war nerfs(srs bznz pls)

[Brian_]

WARs are claiming that using Inner Beast instead of Fell Cleave is a "waste", not me

Just to be clear, I never claimed it was a waste. I claimed that as a WAR, you feel really bad needing to use IB because of how big of a DPS hit it is. And, in relation to FC, that it is a trade off.

So, as you've detailed, you are indeed losing something when you FC. Yes, you gain something, too. But that is literally the definition of a trade-off.

Shouldn't you advocate being in SwOath until right before the tankbuster to maximize DPS ?

Obviously. I don't think you really need ShO to survive anything anymore but my point was more that you frequently don't need to expend the GCD switching back to SwO or to SwO initially.

When you IB instead of FC, this is what you give up --

630 potency with at 10% crit boost. I think the current crit multiplier for BiS gear is around 170%. I think on average, that works out to around 674 potency.

So you lose 314 potential potency on average each time you IB. After that, you are stuck in Defiance for another 4 GCDs. Assuming the best case scenario where those 4 GCDs are HS, Maim, Path, and HS, it breaks down like this: 135+171+225+135. If you were in Deliverance, those potencies would be 189+239.4+315+189 with a small amount of average potency added based on crit. That totals out to another 266.4+ lost potency.

As for PLD, whether or not the potency loss is worse depends entirely on what GCD is being pushed out of the phase/fight. Just to do the hypothetical math -- assuming you swap to ShO after refreshing GB, lose an FB and SB at the end of the fight due to Oaths consuming 2 GCDs, have a 2.24s delay weapon, and spend 2 GCDs in ShO to weather the tank buster, you lose ~150 potency from lost SwO bonuses (potentially only 100), 150 + 200 potency from the lost FB and SB, and 22.5+30 from the ShO damage penalty on your FB and SB while in ShO. That totals to 552.5 lost potency + some potency lost from GB clipping. If you are getting anything else but FB and SB pushed out of the phase/fight then the loss is larger.

If its just a one way swap to ShO / Defiance, the PLD loses less potency because their subsequent potency loss is lighter.

Assuming an Eye > BB rotation, WAR's ppGCD in Deliverance is ~344+ including Maim and FC but not including the Deliverance crit bonus. Their ppGCD in Defiance is ~234 including Maim and IB. PLD's ppGCD in SwO is around ~320 not including the things I specified earlier. PLD's ppGCD in ShO is around ~229.

But this is actually not really relevant. My point was that WAR has to trade DPS for mitigation. I think the numbers clearly prove that. I never argued it was more or less than PLD.

[Reynhart]

I claimed that as a WAR, you feel really bad needing to use IB because of how big of a DPS hit it is.

Do WAR really feel bad because they survived a big hit ? Maybe my tank pride is just misplaced...

My point was that WAR has to trade DPS for mitigation.

We still don't have the same view of what a "trade-off" is. WAR can do either of those, it just can't do them at the same time.

For example, in 2.x, BRD's lesser DPS what a trade-off for its mobility. It has no way of bypassing that situation, it was carved in its design. PLD lower potency on skills was a trade-off for its shield, and it also couldn't do anything for it...

WAR has nothing like that. If the situation requires heavy mitigation, it can do it. If the situation requires high burst damage, it can also do it.
It can do very well as a MT, with the shortest CD on mitigation, and very well as an OT, by having great utility and keeping all of its skills relevant thanks to additionnal effects on mitigation CD.
And those effects are just arbitrary. Why would Raw Intuition and Vengeance give a stack ? Why is Berserk increasing AP instead of damage ?

[Sarcatica]

For example, in 2.x, BRD's lesser DPS what a trade-off for its mobility. It has no way of bypassing that situation, it was carved in its design.

It's funny because BRD dps 2.x was fine, people are just bad at it. Most BRDs back then couldn't even break that 400dps, which was still much lower then what it could do tbh.

You are free to search online what dps BRD was capable of.

[Reynhart]

You are free to search online what dps BRD was capable of.

They were capable of doing fine (Some of them even did 1000 DPS but not per second ), but less than BLM when mobility wasn't needed.

Which is why some BRD complained that mobility was overrated...and thus, Wanderer's Minuet.

[Brian_]

Even in dictionnaries, "trade-off" rarely describes a situation where you can go back and forth at will. In economics or computer science, it's usually a one time decision that drives your entire plan of action.

How much time does your MT spend in tank stance if you need "maximized mitigation" ?

Except you can't go back and forth at will. Once you spend those 5 stacks on either mitigation or DPS, that's it. You gain either mitigation or DPS and sacrifice the other. You don't get both, you never get those 5 stacks back, and you don't get another chance to make that decision before you wipe and reset. That is factually a trade-off.

And during early prog, even the best tanks spend a considerable amount of time in tank stance.

snip.

It's obviously not a detriment. But, people in this topic need to stop acting like WAR isn't a job of trade-offs. They also need to stop acting like PLD and DRK are completely outclassed by WAR when they aren't. The three tanks in current content are pretty evenly balanced. PLD and DRK are better in ways and WAR is better in ways. If you are a DRK or PLD at this point who feels threatened by WARs in any way, it's not a problem with the job, it's a problem with you. The primary issue is that due to PLD and DRK's design overlap and lack of synergy, their pairing is not ideal for early progression.

And Yoshida was very specific in his answer. He pointed out WAR and SCH's utility in his analysis of why they're strong. That has nothing to do with the large majority of garbage posting in this topic. So no, he doesn't share your view nor Reynharts. You two are talking about things completely unrelated to what Yoshida viewed as the issue with WAR. He didn't mention any of your projected BS about versatility, defensive CDs, or Reynhart's ranting about WAR's offensive / defensive synergy, or how Berserk boosts AP instead of damage.

All the smart posts in this topic have agreed that the problem is Eye and Path, WAR's utility, just like Yoshida pointed out. Those 2 skills are the primary reasons WAR is so strong. The issue just like Yoshida says is that there really isn't a simple solution.

They were capable of doing fine (Some of them even did 1000 DPS but not per second ), but less than BLM when mobility wasn't needed.

Which is why some BRD complained that mobility was overrated...and thus, Wanderer's Minuet.

They were doing more than just fine. For all the end-game content, their raid DPS contribution was significantly higher than BLM mobility or not while having invaluable utility at the same time. So much for your example of a trade-off.

[Lambdafish]

snip

Alright, I have read and thought very carefully about your view, and before I explain my thoughts I should say that I do very much enjoy WAR as a job, so my thoughts are less about destroying it as a job, and more fixing the overall tank balancing (which isn't as balanced as you pointed out, but I'll get into that).

Having thought about it, a lot of the issues that I have talked about that you have disagreed with are still problems, however they are problems that can be addressed on the PLD/DRK side. As I see it, a lot of my own arguments have already been fixed, and 3.0 WAR was too powerful and has since been nerfed (the numbers, not the design). I still have my gripes about things like stance dancing and magic/physical damage, but these are complaints about WAR where the fixes are applied to the other tanks while WAR stays as is, you are right that the real problem with WAR are the storms that make WAR invaluable to party damage.

The real problem is the OT portion of all the tanks, in that WAR has a very clear OT plan, while also being able to manage decently as an MT, wheras the other two tanks do not have an OT plan (which was my issue about you talking about trade offs as though WAR has it worse, however this is no longer relevant to my argument so I'd rather not not dwell on it), especially PLD, and parry procs make some of these two tanks lose DPS skills (shield swipe and reprisal). Let me reiterate that while this is not a WAR problem, it is still an underlying problem of the overall tank meta, in which WAR is king.

The current meta looks like this, and it is a big reason why people (including myself regrettably) try to tear down WAR:

DRK - WAR
PLD - WAR

What we should see in the future is this, with all tanks having a strong strategy for MT and OT roles that are diverse but ultimately equal, which is where the problems with WAR being too good comes from, because as of right now it is the only tank able to do both effectively, and by changing that, you create this trinity:

''''''WAR
'''''/''''''''\'''''
DRK -- PLD

So I think rather than giving WAR nerfs (though it should still get some to combat DRK and PLD being forced into certain damage archetypes while WAR isn't, as well as some changes to the storms), SE needs to rebuild DRK and PLD to be diverse and just as effective at OTing as WAR is, with damage numbers being closer. This suggestion does come with its own problems, such as power creep against DPS, but that can be scaled back globally (as it was before), and all of the tanks should be equal by that point anyway.

[Ryahask]

I noticed after reading through a handful of pages (I know, I'm horrible for not reading through 22 pages at once) is that people want to close the gap between PLD/DRK and WAR.

What should be demanded in tank balance isn't to close gaps in function and make the tanks more similar, but to further diversify them. The main reason WAR is in such high-demand as an OT is that all 3 tanks perform their roles too similarly. WAR is the most distinct of the three, and in that distinction it has found specific desirability, it's not objectively the strongest apart from in specific fights (Just as PLD/DRK have the opportunity to shine in certain fights).

If Warrior's utility/damage is cut down in order to be in line with DRK/PLD we'll have 3 all too similar tanks. Homogeneous design is atrocious for enjoyment and class distinction. As an example, many people have suggested the idea of PLD's providing a damage boost to their party. While I can understand the motivation; the reality is that if such a buff existed which brought total output in line with WAR then the two classes would be more similar for it and the spectrum of tank jobs blander.

This game already features an overwhelming amount of homogeneous design across all roles. Any discussion as to potential for Jobs moving forward should seek to eliminate it, not enhance it.

On-topic: I disagree with the claims being made that Warrior requires any nerfs. At one point, certainly, but that point has come and gone. Currently the primary problem with WAR is actually a problem with fight design. Fights heavily favor WAR as they typically focus on a single target where WAR can remain OT for the majority of the fight. If fights were more varied it would be easy to create opportunities for every tank to shine.

As an example if a fight increased the healing requirements substantially, especially during phases without the boss being target-able, then PLD would have greater value. Unfortunately DRK has no such opportunity due to unhealthy design and balance, being the bastard-child of the two existing tanks. DRK simply needs a lot of work in redefining it's function to be independent of WAR/PLD.

[P4X0R10N]

I thought they improved drk and play damage already? Still not close enough?