PLD dps needs to be buffed, current dps a joke

Those must have been some Godhand DPS if they're carrying a 250 DPS WAR around in savage.

The war doing 250 dps Is the weird thing and i dont know How He does that even if you only spam BB combo you do more than that.

On my personnal experience We were running pld/drk (i was the paladin) We still managed to clear A1 and A2 during the first week with this setup but then came A3S and i decided to go Warrior to see how it goes and God the difference is huge.

More dps, triple fc for the burst phase, Storm path for cascade and i barely take more damage than my paladin. And the sad story is that i dont have any eso gear in my Warrior but it is performing better than my paladin. Just Storm path on cascade is a huge help for my scholar and less Stress on healer and sometimes i even use it for the 6 splash meanwhile i can tank easily up to 4 stacks swap without any fear in the last phase

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Praesul

Those must have been some Godhand DPS if they're carrying a 250 DPS WAR around in savage.

---

I was thinking Godhand healers dps-ing. If the DPS on original Oppressor can't get ahead of a 450 dps OT that's a on a different target ~60% of the fight, or even rip hate off of a 250 dps MT, they probably aren't doing much.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Kiara

If all Tanks are designed to survive all Tank Busters w/ Cooldowns, then what is left? It's all about how much Damage they do.

---

That's exactly where the whole tank design is flawed.
Sure, when you can survive a fight, the most important thing is to win it, and you win it by killing the boss.

But, in my opinion, it's wrong to focus on what personal DPS tank do instead of how they can contribute to the overall DPS.
If all tanks do exactly the same damage, what's the point of having multiple tanks ?

True that but actually the tank that deals the most damage is also the one giving the greatest support for dps with eye (for the other tank and ninja if you have one) and for healer with path

True story :)

I can relate Sandamar. But in my case I was playing DRK. Like you i've spent esoterics on my primary job but kinda got forced to switch to Warrior because I wanted to provide the best as a person for my group. It saddens me as a DRK that I cannot bring anything useful to my group. We got a monk so my utility is beyond 0.

Warrior got more damage and more utility and isn't worse/better depending on the fight, it's such a versatile job... I don't even know why nothing was changed in 3.07. Warrior is the only tank that's mandatory for any raid group that wanna progress through A3S properly. To be honest I think Square screwed up really hard. They saw that both PLD and DRK were picked so they figured nothing was to change. What brings warrior to your group is just to good to pass on and it's unacceptable.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Reynhart

But, in my opinion, it's wrong to focus on what personal DPS tank do instead of how they can contribute to the overall DPS.
If all tanks do exactly the same damage, what's the point of having multiple tanks ?

---

This raises a good point - how important is it that a job is unique in how it contributes to the group? I feel like SE had the right idea with AST, but not with DRK and MCH.

AST does something unique for a healer job, which is buff other party members to do more DPS (among other things). As an AST, depending on what card you draw, you have to decide what to do with it and how it will best benefit your group's DPS or survivability as a whole. A SCH is more focused on their personal DPS, whereas an AST is focused on the DPS contribution of others through their cards. This is important, as neither WHM nor SCH function in this way and having an AST in your group is different from having a WHM or a SCH (but not a detriment).

DRK is... a tank. It doesn't bring anything special. It mitigates damage, it deals damage, that's about it. It's "specialty" is mitigating magic damage, which it does fantastically, but this isn't something unique to the job. A WAR can mitigate magic damage, a PLD can mitigate magic damage. It mitigates magic damage frequently, but so does WAR (just to a lesser extent and even trumps DRK if the magic damage is frequent enough). The only thing unique (at least for the tanks) it brings is it's INT down debuff, which is a massive stretch in terms of individualizing jobs.

MCH is a BRD with a floating turret. It offers nothing unique, it has random CC strapped onto it that is irrelevant in any content that matters. It is essentially useless. If MCH were gone, nothing would change at all.

What we need, more than anything, is individuality and balance. The biggest problems with PLD specifically at the moment are that:

1. It deals less damage than DRK/WAR.
2. Alexander Savage is mostly magical damage and while PLD's toolkit is fine for it, DRK's toolkit is better.
3. It's utility is lackluster at best and doesn't make up for it's damage loss.

PLD isn't actually in as bad of a spot as people make it out to be - denying a PLD a position in your raid group just because they deal less DPS than an optimal DRK is just stupid. If you're currently pushing A4S, by all means do as much min/maxing as you'd like, but if you're not in that tiny little sailboat then don't think that you can fit into it while still in A1S/A2S/A3S progression. Yes, DPS is a massively important thing in every floor of Alex at the moment, but with current gear it genuinely isn't your composition that's the problem - it's your players and their skill level.

That said, PLD is still flawed, and it being okay now does not mean it doesn't need to be fixed. This applies to DRK too, which is doing fantastically, but obviously suffers from fundamental flaws in it's cooldown suite. Currently everything is fine and, much like when people thought DRK shouldn't be allowed in Ravana parties, everyone's just basing their views on what world first groups are running. Things need to be changed, but it's nothing you should concern yourself over right now. Enjoy PLD, enjoy DRK, enjoy WAR, and hope that SE is wise enough to realize the problems that these jobs will face in the future (except WAR, which is perfect) and fix them.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Sandamar

True that but actually the tank that deals the most damage is also the one giving the greatest support for dps with eye (for the other tank and ninja if you have one) and for healer with path

---

That's why we need to look at every type of action (Not counting mitigation because thay all need to have enough for every fight) we can do in the game and design one tank to be the best at them:

• Damage
• Buff
• Debuff
• Heal
• Refill ressources

With a very basic view, we could technically have room for 5 different tanks

The best part is that healers could work the same, on top of separating pure-healing and barrier-healing.

As for DPS ? Yes, they almost only DPS, but I think their rotation and gameplay are unique enough to make people keep playing all of them even they do the same numbers.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von SpookyGhost

(except WAR, which is perfect)

---

Have you ever considered that it may not be the Paladin and Dark Knight where the problem lies and it is actually in the Warrior's "Perfection"?

• The Warrior does the most DpS as both the OT and MT (beyond the ~11% damage boost it gets from its slashing debuff).
• The Warrior has the best continuous debuff (-10% damage vs -10% str and -10% int)
• The Warrior has no TP issues through a combination of "free" on GcD actions and a TP restorer.
• The Warrior has the best fast anti-tankbuster as long as they come only once every 9 or more gcds.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ultimatecalibur

Have you ever considered that it may not be the Paladin and Dark Knight where the problem lies and it is actually in the Warrior's "Perfection"?

• The Warrior does the most DpS as both the OT and MT (beyond the ~11% damage boost it gets from its slashing debuff).
• The Warrior has the best continuous debuff (-10% damage vs -10% str and -10% int)
• The Warrior has no TP issues through a combination of "free" on GcD actions and a TP restorer.
• The Warrior has the best fast anti-tankbuster as long as they come only once every 9 or more gcds.

---

PLD and the old WAR were designed with tank swapping in mind. When WAR got fixed in 2.1, it suit just became... magnificent. WAR's toolkit is great, there is no denying it. Is it over-done? Maybe. But not badly that it needs a nerf. It's the tank that requires the most micromanagement.

• WAR doing most DPS is an intentional design to be their "thing" at the cost of being the riskiest tank to play. WAR CANNOT deal that "amazing" DPS if it wants to mitigate as well as PLD/DRK. More on to "why" in the following points.
  
• The "continuous" debuff is not continuous because you cannot maintain both Storm Eye and Path while keeping aggro or dishing out maximum DPS. A WAR MT will not have Path up continuously, but would rather only apply it before busters/major AoE damage. Storm path is simply a trade off the WAR has to make between either the slashing debuff or optimal DPS/aggro via Butcher's. WAR doing Storm Path "continuously" is either 1) not holding aggro or 2) not doing good DPS or 3) both.
  
• WAR having no TP issues is as how it was since 2.0. The TP restorer was an overkill. When tanking in defiance, the TP restorer is gone.
  
• Inner Beast is amazing, it's the best anti-burst skill in the game. It only needs 5~9 GCDs (12.5 to 17.5 seconds) to be ready, heals you for a good chunk and reduces damage for ~3 GCDs. All that AND it can be refreshed with Infuriate. But it's a trade off from Unchained (huge DPS loss), Steel Cyclone (Massive aggro/DPS loss in AoE), Fell Cleave (Again, DPS loss) or Decimate (Even more massive loss in AoE). A WAR mitigating Twintania's death sentences will not do double the DPS of PLD.

Please, I implore you, let's stop pretending that WAR, in its "perfection", deals the DPS of a DRG while mitigating like a PLD. WAR's MAXIMUM DPS is higher than PLD, but if it wants to mitigate like a PLD, it will not reach those levels of DPS.

EDIT: A PLD dishing out its maximum DPS will still mitigates more than WAR simply because it does not lose a single tool of mitigation aside from Shield Oath. As none of its mitigation tools par Shield Oath "interrupts" the PLD's DPS flow. WAR loses IB and in a magical environment they go down to having only Vengeance as a "good CD" and ToB+Convalescence which is far worse than Rampart in both effectiveness and CD/uptime.

Now on topic, ACTUAL data collected shows PLD can deal the DPS levels of DRK, with A2S being the exception since PLD can't AoE for jack.

I stand at where I have been standing from the beginning of this ridiculously asinine thread, as long as PLD has its defensive superiority and ease of play, it doesn't deserve a single potency increase on any of their abilities (Shield Swipe might be an exception). However, it DOES have issues, DPS is definitely not one of them.

What PLD needs:

• Enmity multipliers fix to be in line with the other classes. This WILL allow PLDs to deal more DPS as main tanks.
  
• Some form of TP management. It doesn't have to be a TP restore. Anything is fine as long as it is not a DPS loss that involves standing there and watching boss.
  
• Removed clunk from their utility abilities. Such as follows:
  1- Clemency cast time reduction and/or cast interruption prevention (block during casts?).
  2- Divine Veil on a shorter CD and/or not require a heal trigger.
  3- Cover to also "cover" magical damage. There is no reason it doesn't other than that it didn't in previous FF games, but this is not the previous FF games.
  4- At the very least, stance swaps shouldn't break combos. You can keep them on GCD if you must.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

Please, I implore you, let's stop pretending that WAR, in its "perfection", deals the DPS of a DRG while mitigating like a PLD. WAR's MAXIMUM DPS is higher than PLD, but if it wants to mitigate like a PLD, it will not reach those levels of DPS.

---

I'm not pretending that Warrior DpS competes with actual DpS. I just see a problem when a Warrior is dealing ~115% to ~120% of the damage the other two tanks are without assistance and still keeps a ~5% to ~10% advantage when they do have it and at the same time can reach a similar levels of survivability in current content. The ability to mitigate as much as a PLD is not an advantage when you only need what the Warrior provides.

Zitat:

---

Now on topic, ACTUAL data collected shows PLD can deal the DPS levels of DRK, with A2S being the exception since PLD can't AoE for jack.

---

Which probes and suggests the actual problem: The Paladin's single target damage output is only a "joke" when compared to a Warriors and its AoE damage is a "joke" when compared to both of the other tanks.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von SpookyGhost

... 2. Alexander Savage is mostly magical damage and while PLD's toolkit is fine for it, DRK's toolkit is better. ...

---

No, it really isn't. Granted, it does have instances of magical tank busters(Akh Morn being the only one that previously existed), but almost everything aside from those that directly target the Tanks(or is intended to be redirected toward Tanks somehow) is physical... Except for A4, but even A4 has physical attacks hitting a Tank in quarantine so it still isn't as egregious as Ultima HM or Ramuh.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

EDIT: WAR loses IB and in a magical environment they go down to having only Vengeance as a "good CD" and ToB+Convalescence which is far worse than Rampart in both effectiveness and CD/uptime.

---

Thril + Conva is fine if they're both combined and is not far worse than Rampart in either count. Regarding Duration, as long as the meta discourages the use of defensive cooldowns outside of specific burst damage scenarios, then the total uptime of a specific buff if it is kept perpetually on cooldown will be largely irrelevant. As long as both are around when they're needed(and they certainly are), they're fine. Besides, we're comparing 22.22% uptime to 16.67% uptime if we do want to consider the perpetually on cooldown angle. Worse, to be sure, but not by a crippling amount by any means. Regarding effectiveness, it is definitely a detriment that both of them must be up at the same time to give a similar effect to what pressing a single button can do in most other cases. However, that combination is equivalent to reducing incoming damage by 16.67% which is a more favorable comparison than uptime.

TL;DR: Ya'll are exaggerating too much.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Donjo

No, it really isn't. Granted, it does have instances of magical tank busters(Akh Morn being the only one that previously existed), but almost everything aside from those that directly target the Tanks(or is intended to be redirected toward Tanks somehow) is physical... Except for A4, but even A4 has physical attacks hitting a Tank in quarantine so it still isn't as egregious as Ultima HM or Ramuh.

---

But tank busters are really the only thing a tank does, that's part of tanking. Everything is kind of the healers problem!

Which I suppose is a problem with the notion of tanking and healing to begin with.

Edit: Double post soz.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ultimatecalibur

I'm not pretending that Warrior DpS competes with actual DpS. I just see a problem when a Warrior is dealing ~115% to ~120% of the damage the other two tanks are without assistance and still keeps a ~5% to ~10% advantage when they do have it and at the same time can reach a similar levels of survivability in current content. The ability to mitigate as much as a PLD is not an advantage when you only need what the Warrior provides.

---

There is no problem that a class deals so much more damage than another when it is declared their "thing". As I said in my post, that "so much more damage" is only achievable at the cost of being not so tanky. You say WAR has Storm Path? Well, if WAR wants to reach that 15~20% more DPS than DRK/PLD, he HAS to never touch Storm Path or Inner Beast.

Also DPS disparity is not a problem when DRG was the top ST DPS and 300 DPS ahead of BRD/MCH which are also deemed "DPS". Now one will argue that BRD/MCH are support, but they aren't, SMN provides E4E, Virus, Battle Rez, tank pet and all those "supporty things" yet it is ~200ish DPS ahead of BRD/MCH. Yet, that is not considered a problem. Why should WAR doing 5% to 10% higher than its counterparts at the cost of being a riskier option be a problem?

No one is saying SMN shouldn't do that AoE DPS because NIN sucks at it either. No one is asking for NIN AoE buffs either.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Donjo

Thril + Conva is fine if they're both combined and is not far worse than Rampart in either count.

---

By "uptime" I meant 20s up and 100s down for Thril+Conv compared to 20s up 70s down in Ramps. Ramps also is 25% effective HP and healing increase while Thrill is 20% (equivalent to 16.67% damage reduction) and requires Conv. to be combined for the 20% effective healing increase (to give the actual 16.67% mitigation). So in "both regards" Thril+Conv. is "worse" than Ramps. Being worse in BOTH regards, makes the combo "far worse". Specially that Ramps doesn't need Conv. which keeps it free for other uses. I only brought it up as a comparison of what options the WAR has while "locked" out of Defiance to achieve the maximum coveted DPS that everyone is so jealous of.

Either way, I wasn't trying to "exaggerate" any more than what this whole thread is about. The tanks have problems, but PLD's DPS is not one of them.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

There is no problem that a class deals so much more damage than another when it is declared their "thing". As I said in my post, that "so much more damage" is only achievable at the cost of being not so tanky. You say WAR has Storm Path? Well, if WAR wants to reach that 15~20% more DPS than DRK/PLD, he HAS to never touch Storm Path or Inner Beast.

---

Wrong. Using Storms Path is only a 40 potency loss compared to BB. SP -> SE -> BB is only 1.7% less DpS than SP -> BB -> BB. Avoiding Storm's Path is not the incredible DpS gain you think it is.

Zitat:

---

Also DPS disparity is not a problem when DRG was the top ST DPS and 300 DPS ahead of BRD/MCH which are also deemed "DPS". Now one will argue that BRD/MCH are support, but they aren't, SMN provides E4E, Virus, Battle Rez, tank pet and all those "supporty things" yet it is ~200ish DPS ahead of BRD/MCH. Yet, that is not considered a problem. Why should WAR doing 5% to 10% higher than its counterparts at the cost of being a riskier option be a problem?

---

Because it is not "riskier" (despite what you believe) and grants greater benefits.

Also, the single target melee DpS (DRG, MNK and NIN) are balanced against each other, not against the ranged caster DpS (BLM/SMN) or ranged support DpS (BRD/MCH) (which are balanced against the others in their subroles). When DRG was provably the underperformer and NIN was overperforming during 2.4, NIN received a nerf and DRG received a serious boost in survivablity and DpS in 2.45. We just saw MNK receive some buffs in 3.07.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Pooky_Pasha

I was thinking Godhand healers dps-ing. If the DPS on original Oppressor can't get ahead of a 450 dps OT that's a on a different target ~60% of the fight, or even rip hate off of a 250 dps MT, they probably aren't doing much.

---

Little of both actually, I use my support skills often so I tend to stack as much aggro as I possibly can as early as I can, that war was super replaced after we checked the numbers lol

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ultimatecalibur

Wrong. Using Storms Path is only a 40 potency loss compared to BB. SP -> SE -> BB is only 1.7% less DpS than SP -> BB -> BB. Avoiding Storm's Path is not the incredible DpS gain you think it is.

---

You just showed me that you have no idea how WAR works. WAR's Optimal rotation is: SE -> BB and Repeat! If you EVER need to apply path, replace a BB with SP (not SE, you never let SE drop).

SP -> SE -> BB is a massive DPS loss compared to SE -> BB. Both debuffs will drop before reapplication NO MATTER WHAT following SP -> SE -> BB. FC/IB/Fracture are just out of the question since if you use any of these you delay 1 more GCD without both of these debuffs.

SP -> BB -> BB is even worse. There is 0 slashing Debuff. And even that doesn't have 100% uptime on SP.

SP -> BB repeat is horrible DPS wise.

SP -> SE is just impossible to hold hate with.

As I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to deal that 15% more DPS than the other tanks WHILE maintaining SP up. There is just no optimal way to maintain aggro/DPS while keeping both SE and SP up unless you have 2 warriors or WAR+NIN. And even then, 1 of the warriors (or the NIN) is losing DPS at the cost of that.

Zitat:

---

Because it is not "riskier" (despite what you believe) and grants greater benefits.

---

WAR is "riskier" because EVERY Fell Cleave you use is NOT Inner Beast. WAR's CDs, for the most part, require them to work for their effectiveness, unlike the press-and-forget nature of PLD/DRK's CDs.

Heck, one of WAR's CDs guarantees critical hits if they're not careful! In before you say add Awareness, you'd be just proving that WAR has to "work" for RI to be foolproof. (Make sure you face enemy or you get crit, or pop another CD).

WAR is all about trade-offs, something NONE of the other tanks deal with. If you want a one-to-one mechanic comparison and where WAR can make said trade-offs I can post again with a list of most of them for you to see how "risky" WAR is compared to PLD/DRK.

Zitat:

---

Also, the single target melee DpS (DRG, MNK and NIN) are balanced against each other, not against the ranged caster DpS (BLM/SMN) or ranged support DpS (BRD/MCH) (which are balanced against the others in their subroles). When DRG was provably the underperformer and NIN was overperforming during 2.4, NIN received a nerf and DRG received a serious boost in survivablity and DpS in 2.45. We just saw MNK receive some buffs in 3.07.

---

Single Target melee DPS is in this order: MNK > DRG > NIN. There is at least a 200 DPS variance between these three clases. (Tanks have a whooping 70 between WAR and PLD on a dummy!).

Before 3.07, MNK was basically equal to NIN and both under DRG (by about a 100), MNK got buffed so it is back on top since it provides no raid DPS boost outside of its personal individual DPS. There was a reason people dropped MNK for NIN. DRG was top DPS so it was a given, and between MNK and NIN, NIN provided TA (Direct raid DPS boost) and Goad (Indirect DPS boost) while MNK provided DK... Something that DRK could provide all the while bringing ~3% more DPS than PLD.

BRD/MCH being "support" DPS is an illusion. BRD and MCH are full fledged DPS as much as any other class tagged with a red icon. As I said earlier, SMN provides far more support than BRD and MCH in the form of E4E, Virus, Battle Rez, AOE bind, AOE slow, Blind, and tank pet. Yet SMN is never called "Support" and is above BRD and MCH in ST and just knocks EVERYONE out in AoE.

And again, there is ONE class that is worse than NIN in AoE, it happens to be a non-DPS class called PLD! (lol)... Why aren't NIN complaining that DRK and WAR, heck, even the healers, outdo them in AoE scenarios?

Again, PLDs asking for DPS increase are just looking at DPS in vacuum and forgetting everything else the classes have/deal with. I already posted what PLD needs and won't reiterate anymore.

This thread is already outta hand and should just die. There are more objective threads discussing tank balance out there instead of this asinine dragoon-minded one where the supporters of it are calling anyone who disagrees with them "Stupid" or "hypocrites".

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

BRD/MCH being "support" DPS is an illusion. BRD and MCH are full fledged DPS as much as any other class tagged with a red icon. As I said earlier, SMN provides far more support than BRD and MCH in the form of E4E, Virus, Battle Rez, AOE bind, AOE slow, Blind, and tank pet. Yet SMN is never called "Support" and is above BRD and MCH in ST and just knocks EVERYONE out in AoE.

---

Because I'm procrastinating like mad; I disagree with this point.

Infinity mana (sort of) is more valuable than almost anything else any of the other SMN support option by so many factors (minus maybe Brez). Lots of neat tricks is helpful and great for min-maxing, but healers being able to continue healing probs more important anything else support wise. I mean we could go full austimo reductionist and work out the actual value that mana returned converted into healing compared to the amount mitigated by the numerous SMN tricks.

Defs not an illusion when fair few groups can't even kill some turns without the mana being intravenously pumped into them by their MCH/BRD.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von RapBreon

Because I'm procrastinating like mad; I disagree with this point.
..
Defs not an illusion when fair few groups can't even kill some turns without the mana being intravenously pumped into them by their MCH/BRD.

---

The only way you can make healers run out of mana is if you have the DPS keep dying so the healers keep raising. Or the DPS keep getting hit by AoE and not dying but the healers keep spamming AoE heals. Both of which are "unnecessary".

The only way DPS will run out of TP in an actual fight is going into T8.

BRDs and MCHs will almost NEVER spend their MP on anything other than Foe's if the party knows what they're doing. So yeah, BRD and MCH are not "support" classes, but rather full fledged DPS with a support option.

The point was, every class has support abilities. Some more than others. Just having 1 or 2 "support" abilities doesn't pigeonhole the class into a role that doesn't exist in this game.

EDIT: The main point of the previous post is: DPS variance EXISTS even among the DPS classes. So tanks having DPS varience is NOT a problem.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

BRD/MCH being "support" DPS is an illusion. As I said earlier, SMN provides far more support than BRD and MCH in the form of E4E, Virus, Battle Rez, AOE bind, AOE slow, Blind, and tank pet. Yet SMN is never called "Support" and is above BRD and MCH in ST and just knocks EVERYONE out in AoE..

---

Seeing as this thread has almost reached 500 posts, it makes sense that we're pretending AoE Bind, AoE 5% slow, Blind and TITAN EGI are viable support abilities LOL.

Summoner support, with the exception of battle rez, isn't as potent as BRD/MCH support (TP/MP regen, Damage Buff [Foes/Hyper Charge], Damage Reduction (Rend Mind/Dismantle)]. Also, Virus/E4E are usable by ALL the mages so that's hardly worth giving them the title of Support DPS. The only class summoners edge out in support is Black Mage because they can't battle rez.

Anyway, LETS KEEP THE DISCUSSION GOING!

EDIT: OMG it reached 500 before I finished posting!!

#FormsForever

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

The only way you can make healers run out of mana is if you have the DPS keep dying so the healers keep raising. Or the DPS keep getting hit by AoE and not dying but the healers keep spamming AoE heals. Both of which are "unnecessary".

The only way DPS will run out of TP in an actual fight is going into T8.

BRDs and MCHs will almost NEVER spend their MP on anything other than Foe's if the party knows what they're doing. So yeah, BRD and MCH are not "support" classes, but rather full fledged DPS with a support option.

Again, just having 1 or 2 "support" abilities doesn't pigeonhole the class into a role that doesn't exist in this game.

---

My healers must suck then when they scream for mana and our BRD lock-steps into that promotion (on proof-reading this sentence seems pointless). The absolute optimal performance is impossible for the majority of progression even for gods among men (which we are not...hahaha we are so not). I mean shit, even on non-extraneous damage being taken our healers still need a promo on A2.

You're being woefully reductionist on the number of support skills; the important part is what they do. Quant vs. Qual (wo)man.

Technically MCHs have like 40289218042 support skills, but most of them are fairly useless and/or negligible (though rend mind did save a tank once, I was like :O). Kind of like the SMNs ya know ;)

Edit: As to your edit. I wasn't contesting that point, I agree with it. However, the links you drew between the DPS and that point weren't compelling.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von RapBreon

Snip.

---

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Gooner_iBluAirJGR

Seeing as this thread has almost reached 500 posts, it makes sense that we're pretending AoE Bind, AoE 5% slow, Blind and TITAN EGI are viable support abilities LOL.

---

It's not about viability as much as the number of "support" abilities. SMN has 6 or so abilities categorized as "support".. That didn't pigeonhole it into a role that doesn't exist. Why is BRD, therefore, pigeonholed into this role because of 2 abilities? I know BRD also has Bind and Silence which are largely useless in most raids. But there were turns that needed them and BRD got that responsibility. T2 Silence and T7 Bind. Oh, but T7, SMN (or even SCH) did a better job kiting those Renaudes at a lower DPS cost raid-wide.

Oh and DEFINITELY Quality over Quantity.

EVERY class in this game has support, regardless of viability. BLM has Apocastasys that people "swore" by how good it was in FCoB, now it's even better than ever before!

DRG has Battle Litany and Pierce buff. MNK has Dragon Kick and Mantra, NIN has Trick Attack and Goad and many other lolviable "support" abilities. Those classes ARE picked BECAUSE of those said abilities. EDIT: Ninja provides the all awesome smoke screen and shadow whatever (Transfer hate).

Heck, PLD has Stoneskin, Protect, Clemency, Divine Veil and Cover to name a few. Why isn't classified "Support tank". I mean that would shut people up from requesting more DPS at the least. lol

Back to point, "support" as a role doesn't exist in this game and everyone provides it. There is no reason to pigeonhole a class or two into said role when it doesn't exist.

And regardless or having support or not, the original point (again) is that DPS variance between classes has always been a "thing" even among DPS classes in the same role (melee/ranged/caster). Why is it NOT okay for tanks to have an 8% DPS difference? Specially when the class that provides the higher numbers, does it at the cost of many trade-offs, which again, I will happily dedicate a single post showing MANY scenarios of said trade-offs.

You can't compare different things in order to make a point. You can't say the damage the other tanks do on optimal damage rotation damage is close to the damage WAR does while doing enmity rotation damage and because of that it's fine.

Is WAR MT damage in MT stance greater than the other tanks? It is.
Is WAR MT damage in OT stance greater than the other tanks? It is.
Is WAR OT damage doing their optimal dps rotation greater than the other tanks? It is.

You said yourself that WAR is better as MT because it mitigates better and the other tanks should be OT.
So WAR mitigates better the tank busters but somehow is riskier because:

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

WAR is "riskier" because EVERY Fell Cleave you use is NOT Inner Beast. WAR's CDs, for the most part, require them to work for their effectiveness, unlike the press-and-forget nature of PLD/DRK's CDs.

Heck, one of WAR's CDs guarantees critical hits if they're not careful! In before you say add Awareness, you'd be just proving that WAR has to "work" for RI to be foolproof. (Make sure you face enemy or you get crit, or pop another CD).

WAR is all about trade-offs, something NONE of the other tanks deal with. If you want a one-to-one mechanic comparison and where WAR can make said trade-offs I can post again with a list of most of them for you to see how "risky" WAR is compared to PLD/DRK.

---

I don't get it. Isn't having that option being more efficient instead of being riskier? I don't think any of the other tanks would complain if you gave them an ability to use a defensive cooldown to provide a damage buff or extra damage instead of defence. I think most tanks would cry of joy.
And for the above example in specific:
If you are MT in tank stance you'll have to use the Inner Beast anyway. No trade-off.
If you are OT you not taking damage from the boss so you don't have Inner Beast just sitting there and doing nothing. Instead you the ability to use can use it to do extra damage. No trade-off.
If you are MT in dps stance you just need to press one extra button to change to tank stance and use it. The tank stance doesn't cost anything, doesn't break your combo, doesn't loose your stacks and is off the global cooldown. There is no literally no trade-off. You just press an extra button.

The only situation where you might need the cooldown and not have it is not having enough stacks. Not enough stacks? You can use Infuriate which still costs you nothing and is off the global cooldown. 3 buttons. Don't have Infuriate or don't want to use it because you will have to sacrifice damage later on? You can use another cooldown. WAR has those as well.
It can also happen to other tanks if they used a cooldown too late and it's not ready for the tank buster. It's not specific to WAR. And to be fair, the situation above will usually occur only a couple of times when you are learning a new battle / boss. After that all tanks will know the proper timings.

So you are not trading damage for risk, at best you are trading damage for a little more complexity. And even at the one point you actually have to get "riskier" with Raw Intuition the cross class skill Awareness has you covered. And I don't really consider a useful cross skill as a tradeoff. It's not as if you actually have to sacrifice another useful cross-class skill to get it. Now compare that now how useful the other tanks' cross-class skills are.

The problem is that with the current raid design there is absolutely no tradeoff for tanks for going damage instead of defence. Getting more than the minimum required defences actually puts a burden on your raid team since it makes it harder to get dps check.
And since the other tanks don't offer anything other than defences WAR is the mandatory tank for raid groups.
That's the main reason people are complaining about damage. There are 2 ways to fix this. Either give them damage (the easiest way) or change the raid design (ie Tank META).
Changing the raid design isn't likely to happen any time soon. I seriously doubt they will hotfix/patch extra damage on bosses. So for a short term solution increasing the other tanks' damage seems to be more plausible.

Basically one of the following things will happen:
1. They can increase the other tanks' damage in patch soon and keep the same tank meta. This will make most people in this thread happy.
2. They can keep the tank damage as it is and change the META in the next raid (3.2?). Complains will keep going on until people get enough ilvl to clear Savage but will still persist until the next raid comes along.
3. They can keep the tank damage as it is, keep the same META but give some support abilities to the other tanks to make more wanted in parties. That's also something that wont happen soon. Complains will keep going on until people get enough ilvl to clear Savage but will still persist until they announce or implement the changes.
4. They can keep the tank damage as it and keep the same META. Complains will keep going on until people get enough ilvl to clear Savage but will still persist until the next raid comes along and people will start complaining even more when after the new raid launches.

EDIT:
For my part I would actually prefer that they actually change the META rather than give tanks more damage.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

It's not about viability as much as the number of "support" abilities. SMN has 6 or so abilities categorized as "support".. That didn't pigeonhole it into a role that doesn't exist. Why is BRD, therefore, pigeonholed into this role because of 2 abilities?

Oh and DEFINITELY Quality over Quantity.

---

0.o

If you had 490 attacks as a PLD, but they all had 5 potency would you consider it a DPS class?

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

EVERY class in this game has support, regardless of viability. BLM has Apocastasys that people "swore" by how good it was in FCoB, now it's even better than ever before!

DRG has Battle Litany and Pierce buff. MNK has Dragon Kick and Mantra, NIN has Trick Attack and Goad and many other lolviable "support" abilities. Those classes ARE picked BECAUSE of those said abilities. EDIT: Ninja provides the all awesome smoke screen and shadow whatever (Transfer hate).

Heck, PLD has Stoneskin, Protect, Clemency, Divine Veil and Cover to name a few. Why isn't classified "Support tank". I mean that would shut people up from requesting more DPS at the least. lol

Back to point, "support" as a role doesn't exist in this game and everyone provides it. There is no reason to pigeonhole a class or two into said role when it doesn't exist.

---

Every class also provides some degree of damage, but they aren't DPS either. Some do more and that's part of their specialization.

Ultimately they're classified as a 'support' because those two abilities give more to the group in absolute terms than anything else any other class brings utility wise by like more factors than I can conjure with my hyperbole wizard ball. Some fights everyone - but potentially gods, like world first kinds - will not be able to get through without those part-time mana batteries (like my group, the band of constantly OOM men).

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

You can't compare different things in order to make a point. You can't say the damage the other tanks do on optimal damage rotation damage is close to the damage WAR does while doing enmity rotation damage and because of that it's fine.

---

What do you mean "different things"? MNK does more DPS than DRG and NIN, DRG does more DPS than NIN and provides Litany. NIN does the least among the melees and has practically no AoE worth writing home but it provides Trick Attack, Goad and aggro control.

WAR does more DPS than PLD and DRK. DRK does slightly (5%!) less DPS than WAR. PLD does roughly the same level of DPS as DRK but brings far more utility and overall mitigation.

Zitat:

---

Is WAR MT damage in MT stance greater than the other tanks? It is.
Is WAR MT damage in OT stance greater than the other tanks? It is.
Is WAR OT damage doing their optimal dps rotation greater than the other tanks? It is.

You said yourself that WAR is better as MT because it mitigates better and the other tanks should be OT.

---

It is Either-Or. At the cost of many trade-offs. For WAR to MT as good as PLD (or better) it will not do the insane DPS you're so envious of. For WAR to do its insane DPS, it will not mitigate as well as PLD. From the moment a fight starts until it ends, WAR has to choose between more DPS or more mitigation. It will NEVER have both. Again, let's not pretend WAR is doing the DPS of a DPS class while maintaining the mitigation of PLD.

Zitat:

---

So WAR mitigates better the tank busters but somehow is riskier because:

I don't get it. Isn't having that option being more efficient instead of being riskier? I don't think any of the other tanks would complain if you gave them an ability to use a defensive cooldown to provide a damage buff or extra damage instead of defence. I think most tanks would cry of joy.

---

Sure, if Sentinel made PLD do more DPS at the cost of losing its defensive Value, so be it. Just do not come back here on the forums and complain that due to its bigger CD you end up using it defensively anyways.

I will reply point by point:

Zitat:

---

And for the above example in specific:
If you are MT in tank stance you'll have to use the Inner Beast anyway. No trade-off.

---

When you use Inner Beast, that is 200 potency loss compared to Fell Cleave. And 5% DPS bonus loss from not being in Deliverance. That is NOT to mention that you are locked out of deliverance for AT LEAST 10 seconds and doing 25% less damage (30% compared to Deliverance). That IS a trade-off. You are trading doing mad DEEPS off in order to mitigate damage with Inner Beast.

Zitat:

---

If you are OT you not taking damage from the boss so you don't have Inner Beast just sitting there and doing nothing. Instead you the ability to use can use it to do extra damage. No trade-off.

---

That is EXACTLY a what a trade-off is, you use Fell Cleave, for the next 8~9 GCDs, you do NOT HAVE Inner Beast. That or you make ANOTHER trade-off with Infuriate. More on Infuriate in a bit.

Zitat:

---

If you are MT in dps stance you just need to press one extra button to change to tank stance and use it. The tank stance doesn't cost anything, doesn't break your combo, doesn't loose your stacks and is off the global cooldown. There is no literally no trade-off. You just press an extra button.

---

With that "one extra button" you pressed, you lose 30% damage bonus for at least 10 seconds, you gain increased healing (no effective HP gain until healed).

Zitat:

---

The only situation where you might need the cooldown and not have it is not having enough stacks. Not enough stacks? You can use Infuriate which still costs you nothing and is off the global cooldown. 3 buttons. Don't have Infuriate or don't want to use it because you will have to sacrifice damage later on? You can use another cooldown. WAR has those as well.

---

Infuriate is WAR's BIGGEST example of Trade-offs. Every time you use Infuriate you choose either-or. You either use it now for DPS gain (double/triple FC), or save it to use it later for added mitigation. I.e. extending IB duration or fix a mistake. Or a mix of mitigation + DPS (IB into Unchained).

Popping Raw Intuition for the stack is another example. Pop RI for the stack now for added DPS (And achieve the third FC during zerk)? or save it for when I need it on a buster/stream of high damage hits. That IS a trade-off. Same with Vengeance popped for the stack. Vengeance also has an added effect of counter as well which can be used for its DPS gain (Specially in AoE situations or multiple hits, looking at you first boss in Fractal). Another "possible trade-off" though a bit "safe" due to having both mitigation and counter at the same time.

Zitat:

---

It can also happen to other tanks if they used a cooldown too late and it's not ready for the tank buster. It's not specific to WAR. And to be fair, the situation above will usually occur only a couple of times when you are learning a new battle / boss. After that all tanks will know the proper timings.

---

There is no mechanic in the class itself that FORCES DRK or PLD to be in a situation where said CD be used for ANYTHING other than its sole-purpose of mitigating damage. Let's not try too hard to over-complicate these mind numbing easy press-and-forget mechanics.

Derpiness doesn't make your class difficult, it makes you a fool.

There is absolutely no trade-offs in PLD's play-style. Being in Sword Oath is almost as safe as being in Shield Oath. Worst case scenario: Pop a CD first then mash ShO hotkey as fast as humanly possible to swap back as soon as possible. No stacks or other GCDs to worry about.

A PLD will NEVER lock itself out of Rampart / Sentinel / Bulwark / Sheltron / Invincible via ANYTHING but actually using the CD itself. The CDs do not conflict with ANYTHING the PLD does as they are not on GCD and do not require any other buff / stance / form to be activated. You simply see damage incoming, and press it.

You can't say "Oh sorry I didn't use Sentinel because I didn't have enough stacks".
You will not say "Sorry, locked myself into a GCD so I couldn't pop Rampart in time!".
Nor will you ever say "I popped Hallowed earlier because I wanted to force a triple Royal Authority into Fight or Flight!"...

I think you get the gist here.

Zitat:

---

So you are not trading damage for risk, at best you are trading damage for a little more complexity. And even at the one point you actually have to get "riskier" with Raw Intuition the cross class skill Awareness has you covered. And I don't really consider a useful cross skill as a tradeoff. It's not as if you actually have to sacrifice another useful cross-class skill to get it. Now compare that now how useful the other tanks' cross-class skills are.

---

Any damage you deal as WAR "risks" a window of not mitigating damage. When you use FC, you "risk" IB being unavailable for the next 8~9 GCDs. When you triple Fell Cleave (WAR's ARMAGHERD SUPER BURST!), you REALLY run the risk of 5seconds pacification + 9 GCDs without IB nor Infuriate.

Let's not forget how "strict" WAR's timing is compared to the (again) mind numbing easy press-and-forget mechanics of PLD/DRK.

Take Akh Morn for example, Inner Beast (and Holmgang) have to hit at exactly 80% cast bar, any later and the first hit is not mitigated (you're dead!) and any earlier and the last couple hits are not mitigated. Specially in the later (3rd and after) Akh Morns. Don't forget to have Benediction or Cover ready for WAR after Holmgang! Compared to PLD? Pop CD and LOL! I know! I've main and off tanked that fight as both classes!

While at Turn 13, Picking up the Ghosts of Myricidia, here's a WAR scenario vs a PLD one:

WAR: IB Bahamut to mitigate AoE > Infuriate and run to Pick up add > Pop IB > Pop Vengeance or ToB+Conv > Hit Add to death.
PLD: Stoneskin before AoE > Run to add > Pop Ramparts > laugh until it dies.

Raw Intuition forcing Awareness is my whole point of WAR working for its CDs' effectiveness. And as for "sacrificing" another useful Crossclass, I do not have Awareness Cross Classed on my WAR. So yes, popping Awareness with RI means I either "sacrificed" Flash or Second Wind, both of which I consider more useful than Awareness. The trade-off made here is: to make RI "safe", you sacrifice another CD that COULD be useful somewhere else. This is irrelevant right now, but a repeat of Shiva Bow phase or T11 Cube add will prove "problematic".

Zitat:

---

The problem is that with the current raid design there is absolutely no tradeoff for tanks for going damage instead of defence. Getting more than the minimum required defences actually puts a burden on your raid team since it makes it harder to get dps check.
And since the other tanks don't offer anything other than defences WAR is the mandatory tank for raid groups.
That's the main reason people are complaining about damage. There are 2 ways to fix this. Either give them damage (the easiest way) or change the raid design (ie Tank META).
Changing the raid design isn't likely to happen any time soon. I seriously doubt they will hotfix/patch extra damage on bosses. So for a short term solution increasing the other tanks' damage seems to be more plausible.

---

Breaking the balance just to "balance" for a single tier of raids is in itself problematic. What will you ask for when raids require more mitigation and WAR (being the only tank that has a harder time mitigating damage) falls out of favor since both DRK and PLD do the same DPS and provide "easier" mitigation? Nerf again? So we end up like WoW? Blizzard used to over buff classes only to nerf them again 2 patches later. I hate to see this game end up there.

Zitat:

---

Basically one of the following things will happen:
1. They can increase the other tanks' damage in patch soon and keep the same tank meta. This will make most people in this thread happy.
2. They can keep the tank damage as it is and change the META in the next raid (3.2?). Complains will keep going on until people get enough ilvl to clear Savage but will still persist until the next raid comes along.
3. They can keep the tank damage as it is, keep the same META but give some support abilities to the other tanks to make more wanted in parties. That's also something that wont happen soon. Complains will keep going on until people get enough ilvl to clear Savage but will still persist until they announce or implement the changes.
4. They can keep the tank damage as it and keep the same META. Complains will keep going on until people get enough ilvl to clear Savage but will still persist until the next raid comes along and people will start complaining even more when after the new raid launches.

EDIT:
For my part I would actually prefer that they actually change the META rather than give tanks more damage.

---

I'm ALL FOR giving tanks niches (ACTUAL niches) that make them wanted. There is absolutely no justification that WAR is deemed mandatory to raids (it really isn't, but people like to choose what is absolutely best anyways). It is people's "stupidity" that makes them "demand" WAR to be in their raids as an OT. That very same stupidity is why people pigeonhole a class so great at main-tanking into the OT role. It is also why people think PLD/DRK should not be OT even though they do said roles very efficiently.

But NO MATTER what the mix is, as long as there is a choice of 2 out of 3, there will ALWAYS be a best choice and a worst choice and people will ALWAYS choose what is, or at least what they think, is best.

Personally I play PLD and I DO WANT for it to be fixed. Yes PLD has not been the top of my priority to hit to 60. It doesn't change the fact it was my first job to 50, my second most important job through out 2.xx, and as long as I'm a "tank" I will play it. (I actually have a VERY good stats PLD zeta that is actually BETTER than my WAR and SMN zeta relics.) But I want PLD to be fixed the right way, I do not want it to be "fixed" only to be nerfed a patch or two later.

PLD's issues lie in its enmity and clunky support. Fixing PLD's enmity WILL allow it to deal more damage. Fixing PLD's support will make it more wanted. Added TP management (via TP expenditure reduction, 0TP GCDs or regain) will definitely be GREAT.

Also if you read my other posts in the other threads you will see me posting suggestions like giving at least one of the other tanks the slashing debuff. If 2 out of 3 classes have it, then no matter what the combination, you WILL have it... Unless you double stack the one class that doesn't have it, which is discouraged anyways.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von RapBreon

Snip.

---

Are you arguing just to argue? You must be VERY bored at what you're doing that you want to procrastinate so hard!

BRD and MCH are classified as "DPS". There is no role that exists in this game that is "support". SCH provides more support than healing, why is it not considered support? It's HPS is definitely A LOT lower than WHM.

Again, the point is, DPS varity exists between classes of the same role.

MNK >> DRG > NIN in single target.

MNK >>>>>>>>> DRG >>>>>>> NIN in AoE. (yes, the difference is ridiculous).

Only reason MNK outdoes DRG and NIN according to Yoshi-P? "MNK is harder to play optimally".

BLM > SMN >> BRD = MCH in ST

SMN >>>>> BLM > BRD = MCH in AoE.

Again, BLM is a lot harder than SMN to play optimally. BLM keeping Enochian up sounds so complicated and counter intuitive. It isn't THAT complicated, but it's definitely not "refresh DoTs at 5s, pop Fester and DEATHFLAAAARRREE AKHMORN!" kinda simple. Specially when everything the SMN has aligns on a 1 minute timer (Aetherflow, Tri-disaster, Contagion, swiftcast, etc).

Melee DPS doing more than ranged DPS is also relative to their "safety". Melee have to deal with more "splash" damage and risk PBAoEs and have to avoid more AoE compared to ranged DPS which can do their DPS from a relatively safer spot.

So, what is the problem in tanks having the order of:

WAR > DRK >= PLD.

Specially when WAR deals with so many "technicalities" with GCD and stack manipulation, DRK has to deal with its MP mini-game. While PLD is just do the following of: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, alt+2, alt+3? Well, my keybinds are: 1, 2, Alt+2, 1, 2, Ctrl+2 and 1, 3, Alt+3. lol

The DPS variance of all three classes going ALL out is 8% or ~80 DPS.

At the end, proof reading this post was a pain, so if you encounter any "engrish", I peg your pardon. lol

I find it easier to just stop releasing content while everyone is stupidly undergeared, which is why tank/healer dps is an "issue" in the first place.

Going into Savage at 190 is under geared.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

Snip from somewhere within the wall of text

---

BRD/MCH may not be classified as Support DPS by the arbitrary rules SE has put in place but the community has deemed it so. Same goes for NIN—its a support Melee DPS. Every class has support abilities, that's true, but they have different qualities about them. The reason (I think) people consider BRD/MCH/NIN support oriented DPS is because their supporting abilities affect their individual performance in order to provide the group with an advantage i.e. songs/promoted turrets/dancing edge etc. lower the BRD/MCH/NIN's DPS slightly to provide the group with an advantage.


PLD, although no one will call it this, is a Support Tank because of all the skills you listed (Clemency, Stoneskin, Divine Veil, Cover) but those support skills aren't tuned well enough for that title to be legitimate.

The support skills from the Off-Tank position (and my opinions about them):
Clemency over-heals most of the time when cast on other players because of its 3s cast time.
Divine Veil is strong but its activation requirement cuts its effectiveness. If it applied the group shield without requiring a heal from a party member it would be worlds better even with the 150s cooldown.
Cover is a great skill but doesn't mitigate magic damage which cuts its effectiveness. It would be a lot better if you could Cover a weakened/recently resurrected player from a room wide, magic damage AoE in addition to its current applications..
Stoneskin is the only skill in their support kit that will do some good whenever its cast.

so . . . #BuffPaladinSupport or #BuffPaladinDPS or #TheSupportRoleIsReal LOL

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Gooner_iBluAirJGR

so . . . #BuffPaladinSupport or #BuffPaladinDPS or #TheSupportRoleIsReal LOL

---

I am advocating for the clunk to be removed from PLD support. It would be great. It'll also give PLD its unique flavor back too!

I'm sorry but I find it quite hard to agree with this logic that you present as a trade-off. In my opinion you are really stretching things it to make it look like a trade-off.
You are mostly saying the following: If I use my stacks of Fell Cleave I don't have them for Inner Beast.

While that sounds perfectly fine in theory it ignores the reality of the raiding dungeons: You know when you are going to get hit by the tank buster.
If you didn't know exactly when you would get hit (for example a random tank buster or a semi-random like Ifrit EX) then that what you say would be valid. You used your stacks for damage and then big attack come and you couldn't use a cooldown. You risk dying in order to get more damage.
But it doesn't really work that way in raids. You know exactly when the tank buster is coming, so if you weren't ready for it then you simply derped. There is no risk if you know when the tank buster is coming. And since most battles are scripted you know exactly when it will come.
So basically unless you mess up you are never in a any real risk of dying.

Unless you are trying to convince me that loosing a little dps in order to use inner beast for a cooldown is a trade-off. And yes it's a little dps because the tank busters don't hit you often in the fights.
Well yes, technically you can say that you trade 200 potency (heck, I'll make it 400 for you) to survive a tank buster that comes once every 3 - 5 minutes. Does that really feel like a trade-off?
I'm sorry to say but while it might technically be trade-off it that doesn't feel like a meaningful one to me. You loose very little and risk nothing in doing so. It's the equivalent of having a defensive cooldown lower your attack while it's active.

You feel that other tanks have it better because they will always have their cooldown ready to use when needed. Why not advocate to give other tanks a skill that wastes their cooldowns in exchange for damage?
Burn that Rampart/Shadowskin/Sentinel/whatever for X% damage up for Y seconds. Damage problem solved, "risk" added and it makes cooldowns actually useful during all that time you can't use them because you are waiting for tank buster to come or you had to use it on some feeble boss auto attacks because that was the only window you could fit it before needing it for the tank buster.
According to your logic the above is trade-off. But I will once again disagree. You will know when to use them for damage and when to use them for defence (because the battle is scripted). It will only add more flexibility not a trade-off. In fact it's an outright buff.

The only thing WAR has, compared to the other tanks, is that it's slightly more complex to time Inner Beast than to time a normal cooldown.
But it really boils down to the same thing the other tanks are doing. You need to time your cooldowns as any other tank or you wont have them up when you need them. WAR does that very same thing with Inner Beast. It's just easier for the other tanks because they have a larger window.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

Breaking the balance just to "balance" for a single tier of raids is in itself problematic. What will you ask for when raids require more mitigation and WAR (being the only tank that has a harder time mitigating damage) falls out of favor since both DRK and PLD do the same DPS and provide "easier" mitigation? Nerf again? So we end up like WoW? Blizzard used to over buff classes only to nerf them again 2 patches later. I hate to see this game end up there.

---

Here lies the crux of the issue. "Balance" is highly depended on how raids are made. I think we can all agree that tanks are fine outside of raids. In the current META you only have meaningful dps checks.
That's why having a WAR is mandatory. And no it's not just "hivemind" as you are saying. It is actually needed, because you either take a WAR or you need to wait a few weeks to get a higher ilvl in order to get enough dps to clear. Any WAR combination will always output much more damage than any non-war combination. That's a fact.

If the next raid META only has meaningful damage checks (again), then the defensive bonus the other tanks currently have will be just as good as piety. If the next META only has big defence checks and a tank can't mitigate those checks as well the others then it will be the same thing. Whoever can't mitigate will have a problem and people will be (rightfully) complaining about it. And the others will be telling them: "You have dps/utility, you don't need mitigation, git gud" and we will have the same thing.
From what I understand what you want is for WAR to have the more damage and less defences than the other tanks and vice versa. Which works is perfectly fine for a META that has meaningful defence checks.

At the moment people are doing savage and they wipe. Most of the time they wipe because they can't meet a dps check. So they need something to offset that. And with defences being so bad right now, that offset either needs be damage (obviously) or utility that will somehow directly or indirectly increase the overall party damage. (In theory higher defences should mean less damage taken and more damage done from healers. However because the boss damage output is low defences don't offer anything significant utility wise.)
Right now WAR has more damage and more utility than the other 2 tanks. That's why there is a ton of posts from the other two tanks asking for changes in skills. And that is also the reason people are asking for damage. You might not like the idea of extra damage because you have a different idea of what the meta should be and what you would like each class to be. That's fine and dandy but that doesn't make people's requests for more dps any less legitimate.
They are here playing the game now. They see they are lacking dps and wipe because of that. They see a META where only dps matters. The problem is they don't know if the META will stay the same or it will change. Maybe they will add meaningful defence checks on the next savage (which is also far away). Maybe they wont. Unless a developer comes out and says otherwise people will ask things based on how things are now, and not on how they might or might not be in the future.
So it's only natural that they will ask for more damage even if you don't like it. Because it's something that is tangible, it wont upset things they way they are now and everyone will benefit.
You believe the other 2 tanks should get more utility instead of damage. That's great. There is nothing wrong with that. But you know what? That doesn't make any requests for more damage any less legitimate. Telling people "You're wrong, you don't need more damage. Git Gud. Here's a skewed video that you don't need more damage. Now let this thread die because you don't agree with how I see things." isn't going to make the problem go away.
You can't force people to accept something nebulous as utility instead of something tangible. Not to mention that "utility" has a load of problems itself, like: "Can utility ever become as good as the extra dps? If so how can you make sure that utility doesn't become mandatory? How do you measure utility?" and so on.

I think the real problem is that SE isn't clear on what it wants the tanks to be. Do they want the tanks to be beefy dps (aka bruisers) like the raids require? Do they want the tanks to be hit sponges like the tank items indicate (class accessories, parry on most items etc)?

Right now tanks feel bland because they function like a dps with extra hp. If you look past the "stack mini-game", "mana mini-game", "no mini-game" they are pretty much the same. The fact that sets them apart (how they mitigate damage) is rarely used. You spend most of your time on dps stance than tank stance when you are the bloody MT (and all tanks do that!).
The only way I see of actually see making all tanks viable in the beefy dps META without giving them roughly the same damage (which apparently is a big no-no for WARs) is to make other classes synergize with them to give them an edge over their counterparts (like how well WHM Benediction works with DRK Living Death).
For example if you have a "DRK / WHM / MCH" combo (random classes) then your group will do significantly more damage than "OTHER Tank / WHM / MCH" combo. Have a "WAR / SCH / MNK" combo (random classes again) the same and so on.

EDIT:

Also DRK and PLD don't have a 5% difference. Even in the worlds spreadsheet (which was used as an example) the difference is bigger and both are lagging significantly behind WAR:
Dungeon/Class/Damage
A1/WAR/998
A1/DRK/881
A1/PLD/777
A2/WAR/1380
A2/DRK/1317
A2/PLD/813
A3/WAR/931
A3/DRK/852
A3/PLD/831

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

Are you arguing just to argue? You must be VERY bored at what you're doing that you want to procrastinate so hard!

BRD and MCH are classified as "DPS". There is no role that exists in this game that is "support". SCH provides more support than healing, why is it not considered support? It's HPS is definitely A LOT lower than WHM.

---

Yes, yes I was. What I was supposed to be doing was much, much, much, much, much more boring.

Just because they don't get a symbol designating their exact specialization doesn't mean that their specialization is non-existent. You're essentially choosing the symbol as your one piece of evidence to deny the existence of MCH and BRD being the premier support class. Despite the design intent being fairly clear.

They pay a DPS tax for their range and for their - essentially - mandatory spot because of mana. The tax they pay is higher than anyone, so we 'unofficially' call them a support (doesn't Yoshi call them a support anyway?).

As for the rest of your post. No problemo duder.

We personnally run war/drk and on A3S i open as MT and drk Is OT. It Is more because i was use to MT the fight as paladin So We didnt want to swap too much. Besides the drk has the eso gear and i dont so He Is doing good dps as OT
The overall dps of both is better with that setup and We enter the tornado phase with between 800-850 dps each. Besides i can holmgang the first cleave couple with a IB right after and equilibrium and a lustrate which means my healer barely have to heal for the whole first cleave since i can survive until the next knockback easily

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

I'm sorry but I find it quite hard to agree with this logic that you present as a trade-off. In my opinion you are really stretching things it to make it look like a trade-off.
You are mostly saying the following: If I use my stacks of Fell Cleave I don't have them for Inner Beast.

While that sounds perfectly fine in theory it ignores the reality of the raiding dungeons: You know when you are going to get hit by the tank buster.
If you didn't know exactly when you would get hit (for example a random tank buster or a semi-random like Ifrit EX) then that what you say would be valid. You used your stacks for damage and then big attack come and you couldn't use a cooldown. You risk dying in order to get more damage.
But it doesn't really work that way in raids. You know exactly when the tank buster is coming, so if you weren't ready for it then you simply derped. There is no risk if you know when the tank buster is coming. And since most battles are scripted you know exactly when it will come.
So basically unless you mess up you are never in a any real risk of dying.

---

You are the one doing the stretching here. Knowing exactly when the tank buster is coming is irrelevant. You can say the "risk" is mitigated in the current meta's heavily scripted tank busters being so far apart. Does not change the fact that WAR "risks" loss of mitigation when it tries to push that extra DPS. Also that VERY same risk is still the reason people do not let WAR be the MT in current raids. So yes, the "risk" is real.

For the ENTIRETY of 2.xx, this "risk" prevented WAR tanks from being THE tanks. Give me a single world first kill of any fight in 2.xx, that had WAR MT. PLD SwO DPS was considered higher than WAR (though that's arguable) and WAR MT was DEFINITELY higher DPS than PLD ShO.

Now in 3.0, PLD STILL ended up the MT in world first kills of 2 out of 4 fights (DRK being the MT in the other 2). Wanna know how many of the 4 left for WAR to be the MT in? This is a direct result of the "risk".

Yes, WAR ended up the class that was in all 4 encounters, true. But as a pseudo-DPS pretending to be tank. Or is it pseudo-tank pretending to be DPS? either way lol.

However, what I'm doing exactly the opposite of stretching. In very short paragraphs:

EVERY Inner Beast you used to mitigate is a trade-off from Fell Cleave that COULD'VE BEEN USED to increase DPS. You LOSE DPS in order to mitigate. That 1200 DPS you thought possible is no longer possible. The trade-off ALREADY HAPPENED the second you made the choice to mitigate.

The point still stances, as long as WAR is doing its maximum DPS, its mitigation is not as good as PLD. If WAR wants to mitigate like a PLD, it will not do that maximum DPS.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

Unless you are trying to convince me that loosing a little dps in order to use inner beast for a cooldown is a trade-off. And yes it's a little dps because the tank busters don't hit you often in the fights.
Well yes, technically you can say that you trade 200 potency (heck, I'll make it 400 for you) to survive a tank buster that comes once every 3 - 5 minutes. Does that really feel like a trade-off?
I'm sorry to say but while it might technically be trade-off it that doesn't feel like a meaningful one to me. You loose very little and risk nothing in doing so. It's the equivalent of having a defensive cooldown lower your attack while it's active.

---

I'll be like you and nitpick... Tell me of one buster in this game that is 3-5 minutes apart? A4S has the longest and ONLY buster that is 2 minutes apart. And it has a lot of cleaves and morderate damage hits in between that PLDs can spare rampart/Sheltron/Bulwark for. WAR saves everything for the buster itself and maybe the cleave right before.

Regardless.. As long as a WAR is NOT using Inner Beast, its mitigation is LOWER than PLD... As long as its mitigation is NOT the same as PLD, its DPS should NOT be the same as PLD. Again, I simplified it enough.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

You feel that other tanks have it better because they will always have their cooldown ready to use when needed. Why not advocate to give other tanks a skill that wastes their cooldowns in exchange for damage?
Burn that Rampart/Shadowskin/Sentinel/whatever for X% damage up for Y seconds. Damage problem solved, "risk" added and it makes cooldowns actually useful during all that time you can't use them because you are waiting for tank buster to come or you had to use it on some feeble boss auto attacks because that was the only window you could fit it before needing it for the tank buster.
According to your logic the above is trade-off. But I will once again disagree. You will know when to use them for damage and when to use them for defence (because the battle is scripted). It will only add more flexibility not a trade-off. In fact it's an outright buff.

---

As I said in my previous post, I'll quote myself:

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

Sure, if Sentinel made PLD do more DPS at the cost of losing its defensive Value, so be it. Just do not come back here on the forums and complain that due to its bigger CD you end up using it defensively anyways.

---

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

The only thing WAR has, compared to the other tanks, is that it's slightly more complex to time Inner Beast than to time a normal cooldown.
But it really boils down to the same thing the other tanks are doing. You need to time your cooldowns as any other tank or you wont have them up when you need them. WAR does that very same thing with Inner Beast. It's just easier for the other tanks because they have a larger window.

---

The only thing that MNK has, compared to the other melee DPS, is it has a slightly more complex positionals on all its GCDs.

The only thing that BLM has, compared to other ranged DPS, A more slightly complex buff (Enochian) timer on top of another buff timer (Astral Fire / Umbral Ice).

It really boils down to the same thing the other DPS are doing. You need to manage your abilities to maximize DPS as any other DPS or you won't do your maximum DPS. MNK does the very same thing on its positionals compared to melee (hit the right positional) and BLM does the same thing on its buff timers compared to SMN. It is just easier for the other DPS because they have less positionals/buffs.

... Your point?

My point is: Effort vs Reward. If PLD does the same DPS as WAR while all it has to do is press buttons in the exact same order Every. Single. Time. Not to mention all I need to mitigate damage as a PLD is press CD with not a single trade-off.. Why should I play WAR? Masochism?

I mean none of the other tanks "make a choice" between their combos (SE vs SP? BB vs SP?) as doing all three is an actual optimal option in the proper situation. None of the other tanks deal with a negative effect on their CDs (Pacification on zerk, crit on RI) other than "not having buff for X seconds". None of the other tanks have an additional wanted "perk" on thier CDs at all. WAR has the incentive to pop a CD for a stack, completely neglecting its other values.

In the same respect, why should people play the selfish MNK if DRG and NIN did more damage while bringing more raid damage? Just because I like to press the "A" and "D" keys on the keyboard more while fighting?

SE took the path of buffing MNK to be back on top again for a very valid reason: Effort vs Reward.

If the above is justified for the other classes in the other roles, why should it not be justified for tanks? Specially when DPS is NOT their mandatory objective!

As long as PLD keeps its mind numing simplicity, it should not perform as well as WAR. Regardless of META needs.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

Here lies the crux of the issue. "Balance" is highly depended on how raids are made. I think we can all agree that tanks are fine outside of raids. In the current META you only have meaningful dps checks.
That's why having a WAR is mandatory. And no it's not just "hivemind" as you are saying. It is actually needed, because you either take a WAR or you need to wait a few weeks to get a higher ilvl in order to get enough dps to clear. Any WAR combination will always output much more damage than any non-war combination. That's a fact.

If the next raid META only has meaningful damage checks (again), then the defensive bonus the other tanks currently have will be just as good as piety. If the next META only has big defence checks and a tank can't mitigate those checks as well the others then it will be the same thing. Whoever can't mitigate will have a problem and people will be (rightfully) complaining about it. And the others will be telling them: "You have dps/utility, you don't need mitigation, git gud" and we will have the same thing.
From what I understand what you want is for WAR to have the more damage and less defences than the other tanks and vice versa. Which works is perfectly fine for a META that has meaningful defence checks.

---

Having WAR is only mandatory because people deemed it so. Content is 100% doable without a WAR. It might be slightly harder due to the content being vastly tuned higher than currently available gear.

Does WAR overperform in current content? Yes. But so does SMN!

Does that justify a buff for non-WAR classes? Not if it breaks the balance outside of THIS single current content. So no.

If PLD was underperforming EVERYWHERE, I would say yes, buff the heck out of it. But it isn't. It is still considered the "best tank" outside of Alexander Savage. It is only this single raid tier. And it isn't that it's "underperforming" per-se. It is just NOT matching the performance of ONE of the two other classes filling the same slot.

Remember, WAR does not more damage because it has less defense. WAR's defense is on par with PLD. However, it cannot have that defense WITH that DPS at the same time. WAR makes a choice of either-or.

As a result, if PLD WAS buffed (and that's a big if) to match WAR or even be closer to WAR, why would people pick WAR? I mean ignore the whole "why play WAR" point I made earlier because some people LIKE self-torment. Why would you, as a raid leader, pick WAR over PLD when the performance is EXACTLY the same but with a massive less error margin? Wouldn't we be back to square one? One of the three tanks is not wanted in content.

It is a delimma really, if a class performs better at the cost of being harder to play (prone to more mistakes), people will pick the players with the highest skill to play it. If the same class that is harder to play performs exactly the same as an easier class, people will pick the easier class because it will make less mistakes.

Regardless, as long as PLD does not deal with said trade-offs, it does not deserve a single potency increase on any skill outside of Shield Swipe (which is an absolute DPS loss atm).

I am not entirely against PLD buffs, what I am saying is that the CURRENT PLD does not deserve a DPS buff. Its DPS is where it should be for the effort put in and the safety it has while doing it. If PLD gets reworked to deal more DPS, I'm 100% fine with that.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

At the moment people are doing savage and they wipe. Most of the time they wipe because they can't meet a dps check. So they need something to offset that. And with defences being so bad right now, that offset either needs be damage (obviously) or utility that will somehow directly or indirectly increase the overall party damage. (In theory higher defences should mean less damage taken and more damage done from healers. However because the boss damage output is low defences don't offer anything significant utility wise.)

---

The REAL problem isn't that PLD's DPS is low or meta ignores tanks defense checks, it just content is overtuned DPS-wise for a much higher item level average than the highest (190) available outside of Savage.

People have cleared up to A3S with PLDs in party. "Right now", people not meeting DPS checks is a gear problem, not a PLD problem.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

Right now WAR has more damage and more utility than the other 2 tanks. That's why there is a ton of posts from the other two tanks asking for changes in skills. And that is also the reason people are asking for damage. You might not like the idea of extra damage because you have a different idea of what the meta should be and what you would like each class to be. That's fine and dandy but that doesn't make people's requests for more dps any less legitimate.

---

My "personal liking" is I want WAR to MT. And it doesn't. You have to dig far and deep to find a group that is willing to let the WAR MT and the DRK or PLD OT. The DRK and PLD themselves wouldn't like to be OT. Even though, funnily enough, the DPS problem is solved this way. However, you do not find me on these forums popping thread after thread after thread telling how WAR has it so "bad" because they are not made MT and that SE made an even worse decision shoving them into the OT spot by giving them Deliverance. Specially, mathematically, WAR is better suited to be MT than OT because of how their toolkit works.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

They are here playing the game now. They see they are lacking dps and wipe because of that. They see a META where only dps matters. The problem is they don't know if the META will stay the same or it will change. Maybe they will add meaningful defence checks on the next savage (which is also far away). Maybe they wont. Unless a developer comes out and says otherwise people will ask things based on how things are now, and not on how they might or might not be in the future.
So it's only natural that they will ask for more damage even if you don't like it. Because it's something that is tangible, it wont upset things they way they are now and everyone will benefit.

---

Wrong, they see that a top raid group replaced PLD with DRK when they couldn't meet the DPS check, ignoring the fact that the replacement was done to maintain the INT Down debuff they lost by replacing MNK with NIN. Based on that mis-information, they assumed that Elysium and Lucrezia blamed the lack of DPS on PLD and not the selfishness of MNK vs raid-wide DPS boost of NIN's Trick Attack.

With that misinformation, they come here on the forums popping thread after thread after thread, and posting posts after posts about how bad PLD is, when NOTHING has changed about PLD compared to WAR since 2.1 except the existance of a third tank class that has a sea of its own problems that are overlooked because the current raid meta allowed for it.

Blindly buffing PLD's DPS WILL upset the balance because of the earlier point I made of "effort vs reward" and "risk". Should I quote myself from the same post? There goes:

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

As a result, if PLD WAS buffed (and that's a big if) to match WAR or even be closer to WAR, why would people pick WAR? I mean ignore the whole "why play WAR" point I made earlier because some people like self-torment. Why would you, as a raid leader, pick WAR over PLD when the performance is EXACTLY the same but with a massive less error margin? Wouldn't we be back to square one? One of the three tanks is not wanted in content.

---

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

You believe the other 2 tanks should get more utility instead of damage. That's great. There is nothing wrong with that. But you know what? That doesn't make any requests for more damage any less legitimate. Telling people "You're wrong, you don't need more damage. Git Gud. Here's a skewed video that you don't need more damage. Now let this thread die because you don't agree with how I see things." isn't going to make the problem go away.
You can't force people to accept something nebulous as utility instead of something tangible. Not to mention that "utility" has a load of problems itself, like: "Can utility ever become as good as the extra dps? If so how can you make sure that utility doesn't become mandatory? How do you measure utility?" and so on.

---

EDIT: The reason this thread it told to die because it is not an objective thread. It is a thread of "The other tank has it, why can't I?" and/or "I'm a DRG main and I'm not impressed with my Sword Oath DPS on a dummy!". There are FAR MORE objective threads than this one about tank balance out there that came up and moved along with no one particularly trying to force their opinion. This is the only one thread where its supporters are insisting that their idea of balance is the correct one. /endedit.

The video parse wasn't "Skewed". The point of a 5 minute parse is to reduce the effect of RNG (very lucky or very unlucky crits), ping spikes, player mistakes, etc. from "skeweing" the DPS.
If it makes you feel better, make MULTIPLE 1.5 minute parses (1 exact DPS CD cycle) with some controlled but realistic options (available buffs like party STR buff, slashing debuff) and repeat it many times, and average them. You get a "better" approximation of a class's DPS potential.

Regardless, you do make some valid points here. "Measuring" utility is harder than just comparing DPS. But balancing DPS in vacuum doens't make class balance true. Just because you don't "tangibly feel" the class balance doesn't mean it's not there. Personally I think MNK is the easiest of the three melees. I find DRG and Ninja's "stricter" rotations harder than MNK's "continue where you left off on last target". SPECIALLY back when DRG dropped buffs if it failed positionals. Yet, Yoshi-P really disagrees with me.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

I think the real problem is that SE isn't clear on what it wants the tanks to be. Do they want the tanks to be beefy dps (aka bruisers) like the raids require? Do they want the tanks to be hit sponges like the tank items indicate (class accessories, parry on most items etc)?

Right now tanks feel bland because they function like a dps with extra hp. If you look past the "stack mini-game", "mana mini-game", "no mini-game" they are pretty much the same. The fact that sets them apart (how they mitigate damage) is rarely used. You spend most of your time on dps stance than tank stance when you are the bloody MT (and all tanks do that!).
The only way I see of actually see making all tanks viable in the beefy dps META without giving them roughly the same damage (which apparently is a big no-no for WARs) is to make other classes synergize with them to give them an edge over their counterparts (like how well WHM Benediction works with DRK Living Death).
For example if you have a "DRK / WHM / MCH" combo (random classes) then your group will do significantly more damage than "OTHER Tank / WHM / MCH" combo. Have a "WAR / SCH / MNK" combo (random classes again) the same and so on.

---

Again, very valid points here. SE's decisions with tuning Alexander Savage might be bad ones. Going an extra mile to differentiate tanks' mitigation (heavy physical vs heavy magical vs universal but stricter timing) was a good move but sadly was NOT capitalized on. All tanks are reduced to beefy DPS, which IS imo a bad move.

Class synergy SHOULD BE the very first and last choice of setting up a group.
For example, a BRD+MCH group SHOULD get a DRG, last DPS spot should be a caster because of BRD's and MCH's ability to increase magical DPS. As a result, you want DRK+PLD tanks to cover the different magical and physical aspects of the fights. Fix it so PLD+DRK have what they need (Slashing debuff!) and you have a VERY synergetic group.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

EDIT:

Also DRK and PLD don't have a 5% difference. Even in the worlds spreadsheet (which was used as an example) the difference is bigger and both are lagging significantly behind WAR:
Dungeon/Class/Damage
A1/WAR/998
A1/DRK/881
A1/PLD/777
A2/WAR/1380
A2/DRK/1317
A2/PLD/813
A3/WAR/931
A3/DRK/852
A3/PLD/831

---

WAR being ahead IS INTENDED. The problem was PLDs complaining that they are also FAR BEHIND DRK, which is not true.

One week back when that was posted, A1's top record for WAR was 929 and PLD top was 777 with DRK having no record above PLD. I am sure PLD can still do more than just 777 in A1S. Specially if it OTs the first phase. Look at A3S to see how close PLD is to DRK.

A2S should not even be looked at as PLD's AoE is a joke. As a matter of Fact, PLD doing 813 is impressive considering how close to 0 their DPS drops when they try to hold AoE threat.

A3S, A single class doing the exact same rotation for the exact period of time will probably have a 20 to 30 DPS difference due to RNG and other factors.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Sandamar

The overall dps of both is better with that setup.

---

Any set up with WAR MT does more overall DPS than WAR OT due to WAR's ability to slip into and out of tank stance with ease. WAR's MT DPS is the highest and it can retain most its "OT DPS" while main tanking by stance dancing.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

EDIT:

Also DRK and PLD don't have a 5% difference. Even in the worlds spreadsheet (which was used as an example) the difference is bigger and both are lagging significantly behind WAR:
Dungeon/Class/Damage
A1/WAR/998
A1/DRK/881
A1/PLD/777

---

Thats a bad comparison. Go look at the war's composition. The group had 2 wars and 2 dragoons, all 4 of the dps were over 1200s dps. The run was done in 4 mins and 30 seconds. Meanwhile look at the pld's comp, the only raid buff was nin, and only 2 dps barely budged over 1000s dps, the raid took over 6 mins almost 7. You're comparing a group that has 2000 RAID dps over another group.


The dark's comp is a little closer to the pld's. The difference is 13%. However if you look at the boards the rest of the drks have roughly equal dmg with the other plds all being in the 700s.

The rest of the wars on the charts , their group's dps jobs actually have higher dps than the pld/drk group's dps jobs do. When you're clearing content 3....2... even a minute faster than the next group, your dps is probably going to be higher. We dont even know when they were submitted, during early gear progressions or recently. Too many variables imo to make a case for anything.


Looking at the A3s numbers though, I think thats where they should be, dps wise for tanks. Drk and pld within arms reach and warrior pulling ahead like it should be.

The first 3 A4S clears all use DRK/WAR... a PLD is hopefully gonna clear it soon :)

Now you are basically presenting an effort vs reward theory. While I don't think WAR takes that much effort, I can agree and accept the logic that since WAR is more complex (which is really not, if anything the DRK mini-game is way more annoying, but that is a personal preference) so it has more damage.
I can also accept that the theme is more damage. Sure it's the barbarian dude and damage it's his thing. That's fine and makes sense.
But the trade-off as you are describing makes absolutely no sense at all. A trade-off is when you sacrifice something that matters to get something else that matters. With the scripted tank busters you are not sacrificing anything. There is no risk, no danger. Zero, nada, zilch.
If anything it's an extra option that allows you to use effectively a cooldown that would otherwise be sitting there and doing nothing. In short the option to use Inner Beast as Fell Cleave is flexibility not a trade-off. At least this is where I stand in this matter.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

As a result, if PLD WAS buffed (and that's a big if) to match WAR or even be closer to WAR, why would people pick WAR? I mean ignore the whole "why play WAR" point I made earlier because some people LIKE self-torment. Why would you, as a raid leader, pick WAR over PLD when the performance is EXACTLY the same but with a massive less error margin? Wouldn't we be back to square one? One of the three tanks is not wanted in content.

---

First of all, no one of the people here said give me dps to match WAR. That is what the you are saying. They asked for more damage and I will explain why below.

In my opinion you can balance tank classes using the following methods:
1. Give all them the same damage and the same survivability. If you do that, everyone is happy and picks whatever playstyle he likes best. It also tends to make the tanks look like reskins of each other.
2. Give them roughly the same damage and survivability. For example WAR +5% dmg - 5% def, DRK 0% dmg 0% def, PLD -5% dmg, +5% def. The difference wont be very high (10% between top and bottom) and people can still pick whatever playstyle the like best.
3. Diversify them by giving each class strong points and weak points. (Asymmetric design?) Which I believe is that SE is trying to do.

Using that asymmetric design you can give your classes a lot of flavour which is good. That however means that you actually have to make use of their strong points to make them viable and appealing to players.
Imagine for example if you have a a tank (let's say samurai) that has built-in 30% magic damage reduction but took 10% more physical damage. Balanced, specialized and nice. The twin swords looks amazing, the game-play is a blast. You level to max level and everything is smooth and fun.
Now imagine that get in your first raid dungeon all that the entire current raiding content is physical damage. Sure it is 100% doable, and you as soon as you get better gear to offset that 10% physical extra damage and clear it. That still doesn't mean it's fine.

This is pretty much what Savage is in regards to defences in general. Having that extra defences is useless. Those defences wont help you clear bosses. They are not needed to survive bosses. They wont allow your healers to stay more in dps stance.
So while defences are all nice, shiny and balanced, you are never going to use them effectively. It's the tank equivalent of over-healing.
Both DRK and PLD have that problem, but it's slightly better for DRK since he has some magical defence and aoe for savage 2 that offset their dps inefficiency.
And since the game is designed to reward damage (less healing needed, less mechanics, etc) more than anything else, that automatically makes damage way more beneficial than defences.
So +10% damage for -10% defence is always better than -10% damage for +10% defence.

The thing is that having these defences means that you do less damage, which in itself is fine. However when you have raid where defences are pretty much useless and raid dungeons are filled with dps checks that only serves to exacerbate the problem.
DPS becomes multiple times better than it normally is compared to defences and defence is worth even less than it was before.

Is savage bad raid design? Maybe it is. But maybe it isn't. That depends on the developers vision of the game. Maybe they want the raids like that with tanks being beefy dps because bruisers are more popular than pure tanks, maybe they don't and savage wasn't designed properly for whatever reason.
The thing is they haven't said anything about it. That's why you have some many threads asking for changes (whether that is utility, dps or whatever) that are aimed for savage.
The extra defences PLD/DRK has right now, are kind of like PLD's clemency. It's nice, thematic and seems cool, might even be useful outside of savage (personally I doubt it, but you never know) but you aren't really going to be using it effectively in a raid.

And frankly what why people are asking for more damage in this thread. It is useful and it will make their classes perform better in the current environment. Isn't asking for something that is always useful, and doubly so in the current environment, reasonable?
That is why I believe is a legitimate concern and I think it's much more productive than asking to nerf WAR.
While I agree with you on most things and would like to see defences become meaningful instead of getting extra damage (Make parry useful dammit), I see nothing wrong with people asking for extra damage instead.

To make it simple: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS THREAD.


A few side notes:

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

Now in 3.0, PLD STILL ended up the MT in world first kills of 2 out of 4 fights (DRK being the MT in the other 2). Wanna know how many of the 4 left for WAR to be the MT in? This is a direct result of the "risk".

Yes, WAR ended up the class that was in all 4 encounters, true. But as a pseudo-DPS pretending to be tank. Or is it pseudo-tank pretending to be DPS? either way lol.

---

No actually, it's not the result of safety as you like to present it. It's the result of WAR as OT combo being vastly superior damage-wise to other tanks. WAR OT + Other Tank MT combo deals more damage than WAR MT + other tank OT combo.
You can "blame" SE for giving you Equilibrium and fell cleave for that.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

SE took the path of buffing MNK to be back on top again for a very valid reason: Effort vs Reward.

---

SE didn't buff MNK back to top dps. They gave them a roughly 3% increase in damage. If anything it seems like more of consolation buff than a buff back to top.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

I mean none of the other tanks "make a choice" between their combos (SE vs SP? BB vs SP?) as doing all three is an actual optimal option in the proper situation.

---

Oh come on! You can't really tell me that WAR has to make a "choice" between combos while the others don't. You are going to use your "debuff" combo (SE) when you are expecting the boss do a lot of damage. You're not going to have it up 100%. Just like PLD isn't going to have their debuff combo (RoH) up 100%. And it has healthy time so it's not going to disappear in 5 seconds.
After that you are just going to use combos to increase your damage while keeping enmity. That means keep SP up as much (ie refresh just before it is about to fall) and then use your dps/enmity combo.
The other two tanks do exactly the same thing. The PLD will have to try to keep GB up a much as possible and then use RA as much as he can get away with. Only DRK will be keeping their debuff up 100% of the time because it is on their highest potency combo and they will be spamming that more than the other combos. They still have to "make a choice" of when to use their enmity combo or DA + souldrinker combo.
If anything it's easier on WAR because the enmity combo is the highest dps combo so you don't have to take enmity into account like the rest.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

Having WAR is only mandatory because people deemed it so. Content is 100% doable without a WAR. It might be slightly harder due to the content being vastly tuned higher than currently available gear.

---

You can also go with all your dps and tanks in mind accessories and healers in VIT accessories. It's not "mandatory", it's 100% doable etc. But lets face it, but you are gimping yourself.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

If PLD was underperforming EVERYWHERE, I would say yes, buff the heck out of it. But it isn't. It is still considered the "best tank" outside of Alexander Savage. It is only this single raid tier. And it isn't that it's "underperforming" per-se. It is just NOT matching the performance of ONE of the two other classes filling the same slot.

---

I thought the game balance was based on raid performance. So what is outside Alexander Savage that makes PLD the best tank? 4man Dungeons? Ex Primals? Normal Alexander? Maybe PLD is a super secret weapon for pvp that I didn't know about.
Unless you mean 2.XX but DRK didn't exist in 2.XX (since you specifically mentions all 3 tanks) and the classes have changed significantly since then.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

The video parse wasn't "Skewed". ...
You get a "better" approximation of a class's DPS potential.

---

I'm sorry but that video parse was skewed as hell. It doesn't take into account enmity at all. So it doesn't represent MT damage at all. Fine let's say it's OT damage comparison. The WAR was intentionally being gimped (no slashing debuff -he had to maintain it himself, no cleanse, and I have a lot of misgivings about the his rotation if he is aiming for max dps).
And you can't tell me that it's fine because those are "real life" OT raid conditions. You will not always have the classes needed to buff you on your raid and unless your pacification ends up in tight spot healing-wise you will be getting cleansed. You need to either have each class dps with OPTIMAL conditions or each class using it's own abilities.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

EDIT: The reason this thread it told to die because it is not an objective thread. It is a thread of "The other tank has it, why can't I?" and/or "I'm a DRG main and I'm not impressed with my Sword Oath DPS on a dummy!". There are FAR MORE objective threads than this one about tank balance out there that came up and moved along with no one particularly trying to force their opinion. This is the only one thread where its supporters are insisting that their idea of balance is the correct one. /endedit.

---

I fail to see why it's not an objective thread. How do you define objective? Based on what? How exactly are they trying to force their opinion? It's a bloody thread in a bloody forum. It's letters on a computer screen, that you wont even see unless you do some very specific clicks. It's not a raving crowd of pitchfork holding brutes that threaten to burn your house down if you don't do as they say.
And let's be honest here. Unless you are the head developer in charge of balance, neither you, me or anyone posting in this thread has the right to claim "the correct balance". What we are all doing is speculating. As simple as that. You are in no way entitled to the correct balance and neither is me nor anyone else in this forum.
The forum is here for people to post their opinions, ideas, feedback and anything related to tanks, which includes damage. People will post anything from their glamours to their horror stories in dungeon. Maybe we should chastise people for trying to force a new glamour fashion through this threads. Come on.

And I'm sorry to say you're just giving off the impression that "My word is law! My idea is balance! You are all wrong! Now get out this thread!", when in fact neither you, me or anyone else in the whole world besides the developers know the correct META, balance and what they want to do with the classes.
Actually scrap that. It really feels like you have a grudge because people don't want WAR to MT and you're taking out on PLDs on this thread.
Case in point, in another thread you that DRK really needs more physical mitigation and he should just get it. DRK is basically a re-skinned PLD who looses 10% on Shadow Wall, has a different I wont die button instead gains magic resistance, more damage and aoe damage.
You are outright saying buff the DRK physical mitigation. Now you have DRK is PLD defensive wise, has more dmg, more aoe dmg (which basically makes PLD obsolete) and that doesn't break balance?
No one else said they shouldn't get it. You didn't see PLDs screaming that they need to loose something to get it or that it would break balance or they need to git gud. People said: "It will make their class better so get it".
So that thread where people agree with your idea is apparently "objective" and it's not "The other tank has it, so why can't I?".
However when people ask in this thread for PLD to get more damage you are telling them that it breaks balance, it's not "objective", and it's a thread "The other tank has it, why can't I?".
Do you see the problem here?

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

Snip.

---

Risk by definition is "potential of losing something of value". So as long as you do not have 5 stacks of Wrath, you are under the risk of "potential of not mitigating damage". Content being completely scripted and known makes said risks "calculated" but not non-existent. I don't want to argue semantics any more than necessary. But as long as WAR makes the choice of "doing more DPS" or "mitigating damage" and NOT doing both at the same time, it is not a problem.

Also WAR's GCD-by-GCD and stack management is much more "technical" than DRK's MP mini-game. What DRK's MP mini-game is is "annoying" as you said, which is not technical, just annoying. DRK's DPS and CD rotations are not affected by managing its MP. Its higher potency combos ARE the very same combos that give it MP, mitigation debuff (Delirium) AND active mitigation (Souleater).

Take Dragoon's Wheeling Thrust and Claw moves, they are two different moves that do the exact same potency and effect with the only difference being the positional requirement (flank or rear), the deciding factor on which is needed is... RNG. Is that technicality? no, it's just "annoyance".

SE buffing monks by roughly 3% puts their DPS roughly 2~3% above DRG. Which is the intended goal of SE buffing MNK's DPS as it is a selfish class that doesn't buff raid DPS.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

You can also go with all your dps and tanks in mind accessories and healers in VIT accessories. It's not "mandatory", it's 100% doable etc. But lets face it, but you are gimping yourself.

---

Now that is ridiculous and by far one of the silliest rhetorics in this thread. And that says a lot as this thread is full of silly. The scenario of all DPS and tanks in MND accessories and healers in VIT is more similar to having the BLM tank and SMN heal while the SCH and WHM DPS.

Not taking WAR in your party is just that, not taking WAR in your party. It's like not taking NIN to party, you lose (potential) Slashing debuff, Trick Attack and Goad. That's it. It's also like not taking MCH to your party. You lose turret buffs. That's it. You are not "gimping" yourself, your group is not suddenly a 7 man group, neither are you replacing WAR by a non-tank. You're just running a different setup. It's not like WAR is all the DPS, HP and healing the raid group has.

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

Oh come on! You can't really tell me that WAR has to make a "choice" between combos while the others don't. You are going to use your "debuff" combo (SE)...

---

I do have to wonder here, do you know which skills WAR has do what? SE is the slashing debuff and is to be kept up 100% of the time. SP is 10% damage reduction AND 20 potency lower than SE and 40 lower than BB. WAR chooses to drop SE or BB to apply SP, that is a fact, it just has to make a better choice of which one to drop.

Now as opposed to PLD's Supposed optimal aggro rotation is: GB(24s) > RoH (20s) > RA. ROH drops for 1 GCD and GB is clipped by 1 GCD. Optimal DPS rotation: GB (24s) > RA > RA drops RoH.

Btw, if PLD can drop 10% STR down permanently for max damage, so can a WAR drop SP permanently. The coveted SP buff that people keep bugging warriors about ends up minuscule when you are already mitigating busters with massive CD stacking. Remember, mitigation stacks multiplicatively and any additional effect added is reduced by the percentage of the previous effect. (So IB+Vengeance is 44%, making SP effectively only 5.6%, which is very small).

Your questionable knowledge of what SP and SE are brings me to the next point:

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

I'm sorry but that video parse was skewed as hell. It doesn't take into account enmity at all. So it doesn't represent MT damage at all. Fine let's say it's OT damage comparison. The WAR was intentionally being gimped (no slashing debuff -he had to maintain it himself, no cleanse, and I have a lot of misgivings about the his rotation if he is aiming for max dps).

---

What is WAR's DPS affected in ANY WAY by someone else applying the debuff that WAR is REQUIRED TO and WILL reapply it himself?

WAR's optimal DPS rotation is to alternate SE and BB and using FC and Fracture when applicable. Under no circumstances should WAR let Maim/SE drop.

And the no cleanse point, no matter how good your healers are, when you are pacified, you WILL lose a GCD. Even if your healer clicks Esuna as soon as pacification happens. This game's internal delay will not register the removal of pacification before a GCD is wasted. The only way to "cleanse" pacification is to not have it happen at all by having the BRD singe Warden's Paeon. But that's gimping another class specifically for your 1 GCD you don't wanna miss. So yes, not getting a cleanse is 1 GCD loss per Berserk at best!

Those dreaded "misgivings" in a WAR's video parse are 10~20 theoretical DPS at MOST!

Also about the MT DPS, WAR starts in Defiance and uses Unchained which IS a DPS loss compared to starting with a double/triple cleave opener in Deliverance. So don't exaggerate that PLD and DRG have to drop a bit of DPS because of the few enmity combos they have to use at start when MTing because WAR also drops some DPS.

Again, it is intentional for WAR to do more MT DPS. This has been the case since 1.xx and did not change throughout 2.xx, why should it change now?

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

I fail to see why it's not an objective thread.

---

1- This thread started with: "My DPS is not DRK's DPS, my DPS is not WAR's DPS, therefore my DPS is a joke! Before you ask I know everything and I'm right don't tell me to git gud!" without any actual specifics of said "optimized rotation". How is this not a case of: "They have it, I want it too"? Go back to the OP's posts and see his attitude.

2- Paladins (or DPS buff supporters) are calling others who disagree "Stupid" and "Hypocrites". I do not need to name who did the calling.
Heck, one of its main supporters made such the useless post of:

Zitat:

---

Look at all the warrior mains afraid to lose their guaranteed raid spots.

---

and repeated useless posts in multiple threads (which I called him on it) and has since then been targetting me personally in every post he made. Not because he has valid arguments, but because I do not agree with him. His most cohesive sentince of response to me was a full post of "You're wrong!" which proves exactly nothing without any backup facts. I will not go back skimming through 51 pages of silliness to find the exact posts. Feel free if you have that time.

3- There has been not a single suggestion that was reasonable. The request is a blatant "Give me this because he has it" with no consideration of anything else. You want the AoE DPS of the DRK and ST of WAR. I'm fine with that, but what are you willing to give up for that? (Give up doesn't have to be directly losing something, it can be also giving the WAR and DRK the advantages you have, hence it becoming no longer an "advantage").

4- The other threads I'm calling "objective" are looking at all the three tanks as a whole and are suggesting "fixes" without stepping on each others' toes too much. They look at PLD's actual problems (TP issues, ability clunk, threat issues that are hurting the DPS) instead of looking at WAR's 6k Fell Cleave crit and saying "Hey! I want that too!".

================

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Ivellior

And I'm sorry to say you're just giving off the impression that "My word is law! My idea is balance! You are all wrong! Now get out this thread!"

---

This is exactly what I was pointing out how this is not an objective thread, it turns to attacking the person so quick. To reply to this portion and the remainder of your post (since you specifically called me a hypocrite in a previous post as well).

Note: Dear reader, if you are NOT Ivellior, reading from here on is completely optional. (not that any of the above wasn't optional in the first place. lol) :p

Here is yet another wall of text:

I am not claiming to know the exact intricacies of the tanks' balance, if it even exists. But there are obvious indicatives (without going into too much detail):

1- PLD has the strongest defensive effects compared 1 by 1 to the other classes? Check.

2- PLD has no additional resources to worry about in order to fulfill its role at optimal levels? Check.

3- PLD action rotations are simple and hold no major repercussions if altered? Check.

In addition to the above points, PLD is the easiest of the three tanks with the most defensive options.... Does this check?

• PLD has passive mitigation via shield? Check.
• PLD CD effects' duration are sufficiently long to mitigate tank busters and/or prolong duration of damage? Check.
• PLD has the most number defensive CDs among the three tank classes? Check.

Does PLD deal the same damage as WAR? No, but according to the points above, as far as effort vs reward AND defense vs offense are concerned, it shouldn't. And WAR functions very differently from PLD.

"But Phoenica, DRK is ALSO outperforming PLD!"

Okay, let is compare it to DRK then, since PLD is more akin to DRK in both regards: CD structure and Combo structure.

1- Outside of Rampart, every CD on the PLD is better than its mirrored version on DRK. But you can argue that DRK has Dark Mind, a CD that PLD has no equivalent off.

2- PLD requires no additional resources to manage, but it CAN regain MP when needed. DRK NEEDS its MP to perform optimally, in both aspects: Offence and Defence.

3- PLD doesn't need MP, but it automatically regains it in its optimal rotation. DRK also regains its needed MP via the same combos that give it additional and desired effects. Also, DRK's Power Slash combo is a lot more potent than RoH in both regards: DPS and threat.

In regard of easiness: DRK has no passive mitigation, DRK's CD effects' duration are similar to PLD with the exception of Dark Dance having a much higher uptime than Bulwark, and DRK with all its CDs AND cross-classed abilities ends up with 2 CDs less than PLD (You can add Reprisal as a CD and say it has only 1 CD less than PLD), DRK kind of loses in both quantity AND quality.

In vacuum and on dummies, DRK seems to do more ST DPS than PLD (3~5% margin). DRK obviously does more AoE DPS than PLD. Following the effort vs reward formula, this is as it should be. However! Actual data shows DRK and PLD are at each others' necks in single boss encounters. (A3S specially). PLD still has pitiful AoE.

Ivallior's theory of balance point number 2 stated something similar to this. WAR doing 10% more damage but has -10% less defense. DRK in between doing 0% more damage and has 0% less defense. and PLD does -10% less damage but has 10% more defense.

Also point number 3, with tanks having their niche (WAR being DPS, PLD being physical and DRK being magical) seems to apply even more. However, PLD isn't as hindered in magical mitigation as DRK is in physical. So PLD doing slightly less DPS (if at all) than DRK can -arguably- be justified here.

Is this EXACT balance? You're right, none of us, the players know, only the developers do. Heck, is this even how the devs are looking at it? Only the devs themselves know!
================

In regard to me posting, in this thread and others, about DRK needing physical mitigation adjustment and am being called a hypocrite for it. Since I am also the very same person who keeps calling DRK a "reskinned PLD".

My exact wordings has always been "DRK's physical mitigation is lacking and seriously needs to be looked at"... There is no "demand" of buffs of any form or manner nor demands of no nerfs of any form or manner.

I never specified how the buffs should be nor what should be given up for it. I did not say give us Sheltron equivalent because PLD has it nor did I say make Dark Dance into 60% like Bulwark because (again) PLD has it.

So no, me requesting an objective look at something that WAS affecting the class and has the potential to affect it again in the not-so-far future is not demanding silly buffs that WILL affect (read: trivialize) any of the other classes without a trade-off.
================

As for the said "grudge" against people not wanting a WAR main tank, I cannot hold a grudge against people in general because here is my take on people (again, in general! There are odd individuals) (and this WILL sound arrogant, but true):

"People, as a collective mind, are stupid. They ALWAYS fail to see the bigger picture and will always settle for the familiarity of their own little shell. History has proven this over and over again."

You can blame it on cultural values, tradition, religion, conventions, science, any of all of the above, whatever.

The people collective mind (AKA Hive Mind) will dismiss and ignore mostly anything they do not consider the "norm". It is in their nature. Even if the thing they do not consider the norm is THE VERY TRUTH.

People's reaction when they discovered that they were not the center of the universe and that the universe doesn't revolve around them? Burned the first few people that made "such outrageous claims" at the stake for heresy. Galilio Galilei was under house arrest for the rest of his life for stating the VERY truth of heliocentrism.

Now I am NOT Galilio Galilei, nor do I claim to have discovered anything of equal, or even dreams to be of similar, enlightenment, but his example of persecution of SUCH truth serves to show how people would react to things. If such a solid now-undisputed fact was disputed and persecuted, why should I feel salty at all over a state of something such as insignificant as a class in a game I play to spend excess free time? The best I can do about it (and I do it anyways) is come back later and say: "Hah! Told you so!"

Not to mention, I have always said that "WAR as a main tank CAN outperform a PLD since 2.1 specially as a solo tank" and everybody replied with "We have shields and Hallowed Ground, get out!" I tell them "CD gaps and Storm Path" and they say "Adlo + Stoneskin". I say "WAR can get that!" they say "Yes, but ShO has better effective healing than Defiance". I said "Self heals" they said "over-healing". See the irony?

Now that we, non-PLD tanks, tell paladins that "you have shields!" answer: "RNG/Irrelevant", we say "You have Hallowed Ground, get out!" you say "OMG 7 minute CD, animation delay!", we say "strong CDs" you say "OMG Long CDs, GAPS!" We say "you can cast Stoneskin" and you go "OMG 5.5 sceonds cast! interrupts!" We say "ShO effective healing better than Defiance" you say "Over heals, self heals OP!". Again... See the Irony?

As a matter of fact, I find this very same irony so compelling and the amusement I'm getting from all the PLD tears is probably one of the main reasons I keep coming back to post in this asinine thread. Since we're being 100% frank here. I say that and I, myself, am a PLD player.

But no, I do not hold a grudge for most people not letting me solo tank or MT their pity Shiva Ex farm or T9 sale run as a WAR and requesting that I change to PLD. I, as the player, ended up doing the run and getting my loot/money. Just at the small cost of playing I class I enjoy playing... less.

Specially when I have progressed ALL of BCoB (before 2.1, T5 killed as WAR solo-tank right after 2.1), SCoB and FCoB as a WAR MT (the one starting the pull in any fight and holding the boss for the majority of it). And I am an "early achiever" as I do have a few server firsts and seconds under my belt... On YOUR server, Phoenix, no less. FC's I've been with are ShinRa <ShR> and Nightmare Eternal <FEAR>. You should know them.

The exceptions were T8 and T9. I progressed those as a caster. But the reason for that wasn't that the PLD as a class is better than WAR, but rather that that very specific PLD player could not play a DPS class good enough while I could. I practically topped the DPS in my group with very solid DPS numbers. If anything, I am proud to be one of the few WARs (and players overall) to manage said feats.

In the end, believe it or not, I'd rather spend my time in the game learning how to perform with my class of choice and prove people with prejudices wrong over coming over to the forums and complain about said prejudices... Which is what they are, false assumptions. If I do come to the forums, it is because I am looking for insight from other players, who are also passionate about my class, in order to perform EVEN better (Read: how to git gud). An attitude I strongly suggest the main supporters of this thread to follow. (That was the polite way of saying "git gud").

Buttom line.... "Hah! Told you so!"
===============

Last but not the least, I may have come out as being "forceful of my opinion" when I said this thread should die, and I do apologize if I somehow offended your sensitve self. But that came from a very strong observation I made from the posters in this thread. Since I began frequenting the forums about 3 weeks ago, I have not seen a more ridiculous thread than this one except the one that wanted WAR and DRK to outright die to tank busters but not PLD. lol

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure which of Anger's threads wins against this one anymore. I didn't want to name people, but I didn't want to dig out and list 5 or so threads even more. You can look them up yourself.
===============

And that, folks, is all I have to say for now. Have a good one.

35 minutes and I'm still waiting for my wall of text!

Zitat:

---

Zitat von RapBreon

35 minutes and I'm still waiting for my wall of text!

---

When I said massive wall of text, I meant it! :p

Zitat:

---

Zitat von Phoenicia

When I said massive wall of text, I meant it! :p

---

As a fellow book writer, I salute you. There was one wall that I spent so long writing/editing that the thread advanced 3 pages during the interim!