Curse

Sagius Truthbarron · Jul 14, 2005, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Alright, when I join a group all the talk is "Tank, tank, tank!" when refering to warriors. I'm a hammer warrior. Do you notice that there isn't a shield in my hand? It's becuase I'm meant for disruption and anti-casters, not getting beaten to a pulp.

Of course, I can tank if there is a prot monk around, but when people make PUGs for UW or FoW do they make sure they get a prot monk? Nope. Have 3 healer monks, yay!

If I'm in a group, I don't go for the warriors, I go for the casters becuase it is easy for me to take them out. Let the monkey with the shield take the damage.

Does anyone share my grief?

EverBlue · Jul 14, 2005, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Shields don't have that much protection, do they? Maybe I'm not paying enough attention, but I only carry my shield around because it looks neat. :P

generik · Jul 14, 2005, 04:06 AM // 04:06

I think that +16 armor on your shield does offer quite some protection.. not sure of actual percentages though.

The Red Griffin · Jul 14, 2005, 04:09 AM // 04:09

I hear your greif, and understand it. I've had to give up my original Fire Sword build of my warrior for a more accepted tank build. It seems groups don't want a warrior that can actually dish out damage or do anything but tank.

Winterclaw · Jul 14, 2005, 04:09 AM // 04:09

*Waves hands*

We are tanks.

I think I prefer the caster protection/anti caster roll myself.

Sagius Truthbarron · Jul 14, 2005, 04:19 AM // 04:19

For one thing, in PvP only an idiot will attack a warrior. For another, in PvE warriors do alot more damage to casters than other casters do (IE, compare 103 damage to around 60-70).

Just becuase you're a warrior shouldn't make you a good lightening rod. Besides, the term "Tank" is completely inaccurate. In modern warefare Tanks are defently not there to draw fire, but to deal damage. Where did this termonology come from?

No, warriors aren't lightening rods and generally most warriors stay on the casters anyway. I'de call a person stupid if I saw them attacking a warrior before, say, a mesmer or a monk.

My general thoughts are to have one damage taker and one dealer on a PvE team. On PvP tanking is useless.

I don't see how you can like being a meatbag.

Racthoh · Jul 14, 2005, 04:19 AM // 04:19

Protection is much more important.

If I could find the screenshot of the ataxe doing 5 damage on me I think many would agree the importance of a protection monk in the UW.

And I prefer the term 'fodder'. Although I wish the remaining monks would understand what that means when I'm trying to hold everything back for the monk to retreat and revive later. Don't make my valiant sacrifice in vain!

Mizukara · Jul 14, 2005, 04:24 AM // 04:24

Yah, I agree. My W/E isn't that tanklike at all, I carry an axe, but no shield, because I prefer a relic to help with my energy. I do wind up tanking a lot more than anything else though, because people don't seem to get any other warrior concept. I actually decided to get the damage reducing armor instead of the energy plus armor just because I knew that I'd have to tank.

I feel your pain.

Sagius Truthbarron · Jul 14, 2005, 04:36 AM // 04:36

The tank concept, except in UW is generaly a bad idea in my opinion.

Winterclaw · Jul 14, 2005, 04:43 AM // 04:43

Tanks have good armor to protect them from the guys with smaller guns, and to a lesser extent these days, other tanks.

Kha · Jul 14, 2005, 05:14 AM // 05:14

Regardless of whether you are wielding a shield or not, warriors are the damage takers. This isn't a farfetched concept. You have the highest armor (or hopefully do) and are in the heart of the battle. Hammer, axe or sword, you still should be able to take the damage no problem. If not, then you should reconsider your armor, skills, and/or fellow teammates. I don't use any defensive skills and I still have no problem taking the damage shield or no shield.

The problem is that lots of groups aren't really organized, and the minute something aggros a caster, they panic and end up making things worse. I share your grief Sagius, but my advice is to forget what others say and play your build. A strong offense is the best defense, though not everyone seems to agree. Lots of people seem to think that all focusing on the warriors while the casters rip the team apart is the best strategy...

And a protection monk for FoW is pointless IMHO. Two healers with Aegis is all you need.

(If this post didn't make sense, blame it on my lack of sleep.)

Nazutul · Jul 14, 2005, 05:19 AM // 05:19

I think that a mix of the "Tank Warrior" and the "Damaging Warrior" is needed for any FoW or UW group.

The "Tank Warrior" exists to stay back and protects and supports the casters from enemy melee, while the "Damaging Warrior" disrupts and helps kill the enemy casters. I feel a good balance is either 1:1 or a 1:2, 2 being the "Damaging Warriors".

Just my two cents.

Racthoh · Jul 14, 2005, 05:23 AM // 05:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nazutul

The "Tank Warrior" exists to stay back and protects and supports the casters from enemy melee

Problem is some enemies are reluctant to attack the warrior. I know of two ways to get a monster on you:

1) Aggro it when your other party members are out of your aggro circle.
2) Before it can attack another party member, stand in front of that member and hit it. It should focus the attack on you.

Freyas · Jul 14, 2005, 05:57 AM // 05:57

Having a shield is pretty irrelevant to your ability to tank- A Me/W using a sword and shield still takes more damage in combat than a warrior with no shield- especially versus physical damage, which is what most warrior and ranger enemies use. Since you're harder to kill, if enemies are attacking you, there's less for the healers to have to heal, and there's less likely to be deaths. Which is more important- you attacking and killing a caster mob in the back while having the NPC's all wipe out all your casters, including your healer, or your drawing the aggro, beating down the warriors, and having your ranged teammates taking out the enemy casters, while preventing a lot of damage to your team?

PvP of course is different- warriors are damagers- no intelligent team is going to focus the warriors while you've got soft targets alive for them to take down. In PvP, your warriors should be harrasing the enemy. However, in PvE, it's generally far better for the team if the warriors can draw at least some of the aggro, since they take far less damage than the casters will.

PieXags · Jul 14, 2005, 06:05 AM // 06:05

When I request a warrior in the group I'm requesting for one with the thought in mind that he'll be the one taking the physical damage. Why? Because warriors have the best armor in the game. If I had to choose between having a ranger and a warrior be the tank, I'd have the warrior tank. Why? Better armor. If your a warrior you better expect to be the tank because nobody else in the party should fill that position because as a warrior you are, whether you like it or not, the class with the greatest defense.

If your a warrior who expects to be treated like a caster, stay out of my group.

Mesmers are for interrupts and anti-casters, as are necromancers. (Though both can also play anti-warrior if need be). Let THEM take care of the other casters. Now, obviously warriors do the best against other casters, it doesn't matter if you're a hammer warrior or not. That doesn't matter though because the casters sure as hell can't take the hits in the party. If you're going to be up there in melee range with a hammer, sword, or axe, you better be ready to be the tank because by running up that close you're putting yourself in the position anyway.

Is the ranger supposed to tank? He's a...ranger...he uses arrows, he's supposed to attack at RANGE, casters? Yeah right, like Mr. 60 armor is going to go tank the stone summit carvers in the southern shiverpeaks.

When we need protection from something, do we say "Alright elementalists go form a wall in that passage so they don't get through to the monk!" No, we say "Warriors do your thing and stop 'em from getting through." And that's what ye need to do, IMO. Shield or no shield, you're still the best tank in the group.

Wings of Illusion · Jul 14, 2005, 06:11 AM // 06:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagius Truthbarron

Alright, when I join a group all the talk is "Tank, tank, tank!" when refering to warriors. I'm a hammer warrior. Do you notice that there isn't a shield in my hand? It's becuase I'm meant for disruption and anti-casters, not getting beaten to a pulp.

Of course, I can tank if there is a prot monk around, but when people make PUGs for UW or FoW do they make sure they get a prot monk? Nope. Have 3 healer monks, yay!

If I'm in a group, I don't go for the warriors, I go for the casters becuase it is easy for me to take them out. Let the monkey with the shield take the damage.

Does anyone share my grief?

Hammer warriors can be tanks. Just a simple build here--

Strength-11
Hammer Mastery-10
Tactics-6
Healing Prayers-8

"Charge!"
"I Will Survive!"
Hammer Bash
Endure Pain
Sprint
Healing Signet
Healing Breeze
Orison of Healing

Armor Ascalon Set (80AL +20AL vs. Physical, Reduces damage) ( except for helm, get captains helm)

Any Vigor rune
Any Absorbtion rune
Any Hammer Mastery

Ultimate_Gaara · Jul 14, 2005, 06:19 AM // 06:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sagius Truthbarron

Alright, when I join a group all the talk is "Tank, tank, tank!" when refering to warriors. I'm a hammer warrior. Do you notice that there isn't a shield in my hand? It's becuase I'm meant for disruption and anti-casters, not getting beaten to a pulp.

Of course, I can tank if there is a prot monk around, but when people make PUGs for UW or FoW do they make sure they get a prot monk? Nope. Have 3 healer monks, yay!

If I'm in a group, I don't go for the warriors, I go for the casters becuase it is easy for me to take them out. Let the monkey with the shield take the damage.

Does anyone share my grief?

Im glad to see im not the only one who thinks this way, my W/N is more necro than warrior, i just dont like any warrior skills so i based my guy on life stealing and swordsmanship, i get pretty steamed up when i join a group and get treated like a tank, i mean i can take a beating (thanks to my necro skills) but im no super one man kill machine

PieXags · Jul 14, 2005, 06:21 AM // 06:21

That's why we don't want to use you as a "kill machine" we want to use you as a meat shield that swings around your weapon while the casters kill things.

Racthoh · Jul 14, 2005, 06:40 AM // 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimate_Gaara

Im glad to see im not the only one who thinks this way, my W/N is more necro than warrior, i just dont like any warrior skills so i based my guy on life stealing and swordsmanship, i get pretty steamed up when i join a group and get treated like a tank, i mean i can take a beating (thanks to my necro skills) but im no super one man kill machine

In my time as a W/N, I loved using their skills. Life Transfer being my favourite. Second being Blood is Power. Worked very nicely with a full outfit of gladiator's and a +12 Idol. I believe that works out to 40 energy, twice the normal warrior capacity. An efficient spellcasting meat shield I would say.

Marc Grahamsworth · Jul 14, 2005, 06:40 AM // 06:40

I think the term "tank" got applied to warriors since warriors *tend* to be big beefy guys and you usually refer to people like that as "built like a tank".

And I agree, not all warriors are tanks.