A Tank Balance Megathread

[Shurrikhan]

Suggestion for additionnal effect on Sheltron.
It should block the next attack "in front of you" wether you're the target or not (Based on the size of the animation). This way, Sheltron could be used to protect others when you're not MT, and giving you access to Shield Swipe.

This would take a massive (although well deserved) revision to coding, however, as 1) all attacks would have to in some way be AoEs, 2) the AoEs would have to move from the source end to finish end of their AoE zones (instead of striking the entire zone simultaneously as they do now), and 3) AoEs would have to capable of procedural, aggregate damage loss with mitigation done such that one person's block (attack passes through their hitbox first, even if dealing no damage to them; aimed at someone else) could mitigate for someone behind them.

[Reynhart]

This would take a massive (although well deserved) revision to coding, however, as 1) all attacks would have to in some way be AoEs, 2) the AoEs would have to move from the source end to finish end of their AoE zones (instead of striking the entire zone simultaneously as they do now), and 3) AoEs would have to capable of procedural, aggregate damage loss with mitigation done such that one person's block (attack passes through their hitbox first, even if dealing no damage to them; aimed at someone else) could mitigate for someone behind them.

If you see it like some sort of one-time-multi-target-short-range-partial-Cover-with-positionnals (Long title, eh ? ), I'm not sure the revision would be "that" massive.

Bad thing is, this was a real good post until the end.

Yes, that was a real good post. And the best part is showing that all tanks have lots of pros and cons...except WAR

[Isius]

Idk about your change, it kinda bugs me somehow to know I will get a dps decrease as a tank without a warrior doing it, but still also nerfs the war/drk combo dmg, making pld fit better in comps then it does nowt, so the change with Pld having slashing debuff might be better in the end.

Personally, I would still like to see RoH get a potency increase instead, and idk how I would feel about losing -10% strength down debuff either.

I rethought about what I said last night, and I want to say the first sentence I struggle to word it out, because it felt wrong to begin with, since I liked your read. Which you do have tons of good points. But if my math is right. I am going to say I am 100% against the idea of slashing debuff to be applied to RoH, and for Paladin to lose it's -10% strength dmg debuff.

Reasonings:

1. Caps Paladin potential dps down further then what it is now, even if my new combo, and the Pld's current rotation is basically the same dmg, but also prevents Pld from using it's most dmging combos if you want to keep the slashing debuff up 100% of the time.
2. For a class that can apply a slashing debuff, the only way to meet it's max dmg now is to have a Nin apply the slashing debuff instead.
3. Nin would then become a 100% stable to progression groups, why take a Pld? When a Nin loses less applying the slashing debuff, I think have not done numbers for it, but aswell beinging able to apply trick attack, still no reason to bring a Pld, but Nin would become mandatory, since it brings more dmg.
4. 3.2 Yoshi states raids will be more physical heavy. So by giving Warrior Pld's -10% str down to Storm's Eye, it would only make Wars mandatory for those raids, since the ease they can apply that debuff, and by that extent by reducing all that physical dmg, makes Drk to have a easier time to deal with that raid tier, and able to bring more dmg, since they are the mt dps class.

Sorry man but if you swap RoH, and SE debuffs around Pld will still lose out, and it will only make it worst, since we are losing the one tool that might actually benefit in the next raids, our -10% strength down debuff. But if Pld had the slashing debuff Pld, and is the only class in a group that can apply, it's dps will be gimped, and only isn't gimped, if a Nin is brought into a group. But that doesn't matter either since you will likely see Drk/War/Nin mandatory in the next raid tier from the RoH/SE debuff swap. Paladin in my mind still loses it's place in the raid scene again.

Buffing RoH's potency, or it's dmg overall is a far better, easier solution imo for Pld. Then trying to give Pld a raid dps buff utility.

[Syzygian]

Sorry man but if you swap RoH, and SE debuffs around Pld will still lose out, and it will only make it worst, since we are losing the one tool that might actually benefit in the next raids, our -10% strength down debuff. But if Pld had the slashing debuff Pld, and is the only class in a group that can apply, it's dps will be gimped, and only isn't gimped, if a Nin is brought into a group. But that doesn't matter either since you will likely see Drk/War/Nin mandatory in the next raid tier from the RoH/SE debuff swap. Paladin in my mind still loses it's place in the raid scene again.

Buffing RoH's potency is easier is a far better, easier solution imo for Pld. Then trying to give Pld a raid dps buff utility.

I see what you're saying. I still think it makes sense though, for PLD to offer raid dps increases given its lower personal DPS. That's a theme we see across all jobs. The issue is, do we really just want to clone DRK's rotation where its basically get hate and then ignore the hate combo forever? That's why I didn't think it'd be ideal for putting it on RA. Perhaps if the duration of the debuff and Goring Blade were extended to 30s?

If we buff RoH's potency, how much would it have to be buffed so as not render RA/GB obsolete but still maintain PLD's current DPS at minimum?

I think ideally we want to see something along the lines, at the the end of the day, of RoH-GB-RA-RA-repeat or RoH-GB-RA-repeat, depending on the potencies.

Haven't heard much on DRK changes, any thoughts on those?

[Shurrikhan]

If you see it like some sort of one-time-multi-target-short-range-partial-Cover-with-positionals (Long title, eh ? ), I'm not sure the revision would be "that" massive.

So, self- or ally-targeting, covers either self or allies within 6 yalms, giving self or affected allies a guaranteed block on their next physical attack taken, using your shield's mitigation value? (Or else simply, mitigate the next physical attack against them for <shield value>% damage reduction.) I don't see how you'd be able to apply a mitigation buff to allies and then use your positional, though--only theirs.

[MeeYow]

Pretty sure Halone and Delerium have been shown to be 7% reductions to their respective damage type (ie, 10% stat reduction =/= 10% damage reduction)

If that is correct, Path is 50% stronger than PLD and DRKs equivalents combined. Something like this seems a lot more at home on 'the defensive tank' - swap the debuffs on Halone and Path.


Regarding TP, it is obvious that infinite single target TP on war is broken - having a resource never run out defeats the point of the resource even being there. Rather than shave equilibrium, a sensible first step would be to add below average TP costs to stack abilities, eg, 60 for fell cleave and IB, 100 for both AoEs.

This would give warrior still amazing sustain, but require some thought as to when to pop a TP equilibrium to keep going even in single target scenarios.

Another small potential way is to add TP costs to WAR stance dancing as it is unique in how it has no cost for changing.

Finally, regarding shield oath and grit, a common complaint about making these oGCD is that they instantly provide 20% mitigation/instantly increase your EHP. This can easily be negated by adding a cost of 20% of the players current HP to the defensive stance.

[Freyyy]

Pretty sure Halone and Delerium have been shown to be 7% reductions to their respective damage type (ie, 10% stat reduction =/= 10% damage reduction)

You know, that's a thing I don't understand. Some months ago when I was talking about Berserk on forums, I was thinking that 50% AP didn't equal 50% more damage, but someone told me that in fact, it does. AP = STR. So if +50% AP/STR = +50% damage, then why would a -10% STR debuff not equal -10% physical damage ? If there is specific maths about that I would be glad to know what it is.

[Kiri_Tqnikaze]

This is getting really tiresome. The tank balance is fine! Stop nitpicking and just enjoy a VIDEO GAME. These "let's fix tank balance" threads are just stupid and complete waste of time.

[MeeYow]

I would like to know the details/source myself, my best guess is that if it is correct, it is due to the fact player and mob calcs are different, starting with the fact mobs do not appear to have any defensive stat.

As an aside, if they are all 10%, then the defensive tank still has better claim to the universal damage reduction, it will also make much more common use of a debuff which is somewhat wasted competing with WARs DPS.

[Reynhart]

So, self- or ally-targeting, covers either self or allies within 6 yalms, giving self or affected allies a guaranteed block on their next physical attack taken, using your shield's mitigation value? (Or else simply, mitigate the next physical attack against them for <shield value>% damage reduction.) I don't see how you'd be able to apply a mitigation buff to allies and then use your positional, though--only theirs.

"Block the next physical attack directed at you or at a party member behind you"
Easy

You know, that's a thing I don't understand. Some months ago when I was talking about Berserk on forums, I was thinking that 50% AP didn't equal 50% more damage, but someone told me that in fact, it does. AP = STR.

Yes, Attack power = STR, but STR is put into a formula for a final damage value.
It's not the same to increase STR than this final damage value.