Warrior Stance Changes

I think the problem is paladins are designed for ae tanking which they do fine. The problem was paladins had become so overpowered that they could tank any raid encounter and this nerf just is a knee jerk reaction. Maybee a good solution to this would be to give paladins or change style 3 to a non draining stance that gives parry and mitigation based on the number of mobs they have on their hate list they are tanking. Ie 1 Mob a very very minor bonus and each mob after that gives a decent bonus up to 4-6 mobs. This would help more clearly define the role of paladins while not steping on the toes of sks/warriors who were meant for single target agro.

I do agree that warriors do need more love though they should be at least equal non shielded with 50% two weapon/50% using a shield to a shielded knight on tanking single mobs or why use a warrior to mt over a shielded sk/pally ever, they hold worse agro and take more ripose damage.
 
Can we atleast have it last 2:50 seconds with regen and acumen, just like the Warrior and SK stance?
 
even nerfed it still provides much more of a benefit than the sk/war styles so it would have to be nerfed to be equal to the sk/war line to have the same duration.
 
Maethorr said:
even nerfed it still provides much more of a benefit than the sk/war styles so it would have to be nerfed to be equal to the sk/war line to have the same duration.
Click to expand...

Does it?

I only saw a parse done for 10 minutes. Lets see a 2:30 Minute Parse of Paladin/SK/Warrior.

I would also love to see a parse done for the following done with the same 2:30 Minute Parse.

SK Being Shielded by Warrior
Warrior being shielded by Warrior
Paladin Being Shielded by Warrior

*obviously since /s 4 was nerfed this kind of parse would have to be done by a Dev who can mess around with clock times.
 
Severien said:
So you think a warrior's role in this game should be nothing more than a second shield with legs?
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? Stop putting words in peoples mouth. I simply think that wearing a shield should be a viable option for a warrior, at the expense of -some- agro, enough so that the raid still has to hold back, but not enough so that its impossible to do.
 
Mythryn said:
Where did I say that? Stop putting words in peoples mouth. I simply think that wearing a shield should be a viable option for a warrior, at the expense of -some- agro, enough so that the raid still has to hold back, but not enough so that its impossible to do.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with this.
 
Your comment was this:
Uh, of course two classes working together is going to beat a single class doing the same thing.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, then a warrior shielding a knight would always be preferable to a warrior tanking with a knight auxing, which would turn the warrior class into nothing more than a mobile /shield ability.
 
Severien said:
Your comment was this:


If that were the case, then a warrior shielding a knight would always be preferable to a warrior tanking with a knight auxing, which would turn the warrior class into nothing more than a mobile /shield ability.
Click to expand...

Hello you can also shield other warriors hello amazing.
 
Care to give up your spot in the raid as a knight so it can carry two warriors? To have a fourth tank instead of some dps or healing would be of more detriment than losing some mitigation by having the warrior shield a knight.
 
Severien said:
Care to give up your spot in the raid as a knight so it can carry two warriors? To have a fourth tank instead of some dps or healing would be of more detriment than losing some mitigation by having the warrior shield a knight.
Click to expand...

I have no problem giving up raid slots if the fight needs it. It's called doing whats best for your guild. And who said anything about four tanks? It's pretty well established that no encounter really needs more than 3.
 
A fourth tank: Paladin, Shadowknight, Warrior, Warrior, otherwise your knights give up their spot so you can have the best mitigation possible. Pretty much anyone can see that most guilds on most raids would just have the warrior shield the knight if that was better than the single warrior doing it himself, and, as I said, that would make our class into a shielding ability with legs. If you cant see how royally buttfucked warriors would be if that were working as intended, you have some serious bias.

Edit: Knights should be the ones with the shielding ability regardless. Having warriors with the ability is a throwback to live (and pre-18 man raiding here) where you could carry multiple warriors. It gave them something to do besides offtank an occasional add and tank in emergencies. Here, it adds utility to warriors, but it also fucks with our status as the premier tank, which is something we really need to have because we blow chunks at trying to do anything else. If knights were the ones with the /shield ability, there wouldn't be any question. I'd happily give mine up for some job security.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, pick another class and bench them. Be it SK or Paladin, if you really think you need the mitigation(hint: you don't), have a warrior shield the other warrior. And you seriously suggest giving what little utility warriors have to two classes with loads of it? /Shield allows for multiple warriors to have a use on a raid, and it's a very, very good one. It's not about bias at all, and I hope anyone who's not irrational with anger over the changes can see that.

Please, let go of your whole 'You think warriors should be on a raid for /shield and thats it!!!!!!!!!' rant, I've already stated it's not even close to what I think is right. I'm sorry you seemed to have missed it.
 
You think a shielded knight should be better than a non-shielded warrior. I'll let other people draw their own conclusions on that, because me and you are just going back and forth.

And yes, in this case, giving up that utility would actually strengthen my class more than weaken it.
 
For my part I think it's the paladin's role to shield people, outside of any game mechanics consideration.
 
I have to agree with Ardenn here. If an sk or pally with aux tanks and /shield is better than a warrior mt it would pretty much regulate the warrior to a /shield role. Its not that you cant take two warriors on a raid its that it is not feasible to do. IF you have a full zone pop you most likely are going to need 3 tanks at one point in the raid. Most zones have at least one encounter in them each that requires a pally and an sk (different encounters). That means you still need to have a paladin and sk for most raids not to mention the loot bonus for a diverse raid. This makes it pretty stupid to take along 2 warriors on prime targets when if anything you would double up dps/healing classes.
 
This thread was made for info on changes to warrior stances, and knight stances to a lesser degree. Keep your arguments over /shield's crap somewhere else as it has no relevance to wanting to know the specific numerical changes to the stances.
 
Maethorr said:
I think the problem is paladins are designed for ae tanking which they do fine. The problem was paladins had become so overpowered that they could tank any raid encounter and this nerf just is a knee jerk reaction. Maybee a good solution to this would be to give paladins or change style 3 to a non draining stance that gives parry and mitigation based on the number of mobs they have on their hate list they are tanking. Ie 1 Mob a very very minor bonus and each mob after that gives a decent bonus up to 4-6 mobs. This would help more clearly define the role of paladins while not steping on the toes of sks/warriors who were meant for single target agro.
Click to expand...

I think this is a very good idea, becuase as it stands the (supposed) worst of the three tanks has the best AE agro. It seems like if the role of a paladin is meant to be agroing multiple adds, and tanking them, then make them better at that. Because what is the point of being able to agro 6+ mobs if they tear you to pieces. I think it would be balanced if say a paladin took normal damage from one mob and each subsequent mob would deal less. So like made up numbers, mob #2 deals 2% less dmg, mob #3 deals 3% less etc. This way a paladin could tank 6 mobs and take similar dmg to a war but never compete on one mob.

OR if paladins are supposed to be the most dps of all tanks it could be made so that they do not take an aux penalty beyond the first mob or two, in other words they deal as much dps if they are tanking 1 mob or 6, not making them better tanks per se but making them better suited to their role of fighting multiple mobs at once.

And thank you Maethorr for posting constructive ideas, lets get more of these and less whining / bashing of others.
 
Mythryn said:
Where did I say that? Stop putting words in peoples mouth. I simply think that wearing a shield should be a viable option for a warrior, at the expense of -some- agro, enough so that the raid still has to hold back, but not enough so that its impossible to do.
Click to expand...

Wearing a shield is already a viable option for a warrior. CONSTANTLY wearing a shield is not. I've already explained to you why this is not likely to be changed. I'll reiterate: warriors were given the dual wield skill by the gods. The gods are not going to be favorable towards a notion to make dual wield LESS USEFUL just because they tank better with a shield. To the contrary, they're more likely to grant tanks better tanking ability with dual wield -- since they're currently lacking, comparatively -- which they bestowed upon them during the conception of the class.

I'll put this very blatantly: allowing warriors to shield 100% of the time, at whatever cost, would interfere with class roles. Whether or not you agree is irrelevant because it's the truth. You can argue that "this is not live," but that is also irrelevant since class roles are universal and pretty clearly defined.


I like the new warrior changes, however, I'd like to see some parses to verify that they aren't overpowered and working as intended. Also, it'd be prime if a dev could comment on dual wield tanking; namely whether or not the increase in potency of /s 9 is supposed to "fix" it or if they intend to implement something that will increase mitigation while not in /s 9 (which is still a prominent issue imo). For reference:

Zaela said:
Both were using their long-haul, non-draining stances, since most tanking is done in them anyway, and it's a lot easier to parse (that's /s 12 for the Warrior and /s 3 for the Paladin, in case anyone wonders).

WARRIOR:

Attacking
Damage taken: 1664.03 per second
Mob accuracy: 67.2%


PALADIN:

Shield + attacking
Damage taken: 1677.14 per second
Mob accuracy: 59.2%
Click to expand...

Do not misconstrue this as being greedy. I am still of the firm belief that warriors should be substantially better tanks (damage taken) than knights in any scenario outside of rage and auto riposte mobs.


Edit:
Maethorr said:
I think the problem is paladins are designed for ae tanking which they do fine. The problem was paladins had become so overpowered that they could tank any raid encounter and this nerf just is a knee jerk reaction. Maybee a good solution to this would be to give paladins or change style 3 to a non draining stance that gives parry and mitigation based on the number of mobs they have on their hate list they are tanking. Ie 1 Mob a very very minor bonus and each mob after that gives a decent bonus up to 4-6 mobs. This would help more clearly define the role of paladins while not steping on the toes of sks/warriors who were meant for single target agro.

I do agree that warriors do need more love though they should be at least equal non shielded with 50% two weapon/50% using a shield to a shielded knight on tanking single mobs or why use a warrior to mt over a shielded sk/pally ever, they hold worse agro and take more ripose damage.
Click to expand...

You are an exceptional man.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom