Making a case for Ranged Tanking in WoW

[kenn9530]

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.

A poll from a 3rd party website means nothing, using as actual evidence just proves you dont enjoy using actual facts to support anything you actually say.

Simple fact is monks had no weak specs at all, some classes would do 25-50% more damage than other classes so your so called balanced expansion is just you talking BS.

[Thirtyrock]

People aren't clamoring for it to be created because they don't think it's possible.

That said, what in my concept specifically do you think is layered and convoluted?

Fair enough.

Typically when a new class enters the game, people give it a spin to determine whether its worth playing or not. When a class enters the game offering something new for a given role, the community tends to be VERY interested in it. Mistweavers and the possibility of a Demonology tank being a prime examples of this phenomenom.

People aren't clamoring for it to be created because it's a silly concept. You can't control a pet or "shield" and your character at the same time, movement wise and expect to have the same level of control as a character controlling just their PC.

Your class ideas are a hybrid of a druid (transforming into the pet is basically being a druid but with whatever flavor you gave the pet) and a character that has a ranged appearance and a melee appearance (a shield that stays in front of the boss but moves with the character is just your character in two different places). Neither of these ideas are interesting or workable. They are unnecessarily complex, convoluted, layered, non-intuitive...take your pick.

Yes, when a new class enters the game, people play it out of interest. When a new class or spec is significantly out of line with others, people will either flock to it, in the case of easier/overpowered or run from it in the case of harder/underpowered. A harder spec is for the vast majority of players underpowered, since it's easier to mess up, to compensate you'd have to make it overpowered if played well. OOOORRRRR you'd have to nerf encounters into the ground so it's no longer interesting.

It's just not a workable concept.

Back to my first post in this thread, why in the world are you trying to make this a thing? What is the appeal here?

[Teriz]

People aren't clamoring for it to be created because it's a silly concept. You can't control a pet or "shield" and your character at the same time, movement wise and expect to have the same level of control as a character controlling just their PC.

See the Tracking/Leash and Merge/Mount abilities in the OP.

Your class ideas are a hybrid of a druid (transforming into the pet is basically being a druid but with whatever flavor you gave the pet) and a character that has a ranged appearance and a melee appearance (a shield that stays in front of the boss but moves with the character is just your character in two different places). Neither of these ideas are interesting or workable. They are unnecessarily complex, convoluted, layered, non-intuitive...take your pick.

Which is entirely your opinion.

Yes, when a new class enters the game, people play it out of interest. When a new class or spec is significantly out of line with others, people will either flock to it, in the case of easier/overpowered or run from it in the case of harder/underpowered. A harder spec is for the vast majority of players underpowered, since it's easier to mess up, to compensate you'd have to make it overpowered if played well. OOOORRRRR you'd have to nerf encounters into the ground so it's no longer interesting.

It's just not a workable concept.

In what way is this concept not workable?

Back to my first post in this thread, why in the world are you trying to make this a thing? What is the appeal here?

That isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Thirtyrock]

See the Tracking/Leash and Merge/Mount abilities in the OP.

Which is entirely your opinion.

In what way is this concept not workable?

That isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.

Ok, dude. As others have said, I'm truly glad you're not in charge of development. This is a terrible idea, you're terrible at designing classes. If the entire damn game would have to be redesigned around your one weird class design, it's a stupid design.

I explained how the class was unworkable, other people have explained how the class is unworkable. It's uninteresting BECAUSE it is unworkable.

Peace out with your weird class fetish.

[Merlunie]

ITT: People point out OP’s flawed logic and obvious lack of experience in game development.

OP using more flawed logic to back up his already flawed logic.


Fun

[Lorgran]

Haven't you heard? All tanking in SL is ranged tanking! :P

[Ogarash]

All you need to do is place a barrier or pet in place for the boss to fight in melee while the player is attacking in range. The issue is moving that pet around in complex boss fights. My solution is allowing the PC to merge with the pet and make the necessary movements, and when the phase ends, the tank disengages and fights from range again. Nothing stops a designer at Blizzard from coming up with a better idea to allow the pet to move while the PC continues to fight from range.

So your suggestion is to, for the important stuff, be in melee range and when you're offtanking to be ranged "bad dps". Because thats what I'm reading. And If it's going to be a pet tanking class you might as well make Survival Hunter a tank and Demonology Warlock a tank. Nah...

[Thirtyrock]

Haven't you heard? All tanking in SL is ranged tanking! :P

Fair point. - A significant amount of my tanking in M+ - Pop Elysian Decree, jump in, jump out. Profit

[Teriz]

So your suggestion is to, for the important stuff, be in melee range and when you're offtanking to be ranged "bad dps". Because thats what I'm reading. And If it's going to be a pet tanking class you might as well make Survival Hunter a tank and Demonology Warlock a tank. Nah...

If you don't have the skill to control the movement of your pet/barrier, then yes. If you develop the necessary skill, you can stay in ranged the majority of the time.

- - - Updated - - -

I explained how the class was unworkable, other people have explained how the class is unworkable. It's uninteresting BECAUSE it is unworkable.

You gave me your opinion, which isn't something that moves the conversation forward. Some facts would be far more productive.

[Clouds2]

If you don't have the skill to control the movement of your pet/barrier, then yes. If you develop the necessary skill, you can stay in ranged the majority of the time.

- - - Updated - - -



You gave me your opinion, which isn't something that moves the conversation forward. Some facts would be far more productive.

He has already given you more feedback. Literally every single person in this thread has given you the exact same feedback. And your response is, "Oh you can control both at the same time!". You are not actually listening to the feedback given to you, you are ignoring it and saying, oh you can just be good enough that it isn't a problem. Every single person has told you this is a terrible idea, yet you still won't accept it. This is, factually, a terrible design. The evidence is, you are outnumbered by about 200-1. Using your, "30 people voted, and brewmaster was not the most voted op" link, this thread as factually shown your design sucks. So stop trying to argue with everybody. You do not know enough about the game to make this work. Stop telling people to give you feedback when every single one of us have given you the same exact feedback. At this point you are being purposely obtuse because you don't want to take the hit to your ego. Let it go, this does not work, it has been shown factual by this thread. So just stop.

[Thirtyrock]

If you don't have the skill to control the movement of your pet/barrier, then yes. If you develop the necessary skill, you can stay in ranged the majority of the time.

- - - Updated - - -



You gave me your opinion, which isn't something that moves the conversation forward. Some facts would be far more productive.

I don't think you understand what opinions and facts are. I told you significant problems with the class design. Others told you significant problems with the class design. Since we're talking about something hypothetical I can't PROVE that the class isn't workable. I can't offer you facts about why it doesn't work in the real world, since it doesn't exist in the real world. I can tell you 1) how the game works and 2) how players react. From there we are in the realm of the hypothetical.

There isn't anywhere for the conversation to go because whenever anyone asks you how you will deal with the obvious problems you say "that problem, that you just pointed out, is only a problem because it's your opinion."

So, I don't know, I guess we're just here to beat you up for a dumb idea. I'm not really interested in doing that. I was curious what the motivation for this class design was, but you told me "that's not relevant to the discussion at hand". Well, the discussion at hand is stupid, because of all the reasons everyone has stated. I'm dropping out. I hope you at least have fun thinking about these things, because you're never going to get to play them.

[Ielenia]

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

It completely negates the whole "at range" if the player is still continually taking melee damage and suffering melee mechanics regardless of how far it is from the boss. And if the "ranged tank" cannot avoid that, then "ranged tanking" literally offers zero benefits, and only brings downsides, so it's best to just be a melee tank.

That is a fact you cannot escape, regardless of how much you try to ignore it.

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

Projecting hard, I see.

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

By that you mean constantly fuck up boss positioning since it has to keep running away from the boss' melee abilities and auto-attack, then.

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.

You're only proving my point when I say that content would have to be "dumbed down" to allow for a ranged tank, as many mechanics would have to be altered and some outright removed to make room for a gimmicky tank that not only offers zero benefits over the other tank classes, but is much harder to play with.

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

I'm not ignoring this. I've addressed this countless times. If a class needs "training wheels", then it's a failure of class design. And second: Blizzard does not design classes aimed for "the highest of skill levels". They design classes for all to use.

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.

The fact you're reading this proves that you don't care about what people actually write. I've given several arguments and several examples, and yet here you demonstrate how you've ignored them all.

Actually it is.

If someone put a plate of poop in front of you, it would be a new thing for you to eat. Therefore, would you think eating poop is good because it's something new? No, you wouldn't. Or at least I hope you wouldn't. Being "new" doesn't mean it's a benefit. It just means it's new. You have to demonstrate some actual reasoning as to why you claim "tanking at range" is a benefit.

Like I said, the only counter arguments you've offered are opinion and hyperbole.

I offered zero hyperbole here.

As for the PvP discussion, my criteria is clear.

Yes, you're demanding an echo-chamber. You just want people to agree with you, you don't want people to criticize your ideas.

I've addressed every honest concern brought forward.

And every time you tried to address it, your attempts either did not address the situation at all, or created even more holes.

I reject the notion that I've insulted anyone's intelligence.

Saying someone "does not understand your ideas" and therefore that's why they're criticizing you is insulting their intelligence.

[Vasilisa]

One thing is sure, Blizzard will never ever do something like this. You can ofc dream but this won't change. In this game tanking is tied to being a melee class, not some kind of supervising commander that sends his troop(s) to battle.

[Ielenia]

You gave me your opinion, which isn't something that moves the conversation forward. Some facts would be far more productive.

What's the point if you label all facts that go against your narrative as "opinions"? Do you define the term "fact" as "what agrees with my narrative" and "opinion" as "what does not agree with my narrative"?

[Teriz]

I don't think you understand what opinions and facts are. I told you significant problems with the class design. Others told you significant problems with the class design. Since we're talking about something hypothetical I can't PROVE that the class isn't workable. I can't offer you facts about why it doesn't work in the real world, since it doesn't exist in the real world. I can tell you 1) how the game works and 2) how players react. From there we are in the realm of the hypothetical.

Saying that a design isn't interesting isn't a showing a significant problem with the class design. Further we're talking about a specialization, not an entire class.

Your quote is a contradiction btw. You say that I don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, and then go on to explain why you can't factually back up your arguments.

There isn't anywhere for the conversation to go because whenever anyone asks you how you will deal with the obvious problems you say "that problem, that you just pointed out, is only a problem because it's your opinion."

Which is demonstrably false in multiple cases. For example your "problem" about the player and the pet moving simultaneously was countered by an ability that I discussed in the OP. Instead of acknowledging that point, you're now mischaracterizing my responses.

I'm dropping out. I hope you at least have fun thinking about these things, because you're never going to get to play them.

Well since you don't want to have an actual discussion, I think that would be for the best.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the point if you label all facts that go against your narrative as "opinions"? Do you define the term "fact" as "what agrees with my narrative" and "opinion" as "what does not agree with my narrative"?

Saying that the concept is dumb is an opinion.
Saying that the design isn't interesting is an opinion.
Saying that a character attacking a target 40 yards away isn't ranged because they're taking melee damage is an opinion.
Saying that fighting in melee range for a brief amount of time negates the point of range is an opinion.

[Thirtyrock]

What's the point if you label all facts that go against your narrative as "opinions"? Do you define the term "fact" as "what agrees with my narrative" and "opinion" as "what does not agree with my narrative"?

I think he's one of those that goes "I don't have any cognitive bias I just have extremely high standards of proof for arguments that disagree with me while only requiring anecdotal evidence for arguments that agree with me."

He literally doesn't understand what the words opinions and facts means. He doesn't understand what an argument is.

- - - Updated - - -

Saying that a design isn't interesting isn't a showing a significant problem with the class design. Further we're talking about a specialization, not an entire class.

Your quote is a contradiction btw. You say that I don't understand the difference between fact and opinion, and then go on to explain why you can't factually back up your arguments.

Which is demonstrably false in multiple cases. For example your "problem" about the player the pet moving simultaneously was countered by an ability that I discussed in the OP. Instead of acknowledging that point, you're now mischaracterizing my responses.


Well since you don't want to have an actual discussion, I think that would be for the best.
.

Jesus, you're really out there.

Look, people have pointed out that the class design isn't workable for multiple reasons.
I TRIED to have a discussion with you, you are the one shutting down all discussion because anything that disagrees with you is "opinion".

You can't factually back up a counterfactual, something that doesn't exist, which is why you saying "give me facts about why it won't work" is stupid.

[Teriz]

And the wait for an actual issue with concept continues....

[Thirtyrock]

The OP’s basic counter argument
“Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man”

[Teriz]

The OP’s basic counter argument
“Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man”

I thought you were "dropping out"?

In any case, I'll respond again if I see an argument that is actually substantial. Opinions and conjecture will be ignored.

Those that gave honest feedback, thank you for your posts. They were appreciated.

[bloodkin]

And the wait for an actual issue with concept continues....

more accurately, every poster that has posted in this thread other than you, is waiting on a post from you that isn't obtuse, ignorant, wrong, or outright stupid.

Whatever might be going on in your head, just about everyone that has seen this thread is fully convinced that your concept is puur 100% dysfunctional, bad and should never see the light of day.

In fact, all you have achieved is create even more contempt and animosity against you and your concepts than there already was on this forum.

You have convinced more people that ranged tanking is a bad idea and should never exist.

You are wrong, and you cannot accept this reality, which is why I suggest that you should seek help.

I can't spell this out in a more clear way, so try your best to spin this somehow, but the fact stands that this will never become reality, just accept it.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought you were "dropping out"?

In any case, I'll respond again if I see an argument that is actually substantial. Opinions and conjecture will be ignored.

Those that gave honest feedback, thank you for your posts. They were appreciated.

If you can't handle criticism, then don't bother with creating threads that you know for certain will receive it. Act like an adult and accept that close to nobody will agree with you, this isn't your personal echo chamber.