A question for Absor

[Battleblade]

I realize that the impact of the recently announced melee changes are unknown and that class role and balance questions may be premature, but

In principle, will Warriors continue to be "unmatched in their ability to survive the most brutal battles." and have an improved Taunt ability to so that they can competatively make ".... themselves the focus of all their enemies' attacks..."?

In otherwords, does the Warrior Class Description (http://eqlive.station.sony.com/library/classes.jsp) still apply?

Reassuring the Warrior class, you once stated:
Also, warriors will always have the broadest selection of weapons and armor.

Warriors will still have a significantly larger amount of hit points.

Their role as primary tank will not be endangered. - Absor 10/01

Still true?


I'm merely asking the question, Warriors will have to live with the answer if it's given.

BB

[newtank]

Originally posted by Battleblade
I realize that the impact of the recently announced melee changes are unknown and that class role and balance questions may be premature, but

In principle, will Warriors continue to be "unmatched in their ability to survive the most brutal battles." and have an improved Taunt ability to so that they can competatively make ".... themselves the focus of all their enemies' attacks..."?

In otherwords, does the Warrior Class Description (http://eqlive.station.sony.com/library/classes.jsp) still apply?

Reassuring the Warrior class, you once stated:

Still true?


I'm merely asking the question, Warriors will have to live with the answer if it's given.

BB

You linked the description from everquest live...isn't that the playstation version of eq?

[Battleblade]

Noper, but thanks for bumping the thread.

NN

[newtank]

Originally posted by newtank
You linked the description from everquest live...isn't that the playstation version of eq?


OK got mislead by cheesy graphics on the sony site here is the war description (bolds my emphasis)



Warrior
Warriors are the masters of armed combat and defense, taking the point in battles and going head-to-head with the most dangerous creatures of Norrath. Warriors are a melee class with the ability to wear plate armor and wield all types of weapons.

Warriors build their strength and stamina to unheard of levels, making them far hardier than any other class. When combined with their heavy armor and excellent defensive skills, warriors are unmatched in their ability to survive the most brutal battles. Warriors train themselves in the skills of combat, mastering the use of all weapons and tactics. Warriors also learn to taunt their opponents, making themselves the focus of all their enemies' attacks [B/], allowing the less resilient members of their group to remain safe from harm.

Warriors are often the cornerstone of a good group, providing a strong defense while also [B]dealing heavy damage to their enemies. Warriors fare poorly when adventuring alone, and are an excellent choice for those who enjoy grouping and taking the front line in battle.


If you feel that warriors should be

1) hardier than any other class
2) the focus of all their enemies' attacks
3) dealing heavy damage

Then tell me what will knights do better than you?

[Rzal]

Originally posted by newtank

If you feel that warriors should be

1) hardier than any other class
2) the focus of all their enemies' attacks
3) dealing heavy damage

Then tell me what will knights do better than you? [/B]


how about cast spells.

[Dalbe]

owned

[Valeris]

This threads gonna get long and boring fast :p

[Eradani]

Indeed, but I am however glad I was not drinking at the time I started reading this.

[Bunnie Burner]

So sad that knights continually forget about their spells.....
"oh yeah.. those things..."

Though I'm sure the other knights wouldnt like to be stereotyped by Newtank's actions....

ps.. would be curious to see how much tenacity newtank is going to show here heh...
would be great entertainement :D

[ThornyEQ]

Well...let me play the devil's advocate here for a bit, while I point out some fine examples of "marketing English"...
Warriors also learn to taunt their opponents, making themselves the focus of all their enemies' attacks...
The important word there is "themselves"...it is not "them." If it said "them" then you could correctly assume, like you do when you say the "2) focus of all their enemies' attacks", that warriors are *the* main focus. But since it uses the word "themselves", it simply states that they take it upon themselves to be the focus; whether they succeed is not guaranteed.
Warriors are often the cornerstone of a good group, providing a strong defense while also dealing heavy damage to their enemies.
The operative word here is "often". They are not "always" the cornerstone of the group; they are not guaranteed to be the cornerstone of the group. They are "often" the cornersone of the group, more than "seldom", less than "most of the time". Also note that they will deal heavy damage. It does not state in any unequivocal fashion just how much heavier than other classes' this damage is. "Heavy damage" does not meant "the heaviest" damage. It simply means heavy damage, and truth be told, my warrior does more melee damage than my druid and cleric combined, by a long shot, so they're not telling an untruth there. :\

All I'm saying is: be sure of what the writing says before you make conclusions based on it.

[Valeris]

How about this one :)

Warriors build their strength and stamina to unheard of levels, making them far hardier than any other class.

[Battleblade]

Uh geez, was a straight uncomplicated question.

Mr. English Prof - sorry, you get a D. You didn't answer the question (not that it was put here for you) and you misunderstand the language.

The word "themselves" is a reflexive pronoun reinforcing the subject of the sentence - "Warriors". It's use in this sentence is not very ambiguous since it can be only be taken to mean that Warriors can either:

a. Make themselves the focus rather than make someone else the focus.

or much more likely:

b. Reinforce that through their own personal effort they can gain the focus of the mob's attentions. This is somewhat non-standard usage as the verb "make" is reinforced as well as the subject.

"I'm going to make myself a sandwich." has clear unambiguous meaning when you understand the reflexive pronoun reinforces the subject and not the object.

There, people not educated in quality public schools can chew on that. Any "Party here-in-after refered to as the Plantiff" speakers of legalese want to obsure the simple question now?

BB

[Superchum]

"All I'm saying is: be sure of what the writing says before you make conclusions based on it."

Deconstructing my own class' "english" ...

-Monks devote their energies to the pursuit of physical perfection, shaping their very bodies into deadly machines. -

Deadly machines? Right.

-Monks are a melee class with the ability to wear leather armor, wield blunt weapons, and use unarmed combat styles.-

Yeah, that's true.

-Monks forego heavy armor and almost all weapons in order to hone themselves into masters of combat, using their fists and a stout staff to make their mark upon Norrath.-

This barely skirts the truth here. And it technically misleading, since monks tend NOT to forego weapons in the current everquest environment and actually are quite weapon dependent. Also, it's misleading to use the term heavy armor, since at certain phases of the game, even platemail armors are not HEAVY armor, but monks can't wear them.

-Monks learn many special attacks to enhance their damage dealing abilities, including the dragon punch and the legendary flying kick.-

If 6 special attacks count as "many" then yes this is true. And relative to other EQ classes, 6 is more than 1. However, the misleading part of this information is that even though a monk has learned 6 special attacks, he or she can only use ONE special attack, just like all other everquest classes.

-In their martial studies monks also learn other useful skills, including the ability to move silently and fall safely from great heights.-

Now this is an out and out lie. The ability to fall safely from great heights is NOT useful in the game of everquest whatsoever.

-Experienced monks also learn to feign death, slowing their body's functions enough to fool most observers into believing them dead - this trick often allows the monk to escape dangerous situations as monsters wander off, thinking the monk defeated.-

This is misleading because it only tells half the story. It should be corrected to read "as monsters wander off, thinking the monk defeated, until the monk stands up again, and the monsters RETURN." That would give a prospective monk a truer idea of what the ability does.

-Monks are a specialist class, focusing on physical combat to the exclusion of all else.-

This is in contradiction to what they themselves just wrote. They are a class that supposedly has all of these other useful skills and abilities. So they obviously do not focus on physical combat to the EXCLUSION of all else.

-Monks provide a powerful ally in a group, though it's not unusual to see a monk adventuring alone.-

This is a lie. Monks don't "adventure alone" much at all anymore.


- The monk is a good choice for players who enjoy a strong offensive role in combat and leading groups in their dungeon adventures. -

I guess this is true. But the same could apply to the rogue class.

/shrug

Knowing the language is one thing. But cutting through the BS is also useful.

[Battleblade]

Actually, in the Land of Liars being able to spot a Truth Teller (refering to the Philosophy 101 example, not SoE marketing) brave enough to answer a simple question (yes, this is asking he who knows not to fib by omission) is an even more valuable skill.

I't not getting that long, but indeed unless the addressee deigns to let us know if SoE is disavowing it's previous representations it surely is getting boring 8).

BB

[newtank]

Originally posted by Rzal
how about cast spells.

But if knights can cast spells then how will you get groups?

[Bunnie Burner]

Why are you putting an "if" in that phrase?

This has been the argument Warriors have been holding for ages now...

Paladins have Spells
Thus
Warriors should be :
1) a lot hardier than any other class
2) the focus of all their enemies' attacks
3) dealing heavy damage

Your ramblings aren't teaching us anything new, Newtank... but hopefully... with a bit of luck... they'll teach you something...

[uhrlik]

That kind of lucky would be like walking through an erupting volcano unharmed.

[Bonegnasher]

how about by being able to save the group mana by having better mitagation?...just a thought...grin

[newtank]

Originally posted by Bunnie Burner
Why are you putting an "if" in that phrase?

This has been the argument Warriors have been holding for ages now...

Paladins have Spells
Thus
Warriors should be :
1) a lot hardier than any other class
2) the focus of all their enemies' attacks
3) dealing heavy damage

Your ramblings aren't teaching us anything new, Newtank... but hopefully... with a bit of luck... they'll teach you something...

OK maybe if I put it in another way you will see what I mean...

Under what situations should a paladin be better than a warrior?
When should a paladin's mitigation be better than a warrior?
When should a paladin have higher dps than a warrior?
when should a paladin have better agro than a warrior?

Paladins and Shadowknights are basically the same class. Sure the spells are slightly different but they basically the same. It is reasonable to say that neither should ever be stronger or weaker than the other in same situation. But warriors are different and you have clearly indicated where you want to be stronger now tell me where you want to be weaker...

If you say never you will continue to have the argument cause no one will listen to you...

[snoedog]

-Under what situations should a paladin be better than a warrior?-

When the group is short on healing and buffing.


-When should a paladin's mitigation be better than a warrior?-

Never, since a paladin can heal. They should take more damage than a warrior but since they can heal and buff they can use spells to compensate

-When should a paladin have higher dps than a warrior?-

When fighting undead

-when should a paladin have better agro than a warrior?-

When fighting undead

[Kenelan]

Paladins should be better:

Healers
Buffers
Stunners
CC'ers

than warriors.

And they are.

[Bunnie Burner]

But warriors are different and you have clearly indicated where you want to be stronger now tell me where you want to be weaker...

If you say never you will continue to have the argument cause no one will listen to you...

God.... don't you listen!?!?!?!?! Don't you think?!?!?!

We DONT HAVE ANY SPELLS AT ALL, WHATSOEVER...

That a good enough weakness for you!?!?!?

[Battleblade]

And for the record, I'm pretty certain Warriors do not out damage SK's.

BB

[newtank]

Originally posted by snoedog
-Under what situations should a paladin be better than a warrior?-

When the group is short on healing and buffing.


-When should a paladin's mitigation be better than a warrior?-

Never, since a paladin can heal. They should take more damage than a warrior but since they can heal and buff they can use spells to compensate



I meant to combine the concept of mitigation with healing. IE should paladins be better mitigators of damage when heals factored in? etc. Think we all agreed warriors should be better mitigators of damage (which they are), but paladin and sk can self heal which is a kind of mitigation too.

[Valeris]

Duh. Go away. Please.

[newtank]

Originally posted by Bunnie Burner
God.... don't you listen!?!?!?!?! Don't you think?!?!?!

We DONT HAVE ANY SPELLS AT ALL, WHATSOEVER...

That a good enough weakness for you!?!?!?

lol you funny

knights don't have songs...I mean totally completely no songs none. No singing, no joy not even chants.

and yet we survive.

Now if you said SK gets higher dps than war from spells that is a tangible argument that I can understand.

My point is when do you think sk should outdamage, outagro, out mitigate (mitigation+taps) a warrior?

Its a simple question really. Take some time you can do it...=)

[Battleblade]

You are being obtuse. A Knight's spellbook works synergysticly with his melee shills - they heteodyne.

One can't look at a Paladin's healing ability in isolation or even his mitigation in isolation. When he stuns during a fight, the mob is temporarily diabled, and his group continues pouring damage into it is this mitigation too. When his stun interrupts a mob trying to gate?

Either you are a very newtank, or you ae merely trying to have people go over ground that has been covered ad nauseum for over a year in hopes that they will provide weak answers.

BB

[uhrlik]

+3 points for vocabulary

+2 points for valid arguments

-3 points for spelling and grammar errors. :p

[Thaak]

Originally posted by newtank
But warriors are different and you have clearly indicated where you want to be stronger now tell me where you want to be weaker...

If you say never you will continue to have the argument cause no one will listen to you...
We're supposed to be better at tanking in EVERY fucking aspect. You got your head out of your ass, yet? Do ya? Good boooyyyy.

Now here's the deal. Paladins should equal warrior DPS against undead. Stay with me, Jimbo, stay with me. You're about to be taught about balance.

SKs should always out-DPS warriors. In strait melee? No. With spells? Yes. You still here?

You asked what paladins do better than warriors. I advise you to open your spellbook and look through what they do. You see them little icons? Those you do better than warriors.

Can you hear me now?

[Tharak]

+10 points to thaak for trying to reason with newtank

I don;t think it can be done, but more power to ya . . . .

newtank give it up already, you astound even the most hardened of us with the amazing BS you continually spew forth.

Is a cleric the best healer? Is a druid ever the best healer? What about a shaman? The total package of a druid or a shaman is highly useful but will never ever equal the healing power of a cleric. Sometimes you don;t need the healing power of a cleric at all. The druids and shaman are both powerful characters, and get groups too.

Ok now shift over to a warrior and his knight bretheren. The way it should be is a warrior can tank better . . . period end of story. The knights cannot tank as well but the total package is very desireable in a group setting. A knight should never tank the same mob as well as a warrior, but then you don;t always "need" a warrior to tank either.

How is it that hard to understand??????

I don;t think it's as simple as name me the one thing I can do better, you need to look at what each class brings to the table. Unfortunatly you sound all too much like an sk who can hardly play because you are not even aware of how powerful your abilities are.

Warriors don;t need neat tricks to make them more desirable, what we need is to be put back to the way we should be . . .massive tanks. We don;t need fancy spells or such nonesense we just like to bash skulls. You can throw out your concept of balance right now, because it will leave the game anything but.

Are we asking for too much? Don;t really know, but it doesn;t really matter either. I guess we are asking too much to get a reasonable response from a newb sk. Before you post again how about you do something different and try to think . . . . maybe even look at the situation from another perspective. Let me clue you in on something . . . warriors play warriors because we don;t like spells. We are like Conan . . . we want to smash and destroy practically everything, we don;t want foo foo spells, utilities, that is for our friends to play with. We want to be the great lumbering behemoths that smash the crap out of everything set before us, and rejoice in the spoils of victory. You come to this forum talking smack about utility, do a little research please . . . utility is not a warrior trait, we'll leave that to you caster folk . . . thanks enough.

[Grimpond]

Soon, Jerry's Kids will end their 'internet time' and we wont have to read newtank's retarded bullshit.

Oops, sorry, Jerry's Kids, didn't mean to offend you and put you down on the level of newtank.

Kudos to all that have owned newtank in this and all the other threads where he vomits his thoughts.

[Gerick]

Originally posted by ThornyEQ
Well...let me play the devil's advocate here for a bit, while I point out some fine examples of "marketing English"...

The important word there is "themselves"...it is not "them." If it said "them" then you could correctly assume, like you do when you say the "2) focus of all their enemies' attacks", that warriors are *the* main focus. But since it uses the word "themselves", it simply states that they take it upon themselves to be the focus; whether they succeed is not guaranteed.

are you sure your translating right? making means by force, and it also means it DOES happen

[Battleblade]

It's been proven that his education didn't include English grammar and construction. Since his entire argument is based on this deficiency and his conclusion is obviously incorrect as well, further examination of his post is the mental equivilent of dumpster diving.

BB

[Anker steadfast]

After reading newtank's replies, my head hurts.

[Tharak]

Originally posted by Anker steadfast
After reading newtank's replies, my head hurts.


heck after reading newtank's responses I want that 30 seconds refunded to me . . .

[Superchum]

Refunds were only good for Newtank's FIRST FIVE POSTS on this board.

Since we are well past that limited time only, you all will have to simply deal with the fact that you read one of his posts of your own free will with full knowledge of what was to be expected.

Feel free to call a manager on this one, but they'll tell you the same thing.

:P

[newtank]

Originally posted by Superchum
Refunds were only good for Newtank's FIRST FIVE POSTS on this board.

Since we are well past that limited time only, you all will have to simply deal with the fact that you read one of his posts of your own free will with full knowledge of what was to be expected.

Feel free to call a manager on this one, but they'll tell you the same thing.

:P

LOL
Classic

[Valeris]

I'm glad you can laugh at yourself Newtank, definately a good thing to practise. :p

[Kadah]

Newtank = paladin rickshaw that is crying home to daddy because the other kids picked on him?

Dude just what is your deal? Where do you buy that much crack from? Half the time I read I am asking myself wtf.

I think im gonna get drunk and cry for his dead braincells ><

[ThornyEQ]

Gerick wrote:
are you sure your translating right? making means by force, and it also means it DOES happen.

Yes, but making yourself (as in "warriors make themselves") is a personal result; it is not necessarily true outside of the confines of that warrior's abilities. I was only saying that there is an ambiguity there and that from a marketing perspective those ambiguities may not actually mean what people think they mean.
Battleblade wrote:
It's been proven that his education didn't include English grammar and construction. Since his entire argument is based on this deficiency and his conclusion is obviously incorrect as well, further examination of his post is the mental equivilent of dumpster diving.
Sigh...BB...was there really a need to get personal? I guess I must as well now, so...if you're going to throw in your knowledge of English grammar and sentence construction and my lack thereof, learn to spell "equivalent", please.

It just so happens that you are right about the reflexive nature of the pronoun "themselves", although if you look at its definition in dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=themselves) you'll see that it is a word that can be used in many different and interesting ways, some absolute, some not. However, I was referring to how marketing uses English, not what you or I learned in a classroom. I will only say that in marketing English, the word "free" rarely ever means free in a nice unambiguous way. Likewise here; those class descriptions are for marketing purposes and do not truly reflect what goes on in-game.

But, back to your original, simple question, which I will throw my few pence worth of thoughts into...
In principle, will Warriors continue to be "unmatched in their ability to survive the most brutal battles." and have an improved Taunt ability to so that they can competatively make ".... themselves the focus of all their enemies' attacks..."?
Given what we've been told so far about the changes, I don't see much there to cause warriors to be able to survive a brutal battle any more or less than they could before. I don't think our survivability is compromised compared to what it is now.

With regards to taunt, I believe it was said before that SOE didn't like the whole idea of MA's and MT's, so they would not likely do much to improve a warrior's ability to be a better MA or MT through taunt. Of course, they then went ahead and improved knights to the point where they are now the best snap aggro classes, so I think the jury is still out on this one. We'll just have to wait and see

[Battleblade]

Shamus,

My spelling is not the structure around which I based my arguement. However, your understanding of grammer and construction was the entire basis for your argument. Thus my criticism was in order, while your's was not.

While marketeers are forgiven certain types of exageration in their statements, other catagories of hype are not allowed.

A claim that a product is "New and Improved!" can not be made unless there is a material change in formulation, while a claim of "Whiter!" is given more leeway. However factual representations like "Low Mileage" can not be made with intent to deceive (well, 238,000 miles seemed like low milage to me).

The Warrior Class Description, while containing marketing language, does in fact describe Warriors and their characteristics.

I agree with the conclusions made in your most recent post, but not at how you arrived at them.

BB

[Tharak]

Originally posted by Kadah
Newtank = paladin rickshaw that is crying home to daddy because the other kids picked on him?

Dude just what is your deal? Where do you buy that much crack from? Half the time I read I am asking myself wtf.

I think im gonna get drunk and cry for his dead braincells ><

he's an SK . . . well sorta anyway . . . .

newtank = SK rickshaw

[ThornyEQ]

Heh...okay, truce...we're just going to have to agree to disagree regarding grammar (my original post wasn't about grammar, it was about the ambiguous, seemingly marketing-oriented language behind some of the choicer words).

I fully agree with you: a car with 238,000 miles on it could not logically be considered to be a low-mileage car. The rest of your points and arguments carry the weight of logic as well. However, I think you'd be really surprised at just how much things can be "tweaked and twisted" for the sake of a sales pitch and still remain, if not within the bounds of logic, at least fully within the bounds of legality. I did many marketing campaigns over the years (as a graphic designer, not as a copy writer), and I was always amazed with some of the stuff they could get away with saying. ;)

[Tharak]

Originally posted by Superchum
Refunds were only good for Newtank's FIRST FIVE POSTS on this board.

Since we are well past that limited time only, you all will have to simply deal with the fact that you read one of his posts of your own free will with full knowledge of what was to be expected.

Feel free to call a manager on this one, but they'll tell you the same thing.

:P

humm well i'll sue then . . . .

newtanks post's do not come with a warning label, and by golly they should. Something like:

"Reading the following post has been known to cause serious side-effects such as fits of vulgar language, loss of intelligence, confusion, depression (how in the heck can someone be so clueless) and a disappearance of valuable time. Please proceed accordingly"

can some mod please change his avatar to reflect this warning, heck even "causes birth defects" would work.

thx ;-)

[Gerick]

Originally posted by ThornyEQ
Yes, but making yourself (as in "warriors make themselves") is a personal result; it is not necessarily true outside of the confines of that warrior's abilities. I was only saying that there is an ambiguity there and that from a marketing perspective those ambiguities may not actually mean what people think they mean.

Sigh...BB...was there really a need to get personal? I guess I must as well now, so...if you're going to throw in your knowledge of English grammar and sentence construction and my lack thereof, learn to spell "equivalent", please.

It just so happens that you are right about the reflexive nature of the pronoun "themselves", although if you look at its definition in dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=themselves) you'll see that it is a word that can be used in many different and interesting ways, some absolute, some not. However, I was referring to how marketing uses English, not what you or I learned in a classroom. I will only say that in marketing English, the word "free" rarely ever means free in a nice unambiguous way. Likewise here; those class descriptions are for marketing purposes and do not truly reflect what goes on in-game.

But, back to your original, simple question, which I will throw my few pence worth of thoughts into...

Given what we've been told so far about the changes, I don't see much there to cause warriors to be able to survive a brutal battle any more or less than they could before. I don't think our survivability is compromised compared to what it is now.

With regards to taunt, I believe it was said before that SOE didn't like the whole idea of MA's and MT's, so they would not likely do much to improve a warrior's ability to be a better MA or MT through taunt. Of course, they then went ahead and improved knights to the point where they are now the best snap aggro classes, so I think the jury is still out on this one. We'll just have to wait and see


so we are not allowed to make agro? what is some god gonna drop it on my lap? thats a paladin tard

[Gerick]

thing about marketing lang. if you strech it to far you get false advertising suits

[Britty]

In response to Newtanks post further back.

Q. Under what situations should a paladin be better than a warrior?

A. Paladins should be better when it comes to providing utility and support to both groups and raids. Examples are LoH, buffing and other spells etc etc. Warriors shouldn't ever have a mana bar and shouldn't ever be able to perform these utilitys, these are a Paladins domain. Paladins should ALWAYS be better in these areas.

Q. When should a paladin's mitigation be better than a warrior?

A. Never, under no circumstances ever should a knight class (or any other class for that matter) with equal armour, level and aa's mitigate damage better than a warrior, period, enough said. The difference should be significant enough to be visible. The fact that knight classes and warriors are on the same damage mitigation table is plain ludicrous. Knights can take hits yes, but never should be able to do so as well as a warrior. Else what's the point of being a warrior or even having a warrior class?

Only if a knight is a higher level or has protective armour siginificantly ahead of his warrior counterpart(s) should a knight be able to take damage as well or better.

Q. When should a paladin have higher dps than a warrior?

A. DPS wise, paladins already have the *capacity* to out dps any other melee class (not just warriors) on undead given the appropriate aa abilities. Read it and believe it. That's a BIG deal considering what kind of DPS other melee classes can dish out. Paladins already HAVE THIS CAPACITY should they choose to pursue it. In other cases Warrior dps should be > Knight dps given equal footing.

Q. When should a paladin have better agro than a warrior?

A. In the interests of balance this is a loaded question because warriors are so weak in the agro generation field nearly every single class in the game can rip agro away and hold it off a warrior if they conciously chose to by frivolous use of overagro on spells or just plain recklessness by monks and rogues. However, I don't want warriors to all of a sudden be shifted to the top of the taunt game, but they certainly need a boost in this area. When should a knight outtaunt a warrior? Well anytime they really feel they need to, but give the warrior some kind of tools to be able to compete in this area instead of being totally left behind.

I'm inclined to suggest that once the taunt skill is maxxed that button should almost NEVER fail. It's puts us to the top of the hate list almost EVERYTIME, but still only by 1 point, so that overnuking wizards or whatever still face that danger of getting smashed.
So this would generate quick agro, but not agro lock. This would be almost equivalent to knights generating instant hate/taunt by use of spells. There should be an inherent 2 or 5% failure on taunt button press (I guess this would be equivalent to a knight class fizzle), but certainly not the joke of a failure rate it is currently. You'de think by level 65 and maxxed taunt skill a warrior would know how to taunt effectively...well apparently not according to Verant/Sony.

Like I've pointed out before, I don't want knights nerfed or left without a role because yeah that would suck, but knights are balanced, warriors are not and they need a boost in the above areas.