-Using a shield should yield (undeniably) the best defensive capabilities -Warriors should have tools (and we do have them) to use that shield whenever deemed appropriate to complete that job. We should be able to hold agro, we should be able to function. Currently, we do have the tools and are able to function with that shield permanently attached to our left hand. -Using a different weapon setup (a less defensive setup) from the same general tier of gear content should have palpable advantages in certain regards: namely passive threat generation and damage output. Using an offensive weapon setup should yield more offensive capability. Currently, this is not the case. Any aggro advantage is eclipsed by -atwill- aggro abilities, and the damage using a shield is more potent. This is the critical problem. The points are simple: 1) Shields should offer the best defense at the cost of offensive prowess. 2) Offensive weapon setups should offer the best offense at the cost of defensive prowess. Other than that, it's up to the tank to make the decision. Tanks should have the choice to give up damage and hunker down for survivability. We should likewise have the choice to give up some of that survivability to achieve higher damage and threat potential. While I feel that the defensive gap between shield use and non-shield use should be narrowed a bit, I honestly couldn't care less if this was ever addressed. I know for a fact that with appropriate gear, I can tank current group content safely without a shield. A shield is already "not needed" for day to day content unless your group/healer is sub-par, crap hits the fan, or the entire posture of the group is such that instead of pulling 1-2 at a time - the group is capable of handling pulls of 3-5 and plowing through content faster. In that example, the group profits from the warrior using a shield as the net damage output of the group and kill speed is higher when there is less down time pulling. If content were harder, the tank still under ideal conditions has the opportunity to make a choice, and choice is a good thing. When that mitigation is needed or preferable, the warrior can use that shield without losing agro or doing absolute garbage damage. Choice is good. Unfortunately, right now there isn't a choice. Defense is better with a shield. Offense is better with a shield. Your "choice" is to either to better at everything or do worse at everything ... that ain't choice. The only real potential benefit I have using dual wield is that in a fast paced group I can be a bit more stingy with my at will agro abilities - stretching my endurance out further without a pause. So yeah, I'm pretty sure every tank in this thread (except for you-know-who) could agree to these following simple bullets about how the game should function: 1) Using a shield should yield undeniably highest defensive capabilities 2) All tanks should be able to get the job done with a shield 3) Offensive weapon setups should yield higher offensive output (and yes "threat" is included here) 4) All tanks should have the option to choose what setup they want for any given scenario 5) All tanks should be ready to endure the consequences for that choice (ie lower offense vs lower defense) The debatable bullets: 1) The gap between shield use and non-shield use (defensively) is currently too large for warriors - I personally fall into this category. Although NTTB and extended passive mitigation aa lines have made shield use more optional for survival, our class has a rich history of being simply tough enough endure without it. A very vocal, very (VERY) small minority feel that current mechanics are good and should be expanded. The vast majority of warriors (as evident not only in this thread, but also on TSW - both the poll and general discussion threads) do NOT appreciate where the class currently is. One person's opinion shouldn't be enforced on a larger community of dissatisfied players.
As warriors: DW is for tanking. If not then why we're our epics primary and secondary usable? I'm assuming that devs intended as such. 2HS is for tanking. If not then why 2 warrior usable 2handers with aggro procs? Again, devs must have intended as such. Sword and board is for tanking... Battleaxe demands as such. Where is the confusion? Do warriors pull? Yes, but most would defer to an SK or bard (plate classes) Do we heal? No, and we defer to clerics and Pallies (plate classes) Can we cure? Can we harm touch? To make long story short: All we do is TANK. It does not matter, repeat, does not matter, what we wield. Do Pallies have AAs that increase their healing abilities and undead DPS regardless of their weapon choice? Are SKs restricted by their weapon choices when using FD or HT? No. They get spell books and utility in exchange for superior tanking. We get superior tanking. Period. Dot. I'm sick and tired of the fringe attempting to deny warriors of their core function. We tank REGRDLESS of what's in our hands. If I want to spend DKP and time, or just time to acquire two warrior only weapons so I can tank? That should be a viable choice. As above, one 1 hander and a shield? Same thing. My choice. Or do I shortcut? Grab the rare rare rare aggro proc 2hander? My choice. I don't get Brells. I don't get a still viable epic click. That's fine. I get to tank however the **** I want. That's the choice all warriors made. Stop, please, stop trying to remove the archetype defining choice we made on character creation. You want to use a shield? I won't stand in your way, I really won't. God bless ya. Stop stop stop trying to stand in my way, battleaxe.
Perfect post, nothing more needs to be said. Edit: That was in regards to Daegun, but same go's for Rinrek...Both hit the nail on the head.
You can't say it doesn't matter what we wield and insist that S&B does less DPS than DW and 2H. Some DW as close to 24/7 as they can finagle fans have admitted what you use in a given role should matter. They have 0 problem at all saying DW and 2H should be for DPS. They even insist that it should not matter the kind of support, the role, how trivial or challenging the mob or mobs. They just have an issue saying S&B should be for tanking. "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." Best option, not best survivability when everything can be survived handily. Not best aggro when we are "aggro gods". Best outcome taken as a whole even though we have other options. Not worst option. I hope and I think it will come to pass that Elidroth with adjust one or more of the available controls to enforce 2H and DW are for DPSing and S&B is for tanking. I think the protesting about DW and 2H DPS will have him make certain he handles both roles and their proper gear and not just one. We never got to tank however we wanted. The dice was improperly loaded in favor of a DPS SETUP. There are a lot of anomalies in the epics. How come last time we got 1-1Hander if we're supposed to DW 24/7? Better yet, why didn't we get shield appropriate weapons given that we are a tank? Oh, they fixed that one - that debate is over. Thanks for playing.
No where in my post did I insist that any weapon config should out DPS the other. I never said that. All I said was we should tank with ALL weapon configs. Again, Battleaxe, I never said anything about DPS. You asked for honesty. In my post, did I ever mention DPS in my post? Be honest now. And have a little dignity, don't make us out to be knights.
Never did I say Rinrek said DPS. "You" doesn't not directly refer to any individual nor necessarily just one individual at all. Do you think we should be able to effectively tank with a Bow in our hand? "It does not matter, repeat, does not matter, what we wield." Repeat "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." Best option, not best survivability when everything can be survived handily. Not best aggro when we are "aggro gods". Best outcome taken as a whole even though we have other options. Not worst option. I seriously doubt a developer when adjusting weapon setups so DW and 2H are the best option in the DPSing role will neglect insuring that S&B is the best option when we are tanking. In fact he said it should be.
Best survivability is meaningless without acceptable aggro and DPS. See the pre-SS era and S&B almost never used by Warriors.
Why do you continue to refer to DW warriors as rangers? Other then the fact that DW warriors and DW rangers are, well in fact are DWing, they have no other similarities. Is that your feeble way of disarming the desire of almost all warriors to have DW have purpose in the game again? It doesn't hold any merit what so ever. Unless your referring to the fact that rangers can tank current challenging content while DWing and not lose any dps from it. Is that what your saying? Because then you could say Warriors think they are Beast Lords and Monks for wanting to DW. I love that you quote Elidorth but I have yet to see him reply in any of these threads and speak for himself. Mr Elidroth, I understand that what you see is clearly 1h/shiled is for tanking, but what you do not see is that DW and 2H are broken. Can you honestly explain the later part of this quote and explain why DW and 2H do less dps then 1h/shield in every situation? That's funny. Rangers have always been considered a tank class. Maybe not a heavy plate wearing tank class but a light chainmail wearing tank class. Tank class is not defined on weapon set up but the armor they wear. Heavy tank class = in Plate armor. Light tank class = in Chainmail. Rangers have Taunt and other agro grabbing abilities. The ability to maintain agro and take hits, that defines a tank Battleshield Burlydorf.
Funny that the most abrasive personality on the forums has to cry to mods when the truth hurts. The warrior community on the whole wants something very different than what we have become. The opinion of one poster is simple that: one opinion amongst many. That opinion is not respected.
Repeat "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." The only uses, for anything, and ill ignore the bow nonsense, for warriors is to tank. As such, what is your problem with that? Why can warriors NOT tank with two swords or one large (2HS) sword. Justify to me why this is totally impossible to imagine in a fantasy world? Fantasy world being the key words. Or better yet, answer this question: If I'm OK with you sword and boarding with the same defensive effects as my dual wielding OR 2 handing Why are you so NOT OK with the same? OR for that matter, Elidroth? And I only bring his name into this because you so routinely do?
It would be nice to get clarification from a member of the dev team rather than remaining subject to the irrational interpretations (of a zealot) of a brief chat from a long time ago. I am hopeful new as lines are in the works for the next release to address this concern.
Again, I'll disagree here. Highest mitigation, yes. Other benefits? Sure. But (undeniably) the best in every scenario is too restrictive. Issue here is if we have one best setup for tanking and two DPS setups, we get S+B "23x7" and while DW/2H have to share the remaining 1/24. This eliminates any justification to differentiate them. And as you say,
I didn't say every scenario - I stated from a raw turtling down standpoint which has always been the case - even before shield block. Not best in all, just best defensively. I would love to see the gap defensively between shield use and non shield use narrowed.
I think we might be misunderstanding each other. There are ways to make each stance superior a particular aspect of defense (Mitigation, avoidance, spells, stunning, procs, etc) without making one stance universally best at defense. That would definitely narrow the gap and add flexibility/choice.
I agree man. I think an innate stun proc up to maximum level of non-named group content with a decent fire rate would be excellent. It would not be useful on named and raids and only affect one target in a multiple pull scenario - basically allowing for a survival benefit most potent 1v1 generic combat on non names targets. A fire rate comparable to monk stunning kicks or Mage air pet would be ideal. Having a monk spamming stunning kick doesn't offset the benefits of shield use currently - so it wouldn't be overpowered. It would be funny to see a group of 6 warriors stun locking content - cute but the dps output of that group would suck donkey nuts and be easily outpaced by any real balanced group. ------ My ideal change would be a parry mod while dual wielding that gave about half tha avoidance that shield block currently have. And a 2hand mod that allows for riposte that nets about 1/3 of what shield block is now - and a dps increase of BOTH to make static dps 30-35% higher than shield use currently is. 2h and DW giving identical auto attack damage output. -Best defense would be shield. -DW would have higher dps with half the avoidance (no ac benefits) -2hand would have highest dps (riposte vs parrying kicking in) but the least defense as the riposte increase would be lower than the parry increase. That would leave us with flexibility - shields being the most defense oriented, alternate setups allowing for more offense with measured and tiered degrees of relative benefits/drawbacks. Highest tanking dps- 2hand Highest tanking defense - shield Balance - dual wield Not using shield - always more damage
My last combined parse (a few weeks of combat) showed my shield block rate at 5.3%. Difference between DW and 2h would be under 1%... not significantly differentiating imo.
S&B does not work worth a crap in new content due to mobs being able to blow through shield block and dodge.....I use DW as I get more riposte and parry to make up for the loss in dodge and SB...seems to work so far, but barely /sigh
