Lets nerf WAR :D

[Kaisersoke]

Regardless of what the thread was made for, its still suggesting, calling for, asking for, discussing, theorizing about—whatever you want to call it—Warrior Nerfs and how they would affect tank balance. There's no denying that as a fact.

#ClickBait

#hashtagsmakemeright
its a discussion, please return to the original post and reread it. nobody is saying it isnt about nerfing warrior, because it is, because they outshine their peers, and if the limit break gauge didnt slow down upon stacking classes, i guarantee you people would be taking double warrior.

#youneedtoread #theseservenopurposehere #theyreratherpretentious

[Gooner_iBluAirJGR]

nobody is demanding warrior be nerfed either,

nobody is saying it isnt about nerfing warrior, because it is,

Now I'm all confused man. Are we or are we not talking about nerfs!

Anyway, I don't want to argue about a bunch of he-say-she-say stuff. I thought it was funny when I read "nobody is demanding warrior be nerfed" in a thread titled "lets nerf warrior".

I do however have a potentially interesting Question: Should any tank be able to reach their maximum potential damage without the assistance of another party member i.e. should ANY tank class be given a slashing debuff or should it be exclusive to Ninja?


edit: I personally wonder how dramatically that would affect the tank meta. Of course ninjas would find themselves in every raid group until the end of time if they were the only ones with a slashing debuff but PLD/DRK would start seeming like a more interesting appealing composition.

p.s. I'm super excited for the 3.1 patch notes. I want to see what SE is cooking up for us lol.

[Kaisersoke]

you obviously dont understand the difference between a suggestion for a nerf or a demand for a nerf, as ive said numerous times if you read the original post, it was fairly suggestive, it said none of the suggested changes were thought out, but it did suggest there needs to be a change for the current meta to change. that isnt a demand. the demands i imagine are from the many "buff paladin" threads because it doesnt fill any niche at all in the current meta. but its semantics.

id suggest taking that question to its own dedicated thread, because it certainly is an interesting topic.

3.1 is going to be interested from a balance aspect, unfortunately it seems kinda dry on content considering how long its taking to roll out imo, but only time will tell

[kensatsu]

Anyway it's weird the suggestion of nerfing, when the new raid is all about dps, you should ask buff for the pld to sit better in this raid, because a lot of pld are complaining about that, and many players say switch to dark or war because they sit better on A4S,
i played a little with the 60 pld, and the first thing missing to me is a proper mechanic to the pld : i mean something you have to built, not like the rage stacks or the dark art mechanic but something proper to the pld, something to make the Job more intersting to play, I don't see SE change the job before 4.0. But it's still obvious he need a UP atm

[giantslayer]

I do however have a potentially interesting Question: Should any tank be able to reach their maximum potential damage without the assistance of another party member i.e. should ANY tank class be given a slashing debuff or should it be exclusive to Ninja?

Not if they are going to also have the highest DPS. From a design standpoint, a class that relies on another class for a buff should have a higher potential with the buff than one that is self-sufficient, otherwise people will play the self-sufficient class if it is better.

Now one idea that intrigues me... What if they put the slashing debuff on Royal Authority and changed WAR's ability to give a debuff to help another class?

[Thunda_Cat_SMASH]

To be fair, this is not a problem exclusive to DRKs and PLDs. MCHs/BRDs, BLMs/SMNs are kind of in a similar boat.

Basically. But you know, it's different for paladin because of reasons. Obviously paladins should be buffed so they can once again claim a monopoly on that delicious dedicated main tank spot.

[OPneedNerfs]

Basically. But you know, it's different for paladin because of reasons. Obviously paladins should be buffed so they can once again claim a monopoly on that delicious dedicated main tank spot.

Kindly enlighten us, since you agreed with him, on how the MCH/BRD or BLM/SMN situation is similar to the situation DRK/PLD is in against WARs.

[Disc]

Kindly enlighten us, since you agreed with him, on how the MCH/BRD or BLM/SMN situation is similar to the situation DRK/PLD is in against WARs.

DRK/PLD compete for the MT slot, not OT. MCH/BRD compete for the ranged support slot, not melee/caster. BLM/SMN compete for the caster spot, not melee or ranged support. Doubling up on casters or ranged support reduces the effectiveness of the overall party composition due to either loss of maximum damage or loss of support abilities, but like PLD/DRK, is still workable in most situations.

I honestly prefer it like this. Leaves room for a new fourth tank to compete with WAR for OT slot & allows all tanks to specialize more in a specific role.

[OPneedNerfs]

DRK/PLD compete for the MT slot, not OT. MCH/BRD compete for the ranged support slot, not melee/caster. BLM/SMN compete for the caster spot, not melee or ranged support. Doubling up on casters or ranged support reduces the effectiveness of the overall party composition due to either loss of maximum damage or loss of support abilities, but like PLD/DRK, is still workable in most situations.

I honestly prefer it like this. Leaves room for a new fourth tank to compete with WAR for OT slot & allows all tanks to specialize more in a specific role.

But at it's current state, there is no defined comp where it is always BRD>MCH or MCH>BRD for ranged support neither is there always a SMN>BLM or BLM>SMN.

Saying it's in the same state as PLD/DRK compared to WAR would mean that it is ALWAYS better to bring MCH>BRD or vice versa and SMN>BLM or vice versa which is absolutely not the case.

Also with regards to the 4th tank competing for OT slot, or even the theory of having an OT specializing tank, would mean their defenses while being a MT would need to be tuned lower equivalent to how much more damage/utility they bring while being an OT or else there'd be no reason to bring those specializing in being MT.

Think about it this way, if people are already bringing 2x WAR even with the LB penalty, what would happen to MT specializing tanks like PLD/DRK if they were to introduce another WAR-type tank under a different name which brings the same amount of damage/utility and defenses of a WAR?

[Disc]

Also with regards to the 4th tank competing for OT slot, or even the theory of having an OT specializing tank, would mean their defenses while being a MT would need to be tuned lower equivalent to how much more damage/utility they bring while being an OT or else there'd be no reason to bring those specializing in being MT.

Think about it this way, if people are already bringing 2x WAR even with the LB penalty, what would happen to MT specializing tanks like PLD/DRK if they were to introduce another WAR-type tank under a different name which brings the same amount of damage/utility and defenses of a WAR?

The comment was in relation to PLD/DRK vs WAR, not PLD vs DRK. This is a WAR nerf thread after all. But yes, to balance out the introduction of a second OT based job like WAR, encounters would have to be designed around PLD/DRK MTs or WAR would need to lose its HP bonus. eg 80,000+ damage tank-busters that could be forced physical or magical, similar to Turn 2 resistances.