Do not presume to dictate what I like and what I do not like. Increase the difficulty? Are you reading what you're typing? Good luck with that and alienating everyone else that tanks that is not a tank, sorry...not a warrior. Feel free to admit here that this is exactly what you want. I suppose knights should also be nerfed into oblivion for often using 2hers to tank and dps at the same time, sacrificing the benefits of their shields. Good game there pal, you want us and everyone else in the game nerfed to fit into your neat little puzzle box of crazy. You like to tout that SOE will see things your way, I'm here to tell you that the opposite is far more likely to happen. No one in their right mind would consider what you just typed above to be a benefit to the game, to our class, or really to anyone. I am quite done here, your arguments are tired and frankly beyond stale. Feel free to gloat about "winning" or call me a "24/7 dual wielder" or re-post Elidroth's IRC chat (hey, remember when he tried to remove our defensive discipline? -- yeah, that guy does not always have our best interests at heart. Sorry to be the one to break to you), or whatever other thing it is you like to do.
Do not presume to drag the entire Warrior (or even just the raiding segment) back into the cesspool of DWing nearly 24/7. Items have their purposes. Shields are for tanking. Bows and thrown rocks are for ranged DPS 2H and DW are for emulating a melee DPS class in their melee DPS (not tanking) role My arguments, as Naubi discovered in that Make Shields More Practical for Warriors thread, can be pretty compelling. The result of SOE actually doing that was Warriors enjoying the benefits of shield AC not being subject to the softcap and Shield Block as often as the other two tanks in the Tank Archetype. People make the argument that S&B is intruding on the DPSing while another player tanks role of DW and 2H? Fine - reduce our DPS under S&B when we are not tanking. But, when you argue that gear has it's proper role it includes DW and 2H is not for tanking. We should not and never should have tanked while DWing most of the time. Tanking is not just a survival activity. When we tank we do aggro + survival + DPS + combat utility. When we tank S&B should provide the best aggro + survival + DPS + combat utility outcome. Elidroth (and the other devs) don't always have what we think are our best interests in mind? Really? Exactly who do you think insisted Frodlin go back and argue that Bazu and Mock should be on seperate timers despite prior rejection? Who pointed out loss of Defensive would severely impact us and that the granting of some of it's benefits for AA was really a rather sly step in that direction? I differ with developers probably more often publicly than any other Warrior. On those exceedingly rare ocassions I've PMed (like once in 14 years) I listened, understood their point and that they had good reasons, and shut my piehole about that issue. Green pet pulling was wrong and it was fixed. Warriors tanking while DW nearly 24/7 was wrong and it was fixed. S&B doing more DPS than DW or 2H when we are DPSing and another person is tanking is wrong and will likely be fixed. S&B is for tanking is not wrong and it darn sure should not be broken again.
Bolding mine. Not sure how you'd achieve this, maybe with iceflame-style procs for avoiding rampage/AE, but no reason to exclude that from S+B.
Um is it possible the operative words are "best results"? The best results are somewhat different for a Tank who is tanking and a Warrior who is filling a melee DPS class role with another player tanking. Since you bolded it. let's start with survival. DPSers who inadvertantly acquire aggro have at least temporarily a survival issue. Short term survival help - DI, Geomantra, Runes, NTtB, Flash, Fortitude. Gee, compared to other players filling the melee DPS class role, we've pretty much got it. Excess capability like Final Stand or a shield is immaterial when you are DPSing. Which is handy since if your are really committed to DPSing you are using your major offensive discs locking out your major defensive discs. aggro - best result in the DPS role is aggro management. Howl, FD potion, aggro reduction procs/aug, can using DD proc instead of aggro proc potion, etc. and a variety of increase your aggro abilities including Taunt and AE Taunt so you are near the top or can get to the top should you have to switch roles. Again, it's pretty much covered. DPS - when DPSing you use the damage rather than the aggro poisons, use the offensive rather than defensive abilities, have 0 reason to use aggro procs, aggro augs or even half aggro/half DMG augs - you can go full DMG augs. It looks to me that provided S&B is adjusted so it does less DPS when used when we're not tanking DW and 2H DPS support is fine. combat utility - not our strong point but we do have things like clicking off our Aura and using Circle of Power III that's pretty shakey if you are tanking and getting meaningfully hit. I think you show some insight when you single out rampage. It's one of the few special risks that we don't have in the tanking role and might have in the DPSing role that we have very little we can do about it. Frankly guilds assign Rampage TANKS to this role, not Rampage DPSers - it's quasi/pseudo tanking.
Why should DPS have any unique benefits beyond being the best setup within which to use offensive disciplines, damage rather than aggro poisons, Circle of Power III rather than our Aura, etc.? IMO a Warrior using their melee DPS setup is a non-specialist imitating the melee DPS classes. We are not a melee DPS class. As I've said we are masters with a bow, but not grandmasters - no Called Shot, Endless Quiver, or Headshot for us. We're masters with piercing weapons, but not grandmasters - no Backstab or Decapitation. In the past I have made suggestions for minor combat utility: Pommel Strike, a half dozen 1H procs ill suited for use while yer focusing on tanking or seriously DPSing for that matter (Avatar upgrade, Cripple upgrade, etc.), Rallying Cries - weakish Beserker lke battle calls, a Heavy Blow one-shot ability that looks a lot like Vital Strike without the below 20% HPs requirement, and Pommel Strike - essentially 2H Bash. Like Bash should be, a better chance to stun/spell interrupt than Kick or Slam but unlike Bash no shield "procs" (they didn't exist back then). There are four problems with such things IMO: 1. We start looking like a hybrid - nice "yellow mana". Hard to justify remaining the Primary Tank when yer biting deeply on the Apple of Outside of the Tank Archetype Utility. A lot of Warriors resent the amount of utility we already have. 2. So I've stressed utility with no or little raid value. That tends toward suggesting weaker/less impact utility. 3. We've gotten some very nice utility abilities lately. Why try to tell grandpa how to suck eggs when he apparently knows what good utility looks like? 4. Do player like you want utility making DW and 2H the utility/DPS setup thus making it difficult to justify any DPS gap with S&B. After all S&B takes a HUGE DPS hit vs. non-trivial content since we're going to be inclined to use defensive and not offensive discs or at least refrain from using offensive discs to keep our discipline timer clear. <- not arguing with you, just trying to provide an outline of some of the issues/"opportunities" as I see them. DW and 2H has by definition the best DPS related utility (consider the offensive disciplines). They are the DPS setup. They are (once S&B damage is reduced when we are using it to DPS with another player doing the tanking) the best platform from which to launch the DPS utility we have.
See first post in DW vs 2H thread. S+B has highest mitigation and an avoidance boost. If you'd like to further increase defensive damage then yes, DW/2H should get 'something else' in addition to just more DPS. I'd even go beyond that and say S+B should see further advantages in spell defense. Each stance would have various 'benefits' and the totals balance out. More xamples in the DW vs 2H thread. The damage loss is not unique to S+B
First post in DW vs 2H thread presents a highly debatable point of view especially given that Warriors are a mundane class (not a magic caster class despite being a user of magical items class) and the attitudes many Warriors have regarding utility i the first place - see my previous post. The damage S&B does when tanking has little relevance to the damage DW and 2H does when not tanking but DPSing so long as S&B does less damage than those two setups when it is used in that role. The key to all of this is that 2H and DW should deliver the best melee DPS class-like outcome when used to DPS and S&B should deliver the best Tank class-like outcome when we are tanking. Sustained mitigation is not a DPS characteristic. DW [BA: and 2H] is not for tanking. Getting hit is a negative when you are DPSing. Stopping getting hit (the ability to shed aggro) and short duration mitigation and avoidance are reasonable assets in that role (staying alive until you magage to not get hit anymore). DPS is (but not to the extent real melee DPS classes achieve) a tanking characteristic. Tank = armor AND howitzer/shield AND sword. We all saw what happened when S&B did 30% less DPS than DW or 2H. The result was DW 24/7. As one Warrior pointed out - if you won't die you use whatever produces the most DPS. There is no reasonable survival/DPS tradeoff when you are doing trivial content. You're trading not needed survival for free extra DPS - we've all seen what happens when that's the rate of exchange. DW 24/7. S&B takes a HUGE DPS hit vs. non-trivial content since we're going to be inclined to use defensive and not offensive discs or at least refrain from using offensive discs to keep our discipline timer clear. I would think a reasonable person would concede that any content where you are inclined to use defensive abilities is by definition not trivial and therefore even given the parsimonious standards of those favoring DW 24/7 it's S&B tanking territory. At any rate, even given "pragmatists" who use whatever performs the best in each situation it's clear S&B needs to deliver the best outcome in aggro + survival + DPS + utility when we are tanking and DW and 2H needs to deliver unacceptable compared to S&B results in the tanking role.
2H and DW need to outdamage S+B regardless of whether we are tanking or not, else we have S+B 24x7 scenario.
Let's ignore the tank word and just say : "ANY CLASS should do more damage while using 2H or Dual wield compared to equipping a one handed weapon and shield.," S&B doing more damage whether tanking or not is absolutely ridiculous and as a returning player I cannot believe this is even an issue.
Lol. We're firemen. As a consequence we often put out fires and wear red suspenders. If you wanted to perform the melee DPS class role geared like a melee DPSer you needed to roll a melee DPS character. Let's not ignore the word tank. "<11@Elidroth> I've said many times that I want dual wield to be viable again, but not for tanking" "<11@Elidroth> what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps <11Voodoman> my little paladin pony <11Beezy-again> Kidding of course <11@Elidroth> DW hits faster for smaller amounts and less crits, while 2H hits slower, but harder, with a chance for BIG critical hits <11@Elidroth> but is also less accurate" DW and 2H are not for tanking. In simple English that means S&B should provide superior results when we are the focus of attacks and hitting our attackers - "...1h/shield is for tanking..." Any number of threads point out that S&B should not deliver superior results to DW and 2H when used in the NOT tanking melee DPS role - "...DW and 2H are dps...". It works both ways. (But SB DPS = 70% DW DPS does not work. IF we weren't intended to do DPS to our attackers when tanking (tanking=S&B) sir, we'd be parrying with our sword. DPSing is part of the tanking role. NOT getting hit but surviving occasionally getting a mob's attention is part of the melee DPSer role). Player A DPSes using DW or 2H with another player tanking. Player B DPSes using S&B with another player tanking. Player A, provided they have same tier weapons, equal DPS support, and use the same offensive discs wins the parse. Player A tanks using DW or 2H. Player B tanks using S&B Player B wins the parse. DW and 2H are not for tanking. Less rigidly Player A tanks 16 mobs using DW or 2H hold the presses - player A should not be able to obtain and hold aggro and/or survive and/or inflict high DPS and/or use appropriate combat utility when tanking compared to S&B. IF he can then that's an issue that must be fixed. Just as S&B doing more damage than DW or 2H when used in the NOT tanking melee DPS class role must be fixed. If gear is to have a role (and it should) it's a poor sword that doesn't cut both ways. Player B tanks 16 mobs (obviously using S&B - S&B is for tanking). He uses Furious (tanking only), get nice ripos (tanking only), the mobs beat themselves up on his damage shields (tanking only), OMG, check the parse - instead of S&B doing less damage than DW or 2H vs 1 mob maybe including ripos and damage shields which DW and 2H shouldn't trigger since you shouldn't be hit when using a DPS setup/it's not for tanking, S&B is allowing you to damage 16 mobs at once! I'll bet that gets reflected in the parse. Spartans, Romans, and plate wearing battle group heavy infantry destroyed opponents MORE effectively (did more damage faster and sustained less damage while doing it) in S&B sir. I can't believe this is even an issue for a TANK. I can't believe even a returning player can't comprehend "<11@Elidroth> what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps" Tanking is not and never has been only named mobs in raids sir. While it's true that's what S&B was once confined to, that's not what it should have been confined to and it was fixed. Some players don't like it fixed. Fortunately devs have got shield survivability impact, mob difficulty, aggro, DPS, and utility knobs they can adjust (they are extremely good at identifying such knobs and changing their settings if necessary) to insure [BA: - not the kind of words a developer would use] Wannabe a Warrior or wish you were a Ranger "...1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps"
And yes, remove the tank word. If you want to start bringing up "history" in a fantasy game conversation, Tanks were first used in combat in 1916. Now tell me the Viking at Stamford bridge wasn't a "Warrior" class by most reliable accounts armed with a 4 to 5 foot long Dane Axe. Not everyone wants to play their fantasy warrior like you dude.
It's simple. You don't need a S+B to tank. No one does. No body. Accept BB. All I want is DW and 2H dps be doubled what they currently do. Then warriors will do a little over 1.5 times what they do with S+B now and 3/5 of a what melee dps does sustained. It's simple. Give warriors more dps with DW and 2H. That's not asking for much at all. What's the problem with that devs? BB is terrified at the thought of a single warrior tanking without S+B as other classes do.
It's simple. "<11@Elidroth> I've said many times that I want dual wield to be viable again, but not for tanking" "<11@Elidroth> what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps DW and 2H are not for tanking. When S&B only did 70% of the damage DW and 2H did it was DW 24/7. In simple (there's that word again) English that means S&B should provide superior results when we are the focus of attacks and hitting our attackers - "...1h/shield is for tanking..." Brosa knows shields are for tanking. Players from the other tank classes have told him There's no doubt, at least in my mind, that devs won't be giving our DPS class weapon setups the benefits of using a shield or 1.5x S&B damage. And while Paladins and SK's are separate classes and will be treated accordingly some characteristics like Shiftee's (a Paladin speaking to Paladins) observation - if you aren't using S&B to tank you aren't tanking enough mobs [BA: or hard enough mobs] will cut across Tank Archetype lines. Vikings? Round shield using Uthbert sword (if they were extremely lucky) wielding Vikings? Vikings whose sword development so defined middle ages swords that Jan Petersen and the recently departed Ewart Oakeshott echoed Linnaeus' biological classification system by making them central to their sword classification systems??? Just so ya know, Viking swords are direct lineal ancestors of arming swords. Viking swords and later arming swords are as close to General Issue (the expression that gave us GI as in GI Joe) as you get in a era where everything was made by hand.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/stamfordbridge.html I was talking about this Viking in particular. You can skip to the last paragraph or look it up on a different site if you want.
^ not interested. A Samurai once supposedly shot a boat with an arrow and sank it. I somehow suspect the result was not Samurai standing at the entrance of all harbors acting as shore batteries. A Viking using an axe doesn't change the fact that their 1H swords and shields fed into post Roman heavy plate infantry until shield use fell off after the Battle of Bosworth (which many historians mark as the beginning of the end of the Middle Ages. (In that battle Richard III used cannon and after it Henry VII enacted laws against livery and maintenance which along with a big reduction in the number of lords curtailed the impact of Barons leading to national armies built chiefly around men at arms). While everything from agricultural tools morphing into weapons of war showed up on the battlefield it's also true "Viking sword" and later arming sword used with a shield was the general issue for those in the dismounted cavalry heavy plate battle group. Hooks, bills, pikes, and axes, often with pavises (SP? a shield-like item used by archers. The French neglected to use them in a battle to their detriment.) were more common among the men-at-arms than the elite plate wearing fighters (you forgot about plate showing us to be part of the warrior elite and not farmboys with a sickle in one hand and a hatchet in the other). I am glad that Waylon is so familiar with the Oakeshott classification system that posting about it is a broken record. Perhaps he could share his knowledge instead of just drive-by sniping.
I have a feeling that firemen wearing red suspenders will be a new battlebladism that's going to be seen a lot more 'round these parts. It's already been sighted in 2 threads .... /gasp The poll on TSW pretty well reflects global warrior sentiment. We're tired of sword and board 24/7. For what it's worth, my baby hobbit warrior is already tanking HAs with ease in both dw and 2hander setups. 1/3 of his aug slots are still empty. Now if only I weren't doing less dps to boot ...
