No, it's a fact of engineering and software engineering is no different.The basics of it, from an engineering perspective, is that you get two of the following: fast, cheap, and good. If you want it fast and good, it won't be cheap. If you want it fast and cheap, it won't be good. It's a bit simplified, since things exist on a sliding scale rather than explicit binary attributes, but that's how it works. The same principle applies to game design: you either get lots of options, high quality/balanced options, or profitable development. Since SE is a profit driven company, one of the two choices has been made already; all that remains is whether we get a lot of options or high quality options.Quote:
Originally Posted by konflikti
Also, it's not a fact just because I say it's a fact. It's a fact because I've learned it over years and so has everyone else who's actually dealt with this stuff. You may not like it because you live in some fantasy land where you can get everything you could ever possibly want for next to no effort, but I, and the development team at SE, live in the *real* world, where you have to play triage. You don't get to have everything so they played triage: they chose to provide high quality content rather than providing a whole slew of options.
You must not have read what I stated later on. If you had, you wouldn't have said this because I specifically addressed this.Quote:
Following your train of thought, WAR as choice for tank should not even exist, because it is clearly less optimal than PLD. Merely an illusion of choice.
The difference between a WAR and a PLD is not an illusion of choice. The illusion does not exist because they play *very* differently. The numbers on a piece of gear, on the other hand, are not. They do not appreciably impact the game beyond the mathematical. A WAR and a PLD will never play anywhere close to the same; gear with a lot of Determination and gear with a lot of Critical Hit Rate, on the other hand, will play effectively identical. There will be minute differences in stochastic and mean performance, but there isn't really a major difference.
You *really* don't understand the whole "triage" thing, do you? Asking for a shitton of well designed gear means that you're taking resources away from other stuff that people want.Quote:
Or I dunno, you could create bunch of well designed gear!
Except that they're not. Numbers are the fundamental balance construct, but they do not control playstyle or theme or the massive number of other design choices that actually create differentiation. The difference between a piece of gear with 12 Determination on it and 18 Critical Hit Rate is numbers. The difference between a PLD and a WAR, not as to how well they tank, but the actual difference in how they play, perform, and everything *else* attached to them, is not. Changing numbers does not create appreciable differentiation.Quote:
Numbers are everything. Literally.
And even simpler people act as if, when they make a choice, that it wasn't made for them beforehand. Choices are nice, but only when they are actual choices. Choosing between death and cake is not a choice. It may *look* like a choice, but it is not.Quote:
Simple people don't care about choices.
Choices *matter* but only when they actually *matter* and aren't effectively predetermined. If you were offered the chance to deal 5 damage every 2 seconds or 10 damage every 4 seconds, the choice doesn't really matter (which is what you're asking for). If you were offered the chance to deal 100 damage with an attack or 5 damage with an attack, the choice is effectively predetermined. Offering a plethora of differently itemized gear options doesn't create choices that actually matter. If the stats actually have an impact, the answer is predetermined. If the stats end up exactly the same, the choice doesn't matter.
Because of this, there's no real point in creating a massive slew of gearing options. The only reason you could ever get stuck on this is if you're too obsessed with the idea of making choices and deluding yourself into thinking that they actually *matter* that you don't give a shit about what is actually entailed in providing you those entirely redundant options that you're insisting be put in simply to assuage your ego so that you can feel like a fancy MMO player because you made a choice between two pieces of gear that are, for all intents and purposes, identical.
Except that there is a *massive* difference between player housing and vanity items. The *point* of those items is in the variety of pointless choices. You don't put plaid curtains in your player housing because they provide your house with +1 protection from sun. You put them there because they look nice. You don't choose to ride your Reaper rather than your Chocobo because the Reaper is faster. You choose it because you like riding magitek armor more than you like riding your armored battle chicken. Those choices do not impact the balance structure of the game.Quote:
They cut that out because of the time constraints you mentioned earlier and also because it was simply less work for them. Lot of that useless crap, for example housing and vanity items, that will be steadily flowing back too, because that is what the large quiet masses want. More customization, more unique snowflake.
Gear, on the other hand, is chosen explicitly *for* the mechanical advantages it provides. Offering identical options for gear means nothing because that choice isn't going to matter. The choice needs to have purpose. Huge amounts of gear options don't provide purposeful choices because the mechanical differences between them are either nonexistent or actually present, wherein the choice is predetermined.
If you seriously think that comparing gear options with vanity options makes *any* kind of sense, you've got no place being in this argument. It's completely nonsensible. Either you decided to make one of the most ludicrous strawman arguments possible; you're seeking refuge in audacity, hoping that going so far into left field that no one would want to follow you to continue the argument; or you seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
I've met plenty of people that think like you do. They think that they can magically have everything because they're completely oblivious. You're one of these people. You're oblivious, and, after having pointed everything out very clearly several times over only to have you to me that *I'm* a simpleton, the only possible reason that I could come up with for you to *continue* to be this oblivious is that you're willfully remaining oblivious so that you don't have to change your worldview to account for realities of real life.
-
10-05-2013, 08:54 AMKitru
-
10-05-2013, 03:02 PMRapBreonNo truer words were uttered on this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
-
10-05-2013, 04:31 PMkonfliktiGame development at organizations as big as SE is not some zero-sum-game where if you develop dungeons you automatically lose resources from some other part of game development. Any legit game development firm will have different teams or different people focusing on different aspects of the game. Claiming that the reason for limited amount of gear choices is due to lack of resources is something you have come up by yourself and is in no way grounded on facts. It is far more likely that it is simply a design choice, instead of "reality of game development" as you state. I happen to work at one of these software developing companies and surprisingly, whenever something needs to be done with GUI of the software, QA team does not just drop their tools and walk into where the GUI team is and start fixing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
But they do play effectively identically. They both hold enmity and try to stay alive. Only major difference is that WAR presses their buttons after damage, while PLD presses them before damage. There is difference in stats though, if you give them parry, both will survive for longer, if you give them crit, WAR will survive longer (well, longer than WAR would survive with no crit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
To me it is kinda confusing that you advocate difference between classes and jobs, but for some reason they need to have the same gear, despite the chance of making them more distinctive through gear too. This especially confusing because if you look at physical DDs, they have separate gear with no statistical variation, just different focuses.
And currently they require somewhat different numbers to tank as effectively as possible. PLD survival is not tied to the amount of damage they can put out, while WARs is. As long as this is the case, they also get different amounts of benefit from the same gear. You can address this either by having more options for gear or on job design level. Currently it does not happen on either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
((except option one kills enemies with 5, 15, 25...hp 2 seconds faster than option two, so it is in practice a predetermined choice))Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
I am talking about the optimization of the class through gear, pretty much the same thing you are talking about, but for some reason it is not possible to for WAR to have this distinction in gear because of "glut" "triage" "predetermination". Choice between more passive mitigation and more damage output is not predetermined, it depends on the content of the game and should, in optimal environment, be switched back and forth for variety.
I don't understand where you are pulling this "huge slew of options" when I am talking about maybe two or three alternative items for a slot. For accessories, there is already six choices for one slot (although they are purposely made objectively bad for everyone except the right job).
That comment was mostly regards to your statement of them cutting out lot of the clutter and focusing on what is important. It also shows that the lack of resources you keep bringing up is far less severe than what you claim if they have time for things that have absolutely no impact on the core gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
Likewise, you are not the first person I have ran into who is so stuck with their own notions that they simply cannot realize that actual improvements could be made. Also I would not really pay much attention to what you could come up with, because you do not seem to be a very inventive person in the first place. The reason I am still in this conversation is because I am somewhat committed on it and it is not simply a game of being right or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
-
10-05-2013, 04:34 PMkonfliktiIf you want to go all philosophical on this, it is not like I had a choice but to take part in this conversation. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by RapBreon
-
10-05-2013, 04:48 PMRapBreonPrecisely my point :P In the same way I couldn't resist but making my smug, self-copulating comment :< (apparently I can't stop myself).Quote:
Originally Posted by konflikti
-
10-06-2013, 12:38 AMKitruActually, it is. It's zero sum because the developers are not given an unlimited amount of money to buy absolutely everyone. There are different teams, but they have to focus on how much to provide to the different teams. It's also no as if those teams are explicitly separated from each other. In game development, there is a *lot* of person swapping and moving about. Just because It is most *definitely* zero sum.Quote:
Originally Posted by konflikti
Because there's a massive difference between QA and UI dev. Those aren't triage attributes; those are static attributes. On the other hand, *design* stuff, like developing new classes, new content, new mechanics, etc. *are* drawing from the same human resource pool. If the producers want new classes, they're going to pull people off of developing new content to do so. They're not going to take people off of bug fixing, back end tweaks, or anything else like that. Those are not the zero sum resources that they play around with. The *design* attributes are. Unless you actually know about game development, which is *not* like normal software development, your experiences are only tangentially appropriate.Quote:
I happen to work at one of these software developing companies and surprisingly, whenever something needs to be done with GUI of the software, QA team does not just drop their tools and walk into where the GUI team is and start fixing that.
Of course, you also forget that, even in the example given, if there are multiple problems or programs with the UI, the UI team has to play triage with those problems. They're no going to draw from QA, but it's *still* a zero sum game because they don't have infinite resources to devote infinite resources at every problem.
Way to take a hyper simplistic view of things just to support your own argument. The stat usefulness of a WAR and a PLD have more in common than their playstyle does. Saying that they hold enmity and stay alive is like saying that SCH and WHM are the same because they both heal or that MNK and BLM are the same because they do damage. WAR and PLD have *dramatically* different playstyles. I realize that you don't know this because you're only level 15 on your GLD so you don't have the experience to realize this, but if you honestly think that gear differentiates the class more than the actual way they play, you *really* are an idiot.Quote:
But they do play effectively identically. They both hold enmity and try to stay alive.
Because distinctiveness through gear is nowhere near the same as distinctiveness through playstyle. The only reason that a DRG and a MNK have different gear is because it was decided that DRG should have heavier armor: scale instead of leather, effectively. That gear difference is, honestly, a minor consideration which you seem to be massively hung up on. Hell, MNK and DRG actually share all of their jewelry so it's pretty obvious that they aren't even as numerically different as you posit.Quote:
To me it is kinda confusing that you advocate difference between classes and jobs, but for some reason they need to have the same gear, despite the chance of making them more distinctive through gear too. This especially confusing because if you look at physical DDs, they have separate gear with no statistical variation, just different focuses.
MNK and DRG are different because they *play* differently, not because they wear different armor. The differences in the armor mean next to nothing because they actually use the same stats in the same way. The only difference is aesthetic. WAR and PLD are different because they play differently.
Care to actually support this with anything other than conjecture? Show us how changing WAR gear so that it has less Parry and more Determination is going to magically make them better tanks than a PLD wearing the existing gear (here's a hint: it won't; Parry contributes more to a WAR than Determination does because self healing is that weak). Your supposition is founded upon your observation that WAR gets some mitigation benefits out of offensive stats whereas PLD does not. It does not actually take into account the minute differences in actual value of those stats. You're asking for different gear but, honestly, what's the point? The difference would only matter to you because you're actively *looking* for one because you want there to be a choice for yourself.Quote:
And currently they require somewhat different numbers to tank as effectively as possible. PLD survival is not tied to the amount of damage they can put out, while WARs is. As long as this is the case, they also get different amounts of benefit from the same gear. You can address this either by having more options for gear or on job design level. Currently it does not happen on either.
Seriously, I challenge you put out some realistic itemization constructs for gear that provide more end gains for WAR and they do for PLD. Do some of this work that you think the devs should be doing since, apparently, it's easy enough that they should have done it automatically. Prove me wrong that
You completely missed the point of that, didn't you?Quote:
((except option one kills enemies with 5, 15, 25...hp 2 seconds faster than option two, so it is in practice a predetermined choice))
You'll see a difference between using gear *absolutely* optimized for one class over gear *absolutely* optimized for another, but the difference is so minute that it's wasted effort to create said optimization constructs unless you're simply looking to create options for options' sake (which is what you want; you don't care about it being effective; you care about being able to make a choice). Killing something 2 seconds faster means nothing without a reference point. If something has 105 hp, the difference between their kill speeds would be a whopping 5% and that's talking about massive difference in rate of damage. A more realistic set up would be 5 damage every 2 seconds or 6 damage every 2.4. At that point, that same 105 hp target would have a difference of 2.8% (at just 100 hp, the difference is 2%). Even then, an attack speed disparity like that is flipping *huge* in terms of what the game provides.
I can give you another example of a pointless choice as well: a 10% chance to deal 100 damage or a 5% chance to deal 200 damage. They're both RNG, and they both add the same amount of damage over time. The choice is an arbitrary one that would exist purely to provide you with a choice. Providing one like that in a game is pointless because it simply doesn't matter to anyone that doesn't just want to be able to make choices because it makes them feel like they matter.
Except that increasing a WARs DPS at the cost of passive mitigation does not increase its actual survivability. You seem to have decided that it does so without actually recognizing that it doesn't. If it *did*, WARs would all be wearing DPS jewelry instead of tank jewelry. As it stands, tanks get the most out of the same gear that PLDs do. The only difference is that, while the tangential damage stats that PLDs apply purely to enmity/damage, WARs add those tangential stats to a little bit of their mitigation.Quote:
I am talking about the optimization of the class through gear, pretty much the same thing you are talking about, but for some reason it is not possible to for WAR to have this distinction in gear because of "glut" "triage" "predetermination". Choice between more passive mitigation and more damage output is not predetermined, it depends on the content of the game and should, in optimal environment, be switched back and forth for variety.
What you seem to not recognize is that 2-3 additional alternatives for each slot means 2-3 times as many pieces of gear. You're asking for the people who design the gear to double or triple their workload. Unless you want the differences to exist purely in the arbitrary (this one has Determination instead of Crit once again getting into the realm of "why the fuck does this matter?"), you're asking for the team to rebuild the entire itemization construct just to assuage your desire for more choice. At which point, I can assure you, that there will *still* be a single on that is still the best because that's how gear differentiation works.Quote:
I don't understand where you are pulling this "huge slew of options" when I am talking about maybe two or three alternative items for a slot. For accessories, there is already six choices for one slot (although they are purposely made objectively bad for everyone except the right job).
In WoW, they used to create 2-3 weapon options for each class in every end game dungeon. They stopped doing it when it got to the point where everyone figured out which one was actually *best* and started ignoring everything except for that one *best* option. Gear differentiation does not lead to more choices. It simply adds more work to the developers that just gets wasted because they ended up developing redundant items that no one actually wants.
Not really. There's a difference between core gameplay and wonky little side projects. The pointless crap that SE cut out isn't the pointless stuff that exists because it's pointless. The pointless crap that SE cut out is the pointless stuff that existed just because that's how it had always been done and didn't add anything of quality to the game. There isn't a plethora of weapon or gear options because they recognize that it doesn't actually add anything to the game; people will use the "best" option and cast the other to the wayside, so what's the point of developing those options if no one is going to use them?Quote:
That comment was mostly regards to your statement of them cutting out lot of the clutter and focusing on what is important. It also shows that the lack of resources you keep bringing up is far less severe than what you claim if they have time for things that have absolutely no impact on the core gameplay.
I'm not inventive? Have you actually looked at either of the classes in my sig? There's a difference between being "inventive" and being realistic about what actually matters. You seem to be struck by the notion that more options are always better and that the developers have all of the resources they could possibly need to make all of those options a reality. Those options that you're hung up on don't matter beyond your own little realm of thought because you value choice more than quality.Quote:
Likewise, you are not the first person I have ran into who is so stuck with their own notions that they simply cannot realize that actual improvements could be made. Also I would not really pay much attention to what you could come up with, because you do not seem to be a very inventive person in the first place. The reason I am still in this conversation is because I am somewhat committed on it and it is not simply a game of being right or wrong.
Secondly, you're so stuck in your own notion that choices matter that you honestly think that they would be an improvement. Your entire argument is that more choices are better because *choices*. You haven't actually pointed out how choices in gearing would actually create appreciable differences in performance from the current state. Prove that what you say is actually true rather than just blathering on about it without having any kind of support. If you want to prove me wrong that gear differentiation would actually make WARs perform better compared to PLDs than they do now because everything is built perfectly for PLDs, show us. If you *can't* prove that the options you so dearly believe would matter or even provide evidence beyond hypersimplistic logic statements that don't bear out with reality ("WARs get mitigation benefits from offensive stats while PLDs do not; ergo, WARs should have gear with more offensive stats on it so that they can perform better than PLDs"), then shut the hell up, get your head out of your ass, and recognize that creating options just so people can make choices is not a good idea.
What you might not realize is that I like choices. It's not a choice, however, when you're choosing between 2 options that don't mean differ appreciably or choosing between 2 options where one is the obvious better choice.
Choices need to matter. If you're choosing between whether your gun is ocean grey or military grey, it's doesn't. As soon as you recognize this relatively simple idea, you'll realize that creating numerous gear options isn't something that creates choices of substance; the only thing is serves to do is play to your ego about making choices because all choices matter. -
10-06-2013, 03:06 AMPhreak
Check and Mate.
-
10-06-2013, 07:07 AMCzeslawVarpulis
This discussion has been very enlightening for me. :o
-
10-06-2013, 09:16 AMkonfliktiRed Mage/Mystic Knight seems somewhat complex and interesting, but Dark Knight is basically just marauder/warrior with pieces of PLD thrown in, but better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
I have never once claimed that the reason that PLD performs better than WAR is due to gear. On the contrary, I have said that the big divider between WAR and PLD is the discrepancy between Shield Oath and Defiance.Quote:
Secondly, you're so stuck in your own notion that choices matter that you honestly think that they would be an improvement. Your entire argument is that more choices are better because *choices*. You haven't actually pointed out how choices in gearing would actually create appreciable differences in performance from the current state. Prove that what you say is actually true rather than just blathering on about it without having any kind of support. If you want to prove me wrong that gear differentiation would actually make WARs perform better compared to PLDs than they do now because everything is built perfectly for PLDs, show us. If you *can't* prove that the options you so dearly believe would matter or even provide evidence beyond hypersimplistic logic statements that don't bear out with reality ("WARs get mitigation benefits from offensive stats while PLDs do not; ergo, WARs should have gear with more offensive stats on it so that they can perform better than PLDs"), then shut the hell up, get your head out of your ass, and recognize that creating options just so people can make choices is not a good idea.
I ran some pretty quick maths on this (it is 3am, I am not in my best calculating condition) and swapping parry to crit on gear would lower the average mitigation of parry from 3.2% reduction to 0.7% reduction for physical damage. This parry calculation is kinda sketchy because I was not able to get any verified data, but I assumed the baseline system is similar to crit chance, since they both have the same default value and operate in percentages. Weaponskill damage gain from this swap was roughly 7.5%. With full crit gear, you get roughly 21% crit chance (29% with Internal Release), which would allow a big IB, far more often. These numbers are based on ilvl 90 gear and are mostly based on valk-dancing-mad. EDIT: the str parry mitigations listed on vdm seem outdated, considering that I hit 23% damage reduction with my measly gear. Proper maximum physical damage reduction average from parry is then likely to be around 6.25%.
I'll see if I can muster enough effort to answer the rest of your post "tomorrow", but I feel this whole conversation has bounced so far off what I was originally trying to say it is getting kinda laborious. -
10-06-2013, 10:52 AMFaction
Being needlessly long winded and wordy doesn't change the fact that you're essentially a just a random person who posts game design fan fiction (I mean really, you're proud enough to put it in your signature?? Embarrassing) as well as apparently a self styled psychologist.
Well, except in the eyes of people that see a lot of words then say "This person MUST be VERY SMART AND ALSO CORRECT."
You can't win when you're arguing with someone who's reply to any contrary thought is 5 paragraphs that all amount to "PSUEDO INTELLECTUAL PSYCHOANALYSIS OF RANDOM FORUM PERSON " -
10-06-2013, 12:27 PMRapBreonAhhhhhhhhhh shut upa your face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Faction
-
10-07-2013, 08:33 PMChenBot
It's a really bad idea to hold game developers up as the golden standard of skill in these types of games
-
10-07-2013, 08:44 PMAzazela
I suspectbthey arent going to balance anything, and I doubt warriors all of a sudden have content that favours them in anyways. Going to be like a lot of MMOs nothing will be fixed. But unlike many other games warriors are at least viable, were some specs like in WoW arent viable for content two expansions in a row.
-
10-07-2013, 08:59 PMTerabyt3
Against pure magic dmg enemies WARs would be more viable.
Just throwing that out there. Since you cannot block or parry magic attacks pld's mitigation gets humped.
But like i've said before and I'll say it again. Static mitigation (WARs self heals per sec) will never balance against scaling mitigation (PLDs % based reduction based on incoming dps).
Either the dps is low and wars can effectively run without healing from external sources. or incoming dps is high enough to push PLD % drop well past WARs mitigation.
Until they are both static or both scaling they'll never balance.
I vote for scaling PLD proactive, WAR reactive. -
10-07-2013, 09:28 PMPowderkeg
The release of a game is a beta all in its own if you notice, it's all a test until a medium has been created and even that doesn't last long, they see how players use a job ect then they act on it, this is all input, all data being stored. They watch how people play and whatever becomes a trend they usually build on it. One thing you have to understand about FF, nothing is ever set in stone.
-
10-07-2013, 11:05 PMMitski
Idea for a new job - inspired by the Warrior thread.
Job: Forum Warrior
Limit Break: Wall of Text
Effect: Attempt to 'win' argument on the internet by posting more words than opposing players are willing to read.
Success Rate: 99% -
10-07-2013, 11:07 PMSurfieShield Oath mitigates magic damage, so does most of their cooldowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terabyt3
-
10-08-2013, 10:45 AMxxbodkinxx
Dinged 50 on my pally yesterday so ill chime in from a casual player who eventually wants to make the leap into coil.
With absolutely zero testing done and no screenshots, data, theorycrafting nadda..
My pally wearing the exact same gear up to the weapon (have both ifrit weapons on my account) is far superior to my warrior. :(
I ran cm to warm up and immediately felt a difference.
Said screw it and ran AK, had no issues with aoe threat and was far more durable. The wall fight in particular was a huge difference (picking up adds, popping a cooldown to ignore the ground damage) I always for some reason struggled to pick up both adds in a timely matter on my warrior. For the pally is was as easy as hitting circle of scorn which btw can be used while moving unlike steel cyclone. When a dps did pull aggro on a bee on my second of third run I just used cover while he finished it off.
Then onto HM Garuda, this was the largest difference for me. When a large burst of incoming damage came in I had so many cooldowns to mitigate damage is was funny. I REALLY want to make my warrior my main but at this point in the game the pally is just plain better.
That being said I feel that a few minor tweaks would make warriors viable and Im sure pretty much everything has been covered inside and out but.. here we go.
Inner beast make it a shorter cooldown (10 seconds?) and make it not consume wrath on execute. Make it a bubble rather then a heal and make wrath stacks increase the bubble amount. Base the bubble to scale off of defense so that the more gear you get the larger the bubble. This will allow the warrior to scale with gear.
Change unchained from a damage buff to a parry buff with a percentage of parry ditch the cooldown. Make it consume wrath stacks. The idea here would be to use Unchained right before a large influx of damage, pop infuriate to regain your healing buff and resume rotation.
Foresight should be a 20% damage redux just like the pally version.
Make wrath dot tick for more but less often, restore wrath stacks on ticks so it can be used in a rotation. Only usable on one target at a time.
Ditch bloodbath and tie it into overpower, make overpower heal for 100%? of the damage dealt. AOE a group of mobs and the heals would be significant and would help bring pally block and warrior self heals inline with each other.
Bloodbath = remove pacify it would be interesting to see what the real benefit would be in damage using it versus not using it after you take into the 6 seconds of sitting there not doing any damage.
Mercy stroke should give health back without having to get the killing blow.
What do I know im just a gamer who wants to play warrior as a main, just playing a pally so im not a hindrance to my fc. -
10-08-2013, 12:55 PMHalfmind
"in development environment devs are really strong with marauder"
Chances are the devs are running with whatever changes 2.1 brings.
In my opinion, the fix to WAR comes with a modification to the Wrath stacks. Change Wrath stacks to increase healing and either one of the following:
- Increase parry chance and amount by 5% per stack
- Decrease damage taken by 3% per stack
Having an always-on 15% damage reduction, or a 25% bonus to parry (and an extra 1% parried) would certainly help with how increased damage scales far more exponentially than the WAR's self-healing abilities.
It's silly to sit there and modify useless abilities like Storm, which you can only pull off every 7.5s for a massive reduction in threat. -
10-09-2013, 12:42 AMC-croftI don't think its a part of patch 2.1. He stated we needed to do more research now and that WAR is really strong. They have a real parser and data flow in the dev environment which gives them all the data to review and he is stating we are missing something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halfmind
-
10-09-2013, 12:52 AMDerza
"Development environment" to me means the environment with the new changes. Personally i'm going to keep gearing my warrior and hope for the best. Should only be a month or so before 2.1 right?
-
10-09-2013, 12:58 AMPessimiStickI hope he's just being mistranslated, because it doesn't inspire confidence that the lead dev. is that out of touch/delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by C-croft
-
10-09-2013, 01:28 AMKitruThat can mean a lot of things. They could be referring to info from their internal playtests for 2.0 or 2.1 for any variety of content. Part of the problem is that his statement was so monumentally vague that it's hard to explicitly call him out on being wrong because we're not entirely sure what he's saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derza
-
10-09-2013, 01:34 AMDerzaOh I know... I'm just going to keep with my warrior(just doing AKs and capping mythology each week) and hope for the best and see what happens in 2.1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitru
-
10-09-2013, 01:53 AMPhreakViable and Optimal are two very different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azazela
-
10-09-2013, 02:05 AMC-croftSame. Even though he stated a development environment, it could mean anything like Kitru said. The development system likely has all of their main debug tools (parsers and the like) and that's why he states they are strong. I still think he meant that if you want to show off, you roll WAR. And by showing off, it means your party can perform the necessary heavy workload to keep things going smoothly. And do it well. The only other way I can see it is if WARs were so OP that they could stand so strong on their own in progressive content. Which has proven to not be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derza
-
10-09-2013, 11:22 AMJudge_XeroIt might be because they have access to all the best gear too. I did a mock up of all end game gear based on damage data I've been collecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by C-croft
To see what a decked out War could pull off. Results could be even higher depending on stat walls etc but here it is.
Because PLD's Shield Oath and Defensive Skills scale against damage regardless of gear, I think that's why Paladin seems so OP compared to Warrior.
What will Paladin see from the best gear? More HP, a bit more Defens, slightly better block and parry, maybe a little more enmity generation from the STR already on gear? Most importantly it will not see any extra benefit from its existing defensive buffs.
So let’s take a look at Warrior using AF2, Relic 2 and end game jewelry, because Warrior’s main defense is its offense, which it can only get from gear equal to the content being challenged (player skill aside)
I did a spec sheet on what my characters stats would be in full endgame gear (Hero, Alagan etc)
Bravura + 1
STR 451
VIT 395
ACC 429
CRIT 379
Parry 466
DET 263
Skill Speed 393
Using damage testing and cross referencing it to these stats here’s what I came up with.
Warrior HP ~ 6300
Average Inner Beast - 1950 HP Recovered @ 650 Damage (Maim, Storm’s Eye)
~ 180 SHPS using only Inner Beast and double Inner Beast @ 60 second intervals
~ 234 SHPS including other CD’s (Berserk, Inner Release, Second Wind)
~ Bloodbath would account for ~ 10 SHPS
~ Infuriate Buff would account for ~ 64 HPS (Average 2k heal @ 8% Average Wrath)
So ~ 308 Damage Mitigation per second fully geared. -
10-09-2013, 11:38 AMKaalan
Except that with 6300 HP you won't get to the point where you'll be able to use inner beast.
A ~6k PLD with shield oath and rotation on his CD is already having trouble on some boss, even thinking that it might be possible to tank the same thing as a WAR with 6300 hp is complet denial.
Not to mention 429 acc. -
10-09-2013, 11:57 AMHalfmind
WAR is really strong when it comes to the following:
-DPS
-Threat
-AOE DPS/Threat
I think it's better to run WAR as OT vs PLD (except for Turn 1, but WAR is fine). Unfortunately, WAR's self-heals simply don't scale at the speed that Coil's damage ramps, whereas the PLD's mitigation scales linearly throughout the game's current encounters.
Turn 5 is tuned to be beat with 85+ gear score (CT drops + Myth). FCs who are attempting Turn 5 are typically in the high 70's to low 80's(lucky folks pushing mid 80's), which makes mechanics far less forgiving.
A Paladin is going to be a much better asset for progression groups with the currently released boss mechanics and available gear. Does this means Warriors are fated to be sub-optimal tanks? Not at all, and I'm banking on the idea that there may be a few tweaks down the road, and most likely some encounters that allow the Job to shine. -
10-09-2013, 12:01 PMLeironNot...really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halfmind
It just does not compare to any true DPS class unless you do some...really weird stuff I think.
I believe you need dragoon gear, and then you need to be strength allocated and be a marauder. -
10-09-2013, 12:25 PMXbob42
I keep saying this: If Yoshi-P thinks that Warriors are so strong and great at tanking, he needs to give us some examples. Clearly no one has played as much as his dev team, so maybe they know some super secret strategy no one else does, or maybe he's just buying time until buffs or until encounters are tuned to Warrior's speciality. Warriors can totally do most current content, but it's typically at least slightly, and usually moderately harder on the healers.
-
10-09-2013, 01:09 PMHalfmindI can pull around 200 DPS as a WAR on single target encounters. That may not compare to a great rotation from most DPS, but seeing as how I'm doing that while tanking, I'd say that's pretty legit DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leiron
-
10-09-2013, 01:18 PMLeironThat entirely depends upon the context Half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halfmind
The issue with the parser is that currently it does not provide accurate information, particularly for a spec such as Summoner.
At the moment I have not seen anything to suggest Warrior DPS, while tanking, to be anything comparable to a true DPS spec role.
Hence, why I mntioned the above and making an odd DPS spec. -
10-09-2013, 01:30 PMFactionWAR does not deal significantly more DPS than a paladin. While tanking a WAR will deal roughly 15% more. When you consider that this 15% is on a number such as 120, you realize how completely inconsequential that is. In regards to "threat," Paladins generate more threat because paladins don't have a combo they need to use that doesn't generate any additional enmity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halfmind
"AOE DPS and threat" is hardly a positive. Paladins can hold aoe threat just fine and are much more survivable while doing it. In addition, the "extra aoe dps" provided by Warrior is heavily limited by TP and in practice might amount to a 500-1000 extra aoe damage per pull, in, for example, turn 4, where you are constantly having to ration for TP for each spawn. That's nothing. It's even less when you consider that Paladins have some decent aoe's of their own that they're throwing out, which narrows that gap quite a bit. And hell - Warriors use flash for initial pickups more so than overpower anyway, and the initial pick up is the hard part of aoe tanking.
You're not doing 200dps with defiance on in tank gear unless you're talking a 20 second fight that lasts exactly the duration of berserk and unchained. I do anywhere from 180-220dps according to the shitty parser on demon wall and that's in DPS gear with defiance off and 420 str on an extremely short fight where crit luck actually plays a real part. And the theoretical "no shield oath" DPS of a paladin is undeniably higher than a Warrior anyway, so that's a moot point.Quote:
I can pull around 200 DPS as a WAR on single target encounters. That may not compare to a great rotation from most DPS, but seeing as how I'm doing that while tanking, I'd say that's pretty legit DPS.
-
10-09-2013, 01:54 PMThyrllanI remember when they said everyone was doing AV wrong and that they would release a video showing how to properly do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by C-croft
TWO YEARS LATER, they released a video that didn't show anything worth watching.
I have little faith in SE when they claim that everyone is simply doing it wrong. -
10-09-2013, 02:16 PMIllyaCheck this guy's bar charts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge_Xero
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/100494-How-would-you-fix-Warrior?p=1392917&viewfull=1#post1392917
You know what's crazy? Because PLD's damage mitigation scales with incoming damage, that means that a PLD now, in ilvl 70 gear available today, mitigates ~350 damage per second in the same example. That's how broken WAR is, a WAR in full endgame ilvl 90 mitigates according to your calculations ~300, a PLD in currently available ilvl 70 mitigates ~350. Oh, and that's passive mitigation, we haven't started talking about PLD's cooldowns yet! -
10-09-2013, 11:20 PMmythicroseI know the secret but have been loath to reveal it. Gather closer friends so I may impart this sacred knowledge on thee. Warriors must stack piety from stat point allocation and materia (where applicable). The goal is to be pious enough that the Gods will hear our frustration of being the "inferior" tank and bless us will good healers don't mind having to work harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xbob42
-
10-09-2013, 11:20 PMKitruYou're correct on DPS, but a WAR using the BB>BB>SE combo chain will generate more enmity than a PLD spamming the Halone combo. It does less damage than the BB>SE combo because you're losing uptime on the SE debuff (it's only up for the BBs) but generates substantially more enmity thanks to using BB more often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Faction
The "WAR is good because it packs more DPS" arguments are really getting old. It's gotten to the point where the only people that bring it up are willfully ignorant of what the classes are actually capable of or those that simply parroting what they heard from other people or are seeking any justification for the poor relative performance of WARs (e.g. "WAR is less survivable so it *must* have better damage to make up for it"). -
10-09-2013, 11:22 PMPessimiStickTechnically a PLD in almost any gear mitigates ~350 under those conditions. It's not really tied to their gear at all, they just need enough HP to not get 2-shot. The raw defense increase from i60 to i90 is actually pretty small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illya
-
10-10-2013, 01:13 AMHachiko
For 2x BB + 1x SE combo, that's 2150+2150+610 enmity (if the enmity numbers are correct). Best case scenario both BB combos have SE debuff and Maim for them, which puts them at 33% higher enmity, this puts them at 2863 Enmity. The Maim combo only gets the benefit of the 20% maim buff, so that puts it at 732. A total enmity in 3 combos of 6458.
For pld, they get 2130 Enmityx3. In the same period of time, the PLD gets 6150 potency-Enmity. So a WAR will be making about 5% more enmity than a WAR.
But also worth noting that the WAR has ramp-up time. You actually dip in enmity while putting up your first maim/Storm's Eye.
And it's also worth noting that just spamming Butcher's Block is almost as effective, at 6450 potency-enmity. The entire difference is due to 1 thing: the fact that Butcher's Block is 280 potency instead of 260 that halone is.
And it's also worth noting that Fight or Flight generally puts paladins ahead as well, a PLD will generally generate far more enmity in the initial stages of the fight because they can open with Fight or Flight, while a WAR has to wait for SE debuff to efficiently use Berserk and/or Unchained, and even then you end up with some downtime after it wears off.
In fairness, WAR does have up to a 10% crit advantage which counts for something.
Anyhow, they're so close it's hard to chalk it up as an advantage to one or the other. a 5% rotational advantage could also be offset by Circle of Scorn and Spirit's within, but I don't think it really matters in the grand scheme of things.
I just want to point out how off those numbers are, they are off by about a factor of 100%. There is no way you're mitigating 300 damage with those skills, even with that insane amount of gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illya