I wish Gunbreaker would be a DPS class.

[Ekimmak]

I'm afraid you have no idea what parrying is. In reality, the smaller gunblade is far superior weapon to parry with than the the Dark Knights greatsword or the Warriors greataxe.

Parrying is an act of deflecting the attack to the side. It does not require a lot of power. It requires speed and precision. That's why SMALL weapons are used for parrying. Ever heard of parrying dagger?!

Large weapons are better for BLOCKING, but weapons shouldn't be used to block in the first place. That's a last resort maneuver because it can result in the weapon being damaged and made unusable.

I'll give you that, I don't know much about real combat save for what I've read in Ranger's Apprentice.

Honestly, by that logic, nobody other than Paladin should be able parry at the moment, though. And I shouldn't be able to tank Head On so effectively with Raw Intuition...

I guess trying to bring logic into this isn't really working... I'm just saying a Gunblade just doesn't feel like the sort of weapon a tank would use, is what I'm saying. What does the gun provide to the tank class, other than more "Beefy DPS Meta" that I could really do without?

[kikix12]

Honestly, by that logic, nobody other than Paladin should be able parry at the moment, though. And I shouldn't be able to tank Head On so effectively with Raw Intuition...

You can parry anything with anything, provided you can move fast enough with it in comparison to the attack to hit it from the side. It's just going to be a lot easier when you use small weapon in comparison to a large weapon.

I guess trying to bring logic into this isn't really working...

Logic never could have been included with parrying because you still receive most of the damage. A successful parry prevents the attack from hitting at all. There's no damage to be had from an attack parried. Basically, parrying forces the opponent to miss.

But that would be overpowered, hence why parrying is used in games with the lowered damage mechanic. It's actually quite irksome, especially when there's "block". Unlike parrying, block actually allows for damage to "pass". Since it does not deflect force away from the user but adds a middleman (shield or weapon), some of the force is still passed unto the users hands (and possibly more if the attack is powerful enough). Whatever is used to block can also be destroyed in the process. Maybe not as easily in real life, but I can imagine a giant dragon to wreck a wooden shield rather easily. But hey, parrying and block were different for the sake of paladin and his shield and there's no third option, unless a rough "mitigate".

What does the gun provide to the tank class, other than more "Beefy DPS Meta" that I could really do without?

Um...this may get a bit long...but let's see here.

Let's start with this. What IS a tank?! In real life from which the term comes a tank is a vehicle that have three traits.
It's armored, it protects its users and it does have high firepower. Yes, high firepower. It's not a tank if it does not have a cannon of some sort. That would be just an armored vehicle. A tank is an offensive powerhouse that protects on the side, not a shield that can also attack. There are tons of armored vehicles, on wheels and on tracks, that are not tanks because their heaviest weaponry is the like of a minigun (a powerful weapon itself).

In a game, which "borrows" the term, a tank is the class that draws enemies enmity, surviving more than other classes. As a bonus, tanks usually have high-damage weapons (unless they have shields). Their damage is reduced for balances sake with low-damage skills and slow attack rate, but their weapons themselves are high-damage.

In a games lore, what is a tank?! This is a little bit less obvious. Because people tend not to read lore in games or just forget. In lore in just about any game that makes it explicit, enmity (or however it's called in a given game) is a measure of how much mobs want to kill a given person. That is usually born from anger (Provoke uses this) and...most often...from the threat the character poses to the enemy (gruesome attacks, which tanks certainly have thematically). That's why part of the equation for enmity generation is damage. The only reason why tanks don't have the highest damage is for balance, but in the games lore, they ARE the highest damage dealers. They ARE the most destructive (alright, Warrior and Dark Knight in FFXIV, Paladin just gets himself in-between the enemy and ally...hence "Cover").


Now, if we combine that...what do we get?!

A tank needs armor for itself. Check. Fending gear is mostly rather heavy armor, regardless of the material. It does represent heavy armor stat-wise in all cases anyway.
A tank needs to protect others (their party). Check. Tanks have enmity bonuses that are a balanced way of them taking hits for others.
A tank needs high firepower. Kinda. Their high firepower is represented in weapons base attack and enmity bonuses, but not in damage over time. Paladin is a special case due to it being more defensive. There were tanks with weaker cannons though, so it's not too much of a stretch. Besides, the magic makes up for it.


A gunblade does work well for that. A weapon is NOT what gives "tanks" their survival, that's what armor is for. A weapon is meant to give firepower, which tanks lore-wise should have in excess. A gunblade is a "cannon" among weapons alright.

So, sorry, but thematically gunblade does actually fit a "tank". You can say that you don't like the idea, but you cannot really say it doesn't fit it.

People are misunderstanding and thinking I'm talking about individual class balance, when what I mean is that the tank and healer roles in this game have serious design issues that affect individual class balance.

No one misunderstood you. But again, the same issue applies to DPS to a greater degree. The in-between balance for DPS is bigger than it is for the tanks or healers. And since there is even more competition, they suffer a lot more as well.

I don't know bout you, but I see DPS complaining about being kicked for their job a lot more than tanks. And as was said earlier, the supposed "weakest" healers and tanks were prominent in the top groups for high-end content. The worst tank and healer is in much better position than the worst DPS, so if there's one role they should focus on balancing first, it should have been DPS in the first place.
That's, of course, useless as I said. Balancing stuff that will change right after it's done (if it will be done in the first place) just cause level cap is increased is a poor mans excuse not to make job of a given role.

As for the "parry logic" argument, do those who make that argument realize that weapons and gear can be repaired? Might not hurt either to go watch some videos of Zweihander use too.

Might not hurt to read carefully what you respond to either. I made the "parry logic" argument, and I don't recall every saying anything in any way relevant that would combine "weapon breaking" and "parrying" in one sentence.

Furthermore, yes, weapons can be repaired. But you should read a bit more about reality if you think that's an argument to make blocking with weapons (which I said may damage weapon) a desirable method of defense. In real combat if your weapon breaks from blocking it means that there is someone that wants to kill you. And if you have no weapon from blocking and they DO have a weapon (if theirs didn't break)...you're dead. In other words, you're unlikely to have an opportunity to repair a weapon that breaks.

Naturally no one is stupid enough not to block if they need to. But in terms of priority it's better only than getting a clear hit on yourself. Anyone fighting will prioritize dodging (which is best option, but least likely to be possible), parry (which is unlikely to really damage your weapon and will put you at an advantage like dodging to boot) and only then blocking (which puts strain on the weapon, may allow some force to get to hands etc. possibly risking letting go of it and forces you into a position from which attacking may be ineffective).
That it was used is absolutely beyond the shadow of doubt. There were weapons (not shields) actually made to make blocking more effective.
That people parried with larger weapons is also beyond shadow of doubt, because as I said above, you can parry with anything.

What I said is that smaller weapons are better at parrying and larger weapons are better at blocking. Nothing more, nothing less. All the other stuff is just in your head.

[Bright-Flower]

A gunblade does work well for that. A weapon is NOT what gives "tanks" their survival, that's what armor is for. A weapon is meant to give firepower, which tanks lore-wise should have in excess. A gunblade is a "cannon" among weapons alright.

So, sorry, but thematically gunblade does actually fit a "tank". You can say that you don't like the idea, but you cannot really say it doesn't fit it.

Yep. And PLD is really the only overtly 'defensive' tank in the game when it comes to weapons, having a shield. There's not really anything defensive about giant swords and axes.

Mechanically, the gun can give a tank some tools for pulling, or ranged attacks when you have to run out of melee range, etc. Tanks normally won't be at range, but it doesn't mean they can't make use of ranged attacks now and then, like holy spirit for paladins.

On top of that, these are FF VIII style gunblades. The gun parts of these weapons are not generally used as a long range attack anyway. In FF VIII it was mostly used to 'fire' while slashing an enemy for extra damage. Contrast Squall in VIII with the cowboy character who just had a straight up gun. Irvine was it? Been a long time.

All tanks need some offensive capability. Even PLD focuses on expert swordsmanship, occasional offensive spell casting with holy spirit, and using the shield offensively with shield lob/bash/swipe. A tank will still make plenty of use with the gun part of a gunblade.

[Melichoir]

snip snip about tanks and stuff

I think your reasoning is a bit of a stretch. Tanks are historically any armored vehicle that run on treads. Theyre not always mounted with 'cannons', nor are they always the 'highest destructive force' in combat. Even initially, tanks were more for crossing trenches and assisting in troop movement rather than being a firepower force. As a result, tanks actually vary in their capabilities when it comes to fire power.

At the end of day the argument you should be making isnt about firepower at all. A gun blade doesnt bring anything to tanking that a Sword and Shield, or an Axe, or a Greatsword couldnt bring, in terms of damage per say. They all hurt, but at varying degrees and in varying ways (just like actual tanks). Point of a tank isnt to be the biggest baddest most DPS-ing person on the battle field with the addition of having armor. Theyre supposed to fit a role of an armored unit that may provide support. Sometimes that is more along the lines of protecting allies (like a paladin does), and sometimes that more like being a menace (like a Warrior or DRK does). Im not sure what a gunblade will bring, tank wise, but that point is irrelevant. Its what their entire kit brings that makes a tank a tank, not the weapon they carry. So long as the GB class is armored and works in tandem with mitigation, it will fit the role of tank regardless of how it uses its weapon.

[EdwinLi]

---

Consdiering we see that Magic Bullets play a large role in Gunbreaker's abilities and the magitek inside their gunblade as well, I am assuming a lot of the tank skills will focus on using the Magic Bullets by shooting the bullet into the air so it breaks apart into magical energy that creates the magical barriers.

In my perspective it is basically like a magical Shotgun with different types of magical bullets for different tasks.

Explosive bullets for EXPLOSIONS to cause damage.

Barrier Bullets that breaks apart when shot out of the Gunblade to disperse Magical energy to create a barrier.

and etc....


I will not be surprised if they even have a Healing Magical Bullet they shoot into the air to disperse magical Healing energy once it breaks apart as their "self-heal" Tank skill.

As I said before, anything can be a tank or healer with the right imagination but how far are we willing to let that go for the sake of more Tanks and Healers is up to the majority.

With the Magicked Ammo and the way people are speculating on the job it somewhat sounds like the Gun Mage job from FFX-2.

From what I've seen it basically is but that is how Squall's Gunblade has always worked even before X-2 Gun Mage was introduced.

That is actually the original use for Gunblades in FF8 being "insert Magic Bullet for X effect"

[Melichoir]

Thats kind of my point. The weapon is irrelevant ultimately as long as the class with its skills functions as a 'tank' type job (job that mitigates damage, typically holds threat in the holy trinity setup, and relies on some level of damage/utility). It doesnt matter what the weapon is at that point. You could make Machinest a tank if you got creative about it. You could easily make Dragoon a tank, or Ninja, or Monk. You could have a Caster like Summoner or BlackMage be tanks depending on how you handle skill and the like. It ultimately doesnt matter what the weapon is, but the kit.

Granted people associate certain weapons with tanks (typically sword and board as the go-to), but beyond that, anything goes.

snip snap

Oh christ crispies, what are you taking about? My criticism lied with how you tried to equate the tank to actual real life tanks and how it makes sense (talking about firepower and etc), where Im pointing out that youre analogy doesnt make sense in that line of thinking and even more so that that facet is irrelevant. The only real distinguishing thing from both real life and from a gameplay perspective is its an armored unit that usually works with other units and may or may not be the 'biggest' firepower on the field. It was a bad analogy you were making, and you shouldve relied more on the facet if the classes kit rather than what weapon theyre bringing cause that is more logically consistent even within your analogy and more relevant. It really shouldve been a simple "It doesnt matter what weapon is being brought, only what the kit is like."

[kikix12]

I think your reasoning is a bit of a stretch. Tanks are historically any armored vehicle that run on treads.

You would be right...if the term "tank" was first used for defensive character in games early on.

By the time MMO games were made, tank was a heavily armored fighting vehicle I spoke of. That's the meaning of the word "tank" that is the origin of the gaming term.

You see, history may be unchangeable, but it's neither linear nor unchanging. Whenever looking at the origin of something you need to go from "now" to the point it was used the first time for the purpose you're interested in.

And sorry, but even the lightest tanks nowadays have more firepower than majority of other land-based weapons. Exceptions are probably only heavy artillery that are...well...being almost as large as tanks they are purely weapons, no armor included.

Theyre supposed to fit a role of an armored unit that may provide support. Sometimes that is more along the lines of protecting allies (like a paladin does), and sometimes that more like being a menace (like a Warrior or DRK does).

I explained the origin of the term for the "aesthetic" reason why Gunblade fits a tank and you try to counter it with an argument about mechanics, completely ignoring lore. Congratulations. By your logic Warrior and Dark Knight are not tanks, they're DPS. Do you realize that?!

Warriors lore is ALL ABOUT them being that unstoppable, destructive force. Literally everything in the quests is about them being walking walls of destruction.

Dark Knights story line is all about being the stronger force that destroys the strong oppressors to protect the weak. The "one fighting against many". Both of these classes are fundamentally about protecting through DESTROYING opposition.

Their mechanics being less so is purely balance matter. But mechanically anything fits any role, so it's utterly pointless to discuss.

[Ekimmak]

Um...this may get a bit long...but let's see here.

Honestly, I'm willing to concede here, not because my subjective opinion on what should or shouldn't be tank worthy has changed, but because it's such an impressive and well thought out definition on tanks in general.

I just hope they don't tie ammo to defensive AND offensive play, because I know exactly how the forums are going to react to that.