PLD and sks

[Brian_]

In basic theory, DPS has never been the "highest standard of party utility." The only standard for utility is whether or not it helps you clear the fight. When we're given an A3S or A4S with very tight DPS margins, that means utility with a DPS focus is important. When we're given an A8S with very tight eHP margins, that means utility with a survivability focus is important. There is one constant here. It's not DPS. It's a focus on clearing content.

How good PLD is will always be balanced on the back of content design. For the most part, the DPS checks in Midas are pretty tame and do not require a DRK comp by any measure. For three straight major patches now, we've seen PLD completely demolish DRK in terms of their usefulness in EX trials.

Divine Veil getting reduced from a 150s CD to a 120s CD is a huge deal -- especially when paired with the changes to STR and VIT. That's 20% higher up-time on a ~3k raid-wide shield. For many fights, it results in an additional activation and AoE coverage you otherwise wouldn't have had. Shield / Sword Oath no longer breaking your combo does change the way you play because it gives flexibility to a job that was notoriously inflexible before. These days, I actually feel more restricted playing WAR due to stack manipulation and debuff up-time issues than I do playing PLD. That was not the case in Gordias.

PLD was largely fine in 2.X. Again, you can complain about design but that's a separate issue from balance. PLD was the highest single target DPS MT and OT and had some very substantial advantages over WAR. Block with an i135 shield was much stronger than it currently is and it worked on meaningful attacks like Critical Rip, Revelation, Flatten, etc. Shield Swipe was at worst DPS neutral and actually worked for TP conservation. RoH was their only combo so threat never was an issue.

Most of PLD's most glaring practical issues didn't even emerge until the dust settled in 3.0. By that standard, it took SE the exact same amount of time to adjust both DRK and PLD. And, if you consider DRK's adjustments meaningful and PLD's not, that's just blind bias.

And level of commitment to DRK and WAR? What commitment? They hit a redesign home-run with WAR and have just stayed the course since. If you think PLD in its current state is as bad as WAR was before their redesign, again, that's just blind bias. DRK? Since 3.0, PLD has gotten more buffs than DRK and 3 very favorable EX trials in a row. I'd say it's pretty blatantly clear SE is more committed to helping PLD.

[Februs]

Divine Veil getting reduced from a 150s CD to a 120s CD is a huge deal -- especially when paired with the changes to STR and VIT.

That was not a Pld specific change, so it hardly can be considered to be part of their "major adjustment." That would be no different than saying that Whm's got more utility out of casting Stoneskin on a Tank because the changes to Vit/Str. Yes they did, but no one's calling that a "major adjustment," nor does it actually do anything to change the utility of the move. The fact is that DV (and Stoneskin) are still being used the exact same way they were before, just with the added convenience of self-activation and a slightly higher shield. It's still being used in the same instances at the exact same, scripted, times as it was before.

Oath Swapping, as well, is simply more convenient. Before the change, good Pld's were prepping their swaps in time with Fight or Flight in order to get maximum potency. That hasn't changed. The only difference is that, as you said, we have a bit more flexibility in when the oath is swapped, and I do mean a bit, because it can only be delayed by a maximum of 2 GCD's before the first combo is lost and the total buffed potency is reduced. The thing is, assuming the Pld does their swap correctly and completes their full Fight or Flight rotation, then the total buffed potency is identical to what it was when a Pld did it correctly the old way. Nothing really changed, assuming you were doing it right before the "major adjustments" took place. Is it more convenient? Most definitely, but that's all it is. If you want to call that a "major adjustment," then that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but I don't see it that way. The fact that the actual utility of the move remains the same, and absolutely nothing about the way the job is played or utilized has changed, means that I don't consider any of those adjustments to be "major."

Regardless, I wasn't talking about any of those things in the first place. I was talking about Tp conservation, which has been a problem for Pld's since before 3.0. I never said that Pld didn't function in the 2.x content. I also didn't say anything about tank balancing in that content, either. That's a whole other can of worms that I'm not gonna get into. What I did say was that Pld's Tp was, and is, a problem, because it is unsustainable. In 2.5, and at maximum kit, a Pld could easily flat-line their Tp in any prolonged fight. That's not even contestable. The issue took a back seat for a bit when 3.0 was released because of new gear sets and leveling, but it reared it's ugly head again when Pld's reached cap. The Tp adjustments in 3.2 pushed it to the back seat once more, but, yet again, it's coming back as skill speeds start to increase. So, no. I do not consider SE to have taken a committed stance on fixing the problem, because they didn't fix it at all.

This also has nothing to do with bias. It's a documented fact. Pld had Tp issues as early as patch 2.5 (technically, before that, as Dreadwyrm gear became available in 2.4). SE did nothing, quite literally nothing, to fix those issues until patch 3.2. By comparison, Drk had Tp issues in 3.0. Blood Weapon was patched in 3.07. It only took them 2 months to respond to that problem. Whereas, it took them almost half a year to do the same for Pld. The same can be said for War. The fact that they actually did a redesign at all on War is pretty telling of their impressive commitment to that job, but it goes even further, because they did such a good job of it that they were able to build on it without causing any issues at all. In fact, all of the most recent War adjsutments have been nerfs because they did too good of a job ... Now compare that to Pld, who has had nothing but a series of patch jobs spanning all the way back to the 2.x in a poor attempt to throw band-aids over it's deficiencies. It's appropriate that you mention enmity as "never" being an issue, because most of the 2.x patches were actually enmity adjustments to various Pld moves. Seems to me like SE considered that an issue... Regardless, the only bias I see here is very clearly on SE's side of the table, only I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt and call it an oversight ...

[Brian_]

That was not a Pld specific change, so it hardly can be considered to be part of their "major adjustment." That would be no different than saying that Whm's got more utility out of casting Stoneskin on a Tank because the changes to Vit/Str. Yes they did, but no one's calling that a "major adjustment," nor does it actually do anything to change the utility of the move. The fact is that DV (and Stoneskin) are still being used the exact same way they were before, just with the added convenience of self-activation and a slightly higher shield. It's still being used in the same instances at the exact same, scripted, times as it was before.

You need to take a step back and check your bias, dude.

Stoneskin went from a 1700~1800 shield on only the tank to a 2900 shield on only the tank.

DV went from a 1700~shield on everyone but the tank to a 2900 shield on everyone but the tank.

And you imply that there is no difference? There is a huge difference because DV has a much bigger scaling impact than Stoneskin.

When you judge any skill, it is always a matter of context. When judging DV, you compare it to other unique raid mitigation you get from the tank slot -- namely Reprisal and Path. While Path is still king, by shaving 20% off the recast of DV while buffing the shield by a huge amount, you make it a much more competitive option against Reprisal's 10% reduction with 66% up-time. Now, because you can have a stronger DV reliably available for enough hard raid-wide hits, the persistent effect of Reprisal isn't miles ahead anymore. This is especially meaningful in long fights with periodic hard hitting raid-wide damage like A7S and A8S that require precision and controlled responses.

Oath Swapping, as well, is simply more convenient. Before the change, good Pld's were prepping their swaps in time with Fight or Flight in order to get maximum potency. That hasn't changed. The only difference is that, as you said, we have a bit more flexibility in when the oath is swapped, and I do mean a bit, because it can only be delayed by a maximum of 2 GCD's before the first combo is lost and the total buffed potency is reduced. The thing is, assuming the Pld does their swap correctly and completes their full Fight or Flight rotation, then the total buffed potency is identical to what it was when a Pld did it correctly the old way. Nothing really changed, assuming you were doing it right before the "major adjustments" took place. Is it more convenient? Most definitely, but that's all it is. If you want to call that a "major adjustment," then that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, but I don't see it that way. The fact that the actual utility of the move remains the same, and absolutely nothing about the way the job is played or utilized has changed, means that I don't consider any of those adjustments to be "major."

What has changed is that before, you were severely punished for small errors in planning and judgement. At times in content with RNG elements that throw off your GCD alignment, you are relying on intuition, feel and sometimes timeline to time your stance swaps. If you flubbed it, the consequences were bad. As such, you always needed to see the game a few GCDs ahead of where you were. The same situation exists with WARs and IB or 3FC Berserk windows but they had more leeway due to being able to adjust their stack alignment with RI, Vengeance, Infuriate, and Fracture. Now that swapping Oaths no longer breaks combos, you can get away with playing much more reactionary and in the moment rather than being very proactive about your swap timings. So yes, the way you play PLD has changed. The fact that you can't see it means you probably never really pushed PLD to that brink. Playing PLD before and after the changes, it feels like a huge weight has been lifted off my shoulders.

Regardless, I wasn't talking about any of those things in the first place. I was talking about Tp conservation, which has been a problem for Pld's since before 3.0. I never said that Pld didn't function in the 2.x content. I also didn't say anything about tank balancing in that content, either.

Your words:

It only took one patch cycle for them to decide on meaningful adjustments for Drk (the same can be said for War back in 2.1). Yet, Pld has gone from 2.0 all the way up to 3.3, and hardly any of it's longstanding problems have been addressed. That's pretty pathetic and inexcusable, in my opinion.

My words:

PLD was largely fine in 2.X. Again, you can complain about design but that's a separate issue from balance. PLD was the highest single target DPS MT and OT and had some very substantial advantages over WAR. Block with an i135 shield was much stronger than it currently is and it worked on meaningful attacks like Critical Rip, Revelation, Flatten, etc. Shield Swipe was at worst DPS neutral and actually worked for TP conservation. RoH was their only combo so threat never was an issue.

Most of PLD's most glaring practical issues didn't even emerge until the dust settled in 3.0. By that standard, it took SE the exact same amount of time to adjust both DRK and PLD. And, if you consider DRK's adjustments meaningful and PLD's not, that's just blind bias.

Conclusion: Stop being blind and forgetting what you've written.

This also has nothing to do with bias. It's a documented fact. Pld had Tp issues as early as patch 2.5 (technically, before that, as Dreadwyrm gear became available in 2.4). SE did nothing, quite literally nothing, to fix those issues until patch 3.2. By comparison, Drk had Tp issues in 3.0. Blood Weapon was patched in 3.07. It only took them 2 months to respond to that problem. Whereas, it took them almost half a year to do the same for Pld. The same can be said for War. The fact that they actually did a redesign at all on War is pretty telling of their impressive commitment to that job, but it goes even further, because they did such a good job of it that they were able to build on it without causing any issues at all. In fact, all of the most recent War adjsutments have been nerfs because they did too good of a job ... Now compare that to Pld, who has had nothing but a series of patch jobs spanning all the way back to the 2.x in a poor attempt to throw band-aids over it's deficiencies. It's appropriate that you mention enmity as "never" being an issue, because most of the 2.x patches were actually enmity adjustments to various Pld moves. Seems to me like SE considered that an issue... Regardless, the only bias I see here is very clearly on SE's side of the table, only I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt and call it an oversight ...

They had to redesign WAR because they were unplayable in the content.

In the meanwhile, PLD was the strongest tank of 2.X.

So, why are you expecting an equal response to two jobs on different ends of the balance spectrum? One needed help and required a committed fix. Desperately. The other made it through 2.X with flying colors. If PLD reaches the point that WAR was at before their redesign and SE does nothing, then you'd have a real argument showing SE's clear neglect. PLD is no where near that level.

Even when you shift the focus to 3.X and SE's quicker response to DRK's TP issues, that's because DRK's TP issues were much worse. And, you also act like 3.07 vs. 3.1 (where PLD got swipe changed and TP reductions to GB and shield bash and DRK got nothing) shows some blatant skew in favor of DRK. When I had to switch jobs to WAR as a career PLD for Gordias Savage I was mad. I also called out SE for their complete lack of action from 3.0 to 3.1 when the issues were very clear. But, with the actions they've taken since, to still think that they aren't trying would be delusional.

Also, enmity was never an issue to PLDs that knew what they were doing and were appropriately geared. The changes to enmity were largely to make tanking easier and enmity a complete afterthought.

[Februs]

...

Seriously ... Do you even remember where this conversation started? Let me refresh your memory. I'll even use your formatting.

My words, which were to a completely different person and were on topic of Tp consumption and Skill Speed:

Tp consumption practically cripples the job and has been a festering nightmare for a very long time now (on top of Pld's numerous other deficiencies) … The fact that they called those changes "major adjustments" was a pretty big kick in the nuts to that job. It would have been funny, if it wasn't so pathetic and sad.

Your words, which were completely unrelated to issue I specified:

They were major adjustments, though. If you think closing the gap with DRK to within ~100 DPS (<10% at current DPS levels), buffing their utility quite a bit, and making some much needed QoL changes didn't have a major impact on PLD's end-game viability, then I don't know what to say.

I disagreed with you, which was my mistake because I'm guessing you found that offensive to your ego or something ... Regardless, I tried to get back on topic with this one:

Regardless, what I was calling "pathetic and sad" was the way in which SE handled Pld's Tp consumption. There's no way in hell this can be considered a "major adjustment."

Which was followed by you staying as far from that topic as possible …Which you’re still doing.

I could go through all of your ranting and nit-pick it apart, but, quite frankly, I just don’t care. I’m already guilty by getting drawn this far track in the first place, despite my attempts to stay on point, so going any further would be a waste of time. If you want to keep playing the big white knight in defense of SE and arguing that their adjustments were some kind of revolution to Pld game play, then feel free. The world looks a lot better through rose coloured glasses, so who am I try and take them off of you? Just don’t expect me to wear them too, because you have yet to say anything which would convince me that the Pld adjustments were as utterly astounding as you're so desperately trying to make them out to be. As far as I’m concerned, as good as the Pld adjustments were (and they were good. I’m not contested that), they were lack luster, and they could, and should, have been much better. Saying that War and Drk had it worse (which Drk’s didn’t, by the way), is a pretty weak excuse for not making adequate changes, in my opinion. Just because one job had it worse in the past does not mean that the problems another job has right now should go ignored and be allowed to fester. That’s a pretty unprofessional and irresponsible attitude to take towards the subject, but, again, that’s just my personal opinion. You don’t have to like it. Feel free to disagree. Rage away at the internet, or whatever makes you feel better, but I'm done with it.