Making Jobs Rotationally Easier in 4.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

Taken from the reddit post:
Note: the name of this new stack will be totally different in the En version because most of the names of the warrior moves in the japanese client share the word "origin". For example, inner beast is Soul of the origin(原初の魂）, Raw intuiition is Instinct of the origin (原初の直感) and the LB3 for warrior is Land of the origin(原初の大地) and that's why Yoshida called the new stack for both stances "origin(原初) stacks"

---

I'm aware of that bit — shao included that part — I was just wondering what possible lore existed by which Warriors would be interested in this idea of the "origin". They're not exactly scholars of creation, nor marking trajectories. Instinct, 直感 / 本能, are about the only connections I can think of to what might have some relation to 原初. E.g. None among 原初の魂 (Beast of the origin) 原初の大地 (land of the origin) nor 原初の直感 (instinct of the origin) make any sense to me. What "origin"? The names smack of some Eureka primordial world or Warrior of Time Travel element that I don't remember seeing in the Warrior questline. I'm replaying through their cutscenes in Japanese now, but it still seems a really weird word choice, unless I'm just deriving a horribly wrong connotative meaning of 原初.

I think it is mostly translation of the interview that is causing the confusion for you. I suspect that the intended meaning of 原初 is closer to Primeval (adjective; of or relating to the first age or ages, especially of the world) or Primitive which would imply a "Wild Man." 原初 breaks down into 原(original) 初(first) and the translation software that was used translation it as Origin instead of the intended meaning of Primeval/Primitive.

So the abilities would more correctly be 原初の魂 (Beast of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) 原初の大地 (Land of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) nor 原初の直感 (Instinct of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

Great surgeon not necessarily have 200% more skill than normal surgeons but the small things add up that distinguish the person to be a great one.

---

Great example of an analogy totally showing what I talk about when I mention "putting too much pressure".
Or how people can take this game way too seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

I think it is mostly translation of the interview that is causing the confusion for you. I suspect that the intended meaning of 原初 is closer to Primeval (adjective; of or relating to the first age or ages, especially of the world) or Primitive which would imply a "Wild Man." 原初 breaks down into 原(original) 初(first) and the translation software that was used translation it as Origin instead of the intended meaning of Primeval/Primitive.

So the abilities would more correctly be 原初の魂 (Beast of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) 原初の大地 (Land of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) nor 原初の直感 (Instinct of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man))

---

Ahh, that makes more sense. Thanks a bunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Great example of an analogy totally showing what I talk about when I mention "putting too much pressure".
Or how people can take this game way too seriously.

---

Or if you dont find pushing your limit more, maybe Savage raiding isnt for you. It's fun for me that's for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

I think it is mostly translation of the interview that is causing the confusion for you. I suspect that the intended meaning of 原初 is closer to Primeval (adjective; of or relating to the first age or ages, especially of the world) or Primitive which would imply a "Wild Man." 原初 breaks down into 原(original) 初(first) and the translation software that was used translation it as Origin instead of the intended meaning of Primeval/Primitive.

So the abilities would more correctly be 原初の魂 (Beast of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) 原初の大地 (Land of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) nor 原初の直感 (Instinct of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man))

---

This. 原初 is used in conjunction with other kanji when you want to talk in the context of primitive/primeval things.

原初の魂 = Primitive Spirit (gensho no tamashii)
原初の大地 = Primitive Land/Earth (gensho no daichi; daichi refering to earth or a vast land)
原初の直感 = Primitive Instinct/Intuition (gensho no chokkan)

The translations make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

Or if you dont find pushing your limit more, maybe Savage raiding isnt for you. It's fun for me that's for sure.

---

It's great if it's fun for you.
However, the problem is still berating and kicking people when they don't find that fun, even though what they do is clearly enough to clear the content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

It's great if it's fun for you.
However, the problem is still berating and kicking people when they don't find that fun, even though what they do is clearly enough to clear the content.

---

How do you know if what you do is enough to clear contents? A9S aside, you as a tank still needs to do decent amount of DPS to clear 10 and above. You can still be a liability even though you can do the mechanics, mostly because you are still expected to do damage, in contrast to your belief that tank should only be judged by how tanky they are. Your expectation doesn't align with the philosophy of this game, and out of respect I will have to ask you, have you tried to optimize your damage until now considering you have been registered here for 6 years? It makes no sense to me when you are here for so long and you still don't want to admit that dpsing is another agenda for tanks. Are you playing the same game?

If SE wants to ramp up the difficulty of Savage starting from 4.0 (iirc it was addressed before in a livestream), players' skills need to go up as well. And that's on SE to make us better equipped for worse or better.

I am also happy that more and more raiders have that will to go extra miles to clear Savage. The clear rate has been good so far, judging for Tonberry server alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

How do you know if what you do is enough to clear contents? A9S aside, you as a tank still needs to do decent amount of DPS to clear 10 and above. You can still be a liability even though you can do the mechanics

---

This is a very important point. I've seen tanks complaining about lack of dps when they see a11s wipe due to the second GA100 in the last phase, while the war OT (who never has aggro on the boss in the whole fight) is doing like 800-900 dps at the point of the wipe, without any death. Of course it's still possible to "carry" these tanks to clear a11s, or even a12s, but that'll require good dps and imo it's unfair to blame the 50%+ percentile dps players for lack of dps, when the tank does sub 20%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

How do you know if what you do is enough to clear contents? A9S aside, you as a tank still needs to do decent amount of DPS to clear 10 and above.

---

It depends on what you call "decent". If I only spam RoH over and over, I know I'm lacking. If I do a "basic" rotation RoH-GB-RA, I know I'm lacking. If I do a GB-RA-RA rotation with only a handful of RoH for when I need a bit of aggro on a new target or when the STR debuff is useful...and we don't hit enrage, well, I'm doing "enough".

Far too often, I've ended with leaders that complained about DPS even after a comfortable win, or, worse, a loss thanks to failing mechanics in a learning party...which is, for the record, what made me quit raiding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

Your expectation doesn't align with the philosophy of this game, and out of respect I will have to ask you, have you tried to optimize your damage until now considering you have been registered here for 6 years?

---

Yes, I have...when I was raiding Coil. Probably because it was "icing on the cake" and not a requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

It makes no sense to me when you are here for so long and you still don't want to admit that dpsing is another agenda for tanks.

---

I never refused to admit that DPS is another agenda for tank, it just bugs me that it's the only high-skill-check agenda.

Okay, I am going to get another real example, most of you should have this experience before so I will leave the judgement for yourself.

Let's say you are in a school project with another 3 people. Good mark is at stake here, and there is this guy underperforming, dilly-dallying for whatever reasons, and most of the work is done by the 3 of you. How do you feel about that? I would kick that member out and have him pick up the project himself for trying to be a freeloader OR at least tell the teacher to do something about it. It's the same case when you have 3 top students having to deal with a barely passing student, it's just not ideal for the 3 people. Substitute school project and good mark with end-game raid and clear respectively and you get this situation we are in currently. I don't like freeloaders. Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

there is this guy underperforming, dilly-dallying for whatever reasons, and most of the work is done by the 3 of you

---

So, a tank staying in tank stance is "dilly-dailying" ?
How "most of the work" would DPS do if they had to take the hits with a tank really "underperforming" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

Let's say you are in a school project with another 3 people.

---

Let's say you make a game with three other people. You do the level design, another does the game design, one does the AI and the last makes all the user interface. In the end, you get a comfortable passing grade, would you chastize the UI-guy because it didn't help you on the level design ?

DPS is not the only high-skill-check agenda. At the highest level, your ability to DPS is checked in combination with your ability to manage enmity and survive.

But really, you obviously have your biases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Let's say you make a game with three other people. You do the level design, another does the game design, one does the AI and the last makes all the user interface. In the end, you get a comfortable passing grade, would you chastize the UI-guy because it didn't help you on the level design ?

---

You need to quantify the load and how good are the parts the person does, if the project is heavy on game design and way less for UI, obviously the guy in charge of it is doing less load. If the game design is so freaking good that it receives praises from the pros while the UI sucks balls and that alone brought down the marking, what would you feel as the one in charge of the game design? It just feels like you are carrying that UI guy, because that's the fact.

Also, what if I tell you that each group has different expectation? What if 3 top students get just passing marks because of that 1 guy doing just enough to pass? It's all in the expectation and failure to meet that ends up with frustration among the members. If you just want to clear, fine, but your team might not want it, hence you have this problem. Finding teams with same goal is hard, but you seem to just retire than having to try dealing with players, that's motivation you are lacking above anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

DPS is not the only high-skill-check agenda. At the highest level, your ability to DPS is checked in combination with your ability to manage enmity and survive.

---

Ability to survive, which is dependent on your cooldown rotation, which, as you acknowledged yourself earlier, is exactly the same wether you stance dance or not...as for enmity as a WAR...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

You need to quantify the load and how good are the parts the person does, if the project is heavy on game design and way less for UI, obviously the guy in charge of it is doing less load.

---

Well, after several time, I think a clever teacher would just balance the project better between UI and game design, instead of forcing the UI-designer to learn the game designer's job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

If the game design is so freaking good that it receives praises from the pros while the UI sucks balls and that alone brought down the marking, what would you feel as the one in charge of the game design? It just feels like you are carrying that UI guy, because that's the fact.

---

So, again, staying in tank stance is "sucking balls" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

Also, what if I tell you that each group has different expectation? What if 3 top students get just passing marks because of that 1 guy doing just enough to pass?

---

If that's the case here, then everybody posting on this forum (Except me, obviously), is world-first material...

Just a few questions for Brian_(or others), since he's clearly knowledgeable (no joke there), on Savage. How much DPS should a proper DPS do in Creator savage, approximately ? And how much DPS should a tank do (With and without stance dancing if possible) ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Ability to survive, which is dependent on your cooldown rotation, which, as you acknowledged yourself earlier, is exactly the same wether you stance dance or not...as for enmity as a WAR...

---

As I acknowledged earlier? I explained exactly how it's drastically different depending on how conservative you are with your stance. Your ability to completely distort reality to fit your biases never fails to amaze me.

And yea, enmity on WAR. When you need higher path up-time in early prog while not dropping eye to maximize DPS, enmity is an issue especially after a tank swap with a PLD. Or, when you are trying to pick up an add amidst large amounts of AoE healing without relying on your tank stance's enmity bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

As I acknowledged earlier? I explained exactly how it's drastically different depending on how conservative you are with your stance. Your ability to completely distort reality to fit your biases never fails to amaze me.

---

Yeah, sure...

• Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Reynhart

  Great and precise explanation (Honestly). But, let me ask you something, if you stayed in Defiance, would you use your CD differently ? For the sixth and seven busters, would you refrain from using Vengeance ?

  ---

• Quote:

  ---

  Originally Posted by Brian_

  No, I would still use my CDs as there is nothing else to use them on for one CD cycle.

  ---

The only thing you said is that tank stance offer a surplus of mitigation. But, again, your cooldown rotation has actually noting to do with that.

Yeah, sure... ignore the actual meat of those posts where I provide the actual details and single out your very self-serving question with biased framing. What are you? Fox News?

The difference in summary is if you sit there in tank stance, it really doesn't matter what you use for CDs. If you are trying to push DPS, you need a refined CD rotation and pin-point CD timing or you will get 1 shot. In other words, if you push DPS, the damage intake suddenly becomes a check of how skilled you are at surviving. When you are just turtling up like a baddy, it doesn't matter as much.

The full context of that answer which you conveniently ignored is that I said I used my CD because I might as well. There is nothing else to use those CDs on for a full recast. I don't use them because the content checks to see if I know how to.

As for DPS,

Discounting AoE DPS padding, average DPS between melee, ranged, and casters in a live fight, should be somewhere around ~2100-2300 at ~i260-270 with high up-time. The lower the up-time, the lower that number.

Under similar conditions, tank DPS should be around ~1000-1100 with 100% tank-stance and ~1400-1700 with 100% DPS-stance.

I'm not sure that I follow the reasoning that this thread has taken.

If you want to sit back, take it easy, and enjoy the story, the option is there. Nobody is forcing you to try hard or take the game too seriously. If you want a challenge, and you want to push yourself, the option is there. You will have to try hard and take the game seriously, but hey, you just asked for it. I feel like we're dancing between these two viewpoints simply for the sake of making idle conversation, and dragging it out every time someone jumps at a snippet of conversation bait. You cannot be both people at once. The game cannot be simultaneously too easy and too hard. I feel like this tangent is impeding any meaningful discussion on 4.0 tank rotations.

I'm really happy about the mention of the GUI changes and the idea of an Intermediate Training Hall. I'd like to see the latter integrated with the Stone, Sea, Sky system to serve as an entry point to raiding, just as Hall of the Novice served as an entry point into dungeons. I also think it's interesting to note that we may see Accuracy and Parry stats removed from gear. There were hints to suggest that we were moving in this direction earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

The full context of that answer which you conveniently ignored is that I said I used my CD because I might as well. There is nothing else to use those CDs on for a full recast. I don't use them because the content checks to see if I know how to.

---

Problem is, normally, you should learn how to properly use your CD for maximum efficiency before learning when you can drop your stance. And once you master that, suddenly, dropping your stance has no effect on that. By the way you say it, it seems you're doing it the opposite. Is that really how progression work in Savage ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

Discounting AoE DPS padding, average DPS between melee, ranged, and casters in a live fight, should be somewhere around ~2100-2300 at ~i260-270 with high up-time. Under similar conditions, tank DPS should be around ~1000-1100 with 100% tank-stance and ~1400-1700 with 100% DPS-stance.

---

Thanks for the number.
For easy calculation, I will average everything so DPS are at 2200, turtle-tank at 1050 and DPS-tank at 1550. I won't count DPS from healers in the mix, since it would only lowers tank DPS proportion in the end.

So, with 4 DPS, a full OT and a full MT, you end with 11400 DPS (2200*4+1550+1050). The turtle tank counts for just above 9% of the total DPS. The higher dps stance uptime, the higher this number will mean, to a maximum of...13% with 100% DPS stance uptime. Even if I take the lowest turtle number (1000) and the highest DPS-tank number (1700), we'd go from 8% to 14%.

So, in the end, people are harshly rejecting "less optimal" tanks for, at worst, 4% lower performance of the whole group (Again, not counting healer's DPS). Disproportionate retribution, isn't it ? And since someone compared damage dealt and damage taken, I wonder if the overall damage taken increase isn't actually higher than 4% if your tank stays out of tank stance all the time. And I think it probably has less impact that the actual job you take (i.e having a turtle DRK instead of a turtle PLD has more effect than having a turtle PLD instead of a dancing PLD...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

If you want a challenge, and you want to push yourself, the option is there.

---

Yes, but I still feel that the challenge only really pushes DPS optimization (Even is you say that surviving is harder as a consequence) . That's why I'd like to have a tank with highest but less on-demand mitigation so that you could meaningfully push it in that direction.

People have their own opinions and I know I am way too opinionated into pushing limits, that's just how I roll: play to have fun, challenges are my type of fun and my fun lies within raiding at higher level in this game. If raiding is that easy, I would have quit this game since ages ago but ultimately I came back after having twice resubbing after hiatus.

The game can stay where it is now and it still will be a game for all kinds of audience for all I care. People seem to have the wrong notion about raiding is all. When you are raiding, you are expected to do more than what you normally do. How do you know if what you are doing is good enough to clear? By getting into raiding and test it out then you get exposed to these experiences, and it's only natural that people want to improve but at what cost? Effort is needed when you are trying to improve, you don't just suddenly get so good from the start, that's just not have it works. Some of the new raiders are constantly improving and that's great.

Who knows what kind of meta SE is going to have us adapt to? All I know is I will try to be more and more optimized, be it offensively or defensively (even if tanks become truly tank and not just secondary DPS), or even both just like what I have been doing so far. That's why living beings are so great, right? Adapting that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

If that's the case here, then everybody posting on this forum (Except me, obviously), is world-first material...

---

I didn't mention anything about being world-first materials, you are adding your own thoughts into this. What I meant was that each group has different expectation, be it raiding at high level or casually, just wanting to get gear or beyond that. This means that you are running at different schedules, different timings, different group development and etc. Failure to comply as a member means you can ultimately get kicked, yes, that also includes improving as a player on all areas EVEN after clears if the group so wants it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

People have their own opinions and I know I am way too opinionated into pushing limits, that's just how I roll: play to have fun, challenges are my type of fun and my fun lies within raiding at higher level in this game

---

What I find exhilirating is seeing a tankbuster coming...and only eating a pityful part of my HP bar. Or using a well time HG to cheese the primary/secondary head back in T11 when the OT was dead...that was fun :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

All I know is I will try to be more and more optimized, be it offensively or defensively (even if tanks become truly tank and not just secondary DPS), or even both just like what I have been doing so far. That's why living beings are so great, right? Adapting that is.

---

The thing is, if they decide to make all tanks "turtle", I will probably advocate for making at least one of them focusing on DPSing, even if it's not my thing. Especially because different flavors are for different players, and streamlining everything into a single way can quickly become boring...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

I didn't mention anything about being world-first materials, you are adding your own thoughts into this.

---

Yes, that's mine, because that's what I feel when someone judge a turtle tank as "sucking balls" at his job.

o.o

How did you people make a 35 page thread out of me telling SE to not dumb down our rotations like they hinted with DPS?

I guess I'm impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SyzzleSpark

How did you people make a 35 page thread out of me telling SE to not dumb down our rotations like they hinted with DPS?

---

You should go visit the General Discussion, we have 46 pages on "Easy guys, Dancer is not confirmed yet" :p

They just need Fracture to be a skill combo off of maybe Maim (yikes a skill with 3 skill branches, but eh...) and make it give a stack of Abandon/Wrath.
edit* or Better yet, a skill combo off of Heavy Swing, similar to NIN's Shadow Fang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackenedTiamat

They just need Fracture to be a skill combo off of maybe Maim (yikes a skill with 3 skill branches, but eh...) and make it give a stack of Abandon/Wrath.
edit* or Better yet, a skill combo off of Heavy Swing, similar to NIN's Shadow Fang

---

It would be neat if they gave each tick a chance to proc an extra stack of Wrath/Abandon. Would mess up some rotations, sure, but the dynamic nature of it could make things really interesting.

Or, if we don't want RNG, make each tick give a stack of Wrath/Abandon (and adjust damage output accordingly). Would make WAR gameplay a lot faster, and guarantee Fracture a home in WAR gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

So, a tank staying in tank stance is "dilly-dailying" ?
How "most of the work" would DPS do if they had to take the hits with a tank really "underperforming" ?

Let's say you make a game with three other people. You do the level design, another does the game design, one does the AI and the last makes all the user interface. In the end, you get a comfortable passing grade, would you chastise the UI-guy because it didn't help you on the level design ?

---

The example would be more apt if the assignment was "design five playable levels for a game." The UI and coding are both necessary in order to make those playable, but the point in the end, is the level design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SyzzleSpark

o.o

How did you people make a 35 page thread out of me telling SE to not dumb down our rotations like they hinted with DPS?

I guess I'm impressed.

---

Someone brought a tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Problem is, normally, you should learn how to properly use your CD for maximum efficiency before learning when you can drop your stance. And once you master that, suddenly, dropping your stance has no effect on that. By the way you say it, it seems you're doing it the opposite. Is that really how progression work in Savage ?

---

I said that I started in Defiance when learning the fight and then after figuring out exactly how much eHP I needed and when, I restructured my CD rotation. So, in other words, in order to optimize for DPS, you really need to understand mitigation on a very precise and detailed level.

That's opposed to your mentality where you just turtle it up, never really have your ability to tank tested at all because you rely on your surplus of mitigation. You never have to refine your understanding of mitigation or really test your ability to structure an optimized CD rotation.

In one scenario, tanks are pushed to really excel in terms of their ability to understand mitigation and survive. In the other scenario, they are not. When and if you release content that truly pushes the tanks in terms of their skill at surviving, one will adjust just fine because they are already used to pinpoint CD usage and precise mitigation. The other will flounder once they no longer have a surplus of mitigation to mask their inefficiencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Thanks for the number.
For easy calculation, I will average everything so DPS are at 2200, turtle-tank at 1050 and DPS-tank at 1550. I won't count DPS from healers in the mix, since it would only lowers tank DPS proportion in the end.

So, with 4 DPS, a full OT and a full MT, you end with 11400 DPS (2200*4+1550+1050). The turtle tank counts for just above 9% of the total DPS. The higher dps stance uptime, the higher this number will mean, to a maximum of...13% with 100% DPS stance uptime. Even if I take the lowest turtle number (1000) and the highest DPS-tank number (1700), we'd go from 8% to 14%.

So, in the end, people are harshly rejecting "less optimal" tanks for, at worst, 4% lower performance of the whole group (Again, not counting healer's DPS). Disproportionate retribution, isn't it ? And since someone compared damage dealt and damage taken, I wonder if the overall damage taken increase isn't actually higher than 4% if your tank stays out of tank stance all the time. And I think it probably has less impact that the actual job you take (i.e having a turtle DRK instead of a turtle PLD has more effect than having a turtle PLD instead of a dancing PLD...)

---

A lot of the harsher criticisms are not based on the standards I used for those numbers. For tank DPS, I took a tank who was capable of pushing the upper end of that DPS spectrum and just estimated how much DPS they would have if you told them to stay in tank-stance.

You asked for how much DPS they should be doing by proper standards. Tanks with misconceptions about DPS and tank-stance will parse way below the number I gave you because they don't meet those standards. If I were to base my estimate on my experiences with tanks that stayed in tank-stance because they didn't know better or couldn't manage otherwise, that number would probably be 500-800.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FallenWings

Maybe he wants to contribute to the goal of the fight rather than be there solely to enable it?

Maybe people want to be a shining master swordsman/raging berserker/deathly black knight instead of a worthless punching bag with pool noodle weapons?

---

Yeah, running around tickling things with a huge greatsword would be lame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

The example would be more apt if the assignment was "design five playable levels for a game."

---

But that would be comparing five different DPS. At the core, tank and DPS focus is very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

That's opposed to your mentality where you just turtle it up, never really have your ability to tank tested at all because you rely on your surplus of mitigation.

---

Being a turtle doesn't automatically mean not being tested as a tank, but I agree the current design does not have this purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

When and if you release content that truly pushes the tanks in terms of their skill at surviving, one will adjust just fine because they are already used to pinpoint CD usage and precise mitigation.

---

Only because mitigation is too much "on-demand" and fights are too much scripted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

A lot of the harsher criticisms are not based on the standards I used for those numbers.

---

Well, since saying "I don't like stance dancing" is enough to launch a flurry of bad reactions, I'd say they are. For example, can you tell how I would end on the DPS scale ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

Tanks with misconceptions about DPS and tank-stance will parse way below the number I gave you because they don't meet those standards.

---

Since you gave a number for 100% tank stance uptime, how would "stance misconception" change that ?

Quote:

---

For example, can you tell how I would end on the DPS scale ?

---

Admittedly I saw your numbers. Nothing much to say, that's for sure. People are too conscious on the dps when the real issue is on the skill, the deviation is too wide apart even when your tank stance is a constant.

On the topic of turtle tank, I have to emphasize again that turtle tank doesn't exist in this game and I very much doubt there will ever be one, so long as healers are still a huge factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Only because mitigation is too much "on-demand" and fights are too much scripted.

---

It's funny because IMO it's way more boring if you keep getting hit with huge damage. It does highlight tanks being tanks but seriously, it's so boring to be there to soak dmg and keep asking for heals or you die and group wipes. RO1 for example follows this model and quite a good amount of MMOs do this too, it's god awful. Don't get me wrong tho, nostalgia for RO is still strong for me, but the way tanks work in older MMOs is not suitable for this game at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

Admittedly I saw your numbers. Nothing much to say, that's for sure.

---

Meaning ? (I don't know my actual numbers since I don't use parsers, and I never checked fflogs for me)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

It does highlight tanks being tanks but seriously, it's so boring to be there to soak dmg and keep asking for heals or you die and group wipes.

---

Turtle tanks should be far less dependent on external healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Well, since saying "I don't like stance dancing" is enough to launch a flurry of bad reactions, I'd say they are. For example, can you tell how I would end on the DPS scale ?

Since you gave a number for 100% tank stance uptime, how would "stance misconception" change that ?

---

Tanks that think 100% tank-stance up-time is something they should do are typically on the low-end of the skill spectrum. So, they'd be parsing well below your average Savage tank which was my reference point for those numbers.

No reasonable raider would harass a tank who is pumping out the tank-stance numbers I gave you. They might point out that you don't have to be that conservative, but I don't think they'd kick you from the group. But, a tank pumping out that type of DPS while staying purely in tank-stance would be an anomaly because at that level of skill, they'd probably be actively stance-dancing.

It's much more common that a tank who insists on staying in tank-stance will not fully understand the job and not have very optimized play. But, you wanted numbers based on a proper standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

But that would be comparing five different DPS. At the core, tank and DPS focus is very different.

Being a turtle doesn't automatically mean not being tested as a tank, but I agree the current design does not have this purpose.

Only because mitigation is too much "on-demand" and fights are too much scripted.

---

At the end of the day, you can do one of two things --

You can be genuine and merely want more tank archetypes.

or

You can understand how tanking in this game works.

You can't do both. If you understand how tanking in this game works and will work until SE discontinues their server support, you cannot make any intellectually honest and logical argument for the existence of a turtle tank. Any argument you make will be based on pure fantasy and personal delusion. Content will always be tuned so that any tank can clear it and as such, mitigation will always be catered to the lowest mitigation tank. Content will also always be tuned so that DPS is not completely trivial. You might make the argument that a turtle tank with less DPS would require less healing and enable higher healer DPS but that's just pure hypocrisy. You want to live out your fantasy of what a tank is but want healers to DPS instead of healing. You also cannot suggest that the DPS gap could be resolved by bringing another DPS instead of a second tank or healer without also suggesting that content design and job balance should be thrown in the trash can for the sake of your bias. That's the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

Tanks that think 100% tank-stance up-time is something they should do are typically on the low-end of the skill spectrum. So, they'd be parsing well below your average Savage tank which was my reference point for those numbers.

---

I'd say that those two things are unrelated. Stance dancing is a concept I'm not a fan of, especially since my longest carrier has been as a PLD, and that, for a long time, stance dancing was really really clunky. Apart from that, I train a lot to be a good DRG with as much understanding as I can get to proper rotation and cooldown usage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

No reasonable raider would harass a tank who is pumping out the tank-stance numbers I gave you.

---

So, either my numbers were really bad, or I mostly ended with bad raid-leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

You can be genuine and merely want more tank archetypes.
or
You can understand how tanking in this game works.

---

I understand how tanking in this game works, I'm not really fan of that, so I suggest they should add more tank archetypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

Content will always be tuned so that any tank can clear it and as such, mitigation will always be catered to the lowest mitigation tank.

---

Not true. I gave an example earlier, with a content with so frequent damage spikes that two "usual" tanks need to swap for their CD to refresh. You could have a turtle tank having enough mitigation to solo tank that, it wouldn't prevent any combination of tanks to clear the content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

You might make the argument that a turtle tank with less DPS would require less healing and enable higher healer DPS but that's just pure hypocrisy.

---

No, it's not, because it should be that way. And it could be done easily with a wider gap between damage taken in and out of tank stance. The problem, for me, is that it's too """easy""" to keep a DPS-tank alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

You also cannot suggest that the DPS gap could be resolved by bringing another DPS instead of a second tank or healer without also suggesting that content design and job balance should be thrown in the trash can for the sake of your bias.

---

Yes, I also can, because as long as any setup could clear the content with approximately the same raid DPS (Thus, the same clear time), balance is not an issue. It would just be a matter of choice for statics, like were the solo-tank or solo-heal strats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

You also cannot suggest that the DPS gap could be resolved by bringing another DPS instead of a second tank or healer without also suggesting that content design and job balance should be thrown in the trash can for the sake of your bias. That's the truth.

---

emmm in 2.x that was a pefectly aviable strat in many turns, and was pretty fun the turtle tanks made that posible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

I'd say that those two things are unrelated. Stance dancing is a concept I'm not a fan of, especially since my longest carrier has been as a PLD, and that, for a long time, stance dancing was really really clunky. Apart from that, I train a lot to be a good DRG with as much understanding as I can get to proper rotation and cooldown usage.

---

They're not unrelated. Find a skilled tank who thinks that 100% tank-stance is a good idea. You won't.

The only people who think it's a good idea are people who don't know better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Not true. I gave an example earlier, with a content with so frequent damage spikes that two "usual" tanks need to swap for their CD to refresh. You could have a turtle tank having enough mitigation to solo tank that, it wouldn't prevent any combination of tanks to clear the content.

---

Then why would you ever bring the other two tanks? Either the solo-tank method results in easier clears and higher DPS or the double tanks do and the other becomes entirely irrelevant.

This is why I said you can't make that argument with any intellectual honesty. You clearly have none. There are numerous examples of this selectivity slapping you in the face -- solo-tank fights, AST until 3.4, PLD before 3.2 and in certain fights like A12S, AST vs. WHM post 3.4, 2.X anti WAR MT sentiment, the strength of SCHs and WARs, etc. -- but either because of sheer ignorance or just complete dishonesty, you choose to make the argument anyways. Your example is empty because it has no support at all. All you offer is empty rhetoric. "Yea, SE can just balance it." Oh really? Like how they've balanced PLD vs. DRK vs. WAR? or AST vs. WHM vs. SCH? or MNK vs. NIN vs. DRG? or BRD vs. MCH? SE already has a bad track record balancing just job vs. job and now you think they'll be fine balancing even more variables? Like I said. Either sheer ignorance or just complete intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

No, it's not, because it should be that way.

---

It should be that way? Pure hypocrisy. A healer shouldn't be forced to DPS more just because you want to DPS less. According to your logic, if DPS isn't your job, it isn't the healer's job either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Yes, I also can, because as long as any setup could clear the content with approximately the same raid DPS (Thus, the same clear time), balance is not an issue. It would just be a matter of choice for statics, like were the solo-tank or solo-heal strats.

---

Balance is an issue. Why? I'll answer it together with this --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shao32

emmm in 2.x that was a pefectly aviable strat in many turns, and was pretty fun the turtle tanks made that posible.

---

Yea, and it threw content design and job balance into the trash can. And no, the turtle tanks didn't make that possible. Terrible content design made that possible and SE has went out of their way to try and prevent it ever since.

If you've done assigned debuff mechanics like A8S Gavel, A3S Digititis, A7S Jails, A11S GA, etc. with 1 person down, or duo mechanics like A7S indicator + prey for jails, any mandated tank swaps or target spreads, A3S gaol, etc. you would already know what happens when you don't have the correct composition because someone is dead. Stuff gets stupid. People get debuffs they shouldn't get, mechanics resolve in ways that they shouldn't resolve, and any reason and logic the encounter design had goes out the window because your party make-up is not normal. If you make it so that SE suddenly has to design and tune content for 2/2/4 comps, 1/2/5 comps, 1/1/6 comps, and 2/1/5 comps instead of just for 2/2/4 comps, you are going to see the homogenization of raid mechanics and boring encounter design because they are forced to cater to a wider spread of comps.

A lot of mechanics are only possible because we have a specific comp. When SE can't design a mechanic assuming you will have 2 tanks, that limits their design options. When SE can't design a mechanic assuming you will have 2 healers, that further limits their design options. When SE has to design a fight for anywhere between 4-6 DPS, that further limits their design options. No more role specific stuff like A4S Quarantine, A12S time-gates, etc. They'd have to homogenize all those mechanics because there is no guarantee you'll have a second tank or second healer.

So basically, like I said, to imply that solo-tanking should be a thing is also to say that you want SE to take a huge step back in terms of their raid mechanic creativity and design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

I said that I started in Defiance when learning the fight and then after figuring out exactly how much eHP I needed and when, I restructured my CD rotation. So, in other words, in order to optimize for DPS, you really need to understand mitigation on a very precise and detailed level.

That's opposed to your mentality where you just turtle it up, never really have your ability to tank tested at all because you rely on your surplus of mitigation. You never have to refine your understanding of mitigation or really test your ability to structure an optimized CD rotation.

---

This is really key, and thank you for expressing it, Brian_. Tanks in FFXIV have a large surplus of mitigation available to them. It was shocking to me to see just how many "cooldowns" I had as a tank, coming from tanking in WoW. And because of that surplus, there is very little reason to stay in tank stance the entire time. Mastery of tanking here really involves figuring out the best way to use them to maximize your effectiveness, both in terms of survival and in terms of damage output.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

So, either my numbers were really bad, or I mostly ended with bad raid-leaders.

---

Based on what you've said in this thread, it sounds like you had a string of bad raid leaders. Yeah, they may have met with success, but there's a lot more to raid leading than that. I haven't gotten involved in raiding in FFXIV (yet), but I know that being in a group like that can be extremely demoralizing. It seems like you've had more than a few experiences like that, which really sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

So basically, like I said, to imply that solo-tanking should be a thing is also to say that you want SE to take a huge step back in terms of their raid mechanic creativity and design.

---

looks so funny you say that, when alexander was a huge step back compared to coil in fight desing and party mechanic all locked with just dps checks and party dances like they say for me thats akward.

and yes turtle tanks made most of the solo content, paladin was mandatory in most of this figts when the tank dps was not really need it (im speaking the dps mode not the normal one you alwais have) bcs they only survive those fights thanks to shield oatha and they defensives, plus warriors go solo tank when they have enough gear, i still remember when WAR was unable to tank the 2 dread in t4 for example.

but solo tanking was not just something that born from the begining bcs all started hardcore partys go wuth the traditional composition in every tier and a lot of raid partys go behind, solotanking and was only able when the MT have enough gear, parry was better those days.

now what we have, tanks out tank stance, only dps checks and just evade this, stack in this, all around dps, full dps mode from the begining, no challenge, just take you agro and be a dps more, tank mechanics are on the ground more than ever, the randoms cleaves from twintania, the double tanking of caudoceus, the ads, the way that MT has to mark diveboms on nael as he need to mitigate a lot, the frontal cleaves of t11, lots of damage everywere, now all is around dps dps dps dps dps o yeah cleave is coming, pop defensive dps dps dps dps yeah guys stack on that, only as3 was a real challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

Then why would you ever bring the other two tanks? Either the solo-tank method results in easier clears and higher DPS or the double tanks do and the other becomes entirely irrelevant.

---

Ok, then, let's take numbers...I'll use your previous max numbers, so 1100 for turtles, 1700 for DPS-tank and 2300 for each DPS. Turtle+DPS-tank+4DPS = 12000 DPS.

Now, let's suppose you bring one uber-turtle who can only deal 500 DPS as a trade off, and 5 DPS. You'll have 500+5*2300 =..... 12000 DPS.

So, which one is better ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian_

So basically, like I said, to imply that solo-tanking should be a thing is also to say that you want SE to take a huge step back in terms of their raid mechanic creativity and design.

---

They already said that one person screwing won't doomed the whole party anymore, so you probably won't see lots of mechanics you had in Gordias and Midas Savage. As for G.A, it you could hide behind something to greatly reduce damage or just split, it wouldn't be a "less creative" mechanic.