New players - pick a knight if you aren't a boxer

I want you to find all the people saying how great it is and repost them.

Read what I said "MAY" have, I am still doing parsing to see if I can beat a war on mitigation. Until I do, they have not overshot. The verdict is still out.

Paladins need the same as SK when tanking because well, they have same issues sk have when tanking. They are not special because they can heal, sk can heal too. Also, paladins cannot go full heal mode while they are tanking, therefore they need the mitigation as well because their healing suffers so that they can do agro and tank.

It is the versatility that allows paladins to be more desirable for raids.

Outside of a couple of random Grobb residents (whose posts amount to a small fraction of Mistake's post crusading), I also would like to see this. Instead, you'll probably get one link of someone saying "haha how does it feel, you were op and now we're op, wanna cry about it?!?" and have it claimed as proof of something.

The only ones I saw post such nonsense essentially were incredulous responses to "they took err jerbs!" accusations or after being called scheming liars, or people visiting from Grobb because they find the whole situation ironical and amusing. Which it absolutely is.

Man Sheex , why you gotta single me out like that?

So basically all your posts are going to be used as proof?

No no, I'm from Cabilis, not Grobb. Won't lie and say this thread hasn't been a wonderful amusement, though.

#VastKnightWingConspiracy #LetsGetTo200Pages

That's strange that in the "How Devs team see SK thread ? " you were not doing the same thing.
Crying about warrior being god and knights being poor one rounded.
Go laugh as you want as things are very screwed in your favor.
But remember things don't stay the same forever.

omg threats

Yes, I too would like to see these quotes.

I have said the 2h stance should not be changed... but would prefer an increase in the 2h stance dps for all tanks.

I know for the last 60 pages? last month? or whatever, I have been -vocally- on the side of lowering DP+KS from the current combined 35% down to 25% to bring this mitigation in line with the 'knights are 75% of warriors' ideal.

What I oppose is when a warrior comes on and says... no.. it should be 15% on DP and 0% on KS and claims knight dps should be lowered too without providing any reasons to back his or her statement... no reasons.. no parses... no theories at all.

So, it's not overshot unless you out mitigate warrior, and have your self healing. Again, why in that case would anyone pick warrior.

Yes, you are exactly right. It is the versatility that allows paladins to be more desirable. Warrior do not get that versatility. You say sk can heal, but I don't think your trying to say they can heal other people like paladin do. Paladin Splash cure alone is very powerful. If paladin tank same as warrior when not healing, and can back out and heal if they need to, that is so much more powerful then warrior who can only tank and not heal.

Still doesn't get it. its called SPELL SETS and Knights are kind a tied to them to actually do ANY job.

You do realize that almost all of the hybrids can do this. Most choose not to, but they can. I have been kept up on my zerker by a ranger cause the shammy was to busy healing the MT. Same by a beast lord. They are not as efficient as a paladin, but their single heals are fast and very good.

People that choose a paladin may have done so because they can do one or the other and at times both at diminished capabilities. People choose warriors because they don't want to have to do both or be forced during certain events to do one or the other. That is just like choosing a ranger vs a rogue.

You also are downplaying/ignoring the fact that it takes more skill to maximize/learn to play. Longer to get all the AA etc and more planning for a knight than it does a warrior. Shouldn't someone get some benefit for putting in more time and effort?

You are like a child saying I choose the larger cookie but that guy over there choose the half chocolate and half vanilla ice cream and now that you are both full, and he was able to choose which to fill up on. You are mad because your choice didn't have different options, but his did, even though you are both full!

Understanding spell sets would mean he would understand how things work and skill, I don't think that is his strong suit

Still waiting on those quotes bud.

I would get into a contest of wits with you about this but I can see you are unarmed, and it wouldn't be a fair fight.

Leave your brain at the door, it might be even than.

No, what I'm saying is; things which can effect all classes the same shouldn't be considered when debating best mitigation. Be it war or pal aura, pal first spire... pal group armor... cleric spires... bard songs... whatever it is. This stuff is utility... are these class abilities... absolutely, no questions; but in order to get down to the bare-bones of mitigation and tanking these things should not be looked at because they effect warriors the same way as they effect knights.

It's like trying to argue which class tanks better with group armor of the inquisitor.... the warrior who received the buff or the paladin who casts the buff?

Nope.. again.. read my post. The only time I talk about mercs is when the stupid OP wants to bring up the vital molo / solo game debate in EQ as the 'justification' to pick a knight thread or the other fictional claim of a '3 paladins in a group can do more then 3 warriors because those paladins can xxxx stuff and the warriors can't do jack diddley'.

I guess warriors now do jack diddley when they are MTing? Maybe that's the true reason why this thread was started. Again... are we talking about mitigation and tanking.. or are we talking about utilities and abilities? because once again... this thread has been warriors jumping back and forth and avoiding questions and facts posted by knights. I've said... drop out all of that crap and just answer the questions.. but you bring it back up. During a raid, a knight can heal any tank virtually the same as if the knight was tanking... can target buff their group armor, their spires, and protective proc spam. Any character in their group will get the aura. Why keep debating these are some of the reasons why mitigation on DP should not be a copy paste when NONE of them directly effect mitigation comparisons of a war vs knight .... again because they effect each of us the same.

Your making this debate sound like a monk saying monks should do more dps then a rogue because the rogue can sneak/hide, make poisons, and lockpick. But the rogue saying they should do more dps then monks because monks can FD and mend.

Quote is cut short... but again..
The vital and commonly used solo EQ game ... hummm does anyone do this anymore?
Molo .... I guess if you believe knight+wiz is capable of doing lots of stuff a war+clr can't... but questionable at best.
DPS .... debatable as to why war should be better, I don't believe they should be over SKs and certainly not better then pal vs undead.
Group... questionable unless your group is full without a healer or puller. Is this the new goal in grouping...to build groups with no healer/puller except the knight?
raid utility .... why wouldn't knights be ahead of warriors in this area? we are hybrids

First off... I'm not saying they should tank the same. Once again... I'm saying a total of 25% mitigation from DP+KS instead of the current 35%. Can you stop accusing me of saying they should have the same mitigation from DP+KS?

What I am saying.. paladin healing (and spires, group ac, aura) shouldn't be the reason to justify lowering DP+KS beyond this 25% total because our utility affects all tanks the same. Why should knights be penalized in mitigation because of things that can benefit all tanking equally? If anyone wants to debate the reasons for lowering the mitigation.. then state their justification by using the current mitigation; but get it right... don't claim knights have 70% mitigation by totaling spell descriptions.

Can you read my posts all the way to the end? If you would have... I said this argument would NOT hold water in a debate... and that's why we DON'T use it. Can you read? are you sure? Why the hell do you want to debate something that I said we wouldn't use in a debate because it doesn't make sense? What the whaaat?

Again... what the whaaat? I'm saying the vast majority of raids have more then 1 paladin available to do group ac on ANY tank. There is no walk-out if paladins have to use group ac on a warrior or another knight so why claim group ac (or spire, aura, protective proc) should be the reasons why our mitigation in DP+KS should be lower then a warriors by a 25/35 ratio. That is why they should be dropped from the conversation (along with things like war aura). If any warrior believes the combo should be lowered below the suggest 25% total... which I believe accounts for our utility/ability.. then state the reasons... but those reasons should not be because of things which affect everyone equally.

So.. you're again bringing in res token vs pal res into this thread to justification our wide range of utility/ability as why knights should DP+KS be less then 25%? I sure hope not...

lol you dare raising the question of a war + cleric merc being being equal efficiency than knight + wiz merc ? The knight + wiz combo destroys war + cleric merc
If you don't need an external source to survive in group content like the knight is doing, then you are golden with a dps merc.
While the war + cleric combo only brings warrior dps. Woot.
In what combo mob coming in camp will die faster ?

Also, you cannot apply a 75% ratio to "permanent mitigation". "Permanent" mitigation is much stronger. You need Knight DP to 20 % and remove KS, or to 15 % and keep KS.
This is the highest i would go for Knight DP.