Warrior Stance Details

[TheDrunkenDwarf]

From the leaked beta newsletter:

Offensive Stance
+ accuracy, - mitigation, - agro
When playing in an offensive (non-tanking) role, the new warrior is granted bonuses to combat, and has a variety of attacks available to them. These attacks have specific uses in and of themselves, which then expand and grow when combined into chains. For the most part, attack chains are only available in the Offensive stance. More on this later.

Defensive Stance
+mitigation, +agro, +block chance, - damage
When playing in a defensive role, the warrior becomes much more able to take incoming damage, and all attacks generate more hate. New counter-attacks become available only in the defensive stance, and then only when equipping a shield.

I love how dramatically different these two stances are. The thing that I like most about the offensive stance is the minus aggro. Tanks usually don't have any way to lower aggro and I can't count all the times that I was slated to be the second tank if the MT died and I wound up stealing aggro early and dying. The benefit of reduced aggro while in offensive stance is going to be huge in my opinion.

At the same time, I think that the plus aggro in defensive stance is very important. In previous games you would lose a lot of dps when in a defensive posture (as it should be) but this would also cripple your aggro generation since so much of it was based on how much damage you did. Adding an aggro bonus to defensive stance should help offset this and help warriors to do their job more effectively.

What do you think about the stances?

[Metatron]

while they both seem quite powerful and cool, i'm a little disappointed that they ended up being so simplistic and clear cut. I was hoping for true strategy on the part of the warrior as far as determining which stance was right for what fight. But now it's very clear, for named enemies and mobs of unsure strength, stick with defensive, and for slaughtering souls to suck into thine exp bar, go with offensive.

[Tazzrin Jaegernaut]

The defensive stance is definately going to be the money maker. The wise tank will be using it most of the time. The additions that is added with defensive stance is too good to pass up.

I think that the offensive stance should add damage instead of just accuracy. Something is missing in the offensive stance imo.

[Deadjester]

The accuracy by default will add damage, so I don't think you will to worry to much there. Since you will hit more often, it will add more damage over all.

Hmm just thought of somthing else to, it really depends how they do accuracy. I could also just let you hit hard, a more accurate, deeper cut. Will have to see.

As for the different tatical stances, might want to wait a bit befor we yeah or nay. Depending on what other abilities that they are not mentioning, there could still be a lot more going on.

If EQII is any indacation of the general direction combat is going, there are going to be alot more abilities yet to be talked about. And I think that VG will be allot better then EQII.

[Metatron]

Originally Posted by Haruchai

If EQII is any indacation of the general direction combat is going, there are going to be alot more abilities yet to be talked about. And I think that VG will be allot better then EQII.

In my not so humble opinion, if EQ2 is an indication of the way VG is going, then we're all doomed.

[Lightning]

Originally Posted by Metatron

In my not so humble opinion, if EQ2 is an indication of the way VG is going, then we're all doomed.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! :naughty:

[Skellen]

My reading of that lead me to believe that there would be more than just two stances, they were just grouped into two subsets: "When playing in an offensive (non-tanking) role...". Make sense, or am I attributing too much to it?

[Deadjester]

EQII had some good ideas, they just didint seem to know how to apply them properly. They seemed stuck I would say in certain ways of thinking and they dumbed down the game alot.

Though dumbing it down was proably best for many I have met and I am sure going to met.

[Tazzrin Jaegernaut]

Originally Posted by Haruchai

EQII had some good ideas, they just didint seem to know how to apply them properly. They seemed stuck I would say in certain ways of thinking and they dumbed down the game alot.

Though dumbing it down was proably best for many I have met and I am sure going to met.

One of the ways they dumbed it down was being too lenient in the demands of many of the whiners. I should know being a retired assassin of EQII. For those that don't know, assassins were one of the most broken classes the game had. At launch, we had all dps abilities and some debuffs but absolutely no utility to offer to groups. That was fine for most people, if it wasn't true that other classes could easily do just as much dps if not more and provide valuable utility to a group. This fact left assassins high and dry and hardly sought after from groups. Furthermore, we couldn't solo at all.

So, of course the official forums blew up with assassins all over the world whining about how the class was broken and needed to be on par with other classes. Well the devs did listen and instead of fixing the problem, they inflated the problem. They gave us a boost to dps and a few hardly notable utility buffs. However, this caused other classes to take notice of how we solved a problem by constant complaining. This caused other clases of the game to do the same and it was a domino effect.

Even though I had a lot of fun playing EQII, it was just missing too many factors to keep going.

/EQII rant off

Now for Vanguard :twisted:

[Xabassis]

IIIIIIIIIII like it. <3333