Warrior 4.0 Concerns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bswpayton

I highly doubt that tanks are gona stop tankin in ot stance it doesnt matter what se tries to do ha ,

---

Some tanks will try, but are very likely to find out that they just do not have the enmity generation they used to.

Tanks are losing about 10% of their AP from main stat at i270 this is going increase the gap between tank and dps AP by about 50% and the gap will continue to grow as tanks will not be getting Str from accessories and dps will be getting main stat from theirs.

Berserk+Unchain pulls are also being nerfed due to berserk and the beast gauge change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

Well at least most of the raiders that I know are expecting the new tier to be similar to creator in difficulty level, so I highly doubt that. You also need to consider that the majority of "raiders" are still stuck in the MT/OT, MH/OT mentality, so the amount of mitigation they can achieve can be achieved by good raiders by coordinating tank swaps and healing cds. If you make it necessary for the good raiders to be in tank stance most of the time, the average raiders won't be able to clear the content, which will probably repeat the gordias-midas-creator cycle again.

---

Difficulty is different than enmity needs. The same level of difficulty/complexity as Creator doesn't mean anything if the tank can't hold enmity in DpS stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

Some tanks will try, but are very likely to find out that they just do not have the enmity generation they used to.

Tanks are losing about 10% of their AP from main stat at i270 this is going increase the gap between tank and dps AP by about 50% and the gap will continue to grow.

---

An argument can be made that since every DPS now has Diversion for aggro management, and Ninja still has their entire toolkit, that tank DPS maximization is now a team wide effort... But we all know that's not going to happen. It's hard enough already to get BLMs to use Quelling even though it's literally a button press you use before the fight even starts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

Some tanks will try, but are very likely to find out that they just do not have the enmity generation they used to.

---

a fair amount of jobs got their damage nerfed monk being one , in a raid with coordination Im pretty sure tanks will continue to do as they do now, Also many dps are losing offesive buffs as well pretty much one per job with the exception of a few. In dungeons consider the wide vareity of players u get it will still be easy to tank in ot stance simply due to the fact that many dps do not know how to deal enough damage to warrent putting it on. I believe this is just SE effort to try and stop wats being going on but I highly doubt that its going to change the way people play.


I recall while just lookin at the videos of each job in action while tanks dps looked pretty similar to how it does now. I also notice that many dps where dealing around the same amount of damage as they are now as well.

i've never understood the mentality of "wait and see if they change it. They're not going to UNLESS people actively criticize them for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bec

i've never understood the mentality of "wait and see if they change it. They're not going to UNLESS people actively criticize them for it.

---

i know right, if we're not complaining SE will take it like there are no problem in the game and they will proceed as they intended, which is not a good thing for us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P4X0R10N

Yeah. I'm disappointed by onslaught. I've wanted a gap closer for my warrior for the longest time, but costing 20 rage really is a kill joy.

To top it off, infuriate doesn't work out of battle so there's no way to just freely charge.

Just make it cost tp. Not every new skill needs to cost rage.

Get rid of the damage even or increase the cooldown. I don't care. Just get rid of the rage cost.

---

Seriously... if they just left infuriate alone the rage cost wouldn't be as big of a deal but since sprint is free now you might as well save the 20 rage for a FC...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bec

i've never understood the mentality of "wait and see if they change it. They're not going to UNLESS people actively criticize them for it.

---

Exactly, this is happening with WHM right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bec

-snip-

---

Because raw data is a bigger instrument of change than the vocal minority.

A very small amount of people are actually part of this official forum, and while they do hear (for better or for worse) us it is more often than not taken with a grain of salt.

however, if people stop playing a job all together; if the amount of people clearing endgame content with X job is much lower than projected expectations that is how you get a developer's attention. It is somewhat similar to shifting metas pvp based games. "x weapon/character/class is intrinsically superior to the majority", so the majority ends up using that exclusively.

actions speak louder than words. If either dark knight or warrior are bad enough come 4.0, people will stop playing them for a better designed, or more entertaining job. same thing happened in 2.0 where warriors were stunted in progression due to being a reactive tank rather than a preemptive one.

People who dismiss the WAR complaints about stance dancing haven't put the thought in to see what the true cost of losing half your gauge means. We're talking 50 points, or two combos, or 6 GCDs when you swap from 100 points.

"But then spend all your points before swapping."

That puts us in another poor situation where now we are stuck rebuilding stacks in Defiance with a damage penalty. The 20% damage penalty over 6 GCDs to get us to 50 in Defiance for an Inner Beast would be an even larger potency loss than the loss of swapping from 100 down to 50 to have 50 left to Inner Beast.

It also just "feels" bad to play, which is going to hinder new tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

Difficulty is different than enmity needs. The same level of difficulty/complexity as Creator doesn't mean anything if the tank can't hold enmity in DpS stance.

---

With shirk and diversion I don't think we'll have too much problem with enmity, especially now that we can weave two butcher's block combo between eye combos. The only jobs that don't have enmity control are brd and mch. Of course if it's absolutely necessary to be in tank stance to hold aggro, we'll do it, like it or not. But the bigger the cost of swapping stance, the more valuable nin's utilities become. I wouldn't be surprised if drg/nin/mch/brd become the optimal composition again if that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saber_alter

Because raw data is a bigger instrument of change than the vocal minority.

A very small amount of people are actually part of this official forum, and while they do hear (for better or for worse) us it is more often than not taken with a grain of salt.

however, if people stop playing a job all together; if the amount of people clearing endgame content with X job is much lower than projected expectations that is how you get a developer's attention. It is somewhat similar to shifting metas pvp based games. "x weapon/character/class is intrinsically superior to the majority", so the majority ends up using that exclusively.

---

Yeah of course it'll be easier to notice once the damage has been done. We don't need to wait for a whole raid tier to see how some jobs could be better or worse than other jobs. I'm not saying war is broken or completely unviable, our concerns are relatively minor compared to whm's. In whm's case we can see that the lily system is broken (in a bad way) without even playing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

With shirk and diversion I don't think we'll have too much problem with enmity, especially now that we can weave two butcher's block combo between eye combos. The only jobs that don't have enmity control are brd and mch. Of course if it's absolutely necessary to be in tank stance to hold aggro, we'll do it, like it or not. But the bigger the cost of swapping stance, the more valuable nin's utilities become. I wouldn't be surprised if drg/nin/mch/brd become the optimal composition again if that's the case.

---

I suspect that people may be seriously overestimating Shirk and Diversion. As for Nin's utilities? They might just become reasons for others to chose other cross-role skills rather than grab Shirk or Diversion.