Ending the Parry debate once and for all

[Ceodore]

You didn't present any cold hard facts, you presented your feelings that you don't want to be pigeon-holed.
So feelings were there from the start, and there really is no right or wrong answers here except what players want enough in the end.

Actually, that's an opinion. My opinion is that tanks should be able to retain their versatility. My feelings would that it feels good to be versatile, but that's not what I feel. Frankly, it's complicated, and requires thought to consider which is better for which situations. It requires me to examine everyone I get partied with and take into consideration the kind of dps and healers I get. If I was basing this decision on my feelings, I would want the easy way out and say that Parry should be some big mitigation stat so that my job as tank requires less thought and I can just say screw all to any gear but VIT. So, not feelings, opinion.

But it really is fact that such changes would pigeon hole tanks. People who say that's what they want is their opinion on what the changes should be, and I respect that opinion even if I don't agree with it. However, those who have been screaming foul about their "feelings" are the ones that I have an issue with. I don't need that, I want ideas, opinions, and facts that relate to the topic, not that someone feels I've not coddled their feelings enough. That isn't going to stop me from calling an idea dumb, but again, that's my opinion on the idea. Many people have stated that my ideas are dumb. There ARE going to be different sides to the debate, and I HAVE realized that nothing I say or do will end it. That WAS my fault for thinking I might. However, as far as my opinion went, I did state just the facts of the effects it would have, as well as the facts about what effects other ideas would have. I expressed my opinion on both, not my feelings. My "feelings" on their ideas is that I would feel more at ease that I could just get one set of trinkets. I would feel less stress on my OCD about having a set of Strength Trinkets but no Melee DPS, because I would no longer have strength trinkets. I would probably feel happier having the tanks be just the usual meat shields. However, I would also feel less excitement about tanking, less thrilled about my low damage numbers, and more frustration about having to work harder to maintain enmity. My feelings on my own ideas is that I would continue to feel more stress about having to decide between trinkets for each fight and pull, more anxiety about having Strength trinkets but no Melee DPS, and more stress about having to get two sets of trinkets just for my tanks rather than one. I would also feel happier though when I do make good choices with the trinkets, and more excited at the risk of having a lower HP pool with higher damage numbers, and more interested in my tanks because we aren't just simple meat shields. See? Feelings.

[Allyrion]

Actually, that's an opinion. My opinion is that tanks should be able to retain their versatility. My feelings would that it feels good to be versatile, but that's not what I feel. Frankly, it's complicated, and requires thought to consider which is better for which situations. It requires me to examine everyone I get partied with and take into consideration the kind of dps and healers I get. If I was basing this decision on my feelings, I would want the easy way out and say that Parry should be some big mitigation stat so that my job as tank requires less thought and I can just say screw all to any gear but VIT. So, not feelings, opinion.

But it really is fact that such changes would pigeon hole tanks. People who say that's what they want is their opinion on what the changes should be, and I respect that opinion even if I don't agree with it. However, those who have been screaming foul about their "feelings" are the ones that I have an issue with. I don't need that, I want ideas, opinions, and facts that relate to the topic, not that someone feels I've not coddled their feelings enough. That isn't going to stop me from calling an idea dumb, but again, that's my opinion on the idea. Many people have stated that my ideas are dumb. There ARE going to be different sides to the debate, and I HAVE realized that nothing I say or do will end it. That WAS my fault for thinking I might. However, as far as my opinion went, I did state just the facts of the effects it would have, as well as the facts about what effects other ideas would have. I expressed my opinion on both, not my feelings. My "feelings" on their ideas is that I would feel more at ease that I could just get one set of trinkets. I would feel less stress on my OCD about having a set of Strength Trinkets but no Melee DPS, because I would no longer have strength trinkets. I would probably feel happier having the tanks be just the usual meat shields. However, I would also feel less excitement about tanking, less thrilled about my low damage numbers, and more frustration about having to work harder to maintain enmity. My feelings on my own ideas is that I would continue to feel more stress about having to decide between trinkets for each fight and pull, more anxiety about having Strength trinkets but no Melee DPS, and more stress about having to get two sets of trinkets just for my tanks rather than one. I would also feel happier though when I do make good choices with the trinkets, and more excited at the risk of having a lower HP pool with higher damage numbers, and more interested in my tanks because we aren't just simple meat shields. See? Feelings.

You're creating a semi-artificial discrepancy.
Opinions and feelings may differ, all the ones you've given are based and informed by your feelings. Neither has a real place in the realm of logic.
Both things are personal and intertwined. Propping your opinions as objective, when they're objectively subjective - hence opinions - and based on your personal feelings, you're going to meet other people's feelings.
If you didn't pretend your opinion wasn't logic, and either used logic or gave your opinion as personal, there wouldn't have been so much response regarding 'feelings'.

Anyway, I would rather something closer to the Healer model.
Crit, det, SS affect the Healer's healing and dps, piety is their extra stat. We should be able to get our defenses adjusted by secondaries as well as dps, with parry as an extra stat.
Cleric stance allows flexibility within a given fight about if to focus on healing or dpsing, with an appropriate nerf to your primary role as a sacrifice.

I know WAR has some level of stance dancing available and that's a good thing.
I think the versatility should come within the kit and the gear meta should allow bonuses for both equally depending on what you choose to focus on at any given time.

Not only does that type of model consolidate gear issues, it allows for even smarter play options and infinitely more versatility (since you have more options to adapt mid fight).

[Ceodore]

You're creating a semi-artificial discrepancy.
Opinions and feelings may differ, all the ones you've give are based and informed by your feelings. Neither has a real place in the realm of logic.
Both things are personal and intertwined. Propping your opinions as objective, when they're objectively subjective - hence opinions - and based on your personal feelings, you're going to meet other people's feelings.
If you didn't pretend your opinion wasn't logic, and either used logic or gave your opinion as personal, there wouldn't have been so much response regarding 'feelings'.

Anyway, I would rather something closer to the Healer model.
Crit, det, SS affect the Healer's healing and dps, piety is their extra stat. We should be able to get our defenses adjusted by secondaries as well as dps, with parry as an extra stat.
Cleric stance allows flexibility within a given fight about if to focus on healing or dpsing, with an appropriate nerf to your primary role as a sacrifice.

I know WAR has some level of stance dancing available and that's a good thing.
I think the versatility should come within the kit and the gear meta should allow bonuses for both equally depending on what you choose to focus on at any given time.

Not only does that type of model consolidate gear issues, it allows for even smarter play options and infinitely more versatility (since you have more options to adapt mid fight).

Well, I stand corrected. Perhaps my opinions were more subjective based on a desire to keep versatility on the tanks' choice of trinkets. I guess I only felt they were more objective because I figured more people would desire the chance to maintain their freedom when it came to choice rather than to be told only one set of trinkets is what they must use. You, sir, are quite right though.

Your idea also is quite good. I'd like to see SE make gear more versatile and include more secondaries for defensive capabilities. Parry is just one I'd like to keep, even if it doesn't change, but I think others would be interesting to see based on your idea. Something like a magical equivalent to Parry would be interesting. Perhaps bring back Luck for it. Or maybe include some more use of the elemental resistances, add unaspected magical resistance. We already have an RNG based physical mitigator. Perhaps Luck could be a magical equivalent.

I'm not sure how the stance dancing will work for tanks. Currently, it's a big stress on healers to handle tanks that drop their defensive stats while MT and we already do this while OT anyways.