That's been one of my arguments since the beginning. They can't allow them to be so different that an "OT" can't tank normal duties. They can't say "We'll limit the possibility of OT/OT comps by designing them such that they can't efficiently MT". Then you're forcing tanks to level up and learn to play 2 jobs, so they have an option in either situation, instead of having 1 main job that can participate in all content. So, if they can't really design them that differently - the community is absolutely going to try to make OT/OT work, or make it the preferred meta comp, start excluding jobs, etc. etc. We end up in the same boat we're in now we've just shifted the jobs around a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius2625
-
04-12-2019, 01:39 AMwhiskeybravo
-
04-12-2019, 01:47 AMReynhartYes, they can, for the same reason that they can say "BLM is a very bad physical DPS". OT and MT would become different spec of tanks. Of course, "can't efficiently MT" would only matter in 8-man content, or even Savage content, which is the only content where balance really matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
Even in content with tank swaps, you could easily have the OT tank only for the duration of the usual debuff that required the swap in the first place. Or, if they expand OT's toolkit, even have skills that negates the need to swap. -
04-12-2019, 02:15 AMwhiskeybravoThat's.. An odd analogy. BLM isn't a physical DPS. Nor is it trying to be. To say it would be a "bad physical DPS" is nonsensical because it's not a physical DPS job to begin with. Additionally, you could take a BLM instead of physical DPS for the simple cost of forgoing what a physical DPS can bring to the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Regardless, even in your situation, the OT will never be able to do anything other than OT. Even if you are a PLD now and always get relegated to OT, at least you can pick up any content and be a MT instead. You aren't limited by the system as to what role you have in any specific content.
What I'm saying is that now you are a defacto OT PLD, and are made incapable of taking MT position in any content (by design, because we have to mitigate OT/OT comps). If fully realized you would not be able to tank any 1 tank content. In content where there is 2 tanks you are obligated now by an arbitrary design choice to only ever be in the OT role. If you want to me a MT you'll have to level up and master a MT job separately. This of course is a bit of hyperbole, as I'm taking the idea to it's fullest logical conclusion to make a case against it.. or at least, attempting to lol
If they don't make them different enough, then I believe we could very well end up in a situation where OT/OT is the dominant comp. But if they go too far and make them incapable of performing the other's role if needed, then we also end up in a bad situation where you're required to have as many different jobs as needed for any given piece content.
In the end I don't think SE is really going to go through with this, so it's likely not a big deal either way. -
04-12-2019, 03:09 AMPhoeniciaEasy to win when you're not taking the hits in the first place I guess?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabooa
-
04-12-2019, 03:35 AMAurelius2625
People like Reynhart are evidence that I am not crazy in my fear for tanking in ShB.
-
04-12-2019, 03:50 AMReynhartObviously, you're perfectly fine with DPS being split into three types. Why is splitting tanks into two so inconceivable ?Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
No, because viable is not the same as optimal. Maybe an OT won't have enough personal mitigation to tank the whole fight and would require more tank swaps, or they would require more tank stance uptime, in a tank stance that could even be more detrimental to them that the stance of expected "MT", or simply requiring more healing giving healers less room to DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
I always use the same example. In a world where fight design would require more tank stance uptime, having DRK's tank stance reflect/leech damage would make it a MT that don't lose DPS by being in tank stance, as opposed to PLD would could still have the ShO penalty. PLD could still be able to Main Tank, but would simply be less efficient than DRK. Or, the opposite, having Darkside be a toggle that would spend DRK's HP to power its WS instead of MP (Like the iconic DRK), making it more desirable as an OT, because it would have to drop Darkside in the MT position to be able to survive.
Yes, exactly like you would have to level up a different DPS if you want to switch from melee to ranged or physical to magical.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
You just have to change stances so that they heavily favor a given spec for each job. I've given example for an OT DRK and an MT DRK just above, and you could find 6 other stances to imagine what each job would do in each spec.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
-
04-12-2019, 04:16 AMwhiskeybravoBecause the job of a DPS is to deal damage, and their separated roles don't take away from their core responsibility of doing such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
I'm not disputing what is/isn't/will be/won't be optimal. I'm disputing the idea that separating OT/MT roles actually accomplishes anything different than what we have now, we'll just be confined by a more rigid system.Quote:
No, because viable is not the same as optimal. Maybe an OT won't have enough personal mitigation to tank the whole fight and would require more tank swaps, or they would require more tank stance uptime, in a tank stance that could even be more detrimental to them that the stance of expected "MT", or simply requiring more healing giving healers less room to DPS.
Again, it's not substantially different than what we have now. All you're doing is shifting around the current formula - tanks are picked (or not picked) precisely because of the abilities in their kit. Not because there is some arbitrary standard that WAR is MT and PLD is an OT. We arrived here because of their kits.Quote:
I always use the same example. In a world where fight design would require more tank stance uptime, having DRK's tank stance reflect/leech damage would make it a MT that don't lose DPS by being in tank stance, as opposed to PLD would could still have the ShO penalty. PLD could still be able to Main Tank, but would simply be less efficient than DRK. Or, the opposite, having Darkside be a toggle that would spend DRK's HP to power its WS instead of MP (Like the iconic DRK), making it more desirable as an OT, because it would have to drop Darkside in the MT position to be able to survive.
But if just want to DPS, then I can level and play any DPS without necessarily being hindered in my choices. If I just want to play tank, well wait do I want to MT or OT?Quote:
Yes, exactly like you would have to level up a different DPS if you want to switch from melee to ranged or physical to magical.
Again, we are back at square 1 where the kit decides whether a tank is a better at OT or MT. If they design DRK to be a MT but then give it a lackluster kit people aren't going to take it as a MT.Quote:
You just have to change stances so that they heavily favor a given spec for each job. I've given example for an OT DRK and an MT DRK just above, and you could find 6 other stances to imagine what each job would do in each spec.
I guess that's what happens when you lack imagination...
I believe the only reason OT/MT proposition has appeal is because if offers the glimmer of hope that most tank mains have been asking for regarding balance. We all agree there is a point that should be reached for and eventually arrived at, but it doesn't follow this is the best or only way to get to that point. If they can spend so much time designing a new system, why can't they spend as much time fixing the one they already have? -
04-12-2019, 04:32 AMReynhartOf course, there won't be an "arbitrary standard as who is MT and who is OT", they would obviously have their kit oriented into being one or the other. But it would give more room to make their kit unique. For example, if you have dedicated OTs and MTs, you don't need their tank stance to simply be copy/paste of each other, because people would expect tank stance to give more benefits to MT than OT.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
But this has nothing to do with the concept of having separate MT and OT. They just need to do their design well. And frankly, right now, PLD has the most oriented kit, and do extremely well as an OT, so they at least have some grasp of what makes a good OT.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
To be fair, it's a pretty strong reason. It's probably not the only one, but I personally think it's a good opportunity to make tanks more unique, because they don't all have to be equally effective at everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
They're fixing the current system more and more since ARR, and it only ended up making tanks feel more similar the more they're balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
-
04-12-2019, 04:40 AMshao32The whole MT/OT is to make balance more viable and easy at the same time they offer more optimal choices of tank compositions instead of bring the 2 most optimals and have the middle ones that don't belong to any side taking dust, no break 2 tanks and make them unable to do certain dutys like having less defensive skills or something like that, the point its make tank balance more accesible and straightforward not change the whole tanking panorama to a WOW extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
-
04-12-2019, 05:52 AMwhiskeybravo
I'm not trying to berate your opinion, I just find it incredibly flawed.
They aren't exactly copy/paste now. In theory they provide the same effects, but in functioning reality they are different enough that we've picked jobs almost entirely due to how simply using it effects your GCD. There's a big difference between intended functionality and how it functions in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
But if SE believes that PLD is a MT, how did they arrive with such an incredible OT kit? That they need to "do their design well" holds true whether we keep the status quo or shift to a new paradigm.Quote:
But this has nothing to do with the concept of having separate MT and OT. They just need to do their design well. And frankly, right now, PLD has the most oriented kit, and do extremely well as an OT, so they at least have some grasp of what makes a good OT.
So you trust them to make a new system with new ideas better than the existing system they haven't been able to fix? I still dispute that they feel more similar. Sure, from a defensive perspective, they all have relatively the same buttons they can press at similar intervals - and that's actually a good thing because then we don't really have to worry about how a fight is designed per se, each tank will have it's respective cooldown to mitigate a particular mechanic. Where they are most different is in their offensive kit, and it is this half of the kit we spend the most time concerned about, the most time perfecting, the most time being aware of, etc etc. If we are going to ask where it would be more important for tanks to differ, I think we can agree that it's better for offensive differentiation rather than defensive simply because it's where we spend most of our time & effort in actuality. Mitigation can be interesting, but it doesn't necessarily need to be interesting so much as effective. Whereas offense on the other hand makes a much bigger impact in holding our interest, so it should be fun and unique to that job, giving it it's own playstyle. Offensive ability between tanks can be equally effective so long as each is interesting enough on it's own.Quote:
They're fixing the current system more and more since ARR, and it only ended up making tanks feel more similar the more they're balanced.
When I spoke of homogenization in earlier posts, it was in context to the above ideas. If the tanks are designed fairly equally from a defensive & offensive perspective then we can interchange them more easily and have more diverse group compositions as a result. Part of the earlier problem with DRK is that it simply wasn't on par with the other tanks defensively. Even people who aren't tank mains constantly mentioned how they felt more squishy, especially during leveling. A lot of damage was already done, but as soon as it got fixed defensively there was a noticeable rebound in DRK enthusiasm. Again balancing for offense, as long as we are equally effective then they are free to experiment with interesting and different playstyles.
The core elements of tanking are grabbing/holding threat, and mitigation. That's it. Everything else is the cherry on top. Fix the basic fundamental elements and build the jobs out offensively from there. Build out their party support from there. Build out their unique "gimmick" from there. Then build out interesting encounters from all of that.
All 3 (4) tanks should be equally capable of performing their role in any content or it's going to lead to job exclusion, the weakest link will always get left out. If we grant this premise then it's technically impossible for them to make OT/MT jobs any different than they perform now. -
04-12-2019, 06:42 AMKaliseDPS being split into "Three types" isn't actually that true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
They're all just DPS.
When people make parties, they don't go around looking for 1 mDPS, 1 rDPS, 1 mage and 1 "Random" to make their parties.
They go with 4 different DPS. Often looking to optimize pDPS vs tDPS (So things like DRG/NIN/BRD have been standard for a while, with the 4th slot sometimes being MCH, sometimes being SAM, sometimes being SMN)
But really, any 4 DPS jobs will suffice for content. Certain mechanics will favour a particular DPS subrole, but it's still possible to clear with pretty much any set up.
MT vs OT as a division creates the notion that there HAS to be a MT and OT. Otherwise they wouldn't be designed in this manner, since it suggests that the "OT" designed tanks would be unsuitable for a MT role, or at least, notably less effective.
And if this division doesn't create this scenario where "OT" tanks can't MT... Then you've achieved nothing in this design except laid the foundations of imbalance between the 4 tanks and thus pushed people towards a specific meta pairing. Literally just doing the thing that people have been complaining about since HW.
The difference here is that switching from melee to ranged to magical isn't changing role. You're still a DPS. You still fill DPS spots in parties. You can still party with literally every other DPS job and you'll be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Switching DPS jobs is just switching your playstyle.
Switching between a "MT" and "OT" tank would be switching your role, in many iterations of balancing the 2 to be designed specifically for one sub-role or another.
Except the part where no-one gives a damn about stances?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Where also, everyone will pretty much guaranteed find a way to cheese content without utilizing tank stances? Like they have been doing since forever?
Designing "MT" around being in a Tank stance is doomed to fail hard. Either OT's will rein supreme with their superior "DPS Stance" or "MT" will just run DPS stance 24/7 too and all your balancing will lead to another stale meta of everyone in DPS stances using DPS combo's but oh wait, Holmgang is rigged af and PLD has bunches of utility woo...
You already don't have copy/paste tank stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Nor do you need them.
Especially given that no-one really uses them anyway.
Like, as far as current encounters go, "Tank Stances" have literally no baring on tank balance at all (Despite WAR having the strongest defensive boost in tank stance due to access to Inner Beast)
The major things that cause balance issues are:
Total DPS output - Which is irrelevant to tank stances.
Tankbuster mitigation - Which is irrelevant to tank stances (Since everyone just pops CD's like Holmgang in DPS stance)
Utility skills - Which is irrelevant to tank stances.
Snap enmity - Which is somewhat relevant to tank stances (Mostly it's down to not the actual stance itself, but other abilities or lack thereof. WAR has Unchained which is really good. While PLD has no good oGCD burst enmity skill like Equilibrium/Plunge/Dark Passenger. Then it's the whole spending a GCD for PLD to change stance thing too)
Thus, there's no real reason that tanks can't all have vastly different stances that offer a multitude of different gameplay shifts, so long as the above mentioned 4 major points are balanced.
Just like you can mess with literally every part of a tanks kit as long as those four things are balanced. DPS rotations, CC skills, fluff damage mitigation etc. -
04-12-2019, 07:06 AMReynhartAgain, people claim that, but when did SE actually said that for SB's PLD ? Everything they changed for PLD screams OT, and we use it as an OT.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
Well, on a much grander scale, that's exactly what they did to create ARR, so yes. Because, sometimes, the reason you can't fix something is because it's flawed at its very core.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
Well, I probably am in the minority, but no, I disagree on that. I think tanks should be different mainly on how they survive. At the beginning, WAR was supposed to survive by having an absurd amount of HP, and it's a shame they didn't stick with this idea. For me, Inner Beast would have been much more interesting if is still healed for 300% of your damage, but if the overheal would actually increase your max HP. Also, Grit being a copy/paste of ShO is the most disappointing DRK skill, in my opinion. Again, a Dread Spikes would have given roughly the same eHP, but with a different twist, making it as effective, but different.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
On casual content, their pros and cons won't matter much. And for difficult content, it's expected that people will still want to fill both the MT spot and the OT spot, for the same concept of having twice the same tank right now is not very effective. And, exactly like you can clear any content right now with a PLD as your "MT" and a WAR as your "OT", you'll still be able to clear any content with any couple of tanks. It doesn't stop them from being heavily more efficient at one spec.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
It's not "especially during leveling", it's "only during leveling". TBN fixes all pre-70 issue with DRK.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
No, because, suddently, you only have to balance tanks two by two. For example, if PLD/GUN are balanced as OT, and WAR/DRK are balanced as MT, you'll take any of them since, most of the time, you'll still want one "MT" and one "OT" to be more efficient. It's the same with RDM and SAM. People where upset because SAM's DPS wasn't balanced with other melee and RDM's with other casters, not with the whole 9 DPS, because casters, ranged and melee category already carry their own strengths and weaknesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskeybravo
Well, the matchmaking does, as much as possible. And I really think it's pretty common to have different types of DPS in your party, because they offer you different role actions and different limit breaks, to cover more situations. Funnily enough, every savage world first team covers the 3 types of DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
Yes, less effective, but it's not a problem, as long as it can clear. Exactly like it's less effective to bring 4 MNKs or 2 DRKs in your party. Also, if you have an OT and a MT, you don't have to rely on tank swaps over and over to make the OT feel useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
-
04-12-2019, 09:13 AMshao32there was always a sub-division on the DPS role, melee/ranged/caster has been a thing since forever, for balance, for new jobs added and for utility and ppl always try to form a party with at least 2 melees 1 ranged and 1 caster since ever, DPS are actually the best example of what Devs can do with tanks, all of then capable of do his basic duty tanking, but have diferent kits to being more suitable to being MT/OT, meaby they create 2 diferent sets of role skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
there is always been a MT/OT notion in the game, but it was uncontroled with every tank should be balanced with everyone, that creates more and more problems this 2 last expansion that anything in the game, with a job taking adventage about the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
why you think we are going to that extreme always?, ranged are diferent to melees in a lot of stuff not only in his personal rotations but they utility and role skills, why if they replicate this to tanks should be diferent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
thats not true, Pll care about tank stances, we complaing since HW that tank stances are so bad they are only a waste of space mostly and they can give us a emity buff instead, JP forum show his concerns about tank stances a long time ago and yoship adress the problem, so in SHB tank stances can be a important point on tank balance and most important to the theorical MT/OT balance path and no necesary have the same penaltys as they have today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
-
04-12-2019, 04:06 PMKaliseDPS has always been DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Not every party comp has been trying to go 2 melee 1 ranged 1 caster.
I've been in my fair share of parties that had 0 melee or 0 casters for example.
MT/OT is normally about someone's position in a party. At least for games with not terrible balancing for Tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
The MT/OT divide in FFXIV comes down to the fact that they made tanks inherently imbalanced so that people pick the best tank and the second best tank and ignored the 3rd tank which is the weakest one.
All that forcing MT/OT designs does is make it so that people pick the best MT tank and best OT tank. With the other 2 being left in the dust.
Meanwhile, if you actually balanced the tanks so that none of them are significantly stronger or more useful than the others, then people will be able to pick any 2 tanks.
Since, if they don't go to this extreme, then it's just going to be a complete mess where 2 tanks are designed for a specific sub-role but it doesn't matter because they weren't designed enough around sub roles and people will still just use the 2 best tanks (Which are likely to be WAR and PLD, irregardless of which sub-role they belong to)Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
No-one cares about Tank Stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
No-one uses Tank Stances (Outside of the pull)
In fact, people are aggressively against any notion of being "Forced" into Tank Stances, as you might be able to see across a slew of threads that bring up the idea where people say they and a large portion of the Tank community will unsub/swap to DPS if forced Tank Stances became a thing. -
04-12-2019, 04:32 PMMegguido
Feels like overreacting about something that we don't know. They just said they could split tanks into sub roles.
A MT / OT comp will most likely won't be necessary for any casual content. Any normal raid, trial, dungeon will be easily clearable with two "OT", even a party with 4 BRD without a DRG can clear anything just fine, because tankbusters barely kill you without any defensive, and there's no DPS checks either. Hell, you can clear Alphascape V4 normal with 2 DRK, 2 WHM and 4 Ice mages without any issue.
Savage and Ultimate would probably force people to get as many roles as possible, so one OT and one MT, but it's kinda the case for any other role anyway (e.g. you don't want 2 shield or 2 regens healers, you want a ranged for mana song etc...) -
04-12-2019, 05:04 PMReynhartNo, people are against being forced into a stance that offers no benefit. That's why tank stances should be changed so that they have more value, either by being more efficient for MT situation, (Because let's be honest, DPS stances are as bland as tank stances, you toggle them and then forget you even have them) or by offering a different gameplay experience from when you don't have them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
-
04-12-2019, 06:56 PMAlestrae
I agree with Reyn that all tanks are capable of (main) tanking the content. I hope we all feel this way. I believe that designing to be capable is what designers do. They design abilities on what they think is thematic (or cool if you prefer) for the class to have. They chose for example not to call a PLD ability "mega-death gloom reaper". They then tweak the numbers enough so that all are capable of (main) tanking the content. And then they stop and move on to the next thing they have to design.
Then the players take over, players who genuinely want to help other players, players who want to be the best they can be, players who want to squeeze every bit of efficiency they can out of their characters (and others), players who want to "beat" the game and players who want evidence of why the job they play feels more "efficient" than others. All these groups of players then mathematics the abilities to death, they test rotations, burst windows, sustained dps, everything they can by playing their job as often as possible. Then they compare results and say this job (or set up) is more optimal and present their findings to everyone else. These people are in a way "Game Scientists".
Other players then look at this and decide to try it.
Just because one set up is optimal does not make the others less capable of the content. This is why I used the maths example in an earlier post. The "capable benchmark" is 9. 4 5 6 7 any added combination of those two numbers will meet or exceed 9. That means any combination is capable. However 6+7=13 which is the highest value above 9 the combinations can reach. That means they will be the most optimal/efficient.
Talking about core tanking now without specifics. People have said in this thread that the core identity of a Tank is mitigation(active or passive); threat(active/passive) and enough dps to get by outside of instances.
What if that is only the identity of the Main Tank, the one intended to be taking the hits.
Judging from what people have said about mechanics of the game in this thread, the core requirement for an off tank is to be there for a swap for unstackable strikes or debuffs. Which means an off tank needs only the ability to get attention for a short period of time.
If the job of the off-tank is there to "support" the tank what does that entail because there is an entire party or raid there doing that. -
04-12-2019, 08:43 PMPhoeniciaThen imagine this scenario: You queue for an extreme primal or 24-man and end up with all OTs, what are you going to do? Specially in 24 mans where interaction with the other tanks is limited because the alliance system in this game sucks (it's sucking is besides the point). We'll just have 3 tanks incapable of the three metrics you spoke of. And those 3 tanks can't help each other in the way you mentioned because of the sucky alliance limitations. And a total of 6 healers that wanna slit their own wrists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alestrae
I mean even right now, it feels bad to get into a 24 man and find 3 PLDs. Or I go in as a PLD and the other two non-PLD tanks are too uncomfortable tanking and they look at the 80k HP PLD to pull? Personally, I will only pull in Sword Oath and no aggro combos. Thanks to people not caring about their performance I get to hold aggro with my DPS alone.. But the boss dances a LOT in the early 10~15 seconds because the same 2-3k DPS people don't care to press diversion either. If you think that's toxic, ok, but don't blame me, blame SE for not giving a PLD a way to pull without mega DPS loss. I still think it feels bad even after doing that.
What I'm trying to get at is, and this is mostly personal experience: I don't want to play a job that feels bad to play. Most of us play to have fun and a lot of us find a class they identify with to optimize on is more fun than playing FoTM jobs. So if forced "main tanking" on job X is a "feels bad experience" I'm not gonna play it. I've been a tank player in MMOs since 2001 and I've never been even tempted to main things out of the role like I have in this game. I played casters in HW and most of SB because I did not like being pigeonholed on tanks into a certain "spot" and was not going to go back to tanking if my current static of friends didn't need a tank with the caster spot filled.
A lot of people will claim it does not matter outside of savage or ultimate or extremes or what have you, personally I do not do ANY level sync'd content because it feels bad to play without my abilities than to SE's idea of back-loading all jobs' good abilities in the last 4 levels. To me, it matters that I cannot use Flare or Hallowed Ground in Aurum Vale. It matters that I cannot deathflare pre-60. I'm sure there are many others that would NOT tank roulettes because they do not like losing IR on WAR, TBN on DRK, the ability to do ANY AoE on PLD and that's a lot of tanks out of your "leveling roulette". Imagine this extending to 24 mans where 2 out of the 4 tanks (being the OTs) do not queue at all because they aren't fun to tank on, assuming they have the capability to do so in the first place. It isn't "savage or ultimate", sure, but it's definitely bad experience for everyone involved.
Let us not forget the community's take on things. You still see people that think "PLD = MT because shield" and tell you to let the PLD do it or the PLD themselves fight you over aggro. What if what SE designates an OT is fully capable but people get sour and salty that the "OT" wants to tank instead of the "MT". Right now I just let the other tank that wants to tank "tank" because all 3 jobs can completely do it. But later when 2 jobs because bad at it how do we handle the situation? Do we get toxic towards each other because my job is better than your job or vis-a-vis? Or do we just leave the "baddie" for his healers to complain at him? Or do we wait for them to die and /point and /laugh?
Am I exaggerating? Probably yes as we do not have all the details yet, so it depends on what the "sub-role split" is done. If it is something like: "Pulling on A is better than B" then that isn't as big of a deal. I don't care if I'm the tank that doesn't pull an encounter. I DO care that if I am the only tank I need to be fully 100% capable of doing my job without paying a silly price like completely misaligned everything with raid burst or whatever other silly idea SE might have where not all tanks get to do their job for free.
It is already bad that tanks are the rarest breed. When you start to even split their capabilities and limit them even more, you'll have even less of them. Tanking is considered boring by too many people, so devs need to stop attacking what tanks find fun in their role. If tanks enjoy doing DPS, SE shouldn't nerf the DPS like they have actively been since ARR (read the book "Tanks and STR Accessories" :P). So if tanks are asking for inclusion in most content, you do not subdivide them and increase the gabs even further.
It is a fact that no matter what the balance team does in a scenario of more jobs than there are available slots, there will always be a "best" and a "worst". Even if the worst is 99.9999% of the best. But when the gap is a 0.0001%, people won't care as much. However, if the difference is so clear it will just lock the best class.
Example 1: Check WoW's monk that is literally immune to 1 shots vs other tanks that had more mitigation in raiding. Raiders took 2 monks for ALL of early prog even though monk required the most healer babysitting out of the tanks simply because the one-shot immunity is just too valuable.
Example 2: Death knight vs other tanks in mythic+ dungeons where DK's ability to self heal meant healers had time to focus on everyone else and even dish out DPS. Did people take the other tanks? Yes, if they didn't get kicked for joining on the wrong class. Were they well represented? Heck no!
But again, WoW is notorious for their inability to balance their classes and its community is well known for toxicity.
This game does allow us to have all jobs on the same character and my job not being the FoTM is easily mitigated by my ability to switch to the FoTM, it does NOT mean I am enjoying my time. Why do people that enjoy BLM, DRK, MCH and any non-meta job HAVE to switch to meta job they do not enjoy to do content the way they enjoy? Or have a VERY hard time to find people kind enough to accept them out of charity into their groups? This whole balance cry-outs and fiestas are about people asking for the ability to play >any< job they enjoy in >any< content they enjoy.
So yes, it DOES matter everywhere. After all, some of us like to perform well everywhere and not just "savage and ultimate".
Sorry for the rants. Had to get it out of my chest :P -
04-12-2019, 09:03 PMReynhartWell, considering you're expected to have at least one OT, first, you don't make it sound like your two/three tanks are useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenicia
And second, any content outside of Savage can already be cleared with every tank sitting on its tank stance 100% and just spamming their enmity combo over and over again, so clearing won't ever be an issue.
And again, the matchmaking already tries to build a more diverse setup, so it's easy to enforce it more on the MT/OT categories.
Actually, no, it sucking is a more important point than the balance of tanks. Not being able to use some skills on alliance member is stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenicia
Again, not being optimal has nothing to do with being incapable of doing things, and since you only need one MT per content, whatever setup you have, you'll never have all of your tanks miscast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenicia
-
04-12-2019, 09:44 PMKaliseCurrently yes, but currently the tanks haven't been designed around a 2x MT + 2x OT set up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
There's a possibility that the design could end up being drastic enough to make it impossible for a particular type of tank to work in a "MT" capacity.
If not and all tanks can do all content... Then why bother even trying to design around 2x MT + 2x OT? Why not just make 4x TANK?
That's literally the entire premise of this thread.
Either designing for sub-roles is going to have such little impact that it's not worth doing over just designing all the tanks to have similar capacity.
Or it's going to end up being severe enough that it will affect random parties and screw over people who just prefer the general gameplay and aesthetics of a particular job.
At the end of the day, there hasn't been a particularly convincing argument about why designing the job into 2x MT and 2x OT is actually a great idea.
Since it doesn't help with any of the balance issues that have been plaguing Tanks forever, nor does it particularly open up any sort of design space (If anything, it limits design space)
It's literally the same issue as Healers have been dealing with in regards to Shield vs Regen healing. Where technically all healers can clear all content, but due to the inherent design in splitting them into sub-roles it creates massive imbalance especially when one type of role is preferred (Shield healing) and thus the best job for it is the dominant one and so people just take the best of the remaining options (Which is Regen AST because Shield AST sucks and shields don't stack)
So, it defies all logic for Yoshida to comment about having to hold back on releasing a healer because he has to rethink the entire paradigm of splitting healers into sub-roles because it flat out doesn't work because of the inherent imbalance it creates, while at the same time also suggesting to do the exact same thing with the Tank role
Make queues worse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Brilliant idea. 10/10. Can't possibly irritate players at all, ever.
:rolleyes:
...Unless they make it so that OT designed Tanks can't MT. In which case if you run/get matched 2x "OT" (3x in Alliance) you're screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
-
04-12-2019, 10:03 PMMegguidoA tank that cannot MT at all is called a "DPS". We already have 9 of those, and a 10th in a couple of months. SE aren't that stupid, considering they want every job to be viable at every content level (minus Ultimate, maybe).Quote:
Unless they make it so that OT designed Tanks can't MT. In which case if you run/get matched 2x "OT" (3x in Alliance) you're screwed.
Who seriously uses Duty Finder to queue for an extreme primal ? Party Finder is miles better for extreme and savage fights.Quote:
Then imagine this scenario: You queue for an extreme primal or 24-man and end up with all OTs, what are you going to do?
-
04-12-2019, 10:10 PMReynhartThere's also a possibility that it won't end like this, especially since, right now, very few fights are actually designed with two full time tanks in mind. Even when tank swaps happen, it's frequently because of a short time debuff, so the "MT" could easily take back the boss soon after, when you can't even simply skip the swap with Cover...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
Because it's still easier to balance the two OT and the two MT separatly than trying to have 4 tanks that are equally efficient at both MT and OT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
I like how you're convinced that there's only two possible outcomes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
Again, it's easier to balance tanks two by two instead of the four of them, exactly like DPS are balanced primarly by categories, and then categories are balanced against each other with their native pros and cons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
It's because Shield and Regen healers still covers the exact same need. It would be different if you have "tank" healers and "raid" healers, as you could split them between powerful single targets or powerful AoEs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
Yeah, instead of instant queue tanks, you'll have to wait 10 seconds, oh, the horror !Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
You know, all this doom saying is really funny, considering we already have a heavily OT designed tank, that's still perfectly capable of MTing anything...Right now, given the choice over the three tanks, no one would ever argue that giving DRK or WAR the OT spot over PLD is better...and yet, the world didn't explode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
-
04-12-2019, 10:14 PMshao32you don't know how this game work then, all DPS stay in the same category on matchmaking yes but outside of that they are pretty diferent groups, they have they own role skills, ranged have refresh, tacticia, palisade,ect, melees have goad, true north, feint, diversion, bloodbath, ect and casters have swiftcast, addle, lucid dreaming, apocatastasis, ect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
you literally give the best example, its not necesary but if you have all of then you party will be more optimal since its the ideal composition and this can be the way of the tanks, being pretty diferent of each couple but still being tanks on matchmaking all of then and being able to do his duty as tanks on any duty finder.
thats literally imposible excep everyone have they own version of veil/Sio, cover, intervetion/TBN, thats just make clones of each other, something nobody will want, why we have 4 tanks then? all of then are practically equal? slight rotation diferences? are still pretty equal, right now WAR and PLD are clones in they dps rotation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
as someone in HW says, for that lets just combine all tank jobs and call it the mighty Dark Warrdin Breaker, meaby we apear in gurren laggan as a easter egg.
They can't balance tanks on MT/OT with 3 tanks thats why they din't, they can't do that bcs then it will be 1 job in the MT or the OT post being alone and obviously the must pick and have the other 2 fighting fot the other spot so they instead balance everyone with everyone making this mess.
you sugestion only makes 2 tanks with the best kits are going to be mandatory and the other 2 stay in a corner, and when balance come Devs have to make every single ajustment compete against 3 tanks instead of 1, this increase the chance of create more imbalance and more ppl upset when they favourite job its not longer mandatory.
middle terms exist you know, you can have 2 tanks being the only source of slaishing and the other 2 have all the aoe shields for example and will work, you dont need to take it to a extreme to make it work, there are so many ways to implement this without being invasive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
Tank stances are not used on optimal play thats true but that dosent mean ppl don,t care about it, ppl want a tank stance rework not being forced to stay on current tank stances, they want it to work better in high end conten and optimal gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
i will ask you again, why are you so closed to the idea of a tank stance rework? you just literally ignore any posibility of having better tank stances and use the current desing as a excuse to support you arguments. -
04-12-2019, 10:50 PMKaliseThere's also a possibility that it will end like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Because they've shown that they're so good at that already right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
What with DRK being equally balanced to WAR? As both are MT's in the current design (Or OT's if you're SE)
Oh wait, no.
What other possibility is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
In what way can they make subroles that won't either:
Invalidate a particular sub-role by being too heavily designed around sub-roles.
Cause THE EXACT SITUATION WE HAVE NOW where a particular job (Or in this case, subrole) just does everything good enough but has benefits that people prefer over the other subrole's benefits. (You know, like how DRK CAN MT all content, but people prefer WAR because Holmgang and IR during burst windows)
But they're not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
They're balanced based on their unique playstyles.
Like how SAM and BLM are balanced around being "Selfish DPS" that bring little to no utility but heaps of damage.
How MNK and RDM are pretty meh because they don't do as much personal DPS as SAM/BLM and their party utility is physical damage buff only (Both on a pretty absurd CD compared to Trick Attack too)
If they cover the same need, wouldn't it be easier to balance them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
"Since you only need to balance 2 types of healer instead of 3 hurr durr"
It's not the Tank players that will complain about queue times increasing because of dumb decisions made with tanking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
It's going to be the DPS that already wait 10-30 minute queues for getting their 1-2 Tanks of any kind that will see a significant impact to splitting the Tank role and enforcing this split in DF (Especially early on in ShB when everyone will be FotM Gunbreaker)
Yes. And how well is tank balance working when you apparently only need to balance WAR vs DRK as MT's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
I'm sure it's a 50% split between WAR's and DRK's being run as MT's right?
Since it's not like, designing for a sub-role completely ignores the actual issues with Tank balance at all. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Yeah, but outside of Refresh, none of these role skills are actually noteworthy enough for you to go out of your way to add a particular sub-role to your composition.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
DPS are brought based on what their specific job brings, or if it's not a particularly strict meta team, you just pick any 4 DPS and if one of them is rDPS for Refresh then great.
Doesn't necessarily have to be clones.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Not every Tank NEEDS an AoE shield. Not every tank NEEDS Intervention/TBN.
What every tank NEEDS is equal TB CD's. Snap Enmity. DPS output.
With party utility being also desired as an equal thing between tanks so as to not promote one tank to being the premier OT unduly. OT utility doesn't necessarily need to be AoE shield, Intervention(TBN) and Passage of Arms - Those are just the things that currently exist (Also, all on one job ironically)
Except they didn't did they?Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
They balanced PLD for OT by stuffing its kit with a bunch of utility it can use while OT and then pitted WAR and DRK to fight for MT spot.
Though it's not that difficult to make all Tanks equal (Or close to). The only way it becomes difficult is when you throw in imbalance intentionally, such as designing certain jobs to be better at certain subroles.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
You should not make balance decisions around people who want to have their job remain mandatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Otherwise it matters not what you're doing, since you'd just be keeping WAR and PLD as the only Tanks that are used.
And in this scenario, no-one cares about the Slashing tanks because NIN and SAM exist to provide it too. Meanwhile, bringing 2x the AoE shields = more LB generation = more DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
This is not a middle ground, this is the exact thing I was talking about, where people will gravitate towards the optimal 2 tanks when 2 of them are designed in a way that people find less appealing.
Most people I see talking about stances on these forums talk about they hate the idea of tanking in a Tank stance full stop. Since they want to be doing the most DPS they can in the role (And since the game lets them, and keeps being designed in a way that facilitates stuff like the usage of Sheltron/TBN in DPS stance and designing WAR to function despite not having access to IB)Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
I'm not against the idea of a Tank Stance rework.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
In fact, I've been open to the idea of reworking tank stances and have in fact put forth multiple suggestions about how it could work across numerous threads.
However, until such a time that SE provides any hint that Tank Stances will be reworked to a state where people don't hate them and that Tank Stances might actually be relevant in encounters (Which are so far almost entirely reliant on TB's to do any meaningful damage, which are mitigated easily with just CD's and don't need Tank Stances extra mitigation) then maybe I might consider them a thing that exists.
Especially since, players will be players and find any possible way to allow them to bypass any "Tank Stance" that is perceived as a DPS loss over staying in DPS stance 100% of the time. -
04-13-2019, 12:33 AMAurelius2625
I can only hope that the thinking of Whiskey, Kalise, and others overpowers the thinking of Reynhart. Sorry, but Mt Ot is going to totally ruin tanking. Some jobs will inevitably get gimped by design.
Either OTs will not be able to tank when the MT dies, or OTs will do more dps, and mts will be shunned. -
04-13-2019, 03:03 AMshao32DPS are balanced with they respective group melee/ranged/caster with a base of how much all of then have to offer, BLM is not balanced against MCH or BRD, they are balanced against SMN and RDM always inside of the minimun and maximun values every DPS need to have, you don't see MCH complaing about RDM or MNK since they don't compite for his spot against them, they compite against BRD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
If all tanks dont have aoe shields, single target shields and a large ect no matter how balanced they are in dps-mitigation and enmity ppl will always pick the ones that offer the most to the party, since you balance jobs with everything that they brings not only cherry pecking what you consider important, technically we are more or less balanced in raw numbers now but PLD and WAR are the superior choices you know? they simple offer more and better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
DRK is a pivot that don't stay in any subrole in particular, they are MT when PLD are present and are decent on it and they are OT when they are with WAR and again they are decent but they are not comparable since DRK stay in the middle field of nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
im still surprised how every problem in this game its so "easy" to fix for you, and thats a nonsense, its just comon sense, more factors more harder to balance, if you try to put 4 jobs in 2 spots you have much more chances of something go wrong that having 2 jobs in each spot since if 1 just stay in the post mandatory the other 3 will have to fight for the other spot, if 2 are just the best choice then the other 2 are gonna stay like that forever bcs it cost much much more ajust a job against 3, and having 2 jobs being worse means you have to balance 1 job against 3 and the other against 3 with having in mind the new ajustment of the other lacking job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
say that to the devs, and my scenario i say 2 tanks being the onlysource of slashing, so no NIN/SAM/DNC will have it making you always have 1 of those tanks in you party and the other one that have more or less similar performance without require a stric number balance and a bunch of utility have a ideal balance scenario since you woulnt want 2 slashing tanks since it dosent offers nothing and loose party support and you woulnt want 2 utility tanks bcs you will lose slashing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
the LB generation of shiled can disapear this expansion don't say it will be stay forever like there is no other option that dealt with it.
ppl complaing about the damage penalty and ppl ask for a change since years, in JP forum they complaing about this problem a lot,and yoship himself say he is aware about tank stances problems and they are going to keep it in mind for SHB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
thats not necesaty true, depends of how is designed, if you make a tank being able to eliminate the DPS disparity betwen stances with his own skill then there is no need of bypass anything, same if they just remove stances or just remove the penaltys.
you obsesion with this scenario don't let you see more than that, there is plenty ways to make it work without need to go to that extreme at all and will make the Devs job balancing tanks much more easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelius2625
-
04-13-2019, 03:52 AMKaliseDPS are balanced as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
MCH doesn't complain about RDM or MNK because no-one wants to have RDM or MNK in their party anyway.
People want DRG/NIN/BRD/SMN right now (Sometimes DRG/BLM/BRD/SMN) because that's the 4 highest DPS jobs right now when used together (Due to their buffs)
If MCH did more damage than any of them did (This includes DPS generated through buffing other people in the party), they'd compete for the spot in the meta comp. They wouldn't just compete with BRD.
What on earth are you even saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Tanks are balanced but PLD and WAR are better because they do more?
Tanks are not balanced, because WAR has the upper hand in TB mitigation among all tanks, thanks to Holmgang and because PLD has the upper hand in OT support thanks to Cover/Intervention/Passage of Arms.
This can be solved by putting TB mitigation among all tanks to a more standardized level and by making WAR + DRK (+ GNB) also have some OT support skills.
This is most easily done by copy/pasting skills (Such as making Holmgang a 5 min CD like Living Bread and giving WAR + DRK a copy of Cover/Intervention/PoA) or it can done in a more difficult to balance way of implementing unique ways of having a same overall effect (Such as how DRK has TBN instead of Intervention, it's not quite the same, but it can be considered similar enough)
It's not. Not when most of the factors have already been homogenizedQuote:
Originally Posted by shao32
DPS is roughly equal across the board.
Most CD's are equal across the board (Holmgang being the major outlier)
Snap Enmity is almost equal across the board (Only PLD has no good way to do this)
Leaving only OT utility that is very much just not balanced in any way.
It would be far, far more difficult to balance if there were actually a bunch of skills that weren't basically copy/pasted as is. I.e. If all tanks had a unique Rampart that had varying levels of power, if 30% DR CD's were not a standard thing among the Tanks, if there was more pertinence on actually using Tank stances (Which gimps PLD due to the GCD costs while empowering WAR defensively by a large margin)
But that is not the case.
As it stands, Tanks are like 90% balanced. The option to just finish off that remaining 10% is not particularly difficult to figure out.
It's also, far easier than having to completely redesign Tanks and then rebalance them into pairs - Especially if it means completely removing all of the current framework that is shared across the board (I.e. Rampart, 30% DR CD etc)
Okay, so now your Tank splitting is now going to need you to rebalance 2 DPS jobs, in addition to rebalancing all your tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
How is this easier than just you know... Not intentionally slapping in imbalances by designing MT/OT Tanks?
Okay, so change a fundamental game mechanic AND rebalance 2 DPS jobs AND rebalance all the tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Boy, what an easy and simple solution this is turning out to be :rolleyes:
Compared to...
* Nerf Holmgang (Or remove immunity CD's from the game as a whole)
* Give PLD more upfront enmity generation on Circle of Scorn/Spirits Within/Shield Lob (Any one will work) along with removal of GCD and MP usage for both PLD/DRK stances
* Make something for WAR and DRK that provides some OT utility comparable to Cover, Intervention (For WAR) and PoA (Also, something comparable to Divine Fail for DRK)
* While designing GNB with these things in mind (Enmity oGCD to use for pulls. Utility skills comparable to Cover, Intervention, PoA, Veil. Along with standard 30% DR CD)
At the same time, Yoshi is also complaining about tanks doing too much damage. So I doubt that any change to Tank Stances is going to make these people feel any better about using them.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
But just removing stances or removing the penalties doesn't actually achieve anything. The stance would still not exist and depending on how you then redistribute enmity, you might have to also rework how pulls function.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
If you allow people to bypass DPS disparity between stances (This includes not only the Tank Stance's damage down but also the damage gains from DPS Stances themselves) then you simply render DPS stances obsolete as now everyone will just be in Tank Stance 24/7 and doing the same DPS but now with more enmity and survivability.
Yet every way you seem to suggest involves giving the Devs a ton more work :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
-
04-13-2019, 05:18 AMshao32the party composition is always have a melee, a caster and a ranged, you compositions include one of each, whats the problem? DPS are balanced betwen DPSQuote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
as a whole first and as melee/ranged/caster second to manage better the balance, its simple since you want at least 1 of each in you party.
if you have 3-4 tanks pulling same numbers but one bring a shield, the other bring a cover and the others nothing you will always pick the ones that bring something extra, its not rocket science, utility enchance party performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
and still you claim not every tank should have an aoe shield and stuff like that, you know we are go to be redesing in many ways right? a bit of work now that saves and reduce the amount of work in the future its much more efective that dealt with a ineffective way to dealt with tanks as you suggest for ever, i recomend you try to learn about the proces and hard work and manteinance the battle system needs constantly and how complex its gets when you add more and more jobs to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
its so simple, if i have 4 tanks split in 2 couples and each couple have a sinergy to work better with the other couple when we need balance you only have to balance 1 tank against only 1, not 3, more straight forward more easy to get feedback, more easy to test ect ect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
if you bring 2 tanks of the same couple the result is the overall performance will be less optimal but not imposible thats all, 99% of the content dont need it anyway.
oh yeah its more easy create a bunch of new skills for each tank to compete PLD utility and rework everything to fit WAR stances standars, for no talk about recalculate the emity and potency generation on PLD to have a proper pull, yeah much more easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
you can nerf tank damage in many ways, stats are a think too you know? they dont need a flat 20% of damage penalty to control his damage, Tanks scream a str divorce since the problem of tank acc exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
why you should rework pulls if tank stances are just removed? if you increse the enmity generation of all skill that generate enmity the result its the same, if tomahak and overpower generate more enmity without tank stance you will have ero problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
i will repeat myself, tank damage depend not only of stances, stats are the most important thing, you can tune down tank damage by removing direct hit scales too, and make it scale less with certain stats.
less that you sugestions, the diference is makes the later balancing work more straightforward when its done compared to you scenario where every tank will constantly argue with everyone, but you want to make everyone have exactly the same and for that just delete 2 tanks, bcs a MMO where every tank do the same its a boring waste of resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
-
04-13-2019, 05:32 AMwhiskeybravoSlightly out of context, as I was referring to pre-change Shadow Wall where there was a distinct difference between defensive capability even with TBN. This was all discussed heavily on these very forums. Even still, is a tank only a tank when it hits level cap? They don't have to tank anything at all on the way to level cap? You can say it matters less during leveling, but you can't say it doesn't matter at all. A problem of this nature indicates flawed design by the dev team more than any inherent fault of the battle system itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynhart
Is it really so much flawed, or do people just find it boring (or maybe, poorly executed)? If SE comes out and says "We can't do X because Y", then I'll believe them and we can then say the system is flawed. Otherwise there is no difference and this is just conjecture and opinions. If they can build a new system then it's reasonable to assume they could fix this one - unless there are specific examples and reasoning for why the current system won't work for what they want to do (or for what we want them to do).Quote:
Well, on a much grander scale, that's exactly what they did to create ARR, so yes. Because, sometimes, the reason you can't fix something is because it's flawed at its very core.
Again a bit out of context. I said specifically that defensive can be interesting, but that we do in fact spend most of our time on the offensive. It's seems worth investing more creative focus in the area where we will spend most of our time & efforts. Unless they are going to make active mitigation much more prevalent than it currently is, and have it be responsible for the majority of our time & efforts.. Otherwise we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.Quote:
Well, I probably am in the minority, but no, I disagree on that. I think tanks should be different mainly on how they survive. At the beginning, WAR was supposed to survive by having an absurd amount of HP, and it's a shame they didn't stick with this idea. For me, Inner Beast would have been much more interesting if is still healed for 300% of your damage, but if the overheal would actually increase your max HP. Also, Grit being a copy/paste of ShO is the most disappointing DRK skill, in my opinion. Again, a Dread Spikes would have given roughly the same eHP, but with a different twist, making it as effective, but different.
-----
I'm not referring to anybody specifically, but there seems to be some convolution of bad dev design reflecting a flawed battle system. That we can't achieve "balance" because A) they haven't been able to so far and/or B) the system won't allow them to. I don't think this is accurate whatsoever. As with the Shadow Wall example above, there's no indication at all that the battle system required them to make that particular decision. The battle system is not responsible for the misappropriation of a skills (why PLD as all the support skills, for example). The battle system itself did not screw SAM/RDM/BLM at the beginning of this expansion. No, the devs made conscious design choices to do those things specifically. To give those jobs those abilities, that particular damage threshold. I can't really find any reason at all the battle system itself should be held accountable for the devs inability to make proper design choices. And this is precisely why I don't take any of these claims that a new battle system will somehow solve all the problems seriously. It could, if they make the right choices - but for that matter so could the current. -
04-13-2019, 05:51 AMPhoeniciaI was going to argue but that right there made me stop. If you think a situation where less than half the jobs in a role are desired because having NIN/DRG/BRD/MCH is THE ABSOLUTE ideal setup for over 2 years, and then only MCH being "replaceable" by maybe SMN, "balanced", I don't think you should be throwing suggestion on how to balance tanks where, even when balanced, still get to call one out of three a "black sheep".Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
DPS are NOT balanced, even within their own "sub-roles" if you want to call it that. Not as long as BRD and NIN exist as they are for the upper extreme. Nor SAM, MCH and MNK for the lower extremes. The balance was so busted that the later half of Heavensward and first half of Stormblood, casters ended up leveling physical ranged or melee because, otherwise, they would have a VERY hard time getting into groups.
But that's largely on the community's fault, not just the job balance. Because even when the DPS weren't balanced, the game takes them interchangeably and you will ALWAYS get the same result of "this role does its job" by taking any combination of 4 DPS... Even if all 4 are MCHs.
What the subdivision on tanks will do is that you won't be able to take PLD+PLD. And, depends on what the dev team decide that makes MT "MT" and OT "OT", you probably can do some things on MT+MT but not as OT+OT. How is taking a tank may not necessarily means I can clear content because it can't, you know, tank, balanced?
Then if a scenario where OT+OT CAN do what OT+MT can, then the community WILL most definitely take OT+OT if it means more raid DPS. If that scenario comes to pass, and your preferred tank ends up an MT that no one wants, I will have a VERY good time reading your posts here on these forums and I WILL link you back to this very same thread to remind you that it is what you asked for.
The worse scenario is that OT ends up unable of being MT, then all queue times will be worse, tank players will more likely not wanna play OT jobs. And if it does come to pass, I will, again, have a VERY good time reading your posts here on these forums and I WILL link you back to this very same thread to remind you that it is what you asked for.
Let us not even get to where this game's encounter design has always preferred that both tanks take an equal burden of tanking. Be it split responsibility of tanking 2 different things at the same time (O3S, O6S, O7S, O12S), force swaps (O2S, O4S, O9S, O10S) or mechanics impossible for the MT to handle (O4S, O11S). A lot of tank busters are "shared" where both tanks have to mitigate at the same time (O4S, O8S, Akh Morns in pretty much every fight it pops in). A lot of mechanics require one tank to body block for the other tank (O4S, O12S). And all of the above in either Ultimates. No tank has enough cooldowns even sitting in tank stance to mitigate everything thrown at it in 95% of this game's end-game.
What do you do in the scenario, like in O6S, where the OT takes the same, if not more damage, than the MT but it doesn't have similar tools to handle the damage intake because lolOT? Do you just take 2 MTs? What if MTs just can't handle being OTs (like how PLD only had aggro combos for its DPS in ARR and HW) then do you exclude them from parties because they're bad and just take two OTs and have healers heal more?
Some might argue we're taking it to the extreme, but unless SE takes it to an extreme, what's the whole point of the subdivision in the first place?
TL;DR: Any that thinks that breaking a system where any combination of 2 jobs in the same role can interchangeably perform in an optimal manner for a system where half the jobs in the same role cannot replace the other half a good way to balance jobs is definitely out of their minds. Simple as that. -
04-13-2019, 06:18 AMKaliseNot always.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Yes and that's why I'm saying design tanks so that there isn't any that are bringing something extra.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Meanwhile your suggestion is literally make 2 tanks bring one thing extra and another 2 tanks bring another thing extra.
Also, in your suggestion you're making copy/paste out of the same 2 jobs in the role, only now there's maybe a chance that a particular sub-role just doesn't see play just like with previous expansions where the least wanted "Utility" from a job made them get left behind.
Not every tank NEEDS an AoE shield.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
If they have something of comparable utility (I.e. DPS output because that's all these AoE shields are used for, LB generation to cause more DPS)
You realize that YOUR solution is the one that causes the most work now, later and forever?Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Since not only do you have to REBALANCE ALL THE TANKS NOW to conform into this system, but then you're COMPLETELY SCREWED if there's ever a new Tank job released because now you no longer have your "2 MT and 2 OT" balance, as you now have 5 Tank jobs.
Meanwhile, making the relatively minor changes to the current set up needs the least maintenance since you can literally keep ALL TANK BALANCE, INCLUDING FUTURE JOBS focused around having a central core framework for their kit.
All Tanks having Rampart and 30% DR CD and with parity between immunity (Or an alternate 3rd TB Cooldown).
All Tanks having Snap Enmity oGCD and so can pull.
All Tanks having equal (Or close enough) total DPS output.
All Tanks having equal amounts of OT utility.
There's no reason to deviate from this, you don't need to rebalance existing jobs around completely new sub-roles, you don't need to faff about with trying to make weird defensive CD skills try and work while being "Different" for the sake of being different. Thus you retain balance.
With the only "Maintenance" being to adjust damage numbers with new skill additions and changes so that DPS outputs remain similar.
Literally, it's far more easy than completely redesigning ALL 3 EXISTING TANKS to cater to this new "Sub-role" balancing.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
On TOP of then also altering DPS (So you can get Slashing debuffs) and game mechanics (So you can get shields that don't generate extra LB)... And THEN still having to do a rebalance again later because when you homogenized both "MT" jobs into being the SAME and both "OT" jobs into being the SAME and you piss off all tank players by creating only 2 Tank jobs. To say nothing about how you have to completely scrap the system come a 5th Tank job.
Good luck trying to hold back the revolt that would happen if they attempted to do this while forcing people into Tank stances.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Just look at what happened with Tank Accessories.
Because pulls are based on using ranged skills + enmity combo + oGCD all being amplified by Tank Stance bonus enmity.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
If you just crank up the enmity on these skills, then you'll have another situation like Savage Blade > Royal Authority crapping on OT PLD for both PLD and DRK whom use their oGCD skills for DPS too (Thus leading to another WAR meta because WAR uses Equilibrium for enmity which is completely useless for DPS)
Which doesn't solve the issue with stances at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
People will still want to be in DPS stance so long as it is a DPS gain.
If it's not a DPS gain, then it is a pointless stance and will be ignored all the time.
Says the person arguing for making both pairs of tanks the same :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Also, when they've finished messing with CD's and Utility (Which can all work in different ways so long as they achieve a similar outcome) then they can turn their focus onto the part of the Tanks kit that we actually use 99% of the time, which is the actually attacks.
If they don't have to consider how to balance things like Holmgang vs Living Bread vs Hallowed Ground or Cover/Intervention/Passage of Arms vs TBN and... Nothing.
Then they can focus more on making more varied and interesting skills for Tanks, where they have more vastly different playstyles and themes (Instead of just all being 123 spamming with PLD and DRK having some oGCD's to use alongside) -
04-13-2019, 06:19 AMshao32I din't say DPS are balanced, i was talking how they are balanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenicia
And thats not true, there is a 3° scenario where each couple bring something that you will want in you party, and you Will always want to have one of each for It without any need of gutted MT or OT and having both of 1 side result in being less optimal, its simple.
im impressed you say this 2 things in the same post, first of all you can't make something comparable to a aoe shied if is not another aoe shield, second the LB generation is a exploid if you din't notice at this time and age, and bring DPS utility outweight by far a unintended and no especified LB exploid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
my sugestion is having 2 jobs bring something mandatory, something you will always want and other 2 have something similar so no need of the "OMG ppl are going to exploid and make OT/OT mandatory" like you repeat to the infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
and why you expect new tanks? you now the dev team are humans, they hve limited manpower and there will be a moment when they say no more jobs, still balance 2 jobs for 1 spot and 3 for another is way better that balance 5 at the same time.
we are not going to get new tanks in 4 year minimun, we probably not going to get new tanks at all, and you literally need to rework tank stances, create a bunch of new skills for each tank(veil,Sio, intervetion, cover, equilibrium,ect) , rework others to fit and remove others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
those are not minor changes, and you literally forgeth we are going to get new skills, the goal is make every job unique not equal.
PLD is already the best suited OT in the game, WAR is already the best suited MT in the game, DRK is getting several ajustments and GNB is a new job from scratch, what redesing of all tanks are you yelling at?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
you literally say you want to homogenized all 4 jobs in to 1 model and you argue about fitting 2 and 2?, my sugerence creates more diversity that yours, and its more easy to balance.
don't ask me, Devs say tanks do to much damage, increasing the dps gap betwen tanks and DPS wont piss anyone, tank accesories drama comes bcs they din't offer nothing excep HP and we have to use HW ones instead since they scale poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
you obviously dont know that OT never use agro skills in the first place, PLD use riot blade not savage blade for royal authority and DRK is the one that generate the most agro of the 3 in the pull but WAR is the one that cost less dps in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
less agro generation? its a good reason to deactivate tank stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
idk making 4 tanks being the same is worse that having 2 and 2 being competitive with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
oh BTW i love how you say nothing instead of Sio and how PLD and DRK are just 123. -
04-13-2019, 06:44 AMPhoeniciaThat's the scenario where SE makes them so close that the whole point of the subdivision is moot. You are definitely not thinking this through which comes to me as a surprise as someone who cleared savage raids.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
-
04-13-2019, 07:16 AMshao32i din't say they should be so close, i mean if 2 tanks bring something mandatory, a buff like slashing or something similar with certain similar utility, like buffing HP generation or what ever, and the other 2 bring another mandatory stuff with some unique utility that they only have each pair will feel unique and they can work around that like veil and SIO works or TBN and intervetion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenicia
but this is just a sugerence, and the main point is there is many ways to implement the OT/MT and no necesary go to the "one pair its gonna be wooooooorse" doomsday im reading constantly from the same pair, in the end its simple, what we want? unique tanks or clones? and if we go to Kalise sugeretion why we get more that 2 tanks in the first place? -
04-13-2019, 07:33 AMKaliseOkay... But if both of a pair bring the same mandatory utility...Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Aren't they then just clones?
Thus you now only have 2 Tanks.
More literally so, if you still haven't actually addressed the underlying balance issues that causes the current 3 tanks to be unbalanced
Where the meta will still be WAR MT and PLD OT meaning another 2 years of DRK being obsolete. The only potential difference is that being the brand new job, GNB might usurp either WAR or PLD depending on which pair it ends up belonging to.
Due to if you just give them the same things, but still leave an imbalance in ACTUAL CORE TANK FUNCTIONALITY like how WAR is better at soaking TB's because Holmgang or how PLD is infinitely better at OT duties than literally any other Tank because it has 3 entire skills dedicated to providing OT support.
Yeah, you could do it by MAKING TANKS EQUAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Thus MT/OT is designated by "Who wants to pull?" and then any 2 jobs can play together. Any 2 jobs can do the pull and "MT". Any 2 jobs can participate in encounters where actively tanking is shared equally between both Tanks (Also, with all tanks being equal, it actually opens up more design space for having encounters have both Tanks actively tanking)
Your suggestion is the one that is creating 2 tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Your the one suggesting give each "Pair" a mandatory utility (Thus making them very similar to each other within the pair)
Your the one who's suggestion still leaves blatant inbalances in play (Thus likely leading to the same WAR/PLD we just had for 2 years)
Your the one who's suggestion is also open to potential exploitation if people deem a certain "Pair" to have less relevant utility (Thus creating a "MT + MT" or "OT + OT" meta)
I'm suggesting making a small portion of Tanks kits the same or similar. So that you can have more freedom in making the rest of the kit unique and wholly different, so that you get 4 completely unique jobs with different playstyles and mechanics THAT CAN ALL PERFORM THEIR ROLE EQUALLY WELL
You know... Just like how BRD and MCH play differently, but they both still have Refresh allowing them to provide the same role benefit. Just like DNC is likely going to have a completely different playstyle and if they continue with Role Actions, will also have Refresh. -
04-13-2019, 07:54 AMshao32first of all please don't use majuscule, you look being rude yelling like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalise
second, i edit my post before to respond to your concerns please be free to check it.
third, when i leave core funcionality imbalances? holmgang has been asked to be ajust for me and many others all the time, and what about PLD? they are pretty good at OT, thats the point, with another tank being able to compete against his kit abnd being equally desirable to PLD its all what we need, not being equally desirable to PLD, DRK, WAR or GNB at the same time.
so tell me, where i say each couple should be clones? at contrary that your solution mine dont needevery tank pull the same utility, and when compete to his partner they can have similar but not the same, and being more diverse.
you sugestion implique that every tank need to follow the same standar no matter what, if one do a thing the others have to do the same on everything.
i think meaby its my english or meaby it's not you first language either, but i think the word mandatory its pretty clear by himself, so if we have 2 mandatory buffs or whatever on tanks and we want to bring both of then for optimun gameplay how is this open to a potential exploitation to MT+MT OT+OTmeta? deus ex machina.
if they are unique in something there is imbalance, and where is imbalance some will get benefied and other not, rotation whatever, you have to think that tanks interact with DPS and healers buffs too, if you unique gameplay makes one get more benefic that the others you metod become worse and we got where we started but with Devs having more dificulty on adress it. -
04-13-2019, 08:35 AMKaliseThen actually read the posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Don't just keep spouting the same drivel about how "MT/OT Pairs are easier to balance" or how "It will make so much unique jobs!"
When people are responding to you with actual reasons why those claims are flat out wrong.
If you would actually read things, I wouldn't need to highlight the important aspects that you keep missing.
LB generation is not an exploit. It's literally a mechanic about the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Absorbing damage with a shield generates LB (It generates bonus LB if it absorbs damage that would otherwise be lethal).
Healing damage generates LB (It generates bonus LB if it is applied to someone on low health).
Mitigating damage generates LB.
Dealing damage generates LB (It generates bonus LB if it is a critical hit)
If there's nothing that can be added that is comparable to an AoE shield (Hint: There is, given that Tanks shields aren't there for actual mitigation, but for LB generation. So any DPS boost that is equivalent to what the LB generation would give would work) then give all tanks an AoE shield.
Yes, but what utility? What 2 different "Mandatory" utilities are you going to use?Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Since you then have to make sure that both utilities ARE in fact mandatory otherwise people will just stack the better utility.
Also, again, what of the tanks within a pair? If they bring the same utility, then aren't they just clones? Going by your own logic. Why bother having more than 2 tanks if one pair is just going to be the same "MT" and the other pair just going to be the same "OT"?
I was responding to YOU bringing up job additions:Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
"i recomend you try to learn about the proces and hard work and manteinance the battle system needs constantly and how complex its gets when you add more and more jobs to it."
So apparently, not only do you not read anyone else's posts, but you also don't read your own...
Relative to your suggestion where you need to remake ALL TANKS because yes, you will have to remake all tanks, otherwise you will have WAR and PLD completely dominating over every other job again. As well as tuning them more towards their preferred role and including those "Mandatory" utilities that you were referring to before.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Oh FFS...Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
This is the last time I will respond to you after this. Perhaps one of these years you'll bother to read something:
TANKS DEFENSIVE COOLDOWNS DO NOT MAKE OR BREAK THEIR IDENTITY, ESPECIALLY AS A MAJORITY OF THEM ARE ALREADY IDENTICAL (OR NEARLY)
THIS IS TO SAY NOTHING ABOUT HOW YOU CAN ADJUST ATTACK SKILLS, COMBOS, JOB GAUGES, MECHANICS, STANCES, CROWD CONTROL, UTILITY, ACTIVE MITIGATION, ENMITY SKILLS AND MUCH MORE TO ALL BE WHOLLY UNIQUE FOR EACH JOB DESPITE HAVING A BASELINE "SET" OF DEFENSIVE COOLDOWNS, PULL POTENTIAL AND OFF-TANK UTILITY
No it doesn't and no it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Please read literally anything I have written. As I have, time and time again, told you why this is not the case.
It will piss off the Tanks who like that they deal damage and would hate to feel like actually trying to maximize damage output is pointless due to having low numbers irregardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Part of the reason why people hate the idea of Tank Stance is because it makes their damage output feel less meaningful. Where people equate it to things like "You pull, do a couple of enmity combos and then go make a coffee since there's nothing left for you to do"
Also, HW accessories were not used, it was all about Crafted accessories penta-melded for Strength.
PLD previously DID have Savage Blade as a combo skill for Royal Authority. This lead to a lot of complaints because it meant that as an OT, PLD would be generating a bunch of enmity with their DPS combo (It also still is the case with current PLD pre-Royal Authority where your only spammable combo is Rage of Halone)Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Also, Plunge is used by DRK's on CD for DPS. This skill is also an enmity generating oGCD skill (If you DA it)
But if both tanks are in Tank Stance, then that's not a problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Also, you lose your passive mitigation then, meaning you take more damage from the Raidwide AoE's and any shared Tankbusters.
PLD and DRK are just 123.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Goring Blade > Royal Authority spam
Souleater spam
Just because you press a few oGCD's doesn't mean you're not just pressing the same 123 combo 99% of the time.
Okay so now you have to create 4 different "Mandatory" utilities. With none of them being out of proportion than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Not everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by shao32
Just the things that are asked of them from their role.
Just like the idea for DPS is for all DPS to do a similar amount of damage, either through their own damage output (See: SAM, BLM, MCH) or through their own damage output combined with the damage they provide via boosts to the party (See: BRD, NIN, DRG and sometimes SMN (For the BLM + SMN comps))
Just like the idea for Healers is for them to all have a raise, esuna, an AoE heal, 2 types of single target heal and an oGCD heal.
Behind each role, there is a core framework for what they're supposed to be doing within a party.
Tanks are no different. They're all expected to face the same content and the existence of DF means that they're all expected to end up in random compositions. Thus, they, like every other role, should have the same baseline tools to help them do said content. -
04-13-2019, 08:42 AMKabooa
Yall gotta cool it.
-
04-13-2019, 09:01 AMPhoeniciaThe salt levels are on the rise and I'm low on stock though!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabooa
-
04-13-2019, 09:20 AMKabooaIt's hard work, but it's honest work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenicia