Unleash the tank

[Woundedwarrior]

I would like to discuss what people look for in a good PvE warrior. I currently have two level 36 characters so I have a decent amount of experience as one. I never really got into PvP so I can only explain my take on PvE warriors.

First thing I would like to say is warriors are not built for doing damage. Sorry to break some of your hearts but in my opinion, warriors should only be used as tanks. This means taunting enemies, having high armor, and absorbing most of the damage taken during a fight. Get your armor as high as possible so you can take more hits, even use weapons that give armor. I'm currently in a a guild that runs elite maps quite a bit so I would like to point out to all warriors not in this type of guild that people don't like running maps with more then 1 or 2 warriors in their party. This is because warriors can't do much damage and if there are too many in a party the runs go extremely slow. So what makes people want to run with warriors? If you are a warrior, fill your one roll, which is tanking. Leave all the damage doing to the rogues and mages, while you protect them by taking all the damage.

I would like to hear everyone's feedback on this subject. If you respond, please post what class you are as well so we can see what mages, rogues, and warriors think warriors should be used for. Thanks guys!

[Crowsfoot]

My argument, numbered:

1) armor plateaus (as di all stats except hp). Therefore, there is a point where having more armor won't help you survive much better.

2) If I can run without dying and maintaing 90% of all aggro people shouldn't be complaining.

3) being an offtank, as they are named, is a feat for those with above average gear.

4) I deal impressive damage, I have been in parties where I had the highest damage and/or dps when doing random teams.

5) offtanks are always the most elite of the tanking class in all games.

6) if you have under 1600 armor you should absolute go with a full tanking build.

7) the procs on high damage weapons are very impressive. A maul reduces armor by 50%, making our damage wicked.

[Woundedwarrior]

My argument, numbered:

1) armor plateaus (as di all stats except hp). Therefore, there is a point where having more armor won't help you survive much better.

2) If I can run without dying and maintaing 90% of all aggro people shouldn't be complaining.

3) being an offtank, as they are named, is a feat for those with above average gear.

4) I deal impressive damage, I have been in parties where I had the highest damage and/or dps when doing random teams.

5) offtanks are always the most elite of the tanking class in all games.

6) if you have under 1600 armor you should absolute go with a full tanking build.

7) the procs on high damage weapons are very impressive. A maul reduces armor by 50%, making our damage wicked.

I agree with all of this. However, there are only a very few warriors that have good enough gear to be an offtank. Im mainly trying to say that the people that have all legendary gear, which is the majority of warriors, should try to focus on being a tank so people would like running with them more. Sure if you can afford all mythics and maul, its always great to have someone like that in a party. But I'm pretty sure most other warriors can't afford these luxuries and have under 1600 armor like you stated.

[Crowsfoot]

I agree with all of this. However, there are only a very few warriors that have good enough gear to be an offtank. Im mainly trying to say that the people that have all legendary gear, which is the majority of warriors, should try to focus on being a tank so people would like running with them more. Sure if you can afford all mythics and maul, its always great to have someone like that in a party. But I'm pretty sure most other warriors can't afford these luxuries and have under 1600 armor like you stated.

Which is why I always clarify that 1600 armor benchmark. What peeves me is when I'm constantly rebuttled for a post when it is taken out of context from the previous seven.

Obviously tanks aren't the damage dealing class. But stating "warriors should only be used to tank" (paragraph 2, line 3) is a falsety when talking to warriors whith higher ranked gear.

My point is that by generalizing you give some players a false perception of what you meant to say.

---

Exanple: the majority of Americans are overweight.

Definition of overweight: having a BMI over the standard set by a Japanese doctor who based his scale off the average asian weight to height ratio. His system doesn't account for muscle tissue. An additional flaw is that it was based off a demographic known for slim skeletal frames. A 6ft man weighing 180lbs is considered overweight on this scale even though that is the average weight of a 6ft man since the 1900s.

A better fact to use: the majority of Americans have high cholesterol as a result of poor diets.

Why this fact was better: it is concise, focusing on a single poor health factor and correlates it to the cause of poor diet. This fact is hard to misinterpret and easilly supported by the country's large fast food consumption.

---

This was just some food for thought when developing an argument.

[Woundedwarrior]

Which is why I always clarify that 1600 armor benchmark. What peeves me is when I'm constantly rebuttled for a post when it is taken out of context from the previous seven.

Obviously tanks aren't the damage dealing class. But stating "warriors should only be used to tank" (paragraph 2, line 3) is a falsety when talking to warriors whith higher ranked gear.

My point is that by generalizing you give some players a false perception of what you meant to say.

---

Exanple: the majority of Americans are overweight.

Definition of overweight: having a BMI over the standard set by a Japanese doctor who based his scale off the average asian weight to height ratio. His system doesn't account for muscle tissue. An additional flaw is that it was based off a demographic known for slim skeletal frames. A 6ft man weighing 180lbs is considered overweight on this scale even though that is the average weight of a 6ft man since the 1900s.

A better fact to use: the majority of Americans have high cholesterol as a result of poor diets.

Why this fact was better: it is concise, focusing on a single poor health factor and correlates it to the cause of poor diet. This fact is hard to misinterpret and easilly supported by the country's large fast food consumption.

---

This was just some food for thought when developing an argument.

My apologies. I didn't mean to offend any of the elite warriors in the game. I mainly wrote this to try and get more of the less experienced warriors away from using weapons such as devourer maul and try to encourage weapons such as the dimensional targe. Too often I think warriors with lesser quality gear try focusing on damage instead of their armor. I'm just trying to help those who want to be the best warrior they can be so people want to run with them more. And yes I apologies for generalizing warriors but I think its safe to say at least 90% of warriors fall under the 1600 armor category. Thanks for your feedback crowsfoot.

[Crowsfoot]

My apologies. I didn't mean to offend any of the elite warriors in the game. I mainly wrote this to try and get more of the less experienced warriors away from using weapons such as devourer maul and try to encourage weapons such as the dimensional targe. Too often I think warriors with lesser quality gear try focusing on damage instead of their armor. I'm just trying to help those who want to be the best warrior they can be so people want to run with them more. And yes I apologies for generalizing warriors but I think its safe to say at least 90% of warriors fall under the 1600 armor category. Thanks for your feedback crowsfoot.

Absolutely agree, before I had myth I used a targe to run elite. My favorite weapon in season 2 was the "arctic ward of will," which was a sword and shield weapon that had an "ice armor" proc (+10% armor).

[Woundedwarrior]

Absolutely agree, before I had myth I used a targe to run elite. My favorite weapon in season 2 was the "arctic ward of will," which was a sword and shield weapon that had an "ice armor" proc (+10% armor).

Thanks for agreeing. I thought I was alone in thinking the targe was good for elites because I would tell warriors I was running with that were using a devourer maul to give the targe a try. They just laughed and thought I was joking. It gives a nice armor boost, has a nice proc, and aboce all is the cheapest weapon in the cs. All warriors should give it a try and then see which weapon they like better. We all play the game differently so I can see how some people don't like it.

[Crowsfoot]

Thanks for agreeing. I thought I was alone in thinking the targe was good for elites because I would tell warriors I was running with that were using a devourer maul to give the targe a try. They just laughed and thought I was joking. It gives a nice armor boost, has a nice proc, and aboce all is the cheapest weapon in the cs. All warriors should give it a try and then see which weapon they like better. We all play the game differently so I can see how some people don't like it.

The only time I thought someone the lesser for endorsing a targe is when I used an lvl35 entombed warfare and he told me his weapon was better (I had over 1800 armor at the time). He claimed that since it increased all my stats minorly (besides damage which it reduced by 70.7) it was better, this was of course false. He later lost all credibility when he offered to sell his "rare targe that isn't in the cs" for 500k. Needless to say, he's on my ignore list.

[Woundedwarrior]

The only time I thought someone the lesser for endorsing a targe is when I used an lvl35 entombed warfare and he told me his weapon was better (I had over 1800 armor at the time). He claimed that since it increased all my stats minorly (besides damage which it reduced by 70.7) it was better, this was of course false. He later lost all credibility when he offered to sell his "rare targe that isn't in the cs" for 500k. Needless to say, he's on my ignore list.

I don't understand people like that. I had a mythic helm on my lvl 26 warrior and someone tried offering me 100k for it. After I refused, he called me a noob and said I "was throwing away a fortune." People need to learn to pay attention not only to lvl but also kdr when they try to scam. Makes it easier for all of us.

[bhutkeyur]

IMO if warrior trying to do dmg then I prefer to replace him with one extra pve mage- we run more faster

[Crowsfoot]

IMO if warrior trying to do dmg then I prefer to replace him with one extra pve mage- we run more faster

Enjoy elite undim fields

[bhutkeyur]

Enjoy elite undim fields

It can be done with 2 good mages and 2 good rogues without dieing. No need warrior at all. Still party unconformable then bring 3 mages.

[Woundedwarrior]

It can be done with 2 good mages and 2 good rogues without dieing. No need warrior at all. Still party unconformable then bring 3 mages.

Sure it can be done. But you are going to waste a fortune on pots

[Crowsfoot]

It can be done with 2 good mages and 2 good rogues without dieing. No need warrior at all. Still party unconformable then bring 3 mages.

You entirely skipped the part where this thread was for average players.

[Zuzeq]

The "off-tank" is dead imo. Understanding the definition of "off-tank" is working of a "True Tank". Saying that, in the current age of farming having one War max per party seems to be the smooth ride. Like Crow stated above if you can do dmg and hold the line then plz with all means do so. I run w/ "dmg" tanks all the time. I personally prefer a "True Tank" mainly due to the fact I prefer a 3 man scale overall *one of each class*. Things just go right when each class stick to exactly what they where created to do imo.

[bhutkeyur]

Alright how u guys define off tank? In your opinion ofc.
IMO- I would say off tank is that player which help main tank to survive+ maintain agrro. In AL we have small 4 people party and people cant afford 2 warrior in groups so there is nothing like off tank in most party. For being off tank there should be main tank with them - IMO.

[bhutkeyur]

Sure it can be done. But you are going to waste a fortune on pots

In truth when I play mage or rogue I always go berserk and in random party everyone playing like ''every man for him self'' My pots usage is almost similar in both situation. I agree on that -my pots usage is decrease significantly with good proper tank. Actually I can help good tank in survival+ maintain agrro. With hybrid tank I scared to drop clock in between mobs in big pulls. As rogue I scared to play with dagger and cant trap properly. Many times I gave up upon using razor+ribbit for good aoe dmg.
Just I note: I m leg gear player.

[Crowsfoot]

Alright how u guys define off tank? In your opinion ofc.
IMO- I would say off tank is that player which help main tank to survive+ maintain agrro. In AL we have small 4 people party and people cant afford 2 warrior in groups so there is nothing like off tank in most party. For being off tank there should be main tank with them - IMO.

Off-tank are those that don't go for max armor (I am technically an off-tank) and don't go for all suport/taunt skills. A "pure tank" would go max hp and armor and use a build along the lines of:

Heal
Jugg
Wm
Cs

Note: I have around 6k hp and 2004 armor; however, I am labled an off-tank.

[becky_xil]

For me armor around 1750+ would be good enough.. as I am now..im pushing my hp dmg dps and mana hihi

Send using my cellphone.. yes my cellphone

[Alfai]

Which is why I always clarify that 1600 armor benchmark. What peeves me is when I'm constantly rebuttled for a post when it is taken out of context from the previous seven.

Obviously tanks aren't the damage dealing class. But stating "warriors should only be used to tank" (paragraph 2, line 3) is a falsety when talking to warriors whith higher ranked gear.

My point is that by generalizing you give some players a false perception of what you meant to say.

---

Exanple: the majority of Americans are overweight.

Definition of overweight: having a BMI over the standard set by a Japanese doctor who based his scale off the average asian weight to height ratio. His system doesn't account for muscle tissue. An additional flaw is that it was based off a demographic known for slim skeletal frames. A 6ft man weighing 180lbs is considered overweight on this scale even though that is the average weight of a 6ft man since the 1900s.

A better fact to use: the majority of Americans have high cholesterol as a result of poor diets.

Why this fact was better: it is concise, focusing on a single poor health factor and correlates it to the cause of poor diet. This fact is hard to misinterpret and easilly supported by the country's large fast food consumption.

---

This was just some food for thought when developing an argument.

Impressive...