Originally Posted by
DarrenPR
Let me throw a completely different angle at the situation...
Warriors generally get tossed to the side when it comes to end game elites. I think we can all agree to that. Now we must ask the question, "Why do tanks get tossed to the side?"
In my experience, talking to people of several guilds, and poking my head around the forums a bit, I believe the general consensus is something to the effect of "They die too fast and their low damage makes the runs slower." There are a lot of people who refer to the warrior class now as a "Paper Tank", which is actually a legitimate assertation in my opinion. I do agree that for the current state of end game, the warriors are just that - paper.
But with that said you have to ask the question of why these warriors are considered weak, easily torn apart, paper. I believe that it is actually not the fault of the class itself causing the opinions of warriors that players have, but the methodology with which SpaceTime develops the "difficulty" of the end game maps. Objectively looking at two end game maxed out players, one being a rogue and one being a warrior, you will find the rogue has somewhere around 5,000 health and 2,000 armor whereas the warrior will have 9,000-10,000 health (can be boosted with skills) and around 3,000 armor. This makes the warrior class the objective more survivable class of the two - it has nearly double the health and 50% more armor than the rogue does... So why do people call them paper? Why are they excluded from parties?
As I mentioned above, I believe the reason for this is the way the game developers are creating the difficulty for us players. Currently, "difficulty" comes from a small number of mobs that can stun you and quickly take your health to 0 (and by quickly, I mean in a single hit). This happens to be true for warriors as well, even with their massive health and armor advantage, you can (or at least have been able to) see warriors going from full 9,500 health to a dead pixelated mess on the ground in a single smack. This takes away any advantage the warrior has with regards to health, as now they are on the same level as everybody else - able to die in 1 hit. So, what's left to look at when considering a warrior for the party? Everybody's favorite thing to ask for - damage.
The warrior class is meant to be a class that can take a beating, a tank. By classic MMO definition, a tank's job isn't to deal damage to mobs, but to keep the rest of your party alive by keeping the mobs attacking you while you keep them alive with your support health spells. As we can see from the skills of a warrior class, this was entirely the intention STS had for the warrior class. This is why I disagree with people asking for more damage on a warrior... It does NOT fix the real issue behind why warriors get shunned from parties.
I believe that in order to bring usefulness back to warriors, the maps need to be designed in such a way that it makes their advantage useful again. How do we do this? We make the maps have a high density of mobs which have less damage than current end game elite maps - something where a warrior could hold the aggro of 20-30 mobs and survive, where someone with half health and 2/3 the armor couldn't. This would bring warriors back into the game, because they would actually be needed. As it stands, there is not much motivation to bring a warrior along with a run, because they don't add the benefit of keeping the party alive... They just fall dead like everybody else.
Now, with all that said, don't get me wrong. I do think that the taunting system and some of the warrior skills do need a fix, because they certainly not acting as they should, but I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that constantly buffing the class and making it stronger is the correct way to solve the issue we currently have with warriors. Just my two cents on the matter, though.
Bookmarks