2.1 PLD snooze fest Flash

[Leiron]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extreme?s=t

I would ask you to come back when you get it, but then you'd never be back

errr, wait ... hmmmm ...

Sorry I forgot you main a WAR and people who play that class tend to be dense.
So I'll make it simpler.

Your example, shows gameplay changes.
The enmity change, doesn't change how WAR/PLD plays.


Seriously, of all the things that can be complained about, you guys are complaining that holding threat is too easy.
What did you have issues holding threat in the past?
If yes? Well good thing SE buffed you.
If no? nothing changed.

Show that WAR/PLD changes in how it plays, or you can do me the favor and raise a BLM so you have the intelligence to understand what I am saying.

[Giantbane]

Sorry I forgot you main a WAR and people who play that class tend to be dense.
So I'll make it simpler.

Your example, shows gameplay changes.
The enmity change, doesn't change how WAR/PLD plays.


Seriously, of all the things that can be complained about, you guys are complaining that holding threat is too easy.
What did you have issues holding threat in the past?
If yes? Well good thing SE buffed you.
If no? nothing changed.

Show that WAR/PLD changes in how it plays, or you can do me the favor and raise a BLM so you have the intelligence to understand what I am saying.

RP-esque class based humor/insults ...

anyhow

More than 1 target? It was more difficult to hold enmity and your party had to work together in order to do so. Everybody target the same thing as the tank for best results (or AoE).
AoE damage to the whole party? WHM needed to be careful not to just spam medica/medica 2.
DPS class wants to stack damage cooldowns and go all out for a quick burst of damage? Either tank needs to match with their own burst damage/threat abilties (FoF, Berserk, Unchained) and/or the DPS needs to manage their enmity.
Speed run where you're fighting many packs as quickly as possible? You must manage threat vs. TP/Mana usage very carefully in order to keep going.
Even basic single target fights, the tank needed to pay some minimal level of attention to their threat. WAR requires a little more attention here since some of the actions they want to perform are low threat moves, so you need to have a clear threat lead in order to do them. 1 BB combo to hold threat at the start of the fight? 2? Do I need to do a single BB before the first combo just to make sure I've got a threat lead?
Future encounters, if the tank ever became stunned/unable to act for a period of time, enmity might be more of a concern.

Now, none of that matters.

You've gone from something you used to have to pay the most basic amount of attention to. Do your combos, check threat on multiple targets, etc. Now you barely have to pay attention at all. Lead off with SP combo? Oops, i'll just hit BB a couple of times (NOT COMBO'D) and it's not a problem. Did a couple BB combos on the boss? Yea, I can probably just switch to SE>SP for a while and drop BB entirely. I'm a spaz and keep running back into Halitosis' (the last boss of Manor HM) dark mist at the last second and get hit with it 4 times during a fight? meh, still not even close to losing threat. Oh, i'm getting lazy and I only hit flash twice before switching to single attacks so I'm about to lose threat on a target? drop the end of a BB combo on him and I don't have to worry about threat till ... well, I don't have to worry about threat on that guy till he dies.

It's gone from something you and your group should reasonably be able to control to something you barely need to pay attention to at all.

As an aside, did you ever figure out why WARs don't lose 33% of their damage when they activate Defiance?

[Leiron]

RP-esque class based humor/insults ...

No lower than dictionary based insults.
Don't be so quick to call someone out on returning the behavior you dish out.

More than 1 target? It was more difficult to hold enmity and your party had to work together in order to do so. Everybody target the same thing as the tank for best results (or AoE).

It was never difficult to hold enmity when you were AOEing things down.
The only time it became difficult was due to a lack of TP/Mana, and that was easily remedied by having a bard being present.
Even without a bard present, you could still hold a group of mobs provided you were given enough time to regen your TP/MP.
The increased enmity doesn't change this fact outside of making you lses reliant on a bard for MP/TP.
So there wasn't a change.

AoE damage to the whole party? WHM needed to be careful not to just spam medica/medica 2.

Sorry but, good WHM never spammed Medica/Medica 2 unnecessarily to begin with, so this isn't a really good argument.

We have to assume good play, in which case, this was never an issue.
If a WHM wants to pull agro, they can still do so currently.

DPS class wants to stack damage cooldowns and go all out for a quick burst of damage? Either tank needs to match with their own burst damage/threat abilties (FoF, Berserk, Unchained) and/or the DPS needs to manage their enmity.

Bad argument.
DPS will use their cooldowns as soon as they come up to maximize DPS.
A Tank will be doing the exact same thing.
There was never a reason to hold back FoF unless you were a WAR who used Berserk.
Even then abilities such as Unchained were rarely used due to the fact they had to rely on IB for mitigation.

So you'd use Berserk off cooldown because not only did it maximize a Tank's damage, it maximized their enmity generation.
So this is gameplay that would happen anyway, and still happens even now.
If you were holding back on a CD, that was because the current target was going to die soon and would be a waste.

Speed run where you're fighting many packs as quickly as possible? You must manage threat vs. TP/Mana usage very carefully in order to keep going.

No you didn't.
If you were in a situation where you are hauling as many packs as possible, you'd gather them all into a spot and immediately wail on them like mad to maintain enmity.
That way,y our DPS can unload more quickly.
Read above.

Resource management was the only issue, and it was seldom a problem provided you started off with full mana/TP.

Even basic single target fights, the tank needed to pay some minimal level of attention to their threat. WAR requires a little more attention here since some of the actions they want to perform are low threat moves, so it needs to be clear to do them. Will 1 BB combo hold threat? 2? Do I need to do a single BB before the first combo just to make sure I've got a threat lead?
Future encounters, if the tank ever became stunned/unable to act for a period of time, enmity might be more of a concern.

Pardon but this is just false.
A Tank never needed to pay attention to their threat simply because of the fact that unless you were OTing, you wanted to hold threat.
This was accomplished through doing ROH combos over and over, or in the case of WAR, you would do
BB>BB>SE.

Two BB's gave you more than enough threat to pop Maim and SE.
There was never any attention needing to be paid.
You're trying to make it appear as if the entire thing was complicated, it never was complicated because Tank's had enough enmity generation that it didn't matter.
Unless you completely screwed up, there was never a reason to lose enmity.
Especially as a WAR which generates some more enmity than a PLD.

Now, none of that matters.

But it never mattered to begin with.
The situations you describe NEVER occurred unless you were making large errors

snip

A lone BB will not generate enough enmity by itself.
You won't have the 5x multiplier.
Furthermore, I am quite sure that the buff towards enmity generation was to make it so that the damage loss DOESN'T offset your enmity generation.

A WAR not in Defiance mode; tank mode; generated LESS enmity than a WAR who was in defiance.
A tank should not be penalized for it.
I have not had the time to test it in depth, but I am quite sure this is the case as my enmity generaton appeared to be equal to the 2nd Paladin in sword Oath.

As an aside, did you ever figure out why WARs don't lose 33% of their damage when they activate Defiance?

1/.75= 1.333333333333


You lose 33% of your damage by activating Defiance.
Its basic math.

I'll make it simpler for you.

You deal 10 damage with Heavy swing.
Turn on defiance.
Its 7.5.

If you weren't losing 33% of your damage, then a multiplier of 25% would fix it.

7.5 x (25%) = 9.375
7.5 x (33%) = 10

A 25% damage debuff is equivalent to a loss of 33% towards total output.
If you're going to make a quip at the end, make sure you're right.

[Giantbane]

No lower than dictionary based insults.
Don't be so quick to call someone out on returning the behavior you dish out.

woosh

stuff about good play and not making large errors

And that's the real crux of it. Before, you, and your team had to play well and not make large errors. Now, you can play really badly or be massively outgeared and still hold threat without issue.

1/.75= 1.333333333333


You lose 33% of your damage by activating Defiance.
Its basic math.

I'll make it simpler for you.

You deal 10 damage with Heavy swing.
Turn on defiance.
Its 7.5.

If you weren't losing 33% of your damage, then a multiplier of 25% would fix it.

7.5 x (25%) = 9.375
7.5 x (33%) = 10

A 25% damage debuff is equivalent to a loss of 33% towards total output.
If you're going to make a quip at the end, make sure you're right.

That's not how that works. Total output is the same thing as damage given how you use it. In order to make that statement work, you need to say final output or final damage. Without specifying the basis of your comparison (specifically saying "starting damage" or "final damage"), then loss, gain, whatever is based on where you're coming from.

In your example, you're coming from 10. So all loss is based on 10. 2.5 is 25% of 10, so you lose 25% of your damage. It's really that simple.

What you're saying with the 33% is that you lose 33% of the damage that results from losing 25% of your original damage.

25% of your original damage
and
33% of the result of losing 25% of your original damage

mean exactly the same thing, but why would you say the 2nd one? That's wholly and unnecessarily confusing.

Yes, it's true that if you wanted to fix it, you need to reverse what happened. And when you reverse what happened, you're now starting from the damage done after defiance has been applied.

You have Defiance on, you do 7.5 damage
Take it off you do 10 damage
You're gaining 2.5 damage (gain as the reverse of loss).

2.5 / 7.5 = 33%

So it's accurate to say that you gain 33% of your damage output when you remove Defiance. This is, again, because you're starting at 7.5.

TLDR

Use Defiance? Lose 25% of your damage
Take Defiance off? Gain 33% of your damage

[Giantbane]

You won't have the 5x multiplier.

missed that one

You always get the 5x multiplier no matter what

However, the base damage is only 100 if it's not in a combo

So you get 500 threat potency if you use BB by itself as opposed to 1400 threat potency when used in a combo. BB, even outside a combo, is the highest single threat move WARs have (unless something else changed with 2.1) so it's not a horrible idea if you need snap agro for some reason and don't think you have a couple GCDs to spare in order to get in a full combo in.

[Leiron]

woosh

Did the point go over your head?

And that's the real crux of it. Before, you, and your team had to play well and not make large errors. Now, you can play really badly or be massively outgeared and still hold threat without issue.

Except you SHOULDN'T make large errors anyway.
You were being rewarded just as much as you do now.
All the game cares about is that you have at LEAST 1 point more threat than the guy in 2nd play.

If you are massively outgeared due to DF, you shouldn't be forced to leave, or be forced to play suboptimally either.
Better ways to fix the gear issue though.

snip

Um, no, you don't need to say any of that.
That is just trying to bring semantics into something that isn't necessary.

Secondly, no.
A 25% damage loss is equivalent to losing 33% of your damage.

Going back to the example.
It takes 20 hits of 7.5 to hit 150.
It takes 15 hits of 10, to get to 150.

Your effectiveness if 33% lower as a result.

Increasing your damage by 25% =/= decreasing by 25%.
A decrease of 25% is "stronger" so to speak, and holds a greater weight.

It is why mitigation of 20%, is the same as a 25% hp gain.
Because it takes 25% as long to kill you/reach the same effectiveness.
Hence a 25% damage debuff, is a loss of 33% of your damage.

You're literally arguing semantics, saying you don't LIKE the way it is being put when it is factually correct and more accurate on the effect.

Thank you for the correct on BB.
My understanding of the effect "Greater enmity", meant the multiplier was applied only when it is combo.

[Giantbane]

Did the point go over your head?

obviously

Except you SHOULDN'T make large errors anyway.
You were being rewarded just as much as you do now.

But at least there used to be a penalty for making large errors. Now there isn't. Contrary to your endless assertions, that does actually constitute a difference and some people don't like that. You don't think DPS should have to watch their threat, they should just be able to go all out, no matter what. Others don't agree. You think WHM should be able to spam medica if they want to or feel the need to without drawing threat. Others don't agree. But you seem to be asserting that anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid having a different opinion on the matter because they can't just see it as simply as you do.

NUMBERS!

I'm arguing semantics because what you are saying does not mean what you are saying. Don't say it that way. Nobody is going to read what you write and interpret it the way you want them to. Not just me, I mean no reasonable person.

And what think you're saying is horribly and unnecessarily complicated for no particularly good reason whatsoever. So even if someone gets it, they're then going to proceed to wonder why you said it.

The change you are describing (the 33%) is a percentage of the damage you're doing with Defiance On. The damage you're doing with Defiance on is a calculated value based on how much damage you were doing with Defiance off. Why would you express the change in terms of the derived value instead of just expressing the change in terms of the base value. There's no reason for this.

Seriously, here's the equation for what you're saying

10 - 0.33 x ( 10 - 0.25 x 10 ) = 7.5

Just reduce the damn equation to

10 - 0.25 x 10 = 7.5

Because it's the same thing. You lost 25% damage, the end.


The comparison between Shield Oath and Defiance is what's tripping you up. Shield oath reduces damage, Defiance adds hp. They're doing two completely different things. In order to compare them you need to convert from one to the other. The easiest way to go about this is to convert both into common units, like effective hp so that you can compare them. Don't try to slap the same math that was used when converting Shield Oath damage reduced into effective HP. It's not appropriate. It's not the same problem you're trying to solve.

[Leiron]

But at least there used to be a penalty for making large errors. No there isn't. Contrary to your endless assertions, that does actually constitute a difference and some people don't like that. But you seem to be asserting that they're stupid for having a different opinion on the matter because they can't just see it like you do.

No. I never said you or anyone else is stupid for their opinion.
I am saying it is stupid to complain and suggest there are issues resulting from this change.
That it is disingenous to state there is a gameplay change.

Those large errors shouldn't be made because they require errors at a BASIC level.
Not doing your combos.
Not using your AOE threat abilities.
Those are things that result from NOT pushing your buttons in order, which is an EXTREMELY easy thing to do
FFXIV:ARR is not difficult when it comes to execution.
Its the easiest game out there.

snip

Thank you for agreeing.
Again, its semantics, you simply don't LIKE what is being said, not because there is an issue with what is being said. Not because there is anything wrong being said.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, because you're annoyed I disagree with you regarding your opinion on the Shield Oath/Defiance buff, not because you actually disagreed with me regarding the effect of Defiance.
Get over yourself dude.

[Giantbane]

Thank you for agreeing.
Again, its semantics, you simply don't LIKE what is being said, not because there is an issue with what is being said. Not because there is anything wrong being said.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing, because you're annoyed I disagree with you regarding your opinion on the Shield Oath/Defiance buff, not because you actually disagreed with me regarding the effect of Defiance.
Get over yourself dude.

Apparently I'm too subtle.

What did you write?

You lose 33% of your damage when you apply Defiance.

That sentence is wrong. 100% wrong. It's wholly not true, and your math is abysmal. The damage you did was 10. The damage you do after is 7.5. You lost 2.5 damage. 2.5 divided by 10 is 25%. That is correct. That is the ONLY correct way to say this, there is no other way.

That which you attempted to say?

You lose 33% of the damage you do after losing 25% of the damage you did.

Stupid. You're adding numbers for no good reason. The 25% is the important part. The 33% is extra, drop it. The 33% would important if you want to know how much damage you GAIN by turning Defiance Off. Did you say Gain?How about more? Additional? Plus? Positive? Any indication we're wanting to reverse the calculation from LESS to MORE? No. Good, wrong.

How did you attempt to further explain why you were correct?

When comparing Shield Oath and Defiance, you have to invert the damage reduced by Shield Oath to convert from damage reduced to the amount of damage you can take.

It's a different problem. It requires a different solution. You can't just cut/paste the math from one problem to the next and expect everything to work out ok. It's not at all relevant. It's wrong to bring it up.

Pattern? You're good at being wrong and you will defend your wrong assertions and will keep making them. Even when it's as simple as whether or not losing 25% of something is actually losing 25%.

As it relates to this thread? A mildly more complicated discussion that isn't as cut and dry? It's quite possible you could be wrong, confused, grossly oversimplifying things and/or willfully ignoring any subtleties beyond "GOOD TANKS DON'T LOSE THREAT" when considering the Enmity Buff.

[Leiron]

Apparently I'm too subtle.

I think its not a matter of subtlety, so much as you being intentionally dense.
Perhaps if you hesitated dancing your fingers across the keyboard, you would understand you're arguing over literally, nothing!

You lose 33% of your damage when you apply Defiance.

yes, because of the 25% damage debuff.
you are 33% less effective, BECAUSE of the 25% damage debuff.
Complaining for the sake of complaining is silly

snip

Again, you are arguing semantics.
You admitted towards arguing semantics.
Stop arguing semantics.

You simply have qualms with how something is said, not because it results in the statement having different meaning.

Pattern? You're good at being wrong and you will defend your wrong assertions and will keep making them. Even when it's as simple as whether or not losing 25% of something is actually losing 25%.

If you say so buddy, but an assertion about someone, does not make it true.
Just as your statement about the enmity buff having an effect on gameplay, is like wise untrue.

The only pattern I am seeing, is that you enjoy making mountains over mole hills.
Whether it be a statement regarding damage reduction, or the fact that an enmity buff hasn't had any change on gameplay.

If you honestly are trying to suggest a Tank had to worry about enmity outside of being massively outgeared, then you are kidding yourself.

As it relates to this thread? A mildly more complicated that isn't as cut and dry? It's quite possible you could be wrong, confused, grossly oversimplifying things and/or willfully ignoring any subtleties beyond "GOOD TANKS DON'T LOSE THREAT" when considering the Enmity Buff.

You mean the possibility of yourself being wrong, over complicating the issue and there being a lack of subtleties is impossible?
People who enjoy suggesting other people are wrong, don't seem to entertain the possibility of themselves being wrong.

Fact of the matter is, it is simple.
You're just angry at the fact that a change you felt was not needed was introduced.
Even if that change has no game play, you're still upset about it because why not?
If they had never made any statement about changing the enmity bonus from Shield oath/Defiance you probably wouldn't have noticed nor cared.

Gameplay didn't change, you just THINK it changed, and you have yet to even provide actual reasoning as to why it changed outside of scenarios that seldom occur.