"Fix Warrior" Threads

[Hachiko]

My point was from yours and others findings, even though based around a roll based system, it shows from your data that the mitigation values are within an acceptable range due to how the mechanically differences of the two classes are played.

You've come to the exact opposite conclusion the results should have led you to. No where in the data is there any support for the idea that mitigation values are of negligible difference.

Are you just trolling or are you that oblivious to reality?

[PessimiStick]

Are you just trolling or are you that oblivious to reality?

A little of both, judging by his previous posts.

[Taemek]

You've come to the exact opposite conclusion the results should have led you to. No where in the data is there any support for the idea that mitigation values are of negligible difference.

Are you just trolling or are you that oblivious to reality?

Neither.

In your findings you are mostly compairing the two classes together to determine wether or not it is a multi-roll system, which you have sccuessfully done. In that data, it shows that, for the data you currently have, it is quite negligible, but again, this comes down to where you want to draw the line on an acceptable value of what is negigible.

Is 5% ok? 10%? 15%? What is ok for you guys? And on that same token, is the difference in DPS from Warrior to Paladin comparitive?

This is off topic anyways, at the end of the day, everyones math prior to learning it was a mutli-roll system was moot. Now that you know the correct order that the multi-roll algorithium functions, maybe people can shift stats around to better favour a Warrior to get a better outcome. This will obviously need further testing.

My guess is, SE aren;t going to knee jerk change anything unless the hard numbers weigh up that don;t leave people scratching thier heads on how they came about that value.

[Coramac]

Is 5% ok? 10%? 15%? What is ok for you guys? And on that same token, is the difference in DPS from Warrior to Paladin comparitive?

The problem with DPS is that it is relative to the group DPS. Let's say you have two DPS doing 200 DPS each and a WAR doing 150 DPS and a PLD doing 100 DPS. WAR is giving you 10% more DPS. Add another DPS, and it drops to 7.1% and this is also with the WAR doing 50% more DPS than a PLD. I haven't looked at the DPS comparisons between WAR and PLDs. The problem is not the damage reduction the PLD gets, but rather that it is always present and that the bonus healing for the WAR does not result in equivalency with PLD damage reduction. The PLD is always ahead because of this, but, when coupled with the PLD CDs, the PLD just blows the WAR out of the water. PLDs have CDs that are so far beyond anything the WAR has it's just silly.

[Hachiko]

Neither.

In your findings you are mostly compairing the two classes together to determine wether or not it is a multi-roll system, which you have sccuessfully done. In that data, it shows that, for the data you currently have, it is quite negligible, but again, this comes down to where you want to draw the line on an acceptable value of what is negigible.

It seems like to you a 20% difference in the required amount of healing received would be "negligible" then. A multi-roll table actually FURTHER puts the paladin ahead in terms of mitigation than the WAR than any assumed single roll table, not the other way around.

And whether or not everything was rendered "moot" by showing that it's a multi-roll table has nothing to do with whether or not the difference between WAR and PLD is negligible in terms of survivability.

I have no idea how you can sit there and say it's a negligible difference. It means you must be 100% oblivious to what the multi-roll table actually means. There is no (not a negligible) difference in the parry rate. But that only has a minor impact on the amount of incoming damage. Parry is going to work out to ~5% damage reduction from incoming attacks. Block also works out between ~4-5% damage reduction from incoming attacks. Already paladin has virtually twice the mitigation as WAR from passive effects alone.

Then when you add in the fact that the PLD will suffer fewer crits, the gap widens even further. Then when you add in the ~5% reduction from RoH it widens even further.

Just counting passive effects after armor you are looking at a WAR taking ~95% of incoming damage, and a WAR taking ~85% incoming damage (.95 * .95 * .95 * .99, assuming the reduction in crits only works out to ~1% reduced incoming damage). (note that even if it were single roll the difference would have been negligible at (1-.05+.05) * .95 = 85.5%)

Do you really think that is a "negligible"?

Then you add in the fact that the WAR required 9% more healing baseline in general. So a WAR suffering 1000 DPS (after armor, before parry), they will need ~950 HPS after parry, and with the Wrath bonus that will be ~826 "raw" hps (assuming you are sitting on Wrath stacks). For a PLD suffering 1000 DPS (also after armor, before parry, Rage of Halone, or block), they will require ~680 heals per second.

How can you call that a "negligible" difference? That's over 21% more healing required! And that's without even comparing Cooldowns which the Paladin wins with hands down.

[Taemek]

The problem with DPS is that it is relative to the group DPS. Let's say you have two DPS doing 200 DPS each and a WAR doing 150 DPS and a PLD doing 100 DPS. WAR is giving you 10% more DPS. Add another DPS, and it drops to 7.1% and this is also with the WAR doing 50% more DPS than a PLD. I haven't looked at the DPS comparisons between WAR and PLDs. The problem is not the damage reduction the PLD gets, but rather that it is always present and that the bonus healing for the WAR does not result in equivalency with PLD damage reduction. The PLD is always ahead because of this, but, when coupled with the PLD CDs, the PLD just blows the WAR out of the water. PLDs have CDs that are so far beyond anything the WAR has it's just silly.

Agree.

However, this wasn't my point.

It is common design practise in the MMO industry that there is always trade offs when designing classes. No two classes are ever the same and one always has something better then the other that defines thier flavour. The trade revolves generally around utility vs survivability. In a PLD vs War comparison, by design, the Warrior trades off survivability to do more DPS when the Paladin trades off DPS for survivability and same can be said for DPS and Healing based classes, they all trade off something that makes one better then the other in some aspect, it ends up being a complete circle that chains itself together.

PLD CD's vs War CD's is another issue all together and might need some tweaking down the track.

I think the Global Cooldown can be lowered across the board for all classes by half a second or even 3/4 of a second, this alone would help a Warrior in some regard, while most likely not to the effect that some people want.

I guess the question here is, is the flavour of the Warrior in it's current state what SE was aiming for?

There will always be min/maxing, that will never go away and that boils down to the attitude and mentaility of the player, however, if people can successfully do what is needed of their class, regardless of effort involved, then I really see no issue as it comes down to personal perference on how one chooses to spend thier time and if people are willing to take on that challenge, why not, more power to them.

It seems like to you a 20% difference in the required amount of healing received would be "negligible" then. A multi-roll table actually FURTHER puts the paladin ahead in terms of mitigation than the WAR than any assumed single roll table, not the other way around.

And whether or not everything was rendered "moot" by showing that it's a multi-roll table has nothing to do with whether or not the difference between WAR and PLD is negligible in terms of survivability.

I have no idea how you can sit there and say it's a negligible difference. It means you must be 100% oblivious to what the multi-roll table actually means. There is no (not a negligible) difference in the parry rate. But that only has a minor impact on the amount of incoming damage. Parry is going to work out to ~5% damage reduction from incoming attacks. Block also works out between ~4-5% damage reduction from incoming attacks. Already paladin has virtually twice the mitigation as WAR from passive effects alone.

Then when you add in the fact that the PLD will suffer fewer crits, the gap widens even further. Then when you add in the ~5% reduction from RoH it widens even further.

Just counting passive effects after armor you are looking at a WAR taking ~95% of incoming damage, and a WAR taking ~85% incoming damage (.95 * .95 * .95 * .99, assuming the reduction in crits only works out to ~1% reduced incoming damage). (note that even if it were single roll the difference would have been negligible at (1-.05+.05) * .95 = 85.5%)

Do you really think that is a "negligible"?

Then you add in the fact that the WAR required 9% more healing baseline in general. So a WAR suffering 1000 DPS (after armor, before parry), they will need ~950 HPS after parry, and with the Wrath bonus that will be ~826 "raw" hps (assuming you are sitting on Wrath stacks). For a PLD suffering 1000 DPS (also after armor, before parry, Rage of Halone, or block), they will require ~680 heals per second.

How can you call that a "negligible" difference? That's over 21% more healing required! And that's without even comparing Cooldowns which the Paladin wins with hands down.

I agree with some points and disagree on others.

One very simple way at looking at this is, if a boss is doing 1000 DPS and the Warrior takes 950 HPS to keep up, while the Paladin only has to take 680 HPS, but the healer is capable of putting out 1500+ HPS, whats the issue? All that happens here is the amount of healing done per mana spent is maximized on a Warrior where it is not wasted as it would be on a Paladin where it would fall to overhealing.

You can also argue that if a fight takes say, 2 mins longer with a Paladin tank vs a Warrior tank due to the increased DPS they do, there is a certain degree of DPS incoming saved there, although, still more involving for the healers over a shorter period of time.

What do you feel would be an acceptable negligible difference Hachi?

[Hachiko]

One very simple way at looking at this is, if a boss is doing 1000 DPS and the Warrior takes 950 HPS to keep up, while the Paladin only has to take 680 HPS, but the healer is capable of putting out 1500+ HPS, whats the issue? All that happens here is the amount of healing done per mana spent is maximized on a Warrior where it is not wasted as it would be on a Paladin where it would fall to overhealing.

You can also argue that if a fight takes say, 2 mins longer with a Paladin tank vs a Warrior tank due to the increased DPS they do, there is a certain degree of DPS incoming saved there, although, still more involving for the healers over a shorter period of time.

What do you feel would be an acceptable negligible difference Hachi?

First off, you have to be kidding. One tank can't take more than 20% more healing than the other to the point you can just wave it away and say "the healers can heal more than that anyway" because in general if they can it comes at some sacrifice, i.e. to their MP longevity or to their healing the rest of the party, otherwise the content would be absolutely trivial, particiularly with a PLD because they would be able to heal FAR more than what is required.

Second thing, are you freaking joking about making a fight 2 minutes faster? If that were the case then the situation were more nuanced. But if the difference between WAR and PLD being 2 minutes would mean the fight is what, 10 minutes long with PLD 8 minutes with WAR. That would mean assuming you have crappy DPS players only putting out 250 dps each, the difference between a WAR and PLD would have to be 20% of the overall raid dps with the PLD. With a PLD you're talking 1100 DPS, so a 2 minute advantage would put the war at 100+220, or 330 DPS. If WAR could put that much out in tank stance, they would be candidates for top DPS in the game.

A negligible difference would be something akin to a WAR shortening an 8 man fight by around the same margin of additional heals they required. So if a fight was 5% shorter they would take 5% more healing. Currently it's somewhere around 2-4% shorter by most counts (which is a negligible difference in length), and WAR takes more than 20% more healing once all things are considered (which is not a negligible difference in survivability).

[astrobear]

Agree.

snip

DUDE, why havent you posted on your "alt" account where you have a lvl 50 War tank?

just admit you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.