Tuant is balanced right?

[Murpus]

i have to say this becuase so many people complain and stuff but once you get a sod and a primal or some other decent offhander.. aggro really is not a problem in XP groups.. i dont think that it is right that you have to get better weapons to be a good tank tho but im just saying it gets better and a lot easier with weapons that are almost 2 years old... but saying our tuant isnt totally horrible i have no problems with sod and atunare whip.... so its not as bad as i think everyone makes it out to be...


Murpus Clokwork 65 Gnome Overlord of Stormwind, Xev

[Boofus]

what?

[Jedediah]

I think he's trying to say that an SoD/primal set up allows us to control agro in an exp group.....or he could be on a lot of drugs.

I'll feed the troll one little tidbit. The problem isn't with taunt, but with knights ability to maintain perfect agro at minimal cost, coupled with a nearly indistinguishable tanking ability.

[Steenky]

i have to say this becuase so many people complain and stuff but once you get a sod and a primal or some other decent offhander.. aggro really is not a problem in XP groups

That's probably correct, but 95% of warriors don't have that combo.

[Glatius2]

Since I don't have a SoD or primal all I can do is depend on those who do have them and what they say. The consensus seems to be that yes a SoD will improve your aggro control. It still won't be anywhere near the level of either Knight class ten or more levels lower using a PoS bazaar bought weapon. Seems kind of ironic that the best geared Warrior in the game still won't hold aggro as well or as reliably as a much lower level Knight with bargain basement gear, doesn't it?

[Terrorus]

Primal has nothing to do with aggro, ratio\stats\Proc aren't bad but wont help you much in the aggro department. SoD is a Relic at best, dont drop on most servers anymore and a virtually priceless = Not Obtainable! So unless you know what you are talking about please dont speak.

[Glatius2]

Primal has nothing to do with aggro, ratio\stats\Proc aren't bad but wont help you much in the aggro department.

Really, my understanding was that a proc on primal improved one's stats. And dexterity is thought to have an impact, which some debate, on procs, the higher the dex, the higher the frequency of procs. Therefore using primal long enough to get a proc would increase your dex, you'd then swap out the primal for the SoD. Or am I misinformed? You seem to know what you're talking about, please fill me in.

Edit: Oh, and why exactly did you feel compelled to be an ass anyway?

[Terrorus]

If you read my 1st line again, you will see "wont help you much in the aggro department" Do a parse and tell me how much avatar increases your dps. I also remember reading that a weapons proc rate is predefined and dex has a minimal impact on proc frequency. How am I an Ass? I didnt insult the guy like you just did to me. Please re-read the initial post again.

[Gimmel]

So unless you know what you are talking about please dont speak.

Most people with any semblance of social skills would consider that being an ass, since you are curious.

While proc rate is dependent upon the weapon, dex most certainly has an effect on proc rate. See http://steelwarrior.xwarzone.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=490 for more info. Perhaps you should follow your own advice?

I can't verify this myself, but recalling parses from those with primals, avatar resulted in about a 15% dps increase, though I'm sure many here can give info from their experiences.

[Solarax]

im not sure but i think he was aluding to the idea that the increased dps isnt enough help for taunt in xpgroup where mobs go down fast and you may not even get more than 1 or 2 agro procs ( non stat buff procs)

as for being set up with uber weapons remember not everyone has them , its just that here on the boards you see lots of posters that are more active members posting thier stuff and people start getting the idea that the tuff they are seeing is the norm when in fact its almost always above the norm .

i personaly think taunt is kinda broken ( actualy i would say badly designed or implemented)

[Gnomers]

WTF I do not have a SOD, BOC, BloodFrenzy, Primal, Hategiver and ETC. I use a frostbringer and I still have trouble with aggro. SOmetimes I can not get aggro back even if I mash the tuant button. You say that taunt is balanced becuase you have those weapons try to tank without them in exp groups and see how hard it is. I get replace by a sk and pally all the time as MA just because I cant hold aggro as good as them. Tuant should be succesfull all the time then it will be balanced. I hate it when I have to play rogue.

[Grendonbb]

i have to say this becuase so many people complain and stuff but once you get a sod and a primal or some other decent offhander.. aggro really is not a problem in XP groups.

Lol you make it sound so easy... musta taken some of his crack money for a couple of weeks and bought a SoD on ebay and a 65 war with primal on Playerauctions...

[Dokor]

The main problem here is that you have to wait for your weapon to proc (wait for the primal to proc and/or wait for your sod to proc).

I use BoC/cord hitled spike driver myself, even with that i often see shaman or enchanter get their ass kicked badly by the mob they just slow because my weapon just don't proc.

[Kadah]

Son, are you smoking the crack pipe?
Not every warrior has a ST key even at 65 I dont have mine yet. So why donthca go and smoke it up.
Taunt for a warrior needs to be FIXED for warriors.
Period. End of story.
Aggro output with a warrior needs to be fixed.
Damage output needs to be fixed, And no dont class us all together, Dont upgrade monks rogue's range's and knights.

Kadah
65 Overlord
Gameless

[Wilhelmm_Lanys]

Speaking as someone who uses 2 very decent agro weapons, and has used an SoD before, let me tell you, you really don't know what you're talking about. At all. Period. Not ever duel-wielding EB weapons, not even with a Blade of War does instant agro generation become easier.

Sure, sometimes you get lucky and proc quickly; but not always. Nothing is solved, you still can't get agro whenever you want/desperately need it. THe other thing is, procs don't guarantee agro. When you proc Enraging Blow, the mob does not instantly turn to you and start wailing away. Same goes for SoD proc. You still need proper positioning, and you still rely on taunt and the like.

if you hold agro like glue with an SoD and Tunare's Whip, I would love to switch random number generator. There's no question, high agro procs help, but mostly in the area of maintaining agro, and occasionally generating. But, even if they handed out Blade of Carnage at level 1, even this would not fix the current state of warrior agro.

[Brutul]

You said:

Originally posted by Terrorus
Primal has nothing to do with aggro, ratio\stats\Proc aren't bad but wont help you much in the aggro department.

And then...

Originally posted by Terrorus
So unless you know what you are talking about please dont speak.

I suggest that you take your own advice if you don't think Primal is important for aggro.

For the record, I agree with the original poster, with a good aggro weapon and correct use of taunt it's not difficult to manage aggro in an exp group. Yea the slower will take a couple hits now and then, but it's not really a major problem if you're in a mildly talented group. Of course it's much easier for a hybrid, but I think the difficulty getting aggro is regularly exaggerated on this board.

[Hussar]

You are right, with a good aggro weapon, taunt isn't too bad. It still relies completely on the RNG, so there can be off times, but a good weapon usually doesn't have too many problems. The issue though, is that not everyone can get a good aggro weapon. For those who only have access to lesser weapons, it's extremely difficult, and sometimes to the point that it's not even worth trying anymore (I took a break from EQ for a while back in my 50s due to the fact that I could not do my job as a warrior, and was just sick of it).

[Braeorn]

Again, this has been said a million times, but relying on a proc in order for us to do our job has to be the stupidest aspect of being a warrior.

Yea, I have my epics and next in line for CHSD, but seriously think about how accessible hate proccing items are for non guilded warriors.

Can I get and hold aggro, sure...can a cast or two from an SK or Pally strip it for remainder of fight...pretty much.

GIVE US SOMETHING BESIDES A PROC FOR HATE.

Thanks, sorry for hijack,
Braeorn

[Ainmer]

It doesn't matter how easy it is to hold aggro with xyz or abc weapon. The Devs have stated multiple times that Enraging Blow weapons were a bandaid to fix the problem of aggro, but in no way should a weapon be better than the Taunt skill. However, they have not come up with a good way to improve the skill without making the game easier.

If there was a decent way to manage aggro, warriors could have some weapon selection and allow their character to have some uniqueness. In a world where aggro is not dependant on EB, a warrior wants to go "Fire and Ice" they can wield Ifir and Hammer of Crushing Waves, they can.

Would that be a better world? I think so.

Devs: Here is the simple solution to "fix" taunt: Figure out the average amount of time that EB Procs. Take taunt and change it to add 700 Hate. Make it successful along the same lines as the chance to proc EB.

Oh, and change all existing EB items to proc a 150 MR DD (no resist adjust)

Done.

[kriegartorv]

considering the weaponry that is available these days, i dont see how people can complain. i held agro fine with a lammie and a jade mace when i was grinding for exp back in the kunark days... for people with problems holding agro, get a new group...

as for agro being dependant on procs, while procs help a lot, dps is a major component in keeping agro... procs just help it along...

been doing a lot of tradeskills recently so havent had a chance to go mess around with my weapons but i'll try to do some tests...

i agree with brutal tho, aggro problems seem to be exagerated on these boards...

and aimner means add 150 dd to eb proc not change =D

-kriegar

[Gimmel]

i held agro fine with a lammie and a jade mace when i was grinding for exp back in the kunark days

And that has any relevance at all to this thread why?

[Ainmer]

Originally posted by kriegartorv
and aimner means add 150 dd to eb proc not change =D

-kriegar
No, I mean change the current effect of Enraging Blow (+700 Hate increase) to a 150 DD proc (no resist Adj). If you change taunt to operate as EB with the same average rate of success as the current average rate of proc, there is no need for hate generation from the EB proc, which is a good thing.

[Lorre]

Ok I thought that taunt was decent for a while now. Im convinced that it isnt so anymore. Lvl 60 paly was holding aggro beautifully all last night for the 4 hours of exp grinding we had. He would stun them on inc, slower pulled off slow with no aggro switching at all. I let him tank all night and the shammy got hit maybe 3-4 times THE WHOLE NIGHT!

Warr aggro is based on proc. Taunt doesnt work as well as most of you think. I mean I can get it to work, but imo it should be easier or as easy as casting stun 2-3 times and having the mob stick to you.

Please dont nerf any class, just give us something to increase aggro without procs. A lot of us have not the uber weapons with the amazing procs. And yes its silly that we should rely on a random proc to do our job. (we do that now cause we have no choice).

Why didnt they make taunt add something like +X number hate points? Instead of just making us barely on top of the hate list, let us build it over time. Hit taunt continueously to build max aggro? Would this be imbalanced?

[Braeorn]

I kind of agree, adding some hate to taunt may be the easiest and least invasive way to help agg. Is taunt totally broken, no...it does and can work provided pallies/sks stick with meleeing for a big chunk of early fight -- but thats kind of stupid.

And yea, DPS counts, not like I'm using Rusty LS's, am using HoH, SBoZ, Windblade, Epics, Trident of the Deep Sea, etc. Not elite but certainly enough to get decent dps.

/shrug...I'll stop posting my comments on it, just hope we get some change in the near future.

Braeorn

[Frodlin7th]

Placing a numerical cap on the existing taunt skill is the worst possible "fix". What this does is makes a *finite* aggro "cap" for warriors which is (XT)+Y. X being the hate value of "taunt", T being time, and Y being DPS based aggro. If you can only press your "taunt" key every 6 seconds, and it adds 700 hate every time it's pressed, then over 42 seconds, you have added 4900 hate + the value of your DPS. What this then does is cap ALL other classes' output to YOUR hate cap, and it magnifies the issue between Knights (who would be able to add stun hate still + the numerical hatred value) and warriors even further.

Currently, there's -0- cap on hate acquired by warriors, only randomness in it's success or failure. While the ability to generate hate is broken between warriors and Knights in relation to the tankability difference, the lack of a cap on hate is definitely a positive, and the worst possible thing to do to warriors is to put a 'cap' on their ability to generate hate, it would make it far worse than it is now.

[Ainmer]

Read what I said more closely, Frod.

I didn't say taunt should give you a guaranteed 700 hate every time you hit the button.

I said the devs should look at the current average proc rate of available EB weapons, and make taunt (+700 hate) work around the same amount of the time. If you average 1 EB proc per 18 seconds right now, give Taunt a 33% chance to add 700 hate. Use AE Taunt or a derivative AA or an entirely different skill to jump to the "top of the list" as current taunt does.

And by the way, my success rate on taunt against red mobs is nothing to write home about. It's marginally better than clicking "Sense Heading"

[Lorre]

Well chances are that the Paly's wont be chain stunning the mob. If taunt gives X amount of hate every time you push it, then you can steadily build it up over the course of the fight. Instead, the way it is now is that I dont even hit it till I lose aggro. Then theres a chance of it working or not.

I dunno if there can be a fix really. Stun spells seem to totally piss off the mob. Our slam/kick stun doesnt generate as much aggro as the stun spells and such. Perhaps they should? Just a thought. . .

[Gaylon]

I think we need two Warrior boards...One for those Warriors that duel wield EB weapons and one for the other 95% of us :)

Ok I was just joking..:)

But I get tired of reading all these "aggro/taunt" related threads telling me that there is no problem with Warrior aggro yet finding myself frustrated to no end in-game. :(

I know how and when to use taunt. My weapons are not the most uber but they are not exactly low end, I group regualry with a Paladin friend that tries to work with me and yet I can still notice the massive inbalance that exists.

I don't care what anyone says, aggro/taunt is not balanced. :(

I am still learning this game so its hard for me to suggest any kind of "fair" fix, but its clear something needs to happen.

[Solinar]

Hate required is whatever hate is generated by debuffs and more importantly what hate is generated by healing.

As mobs hit harder and harder, healing required gets greater, and tank hate generation has to scale accordingly.

If you put a numberical value to taunt, then taunt can no longer possibly scale based on mob DPS. We saw a HUGE potential DPS upgrade on mobs in PoP, there is reason to believe we will see more upgrades with further expainsions.

[Kaldanm]

Lvl 60 paly was holding aggro beautifully all last night for the 4 hours of exp grinding we had. He would stun them on inc, slower pulled off slow with no aggro switching at all. I let him tank all night and the shammy got hit maybe 3-4 times THE WHOLE NIGHT!

Actually a few hours ago I was the tank in a group in the cave at PoV. Everything was ok, I have no real problem with aggro with my weapon set (Frostbringer + trident of the deep sea) , sometimes the beast turns on the slower / healer but I can always get it back without let them die :p.
we fought 30 mins, when we added a SK to the group. the cleric ASKED me to stop tanking, I and aggreed with when I saw the sk : aggroing from a distance, keep the razorfiend glued on him no matter what happened, he was fighting on a horse, with sometimes autofight off to avoid riposte, just with spell casting for aggro (Thanks KEI / BST crack). In 3 hours of chain pulling the mobs he tanked NEVER turned away. I was disgusted of this.

[Boofus]

Hope some Dev's actually *read* some of the posts here.

[Lorre]

"Lvl 60 paly was holding aggro beautifully all last night for the 4 hours of exp grinding we had. He would stun them on inc, slower pulled off slow with no aggro switching at all. I let him tank all night and the shammy got hit maybe 3-4 times THE WHOLE NIGHT!"

Did I mention that he had a shield on?

Frankly, he couldve been holding a book in the primary hand and still control aggro better than us.

[Redhenna]

when we added a SK to the group. the cleric ASKED me to stop tanking, I and aggreed with when I saw the sk : aggroing from a distance, keep the razorfiend glued on him no matter what happened, he was fighting on a horse, with sometimes autofight off to avoid riposte, just with spell casting for aggro (Thanks KEI / BST crack). In 3 hours of chain pulling the mobs he tanked NEVER turned away

Think that quote answers the question posed in the title of this thread pretty well.

[Kaesorn]

Boofus, hehe...never see you post more than a single sentence.

That's the reality of it tho, hybrids don't need to do any melee damage to hold agro. It's trivial. They can simply sit there and med. And for the exact reasons Solinar mentioned is why it's not gonna be a good fix to add a fixed hate to Taunt. It'll just be another "band-aid" fix.

I know it's hard to upgrade and find out a good fix for warriors (and pure melee's in general, in relation to casters), but C'MON...

I know several warriors who simply don't play their warrior anymore. They can't hold agro at all, and they don't really have that bad weapon setup (wavecrasher and frostbringer on one). Not every warrior has access to high end weapons that HELP (not solve) agro problems in some instances. Frankly, until they change something, I think I'll be seeing many more warriors up and stop playing. It's really bad. The problem has always been here, but PoP just made it worse.

[kriegartorv]

pop greatly increased the average warriors ability to hold agro... ie windblades + various other weapons that yield high dps generating agro

seems to me that warriors now days have it easy... during the kunark era 4k hps buffed was a beefy tank, yet people were able to level to 60 wielding lammies if you were lucky enough to have one...

im my observation, taunt/ability to hold agro is not broken in the high end/end game...

knights are able to grab very fast initial agro but at a raid level they lack disc's that allow them to tank raid mobs...

i personally didnt play a warrior to tank for exp groups exclusively... if a knight wants to tank during exp groups thats fine... but when its raid time, each class has thier role (which sometimes varies depending on the encounter)...

eb weapons certainly did help with killing higher end content and holding agro, but many of these velious encounters were done/are still done with out EB weapons...

as for holding agro, i went to velk lab and held agro on 12 spiders at 1 time using a gnoll hide lariet + punching... went to pov/pofire and killed mobs using 2 gnoll hide lariets...

sure eb weapons let me afk when im botting other characters to PL... but they are far from necessary to hold agro...

on another note, i was overjoyed when i got my first eb weapon... it did make a huge difference in my performace as a tank... just like any other piece of gear or AA point i get i viewed it as part of my character progression... which is what most of us play this game for...

i hope i didnt insult too many people =D i like a lot of the ideas that are being thrown around about how to "fix" our class...

-kriegar

[Steenky]

as for holding agro, i went to velk lab and held agro on 12 spiders at 1 time using a gnoll hide lariet + punching... went to pov/pofire and killed mobs using 2 gnoll hide lariets...

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. With a pair of 3/20 weapons you wouldn't have had time to post this since you'd still be trying to kill the first mob you attacked in PoV.

[Dakkin]

It's usual for PoP groups to reject warriors unless they know in advance they're in very good gear AND know what they're doing.

Knights on the other hand are the default tanks.

The reason is that the average warrior can't hold aggro reliably enough for a PoP group to be safe, but the average knight can.

Cut it any way you like, that's the current situation.

And it's been going on for so long, it's hard to see how it could be an accidental oversight by Sony.

[Thunndarr]

Originally posted by Kadah
Son, are you smoking the crack pipe?
Not every warrior has a ST key even at 65 I dont have mine yet. So why donthca go and smoke it up.
Taunt for a warrior needs to be FIXED for warriors.
Period. End of story.
Aggro output with a warrior needs to be fixed.
Damage output needs to be fixed, And no dont class us all together, Dont upgrade monks rogue's range's and knights.

Kadah
65 Overlord
Gameless

our damage output is fine, time after time warriors in my guild outdamage monks. just fix taunt to work more reliably and fuck tweaking DPS

[Frodlin7th]

I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. With a pair of 3/20 weapons you wouldn't have had time to post this since you'd still be trying to kill the first mob you attacked in PoV.


Actually, he's most likely not BSing. I have carried around 2 gnoll hide lariats with me at all times for the last few months just to test which mobs I could get away with tanking with them. As a matter of fact, it's become a running joke in my guild about Frod and his Gnoll Hide Lariats. With the damage bonus, in the main hand they're not THAT bad, the proc is indeed good aggro, and I've tanked many mobs dual wielding them that would surprise you.

On the other hand, it's not evidence of how GOOD warrior aggro is, but to the contrary, it's evidence of how much we rely on high aggro procs that I cannot hold aggro all that much better with a Balde of Carnage and a Jagged Shard of Frozen Flame (15/20 and 17/20 respectively, one having Enraging Blow, the other a 150DD) than with 2 weapons that are common as dirt from level 25 mobs.

[Dafrog]

Two lariats do not hold aggro better or as good as my LSoEE in my offhand and my Frostbringer in my Main. I know this as I have did this comparison for a few days in PoP. I am not talking just a few hours either....I'm talking easily over 20 hours of testing. I did this because I like the stun effect on pop mobs....but learned I could not peel aggro off other toons in my group.

So, when I read the above post....well, you get the point.

It does't take a rocket scientist to figure that my LSoEE and Frosty combo is not as good as a couple of EB weapons....so go draw your conclusions.

BTW, for those wishing to trade any EB items or Taunting items....or for that matter a good DPS item 1 hander for a Gnoll Hide Lariat please send me a tell in game on the Morell-Thule server.

Dafrog
62 warrior (Frog)

EDIT: Oh..forgot to mention my dex was maxxed at 265....for sake of proccing comparison....lots of proccs = )

[lamini]

"aggro problems seem to be exagerated on these boards..."

i guess i fail to see the problem here. I just dont see that warrior=agro, but i cant dismiss the fact that i do see the drama on these boards; I do understand warrior= tank however. Warriors are not agro machines, they're tanks, tank = able to take damage as well as giving it out, thats right out of your old EQ manuals (in EQ land, you add the ability of building agro with TAUNT ability).. and you do it better than anyone else (still looking for problem...)

[Frodlin7th]

Someone fill me in here, whats with the hate of knights being able to acquire/maintain agro, its been like this since day one, why all the complaining, its always been like this.

The 2 issues that are more current, and problematic that weren't before, are as follows:


1. Losing aggro has *signifcantly* greater consequences in PoP than it ever did at any other point of the game. The consequences are as follows:

A. Any cleric heal costs either the same mana as complete heal(Supernal Remedy, Supernal Elixir) or MORE mana than complete heal (Supernal light). To make up for a loss of aggro on ANY one party member, it now costs the same as Complete heal or more. This didn't used to be the case.

B. Re-Gaining aggro, which contrary to your pollyanaish assessment (Yes, I wield a BoC + Jagged Shard of Frozen Flame, 15/20+EB, and 17/20+150DD with 41% haste), isn't reliable. This places party members, not at a minor annoyance like it used to be, but at risk of a rapid death. People don't really want to take that kind of risk if it's not necessary.

2. Knight tankability AND equipment has been improved to such a degree that there isn't a substantive difference in terms of mana cost, and in many cases BECAUSE of aggro difficulties the warrior is actually more mana expensive. No, knights haven't EVER been able to tank as close to warriors at ANY point in the game as they are now. Reasons are twofold:

A. Previously, an out of mana cleric was an actual issue. In the days of KEI + Flowing thought + expanded mana pools, it's simply not an issue when heals are focused on a single individual. A cleric will *never* go out of mana with a Paladin and not a warrior. Because of this, any differences in takability are simply theoretical and not real-world issues.

B. Because slows have to be waited for longer with a warrior due to again, aggro control issues, it means the warrior will tank an unslowed mob for longer than the paladin, making the mana efficiency saved by the minimal HP/AC difference completely obliterated. Add to this the fact that the offensive difference between the two tanks is significantly smaller than the increased DPS that a group with a tank who has reliable aggro control can produce with the "aggro cap" raised to a higher bar, it means mobs die faster with knights tanking than warriors, again decreasing the healing mana cost to the primary healer.


You see, you can pull the "They always have been able to aggro better" card, but it doesn't fly with me, because historically, Knights weren't the best choice as defensive tank, even WITH the aggro control difference. Knights were commonly used in an "oh crap" situation, to temporarily tank until the warrior could get the mob's attention. Now the concept of the warrior tanking is plain silly, why even change from the Knight? The phrase "A paladin can take aggro any time, but he doesn't always want it" is a relic of the past... but it was ALWAYS this way, until PoP.

Additionally, you can make blanket statements all you want, and you can call warriors' concern "drama" all you want, but unless you're prepared to step up and refute the facts, then kindly shut the hell up, and take your allegations of 'drama' to somewhere where they'll listen to you.

I advise you to stay away from the following messageboards, who all have threads affirming this phenomina, started NOT by warriors, but by members of the community to which they belong:

Shaman Boards
Cleric Boards
Paladin Boards
Safehouse
Monk boards
Mobhunter
Ranger Boards
SK Boards

No, it's not 'drama', it's reality, so either show me where I'm wrong or go somewhere else with your namecalling.

[Krakrak]

is it me or taunt got a little upgraded, I seemed to be keeping aggro pretty well yesterday in my PoS group (had 1 or 2 summons of chanter at beginning but quickly got aggro back since he had to slow the giants quickly or I just didnt have the hp /ac to tank em). Maybe its just an idea or maybe I just got lucky / used taunt more effectively I dunno.

[Phantron]

What kind of 'good' xp group do you get someone who doesn't even attack to pull his fair weight? It's like having a monk who only pulls and don't attack because he can pull faster if he never stops to attack anything.

A SEWS (45/30) can pretty much outaggro all obvious forms of early aggro except the tash & slow by just its ratio (and if Enchanter waits a few seconds it's usually no problem). Yes SEWS is pretty up there in terms of uberness but why shouldn't a top of a line warrior hold aggro that much better? With Windblade at 50/44 readily buyable you have basically 75% the aggro power of a top of the line warrior if you just have some plats. That seems fair enough to me. Back when BoC was top of the line, you can't just buy something with 75% of the aggro power of BoC with just tens of thousands of plat. When Bloodfrenzy was the best weapon you certainly can't buy 75% aggro of Bloodfrenzy with tens of thousands of plat. If anything aggro is easier now than it ever was. Yes the planes are harder too so you need it more, but when they say Planes are hard it doesn't mean spend 20k for a Windblade and mobs automatically stay glued on you.

Of course the difference between normal PoV Knight and top fo the line Knight in aggro is something like 99% and 100% and that needs to be fixed. But warrior progression with respect of gear versus aggro is fine. You should be glad you even have 75% of the aggro an elemental-equipped warrior has if you have at least enough money to buy a Windblade.

[Hussar]

A windblade is definately not 75% of a SEWS. The ratio may be 75% of the ratio of a SEWS. But, thats all, they're very different in speeds / damage bonus. Now, since you decided the proc isn't important, then you can't count the proc of BoC and BF, so with BoC you just have a 15 / 20 weapon, which compares to a SBoZ about the same as a sews and windblade compare. And good luck finding a windblade for 20k. Cheap ones are 40k every time I've checked the past few months, with most going much higher.

[Phantron]

The proc on SEWS is of course good aggro but there are certainly plenty of times where a slower had to slow a mob before I proced, and it still holds aggro fine, suggesting that its ratio alone is fine to hold aggro.

To contrast, Blade of Carnage is simply not capable to stop a slow aggro on ratio alone. If you don't proc an enraging blow, there's no way the mob will still be on you after an early tash/slow.

Since the early slow/tash aggro hasn't changed in a very long time, this is actually the first time you even have a reasonably buyable option that has a shot at stopping tash/slow aggro by just swinging. Yes, the mobs are harder so you encounter early slow/tash aggro more too, but you also have been given better tools. Obviously you should not stop it most of the time, otherwise what's the point of making stuff hard? The average xp Valor mob does about 3-4 times the damage as the average blue in the Luclin era. It should be considerably harder to fight one... and that's why all the plane zones give around twice the XP per kill before you even factor in the 'close to your level' bonus. If the mobs aren't that much harder to fight, the Planar zones wouldn't be giving double or more XP per kill in the first place. People don't seem to realize that even a fairly bad group in the planes are getting as good if not better xp than the best pre PoP groups. There should be a price for the XP gain... namely harder encounters.

[Glatius2]

There should be a price for the XP gain... namely harder encounters.

Fair enough. So why is it exactly that these harder encounters should be significantly harder when using a Warrior tank and easier when using a Knight tank? Was this intentional or merely a by product? I believe that while SoE wanted Knights to be competitive, I don't believe they wanted Knights to be replacing Warriors in droves as the tank of choice.

They messed up. They took an ability (snap aggro) that used to have a importance rating of about 3 and through the design of PoPs mobs made it a 10. And they took one of our abilities (more HP) that used to have an importantance rating of about 9 and made it a 2. I can't even begin to believe this was intentional. If it was intentional, I wish SoE would just say so, so that I can permanently retire my Warrior and move on without the small sliver of hope that they may actually get around to fixing the situation at some time. If it wasn't intentional, I wish to hell they'd just fix it.

[Terrorus]

Originally posted by Brutul

I suggest that you take your own advice if you don't think Primal is important for aggro.
[/B]


Well I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion. I made my original statement speaking with numerous warriors who now or at one point used primal. I think most would agree that the avatar proc is not going to make the mob turn its attention onto you. If you want to use DPS as your aggro holder invest in ambidexterity and other offensive AAs.

[Zumbuk_FS]

The very definition of irony is when someone is speaking about how snap aggro for a warrior would trivialize the game too much, yet knights have had snap aggro for years. Yet with PoP, their HPs and AC is closer to being like a warriors than it ever was.

So why is it different for us?

[Terrorus]

Originally posted by Gimmel
I can't verify this myself, but recalling parses from those with primals, avatar resulted in about a 15% dps increase, though I'm sure many here can give info from their experiences.

Are you telling me that 15% more dps is the difference between maintaining aggro or loosing it? Last I checked my highest DPS was parsed at 80, so add 15% which is 12 = 92DPS. I just dont see that improving my ability to hold aggro.

I dont mean to come off as being abrasive in my posts, I just post that way when I really disaggree with something that is said.

[Chania]

If warriors would actually work with knights instead of comparing penis sizes, you'd find that we augment your ability to taunt and hold aggro. In a group with a warrior, my job is not to out-aggro him to prove I have a bigger virtual penis. My job is to aggro on INC and make sure the mob stays off the slowers/healers and pounding on me instead. I create a boatload of hate. As I'm sure all warriors know (lol) taunting at this point will give YOU, the warrior, all my hate plus 1. Voila, solid hate for the rest of the mob's life. In any group with a warrior that's my equal, I want him tanking. Anything else is silly posturing.

Warriors are the best tank. Making them the best taunter too will break the game. Not the grind game, the RAID game. The only real challenge in EQ is aggro control, not in grind groups, but in raid encounters.

[Kaldanm]

two things :

First :
My job is to aggro on INC and make sure the mob stays off the slowers/healers and pounding on me instead. I create a boatload of hate. As I'm sure all warriors know (lol) taunting at this point will give YOU, the warrior, all my hate plus 1. Voila...

Voila, you cast one more spell, or the warrior is unlucky and he miss 4 hits on a row and not you, and the mob is spinning (aggro + 1, heh)

Second :
Let's reduce the quote
My job is to aggro on INC and make sure the mob stays off the slowers/healers and pounding on me instead. I create a boatload of hate...

You are now the tank. why add another ?

[Phantron]

A good warrior is more useful to a good group than a good Knight.

The problem is that a knight is far more useful to a bad group than a warrior.

Unless you make turn taunt into enraging blow the problem you complain about won't change at all. Knights will still aggro better than you anyway. Also, if you have anything remotely like Knight aggro, that basicaly means no Knights would ever get in a group. Why need a Paladin's heals and stuns if the mob always stays on the same person? You still need SKs due to their Aura of Hate (which is kind of like group avatar) but Paladins would offer virtually nothing to a group that has no aggro control problems. Well, they have a good root, but that's about it.

[Khumak]

"i have to say this becuase so many people complain and stuff but once you get a sod and a primal or some other decent offhander.. aggro really is not a problem in XP groups."

Um, I have primal and it's crap for aggro. There is no weapon which gives a warrior an acceptable level of initial aggro generation. Warriors are 100% dependent on the RNG for initial aggro unless they decide to pop AE taunt. Aggro weapons are good for HOLDING aggro, they're pretty unreliable for gaining initial aggro.

My weapon combo is far from uber but BoC/Blackout generally allows me to hold aggro well enough, but aside from the rare times that I get an EB proc on the first couple of swings, it doesn't do anything for initial aggro. I have to wait for taunt to work after slow lands.

[Lorre]

Originally posted by Phantron
Also, if you have anything remotely like Knight aggro, that basicaly means no Knights would ever get in a group. Why need a Paladin's heals and stuns if the mob always stays on the same person? You still need SKs due to their Aura of Hate (which is kind of like group avatar) but Paladins would offer virtually nothing to a group that has no aggro control problems.

Maybe that's VI's idea. Warriors are turning into damage dealers, while knights are taking the role of tanking. With my Windblade, I dish out nice hella damage. Crits and such add to the total dps of my toon when Im in a group. Are they turning warriors into "masters of combat" ie, damage dealing monsters?

[Hussar]

Non tank paladins offer Brells, fast cast low resist roots, group heals (if your cleric has Divine Arbi, they work perfectly together). Recently was in a Tactics, then BoT group, where the majority of the healing was just divine arbi, then pally group heal. They also offer stuns for casting mobs, and LoH if things go bad. Of course, I believe knights should have somewhat better aggro, I just want there to be a bit more balance.

[Phantron]

Brells is useless if the mob is always on the warrior. I can certainly funciton without that 300 HP (and it's not hard to find a paladin to get a buff if you need it that bad).

Group heals are useless if I am the only one taking damage.

Stuns are useless if a mob is always on me (assume there is a slower in group, and there usually is one).

The fast Paladin root is nice but that deals with crowd control which is not a warrior's domain so I don't think it's relevant, and besides when's the last time you got someone because they can root well?

So why would you ever want a Paladin if Warriors have Knight-like aggro?

[Glatius2]

So why would you ever want a Paladin if Warriors have Knight-like aggro?

So why would you ever want a Warrior if Paladins have Knight-like aggro and Warriors have something substantially less?

[BrikBludgaard]

Why let a warrior tank?

-Knights have NO method to control spike damage... no riposte discipline, no evasive, no nothing...
we can STOP a creature from beating on us, (by feigning or Harmshield/Divine Aura) but we cannot keep aggro while slowing mob damage. Wipes suck, and all it takes is one slow heal from the Cleric... Warriors have a better solution.

-Knights have somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 less HP than an equally equipped warrior in the end game. We need to stop the comparison of Bazaar geared Warriors to Elemental-equipped knights.

-Like most classes, Knights are far more effective from behind the mob. This is especially so due to our low weaponskill and offense caps. This is compounded by the fact that being beat on makes casting harder.

-If we aren't tanking, we can pull, caster bodyguard, and deal damage MUCH better.

-Mana not spent on aggro control means I can spend it on damage spells... and with just a nice burst to begin with, a well-timed taunt will hold just fine after I have done my thing. (espeically if the warrior has voice) Despite popular belief, aggro lock costs mana and time to cast that we could be using elsewhere. Why use mana for taunt when you can glue the mob to the warrior and use that mana for damage?


Trust me when I say... Shadowknights choose where to be on the hate list... If I want aggro.. I have it. If I don't... I am never going to have it for long. (Feign Death/Harmshield/proximity/etc.) This isn't surprising as most melee classes can choose NOT to have aggro. Why you think a Shadowknight with Feign Death/Death Peace/Harmshield would have a harder time is beyond me.

Even rogues/rangers can tank in the end game... its just not the best solution. Rangers and rogues do not make warriors useless... A shaman is MORE than capable of both slowing AND tanking most PoP XP mobs.
(Shaman are usually secondary tanks in practice, if not in theory...and they thrive just fine.)

Warriors are the best tanks in the game.

Warrior + Shadowknight = better than either one of them separately.

[Glatius2]

Yes, of course Brik. No one wants a Knight to tank in PoP because everyone is using Warriors. How foolish of us. :rolleyes:

[Phantron]

Why would you want a warrior tank instead of a Knight? Because we tank better maybe? And with tactical mastery we do a lot more damage from the front than any other class, and since I'm sure even the mighty Knights can't tank a mob without being in the front, that is a valid DPS consideration. People tend to overlook that a warrior with Tactical Mastery is the best DPS in the game in front of a mob, and you have to have at least one person in front of a mob.

The best SKs I have grouped with are usually not tanking and often not even meleeing. You lose the least amount of DPS by having a SK out pulling most of the time and they can tank in a pinch if the pulls came back a bit too early. Yes SK can have aggro they want but why would they want to? Typical battles with a SK is like:

mobs comes in
SK takes a few round (since it's incoming) of damage
SK casts Aura of Hate
SK casts Zevfeer's Bite (group lifetap/mana)
SK may or may not cast some offensive spells
SK goes out to pull again

If any time a SK is doing damage for extended amount of time that means we're not killing fast enough.

Also the SK can cast their uber Voice of Thule. If you still can't hold aggro with a 12% aggro buff, then it's time to look at your group or yourself and see what's wrong.

[Hussar]

300hps is useless? News to me :rolleyes:

Did you not read the part about divine arbi and group heals? cleric didn't have to use any mana, at all, and spent the whole time meleeing / nuking. Plus, they are fairly fast cast, good if something goes bad.

How are stuns on casting mobs useless if you're tanking? I like gaters / chers / etc stopped, even when I'm tanking.

300hps on the person tanking, cleric gets to save mana for emergancies, mobs don't gate / ch. Why would I want a paladin? :rolleyes:

[Phantron]

300 HP is less than the difference between a Knight and a Warrior's HP. If Warrior has a Knight's aggro, he'd still outtank better without Brells. The other party member's HP are irrelevant because we assume the mob never leaves the warrior (which is what you wnated). While it's true a Knight has more HP if you don't have a cleric in the group, I don't see very many groups without clerics in the planes.

Do you have any idea how much mana the Knight AE heals cost? For a low, low cost of 850 mana on Wave of Marr and a Divine Arbitration 3, your cleric gets to save one CH. For that mana, you can definitely cast enough Force of Akilae to mitigate that much damage.

And even stuns are of no interest when a mob is fixed on one person. It mitigates some damage but it's hardly needed especially if the mob is slowed. For you to even suggest Wave of Marr + Divine Arbitration is an effective heal makes me wonder if you know how to get the most of your group's DPS. Just about anything else a Paladin does is more useful than wasting his mana because your cleric wanted extra mana to nuke instead of CH.

On versus spellcasters, there are plenty of zones with mobs that do not cast spells at all. Valor, which seems to be where the average warrior hang out, doesn't even have any casting mobs at all. BoT is the only tier 2+ zone I can think of where mobs gate. Fire and BoT are the only zones tier 2+ zones I can think of with XP that you fight and CH.

[Hussar]

Heh, paladin, kei, bard song... he was stunning occasionally also and never had to med.. /shrug, I don't know exactly what his mana bar was like, but he had enough to do wave of marr, and do stuns with no down time. In that group, we had absolutely no meding, for pally or cleric or shaman, so I figure they were doing well managing their mana pools. You still ignore the usefulness of stuns on casting mobs also, gates can really cause problems if in the wrong places.

[Glatius2]

300 HP is less than the difference between a Knight and a Warrior's HP. If Warrior has a Knight's aggro, he'd still outtank better without Brells. The other party member's HP are irrelevant because we assume the mob never leaves the warrior (which is what you wnated). While it's true a Knight has more HP if you don't have a cleric in the group, I don't see very many groups without clerics in the planes.

Basically I read your logic as going like this. If a Warrior had enough initial aggro to lock a mob, then their advantage in tanking would be telling enough to never allow a Knight a group spot as tank. You consider this to be 'imbalanced' and 'wrong'.

Yet, in the current state of affairs the fact that Knights can generate enough initial aggro to lock a mob, something a Warrior typically can't do, is not 'imbalanced' or 'wrong' because the Warrior still theoretically 'tanks' better. However practical reality shows us beyond a shadow of a doubt that in fact the Warrior doesn't tank better because of his inability to generate enough initial aggro. He tanking edge never really comes completely into play because many times the damage is spread between him and at least one other character. An advantage underutilized is not a true advantage. It would be like Monks having higher DPS but always having to melee from the front where ripostes tore them up. Their advantage couldn't be used to it's fullest extent, therefore it's a theoretical advantage, not a real one.

Knights are supposed to be using their spells in order to match the Warrior's tankability. They were meant to compete with Warriors, not have aggro superiority of ridiculous proportions. Just as we don't have HP/AC/mitigation/DPS advantages of ridiculous proportions. The logic that on the one hand justifies Knight initial aggro generation which is hugely superior to Warrior initial aggro generatin while on the other hand claiming that Warriors should be as close to Knights in the HP/AC/mitigation/DPS areas is not reasonable logic. It's illogic to the extreme.

[BrikBludgaard]

Glatius,

knights are supposed to be tanks.... they are different tanks... but tanks nonetheless.

and XP groups use either warriors or knights... whichever is higher level or has better equipment... or comes first.. or they like them better, or whoever the party leader clicks on first...

Knights aggro better FROM A DISTANCE and they will always aggro better from a distance... unless you want rangers summoned for doin 100damage from 350range, or give warriors spells, Knights will ALWAYS be able to outaggro warriors from afar using the spells that HAVE to cause hate or you break the knights even worse.

This advantage is not going to go away.


Now, the question is, how do we solve the little "grass is greener" problem?

1) re-educate the masses... thats ALL classes... warriors can cooperate with Knights to create a powerful tanking combo... Sk also add additional party regenerative abilities and party and personal burst damage and Paladins add patch healing and ghetto-control. Warrior + Knight >>> Knight + 3rd rogue.

2) make a minor change designed to help the non-uber warrior generate aggro. Uber-equipped warriors need nothing.... they just plain own. Its the little warrior that needs a hand.

3) make overall changes to melee and non-melee, non-spellcasting attacks that allow warriors more freedom and more versatility through taking advantage of the three melee combat styles available, and the archery and thrown that is currently a joke. Isn't anyone else tired of every warrior with "X" weapon, every knight with "Y" weapon and every <insert class here> with <insert this expansions specific "parses-way-too-much-better-than-anything-else" equipment here>??

Brik

[Kaesorn]

Ahh...so many people to correct where should I start?

Lets go with...Brik. I'll get to Phantron later.

Brik,
I don't think Glatius disputes the fact that Knights can tank, or that they can gain agro. He KNOWS this. Only problem is that SKs aren't the only knights, Paladins fall into this name too. I have heard little problems against SKs. They were given tools to literally control agro. To nerf their agro abilities would be almost to nerf the class as a whole, and I don't want that to happen, and I don't believe the warrior class wants to either. To take away their agro abilities would require nerfing ALL of their spells almost. Might as well kill the class if you're gonna do that. SKs use more mana to hold agro than Paladins tho, overall.

Knights agro FROM A DISTANCE just as good as RIGHT UP FRONT. Range means little to a Knight. Also:

Warrior + Knight >>> Knight + 3rd rogue.

Quite wrong, you underestimate the rogue here. Perhaps a well-equipped SK could do damage close to a well-equipped rogue (*Sorry, I'm laughing on the inside at that statement after typing it), however a Paladin can't. Paladins can only do damage with melee (and perhaps their proc spell if they put it on).
I can't think of ONE plausible situation outside of a raid where that statement could ever possibly be true. Warriors can't do damage anywhere near a rogue, I'm sorry. Having the knight tank means the rogue can start doing damage early, which means the mob dies a LOT faster. No warrior + knight combo can beat that.

Phantron,
Seriously...which game are you playing? You show absolutely no knowledge of strategies used by those "useless abilities" of the paladin. 900hp group heal? Sure it takes 850mana to cast, however it casts in 3 SECONDS. It takes more mana because of it's "OH ****!!" value. Ask a paladin sometime what he uses his mana on. They only have three uses...buffs, stuns and group heals. Buffing can be done between mobs. Stuns will give the paladin agro, as will group heals.

For you to even suggest Wave of Marr + Divine Arbitration is an effective heal makes me wonder if you know how to get the most of your group's DPS.

Don't know much about healing strategy, do you? That combination is more useful than you seem to think.

Lets put this in a situation easier to understand. A 6000hp fully buffed tank (yes, these exist, not everyone is 65 with 300AAs and elemental gear) has been whittled down to 1000hp (he's taken 5000hp damage). You have a 65 Paladin with Wave of Marr and a Cleric with Divine Arbitration 3 (DvA3). Cleric hits DvA3, in one second that tank is now around 5000hp. Then the Paladin casts his Wave of Marr (which is 3 seconds cast time, btw) and heals the entire 6 person group for 900hp apiece. The group just did 5400hp of healing in less than 5 seconds if they worked it right (even faster if cleric hits DvA while the paladin is casting heal). Meanwhile, the group is able to finish the fight, and the paladin and cleric lost very little to no damage output. Please explain to me how this is not "getting the most of your group's DPS". Paladins can't do much damage (practically none actually) through spells. They do it all through melee. If the cleric had done the healing him/herself with CH, they might have used less mana, but they would be casting for 10 seconds, and it wouldn't be as mana efficient as it could be since the tank can't be healed the full 7500hp a cleric can CH for. The other way is faster, and is sufficient.

300 HP is less than the difference between a Knight and a Warrior's HP.

Really? Since you said "Knight" instead of "Paladin" or "Shadowknight", I'm assuming this doesn't this count the Paladin's level 64 self only buff, Aura of the Crusader. That's an additional ~350hp that a paladin has, and it stacks with all other hp buffs in the game (except PotG line, due to the mana regen on AoC). Really, other than a small difference in damage output using a 2hander, now what is the difference between a warrior and a Paladin at 64 with this spell? Defensive/Evasive? Stuns and their group heals make up for that to a strong degree.

Do you have any idea how much mana the Knight AE heals cost? For a low, low cost of 850 mana on Wave of Marr and a Divine Arbitration 3, your cleric gets to save one CH. For that mana, you can definitely cast enough Force of Akilae to mitigate that much damage.

If they chain-stun, which they would have to do in order to "mitigate" (your words) the damage they could recover from ONE group heal, they're gonna be tanking anyways.

And even stuns are of no interest when a mob is fixed on one person. It mitigates some damage but it's hardly needed especially if the mob is slowed.

Yet it's good enough to use as a reason not to use a group heal...now you say the stuns are worthless? Back to the group heals, I guess. See further above for more on that.

Also, a SK does more damage than a paladin of the same level. You would actually lose LESS damage having a paladin go out to pull. Lots of SKs play their class very differently. SKs can do a lot of things, and the "best" SKs can do all of them well, that includes meleeing, and use them all. For you to say that:
The best SKs I have grouped with are usually not tanking and often not even meleeing.
...means you know very little about the full capabilities of the SK class, and calling your idea of what they should do as "the best" means you see SKs as little more than a mana-using monk-puller with less damage. That is not a SK played to full effect, and therefor not the "best". You're saying that the "best" SK means sacrificing the DPS that you value so much? I don't think so.

People tend to overlook that a warrior with Tactical Mastery is the best DPS in the game in front of a mob

Technically, that's a wizard. ^_^ Ripostes can't come into play when you're not meleeing.

If you still can't hold aggro with a 12% aggro buff, then it's time to look at your group or yourself and see what's wrong.

I thought that was the whole point of this thread...

Group heals are useless if I am the only one taking damage.

See the above "Group heals with DvA" statement. They most certainly are not useless. Saying they are shows you're narrowminded and can't adapt, and those that can't adapt die first.

Stuns are useless if a mob is always on me (assume there is a slower in group, and there usually is one).

Show me a slow that can stop a mob from attacking for 10 seconds.

I thought so.

Finally, you say a paladin offers nothing to a group that has no agro control problems. Lets see...heals and HoTs make the cleric's job a HELL of a lot easier. Like I already said, see above for uses for group heals. Stuns...see right above. Oh wait, you mean no agro control problems whatsoever? Okay, either you're losing DPS (which you seem to value a lot), or that must mean the paladin is tanking, right? =P

I'd like to close by saying...Phantron, you HAVE to be one of the most closeminded warriors I have ever seen, judging by your statements here. You seem positively unaware of how a GOOD Knight uses their abilities, especially if it doesn't fit in the "Holy Triad" mindset (Warrior/cleric/slower) of about 2 expansions ago.

[Zumbuk_FS]

A flaw in your reasoning. Not every group, chances are not even 5 out of 10 groups would bother to look for a warrior/hybrid combo like you suggest. Exp is all about being fast and efficient. And to be both you need DPS. Rogues and Wizards, etc. You need 1 tank and only 1 tank. Now the hybrid can cast, as you pointed out, from a distance and gain aggro. But for arguments sake, lets say they wait til the mob is in camp. Everyone has to stop and wait before they do their job so the warrior can build aggro. With a hybrid, he casts a stun, snare, or AC debuff and has snap aggro, allowing the chanter to tash, shaman to slow, cleric to heal, and nukers to nuke.

Taunt isnt really broken. Its just out matched, out classed, and generally out expansioned. Its a shame that people bring up disciplines from Kunark as reasons for not giving the warrior class an upgrade, yet everything original about being a warrior(crits and crips for instance) is now handed out with a couple little AA points, and even those are better than what a warrior can do.

[friss]

How many warrior shoot arrows at a mob that is inc, to gain fast agro. Very few warriors use arrows, but it does put a melee on the top of the hate list very fast. If the warrior shoots a few arrows and my main cast TASH the mob will still head towards the warrior the majority of the time.

[Glatius2]

How many warrior shoot arrows at a mob that is inc, to gain fast agro. Very few warriors use arrows, but it does put a melee on the top of the hate list very fast. If the warrior shoots a few arrows and my main cast TASH the mob will still head towards the warrior the majority of the time.

I call BS. Arrows will put a Warrior on the hate list, but nothing anywhere has shown that it puts you at the top of the hate list, quickly or otherwise, unless you're the only one on the list. How can we check this? Easily done, go have a Monk pull and as he kites the mobs in front of you, fire your bow at it. If in fact firing arrows puts you at the top of the hate list then very soon the mob should abandon his chase of the Monk and go after you, right? Let me tell you, this won't happen unless either the Monk flops or gets out of frenzy range.

[Zumbuk_FS]

Ive used arrows to gain inc aggro, but it only works IF the puller hasnt done any kind of major damage to the mob, AND the puller has to bring the mob directly to you. Once you are closer to the mob than the puller, only then will the mob direct its attention to you.

But this isnt some kind of replacement for snap aggro. And it sure as hell doesnt lock down a mob, its just pull aggro. A one legged halfling with vision problems could do this easy.

The problem people are talking about is the comparison between knight vs warrior mitigation and knight and warrior taunt.

The difference between a warrior's HPs, AC, and Mitigation vs a knights could be represented by this period ---> .

The difference between a warrior's taunt and aggro ability vs a knights could be represented by this circle...

O

[BrikBludgaard]

"Correcting" isn't the word to use really... you will add your experience (hopefully) and opinions, and I'll add mine. That aside, here goes...

QUOTE
Brik,
I don't think Glatius disputes the fact that Knights can tank, or that they can gain agro. He KNOWS this. Only problem is that SKs aren't the only knights, Paladins fall into this name too. <snip>
END QUOTE

The point was that knights are DIFFERENT types of tanks... and should be DIFFERENT in style. (they are)


QUOTE
SKs use more mana to hold agro than Paladins tho, overall.
END QUOTE

Hmm... I would actually agree with this... although our mana spent to garner aggro usually does more than garner aggro... (spears, dark, Dots) the only exception to this is our "terror" line.


QUOTE
Knights agro FROM A DISTANCE just as good as RIGHT UP FRONT. Range means little to a Knight. Also:
END QUOTE

but it is the "distance" that makes the most difference... warriors aggro up close just like knights do... they hit the taunt button and start hitting said target. (hybrids throw taunt spells, but the difference is after the slow and BEFORE the taunt spells up close can even land really)
it is the "pre-taunt" that makes the difference between the slower being hit or not and that gains the knight the large hate lead that makes them such good aggro controllers.

I actually agree that warriors could use a +hate mod added to kick or something (I've also heard of a booby prize plan for taunt if it doesn't work of +taunt skill or + 1/2 taunt skill) I'd support that too.


QUOTE
Quite wrong, you underestimate the rogue here. Perhaps a well-equipped SK could do damage close to a well-equipped rogue (*Sorry, I'm laughing on the inside at that statement after typing it), however a Paladin can't. Paladins can only do damage with melee (and perhaps their proc spell if they put it on).
I can't think of ONE plausible situation outside of a raid where that statement could ever possibly be true. Warriors can't do damage anywhere near a rogue, I'm sorry. Having the knight tank means the rogue can start doing damage early, which means the mob dies a LOT faster. No warrior + knight combo can beat that.
END QUOTE

Shadowknights(and indeed paladins) do about 50-60% of the raw average DPS of a rogue in melee... but our shining moments are our burst damage... and what we can do for the party overall.

Lets say you had:
Shadowknight (tank and puller)
Rogue
Wizard
Rogue
Cleric
Enchanter

One of the rogues leaves...

Depending on the camp, I would actually take a WARRIOR over a rogue.... why?

1) Pulling and tanking drains my mana pool very heavily... even with VoQ and FT9, (I am in partial elemental gear.. some really nice slots, and some that I would prefer to not mention) I would be able to keep up my taunt spells and lock aggro along with throwing Some spears and bite, and Aura... If I have to lifetap at all, I will be LoM very quickly. Having the warrior means I can load burst damage and burst aggro spells and Voice and stick the warrior with aggro. My mana pool is freed to do more BURST damage.

2) If we are in an area of any challenege at all, the warrior is a safer bet... I CAN tank nearly everything... but when it hits for 1000+ the burst damage will sometimes get away from any cleric. This is multiplied when I am also pulling! Down time eats XP worse than anything else. (note that with the puller/tank down, the party is just down, with a WAR+SK, the party switches tanks and continues) I I pull two, the WAR+SK is an immensely better bet, as ATing is possible even if the chanter bites it. A second rogue replacement is not going to be anywhere near as useful as a warrior if everything does NOT go as planned.

3) With two damage dealers in the party, a third is not really necessary. So the mob dies fractions of a second slower... we are still going to be sitting picking our tails while the mobs respawn.

4) If a shadowknight can make the warrior into a hate machine, the result of choosing the warrior over the rogue is about 35-40% of their damage output. since I am saving mana by not having to pull and tank, I have time for better pulls and faster pulls (I can "tee up" a mob while the warrior and others kill it) I can also throw burst damage in battles that are all about burst damage anyways... the result WILL be fasterand more plentiful kills.

5) the cleric will not need to heal very often the other person who gets hit on the off chancce the warrior fails a taunt as that should be the shadowknight.... I lifetap for 500... and proc 195pt lifetaps on every weapon I wield.... unless I am AT'ing the cleric can ignore me. (or unless they are FOM.. in which case, Ill take it.)


There ARE times and combinations where a second and third damage dealer are not necessary... there are times where a warrior is a better choice for a group than a rogue.

There is ALWAYS the limiting reagent.... and that is mobs to kill... We cleared PoF castle the other day with only ONE rogue, a warrior, a shadowknight, a cleric, an enchanter, and a druid. Never mind the "you must have three damage dealers.... we were out of mobs more often than we wished anyways.

Brik

P.S.
Arrows do only their damage in aggro (whatever the conversion is, pretty sure it is NOT 1dam= 1hate though) its really not very good for positional hate as they are VERY small changes comparatively... nearly ANY spell (even ones that are resisted) seem to do more hate than most arrow hits.
1 Darkness (or any type of snare) does over 1000 hate ish (more than two 500pt hate spells and less than two 610pt hate spells.)
1 resisted darkness(snare) is worth less than even 400 hate (one low level terror took aggro)
1 arrow doing even 600+ damage (from a ranger from minimal archery range) is less than a resisted Dark.

[Murpus]

no im not an ebay whoever the retard who said that but on my server sleeper is not awake and IT IS SO EASY TO GET TO LVL 65 AND JOIN A DECENT GUILD on top of that its even easier to spend 6 months with that guild anf get a sod/primal or better

its not hard, just need to get to 65 and get some AA's and stuff like ALL warriors have to do so what if a paladin tanks better i dont care all i care is that after about 6 months of being 65 and you dont have a sod or better something is wrong and if you dont want to leave your small guild to get better aggro items then you need to stop complaining becuase they will never make aggro easy with some crap like a frosty and a 10/18 mainhander etc its just not gonna happen we've complained about this for 2 years and it still has not even been remotley fixed all warriors i see do is complaing and if they arent complaining then they see what i see which is if you stick with it aggro becomes easier so yea its hard when your lvl 55 lfg for a group in sebilis and you cant keep aggro for jack you know what ALL warriors had to do that though its not something new that aggro is all of a sudden hard when your not lvl 65 with good gear. get 65 get a freaking decent weapon and thats how you solve the aggro problem maybe thats wrong like a said but its what you have to do

end game aggro isnt messed up really.. just deal with it

Murpus Clokwork 65 Gnome War of Xev

[Rumblingdeth]

And thats why I quit the game, "It is easy to join a large guild and get 65 and an EB weapon" <biggest lie ever! Fucken liar ass Knights just want to screw every warrior out of the game! They SOLOED (something we were repeatidly told no way, and nerfed when we could) for an easy first 50 levels, and then want the ENTIRE game handed to them. Tired of knights coming here and lying!! Go to playerauctions and tell me WHY a BoC costs $650??!! Because it is UNAVAILABLE to 99% of us!n Your lies are pathetic, transparent attempts to completely screw warrior players out of playing EQ and enjoying it, so ALL exp groups and ALL loot falls to your lewt whore asses.

[Terrorus]

Originally posted by Murpus
no im not an ebay whoever the retard who said that but on my server sleeper is not awake and IT IS SO EASY TO GET TO LVL 65 AND JOIN A DECENT GUILD on top of that its even easier to spend 6 months with that guild anf get a sod/primal or better

its not hard, just need to get to 65 and get some AA's and stuff like ALL warriors have to do so what if a paladin tanks better i dont care all i care is that after about 6 months of being 65 and you dont have a sod or better something is wrong and if you dont want to leave your small guild to get better aggro items then you need to stop complaining becuase they will never make aggro easy with some crap like a frosty and a 10/18 mainhander etc its just not gonna happen we've complained about this for 2 years and it still has not even been remotley fixed all warriors i see do is complaing and if they arent complaining then they see what i see which is if you stick with it aggro becomes easier so yea its hard when your lvl 55 lfg for a group in sebilis and you cant keep aggro for jack you know what ALL warriors had to do that though its not something new that aggro is all of a sudden hard when your not lvl 65 with good gear. get 65 get a freaking decent weapon and thats how you solve the aggro problem maybe thats wrong like a said but its what you have to do

end game aggro isnt messed up really.. just deal with it

Murpus Clokwork 65 Gnome War of Xev

End game aggro isnt messed up? Aggro isnt messed up, its the warriors ability to successfully taunt that is. I'd like to see what you are using for weapons that cause you to believe that everything is fine and dandy. I use 2 decent aggro weapons and yet I can have a high DPS rogue or monk pull it from me. Sometimes I have to attack and taunt a mob 3 freakin times before it decides to turn on me. I'd say there is something wrong.

[Frodlin7th]

There are two servers where SoD's are still entering the game, yours and Stromm.

One of the great gear imbalance decisions that SOE made was to remove SoD's from ST's loot table when Kerafyrm was awakened. They revamped ST and STILL they didnt' put anything like it back on the new warders or whatever they're called.

Anyhow, there's no replacement at the level of raiding for an SOD at all. It's sad that they never saw this coming, but come on, dont' use your server which is very close to being unique in EQ as an example about aggro weapons at the level in which sleeper's was capable of being defeated with.

[Murpus]

bot named drop a 14/18 sword that is uber as hell with a similar to sod proc and that can be killed with 3 groups..

Murpus Clokwork 65 Gnome War of Xev

[Murpus]

I'd like to see what you are using for weapons that cause you to believe that everything is fine and dandy.

Im just using a sod and a tunare whip and a dont have primal yet.. ok so aggro is not gonna be glued on you ALL the time but the main thing is you get the aggro 95% of the time and thats good.. hell ide hate to be a warrior if i didnt have to work at all to do my job i sometimes feel like you guys want tuant handed to you on a platter and do nothing to obtain it etc...

Murpus Clokwork 65 Gnome War of Xev

[Glatius2]

hell ide hate to be a warrior if i didnt have to work at all to do my job i sometimes feel like you guys want tuant handed to you on a platter and do nothing to obtain it etc..

Oh no, not at all. We're perfectly willing to match the time and effort that Knights put into having reasonable aggro control. Just stock up the vendors with SoDs for 50 plat each and we'll shut the hell up.

[Frodlin7th]

bot named drop a 14/18 sword that is uber as hell with a similar to sod proc and that can be killed with 3 groups..

Now, i dont' need that weapon, I have better as it stands... but I can tell you this... if the weapon begins to actually DROP, then you'll have a leg to stand on, but currently you don't. I've killed Eindride a total of 26 times, the loots have been....

19 Ring Containers
24 Fungus Clumps
3 ornate BP molds

and various runes and parchments...

Out of 26 kills (mind you, many of these were even before the quest requirements to enter BoT were toned down from having to kill 2 PoS giant lords per 4 keys, to the introduction of the minis. Some say that the drop rate after that point was decreased, I'm skeptical because they pretty much sucked before too, but in all this time, I have never seen a single one of these weapons. You cannot call something which never drops (there are none on my server that I am aware of, although i haven't been in BoT for some time, so one or two could've ninja-entered the world recently).

Also, the proc isn't even close to Anarchy, which does significantly more damage than Force Shock (a level 20 Wizard spell I believe) and has a longer and more aggro producing stun. The "uber' proc that you're referring to is a proc that has existed on Hoshkar's loot table since Kunark on Veridix's Shortsword, which I happen to have dual wielded for some time.

[slyse]

murpus = pwned :eek:

[Murpus]

well he dropped one of those sword every time i killed him which is once hehehe

the proc is 179 dmg and a stun plus having 2 more dmg on the base weapon itself makes it actually better than a sod. but well i guess you guys have it rough not having like 800+ sods on your server.. glad im on xev =)) no matter still some great 2handers from bot as well aggro isnt too bad just isnt easy as hell like a l ot of people want.