Warriors still inferior?

[Paikis]

Well, warriors can now have 30% mitigation for every death sentence, it's a strong tool, especially combines with ur high hp and extra heal. Stronger than paladin is stretching it, but I think pld/war combo is probably going to be the strongest setup now with path mitigation.

It's 20%. Inner Beast is 20%, Vengeance is 30%, but the cooldown is much longer.

effective mean mitigation over time

Is a completely worthless number, because incoming damage is not an average, it is spikey.

WAR will be able to reduce all spikes by less, where PLD will be able to reduce almost all the spikes by more and the spikes they can't reduce they will have Convalescence for anyways.

PLD cooldowns are strictly better, but the WAR cooldowns are good enough.

[SaucepanKaoz]

It's 20%. Inner Beast is 20%, Vengeance is 30%, but the cooldown is much longer.



Is a completely worthless number, because incoming damage is not an average, it is spikey.

WAR will be able to reduce all spikes by less, where PLD will be able to reduce almost all the spikes by more and the spikes they can't reduce they will have Convalescence for anyways.

PLD cooldowns are strictly better, but the WAR cooldowns are good enough.

I didn't say only inner beast did I, storms path buddy.

[Kitru]

Is a completely worthless number, because incoming damage is not an average, it is spikey.

It's a method for comparing CD suites as a whole against one another. How else are you going to compare the PLD CD suite to the WAR CD suite in a non-heuristic manner? The abilities can't be compared on a one-for-one basis because most are not mirrors of one another (try comparing Featherfoot to Bulwark) and, even then, it's just comparing single abilities multiple times, as opposed to quantifying the full suite.

Also, saying that because damage is spikey, calculating mean contribution of a CD suite over time is inappropriate is simply ignorant. They are CDs so they're *meant* to be used to mitigate spikes rather than used on a constant basis. It would be like saying that tracking DPS with CDs factored in is inappropriate because you want to use the CDs at discrete intervals rather than regularly.

[Giantbane]

It's a method for comparing CD suites as a whole against one another. How else are you going to compare the PLD CD suite to the WAR CD suite in a non-heuristic manner? The abilities can't be compared on a one-for-one basis because most are not mirrors of one another (try comparing Featherfoot to Bulwark) and, even then, it's just comparing single abilities multiple times, as opposed to quantifying the full suite.

Also, saying that because damage is spikey, calculating mean contribution of a CD suite over time is inappropriate is simply ignorant. They are CDs so they're *meant* to be used to mitigate spikes rather than used on a constant basis. It would be like saying that tracking DPS with CDs factored in is inappropriate because you want to use the CDs at discrete intervals rather than regularly.

That's a poor comparison with DPS.

DPS will regularly be using their cooldowns unless there's an upcoming burn phase, so they won't hold them unless they get better benefit from stacking them. However, there's rarely more than a couple burn phases to a fight, so a DPS will also rarely have to hold their cooldowns and thus can be assumed to use them on cooldown in most situations.

A Tank will likely have to deal with large damage spikes over the course of a fight with much more regularity. As such, you have much greater incentive to save your CDs for big moments. Aside from that, DPS will regularly want to stack their cooldowns since they tend to multiply their benefits together for an even bigger benefit. However, in situations where you have consistent damage, consistent mitigation is generally preferable to stacking all your defensive cooldowns at once, so there's some incentive to spread them out. These sorts of factors make tank comparison more complex. For the purpose of such comparison, average mitigation is a very crude method of doing so. However, it IS a valid comparison, crude as it may be and can be useful in pointing towards larger discrepancies like the ones we saw between WAR & PLD in 2.0.

[Gamemako]

So i assume warriors are still inferior to paladin's? is there any thing new coming in this up coming patch that fixes them any?

This is my analysis of the buffed WAR. It suggests WAR will be balanced in 2.1. For the record, this is a similar analysis of the 2.0 (pre-buff) WAR showing the large discrepancy between the two tanks.

Is a completely worthless number, because incoming damage is not an average, it is spikey.

Your healer still has to take care of all of it. In terms of burst damage, the only concern is whether or not you die, not how much healing need you've mitigated. You can generate a duration-specified eHP pool for any self-healing as well.

[Marxam]

so you're telling me a guaranteed 20% damage reduction buff for 6 seconds every 20-30 seconds is inferior?

[Zakalwe]

I would say that Warriors and Paladins are roughly on par. One is better in some circumstances, one in others, but both can do anything in the game pretty equally (I think). Warriors now seem to be a little ahead on paper, but the biggest difference will probably not be the job itself but the person behind the keyboard. Their complimentary skills combined with the new nerf to LBs for groups that bring more than one of a job on a run means that on tough content most groups will be looking for one of each. Which is as it should be.