|
Hmmmm, I'm a noob here, but here's my two cents... and please forgive the length=P
Personally, I have no problem with saying that one of the 4 tanks better than the others.... given the situation. I hate to play the "Back in EQ..." card, but here goes another version of it that most people didn't point out. Let's say you have 3 seperate groups back in EQ. One is MT'd by a pally, the other by a SK and the third by a Warrior. 9/10 times, the pally is going to be the fastest out the gate in aqquiring hate.... in fact I'd bet my lvl 70 pally on it. The SK is going to hold aggro tremendously well in the long run due to their inherent DoT and general "Over Time" abilities. So given those two situations, what does a warrior really have to offer?
Increased HP for (as someone above pointed out) handling SPIKE damage. That was the TACTICAL side of choosing who to tank what in EQ... you know mob X avg hits for 200 but spikes 2k, (using random numbers) a 5k warrior versus a 3k paladin is a better bet. Because of this, it forced paladins/SKs to find other ways to help their groups, and in addition the MT (e.g. Raid mob is 'rooted' by placement, spells, etc, Pal using Flash of Light = MT never loses aggro). It promoted the idea of EVERY class having something to add to ANY encounter. My concern with 4 equal tanks is that it becomes a situational thing to eliminate a particular tank because it's 'not efficient.' Hopefully that won't happen.
|