The example is Medic require spec to do either... which is implied by "Just end up with Medics specced differently" meaning one is specced for machine gun, one is specced for healing, etc.
Exactly the same seems to be interpertedly LITERALLY by you. So if I gave Slayers sword the same damage as a warrior's double sword, they would still be different? because they are not the same?
The point of DPS is do damage to kill something. If a warrior kills it just as fast as a Slayer then it is the same functionally. Which is what you seems to imply.
1) Because warrior need to respec his glyphs and possibly gear
2) Because it requires additional work
3) Because it requires more learning
It is balanced - even if they do the same damage and can also tank while the slayer does not.
That is *only* balanced if its hard to the point that most would give up and will never succeed. Because if that is not the case then only a few would actually play Slayers - and do so for aesthetics reasons, e.g. I like the way they hold 2-H weapon, I like their attack animation, I like single big numbers as oppose to tons of little ones, and not mechanical ones - I kill things faster but I take more damage (because warrior doesn't).
This seems to be the fact you just toss over your shoulder because "it takes more skills." The balance on skills alone ONLY holds water if the skill is unattainable by % of the population. If the skill is acquirable by the masses then it ceases to be a balancing factor. Because that job will come to dominate the landscape and ruin CLASS balance.
The example is Medic require spec to do either... which is implied by "Just end up with Medics specced differently" meaning one is specced for machine gun, one is specced for healing, etc.
Exactly the same seems to be interpertedly LITERALLY by you. So if I gave Slayers sword the same damage as a warrior's double sword, they would still be different? because they are not the same?
The point of DPS is do damage to kill something. If a warrior kills it just as fast as a Slayer then it is the same functionally. Which is what you seems to imply.
1) Because warrior need to respec his glyphs and possibly gear
2) Because it requires additional work
3) Because it requires more learning
It is balanced - even if they do the same damage and can also tank while the slayer does not.
That is *only* balanced if its hard to the point that most would give up and will never succeed. Because if that is not the case then only a few would actually play Slayers - and do so for aesthetics reasons, e.g. I like the way they hold 2-H weapon, I like their attack animation, I like single big numbers as oppose to tons of little ones, and not mechanical ones - I kill things faster but I take more damage (because warrior doesn't).
This seems to be the fact you just toss over your shoulder because "it takes more skills." The balance on skills alone ONLY holds water if the skill is unattainable by % of the population. If the skill is acquirable by the masses then it ceases to be a balancing factor. Because that job will come to dominate the landscape and ruin CLASS balance.
Simply put, what?
So you are saying that a Sorc MUST HAVE MORE DAMAGE than anything class, just for being a sorc... even if it doesn't take nearly as much skill as an archer (for example).
You are saying that a slayer that takes less skill than a Warrior (though DPS Warrior doesn't take much) that they should just be GIVEN more damage, because hey, why not?
Either you are missing my point entirely, or you don't know what balance is.
Let me put out some imaginary numbers for an example:
You are saying that this should not be how it goes, if played by an equally skilled player? You saying that the war should be stuck at 5k dps because it has the option to tank at another time, that has nothing to do with speccing and playing as a dps at THIS EXACT TIME?
How does that even make sense? Unless there is some reason to bring a Warrior @ 5k dps, why would you EVER bring one?
Playing a different class is all about how you play that class to max DPS. This being how fun you find the class to be, rather than just playing the class because it is the FOTM OP CLASS.
Your insults are terrible, anyway. I'd suggest using your very limited brain power on more useful things, like learning to comprehend and accept that people find your opinion to be full of self entitlement and whining.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that EME made Sorc have zero surviviability - no stun, no heal, no jump, etc. Then the trade off would be they will be the glass cannon. E.g. massive dmage but no survivability
Let us assume Archer have more survivibility - stun, trap, leap, kick, range, then yes they should do less damage.
How *much* less is then the point of balance.
If 5% less is enough or 10% or 1% is the balancing act.
It is not Class B must do 30% less damage to make things balanced. Balance between classes are often not dramatic (statistically, or DPS if you want to use that).
In your example case - assuming identical players on identical mobs (and lets rank the level of surviviability if they pull hate from lowest chance to survive to the highest chance)
This is not even including the fact that Warriors can actually do a 2nd roll that is dramatically different.
it is akin to saying Priests have stronger heals but no CC, while Mystic have CC but less potent heals. If you made Mystic heals just as good as Priest, why play priests? Even if it just takes a little more skill.
Forgot to address your main question. Your argument is they should do 11.5 too, because it takes more skill. My argument is unless the skill is unattainable by the masses, it no longer balances the classes because Warriors will now have significant advantage over another job.
The #1 of which, the player don't have to level up an alt to do tanking.
So what you're essentially saying is that everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is crazy and "doesn't get it"?
And no, your original post doesn't even come close to answering my question as the entire post is purely your opinion on what the patch is going to do (not to mention has speculation and misinformation thrown into it).
my opinion is this:
warriors have the convenience of switching roles, and theyre the only melee class that has that luxury
easy fix that really no one has any justification in disagreeing with : give a ranged class an option of roles as well, such as mystic for example. let them be dps or healers
result : now there is 1 melee class with an option, and 1 ranged class with an option. this way no matter if ur a ranged player or a melee player, if u like to have options then you have a class to roll.
get it?
i swear if after this explanation i get another "warriors arent op blah blah blah" response my head will explode!
No one is disagreeing with you that it would be a good thing to have more options for other classes as well, what we are saying is there are bigger issues in the game that need to be addressed before the Devs go handing out new abilities to classes just because they don't want them to feel left out and the changes to the Warriors aren't something that are being done for no reason. Do you not understand how the Warrior changes will benefit everyone trying to find groups, not just Warriors themselves? Surely you can see the parallel between that and giving a class extra abilities just for the sake of giving them options.
And at the risk of making your head explode, I wouldn't consider Warriors to be OP at all. They are serviceable at both of their roles but I definitely wouldn't consider them to be the best at either of them.
what you are talking about is not what most of the ppl responding are talking about. most ppl are assuming that im attacking warriors and so theyre getting defensive over warriors. pages and pages of this, its unbelievable.
and the purpose of a forum topic such as this one is to give the developers ideas for future changes. im not saying this change needs to happen now or before any other important change. im simply shining the light on a matter that i believe to be somewhat of an issue. i mean 8 classes, and only 1 has an option between roles.
and dont get me wrong, im not fighting for my class. i dont want to tank, or heal. im happy playing my slayer and zerker for what they are and im fine with not having the option to tank. but i do have a few friends who wanted to play a class with an option, but they didnt want to have to play warrior for that. players like these played classes such as shaman, druid, priest, paladin, and classes like those from wow and other mmos and players like those like to have options like those classes had. but in this game theres only warrior. if there were more classes with options i think there would be a few more subs and the game would be more interesting for ppl who choose to play those classes
i realize that most classes would need way too much work to be given an option for tanking or healing and actually make it work. so how about just keep it simple and give a class like mystic the option to dps? they could have 2 stances that are really expensive on mp to switch between. if ur dps, ur heals are [filtered], if ur heals, ur dps is [filtered]. change around some internal stuff like glyph effectiveness and poof, thats a start. and oh im sure mystics would love this change and other ranged players that want to dps as a caster can have 2 choices, other than just sorc for everyone
Your insults are terrible, anyway. I'd suggest using your very limited brain power on more useful things, like learning to comprehend and accept that people find your opinion to be full of self entitlement and whining.
well obviously anyone still giving me attention was pretty insulted by something i said. this is a fact. but no matter, im not gonna get in twubble so im gonna hold my tongue. sry for hurting your feelings. now if u dont mind, id like to get back to the topic
Let us assume for the sake of argument that EME made Sorc have zero surviviability - no stun, no heal, no jump, etc. Then the trade off would be they will be the glass cannon. E.g. massive dmage but no survivability
Let us assume Archer have more survivibility - stun, trap, leap, kick, range, then yes they should do less damage.
How *much* less is then the point of balance.
If 5% less is enough or 10% or 1% is the balancing act.
It is not Class B must do 30% less damage to make things balanced. Balance between classes are often not dramatic (statistically, or DPS if you want to use that).
In your example case - assuming identical players on identical mobs (and lets rank the level of surviviability if they pull hate from lowest chance to survive to the highest chance)
That would be balanced (e.g. not those exact numbers or difference, but the trend).
This is not even including the fact that Warriors can actually do a 2nd that is dramatically different.
it is akin to saying Priests have stronger heals but no CC, while Mystic have CC but less potent heals. If you made Mystic heals just as good as Priest, why play priests? Even if it just takes a little more skill.
Somentine on 06/20/2012, 05:16 PM
Yah dig?
And that is my exact point to, which is why I don't understand what you are talking about.
Using the Warrior as an example, they are given certain tools to do DPS. These tools are high survive ability, movement and a high attack speed/crit rate.
Therefore, when played to their max, they are relatively balanced in terms of DPS to other classes. Their damage comes from sustained back crit damage with the ability to dodge many moves that other classes have to avoid completely.
You are both arguing with me and against me. I am against killing the potential max dps just because... literally, just because. We can both agree that a Warrior tanking will not do even a quarter of damage it would do as DPS, correct? And we can both agree that a Warrior in DPS stance will have so much less surviavability and aggro generation than a War specced for tank, right?
So what you are saying is that because they can CHOOSE to be either, but not both, they should not be on relative terms for DPS as other classes?
Then where is the balance?
Ya dig?
Edit:
"Forgot to address your main question. Your argument is they should do 11.5 too, because it takes more skill. My argument is unless the skill is unattainable by the masses, it no longer balances the classes because Warriors will now have significant advantage over another job.
The #1 of which, the player don't have to level up an alt to do tanking"
This is why we are having an interesting argument. Those numbers are fine, with warrior doing the least amount of damage out of all the classes, because it is nearly identical and they bring something else to the party other than damage.
What I thought you were saying is to completely kill Warrior DPS just because they have two options, rather than balance it out based on numerous factors like surviveability, utility and such.
As long as it is balanced and there is no real reason to only run with a group of one class, then it is fine.
I think our confusion is mainly about what balance means.
You though my idea of balance is 50% less damage, where I mean do enough less damage to justify their additional survivability (they have damage reduction moves and invincibility frames everywhere)
And I thought your idea of same damage is 100% same damage, by which you really mean comparable damage.
I think we are in agreement. They should be viable as Damage Dealers in the sense that they should do comparable damage, but because they have additional flexibility they should not do identical damage.
The thing we disagree with is that skill required for Warrior Tank justify them being just as good as tanks. Which is a theoretical exercise because, I believe, we are in agreement that they are not just as good - they can be similarly good if you are really good.
Even with the addition of block (based on the demo video) they are not just as good, because it is significantly harder and far far less forgiving for warrior tank as it is for lance tank.
The disagreement, at least on my part, is more about the future if EME further bring the 2 tanking job into similarity without adjusting the classes to even out the diserability. E.g. using fake numbers if the warrior is still 99% the damge of a Slayer In DPS Mode and still have 99% the tanking ease of a Lancer, who will play lancer?
Because I am pretty sure they will further make Warrior easier to use as tanks if this round of buff did not make it easy enough for many warriors to tank effectively.
It is a very valid argument. Because if a generalist can do a job just as well as a specialized class, there is no reason beyond aesthetics to choose the specialized class.
In theory, if you have a class that does its job (let's say DPS) in a superior fashion than another class, then there is no reason to play the second class. In practice? This has been disproven in practically every single MMO in existance.
Let's put an example on the above statement: slayers are one of the top DPS classes in the game. They are extremely effective in PvP, and have a plethora of skills that makes them effective at soloing. Archers are merely "good" DPS. They are arguably much less effective in PvP and do not excel at soloing, especially when boss soloing is concerned. Clearly, slayers are a more "generalist" class than archers and, in fact, perform all of their roles with superior ability. People certainly do not play archers for just aesthetics.
I hesitate to bring up WoW or RIFT, but they are quite perfect examples of many people willing to play all classes despite some classes being able to hybridize where others cannot (case in point: RIFT warriors). A player's preferences goes beyond just something that can be summed up with aesthetics - how much control a class has, how well each class solos, whether the mechanics match an individual player's playstyle, etc. Even in a tab-target game like WoW or RIFT this is already pretty pronounced; given the glaring differences between even the core fundamentals of each class in TERA...
As for taking more skill, it takes more skill. It does not take tons more skill. The true difficulty of Warrior Tank vs Lancer Tank is the room for error. Warrior Tank need to anticipate the monster moves while the Lancer can react to the monster's moves (Anticipation is still better, but they have more tolerance to react instead). It however is not a dramatic difference in skill level to justify the same level of performance.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with this statement at all.
I'm going to use Vindictus as an example. You have two weapon styles - Fiona (any) and Scythe Evie. Fiona relies entirely on blocking; she can time and perfectly block an attack with heavy stander at any point in her animation, and can hold down block near infinitely until her stamina runs out. Scythe Evie relies entirely on a single, high-cost teleport skill for evasion and setting up long chains of combo attack for offense. It's very universally agreed upon that Fionas are one of the easiest classes to play AND solo with, while most would rate Scythe Evie as much more difficult; in fact, this is very pronounced for some of the faster, area-combo attacking bosses in the game - Fionas solo them very easily by blocking everything. Evies often must time the invincible frames in their animation exactly in accordance to each boss's tells and make sure that they end up in the right place to punish an attack. Both can solo bosses; the only difference at intermediate-level gameplay is that Evies have a lower margin of error with their teleport.
This is exactly the case for lancers and warriors. At lower skill levels, a lancer can turtle up, block, and only needs to look for opportunities to use aggro skills in-between attacks. A warrior cannot even be played as a tank at such a skill level. It's not even about anticipation vs. reaction - Lancers do not "react" as you suggest they do due to block being indefinite; they only need to identify opportunities to use aggro generation + opportunities to combo and regain mana to be competent in the class. Warriors actually do need to "react" to attacks, not psychically predict attacks far off in the future - and they sometimes need to do it in the micro-short timeframes when the boss is enraged.
If you actually want an example of a class that relies on "reacting," look at sword lanns in Vindictus. Timed invincibility frames off the exact moment of impact for attacks: that's what an actual reaction class is.
If you want to argue it take extreme skill to get to the same result (e.g. monster does not turn, maximize the DPS' damage by exposing rare and minimizing movement) then you are right. But to just tank a mob to the point that no one gets hurt and you take minimum damage is not difficult enough to balance it if they are just as good as tank and just as good as DPS as specialized classes.
If you're really going to use this silly argument, then sure, slayers can tank as well. Equip some threat crystals, ask the DPS to hold off on DPS and wear less optimal gear, get the priest to not ever use their lock-on heal, and you will never lose aggro. Is that a ridiculous statement? Yes. Is it ridiculous to call a warrior that's constantly doing 360s with the boss a tank? Absolutely.
A tank in TERA is supposed to make the party's life easier by holding the boss relatively consistently still and minimize their movement. Otherwise, it's just 4 DPS classes killing the boss with a healer, and the warrior can be replaced by a slayer with some threat crystals between the melee DPS without affecting functionality. Having the boss always attack you is pretty meaningless if the other melee characters still have to constantly dodge, weave, and block as if they are soloing the boss.
Maybe you can make an exception of a party consisting only of ranged DPS and a healer. To me, that is pretty much the entire definition of a completely unviable tank - one that's only effective as a tank in a very specific and rare party composition.
Since you're speaking of just holding aggro instead of proper tanking, also, I can respond in kind by saying that soloing BAMs as my warrior is exciting. I have to be constantly on the move, constantly think of what to do next and reposition myself to optimize my options. If I mess up and take a hit, I carry that mistake with me for a considerable stretch of the fight, and I had died a few times to some of the more difficult one due to a single moment of carelessness. As a lancer, I have yet to meet a single BAM that put me anywhere close to being in danger of dying, enrage or not; instead, pretty much the only difficulty I face with soloing them is the struggle not to fall asleep on my keyboard. I actually sometimes have to make the fight less monotone by trying it without blocks and only dodging with charge and onslaught.
That, to me, is a pretty significant difference in difficulty. That margin of error that you speak so casually about? The only way to make something "harder" beyond a difference in margin of error is to make it an impossibility.
EDIT: Actually, now that I read your post immediately before this one, it would seem that we actually agree with each other. The wording on your post suggested a bit differently, though, so I guess there was some confusion that resulted. I'll leave the rambling here, though, in case if there was still something to argue about =p.