Lets nerf WAR :D

[OPneedNerfs]

DRK/PLD compete for the MT slot, not OT. MCH/BRD compete for the ranged support slot, not melee/caster. BLM/SMN compete for the caster spot, not melee or ranged support. Doubling up on casters or ranged support reduces the effectiveness of the overall party composition due to either loss of maximum damage or loss of support abilities, but like PLD/DRK, is still workable in most situations.

I honestly prefer it like this. Leaves room for a new fourth tank to compete with WAR for OT slot & allows all tanks to specialize more in a specific role.

But at it's current state, there is no defined comp where it is always BRD>MCH or MCH>BRD for ranged support neither is there always a SMN>BLM or BLM>SMN.

Saying it's in the same state as PLD/DRK compared to WAR would mean that it is ALWAYS better to bring MCH>BRD or vice versa and SMN>BLM or vice versa which is absolutely not the case.

Also with regards to the 4th tank competing for OT slot, or even the theory of having an OT specializing tank, would mean their defenses while being a MT would need to be tuned lower equivalent to how much more damage/utility they bring while being an OT or else there'd be no reason to bring those specializing in being MT.

Think about it this way, if people are already bringing 2x WAR even with the LB penalty, what would happen to MT specializing tanks like PLD/DRK if they were to introduce another WAR-type tank under a different name which brings the same amount of damage/utility and defenses of a WAR?

[Disc]

Also with regards to the 4th tank competing for OT slot, or even the theory of having an OT specializing tank, would mean their defenses while being a MT would need to be tuned lower equivalent to how much more damage/utility they bring while being an OT or else there'd be no reason to bring those specializing in being MT.

Think about it this way, if people are already bringing 2x WAR even with the LB penalty, what would happen to MT specializing tanks like PLD/DRK if they were to introduce another WAR-type tank under a different name which brings the same amount of damage/utility and defenses of a WAR?

The comment was in relation to PLD/DRK vs WAR, not PLD vs DRK. This is a WAR nerf thread after all. But yes, to balance out the introduction of a second OT based job like WAR, encounters would have to be designed around PLD/DRK MTs or WAR would need to lose its HP bonus. eg 80,000+ damage tank-busters that could be forced physical or magical, similar to Turn 2 resistances.

[kensatsu]

The MT and OT difference would be what War is going to dps more take more aggro on pack, it's already the case... but what many people point is the War is good OT and MT.
He got even better MT in 3.00 than before he can self heal himself more so the homlang use is safier. before 3.00 homlang needed a benediction from whm, but not anymore.
For me before nerfing the War, they should up the Pld, but maybe the War need some tweak to get more disavantage as MT because he is going to be OT designed tank.
Because now the war is good OT and good MT, the war still have to be aviable for MT but not be as good MT than MT designed tank.
I think also they made the solo tanking impossible, don't forget the war place was a lot get from dps in the past. Pld was happy to be solo tanker.
But things change a lot >_>

[Disc]

The MT and OT difference would be what War is going to dps more take more aggro on pack, it's already the case... but what many people point is the War is good OT and MT.
He got even better MT in 3.00 than before he can self heal himself

This is more of an issue with encounter design than WAR design. They made Alexander encounters weak enough to be tanked by any of the three(DRK/PLD/WAR) while pushing for DPS checks gated behind gear progression to slow progress. WAR would not be a very successful MT if they had pushed for high damage tank-busters like Akh Morn, which did as much as 66,000 more damage than our current tank-busters with much lower max HP.(over a time exceeding holmgang duration)

[kensatsu]

yeah it's more what happen, Also we can say the design is bad to make the PLD seat in,
Because it's about dps check, and War dps is higher and still can MT.
I was using Force Vita accesories early in a real reborn, i remember got arround 400 dps in T13 with my war, it was a lot more than the PLD output. PLD never complained because Op tank comp was PLD as MT, War as OT most of the time, and only PLD when it was solo tankable, Main WAR got to up a DPS to use in this case, i used a dragoon on T8/T9 instead of my War.
But now with the current raid, the problem PLD encounter is the dps check itself, he is not seating as well than the two others Tank, the current OP tank comp is dark/war,
i still think they have to up the pld to not be behind too much in dps, or stop with the heavy dps check raid.

[NFaelivrin]

I've tried to find weaknesses in WAR's kit. The only one I can come up with is "the new Lustrate kinda sucks when you're in defiance".

[kensatsu]

don't worry johnMccain, NFaelivrin is just crazy about the war, at this point he need to switch to war so he can slaying debuff and be happy.
Or wait SE tweaks something about the tank, or make raid where pld don't compete with others tanks.
There is not weakness on the WAR on the current Raid, they should have done something a War can't handle. but there not one.
Before it was the case but because they add the dark knight, SE certainly choose to make something all the tank can handle as MT easy, but now where is advantage to have a PLD if all the tank can MT easy ? This is the problem we never encounter before, NO T13 without PLD is possible because the 4th ahk morn would kill the war. But A4S without PLD is possible, this is the joke
remember also T9, Main tank the T9 with a war would be Hard... when it come to have Tank Burster so heavy that only a pld with the full invincibility for 10 sec can handle, only the pld can handle, that's all.
But now there 3 tanks, SE din't make very strong Tank Burster.
I am sure next raid will make the return of tank buster where 10 sec invincibility is needed, something a war can't handle, i also wish and hope if them continue with the heavy dps check, please just Up the PLD dps to make them not too much behind
Also don't forget The war was already dpsing harder than pld before, good war output was already amazing and near the dps. a little like now; it's the case since 2.1, it's not new at all, pld din't complain because the PLD was needed.

[Thunda_Cat_SMASH]

Kindly enlighten us, since you agreed with him, on how the MCH/BRD or BLM/SMN situation is similar to the situation DRK/PLD is in against WARs.

All of the above jobs cannot reach their own maximum dps without the assistance of another class. Ranged are buffed by disembowel, casters or buffed by foe requiem and hyper charged bishop, and all physical are buffed further by hyper charged rook. Most every job relies on some other job to help them reach max potential, The exceptions being Monk and DRG. If a casual player knows this, I would've thought a raider would too.

But, you know. Paladin Princess Snowflakes.

[OPneedNerfs]

All of the above jobs cannot reach their own maximum dps without the assistance of another class. Ranged are buffed by disembowel, casters or buffed by foe requiem and hyper charged bishop, and all physical are buffed further by hyper charged rook. Most every job relies on some other job to help them reach max potential, The exceptions being Monk and DRG. If a casual player knows this, I would've thought a raider would too.

But, you know. Paladin Princess Snowflakes.

But the situations you mentioned don't cause the other job classes to be excluded from content.

You can have a BRD/MCH in the party along with casters and still have DRG in the party for maximum synergy, but said composition would still not be the be all end all composition for any raids. One could change out 1 or even both of the casters for another melee DPS be it MNK or NIN and it still would not be considered a DPS loss raid-wide. Their situation is called balance and job synergy where bringing X combination of DPS classes does not make it the best there is and that there are other combinations which are just as good.

The situation with WAR vs PLD/DRK right now is, if you remove WAR, there is currently absolutely no reason why a PLD+DRK pairing would make up for not bringing a WAR along.

[RapBreon]

But the situations you mentioned don't cause the other job classes to be excluded from content.

You can have a BRD/MCH in the party along with casters and still have DRG in the party for maximum synergy, but said composition would still not be the be all end all composition for any raids. One could change out 1 or even both of the casters for another melee DPS be it MNK or NIN and it still would not be considered a DPS loss raid-wide. Their situation is called balance and job synergy where bringing X combination of DPS classes does not make it the best there is and that there are other combinations which are just as good.

The situation with WAR vs PLD/DRK right now is, if you remove WAR, there is currently absolutely no reason why a PLD+DRK pairing would make up for not bringing a WAR along.

This only because you have four DPS slots. So it's not a big problem to have that kind of 'mandatory' synergy. As in if you have a BRD/MCH you essentially need a DRG or you're making shit real hard. And every serious prog group needs a MCH/BRD. Foe req isn't as important in the grand scheme of things, though you can't achieve maximum potential without it.

To be honest NIN and DRG completely bullied MNK out of a spot (due to DRK having INT down). I mean the derlirium slash issue did actually exclude MNKs from the first few weeks. After time passed and the buffs (which weren't crazy, super reasonable number tuning) were implemented the distance wasn't so bad anymore. But it was not unlike the situation you describe. Regardless some set-ups are just plain superior regardless of balancing, this will always be the case. The only thing that varies is by how much (e.g. Fore req not as important and piercing down and so on); which I agree, WARs are ahead by a bit too much.