Warrior Rework to Balance the job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramiee

Its people saying "Lalala warrior is fine" and people saying "Lalala warrior is op" you're both as bad as each other.

---

And yet not only are we not infringing on others because our egos need stroking, were winning as is with a fun job. So whose really doing bad here hmm~?

Not our fault the forums have a few people wanting to loop a braindead desire in a vain attempt in hoping this time it somehow works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikoRemi

...

---

Job designs converge when you introduce in an effect that is powerful enough that every job needs a copy of it to stay balanced. Take invulns, for example. You can easily design tank gameplay without invulns. I'd actually argue that in a fight design standard where you only see four to five tankbusters to be split between two tanks, it actually makes sense not to have them be available at all. But since the existing tanks all have invulns, every tank job introduced from this point forward will also need to have a job-specific invuln. The combined effect of these convergent designs is that tank gameplay starts to feel very similar. That sense of sameness what players are referring to around their experience of 'homogenization.'

The Role Action system was originally designed to combat this by moving essential 'role functions' off into a common pool. But the approach to this has historically been sloppy. We converted Reprisal into a role action in Stormblood so that every tank can contribute to raidwide mitigation. Great. But PLD also kept Divine Veil and gained Passage of Arms. Then WAR players burst into tears and demanded that Shake it Off should become their second raidwide mitigation tool. Then you have to give DRK and GNB second raidwide mitigation tools as well to maintain balance. Eventually, every tank job has two or three hotbar slots dedicated to raidwide mitigation, just so that they can all be on a level footing with each other. More and more of your hotbar space gets overrun by layers of defensive actions, while your offensive rotations are progressively simplified.

Self-healing is just the latest part of this trend, where we just run around slapping on 'Additional Effect: Heal' on to every action. You might as well add it as a tank trait at this point. In truth, I think the real reason for adding it is because some people become unbearably anxious when they're at low HP numbers, and start furiously typing at their 'trolling' healers to heal. I personally liked it better when tanking was self-selecting, and if you weren't able to cut it playing chicken with your healer at sub-20% HP, you just picked another role.

If you want job designs to diverge, you need to build around a theme. The temporary HP that WAR used to be designed around is one such example. You could build all of WAR's defensives around the concept. Another could be designed with more of a barrier focus. A third could make use of block effects. It doesn't have to be every tank with an Excog action and a 20% HP buffing effect.

Either way, I'm glad that you feel that you're 'winning' at something here, but I think this design direction will be detrimental to tanks in the long run. The reason for having a variety of jobs in each role is to draw in players with different tastes, and that doesn't work out in the long run if there's only one or two go to choices in every situation. We'll see what happens in 8.0, I suppose, when the job reworks and possibly a fifth (hammer?) tank enter the picture.

The more I read this thread the more I come around to the idea that tanks (especially WARs) neither need or want healers and we should just remove the healer requirement from content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

The more I read this thread the more I come around to the idea that tanks (especially WARs) neither need or want healers and we should just remove the healer requirement from content.

---

One hell of a strawman.

We already pointed that nerfing WAR won't make healers magically fun and backed it up with data and examples from other content, then proposed solution to make healers more fun.
But nope, we're the baddies who don't want healers to have fun.

The discussion always cycled back to "but but but war healing!! it's not fair!! trinity is dead!!".

I want to healers to be fun while retaining Bloodwhetting as it is, so it opens the door to many other tools stepping out of the lines rather than closing it.

It's not an argument in the first place, it's merely a statement of fact, disappointing a fact as it is. I came into this thread with some modicum of optimism and hope that there would be room for diplomacy, that a compromise could be reached, I tried to reach such compromise and yet, here we are again. What other conclusion am I to draw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

It's not an argument in the first place, it's merely a statement of fact, disappointing a fact as it is. I came into this thread with some modicum of optimism and hope that there would be room for diplomacy, that a compromise could be reached, I tried to reach such compromise and yet, here we are again. What other conclusion am I to draw?

---

What compromises? You just screams for a nerf without accepting any other solutions, that WAR healing is a problem despite data showing it's not.
Don't talk about diplomacy when you present your solution as the only worth to consider.

Also here the conclusion, that I've been repeating for pages, you are to draw:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

I want to healers to be fun while retaining Bloodwhetting as it is, so it opens the door to many other tools stepping out of the lines rather than closing it.

---

I thought I'd go back through the thread to find all the instances where I've suggested or discussed doing things other than or in addition to reducing WAR's self healing, here's what I found:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6557324

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6557380

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6557492

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6557508

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6557523

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6557585

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6557679

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6558753

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6559196

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6579806

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6580274

Cool taking your posts from weeks ago, yet your stance clearly evolved since then.
You're still hellbent on nerfing Bloodwhetting and drawing poor conclusions.

It's even more questionable, despite linking your post, how can you believe tanks don't want healers?

I'd say it's less that my position has evolved so much as I've been reading the discourse and resigned myself to what I see: Healers demanding that things be arranged that healers are given the room/need to heal and tanks saying paragraphs that amount to "No.".

I am still willing to try diplomacy, I am still willing to pursue common ground and compromise. I want dungeons that hit more and harder, I want more uses for interject and esuna, W2W pulls that actually pose a threat when one of the roles isn't pulling their weight - I want to see W2W pulls be fun, skill expression for all. However to do that and maintain the current disparity in tank self sustain seems irreconcilable, now, we could say increase the damage and threat and increase DRK's sustain to the level of other tanks and I suppose that would address the immediate issue but what of the knock-on effects of that? The amount of damage bosses would have to do barring the separation of raidwides into tankbusters and stacks - Per Alexandria's first boss. It's a neat idea but I don't think it should be made the norm simply to balance the amount of HP/mit tanks have now vs everyone else, therefore, it is still my ideal position that we balance increased threats in content with a reduction in tank sustain, per what WoW devs appear to be doing here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

How does diminishing one job's ability all of a sudden make an entirely different job more enjoyable?

---

It's very straightforward. Healers are supposed to heal. WAR requires no healer. WAR makes healers boring to play. It literally breaks the design of the game.

Quote:

---

It seems to me the more enjoyable solution would be to give all the tanks equally effective sustain options. Flavored in their own likeness. Because, you know, it's enjoyable to play.

---

This would be the worst possible thing to do as it would make all tanks as bad as WAR. Buffs aren't always good and nerfs aren't always bad. Buffs in this case only make things worse.

Quote:

---

Imagine wanting to remove fun stuff from a video game, some people are truly baffling.

---

It turns out it's not fun and that's why people are upset. Challenge is a component of fun, how are you supposed to be challenged when playing a heal focused class when the target that you're supposed to heal outheals you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikoRemi

And yet not only are we not infringing on others because our egos need stroking, were winning as is with a fun job.

---

Because reverting Bloodwhetting to again be advantaged by banked gauge, combo position, oGCDs, reflective damage, autos, raid buffs, vulnerability windows, etc. makes it less fun?

Again, unless by "gameplay" you mean solely power (the degree of effort or optimization required to perform a given task) rather than playflow (the processes and considerations of actually doing that task, especially if optimally), your issue here seems nonsensical.

If to you, {higher skill ceiling} = {less fun}, than can we just dispense with the tangents and just discuss compromises in "accessibility" for those who don't want feel encouraged to optimize things?

Otherwise, if this is truly a preference just for unique advantages (with compensatory disadvantages), can we discuss to what degree you'd be fine with Warrior being left out of certain fights it's less advantaged in... in exchange for its being an encouraged/obliged pick for what content it is advantaged in, and/or why it'd be fine to make an entire content type just "Warrior's" until said content type can be redesigned to repair its degree of choice for (and only for) Dawntrail and onward?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

We already pointed that nerfing WAR won't make healers magically fun and backed it up with data and examples from other content, then proposed solution to make healers more fun.

---

The data and examples from other content shows the same thing people were saying about EW/DT Bloodwhetting/Nascent and Warriors' balance overall. It and they overperform generally despite ALSO enjoying significant specific advantages (far more so than anyone but PLD-in-a-specifically-healer-less-but-high-ST-damage-taken-encounter), e.g.:

• whenever stackable mitigation falls within its duration + 15s of a raidwide and/or a raidwide requiring mit falls within 15s of a prior one that did not specifically need tank mit to avoid needing GCD barriers,
• whenever AoE attack opportunities are alignable with one's on-demand,
• whenever having the by far shortest invuln in the game can rope an extra cheese per fight, allowing for rDPS saves or a more lenient CD schedule to recover from mistakes,
• whenever heals can actually be simultaneously pressured for raidwides and anti-tank damage,
• and anywhere one can make any use of having generally some 44-50% more sustain (not even counting overhealing or excess barrier HP, though exempting emergency Clemencies) for ~2% less aDPS (which, heck, was less than half a percent until the latest patch).

Like, seriously, how the hell are we supposed to "solve" that imbalance just by increasing healing requirements... when that would hugely exacerbate that imbalance's impact on the clear speeds (assuming healers don't just outright oom without enough Warriors or Paladins to make up the difference) and likelihood of wipes (from the extra rDPS lost to healing when not WAR/PLD or WAR/WAR)? On the contrary, it would make the matter exponentially worse. I don't understand how anyone could look at that discrepancy and think "Well, if you just made its advantage MORE impactful, then it'd get balanced again." ???

At this point, Warrior's theme isn't self-healing or temporary HP or thrill of the fight or anything so iconic; it's themed most around, simply, copied tools with their friction and skill ceilings then pruned away or their floor itself given enough output to be competitive even without optimizing the skill.

And that should not be the case. Warrior deserves a real identity beyond just "everyone else's skills, but distilled to their most practical core (+ occasionally some unique advantage that, also uniquely, comes with no real or net cost)."

But its "identity" is more than likely going to remain that haphazard crap for however long players --whenever the questions are applied to THEIR job--

• insist that specific advantages should not come with compensatory practical weaknesses,
• insist that content be built uniquely around them ("Don't nerf Bloodwhetting; just remove AoEs from dungeons instead"),
• insist their skills be/remain relatively skill-proofed ("Our sustain should be competitively strong even when we don't optimize it, but it should still reward us for optimizing it"), or
• --just as importantly-- refuse to understand that broad categorical differences in strengths simply prune what jobs are competitive for particular fights and/or at particular levels of gearing... far, far more than they add to job flavor (whereas many other approaches do fine -- just not that one).

I would love to build up a strong Warrior identity. I'd love to see a 4.1 approach revitalized. But I get the feeling that isn't really the priority here for most people expressing allegedly related concerns. Instead, rather like Endwalker Summoner discussion, ease of power seems the more core motive.

I feel, rereading my previous comment, I should clarify I'm not accusing all of the tanks here of stonewalling, nor am I saying all healers are innocent. I know I have said some things that are less than helpful or productive myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

Healers demanding that things be arranged that healers are given the room/need to heal and tanks saying paragraphs that amount to "No.".

---

How do you consider that diplomacy or compromise?
It doesn't change anything, your solution is to impose a pointless nerfs that will negatively affect other content such as fate farming and maps.
Don't be surprised you meet resistance from Warrior players, it's harmless fun.

WoW is a complete different can of worm, tanks have more utility like debuff cleansing, battle res, dodge (sometimes 100%) and but let's do it:
-"Tank durability can cause some other problems as well, especially in challenging endgame content" this is a completely different situation from XIV.
-In War Within tank sustain is much higher than XIV. There's literally a tank that can't die in their savage equivalent, outside of instant KO. If you complained about WAR being immortal, Blood Death Knight is truly immortal in any content.
-"They sustain the group, dispel harmful effects, and respond to burst damage", healers have more responsibility than watching healthbar.
-WoW Tanks can heal much more than XIV's, if you complained here I'd agree, thought it's the previous expansion i've seen numbers from tanks doing 80% of a healer.

And this is why we have no discussion. I offered you five avenues for discussion of content, I offered a position where a tank gets a pretty sizable buff, I gave my thoughts on why I thought it was a good idea to have content+DRK buff and trimming of excess on other tanks meet somewhere in the middle. Then I went on to give an example of how this approach has precedent and what do you offer me in return?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

How do you consider that diplomacy or compromise?

---

She didn't say THAT (a general observation of others' actions across the thread) was [her attempts to compromise].

Quote:

---

It doesn't change anything, your solution is to impose a pointless nerfs that will negatively affect other content such as fate farming and maps.

---

I would find actually having as much challenge in FATEs, maps, and dungeons on Warrior (without needing to drop gear) as available to me on other tanks a way to more enjoy Warriors.

At this point, I can't help but suspect we're not talking what people who care about Warrior as a theme or archetype or playflow like, but rather what tanks who don't want as much challenge most like.

Quote:

---

Don't be surprised you meet resistance from Warrior players

---

See above.

Quote:

---

harmless fun

---

No more so than an lv100 BLU being released onto current content, and for similar reasons, even if the resulting imbalances are at least more specific.

Quote:

---

WoW is a complete different can of worm, tanks have more utility like debuff cleansing, battle res, dodge (sometimes 100%) and but let's do it:
-"Tank durability can cause some other problems as well, especially in challenging endgame content" this is a completely different situation from XIV.
-In War Within tank sustain is much higher than XIV. There's literally a tank that can't die in their savage equivalent, outside of instant KO. If you complained about WAR being immortal, Blood Death Knight is truly immortal in any content.
-"They sustain the group, dispel harmful effects, and respond to burst damage", healers have more responsibility than watching healthbar.
-WoW Tanks can heal much more than XIV's, if you complained here I'd agree, thought it's the previous expansion i've seen numbers from tanks doing 80% of a healer.

---

There's quite a large problem with your analog here.

First, flat output is always more problematic in more casual content. If an M10 doesn't require healers, you can be assured that an M0, a Heroic, or a Normal dungeon will not require one either.

More importantly, though, if WoW's context is "completely different", how is a tank being able to heal itself through most of its own damage there (let alone due only to massive buffs in a Beta flavor pass that the devs have already stated will be compensated for through general and hefty nerfs to tank sustain) an excuse for XIV tanks being able to heal itself and others through most or all damage?

In WoW dungeons, the tank can account for as a little as 40% of net damage received. Which is why the healer can have far more responsibility... so long as the tank isn't also dealing with all that healing (see Prot Paladin / Enh Shaman parties for much of Shadowlands).

WoW tanks may heal more than XIV's in absolute terms of raw %HP, but every time they've healed for anywhere near as large a portion of incoming damage, that job or tanks as a whole have gotten nerfed, and for good reason. Including right now. Presently. In the latest patches. With explicitly more nerfs to come. Because that much healing (roles being that imbalanced in contribution per player or the likelihood of a role being made redundant in more casual play) will tend to be bad for the game.

Whiskey, it's precisely the healers skilled in minimizing (the offensive opportunity costs of) healing done that are affected by what Pyur is complaining about. If the player already healed excessively, that even their oGCD heals are made redundant wouldn't matter to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Whiskey, it's precisely the healers skilled in minimizing (the offensive opportunity costs of) healing done that are affected by what Pyur is complaining about. If the player already healed excessively, that even their oGCD heals are made redundant wouldn't matter to them.

---

Yea. I just thought about it some more and I guess I can see the argument for that. Personally, when I was leveling AST I breathed a sigh of relief every time it was a WAR tank. But I'm not a heal main so..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whiskeybravo

Yea. I just thought about it some more and I guess I can see the argument for that. Personally, when I was leveling AST I breathed a sigh of relief every time it was a WAR tank. But I'm not a heal main so..

---

Hah, yeah, I get where you're coming from now. I just thought it best to point out how things may have gotten inverted there.

Those less familiar with a given task will often enjoy, at least for the while, some extra ease in performing that task, especially if anxious. And that's fair.

The point of many here has simply been that the excess then makes gameplay feel worse both for veteran Warriors (whose skill expressions have been degraded) and for those healing (alongside) them (since the challenge available to them is then reduced to the point that, even at min ilvl, they can't make full use of their kit if playing optimally).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

And this is why we have no discussion. I offered you five avenues for discussion of content, I offered a position where a tank gets a pretty sizable buff, I gave my thoughts on why I thought it was a good idea to have content+DRK buff and trimming of excess on other tanks meet somewhere in the middle. Then I went on to give an example of how this approach has precedent and what do you offer me in return?

---

We have no discussion because you're hellbent on a suggestion, doesn't matter what package you offer if your suggestion is still hidden in there.
You propose 5 cake of choice but each has a poison in it and you complains I won't eat any of them, then play the victim how I'm not open to discussion.

"therefore, it is still my ideal position that we balance increased threats in content with a reduction in tank sustain, per what WoW devs appear to be doing here."
I've looked into it and the problem is wildly different since it affect "challenging endgame content", not dungeons.

It's called discussion, not capitulation, but you seem to be trying very hard to make it appear anything short of capitulation is unacceptible to you.

I have tried, again, to have a discussion. But just as you can lead a horse to water, I cannot make you discuss.

Edit: You spoke of compromise, yet as I suggest we compromise you say no. You don't even offer an alternative, just "no".

If people are willing to compromise, then let's try to compromise. I put forward a suggestion earlier that dungeons contain enemies with the ability to lower healing which would go after the tank. This would allow for overpowered healing skills to remain without letting them trivialize healing. In the case of WAR, Bloodwhetting would remain unchanged, but self healing would be futile when within the influence of the healing down enemy. Tanks would require healer support at least some of the time while they would also have to be a little more careful about using their own self healing since it could be wasted.

I would rather make WAR healing reasonable for a few reasons, but such an addition to dungeons would at least elevate the experience of partying with a war to being more than filler attack spam. How to balance and implement it is a bit of a question. Firstly, does it get added to old dungeons? If not are they going to remain broken? How is the healing down enemy presence handled? It can't be trivial to defeat or it won't make a difference and I imagine that those in favor of Bloodwhetting don't want the enemy to be so common that self healing isn't viable ever. Aesthetically and thematically, if this same enemy is every dungeon and every pull, it might stand out and feel forced or out of place.

There are some problems to work out, but is this idea worth considering?

It seems like a reasonable idea, I think I would handle it using tethers to other nearby enemies that boost it's resistance so it can't sensibly just be bursted down, could also be part of a broader set of enemies with effects like damage and resistance down that could be randomised do you never know which will appear when you load into the dungeon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

It's called discussion, not capitulation, but you seem to be trying very hard to make it appear anything short of capitulation is unacceptible to you.

I have tried, again, to have a discussion. But just as you can lead a horse to water, I cannot make you discuss.

Edit: You spoke of compromise, yet as I suggest we compromise you say no. You don't even offer an alternative, just "no".

---

Simply because the nerf is pointless and unnaceptable. Compromise isn't always the solution, you're proposing a false compromise.
"I will cut both your legs!"
"I refuse to have my legs cut!"
"Fine then, let's make a compromise, I'll only cut one of your legs."

Then tell me you tried to have a discussion.
I will not compromise for a nerf, it's pointless and closes the door to future abilities that could steps out of the lines.

So we argue about arguing, instead of talking about ideas, five or six perfectly valid ones that benefit everyone I might add. Yes, I wasted perfectly good oxygen and keystrokes trying.

At any point you could have said something along the lines of "We're not going to agree on reducing anything but we can increase damage, we can buff DRK, we can talk about ideas to keep raidwides viable" and hey presto, we'd have something to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

Simply because the nerf is pointless and unnaceptable. Compromise isn't always the solution, you're proposing a false compromise.
"I will cut both your legs!"
"I refuse to have my legs cut!"
"Fine then, let's make a compromise, I'll only cut one of your legs."

Then tell me you tried to have a discussion.
I will not compromise for a nerf, it's pointless and closes the door to future abilities that could steps out of the lines.

---

There’s really no point in discussing it with these people. It’s the same old loop long before DT when the few people here called for tanks to get their self sustain nerfed, I said SE wouldn’t do that but nobody believed me.

Fast forward to now and it’s gotten stronger. Meanwhile people will conveniently forget how even with our shiny tools, DF and PF on average can’t survive even easy content let alone extreme or higher. But were talking about how the self sustain has actually gotten better…I’d think that tell these people to try a different avenue but eh.

You can’t tell them when they’ve convinced themselves so, like the DRK mains that think Living Dead with dying is a benefit and that Dark Mind is a unique cooldown which somehow makes it good. They can say what they want but at the end of the day, were Bloodwhetting harder than ever and that’s just a fact~.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

So we argue about arguing, instead of talking about ideas, five or six perfectly valid ones that benefit everyone I might add. Yes, I wasted perfectly good oxygen and keystrokes trying.

At any point you could have said something along the lines of "We're not going to agree on reducing anything but we can increase damage, we can buff DRK, we can talk about ideas to keep raidwides viable" and hey presto, we'd have something to discuss.

---

I'm pretty sure from the start I've been clear about the nerf, why I believe nerf shouldn't be done and my stance against nerf mentality.
You proposed a compromise, I answer you why a compromise is wrong.

What you wasted is on yourself, the day you understand the nerf of tank sustain (you're the one who mentionned tank sustain as a whole) is unecessary and a bandaid solution to the real issue, you'll realize you've wasted much more oxygen and keystroke.
But go ahead, keep your victim mentality and put the whole responsibility on me for refusing your inacceptable "compromise".

I won't repeat myself why I won't agree with a nerf, I've told it thousands of times and this "discussion" is just going in circle to a WAR nerf for no other reasons than balancing dungeons.
Tank sustain has been fine in WoW despite the ratio being higher than XIV, further proving a nerf isn't needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

Simply because the nerf is pointless and unnaceptable. Compromise isn't always the solution, you're proposing a false compromise.
"I will cut both your legs!"
"I refuse to have my legs cut!"
"Fine then, let's make a compromise, I'll only cut one of your legs."

Then tell me you tried to have a discussion.
I will not compromise for a nerf, it's pointless and closes the door to future abilities that could steps out of the lines.

---

Mate, "Warrior players" (not necessarily mains or veterans, but "Warrior players" nonetheless) have been the largest community driver for the removal or homogenization of most things to step out of line among tanks:

• Hallowed Ground stepped out of line. What happened? Holmgang was changed from a CC skill with bundled knock back immunity into an invuln. Now we're stuck with invulns for everyone.
  
  
• Cover stepped out of line. What happened? Warriors demanded the transfered damage not benefit from PLD's mitigation. (Ironically, once NIN was introduced, this replaced Cover-Hallowed strats only in that you ended up with double Hallowed.)
  
  
• Sword Oath stepped out of line. What happened? It was made inferior to Deliverance for both AoE (as PLD literally had none besides CoS) and ST both, reducing it from PLD at least having a small max ST damage in exchange for its lower combined sustain+damage in practice to PLD mostly being permitted only for fights with hard-hitting but singular physical tank busters and little to no magical damage. Tbf, good riddance to that balancing approach, as simply rotated which off-Warriors, err, co-tanks, were allowed for which fights.
  
  
• Divine Veil stepped out of line. What happened? Instead of building around high burst followed by a period of pacification or a damage-stagger mechanic that Warrior could purge, Shake it Off was made a Divine Veil knockoff that was just higher ceiling and more responsive than the original. Because the voices of those who wanted an easy time via Warrior counter for more than those of actual Warrior mains.
  
  
• Inner Release stepped out of line. What happened? Oonga bungas didn't like the gap in effort required between optimal and skilled use (i.e., that split them from Warrior mains), so instead of merely dealing with its clunkiness in dungeons specifically, they gutted its core mechanic in favor of {X free uses}.
  
  
• Original Nascent Flash/Raw Intuition stepped out of line. What happened? Once the oonga bungas (mostly JP, iirc) has apparently had enough of banking gauge and syncing buffs because the highest-output-by-far external on-demands was "too hard" to optimize, we lost our choice in defensive output and that element of skill expression per the Endwalker version of BW/NF.

It's literally the need to favor ease of output or categorical advantage that has cost us differentiation where it mattered far more -- the actual playflow.

I'm sorry, but acting like any loss to ease of power, let alone from a source as obviously a broken scalar and as simplifying/degrading to the skill's gameplay as has been the case for EW BW/NF-- as an attempt to cut both one's legs off can't help but sound so damn entitled. It's the usual EW "screw you, veteran SMNs (and all other casters); SMN is how we like it now, so that's that," or ShB "tough luck, healer veterans, I like being able to spend 94% of spell casts on a single key" and it sucks when people pretend it's a matter of identity that even the slightest balancing of its performance is refuted no matter its favorable impact on the job's playflow or the broader health of the game as it stands now or could be added to.

Now, a lot of changes have happened without community support, yes, but if your complaint here is on how community discourse/action in this thread seems to be trending, I suggest you look back, too.

So, if everything else I've suggested is so unacceptable to you, how do we balance normal content around WAR levels of self sustain? Assuming even that we boost all the other tanks to the same level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

So, if everything else I've suggested is so unacceptable to you, how do we balance normal content around WAR levels of self sustain? Assuming even that we boost all the other tanks to the same level.

---

You buff the other tanks' flat and per-target means of self-sustain, buff healers to proportionately match, buff all content to proportionately match the new values to what you originally had before among non-Warriors, and generally do 20+ times more work for the same result as having reverted Bloodwhetting to healing for a % of damage dealt (but without that reversion's increased gameplay interaction for Warrior)?

/shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

You buff the other tanks' flat and per-target means of self-sustain, buff healers to proportionately match, buff all content to proportionately match the new values to what you originally had before among non-Warriors, and generally do 20+ times more work for the same result as having reverted Bloodwhetting to healing for a % of damage dealt (but without that reversion's increased gameplay interaction for Warrior)?

/shrug

---

Me trying to break TBN when it gets buffed to 400% my HP pool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

Me trying to break TBN when it gets buffed to 400% my HP pool:

---

That's what the {every AA one-shots non-tanks} levels of damage is for. You wouldn't want a run to even be imaginable without a tank, right?

Obviously, if a single job is overpowered, we could just scale up every other job in its role, all that the role's non-universal outputs directly interact with, and all encounter damage, right? It's not like we need even a vague modicum of inter-role balance beyond a fixedly tank perspective, surely?

What's a trinity or compositional flexibility anyways? I never understood why we needed such fancy words for "flush the healer once you have enough water pressure, duh."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

If people are willing to compromise, then let's try to compromise. I put forward a suggestion earlier that dungeons contain enemies with the ability to lower healing which would go after the tank.

---

This seems... fine(?), but is very weirdly roundabout way to buff (TBN) or nerf (BW/NF) a single outlier, if that is your intent (rather than just a bit of variance that could, say, add a 'curse' mechanic to dungeons only when in a roulette or where countered by a 'kiss' mechanic directly related to it elsewhere and not at a timing that would allow players to act only under the latter).

If you don't want target-scaled sustain to trivialize content, then you need to provide compensatory kit and context to the competing jobs and amp the difficulty of content to match (and, technically, the amp contribution of other roles each in compensation, which then obliges amping the difficulty of the content yet again)... or you just fix the scalars where broken instead of raising the house to deal with the single floorboard everyone trips on.

Of the two, the latter is the far less costly and far less error-prone.

Remember, so long as a fight is cleared by damage, the only perspective or metric that ultimately matters is rDPS; it's simply that there can be many, many types of contribution thereto, many of them very indirect.

Give a Bard a taunt or a pacify and, so long as there's something they can briefly kite or an otherwise difficult-to-avoid special attack they can cancel and not enough free heals to deal with everything nor eHP going in to avoid someone's death without a GCD heal, that's likely rDPS gained. If you have a proximity based AoE and a strong melee DPS and you allow an ally to move faster or extended attack range or attack 20% faster in exchange for being slowed 20% for an equal duration later, that can still be an extra melee attacks' advantage over a ranged fallback options' worth of rDPS. Etc., etc.

But, it's not usually worth constraining content around outliers. That'd be to make, in effect, every house with unnecessary lift and a relatively sunken floorboard; balance the issue later and you return the same issue that led to the awkward "solution" in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Mate, "Warrior players" (not necessarily mains or veterans, but "Warrior players" nonetheless) have been the largest community driver for the removal or homogenization of most things to step out of line among tanks:

---

A lot of what you said is exaggerated, false, or was a result of the devs making changes that no one asked for.

• Holmgang wasn't changed because Hallowed "stepped out of line", it was because 2.0 WAR had basically no mitigation skills and was useless in Coil compared to PLD. It got its own unique mitigations in 2.1- IB on the GCD, Vengeance with a lower % and lower cooldown than Sentinel, Holmgang with a target requirement, 6s duration, root and no true invuln.

• I don't think Cover ever worked with Hallowed, but it does work with other mitigation skills.

• All jobs got new DPS skills going into HW. WAR getting Deliverance to have dps versions of Inner Beast and Steel Cyclone was a reasonable addition, your point about PLD not having a slight DPS lead just comes down to how the devs decided to balance the jobs. It's not even homogenisation, stances on PLD/DRK and WAR were pretty different (which led to lots of complaints because PLD/DRK were on the GCD).

• The pacification on Berserk was removed in 4.0, at the same time Shake it Off was added, so SiO was useless from the start. I think the only thing you could use it on was Exdeath's Doom, and you weren't always going to get that. A self-Esuna isn't a viable skill, so the devs chose to change it to a shield.

• People were pretty happy with Raw Intuition/Nascent Flash after NF got changed to be usable on yourself. I doubt many people, if any, asked for it to be changed to flat healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

So, if everything else I've suggested is so unacceptable to you, how do we balance normal content around WAR levels of self sustain? Assuming even that we boost all the other tanks to the same level.

---

Leave sustain how it is, increase damage done/frequency by trash and bosses in dungeons. WAR will require healing between Bloodwhettings, and healers will have a reason to cast more than 3 oGCDs per trash pack/1 oGCD every time a boss does a raidwide.
There's already a few trash packs in DT that do a bit more damage, like the horses after the first boss of Strayborough. They can autoattack and do a named attack at the same time for a big chunk of damage, add more of that.
I wouldn't really care if Bloodwhetting went back to being a % of damage dealt, but I do think it needs to keep the healing on multiple targets. WAR has had that since Bloodbath in ARR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Launched

Leave sustain how it is, increase damage done/frequency by trash and bosses in dungeons. WAR will require healing between Bloodwhettings, and healers will have a reason to cast more than 3 oGCDs per trash pack/1 oGCD every time a boss does a raidwide.
There's already a few trash packs in DT that do a bit more damage, like the horses after the first boss of Strayborough. They can autoattack and do a named attack at the same time for a big chunk of damage, add more of that.

---

I'm glad someone is willing to engage with one of my suggestions, what say you to taking that a step further by throwing around more interrupts and esuna effects for good measure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikoRemi

And yet not only are we not infringing on others because our egos need stroking, were winning as is with a fun job. So whose really doing bad here hmm~?

Not our fault the forums have a few people wanting to loop a braindead desire in a vain attempt in hoping this time it somehow works.

---

WAR makes the job of healers unfun, it's as simple as that just admit you don't care about healers and enjoy being op in dungeons. Trying to run around this is dumb.
Seeing cope about WAR aoe heal not being a problem is annoying just say you find it fun and don't care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramiee

WAR makes the job of healers unfun, it's as simple as that just admit you don't care about healers and enjoy being op in dungeons. Trying to run around this is dumb.
Seeing cope about WAR aoe heal not being a problem is annoying just say you find it fun and don't care.

---

Healers aren't fun because they don't have a proper rotation. Dungeons are just a small part of the game and expecting the game to be balanced around that and not higher end content is the bigger cope. Although yes, I do in fact like being able to keep a party alive when the healer decides to eat dirt in easy content. Not my fault they can't dodge normal AOE's we've been seeing for years and years.

It's as simple as that and the game has only made self sustain even stronger. If SE can remove then give back Energy Drain within a patch, or change up VPR to remove Noxious Gnash real quick, they had plenty of time. Make healers fun, not at anyone else's expense. If you wanna keep believing SE is going to do that though then keep repeating history~. Hasn't worked during EW, hasn't worked on release of DT, it won't happen any time soon. Believe it or not, your call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikoRemi

Dungeons are just a small part of the game and expecting the game to be balanced around that and not higher end content is the bigger cope. Although yes, I do in fact like being able to keep a party alive when the healer decides to eat dirt in easy content.

---

Here's all I needed, you being honest that you don't care and find it fun to have a self heal benediction and you want to do the healers job. The rest is just fluff and self justification for playing a job that breaks the trinity balance. I don't actually really care either if I was able to replace tanks as a DPS id do it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramiee

Here's all I needed, you being honest that you don't care and find it fun to have a self heal benediction and you want to do the healers job. The rest is just fluff and self justification for playing a job that breaks the trinity balance. I don't actually really care either if I was able to replace tanks as a DPS id do it too.

---

You can be sad about it all you want, doesn't change anything. Meanwhile in content that actually matters, yknow on the higher end? Yeah, it's a good general use cooldown that doesn't break anything. I don't care about silly opinions not rooted in reality though yes. Go ahead and just try a healerless run in an average PF party of EX1 as a WAR and tell me how that goes though~. If you can somehow heal all of that without a cotank doing all the healing or needing some summoners and red mages, I won't believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

This seems... fine(?), but is very weirdly roundabout way to buff (TBN) or nerf (BW/NF) a single outlier...

If you don't want target-scaled sustain to trivialize content, then you need to provide compensatory kit and context to the competing jobs and amp the difficulty of content to match (and, technically, the amp contribution of other roles each in compensation, which then obliges amping the difficulty of the content yet again)... or you just fix the scalars where broken instead of raising the house to deal with the single floorboard everyone trips on.

Of the two, the latter is the far less costly and far less error-prone.

---

I feel the same way, but the obvious solution of reducing WAR healing isn't liked by some. I don't really understand it but also I don't want to dismiss differing opinions. It would also be nice to move the discussion toward a consensus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikoRemi

Healers aren't fun because they don't have a proper rotation.

---

DPS do, so if you want a rotation you can play that role. Turning healers into DPS is taking away from what we have so it's not preferable. More attack options would great for healers, but they should also remain healers.

Quote:

---

Dungeons are just a small part of the game and expecting the game to be balanced around that and not higher end content is the bigger cope.

---

A small part in what way? A large portion of the player base participates in them often and they're the most accessible (in terms of preparation, you just queue, no need to find a party or look up guides) form of content we have.

Whatever the case, at the end of the day WAR is enough of a problem in dungeons that people are complaining about it.

Quote:

---

Make healers fun, not at anyone else's expense.

---

As long as FF14 is a multiplayer game, party cohesion is going to be a design consideration. Classes that negate other classes are undesirable exactly because they exist at other's expense. It is possible to change the rest of the game to address and issue like that, but obviously that's less likely to happen than fixing the problem itself. It's also a bit unfair to people that don't want to see the game they like become something different.

I have my own ideas about what I'd like to see changed but I don't request things that don't fit with the spirit of the game. Reducing WAR healing in one specific context hardly seems difficult or problematic. If your concern is never wanting to reset a boss no matter what you don't even need Bloodwhetting. PLD has had that capability with Clemency for a while, but Clemency at least fills an emergency role that doesn't clash with healer responsibilities.

While reigning in WAR would do a lot to help dungeon healing, it's not the source of healer issues, and that is well understood. Yet, there is no denying that a self sufficient tank (or any role) is problematic for the game. Personally I'd like to remove self healing from tanks entirely. If it must exist anyway then keep it to a reasonable level so that healers can function as they were designed and as healer players expect them to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramiee

WAR makes the job of healers unfun, it's as simple as that just admit you don't care about healers and enjoy being op in dungeons. Trying to run around this is dumb.
Seeing cope about WAR aoe heal not being a problem is annoying just say you find it fun and don't care.

---

WAR aoe is heal is fun and every tank should have access to it. Healers can just cope with not having anything to do 12 seconds per minute.