Warrior is OP! Paladin is OP! Make one tank class and be done with it....

[ThatAngryBearGuy]

....since that's what Warriors want. You know, because another class can mitigate damage different than them therefore OP.

Warrior: "Waaah i cannot mitigate damage as good as a Paladin! Give me more mitigation!"

SE buffs Warrior mitigation<

Paladin: "Waaah, what's the point of a Paladin if Warriors now have more hp AND our mitigation! Give us more HP!"

SE buffs Paladin HP<

Warrior: "Waaaah, Paladins are now the same as us! What the hell SE!"
Paladin: <see Warrior statement>






Learn the different playstyles of the two, and understand that they mitigate damage DIFFERETLY.

or

Combine them into the same class, or understand that you too can grind both to 50 and switch between them for specific encounters that they're meant for.


/rant

Regards,
-Bear

[SatrinaKali]

Learning is far far too hard for 99% of the people out there. Why learn when you can just roll FoTM right?! Worked so well for WoW

[Shadowblind]

I can't speak for endgame content. But here's a hypothesis/thought:


Let's say tanking is tanking, and the idea behind it (enmity, survivability) is the same for both PLD and WAR. But, from what I hear, things are unbalanced in this way for sustainability = PLD, enmity = WAR. Mit = PLD, extra DPS/VIT = WAR.

So presumably, SE already thought of this and that's where the term "on and off" tanks derive from. If this is the case, the complaining is silly. But considering many dungeons do not have the options for 2 tanks pre-8 person content, there could be problems. Well, that's as far as my knowledge expands here, but after reading countless people complaining about the WAR, this is the logical conclusions I came to:

If there is always room for an on/off tank, don't be pissy if you can't be both ALWAYS. Such is good game design, actually, encouraging cooperation and variety between classes. But if they are made to be COMPLETELY INTERCHANGEABLE (even for endgame content, this is important), then there are problems with balance as they obviously are not.

[SatrinaKali]

I can't speak for endgame content. But here's a hypothesis/thought:


Let's say tanking is tanking, and the idea behind it (enmity, survivability) is the same for both PLD and WAR. But, from what I hear, things are unbalanced in this way for sustainability = PLD, enmity = WAR. Mit = PLD, extra DPS/VIT = WAR.

Exactly, I would much rather be in a raid and it be "Well this fight is good for a Warrior to control the adds and a pally to tank the boss..ok next fight we want high dps/threat on boss while pally picks up a hard hitting add"

[Hachiko]

Enmity across the 2 classes is actually very close. The only major differences is how durable each class is, and how much DPS they dish out (the higher DPS rotation of WAR's is about the same in terms of enmity as the higher enmity rotation of PLD).

What it all boils down to is will there be a niche for both classes? Everything that makes a good main tank also makes a good off tank. So having one class relegated to the lesser role (off tank) while the other can effectively do both would be a bad situation.

[Sephirah]

...actually, encouraging cooperation and variety between classes. But if they are made to be COMPLETELY INTERCHANGEABLE, then there are problems with balance

Unfortunately this is exactly what many people want. WoW, while doing wonders for expanding the audience of MMO players, also watered everything down to be accessible to absolutely anyone. So that anyone could tank/heal/dps regardless of their class. Due to WoWs success most other recent MMOs have also followed this formula in an attempt to steal a sliver of WoWs player base. So for a large majority of "MMO" players, this has become par for the course, and the idea of requiring a specific role to do a specific thing is "UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED".

I love games that have defined roles. If you want to do x, you need y. If you think "balance" means that a war/pld should be able to do the exact same thing regardless of the fight/situation/party make-up, then you don't know what balance is.

[khunceited]

If you think "balance" means that a war/pld should be able to do the exact same thing regardless of the fight/situation/party make-up, then you don't know what balance is.

i totally agree with this variety isn't always a bad thing

[BadRNG]

I love games that have defined roles. If you want to do x, you need y. If you think "balance" means that a war/pld should be able to do the exact same thing regardless of the fight/situation/party make-up, then you don't know what balance is.

And the paladin and warrior have the same defined role. Tank. If you think balance means one class is inferior to another, despite sharing the same role, then you don't know what balance is either. Variety is not an excuse for poor design.

What on earth are the people talking about WoW going on about? This isn't one role trying to become another, this is a tank trying to be on equal ground with the class of the same role. At this point I'm sure someone will want to bring up the main/off tank idea, but the developers have never said that themselves, and it's not even true anyway. What makes warriors such better offtanks exactly? Extra aoe aggro? Aggro is simply not an issue for a skilled player of either class.

[Sephirah]

And the paladin and warrior have the same defined role. Tank.

At this point I'm sure someone will want to bring up the main/off tank idea, but the developers have never said that themselves, and it's not even true anyway. What makes warriors such better offtanks exactly? Extra aoe aggro? Aggro is simply not an issue for a skilled player of either class.

Not true, Yoshi-P has mentioned in several interviews that the warrior/marauder is designed to be exactly what it sounds like, a barbarian if you will. They are both tanks yes, but they are tanks that are good at different things. This is a team game, people need to stop worrying about which tank is 10% more effective than the other and think about how they work together.

They SHOULD NOT be interchangeable.

[BadRNG]

Except none of that is a confirmation of the distribution of roles you talk about, only flavor for the classes mechanics. You also seemed to have completely ignored the second half of the post you quoted. Let's say warriors just are better at different things, what are these different things? What exactly are they getting in exchange for their tanking inferiority? I've seen you bring up this tired mantra many times in other threads, so maybe I'll use it here, what in your mind makes a warrior worth taking over a paladin?

They should be interchangeable as far as you should never be put in a situation where the group questions the viability of that class for it's role. Yoshi himself has mentioned he doesn't like the idea of a single class being required, or at least massively preferred, over another.