It's specific to Warriors and SK's.

Not everything Warrior have should be shared with both Knight classes or even one in some cases.

AE Taunt has too much synergy with WoT, Benediction, Halt the Dead, SU etc. which are already advantaging in ROI vs. undead for AA soloing.

To Knytul - That isn't what happened.

eh, yeah, thats pretty much what happened.

Prolly should not discuss what may or may not have happend in Beta. There is an NDA I understand, and responsible people don't play fast and loose with that making partial disclosures of what they agreed to keep confidential.

Not even to impress people that you have the inside scoop.

To quote you on something you said in bold might i add ont he subject of us getting ae agro:

We go from being the only ae aggro tank (a definite niche and valuable role) to being the most ae aggro over an extended time assuming paladins don't get averagly lucky on heal aggro in which case we aren't that either tank.

So would u like to rephrase ur previous statement?

Unless of course you think you are not subject to confidentialty agreements that you make.

I believe Lluianne once thought briefly that was the case.

Still no burn parses? Why is it that actual real numbers are a concept that you can't understand is the most valuable to this discussion?

Why would I want to rephrase that (is it from beta?) ?

That was the issue. SKs were fine with paladins getting a long reuse ae aggro for emergencies as paladins had asked for initially.

And then (as per usual) some paladins decided "we've got ae aggro deal with it" and started arguing over what ways it should be better than SKs.

Just like now those same few paladins are talking about how they don't just need soem more dps, they need "the same dps as sks" and the same ae aggro as SKs.

You can be your own worst enemies.

because actual data is being calculated, but not being posted in here because of battleblade.  simple as that man.

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

Not everything Warrior have should be shared with both Knight classes or even one in some cases.

Kinda like Opportunistic Strike, Grappling Strike, and Call of Challenge:  A combined superiorority to snare and root vs runners.  Warrior spellbook power increases every expansion, yet you demand the same archiac DPS and Agro hierarchy.  As we all know, with great utility comes reduction and/or parity in other areas.

Hulkling wrote:

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

Not everything Warrior have should be shared with both Knight classes or even one in some cases.

utility comes reduction and/or parity in other areas.

Tank... Parity... THREAD! $$$

you had an issue then because it was ur Niche, but u dont have an issue now...you dont mind us having ae agro, as long as it doesnt come in any form usable or worthwile...We got it finally and both you and Ninalyen (sp?) threw a coniption over it.  It wasnt really that powerful either.  and was only 1 ability.  Instead of asking for modifications to your own line, you had ours scrapped entirely.  No paladin EVER said that our ae agro should be better than yours.  We said our SINGLE target agro should be better than yours.  And please dont include Grrrf in our "paladins thoughts"...hes that stepbrother that u cant get rid of.

Lemme make this perfectly clear to the both of you.  Every class should be in relative to someone else in terms of dps.  Someone higher than someone else with equal aa and gear.  There is a range that scales downward by class.  Like Rogues should be such and such % dps higher than monks.  Paladins should be such and such dps lower than Sk's.  Atm that range is TOO far down.  What we are asking for, is to raise it up to get us where we should be.  Not passing the OFFENSIVE knight in offensive.  But being where we should be so even clerics who want to offense can possibly beat us..

Hulkling wrote:

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

Not everything Warrior have should be shared with both Knight classes or even one in some cases.

Kinda like Opportunistic Strike, Grappling Strike, and Call of Challenge:  A combined superiorority to snare and root vs runners.  Warrior spellbook power increases every expansion, yet you demand the same archiac DPS and Agro hierarchy.  As we all know, with great utility comes reduction and/or parity in other areas.

Call of Challange was openly discussed and every effort was made so that it was not snare/impinged on SK's but instead dealt with a general capability that should be common to an overal fighter achetype - some ability to stop runners.

It was intended to be an inferior but more convenient substitute for Silken Whip of Ensnaring, Crystalline Net, etc. that Warriors had for ages and had already been acounted for in class balance.

(Silken Whip actually does a snare and you can easily snare and kite using it).

We can't use it to snare on incoming, can't effectively kite mobs with it, the mob turns and hits us some more rather than walks away slowly,and I tnk it even eliminates the posibility of scring an Assassinate/Coup d'gras or w/e the Warrior equvilant it

What you concider as an example of one thing, callous appropration of another classes ability was instead the exact opposite -

minimum utility

minimum infringement

discussed openly

Knights with ample opprotunty to raise objections

etc.

As we all know, lesser utility than knights comes with advantage in other areas. Thanks for bringing that up priest. And thank you for reminding people that Warriors often give competing classes an opprotunity to comment in open discussion prior to a proposal being made and make careful effort not to infrige rather than mount a calculated campaign designed to infringe as much as possible.

And kindly try to remenber that just like the Phase 1 Melee Update, Knights were not intended to get anything for the Phase 2 Update with all those utility enhancements that were vetted for approprateness  because the utility gap had gotten FAR too wide. You don't have 0 dps. Warriors were not intended to have 0 utility.

Knytul wrote:

you had an issue then because it was ur Niche, but u dont have an issue now...you dont mind us having ae agro, as long as it doesnt come in any form usable or worthwile - depends by what you mean by "worthwhile", worthwhile to have in an emergency, then fine, worthwhile because it's basically equivalent to what sks have, then no...We got it finally and both you and Ninalyen (sp?) threw a coniption over it.  It wasnt really that powerful either.  and was only 1 ability.  Instead of asking for modifications to your own line, you had ours scrapped entirely.  No paladin EVER said that our ae agro should be better than yours.  We said our SINGLE target agro.  And please dont include Grrrf in our "paladins thoughts"...hes that stepbrother that u cant get rid of.

 

Lemme make this perfectly clear to the both of you.  Every class should be in relative to someone else in terms of dps.  Someone higher than someone else with equal aa and gear.  There is a range that scales downward by class.  Like Rogues should be such and such % dps higher than monks.  Paladins should be such and such dps lower than Sk's.  Atm that range is TOO far down - I agree.  What we are asking for, is to raise it up to get us where we should be.  Not passing the OFFENSIVE knight in offensive.  But being where we should be so even clerics who want to offense can possibly beat us..

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

Hulkling wrote:

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

Not everything Warrior have should be shared with both Knight classes or even one in some cases.

Kinda like Opportunistic Strike, Grappling Strike, and Call of Challenge:  A combined superiorority to snare and root vs runners.  Warrior spellbook power increases every expansion, yet you demand the same archiac DPS and Agro hierarchy.  As we all know, with great utility comes reduction and/or parity in other areas.

Call of Challange was openly discussed and every effort was made so that it was not snare/impinged on SK's but instead dealt with a general capability that should be common to an overal fighter achetype - some ability to stop runners.

We can't use it to snare on incoming, can't effectively kite mobs with it, the mob turns and hits us some more rather than walks away slowly.

What you concider as an example of one thing, callous appropration of another classes ability was instead the exact opposite -

minimum utility

minimum infringement

discussed openly

Knights with ample opprotunty to raise objections

etc.

As we all know, lesser utility than knights comes with advantage in other areas. Thanks for bringing that up priest.

an ability the warrior class had added it didnt have before is an increase in utility. since warriors have had spellbook creep the last several expansions there should be a reduction in other areas to maintain overall parity by your own argument.

you keep harping on WoT however its been nerfed to near uselessness. Especially as your class evanglized that adjustment for months you should be well aware of that change. In its current state it doesnt fire often enough to have any real use any longer.

Anyone who knows your twisted view of class balance in this game knows your agenda which has been unwavering for years, that warriors should subsume every class ability to the marginalization of all other classes. Frankly since your class has achieved FOTM status it should probably get a nice hefty downward adjustment of its own to offset its current popularity.

im stopping since im ashamed i let myself get sucked into another BBZ "warriors iz teh bestest class ever" troll.

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

It was intended to be an inferior but more convenient substitute for Silken Whip of Ensnaring, Crystalline Net, etc. that Warriors had for ages and had already been acounted for in class balance.

What you concider as an example of one thing, callous appropration of another classes ability was instead the exact opposite -

minimum utility

minimum infringement

As we all know, lesser utility than knights comes with advantage in other areas. Thanks for bringing that up priest. And thannk you for reminding people that Warriors give competing classes an opprotunity to comment in open discussion.

My pleasure hybrid.  Admittedly those 3 abilities slipped in under our radar, all at different intervals.  Although grats on being the 1st Class in EQ history to recieve spells balance vs a rare proc.  Minimum utility and infringement indeed.  Warriors now have the greatest tools in the game against runners:   the nuke power of Wizards and Mages, and the Root power of Paladin, Cleric, Ranger, Druid, Shaman, Necro, and Enchanter...minus random immunities, early breaks, and cast times no less.

well, atm at least u agree w/ us on the offensive side of this discussion.  so lets leave that at that and save the ae agro discussion for a rainy day.  Leaving only Battleblade (go figure) as the only one reeally arguing against.

Swain33 wrote:

an ability the warrior class had added it didnt have before is an increase in utility. since warriors have had spellbook creep the last several expansions there should be a reduction in other areas to maintain overall parity by your own argument.

you keep harping on WoT however its been nerfed to near uselessness. Especially as your class evanglized that adjustment for months you should be well aware of that change. In its current state it doesnt fire often enough to have any real use any longer.

Anyone who knows your twisted view of class balance in this game knows your agenda which has been unwavering for years, that warriors should subsume every class ability to the marginalization of all other classes. Frankly since your class has achieved FOTM status it should probably get a nice hefty downward adjustment of its own to offset its current popularity.

im stopping since im ashamed i let myself get sucked into another BBZ "warriors iz teh bestest class ever" troll.

While some Paladins often distort the facts (which is precisely why all your proposals, parses, etc. should be publically examined), the thread is still in the Warrior forum.

Warriors did not gain an ability we did not have before. Silken Whip of Ensnaring, Crystaline Silk Nets, etc. etc. We already had ways to stop runners (in fact we could snare mobs. With right-click items even at will) - the point was to have ways to stop runners that did not require carryng these items which afaik every Warrior had. I certainly did.

I don't think there's EVER been a request to devs that was as considerate of other classes, ensured that the improvement was more limited than what the class already had/not an upgrade, asked that the mob turn and hit us rather than walk slowly away defensless, etc.

You let me know it you ever see a Warrior snare kiting or at-will rooting at any mob HP's he wants with with Call of Challenge. BTW Call is resisted sir.

Nuke power of Wizards?! Please read Finishing Blow which btw Paladins also have.

But for sake of argument you'd pretend otherwise. Talk about twisted views on class balance. You should be ashamed. You too Hulking.

Hulkling wrote:

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

It was intended to be an inferior but more convenient substitute for Silken Whip of Ensnaring, Crystalline Net, etc. that Warriors had for ages and had already been acounted for in class balance.

What you concider as an example of one thing, callous appropration of another classes ability was instead the exact opposite -

minimum utility

minimum infringement

As we all know, lesser utility than knights comes with advantage in other areas. Thanks for bringing that up priest. And thannk you for reminding people that Warriors give competing classes an opprotunity to comment in open discussion.

My pleasure hybrid.  Admittedly those 3 abilities slipped in under our radar, all at different intervals.  Although grats on being the 1st Class in EQ history to recieve spells balance vs a rare proc.  Minimum utility and infringement indeed.  Warriors now have the greatest tools in the game against runners:   the nuke power of Wizards and Mages, and the Root power of Paladin, Cleric, Ranger, Druid, Shaman, Necro, and Enchanter...minus random immunities, early breaks, and cast times no less.

so wait a second......just based on what Battleblade said alone.  If abilities are being substituted for items that classes for ages had already been accounted for in class balance, can we have snare too (Anklesmasher), Slow (Willsapper), Haste 50% (Lizardscale plated girdle), Cripple (Zlandicar's claw), list goes on and on..???

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

Swain33 wrote:

an ability the warrior class had added it didnt have before is an increase in utility. since warriors have had spellbook creep the last several expansions there should be a reduction in other areas to maintain overall parity by your own argument.

you keep harping on WoT however its been nerfed to near uselessness. Especially as your class evanglized that adjustment for months you should be well aware of that change. In its current state it doesnt fire often enough to have any real use any longer.

Anyone who knows your twisted view of class balance in this game knows your agenda which has been unwavering for years, that warriors should subsume every class ability to the marginalization of all other classes. Frankly since your class has achieved FOTM status it should probably get a nice hefty downward adjustment of its own to offset its current popularity.

im stopping since im ashamed i let myself get sucked into another BBZ "warriors iz teh bestest class ever" troll.

While some Paladins often distort the facts (which is precisely why all your proposals, parses, etc. should be publically examined), the thread is still in the Warrior forum.

Warriors did not gain an ability we did not have before. Silken Whip of Ensnaring, Crystaline Silk Nets, etc. etc. We already had ways to stop runners (in fact we could snare mobs. With right-click items even at will) - the point was to have ways to stop runners that did not require carryng these items which afaik every Warrior had. I certainly did.

I don't think there's EVER been a request to devs that was as considerate of other classes, ensured that the improvement was more limited than what the class already had/not an upgrade, asked that the mob turn and hit us rather than walk slowly away defensless, etc.

But for sake of argument you'd pretend otherwise. You should be ashamed. You too Hulking.

Warriors being able to stop runners through the implementation of these new tools doesn't bother me in the slightest, I am surprised it took that long for warriors to get the ability.  What I do NOT agree with it letting warriors stop runspeed-change-immune runners.

Anklesmasher - You have a root spell. SK's have a snare capability. Both of them are at-will. Call of Challenge was carefully crafted to be LESS than snare, not useable at any HP's, have a disadvantage.

Lizardscale plated girdle - Valor of Marr. Just as Call of Challenge is less than Snare. You have a spell that does less of what this belt does.

Etc.

Let's keep in mind that you said we should be charged for new utility. SOE saw stopping runners (and I had hoped gaters) as sufficiently inside a common tank archetype that we all should have a built in way of doing it. You with root/stuns/Halt the Dead and SK's with their "snares". And Warriors internalizing a FAR lesser form of utilty they had already had in right-click objects and procs for years.

This is not something that "slipped under the radar" this is something talked about openly on the Warrior forum with Knights and other classes participating for months. When that public discussion was over, Frodlin passed the proposed solution from tha thread t the developers.

lol. Call of Challange is at-will at any HP's snare. /LAUGH!!!

Really sad guys. Seriously. You can't even claim you were just playing with me - you really believe your own propaganda.

Go read the thread - if you had a shread of reasonbleness you'd recognize the effort to come up with something that did not infringe on snare or root.

Call of Challenge can be resisted. Wether this is all of the time with run speed immune mobs, some of the time, or rarely, I can't tell you. I do know it is even resisted by mobs that are not run speed change immune. Basically, I still use my Silken Whip of Ensnaring starting at 30% and hit Call of Challenge if I don't get a successful normal snare.

Kindly try to remenber that just like the Phase 1 Melee Update, Knights were not intended to get anything for the Phase 2 Update with all those utility enhancements that were vetted for approprateness  because the utility gap had gotten FAR too wide. You don't have 0 dps. Warriors were not intended to have 0 utility.

And much of that proc, potion, and right-click utility you share. All those priest spells you have is utility on top of common utility.

ugh

I'm reminded over and over again why I love that Red Baron tool

Nod the distortions, misrepresentations, and disregard for longstanding design by some Paladins is pretty nausiating.

I don't think there's EVER been a request to devs that was as considerate of other classes, ensured that the improvement was more limited than what the class already had/not an upgrade, asked that the mob turn and hit us rather than walk slowly away defensless, discussed more publically, with more objections take into account  than the Call of Challenge ability.

But in order to rationalize efforts to do away with things like the tank hierarchy and DPS hierarchy some will say anythin - even when the facts are easily verifed.

Which is exactly why the arguement presented, the parses in support, the proposed solution, and the degree of improvement expected needs to be publcally discused. There seems to be is a problem dealing honestly.

Warriors when wanting the Call of Challenge ability had no problem making their case publically and having a discussion with all interested parties.

Karthos wrote:

Post the parses. Heck though its not relevant to this discussion post what a warrior with MMM weapons and a bard in group can do on a 3 minute burn.

About 8k.

Ronak-Xegony wrote:

Karthos wrote:

Post the parses. Heck though its not relevant to this discussion post what a warrior with MMM weapons and a bard in group can do on a 3 minute burn.

About 8k.

What about with dmg augs?

Dmg augs?

A Warrior's damage augs would not be in his best weapons - they would have EB augs.

Either we would se those EB auged weapons when DPSing (which is the usual case) or have a third best weapon (usually a tier back) which was DMG augged and use it in the mainhand (since it procs the most and we want to reduce EB and other aggro procs).

A rough guess would be something less than 8K since we would use a lesser DMG augged weapon in the mainhand to be less likely to steal aggro.

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

It's not a hard concept.

At a variety of tiers and in groups as well as raids a DPS hierarchy should be adhered to.

The traditional 120/100/80 guideline has become 200/100/75 in some cases. This affects all of the not first rank DPS classes, not just one.

For a very long time it has been the case that Warriors are the baseline DPS melee with Monks (for example) doing a certain percentage more DPS than Warriors and Knights doing a percentage less (except in the case of SK's who approached or even exceeded Warrior DPS when they focused theselves on producing maximum DPS).

The introduction of weapon augs has created a situation where Warriors aug their best weapons with EB augs while other classes use DMG augs.

Warriors typically are not in DPS groups (and neither are Knights btw).

When changes are proposed which might affect the DPS heirarchy there is an expectation that cooked data (atypcal buffs, Weapons, focii, etc.) is not presented

and that the proposed change is in class character, adheres to the established heirarchy, and is balanced across a variety of playstyles and progression in those playstyles.

Disclosure of parces so they can be examined by people like Yoda and Yakk at The Steel Warrior for intentional bias is a reasonable request - unless of course the intent is an unreasonable outcome.

Naubi wrote:

There is a lot of crap said on the pally forum.

To clarify:

SKs don't heal the same (or close) to paladins.

There's never been a difference or intended to be a difference between sk and paladin tanking.

 

The actual 'issue' currently is that raids and content favour dps which doesn't play to paladin strengths (which are still there). And there isn't as much call for knight tanking on raids per se either.

Paladin dps does need some help (it doesn't have to be quite as bad as it is) and no sk ever had an objection to paladins getting a long reuse emergency ae aggro.

Your first sentence is true. The pally forum has plumeted in quality since PoN closed.

Raids definately do not favor DPS any more than it has been favored in the past. Less actually. The Sisters event in Solteris is long behind us. The Anniversary Sprint event doesn't count.

I say this despite the fact that there are a couple of events that are time sensitive. My guild, which the Sprint event revealed to have mediocre DPS (contrast us with guilds that have DOUBLE our DPS), has 0 trouble with those events.

If anything Sprint shows how wide a gap in DPS output is possible for guilds that have reached SoD endgame months ago. Devs can check SoD complete status vs. Sprint times to verify my claim.

SoD content is sufficiently easy that Knights routinely tank many events and have no problem taking over a named mob if a Warrior dies, and no reluctance to do so even if there are Warriors still alive and with full disciplines. Further there is a lot of yardtrash in some cases providing ample opprotunity for Knights to tank as well as multiple mobs needing to be tanked (and anyone can tank them) in several events.

Despite the fact that the first part of their case is pure fabrication (and it can be proven to be pure fabrication) there remains the question of Paladin DPS.

They are a healer/tank with combat resses needed in some events, spot heals having value, their group heal following a Cleric's DArb still very powerful, and a number of detrementals to cure.

They chose this assortment of capabilites, they have value, and even if that value had declined (it has not) the fix is to create events where their healer nature has value once again.

Warriors are not a healer/tank and while SK's do have a secondary pulling role in groups they don't get to excercise it in raids generally. Any reasonable person woud expect a Warrior or a Shadow Knight who is not tanking to do substantially more DPS than a hybrid that opted for clerical skills in addition to basic warrior/tank skills.

Your skills as an SK and mine as a 100% melee are offensively directed. Mine in mastery of arms and armor and your's in offensive magics.

A DPS heracry must be maintained that reflects these truths.

In addition, I play my Paladin (as do many others) based a great deal on not only that healer/tank aspect but on Slay Undead as well. This is not a wave your hand and change it dramatically ability - for many players it's central.

So I'm very concerned reading those 2 pages of misinformation and wild /cough solutions. And I'm particularly concerned because there is not a Community Leader like Frodlin to represent Warrior interests and insure something that looks not to be on the up and up atm is before it becomes part of the game.

Given the synergy of Listless, WoT, and big damage shield IMO Paladins should not get AE Taunt. I'm not done getting needed AA's with my alt yet, so I'm restricting myself to saying vs. undead in a couple of zones it's already very good. Even without Listless.

Paladins a very powerful class who are extremely competaive in tanking capability with Warriors and while they're not having a DPS vs. live  burst discipline and perhaps needing a minor DPS adjustment vs. live mobs while still maintaining the proper DPS heirarcy is an issue, that can't be fairly repaired in a smoke filled room. Paladins will be telling Devs a 135% healing benefit on their Epic is perfecty fine and I've no faith whatsoever that devs won't believe them.

To be fair, the higher Sprint (and Marathon) scores are more based on how good your guild is at stacking dot's at 15% and timing a nuke at 6% to get double kill credit, not on your guild's DPS. If it was based purely on DPS, we'd have done better than #8 serverwide, I can assure you of that.

It's ridiculous really, when you see the scores of 40+ on Sprint. Anyone with a brain knows the numbers don't add up to doable in 1 hour, without getting mostly double kill credit. So, any pointing to Legacy scores means little. All of them were bug-riddled, and as such, any fair 'grading curve' isn't possible. They were tarnished, plain and simple.

As for DPS not mattering today? That's a rather silly statement. The higher your DPS, the shorter the fight, the less you have to deal with mechanics. There is a huge difference between a 20 minute Zek brothers kill (our first kill) and a 5 minute Zek brothers kill (our last kill), I can assure you.

The same can be said for all current content. Are there hard caps like Sisters event? No. But, the bigger the DPS you can bring, the more trivial the content becomes. That remains true.

Take even something already trivial, like the Queen Malarian event. What's harder? A 8 to 10 minute kill, or a 45 second 400k DPS burn? DPS has more impact on current content than ever before.

Finishing blow?  lol @  5 levels under max.  So whats your slogan now BB.... "Unmatched ability to survive the most brutal battles and spellbook superiority to stop runners with our yellow mana"?

Insta-cast Nuke and Insta-cast Root that isn't deterred by random immunities is clearly superior in this fabricated "common tank archetype that we all should have a built in way of doing it"...which is simply a bogus means to increase your ever-expanding spellbook.  Meanwhile, paladins are still using a level 65 root that randomly breaks for no apparant reason.  Something inherantly wrong here.

Call of Challenge?  Sure, it helps.  Call of Challenge + Grappling Strike + Opportunistic Strike?  Hi spellbook infringment.

You know what a REAL "common tank archetype that we all should have a built in way of doing it" is? 

You guessed it...AE Agro.

Ronak-Xegony wrote:

To be fair, the higher Sprint (and Marathon) scores are more based on how good your guild is at stacking dot's at 15% and timing a nuke at 6% to get double kill credit, not on your guild's DPS. If it was based purely on DPS, we'd have done better than #8 serverwide, I can assure you of that.

It's ridiculous really, when you see the scores of 40+ on Sprint. Anyone with a brain knows the numbers don't add up to doable in 1 hour, without getting mostly double kill credit. So, any pointing to Legacy scores means little. All of them were bug-riddled, and as such, any fair 'grading curve' isn't possible. They were tarnished, plain and simple.

As for DPS not mattering today? That's a rather silly statement. The higher your DPS, the shoter the fight, the less you heave to deal with mechanics. There is a huge difference between a 20 minute Zek brothers kill (our first kill) and a 5 minute Zek brothers kill (our last kill), I can assure you.

The same can be said for all current content. Are there hard caps like Sisters event? No. But, the bigger the DPS you can bring, the more trivial the content becomes. That remains true.

Take even something already trivial, like the Queen Malarian event. What's harder? A 8 to 10 minute kill, or a 45 second 400k DPS burn? DPS has more impact on current content than ever before.

I probably selected a poor DPS yardstick. In any event, we are pretty much just as progressed as guilds we suspect may do double our DPS.

While it's true burning events allows you to skip mechanics who cares when your first or second try on an event is a win and have nearly a 100% win record thereafter?

Huge difference Zek bros? Does a 10 minute kill give out better loot than a 20 minute kill? I don't think so. Besides balancing and tanking adds is just as important as speed, and the event is trivial.

We're fast enough (and we are pretty slow) that we're on a two day schedule IF we tried, we could be on a one day schedule.

Admittedly, next expansion might have a Sisters-like DPS test. But it could also have a Counsil-like test where the ability to field 6-8 tanks and healers for them mattered.

There's plenty enough tanking and it's really pretty shabby to claim I donwannabe a Pally no mo'. I wannabe a DPS tank. You makes your choice, live with the result, and nag devs to give you content that uses your versatility - if you've a shred of integrity. They were pretty happy when 90% res, heals, etc. meant awesome soloing goodness. If they think another side of the street is better....

Reroll. (There's no indication that they would give up their priesting - they just want it as a free bonus.)

In this expansion more DPS means an earlier Raid end time and when you are already 2 days a week headed for 1, that's not make or break capability.

You've mentioned 90% rezz quite often.  How are you enjoying your 96% rezz?

I don't have one. Why just the other day I was in a raid and I reached for my spell gem because my Cleric had died.....

but I didn't have one. Fortunately a Paladin ressed her.

Wanna ask me about my healing in that raid????

Soloing? Soloing I retrieve my corpse, /ooc for a res, and pay the Cleric - same as always.

Group? In a group my group's Cleric resses me or jr. Cleric if the group has one.

Your spells did not lose value because there is a cleric Merc in your group any more than there being a Cleric in your group.

Nor are my lack of spells less odious because there's a Merc in my group rather than a Cleric in my group.

The only thing that has changed is now I can solo. But if I die, my merc dies too sir and I still have to deal with my death the same as always.

Time for a totaly unrelated picture

Naubi posted? Check.

Battleblade posted? Check.

Time to lock, remove, and delete this PoS thread.

brd wrote:

 

And you are worse at your job (getting fast & huge agro) then SKs in every way. So why would anyone want you ?

You're either raiding / grouping with crap paladins or you're completely clueless.

I do not get it.... All the people crying here want to Tank like class X but made class Y and now want it to change. 

 Make Class X.  it is that simple.  If you want what a Pally has make a pally.  If you want what a SK has make one.  If you want what a Warr has make one.

 But EQ always has been a game of you can not have it all.

 And more important it has always been a game of Ebb and Flow.   When EQ started Necros and pallys ruled the planet.  for a while the Beastlords had a ton.  For a while Zerkers had an edge.  For a while Bards had many advatages.  for a while you could tank with a monk and DPS.  There was a time when the Quad kite was great.   There was a time when mages where forgotten like Chanters are now.

 The thread makes me scratch my head.  I want to tank like a Warr and have all my Pally/sk skills?   Give me a break.  Who knows what class will be pumped up next expansion and what one will fall behind.  But i have played EQ for 10 years and it has happened to most classes and to cry about just dumb.

 It takes about 3 months to make a toon and get max level and 800 AA's or more.  If you want to be the best DPS , Tank , Healer of this expansion then just make the class and spend 3 months.  But when the next expansion hit you may be the class that doesnt get the goodies and you may just have to start oever again.

btw, you posts on ROI AA farming for Paladins was excellent sir. My goodness what synergy in weapons, abilites, spells and mobs that say "Paladin, kill here" on their backs.

Ok well maybe one was not enough

Wow a warrior in a dps group can do up to 8k dps without dmg augs?! That seems way too high given how much better they can tank single mobs than knights in raid gear.

I don't have one. Why just the other day I was in a raid and I reached for my spell gem because my Cleric had died.....

but I didn't have one. Fortunately a Paladin ressed her.

You sure it wasn't a Druid/Shaman call so she could get a 96% later?

Soloing? Soloing I retrieve my corpse, /ooc for a res, and pay the Cleric - same as always.

Sure ya don't.  More like pay 50 plat to pop your on-demand 96% rezz bot.

Group? In a group my group's Cleric resses me or jr. Cleric if the group has one.

jr. Cleric as in "can someone drop group so I can pop merc to rezz BB?"

Your spells did not lose value because there is a cleric Merc in your group any more than there being a Cleric in your group.

But they did lose value in groups that don't have a cleric.
me: "want 90 rezz?"
anyone with a brain:  "lol hell no, someone drop group so we can pop a merc"

Nor are my lack of spells less odious because there's a Merc in my group rather than a Cleric in my group.

Uh yeah.  Hello Symbol of Jennaca and Sworn Keeper.

The only thing that has changed is now I can solo. But if I die, my merc dies too sir and I still have to deal with my death the same as always.

"Same as always" as in /wait 5 minutes to repop merc for 96 rezz?

But I digress.  You know all of this already.  Feigning ignorance to advance your agenda has always been your weak suit.

Does anyone else get annoyed when a 90% res pops up after wiping on raids? If the fight is still going on I will take the res of course but annoying nonetheless. :/

Oh and I'm still shocked a MMM geared warrior has the ability to put up 8k dps.

Thebobo wrote:

Time for a totaly unrelated picture

I think I know her!

Karthos wrote:

Battleblade-Xegony wrote:

And Warrior DPS parses while tanking, in a DPS group, and not in a DPS group.

You are doing the parces with maxed Attack, DPS buffs, etc. in a DPS group, and not in a DPS group (which is the usual case for Warriors and SK's), right?

Knights using DMG augs and Warriors using EB augs?

Group/mid-tier/endgame Rangers, SK's, Paladins, Warriors and the other priests (just to see the DPS healers do)?

 

Blah blah blah...

 

This is not a hard concept. Burn dps of all classes can be important in some raids, and in group content. Again, post the burn dps of an Sk with an MMM weapon and a bard in group for a fair comparison with what I posted.

Not seen a decent SK burn myself, but I know some AB guilds have had SKs doing 8k+ on 2-3 min fights if they're put in the optimal groups.   I've seen wars doing 6-7k (not end-game ones) when in a melee burn group too.  No doubt the pure melee dps classes may benefit even more in such situations, but the effect of the "environment" (ie shaman + bard + berserker) is often more significant than the actual class taking up that slot.

As for the issue of warriors using EB etc augs instead of +damage augs, while that's true, the fact remains there is a CHOICE. Most wars I know actually have two sets of weapons - one for dps and one for hate generation. So it's a fast choice to switch too.

Anyway, I think Battleblade has been a bit too quiet recently so I'll add my tuppence worth and claim that IMO warrior sustained dps is too high. *sustained* dps is only slightly behind rogues, and yet without any direction penalties. On the flip side rogue tanking is far weaker than warrior tanking - by a much larger degree than the dps difference between the classes. If we're balanced then surely the tanking gap should be more or less comparable to the dps gap... right?

/duck

Brog

PS. Yes, I do worship Bristlebane!

so this thread has gone from "what is the worst all around class right now" to "who is the most annoying poster around right now"

what is the worst all around class right now?

I can only speak from the Active Raiders point of view since I no longer group thanx to max aa and having everything I need from the group game...well just about

On raids for Citadel of Discord, putting individual events with special mechanics aside, ideally You need: 4 Wars, 6 SK/Pally, 6 Cleric, 2 Druid, 4 Shaman, 2 Enchanter.  Thats 24/54 slots on a raid taken for utility/heals/tankage.  Lets say you want buffs/added utility so you'd also like 1 Beastlord, 1 Mage, and 1 Ranger.  Thats 27/54 slots with 27 left to fill.  Wizards are the best all around dps so you'd want ideally 8 to stick 4 per group with druid/enchanter.  Necroes dont stack too well so you'd want 4 max but they are ubber long term dps.  Then comes the Zerkers/Rogues which are imo comporable and a couple of bards for the DPS groups with the ideal DPS grp being shaman, bard, zerker/roguex4.  Monks/rangers are tied slightly below rogues/zerkers.  Whose left out?  Mages, Beasts, and Paladins beyond the first one since SKs are better.  Thus for the raiding setting either a Mage, Beast, or Paladin beyond the first one thats usefull for utility/buffs becomes the worst all around raiding class.

actually, in Citadel raids, u really only NEED 1 paladin (Brells).  2 at most tbh.  After that...3rd is just for comfortability, 4th is a waste.  Sk's u can use 3 or 4 conveniently w/out a waste.  U sure aint sittin a mage cuz of dps, Same with beast....So between mage, beast and pally..who does that leave as the #1 class to sit....and been that way since like...OoW raids.

I.... just don't know what to say.  So I will just /wave

Froto222 wrote:

I do not get it.... All the people crying here want to Tank like class X but made class Y and now want it to change. 

 

 Make Class X.  it is that simple.  If you want what a Pally has make a pally.  If you want what a SK has make one.  If you want what a Warr has make one.

 

 But EQ always has been a game of you can not have it all.

 

 And more important it has always been a game of Ebb and Flow.   When EQ started Necros and pallys ruled the planet.  for a while the Beastlords had a ton.  For a while Zerkers had an edge.  For a while Bards had many advatages.  for a while you could tank with a monk and DPS.  There was a time when the Quad kite was great.   There was a time when mages where forgotten like Chanters are now.

 

 

 The thread makes me scratch my head.  I want to tank like a Warr and have all my Pally/sk skills?   Give me a break.  Who knows what class will be pumped up next expansion and what one will fall behind.  But i have played EQ for 10 years and it has happened to most classes and to cry about just dumb.

 

 It takes about 3 months to make a toon and get max level and 800 AA's or more.  If you want to be the best DPS , Tank , Healer of this expansion then just make the class and spend 3 months.  But when the next expansion hit you may be the class that doesnt get the goodies and you may just have to start oever again.

when the game started hybrids in general were very lacking, between the group wide exp penalty, anemic spell book, lack of aggro tools and much lower caps warriors were the preferred tank.

that is actually why we have the situation we have today bbz rolled a warrior because it was god mode and he and his warrior buddies have been trying to keep that easy button ever since.

he takes it hard when any class can do something fun other than heal him. he really is under the delusion that healing him is fun and should be everyones primary goal in the game.

back in the old days we should have just told them to reroll too instead we helped them get yellow mana and a better spellbook then the casters have.

well it is what it is i know i dont drop my tank bot to get a warrior they can get hosed.

Actually when the game first started, Rangers were probably the prefered tank. But those that wore plate didn't want the competition and argued Ranger ranged DPS was an outside of a tank archtype ability with sufficient value that they should not be capable tanks. Oh, and of course Rangers wore chain (kinda tacky argument because many wore rather generic armor clearlly identified as plate and that had plate graphics).

During the Daily Developer Chats which was an extension of replies by developers to questions by players during Beta, players were reminded that Warriors were intended to be the best tank.

Players were put on notice that dual classes - classes that could perform a pure archetype's main roles PLUS a substantial portion of another archetype's main role would not be permitted.

However hybrid classes that drew non-specialization skills from two archetypes, not equal a parent class in it's main focus, and were intended to be extremely slow to advance would.

Naturally, "slow to advance" could be beaten by playing 18 hours a day and not equal a parent class in it's main focus could be beaten by greater advancement than someone pkaying a parent class and/or better gear.

Realizing that the impediments to hybrids being able to become more powerful than parent classes could be defeated simply by playing more, the devs gave Warriors abilities like Defensive and reduced impediments to hybrid advancement and allowed them better spells (since Warriors were now secure in parent class superiority).

Defensive was absolutely brilliant. It substantially raised the barrier for hybrids to exceed the Warrior parent class with just better gear and more playtime and consigned them to what was intended - lesser tanks with some totally outside the tanking archetype (but synergistic with it) abilities.

Given it's refresh and the fact that it lowered the DI contribution of damage, it was most effective vs high DI mobs - typically raid boss mobs and occasional nuisance hard hitting group mobs and least effective where Warriors and Knights were intended to compete - normal group content.

Stuck with the lesser tank part vs. hard hitting mobs, Knights realized that the only way the could reach the goal of being equal tanks with bonus spellbooks was to have Defensive removed from the game or shared.

After a couple of years and despite any fair minded person knowing it was wrong, they succeeded - receiving a "lesser form of Defensive" (quoted from SOE) and the ability to tank all group content (tank parity) in DoN.

Following this success, a campaign began to "share" Warrior Fortitude/Furious capability (on hold atm)

------------

and now "on par" DPS.

Ya see, there was this longstanding guideline that Warriors were to be the baseline (100), DPS classes higher (120), and Knights given that less DPS than Warriors was to be one of the costs for having a spellbook (80). 120/100/80.

So of course with some SK's reportedly doing up to 6K+ DPS in raids, Paladins asked to have their DPS raised to reflect where they should be relative to their brother Knight - SK's (read the first post on Samana's forum)

NOT that the Warrior classes DPS be reviewed and after adjustment if needed given 6K+ SK DPS, Paladin DPS be adjusted reflecting the new Warrior baseline.

The goal of course was to equal or exceed Warrior DPS just as the goal was once to achieve "tank parity" (mostly achieved) and putting to death the notion that Warirors were the baseline DPS class that Knights were lower than.

(Hybrid) Knight competence in (Parent Class) Warrior capabilites

aggro - X (a given and rightly so)

survivability - X (less Fortitude/Furious)

DPS - working on it.

Making Warriors a defacto hybrid one of three equal tanks doing fairly equal DPS and having 5th rate if that outside of the tank archetype abilites. Concidering that all Warriors roll the class to be the best tank forgoing conveniences like priestly spells, FD pulling, etc. - a very raw deal indeed.

Hopefully Devs will review Warrior DPS as it actually is (we use EB augs on our best weapons), and make adjustments to the Warrior, SK, and Paladin classes DPS as indicated to restore a reasonable DPS hierarchy and not one designed to make an archetype parent class a very poor cousin to 2 hybrids.

"I'm sorry? All I heard was, "blah blah blah, I'm a dirty tramp."

----Mr. Deeds