Forums » The Warrior

To Shield or not to Shield

    • 75 posts
    April 16, 2018 2:39 PM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    [blockquote]Lovethemdead said:

    Ok here is how I feel as a war I think 2X1h is the only way to go....If war have to drop a wep to be able to tank then, why not just have a pally tank it.. They alway have better snap agro and will be using a sword and board any ways... 

     

    This is not EQ you know, there is no known status about "aggro snap" comparison over tank classes.

    [/blockquote]

     

    I hope attack speed and riposte works similarly to EQ with relation to weapons.  Meaning, using a 1h+shield or 2hander results in less attacks per second and less riposte damage taken than using two 1handers.

    This relates to the quoted post because if riposte works the same, then there needs to be a benefit to using two 1handers... and it makes sense using two 1handers would do more damage.  And by association, more damage could mean more aggro generation. 

    Coming full circle, Lovethemdead has an arguement that using two 1handers is the most valuable setup in a group so that the warrior generates maximum aggro in order to permit the group to do maximum damage without pulling aggro.

    • 608 posts
    April 16, 2018 3:37 PM PDT

    Will aggro be a battle for every inch ? Will damage matter a lot ? Will skills use both weapons or only main hand damage for the threat modifier ?

     

    Many unsolved question can make Dual wield a marginal benefit on aggro, a dangerous drop of defense, or the inverse.

    I don't mind tanking with two weapons or a big smacker, but I can hardly see why there would be shields if they aren't usefull for damage mitigation, and thus to ease the tanking role.

    • 608 posts
    June 13, 2018 12:37 PM PDT

    Cheers for the people that were opting for a shield focused warrior, I personally feel a bit sad as current skills seems to completely unfavor anything but shields, but we are only at the begining of the class reveal....

    • 238 posts
    June 13, 2018 4:54 PM PDT

    I find that the shield focused warrior is how it should be. Greek warriors created a Phalanx because it worked. In my mind, the main warrior class should be well rounded and not reckless. I feel that warriors will discover a hidden epic quest for a Phalanx option in the future. Leave the DPS and killing and offtanking/crowd control to the other classes and let the warriors be the leaders and the strategists. I am loving the idea for the Warrior class so far.   

    • 253 posts
    June 13, 2018 6:50 PM PDT

    Speaking of formations, can anyone clarify - will the formations actually influence the position of the warrior and its group members? Could be cool - an automatic shuffling of characters if they're within range of the warrior, with the warrior in the front. Or will they be toggles without any substantial visual? What do you all think?

    • 53 posts
    June 13, 2018 9:40 PM PDT

    Alexander said:

    will the formations actually influence the position of the warrior and its group members?

    I didn't get that impression, though there's plenty of time for things to change. I perceived the Formations as very much like stances. The details about when you can set or change them will be very significant.

    • 608 posts
    June 13, 2018 11:36 PM PDT

    Kreed said:I find that the shield focused warrior is how it should be. Greek warriors created a Phalanx because it worked. In my mind, the main warrior class should be well rounded and not reckless. I feel that warriors will discover a hidden epic quest for a Phalanx option in the future. Leave the DPS and killing and offtanking/crowd control to the other classes and let the warriors be the leaders and the strategists. I am loving the idea for the Warrior class so far.   

    As I said I have nothing against shields at all, they simply aren't fitting the overall design of "a warrior", which is a master of all weapons with no magic use. The warrior reveal even depict a Dark Myr wielding a two handed weapon. To me, the warrior's role and efficiency should be tied to the weapon used, and I'm fine with the shield beeing forced into tanking, but when you're not actively tanking I hope you get more options that are valuable and note some fake impression of versatility.

    Jothany said:

    [blockquote]Alexander said:

    will the formations actually influence the position of the warrior and its group members?

    I didn't get that impression, though there's plenty of time for things to change. I perceived the Formations as very much like stances. The details about when you can set or change them will be very significant.

    [/blockquote]

     

    To me they seems more like opportunity buffs/shouts, as they are all conditionnal of a specific behaviour.


    This post was edited by MauvaisOeil at June 13, 2018 11:39 PM PDT
    • 253 posts
    June 14, 2018 9:13 AM PDT
    Yeah, seems like that - I also just realized the griefing potential if a warrior's ability moved the party.
    • 238 posts
    June 14, 2018 12:03 PM PDT

    I fully support the idea of having shields optional for when you are wanting DPS or there are already enough tanks. 

    I'm just excited to see the image of the warriors forming instead of sitting and speculating. I am taking a middle ground on the argument until i see fully how the tank classes are working ingame. 

    I liked the Banner idea. This will help to influence positioning more easily. The warrior wants you in a certain spot he's gonna place a banner there so you stick around.

    • 53 posts
    June 14, 2018 12:43 PM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    To me they seems more like opportunity buffs/shouts, as they are all conditionnal of a specific behaviour.

    Given that they have a resource cost and seem limited to use in combat, I have to agree with you that they seem more like a buff or damage shield.

    Actually, the War Banners seem to have more in common with stances than the Formations.