i belive removing tank stances is a fair solution like any other, tank responsabilities are hold agro, positioning, use you skills properly to mitigate damage and in last degree dealt dps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeno
tecnically dealing dps is a secondary aspect, but not in realilty, dealing dps as a tank is on top of the prioritys more bcs the other aspects are brain dead to a point tank stances are basically useless outside of dungeons and first 5 seconds of the boss pull.
i asume removing tank stances will be mean we recive traits to increse the emity we generate with our agro combos and increse the mitigation, in the end will not change nothing, no new player look at the tanks and pick one bcs this one have a tank stance, more bcs most new tanks i find on duty finder dont even know what the hell are unless spend 2 mins to explain it.
in fact i belive it will be more straight foward for new players and tanks in general bcs they dont need to worry about have it on or off, and honestly have tank stances as a rookie tank buttom is just more terrible that dont have one, if we want help for new players we have echo, no split tank learning curve on stay on tank stance or not.
anyway, syphon strike mana bonus and bloodspiller extra potency on grit are bonus from grit himself to make grit gameplay almost equal as gritless with bloodweapon, those are not base bonus we loose.
-
03-27-2018, 07:11 AMshao32
-
03-27-2018, 02:32 PMSaenoIf we gain traits to compensate for the loss of tank stance, then I can definitely see tank stances being removed but honestly I'd rather we have what we have now. We're given a choice where we can trade damage for defense which I think is awesome. If we have a passive trait that gives us all of the benefits a stance stance offers, that would be a very simple and brainless solution but I want to be able to participate in my tanking and not have it feel automatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
As for the Grit bonuses, the point that I made originally is that it is inexcusable for a tank to have bonuses in tank stance only for them to want to avoid using the stance at all costs just because of how steep the cost is compared to another stance, like Defiance, which is so much more efficient in comparison. Anytime a stance gives you bonuses, regardless of job, you should be able to go into that stance without paying a premium so you can access those skills and feel satisfied with them. The reason why WAR's stances are so seemless is because of those bonuses from Defiance (Inner Beast, Equilibrium) and that makes sense. So why is that not the case for DRK and in a similar vein, PLD? -
03-27-2018, 11:44 PMshao32yeah i agreed, tank stances are part of our kit, it will be weird if they remove it at some point, but from my part i dont see it as we have a choice, and it will never be as long tank stances offer so much damage pentalty and im not talking about the MP cost or the GCD, for me is pretty silly choose betwen unintented high performance vs a obviously low performance,there is where tank stances fail, im just tired for this desing WAR is being unfairly superior and SE dont doing nothing, while in the end on high end performance is not really a big problem per se bcs we avoid the stances in lower performance the gap its just bigger for that, for me tank stances have only a few solutions, add mechanics to avoid stance penaltys so it will make deep in to tan stance gameplay,remove the skills and add a new ones in form of a CD you get extra emity and add more defense on gear or by trait, make tank stances mandatory for MT with they ususal penaltys or remove it complety and fix the gap with thraits, it will be alwais a "fake" feeling of choice as long one of the sides dont offer anything usefull, its just silly being called "stance" if you only use it 5 seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeno
but thats what i say, grit have some many bonuses to make grit gameplay smoothly on other way grit will be just ugh... compared to gritless, there is the problem with tank stances, the trade is useless and WAR wins bcs they can avoid every penalty they suffer, to be fair due our tank stances have bigger switch penaltys is have a way to avoid those penaltys so we can stay 24/7 on it and turn it off when we dont need it, but is not the case and WAR will be always superior no matter you remove the oGCD or the MP cost bcs WAR will always have the way to avoid the primary tank stance problem the direct damage penalty. -
03-28-2018, 12:03 AMAanaTheres a fundamental difference on why SE allows war EZGG stances but not Pld/Drk. War swapping into defiance is the same as turning on convalescence. If you pop tank stance an instant before a tank buster, theres no difference. If you do that as Pld/Drk you have rampart and can survive it. War's tank stance doesn't have an instant effect. It has to have additional actions piled on top to actually do anything. Pld/Drk don't because it is instantaneous mitigation. So instead of piling on additional actions to realize an impact, they frontload the cost more. There are ways to 'reduce' the cost or shift it, but as long as tank stance is instant rampart, it will be harder/cost more to get into than instant convalescence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeno
-
03-28-2018, 01:03 AMSaenoOn paper I would agree with you, but as mentioned in the OP, WAR has ways to bypass the negatives of their tank stance thanks to Equilibrium giving them HP in Defiance. Im sure some people feel like that isn't fair since Equilibrium is a CD, but really where are you going to use Equilibrium elsewhere? Tp should not be an issue for any tank in single target. I feel like the reason why WAR's stances are oGCD is because their stance skills (Inner beast/Fell cleave) take a GCD on their own, so wasting a GCD to activate Defiance and then another to activate Inner beast would be absolutely awful. Also, when having Inner beast up as a WAR, you still have Defiance's effects so you have 20% mitigation on top of your bonus HP and HP recovery, which is damn powerful. The problem is, WAR's stances just feel way too free compared to the other stances since all of your downsides (DPS loss solved with Unchained, HP loss solved with Equilibrium) can be answered but that isnt the case for PLD/DRK. Because SE wanted to give answers to WAR's stance downsides, Shield oath and Grit have fallen far behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aana
-
03-28-2018, 01:31 AMAanaThis is exactly why a 1 size fits all solution wont work. War's kit is designed very differently than the (much similar) Pld/Drk design. If you want to be in tank stance and use a light CD for example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeno
War: Defiance>Innerbeast. 1 OGCDs, 1 GCD. ~10%HP (from IB defiance), 20% IB.
Pld: Shield oath>Shelltron. 1 OGCD, 1 GCD. 20% stance, 25%+ shelltron (more effective on single hits, less for multi hit. nuances, etc, but you get the idea).
Drk: Grit>TBN. 1 OGCD, 1 GCD. 20% stance. 10% HP shield.
On the face of it, its really pretty close. All of them costs GCD, OGCD, and damage. There are pros and cons to TBN, Shelltron, IB that change which is most effective when, but the general effects are pretty similar. Then to drop stance, Drk just clicks it off for no cost. War clicks it off (possibly loosing HP unless not capped before changing it off. So 'sometimes' free). Pld pays for sword oath in MP and GCD (but pays less MP than Drk on the front end.)
The net effect is really not that problematic.
The problem isn't that Pld/Drk have to pay for stance swaps. Everyone pays the GCD/OGCD tax to swap effectively. The issue comes up with unchained negating much of the penalties afterwards (and depending on your position, equilibrium). Drk is supposed to make up with that by gaining access to more MP via blood price to serve that role of softening a short duration swap. But that got nerfed due to mass pull issues (which I don't understand. Balancing around trash pulls in dungeons is dumb imo).
War is 'supposed' to be in tank stance more often as IB is locked behind it while TBN/Shell isn't and why unchained is so strong. But SE painted themselves into a corner when they made Shelltron/TBN not tied to stance and left IB in stance. They had to buff up war's defensive suite to make it compete with Pld/Drk out of tank stance missing IB. But that makes defiance overly powerful. If they nerf the CD suite, war will be 'balanced' in defiance, but weak in deliverance without IB to prop it up the way TBN/Shelltron does on Pld/Drk.
But the solution to this problem is not to make everyones tank swaps the same. The War vs pld/Drk problem is centered around the cornerstone mitigation abilities being uneven. Shell/TBN always available while IB isn't creates a balance nightmare. So long as war has to pretend to play in two states (with and without IB access) and still match Pld/Drk mitigation all the time, we will have problems. -
03-28-2018, 01:44 AMLaunchedHow about right after whatever damage you're entering tank stance for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saeno
-
03-28-2018, 01:56 AMSaenoYou would still be using Equilibrium in Defiance, not outside of it which was my point. I also feel like Equilibrium is better used before the damage than after but either or works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Launched
-
03-28-2018, 06:34 AMChrono_Rising
I support your idea of turning them into oGCD abilities. It is silly at this point that if you warrior is main tanking and dies unexpectedly you need to: waste a GCD getting into tank stance and then potentially needing to waste an additional GCD getting to your enmity combo since aggro is generated on the second step meanwhile a raid boss is eating a dps. However, I think there should be costs associated with activating the paladin and dark knight abilities along with their penalties, though paladin would need higher mp costs on its abilities.
I don't see such an issue with balance, since the mp costs still makes the stances undesirable, and because warrior has tools to remove the understandable features of their stance. It is true warrior does not get an immediate benefit from their stance, but they can circumvent most of their penalties.
Problem 1: Max HP raised 25% but actual hp is unchanged
Answer 1: in your next oGCD use equilibrium (keep in mind double weaving exists)
Problem 2: Damage penalties are applied to attacks
Answer 2: Use unchained and minimize this to a lower amount lost
IMO Warrior's stance should be balanced around being flexible. You may not get an "immediate benefit" but you can circumvent the down sides, and so far no fight I'm aware of actually requires tank stance use at all.
No GCD cost
No resource cost
Penalties can be circumvented
Defensive cooldowns shortened to increase durability since inner beast is locked behind tank stance.
This is really powerful stuff they are getting for the "perceived" weakness.
Paladin and Dark Knight get "immediate" benefits, but have no way to circumvent their costs. Losing 20% to 25% of my damage for mitigation for a few seconds is enough of a penalty along with mana costs, we don't need to lose a GCD or two to balance us further. -
03-28-2018, 07:56 AMSaenoWell said. Even if the devs say oGCD stance is too powerful, at least ease up on the cost of the tank stance or perhaps give an Unchained equivalent to all tanks. Defiance and WAR has so many great features with their stance that the weakness of the stance may as well not be there. The fact that they can remove even the damage penalty with Unchained is a bit much when the other tanks can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono_Rising