PLD and sks

[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 ...

[Donjo]

...

All of those Paladin adjustments, if each is taken alone, can certainly seem like they weren't major. However, the 3.2 Paladin adjustments were granted to us in a lump sum. You put all that together and it's a major improvement to both performance and playability. If you want to believe a patch that made enmity trivial, allowed Clemency to properly be an emergency heal, made Divine Veil PUG-proof, notably increased DPS, prevented unnecessary time in an unwanted stance while preparing to switch, and made TP pools last long enough to not bottom out in the vast majority of fights while minimizing the consequences of actually running out, all at once, isn't major... you're certainly free to. You'll still be wrong.

[Februs]

...

I don't see it that way. Enmity was already trivial, even before this patch. Clemency got a little more flexible, but it is still best (if not only) used in very scripted instances, especially in the MT position where it could still be interrupted.The dps increase was a joke. Calling it "notable" is a laughable overstatement, because it only totals 40 potency, and Shield Oath was only reduced by 5%. No one really cared about the Shield Oath reduction, either, because Pld's were already (and are still currently) dropping Shield Oath for Sword Oath the second they get a lead on enmity. The overall reduction to Dps checks post 3.2 had a much bigger effect on dps viability than Pld's changes did, and that was not a Pld specific change. Making DV "PUG-proof" is probably the only thing I'd say even comes close to a "major" change, because it actually changed the way we use the move in an average dungeon run, even if it does cost us personal Dps with each Clemency cast.

Regardless, in the end this boils down to a difference of opinion. If we're looking at the sheer number of adjustments made, then sure. I suppose you could call it "major." I'm not saying that the number of adjustments weren't impressive (though we have seen bigger adjustments made to other jobs in the past). The fact that we got them all at once and that they actually fixed a few glaring errors was great, but each individual adjustment didn't actually do much to change anything. They just fixed a few QoL issues that really shouldn't have been issues in the first place, especially if SE had been as dedicated to Pld from the start. So, if we're looking at the quality of the adjustments made, then no. It's completely fair to say that there's nothing major about them, and that they could have been much better. Again, that's not to say that they're not decent changes and weren't a welcomed sight, but no one is re-evaluating the way the play and/or use Pld in content post 3.2. The job still handles almost exactly the same way it did before, and it still suffers from some of the problems it had. If you want to call that "major," then you're certainly free to, but from where I'm sitting that makes you just as wrong as I am.

[Donjo]

...

God, damn, just how blind are you!?. Only 40 potency? What!? It's a 110 potency increase! I don't even need to comment on anything else. No wonder you don't believe that Paladin plays a lot better post 3.2... you haven't used it.

[Shurrikhan]

God, damn, just how blind are you!?. Only 40 potency? What!? It's a 110 potency increase! I don't even need to comment on anything else. No wonder you don't believe that Paladin plays a lot better post 3.2... you haven't used it.

+10 RA potency (used 33 to 66% of time), +100 GB potency (used 33% of time). Assuming tri-combo, that would be +0, +10, +100, or averaging out to a 36.7 potency increase per combo. With RA-RA-GB, that'd be +10, +10, +100, averaging to +40 potency per combo. Not hard to see what he meant.

Given that we only dealt ~2300 weaponskill potency per 3 combos before (RA-RA-GB), I'd call the additional 120 sizeable. It's over 5%, after all, to be taken quite often atop the 6.67% increase to Shield Oath dps. That's pretty great.

However, I have to agree that it didn't change a damn thing except to (1) make GB your slightly increased potency spam attack during excessive enmity while leveling, to (2) make GB per 4 combos for high-SS PLDs even less viable by increasing the GB-RA potency gap by an additional 40% (1020 to 700 from 920 to 690), and (3) to increase juicy cleave DPS... which DRK still blows us away in (at 575 potency per [Darksided] Scourge, with no time wasted in combos). The second reduced options, the third increased capacity, but only the first actually affected gameplay, and not by much.

[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.

[Donjo]

+10 RA potency (used 33 to 66% of time), +100 GB potency (used 33% of time). Assuming tri-combo, that would be +0, +10, +100, or averaging out to a 36.7 potency increase per combo. With RA-RA-GB, that'd be +10, +10, +100, averaging to +40 potency per combo. Not hard to see what he meant.

Given that we only dealt ~2300 weaponskill potency per 3 combos before (RA-RA-GB), I'd call the additional 120 sizeable. It's over 5%, after all, to be taken quite often atop the 6.67% increase to Shield Oath dps. That's pretty great.

However, I have to agree that it didn't change a damn thing except to (1) make GB your slightly increased potency spam attack during excessive enmity while leveling, to (2) make GB per 4 combos for high-SS PLDs even less viable by increasing the GB-RA potency gap by an additional 40% (1020 to 700 from 920 to 690), and (3) to increase juicy cleave DPS... which DRK still blows us away in (at 575 potency per [Darksided] Scourge, with no time wasted in combos). The second reduced options, the third increased capacity, but only the first actually affected gameplay, and not by much.

Uh, it's completely unreasonable to just drop the number 40 down and expect everyone who reads it to start doing average combo potency calculations, especially when there's another method one can use to reach +40: +10 to RA, +20 to GB's initial hit, and +10 to GB's DoT potency. Now that you've posted this interpretation Februs would almost certainly claim he meant what you said if pressed, but I'll bet gil that it's just coincidence.

Related to your numbers I would wonder about something else, though. What were the ramifications of PLD receiving the largest buff to enmity between the tanks in 3.2? They have to use Shield Oath less, they don't lose as much during the time they do spend in Shield Oath, and they can get away with fewer Halones even without a Ninja. MT damage has risen more than a few potency buffs would suggest. I wonder how much it has risen in comparison to OT Damage.

Also, I do have to say... SE enabling Paladins to use Halone even less kind of puts a damper on the whole "oh hey PLD finally has 3 combos" thing.

----------

And... Paladin TP consumption? There's probably a reason that people aren't bothering to argue the point that "Tp consumption practically cripples the job and has been a festering nightmare for a very long time now". Because... it's really quite wrong. Sure, it crippled the job at one point. Now? I haven't run out of TP as a Paladin since 3.2 dropped. I don't even look at that bar anymore. Paladin may still have the worst TP preservation among the Tanks, but that only hurts if you have uninterrupted uptime long enough to actually bottom out. Even then, it's only a true problem if you're the only person bottoming out at the time in a party without a Ninja. It's hardly "crippling" at the moment.

[Sarcatica]

And... Paladin TP consumption? There's probably a reason that people aren't bothering to argue the point that "Tp consumption practically cripples the job and has been a festering nightmare for a very long time now". Because... it's really quite wrong. Sure, it crippled the job at one point. Now? I haven't run out of TP as a Paladin since 3.2 dropped. I don't even look at that bar anymore. Paladin may still have the worst TP preservation among the Tanks, but that only hurts if you have uninterrupted uptime long enough to actually bottom out. Even then, it's only a true problem if you're the only person bottoming out at the time in a party without a Ninja. It's hardly "crippling" at the moment.

It's only in A7S. Ask for a Goad for that one.