Enough is enough

[Ipkonfig]

snip.

You are completely incorrect, first no PLD in Sword Oath was out DPSing a WAR OT unless the WAR just wasn't good, and we're talking BiS left side and full crafted/melded accessories. On pre-echo Twintania WAR OT could get very close to a mid tier DPS I still ended up going MNK instead of WAR when we switched to single tank for Dragon Kick and MNK was the highest DPS at the time.

I feel bad groups if they had WAR MTs in brand new content, i.e. less than optimal gear levels. PLD is more forgiving so if you don't know the mechanics well you can still clear while WAR requires a perfect cool down rotation because Inner Beast is on the global and buff delay. If you're even a second off on getting it up it won't effect the incoming tank buster. Pretty much if Inner Beast isn't up before the cast gets to half then it won't effect the damage. Also that "fluff" damage is pretty detrimental in new content since your healers are also under-geared so any means of reducing that is welcomed. Plenty of top tier groups had their PLDs meld DEX into fending accessories for even more "fluff" mitigation when they were pushing world firsts.

I challenge you to show concrete proof of a world first clear that used a WAR MT, pre-Heavensward. Even the first 5 clears will have PLD MT.

On top of PLDs dominating the MT slot in world firsts, there were also very few fights that actually required two tanks, and PLD was the optimal choice for a single tank since they have far more "Oh S@#$!" buttons.

[Praesul]

You are completely incorrect, first no PLD in Sword Oath was out DPSing a WAR OT unless the WAR just wasn't good, and we're talking BiS left side and full crafted/melded accessories. On pre-echo Twintania WAR OT could get very close to a mid tier DPS I still ended up going MNK instead of WAR when we switched to single tank for Dragon Kick and MNK was the highest DPS at the time.

This has been tested many times in the past Check the comments for further clarification on the rotation and stats. The gap became even bigger the lower the delay on the PLD's sword, because it gains even bigger benefits from Sword Oath.

As for world first groups clearing with PLD MT? Yeah no duh. When it's a competition, stability and consistency is more important because you get to see more phases of a fight, giving you more insight on the encounter. Sacrifices are made in bleeding edge content, like using melded accessories with vit on DPS and healers just to be able to survive things despite the option of accessories with more damage stats being there. Of course they're going to have the PLD MT, because their goal is to clear before others do, and healing a WAR requires more effort.

[Phoenicia]

[URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comments/1wz31r/pld_war_dps_what_gives/"]

That analysis was based on WAR rotation SE/SP, not SE/BB. Also WAR juggling Defiance to use Unchained+IB then dropping Defiance did more DPS than not popping defiance at all.

Anyways, it's awash, my WAR used to do 450 DPS in 130 gear while my PLD mate used to do 430~440.

The DPS difference between WAR OT and PLD OT hasn't been solidly proven. But the WAR MT / PLD OT definitely proved to do more DPS than the opposite.

[pandabearcat]

If savage is meant for the minority then the majority have pretty much nothing to do. Ravana while an interesting fight is pretty much one fight, doable in i170 or lower while everyone has i190 now.

Alex normal is LFR and not actual content for any FC.

So whether they intended for the fights to be cleared fast or not, savage is relevant content for all FCs (late starters and casual guilds aside), and the imo they did not do a good job balancing content with progression. There just isn't enough.

[RapBreon]

If savage is meant for the minority then the majority have pretty much nothing to do. Ravana while an interesting fight is pretty much one fight, doable in i170 or lower while everyone has i190 now.

Alex normal is LFR and not actual content for any FC.

So whether they intended for the fights to be cleared fast or not, savage is relevant content for all FCs (late starters and casual guilds aside), and the imo they did not do a good job balancing content with progression. There just isn't enough.

They simply made LFR too easy and DFable. It should've been harder. I dislike LFR as a concept in general though.

Irrespective of that; the problem is the quantity of bosses they put out on release. Same situation with Bahamut's Coil, despite being 'easier', once Twintania got nerfed most competent raiders had nothing to do. Same problem as ARR release. More bosses means they can ease up on the difficulty on entry bosses while making final ones impossibly challenging, allowing for more gear upgrades along the way.

The majority (of raiders, I assume - non-raiders are not in short supply of activities) are now essentially waiting for esoteric upgrades because they lack the ability/time to get A1+ down for gear upgrades. They can still continue to plug away at A1 until you down it, whether that it is through slow gear upgrades or fine-tuning your own performance. This is still something to do!

I personally, have no problem with the current arrangement as failure tempers success in my view. I'd prefer to be blocked by a boss for weeks, than to finish a tier and be bored until next major patch. Sure the difficulty curve isn't amazing, but hey at least you got to see Alexander right! :P.

[maelor]

At the end of the day the poster is correct. War is not overpowered. There may be minor issues with each class but all in all they are close enough to equal at the end of the day.

[Praesul]

Too many men and crabs in this post.



WAR is not "required" for any hard content. It is just that WAR is so good that there is no group willing to run without one. Same thing can be said about SCH and DRG. For the entirety of 2.x, this was also true for BRD, but MCH gave us another option.

Also while WAR was mathematically better than PLD as a MT in 2.xx, most groups required the PLD to MT. I was one of the few WARs to main tank during progression of SCoB and FCoB. In situations where I switched to DPS was because our PLD didn't play a good DPS for solo tank content. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the community demanded PLD main tank (just like how they demand a WAR tank in any tank composition now).

Yeah, but we're not saying these issues shouldn't be fixed. What I'm personally saying is this should be fixed without "breaking" the balance. You don't "balance" a class based on the current content, you balance it against the other classes. As I said before, DRK is in a good place only because the content allowed it. If the content had physical tank busters, DRKs will be the tanks on these forums demanding defensive buffs (which they need, mind you!). PLD getting the offense of the other two to fit in today's DPS race of Alex.Savage (which is what most paladins are asking for) would simply shelf one of the other two tanks permanently (Read: DRK) as PLD would have defensive superiority AND the same offense as DRK or WAR (whichever SE takes it up to).

The way this should be fixed is not by making PLD stronger, but by making it so there is an actual benefit to non-WAR comps. Right now, whatever small benefit you get from DRK + PLD setups just wanes compared to WAR's overall raid DPS benefits. That's not even taking Storm Path into account even though its benefit is less than what people make it.

Storm Path is great and all, but due to the multiplicative stacking nature of buffs, on busters the 10% damage from SP is reduced by whatever % of CDs you throw (Veng + IB is 44% so SP is actually reducing damage by 5.6% on that buster) and with SCH + WHM doing Medica 2 and Indomitability or Emergency Tactics + Succor will top anyone off even if they were critically low. SP is nothing to laugh at, but it's not the holy grail of all utility as people make it.

An example fix would be making the slashing debuff available to DRK (If it's not feasible on PLD). Two of three tanks having it means you will always have it no matter what composition of two you have, unless you run double PLD.

In my long post on the other thread, I suggested removed clunk from PLD utility and added utility to DRK. If PLD/DRK combo adds safety that any WAR comp doesn't have, people will consider them. Along with the above Slashing R. Down suggestion or inclusion of NIN (PLD+DRK Don't need monks) and you have a "solid" set up.

TL;DR: We're not against making all 3 tanks wanted, but buffing PLD's DPS is not the way to go.

I'm not saying that PLD DPS should be buffed, because all that would happen is we'd go back to WAR + PLD comps. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what CAN be done to balance the 3 tanks so any tank combination (outside of doubles of 1 job, which I argue should be suboptimal anyway outside of weird edge cases). My point is that it's silly that many people argue that the balance is fine currently, and that anything can be cleared with any tank combination (even if that's true).

My opinion is that the game should strive to always be better balanced no matter what. Even if things are "okay" and "doable"...Doesn't sit well with me, and I don't understand why people are satisfied with their jobs being less than what they could be. Just because PLD or DRK think that some changes need to be made, doesn't mean that it's useless whining, or that we think other jobs should be nerfed. Because despite what some people think, I don't want WAR to be nerfed. I think that WAR is a good example of how tank balance SHOULD be. It brings really great raid utility, does very good damage, fits the MT and OT role equally well, and has no resource problems. ALL tanks should have something along those lines, PLD or DRK are lacking in some departments here.

Also from what I understand, the way the buffs are calculated, is that storm's path reduces damage dealt by the target while defensive buffs reduce damage taken so that they stack additively rather than multiplicatively. I know defensive buffs stack multiplicatively because it's % increases working with each other, but I don't think storm's path works the same way. Don't quote me on that though, I just remember reading that somewhere but I've not tested it myself.

[Phoenicia]

Also from what I understand, the way the buffs are calculated, is that storm's path reduces damage dealt by the target while defensive buffs reduce damage taken so that they stack additively rather than multiplicatively. I know defensive buffs stack multiplicatively because it's % increases working with each other, but I don't think storm's path works the same way. Don't quote me on that though, I just remember reading that somewhere but I've not tested it myself.

Because the debuff is done on the boss and the buffs on you, that's more the reason they would stack multiplicatively not additively. Take the following example:

Boss does 10,000 damage:

You have Storm Path up: So instead, it does 9,000.

You pop Inner Beast, you reduce the 9,000 by 20% to get hit for 7,200.

So from the original damage of 10,000, Inner Beast reduced 18% (1,800) instead of 20%. Due to the inverse trait of multiplication, we can also say IB reduced by 20% but the total effect of SP is 8%. Potaeto potato. They stack multiplicatively.

Regardless, the effective increase of effective HP per ability/CD is still the same. SP increases everyone's eHP by 11.1111%, IB increases eHP by 25% and SP + IB is a total increase of ~38% (too lazy to get the exact decimal).

Feel the POWAH!

The Monogatari series is the best!

[Galgarion]

The Monogatari series is the best!

It seriously is. Four episodes a year is not nearly enough.

[SpookyGhost]

Also any time that PLD needed to go into ShO, they lost a lot more damage than a WAR going into Defiance. Still true now. The ideal min/max DPS setup was PLD MT in SwO + WAR OT but that only came around after content was overgeared and ready to be sold.