Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-11-2011 @ 6:29PM
Mr. Crow said...
The "logical progression" argument is the biggest flaw here. While there are some 10-man fights that require two tanks, there are some that aren't. There are no 5-man fights that don't require a tank, except for gimmick fights like the Jousting Match in 5-man Trial of the Champion.
A 15-man raid might appear to be a logical progression, but now we're talking about having anywhere from 1-3 tanks at any given point in time. And when it comes to 25-man, how do you handle it there? Still have it be a 3-tank fight or make it a 5-tank fight to keep the proportions right?
And if you have a fight that asks for 3 tanks, how to balance that in 10-man, where you may only have one plate-wearing character, which is likely the sole tank? They haven't used caster-tanking as a mechanic since BC, really, because DPS players like doing DPS, not tanking.
Reply
8-11-2011 @ 8:20PM
Hal said...
Came here to say this very thing. Currently there's three dynamics for two-tank fights in raiding:
-Fights which require a taunt to split up a debuff
-Fights where the boss cleaves or has a shared-damage attack
-Fights with adds that must be tanked
We've had the problem from the beginning that 25m raids don't scale with 5m dungeons in terms of roles for tanks. More roles than you currently support in a raid would require either multiple add tanks (boooooring) or obscenely complicated taunt rotations.
And, as you said, scaling back down becomes a problem.
This isn't to poo-poo the idea of a 15m raid size. It's just that the "logical progression" of raid size stops after 10m.