Quote Originally Posted by Judge_Xero View Post
That's why in my comparison I take the party composition as a whole.
Except that the game is obviously designed around a 1:1:2 ratio instead of the 1:2:1 ratio you're using thanks to the DF, as well as how the fights themselves are design (DPS races and whatnot).

On top of that, there *isn't* any advantage when using that composition for a WAR compared to a PLD: you're sacrificing damage to increase survivability. Since WAR and PLD deal effectively the same damage, a PLD could get the exact same increase in survivability by going with your 2 healer composition and it would *still* be more survivable than the WAR while having the same damage output.

Also, as I pointed out last time you brought up that composition, you're not going to a perfect conversion with healer DPS. A healer that spends 40% of their time is not going to provide 40% of the DPS of an actual DPS. If they *could*, there would be no point in bringing DPS because healers in DPS stances could match them while also being able to swap to healing when needed. A healer in a DPS stance does roughly 75% of what a DPS does (a CNJ will manage ~200 mean magic potency per GCD whereas a BLM does ~270), so the comparative loss of DPS is actually 16% (40 * .75 + 100 + 50 = 210; 100 + 100 + 50 = 250; 210 / 250 = .84). Even if you only assume that they'll use attacks 40% of the time, they'll only get as high as 32.5% of what a DPS would manage in that same time frame, which is a 14% loss (32.5 * 2 + 100 + 50 = 215).

Generates much more enmity
Where are you getting *this* from? WAR doesn't generate more enmity than PLD. In fact, it ends up generating slightly less. It's also not like healers increase enmity generation or having more healers stops that 1 DPS from still putting out full numbers, so you can't argue that it's better comparative enmity.

Greater Survivability compared to Paladin.
That's a complete and utter farce. Even if you average out the CDs rather than accounting for their burst contributions, they provide a lot more than 10.4% increased survivability: Rampart provides 4.44% over time, Sentinel 2.22%, Foresight 1.67%, Convalescence 5%, Bulwark 1.75%, and Hallowed Ground 1.39% (16.47%). Even if you factor in the WAR CD suite (Foresight provides 2.22, Featherfoot 2.5%, Convalescence 3.33%; ToB is a complete and utter joke because it's a 20% heal every 3 minutes), a WAR is going to be taking 91.95% of pre-CD damage and a PLD is taking 83.53%, which means that WAR is going to be requiring 110% of what a PLD is going to require. As such, you composition ends up providing WAR with, at best, *equal* survivability to a PLD and that's only if you're willing to treat the reactive and RNG mitigation provided by Featherfoot and Convalescence the same as the straight up static mitigation provided by 5/6ths of the PLD CD suite.

Put it all together and you get a composition that deals less damage and has no advantages. You really need to stop talking about your alternate composition as if it somehow *solved* problems rather than being completely and utterly absurd from the start (assuming you're capable of making simple logical leaps like "healers do less damage than DPS" and realizing that the PLD CD suite stops the living *hell* out of the WAR CD suite).