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

Low level sks are weak, (maybe not at end game) got one to 67 a few years back, still have but don't play, the spells hit for very little, they cant even kick and they tend to just go oom and die.If I don't level a charter myself I wont stick with it, that's the fun.

I don't power level. Group yes, but power level no.

Pets are out of level and weak too. You can play one with at least a j1 merc (healer) but killing is slow.

I like the idea of them, I love hybrid classes, but they don't pan out in my view at least they did not a few years ago. Just too weak. My fav part of the game is 1 to 65, moreover the planes of power, and that's my test of a character.

I'll remember that the next time I am rounded - again - even when using RB with DP + Mantle. The remarkable piece here is that later on, you claim to have been rounded while using a 2her due to ae ramp... And I guess we'll just forget about the damage cap on those knight abilities, right? It must be tiring keeping up with all your stories...

You have this completely wrong again. For me, heals shouldn't be considered in balance discussions for raid MTing because healing (outside of minimal AA proc heals) is a trade-off utility. A paladin can heal during MT ... ok, but we can heal the warrior MT almost as well as we can heal ourselves (maybe even better if we choose to go that direction). Why should our heals be considered beneficial only when we are tanking? oh.... hum... well.. it shouldn't; but that's exactly what warriors on this thread are using in their arguements. If a paladin wants/needs to heal, it's a utility option... a trade-off. If we are MT'ing, we need to cast agro to maintain agro. Sure, we will heal, but all of the healing comes at a trade-off to dps or extra agro. Paladins choose... yes... CHOOSE.. to not heal the MT when a warrior (or a different knight) is tanking because they do not want to trade off the dps to repeatedly cast heals on a MT (or adjust a spell set).

If any warrior is sooo concerned with knight (paladin) DP when added with paladin healing being OP'd during raid boss tanking, why not take the amount a paladin normally heals a MT during 2 mins and then subtract that from the total amount a paladin heals themselves while MT'ing for 2 mins. You might be surprised at just how little the difference would be once you take out all of the innate AA & proc recourse heals. And then, in addition...so we get BOTH sides of the equation... whats the dps trade-off too. How much did the dps of a paladin drop when tanking and self healing compared to just dps & healing while the MT was a warrior? This should be an easy parse to obtain with all those uber guilds using knight MTing now. AND.... don't try to throw shade on my request by saying.... paladins are OP'd in solo/molo & group game ...but I'm sure that will happen.

Why is it hard to accept the revised direction of the game? Why can warriors not accept this as intended because the advantage to warriors prior to knight DP was overdone in today's EQ raiding game.

Why do devs not look at the rog/zerk/rng abilities to assasinate/decap/headshot ..... figure out which does what dps and then look at the original class descriptions made 17 years ago (minus zerk) and then rework all of the abilities and adjust it for the current expansion due to the current limitations on content NPC designs. But then never look to revise it no matter how much the game changes in the future. That would be CRAZY talk... right? but that's what some on this thread are wanting... but have stances set in stone before the knight additions.

As many knights have said, they wouldn't mind if the DP mitigation was a -bit- lower, or the KS was taken out and DP left nearly intact. But to some warriors, this is not enough... they want the 2h stance removed completely and the majority (if not all) of the mitigations removed. Even if warriors want to argue the -knights are 75% of war- theory... then the total mitigation should be lowered no more then 10% total with the majority coming out of DP. But that is still too high for some warriors on this thread.

2H stance is a completely different bag... and imo should be kept the same for all across the board (if not raised for everyone). Yes, warriors should have to face trade offs to DPS... just the same as all knights have to face those same trade-offs to use 2h. If warriors want to claim the 75% theory as mentioned above and constantly being brought up when discussing tanking; then those same warriors have to accept that knights will get 25% of their dps from clr/nec and the knight total DPS would be higher then warriors, with SKs dealing the most total dps from the tank class. Why is this hard to accept?

I was going to bring that up too....

I guess it's acceptable for knights to get one rounded by AE ramp if they use their 2h.

Wouldn't that be convenient.

This reminds me of many of the wars here

We are the cake. But you know, raidboss MT is a pretty tiny cake. I think it's a carrot cake, actually.

Please tell me you believe the difference in total healing done by a single paladin while MT can offset the '75% of war tank ability' which all of the warriors on this thread want.

Please tell me you believe that your abilities are only relevant if they contribute toward equality with Warriors for the raidboss MT role.

I asked you first!

And no.. I don't... but why should we be limited to tanking abilities if we are not (or more importantly have never been) equal to war tanking. If that were the case and paladins only had tanking abilities, then we would seldom use said abilities and be relegated to only a few slots out of 54 during raids. Oh... don't believe me... look at what has become of the SKs.

I'm more interested in what Knights think the cost of not being a Warrior should be, and what the advantage of being a Warrior should look like, both in a tangible sense (i.e. what should a Warrior be able to do that a Knight shouldn't?)

You guys are nuts. Saying healing shouldn't be considered because you also heal the warriors, well a cleric could make that argument. Point is if there are 3 warriors, none can choose to heal anyone, cuz when they rolled their player they didn't choose to be a part cleric hybrid. Saying that just because you choose to be part cleric, you shouldn't be less tank is ridiculous. Then why would anyone not choose that?

This isn't a "new direction of the game", well maybe it is, but nobody in their right mind thinks its a good direction. All this does is marginalize 1 of the 3 tank classes, which really serves nobody well.

Yeah, you gotta choose to heal or tank? guess what warrior don't gotta make that choice, since they can't heal, they can only tank. If you think about that for just a few minutes, you'll see why your argument is so ridiculous.

Now, say something about weapon delays not mattering cuz knights are suppose to out dps warriors and mistatk doesn't get "how any of this works" to try and distract people from what I just said.

That's what happens when three classes all chase the same carrot. It basically sucks for everyone.

Why does one have to give something up? SK/Pal are no longer the same as they were back in original eq. We no longer get cleric/necro spells at different levels, we get our own. Why can't it be that we (tanks) all do the same thing just in different ways. IF sk mitigation + lifetaps (self healing) + dps, Pal Mitigation + heals (self and others) + buffs, warriors mitigation + (figure it out).

You quoted me as saying...

Then you said...

OH.. and let me show just 3 more words in my original post.

"...heals shouldn't be considered in balance discussions for raid MTing..."

Noticed how I said... 'for raid MT'ing' which you conveniently dropped to make your post sound like I was waaaay off base. My whole discussion is for comparing MTing.

Why do warriors think all 3 of these equations are the same for raid MT'ing...

100% war = 100% MT
75% war + 25% clr = 100% MT
75% war +25% nec = 100% MT

Perhaps a little from column A, and a little from column B for the true QQ Warrior:



If only he were dual wielding . But maybe he's got a fist of cake-shield in his offhand?

Yeah... and this is what I said about 40 pages ago.

If any class losses slots on a raid, it will be the warriors... but the gain will not go to the knights; it will go to the dps or adps classes.

If an elite guild needed 6 War MTs average per raid before... and had 6 war & 4 total knights... now they have 10 tanks after DP. Will they drop a few warriors... yes, likely, over time; but again, they won't pick up more knights to replace those dropped warriors.


So the warriors should have 80 page threads for warriors to get more abilities or purpose outside off tanking... but not at the expense of taking tanking away from knights. That is the simple way out and the Dev's won't buy into that whine.

He is dual wielding.. just hard to see the off-hand knife/fork/spoon?

Warrior = mitigation + crying