For all you warrior tanks out there... end game we are not viable.

The guilds that are actually attempting or have cleared turn 4 are saying warrior is good on that fight.

I suspect OP is failing and blaming class balance...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiszRie

thus i don't understand how your claim that Shield Oath's 20% damage reduction equates to 20% more HP and 25% greater healing potency applies.

---

20% DR equates to 25% more hp and 25% more healing because you've got a standard amount of hp and healing applying to a smaller portion of incoming damage.



For example, the largest hit that a PAL can take before Shield Oath is accounted for is 125% of their max hp (1/.8). This is where we draw the equivalence of DR to max hp from.

The self healing to damage reduction equivalence just as simple: if you're taking 20% less damage, you require 20% less healing. 20% less healing means that you're effectively multiplying the effects of any incoming healing by 25%.

To make it even simpler, imagine an arbitrary "baseline" tank. It takes 100 of incoming damage and receives 100 incoming heals. A PAL is going to take only 80 damage, so the 80 healing that they are receiving is doing the work of 100 points of healing on anyone *without* that 20% damage reduction. Because that's 80 healing doing the work of 100 healing, which is a 25% increase in effectiveness, the 20% DR that PALs get acts as an *effective* 25% increase to all incoming healing.

From a mathematical standpoint, there is *no* difference, whatsoever, between a 20% decrease in incoming damage and a 25% increase in max hp and healing. They accomplish the *exact* same thing. WARs are at a disadvantage because they're only packing a 15% increase to healing when they need a 25% to actually be equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoroBoro

This is purposely misleading.

---

Yours is even more misleading. Any time you decrease damage below the amount of healing received, the value of +heal eclipses the value of damage reduction. Of course, if you're healing for more than you're taking in damage, your healer is doing something painfully wrong. You could just as easily claim that, when not taking *any* damage, a WAR looks amazing compared to a PAL because they're getting more healing than the PAL does.

We look at damage/healing on a 1:1 ratio because that's how it *should* be resolved: you take damage and the damage gets healed. Any time healing is greater than the incoming damage, your healer is doing something wrong (i.e. overhealing) so it's completely pointless to bring up those situations. Either that or it's one of those situations where it doesn't matter *what* you're doing and you'll heal up anyways.

No matter how you look at it, if you actually understand the math, there is no equality between Shield Oath and Defiance. It's just that simple.

Kitru. I've a scenario for you. Boss does a lot of unavoidable AOEs. However, his primary target just takes autos. Your tank's health is not dropping very fast. I.E. every 6 seconds, your tank takes 200 damage. Your squishes, however, are taking about 25% of their health (lets say 400 damage) every 8 secs. Let say you heal for 600 single target. Tank base health pool is 3000. It's a long fight. Because of other 1shot mechanics, your party is spread out, and you cannot heal everyone with Medica.

Which tank is better?

Another Scenario: 1 random person (except the one holding aggro) goes to 1 hp every 3 seconds. Boss autos do about 1/4 of your heal on tank. 8 hits normally and tank dies. 9 hits for WAR because of that extra 5% hp. And he can heal himself a bit. Which tank is better?

Another Scenario: Directionally challenged DPS needs lots of heals. Good tank only gets hit by autos. Which tank is better?

Another Scenario: Boss has timer. Not enough deeps. Which tank is better?

Another Scenario: Straight up tank and spank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitru

20% DR equates to 25% more hp and 25% more healing because you've got a standard amount of hp and healing applying to a smaller portion of incoming damage.



For example, the largest hit that a PAL can take before Shield Oath is accounted for is 125% of their max hp (1/.8). This is where we draw the equivalence of DR to max hp from.

The self healing to damage reduction equivalence just as simple: if you're taking 20% less damage, you require 20% less healing. 20% less healing means that you're effectively multiplying the effects of any incoming healing by 25%.

To make it even simpler, imagine an arbitrary "baseline" tank. It takes 100 of incoming damage and receives 100 incoming heals. A PAL is going to take only 80 damage, so the 80 healing that they are receiving is doing the work of 100 points of healing on anyone *without* that 20% damage reduction. Because that's 80 healing doing the work of 100 healing, which is a 25% increase in effectiveness, the 20% DR that PALs get acts as an *effective* 25% increase to all incoming healing.

From a mathematical standpoint, there is *no* difference, whatsoever, between a 20% decrease in incoming damage and a 25% increase in max hp and healing. They accomplish the *exact* same thing. WARs are at a disadvantage because they're only packing a 15% increase to healing when they need a 25% to actually be equal.

---

That I can understand but wouldn't taking account of the 20% DR as 25% increase in healing effectiveness negate the 25% increase in HP? since in order to have that 25% healing increment, you'll have to take the PLD at baseline HP.

25% increase in HP and 25% increase in heals would translate to a baseline 1000 HP PLD having 1250 effective HP and having a Cure at 100 be equivalent to a Cure at 125 which would be stacking the effects.

For example, if the above said PLD receives 700 damage and 4 heals of 125 cure (+25% from 100 base cure,) it would end up with theoretically 1050 HP

If i were to just subtract 20% of damage received, the PLD receives 560 damage after 20% reduction and with 4 heals of 100 base cure he would end up with theoretically 840 HP a 20% difference from 1050 HP

If a WAR with 25% HP increment and 25% healing potency at 1000 baseline HP, translating to 1250HP receives 700 damage and 4 cures at 25% increment (125 per cure) would end up with theoretically 1050 HP

Whereas a PLD with 20% straight off damage reduction at 1000 baseline HP would receive 560 damage (-20% from 700) and with 4 cures at 100, he would end up with theoretically 840 HP, a 20% HP difference and requiring 5.6 cures to restore 700/560HP (125/100) thus granting WAR a larger HP pool with similar levels of survivability through Cures

Therefore it seems to me that having WAR's Defiance give 25% Max HP increase and 25% Healing potency increase would slightly tip the scale of survivability in WAR's favour and there would be little reason (other than situational ones) to play a PLD, taking into consideration the WAR's undisputed superiority in DPS and AoE skills

Please let me know if my interpretations are erroneous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiszRie

snif

---

blah blah blah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anilogas

and if you havent been in coil, dont even bother posting; titan is pretty much the last thing thats tankable

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiszRie

Please let me know if my interpretations are erroneous.

---

The warrior tank, once all is said and done, is sitting at 1050/1250 HP, or, 84% of his health.

The paladin tank is sitting at 840 hp, or 84% of his health.

Ergo, if you continue doing what you did for the first 16% for the remaining 84%, they will die at the same time.

Said otherwise: 20% DR is exactly the same as 25% more HP and healing for all intents and purposes. This is actually somewhat false, because of flat shields: the warrior would still not get as much benefits from sch shields, only 80% efficiency. Although stoneskin would be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casper

The warrior tank, once all is said and done, is sitting at 1050/1250 HP, or, 84% of his health.

The paladin tank is sitting at 840 hp, or 84% of his health.

Ergo, if you continue doing what you did for the first 16% for the remaining 84%, they will die at the same time.

Said otherwise: 20% DR is exactly the same as 25% more HP and healing for all intents and purposes. This is actually somewhat false, because of flat shields: the warrior would still not get as much benefits from sch shields, only 80% efficiency. Although stoneskin would be the same.

---

WAR with substantially higher DPS and AoE skills.
PLD with the game's lowest DPS and a single AoE that serves to tickle mobs.

If WAR & PLD have identical survivability, there would be little to no reason to play a PLD. My opinion is that they all have their different play styles and PLD certainly is an easier class to play as compared to WAR and WAR are certainly alot more gear demanding as compared to PLD and WAR certainly gets to contribute a hell lot more DPS over a PLD.

In 1.0 every tank is a WAR as it can tank as well as a PLD and could dish out a hell lot more damage and PLDs are simply a rarity. I believe most if not all 1.0 players can attest to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiszRie

WAR with substantially higher DPS and AoE skills.
PLD with the game's lowest DPS and a single AoE that serves to tickle mobs.

If WAR & PLD have identical survivability, there would be little to no reason to play a PLD.

---

And here's the rub; WAR is a tank. In a party setting, they are there to take damage and not die. DPS plays no part in this.

WAR's method of not dying is to heal from damage dealt. To accomplish this they are given more damage, which makes them stronger than the PLD.

You say that to balance this, the WAR should be less capable of not dying, which means they are less capable in their primary function. Thus, WAR is a worse tank, but is supposed to make up for it by being a secondary DD? Such a design is inherently inefficient.

Warriors aren't supposed to main tank for the higher dungeons anyways. Paladins are the main tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoctisCaelus

Warriors aren't supposed to main tank for the higher dungeons anyways. Paladins are the main tanks.

---

Says who? As far as I've seen, the devs have never stated that WAR is an off-tank. This is conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZenBear

And here's the rub; WAR is a tank. In a party setting, they are there to take damage and not die. DPS plays no part in this.

WAR's method of not dying is to heal from damage dealt. To accomplish this they are given more damage, which makes them stronger than the PLD.

You say that to balance this, the WAR should be less capable of not dying, which means they are less capable in their primary function. Thus, WAR is a worse tank, but is supposed to make up for it by being a secondary DD? Such a design is inherently inefficient.

---

Their method of not dying is by means of a substantially larger HP pool and increased heals, WAR are by no means squishy, my FC has WAR that currently runs Coils so the notion that they are underpowered or ill-suited for the job is an exaggeration IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiszRie

snip

---

Dude. You said "Please let me know if my interpretations are erroneous". They were, and you stand corrected. Not once in the post did i say anything about wether war need to have the same survivability than pld. You did some math to prove that 20% reduction of damage is inferior to 25% more hp and healing, you were wrong, i corrected your math, end of the story. Just don't use that argument to justify than war are fine, that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoctisCaelus

Warriors aren't supposed to main tank for the higher dungeons anyways. Paladins are the main tanks.

---

Nobody ever said that, and also there simply isn't a need for off-tanks in the game. Almost all content is designed for one tank, and in the few encounters where you might need another, paladins are still better off-tanks than warriors anyway.

It's not like warriors can queue as DPS. I can't believe the amount of retardation on this forum from people who can't comprehend why the two tank classes need to be equally good. What would be the fucking point of a class that can only be a tank if another class was intentionally designed to be a better tank?

It's a simple matter of necessary rebalancing, and it's frankly astonishing how many people can dream up reasons to deny this. Almost all of them are paladin players, too, which I guess explains why they'd fight tooth and nail to remain the best tank class by a country mile. So selfish and unintelligent.

I will revisit this thread when you are running the content in proper order. Too many variables to be crying "broken class" just yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TirionCrey

With Thrill of Battle prolly...sorry Hiir...I saw your posts regarding Warrior all over the place and you're just spreading bullshit all over the place. Either you are a troll, or you're just a person that should be avoided in general...

---

Yeah with FOOD AND OTHER BUFFS. Like I said. Thrill of Battle is a buff. So you just agreed with my nonsense. How do you feel about that?

Funny I know two other warriors that can tank it easily

Brief summary of the OP's case:

"I don't know how to play/itemize my warrior, therefore it is utterly useless in higher level content."

Im lvl 42.....so i guess ill either meet GLORY or an REALLY UNSPEAKABLE BLOODY DEATH in about 8 lvls LOL!

Not even two threads below this is talking about Warriors and Paladins both being too OP. xD

I'm not sure why this is a big deal. I think at some point during beta it was stated that paladins are meant to be main tanks, while warriors were DPS/Off-tanks. I don't know why there is such a huge misunderstanding of the role of a warrior. You could ask "why not bring a paladin to off-tank" because a paladin doesn't put out anything near decent DPS and you shouldn't have to choose between an off-tank and DPS. If you want to tank, level your PLD skills and quit crying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sybase

I'm not sure why this is a big deal. I think at some point during beta it was stated that paladins are meant to be main tanks, while warriors were DPS/Off-tanks. I don't know why there is such a huge misunderstanding of the role of a warrior. You could ask "why not bring a paladin to off-tank" because a paladin doesn't put out anything near decent DPS and you shouldn't have to choose between an off-tank and DPS. If you want to tank, level your PLD skills and quit crying.

---

No, it was not stated that warriors are meant to be off-tanks (except by paladin players, strangely enough). It would make no sense to devote a class to off-tanking for several reasons, the most important ones being the fact that there's almost no need for an off-tank in this game and the fact that you can't queue for things as "off-tank" and the game doesn't try to match warriors with paladins so they both have to be viable main tanks. Nothing supports the notion that warriors should be secondary tanks except the fact that paladin players keep saying it. The misunderstanding is on your part, and the warrior class is simply underpowered. The solution is not to "level PLD and stop crying." Christ almighty.

A lot of people (primarily PLD players) seem to completely over-estimate the effectiveness of 25% more HP. They see defiance as a double buff (or triple), without considering the fact that in terms of defense it actually pales in comparison to Shield Oath.

Here is the thing with 25% more HP: Warriors need it in order to stay alive as long as a PAL and in order to be able to take a single hit of the same magnitude. Since there is no damage reduction, without the 25% additional HP a WAR would be killed very quickly by most bosses, patticularly in any situation in which a boss has a heavy hitting ability followed by an auto attack.

20% damage reduction is effectively the same as 25% additional HP and 25% additional healing received. Here is an easy way to think about it: A boss does 1000 damage per second.

A non-tank with 4000 HP has an ETA of 4 seconds to death.
A PLD with Shield Oath and 4000 HP has an ETA of 5 seconds to death. (20% reduction reduces the 1000 damage per second to 800, 4000/800 = 5)
A WAR with Defiance and *base* 4000 HP has an ETA of 5 seconds to death. (no reduction, 5000 HP after defiance, 5000/1000 = 5 )

So we have a good baseline of how much healing is required to keep them alive. A WAR would need to receive 1000 Heals per second. With Defiance at 5 stacks all the time that works out to ~870 heals per second required. A PLD on the other hand would need to receive 800 heals per second.

So, from a baseline, Warriors simply will require far more healing to keep alive assuming you can constantly have 5 stacks of defiance. This means at a baseline, out of the gate, warriors are behind paladins in terms of staying alive.

When you look at it in practice, it's even worse because you won't constantly be Infuriated as a WAR, which drops your average healing received even lower. And to top that off PLD has a shield which further adds to damage mitigation.

The whole situation is much more complicated though, due to the various active mitigation techniques each Job has. But for the most part, PLD have much stronger cooldowns, and more of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bayman

I will revisit this thread when you are running the content in proper order. Too many variables to be crying "broken class" just yet.

---

Then does that mean that paladins need to be nerfed, since they are more than capable of running the content out of order?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pwnagraphic

Not even two threads below this is talking about Warriors and Paladins both being too OP. xD

---

The internet where punching ponies in the face is both frowned upon as well as celebrated we shall forever be a people divided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangstrong

(...)

---

I believe you're jumping the gun in your assumption based on the 2 week old content currently available. Look at the mechanics, PLD does almost ZERO damage but generates large amounts of threat. They are meant to tank and do nothing else. On the other hand the warrior class puts out decent dps with some increases in healing received. The warrior is meant to be a cross-over class. They're not the best damage dealer, nor the best tank, but they're probably 75% effective at both and can fill both roles in an 8 or 24 man raid. Once the real end game material starts to roll out and raid spots are at a premium, warriors will have their VERY important role of secondary tank and DPSing when not tanking. This is not a new MMO concept. I'm simply saying that the warriors primary role is not to tank. They are to fill that raid spot where you need another tank on Boss 1 and more DPS on Boss 2 without having to swap players in and out of the raid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachiko

Then does that mean that paladins need to be nerfed, since they are more than capable of running the content out of order?

---

Quite simply it means that the current gear step is going from T0 to T2 (forgive me if I have the T#'s off, but you get the gist). The T1 set may be itemized to make Warriors godly tanks and paladins "off tanks and back-up healers". Perhaps the dps will be increased to the point where only a Warrior can hold threat and groups need to decide if they want blazing speed or safe runs. Games like these change frequently. They designed it with two tank classes, not a main tank / off tank system. Endgame has not been established yet, and will not be for months to come. We will all have to wait and see how things unfold without damning half of the tanking classes (which we are in desperate need of more tanks across all servers) to no end game viability.

The OP's point is fairly obvious, even before getting to end game. The classes were designed to fill different roles. Same as every other MMO before it. Different tank classes will be better at different fights. The one fight he is describing, sounds like it might be better suited for Paladins. But with the Warriors deep health pool and good damage, I bet there will be fights that will better suit the warrior. A good guild will bring both and swap between them as needed.

Stop whining and start gearing up. You'll be needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SatrinaKali

People need to understand the game is only 2 weeks old.

---

no, what you need to understand is that "endgame" is two level 50 dungeons which reward currency that is not equivalent to time spent, 3 boss fights, and a raid that some classes can't contribute to at the moment.

That argument would stand if there was more in the game, but there is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sybase

If you want to tank, level your PLD skills and quit crying.

---

maybe if you spent less time crying about warriors crying about paladins being able to skip the gearing up process, you could be crying about how bcob is too hard and how paladins are actually just really bad

Just level both up, and play which ever your group needs.

gotta keep in mind there is more to this that just the boss hitting a warrior harder.

Warrior does WAY more damage than a boss, there for the boss will be alive for less amount of time. i understand this is assuming a healer can keep a tank alive. if you are cycling your cool downs and a healer knows what to do (stoneskin on a warrior is heaven) you should be fine.

if you play a warrior and have no issues then you understand its alot harder to do than bang your face on the keyboard and tank a boss like a PLD.

fact is a pally is a defence tank simple as that. a warrior has a MUCH high health pool, +healing buffs and a ton of good self heals. what a warrior lacks they can get some another class. to be a good group with a warrior MT you also need healers that know what they are doing as well. one if your spamming cure 2, your doing it wrong. just sayin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollowEarth

gotta keep in mind there is more to this that just the boss hitting a warrior harder.

Warrior does WAY more damage than a boss, there for the boss will be alive for less amount of time. i understand this is assuming a healer can keep a tank alive. if you are cycling your cool downs and a healer knows what to do (stoneskin on a warrior is heaven) you should be fine.

if you play a warrior and have no issues then you understand its alot harder to do than bang your face on the keyboard and tank a boss like a PLD.

fact is a pally is a defence tank simple as that. a warrior has a MUCH high health pool, +healing buffs and a ton of good self heals. what a warrior lacks they can get some another class. to be a good group with a warrior MT you also need healers that know what they are doing as well. one if your spamming cure 2, your doing it wrong. just sayin.

---

You say these things but nothing you are saying is really true... It's like you skipped over what everyone else wrote. And your statement "stoneskin on a warrior is heaven" it has the exact same effectiveness on a paladin due to the 20% damage reduction the pld has... actually it will be better on a pld if they have any of their cooldowns currently active... Yes the warrior has some nice tools to keep them a live but when the bosses start hitting harder the tanking advantage shifts more and more to paladins.

As it is now warrior tanks are better for bosses that don't hit the tank very hard but focus on randomly damaging other party members. Such as demonwall boss. Most other bosses have some sort of high damage tank nuke and most of the time it is a magic attack in which warrior has no cooldowns to reduce this damage.

The OP's statement is something I wondered about since before I rolled Marauder back in beta. Cause it's more or less the same in most MMOs..

There are 2+ flavors of tank: one is most defense oriented with least damage output, the other is somewhat less defensive and higher damage output. I'll call them PLD and WAR to keep it easy.

Either:
1. WAR will be fully adequate as a tank in toughest settings. Then because of the higher damage WAR is always preferred.
*or*
2. WAR will be inadequate as a tank in toughest settings. It may be fine in lower settings or when the WAR outgears the fight. But then PLD is heavily preferred.

Best game design is to probably nudge them as close together as possible. But that's not easy, and it's looking like #2 is actually the case here currently. Also keep in mind that this balance can change at any patch.

i was leveling to the warrior as second class for when we need a tank and our guild tank isnt online but im seeing that 30 sec stun versus no cooldown stun and better survivality of palas are too much?
i hope to before i get him to 50 war get a BIG buf or the pld get a nerf

I think it's really quite simple.

If your healers are great, and your DPS is a little lacking for the encounter, and you have a scholar: You can use a warrior.
If your DPS is great, and your healers are made of white mages, and your healers are lacking: a paladin will suffice.

There ARE warriors who have been doing just fine in coil. Group makeup is a little more important when you bring a warrior, and the healers need to be a little more on the ball, but the DPS you gain is simply worth it.

I am a warrior on coil 4 with the FC that has been leading coil progression on Behemoth, yes we are viable.

This is very similar to what happened in Wow during Wrath with Death Knight tanks. They took much more damage than the other tanks, but had much higher self-healing. As is usually the case active mitigation is more important, so DKs were inferior on most fights. Their only advantage was that they had the best magic damage reduction which made them very useful for a few bosses. Warriors in this game lack both he utility and the damage reduction of paladins. Death Knights were eventually fixed by getting a shield along to their self-healing to bring up their damage mitigation on par with others. As it stands right now, there isn't really any reason to bring warriors to progression fights in BC, a gimped tank is just about the worst problem for getting first kills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sixteen

This is very similar to what happened in Wow during Wrath with Death Knight tanks. They took much more damage than the other tanks, but had much higher self-healing. As is usually the case active mitigation is more important, so DKs were inferior on most fights. Their only advantage was that they had the best magic damage reduction which made them very useful for a few bosses. Warriors in this game lack both he utility and the damage reduction of paladins. Death Knights were eventually fixed by getting a shield along to their self-healing to bring up their damage mitigation on par with others. As it stands right now, there isn't really any reason to bring warriors to progression fights in BC, a gimped tank is just about the worst problem for getting first kills.

---

Are you sure you don't mean Cataclysm?

In Wrath of the Lich King, DK's barely took more damage than Warriors or Paladins. Infact, they had similar damage mitigation except Warriors/Paladins could block a static(not a percentage) amount of damage whereas the DK had more "oh shit" buttons(they had no self-healing) and had a higher chance to mitigate a percentage of incoming damage more often(100% mitigation more often from parry). This meant that DKs were terrible on trash, but the absolute best tanks against bosses.

In FFXIV, WARs could heal a static(not a percentage) amount of damage whereas the PLD has more "oh shit" buttons and has a chance to mitigate a percentage of incoming damage more often(20-25% mitigation more often from blocking).

Below you will find a video of a warrior PoV for the first boss in coil. He is not wearing close to the best gear available to him before Coil. He dies at the VERY end, but this could have been prevented with tighter tuned play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iagBjhVfg14

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vic_Viper

I am a warrior on coil 4 with the FC that has been leading coil progression on Behemoth, yes we are viable.

---

Doesn't change the fact we take an insane amount of damage compared to a paladin. If you think warriors are fine you're just jerking yourself here to post that you're on Turn 4.

Not impressive for one thing and you ignore everything that has been posted. Go brag somewhere else loser.

tl;dr petty bragging from an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serade

Doesn't change the fact we take an insane amount of damage compared to a paladin. If you think warriors are fine you're just jerking yourself here to post that you're on Turn 4.

Not impressive for one thing and you ignore everything that has been posted. Go brag somewhere else loser.

tl;dr petty bragging from an idiot.

---

It does however say that with the correct setup, and good play, a warrior will work just fine in END GAME PROGRESSION, and can in fact PUSH AND LEAD SERVER PROGRESSION. IS the thread topic implying the contrary? Yes. Was his post showing that it is in fact not true, yes.

If you want to talk about your complaints about a WAR's mitigation, there are plenty of topics on the board for you to waste your filth on. If you want to senselessly bash and insult players idiotically, stay the course. Class act right there.

And I even linked your video. :/