Forums » The Warrior

To Shield or not to Shield

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

    MauvaisOeil said:

    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.

     

    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.

    • 1276 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.

    • 1276 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....

    • 661 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.   

    • 338 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?

    • 59 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.

    • 1276 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:

    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.

     

    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
    • 338 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.
    • 661 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.

    • 59 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.

    • 16 posts
    November 4, 2018 4:30 PM PST

    Sword and Board, that's how a WAR tanks his way through a dungeon. Dual wielding WAR are for DPS not taking. The listed skills that are shield related sound amazingly appropriate for a TANK holding aggro ourside of raw DMG, not a DPS.

    • 8 posts
    January 19, 2019 9:47 PM PST

    It looks like from skills tanking with a shield will be preferable. Personally I would of preffered warriors to be the sort of champion kind of tank with dual weilding being their focus. Paladins would be the shield n 1h tank and be more of a protect the party type of tank with Dire Lords more of a 2 handed rager kind of tank that wades in and hacks away while shrugging off incomming damage. Thats just how personally I would of liked to see them for thematic reasons.

    • 11 posts
    February 8, 2019 8:56 PM PST
    I really do not understand the people saying that because real life historical warriors used shields that Pantheon warriors should as well.

    Real life historical warriors also didn't have party members shooting fireballs of of their hands or casting healing spells on them. That argument makes no sense to me.

    I am personally bummed that the class page seems to indicate that warriors seem to pretty much have no choice about using a shield. I world much prefer if it was up to the warrior themselves and they could have a few different play styles available to them.

    It seems like VR don't WANT warriors to do damage and only want them strictly tanking and boring else. Would be nice to see at least a bit of variety available for different play styles.
    • 790 posts
    February 9, 2019 3:53 AM PST

    kreed99 said:

    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.

    I see this alrdy being a thing, not saying that them equipping a 2h weapon, or dualwielding makes them a dps role, but maybe just a worse tank, if they have them equip a shield as a main focus that is.  Me personally I think a warrior tanking regardless of what he's using makes him a true warrior, but mainly dual wielding, we alrdy have a sword and board class in paladin and 2hs weapons in DL, so having a DW tank would be a great fit, just saying.

    • 790 posts
    February 9, 2019 4:01 AM PST

    nosepilot44 said: I really do not understand the people saying that because real life historical warriors used shields that Pantheon warriors should as well. Real life historical warriors also didn't have party members shooting fireballs of of their hands or casting healing spells on them. That argument makes no sense to me. I am personally bummed that the class page seems to indicate that warriors seem to pretty much have no choice about using a shield. I world much prefer if it was up to the warrior themselves and they could have a few different play styles available to them. It seems like VR don't WANT warriors to do damage and only want them strictly tanking and boring else. Would be nice to see at least a bit of variety available for different play styles.

    VR has made it plenty clear, that if you are a dpser you are simply a dpser with a touch of utilty, I'm sure the warrior is have a chance to be enough versatility, but not enough to fill a dps slot but merely a worse tank like Isaid above, this is the way it should be tbh, I don't want to see my cleric pushing out more damage than my mage, or my rogue out preforming my enchanter in CC, they're needs to be a strict balance or the classes will all feel the same, it's a slippery slope and keeping it as strict as they have it honestly the best choice.

    • 47 posts
    February 13, 2019 10:29 PM PST
    I thin the answer should be all. In the absence of spells the war should be dynamic. It would be nice nice if all weapon styles had a benefit. Shield for normal tanking, 2 weapons to increase parry/interrupt, and 2h for lower ac but higher agro. Then let people spec to their flavour.
    • 394 posts
    February 14, 2019 11:51 AM PST

    Devs have already expressed their desire to have the warrior be the shield weilding tank - They have several amazing abilities revealed already that require a shield to be equiped... their resource (battle points) is identified by shield icons and they are specifically designed to be the most resilient class in the game - that should say enough as to their goal.
    "Warriors are most suited for using shields in their off-hand, with several of their Tanking abilities requiring shields"