Thread: DualShocker Interview - 3.5 pt 2 next week, supposedly

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

Indeed, so if WAR and DRK can actively manage specific debuffs that in effect give them similar DEF to PLD who has the passive DEF already, they can achieve the same defense that the PLD can. bu the same token, the far more tanky PLD can though their own skills with their damage dealing - as well as the potential impact on other damage dealt by healers for example, the end result could be a wash. but for a player who prefers the more active style of play PLD would be a nightmare because it would feel slower, where WAR and DRK would be so much more active that a player who prefers a more steady pace would enjoy PLD more.

I would agree that different play styles is highly enjoyable and important. One of the reasons why I dont think cleric stance is god awful but at the same time I don't want to see it on all healer jobs, It will get in the way of creating styles of playing on healer job that others may find more enjoyable.

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

To be honest I am not sure if you are wrong or not. I'm suggesting that all tanks could eventually achieve similar defensive resilience, but PLD can stand there and focus on other things, while WAR and DRK have to weave additional skills in to gain the same kind of defensive performance while tanking - passive vs pro-active defense. At the same time, if a WAR or DRK is using their proactive defense, it takes the edge of their damage dealing so that if they go full turtle with their pro-active defenses, it reduces their DPS to something more like the PLD can achieve.

So it becomes a balancing act. PLD has a harder time with meeting the DPS that WAR or DRK are capable of, but in order to achieve the same resilience of a PLD, both WAR and DRK end up doing less damage by burning GCDs on skills for that.

One of the unique issues that SE has created, maybe on accident, is that auto attacks are generally not that strong and so being able to weave in a combo that shortly increases defense (either via healing, shield, or mitigation) means it can be better than just hitting a button that has longer lasting passive effects (making the Paladin's long lasting easy button not as good). It's true the one button vs three button thing can represent difference in fight knowledge but it just means that if you have the option of 3 buttons + higher damage vs 1 button and lower damage with similar results, the choice will slowly lean to 3 + more damage. Made even more fun by the fact that Paladin will actually run out of TP the fastest while having a lesser damage max output lol (also while sword oath is very strong, people will generally not "feel" its strength - or see it if a Paladin doesn't switch out, while true other tanks have damage benefits from switching too but the other tanks also have stronger MT damage too (double too)).

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

I haven't mathed this out,, it's nothing more than a concept. But it just seemed to me that an ability to actively balance offense and defense dynamically would fit WAR/DRK very well, while a PLD would be less dynamic through the passive defense. To balance this out, the Shield and Sword oaths could be used to create more variance between the stances so that the PLD can achieve decent DPS, with lower defenses - in effect the reverse of the WAR/DRK.

There's a really good chance that this is just a back of the envelope thought, I just like the idea of each tank filling specific niches better than other tanks. Also, During raid content (full party) passive party buffs could even things out to prevent PLD being *the* MT. But that would require even more balance at which my head starts to hurt.

I always thought the oath mechanic could be expanded a bit, with an oath always being active (fits paladin "lore/theme") and certain activities increasing your oath intensity / or effect, like a sort of rehearsal/vow mechanic. Casting Clemency rehearses your oath, and also can change how it behaves. Depending on how you do it you could theoretically have both oaths active at once for a short time. Could also be a way to easily add two abilities to Paladin in SB without changing the ability count, activating an already activated oath instead of deactivating it could instead trigger another effect. Like a activate-able passive (Master Yi in LoL as a random example).

Tempered Will when used with sword oath buff gives you %X TP and Mana return on use and half that to party members, and knock-back resistance for self, with shield oath it will give you and your party knock back resistance, +10% HP restored on a prevented knockback to each party member. Basically many abilities would obtain vow effects, the ability wouldn't change but if you had a vow it'd use it to gain extra benefit.

Keep Paladin's from being able to damage things significantly but allow them to boost their allies to take their place at the table. All the mechanics basically making them feel like the person at the door saying after you, while they hold the fiery beam from coming down. Meanwhile the other two tanks would be variations of running into the fiery building head first.

Although I don't really mind what they do so long as they can balance the fact that defense = defense and damage != damage is not balanced, and they need to either bring Paladin's damage up or his support up in a way that allows (doesn't guarantee) that his team can make up for his loss (like allowing healers to DD, or by buffing and supporting allies through spells/mechanics). Just being the same in defense (at max skill) and being worse at damage (at max skill) and that's the only difference isn't balanced and hope that's not what happens to Paladin.

I may suggest they change how the super tank moves are designed just so they stop being planned around boss fights though, rather than all competing for the same purpose make them a super move in their theme (that doesn't involve invulnerability).

Originally Posted by Kosmos992k

I agree that each should have their reason to shine. I was just thinking that PLD making a virtue of their passive defense could be counterbalanced by active defensive skills that WAR/DRK could use.

Ah, well, it comes down to I play Paladin, and I would like there to be something that each tank is right for, and the party is therefore happy to see them - as you say.

They can definitely make balance around the styles of defense, they just need to also make sure there is something else Paladin brings if they're going to balance defense then.

But yeah agreed . Paladin is the Fortress, the Alexander. So hopefully it feels and plays like an Alexander. Or if they can't balance it around that, at least comparable in end results when input with max skill - which isn't really the case right now, you /will/ get better results on a max skill warrior minus the exception where hallowed ground cheeses warrior out. I think warrior's issue is they're just so tightly wound like a scholar or something lol, they have a nice package deal with many things properly greeting the other in mechanical love. That's at least how I've read it, I've read a lot more about warrior than scholar :P. If SE can't fix Paladin by SB or at least show good signs for it, I'll be switching jobs for sure - even though I like the theme/idea of Paladin more.

Just an aside while jobs that require more to play may not like that they don't output more I believe that regardless of max skill required to play, if you put in maximum input the relative output is tightly related to each other (even if the route to the end is different). So ultimately that's what I'd like to see changed with tanks as that's not really true right now. Even though Paladin isn't dysfunctional to be 100% useless but, why pick "can do dungeon" when you can pick "can do dungeon faster and easier" (assuming that the tank themselves is a pro, which isn't always true - I'm definitely not a master but I feel "okay enough" to notice the other tanks have better balance if you give them more energy).