Warrior vs Knights

[fischsemmel]

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

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.