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

[ReiszRie]

The only personal attack against you is pointing out that you can't do math, which you proved yourself. I'm simply asserting based upon evidence you provided. You put forth math that was *explicitly wrong*. You drew the exact *opposite* conclusion from it that you should have (or would have, had you actually understood what you were doing). When you bring math into it, you're not aiming to discuss opinion; you're attempting to evaluate mathematical fact and aren't equipped to actually do so (as evidenced by your performance here).

As i had mentioned, it was a simple calculation. Even if I was wrong in my calculations, insulting me for it is still totally uncalled for.

Damage reduction is as what it is, damage reduction. Though you can construe it as a HP increase but that would mean it is purely translated as a HP increase (being able to take more raw damage than the HP indicated) and not a damage reduction AND HP increase as that would be stacking them, 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.

We all know how percentages work, in a drawn out battle, PLDs will have greater survivability due to how percentages stacks and that is what differentiates WARs from PLDs in the essence that PLDs are more suited for battles that are drawn out or battles that requires soaking up massive amounts of damage.

[Kitru]

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.

[ReiszRie]

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.

[hola]

snif

blah blah blah

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

[Casper]

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.

[ReiszRie]

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.

[ZenBear]

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.

[ReiszRie]

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

[Casper]

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.