WAR and Wrath: Important Mechanics Discussed.

[MBTL90]

What we instead are trying to tell you is that due to how this game works mathmatically, paladins do a better job of it. This isn't up for debate - several people have crunched the math, showing that even when not taking into account Paladin's superior cd's, they just take less damage. "But but but, with superior skill and knowledge of fights, I can time my abilities to heal the damage back!!!" To that I answer, what on earth do you think pallies are doing when they tank, twiddling their thumbs? The common example wars give is tanking Titan table flips. "If I pop every cd I have, and then crit, I can sometimes heal for 1-2k!" Pallies have a damage immunity, a 20% dr, and a 40% dr. Would it blow your mind if I told you that pallies too pop cooldowns for table flips?

Again, no one is saying that Wars aren't viable. We're just saying that in every situation, they're inferior to paladins.

[Terabyt3]

words

Been trying to get this through the heads of a few people for weeks now.... Apparently "spreadsheet" and maths does not make a blind bit of difference. Even when faced with the evidence put it simplest terms they can't grasp the difference between scaling and static mitigation or the fact that viability os not the subject in question but efficiency.

Because they beat turn 1&2 as OT (Which according to some there is no such thing..... LOL) they think WAR is fine and they were in no means "carried" or less efficient than a PLD would be in the same circumstance.

At least the sensible people out there can read through the posts, take in the maths, apply common sense and come to the conclusion that these few are deluded beyond belief.

Oh my I about barfed my breakfast up when I seen all these posts. Orange juice in the nose burns by the way. When did you become some godly tank..... couldn't tank let alone heal in V1. People carrying you in this version too?

LMAO I didnt even respond to that. Seeing as they had no valid evidence to back up their statement. Yoshi didn't say it was not going to change. His words were we found it to be strong in the dev testing and the players need to do more research.

And if the dev tested war vs. pld in AK let's say then yes WAR is very strong.
Even in titan with SCH healer WAR is still pretty viable.

However it is apparent they didn't do much testing between the tanks in the current environment, BC with undergeared (because we dont have CT gear yet) comparissons.

Perhaps CT gear will be class specific? Seperate for WARs and PLD's (never understood why DL and Heavy Al aren't) and that will bring more of a balance? but the more you make warrior balance for coil in it's current playstyle the more overpowered it becomes for lower dungeons such as AK.

Having WARs self heals scale according to incoming damage is the only way I can think of balancing it out. Or maybe, just maybe, having wrath build when you are hit?
Normal hit 1 wrath.
Hit for 2k? 2 Wrath
Hit for 3k? 3 Wrath
Hit for 5k? Instant 5 wrath!

(That still wouldnt fix the problem but it would help it out a little!)

[Kitru]

TO my understanding, Kitru appeared merely ot disagree with you on the premise that the Warrior CD's were as bad as you stated.
not that they were as good, but merely that they weren't as horrible as one believed.

That was my original intent. Of course, I have revised my opinion of the comparative performance of the CD suites thanks to getting more experience with them and messing around with more of the end game content (the post she's referencing is over a month old by now and, unlike many people, I'm not averse to changing my opinion based upon new evidence). I actually did a post where I specifically itemized how much worse the WAR tank CD suite was compared to the PLD CD suite so I find it quite disingenuous for Faction to behave as if somehow I'm claiming that the WAR CD suite is equivalent or stronger.

[Terabyt3]

That was my original intent. Of course, I have revised my opinion of the comparative performance of the CD suites thanks to getting more experience with them and messing around with more of the end game content (the post she's referencing is over a month old by now and, unlike many people, I'm not averse to changing my opinion based upon new evidence). I actually did a post where I specifically itemized how much worse the WAR tank CD suite was compared to the PLD CD suite so I find it quite disingenuous for Faction to behave as if somehow I'm claiming that the WAR CD suite is equivalent or stronger.

Trolls be trolling.

[Kitru]

Um yeah sorry that's not enough. Some of us have actually tested this. You're gonna have to do better than anecdotes.

The only tests I've seen (which Terabyte references) did not actually arrive at any real conclusion about the relative threat performance of Shield Oath to Sword Oath because they had issues with race playing some kind of factor wherein, with the same stats, whether they had Shield Oath or Sword Oath up, one of them continually pulled enmity. That's not evidence of superior enmity generation of one stance or the other. That's evidence of race playing some factor.

And I have actually tested this, though I'll admit that it wasn't a rigorously controlled test. I've had an AK group that I run with regularly. I've run the pack after the Demon Wall with and without Defiance up, using the same enmity generation rotation. When I've got Defiance up, they never even get close to my enmity generation; when I don't, the cushion I generate is *much* smaller (the difference is between the DPS/healer having a tiny sliver and one-quarter of comparative enmity).

That's not how Defiance or Shield Oath ever worked.

You don't understand math. Let me explain since you're having problems. Sword Oath represents a ~17.5% increase in total damage (it's actually closer to a 3-4% increase in total enmity generation because the high enmity of the Halone spam heavily dilutes the additional damage that Sword Oath provides; I didn't account for this when I did the math originally, however). Shield other represents dealing 80% of your previous damage. This means that you're comparing 117.5% of total damage to 80% of total damage. With a 2x multiplier, you're comparing 117.5% to 160%, which would have Shield Oath maintaining a 36% comparative advantage in enmity over Sword Oath. With a 1.75x multiplier, you're comparing 117.5% to 140%, which is a 19% comparative advantage.

You don't need an online calculator to figure that one out.

Except that you actually do, apparently. The math isn't that hard; you just have to actually understand it first (which you've never really shown a particular predilection towards).

Even being anecdotal, if you had played beta you'd see a night and day difference between phase 3 and now.

And I'm not claiming that there isn't. From everything I've heard, the enmity metagame in p3 was a complete joke because it was utterly pointless. The devs reduced the enmity multipliers of the tank stances to ensure that it wasn't a joke (which I support; a challenging enmity metagame is something that I actually enjoy) but that's a far cry from completely stripping them. Anyone who hits 30 on MRD, gets Defiance, and suddenly has an easier time maintaining enmity can tell you that Defiance provides more than it takes away. They may not be able to say exactly how much since it's not the difference between night and day, but it is present and tangible.

It doesn't take much for the tank stances to overcome the DPS-modes of their respective classes. The only way that they *wouldn't* is if the enmity modifier is both unequal for the both of them and only large enough to offset the damage reduction (so WAR would get a 33% increase in enmity whereas PLD would get a 25% increase). Even if it were only a 50% increase in enmity generation on both tank stances, you'd *still* see an advantage in total enmity generation.

As I've said, the only way that a tank-DPS in equivalent gear is ripping enmity off of a tank in tank stance is if the tank doesn't know how to maximize their enmity generation (which, as I've said numerous times, most tanks have no idea how to because they're not having to compete with another high enmity generator on a regular basis). Play against another tank that actually knows what they're doing and you won't see any issues. Play against another tank that doesn't and you'll see exactly what you describe.

[Hachiko]

The only tests I've seen (which Terabyte references) did not actually arrive at any real conclusion about the relative threat performance of Shield Oath to Sword Oath because they had issues with race playing some kind of factor wherein, with the same stats, whether they had Shield Oath or Sword Oath up, one of them continually pulled enmity. That's not evidence of superior enmity generation of one stance or the other. That's evidence of race playing some factor.

You didn't read his blog post close enough. No matter what the racial difference was there. But the fact is that the racial difference always went the same way whether he was in shield oath, or the lala was in shield oath, he always ended up with more enmity.

It may remain that there is something goofy with enmity going on, but one thing it does equivocally - it shows that sheild oath is not a 100% bonus to enmity, or even a 50% bonus to enmity as if it were the numbers would have always been in favor of the person using shield oath, and they weren't.

You're just so wrong about this whole enmity thing. There is no way a PLD in equivalent gear will not pull off of another tank if they are going all out in sword oath.

You're just relying on the age old "those tanks are bad!" without even testing it even remotely rigorously. That way if someone says they did try it you can return with either "you're just bad" or "they're just bad." Which is really a non-argument.

[Leiron]

What if its a case of Shield Oath simply being written down incorrectly?
Rather than a multiplier, its a flat enmity increase, where as Defiance would actually be multiplicative rather than a flat enmity increase.
That would explain why a Paladin has a smaller cushion of agro compared to a Warrior, and it would not be the first time a tooltip was written down incorrectly.

[Kitru]

It may remain that there is something goofy with enmity going on, but one thing it does equivocally - it shows that sheild oath is not a 100% bonus to enmity, or even a 50% bonus to enmity as if it were the numbers would have always been in favor of the person using shield oath, and they weren't.

Here's what it actually says:

Eyeballing is never a good method of measure, but it unfortunately all we have with that threat meter SE has given us. When our baseline matched (me at 234 STR, tagg at 255 STR) we were able to see that Shield Oath DID in fact provide additional threat over no buff; however, it is not even close to being double. The flash test is good for this since it does no damage; however, I suspect it might have a damage range similar to any skill that actually does damage.

Sword Oath provides a whopping 2-3% increase to enmity generation. If Shield Oath provides anything *remotely* close to a visible increase in enmity generation over the baseline, it's going to do more than Sword Oath.

What you seem to be confusing is that they had to deal with the random differentiation in baseline before they actually started testing the stances. It was the hidden X factor that screwed things up, not the stances themselves. When they accounted for the X factor, they found exactly what I've been describing.

[Viridiana]

Edit2: This is the one I was on about originally http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...th#post1320882

From the same blog, there's this:

At some point over last weekend it appears a ninja patch or something on the backend has been changed by SE normalizing Enmity.

Sword/Shield Oath Testing to be conducted this week.

[Casper]

From the same blog, there's this:

Yeah, actually i wondered: what does that mean exactly ? That now the racial differences are gone at last ?