Tank enimity below 30 is lacking

[Bikkusu]

That just means you need to work 111% harder now, if it is indeed a flat 90% like you say.

It's still a learning game. It's not "impossible," it's just more difficult. Tanks will still have to learn to manage their enmity while they're in a group, which honestly is not a bad thing.

Yes, because that's what we want. To dissuade new players from becoming tanks because it's a harder job. Yup, totes reasonable logic there.

[Jpec07]

Yes, because that's what we want. To dissuade new players from becoming tanks because it's a harder job. Yup, totes reasonable logic there.

Oh no! Heaven forbid people have to learn the absolute fundamentals of the job before things get a little easier.

I dunno about you or anyone else, but I'd rather have tanks who know how to deal with that i210 SMN who tears everything off of them in their Aetherochemical Research Facility run than have a tank who ignores the fact that they've still only got one add.

Tanking is a very different type of gameplay from DPS or healing. By forcing new tanks to think--nay, obsess--about enmity, first and foremost, this will make a new breed of more competent tanks.

And honestly, if 11% extra effort is going to stop someone, they probably shouldn't be tanking in the first place.

[HoodRat]

Oh no! Heaven forbid people have to learn the absolute fundamentals of the job before things get a little easier.

I dunno about you or anyone else, but I'd rather have tanks who know how to deal with that i210 SMN who tears everything off of them in their Aetherochemical Research Facility run than have a tank who ignores the fact that they've still only got one add.

And I'd rather have a tank who understands that intentionally stacking parry is inefficient than a tank who thinks stacking parry on a class that passively blocks, has a skill to increase block chance, a skill to force blocks and a skill that can only be used after blocking, all while block takes priority over parry, is the best damn idea anyone has ever come up with. But hey, we can't all have what we want.

[Jpec07]

And I'd rather have a tank who understands that intentionally stacking parry is inefficient than a tank who thinks stacking parry on a class that passively blocks, has a skill to increase block chance, a skill to force blocks and a skill that can only be used after blocking, all while block takes priority over parry, is the best damn idea anyone has ever come up with. But hey, we can't all have what we want.

And what does my preference for Parry have to do with this discussion? You assume that I don't know how the combat table works, or that I do not understand how "poorly" it scales, and that my decision to do whatever I can to take less damage per unit time in a fight is not informed. It is an off-topic attempt to undermine my credibility that does not address the points I made. By definition, this is an ad hominem fallacy, or an invective attack, which in no way offers any sort of counterpoint to what I was trying to say. In effect, by attacking my position on a different topic as weak, you have betrayed that you do not presently have any sort of valid counterpoint to this topic, which implies that my position on this discussion is, in fact, quite strong. So thank you for confirming the validity of my points.

1-30 tanking is not in a bad way. Even if it is more difficult in 3.2, it is not impossible, and is still remarkably easier than 2.x, and so I maintain my position that it will do a better job of training tanks how to keep enmity, even when the odds are stacked against them.

[HoodRat]

And what does my preference for Parry have to do with this discussion? You assume that I don't know how the combat table works, or that I do not understand how "poorly" it scales, and that my decision to do whatever I can to take less damage per unit time in a fight is not informed. It is an off-topic attempt to undermine my credibility that does not address the points I made. By definition, this is an ad hominem fallacy, or an invective attack, which in no way offers any sort of counterpoint to what I was trying to say. In effect, by attacking my position on a different topic as weak, you have betrayed that you do not presently have any sort of valid counterpoint to this topic, which implies that my position on this discussion is, in fact, quite strong. So thank you for confirming the validity of my points.

1. Your comment to which I was responding has nothing to do with tanks possibly having a harder time holding aggro at levels 1-30.
2. I'm not attacking your credibility, however I can if you really want me to.
3. Me not making an argument about tanks having a harder time holding aggro between levels 1-30 does not magically make your argument, which I don't even know what it is because that's not even what i was responding to, better.
4. My stance on this topic is neutral because both before and after 3.2, I have tanked everything in 80% of the low level dungeons I have run regardless of what role I was.
5. For future reference, I find it quite hilarious when you get upset/defensive and pull whatever meaning you want from my comments when I respond to your comments in the same fashion in which you respond to others.