Fine, Bloodwhetting is too OP

[CKNovel]

Those two claims don’t contradict, WOW hits for more which justifies a higher sustain level. Is WOW’s sustain still too high……arguable. Is WOW’s sustain better balanced because the tanks take more damage……yes.

That's an insane level of denial and double standard.
One moment you scream that Healers are being replaced and your role is being filled by the tanks because of gimmick clears and casual content.
But WoW is fine when I show you a tank solo tanking a whole high-endgame content with no healers on a specs like Guardian Druid can also ressurect and cleanse poisons.

Yes, wow tanks takes more damage, but they can also sustain more than the damage their receive.
Unlike XIV, it isn't rare to see WoW tanks healing and mitigating more than their healers.

[Terhix]

Yes, but is it the case here? I don't think so.
(...)

What's not the case here? The playerbase is so different that one nerf to WAR will cause more players quitting than nerfing all tanks did in WoW? Or is it the reason for tanks being nerfed in WoW different?

Well, let's see, here is Blizzard verbatim in their blue post during Dragonflight:

(...) We want healers to play a key role in keeping tanks alive, and tanks shouldn't be able to easily solo large portions of encounters after the rest of their group have died.

Emphasis mine.

I'd also like to remind people that even the staunchest defenders of Bloodwhetting, yourself included, admit it's overpowered. Now feel free to resume your mental gymnastics.

[Supersnow845]

That's an insane level of denial and double standard.
One moment you scream that Healers are being replaced and your role is being filled by the tanks because of gimmick clears and casual content.
But WoW is fine when I show you a tank solo tanking a whole high-endgame content with no healers on a specs like Guardian Druid can also ressurect and cleanse poisons.

Yes, wow tanks takes more damage, but they can also sustain more than the damage their receive.
Unlike XIV, it isn't rare to see WoW tanks healing and mitigating more than their healers.

It’s not because I specifically said is tank sustain in WOW still too strong……debatable. I don’t want to argue too strongly about WOW because I don’t play it directly. I just know if I said directly “I want sustain nerfed again in WOW” you’d just retaliate with “you just hate tanks in all games and obviously want to ruin everyone’s fun” (don’t deny it)

I’m not qualified enough to speak on WOW’s sustain. I know as far as they get hit far more than 14’s tanks and as such they have stronger sustain on average. If that clear is any indication of the balance of high end tanks yeah I’d probably advocate nerfing them further if I had any leg in the race but i also know blizzard has been willing to do that and healers in WOW aren’t treated like 2 year olds.

This still doesn’t in any way affect the fact that the WOW tank nerf hasn’t caused their population to completely collapse like has been stated in this thread. Based on my rudimentary understanding of how WOW’s tanks work that clear looked like a ShB WAR or a SB DRK situation, possible but requires coordination and skill, you don’t just press the win button every 30 seconds, but like I said I’m just guessing at skill effects here so this part could be wrong

But yes my position is not inconsistent because if that’s a common phenomenon in WOW I would 100% also advocate to nerf their tanks, I just don’t have a leg in the race

My position has always been and will always be “in a trinity game all roles should rely on all other roles in all content” and this includes the tank directly relying on the healer, not relying on the healer by proxy of keeping the DPS alive

[CKNovel]

What's not the case here? The playerbase is so different that one nerf to WAR will cause more players quitting than nerfing all tanks did in WoW? Or is it the reason for tanks being nerfed in WoW different?
Well, let's see, here is Blizzard verbatim in their blue post during Dragonflight:

I'd also like to remind people that even the staunchest defenders of Bloodwhetting, yourself included, admit it's overpowered. Now feel free to resume your mental gymnastics.

If we had something similar to mythic dungeons and Warrior was able to solo sustain it, I'd agree for a nerf. But right now it's just to stroke a minority's ego.
I've already stated that something overpowered, especially in a very specific and casual scenario, isn't necesseraly bad.

I only shared the patch note that documented the heavy nerf to tank sustain with a video post nerf and that's gymnastic to you?
That's just presenting facts and putting things in its original context to show how out of control WoW's tank sustain was and clear the misinformation about WoW tanks """melting""" to boss attacks.
At this point, walking in the street is gymnastic.

You also mentionned the problems being similar but that isn't true, the type of content and difficulty is widely different. Now you're moving the goalpost.
Who's doing mental gymnastic here?

[Terhix]

If we had something similar to mythic dungeons and Warrior was able to solo sustain it, I'd agree for a nerf. But right now it's just to stroke a minority's ego.
I've already stated that something overpowered, especially in a very specific and casual scenario, isn't necesseraly bad.

I only shared the patch note that documented the heavy nerf to tank sustain with a video post nerf and that's gymnastic to you?
That's just presenting facts and putting things in its original context to show how out of control WoW's tank sustain was and clear the misinformation about WoW tanks """melting""" to boss attacks.
At this point, walking in the street is gymnastic.

Rationalizing why something that is overpowered shouldn't be nerfed, as you are doing here, is mental gymnastics.

You also mentionned the problems being similar but that isn't true, the type of content and difficulty is widely different. Now you're moving the goalpost.
Who's doing mental gymnastic here?

I'll rephrase my argument again so maybe it gets to you this time:

1. Anjou said: "Do you really want the game to lose 50% of it's monetization in a single day just because you think a job is too OP?"
2. I pointed out that blizzard thought tanks were OP (see similar problem here?) and nerfed them, twice.
3. Blizzard has not lost any monetization as a result, and if anything their bottom line went up.

For me to have moved the goalpost someone would have to point how any of these statements is faulty, and I'd have to change my argument as a result. But nobody did, and I have not changed my argument, my goal post is in exactly the same place it was 2 pages ago, and your tangents don't change that.

[CKNovel]

I'll rephrase my argument again so maybe it gets to you this time:

[Some beef with someone else unrelated to the point]

I'm thankfull for your effort but it doesn't change anything.
I've only put back in context how the tanks were broken and how the nerf was seen as necessary by everyone. And you seem to struggle with this idea.

I don't care about whatever you said with Anjou but that, you've been making false claims that the problem was similar, which isn't.
The necessity, impact and context of the nerfs are completely different, that's like if you were saying the World War II and the Vietnam war had similar results because they're both wars.
Remember we're comparing this to Bloodwhetting.

And again, you've been moving the goalpost to your discussion with Anjou, I don't care about it.
It's not that complex, is it?

[Supersnow845]

I'm thankfull for your effort but it doesn't change anything.
I've only put back in context how the tanks were broken and how the nerf was seen as necessary by everyone. And you seem to struggle with this idea.

I don't care about whatever you said with Anjou but that, you've been making false claims that the problem was similar, which isn't.
The necessity, impact and context of the nerfs are completely different, that's like if you were saying the World War II and the Vietnam war had similar results because they're both wars.
Remember we're comparing this to Bloodwhetting.

And again, you've been moving the goalpost to your discussion with Anjou, I don't care about it.
It's not that complex, is it?

I mean if 14 let you pull the entire dungeon then WAR could easily tank the entire dungeon because BW scales with enemies

That’s just an example of 14 artificially limiting pull size, not an example of WOW being worse on the tank sustain side

[Terhix]

The necessity, impact and context of the nerfs are completely different (...)

This is completely superfluous to the argument I'm making, but yes, given the fact that people didn't quit WoW en masse after nerfs to all tanks that affected them in all content it would then stand to reason people won't quit this game en masse either if you nerf one ability on one job in one very specific content only.

And again, you've been moving the goalpost to your discussion with Anjou, I don't care about it.

If you don't care about the arguments I'm making, then don't reply to me next time and then get upset because I don't let you derail the topic lol.

Edit: also you should really learn what "moving the goalposts" means, you still keep using it wrong.

[CKNovel]

I mean if 14 let you pull the entire dungeon then WAR could easily tank the entire dungeon because BW scales with enemies

Go to Deep dungeon and do similar pulls, then share us your experience.

This is completely superfluous to the argument I'm making, but yes, given the fact that people didn't quit WoW en masse after nerfs to all tanks that affected them in all content it would then stand to reason people won't quit this game en masse either if you nerf one ability on one job in one very specific content only.

"Superfluous" is a big word.
Did Poland had an exodus during the Vietnam war? No. Therefore there would be no exodus during World War II.
Did the planet had global warming before the industrialization era? Yes. Therefore the current global warming isn't caused by human activity.
It's basically your argument, they're completely unrelated events on completely different scales and only share the nature of War. That's an apple and orange fallacy.

But you do your absolute best to ignore that big flaws in your argument because you know it makes it lose all its weight.
That's why you call it "superfluous".

And calling it "superfluous" is a form of moving the goalpost as you're manipulating the criterias for your arguments to remain valid.

[Carighan]

"Superfluous" is a big word.
Did Poland had an exodus during the Vietnam war? No. Therefore there would be no exodus during World War II.
Did the planet had global warming before the industrialization era? Yes. Therefore the current global warming isn't caused by human activity.
It's basically your argument, they're completely unrelated events on completely different scales and only share the nature of War. That's an apple and orange fallacy.

You're now trying to strawman your way out of being caught with a bad-faith argument. The burden of proof is on you. You show that nerfing Bloodwhetting as it rightfully should be (and other non-DRK minor CDs along but not to the same degree as they don't have the same inherent issue, plus that's besides the point of this thread) would lead to an exodus of Warriors. You tried, you immediatley got caught out that you cannot infer this as its trivial to find counterexamples, and now you're struggling to not have to admit that you were, well, flat out wrong.