On what thing you base this opinion ? I'm going to give you an example. I play in a level 105 raid content and when we lack 1 war usually in our roster, we use some SK. Our SK (geared in former expansion raid gear) don't die tanking Vim and Vigor under Reaver's Bargain, an ability that acts like a 50 % mitigation stuff during 2 minutes. And this is with the same number of healers affected to the warrior and the SK on each boss. This is what I hate to read in these threads, dowplaying of the reality happening in game. I give proofs, when other just send general statements, which are false. The problem is Devs seem to read this, and make change based on who will whine the most. Without seing in game or testing things. That's a shame. SK are yet doing equal game with warriors with Reaver Bargain AA. With a 30 % def proficiency and the myriad of other tools they have, I have no doubt they will make at best equal to warriors, at worst better than warriors. Stating otherwise is just foolish. Paladins don't have Reaver Bargain AA. But under a 30 % def proficiency and their strong self healing (way more powerful against Raid Bosses than SK) I have no doubt they will equal warrior there. And Warriors should keep a mitigation advantage on knights on Raid Boss Mobs. The gap will become way too close, the Hybrid tank tanking as good as his parent class. This is why i'm favourable to a def proficiency to help knights tank Raid Adds, but not to 30 % level. I hope it's what devs will do, a lesser % version, to not break the balance between tanks. I think 10 %, stacking with your new 5 % mitigation stuff if you want, should be the max to go, so it allows you to tank raid adds which hit hard.
You realize your whole example is A) Based on one of the easiest raids in the entire expansion, and B) One of the worst abilities available, right?
I don't like when people talk about a class and they don't know the abilities and how they compare to what else is available. So let me explain: Insult - 16 second refresh roughly. Our fastest snap aggro ability. How fast is the recast of the multiple SK/pally spells? 6 seconds for Narus which is being increased to 13k aggro. So you can get that off 2.5 times for every 1 time a warrior can get theirs off and it's more aggro each cast! (Seriously, wtf). Pally fastest crush is what, 12 seconds plus it's an 8 second second stun for mobs below 108? Maybe not as much pure aggro, but it's a faster recast so the HPS (hate per second) pretty much equal. Stormstrike Blades - You're kidding right? Not only is it a 45 second recast, but it damages mobs so it's not like we can use it all the time. So SK's get a faster one that doesn't damage. Which one do you think is more useful? I'll give you 1 guess (hint: It's not stormstrike). Tormenting Shout - It gets resisted a lot, plus it's a 2 minute reuse. 2 friggin minutes for 12k aggro! Less aggro than one SK spell can dish out every 6 seconds. Let's think about the other spells an SK can cast within that 6 seconds. This is all fine and true, but the sad thing is that the insult recourse is our best mitigation ability on a per hit basis. Every time it's activated, it does more mitigation than anything we would currently have running with the same SpA as long as the mob hits for more than 10k which is....every mob. Our new NTTB line is 4800 max per hit roughly. BFI is a flat 16%. In order for BFI to be better mobs would have to hit for above 60k. SB/Vies are 10%. Diplomatic papers are 25% with a max of 5k per hit. So yes, a [smart] warrior should be clicking this every 30 seconds, but not because of it's aggro. Have you ever looked at the damage bell graphs? Rarely do mobs hit the max DI. I'd much rather have a consistent 5% passive mitigation on all hits than having the ability to get a 19 DI roll instead of 20.
We all know what Warriors Want, but the problem remains: is it actually balance? You have a vision of what your class and what other classes ought to do, but no logic with which to argue for why we ought to share in that vision. There in is the problem: the arguments warriors have put forth for why their class ought to be a special snow flake, could just as well be applied to other classes' arguments for why they ought to be special snow flakes. What right do warriors have to tell mages what their pets should/should not be able to tank, when they themselves exhibit a double standard about what knights should/should not be able to tank? To use the tank/DPS/heal archetype argument you have to actually accept the logic of the argument - which is that tank classes should ALL be able to tank any content - but you haven't, so the logic fails. I'll keep it simple: I have yet to see one rational argument for why warriors ought to be the only acceptable raid tanks across all content, except that this is what Warriors Want. In that case, why should anyone agree with it?
i like this argument then if we where to survive ALL content then wheres warriors ability to solo thats part ALL content. feel free to solo and enjoying that. but then it has to be same for everybody if your logic is gonna hold true this is not the case. and if thats the standard w wanna hold then simple it has to apply to all the tank if they are gonna step in to our role as main boss tank thats we give up a whole aspect fo he game for. then its only fair for us to gain the ability to be a worthwile solo class as well like our other tank brothers. and on the side of pet classes tanking for groups and or solo im not against that all im against the fact that you beeing able to preform your dps role wile your doing it. but the tank classes pal/shad/warriors have to take a massive loss in dmg to preform thease roles but you dont . now that my freind is a dubble standard
This is not a call out but, a reminder or refresher for myself. I think warrior's DI section is a reduction by 1 DI off of damage taken or a consistent mitigation. Warrior innate mitigation = DB + 0.95*(1-20)*DI There is a class area broken down into groups which I always forget as well where warriors are superior to all. I think it maybe AC or Ac soft cap. This is not mentioning other factors like defensive skills..etc which I also do not remember specifics. Others will hopefully refresh me through replies. The point being warriors get the best damage reduction and mitigation modifiers. The question with the changes from this patch would be are the warrior benefits still the best and by what margin. As referring to the "warriors spell book" comments, I think what Aurmoon and other Knights were trying to say is that warriors get special skills similar to the Knight's spell books, but those skills are in disciplines or AA lines only while knights will have more flexibility in having disciplines, AA lines, and a spell book. With the appearing drive to reduce the warrior gap in mitigation, it would be interesting or at least easier to balance tank classes if warriors were given a self healing side via a discipline or AA. This would give all three tanks classes both mitigation and a healing area for adjustment to maintain whatever tank balance is desired in the game. Rykard
... The war DI -1 effect occurs all the time, not just on 20s. It IS a consistent 5% decrease, on the DI portion of the attack. Which isn't a full 5% all the time, but generally speaking, it's pretty close. And it's also why I said that it depends on how they code it. Also - It's not the middle of the bell that hurts. It's the top end. 5% all the time is nice, but the TOP 5% is the most important part. If a mob hits between 10k and 80k, before defensive, it's not the 45k hits that are a problem. It's the 80k hits.
Here is a hint for you : A) Maybe, but Knights can MT some Raid Boss in TBM B) You consider Reaver Bargain the worst ability available ? I lol It's irrelevant to what I posted
I was thinking it was DB + (1-19)*DI for wars. I could be wrong I suppose. I haven't looked in awhile. I'll have to double check my formula document. Either way, the lower the DI role, the less of a difference it makes compared to 5% mitigation, depending on the calculation they take. Is it going to be a 5% after all calculations are done or 5% off DI or 5% off DB? We won't know that. For example (using DB + (.95*(1-20))*DI) and numbers of DB = 5,000 // DI = 5000: A DI 8 roll would equal to 43,000 damage done for the warrior. A full 5% mitigation after the calculation would mean the knight is taking 42,750. A 5% off DI would be the same for knights and warriors. A 5% off DB - which is doubtful - would be 44750. This is also not taking in account for Shielding which reduces DB by 35% when maxed. A DI roll of 20 would look like this: Warrior - 100,000 Knight - 99,750 if full 5% mitigation Knights - 100,000 if 5% off DI Knight - 103,250 if 5% off DB In essence, we are erasing the core warrior class perk, which is just senseless. At this point we may as well just erase the class names: Tank. What differentiates a warrior from a knight without the innate -1 DI? Oh that's right, knight spellbooks. Let's just forget DW because who even bothers with that anymore? In the end, we'll be doing the same baseline mitigation with a 9% difference at maximum defensive - warriors able to last 1 minute longer and able to use it 1 minute and 30 seconds faster. I don't see how knights cannot tank under the current circumstances when running (un)holy. If a warrior can live with just proficiency running(6% worse), then a knight can live with their (un)holy. Then you can last slightly longer with the other stuff in your arsenal. How close does this gap between warriors and knights have to be for you to be satisfied? I'm curious at this point. Do you expect to be tanking a full event without dying? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 20+ minutes?
Knights don't even solo especially well these days - molo with wizard mercenary is where it's at - and I don't think *any* knight would have an issue with warriors being able to solo/molo as well as they do. In fact practically no one in the game today, except for warriors themselves, would be against making it easier for warriors to level up and get ready. As for pet classes, there's 1) no way for pets to tank as well as players to begin with and 2) no way for them to tank raids. So in effect the idea of a pet class being able to tank as well as a player and do DPS at the same time has never been fact except back in 2014 before the defense changes. And with knights getting these improvements, the difference is only going to get bigger.
I will agree with you there as far as taking a innate benefit if it is what is happening. I am concerned about the change. For tanking classes, I imagine trying to balance between raiding and grouping is difficult. It is further compounded by the not all the classes having both sides of the tanking coin: mitigation and life replenishment Rykard
One could replace the word 'Warrior' with 'Magician' and legitimately ask exact the same question, albeit in a totally different segment of the game. (The adjective you're looking for is 'Irony'.) Yes, the duration of the (very limited and costly to use) ability you cited as evidence of SK raid boss tanking is "irrelevant" to the discussion. Right......
Except you'd need to replace "Magician" with "Magician, Necromancer, Enchanter, Beastlord" and even "Paladin", "Ranger", and "Monk." It's funny that people still, to this day, think only Magicians are able to solo/molo current content well. This is not 2013. It's not even 2014.
Seems like warriors are being pushed out of a job by a hybrid class if you call this Progress then I don't see a bright future for EQ very sad situation.
