Tank Stances, Traited

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TabrisOmbrelame

Finaly ! Someone with a brain !

I can't disagree with Saziel, Tank are not supposed to do massive damage to an enemy, and when i saw all of this tank that go through massive pack of mobs without tank stance, i can't understand why they do this... They put their healer in an extremely Stressful state, and if the heal isn't good, they die, and they don't even learn from this. And after that you can see some of this tank raging, like it's the healer fault for not healing the tank correctly...

---

Too few risks with too much reward. That's the point : If, a Tank looses less than he gains to turn out to a DPS machine, then the healer will also loose less than she should, and the overall damage is increased.

Risk vs reward is not ajusted when you loose 20% to gain 40%.

I think tank game play for the most part is fine and a lot of fun. I like the way tank stance is set up now and I think it adds to the enjoyment of playing the classes (especially warrior). I enjoy trying to push my dps as high as I can get it during savage but at the same time hitting cool downs at the right time to mitigate incoming damage. If I screw up the timing of using a cool down I always have tank stance to fall back on. It seems to me if you remove tank stance you are just removing some of the intricacies of playing tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

I think tank game play for the most part is fine and a lot of fun. I like the way tank stance is set up now and I think it adds to the enjoyment of playing the classes (especially warrior). I enjoy trying to push my dps as high as I can get it during savage but at the same time hitting cool downs at the right time to mitigate incoming damage. If I screw up the timing of using a cool down I always have tank stance to fall back on. It seems to me if you remove tank stance you are just removing some of the intricacies of playing tank.

---

I do enjoy the nuances of tank swapping on WAR, but I feel that's really the only tank that can pull off the stance dance effectively. Maybe WAR just needs to stay as the stance dancer, as both of its stances are very well defined. PLD and DRK, on the other hand, really wouldn't suffer much from some stance changes of some kind.

Well with Paladin there is no stance dancing. Normally if you are MT it's start of in shield oath do an enmity combo or two (depending on ninja) switch to sword oath. Stay in sword oath unless you screw up, healer screws up, or struggling with aggro. I find it better to stay in sword oath normally because you get oath gauge much faster giving more sheltrons. PLD could have more stance dancing though if they took the stance change off global cooldown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MauvaisOeil

Too few risks with too much reward. That's the point : If, a Tank looses less than he gains to turn out to a DPS machine, then the healer will also loose less than she should, and the overall damage is increased.
Risk vs reward is not ajusted when you loose 20% to gain 40%.

---

That's why I think boss damage should be increasing and Tank stance buffed to 50% damage reduced (Or +100% HP, +100% healing received for WAR)

My thoughts are that rather than trying to enforce tank stance by increasing damage output (let's face it, that would just get thrown on the healers most of the time anyway), we should look at the other major feature of tank stances to encourage them. Enmity.
As it stands, tanks just do one aggro combo in tank stance and they're set hate wise for the rest of the fight. As long as they are the main tank, hate is effectively not their job the way the game currently is.

My thought?

1. Remove the samage penalty from tank stance. This is simply an outdated concept at this point and is the main reason why tanks are effectively discouraged from tank stancing.
1a. Make Unchained buff Inner Beast/Steel Cyclone to Fell Cleave/Decimate Potencies. It'd still be a loss to use these over actual Fell Cleave/Decimate on account of not having Deliverance's damage bonus or Inner Release, but it not nearly as much of a loss as it currently is. Plus gotta do something with Unchained when it's current effect is made moot.

2. Give DPS stances a Diversion-like effect. This would make it so that Tanks, while actively tanking, can still switch and increase their DPS but in becomes less a natural state and more of a burst window. One that can be extended by other members of the raid properly managing their enmity.
In the case of DRK, a Diversion effect on Darkside would naturally be overwritten by Grit.


I think this would have the effect of making tanking more engaging at the top level play while also making it easier for new players to get into since sitting in Tank Stance wouldn't be nearly as cancerous feeling as it currently is. To me at least, it sounds like a win all around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sacred_Nym

1. Remove the damage penalty from tank stance. This is simply an outdated concept at this point and is the main reason why tanks are effectively discouraged from tank stancing.

---

I feel that the damage penalty is necessary. In DPS stance, I think tanks do too much damage when compared to full DPS, so the penatly is here to balance things, while still giving tank enough native DPS so that solo content wouldn't be a pain to clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sacred_Nym

2. Give DPS stances a Diversion-like effect. This would make it so that Tanks, while actively tanking, can still switch and increase their DPS but in becomes less a natural state and more of a burst window. One that can be extended by other members of the raid properly managing their enmity.

---

Personally, I'd simply remove the enmity bonuses from skills so that all enmity boost would be on the stance. But it would require tank stances to be gained at a much lower level. It would also help level 50- tanks that either don't have their DPS stance (WAR) or only have their enmity combo (PLD).

The thing is that, in the end, you can't just enforce the stance without offering something that people would actually want. So, if you want people to focus on enmity, high enmity generation should be rewarded. For example, tank stances could have a "Blindside" effect, so that every party member that has less enmity than you would gain a damage/crit/direct hit (pick one or two) buff on your target(s) (Lorewise, the target is so focused on you that it's more likely to take critical or direct hits by others), and this buff would increase in potency the wider the enmity gap is.

I still don't understand the desire for tanks to be forced into using tank stance more. Tanking is a lot of fun now at the top level. Neo Exdeath is a lot of fun with managing cool downs for tank busters and aggro since it resets constantly. It's almost impossible to establish aggro without tank stance unless you have a ninja in the group during the almagest to aero2 to earth shakers combo especially with a whm going ham with cure 3s. Also tank stance is great for O3s during tethers/mindjack/place dark token phase because you keep getting autoattacked but the healers are too focused on their positioning to heal you. Also for the library phase book drop/spell blade holy attack it is good for some cushioning because there is an autoattack right after that mechanic. Sorry for the rambling, but in my opinion and in my experience tank stance is fine the way it is and I see no need to be forced into using it more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

Rant about tank stance usage

---

I'm confused. You ask why some people want tank stance to receive more emphasis yet you give several examples where the content actually enforces using it, be it for mitigation or enmity generation, and testify that this content is still fun to do.

I haven't tried O4S yet, but for me, it feels unnatural to spend most of O1S or O2S without Grit. But, more than that, I think it would be nice to have both options, each with its own pros and cons.

For aggressive tanks, they'll play a bigger part on the raid DPS while healers will probably do less with a tighter healing check, and for turtle tanks, they will give more room for healers to DPS or, at the extreme, allow solo-heal setup with the proper coordination.

And I think it would fit right at hom with the split in the healer's community, with those who like to DPS a lot and those who prefer focusing on healing.

To sum up, I'd like to have one of the tanks to be more efficient for the raid by being a turtle instead of dropping its tank stance.

My whole point was that tank stance is useful and doesn't need to be changed. Not needing tank stance for easy fights (o1s and o2s) is understandable especially with higher gear levels now. When I was first doing O1s and O2s and I didn't know the mechanics well I used tank stance a lot as a crutch (maybe I'm a bad player idk). Now that I know the timing of everything well and my higher gear level reduces damage I take anyways I can time cool downs to deal with the twin bolts, evil spheres, tail swipes, etc and maximize my DPS to reduce the time it takes to clear these easier fights.

Right now with all the damage mitigation tools and the timing of the incoming damage the game lets you be both aggressive and turtle at the right times. I prefer this play style. It's no fun hitting the same three buttons over and over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

snip

---

tank stances are a huge problems bcs are a outdated desing, any good tank tank without tank stance 99% of the time thats a fact, stance dancing is a falacy and when you face fights where you have to get in to tank stance for any reason DRK/PLD suffer much more that WAR bcs they loose not only a ogcd but resources too.

tank stances need a rework to work and have better sinergy with our other skills, in other words encourage real stance dancing more, if the penalty still stay then tank stances need to be reworked to make the pay off fair and avoid any type of desing that make it useless when you get more ilvl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

When I was first doing O1s and O2s and I didn't know the mechanics well I used tank stance a lot as a crutch (maybe I'm a bad player idk). Now that I know the timing of everything well and my higher gear level reduces damage I take anyways I can time cool downs to deal with the twin bolts, evil spheres, tail swipes, etc and maximize my DPS to reduce the time it takes to clear these easier fights.

---

Yesterday was my first O2S win, so I definitely need more runs to really master it, and my gear ilvl is only barely above i320 since I'm boycotting tome gear, yet I managed to drop my tank stance throughout the whole fight after the initial Power Slash combo. I don't know, maybe my healers are really awesome :p
But, in my perspective of a tank, it fel really weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

Right now with all the damage mitigation tools and the timing of the incoming damage the game lets you be both aggressive and turtle at the right times. I prefer this play style. It's no fun hitting the same three buttons over and over.

---

It's great that you love that playstyle, but some of us don't really. The beauty of having multiple jobs for one role should be to have a job for each separate playstyle, don't you think ?

Is there a reason you are boycotting Tome gear?

Speaking of you O2s clear it sounds like you are better than me. It took me a couple of clears to get comfortable staying in sword stance the whole time. Basically it sounds like you want the content to reward you for mitigating damage and to put less load on tanks for dpsing? Or is it to just make it more rewarding to be in tank stance maybe by giving healers more chance to dps. I guess healer DPS could just be moved up to where it is higher than tanks output there by making it more important for them to dps. Of course that will make a lot of healers who don't like to dps upset.

Beside of that, there is some job that are boring in Tank stance. DRK for exemple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

Is there a reason you are boycotting Tome gear?

---

I'm bored by the over reliance on tome farming that basically make all dungeon rewards irrelevant. And also the fact that tome gear was mandatory in HW. That's one thing where SB is much better, since Expert Dungeon loot is enough to enter Omega.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

Speaking of you O2s clear it sounds like you are better than me. It took me a couple of clears to get comfortable staying in sword stance the whole time.

---

It didn't really change my CD rotation to remove Grit, especially with the tank swaps. So, I'd say all the burden was put on the healers and not really me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

Basically it sounds like you want the content to reward you for mitigating damage and to put less load on tanks for dpsing?

---

Not only mitigating damage but also generating high enmity (I have a suggestion to reward this). For the DPS load, my view is that what matters is not really personal DPS, but raid DPS. And raid DPS can be increased several ways. The easiest is higher personal, but you could also put damage buff, vulnerability debuffs, and reduce the need for healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

I guess healer DPS could just be moved up to where it is higher than tanks output there by making it more important for them to dps.

---

For that, I liked the old Cleric Stance, that drastically increased your "usual" DPS. But if you can save a whole bunch of GCD by being sturdy, healer's DPS should noticeably increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrt617

Of course that will make a lot of healers who don't like to dps upset.

---

Not really. You just have to find complementary players. Agressive tanks with healers who focus on healing and Turtle tanks with healers who want to DPS. Or just make concesions with your beloved healer so that you take turns doing what you like less.

Besides, the debate "tank stance vs DPS stance" is not really the same as "only healing vs healing+DPSing"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

I feel that the damage penalty is necessary. In DPS stance, I think tanks do too much damage when compared to full DPS, so the penatly is here to balance things, while still giving tank enough native DPS so that solo content wouldn't be a pain to clear.

---

Maybe, but the fact is that first of all, that damage penalty is why Tank stance is avoided as it is. The fact is that ultimately it doesn't offer anything that's worth the damage penalty. And it never will because a damage penalty as big as even Shield Oath's let alone Defiance or Grit couldn't be compensated for by anything short of near invincibility. And I don't think that's the fault of the game's design at all, that's just the value outgoing damage has as a rule of all games that include combat. Secondly, a lot of players that currently play tanks in FF14 do so at least in part because of the damage output. Therefore anything that can be perceived as a significant nerf to their damage output will just lead to them dropping tanking and switching to DPS, and we don't need that at any level of play. DPS queues are bad enough as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Personally, I'd simply remove the enmity bonuses from skills so that all enmity boost would be on the stance. But it would require tank stances to be gained at a much lower level. It would also help level 50- tanks that either don't have their DPS stance (WAR) or only have their enmity combo (PLD).

---

First of all if we do that then what's the point of the enmity combo?
Second of all, it does nothing to address the fact that currently in the game, outside of the moment of the pull, enmity is the job of everyone in the raid except the main tank. The reason being that everyone except who is actually tanking has buttons they can press to reduce their enmity or even give it to the main tank without reducing their own DPS... except the main tank. Diversion, Lucid, Tactician, Refresh, Smokescreen, Shadewalker, Shirk. None of these have a negative impact of DPS, but the only thing the main tank can do to boost their own enmity is enmity combo, tank stance, or both. All of them are huge DPS losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sacred_Nym

Maybe, but the fact is that first of all, that damage penalty is why Tank stance is avoided as it is. The fact is that ultimately it doesn't offer anything that's worth the damage penalty. And it never will because a damage penalty as big as even Shield Oath's let alone Defiance or Grit couldn't be compensated for by anything short of near invincibility.

---

For me a stance less tank should be twice as hard to heal. So ShO and Grit should give 50% damage reduced and Defiance should give +100% HP/Healing received.
Of course, boss damage could be increased a bit to keep things challenging. If a healer could spend around half the GCD healing the tank, I'm pretty sure it could do enough DPS to compensate the damage penalty.
Besides, it would be a playstyle. Technically, no player should be forced to play as a turtle. And even if, if would only redistributed the tank playerbase between the three jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sacred_Nym

First of all if we do that then what's the point of the enmity combo?

---

To be fair, even now, there's not really a point to the enmity combo. People tend to avoid it as much as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sacred_Nym

Second of all, it does nothing to address the fact that currently in the game, outside of the moment of the pull, enmity is the job of everyone in the raid except the main tank.

---

To keep enmity a concern for everyone, I'd do something else, which is increase the damage of the DPS and thus, their enmity, to the point where they really have to pay attention and hold back if their tank has trouble building it. But when they're paired with a good tank, they will be able to unleash their full power without fear.

Tank stance doesn't need to be traited, but it does need to change.

The individuals who say that there is no true benefit to tank stance are correct, especially when it appears that the non-stanced tanks can weather the damage that comes their way through cooldown usage; Most using the damage reduction gained via tank stance as a singular cooldown for an attack.

The issue that most have with tank stance is the damage penalty, believing that the small percentage of damage that tank stances prevent is not worth the percentage loss in dps.

I do not believe the dps loss should be removed from tank stance, but rather that a non-stanced tank should be more vulnerable. An easy way to do this would be to reduce the defense levels of tank armour.

Doing comparisons from the 310 to 340 ilvl tank armour (the items that have defense ratings), the maiming armour is approximately 70% of the fending armour.
If the defense on the fending armour is reduced to equal the maiming armour, and then the tank stance (instead of reducing incoming damage) increases the defense of the tank (a factor of 42.5% would increase the defense back up to current levels). In addition to a small passive enmity bonus, the +enmity bonuses abilities should only trigger if it is used within tank stance. Doing this would create a situation in the tank stance in which is needed; regardless of any percieved loss in dps.

Some tank abilities would need to be reworked around the naturally reduced armour; but in general, it would create a battle situation in which Tank stance is a necessity to the combat. This would also put slightly more emphsis on active healing from the healer as the tank would be slightly more vulnrable.

This of course isn't an indepth look into every change that would need to be made, but i believe something like this could start to balance the need to be an actual tank (and by slight extension have actual healers) instead of DPS with some off-role skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

To keep enmity a concern for everyone, I'd do something else, which is increase the damage of the DPS and thus, their enmity, to the point where they really have to pay attention and hold back if their tank has trouble building it. But when they're paired with a good tank, they will be able to unleash their full power without fear.

---

This is a horrible idea. Not only would it be a nightmare in pugs and DF, but it feels awful to essentially gimp your opening burst because the tank needs to build aggro. And what happens with ilvl differences? I already nearly rip off undergeared tanks whenever I run Samurai in Expert. They wouldn't have a chance with this kinda of a system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

This is a horrible idea. Not only would it be a nightmare in pugs and DF, but it feels awful to essentially gimp your opening burst because the tank needs to build aggro. And what happens with ilvl differences? I already nearly rip off undergeared tanks whenever I run Samurai in Expert. They wouldn't have a chance with this kinda of a system.

---

This "system" is in World of warcraft. When your tank reach max level with a poor gear, you can't except he'll can take your maximum geared optimised as f*ck character in term of aggro. But we're in Ff14 and the tanking without tank stance isn't really normal. Elitist player could say : you don't need tank stance, more Dps is more mitigating cause the boss hit you less.

Where I say : good player is not determined by their DPS meter. Good player is some one who take every values in count when doing content, like the stuff of the tanks, the stuff of the heal, and even IN the fight, the reactivity.... Etc...

I'm a tank who stay ever in tank stance. And you know what? I don't give a single fuck to those Healer or Dps that try to make me learn how to do my job. DPSing is not my role, when I tag dungeons, it's wrote : TANK. But of course I'll drop the tank stance when it's not needed, like the 3 sword phase of Zenos.


As a proposal for the tank and Dps stance... I couldn't find the guys who say it but someone say this : Naoki Yoshida hasn't designed tank to be in Dps stance for unlimited time in fight.

So, I suggest this : reduce de the enmity generated in Dps stance by 40% (but the Dps stance of Drk don't affect grit's aggro if this one is activated along

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostmagemari

I do not believe the dps loss should be removed from tank stance, but rather that a non-stanced tank should be more vulnerable.

---

Like I sai,d if ShO and Grit reduced damage by 50%, not having your stance would make you much more vulnerable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

Not only would it be a nightmare in pugs and DF, but it feels awful to essentially gimp your opening burst because the tank needs to build aggro.

---

It would still be better than making enmity something that tanks don't really bother to build. Beside, it's already a good thing to delay your "burst opening" to line up with party buffs and debuffs and if, like suggested, having the tank really high on enmity gives a DPS buff to everyone else, you'll want to delay it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

And what happens with ilvl differences? I already nearly rip off undergeared tanks whenever I run Samurai in Expert. They wouldn't have a chance with this kinda of a system.

---

Enmity is everyone's job. If you go full power with an undergeared tank and you rip aggro, even if he's doing everything he can, it's your fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

It would still be better than making enmity something that tanks don't really bother to build. Beside, it's already a good thing to delay your "burst opening" to line up with party buffs and debuffs and if, like suggested, having the tank really high on enmity gives a DPS buff to everyone else, you'll want to delay it.

Enmity is everyone's job. If you go full power with an undergeared tank and you rip aggro, even if he's doing everything he can, it's your fault.

---

Uh, no. You aren't delaying your burst to lineup with buffs but merely rearranging things. Once the boss is pulled, I have my opener on DRG set and it does not deviate as buff alignment has already been pre-determined. Your proposal would force me to hold back Jump, Spineshatter Dive and etc because tanks couldn't establish aggro.

Again, my only options in this scenario would be to literally stop attacking. Undergear tanks already have difficulty with aggro when paired with certain jobs. Making aggro management more difficult and DPS enmity generation higher would make it impossible for me not to pull hate unless I gimp half my arsenal or flat out stop attacking. Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourne_Endeavor

Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.

---

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

---

Completely removing enmity sounds like a much better idea than forcing me to stop casting Fire IVs for any reason besides mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Like I sai,d if ShO and Grit reduced damage by 50%, not having your stance would make you much more vulnerable

---

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't make you more vulnerable. You would be more protected within shield oath or grit, but you would not be more vulnerable out of it.
Since it's always been established that tanks can survive WITHOUT using the tank stances, there still wouldn't be a reason to step into tank stance except as damage prevention for tank busters or other heavy hitting moves.

You can only make a tank more vulnerable by reducing it's baseline defense so that the enemies would hit the tank harder than they do now if they were out of tank stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostmagemari

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't make you more vulnerable. You would be more protected within shield oath or grit, but you would not be more vulnerable out of it.
Since it's always been established that tanks can survive WITHOUT using the tank stances, there still wouldn't be a reason to step into tank stance except as damage prevention for tank busters or other heavy hitting moves.

---

It's more complicated than that. The main point is not that tanks can survive without the tank stance, but that, by staying in tank stance, they reduce their DPS, thus, the overall raid DPS, for a surplus of mitigation that don't really impact healing requirements.
The idea behind a stronger tank stance is mainly to create a larger gap between healing a DPS-stance tank or a tank-stance tank, to the point that what DPS the tank loses is compensated by what DPS the healers can afford.

And you could also increase enemy damage so that keeping a tank alive in tank stance would stlll not be trivial.

Don't need to increase damage to fulfill the point. Decrease defense on gear and increase stance benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

---

Like Launched, I would rather they remove enmity entirely than force DPS jobs to stop attacking or purposely perform gimped openers. Furthermore, it's an arbitrary solution that doesn't make tank stance rewarding or inherently beneficial. It's similar in concept to the devs slapping a stance penalty on Warrior. People despised it not because their DPS was lower but how awful it felt.

Terrible idea. Part of the fun of tanking is switching between the two stances, maximizing your damage output and damage reduction respectively. This playstyle makes it so that you, the player are rewarded based on your skill with the job. What you're suggesting would dumb down tanks to the point where the only difference between ever tank is pure aesthetics. Just no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Selova

Terrible idea. Part of the fun of tanking is switching between the two stances, maximizing your damage output and damage reduction respectively. This playstyle makes it so that you, the player are rewarded based on your skill with the job. What you're suggesting would dumb down tanks to the point where the only difference between ever tank is pure aesthetics. Just no.

---

i not support reynhart idea, but we are not switching betwen both stances, we are stuck in dps stance and our skill have no place on this, have decent healers? dps stance, thats all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

It's more complicated than that. The main point is not that tanks can survive without the tank stance, but that, by staying in tank stance, they reduce their DPS, thus, the overall raid DPS, for a surplus of mitigation that don't really impact healing requirements.
The idea behind a stronger tank stance is mainly to create a larger gap between healing a DPS-stance tank or a tank-stance tank, to the point that what DPS the tank loses is compensated by what DPS the healers can afford.

And you could also increase enemy damage so that keeping a tank alive in tank stance would stlll not be trivial.

---

The problem with your idea Reynhart, is that to make damage consistently dangerous to a tank that is getting -50% damage, you are making everything absolutely DEADLY to everyone else who would get near an attack from that same boss.
This is a horrible way to balance the tanks, and to encourage tank stances...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Selova

Terrible idea. Part of the fun of tanking is switching between the two stances

---

Not for every player, and like Shao32 said, we're not "stance dancing" anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostmagemari

The problem with your idea Reynhart, is that to make damage consistently dangerous to a tank that is getting -50% damage, you are making everything absolutely DEADLY to everyone else who would get near an attack from that same boss.

---

Other jobs are not supposed to take hits directly from the boss, so I'd say it's not really relevant (And frankly, direct hits are already deadly). AoEs are rarely dangerous by themselves for tanks, even out of tank stance, because the gap in HP means that if the tank dies, everybody else will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Other jobs are not supposed to take hits directly from the boss, so I'd say it's not really relevant (And frankly, direct hits are already deadly). AoEs are rarely dangerous by themselves for tanks, even out of tank stance, because the gap in HP means that if the tank dies, everybody else will.

---

But you want to up the damage from the boss to make things dangerous for them even if they have the -50% damage reduction. YOUR criteria make the AoE's dangerous to the tanks because YOU want the boss to still be dangerous at -50% damage reduction. YOUR criteria makes it so that any attack by the boss (AoE or not) is dangerous to the tank, which makes those attacks deadly against non tanks.
At least stay consistent with your own idea instead of dancing around; you can't voice and idea for something and then when someone pokes holes in your idea, you retreat back to the current way things operate to defend yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostmagemari

At least stay consistent with your own idea instead of dancing around; you can't voice and idea for something and then when someone pokes holes in your idea, you retreat back to the current way things operate to defend yourself.

---

I am, just go look at page 3 on this very thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

The problem with the tank stance is that its effect is too low, so you can afford to skip it significantly. If you want to remove stance dancing, (which is basically what would happend with tank traits), just make tank stance reduce damage by 50% (Or doubles WAR's HP/healing received) and increase single target and cleave damage from bosses, while not touching raidwide damage.

---

And, again, current direct hits and cleave are already deadly for non tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

And, again, current direct hits and cleave are already deadly for non tanks.

---

No, they are not. They are DANGEROUS but only deadly if the dps/healer does not move away. Under your "ideas", stepping anywhere close would be an insta-gib to anyone but the tank.

Furthermore, you can't only increase single target/cleave damage, because if you only increase the single target damage that trivializes all other damage and a tank can just ignore mechanics.
Seriously.. your ideas DO NOT work. They do not even work within the confines of their own described situation.

To be fair this a dead horse, SE has no real viable option to make tank stance worth a damn in this game. The game has been based around tank busters for far too long to switch things up now. If you want to play a tank with the mindset of having to always watch aggro and were auto attacks hit are not fluff dmg, think it is time for you to find a new game.

People enjoy the tanking aspect of this game, if you do not stop trying to change it and just move on and find a new game.

Tank stance will never be a thing, unless they do a complete overall on encounter design and damage output. Which I do not see that happening no matter how much Yoshi hates the idea of tanking in dps stances, even he knows that they have no viable way to force tank stance.

What I mean by tank stance will never be a thing is that while you can stay in tank stance, but just prepare to get shit for it that is all, so if you want to use tank stance just use it, but do not force it on every other tank player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostmagemari

They are DANGEROUS but only deadly if the dps/healer does not move away.

---

If you're targeted by a cleave, a tankbuster or another big hit like tail swipe, you can't just move away. And if you're talking about marked attacks, since when are they "single target attacks, direct hits or cleaves" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostmagemari

Furthermore, you can't only increase single target/cleave damage, because if you only increase the single target damage that trivializes all other damage and a tank can just ignore mechanics.

---

No, it doesn't work that way. First of all, most of the time damage is not the main issue with mechanics. You still won't want any vulnerability debuff, or being frozen, and basically any avoidable damage you chose to ignore will just put more unecessary stress on your healer. What makes damage from AoE dangerous for the tank is that most of the time you've already lost lots of HP with single target hits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

The game has been based around tank busters for far too long to switch things up now.

---

You don't have to change this pattern. Again, the main issue is that the difference between healing a tank in tank stance and healing a tank in DPS stance is too small. Make this difference higher and you'll change how much healer can DPS to compensate what the tank loses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

People enjoy the tanking aspect of this game, if you do not stop trying to change it and just move on and find a new game.

---

Not all of them, so there's no reason that this should the only effective way of tanking, especially when the dev team has stated that this is not what they have in mind when they design content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

snip

---

Here is the thing even the developers you have been on record saying they dislike the idea behind tanks tanking in a dps stance, have yet to do anything to really change that aspect of the game, in fact one could say they made it easier. So clearly even they know that their options are rather limited. Clearly not everyone enjoys the current tanking setup, but I am willing to guess those people are in the minority, and even so nothing in game wise is preventing people from tanking in a tank stance, yet your idea is to make it so the game forces a certain playstyle on tanks.

I said ingame, player ideals can be ignored, ingame mechanics not so much. So you are okay with the game forcing players to play the game a certain way all because you dislike the idea behind tanks be able to tank in dps stance? As it stands now players have the choice to tank in either stance, if they go through with your idea you are limiting the options of players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Clearly not everyone enjoys the current tanking setup, but I am willing to guess those people are in the minority

---

Considering that stance dancing is only meaningful in Savage content, the majority of the people absolutely don't care. We're two minorities, and we don't have enough sample to prove who likes it and who doesn't, considering the game currently doesn't give you much of a choice. (For example, I don't like but I do it because not doing it is currently holding back my team)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

And even so nothing in game wise is preventing people from tanking in a tank stance, yet your idea is to make it so the game forces a certain playstyle on tanks.

---

No, it doesn't. It only widens the healing requirements. Technicaly, you don't necessarily have to increase any boss damage, because, even if your tank is harder to kill, it won't change the mechanics you have to deal with and the raid DPS you need to achieve to beat enrage. It would just shift a portion of the DPS from the main tank to a healer. I personally feel that with a 100% DPS stance tank, a healer should have very little room to DPS, thus why I think a little increase boss in damage could be done, but it's not my main concern.

This way, you could pair "turtle tanks" with "healers who love to DPS" and "aggressive tanks" with "healers who don't want DPS", making room for each divisive playstyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

If you're targeted by a cleave, a tankbuster or another big hit like tail swipe, you can't just move away. And if you're talking about marked attacks, since when are they "single target attacks, direct hits or cleaves" ?

---

i don't know if you're willfully ignorant or if it just comes natural.
I'm not talking about marked attacks.
A single cleave or swipe is not going to be fatal to any player, but repeatedly standing the area in which those occur will be. That is what i meant by "if they do not move away"
I did not think i needed to explain this, but i apparently i have to to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

No, it doesn't work that way. First of all, most of the time damage is not the main issue with mechanics. You still won't want any vulnerability debuff, or being frozen, and basically any avoidable damage you chose to ignore will just put more unecessary stress on your healer. What makes damage from AoE dangerous for the tank is that most of the time you've already lost lots of HP with single target hits.

---

So, in your mind.. if it doesn't debuff in some way, not moving out of the AoE and just keeping swinging because it isn't going to do any damage to you (especially if you increase the prevented damage via tank stance but don't increase AoE damage) isn't ignoring a mechanic?
And you can't tell me that you would still want to avoid it, because you wouldn't. You wouldn't have to put in the effort because the damage it does to you would be negligible, and the tanking community has already shown that if the damage incurred is negligible, they would prefer to dps over mitigate (that's how this whole discussion got started because tanks would rather have higher constant dps than higher mitigation at the cost of dps).