Paladin vs Warrior - ARR better set roles!

[Molly_Millions]

WAR was not the end all, be all tank towards the end of 1.0. What are you smoking OP? Please pass it this way.

[FedeMax]

WAR was not the end all, be all tank towards the end of 1.0. What are you smoking OP? Please pass it this way.

At the end everything I did it was Warrior. Every dungeon it was ask for a warrior, Garuda, King Moogle, Ifrit was ask for a warrior. The only battle I did not see a warrior all the time maybe 50/50 was Raven. The only one for sure that was ask for a Paladin that I ever did was Hamlet Defense since Paladin could heal himself.

[Molly_Millions]

At the end everything I did it was Warrior. Every dungeon it was ask for a warrior, Garuda, King Moogle, Ifrit was ask for a warrior. The only battle I did not see a warrior all the time maybe 50/50 was Raven. The only one for sure that was ask for a Paladin that I ever did was Hamlet Defense since Paladin could heal himself.

PLD definitely wasn't unwanted though. Most groups on Balmung used PLD in Garuda fights and Cutter's Cry. Even for moogles a lot of people used PLD over WAR. Just because you didn't want to use PLD doesn't make it useless or unwanted.

[Kaizuko_Hakupac]

PLD definitely wasn't unwanted though. Most groups on Balmung used PLD in Garuda fights and Cutter's Cry. Even for moogles a lot of people used PLD over WAR. Just because you didn't want to use PLD doesn't make it useless or unwanted.

he was right though, no matter if a group uses PLD over WAR or the otherway around, the base stats for WAR are TOO similar to PLD, WAR would play out better with more crowd control abilitys, and a bit less DEF then PLD, imo it should be like this... PLD-tank,WAR-crowd/DD, then DDs, then Mages, but thats just my humble opinion.

as far as picking WAR over PLD, i dont know how they did it in your server, but the OP is right, WAR overall is used more then PLD, if PLD is used for cc,garuda, moogle ... the point is it should be used for tanking 90% of the content.. not a few here and there, just saying give PLD Tanking more boost then WARs, then introduce a second tanking class later to spice things up..

[fusional]

At the end everything I did it was Warrior. Every dungeon it was ask for a warrior, Garuda, King Moogle, Ifrit was ask for a warrior. The only battle I did not see a warrior all the time maybe 50/50 was Raven. The only one for sure that was ask for a Paladin that I ever did was Hamlet Defense since Paladin could heal himself.

i won't say it would've been *impossible*, but rivenroad (hard) and ifrit (extreme) would have been idiotic with a warrior tank. completely and utterly awful.

also, with DDs who actually push limits, most all situations favored paladin tanks in the end. including garuda and av/cc. warriors just couldn't keep hate off DDs going completely all-out (and if you disagree, that's fine- it just means either your DDs weren't actually that great, or they were holding back), and additionally paladins were so strong that they could just about cover most or all of their own healing- freeing your group up to do even more dps by swapping out healing for more damage.

in fact, using a paladin tank for AV meant you could get away with having *no healing* for MM if you knew what you were doing.

if you had made this thread in early 2012 it would've been fairly accurate, but after they updated paladin the entire dynamic shifted. anyone who kept using warriors after that were mostly just doing it because it's what they knew, or because they were simply far behind the curve.

as far as burst aoe goes, though, warrior is at or near the top. while dragoon is hands down better in the right hands, warrior is *easier* to aoe with and that makes it more consistent and attractive for inexperienced players or groups wanting as much margin for error as possible (ie: using warriors for most of your aoe in ifrit extreme rather than dragoons. dragoons do the job much much better if your dragoons are great- but if not, you're better off just bringing an extra warrior or two... and most groups did)

Did Nael with both a PLD and a Warrior. Paladin kept better hate, Warrior was less fragile and did more damage.

lolwut? i.. what?

[Hyrist]

lolwut? i.. what?

You heard me. There was flatly more HP to play around with on your average Warrior.

Yes, paladins had the extra defense, but Nael still hit hard regardless and more than once the Paladins would dip into the red where a warrior would be orange/yellow from a similar attack.

Paladin's higher defence and self curing meant less work for the White Mage, but their HP seemed much more volitle in terms of risk.

Your mileage may vary, as you were in the top 5% of all players, but I was playing with pick-up groups.

That's part of being a dps, you were doing it right.

The dps mentality of DPS DPS DPS DPS, for some situations it's fine when you "have" to get things done before death comes knocking but dps should always be paying attention to there situation, others situations and their hate control in battle. Sounds to me like your just doing your job right unlike many that seemingly want to burn through content as fast as possible and think we tanks can compensate for their stupidity.

There is a timer to concern yourself with as well. And while I know to lower my DPS to compensate for lacking in hate management (on my end or his) it also means I'm doing less and we're using up more than the timer. Now, if we go ahead and make the timer all is well and good. But I like having a wide margin for error.

To put it bluntly, if I had to cut power surge to keep my hate from out pacing the tank, there's a problem. That was a problem I had with Warriors. I can't recall a time I had that problem with Paladins.

In trade, I have seen a Warrior survive situations where a Paladin died in similar circumstances. I attribute this mainly due to the larger HP pool, not due to better defensive measures.

Which there it is. It's a matter of preference. I do believe both camps underestimate one another during this argument, and my hopes for SE is that they've created battles that involve both jobs. We've 8 party slots and 8 jobs. No reason why not to think up ways each job can contribute in a unique way each fight. It only gets tough to juggle once we start adding more.

I don't think each classes base capabilities need to be radically changed to achieve this, so much as performance tweaking (upwards) to make each class feel strong enough in the given circumstance, while still feeling challenged. Which isn't hard if they keep with the multi-objective based gameplay they've trended so far.

[BumblebeeTuna]

At the end everything I did it was Warrior. Every dungeon it was ask for a warrior, Garuda, King Moogle, Ifrit was ask for a warrior. The only battle I did not see a warrior all the time maybe 50/50 was Raven. The only one for sure that was ask for a Paladin that I ever did was Hamlet Defense since Paladin could heal himself.

My LS did speed runs with whatever our tank felt like playing..war or pld didnt matter they were both fine. Hard mode darnus was PLD as was ifrit extreme...PLD was quite good actually and more fun to play than war imo. war was definately not the end all be all of tanking.

Also if you had good crowd control from blms and drgs it didnt matter if you had a pld cause half the time wars didnt even get a steel cyclone off before the groups were dead. And pld aoe flash was nice for grabbing groups.

[Ricky]

WAR was not the end all, be all tank towards the end of 1.0. What are you smoking OP? Please pass it this way.

It was the tank of choice for the majority of the game leaving the solely tank class on the sidelines, which is why people still discuss ways to avoid it in the future

[fusional]

It was the tank of choice for the majority of the game leaving the solely tank class on the sidelines, which is why people still discuss ways to avoid it in the future

then the majority of the game community was smoking some pretty potent stuff, and/or the majority of the game community never actually did anything in the game after... may?