Why are you using current ilvl vs. content comparisons, 4 days before their obsoletion, as an implication of whether something new will be easily clearable with a/regardless of given tank choice? We'll all be effectively i180 again on Tuesday in regards to "content".
The "you're all poor players" excuse for differences in class only goes so far when mathematical optimization and world firsts through fifths tend to back up the statements you're denying. PLD, due to its toolkit, most certainly did need more gear to perform as well as a DRK in A4S. Not a "lot", necessarily, but a noticeable amount. Yes, a lot of people latch on to the "Warriors are too strong" idea blindly, but if look, point for point, at a Warrior's toolkit in comparison to the other two, it's certainly hard to say they're not in a better place.
I too wish that more people would first optomize what they're given, but let's take two examples, each easily fixed, in a sense. One, DRKs, with a Monk in party, provide zero raid utility as OT. Two, PLD effectively loses a CD and its only sustained mitigation advantage when facing all magic damage. The first can be fixed by making the DRK MT until he can parry and Reprisal. (With Low Blow and Blood Price also being tanking-dependent, and the OT role providing too little unique benefit to compensate, the DRK is almost certain to spend the majority of a fight in that role anyways.) The second can be fixed by never allowing the PLD to MT against casters. (Until now, given the large difference between MT and OT dps, that would again be the case anyways. And yet its OT dps cannot compete with a competent Warrior's so long as dps checks are tight.) But should they be MT/OT locked by design in the first place? Especially when the third in their trio loses nothing (apart from Vengeances' on-hit damage) when no longer tanking and can provide, stackingly, their combined weaponskill mitigation?



Reply With Quote

