Is anyone surprised at this point?

[Princess_Pilfer]

What frustrates me about it is Warrior was *already* arguably the best tank, on account of it's absurd self sustain. It wasn't gonna win records if you're speed running bosses, but if you just wanna get it done, (whatever it is) you brought a warrior.
And now the 'small' potency boost has successfully unseated paladin as the general 2nd best damage and legitimately threatens to do the same to gunbreaker, both of whom are *way* squishier than warrior.

Like, I have to stress, I think the changes SE made to how tanks work in general on offense was absolutely necessary, either as a permanent state of affairs or as a new based to build on, it just had to happen. But why would you bother to make such dramatic changes to even the offensive playing field, only to make 1 of the tanks so much more defensively capable than every other tank as to make it the obvious choice for virtually every fight? And then buff it's damage until it's unambigiously the best tank. Again.

If you're gonna keep multiple tanks are virtually identical levels offensively, you have to *also* keep them at virtually identical level defensively or you end up back in storm blood where 1 is just obviously objectively superior in the vast majority of situations.

Either homoginize defensively so non-warriors can keep up with warrior, or nerf warrior and/or buff paladin and gunbreaker so they actually get something in trade for being so much squishier. (also just...buff drk in general. It's harder then warrior and worse offensively *and* worse deffensively. Like why?)

[Argyle_Darkheart]

(also just...buff drk in general. It's harder then warrior and worse offensively *and* worse deffensively. Like why?)

It's not worse offensively, and it's about equal defensively outside of invuln.

I don't intend to sound horribly rude with the following statement, but the rest of your post is similarly out of touch with reality.

[Princess_Pilfer]

I don't mean to sound rude: Proceeds to phrase their opinion in the rudest way possible.
Ok, sure. Easiest mute ever.

Every tank is genuinely viable, so ultimately my complaints about balance are nit picks, but it's not actually in doubt that dark is in general the least good tank. It was the least good before warrior got buffed with 5.5, and warrior was the one tank with really similar damage. Then warrior got buffed. And a worse invuln and inability to self sustain are both kinda big deals in a lot of content.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

I don't mean to sound rude: Proceeds to phrase their opinion in the rudest way possible.

Remove yourself from the context of this discussion for a moment and assume, for the sake of argument, that I'm correct in my assessment. Is there a better way to point out that someone's viewpoint doesn't comport with reality?

Ok, sure. Easiest mute ever.

Ok.

Every tank is genuinely viable, so ultimately my complaints about balance are nit picks, but it's not actually in doubt that dark is in general the least good tank.

It's very much in doubt, if the concern is its performance.