Boycotting Warrior 4.0 (Let's do it!)

after it's nearing release and there's still no news about warrior getting their ability fixed i think i am just gonna accept my fate and suffer for the first 3 months of the expansion(assuming they fix it by 4.1), it's been fun 3.0 WAR
certainly gonna miss you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

We can't have actual proof before the actual release, but I'm pretty sure that's what will happen. That's why, as a tank, I'm perfectly OK to stay more in tank stance if it allows the group to attain its optimal DPS. That's why I said that, for a tank, optimizing its DPS is not the same as being optimal, since you need to also consider the other members.

---

Well in this case we're all assuming things. The thing is that current meta comp is really good because it allows everyone in the group to perform optimally on an individual level, since the "selfish" dps jobs (casters, mnk) don't do well enough above the non-selfish jobs to justify their "weaknesses" (lack of raid dps buffs, mnk's lack of aggro control, blm's lack of mobility, etc). Even if the dps loss of the tank is smaller than the dps gain sam brings, we will still need to look at the bigger picture, including raid buffs and encounter designs. For now your guess is as good as mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

it allows everyone in the group to perform optimally on an individual level

---

Yes, but I still think that the "individual level" of tanks needs to balances enmity management, mitigation and DPS. Too often I feel like people are solely focusing on DPS.

For example, people are already considering The Blackest Night to be garbage because you "waste" MP on something else than Dark Arts...

Well, managing aggro and mitigation is actually rather trivial if you don't think about the dps cost of your tools. The reason why I counted sam's (possibly) excessive aggro as a weakness of the job is because we're (I'm) assuming that it's above every other dps job, so you can see it as some sort of catering required for sam. Think of it as if the pld/drk having to do X times halone/power slash combos more than if you brought any other dps jobs, then the dps loss of those combos would be the entrance fee of bringing sam to the group.

If we add the things we know about 4.0 war (the go-to boss puller in 3.x): stance dancing halves gauge, infuriate can't be used outside of battle, unchained sharing cd with inner release, dps rotation no longer includes butcher's block, then we might be looking at a pretty expensive entrance fee here. It might even push another dps job in the group to be nin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

Well, managing aggro and mitigation is actually rather trivial if you don't think about the dps cost of your tools.

---

In my opinion, it doesn't need to be. Back in the old days of FFXI (Yeah, I know, this is not FFXI...), the capacity of tanks building enmity had a real impact on how much DPS can push their numbers, because holding back to not ripp enmity was a real concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aleph_null

then the dps loss of those combos would be the entrance fee of bringing sam to the group.

---

Yeah, but, as long as SAM makes up for that loss, it's not a fee, it's an investment ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Hmmm, what's the problem with that ? Are you angry of losing part of your DPS to allow real DPS to go medieval on the ennemy ? You'd prefer SAM to do a lot less damage so you can do more, and in the end, having a weaker party setup ?

---

Lol "tanks have to tank stance more "
If you don't need to then they need to tune better, tanks SHOULD be in tank stance, otherwise they might as well be dps.. You all just make me laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azreal

Lol "tanks have to tank stance more "
If you don't need to then they need to tune better, tanks SHOULD be in tank stance, otherwise they might as well be dps.. You all just make me laugh.

---

Personally, I like turtle tanking, but I understand that different players have diferent taste, and enforcing a single play style will only reduce depth.

The better solution, since we have three tanks, is to design one tank for turtle tankng, one for agressive tanking, etc...and expand the meta so each type of tank have its own benefit. For example, in a party with a turtle tank, one healer could be enough and thus replaced by a 5th DPS...

Fundamentally the tanks need to be approximately interchangeable from the perspective of the encounter otherwise you not only have class-balance problems but you have encounter balance problems.
I also think that "the meta" of which classes/groups of classes are superior is a bit over rated for the vast majority of the playerbase, including most raid groups. I have never enforced truly "optimal" compositions on my group and it's never been the lack of optimization that keeps us from clearing something.

At any rate, I am perfectly fine with the act of tanking basically requiring you to be in tank stance for hate management and mitigation purposes.

I'm also not particularly upset with the WAR changes. Bloodbath wasn't really all that powerful given the majority of tanking challenges are tank-busters rather than sustain. Reprisal probably ends up being better than Storms Path because its so easy to apply at will, whereas Path was usually dropped for better DPS and had the whole combo lead-up time for application. I'll happily pay Foresight, which mostly sucks, for Rampart which is very good.
Losing half your gauge on a swap kinda sucks. But I think they really want to enforce some penalty on swapping to try and keep tanks in tank stance more while actively tanking. It's also in the context of us being able to stack up to 10 wrath now, given the beast gauge size and skill costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azreal

Lol "tanks have to tank stance more "
If you don't need to then they need to tune better, tanks SHOULD be in tank stance, otherwise they might as well be dps.. You all just make me laugh.

---

Whats funny about it , hold argo in tank stance is like the most basic thing in the game, so Im not really following how people think that tanking in dps stance is a bad thing. Tankin in tank stance I pretty much never have to worry about losing threat on a single target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Fundamentally the tanks need to be approximately interchangeable from the perspective of the encounter otherwise you not only have class-balance problems but you have encounter balance problems.
I

---

but the thing is nobody wants to tank , so why on earth would you force tanks into a play style that they arent asking for , leave tanks alone and let people who are willing to tank play them the way they want I dont get SE sometimes