Lets nerf WAR :D

[Argyle_Darkheart]

massive wall of text

Ooh boy, I was not expecting this. Guess that means it's my turn.

Full of it, eh?

To clarify, this comment was in regards to you supposedly playing devil's advocate. It sounded quite a lot to me like you were back-pedalling away from a position that was becoming a little too hot for you.

Even tone of the title of the thread should have been a dead giveaway that this was something more whimsical than serious.

Perhaps. I certainly took it as such until you said WAR was an "overpowered obscenity." That's a bold claim, and bold claims require bold evidence, as far as I'm concerned.

You brought forth the proposition of nerfing WAR by starting this thread, so I expected you to be able to argue your position.

Here you’re baiting me into an argument that I never intended to make in any kind of fashion leading to a factual proof.

If you didn't intend to substantiate your position, that's fine, but don't flounder about pretending that you have. I don't think it's unreasonable for me, or anyone else in this thread, to request that you define your terms.

That is, as I've asked many times, what does it mean for a job to be "overpowered?"

I think what you want to say here is that the ceiling that WAR reaches should be the standard

I thought I was pretty clear about not giving my opinion. But my point was that I don't know, and I don't think that you know either.

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?

It could very well be because WAR is better than DRK and (especially) PLD. Does this mean WAR is overpowered? Maybe. Does this mean PLD and/or DRK are underpowered? Maybe.

My point was that we can't tell because we don't know how strong certain jobs are supposed to be. That and there are so many variables that we can't necessarily point to one thing.

By what yardstick?

You do know that's what I've been asking this whole time, right?

there are many discussions about the latter [PLD/DRK being underpowered], 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 [WAR being overpowered]

People get touchy about nerfs. That's what I was alluding to when I said, "Look, I will admit my bias, but that's what you're up against here."

Bold claims call for bold evidence/arguments, and calling for a nerf is a bold claim, in my humble opinion.

Now why is the burden of proof on me for the former [WAR being overpowered] but not for everyone else on the latter [PLD/DRK being underpowered]?

The burden of proof is on whomever presents the argument. You started this thread about nerfing WAR, so the burden of proof is on you.

Why does it need to be on anyone at all, for that matter?

Because that's how argument works.

Maybe you did intend to just open the discussion, but you came down pretty heavily on WAR, I felt.

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?

I never said it wasn't. I said that it didn't, as a rule, prove that it was overpowered. And then I provided a hypothetical where all the tanks would be underpowered (or, at least, that was my intent), but where WAR would still be, by far, the best.

Off-topic, kind of, but:

Is there a most powerful healer right now, hands down?

SCH.

Is there a most powerful DPS right now, hands down?

DRG, but much less so compared to SCH.

The verbiage of “deserving” to be nerfed feels like big fat buzzword too, in this context.

Sounded a lot to me like you felt WAR "deserved" to be nerfed. I don't know if that's an error on your part or mine.

and its very clear to me that you have a big problem with it

I have a big problem with people calling for a job to be nerfed and then backing up that call with little to nothing of substance.

If you made a thread entitled "Is WAR overpowered?" then I probably wouldn't be trying to pick you apart like this.

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

Buffing PLD is less contentious, so people don't have as high a burden of proof. That said, there are objective criteria to measure PLD against.

Their names are WAR and DRK.

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?

WAR and DRK are the standards by which we measure PLD against because they are the other two tanks. They are measured against one another, just as DPS and healers are.

If a job is more powerful than it should be, then that's for the developers to decide, not us. Because, ultimately, only they know for sure.

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

I would like to reiterate that I'm not trying to argue that WAR doesn't deserve a nerf. But if you're going to take "negative" action against someone or something, then I think you need to adequately justify it.
As I've said before, I'm just questioning your argument to nerf WAR. You say you didn't make this argument, but you started a whole thread about it. I would say you're being intellectually dishonest, but I think you just don't see it that way, for whatever reason. That is, I don't think you're being malicious or underhanded, or anything like that.

I do appreciate the lengthy response, by the way.

Edit: One more question to belabor my point: is it acceptable to nerf a job merely to bring it in line with its competing jobs?

The way I see it, the only acceptable reason to nerf a job, rather than buff its competitors, would be because that job is too powerful (not merely because it is more powerful that its competition).