
- The AI would be so good that it would blow the other tanks away.

All in all, does not seem to work in the current WoW.

Check the OP. The companion would be controlled by the player, not AI.

[ozzynclyde]

The point was to show that at the time Monk was definitely not viewed as an OP tank.

- - - Updated - - -



Well then please provide evidence to back up your claim.

- - - Updated - - -



Check the OP. The companion would be controlled by the player, not AI.

That check further past the OP and find he wants it to be AI

[arkanon]

The point was to show that at the time Monk was definitely not viewed as an OP tank.

This is a random poll on a 3rd party fansite, with 30 votes. The game had roughly 10m players at the time. Your sample size is pathetic and means the "data" is completely worthless. You are now intentionally derailing your own thread, because your idea is receiving 100%, universally negative response.

Want to know just how terrible your "evidence" is? 4 votes - if just a few of the people segueing against your terrible concept clicked it and voted monk, it would be top. That's why tiny sample sizes don't work.

[Teriz]

This is a random poll on a 3rd party fansite, with 30 votes. The game had roughly 10m players at the time. Your sample size is pathetic and means the "data" is completely worthless. You are now intentionally derailing your own thread, because your idea is receiving 100%, universally negative response.

Evidence is evidence regardless of sample size.

[Kumorii]

This is a random poll on a 3rd party fansite, with 30 votes. The game had roughly 10m players at the time. Your sample size is pathetic and means the "data" is completely worthless. You are now intentionally derailing your own thread, because your idea is receiving 100%, universally negative response.

Want to know just how terrible your "evidence" is? 4 votes - if just a few of the people segueing against your terrible concept clicked it and voted monk, it would be top. That's why tiny sample sizes don't work.

Considering his criteria for sample sizes... this thread is enough to show ranged tanking isn't feasible.

[Teriz]

That check further past the OP and find he wants it to be AI

Nah, the OP gives a detailed explanation of what we're talking about here, which is why I'm referring the poster there.

[HansOlo]

Concept 1: Technician: A technology-based spec that uses shields and ranged weaponry

The premise is a tank spec that uses guns and energy shields. The "pet" is the energy shield. The PC projects the field in front of them like Sigma from Overwatch's shields. The field emits threat, and increases damage the PC does to the enemy when the PC shoots through the field. In return, when the boss hits the field, there is feedback and the PC takes damage.

Movement: The PC can have the field follow their lateral movements, can have the field remain stationary, can teleport to the field's location and taking its threat level, and project the field forward as they teleport backwards. I'd be open to the possibility of the tank perhaps being able to project shields in other directions other than forward, or perhaps being able to move an existing shield to a new location.

Movement abilities;

Button 1: Summon/Unsummon barrier. Hold button to move barrier forward. Once barrier is established, press again to cancel.
Button 2: Tracking (toggle): Barrier will follow the lateral movements of the PC. Untoggle tracking and the barrier will remain stationary.
Button 3: Merge: PC teleports to barriers location, merging with it. Merge becomes Separation. Separation will re-establish the barrier and the PC will be ported behind it.
Button 4: Locus: Move an established barrier to a specified location.

The Tank "pet" would deal no damage, since it's just a barrier.
Heavy movement is mitigated by the PC teleporting to the barrier's location and assuming it's threat.
The tank pet wouldn't be another character to heal since it's just a forcefield.
You never need to directly control the field.

I think Blizzard could actually accomplish a new style of tanking that has been desired by the userbase (who are a little tired of the standard tank and spank melee) but deemed generally impossible due to existing boss mechanics. Imagine a tank who can actually fight with a bow, a gun, or be a spellcaster? That's something to consider.

Concept 2: Dragoon: A mail armored "knight" that uses a bow/Xbow/rifle and can tame dragons.

The main difference between this concept and the previous concept is that the barrier is replaced with an actual pet. However due to reported "clunkiness", the abilities of the pet should be standard abilities instead of abilities in a pet bar. This brings the concept closer to something similar to Rexxar in HotS.

Same basic mechanics as previously mentioned should still apply. Damage done to the pet should transfer to the tank, and the pet only dies if the PC dies. Success or failure largely depends on how well the tank can manage his pet's movements, and control the boss.

Movement abilities;

Button 1: Summon dragon, unsummon dragon.
Button 2: Leash (toggle): Dragon will follow the basic movements of the PC.
Button 3: Mount: The PC will leap onto the back of the dragon, assuming its threat, and granting increased movement speed, yet reduced damage. Dismount: The PC will leap backwards from the dragon mount.
Button 4: Command: Move the dragon to a specified location. Pressing command again will order the dragon to a default location.

Unlike the barrier, this pet should have certain abilities, like a charge, or breathing fire. These abilities would also not be on a pet bar, but be a standard ability.

Current thread warnings:

This is starting to segue into a Tinker thread, of which we already have plenty - if it wants to remain open let's pivot to some other non-Tinker/Mech examples of how a ranged Tank might function in WoW.

This is why players should stay players - not because you are trying to invent something new - but you don't consider the technical aspects.

First thing that pops up in my head:

1)Raid encounters. How do you design a fight where 1 is ranged tank another one is melee? You can't most likely not optimize and design the perfect encounter.
2)What kind of implications occurs in a dungeon - are we designing the dungeons accordingly and put constant effort in it?
3)What kind of mess up will happend in PvP?

Those are just the very few things that pops up in my head.

Ideally - you want to create something - that works just perfectly, if you would put in the game right now(without any considerations like a domino effect - because this is what the devs are in constant battle with - before even thinking of new ideas).

[ozzynclyde]

Nah, the OP gives a detailed explanation of what we're talking about here, which is why I'm referring the poster there.

And what if they said "it should be AI controlled"? You would have said "check post blah blah where I describe how it should be AI".

[arkanon]

Evidence is evidence regardless of sample size.

Hahaha, what? No, that's not at all how this works. Go on then, put your money were your mouth is, and create a poll linking to this thread asking the following question: "does my concept for range tanking work?" With the options of YES and NO.

if there is even a tiny majority who click no, even if it's just you voting yes, and 2 ppl voting no, you abandon this thread, and never post in it again.

Go on, do it - create the poll - evidence is evidence, after all. It would be the definition of insanity to continue to push a concept that has proven to be unpopular.

[Teriz]

Considering his criteria for sample sizes... this thread is enough to show ranged tanking isn't feasible.

Actually if someone reads this thread, they would see that it's quite feasible, considering that I've fairly answered every issue with this concept in a PvE context. It would appear that the main contention is that people seem to have an issue with a ranged tank being forced to fight in melee in a game where every tank is melee based.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why players should stay players - not because you are trying to invent something new - but you don't consider the technical aspects.

First thing that pops up in my head:

1)Raid encounters. How do you design a fight where 1 is ranged tank another one is melee?
2)What kind of implications occurs in a dungeon - are we designing the dungeons accordingly and put constant effort in it?
3)What kind of mess up will happend in PvP?

Those are just the very few things that pops up in my head.

1.The barrier/Pet/whatever operates in melee, which allows the PC to deal damage at range. Technically, all tanks are melee.
2. Why would dungeons need to be changed or altered?
3. We'll discuss PvP once we get PvE settled.

- - - Updated - - -

And what if they said "it should be AI controlled"? You would have said "check post blah blah where I describe how it should be AI".

Nah, I just found player controlled to be the better option.

[HansOlo]

Actually if someone reads this thread, they would see that it's quite feasible, considering that I've fairly answered every issue with this concept in a PvE context. It would appear that the main contention is that people seem to have an issue with a ranged tank being forced to fight in melee in a game where every tank is melee based.

- - - Updated - - -



1.The barrier/Pet/whatever operates in melee, which allows the PC to deal damage at range. Technically, all tanks are melee.
2. Why would dungeons need to be changed or altered?
3. We'll discuss PvP once we get PvE settled.

1. What happends if the pet dies? - does the main also die? You summon a new pet? Will the boss need to run to you to kill you - if you can't summon the pet? I'm thinking that pet dies/boss moves/you summon a new pet - how does the other tank react?

IF that is the thing - then I can imagine some really cheezy stuff. Even so - this is still a question about not the class - but to change the blueprint of encounters. If you can nail this part down as well - then by all means.