FRU has been cleared without Tanks!

No need to change tanks mechanics, all this can be easily solve by massively boosting boss auto atk dmg to non-tank party members, this means boss will one-shot any non-tank with max out shields with autos. This of course means if both tanks die it will most certainly lead to wipe....as it should tbh.

I think something is wrong with this game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ValkyrieL

No need to change tanks mechanics, all this can be easily solve by massively boosting boss auto atk dmg to non-tank party members, this means boss will one-shot any non-tank with max out shields with autos. This of course means if both tanks die it will most certainly lead to wipe....as it should tbh.

---

Just remove the “non tanks” part of that

Massively up auto attack damage full stop

Tanks should crumble if they don’t meter their mitigation on auto attacks, not save it to kitchen sink busters

To be honest I don't think anything really needs to change because of this, FRU is a fight with a lot of downtime and the bosses barely auto to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Depends on your perspective.



I mean, a healer is always going to contribute at the very least by doing damage, so it shouldn't be a case of whether you are going to contribute or not, it is a matter of how much you need to contribute.



With random groups, anything can happen, the DPS might do a dumb and die, or even the tank has a lapse of judgement. Your role as a healer then is to smooth out the run incase anything like that happens.



Egi tanking was, stick Titan in one spot and just baby him with heals, both from the SMN (Sustain) and healers (remembering, the AoE heals did affect the pets at this time). They already took less damage just for being an Egi and they didn't have to worry about the tank buster deleting them just because they didn't have the stacks. It was about as easy as you could make it. You also know that, given time, it would have become the norm. The tank players who were excluded would have then been told to play DPS or Healer. As for a SMN who didn't want to, you get a second SMN who did, the first SMN would then be a DPS SMN, the second the tank SMN.

---

I am actually amazed how you can compartmentalize both problems so much that in dungeons suddenly everything can happen, but in ex ramuh, it's suddenly so easy that "you just have to heal titan egi". I mean, in the majority of dungeons, the tank just has to press buttons as well. It's tomato and tomato. No wonder you saw them as two completely different problems...

Can't wait for the no DPS run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

So your argument here still basically boils down to “the titan egi clear is meaningful exclusion of tanks because ex is done through PF and PF has the ability to willfully choose to exclude classes while healerless casual content isn’t meaningful exclusion of healers because most casual content is done through DF and DF enforces a healer onto the party even if they aren’t needed and feel like a waste of space and because of this enforced DF the amount of people who actually organise healerless clears will never be a meaningful amount even though it would actually be easier if the system allowed it”

---

Nope, missed the point. Titan literally gets rid of failure points with almost no downsides. This causes parties to take the easier, less risky route. Since EU/NA extremes are mostly done through PF, this causes parties to exclude tanks in favour of the easier, less risky strat.

If excluding a healer from dungeons was the easier, less risky strat, you would see more PFs popping up with dungeon runs that exclude a healer. You don't though. Now, groups of friends might form a light party and queue that way, but that also doesn't necessarily mean there is an imbalance. The fact that having a healer is not riskier/harder, you don't lose anything having one, infact, it is safer. So there tends to be no problems with running through DF.

If you cannot see the difference in the 2 situations, you need to take a more nuanced look at the different scenarios and the differences surrounding them, especially when this whole thing is about jobs getting excluded based on the environment, speaking of:

Quote:

---

Do you not see how that’s the same thing except one is poorly hidden by the flawed system enforcing it? Would you have liked to be on JP and do ramuh ex in DF and have your DPS go “stay in DPS stance and don’t use agro moves titan is tanking” when you queued in as a tank? Because that’s exactly what healers deal with now

---

I would have predicted that, if the titan Egi strat was so good, Japan might have had their first EX fight farmed through the PF rather than the DF, or at least leaned more heavily in that direction. This is obviously speculation, but I do think that shift would have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

I am actually amazed how you can compartmentalize both problems so much that in dungeons suddenly everything can happen, but in ex ramuh, it's suddenly so easy that "you just have to heal titan egi". I mean, in the majority of dungeons, the tank just has to press buttons as well. It's tomato and tomato. No wonder you saw them as two completely different problems...

---

Having a healer isn't a detriment like having tanks in Ramuh EX would have been. If you want a simple comparison, it is that right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Nope, missed the point. Titan literally gets rid of failure points with almost no downsides. This causes parties to take the easier, less risky route. Since EU/NA extremes are mostly done through PF, this causes parties to exclude tanks in favour of the easier, less risky strat.

If excluding a healer from dungeons was the easier, less risky strat, you would see more PFs popping up with dungeon runs that exclude a healer. You don't though. Now, groups of friends might form a light party and queue that way, but that also doesn't necessarily mean there is an imbalance. The fact that having a healer is not riskier/harder, you don't lose anything having one, infact, it is safer. So there tends to be no problems with running through DF.

If you cannot see the difference in the 2 situations, you need to take a more nuanced look at the different scenarios and the differences surrounding them, especially when this whole thing is about jobs getting excluded based on the environment, speaking of:



I would have predicted that, if the titan Egi strat was so good, Japan might have had their first EX fight farmed through the PF rather than the DF, or at least leaned more heavily in that direction. This is obviously speculation, but I do think that shift would have happened.



Having a healer isn't a detriment like having tanks in Ramuh EX would have been. If you want a simple comparison, it is that right there.

---

That’s the thing, if you meet a (very low) bar of skill then bringing a healer IS an active detriment because they do less damage for functionally no positive gain outside of being a safety net the party really doesn’t need. This also allows you to skip mechanics and generally make the run faster

A healer is only not a detriment when the safety net is needed. But you can argue the same “tanks are needed” when the SMN was either really bad or the party was bad at managing agro. They are both just a facet of meeting the low skill bar needed to perform the off clear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

That’s the thing, if you meet a (very low) bar of skill then bringing a healer IS an active detriment because they do less damage for functionally no positive gain outside of being a safety net the party really doesn’t need. This also allows you to skip mechanics and generally make the run faster

A healer is only not a detriment when the safety net is needed. But you can argue the same “tanks are needed” when the SMN was either really bad or the party was bad at managing agro. They are both just a facet of meeting the low skill bar needed to perform the off clear

---

If you have the choice of using Titan where all you have to do is keep it alive, or, 2 tanks where they have tank swap, avoid overcharging, hope the other party members do not steal their orbs, properly mitigating have proper positioning etc. Which one are you going to choose as the safe, less risky method.

If you are doing a dungeon, remember the skill gap between bottom and top is larger, is it not safer to have a healer? How about if the tank was a Dark Knight? Does that change things? You only see the healer as a detriment because it makes the run longer due to less DPS. Tanks would be excluded from Ramuh EX because they would also make the run longer, by not taking a tank, you bring more DPS, you skip more mechanics, making it safer. Literally everything is piling up in favour of Titan Egi, whereas there are still benefits in taking a healer in a dungeon, even if it is a safety net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

If you have the choice of using Titan where all you have to do is keep it alive, or, 2 tanks where they have tank swap, avoid overcharging, hope the other party members do not steal their orbs, properly mitigating have proper positioning etc. Which one are you going to choose as the safe, less risky method.

If you are doing a dungeon, remember the skill gap between bottom and top is larger, is it not safer to have a healer? How about if the tank was a Dark Knight? Does that change things? You only see the healer as a detriment because it makes the run longer due to less DPS. Tanks would be excluded from Ramuh EX because they would also make the run longer, by not taking a tank, you bring more DPS, you skip more mechanics, making it safer. Literally everything is piling up in favour of Titan Egi, whereas there are still benefits in taking a healer in a dungeon, even if it is a safety net.

---

So yes in both runs it’s literally

“Do you meet the minimum requirements to exclude this role to make this run easier. If yes exclude this role for pure benefit”

The only benefit to not excluding the healer comes from if you don’t meet the minimum competency; which extreme pre excludes for