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

[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.

[Shurrikhan]

No, intervention is strong in an OT scenario. If you are both hit by a tankbuster, Intervention does nothing for you.

You realize that's exactly the point? NF does not protect you from being one-shot. It does protect the party member from being one-shot. It cannot be used on self. It can be used on a party member. That is why I consider it an OT skill, which was the whole point there.

Consider also, when it is actually optimal to use Intervention over Shelltron? Keep in mind, there is a skill in the game that allows for rapid tank-swapping outside of E4S and parts of E1S. It's called Provoke, and it allows a Paladin to use a CD on themselves instead of at half effect on someone else.

What's important here isn't just what's on paper, but what the skill can actually in practice -- how it can actually be used. In practice, outside of being afflicted with a fight-specific vulnerability, Intervention will only ever be more worthwhile than Provoke-Shelltron during dual-tank tankbusters or in specific timings, much like "NF Benes".

Like Cover (and NF being used for self-healing over RI), optimal use of Intervention when not afflicted by fight-specific vulnerability mechanics is situational. Outside of double-tankbusters, a perfect Intervention involves having taken a TB with both CDs, then Intervening upon tagging out just before each falls off, ideally within 6s of at least another (mini) tankbuster or some maximizing number of auto-attacks. It effectively extends half the effect of your CDs' and trait's by a further 6 seconds. It's incredibly close to the maximization used for Shake it Off. And, with both Rampart and Sentinel, therefore, it provides 75% more of Shelltron's mitigation than Shelltron does (PLD's answer to NF "Bene", though obviously weaker). Most fights allow for tank-swaps. Thus design allows for Intervention to have situationally greater output than Shelltron even outside its ideal domain -- dual-tank tankbusters. And in that situation? Its so strong that the other tank can conserve every CD outside of their on-demand where they'd otherwise need their 30% to survive. NF cannot do that. It can only take up the role of healing you back from such significant damage; its eHP increase is as negligible as a wasted Intervention.

Even consolidating it with Sheltron would still allow you to protect one target.

Sure... if not for the fact you can use both simultaneously, which is why I said they'd never be consolidated (short of being able to reveal two separate recast timers in a single button slot).

And, again, why then are you denying the QoL instead of asking that the skill not get the "Same, but Better" WAR treatment? This isn't some ultimatum where doing your best to keep WAR from getting even the smallest, rarest, and least consequential of QoL tools is your only possible last act of vengeance, and you can only choose to do something (which amounts to nothing but pettiness) or nothing or all. You can still ask the actual effects of Nascent Flash, Vengeance, Shake it Off, Holmgang, and Onslaught be relooked at, or that the other three tanks each get something to compensate (my personal preference, but you do you).

at the cost of requiring someone to protect

How is that a "cost"? It's at least a third of its total output. The targeted effect is a bonus. Is a mouseover macro for Salted Ground its "cost" for potentially sometimes maybe being able to use it to grab a later-spawning add without moving? No, NF's targeting is an oversight whereby the devs yet again underestimated the power of the tools they've given Warrior. It's been given as an OT skill; it just happens also to have been designed with the effects necessary to make a situationally superior MT skill, and that is why I find the design awkward and worth correcting (even if, for now, through just the simplest possible fix -- removing the ill-fitting label and its targeting requirement).

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".

Then fix the problem (e.g. Vengeance), rather than trying to find weird roundabout ways to punish Warriors for the devs' poor decisions by denying them QoL or fluidity.

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.

Except, that is fundamentally different, in the same way that Intervention would be if it just gave a hard 20% mitigation instead of granting half the effect of your buffs. It denies skill-gap. Those skills are each made more compelling by having rewards for timing CDs such that the toolkit can maximize their effect.

Now, spare me the part where you tell me macro-usage for targeting others, or the simple act of clicking a party member in a GCD gap, makes for compelling skill-gap.

As for Shake it Off itself as is now, I agree completely. I think it's overpowered given its counterparts -- which is why every suggestion I make for balance across tanks involves buffing theirs or slightly curtailing SiO itself. You're preaching to the choir here. You just happen to be aiming your solution at fettering WAR's gameplay instead of confronting the actual issues, I guess? I don't know at this point.

[Reynhart]

You realize that's exactly the point? NF does not protect you from being one-shot. It does protect the party member from being one-shot. It cannot be used on self. It can be used on a party member. That is why I consider it an OT skill, which was the whole point there.

Well, technically, being a reactive skill, it doesn't prevent anyone from being "one shot", but it helps both to recover potential damage. If a tankbuster happens near your burst phase, you can use NF on your co-tank even if you're the MT, even if you were the only one hit, and heal back a huge chunk of damage you just take, more than what RI would have mitigated.

Sure... if not for the fact you can use both simultaneously, which is why I said they'd never be consolidated (short of being able to reveal two separate recast timers in a single button slot).

Yes, that's why I mentionned that, to protect both you and your co-tank, PLD would have to spend its entire gauge, which end with that combination, having "twice the CD" of NF.

And, again, why then are you denying the QoL instead of asking that the skill not get the "Same, but Better" WAR treatment?

You mean like this :

If it's removed, you'd have to reduce the effect, or put another restriction, like a bigger CD.

?

The point was that Nascent Flash being "best when used to cover both tanks" doesn't make it "the best" among its counterparts, by that virtue alone.

It wouldn't if NF effect on your co-tank was significantly weaker than the other skills...but it's not.

[Shurrikhan]

You mean like this :
?

No. Repeat after me: at worst obliging a macro for fluid use is not a drawback around which to balance a skill. It's merely an annoyance. Removing NF's targeting requirement would not newly make it so powerful a skill that it would need rebalancing any more than Ground-AoEs would need to be reworked for unprecedented strength if they could actually click the ground through enemies or otherwise didn't need on-target or at-mouseover macros.

Should we just... pick this conversation back up after you actually unlock NF on your Warrior?

Yes, that's why I mentionned that, to protect both you and your co-tank, PLD would have to spend its entire gauge, which end with that combination, having "twice the CD" of NF.

And a base Adloquiem heals for less than Cure II. Does that make it a weaker spell? You're still conflating HP as eHP. Intervention allows for a single set of CDs to cover both tanks. At the point where you'd be maximizing Intervention, it would be between wasteful and unnecessary to use Shelltron because you'd already have up sufficient CDs to survive without your on-demand. Intervention provides up to 35% mitigation to the off-tank. In one use, it can provide more than twice the effect of HoS across the tank pair. And you still thereafter have your cotank's on-demand to work with. There is no other external mitigation skill that can so powerfully allow for the protection of both tanks. To heal them back up? Of course -- Nascent Flash. But healing is not shielding. Increasing HP to its maximum is not the same as increasing maximum effective HP.

[Reynhart]

No. Repeat after me

You, repeat after me : Removing the target requirement on a skill you're supposed to use on a target is completely changing the skill. I don't remember seeing you advocating for Cover to be targetable on yourself when it had a built-in damage reduction. Should you also be able to partner yourself with Closed Position ?

And a base Adloquiem heals for less than Cure II. Does that make it a weaker spell?

If you're not overhealing with Cure II, yes, Adloquium is weaker, outside of Crits.

But healing is not shielding

It's frequently the same. We're not in a perfect world where you're always full HP. If you have 50k HP, I heal you for 30k and you take a 50k hit, you'll end with 30k. If you have the same HP, I'll heal you for 15k and shield you for 15k, and you take the same hit, you'll also end at 30k HP. Basically, if the shield bar is put on your HP bar, healing would help you survive exactly the same. And it's only worse if you're low on HP, since you can't stack the same shield twice, making double Adloquium significantly worse than double Cure II. I can't believe you didn't realize that the last time a SCH had to remove your Living Dead.

Intervention allows for a single set of CDs to cover both tanks.

No, Intervention covers only one tank. If you use Rampart or Sentinel, you cover yourself and you increase the effect of Intervention. But you completely lose the short CD of Intervention for that setup.

[Shurrikhan]

You, repeat after me : Removing the target requirement on a skill you're supposed to use on a target is completely changing the skill. I don't remember seeing you advocating for Cover to be targetable on yourself when it had a built-in damage reduction.

Probably because I was busy advocating for the removal of its flat damage reduction, in favor of Cover using the greater of your or your target's mitigation. It was a haphazard way of dealing with a particular fear (that we may take increased damage as a result of using Cover beyond/apart from CD usage) rather than actually fixing the concern (potential mitigation waste via Cover). (Just as now that it no longer has any mitigation benefit, I've been advocating for the removal of its gauge cost, as all other spenders provide mitigation while Cover does not.)

It's frequently the same.

Sure, increasing max HP beyond its norm and increasing someone's HP up to its norm are the same... any time there's no tankbuster that poses any actual threat. And how many Savage fights have... zero threatening tankbusters? You're moving goalposts again. That there exist some amount of tankbusters we can survive without further mitigation does not make healing and shielding inherently equal. True, the latter does everything the prior can, but it also leverages unique effects.

No, Intervention covers only one tank.

I did not say Intervention itself covers both tanks. Let's try this again. Read it this time?

Intervention allows for a single set of CDs to cover both tanks..

[Reynhart]

Sure, increasing max HP beyond its norm and increasing someone's HP up to its norm are the same...

That's not what I said...in fact, that's the opposite of what I said.

That there exist some amount of tankbusters we can survive without further mitigation does not make healing and shielding inherently equal.

Surviving a tankbuster with NF/TBN/HoS alone is not the same as surviving tankbuster without having full HP.

I did not say Intervention itself covers both tanks. Let's try this again. Read it this time?

There was other sentences after that, you know. The part where a "buffed" Intervention has at least three times the CD of NF. That's a big drawback.