[<a href='13162.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='13160.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='13167.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='13155.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 13161 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Mon Jan 17 20:36:24 GMT 2000 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Ryan Honeyman <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Rarely mentioned fact... <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1795614315"><blockquote><span title="ireply">&gt; Eek.  I just reread that.  Just to clarify, I meant no<br/>
&gt; disrespect with that statement.  I do appreciate your advice<br/>
&gt; on torgors and will inform the shaman/enchanter next time.  <br/>
&gt; It just didn&#39;t have anything to do with my question - how<br/>
&gt; valid a tactic is it to devote one tank to the extra giant(s).<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>  No disrespect taken, John(tm).  I wasn&#39;t trying to show off<br/>
  my obviously inferior tanking skills &lt;g&gt;, just showing the power<br/>
  of togors could turn the battle to such a great extent.<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; The question still remains though - does the decreased time to<br/>
&gt; kill a giant with all tanks attacking offset the extra healing<br/>
&gt; required to have the bard tank the extras, torgored or not.  <br/>
&gt; Torgors obviously can change the equation, but doesn&#39;t answer<br/>
&gt; the question.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>  I think the extra damage that the tank would put into killing<br/>
  the first giant would be the prefered method.  The alternative<br/>
  is to dispatch a tank to hold the second giant, while in all<br/>
  cutting the damage to the first and thus letting it live longer<br/>
  (inflict more dmg).  I would venture to guess that eliminating<br/>
  one opponent first (while taking residual dmg from another) would<br/>
  be in more favor than holding one opponent with a strong melee <br/>
  class who can avoid some damage while the rest of the group attempts<br/>
  to kill the other.<br/>
<br/>
  Concentrating killing one giant without devoted tank to the other giant:<br/>
<br/>
    o Giant01 will die quicker, and produce less long run dmg.<br/>
    o Giant02 will inflict more dmg on a lesser equiped tank (a bard)<br/>
    <br/>
  Sticking one tank on one giant while the rest kill the other:<br/>
  <br/>
    o Giant01 will die slower, producing more long run dmg.<br/>
    o Giant02 will inflict less dmg on a better equiped tank (a warrior).<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
  Does, Giant01&#39;s lengthened lifespan due to lack of a warrior<br/>
  attacking it increase it&#39;s dmg output so much more than allowing <br/>
  a bard to just absorb Giant02&#39;s attack?  Yes, would be my answer.<br/>
<br/>
  But we haven&#39;t taken into account the healing required in this<br/>
  situation is going to draw the extra giant onto the healer pretty<br/>
  quickly.  I missed that in the equation above.  So I would say<br/>
  in light of that fact alone, sticking a dmg absorbing taunter in <br/>
  front of the extra giant would be the way to go, since the bard <br/>
  will not be able to taunt the giant off the healer (regardless<br/>
  of drowsy or not).  Which makes your solution, ideal.<br/>
<br/>
  Harmonic.</div>