I don't know, I think it's very frustrated when you have a team with very good tanks and healers...that don't have any impact of the ultimate outcome of the fight because of the hard enrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoroMurasaki
How can tanking and healing be made more broadly useful in more "role-specific" ways?
Printable View
-
11-23-2017, 06:57 PMReynhart
-
11-23-2017, 11:05 PMSingularity
Perhaps make damage mitigation something with some actual play to it. I think skills like Sheltron and The Blackest Night are a step towards this, but it could go a lot further.
Say for example we get rid of autoattacks on enemies - instead make them attack in ways that you can see them winding up (either through animations like the Diresaur models or with AoE warnings). Make block/parry something you can do at will rather than an RNG chance. Maybe for single-target fights like bosses you have to block in the correct direction also (attack coming from the left, from the right etc.).
Perhaps even if you block/parry enough boss attacks in a row, you can get a little quicktime event where if you succeed you throw the boss off-balance and it takes increased damage from all sources for a short duration.
I don't know if the game's netcode could handle a system like this, but with some judicious client-siding it may be possible. -
11-23-2017, 11:16 PMShurrikhanI have to agree here. There's no reason that damage alone has to be the only direct contributor to encounter completion. Take the green dragon fight from ICC in WotLK, for instance: the encounter completes when you (nearly) top her off. This would simply be content with a different victor condition. Alternatively, if a Very Important Mob/Person's survival over a given time limit, or over a given escort distance, were a victory condition, it's likely that gimmicks may be necessary to make that encounter satisfying in its interactions, such as by creating more ways to provide mitigation for the mob (beyond current interception mechanics) where topping it off and curative-shielding it would otherwise be insufficient to prevent its being one-shot, but the victory conditions themselves still wouldn't be a gimmick, just an alternative to the most basic characteristic of the encounter.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
[1] Shelltron was one of the mechanics that upon implementation had me begging for more of similar type -- albeit with slight revisions. More on this later, in all likelihood, as I feel they are relevant at least to increasing the usefulness of tank toolkits, which otherwise suffer, in a sense, reverse gear-scaling (relative, at least, to healing). And I definitely agree that these point out interesting directions that are yet barely, if at all, touched upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity
[2] If I recall correctly, from my HW days of tanking just way too many dungeons daily, there are actually many enemies that do follow strict rhythms to their specials, be it down to the second within uptime, down to the second regardless of uptime (which removes some advantage from kiting), or after a set number of auto-attacks. Additionally, some either strike immediately after a given auto-attack (or potentially simultaneously), or after a brief delay. I actually tried some old dungeons like Fractal solo on DRK to see if I could break TBN in Grit with my full gear's worth of HP, by slightly moving mobs about so that their next specials would overlap predictably. So, in a way, this is already kind of in XIV, but it remains painfully hidden, to the point that you could say that for the majority of players, these concepts are only latent in the game, rather than a real part of it.
The concern that pops into mind first though, is that this game is really rather particle-effect and animation-heavy, almost to the point of obscuring natural telegraphs — requiring our slightly gaudy hit-area indicators. When the majority of players are under the assumption that there's nothing they can do to better time their tools against these specials, they don't feel obliged to turn off their particle effects and dart their eyes about to see them, which to many — not all, of course — will be less enjoyable an experience. Similarly, audio cues (while solvable via visual sonar for deaf players) would be insufficient to differentiate between special wind-ups between two adjacent mobs of the same type. So as much as I want to make the sound of and vision over our enemies actual sources of information, there's currently a lot standing in the way. Maybe we'd need some sort of... post-processing (?) of our particle effects to allow for conditional reversed layering, as to allow enemies winding up or giving other visual tells to be visible to the player's camera through the particle effects. Maybe some more generalized sound-to-vision cues without needing visual sonar, specifically... I don't know. I do reeaaally want this though.
[3] This would be such a huge boon, imo, to the tanking experience. I'm not sure if pure manual manipulation is the best way to go about it, but I feel there definitely should be tools to allow for this. More on this later.
[4] I'm somehow who generally hates QTEs, and I still think some form of that could be awesome. Heck, I wouldn't even mind seeing it as a general mechanic of sorts, as long as its soft enough not to feel wholly tank-specific (just... "tanks do it best").
As for the netcode... I've no idea either. They seem to leave more than most games do server-side, yet they still have bots capable of teleporting about underground, so...?
For a short time, there was a "Guard" ability on a very short cooldown, during which you could not attack, but could guarantee blocks for some total absorption amount. At that time though, it wasn't actually even part of Gladiator, but rather part of a side-class called Sentinel, which was usable by anyone who could use a shield, including casters. It was removed when Yoshida took over, leaving only Aegis Boon for burst-mitigation (converts a single strike's damage taken to healing, like an up-to-200% mitigation ability, on a 30s or 45s CD, I forget which).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandpark
Something like this wouldn't have any impact on or by the game's having or not having a GCD... which the netcode takes surprisingly little advantage from, considering the length of its animation locks. (We have a minimum true global cooldown, or "animation lock" of .5 seconds, generally around .7+ for oGCDs or .85+ for weaponskills, iirc, which should be enough in which to queue any ability without clipping even on a 240 ms ping connection, and yet at that same ping will delay a Suiton by as much as 2 additional seconds at a 2.35 GCD, when it should only delay it by ~.7.) Unless these were introduced as a weaponskill like 1.0 - 1.15's Guard skill — back when rate was determined more by Stamina and cast times, alone, than GCDs anyways — these could remain almost wholly fluid by simply being oGCDs as per Shelltron or TBN, or so I've read it. (Please correct me if I've misinterpreted, Singularity.) Even if made weaponskills, or psuedo-GCDs like the HW Empyreal Arrow, however (therefore coming at the more general cost of time, rather than specific resource or MP) their gameplay shouldn't feel in any way out of place or unsatisfactory in a GCD system. It just might mean that you would have to waste a bit of time to line up the active block occasionally, which wouldn't feel great in itself, but might even go so far as to help you feel like you're attacking something that isn't just a script dummy for your own memorized rotations. -
11-23-2017, 11:22 PMJavey
Savage and extreme content make healing and tanking more challenging. Regular dungeons don't need to be as difficult because not everyone wants to wipe until everyone is coordinated like a static. Not everyone is interested in min maxing and perfecting rotations which harder regular content would require.
-
11-23-2017, 11:27 PMSandparkIsn't there too many special effect going on to use a tell tell sign system like Tera?Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity
I believe the original XIV had a shield system like Dark Souls if I am not mistaken. You had to hold the shield up to actually block things on gladiator or paladin.
Idk, I thought this game used GCD to compensate for it's servers. Are you saying XIV should have real time action based systems? -
11-24-2017, 02:26 AMHruodigIn this game, good tanks and healers can contribute a lot to hard enrage timers because of their ability to produce a non-insignificant amount of dps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
-
11-24-2017, 02:44 AMShurrikhanI think it was a more a concern that as tank's or healer's skill or gear increases, this never really shows in the (total amount of) "tanking" or healing done in the fight, as both end up capped by (essentially the requirements at minimum ilvl of) the content itself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hruodig
Without a doubt, cross-role damage-dealing is strong in this game — borderline overpowered, even, relative to many another MMO, be it by per-global efficiency or total amounts doable over a typical progression or difficult but on-farm encounter — but whereas another game's tank may be able to mitigate more with an increase in gear, everything here is scaling, and unlike many others, once healing is doable even with the most expensive healing options, any additional healing potential is excess where many other games would require you to cut back on mana-expense if you're going to hold out through the whole fight.
Call the percentage of globals spent on non-role-specific tasks (and I'm sure how you can glean how I feel about "roles" from the OP) a difference for the better or for the worse as you will, but I can see why the fact that beyond decently high skill at the minimum ilvl for any given encounter only direct contribution then benefits from additional gear or skill can be annoying to players who place more thematic significance on the overarching categorical labels for their toolkits, especially since there are other examples in very similar MMOs that show that such doesn't need to occur — that tanking can see scaling benefits, too, or that healing can scale beyond simply the ability to spend less time healing. -
11-24-2017, 02:55 AMReinhaPlease don't assume people haven't tried content harder than Expert Roulette when discussing these things. A tank getting one shot by a mechanic doesn't remove the fact that he/she was probably sitting in dps stance for most of the fight prior to that and after that, and this thread is for expressing solutions to the current dps-centric design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaethra
An example to my post on the first page:
WoW's normal mode raid (there are 2 harder difficulties in the game). Notice how unavoidable damage keeps hitting everyone for a big part of the fight and how the tanks are taking some pretty heavy hits quite often. And still healers manage it quite well because the rate of damage is not too high. Deaths happen slowly which gives healers a better chance to prevent them.
Lakshmi Ex (there are savage and ultimate modes above this difficulty). Notice how damage comes from predictable mechanics, everyone is topped up in a couple of seconds and then everyone is literally at full health for multiple GCDs until another predictable mechanic cuts off some HP. Every player is hit for the same amount of damage at the same time and healed up at the same time. There is no ongoing unavoidable damage in any phase. Deaths happen instantly after failed mechanics and healers have very little room to correct mistakes.
These are different design philosophies and the slow sustained damage type is rarely present in FFXIV content. Aurum Vale comes to mind, but that is not end game content.
Replying here to save post count. I haven't done difficult content before Stormblood so unfortunately I can't answer you. There is this I guess. I would welcome such soft enrages in more casual content too, scaled to the intended difficulty of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
11-24-2017, 02:57 AMShurrikhanSorry to bug you guys with this, but can anyone think of some gradually increasing unavoidable damage waves or similar soft enrages aside from Rafflasia in T6? I could have sworn there were at least a couple more, but I'm having a brain fart at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reinha
Edit: Thanks, Deathgiver!
Does ShinEx P1 also have a soft enrage via platforms dropping out, or is it only the hard enrage at the end that matters?
_______________________________________
And one more question anyone with a preference one way or the other:
Would you prefer that when a soft enrage is already present, that no hard enrage be added, or do you think that would result in unintended (or more importantly, less fun) gameplay, as per the T2 enrage strat, etc.? -
11-24-2017, 03:19 AMDeathgiverTitan hard (increasing number of stomps each cycle)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
A8S J Wave
O4S Neverwhere is soft enrage followed by a hard enrage
Bismark is a sort of soft enrage as well from the adds hitting the island, though there is a hard enrage based on how many times bismark himself hits the island as well.
Nidhogg ahk morn is a soft enrage (increasing this per cycle) followed by a hard enrage.
A10s I would also call soft enrage with the platform shrinking and the boss gaining damage up every death.
Also pretty much all of first coil, 1 has the damage up stacks on boss eventually making the fight take too much healing to win, 2 is pretty well known since half the groups intentionally enraged to avoid other mechanics, and 4 was manageable for a short period to heal through the enrage. -
11-24-2017, 03:28 AMSingularity
Thordan, Shiva and Nael (3rd-4th phase) all cast abilities that give them damage-up stacks. Cruise Chaser gains a stack each time he uses Limit Cut. Ravana gains one each time he uses one of his "Liberation" abilities (? Not 100% sure if this is what gives him the stacks)
Caduceus gains stacks over time, though the party can reduce them by spawning slime adds and feeding them to him.
Damage from Phoenix's Flames of Rebirth is based on how many stacks he has. He has multiple ways of gaining stacks and also gains them gradually on his own.
Bahamut's (& Nidhogg's and Shinryu's) Akh Morn hits one additional time each time it's used, as does Manipulator's Perpetual Ray (in last phase only).
Quickthinx gains a (used to be permanent) stacking damage buff any time someone dies during the fight, and gains four stacks instantly if a Pure Heart is allowed to reach him. People will start dying to unavoidable damage (giving him more stacks) around 3+ stacks. -
11-24-2017, 05:29 AMkikix12Honestly, I don't even know where to start here. Generally you've been giving some arguments. That I mostly disagreed with them is another matter. But here?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Who on earth ever told you that the fact you have HP means you need to kill stuff?! And there are many examples of people NOT WANTING to kill their enemies. The fact that the warrior of light kills everything and everyone on their way is ABNORMAL and completely RIDICULOUS. Only a true and blue idiot would kill the guy/gal that would be better off interrogated. And even then, I'm pretty sure that there are examples of NPC's not dying when their HP goes to zero. I can think of two off the top of my head simply from Kojin quests, then there's one or two in Amalja. There are even cases in story (for paladin, for example, where you fight that Elezen and that Roe at lvl60, but also in main story). Heck, Fordola is a recent major example...
The only reason why the game is all about killing is because it's MADE like that. There is zero reason, story-wise or anything, to not take advantage of that.
And that fixes it, as healing would have a direct effect on damage, hence the timing of the healing matters as well, as well as the total amount of HP, instead of "heal when it's near-death".Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
If a healer overheals then they are the ones at fault. Casting a heal when the tank have only 2%-3% penalty is pointless, when a single Stone would do more. However, standard heals (which are CHEAPER than currently-used big heals) would be used more often and players would start being more efficient with healing. Ultimately, you still need to heal the same amount of HP, just timed differently and in smaller chunks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
How is that relevant if the healer would try to keep everyone at/near full at all times...Even now if people die healers can run out of mana...but now they provoke such situations by not topping people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
-
11-24-2017, 07:34 AMKaethraThe majority of the forums does not go above that difficulty. So I'm just stating simple fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reinha
Let's go over some other facts. Players who run content above Roulette are doing so in FC and Statics, with an occasional pick up from PF. Which means you can have a tank only tank, or healer only heal if you desire, or not. Decision is up to the one who forms the group.
So that means the friction is coming from Duty Finder. A set of content that is made to be easy, but you have small time scrubs who think they're elite (but their not, since they aren't running harder stuff) who 'abuse' some not so elite players. They're really the same skill level, but one thinks they're beyond that, and the other just wants to have fun. Unfortunately for the latter type, they get heat, or even perceive it. Then run to the forums with the have a dozen threads about this subject.
The FFXIV community is some of the most over-sensitive, socially awkward, and self-victiming group I have ever played with. You can't parse them, you can't tell them to pick it up, you can't do anything that hurts someone's feelings. They want DF to form their groups and they want SE to ensure to them that everyone plays nicely. But they don't want to take responsibility for their own time spent on the game.
Some of the best players don't let these little things bother them. They form their own groups and clear content without any complaint. They don't believe content should be simplified into roles over classes, or that we need reduction in Tanks, or that roles should be simplified into only doing what the role says.
As I said, the content itself is fine. Just move up. Unless you're going to tell me your routinely clearing Ultimate Coil every week? Anyone here doing that? -
11-24-2017, 08:28 AMTaranTatsuuchiThere was a fight with this idea in it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
The Aery.
You had to keep Estinien alive, or else! -
11-24-2017, 09:38 AMUltimatecaliburThere is a bit of difference between a tank buster and a survival check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaethra
A "tank buster" is an attack that checks the tank's current eHP (effective HP, based on current HP, buffs, debuffs, shields and parry/blocks) at the time it hits. Pretty much all content in FFXIV that requires a tank has one or more of these and almost all are short enough and rare enough that being in tank stance isn't needed for most of the fight and you only really need to use a short cooldown. Short term mitigation (Inner Beast, TBN, Shelltron, Sentinel, Hollowed Ground, Holmgang, Reprisal, etc) thrives against these.
A "survival check" is usually a series of attacks that asks "can the target(s) survive the stream of damage until it ends?" and are more rare in FFXIV. Long term mitigation (tank stances, Rampart, Convalescence, Bulwark, Anticipation, etc) thrive in these. Diabolos Hollow is one of the rare fights in FFXIV that has tankcentric survival checks that test how long the tank can survive. Most of the others (Such as Nid EX's Akh Morns) are party survival checks that mostly test if the healers can keep everyone alive trough them. -
11-24-2017, 02:30 PMKaethra
Does Ultimate Coil have any of these? I've not been in there yet, so I don't know.
-
11-24-2017, 05:41 PMReynhartAll of our stats are designed for killing or not be killed, all of our skills are designed with for killing or not be killed. If you want winning without killing to be a major part, you'd have to change a lot of things in the game to adjust to this new goal. There is currently a gameplay where your skills are not used to kill, it's called "crafting".Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
Since you seem to like that word : Irrelevant. Even if we don't "kill" them lorewise, the goal is still to deplete their HP bar. Especially with Fordola, in case you didn't realize we were at war.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
And if we remove that goal of "Depleting the HP bar", suddenly, DPS jobs lose their purpose.
The gameplay is made like that, the story is made like that. To change all of this, you'd have to make real core modifications far above what could make tanking and healing more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
-
11-24-2017, 09:20 PMShurrikhanAgain, this is very unlikely to be true. If it were, then tanks and healers are already without any purpose in regular content.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Consider a wave-by-wave survival encounter. You don't need to kill everything, or technically even anything, but if you do not, the damage becomes overwhelming, not to mention whatever utilities the enemies are throwing your way or onto their allies. Killing, then, allows you to better stay alive, which is in turn the point of the encounter. Now, the issue remains that healing and tanking face an enemy- and party-dependent cap, whereas DPS only faces a cap based on the eHP spawn rate of the enemies, but so long as being able to survive more than two minutes of a trial that would still be longer than two minutes even with 8 DPS is important, then so too would DPS be here. -
11-24-2017, 10:35 PMReynhartThis is the same mentality as "killing ennemies is the best mitgation" and would probably still end with tanks and healers having to do the most DPS available to quickly kill each wave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
11-24-2017, 11:01 PMShurrikhanIt's less a "mentality" than a state of design. "Mentality" implies an ability for errant logic or fixation, rather than a natural, uncomplicated outcome from what is optimal given the design fundamentals in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
And yes, it would of course maintain that state. But, consider your suggested overwhelming damage model — differing only in that it retains the limit of encounter clearance condition to damage dealt (enemies slain) — by that same logic: what is changed?
Now, I can't say at this time that it is impossible to change that, but it's because I cannot say, either, that it is possible, that this was never a condition I tried to introduce in the thread. Personally, I'd be satisfied with just allowing for more consistent scalability between roles as to delay the point at which direct output (damage beyond what is embedded in tanking or healing) will necessarily outweigh indirect output (in XIV's case, any non-damage-integrated or -necessary inclusion of mitigation or healing). To me, the bigger issue is how support generated from positions of healing or tanking feel, ideally in a way that can move that conversation away from the fixated bimodal of "Did I (A) heal/enmity-stack or (B) do anything other than heal/enmity-stack this last GCD?"
Your overwhelming damage model provides a ready example of where healing can extend the total damage dealt in a way that scales with gear, rather than being cut off after a certain point, simply because the damage is likewise increasing. I worry, however, that it would better fit a game model wherein completion can be more granular, such as making it to x phase or wave where only up to 5 or so is required for technical "completion". Otherwise, you're looking at the exact same issue as the current hard enrage systems. More than sufficient is excess. Now, that will always be the case. To my knowledge it can only be escaped, and only in part, by moving the goal posts in a way that seeks to indirectly delimit what can be done through derivative outputs, essentially extending their caps at that same rates by which one would expect primary outputs would accelerate with gear or would need to accelerate to reach the point or degree of progress at which one reaches that shifted goal post. -
11-25-2017, 01:46 AMkikix12You have read a single example Shurrikhan made, while ignoring the examples made by me in the original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
There are many ways to deal with these issues. Have the boss do major cleaves, so no, the tank or healer couldn't deal with the adds, cause tank trying to do that would get the DPS killed. Healer trying to do that would get the tank killed. Another part is separating the tank and healer with DPS. There are already parts where groups are separated, mainly in raids. What is the problem of making an encounter here or there where DPS have to do actual mechanics, and end up being separated as a result? For example, a floodgate would be open with Sahagin boss. Either close the floodgates or boss goes into enrage once the water rises, being in his environment. Whoever goes however ends up trapped and have to deal with the adds. They die, the adds will be "free" and go after the healer. They kill the adds, good for them, no need to die and extend the battle.
Then there is a battle where widely-understood mitigation matters. At that point, DPS's role would be largely avoiding the AoE's (a form of mitigation) and probably triggering mechanics, like turning off turrets, which would give X points towards the win.
Another example is a battle where mitigation matters instead of survival, with adds, hence the team would need to balance between killing adds and keeping them alive. Kill too many and the battle will take ages. Kill too few and you will be overwhelmed. Tank exits tank stance or uses cooldowns poorly (like using them with few adds to deal with a single tank-buster instead of waiting for a long-term, sustained damage with more adds), the battle will go slower. Healer will have to focus on healing, because the more adds there are, the more damage, the higher mitigation accumulates, the sooner the battle ends. And DPS'ing when the party decides the magnitude of incoming damage is just nonsensical. And DPS?! They kill the adds to control their amount and try not to get killed themselves.
In case you didn't notice, this thread is about ideas that COULD be in the game, not about what is in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
And what I am talking about is using those "not be killed" stats to determine the winner, instead of those "to kill". There is nothing wrong with it. Nothing unusual, lore-wise or technically. It would just switch the focus from one stat that already exists to another stat that already exists. NO CHANGE is needed for the system at all, just adding a counter for damage mitigated/avoided/dodged and a flag that calls the players the victors once a certain threshold is reached. As for battles based on time, there are already quests where you go against unending waves of enemies and need to survive for a certain time. The only change necessary would be adding a penalty (adding time to the counter) on someone's death. Trifling matter.
This is just ridiculous. The goal is to deplete their HP bar...but that's the very reason why I suggested changing that goal...Again, this is not about what IS in the game, it's about what COULD be in game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
And being at war means NOTHING. Most soldiers on the battlefield surrender once they know they have no chance of winning. That's the very essence of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about changing a wild beast on a rampage to suddenly up and stop. I'm talking about SOME bosses, usually intelligent, but also use arguments that something else comes and scares the boss away after a while, like a bigger beast that have little interest in the party.
You having little will to think about options, or poor imagination, doesn't mean there is no way to make DPS have a purpose, as examples above show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
The story is not made like that, and suggestions and ideas are usually for things that are not present in gameplay, so it's obvious it is different than what we currently have. And there is no need for any core modification. It's nearly entirely a design-based "problem". Making Palace of the Dead or a new PvP mode requires far more effort and change than what I brought up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
-
11-25-2017, 04:13 AMReynhartSo, I guess the "boss" doesn't need to be killed, then, otherwise the tank could still require to do high DPS ? How many "bosses that can't be killed" could they design before it feels like something that is forced down our throat ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
That's not a problem. We had this in A12, but, while DPS were busy with their adds, tanks and healers still had to deal damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
Seems convoluted, but why not. On a sidenote, I think designing such fights would take lots of dev time, and it might reduce how much content we get.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
Yes, ideas that could. If it requires to change the whole gameplay to include a whole new set of metrics, you can be sure it won't be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
Easy there. You mentionned these fights to explain how "we don't need to kill everything, since these characters didn't die lorewise". These examples are irrelevant, because, even if they didn't die, they lost by losing their HP bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
Again, that would require a complete overhaul of DPS jobs, so this won't be done in this game.Quote:
Originally Posted by kikix12
-
11-25-2017, 04:44 AMShurrikhanThis is starting to get ridiculous. None of Kikix's suggestions have required anything on the scope your suggesting. It is as simple as changing an Objective line from "Kill Alta Roite" to "Defend Fluffles" or "Survive Villainous III's Attacks" and adding a time limit and failure condition as already present in our FATEs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
The examples being referred to are right up there, between your quotes, and on the previous page, and none of them require a complete overhaul of -- or even the slightest change to -- DPS jobs to maintain their purpose while still allowing for the same variation in objectives in Trials or Raids that we already see in FATEs, or across other MMO's raid encounters. Zero. None.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
You can adjust the clear condition of the fight to indirectly bring something new to tanking or healing's place in a fight without having to adjust any of the separate roles. -
11-25-2017, 04:59 AMReynhartYou keep going back and forth...if you say "just survive", I say "then DPS are useless", then you say "but we need to kill too so we won't be overwhelmed", and we're back to "dead monsters don't do damage, so you will survive". Please make up your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
And none of them change the fact that you will win by killing ennemies, unless ennemies can't be killed, making DPS useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
The sad part is that one Kikix example has already been done in A12, and it didn't change anything to DPSing... -
11-25-2017, 05:47 AMDeathgiverWhich mechanic in a12 are you referring too? Both your posts are so full of quotes and rhetoric that I can't find what you're referring toQuote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
-
11-25-2017, 05:55 AMReynhartThe part where the four DPS goes into portals and are separated from tanks and healers...while tanks and healers still do what damage they can on Alexander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathgiver
-
11-25-2017, 06:19 AMUltimatecaliburThe objective isn't to make DpS and killing enemies useless but more to make "ability to survive" and "ability to keep others alive" more important for tanks and healers respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Imagine a 10 minute add wave fight that you win if the party survives through the full 10 minutes and that dealing good dps will make the fight easier but not win it.
I'm pretty certain Reynhart is referring to the 2nd of A12S' add phases (the one where half the party leaves to kill adds while the rest of the party is focused on placing crystals for the next phase).Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathgiver
The Savage version of that section does much better to illustrate what this thread is trying to ask for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
2 of the adds are fairly easily dpsed down.
1 of the adds hits very hard and slowly and either needs to be tanked or quick killed with an lb.
1 of the adds doesn't hit hard but attacks quickly and needs a healer to heal through it until the rest of the party doing adds kills their adds and comes to kill the healer's.
Meanwhile the rest of the party outside with Alexander Prime are more focused on trying to survive and properly place the crystals. -
11-25-2017, 06:53 AMKazrah
So I have an idea for this that probably won't be that popular, but will solve at least one half of the problem: have dps stances for tanks increase their damage taken by 20% or so. That way, either the healer can keep more to healing the tank who is now taking far more damage, or the tank can keep up tank stance while the healer's dealing damage.
With DRK, it'd be tricky, but probably tie in a bigger increase to damage taken when Blood Weapon is up. -
11-25-2017, 11:20 AMShurrikhanAlternatively, would simply reducing the passive mitigation and HP bonuses of being a tank, regardless of stance, have a similar effect, such that tanks are more reliant on active and stance-based mitigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazrah
I'm not sure there'd be any effect on how tanks then fit into the picture in either case, though. That seems more like a nerf around which to simply rescript fights very slightly, still spending as little time in tank stance as possible, or else a much worse removal of viable breadth in tank toolkits.This can be done by, say, giving each armor class merely a 25% bonus over the previous, such that tanks have merely 50% more defense than leather, down from 84%, reducing their left side Vitality to normal amounts, and making Fending accessories simply half Vitality and half Strength, rather than full Vitality and then additional Strength.
-
11-25-2017, 01:16 PMHyperia
After dying half a dozen times in the 24 player raid due to healers doing dps over healing the MT (me) I would like to propose a health based dps buff / debuff for healer dps. How it works is that if everybody in the group is 90% or higher they get a +20% dps buff, if their at 80 then 10%, 70/0, 60 / -10%, 50 / -20%, 40 / -30% ... etc. This way it encourages healers to keep their group healed so people don’t die, aka, do their primary job first. If somebody is dead, their dps takes the max penalty, aka, hardly any dps output till the group is back up.
-
11-25-2017, 02:15 PMakaneakkiThis is such a bad idea. It really easy. First of all, you have no idea how many times dps get away with being bad, because good/great healers do somewhat of their job as well, same with tanks really. Imagine if there was enrage in 24 man, there is no way you would get it done with and we all know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperia
-
11-25-2017, 02:33 PMRhais
Arbitrary penalties and debuffs to force players into a rigid role fulfillment is a terrible idea.
-
11-25-2017, 03:22 PMHyperiaHardly a terrible idea, I'm just asking people to do what they signed up to do first, then DPS after the fact. If I have to rain on a healer's DPS parade so they can keep everybody alive and not wipe a raid, I'm perfectly ok with that. As to how to deal with bad DPS, I dunno, that's something we really cant touch because parsers are forbidden and thus, we cant shine a spotlight on underperformers. It's really sad if you think about it... healers and tanks being forced to do more and more DPS just so bad DPS can carry on. Something is wrong here... but I digress. My original proposal still stands, I want healers to heal first, then DPS if everything else is ok. My idea rewards healers who want to DPS by doing their job and punishing those who want to DPS at the detriment of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhais
-
11-25-2017, 04:49 PMMoroMurasakiSo a trolling DPS can die to things and essentially wipe not only his DPS from the party but also the healer's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperia
Or someone can be lagging and die to things only to have the same thing happen.
I'm sorry, I've seen a lot of poor ideas, but unless we are going to somehow impliment a penalty system on the DPS players (how about you only get full exp for completing an instance if your DPS is above a certain number?) for doing stupid things this is totally unfair.
Also it implies that healing or raising a player should always be my top priority as a healer which is just untrue. Hell, several times in Shinryu EX now I've left someone dead because Swiftcast was on cooldown and the heart needed to die so I didn't have time to hardcast a raise. I help with the DPS because it is the logical priority (alive heart means a wipe) and with your suggestion any of those situations would have wiped my party.
This is just plain bad, I'm sorry.
Edit: Also just thought of O1S - the accepted strategy there is to let the party eat tge Roars before a Chrybdis because whether everyone is full or low Chrybdis is going to bring them to single digit. This is great time to DPS as a healer because there is literally no point to heal unless someone is going to die before Chrybdis casts.
It would also invalidate the Assize I usually use there, depending on how tight the group stacks I follow up my precasted Cure III/Medica II with Assize but it wouldn't really damage the boss because everyone would still be at lowish health.
The more I think about your suggestion the more I wonder if you've ever healed any "endgame" content. Everyone is free to theorycraft but you defend your stance like someone who knows what they're talking about and I don't think you do. I'm by no means any better than maybe the lowest midcore player and even I understand how bad this is. -
11-25-2017, 05:37 PMShurrikhanTake what I'm about to say with a grain of salt, as it boils down primarily to pedantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyperia
That part wouldn't actually change except insofar as you have to recalculate the point at which your throughput efficiency outweighs the modifiers placed your party members' throughput. You'd spend more globals essentially buffing others, but that's no more a healer's primary "job" -- even if eHP restoration is attached to that function -- than direct damage-dealing. Any healing this would add would already be after "everything else is ok", where there is no survival detriment. It'd doubtless create more globals of healing, but it wouldn't create any higher a focus on keeping people alive. -
11-25-2017, 06:08 PMReynhartI think it's not enough by itself. For me, the problem with stances is that the damage difference between tank stance and DPS stance is too low. If you increase damage regardless of stances, this difference would stay the same and once people are accustomed with the higher damage, they'll go back to DPS stance...unless the increased damage is so high that they can't do it anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Sure, a mandatory tank stance would indeed put more emphasis on tanking, but it would piss off the whole population that loves agressive tanking. For me the sweet spot would be that damage are high enough so that a healer paired with a DPS-stance tank would had to focus more heavily on healing, and the mitigation on tank stance would be high enough so that a healer who likes to DPS could do that a lot more when paired with a turtle tank.
So no types of tanks and healers would be left behind. -
11-25-2017, 06:53 PMShurrikhanFair enough, but let's consider: An increased penalty on "DPS stance" functions identically to reduced passive mitigation and a tank stance strengthened to its previous eHP levels. Moreover, no matter how great the gap is increased, there will undoubtedly be a point at which it's worth and a point at which it is not. At present, gear tends to favors avoiding tank stance, as it receives no benefits that DPS stance does not capitalize upon further (if tank stance eHP was sufficient at lower gear, then it will be excessive with additional gear), but at any given point as DPS gradually and increasingly outscales percentile mitigation (since encounter damage does not increase with your gear, and therefore neither can percentile mitigation) that decision is straightforward, and probably ought to be. Making one stance intentionally punishing won't change that; it just bloats the ability and introduces counter-intuitiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
I've never recommended a mandatory tank stance. If it's mandatory, it's not a stance, but rather just bloat (in all but maybe solo play or in the destruction of defenseless objects). I'm just saying that the more something appears to be made effectively mandatory (optimal by a notable margin) not because of universally applicable scalars but through appended punishments, the worse it feels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
And note the situation your broaching is in every way a compromise. There's no point at which no one is "not left behind" unless you consider the most marginal presence or satisfaction as complete inclusion. -
11-25-2017, 07:31 PMReynhartIt sure will, but at that point, the requirement for DPS stance is also reduced. When a savage content is just released, the gap in tank DPS could make the difference between winning and hitting enrage. Once you have 30 or 40 more ilvl, chances are your DPS will be enough even if you sit in tank stance 24/7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Sure, it doesn't leave anyone behind if the damage is increased reasonably. But it won't change the dynamic of tank stance vs DPS stance either, and only lower healer's DPS by increasing the base healing requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
11-25-2017, 07:37 PMShurrikhanNow I really don't understand what you're suggesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
-
11-25-2017, 07:48 PMReynhartLet's imagine that ShO and Grit reduces damage by 50% instead of 20%. Suddently, the healing requirement between "tank stance" and "DPS stance" is very different. If we increase the overall damage a tank suffers, a healer will have less room to DPS than it has now when paired with a DPS-stance tank. But, if paired with a "turtle" tank, he can much more damage since the tank will take significantly less damage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
The idea is that, "what DPS the tanks loses by sitting in tank stance is covered by what DPS the healer gains", so that, in the end, "DPS stance" and "tank stance" are more personal preference and compromise with what type of healer player you have in your party.
My last try on O1S, even if not a significant sample, shown that by sitting in tank stance for all the fight, I lost 500 DPS while my healer only gained 100. If he would have gained 500 DPS, then my stance wouldn't have mattered on the overall raid DPS.