Lets nerf WAR :D

[rawker]

...And if we're talking class nerfs, why not remove Storm's Eye? Make Ninja mandatory. Give Storm's Eye some other effect.

Please no. The point of overlapping debuffs is option. If you don't plan to take in WAR as your OT, then you have a NIN to place the slashing debuff on the boss. Same goes with DRK and MNK with INT down debuff.

Don't touch the effects of WAR abilities. Just tweak potency for some of their abilities and they're done.

[Duelle]

...And if we're talking class nerfs, why not remove Storm's Eye? Make Ninja mandatory. Give Storm's Eye some other effect.

I'm more for changing Storm's Path rather than Storm's Eye. Either change it so that the debuff causes the mob to deal less damage to you and only you (it is part of WAR's mitigation kit, so that'd make sense) or change Halone and Delirium to apply the same debuff and remove the INT/STR debuffs.

People being unable to interpret data is an issue that can't be solved (not game-wise, different topic). Even if all three tanks were perfectly balanced; one would still have to sit for the world first. Even if that other tank is capable of doing it (WARs could do 4/5, it was just simply harder; a burden world firsts wouldn't shoulder because it jeopardizes their chances). Balance is not necessarily that out-of-whack (not in the situation presented anyway); but it is certainly overblown.

You can't really dismiss this by saying "people are stupid" (which is what you're doing). I guess it'd be alright if this didn't affect you, but as I said, all of us are affected by this eventually.

"1" is a very noticeable design problem where the developer/game suggested (i.e. gear that you can "Need" on) right side "accessory" gear for tanks is far from preferable to the suggested melee DpS gear for the same slots.

"2" is a design problem with how the materia meld system interacts with standard stat distribution on accessories and how melded crafted gear compares to unmelded dungeon/raid/token gear. If we could not meld Str into Vit accessories and Vit into Str accessories and only secondary stats were meldable into them there would be no need to limit crafted accessory ilevels.

Agreed.

"3" is a problem with encounter and boss design. When stances that give increases in enmity, accuracy and mitigation at the cost of damage dealt have no reason to be sustained constantly and it is considered skilled play to activate and deactivate them when your tanking duties have not changed there is a problem with how fights are designed.

I think the problem also includes how tank design was approached here.

[RapBreon]

You can't really dismiss this by saying "people are stupid" (which is what you're doing). I guess it'd be alright if this didn't affect you, but as I said, all of us are affected by this eventually.

Can't I? I personally, don't want things to be designed for the lowest common denominator - hedging against the impeding tenuous conclusions. This is exactly what WoW did and while it was a fantastic business enterprise, it certainly destroyed the game for me, as I'm sure it did others.

As I said, it's a problem that runs far deeper than games. I won't necessarily blame SE for making a choice that does intend cater for the more lucrative player-base (not dedicated raiders in general then). Doesn't mean I have to agree. Despite the herpderps who think that WARs being unable to tank T4/5 as well as a PLD meant that they can't tank Garuda HM. Not the kind of people I think the tier designed for the highest performing players should be made with in mind

This isn't even getting into the fact you can't actually get around it anyway. Possibly hedge against, but ultimately someone (or somejob rather) has to sit.

You're right about one thing though. It is easy for me to say what I do, because it doesn't affect me.

[Strident]

Can't I? I personally, don't want things to be designed for the lowest common denominator - hedging against the impeding tenuous conclusions. This is exactly what WoW did and while it was a fantastic business enterprise, it certainly destroyed the game for me, as I'm sure it did others.

As I said, it's a problem that runs far deeper than games. I won't necessarily blame SE for making a choice that does intend cater for the more lucrative player-base (not dedicated raiders in general then). Doesn't mean I have to agree. Despite the herpderps who think that WARs being unable to tank T4/5 as well as a PLD meant that they can't tank Garuda HM. Not the kind of people I think the tier designed for the highest performing players should be made with in mind

This isn't even getting into the fact you can't actually get around it anyway. Possibly hedge against, but ultimately someone (or somejob rather) has to sit.

You're right about one thing though. It is easy for me to say what I do, because it doesn't affect me.

Of course some class has to sit on the bench for World First, but that doesn't mean you can't have them be in contention. Lucrezia finishes A4S just 14 hours and 20 minutes after Elysium. They ran MCH instead of BRD, which tells me MCH and BRD were on comparable footing.

PLD however was not in any way, shape, or form in contention for World First (neither was AST, they finally got their fixes), and MNK has had their DPS buffed a decent amount. I can't speak on SMN except that they rock A2S, but otherwise I am not very knowledgeable in that regard.

The general point here is that ideally, we would want PLD to be at least capable of making similar progress in the clear as opposed to being outright forsaken altogether. And we would want this to be true for most encounters, without limiting the encounter design to a general core formula which would reduce the game's complexity. I certainly don't think that tight DPS checks will be going anywhere in the near future. The philosophy for addressing that is that all tanks must be capable of pushing a similar amount of total damage.

There are many ways to increase total damage, which I differentiate from personal DPS. An example of personal DPS is Fell Cleave, while something generally not included in that personal DPS would be something like Battle Litany, AKA raid utility. However, there are other ways to increase total damage without granting flat buffs like mitigating more damage so that healers can put out more DPS in your place. Another would be removing hard enrages and implementing several soft enrages, such that a more defensive tank (PLD) gets a longer time frame to clear the encounter thanks to more mitigation, just increasing the total damage dealt over the DPS in a smaller time frame.

I personally think WAR is overpowered, but I don't entirely believe that nerfing WAR is the only valid solution to solving tank woes, citing Fending Accessories as an example. In this regard, if mitigation checks become hard enough such that tanks actually had to wear their fending accessories, and that fending accessories stopping sucking because of PAR, then the DPS gap between WAR, PLD, and DRK will shorten as obviously WAR scales very well with more damage than mitigation.

[RapBreon]

Snip

From my understanding BRD and MCH are the two best balanced classes relative to one another. They are also the most similar in every regard. Something that was complained about quite a lot.

I can personally attest to the fact that MCH being so similar to BRD disappointed me. But at least it was easy to fill the 'mana battery' slot.

I agree with some of your suggestions however. It should ideally be competitive, but it should bring something other than what WAR (and DRKs to an extent) bring. Maybe not directly DPS related, but something useful enough so that the DPS or healers can pick up that slack. Ultimately, depending on the demands and the difficulty of the fight; it will always favour certain set-ups over others. Hopefully Yoshi's team can fix PLDs kit being particularly underwhelming for the tier...next tier! Because as of now it doesn't matter (due to gear).

[ArdorGrey]

Honestly, this just sounds like a very salty drk. War's damage isn't far ahead of a good drk already, and drks actually do more damage in tanking stance.

But yes, let's nerf war damage so all the drg/drk edgelords can be top dps as both their dps main and their tank alt.

[Lastelli]

Not going to discuss your suggestions, but I agree, WAR should be slightly nerfed in some way. I love WAR, it's the job I usually use for DR:expert and alex normal (I'm SCH main, so I don't have tanking exp in savage) and it was the first tank job I leveled to 60. However, it's currently too strong and too easy to use since its new skills are basically a dps version of what it had in 2.x (plus 2 new CD that you can just throw in when needed). It's a very effective MT and when properly equipped (STR or melded accessories) it can compete with ranged dps on single target as an OT. It has amazing aggro generation and single target damage and pretty good aoe damage thanks to decimate. Basically no weak spots. I feel like it's a bit too much.

[kazeandi]

Disable stance switches completely. You're in tank stance, you're a tank. You're in DPS stance, you queue as DPS.
Same for healers with Cleric Stance.

Problem solved.

[RocheKat]

Could the world first A4S groups have done it without a warrior? How many groups have cleared A4S with a Drk and a Pld?

The answer to those two questions will probably clear up the question of tank balance and just because SE says there is balance doesn't mean they actually believe it. They told us in 2.0 that Warrior was fine and then they went on to give War a bunch of buffs. Look it up... war 2.0 vs 2.1. Pretty sure no other class/job has seen that many big buffs.

I am also wondering why people are not just bringing two warriors?

[Duelle]

I am also wondering why people are not just bringing two warriors?

The limit break bar penalty for stacking jobs.