Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

best tank?Follow

#1 Apr 25 2006 at 12:40 PM Rating: Decent
Hi,

Im looking for opinions and facts that tell me wich tank is the best tank?

warrior? Pally? SK?


I recently made a sham/Sk , ive just now go them equiped and plan to start the duo tonight.

But wich is the best tank? For agro reasons i would say sk or pally before warrior. But i hear many people sware by the warrior in the high end game for raids and ext...

Let me know what you think, and why =P
#2 Apr 25 2006 at 12:52 PM Rating: Good
warriors > all.

at higher levels aggro isn't such a big deal.. and you cant raid with a paladin, unless the pally is geared in gear from zones way beyond what you're raiding.
#3 Apr 25 2006 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
**
403 posts
Best is soo subjective it's impossible to give any sort of valid answer unless you give us more prescise terms as to how to define "best".

Best snap aggro?
Best damage mitigation?
Best at holding aggro?
Best...?
Best...?
Best...?
Best...?
Best...?
Best...?
#4 Apr 25 2006 at 2:24 PM Rating: Default
Well a warrior with all the AA's is going to have the most damage mitigation and warriors tend to have the most effects that are specifically designed for getting and holding aggro.
#5 Apr 25 2006 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
However based on the original discussion of a DUO in this case...

A Shaman/SK duo can be real strong.

The shaman supports the tanks with buffs heals and dots.

The SK provides a pretty solid meat shield especially with support and the SK has taps dots and DD plus a pet for even more DPS.

Both players can DPS and heal the SK tank. Plus SK has snare and shaman has slow!

Between the two you have almost everything you would want in a full 6 person group.

Don't sweat the small stuff over which tank is better, you are not going to be running a duo raid.
#6 Apr 25 2006 at 4:14 PM Rating: Default
Yeah, basically whichever one you enjoy playing the best is going to be the one you want. I'd say for a duo a hybrid is going to be a little more useful because you'll have more utilities available to you.
#7 Apr 25 2006 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
***
3,212 posts
The best tank in WWII was the PanzerV.
Best tank in the 50's was imho the Centurion.
In the 60s and 70 the diff editions of the M63 though the Leopard was very good as well.
Best tank today is the M1Ambrams.


OH wait you said in the game. Only one class can tank at all levels and that is the warrior. Pal and Sk lose some edge when tanking in the 60s and 70. Before that they are very good at getting aggro.
#8 Apr 25 2006 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
pally-they can chain stunn if the CH is going to be late then

SK- they are great at holding agro and are the best DPS tank class if they have good gear enoguh to tank then they are really good becasue of lifetaps and DPS and can pull singles easly with pet pulls and FD split

Wars- if u dont have a chance to get him good gear then Wars have good HPs without great gear

i would say SKs are the best tanking class for groups if he is geared up becasue of his added DPS
#9 Apr 25 2006 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
pally-they can chain stunn if the CH is going to be late then

SK- they are great at holding agro and are the best DPS tank class if they have good gear enoguh to tank then they are really good becasue of lifetaps and DPS and can pull singles easly with pet pulls and FD split

Wars- if u dont have a chance to get him good gear then Wars have good HPs without great gear

i would say SKs are the best tanking class for groups if he is geared up becasue of his added DPS

war dps > sk dps.
#10 Apr 25 2006 at 8:45 PM Rating: Default
I think you have to consider how a toon was built. AAs have a huge bearing on ability to tank. I play a pally, I tank most nights and don't have a problem, and I tank in low end raids with groups of 30+. It isn't a problem for me, I have the best gear I can get at this time, I have sunk all aas into mitigation, agility, defense, durability etc, well and holysteed lol. My raid clerics tell me it takes less to heal me because I don't take as many hits, my dodge is excellent. Hate augs contribute and of course chain stunning is a plus. Getting aggro isn't really the hard part to me, holding it is the key to a mob not running off and killing your friendly nuker in two smacks. Of course the timing on the nuker contributes to that also.

Pally tanks do not offer dps by any notion unless it is with undead mobs. Undead is their specialty, but high level undeads are not the majority of mobs. A tanks dps is not what counts, holding the mobs nose and being able to take a beating is.

I have off tanked with sks, warriors and even other pallys. They all got the job done, and that is what counts in our level of game. Really I think we have all seen sks, warrior, and pallys that sucked so gaming skill has to be considered. And of course, regardless of how good someone plays a tank, if their other group members bite, it isn't going to matter. jmo

Seamy
#11 Apr 25 2006 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
sozbun wrote:
Hi,

Im looking for opinions and facts that tell me wich tank is the best tank?

warrior? Pally? SK?


I recently made a sham/Sk , ive just now go them equiped and plan to start the duo tonight.

But wich is the best tank? For agro reasons i would say sk or pally before warrior. But i hear many people sware by the warrior in the high end game for raids and ext...

Let me know what you think, and why =P


are you going to be doing any high end raids with these 2 toons? you will not be 2 boxing if you are, or at least i would hope you would not.

as for a 2box pally or sk would both work great with the shammy.

my choice would be SK due to their ability to single pull plus the higher DPS and the pet is just one long DoT during the fight.

the pally has the advantage of REZ.

the warrior is the better HIGH level tank, and definatly would not go on several raids without a warrior as the MA, but have been on enough raids with a SK or even a Pally as the MA and been just fine.

also keep in mind in the mid levels (anything sub 60s) a warrior is not that much better then a knight at anything. knights have things that a warrior can only dream of at those levels. post 60th a warrior start to really outshine the knights in major tanking jobs, but still lacks the slows, dots, heals, and rez of the knights.

for a pure duo, stick with the combo you have. you will be happy.
#12 Apr 25 2006 at 9:18 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
slows


What?
#13 Apr 25 2006 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
lso keep in mind in the mid levels (anything sub 60s) a warrior is not that much better then a knight at anything. knights have things that a warrior can only dream of at those levels. post 60th a warrior start to really outshine the knights in major tanking jobs, but still lacks the slows, dots, heals, and rez of the knights.

quotes like this amuse me.
#14 Apr 25 2006 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
and just why is that?

granted ive been away a long time, but after kunark and even after the "combat syle" were added after LoY a 30s, 40s, or 50s warrior vs knight as MA the knight was almost always as good if not better at being the tank.

the mitagation was about the same, the AC was close enough as were the HP. now the knights have way better DPS then the warrior did so agro was easier for the knigths to get and keep. top it off with pallies LoH, and other heals spells then stuns, and the SKs taps, and darkness line of spells plus their dots and other great agro magnets the knights just had it easier and were often preferd due to their ability to grab sooner and hold it longer then a warrior.

top it off that in the 30s the HP/AC differnce was less then 2% and even by the 50s it was only like 3 - 4% differance even a druid could keep up with heals in any xp grind group without a slower.

in raids of those levels knights were still the better choice for MA for the same reasons. even though the knights will take slightly more damage then a warrior (2 - 5% is not HUGE mind you) they were self healing along the way for way more then the differance of a knight vs warrior who CAN NOT SELF HEAL during a fight.

so unless the warrior has had a complete FIX and revamp to the point they are once again the master of arms they were originally designed to be, a knight is still a better choice sub 60s.
#15 Apr 25 2006 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
slows
#16 Apr 25 2006 at 11:57 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
slows
#17 Apr 26 2006 at 12:11 AM Rating: Decent
Pick paladin - jsut be sure to dye him pink!
#18 Apr 26 2006 at 1:21 AM Rating: Decent
Warriors are by far the best tanks for raids(and in general I pick them for most groups unless I can't one...)

Knights are trash tanks and good group tanks they have great snap agro but lower DPS than a warrior and take way more damage.
#19 Apr 27 2006 at 3:47 AM Rating: Decent
elorianBLAH wrote:
Warriors are by far the best tanks for raids(and in general I pick them for most groups unless I can't one...)

Knights are trash tanks and good group tanks they have great snap agro but lower DPS than a warrior and take way more damage.


Best post so far. One slight correction though. I think elorian knows but just didnt explain good enough :P mby not everyone else knows though so I will explain.
Warriors are by far the best MAIN tanks for BOSS mobs on raids. Knights are better tanks on raids when it comes to some circumstances on raids. Clearing trash is one of thoose circumstances because of their snapagro. MTing adds on draygun is another circumstance they are good at because DPS has to kill adds fast so once again knights are great for their snapagro.

I would pick a SK cause they get to do alot. They are good at raidpulling and they can MT bossmobs to. Heck, when a druid can MT Hanvar in CoA im pretty sure a SK can aswell :P
Warriors gets more glory though because they are better at taking a beating hands down.
#20 Apr 27 2006 at 11:30 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Warriors gets more glory though because they are better at taking a beating hands down.


Thus the difference between pure meat shield and hybrid meat shield!!!




PS: WOW my 200th post

Edited, Thu Apr 27 12:37:50 2006 by Namblak
#21 Apr 27 2006 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
Warrior. They can take the most punishment and can hold more than enough agro.

Of course, it depends on what you want.. for a raid, for a group, for partial group, for solo.. but, all in all, the tank position, when you ask is "which is best", is to be put to the extreme. Warriors can take punishment that knights can't. If you tried to substitute a knight for a Warrior in conditions in which the Warrior just barely survives, the knights are dead and the raid wipes.

This said, knights are still great characters. Just, keep in mind, they're "hybrids" for a reason. They CAN tank.. but this isn't all they can do. As a trade off for this, their tanking ability isn't up to a class whose main purpose in existence is to tank.
#22 Apr 27 2006 at 12:49 PM Rating: Decent
ReofblMobile - Very clear and concise about the truth without injecting opinion.

Whereas I just kinda cracked a joke. Nice Job.
#23 Apr 27 2006 at 2:28 PM Rating: Default
In all seriousness, who tries to be serious these days?

Oops.
#24 Apr 27 2006 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
24 posts
I have a 51 cleric currently, and i've grouped with all of the three main types of tanks. Wars, Pallys, and SK's. While Sk's and Pallys had all the aggro attracting spells, i liked healing the War tank cause they usually always keep aggro, unless they are like 10 levels below the mob...but that is a rare occurance :-). So my vote on best take goes to Warrior.
#25 Apr 28 2006 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
**
301 posts
Having played an SK and a Warrior (can't bring myself to play a 'good guy', lol) I can say that, from a first person perspective, I far prefer the warrior as a main tanking toon. While I may not be able to snare or add a little dps with a pet, what I can do is stand there and not have to worry about haivng to Tap the mob to try and stay alive or get a spell off to hold agro better.

When grouped with my SK I was forever concerened with my HP bar and mitigating it's decent towards purple. As a warrior (and I'm not uber - ~11k hp and ~1600 AC buffed) I know that I can take a beating and when backed up by the Aude healing chain I never look at my HP bar unless I'm engaging multiple targets and we are in a near wipe situation... even then, I'm only looking to see how long the rest of the group has to get the heck out of dodge before I become a pile of green goo and can't protect them anymore. "Guys, zone, gate, FD or do what you gotta do to get safe, now!" Unless there's a porter/ succor caster with us, then I'm looking out of morbid curiosity to see if I'm gonna make it out with them or get a quick trip to bind.

Tangential anecdotes aside, a warrior within a reasonable level range compared to the mobs you are engaging and reasonably geared for their level and the content that you are dealing with > SK or Pally as a tank.

The key point here, I think, is how you define tank.

If you mean damage sponge and agro holder then you can't beat a warrior.

If you mean someone that can stand out and keep the casters from getting hit long enough to kill the mob, most meleer's can do that job with varying degrees of success for some period of time without sucking too much healing mana. Monk and rangers can be tankalicious... never underestimate their sneaky little ways =)

If you mean someone that can grab snap agro off of another toon, then Pally or SK is the obvious choice. But the ability to absorb, mitigate and withstand damage and still remain standing to keep the fight going is the domain of the warrior.

Warriors have some ability to manage agro but snap agro is not our forte.
Holding agro and remaining standing is. <-- That is my definition of the best tank.
#26 Apr 28 2006 at 9:37 AM Rating: Default
KriegsmaschineVondentoten wrote:
I know that I can take a beating and when backed up by the Aude healing chain I never look at my HP bar unless I'm engaging multiple targets and we are in a near wipe situation... even then, I'm only looking to see how long the rest of the group has to get the heck out of dodge before I become a pile of green goo and can't protect them anymore. "Guys, zone, gate, FD or do what you gotta do to get safe, now!"
lol, are you for real? i play a shammy and can protect myself pretty well when i need to. i can also decide when and how to get out of a sticky situation, all by myself.

you're not for real are you?
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 141 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (141)