Is anyone surprised at this point?

[Kabooa]

I'm not underappreciating it's potency. WAR's my go-to tank for dungeons because, thanks to nascent, I don't care what skill level the Healer is; they're irrelevant.
But let's be honest.
Nascent: 6s duration, 25s recast.
Bloodbath: 20s duration, 90s recast.

I'm not a numbers person but 25x4=100, and 6x4=24, yeah? So how mugh of that 10s difference that nascent has over bloodbath equates to GCD's impacted by that ability? I'd argue one. A single GCD of lifesteal on WAR over literally every melee DPS. wow.

I am.

Nascent destroys Bloodbath. It's not even a fair comparison.

[ItMe]

I am.

Nascent destroys Bloodbath. It's not even a fair comparison.

Can you provide your math too please?

[Kabooa]

Can you provide your math too please?

Using the following, as the tank variant was slightly different.

Bloodbath was roughly 25% heals from damage dealt for 30 secs

Nascent is 50-75% of your damage dealt as healing, with 6s/25s duration/recast
Bloodbath is 25% of your damage dealt as healing, with 30s/90s duration/recast.

The primary advantage Bloodbath had going for it is that it lined up with with (prior to the Stormblood rework) your IR/Berserk window, meaning the 8 GCDs you could fill were going to 6 Fell Cleaves and 2 fillers, along with your OGCDs, or all 5 of your post rework IR GCDs.

Comparatively, Nascent can only fit 3 gcds into it, but those GCDs are twice as effective (thrice with a friend). From here it's just a matter of simple comparison.

Does 6 effective IR Fell Cleaves outheal 5? Yes.

Does 6 effective GCDs outheal 12? No. But you can get 18 in less total time, and more surgically selected. Does 18 outheal 12? Yes.

Does 2 Upheavels outheal 1? Yes.

And this is without considering you can have a friend. Nascent's effectiveness increases by 50% just for having someone in range. So not only do you outheal bloodbath for yourself with Nascent, you give Bloodbath back to a friend.

The numbers themselves will change if you compare complete toolkits against the other - But we aren't. We're just comparing Bloodbath to Nascent, and Nascent stomps it. There are few scenarios where you only change Bloodbath and Nascent's position where Nascent doesn't come out on top.

You effectively have to die in the interim of better healing with Nascent that the longer duration of Blooodbath would cover for you, however given how much HP nascent can restore to you, this requires that enemy damage be high enough that doubled effective healing isn't enough to save you.

So your condition for Bloodbath being better is twofold - You need the longer duration, but lower healing for at least 12+ seconds, and the enemy threatening you has to die within 30s where your own death is going to come just after.

Very few entities in the game are going to give you that level of threat combined with such a timely death.

But that's just output. Lets talk about practical use.

Practically speaking, being able to target your strongest damage windows for life drain is far better than having a bigger life drain window, but nothing to throw into it. Bloodbath being a 90s cooldown lining up with IR inflates how good Bloodbath looks individually. After all, you can just pop it every time before you go into IR.

But do you need to?

What if your IR window is happening when you're not taking damage?

People might say warrior is "boring" now, but it wasn't exactly boasting much better in Stormblood. Any time Bloodbath isn't used with IR, you're doing 12 GCDs of filler and non-boosted Fell Cleaves. Basically the same as a non-focused Nascent window in terms of output.

Nascent being shorter duration and shorter recast effectively lets you work it around all your burst. This nascent can be used with IR. This nascent can be used with IC. This one is in between big hits and lets you cover some auto attack damage.

A 30s bloodbath is prone to overhealing or underhealing based entirely on the whims of the encounter and your party, but Nascent is much more in your control.

[ItMe]

snip

That is some sick math.
I had no idea it was so strong.

[Lyth]

...

At the end of the day, it comes down to value.

Clearing content isn't the issue. Gear makes content easier over time. So how do you define what makes a player good or not? Damage output is a measure of this, but only if you can correlate higher skill with higher damage output. If you're just doing more damage because you picked a particular job and rolled your face across the keyboard, then it has no value whatsoever as a measure of skill.

Game developers think that if you make the average player feel good about themselves, they'll stick around and make more purchases. That's true in the short-term, as evidenced by countless F2P cashgrabs, but shortsighted. You only value the the things that you really worked for. You need differences in skill to correlate to differences in performance. Otherwise, the average player has nothing to look up to, and nothing to aspire to. There's no reason to stick around and get better.

Alarm bells should ring in your head any time somebody buffs your base combo without doing anything else to raise the difficulty of your job. Congratulations, you paid your subscription. You won the game, you are the best of the best. Please buy more mogstation glamours. Is there any surprise why tanking and healing ennui is so prevalent? I don't know about you, but I would feel embarrassed to be handed a win without putting any work into it. I wouldn't feel good about that at all, but apparently some people do.

My stance always has, and always will be this: skill differences should translate into performance differences. I want to play a job that is recognized by the playerbase as high skill, with a low performance floor and a high performance ceiling. Ideally a tank, given that I've spent the better part of 15 years playing tanks. Ideally something with a cool aesthetic, like big greatswords swung at high speeds. That's why I liked DRK in Heavensward.

But my biggest requirement is that skill correlate with performance, across all tanks.

[Danelo]

But my biggest requirement is that skill correlate with performance, across all tanks.

Yes. High skill ceiling and low floor is what’s missing. I will admit I could see the difficulty in tuning all the jobs so that player effort=Job performance on a sliding scale. I would be willing to show grace if the kinks are worked out quickly and not left toward the end of the expansion like DRK in sb.

I wish SE would put as much effort into job adjustments/reworks as they do on the story.

[whiskeybravo]

snip

I'm sorry but it sounds to me like you're missing the forest for the trees. Like, there's never been or can ever be numbers adjustments to balance out a jobs damage with it's supposed complexity or proper "tier"? It's all just stuffing your face with cake? Nom nom nom...

There are far too many dimensions by which one could calculate any given player's level of skill. Damage needs to be looked at relatively not comparatively. GNB to GNB, WAR to WAR, PLD to PLD, DRK to DRK, etc. If knowing that GNB deals more damage at base than a WAR, then seeing them do more damage in a fight doesn't necessarily mean they are more skilled, they are "just doing more damage because (they) picked a particular job". It's at least a heavy consideration. In this instance the only way I can judge my skill level is against another WAR.

Consider too that there is a difference in skill at a job vs skill at content/game mechanics in general. Knowing how to dodge an aoe at the last moment to get an extra GCD in translates to all jobs, not any specific one. Cheesing a mechanic with an invuln to get more attacks in is likewise transferable across tank jobs. These have nothing to do with the complexity of a job itself but certainly contribute to what might be considered in determining if a player is "good" or not.

Among other things, complexity of the job is not really all that good of a metric imo. Any "good" player that spends enough time on a job will become comfortably proficient at it, likely to a level above average if we're just looking at numbers. All that's required is time and practice. Some people are naturally more adept at learning or muscle memorizing, others need more time. At the end of the day it's all the same, great players will still be great.

[Lyth]

Sure, we all know that certain jobs have inflated dps for less effort. When you outperform them, everyone else in the group knows fairly decisively that you're better. It's doubly embarrassing to come up short. That implication was what Arygle was getting upset about, but in fairness, it's always been in the game (How did you outdps both the WAR and BRD? etc. etc.) There's no point begging for inflated numbers. It only works to your disadvantage.

By the way, all the things that you described in the latter part of your post have to do with uptime. And again, uptime should always translate into more damage, regardless of the job you pick. I don't really care how much you artificially boost your numbers, as long as you're in striking range to be properly shown up by another tank with better uptime.

[Argyle_Darkheart]

Damage output is a measure of this, but only if you can correlate higher skill with higher damage output.

You can. Barring RNG and kill time woes, if you play better, then you will deal more damage. You don't deal more damage by playing worse (well, there's padding and griefing your party for some selfish advantage, but those are the exception); that wouldn't even make sense.

I want to play a job that is recognized by the playerbase as high skill, with a low performance floor and a high performance ceiling. Ideally a tank...

I don't. Or, rather, I don't particularly care. I've played WAR since 2.0; it's been all over the place when it comes to skill expression.

I want to play a tank that has high impact with reasonable skill expression. Sadly, I wouldn't call any of the tanks "high impact," currently.

But my biggest requirement is that skill correlate with performance, across all tanks.

It already does? But not to the extent that you would like it to, I'm assuming? I don't know, you're talking very generally about a very specific thing.

Alarm bells should ring in your head any time somebody buffs your base combo without doing anything else to raise the difficulty of your job...I don't know about you, but I would feel embarrassed to be handed a win without putting any work into it. I wouldn't feel good about that at all, but apparently some people do.

Why? The potency changes literally do nothing to WAR gameplay. If you were bad before, then you're bad now. If you were good before, then you're good now. If anything, the changes reward good fundamentals and shift some focus away from 90s unga bunga.

[Hierro]

Sure, we all know that certain jobs have inflated dps for less effort. When you outperform them, everyone else in the group knows fairly decisively that you're better. It's doubly embarrassing to come up short. That implication was what Arygle was getting upset about, but in fairness, it's always been in the game (How did you outdps both the WAR and BRD? etc. etc.) There's no point begging for inflated numbers. It only works to your disadvantage.

By the way, all the things that you described in the latter part of your post have to do with uptime. And again, uptime should always translate into more damage, regardless of the job you pick. I don't really care how much you artificially boost your numbers, as long as you're in striking range to be properly shown up by another tank with better uptime.

Have you ever stopped, for a moment, to examine your borderline-obsession with showing off your SK1LLZ via your class choice? I'm guilty of showboating just as much as the next guy, but the way you go out it, to me it's like it embodies the meme of "it's not enough that I succeed but others must fail." It comes off like you desire not to show how much you're capable of, but you want to show "BTW I outdpsed the actual dps and the defacto tank dps." Almost like your success hinges on the failures of others, embarrassing or humiliating them.

Gotta re-examine that, brother.