Is cover REALLY nerfed, or nah?

[Izsha]

That's not at all what is happening to cover because cover is no longer in the equation to get the 20% mitigation which is the whole reason you used cover. How do you not understand this?

Before the change if a mob is about to use a tankbuster on the MT I can cover them and it reduces the damage taken by 20%. If I provoke the mob before the tankbuster I am taking the full hit unless I use mitigation. (Cover is the better option).

Again semantics. All you are telling me is that they buffed the provoke option, not nerfed the cover mitigation.

Today: 100k tabk buster incoming.
You use cover take 80k.
You provoke you take 100k.
You do nothing mt takes 100k ot 80k (stance dependant)

Shadowbringer:100k tank buster.
You use cover and take 80k.
You provoke and take 80k.
Do nothing mtntakes 80k.

Tell me the part where cover got worse? Nerf means it is worse. What they did was BUFF provoke via passive mitigation. They BUFFED the MT eating busters. If war does 5k dps and drk does 4kdps then shadowbringers comes out and war does 5k and drk does 6k, war didnt get nerfed. Cover is just as effective as always and provides thenexact same result from using it just as this 5k war example is the exact same before and after the example drk buff.

Tanks got better at taking damage. Cover remained the same. Yes, that means cover will be used less often (as I said). And it HAS to relatively less powerful to keep pld from OT for 2 years. But they did it by buffing everyone and everything around it. This is what people mean when they say balance through buffs instead of balance through nerfs.