Lets nerf WAR :D

[RapBreon]

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.

I've been saying this for ages. However I feel you've got it the wrong way around. It's the people who try to emulate the min-maxers but lack the capabilities to push out the same results; unable to recongise their own limitations that are the problem. They attempt to force what the 'pros' do on their own statics, that's where the tension builds.

If you're part of the actual hardcore min-maxer crowd, you generally have very few issues doing what's required to up your groups chances. The only way to break into those kinds of groups and stick (which is already very hard without knowing someone)...is to be a min-maxer; so it's a non-starter anyway. Basically, if your group is telling you not to play X, but you insist on playing X; you possibly might be playing with a group of people you don't fit in with (or your friends want something different out of raiding than you do, been there before).

EDIT: Has anyway else also been tricked by Syzygian and Kaiseroke? Their profile pictures look almost exactly the same and I keep thinking they're the same person!

[Aurelinaus]

War is fine, let's set DRK off to the side for a bit and just look at PLD/WAR. Every change with the exception of changes to equilibrium are to abilities that existed as-is pre-3.0. Pre-3.0 PLD/WAR were fine. Post 3.0 both kits got holes in there kits filled in, both saw nerfs directly and indirectly and which, in my opinion, did not affect both equally. Nerfs being Block/Parry strength no longer scaling with strength and fixed to 20%, second nerf being det no longer affecting auto-attacks. Str WARs lose 12-19% off their parries(not really a big deal because raw int makes it a fair trade, weaker but more frequent parries), Str PLDs lose the same but also to block(kinda a big deal because a few abilities play off of blocking coming from 2.0). The DET nerf to auto-attacks, PLD takes a big hit here they lost a good bit of damage and got nothing in return, whereas WAR recieved a Tank stance (5%). The changes I belive needed are:

- a small boost to the potency increase granted by Sword Oath
- uncapping parry/block strength from a fixed 20% and let it scale with the parry stat.

[Violette]

snip

Min-maxer's aren't at fault. The raid's are the main issue, paladins low ass dps second and war's powerful kit third.

All the raids have enrages. This is lazy design that enforces bringing the "dps" tank, because you need more dps. If some fights were pure mechanics checks (more towards T7 or T9, where there were smallish dps checks but primarily they were mechanics checks), we could see more variance. If the fight has a hard dps check, bring a warrior? Lot of tankiness needed? bring pld/drk.

- a small boost to the potency increase granted by Sword Oath
- uncapping parry/block strength from a fixed 20% and let it scale with the parry stat.

Parry is fixed 20% across jobs and block is tied to shield strength, it'll get very strong as the expansion goes. Parry being 20% doesn't bother me so much, but for paladin if parry went into block they would be gods of physical tanking and would require a whole new equation for block strength.

However for Sword Oath, just have to remember that it's roughly a 12%~15% dps increase (50% of the 30ish% dps made from auto-attacks), similar to darkside and deliverance. What would be nice is A) Enmity increases on shield swipe and ShO (more in line with drk/war tank stances, more royal authorities while tanking) and b) sword oath giving a small crit boost (5%), since crit is 1.5x more effective for sword oath paladin than drk or war.

[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).

[RapBreon]

Min-maxer's aren't at fault. The raid's are the main issue, paladins low ass dps second and war's powerful kit third.

Not sure you're quoting me; I agree with you.

[Syzygian]

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).

I feel like that's what they did with NIN. And yeah they buffed DRG too, and realistically if they ever nerfed WAR I think it would only be partial/slight nerfs like what NIN had, with the other two tanks buffed to close the leftover gap.

And that makes some sense, but I don't think the community is ever going to come to a consensus on what "too powerful" is. o.o

I think we get eachother now.

[Synestra]

[*]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.

Yet most peoples here only talk about SwO buffs when real problem is in tank stance, SwO damage is more than fine its the ShO that lags behind coupled with lower enmity modifiers like you said. Now if penalty was roughly same as WAR/DRK and modifiers got fixed alot of issues would propably go away, only real issue left would be clunky stance swapping due GCD but that can be dealt.

[Kemas]

Not to mention PLD being superior mitigation tank is far overshadowed by drk and war's raid wide damage reductions via Storms Eye and Reprisal which can be stacked and maintained quite consistently (near 100%.) PLD raid wide mitigation and utility is locked behind a heal trigger, range, and long cd. This isn't even taking into account tank stance dps which as Synestra pointed out is the source of dps discrepancies between the three tanks. Here's to hoping 3.1 has some genius PLD fixes.

[Kaisersoke]

LOL the irony! Anyway, I bet they did, seeing how that's what they're paid to do. You really think the designers haven't run modules with all classes on all content? You just want to argue without thinking it through.

#ByeFelicia

poor little biased warrior main cant deal with other peoples opinions, or even the fact hat square was not balancing the game around dark knight grit in 2.1

QQ

[Kaisersoke]

the problem remains that warrior is the only tank that will remain viable without having endgame cater to either phys or mag damage, and thats unnacceptable. PREFERABLY, other tanks should be buffed, but since so many disagree with that (looking at you, fragile ego warriors) the only other option would be to nerf warriors, correct?