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. Battleaxe Augur

    Best tank isn't all that subjective.

    We know what attributes are common to all tanks and we know what outside of the tank archetype abilities are.

    We also knew progress was capped, I didn't get credit for every hour played (but my xp penalized Paladin did), how much AA I've thrown away and knights got something from earning, and that knights were not ever to catch up to Warriors unless it was a very slack Warrior who was exceeded by a knight that had vastly superior gear (and a Warrior regardless on how much better his gear was would never outheal a Paladin - hardly fair).

    Doing a metric fun ton more with a lot less total class power at one's disposal and having another achieve parity in your intended strengths while maintaining a huge lead in outside of your archetype's abilities hardly seems fair.
  2. Seldom Augur

    I'm glad the rezz point was brought up. Warriors should feel free to use it as an example of what's good for "a class", isn't always good for overall "game" of Everquest. Paladins were once one of a select few that had ability to rezz. Shamans/Druids later received and arguably surpassed as they have call line as well. This is in addition to merc cleric rezzes now being often readily available, rezz tokens which allow anyone to cast a "superior" % battle rezz than a Paladins. Rarer abilities like veteran reward rezz also now exist. All these changes were good for game, as were the changes to other classes receiving Shield Prof. Having more active raiding Warriors than Paladins and Shadowknights combined in the only 15 guilds to beat Broken Mirror expansion, was good/is good for Warriors. Not good for overall game. Man, would be nice to get a loyalty token that would allow me to lock aggro down on a large swarm of "group" mobs like a "raiding" warrior easily can, while "raid" dpsers go to town. Seems very powerful to have such aggro power. Maybe a veteran reward that would allow me to boost my hitpoints by 45,000 with a large aggro mod. I'd definitely use those even if just once a week!
  3. sojero One hit wonder


    As to subjectivity, you are right if you don't know how to view the world outside your singular definition then probably not, thank god most people are not like you, and I would suggest looking at the bigger picture, and then from others standpoints, then come back.

    LOL cite where it was ever said that a knight was never going to catch up to warriors? I remember when I hit level 9 on my SK I started passing the warriors around me leveling... because I got spells.. and could solo where the wars had to wait for groups. Then when we did group, there was nothing I couldn't tank. you seem to have different thoughts about how the game started/progressed than the rest of us do.

    Knights don't need to beat warriors in taking a hit to be just as good of a tank, something I don't think you really understand. That is actually one of the downfalls of eq, is that they did not separate the way warriors and knights tanked, where almost every other game does separate their tanks in that fashion so that they can all do their job, just in different ways.

    You knew progression was going to be capped? I kinda knew when I started that there were going to additions to the game, you didn't?
  4. Battleaxe Augur

    Paladins were not even a 100% priest yet they had for a long time a res that exceeded the abilities of 2 members of the priest classes. Once everyone had mercs everyone (not in a raid instance) had a res. Res tokens simply made that kind of capability available in raids (for a cost where priests need not pay that cost).

    Now if you want to say mercs were good for the game, I'd agree except IMO it should have been 1 merc per group maximum.

    Yes, knights getting broken capabilities they aren't entitled to is always good for knights. Seriously - if you have aggro issues you are doing something wrong. I see knights holding aggro regularly.
    ----
    And yes, I knew we were level capped prior to Kunark. Perhaps I played a bit more or started earlier than you?
  5. Ghubuk Augur

    Chuckle, that is an extremely circular logic argument you just made there Battle.
  6. Sheex Goodnight, Springton. There will be no encores.

    Gone a week and this thread's still going strong. Good times.

    Guess we need an updated meme.
    [IMG]
    shik and sojero like this.
  7. sojero One hit wonder


    Well sir which is it, progress or level, because they are 2 very different things. Everyone knows that you have level caps in video games. Progress can mean a wide range of different things to people, and even the way you used it is different because you then went on to talk about AA, so, what exactly do you mean again? When I started my SK, and my wife started her pally, there were no AA in the game.
  8. Xanathol Augur

    Now you're crawfishing - you stated 'knight 2her dps' and tied it to knights getting stances. Well stances certainly didn't effect knight spell dps at all.

    Anyhow.. there are two fundamental issues I see in this discussion when it comes to tank dps relative to each other. The first is an apples to oranges comparison - comparing warriors in a tank group waiting to possibly tank to knights who burn with self abilities. The second issue is idealistic. Some here think that warriors should be the best tanks in mitigation, aggro, and dps, that paladins should be situational tanks that heal the warriors, and sks should debuff the mob for the warrior then get out of the way - this line of reasoning has no reason - its just one class being selfish and stupid. The other opinion is that all tanks should be viable tanks, doing it in different ways, that warriors should be the best in surviving incoming damage and in need of other benefits, that paladins should be adequate tanks that provide healing, etc, and that sks should be adequate tanks that do the most damage of the tanks.. aka the only logical way, the way it has always suppose to be and should be.

    I think you'll find that most agree that warriors could benefit from a bit more self sufficient dps; ie less dependent on adps and abilities that don't lock them out of tanking. Realize that at the same time, if that should happen - and I think it should - sks will need upwards adjustments that they are still lacking (crit & cripple disc, lower reuse on leechcurse, carmine rage adjusted, pets adjusted, etc) because right now, even after 2her stances, the only 'pro' to being an sk instead of a warrior in a raid is the fact that sks can burn and switch to tanking immediately whereas warriors cannot. The entire premise of being an sk instead of a warrior is to do more damage. Those that think sks should push all they have just to equal a warrior in that regard are simply not honest or intelligent enough to make decisions on such matters.
    Nightops and Seldom like this.
  9. shik Elder


    we missed you :(
    never leave us again!
  10. Mistatk Augur


    This sounds much more like an argument for why knights SHOULDN'T have warrior stances, not that they SHOULD. Yeah, they can tank using lifetaps and heals, warriors can only take hits and pray, so why should all the three run permanent full time 35% mitigation. It makes no sense, yet here knights are typing out 35 pages of, warriors are still the gods of tanking, knights still suck, boost us more, bleh bleh bleh. I'd say type away nobody cares, but apparently one of the developers is a mediocre SK who thought with a simple boost they'd win EQ. They're probably the ones with "I can't believe its not ", cuz if your bad your bad regardless what your player has.
  11. Warpeace Augur

    Yes Knights are calling for even more boosts in tanking....right.
  12. shiftie Augur

    Lol he just called dzarn mediocre. The most beloved dev to date. Sorry dzarn. The rest of us still think you are awesome.
    Seldom and Xanathol like this.
  13. Sheex Goodnight, Springton. There will be no encores.

    [IMG]
    Leex likes this.
  14. Battleaxe Augur

    Or they were intelligent enough to read class descriptions which say:
    "Warriors are the masters of armed combat and defense"
    and
    "Shadowknights are deadly opponents who use evil spells to slow and cripple their enemies."

    which indicate Warrior superiority (the masters) in melee DPS.

    While Shadowknights:
    are primarily a melee class..." (most of their DPS comes from melee and since they are not pure melee they don't get Phase 1 melee Update-like abilities reserved for pure melee)

    who cast detrimentals on their opponents to slow their movement speed and debuff their combat related stats,

    some of their debuffs "strengthen themselves and their allies."

    and who "use fear, pain, and disease to attack..." (Require mana for additional damage caused by disease Spears and DoTs.)

    Given that debuffers aren't the best DPSers, SK's aren't primarily casters in the first place, and most of their damage should come from melee I'd expect lower damage and less efficiency from their spellcasting. Less than Rangers can produce since Rangers are a DPS class and SK's are not.

    The entire premise of SK's is inferior (to Warrior) melee DPS with any additional damage coming spellcasting and debuffing. Flexibility/utility, not necessarily damage production superiority.

    And you'll have to forgive me. I don't think Paladins should heal the Warriors. You don't need anything more than self-heals to offset the damage you've taken/mitigation by another means. Healing others is a bonus Paladins have received that they are not entitled to. Since devs are unlikely to nerf their golden haired sons, that bonus should by offset by Warrior and SK abilities Paladins do not get.
  15. Kleitus_Xegony Augur

    I really don't want to (hopefully I won't ever need to again), because I think it's silly to refer to class definitions that are nothing more than mere abstracts, but....

    From the Warrior Class Description:
    "Warriors are a melee class with the ability to wear plate armor and wield all types of weapons."

    From the Paladin Class Description:
    "Paladins are primarily a melee class, able to wear plate armor and wield many kinds of weapons."

    From the Shadow Knight Class Description:
    "Shadowknights are primarily a melee class, able to wear plate armor and wield many kinds of weapons."

    From the Ranger Class Description:
    "Rangers are primarily a melee class, able to wear chain armor and wield many kinds of weapons."

    It's clear to me, that Warriors, Paladins, and Shadow Knights can wear the heaviest types of armor and thus should mitigate damage from physical attacks the same. Rangers, should be a step down from them. There should never have been the huge difference in raw mitigation that Warriors had gained with Defensive Proficiency.

    Knights did not throw our fellow hybrid "warriors attuned to the ways of nature" or whatever you want to call Rangers to the side. According to their class description, they wear lighter armor and thus should not be mitigating damage as well as Warriors, Paladins, or Shadow Knights. They shouldn't be mitigating damage as well / better than Clerics or Bards who can also wear plate armor but that's an entirely different discussion.


    The part that certain warriors like to attribute to pertaining to the mitigation of damage is:

    From the Warrior Class Description:
    "Warriors build their strength and stamina to unheard-of levels, making them far hardier than any other class."

    Since it specifically refers to stamina, I'd attribute that to their HPs. This has always been an advantage of warriors. Even though the innate advantage has diminished in importance, this is why an ability like Warlord's Tenacity is a Warrior only ability:

    Warlord's Tenacity XXII
    7: Increase Max Hitpoints by 45000
    8: Increase HP when cast by 48000
    Duration: 1.1 mins

    The heal, is simply there to cover the amount of HPs given to them via the buff. That is roughly 20% or more of a fully raid buffed knight's HPs even when they are running Staunch Stance. The last version even removes the line that decreases their HPs every tick that was on the lower ranked versions of the ability.
  16. Ghubuk Augur

    The class descriptions (melee, priest, caster, hybrid) have nothing at all to do with tanking but how they deal damage. Tank, caster, priest is a totally different type of breakdown and Warriors/Paladins/Shadowknights are ALL tanks. This is why you see the term warriors (with a small w) in all three of those class descriptions.
  17. Battleaxe Augur

    And since Rangers are "warriors attuned to nature..." Rangers should be tanks/have the Warrior Class description apply to them if its to apply to the other warriors. There's nothing in the book that says Rangers can't reduce damage taken by other means - say the ability to dodge attacks given their lighter armor and greater agility for example.

    Bards wear plate armor. Clerics wear plate armor.

    Yep, the whole since "warriors" appears in our class description the
    Warrior Class Description applies to us is, was, and will always be a bunch of hooey. If it's in the Warrior Class Description it applies to Warriors and Warrior alone.
  18. Xanathol Augur

    Your reading comprehension is probably the worst I have ever seen - that, or your integrity - your choice. Your beloved class descriptions state:

    So if anything, an SK is what a Warrior is PLUS fear, pain, disease, debuffs, and recourses that strengthen them. Nowhere in there is there even the hint of insinuation that SKs should melee less than a Warrior, much less rely on spells to equal the dps of a Warrior. None. Zero. Nadda. That idea is entirely in your head.

    Now where's that Willy Wonka 'good day sir!' pic...
  19. Dre. Augur

    I have a better idea. Let's create a new class: The NecroKnight. You start with everything the SK class has from a skills, spells, discs, gear and AA perspective. Then you add the more powerful necro dots, pets, taps and AA. How many people in their right mind would play an SK? None. Zero. Nadda.
  20. Abazzagorath Augur

    This thread has become pretty sad/hilarious.

    It is real simple. Anything more than around 5% mitigation advantage for warriors creates a massive imbalance in tanking by removing the "tanks better than" characterization with "only warriors can tank" on anything that matters.

    Any whining about relative utility is pointless. Utility doesn't let you tank. That is all three tanks' primary function. If warriors want to whine about being boring in solo/group play or relatively limited, go ask for more things to adjust those things. But that's not what the 4 warriors whining in this thread want. They want to mitigate so much better they are the only tanks.

    But let's be honest here, there are 4 warriors posting 50% of the thread and making up 95% of warrior posts. So this is one big whine circle jerk at the moment and not constructive.
    Nightops likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.