Lets nerf WAR :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

You mean like how the extreme outlier of Coil 4/5 somehow convincing people that WARs could not tank HM Garuda?

For lack of better terms, this shit rolls downhill. If it's done at the top, it'll trickle down eventually. That's how it works, and that's why balance and parity are so important.

---

People being unable to interpret data is an issue that can't be solved (not game-wise, different topic). Even if all three tanks were perfectly balanced; one would still have to sit for the world first. Even if that other tank is capable of doing it (WARs could do 4/5, it was just simply harder; a burden world firsts wouldn't shoulder because it jeopardizes their chances). Balance is not necessarily that out-of-whack (not in the situation presented anyway); but it is certainly overblown.

Well. This is a bit of a silly idea. But I will agree that Equilibrium restoring TP in Deliverance is BS.

I want my HP regen in Deliverance too. Only mildly less joking, WAR alone didn't make any world first clears possible. It took the entire team working together to an extreme degree and stacking every tiny single bit of advantage they could muster in order to actually make the cut. This says nothing about PLD as much as it does how useful DRK's Delirium is.

...And if we're talking class nerfs, why not remove Storm's Eye? Make Ninja mandatory. Give Storm's Eye some other effect.

Honestly, this just sounds like a very salty drk. War's damage isn't far ahead of a good drk already, and drks actually do more damage in tanking stance.

But yes, let's nerf war damage so all the drg/drk edgelords can be top dps as both their dps main and their tank alt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunda_Cat_SMASH

...And if we're talking class nerfs, why not remove Storm's Eye? Make Ninja mandatory. Give Storm's Eye some other effect.

---

Please no. The point of overlapping debuffs is option. If you don't plan to take in WAR as your OT, then you have a NIN to place the slashing debuff on the boss. Same goes with DRK and MNK with INT down debuff.

Don't touch the effects of WAR abilities. Just tweak potency for some of their abilities and they're done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimaS

1 is just ridiculous.
2 was already addressed by capping the ilevel of accessories, materia is a part of FFXIV and it's not going to dissapear
3. dicto simpliciter

---

"1" is a very noticeable design problem where the developer/game suggested (i.e. gear that you can "Need" on) right side "accessory" gear for tanks is far from preferable to the suggested melee DpS gear for the same slots.

"2" is a design problem with how the materia meld system interacts with standard stat distribution on accessories and how melded crafted gear compares to unmelded dungeon/raid/token gear. If we could not meld Str into Vit accessories and Vit into Str accessories and only secondary stats were meldable into them there would be no need to limit crafted accessory ilevels.

"3" is a problem with encounter and boss design. When stances that give increases in enmity, accuracy and mitigation at the cost of damage dealt have no reason to be sustained constantly and it is considered skilled play to activate and deactivate them when your tanking duties have not changed there is a problem with how fights are designed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syzygian

WAR mains, this is my message to you: Its okayyyyy *pet pet*

---

You can drop the condescending attitude. It really does nothing for your argument other than making you look patronizing. Your attitude throughout the entire thread has been caustic which is putting people off of what you're saying. You sound bitter and angry at WAR as a job instead of wanting to constructively alter it.

The core issue is that the current raid content has been designed so that tanks can sit in DPS stance and just pump DPS until they need to throw their tank stance back on for whatever reason. Take that away and this entire issue vanishes. As someone else pointed out, the stuff that WAR got from 52~58 was obviously designed to beef them up as an OT role but the fact that they can just chill in Deliverance the entire time even while tanking is what's throwing things out of whack.

If you want a simple and effective fix to this issue, Deliverance should cause an increase in damage taken (this is literally how Warrior class in WoW worked up until Cata; Berserker Stance increased your incoming damage). This would cause WARs to think much more carefully about how and when they use Deliverance, and prevent them from abusing it by sitting in it constantly. Of course, if you ask me, the real solution is to address PLD and DRK issues rather than pulling out ye olde nerf bat.

The Equilibrium change is reasonable though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunda_Cat_SMASH

...And if we're talking class nerfs, why not remove Storm's Eye? Make Ninja mandatory. Give Storm's Eye some other effect.

---

I'm more for changing Storm's Path rather than Storm's Eye. Either change it so that the debuff causes the mob to deal less damage to you and only you (it is part of WAR's mitigation kit, so that'd make sense) or change Halone and Delirium to apply the same debuff and remove the INT/STR debuffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RapBreon

People being unable to interpret data is an issue that can't be solved (not game-wise, different topic). Even if all three tanks were perfectly balanced; one would still have to sit for the world first. Even if that other tank is capable of doing it (WARs could do 4/5, it was just simply harder; a burden world firsts wouldn't shoulder because it jeopardizes their chances). Balance is not necessarily that out-of-whack (not in the situation presented anyway); but it is certainly overblown.

---

You can't really dismiss this by saying "people are stupid" (which is what you're doing). I guess it'd be alright if this didn't affect you, but as I said, all of us are affected by this eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

"1" is a very noticeable design problem where the developer/game suggested (i.e. gear that you can "Need" on) right side "accessory" gear for tanks is far from preferable to the suggested melee DpS gear for the same slots.

"2" is a design problem with how the materia meld system interacts with standard stat distribution on accessories and how melded crafted gear compares to unmelded dungeon/raid/token gear. If we could not meld Str into Vit accessories and Vit into Str accessories and only secondary stats were meldable into them there would be no need to limit crafted accessory ilevels.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

"3" is a problem with encounter and boss design. When stances that give increases in enmity, accuracy and mitigation at the cost of damage dealt have no reason to be sustained constantly and it is considered skilled play to activate and deactivate them when your tanking duties have not changed there is a problem with how fights are designed.

---

I think the problem also includes how tank design was approached here.

Not going to discuss your suggestions, but I agree, WAR should be slightly nerfed in some way. I love WAR, it's the job I usually use for DR:expert and alex normal (I'm SCH main, so I don't have tanking exp in savage) and it was the first tank job I leveled to 60. However, it's currently too strong and too easy to use since its new skills are basically a dps version of what it had in 2.x (plus 2 new CD that you can just throw in when needed). It's a very effective MT and when properly equipped (STR or melded accessories) it can compete with ranged dps on single target as an OT. It has amazing aggro generation and single target damage and pretty good aoe damage thanks to decimate. Basically no weak spots. I feel like it's a bit too much.

Disable stance switches completely. You're in tank stance, you're a tank. You're in DPS stance, you queue as DPS.
Same for healers with Cleric Stance.

Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

You can't really dismiss this by saying "people are stupid" (which is what you're doing). I guess it'd be alright if this didn't affect you, but as I said, all of us are affected by this eventually.

---

Can't I? I personally, don't want things to be designed for the lowest common denominator - hedging against the impeding tenuous conclusions. This is exactly what WoW did and while it was a fantastic business enterprise, it certainly destroyed the game for me, as I'm sure it did others.

As I said, it's a problem that runs far deeper than games. I won't necessarily blame SE for making a choice that does intend cater for the more lucrative player-base (not dedicated raiders in general then). Doesn't mean I have to agree. Despite the herpderps who think that WARs being unable to tank T4/5 as well as a PLD meant that they can't tank Garuda HM. Not the kind of people I think the tier designed for the highest performing players should be made with in mind

This isn't even getting into the fact you can't actually get around it anyway. Possibly hedge against, but ultimately someone (or somejob rather) has to sit.

You're right about one thing though. It is easy for me to say what I do, because it doesn't affect me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RapBreon

Can't I? I personally, don't want things to be designed for the lowest common denominator - hedging against the impeding tenuous conclusions. This is exactly what WoW did and while it was a fantastic business enterprise, it certainly destroyed the game for me, as I'm sure it did others.

As I said, it's a problem that runs far deeper than games. I won't necessarily blame SE for making a choice that does intend cater for the more lucrative player-base (not dedicated raiders in general then). Doesn't mean I have to agree. Despite the herpderps who think that WARs being unable to tank T4/5 as well as a PLD meant that they can't tank Garuda HM. Not the kind of people I think the tier designed for the highest performing players should be made with in mind

This isn't even getting into the fact you can't actually get around it anyway. Possibly hedge against, but ultimately someone (or somejob rather) has to sit.

You're right about one thing though. It is easy for me to say what I do, because it doesn't affect me.

---

Of course some class has to sit on the bench for World First, but that doesn't mean you can't have them be in contention. Lucrezia finishes A4S just 14 hours and 20 minutes after Elysium. They ran MCH instead of BRD, which tells me MCH and BRD were on comparable footing.

PLD however was not in any way, shape, or form in contention for World First (neither was AST, they finally got their fixes), and MNK has had their DPS buffed a decent amount. I can't speak on SMN except that they rock A2S, but otherwise I am not very knowledgeable in that regard.

The general point here is that ideally, we would want PLD to be at least capable of making similar progress in the clear as opposed to being outright forsaken altogether. And we would want this to be true for most encounters, without limiting the encounter design to a general core formula which would reduce the game's complexity. I certainly don't think that tight DPS checks will be going anywhere in the near future. The philosophy for addressing that is that all tanks must be capable of pushing a similar amount of total damage.

There are many ways to increase total damage, which I differentiate from personal DPS. An example of personal DPS is Fell Cleave, while something generally not included in that personal DPS would be something like Battle Litany, AKA raid utility. However, there are other ways to increase total damage without granting flat buffs like mitigating more damage so that healers can put out more DPS in your place. Another would be removing hard enrages and implementing several soft enrages, such that a more defensive tank (PLD) gets a longer time frame to clear the encounter thanks to more mitigation, just increasing the total damage dealt over the DPS in a smaller time frame.

I personally think WAR is overpowered, but I don't entirely believe that nerfing WAR is the only valid solution to solving tank woes, citing Fending Accessories as an example. In this regard, if mitigation checks become hard enough such that tanks actually had to wear their fending accessories, and that fending accessories stopping sucking because of PAR, then the DPS gap between WAR, PLD, and DRK will shorten as obviously WAR scales very well with more damage than mitigation.

Could the world first A4S groups have done it without a warrior? How many groups have cleared A4S with a Drk and a Pld?

The answer to those two questions will probably clear up the question of tank balance and just because SE says there is balance doesn't mean they actually believe it. They told us in 2.0 that Warrior was fine and then they went on to give War a bunch of buffs. Look it up... war 2.0 vs 2.1. Pretty sure no other class/job has seen that many big buffs.

I am also wondering why people are not just bringing two warriors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strident

Snip

---

From my understanding BRD and MCH are the two best balanced classes relative to one another. They are also the most similar in every regard. Something that was complained about quite a lot.

I can personally attest to the fact that MCH being so similar to BRD disappointed me. But at least it was easy to fill the 'mana battery' slot.

I agree with some of your suggestions however. It should ideally be competitive, but it should bring something other than what WAR (and DRKs to an extent) bring. Maybe not directly DPS related, but something useful enough so that the DPS or healers can pick up that slack. Ultimately, depending on the demands and the difficulty of the fight; it will always favour certain set-ups over others. Hopefully Yoshi's team can fix PLDs kit being particularly underwhelming for the tier...next tier! Because as of now it doesn't matter (due to gear).

It's a good alternative suggestion. Maybe not all nerfs or not what OP suggested specifically but its another option we'll have to see what pld buffs are in 3.1 and see if they even help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RocheKat

I am also wondering why people are not just bringing two warriors?

---

The limit break bar penalty for stacking jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

The limit break bar penalty for stacking jobs.

---

I actually didn't know this was how they discouraged it.

+1 for info.

WAR already was a strong dps tank before their dps stance right? Wasn't adding one to them a bit over kill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syzygian

Nerfs

---

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

The limit break bar penalty for stacking jobs.

---

I assumed that was the issue and honestly if this is the only reason people are not stacking warriors then warriors probably are the problem. To me it sounds like Warrior doesn't have a real weakness. They can mitigate just as well as the other tanks, they have more damage than they do, and they have one of the best raid debuffs in the game. Not factoring in slashing since you can bring a ninja to deal with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RapBreon

I actually didn't know this was how they discouraged it.

+1 for info.

---

This was done back when Pld and Brd stacking was common... before brd got nerfs and War got buffs. Just about every coil group had two paladins and two bards.

I just came here to say, you shut your filthy mouth :p

Just come here to say, SE like how Warrior is right now. They have no reason to unbalance it, all your (mostly bad) suggestions aint gonna happen

Can anyone explain to me why people think WAR shouldn't have a TP restore?
Are these just people how haven't tanked Turn 4 back in 2.0/2.1 or A2S as a WAR?
A WAR shouldn't have to be forced to utilize Flash to save TP in those situations, and nerfing WAR's AoE capabilities would just make DRK the king of AoE.
It doesn't "fix" anything to nerf WAR by any significant amount.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazka

come on... its like warrior is OP from start?
i mean look 2.0 is war viable as tank?
pre 2.0 war barerly have spot in raid... but its seem safe bring 2 PLD than 2 war... (tell to ur healer about healing 2 PLD than 2 war which they prefer)
and now in 3.0 they have a nice spot in raid and u just say... "no.. all tank must suffer same.. so no 1 tank allowed to be a safe spot in raid, nerf them"
is that u mean?

---

2.0 was two years ago and is so hilariously irrelevant to now that I still don't understand why people insist on bringing it up. WAR didn't gain relevance only now, its been an incredibly good class since December 14, 2013.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airswimmer

Can anyone explain to me why people think WAR shouldn't have a TP restore?

---

People don't want war to have TP restore because the other tanks don't have TP restore / resource sustain that doesn't result in a loss of DPS. The problems are with the other tank classes needing tweeks to bring them to more efficient levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gooner_iBluAirJGR

People don't want war to have TP restore because the other tanks don't have TP restore / resource sustain that doesn't result in a loss of DPS. The problems are with the other tank classes needing tweeks to bring them to more efficient levels.

---

That doesn't mean WAR should lose their only way to manage their resources. That means other PLD and DRK should get ways to manage their TP.
Also, DRK's resource sustainability doesn't hamper their DPS, with the exception of using Unmend to manage TP. They have Blood Price/Weapon as cooldowns and Syphon Strike, which is a part of their two strongest combos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airswimmer

That doesn't mean WAR should lose their only way to manage their resources.

---

Now if only other people realized this.

p.s. in case anyone is wondering Equilibrium is used for TP in situations where overpower is needed in abundance (A2S, Dungeon Speed Runs, ???).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dererk

WAR already was a strong dps tank before their dps stance right? Wasn't adding one to them a bit over kill?

---

Paladins in sword oath could not only deal more damage than warrior, they could comfortably main tank while doing so back in 2.x.

This is either being deliberately swept under the rug, or most people just don't know since war's tend to push strength while most plds just stack vit to high heaven and sit in shield oath while their party does the heavy lifting. This same mentality is causing the perception of the current st dps gap to be greatly overinflated by people in vit gear looking at the damage wars in slaying accs and saying they want that without having to gear strength.

vengeance isn't worse than sentinel
it is 5 secs longer so you can take fewer damage for a longer time

I haven't read the thread, I just want to say I wish bad bad things for you creating this terrible thread.

the only nerf in FFxiv:ARR's history was the bard, which was so OP there was no need to bring a melee (except maybe for the LB ? but the mage could do it).

The WAR isn't game breaking, and thus won't be nerfed. If SE does anything, they'll most likely buff PLDs a bit.

I'm a former PALADIN and I don't think WAR should be nerfed all the contrary, hey should rise the level to war instead of lowering war one, why in the hell would you want a class to be "less fun" anyone in their sane mind would not like that, PALADIN is currently boring I switch to war because I coulnt stand PLD "easiness" "dull" "simplistic" gameplay, lowering that bar to be an STANDAR is just the wrong approach and the worse case scenario, why would anyone want nerf instead of buff as a mean for balance? anyways, no.

imo this threat is just a joke to salt some war out of the water...

This thread is sure active for how old it is lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuwagami

the only nerf in FFxiv:ARR's history was the bard, which was so OP there was no need to bring a melee (except maybe for the LB ? but the mage could do it).

The WAR isn't game breaking, and thus won't be nerfed. If SE does anything, they'll most likely buff PLDs a bit.

---

Actually I can think of another class that was nerfed in FFXIV:ARR history, SMN. Nerfed their single target and aoe dmg by making Bane only spread dots to an additional 3 targets from your main target, and they also removed thunder as a cross class from SMN, and gave them blizzard II instead. Recently Bane now works again on all near by targets with only a 50% dmg from the original target in HW, and we can already see how powerful Bane is against multiple targets again, again at only 50% of it's original damage.

@OP Do I believe Warrior needs to be nerfed, idk. But what I do believe for a long time now is all tanks do need to be reworked in general, so any tank combination is possible where each tank is viable choices as MTs, and as OTs. Tanks need to be able to tank, just like dps need to dps, and healers need to heal..reason why AST needed it's buff on healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuwagami

the only nerf in FFxiv:ARR's history was the bard, which was so OP there was no need to bring a melee (except maybe for the LB ? but the mage could do it).

The WAR isn't game breaking, and thus won't be nerfed. If SE does anything, they'll most likely buff PLDs a bit.

---

Wrong. From the patch 2.45 patch notes:

Quote:

---

Rogue

Action Adjustment
Aeolian Edge TP cost has been increased from 50 to 60.
Shadow Fang TP cost has been increased from 60 to 70.
Kiss of the Wasp The increased damage effect now only applies to physical attacks.
Kiss of the Viper The increased damage effect now only applies to physical attacks.

---

This was in the same sub-patch that buffed Dragoon damage and survivablity. They equalized the DRG, MNK and NIN around the MNK's capabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isius

Nerfed their single target and aoe dmg by making Bane only spread dots to an additional 3 targets from your main target

---

It was always that way, tooltip got fixed.

^No it wasn't back in 2.0 you could Bane as many targets at possible from your Bane target as long as everything was clumped together. Don't lie. I was playing SMN at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isius

^No it wasn't back in 2.0 you could Bane as many targets at possible from your Bane target as long as everything was clumped together. Don't lie. I was playing SMN at the time.

---

Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but I could've sworn it was always 3 targets. I'll ask my bf whenever he returns, he mained SMN since 2.0 as well. Sorry for saying that as if it were 100% fact, though - should've clarified that that's just what I recall.

e: Bf doesn't recall. Checked 2.1 notes and it says they removed Thunder from all crossclass but only changed the range for Bane (5y to 8y). Was it before/after 2.1 or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpookyGhost

Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but I could've sworn it was always 3 targets. I'll ask my bf whenever he returns, he mained SMN since 2.0 as well. Sorry for saying that as if it were 100% fact, though - should've clarified that that's just what I recall.

---

It was shorted lived anyways I think. SMN's dmg was nerfed befored 2.1 if I remember right, because it was really high. But my original statement was to the other guy stating that there has been other classes nerfed before, but is it common practice from SE, no.

Edit: I just read the 2.1 patch notes. The SMN nerf was pre 2.1, more in the lines of a 2.05 patch or something. I remember since I swapped to PLD after the nerf. I just thought why should I play a smn when the other mage class blm could still flare/fire II every single mob while smn couldn't anymore. So I went PLD to go back to my roots since I liked tanking more then dpsing. But I do remember none of the new stuff was out at the time like CT, Copperbell hm, etc. The tooltip error was likely leftover from the nerf, and SE didn't change the description of the skill to reflect the new changes.

The only change Warrior needs is the animation for decimate.For such a mighty move it lacks the animation to create that impact.Should make it create a huge explosion.Possibly maybe even make the entire screen shake too and give a 2 second stun to all enemies on map.
Also for stance dancing the cooldown on our stances is a bit too long.I think it needs to be shortened for better stance swapping.
And seeming as tanks don't really need tank LB maybe change warrior lb to super fell cleave.Which is single target damage lb which can work with bloodbath to restore warrior to full hp.

PLD and DRK have clunky kit still so they need changes regardless of what happens to WAR, but WAR nerfs are justified regardless as it has no notable weakness, in fact it excels at almost everything.

It either needs to be a jack of all trades/master of none and therefore toned down across the board, in an attempt to make a scenario where any tank combo is equally useful, or have one or two areas of its kit substantially nerfed so that like PLD and DRK there are scenarios where WAR is unfavourable, rather than most content (everything except A4S) being a question of whether to take one WAR or two.

Unfortunately SE have decided to make WAR an uncontested dps tank and this means making the jack of all trades route not an option, so either one part of WAR needs to be nerfed hard, other aspects of its kit need a noticable trim.

Equilibrium TP is a joke and people saying it is absolutely necessary because WAR can overwhelm spam has been completely spoilt by the current state of WAR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metalwrath

...as tanks don't really need tank LB maybe change warrior lb to super fell cleave...

---

Ohh.... I like this but I go one further.
Since, all the tanks have a DPS and Tank stance, have the LB actual reflect the stance.
While under Grit/Shield Oath/Definance - Tank LB, otherwise DPS LB.