Lets nerf WAR :D

[Galgarion]

Warriors aren't the problem, the anti-fun hardcore min/maxers are. Give the other tanks buffs that edge out warriors by the slightest fraction of a percentage, and the drones will promptly start benching them en masse. That's so easy to predict, it's not even funny.

[fm_fenrir]

the anti-fun hardcore min/maxers

Winning is fun. Anybody who tells you losing is fun is a liar.

[Galgarion]

Winning is fun. Anybody who tells you losing is fun is a liar.

Winning is fun. Not being allowed by the group to play your favorite class over petty minutiae isn't.

[Syzygian]

This thread made me laugh. That's all I'm gonna say.

I give it a 4/10. A couple of extra points since it isn't an obvious troll thread until you get to self heals being removed. If not a troll thread, such a huge lack of understanding of the job and thought put into these "suggestions" that it's hilarious. Almost all the suggestions are awful.

Nah. Almost none of these were serious nerfs, but food for thought. Its gotten people talking for 22 pages and isn't another "buff PLD" thread, so I consider it a job well done. I also totally never said they should lose any of their self heals (never once mentioned a removal of ToB, 30sec Bloodbath, Defiance Equilibrium, or the healing effect of IB; I only suggested the latter get a nerf of some kind because its big damage, a defensive CD, and a self heal all in one GCD. *shrug* to me that seems a bit much), and never tried to remove or undo any fundamental mechanics of the job completely (I left the ease of stance dancing, stack management, potent self heals, high OT dps, etc. almost completely alone), and mostly only suggested recast time/duration/percentage adjustments, nothing more. I never said any of these were perfectly thought out or even strategically/mechanically sound, and definitely haven't gotten personal with anybody over their opinions. So as I said in the OP, sorry if you were offended. =]

I dunno. I thought I made it pretty blatantly obvious that I was playing devil's advocate from the start, and no one had the stones to start a thread suggesting nerfs of any kind, just buffs, and most of those buffs even more ill advised than these nerfs, many of them completely unraveling the core mechanics of the jobs in question and turning them into something else entirely.

[Adire]

snip

4. Increase Defiance/Deliverance recast to 20-30s. The ease of stance dancing and being off-GCD is an integral part of the job, but make WARs think about it a bit more before they make the switch.

WAR is designed to do the large chunk of its damage while in Deliverance. The current shortish CD on stance dancing is to let WAR do this quickly without remaining in Deliverance too long, because while in Deliverance, minus defensive CDs, WAR is extremely squishy. Changing this to a long cooldown would greatly impact the playstyle and damage style WAR has. This would not "maintain the ease of stance dancing" by any means. It would make it far less viable in fact.

1. Increase Vengeance and/or Thrill of Battle recast to 150s. Still less than Sentinel and Bulwark and Shadow Wall but not so short that its ridiculous (120s for what these abilities do is a little much).

Add this on to what I said above, and bam, you've got a clunky WAR with clunky stance dancing and a clunky cooldown kit that can't do much damage without giving healers a headache and forcing them to sacrifice their own damage.

2. Nerf Inner Beast damage reduction to 15% or something, or remove the self-heal.

This looks a lot like you advocating removal of the biggest single self heal Warrior has to me. And considering a considerable part of Warrior's mitigation comes from self heals, and self heals rely on good damage, yeah....

Serious or not, it's best you don't encourage a good tank to be made as clunky as a "bad" tank. It's better to let everyone be good. I.E buff paladin.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

I dunno. I thought I made it pretty blatantly obvious that I was playing devil's advocate from the start

Pretty much, what I believe, is that PLD and DRK are tanks, and WAR is an overpowered obscenity.

Sounded more like bias, to me.

[Syzygian]

Sounded more like bias, to me.

I definitely never said I was unbiased, in fact my very use of the word "believe" immediately underscores the fact that its ***just my opinion***. I just wanted to start a discussion. You've been trying to get my goat with cool little jabs and one-liners throughout this thread, its not gonna work. Its okay that you and I disagree. You've made some good points.

snip

Sure, I suppose. You think PLD should be buffed, I think it'd be more interesting to see WAR nerfed. Sounds like we both want the tanks to be balanced though. I did say many times in my OP though, that none of it was meant to be taken too seriously, and that I was spitballing. I mean yeah, I do think WAR is a little OP, and I've been saying things throughout this thread to try and get people to discuss that because I was genuinely curious to see what people felt about the degree of WAR's power in the current meta.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

I definitely never said I was unbiased.

No, but you literally just said that you're playing devil's advocate. It doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have bias, but you should make good attempts to mute it. That is, you are trying to claim that you don't necessarily hold the position that WAR should be nerfed, and I'm saying that you're full of it.

You've been trying to get my goat with cool little jabs throughout this thread, its not gonna work.

Clearly not, seeing as how you've interpreted criticism of your argument as some kind of personal attack.

Its okay that you and I disagree.

It doesn't matter whether I hold your position or the one opposing it; that's never been my point. My point has been that your arguments are, as you have presented them, unsubstantiated.

[Violette]

snip

Sorry, I didn't make myself perfectly clear in the original post.

Warrior's should be the most selfish, in order to balance out the trinity of tanks. But as you said, and as we all agree warrior's are the king of tanks.
Most damage+most utility where the only danger to tanks (besides healers) is big bad tank busters....Dark Knight and paladin were designed for a different type of game and it's showing with each tier of raiding.

Especially Dark Knight......we're not the tankiest naturally (as in just in tank stance), but we have a lot of cooldowns to pop. This to me sounds like it would much better suit a game where the raid patterns weren't set in stone, so you could use cooldowns as you went to defend yourself. Sure we have the defences to deal with all tank busters that come our way, but even without them bosses are very rarely a danger once the pattern is known.

As for

Sure, I suppose. You think PLD should be buffed, I think it'd be more interesting to see WAR nerfed. Sounds like we both want the tanks to be balanced though. I did say many times in my OP though, that none of it was meant to be taken too seriously, and that I was spitballing. I mean yeah, I do think WAR is a little OP, and I've been saying things throughout this thread to try and get people to discuss that because I was genuinely curious to see what people felt about the degree of WAR's power in the current meta.

Nerfing a class for being good at what's it good at and good at what other classes are meant to be good at......is a foolish move. It's a better design move to bring all 3 classes to an even playing field by bringing things up, then nerfing.

[Syzygian]

As for
Nerfing a class for being good at what's it good at and good at what other classes are meant to be good at......is a foolish move. It's a better design move to bring all 3 classes to an even playing field by bringing things up, then nerfing.

Being good at what it's good at and having no disadvantages for which to allow synergy with the other tanks are not the same thing.

snip

Full of it, eh?

Inserts in red.

Set a criteria for "obscenely overpowered," and then empirically prove that WAR fulfills that criteria.

Here you’re baiting me into an argument that I never intended to make in any kind of fashion leading to a factual proof. This whole thread was just me presenting a counter-approach to the other side of a debate (i.e. instead of buffing PLD, what if we nerfed WAR) Overpowered is in the eye of the playerbase, and any nerfs or buffs will be a reaction to our subjective experience on Squenix’s part. When you see double WAR clearing A4S before a PLD/DRK composition, that, to me, means the game is unbalanced and that WAR is overpowered in the current content. That’s an example of a criteria, and there’s empirical (which by the way means “proved through experience/observation, not logic or theory”, the former of which is what you repeatedly ask for below, requesting mathematical basis for an argument concerning the differences between the tanks) evidence on youtube, twitch, etc. Could it also mean that PLD is underpowered? Absolutely! (stalemate, for sure) But there are already over 9000 threads on these forums about that. Hence this thread being something else entirely. Even tone of the title of the thread should have been a dead giveaway that this was something more whimsical than serious.

WAR is the best of the three tanks; I didn't need you to tell me that.

Claiming that it's "obscenely overpowered," however, implies that you know (or think that you know) how powerful the tanks are supposed to be. Illustrating the mathematical difference(s) between the tanks would be a good start in proving that WAR is overpowered.

I think what you want to say here is that the ceiling that WAR reaches should be the standard, and other tanks should simply gravitate towards that, rather than scaling back raid content to be clearable regardless of tank composition. And that’s definitely a valid option.

The mathematical differences on paper are not much. All 3 tanks have a default mitigation to their tank stance’s DPS reduction, all of them have some form of added DPS only available as an OT (not counting the loss of the damage penalty), and all of them (with the exception of PLD, at the moment- since making this thread, I am glad they are in line to receive some sort of buff down the road) have surplus DPS regardless of stance that varies between them, WAR in the form of its many offensive buffs, and DRK in the form of its many off-GCD attacks. The differences are in practice, and therefore difficult to measure mathematically. Currently the trend in allowing endgame content to be pushed is pushing the boundary of how often you can tank outside of tank stance. With WAR, it is markedly easier and more fluid, and creates a very large DPS discrepancy, and this is largely due to the fact that WAR does not actually lose any raw damage mitigation from swapping stances, the only thing it loses is vitality/HP which is much easier to manipulate through multiple sources (food, pots, gear, and CDs) than raw mitigation (only CDs, really). This is a huge advantage, and one that I really don’t see why they have without giving the other tanks some sort of other equivalent and relevant advantage as well in the same vein, or in another field of utility altogether, so long as that utility is allowed to be relevant by the current raid tier and not forced into obscurity as things like Divine Veil and Clemency are, currently.

That doesn't prove the WAR is "obscenely overpowered." Look, I will admit my bias, but that's what you're up against here. I'm not convinced that WAR needs to be nerfed, especially not through your proposed changes.

See, we’re both biased. Also it was never my goal to “convince” anybody. Your implication that I am required to “convince” people of this point of view in order for it to be valid as an opinion/idea almost strikes me as antagonistic, its not my goal to convince you, and it’d be futile for me to try; you do appear to be a WAR main after all. But there’s a fundamental difference between throwing out ideas and suggestions, and saying that those ideas and suggestions are objectively correct and/or the only solution to a given issue.

How do you know it was because of WAR, specifically? Did they say that? Sure, WAR was a contributing factor, but there were several others, as well (DRK allowing groups to drop MNK, pentameld/STR accessories, tanking in DPS stance, healer DPS, being particularly exceptional players, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong.

You’re certainly not wrong, and I’ll concede that I don’t know, but if WAR isn’t the wild card, why didn’t DRK/PLD compositions with exceptional players, pentameld/STR accessories, DPS stance dancing, healer DPS, etc. get the clear in a similar timeframe?

I'm not making any argument; I'm saying that yours is weak.

So, PLD couldn't make the cut, but WAR is overpowered?

This is again all subjective. By what yardstick? The idea that the content was meant to be cleared when it was or the idea that the content was designed to be cleared when PLD would have been able to push it? When did we decide whatever WAR does/achieves is the intended de facto standard?

It may tell us that WAR is overpowered, because the content is not intended to be cleared.

Or it may tell us that DRK and/or PLD are underpowered, because the content is intended to be cleared.

Yes, indeed! It could be either. Which brings me back to my original point which is that there are many discussions about the latter, but being a curious person that likes to discuss and see people’s reactions to things, I wanted to see a discussion about the former. Now why is the burden of proof on me for the former but not for everyone else on the latter? Why does it need to be on anyone at all, for that matter? Again, subjective player experience. These threads are all laced with subjectivity that I don’t think you can fully appreciate because you’ve been a benefactor of this discrepancy in tank balance, whereas a PLD that has an equal passion and ambition to clear the content as expediently as possible has in many cases been SoL, particularly if their partner is not a WAR.

WAR being the most powerful tank isn't what's in contention. Any honest, experienced, player will likely agree that WAR is the most powerful tank.

What is in contention is whether or not WAR is more powerful than it should be; that would warrant a nerf.

The very idea that WAR can lay claim to being the most powerful tank is basis enough to silence contention for some people on that topic. Why is one job of a particular type being unequivocally better than the other jobs of its type not at least a partially valid criteria for it being overpowered? Is there a most powerful healer right now, hands down? Is there a most powerful DPS right now, hands down? Factoring in personal DPS, raid utility, potency of heals/other abilities? No. Do they have specific strengths and weaknesses? Yes. And this is good. WHM can solo heal, SCH can DPS, its excellent synergy. You can replace one or the other with AST for a surplus of utility at the expense of dealing with some RNG. No other job type in the game has this single member that is outperforming all the others to such a noticeable extent that it almost supersedes job synergy, and probably would if not for the gimp to the LB gauge. When dual wielding one job is potentially more powerful than the synergy that job would have with the others of its type, you have a problem. That is my basis for contention that a slight nerf to WAR could be an option or part of an option for balance, but admittedly, not the only one.

I disagree; DRK is significantly more potent than PLD in the current meta.

Operative term being the “current meta”. In a different meta they could easily switch places but WAR would probably still be at the top.

Not as a rule, it doesn't. Let's say DRK and PLD did 33% of the DPS that WAR could do, but WAR is only pulling 300 DPS. By your logic, WAR is overpowered, even though they're all incredibly weak. One class being better than another doesn't prove, as a rule, that one or the other is over or underpowered. I understand that people use these terms loosely, but you're using it to justify nerfing WAR.

It appears, to me at least, that you’re afraid of/against the DPS ceiling being lowered. You want to see big numbers on the screen. The fact is, if you’re still pushing the same amount of skill and raid awareness to hit that ceiling, the DPS checks of the content are scaled for it, and you’re successfully hitting it, does it matter whether the ceiling is 300 DPS or 3000? No. But it does matter if two other tanks’ have spots in the raid group that are jeopardized by a DPS gap between them and WAR that is noticeable enough to be the difference between a clear and enrage. For the record, I don’t think tanks should all be nerfed down to full vit shield oath PLD DPS, if that thought is clanging around in your head at all.

Bullshit; you just can't (or won't) come up with any objective criteria to bolster your proposition.

I think you just disagree. And you want to be the pitcher to my batter but won’t step up to the plate yourself. And I don’t need objective criteria for any of this (although I dunno how much more objective you can get than the way the endgame progression has factually unfolded) as it is a subjective matter of preference between two solutions to the same problem, or possibly a combination of both solutions. Its like demanding objective criteria for why you hold your pen a certain way when writing as opposed to the way I might hold it. C'mon. You don’t want to see WAR nerfed, obviously. And I can admit that a PLD buff, while welcome, could easily put DRK, my main, at the bottom of the totem pole. We all have skin in the game. Don’t ask for objectivity.

I never said it should be. And, for the record, I don't think it should be. Again, what's in contention is whether or not WAR deserves to be nerfed; it's not the only solution to the problem of tank balance.

Of course its not, and I never said it was. The verbiage of “deserving” to be nerfed feels like big fat buzzword too, in this context. It was just a different approach that I took, and its very clear to me that you have a big problem with it, but there is no easy way to prove that PLD deserves a buff any more than WAR deserves a nerf because its all based around whether people prefer a lower DPS ceiling or a higher one (in the absence of a WAR dominated meta and magic-based raid tier, who’s to say PLDs would not be perfectly content with their jobs without being judged by these yardsticks?), and I’ve already said that a lower one would have zero bearing on player skill or the challenge of meeting enrages if they’re scaled to that ceiling. I’d rather have a ceiling that is scaled for every tank job to be able to beat enrage timers in any party composition assuming a maximum of DPS and skill within the scope of those given jobs. I frankly do not care at all whether it is higher or lower. Yes this thread assumes lowering it, but as you’ve pointed out in unison with the deluge of PLD threads, you could just as easily keep it where it is and buff the other two tanks. I’m not suggesting anyone slack on DPS or not milk their job for all its worth, nor am I suggesting a nerf in difficulty of the content. For the record, I definitely think that in practice, we will likely see a combination of buffs and nerfs in the future. Hence the entirely hypothetical nature of this thread.

No, but you literally just said that you're playing devil's advocate. It doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't have bias, but you should make good attempts to mute it. That is, you are trying to claim that you don't necessarily hold the position that WAR should be nerfed, and I'm saying that you're full of it.

I think that what you’ve been doing in response to me definitely qualifies as playing devil’s advocate as well, and statements like “you’re full of it” do not bode will for the muting of the bias as it were, to say nothing of the fact that you've already admitted to having it.

The fact is, I would be just as content if they boosted DRK and PLD to be competitive with WAR in some fashion, DPS or otherwise. I really would. Why would I not be? I main DRK, how could I not get excited about the idea of more power/utility for my job? But I was genuinely, honestly curious to see if anyone thought a WAR nerf would also be a viable option, and as I explored that, it seemed like there were some areas where they felt broken and I wanted to try and address them.

Clearly not, seeing as how you've interpreted criticism of your argument as some kind of personal attack.

You’re being pretty openly cynical, and aggressively demanding that I formalize something that I never intended to formalize, nor do I have an obligation to. I don’t care that you disagree, but the questioning of my intentions is tiresome.

It doesn't matter whether I hold your position or the one opposing it; that's never been my point. My point has been that your arguments are, as you have presented them, unsubstantiated.

Except that I never made any argument other than, sort of, but not really, the ones you’ve been baiting me into. I am pitching a big fat meatball as Stephen Colbert would say. I fail to see, after everything I’ve clarified in this post, how anything I’ve said is any less substantiated than the arguments for buffing PLD; I’m simply pitching the inverse of those ideas, to tackle the problem from the other end of the spectrum and explore if that is viable.

By what code of measurement are we determining that those ideas are valid but the ones in this thread are not? The fact that WAR has an iron grip around PLD’s raid slot and clears the content faster? Why is that the default, the standard? When did we determine that PLD’s power from 2.x to now scaled improperly but that WAR’s scaled properly? When did we determine that the raid tier’s DPS check ceilings were scaled to WAR DPS thereby precluding world 1st PLD progression, as opposed to the ceilings being scaled to PLD DPS enabling WAR to help cheese it to an extent? By what criteria do you even determine substantiation in this context when you have two equal and opposite sides from which to approach the issue, that are, by BOTH of our own admissions, biased? The more I come up with these questions the more I realize there’s not really a right or wrong answer. There will never be a way to substantiate that one way is better than the other (bring the other tanks up or bring WAR down) because they would both achieve the same effect, even as they please different portions of the playerbase while possibly upsetting others (again, subjective). When they nerfed NIN and buffed DRG in 2.4, did NIN objectively deserve those nerfs? Says who? Why didn’t they just buff DRG more, and maybe MNK even, a little, and leave it at that? Sure, we can rationalize it now, in hindsight, but how would the arguments have been anymore determinant leading up to those nerfs/buffs than the discussions we are having right now?

Now, I feel I’ve explained myself pretty thoroughly, I understand your side now hopefully you understand mine. Everyone on the forums is saying buff PLD, maybe buff DRK (as if to have said “buff DRG, maybe buff MNK, leave NIN alone” back in 2.4) and my idea was “what if we nerfed WAR slightly instead?” If you main WAR, I totally get your reaction and the bias that comes with it and I’m certainly not charging you with proving your job’s “right” to be as powerful as it is, and I totally acknowledge my bias as a person that mains DRK, which, in my mind, embodies the balance that the community wants, living comfortably (for now at least) between WAR and PLD’s extremes. Just planting seeds.