Absor Talks To Druids About Class Balancing

[Redhenna]

Is SOE delivering on Last Month's Expectations? (http://pub149.ezboard.com/fthedruidsgrovegeneral.showMessageRange?topicID=31 207.topic&start=1&stop=20)

In this thread Absor talks to druids about some of their issues, mostly dealing with the exp change to start. He then goes on to ask some questions:

Many of you seem to think that a druid is a good addition to a PoP group. But you're saying that people don't want you in groups.

What is the reason that they don't want you?

What can we possibly do, based on your response, to overcome that?

Answer those with the understanding that there doesn't appear to be any real need for any huge changes to any classes. I'm not asking you to tell me that you need to be able to nuke like a wizard and heal like a cleric, nor am I expecting you to introduce me to a new form of ability never seen before. Let's keep this to a realistic level, within the realm of the possible.

I would love to see Absor(or for that matter anyone over at SoE) come to this board and ask us those questions. If any dev is reading this, please do that. Give us a chance to prove that we can be at least as reasonable as druids in what we want(and some of the things druids are asking for are pretty unreasonable, ie 90 % rez). Talk to us, make us feel like we are not ignored. I am betting if you did this, we would come up with some reasonble, and possible solutions to what we feel is wrong with the warrior class.

Many of you seem to think that a druid is a good addition to a PoP group. But you're saying that people don't want you in groups.

Substitute the word druid with the word warrior and I think you would find that most all of us here feel this way.

What is the reason that they don't want you?

Agro control, plain and simple. Knights have it nearly garunteed, with us it is much more random.

What can we possibly do, based on your response, to overcome that?

There are 2 schools of thought herre on that issue. The first school is to increase warrior tanking ability to make us desirable as the clear cut better tank(taking damage wise) over knights. The second school of thought is to narrow the agro differential between warriors and knights.

Let's keep this to a realistic level, within the realm of the possible

I think we can manage that. Many of the ideas that have been put forth on this board are viable, possible fixes for our class.

Please, Absor and SoE devs, come to this board, ask us the same questions, engage in some form of dialog without even getting into any specifics on your side(we know that you really cannot). Give us the chance to prove that we are just as reasonable and rational as druids, and have some ofthe same types of issues.

[Synapticus]

I hope he comes around and opens a discussion as well, and really hopes its Absor posting!

[Kellaen]

I'd wager he reads this board every once a while as he's posted on it a few times. I will agree tho that the interaction with this segment of their playerbase (ie. our class) has been way too limited.

[Haass]

He's posted here once, and I've seen him online here twice. I personally think he just reads this board on his goddamned lunch break tho, because he hasn't done crap for warriors since he's been around.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Steenky]

It would be nice to have some form of dialogue opened up between the warrior class and the Dev team.

I'd be all for having a single thread that the board moderators only wrote in that summarized what the majority thinks.

[Kaspar]

This is a fantastic sign, though. I'm sure the post on TDG was just the beginning. We're long past such silly jealousies as thinking SOE has a favoured class, so I'm confident we'll be hearing from them soon.

Kudos to Absor and SOE for venturing out into the open forum to communicate with your playerbase again -- I often mourn the loss of those old days when devs seemed to post on fan message boards weekly. (On a side note, I don't much blame Absor; he takes so much abuse when he shows his mug almost anywhere. People need to learn to be more respectful, but he needs to be more thick-skinned -- if that IS indeed part of the reason he hasn't been posting as much as he used to.)

Anyway, this is a very important step.

[Haass]

This is a fantastic sign, though. I'm sure the post on TDG was just the beginning. We're long past such silly jealousies as thinking SOE has a favoured class, so I'm confident we'll be hearing from them soon

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

[Stryph]

Absor is the same way on the SK boards. He's shown himself maybe twice during the entire existance of it. Like someone said above, don't hold your breath. Sure keeping hopes up is nice and all but don't expect the impossible.

[Gerick]

How about this, we send a invite to the Dev team or absor to come to the board and open up a discussion as we would like to debate and provide ideas on how to fix the warrior class to be more liked (or in line) in the high end of the game instead of just in raid events and that we have the moderator swear they will delete abusive posts in order to encurrage them to visit us again in the future, something i know about the druids grove is that their moderators always try to keep the community in its sunday best when a member of the dev comes around

[Gerick]

heck ill even write up the invite, altho i think after we get a offical invite ready a few of us should email it to the DC board so that maybe a few wont get screened out

[Dakkin]

Sony must be well aware of warrior aggro problems in PoP.

The key issue is that the average warrior can't hold taunt reliably through slows in exp groups.

If they wanted to fix it before now they'd have done it. It's easy *edit - well at least it's not impossible*. Here's an example of one way I thought of while writing this post:

Just let bash/kick proc an unresistable debuff spell of some kind that hits the mob for hate equivalent to a resisted slow, and leaves a buff icon which doesn't let you proc again on that mob.

So, by implication they either have no clue, or WANT to make the average warrior undesirable in exp groups, but leave the vocal minority of top end players with EB type weapons to keep them happy and sow dissent in the ranks.

Given the assumption that they don't really intend to change this, it's inadvisable for them to post on the warrior boards at all.

Sooner or later someone would ask them: "Cmon, this is so easy to fix, why don't you do it?" and how would they answer without giving the impression that they're incompetent or don't want to fix it?

[Zumbuk_FS]

To add on to that, the game NeverWinter Nights(and Im assuming 3rd Edition of D&D as well) has an ability named "Called Shot". You get two buttons, one for leg and one for arm. The Called Shot: Arm decreases the targets attack rating and strength. The Called Shot: Leg acts as a snare more or less.

Just giving us something along the lines of Called Shot:Arm would be great taunt. AC, ATK debuffs always aggro pretty well. But SoE would have to make it big enough and work often enough to make it a viable taunt increase.

[Bikamar]

But you're saying that people don't want you in groups.

/cry

This is wrong on so many levels it isn't funny. :(

[Superchum]

On the offchance Alan stops by to read this thread ...

A possible solution:

Give warriors an innate ability to imbue their weapon with a Ykesha-LIKE proc. A 0 second stun, with a spell interrupt.

The ability can work like the ranger line of imbue weapon spells, but it'll be an innate ability (sort like how monks get an innate ability allowing them to cast a fear spell or feign death spell).

This will give every warrior in the game the ability to do their job and not be locked into EB weapons.

This will give warriors with EB weapons another little edge, improving their overall character because they put in hard work to get better gear.

This will allow warriors more flexibility in weapons choices as they can go for DPS and not have to worry as much about taunt factor.

I'm sure the idea has flaws.

But eh, it's just an idea.

You can make the ability scale in effectiveness or duration or both as the warrior levels up, to deal with power and balance issues.

I know Ykesha procs have a long history with EQ and the warrior class. But it doesn't even have to be Ykesha. You can call it Battle Fury, or Battle Cry ... like Mob_01 is struck by the fury of Warrior_01's blade, or Mob_01 is sturck by the force of Warrior_01's battlecry.

Or something like that.

Eh ... like I said, on the offchance Alan peeks at this thread, there's one of my favorite ideas for improving the warrior class. By making it an innate ability, it cuts across all levels of warriors in all different kinds of gear. Meaning it'll have a large impact on the whole class.

So just tweak it to the point where it's not an overpoweringly obscene impact that skews the warrior class too far in one particular direction, and then it may actually be viable.

Unfortunately I have no ideas on how to deal with the "snap" aggro disparity.

I'm holding out hope that the new expansion will deal with that, and offer more melee centric encounters/monsters where the "knight's advantage" isn't so pronounced. In other words, I'm hoping the mobs are more like Ykesha mobs ... not pushovers, but certainly not the gang rapes some PoP mobs can be. And I'm hoping that there's lots of dungeons, where having the staying power of melee damage is useful, as opposed to the burst damage of casters.

No SoW ... no horses ... and the need to crawl ... those are the hopes I'm clinging to with the new expansion that could maybe HELP the melee classes achieve a better balance in the overall scheme of things.

[Zackulle]

No SoW ... no horses ... and the need to crawl ... those are the hopes I'm clinging to with the new expansion that could maybe HELP the melee classes achieve a better balance in the overall scheme of things.

Amen. I miss the days when exp was found in dungeons. outdoor exp zones are just no good.

To continue in the spirit of the thread I like the oh-so overstated idea of adding a fail message to tuant. I also liked the idea of adding a small agro multiplier to warrior attacks, altho I think that might even be a little to much, but perhaps adding it to primary hand attacks only, or something along those lines would work. Unhooking our discipline timers would be a damn nice bonus to, but I dont think they should be stackable. Also the imbue weapons idea is kinda neat, but it would definetly need to be scalled in some way. Maybe start at level 15 with a 15 damage no stun proc, then at say 35 its a 50 damage no stun proc, then at 50 get a 75 with a 0.0 stun, etc. scale up damage with levels, and no stun till a set level basicly.. and for the love of god dont make it an AA skill or a discipline.

[CyrzB]

Gut reaction on the "imbue weapon" skill....

If it's a skill, then it's subject to failure. Knights aren't subject to failure gaining aggro, unless they are OOM.

If you want to make it a skill, what about making it like a rogue poison... You apply it once, it procs. You apply it before the battle, and takes maybe 5-10 seconds to apply- This allows you to apply it while waiting for a pull. Maybe even make the application process subject to failure.

You concentrate upon your blade
Nothing happens

You concentrate upon your blade
You feel your blade fill with hatred.

Then, the actuall proc process would be unresistable. This would allow you to gain aggro in the critical first few seconds of a pull, meaning the slower doesn't get whacked when they immediately slow.

Target is struck by the force of your hatred.

What it DOESN'T allow for is for you to keep doing it and gain obscene amounts of aggro on a raid level mob, which I think any reasonable warrior would aggree would be rather overpowering. Raid level mobs is where our supierior Absorbtion, Mitigation, and HP really shine, exp level mobs are where we are rather tarnished.

[Daemonwynd]

I don't think the answer lies in procs. Procs are random, procs are purely luck based, and a run of back luck is a run of bad aggro is warriors right back where we started.

I think the answer lies in some sort of aggro generation on demand, within defined limits so that it is not as good as knight aggro generation on demand.

Make it something like a skill, Enraging Blow, as a low damage but high aggro weapon strike, or even a style of fighting, where the warrior exploits the most painful spots to hit on a mob in an effort not to kill the mob, but merely to piss it right the hell off. Make the damage, less. Make the aggro, very significant.

We need to get warrior aggro generation off of the unreliable procs and into something we can generate on demand, but, again, within limits, where the warrior still remains clerly inferior to knights in aggro capabilities, so as to not overshadow knights in XP groups.

[landrain]

Something that I thought of last night.

Weapon Fighting Styles - these would be 'spells' only one would be usable at a time, they would be unstackable, they would require training and they would get better as your skills/level get better. Some styles would only be available past certain level. They would create a 'buff icon' this would go in buff slot 22.

These would use melee skills we already have.

They would add:
+/- Atk, +/- AC, +/- Aggro Modifiers, +/- damage modifiers
A lot of things could be done like this, a lot of thought could be done into all these and more.

Some ideas i thought,

Two weapon style - adds atk, lowers ac, adds haste
Shield Style - lower atk, adds ac, increases a stun percentage to attks
Two handed style - adds atk, lower ac, increase damage
Dirty fighting- adds aggro, lowers ac, adds damage

just ideas...

[Slashurr]

I like that.. heh with dirty fighting we could get a new kick called "knee in groin" would be a stun =) Shorter races could get "bite the ankles"

[Redhenna]

Shorter races could get "bite the ankles"

That is awesome, I have a gnome warrior friend I will have to tell that to.

I started this thread in part because I believe that some one from the dev team reads here, and in hopes that person would be encouraged to start a little dialog, or at least say "hi, I do read what you suggest, and know your concerns". I do not consider it highly likely that it will happen, but figured it was worth a shot.

The thread itself has kinda gotten a little off topic, delving into some specific suggestions about how to solve warrior issues. The thing I note is that the suggestions here are not asking for the moon, they are feasable, probably not game breaking, and are being discussed reasonably and rationaly. I think that alone gives us a chance to get some dev attention.

So again, to Absor or any dev reading this: Please talk to us, tell us what we can possibly have and what you would consider game breaking or unbalancing. I am betting that if you do that, we can come up with some ideas that might improve the warrior class in a positive, game and class balanced maner.

[Kaspar]

"Give warriors an innate ability to imbue their weapon with a Ykesha-LIKE proc. A 0 second stun, with a spell interrupt."

I think I've read somewhere that you cannot add multiple procs to the same weapon? Correct me if I'm wrong. But this woud get in the way of most weapons.

Beyond that, I've also heard that straight DD procs add surprisingly little aggro. The only reason people seem to enjoy the new ykeshas are due to the zero second stun.

I agree with those above, the answer is not in procs. We need not be even more reliant on the RNG. As I see it, the major problem with the warrior class is that we're BASED on luck -- we rely on ONE thing to be productive: gear. So really, it comes down to dice rolls; dice rolls to get into a good guild, dice rolls to compete for spawns, dice rolls to get the gear, dice rolls to find a group to grind in, dice rolls to proc the bloody weapon, dice rolls to succeed at taunt. The reason warriors are broken is because a very skilled warrior is STILL going to kill his group if that dice roll goes bad.

Admittedly, all classes must rely on luck to a certain degree, but none are so fettered by it.

I love the "fighting styles" idea. This allows us to alter our role to be the tank or more DPS oriented, depending on the group makeup. It DEFENITELY increases our versatility while not increasing our utility, which is not the bailiwick of a specialist class like the warrior.

One concern would be to make sure it doesn't infringe on bard songs -- and simultaneously does not act as simply another discipline. It should not be timed, it should be a mode that you're always in until you switch.

I think there's really only need for four modes, however: +aggro (for grinding), +defense (for main tanking, or when aggro is being controlled), +offense (for when you're not acting as a tank, grinding OR raiding), and MAYBE a default mode where you're more or less balanced? Not sure if that last one is necessary.

[Superchum]

"I think I've read somewhere that you cannot add multiple procs to the same weapon? Correct me if I'm wrong. But this woud get in the way of most weapons."

Works fine for Rangers.

They get an imbue weapons spell.

And guess what the proc is?

Yup, 0 second stun/interrupt, with a DD component.

That spell + Earthcaller proc all the time when I hang out with my friend.

And it draws aggro like a sonuvagun.

I've also seen the paladin imbue weapon spell (bane of nife or whatever it's called, it's been a long time) + Ghoulbane proc at the same time and totally rip the crap out of some poor undead frogs.

In any event the only reason I suggest giving warriors an innate ability to imbue their weapons with an aggro proc LIKE a 0 second stun/interrupt is because it's something that would be EASY for them to code and implement and it's something that would be very effective.

If you already have a hate increasing weapon, this increases your effectiveness and your chance to proc.

If you don't this gives you the edge you need with something INNATE and not have to be beholden to gear. (Think about it ... this would allow you to use a Splitblade of Destruction and Windworn Handblade combo EFFECTIVELY and not lose any aggro ... you could go for better DPS and not be held back by the crutches of aggro inducing weapons procs like Frostbringer or Wavecrasher).

In any event, I don't think warriors are going to get SNAP aggro.

It's solely the domain of hybrids and casters. Or at least that's the direction that the game has gone.

It's a defense mechanism. Casting spells needs to get the attention of monsters, or else it would swing the game too far in a trivial direction.

And if they FIX the damn game some (like the monsters) to the point where SNAP aggro isn't completely freakin necesarry like it is in lazy PoP groups or in the tougher PoP zones, then the snap aggro abilities of hybrids won't be as unbalanced as they are now.

But an innate imbue weapons skill for a warrior will still be there, still be useful and still transcend the coming expansions.

It'll help warriors do their job better in the long run.

They just need to fix PoP aggro a bit, or gimp the mobs in PoP to deal with the current imbalance.

Or just release a new expansion where they've learned from these mistakes and things will even themselves out on their own.

[Dakkin]

Most people seem to feel endgame warriors are balanced okayish.

Their gear / weapons give them damage output and (more erratically) procs which allow a competent group to be safe and dish out reasonable damage.

Giving the average warrior an innate ability to gain significant extra hate over a sustained period (like an innate stun proc) would let the endgamers add this to their existing aggro and - probably - rivet raid mobs to themselves with /defensive on.

Sony's interest lies so much in balancing the "very high end of the game" that I can't see this happening.

The most I can see warriors reasonably being able to ask for is an innate ability to gain snap aggro once per mob, to get them through slows.

The average warrior then wouldn't be as desirable as an SK, but clerics and chanters would at least feel safe inviting them to group.

Having said all that, this isn't rocket science and must be well known to Sony. If they haven't balanced warriors already it's because they absolutely don't want to at this time.

Which is kind of a shame for all those people who made warriors because they liked the idea of tanking for groups.

[Eradani]

Answer those with the understanding that there doesn't appear to be any real need for any huge changes to any classes.

did everyone just skip over that part of his post?

[Kaspar]

"'Answer those with the understanding that there doesn't appear to be any real need for any huge changes to any classes.'

did everyone just skip over that part of his post?"

Quote it in context, Eradani.

"Answer those with the understanding that there doesn't appear to be any real need for any huge changes to any classes. I'm not asking you to tell me that you need to be able to nuke like a wizard and heal like a cleric, nor am I expecting you to introduce me to a new form of ability never seen before. Let's keep this to a realistic level, within the realm of the possible."

Obviously when he says no need for "any huge changes" he's referring to anything that significantly blurs the lines between classes. His defiinition of "huge" is probably more in line with "gamebreaking" than, say, "revolutionary".

I don't think SOE is afraid to fix things, even if it takes drastic measures. I don't even think they care about trivializing the content so much anymore as trivializing a section of the userbase. Admittedly, certain sections ARE trivialized at the moment, in various ways, but SOE is obviously more interested in considering sweeping changes now than they've been in ages.

[gulug]

I just find it strange that they are talking to druids when I don't think druids are having anywhere near the same problems as warriors are aware of apart from the impending changes to exp and that affects a lot of other solo classes.

Anyway, im glad a few people posted on that thread to signpost him here. Im sure he has seen this board, and read some of the threads. My only feeling is that they have not responded because its not something that they are considering doing at the moment or because its simply too complex a situation to resolve.

[kiztent]

Originally posted by Dakkin
The most I can see warriors reasonably being able to ask for is an innate ability to gain snap aggro once per mob, to get them through slows.

The average warrior then wouldn't be as desirable as an SK, but clerics and chanters would at least feel safe inviting them to group.

If you give warriors the one advantage that knight have over them what does that leave the knights with? Speaking as a knight from Velious, I can tell you: nothing

Should knights get the full line or warriors discs (like defensive) to make things more balanced? After all you're asking for the one thing we do well now - snap aggro, so why can we get better weapon caps, worthwhile discs and higher AC and HP on our gear.

[gulug]

Kiztent, knights from velious simply dont compare to knights now and it really irks me that people keep harking back to the bad old days.

The point is, even if we can get snap aggro once per fight, which is never likely to happen anyway, we can still lose aggro to overnuking etc etc. So the advantage of knights is that not only can they get snap aggro, but they can retain that aggro throughout the fight thereby allowing casters to unload to their hearts content.

THe other advantages are of course knight utility which has been repeated ad nauseam in other posts and which i wont bother to repeat here.

[kiztent]

Originally posted by gulug
Kiztent, knights from velious simply dont compare to knights now and it really irks me that people keep harking back to the bad old days.

The point is, even if we can get snap aggro once per fight, which is never likely to happen anyway, we can still lose aggro to overnuking etc etc. So the advantage of knights is that not only can they get snap aggro, but they can retain that aggro throughout the fight thereby allowing casters to unload to their hearts content.

Sorry, but I still remember the bad old days very well.

And I really don't think this is a good arguement. Warriors still have a number of sginificant advantages in tanking (discs, more HP/AC, better AAs). Right now, the conventional wisdom says snap aggro for quicker slows is important. Warriors have a disadvantage there, and are less desirable for groups. Removing that one perceived disadvantage will take us straight back to the bad old days again.

Tanking is a zero sum game. Every time a knight gets a group to tank, a warrior doesn't. At least now there is a meaningful difference - snap aggro versus durability - which is more important to you? Take away snap aggro and the knights will be left with nothing again. I don't get invited to groups to heal and I'm not invited for DPS either. I can't slow, buff or KEI. I tank. If warriors once again have all the advantages, there will be no reason to invite a knight to a group. That's the bad old days the knights don't want to see agan. So if we keep bringing it up in these discussions, there's a reason. We don't want to see it again.

I really don't buy the nukers and losing aggro arguement either. It looks like a straw man to me. Maybe I'm just not reading the right message boards.

[Oulurok]

And I really don't think this is a good arguement. Warriors still have a number of sginificant advantages in tanking (discs, more HP/AC, better AAs). Right now, the conventional wisdom says snap aggro for quicker slows is important. Warriors have a disadvantage there, and are less desirable for groups. Removing that one perceived disadvantage will take us straight back to the bad old days again.

Well I think when you chose to be a knight you knew that you were sacrificing the ability to tank for the ability to cast spells. So warriors SHOULD have a significant advantage in tanking, which we don't have in exp groups. If you think disc's give us an advantage, you are wrong. It gives us 3 minutes of an advantage ever 10 munutes or so depending on level. With all the mana regen that is in place now Knights can cast almost indefinatly if they know what they are doing. The hp/ac advantage warriors are supposed to have has diminished to the point were it's not noticable in exp groups. AA's aren't an issue because we can't get them without getting exp groups.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't get snap agro, but you sound like a kid that doesn't want to give up the sand box for dinner and will use any excuse you can think of. Don't keep us in out bad days because you of all classes should know how that feels.

[Valeris]

Tanking is a zero sum game. Every time a knight gets a group to tank, a warrior doesn't. At least now there is a meaningful difference - snap aggro versus durability -

Hahahahaa .

You checked what that durability difference means in real terms Kiz? 4-5 secs extra between heals perhaps? Halve that without immediate slowing....

I've washed my hands of it, basically i think the games just totally out of wack (aggro, slows, you name it), they'd need to redesign the whole thing to make things 'right' and they seem to buy into the idea that the status qou is fine anyway.

/shrug

I'm not holding my breath.

Lessee if you can beat 11 pages Red ;) G'luck :)

Val

[gulug]

Warriors still have a number of sginificant advantages in tanking (discs, more HP/AC, better AAs).


Better AAs? Lol. Correct me if im wrong but paladins have access to practically all the defensive AA's that warriors have - CA, CS, ND, PE, ID, LR, PD. Most warriors will tend to follow a defensive route first before picking up offensive AAs so really, there is not much difference there.

Discs - we are tied to mainly 1 disc. Defensive. 11 minute timer and I rarely use it in exp groups so what discs?

HP/AC - don't know what your current equipment loadouts are, but there isnt exactly a large difference between the two classes. Most pallys I know are probably 800 or so HPs behind me, but on about the same AC. Is that significant? 1 round of combat in tier 2? Thats raw HP difference. Dont forget that you have self HP buffs as well which stack with cleric sham buffs. Also LoH, plus heals.

Pallys and SKs aren't paper tanks. They arent taken on just because they can get snap aggro. If all they could do is get snap aggro but are such shitty tanks as you make out, making clerics go OOM every fight, then who the hell would want them? The fact is, with decent equipment (and Im not talking high end stuff) knights are perfectly acceptable tanks.

Heck a wizard in my guild was pissed recently because he got araid together for VS and found a SK had soloed him.

You say you cant buff. SKs have decent lifetap buffs for groups. Can snare and thats important in places like PoV. With a SK you dont need a separate puller because of FD.
pallys have Brells line. IN groups without clerics, pallys also have symbol. and dont forget rez. group heals. Crowd control via root. want me to go on?

Sure your not invited for DPS. YOu think warriors get invited because of their lewt dps? think again.

[Dakkin]

Keeping aggro through initial slow safely enough to be viable group tanks is not "the one advantage that knights have over warriors".

It's the key reason the average warrior doesn't get many groups, certainly.

But knights trivialise aggro control which is exactly what casters now want; many of them aren't prepared to accept anything else.

Letting the average warrior be at least a safe choice to tank for the minority of casters who are prepared to accept non-trivial aggro control and reduced killing speed won't change that.

[Redhenna]

Lessee if you can beat 11 pages Red

Somehow I don't think that is going to happen.

Tanking is a zero sum game. Every time a knight gets a group to tank, a warrior doesn't. At least now there is a meaningful difference - snap aggro versus durability -

The problem with this is that snap agro > durability. With a warrior MA, cleric rarely if ever runs 00m, with a knight MA, cleric rarely if ever goes 00m. In an exp situation, durability is not an issue assuming level appropriate gear.

No snap agro meens a better chance of deaths, which slow up the exp process as you rez and rebuff the dead slower, and allow them to med up. It meens lower overall group DPS, as DPS types carefully watch their agro. This is an issue.

Keeping aggro through initial slow safely enough to be viable group tanks is not "the one advantage that knights have over warriors".

This statement is true, but it does not tell the whole story in my opinion. I doubt very much that knights get many groups due to their utility abilities. Yes, they are there, and yes, they are significant, but no, they are not why knights get groups. Take away the knight edge in snap agro and the potential is there to put them back to second string tanks. I think the number one reason why there is yet to be any fix for warrior agro problems is simply that it has to be a huge problem to find a solution that leaves warriors and knights at the same level of desirability in groups.

[kiztent]

Originally posted by Redhenna
Keeping aggro through initial slow safely enough to be viable group tanks is not "the one advantage that knights have over warriors".

This statement is true, but it does not tell the whole story in my opinion. I doubt very much that knights get many groups due to their utility abilities. Yes, they are there, and yes, they are significant, but no, they are not why knights get groups. Take away the knight edge in snap agro and the potential is there to put them back to second string tanks. I think the number one reason why there is yet to be any fix for warrior agro problems is simply that it has to be a huge problem to find a solution that leaves warriors and knights at the same level of desirability in groups.

I agree with this. Are the warrior AAs better than the knight ones? I think they are. Most people think they are too - at least the perception exists that warriors are 'better' tanks in terms of HP and AC. As to the actual truth... who cares.

I've been turned down as a MA back in velious days because I wasn't a warrior with defensive. Well, the MA who was accepted was a 52 warrior. Even though warriors get defensive at 55, the sheer fact that they CAN get it made a difference. I don't think the fact that I tanked fine for an hour while the warrior was LD changed anyone's opinion either. I still got turned down as a MA because I didn't have defensive.

Facts don't matter here. Perception does. By trying to 'fix' the problem of knight snap aggro, you are addressing the wrong problem. DPS stacks, tanking doesn't.

Even the idea of different configurations, while it is interesting, won't fix the problem either. Either you out DPS rangers and rogues, which invalidates those classes, or you don't, which won't change grouping alternatives one bit.

If there's one slot for a tank and it's a knight or a warrior, or if it's just a warior, it's still fighting over one slot. I know we all know about piggyback aggro, but it's not significant to merit losing a DPS class. Solve that problem (that is, make 2 tanks better or the same exp as one tank) and you're probably going to make the game better for everyone.

Originally posted by Oulurok
I'm not saying we should or shouldn't get snap agro, but you sound like a kid that doesn't want to give up the sand box for dinner and will use any excuse you can think of. Don't keep us in out bad days because you of all classes should know how that feels.

You know, you would've been much better off without that cheap shot. I agree there are problems that need to be fixed - I've thought in real (but not perceived) terms the three minutes of glory didn't offset the losses it took to take it. But being human I can't resist a cheap shot in return. Warriors sound like a bunch of kids that have had the sandbox all to themselves for years and now that they have to share the tanking sandbox they are crying and want to take their toys home. Boo Hoo Hoo. Kunark is over. Velious is dead. Calling for knight nerfs or trying to retake lost ground by keeping warriors ahead of knights just keeps the class warfare going. Try to figure out how multiple tanks of ANY class can coexist in a group without squabbling over the one tank slot.

[Steenky]

Try to figure out how multiple tanks of ANY class can coexist in a group without squabbling over the one tank slot.

But, but, but... all we do is tank. We can't offer anything else to the group other than that. I would hope that a reasonable person could look from outside the sandbox and see the problem that exists.

So a warrior would like to be able to get beat on with some consistancy while in a group. I don't think this is a far-fetched or member-measuring request. It's all we can do. There is no skill that can affect this, only the RNG.

In a fairy tale world all the tanking classes would be able to give an equal amount of benefit to their group. In the Sony world this is not so at this time. BTW the snap-aggro that knights are enjoying today was a bane to them prior to the last expansion. It was not considered a good thing. Stuns were for stopping casters, not aggro dominence.

As far as trying to figure it out, I'll point you to the pages and pages of discussion about this issue on every single message board. People have been having this same discussion since a week after PoP came out.

[Oulurok]

Most people think they are too - at least the perception exists that warriors are 'better' tanks in terms of HP and AC. As to the actual truth... who cares.

Um...warriors care.

I apologise if you thought I was making a cheap shot. I did not intend it that way in the least.

I don't think anyone here is saying that we should dominate the proverbial sand box, just be as desirable as our tank conterparts. Link Steenky said, all we do it tank. Even though Knights aren't being asked to group for there utility it doesn't mean they don't have it. Personally I don't want nerfs of any class and I don't think I implied that either. What I'd like is a slight increase in agro generated from Warrior crits. We would still be slave to the RNG and I don't think we would infring on anyone else 'turf'. It would also scale as far as gear and level goes, for higher levels with better gear would get more crits. Just a thought.

[Glatius2]

Yes, they are there, and yes, they are significant, but no, they are not why knights get groups. Take away the knight edge in snap agro and the potential is there to put them back to second string tanks. I think the number one reason why there is yet to be any fix for warrior agro problems is simply that it has to be a huge problem to find a solution that leaves warriors and knights at the same level of desirability in groups.

I don't completely agree, at least not with regards to Paladins. PoP and LoY introduced some very significant spell enhancements for Paladins. They have two very nice HoTs now they didn't have prior to PoP and two very nice fast casting direct heals as well. As long as a Paladin doesn't have less snap aggro than a Warrior, he will continue to be a perfectly viable tank. Hardly a second choice because you don't need the full HP and AC of a Warrior if you can slow right away. Therefore there is no need to prefer a Warrior over a Paladin. And with the additional HP Paladins have hidden in their mana bar, they actually have far more HP potential than a Warrior, simply because they can heal themselves to a degree as need be.

The only time Paladins would become a second choice is if there was a clear advantage in the Warrior's greater HP, and frankly, it just isn't there any more.

[Redhenna]

You are right Glatius to a certain extent. What I think the problem would be tho is that if knights lost their edge in agro, the perception would be(innacuratly to my mind) that they are now second choice for tank spots. Part of the reason knights are so adamant in denying their abilities outside of agro is simply because those do not get them groups. They get groups because they have an edge in agro.

As others have brought up in different places, one solution to all our problems would be a way to make tank stacking desirable. Frodlin has an idea that is kinda neat(too late now to look for it and link it), tho I do not think it would fix all our problems.

Edited becuase I spelled Glatius name wrong(oops).

[Glatius2]

What I think the problem would be tho is that if knights lost their edge in agro, the perception would be(innacuratly to my mind) that they are now second choice for tank spots.

Well, yes, perception could be an issue. Which is why I feel a Paladin needs to retain at least a small edge in snap aggro. However, if there is a concern that the perception that the Paladin might be a second class tank is so important, then why can't people admit the reality that lack of snap aggro has made the Warrior, for a fact, a second class tank? Could we send our naysayers over to PoN to explain to Paladins how things aren't broken once the fix, whatever that is, goes in?

It seems were debating what might be when what really needs to happen is to fix what is. What might be can be addressed when we cross that bridge.

[Redhenna]

It seems were debating what might be when what really needs to happen is to fix what is.

Well said. I think we were also debating a minor point, as almost no one denies that warriors are a broken class right now. I do think that knights need to maintain some edge in agro, it just has to be small enough that we are wanted back in exp groups. My only points was, that I felt that the problem SoE was facing, and why they have not rushed to change things, is they are worried about breaking knights again. At this point in time tho, I am most concerned with them at least doing something for us.

[Zackulle]

I really dont think the solution has anything to do with knights. The way I see it what needs to change is simply how fast a warrior can grab agro. There has been endless suggestions thrown around this board, adding a small hate bonus to warrior melee attacks, an imbue weapons type thing, I think that maybe just increasing the rate at which tuant is successfull alone would be a huge help. Becuase the bottom line is Tuant doesnt work often enough to save a dying slower a good portion of the time. I did a little experiment tonight, I tried just not using tuant, and I really didnt notice all that phenominal of a difference in my agro generation. I think its sad that I can not use the only skill I have that is supposedly meant to generate agro and still hold agro nearly as well. Yes tuant makes a difference, but not enough of one at this point. Knights dont need to be changed, snap agro is the biggest thing they have going for them. What warriors need is the ability to HOLD agro once they have it, and maybe be able to grab it faster than we currently can.

[Dakkin]

Meaning no disrespect to anyone, looking at some of the posts here I think there's some danger of people getting confused about the different aspects of getting and holding aggro. To summarise which is which:


1 - Getting one-off snap hate early in the fight to keep aggro off the slower

Knights can do this, currently many many warriors can't because the equipment they'd need for it isn't common enough.

This is the main reason the average warrior isn't safe to group with in PoP.

An unresistable proc on bash/kick designed to generate fixed hate, but only allowed to proc once per mob would do this.


2 - Emergency snap aggro to get mobs off casters

This is what the taunt key is for. It's not guaranteed, but it works much of the time.

Many warriors have AE taunt too now which IS guaranteed to work, so long as you don't have to use it at frequent intervals.

It remains to be seen if (1) above is done, whether it would really be necessary to upgrade warrior taunt.


3 - Locking aggro so exp groups can ignore aggro control issues

Few if any warriors can do this, and it would require very major changes to itemisation or innate abilities to let them.

Being able to slow and chain nuke the instant the mob hits camp (or before) is the main reason an average equipped knight is preferred even over endgame warriors as a group tank.

Many aggro control discussions (including this one) get derailed by people failing to distinguish between keeping aggro through slows at the start of a fight (so your MT is viable to group with), and locking aggro throughout the fight while casters chain nuke (trivialising aggro so the group can maximise DPS).

These are not the same things.


4 - Locking aggro on endgame MTs with /defensive on

Most people agree high end itemisation makes endgame warriors pretty well balanced for aggro control.

Adding innate abilities to retain solid aggro in exp groups for the average warrior might well make it trivial for endgame warriors to retain aggro with /defensive on on raids.

So any proposal to give warriors an innate boost to their sustained aggro holding abilities is likely to be nixed by Sony.


Lesson ends ... and now you can go on with your discussion. :)

[kiztent]

Originally posted by Oulurok

Most people think they are too - at least the perception exists that warriors are 'better' tanks in terms of HP and AC. As to the actual truth... who cares.
Um...warriors care.

Sorry, I meant that the reality wasn't at all relevant to the perception. And it's the perception that drives group dynamics. Just like the bad old days when a warrior was assumed to be the "only" tank, even if they had fewer HP and lower AC by sole virtue of being a warrior, now too the knight is the "better" tank because they have better snap aggro - even if the knight is an undergeared retard and the warrior is in endgame gear with 2 EB weapons and 305 buffed dex who pretty much procs at will.

Warriors will always be perceived as having more HP and AC, true or not. It just doesn't make a difference to the poeple trying to fill a tank slot in a group right now.

Originally posted by Oulurok
In a fairy tale world all the tanking classes would be able to give an equal amount of benefit to their group. In the Sony world this is not so at this time. BTW the snap-aggro that knights are enjoying today was a bane to them prior to the last expansion. It was not considered a good thing. Stuns were for stopping casters, not aggro dominence.

Maybe I live in a different world, but shadowknights were very bitter about the changes to aggro from disease counters for a very long time. As far as they were concerned, it was the only thing shadowknights could provide - instant snap aggro to save someone who overaggroed. Given the reality then - they were right.

And I don't think the world has anything to do with Sony. The powergamers decide who the "best" classes are and where the "fastest" exp is. Anything else is inferior.

I'm not saying warriors need a PR campaign like: "warriors: because HP still matter" but it will probably be more effective than most changes Sony could make, albeit silly.

[bryath]

Ok dont go getting offended, I have a 65 warrior and while I would not say that I have agro issues there are certainly times when taunt fails and I dont get any procs and the chanter goes bye bye. However on the whole I would say I hold agro just fine, yes knights get the snap instant agro and you are not going to pull it off them unless they get lazzy. However I hardly think that it is as big a deal as some of you are making it, I have never been told oops sorry we just got a knight dont need you afterall. Perhaps I have been lucky but I see knights lfg for hours right along with warriors, I think the real problem with that is there are to many tanks now a days.

What I would like to do is ask how our situation is any different from a rogues? Rogues main competition in their field(DPS) is the monk and now due to bow dmge the ranger. Both the monk and the ranger are effective pullers the rogue is not, how then do you pick wich class to add to your group? Take a wizzard as competition for the rogue then since if the other two can pull and the rogue cannot perhpas it is unfair to compare them. What does the wizzard have over a rogue for dps? Instant dps, rogues take longer to do damage then nukers. In the days before PoP that made rogues much more desireable because they could do tons of dmge and have very little agro problems. Now with fights lasting such a short time it is better to have a wizz to do major damage than a rogue to just get warmed up and see the mob die?

So should the rogues be crying for a fix? Perhaps they are I dont know the point I am trying to make is that class balancing is just that a balancing act and they will never(soe) get it to the point where all classes are happy. I am very happy with my role as tank, if I lose out to a knight for an xp group... so be it, i will get the next group. We do have the defensive disc crutch to keep us essential for most boss mob raids. But then again the paladins get those mega nice group heals for raid lvl AE's, SK's are pulling more often in my guild at least because they can take the beating and still get the mob to us and FD.

Yes there will always be issues but for the love of god stop making it sound like we are broken when we are not. If you increase our agro potential you will trivialize the game. We were never meant to have instant and unshakeable agro, which is what you are all bitching about. Yes you are, dont give me that we just want a small boost for snap agro garbage. Agro is everyones problem and if you have been playing with crap players that cannot understand that then I guess I feel for you, however I hardly think that we should dummy the game for everyone so that we can get along with garbage players. For every crap player out there is someone who wants to learn and get better. You can now flame me all you like with the crap players out number the good ones, why should anyone have to work harder because of one class tanking then another? Why?? Because it is a game and if you remove the challange of skill(agro control) from it, well if you want to play a trivialized game where all you have to do is worry about keeping one guy up for fights/raids hey have fun. Yes perhaps knights are more wanted for xp groups atm, but are we not more wanted for raids?

Not everyone raids, this is true but I have yet to see a group sitting at zone in waiting for any length of time for a knight to show up lfg when a warrior is already there lfg.

[friss]

My main is a enchanter, and I perfer a warrior to the hybrids if I go to a new zone that I do not know yet. Other then that all 3 tank classes can do a good job and the key word is can do a good job. Some warrior are lazy, or in tell hell and just hit attack then cry when they can not hold agro.

My old guild leader was a warrior and the only warrior in the guild with hate weapons when pop came out. He also had twice the amount of AA's over any other warrior in the guild. For a long time I could not understand why my enchanter used to take such a beating when he was tanking in our experience grps, while other warriors from my guild had no trouble holding agro with none hate weapons. Well guess what when we entered BOT and he wanted to clear a area so we can kill that named mob for a rune, I could cast any spell I wanted and never get agro. After the mob was dead I would start taking a beating again.

It takes three things to be a good warrior, gear, AA's and a brain because to hold agro you have to do more then hit attack, knowing when to taunt , kick, weapon shield, aoe taunt all play a big roll in making a great or bad warrior.

Warrior complain that hybrids are getting into grps because of agro control, but this is not the main reason. A SK in a easy tanking zone is nice to have for one reason MANA, that mana buff is very nice and it allows the ench and cleric to DD a lot more. As for a paladin the main reason to pick him over a sk or warrior are for the rare times you have a druid as the main healer and every grp needs one class that can res.

Most buffs or utility spells mean nothing for a grp, the only ones that casters love are the mana regen spells.

In a new zone while you are learning the placement and pathing of the mobs, a warrior is far better then a hybrid, because aoe taunt and defense disc, weapon shield and just the ability to take damage better is far more important then any spells hybrids have.

[Varatho]

Mana management is a player skill.

That didn't stop SoE from putting FT, mana-preservation, and more mana-regen spells into the game to make it more bearable on the unskilled, ignorant, and lazy masses of unwashed heathens playing now did it?

[Varatho]

Originally posted by friss
weapon shield


Are you sure you are talking about warriors here and not, oh I don't know, RANGERS who have the weapon shield /disc?

[bryath]

Ok Varaho damn good point, you got me there. Guess I am just sick of hearing from every warrior I meet how broken we are. Irritates me to no end, I think we are fine just people in general need to play the game and not just coast through it. Perhaps I am asking to much for people to enjoy the challenge of agro control. Specially considering your point of Mana management and how it was dummied.

[Glatius2]

Perhaps I am asking to much for people to enjoy the challenge of agro control. Specially considering your point of Mana management and how it was dummied.

Say I'm a Cleric. And say I want to make an AAXP point or two before my guild calls me in to go raid the Stay Puffed Marshmellow Man. So, I'm looking to chill out a little because old Marshy is one mean SoB. Now I have a choice. I can grab you, as a Warrior, and have no idea if you have enough gear to take a prolonged beating, have no idea if you have the weapons to hold aggro well, and I know that even if you do, there are going to be occassions where they just don't work.

Or, I can grab Paladin X (similar in looks to Racer X, for you Speed Racer fans). Paladin X might not have great gear either. But I know for a fact that if Paladin X has a clue and isn't just playing a Warrior with spell icons he never uses, that Paladin X can grab aggro and hold it. The slower can slow right away and the chances are very good that I'm never going to take a major bonk upside my Clerical, lookin to be chillin, head. And the slower will be in chill heaven as well, since he won't be getting a free trip to his bind point.

Now, why, oh why would I pick the Warrior? DPS? Couldn't care less, DPS is why I'm grabbing a Rogue, a Mage, and a Wizard. Screw Warrior DPS, it's irrelevant. HP? Hell, I don't know how many HP you have. It might be enough for the slower to slow later. It might not. I have no clue. I know you're a risk though, a complete gamble. You may be Joe Uber. You could be Neal N00b. And since I can't be sure which you are, I'm not inclined to select you based on HP. HP which if you're Neal N00b, I know for sure that Paladin X, if he's actually Joe Uber, can easily match or exceed.

So why else might I take you? Do you have really cool emotes or something? Do you have snappy inc messages? Are you a Troll and dance to entertain us? What can you do that Paladin X can't do better or so close to as well that it makes no difference?

Oh and hey, in case you didn't know it, when I'm off watching the tube for a few crucial seconds because some babe in a tight skirt came on the screen, just as Paladin X's HP were getting into the danger zone, he can even toss himself a couple of fast heals, thereby letting my little distraction not cause a wipe. Paladin X gets the thumbs up, wouldn't you say?

[friss]

oops I meant shielding ability not weapon shield. But I am not surprised that some people were confused because I swear half the tanks out there never heard of shielding.

[bryath]

I see your point, I truly do. But just because someone is better at agro than we are does not mean that we are broken. Do a little test, how many tanks(knights and warriors) are in a zone compared to say clerics, shamans, rogues. The tanks are far outnumbering the other classess, at least when i go to xp they are. This just escalates the problem, and to be honest yeah they will take a knight if they want the easy laid back no thrills xp grind. WHile there is nothing wrong with that, I for one enjoy a challenge and if it means that we all as a group have to not watch TV and play at the same time then hey that is how I like to play. I dont want it handed to me on a silver platter, I dont think anyone who would call themsleves a gamer would, perhaps I am totally wrong. But are you suggesting that we are a broken no good class because knights can hold and get agro so much better than us?

[Varatho]

It amazes me when people ask "WTF?" after they see someone being /shielded.

[bryath]

The thing that most amazes me is when the person getting beat on, runs around screaming 'TAUNT, TAUNT WTF WHY ARE YOU NOT TAUNTING?' That is annoying.

[Apothes Drudoll]

Why not just add this to the knight class.

if Knight is ungrouped not in a raid and mobs hate list = only knight then offensive spells produce normal aggro.
else
Offensive spell aggro is 3/4 of normal aggro.

That should level the laying field and knights will still have their spells that affect mobs and such and can still taunt. I am of the opinion aggro for tank classes should be about the same since the current tank classes mitigate and have close to the same # of hp's. Now if they change pop mob dmg and hp’s to be more like luclin then the point would be moot and agro is not such a big deal in most cases.

[Tsaotsao]

It's been yet another great discussion on warrior issues.

But, alas, we are still NDT (No Dev Team) as the discussion goes.

Don't get your hopes up guys. I do love the discussion, but we all know it's academic.

Prove me wrong Absor.

Tsaotsao
L59 Warrior
DK
Terris Thule

[Velyssa]

At this point the only reason I can see that it isn't addressed is they don't know what to say. The problem is legitimate. However, if they do anything for warriors the other tank classes are going to have a fit. And I suppose we deserve that. I mean, three expansions ago we did have it pretty good. Three expansions ago.

When I get tired of it, I play my twinks until I can face my warrior again for a little while. Things may be fine for the 5% of the warriors that play this game that are in the top guilds, because they have the gear. But most of us will never see that loot, never get those weapons, and we still faithfully plunk down our money every month to throw ourselves into it over and over again, and hope and hope and hope. Personally, I do not think I should be required to join an uberguild to get the basic gear needed to do my job effectively.

I guess it would just help to know that the people we give that money to are listening. Give us a chance to dialogue like the druids get to. Our issues are just as valid, we are quite polite, and we don't want things like the ability to rez.

[Kaspar]

Glatius:

Incredibly well said. I AM a cleric and that's exactly how I (and virtually every other cleric I know) looks at it. And let's face it, more often than not the cleric gets to choose what kind of tank you get since he's the one that's gotta heal him.

Friss:

A couple things.

"It takes three things to be a good warrior, gear, AA's and a brain..."

Yes, intelligence and quickwittedness helps. But the fact that warriors are so dependent on two things that are not intrinsic to their class (unlike knight spells) is one of the main unbalancing issues. It's not that gear and AA's shouldn't help, but they shouldn't make or break a warrior, and at this point, lack of these two items (or even just one of them) inarguably breaks them. Besides, I'm all for playing your character with awareness but the point is, knights are like, in terms of tanking, the old world "dr00d" -- to whom it doesn't take any effort OR awareness to manage aggro. When warrior_01 can work his ass off and still not produce the aggro control that paladin_01 whose barely paying attention can, that's inbalanced.

"Warrior complain that hybrids are getting into grps because of agro control, but this is not the main reason. A SK in a easy tanking zone is nice to have for one reason MANA..."

Superior aggro control, combat buffs, excellent pulling abilities, hell, even corpse summoning is a perk analagous to having a rezzer in non-PoP grinds,.

"As for a paladin the main reason to pick him over a sk or warrior are for the rare times you have a druid as the main healer and every grp needs one class that can res."

Very true that these are good reasons to pick a paladin. Don't forget superior aggro control, passable pulling abilities, an HP buff that stacks with almost everything, VERY useful group heals. Keep in mind I say this as a cleric. Paladin group heals are something I ADORE as a cleric. It especially works well with Divine Arbitration, and for overpulls.

"Most buffs or utility spells mean nothing for a grp, the only ones that casters love are the mana regen spells."

Wrong again. Casters, I'm sure you'll agree upon reflection, very much appreciate aggro control spells (aggro multipliers and stuns), Brells, and group heals. I doubt you'd have many casters claim they didn't love Feign Death when your SK puller gets an add on his way back to camp. And like both you and I mentioned, rez and corpse summon might not be used terribly often, but you're ALWAYS thankful when they turn out to be necessary.

"In a new zone while you are learning the placement and pathing of the mobs, a warrior is far better then a hybrid, because aoe taunt..."

What if the warrior doesn't have Area Taunt?

"and defense disc..."

Which can only be used every 10 minutes or so, so it is admittedly useful when you're in trouble, but certainly can't be used on every mob.

"[/shield]..."

Which is absolutely worthwhile, but needs tuning to make it more versatile, like a slightly larger range.

"and just the ability to take damage better..."

I believe it's been proven through extensive parsing that the warrior defensive bonus turns out to be about 1.5% less hits taken than knights. And other than that, identical. (I might have the number wrong, or the fact that it might be mitigation instead of avoidance. Correct me if I messed it up, please.)

"[These are] far more important then any spells hybrids have."

I hope I've trivialized the value of these and built up the importance of hybrid spells enough to show you how most people DO see the situation. Because really, the issue isn't even which is better or worse -- if people THINK warriors are inferior, they will not get groups. That's the problem. Warriors are not getting groups.

[Dokor]

To be honest i really don't want to see another dev come here and tell us that warrior are working as intended.
I'm sur they are well aware of our problem (well at least i hope so) but the problem is that they did their balancing work so well that if they touch us that would nearly unbalanced every other melee class of the game.

[Oulurok]

...but the problem is that they did their balancing work so well that if they touch us that would nearly unbalanced every other melee class of the game.

How exactly did they do the balancing so well?

With every expansion and patch casters (including hybrids) get more spells, upgraded spells, spell tweaks, to supposedly help balance them against the norm (warrior). Along with that comes the fall of the warrior class as it falls farthur and farthur behind in dps, defense (since defense gets upgraded with spells as well), and general apeal for groups.

I was able to level up kinda fast, but that is because I am able to exp during odd hours when there aren't alot of people active on the server. Most groups will take any kind of tank at that point just to get started on exp'ing. When I try to group during peak hours, I'm /lfg for hours running from zone to zone shouting. Looking in the lfg window doesn't show many knights, but sure does show 3 to 6 wars almsot always.

[Daemonwynd]

Originally posted by Dokor
To be honest i really don't want to see another dev come here and tell us that warrior are working as intended.
I'm sur they are well aware of our problem (well at least i hope so) but the problem is that they did their balancing work so well that if they touch us that would nearly unbalanced every other melee class of the game.

Another dev? Are you saying devs have come here saying the warriors are working as intended?

Here's what casters have gotten, including hybrids. I'm talking since Velious:

Flowing Thought
Focus Items
(Hybrids) Upgraded weapons, both one handed and two handed, including MANY knight only weapons - nearly eliminates the DPS gap. 1handers alone, a 50% (or more) increase in dam/dly over war's.
Vastly increased mana regen through new an improved buffs (allows them to case more spells, more often) (c5, new bard songs, SP/SD, and self mana regen buffs on items and spells) as well as said spells getting more common
New and improved stuns, buffs, heals, dots, etc, FIVE entire levels of them in PoP plus various in each expansion
Increased defensive skill caps as per the last melee rebalancing.
Access to 99.9% of plate armour along with warriors, no matter how good it is.

Here's what warriors got:

EB as a "patch effort" to work on warrior aggro issues
/shield as a "patch effort" to work on warrior aggro issues
a taunt "fix" as a "patch effort" to work on warrior aggro issues
Increased skill caps, slightly more than hybrids, as per the last melee rebalancing, difference is not noticeable.
improved 2hs along with hybrids. Not they're used, except by the very top end warriors.


Sounds like we're getting bent over, to me.

[Gerick]

Originally posted by kiztent
If you give warriors the one advantage that knight have over them what does that leave the knights with? Speaking as a knight from Velious, I can tell you: nothing

Should knights get the full line or warriors discs (like defensive) to make things more balanced? After all you're asking for the one thing we do well now - snap aggro, so why can we get better weapon caps, worthwhile discs and higher AC and HP on our gear.

hmmmm, lets see you gave up some of your tanking power for some buff/healing power you are SUPPOST to (pardon the lack of a better word) suck at everything that a warrior can do because you are a jack of 2 trades and master of NONE.

the thing is your ment for DSP and not agro in any way shape or form, you get extremely nice 1 handers, extremely nice lances and so on and so forth, with your self buffs you are neck and neck with a warrior, warriors had to buy gear to get as far as a knight gets with most self spells, on top of that using your 2 hander (bash, slash, pierce) plus flash of steel and you get triple attacks, god sakes man your already as good as a warrior minus a few HP's all you need is a cleric to watch over you and your as effective if not more so than any other tank.

(if this offends anyone i beg you to go to playerauctions and buy a pally and a warrior, get them to the same level and see who gets a group quicker post 54*for anyone who cant tell this is my raving jack-ass way of sayin bite me*) :rolleyes:

/rant off


--edit here--
ive notice people bring up AoE and /shield

shield isnt agro, lets move that outa the way now

as for AoE taunt im sooo glad the people saying its useful are pally because they have no idea, saw a warrior use it in the graveyard in PoI yesterday while tanking, it got his mob, my mob and another one another group was fighting, the slower was dead, all 3 of em gang raped the warrior and the commenced raping the rest of the graveyard, this is a sorry skill if ever was one.

[friss]

You guys forget something, that is very important to SOE, they want a healthy population in each class and will sweeten the pot to get people to play that class to high lvl's.

I know a lot of people think balance means equality, but what is good about equal if we go back to velious times and nobody is willing to play hybrids and casters.

Do pure melee need some changes, yes but for the most part a warrior does a very good job tanking in raids and in exp grps, he just has to work at it a little harder. But I can not see us go back to the old days where only a warrior could tank in exp grp in seb during kunark times, if that is what you want forget it those days are over.

At least in tactics and down, pop mobs are not that tough any ranger, BL, monk, can all do a very fine job tanking in a exp grp if they have the AA's. And in some ways a BL is one of the best tanks, not only can he buff the grp but the fast casting lvl 65 slow rules for getting agro and keeping agro. All the complaining that melee made about rage, just ended up nerfing the mobs so the weaker melee classes can tank then very well.

Are warrior wanted in every exp group, no why should a grp get a warrior when you can get almost any melee class that has a higher dps, and brings buffs, and allows a faster kill rate, and less down time.

In the end it is all about the amount of experience a grp can get an hour, and for the last few weeks I found rangers and BL acting as MT can net me over an aa per 60 to 80 min in places like hoh and tactics.

I can see nothing they can give warrior would put them back on top like when pop first came out other then bringing back rage.

[Eoden]

Originally posted by Gerick
as for AoE taunt im sooo glad the people saying its useful are pally because they have no idea

There are times to use AE Taunt and times not to use it.

Any warrior who thinks that a taunt with 100% success rate when used correctly even with a long recycle time isn't useful is a fool.

[Dokor]

How exactly did they do the balancing so well?

I was ironic

Another dev? Are you saying devs have come here saying the warriors are working as intended?

Well yes, i couldn't tell you wich one came here to explain us how warrior was working as intented, but yes a dev came here once (i know it's hard to believe)

[Glatius2]

Any warrior who thinks that a taunt with 100% success rate when used correctly even with a long recycle time isn't useful is a fool.

Oh, it's certainly useful. However, it isn't as useful as some would have us believe, since you can only use it once ever 15 mintues. Nice to have, a definite asset, no doubt about it. But not something you can use just whenever you please.

[friss]

Any grp that needs aoe taunt more then once every 15 min should get out of that zone, since the person doing the CC and slowing sucks

[Gerick]

or just get a %#)%ing pally right?

[holodmer]

well after all what I found here and on other baords ...

... I think it wont be good to raise Warriors HP/AC over others melees at this point, sure we should be the Master of taking damage, but this isnt going to happen ...

... EQ is to much based on gear to change it at this point


100% working instand agro wont be good as well, would make things to easy

the largest problem for warriors is lack of agro to keep mob away when hes slowed, and I though about something that could fix that ...



change taunt a bit, but dont make it 100% reliable

Taunt should have 2 functions for warriors only

short range :
- just like it is, maybe up its successrate a bit

long range:
- give taunt lets say 150 range
- when successful move the player to top agro and add 5 pts agro for each level
- autobreak root spells on the mobs when successful (that way you cant root a mob and boost your hate into space)
- it would NOT add agro pts once your in melee range of the taunted mob, just regular taunt
- it wont work after a mob has 2k (just to call a number here) agro on someone (that way you cant use it for tank switches)

this would add 325 agro for a level 65 warrior ... (add the snare and stuff agro from the puller) ... this would give us the ability to at least keep agro while mob is being slowed ...

it wont be to powerful, and cant be used to gain more agro while fighting, since it wont add agro while the target is in melee range

it wont change raiding much at all, maybe change the initial engage a little bit, thats all



Holodmer
65th Dwarven Warrior of Discordia
Tallon Zek

[slyse]

I think many people are missing the whole point of conflict between warriors and hybrids, which seems to be snap aggro in the first 10-15 seconds of a pull (talking xp groups here, mind you).

...for the most part a warrior does a very good job tanking in raids and in exp grps...

And that's really the issue. We keep getting turned back to tanking overall in xp groups when that seems balanced, at least to my eyes. Sure, knights can hold aggro against a wizard going at a_mob_01 in full burn mode, but for me and most warriors I know, full burn mode is what it takes to get the thing off me after the initial ping pong. Yes, there are exceptions, but most of the time, everyone in the group can just cruise once I finally get the thing turned to me.

But wait...finally? What do you mean finally, Slyse? What happens at the beginning of the fight?

Well, a_mob_01 runs over to the slower, hits him, runs to the cleric, hits him for healing the slower after that resist, turns to me for a split second as taunt finally works, then immediately runs back to the slower until I can build enough hate to keep everything stable. That's the problem.

I know it's already been said, but I'm just trying to keep everyone's eyes on the prize. Hell, I'll make it even easier; read Glatius' post.

And to hit a couple of points for my own satisfaction...

Shield

Come off it. Please. Everyone knows it's just a halfassed attempt to get warriors to quiet down. It doesn't give us aggro, its range sucks, and, in my opinion, it's just not worth it. (don't tell me it's free, I know it is. but considering the damage the mobs in question do, how often is a 25% reduction going to save one that would die otherwise? not that many times).


[AE taunt] is a sorry skill if ever was one.

It's been addressed already. But damn.

[holodmer]

not to pick on words, but shield is 50% reduce for the shielded person not 25%, while youself take 75% of the original damage :p

with some AA it last 48 seconds ... 48 seconds 50% melee damage reduced on someone is pretty good, but still your rigth, it isnt what we need in order to make a warrior the prefered tank again

Holodmer
65th Dwarven Warrior of Discodia
Tallon Zek

[Rylaa]

I actually find it interesting that they put in AAs for /Shield....is it just me or does this not show that they already knew taunt was a huge problem? 48 seconds without being able to get agro back is a long time! That's what...8 taunts?
Just a random thought.

[friss]

Warrior used to be a perferred tank for one reason, no other class was able to do the job. Quess what most melee classes can do the job, now with the right gear and AA's. So unless they bring back rage or make the mobs tougher to tank a warrior is just one more melee that can do the job. If a cleric only needs to heal once per fight what difference does it make what class you pick since they are using the same amount of mana for all classes of melee

[Lessiter1]

I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll post it again here:

1. Raise taunt cap to 250
2. Lower AoE taunt recycle time to 2 minutes

Problem solved


Next:

Sony must be well aware of warrior aggro problems in PoP

They'd better be. I've been /feedback'ing it every time I log in for the last 7 months, asking for the above 2 fixes. I'd urge you to do the same. Not necessarily with the above 2 suggestions, but at least /feedback that they need to do something about taunt.

[slyse]

1. Raise taunt cap to 250
2. Lower AoE taunt recycle time to 2 minutes

Problem solved

How does that solve the problem? It gives those warriors with a minimum of 23 aa a way to get aggro every 2 minutes. As has been stated before, an aa fix is not the way to go. It won't fix warriors at lower levels, and it won't fix warriors like me at the higher levels who don't have the time to get the aa, or get the aa slowly.

As for the shield thing, yeah, I got the numbers mixed, up, but it was 5 in the morning =P