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

Discussion in 'Tanks' started by Time Burner 2, Feb 18, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mistatk Augur

    So, I'm not going to go through all these Knights vs. Warriors thread and "quote" every time a knight said, "yeah this change was needed but seems over blown". When you have the very people arguing to get more and more and more say "wow they gave us this much?" it speaks volumes to what has happened.

    This is a garbage change, on top of a lot of other garbage changes. Who is anyone going to complain to though, the people who said "we would never rush an unfinished expansion out", really? your going to trust them to make fair and balanced changes when they lie right to your face. Did they come back later and say, "hey, we changed our mind about not releasing stuff half done, sorry about that". No, they do whatever they want, you'll say nothing, and nothing will be done about it. Happy 17th year anniversary, it is has been an amazing year full of amazingly great changes, we all like the game more now then we ever have in the past. Thank you for changing everything that made the game work for the 15 years before you took it over.
  2. Xanathol Augur

    This isn't true at all. It always helps one's case to at least make an attempt to appear to tell the truth. You'd have more credibility claiming you invented the question mark than making statements like these.
  3. Igniz Augur

    Fixed that for you. And it sounds so very damn familiar! Yet, this has been most often been used to explain a lot of nerfs. Though, warriors didn't get nerfed actually. Remember that Daegun dude?

    I am almost afraid to ask ... but B.A. has been waving that around for weeks now. How do you get a difference of 186 HP in tanking power with the degree of difference of armour, AA and disciplines???
    Vdidar likes this.
  4. Battleaxe Augur

    When I first posted this it was calculated by adding up the HP's provided by items plus knight self-buffs. "Warriors build their strength and stamina to unheard-of levels, making them far hardier than any other class." turned out not to be the case at the time. Warriors and knights wore essentially the same armor and any stat advantage Warriors originally enjoyed had long disappeared.

    No I didn't include AA's. Nor did I include knight combat self healing which would have given them (or at least Paladins) on the order of 100K additional HP's hiding in their mana bars. Those HP's don't count? Well, they were the reason knights could solo effectively and Warriors could not. Soloing is one of the few ways of measuring the total class power of a character provided exclusively by that character.

    Warriors were "far hardier"? Um, no they were not. Paladins were swarming undead in Ruins of Illsalin (one of several zones they mass killed in) . My Paladin alt got the faction needed to make Anguish armor about 4x faster than my Warrior main (along with soloing scores of undead Murklgliders per pull). I'd call that pretty darn hardy.
  5. Kamea Augur


    I was talking Pal v Sk v War, in tank groups but with outside group aDPS / MGBs / etc (aka realistic situations not theorycraft), vs TBM content where mitigation is significantly higher than pre-TDS content.

    In these situations, a top end Pal or SK should be able to blow away a war. This is assuming the Pal, SK, and War all know what they're doing. I've seen this on 30-40 parses? idk.

    I'm not saying warriors are the most RNG dependent burn class in EQ. But the swing factor for warrior DPS literally come down to 3 melee hits (note: Warriors mod these much more than SKs), and do you know wildly the damage of 3 given melee hits can vary? Especially with current raid boss mitigation, coming from a low ATK class.

    If there's a class in EQ whom's burn is more RNG than that, go ahead name it.
  6. sojero One hit wonder


    With no ADPS yes a pal and sk will beat a warrior hands down, and hint its not because of their 2h melee damage, its because of their spells and discs. It is when you start throwing in adps that a warrior shines. Knights have been made more self reliant, and thus do not benefit nearly as much from others. This is known to the dev crew, and is the way that they want it.

    Here was the last IRC chats that I could remember happening, I know Eli doesnt work at DBG anymore, but his effects are still in place:

    [15:44] <@Elidroth> SK's have that DPS available when tanking.. Warriors do not


    and for BattleAxe

    [15:32] <sebshaik> Elidroth could you help us focus our suggestions for the next hour-ish? I seem to recall you saying that our self-healing is fine, and our aggro tools are fine, so we can stop bringing those issues up. Are utility and DPS AA's on the table and should we discuss different avenues there?


    [15:37] <@Elidroth> DPS is a reasonable direction
    [15:37] <@Elidroth> DPS should be the SK's differentiation between other tanks
    Xanathol likes this.
  7. Battleaxe Augur

    Yep, I figured it was Elidroth who said such things. He also once revealed that he was working on his own time to remove Defensive from the game. Let's remember - the Warrior Defensive abilities reduce only the DI contribution of a mob's melee damage allowing devs to create dangerous (from the standpoint of their melee output) mobs that Warriors enjoy a 3 minutes out of every 10 advantage and not dangerous, low DI, mobs where the Warrior advantage is negligible <- pure genius.

    Further a mob can do an appreciable portion of it's damage via spells where knights with their combat self-healing enjoy an advantage.

    Not IMO, an EQ as EQ was intended to be, source to be quoted ex cathedra. You have to be grounded in the "bible" to speak that way and not be determined to make radical changes.

    In fact he's dead wrong about SK's. As devs stated when the 2H damage bonus was first altered Warriors and other pure melee would still out damage Paladins and SK's. Lower DPS was one of the costs of [BA: a tank] having a spellbook. Remember early skills? Warriors had skillcaps just as high and usually higher than knights. Remember 120/100/80? Warriors were the 100/knights (and a few other utility casters) were the 80.

    Most Warriors conceded that when SK's focused entirely on DPS they should (despite Warriors being told in their class description they would do heavy damage and SK's being told they would cast detrimentals) approach Warrior DPS.

    Yes, Paladins styled themselves as the clerical tank. SK's called themselves the DPS tank. And both were pretty determined to see Warriors become an equal to them tank in tanking with preferably no spellbook or at the most the tank with a 3rd or 4th rate yellow mana spellbook. Found am ally in Eli did you? Well, some of us aren't unhappy that he's gone (we would have been happier if he had been fair and Warriors guaranteed what our Class Description told us, but that wasn't to be).
  8. sojero One hit wonder

    You do realize in a pure melee to melee even with sk and war both having 2h prof on, a war will do more dps than a sk will.
    Xanathol likes this.
  9. Nightops Augur

    I thought you were against the DP and KS given to knights?

    A lot of what you said seems to be in support of knights getting boosted? To me, a lot of this has been what I've been saying in this thread.

    When a knight, particularly a paladin, becomes MT; the paladin will sacrifice a lot of the utility which he is on the raid to do. This is a very big reason why they will not commonly become a MT over a warrior; it's the same reason why warriors will not loose many, if any, slots to paladins.
    Kamea likes this.
  10. Battleaxe Augur

    Most Warriors conceded that when SK's focused entirely on DPS they should (despite Warriors being told in their class description they would do heavy damage and SK's being told they would cast detrimentals) approach Warrior DPS.

    If you are saying SK's are the DPS knight and not the DPS tank, that's consistent with a long standing assertion. However SK's not having raid worthy detrimentals isn't. It might be how things worked out, but it's not how things should have worked out.

    You do realize that Warriors in the MT order are standing by to become the MT if the MT dies and basically doing poor DPS while Paladins in the MT order can still Splash and heal. There's every reason to use twoish Warriors when a guild clears TBM, just enough SK's needed for mob positioning, and Pallies in every other War/Pal/SK slot if all three classes can survive tanking.
  11. Kamea Augur

    SKs don't 'shine' from aDPS? You know spell aDPS is quite strong these days, right?


    Out of the 10-12 tanks in most guilds (and however many tanks in the top 10 guilds total) what % of them are in an aDPS group during a given event? IE, How is in-group aDPS remotely relevant to a tank discussion?

    Maybe you're like Shiftie and think the purpose of tank DPS is to get 1 good parse a year vs a trivial mob to make your ego happy. What matters isn't the top annual of parse of a single tank, nor DPS on trivial events that you would've easily won anyways. What matters is what the combined DPS of all tanks is, on a given night.

    You realize that's a problem for warriors right?

    At the heart of the problem is how warrior DPS has been 'upgraded' during the past few years.

    They keep giving us more and more generic "Increase Damage" buffs (we're at 10+ now), while having to Battle Leap less is nice, these abilities don't sum up to a notable upgrade.

    The sole deviation from the "Increase Damage" trend was Heroic Rage (Heroic Blade recourse)... in theory the recourse should've been great for us, however this was a farmed SK ability tuned to their abilities, and they did not adjust the warrior version. It doesn't even stack with our discs, and given the fact it's bundled with the Heroic Blade Strike, it's usually better for the warrior to use Heroic Blade during disc for bigger strikes, than worrying about getting the recourse after discs are done.

    Warriors need HHE, Triple Attack Chance, Flurry mods, etc that actually work with our discs. Not more and more "Increase Damage" mods, or poorly stacking Heroic Rage.
  12. Battleaxe Augur

    Some guilds will toss a Paladin in a melee DPS group to help out on healing if they are short on Clerics, Shaman, and Druids. There really isn't a good reason to do that with a Warrior - almost but not quite 75% of the classes in the game would be a better fit.
  13. sojero One hit wonder

    Yes I am well aware of what adps does for knights, I usually play with a bard, ranger, wizard, druid and enchanter when not raiding. The ranger boxes the chanter and druid. We have some great dps synergy, and can all do amazing things.



    You know you and many other warriors make me laugh quite a bit with the snide comments to shiftee. He has a deeper understanding of how eq works than almost anyone else on the forums and can do things that many cannot.

    I usually run #1 or 2 in any guild I am in for my sk on dps. We never get to have aDPS in the knight group, even bards if we have an extra is given to the warrior group, so yeah I know all about not having adps, but I also know that just because I dont have it doesnt meant the potential is not there.

    I also disagree whole hartedly that the combined dps of all tanks matter. I will not be lumped up with the tanks that are parsing 4-8k for an entire event because they suck. You can see the difference between good tanks and bad by the amount of time they tanked and the dps they put out. I almost always tank a good amount and put out decent/high for my class dps. Compare the rest of your tanks to the ones that are doing that, and ask them why they are not also doing the same.

    I love events like the new fear ones where I can step back and go full dps because everyone is getting feared and thus the sk/pal/war dps actually matter because they are not getting feared. This probably doesnt effect the top 10 guilds like it does the rest that dont have the insane burst dps.



    Have you looked at sk discs/aa? ours are not much different, and are on longer recast for the most part. we just have more of them.


    Did you look at that sk version, they gave us haste on it, yeah thats just as useful for us as for you. lets just say that disc is just as much about the "cheese" as you call it for sk as it is for warriors. Xan has been asking for years to get HHE put on our carmine blade, and so far it hasnt happened.
    Xanathol likes this.
  14. sojero One hit wonder


    That is true, same with the caster groups. The problem then is they are in heal mode, depending on the fight, more so than on others, and thus not taking advantage of the adps that they may have.
  15. Xanathol Augur

    First off, your claim was exactly:
    That statement as written is false - even now after SKs have stances, SK 2her melee doesn't 'run circles' around a Warrior's. I'm with Warriors regularly post knight stances who's s+b melee is still equal or better than my SK's 2her melee with similar weaponry - with spells and a pet, I outpace them. If anything, SKs are still behind in that regard but where it is now one can live with it.

    As for burns, SKs pretty much run 50/50 melee/spell dps. The closest thing to a melee burn disc SKs have is Leechcurse, which adds a chance to hit (basically a better version of the SK epic click but on a 49.5 min reuse timer after reduction AAs). AA-wise, there is VoD and Carmine Rage (though that's a joke since Rage provides 68% haste and a min skills dmg mod). Tvyl's is for everyone's benefit. That's it - that's all an SK is burning for melee dps.

    Now, if what you meant to say is that regardless of stances - in a tank group, on a raid, during a burn - knights out dps warriors, then yes, that is correct. But that has to do with two things - (1) lack of support (while knight burns are mostly self driven) and (2) warriors who don't want to lock out tanking disc for dps ones. Those issues are centered around choices - group makeup, what to use or to not use, etc. It has almost nothing to do with knights getting 2her stances.
    Nightops likes this.
  16. Nightops Augur

    And when those paladins die.. who does the splash? who does the utility which requires paladin mana?

    Your still in disbelief if you think paladins can top warriors in tanking for a duration of time.

    My arguement is not about paladins (knights) can or can't do it; because they can, and the good ones can do it very well. My arguement is warriors are still better when looking at %s and tanking related abilities over time. Elite guilds have and always will look to maximize every bit out of every slot on a raid and that means taking the best for what you need. If they need a MT, they will take a warrior. Like I said before, if any warrior slots are lost, they will go to dps or adps classes. Tell me what other -utility-type- class is favored over their 'purer' cousin? Do elite guilds prefer beastlords over monks? mages over wizards? druids over clerics? Why would raids drop warriors and pick up more paladins when the raids already have enough of the paladin utility and any extra would be over-lap?
    -----------------------

    If the number of tank slots you talked about above is the 'future of raid tanking'. Why was it skewed in the favor of warriors soo much in the past? Why was it accecptable to see 6+ warriors and only twoish paladins and twoish Sks per raid in elite guilds? Don't give me the crap about knights owning the group game cause many other classes can perform equally as well in group game and raids. And it's not really the owning the group game which all the warriors bring up... they only compare knights owning the solo-game.
  17. Xanathol Augur

    Life must be harder for you than most.
    sojero likes this.
  18. Nightops Augur

    -edit- It should have been Misbelief.
  19. Mistatk Augur

    go go knight disinformation lobbyists. you almost have me convinced that being half cleric and all warrior isn't that great. almost..
  20. Battleaxe Augur

    Before I forget - when Bards are in the MT group they aren't there for ADPS. When a Paladin is in the MT group it's because they can tank the mob in question and to take advantage of DArb/group heal synergy.

    And when Paladins are "required", a great example is the PoWar raid, you call the raid and do it another time. While you can do that raid with two or so Warriors (today, not anywhere nearly that easily when it was new) there's not much of a chance with 0 Paladins. Why would you have more than one Paladin? Because they can tank AND. If one dies you still want a class that can tank AND.

    If you want to maximize you bring as few Warriors as possible.

    6+ Warriors, 2 Pallies, and 2 SK's in elite guilds? Um my guild is pretty elite. We've done it with knights tanking. We've done it with 2 Warriors and knights doing a lot of the tanking. We've sat a 4th Warrior and had 1 knight in the MT group, knights in the AT group, and a Paladin in the melee DPS group.

    6+ Warriors, 2 Pallies, and 2 SK's in not elite guilds? Oh, that's an easy one. When content is new guilds use a long MT order and rely on Last Stand to stretch out survival in order to see as much of the event and the spells mobs cast as possible. Only then can you create emotes for Gina, decide when to burn, and figure out how you can live long enough and DPS when you should DPS so you can win.

    When learning Warriors are $$$. In farm mode they are the tanks lacking making things easier utility.

    Yep, not elite guilds don't rip through events and spend more time in learn mode. BUT that's only the one event they are stuck on. The rest of the events they are farming.

    BTW, as the person who repeatedly posts tank parity (and knight spellbook superiority) I definitely mention knight group content advantage. Something like 90% of the people who play EQ don't raid and we all play in group content.

    Knight soloing? Well both of the non-SOE knight forums had "What have we soloed" threads while Warriors didn't on TSW. TBH I soloed/moloed better with my Ranger alt than my Warrior main. I can't imagine how good things were for knight mains (well I know how good swarming was for them since they wrote about it - it was pretty darned fine).
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.