Quote:
Originally Posted by kruptcy
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There seems to be confusion between being the best at one thing and being the best for a role in a group. There are three aspects to tanking, right? Aggro, ability to take a hit, and dps ability. If we break it down one aspect at a time:
#1 Aggro - Need enough aggro to sit above everyone else in the party on the aggro table consistently. After you reach this point, more aggro is simply wasted.
#2 Ability to take a hit - Need enough mitigation / hp to keep your healer relatively comfortable and stable in the mana department while healing you. After you satisfy this requirement, additional mitigation / hp is fairly meaningless.
#3 DPS - The higher your DPS the better.
If you are choosing between two players of ANY class that can satisfy #1 and #2, whoever scores higher on #3 should be taken as the tank. While it certainly is true that a ranger is not the very best class at any of those 3 aspects, it is possible that you will come across one who is the best option for your group.
|
I agree with most of what you said; (Paraphrasing) If in any form you can increase dps after the first two criteria as a tank were met the better. The part I have an issue with is that groups in general should hold no expectation for greater dps from one tank than the rest. Points one and two should honestly be the only consideration when choosing a tank.
However, I do feel rangers mitigate this problem due to their higher dps output over the other tank classes. My point was being just between tank classes.
I wish we all had the ignorance and naivety of our past while playing here. It was considerably more fun to just play with others, without worrying about numbers. I also thought rangers were just one of the most awesome classes, for their versatility and utility, though I never played one. I just had a lot of good experience playing beside them.