In Light of the WAR 2.1 Adjustments, Can We Expect Tweaks to PLD as Well? My Thoughts

[Amas]

Should PLD be easier to play than WAR? No. Should WAR be better than PLD if played well? No. They should be equal but different, ie same destination but different routes.

Kitru's right.

Homogenization is bad game design. The more your normalize performance, the more you get cookie-cutter classes with different skins and animations.

WAR being a "skill tank" with higher ultimate potential is perfectly okay - SO LONG AS there are still factors that keep PLD relevant at the top tiers of player skill. This is currently true (Spirits Within, Shield Bash, and Hallowed Ground immediately spring to mind) and content design will determine whether it remains true.

An MMO needs more approachable classes for people who either can't or don't want to push the limits. There's nothing wrong with them or ensuring that they can enjoy themselves. There also need to be rewards for the more skilled players, the trick is making the rewards real but not overwhelming.

The rift between average and skilled players already exists, has always existed, and will always exist. You can pretend it doesn't and try to homogenize it away, or accept that it does and give both groups something to fit their needs/wants.

It's virtually impossible to design a class, especially a tanking class, with a low skill floor and a high skill ceiling that is remotely balanced. If the gap is too large, then a skilled player trivializes content (it has to, for the low-floor end to be viable at all). The very players who could do so are the ones who want trivial content least.

We'll have to wait and see how 2.1 shakes out, but it is going to be a significantly happier place for WAR, the sky is almost certainly not going to fall on PLD, and so long as SE doesn't design around one class or another's unique strengths (e.g. intentionally write the need to Silence and Stun out of all boss fights + significantly remove the benefits of HG) both will have a useful place.

[TouchandFeel]

Snip.
.

I never said everything should be the same or homogenized. I literally said, and this is in the quote you used, "equal but different" not the same, meaning they should both be able to do their job equally well, how they accomplish that job should be different so that they don't play or feel the same and require different strategies and therefore appeal to different people with different play-styles.

Also, there is of course already a rift between average players and skilled players, the skilled players are better because they are more skilled. My problem lies with widening the gap between the two by giving extra benefits to the players that already have the upper hand, especially when this benefit is limited to only one of the classes.

If there are two players that are really good at playing their class and know all the in's and out's, one a PLD and one a WAR, and yet the WAR is always a bit better because there are built in mechanics that provides a reward for them being good, that does not seem balanced to me. Then again neither does a class being so easy that they can faceroll content.

I'm not saying that currently a skilled WAR is better than a skilled PLD, I'm saying that they shouldn't be and that goes for all classes.

I also don't feel that the WAR changes that have been proposed will result in the end of days, but I do feel that there were some aspects of WAR that were part of their doing damage to self-heal mechanic that were overlooked and should have been trimmed down a little when they were given the necessary better survivability buffs.

But, just as you said the proof will be in the pudding.

But anyways, you are entitled to your opinion but that doesn't mean that I will agree with you. You are free to state your opinion but don't be surprised if I respond with mine.

[AppleGrocer]

The problem that I'm seeing Touchandfeel is one of overstatement. You're acting like Paladins are (overly) struggling to complete content, when it's clear that isn't the case at all. You guys are fine, Warrior buffs aren't going to make you any less fine.

It's like being jealous of your neighbor because their swimming pool has one more gallon of water than yours. It's only really an issue if the pools are shallow enough for it to make any difference at all, which is simply not the case here.

I'm not going to go into the whole "Pally is easier to play" thing, especially since we don't have any clear idea how difficult the new Warrior rotations/options will actually be.

[TouchandFeel]

The problem that I'm seeing Touchandfeel is one of overstatement. You're acting like Paladins are (overly) struggling to complete content, when it's clear that isn't the case at all.

Sigh ... I'm not saying that at all. In fact I have stated that as it is PLD have a way easier time in content than WAR and as such I fully support buffing WAR, particularly where they need it most, survivability.
Most of the proposed buffs I think are a good ideas, some I'm on the fence about and in some places I think WAR should have been reigned in a tiny bit to compensate for the change up in the WAR survivability mechanic.

The thing that I have been disagreeing with the most is that there should be built in mechanics that make one class more powerful when played skillfully, ie I disagree with supporting there being distinct "easy but less powerful tanks" and "harder but more powerful tanks".

[Exstal]

The problem is at the moment, the "skill tank" even at highest level is still worse than the "faceroll" tank at the same level. That's not right. You shouldn't have to put in more work to get the same effect.

[Kaelon79]

I agree with PLD still being okay after the patch and we can't really tell much until we see the extreme primal battles damage and crystal mechanics to see how the tank changes will truly play out. 8 man content should always have been pld/war tanking combo and we will certainly see more of that now. Just because devs waited to patch war doesn't mean that tweaks to another class shouldn't be made at the same time for there are certainly issues with pld that have needed adjusting all along. E

I agree with many of the tweaks in this post:

Shield Oath - Increase Enmity
Sword Oath - Decrease Enmity
Awareness - fix effect on critical heals
Circle of Scorn - add enmity component
Hollowed Ground - Activate at start of animation
Spirits Within - Silence at start of animation
Cover - improve to take dmg and threat% of dmg taken
Shield Oath - take off GCD, pacification uselessness in most content

[TouchandFeel]

The problem is at the moment, the "skill tank" even at highest level is still worse than the "faceroll" tank at the same level. That's not right. You shouldn't have to put in more work to get the same effect.

I completely agree with this and feel that WAR buffs are absolutely necessary whether or not I completely agree with the proposed implementation.

[Zohnax]

http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodest...racter/713595/

Please tell me how long you been playing WAR.
Don't come suggesting buffs for Paladin when you don't have any idea feel of what we WARS go trough on tanking Titan HM or Coil1-5 as a WAR.

1.0 PLDs say, "'Sup." Really should check your privilege before blindly typing and saying someone cannot talk about a job they haven't leveled, but us original players knew well how much PLD got discriminated against in 1.0. WARs could tank just as well as a PLD and deal a reasonable amount of damage too. That went on for the... year-and-a-half, two years? that the jobs were out? So please, tell me more about your woes of a couple months with a buff on the horizon. There has to be a balance of usefulness in between the two jobs, especially with Duty Finder so that there is no repeat discrimination of a job like there were in 1.0.

[Obsidian]

I completely agree with this and feel that WAR buffs are absolutely necessary whether or not I completely agree with the proposed implementation.

I don't think this was ever in doubt. The issue arises when you simply supplant one situation of superiority with another, as will likely happen here. Whether or not PLD will still be a capable tank is irrelevant if the preference just shifts from PLD to WAR. If the job is undesirable - that is to say, if the best groups have no need or want for a particular job because another is more efficient - in top tier content, then you've failed to properly balance that job.

The issue I take with the "wait until it's all implemented" approach is that we end up in the situation we're in now where the exiled job warms the bench for 3+ months until the next major patch rolls around. Ideally what should have happened in this particular case is that proposed adjustments for every job should have been presented at the same time to be considered as a whole. Surely WAR adjustments aren't the only adjustments that deserve to be evaluated by the player base before implementation.

I would also request that potential contributors to this specific conversation actually read more than the title of the thread before chiming in with comments like "WAR needed the buff" or "PLD is fine lolol." At the end of the post I stated explicitly that no one job should preclude the use of another, regardless of which jobs are being framed in the discussion. The idea that PLD deserves to sit out for a couple months while WAR has its time in the sun is one that I find particularly offensive and ignorant, and interestingly enough, an argument that seems to be made predominantly by accounts that were created in August or later. Not only is it offensive insofar as people are wishing for the the exclusion of others out of spite, but it is incredibly ignorant of the state of job balance in FFXIV 1.0.

[Gilthas]

What? FFXI, you could make choices.

The game must have changed a lot after I left midway through the WotG expansion, because I don't really remember all these choices you're talking about.

The issue I take with the "wait until it's all implemented" approach is that we end up in the situation we're in now where the exiled job warms the bench for 3+ months until the next major patch rolls around. Ideally what should have happened in this particular case is that proposed adjustments for every job should have been presented at the same time to be considered as a whole. Surely WAR adjustments aren't the only adjustments that deserve to be evaluated by the player base before implementation.

I seriously doubt that SE announced these changes because they wanted our feedback. They announced them so we know they care.

The reason why "wait until it's all implemented" is a good approach is because its very possible that even with these changes Warrior will still be a subpar tank. Remember, not only are these changes not final, but they also haven't given us exact details on how these changes will be implemented.

It also doesn't help that your initial post makes some pretty questionable assumptions that I can only imagine were made to put Warrior's on a pedestal to justify why Paladin's need a buff. You have no reason to believe the Storm's Path debuff will be more potent than the Rage of Halone debuff. You call the changes to Holmgang balanced when compared to Hallowed Ground, which is beyond ridiculous. And you completely ignore that Paladins will still have better mitigation than a Warrior after patch 2.1.

Ran out of posts so this will probably not be seen but:

I'm not sure why these assumptions are "questionable," so if you could enlighten me it would be appreciated.

As far as I'm aware the impact enemy STR has on damage dealt is unknown at this point, and would only effect physical damage anyway. The buff to Storm's Path will affect all outgoing damage, so even if they end up being roughly the same potency, WAR will be decreasing damage overall more effectively than PLD by virtue of also inhibiting magic damage.

Yes, but that's if Storm's Path will have the same potency as Rage of Halone's debuff. We have no idea how strong it will be and we also have no idea how long the debuff will last (which is very relevant since this will affect if it can be kept up at all times), or god forbid, if enemies will start resisting it after a while.

Care to explain why you think Holmgang isn't balanced against Hallowed Ground? They're both "don't kill me" abilities. One is gained at 42 (and isn't even exclusive to WAR), the other at 50. One grants immunity to death for six seconds, the other for 10. You can use Holmgang 2.3 times per Hallowed Ground. Which of these screams unbalanced to you?

This one is so ridiculous that I don't even know how you need someone to explain it to you. Put simply:

- Paladin uses Hallowed Ground and becomes invincible for 10 seconds. As long as the Paladin has agro it receives 100% damage mitigation for the entire duration of the ability and when the ability ends has, in the worst case scenario, the same HP he started with.

- Warrior uses Holmgang and cannot drop below 1 HP for 6 seconds. Holmgang's "invincibility" only starts giving damage mitigation when the Warrior's HP reaches 1 (unlike Hallowed Ground where its always active). When Holmgang ends, in the worst case scenario, the Warrior is left with 1 HP.

Now you can argue that the Warrior should be healed so he isn't left with 1 HP at the end of Holmgang, but again, even if you consider that, Holmgang is still pretty bad when compared to Hallowed Ground because any HP healed during Holmgang can be lost before the effect ends. This is not the case with Hallowed Ground.

Now if Holmgang was something like "HP cannot drop below 20%" (or whatever number needed to not get instantly gipped after Holmgang ends) then we could start talking about how the ability is comparable to Hallowed Ground. The way the ability is currently described, more often than not, the "invincibility" effect will either never kick in or be completely worthless. There's a reason why these changes were made to a Marauder ability and not a Warrior ability.