TBC Tanking Movies - Druid Tanking by Athinira - Page 6

Brodda Thep · 01/25/07, 6:41 PM

Actually, it doesn't really make sense to allow the druid bonus to work on non-leather items. Though it could still work on weapons.

The bear form bonus should basically transform the AC values on those pieces to the same as the AC on equivalent plate items. (Slightly higher if you really want to compenstate for lack of block)

In fact this doesn't have to be even seen as a nerf to druid tanks. Just slightly increase AC leather values or the bonus for going to bear form. This gives parity to druids and warriors and paladins for the rings/trinkets/necks.

If a 500ac item is equivalent to 3k ac then they are already getting more than enough AC bonus from their bear form. They shouldn't also get it from the non-leather pieces. You could argue that this is the equivalent of getting shield armor. But you can just up AC values on druid weapons instead. It would make more sense overall.

Liar · 01/25/07, 6:52 PM

Originally Posted by Brodda Thep

In fact this doesn't have to be even seen as a nerf to druid tanks. Just slightly increase AC leather values or the bonus for going to bear form.

It is a slight nerf for armor in caster form but for argument's sake let's assume it doesn't matter

Originally Posted by Brodda Thep

This gives parity to druids and warriors and paladins for the rings/trinkets/necks.

You do realize that if Druids did not get the armor multiplier on rings and trinkets that they'd go for the same items Paladins and Warriors would go for barring a few exceptions of stats that boost Parry and Block directly - which with your logic should also not happen to give Druids, Paladins and Warriors parity.
That being said there are more non-AC rings out there than there are rings with AC so you open up a bigger pool of items to the Druids than you denied him with your AC multiplier change. Why would you want that from a pure egoistical PoV?

Originally Posted by Brodda Thep

If a 500ac item is equivalent to 3k ac then they are already getting more than enough AC bonus from their bear form. They shouldn't also get it from the non-leather pieces.

How do you know they get "enough AC bonus from their bear form"? Everything indicates to the multiplier being a product of (future) itemization and the new armor formula. Blizzard can dictate how much AC a Bear can get by bottlenecking itemization accordingly - which they do. Show me the pieces with lots of added AC comparable to the [Guise of the Devourer] or [Boots of the Shadow Flame] that don't waste their item points on hybrid stats.

Originally Posted by Brodda Thep

You could argue that this is the equivalent of getting shield armor. But you can just up AC values on druid weapons instead. It would make more sense overall.

The armor stat is not free. If you want to compensate for the loss of the multiplier on non-leather items then that only works by increasing the modifier which has it's drawbacks on the Druids because they'll be even frailer in caster form than they are now. Also it doesn't even solve the issue why this was brought up in the first place: Nezralix is worried about Warriors losing first dibs in guilds that prioritize items on one rare subtype of rings (AC rings) while getting first dibs on a more common subtype of rings (non-AC rings) because Druids wouldn't want those to begin with.

Liar · 01/25/07, 7:03 PM

Originally Posted by Nezralix

Stop putting words into my mouth. I said nothing and suggested nothing about wanting priority on any of these items. I did say that I didn't think these items should be so much better for druids than for warriors or paladins, so much better that they should realistically be prioritized to druids by any guild who does that sort of thing.

You are right, I misread that. I'll edit that part. :)

Originally Posted by Nezralix

And so much better that Blizzard is forced to either keep armor values on those items low, or risk giving more power to an item for one class than it realistically should have.

If anything, I would have thought that druids would prefer getting their high armor values without being roped into whatever off-slot item happens to have non-zero armor on it.

Your other two points are addressed in my post above (effect of increasing multiplier and "how much AC a Druid should realistically have").

Meddler · 01/25/07, 7:08 PM

Originally Posted by Nezralix

If anything, I would have thought that druids would prefer getting their high armor values without being roped into whatever off-slot item happens to have non-zero armor on it.

Don't think there'd be much objection to getting the same amount of AC without having to restrict our other slots, no.

On the other hand what you're basically suggesting is that AC rings etc should provide identical benefit to all three tanking classes. As a counterpoint I'll then suggest the defense rating should provide equal benefit to all three tanking classes, not by giving druids parry or block but by reducing the amount of defense rating druids need to get 1% dodge/hit avoidance/crit reduction so that rings/trinkets/weapons/necklaces/cloaks with defense on them are as beneficial to druids as other types of tanks.

Really doubt that'll happen either though and personally I like the fact that difference stats benefit different classes to varying degrees, something that's present throughout itemisation. The AC rings etc are hardly the only example of stats benefiting classes differently though they're certainly one of the more notable ones.

Whiteknight · 01/25/07, 7:18 PM

The feral talent "Survival of the Fittest" achieves pretty much exactly what you're asking for. Druids need fewer points of def to achieve crit immunity and hence each point is worth more. Once they have achieved the level they need, they can spend their itemization budget on stamina, agi or dodge instead. Seen holistically, I think Druids don't need to worry about getting less benefit from def itemization.

Liar · 01/25/07, 7:26 PM

Originally Posted by Nezralix

Originally Posted by Meddler

On the other hand what you're basically suggesting is that AC rings etc should provide identical benefit to all three tanking classes. As a counterpoint I'll then suggest the defense rating should provide equal benefit to all three tanking classes, not by giving druids parry or block but by reducing the amount of defense rating druids need to get 1% dodge/hit avoidance/crit reduction so that rings/trinkets/weapons/necklaces/cloaks with defense on them are as beneficial to druids as other types of tanks.

Really doubt that'll happen either though and personally I like the fact that difference stats benefit different classes to varying degrees, something that's present throughout itemisation. The AC rings etc are hardly the only example of stats benefiting classes differently though they're certainly one of the more notable ones.

I agree that they should probably change defense to only include miss/dodge/crit for druids. But even without such a change, defense is providing 60% benefit to druids while AC is providing 550%.

I gave you an explanation why the AC multiplier is as high as it is twice and you chose to ignore it.

Now you are comparing two completely different things to each other just because they are percentages.

And still I don't know if you are trolling or just lacking common sense so this will be my last post directed to you on this topic.

Meddler · 01/25/07, 7:28 PM

No arguement that SotF means that stacking +def to the same degree to achieve crit immunity isn't necessary. Seen holistically though taking into account total survivability it's easy enough to say that warriors don't need to worry about less benefit from a few high AC non leather items. I certainly agree that itemisation must be considered within a context of abilities/talents, that's a pretty big (and fairly commonly found discussion) though which I'm personally keen to avoid repeating.

Yes, it's quite a difference, druids getting an extra 450% AC off these items compared to others (ignoring thick hide/toughness here) but there's also a lot more slots that'll have defense on them to be fair in a full tanking set of gear. I'd personally much prefer not to see defence adjusted to be any more favourable to druids - homogenisation of the various classes' methods of tanking (or any other role) isn't something I'm in favour of if there's another method that preserves variety whilst remaining sufficiently balanced for gameplay purposes.

Key question to my mind then is do you feel that the current system is unbalanced or is it simply a method you dislike even if the results are acceptable? If the former I can appreciate where you're coming from, though disagree myself, if the later that's a rather different discussion and at odds with comments about raising weapon AC earlier so I don't think that's what's being implied.

Edit: One final point I forgot earlier. One of the major effects of spreading out the AC bonuses over a range of gear is to produce a stronger difference between cat and bear gear. Given that talent wise a cat and bear build are now extremely similar with the slimming down of the feral tree (something I think was taken a bit far in certain ways but that's another discussion) having high AC lower stats items locks a druid who's been tanking with them into a lower dps set. Putting more of this onto the weapon itself in particular would allow a dps set and a tanking set to be a lot closer given weapons can be swapped in combat so this mechanism also serves as a restriction/requirement for decision making on just how easy it is for a druid to swap between effective dps and tanking in the one fight.

Lord BEEF · 01/25/07, 8:50 PM

Originally Posted by Liar

If you only came to this thread with the purpose of trolling and not to discuss things constructively: Do us all a favor and leave.

EDIT: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...71357419&sid=1 Kromzul=You?

Don't do this. If you feel a post is trolling then report it and move on.

Roana · 01/25/07, 9:13 PM

Originally Posted by Liar

How do you know they get "enough AC bonus from their bear form"? Everything indicates to the multiplier being a product of (future) itemization and the new armor formula.

For most of the game, the armor value of plate item is four times that of the armor value of a leather item. By giving leather armor a 5.5 multiplier, that gives druids 37.5% more armor from regular gear (non-trinket/ring/cloak/neck items) than warriors, assuming the same item level. Partly that accounts for defensive stance (I tend to think as defensive stance effectively meaning around 20% more armor).

Now, interestingly enough, if you look at tier 5 gear, you will notice that plate armor has only 3.5 times the armor value of leather armor, giving druids about 57% more armor from comparable items than warriors or paladins.

That is nothing that worries me personally (I have a strong preference for 5-mans, where I can easily offset any gear deficit through the use of abilities, even more so when it comes to caster or elemental mobs), but I don't think you can really say that bears do not get enough AC bonus from their bear form. The itemization formulas make it pretty clear that the bear form bonus more than offsets the difference between plate and leather armor, even after accounting for defensive stance.

Athinira · 01/26/07, 6:44 AM

I agree with Elwynn. I remember pre-TBC. The best druid tanking weapon was Warden Staff, 260 armor = 1196 armor in Bear while warriors were gaining more armor from Shields (often around 2.4-3k). This was offset by druids being designed around HAVING more armor available through both Leather, Trinkets and Rings.

Now the picture is a bit different, but remember armor formula has changed as well. Druids now need a substationally larger amount of armor to keep the same distance they had to warriors at late BWL/Early AQ40 levels before Naxx and Tier 3.

And as Elwynn said: There are loads of Yellow damage beside magic damage.

Joy · 01/26/07, 10:44 PM

Hey has anyone compiled a decent list of pre epic Druid BC tanking gear? (prefferably without pre BC items)

Couldn't find it in the search function. Sorry if it's there ^-^

♦ Tecton · 01/27/07, 3:12 PM

http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread....04460564&sid=1

Is fairly comprehensive, if a little misguided, I feel, on some items.

Oaken · 02/05/07, 3:19 AM

A question on that list: is tankpoints broken for all of the bear changes? For example, that list clearly shows [Helm of the Claw] as superior to my old [Guise of the Devourer] but try as I might I just can't see how that's possible even with a [Powerful Earthstorm Diamond] in the metagem socket.

I also notice a lot of the really high mitigation items ([Heavy Clefthoof Leggings] anybody?) offer virtually no damage support = no aggro generation. Given the nerfs to bear threat generation, are we concerned that reaching high levels of mitigation is going to make holding aggro akin to wrestling with a greased pig?

Oaken · 02/05/07, 12:07 PM

Er, nvm.

• Falk · 02/05/07, 12:14 PM

There's a thread on EJ forums themselves ( http://forums.elitistjerks.com/viewtopic.php?id=9958 ) which is a little closer to the "gut feeling" I have when evaluating tank gear. Both lists are good to have.