Paladin vs Warrior - ARR better set roles!

[Leo_Hart]

secondly, two words: plasma acoustics. this is the only truly dangerous part of the fight for a tank, and a good paladin should always be able to predict it and block it. any HP of the warrior is just a visual safety net. in practice it was irrelevant. once they get the defense down from acoustics, darnus still cuts through their HP like butter whether they're a PLD or a WAR

and relating to that: paladin had an "OH SH*T" button in the form of invincibility. warrior didn't.

so i don't really buy the argument that warrior was safer. not at all.

Featherfoot n foresight should able to block it if P.Acoustics is predicted.

[fusional]

Compared to a Paladin, no, it's not.

well then it's a good thing paladin has better enmity tools and self cures to make up for it, right???

the point is- people saying warrior has the option to DPS are kind of exaggerating, because warrior's DPS is so poor *compared to other DPS*

so if warrior's dps sucks compared to other dps, but is slightly higher than paladin (which has plenty of tools warrior lacks), what's the problem? it's like you guys just have SUCH A BONER for paladin (because you play it) that you think it should be god of everything.

Those that say that PLD and WAR should be equal in tanking capabilities completely forget the most basic idea of balance.

Paladin is a specialized job.
Warrior is a hybrid job.

A specialized job can only do one thing, and needs to be better than any hybrid job at doing that thing, or it will be undesirable (exactly like it was in 1.0).

and it was. if you disagree, you're biased/wrong or you're basing your information on people who are biased/wrong. so where are you going with this?

Unless you nerf warrior's damage into oblivion, and to be precise to the same level of paladin

paladin's single-target damage is actually pretty comparable to warrior's single target damage. any paladin who disagrees needs to improve their rotation. the only real edge warrior had was in aoe damage, and that also falls under the category of specialization- as warrior was intended to be the aoe tank.

If a warrior can tank as well as a paladin

but it can't

but deals more damage

but that's its specialization in the context of tanking, and since it doesn't actually tank better than paladin the point is moot anyway

Higher attack and better versaitility need to come with a tradeoff

like what? like poor snap-aggro, slower enmity generation, poor/limited self healing, inability to heal/protect others? does that sound like a tradeoff to you? because it sure sounds like one to me!

It's really pretty simple. In a game in which there's only space for one main tank every eight people, having two main tank classes is excessive, and means that one of them will struggle at finding room.

and yet you do know that 24 man raids are coming, yes? which leads us to...

Warrior's desirability can be preserved simply with coding encounters making dynamic offtanking a necessity.

Paladin should be the kings of main tanking in every situation.

paladins ARE kings of main tanking in any situation that requires an actual tank. in any situation that *doesn't really need a tank*, warrior wins. the problem, once again, is that the game simply doesn't have enough content that's difficult enough to *require an actual tank*

if i want to get something done fast, and i know i won't be in any real danger- why would i bother with having a tank? why not just throw another monk at it? and that's what people do, and why warrior was largely preferred up until the paladin update and SC nerf.

and since 24 man raids are coming, you can almost be sure there will be plenty of encounters designed specifically with their aoe offtanking in mind- leaving the paladins to hold the big main baddies.

Warriors should be the kings of off tanking, with good snap-aggro abilities and good (but not exceptional) defense, able to double up as a damager if there's the need for it, or as a situational main tank if there's no PLD available, with the tradeoff of more strain on the healers.

and that's exactly what they are. just because the community is slow to adapt and quick to base their preferences and opinions on outdated and wrong information, that doesn't make it reality.

and if people would actually sift through this thread with open eyes, they'd see that is precisely the root of the problem.

people are ranting about pld vs. war based on information and/or experiences that are simply no longer accurate representations of the latest model of gameplay (before servers went down)

If PLD and WAR have the same defensive

and they don't, so this point is moot.

[fusional]

That is false.

of course it's false. i wasn't stating an opinion, i was using a hypothetical situation to make a point. do people in this thread even read anything before they smash their fists on the keyboard?

[Duelle]

I don't believe the issue is revolved around two different tanks taking on something. I believe it is the idea of WAR being a hybrid of DPS/tanking and PLD only tanking is the beef people are having.

One side says: It isn't fair that WAR get to DPS/tank and PLD only gets to tank. This side believes that if you get to be hybrid, you have to be restricted compared to someone who is tank only.

Other side says: WAR shouldn't be gimped in tanking and SE should be left as is.

I've seen those comments, but to me it's a pointless debate when WAR can't perform comparibly to other jobs in DPS outside of AoE spam (which got nerfed before the end of 1.0, if I recall). Not to mention WAR being hybrid goes against the whole point of their job system, which is role-centric.

WAR's hybridity was never on the table for me because if the job system is going to be roles, then I expect WAR to be put in one role or the other and go from there. 1.0 is basically hold-over content and that is something I feel some have never realized or gotten wind of.

In all honesty though, with how different the new battle system is, it is hard to determine how this will work out. Dev's have clearly said that "roles" of jobs won't change, but their "concept" might. Warrior was directly pointed at when they mentioned it. They have also said how different Monk has changed. From being an elemental brawler to a DPS that focuses on chains that keep going faster and faster the more you go. It is a pretty significant change. So it leads myself to believe that both PLD and WAR will get some change in their concept. Perhaps one that meets a criteria that will satisfy both sides of the debate (Hah, yeah right).

This remains to be seen. I just get annoyed by people who go under the idea that having one master tank is a great idea. I know that mentality carried over from FFXI and older MMOs (Lineage II for a while ran the "Dark Avenger or go home" bit for tanks), and that modern MMOs have tried to squash it as best they could.

I really wish they would release more info on the battle system. At least my worries might be put to rest if I knew what they were planning to do and how they're approaching roles per job.

[Velhart]

snip

Actually, every time I was in an Ifrit Extreme win, the tank was a WAR each time. Awesome healers were awesome. Awesome WAR was awesome. Its not to say your strategy doesn't work, but the warrior setup was quite legit.

I've seen those comments, but to me it's a pointless debate when WAR can't perform comparibly to other jobs in DPS outside of AoE spam (which got nerfed before the end of 1.0, if I recall). Not to mention WAR being hybrid goes against the whole point of their job system, which is role-centric.

WAR's hybridity was never on the table for me because if the job system is going to be roles, then I expect WAR to be put in one role or the other and go from there. 1.0 is basically hold-over content and that is something I feel some have never realized or gotten wind of.

This remains to be seen. I just get annoyed by people who go under the idea that having one master tank is a great idea. I know that mentality carried over from FFXI and older MMOs (Lineage II for a while ran the "Dark Avenger or go home" bit for tanks), and that modern MMOs have tried to squash it as best they could.

I really wish they would release more info on the battle system. At least my worries might be put to rest if I knew what they were planning to do and how they're approaching roles per job.

Well, we have 2-3 weeks till we can get a feel for them ourselves. They won't be lv.50 though and won't be able to determine how they function end game till phase 3 at least. However, we can see if abilities up to 35(?) have shown any difference to the role of Gladiator and Marauder. Actually, hell if I know if they will even give out jobs themselves. It might just be classes for now.

I agree that there shouldn't be a "one job to rule them all" method, look at my debate(?) with Starlord. I just have a gut feeling that is not how it is going to be, but for all I know I could be wrong till I get more information. I feel like we are debating over the past, and then when the future becomes the present, we will look back at the thread and go "Wow, we were way off.", or "Rabble rabble rabble.", one of the two.

[fusional]

quick show of hands:

how many people saying warrior does great dps (and/or that paladin single target dps is SO MUCH WORSE) have actually ever used a parser?

because...

Featherfoot n foresight should able to block it if P.Acoustics is predicted.

neither are reliable. don't be a homer.

Actually, every time I was in an Ifrit Extreme win, the tank was a WAR each time. Awesome healers were awesome. Awesome WAR was awesome. Its not to say your strategy doesn't work, but the warrior setup was quite legit.

fallacy of personal experience, and does *absolutely nothing* to address every single legitimate concern posted about warrior tanks in that fight.

you guys are really doing my head in.

[Darkillumina]

of course it's false. i wasn't stating an opinion, i was using a hypothetical situation to make a point. do people in this thread even read anything before they smash their fists on the keyboard?

I gave up trying to respond after my second reply. Trying to tell these people the truth is a pointless endeavor and a waste of time. They will close their eyes and refuse to recognize the evidence in place before them. It's people like this that gave paladins a bad name in XI and created pointless dialogue between the two classes after April of 2012 in XIV.

Also some of you people must be rolling with some shitty paladins if you are stating the things that you're stating. Paladin has superior damage mitigation, awesome debuffs through weaponskills, awesome buffs, = if not superior single target dps compared to warrior on end-game bosses and self-healing capabilities as well as a defense ignoring weaponskill in Spirits Within. What the fuck else do you want? If SE listened to you rubes nobody would play warrior.

[Velhart]

fallacy of personal experience, and does *absolutely nothing* to address every single legitimate concern posted about warrior tanks in that fight.

you guys are really doing my head in.

Actually, most people from Hyperion I saw go into the instance used a WAR tank. There we PLD tank parties also, both were used, it wasn't just a personal experience. Also, each tank was different each run I won. Both PLD and WAR method work fine in Ifrit, i'm not sure where you are defending yourself here. Saying WAR is "unreliable" on Ifrit Extreme however seems kind of an ill statement, since there is a lot of proof just on YouTube itself that they are more than reliable. Rather the PLD or WAR method works better, really, if the big doofus is dead, does it matter what party setup was used?

[fusional]

As someone who pretty much only Tanked in 1.x, Both WAR and PLD had their place in almost every encounter (as others have stated, Darnus Hard and Ifrit X require a PLD).

But for AV/CC/Garuda - Tanking on WAR was fine, and so was Paladin!

It just depends what your goals are. I would certainly say that in most every case, a party would be safer with a Paladin. Mostly because it gave the whm an easier job. Free AOE regen, and more less damage taken overall.

But If you have a talented white mage, or your goal is pure speed, then sacrificing your self-survivability for more damage is always welcomed where applicable!

There are of course times when you cant use a Warrior tank. Particularly mobs with very high defence, as the bulk of WAR Enmity comes from their damage. Trying to tank Chimera on WAR for a speed run without good use of Enmity potions would mean a slow start for your DD's. Whereas a Paladin opening with Spirits within is keeping that threat on lockdown, so your blackmages can go BANANAS!

As for 2.0, I hope nothing changes too much! PLD is great for tanking bosses and WAR is great for AOE tanking regular mobs in a dungeon, both have their place! A good Tank will swap roles mid Dungeon to accomplish the highest levels of efficiency! (I'd run through CC on WAR and swap to PLD in the final room so my cooldowns were ready for the boss for example!)

quoting THIS GUY on page 5 for emphasis

[Shougun]

quoting THIS GUY on page 5 for emphasis

Swapping jobs mid way through is bad for hybrid and dungeon design, imo... (in the guys quote)


Though it would be good for player dungeon efficiency (not that I think that means its good).