Warriors are useless in 90% of the games content

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

A) I said they both lock aggro equally well. Perhaps I should have specified that knights do so immediately 100% of the time they want it, but we all play this game and this is basic knowledge. In groups/raids my warrior doesn’t have aggro issues. He locks aggro. Locked aggro is locked aggro. Once he has it he doesn’t lose it unless someone with a spellbook and desire wants to intentionally steal it. The white damage and threat from Frostreaver is legit especially at 60 with mainhand triple attack. It is more or less a given that a knight who is trying will always run circles around a warrior - that has never been in question. Rangers can do so in spades as well.

B) I also said they both solo easy shit well. Point to me where I said the warrior solos better. Oh that’s right. I didn’t.

C). Taps/heals are not mitigation. They are healing. Rooting and backing up is not mitigation, it is avoidance of combat. Fear kiting is similar. Please do not mix up your terminology. Toe to toe and gear being comparable, the warrior will take fewer hits (better avoidance skills) and take less damage per hit (superior ac returns amongst other perks) 100% of the time outside of disc. Under disc, they are an entirely separate entity on the tanking front.

Un-wad your panties. Sorry you chose the worst tank for 99% of content.

A) Your idea of "locking agro" is "while every other group/raid member plays correctly, I maintain agro". That is true for all tank classes, it isn't specific to a Warrior's ability to generate agro. A Knight can grab agro back easily whenever they want, and they can use frostreaver. A Warrior will struggle due to RNG if agro is lost, or they need to switch targets. They can get bad luck on taunts and procs. Trying to compare Warrior and Knight agro generation in this manner is incorrect.

If you want people to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you simply misspoke, you need to give other people the same courtesy. It is also ok if you didn't know the basics of agro generation.

B) Glad we agree that Warriors do not solo as well as knights.

C) I won't bother quibbling over vocabulary, as you probably won't admit you are wrong anyway, regardless of who is correct. The effect is the same, Knights can heavily reduce the amount of damage they take as well via their spells in both solo and group scenarios. Warrior discs are unresistable, which is the primary reason why they are better on enemies like raid bosses. If AoW could be rooted or fear kited, you wouldn't need Warriors.

A lot more content can be done by Knights soloing than Warriors. Claiming Knights are worse on 99% of content compared to Warriors is obviously untrue. Warriors shine in raid content, that is generally it.

[enjchanter]

You guy are missing the point

Paladin is fun
Warrior is boring

[Duik]

Troxx, i think your lesson is about to begin.

[Soothsayer]

At least warriors are viable at level 60. I remember having a blast on my warrior when Green first launched, and then I hit 50 and realized I was literally just a sub-par melee DPS that almost never got to tank cool stuff. I spent so much time gathering the annoying list of clickies and consumables that they required, and for all that effort, I occasionally got a pity offtank spot or a rare chance to tank Phinny every once in a great while. Raiding with Kingdom at level 50 as warrior was definitely the nadir of my EQ experience. It sucked. I eventually stopped playing... didn't really have the energy to reroll after so much time and effort on my warrior.

If a new server happens, I'm 100% rolling SK and never looking back. Probably gonna be an Erudite for maximum style and coolness points, too. For posterity, I do NOT recommend playing a warrior for any reason in pre-Kunark EQ. They're straight up trash.

[Vivitron]

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

At least warriors are viable at level 60. I remember having a blast on my warrior when Green first launched, and then I hit 50 and realized I was literally just a sub-par melee DPS that almost never got to tank cool stuff. I spent so much time gathering the annoying list of clickies and consumables that they required, and for all that effort, I occasionally got a pity offtank spot or a rare chance to tank Phinny every once in a great while. Raiding with Kingdom at level 50 as warrior was definitely the nadir of my EQ experience. It sucked. I eventually stopped playing... didn't really have the energy to reroll after so much time and effort on my warrior.

If a new server happens, I'm 100% rolling SK and never looking back. Probably gonna be an Erudite for maximum style and coolness points, too. For posterity, I do NOT recommend playing a warrior for any reason in pre-Kunark EQ. They're straight up trash.

I'm not sure if you made this post knowing that SKs are arguably the least favored velious raid class under the current rule set and metas, if so *sensible chuckle*, if not, consider this fair warning.

[Soothsayer]

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

I'm not sure if you made this post knowing that SKs are arguably the least favored velious raid class under the current rule set and metas, if so *sensible chuckle*, if not, consider this fair warning.

Given the length of time Green spent in classic, I would definitely still make a knight class even knowing that they’re eventually overshadowed for raid content, even if I were a hardcore raider. To me, making class decisions based on how viable you will eventually be years down the line is weird. Many people will put the game down for months / years due to burnout and boredom long before expansions even release.

[Jimjam]

In Dwerium Trio era my toon for soloing Naggy/Vox was an erud Sk. They are styling as heck!

[Naethyn]

Paladins get an instant cast heal.
Shadowknights get an instant cast nuke.
Warriors get text telling the clerics to heal them.

[Troxx]

Off the top of my head I can think of zero content (either raid or group) that REQUIRES the knight spell book in a cooperative play environment with other players.

Group: On the group side I can think of some hard hitting group content that strongly benefits from warrior disc (gwurms) but not requires. Whether the disc outweighs the benefit of knight spell book … well that depends on gear and encounter. In general - a monk can substitute in for any of the tank classes. Assuming the warrior can hold aggro well - the critical benefit of knights are negated. Ultimately it’s a wash.

Raid: can’t think of anything that REQUIRES a knight spell book. There are obvious examples of encounters that require warriors.

Solo? Who gives a shit. We never disagreed here because there never was a disagreement. Warriors solo easy shit well enough that they can keep the xp bar moving when no groups are to be found.


——————
—————

Title is that warriors are useless in 90% of content.

This is not the case unless the premise is that you’d be better off bringing a monk (which a strong case could be made for). If that the stance we’re taking … well then knights are useless for 100% of content? I’m assuming the 10% residual is because you needed the warriors superior hit points, mitigation and and disc.

At the end of the day, this is just a silly silly thread.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Off the top of my head I can think of zero content (either raid or group) that REQUIRES the knight spell book in a cooperative play environment with other players.

Group: On the group side I can think of some hard hitting group content that strongly benefits from warrior disc (gwurms) but not requires. Whether the disc outweighs the benefit of knight spell book … well that depends on gear and encounter. In general - a monk can substitute in for any of the tank classes. Assuming the warrior can hold aggro well - the critical benefit of knights are negated. Ultimately it’s a wash.

Raid: can’t think of anything that REQUIRES a knight spell book. There are obvious examples of encounters that require warriors.

Solo? Who gives a shit. We never disagreed here because there never was a disagreement. Warriors solo easy shit well enough that they can keep the xp bar moving when no groups are to be found.


——————
—————

Title is that warriors are useless in 90% of content.

This is not the case unless the premise is that you’d be better off bringing a monk (which a strong case could be made for). If that the stance we’re taking … well then knights are useless for 100% of content? I’m assuming the 10% residual is because you needed the warriors superior hit points, mitigation and and disc.

At the end of the day, this is just a silly silly thread.

The vast majority of content doesn't require a lot of things. Just because something isn't required, that doesn't mean there is no heirarchy of what is better or worse.

Most group content doesn't need tanks at all. This is why you see Cleric/Enchanter duos, Enchanter/Shaman/Monk trios, etc.

Your idea of requirements has nothing to do with whether or not a Warrior or Knight is better for the average XP group.