Warrior Stance Changes

Just to reiterate, /s 4 is the only useful style for pallies other then /s 3. With a huge nerf to /s 4, we might as well be casters/healers 97% of the time as far as stances go. If your going to reduce the time dramatically, you need to UP its effect, not nerf the stance in both time/effect.

What I would really like to see is a stance for a short o shit, the puller brought 2 to raid, type stance (short duration, big mitigation or avoidance) and a long term, o shit the warrior went down in the first 10s, guess I am tanking the boss stance (long duration, something bit better then /s 3.)

If you are going to nerf /s 4, at least just nerf the agro component. Thats just overkill, and not really needed (except for low lvl pallies).

Now we are just weak clerics with better tank gear choices, double attack, and a couple better tank AAs (hp, divine stun).
 
Manguadi said:
It's comparable to the duration of the best shadowknight tanking stance now, and it still makes a greater difference.

I don't think paladin stances in general are a huge concern due to the enormous number of abilities and choices available to a paladin already. A paladin can do enough with heals and aggro to not need stances to give them versatility.
Click to expand...

I agree that /s 4 was overpowered and that pallys have plenty of other abilities, in fact they have a lot of other "oh shit" type abilities lay on hands, self heals, stuns. SO, in my opinion /s 4 should not be turned into yet another oh shit type of ability with a short duration. Pallys should still be out tanking every other class besides wars and SK. I think that reducing the Agro and +parry would be a better balance than making a short duration stance. Maybe just remove the agro component because in my view tanks should have longer duration tanking stances, ones that can last at least half an encounter, whereas rogues/bards/ranger types have stances that turn them into oh shit tanks for a few seconds, if pallys are gonna fall in this category then they better get some serious dps increase :p

And yes paladins have other abilities like heals but guess what shadow knights can feign death and have sweet agro spells. Warriors obviously needed a boost, and maybe the SK stance should be given the +agro and the pally stance could be some kind of weak +dps along with the parry.

Are paladins still going to be #3 tanks? yes hands down, but one of the cool things about SoD is the stance system. Perhaps one solution could be to grant tanks a small bonus to /s 3 while giving dps a small bonus to /s 2 since these are the stances that I see most people using 80 percent of the time.
 
Last edited:
Miffy said:
Perhaps one solution could be to grant tanks a small bonus to /s 3 while giving dps a small bonus to /s 2 since these are the stances that I see most people using 80 percent of the time.
Click to expand...

Umm, those are exactly what those stances do.
 
Ignore, for a moment, any possible imbalances with other tanks that paladins may or may not have.

It seems to me that the only way to determine whether or not a nerf was needed on s4 would be to hit the wayback machine to a time before all this came up and ask whoever is in charge of such things,

"Should Paladin A be able to tank mob Soandso in s4 with this amount of gear and this amount of healers?"

This is the same kind of whack-a-mole nerfing that plagued that other game for so long.

After having paladins tanking at the pre-nerf level for such a very long time (I assume s4 hasn't been stealth improved accidentally to warrant this nerf?) dropping us down just because warriors and SK's did not have an equivalent stance just doesn't make sense. Who, in the end, would be unhappy with paladins having s4 and the other tanks having an equivalently good stance in ratio with their perceived ideal mitigation level?

I.E. why were Paladins surprise nerfed instead of buffing the other tanks.

In a vacuum, I could care less how the other tanks mitigate. But I will sure as hell be sad today if I go to tank something I've killed before and have my ass handed to me simply because warriors and SK's were lacking.
 
Cinn said:
Mega bolding this.

Paladins have been ridiculously overpowered and Shadowknights laughingly underwhelming for a very long time now.

I still think Shadowknights need some more love.
Click to expand...

a lot of people have felt this way, however i dont think nerfing one class to make another feel better is correct.
 
gtoo said:
Umm, those are exactly what those stances do.
Click to expand...

My point was a monk/ranger/bard in /s 3 can off tank pretty well on a raid and does a whole shit load more dps so why not use them instead of a paladin. What I am looking for is a wider gap between dps classes ability to tank compared to tanks. which is why I completely support making wars and SK better instead of just nerfing paladins.
 
I'm also interested in ranger/monk tanking ability.

Also kind of interested in why warriors didn't really get upgraded. Change not what was asked to be fixed, but what was comparable to make others comparably better. I think warriors still need more interaction (possibly from their stances).
 
Last edited:
Mythryn said:
No thats what you said I saw it.
Click to expand...

Haha, now i'm at fault for providing misleading information :p.

Also, I still don't see warriors being anything more than shield bitches for sk's now even given their stance changes.
 
Last edited:
wolfwalkerEci said:
a lot of people have felt this way, however i dont think nerfing one class to make another feel better is correct.
Click to expand...

I'd just like to remind everyone coming up with these types of responses that Guarding Blade used to require a two handed weapon and was later changed to allow you to use it with a one-hander and a shield. It almost certainly was not intended to be as powerful as it was, more likely some mistake was made when rebalancing it to one-hander + shield usable.

Also, do you really want a flat increase to the tanking power of warriors? I think a lot of us feel that the challenge level of this game is pretty great as-is.
 
stope21 said:
Sounds like someone is a little worried about their class being examined. What do you have to hide?
Click to expand...

Hide? I just don't want to see monks get nerfed too. I think the paladin nerf was plenty overkill for the next six to ninety months. :(
 
I wonder what the intended use for the new /s 4 is suppose to be now. 30-40 secs of +Aggro + a little Parry seems rather lackluster.

Considering /s 3 already has a +parry and can be run basicly all day.

Wesell did bring up a very good point, I have a feeling Guarding blade was ported over without thinking of how a shield would interact with the stance. If I recall guarding blade was changed because paladins couldn't use thier best stance while useing thier shield. (like /s 5 being change to work on living targets and not just undead)

Its to bad no one did any parses with a guarding blade useing a 2her vs Warrior/SK + Shield to see how it factored out. Would have been intersting to see where paladins place tanking wise under those conditions.
 
stope21 said:
Haha, now i'm at fault for providing misleading information :p.

Also, I still don't see warriors being anything more than shield bitches for sk's now even given their stance changes.
Click to expand...

As I've come through the tiers of raiding, to ME its become more and more obvious that a knight being shielded easily beats out a warrior. Why we don't use that method more often perplexes me, save time at the very minimum.
 
kibeth said:
As I've come through the tiers of raiding, to ME its become more and more obvious that a knight being shielded easily beats out a warrior. Why we don't use that method more often perplexes me, save time at the very minimum.
Click to expand...

Uh, of course two classes working together is going to beat a single class doing the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom