Warrior vs Knights

[maleick]

As far as tanking goes, other than defensive stance does a Warrior have any other advantages over the knights that make them a better tank? I played a warrior on live and I can't recall. I loved my warrior once I got hategiver and bloodfrenzy but it was dreadful until then.

[IronLikeALionInZion]

more hp per stamina then the knights.

[fischsemmel]

Some skills have higher caps for warriors than for knights, I believe. Not sure which and how much though, since every source I see (wiki, old strategy guides, random people commenting on forums) conflicts.

Warriors have a better damage table too, right? All things being equal, that'd mean a bit more damage so a bit more aggro.

[maverixdamighty]

warriors do more dps, mitigate dmg better, more hitpoints/resist gear available imo, and have disciplines.

[fischsemmel]

warriors do more dps, mitigate dmg better.

How and/or why?

[Raavak]

Better tables I believe, for one. More available AC on cobalt, etc helps mitigation too.

[maverixdamighty]

higher defensive skills, more ac, etc. or are you asking why they do more dps?

[Lishrac]

Knights are better able to hold agro early on without being twinked. Warriors are late bloomers but are very good at what they do in the later levels. Warriors tend to be gear dependent so once they have some good agro weapons and a good amount of gear nothing is going to come close to their ability to tank.

Small groups go with a Knight for good snap agro. Larger groups and raids go with a warrior.

[fischsemmel]

higher defensive skills, more ac, etc.

Maverixdamighty: Bill Gates is richer than Michael Jordan.
Fischsemmel: Why and/or how?
Maverixdamighty: Because Bill Gates has more money than Michael Jordan.
Fischsemmel: ...

[maverixdamighty]

if you don't understand how higher defensive skills and more ac help to mitigate damage better than you probably shouldn't even be in the discussion. Also nice analogy, but my answer would be a link to forbes articles or something on that.

[fischsemmel]

if you don't understand how higher defensive skills and more ac help to mitigate damage better than you probably shouldn't even be in the discussion. Also nice analogy, but my answer would be a link to forbes articles or something on that.

No, my analogy was pretty much perfect. If you had linked an article to a real explanation of warrior tanking mechanics when I asked how warriors were better at taking and dealing damage, instead of just rephrasing that warriors were better at taking and dealing damage, THEN my analogy should have had you linking a forbes article.

AKA no fucking shit higher defense and better parry/dodge/riposte and disciplines make a warrior able to handle incoming damage better, but HOW exactly are warriors different (see my post that already answered the OPs question as well as you did, which was posted hours before you ever posted, which also pointed out that people like you tend to just say "this is how it is" without explaining yourself or having any reason for anyone to believe you other than on blind faith)... what are the skill cap differences, what are the differences in the damage table, etc?


If I asked why wizards do more damage on a dragon than a druid does, you wouldn't say "Because their nukes hit harder," would you? Yes, wizard nukes hit harder than druid nukes attacks, but that is hardly an explanation of why and/or how wizards do more damage on a dragon than a druid does. You would explain damage per cast time, damage per mana, the way resists work on normal spells vs. lures, etc.

Now kindly do the equivalent of that with warrior vs. knight damage dealing and damage taking in a tank situation, or gtfo! We don't need you to say that warriors take less damage aka knights take more damage aka warriors have better defensive skills aka knights mitigate and avoid more poorly aka warriors are better tanks. We fucking know.

[maverixdamighty]

Here you go: http://www.monkly-business.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8646

Your analogy was awful just like your contribution to this thread.

[maverixdamighty]

as for warriors dealing damage go to a raid and get a parser i'm not bothering with that. If you don't think warriors outdamage knights than you probably actually believe Michael Jordan is richer than Bill Gates.

[fischsemmel]

as for warriors dealing damage go to a raid and get a parser i'm not bothering with that. If you don't think warriors outdamage knights than you probably actually believe Michael Jordan is richer than Bill Gates.

I don't believe much of anything that I don't have good reason to believe, thank you very much. And even if I were in the mood to take the word of random people on these forums, I still like to read about the how and the why myself.


Here you go: http://www.monkly-business.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8646

Thank you. Of course the info in is pretty useless without even more info. Great, I know how defense works. Too bad I don't know what warrior vs. knight defense skill caps are. Again, see my first post in this thread.


Your analogy was awful just like your contribution to this thread.

nice analogy

Liar? Hypocrite? Retard? Hell if I know!

[maverixdamighty]

that information you are looking for is all on the p99 wiki. The OP asked a question he isn't asking for specific math. He got his answer.

Warriors = better at taking damage and more needed for high end raiding
Knights = better at snap agro and need less gear to generate the agro and have more versatility

Do you even play either class? I would say not.

[fischsemmel]

that information you are looking for is all on the p99 wiki.

IF it is and IF it is accurate (which it isnt, and it isn't), then it is buried in some remote place of the wiki where no normal person ever finds it.

Warrior page doesn't talk about skill caps for warriors at all. (Edit - sorry, it does talk about it some. Offense and defense aren't on the list.)
Knights pages talk about skill caps, but based on discussions I've had on the forums about this before, the #s are frequently wrong.

[maverixdamighty]

since you are so incredibly lazy and too incompetent to search the wiki here you go:

knights:
Dodge 155
Parry 205
Riposte 200
Defense 230
Warriors:
Dodge 175
Parry 230
Riposte 225
Defense 250

Good day!

[fischsemmel]

Thanks, again.

I think you forgot to insult the OP for asking a question, though.

[maverixdamighty]

Nope I was happy to answer his question before you decided to try to be a jack@ss. If he wants to send me a tell in game he can on either my paladin or my warrior. I wouldn't answer a question if I didn't already know the answer from having played both.

[fischsemmel]

Also, I half-retract my thanks, because I stopped being so lazy and incompetent and I found, on the wiki, information that conflicts with yours.

http://wiki.project1999.org/index.php/Skill_Defense

Claims warriors max at 252, pallies at 230, and SKs at 210.

[maverixdamighty]

i don't have my war maxed here i just remember on live it was around 250, but clearly my point is made. a warrior is higher than a knight. want to keep arguing when I've clearly been proved correct?

Please do yourself a favor and go back and read the OPs question and then my responses and let me know where I have been wrong so far, thanks pal!

[fischsemmel]

Nope I was happy to answer his question before you decided to try to be a jack@ss. If he wants to send me a tell in game he can on either my paladin or my warrior. I wouldn't answer a question if I didn't already know the answer from having played both.

I didn't try to be a jackass. I asked how far away the moon is and wasn't happy with "far" or "a long ways" as answers.

[maverixdamighty]

so everytime someone asks a question on this forum you want a link to a website when it is commonly known information? got it. time to go to work have fun searching the internet for more information backing up my claim.

[fischsemmel]

Please do yourself a favor and go back and read the OPs question and then my responses and let me know where I have been wrong so far, thanks pal!

"Far" isn't an incorrect answer when someone asks how far away the moon is, but it's still a pretty crappy answer.

And forget the OP. You've been talking to me for a couple pages now, not him.

[fischsemmel]

so everytime someone asks a question on this forum you want a link to a website when it is commonly known information? got it. time to go to work have fun searching the internet for more information backing up my claim.

If it were commonly-known information, there would be less disagreement in the wiki and on zam an... (gee, have I mentioned my first post in this thread yet?), more people would be able to answer with specific numbers instead of general statements, etc.

[maverixdamighty]

once again he wasn't asking for specific skill levels he asked a very general question about the difference between wars and knights. If you want to start your own discussion thread with logs/parses etc then start that up.

[maverixdamighty]

your analogies are reaching at best. do yourself a favor and just start a new thread or quit posting. next you will want me to log back in and print screenshots of skills.

[fischsemmel]

once again he wasn't asking for specific skill levels he asked a very general question about the difference between wars and knights. If you want to start your own discussion thread with logs/parses etc then start that up.

As far as tanking goes, other than defensive stance does a Warrior have any other advantages over the knights that make them a better tank? I played a warrior on live and I can't recall. I loved my warrior once I got hategiver and bloodfrenzy but it was dreadful until then.

He didn't ask about specific skill levels, no. But he didn't ask for a TLDR summary of how warriors are better tanks than knights, either. I don't think it's not fair to think he wanted to basically hear "their other advantages are they are better" when he has already listed a very specific advantage that warriors have over knights and then asked if there are more.

Also, isn't there normally a forum rule along the lines of "don't start a new thread when one for that subject already exists?" Why would I want to start a new thread to get answers about warrior vs. knight tanking when this one is here? Who cares that it started off somewhat more generally and I've tried to turn it somewhat more specific? Do you think the OP is going to be mad that there is more information in here than general descriptions of the relative tanking ability of warriors and knights?

[fischsemmel]

But I give up, time to do other things.

[maverixdamighty]

The OP got his question answered within the first few posts. I wasted 15 minutes of my life looking up stuff that I already knew just because you decided to get chippy and challenge my knowledge of the subject.

Yes, I think if you are straying away from the OPs topic you should start your own thread to discuss the information you are trying to get.

[Elements]

Guys guys... take your PMS pills and come back to the discussion in a week once the hormones subside :D.

[Knuckle]

paladins have best snap aggro
shadow knights can pull aggro very quickly
warriors take the longest but are the most durable

HARD STUFF