On the contrary, Warriors should be able to use shields (and use them well) but not be forced into using them 24x7 or 23x7. The ability to be flexible in combat. Give each stance unique benefits that allow Warriors to make tactical decisions which influence the outcome of combat.
Are you still quoting that same 3 year old chat? The note where they said they were going to fix DW/2HS DPS compared to S&B was announced at EQLive this past year, and they said it was going to be included in this expansion. I don't think a single person has argued that S&B should have the highest mitigation, but I think every single person in this thread has been saying vehemently that DW/2HS should yield more DPS, period end. Not when someone else is tanking, not when burning DPS discs, not when magical bunnies are flying in the sky, DW/2HS should ALWAYS do more DPS than S&B. Now, if I choose (omg, I have a choice!) to tank a mob while DW/2HS'ing, yes, I will take more damage, but I will continue to do more damage. If the remainder of my gear is overbearing enough for the zone in question, then the increase in damage is worth the extra damage I take. That is a judgment call that warriors should be able to make for themselves. As has been said countless times, we do not have that current choice. S&B is superior in DPS, Agro and Mitigation. There is no reason to DW/2HS in any situation, as (repeating again for you!) S&B is superior in every single way. This is textbook broken content. http://eqresource.com/board/index.php?topic=1855.0 Check out Drathos' post. I can't find the original transcript, but I don't really care enough to look for it.
Rangers use 2H, DW, or a Bow 24x7. They do not usually use a shield. They are not forced to not use a shield. However tanking is not their role - they are not a tank class. Warriors ought to usually use a shield. They are a member of the Tank Archetype. Tanking is our usual role. Use is mandated by role. Perhaps you should change archetypes. Our use of disciplines provides us with sufficient tactical descision making. In fact many Warriors complain the shear number of abilities we have at out disposal is too great. We press attack to do melee DPS. We use a hotkey or type /bandoleer TANK when we firefight. S&B is for tanking (something melee DPS classes don't often do ergo they don't use shields much). DW and 2H is for DPSing while another player tanks (something melee DPS classes often do). This is why DPS classes are seldom seen using a shield and we are and should be. This is not a judgement call. From Drathos post: "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." You were saying? Tanking is aggro + survivability + DPS + utility. It's not just survivability alone. The addition of Warrior aggro abilities ended that fiction. It's not just aggro + survivability alone. Shield Specialist ended that fiction. When we are tanking S&B should be the best option. Doing not needed excess aggro or taking a bit less damage that barely makes a Cleric's manabar flutter while doing 25% less damage is not being the best option. Thanks bunches for posting that.
We have choice, therefore every action you take is a judgment call. That's a rather narrow view you got there. Tanking = survivability. DPS has nothing to do with a warrior's ability to tank. However, if you noticed that's exactly why I used the words mitigation, and not tanking. Yes, every single person here has agreed that a shield should have the best survivability. However to assert that a single weapon with a shield in the offhand does more damage than the same weapon with a second weapon in your offhand is just plain idiotic at best. That defies logic. Oh wait, this is you we're talking about here...
"Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." You were saying? Tanking is aggro + survivability + DPS + utility. It's not just survivability alone. The addition of Warrior aggro abilities ended that fiction. It's not just aggro + survivability alone. Shield Specialist ended that fiction. To assert that Warriors should have received shield appropriate weapons from the beginning or that a skill should transform out tiny weak 1Hand into shield appropriate weapons when we use thenm with a shield does not defy logic. Please check out what SS does. Thinking DW should be the best setup to use vs. challenging content defies logic, yet 19 of the gigantic number of 31 (Iirc the results) Warriors responding to that poll on TSW chose that. Heck, Iirc I was pretty much the only Warrior posting that shields should be practical for Warriors. Unless they were, we were conceding a shield AC not subject to the softcap and Shield Block to knights who so constantly used shields they argued their Epic 2.0 should be a 1Hander. You definitely don't want to talk logic sir. Definitely. Heck, someone here is so logical they argued being the best setup for the tanking role is only a matter of survivability. I thought what was said was: http://eqresource.com/board/index.php?topic=1855.0 "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses."
Context sir. Dual Wield gets parrying mod, does not affect DPS. Shield will still be the superior tanking option. Tanking in context of the two sentences deals strictly with mitigation. That is unless you're viewing the two sentences as a paralytically formed statement, which would really make even less sense, unless of course you're specifically reading it in that context to fuel your thought process. Second, you're assertin that Tanking = aggro + survivability + DPS + utility, yet why is DPS considered a separate archetype? Why is utility also considered a separate archetype? Tanking is a verb, involving a character's ability to take hits, and has followed that definition since the inception of the term. DPS and utility may HELP that aspect, but they are additional benefits, not core to what tanking is all about. Maybe you're the one who should be playing a different archetype, since you don't even understand what your archetype is after all these years. Irrelevant. When my warrior goes from a shield to a DW set up, my main weapon does not often change. Second, we don't have "shield appropriate 1handers" and we never have. Your point is meaningless because it involves either traveling back in time to change the past, or recoding warriors from scratch, or just talking about hypothetical situations. All are exercises in futility, and none of them do anything to solve the problem. Are you interested in helping the game? Maybe in the past you had your contributions, but I look at you now and I see you as a detriment to the warrior community at large. No one asserted any such claim. Your view of the TSW poll and the views of people in this thread just astounds me. Not a single person disagrees that shield should have the highest mitigation. Everyone on here and on TSW are saying DW/2H need a DPS boost. Yes, we'd LIKE to have DW get a boost via parry mod, but we all still agree that Shield should be the superior defensive form. I don't get why that's so difficult for you to understand. Moreover, it seems devs agree as well, seeing as how it was a dev that said warriors would be getting a parry boost on DW, and DW/2H should be seeing a DPS boost, at the most recent EQLive event.
Because it makes the argument more convenient. I'm going to disagree with this one. I think there can be situational defensive benefits to all stances, then let the player sort out which should be used when. For example: Shield = Highest mitigation (AC) could add spell mitigation benefits DW = Reduces enemy's attacks via level-capped stun proc 2H = Highest avoidance (boost to riposte)
IMO that's wishful thinking, but definitely something to work towards. I wouldn't at all be opposed to something like that, but it took 2 years to even get a dev willing to suggest they were willing to add a parry mod to DW. Just saying... Baby steps!
Oh, and found it. Here ya go BB, from that same chat log you like to quote so much. Warriors are Tanks: DPS doesn't figure in.
Context - DW gets a parrying mod. Parry is not tanking only. Monks historically had high Avoidance - are they tanks. Nice of devs to give Warriors an ability to shug off a blow or two when imitating a DPS class by DPSing with someone else tanking. Or saying they're going to. Or giving us NTtB instead. Or w/e. DW is not for tanking. from a Warrior/Paladin AA chat <11@Elidroth> what I see really for warriors is 1h/shield is for tanking, DW and 2H are dps <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 http://eqresource.com/board/index.php?topic=1855.0 "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." I think we can understand what is said. Tank - Tank is a noun and a verb. Warriors are tanks. It was once asserted that tanking was only survivability and as tanks Warriors should have superior survivability but inferior aggro. As I pointed out hundreds of times Tanking = aggro + survivability One can survive anything but without aggro you can't tank. One can aggro up a storm but without survivability you can't tank. When a developer says "Warriors are not a DPS class" it's pretty clear that we are being told we are part of the tank archetype. This does not mean that we don't do DPS or that DPS is not part of the Tank role (had that not been the case, Elidroth would not have given us SS). Read this sub-forum's title. While Elidroth has said we aren't a DPS class he also increased our DPS under S&B. It's not possible to rationally argue that he didn't understand that using a 1Hander designed to by used 2 at a time with a shield while knights used higher ratio weapons with their shields was something that needed to be addressed. The rest of the role and the classes that perform it droppeth like the gentle rain: Tanking = aggro + survivability + DPS + utility IMO yer just making specious arguments to cover having said, "Tanking = survivability". Shield Appropriate Weapons - I pointed out that there were two ways to provide Warriors with shield appropriate weapons. Elidroth (whether he read my thought or not) choose the second. "No one asserted such claim". From the website in question: When tanking challenging content (group OR raid) as a warrior, would you prefer: Dual wielding 26 Sword + shield 14 2h of some sort 0 Yep, I'm appalled. http://eqresource.com/board/index.php?topic=1855.0 "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses."
With some players favoring DW as close to 24/7 as they can possibly get even to the point of questioning SS providing us with shield appropriate weapons I believe Elidroth's attitude to be correct: http://eqresource.com/board/index.php?topic=1855.0 "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." Which requires two things: 1. To insure that whenever we are tanking S&B will be the best option (note he did not say the best mitigation - it was the best mitigation several years ago and we hardly ever used it. Changes were required). 2. Insure DW and 2H have their (not reasonable substitutes for S&B when it's used to tank) uses. The best solution is to have them perform best in their obvious roles. DW fans have no problems asserting S&B should not perform as good or better than DW or 2H when they are used in the melee DPSing role. They'll just have to accept S&B delivering the best outcome any time we tank. Aw, Zalmonius. Well thanks for the new info. It'll help out the Warrior class. http://eqresource.com/board/index.php?topic=1855.0 "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses."
I love how you can read plain English and make the words mean the opposite. http://eqresource.com/board/index.php?topic=1855.0 "Shield will still be the best tanking option but dual wield will have its uses." Reads as "Shields will be an inferior tanking option in most content. DW will performs its [shield's] uses. Wow...double facepalm. Elidroth has several knobs he can turn to insure S&B is the best tanking option: aggro survivability DPS utility If players can adequately obtain and hold aggro, don't die or aren't a burden to heal, and do better DPS than S&B then S&B is not the best tanking option.
Oh great, another quote to throw around. This game of "I'm going to quote the devs as meaning whatever is most convenient for the sake of my argument" is seriously played out.
The game of "I'm going to quote or, if a quote isn't available, paraphrase and indicate I am" is far from played out. I understand that this has been turned into a game of "baby steps" by those who would have the Warrior class returned to DW 24/7 if possible. With aggro survivability DPS utility determining what setups are best to use when we tank, aggro currently more than adequate in any setup they'll work on survivability (offhand parry request) and DPS even DPS when we assume the risks of tanking, are geared properly to perform that role, and are entitled to some additional DPS as a result. But frankly I believe Elidroth understood that Warriors having to use a 1Hander designed to be used 2 at a time rather than a shield appropriate weapon required SS. It's in the game. He KNOWS our DPS while tanking under S&B is a determining factor in whether we use it to tank as we should. I believe he agrees S&B should be our best tanking option. He's said it - no warping of his words required. He's said it repeatedly with variations like "DW is not for tanking." I think he'll turn one or more of those controls briskly to insure S&B is for tanking/DW is not for tanking. I'm a lot more confident of that then I am that Warriors will once again turn from our Tank Archetype and DW - we're not a DPS class/we're a tank. One reason he'll do it is Dual wielding 26 Sword + shield 14 2h of some sort 0 shows it's a hot button issue with a tiny minority. The rest of the Warrior class understand that we are tanks and only rarely perform the melee DPS role/S&B is for tanking.
I really hope you're not claiming to be an authority on what's played out. DW 24x7? Nope. DW more than S+B? I could go for that. I believe he agrees it should be our lowest DPS option as well. DPS being a measurement, not a role. Shows Warrior forum community favors DW heavily over S+B and that the spoiler effect is stronger than any favorability toward 2H. You have no idea what the silent majority thinks. To further assume that their opinions are opposite of a straw poll... that's truly ignorant.
