Lets nerf WAR :D

[Airswimmer]

Tanks should be able to deal roughly equivalent damage, some more than others here and there, but not 100-200 dps descrepancies. And they should have roughly equal mitigation, with maybe some being slightly stronger than others in certain fights.

They do, roughly. What hampers PLD is:

• They lose the most damage in their tanking stance. WAR loses 10% of their damage in Defiance, DRK loses 8% in Grit, and PLD loses 20% in Shield Oath.
• The above is amplified by the fact that PLD generates the least amount of enmity out of the three tanks meaning they have to swap to their tanking stance more often than the other two tanks do to stay ahead in enmity.
• The coup de grâce is PLD's enmity combo is the weakest single combo any of the tanks possess

They also do have roughly the same mitigation... encounter willing. The problem with both PLD and DRK is they're specialized to specific damage, physical and magical respectively.
Both the PLD and the DRK have better mitigation than WAR when looking at their respective damage types.

[Nektulos-Tuor]

They do, roughly. What hampers PLD is:

• They lose the most damage in their tanking stance. WAR loses 10% of their damage in Defiance, DRK loses 8% in Grit, and PLD loses 20% in Shield Oath.
• The above is amplified by the fact that PLD generates the least amount of enmity out of the three tanks meaning they have to swap to their tanking stance more often than the other two tanks do to stay ahead in enmity.
• The coup de grâce is PLD's enmity combo is the weakest single combo any of the tanks possess

They also do have roughly the same mitigation... encounter willing. The problem with both PLD and DRK is they're specialized to specific damage, physical and magical respectively.
Both the PLD and the DRK have better mitigation than WAR when looking at their respective damage types.

The damage penalty will always take what you have and minus it by 20%. I know your trying to say your bonuses make up for it, but honestly the first step towards making other tanks closer to warriors.

Would be to remove the damage penalty from PLD/DRK and making the Damage Penalty for Warrior Stance 15%.

[Ultimatecalibur]

Did I really get Inigo Montoya'd?? Anyway, Last time I checked, homogeneity is a sameness of constituent structure, homogenization(disambiguation) being the verb.
Ex. Nerfing a Warrior's dps or altering it's formula in the hopes to put all 3 tanks on par would be homogenization.

No, that is in role Balance. Balanced and homogenized are different. Balanced means that results are roughly the same. Homogenization would be that the jobs play identically.

Removing Wrath/Abandon management from Warrior play and MP management from Dark Knight play would be homogenization.

You can have homogenized and balanced (where all classes play the same and have the same effectiveness), non-homogenized and imbalanced (where all classes play differently but one is more effective than the others), homogenized but imbalanced (where all classes play the same but one class is more effective), and balanced but non-homogenized (where all classes play differently but have the same effectiveness).

The first is considered boring, the second is considered imbalanced, the third is considered imbalanced and boring, and the fourth is considered good.

[Airswimmer]

The damage penalty will always take what you have and minus it by 20%. I know your trying to say your bonuses make up for it, but honestly the first step towards making other tanks closer to warriors.

I assumed this would be obvious since I assume, and hope, everyone here can read tooltips.

[Nektulos-Tuor]

This thread is stupid though since Tanks should be doing more DPS like Warrior, bringing Warrior down might make a lot of content (Un-clearable)

[Iagainsti]

They also do have roughly the same mitigation... encounter willing. The problem with both PLD and DRK is they're specialized to specific damage, physical and magical respectively.
Both the PLD and the DRK have better mitigation than WAR when looking at their respective damage types.

This. I'm speculating here, but Paladin and DRK are designed with MT in mind, where Warrior is designed as an OT. Granted they can MT fine, to balance out 4 man content, they'd have to, but they are the damage tank by design, able to facilitate extra damage when not being used as a meatshield. This is why I believe Nerfing is nothing but smoke, those calling for it don't see the forest for the trees, and "balance" is the worst thing that can happen to MMOs. History doesn't always repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

[Gooner_iBluAirJGR]

For anyone that's curious about why Warrior has an endless well of TP in a single target encounter (training dummy), its because we have finisher attacks that don't cost TP but still use a GCD (Inner Beast, Steel Cyclone / Fell Cleave, Decimate). It's got nothing to do with Equilibrium.

On the issue of Warriors being too strong, they really aren't. The changes that need to be made should focus on the other tanks and not Warriors. The class plays extremely well and does what its supposed to do, tank and dish out sexy burst damage.

edit: 1000 character limit ya
Something as simple as making Sentinel/Bulwark a 120s cooldown (instead of 180s) would instantly transform Paladins into a stronger defensive alternative to Warriors while at the same time, not break the game or the meta. Removing the TP cost from Shield swipe would drastically increase Paladins TP sustainability. Reducing the Cooldown of Sheltron to 25 seconds would put it more in line with the up time of inner beast and would further increase Paladins effectiveness while not messing with warrior.

See what I'm getting at?

[MeeYow]

It's comparable to DRG and, to some extent, MNK. No. It's not exactly the same, but the difference is negligible. You're also ignoring the fact that Equilibrium doesn't only restore TP, so by using it for TP restore you're giving up a defensive cooldown.



It really isn't. Did you even play WAR in Turn 4 during 2.0/2.1?



And what exactly is WAR better at that they need to be worse at? Don't say TP regen.

Pre-Heavensward interviews and Live Letters also said Heavensward would be a unique and exciting departure from what was previously in the game, and said that crafting/gathering would be more "casual friendly".

WAR has, by ability design, been the more damage focused tank since 2.0.



You do know A2/A2S exist, right?



I've never seen anything said by Yoshi to suggest this, nor is Yoshi a class designer. That should be evident by his "suggestions" on how to use Ley Lines during the anniversary Live Letter.



The evidence is how the class is designed. WAR has the strongest AoE enmity generation skill, and how Decimate is by design, which no other class has an equivalent, clearly caters them towards strong AoE DPS.
Despite all this, DRK is still only ~5% behind the WAR in encounters like A2S.

By the way, your WAR is only 52. You haven't even gotten Equilibrium yet alone used it in anything serious.

Possibly DRG, serious MNKs use forbidden chakra. The cure provided by tank Eq is a very small price so I left it out, but yes it is there.

You might want to look up what temporary insanity is before you talk about A2, I will do the work for you, it is the buggy move that stuns all the mob packs - preventing them from triggering blood price. Do you raid savage?

For the Third time: what about PLD? Not a word. At least say you think that is how it is supposed to be.

Current eventuality is not explicit evidence of intent. Let me clarify: Explicit statements by SE please. With regards to not seeing discussion of DRK, summaries are available on these forums.

Single and AoE DPS have always been two different games, that doesnt require too much discussing, SMN does all the talking for that right now.) WAR was always a good single target job, AoE it was OK, better than PLD but now it has run away with itself.

Yes it is a shame my WAR is 52 and currently my DRK is only full level On an alt account, why I put career omnirtanker rather than current, but I static with one and understand it very well through constant discussion with them. How is your PLD, do you tank with one? Is it safe to assume you understand the other side of the argument right now?

Good argument though, you have no idea how often I XIVPads peoples characters while they are ranting about how X is fine and find they are missing half their cross class abilities. Sadly I see you don't have PLD either which is the real hot potato.

Also I was in one of the first 5-10 groups in the world through T1-4 (don't know exactly because people formally didn't keep track as much) with Legacy, clearing it on BLM WAR PLD and BRD in consecutive weeks, special place in my heart that turn, dropped because I began a PhD which was a big RL time sink and transferred to EU when server changes were promised. Hence he current job spread, how early did you do it? (That derail BTW)

[Kuwagami]

This. I'm speculating here, but Paladin and DRK are designed with MT in mind, where Warrior is designed as an OT.

No. I can't remember the exact terms since it was over a year ago and I've lost the interview since then, but Yoshida explicitely said that the tanks were designed to do anything on the same level. MT, OT, doesn't matter, they have the tools to do anything.

As an example, the "most dps" set up in 2.0 was WAR MT and PLD OT, while a more "survival" approach was the contrary.

[Syzygian]

This thread is stupid though since Tanks should be doing more DPS like Warrior, bringing Warrior down might make a lot of content (Un-clearable)

This logic needs to die horribly in a grease fire. Savage was not intended to be cleared in i190, WAR made it possible. So basically, whether intentionally or not, they designed a raid tier that could be progressed on and cleared with one tank but not the others. WAR+other tank was mandatory.

If they designed raids with a DPS check that that is achievable regardless if your tank composition, this would be a different conversation. But that's not what they did.

Saying that "other tanks should be buffed to WAR DPS levels because nerfing WAR would make content unclearable" is an intensely telling statement on its own.