It’s only under performing in comparison to Prot warriors who are over performing. Under performing would be them not being able to clear the content. And they are. And then some.
Umm…that’s also a lie lol there’s people in this thread clearing 20s. How are they doing thst if there’s no groups taking Druids?
Yeah. People bail and groups still finish the dungeons in time. Not always, but definitely doable.
There’s going to be a point where a 4 man group just is not capable though seeing as content is designed around a fleshed out 5 man group. But a 4 man group clearing a 20? Definitely. Is it going to be for everyone? No. Skill levels will make a huge difference.
Taking things out of context a little bit. “Doing the content the game was designed and balanced around” is what I said. M+ is designed and balanced around a 5 man team. Can 4 people do it. Yes. Is it optimal? Definitely not. Just like in SL with 4 Warriors and a Feral Druid for heals wasn’t optimal, but they did it.
And this is the fight I’m fighting. Not being optimal and not being viable are two entirely different entities and people are blurring the two together.
If other tanks mismanaged their CDs and didn’t have something for beam, they too would be one shot. You’re comparing Bears naked mitigation to another tanks active mitigation. It would be different if say you were running Rage or SI and got one shot where as a Warrior running IP at full health did not. But that’s not what you’re saying.
Well I thought about this too, the devil is in the details. If there is a variability in performance of like 5%, I don’t think it’s too bad. If the variability is like 50% though, that’s concerning.
The degree of variability is important, not the variability itself.
Again, if Bears were unable to clear the content the game has designed, then yes I’d agree they are under performing. But they’re clearing the content.
They’re not clearing the content as quickly or as smoothly as Warriors are though. So they look like they’re under performing in that light.
But when stacked against the content that put before them, they’re doing fine.
I mean everything you said about a 4 man group can also be said about a guardian druid no? M+ is designed around a 5 man team, it’s also designed around a tank who can survive a healer focusing about 20% attention to him and 80% attention to the group. See: all of the group damage and dispel mechanics in the dungeons. Forcing the healer to focus 50% attention to the tank is against the way the game was designed and balanced around imo.
So a 4 man group is viable, yes or no?
PS: the 20/80 and 50/50 statistics are completely made up to convey a point. The point being guardian tanks forces the healer to spend an unintended increased attention % to keep the tank alive.
In the essence of viable but not always optimal, definitely.
Slight disagree. Healing isn’t meant to be spread evenly through all the party members as damage isn’t meant to be taken evenly between all party members.
I’d say 60/40 as the tank is supposed to demand all mobs attention/attacks. And this expansion does have a lot of unavoidable damage, but every body has their own defensive cool downs and own self heals to help with the issue.
The tank is designed to take the brunt of the damage, and thus the brunt of the healers attention.
We’d have to know the intended amount to make a claim
I’d argue from a healer perspective that Blood DKs waste more of a healers time than any other tank… Guardian druid spikes on pull and then evens out. If they are hit with magic they dip, but it’s not like BDK where it’s constantly wondering if they will death strike, only to queue a heal and have it completely wasted.
It is underperformance based on the NUMBERs and data, this is NOT a subjective stance. You seem to like stricken definitions only when it fits your narrative am I right?
Underperforming means performance in an inferior level. Guardians are underperforming compared with all the other tanks and you only need to COMPARE NUMBERS. I’m not discussing the VIABILITY definition with you anymore.
At least be coherent with your bizarre takes, jeez your intellectual dishonesty is too big bro… Seriously.
And there’s your issue. You’re comparing it to other tanks. To gauge how a spec is doing, it has to be compared to a set, and static expectation. And that’s not other tanks performance.
It’s the level of content. In this case, m20.
Your logic and line of reasoning is: if balance break point is 20, and all tanks are hard stopped ar 18, then they’re all performing equally well? Even though they’re unable to complete the content Blizzard designed for them? That’s your logic.
As of a day or two ago: Guardian Druids had a 60% completion rate of ALL attempted 20 keys. That’s on the low end. Warriors on the high end had only 70% of all attempted 20 keys completed in time. All the other tanks fell in line in between the 60-70%
That my friend, is how you gauge performance. From a set point. Not compared to 4 differing variables.
You’re ignorance does not equate to me being intellectually dishonest. Try again
First you came with a bizarre definition of what VIABLE means, you want people to believe that if something is POSSIBLE it means it is VIABLE. This is an infantile way of looking at it. What you’re saying is that as long as something has a chance of success, no matter how small the chance, it is VIABLE. As a class. As game design choice. As balance.
You’re saying if there is 0,000000001% chance of sucess at something it is still VIABLE, because guess what it is POSSIBLE so it must be viable am I right? LMAO
This is the most stricken and dumb take on VIABILITY as game design and class balance I ever see, so congrats I guess?
Now not only you have this bizarre take at what VIABLE means, you also want to relativize what UNDERPERFORMING mean, saying that we SHOULD NOT COMPARE PERFORMANCES to discuss what is underperformance?
Dude, are you a clown or what? Are you paid based on the level of absurdity?
Well I can only guess what bliz devs intended for the attention split to be, but what I can tell you is their intention is definitely not for different tanks to have a huge difference. Looking at warcraft logs for the runs last week, the top warrior tank for Ruby Life Pools +20 had about 8k external healing required per second (EHRPS). Comparatively the top guardian druid had 22.5k EHRPS.
That’s almost 3 times as much healing required.
For further comparison, the top 3 logs for each tank:
EHRPS
Warrior - 8k, 10k, 11.3k
DH - 12.7k, 11.2k, 9.6k
DK - 7.6k, 12.3k, 11.6k
Pally - 12.2k, 15.5k, 12.8k
Monk - 28.7k, 17.6k, 20k
Druid - 22.5k, 19.5k, 16k
Monk is pretty bad too, but at least they have stagger.
You should go back and read what was said and quote the things I said and see where you messed up.
I didn’t say anything about not being able to discuss comparisons between tanks. I said you can’t use ones performance as a standard to judge performance. Because then 4 out of 6 tanks are under performing….that’s not the case.
This is neat to see, but I’m not sure it’s ahT we should judge “intended attention %” to be as different ranks have different play styles. Monk and DK standing out the most with Stagger and Death Strike.
But there is no denying how efficient Warriors mitigation is
Yes, that one that you can’t apply to a context and even kids can.
Intelectual Dishonest all day long, shameless.
Here’s what you said.
You’re literally saying that to discuss what is underperforming, we should not compare to others tank’s performance. What is the name of this thing you’re doing? Pathological lying, I guess.
Your reading comprehension level is reaching the negatives now.
You can compare performances between tanks. A Druid can be doing well overall (they are), but be dog water compared to a Warrior (they are). And this is why comparing performance of one tank to another for base performance is bad.
Now we go and look at total attempts and total timed completions between all tanks at the 20 key range. And all 6 tanks fall between 60-70%
Warriors are much better tanks than Druids. No doubts there. They perform better than Druids. Sure do. But does that mean Druids are under performing? No. All the tanks are within a fair range of each other for completion/attempted ratio.
Lebron James being better than a College basketball player doesn’t stop the college basketball player from being a good ball player. The fact this has to be spelled out for you shows how far you’re reaching
Yeah I agreed that tanks each should have their own flavor. I’m also fine with druids needing 50% to 100% more external healing than other tanks, but they should also give druids 50% more HP than other tanks to compensate.
The thing about viability is that by itself it only means whether you can successfully complete a thing or not. However in a dynamic that involves others, viability becomes about competitive efficiency. A base model honda civic is “viable” in a street race if your competition are also driving other base model entry level sedans. It’s not really “viable” if your competition are all driving GTRs.
Thats what it feels like to play guardian druids right now, you are a honda civic and the groups in group finders are the race car drivers. Why would they choose to drive a honda civic if a GTR is also available?
I fully understand that. Trust me. Feral player. I get it lol
But the Civic can still compete in the race and still cross the finish line. May not be as fast or as flashy as the GTR-35/34? Lol but it does what it needs to be done
But the guy driving the GTR is gonna he no good if he doesn’t understand how a manual transmission works. (We’ve all seen the FoTM re-roller who doesn’t understNd the class and does sub tank DPS)
First you came with a bizarre definition of what VIABLE means, that you picked from the dictionary according to you. What you’re saying is that as long as something has a chance of success, no matter how small the chance, it is VIABLE. You’re saying if someone manages to do a +20 with a guardian, it instantly makes Guardian viable as a spec. You’re saying any chance of success at something makes the thing VIABLE, because for you what is viable equates what is humanly possible, even when the discussion is about Class Balance in an MMORPG. Any health human being would know that what viable means in the context of class balance is what is reasonable to expect based on others classes performances.
Now to discuss what is UNDERPERFORMING you don’t want people to direct compare performances. Seriously? You want to discuss the PERFORMANCE of classes without comparing each other performances? So as long as it is VIABLE it is equally performing? So OBVIOUS Guardians are not underperforming, sure dude… No need to compare with others tanks, someone made a +23, everything is fine.
But tell me why you believe Guardians need a buff if it is not underperforming? LMAO
That is the problem with dishonest persons, they all fall in their own incoherence.
Gotcha. You can’t keep with your own words, because you’re wrong, and that is why at some point you will contradict yourself. Your kind always do.
Before we do that, we have to have a standard for what “average” performance is.
Can we agree Warriors are performing above average? What’s the metric used to determine average. You can’t find one when comparing Druid to Warrior without first having established a base average.
I don’t know how you don’t understand that.
To be more in line with the better tanks since I’m not a fan of nerfing classes down.
Being viable and being in want of buffs is two separate entities that do not contradict themselves at all.
Druids are completing content without the buffs. Even with the nerfs in some people’s eyes. They don’t need the buffs. But the buffs would be welcomed to bridge the gap between bottom and top performing.
