Quote:
|
I'm particularly opposed to the "avoidance vs mitigation tank" philosophy. I have NEVER seen that work out balanced...
|
an avoidance based tank adds to complexity, and i'm all in favor.
I agree with you in that avoidance based tanks are tricky (the big monk nerf from eq1 comes to mind). And I don’t know if you knew this already, but eq2 attempted to tailor tanks to healers in an interesting way (though ultimately failed imo, but i won't get into that here).
In eq2 (before the big combat patch):
- avoidance based tanks / monks / gars were best healed by warding healers – as a reactive healer class (templar), I couldn’t compete with a shaman/ward-healer. hit less often, but for more damage, my reactives couldn't keep up.
- mitigation based tanks could be healed most efficiently by reactive healers. hit more often, for less damage, which my reactive heals soaked up well.
does it mean that a templar couldn't heal a monk? no. Was a shaman more efficient? yeah. mix the heal numbers around, give shammy wards more oomph, figure out stacking, and it translates to raids.
personally, i'd like to see 2 avoidance based tanks and 2 mitigation based tanks.