Reasonable buff to war

[MaraD_]

But, it is linear. A .05% expected damage increase from Critical Hit is takes ~16.5 Critical Hit stat, whether currently at 430 CH or over 2400 CH.
When the slope (stat count per interval of return) is equal at any point in the function... it's linear.
Critical Hit does never changes its stat-per-%damage (or, %damage-per-stat) as the total stat value increases. Critical Hit, itself, is therefore linear.

Its only non-linearity is its interaction with Direct Hit, which provides only faintly more multiplicity than either's interaction with Determination.

You should probably look these things up before calling someone else both a liar and egotist...

Id assume the reason he thinks the other is being "an egotist" is because he was confident in the truth.
Which makes sense, having confidence in the truth. But since this guy refuses to use the damage calculator to see the proof, he's assuming he's still right, and the other is wrong.
And when you assume you're in the correct, then the other person being confident comes off as egotistical.

But yeah, I was also surprised by the idea 1st presented, and when looking it up, saw he was correct. But it seems rather normal here on the forums.
When someone points out a little known fact, that seems to defy the very concept we ingrained in ourselves, everyone throws a fit, even when the proof is presented.
(like when people found out a powerful ability that takes up a resource, makes its own damage lower, by taking up the resource needed to use the very same move. People argued forever saying you cant calculate an ability having some negative dps due to its resource cost. Since the value of the resource was only ever towards the ability in question.)

No, this is a major issue. DPS isn't the only reason.

While I agree with you, this argument isnt fully convincing because the end result was 2%, like they said.
in the case of WAR not offering anything on its own, despite this, all of the weaknesses still leads to a win, with only a 2% difference between it and another tank.

The real argument is that the WARs -2% means that there is no other benefit to counter this 2%.
Back in early SB, when PLD was the guaranteed tank, WARs shake it off (removed debuffs) and DPS, was put against DRKs TBN for utility.
The obvious answer is the higher DPS.

But some people actually argued they valued the higher utility of TBN. This demand lead to the JP players asking SE to fix shake it off into the utility it was. (which was mostly better for the sake of utility, not for TBs)
So not only was WAR better than DRK, it was made a step ahead again.
But the only reason this happened, is because theoretical/perceived bonuses/uniqueness gives value to jobs, even when faced with an obvious flaw/weakness.

In short, you're asking for WAR to have something the other tanks dont. As compensation.
(Which it technically does, but the fights just arent tailored for WARs positives. just as HW wasnt tailored for PLD to abuse cover, to the point that PLD could abuse it in SB to cheat mechanics)

Others will argue the "compensation" is the fact tanks are in demand, so having a tank with only negatives is fine, if the negative is as minor as -2% from the top tank.
(This makes sense, but the designers shouldnt have ever made the mistake in the 1st place.)

So while being correct, the end result is "good enough" so you wont find many supporters, as plenty either
(1) dont want to waste resources on WARs, when other jobs need more balance
or
(2) dont want to rock the boat. or 'dont fix what isnt broken', as they will fear it will have the reverse effect and break something else.

I think its best to ask SE to make future savage fights use every tanks pro/con be considered with either every savage fight, or at least the last 2 fights of savage. (3rd/4th floors)