Gunbreaker gameplay hope and expectations

[Kalise]

More than "WAR is so Op" which there is literaly none on this threat

Hmm... Let me see...

The problem with WAR's "identity" is that it has too many areas in which it specialises in.

how really expect ppl SE make PLD,GUN and DRK more unique when WAR dominate every competent field in tanking on this game?

I'm extremely glad that you agree that some of these things should be universal. If so, you should agree that we need systemic nerfs to WAR for the greater good of this game, because mitigation, snap enmity generation, and dps are all areas in which WAR has historically dominated.

when you have a job that is omnipotent we have a problem, when you have a job that do everything that the others equally or much better then we have a problem, one thing is fullfill the basic requeriments of you role and other thing is just overexcel over the rest

its a form to speak that WAR excel on everything, i remember you WAR was and its still called in less degree the one man army.

we are claiming WAR is strong, all what they have is equally or better that the other 2 and have no weakness whatsoever

WAR has been the most powerfull tank of the game 6 years in a row, we can't complain about that?

is a problem that WAR has been overbuffed every patch since release

It just needs to have something that it's really good at. Right now, I can't actually see what that could be, because pretty much everything is "WAR's turf". Best mobility and knockback prevention? Onslaught. Most powerful snap enmity tools? Onslaught/Equilibrium/Unchained. Hardest hitting attack? Fell cleave. Most powerful burst window? IR. Most powerful AoE? Decimate. Most powerful lifesteal? Steel Cyclone. Most powerful invincibility cooldown? Holmgang. Most powerful tank raidwide defensive? Shake it Off.

Yes. Continual posts about how WAR "Dominates" at everything, how they've been "Nothing but overbuffed", how they need "Systematic Nerfs" is not just claiming that WAR is OP...

Now, before you argue that I'm taking these quotes out of context, please, enlighten me to the context that seems to be a theme across all of these posts. Please explain why would WAR need to be nerfed if it wasn't OP? Or do we start just nerfing everything that isn't OP these days? Nerf RDM because it's not as damaging as BLM! Nerf MCH because it's not as highly prioritized as BRD! Nerf WHM because it hasn't got the utility of SCH/AST! Yeah that makes sense.

[Kalise]

Gritless DA Bloodspiller is 540. It's only 650 in Grit, which in turn is only because it doesn't ignore Grit's penalty, and it comes out as lower than Gritless in the end.

So it's 648 potency. 624 in Grit.

Still higher than Fell Cleave.

And for obvious reasons, we don't compare DoTs to Fully upfront attacks. Because DoTs technically have more potency but can still deal less damage. And as a combo ability, Goring Blade isn't in a vacuum, it's potency per GCD, and as it requires two prior steps, that factors in as well.

Where was this all specified? It was merely mentioned that the "Hardest hitting attack" is Fell Cleave.

Fell Cleave you can even argue requires 6 GCD's to access, since outside of Inner Release or Infuriate, that's what it needs.

Goring Blade is merely your standard DPS combo, just replacing the 3rd hit with Goring Blade instead of Royal Authority.

Also, why not compare DoT's to fully upfront attacks? Is the DoT not doing that damage? Is the initial strike not doing the damage it says it is? Are DoT's dynamic now so changes in buffs now effect them after they're applied?

Fell Cleave outside IR is generally only done to avoid overcap, meaning the Warrior is at 9 or 10 'stacks' and has +9-10% average chance to crit. For a crit stacking warrior, this amounts to an average bonus of 5-6%.

Okay... But what if Dork Knight randomly rolled a DCH on Bloodspiller? What about all the Direct Hit that both DRK and PLD will stack that WAR does not because IR makes it less worthwhile to do that. How much "Average" is that going to add?

Or you can look at pure Potency. Then know, that if stats are equal and random effects are equal (Crit vs DH vs DCH vs normal hit) you'll know which one hits hardest.

To which, the answer is Goring Blade is the single most damaging skill any Tank has. Just, it's unlikely to ever reach maximum damage. Thus, it passes the flame over to Bloodspiller because Darkside is a ridiculous damage boost.

And again, Fell Cleave only seems more potent because of how reliable getting DCH's are with it due to the nature of Inner Release.

[Kabooa]

And again, Fell Cleave only seems more potent because of how reliable getting DCH's are with it due to the nature of Inner Release.

"Seems more potent" is a misleading term. It -is- more potent. Throw around potency all you want, but in the end, the damage done is what matters. And Fell Cleave far eclipses Bloodspiller and Goring Blade. The game's DPS race centers around tightly buffed windows of opportunity, and Fell Cleave capitalizes on that through IR greater than Bloodspiller and lulring Blade ever could.

Highest napkin math go to whoever you want it to, because napkin math supports whatever it wants to with whatever scenario you paint it to.

[shao32]

snip

BCS we din't say it was OP but his competence make it mandatory perhaps?, everything what they have is just equally or better that the other 2 have? WAR don't overkill the other 2 jobs to the level of being OP in a gaming sense but have in some kind of degree adventage on everything.

The same way ppl ask pearcing from dragoon being removed with will be a nerf on his raid impact or how SMN has to be nerf BCS they utility, movement and dps was superior to BLM, or how ppl ask SCH critlo being removed too BCS it's a clear adventage over the other 2.

WAR have more impact on the encounters that are you trying to deny constantly and that's what we are asking to be adjusted, it's like having a BLM with the mobility and utility of a RDM and say why should be nerfed instead of buff the rest to his levels provoking powercreep.

All jobs need to have equal impact on raids and WAR it's clearly superior it's just a fact.

[Kalise]

"Seems more potent" is a misleading term. It -is- more potent. Throw around potency all you want, but in the end, the damage done is what matters. And Fell Cleave far eclipses Bloodspiller and Goring Blade. The game's DPS race centers around tightly buffed windows of opportunity, and Fell Cleave capitalizes on that through IR greater than Bloodspiller and lulring Blade ever could.

Highest napkin math go to whoever you want it to, because napkin math supports whatever it wants to with whatever scenario you paint it to.

But the statement wasn't "Skill that deals the most damage" it was "Highest damage skill"

Whereby Fell Cleave takes the lead because it ends up being 40% of WAR's total damage output due to how pivotal IR is to their overall damage.

On the flip side, PLD and DRK aren't as singularly focused into one skill. PLD has their burst split between Requisicat and Fight or Flight. While DRK still has Bloodspiller take up a significant portion of their overall damage, but doesn't have a specific burst window where they get to spam it.

In a single cast, Bloodspiller and Goring Blade can deal more damage than Fell Cleave.

Therefore they are the highest damage skill (Among Tanks)

BCS we din't say it was OP but his competence make it mandatory perhaps?, everything what they have is just equally or better that the other 2 have? WAR don't overkill the other 2 jobs to the level of being OP in a gaming sense but have in some kind of degree adventage on everything.

All jobs need to have equal impact on raids and WAR it's clearly superior it's just a fact.

Either WAR isn't OP or they are "Equal or better" at everything than every other class in the role.

Pick one.

They are mutually exclusive options.

If a class is "Dominant" and "Equal or better" than any of its peers, then it suggests that it is overly powerful, or when abbreviated "OP".

If a class is NOT OP then it means they are either balanced with their peers, or are UP (Under powered) and thus weaker than their peers.

Thus, is WAR OP or not? If not, then it doesn't need any nerfs and it is balanced with PLD and DRK.

If it's a case of PLD or DRK needing a buff to some aspect, then it's a case that they're UP.

[Izsha]

The problem for the reasonable debate about nerfing war (not the exaggerated war hate for hates sake) is a difference of philosophy. Points that show up in virtually every war op post is the same.

1. war is better than all the other tanks at everything
2. due to that fact there is no 'space' for a new tank to have a 'niche'. (Ie war has best snap aggro so new tank has to do something else better than war thus power creep)

Therefore based on those two statements the only solution is to nerf war and anything else is just war apologetics.

What I feel that camp fails to see is that entire structure requires the acceptance of niche as a requirement. I (and other war 'apologists') simply reject your assumption that tanks need a niche as described in this thread.

Why does war need to trade something for snap aggro when we could just give pld, drk, and gun dps neutral snap aggro? Having only 1 tank that is capable of pulling sounds boring, limiting and not fun. No tanks 'niche' should be grabbing a monster because that is a fundamental tank function. Not a war function. Why in the world you would want to restrict snap aggro to a single tank is absurd to me. So dont. Support every tank being as good as war in snap. "But power creep!" Power creep is only relevant to damage and mitigation. Power creep aggro got thrown out when they added shirk.

Damage isn't a 'niche'. We all know by now that damage is all the playerbase cares about. The tank that does crap damage will be left out. So damage cannot be a 'niche' as that just defines the tank with damage as the best tank. Delete the idea of offense niche, defensive niche. It's a bad idea . All tanks should do very similar damage or we immediately disqualify any low dps 'defensive' niche as viable.

So with that in mind, we CANT have a damage 'niche'. I dont see any value in having a 'pulling niche' as that is a basic tank function. So what is left? The 'support niche'? Well if (as pointed out) all tanks have similar damage output and aggro, then what can a 'support' tank trade off for all these extra tools? You only need to see any HW thread on pld where it had caboodle of support but bad damage to know that won't work out. Either it is equivalent in damage and has support making it best tank, or its hw pld. No damage with sup, and therefore bad.

So exactly what is the point of having tank 'niches' when they fundamentally lead to imbalance? The fact that war is a generalist is something to push all tanks towards. Pld should absolutely be capable of generating snap aggro without scrapping on dps. It isnt. So instead of tearing war down to "make space" just give pld snap aggro.

Tanking is not a zero sum game. You do not need to "make space" and shove everyone into some tiny niche. You can just make all tanks have similar capabilities that just have their own flavor and style in how they get it done.

Damage: war can do 10k dps on average and stay bursty.. pld can do 10k dps using its holy magic and shield attacks. Drk can maintain 10k dps using its mp afterburner fuel. Gun can do 10k dps with (insert bullet mechanic).

Support. War can support its party via warcries and be equivalent to pld supporting its allies with protective abilities. Drk can have similar impact with it's own dark arts. Gun etc.

Pld can snap aggro without losing dps just like war does, but give it some holy knight twist. Same for drk. Etc. You get the idea.

Automagically you have tanks that are all very similar in capability, yet still unique and fun to play.

But you only see this narrow solution where tanking is a zero sum game. It isnt. That's not the only option to balance. Let jobs maintain their flavor and character with the way the accomplish a task. Not what tasks they can accomplish.

Understand that this viewpoint is not (as often characterized and summarily dismissed) 'war white knights/apologists/selfish/keep the drks down' attitude. It is a fundamental rejection of the core argument that jobs need weaknesses and niches to make imaginary design space. All tanks can just be good tanks with their own playstyles.

[TouchandFeel]

Fell Cleave under normal circumstances of usage outside of IR:
(520pot x 1.05 (Deliverance))x1.1(Storm's Eye) = 546 x 1.1 = 600.6 potency

A DHCrit Fell Cleave under IR, which is what most people look at when thinking of the power of Fell Cleave, is obviously much higher.

A standard non-Grit Blood Spiller:
400 pot x 1.2(Darkside) = 480 potency

A non-Grit Blood Spiller with DA:
540 pot x 1.2 = 648 potency

So if we look at just the regular potencies, excluding other variables such as the potential of a DH, Crit or DHCrit on a Blood Spiller, we see that the low-end potencies under standard usage for both has Fell Cleave about 120 potency higher.

Then if we look at the standard high-end, ignoring the same potential other variables as before, a DHCrit Fell Cleave absolutely trounces a DAed Blood Spiller.

Now we get into the hairier bit ...

A standard DAed Blood Spiller does a bit more potency than a standard Fell Cleave, 648 vs 600.6, but then there is the argument of equality of comparison between the two since Fell Cleave requires one resource to use while a DAed Blood Spiller requires two resources. Also is it equitable to include an additional job specific ability that alters the damage output on one job (DA) while ignoring the effect of such an ability (IR) on the other job.
The above also works when looking at the difference between a DH Fell Cleave vs. a DH DAed Blood Spiller, with the same question of equal comparison.
Then Crit and DHCrit BS vs FC are similar but have the added complication of WARs tending to stack Crit moreso than the other tanks and so that alters the comparison numbers since Crit affects not only chance but strength as well.

You then have to compare the frequency of standard vs DAed Blood Spillers DRK's do on average, how often the get DHs and Crits vs how often WARs usage of Fell Cleave is a DH, Crit or DHCrit, factoring in the automatic DHCrits that IR provides as well as the increased crit % provided by the gauge while in Defiance. Then on top of that there is the extra factor of stats, especially BiS.

There is the potential for variants of Blood Spiller to have a little more potency than variants of Fell Cleave, but again are they really equal comparisons or are they overly selective encapsulations that obfuscate from the bigger picture?

I think it is safe to say that overall in standard play scenarios Fell Cleave overall does a discernible amount more damage than Blood Spiller.

Seriously, let's not keep falling into "can't see the forest for the trees" pitfalls in these debates.

snip

While I might not agree with all of your opinions on this, I do agree that your opinion of "buff other tanks" vs. "nerf WAR" is a valid argument and one that I feel is perhaps a good point of debate for people to have while separating themselves from the existing entanglements such as the idea of "WAR apologists" vs "WAR haters", instead looking at and comparing the base ideas of balancing by bringing jobs up to the performance of the one that surpasses the others, or nerfing the one in the lead to bring it back down to the level of the others.

I personally am incredibly wary of the powercreep that is inherent in balancing upwards; but I also understand the issues, such as pissing off players and making jobs feel "bad" in comparison, when balancing through nerfs.
In regards to this, I take my usual stance of not going the route of either/or but a carefully considered combination of both.
After all, sometimes buffs can make a job less interesting to play, as is the opinion of a good number of WAR players with the IR changes, a well designed "nerf" can actually be a boon to game-play.

As for the opinion of niches, whether or not they should exist or be enforced in job design and what the hell even constitutes a niche, I think that too is interesting and a worthy debate, but one that also needs to shed the burdens of personal favoritisms and be approached more objectively to really be productive.

Those two are things I would love to see some healthy conversation and debate over because they are really interesting from a design perspective.

[shao32]

snip

You don't get it don't you? You can't have different ways to do the same and being equal on everything, every way will be a bit better on something and worse on another, that's how jobs in MMOs are, the same way some DPS dealt more damage and others do low damage but have more utility, or how some dealt crazy DPS but are a turret with limited mobility.

Buffing DRK and PLD to WAR levels of competence and impact it's 1 a waste of resources overadjust 2 jobs soon 3 instead of 1 and second creates problems of powercreep affecting all the content, and it will be the same if you buff the other 2, WAR in the end will have to show some weakness compared to the rest BCS it's impossible to make everything being equal on mitigation, self-healing without cost, mobility ect ect with different designs except you are ok with overhomogeinity.

[Kalise]

You don't get it don't you? You can't have different ways to do the same and being equal on everything

You're the one who doesn't seem to get it.

You keep arguing that WAR does EVERYTHING at LEAST as good as both other tanks and has NO WEAKNESSES whatsoever.

That implies that WAR is more powerful than the other tanks because if it isn't doing something BETTER than them, it's matching them at it.

Yet you also state that that WAR is not OP and that you're not arguing that WAR is OP?

Which is a complete contradiction.

Either WAR is OP because it does everything better than the rest or at worst, equally to the rest and thus the job needs nerfs.

Or WAR is balanced and it is in fact DRK/PLD that need a buff to a specific area that they're arbitrarily weak at compared to the other 2 Tanks (An example is PLD with Snap Threat. Both WAR and DRK have good snap threat and only PLD is weak in this regard)

Buffing up an aspect of 1 tank that is weak compared to the other 2 tanks in the game does not lead to powercreep. It only leads to powercreep if it starts to supersede other tanks and then other tanks then get an aspect buffed up to match their weakness in comparison to that tank. An example of this is if PLD received a skill similar to Onslaught that cost 20 Oath Gauge had a 15s CD and 20yd range. This would then mean that DRK is inferior to both WAR and PLD in terms of mobility, so then DRK had Plunge buffed up to compete or outperform WAR/PLD and got a skill similar to Tempered Will to match PLD in anti-knockback mechanics. Which then meant that WAR was now inferior for this aspect, so on and so forth with buffs that made tanks constantly try and 1-up each other.

The end result is that, depending on the actual balance, either WAR needs nerfs or PLD and/or DRK need buffs.

However, this whole argument is largely irrelevant. Given that PLD and DRK will be receiving significant changes in ShB due to the removal of TP and how that impacts them when their core gameplay hinges around managing their MP costs while many of their skills use a non-competing resource in TP. As such, any views of current balance are moot, because they do not factor in the necessary changes to the core functions of PLD and DRK that will be coming in the next round of major changes. Let alone any redesigning of WAR that might take place too (Even if they aren't impacted by the TP removal due to not using and MP at all as is).

[Kabooa]

But the statement wasn't "Skill that deals the most damage" it was "Highest damage skill".

-_-

Fell Cleave -can- hit harder than them too, so I guess we're just right back where we started.