Warrior Rework to Balance the job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu

The core responsibility of tanking is to hold aggro, to direct incoming damage towards yourself instead of letting it hit the party, or failing that, to try and reduce it.

---

I specifically did not use the phrase "the core responsibility" because it is indeed one of a couple. But (holding aggro and directing damage to oneself) is as simple as activating an aura. Considering they just did a round of increasing tank aggro it doesn't seem they're interested in bringing this back as a meaningful mechanic, assuming it ever really was. And "to try to reduce (damage)" is included in "alleviating the burden on a healer", whether by mitigation or restoration. There's no real functional difference between TBN shielding and BW healing back incoming damage. Yet one is OK and the other is not according to your phrasing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

This is basically the core reason why tanks and healers will never agree on how to fix healers

Tanks think that being an off healer is part of their role design while healers believe that tanks should hold agro and allow them to heal

---

I've never considered off-healing as part of my role design as a tank. There are either support or survival abilities plain and simple. Could they be abused? Sure, lots of thing have been and still are, in this game and many others. So yes things need to be continually analyzed and rebalanced accordingly. But realistically there's probably never going to be a point where healers only heal and tanks only hold aggro. And to be honest there probably shouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

TBH it sounds to me like this is largely just beating a dead horse. There are good suggestions here by many people but it ultimately boils down to the direction SE decides to take. If dungeons are just meant to be casual ~15 min encounters then there's little hope of implementing any interesting or substantial changes along these lines. Personally I get the impression this is the direction they lean towards.

---

Dungeons can stay casual. Encounter design is a separate issue and WAR is getting singled out because when you're healing one it's far less engaging than healing other tanks. At least most tanks require some healing. WAR unfortunately reduces healer to a one attack button and a DoT. Casual doesn't equate to being able to tab out mid content.

Quote:

---

Healers can complain about not having much to do if tanks heal too much, but what are they going to do otherwise? There's no additional layer of gameplay that exists, just dps or heal.

---

The dungeon formula isn't fundamentally broken. If damage is too low that's easy to fix. If there is going to be a healer in the party though, the other party members can't be self sufficient. Some in this thread have claimed that healer complaints are misplaced, and dissatisfaction directed at WAR should be focused elsewhere, but that's totally wrong. If WAR wasn't problematic, it wouldn't have been given any special attention.

Quote:

---

it's both rewarding and enjoyable to execute your role responsibilities (even if, yes, it too is a bit shallow)

---

Hence the complaints. WAR prevents healer enjoyment. Is the fun of WAR really from constant full self heals? BW could remain if the healing was reduced. That wouldn't break dungeons and would still give WAR some control over healing.

Quote:

---

It just circles back to what is the level of challenge, if any, SE intends for any given content to have. If the general direction is to keep things on the casual side for dungeons, and empower tanks to greatly alleviate the burden on a healer for efficient completion, then indeed they need to make sure each tank has equally viable and effective options for doing so. I mean, I for one would like a reason to finish leveling and maybe even occasionally play as another tank. Even if WAR was significantly nerfed I don't think I would switch, the other tanks would presumably still be lacking what they lack now so really there'd still be no point.

---

If equally viable means all tanks get BW, dungeon healing would have no value. Absolutely zero. Ahead of any responsibility to alleviate healer burden is the need to make the game worth playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

Dungeons can stay casual. Encounter design is a separate issue and WAR is getting singled out because when you're healing one it's far less engaging than healing other tanks. At least most tanks require some healing. WAR unfortunately reduces healer to a one attack button and a DoT. Casual doesn't equate to being able to tab out mid content.

---

That's fine except there are all different levels of healers. If you're a savage or ultimate main healer then the "challenge" of a daily dungeon or leveling session is completely different than someone who only goes healer to fill a role with friends, for example, or otherwise casual types of players. Like I mentioned previously, from my brief experience pretty much every tank except WAR is guaranteed to die at least once when I'm on healer lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

The dungeon formula isn't fundamentally broken. If damage is too low that's easy to fix. If there is going to be a healer in the party though, the other party members can't be self sufficient. Some in this thread have claimed that healer complaints are misplaced, and dissatisfaction directed at WAR should be focused elsewhere, but that's totally wrong. If WAR wasn't problematic, it wouldn't have been given any special attention.

---

I still don't really get this perspective. I mean, healers contributing damage to clear stuff faster is far more meaningful in most cases. I'd be willing to bet if healers had a more interesting damage kit there'd be a lot more appreciation for a tank being able to sustain itself for longer periods of time. So I guess I'd be in the camp that claims your complaints are misplaced. Not invalid, given the current circumstances, just a sort of can't see the forest for the trees feel. And you even sort of alluded to it yourself with "reducing healers to one attack button and a DoT"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

Hence the complaints. WAR prevents healer enjoyment. Is the fun of WAR really from constant full self heals? BW could remain if the healing was reduced. That wouldn't break dungeons and would still give WAR some control over healing.

---

"Constant full self heals" WAR has always had some aspect of self healing, as Launched mentioned dating back to Bloodbath and OG IB. There have been many different iterations on it throughout the years, and I can't think of any time it's self-healing has been in a trivial or insignificant state. I haven't denied accepting a nerf to BW, I know first hand it ends up being overheal quite often anyways. But nothing about nerfing BW makes the other tanks feel more enjoyable to play IMO. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not as bad as the [DRK Complaint Section] has suggested for the last 5-6 years. But I literally just feel like telling the healer "sorry bro nothing else I can do" when I play another tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

If equally viable means all tanks get BW, dungeon healing would have no value. Absolutely zero. Ahead of any responsibility to alleviate healer burden is the need to make the game worth playing.

---

This is taking the argument to an unnecessary extreme. See above comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

That's fine except there are all different levels of healers. If you're a savage or ultimate main healer then the "challenge" of a daily dungeon or leveling session is completely different than a someone who only goes healer to fill a role with friends, for example, or otherwise casual types of players. Like I mentioned previously, from my brief experience pretty much every tank except WAR is guaranteed to die at least once when I'm on healer lol



I still don't really get this perspective. I mean, healers contributing damage to clear stuff faster is far more meaningful in most cases. I'd be willing to bet if healers had a more interesting damage kit there'd be a lot more appreciation for a tank being able to sustain itself for longer periods of time. So I guess I'd be in the camp that claims your complaints are misplaced.



"Constant full self heals" WAR has always had some aspect of self healing, as Launched mentioned dating back to Bloodbath. And there have been many different iterations on it throughout the years. I haven't denied accepting a nerf to BW, I know first hand it ends up being overheal quite often anyways. But nothing about nerfing BW makes the other tanks feel more enjoyable to play IMO. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not as bad as the [DRK Complaint Section] has suggested for the last 5-6 years. Like I literally just feel like telling the healer "sorry bro nothing else I can do" when I play another tank.



This is taking the argument to an unnecessary extreme. See above comments.

---

This is a trinity game, why do you view the tank being able to cover for a bad healer as a good thing. If you are letting a PLD die on a healer in a dungeon that more speaks to you needing to improve as a healer. Not any indication that the tanks sustain is justified in order to cover for this.

If you are struggling as a role you should die till you improve, not just have another role cover your shortfall for you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

If you are struggling as a role you should die till you improve, not just have another role cover your shortfall for you

---

Yea that's a fair enough perspective, but I see no indication that it is part of SE's design philosophy for this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

This is a trinity game, why do you view the tank being able to cover for a bad healer as a good thing. If you are letting a PLD die on a healer in a dungeon that more speaks to you needing to improve as a healer. Not any indication that the tanks sustain is justified in order to cover for this.

---

How is this any different from a good healer being able to cover for a bad tank. Would that make healer kits too strong? Or is that healers are supposed to cover for bad tanks but not the other way around?

Regardless, as others have mentioned, encounter design could play a larger role in all this too. There hasn't been any charybdis or doom mechanics so far. No healing reduced debuff. No Pox/Suppression type debuffs. No massive raid wide bleeds. There are still many other ways to keep healers "challenged", along with tanks. And maybe they're coming, who knows, they definitely seem to have stepped it up in other regards with new mechanics and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

How is this any different from a good healer being able to cover for a bad tank. Would that make healer kits too strong? Or is that healers are supposed to cover for bad tanks but not the other way around?

---

Unless you count resurrection as "covering for" a bad tank... a tank, at present, can more often render GCD healing (and frequently even oGCD healing) redundant than a healer can render tank mitigation (and self-healing) redundant.

Apart from that, though, I'd agree.

Similarly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

There's no real functional difference between TBN shielding and BW healing back incoming damage. Yet one is OK and the other is not according to your phrasing?

---

Correct. The difference is simply in practical output, one being far stronger over time than the other, especially but not only in dungeons and especially but not only if using Nascent Flash over Bloodwhetting. Because, barring massive prior mistakes, no tank would ever die for having their sustain dealt after a tankbuster (as healing) instead of against it (as mitigation), there's no advantage to the latter to compensate for the first simply being a significantly greater total.

BW is a bit problematic... because even in single-target and with only Bloodwhetting* it tends to do over double the total sustain of analogs like, say, TBN + Oblation, in a kit that already did more sustain than everyone else's -- not simply because it's healing instead of mit, or even because it scales largely with player stats instead of incoming damage (after all, TBN is even more self-scaled).

* With Nascent only, that can go up to 300+% of TBN + Oblation, since you're duplicating the healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

There's no real functional difference between TBN shielding and BW healing back incoming damage.

---

They are functionally different like day and night.

A DRK whose TBN keeps breaking will eventually see their HP depleted to zero in the absence of any HP restoration. There is no such guaranteed outcome with WAR's BW.

A DRK whose TBN doesn't break means that the DRK has traded damage for survivability. There are no such tradeoffs with BW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

How is this any different from a good healer being able to cover for a bad tank.

---

Because a good healer can't actually cover for a bad tank -- not indefinitely, not in scenarios outside of pulling one trash mob at a time.

The healer's resources will be drained faster than they recover. At some point, the tank dies to lack of healing, or the rate of healing being less than the rate of incoming damage. Then it's a matter of hoping the tank gets raised and retakes aggro before the squishy jobs get beaten to a pulp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

I specifically did not use the phrase "the core responsibility" because it is indeed one of a couple. But (holding aggro and directing damage to oneself) is as simple as activating an aura. Considering they just did a round of increasing tank aggro it doesn't seem they're interested in bringing this back as a meaningful mechanic, assuming it ever really was. And "to try to reduce (damage)" is included in "alleviating the burden on a healer", whether by mitigation or restoration. There's no real functional difference between TBN shielding and BW healing back incoming damage. Yet one is OK and the other is not according to your phrasing?

---

TBN cannot indefinitely sustain someone. It does not restore their health, and it scales according to max HP, making it much weaker on a non-tank. It comes with an upfront cost and an opportunity cost, as using it on someone else denies its usage on the Dark Knight.

Compare this to Bloodwhetting and Nascent. It restores their health, and the health restore is balanced around Tank HP, whom have 50% more HP than the DPS. It provides a shield, again balanced on tank HP, and restores up to 1600 potency, which at ~1.8% tank hp per 100 equates to around 44% of a non-tank's health, not counting the ability to crit. The Warrior doesn't give up the use for itself, as outside of extremely hard hitting tankbusters they do not miss the mitigation and still receive the healing they provide, doubling up on it at effectively no cost compared to the closest contemporary Paladin, who must stock up gauge to achieve a weaker result.

Finally, the moment another strikable target is in range the healing doubles, doubling up the doubling Nascent already provides.

Do you see why one is fine, and the other isn't?

I think there should be a tank that specializes in taking less damage the lower HP they are.

The Zeno's Paradox of tank HP pools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crafoutis

I think there should be a tank that specializes in taking less damage the lower HP they are.

The Zeno's Paradox of tank HP pools.

---

Unironically, I do think that'd most deservedly/fittingly be Warrior, just not atop all its current excessive kit. It'd need a large rehaul to have room for the "too angry to die, and getting angrier the more you challenge them on that point" theme-in-practice.

They'd have to have a system by which the hit they are about to take is mitigated by what the mitigation value of their HP as it would be if the hit went through. This should solve the problem below

Describing the problem:

(We assume there is a new tank that has greater mitigation the lower their HP is)
(We assume for simplicity that this mitigation is linear between [0% mit] to [50% mit], and relates to the Tank's HP between [100% hp] to [0% hp])
(Lastly, let's assume the tank has 1,000 HP)

If the Tank is full HP receives a hit from the boss that does 900 damage. They are now at 100hp, and their mitigation is now at 45%. The tank buster that hit them for 900 damage was unmitigated by the Tank's passive due to the fact that it front-loaded all of that damage.

If the Tank is at 900 (90%) HP when he receives that same hit for 900 damage, that hit would be mitigated by 5% due to their passive mitigation they gained from being at 90% HP, therefore making the hit do 855 damage instead, and letting them live with 45 HP.


Solution, as described in the beginning: Mitigation for this theoretical new Tank (Or let's be honest, DRK, since they're sorely lacking), should be calculated based on the damage of the pre-mitigated hit against their current HP, prior to damage being applied. Then their mitigation reduces the incoming damage appropriately.

What does the above scenario look like under this system?

Tank, 1,000 (100%) HP, incoming tankbuster for 900 (90%) damage.

IncomingDamage * ( 1 - ( 0.5 * ( 1 - (( CurrentHP - IncomingDamage ) / MaxHP ))))) = PostMitDamage

900 * ( 1 - ( 0.5 * ( 1 - (( 1000 - 900 ) / 1000 ))))) = 495

The 900 damage is turned into a 495 damage hit. This way, regardless of the size of the hit, monsters can't 'skip' the tank's mitigation, and in fact it would be more effective to load on more frequently smaller ticks of damage against this tank for the same time expenditure value per hit. New encounters could be tooled to allow different tanks to shine in different ways, all useful, but different in their application of their survivability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

Do you see why one is fine, and the other isn't?

---

That's not really what I was responding to. The previous statement of "Restoring HP to yourself or the party has nothing to do with that. That's for the healers to take care of." doesn't mention anything about shielding. Why is only healing mentioned and not shielding? That was my point, not suggesting TBN and BW are "numerically" equivalent, but that both serve the same function of "alleviating healer burden". But I guess I'd just have to assume if TBN was a something like a 150k shield maybe they'd have included it in their statement as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu

Because a good healer can't actually cover for a bad tank -- not indefinitely, not in scenarios outside of pulling one trash mob at a time.

The healer's resources will be drained faster than they recover. At some point, the tank dies to lack of healing, or the rate of healing being less than the rate of incoming damage. Then it's a matter of hoping the tank gets raised and retakes aggro before the squishy jobs get beaten to a pulp.

---

This is just shifting the goal post. A good tank will not be able to indefinitely cover for a bad healer either, with WAR potentially being the only exception. Of the handful of situations I've been in where the healer dies during a dungeon boss, I'd say about half of them I was able to sustain and half I wasn't. It's definitely not a given even with the incredibly powerful healing.

No. Flat shields are a variant of the standard %DR mitigation that have been on tanks since forever. The key differences are that flat shielding:

• is more effective than equivalent %DR when the incoming damage is less than 100% of your total HP
• is less effective than equivalent %DR when the incoming damage is greater than 100% of your total HP
• can keep you alive indefinitely if and only if you can mitigate all incoming damage

Healing is not equivalent to mitigation because it cannot stop a tankbuster from oneshotting you. However, it can keep you alive indefinitely so long as you can outheal the incoming damage. It's fine for tanks to have some access to self-healing, but if they can outheal all the incoming damage, then you no longer need a 'healer' role.

If you want to identify a situation where flat shielding would be equivalently excessive, then you would need to mitigate all incoming damage through shields. But at that point you're just playing with invincibility mode on. Hence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mapleine

I bet lol, so were Game Shark owners back in the day

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

Is the fun of WAR really from constant full self heals?

---

Yes, being able to full heal once every 30 seconds during trash packs only (it doesn't work this way in actual content, against bosses), is a majority of the flavor which makes me prefer WAR, and even subscribe to FFXIV at all.

I primarily play solo, while I do max out all classes and gear my roles via raiding, my primary method of interfacing with this game is soloing on WAR. It is why I choose WAR, it is my fun in the game. Whenever I'm playing SGE, I thank my lucky stars whenever I get a WAR as my tank, because I get to spend more time DPSing. So I personally don't get the whinging about 'mah role', because I spend a great deal of time healing and presently the only tank that makes me hate my job is DRK, the weakest one right now, the one that you can't take your eye off of for half a second otherwise it's curtains. That's not fun (for me).

I'd say that people taking issue with WAR ought to pick a more fun tank to heal for their static, but it's clear none of this conversation is about raiding at all, and is purely about Dungeons, which is the only place Bloodwhetting is so effective in group content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

It's fine for tanks to have some access to self-healing, but if they can outheal all the incoming damage, then you no longer need a 'healer' role.

---

Sure you do, for the other 3-6 members of the team.

Even if in the unusual 4 tank m4s or 1 war/3dps dungeons type shenanigans it's possible to "outheal (mit) all incoming damage" with tanks instead of healers, that's not the common circumstance the majority of players will find themselves in, and I doubt it's something one could just jump in and complete without practice. Rare occurrences or exploits like this don't invalidate the entire healer role, not everyone had or used Game Sharks. And all that says nothing of encounter design itself.

Dungeons are designed to be quick and casual daily content that any level of player with a minimum level of job experience can complete. They aren't a grinding wheel to make you shine like a diamond before going into raid content. If the expectation is that you're going to use dungeons to hone your skills, or doing it for a "challenge, well you have to be aware not everyone is partaking in that endeavor with you because that's not the purpose of said content. It's going to range from boring to interesting/challenging on a case by case basis.

As for current raids.. By my count there are 2 major heal/mit checks, one in 2s and one in 3s. It is possible to mit through transition on 4s, but my healers, at least, preferred to keep using LB. That may change as we finish gearing up, and the alpha/beta in 2s will probably just start getting skipped. As I mentioned previously there are no heavy bleeds, hp to 1, doom, etc style mechanics, coupled with the (lack of) frequency of raidwides basically everything is being over-mitigated right now. Again encounter design can't be discounted here.

If they aren't going to make encounters lethal enough require all the abilities we have, it's inevitable that all these abilities will perceived as OP and "ruining" the game. So do they just starting yeeting these abilities, or actually design content around the fact that we have them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

That's not really what I was responding to. The previous statement of "Restoring HP to yourself or the party has nothing to do with that. That's for the healers to take care of." doesn't mention anything about shielding. Why is only healing mentioned and not shielding? That was my point, not suggesting TBN and BW are "numerically" equivalent, but that both serve the same function of "alleviating healer burden". But I guess I'd just have to assume if TBN was a something like a 150k shield maybe they'd have included it in their statement as well.

---

That would be a fair assumption, as probably has most to do with some people using the term "healing" (eHP increases that do not increase your maximum eHP) interchangeably with "sustain" (which includes anything and everything that keeps you alive for longer without outright avoiding enemy attacks such as through CC or kiting, be it self-scaled or scaling with incoming damage, increasing only current eHP or also increasing max eHP).

If something's sustain is higher in practice, it provides more survivability than its competition. Simple as that.

Until such time as the %DR and flat shield on Bloodwhetting is insufficient to survive certain tankbusters without needing wasteful overhealing, it will provide more sustain over time than other on-demands simply because its practical output, too, is higher than others' (since none is necessarily wasted from overhealing nor from dying before the self-heal).

And until such time as incoming damage is high enough that most unique defensives (Camo, Bulwark, Dark Mind) exceed the value of Thrill of Battle, it, too, will provide more sustain than its analogs on other jobs.

Between those advantages and more, Warrior's free (at no dps cost) sustain is, quite simply, far higher than that of other tanks, especially those other than PLD. (In practice, usually >33% higher, which can net enough extra GCDs of damage in early prog to make up for its <2% rDPS loss even before factoring in what risks are thereby reduced.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

If they aren't going to make encounters lethal enough to require all the abilities we have, it's inevitable that all these abilities will perceived as OP and "ruining" the game.

---

Only if it's given to a single job at some 30+% more strength than what's given to everyone else. (Or, per Warrior's case, usually nearer to 3x for its highest practical output vs. the job with the lowest in-practice output, each in their most favorable but realistic contexts.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Only if it's given to a single job at some 30+% more strength than what's given to everyone else. (Or, per Warrior's case, usually nearer to 3x for its highest practical output vs. the job with the lowest in-practice output, each in their most favorable but realistic contexts.)

---

Look, BW/nascent is probably going to get nerfed, whatever. I've accepted that. Healers will get to cast a few more heals onto WARs as a result, and WARs won't be able to complete content without them. Congrats.

Why do healers think the only ones that need healing are tanks?

Also, why do they think gimping tanks is fun for anyone?

All the talk is just tanks.... what about the rest of the party???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Look, BW/nascent is probably going to get nerfed, whatever. I've accepted that. Healers will get to cast a few more heals onto WARs as a result, and WARs won't be able to complete content without you. Congrats.

---

Its already been nerfed to the ground. How much more can you go outside of removing the healing entirely? Ironically they solved this issue back when tanks had two stances. If you wanted to heal yourself you had to be in defiance and take a damage hit in exchange for staying alive.

While people are here debating on BW being op in dungeons (content that is meant to be casual), I'm sitting here wondering why SiO got a regen when all it needed was higher % on the shields when sacrificing your buffs. Equilibrium also didn't need the regen imo. It would have been better if it was a 1200 potency heal when HP below 50% or 1200 potency barrier when HP above 50%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApolloGenX

Also, why do they think gimping tanks is fun for anyone?

---

Nah, it's just WAR specifically. Gimp WAR enough that PLD takes it spot, while WAR joins DRK in the abyss and GNB just keeps doing what it's doing (I guess).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marxam

Its already been nerfed to the ground.

---

It's still in the strongest state it's ever been in. It has received no nerfs.

Quote:

---

Ironically they solved this issue back when tanks had two stances. If you wanted to heal yourself you had to be in defiance and take a damage hit in exchange for staying alive.

---

And I'd love to see that available agency returned and expanded upon.

Quote:

---

I'm sitting here wondering why SiO got a regen when all it needed was higher % on the shields when sacrificing your buffs. Equilibrium also didn't need the regen imo. It would have been better if it was a 1200 potency heal when HP below 50% or 1200 potency barrier when HP above 50%.

---

Ironically, the HoT would actually make SiO less brain-dead... if it weren't so much larger a buff than everyone else got to their raid-wides (if any). At least with the HoT you can't just pop it any time within 30s of a raidwide to get full sustain (even if not necessarily life-saving) value out of it.

But yeah, between keeping healing from damage/attacks dealt strong (though, I'd still want it to scale from ST to AoE in a reasonable fashion) and getting regens (i.e., if Warrior were balanced and I therefore had to choose), I'd take the healing from damage/attacks dealt every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Nah, it's just WAR specifically. Gimp WAR enough that PLD takes it spot, while WAR joins DRK in the abyss and GNB just keeps doing what it's doing (I guess).

---

I've never seen "reduced from a lead of 30-50% to a lead of ~20%" referred to as "gimp" before. Learn something new every day, though, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

I've never seen "reduced from a lead of 30-50% to a lead of ~20%" referred to as "gimp" before. Learn something new every day, though, I guess.

---

Come on now, surely that's not enough to make healers feel relevant again.

Even 1 heal per gcd, or 80% reduction beyond first in AoE, or max of 2 or 3 targets. Anything this low would still be roughly equivalent to Equilibrium with half the CD. This alone is not enough to change any paradigm. All it does is "gimp" WAR in order to make healers (and DRK) feel better about themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApolloGenX

Why do healers think the only ones that need healing are tanks?

---

They don't have to be, though dungeons are designed such that tanks are the primary healing target. If a tank can survive easily with no assistance, something is wrong and existing dungeons tend to get boring. Going back and updating all the content to take self sufficient tanks into account is possible, but unlikely. It's a lot more work than fixing 1 or 2 skills on one class.

Quote:

---

Also, why do they think gimping tanks is fun for anyone?

---

Correcting something that is blatantly overpowered isn't gimping at all. I'll also point out that I don't limit myself to healing. I play all the roles. WAR in its current state is a mistake no matter how I look at it.

Quote:

---

All the talk is just tanks.... what about the rest of the party???

---

When other classes are as problematic as WAR they will be treated the same. It's clear that there are some differing opinions here, but a balanced and engaging game is fun. Breezing through dungeons while paying the minimum amount of attention the game has no appeal to me, and dungeons being casual content doesn't make that a reasonable expectation. If you're suggesting to shift the healing focus from tank to DPS, then why is the tank even in the party, and what prevents DPS from becoming self sufficient if tanks are allowed to be immortal bystanders that just happen to be there with the rest of the group? Doing this amounts to giving up on the established roles in the game and starting over. It can be done, but I don't see it as realistic.

At this point maybe there needs to be a hard mode roulette or duties. Make those out of the same dungeons we have now, but with some harder enemies and balancing factors (like the healing down enemy I mentioned before for example). If I could queue for that and avoid normal dungeons where party dynamics don't matter, that would work for me. It would also fill the gap of missing mid tier content. Savage and Extreme already exist, but they retain the same scripted difficult that they always have, which requires a different approach than jumping into a roulette with a random group.

Tanks always ask “why do healers want to take away our self healing” but never ask “why do we have such overpowered self healing in the first place”

You always whine that we want to take your ability away your job skills. Well we have literally nothing. You do more damage than us, you have a more interesting rotation than us, you do our job for us in casual content, you have in built system advantages like bias in AIN, you have achievements and rare mounts simply for doing content as a tank

Healers have literally nothing in the modern game yet we are apparently the selfish ones for asking that tanks don’t do our role for us

I think this newly circulating claim that 'healers are only there to heal the rest of the party' to be a self-defeating argument.

You create a team-based raid environment in which healers are there to keep their DPS alive, and DPS are there to meet the DPS check and kill the boss. And then there are tanks, which exist independently of this. So what are tanks there for? I'd argue that if that is the intended design, you could easily take out the tank role altogether and design fights around DPS and healers. Bosses are more than capable of positioning themselves, as we know. Damage can revolve entirely around raidwides and avoidable attacks. You don't need an entire role just to invuln swap through 4-5 tankbusters per fight.

What gave tanks more value historically was the fact that incoming damage on the tank was a non-trivial thing that required close collaboration with your healers. The current design, both in terms of the availability of self-healing and mitigation tools (especially invulns), devalues that. Don't you want tanking skill checks back? Can such a thing even exist given the current tank designs?

I just don't get the reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Come on now, surely that's not enough to make healers feel relevant again.

---

No one has said it would be enough by itself, and several posts in this thread thus far have explicitly said (and likely only because running into so many whataboutisms and false dichotomies somehow made the obvious necessary to restate) that reining WAR in back towards a balanced state would not fix healers on its own, but not having one job randomly be able to put out half more than others in all content and up to 3x more in certain content forms is a fairly necessary first step for setting up any broader paradigm shifts regarding how, and how much, healing needs to be done by healers.

I.e., not sufficient in itself, but nonetheless necessary. Most cool fun things a game might add... require at least a decent degree of balance in whatever capacities they would be centered around.

Again, you seem to be treating anything less than being significantly overpowered (and whether it uniquely permits success in normal circumstances or no, Warrior is that) as inherently and significantly less fun. On that is already disagree, but fair enough: preferences don't have to be logical, broad-minded, or anything else. But, if you're not willing to imagine out the game as a healer with every tank being similarly overpowered, that's literally just "Don't take away my advantages!" And I don't think that instinct is worth placating. Especially when it has hurt Warrior's and others' gameplay alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

If they aren't going to make encounters lethal enough require all the abilities we have, it's inevitable that all these abilities will perceived as OP and "ruining" the game.

---

The funny thing is... DRKs, as they currently exist, are brought into all the content that the other tanks are, and yet, there's no similar outcry that DRKs are "over-powered" and "ruining" the game.

Why is that? :confused::confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I think this newly circulating claim that 'healers are only there to heal the rest of the party' to be a self-defeating argument.

---

I'm not sure anyone actually said or thinks that. The rebuttal was to some notion that healers only existed to heal tanks and if the tanks heal themselves they apparently have no job left. Simply not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

No one has said it would be enough by itself, and several posts in this thread thus far have explicitly said (and likely only because running into so many whataboutisms and false dichotomies somehow made the obvious necessary to restate) that reining WAR in back towards a balanced state would not fix healers on its own, but not having one job randomly be able to put out half more than others in all content and up to 3x more in certain content forms is a fairly necessary first step for setting up any broader paradigm shifts regarding how, and how much, healing needs to be done by healers.

I.e., not sufficient in itself, but nonetheless necessary. Most cool fun things a game might add... require at least a decent degree of balance in whatever capacities they would be centered around.

---

So my comment of gimping WAR down to DRK levels, or probably worse with the shear amount of general vitriol directed towards it by the community, remains correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Again, you seem to be treating anything less than being significantly overpowered (and whether it uniquely permits success in normal circumstances or no, Warrior is that) as inherently and significantly less fun. On that is already disagree, but fair enough: preferences don't have to be logical, broad-minded, or anything else. But, if you're not willing to imagine out the game as a healer with every tank being similarly overpowered, that's literally just "Don't take away my advantages!" And I don't think that instinct is worth placating. Especially when it has hurt Warrior's and others' gameplay alike.

---

It would be inherently and significantly less fun than it currently is. There's really nothing to argue about on that point. The problem I have is that a nerf, even an incredibly heavy nerf, does nothing to address other concerns surrounding gameplay. I mean, it's pretty hard to say that having to cast a few more heals per dungeon pull is going to drastically change the enjoyment a healer has. If they aren't getting that enjoyment on 3/4 of the other tanks (which supposedly aren't as problematic) either how does changing WAR actually do anything.

This goes hand in hand with the second point which is that they gave us all these abilities to begin with. I'd rather be in a situation where they are all useful or required rather than delete them because SE failed in their implementation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

So my comment of gimping WAR down to DRK levels, or probably worse with the shear amount of general vitriol directed towards it by the community, remains correct.

---

Few have recommended reducing all tank sustain down to DRK's. Though, that level is literally just where, short of sacrificing damage for the purpose, any non-WAR was in Endwalker, so I fail to see how that is particularly "gimp" either.

Others have merely asked to average the sustain levels, as having one tank blatantly overperform the average by some four times the deviation between the rest makes it difficult to, simultaneously for non-WARs and mere non-WAR tanks, create engaging heal-checks in coordination between tanks and healers.

Quote:

---

This goes hand in hand with the second point which is that they gave us all these abilities to begin with.

---

Sometimes tools given are excessive. It's better then to nerf them back into reasonability than power creep the entire game to pander to those whose feelings might be hurt by having a time limit on excess power.

Quote:

---

I'd rather be in a situation where they are all useful or required rather than delete them because SE failed in their implementation.

---

As would I. That said, find me someone who's asked to outright delete Bloodwhetting's self-healing whatsoever, reducing it to a mere flat shield and its layers of %DR... instead of two layers of %DR, a flat shield, and a heal per attack per target struck for each attack for 8 seconds... and this would have relevance. Alas...

Remember, I already agreed that Bloodwhetting's healing should continue to scale, directly or indirectly, with target count, so long as other tanks had something compensatory in their kit that similarly scales with target count and/or that advantage wasn't quite so vast (rather than being literally +100% healing per target).

For my part, I don't think tanks should have any less agency than they have now... so long as we don't confuse {the ability to outperform others with ease} with merely being {able to have a significant impact}, let alone with skill-expression.

Quote:

---

It would be inherently and significantly less fun than it currently is. There's really nothing to argue about on that point.

---

That is your subjective view. When one of my skills has so broken a scalar that it renders a third of my remaining kit redundant (unable to generate any additional rDPS), that makes the gameplay less fun to me. I like being engaged. However, to me, that requires not being overpowered.

Across pretty much any game, I find being underpowered (and thereby needing more optimization than most to get by), so long as the goals are still feasible and an invite still possible within my time constraints, a hell of a lot more fun that being overpowered (and therefore having parts of my kit rendered useless by other parts).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

As would I. That said, find me someone who's asked to outright delete Bloodwhetting's self-healing whatsoever, reducing it to a mere flat shield and its layers of %DR... instead of two layers of %DR, a flat shield, and a heal per attack per target struck for each attack for 8 seconds... and this would have relevance. Alas...

Remember, I already agreed that Bloodwhetting's healing should continue to scale, directly or indirectly, with target count, so long as other tanks had something compensatory in their kit that similarly scales with target count and/or that advantage wasn't quite so vast (rather than being literally +100% healing per target).

....


That is your subjective view. When one of my skills has so broken a scalar that it renders a third of my remaining kit redundant (unable to generate any additional rDPS), that makes the gameplay less fun to me. I like being engaged. However, to me, that requires not being overpowered.

---

Well, I have stated a couple times now I'd be in favor of removing invulns, mainly because the tank kits are so strong now otherwise. Maybe the built in self-healing on PLD isn't an interesting mechanic, but BW is (if not interesting, at least interactive). I'd rather have it over 1 button that gets pressed once, twice, or never in an encounter.

I did start working on a "compromise" idea for BW. But idk about it. Maybe I'll just post and see what people have to say.

...


I've never really viewed it from the perspective of my kit being redundant, except perhaps in execution. I literally do the same thing every dungeon, 1st pack BW > Damn > Rep > BW. 2nd pack BW >Ramp > Rep > BW. With thrill and eq if needed at some point. That's literally it. I don't care if something is redundant, I care that I will have these CDs in this order for every pull, if it overheals it overheals if it doesn't it doesn't. (maybe this is also partly why I don't see how healers are expecting something more enjoyable). The only real variation that ever occurs is if damage is low and pulls take too long to kill. Raid encounters aren't handled much differently, because it's all just a script in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

I literally do the same thing every dungeon, 1st pack BW > Damn > Rep > BW. 2nd pack BW >Ramp > Rep > BW. With thrill and eq if needed at some point. That's literally it. I don't care if something is redundant, I care that I will have these CDs in this order for every pull, if it overheals it overheals if it doesn't it doesn't.

---

Yeah, that... sounds kinda awful to me as a frequent tank-main across multiple MMOs. That sounds like the over-boiled vegetables version of what it would mean to be a tank.

If I can leave 4 of my survival tools (Equilibrium, Thrill, Shake it Off, and Holmgang, in this case) all as just "if needed" without even an rDPS loss for having neglected them that seems like a kit poorly tuned for its content.

:: Remember, there's still an ocean of difference between "grants literally 0 rDPS even if you use it" and "heals can't spam Adloquiem fast enough to keep you alive".

Quote:

---

Raid encounters aren't handled much differently, because it's all just a script in the end.

---

That at least can't be uniquely blamed on WAR, as XIV raids in general are just overly scripted. Which is probably why I always preferred tanking in WoW, especially M+.

If by rDPS you are referring to healer damage, sure, if I did every dungeon with half my static then things could be worked out in a way to make use of more of my WAR kit for higher rDPS. (counter to what the healers here suggest) But in general DF? Ain't no way I'm using HG on a pack unless I'm about to die, and if damage is on point packs don't need much more than those 2 CDs on rotation anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

If by rDPS you are referring to healer damage, sure, if I did every dungeon with half my static then things could be worked out in a way to make use of more of my WAR kit for higher rDPS. (counter to what the healers here suggest)

---

I'm not sure what you would do as 100% DPS uptime on healer is the norm. When I've run dungeons in organized groups the biggest gain is often from removing the healer entirely.

Quote:

---

But in general DF? Ain't no way I'm using HG on a pack unless I'm about to die, and if damage is on point packs don't need much more than those 2 CDs on rotation anyways.

---

I have the opposite experience. Using invulns to take stack markers by myself is one of the more interesting things that can be done as OT in raids. In dungeons specifically, I aim to use invulns on the first pull so I get the maximum number of usages in the dungeon, though sometimes incoming damage is so low it feels like a waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

I'm not sure what you would do as 100% DPS uptime on healer is the norm. When I've run dungeons in organized groups the biggest gain is often from removing the healer entirely.

---

There's no risk of needing at-cost heals on the tank at higher ilvl or with WARs, but thankfully that's not quite guaranteed before max ilvl and/or with non-Warriors, at least.

What's more, I think we can pretty well all agree that increasing healing requirements to where at least every healer CD save Lilybell/Panhaima/etc. and every tank CD save for raidwides, PoA, and invulns are required in order not to have a single mid-fight at-cost heal regardless of ilvl and the tank's job... would probably be a healthier and more iconic tuning goal.

At present, it's either-or at most with non-WARs and only half of either with WARs.

As for dropping heals, especially at that point... yes, without also increasing healers' damage potential or balancing out tank sustain so each could still provide equal rDPS amid those slightly but noticeably increased healing requirements, a WAR MNK DNC +1 comp, for example, would still do their best rDPS by just replacing the healer with another DPS, but at least there would more consistently be rDPS gains from actually using the reasonable whole of the tank and healer kits both, rather than WAR needing only half of one to already prevent any need for most healing CDs, let alone at-cost heals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

What's more, I think we can pretty well all agree that increasing healing requirements to where at least every healer CD save Lilybell/Panhaima/etc. and every tank CD save for raidwides, PoA, and invulns are required in order not to have a single mid-fight at-cost heal regardless of ilvl and the tank's job... would probably be a healthier and more iconic tuning goal.

---

With current role design that's a fair goal. Casted heal spells and MP are relegated to being back ups with the presence of OGCD skills, and it's a large resource pool to use up so we shouldn't see less experienced healers running out of options even with a damage increase. More experienced healers might move on from never casting heals to finding ways to fit them between OGCD's to keep some portion of abilities available for all pulls and bosses or for MP efficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

I'm not sure what you would do as 100% DPS uptime on healer is the norm. When I've run dungeons in organized groups the biggest gain is often from removing the healer entirely....
In dungeons specifically, I aim to use invulns on the first pull so I get the maximum number of usages in the dungeon, though sometimes incoming damage is so low it feels like a waste.

---

Yea, Hallowed Ground gets used. Bolide too. Holmgang? It's slightly better than what LD used to be, but still difficult to maximize without enough communication. Quite frankly it's not required and better saved for an emergency imo.

I'm not generally concerned with potential of irregular/organized comps. I'm referring mainly to DF instances, what the vast majority of players experience. There are "broader context" considerations, sure, but these 2 perspectives keep getting muddled up for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

What's more, I think we can pretty well all agree that increasing healing requirements to where at least every healer CD save Lilybell/Panhaima/etc. and every tank CD save for raidwides, PoA, and invulns are required in order not to have a single mid-fight at-cost heal regardless of ilvl and the tank's job... would probably be a healthier and more iconic tuning goal.

---

That sounds really fun. I can't imagine though the game going back in that direction like it was in older expansions. FFXIV has progressively been trying to become more and more accessible. The healer role for most non-end game content is not necessary by design. The idea is that even if someone dies, the party can carry on. Minimizing potential player friction between party members who feel like they can't clear due to less skilled team mates.

If the healer dies in a dungeon? Everyone using mitigation should lead to beating the boss.
If the tank dies? With how much avoidable damage there is, it's reasonable the healer many times can rez the tank and you just carry on like normal.

I'm not against tanks/dps mitigation getting weaker or boss damage getting higher to allow healers to stand out more. I just don't think this fits the current vision for FFXIV.

That still is entirely accessible, though. We still have all our GCD heals available to us, after all. At absolutely worst case, we'd need only increase regen out of combat and/or reduce their MP costs.

If the "current vision" strictly necessitates such poor tuning, it's a vision intended to fail any player more than whimsically/fancifully/distractedly engaged with combat, I suspect.

Why tanks mitigations are oGCD and healers heals are GCD(most of them)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tunda

Why tanks mitigations are oGCD and healers heals are GCD(most of them)?

---

Most healer heals are oGCD, I got no clue what version of the jobs you are talking about. That's one of the core issues of healer balance right now, that virtually all raid healing is covered by oGCDs so we spend all time spamming our single GCD nuke.