Making a case for Ranged Tanking in WoW

[Teriz]

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.

Considering that creating this thread was considered to be "Tinker spamming" among some detractors, I'm going to have to pass.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

The pet doesn't die. Damage the pet endures is transferred to the PC. In the OP I listed multiple ways the pet and the tank can move.

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.

Which is a discussion that I welcome.

[HansOlo]

Considering that creating this thread was considered to be "Tinker spamming" among some detractors, I'm going to have to pass.

Not tank; but this shield-generating, buffing - "every raid and RBG needs just 1 and not 2 of" dps/support niché would be really interesting thou. Just like a what shamans and mages brings to the table with BL/TW.

[arkanon]

Considering that creating this thread was considered to be "Tinker spamming" among some detractors, I'm going to have to pass.

No, you won't do it because it will be a clear visual representation of just how unpopular this flawed, and downright terrible concept is.

Surely you can accept that the response to this idea has been almost unanimously negative, right? Can you at least acknowledge that?

[Clouds2]

The fact that the forum mod has let this thread continue is bordering on negligence. This was a tinker thread in disguise and he is literally ignoring any and all evidence, comments, and opinions by basically every single poster and keeps ignoring any and all discussions for attention. This is non-productive thread that harms the community more than helps. This idea has repeatedly been proven to not work in today’s game and the OP has shown to be obtuse or too prideful to realize how dumb his idea is. Just close the thread already.

[Ielenia]

And as I've stated, the better you get, the more at range you can tank with this concept.

Except you can never be truly "at range" because it doesn't matter if you're 10, 20, 30 or 40 feet away from the boss, you'll still be taking melee damage and being the target of melee mechanics, and worse: you'll also have to be worrying about ranged mechanics as well.

Explain it one more time please.

So you can ignore it again? Fine. I'm not you, anyways. Basically the whole idea of "merging with the pet" completely negates the whole idea of "being ranged", and considering many fights in the game require intense movement, especially in mythic+ runs, the "ranged" tank would end up in melee much more often than not.

Taking melee damage while fighting from 40 yds away is still being ranged.

It complete defeats the idea of being ranged since the purpose of standing at range is avoiding melee damage and melee mechanics.

Considering the realities of the spec, I don't see how that could be avoided.

And that is one of the many reasons why the idea is D.O.A.

So you're saying that if Blizzard created a workable ranged tank, people wouldn't play it simply because it would usher in a new gameplay style for the role?

First: you have yet to prove that a ranged tank is even possible.
Second: that wasn't my argument. I asked what's the benefit for ranged tanking, and all you said was: people would play it because it's new. Being "new" is not a benefit.

Already discussed.

You mean "hand-waved". You have not addressed it in any way, shape or form. You simply asserted that "tanking at range" is beneficial. You never gave a single example why, whereas many people have given you examples of why it's not a benefit. Some of the reasons include:
• You're still taking melee damage.
• You're having to deal with both melee and ranged mechanics.
• Heavy movement fights force you to stay in melee.

What is there to address? If 90% of the tanks in WoW are melee, obviously a ranged tank would have to make sacrifices in some fights for the good of game balance.

And if the class has to "make sacrifices", then that proves the concept is D.O.A. because it cannot perform the role it's supposed to do. That's like saying the warrior class is a two-handed weapon tank, but has to 'make sacrifices' and put up a one-handed weapon and shield every now and then for certain abilities.

Let's not pretend that the range tank having to spend a few fights entirely in melee negates the entire concept.

Except it does. Because it's not just "a few fights". It's many fights. The majority of them.

Read back through this thread, I've addressed those fights multiple times.

"Merging with the pet" doesn't address it. Because we're back at my main points: your "solutions" either don't address the problem, or pose even more problems. This case being the latter: you're making the "ranged" part completely moot. If a class has to be in melee range to be effective, then it's not a ranged class. It's a melee class with ranged abilities.

And as always you use hyperbole to dismiss a concept simply because you don't like it. See the tank damage example.

Hyperbole? You were the one who coined the term "training wheels" for your concept, not me:

Consider "merge" to be more like training wheels.

And what I said is not a hyperbole, it's a fact: if a class needs "training wheels" to be viable, it's a failure of class design.

Which doesn't change the fact that them being the highest DPS tank in the game is mentioned quite clearly as a reason to pick them. That's a far cry from your earlier statement that tank DPS was "meaningless".

And it is meaningless. Guilds, casual, semi-hardcore and hardcore are not picking vengeance demon hunters as tanks because of their damage. They have good mitigation and great mobility, which is great especially during certain weeks when we have the necrotic affix. I'll repeat: vengeance demon hunters are not picked because of their damage.

And once again, if you think the concept is DOA in PvE, why would you want to discuss it in PvP? I think we both know the answer to that question.

Who said I want to discuss PvP? Especially since this was I said:
[QUOTE=Teriz;53084591]But they don't care about PvE. They care about PvP which is what they enjoy playing. Just like I never asked you about PvP because I don't care about PvP. I might address PvP after you fix your PvE ideas.

[kenn9530]

snip.

DiD you even play in MoP, best tank in CMs which was the most common content was BM no other tank was as good, and while raids it didnt matter so much no other tank had the toolkit a BM had along with being able to solo tank raden which no other tank could do, so yes its proven that BM was the strongest tank overall and healing wise it was the strongest pure healing spec, so everytime a new class is launched it becomes the FOTM and other specs/classes are left in the dirt.

Its not good for a game to ignore its classes/specs that are currently ingame already just to implemented a class like tinkerer that would never work in a ranged tank capacity anyway.

[Ielenia]

Evidence is evidence regardless of sample size.

It's not, really. The sample size is so small it basically amounts to "anecdotal". The plural of "anecdotal" is not "data".

[Teriz]

No, you won't do it because it will be a clear visual representation of just how unpopular this flawed, and downright terrible concept is.

Surely you can accept that the response to this idea has been almost unanimously negative, right? Can you at least acknowledge that?

People dislike what they don't understand. Nothing in this thread has surprised me thus far. I think the more we discuss this, the more fruitful the discussion can become.

[Ielenia]

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.

You have failed to address PvE concerns, and refuse to discuss PvP. Every single one of your points in PvE have been debunked by demonstrations of how they either do not address the issue, or create more issues. Sometimes both. And then, again, there's the refusal to discuss PvP...

[Clouds2]

People dislike what they don't understand. Nothing in this thread has surprised me thus far. I think the more we discuss this, the more fruitful the discussion can become.

So to be clear, you are saying every single person in here is not as smart as you and can’t comprehend the genius level idea this is? Please link me your main characters armory or name. I would like to know what your experience in the game is, as you are pitching an idea intended for high competitive play and telling everybody else they can’t comprehend it. If you are going to insult everybody’s intelligence, please show us your merits.

[Ielenia]

People dislike what they don't understand.

We do understand. You don't. And you have proven that, time and again.

Your PvE ideas don't work. You imply that the reason DH tanks are popular is because of their damage. You outright dismiss all examples of why your ideas do not work. You refuse to talk PvP.

[arkanon]

People dislike what they don't understand. Nothing in this thread has surprised me thus far. I think the more we discuss this, the more fruitful the discussion can become.

How ironic - we understand it just fine, in fact most of us seem to understand it better than you do. And we ALL seem to understand tanking, m+, pvp, boss mechanics, and general gameplay FAR better than you do. We understand your concept, and it has been thoroughly rejected.

[Teriz]

Except you can never be truly "at range" because it doesn't matter if you're 10, 20, 30 or 40 feet away from the boss, you'll still be taking melee damage and being the target of melee mechanics, and worse: you'll also have to be worrying about ranged mechanics as well.

Again, this is an opinion, and we're simply going to have to agree to disagree about it.

And like I said before, mitigation and proper gameplay would avoid this tank taking ranged and melee damage.

So you can ignore it again? Fine. I'm not you, anyways. Basically the whole idea of "merging with the pet" completely negates the whole idea of "being ranged", and considering many fights in the game require intense movement, especially in mythic+ runs, the "ranged" tank would end up in melee much more often than not.

And this is a non issue. Obviously in a game where the majority of tanks are melee, a ranged tank would need to sacrifice some of its time in melee. That said, the higher the skill level of the ranged tank, the less time in melee range they would need to spend.

And that is one of the many reasons why the idea is D.O.A.

The concept is DOA because it has to spend a minority of its time fighting in melee? Hilarious.

First: you have yet to prove that a ranged tank is even possible.
Second: that wasn't my argument. I asked what's the benefit for ranged tanking, and all you said was: people would play it because it's new. Being "new" is not a benefit.

I've already proven it. In addition, adding a new way to play a role is a benefit.

Since your post is pretty much the same thing argument over and over again, I'm going to stop it here.

- - - Updated - - -

So to be clear, you are saying every single person in here is not as smart as you and can’t comprehend the genius level idea this is? Please link me your main characters armory or name. I would like to know what your experience in the game is, as you are pitching an idea intended for high competitive play and telling everybody else they can’t comprehend it. If you are going to insult everybody’s intelligence, please show us your merits.

I asked you for a specific example showing how the concept I came up with wouldn't work in modern raid mechanics. You have yet to provide that example, so what are you so offended about?

[Clouds2]

All I can say to the brave men and women who are trying to get him to see the light is....thank god this guy is not a developer. We can sleep at night

Also, I am sure he is thinking about this concept in a looking for raid or normal dungeon type concept, but it just won’t work in any form of hard content. We all know it. So does he. He is just being difficult and trying to get a reaction/attention.

[Teriz]

How ironic - we understand it just fine....

Multiple posts from you have shown that to not be the case.

- - - Updated - - -

DiD you even play in MoP, best tank in CMs which was the most common content was BM no other tank was as good, and while raids it didnt matter so much no other tank had the toolkit a BM had along with being able to solo tank raden which no other tank could do, so yes its proven that BM was the strongest tank overall and healing wise it was the strongest pure healing spec, so everytime a new class is launched it becomes the FOTM and other specs/classes are left in the dirt.

Its not good for a game to ignore its classes/specs that are currently ingame already just to implemented a class like tinkerer that would never work in a ranged tank capacity anyway.

So where's that evidence I requested?

[kenn9530]

Multiple posts from you have shown that to not be the case.

- - - Updated - - -



So where's that evidence I requested?

The leaderboards have monks all over the place at the top in all CMs in MoP, you have not provided evidence proving they were not the strongest tank in MoP.

You stated class balance was no problems in MoP, when the difference between some classes would be double the dps, some classes doing would be doing 200k dps and others would be at around 130k so thats a massive difference and this is from the top guild videos, so yes your talking BS about MoP having good class balance.

And also guess what a BM is in most kills for all the top guilds so even more data proving the strength of the class back in MoP.

[Clouds2]

Can we take a second to acknowledge that he used a thread that had 30 votes on some third party website to call it evidence that brewmaster wasn’t “op” on release, yet he is outnumbered by about 200-1 at this point and he is still claiming that he knows and understands but the 200 other people don’t? This is as obtuse as obtuse gets.

[Teriz]

The leaderboards have monks all over the place at the top in all CMs in MoP, you have not provided evidence proving they were not the strongest tank in MoP.

I provided a poll from that time period, and that poll had Paladins being the top pick.

Since you're not going to provide a link to support your argument, there's no need to derail this thread any further.

[Ielenia]

Again, this is an opinion,

It's not an opinion: it's a fact. A fact established by you: the tank will take damage the pet suffers. Meaning the ranged tank will always be taking melee damage and suffering melee mechanics.

And like I said before, mitigation and proper gameplay would avoid this tank taking ranged and melee damage.

Oh, so now it's OP AGAIN, as it can avoid taking melee damage now?

And this is a non issue. Obviously in a game where the majority of tanks are melee, a ranged tank would need to sacrifice some of its time in melee. That said, the higher the skill level of the ranged tank, the less time in melee range they would need to spend.

This is a huge issue! The "ranged" tank would be "sacrificing" ALL of its time to be in melee in M+ runs, and many of the raid fights in this game. Again, you're trying to side-step the issue by completely negating the "ranged" part of "ranged tanking". Might as well just make the tank melee, if that's the case.

The concept is DOA because it has to spend a minority of its time fighting in melee? Hilarious.

Minority? Try majority.

I've already proven it.

No. No, you have not. Every time you try to prove it, we see through it and point out all the flaws in your ideas that make them not work, but you just ignore them.

In addition, adding a new way to play a role is a benefit.

No, it's not. It's just new. Being "new" is not a benefit.

Since your post is pretty much the same thing argument over and over again, I'm going to stop it here.

And do you know why it's "the same argument over and over again"? Because you just keep repeating what you're saying "over and over again" while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary and arguments that debunk your claims. Like your refusal to discuss PvP. Your refusal to explain why tanking "at range" is a benefit despite people pointing out how it's NOT a benefit.

Perhaps if you actually tried to address people's concerns instead of dismissing them or, worse, insult their intelligence, we wouldn't have to just keep repeating the same arguments, over and over, in the hopes you'll actually address them.

[Teriz]

It's not an opinion: it's a fact. A fact established by you: the tank will take damage the pet suffers. Meaning the ranged tank will always be taking melee damage and suffering melee mechanics.

Yet the tank will still be fighting at range, which makes it a ranged spec.

Like i said, you're welcome to your opinion, but that still means you're wrong.

Oh, so now it's OP AGAIN, as it can avoid taking melee damage now?

It can avoid taking melee damage if the tank merges with the pet and moves out of melee range.

This is a huge issue! The "ranged" tank would be "sacrificing" ALL of its time to be in melee in M+ runs, and many of the raid fights in this game. Again, you're trying to side-step the issue by completely negating the "ranged" part of "ranged tanking". Might as well just make the tank melee, if that's the case.

You mean in old M+ content that was never designed for the tank concept in question. Obviously if this tank were implemented, future content would be, thus there shouldn't be a situation where this tank would need to spend multiple fights fully in melee range.

Minority? Try majority.

Nah, like I said, the higher the skill level, the less time the tank needs to use Merge. Hilarious how you keep ignoring this.

No. No, you have not. Every time you try to prove it, we see through it and point out all the flaws in your ideas that make them not work, but you just ignore them.

The only argument you've provided is the opinion that a character fighting in range is no longer a ranged character if it's taking melee damage, regardless of the actual position of said character.

No, it's not. It's just new. Being "new" is not a benefit.

Actually it is.

And do you know why it's "the same argument over and over again"? Because you just keep repeating what you're saying "over and over again" while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary and arguments that debunk your claims. Like your refusal to discuss PvP. Your refusal to explain why tanking "at range" is a benefit despite people pointing out how it's NOT a benefit.

Like I said, the only counter arguments you've offered are opinion and hyperbole. As for the PvP discussion, my criteria is clear.

Perhaps if you actually tried to address people's concerns instead of dismissing them or, worse, insult their intelligence, we wouldn't have to just keep repeating the same arguments, over and over, in the hopes you'll actually address them.

I've addressed every honest concern brought forward. I reject the notion that I've insulted anyone's intelligence.