Tank Balance Patch next pls? Nascent Flash Target Requirement Removed Pls

[Reynhart]

[1] At that point, though is anything QoL? To use the Dragon Sight example again, would it?

I never said that the change in Dragon Sight was a QoL. In fact, since it allowed you keep the buff even if your partner moves away, it's a buff in more situation that what is proposed here for NF.

To what extent are we going to belabor an insignificant advantage with an insignificant chance to see use in an insignificant portion of fights as if were something worth balancing around when the mere standard deviation attached to every attack, let alone Crit or Direct Hit chance, has several times their effect in every fight?

But if it's that insignificant, why even change it, especially if the reason if that you don't want to switch target for it ? It's an oGCD, so it's not really a problem to use it in a macro to target "p2" in your party, which can easily be forced in your party order to be the other tank. I'm pretty sure you will use it to save a DPS' life in savge less time than the situation we've described above.

[2]I'd suspect the frequency of that particular potential clutch moment will be a heck of a lot less than what Clemency already provides.

In solo situation, this change would give WAR more healing capabilites than Clemency, while requiring no DPS sacrifice. And it would still be one additional thing to a job that already has one of the (if not the) best mitigation toolkit as a whole.

[Shurrikhan]

I never said that the change in Dragon Sight was a QoL. In fact, since it allowed you keep the buff even if your partner moves away, it's a buff in more situation that what is proposed here for NF.

I did not mean to imply that you had. I apologize if it seemed that way; that's the last thing I'd want to do right now. Though, I don't remember it ever canceling your own side of the buff when an ally moved out of range even before, though I could very well be misremembering.

But if it's that insignificant, why even change it, especially if the reason if that you don't want to switch target for it ? It's an oGCD, so it's not really a problem to use it in a macro to target "p2" in your party, which can easily be forced in your party order to be the other tank. I'm pretty sure you will use it to save a DPS' life in savge less time than the situation we've described above.

And is it good practice for abilities to be designed in such a way that they are best used without the ability to queue them, or to effectively break a skill as soon as a given party member is dead?

Let's take another example, for instance, that's... only marginally "QoL": instead of Anatman granting GL on the server tick, it grants one at the end of each GCD spend channeling it.

Now, that would be a big change, and arguably even a dps loss -- as there was a much greater chance of lucking out and getting two ticks over 3 seconds than always getting the one consistently. Yet, that and similar suggestion have been ad nauseum if only to give the skill consistency and make something that most Monks find outright unenjoyable less obligatory in their rotation. The effect on gameplay does matter, and I'd argue that when some seemingly arbitrary, unnecessary, or ill-conceived restriction makes some part of a toolkit less intuitive or outright less enjoyable, the balancing concerns weighed against that need to practical, realistic, not just a worse case scenario.

Hell, Form Shift and Earth's Reply 2.0 were each sold as "QoL". For that I'd fully agree: they weren't -- not quite. The latter, especially, had fairly frequent and new benefits for a Monk in any party which couldn't constantly work around them. But this? It's something that designed in such a way that obviously works best for X, and yet is forced into unnecessary hassles in some cases when doing X. In general, is that worth it? Is that an ideally designed ability? And if not, how ridiculous is it to want to remove some hassle from it so it feels more reasonably designed? Where, for any other skill, would you draw the line?

Of course, if you honestly believe that even a single use of Clemency is less likely than the last 1% of a boss's HP timing out to IR-NF-Equilibrium where only the Warrior remains and somehow couldn't use NF just a moment sooner when someone was still alive (and that is exactly the situation we'd just described early; though if you just meant Dragon Sight in this case, my bad)... I don't know, man. We might not be able to see eye to eye on this one.

[Reynhart]

Now, that would be a big change, and arguably even a dps loss -- as there was a much greater chance of lucking out and getting two ticks over 3 seconds than always getting the one consistently. Yet, that and similar suggestion have been ad nauseum if only to give the skill consistency and make something that most Monks find outright unenjoyable less obligatory in their rotation.

This is not the same here. You don't have any control over the server ticks, and, with a fluctuating ping, it can be hard to pinpoint them precisely. So, this change would take give more control to the player. Having a skill requiring a target is a fully understandable condition on how to use the skill.

You still realize that NF is supposed to be the counterpart to Intervention, or casting TBN/HoS on someone else, right ? If you remove the target requirement, WAR will simply stop using it on others because it will be quicker to use it on them when main tanking. Even though this skill is the most powerful one when it comes will dealing with double tankbusters.

Of course, if you honestly believe that even a single use of Clemency is less likely than the last 1% of a boss's HP timing out to IR-NF-Equilibrium where only the Warrior remains and somehow couldn't use NF just a moment sooner when someone was still alive (and that is exactly the situation we'd just described early; though if you just meant Dragon Sight in this case, my bad)...

You don't even need your full burst package to heal a good chunk of HP from NF. A single Inner Chaos will heal more than what Clemency does, while doing damage. And even Fell Cleave is already pretty good.

[Shurrikhan]

If you remove the target requirement, WAR will simply stop using it on others because it will be quicker to use it on them when main tanking.

Warriors will just voluntarily give up any and all additional healing and mitigation they could have done? The job we're worried about being able to gain a (not even wholly unique) advantage in an incredibly unlikely scenario... would be happy to give up throughput for zero gain?

You've presented two fears. The first requires one in a million circumstances: (1) NF comes off cooldown between the last non-Warrior dying and when the Warrior would otherwise die; (2) Inner Release or two stacks of Infuriate are also coincidentally timed to this moment so NF can actually do anything; (3) the Warrior then proceeds to solo the boss on the back of what amounts to 3 GCDs of Bloodbath. The second is that allowing NF in single content can give Warriors the option to... actively waste their on-demand external mitigation kit? Those are not reasonable fears by which to deny QoL changes. No more than they were for making SMN DoTs afflict the target immediately so that Fester isn't pushed to a GCD later for high-ping players. No more than making AM respond more quickly. No more than increasing Shukuchi's movement speed. No more than decreasing Jump's animation lock. If you must split hairs and declare that QoL changes outright do not exist so long as it can generate any advantage, regardless of its significance or accessibility or frequency (such that the Holmgang buff to allow movement and handy button consolidation are treated with the exact same scrutiny), then fine: NF being allowed in solo content is not a QoL buff because nothing is. But that's certainly not how the devs has looked at these things. And it's certainly not how the community has seen it, either, if we were to apply the same guidelines to any other job.

A single Inner Chaos will heal more than what Clemency, while doing damage.

Then, again, nerf the on-self healing. Give at most 25% healing to both self and the affected target rather than 50% and then 50% of 50%. Or reverse it, a la Clemency, with you getting the 25% and them getting the 50% and maybe giving a temporary increase to max HP instead of the 10% miti. We already have a stronger skill than allowing its use solo would allow.

tl;dr: It makes no sense to create a situationally superior MT skill and then classify it solely as an OT skill. That's it.

[Reynhart]

Warriors will just voluntarily give up any and all additional healing and mitigation they could have done ?

Then, again, nerf the on-self healing.

I'm confused...you seem to think that improved usability would be less important than skill potency in real fights yet you suggest to reduce skill potency as a trade-off for improved usability in its mechanic. Did I miss something ?

(2) Inner Release or two stacks of Infuriate are also coincidentally timed to this moment so NF can actually do anything

NF has a 25s CD, Infuriate has a 60s CD with potentially two charges and a reduced CD every time you spend 50 Gauge. Those two being available at the same time is not that far-fetched. And you still have equilibrium to use in-between.

We already have a stronger skill than allowing its use solo would allow.

What skill ? Raw Intuition ? It seems easy to heal more HP during NF than what RI would have reduced.

It makes no sense to create a situationally superior MT skill and then classify it solely as an OT skill. That's it.

NF is not "an OT skill". It's a "dual tank skill". Something that DRK and GNB can't do and that would require either a full gauge for PLD (Intervention+Sheltron) or a DPS loss (Clemency), to achieve less power in both situations. And that superior skill has the only drawback of requiring a partner.

[Shurrikhan]

What skill ? Raw Intuition ? It seems easy to heal more HP during NF than what RI would have reduced.

No, not RI -- NF itself. NF used with the inclusion of a second target has more healing and more mitigation, with no further cost relative to not having those extras. It is clearly stronger than would be NF if used without a second target. We already have the stronger NF; it just can't be used in solo-content. It's the same question as with Dragon Sight. How many times must this be repeated?

NF is not "an OT skill". It's a "dual tank skill". Something that DRK and GNB can't do and that would require a full gauge for PLD to achieve less power, unless you use another CD on top of that.

If it requires a second target and increases their, not your, eHP, it's an OT skill. Sure, like Clemency it can provide self-benefit. Like Intervention, its use will almost certainly mean significant dual-tank strength. But it absolutely cannot be self-cast and used in the same capacity and with same targeting as any other OT skill. Are we going to split hairs on this until we have "OT-but-functionally-dualist", "OT-but-with-self-uptime-benefit-conveyed-to-other", "MT/OT, but with preferred targeting due to timing concerns over the triggered effect" and the like? Does this need the same scrutiny as to whether Shadow Fang is a GCD (it is; it triggers the global recast and shares lockout according to the global recast)? As far as targeting is concerned, which is the entire concern here, it's OT skill. It's that simple.

I'm confused...you seem to think that improved usability would be less important than skill potency in real fights yet you suggest to reduce skill potency as a trade-off for improved usability in its mechanic. Did I miss something?

Apparently? I don't know if repeating it a third time will help any, but here goes, I guess: Designing a skill such that is situationally superior to your self-mitigation skill, especially against low-rate sustained damage, but then artificially barring it from use except as an OT-mitigation skill through its targeting procedures makes no sense.

[Reynhart]

No, not RI -- NF itself. NF used with the inclusion of a second target has more healing and more mitigation, with no further cost relative to not having those extras. It is clearly stronger than would be NF if used without a second target. We already have the stronger NF; it just can't be used in solo-content.

Yes, that's it's drawback. And since we talked about how much impact it could have, who really needs it in solo-instanced content for situation that RI cannot cover ?

It's the same question as with Dragon Sight. How many times must this be repeated?

The thing is that DPS are more varied than tanks, so it's complicated to compare skills. On the other hand, tanks are very similar, so we can clearly point what's the counterpart of NF, and come to the conclusion than NF is the best skill. So, I see no reason to improve a skill that is already the best one.

If it requires a second target and increases their, not your, eHP, it's an OT skill.

Unless you are at full HP, healing helps you survive the exact same way than mitigation does. Especially when, with little prep, it basically allows you to "Benediction" yourself around twice as often as the real Benediction.

Like Intervention, its use will almost certainly mean significant dual-tank strength. But it absolutely cannot be self-cast and used in the same capacity and with same targeting as any other OT skill.

What ? To use Intervention, you need a target, so, the exact same as NF. To cast TBN or HoS on another, well, you need another target...And all those skill will only help your target survive. They give no benefit to you at all. NF will heal both of you. It's far from simply "splitting hairs on OT skills".

but then artificially barring it from use except as an OT-mitigation skill through its targeting procedures makes no sense.

You realize that you can still use it as a MT and that it will still heal you for your damage dealt ? That, if you have either IR or Infuriate, it will have a greater impact on your surival than Raw Intuition ? And that your target can be any job within melee range, even if it doesn't need any healing ?

[Shurrikhan]

You realize that you can still use it as a MT and that it will still heal you for your damage dealt ? That, if you have either IR or Infuriate, it will have a greater impact on your surival than Raw Intuition?

situationally superior to your self-mitigation skill

Clearly? Unless there was some other reason I just said that in what your reply is literally quoting?

And that your target can be any job within melee range, even if it doesn't need any healing ?

1. It doesn't have to be in melee range. If you actually had a Warrior at 74+, you'd know that.
2. Yes, which is why I'd already mentioned as much in earlier posts.

Yes, that's it's drawback.

No, it's not. NF is not balanced so strongly to make up for the fact it requires a second target; it is not a compensatory drawback. That is ridiculous. Else, every skill that requires long ramp-up to reach use would be compensated to balance its "drawback" in solo-content, because that is the only place outside of your "Warrior solos Savage content boss" scenario a target-less NF would have any effect.

And since we talked about how much impact it could have, who really needs it in solo-instanced content for situation that RI cannot cover?

No one. No one needed Plunge to be more responsive; at worst, we could have just slapped an extra 10 potency on Syphon Strike. No one needed Suiton-Meisui not to be a damage loss; we could have just left Meisui off our hotbars. No one needed Geirskogul and Nostrond to share a hotbar space; we could just waste a slot. Even now, no one needs the potency of their optimal rotation to be more than slightly stronger than poorly executed rotation. Heck, no one needs Yaten-Enpi. No one needs Arm's Length, as its slow can't affect 'real' content and all else can be managed through positioning and gap-closers. Nor did we need Reprisal to become AoE, nor did we need the slow effect added to Arm's Length; it just makes a lot more sense not to waste those buttons the moment we step into a dungeon instead. That's all this is. You have a button that is one arbitrary limitation away from having the same change towards more efficient, intuitive design as those have each had. The only difference, apparently, is that this one belongs to a Warrior and therefore your once in a million scenario is enough to deter more efficient or intuitive design permanently?

To use Intervention, you need a target, so, the exact same as NF.

Perhaps that's why I said

Like Intervention,

Both are exceedingly strong in dual-tank scenarios, but both require an external target. And like NF, an optimized Intervention applies greater total mitigation (35%) than its competitor, Shelltron (less than 20%). But at least Intervention and Shelltron both have the same type of effect, so that they would be clearly redundant if Intervention were changed to "Adds a further 50% of your current active mitigation to self or other, plus a further 10% damage reduction." (Of course, I'd rather therefore have it consolidated then -- to Shelltron w/o target or Intervention when a party member is selected, just as HoS and TB are, if not for needing separate recast times.) But Nascent is not similarly redundant, and it has no need for split recast times. It is an altogether different beast. And it makes no sense then to design it as such and then arbitrarily limit it. From a design perspective, it's just rather awkward.

So, I see no reason to improve a skill that is already the best one.

Stop calling a throughput loss an improvement as if the skill were numerically strengthened. It is horizontal at best. It is merely making a design make more sense. There is no reasonable numeric benefit.

You would have more reason to bar potions from ever having a shorter animation lock an the basis that it could award a high-SkS Monk an extra half a GCD over a 10-minute fight than you do to bar this particular QoL.

For the last time, I have no issues selecting a target before using NF; I just flick my middle or index finger over to any F1-8 key, hit Mouse 5 and I'm off. In all likelihood, virtually no one is having any such issue. But that's not the point. There are skills that feel worse than they need to and for which QoL fixes, just like the one discussed here, have absolutely negligible impacts on balance. Even if numeric impact could be felt more than .001% of the time, it would still likely be worth prioritizing smoothness of gameplay over absolute perfect balance, because frankly we're not at a point where jobs are performing within .001% of each other and likely never will be. Prioritizing such an butt-clenchingly tight balance to the exclusion of gameplay concerns certainly isn't going to improve the state of the game.

And I'm starting to get fairly certain that if this wasn't Warrior under the spotlight, no one would blink an eye at the request. As for suggestions for reduced animation lock on Plunge, the only reasonable response would be "Well, duh. Why not?"

[Reynhart]

1. It doesn't have to be in melee range. If you actually hada Warrior at 74+, you'd know that.

When I say "in melee range" it's because I suppose than you can't target a party member that's too far, exactly like TBN, not that it has to stay "in melee" range. Please correct me if NF doesn't have a range limit.

No one needs Arm's Length, as its slow can't affect 'real' content and all else can be managed through positioning and gap-closers.

I won't quote every single point, but this one is absurd. You, and everyone else will spend excessively more time in dungeons than you would in raids, and Arm's Length (And AoE Reprisal) massively improve your ability to do those runs smoothly. This content is more real for the majority of the playerbase than all those Savage or Ultimates.

Both are exceedingly strong in dual-tank scenarios, but both require an external target.

No, intervention is strong in an OT scenario. If you are both hit by a tankbuster, Intervention does nothing for you. Even consolidating it with Sheltron would still allow you to protect one target. NF is still the only skill that protects both of you, at the cost of requiring someone to protect...Which, in fact, perfectly fits WAR's lore.

And I'm starting to get fairly certain that if this wasn't Warrior under the spotlight, no one would blink an eye at the request.

Yes, you're probably right, but it might have something to do with "My skill is the best, but can it still be better, please ?" You know, the same kind of situation that "Sentinel and Shadow Wall CD has been reduced, now every tank has the same 30% damage reduction skill...except that WAR's better than the other three".

Imagine another situation. You request for Shake it Off to not dispel the mitigation skills it uses to buff itself. You could claim that, after all, no situations would really be "saved" by you having your personal mitigation on top of the damage shield, but I would react exactly the same, considering than even native Shake It Off is already better than Divine Veil, and, arguably, than Dark Missionary and Heart of Light.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

On the other hand, tanks are very similar, so we can clearly point what's the counterpart of NF, and come to the conclusion than NF is the best skill.

"Best" in what way, exactly? Do you think that Nascent Flash is superior to The Blackest Night, all things considered?