If knights had defensive, would there be any reason to have warriors?

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by greatdane [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To be honest, if bash generated aggro like a stun, holding aggro would be totally trivial and there would be even less reason to play a knight.

I imagine if shield bash aggro wasn't bugged in classic, the difference in the meta would have had a great impact on the development of character balance in the expansions - for example if warriors could hold aggro easily with a shield they wouldn't have needed to be given defensive in Kunark to justify their use as a tank over knights.

The entire game could have unfolded differently.

[AgKnight]

Originally Posted by Toxigen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Warriors will still pump out more threat on long fights.
.

Lol, just no, warrior cannot rival to a knight chain casting their agro spells... And despite the DC nerf I can still spam agro for around 10min without resorting to any twitch or similar artifice...defensive and higher mitigation makes warrior unbeatable as raid tank, no discussion but if you think a warrior can out agro a knight who goes full agro you are definitely wrong...

[greatdane]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I imagine if shield bash aggro wasn't bugged in classic, the difference in the meta would have had a great impact on the development of character balance in the expansions - for example if warriors could hold aggro easily with a shield they wouldn't have needed to be given defensive in Kunark to justify their use as a tank over knights.

The entire game could have unfolded differently.

To an extent, yes; but at the same time, they also clearly designed the content itself such that defensive was strictly necessary for most raid bosses. It's anyone's guess if they did that in order to keep warriors as the main tanks, but if we pretend there was a world where bash generated aggro like a stun and warriors didn't get defensive, raiding would have been borderline impossible outside of what scraps you can do in-era without defensive.

Imagine doing AoW or Vyemm with knight tanks. If I recall, AoW wasn't actually killed until like the week Luclin launched, and that was with defensive. It might not have been doable until PoP otherwise. That disc is such a silly bottleneck to almost all raiding, and I don't think I get the impression that it was put in as compensation for the fact that bash's stun aggro didn't work. It was just a sign of the neolithic age of game design.

[Snaggles]

The OG dev's knew what they were doing. Gave the best mitigating highest HP tank aggro issues. Played with raid npc hps. Gave weird mechanics to raid bosses it took 20 years to reverse construct.

What made some things trivial gave light to other metas like ranger bumping and knight tanks. Even druids can really shine on P99 because people arent automatically delegating them to a meme. Pulling hate, charming stuff, etc.

[AgKnight]

What I don't understand is that other melee got some bump disc while knights have absolutely no useable disc to tank...a minor defensive on our hour long cooldown or anything to bump you would have made sense...not having something to replace defensive makes lots of sense but only getting a disc to make ht less resistable (only fully resisted 95% of the time with the disc on) or some HP regen 1-1.5k max depending on your fps while bards can deftdance, ranger can weaponshield and monk can stonstance and voidance... They missed great opportunity there, they could have been creative, I would have loved a disc to share the damage I take on the whole group...

[Snaggles]

Sanctification is no defensive or evasive but it’s does has its purposes. It blocks VS’s life tap and as I understand pretty much all VP dragon spells. It also blocks dragon roar/fear which if timed well can really help while the engage is being established and the real tanks are running in circles.

[Ennewi]

Knights could've really benefitted from two-handed dueling shields with block enabled and increased bash damage; it's not as though knights rely on melee damage for aggro anyway.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by greatdane [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If I recall, AoW wasn't actually killed until like the week Luclin launched, and that was with defensive. It might not have been doable until PoP otherwise.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010803...cID=6151.topic

Purifyre
Veteran
Posts: 1363
(7/28/01 11:08:27 pm)
re:
With the Avatar downed and now Tunare Brad must be crying in his beer hee hee

brumfondl
Veteran
Posts: 94
(7/29/01 12:41:37 pm)
Re: re:
Avatar of War = 35-40 mins
Tunare = 15-20 mins

Conclusion:
AoW > Tunare as I have always said [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

NB: Anyone who starts making rational arguements against this post can shove it where the sun don't shine. This post has no rational basis except direct time comparison so I don't wanna see any crap about force size or anything like that. Rallos is better than Tunare and that is that... You're wrong and I'm right nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

PS: I hate it when I read my posts and see spelling mistakes
Brumfondl Majicthise
Daughter of Hatred
60 Level Servant of Rallos Zek
"A good deed never goes unpunished" – Gore Vidal

Edited by: brumfondl at: 7/29/01 12:43:46 pm