Do Not Engage: Warriors Vs. PALs/SHDs

[Estu]

I've heard the argument here that warriors are superior tanks in classic EQ because they have better defensive skills, hence better damage mitigation. However, they have issues holding aggro, to the point that they sometimes need to have the DPS classes delay engaging the mob for a while as they gain hate.

Here is my question. While the warrior is doing this, the mob is effectively not taking any damage (OK, it's taking appreciable damage, but compared to the damage it would be taking if all DPSers were engaged, it's quite small). Overall, the mob takes longer to die, and will hence spend more time beating on the tank. If, on the other hand, your tank is a paladin or a shadowknight, DPS classes can engage immediately (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), and the mob hence goes down faster, and will spend less time beating on the tank.

How does this extra time spent taking damage compare to the extra damage mitigation warriors have? Can one make a case to use a paladin or a shadowknight instead since the damage taken by the end of the fight might be comparable, or is the superior mitigation so powerful that this issue is minor?

Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, but a warrior has a greater need to focus on DEX and STR gear-wise so that he can hold aggro, while SKs and PALs can afford to gear up with AC, STA, and AGI since they can hold aggro with spells. To what extent does this make a difference in the end game in terms of the ability to soak up damage?

I also hear that warriors get better come Kunark. In what way? Does this mean that SKs and PALs are even less desired?

[Meldor]

Warrior = MT for bosses (Dragons, Gods etc.)

SK/Pal = MT for trash mobs

[quellren]

Warrior = MT for bosses (Dragons, Gods etc.)

SK/Pal = MT for trash mobs and exp groups.


/thread.

[Taluvill]

Unless the Warrior is twinked to all hell. Even then, its still probably SK>Pal>>>>>then war.

[Skope]

Taunt button will work in later expansions. Procs are great for keeping and building aggro, but swings + taunt can suffice if you're careful.

Warriors have higher HP and AC and reach the AC cap easier than do the hybrids, allowing them to focus on other stats. If the warrior can manage a quick proc then warrior > sk/pally for tank. There are cases where the warriors are a bit unlucky, but those are few and far in between from what I've noticed.

Quellren, that's not exactly the case. There's a few mobs/scenarios where it's advantageous to use an SK or Pally as a tank rather than a warrior.

EDIT: this is all regarding a raid setting.

[Dantes]

I've never had to have a group wait to engage the mob... ever. That doesn't sound like a very talented group to me. You shouldn't have to wait for your Warrior to establish aggro if he has decent gear.

[quellren]

Nothing is ever 'exactly the case'. And I'm not disagreeing with you about the fact there are some scenarios where one class of tank is better than another.

BUT

as a general rule of thumb...

Warriors shine on raid targets where the hits are harder, but the DPS can wait for an aggro lead to be built.

SK and Pals shine on trash mobs and exp groups where snap aggro is the key to the Ghoul Archmagi not face-melting your casters.

[quellren]

I've never had to have a group wait to engage the mob... ever. That doesn't sound like a very talented group to me. You shouldn't have to wait for your Warrior to establish aggro if he has decent gear.

I can pretty much pull aggro at will with a T_rg_r's Insects on something above 85% HP.
I've gotten in the habit of just rooting the damn thing before I even bother with slow. Anything else, and I wear it.

[ransom16]

I see only one flaw in this thread.

You fail to mention the obviously superior tanking class.

The Ranger.

Now we can /thread.

[Kavanah]

I see only one flaw in this thread.

You fail to mention the obviously superior tanking class.

The Ranger.

Now we can /thread.

Denial aint just a river in Egypt.

/thread

[odizzido]

All three tanks are useful in raids, it just depends on what you fight. If you are wondering which class to play, just pick the one that you want to play the most.

[Estu]

I've never had to have a group wait to engage the mob... ever. That doesn't sound like a very talented group to me. You shouldn't have to wait for your Warrior to establish aggro if he has decent gear.

Could anyone else confirm/deny this? I hear a lot of talk about warriors having to wait before letting the rest of the group engage.

Also, I'm interested in exp groups and level 50 groups as well as raids. Why exactly are warriors only preferred as main tanks for raids? At what level do they become preferable to SKs and PALs in general as main tanks?

[Kavanah]

Could anyone else confirm/deny this? I hear a lot of talk about warriors having to wait before letting the rest of the group engage.

Also, I'm interested in exp groups and level 50 groups as well as raids. Why exactly are warriors only preferred as main tanks for raids? At what level do they become preferable to SKs and PALs in general as main tanks?

I know that most of my groupies will engage right when I do. If we are fighting blue cons its easy for me to keep aggro, above that it usually pings around until I land a proc.

[Estu]

I know that most of my groupies will engage right when I do. If we are fighting blue cons its easy for me to keep aggro, above that it usually pings around until I land a proc.

Right. I'm not terribly concerned about blue cons; generally in a full EXP group you wanna be taking a good deal of even and higher cons anyway, although I can't speak to the higher-level situation as I don't know the camps (I've only grouped for extended periods of time in Crushbone and Unrest). If the mob is pinging around I think that's indicative of a problem. Not saying you're a bad tank, but at that point the warrior either has other people taking damage or the warrior needs to tell everyone else to wait on DPS - in either case, my original question applies.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Could anyone else confirm/deny this? I hear a lot of talk about warriors having to wait before letting the rest of the group engage.

Also, I'm interested in exp groups and level 50 groups as well as raids. Why exactly are warriors only preferred as main tanks for raids? At what level do they become preferable to SKs and PALs in general as main tanks?

It's hate list management and all the variables that go into it. You want the tank to absorb as much damage as possible, so your group's healing mana efficiently goes into just one player. Which means the tank needs to do his best to stay at the top of the hate list:

1) Weapon procs/spells build hate
2) Weapon DPS builds hate
3) Taunt throws you 1 "hate pt" higher than the current person at the top of the hate list.

If a mob is yellow/red con, you lose (3) as a tool (until Kunark, when warriors get this fixed). Meanwhile, everyone else attacking the mob is subject to (1) and (2) at the same time you are. And mashing down the Taunt button every time it pops if you are already at the top of the hate list just gives you several seconds that you can lose aggro and not have an instant attempt at regaining it to get the mob off someone.

The tank has to be the highest on the hate list, otherwise the mob will come off him and aggro someone else, who is probably not properly equipped to handle that sustained damage. For example, the ranger who went hells-bells with his flux axe proc. The overnuking wizard who can only take a few hits before he goes down. The CHing cleric, who can't heal anyone if she goes DA to save her own ass and the mob aggros on someone else.

If the warrior is not properly equipped, he will fail at (1) or (2) over other melee classes and probably some casters, so the way to compensate is to let him build hate on his own for a while until everyone else engages, to give him that head start. The advantage that hybrid tanks have is that their spells give them an additional boost at (1).

Or, you go EZ mode if it's not a yellow/red con mob and just root the mob to create proximity aggro... then all the warrior has to do is be closest to the mob. Rangers are good at this because unless they're pulling with harmony, snaring, pretending to be druids and nuking, etc... they generally have non-critical mana they can divert to this task, and can take several hits in case they get a resist or root breaks early.

The reason why warriors are preferred for raids is that the mob DPS starts getting far too heavy for the hybrid tanks to mitigate effectively, requiring more healer mana being consumed at a faster rate (i.e. more clerics in the CH chain and/or faster CH cycles). So you use the class designed to take damage... the warrior.

The problem is, for raid targets, which are most likely going to be yellow/red con to the warrior unless you're raiding Crushbone, you lose (3) again. And with the kind of DPS the mobs are dishing out, and with 10-second cast time on CHs, you cannot afford to have that mob come off the warrior and start crunching your melee DPS or your healers. So you give the warrior a sufficient head start on building hate/aggro before you have everyone else engage, even at the expense of having to expend extra raid mana healing because the mob is not being engaged by full raid DPS for the first 30 seconds or whatever.

Because if that tank loses aggro, the boss mob is going to go right down the hate list and start whacking people that Complete Heals are not incoming to. Ideally you phase in several other tanks before fully engaging the mob so that all your eggs aren't in one warrior basket. If you're fast, your padding heals can save the next tank until the clerics can determine who the mob is on and re-direct the CH chain. Otherwise you start losing healers, melees, etc while the warrior frantically tries to regain his top position on the hate list without having (3) available to use. If your raid is well-honed, everyone stops attacking to let the tank (or the next tank) regain his padding on the hate list (and hope that next tank is sufficiently above the CH chain clerics on the hate list).

[Rallyd]

Warriors are the best mitigation tanks in the game, that being said they are THE premiere tank for raid content, however; SK's and Paladins have ranged threat generation, this is very useful for tagging mobs that are being kited and can't be dps'ed or they summon, or for mobs where you can't afford to wait a few seconds for the warrior to get aggro. -This applies to classic only-

For those of you who say SK/Pal is best in group exp situations - the 40% drop they give to the group exp rate says otherwise. These classes are a burden to allow into a group, for those of us who are interested in not wasting time.

When kunark is released SK and Paladins are nothing more than glorified rangers, as no boss will EVER be tanked without defensive discipline, unless you're ghetto and don't have a warrior. Also disease cloud aggro is nerfed in Kunark.

Also, if you're an ogre warrior you need not worry about sta or str, you focus completely on hp when stamina capped, dex being secondary at this point. If you're any other race than ogre as a warrior you should reroll.

[Estu]

For those of you who say SK/Pal is best in group exp situations - the 6.7% drop they give to the group exp rate says otherwise. These classes are a burden to allow into a group, for those of us who are interested in not wasting time.

Fixed.

Also, if you're an ogre warrior you need not worry about sta or str, you focus completely on hp when stamina capped, dex being secondary at this point. If you're any other race than ogre as a warrior you should reroll.

Why is DEX secondary? Isn't the primary concern holding aggro? Also, could you explain what defensive discipline does?

Yendor: I appreciate the long reply, but it doesn't really address any of my questions. It kind of reads like a warrior tutorial. Which is fine and all, but I'm familiar with most of these concepts.

[fastboy21]

not an issue of engaging from the beginning, its an issue for dps classes to know when they can start dropping the big bombs without ponging the mob.

in an exp grp the name of the game is efficiency. that means aggro management is important to make the healer's job as easy as possible.

the only time i've ever seen tanks engage a mob and call for others to engage after a few seconds is on some raid targets.

[fresus]

In exp groups, you should also consider the fact that pal/SK are much better pullers than warriors.

If you don't have a good pulling class in your group and don't want to make your cleric stand and lull every other minute, having a pal or an sk is the way to go.

[Nakara]

not an issue of engaging from the beginning, its an issue for dps classes to know when they can start dropping the big bombs without ponging the mob.


yea, this is why sk/pal is much better than a war in an exp group. much quicker kills more than make up for the 6.7% exp penalty.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Fixed.



Why is DEX secondary? Isn't the primary concern holding aggro? Also, could you explain what defensive discipline does?

Yendor: I appreciate the long reply, but it doesn't really address any of my questions. It kind of reads like a warrior tutorial. Which is fine and all, but I'm familiar with most of these concepts.

How does this extra time spent taking damage compare to the extra damage mitigation warriors have?

This would require extensive parsing.

Can one make a case to use a paladin or a shadowknight instead since the damage taken by the end of the fight might be comparable, or is the superior mitigation so powerful that this issue is minor?

For XP groups yes, for raids, no. Unless you have enough clerics to make up for the damage mitigation issue using a hybrid tank, then I would say yes. My guild on Live used a SK as a raid main tank thru Velious, but I think we were always an era behind on raid content so it was a little easier.

Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, but a warrior has a greater need to focus on DEX and STR gear-wise so that he can hold aggro, while SKs and PALs can afford to gear up with AC, STA, and AGI since they can hold aggro with spells. To what extent does this make a difference in the end game in terms of the ability to soak up damage?

This would require extensive parsing.

I also hear that warriors get better come Kunark. In what way? Does this mean that SKs and PALs are even less desired?

Warrior taunt for yellow/red con mobs is fixed, as I described above. If you are familiar with the mechanics I listed, then you know what this does for warrior tanks. Mobs start hitting way harder and the damage mitigation for hybrid tanks starts to be a bigger issue from a healing standpoint, if I recall correctly.

For the answers of "this would require extensive parsing", the parsing for this was probably done 10 years ago by min-maxers that were trying to determine the best raid tanks and they came up with the same conclusion then that all your favorite min-maxers here are running with now based on 10 years of Everquest experience... SK/PAL tanks > WAR tanks for XP/trash in Classic, WAR tanks > SK/PAL tanks for boss mobs in Classic. Otherwise, if the opposite were true, there would be virtually no warriors needed for raid guild recruiting here. And WARs come into their own starting in Kunark with the taunt fixes, disciplines, and higher aggro weapon availability.

There are enough min-maxers around such that the way things are being done now are usually being done with good reason, as they've had 10+ years of experience with the parsing, mechanics, and content to know better this time around. Are there definitive answers for what you've asked? Yes, but they've been long forgotten and the data long buried away, and only the direct conclusions remain with no incentive to re-hash all the data just to come up with the same answers.

[DOPE]

Denial aint just a river in Egypt.

/thread

Wait... Aren't you a ranger?

-Stack

LMAO

[William_Munny15]

A well geared warrior isn't going to take near the damage as a well geared SK/PAL. It's really a toss up, I would almost always take a warrior in a group imo. They suck your exp

[Grod]

For your average player in your typical group an SK / Pally is the better choice but in a GOOD group that knows how to work together a Warrior is the superior choice, especially once Kunark hits.

All you have to do is have someone else load up agro (Rangers are good at this with snares and such) so it's ready for the Warrior to taunt and start with a good lead on the group so there isn't much of a threat issue at all and you simply end up with the superior mitigation. For example, if the Ranger pulls with snare he can snare it 2-3 times on the way into the group to build even more agro so when it comes in and the Warrior taunts he is very high on agro relative to the other dps and the casters can nuke right away and not pull off of him. Rangers have plenty of mana to do that, especially if they have clarity. It's basically just generating the threat lead for the Warrior that the other hybrid tanks have with the superior mitigation of the Warrior. If a 2nd mob is mezzed in the camp, the Ranger can toss a few snares on it and continue to build up threat so again once the taunt lands it's already on the Warrior.

Forgive me it's been over a decade but I think the way it worked was the Warrior would switch, taunt the mezzed mob (not breaking mez) then back to the mob the group was killing (assist was normally a dps and not the tank). If you lacked a Ranger, the Enchanter could throw a few extra tashes on the mob for the threat from taunt. Either way, the Warrior taunts it while the group is killing the other mob so that a successful taunt is already in after someone else generated a nice bit of threat on it. That way when the mob dies, the Warrior can immediately break mez and have agro with his taunt key already refreshed and ready to be used again if for whatever reason he loses agro. Pretty sure this started becoming really effective in Kunark, but it's still pretty effective now. There is no reason not to pre-taunt the next mob you are going to kill rather then make the group wait 10 seconds for you to try to taunt twice before breaking mez, it's about efficiency. I've grouped with Warriors that held agro as good as the Hybrids and I've grouped with Hybrids that sucked at holding agro. Of all tanks I've grouped with really only two have stood out, one was a Paladin and one was a Warrior. However, don't shoot me if my memory is incorrect on how it was done it's been a decade. All I know is I regularly grouped with a Warrior on live and never had agro issues.

Good Warrior >= Good Hybrid > Bad Hybrid > Bad Warrior.

[Wildas]

I love wars, but there's no content in Kunark where I'd rather one over a pal/sk for a single group. Slow and the increasing efficiency of CH more than take care of healer mana. Maybe if we were one grouping the Seb Protector, but that's it.

[Dantes]

In the groups I'm usually in, it's not an issue. Nobody says "Let's wait for the Warrior to get aggro before we engage." We just constantly rock mobs and kick ass. Maybe I just group with people who know what they are doing? (Vesica Dei)

Sure, if I'm in a group with a higher level monk and rogue fighting higher level mobs, the monks and rogues take a beating. But usually if I'm grouped with monks and rogues at my same level or lower and fighting BLUE cons - I can manage aggro the majority of the time. The higher level I get, the more blue mobs I seem to be fighting because as we all know the high level content (non raid) gets thin. Taunt becomes effective in addition to procs. But again, in either situation it really doesn't matter because the mobs are dropping like flies. The monk should be feigning and moving to the next pull anyway.

Maybe the Warrior isn't the problem, it's the other folks?

[Estu]

For the answers of "this would require extensive parsing", the parsing for this was probably done 10 years ago by min-maxers that were trying to determine the best raid tanks and they came up with the same conclusion then that all your favorite min-maxers here are running with now based on 10 years of Everquest experience... SK/PAL tanks > WAR tanks for XP/trash in Classic, WAR tanks > SK/PAL tanks for boss mobs in Classic. Otherwise, if the opposite were true, there would be virtually no warriors needed for raid guild recruiting here. And WARs come into their own starting in Kunark with the taunt fixes, disciplines, and higher aggro weapon availability.

There are enough min-maxers around such that the way things are being done now are usually being done with good reason, as they've had 10+ years of experience with the parsing, mechanics, and content to know better this time around. Are there definitive answers for what you've asked? Yes, but they've been long forgotten and the data long buried away, and only the direct conclusions remain with no incentive to re-hash all the data just to come up with the same answers.

Interesting point RE the work having probably been done already. I am still curious if anyone has a link to some website with the analysis.

For your average player in your typical group an SK / Pally is the better choice but in a GOOD group that knows how to work together a Warrior is the superior choice, especially once Kunark hits.

All you have to do is have someone else load up agro (Rangers are good at this with snares and such) so it's ready for the Warrior to taunt and start with a good lead on the group so there isn't much of a threat issue at all and you simply end up with the superior mitigation. For example, if the Ranger pulls with snare he can snare it 2-3 times on the way into the group to build even more agro so when it comes in and the Warrior taunts he is very high on agro relative to the other dps and the casters can nuke right away and not pull off of him. Rangers have plenty of mana to do that, especially if they have clarity. It's basically just generating the threat lead for the Warrior that the other hybrid tanks have with the superior mitigation of the Warrior. If a 2nd mob is mezzed in the camp, the Ranger can toss a few snares on it and continue to build up threat so again once the taunt lands it's already on the Warrior.

Forgive me it's been over a decade but I think the way it worked was the Warrior would switch, taunt the mezzed mob (not breaking mez) then back to the mob the group was killing (assist was normally a dps and not the tank). If you lacked a Ranger, the Enchanter could throw a few extra tashes on the mob for the threat from taunt. Either way, the Warrior taunts it while the group is killing the other mob so that a successful taunt is already in after someone else generated a nice bit of threat on it. That way when the mob dies, the Warrior can immediately break mez and have agro with his taunt key already refreshed and ready to be used again if for whatever reason he loses agro. Pretty sure this started becoming really effective in Kunark, but it's still pretty effective now. There is no reason not to pre-taunt the next mob you are going to kill rather then make the group wait 10 seconds for you to try to taunt twice before breaking mez, it's about efficiency. I've grouped with Warriors that held agro as good as the Hybrids and I've grouped with Hybrids that sucked at holding agro. Of all tanks I've grouped with really only two have stood out, one was a Paladin and one was a Warrior. However, don't shoot me if my memory is incorrect on how it was done it's been a decade. All I know is I regularly grouped with a Warrior on live and never had agro issues.

Good Warrior >= Good Hybrid > Bad Hybrid > Bad Warrior.

Cool strategy with having someone else build up aggro so you can taunt off them. Of course this wouldn't work for even-or-higher mobs in classic, so presumably in classic you'd still need to have the warrior let the monster beat on them for a while without letting anyone else engage.

[Estu]

In the groups I'm usually in, it's not an issue. Nobody says "Let's wait for the Warrior to get aggro before we engage." We just constantly rock mobs and kick ass. Maybe I just group with people who know what they are doing? (Vesica Dei)

Sure, if I'm in a group with a higher level monk and rogue fighting higher level mobs, the monks and rogues take a beating. But usually if I'm grouped with monks and rogues at my same level or lower and fighting BLUE cons - I can manage aggro the majority of the time. The higher level I get, the more blue mobs I seem to be fighting because as we all know the high level content (non raid) gets thin. Taunt becomes effective in addition to procs. But again, in either situation it really doesn't matter because the mobs are dropping like flies. The monk should be feigning and moving to the next pull anyway.

Maybe the Warrior isn't the problem, it's the other folks?

I suppose then the question becomes relegated to two situations - lower-level fights where you're going after even-and-higher mobs, and raids. You're right that with blue cons it's much less of an issue.

[Dr4z3r]

How does this extra time spent taking damage compare to the extra damage mitigation warriors have? Can one make a case to use a paladin or a shadowknight instead since the damage taken by the end of the fight might be comparable, or is the superior mitigation so powerful that this issue is minor?

The extent to which the extra time matters depends 100% on how you're engaging the mob.

- If you plan to burn through it in 10 seconds and get on to the next mob/pull (exp group/trash in raids), then waiting 10 seconds for a warrior to build up aggro is obviously a very harsh impediment to your efficiency.

- If you're going to be fighting at dragon for the next 3-5 minutes (or more, depending), and losing a tank means that your entire raid wipes and you lose tons of time, or even lose your chance at the mob entirely, then waiting 10 seconds for a warrior to build aggro is barely noticeable.

Similarly, the longer you're fighting a mob, the more noticeable a 10-15% increase in unmitigated damage is going to be.

Paladins and SKs have great snap-threat generation, which makes them great for fights lasting 10 seconds, where the goal is to move to the next target ASAP: They throw down a debuff, take two or three hits and the mob's dead! But their damage-mitigation and max health are not on a level with warriors'.

That's why warriors are the premiere raid tanks: They're built to take damage.

Edit: Man, I never realized how well I learned tanking-theory raiding in classic WoW. I wasn't even a tank!

[Estu]

The extent to which the extra time matters depends 100% on how you're engaging the mob.

- If you plan to burn through it in 10 seconds and get on to the next mob/pull (exp group/trash in raids), then waiting 10 seconds for a warrior to build up aggro is obviously a very harsh impediment to your efficiency.

- If you're going to be fighting at dragon for the next 3-5 minutes (or more, depending), and losing a tank means that your entire raid wipes and you lose tons of time, or even lose your chance at the mob entirely, then waiting 10 seconds for a warrior to build aggro is barely noticeable.

Similarly, the longer you're fighting a mob, the more noticeable a 10-15% increase in unmitigated damage is going to be.

Paladins and SKs have great snap-threat generation, which makes them great for fights lasting 10 seconds, where the goal is to move to the next target ASAP: They throw down a debuff, take two or three hits and the mob's dead! But their damage-mitigation and max health are not on a level with warriors'.

That's why warriors are the premiere raid tanks: They're built to take damage.

Edit: Man, I never realized how well I learned tanking-theory raiding in classic WoW. I wasn't even a tank!

The impression I'm getting from this post in particular, but also the thread overall, is that warriors are only better tanks than SKs and PALs on raids, and comparable versus blue cons (I say comparable since the mob still gets pulled off, but you can taunt it back on before it does too much damage); otherwise, SKs/PALs are preferable. This is ignoring the 7% EXP penalty, though.

[Spewys]

Great thread.....

[Dr4z3r]

The impression I'm getting from this post in particular, but also the thread overall, is that warriors are only better tanks than SKs and PALs on raids, and comparable versus blue cons

Exactly: The best tank class varies, depending on the situation.

It's almost like Verant did a good job at this! :p

[Dantes]

The best tank is the one who's LFG and has the smallest distance to run to your camp :D

[SlankyLanky]

The best tank is the one who's LFG and has the smallest distance to run to your camp :D

i agree. ive never been turned away from a group because of the exp penalty i bring, hell what group doesnt have at least 1 hybrid in it?

[Randy]

The best tank is the one who's LFG and has the smallest distance to run to your camp :D

Exactly. Each class is different and requires different strategies but all can be successful.

[guineapig]

From a cleric's point of view, the trade off is that although there is an exp penalty with a knight class (versus a warrior) the amount of damage being done to the rest of the group is limited to to the ease of which they can generate snap aggro.

This leads to less downtime for medding and more mobs being pulled per session. Pretty sure it all evens out.

Yes without hybrids in the group you can actually notice the difference on your exp bar but that exp bar does not show you how how much time downtime you had.

[knottyb0y]

I wanted to try to answer a few questions asked earlier in the thread

What is different in Kunark that makes Warriors so much better than now?

1. Gear Upgrades. Warrior gear in kunark is better over all. As far as weapons warriors have more weapons that deal higher dps (higher aggro then) and more aggro proccing weapons become more readily available. A warrior is only as good as his gear. Also there are more armor options in kunark that have a better AC, +HP, and +STR/DEX/STA stats on them that are warrior only, thus raising the mitigation gap between them and knights at high ends at the very least.

2. Taunt Fix. In Kunark taunt get's fixed (this affects knights too, but with spells they could always build aggro). This gives the warrior the ability to atleast snap back aggro when it is lost.

3. Mobs hit harder and have more HP. As previously stated the longer a fight goes the bigger the mitigation curve moves in favor of warriors.

These probably effect the warrior's tanking ability the most in groups and raid situations.

With this said, for an xp group a warrior or shadow knight or paladin can all tank fine. SK/Pal have the advantage of snap aggro and some utility. Warriors have more hp/ac and a little higher dps is equipped right. The formula is really as simple as that.

In raid situations after kunark the defensive discipline really is what makes warriors the end all be all of raiding (even more so than before just because of hp/ac). Defensive gives them such a boost in mitigation it makes many raid encounters possible at the very least easier.

These probably effect the warrior's tanking ability the most in groups and raid situations.

[guineapig]

^^ Spot on ^^

[Estu]

I wanted to try to answer a few questions asked earlier in the thread

What is different in Kunark that makes Warriors so much better than now?

1. Gear Upgrades. Warrior gear in kunark is better over all. As far as weapons warriors have more weapons that deal higher dps (higher aggro then) and more aggro proccing weapons become more readily available. A warrior is only as good as his gear. Also there are more armor options in kunark that have a better AC, +HP, and +STR/DEX/STA stats on them that are warrior only, thus raising the mitigation gap between them and knights at high ends at the very least.

2. Taunt Fix. In Kunark taunt get's fixed (this affects knights too, but with spells they could always build aggro). This gives the warrior the ability to atleast snap back aggro when it is lost.

3. Mobs hit harder and have more HP. As previously stated the longer a fight goes the bigger the mitigation curve moves in favor of warriors.

These probably effect the warrior's tanking ability the most in groups and raid situations.

With this said, for an xp group a warrior or shadow knight or paladin can all tank fine. SK/Pal have the advantage of snap aggro and some utility. Warriors have more hp/ac and a little higher dps is equipped right. The formula is really as simple as that.

In raid situations after kunark the defensive discipline really is what makes warriors the end all be all of raiding (even more so than before just because of hp/ac). Defensive gives them such a boost in mitigation it makes many raid encounters possible at the very least easier.

These probably effect the warrior's tanking ability the most in groups and raid situations.

Nice. Are SKs and PALs very unpopular in Kunark and Velious, then, or do they also have nice bonuses?

[Meldor]

Right. I'm not terribly concerned about blue cons; generally in a full EXP group you wanna be taking a good deal of even and higher cons anyway, although I can't speak to the higher-level situation as I don't know the camps (I've only grouped for extended periods of time in Crushbone and Unrest). If the mob is pinging around I think that's indicative of a problem. Not saying you're a bad tank, but at that point the warrior either has other people taking damage or the warrior needs to tell everyone else to wait on DPS - in either case, my original question applies.

That's not a problem.. stop with your WoW mentality.. back on live 12 years ago you had to wait for your tanks to build aggro and it's the same now.

You guys are soo freaking carebears now a day... play smart play with skills, if your a dps and YOU pick aggro YOU are the problem. Yes Sk/Pal got it easier for aggro but in the other hand Warrior have more HP / AC and skills then Hybrid tanks.

So be smart.

[Lagaidh]

I can pretty much pull aggro at will with a T_rg_r's Insects on something above 85% HP.
I've gotten in the habit of just rooting the damn thing before I even bother with slow. Anything else, and I wear it.

I've been an EQ paladin forever and this simply will not happen in my group unless I've already died.

I really can't answer the question of "better". The only time I ever think there is a "better" is the instance of a WAR standing up to a raid target. When grinding and working on raid trash, it's all situational.

It's also dependant upon the whole group... not just the tank. Some fools will always try to burn their entire mana pool on incoming before a tank can even cast a spell or push attack.

A lot of times, the reputation that PALs and SHDs are superior tanks in the every day situation is because the DPS contingent of the group wants to play lazily. If the PAL or SHD gets that snap agro early (and they will if they know their class at all), then the DPS can just go into nuke and stab mode and not think about any other tactic of play.

However, if the group knows their classes as well as that PAL or SHD, then you can put a WAR in there and never notice the difference in efficiency. I know the number crunchers can make a case against this, but shit people, why do some folks insist upon being at the bleeding edge of efficiency in a pastime? Really?

This conversation always boils down to that: concrete roles and maximum efficiency. I've always bristled at this viewpoint even if I respect it. I've played in all manner of group combinations and the times I've always had a blast is where the mix wasn't ideal and we still kicked ass. That is a sign that you are with good players and not just in a paint-by-numbers grindfest.

Play the game. Play the game. Advancement is a side effect.

[Lagaidh]

i agree. ive never been turned away from a group because of the exp penalty i bring, hell what group doesnt have at least 1 hybrid in it?

I've been duoing with my wife on p99 almost exclusively. I want us to stay the same level. I have been getting unsolicited tells to group every single time I've logged in for a week no matter how far away I am.

I must say. That's a refreshing thing for me. On the Rathe and Maelin Starpyre back in the day (99-05), I really can't recall that happening to me.

I hope folks don't quit trying to invite me :) I'll be accepting soon enough. Or if you have two spots, and we have the time, you get a PAL and a DRU.

[Spewys]

Think this thread has been well conversed........Lagaidh...Will save two spots for you and your wife in my group...

[Estu]

That's not a problem.. stop with your WoW mentality.. back on live 12 years ago you had to wait for your tanks to build aggro and it's the same now.

You guys are soo freaking carebears now a day... play smart play with skills, if your a dps and YOU pick aggro YOU are the problem. Yes Sk/Pal got it easier for aggro but in the other hand Warrior have more HP / AC and skills then Hybrid tanks.

So be smart.

Wow, you douche. Just because I'm interested in questions of efficiency doesn't mean I have a "WoW mentality". Grow up.

[knottyb0y]

Nice. Are SKs and PALs very unpopular in Kunark and Velious, then, or do they also have nice bonuses?

As far as i understand SKs and PAL are still necessary in Kunark. They also get gear upgrades, but Kunark really made pure melee's shine the most (with biggest gear upgrades and balancing factors).

I still imagine that SKs and Pal will do a lot of off-tanking duty during raids.

As far as exp grouping goes I think your reputation as a good player, or at least enjoyable player > how much better or worse your class is at tanking than another. Unless it prohibits me from doing content I've never rejected a class (particularly a tank) to join my group, especially if I have grouped with them before and they did not suck.

Kunark really just brings a lot of upgrades all around and a lot of fixes/features for pure melee classes. Does that mean that Warriors suck in classic? No. But taunt IS broken, and the classic gear gap between knights and warriors is not as pronounced, making knights seem more desirable for grouping at least on paper.

[Spewys]

Taunt not working is really a pain in the rear. Glad it will be fixed in Kunark.

[Dantes]

I dunno about "broken" or "fixed." If all tanks could keep aggro 100% all the time, casters/healers would never have to fear death...ever. That would make the game too easy.

[fastboy21]

the big difference from what i recall is that in kunark and velious warriors do not **need** proc'ing weapons to keep aggro. fast aggro weapons (jarsinth trident, lammy, jade mace, etc) and "working" taunt make playing non-super-twinked tank much more feasible.

[Crone]

Not sure if its been said, but taunt is not really broken, but it gets "buffed" in kunark to work on mobs up to 6 levels higher than the warrior.

However, after level 40, Warrior aggro generation, and thus tanking, greatly improves. This is because the Warrior no longer is fighting things that are yellow+ con to them. Every Lguk/SolB mob is going to be blue, which means they can successfully taunt them.

Add to this that Yaks start proccing at 37, and tanking gets a lot better.

[Meldor]

Wow, you douche. Just because I'm interested in questions of efficiency doesn't mean I have a "WoW mentality". Grow up.

I might be a douche but you are a freaking noobs, Go back to Wow

[Nakara]

I might be a douche but you are a freaking noobs, Go back to Wow

you can't even speak English

[Dantes]

English is for newbs. Go back to WoW.

[Kich]

Go back to WoW.

Sippin' on the haterade much?

[Dantes]

No actually I'm just mocking the kid who keeps saying "Go back to Wow."

Go back to WoW.

[Kich]

It was more to him than you, but your quote was closer =P

[Grod]

A lot of it really comes down to the players and sometimes other players in the group need to adapt. Some tanks you don't need to worry about agro at all and it's efficient and with other tanks you have to hold back on your threat some it's just about knowing how to do it.

The other tactic I posted about building threat FOR the warrior so he can pre-taunt mezzed mobs is something in all likelihood very few tanks would ever think to do so the "reputations" of classes in a lot of times is based on the skill level of the average player of that class and not what exceptional players can accomplish with that class.

The thing is, especially in Kunark, an exceptional warrior will be able to hold agro just as effectively as any of the hybrids with better mitigation and on raids that essentially makes the hybrids obsolete so what happened in MOST top end raiding guilds is that they kept limited spots available for hybrids because there is no reason to bring in multiple SK's/Paladins if they are essentially limited to a DPS role or inferior in the other roles. For example, they aren't the best pulling classes, they aren't the best crowd control class and they aren't the best tanks.

Ironically the hybrids that brought the most to raids were the Bards and Rangers. Bards actually did make excellent pullers and could fill multiple roles and Rangers brought the most versatility although very few guilds used Rangers properly an exceptionally skilled Ranger was a very important addition to a raid. They were probably the best kiting class in game because Snares caused no damage and were high agro (Druids could snare but they were more effectively used as healers and SK snare caused damage which would lead to the mob summoning).

Rangers were also the best class to transition a tank death without a wipe because they had the most reliable agro of the DPS classes through fast casting snares and the longest avoidance discipline with weaponshield so between the tank transitions and kiting they could effectively fill important roles on raids as could the Bards although the Ranger jobs were usually more active unless the Bard was pulling.

Point is though that in most cases the skill level of the player > the class but at the end of the day, if you have the most skilled players in the most efficient classes for that role it trumped the classes that weren't as effective at performing those roles so a well played Warrior in almost situations is superior to a well played SK / Paladin. It's just the way it is. In most guilds, and that's the beauty of Everquest, the roles were performed by different classes based on which classes the best players in that guild were playing however tanking on raids almost exclusively went to the Warriors.

[Estu]

A lot of it really comes down to the players and sometimes other players in the group need to adapt. Some tanks you don't need to worry about agro at all and it's efficient and with other tanks you have to hold back on your threat some it's just about knowing how to do it.

The other tactic I posted about building threat FOR the warrior so he can pre-taunt mezzed mobs is something in all likelihood very few tanks would ever think to do so the "reputations" of classes in a lot of times is based on the skill level of the average player of that class and not what exceptional players can accomplish with that class.

The thing is, especially in Kunark, an exceptional warrior will be able to hold agro just as effectively as any of the hybrids with better mitigation and on raids that essentially makes the hybrids obsolete so what happened in MOST top end raiding guilds is that they kept limited spots available for hybrids because there is no reason to bring in multiple SK's/Paladins if they are essentially limited to a DPS role or inferior in the other roles. For example, they aren't the best pulling classes, they aren't the best crowd control class and they aren't the best tanks.

Ironically the hybrids that brought the most to raids were the Bards and Rangers. Bards actually did make excellent pullers and could fill multiple roles and Rangers brought the most versatility although very few guilds used Rangers properly an exceptionally skilled Ranger was a very important addition to a raid. They were probably the best kiting class in game because Snares caused no damage and were high agro (Druids could snare but they were more effectively used as healers and SK snare caused damage which would lead to the mob summoning).

Rangers were also the best class to transition a tank death without a wipe because they had the most reliable agro of the DPS classes through fast casting snares and the longest avoidance discipline with weaponshield so between the tank transitions and kiting they could effectively fill important roles on raids as could the Bards although the Ranger jobs were usually more active unless the Bard was pulling.

Point is though that in most cases the skill level of the player > the class but at the end of the day, if you have the most skilled players in the most efficient classes for that role it trumped the classes that weren't as effective at performing those roles so a well played Warrior in almost situations is superior to a well played SK / Paladin. It's just the way it is. In most guilds, and that's the beauty of Everquest, the roles were performed by different classes based on which classes the best players in that guild were playing however tanking on raids almost exclusively went to the Warriors.

I enjoyed this post.

[Messianic]

A lot of it really comes down to the players and sometimes other players in the group need to adapt. Some tanks you don't need to worry about agro at all and it's efficient and with other tanks you have to hold back on your threat some it's just about knowing how to do it.

The other tactic I posted about building threat FOR the warrior so he can pre-taunt mezzed mobs is something in all likelihood very few tanks would ever think to do so the "reputations" of classes in a lot of times is based on the skill level of the average player of that class and not what exceptional players can accomplish with that class.

The thing is, especially in Kunark, an exceptional warrior will be able to hold agro just as effectively as any of the hybrids with better mitigation and on raids that essentially makes the hybrids obsolete so what happened in MOST top end raiding guilds is that they kept limited spots available for hybrids because there is no reason to bring in multiple SK's/Paladins if they are essentially limited to a DPS role or inferior in the other roles. For example, they aren't the best pulling classes, they aren't the best crowd control class and they aren't the best tanks.

Ironically the hybrids that brought the most to raids were the Bards and Rangers. Bards actually did make excellent pullers and could fill multiple roles and Rangers brought the most versatility although very few guilds used Rangers properly an exceptionally skilled Ranger was a very important addition to a raid. They were probably the best kiting class in game because Snares caused no damage and were high agro (Druids could snare but they were more effectively used as healers and SK snare caused damage which would lead to the mob summoning).

Rangers were also the best class to transition a tank death without a wipe because they had the most reliable agro of the DPS classes through fast casting snares and the longest avoidance discipline with weaponshield so between the tank transitions and kiting they could effectively fill important roles on raids as could the Bards although the Ranger jobs were usually more active unless the Bard was pulling.

Point is though that in most cases the skill level of the player > the class but at the end of the day, if you have the most skilled players in the most efficient classes for that role it trumped the classes that weren't as effective at performing those roles so a well played Warrior in almost situations is superior to a well played SK / Paladin. It's just the way it is. In most guilds, and that's the beauty of Everquest, the roles were performed by different classes based on which classes the best players in that guild were playing however tanking on raids almost exclusively went to the Warriors.

All I see is rangers are stupid

[Grod]

Rangers are actually a really versatile class that could bring a lot to a raid if played correctly. The problem with the class was not the class itself, but the fact that the majority of the people playing the Rangers didn't know how to utilize some of the tools that were given to the class properly and the class got a bad reputation because of it.

It was always humorous to me how powerful that class was (even prior to archery) and how bad the classes reputation was. Most people are probably not even aware as to how good the class can be because they never got to experience or raid alongside a skilled Ranger. Kind of a shame really.

[Nakara]

rangers literally have 1 job:

engage the raid boss with /weaponshield and cast as many flame licks / low level snares as you can before it wears off then let the main tank take over with a giant threat lead

[Shabaza]

And whats about the Death Touch Target?

Don't forget this second job of Rangers. :D

[Grod]

rangers literally have 1 job:

engage the raid boss with /weaponshield and cast as many flame licks / low level snares as you can before it wears off then let the main tank take over with a giant threat lead

I know some guilds did that but it's definitely inefficient and inferior to simply playing normally because anything you gain in DPS through the threat lead is going to be more then lost by losing the DPS from the Ranger not to mention you then lose the ability for the Ranger to use that weaponshield to save a potential wipe if the tank happened to die. Inferior strategy all the way around. Threat and positioning are something that can be done reliably without the Ranger doing that but of the classes with an avoidance discipline Rangers had the longest one and the best agro mechanics.

A lot of times what happened when a tank died is that either the boss would plow through several DPS which might ruin the chances of success or the next tank would get agro and die before the CH rotation hit him. A good portion of the time when a tank died it led to a wipe and on some encounters the clearing and setting up of the actual boss fight took quite a while so a wipe was very counter productive. Even if it's not 100%, of all the classes, the Ranger is the best class to pull agro and tank the mob while the next tank gets setup after a tank death. Wasting the ability of the Ranger to salvage a wipe after a tank death, which good rangers could pull off with a fairly high success rate, is absolutely asinine from any quality guild. Did guilds do it? Sure they did, but it was still stupid and inferior to using the class correctly.

Moving on, Death Touch logically went to the class that provided the least to the raid encounter which, on many boss encounters, was either the Enchanter after tash or a boxed character.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Threat and positioning are something that can be done reliably without the Ranger doing that but of the classes with an avoidance discipline Rangers had the longest one and the best agro mechanics.

We used it on mobs that had the potential to a) kill the initial tank before the first CH even landed if we waited to let the tank get aggro, or b) start wiping clerics if we timed the start of the CH cycle too early before the initial tank could get sufficient aggro. At the time, we knew no other way to do it. Mostly on the AoW/Status of Rallos Zek/Vindicator encounters in Velious, if I recall correctly. I don't remember doing it for anything else, and after Luclin we pretty much saved our /disc timers for Trueshot. Maybe one ranger was designated to save for weaponshield, unless it was AoW/SoRZ/Vind. Again, that was just my guild, and that was in the Velious era. /shrug (side note, reading stories on Alla of people soloing AoW/SoRZ/Vind with their level 9325235 characters makes me weep)

Secondly, you had more than one ranger on raids (or at least we did) with weaponshield ready to save the raid if needed. We didn't start doing massive damage until Luclin, so it wasn't a huge loss if the initial weaponshield ranger went down. Raid was more worried about losing monk/rogue DPS.

[Tenudil]

I think its a combination of taunt not being quite as effective especially at lower levels as it was in classic and hybrids getting things they shouldn't have until later expansions. When i played classic SK's and Pal's seemed to spend the time i was pulling medding up and couldn't reliably keep up a continuous pull cycle. I have found that to not be the case here. They also had significantly less hp's for a while. I haven't played one past level 4 or 5 here but it did seem to me that they had several of the abilities they shouldn't have gotten until later expansions, increased mana/hp pools and reduced spell costs, and the melee timer not being reset. But i may also have been mistaken. Anyone have any insight on what they do or don't have here?

A couple of posts down.
http://www.thesteelwarrior.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3400

Here's the list of major boosts to knight abilities since December of 99, as least as well as I can remember them. It's been a long time, so my order and timing compared to expansions is no longer reliable, but I'll try anyway.

Pre-Kunark:
-Knight HP is given a boost to bring us to a level between that of rogues/rangers and warriors. Previously, a naked level 50 rogue would have more HP than a knight. He still out tanks us, though.

Kunark:
-SK Lifetap progression is altered, so that the level 60 tap is 338 HP, rather than 150.

-Harm touch is given a damage boost post 40, and moved to the lifetap resist table. HT has ever since remained in relatively close
proximity to a high end wizard nuke.

-LOH is given a serious boost in damage healed, approximately doubling it.

-Hybrid mana pools are -greatly- enhanced. First, our mana-per-stat-per-level is set equal to casters, removing the nine level penalty. Second, our spells are set to cost the listed mana cost, not twice it, and in the case of the SK's lifetaps, three times it.

Velious:

-Hybrid /discs are introduced. Rangers and bards win big. Knights don't get much.

-Knight defensive caps are raised from 225 to 252. We can finally out mitigate, but not out dodge, a rogue. Warriors still out dodge, out parry, out riposte, and flat out out avoid and out mitigate us. This is as it should be.

-The Great Two Hander Change. This is described above, but the -real- bonus is a seperate, nearly concurrent change.

-Hybrids are flat out given detrimental spell haste on all dots, stuns, DDs, taps, snares, etc with a casting time of 3.1 seconds or greater, not including items. Further, the act of casting a spell no longer causes 'next melee attack' timer to restart. Previously, wielding a 45 delay weapon meant I would swing 4.5 seconds after my last swing, or 4.5 seconds after finishing my last cast. Now, it means I will swing 4.5 seconds after my last swing, unless I am casting at this time, in which case I will swing immediately after the cast is complete. The timer then starts again at 4.5 seconds. This means that I can cast 'between' melee attacks.

[Noselacri]

I've heard the argument here that warriors are superior tanks in classic EQ because they have better defensive skills, hence better damage mitigation. However, they have issues holding aggro, to the point that they sometimes need to have the DPS classes delay engaging the mob for a while as they gain hate.

Here is my question. While the warrior is doing this, the mob is effectively not taking any damage (OK, it's taking appreciable damage, but compared to the damage it would be taking if all DPSers were engaged, it's quite small). Overall, the mob takes longer to die, and will hence spend more time beating on the tank. If, on the other hand, your tank is a paladin or a shadowknight, DPS classes can engage immediately (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), and the mob hence goes down faster, and will spend less time beating on the tank.

How does this extra time spent taking damage compare to the extra damage mitigation warriors have? Can one make a case to use a paladin or a shadowknight instead since the damage taken by the end of the fight might be comparable, or is the superior mitigation so powerful that this issue is minor?

It probably evens out more or less, or the difference is so small that it doesn't really matter. What's more important is that holding aggro throughout the entire fight, even towards the end of it, is not a given with a warrior. You could take a ten second head start and still lose aggro a minute into the fight. Warriors will do the job, and with a group/raid that knows how to operate with a warrior tank, they'll do it just fine as well. The rest just won't be able to push their classes to the limit.

Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, but a warrior has a greater need to focus on DEX and STR gear-wise so that he can hold aggro, while SKs and PALs can afford to gear up with AC, STA, and AGI since they can hold aggro with spells. To what extent does this make a difference in the end game in terms of the ability to soak up damage?

That makes no major difference. Most of the AC gear comes with those stats anyway, or the DEX pieces are available with equivalent AC to the normal stuff.

I also hear that warriors get better come Kunark. In what way? Does this mean that SKs and PALs are even less desired?

Warriors get a lot better in Kunark becase of disciplines, and to a lesser extent because the hybrids were kind of bad in that period of time. Defensive discipline is the cornerstone of raid tanking, and will stay that way until many expansions ahead which will be irrelevant for us. However, it doesn't become truly crucial until Velious, in my opinion, which is where warriors finally become the only real raid tanks.



See, in the current era, warriors basically aren't very good. The amount of mitigation they have over paladins and shadowknights is minimal, and the available gear does not readily exceed the worn AC cap which is when warriors begin to shine due to their significantly more favorable diminishing returns. They are more sturdy, but by a very small margin, and can't hold aggro for shit. Even with two SSoY and all that, your aggro depends entirely on the randomness of procs, and barring periods of extreme proc luck, you won't generate enough for everyone to comfortably do whatever they please without worrying about aggro. I think warriors are preferred for raid tanks at the moment more out of habit and tradition than out of necessity, because there's nothing they can tank that a knight can't, and it's a good deal more risky, even if it's a bit more mana efficient to heal a warrior. It's especially bad while leveling up where warrior aggro is truly pitiful and frankly not good enough to suffice in most cases, especially with non-twinks. I don't slow when the tank is a warrior, because by the time I can cast it without taking aggro, the mob is half dead anyway.

To put it simply, it's usually like this:

Warrior has bad proc luck: aggro is horrible and people will probably die, or will have to wait far too long before engaging/slowing/etc.

Warrior has average procs: aggro is okay, tanking will not be a problem if people are careful.

Warrior has good proc luck: everyone can do as they please, put out maximum DPS, slow early etc.

Paladin/SK is not in a coma: everyone can do as they please, put out maximum DPS, slow early etc.

Thus, since the survival aspect of tanking is currently not noticeably different between warriors and knights, the latter are probably overall better tanks when taking everything into consideration. We're talking like a 5% combined avoidance and mitigation advantage to warriors, and a base HP difference so small that an ogre SK will have more than a human warrior due to natural stamina. This largely changes in Kunark and Velious.

[Estu]

So what exactly does defensive discipline do? I have zero knowledge of discipline mechanics.

[Noselacri]

Uh... it's been a lot of years, but as far as I remember, it's two minutes of -40% damage taken and -40% damage dealt. Could be just one minute, I'm not sure now. There was an evasive discipline as well that did the same thing except with avoidance instead of mitigation, but it's on the same timer as defensive which comes out ahead for some reason or other.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

So what exactly does defensive discipline do? I have zero knowledge of discipline mechanics.

lasts 3 minutes

divides the mobs DI by 2

reduces the warriors dmg by a similar amount. I am not as familiar with the math behind PC damage, so I don't want to speculate more detail than I know

[Cars]

The Avoidance one is really only ever used on Venril Sathir as he has a lifetap that procs constantly and heals him for over 1000hps or something. But considering everyone wants there pants you will see the avoidance discipline quite a bit.

[Estu]

What's the cooldown on it? Also, why is the defensive one used more than the avoidance one? Less risk of repeated high damage?

[Grizzl]

Moving on, Death Touch logically went to the class that provided the least to the raid encounter which, on many boss encounters, was either the Enchanter after tash or a boxed character.[/QUOTE]

Why youuu.......i auta.........

My Bind Wound is maxed!! at 100!!. Can definitely help the clerics when
oom.
Any what if someone runs out of food/water? no one is going to want
to waste precious mana summoning. Fishing Skill....... maxxed!!!


Seriously tho, chain rune is a nice spell worth keeping us around for......:D

[Harrison]

I know some guilds did that but it's definitely inefficient and inferior to simply playing normally because anything you gain in DPS through the threat lead is going to be more then lost by losing the DPS from the Ranger not to mention you then lose the ability for the Ranger to use that weaponshield to save a potential wipe if the tank happened to die. Inferior strategy all the way around. Threat and positioning are something that can be done reliably without the Ranger doing that but of the classes with an avoidance discipline Rangers had the longest one and the best agro mechanics.

A lot of times what happened when a tank died is that either the boss would plow through several DPS which might ruin the chances of success or the next tank would get agro and die before the CH rotation hit him. A good portion of the time when a tank died it led to a wipe and on some encounters the clearing and setting up of the actual boss fight took quite a while so a wipe was very counter productive. Even if it's not 100%, of all the classes, the Ranger is the best class to pull agro and tank the mob while the next tank gets setup after a tank death. Wasting the ability of the Ranger to salvage a wipe after a tank death, which good rangers could pull off with a fairly high success rate, is absolutely asinine from any quality guild. Did guilds do it? Sure they did, but it was still stupid and inferior to using the class correctly.

Moving on, Death Touch logically went to the class that provided the least to the raid encounter which, on many boss encounters, was either the Enchanter after tash or a boxed character.

Lawl misinformation

[Bubbles]

When i was levelling my warrior, i simply was lucky to get groups with mages and necros and enchanters and such...

Easiest way to maintain aggro as a warrior : stop grouping with rogues and rangers. /thread.

Seriously, this whole argument is only even relevant if you are in a melee-heavy XP group. As for shammys, if you're in a group where the shaman is needing to slow every mob, your dps is shameful.

As for raiding, healing a warrior far more efficient, but you're still going to want paladins for blind and SKs for aggro-generation too. And you can tank with any of the 3 thats actually logged in during raid times.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

What's the cooldown on it? Also, why is the defensive one used more than the avoidance one? Less risk of repeated high damage?

When I quit playing in 2005, it was 10min 30sec from button press, so, 7.5 min between uses. However, I think it used to be a longer timer, maybe 15min? I'd have to research to be sure.

Some mobs have a very large DB and relatively small DI, such that they might hit for 410 420 430 440... 600. So in this case, evasive would be preferable as long as a max damage round wouldn't kill the tank because each avoided hit is saving a lot of damage. Whereas defensive would just lower the max hit from 600 to 500.

If instead the mob had a lower DB and higher DI, say hit for 225 250 275 300... 700, then defensive is preferred because it cuts the max hit from 700 to 450.

Evasive has the same duration and refresh as Defensive iirc.

[Duma]

I've heard the argument here that warriors are superior tanks in classic EQ because they have better defensive skills, hence better damage mitigation. However, they have issues holding aggro, to the point that they sometimes need to have the DPS classes delay engaging the mob for a while as they gain hate.

Here is my question. While the warrior is doing this, the mob is effectively not taking any damage (OK, it's taking appreciable damage, but compared to the damage it would be taking if all DPSers were engaged, it's quite small). Overall, the mob takes longer to die, and will hence spend more time beating on the tank. If, on the other hand, your tank is a paladin or a shadowknight, DPS classes can engage immediately (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), and the mob hence goes down faster, and will spend less time beating on the tank.

How does this extra time spent taking damage compare to the extra damage mitigation warriors have? Can one make a case to use a paladin or a shadowknight instead since the damage taken by the end of the fight might be comparable, or is the superior mitigation so powerful that this issue is minor?

Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, but a warrior has a greater need to focus on DEX and STR gear-wise so that he can hold aggro, while SKs and PALs can afford to gear up with AC, STA, and AGI since they can hold aggro with spells. To what extent does this make a difference in the end game in terms of the ability to soak up damage?

I also hear that warriors get better come Kunark. In what way? Does this mean that SKs and PALs are even less desired?

Wake up call.

1. There is no such thing as "mitigation" in EQ. Higher AC only trends the average hit to be lower among a predefined list of possible hits coded into a mob. It isn't like WoW where AC actually reduces the highest possible hit.

2. Paladins and Shadowknights are considered better group and short term tanks because they could snap aggro on EQlive due to OP spell aggro. Any spell that debuffs a stat on a mob has a ridiculous amount of "hate" added to it. A shadowknight or Paladin only had to disease or stun a mob once on live and they would have never ending aggro.

3. There is no real difference between the raid tanking abilities of the 3 classes because they can all wear the the same armor. The only thing that separates them is the cap on their defense skills and their total HP. Warriors have a higher HP total, but Knights get more AC from shields.

4. Stats like Str, Dex etc are bullshit. They work on a tiered system. Offense + weapon skill + Str gets you another damage table around level 30-40. Or at least that's how it worked on live. By level 40 all melee classes are equal they just upgrade to the final table earlier than others depending on how many points of str you put in on character creation.

5. Dexterity only increases proc chance on weapons that have a proc from 1.0 every 60 seconds to 1.5. Once you hit that tier of effectiveness all further dex is lost.

6. TLDR: Roll whatever you want.

[Estu]

When I quit playing in 2005, it was 10min 30sec from button press, so, 7.5 min between uses. However, I think it used to be a longer timer, maybe 15min? I'd have to research to be sure.

Some mobs have a very large DB and relatively small DI, such that they might hit for 410 420 430 440... 600. So in this case, evasive would be preferable as long as a max damage round wouldn't kill the tank because each avoided hit is saving a lot of damage. Whereas defensive would just lower the max hit from 600 to 500.

If instead the mob had a lower DB and higher DI, say hit for 225 250 275 300... 700, then defensive is preferred because it cuts the max hit from 700 to 450.

Evasive has the same duration and refresh as Defensive iirc.

What is DB and DI?


Wake up call.

1. There is no such thing as "mitigation" in EQ. Higher AC only trends the average hit to be lower among a predefined list of possible hits coded into a mob. It isn't like WoW where AC actually reduces the highest possible hit.

2. Paladins and Shadowknights are considered better group and short term tanks because they could snap aggro on EQlive due to OP spell aggro. Any spell that debuffs a stat on a mob has a ridiculous amount of "hate" added to it. A shadowknight or Paladin only had to disease or stun a mob once on live and they would have never ending aggro.

3. There is no real difference between the raid tanking abilities of the 3 classes because they can all wear the the same armor. The only thing that separates them is the cap on their defense skills and their total HP. Warriors have a higher HP total, but Knights get more AC from shields.

4. Stats like Str, Dex etc are bullshit. They work on a tiered system. Offense + weapon skill + Str gets you another damage table around level 30-40. Or at least that's how it worked on live. By level 40 all melee classes are equal they just upgrade to the final table earlier than others depending on how many points of str you put in on character creation.

5. Dexterity only increases proc chance on weapons that have a proc from 1.0 every 60 seconds to 1.5. Once you hit that tier of effectiveness all further dex is lost.

6. TLDR: Roll whatever you want.

That lowering of the average hit is what I meant by "mitigation". Do you have some kind of reference/evidence I could look at RE point 5? I've never heard of this before.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

What is DB and DI?

They are the two values that determine the 20 possible values an NPC can hit for. If those values are very small (ie. a decaying skeleton) then rounding may cause there to be less than 20 discrete values.

The 20 values are DB + X * DI where X is an integer from 1 to 20.

For example, according the Steel Warrior archives which I trust more than my memory, Trakanon had a DB of 120 and a DI of 25. So, he could hit for the following values:

145, 170, 195, 220, 245, 270, 295, 320, 345, 370, 395, 420, 445, 470, 495, 520, 545, 570, 595, and 620

This is a perfect example of a mob to use defensive on, because that cuts the max hit from 620 to 370 by altering the damage formula to DB + (DI * X/2).

[Noselacri]

1. There is no such thing as "mitigation" in EQ. Higher AC only trends the average hit to be lower among a predefined list of possible hits coded into a mob. It isn't like WoW where AC actually reduces the highest possible hit.

Well, that's still mitigation. Both are. Doesn't stop being mitigation just because it works a bit differently from how most games do it.

3. There is no real difference between the raid tanking abilities of the 3 classes because they can all wear the the same armor. The only thing that separates them is the cap on their defense skills and their total HP. Warriors have a higher HP total, but Knights get more AC from shields.

Warriors have significantly more favorable diminishing returns from AC exceeding the soft cap. I believe they gain about 45% of the benefit while knights get 37% or something. That'll start to matter in Kunark and Velious, not so much now because the soft cap is 300 worn AC.

[Duma]

Well, that's still mitigation. Both are. Doesn't stop being mitigation just because it works a bit differently from how most games do it.



Warriors have significantly more favorable diminishing returns from AC exceeding the soft cap. I believe they gain about 45% of the benefit while knights get 37% or something. That'll start to matter in Kunark and Velious, not so much now because the soft cap is 300 worn AC.

Technically it isn't mitigation because there is still a small chance you can be hit for a certain amount of damage. But that's nitpicking.

Everyone get's the same returns from AC in Classic. Softcaps didn't come around until Luclin.

I'm 99.9% sure that's how dex effects procs. But I don't really care to dig through 1000 pages of decade old Steel Warrior threads to find something to cite from a dev.

[Estu]

I'm 99.9% sure that's how dex effects procs. But I don't really care to dig through 1000 pages of decade old Steel Warrior threads to find something to cite from a dev.

OK, but I still don't really understand what you're saying. For how many weapons is DEX effective? At what DEX value does it stop making a difference for proc rates?

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

OK, but I still don't really understand what you're saying. For how many weapons is DEX effective? At what DEX value does it stop making a difference for proc rates?

For mainhand weapons:
305 DEX - 2.0 ppm
205 DEX - 1.5 ppm
105 DEX - 1.0 ppm

For offhand weapons:
105 DEX = .5 proc/min
205 DEX = .75 proc/min
305 DEX = 1 proc/min

This information reflects the way things worked on live in the PoP era, although consensus on the boards there was that the mechanic had not changed up to that point. Of course, that was on live. I have no guarantee that the eqemu code duplicates this accurately.

Also, there were a small number of weapons (less than 50) that had an additional modifier on them to make them proc more or less than this standard rate. However, none of them were in classic iirc.

[Duma]

Hmm, I didn't know offhand had a different table for procs than main hand. If anything I thought it would be higher than MH to make up for the fact offhand swings less due to dual wield.

Nice find.

[Noselacri]

Technically it isn't mitigation because there is still a small chance you can be hit for a certain amount of damage. But that's nitpicking.

Mitigation is just a word that means lessened severity. There's no rule saying it has to be guaranteed or follow a specific scaling formula or anything. If it's a mechanic whose sole function is to reduce individual instances of damage, it's mitigation. But yeah, it's nitpicking.

[Folkar]

Reading through this thread has me excited to start playing P99 and re-roll my old warrior. As for high proc rate weapons, I don't recall any from classic, however a few of them were in Kunark. (Blade of the Black Dragon Eye for example)

As to the warrior vs knight in groups? I think someone hit the nail on the head with the comment of whichever is closest to the group is the best choice. However, a solid group will adjust to either type of tank and be successful.

[Crone]

This information reflects the way things worked on live in the PoP era, although consensus on the boards there was that the mechanic had not changed up to that point. Of course, that was on live. I have no guarantee that the eqemu code duplicates this accurately.

Also, there were a small number of weapons (less than 50) that had an additional modifier on them to make them proc more or less than this standard rate. However, none of them were in classic iirc.

Where does a SSoY line up in those proc per minute numbers?

Thanks.

[Mardur]

Weapons generally proc more on emu, so it's not really worth drudging up old classic findings.

[Cars]

The way weapons proc on P99 feel classic to me. I played on live when it launched and sometimes my Ghoulbane would proc like 4 times in a row and sometimes it wouldnt proc for an entire mob. Which is exactly what happens here. The whole procs per minute ratio just make me happy I didnt keep playing when luclin came out.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Where does a SSoY line up in those proc per minute numbers?

Thanks.

SSoY had no modifier to the basic proc rate.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Warriors suck in classic. In Kunark they get epics and the defensive discipline.

Fatty shadowknight is the best tank in classic.

[Ethanblack]

Step one. Warrior AND Pally/Sk in the same group.

Pally pulls and builds aggro, Warrior taunts off of Pally/SK when hate is established. Warrior then stays on top.

Winrar.

[Husk]

Correct me if I am wrong.
P1999 aims at re-creating old EQ as close to the original as possible. Including the various class problems.
This is the reason why the warrior class is so unreliable for taunting. But I remember that in classic, the rogue used to be pretty useless too. And I think I read somewhere that backstab in P1999 is buffed compared to what it used to be, making the rogue more enjoyable to play.

Is it intended or just a bug that need fixing ? I am obviously not calling for rogue nerf. Just that as a new player, non twinked warrior, if it wasn't for the pulling I do for the group and then let everyone tank but me, I would be totally useless to the grps.

Cheers !

[Auchae]

Hmm, I didn't know offhand had a different table for procs than main hand. If anything I thought it would be higher than MH to make up for the fact offhand swings less due to dual wield.

Nice find.

Offhand doesn't swing less than main, though. It runs on delay of weapon just like main. Every time the delay is met on the weapon in offhand, it makes a Dual Wield check. If it's not met, it does nothing (a miss, basically). The higher your DW skill, the higher the chance for it to actually hit when delay is met.

Slower weapons DO proc more often, however. This is true. Does anyone remember Shakerpaging? I know it's a Luclin or PoP era term, but it applies. To make a shakerpaging warrior more efficient, you would duel a fellow shammy and have him slow you to provide a higher proc rate.

Due to misinformation, I would often place slower weapons with high damage in offhand. So, many times the offhand would proc more than mainhand for me.