You can tell whether a ranged opponent is going to let you get into melee range within the first 15 seconds of a fight. Once you've acknowledged this, given it's a one on one encounter, you should be able to escape. I was disagreeing with your statement that "1v1 knights are screwed", which to me implies are loss the majority of times.

My original point about being in melee range was 'staying' in melee range which could be done easily before with spring. So as I said you must play almost perfectly to assure the kill now.

A fight with a ranged character who is intent on kiting you should end in a stalemate. He has to keep his distance, making it much easier for you buff up and walk the other way. Unless of course you get confused, but in that case you wouldn't be able to spring either so it's irrelevant.

Your sentence seem to reinforce what I wrote, you claimed that at melee if a knight plays his cards right he can get the result, and I did not denied it, I only added that if the ranged opponent played his cards right you would never get into melee. And looking at what you wrote, it seems you agree with me.

Very well, I might admit my expression does not translate the reality of the situation. Tell me then what expression should I use when there's a disadvantageous situation and getting a draw (by escaping) is the best result one can aim?

I already understood your point, you argue that a knight has to be even more skilled now to assure his targets do not run away since he doesn't have spring to help him on that job. I say: very well, point taken, you are most probably right.

Please make now an effort to understand my point, what I miss is speed (or at least not being impaired with a constant -25% or higher penalty) to lead charges in RvR, to close into melee "beyond enemy lines", to feel the rush of facing a zerg of enemies in front of me and surviving it (well... hopefully I'm not charging alone... already happened... lots of times...). Because, and I'll be a bit selfish, that's what took me to go from barb to knight long time ago.

Well, this thread shows there are knights happy with the way they are designed, I am not. It is possible, however, that I'm just one of the few still oriented by an old paradigm regarding the knight class. An illusion no doubt fuelled by my several absences from this game since it is obvious to me that most of them are long gone.

in a pvp situation, running away = you've lost the fight and surrendered :)
and why play a class that have no chance of winning in pvp?! the only application of knights are in open wars as they can't fight alone....(from a warlock point of view)

I agree on that although, from experience, the amount of times I have dropped my 'chain' is greatly outnumbered by the amount of archers/mages that have let me get into close range. This is because unless they do so, I will not let them kill me, so they won't be able to.

I disagree with this, I don't think it's a disadvantageous situation because your situation is exactly the same as the enemy. The best result is killing your opponent, and it can be done, the most likely result if you both know your classes and surroundings is a draw. Either of you will die if you make a mistake (The archer letting you close, or you dropping your defenses while being kited).

I am fine with it requiring Onslaughts from two people for an equal charge.

If you don't have that or can't expect that I just alter my positioning. You need to space yourself further infront of your army, The enemy is less likely to run from you being alone. However there is a greater chance of being cced, but if it's anything but being frozen you are likely to be over it or dispelled by the time your army passes you. If you are immobolised I'd advise Precise Blocking until they get to you to prevent a last minute dizzy. You onslaught the army when they catch up to you, since by this point you'll be closer to their ranks you will not be far behind. You also have the option of Shield Walling them before the Onslaught or waiting until you catch up.

This does take decent timing though, but it's made possible because of the great addition that is Defensive Stance.

I disagree, unless you're talking about this kind of 'pvp situation'
http://i.imgur.com/P6r7g.gif

-which doesn't interest me anyway. I'm talking about 1 on 1 warzone encounters, winning is killing, losing is dying.

I invite you to share your epicness here.

You have all right in disagreeing, but the fact remains that a ranged class can shoot you at range (therefore the situation is not the same, and since the "best result is killing you opponent" I think that's called an "head start" of sorts) and has tools to ensure you remain so. That does not invalidate that you can turtle yourself with def stance + whatever (passives at 4 I wager) and scare out of boredom whomever is trying to kill you.

I welcome these insights from such a skilled knight. I will try to apply them more often when I play the class.

Yes, it's a formidable spell, and the knights that know how to use it are fearsome indeed.

Wow Signatus. I couldn't disagree more.

You will be pleased to note I not only don't skill Defensive Support, I don't even skill Caution.

Don't need 'em with my play style/class goals.

With ranged attackers in open field pvp you have to find cover. It's then their choice whether to close and die. Obviously, trying to chase an archer with passive speed bonus is an exercise in certain death.

Knight is mostly fine. Love it. If I could adjust it a bit, I would make offensive stance do a bit more damage so that it isn't such a crappy deal, and make intimidate more powerful. That's about it.