So what exactly IS the issue with Warrior?

personally i wouldnt mind getting cures less effective than pld if self heals were up to par. self-heals right now are a joke on anything harder than AK

So Kitru, the only thing that strikes me in what you are talking about is consistent intelligent use of IB, (Sub 65% HP only!) and the fight duration. Because after so much time, it amounts to such insignificant numbers. I don't know a fight that starves out both the scholar and White Mage to the point that the 3-5 cure 1's will have been the determining factor. That would basically say that the group's collective DPS is too low to sustain the fight, and were suddenly being carried entirely by great healers.

What we should probably do is take into account exactly how much DPS Cadecus puts out, since this fight is typically the big one cited for Damage being put out on Tanks, But never have I heard of any healers unable to keep up with healing on any other fight, just Turn 4 Enmity issues..... Titan excluded because it's healer skill more so than tank cooldowns.

If were talking Turn 4 Dreadnoughts, Well.. I guess this is where my experience drops off, however I run with a Paladin, in my Coil Group, so if people are fighting for use of 2 warriors instead of 1 of each tank, then thats IMO not nice to Paladins. =(

To me 5% is not adding up enough to matter if your group is competent, and consistent. It can also easily be off set by a Bard song for MP Woes. If the fights were designed to be in excess of 45 minutes, THEN I can see where it will add up, but so far, nothign has even come close to 20 minutes long. (Again not sure about Twintania.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZDamned

Most healers complain about the truckload, even though Warriors don't look like they take any more damage than a paladin. When the heals go off, it's still very balanced as you can see from my example above which uses very close to reality numbers. it sounds to me like your warrior is a terrible player.

EDIT! I added %'s after the initial blow, and we actually take less damage % based initially, so unless a Pally Cooldown is in play, we still LOOK like were taking less damage overall. Emphasis on look like... hehe

---

Your example above leaves our Rampart / Sentinel / Chance to block AND parry

Compare that to Foresight / Unchained / Infuriate / inner beast and you'll notice that Huston has a problem. Warriors cooldowns arent as strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooner_iBluAirJGR

Your example above leaves our Rampart / Sentinel / Chance to block AND parry

Compare that to Foresight / Unchained / Infuriate / inner beast and you'll notice that Huston has a problem. Warriors cooldowns arent as strong.

---

Umm, You just ignored the point of what I said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZDamned

So Kitru, the only thing that strikes me in what you are talking about is consistent intelligent use of IB, (Sub 65% HP only!) and the fight duration. Because after so much time, it amounts to such insignificant numbers. I don't know a fight that starves out both the scholar and White Mage to the point that the 3-5 cure 1's will have been the determining factor. That would basically say that the group's collective DPS is too low to sustain the fight, and were suddenly being carried entirely by great healers.

---

If you're not overgeared for Cad, you're pretty likely to have your healers running out of manage towards the end of the fight (especially as a WAR, though a lot of that is due to CD suites; given the fact that the devs didn't expect people to do Cad to 4 stacks by using CDs, WAR performance on it is likely what's expected). The devs likely never intended healer mp to be absolutely infinite and, when you play content with relatively appropriate gear, mp levels *do* start bottoming out. Since it's pretty easy to outgear everything except for Coil (and outgearing the first boss of Coil with DL + myth gear isn't too hard either), you're not going to notice the loss.

The most important thing to bring home from those numbers is that it takes constant, unwasted IBs to bring WAR up to PLD efficiency, which is completely unrealistic. Because those numbers assumed that IB would have been used as efficiently as possible *as soon* as it was available for the conditions (i.e. 5 stacks Wrath or Infuriate resets), it's nowhere *near* realistic. In practice, you'll likely get maybe half of the contributions from IB that those numbers predicted, which pull WAR down to the 92-93% efficiency range.

I get the feeling that the numbers I did are pretty close to what the devs came up with when they were balancing the tanks, mainly because it gets *way* too close to equal for it to be an accident, as I see it. The probably didn't pay much attention to 8 man content, for whatever reason, and either ignored or were ignorant of the differences between the CD suites.

As to the "5% isn't that much", keep in mind that, in DL/AF2 gear, there's about a 5% difference in the mitigation benefits of Rampart compared to Foresight and most people notice the difference very quickly.

The op is like 4lv's away, I don't really see the point of this post considering all the info/posts/rants over "War vs Pld". People can try to use math to defend war all day. If you have both just try them both, you might like war's style better that's fine play a war. Then by having both you can clearly see the healers working a lot harder to keep you up, if you don't care about healers stay on war. Both can hold hate just fine, 1takes a lot more damage but they can self heal(assuming you can get it off, cause the healers are spam healing you anyways).

I think a lot of people like the -idea- of war being some kind of higher dps tank that even has more HP, then playing a turtle tank. While in reality all they have is more hp and less dmg migration. Then at the end of the day Pld still brings silence and a better stun, and can recharge one of it's own resources.

It's Simple for me.
1#MT'ing?: Pld
2#OT'ing? Need something stunned or silenced, Or Will your job invole OT'ing something that hits hard/will be alive for a while.: Pld
3#OT'ing? Easy trash. :War
Sadly 90% of where #3 becomes a yes, there's no reason to even bring a OT.

Turn 2: This is a joke right? ADS is literally the easiest turn in coil in terms of tanking it. The Paladin has very limited advantage in this turn, as none of the attacks can be blocked and the damage is minor anyway. Most failures in this turn come from standing in bad stuff. As a Warrior I ignore repelling cannons anyway. Killed mini-ADSs at 8 stacks and have tanked the main guy up to 7 before I missed a dodge from repelling cannons and got insta-gibbed.

Pretty much this, Turn 2 is all about mechanics and not our cooldowns.

The ADS is a status boss, without those status effects it hits for garbage damage, infact its so little sometimes I can actually inner beast that damage away entirely on my own, its pretty neet when I get the chance to do that.

Inner Beast as a shield instead of a heal would help. The ability for warriors to get Keen Flurry would help. Forsight actually doing something would be nice.

Also the fact that Paladins can obtain Blood Thirst, but Warriors can't obtain Rampart is unfair. Both are class signature abilities and should be exclusive.

1. Less effective HP. Even though it looks like warriors have more HP, they actually have much less because Paladin gets a 20% damage reduction before mitigation while warriors just get a 15% incoming healing boost which just doesn't compare to the paladin damage reduction, which means healers have to work much harder to keep a warrior alive than they would a Paladin in a long fight.

2. Inner beast is terrible. The heal is kind of meh but the worst part about it is that it removes your 15% healing buff, which means you're making it EVEN HARDER for healers to keep you alive, it's really stupidly designed.

3. Warrior cooldowns suck compared to PLD. PLD gets: Hallowed Ground which lets them tank stuff warrior can only dream of, Sentinel which is like a mini-hallowed ground, Bulwark which is like Sentinel for things that can be blocked, and Rampart which is like a mini-Sentinel. Warrior doesn't get anything anywhere nearly as good.

4. Paladin gets a shield. Both classes can parry but only PLD can block, which means PLD mitigate even more damage on top of everything else.

The issue with warrior is that it cannot decide if it is a Damage Dealer or a Tank!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aureliami

1. Less effective HP.

---

You're conflating effective hit points with required healing (i.e. mean mitigation). PLD and WAR have effectively identical effective hit points: an unmitigated attack hitting a WAR is going to do the exact same damage in percent of total hp as it would hitting a PLD. What you're attempting to say here is that WAR has inferior mean mitigation, even when you factor in the self healing that WAR gets that is intended to close the gap.

Quote:

---

2. Inner beast is terrible. The heal is kind of meh but the worst part about it is that it removes your 15% healing buff, which means you're making it EVEN HARDER for healers to keep you alive, it's really stupidly designed.

---

Inner Beast is actually a *very* powerful tool, allowing you to get pretty close to making up for the extra 8.7% healing that WAR is going to require thanks to the loss of Wrath stacks. The problem is that Inner Beast doesn't scale which means that it works wonderfully in 4 man content but becomes a monumental liability in 8 man content. The entire point behind it is that you have to weigh the short term benefits of using it against the long term costs. It's not *supposed* to be a tool appropriate for all situations. If it didn't have the Wrath cost attached to it, there wouldn't *be* any reason not to use it all the time, which means that it would need to be weakened to compensate.

The devs have pretty much stated that they intended for WAR to be the skill tanks and for PLD to be the faceroll tank. In the first Live Letter, Yoshi-P dismissed any player concerns about WAR as players just not knowing how to use the class properly and that they fully expected WAR, when played well, to outperform PLD. That's pretty much the definition of a skill tank. Abilities like Inner Beast are what *define* skill tanks: if you use them arbitrarily, you're going to get piss poor performance but, if you know how to leverage them properly, you get excellent performance out of them.

For Inner Beast, it's all about knowing the ebb and flow of the fights: you can safely use Inner Beast without feeling much of the effects of the loss of Wrath stacks by using it right before you know the boss is going to stop attacking you for a window. In Coil Turn 2, use Inner Beast right as the other tank is about to pull off of you, since you can easily get those Wrath stacks back while your own stacks are fading. On Titan, you can use Inner Beast right after the even Mountain Busters without any issues since he proceeds to spend the next 15 or so seconds on Weight of the Land and gaol, which means that all that's hitting you is the 1 auto-attack he throws at you between using the two.

Inner Beast is bad (in 8 man content) because it doesn't scale like static mitigation (so that it becomes effectively worthless on any fight with more damage than your average 4 man boss fight), not because it has an opportunity cost. If you removed the cost, you'd be removing the "skill" aspect from it, which is counter to the intent of the class.

Sir, just listen to your FC. DOn't bother reading the WALL-TEXT on the forums, they'll only confuse you. It's better to run in blazing with people you know and can teach you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irenae

The issue with warrior is that it cannot decide if it is a Damage Dealer or a Tank!

---

Not really. The only people who think that WAR is confused as to its role are people that look at the axe and assume that WAR is supposed to have higher damage than PLD (which isn't true; WAR and PLD are pretty much tied on damage dealt). Maim and Storm's Eye are just mechanisms to enforce a rotation that's more complex than just spamming a single combo ad infinitum (*cough*PLD*cough*). Even when not in Defiance, PLD and WAR are pretty evenly matched on damage dealt thanks to Sword Oath.

Mechanically, WAR is well defined as a tank. The problem is that some of the mechanisms that WAR uses are underpowered compared to PLD, which means that WAR is squishier than PLD, and, because people often make the assumption that everything is an explicit choice and that things are balanced because of this, they assume that WAR deals more damage to make up for it. It doesn't help that WAR is good at putting up big bursty numbers (Maim + Storm's Eye + Berserk + Inner Beast crit) rather than the higher number of smaller numbers that PLD generates (ex. Fight or Flight is *way* stronger than Berserk because it lasts 50% longer, not to mention not having the Pacification effect) and the human brain measures events based upon deviation from the average rather than actual performance.

The idea that WAR is somehow "confused" is, basically, due to flawed logic and unreliable initial perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

Not really. The only people who think that WAR is confused as to its role are people that look at the axe and assume that WAR is supposed to have higher damage than PLD (which isn't true; WAR and PLD are pretty much tied on damage dealt). Maim and Storm's Eye are just mechanisms to enforce a rotation that's more complex than just spamming a single combo ad infinitum (*cough*PLD*cough*). Even when not in Defiance, PLD and WAR are pretty evenly matched on damage dealt thanks to Sword Oath.

---

Here's where the argument is lost. If both have the exact same damage output, why would you ever bring a warrior when a paladin brings the same damage as well as a shield and better mitigation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Here's where the argument is lost. If both have the exact same damage output, why would you ever bring a warrior when a paladin brings the same damage as well as a shield and better mitigation?

---

It's not even an argument because PLD isn't *supposed* to have better mitigation. The devs up a said it in the last live letter. WAR and PLD are *supposed* to have the same effective damage and same effective survivability so that the choice between them is largely based upon secondary utility and player preference, much like deciding between healers and DPS. You're acting as if the classes are already in a balanced state when they're not.

WARs aren't sacrificing survivability to increase their damage, like some people seem to think. They've simply got lower survivability and people attempt to justify it by claiming that WAR has better damage because they want the game to always be perfectly balanced and everything to be fair (even though a tank with higher damage and lower survivability is pretty much worthless in the confines of a trinity MMO). Right now, PLD and WAR are not on equal footing; PLD is explicitly better. The devs have explicitly said that they're going to address this in 2.1 and specifically said that they're going to be changing WAR in 6 different ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

You're conflating effective hit points with required healing (i.e. mean mitigation).

---

In every MMO before FF14, theorycrafters took into consideration all forms of mitigation including traits like boost to incoming healing when determining eHP.

Why should FF14 be different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aureliami

In every MMO before FF14, theorycrafters took into consideration all forms of mitigation including traits like boost to incoming healing when determining eHP.

Why should FF14 be different?

---

Warrior has 7500 HP (with Defiance)
Paladin has 6000

Attack hits Warrior for 5000
Attack hits Paladin for 4000

Cure II/Cura does 2200

Warrior now has 5030
Paladin now has 4200

Cure II/Cura again

Warrior now has 7530
Paladin is now has 6400

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aureliami

In every MMO before FF14, theorycrafters took into consideration all forms of mitigation including traits like boost to incoming healing when determining eHP.

Why should FF14 be different?

---

That's why in my comparison I take the party composition as a whole. The only combination that seems to match perfectly is Warrior with two healers vs Paladin with one healer and one DPS. Things I looked at are, Party DPS, Tank Survivability, and class mechanics.

In short, War + 2 Healers (Each 60% Healing, 40% DPS) = PLD + Healer + DPS

CON
- Relies heavily on good healers vs just clicking a button.
- Damage Mitigation from Heals/Self Healing occurs after damage. Maximum HP needs to account for getting 1 Shotted. >6800 HP Coil

PRO
- Generates much more enmity
- Better party composition with 2 x Healers for 1 Tank - Relative to a 4 Man Party
- Greater Survivability compared to Paladin. (138% More Heals on a Warrior with 2 X Healers + Wrath Buff which is equal to Paladin in Shield Oath + all CD's) *** Warrior will still have it's own CD's too use on top of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aureliami

In every MMO before FF14, theorycrafters took into consideration all forms of mitigation including traits like boost to incoming healing when determining eHP.

---

No, they didn't. In every MMO before FFXIV, tanks were still defined by 2 different methods of calculating survivability because not all mitigation mechanisms behave the same way. Games that calculate eHP by factoring in mean performance of all mitigation mechanisms rather than discretely separating those mechanisms that increase constant eHP from mean mitigation end up with *loads* of problems (for the last year, Shad/Sin tanks in TOR have been effectively unable to tank anything but 4 man dungeons because they had ~75% of the eHP of the other tanks but the devs thought they were actually *stronger than they should have been* because they were using mean mitigation for eHP). Many games can ignore this by not relying on burst damage as their tank pressuring mechanism so that eHP doesn't actually mean anything so that it becomes all about mean mitigation, but FFXIV is *not* one of those games, as evidenced by fights like Titan and Caduceus with their spike mechanics.

eHP represents the ability to survive spike hits. Where surviving spike hits are concerned, RNG mechanisms, like evasion and parry, and reactive mechanisms, like self healing and increased healing received, do nothing because RNG will inevitably fail and you have to *survive* a hit for reactive mechanisms to do anything. If you average out the performance of mitigation based mechanisms, 20% evasion compared to 20% damage reduction, they'll have the same mean mitigation, but, as soon as the devs put up a spike that's supposed to reduce them to 20% of max hp (like Mountain Buster), the damage reduction will allow the tank to always survive if above 80% hp whereas the evasion tank will simply *die* 20% of the time because it's not active constantly. If you factor in reactive mechanisms, the ability to heal yourself for 25% of your max hp either because that attack will do more than your max hp every single time and you'll just die.

Pretty much *every* MMO has been forced to shift their tank balance paradigm from a single value to 2 separate values. FFXIV *isn't* any different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

That's why in my comparison I take the party composition as a whole.

---

Except that the game is obviously designed around a 1:1:2 ratio instead of the 1:2:1 ratio you're using thanks to the DF, as well as how the fights themselves are design (DPS races and whatnot).

On top of that, there *isn't* any advantage when using that composition for a WAR compared to a PLD: you're sacrificing damage to increase survivability. Since WAR and PLD deal effectively the same damage, a PLD could get the exact same increase in survivability by going with your 2 healer composition and it would *still* be more survivable than the WAR while having the same damage output.

Also, as I pointed out last time you brought up that composition, you're not going to a perfect conversion with healer DPS. A healer that spends 40% of their time is not going to provide 40% of the DPS of an actual DPS. If they *could*, there would be no point in bringing DPS because healers in DPS stances could match them while also being able to swap to healing when needed. A healer in a DPS stance does roughly 75% of what a DPS does (a CNJ will manage ~200 mean magic potency per GCD whereas a BLM does ~270), so the comparative loss of DPS is actually 16% (40 * .75 + 100 + 50 = 210; 100 + 100 + 50 = 250; 210 / 250 = .84). Even if you only assume that they'll use attacks 40% of the time, they'll only get as high as 32.5% of what a DPS would manage in that same time frame, which is a 14% loss (32.5 * 2 + 100 + 50 = 215).

Quote:

---

Generates much more enmity

---

Where are you getting *this* from? WAR doesn't generate more enmity than PLD. In fact, it ends up generating slightly less. It's also not like healers increase enmity generation or having more healers stops that 1 DPS from still putting out full numbers, so you can't argue that it's better comparative enmity.

Quote:

---

Greater Survivability compared to Paladin.

---

That's a complete and utter farce. Even if you average out the CDs rather than accounting for their burst contributions, they provide a lot more than 10.4% increased survivability: Rampart provides 4.44% over time, Sentinel 2.22%, Foresight 1.67%, Convalescence 5%, Bulwark 1.75%, and Hallowed Ground 1.39% (16.47%). Even if you factor in the WAR CD suite (Foresight provides 2.22, Featherfoot 2.5%, Convalescence 3.33%; ToB is a complete and utter joke because it's a 20% heal every 3 minutes), a WAR is going to be taking 91.95% of pre-CD damage and a PLD is taking 83.53%, which means that WAR is going to be requiring 110% of what a PLD is going to require. As such, you composition ends up providing WAR with, at best, *equal* survivability to a PLD and that's only if you're willing to treat the reactive and RNG mitigation provided by Featherfoot and Convalescence the same as the straight up static mitigation provided by 5/6ths of the PLD CD suite.

Put it all together and you get a composition that deals less damage and has no advantages. You really need to stop talking about your alternate composition as if it somehow *solved* problems rather than being completely and utterly absurd from the start (assuming you're capable of making simple logical leaps like "healers do less damage than DPS" and realizing that the PLD CD suite stops the living *hell* out of the WAR CD suite).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

Except that the game is obviously designed around a 1:1:2 ratio instead of the 1:2:1 ratio you're using thanks to the DF, as well as how the fights themselves are design (DPS races and whatnot).

---

There are no issues with Warrior in any of the DF Battles.

Quote:

---

On top of that, there *isn't* any advantage when using that composition for a WAR compared to a PLD: you're sacrificing damage to increase survivability. Since WAR and PLD deal effectively the same damage, a PLD could get the exact same increase in survivability by going with your 2 healer composition and it would *still* be more survivable than the WAR while having the same damage output.

---

Warrior DPS = PLD DPS in Sword Oath - the extra Potency on PLD AA accounts for quite a bit on DPS. Switching both to Tank Stances, Warrior does ~20% more damage than Paladin in all DPS gear.

Quote:

---

Also, as I pointed out last time you brought up that composition, you're not going to a perfect conversion with healer DPS. A healer that spends 40% of their time is not going to provide 40% of the DPS of an actual DPS. If they *could*, there would be no point in bringing DPS because healers in DPS stances could match them while also being able to swap to healing when needed. A healer in a DPS stance does roughly 75% of what a DPS does (a CNJ will manage ~200 mean magic potency per GCD whereas a BLM does ~270), so the comparative loss of DPS is actually 16% (40 * .75 + 100 + 50 = 210; 100 + 100 + 50 = 250; 210 / 250 = .84). Even if you only assume that they'll use attacks 40% of the time, they'll only get as high as 32.5% of what a DPS would manage in that same time frame, which is a 14% loss (32.5 * 2 + 100 + 50 = 215).

---

I actually played as White Mage to figure out a reasonable amount of DPS they can do while still healing. Because their DOTS provide great potency, with casting downtime for heals I was able to pull 60 DPS while still being a functional healer. This was with less than 400 MND and only a 58 Magic Damage staff, while switching to Cleric Stance. 70 DPS per healer is not that unreasonable as it's ~30% of an actual DPS.

So STR PLD vs STR WAR both in Tank Stance - with two healers
PLD 140 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (480 DPS)
WAR 168 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (508 DPS)
**VIT PLD - 110 DPS - DD x 2 400 DPS - (510 DPS)

So the STR Paladin doesn't do enough damage to warrant bringing two healers. There are only so many DOT's they can apply, so there are wasted heals. Bringing the extra DD is more effective for that party make-up.

Quote:

---

Where are you getting *this* from? WAR doesn't generate more enmity than PLD. In fact, it ends up generating slightly less. It's also not like healers increase enmity generation or having more healers stops that 1 DPS from still putting out full numbers, so you can't argue that it's better comparative enmity.

---

I should have been more specific. It was STR War vs VIT Pld.

Quote:

---

That's a complete and utter farce. Even if you average out the CDs rather than accounting for their burst contributions, they provide a lot more than 10.4% increased survivability: Rampart provides 4.44% over time, Sentinel 2.22%, Foresight 1.67%, Convalescence 5%, Bulwark 1.75%, and Hallowed Ground 1.39% (16.47%). Even if you factor in the WAR CD suite (Foresight provides 2.22, Featherfoot 2.5%, Convalescence 3.33%; ToB is a complete and utter joke because it's a 20% heal every 3 minutes), a WAR is going to be taking 91.95% of pre-CD damage and a PLD is taking 83.53%, which means that WAR is going to be requiring 110% of what a PLD is going to require. As such, you composition ends up providing WAR with, at best, *equal* survivability to a PLD and that's only if you're willing to treat the reactive and RNG mitigation provided by Featherfoot and Convalescence the same as the straight up static mitigation provided by 5/6ths of the PLD CD suite.

Put it all together and you get a composition that deals less damage and has no advantages. You really need to stop talking about your alternate composition as if it somehow *solved* problems rather than being completely and utterly absurd from the start (assuming you're capable of making simple logical leaps like "healers do less damage than DPS" and realizing that the PLD CD suite stops the living *hell* out of the WAR CD suite).

---

The reason I say with that setup that Warrior has better survivability is because it will be receiving 120% more healing with two healers. Add in the extra 15% with Infuriate and it's a total of 138% more healing received.

While it doesn't equate to Paladin's eHP value, as long as the Warrior doesn't get 1 shotted, then that alone will be equal to PLD CD suite.

By far the biggest problems warrios have at the moment is the silly fact that the 15% healing bonus is tied to wrath stacks. This means that you can't really use any of your warrior skills effectively without screwing your healers, unless your Infuriate is off the cd. So in the end, all those fancy warrior skill have a cd of 1min. There's a limited amount of heals healers are able to cast, it all comes down to math.

The other problem is that for example Inner Beast heals a quite a bit, but it usually ends up being overhealing. It would be more useful if it gave you a shield for that amount.

There are other problems as well, but in my opinion those are the biggest ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

So STR PLD vs STR WAR both in Tank Stance - with two healers
PLD 140 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (480 DPS)
WAR 168 DPS - Healers 140 DPS - DD 200 DPS (508 DPS)
**VIT PLD - 110 DPS - DD x 2 400 DPS - (510 DPS)

So the STR Paladin doesn't do enough damage to warrant bringing two healers. There are only so many DOT's they can apply, so there are wasted heals. Bringing the extra DD is more effective for that party make-up.




I should have been more specific. It was STR War vs VIT Pld.



The reason I say with that setup that Warrior has better survivability is because it will be receiving 120% more healing with two healers. Add in the extra 15% with Infuriate and it's a total of 138% more healing received.

---

Gonna break down my problems with your logic. First, I get your comparison of 1:2:1 may put the WAR slightly ahead (even though these numbers are extremely rough). However your VIT PLD for some reason ignored the DPS contribution of the Healer you used as a given for the other examples. So the VIT PLD composition would provide (using your own numbers) 580 DPS, utterly blowing your WAR comp out of the water.

Second...STR Warrior VS VIT PLD means 4 mans, or heavily outgearing the content. Otherwise the WAR just won't have the HP to survive the hit to use the IB. The extra STR brings extra DPS, it doesn't bring *that* much extra damage from IB to bridge the heals received gap.

Also, saying that bringing two the healers means an increase in survivability over one healer doesn't really...well of course it does. Does that make it the optimum group composition? As evidenced by Titan, you bring the least number of Tanks and Heals you can get away with so you can meet the DPS check. Why exactly would you start trickling back in Heals to make up for inefficient tanking, when you can just get an efficient tank?

He's basically saying STR War + Healer = 1 DPS, so it's better to just have 2 healer, 1 dps and STR Warrior.

Whereas the Paladin doesn't need as much heals and the healer can be in cleric stance the entire time except for some boss fights. PLD team is effectively 3 DPS and 1 tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stalkster

The op is like 4lv's away, I don't really see the point of this post considering all the info/posts/rants over "War vs Pld". People can try to use math to defend war all day. If you have both just try them both, you might like war's style better that's fine play a war. Then by having both you can clearly see the healers working a lot harder to keep you up, if you don't care about healers stay on war. Both can hold hate just fine, 1takes a lot more damage but they can self heal(assuming you can get it off, cause the healers are spam healing you anyways).

I think a lot of people like the -idea- of war being some kind of higher dps tank that even has more HP, then playing a turtle tank. While in reality all they have is more hp and less dmg migration. Then at the end of the day Pld still brings silence and a better stun, and can recharge one of it's own resources.

It's Simple for me.
1#MT'ing?: Pld
2#OT'ing? Need something stunned or silenced, Or Will your job invole OT'ing something that hits hard/will be alive for a while.: Pld
3#OT'ing? Easy trash. :War
Sadly 90% of where #3 becomes a yes, there's no reason to even bring a OT.

---

So because I was four levels away from max, and trying to get information regarding the class I was working for future reference in dungeons and maximizing my potential for smooth progress in dungeons, this thread is completely pointless?

No offence but that's exactly what has made a lot of tanks pretty bad in most MMOs: no research on their pros and cons. I rather be ready for whatever situation that may arise by doing my research. Pardon me for posting a thread about such in the TANKING section of the official forums. I forgot this forum is more for bitching and complaining than constructive informational gathering purposes.



To everyone else, thank you for the slew of information. I can see that Warriors would have to gauge themselves far more in these situations and that they have to be smart on using Inner Beast. It almost sounds like IB is meant to be one of those "OSH*/(%&" CDs to help your healers out so you don't hurt your healers too much in the healing dept. I've started doing the relic quest for my Paladin so I'll stick with the PLD until Warriors get a look at in 2.1 (If it does) and re-evaulate. Either way, I'm working on CNJ to get Stoneskin so I got some time for things to settle down in this dept.

On another note: With World of Warcraft, there was a few sites like Tankspot and ElitistJerks that had theorycrafting going on in a much bigger detail. It was also a source of information gathering done in one specific website such as what we're seeing in this thread with the theorycrafting with numbers. Does one site exist like that? Have we established a website yet regarding this?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hitokirinomad

However your VIT PLD for some reason ignored the DPS contribution of the Healer you used as a given for the other examples.

---

The reason I didn't include healer DPS in the case of Paladin is because in endgame content the Paladin would require near 100% healing. Saying that Paladin can survive with only 60% healing in any content that a Warrior would have eHP issues with would be a bit excessive.

Quote:

---

Second...STR Warrior VS VIT PLD means 4 mans, or heavily outgearing the content. Otherwise the WAR just won't have the HP to survive the hit to use the IB. The extra STR brings extra DPS, it doesn't bring *that* much extra damage from IB to bridge the heals received gap.

---

Using Titan as an example, PLD (VIT) vs WAR (STR) in Darklight + Garuda Weapon - the Warrior would have ~5700 HP, the Paladin would have ~5300 HP. Mountain Buster @ 4400 HP (3500 on PLD) - Inner Beast would heal for ~1300 HP (average) - only needs to be used on the MB prior to Tumult followed by Infuriate.

*** Also interesting for that fight is that the average MB + Average Inner Beast (equal gear for equal content) = 5700 HP, so if you are between 4400-3200 HP and there are no incoming heals - you will live by using Inner Beast.

Quote:

---

Also, saying that bringing two the healers means an increase in survivability over one healer doesn't really...well of course it does. Does that make it the optimum group composition? As evidenced by Titan, you bring the least number of Tanks and Heals you can get away with so you can meet the DPS check. Why exactly would you start trickling back in Heals to make up for inefficient tanking, when you can just get an efficient tank?

---

In a short answer, it's because of Warriors design. From other discussions it seems that HP Absorb Tanks are difficult to balance. If the HP absorb scales the same as Damage then Warrior would be OP. Why bring Paladin, when Warrior has the same mitigation and more damage right? You could just increase the potency of Warriors self heals right, then it wouldn't need to deal as much damage and could just stack HP. But what if you did stack STR anyways, so that every 20 seconds you could self heal 4k HP. *** still wouldn't scale with damage the same way PLD does.

Stacking just VIT on WAR, as others have said, requires your party to have some really good healers, who would have an easier time just using a Paladin. So it seems SE in an attempt to balance the HP Absorb style of Tank to the traditional Mitigation Tank, based it around party composition and DPS.

From my estimates given the current skillset - Damage wont scale higher than 120% HPS (equal gear for equal content to Healers).
So if a single healer can do 1000 HPS - DPS would be 1200.

It would be relative to the fight of course too. If for some reason SE does a fight that requires 3 Healers 100% to keep a Paladin alive, then it would take 3 100% Healers and 1 60-40 to keep a Warrior alive.

Quote:

---

The reason I didn't include healer DPS in the case of Paladin is because in endgame content the Paladin would require near 100% healing. Saying that Paladin can survive with only 60% healing in any content that a Warrior would have eHP issues with would be a bit excessive.

---

Aren't your examples based on 4 man content though? Full VIT PLD needs ~83% less healing than full VIT Warrior, so probably less than full STR Warrior.
So you have a situation where

Warrior
Healer 0% DPS
Healer 60% DPS
DPS 100% DPS

vs

Paladin
Healer 20% DPS
DPS 100% DPS
DPS 100% DPS

I fail to see how those even remotely match up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrenianKandos

So because I was four levels away from max, and trying to get information regarding the class I was working for future reference in dungeons and maximizing my potential for smooth progress in dungeons, this thread is completely pointless?

No offence but that's exactly what has made a lot of tanks pretty bad in most MMOs: no research on their pros and cons. I rather be ready for whatever situation that may arise by doing my research. Pardon me for posting a thread about such in the TANKING section of the official forums. I forgot this forum is more for bitching and complaining than constructive informational gathering purposes.

---

Actually I did provide some information in my post. Topics regarding war vs/or pld are abundant. The only new information I seen in all this, is a debate about bringing 2healers with a war and 1healer for a pld and that makes up for war. Hmm. Maybe because I did my "research" anyways Id like to see some info or something with war doing 20% more damage in tanking stance. Both Vit spec'ed only difference is relic +1pld/nq war my parses show it pretty close. 2dps in favor of pld In offensive stance . 5dps in favor of War in tank stance. Are you saying a fully str/melded war dose 20% more dmg then a full vit pld? I could see that possible but if the war is using a dps set then the pld might as well be using 1 also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

That's why in my comparison I take the party composition as a whole. The only combination that seems to match perfectly is Warrior with two healers vs Paladin with one healer and one DPS. Things I looked at are, Party DPS, Tank Survivability, and class mechanics.

---

Without going back (again!) over the reams of math... exactly how "endgame" are we talking about?

Taken in a vacuum, PLD needs less healing when taking prolonged heavy damage.
WAR can self-heal medium spike damage and be pretty much immortal versus light damage.
They both do very similar DPS (assuming identical gear + stat distribution) but WARs are more self-sufficient than PLDs when geared for +DPS.

Taken in a Party context, the ideal endgame 8-man raid group has two healers: one SCH and one WHM.
Amongst other things, a big reason for this is because SCHs shields don't stack. It basically gives the best balance of damage prevention before a big hit and ability to top-up HP again after that big hit.

----------------------------

+ SCH gameplay allows them to deal high DPS (via DoTs) alongside high Healing Output. In extreme situations they can go full healing and micromanage their fairy and just ignore DPS, but for the most part they can get by in Cleric Stance (for DoTs) using Lustrates and their fairy.

+ WHM gameplay requires them to choose a focus: ST damage via light DoTs and AoE Damage via Holy, or Healing (they can still do a little DPS when healing, and a little Healing when DPSing; but it's largely one or the other - aside from "Benediction" which recovers the same HP even when Cleric Stanced, and "Regen" which can be cast before stance swapping).

Taken together, you're virtually always going to have the equivalent potential of EITHER 1 Healer + 2 DPS or 2 Healers + 1 DPS (via your Healing Classes, in 8 man groups).

----------------------------

That's where the issue lies - PLDs generally require lower healing due to their mitigation cooldowns, so for easy or medium difficulty content the WHM can switch to DPS mode. For HARDER content like bosses, the WHM can run in Healing mode and give the party maximum capability to "Turtle Up".

For WARs, they require virtually no healing on "Easy" content due to self-heals, and on medium difficulty content they are roughly on par with PLDs, but for Harder content the Healers won't quite be able to keep a WAR up for as long as they could keep a PLD up (so if the brown stuff REALLY hits the fan, the WAR party has less capability to completely Turtle up).

Therefore, for your comment "The only combination that seems to match perfectly is Warrior with two healers vs Paladin with one healer and one DPS": the average 8-man party with a WAR can already have "two healers and one DPS" - with both SCH and WHM in Full Heal mode - but they can effectively swap a Healer for a DPS on demand via the WHM swapping to Cleric stance. Conversely, the average party with a PLD can already have "one healer and two DPS" - with the WHM in Cleric stance - but they can effectively swap a DPS for a Healer on demand via the WHM swapping back out of Cleric stance. Now... at endgame, what situation is more likely: suddenly needing the equivalent of another Healer, or suddenly needing the equivalent of another DPS? (And bear in mind that the Tanks can ALSO swap out of Tank Stance to contribute more DPS in certain situations!)

Yes, you could bring another WHM. But even if the two WHM work together perfectly and the tank is never overhealed, the DPS tradeoff hurts the average party way too much - the optimal 8-man team healer combination is widely known to be 1 SCH and 1 WHM (or if you're really stuck, 2x WHM - but there's less effective HP without the SCH and thus less margin for error).

If you're talking about 4-man dungeons, then PLD + WHM is virtually always going to be the better option than bringing a SCH or a WAR from an efficiency viewpoint, purely because of Mob herding + Holy Spam... but realistically unless you're speedrunning, none of the classes should struggle in the slightest... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exstal

Aren't your examples based on 4 man content though?
I fail to see how those even remotely match up

---

It does get a bit confusing. My example is based on 8 man content, because in 4 man content the damage is so low that Warrior's self heals work great. It's because my party composition is only based on 4 players, as the rest of the members will just be DPS. I will do an 8 man example to show it better, using DPS values based on Darklight + Relic.

WAR - 170 DPS
Healer - 100% Healing
Healer - 70 DPS - 60% Healing
Healer - 70 DPS - 60% Healing
DPS X 4 - 800 DPS

Total - 1110 DPS
***War will receive 253% Healing with Infurate

PLD - 110 DPS
Healer - 100% Healing
Healer - 100% Healing
DD X 5 1000 DPS

Total - 1110 DPS
*** Because PLD takes 20% less damage it will in essence, receive 240% Healing under Shield Oath.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Maelwys - you bring up some very good points, about there being situations where you need less heals and more DPS. I'll plug in the values to see how it compares.

WAR - 170 DPS
Healer - 100% Healing
Healer - 175 DPS
Healer - 175 DPS
DPS X 4 - 800 DPS

Total - 1320 DPS
*** War will only receive 115% Healing with Infuriate

PLD - 110 DPS
Healer - 100% Healing
Healer - 175 DPS
DD X 5 1000 DPS

Total - 1285 DPS
*** PLD will receive 120% Healing in Shield Oath.

I'd think WHM, SCH, SCH would be the most optimal for Warrior.

How is a healer only doing 25 less DPS than a dedicated DPS class? That doesn't add up.

This is more realistic

WAR - 170 DPS
Healer - 100% Healing
Healer - 150 DPS
Healer - 150 DPS
DPS X 4 - 800 DPS

Total - 1270 DPS
*** War will only receive 115% Healing with Infuriate

PLD - 110 DPS
Healer - 30 DPS 80% Healing
Healer - 150 DPS
DD X 5 1000 DPS

Total - 1290 DPS
*** PLD will receive 120% Healing in Shield Oath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

I will do an 8 man example to show it better, using DPS values based on Darklight + Relic.

---

And as soon as you try to anything even remotely difficult, like Coil or Titan, the STR stacking WAR tank dies to a single burst.

*All* of your math is predicated upon the idea that a WAR is *supposed* to be stacking so much STR and damage gear that, with Defiance, it *matches* a PLD. Any attack or situation that pulls a PLD down to 20% hp is going to simply *kill* your WAR. It doesn't matter *how* good your healers are, there is *still* a delay between the tank taking damage and getting it healed back up, especially since you're assuming that healers are stance dancing to throw out some damage.

A tank *requires* the hp that comes with stacking so much VIT in order to survive the bursts in endgame content. You can swap out your jewelry for i70 crafted because it's shorting you only 25 VIT, but as soon as you sacrifice so much VIT that you only *match* a PLD, you're dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exstal

How is a healer only doing 25 less DPS than a dedicated DPS class? That doesn't add up.

---

None of his math does. It's been pointed out multiple times that his screwy composition is fundamentally flawed but he just *refuses* to give up and admit that he's been acting like an idiot this entire time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

None of his math does. It's been pointed out multiple times that his screwy composition is fundamentally flawed but he just *refuses* to give up and admit that he's been acting like an idiot this entire time.

---

Hey, now what's the point in Theorycrafting if no one critics it? I was actually hoping for GameMako since they are much more polite.

In current endgame gear, with VIT food a Warrior can have ~8k HP in a party and still keep 190 DPS. With 3 healers, the heals will be coming in ~33% faster than with 2 healers. So as long as the Warrior doesn't get 1 shotted it's HP will stay pretty consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exstal

How is a healer only doing 25 less DPS than a dedicated DPS class? That doesn't add up.

---

To simplify things, I went with 200 DPS. You may have a Black Mage at 230, you might see a Dragoon at 185 etc. Healers in Cleric Stance can actually put out some decent damage. There's even some controversy on how close Scholar is to Summoner. Summoner is better of course, but people are upset at how close a healing class can get.

190 DPS? I don't even remotely believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exstal

190 DPS? I don't even remotely believe that.

---

Unless your in gear that is even better than mine... I don't see this as remotely possible either, on anything other than a training Dummy.

EVEN THEN, I can't break 200 sustained DPS in my Strength gear in Defiance without unchained.

This begs the question Judge_Xero, What gear is this warrior tanking in with which you still need to run Coil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

Warrior DPS = PLD DPS in Sword Oath - the extra Potency on PLD AA accounts for quite a bit on DPS. Switching both to Tank Stances, Warrior does ~20% more damage than Paladin in all DPS gear.

---

That makes no sense.
If Warrior DPS is equal to PLD DPS in sword oath, and Warrior DPS suffers a 25% damage debuff compared to 20% Paladin debuff, they would still be doing the same damage.
The logic makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

I should have been more specific. It was STR War vs VIT Pld.

---

You just confounded your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

While it doesn't equate to Paladin's eHP value, as long as the Warrior doesn't get 1 shotted, then that alone will be equal to PLD CD suite.

---

I don't see why anyone should listen to what you say regarding PLD vs WAR.
Its so far off its not even funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exstal

190 DPS? I don't even remotely believe that.

---

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ank-DPS-Thread

It can do a lot of damage. Although the testing was done against training dummies, Warrior doesn't require any special movement for combos. With 400 STR and Bravura, I averaged ~170 DPS over 10 minutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZDamned

Unless your in gear that is even better than mine... I don't see this as remotely possible either, on anything other than a training Dummy.

EVEN THEN, I can't break 200 sustained DPS in my Strength gear in Defiance without unchained.

---

You should try again using all your cooldowns. Even @ 5 minutes you should be over 210 DPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leiron

That makes no sense.
If Warrior DPS is equal to PLD DPS in sword oath, and Warrior DPS suffers a 25% damage debuff compared to 20% Paladin debuff, they would still be doing the same damage.
The logic makes no sense.

---

From Sword Oath to Shield Oath Paladin looses, 50 Potency per AA and 20% Damage. AA is ~35-40% of a Paladin DPS in Sword Oath. In Shield Oath it drops to about 20-25% of total DPS. So Paladin is loosing about 15% of it's DPS right off the top.
Warrior gets access to more powerful skills in Defiance which brings it's average Potency per Skill up.
There is your damage difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exstal

*** PLD will receive 120% Healing in Shield Oath.

---

Not quite. PLD require 20% less healing due to Shield Oath because they take 20% less damage. But this isn't what you're saying. For a fair comparison, you need the inverse of this. How much more effective HP does the PLD have because he is taking 20% less damage, and how much more effective healing is the PLD receiving?

1.0 / 0.8 = 1.25

PLD has 125% total effective HP and receives 125% effective healing due to shield oath

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leiron

That makes no sense.
If Warrior DPS is equal to PLD DPS in sword oath, and Warrior DPS suffers a 25% damage debuff compared to 20% Paladin debuff, they would still be doing the same damage.
The logic makes no sense.

---

WAR should be doing more in tank stance for 2 reasons.

1) the PLD suffers more than the WAR when switching stances, the PLD not only loses the 20% due to Shield Oath, he's also losing something like the 16%? (no idea, i think kitru had it around this during one of his/her math fests) from the loss of Sword Oath (<---- EDIT, clarified that the additional 16%? was from loss of Sword Oath).

2) Defiance isn't exactly a straight 25% penalty either. Defiance also brings 10% boosted crit with full wrath. This almost makes up for the 5% base difference between defiance and shield oath by itself. However, defiance also allows the use of inner beast (a solid dps move with no penalty when used with infuriate), and unchained (which can be stacked with berserk & Inner Release for some excellent burst).

So in ideal conditions the WAR should be pulling ahead while tanking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judge_Xero

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ank-DPS-Thread

It can do a lot of damage. Although the testing was done against training dummies, Warrior doesn't require any special movement for combos. With 400 STR and Bravura, I averaged ~170 DPS over 10 minutes.
.

---

It can't be taken seriously because it's unrealistic for tanking purposes.

No Warrior is going to fight without Defiance and full STR and still be tanking. It simply won't happen. So that leaves you at 139 DPS VIT Warrior vs 120 DPS VIT PLD. Changing to full STR means nothing really, you may do some more DPS but forces healers to heal more often than normal.

In response to your DPS baseline of 200, you failed to see that Warrior isn't going to be doing 170. That's too close to the DPS of true DPS classes' base of 200. Healer isn't even close to DPS class either. I'd say it's barely above 50% of a geared and experienced DPS. Whereas Warrior / Paladin is below 50%.