I admit that my comment is based on what I already know about DRK and what is associated with it, which is why drains feel more natural to DRK than WAR. I'm not alone on that one, because a lot of people were speculating DRK would be a job branching off MRD because it had Bloodbath.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
If you want a tough combatant feel, I'd still go the ignore pain route. Refine the idea behind it, or turn it into active mitigation that costs wrath stacks (you'd need to redesign inner beast for this) and it would still feel relatively the same. Your WAR instead of magically recovering HP from attacks is now gritting his teeth and is so tough parts of certain attacks don't hurt him at all.
Considering fracture is rarely used as is, increasing the damage won't really help. The reason I suggest turning it into a skill that reduces the damage the mob deals to you is to give WAR an additional mitigation tool that still has some opportunity cost due to Fracture's relatively low damage. If you truly want to take WAR in the direction of using more skills to build up their mitigation, such a version of Fracture would easily fit as part of that.Quote:
Personally I just kind of to see Fracture as a skill that (1) deals potentially heavy damage, (2) creates personal bonus damage, and/or (3) mitigates (in the sense of Fracturing an enemy's ribs, their armor, or their arms), based largely off recent outputs and/or inputs. Go ham on an enemy in Deliverance and then Fracture to deal a finishing burst, or Fracture into an improved Zerk-triple-Cleave, or from Defiance and sap enemy attack power based on amounts you've been mitigating thus far.
Making Jobs Rotationally Easier in 4.0
Printable View
-
10-24-2016, 08:40 AMDuelle
-
10-24-2016, 08:41 AMShurrikhanAnd in doing so it would remove choice in the same way that collapsing Unmend and Abyssal Drain into a single option would. Why not just actually make the skill itself more interesting and relevant? Why make the fewest buttons used the goal, instead of the highest ratio of choices to button strokes? The goal is interesting, intuitive gameplay, right? But if you set SE off on that direction, do not be surprised if you end up with 12 skills total, each viable only in one particular circumstance. It's partly because this is still largely in the air that community opinion (less so NA's) could have an effect. While reducing button bloat can be important, I'd just recommend that you consider whether you want it to be the top priority, at cost even of opportunities for more interesting abilities and gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brannigan
The main reason Fracture came up is that it's awkward in two ways: (1) on Warrior itself, rather than being something you can use strategically to maximize the skill's own potential, you actually have to hold off on Fracture frequently to keep from losing dps—which really isn't how any skill should work—and (2) although TP-inefficient, it's a much larger dps gain overall on a Monk than on its native class, and then an absolute waste on all other jobs. Scourge is solely a native skill, is the strongest per-execute skill in the DRK toolkit, and determines a large portion of their typical-play cleave damage and all of their by-choice cleave damage.
________________________________________________________
(1) And I don't see why Souleater's drain is considered as identity overlap with Bloodbath's. They feel very, very distinct to me. That said, if I had to remove either the drain on either Bloodbath and Inner Beast or Souleater, I'd remove Souleater's for sure (albeit with great confusion and regret for having a groundless ultimatum thrown upon me). In my experience, it doesn't fit the surrounding play as well as the other two do for Warrior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelle
(2) I have no interest in simply copying WoW's Protection Warrior's Ignore Pain over to our Warrior. The two are thematically different beasts. The 'Bulwark of a tank' theme that a Prot Warrior has better fits a Paladin if anything, and poorly even then. Balancing aside, the original 2.0 Warrior's means of survival seemed about the closest to all the lore says the Warrior is. (Yes, we're thoroughly into the subjective by now.) The changes done later were helpful but plain, and moved partly away from that. For me a Warrior is more likely to revel in the dynamics of his health bar, and when left alone may drop low before springing back until out of time or strength enough to do so, but never is his demise an inevitable slow descent like that of death by Ignore Pain's 10% remaining damage taken. That is... pretty near the opposite of what I imagine. I have all the tanks at 110, save for two I've tested over a friend's PTR copies extensively, and none of them quite feel like what a Warrior is alleged to be.
(3) It is rarely used because it has a long duration and it deals little damage. I did not attach a duration in that example, and specifically said "high damage" for that first possible take on Fracture. I don't see anything wrong in and of itself with adding another possible mitigation tool (which will come at some cost to the rest of its mitigation toolkit, minus only what portion SE imagines that Fracture won't typically be used due to said damage cost), but it certainly wouldn't be unique in being an exchange between mitigation and damage. Warrior is pretty well the icon of that concept, the poster-child for its meta. Tuning is the only thing that decides whether we more commonly see damage "actively" sacrificed for mitigation (really just that we think about it in those terms, rather than the tank stance as the default and the rest as sacrificing mitigation), instead of the usual, opposite perspective. -
10-24-2016, 10:44 AMDuelleI'm not sure why you'd bring up Souleater into this conversation. The point I'm trying to make is that theme, mechanics and concept have to actually meet in order for this sort of thing to work. Again, using what was known about dark knights between sacrificing HP to deal damage (which wasn't going to fly because a tank making themselves more likely to die is a bad thing) and draining HP from their targets (courtesy of Drain/Drain II/Blood Weapon in FFXI and Night Sword in Final Fantasy Tactics), I'd lean toward working the drains into DRK and giving WAR some other means of mitigation that would make more sense for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
The only things the WAR questline emphasize are that you're using your fury to protect your allies and that said fury needs to be kept under control. That's pretty much it.Quote:
(2) I have no interest in simply copying WoW's Protection Warrior's Ignore Pain over to our Warrior. The two are thematically different beasts. The 'Bulwark of a tank' theme that a Prot Warrior has better fits a Paladin if anything, and poorly even then. Balancing aside, the original 2.0 Warrior's means of survival seemed about the closest to all the lore says the Warrior is.
The health bar is more a mechanic to make it possible to tank without increasing defense values via Defiance. That's why Defiance and Shield Oath offer comparable increases in EHP despite the former not doing anything to your damage taken or armor value.Quote:
For me a Warrior is more likely to revel in the dynamics of his health bar, and when left alone may drop low before springing back until out of time or strength enough to do so, but never is his demise an inevitable slow descent like that of death by Ignore Pain's 10% remaining damage taken. That is... pretty near the opposite of what I imagine.
The point of my mentioning ignore pain is that it plays more into the inner fury/beast thing that WAR tries to advertise more than random drains attached to attacks. Think of it like a guy that is so focused on the fight that attacks don't hurt as much and do little to hinder them. If you want a visual reference, go watch one of the Undertaker's early wrestling matches. His opponents would hit him, his head would tilt a bit from the impact and he'd continue on his advance unhindered. That's how I imagine our WAR to be like. The inner beast theme plays into this easily (itself an extension of the berserker motif FFXIV has given to WAR), which would also draw on the theme of control (which is basically the moral of the whole WAR questline). -
10-24-2016, 12:07 PMBrian_
I think a lot of topics like this miss the point.
In regards to the simplification of rotations, SE's main line of reasoning was that the gap between top players and everyone else was simply growing too large. It made content hard to design and even harder to tune.
Looking specifically at tanks, we might be more guilty of this than DPS. The performance gap between a top tier tank and your average tank is gigantic right now. Not only does a top tier tank deal way more damage individually, the difference in how a top tier tank takes less consequential damage and handles the nuances of positioning and mechanics also increases the DPS of the raid and the overall smoothness of the fight.
But the solution is a bit more complicated than changing our rotation. Tanks already have a very low skill floor with a very simple rotation. The gap in performance is generally not from their rotation but that's not to say the rotation can't be changed to make the gap in performance smaller. -
10-24-2016, 01:20 PMSarcaticaMore than anything IMO healers are more guilty than any other roles, not to say tanks don't have any part but yeah. Good healers can do both healing and DPS really well and this synergizes well with tanks that know how to maximize their potential. The hard topic is that not everyone is on the idea of tanks and healers able to maximize DPS due to them relying each other to do well. Some groups have high DPS tanks and healers, some have high DPS tanks and low DPS healers, likewise some have low DPS tanks and high DPS healers. The tank and healer role feed off each other depending on the skill level of the users, unlike the DPS role that only mostly benefit from the positioning and ability to do mechanics at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_
-
10-24-2016, 03:56 PMaleph_null
At first I thought the gap between top tanks and average DF tanks can be attributed to the ability to maximize dps stance uptime, but apparently even in OT position these average tanks still do a lot less dmg than they should, based on their gears. Maybe simplifying the rotations will reduce this performance gap more than we imagine now lol.
-
10-24-2016, 04:20 PMSarcaticaMost tanks I see OT/MT alike hover at 50% of my DPS as MT, which is even worse. Even if they just spam 1 combo over and over, that number is not even remotely achievable. The only excuse I can think of is them using macro, and even then that still doesn't justify the low DPS. And people keep saying PLD easiest tank to play LUL, 500dps PLD OT too good.Quote:
Originally Posted by aleph_null
-
10-24-2016, 04:35 PMShurrikhan(1) Because it and Abyssal Drain are the only native DRK drains, and so in a comparison between which two native drains better fit the surrounding aesthetic of the job, I listed why I felt Warrior's felt more essential to me than DRKs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelle
____
That being said, I still don't see why HP sacrificing abilities would be a downside for a DRK so long as the output of those HP-spenders were increased defense or, effectively, equal or greater eHP that fades slower. That would simply give DRK increased control over its health pool, allowing it to better take advantage of skills like Essential Dignity even while smoothing out burst damage, and would provide no output increase in a easily healed OT setting. For the all the people who were shouting that HP spenders would make no sense for an MT, if you think about it, it's the ONLY place it could actually make sense while remaining balanced. HP is a tank resource; its investment should similarly be for another tank resource. For non-tanks, health no more or less than a safety check, rather than the economy your whole role revolves around. But hey, SE took the same side as those complaints so all's good.
(2) I'm not talking about the existence of an HP bar, or added maximum %HP. I'm aware that eHP can be modified both by the hp value and its coefficient (% damage taken). That's not being debated, nor are its benefits. I'm talking about the playstyle that forgoing standard passive mitigation provided, especially more towards the original 2.0 iteration of Warrior.
When I read your reference to Ignore Pain, I thought your reference was a bit more directly linked to WoW's version of the skill. I would guess that our only large differences in how we view Warrior is that, if it were in some part both a hulking beast of a combat and one that's just persistant, outlasting, I maybe lean towards the latter and you the prior? To me, a Warrior is at home in the middle of a battlefield, where he can last almost indefinitely under medium pressure, but is also able to rise to the situation, enthused by the heat of battle in either situation.
So long as it ties into the output, the momentum and energy so to speak, of this large and persistent beast of a combatant, then I'd be fine with a more analog take on the aspects of the Warrior's Inner Beast, and using that for damage mitigation and resistances. I'd also love to see a take on Berserk by which we're more visibly sacrificing sanity to some extent for that adrenaline- and rage-fueled state. That would be awesome, and would really drive home what lore we got. I just got a bit thrown off by the reference, and my thoughts quickly jumped to the idea of a tank who takes as little damage as possible but has no way to regenerate his health outside of his healer, which seemed, again, the opposite of a Warrior to me. Again, I lean more to the idea of the Warrior as a tenacious, persistent fighter in seemingly everlasting combat; neither just a strong but limited wall nor just a hulking brute to hit or tank like a truck and then die out quite covers that for me.
In short, the self-heal component, by which a Warrior could hold his own against a limited set of attackers without a healer is something I'd really like to still see on a Warrior, if not enhance.
(I'd also like to see more of the aspect or drawing enemies into insanity, feeding on their aether, pooling your power into certain enemies and then rending it back from them for a power or HP buff, and more frequently reaping the souls of enemies on death, etc., while still keeping near to the current, more normal thematic, for DRKs. To me, their drains should have capitalized more on that bastard tank and faintly off-role elements than they were. But hey, honestly I care a lot less about that perfecting the heading for Warrior into 4.0 and beyond; gameflow-wise DRK is still my favorite tank by a tiny margin even as is.)
Aside:
This shit makes me wish there were full-party job quests. Intense ones. -
10-24-2016, 05:49 PMDuelleAnd you know why Souleater and Abyssal Drain are the only two skills with drains on DRK? Because the rest had already been given to WAR. As I said earlier, there was a lot of speculation DRK was going to sprout from MRD because of all the drains built into MRD/WAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
WAR at launch was not dropping Defiance for the sake of e-peen damage. The whole point behind the stance was to simulate the EHP gain from Shield Oath without being a direct damage reduction by increasing HP along with Wrath's increase to healing received.Quote:
(2) I'm not talking about the existence of an HP bar, or added maximum %HP. I'm aware that eHP can be modified both by the hp value and its coefficient (% damage taken). That's not being debated, nor are its benefits. I'm talking about the playstyle that forgoing standard passive mitigation provided, especially more towards the original 2.0 iteration of Warrior.
Yes, the system was poorly implemented, but that was the intent.
Basically. The NPC dialogue for both MRD and WAR point to WAR being this immovable object in combat. It plays on the elements of toughness and intimidation, which I find fitting for WAR, and the mechanics behind the job should reflect that too. Put in another way, while a PLD hides behind their shield and DRK hides behind their big sword, a WAR will stick their chest out and then laugh as if the enemy's attack didn't hurt. Hence my suggestion.Quote:
When I read your reference to Ignore Pain, I thought your reference was a bit more directly linked to WoW's version of the skill. I would guess that our only large differences in how we view Warrior is that, if it were in some part both a hulking beast of a combat and one that's just persistent, outlasting, I maybe lean towards the latter and you the prior?
-
10-24-2016, 06:53 PMShurrikhanReally? So an augmentable drain ST attack, a drain AoE, a drain ST attack with an attached mitigation duration, and a physical-damage drain duration buff are EVERY POSSIBLE variant by which a drain might be used in a job?...Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelle
Haven't you seen at least that many player-made suggestions for new and unique drain ideas just across the posts you've frequented over the last couple years?
I actually spent even less time in Defiance at launch as after the buff. Maybe damage just didn't have such a negative connotation then? We didn't feel the need to call raid dps contribution a matter of digital genital stroking? Heck, I did most of my tanking against 1-3 mobs in Sword Oath from day one at 50 on Paladin unless my healer could dps to compensate, and it took until 2.3 for that to be called "epeen". I don't know, but I generally saw less Warrior tank stance uptime—whether that points at dps prioritization or not—when Defiance was released, because it was simply weaker then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelle
I usually kept it up enmity and into the first or second Regen, then brought it back up several GCDs before I figured combat would end if needed in order to open the next pull with a larger healthpool and shields, especially to give time enough for a full Bane if Lustrate and/or FI were down, but apart from that, the bonus just wasn't nearly as worth the damage penalty until it was buffed in 2.1, making it used less. Of course, I often held onto full stacks more often too, when the bonus external healing received outpaced my internal healing generated via Inner Beast and I was dependent on direct spell healing (no same value Lustrate to cover the gaps as I regenerate stacks after using Inner Beast to save myself).
I have no idea know what intent you think that "poorly implemented system" pointed at though. Was it poorly implemented because it took longer to regenerate full effectiveness, despite already having a cooldown, and because it forced a restart on every use? Or is it just a "poorly implemented system" whose intent you applaud on the assumption that it kept Warriors from leaving tank stance as often? (It didn't. It did the opposite.)
I get that, but... If the PLD is hiding behind his shield, the DRK behind his sword, and the WAR behind his 'manliness' for all the same sort of mitigation and eHP, what if any difference in playstyle does that really create?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelle
Going back to when we were talking about tanks on another thread, I can only say, if you dress up a shielded tank as a literal turtle but then give all other tanks the same mitigation (read: turtliness), they're still all turtle-tanks. So where do you imagine the real difference in gameplay as it applies to Warrior mitigation should come from? Raid vs. mob scaling? The pacing? What?