Trying to understand the complaints about DRK

[whiskeybravo]

The 4.2 change, I can only assume it went through because the gap between cieling and floor was too large.

Nah, it was all Xeno complaining about crit RNG on Fell Cleaves being too determinant on parses. I'm not sure that many people thought it was a big deal, since getting the highest parses on any job has always been reliant on good crit/DH rates.

[shao32]

No, the only real complaint was the stance dance penalty. After that was removed, everything was fine with the job. As to why SiO was changed into a raid wide shield, I have no clue. No one really asked for it. People just wanted usable effect for SiO. The 4.2 change, I can only assume it went through because the gap between cieling and floor was too large. But again, no one asked for it. Post deltascape savage release, no one said WAR was bad.

after the first fix WARs still complaying about Sio and lack of any raid utility, SE merge both "problems" and make new Sio by the face and after that some WARs complaing about the dps they get from the burst window was so dependent of crit (like every job but looks it was a huge drama dont crit a fell cleave) and overexagerated things, Xenosys Vex did a interview complaing about this "i have 8 rotations for inner release windows" "you want to unistall the game every time a fell cleave dont crit" ect, ect... and of course all the sheeps go behing this and a few months later SE rework the entire burst window so no WAR will never have feelings of unistall the game every time a fell cleave dont crit on inner release, and the most hilarious thing is after all of this SE take questions from the playerbase of course we vote one for DRK asking for help and let then know we exist and you know what questtion was taken?

"While there were adjustments for all three tank jobs we still think that paladin is the most efficient of the three. Will there be increases to warrior and dark knight’s support abilities and DPS?" asking for more WAR buffs.

[Mahrze]

No, the only real complaint was the stance dance penalty. After that was removed, everything was fine with the job. As to why SiO was changed into a raid wide shield, I have no clue. No one really asked for it. People just wanted usable effect for SiO. The 4.2 change, I can only assume it went through because the gap between cieling and floor was too large. But again, no one asked for it. Post deltascape savage release, no one said WAR was bad.

Come on now, Boris. The stance dance penalty was a "boo hoo" moment because "MUH DEEPS" and "MUH MITIGATION/UTILITY" came to be addressed cuz how SiO 1.0 sucked. Then another portion of the WAR player base still cried "MUH GAMEPLAY" because for the "perfect deeps" there was too much RNG involved so they made the new IB gauge irrelevant (to a degree) with zero RNG as a bonus.

And there are people that still complain (after all the previous buffs) how the burst for WAR is every other TA. that would fall in the "for the sake of it".

[whiskeybravo]

And there are people that still complain (after all the previous buffs) how the burst for WAR is every other TA. that would fall in the "for the sake of it".

Bruh. It's even worse for Hypercharge.

[Hierro]

Come on now, Boris.

Don't "Boris" me, Martha.

As whiskeybravo said,

I'm not sure that many people thought it was a big deal

The RNG complaints were fringe opinions.

If you read through threads on the subject from the time, you will see the above sentiments come up quite frequently.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...eedback-Thread

Look through that thread. Look at that, it's only 9 pages. Only so few opinions on how "bad" WAR was. Scan even more, only a handful of a post call for a specific DV clone to replace 1.0 SiO. Again, if you look through, you will see most just wanted an effect that could be used in savage.

So, no. Most WAR mains were happy with their job after the big issue of stance dance penalty was addressed. What you're trying to do, Martha, is grasp at straws by using these fringe opinions. You look hard enough, people are going to complain about any old class. Look, we've got a complaint thread that's active at this very moment about PLD, the undisputed golden child of SB. Should we buff PLD because of it? Does it mean it's not okay? Should PLD be buffed? I thought so.

[TouchandFeel]

snip

I just linked one of the threads that I had on hand. If you look through the other WAR 4.0 threads from the time SiO comes up a lot as a regular complaint. I remember the complaints, I read them at the time, I even engaged in the discussions.

Here's another thread where SiO comes up.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ighlight=Shake

Again, this is just one example of where you can find such sentiment in the forums at the time. Such WAR complaints were spattered throughout many of the tank threads at the time. I don't see how you can declare such things as being "fringe" when the whole "WAR needs utility" argument was popular enough to be in a question in one of the live letters.

Sure many people just gave a generic "SiO is useless, I want it changed" response, but that doesn't provide much as to what to change it to, just that it should be changed. If you combine the sentiment that SiO should be changed with the other popular sentiment from the time of giving WAR party/raid utility and the fact that making SiO into raid utility was one of the most common suggestions for what SiO should be changed to, the correlation between what people were asking for and the changes to SiO the dev team implemented is clear.

You made the argument that "nobody was asking for the SiO changes" and that "the only real complaint was the stance dance issue". Knowing that to not be the case, I presented evidence to the contrary. Then you come back with name-calling and using conjecture to declare any opposition to your viewpoint as conjecture. If you want to engage in proper debate where actual evidence is provided, great. If you want to just come off as belligerent and dismissive while resorting to childish name-calling, your position will only come off as weak and not worth my time to engage with.

P.S. "Martha" as an insult is pretty ineffective, especially when many of the usages of Martha as a slang term is actually positive ( https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=martha ). Now if your intent was for it to be derogatory because it's a female name, well I shouldn't even have to point out the obvious problem with that.

Edit:

Here's another thread where a number of well known and often outspoken WAR mains bring up WAR utility.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-Warrior-in-SB
Here is a direct quote from a WAR main from pg.6 of that thread.

100% agree. I don't know why they didn't make the PvP action Thrill of War into a raid cooldown for WAR. I also once suggested a skill called Intimidation that reduced damage dealt by the mob for 10s. Either or would have worked, IMO.

Not enough yet? Okay.
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ior-complaints
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...read-episode-2
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...r-Shake-it-off
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ix-for-warrior
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...-potential-fix
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...eedback-Thread
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...eedback-Thread

As a bonus, another quote from a WAR main from pg.8 of the last thread linked above.

8.) That said... we completely lack utility/mitigation that isn't just on us. This is largely a problem because PLD has a ton of it and if you stack double PLDs you're never in a situation where one can't support the other, whereas if WAR is OTing at any point then he literally can't do anything to help the MT outside of Reprisal (which PLD/PLD would also have). Even DRK has BN which, though isn't as amazing as PLD's stuff, is at least something. I'd really like it if Shake It Off was changed into some sort of utility skill, we don't need as much as PLD just something to offer the party.

There are more references I could dig up but hopefully that should suffice.

[Hierro]

There are more references I could dig up but hopefully that should suffice.

And why should the opinions of those so-called "WAR mains" matter to me? Neither seem to raid and one of the quotes was even made before the guy was lvl 70. In fact, Duelle has been quoted to say in one of those threads that Upheaval isn't even strong! How laughable is that? Again, most of these threads are small in page number. The only one with a significant page count was the one that addresses the stance dance penalty. THIS thread alone surpasses many of the silly threads you linked, combined. It goes to show how few people thought about WAR as being in dire need of a DV clone.

Here's a quote from a WAR main with more authority.

WAR mains never really complained nearly as much as most DRK mains do despite DRK being present in 75% of WF clears at the exclusion of WAR.

[Kabooa]

Well yeah.

That's because Warrior fixes tend to happen in a span of weeks and not months.

[WhyAmIHere]

And why should the opinions of those so-called "WAR mains" matter to me? Neither seem to raid and one of the quotes was even made before the guy was lvl 70. In fact, Duelle has been quoted to say in one of those threads that Upheaval isn't even strong! How laughable is that? Again, most of these threads are small in page number. The only one with a significant page count was the one that addresses the stance dance penalty. THIS thread alone surpasses many of the silly threads you linked, combined. It goes to show how few people thought about WAR as being in dire need of a DV clone.

Here's a quote from a WAR main with more authority.

>more authority
The only authority I'd attribute to you'd be the forum contrarian, really. And for the love of [thing], stop using WF races as a metric to determine class viability. ANY class can clear ANY content, that's what this game is sold on. WF clears shouldn't be used to determine a classes viability, otherwise any class that can't get a WF clear is very obviously not good enough and needs more buffs. >_> At those levels, it's the player behind the avatar, not the job, that's going to matter.
If you wanna use clears to determine a classes usability and acceptance, what should be looked at is the % of all clears that contain what class, and as has been seen on fflogs (already a small sampling to begin with of the playerbase) there just aren't as many DRK's clearing compared to WAR/PLD.

The OF is already filled with a small % of people who play the game, of which how small a % can even say to take part in end-game content? Trying to form an argument from a percent of a percent of the total playerbase is going to be flawed. Enough WAR *players must've made an impact, throughout NA, JP, and EU, *across all different avenues (be it in-game, here, reddit, other fan forums, etc etc), to have warranted such a rapid response from the dev team, and I'm basing that entirely on how long it took from 4.0's launch to see any class specific adjustments to be made to WAR, compared to the time it took to make adjustments to DRK. (this doesn't include the generic "increased enmity gain" that all tanks received, as all tanks got that)

[Hierro]

The only authority I'd attribute to you'd be the forum contrarian, really.

If calling me contrarian instead of addressing or even seeing the reason behind my arguments helps you sleep at night, more power to you.Percentage of clears is a lame argument, because it's really a symptom of what class stigma has done. Uneducated fear mongering and unwarranted whining is why clear percentages are low.

It's flawed to say the devs "must've" looked at every single avenue to collect opinions on WAR to warrant a rapid response. Again, the amount of complaints never reached DRK levels. Were that the case, the devs would have turned DRK into jesus at this point. Thankfully, their view seems to be more in line with mine. I guess SE is filled with contrarians too.