What's The Point of Pacification After Berserk

[Traek]

@Traek
Correct me if i'm wrong... but can't you still use brutal swing, provoke AND flash while pacification is on(aswell as all other off cooldown skills)? Making those situations not a problem at all for a tank...

You can use them all yes. They aren't all in one, and have benefits or detrimental effects if used incorrectly however. Flash is only really usable 3 times in combat for Warrior. Brutal swing is ST, not much threat gen, and 30 second CD (will be 20 in 2.1). Provoke if used can be wasted with no follow up. If something is out of range (heal pulls threat, or DD doesn't stop AoE) it'll quickly run out of range of flash, completely wasting provoke (where we'd normally Tomahawk after).

People seem to be mistaken that I'm prophesying the end of Warrior tanking because of Pacification. I'm really not. We obviously work around it now because we have to. It is still bad by design for a tank on multiple levels, and again leads to the skill being saved or unused, further reducing its effectiveness. This can easily be seen if you play a PLD, and blow it without second thoughts or detrimental effect. Worst case scenario you lose a little time of extra threat gen you didn't need to begin with.

As I stated before... plan out when to use it. If you're pulling something BRAND new then don't use berserk. I'm not saying I enjoy being pacified but that its completely manageable and you're blowing its effect way out of proportion.

If you're on new content there is a lot to be learned to include when its OK to be pacified.

You are proving my point that progression and new content tanking makes the skill as a tank bad, yes. God forbid SE doesn't add a scripted fight, and throws something random at people. The fact people are trying to come up with work arounds (cross class skills lulz) and excuses (learn all aspects of every fight to heart before yo use it!) just shows its not good design for a tank to be pacified.

[Zoomie]

SNIP

I think this comes down to is that you don't like/want the pacify and others don't think is a big deal. Its far from bad design, it forces us to make a decision between a big dmg/threat gen ability and the potential untimely pacify.

[Traek]

I think this comes down to is that you don't like/want the pacify and others don't think is a big deal. Its far from bad design, it forces us to make a decision between a big dmg/threat gen ability and the potential untimely pacify.

No, I am arguing pacification on tanks is bad game design, which no one has refuted. You and a few others are arguing it is "manageable" (which isn't true in instances of progression/random occurrences). Its like defending 2.0 Warrior and saying 2.1 isn't necessary. Please tell me where PLD needs to make this similar choice in their dmg/threat gen ability. Also, what Warrior abilities are *necessary* for PLD to take in order to use all their abilities effectively?

[SpookyGhost]

No, I am arguing pacification on tanks is bad game design, which no one has refuted. You and a few others are arguing it is "manageable" (which isn't true in instances of progression/random occurrences). Its like defending 2.0 Warrior and saying 2.1 isn't necessary. Please tell me where PLD needs to make this similar choice in their dmg/threat gen ability. Also, what Warrior abilities are *necessary* for PLD to take in order to use all their abilities effectively?

Hi. Move is called Berserk. Not every move needs to be designed solely around how your class/job functions. You go nuts for 20 seconds, need to calm down for 5. The pacification has never, ever, at any point been an issue for me. You can still use Brutual Swing + Flash AT THE SAME TIME, then another Flash. Then you're no longer pacified. If you started a combo before pacification, you can still continue the combo at the end of that rotation. You also have access to Vengeance OR Featherfoot, both of which are amazing for this situation (you can also gain a stack of Wrath with Vengeance while pacified, but also you should obviously never couple Vengeance + FF).

Paladin has FoF, which is great and all, but does PLD have Unchained? Do they have Internal Release? Can they couple all 3 and become miles ahead in threat? No, they can't. The trade off is that you get all this damage/enmity potential and have to relax for all of 5 seconds which you can STILL DO SOME MOVES IN.

Yes, not having the pacification would be better. Sure. Wow. Surprise surprise. But there is a REASON that the pacification exists and it isn't gimping you massively as you seem to think it is.

Edit: Also, to answer your first question, they don't because PLD is the easier job of the 2. It might not be a huge difference in difficulty, but it's there. Warriors make decisions, Paladins hit ABC cooldown. You don't need Flash for pacification, it's just a good cross class to have for it. I don't know how that's an argument but... yeah, there ya go.

[Traek]

-snip-

You haven't argued anything that hasn't already been said. "I manage with cross class abilities." Yes, I do that. Also, I never asked for a buff to Berserk, I stated lowering the up time to be equivalent dps would be the best way of doing it.

Please explain how pacification is ever good design for a tank. All you've contributed is we are lucky SE didn't put Flash on pacify (wouldn't be surprised if it was an oversight to begin with). Sounds like you already agree that not having pacification is better, so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. Part of this is also me questioning why Warrior isn't a self sufficient job. I wonder if people would see it as a bigger deal if Flash was on Pacification.

*EDIT*

It isn't manageable "to your liking". Your basis for it being bad is entirely based upon your opinion of its potential negative effect.

True, most things said can be put under opinion, just as yours are that it is fine. I am fine with that disagreement.

This statement has no basis in this thread what so ever. Not to mention the fact that 2.1 warrior changes are in no way "necessary". SE has chosen to buff warriors instead of nerfing PLD's are that would set the community back and that's a bad idea. 2.0 warriors are fine... its the PLD's that are unintentionally strong, this has been stated many many times by Yoshi and SE.

The fact you look at 2.0 Warrior the way you do just proves to me we aren't going to come to an understanding here. It has plenty of bearing on conversation, as it is an example of how bad design leads to preferred classes/jobs that simply do the job better.

Since this entire thread is based upon your perceived and theoretical problem with being pacified on content we know nothing about then its equally possible that if a PLD uses Spirits Within as a threat gen ability on new content that said enemy will cast something that HAS to be interrupted immediately after or god forbid said enemy explode and delete all characters on the server as that was an unknown mechanic and result of silencing said enemy. See my point? When we're dealing with 'what if" and "maybe" on new content then anything is possible so what's the point of even talking about it?

Because it is a MMO. Game mechanics change, content gets added, and pacify *IS* a problem in game content I listed. SE might never add random game factors as content. I think that'd be bad design as well, but that is up to them. Either way there is still new content and progression you are ignoring. Your only answer for that is to not use the ability till you learn it. How is that good design? It is indeed of my opinion that Berserk isn't designed well. You keep bringing this up. People are allowed to have opinions, and will make choices based off them.

[Kitru]

Also, I never asked for a buff to Berserk, I stated lowering the up time to be equivalent dps would be the best way of doing it.

You do realize that, to do this, you'd have to reduce the duration to 12 seconds, right? I would much rather have a longer duration with a penalty at the end of it than a crazy low duration like that.

[Traek]

You do realize that, to do this, you'd have to reduce the duration to 12 seconds, right? I would much rather have a longer duration with a penalty at the end of it than a crazy low duration like that.

Why would you care for the duration if it was the same effect?

-snip-

I love that you enjoy arguing so much, you'll make a wall of text arguing with the overall point you agree with. I in a few of my posts said pacification was bad for tanks. So no it does not apply just to Berserk as you seem to want to imply. I did state on a DD it'd make more sense, which I'll stand by, but have never stated pacification was ever a good thing. It'd be equally as bad if not worse on healers.

You might not agree with my examples given of why pacify is bad on Warrior (our only example of this effect taking place), yet you in the end say the exact same thing as I do. I'll even quote it for you:

Anything that prevents players from acting is generally not good game design since the entire point of the game is to play it rather than watch it.

This is in essence what I've been saying the whole time. I probably haven't articulated it well, but overall when I am pacified I am not playing my Warrior. This is why I keep bringing up our token cross class abilities that make things "manageable". I'm not sure how it is "flavor" for Warrior to not be a Warrior when pacified. Inability to play my class effectively because of an ability doesn't make me happy as a player. All these things are opinion though, like your opinion of players inability to act being bad game design. It is all opinion, that is why I brought up specific examples (unintentional aggroes, random events, learning content) as to why as a tank it is bad to have pacify. Inability to act. Thank you for articulating it better then I was. I don't find it necessary to argue with you here.

[Zoomie]

No, I am arguing pacification on tanks is bad game design, which no one has refuted. You and a few others are arguing it is "manageable" (which isn't true in instances of progression/random occurrences).

It isn't manageable "to your liking". Your basis for it being bad is entirely based upon your opinion of its potential negative effect. Based on your gearing you've obviously succeed in tanking at least up to turn 4. It sounds to me like you've managed it thus far and somethings tells me that when CT comes you'll do just fine.

Its like defending 2.0 Warrior and saying 2.1 isn't necessary.

This statement has no basis in this thread what so ever. Not to mention the fact that 2.1 warrior changes are in no way "necessary". SE has chosen to buff warriors instead of nerfing PLD's are that would set the community back and that's a bad idea. 2.0 warriors are fine... its the PLD's that are unintentionally strong, this has been stated many many times by Yoshi and SE.

Please tell me where PLD needs to make this similar choice in their dmg/threat gen ability.

Since this entire thread is based upon your perceived and theoretical problem with being pacified on content we know nothing about then its equally possible that if a PLD uses Spirits Within as a threat gen ability on new content that said enemy will cast something that HAS to be interrupted immediately after or god forbid said enemy explode and delete all characters on the server as that was an unknown mechanic and result of silencing said enemy. See my point? When we're dealing with 'what if" and "maybe" on new content then anything is possible so what's the point of even talking about it?

Also, what Warrior abilities are *necessary* for PLD to take in order to use all their abilities effectively?

Again this statement has no basis in this thread and based upon how you argue something that is entirely you opinion, like this topic, I have no desire to even discuss PLD vs WAR with you.

[Kitru]

No, I am arguing pacification on tanks is bad game design, which no one has refuted.

As far as the discussion is concerned, it's not our job to refute your claim. It's your job to prove your point by providing compelling evidence and logic that the Pacification on Berserk is somehow fundamentally flawed game design, which you haven't really done. The Pacification effect on it is present because of theme, balance, and the creation of a tactical decision (which is kind of what WAR is all about). The only argument that you've provided as to the Pacification being poor game design is that it stops the tank from attacking which means that they can't pick up adds, which is part of the whole "creation of a tactical decision" part of things. It's really not all that hard to know when adds are going to spawn, given that all add spawning is predictable. Even if you're progressing, part of that progression is learning when to use your CDs, especially Berserk.

If you don't like the Pacification on Berserk because it means that you can't just use it on CD, you're not getting the point of it. Good game design *is* built around giving the players choices that matter. PLD is built around a very simple decision making process since there are no trade-offs. WAR is built around a more complex decision making process because much of what it does has tradeoffs that you have to weigh against the benefits, and Berserk fits with that perfectly. PLD is a very direct, straight forward tank; WAR isn't.

If you want to talk about game design in general, however, I, personally, see Pacification (and similar effects) in general as problematic when applied to players rather than the Pacification on Berserk specifically. Anything that prevents players from acting is generally not good game design since the entire point of the game is to play it rather than watch it. It's why resource pools are effectively infinite (unless you're doing something wrong) because running out just because a fight was long isn't fun since it means that you don't get to do anything until your mp returns. The same applies to stuns and other similar effects that either prevent you from acting (slow/immob effects on melee characters are another example of this thanks to range restrictions). It's thematically interesting to shut down an actor in combat, but it's not really fun to be on the receiving end of those effects.

A more apt penalty, since Pacification isn't a status effect that falls within the realm of "good game design", would be for Berserk to apply a significant reduction in damage dealt for a time after it expires (a 75% debuff to all damage to replace Pacification would keep it roughly where it is now). It allows players to continue to act while still having much the same drawback that Pacification currently entails. Of course, it changes the decision making process a bit since part of the equation that you have to weigh when thinking about using Berserk is that you'll be incapable of acting when it expires rather than simply acting at a drastically diminished capacity.

I feel it's importance to point out that the difference between our arguments concerning Pacification is that mine is a general case (Pacification is bad) whereas yours is a specific case (Pacification on Berserk is bad). It's entirely appropriate for Berserk to have a significant penalty applied when it falls off so, if the devs believe that Pacification is a legitimate example of a well designed effect, it's entirely appropriate for the Pacification to be there.