Our top DPS probably should be when DWing or using 2H from the rear arc. BUT, ripostes, damage shields, a possibility that Furious could be used instead of Fortitude when in S&B, a possibility that offensive rather than defensive discs might be used... ...counter-balanced by fairly complete freedom to go all out DW or 2H DPS, ADPS, etc. when DPSing at the rear arc could swing things the other way. It boils down to how much aggro and protection are you able and willing to give up when using a shield and a sword that has a shield appropriate ratio. Put in a +10 DMG aug and you've given up some aggro. Use Fellstrike instead of Final Stand and you've given up some protection. The reason there was no outcry was because DW 24/7 preferers were quite satisfied with using what was usually the best Warrior DPS setup tanking almost all of the time. Did they clamor to give up protection for DPS? No sir, they did not. I've done enough engineering to know that bursts of power raise the average depending on their strength and duration. We've enough of both to substantially change the outcome on a 90 second fight and more modestly increase the average long term. By more modestly I wouldn't think a 10-20% increase would be out of the question. A Warrior when accepting the risks of tanking rather than fighting in near complete safety as a DPSer should not do abysmal DPS. It's our usual role and we should be geared to perform it. I would expect a master fighter when using a shield (a sword is not a shield) would not only survive getting hit but would effectively hit back with our almost as impressive as a 2Hander shield appropriate weapon. Warrior are not a DPS class. But we should not take a major hit to total class power knights do not take when using a shield thanks in part to the shield appropriate ratios of their primary 1Handers.
I personally think the balance should go like this: Dual wield - We tank as solid as a knight using a shield but have great swing aggro. This should be the default option for either group or raid trash. 2her - dps mode. Let us dps when not tanking. Give zerkers 50% more dps than us, give us 50% more survivability in this mode, but keep us on a similar path. Sword n board - serious turtle mode, aggro stays enough to hold it but we have to work some, but we survive like mad. This should be the heavy tank option for both raid and group named.
But I did answer the question. It's situational. It depends on - whether you are truly in a tanking setup or not. the mobs you are facing. whether you are free to go full out DPS because someone else is tanking or you aren't in the tank lineup at all or if you are next. and what classes are in your group. I realize people who got used to using DW for DPS and for tanking practically all the time might be uncomfortable with choices. Lessee I need to tank...DW. Hmmm I need to DPS....DW. Maybe devs will put EoA only on shields in the future and make S&B only capable of good DPS if you are getting hit. That way things would be clearer. (Yes, the MT who it taking w/e risks there are to be tanking is entitled to riposte, damage shield damage, furious instead of Fort if he can get away with it, and ADPS a not tank might not get benefit from. It takes attention from a village to create a porcupine.) Warriors will never be a DPS class. The best we can expect is, thanks in large part to other players, doing reputable DPS when performing our usual role, Did you think non-raid tanks should do horrid DPS when tanking and only dimly shine when they were in a group and not tanking? Lol. /ooc Warrior lfg. If I tank then my sword turns into a feather duster. If I don't tank and you have someone else do it you can get /3rd or less DPS from me than if you grouped a DPS class instead. Awesome sales pitch. I can see groups wanting 2 Warriors - one to do 30% less than Warrior base damage and not use offensive disciplines and one to do 1/3rd damage and not tank at all,
No you didn't really answer the question. The question was "Should S&B be our top DPS set when it has been stated it is for tanking NOT for DPS?" When you are DPSing you are by nature not tanking. Tanking and DPS is 2 very different roles as you like to espouse, when tanking you are trying for max survival at the expense of extra damage, DPS you are giving up survival to boost your damage. Plain common sense would state that a DPS set should be better DPS than the tanking Set even without discs being run. Sadly common sense isn't common.
Excuse you? IF it was stated we should not do dps when tanking, it was stated in error - that's a sword in our hand. And SS was created to make that sword hit harder not softer when we tanked. We don't put down a 1Hander intended to be used 2 at a time and replace it with a shield. We equip a shield and thanks to our years of training we get the benefits of a much better weapon (that in fact we ought to have and would have except for initial dev team error). My recollection is DW is not for tanking. DW and 2H are for DPS, DW will produce many hits/low damage per hit and 2H will produce fewer hits but greater damage per hit. I believe it was DW 24/7 preferrers who suggested that DW should do more damage than any other setup all of the time. SOE can discourage.tanking with DW and 2H - EoA on shields. It can insure tanks only get DPS benefits when using S&B and getting hit. That way DW and 2H are kings of Warrior not tanking DPS - S&B couldn't compete and S&B rules DPSing while tanking cause no other setup would aggro very well. The DPS done when tanking with S&B is immaterial to DW and 2H - they aren't tanking setups and they can be prevented from competing in that arena.
BB really has issues with see things in black and white. "Warriors should get some mitigation and do more DPS with dual wielding" in BB's mind = "All warriors will DW 24/7! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!" "Warriors shouldn't do more DPS with S&B than with DW/2H" = "You think warriors should do zero DPS with their weapon when using a shield?!?! You crazy 24/7 DW'er!" It's for this simple reason that he's incapable of producing coherent arguments.
So you think that our tanking weapon set should do more damage [When NOT Tanking] than the weapon sets meant to deal damage when not tanking. I REPEAT MORE DAMAGE THAN ALL OF THEM WHEN NOT TANKING?
If I thought that, would I have suggested: "pulling back SS a bit and having a you are getting hit while using a shield event maintain a large damage shield or restore the part of SS that was held off. Only have S&B deliver competitive DPS when you are in fact tanking. No more S&B with someone else tanking DPS mode" Two years ago when discussing making shields more accessible for Warrior would I have noted 2H needs to be greater DPS than S&B when we aren't tanking? Are you ready to concede that the weapon setup which has almost always been the Warrior greatest DPS setup has no business being used when tanking in current content except for perhaps some lighter hitting quadrapeds in T1? That DW is NOT for tanking? (see thread title). I've suggested putting EoA on shields henceforth - IF you only want DW and 2H to have their rightful DSPing while another is tanking role you'd insist that was done. Or we can have what knights have - blur. If you can tank something with a DPS setup go for it - if and only if you want to. Or if your DPS and access to a spellbook has you running around in S&B 95% of the time that's understandable - WAR, PAL, and SHD are TANKS. I think SOE has it all worked out and we are going to arrive at DW is not for tanking. DW and 2H are for DPSing. [BA:but Warriors should do Warrior appropriate DPS when performing their usual role, tanking, dressed to perform it.] The fact that there's no Warrior only aggro weapon in T3 providing 1 tier of stagnation suggests that we are on a path and moving down it. As does Offensive Discipline.
Polished Verdant Blade - Warrior-only aggro weapon in T3 Offensive Discipline is an abomination and isn't evidence of any kind of "path" other than that people begged and begged for something new -- that is what we got.
You mean like how I showed in the parses earlier in the thread that S&B was 10-15% more DPS than the DPS sets against a dummy that doesn't swing back? You mean like how people have been talking about DW tanking in NON CHALLENGING CONTENT IE those "lighter hitting quadrapeds in T1"? We are saying that our DPS sets [DW and 2Hand] need a DPS improvement to be ahead of our Tanking Set [S&B] when not tanking. We are discussing the potential of using DW in NON CHALLENGING CONTENT. Almost Everyone AGREES when fighting a rough named or Raid Boss we NEED to be ready with S&B to tank, however when DPSing {NOT TANKING} you shouldn't be penalized DPS for using a DPS weapon set. Wasn't 2 years ago when they started trying to boost our 2Hand damage but have only brought it in line with DW (which is behind S&B)? Honestly I think we can agree when NOT Tanking we should be doing more DPS with a DPS weapon set than a tanking set.
I scratch my head every time I read your posts. Soooooo ... add more to S+B so when you take hits you do more dps. That fixes the issue with DW and tanking for you? How about just leaving it alone and we keep the benefit of higher survivability while doing mediocre dps with S+B. Fix DW dps so we do respectable dps and keep the penalty of not having a shield on our left arm. Its simple. Change nothing but DW dps and those of us who arn't S+B for life can mix it up a bit have be happy. When did damage shields start reporting as ones dps? I know an sk who has complained about that for a long time. So reduce S+B dps from what it currently is when your not getting hit instead of increasing the dps of DW and 2H is the answer you have to this issue? Our DW and 2H dps is major suckage! I'm not even going to go into how bad it is compaired to other tank classes as its not the topic of this thread. I dont think most people are arguing that DW is for tanking. But you can tank while DW, ask a ranger. You can tank naked if you want as long as you can handle it. IMO S+B is for survival in the toughest of conditions. If I can DW in a situation and add more dps I want that option.
This guy gets it. Although, I would want a minor mitigation jump on DW, as without that, it would be the same mitigation as 2-Handers, might even be worse, seeing as how you are taking more riposte damage from a faster swinging weapon. Not married to that though.
Wasn't that 10% and not 10-15%? Wasn't that a short parse with T0 DPS weapons compared to a T1 aggro weapon? Did you use tanking discs when tanking and offensive discs when DPSing? You provided A data point. We won't likely see the parse itself, but on TSW a slick S&B "DPSer" was a bit surprised to discover someone at his tier copying his methods did for all practical purpses the same DPS with a 2Hander. Given margins of error, what consitutes a meaningful parse, buffed and dressed to tank vs buffed and dressed to DPS, group makeup, etc. I'll rely on SOE's parses tyvm. I will be doing some myself Verdant Heartpiercer/Chapterhouse Standard with +10 DMG augs (DPS) vs (Tanking) Mdassa's Dragon Slayer with an aggro aug - but that's for my own amusement (and I guarantee it will be highly amusing). I see what you did there too. Not content to present a parse with a miniscule difference in DPS (you never complained about the 30% loss in DPS when we used a shield prior to SS) and implying the experiment simulated field conditions we start with [BA: S&B should be used on everything beyond] lighter hitting quadrapeds in T1 and smoothly move to [BA: S&B should only be used] when fighting a rough named or Raid Boss.. Putting EoA only on shields henceforth deals with that question - if it's trivial enough to DW tank it's trivial enough that potentially losing aggro now and again wouldn't be an issue. I prefer DW is not for tanking, (and Warriors should do class typical DPS when performing their usual role and geared properly to perform it). I think you guys get it - you just don't want to accept it. "pulling back SS a bit and having a you are getting hit while using a shield event maintain a large damage shield or restore the part of SS that was held off. Only have S&B deliver competitive DPS when you are in fact tanking. No more S&B with someone else tanking DPS mode" solves the /cough problem (in fact it's overkill. DW intrudes far more into the tanking arena than a Warrior running Final Stand and using S&B intrudes on the DPSing arena) . But you don't want the problem solved IMO you want DW tanking and DPSing > S&B tanking and DPSing in most content. I think the "rules" for classes in the tank archetype are going to be evenly applied - for the most part where you seen knights tanking with S&B you'll see Warriors at the same tier using S&B. DW is not for tanking, With it the best Warrior DPS setup for roughly a decade it never had any business being used for tanking in the first place.
I knew it was trading agro and DPS for more survival a trade I was happy to make when I needed it. You assume everyone was DW24/7 as you like to call it, but a fair number of the WARRIORS I knew back then would swap a Shield in for tougher bosses, or DPS with a 2Hander. And yet I'm the one who provided a parse that showed S&B with a DPS sword was still that 10% higher than DW or 2Handed while not tanking. I even had the parse where you see the DPS S&B vs the agro sword S&B had a difference of about 50DPS. You don't seem to want DW or 2Hander to do more DPS when not tanking than S&B does when not tanking. Right now if I'm tanking with S&B all the ripostes are gonna get the damage bonus from SS, boosting my DPS even more. And when S&B gets boosted even more in our TANKING role it leaves our DPS role in the dust. Here it almost looks like you're agreeing with me that S&B while someone else tanks shouldn't be doing more DPS than a DPS weapon set. And as it stands right now any warrior that doesn't use S&B almost all the time is cutting their DPS and survival even if they are not tanking. Here I can pretty much agree with you. If the content is rough I'm gonna be using a shield, almost all the time I'm playing now I've got my shield out, only when I go back to older lower teir content, do I even think about not using my shield. I sure recall it was used as the tanking style since we didn't have any at will agro abilities, we did a respectable amount of swing and proc agro with it giving us the chance to keep tanking. And yet I KNOW there were times and mobs where we swapped to different weapon sets because DW was not optimal for us to survive. Credit where it's due I know YOU were one of the ones lobbying to get the at will agro added and improved, to give us a better chance at doing our jobs while tanking with a shield; however that doesn't mean we should be using a shield all the time.
Frodlin mentioned, and I was aghast when I checked into it, it was not a fair trade. Tanking = survival AND aggro. Warriors can taunt their opponents making themselves the focus of attacks and keeping frailer players safe from harm. Aggro is a given, not a tradeoff that should be required. Which only leaves shield appropriate weapons to discuss. You are aware I assume that knights don't tank with weapons intended to be used 2 at a time? .... Warriors should not do terrible DPS when performing their usual role and geared to perform it. That tradeoff, before SS, was also wrong. Perfect. Shield appropriate 1Hdrs for Warriors would have higher ratios and ripostes would get bigger, It's a bonus you get by accepting the risks of tanking - no tanking, no ripostes. Devs decided to do X. I lobbied/didn't "do" anything. SOE made shields more practical for Warriors by addressing the extremely important ratio issue (so important knights got special high ratio weapons to use with their shields - they had to) and the aggro issue - and Warriors benefited.
Actually, the more meaningful data point would be to test the raw data by using something without a proc, and weapons that are even. To that, I think we could collect more meaningful data using fine steel weapons rather than raid stuff. Too many factors (elemental damage, damage bonus, heroic strength bonuses, etc) just convolute the data to be way more complicated than it needs to be. Get two fine steel long swords, and parse the data. drop a fine steel longsword and put on a shield. That way, you're able to compare apples to apples instead of the "Wait, that's a T0 DPS weapon vs a T1 agro weapon!" All we care about is that the damage bonus provided by the AA when using S&B does not exceed the DPS generated by dual wielding or two-handed weapons. I'd do this parse myself, but my warrior doesn't have all the necessary DPS boosting AA's to get a decent enough data point (I haven't played him since TSS days). Personally, I would be happy to see a 30% difference in DPS between S&B and DW; when tanking or not. I'm all for having to sacrifice a little DPS for more survivability. It's why you never saw me complain about the lack of shield based DPS when I was using a shield to tank. What exactly is trivial to you? I mean, to me, group mobs are very trivial encounters. Named encounters are challenging. However, if a tank loses agro on current group content, it may or may not kill that group member, but regardless, it will waste time and resources. That's doesn't suddenly turn it into a challenging encounter, that makes it an annoyance. PREFER is the operative word in this statement. I prefer to play a class with diversity and option rather than the same cookie cutter cut out it is now. Difference is, my preference doesn't impact your preferred style of play. You can keep using S&B 24/7 until the end of time for all I care. However, your suggestions to continue boosting S&B (knight ratio'ed weapons, EoA only on shields, etc), you're further shoehorning us into being S&B 24/7, which is where your preferences interfere with my style of play. However, at least here you acknowledged that it's your opinion rather than touting it off as if it were fact. No, I don't. "Warrior typical" is a magical setting that only exists in your mind. I'm asking you to explain what exactly is "typical" in your mind. To me, DW should be the median (average DPS a warrior can do), 2-handers should be the peak of what we can do, and S&B should be the low point of what we can do. I asked for clarification, and provided examples (You think S&B should be the median?) but you ignored it. That kinda leads me to believe that YOU don't even know what you mean by "warrior typical" DPS. No, we don't. Personally, I would love to see something like this: Sword & Shield = 125% Defensive, 75% DPS, 75% Agro Dual Wield = 100% Defensive, 100% DPS, 100% Agro 2-Handers = 75% Defensive, 125% DPS, 75% Agro.. It's balanced to provide some strength and benefit to every weapons form we have available to us. If you're tanking something harder, yes, get out a shield and turtle up. If you're tanking average mobs (non-named, raid trash, etc), dual wield is an acceptable option UNLESS the situation demands you need the additional mitigation (Your group has a weak healer, you're in a really long fight that needs mana conservation, etc), then you bust out the shield. If you're not tanking, or you're in a DPS poor, but healer heavy group, pull out the 2-hander. I was all set to be happy for you finally realizing that "DW is not tanking" is your opinion that has no more or less weight than anyone else here, but then you had to go and write this. I'm really glad you're not a developer, or have any decision making power. If this is really how you think the warrior class should be, I feel really bad for the future of the warrior class. Why not? Do you think that a single weapon form should be superior DPS, Tanking AND Agro? I raided with S&B all the way OoW to DoDH using a sword and shield on raids. I had no problems holding agro over the rest of the raid without the use of SS/ISS. I sacrificed DPS for the sake of survivability. If I was doing clean up on mooks, I bandoliered over to dual wield or 2-handers depending on how many I was tanking. If I was not tanking the mob (waiting my turn in the rotation) I pulled out a 2-hander to do DPS but not to put out agro. When I went in to take agro, I bandolier'ed over to S&B, hit AE taunt and Bazu Bellow and everything else I needed to do. In the group game, when tanking some really fun (difficult) content, I would switch to S&B and tell my group to watch their agro (rangers jolt more, wizards watch overnuke, etc). It required more skill to play the class, yes, but it was what separated average warriors from good warriors. I loved it, and it was incredibly fun to play my warrior back then. Warriors now, I can pretty much set up on my laptop with an autofire controller, and not even look. There's no changing your setup to anything other than S&B because everything else is inferior in DPS, Agro generation AND mitigation. That is the very definition of imbalanced. In the current game, warriors have more than enough agro generation tools (discs, AA's, clickies, god know what else) that we really don't need anymore boosts. I was holding agro with a fraction of the toys we have available to us in the current game. Surely you can manage to sacrifice some agro for the sake of defense. I'm still having problems understanding your main point. Are you suggesting that S&B should get ANOTHER boost in the form of better weapons to do bigger ripostes and put it even further ahead of DW and 2-handers? More importantly, DPS is not a concern at all when we're tanking. Our job is to keep the mob beating on us and survive getting beat on. DPS classes do the DPS. When we're tanking, we're not a DPS class. What a knight does has zero bearing on what we do. I would love to see shield specialist provide us a mitigation boost when using a shield, rather than a DPS boost. The DPS boost makes zero sense. If you want to be a DPS class, or even be in a situation where you might care about DPS, pull out two weapons or a two-handed weapon and get to DPS'ing. You say "DW is not for tanking." I say "S&B is not for DPS."
Actually, IMO no. It is not just weapons in isolation. It's also the procs, discs, the group you're in, your role at the time, ... My tanking setup Midasa's Dragon Slayer/Krargg's Striking Stone/shield/Simple Gnomework Illusion, Paladin Buffs - guess what I'm doing. My hoped to be using soon DPS setup Verdant Heartpiercer/Chapterhouse Standard/2x+10DMG augs/Dragorn's Mask/Ranger Buffs Lessee I think I'll open up with Rage of Rallos Zek , then Dodge debuff, Vehement Rage, Second Spire,... I'm sure you would. I suggest using defensive discs with your S&B setup and offensive discs with your DPS setup and you'll have your wish. Trivial is content where right now, today, you don't bother using a shield and where you don't care if someone in your group gets aggro. DW is not for tanking. EoA on shields doesn't affect DW's intended role. It affect DW when its being used to tank. My suggestions would have us tank in S&B, not use S&B as a DPS setup, and use DPS setups when someone else is tanking/not for tanking. Really??!! Really? DW throughout EQ's history has been our best DPS setup a lot more often then not. It's as wrong as DW being both best DPS and best tanking, but those trying to put S&B back in the dumpster don't care. Ignoring EQ's history of DW being best DPS (you do it better) and using magic numbers I'd expect - Longsword - what EQ calls 2-Handed - second best DPS with someone else tanking. Call it 100 units in non-burn and 200 units in burn. Arming Sword - knight 1Handers and transformed by SS Warrior 1Handers - used with a buckler or shield as was the general issue for heavily armored fighters from the 11th to 13th century 90 units non-burn excluding ripostes and ADPS damage gained when getting hit that you would not generate were you not getting hit. Double that if the tank can manage to burn safely. DWing like a Ranger or Bard and not fighting like a tank - 101 units, double that for burn, 0 protection beyond that provided by your armor and buffs. Actually it's my understanding a developer said that. I happen to agree. All sword/s and no shield = not tanking. We already know the difference in total class power for two of the three classes that are heavy plate tanks between "DPS" and S&B they're practically always in S&B - besides an overwhelming percentage of their playtime is in the tank, not in the bad DPSer role. Warriors should be no different. That's a 30 inch arming sword in our mainhand with a buckler or shield on our offhand. That's THE go to weapon setup for inflicting damage AND protection by heavy infantry from the 11th to 13th centuries. A sword is not a shield, and it's also not a feather duster. Especially an appropriate for use with a shield arming sword.
Back to high school science class, the best way to gather the most accurate data is to remove as many of the variables as possible. Ideally, you only want one variable. Procs, discs, etc are all additional (unnecessary) variables. We're trying to analyze how much DPS S&B does in comparison to 2-handers, and dual wielding. This is about natural, passive abilities granting bonuses to our various weapon forms. Parsing burn DPS (discs, abilities, etc) is a completely different parse. So for 20-30 seconds every 30-45 minutes, I can do DPS that exceeds S&B? What kind of solution is that? Well, that makes the past 2-3 expansions non-trivial content. to non-raiders. Glad you feel that way. Read: Give heavier agro advantage to S&B users while screwing everyone else. Lovin' that idea. Yep. Or how about giving me the (realistic) choice of using the weapon form I want, and assume the (reasonable) advantages and penalities of it? It should be my choice to take a minor mitigation hit for a DPS bonus, or a major mitigation hit for a major DPS bonus. Combat is not cut and dry like you wish it was. Nope, that's not true at all. Shield was always the superior defensive setup due to the additional AC bonus it provided. However, Dual Wield was the most diverse set up. It provided minimal loss to mitigation, but that was offset by the increase in riposte damage sustained while tanking. Agro was difficult in the classic days, as our only agro generation skill was taunt. Dual Wield was necessary not because it was a superior DPS form, not because it was a superior mitigation form, but because we NEEDED the additional agro generation. That however changed in GoD with the introduction of the agro discs on a short reuse timer, etc. Agro generation was no longer a problem, and warriors were able use multiple weapon sets, as many truly did. Hell, I knew warriors in PoP using Sword and Shield sets with a DBoW and a Rallos shield from time. It was harder work, but there was a clear pay off in reduced damage, and occasional full shield blocks. When I did get a 2-hander of the same quality of my dual wield set, it did more DPS (especially while tanking, due to bonus riposte damage). Historically, phalanx fighting was the preferred form of military strategy from the dark ages until fairly modern (17th century, namely at the American Revolution) because there were few weapons that affected large areas of people. Siege engines weren't common on the actual battlefield, only in building defense and offense. Yes, they often hit people, but people were rarely the intended target. However, in a fantasy setting where dragon breath fire over masses of people, strange beasts as large as a building swing their arms and strike multiple people, magicians weave powerful diseases that spread to people in close proximity to each other, etc, phalanx fighting is the least most effective method of warfare. Without phalanx fighting, the shield probably would have been the least effective form of combat historically. But hey, lets go ahead and ignore history. Dev's say a lot of things. Now, I would agree more with the statement that DW is not for the maximum efficient tanking, and I totally agree with that statement. However, to suggest that dual wielding is not for tanking is far too black and white. Don't care about the other two plate classes. SK's will always exceed our DPS capability, paladins will always exceed our survivability in group situations; there's really no way around that. The goal is to make us the higher mitigating tank. We should be able to take hits better more naturally, we should do more weapon based DPS (master of arms and armor, right?). However, where our DPS with S&B right now is not unreasonable. DW should be increased at least 25%, and 2-handers should be increased by at least 50% of that. Refer to historical facts posted above about the use of shields in history. If you want to go back even further to the hunter gather days, soldiers of those days used shields for the primary purpose of trapping animals in between their shields, then stabbing the animals when they had nowhere to go. It was a safe means of trapping animals by creating a wall, as a group. A solo warrior was nowhere near as effective using a shield as he was with a group. Yep, you're right. And no one here has suggest that weapons should do zero damage. We've been suggesting an increase of damage, however, a single sword (historically they were actually 39-48in), doing more damage than a two-handed sword almost the size of a person? That's pretty silly. It's a matter of weight ratio.
