How does the dev team see SKs?

Discussion in 'Tanks' started by Xanathol, Feb 24, 2015.

  1. Xanathol Augur

    Ah that makes sense - I meant to add that option into mine and never got around to it. Thanks for checking it and letting me know!
  2. Nightops Augur

    I agree with you, a --geared-- knight could tank the stated content. What I said was, I do not think a knight could tank those bosses when the events were -new- or -current- to the raiding guild. Sorry, I didnt put it more directly, but with that, I mean -without gear- in the -current level-. Yes, I know a knight could tank T1 COTF bosses with T1 CoTF gear at 100. But I guess instead of the word -or-, I should have used -and-. Basically put, no raid goes into the events before their first few wins in any expansion with choosing knights as main tanks while they are wearing gear from the previous expansion.

    Postings from Sojero
    So you saw them tanking trash mobs which are the weakest in the expansion and no more then 1 at a time. Also, when you saw them in AH tanking, the rangers would have likely been in most T1 CoTF gear. Did you ever see rangers tank adds in bixie 1 from start to finish? Those would be considered harder off-tank mobs in T1. Even now, we dont consider using rangers for that role. When my guild did DH2 for the -first- time, we had knights on Breen and Grady, before any of us were in any notable amount of T1 CoTF gear. These are the types of mobs designed for an off-tank... did any guild consider using a ranger on them? My guess is no.... because they are not considered off-tanks.

    Not what I said... not even close...you should reread my post (just because its that dam good). I said I don't considered myself at the same level as a MT warrior. I know what a knight can do and what they can not when compared to a warrior. Much like you should realize what a ranger can do and what they can not do when compared to a knight. I made no mention of a MT order... thanks for trying to change my words to belittle instead of making a valid supporting point. I said I dont consider, or want anyone to consider, myself as a knight to be on the same level as a warrior. With that, I -DON'T- mean tanking the same mobs, but rather, on the same -level of tanking- as a warrior in reference to -quality of tanking- and not which mobs i'm -capable of tanking-.

    You were able to tank those mobs as a knight... once you got some current gear (your own quote). I said knights couldnt do it when the raids were new... meaning when a raid force has only attempted or won the event a handful of times. NOT once you got current gear... which would mean the tier has been in farm mode.

    Oh, I can and have been defending my points. I have been discussing the merits and fualts. You are the one who keeps changing words, both yours and mine, in order to support yourself. I have been bringing both points of good and bad to the arguement, but you have made very little consent from your stance that rangers can perform as off-tanks dispite your recent admissions you're now only considering their performance of off-tanking when judged against a poor player, when tanking solo and weaker trash only, and when they are in current level of gear with a healer aware of their tanking.


    Get your S#!t right cause i'm bringing back the drama from Veeshan Vault!
  3. sojero One hit wonder

    No I also dont think any guild sets their line up for them to do it, and I never clained that they did, but when it hits the fan and they do step up and tank it, thats what I'm talking about, just like in current TDS when a knight tanks the main mob, its not what the guild wants but they make do with what they have. Also many of those adds destroy dps classes when they get on them.



    We didn't try them before I had a couple pieces of current gear, and I was tanking them before fully geared. You had something going on in your head that wasn't clear in your post, so you had to elaborate. You gave a 1 liner and then come at me for expanding....really!!


    I just elaborate to give a clearer picture, I never changed my stance that they could do it. and I gave examples, if that is changing words, well, that's on you.


    Guess your gonna have to explain that one, have no idea what your talking about.

    I think the problem is your coming at it from a side of "set them as an off tank" and I come at it from a side that when the tank lineup on that mob is down or unable to perform (crappy tanks) then a well played ranger can step up and do it. Just different guilds and what it takes to get the job done. Now I am done with this line as it has nothing to do with the topic of the post.

    If you wish to continue debating ranger tanking, please make a new thread about it, there are many rangers that participated in the last one that can probably tell you from a first hand perspective better than my third hand.
  4. Seldom Augur

    Nighttop, a knight didn't need to be geared in current cutting edge gear to tank the boss mobs prior to TDS(not that being in a full suit of TDS raid, which I am, prevents you from being 1 rounded by bosses in TDS heh). With t1 RoF I tanked T3 RoF. With t3 RoF I tanked t4 RoF, including the first win of final event, one of first in game. The day CotF launched all the bosses were tankable by a knight in mostly t4/t3 RoF. As has been stated, these trends existed for a lonnnnng time for top end knights/guilds.
  5. shiftie Augur

    Knight tanking in raids has been a direct reflection of the raids heal team for a long long time.
    sojero and Ravengloome like this.
  6. Repthor Augur

    anybody tanking anything have been a direct reflection of their heal team for along time
  7. Nightops Augur

    I'm not going to debate at lenght what gear you were in or what you claimed to have tanked. Considering the time delay with T3 to be released and how much content T2 contained (8 events?); half of which were considered farm by every guild on their first attempt. You're telling me you didnt have T2 gear by the time your raid went into T3 but your guild chose you (as a knight) to main tank the bosses (not mini bosses) for their first attempts at T3? You can see why I find your statement hard to believe.

    ----------------
    My part in the discussion with Sojero (after he derailed it) was not about -if- a knight can tank a boss in place of a warrior, but the quality of tanking would never be the same as a warrior. This comparison was made because Sojero's original post made comparisions of a ranger off-tanking on the same level of knights. He also made his statement with the comparisons of the rangers' Cloudfont heal against the paladin Ardent Touch heal.

    Later he disclosed his statement was with his comparison of a well played ranger vs a poorly played knight as well as using only off-tanking the weakest trash mobs and only 1 at a time. He later conseeded the paladin heal used in his comparison was only a rarely used -niche- heal. Even with those caviates in mind, he wouldn't back down of his original statement but proceeded to derail the debate in any direction.

    My original disagreement with Sojero is based on, with all things being equal, a ranger can not tank (or heal) on the same level as a paladin. They should not be compared or at least with result in a favorable comparison to rangers over paladins in the area of tanking and healing.
  8. Phrovo1 Augur

    Didn't he say something along the lines of a great ranger can tank just as well as a mediocre/terrible knight?

    Edit:That's what I thought I initially read.
  9. Seldom Augur

    Nightops, my care factor for whatever your disagreement with Sojero was is at a zero. If I see someone posting questionable info pertaining to one of the classes I play, I may however care enough to post(no different to what you felt need to do with Sojero apparently). You quoted my post, then went on to say I claimed things I didn't from that very quoted piece. You are ''partially'' correct though, I had near zero pieces of t2 gear except for a few raid currency obtained non visible. I had nearly full t1 RoF gear as I stated(not that it mattered, t1 raid was more than adequate for t3)........ My guilds dkp system at the time was flawed due to being out dated/mudflation(now corrected). It would have been extremely unwise for me to have gotten full t1 gear, then full t2 gear, then full t3 gear, then full t4 gear.... Again, not that it mattered much heh. Point I was emphasizing was you didn't need to be full decked out as a knight, in full current content/tier gear, to tank that set of bosses as a knight. It's been the same throughout vast majority of EQ history(especially recent expansions, minus TDS). Also, there is a difference between ''debating'' with someone at length and just making things up to prove points that don't exist. We were never debating.
  10. Nightops Augur

    yes, but this addition to the comparison came after several posts within the conversation. Originally he was comparing ranger healing vs paladin using Ardent light to compare to Cloudfont and rangers having the ability to tank because they can get agro; to which I said he shouldn't use ardent light because paladins dont use ardent light (he later said it was a niche heal only; which I questioned why a person would compare healing via a niche heal vs a primary heal). I added that ranger off tanking was situational and their abilities to agro, heal, and tank are not ment to be used as off-tanks by design over knights.

    He then said...(only part of his post)
    and my response...
  11. Nightops Augur

    I'm not sure what I said to which you never claimed to say...

    If you are talking about the part of 'being chosen to tank over a warrior on the raids first attempt'; i said that because the post you replied to had this stipulation already mentioned...

    if you reply to my post; containing the above stated; referring to you did it,
    then you have to take all three reasons why I said the things in my posting the way I did. Having or not having gear from the current level (actually I said previous expansion, but I would losely consider each Tier as appropriate) is only part of the reason, being first time attempt/win another, and the raid chosing a knight over a warrior as the MT was the last reason.

    If this is not what your talking about, then I dont know what I 'claimed you did, but you never claimed to have said within the quoted piece' ?

    ---------------------

    I agree completely with the fact knights can step in and tank bosses 'during' raids when not in current gear and do a good job. But I haven't heard of any raid -chosing- a knight over a warrior to be the MT in an event (with those 3 reasons factoring) in a very long time (inny in PoT due to fear immune maybe the last time).

    Just like I agree with rangers can step in and do off-tanking on some adds during raids. The problem I had with the posts Sojaro was making was due because he was originally making statements to which a ranger was able to perform off-tanking and healing at the same level as a paladin; without stating within the conversation the knights he was using to compare to the ranger sucked and didnt play their class well. To me, he came across as... the choice to use rangers over knights was by design only and all other things were being seen as equal.
  12. sojero One hit wonder

    It is amusing that the tangent is still going on, the entire point was that ranger is part war, part druid. They get utility from both parent classes. They have the ability to heal and tank. They do not tank as well as an equally skilled knight, and nowhere near a war, but they are considered the 3rd tier tank and we're given agro abilities and defensive abilities for it. They were also given heals and utility from druid, and dps from the druid side. They are 3rd tier tanks because they took the high melee dps from war and spell dps from druids. The fact that I had to quantify, over and over, and that you are beating this poor dead unicorn still is sad. Get over it. Everyone else has.

    Pal got less of the dps and more of the tanking from war and since their other parent was clr, they got mote healing from them.

    Sk has necro for other class, now we are about the same in melee dps and tanking as pal, but we are severely lacking from our other parent.

    The issue of knight tanking is one both suffer from, and is a tds tuning issue.
  13. sifonin Augur

    The point that Night is making, however is correct. Sojero- Rangers may be the third tier of tanks (warrior first, knights second) but back to the original argument- no raid leader would choose to have a ranger sword/weapon in the place of a knight just because they are "able" to do so for short periods of time. Lets all agree that Knights ARE the second tier of tanks, and given any situation will always have the upper hand in tanking/surviving the tough offtank mobs that are in question.

    Any other argument is based on semantics..
  14. Xanathol Augur

    Semantics-wise, I disagree a bit. I believe Rangers were made 3rd tier tanks because they provide benefits that both knights have - targeted heals and dps - not to mention a wide range of buffs and a specialization in long range nearly aggro free & mana free dps (archery). I think this is an important point to make, because if melee dps were the key differentiator, SKs would never work (you can't be mostly Warrior-like yet get all your dps from spells).

    SK and Paladin 2her melee has always been near Warrior 2her melee until proficiencies, as evident by the 'with' and 'without' 2her proficiency parses in this very thread. In my personal opinion, I've always felt it was wrong for Paladins to have melee that high and I know in betas long past that it has in turn hurt SKs. Those two shouldn't be connected - there should be a definitive line in dps between a Paladin and a Warrior, just as there use to be and should be again between an SK and a Warrior. That is another reason I think SKs should be bumped up (and not Warriors pulled down) - it creates that dps separation between all three tanks that should be there.
  15. Ravengloome Augur

    Its funny SK melee dps used to be held back by Slay Undead.
    Now Paladin melee DPS is held back because of SK's having % based Leech effects.

    The devs have said that Paladin/SK melee should be the same, and I Agree, theres no point in Paladins not having similar/same melee DPS.

    If your going to pursue avenues of increasing SK DPS that won't also boost Paladin DPS, your going to have to go about it through Spells. The devs have repeatedly stated Paladin and SK should have about the same DPS through Melee.

    You also have to realize, whether your going to admit it in this thread or not, they aren't going to give you similar Melee to Warriors (and they shouldn't imo, Warriors are 100% melee based), because of Leech effects.

    You also have to think about the fact that SK/Paladin DPS cap is much higher then Warriors (Burst and Sustained), especially if you factor in any kind of ADPS that affects spells.

    Example: Its not uncommon in group content for a raid geared Knight to be able to sustain 25 - 35k DPS for extended periods of time (30 or 40 minute intervals or longer if they are smart on mana/end use) with a Bard or Enchanter.

    I am not sure How warrior group DPS pans out, but id guess they are looking at a ceiling of about 25k max sustain with a bard. IE: The DPS a Knight puts out on the low end.
  16. Xanathol Augur

    There was a dev long ago who stated Paladin and SK melee dps should be the same and at that time, Warrior dps was at or even below both. Paladins as a community have pushed it forever to wrongly keep things in their favor.

    There is every reason for the two to not be equal - Paladins are suppose to be low DPS and SKs high DPS (as tanks go). It makes zero sense for Paladins to be equal to SKs when SKs aren't using spells and yet exceed them vs undead (something SKs actually were better at until slay came along). It also is a fault in logic to take away SK melee dps to add back that dps in spells because then the spell DPS has to be so much greater to overcome the lack of melee dps that the class becomes a caster wearing plate instead of a tank that can cast. By carrying out this rhetoric that the two should melee equally, it has lead to either Paladins being overpowered or SKs underpowered.

    Warriors have never done much more melee DPS than either knight until now - that's not even up for debate. History completely blows away your idea that SKs must focus on spell DPS only when this is the first time the melee gap has been more than ~10% (from non-prof parses here, 12% atm).

    The 'leech' excuse is just that - an excuse. I've not seen an SK anywhere that opposed a nerf to leech effects equal to a boost in melee (in lay terms, if SK melee doubled, leech effect would then be halved). That argument is a ruse and nothing more.

    Still waiting for that log of that burn parse you claimed btw...
  17. Ravengloome Augur

    Don't hold your breath.
  18. Triconix Augur

    This thread is still alive? SK dos looks pretty good from that 115k parse. Debate over, this is a non issue
  19. Ravengloome Augur

    That was a Paladin. (Me)
  20. Xanathol Augur

    1. We have multiple parses showing how behind SKs are.
    2. As Ravengloome stated, the one big parse is from he, a Paladin, and as details on that are refused, it begs the to question either its accuracy or what he may not want disclosed.