I'd have liked the Evoker to have a tank spec

[huth]

If you truly believe that going from X to X+1 tank classes will make no difference, then by that logic, going from X to X-1 (for X > 1) tank classes would have no impact.

Not quite, because there's a functional difference between removing a spec (whether or not it is replaced by a different one with the same name) and adding one.

Still, based on all evidence we've seen so far, that would mostly be what happens. Any tank that doesn't quit over losing their favourite spec will just switch to a different class, just as with added tank specs. The availability of tanks remains largely unchanged.

Not sure why you think this time would be any different than the last three times.

[Aresk]

Not quite, because there's a functional difference between removing a spec (whether or not it is replaced by a different one with the same name) and adding one.

Still, based on all evidence we've seen so far, that would mostly be what happens. Any tank that doesn't quit over losing their favourite spec will just switch to a different class, just as with added tank specs. The availability of tanks remains largely unchanged.

Not sure why you think this time would be any different than the last three times.

I'm not sure where you're getting evidence from "the last three times" in terms of tank numbers, but I'd be keen on seeing that data. I definitely think there are far more tanks available now than there were in Classic when, at least for Horde, it was basically just warrior and a few brave druids. Both class inertia and role availability have improved since then. I think adding a new tank spec isn't going to drastically shift the balance (we're not suddenly going to have twice as many tanks, for instance), but I think it will still provide a net positive in the trend. Just like losing a tanking spec isn't going to drastically hurt (most will switch), but it will hurt some (the tanks that quit over losing their favorite spec).

[Relapses]

I'm not sure where you're getting evidence from "the last three times" in terms of tank numbers, but I'd be keen on seeing that data. I definitely think there are far more tanks available now than there were in Classic when, at least for Horde, it was basically just warrior and a few brave druids. Both class inertia and role availability have improved since then. I think adding a new tank spec isn't going to drastically shift the balance (we're not suddenly going to have twice as many tanks, for instance), but I think it will still provide a net positive in the trend. Just like losing a tanking spec isn't going to drastically hurt (most will switch), but it will hurt some (the tanks that quit over losing their favorite spec).

Having yet another tank spec doesn't magically make players suddenly want to tank. The "tank shortage" is the same every expansion, even the ones where they add new tank specs to the game. The fact is that most players simply do not like the responsibility of tanking so they avoid it. Unless they remove this element from the tanking role no amount of new tanking specs will change the overall population of tanks.

[Aresk]

Having yet another tank spec doesn't magically make players suddenly want to tank. The "tank shortage" is the same every expansion, even the ones where they add new tank specs to the game. The fact is that most players simply do not like the responsibility of tanking so they avoid it. Unless they remove this element from the tanking role no amount of new tanking specs will change the overall population of tanks.

I never said it will magically make players want to tank or solve the "tank shortage." I said it would give players who are curious about tanking or willing to tank but don't have a leveled character of the current tank classes the ability to do such, and through that, make some improvements on the availability of tanks. Do you know how many paladins and warriors and death knights I've seen at least try tanking because they could? Close to 90%. Do you know how many mages I've seen try tanking? One, because the fight specifically was built to allow it. Most of that 90% decided tanking wasn't for them, but some of them found they enjoyed it and went on to main or alt tank. Last night I did a casual SoD normal run where our healer tanked all the fights for a bunch of PUGs because her class happened to be able to and she had fun tanking. Are you suggesting that there will be no evoker healers with similar interests? It might not make a huge difference, but for those folks who got their mounts, loot, and achievements last night, having that healer able to tank made their night a bit better.

[Relapses]

I never said it will magically make players want to tank or solve the "tank shortage." I said it would give players who are curious about tanking or willing to tank but don't have a leveled character of the current tank classes the ability to do such, and through that, make some improvements on the availability of tanks. Do you know how many paladins and warriors and death knights I've seen at least try tanking because they could? Close to 90%. Do you know how many mages I've seen try tanking? One, because the fight specifically was built to allow it. Most of that 90% decided tanking wasn't for them, but some of them found they enjoyed it and went on to main or alt tank. Last night I did a casual SoD normal run where our healer tanked all the fights for a bunch of PUGs because her class happened to be able to and she had fun tanking. Are you suggesting that there will be no evoker healers with similar interests? It might not make a huge difference, but for those folks who got their mounts, loot, and achievements last night, having that healer able to tank made their night a bit better.

You just defeated your own argument. What if that Mage player you mentioned that has no desire to tank wants to play an Evoker because it's a pure caster class? There's no stratification between people having access to tank specs and the availability of tanks. Your completely anecdotal singular experiences are not enough to prove otherwise.

[Teriz]

The simple fact of the matter is that Blizzard wanted to make a hero class that is a caster, and really had no desire to create a caster/ranged tank.

[Aresk]

You just defeated your own argument. What if that Mage player you mentioned that has no desire to tank wants to play an Evoker because it's a pure caster class? There's no stratification between people having access to tank specs and the availability of tanks. Your completely anecdotal singular experiences are not enough to prove otherwise.

How does a mage player not wanting to touch evoker with a tank spec affect the availability of tanks? We've gone from one person not tanking to...one person not tanking. Nothing has changed. A different mage swapping to evoker and then opting to try out tanking to get faster queues, however, does. The only way adding an evoker tank spec hurts tanking numbers is if doing so drives off more tanks than it attracts, which is not the argument you made.

As far as pure statistical evidence, I've never seen any evidence to prove or disprove the correlation; everything has been anecdotal. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it. My personal experience has run counter to that, but I'm well aware that my experience can be an outlier.

[Relapses]

How does a mage player not wanting to touch evoker with a tank spec affect the availability of tanks? We've gone from one person not tanking to...one person not tanking. Nothing has changed. A different mage swapping to evoker and then opting to try out tanking to get faster queues, however, does. The only way adding an evoker tank spec hurts tanking numbers is if doing so drives off more tanks than it attracts, which is not the argument you made.

As far as pure statistical evidence, I've never seen any evidence to prove or disprove the correlation; everything has been anecdotal. If you have such evidence, I'd love to see it. My personal experience has run counter to that, but I'm well aware that my experience can be an outlier.

You argued that somehow having a tank spec on a class increases availability of tanks and used the fact that you only know one Mage who wanted to tank. The argument is self defeating because you can just easily argue the exact inverse. The same player who only plays casters may be disinclined to roll an Evoker with a tank spec for the same reason. Additionally, I already provided you proof for my argument in the fact that at the end of every expansion -- even the ones with new tanks specs -- we end up with the same lack of tank players as we did before. I don't know why you think it'd be any different with Evoker.

There are many arguments to be made in favor of giving Evoker a tank spec; but saying that it would somehow make more people play a role that traditionally is not popular for very obvious reasons is one of the worst.

[Rockstaar]

I'd personally like the next class added to the game to not have a dps spec. It's never been done and would also force people curious about the new class to perhaps be forced into a role they weren't familiar with. I don't think it would ever happen mind you, but I do think it would be kinda cool. Although it may have some horrible repercussions in dungeons. lol

[Chaotic1962]

I'd rather have shaman tank 4th spec.

[klaps_05]

Sure makes sense a lot more than 25y range caster...

[Aresk]

You argued that somehow having a tank spec on a class increases availability of tanks and used the fact that you only know one Mage who wanted to tank. The argument is self defeating because you can just easily argue the exact inverse. The same player who only plays casters may be disinclined to roll an Evoker with a tank spec for the same reason. Additionally, I already provided you proof for my argument in the fact that at the end of every expansion -- even the ones with new tanks specs -- we end up with the same lack of tank players as we did before. I don't know why you think it'd be any different with Evoker.

There are many arguments to be made in favor of giving Evoker a tank spec; but saying that it would somehow make more people play a role that traditionally is not popular for very obvious reasons is one of the worst.

I said I only know one mage who got to tank on a mage, and that was the mage in our Gruul's Lair raid. Giving people exposure to the role is, in my opinion, the best way to get new tanks, and you don't get that by limiting tanking classes.

And no, this is not my main argument for why evokers should be able to tank, nor was the argument even about evokers specifically. I was replying to another person who said availability of tanking classes has nothing to do with availability of tanks in PUGs, which is blatantly false. How much it impacts the availability of tanks is debatable, and there's certainly going to be diminishing returns, but giving people the option to tank on their mains is going to allow more people to tank than requiring them to swap classes, just in terms of the amount of effort it takes to gear another spec vs level another class (to say nothing about situations where people can't swap classes, such as in the middle of an LFR group).

Also, saying that there's "the same lack of tank players" at the end of every expansion is not proof. It's more anecdotal evidence. I would love to see actual numbers, but as is, I can only compare my experience vs the experience of which you're telling me, and in my experience, new tanking classes lead to a spike of tanks that then falls off, settling somewhere a little higher than before. I definitely feel like there are more people willing to tank in groups now (with 50% of classes able to tank) than when I played in classic (when 25% of classes could for Horde).

[loras]

I'd rather have shaman tank 4th spec.

This i would like to see too.
Hell plenty of classes have very good 4th spec options.

[Mace]

The simple fact of the matter is that Blizzard wanted to make a hero class that is a caster, and really had no desire to create a caster/ranged tank.

Evidently, and doubtless.

Still it would be nice. let me ask you and @loras a question then, if it was just a matter of a mail spec getting a tank spec, would you prefer that to go to a shaman 4th spec or an Evoker 3rd spec. Both can easily have the fantasy expanded to incorporate a tank. The shaman already did in some lore cases, and it's hard not to imagine a Dracthyr scaled huge dragon not being able to tank magically defensively - especially if the Evoker is presented as dragon capability - dragon magical tanking works.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure makes sense a lot more than 25y range caster...

Wanna bet that won't last - although if they are careful enough, it just might. You'd have to provide a means in every encounter where range has to get close enough.. often enough or the dracthyr able to cast more adeptly in melee range than most ranged spec. Using the ability to either get close or damage while gaining distant.

If using the 25 yrd ability allowed you to trigger casting on the move, or the ability was enhanced once you triggered casting on the move, a tactic woudl be to cast on the move into range, use the 25yrd abilities, then cast on the move again to gain distance.

[Teriz]

Evidently, and doubtless.

Still it would be nice. let me ask you and @loras a question then, if it was just a matter of a mail spec getting a tank spec, would you prefer that to go to a shaman 4th spec or an Evoker 3rd spec. Both can easily have the fantasy expanded to incorporate a tank. The shaman already did in some lore cases, and it's hard not to imagine a Dracthyr scaled huge dragon not being able to tank magically defensively - especially if the Evoker is presented as dragon capability - dragon magical tanking works.

Shaman frankly makes the most sense, given that they use the four elements, and Elemental= Fire, Enhance= Wind, and Restoration= Water. A fourth spec would obviously slide into the Earth slot, which would be tanking, and give us a truly elemental class. I would make it 2H with merged elemental shielding abilities (some wild combination of Lighting, Earth, and Water shield) for mitigation, bring in some more Earth Totems to add to that mitigation, and carry over the Malestrom mechanic from Enhancement so that they can build up to cast instant spells. The foundation is already in place via the other specs, so it's pretty much a lay-up IMO.

[loras]

Evidently, and doubtless.

Still it would be nice. let me ask you and @loras a question then, if it was just a matter of a mail spec getting a tank spec, would you prefer that to go to a shaman 4th spec or an Evoker 3rd spec. Both can easily have the fantasy expanded to incorporate a tank. The shaman already did in some lore cases, and it's hard not to imagine a Dracthyr scaled huge dragon not being able to tank magically defensively - especially if the Evoker is presented as dragon capability - dragon magical tanking works.

- - - Updated - - -



Wanna bet that won't last - although if they are careful enough, it just might. You'd have to provide a means in every encounter where range has to get close enough.. often enough or the dracthyr able to cast more adeptly in melee range than most ranged spec. Using the ability to either get close or damage while gaining distant.

If using the 25 yrd ability allowed you to trigger casting on the move, or the ability was enhanced once you triggered casting on the move, a tactic woudl be to cast on the move into range, use the 25yrd abilities, then cast on the move again to gain distance.

My ocd compellsme to say that evoker needs it more - but flavorwise drac'thyr are rather fragile in their build despite their draconic heritage, not exactly prime tanking material.

And the strength of the earth and seas not being able to tank? Shields of raging winds, fire retaliating?
It's a travesty that shamans can't tank.

So yeah, if forced to choose my ocd demands i say drac'thyr, but shaman cannot be ignored.

[Soon-TM]

Why? Cos mail users will finally have a tank class - and it's dragons man, surely they can tank

I guess that the crazy mobility of both of Dracthyr's current specs plays a part. It would be weird as #$&% to have two highly mobile specs and a (comparatively) static third one. Because a tank with the same mobility of Devastation/Preservation would be an utter pain in the rear to balance.

[Mace]

I guess that the crazy mobility of both of Dracthyr's current specs plays a part. It would be weird as #$&% to have two highly mobile specs and a (comparatively) static third one. Because a tank with the same mobility of Devastation/Preservation would be an utter pain in the rear to balance.

Monks and DHs are crazy mobile....and so are tanks in general, on that basis it fits doesn't it.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess that the crazy mobility of both of Dracthyr's current specs plays a part. It would be weird as #$&% to have two highly mobile specs and a (comparatively) static third one. Because a tank with the same mobility of Devastation/Preservation would be an utter pain in the rear to balance.

Monks and DHs are crazy mobile....and so are tanks in general, on that basis it fits doesn't it.