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

[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.

[BarretOblivion]

One last try.

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.

Did you really not get that?

No, that's Intervention. That litteraly covers both tanks when using another cooldown as you should be to share cooldowns for both tanks.
Nascent flash's point is, heal both tanks and it does a bad job doing it with the other target since its halved for that person.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

I was conceding that point for the sake of argument.

[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.

[whiskeybravo]

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.

If you're going to point that out then it's worth considering that even though NF has a shorter CD, it's not going to reach its potential every time that CD is available.

[Reynhart]

If you're going to point that out then it's worth considering that even though NF has a shorter CD, it's not going to reach its potential every time that CD is available.

Indeed, but you're still able to make more of it than the "35% mitigation" intervention.