Lets nerf WAR :D

[Evae]

I haven't read the thread, I just want to say I wish bad bad things for you creating this terrible thread.

The fact that you're saying this while having Marauder lvl 60 as your main in your profil kinda makes me wanna laugh at your face.

[Abbul_Stonecleaver]

The fact that you're saying this while having Marauder lvl 60 as your main in your profil kinda makes me wanna laugh at your face.

I've advocated slight buffs to Pal in the areas they need.


Advocating nerfs is just petty and stupid.

[kensatsu]

War want the PLD to get buff and Dark/Pld want to nerf war again,
the tread will never die XD.
War nerf or Pld buff that is the question XD
Can we get rid of the tree tank and get the DarkWarLaDin SE please
He have Dark Art and berserk to buff The Fell Cleave, an axe, a shield, he slashing debuff and have a invincibility of 10 sec, he have forteress to make parry and procc inner beast, he can instant clemensy ! everyone will be happy

[Syzygian]

I've advocated slight buffs to Pal in the areas they need.


Advocating nerfs is just petty and stupid.

I love that people are literally bumping this thread back to the top every time its about to scroll off just to tell me I'm stupid. xD

WAR does not necessarily need nerfs. Hell, nothing "needs" a nerf, like, ever. I just thought it'd be interesting to discuss how a hypothetical nerf could achieve tank balance from another direction, while ideally leaving WAR's playstyle and mechanics intact. I can delete this and make a buff PLD thread instead if you like. :P

[Freyyy]

I love that people are literally bumping this thread back to the top every time its about to scroll off just to tell me I'm stupid. xD

WAR does not necessarily need nerfs. Hell, nothing "needs" a nerf, like, ever. I just thought it'd be interesting to discuss how a hypothetical nerf could achieve tank balance from another direction, while ideally leaving WAR's playstyle and mechanics intact. I can delete this and make a buff PLD thread instead if you like. :P

People only read the title, that's it.

[Syzygian]

People only read the title, that's it.

Touché. Too little too late.

[kensatsu]

Most people think it's a war nerf tread because of the tread title called : Lets nerf WAR
There a lot of comment from not war player complaining about war is good to everything :
A lot of comment of war : saying no to nerf the war.
Between : some good comment.
But otherwise It's like a tank flamme war, everyone want to defend the main class.
You can also call it a Pld/Dark vs War tread

[Abbul_Stonecleaver]

I love that people are literally bumping this thread back to the top every time its about to scroll off just to tell me I'm stupid. xD

WAR does not necessarily need nerfs. Hell, nothing "needs" a nerf, like, ever. I just thought it'd be interesting to discuss how a hypothetical nerf could achieve tank balance from another direction, while ideally leaving WAR's playstyle and mechanics intact. I can delete this and make a buff PLD thread instead if you like. :P

That post was in reply to Evae.

My initial post was a light hearted "oh you son of a-" post.. Evae got offended by it and I responded accordingly to his post.

[SpookyGhost]

WAR does not necessarily need nerfs. Hell, nothing "needs" a nerf, like, ever. I just thought it'd be interesting to discuss how a hypothetical nerf could achieve tank balance from another direction, while ideally leaving WAR's playstyle and mechanics intact. I can delete this and make a buff PLD thread instead if you like. :P

You admit elsewhere that you're simply playing devil's advocate with this thread - however, I don't think you know what that entirely entails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

To play devil's advocate, you strike up a discussion with an opposing view point to the one that's more generally accepted by who you're speaking with (in this case the accepted norm is "PLD should be buffed!" and you are playing devil's advocate by bringing up the proposal of nerfing WAR instead). This is good and healthy for discussion. However, after raising this discussion, you seem... confused by the people who are saying "No, don't nerf WAR, that's stupid".

This is how playing devil's advocate works - you're bringing up something controversial and seeing how they react to the idea. Some people will think it's completely stupid, some will think that it holds some merit, some (usually the minority) will agree outright. Generally the majority will be those who think it's completely stupid, as the thing you're bringing up is controversial and that inherently means that most people won't agree with you. The problem is that you started the discussion but didn't entirely follow through, you just gave up since you don't really agree with yourself and now think that most people calling you stupid didn't get that you weren't being serious. So now we have no one to actually debate this topic with unless someone else wants to show up that either actually agrees with the OP you've made or they themselves want to play devil's advocate.

What I've personally gleamed from the topic is that most people disagree with nerfing WAR - this is likely because they either play WAR and don't feel their job should be nerfed or they play PLD/DRK and feel they would rather have their job buffed than another's nerfed. You also have the minorities, those that agree that WAR should be nerfed massively or those that pretend they know how game design works, not realizing how one change can create a domino effect that would imbalance things even worse than they are now. Job balance is a really tricky thing to discuss, because without hard data on any change you make, it's impossible to tell just how it will affect balance across the board. It's fun theory crafting how to fix a job or how to make a job more fun, but at the end of the day we just have to put our faith in SE and assume they'll do enough testing to come out with some balanced adjustments. I'm fine with small nerfs myself as long as they don't affect how the job feels overall, but there are some really sweeping adjustments that people are proposing that are just... really, really bad.

[Syzygian]

What I've personally gleamed from the topic is that most people disagree with nerfing WAR - this is likely because they either play WAR and don't feel their job should be nerfed or they play PLD/DRK and feel they would rather have their job buffed than another's nerfed. You also have the minorities, those that agree that WAR should be nerfed massively or those that pretend they know how game design works, not realizing how one change can create a domino effect that would imbalance things even worse than they are now. Job balance is a really tricky thing to discuss, because without hard data on any change you make, it's impossible to tell just how it will affect balance across the board. It's fun theory crafting how to fix a job or how to make a job more fun, but at the end of the day we just have to put our faith in SE and assume they'll do enough testing to come out with some balanced adjustments. I'm fine with small nerfs myself as long as they don't affect how the job feels overall, but there are some really sweeping adjustments that people are proposing that are just... really, really bad.

Numerical adjustments definitely need to be made. And honestly, neither myself nor anyone else has any real reason to be skeptical of Squenix's ability to make this balance work, given the glorious (in my opinion) way that they balanced DPS and Healing jobs over the course of the transition to 3.0 and the months that followed, to say nothing of bringing DRG from the most maligned job in the game and butt of countless jokes to the staple of raid groups that it is now. There's not a single DPS or healer job that I wouldn't seriously consider bringing to my raid group, provided an over-all party balance is still struck (no 3 caster 1 melee-type shenanigans). The tank design and performance data in content right now is grossly skewed as we all know and I'm frankly shocked that they've done so little about it and that it wasn't addressed alongside the fixes to AST/MCH and the minor buff to DRK. The state PLD is in compared to the state WAR is in, is a straight-up stain on the dev team's talent for designing jobs. The fact that people are even discussing bringing a second WAR to their raid group in a meta where WAR+DRK has tremendous synergy is saddening, almost as saddening as the almost-completely unexplored synergy of a DRK+PLD group.

My biggest worry with PLD is (and I've outlined this in other threads), the fact that Squenix picked up the shovel and glued it to their hands with these all-but-useless defensive utilities that serve next-to-no purpose in end-game content, or serve their purpose for a relatively minimal amount of uptime, or are just cumbersome to use for a tank. If PLD's DPS and/or enmity is buffed it still won't change the fact that their raid utilities are ham-handed at best, and the offensive combo finishers they received are pure damage and offer no utility, making them the only tank to have their solo combo-based utility tied to their enmity combo, which also happens to be their weakest combo. If they nerfed WAR, they would not have to nerf it nearly as hard as they would have to buff PLD. I absolutely want every tank to be able to succeed in content, but it just feels like in order for the job to "feel" as good as WAR and DRK do, they would have to do SO... MUCH... that it almost seems like they would HAVE to nerf WAR ever-so-slightly to keep them from having to completely etch-n-sketch PLD's design.

But at the end of the day, you're pretty much 100% right.