Warrior Rework to Balance the job

[CKNovel]

They're not wrong though.

Healers waits until there's damage to heal and spam the same button while waiting, that's their gameplay. As long as SQEX gives nothing to do to fill those empty window, you'll see complains.
You can nerf Bloodwhetting, Clemency, Cover and whatever you want, healers will always remain an ungrateful role to play.

We'll just end up with dungeons similar to Heroes Gauntlet to balance the nerf and tools that used to be fun won't be anymore, just to stroke the ego of MSQ healers.

Take the 24 man raid from EW, they're as boring as dungeon to heal. Is there multi target? No. Is Warrior broken in there? No.

[Shurrikhan]

They're not wrong though.

"How dare you ask that problem A be dealt with when other problems exist?!" is a very wrong way to look at almost anything, let alone when those problems are resolvable separately/independently of balancing concerns across tanks or among the relative contributions of Warrior's kit.

We'll just end up with dungeons similar to Heroes Gauntlet to balance the nerf and tools that used to be fun won't be anymore, just to stroke the ego of MSQ healers.

Tuning affects only how redundant you make others' (and other parts of your own) kit.

Which do you actually like then? The gameplay of the tools (unchanged, except in that other Warrior mitigation optimizations might also now be of value), or solely the fact that you uniquely don't need the other roles / render another role redundant in their interactions with you, or a different game approach whereby the "trinity" is softened to a pudding?

If the change would be bad, then surely it has to be one of the things actually affected by the change, no? And I'd understand, even, if it's the last. But if one isn't equally okay with tanks being rendered as useless as healers or with Warrior offering only as much as other tanks... I don't get the feeling the game's broader health is their driving concern.

[CKNovel]

"How dare you ask that problem A be dealt with when other problems exist?!" is a very wrong way to look at almost anything, let alone when those problems are resolvable separately/independently of balancing concerns across tanks or among the relative contributions of Warrior's kit.

No strawman, please, I have said none of these words and neither implied them in any way.

Which do you actually like then? The gameplay of the tools (unchanged, except in that other Warrior mitigation optimizations might also now be of value), or solely the fact that you uniquely don't need the other roles / render another role redundant in their interactions with you, or a different game approach whereby the "trinity" is softened to a pudding?

A closed choice is a nice manipulation tactic.
I have proposed solutions that can restore the so holy trinity and pointed out why Bloodwhetting isn't the problem and that nerfing it wouldn't restore the trinity.

I want to keep the current status while restoring the trinity in dungeon, I've provided enough materials to do so.

[Shurrikhan]

No strawman, please, I have said none of these words and neither implied them in any way.

Unless you referred to yourself in the third person earlier and expect to be referred to also as such even in a direct reply, it should be clear that I wasn't referring to you, but rather the poster ("he") whose content we were both talking about.

A closed choice is a nice manipulation tactic.

A set of choices presented in a manner closed than it actually is would be a manipulation tactic, yes, but so would a set of choices presented as more open than they actually are. In this case, those choices are (to the honest extent of my understanding) exhaustive among what could/would be changed by dungeon tuning. Presenting anything more than them as relevant (insofar as seems to be remotely reasonable) would be (to my understanding) manipulative conflation.

If you can show why those potential outcomes are not exhaustive, by all means. But don't pretend that focusing on just what outcomes would actually be affected when discussing the effects of change is inherently reductive; by that token, it is at least as arguable that any discussion outside of what would be changed would be a separate issue and/or mere conflation.

I want to keep the current status while restoring the trinity in dungeon, I've provided enough materials to do so.

Then how the heck would spreading out the contributions of Warrior's kit in dungeons nearer to what they see in raids be damaging to that? And how would making healing truly matter (e.g., such that there is no spare free healing to be done by tanks or healers even at max gear and optimal play) make a broken scalar less important?

Yes, it might then do less to make healing redundant, but it would then provide a very real advantage to survivability and/or rDPS (via healing GCDs spared), not merely to ease, once you amp up incoming damage while leaving a single tank (and especially, a single skill) overpowered, making the issue arguably worse. Alternatively, the increases to incoming damage could only go so far as the other tanks are capable of dealing with, in which case Warrior (especially, Bloodwhetting) would still excessively step on the toes of healers (all over a scalar that has only been broken since Endwalker and actually degrades the sustain gameplay interactions that were previously available to Warrior).

it would be super nice if the non-WAR players would stay in their lane.

Is this a false flag, or are you really outing yourself (and by association, your job or a portion of its other users) as a whole new level of entitled / unconcerned for broader game health? These are comments on broader balance, not what feels good or what niche optimizations are available in a given Ultimate.

Jobs operate relative to their alternatives and their relative balance can absolutely have an impact on the game. An overpowered job necessarily impacts others (making content more difficult than intended if the OP job is tuned around and other jobs are taken instead or easier than usual if that job is stacked). An underpowered job that content is nonetheless tuned around necessarily impacts others (denying them a need to make full use of their kits / optimize appropriately).

"If you're not presently maxed in job Z, you are not allowed to voice concern for how job Z may impact jobs A-Y" is not a good look, even if we remove the hierarchical vibes there.

[CKNovel]

Then how the heck would spreading out the contributions of Warrior's kit in dungeons nearer to what they see in raids be damaging to that? And how would making healing truly matter (e.g., such that there is no spare free healing to be done by tanks or healers even at max gear and optimal play) make a broken scalar less important?

Yes, it might then do less to make healing redundant, but it would then provide a very real advantage to survivability and/or rDPS (via healing GCDs spared), not merely to ease, once you amp up incoming damage while leaving a single tank (and especially, a single skill) overpowered, making the issue arguably worse. Alternatively, the increases to incoming damage could only go so far as the other tanks are capable of dealing with, in which case Warrior (especially, Bloodwhetting) would still excessively step on the toes of healers (all over a scalar that has only been broken since Endwalker and actually degrades the sustain gameplay interactions that were previously available to Warrior).

I believe you're trying to thinking too deep.
Just look at 24 man raid, healing is still an insanely boring chore yet Warrior kit isn't in that specific situation where Bloodwhetting is broken.
Yet it's still boring to heal and the trinity barely matters! Why is it the case?

Bloodwhetting doesn't needs a nerf because it requires a very specific situation to be broken. Situations you only find in dungeons, maps and fate that regardless if you have a Warrior or not.
Bloodwhetting shouldn't be nerfed because the complains comes from a kneejerk reaction and would encourage nerf mentality for something so niche.

I do wonder if people here would be so happy if the shoe were on the other foot. If, for example, holy stun didn't have limited uses making all tanks and other healers inferior picks for party compositions in normal content. I mean, that's fine. Right?

Go ahead.
Tanks wouldn't complain because they have a rotation.
DPS would complain if you stun the mobs without letting them nicely pack first.
Healers would complain because they're spamming a single button.

[PyurBlue]

I believe you're trying to thinking too deep.
Bloodwhetting doesn't needs a nerf because it requires a very specific situation to be broken. Situations you only find in dungeons

One of the most commonly run content. You're right that WAR is only overpowered in a specific situation, yet that hasn't stopped it from becoming a source of annoyance to players. Seeing a Warrior tank when queueing into a dungeon is pure disappointment. Fixing this won't make healers perfect, but it will make them better.

Tanks wouldn't complain because they have a rotation.

At that point you might as well remove TB's and party defense abilities. Mitigation for self and party is what sets the tank role apart. Without that there would be no reason to play it.

[CKNovel]

False, you would also be the dude who has to keep the tank alive unless you want a party wipe.

That's exactly what I'm criticizing. Healer should be the dude that had to keep the party alive.

At that point you might as well remove TB's and party defense abilities. Mitigation for self and party is what sets the tank role apart. Without that there would be no reason to play it.

That remark makes me believe you completely missed the point.
Tanks fits 2 roles, they are DPS and they are tanks.

In Dungeons, Normal mode and 24 man raid, tank buster deals miserable damages. Yet do we see a tank strike?
No, because tanks still have another role to fill.


Go back to my 24 man raid argument where Warrior isn't broken yet healing is still boring. I haven't seen a counter-argument yet.

[Shurrikhan]

I believe you're trying to thinking too deep.

The same is at least as true of your approach. Simply put:

Where (even oGCD) healing doesn't much matter, the problem is that...

1. the healing doesn't matter and healers have nothing else to do with even potential engagement, AND
   
2. that healing increases cannot quite be settled upon simultaneously across ST and MT content for tanks like WAR and for tanks like DRK, therefore denying a workable threshold from which to finally --having removed the prior red herrings about theoretical healing increases great enough to allegedly make Malefic spam therebetween appealing-- handle what downtime remains.

Where (oGCD) healing does matter, the problem is that...

1. the relative waste of GCD heals exacerbates how little else there is with even potential engagement, AND
   
2. that further healing increases to dig into that portion cannot quite be settled upon simultaneously across ST and MT content for tanks like WAR and for tanks like DRK, therefore denying a workable threshold from which to finally --having removed the prior red herrings about theoretical healing increases great enough to allegedly make Malefic spam therebetween appealing-- handle what downtime remains.

The problems are the same, just sampled at different levels of decay.

[Crafoutis]

Jobs operate relative to their alternatives and their relative balance can absolutely have an impact on the game. An overpowered job necessarily impacts others (making content more difficult than intended if the OP job is tuned around and other jobs are taken instead or easier than usual if that job is stacked). An underpowered job that content is nonetheless tuned around necessarily impacts others (denying them a need to make full use of their kits / optimize appropriately).

"If you're not presently maxed in job Z, you are not allowed to voice concern for how job Z may impact jobs A-Y" is not a good look, even if we remove the hierarchical vibes there.

No, if you don't play the roles at max level you can't actually understand the difference between the classes at max level in order to lend an equally-representative voice to the discussion which seeks to impact design change. And as of the time I'm writing this, you do not have the tanks at max level.

I can't begin to describe my disinterest in your 'vibes'.

[Shurrikhan]

No, if you don't play the roles at max level you can't actually understand the difference between the classes at max level in order to lend an equally-representative voice to the discussion which seeks to impact design change. And as of the time I'm writing this, you do not have the tanks at max level.

This alt does not have every tank at max level yet, no. That said...

By all means, tell me why basic math --let alone across abilities unchanged from the previous expansion and raw damage unchanged from across any other tank-- would require having personally hit each button oneself despite the plethora of vids, vods, and logs available from which to see exactly how their use has played out among players of varying skill levels (including even the top 1%)?

This reads like just another "it's only patch notes; you can't possibly understand how it will play" except in this case the encounters, too, are fully known, making the offhand dismissal make even less sense. One does not need to have hit Bloodwhetting on each alt in each Savage fight (let alone played each also on every other tank) to know Warrior's sustain output or its sources of contribution in DT endgame or, more relevantly, the content types actually being discussed (where Bloodwhetting is most absurd, dungeons).

(And that's ignoring that the same positions are held also by people with every tank leveled to 100.)