Do Not Engage: Warriors Vs. PALs/SHDs

[YendorLootmonkey]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Dr4z3r [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.