A Tank Balance Megathread

[Sir-Meliodas]

Warrior is perfect the way it is, it does not need nerfs, bring the other two tanks up in line to warrior.
As a Warrior main, it's tool kit is fine the way it is as it makes you constantly assess on whether to be more defensive or offensive (you have to sacrifice dps to more defense or sacrifice defense in the name of dps)
Making stack spends interrupt combos is bullshit because overpower already interrupts weapon skill combos, and that is a pain in the ass when tanking mobs.
The idea of warrior is build stacks and spend them, refreshing a stack as stack spending interrupts weapon skill combos would result in it taking longer to use stack spends, which would result in less dps each minute.
Lets just focus on Dark Knight and Paladin here. Like putting all oaths and grit off the gcd, increasing mitigation on shield oath and grit, stuff like that.

[alkhemyXIII]

It seems that the OP made a goofy thread about nerfing WARs and got a bit of backlash or pushback.

So now, what he/she does is make this wonderful, informative thread... and eventually does what?

Talks about nerfing WARs.

Umm... NO!

To add on he/she uses Xeno, Layla and Frosty, as mentioned a number of times, as fuel to validate his/her theory. As if they are THE authorities on what we want as players. Personally, on their opinion, I could give a ----.

How many abilities did PLD trade with WAR in it's 2.1 fix?

How 'bout this, since we want PLD to take/trade skills so badly... how 'bout DRK trade it's high-power potencies (it's so... strong and.. dark!) or some of its AOE ability (didn't people complain about redundancy in DRK's skill set?) or some of its oGC-ness (it plays so... fast and... dark!). Lawd knows PLD needs it.

Bad thing is, this was a real good post until the end.

Should've called this "Let's Nerf WAR... Yet again... the Remix."

[Reynhart]

Suggestion for additionnal effect on Sheltron.
It should block the next attack "in front of you" wether you're the target or not (Based on the size of the animation). This way, Sheltron could be used to protect others when you're not MT, and giving you access to Shield Swipe.

[Shurrikhan]

Suggestion for additionnal effect on Sheltron.
It should block the next attack "in front of you" wether you're the target or not (Based on the size of the animation). This way, Sheltron could be used to protect others when you're not MT, and giving you access to Shield Swipe.

This would take a massive (although well deserved) revision to coding, however, as 1) all attacks would have to in some way be AoEs, 2) the AoEs would have to move from the source end to finish end of their AoE zones (instead of striking the entire zone simultaneously as they do now), and 3) AoEs would have to capable of procedural, aggregate damage loss with mitigation done such that one person's block (attack passes through their hitbox first, even if dealing no damage to them; aimed at someone else) could mitigate for someone behind them.

[Reynhart]

This would take a massive (although well deserved) revision to coding, however, as 1) all attacks would have to in some way be AoEs, 2) the AoEs would have to move from the source end to finish end of their AoE zones (instead of striking the entire zone simultaneously as they do now), and 3) AoEs would have to capable of procedural, aggregate damage loss with mitigation done such that one person's block (attack passes through their hitbox first, even if dealing no damage to them; aimed at someone else) could mitigate for someone behind them.

If you see it like some sort of one-time-multi-target-short-range-partial-Cover-with-positionnals (Long title, eh ? ), I'm not sure the revision would be "that" massive.

Bad thing is, this was a real good post until the end.

Yes, that was a real good post. And the best part is showing that all tanks have lots of pros and cons...except WAR

[Shurrikhan]

If you see it like some sort of one-time-multi-target-short-range-partial-Cover-with-positionals (Long title, eh ? ), I'm not sure the revision would be "that" massive.

So, self- or ally-targeting, covers either self or allies within 6 yalms, giving self or affected allies a guaranteed block on their next physical attack taken, using your shield's mitigation value? (Or else simply, mitigate the next physical attack against them for <shield value>% damage reduction.) I don't see how you'd be able to apply a mitigation buff to allies and then use your positional, though--only theirs.

[Reynhart]

So, self- or ally-targeting, covers either self or allies within 6 yalms, giving self or affected allies a guaranteed block on their next physical attack taken, using your shield's mitigation value? (Or else simply, mitigate the next physical attack against them for <shield value>% damage reduction.) I don't see how you'd be able to apply a mitigation buff to allies and then use your positional, though--only theirs.

"Block the next physical attack directed at you or at a party member behind you"
Easy

You know, that's a thing I don't understand. Some months ago when I was talking about Berserk on forums, I was thinking that 50% AP didn't equal 50% more damage, but someone told me that in fact, it does. AP = STR.

Yes, Attack power = STR, but STR is put into a formula for a final damage value.
It's not the same to increase STR than this final damage value.

[MeeYow]

Pretty sure Halone and Delerium have been shown to be 7% reductions to their respective damage type (ie, 10% stat reduction =/= 10% damage reduction)

If that is correct, Path is 50% stronger than PLD and DRKs equivalents combined. Something like this seems a lot more at home on 'the defensive tank' - swap the debuffs on Halone and Path.


Regarding TP, it is obvious that infinite single target TP on war is broken - having a resource never run out defeats the point of the resource even being there. Rather than shave equilibrium, a sensible first step would be to add below average TP costs to stack abilities, eg, 60 for fell cleave and IB, 100 for both AoEs.

This would give warrior still amazing sustain, but require some thought as to when to pop a TP equilibrium to keep going even in single target scenarios.

Another small potential way is to add TP costs to WAR stance dancing as it is unique in how it has no cost for changing.

Finally, regarding shield oath and grit, a common complaint about making these oGCD is that they instantly provide 20% mitigation/instantly increase your EHP. This can easily be negated by adding a cost of 20% of the players current HP to the defensive stance.

[Freyyy]

Pretty sure Halone and Delerium have been shown to be 7% reductions to their respective damage type (ie, 10% stat reduction =/= 10% damage reduction)

You know, that's a thing I don't understand. Some months ago when I was talking about Berserk on forums, I was thinking that 50% AP didn't equal 50% more damage, but someone told me that in fact, it does. AP = STR. So if +50% AP/STR = +50% damage, then why would a -10% STR debuff not equal -10% physical damage ? If there is specific maths about that I would be glad to know what it is.

[MeeYow]

I would like to know the details/source myself, my best guess is that if it is correct, it is due to the fact player and mob calcs are different, starting with the fact mobs do not appear to have any defensive stat.

As an aside, if they are all 10%, then the defensive tank still has better claim to the universal damage reduction, it will also make much more common use of a debuff which is somewhat wasted competing with WARs DPS.