So does every hate new PLD now?

[ataren3]

Yes, overall I'm not a fan of PLD.

Does it feel nice that it conforms to the 2 minute bursts now? Yes. (Do I LIKE 2 minute burst in general? Nope)
Do I like the single target rotation? Not at all.
Do I like the new AoE rotation? Yes.

I don't like how simple and boring PLD has become with the change, mostly because they didn't bother addressing a major issue with PLD with the rework anyway: Atonement spam.
Atonement is a good damage dealer for PLD. Atonement gives you MP back from a holy spirit or confi combo. Atonement is also a button you spam 3 times and in both the old PLD AND the new you still want to drop stacks to conform to the 2 minute burst. I don't like that. It feels bad playing a class with the intention of literally losing damage stacks just so you can deal good damage in a consistent window.

I like that the new rotation allows you to use holy circle a lot more frequently. That ability was almost as niche as cover because you could really only spam it during req stacks for dungeon pulls; now it's quite literally part of your AoE rotation which is nice.

[Shurrikhan]

If you want to see the impact of burst on buffs, we can directly look at the damage taken under any given buff. Nobody has tabulated this data as percentiles yet, but the information exists. If you genuinely have an interest in evaluating this rather than trying to win internet arguments, then this is the quantity to be looking at and offering discussion around. We can directly look at the parameter of interest in this discussion. You don't need to offer a proxy.

I'm aware. I'm the one who laid that out for you months ago.

But why would the burden of proof lie with the idea that jobs' throughput should be balanced around all that a job offers to an average party (or that the closest proxy for that metric should be the indicator for this shouldn't be the one specifically designed to ignore a significant portion of its contribution), as compared to the idea that looking at only part of what a job brings would somehow be preferable?

Regardless, that still wouldn't be worth anyone's time nearly so much (as mentioned last time) as using simple relative-potency spreadsheets, as those do not rely on matching all of the various contexts of a given fight, let alone the Crit/DHit variation.

Note: rDPS is no less a "proxy" for the performance of every buffer. Will you be holding every buffer, then, to the same skepticism that'd require careful tabulation by clear time, composition, and the percentiles of the receiver, buffer, and average across the party? Why is the one metric that accounts for team synergy safe despite being equally susceptible to variation, but the other not?

[Lyth]

There's no 'burden of proof' here.

If you want players to be able to make up their own minds about the data set, you need transparency. It's very easy to present information in a way that is manipulative, simply because not everyone has a background in mathematics. If I can see dps contributions under Arcane Circle by job organized by percentile, I can see which jobs synergize best with me. I can also see if there's a significant discrepancy in those values that needs to be addressed. The same is true for all buffs, be it Mug, Embolden, Litany, Battle Voice, or whatever. You don't even need to make the distinction for 'single target' vs. 'raid-wide' buffs, it's useful information around which we can have an honest discussion. You don't have the same transparency with a back-of-the-envelope aDPS estimate because you don't know what smorgasbord of buffs were on offer even as a population average, and we can't tell if we're actually looking at contributions just from two minute buffs or random party wide BRD songs that are also thrown into the mix at random. The data is already all there, it's just not tabulated the way rDPS/aDPS/nDPS is. I don't think the issue is time investment. People just need to express an interest in it.

rDPS isn't a proxy, by the way. It's just the original raw DPS numbers reallocated, with no damage discarded. And it is a relatively robust parameter based off how it's calculated.

[Shurrikhan]

rDPS isn't a proxy, by the way. It's just the original raw DPS numbers reallocated, with no damage discarded. And it is a relatively robust parameter based off how it's calculated.

Yes, reallocated in a way that removes from view the team synergy that non-buffers bring to the table, just as raw DPS alone would leave out of view much of a buffer's value.

rDPS is therefore a robust parameter only for jobs who would have more rDPS than raw DPS. It's a shit metric, though, for comparing the value of any two non-buffers, while raw DPS* (or, yet more usefully, aDPS) would instead be the obvious metric, because it still includes their contribution to team synergy.

If I can see dps contributions under Arcane Circle by job organized by percentile, I can see which jobs synergize best with me.

By all means, I'd love to see all that, but if you really are concerned with/by the complicating contexts of those measures, then your best bet is probably still just going to be simple relative potency maps.

Those, in turn, won't be percentile-dependent unless different percentiles of a given job consistently progress through different rotations as rotation-affecting player error decreases. You simply look at what the job would optimally press when, in a similar fight, and calculate the relative potency. Import the optimal rotation for the fight, insert the modifier over the given actions and see what relative potency results from it. Easy. Consistent.

(That said, not too shockingly, those early bits of on-paper theorycrafting also happened to show the very same imbalances we have already seen via aDPS, such as that 6.28 DRK would have about double the contributed synergy that 6.28 PLD would bring, because its relative potency is that much more concentrated.)

[Vallerie]

RE: the thread title

No, not everyone hates it. In the couple of weeks since the patch dropped, I've (willingly) played PLD probably more than I did since Heavensward combined. While I do come at this from the perspective of someone who before the patch enjoyed playing every tank but PLD to an extent, I do think some of the changes and streamlining were good ideas.

- Holy Spirit after Royal Authority gives some much desired flexibility. While with Requiescat only having Blade combo in it now means your sustained ranged phase is shorter now, the Divine Might uses more than compensate for it in my opinion with ability to disconnect for a GCD at nearly any point with no loss to damage
- Overall potency balancing means that, even if the rotation is not a perfect loop, you no longer need to drop Atonements to compensate for it. While you still can spreadsheet optimise, the gain of doing so is so minimal it doesn't really matter in vast majority of contexts, just fill the tail end of FoF with w/e high priority attacks you have available to you in the moment
- Divine Veil is much more useable now that you don't need a healer to trigger it or use it during the burst
- Having the extra DCD in Bulwark is nice, especially coming from DRK where Dark Mind only works on some things
- I just find it more enjoyable, but that's obviously a personal thing

Mind you, it's not perfect. Goring Blade and Atonement do feel somewhat disjointed, and the lack of attention given to Cover, whether that means improving or axing it, is somewhat disappointing. It wouldn't surprise me if, like with Monk changes, this is just a bandaid fix with more comprehensive rework coming in 7.0, but even if it's not, it still went from tank I leveled purely out of sense of obligation, to probably my second favourite tank.

[fulminating]

I really have tried to like the new paladin, but it just doesn’t feel nearly as good as it did. It’s quite hard to tell if it’s going well, and it doesn’t flow nearly as nicely. The rework annihilating lower levels and amounting to a 2% dps loss at 90 is also rather frustrating.
That a few of the issues I had were unaddressed - shield bash breaking combo, certain buttons not transforming (rage of halone could turn into atonement when you have stacks, req could become confettieor. On a similar note req and fof should probably be merged now, goring blade is orphaned) - further makes it feel off.

[Inosaska]

I'm returning back to the game and honestly don't have any issues with Paladin.

[Curisu]

After playing it a while I like it a bit more then the old one.
The only thing that is annoying is Boring Blade.

It could just be removed and no one cares. Or make it apply FoF to free up a hotbar slot.

[Voidedge_Ragna]

Played War from 2.0 till 5.0 which killed it (at least in my opinion), played pld from 5.0 to 6.3 and now quit pld to play drk.

The new rotation doesn't feel nice, they removed the tiny speck of difficulty pld had and replaced it with "if its shiny press it"
Raising the floor and lowering the celling, drg and ast ... your next on the list have a plan B.

On a side note, it was horrible timing as we were still reclearing 8s for loot and then they just throw the entire Job over.
And dont get me started on why pld needs a split on Sheltron blockrate to add Bulwark.

Muscle Memory is also gonna screw you if you did paladin for years and use requiescat.
But remember boys, 2 min meta is more important then how a job feels.

[Shurrikhan]

But remember boys, 2 min meta is more important then how a job feels.

Except PLD's making better use of two-minute raid buffs did not necessitate Boring Blade, nor any of the gameplay changes beyond FoF affecting also affecting magical damage and Confiteor no longer requiring 4 prior Holy Spirit casts?

I'm disappointed by the changes, but the gameplay shifts within them have far more to do with the broader goals across all job revisions upon and since 5.0 to lower floors and ceilings than they do with any alignments to 20 seconds of raid buffs.

...Else we'd likely have seen Goring Blade remain (but perhaps again on a 24s duration to offer some flexibility), seen FoF made a more significant but 2-minute buff, and perhaps seen FoF give 3 stacks of Sword Oath, etc.

And dont get me started on why pld needs a split on Sheltron blockrate to add Bulwark.

This one actually seems to make perfect sense to me.

There are no advantages to mitigation from using Block over... flat mitigation of an equal percentile (Holy Shelltron still provides 30% miti now). There are, however, disadvantages, as one cannot block Critical Hits nor block while CCed.

Previously, no other "on-demand" defensives held any unique disadvantages or situational value; DRK had Dark Mind with lower value vs. physical attacks and GNB had Camouflage with lower value vs. magic and WAR's Thrill of Battle provided faintly lower eHP than either in their respective niches, but TBN, HoC, and BW all worked reliably in all situations.

Now, PLD likewise has a situational "alt-CD" and a reliable "on-demand".

Moreover, Shelltron can now stack with blocking, whereas Shelltron previously, in effect, prevented any natural block chance to force the mitigation it now provides in a way that can stack with it.

So you now have more reliable mitigation on your on-demand that no longer has anti-synergy with PLD's unique feature (blocking), and more discrete defensive options by having added Bulwark (a pretty direct alt-CD analog to ToB, DM, Camo) to the repertoire instead of simply buffing Holy Shelltron and Sentinel.