This idea is directed towards fights like Ifrit and Titan, where two tanks aren't actually required. In Ifrit's case, the only reason the two tanks are viable is because one is just a stun bot, while on Titan he is just being a gimped DPS. This means that one of the tanks ends up being a burden, which is bad design.
This idea is gonna assume that SE is gonna keep the rigid 2 Tanks, 4 DPS, and 2 Healers set-up for all of the DF encounters, and it's mostly directed at Warriors, since Paladins have something similar to this already.
Give Warriors a proper non-tank stance
Hear me out. I specifically say "Non-tank" stance rather than "dps stance", since the idea isn't to make Warriors match-up with other dps, but, rather, let them be less of a burden to DF parties when they aren't gonna actually be doing their main role (i.e. Tanking), and at least do sufficiently more damage than the main tank. This way, SE isn't pigeon-holed into ALWAYS looking to keep tanks busy, SPECIALLY when Crystal Tower comes out and you have 6 tanks going around.
You bet some of those tanks aren't gonna be tanking on some points, why not give them a tool to let them make a significant contribution to the raid, instead of leeching, doing trivial dps, while they wait for the moment to tank, if there is any?
Now to address some points:
-I'm aware Warrior has something that kind of tries to do this, Unchained, but, let's be honest, it does not the same job for Warrior like Sword Oath is for Paladin. It blows, should be buffed, or should be turned into a difference stance all-together. If this does happen, my issues would be mostly solved.
-Yes, I understand that this is dangerous in a way, since, if tank unbalances happen, like, say, Paladins are always preferred, there'd be even LESS reason to use Warriors as MTs, since they might aswell just stay doing average dps than being a mediocre tank. I understand that this can be an issue, but it can be fixed if Paladin + SO and Warrior + Unchained dps is well balanced. Also, the idea isn't to design encounters to take advantage of this new idea, but rather to have a back-up plan to fall on when SE designs an encounter where an OT isn't needed, but you still need to q with two tanks.
-There's also the issue that Tank classes inherently create more enmity than other classes due to the nature of their weaponskills, this could be easily fixed if mentioned stances nullified enmity bonuses from their weaponskills.
What is this trying solve?
When content gets harder, the community will value efficiency over everything else. If SE keeps designing encounters that only requires one tank, but the DF needs 2, you will have situations like Titan HM, where going with the DF you are guranteeing yourself 1 Tank, 4 dps, 2 healers, and 1 gimped dps, essentially, which is why many people will favor forming groups outside of random DF, looking only for 1 tank, making tank's chances of getting content done slimmer. This will only get worse when CT content gets harder and SE doesn't assure a reason for 6 tanks, or encounters that don't justify 2. In clearer words, encounters with DPS races that only requires 1 tank, but DF looks for 2 tanks, is bad design.
My two cents, feel free to critique or discuss these ideas. They are more than welcomed.
Regarding Endgame DF and Tank Design
Printable View
-
10-25-2013, 03:52 PMYagrushRegarding Endgame DF and Tank Design
-
10-25-2013, 03:58 PMAmyas
Non-tank stance for Wars would be... not using defiance :P
Wars can do substantial dps without defiance, and what abilities would we miss out on? Inner beast? Steel Cyclone? You can just pop defiance on, infuriate, use IB/SC, pop defiance off and continue dpsing away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
-
10-25-2013, 03:59 PMYagrushEh, and not use any Warrior ability in the process, Paladins don't need to do this, why should Warriors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amyas
Maybe if you're overgeared for the content. Also, if this were true, people wouldn't mind picking up a Warrior who isn't gonna tank into a Titan HM.. They aren't doing this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amyas
-
10-25-2013, 04:14 PMRi_ri
Make Paladins heal, then. Or else you'll still have the same problem if you get a group with two Paladins.
Using Sword Oath to attack as Paladin doesn't work, as you'll steal aggro from the main tank. -
10-25-2013, 04:17 PMYagrushI don't understand your first point. Also, the second point is addressed in the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ri_ri
-
10-25-2013, 04:19 PMjuniglee
I find Sword Oath to not be that great of a skill. In fact, the effects of it are quite insignificant (+50 to auto-attack potency, in a class where damage is low to begin with), that it's really no different than running without an Oath skill turned on.
Shield Oath however is pretty significant. The 20% damage reduction, and 20% damage dealt reduction is quite noticeable, but it's able to keep up a job of generating aggro (maybe a bit more) than with Sword Oath.
As I understand it, Warriors have Defiance - so it would really be the same as turning it off, to not get the 20% damage dealt reduction penalty.
One of the Warriors I do Titan HM with regularly equips DPS gear (ie. Hetairos Gear) just for Titan HM. Warriors will also be buffed as of 2.1, when Crystal Tower would also be released, so it might be better to wait until then and see whether the changes impact the presence of Warriors in parties. -
10-25-2013, 04:28 PMYagrushYeah, Sword Oath isn't that significant, but, then again, if people have to choose between a Paladin or a Warrior to MT, unless it's something specific like Ifrit, they will choose Paladin right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by juniglee
Also, Warriors having to gear up with DPS gear to do Titan HM is.. not acceptable. Either SE should be more diligent with dungeon design in the future and justify 2 tanks in every encounter, or increase their non-tank dps to avoid the "I can't really clear this encounter with two tanks" (Assuming none of the players are overgeared and are on the intended gear level of clearing said content). -
10-25-2013, 04:32 PMGarnatian
They should remove Sword Oath, not give WAR a DPS stance. I'm not even sure what their intention was with adding it.
-
10-25-2013, 04:34 PMFlowerPower
I easily pull over 300 DPS on my warrior... maybe your warriors are doing it wrong?
-
10-25-2013, 04:54 PMGamemakoGodsdammit. Say it with me now: WAR is not a DPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
You see, PLD needs Sword Oath to be able to match WAR non-Defiance DPS. This is the reason for the existence of Sword Oath in the first place. Second, you've overestimated the difference between tank and DPS damage output -- it's 20-25%, not 70%. Compare WAR to DRG, and know that both have PGL and MRD abilities. The difference between the two is exactly 32 strength, then potency and ability considerations. End result is that DRG gets ~7-9% more damage from STR differences and another 10% or so out of greater potency on attacks, then the bonus off-GCD abilities. Additionally, WAR is already getting a buff to address some of the endgame struggles.
You're seriously demanding that a tank be a full-fledged DPS. That won't ever happen, obviously. However, you also have to realize that people often aren't doing things because they're just as easily confused as you are about the game's mechanics. Parties of 4 tanks have handily downed Titan -- take this thread, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
-
10-25-2013, 05:02 PMGapikWell dont keep it to yourself!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlowerPower
I and many other WAR no doubt would benefit from your wisdom...Instead of grps shouting PLD only we could bask in the joy of ppl shouting WAR only BRD/MNK/BLK need not apply! -
10-25-2013, 05:14 PMGamemakoHe's probably claiming that for peak DPS using Unchained/Berserk/Release cycle. That's a feasible peak DPS number with a relic+1 and 430 strength or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gapik
-
10-25-2013, 05:19 PMRochetm
The only way any of this would work is if they made Sword Oath and whatever War got reduce/remove the bonus enimity.
-
10-25-2013, 05:23 PMYagrush
So many comments are repeating things that I've said in the OP, and assuming things that I explicitely said I wasn't in the OP. Guess I shouldn't bother to explain myself in the OPs anymore. No, I don't want them to be a full-fledged dps, yes, Roch, that's one of the ways I said they would be addressed. And yeah, 4 tanks clearing it that are incredibly overgeared/geared specifically for dps doesn't really solve the problem, since the idea is to avoid this issue now AND in the future, with harder content.
-
10-25-2013, 05:28 PMGapikSounds about right but this is the exception and not the norm!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamemako
I will gather 2 sets of gear for DPS purposes.
I will change my stat point repeatedley from vit/str and str/vit tho each costs 10.000 seals (hate fate).
but in the long run im still a 2nd tier DPS...Who is also gimped one way or the other.
If it hits the fan and im in dps mode im unlikely to recover it as a 2nd tank.....in tank mode I cant contribute as a dps.
no other class makes this choice.
I would much rather just be the tank I should be! and leave my DPS to my DPS jobs. -
10-25-2013, 05:30 PMYagrushDon't take my posts out of context. I'm specifically saying that encounters that the second tank IS NOT NEEDED, in the grand scheme of things, is what could've been a better dps, and among hardcore players would rather be efficient and take a 5th dps instead, which they are still doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamemako
Also, I don't have the math to back it up, but I really doubt Wars only do 7-9% less dps than a dps geared DRG who knows what he is doing, while you are geared for tanking. Gearing for dps as a tank, imo, defeats the purpose of having the DF allow 2 tanks into the queue. -
10-25-2013, 05:49 PMGamemakoYes, you do. You're telling everyone that WAR can't ever tank, it needs a DPS stance to boost DPS, and that no party will take a tank as sub-par DPS, all in the same breath. You may prance around saying "but I didn't claim they needed to be like a DPS", but you created a scenario where the only possible suggestion is exactly what you disclaimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
You're also assuming an overgear where none exists, once again. You're talking about a thread in which there are a bunch of WAR players who don't have better than Garuda weapons because they haven't successfully done Titan yet.
They're taking 6 DPS, actually, when a second healer isn't needed. When you make the assumption that everything has gone swimmingly, then you're always going to lose out to another DPS. You are never going to get people voluntarily taking another tank or healer when they can avoid it. Hell, people won't even take sub-par DPS characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
-
10-25-2013, 05:59 PMYagrushWow. When did I every say "WAR can't ever tank"? Are you serious? Did you EVEN read my OP fully? You're putting words into my mouth that are out of context. The only context where I think a DPS boost is needed is when a DF forces on you a 2 tank queue and there's a dps race that dictates whether or not you will achieve victory in an encounter (I.e. Titan). But you would know this already if you actually read the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamemako
Also, I'm assuming that there's overgear when none exist? Are you saying that Relic + 1, ilvl90 gear isn't being overgeared for Titan HM? Really? And, also, that's the one situation where it really isn't valid to this discussion, since this issue assumes you are progressing and utilizing the expected gear level for content.
Also, having the Garuda weapon is the expected ilvl weapon you'll be using for Titan HM, anything above is being overgeared, by definition, so I don't see where you are going with that.
By the way, you are completely missing the point of the issue, while you are busy putting words in my mouth. -
10-25-2013, 06:08 PMZoeila
why is there so much misinformation about sword oath? sword oath adds an additional auto attack with 50 potency your normal auto attack has a potency of 75. also i believe it gives enmity equal to double the damage you would of dealt.
-
10-25-2013, 06:27 PMniwaar
While I admit that the OP has a point when it comes to a fight where the abilities of an off tank do not contribute to the success or failure on a fight, I disagree with his contention that a group doing a fight like Ifrit is diminished by having a second tank in the group. This game is not WoW where everyone is built equal. Something I love about it. The game devs have seen fit to give Paladins the best and most consistent ability to interrupt things. Whether it is Eruption on Ifrit, A Voice on Chimera or High Voltage on ADS, they are the single best interrupter in the game. Through luck, proper play and creative use of in game mechanics you can eliminate the need for more than one interrupter while fighting Ifrit and Chimera leaving you without the need for a second tank. The second tank on a fight like Hydra is there as only a buffer.
These mechanics have been used many times of the years as ways to include a second (or third, or more) tanks in a raid/dungeon encounter. Stop complaining.
Yes, it would be great to see the ability to change jobs in a duty so we can have our offtank on a single tank encounter swap to a DD job. Hell it would be nice to not see them as a nerfed DD in a fight like Titan. I do not think that this is the issue. We need more fights that require multiple group makeups and to have the system be flexible. The true beauty of the armory system is that everyone can be everything. We have seen that beauty be spoiled by the inability to change during the course of a duty and even more so by the inability to properly gear out multiple jobs due to the confines of an archaic "point" system that works in other games only because those games encourage play on alternate characters and not alternate jobs on the same character. -
10-25-2013, 06:41 PMYagrushGlad to see a response like this ^^ And I agree, Ifrit is a much lesser example, probably not really a valid one at that, since Paladin is of great use even if it isn't tanking.Quote:
Originally Posted by niwaar
Keep in mind this is only one of many solutions. I hope we can atleast agree on this: We need SE to ensure the justification of the x amount of tanks that a DF requires for any future encounters, not only will the OT feel useless, but we will see more "1-tank titan run onry" situations on other content if the OT spot isn't justified. I understand that some usage will be much more pronounced and obvious than others, but it's imperative that SE keeps being consistent on their design.
Thanks for the response :) -
10-25-2013, 07:13 PMGapik
Yes how fun for PLD to be stunbots.
get rid of stun on both classes in my oppinion....see how fun it is for the dps then when they are forced to stun, stun, stun, stun and nothing else -
10-25-2013, 07:30 PMyukikaze_yanagiThe ability of do this spoiled 1.0 dungeons, where it was "have this jobs or gtfo". No thanks, i don't wanna play again DJ jobs again. I like better like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by niwaar
-
10-25-2013, 07:33 PMGooner_iBluAirJGRYou lose the healing buff from wrath stacks. GGQuote:
Originally Posted by Amyas
-
10-25-2013, 07:47 PMChaozK
While i agree with the OP that the second tank can be rather pointless in some fights and would welcome a dmg buff on offtanks, i do think that this wouldnt solve the issue. Even if the offtanks dmg would just be 3% lower than a dps class...people would still bring a 5th dps class because it has 3% more dps, lets be real here.
Instead the offtank should bring something to the group that only he can do. Imo the offtank should make tanking more easy for the main tank. Say he brings a ton of debuffs to mitigate dmg on the MT. -
10-26-2013, 12:12 AMAmyasIn many cases, an experienced party would not mind picking up a war for dps on titan, I actually had a few attempts as one yesterday (I really wanted to mt it though, so I only gave it around 4 tries before I let them find a *real* dd, maybe one that can actually dodge :P)Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
Why on earth would you need the healing buff from defiance if you're not tanking? Don't know what kind of parties you've been in, but if you're a dd, you shouldn't be taking that much damage, if at all :3 I mean, even on titan as a war dps, you're easier to heal than a regular dps without defiance on, and you're always taking damage from stomps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooner_iBluAirJGR
-
10-26-2013, 12:16 AMRyios
I'm already less of a burden on my warrior. We sell titan all the time and I fill a DPS spot on my war and crank out as high as 300 dps on a good run or 200+ on an average run.
The proper way to fix this problem is to make every 8 man have two tank mechanics. Gaurda HM is already that way. Titan HM they could make it so mountain buster applies a debuff so that if you take a 2nd mountain buster it 1 shots your azz unless a tank taunts off you and eats the next MB while your debuff expires. -
10-26-2013, 12:31 AMEigiEh you can solo tank Garuda and have one of the melee dps or one of the healer tank adds its hard I know but its doable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryios
-
10-26-2013, 12:37 AMRyiosYeah, we've done that, but most groups will two tank it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eigi
-
10-26-2013, 12:38 AMRyios
Imo Ultimate Titan will probably be something like "Plumes are more frequent", "Mountain buster needs taunted off", And double or triple landslides.
-
10-26-2013, 12:51 AMKantide
This will be irrelevant as soon as we have more job diversity.
-
10-26-2013, 12:57 AMKeneblerzThis is only true if:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ri_ri
1. The main tanks weapon is worse than the Off tank.
2. The tank hasnt started his rotation.
To give you an idea. I fought garuda (HM) as an Off tank Paladin. If i go balls to wall with Sword Oath. I'll grab aggro almost immediately. If i wait for the MT's 2nd or 3rd rotation. i dont put a single dent into the target's emnity. It stays blue for the rest of the fight. Unless i use provoke like a noob :P
Edit: The above will happen for PLD + WAR combinations as well. -
10-26-2013, 01:46 AMGamemakoIf you think anyone described in that thread had a relic+1, then you can't read. Each one of them in the party was there because they couldn't get PUGs to take them so they could finish the relic quest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
Try Valk's calculator. At 350 strength and 250 determination for WAR, a DRG will deal 7.45% more damage per potency due to passive +32 strength advantage. Both have 10% vulnerability (SE for WAR, Disembowel for DRG) and 20% damage (Maim for WAR, HT for DRG) boosts. The only differences are abilities (Berserk vs. Blood for Blood) and weaponskill potencies. If you compare main damage combo, you're looking at 880 for WAR versus 900 for DRG after accounting for autoattack influence (100 potency per 3 seconds). That's a 2.3% difference there. DRG also has more powerful and frequent interrupt (if it can be used), better DoT (290/18s for Phlebotemize, 300/30s for Fracture), better secondary combo (760 potency on Chaos Thrust combo, 610 on Storm's Eye combo), et cetera, but the difference is small, especially after accounting for autoattacks. Base stat (namely, STR) boosts are identical on armors and weapon between the two jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yagrush
Furthermore, there is certainly no problem with WAR, who already rolls VIT-melded DPS accessories (Gryphonskin Ring/Neck + VIT + Battledance) or STR-melded tank accessories (Rose Gold Wristlets + STR) since STR is also mitigation. The only real question at all is where people put the bonus points, and given the abundance of seals, I don't think it much matters.
It does not directly affect enmity, but otherwise roughly correct. AA Potency is normalized to 100 per 3 seconds, so a weapon with an attack delay of 2.32 (Curtana) is 77.3 potency per attack. Based on P3 testing, Sword Oath adds a flat potency boost, raising it to 127.3 potency per autoattack. They might have changed it to a normalized boost (150 per 3 seconds instead of 100*delay/3 + 50 per attack).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoeila
Right. Both are a net enmity increase, but Shield Oath is a larger enmity increase (multiplier on total enmity; I've seen it theorized to be 50% before damage reduction or 20% after, but I haven't tested myself -- P3 modifier of double enmity is no longer true) than Sword Oath (damage-based enmity only, maybe 5-10% increase in total enmity depending on how much you're using RoH).Quote:
Originally Posted by Keneblerz
-
10-26-2013, 01:49 AMErikMynhierHe's right, Sword Oath is only good for overworld solo content. I was screamed at in a dungeon once just for hitting it accidentally because its right next to Shield Oath on my bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by juniglee
-
10-26-2013, 02:04 AMChocob0charmer
Sword oath is actually really good once you get relic shield +1.
Since you're never out of oath, you can count the lack of shield oath 20% dmg done nerf as a 20% dmg done buff in sword. Also when you're fighting a single target, the enmity bonus from shield oath isn't that strong since you're holding hate primarily from your skill combo.
Also really good for clearing trash as long as you know how to hold hate without relying on flash
-20% dmg taken is needed in coil/titan/some bosses, but when you have 6200 hp and a relic healer, you're not going down to trash sub bosses -
10-26-2013, 02:13 AMAmyasWhy? I like being able to solo down Demon Wall from over an inch of health when everyone else is dead/knocked off :3Quote:
Originally Posted by Gapik