Gunbreaker gameplay hope and expectations

[Izsha]

I honestly would be quite content if wars "position" was nerfed because other tanks received the tools. Again the snap aggro example. I want all 4 tanks to be able to generate threat without significant dps sacrifices in 5.0 just like war can do now. If that 'lowers wars position' so be it. I'm tired of pulling everything in the game anyway. But pld shouldn't have to sacrifice something to gain access to the ability to pull a monster any more than war needs to sacrifice something to keep the ability to pull a monster. Evening the playing field by default either nerfs the strong or buffs the weak. But that's 2 ways of saying "balance". Semantics be damned, buff or nerf dont matter. The only actual effect buffs vs nerfs have is on the power of tanks as a unit, as a role. If you think tanks are to strong then we need to nerf. If they arent then buff away. But that is not actually a question about tank balance. That is a question on the power of tank as a role. One that se seems to believe should be far weaker than the players do based on their constant struggle with tank damage and accessories. But that is a completely different discussion and should he treated as such imo.

4 tanks. Not 4 niches. Numbers dont matter because theres a reset coming and se will set the tank role power bar. So the best thing to ask for is 4 balanced tanks that can perform all tank functions.
____________
Edit: on the definition of niches, I think part of the confusion is people wanting tank variety, but think to narrowly and use tanking functions as a niche and each tank should get one. Offensive, defensive, aggro, support, etc. I think those are bad 'niches' because those are just naming tank functions and calling it a niche.

What I would consider more reasonable for niches are essentially playstyle and those should be varied and unique. Every tank should do damage, but se can keep war as the burst tank as part of its berserk/release the beast/barbarian thing. Sure. Berserk has been a core piece of warrior forever. Sure give it the burst niche. But sure as heck dont make it the 'offensive tank' niche. That's just asking for trouble. Similarly, give it some party support like warcries so its has the shout (like diablo 2 style shouts) niche. Sure that can be fun. But dont make it the 'support tank'. That's trouble.

Niches should be styles. Flavor. Character identities. Not tank functions. That way balance and uniqueness can be adjusted separately without excessive homogenization.

[Lyth]

I don't think anyone was arguing for tanks to have "niches" in core tanking functions. Those aren't niches. That's what we have now, and that's what we're arguing against. The instant that you define a tank as being "the dps tank": i.e. best burst, best sustain, mandatory raid dps buffs, it just overshadows the other tanks.

Cover is a good example of an action which gives job identity. Many tanks and healers have ways in which they can give party members shields. But Cover remains the only way that you can transfer damage from another player to yourself. This results in some interesting situations with PLD where you can solve mechanics differently.

Is this a "core function"? No. We can get by without it. I don't think WAR needs it's own personal copy of Cover, any more than it needed its own personal copy of Divine Veil. Let PLD have this little thing which lets it shine. I also feel like the idea has room expanded on. What if Passage let you transfer damage from a number of players, as an AoE Cover?

In Heavensward, knockbacks were not as ubiquitous as they are now, but every tank had some way of dealing with them. DRK's Plunge was unique in that your knockback prevention tool was also a gap closer. This made it the most mobile tank. The added mobility wasn't essential (and still isn't), but it gave you something unique. When Onslaught was added in Stormblood, it was just a better version of Plunge. It has a shorter recast than most melee dps gap closers, it's not a dps loss to hold it, and it has a longer range. It also generates enmity and had a much shorter animation lock, until we requested parity back in 3.2.

It would be one thing if we were clearly moving towards something more homogenous. Every tank has a gap closer. Every tank has a raidwide bubble. Every tank has a Fell Cleave. But it's very, very skewed. Onslaught is a better Plunge, but it's not like PLD has a gap closer. Shake it Off is a better Divine Veil, but it's not like DRK has an equivalent.

It's not like you didn't try to share, of course. Every tank has a Fell Cleave equivalent this expansion. They're just not allowed to surpass Fell Cleave itself. Because, you know, identity reasons. Kind of the reasoning that we should have applied to the other two tanks.

If you think something is a core function, homogenise it across the board. If it's not, then don't hand out more powerful versions to your favourite job. It just erodes everyone else's identity. It's okay to see a PLD Cover someone and say "I really wish that I was on PLD so I could do that." Look, don't touch. Every tank should have their moments to shine.

[Kaedan]

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

Therefore they are the highest damage skill (Among Tanks)

That is... disingenuous to say the least. Fell Cleave can be used 6 times per OGCD cycle. Bloodspiller only twice every tankbuster/several combo cycles.

Saying that Bloodspiller has the highest damage in a single cast is... pointless. You have to look at the entire context.

[Izsha]

Again. Where tanks are now has no bearing on where they are going. Pld in hw was nothing like pld I 2.x. drk in 4.0 is nothing like drk in 3.x. 3.x war diesnt play like its 2.x ot current version etc.

I can sit hear and dispute each claim you just made but to what end? The reset is coming and it will fundamentally change tanks in a bigger way than any other expac. Tank stances are being reviewed. Fundamental resources are changing drk and pld will have to be changed dramatically just due to tp/mp. The amount of damage that tanks do will be reset to SEs whim, rotations and abilities will be culled and added. So what's the point in complaining about onslaught vs tempered vs plunge? How can you say we are or are not 'moving towards something more homogeneous'. I mean drk ie ab entirely different job than hw. The only big picture statement is that war has changed the least between expacs, but war of today is still a far cry of what it was in previous iterations. So how does anything about the current design of a job relate to where it's going? The only things that have been retained are very fundamental abilities like mp and DA, berserk, etc. All these minor quibbles are irrelivant.

You can pluck out any individual skill and rank them. Tempered vs plunge vs onslaught. You could say plunge is better because it increases dps and helps dump mo for damage when overflowing. That works for drk. You could say tempered is better because no movement is better than reactive knockback and it can be shared with others. Thats very pld. You can say onslaught is the best because it has the shortest CD and manages gauge when necesary. Bottom line is all 3 tanks have a way to deal with knockback that are different and benefit their own job. You claim it's just better in every way, yet I have sat by and been quite jealous that plds can simply ignore large knockback while I'm out of range to even Onslaught, and shares it preventing TWO knockbacks, but if war had tempered, it wouldnt be as great without cover. I would like onslaught to actually do damage like drk often, but it doesnt. Your bias is showing. That's exactly how tanks should be. But everyone would rather fight over if fc is better than hs better than bs. Temp vs plunge vs onslaught. You have to compare the entire kit as a unit. Tempered wouldnt be good without cover. Of course bs and hs arent aa strong as FC, you only need to look at each base combo potency to understand why that is. Look at the overall damage on logs. Notice that IR benefits exactly 0 from many strong crit buffs. When you put these guys into context, all of this war complaint start to look straight hyperbole.

But at the end of the day, we have 3 tanks that are closer offensively and defensively than ever before and have (most) of the tools they should have. There are still gaps like snap aggro and unequal party utility (ie pld has all of it lulz). We start from that idea and move forward into the next expac and aim to improve that situation.

[whiskeybravo]

When you put these guys into context, all of this war complaint start to look straight hyperbole.

That's all it is, really. If WAR is such a problem then why are there actually more PLDs than WARs? It's squarely a situation of DRK simply not being good enough. As a WAR I'd rather have a PLD tank partner, DRK literally does nothing for me. As a PLD, well I don't really know since I'm not a PLD main, other than whether or not slashing is present it probably doesn't change the way PLD is played since either of the others will likely be MT over it. DRK was questionable at SB launch and only got worse as changes to PLD and WAR were pushed through. The community by and large abandoned DRK and by the time SE got around to addressing some of it's core issues it was too late to matter.

But nah, it's all WARs fault for taking their spots. Nevermind the fact that PLDs make up a larger portion of the tank playerbase. And PLD is in every way better than DRK just as much as WAR.

[347SPECTRE]

That's all it is, really. If WAR is such a problem then why are there actually more PLDs than WARs? It's squarely a situation of DRK simply not being good enough. As a WAR I'd rather have a PLD tank partner, DRK literally does nothing for me. As a PLD, well I don't really know since I'm not a PLD main, other than whether or not slashing is present it probably doesn't change the way PLD is played since either of the others will likely be MT over it. DRK was questionable at SB launch and only got worse as changes to PLD and WAR were pushed through. The community by and large abandoned DRK and by the time SE got around to addressing some of it's core issues it was too late to matter.

But nah, it's all WARs fault for taking their spots. Nevermind the fact that PLDs make up a larger portion of the tank playerbase. And PLD is in every way better than DRK just as much as WAR.

I think it may have stimmed from the fact that PLD was at the bottom during HW so the community let it slide? Idk, just idle speculation.

[Kalise]

Niches should be styles. Flavor. Character identities. Not tank functions. That way balance and uniqueness can be adjusted separately without excessive homogenization.

Tank functions can be a niche. In the sense that HOW a tank performs a function gives it a niche.

For example, there might be a specific mechanic in a specific encounter where the MT gets hit by a massive healing taken debuff that can't be Esuna'd alongside a TB. While, WAR and DRK would be able to soak the TB, they'd need a tank swap right after so they don't get murdered when regular damage started. While PLD would have a niche in this mechanic by the way of having Hallowed Ground to soak the TB without a care about needing healing right after (To say nothing of Cover either).

That's the kind of Tank Function niche that would be appropriate. Something that will give a Tank a slight edge in fringe cases based on how they perform the function based on their unique design (I.e. WAR having fat stacks of health and being bursty thanks to Berserk. PLD having a bunch of mitigation and dual damage types. DRK having self shields and self healing and fast attacks focused around resource management to adapt between burst or sustained output)

Outside of that, Tank functions should all be relatively close. DPS output (Burst vs Sustained doesn't matter if overall DPS ends up being equal. I.e. If WAR's sustained damage is so bad that its IR burst during mass buff stacking brings it up to 6k DPS while say, a DRK is just thwacking away with sustained DPS that averages out to 6k even if they can't capitalize on buff stacking as much then they're balanced), Enmity output (Snap and sustained), Mitigation (Both for TB's and sustained mitigation (If it ever becomes relevant again)), Party Support (Including ways to aid the MT deal with TB's) all should be roughly on par with each other. With the niche being how these things are performed being differentiated so it's not just copy/paste skills across the board as well as maybe one or two extra things outside these functions that have fringe usage (It's important that "Niche" bonuses that a Tank has over the others be fringe cases. If a particular bonus becomes too widespread, you create imbalance skewed towards the one tank that has that bonus. An example being how PLD essentially has a monopoly on support skills to use as OT, thus making it the objectively best OT)

[TouchandFeel]

I think it may have stemmed from the fact that PLD was at the bottom during HW so the community let it slide? Idk, just idle speculation.

I'd say that is a likely factor but that it is overall a more complex situation than that.

For starters, just comparing the number of PLDs vs. WARs vs. DRKs in the game is messy at best since there are so many factors that come into play.

Are we comparing the numbers within a single region or across all regions? Different regions, particularly Japan, have different approaches to tackling content and group-play along with different preferences for the type of archetypes represented by different jobs.

How do these numbers account for players that play as multi-job or omni-job tanks versus more casual tank players that just choose and stick with one job. In my experience these different groups tend to be swayed towards specific jobs by certain factors moreso than others. I find the single job tanks tend to select their job based more on aesthetics and archetype of the job while players that play multiple or all tank jobs tend to not be beholden to that as much, obviously, and so tend to be swayed more by game-play mechanics and the job meta. It also needs to be considered how large of a percentage each group is in regards to the total number of tanks being tabulated.

In addition to those already complex multi-faceted considerations above, there are many others as well including things like what the visible popular portrayal of the different jobs in public facing portals such as these forums is, general accessibility to a new player such as level-locking jobs like DRK and the list goes on.

So a specific job having a large population doesn't necessarily directly correlate to it's performance within the meta or that it doesn't have issues, it just means that it is popular and that many players do not perceive the job to be lacking for whatever reason. However it does lend credence to the job being enjoyable to play which points to a generally good design and that if there are issues with the job that they are minor or at least not very apparent.
The same is true of the other side of the coin with an unpopular job.

Basically a job being popular/unpopular can be a sign of a job being good/bad and a job being good/bad can result in it being popular/unpopular, however they don't necessarily equal each other. Seeing that a job is popular/unpopular is really more the beginning of delving into understanding what is going on and not really the end conclusion. As is the case in many situations like this, it's often the "whys" that glean more information than the "whats".

[Shurrikhan]

Snip

Thank you greatly for this, even if there remains obvious issue of sample size (as you've mentioned) in any conclusion of theoretical maximal in-context performance (rather than perception of ease there-toward). Mind if I link it where similarly relevant?

WAR is not a magical tank. I'm not sure how you magically drain life from your enemies and generate party-wide barriers. I know there's a historical precedent with 1.x's Bloodbath, but you know what? 1.x wasn't all that good. Maybe let's not make gameplay decisions on the patch series that nearly destroyed this game.

Life-steal-raid-barriers were neither mentioned nor requested, nor was any of that in 1.x, nor does that refer remotely to what Bloodbath did in 1.x.

1.x Warrior had no party-wide barriers. Technically, 1.x Bloodbath functioned like Life Surge does now, as a single-hit damage-to-heal (while 1.x Life Surge functioned like BoL's Judgment effect from WoW, allowing Lancer to act as a continuous light raid healer, fitting its strike leader hybrid role). Rampage was Warrior's source of healing, and it healed for having dealt a critical hit, thus really only doing much on AoEs (Whirlwind) and multi-hit skills (Godsbane) pre-consolidation.

But you don't have to go that far back. The most prevalent examples of the self-sustaining Warrior come from 2.0 and 3.x where WAR could no-heal overgeared content on the strength of most noteably Inner Beast and then Bloodbath-Decimate spam and Equilibrium, respectively. Heck, I no-healed Amdapor Keep frequently before I'd even finished my farmable Fending set and tanked the first four turns of Coil without being a burden before the buffs/reworks came through. Healing myself for almost twice my health bar per minute was not terribly ineffective, nor was the AoE damage Warrior could put out in T4. Warrior's HP was just very, very bouncy, which could be discouraging to healers... especially given that WAR didn't quite have the added eHP Paladins had even when at full Wrath.

Self-sustain has been thematic for Warrior, if not a core identity.

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.

That's a... bit of a twist there. I'll agree though that the ease and accessibility of those tools' use favors Warrior at present. And it's obviously received virtually every benefit of homogenization thus far even when not as negatively affected itself (at least, in terms of comparative parity). But consider a hypothetical:

Let's assume we can somehow smooth out the effective variance lent by burst windows syncing to a given fight and compositions optimal for said fight. If, given this, all else is technically balanced insofar as compositions and play permitable in optimal circumstance, does one then break the balance against the job previously with greatest ease-for-performance (greatest ease for identical top practical performance, or greatest performance with comparative ease or better) in the majority of fights just to nudge community inertia the opposite way until there are enough users and data to give the fair slate longer standing? Or, should we maintain the actual balance and hope the community catches on?

[Phoenicia]

Thank you greatly for this, even if there remains obvious issue of sample size (as you've mentioned) in any conclusion of theoretical maximal in-context performance (rather than perception of ease there-toward). Mind if I link it where similarly relevant?

Well, FFLogs is one of the best sources of samples. It is up to the community to provide the samples themselves. Another problem is it does not segregate play styles. Tanks that will stay in their tank stance the whole encounter will still drag the lower ends of parses.

Regardless, my attempt wasn't to provide exact data. It was to provide evidence that, regardless whither those tanks surpassed WAR or not, all three tanks are too close for it to actually matter. And that community will remain plagued by Favoritism blindly following the words of a small echelon of good players' opinions.

As for referring to my post where relevant, sure, go ahead. The point of it being there is to provide useful info. Sadly it might only remain relevant for a couple more months lol. At least I hope it opens up a few people's minds going into Shadowbringers and just play what they enjoy and focus on getting better at it instead of twisting their panties about jobs they don't play because they seem more favored. I mean if people want to complain about something, they just have to look at all casters being completely excluded as a role, not a job.