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

Please quote where people are asking for knights to be nerfed. But don't quote me saying warriors should tank abit better then knights since knights have necro/cleric spells, because that isn't what I'm saying.

You post quotes from 2011 as a response to a patch in 2016? am I to believe for 5 years they were trying to do this but couldn't? During the last few years alot has changed during the time warriors had stances. Fine lets rewind 2 years, pretend warriors never got stances and fix all their broken and under powered abilities then. By changing the measure of what is, by taking a magic wand to knight stances all of a sudden, you shaft warriors on everything they didn't get for the last few years since they had "the stance". You can't achieve balance with wild sporadic swings like this, even if you did procrastinate 5 years since you conceived doing it.

There has been probly 30 major changes to the game in the last 5 years, but they had this as a big priority and just now got around to it? Seems highly suspicious.

What seems much more likely is that some single developer got a bird in his ear, and thought it would go unnoticed to make such a wild change. See how you posted a big explanation from Elidroth that made clear his intentions and reasoning? What did we get with this change? Knights are meant to tank, so were giving them 5% plus warrior stances, so they can! What part of that is logic and reasoning? Its just a vague statement.

I knew it. And now knights admit it. finally.

Except he totally screwed up and it was supposed to be Paladins ruling the EQ world.

Not at all, we ask for fairness and for this a reduction of Knight DP %. Something that reasonable knights agree. You aren't one of them.
Also you acknowledged this overpower in another thread, and your strategy is to try blurring it by attacking warriors.

No one is taking seriously your roster number, even knights in this thread. You have been said numerous times it was proving nothing, and you keep listing it lol.

My understanding of Elidroth's 2011 post was that he wanted 45% for Warriors and 40% for Knights for the 18 seconds their abilities were active, not "all the time." This is because the entire goal of that post was to say that monster DPS has gotten too large for classes other than tanks. It'd be completely stupid for him to argue that Warriors ought to have 45% and Knights 40% all the time when that is what he starts the post with.

Thus, in 2011, he wanted Warriors to have 5% "always on", 45% "for 18 seconds," while Knights would have 0% "always on" and 40% "for 18 seconds." All other differences would come from the standard defense differences between classes.

But of course, two years later, Warriors were at 35% "always on," so you could argue that Elidroth didn't know what he was talking about back in 2011.

You didn't understand at all what I did and went completly out of subject. I was comparing warrior and knight HP advantage over time.
Apart 1 min every 5 min and 2 min every 20 min, this HP advantage doesn't exist and is turning around - 10 / + 10 K HP depending of what runs or not. It's not making a difference on raid bosses hits.

What I don't understand, and maybe someone can help me. Abzagaroth(and others) say that, Paladins heals(and i would guess sk taps fall into this) don't matter against raid bosses, because you get 1 rounded before you can use them.

If warriors and knights have the same mitigation, and very similar secondary abilities, why are knights getting 1 rounded by raid bosses, but warriors are not? It seems like a flat out false statement, unless I'm missing something. People were saying its because the warrior gear has much better stats, so i posted a few pieces of armor of the current knight and warrior sets, which low and behold were nearly identical. Since anyone can use websites and compare current warrior to knight gear, isn't saying flat out false things like this, an obvious attempt to cloud the issues? Back in the day, warriors got about 15-20% better ac on their gear as part of the bonus of being the pure tank, but that long since has eroded.

How about if you compare a raid that is going to be over stocked on one of the tank classes, then does being able to heal or not start to matter as a secondary ability? I'm just having a really hard time grasping the idea that the warrior-clerics should also tank as well as the pure warriors. Even after 40 pages of false information and opinions, still at the end, I don't get how a hybrid tank and a pure tank should both tank the same, just makes no sense to me.

I can understand at this point in things, whether or not people agree that giving knights the warrior stances plus a 5% innate boost was over blown, it would still be extremely frustrating to make changes to that aspect of things. So, I would suggest that all the stuff warriors weren't given over the last few years since they had their special stance, be looked at and fixed in substantial ways. I don't know how changes like this current one are decided upon, or by who, or what takes priority over anything else. I've said repeatedly I'm not impressed with a webcast saying they won't release an unfinished expansion just to make a sales date, then they turn around and do exactly that, and now look everyone focus on 17th anniv and how great the world is.

I think had the changes to knights coincided with some changes to all the broken things warriors had foregone because of their stances, it would have been received in general alot better. But as it was slipped in, kind of like it was just another little tweak to the game, I'm not surprised many like myself are unhappy with it. As far as not a ton of warriors posting, not a very high % of people vote too, but that doesn't mean that the changes made don't affect them.

A lot of that was before these changes.

Also, Warriors are still able to get much higher health for a time.

Goodness this thread is still going?

Anyone care to Cliff Notes the last 30 pages?

Thats kind of my point. If these changes were needed, so now knights can easily tank raid bosses the same as warriors, and they keep all their spells and other abilities, where is the fairness? Sk's say, well my fd doesn't help me raid. Really? i've seen a million times where in and outside of raids sk use FD to save their butt. Is it a huge thing? not really, but warrior don't get to do that. So if you don't care about FD, don't pick the necro-warrior pick the pure warrior. Don't ask for pure tanking with the FD.

On the boost health thing. Previous to dichomatic, we had tenacity which is a boost every 2min of every 20min. Its an amount that is about a single good hit of a current raid boss, its not useless, but your not going to swap tanks every 2min to keep it on either. The dichomatic is brand new to me, its up 1min of every 5min, and is a rune/hp boost (ie you use up the rune it ends and so does hp boost). It absorbs a good amount, I think 500k of combined melee/spell/dot etc, it can last the full min or it can get used up earlier, again nothing your going to swap tanks because its down though.

The warrior stance was the primary staple of what provided them round the clock protection. Since you can't forecast when the random number system is going to give you a bad round, trying to rely on a 2min every 20min ability means either your not going to tank the other 18min, or there is a good chance you will get your "bad round" during that 18min.

Prior to getting dp, knights had nowhere near the same mitigation as warriors.

Right, and now they have the same. Or more. I say the "or more" cuz somewhere along things phalanx of one mitigation got rolled into stances, and now in addition to the stance knights got a seperate 5% AA boost. Lets call it same, so then were back to square one, why would you want to be a pure tank with out spells, who tanks the same as a hybrid tank. Couple years ago, when we were having this same discussion, I believe it was before stances were introduced at all. The response from the community relations? person, I'm not sure the exact title, is you can keep clerics more busy as a warrior. That is not a desireable thing, to say knights can help heal themself, warrior have to hope a heal comes.

So, this link https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/is-the-warrior-class-dead.199709/

is one of many from the pre-warrior stance situation where knights were vastly more powerful then warriors in many peoples opinion. So was giving warrior this stance the answer to that 2013 situation or was it too much? I don't know but giving it now to knights also just takes us back to 2013, where knights were vastly more powerful, but makes it even worse because since 2013 warriors haven't got much due to "having the stance".

Since people have said repeatedly(incorrectly) that warrior armor had better stats then knights, lets look at the common current 1handers.

Spike of Lasting Vapor 1HS ID: 147569
MAGICLORENO TRADEPRESTIGE
Slot: Primary, Secondary
DMG: 169 Delay: 24 Ratio: 7.04
Magic DMG: 20
AC:151HP:4606 + 6/tickMANA:0END:4176ATK:37
STA: 32 + 19STR: 37 + 21WIS: 17 INT: 18 DEX: 36 + 22AGI: 25 + 23CHA: 24 + 22
SV FIRE: 65 SV COLD: 65 SV MAGIC: 65 SV POISON: 65 SV DISEASE: 65
Damage Shield: 3
Damage Shield Mit: 3
Shielding: 3%
Spell Shielding: 3%
DoT Shielding: 3%
Stun Resist: 3%
Avoidance: 7
Accuracy: 9
Combat Effects: 7
Strike Through: 3%
Proc Effect: Force of Anger XI
1: Decrease Current HP by 1080
2: Increase Hate by 1200
Slot 1, type 8: empty
Slot 2, type 20: empty
Required level of 100.
Class: WAR

Skinflayer of Boromas 1HS ID: 147574
MAGIC LORE NO TRADE PRESTIGE
Slot: Primary
DMG: 311 Delay: 32 Ratio: 9.72
Magic DMG: 13
AC: 151 HP: 4554 + 6/tick MANA: 4222 + 6/tick END: 4222 ATK: 37
STA: 34 + 50 STR: 28 + 20 WIS: 31 + 21 INT: 27 + 27 DEX: 37 + 19 AGI: 37 + 20 CHA: 27 + 23
SV FIRE: 65 SV COLD: 65 SV MAGIC: 65 SV POISON: 65 SV DISEASE: 65
Damage Shield: 3
Damage Shield Mit: 3
Shielding: 3%
Spell Shielding: 3%
DoT Shielding: 3%
Stun Resist: 3%
Avoidance: 7
Accuracy: 9
Combat Effects: 7
Strike Through: 3%
Heal Amount: 40
Spell Dmg: 39
Clairvoyance: 83
Proc Effect: Blessed Rune XII
1: Absorb Damage: 100%, Total: 1900
Slot 1, type 8: empty
Slot 2, type 20: empty
Required level of 100.
Class: PAL, SHD

I just can't even...

So says the class that can dual wield, Knights cant dual wield no matter what. No good to compare one to the other here.

There is a reason Warriors don't get Knight ratio weapons, your DPS would go insane.

There are a few reasons why this is. Understanding those is a prerequisite of having this conversation. Seems you may want to research a tad more...

I liked his font manipulation of the ratios to prove a point he doesn't understand.

I guess I don't understand the point, conveniently, you didn't say what it is. Knights are doing way more dps now then warriors. Ok, I'm sure every raid you go in knights way out dps warriors? The knight better ratio weapon was to compensate for their less melee skills and needing to cast spells during meleeing. So, knight spells are useless in raids, cuz they just get 1 rounded, they need hi ratio weapons to make up for the spells, which they can't use cuz they'd already be dead. And all this ends with them doing way more dps then warriors. Your definetly right that I don't get it, so, please explain it?
And on top of all this they need to mitigate equally with warriors, or the game is out of balance. lol. yes, please do explain it all. I gotta hear this.

Edit- lol that someone said "cuz warrior can dual wield" our most broken stance

edit- I understand alot of knight dps is off spamming nukes, and the bard/ench procs that fire off of those nukes (as opposed to just their weapon swings). But if all and all there out dps'ing warriors with spam nukes then why do they need the weapon compensation? out damaging is out damaging regardless of how its accomplished.

If they could code it that the knight one handers cannot be dual wielded, I don't see why warriors shouldn't be able to use them. But I am not sure how their aa's, discs would impact this (ie would it cause it to be op?)

Please do explain, and I don't know what quoting one word is suppose to mean, probably that you didn't read the whole thing.

:/ research shield specialist and improved shield specialist