[TERA PC & Console] En Masse is closing, but TERA lives on! We will continue to support TERA PC (NA) and TERA Console until service is transferred. Stay tuned for more information.
[TERA Console] The Grotto of Lost Souls update (v85) is now live! Read the patch notes here: https://bit.ly/TERACon_v85

[TERA PC] The 64-bit update (v97) is now live. Check out all the changes delivered on August 11 here: https://bit.ly/tera64_patchnotes
[TERA PC & CONSOLE] Summerfest Part 2: The Beach Bash is on from August 11 until September 1! Participate in event activities to earn tokens redeemable for costumes, consumables, mounts, and more! Details: https://bit.ly/tera_sf20

warrior vs slayer? new player

12346

Comments

  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    Yithar wrote: »
    Gaalrak wrote: »
    When you say warrior, the first thought that goes through a person's head should be dps, not tank. So it shouldn't even have to be specified, cause warriors aren't tanks.

    Well I suppose it's pretty bad. But yeah BHS leaving warrior tanks in the dust and making holding aggro a joke was the final straw for me.

    I miss the days in AINM when warriors could actually tank. :anguished:

    They can tank though? Their damage as a tank improved and Scythe will pretty much crit 100% even if you hit the front. Their damage is supposed to be buffed in the future as well. The only tank that's even ignored is Berserker.
  • mollyyamollyya ✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    Yamazuki wrote: »

    They can tank though? Their damage as a tank improved and Scythe will pretty much crit 100% even if you hit the front. Their damage is supposed to be buffed in the future as well. The only tank that's even ignored is Berserker.

    Well zerk tank is introduced since 2015 which many zerks have been playing DPS-stance for over 3 years. I know It would be hard for them to accept to zerk tank.
    However, war tank came out much earlier. I believe 99% warriors should have known this is also a tank class before character creation.
    BHS ignores zerk tank but it doesn't ignore warrior tank. See how strong the war tank currently is.
    Warrior can be a tank start from level20 the first dungeon ever, same as lancer, brawler.
    I don't blame bandwagon warriors who refuse to learn tank but I feel disappointed to see LFGs with multiple warriors wasting time looking for tank only.
  • YitharYithar ✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    They can tank though? Their damage as a tank improved and Scythe will pretty much crit 100% even if you hit the front. Their damage is supposed to be buffed in the future as well. The only tank that's even ignored is Berserker.

    Well, when I quit playing (around time SSHM was released), people were complaining how warrior damage sucked and they weren't viable as tanks.

  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    Yithar wrote: »
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    They can tank though? Their damage as a tank improved and Scythe will pretty much crit 100% even if you hit the front. Their damage is supposed to be buffed in the future as well. The only tank that's even ignored is Berserker.

    Well, when I quit playing (around time SSHM was released), people were complaining how warrior damage sucked and they weren't viable as tanks.

    I would hardly call a class that had been apart of fast runs as weak during that patch. (dps wise, not tank) They also could tank, just Lancer was better.
  • YitharYithar ✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    I would hardly call a class that had been apart of fast runs as weak during that patch. (dps wise, not tank) They also could tank, just Lancer was better.

    I think it might have stemmed from the fact that holding aggro as a warrior tank is highly dependent on how much damage you do, and the learning curve is fairly high, and Ninjas could put out a lot of DPS depending on the boss.
    Warrior tank's pretty bad at the moment. You'll struggle to keep aggro against any competent DPS, and your own DPS is abysmal compared to what lancer or brawler can put out. Wartank slows down a run by quite a bit and offers no noticeable damage contribution or party utility.

    It's viable, as in you can play it, but be prepared to lose aggro to any high dps. Also be prepared to not hold aggro period if you get stuck with a warrior DPS, because Scythe is your main aggro skill at this point. It used to be doable pre-brawler, but tanking and aggro in general were very different back then - you didn't need to do much damage to keep aggro, and the little that warrior does was considered quite a lot.

    Okay, I think some people just didn't know how to play warrior tank. "you didn't need to do much damage to keep aggro" Any good warrior tank knew you needed to do a lot of damage to keep aggro, because that's how warrior with defensive stance works. Most skills don't have an aggro modifier, so aggro is damage x (threat mods)^2. Not to mention there was always the option of aggro stacking if necessary.

    ---

    Oh, we got the QoL changes in class changes 12. Looking at all the buffs, I retract my original statement. Warriors should be fine.
  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yithar wrote: »
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    I would hardly call a class that had been apart of fast runs as weak during that patch. (dps wise, not tank) They also could tank, just Lancer was better.

    I think it might have stemmed from the fact that holding aggro as a warrior tank is highly dependent on how much damage you do, and the learning curve is fairly high, and Ninjas could put out a lot of DPS depending on the boss.
    Warrior tank's pretty bad at the moment. You'll struggle to keep aggro against any competent DPS, and your own DPS is abysmal compared to what lancer or brawler can put out. Wartank slows down a run by quite a bit and offers no noticeable damage contribution or party utility.

    It's viable, as in you can play it, but be prepared to lose aggro to any high dps. Also be prepared to not hold aggro period if you get stuck with a warrior DPS, because Scythe is your main aggro skill at this point. It used to be doable pre-brawler, but tanking and aggro in general were very different back then - you didn't need to do much damage to keep aggro, and the little that warrior does was considered quite a lot.

    Okay, I think some people just didn't know how to play warrior tank. "you didn't need to do much damage to keep aggro" Any good warrior tank knew you needed to do a lot of damage to keep aggro, because that's how warrior with defensive stance works. Most skills don't have an aggro modifier, so aggro is damage x (threat mods)^2. Not to mention there was always the option of aggro stacking if necessary.

    ---

    Oh, we got the QoL changes in class changes 12. Looking at all the buffs, I retract my original statement. Warriors should be fine.

    Meta and viability aren't the same thing is all I was saying. Warrior tank, like Berserker tank, is viable. There just was no reason to since Lancer was superior in every single way with Brawler being the better "dps tank" of the 3 "dps tanks". People only tanked as either Zerk or War because they enjoyed the class, and the number of people that don't hop on fotm trains are low.
  • metagamemetagame ✭✭✭✭
    Yithar wrote: »
    people were complaining how warrior damage sucked and they weren't viable as tanks.
    and now they have a passive that gives them a bonus wrathful crystal when attacking from the front

    damage is fine
  • YitharYithar ✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    Meta and viability aren't the same thing is all I was saying. Warrior tank, like Berserker tank, is viable. There just was no reason to since Lancer was superior in every single way with Brawler being the better "dps tank" of the 3 "dps tanks". People only tanked as either Zerk or War because they enjoyed the class, and the number of people that don't hop on fotm trains are low.

    Yeah, I was actually someone arguing that warrior tank should have still been viable, but for some people, viability meant "pugs have a reason to take me over a lancer or a brawler". I mean, when I came back at the time, I still held aggro at times VM4+15 against VM6+15, although it probably would have helped if I stacked more aggro.

    I got to admit, I hopped on the Brawler train, but tbh I didn't like the playstyle. Brawler block felt sort of clunky compared to just tap block once on warrior and the animation locks felt long compared to warrior's animation locks.

  • YamazukiYamazuki ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    Yithar wrote: »
    Yamazuki wrote: »
    Meta and viability aren't the same thing is all I was saying. Warrior tank, like Berserker tank, is viable. There just was no reason to since Lancer was superior in every single way with Brawler being the better "dps tank" of the 3 "dps tanks". People only tanked as either Zerk or War because they enjoyed the class, and the number of people that don't hop on fotm trains are low.

    Yeah, I was actually someone arguing that warrior tank should have still been viable, but for some people, viability meant "pugs have a reason to take me over a lancer or a brawler". I mean, when I came back at the time, I still held aggro at times VM4+15 against VM6+15, although it probably would have helped if I stacked more aggro.

    I got to admit, I hopped on the Brawler train, but tbh I didn't like the playstyle. Brawler block felt sort of clunky compared to just tap block once on warrior and the animation locks felt long compared to warrior's animation locks.

    That's one thing I didn't like about Brawler either, the slow block. Had played a lot of Lancer before, and the occasional War and then later Zerk tank and the quicker block was preferred for me. Most animations on Brawler can be canceled though, you just have to know what can cancel what and the timing.
  • GlitchyTrashGlitchyTrash ✭✭✭
    edited February 2017
    @Coolkicl Coool shhh the side for slayers seem to be winning this debate, let's take any win we can :p
  • CoolkiclCoolkicl ✭✭
    GlitchyTrash wrote: »
    @Coolkicl Coool shhh the side for slayers seem to be winning this debate, let's take any win we can :p

    xd
  • SaabiSaabi ✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    VirtualON wrote: »
    InFRaReD28 wrote: »
    @VirtualON um no.. the next patchs' buff to slayer is way more than a 10% dps increase. Quote me, I will have a well over 3m/s video out for atleast 1st and last boss RMHM after that patch; Slayer PoV.

    Also, lol parse runs in HH is stupid. HH favors ranged why are you so insistent on bringing it up.

    Sidenote: "30man Hella easy"

    Can you explain to me how the buff can be bigger than 10%? Also I will wait for your 3m video, which means a 25% increase from your current best.
    HH favors ranged but do you forget Zerk and Ninja still do 33% more than slayer?

    I don't understand why do you want to defend slayer by "pulling nice dps"? Define nice. 1M maybe nice when everyone else does 1.2M. It's not nice when everyone else does 1.6M.

    Props to you, though, for sticking with slayer. I play many classes because one class bores me quickly.

    Unfortunately no video. But here, first day of Slayer change https://moongourd.com/encounter?area=970&boss=3000&log=58b65d1dc8ea7

    sidenote: its cool and all but i really don't like UOHS doing this. I want it to be a consistent value like before.
  • NotArisaNotArisa ✭
    dear mother of.... 20M!? u sure got the ICB jackpot there lol
  • VirtualONVirtualON ✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    @InFRaReD28 : 22 hits UOHS does 37% of your dps. I'm not sure its something to be proud about the class. Can you do 3M if UOHS doesn't bug? If you count UOHS bug as a part of the slayer buff, then we have been discussing the wrong points.
  • SaabiSaabi ✭✭✭
    edited March 2017
    @VirtualON http://moongourd.com/encounter?area=970&boss=3000&log=58b65964b5e40

    I even made mistakes in these runs.
    I'm also still getting used to the changes, these are Day 1 parses.
Sign In or Register to comment.