Curse

Ryn · Jul 21, 2006, 08:54 AM // 08:54

A tank can be usefull in some situations (farming), IF the tank and more important the party knows how too use it.

But i prefer to play PVE with a dmg dealing warrior.

Valkyries · Jul 21, 2006, 09:12 AM // 09:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

Tanking doesn't happen in PUGs, unless you're talking about the idiot caster who runs ahead of everyone else and aggros every ****ing mob within radar range and 'tanks' them for about half a second before screaming for res.

You don't need 16 tactics and a full bar of stances to be a tank. Warriors are *natural* tanks, even without bringing any skills designed specifically for tanking. You generally have 80AL base, +20AL vs. physical, and probably a shield (I'm going to exclude hammer warriors for the sake of simplicity). You also tend to have more health, from the +health mods on weapon and shield. There is usually no reason for the warrior to not try and soak damage, regardless of whether you brought any 'tanking' skills.

Trying to not be a tank, just to go against the stereotype, is stupid and irresponsible, and is likely to result in party wipe if the area is sufficiently difficult or your teammates sufficiently inexperienced/incompetent. The warrior should always be the first one in and the last one out. Leave caster ganking to the assassins and rangers. If you're good, you should be able to group enemy aggro around their casters anyway, allowing you to both tank and kill casters at the same time.

If your team doesn't know to let warriors hold aggro, teach them. If they don't listen or talk back, just ragequit, because chances are good that you're not going to get anywhere with them anyway.

Aside from the standard farming build, I've never played a PvE warrior that didn't have 16 in weapon mastery and at least 9~10 in str. I still run ahead of the group to draw aggro, bodyblock, and otherwise keep my backline alive, without a single defensive stance in my bar. I can take Watch Yourself! if I have space, and Dolyak Sig if I don't have confidence in my monk's ability to keep me alive (either because the monk is bad, or because the area has too much damage). Being able to deal damage doesn't stop you from tanking, so please do your job as a warrior.

VERY well said....

Also, Ill mention I ALWAYS run 15 or 16 in my WM and I can deal out plenty of damage. I still take defensive skills too because its just useful. If you are all offense or want to just be offense go roll an Assassin. Thats why they have the name "glass cannon"... because it dishes out lots of dmg but cannot tank at all.

Aisius · Jul 22, 2006, 07:38 AM // 07:38

As for hammer I have "tanked" Mobs using-

1Iresistable blow
2Crushing blow
3Yeti smash
4To the limit
5Glads defense
6Dolyak Sig
7heal sig
8Res

Sentinels armour, 14 str, 15 hammer, 8 tactics.

!!!nexus!!! · Jul 22, 2006, 05:05 PM // 17:05

if a warrior is in a group and they are not tanking they usually are hurting the group and I couldn't imagine you helping them (Since another barrager or nuker or even a mesmer would do a lot more damage)

Elaine Donnerbalken · Jul 22, 2006, 11:26 PM // 23:26

nexus, when it comes to damagedealing, you shouldn't mix up tanks and offensive played warriors. It has a reason that some of the better pvp guilds beat the game with warrior (not "tanks") heavy groups as some of the first ones.

jummeth · Jul 22, 2006, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by !!!nexus!!!

if a warrior is in a group and they are not tanking they usually are hurting the group and I couldn't imagine you helping them (Since another barrager or nuker or even a mesmer would do a lot more damage)

Its mis-information like this that we have to get rid of ASAP.

Warriors have probably the highest base damage rate of any profession.
Warriors (cleanly spiked) probably has the highest damaging spike (solo).

This is balanced by the fact that they have to do all this damage in melee.

Tanks use up just as much of the monk's energy but they don't put the enemy down so that they stop attacking.

CagedinSanity · Jul 23, 2006, 12:26 AM // 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rera

Trying to not be a tank, just to go against the stereotype, is stupid and irresponsible, and is likely to result in party wipe if the area is sufficiently difficult or your teammates sufficiently inexperienced/incompetent.

That's about my thoughts. Trying not to be a tank with a primary warrior is just dumb. The thing is, as a 1st warrior, you really do't have a choice with strength and armor.

Valkyries · Jul 23, 2006, 10:49 AM // 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jummeth

Its mis-information like this that we have to get rid of ASAP.

Wow...

Worst thing is you are serious!

Sol Deathgard · Jul 23, 2006, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Larry

Ne way since warriors have the highest al in the game the monsters will always go for softer targets like ele and monks and everytime a ele or monk or whatever gets hit they blame it on the warrior for "not keeping them focused on you"

well if people would not have this "I have to be right on the wars @$$" mentality aggro wouldn't break, the way pve AI works would be like this; (2 examples)

1. monster sees war "there's a Warrior let's kill it!" runs to attack, runs by, everyone else is back. Monsters "no one else here, kill the war!"

2. Monster sees War "There's a Warrior let's kill it!" runs to attack, runs by, everyone is right behind the war, "Hey!!! there's are some more people here, let's kill them instead!!" runs to kill everything else and leaves warrior alone.

jummeth · Jul 23, 2006, 11:24 AM // 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valkyries

Wow...

Worst thing is you are serious!

Just try a warrior that can damage things. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Elaine Donnerbalken · Jul 23, 2006, 12:04 PM // 12:04

In fact ,if more people wouls realize that you can use warriors for damagedealing, there wouldn't be the need of "nukers" and "tanks".

The AoE dps of warriors may be smaller, but in exchange its more reliable (no downtime for ereg).

If people would take 2 damage warriors instead of 1 tank (0 damage) and a nuker, they'd probably be far more effective.

Amity and Truth · Jul 23, 2006, 12:22 PM // 12:22

As i've allready said in the other thread about tanking. Tanking in PUGs (!) is downright impossible and you're hurting your team more than you help if you're only bringing defensive stuff.
There are too many errors a group can do, that screw the whole concept of tanking in a whole. The only thing i don't understand is why so many people KNOW about Aggro (they're using it in their every day farmbuilds -> UW, ToPK, SF etc etc) but as soon as they're no longer in a farming team, they run around like chickens, screwing aggro in a whole. Like some kind of switch activated and erased every memory of why exactly the farming team was successful in the first place.

/edit:
Sorry for my grammar today, feeling a bit dizzy.

Thom Bangalter · Jul 23, 2006, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elaine Donnerbalken

In fact ,if more people wouls realize that you can use warriors for damagedealing, there wouldn't be the need of "nukers" and "tanks".

The AoE dps of warriors may be smaller, but in exchange its more reliable (no downtime for ereg).

If people would take 2 damage warriors instead of 1 tank (0 damage) and a nuker, they'd probably be far more effective.

That's why I just play a traditional eviscerate axe warrior. Screw Tanking, I say.

Valkyries · Jul 23, 2006, 12:32 PM // 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by jummeth

Just try a warrior that can damage things. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Ummm actually I do/have played Damage Warriors.

What you fail to understand is you can have good damage AND good Survivability.

There is no reason why you can't do both. In Fact, you can simply run 2-3 good Defensive skills (stance, Dylok's Signet, etc) and run 3 good damage dealing skills (Triple chop, Cyclone axe, etc just for examples) and still tank and deal dmg just fine.

Why must you run 6 dmg skills, 1 heal and 1 res? Sorry but you are hurting more than you are helping. If you want to run it that way try PVP. No use for Tanks there at all

Elaine Donnerbalken · Jul 23, 2006, 01:15 PM // 13:15

nobody should take 6 damage skills. too many adrenalin skills will destroy the high adrenaline skills, so we talk about 2-3 adrenaline attacks.

A bigger conflict between the wish to tank or to deal damage is the stance.

An IAS like Tiger's Fury or even Tiger Stance means 50% more damage in the same time. You don't want to use a defensive stance.

So most of the time what remains for an offensive warrior to tank is dolyak signet and watch yourself, endure pain (or what it's called, the non-elite), and maybe a tank stance for emergencies, as you don't want to use your elite for tanking.

So we have

1. attack skill
2. attack skill
3. attack skill
4. IAS
5. defensive 1
6. self heal / defensive 2 / utility
7. self heal / defensive 3 / utility
8. Rez

But it seems that a lot of the confusion seems to be a consequence of people using the words "tank" and "tanking" witrh different meanings.

Valkyries · Jul 23, 2006, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elaine Donnerbalken

nobody should take 6 damage skills. too many adrenalin skills will destroy the high adrenaline skills, so we talk about 2-3 adrenaline attacks.

A bigger conflict between the wish to tank or to deal damage is the stance.

An IAS like Tiger's Fury or even Tiger Stance means 50% more damage in the same time. You don't want to use a defensive stance.

So most of the time what remains for an offensive warrior to tank is dolyak signet and watch yourself, endure pain (or what it's called, the non-elite), and maybe a tank stance for emergencies, as you don't want to use your elite for tanking.

So we have

1. attack skill
2. attack skill
3. attack skill
4. IAS
5. defensive 1
6. self heal / defensive 2 / utility
7. self heal / defensive 3 / utility
8. Rez

But it seems that a lot of the confusion seems to be a consequence of people using the words "tank" and "tanking" witrh different meanings.

I have to agree with you, because that is pretty close to what I use for my Warrio. The only difference is I will probably use a Defensive Stance instead of an IAS but that really depends on the mission/what Im going.

I really think people are getting confused with the meanings, as you said...

Skuld · Jul 23, 2006, 02:57 PM // 14:57

Warrior armour plus shield does just fine for me normally, but in tougher places I take dolyak signet. There, 6 optional slots 16/10/10 WM/STR/TCT

Skuld · Jul 23, 2006, 03:02 PM // 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aisius

As for hammer I have "tanked" Mobs using-

1Iresistable blow
2Crushing blow
3Yeti smash
4To the limit
5Glads defense
6Dolyak Sig
7heal sig
8Res

Sentinels armour, 14 str, 15 hammer, 8 tactics.

Uh but you have Glad's Defence as your elite, whats your point?..

Grammar · Jul 23, 2006, 06:08 PM // 18:08

Hate me for saying this but I think ANet nerfed the wrong aspect of warriors (let me explain).

Two quick facts about warriors:
1. They tank better than any class in the game
2. They deal more damage than any class in the game

Now I'm not a math major, but in this case, 1+1=overpowered.
So what do you do with an overpowered class? You nerf it.
And rightfully so.

Problem is, Anet nerfed the wrong side of the equation. They nerfed the tanking side, and left the damage side alone.
If you ask me, what makes the warrior overpowered isn't their tanking ability, because that's what they're designed to do in the first place. The problem is on the damage side. Warriors shouldn't be outdamaging elementalists and such, but they do (easily, actually).
ANet needed to nerf warrior damage and leave damage aborption alone.

Elaine Donnerbalken · Jul 23, 2006, 07:41 PM // 19:41

It's not the warrior damage that needs nerfing, but the elem damage which needs buffing. Take away warrior damage and nothing will die.