Why don't warriors get knight 1handers?

Discussion in 'Tanks' started by Mrjon3s, Oct 15, 2012.

  1. Oakenn Tigerspirit Augur

    wait what are we saying... Yes devs its all true Brosa is 100% correct. Please buff knights so they can achieve the greatness of these godly beings known as Brosa warriors
  2. jimtank New Member

    You can't always be the MT, but we get dps disc. just wish wasn't all linked. I know ranger are linked, but they get spells.
  3. Ranpha Augur

    I'll take it. Go and have fun with dual wield.
  4. Sharpshooter Lorekeeper

    1) Warriors can dual wield
    2) Warriors get more ranks in Shield Specialist AA which increases the DPS output of a 1hder while using a shield.
    3) Warriors are not a 'DPS Class', neither are SKs or Paly... They're tanks and sword+board is very popular for all three classes regardless of what weaponry they are using.
  5. doktartp Augur

    LIke most classes, dps does matter, you tank less if it dies faster (in most cases)

    I would feel bad if i had the melee of a cleric, and had to heavily rely on a group to kill things.
  6. Purpl New Member

    For what it's worth, you forgot 1 possible outcome in the second scenario. Your options would actually be:

    (H)(H), (H)(T), (T)(H), (T)(T) with the probability of at least 1 (H) being 75%.

    This concept is known as a Bernoulli trial and can be generalized for any probability P(H) (i.e.13% chance of H) so it wouldn't be very difficult for devs to determine the appropriate amount of parry+riposte to make up for shield block if they decided to go that route.
  7. Brosa Augur

    That also makes 1 (T) being 75% as well actually making it 50% for both....funny how math works
  8. fransisco Augur


    So if tanks can double as a dps class, why play a dps class? You'd just be someone who can't take a hit then.
  9. shiftie Augur

    There are tiers within the dps hierarchy every player will/should fall within a relative standing to other classes. Under most conditions the tank classes do not exceed their tier/position on the totem pole of dps. There are the occasional out of the norm scenarios where they exceed this position.

    As an example knights are/were supposed to be within a certain %age of warriors. Prior to Underfoot paladins had fallen well behind that rank and so they lobbied for a revamp of their dps to bring them back to the dps position that they were always in previously. They got a dps boost, it ended up being too much and they were nerfed back down to the relative position the devs felt was appropriate.

    Pretending that tanks should not be concerned with their dps at all because they are "tanks" is ridiculous and you should be ashamed for being so obtuse. If someone walks into a battle with a sword, one should hope that this person intends to swing it and inflict some sort of damage. At which point you accept that they will be inflicting damage and the question then becomes how much damage ought they be allowed to do, and you get a baseline relative to other classes.
  10. doktartp Augur

    Just give them 2 shields and call it a day, why do any dps as a tank ?
  11. fransisco Augur

    How many groups break up because the tank isn't doing enough damage?
    How many groups break up because the tank can't take the hits or can't hold agro?

    A tank being concerned about his dps is a tank concerned about his epeen. The group spot exists to take damage and keep mobs off dps/healers.
  12. Riou EQResource

    The group should care about a Tanks DPS, as the more it is, the faster the group kills, it adds up a lot over decent length sessions where your EXP per time will be greater the greater your groups overall DPS is and a Tanks DPS adds into that
    shiftie likes this.
  13. Brosa Augur

    I've been a warrior for years. I do care about my DPS HOWEVER i could care less about how it stacks up to DPS classes, only other tank classes. I've grouped regularly with a solid group for a long long time (SK, Mage, Monk, Zerker, Wiz, Sham) and since UF when shield specialist got upgraded I have been towards the top in a grind Parse but NEVER close to being top in a burn Parse. The SK blows the doors off a warrior in a burn. If your group is depending on the tank to DPS then THAT group needs to find a DPS class to help. Warriors are GOOD dps in an average fight. I regularly parse on T4 trash grind 6k without hitting any major offensive abilities. If thats not good enough for a group then that group is subpar
  14. Dandin Augur

    Honestly. You cannot have the best of both worlds. You can tank and hold Agro, That's your job. Yes. You can hit some stuff. And help, and 6kDPS is not bad for a tank. And it's respectable. As a tank you should be more focused on mob positioning, your Agro, your health, and staying alive.. Discipline order. Discipline timing, and keeping the pesky dress wearing fool from getting punched in the kidneys.

    This is your duty. And it's a heavy and important one to bear.

    Think of it this way, Your doing the bleeding, taking the abuse (like a boss) while your friends fill that monster with arrows, light it on fire, or punch it in the face. Let the DPS class worry about DPS.

    I giggle about this myself. Because my own class sometimes grumbles about our DPS. It's like... You want to be a wizard? Make one!

    If you are worried about your DPS as a warrior, and you feel inferior to your friends because they parse higher then you, consider this. Your taking the biggest parse of all. The named mobs DPS. Without you. We ain't getting loot.

    I sure the hell am not tanking.
    Xnao likes this.
  15. Purpl New Member

    Except that's not really how it works when it comes to determining your chance to avoid an attack, which was the context of the example.

    Basically the game makes a series of independent checks. For example (and I apologize ahead of time but I don't remember the exact order of the checks:

    Check for riposte. Was it successful? If so, the result was a riposte. Ignore everything else.
    If not, check for parry. Was it successful? If so, the result was a parry. Ignore everything else.
    If not, check for dodge. Was it successful? If so, the result was a dodge. Ignore everything else.
    If not, check for block. Was it successful? If so, the result was a block. Ignore everything else.
    If not, check for miss. Was it successful? If so, the result was a miss.
    If not, the result was a hit.

    In the simplified example of 2 coin flips there are only 2 checks being made. Let's call the first coin flip parry and the second coin flip dodge. We'll also call heads success and tails failure. If the first coin flip is heads (successful parry), we don't care about the second coin flip. If the first coin flip is tails, then we check the second coin flip. If it is heads (successful dodge) then we avoid the hit. If they are both tails, we get hit.

    To put it another way the probability getting at least 1 heads [P(H1)] is 1 - the probability of getting 0 heads [P(H0)]. Since the only way to have 0 heads is to get (T)(T) and (T)(T) is 1 out of 4 outcomes and all outcomes have the same probability, P(H0) = .25. 1 - .25 = .75 = 75%
  16. Astehroth Elder

    2 Coin tosses there are 4 possible outcomes where order is not important.
    (h)(h),(h)(t),(t)(h),(t)(t)
    Therefore P(head flip) = 3/4 = 75%

    Or you could say P(head flip) = 1 -[ P(tails first toss) * P(tails second toss) ]
    = 1 - [ 1/2 * 1/2 ] = 3/4 = 75%
  17. beryon Augur

    Aside from the obvious xp issue Riou noted, this also ignores what generally gets tanks killed when fighting nameds. It's not the sustained damage, it's the spikes. Less time named is standing = less spikes = reduced chance of wipe. So maybe the group won't break up, but I've definitely seen dps make the difference between beating a named or wiping.
    Elricvonclief likes this.
  18. Uxtalzon Augur

    This. I could hug you beryon. <3

    Try fighting Zonoraz in The Grounds for just that experience. Nobody wants to touch that mob without serious DPS because it can fire off its two abilities which can amount to a mini deathtouch, and the adds spawn very quickly in the compound.

    Compare that to CoB where I was grouped with nothing but DPS classes. No healer but myself, and I was the expected tank. Instead of actually tanking, I'd just land a 5-10-5 stun on the mob and it's dead. It was kind of depressing knowing my role as a tank meant next to nothing (in terms of gear, etc.) when there's so much DPS present. In that group, I nabbed 63% exp at 94 with lessons and full group bonus. MInd-blowing.
  19. Coruth Augur

    Original EQ had a hierachy in group game. It was based upon two issues.

    Group DPS
    100 Warrior
    95 SK Chain Casting Offensive Magic
    75 Knights

    The reason behind this was because SK and Paladin offered tons of self healing. So much so watch a xp group. It's not uncommon for the SK i group with to have heal total equal to groups cleric. This has gotten blurred to the point where Pal can match/beat because of way thier discs stack let alone sks.

    It used to be Warrior Group & Knight Group would get similiar XP per Hour.
    The Warrior superior dps would yield quicker times, but make the Cleric OOM more often causing breaks. Now a days, a Knight group will yield more xp per hour. They can pull heavier and longer with a knight.

    The second issue is Shield (Slow too). It has little to do with ISS. It has to do with mudflation. Since Shield AC isnt softcapped and since it triggers Block Mechanic. It's become far too necessary with todays heavier hitters. Back when dualwielding was popular slow was more effective as was being able to survive 10 seconds of combat for CH to land... All 3 classes unless way overgeared end up sword and board. A situation where a warrior is inferior in group.

    As for Gear, they'd have to rebalance both itemization and ranks of dps skills to keep a nice balance. But in theory lower warrior ranks of shield spec to match with weapon usage. Prob is that would even further kill dual wield as warriors wouldnt want standard swords only knight weapons.

    My personal thought would take some Code. Allow Warriors to wield Knight Weapons in thier off hands only. Make it an AA/Code issue. Add "Warrior Off hand" to the knight 1hers and youd have some decent tradeoff there.

    As for 2Hers I'd have personally removed Knight Only from them, nerfed them down to normal 2Her ratio. Then Given Knights 2H based Damage Mod AA to move them back to current ratio in hand of knight.
  20. Shang Augur

    Nah, I didn't care about the tank's DPS until like TSS. Still don't, really.

    You DPS hungry savages ruined that and my roleplay experience.

Share This Page