Reasonable buff to war

[Izsha]

.

That is incorrect.

Well...since you're responding to any of like 4 posts I made 3 pages ago and you just quoted a period, maybe I made a grammar mistake? Cant comment on such a vague accusation.

The tank damage forum is massive, and i've already dealt with you previously, Izsha

No, seriously. I dont even recognize your handle, and it wasnt even in the discussion a few pages ago that you are referencing.

you don't have a strong understanding of warrior (or did you finally realize how bad storms eye and it having adjustments would actually make a difference?), so it makes sense that "fun/clunk" is your only rebuttal.

Buncha ad hominem, and other lame fallacy statements that have nothing to do with the arguments and couldnt prove if you had too like 'you dont understand warrior'. That is pretty lame that it, as you put it, is your only rebuttal.

There IS a consensus, actually. It's all in that forum and on reddit.. 4.2 war had a massive pool of lamentations and yet this IR still made it into ShB. warrior is the LEAST played tank. It plummeted from alphascape into eden. So, yeah, they KNOW who to make it for. the japanese players are just as unhappy about warrior's condition and having no identity.

1 giant thread on this forum that is made up of the same same 30 people going back and forth isnt a consensus. Neither is reddit, or this forum in total. It's a vocal minority of players. This game has hundreds of thousands of players. It is quite presumptuous to assume this forum speaks for the majority.

Go look at a rating site for services. A disproportionate number of reviews are 1 star and 5 stars because people that feel SO strongly about a topic that they will go online and spend their valuable time talking into the void of the internet do so because they have a strong feeling. No one feels strongly 'OK'. People feel strong negative or positive feelings and those are the drivers for online forum posters. So, no, a few hundred people that regularly post about broken tanks are bit a consensus, majority, or anything else close to it in a game where hundreds of thousands of people are just playing comfortably every day and seem to be happy enough with their situation to no feel the need to come rate their class online. Internet forums are just the highly engaged vocal minority of the playerbase. SE knows that and this is why when the forums say jump they just look at you like cat and occasionally post a 'were aware of the complaints and were keeping an eye on it and collecting data.' That's just code for 'we will change something if the data of our hundreds of thousands of quiet players change their ACTIONS in game through objective, numerical, data driven analysis, not your QQ 50 page thread of 30 people arguing'. That is the proper approach to solve a problem of this scale that affects this many people.

if you want your answer on whom the jobs should be made for, it isn't the casual community. the bad players are going to keep playing poorly as they simply do not care to perform correctly, this is the actual issue here.

When did I EVER say anything that they should balance jobs for the lower tiered players? If anything I have been dismissive of complaints from players focusing on dungeons and other lower tiered content over my time posting here. Balancing from the bottom up is never the right approach imo for virtually any multiplayer game. Not sure where this line of attack even came from as I never say anything like that. But when you respond to a post pages ago and dont even put the post in questions text, I guess you can just make stuff up.

and yeah, i brought up playrates. deal with it being brought up again. it matters.

When drks brought up play rates in previous years I said it, and the response was always 'easy to say when your job has high play rates'. Well to all those folks wars on the bottom in power and play rates and im still saying the same darn thing. People use play rates to justify everything from balance complaints, to 'fun-ness' of a class. Play rates tell you 1 single fact. How many people are playing X tank in Y content. Everyone likes to shoe horn n their personal soap box reason to explain WHY the play rates are a certain way. But these are all starting with a conclusion, then looking for data to back it up instead of the other way around. That's how you get flat earthers.

There are a myriad of reasons why people choose to play a specific tank. Aesthetic preferences (eg:big barbarian with axe vs ff8 gunblade fanboi for example). If you picked up Gun because you love ff8, that says nothing about balance, or fun, or design. Thats personal. Theres also player perception (eg: everyone says drk sucks in SB. Maybe I'll level war instead then. I dont want to suck). Similarly Theres a fotm group that will always bandwagon to the 'meta class/race/champion in every game because max performance/dps is all they care about. There is also 'fun's mixed in there. Some people leveled a job, found it wasnt for them (or it got reworked and dont like the new version) and they shuffle off to something else. Theres endless reasons why someone plays the job they play. Uunless you have a bunch of polls from players asking why they play the job they do and then run multi regression analysis to tease out the effect all the factors have on the total play rates, then you have nothing to lean on in play rates. Using play rates as the crux of your argument is just talking out of your bum. You CANNOT state with any degree of certainty that your pet peeve is THE reason playrates are as you are. Its faulty logic. Period. It was a terrible argument for drk when pld was on top (hilariously it was often used against war, but pld had far higher play rates cuz...reasons). It's still the same bad argument when war is on bottom.