As is evident from every single post you've made in this thread, you favor S&B over all else, to the detriment of everything else. Because Wikipedia is such a historically accurate source..... You're the one that mentioned Tolkein, but as soon as a reference to Tolkein's work is brought up, it suddenly doesn't count? Jesus, you really are like 8 years old, aren't you? Potential form, not to be confused with a requirement. Pick your subject, D&D, myths, novels, real world history, I'll happily point out plenty of examples in all 4 settings. Pointless though. And we are, except when compared to the other two knight classes. Except that knights were an extrapolation of us, not the other way around. We spent our time training on the battle field, mastering many different types of weapons forms, while SK's sat in the freeport sewers playing with dead rats, and Paladins played Altar Boys. As such, SK's and Paladins gained access to spells, to the detriment of their martial prowess being weaker than Warriors. Sad that the SK, and the warrior without the AA count has a better grasp of the situation than the guy who's max AA, and an end game raiding warrior. Oh, wait, you were just trying to take a cheap shot. How cute.
The fact that you all keep even acknowledging him is funny. When someone only has catch phrases and only tolerates examples when they work for them, but when they contradict their agenda they dismiss them they have already lost the discussion. If you ignore them, since they aren't capable of real discussion as repeating the same lines for eternity and contradicting themselves is not an actual discussion, you can have a great discussion without the constant droning. There is also a function when you click on someone's avatar that allows you to ignore them. I'd use it.
At which point you put a DMG aug in your tanking weapon and it becomes the best DPS stance all over again.
I have no problem with you tanking with a sword and shield, but it should not be you dps set up which it currently is. You mention history and as soon as a fact is pointed out to you you switch. No surprise really. You mention and eye witness yet say Albrecht Durer's depictions don't count? So you spoke to this eye witness yourself or is this an account handed down through out the years? If you didn't speak to them yourself, which I know you didn't, how is that more credible than a woodcutting from the latter part of this time? You only pick and choose what suits you. You are a detriment to your class end of story and I am now taking Sinestra's advice and putting you on ignore because you simply are not worth the time nor miniscule effort it takes to type on a keyboard.
Except at the same time you adjust weapons T4 Warrior Only weapon 135 DMG 23 DLY Proc - Force of Anger VI T4 WAR, BRD, RNG, ROG weapon 135 DMG 23 DLY Proc - Strike of Venom V you also add some augs weapon augs +10 DMG +5 DMG stun +5 DMG rune +5 DMG anger and adjust SS as necessary so that S&B T4 Warrior Only weapon 135 DMG 23 DLY Proc - Force of Anger VI plus any aug or T4 WAR, BRD, RNG, ROG weapon 135 DMG 23 DLY Proc - Strike of Venom V plus any aug produces less DPS than DW T4 WAR, BRD, RNG, ROG weapon 135 DMG 23 DLY Proc - Strike of Venom V plus 10 DMG T4 Warrior Only weapon 135 DMG 23 DLY Proc - Force of Anger VI plus 10 DMG and T4 2Hander plus 16DMG No doubt it would be a project to make certain that the SS adjuster, future 1H weapon ratios and their procs, and future augs didn't ever upset the apple cart especially with the further complication from Warrior abilities and ADPS but an alternative, tying defensive disciplines to S&B, putting EoA only on shields henceforth, and tying offensive disciplines to DW and 2H creating hard stances and letting sustained wander a bit from ideal (and assuming use of fast refresh offensive and defensive disciplines will provide further adjustment) might be less complicated but not as readily acceptable. and I'm pretty sure just declaring Warriors are S&B preferring for both their best tanking setup and a different but still S&B DPS setup and like archery DW and 2H is something we can do but it's not terribly useful would also not go down well. (Although I don't recall a lot of protests by DW 24/7 prefers when that was true for their pet setup). IMO you cant just nerf SS based on high ratio DPS 1Handers with 10DMG augs and provide more DW DPS kplsthnx~ consigning genuine S&B tanking setups like T4 Warrior Only weapon 135 DMG 23 DLY Proc - Force of Anger VI plus aggro aug to the dumpster once more and call it a day.
You don't want SS nerfed and yet you propose our DPS and Tanking weapons have the exact same damage, where the only difference between them is the stun proc or a DD proc? Maybe you haven't looked but most of our weapon procs are DD+Hate where the DD part is about the same as the DD on DPS weapons. So our swing agro would go down compared to the DW agro that all the DPS would be putting out then, maybe it's just me but this sounds like a HORIBLE idea. Once again you trot out your pet idea that our agro focus should be on shields and yet almost everyone in game can use a shield now. Do we really want everyone being able to get our agro focus? As it stands right now we have a TANK Face that drops in each teir with the agro mod which I personally don't like. I'd rather it be like a Type 3 aug where I pick which slot I want to put it in so I don't have to wait for us to beat the event in each teir that drops the agro face. I can't see Sony ever deciding to do this simply from the fact they would have to go through and recode ALL our discs to check what weapon set we are using. and yet you claim it would be LESS complicated? Less complicated to me is Sony lets the players decide what they wanna use when they want it. Honestly you're rambling here and I'm not sure what your point is exactly. What I read into it is "I want Warriors in S&B 24/7/365, you can get more stuff if you want but it will be just to show or for the rare occasion you actually get to use it." You're forgetting in almost every idea proposed we said to remove or change SS so it boosted ALL our weapon sets putting our DW and 2Hander DPS ahead of the S&BDPS where they should have been all along. When you're using an agro auged Agro weapon you shouldn't be doing tons of DPS, you and I both agree this is true. We're saying that with a DPS auged S&B Set you shouldn't be doing more DPS than with the DPS weapon sets of DW and 2Hander.
I'd love to see someone dual wield tank with the 1.0 lightsabers. That said, this thread is teetering on some... less than constructive comments and I'd like to keep it open as the discussion as a whole is quite productive towards the concept. Please try to refrain from any further off-topic discussions or I will have to lock it.
Once again BB, you ignore historical evidence when you have to answer to it. You then find something else to harp on instead, doing your best to stay in the debate. It would be amusing to see you actually address some of these facts in a point for point manner, and please don't say you have, you have not. Your above post is a perfect example of you ignoring the historically documented information thus presented to you, in lieu of your standard drivel. You've made it clear that you support S&B as the default, preferred format for warriors. I disagree with your opinion. Historically, S&B was only one aspect of a warrior's repertoire. It was not the default, preferred form, it was merely a single facet. The knight and paladin represent classical S&B styling, with fantasy powers thrown in for entertainment value. Although even the knight/paladin could oft be seen with a 2 handed weapon instead. But the warrior himself, was able to switch it up as needed. When you insist on making S&B the preferred model, you are being myopic, looking only to a specific subset of warriors throughout history. They are not the totalality, they are not even the dominant system. They represent one side to the martial equation, a single aspect, that's all. And your "arming sword" was merely a tool, specific to armor penetration circumstances. It was standard carry during its era. However, while it was ubiquitous to be sure, when outside of combat against a heavily armored opponent, it was just the backup sword. The primary sword when on the field of battle was the 2 hander. And yes, as you mentioned earlier, the 2H sword did see use against polearms. Both S&B and 2H saw action and effectiveness vs. polearms. However the effectiveness of the 2H did not begin and end with anti-polearm duties. It's easy, really, to see that the 2H sword was situational, as was the arming sword, as was the shield. There were times to use them, and times to not use them. There was no preferred model. What was preferred was the ability to pull out the right tools to do the job. Sometimes that required defensive measures, sometimes offensive, and sometimes it required the ability to quickly improvise and change tactics. It was warfare. I am familiar with the history here, not only from fantasy games/novels/film, but from previous scholastic studies and my personal and familial experience. My sister is an expert fencer and active in Renaissance activities. And I continue to train, as I have for several years now, in Kenjutsu, Kali, Silat, and a variety of other styles. I'm good with a blade. So, I will tell you one last time, there are moments where a shield is your best friend. And, there are moments where insisting on its use will get you killed. This is not conjecture. What we've been trying to get through to you here, is that your S&B form is both viable and valuable. We respect it, and we want to retain it. But not at the cost of losing functionality with the other two existing systems. They're worth retaining. They have their place. There are situations where their use is superior to S&B, and a wise warrior recognizes this truth. Nobody wants to take away your S&B, we are not advocating for DW 24/7, so stop saying that, you're the only one bringing it up and it's getting stale. I am not arguing that DW or 2H forms are superior to S&B when it comes to turtle-style tanking, because they aren't. I am arguing that turtle-style, S&B, tanking is defensive in nature and should not be able to out DPS 2H and DW forms. That makes zero logical sense. I don't give a $hit about your AA's and your augs either. That's not the bloody point. Styles designed for damage dealing should do more damage than styles designed for damage mitigation, plain and simple. And whether or not you like it, whether or not you agree even, S&B is a defensive style. It emphasizes mitigation, by way of blocking with a shield, in lieu of an aggressive assault. That difference necessitates a significant reduction in damage output as compared to the other two systems. And don't feed me that crap about having a sword in your other hand. We know it's there. It does not make up the difference. That's all in your mind. When tanking with that sword and shield, where your focus is mitigation, not DPS, you will simply not generate an equivalent DPS. The answer is not to pull back on various aspects of S&B, it sounds like it's working well. The answer is to restore functionality to the other two forms. Unless you think, that when compared to knights and paladins, your S&B form is too strong? Is that what you're saying? Because I've never heard you, or anyone else here say that S&B needs to be nerfed because it's out-performing the other classes. Sounds to me like S&B is doing (mostly) what it should be. I say mostly, only because there's little sense in S&B getting a DPS boost when tanking, that's when you should get a reduction in DPS, and if anything, the boost would come in the form of increased mitigation. You don't boost the DPS of a defensive style when it comes under the gun, as it were, you increase it's ability to survive, and to retain threat. So I'm calling for the restoration of the other two forms. If done right, and you seem to have the utmost confidence in SOE to get things right, then there should be balance between the three systems. Balance that isn't there now. This will not bring about DW 24/7 or the end of S&B, not if, as I just said, it's done right. What it will mean, is the abolition of a "preferred" or "default" warrior style. Because that goes against what being a warrior is all about in the first place. Flexibility. Choosing the right tools and styles for the right encounters. Not assuming that one way is the only way. That path leads to stagnation and ruin. Plus, it's just plain stupid.
This is pure gold, It's well spoken simple and elegant. I think it summarizes 99% of the warriors out here. Very well said.
/hint on The 50 damage actually means that you are hitting the mob with a 50damage weapon (for 1 hit). /hint off Do you honestly think Heroic blade hits for 2300 ish? x3
Shield specialist is a strange AA anyway when you think about it. If I have a sword and shield I can hit real hard with my sword, but if I lay down my shield, suddenly i cannot hit as well with the same sword. Bah. They should have just increased the damage for the main hand with the AA and called it something else. That way you get more damage when using a shield (the goal of the AA) and if you dual wield you get the extra damage from the off hand. Shield specialist AA should have done something to increase tanking abilities such as improving shield block, increasing bash damage and agro it generates, and increasing the chance to stun and the agro it generates. There should be a DW specialist AA that grants the ability to riposte with the off hand weapon, improvements to dodge, and increased damage with the offhand. That is the way to provide better tanking for DW over 2H and better DPS over S&B. Then there should also be a 2H specialist AA that grants improved damage. The combination of shield block and my version of shield specialist should be tuned so that the warrior takes the least number of hits when using S&B. Due to AC over softcap gains, it already provides superior mitigation. DW would be the second best tanking setup with improved riposte and dodge chances. 2H would be the least effective tanking setup because of the lack of shield block, improved riposte and dodge chances. All of this should be tuned so there is a noticeably wide gap between the different forms in both DPS and tanking ability. DPS order would be 2H > DW > 1H w/shield. Tanking ability order would be 1H w/shield > DW > 2H. Then they should rename each AA from Shield Specialist, DW specialist, and 2H specialist to Shield Expert, DW Expert, and 2H expert. Specialist is a bad word to use because the way the AA system works means you can purchase all three forms. If they really want to create specialists, they should do what they did with casters and create specialty skills associated with shield, DW, and 2H. Allow them all to go to 50 except 1 which could go above 50. The skills could grant all or some combination of improved damage, accuracy, haste, blocking, or what have you.
I can't speak for everyone, but when I pop into the forums and see his obsurdly incorrect take on very important issues to me I don't want a dev to take into account his statements as being accurate or Ideal for the mass population of warriors. He is the last person in line as being our spokesman and I have yet to see anyone else who shares his views or backs him up. On more then one occasion ive asked him to answer to quotes that he has posted and he hasn"t answered one of them. Maybe he has me on ignore /shrug
It's unlikely he has you on ignore, he just doesn't have a catch phrase yet to give you. He doesn't ever acknowledge any premise he has thrown out himself that in fact proves his point invalid. His point of view is the only one he can see. I think most of the devs see how well he is received by the rest of the community and take him as most of us do. He always has quite a few imaginary people sending him tells and private messages showing support, but none of them ever speak up here or anywhere else. In the end I think if you as a community keep coming up with good ideas and making your feelings known without engaging him and stand more solidly together and against his points of view, the devs would have to be nuts to listen to him afterwards. It's not as if he hasn't come up with points people have agreed on before, but you can recognize those fairly quickly by the sun rising in the west and setting in the east on those days. Even I've agreed with him once in a while. Each of us has our shames.
Triskaidekaphobia (It's been showing 213 on the forum page for some reason, even though it shows the last post before this one was 214 ... been bugging me for weeks )
# of replies doesn't include the first post, it's not a reply to itself. The post # does include it. This post is the 215th reply, but 216th post in the thread total.
