Keep overpower cone shaped!

[fafrir]

So, question for all the people who barely touched tank jobs except when they wanted to skip the queue for a roulette: did the OP change make you enjoy/play WAR any more than before? Or are you all still barely touching the job and not learning how to position properly?

Maybe this is just me but I've been seeing a handful of my friends and people I know finally using WAR/playing it slightly more due to this change. If this was the road map the dev team was going for then they have accomplished that and I don't think they will change it back, even if it means dissatisfying us who love the cone (and I hope they do revert it back).

I do agree that it just isn't fair for us who do take the time to learn how to position with the cone (Hall of Novice teaches this!) and basically telling us to readjust instead of the other people learning it so they listened to the latter.

I used to be excited about tanking an Expert but now when I tank it I'm just like "let's get it over with". Furthermore, it's either I play another role and miss tanking or I tank and feel sour about it.

[marelooke]

Maybe this is just me but I've been seeing a handful of my friends and people I know finally using WAR/playing it slightly more due to this change. If this was the road map the dev team was going for then they have accomplished that and I don't think they will change it back, even if it means dissatisfying us who love the cone (and I hope they do revert it back).

Seems like a bad time to pick up WAR then since in Expert Roulette you have to drag along a healer anyway, so you might as well bring a tank that does DPS if they all play the same anyway. And for non-expert roulettes it doesn't really matter anyway.

I do agree that it just isn't fair for us who do take the time to learn how to position with the cone (Hall of Novice teaches this!) and basically telling us to readjust instead of the other people learning it so they listened to the latter.

I used to be excited about tanking an Expert but now when I tank it I'm just like "let's get it over with". Furthermore, it's either I play another role and miss tanking or I tank and feel sour about it.

I've practically stopped tanking dungeons (or even logging in on non-raid nights come to think of it). I'll tank them when static/FC requests but on my own I'll do every other roulette and skip the dungeon ones (if it's healer/dps in need, might do that, but I'll avoid tanking). If I wanted to play GNB, PLD, or DRK, I would have.

[EnigmaticDodo]

So, question for all the people who barely touched tank jobs except when they wanted to skip the queue for a roulette: did the OP change make you enjoy/play WAR any more than before? Or are you all still barely touching the job and not learning how to position properly?

This is a very important question, considering the change was made explicitly for people who didn't do the role. If there wasn't a significant increase to people playing the class after these changes, then perhaps they should be reverted. I know that it's not likely they will be changed back, but the dev team should really consider this...

[Iscah]

Circle Overpower just "feels wrong". I think it's the shortened range. It feels restrained, which is the opposite of what Warrior is supposed to be.

[Iscah]

As a compromise, could we get an eight-yalm circle so it still has the same forward range?

[Shurrikhan]

As a compromise, could we get an eight-yalm circle so it still has the same forward range?

And where then does that end? We'd doubtless then shout that Mythril Tempest should have 8 yalms, and therefore then all circular AoEs. Should then linear AoEs be left with an AoE narrower than an 8 yalms to either side?

The radius on circular AoEs has already been increased from their original size (and linear AoEs widened). The original implementation was that they would all have roughly the same square footage, just in different shapes.

[Iscah]

And where then does that end? We'd doubtless then shout that Mythril Tempest should have 8 yalms, and therefore then all circular AoEs. Should then linear AoEs be left with an AoE narrower than an 8 yalms to either side?

You know what? I never actually looked at the listed radius, and I thought Tempest was visually bigger than that. Job fantasy further ruined.

I don't play a lot with WAR so I haven't had to get used to it yet, but I played it again last night and it still feels wrong and unsatisfying.

[Shurrikhan]

You know what? I never actually looked at the listed radius, and I thought Tempest was visually bigger than that. Job fantasy further ruined.

I don't play a lot with WAR so I haven't had to get used to it yet, but I played it again last night and it still feels wrong and unsatisfying.

To be fair, I do feel like it makes plenty of sense (A) for Warrior to have bigger AoEs than most tanks (it's supposed to be the battlefield behemoth, after all), and (B) for later-step combo moves to have larger AoE radiuses befitting their larger, more powerful-looking animations.

Yes, the latter bonus will largely go to waste from having to engage with our first step (which... really just means making good use of Provoke and the healer not being late in pre-shielding/HoTing us), but that's fine. Our skills, though, should more closely match they're animations, and if that animation covers nearer to a 8-yalm range, go for it, especially if that capacity would fit the job it's on.

My main concern, again, is just this community's quickness (and I'm sure I've been a part of this) to demand overly specific parity, sometimes at cost to identity or without acknowledging what precedents they would set (or those precedent's implications in turn). How do we convince a frequently soured-to-Warrior tank population that, hey, Mythril Tempest really does deserve its flavor/fluff buff of an 8-yalm range while PLD's and GNB's circular AoE combos do not? And if we can't draw the line there... where does it end up?

They're already making most "friendly" abilities have a "whole arena" range, and if they really think positioning is too hard for most then making AoEs same range as Earthly Star seems the logical next step.

Would I like it. Nope, but it's clear most changes to jobs aren't made for those enjoying the jobs, but rater despite them and for those not playing the job.

I think we need to seriously question that latter trend, though. What does removing a presumed tiny part of a job's initial required investment (it's "fundamentals" to some, its "barrier to entry" to others) cost players' maximal enjoyment of that job?

In the end, we have finite time and interest, so we'll ultimately spend both across what jobs we like best. A job designer's goal, then, ought not to be how many or what portion of players can "enjoy" (threshold value to be determined, if such is even possible) each job, but rather what portion of players feel enjoyably engaged by/through the span of jobs available to them.

If, a few months or so after omni-leveling, I'd have ended up only fully enjoying myself on a handful of particular jobs anyways and my hours until the next expansion would mostly just be on them, those additional jobs aren't adding to the success of the job designers so much as to the success of pseudo-reiterative content: Though ultimately abandoned, those extra jobs got me to at least complacently (even if not enjoyably) play through leveling content more than I otherwise would have. But, in the end, my enjoyment of the current or more intrinsically enjoyable content will come primarily from my depth of engagement across those favored jobs more so than the breadth of engagement I have across all of them.

While we probably should replace mechanics that even the best users of a job don't particularly find "fun", but merely easily "dealt with", and which add far more to "barrier to entry" than to a job's ceiling, we need to be careful, too, of what effect even a more annoying or lackluster mechanic or consideration might have on those around it, as a sort of "keystone" element of the job's play.

Aside from the mere fact that the change was virtually unasked (and taken over the very frequent, very clear suggested alternatives), I think that was the largest failing of Kaiten's removal, for instance: Though worsened already by the changes to Ikishoten and Senei/Guren's costs before it, the removal of Kaiten finally allowed Kenki to work basically just as a Shinten charge counter. To some, perhaps that is a change for the better, but if the long-term benefit to them (i.e., from SAM then becoming one of their favored jobs, from which lens they come to better enjoy content) doesn't exceed the long-term cost to others (e.g., SAM mains), then the playerbase could only have lost job quality on the whole.

[marelooke]

My main concern, again, is just this community's quickness (and I'm sure I've been a part of this) to demand overly specific parity, sometimes at cost to identity or without acknowledging what precedents they would set (or those precedent's implications in turn). How do we convince a frequently soured-to-Warrior tank population that, hey, Mythril Tempest really does deserve its flavor/fluff buff of an 8-yalm range while PLD's and GNB's circular AoE combos do not? And if we can't draw the line there... where does it end up?

It's the dev team's job to know better, and especially to understand what the intended "flavour" for a class is, and preserve it. But it would seems that, aside from the classes the devs themselves "main", they have no idea. Which is why I think any class not actively mained by one of the main devs will end up getting mangled at some point: they rely on user feedback for "changes" and clearly people that enjoy a class won't be whining on the forums about it, well, not until they decide to mess with it and ruin our enjoyment, at least.

Many more of these recent changes just seem to come entirely out of left field: the other day I ended up in the Aery in a roulette and noticed they removed the disappearing platforms on the last boss (Hraesvelgr)... I was literally lost for words... Was that really ever a problem for anyone in recent years? Really? I mean, I guess it required the tank to think about positioning, so it just had to go...?

We meme'd about brainless unga-bunga, but it most certainly is brainless now...

[marelooke]

And where then does that end? We'd doubtless then shout that Mythril Tempest should have 8 yalms, and therefore then all circular AoEs. Should then linear AoEs be left with an AoE narrower than an 8 yalms to either side?

The radius on circular AoEs has already been increased from their original size (and linear AoEs widened). The original implementation was that they would all have roughly the same square footage, just in different shapes.

They're already making most "friendly" abilities have a "whole arena" range, and if they really think positioning is too hard for most then making AoEs same range as Earthly Star seems the logical next step.

Would I like it. Nope, but it's clear most changes to jobs aren't made for those enjoying the jobs, but rater despite them and for those not playing the job.

Personally I don't really think most of the changes to WAR made since I started playing it have been any good (not just WAR, but we're in the WAR boards). Well, aside from removing Onslaught from Gauge, but honestly, I'll gladly give that up for a full revert of every other WAR change made with EW (note, I said change, not addition, I like our lvl90 skill). I was kinda fine sucking most of those (over)simplifications up, but Overpower was one bridge too far, really. But I digress...