Paladin: Possibilities

[Zyeriis]

Huh. I guess I confused this thread with one of the five freaking hundred (exaggeration) other threads on Paladin that I've responded to. After a while, it does get incredibly tiring of making what you deem "constructive" responses because people will just create a new thread the next day anyways and any effort I expended writing a nice, thoughtful suggestion would be for naught.

Can't say I didn't see that pathetic deflection coming: "i was wrong but i wasn't because I did what I said I did, just not here". Why'd you even bother posting? You know, aside from not actually contributing.

If it hasn't been made clear already, I can't stand repeating myself. With that said, I'm also not even required to post my own ideas for Paladin when discussing yours. I'll tell you the same thing I told Akujima in his thread. If you want to post a thesis, you have to be prepared to defend it from criticism. If your idea has holes, people will point out those holes. If your idea has flaws, people will take issue with the flaws. If your idea is closed minded (it is), people will be less likely to pay you an open mind when considering it.

If it hasn't been made clear yet, when I interjected, you had yet to say anything about anything. Do I need to go quote you again? If you want to post about a flaw in some one elses idea, you have to actually talk about one of those ideas. If you can't do that, and you weren't, then you're going to be called out on it.

A complete overhaul of the game's mechanics affects every single job in the game, not just Paladin. You say "Oh, well, it may be a slight DD nerf but really that's okay because they're too strong anyways". That doesn't mean it's right to ostracize each of the other 19 jobs in the game for the sake of buffing Paladin in such a way that, even then, only some of the game's Paladins would actually be happier.

Yes, because Paladin is the only job that would be positively affected by such a reconstruction of a system that you admit is flawed, and has been flawed from the beginning. Your opinion of whether or not it is necessary is irrelevant to it being a possible solution. It may not be a "necessary" tweak but, then again, there really isn't such a thing as a "necessary" tweak to anything in the game. They didn't "have" to "fix" hundreds of things over the years (such as having to "set" your mog-house) but they did.

Edit: You seem to fail to realize what revising the scale of str vs. vit would actually mean. You can call it a nerf all you want but you are only saying that because its a reduction. You also seem to think that it would only affect players but, here's the thing: it would affect enemies as well. It would make VIT/defense actually relevant, stat-wise and THAT's it. The entire game's damage would be scaled back, yes. So what? It would be the exact same thing, except everything and everyone would be tougher. From there, they could scale the enemies up to the already mentioned "level 110+" marks to make them challenging enough to warrant the use of PLD and blood tanking. Note that I'm stating both things as separate entities rather than just one (as you have done before). PLD wouldn't be the only blood tank but, you're right in regards to it being the best. I want to make blood tanking relevant, as it should be. "Evasion" tanking isn't actually "tanking", its contradictory to the term.

You need to learn to take and respond to criticism. All I've seen from you is rage, "Where is your argument????", "Stop Flaming", and "You're not contributing anything". I don't need to present an alternative in order to dislike your idea and post contrary to it. If I say you're wrong, you need to either accept that and change your presentation or deny that and show me why you're right. That's how a discussion works.

And you need to learn how to give criticism. All I've seen from you is "This is WHY Paladin is flawed", "You're wrong because I said so", "U mad!". I don't need to defend against criticisms that aren't there.

There's a difference between "pointing out a flaw and trying to figure out a way to get rid of that flaw" (called being constructive) and just knocking an idea because you think it would be too much work (called being lazy) or just saying the idea is flawed and putting absolutely no effort into proposing an alternative. You can claim you're trying to "discuss" something but you offer nothing other than: "you're wrong". Discussions aren't: "Here's an idea" > "You're wrong" > "Here's an idea" > "You're wrong", and this is disregarding the spew of posts you made before even your ever-so-elegant "pointing out flaws" posts where you said a lot of words but, ultimately said nothing at all.