PLD dps needs to be buffed, current dps a joke

[Phoenicia]

I'm sorry but I find it quite hard to agree with this logic that you present as a trade-off. In my opinion you are really stretching things it to make it look like a trade-off.
You are mostly saying the following: If I use my stacks of Fell Cleave I don't have them for Inner Beast.

While that sounds perfectly fine in theory it ignores the reality of the raiding dungeons: You know when you are going to get hit by the tank buster.
If you didn't know exactly when you would get hit (for example a random tank buster or a semi-random like Ifrit EX) then that what you say would be valid. You used your stacks for damage and then big attack come and you couldn't use a cooldown. You risk dying in order to get more damage.
But it doesn't really work that way in raids. You know exactly when the tank buster is coming, so if you weren't ready for it then you simply derped. There is no risk if you know when the tank buster is coming. And since most battles are scripted you know exactly when it will come.
So basically unless you mess up you are never in a any real risk of dying.

You are the one doing the stretching here. Knowing exactly when the tank buster is coming is irrelevant. You can say the "risk" is mitigated in the current meta's heavily scripted tank busters being so far apart. Does not change the fact that WAR "risks" loss of mitigation when it tries to push that extra DPS. Also that VERY same risk is still the reason people do not let WAR be the MT in current raids. So yes, the "risk" is real.

For the ENTIRETY of 2.xx, this "risk" prevented WAR tanks from being THE tanks. Give me a single world first kill of any fight in 2.xx, that had WAR MT. PLD SwO DPS was considered higher than WAR (though that's arguable) and WAR MT was DEFINITELY higher DPS than PLD ShO.

Now in 3.0, PLD STILL ended up the MT in world first kills of 2 out of 4 fights (DRK being the MT in the other 2). Wanna know how many of the 4 left for WAR to be the MT in? This is a direct result of the "risk".

Yes, WAR ended up the class that was in all 4 encounters, true. But as a pseudo-DPS pretending to be tank. Or is it pseudo-tank pretending to be DPS? either way lol.

However, what I'm doing exactly the opposite of stretching. In very short paragraphs:

EVERY Inner Beast you used to mitigate is a trade-off from Fell Cleave that COULD'VE BEEN USED to increase DPS. You LOSE DPS in order to mitigate. That 1200 DPS you thought possible is no longer possible. The trade-off ALREADY HAPPENED the second you made the choice to mitigate.

The point still stances, as long as WAR is doing its maximum DPS, its mitigation is not as good as PLD. If WAR wants to mitigate like a PLD, it will not do that maximum DPS.

Unless you are trying to convince me that loosing a little dps in order to use inner beast for a cooldown is a trade-off. And yes it's a little dps because the tank busters don't hit you often in the fights.
Well yes, technically you can say that you trade 200 potency (heck, I'll make it 400 for you) to survive a tank buster that comes once every 3 - 5 minutes. Does that really feel like a trade-off?
I'm sorry to say but while it might technically be trade-off it that doesn't feel like a meaningful one to me. You loose very little and risk nothing in doing so. It's the equivalent of having a defensive cooldown lower your attack while it's active.

I'll be like you and nitpick... Tell me of one buster in this game that is 3-5 minutes apart? A4S has the longest and ONLY buster that is 2 minutes apart. And it has a lot of cleaves and morderate damage hits in between that PLDs can spare rampart/Sheltron/Bulwark for. WAR saves everything for the buster itself and maybe the cleave right before.

Regardless.. As long as a WAR is NOT using Inner Beast, its mitigation is LOWER than PLD... As long as its mitigation is NOT the same as PLD, its DPS should NOT be the same as PLD. Again, I simplified it enough.

You feel that other tanks have it better because they will always have their cooldown ready to use when needed. Why not advocate to give other tanks a skill that wastes their cooldowns in exchange for damage?
Burn that Rampart/Shadowskin/Sentinel/whatever for X% damage up for Y seconds. Damage problem solved, "risk" added and it makes cooldowns actually useful during all that time you can't use them because you are waiting for tank buster to come or you had to use it on some feeble boss auto attacks because that was the only window you could fit it before needing it for the tank buster.
According to your logic the above is trade-off. But I will once again disagree. You will know when to use them for damage and when to use them for defence (because the battle is scripted). It will only add more flexibility not a trade-off. In fact it's an outright buff.

As I said in my previous post, I'll quote myself:

Sure, if Sentinel made PLD do more DPS at the cost of losing its defensive Value, so be it. Just do not come back here on the forums and complain that due to its bigger CD you end up using it defensively anyways.

The only thing WAR has, compared to the other tanks, is that it's slightly more complex to time Inner Beast than to time a normal cooldown.
But it really boils down to the same thing the other tanks are doing. You need to time your cooldowns as any other tank or you wont have them up when you need them. WAR does that very same thing with Inner Beast. It's just easier for the other tanks because they have a larger window.

The only thing that MNK has, compared to the other melee DPS, is it has a slightly more complex positionals on all its GCDs.

The only thing that BLM has, compared to other ranged DPS, A more slightly complex buff (Enochian) timer on top of another buff timer (Astral Fire / Umbral Ice).

It really boils down to the same thing the other DPS are doing. You need to manage your abilities to maximize DPS as any other DPS or you won't do your maximum DPS. MNK does the very same thing on its positionals compared to melee (hit the right positional) and BLM does the same thing on its buff timers compared to SMN. It is just easier for the other DPS because they have less positionals/buffs.

... Your point?

My point is: Effort vs Reward. If PLD does the same DPS as WAR while all it has to do is press buttons in the exact same order Every. Single. Time. Not to mention all I need to mitigate damage as a PLD is press CD with not a single trade-off.. Why should I play WAR? Masochism?

I mean none of the other tanks "make a choice" between their combos (SE vs SP? BB vs SP?) as doing all three is an actual optimal option in the proper situation. None of the other tanks deal with a negative effect on their CDs (Pacification on zerk, crit on RI) other than "not having buff for X seconds". None of the other tanks have an additional wanted "perk" on thier CDs at all. WAR has the incentive to pop a CD for a stack, completely neglecting its other values.

In the same respect, why should people play the selfish MNK if DRG and NIN did more damage while bringing more raid damage? Just because I like to press the "A" and "D" keys on the keyboard more while fighting?

SE took the path of buffing MNK to be back on top again for a very valid reason: Effort vs Reward.

If the above is justified for the other classes in the other roles, why should it not be justified for tanks? Specially when DPS is NOT their mandatory objective!

As long as PLD keeps its mind numing simplicity, it should not perform as well as WAR. Regardless of META needs.

Here lies the crux of the issue. "Balance" is highly depended on how raids are made. I think we can all agree that tanks are fine outside of raids. In the current META you only have meaningful dps checks.
That's why having a WAR is mandatory. And no it's not just "hivemind" as you are saying. It is actually needed, because you either take a WAR or you need to wait a few weeks to get a higher ilvl in order to get enough dps to clear. Any WAR combination will always output much more damage than any non-war combination. That's a fact.

If the next raid META only has meaningful damage checks (again), then the defensive bonus the other tanks currently have will be just as good as piety. If the next META only has big defence checks and a tank can't mitigate those checks as well the others then it will be the same thing. Whoever can't mitigate will have a problem and people will be (rightfully) complaining about it. And the others will be telling them: "You have dps/utility, you don't need mitigation, git gud" and we will have the same thing.
From what I understand what you want is for WAR to have the more damage and less defences than the other tanks and vice versa. Which works is perfectly fine for a META that has meaningful defence checks.

Having WAR is only mandatory because people deemed it so. Content is 100% doable without a WAR. It might be slightly harder due to the content being vastly tuned higher than currently available gear.

Does WAR overperform in current content? Yes. But so does SMN!

Does that justify a buff for non-WAR classes? Not if it breaks the balance outside of THIS single current content. So no.

If PLD was underperforming EVERYWHERE, I would say yes, buff the heck out of it. But it isn't. It is still considered the "best tank" outside of Alexander Savage. It is only this single raid tier. And it isn't that it's "underperforming" per-se. It is just NOT matching the performance of ONE of the two other classes filling the same slot.

Remember, WAR does not more damage because it has less defense. WAR's defense is on par with PLD. However, it cannot have that defense WITH that DPS at the same time. WAR makes a choice of either-or.

As a result, if PLD WAS buffed (and that's a big if) to match WAR or even be closer to WAR, why would people pick WAR? I mean ignore the whole "why play WAR" point I made earlier because some people LIKE self-torment. Why would you, as a raid leader, pick WAR over PLD when the performance is EXACTLY the same but with a massive less error margin? Wouldn't we be back to square one? One of the three tanks is not wanted in content.

It is a delimma really, if a class performs better at the cost of being harder to play (prone to more mistakes), people will pick the players with the highest skill to play it. If the same class that is harder to play performs exactly the same as an easier class, people will pick the easier class because it will make less mistakes.

Regardless, as long as PLD does not deal with said trade-offs, it does not deserve a single potency increase on any skill outside of Shield Swipe (which is an absolute DPS loss atm).

I am not entirely against PLD buffs, what I am saying is that the CURRENT PLD does not deserve a DPS buff. Its DPS is where it should be for the effort put in and the safety it has while doing it. If PLD gets reworked to deal more DPS, I'm 100% fine with that.

At the moment people are doing savage and they wipe. Most of the time they wipe because they can't meet a dps check. So they need something to offset that. And with defences being so bad right now, that offset either needs be damage (obviously) or utility that will somehow directly or indirectly increase the overall party damage. (In theory higher defences should mean less damage taken and more damage done from healers. However because the boss damage output is low defences don't offer anything significant utility wise.)

The REAL problem isn't that PLD's DPS is low or meta ignores tanks defense checks, it just content is overtuned DPS-wise for a much higher item level average than the highest (190) available outside of Savage.

People have cleared up to A3S with PLDs in party. "Right now", people not meeting DPS checks is a gear problem, not a PLD problem.

Right now WAR has more damage and more utility than the other 2 tanks. That's why there is a ton of posts from the other two tanks asking for changes in skills. And that is also the reason people are asking for damage. You might not like the idea of extra damage because you have a different idea of what the meta should be and what you would like each class to be. That's fine and dandy but that doesn't make people's requests for more dps any less legitimate.

My "personal liking" is I want WAR to MT. And it doesn't. You have to dig far and deep to find a group that is willing to let the WAR MT and the DRK or PLD OT. The DRK and PLD themselves wouldn't like to be OT. Even though, funnily enough, the DPS problem is solved this way. However, you do not find me on these forums popping thread after thread after thread telling how WAR has it so "bad" because they are not made MT and that SE made an even worse decision shoving them into the OT spot by giving them Deliverance. Specially, mathematically, WAR is better suited to be MT than OT because of how their toolkit works.

They are here playing the game now. They see they are lacking dps and wipe because of that. They see a META where only dps matters. The problem is they don't know if the META will stay the same or it will change. Maybe they will add meaningful defence checks on the next savage (which is also far away). Maybe they wont. Unless a developer comes out and says otherwise people will ask things based on how things are now, and not on how they might or might not be in the future.
So it's only natural that they will ask for more damage even if you don't like it. Because it's something that is tangible, it wont upset things they way they are now and everyone will benefit.

Wrong, they see that a top raid group replaced PLD with DRK when they couldn't meet the DPS check, ignoring the fact that the replacement was done to maintain the INT Down debuff they lost by replacing MNK with NIN. Based on that mis-information, they assumed that Elysium and Lucrezia blamed the lack of DPS on PLD and not the selfishness of MNK vs raid-wide DPS boost of NIN's Trick Attack.

With that misinformation, they come here on the forums popping thread after thread after thread, and posting posts after posts about how bad PLD is, when NOTHING has changed about PLD compared to WAR since 2.1 except the existance of a third tank class that has a sea of its own problems that are overlooked because the current raid meta allowed for it.

Blindly buffing PLD's DPS WILL upset the balance because of the earlier point I made of "effort vs reward" and "risk". Should I quote myself from the same post? There goes:

As a result, if PLD WAS buffed (and that's a big if) to match WAR or even be closer to WAR, why would people pick WAR? I mean ignore the whole "why play WAR" point I made earlier because some people like self-torment. Why would you, as a raid leader, pick WAR over PLD when the performance is EXACTLY the same but with a massive less error margin? Wouldn't we be back to square one? One of the three tanks is not wanted in content.

You believe the other 2 tanks should get more utility instead of damage. That's great. There is nothing wrong with that. But you know what? That doesn't make any requests for more damage any less legitimate. Telling people "You're wrong, you don't need more damage. Git Gud. Here's a skewed video that you don't need more damage. Now let this thread die because you don't agree with how I see things." isn't going to make the problem go away.
You can't force people to accept something nebulous as utility instead of something tangible. Not to mention that "utility" has a load of problems itself, like: "Can utility ever become as good as the extra dps? If so how can you make sure that utility doesn't become mandatory? How do you measure utility?" and so on.

EDIT: The reason this thread it told to die because it is not an objective thread. It is a thread of "The other tank has it, why can't I?" and/or "I'm a DRG main and I'm not impressed with my Sword Oath DPS on a dummy!". There are FAR MORE objective threads than this one about tank balance out there that came up and moved along with no one particularly trying to force their opinion. This is the only one thread where its supporters are insisting that their idea of balance is the correct one. /endedit.

The video parse wasn't "Skewed". The point of a 5 minute parse is to reduce the effect of RNG (very lucky or very unlucky crits), ping spikes, player mistakes, etc. from "skeweing" the DPS.
If it makes you feel better, make MULTIPLE 1.5 minute parses (1 exact DPS CD cycle) with some controlled but realistic options (available buffs like party STR buff, slashing debuff) and repeat it many times, and average them. You get a "better" approximation of a class's DPS potential.

Regardless, you do make some valid points here. "Measuring" utility is harder than just comparing DPS. But balancing DPS in vacuum doens't make class balance true. Just because you don't "tangibly feel" the class balance doesn't mean it's not there. Personally I think MNK is the easiest of the three melees. I find DRG and Ninja's "stricter" rotations harder than MNK's "continue where you left off on last target". SPECIALLY back when DRG dropped buffs if it failed positionals. Yet, Yoshi-P really disagrees with me.

I think the real problem is that SE isn't clear on what it wants the tanks to be. Do they want the tanks to be beefy dps (aka bruisers) like the raids require? Do they want the tanks to be hit sponges like the tank items indicate (class accessories, parry on most items etc)?

Right now tanks feel bland because they function like a dps with extra hp. If you look past the "stack mini-game", "mana mini-game", "no mini-game" they are pretty much the same. The fact that sets them apart (how they mitigate damage) is rarely used. You spend most of your time on dps stance than tank stance when you are the bloody MT (and all tanks do that!).
The only way I see of actually see making all tanks viable in the beefy dps META without giving them roughly the same damage (which apparently is a big no-no for WARs) is to make other classes synergize with them to give them an edge over their counterparts (like how well WHM Benediction works with DRK Living Death).
For example if you have a "DRK / WHM / MCH" combo (random classes) then your group will do significantly more damage than "OTHER Tank / WHM / MCH" combo. Have a "WAR / SCH / MNK" combo (random classes again) the same and so on.

Again, very valid points here. SE's decisions with tuning Alexander Savage might be bad ones. Going an extra mile to differentiate tanks' mitigation (heavy physical vs heavy magical vs universal but stricter timing) was a good move but sadly was NOT capitalized on. All tanks are reduced to beefy DPS, which IS imo a bad move.

Class synergy SHOULD BE the very first and last choice of setting up a group.
For example, a BRD+MCH group SHOULD get a DRG, last DPS spot should be a caster because of BRD's and MCH's ability to increase magical DPS. As a result, you want DRK+PLD tanks to cover the different magical and physical aspects of the fights. Fix it so PLD+DRK have what they need (Slashing debuff!) and you have a VERY synergetic group.

EDIT:

Also DRK and PLD don't have a 5% difference. Even in the worlds spreadsheet (which was used as an example) the difference is bigger and both are lagging significantly behind WAR:
Dungeon/Class/Damage
A1/WAR/998
A1/DRK/881
A1/PLD/777
A2/WAR/1380
A2/DRK/1317
A2/PLD/813
A3/WAR/931
A3/DRK/852
A3/PLD/831

WAR being ahead IS INTENDED. The problem was PLDs complaining that they are also FAR BEHIND DRK, which is not true.

One week back when that was posted, A1's top record for WAR was 929 and PLD top was 777 with DRK having no record above PLD. I am sure PLD can still do more than just 777 in A1S. Specially if it OTs the first phase. Look at A3S to see how close PLD is to DRK.

A2S should not even be looked at as PLD's AoE is a joke. As a matter of Fact, PLD doing 813 is impressive considering how close to 0 their DPS drops when they try to hold AoE threat.

A3S, A single class doing the exact same rotation for the exact period of time will probably have a 20 to 30 DPS difference due to RNG and other factors.

The overall dps of both is better with that setup.

Any set up with WAR MT does more overall DPS than WAR OT due to WAR's ability to slip into and out of tank stance with ease. WAR's MT DPS is the highest and it can retain most its "OT DPS" while main tanking by stance dancing.

[Ivellior]

Now you are basically presenting an effort vs reward theory. While I don't think WAR takes that much effort, I can agree and accept the logic that since WAR is more complex (which is really not, if anything the DRK mini-game is way more annoying, but that is a personal preference) so it has more damage.
I can also accept that the theme is more damage. Sure it's the barbarian dude and damage it's his thing. That's fine and makes sense.
But the trade-off as you are describing makes absolutely no sense at all. A trade-off is when you sacrifice something that matters to get something else that matters. With the scripted tank busters you are not sacrificing anything. There is no risk, no danger. Zero, nada, zilch.
If anything it's an extra option that allows you to use effectively a cooldown that would otherwise be sitting there and doing nothing. In short the option to use Inner Beast as Fell Cleave is flexibility not a trade-off. At least this is where I stand in this matter.

As a result, if PLD WAS buffed (and that's a big if) to match WAR or even be closer to WAR, why would people pick WAR? I mean ignore the whole "why play WAR" point I made earlier because some people LIKE self-torment. Why would you, as a raid leader, pick WAR over PLD when the performance is EXACTLY the same but with a massive less error margin? Wouldn't we be back to square one? One of the three tanks is not wanted in content.

First of all, no one of the people here said give me dps to match WAR. That is what the you are saying. They asked for more damage and I will explain why below.

In my opinion you can balance tank classes using the following methods:
1. Give all them the same damage and the same survivability. If you do that, everyone is happy and picks whatever playstyle he likes best. It also tends to make the tanks look like reskins of each other.
2. Give them roughly the same damage and survivability. For example WAR +5% dmg - 5% def, DRK 0% dmg 0% def, PLD -5% dmg, +5% def. The difference wont be very high (10% between top and bottom) and people can still pick whatever playstyle the like best.
3. Diversify them by giving each class strong points and weak points. (Asymmetric design?) Which I believe is that SE is trying to do.

Using that asymmetric design you can give your classes a lot of flavour which is good. That however means that you actually have to make use of their strong points to make them viable and appealing to players.
Imagine for example if you have a a tank (let's say samurai) that has built-in 30% magic damage reduction but took 10% more physical damage. Balanced, specialized and nice. The twin swords looks amazing, the game-play is a blast. You level to max level and everything is smooth and fun.
Now imagine that get in your first raid dungeon all that the entire current raiding content is physical damage. Sure it is 100% doable, and you as soon as you get better gear to offset that 10% physical extra damage and clear it. That still doesn't mean it's fine.

This is pretty much what Savage is in regards to defences in general. Having that extra defences is useless. Those defences wont help you clear bosses. They are not needed to survive bosses. They wont allow your healers to stay more in dps stance.
So while defences are all nice, shiny and balanced, you are never going to use them effectively. It's the tank equivalent of over-healing.
Both DRK and PLD have that problem, but it's slightly better for DRK since he has some magical defence and aoe for savage 2 that offset their dps inefficiency.
And since the game is designed to reward damage (less healing needed, less mechanics, etc) more than anything else, that automatically makes damage way more beneficial than defences.
So +10% damage for -10% defence is always better than -10% damage for +10% defence.

The thing is that having these defences means that you do less damage, which in itself is fine. However when you have raid where defences are pretty much useless and raid dungeons are filled with dps checks that only serves to exacerbate the problem.
DPS becomes multiple times better than it normally is compared to defences and defence is worth even less than it was before.

Is savage bad raid design? Maybe it is. But maybe it isn't. That depends on the developers vision of the game. Maybe they want the raids like that with tanks being beefy dps because bruisers are more popular than pure tanks, maybe they don't and savage wasn't designed properly for whatever reason.
The thing is they haven't said anything about it. That's why you have some many threads asking for changes (whether that is utility, dps or whatever) that are aimed for savage.
The extra defences PLD/DRK has right now, are kind of like PLD's clemency. It's nice, thematic and seems cool, might even be useful outside of savage (personally I doubt it, but you never know) but you aren't really going to be using it effectively in a raid.

And frankly what why people are asking for more damage in this thread. It is useful and it will make their classes perform better in the current environment. Isn't asking for something that is always useful, and doubly so in the current environment, reasonable?
That is why I believe is a legitimate concern and I think it's much more productive than asking to nerf WAR.
While I agree with you on most things and would like to see defences become meaningful instead of getting extra damage (Make parry useful dammit), I see nothing wrong with people asking for extra damage instead.

To make it simple: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS THREAD.


A few side notes:

Now in 3.0, PLD STILL ended up the MT in world first kills of 2 out of 4 fights (DRK being the MT in the other 2). Wanna know how many of the 4 left for WAR to be the MT in? This is a direct result of the "risk".

Yes, WAR ended up the class that was in all 4 encounters, true. But as a pseudo-DPS pretending to be tank. Or is it pseudo-tank pretending to be DPS? either way lol.

No actually, it's not the result of safety as you like to present it. It's the result of WAR as OT combo being vastly superior damage-wise to other tanks. WAR OT + Other Tank MT combo deals more damage than WAR MT + other tank OT combo.
You can "blame" SE for giving you Equilibrium and fell cleave for that.

SE took the path of buffing MNK to be back on top again for a very valid reason: Effort vs Reward.

SE didn't buff MNK back to top dps. They gave them a roughly 3% increase in damage. If anything it seems like more of consolation buff than a buff back to top.

I mean none of the other tanks "make a choice" between their combos (SE vs SP? BB vs SP?) as doing all three is an actual optimal option in the proper situation.

Oh come on! You can't really tell me that WAR has to make a "choice" between combos while the others don't. You are going to use your "debuff" combo (SE) when you are expecting the boss do a lot of damage. You're not going to have it up 100%. Just like PLD isn't going to have their debuff combo (RoH) up 100%. And it has healthy time so it's not going to disappear in 5 seconds.
After that you are just going to use combos to increase your damage while keeping enmity. That means keep SP up as much (ie refresh just before it is about to fall) and then use your dps/enmity combo.
The other two tanks do exactly the same thing. The PLD will have to try to keep GB up a much as possible and then use RA as much as he can get away with. Only DRK will be keeping their debuff up 100% of the time because it is on their highest potency combo and they will be spamming that more than the other combos. They still have to "make a choice" of when to use their enmity combo or DA + souldrinker combo.
If anything it's easier on WAR because the enmity combo is the highest dps combo so you don't have to take enmity into account like the rest.

Having WAR is only mandatory because people deemed it so. Content is 100% doable without a WAR. It might be slightly harder due to the content being vastly tuned higher than currently available gear.

You can also go with all your dps and tanks in mind accessories and healers in VIT accessories. It's not "mandatory", it's 100% doable etc. But lets face it, but you are gimping yourself.

If PLD was underperforming EVERYWHERE, I would say yes, buff the heck out of it. But it isn't. It is still considered the "best tank" outside of Alexander Savage. It is only this single raid tier. And it isn't that it's "underperforming" per-se. It is just NOT matching the performance of ONE of the two other classes filling the same slot.

I thought the game balance was based on raid performance. So what is outside Alexander Savage that makes PLD the best tank? 4man Dungeons? Ex Primals? Normal Alexander? Maybe PLD is a super secret weapon for pvp that I didn't know about.
Unless you mean 2.XX but DRK didn't exist in 2.XX (since you specifically mentions all 3 tanks) and the classes have changed significantly since then.

The video parse wasn't "Skewed". ...
You get a "better" approximation of a class's DPS potential.

I'm sorry but that video parse was skewed as hell. It doesn't take into account enmity at all. So it doesn't represent MT damage at all. Fine let's say it's OT damage comparison. The WAR was intentionally being gimped (no slashing debuff -he had to maintain it himself, no cleanse, and I have a lot of misgivings about the his rotation if he is aiming for max dps).
And you can't tell me that it's fine because those are "real life" OT raid conditions. You will not always have the classes needed to buff you on your raid and unless your pacification ends up in tight spot healing-wise you will be getting cleansed. You need to either have each class dps with OPTIMAL conditions or each class using it's own abilities.

EDIT: The reason this thread it told to die because it is not an objective thread. It is a thread of "The other tank has it, why can't I?" and/or "I'm a DRG main and I'm not impressed with my Sword Oath DPS on a dummy!". There are FAR MORE objective threads than this one about tank balance out there that came up and moved along with no one particularly trying to force their opinion. This is the only one thread where its supporters are insisting that their idea of balance is the correct one. /endedit.

I fail to see why it's not an objective thread. How do you define objective? Based on what? How exactly are they trying to force their opinion? It's a bloody thread in a bloody forum. It's letters on a computer screen, that you wont even see unless you do some very specific clicks. It's not a raving crowd of pitchfork holding brutes that threaten to burn your house down if you don't do as they say.
And let's be honest here. Unless you are the head developer in charge of balance, neither you, me or anyone posting in this thread has the right to claim "the correct balance". What we are all doing is speculating. As simple as that. You are in no way entitled to the correct balance and neither is me nor anyone else in this forum.
The forum is here for people to post their opinions, ideas, feedback and anything related to tanks, which includes damage. People will post anything from their glamours to their horror stories in dungeon. Maybe we should chastise people for trying to force a new glamour fashion through this threads. Come on.

And I'm sorry to say you're just giving off the impression that "My word is law! My idea is balance! You are all wrong! Now get out this thread!", when in fact neither you, me or anyone else in the whole world besides the developers know the correct META, balance and what they want to do with the classes.
Actually scrap that. It really feels like you have a grudge because people don't want WAR to MT and you're taking out on PLDs on this thread.
Case in point, in another thread you that DRK really needs more physical mitigation and he should just get it. DRK is basically a re-skinned PLD who looses 10% on Shadow Wall, has a different I wont die button instead gains magic resistance, more damage and aoe damage.
You are outright saying buff the DRK physical mitigation. Now you have DRK is PLD defensive wise, has more dmg, more aoe dmg (which basically makes PLD obsolete) and that doesn't break balance?
No one else said they shouldn't get it. You didn't see PLDs screaming that they need to loose something to get it or that it would break balance or they need to git gud. People said: "It will make their class better so get it".
So that thread where people agree with your idea is apparently "objective" and it's not "The other tank has it, so why can't I?".
However when people ask in this thread for PLD to get more damage you are telling them that it breaks balance, it's not "objective", and it's a thread "The other tank has it, why can't I?".
Do you see the problem here?

[Phoenicia]

Snip.

Risk by definition is "potential of losing something of value". So as long as you do not have 5 stacks of Wrath, you are under the risk of "potential of not mitigating damage". Content being completely scripted and known makes said risks "calculated" but not non-existent. I don't want to argue semantics any more than necessary. But as long as WAR makes the choice of "doing more DPS" or "mitigating damage" and NOT doing both at the same time, it is not a problem.

Also WAR's GCD-by-GCD and stack management is much more "technical" than DRK's MP mini-game. What DRK's MP mini-game is is "annoying" as you said, which is not technical, just annoying. DRK's DPS and CD rotations are not affected by managing its MP. Its higher potency combos ARE the very same combos that give it MP, mitigation debuff (Delirium) AND active mitigation (Souleater).

Take Dragoon's Wheeling Thrust and Claw moves, they are two different moves that do the exact same potency and effect with the only difference being the positional requirement (flank or rear), the deciding factor on which is needed is... RNG. Is that technicality? no, it's just "annoyance".

SE buffing monks by roughly 3% puts their DPS roughly 2~3% above DRG. Which is the intended goal of SE buffing MNK's DPS as it is a selfish class that doesn't buff raid DPS.

You can also go with all your dps and tanks in mind accessories and healers in VIT accessories. It's not "mandatory", it's 100% doable etc. But lets face it, but you are gimping yourself.

Now that is ridiculous and by far one of the silliest rhetorics in this thread. And that says a lot as this thread is full of silly. The scenario of all DPS and tanks in MND accessories and healers in VIT is more similar to having the BLM tank and SMN heal while the SCH and WHM DPS.

Not taking WAR in your party is just that, not taking WAR in your party. It's like not taking NIN to party, you lose (potential) Slashing debuff, Trick Attack and Goad. That's it. It's also like not taking MCH to your party. You lose turret buffs. That's it. You are not "gimping" yourself, your group is not suddenly a 7 man group, neither are you replacing WAR by a non-tank. You're just running a different setup. It's not like WAR is all the DPS, HP and healing the raid group has.

Oh come on! You can't really tell me that WAR has to make a "choice" between combos while the others don't. You are going to use your "debuff" combo (SE)...

I do have to wonder here, do you know which skills WAR has do what? SE is the slashing debuff and is to be kept up 100% of the time. SP is 10% damage reduction AND 20 potency lower than SE and 40 lower than BB. WAR chooses to drop SE or BB to apply SP, that is a fact, it just has to make a better choice of which one to drop.

Now as opposed to PLD's Supposed optimal aggro rotation is: GB(24s) > RoH (20s) > RA. ROH drops for 1 GCD and GB is clipped by 1 GCD. Optimal DPS rotation: GB (24s) > RA > RA drops RoH.

Btw, if PLD can drop 10% STR down permanently for max damage, so can a WAR drop SP permanently. The coveted SP buff that people keep bugging warriors about ends up minuscule when you are already mitigating busters with massive CD stacking. Remember, mitigation stacks multiplicatively and any additional effect added is reduced by the percentage of the previous effect. (So IB+Vengeance is 44%, making SP effectively only 5.6%, which is very small).

Your questionable knowledge of what SP and SE are brings me to the next point:

I'm sorry but that video parse was skewed as hell. It doesn't take into account enmity at all. So it doesn't represent MT damage at all. Fine let's say it's OT damage comparison. The WAR was intentionally being gimped (no slashing debuff -he had to maintain it himself, no cleanse, and I have a lot of misgivings about the his rotation if he is aiming for max dps).

What is WAR's DPS affected in ANY WAY by someone else applying the debuff that WAR is REQUIRED TO and WILL reapply it himself?

WAR's optimal DPS rotation is to alternate SE and BB and using FC and Fracture when applicable. Under no circumstances should WAR let Maim/SE drop.

And the no cleanse point, no matter how good your healers are, when you are pacified, you WILL lose a GCD. Even if your healer clicks Esuna as soon as pacification happens. This game's internal delay will not register the removal of pacification before a GCD is wasted. The only way to "cleanse" pacification is to not have it happen at all by having the BRD singe Warden's Paeon. But that's gimping another class specifically for your 1 GCD you don't wanna miss. So yes, not getting a cleanse is 1 GCD loss per Berserk at best!

Those dreaded "misgivings" in a WAR's video parse are 10~20 theoretical DPS at MOST!

Also about the MT DPS, WAR starts in Defiance and uses Unchained which IS a DPS loss compared to starting with a double/triple cleave opener in Deliverance. So don't exaggerate that PLD and DRG have to drop a bit of DPS because of the few enmity combos they have to use at start when MTing because WAR also drops some DPS.

Again, it is intentional for WAR to do more MT DPS. This has been the case since 1.xx and did not change throughout 2.xx, why should it change now?

I fail to see why it's not an objective thread.

1- This thread started with: "My DPS is not DRK's DPS, my DPS is not WAR's DPS, therefore my DPS is a joke! Before you ask I know everything and I'm right don't tell me to git gud!" without any actual specifics of said "optimized rotation". How is this not a case of: "They have it, I want it too"? Go back to the OP's posts and see his attitude.

2- Paladins (or DPS buff supporters) are calling others who disagree "Stupid" and "Hypocrites". I do not need to name who did the calling.
Heck, one of its main supporters made such the useless post of:

Look at all the warrior mains afraid to lose their guaranteed raid spots.

and repeated useless posts in multiple threads (which I called him on it) and has since then been targetting me personally in every post he made. Not because he has valid arguments, but because I do not agree with him. His most cohesive sentince of response to me was a full post of "You're wrong!" which proves exactly nothing without any backup facts. I will not go back skimming through 51 pages of silliness to find the exact posts. Feel free if you have that time.

3- There has been not a single suggestion that was reasonable. The request is a blatant "Give me this because he has it" with no consideration of anything else. You want the AoE DPS of the DRK and ST of WAR. I'm fine with that, but what are you willing to give up for that? (Give up doesn't have to be directly losing something, it can be also giving the WAR and DRK the advantages you have, hence it becoming no longer an "advantage").

4- The other threads I'm calling "objective" are looking at all the three tanks as a whole and are suggesting "fixes" without stepping on each others' toes too much. They look at PLD's actual problems (TP issues, ability clunk, threat issues that are hurting the DPS) instead of looking at WAR's 6k Fell Cleave crit and saying "Hey! I want that too!".

================

And I'm sorry to say you're just giving off the impression that "My word is law! My idea is balance! You are all wrong! Now get out this thread!"

This is exactly what I was pointing out how this is not an objective thread, it turns to attacking the person so quick. To reply to this portion and the remainder of your post (since you specifically called me a hypocrite in a previous post as well).

Note: Dear reader, if you are NOT Ivellior, reading from here on is completely optional. (not that any of the above wasn't optional in the first place. lol)

Here is yet another wall of text:

I am not claiming to know the exact intricacies of the tanks' balance, if it even exists. But there are obvious indicatives (without going into too much detail):

1- PLD has the strongest defensive effects compared 1 by 1 to the other classes? Check.

2- PLD has no additional resources to worry about in order to fulfill its role at optimal levels? Check.

3- PLD action rotations are simple and hold no major repercussions if altered? Check.

In addition to the above points, PLD is the easiest of the three tanks with the most defensive options.... Does this check?

• PLD has passive mitigation via shield? Check.
• PLD CD effects' duration are sufficiently long to mitigate tank busters and/or prolong duration of damage? Check.
• PLD has the most number defensive CDs among the three tank classes? Check.

Does PLD deal the same damage as WAR? No, but according to the points above, as far as effort vs reward AND defense vs offense are concerned, it shouldn't. And WAR functions very differently from PLD.

"But Phoenica, DRK is ALSO outperforming PLD!"

Okay, let is compare it to DRK then, since PLD is more akin to DRK in both regards: CD structure and Combo structure.

1- Outside of Rampart, every CD on the PLD is better than its mirrored version on DRK. But you can argue that DRK has Dark Mind, a CD that PLD has no equivalent off.

2- PLD requires no additional resources to manage, but it CAN regain MP when needed. DRK NEEDS its MP to perform optimally, in both aspects: Offence and Defence.

3- PLD doesn't need MP, but it automatically regains it in its optimal rotation. DRK also regains its needed MP via the same combos that give it additional and desired effects. Also, DRK's Power Slash combo is a lot more potent than RoH in both regards: DPS and threat.

In regard of easiness: DRK has no passive mitigation, DRK's CD effects' duration are similar to PLD with the exception of Dark Dance having a much higher uptime than Bulwark, and DRK with all its CDs AND cross-classed abilities ends up with 2 CDs less than PLD (You can add Reprisal as a CD and say it has only 1 CD less than PLD), DRK kind of loses in both quantity AND quality.

In vacuum and on dummies, DRK seems to do more ST DPS than PLD (3~5% margin). DRK obviously does more AoE DPS than PLD. Following the effort vs reward formula, this is as it should be. However! Actual data shows DRK and PLD are at each others' necks in single boss encounters. (A3S specially). PLD still has pitiful AoE.

Ivallior's theory of balance point number 2 stated something similar to this. WAR doing 10% more damage but has -10% less defense. DRK in between doing 0% more damage and has 0% less defense. and PLD does -10% less damage but has 10% more defense.

Also point number 3, with tanks having their niche (WAR being DPS, PLD being physical and DRK being magical) seems to apply even more. However, PLD isn't as hindered in magical mitigation as DRK is in physical. So PLD doing slightly less DPS (if at all) than DRK can -arguably- be justified here.

Is this EXACT balance? You're right, none of us, the players know, only the developers do. Heck, is this even how the devs are looking at it? Only the devs themselves know!
================

In regard to me posting, in this thread and others, about DRK needing physical mitigation adjustment and am being called a hypocrite for it. Since I am also the very same person who keeps calling DRK a "reskinned PLD".

My exact wordings has always been "DRK's physical mitigation is lacking and seriously needs to be looked at"... There is no "demand" of buffs of any form or manner nor demands of no nerfs of any form or manner.

I never specified how the buffs should be nor what should be given up for it. I did not say give us Sheltron equivalent because PLD has it nor did I say make Dark Dance into 60% like Bulwark because (again) PLD has it.

So no, me requesting an objective look at something that WAS affecting the class and has the potential to affect it again in the not-so-far future is not demanding silly buffs that WILL affect (read: trivialize) any of the other classes without a trade-off.
================

As for the said "grudge" against people not wanting a WAR main tank, I cannot hold a grudge against people in general because here is my take on people (again, in general! There are odd individuals) (and this WILL sound arrogant, but true):

"People, as a collective mind, are stupid. They ALWAYS fail to see the bigger picture and will always settle for the familiarity of their own little shell. History has proven this over and over again."

You can blame it on cultural values, tradition, religion, conventions, science, any of all of the above, whatever.

The people collective mind (AKA Hive Mind) will dismiss and ignore mostly anything they do not consider the "norm". It is in their nature. Even if the thing they do not consider the norm is THE VERY TRUTH.

People's reaction when they discovered that they were not the center of the universe and that the universe doesn't revolve around them? Burned the first few people that made "such outrageous claims" at the stake for heresy. Galilio Galilei was under house arrest for the rest of his life for stating the VERY truth of heliocentrism.

Now I am NOT Galilio Galilei, nor do I claim to have discovered anything of equal, or even dreams to be of similar, enlightenment, but his example of persecution of SUCH truth serves to show how people would react to things. If such a solid now-undisputed fact was disputed and persecuted, why should I feel salty at all over a state of something such as insignificant as a class in a game I play to spend excess free time? The best I can do about it (and I do it anyways) is come back later and say: "Hah! Told you so!"

Not to mention, I have always said that "WAR as a main tank CAN outperform a PLD since 2.1 specially as a solo tank" and everybody replied with "We have shields and Hallowed Ground, get out!" I tell them "CD gaps and Storm Path" and they say "Adlo + Stoneskin". I say "WAR can get that!" they say "Yes, but ShO has better effective healing than Defiance". I said "Self heals" they said "over-healing". See the irony?

Now that we, non-PLD tanks, tell paladins that "you have shields!" answer: "RNG/Irrelevant", we say "You have Hallowed Ground, get out!" you say "OMG 7 minute CD, animation delay!", we say "strong CDs" you say "OMG Long CDs, GAPS!" We say "you can cast Stoneskin" and you go "OMG 5.5 sceonds cast! interrupts!" We say "ShO effective healing better than Defiance" you say "Over heals, self heals OP!". Again... See the Irony?

As a matter of fact, I find this very same irony so compelling and the amusement I'm getting from all the PLD tears is probably one of the main reasons I keep coming back to post in this asinine thread. Since we're being 100% frank here. I say that and I, myself, am a PLD player.

But no, I do not hold a grudge for most people not letting me solo tank or MT their pity Shiva Ex farm or T9 sale run as a WAR and requesting that I change to PLD. I, as the player, ended up doing the run and getting my loot/money. Just at the small cost of playing I class I enjoy playing... less.

Specially when I have progressed ALL of BCoB (before 2.1, T5 killed as WAR solo-tank right after 2.1), SCoB and FCoB as a WAR MT (the one starting the pull in any fight and holding the boss for the majority of it). And I am an "early achiever" as I do have a few server firsts and seconds under my belt... On YOUR server, Phoenix, no less. FC's I've been with are ShinRa <ShR> and Nightmare Eternal <FEAR>. You should know them.

The exceptions were T8 and T9. I progressed those as a caster. But the reason for that wasn't that the PLD as a class is better than WAR, but rather that that very specific PLD player could not play a DPS class good enough while I could. I practically topped the DPS in my group with very solid DPS numbers. If anything, I am proud to be one of the few WARs (and players overall) to manage said feats.

In the end, believe it or not, I'd rather spend my time in the game learning how to perform with my class of choice and prove people with prejudices wrong over coming over to the forums and complain about said prejudices... Which is what they are, false assumptions. If I do come to the forums, it is because I am looking for insight from other players, who are also passionate about my class, in order to perform EVEN better (Read: how to git gud). An attitude I strongly suggest the main supporters of this thread to follow. (That was the polite way of saying "git gud").

Buttom line.... "Hah! Told you so!"
===============

Last but not the least, I may have come out as being "forceful of my opinion" when I said this thread should die, and I do apologize if I somehow offended your sensitve self. But that came from a very strong observation I made from the posters in this thread. Since I began frequenting the forums about 3 weeks ago, I have not seen a more ridiculous thread than this one except the one that wanted WAR and DRK to outright die to tank busters but not PLD. lol

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure which of Anger's threads wins against this one anymore. I didn't want to name people, but I didn't want to dig out and list 5 or so threads even more. You can look them up yourself.
===============

And that, folks, is all I have to say for now. Have a good one.

[RapBreon]

35 minutes and I'm still waiting for my wall of text!

[Phoenicia]

35 minutes and I'm still waiting for my wall of text!

When I said massive wall of text, I meant it!

[Donjo]

When I said massive wall of text, I meant it!

As a fellow book writer, I salute you. There was one wall that I spent so long writing/editing that the thread advanced 3 pages during the interim!

[Sapphidia]

I don't think anyone can argue that the "order" of DPS/mitigation is incorrect. Warriors should do the most damage in dps and tank stances, but mitigate a tiny bit less. Dark Knights should be "mid tier", and stronger on magical damage. Paladins should be lowest dps, highest physical, slightly behind DRK on magical, with the DPS made up for via slightly more utility. That's how it is, that's how the classes have been sold to us, and that's how it should be.

Making comparisons that because, say, Sentinel is 10% better than Shadow Wall during its 10 second uptime means that Dark Knights need 5% more damage in x situation is kind of spurious and highly subjective. Overall balance matters and it's due to the complete package of how much weight a raid group places on the various strengths and weaknesses.

I think most peoples' issue with the current balance is:

1 - right now DPS is exponentially more important than overall tank mitigation for successful encounters
2 - the difference in DPS levels in "average" practical raid situations is really rather big
3 - the actual difference in mitigation levels is comparatively minor compared to the DPS differences.

This creates a situation where all 3 tanks are in the right place in terms of the order of their power levels, but the balance is swayed heavily in favor of Warrior. Noone wants paladins doing more or even equal dps to a Warrior. Everyone would be happy with paladin being behind dark knight too.

The class just desperately needs some quality of life buffs (read : basically threat, some "clunk" removed) that lets it push out its optimal DPS levels much more frequently and thus close the huge gap between itself and the other tanks in practical (not dummy/pure OT) situations.

[Nadirah]

Threat, clunk removal and something done about magic defense if they insist on magic damage for tank busters.

I'm of the mindset that no tank buster should require an external cooldown.

[Sapphidia]

I'm of the mindset that no tank buster should require an external cooldown.

I think this mindset only really works for WoW-style tanking where mitigation was a bit more constantly active but tanks only had 1-2 actual big Oh Shit cooldowns.

I like the cooldown management aspect of FF, it's the only part that makes the damage-taking part of tanking actually somewhat skillful, but if they negate the need for cooldowns outside of moments when things are messing up they need to remove a lot of cooldowns and turn them into more active/interesting tanking skills. Or just make them passive.

[Brian_]

It's not that hard to understand. If you want to make mitigation matter and tank CDs matter, you mix both. You have high sustained and consistent raid damage AND must mitigate tank busters. And, the damage needs to be high enough that healers will run oom well before any breaks from heal spam. The type of environment where swapping to a DPS stance as a tank is auto death and inefficiency with your cool downs leads to certain death. That's the only situation where any difference in mitigation matters. So, by no coincidence, you take the current state of DPS checks and you apply the same extremity to mitigation. Tanks are getting dropped from raid content because of a 10~15% difference in DPS. If you want to make mitigation matter, then tanks should be getting dropped from raid content because of a 10~15% difference in mitigation.

Until you do that, any talk about PLD mitigation mattering is just talk.