This has been around since ARR. In fact, back then, people were using an Unchained opener even as OT to gain access to a crit bonus from Defiance without the damage penalty as well as to gain the damage boost from IB on their first Berserk window. It was your responsibility to stay behind the MT in enmity if you did this, however.
It probably was far less optimal than having the WAR actually open as MT and swap later on, especially on fights which were clearly designed for this (T12 springs to mind with it's Vengeance IB opener), but hey, everyone was just starting to learn the game back then. Some ignorance and prejudice is natural.
3 years and one expansion later is a long time for a "mistake" to go unnoticed, though.
RI is actually extremely powerful. Every parry proc is 20% mitigation. RI lasts for 20 seconds and has a 90 second recast. As long as you're uncrittable (Awareness), this is a physical version of Rampart. As an example, if you use RI and Vengeance correctly, you do not need Defiance or IB for the entirity of A11S.
There's really no question of "I might need this later." The fights are scripted. Either you need it later, or you don't. If you do, you design your offensive rotation around that, so that you gain the stack at a useful moment. If you don't, you don't.
There was an interview in May 2015 in which the devs explained that "the minimum ilvl for a fight is calculated from the basic dps of the four dps and two tanks and cut by 15%." This was the case in coil, and was also the case going into HW. Also, note that a lot of early progression groups challenge content at below the minimum ilvl. So healer dps plays a role as well. Also, every group is slightly different. If your MT is a bit of a slouch, perhaps having a really skilled SCH can compensate. Of course, in the best groups, every member actually carries their own weight. Sickness must be purged and all that.
Sure. Some people wanted to see it equipped with a Botanist's sidearm as well. You can't cater to everyone. I don't blame anyone who is disappointed by their own expectations, but I do wish that they would move forward past the issue, two years down the line.
Hey, hey, hey, now. Don't misquote Alamo. I'm pretty sure that when he grandly announced "sum durids is bare," he included a picture of an armoured vehicle with a giant cannon, not some scaredy-cat cowering behind their shield. Don't underestimate how storng we can b [sic].
I think that this particular point is very similar to the cleric stance debate, and why it never gets resolved: you have two sides arguing completely different points, without any clash. I don't personally mind if you want to tank with a single combo RoH rotation in Shield Oath. You can play however you want, and that is your right. What you're not going to do is convince the player base that you're somehow playing at the same skill level as a player who does everything that you're doing performance-wise, while maximising their dps. You have the right to play how you want, but other players have the right to decide whether they want you on their team. Reciprocity.
I'm a bit baffled with this part. If damage output is irrelevant to a tank, then why are you using RA or GB? RoH maximises enmity and mitigation. You're actually losing enmity and mitigation by using these other combos.



Reply With Quote

