 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Role Playing Games / EverQuest / October 2003Furor trolls the Paladin boards
This'll probably wrap... http://pub148.ezboard.com/fpaladinsofnorrathfrm21.showMessageRange?topicID=586.t opic&start=41&stop=60 From the shadows, the mysterious kaev <tospam@nottospam.net> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >This'll probably wrap... > >http://pub148.ezboard.com/fpaladinsofnorrathfrm21.showMessageRange?topicID=586.t opic&start=41&stop=60 He was making good points, as he saw them. Not trolling. You got his back up early by misunderstanding his first post. "That's odd. I never knew that it was the role of one player in one guild on one server to define the roles of the hundreds of thousands of other players across nearly fifty servers involved in a game he pays for the priviledge of playing just as we all do." He wasn't. He was echoing a sentiment a lot of warriors have, right or wrong.  SignatureBen Sisson 1 flask of holy water: $11 1 modified crossbow: $50 1 pointy wooden stake: $1 7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless > From the shadows, the mysterious kaev <tospam@nottospam.net> (if that > IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > He was making good points, as he saw them. Not trolling. Sorry Ben, but you're wrong. His very first statement is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie: /quote Furor The warrior community, up until a month ago, was getting ZERO support from the Hybrid Knight community in what is obviously a growing problem in class balance. /quote Paladins have been talking about this issue and expressing support for Warriors in the very Forum he posted this troll for at least six months. > You got his back up early by misunderstanding his first post. I misunderstood nothing. He was all bluster and arrogance. The opening lie set the tone and the following insults continued it. And the BS about "knights overstepping their bounds", what a total crock of sh.t. Here's a clue: Knights CAN'T overstep their bounds, SOE sets the rules for everybody, I can't do a damned thing with my Paladin unless SOE permits it. Is that clear enough? Now, let me make a suggestion. Go and read the Paladin and Warrior class descriptions at http://eqlive.station.sony.com/library/classes.jsp Note how Paladins are intended to "go head to head with their enemies" which is a pretty direct description of tanking, SOE intends Paladins to tank most of the time (unless "occasionally falling back to heal" means "haha! just kiding, we actually meant staying away from the fierce claws and jaws of the evil monsters". Then check out the last sentence of the middle paragraph of the Warrior class description. After you're done laughing give them some (hopefully coherent and non-inflammatory) feedback. In fact, everybody here ought to go and do that, especially the non-Warriors. What's needed is for SOE to give Warriors the ability to fulfill their class description. Calling for a knight nerf is a pathetic act of frustration, not an intelligent response to the fact that Warriors have been left behind by every class with a manabar. kaev From the shadows, the mysterious kaev <tospam@nottospam.net> (if that IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: >> From the shadows, the mysterious kaev <tospam@nottospam.net> (if that >> IS his real name) conspiratorially whispered: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Paladins have been talking about this issue and expressing support for >Warriors in the very Forum he posted this troll for at least six months. I said his first post, not the first statement in it. Here's his sentence and your response in context: Furor: A small, well tuned downgrade to certain aspects of being a Knight would probably cause an uproar in the 'now' but over time would go away as people adjusted properly to their roles. Your role isn't to usurp my role - something it is currently doing. Kaev: That's odd. I never knew that it was the role of one player in one guild on one server to define the roles of the hundreds of thousands of other players across nearly fifty servers involved in a game he pays for the priviledge of playing just as we all do. Furor was rather obviously not talking about "his" role, he was talking about the role of a warrior. You attacked this message as if he was claiming it was his role and no one else's. The fact is he's not alone in what he's calling for, right or wrong, and was never claiming to be, though you accused him of it. And if that wasn't your intent, it was vague enough to fool me, and almost certainly him as well judging from later responses. >> You got his back up early by misunderstanding his first post. > >I misunderstood nothing. I think it's pretty obvious now you did. > He was all bluster and arrogance. You assigned him way more arrogance than he was actually showing at first. IMO he wasn't particularly aggressive until AFTER you attacked him. > The opening >lie set the tone and the following insults continued it. Lie is far too strong a word. He was stating what he saw, nothing more. > And the BS >about "knights overstepping their bounds", what a total crock of sh.t. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >pathetic act of frustration, not an intelligent response to the fact >that Warriors have been left behind by every class with a manabar. I never said Furor was right. SignatureBen Sisson 1 flask of holy water: $11 1 modified crossbow: $50 1 pointy wooden stake: $1 7 seasons worth of memories of the best show on TV: priceless *snip Kaev playing with Furor* >. Calling for a knight nerf is a > pathetic act of frustration, not an intelligent response to the fact > that Warriors have been left behind by every class with a manabar. Warriors do need help, but I don't think a knight nerf is the answer. Nor do I think it should be better aggro control either. Warrior aggro control is not as bad a problem is many would believe. The "warrior aggro problem" is that knights have been superior tanks for too long, such that there is a significant amount of players who don't know how to control thier aggro anymore, or are too lazy to do so. (1) Warriors need a boost. They need an "and so much more" thing. Knights already have thiers. Tanking, and so much more. In the case of paladins, the "and so much more" is instant aggro control, backup heals, and backup rezing. In the case of shadowknights, the "and so much more" is instant aggro control, feign death pulling, and a bit more DPS. With warriors... you just get the tanking. There needs to be a reason to let the warrior do the tanking. So you have a choice between instant aggro control and some other good advantage. I don't really have a great suggestion, but knight level aggro control just doesn't do it for me. That just makes all the tanks more vanilla. They're all the same, just grab one of them at random. So what else? A dps boost? Perhaps... but then you're encroaching upon the ranger and monk territory. And it still wouldn't get warriors tanking. Turning them into a semi-dps class would just move them behind the mob while the knight tanks. Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing things through AA's. Give people a bit more reason to exp :P). Drasticly reduce or even eliminate the tremendous DPS hit a warrior takes when he uses defensive discipline. (and perhaps speed up the reuse time a bit) Make it so that /discipline defensive suddenly has a place to be used in an experience group, not just in a raid situation. That would give warriors a real and quantifiable advantage in tanking. Not some vague "well, my CH will heal 7000 hp on a warrior, but only 6000 on an equivalent knight", but a real advantage, a 30 percent reduction to thier melee damage taken. Suddenly you have a real choice. Do you want a knight tanking so your casters and dps melees run no risk of getting aggro? Or do you want a tank that takes less melee damage, easing the stress on your healers? SignatureDearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci (1) - It is with some amusement that I notice all of these people that love to complain about the "dumbing down of the game" will jump all over little things like newbies getting sense heading, or targeting improvments, or instanced dungeons, yet the same people turn a blind eye to the real dumbing down of the game. The fact that permanent knight aggro holding abilities have all but removed the need to for the individual to learn anything about aggro control. They eliminate boat rides, you're up in arms. They eliminate the skill requirement to combat... "best change ever". > Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing things > through AA's. Give people a bit more reason to exp :P). Drasticly reduce [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dps melees run no risk of getting aggro? Or do you want a tank that takes > less melee damage, easing the stress on your healers? How about increasing warrior DPS from the front? Currently you take roughly a 15% hit to DPS in order to stand in front of a mob, since the mob then gets to parry, dodge, block, and riposte your hits, not to mention the stuns. If warriors had some way (preferably NOT an AA, which merely solves the problem for the 10% of warriors high enough level and with enough exp to get the AA, instead of fixing the class for levels 1 thru 65) to reduce the degree to which their damage gets reduced by the mob, and Knights didn't have that way, then your choice would be between the better aggro control but worse damage, or the slower aggro control but more damage of a warrior. Since Knights come, as you say, with other "and so much more" abilities, giving warriors one as well shouldn't unbalance things too much. This also shouldn't encroach on the "real" DPS classes, who will continue to do more damage than any warrior (after all, this isn't any better than a warrior attacking from behind...) Bergh >> Suddenly you have a real choice. This is the key conceptual point that I hope Sony is smart enough to implement: don't make the tank classes functionally the same, make it a choice to think about. >> Do you want a knight tanking so your casters and > > dps melees run no risk of getting aggro? Or do you want a tank that takes > > less melee damage, easing the stress on your healers? Makes sense in the above spirit, though I don't like this difference being just due to an AA, it should apply across the board to some degree. The AA levels aren't actually the whole game, yet, and I'd hate to see them continue to become so. > How about increasing warrior DPS from the front? Currently you > take roughly a 15% hit to DPS in order to stand in front of a > mob, since the mob then gets to parry, dodge, block, and riposte > your hits, not to mention the stuns. This would be fine too, in the same spirit. Here's another thought: what if warriors had such high inherent resistances that they were practically immune to the attacks of casting mobs? The resistance being scaled to the warrior's level of course -- a lvl30 warrior shouldn't be able to easily absorb the nukes of a lvl50 mob. But the idea is that a warrior, much moreso than paladins or SK's or the DPS classes, could shrug off the blasts and roots and whatnot of casting mobs appropriate to his level. So now your ideal choice of tank will be heavily influenced by what sort of mobs you will be facing. And this gives the warriors a side benefit, much less need to find and wear resist gear. I guess this change would have only modest impact on the high-end raiding game, where the raid group's tanks are buffed up to high resistances anyway, everybody dons their high end resist gear along for the purpose, etc. But at levels 1 through maybe 55ish, warriors would be distinctly better magic-attack-sponges than other tanks, a tradeoff for the others' superior aggro control. > >> Suddenly you have a real choice. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > levels aren't actually the whole game, yet, and I'd hate to see them > continue to become so. Being an AA has a few important advantages. One that it restricts the content to the highest levels, where the problem actually is. Until you hit PoP, the knight advantages really don't mean all that much. It also makes it much easier to sell to Sony, following what they themselves did in fixing the caster imbalances. > Here's another thought: what if warriors had such high inherent resistances > that they were practically immune to the attacks of casting mobs? Wouldn't change anything, unless caster mobs were buffed way beyond what they are now. As is, caster mobs are a complete joke, unless they're casting complete heal on themselves, or sunstrike on you. And of the two, CH is the much bigger threat, sunstrike is just a blip, a slight damage spike above thier melee. Also would also have to make everything unstunnable, otherwise paladins, with thier multiple fast-casting-spell-interrupting stuns would gain yet another advantage over the other tanks. SignatureDearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci >I guess this change would have only modest impact on the high-end raiding >game, where the raid group's tanks are buffed up to high resistances anyway, >everybody dons their high end resist gear along for the purpose, etc. Actually, at anything past NToV level raiding, no one really needs special resist gear anyway, the resists on the armor you have has pretty well all the resists you need unless you made particularly bad choices of gear from your raiding. Most people in my guild have had maxed resists with bard song since early elemental days. I'm no where near the best geared cleric in our guild and all my resists but fire are running around 250 unbuffed. >...But at >levels 1 through maybe 55ish, warriors would be distinctly better >magic-attack-sponges than other tanks, a tradeoff for the others' superior >aggro control. They'd have to completely revamp casting mobs yet again for this to be remotely close to a benefit. I can't remember the last time casting mobs caused any group I played any of my 40-60's alts the slightest bit of trouble as opposed to their melee damage. As a trade off to the kind of agro control knights develop at the high end of the game, it's not even a factor. SignatureArtificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity. GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y* >>I guess this change would have only modest impact on the high-end raiding >>game, where the raid group's tanks are buffed up to high resistances anyway, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > agro control knights develop at the high end of the game, it's not even > a factor. In that level range, which is where I've done most of my playing, no resist other than MR (charm/fear/root) has more than rare situational significance. It's generally not worth the time or the mana to buff your other resists. Warrior's already have a helpful innate MR boost (level / 2). kaev >>Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing things >>through AA's. Give people a bit more reason to exp :P). Drasticly reduce [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > mob, since the mob then gets to parry, dodge, block, and riposte > your hits, not to mention the stuns. Riposte as it is now breaks dual wield and weapon plus shield. IMO, riposte frequency should be tied to time-elapsed rather than your enemies attack frequency (they do this with weapon and buff procs already). This would eliminate a penalty Warriors pay now for maximizing their hate generation. I also think Warriors need better agro control, there's just no way around the fact that many casters are more often limited by agro management than by mana supply. On top of that the hybrids benefit from the same increased mana supply, which in the knights' case has magnified their ability to hold agro and led many casters to then strongly prefer these high agro knights as tanks. LDoN just made the situation worse with its emphasis on fast kills as all three tank classes are notably inferior to others in DPS, groups looking for high efficiency don't want multiple tanks. I do find it, um, interesting, that SOE's official description of the Warrior class calls out agro control via Taunt as a class feature, while in-game the Warrior's Taunt is hugely inferior to the knight's spell-based agro, which is supplemented by a Taunt not all that much inferior to the Warrior's. Maybe Warrior Taunt should always add the Warrior's level in hate, then even an unsuccessful Taunt would help keep the mob's attention. > If warriors had some way (preferably NOT an AA, which merely > solves the problem for the 10% of warriors high enough level and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > more" abilities, giving warriors one as well shouldn't unbalance > things too much. I think making part of the solution via AA as Davian suggests might be a good idea. The Warrior's disadvantage increases with level as it becomes riskier to have a mob go after a caster. > This also shouldn't encroach on the "real" DPS classes, who will > continue to do more damage than any warrior (after all, this > isn't any better than a warrior attacking from behind...) The tank classes' low DPS is always gonna produce some angst, I suspect. So long as they have significant content that stresses fast kills, this alongside power-gamers tendency to go for best xp/time when grinding, a lot of groups are going to be avoiding having more than one tank. There are going to be plate tanks LFG, they are popular classes. kaev > > How about increasing warrior DPS from the front? Currently you > > take roughly a 15% hit to DPS in order to stand in front of a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and buff procs already). This would eliminate a penalty > Warriors pay now for maximizing their hate generation. I was talking about how mob riposte reduces the damage output of people hitting from the front. You bring up a good point, though, the one thing that the person tanking gets that everyone else doesn't get is the opportunity to riposte. But Knights, who can weild big slow two handers without sacrificing large amounts of their hate generation (still some, of course, but melee isn't 90% of their hate like a warrior's) benefit more from this than do warriors. I don't think you can tie riposte to a timer not dependant on mob attack frequency, that doesn't make any sense. But you -could- tie the chance of a riposte to your weapon speed (so one handed weapons would riposte more often, be they dual weilded or weapon and shield) and further allow a dual weild check on all successful ripostes so that two weapon riposting would do damage proportional to what your two weapons do normally compared to a two hander. Get the chance adjustment right and it shouldn't matter what you riposte with, your riposte damage over time should be consistant. As a bonus, someone using a fast weapon will now take -less- damage due to higher riposte rate; that makes more sense, IRL I have a much better chance of blocking hits with a rapier and main gauche than with a claymore. > I also think Warriors need better agro control, there's just no > way around the fact that many casters are more often limited by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all three tank classes are notably inferior to others in DPS, > groups looking for high efficiency don't want multiple tanks. I don't mind that groups don't want multiple tanks, this makes sense to me. There are only 6 slots available. Healer, Tank, Mezzer, Slower, 2 DPS, thats sensible group construction. Throwing in a secondary healer only makes sense if that healer is also slower or DPS (in other words, two clerics makes little sense). Throwing in a secondary mezzer makes little sense unless that mezzer is really there as DPS or the crowds are extraordinarily large (cough*PBAE*cough). Throwing in a secondary slower makes little sense unless that slower is really there as mezzer... only "DPS" really stacks. Since half the classes in the game are DPS, while there are only three tanks, three healers, three mezzers, and two slowers, its not poor game design to see things split up that way, or even to often see two of the above jobs on one character so you can add a third DPS. Since normally the model used is to engage only one mob at a time, and keep its focus on one target, more than one "person who can take all the hits" isn't any more useful than the more than one mezzer model. > > This also shouldn't encroach on the "real" DPS classes, who will > > continue to do more damage than any warrior (after all, this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > having more than one tank. There are going to be plate tanks > LFG, they are popular classes. See above, I think "one tank per group" is about right. Where this sucks is for raids, of course, but there you do want backup tanks to take over in case of deaths, or to off tank unmezables and so forth. And you don't have real need for multiple mezers and multiple slowers in most raids either; only the Healer job seems to scale up with the size of the raid. Oh, and I've had a hard time forming LDoN groups recently (in the 35 to 45 range) because we can't find healers and we can't find plate tanks. Just one would do. But mostly you find DPS classes along with some enchanters and bards (those are also rarer... its surprising how often you can find 6 DPS classes and none of the specialists). Part of this, I think, is that plate classes are so highly dependant on gear and that raids are so tuned around the plate tank that anyone making a tin can now is very unlikely to ever get to actually be MT for high level raids, any raid that has access to someone who's been 65 for a year and has therefore much better gear isn't going to let your Johnny-come-lately who just made 65 be MT instead, not when it matters. Since thats the only thing they are really good at, making a character that won't be allowed to do it doesn't make much sense, instead make a DPS class, those are always needed and always allowed to contribute as fully as they can! Bergh Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:3F97B405.DD02376 @dejazzd.com: > there as mezzer... only "DPS" really stacks. Since half the > classes in the game are DPS, while there are only three tanks, > three healers, three mezzers, and two slowers, its not poor game Three slowers, one of which happens to also be a DPS class. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Venerable Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 30 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 25 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons On Test Emgraeme, Gnome Wizard of 25 seasons > Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:3F97B405.DD02376 > @dejazzd.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Three slowers, one of which happens to also be a DPS class. Are you counting Bards or Beastlords as your "third slower"? Or Necromancers? Mages maybe? Don't we eventually get a summoned only slow? Beastlords, as I understand it get a halfway decent slow only at the highest end of the game, prior to that its similar to the bard one, a running joke. I could be surprised, of course. While I thought that the slow rate was reasonably similar, a recent thread pointed out that a 10% difference in slow percent was really a much larger difference in damage mitigated via the slow. This being the case, Enchanter slow is (over most of their career) inferior to shaman but still in the running, but beastlord slow is even worse, and bard slow causes baby jesus to get the hiccups laughing into his holy grail of bosco. Still, three slowers would work better for my logic, which would then make three plate tanks, three slowers, three mezzers, three healers, and seven DPS casters; a preponderance of DPS people but sharing two slots in most groups, instead of one each as the other classes compete for. Bergh Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:3F97E708.D0C45E55 @dejazzd.com: >> Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:3F97B405.DD02376 >> @dejazzd.com: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > sharing two slots in most groups, instead of one each as the > other classes compete for. Lol, OK, Beastlords, I forgot bards, but BLs get a 65% slow, eventually, if they get their hands on that level 65 spell. Necros are great for undead, only 5% less than shaman slow as I recall. Enchanter slow is only 5% lower than Shaman slow at the high end. At the low end, Enchatners actually have a better slow than Shaman. I don't recall what level the shaman finally pulls ahead as the best slower in the game, somewhere in the 30s maybe, which, is around where the slow is enough to actually be really noticable too. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Venerable Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 30 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 25 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons On Test Emgraeme, Gnome Wizard of 25 seasons > Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:3F97E708.D0C45E55 > @dejazzd.com: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > beastlord slow is even worse, and bard slow causes baby jesus to > > get the hiccups laughing into his holy grail of bosco. > Lol, OK, Beastlords, I forgot bards, but BLs get a 65% slow, eventually, > if they get their hands on that level 65 spell. At level 65... admittedly they'll be 65 for longer than they were 1-64 probably, but its still not a good general rule to say that beastlords have a slow "only" 10% lower than that of shaman. For the most part their slow is significantly worse, although it doesn't suck quite as bad as bard slow. Necros are great for > undead, only 5% less than shaman slow as I recall. Yep, if there were more undead, necros/cleric/paladin groups would rule the world. Slow that only works on a rare type of mob isn't a good deal for a generic job breakdown, though. > Enchanter slow is only 5% lower than Shaman slow at the high end. This is what I was talking about, I too said "its only 5% less slow" but if you do the math, it means the tank takes something like 20% more damage over the run of the fight, the beastlord slow is even worse, the tank takes something like 40% more damage. > At the > low end, Enchatners actually have a better slow than Shaman. I don't > recall what level the shaman finally pulls ahead as the best slower in > the game, somewhere in the 30s maybe, which, is around where the slow is > enough to actually be really noticable too. I also mentioned this in my parenthetical, where I say "(over most of their career)" >> Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:3F97B405.DD02376 >> @dejazzd.com: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Or Necromancers? Would only be for undead... >Mages maybe? Don't we eventually get a summoned only slow? > >Beastlords, as I understand it get a halfway decent slow only at >the highest end of the game, prior to that its similar to the >bard one, a running joke. I could be surprised, of course. Just an FYI, Beasts have: 20 % slow at 22 30 % slow at 50 50 % slow at 60 65 % slow at 65 >Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:3F97B405.DD02376 >@dejazzd.com: >> there as mezzer... only "DPS" really stacks. Since half the >> classes in the game are DPS, while there are only three tanks, >> three healers, three mezzers, and two slowers, its not poor game >Three slowers, one of which happens to also be a DPS class. Four slowers, one of which happens to be a great puller. SignatureArtificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity. GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y* >>>How about increasing warrior DPS from the front? Currently you >>>take roughly a 15% hit to DPS in order to stand in front of a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of course, but melee isn't 90% of their hate like a warrior's) > benefit more from this than do warriors. Actually Lance, I was talking about the other direction. Mob riposte of player attacks. Tell me Lance, does it make sense to you that it should decrease a players defense (in effect) to have his attacks hasted? (Haste me and the mob does more damage.) Independently of that question, does it make sense for my effective defense to get noticeably worse (i.e. I take more damage) if I switch from using a rusty Halberd to a sword and _shield_! Yes, a melee takes more damage as a reward for equipping a shield (due to the increase in riposte damage from using a faster 1h weapon). > I don't think you can > tie riposte to a timer not dependant on mob attack frequency, > that doesn't make any sense. Why not? I'm serious. EQ is not a combat simulator, it's not even close. If you feel the need for a rationale, it's not hard to invent one (the riposter takes some time to "get the feel" of the rispotee's attack pattern, the ripostee adjusts when the riposter gets an extra attack in, rinse-repeat). For that matter, in real melee does Joe Twohander get more attacks when his opponent switches to a lighter (faster) weapon? Or does he get fewer because he's more frequently dodging/parrying his opponent's attacks? Or does it all wash out, he loses some attacks to defending himself and gains others because his opponent is making himself vulnerable more often? The current system doesn't make any sense, and on top of that it breaks weapon + shield and weapon + weapon as viable choices. > But you -could- tie the chance of a > riposte to your weapon speed (so one handed weapons would riposte [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > See above, I think "one tank per group" is about right. I am not arguing whether it is "right". What I'm saying is that as far as I can tell it does not reflect the player population. It looks to me as if more than one-sixth of the player population is primarily a Warrior or Knight (I could be wrong, I don't have any way to conduct a valid survey). Certainly from the flawed viewpoint of (just to pick an example) Ornate armor molds/patterns the fact that plate molds cost more than 5x as much as silk patterns and 3x chain and leather suggests an imbalance (yes, I know there are two non-tank classes that wear plate, even so...). And I do see a disproportionate number of tanks when I use the LFG tool. > Where > this sucks is for raids, of course, but there you do want backup > tanks to take over in case of deaths, or to off tank unmezables > and so forth. <snip> I'm not experienced in the raid game, and not interested in commenting on it except for this: There are two principles that guide me in-game, each as important as the other, (1) have fun, and (2) don't wreck the fun of others. Furor has made it quite clear that (2) is of no concern to him, and many of his followers are apparently unaware that it could even be a consideration (in game or IRL AFAICT). It would be total bullshit to wreck the casual knight's game because of issues with the raid game (the reverse is also true). kaev > I'm not experienced in the raid game, and not interested in commenting > on it except for this: There are two principles that guide me in-game, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bullshit to wreck the casual knight's game because of issues with the > raid game (the reverse is also true). One of the big issues here is the warrior's role in an XP group. Groups just don't want warriors in them if they can get a paladin or SK instead. The knight gives them the ability to go all-out with DPS, gives them HPs or ATK, gives them healing and/or mana regen, and even can serve as a puller (lull/feign) without killing everyone. The warrior... lets them kill tough mobs for XP. But by the time a mob is tough enough for you to see a difference between the two tanks, it's no longer an XP mob. So this is hurting the casual player today - the casual warrior. James >>I'm not experienced in the raid game, and not interested in commenting >>on it except for this: There are two principles that guide me in-game, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > difference between the two tanks, it's no longer an XP mob. So this is > hurting the casual player today - the casual warrior. Yes, it is. And I not only sympathize with them, I empathize, I've been there ("group LF tank" "paladin here" "group LF warrior"). I wouldn't wish that on anyone, it sucks. But nerfing knights isn't gonna get Warriors groups. If you nerf knights ability to tank they'll still get groups for agro management (unless you make them worse than RNGs/BSTs, in which cas the RNG/BST will get the group instead). If you nerf knights agro management groups will, again just use RNG/BST instead. These caster groups would use a rag doll as a tank if it could hold agro, just buff it up and keep it healed. You mentioned in another thread a possible nerf to highend Paladin tanks (nothing about Shadowknights there tho :p ), which might correct things somewhat at raid level and perhaps in highend groups, but casual Warriors need a way to keep the mobs off the casters. There just isn't any way around it (unless you want to do something like taking mounts, FT, the MC aa, and the BST Spiritual line out of the game while nerfing the duration of all other mana regen spells to under 60 minutes.) kaev > But nerfing knights isn't > gonna get Warriors groups. If you nerf knights ability to tank > they'll still get groups for agro management (unless you make them > worse than RNGs/BSTs, in which cas the RNG/BST will get the group > instead). Lots of XP-type things out there that those classes cannot efficiently tank. For example, I'd never accept a ranger tank in Plane of Earth. They just get owned too fast, and I bleed mana too quickly. So no, I don't see groups accepting just anyone that can glue a mob to themselves. > You mentioned in another thread a possible nerf to highend Paladin > tanks (nothing about Shadowknights there tho :p ) There's nothing easy to nerf about a SK. The big advantage they have over a warrior, after aggro generation, is DPS, not tankability. And the DPS they gain is coming from spells and pet, not from weaponry. I'm not sure how you could reduce their DPS without splitting paladins and shadow knights on weapons, and then the shadow knights will (rightfully) complain that they're given the shaft in weaponry compared with paladins. And it'll be very difficult to get rid of that spell DPS considering that SK's have a self-only mana regen buff that rivals KEI. I'm honestly stumped as to how one could tune SK's without messing up some other aspect of "balance". James > One of the big issues here is the warrior's role in an XP group. Groups >just don't want warriors in them if they can get a paladin or SK instead. I hear this repeated as a mantra and wonder how true it is. I definitely get the sense that paladins have outstripped warriors in terms of desirability, but for my own groups, I still look for a warrior before a shadowknight. I just haven't seen that what a SK brings to the table makes up for their lower hit point, lower damage mitigation, and lack of dual-wield. Of course, it's also a function of gear. I'll take planar_guild_01 SK over unguilded_was64yesterday paladin most of the time. --Jekke ===================== Playing on Torvonilous Venerable Sheava Ebonrezzor (Dark Elf Cleric, 65) http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=392441 Veteran Moulin Khmer (Dark Elf Rogue, 65) http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=87681 Qiin Dred (Iksar Necromancer, 55) http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=717977 >> One of the big issues here is the warrior's role in an XP group. >> Groups just don't want warriors in them if they can get a paladin [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Of course, it's also a function of gear. I'll take planar_guild_01 SK > over unguilded_was64yesterday paladin most of the time. SKs are comparable to Paladins for HPs and damage mitigation, and bring solid easy agro control, just like a paladin. If I have a choice, I'll take a knight class over a warrior, but, I won't wait on one. Again, a warrior with good hate generating weapons works well too. Having been the main healer in groups with various tank types as the main tank, I have seen no appreciable difference as far as healing between the different tanks, except that Paladins bring their own heals to the table to help. Of course, I don't have a CHeal that takes advantage of huge hp totals either. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Venerable Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 30 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 25 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons On Test Emgraeme, Gnome Wizard of 25 seasons : solid easy agro control, just like a paladin. If I have a choice, I'll : take a knight class over a warrior, but, I won't wait on one. Again, a : warrior with good hate generating weapons works well too. Having been Unfortunately the bar on "good hate generating weapon" has risen up to the levels of Anger-III augmented BoWs and BF/HG combos. Even then I truely doubt a war could lock agro over a Knight class. K >: solid easy agro control, just like a paladin. If I have a choice, >: I'll take a knight class over a warrior, but, I won't wait on one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the levels of Anger-III augmented BoWs and BF/HG combos. Even then I > truely doubt a war could lock agro over a Knight class. I don't worry about a warrior locking agro over a knight class, just over me, and others casting on the mob. If a warrior is supposed to be tanking the mob, then a knight class should not be actively trying to take agro from him. I play regularly with a 65 warrior who has maxxed dex, and uses the hate proccing weapon from Xanamech, and it is extremely rare that I get hit, and I don't wait to slow with him tanking. I Malos as soon as I can, and then slow as soon as I can, once in a long while, I'll get smacked for one round, but, that can happen even with a knight class. If I really want to grab agro off him, I can, toss a couple of fast, high hp DoTs on the mob, and I can just about guarantee I will have agro. A knight can keep agro off me even then, but he has to work at it. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Venerable Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 30 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 25 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons On Test Emgraeme, Gnome Wizard of 25 seasons : take agro from him. I play regularly with a 65 warrior who has maxxed : dex, and uses the hate proccing weapon from Xanamech, and it is extremely [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : fast, high hp DoTs on the mob, and I can just about guarantee I will have : agro. A knight can keep agro off me even then, but he has to work at it. I'm a bit boggled, I have and have used the CHDS+CHoS combo, GBoS+CHSD, and really have a difficult time parsing out any "noticeable" agro generation difference vs my usual setup of the Horror Shard Claw + GBoS. Dex is capped with shaman buffage also. I can't say that I can get agro off of a snap-slow from a shaman until maybe 11+ swings or 3 or more taunt mashings. Having a pally there usually just takes 1 stun cast. K >: take agro from him. I play regularly with a 65 warrior who has maxxed >: dex, and uses the hate proccing weapon from Xanamech, and it is extremely [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >agro off of a snap-slow from a shaman until maybe 11+ swings or 3 or more >taunt mashings. Having a pally there usually just takes 1 stun cast. That just doesn't sound right. It's pretty rare that, even with a non-uber warrior, I'll take more than one or two hits after a slow. And realistically, we're fighting mobs where I can't take a few hits (as a shaman) after an initial slow, we're fighting mobs where I'd probably want a warrior as main tank anyway. ... and no, I never wait to slow unless it's a something truely nasty. You can actually work taunt to your advantage in that situation. Shaman gets big agro intially, warrior hits taunt and if it works he's suddenly way up on the hate list and doesn't have to worry about agro for the rest of the fight. Where it does break down is if I'm casting DoTs since the poison DoTs cause pretty big agro every tick. Warriors have a very tough time holding agro in that situation unless they're pretty uber. Rgds, Frank > > One of the big issues here is the warrior's role in an XP group. Groups > >just don't want warriors in them if they can get a paladin or SK instead. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > brings to the table makes up for their lower hit point, lower damage > mitigation, and lack of dual-wield. Aggro lock (huge advantage), ability to feign pull, higher DPS (in appropriate gear), ATK buffs for the group, higher mana regen/health regen for the group, snare. There's likely more, but I've never played a SK past 22. James on Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:54:32 -0500, kaev stated: > I am not arguing whether it is "right". What I'm saying is that as > far as I can tell it does not reflect the player population. It [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > two non-tank classes that wear plate, even so...). And I do see a > disproportionate number of tanks when I use the LFG tool. Perhaps on your server, on mine, the big holdup on groups is tank, and healer. Neither of those classes usually experiences a problem getting a group. Nor do enchanters. DPS classes and shammies, on the other hand, can wait hours to get in those same groups. As for the cost of ornate molds... Well, if the drop rate in the ele planes is any indication, the reason they are 5x as expensive is because they simply do not drop as much. My guild has been raiding the elemental planes for maybe 2 months, and already has some leather pieces that are rotting. Chain is getting close. Yet there are plate wearers who have not gotten a single mold because they just don't drop often. That said, I do think there needs to be a good deal of fixing done to warriors. The only place they are preffered over a knight on my server is in raids. In raiding, defensive makes the warrior king. But as was said, you don't need many on a raid. A guild with 4 active warriors probably has enough for just about any encounter. Some mobs, at least in my guild, do take two warriors; one on the mob, one on rampage. Two more as backups for those and offtankers is usually enough; if we loose 4 warriors, we are probably wiping anyway. And then there are some encounters, liek Xegony, where if we loose our MT, we are dead. And a knight could not do the job at all. If Sony is unwilling to fix warriors for XP groups, they should at least change their class description to essentially make people understand that warriors are a raid class... Jamie Jiji on Stromm >> I don't think you can >> tie riposte to a timer not dependant on mob attack frequency, >> that doesn't make any sense. >Why not? I'm serious. EQ is not a combat simulator, it's not even >close. If you feel the need for a rationale, it's not hard to invent >one (the riposter takes some time to "get the feel" of the rispotee's >attack pattern, the ripostee adjusts when the riposter gets an extra >attack in, rinse-repeat). Or as another idea, how about a warrior, being a melee specialist more than anything else, is more skilled at making attacks that cant be riposted? Still has the same basic effect of letting a warrior use the dual weild fast attacking weapons that help him keep agro. >I'm not experienced in the raid game, and not interested in commenting >on it except for this: There are two principles that guide me in-game, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >bullshit to wreck the casual knight's game because of issues with the >raid game (the reverse is also true). Actually, are you sure the changes he proposes would even affect the casual knight? Casual players are already more limited in their ability by the lack of ft15, mana conservation aa and focus items, and other things that make a top end knight so efficient at this. I guess the biggest fear knights should have is that SOE will decide it's a problem and totally miss the mark fixing it, just like they did with monk's tanking ability, which hit the casual monks much harder than the top end guild monks. SignatureArtificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity. GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y* <snip> > Actually, are you sure the changes he proposes would even affect the > casual knight? Casual players are already more limited in their ability [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tanking ability, which hit the casual monks much harder than the top end > guild monks. Let me just point out that the low/mid level game (L20 to L44) was utterly destroyed by a change made strictly for the convenience of high level raiders. Despite a great deal of interesting new content the low/mid game will never recover from this blow, IMO, even though the agent of its destruction has been removed. And the mid/high level game (L45 to L59) is still affected 24x7 by this same change, especially for "casual" players (the raiders don't give a damn, they don't really play the same game, they're just passing through in a hurry). Note that this same change has contributed to the current Warrior issues in the area mid/high and high level XP grouping. Now, if they can do this much damage in the name of "convenience", just imagine what sort of fallout is possible should they try to deal with a balance issue that has roots in just about every part of the game's architecture, from their "vision" of the classes' roles, to encounter balance and itemization at all levels of the game. kaev > > Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing things > > through AA's. Give people a bit more reason to exp :P). Drasticly reduce > > or even eliminate the tremendous DPS hit a warrior takes when he uses > > defensive discipline. (and perhaps speed up the reuse time a bit) Make it so > > that /discipline defensive suddenly has a place to be used in an experience > > group, not just in a raid situation. I like that idea. To take it further, maybe even eliminate the defensive penalty on Aggressive, so the warrior also has a way to gain faster aggro at the cost of losing /defensive for a bit. > How about increasing warrior DPS from the front? Currently you > take roughly a 15% hit to DPS in order to stand in front of a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with enough exp to get the AA, instead of fixing the class for > levels 1 thru 65) Two things: one, they have an AA which does exactly that. Two, the problem isn't an issue until you hit mobs that can mitigate DPS significantly from the front. By the time you see such mobs, you're at raid level, and assuming that a player at that level of the game has every tool they require is standard for the devs. From the parses on end-game weapons being done on Steel Warrior, it's quite apparent that the designers consider AA's to be part of the class when balancing DPS via itemization. > This also shouldn't encroach on the "real" DPS classes, who will > continue to do more damage than any warrior (after all, this > isn't any better than a warrior attacking from behind...) This is why changing relative DPS between warriors and knights doesn't mean much, though. The tank isn't doing much of the group's damage, the damage dealers are. Unless the difference between a knight's DPS and a warrior's DPS is equal to or greater than the the combined difference between what DPS the rest of the group can churn out with a warrior and what they can churn out with a knight, you still come out on top with the knight. And the DPS gap is huge when you consider the insane numbers level 65 characters can churn out on blue mobs. From the Steel Warrior parses, top-end warriors on level 61 target, no buffs, are putting out about 110 DPS to a knight's 90 DPS. With haste and buffs, call it 165 to 135. I've seen wizards post theoretical numbers indicating that with their current mana regen, spell haste, and foci they could top 300 DPS IF aggro wasn't a consideration. And that's just one wizard! James >If warriors had some way (preferably NOT an AA, which merely >solves the problem for the 10% of warriors high enough level and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >more" abilities, giving warriors one as well shouldn't unbalance >things too much. The thing is, warriors don't start to suck until the mid-high 50's. Below 50, taunt works far better than above 50, even after they supposedly fixed the ancient code that made 50+ mobs immune to taunt back when any mob over 50 was a raid class target. At the same time, knights really aren't that good until at least the high 50's either, as their gear tends to be rather weak and so is their mana regen. I have found from painful experience playing my 51 enchanter that while people may think a paladin is better in an experience group than a warrior, in general they aren't close. They don't have the mana to agro lock unless they then sit and med more than the cleric between fights. Meanwhile, by the time my extremely twinked warrior hit 58, I gave up on him. Fighting to get and hold agro even with 40k worth of weapons just wasn't fun. I have to agree that more than any of the tweaks that they've done to the newbie levels, letting knights acheive the level of agro lock they have at the high 50's and expecially 65+ has dumbed the game down immensely. >This also shouldn't encroach on the "real" DPS classes, who will >continue to do more damage than any warrior (after all, this >isn't any better than a warrior attacking from behind...) No one wants the warrior to get anything that encroaches on another class's turf despite the continuous encroachment on the warrior's turf by other classes for the last three years. Odd. SignatureArtificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity. GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y* > >If warriors had some way (preferably NOT an AA, which merely > >solves the problem for the 10% of warriors high enough level and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > general they aren't close. They don't have the mana to agro lock unless > they then sit and med more than the cleric between fights. A paladin's best aggro spell is his level 9 stun. To really lock things down he'll want to use a couple of higher level stuns as well... but still nothing expensive. A level 65 stun doesn't aggro the mob any more than that level 9 one does, it merely costs more mana.... and sticks better and so forth of course. So the plan is, use the level 9 stun every time it pops, and use the high level one the instant the mob turns its back on you, which will probably stick and stun the mob preventing it from doing anything for several seconds, and will likely aggro it enough to return its attention to you anyway. The same effect happens with a shadowknight; his best aggro producer is his level 9 snare/dot, because its not important what the spell does, all he needs is the aggro off it, and any snare will do for that, so the cheaper the better. If he needs the snare to stick he might have to cast something higher level... but for regular "lets keep the aggro on me, m'kay?" work he can mostly just keep casting the dirt cheap stuff whenever it pops up. If your Knights are having mana troubles, with Clarity on (after all, you are a 51 chanter, so they'd better have clarity), then they are trying to do more than just lock aggro with their spells. Imagine a level 9 enchanter with Clarity, does he have any trouble keeping mana for mezzing? > Meanwhile, by the time my extremely twinked warrior hit 58, I gave up on > him. Fighting to get and hold agro even with 40k worth of weapons just [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > class's turf despite the continuous encroachment on the warrior's turf > by other classes for the last three years. Odd. Well, DPS classes don't have anything to worry about really, the warrior would need a really massive boost to become competitive with them in the DPS field. I don't think "other classes" are a concern in general, its specifically SK and Paladins... well and arguably monks, who've been nerfed into the stone age because of it. It would be possible to have Warriors become great healers, mezzers, or DPS people... but that would leave just two Sponges, and be fairly weird; would make more sense to me to have the warriors go back to being competitive for the sponge position, fattening up the pool back to three classes (well, its never been three, it used to be only two, warriors and monks, and now its still only two, SK and Paladin) Bergh > Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing > things through AA's. Give them Mend Wounds and Critical Mend. SignatureVenerable Hanrahan, Storm Warden (Human), Fennin Ro "Nuts and bolts" ufologists vs. "frontal lobe" ufologists >> Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing >> things through AA's. >Give them Mend Wounds and Critical Mend. How would this help the warrior's agro problem? Or was it a joke? May as well give them advanced lung capacity and advanced metabolism. SignatureArtificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity. GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y* Quoth John Henders: >>> Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing >>> things through AA's. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > How would this help the warrior's agro problem? Or was it a joke? May > as well give them advanced lung capacity and advanced metabolism. It helps so that they can at least solo a little while waiting for a group. SignatureVenerable Hanrahan, Storm Warden (Human), Fennin Ro The post above may contain arrant nonsense. > Quoth John Henders: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It helps so that they can at least solo a little while waiting for a > group. Heh, that's actually a small piece of the puzzle too. A high level Warrior without a group has nothing to do in EQ (we'll exclude the tradeskill masochists from consideration here). Not many Paladins solo at high level, because it's hard to find XP mobs that Paladin DPS is sufficient to kill. But Warriors sitting around LFG see horseshit soloing ability as infinitely better than what they have. kaev > Warriors need a boost. They need an "and so much more" thing. Knights > already have thiers. Tanking, and so much more. In the case of > paladins, the "and so much more" is instant aggro control, backup heals, and > backup rezing. In the case of shadowknights, the "and so much more" is > instant aggro control, feign death pulling, and a bit more DPS. With > warriors... you just get the tanking. Can I ask you a personal question? Why did you make a warrior? > Best I can come up with is to add a few AA's. (Sony likes fixing things > through AA's. Give people a bit more reason to exp :P). Drasticly reduce [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dps melees run no risk of getting aggro? Or do you want a tank that takes > less melee damage, easing the stress on your healers? I'd vote running that one on test and seeing how it looks. Something's gotta be done, if only so we can stop reading about THE most boring class in the game. > Dearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci > Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > aggro control. They eliminate boat rides, you're up in arms. They > eliminate the skill requirement to combat... "best change ever". I think you may be slightly overestimating the power of Knight agro... holding agro off of casters is still a full time job for me. It's not like I magically click a button and agro is held permanently. I have a particular amount of agro I build up for each fight and that amount varies greatly depending on who's casting what. And I do vary it, because holding agro costs mana like you wouldn't believe - and so do my 60's spells because most of them are directly imported from a class that can regen 50 mana/tick. If I have to feign pull a complicated pair of spawns (say two wanderers or even two statics that PERSISTENTLY re-add) I need to save up to a third of my mana bar for recasts of snare and feign. I think this situation's added a whole new dimension to the game - and what has it really removed? Regards, James > I think you may be slightly overestimating the power of Knight agro... >holding agro off of casters is still a full time job for me. It's not like I >magically click a button and agro is held permanently. Well no, you do have to click that button every few seconds. <g> What breaks it (imo) is that all the hybrids have low level, cheap spells that can generate a ton of ago. Given KEI, they can keep it up indefinitely. Rgds, Frank > > I think you may be slightly overestimating the power of Knight agro... > >holding agro off of casters is still a full time job for me. It's not like I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that can generate a ton of ago. Given KEI, they can keep it up > indefinitely. sssh. > Rgds, Frank > > Warriors need a boost. They need an "and so much more" thing. Knights > > already have thiers. Tanking, and so much more. In the case of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why did you make a warrior? My original character back in 1999 had been a paladin that I took to the mid 30's. I didn't really enjoy it, so I didn't want to start him up again. And the rogue that I wanted to play wouldn't have made as good a partner with the druid I was playing with. Warrior was the least objectionable alternative. > I think you may be slightly overestimating the power of Knight agro... > holding agro off of casters is still a full time job for me. It's not like I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > costs mana like you wouldn't believe - and so do my 60's spells because most > of them are directly imported from a class that can regen 50 mana/tick. If you're running out of mana with KEI on, then you're doing something wrong. Since I've been playing my rogue, I've had knight tanks extremely often, and not a single one has had this problem. Even the clueless twits seem to manage. As another poster said, try casting your lower level spells, since they still build a large amount of hate. > If I > have to feign pull a complicated pair of spawns (say two wanderers or even > two statics that PERSISTENTLY re-add) I need to save up to a third of my > mana bar for recasts of snare and feign. So add a rogue to the group and stop wasting a third of your mana bar on pulling. >I think this situation's added a > whole new dimension to the game To the game for your specific class, maybe. Maybe. > - and what has it really removed? Aggro control, which was the only real skill to combat for most people. SignatureDearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci On the calendar, in the box marked 10/23/2003 3:06 PM ^ Davian scratched: > If you're running out of mana with KEI on, then you're doing something > wrong. Since I've been playing my rogue, I've had knight tanks extremely > often, and not a single one has had this problem. Even the clueless twits > seem to manage. As another poster said, try casting your lower level > spells, since they still build a large amount of hate. This is one of the things that I find debatable. Those low level stuns generate incredible amounts of aggro even at high levels, and even on mobs that are immune. --Inyidd > On the calendar, in the box marked 10/23/2003 3:06 PM ^ Davian > scratched: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > stuns generate incredible amounts of aggro even at high levels, and > even on mobs that are immune. Did I miss something? That's what Davian said. SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Venerable Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 30 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 25 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons On Test Emgraeme, Gnome Wizard of 25 seasons On the calendar, in the box marked 10/24/2003 6:10 AM ^ Graeme Faelban scratched: >> On the calendar, in the box marked 10/23/2003 3:06 PM ^ Davian >> scratched: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Did I miss something? That's what Davian said. The difference being that I was objecting to it, and pointing out that it generates hate even on mobs that are immune. --Inyidd "Justin H." <justinh@NOSPAM.whidbey.net> wrote in news:vpiv5gpu2k1dc2 @corp.supernews.com: > On the calendar, in the box marked 10/24/2003 6:10 AM ^ Graeme Faelban > scratched: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The difference being that I was objecting to it, and pointing out that > it generates hate even on mobs that are immune. That was far from obvious with the phrasing you used, as I don't believe there is any debating that they do indeed work like that. Debating whether or not they should work like that on the other hand... SignatureOn Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr> Venerable Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 65 seasons Tainniel Fleabane, Halfling Warrior of 30 seasons Giluven, Wood Elf Druid of 25 seasons Graeniel, High Elf Enchanter of 25 seasons On Test Emgraeme, Gnome Wizard of 25 seasons On the calendar, in the box marked 10/24/2003 12:38 PM ^ Graeme Faelban scratched: > That was far from obvious with the phrasing you used, as I don't believe > there is any debating that they do indeed work like that. Debating > whether or not they should work like that on the other hand... Aye, I believe you're right. That was my fault. --Inyidd > > magically click a button and agro is held permanently. I have a particular > > amount of agro I build up for each fight and that amount varies greatly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > seem to manage. As another poster said, try casting your lower level > spells, since they still build a large amount of hate. Rogue's don't agro anything like a shaman/mage/wizzy/necro. Not even close - you can almost accidentally hold agro off a rogue, but if a necro decides its time to seriously dot, you're hammering keys and still losing it. I guess to qualify my mana statement... holding agro requires significant mana expenditure, especially if you're *not* using any low level spell rorts, which will probably be nerfed sooner or later. It probably doesn't eat all of KEI, but up until recently getting and holding KEI (I don't know about other tanks in the game but when someone dies in the group I usually make damn sure it's me) have been a problem for me. I got Pact of Hate last night, however, and wont be having this problem ever again. But as a class with spells that do damage and have other effects, I don't want to spend 100% of my mana on holding agro. Why do I have all of those spells? I'm *supposed* to out-damage the other tanks, so when my pet buys it I like to be able to summon a new one (490 mana later), etc. > > If I > > have to feign pull a complicated pair of spawns (say two wanderers or even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So add a rogue to the group and stop wasting a third of your mana bar on > pulling. Never had a rogue puller once in 65 levels that I recall. These days I group with the same people, usually just the same 2 other guys - a shaman and a mage. If you've got an SK in the group and he *isn't* oom, you'd be hard pressed to find a better puller in most situations. I might also add that as a group MT, being the guy who damages the mob *First* is one of the most important ways to hold agro that I've come across. Hmm and I've noticed that most people don't actually *like* pulling. I have no idea why this is, it's one of my favorite parts of the game. > >I think this situation's added a > > whole new dimension to the game [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Aggro control, which was the only real skill to combat for most people. Agro control? Consisting of what? Waiting until the warrior had taken the mob down to 80% before nuking? Where's the brain power or fun in that? > -- > Dearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci > Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci > > > magically click a button and agro is held permanently. I have a > particular [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > decides its time to seriously dot, you're hammering keys and still losing > it. And of course I've never grouped with any of those classes. Yep, just my rogue and my tank, out duoing, every time. > I guess to qualify my mana statement... holding agro requires > significant mana expenditure, especially if you're *not* using any low level [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I usually make damn sure it's me) have been a problem for me. I got Pact of > Hate last night, however, and wont be having this problem ever again. While the situation you present, nerfing knight classes so that they can only hold aggro using high mana cost spells, such that they cannot maintain perfect aggro for an entire fight even with KEI on, would increase a warriors relative desirability for groups... I don't think it's the best way to go. I'd prefer to get out of the whole situation without nerfing knights at all. I'd like to see all three classes have something special and different that they can bring to a group. > But as a class with spells that do damage and have other effects, I > don't want to spend 100% of my mana on holding agro. Then why did you suggest it? Assuming, of course, that that was a suggestion. Since, as you admitted, it's not true now, I can only assume it is a description of the situation you want to be true. > > > If I > > > have to feign pull a complicated pair of spawns (say two wanderers or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Never had a rogue puller once in 65 levels that I recall. Rogues don't pull good alone. But a rogue in combination with a feign death puller is an incredibly powerful pulling team. > > > - and what has it really removed? > > > > Aggro control, which was the only real skill to combat for most people. > > Agro control? Consisting of what? Waiting until the warrior had taken > the mob down to 80% before nuking? Where's the brain power or fun in that? If, after 65 levels, "wait until the mob is at 80% to nuke" is the sum total of your knowledge of aggro control.... thank you, you've just illustrated my point perfectly. SignatureDearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci > > > Aggro control, which was the only real skill to combat for most people. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > total of your knowledge of aggro control.... thank you, you've just > illustrated my point perfectly. Having set the sarcastic tone of the posts we're firing at each other alongside the actual content of them, in which we don't seem to have any clear disagreement, more some sort of complete inability to explain ourselves to each other, I have decided not to continue this thread. Cheers, James > Dearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci > Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci > I think you may be slightly overestimating the power of Knight agro... >holding agro off of casters is still a full time job for me. It's not like I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >mana bar for recasts of snare and feign. I think this situation's added a >whole new dimension to the game - and what has it really removed? I thought this discussion was related to experience grouping. If you're doing an experience group pre LDoN, you only have to do something like that once, then the spawn is broken for the duration if you're any kind of puller at all. Besides, there or In LDoN, you're better off asking the cleric to pacify that wasting a lot of time trying to do complicated splits with feign. SignatureArtificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity. GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y* >*snip Kaev playing with Furor* Ewwww! I thought Furor had quit EQ in a huff a couple of months ago? >Warriors do need help, but I don't think a knight nerf is the answer. Even if knights weren't any better at controlling agro than a warrior, I think they'd still be the preferred tanks for a high end exp group. A 65 Pally or SK brings enough other things to the table to balance things out imo. I doubt they'll ever nerf hybrid agro control though, the outcry would be too great because too many classes (basically everyone except warriors) have a vested interested in the current 100% guaranteed agro lock . I do wish they'd randomize (nerf) hybrid spell agro a bit, knowing exactly what spells anyone can cast w/o getting agro is just makes too many things boring for me. >Nor >do I think it should be better aggro control either. Warrior aggro control >is not as bad a problem is many would believe. The "warrior aggro problem" >is that knights have been superior tanks for too long, such that there is a >significant amount of players who don't know how to control thier aggro >anymore, or are too lazy to do so. (1) Question is, what incentive do you have to control agro when you can just get a knight to tank instead? It's not laziness, it's efficiency. Rgds, Frank > >*snip Kaev playing with Furor* > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >significant amount of players who don't know how to control thier aggro > >anymore, or are too lazy to do so. (1) Funny thing is, not all that long ago the situation was the other way around; nobody wanted knights for MA since they had less HP and less AC. Was the change due to melee rebalancing, or to changed perception among players, or was it because with the advent of POP mob aggro control became much more important than it was before? > Question is, what incentive do you have to control agro when you can > just get a knight to tank instead? It's not laziness, it's efficiency. More to the point, aggro control costs DPS. Since the game is almost entirely about DPS these days, why hold back in order to let the warrior keep aggro, when you can go flat out and slaughter the mob quicker with a knight? This means the DPS classes benefit (they get to use everything they have) and the healers benefit (mob dies faster, thus doing less damage to the MA) and the slowers benefit (because they get to slow sooner, making their slow more effective) and even the mezzers benefit (because they don't get beaten to a bloody pulp as frequently on mez break, since the high aggro knight is better at getting the mob's attention.... and because they are also often responsible for other debuffing jobs which they can do flat out since the knights have aggro in hand) Bergh >Funny thing is, not all that long ago the situation was the >other way around; nobody wanted knights for MA since they had >less HP and less AC. Was the change due to melee rebalancing, or >to changed perception among players, or was it because with the >advent of POP mob aggro control became much more important than >it was before? I was grouping with Pallys and SKs back in their 30s and 40s ( velious/kunark era) and back then they really did suck. Neither one could tank as well as a monk and paladins didn't really bring anything to the table. At least a SK with a circlet of shadows was always (once he had FD) an awesome puller who could also snare. Since I watched those knights grow up, I can tell you exactly when a SK got powerful, it started around 50th lvl and they just kept getting better all the way to 60, their spell, extra AA and agro control when PoP came out was just the icing on the cake. Paladins always had it tougher from what I saw, mid 50s was when they started to catch up to warriors and not until PoP would I have taken one in a pickup group over a warrior. >> Question is, what incentive do you have to control agro when you can >> just get a knight to tank instead? It's not laziness, it's efficiency. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >for other debuffing jobs which they can do flat out since the >knights have aggro in hand) Exactly. Rgds, Frank > (1) - It is with some amusement that I notice all of these people that love > to complain about the "dumbing down of the game" will jump all over little [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > aggro control. They eliminate boat rides, you're up in arms. They > eliminate the skill requirement to combat... "best change ever". Knights have always been able to get and hold aggro, even in the days of low mana regen. I remember the only thing they couldn't do that a warrior could do was both pull and tank, as they needed some rest time if they weren't in a group with a proper cc class (all of which had mana regen boosts). What has changed is the casters. They now have sustainable DPS far, far ahead of anything they used to be capable of doing. They can draw aggro off a tank by merely nuking at what, for them, is an infinitely sustainable level. So when someone tells them "control your aggro", what they're actually saying is "stop doing as much damage as you're capable of doing". And no DPS class will accept that. You're a rogue, Davian. Imagine that Evade greyed out your Backstab key. Would you be terribly thrilled being with a tank that required you to Evade all the time? James > boosts). What has changed is the casters. They now have sustainable DPS far, > far ahead of anything they used to be capable of doing. They can draw aggro > off a tank by merely nuking at what, for them, is an infinitely sustainable > level. Yes. They can now nuke four times during your average fight, instead of two. The problem is that they've become lazy. Instead of spacing out the four nukes, they just chain nuke four times, then sit down and go afk for the rest of the fight. With knight level aggro control, you can get away with that. So they do it. Then they try it with a warrior tanking, get killed after the 4'th chain nuke, then scream OMG, Warriors are such awful tanks!. > So when someone tells them "control your aggro", what they're > actually saying is "stop doing as much damage as you're capable of doing". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Would you be terribly thrilled being with a tank that required you to Evade > all the time? With the exception of monks, I've yet to see this be the actual case. And yes, I think it's ok to have one class that warriors dont' really group well with. SignatureDearic - Level 65 Overlord on E'ci Talynne - Level 57 Blackguard on E'ci > > boosts). What has changed is the casters. They now have sustainable DPS > far, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > killed after the 4'th chain nuke, then scream OMG, Warriors are such awful > tanks!. It's more than that. I've seen responsible wizards in my XP groups get summoned mid-fight because they got a big crit, something they cannot control. The wizards also can't control how many times a warrior's aggro crutch weapons proc. Put yourself in the wizard's shoes. In fight one against mob type X, you cast twice after two minutes and get no aggro. Second fight, you do the exact same thing and get a few rounds of smacking for it. Third fight, you do the exact same thing and the warrior can't get it off you with a crowbar. So how do you determine when to nuke and how often? Why bother with this warrior stuff when the paladin you're with generates most of his hate in precise amounts at precise times, making determining a nuking schedule easy? > yes, I think it's ok to have one class that warriors dont' really group well > with. The problem is that the class of people they don't group well with is "those who do damage with spells". James |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message