Enmity build up on untargetable bosses

Any healer who has done SCOB T4, FCOB T4, Alexander 3 (savage) and/or King Thordan (Extreme) must have noticed the fact that healers keep building enmity through healing during phases where the boss cannot be targeted. The fact it cannot be targeted means that the tanks can't do anything about it either. This hasn't posed much of a problem yet, as current content does not instantly murder you when the phase changes. But for the SCOB and FCOb veterans among us can surely remember the Raven's descent and Ahk Morn being the first thing that will happen as the boss can be targeted again. For those who haven't done those back when it was relevant content: It usually meant instant death if you weren't a tank and on top of the enmity list: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neT3uh0CRwU

Normally this was never really an issue here as long the White Mage use Shroud of Saints frequently to dump enmity. In the video, however, the White Mage forgot to use Shroud once (normally twice) and got the entire group murdered - We dubbed it the Sephiroth dive.

DPS jobs obviously do not suffer from this kind of problem. Unless, of course, murdered because a healer happened to be near him/her and on top of the enmity list. Among the healers Astrologians have the biggest issue, Scholars "moderate" problems and White Mage the least.
Scholars don't have any enmity modifiers, but they are in a special situation here. A part of the healing enmity is dumped on the fairy and they're less likely to be the one AoE healing of the healing pair.
White Mages obviously have the least issues with it: They can almost use it whenever they really want to and dumps your enmity while you use Shroud of Saints for MP.
Astrologians Luminiferous Aether (LA) works a lot like Quelling Strikes: It prevents a chunk of Enmity build up. You could argue that an Astrologian could save LA for certain heavy AoE healing moments. And this does happen to align perfectly if you use it on Dragon's Rage in King Thordan. But this isn't always the case and I've personally gotten into situations where I've on top of the enmity list depending on RNG and the group: Whether we kill one knight before Holiest of Holy or not. And god, King Thordan has a long phase where the boss cannot be targeted and requires quite a bit of healing.

Interestingly enough, healers aren't the only ones "suffering" from the enmity build up. Tanks can't do anything about it until the boss can be targeted again. While tanks can build up some extra enmity before the boss struts off like haters gonna hate, this comes at the cost of their individual performance. In particular Paladins take the biggest dent in their performance here, considering they have the lowest enmity combo potency among the tanks. The other issue for tanks would be the amount of time they are given to build up enmity before the boss struts off and the duration of the next transition where the boss is untargetable. Depending on both durations, the build up enmity may not even be sufficient to last till the phase after.

Bringing a Ninja can serve as a band-aid fix for any enmity issues the group would have. Or simply have the warrior open the fight with unchained for some head start enmity build up. But isn't this "gimmick" worth considering as a design error, rather than a weakness of a job? If tanks could actually do -something- about it, sure. But this is simply an annoyance for certain jobs, players with a certain (dis)ability and certain group compositions and maybe even a lethal one for future content.

tldr; Prevent enmity building on bosses through healing while it cannot be targeted or is invulnerable.

I've been on the receiving end of the Sephiroth Dive (and shamefully more than once), but I disagree on the point presented.

I would not consider having a ninja to transfer/lower enmity or using a warrior to frontload a bunch of enmity to be a gimmick or flaw in design. That a healer generates aggro and the party being forced to deal with it in some manner is an appropriate cost/risk as well as a reasonable puzzle piece in the problem that an encounter entails. Though it is unfortunate that paladins have weak enmity generation in their main combo, I am of the opinion that the healers have sufficient tools to deal with the problem.

The WHMs have it easiest with Shroud, and often only have themselves to blame. I have personally not seen a paired SCH top the aggro list on bosses from just healing, which leaves the AST. For those I am of the firm belief that good timing of LA can solve a lot of problems. A tank dying and passing on top enmity to healers is a case I do not consider relevant to this discussion - that is a failure solely in the hands of the players, not the system.

Aside from the T9 surprise, I don't think any other boss in the game opens (as in "cannot be targeted before") a phase with a massive targeted spike. If future bosses follow this pattern, then there is plenty of time for tanks to get their shit together and grab aggro.

I'm on mobile, so I'll be brief

This goes further than "current content". I have mentioned some other examples with (very) short time windows to get hate back. This is more about future content if anything like T5, T9, T12, T13 and King Thordan. T5-13 hasn't been much of a problem as Astrologians didn't exist back then. But if consider future content with extended periods where the tanks can't do anything to the bosses while healers keep piling up enmity. LA will only do so much. While it's still managable with a DRK or WAR tank, PLDs simply get blown away by it or have to sacrifice their individual performance. Considering how DPS driven this game is, that will just make PLD even less appealing or locks a raid spot/raid spots for a certain job aside from BRD/MCH and to an extend SCH and WAR

I actually agree, but for a different reason: It's getting too difficult to keep emnity, period. Like, everyone should try to get the best gear they can, obviously, but even in more casual content the emnity is getting tighter and tighter if you're not at the top of the class in equipment. Where before a simple Unchained + Berserk at the start would be all the hate you needed for the rest of the fight, the sheer amount of damage and healing coming out of the other classes is- while quite awesome on its face!- starting to present a long-term problem. I would attribute this to tools: DPSes got more tools to weave in more damage between GCDs, and healers got more group heal options, generating far and away more emnity than before. But interestingly most of the tank tools came in the form of extra damage for DPS phases, which doesn't really translate into additional aggro. It wasn't particularly great before but at least there were options.

It isn't quite what I'd describe as 'really bad' yet, untenable or broken, but it's clear that they can't just do the same thing come another expansion, or we'll be facing some very real problems. I'm kind of hoping 3.2 will bring changes on this front.

One of the easiest work arounds is to have the SCH heal during add phases where the boss is absent instead of the WHM as they typically have ridiculously low enmity from DPSing in earlier phases, and WHM tends to have better burst DPS for lower HP adds anyway (see: A3S puddings). In fights like Bahamut where the adds were beefy the SCH can easily dot and then switch to heal after a few seconds while the WHM throws stones, and that works out pretty well if they just juggle it as needed.

Otherwise yes, keep up the shroud, because regen hate is real.

I agree that it is pointless that healers generate enmity on targets during invulnerability phases. Whether you can work around it or not (which you can) - I can't really think of a reason why this is a thing. The actual problem is not really even in the creating of a super high aggro ceiling (easy to do pull off if one wishes to do so), but the fact it's more beneficial that tanks only create a comfortably high aggro ceiling and then capitalize on DPS. Even if tanks are barely (but calculatedly) ahead of the others in hate, it doesn't become a problem in normal situations. However, if you have long invulnerability phases, aggro can be lost.

Right now it is not a problem, because the content isn't as punishing with this as T9 would have been post-Golem phase (e.g. if you lose hate as a MT in Thordan HM, you can just Provoke it back and go from there), but who knows about the future? WHM and SCH don't really have any issues with this, but AST is really high on enmity with LA alone, which is a lot less potent for enmity over time well into an encounter, than Shroud.

While LA does work like Quelling Strikes, I believe it to be enough, actually. How enmity builds up all depends on how powerful the heals are vs. The Tank's Enmity Built Up. Sure, if the AST has been healing in Diurnal for a long time and has built up Orange Enmity in the meteor phase due to overhealing and the needed healing, then they could get some help from the other healer like someone stated above. While ASTs have a good amount of enmity generation without LA, using LA preemptively(due to how much their healing costs at times) benefits them in the long run when they're using Lightspeed with it to pump out heavy heals for the raid.

I'd suspect the aggro while invuln thing is more to do with coding or how fights flow, so I think it'd be better to discuss or ask for a solution to the real problem, AST's LA. While I'm not a fan of clone abilities in general, I do think LA should just have an aggro dump instead of Quelling attached, because a dump is just plain better in 99% of situations, it's not about flavor or preference. Halving your total occasionally aggro just produces less total aggro than occasionally producing half aggro, you need only look at WHM's hideously low aggro in any fight by the 4-5 minute mark while an AST may be one of the highest.

One of the times I think copying a move is worth the boring view the player might have of it.

Or make it a 60s CD while halving its refresh potency to double the QS uptime if we're going for flavor.

Yeah I'm aware it nerfs the mana return from CO but I don't care, because in an ideal world where this exists CO is a much better skill anyway.

I don't think this is a problem with certain ability/abilities for certain jobs, but more of a techinical problem. Even if LA would become a Shroud of Saints clone, Scholars would still have no enmity modifier. While they build up nowhere as much enmity as the other two healers, in the most extreme cases - solo healing, for example - Scholars would be the job with any potential enmity issues. If not Scholar, perhaps a future healing job or other potential tank/healer composition depending on encounter and, to an extend, selection of dps jobs

Enmity is a resource to be managed, just like health, mana, and GCD. The difference is that enmity for healers is a resource that mainly acts as (potential) punishment for bad play (compare to mana starvation and missing a heal timing) rather than a resource that regulates actions.

In encounter phases where a boss becomes invulnerable and the party needs to deal with encounter mechanics, it seems strange to me that healers should be exempt from having to deal with one type of resource management due to what seems to be a matter of convenience, laziness or in an effort to excuse bad play.

Unless these phases and the enmity generated by healers in these phases becomes a pervading element (through various different encounters) that results in player death and failure despite special concessions for the sake of enmity, then a change may become relevant. Until that point I firmly believe that it is up to the player to manage enmity.

One should first ask as a healer: Am I doing what I can to manage enmity? Am I overhealing? Am I using abilities properly? If the healer cannot resolve on their own, ask if the tank is doing their job properly. Is the tank mitigating and generating enmity as they should? If the tank is in DPS mode too much to meet checks, are the DPS jobs pulling their weight or should they step it up?

If every role is performing as they should, but enmity is still consistently a problem, then changes are in order. Otherwise, it is just as likely someone needs to (excuse the expression) 'git gud'.

"Exempt of one management", you make it sound so fair while everyone every role is already exempted of this kind of management while the boss cannot be targeted or is invulnerable. I believe the complete opposite is in practice here: punishment

If healers outhate tanks while the tanks can actually do somethint about it, then yes, make use of those enmity modifiers. But with (extreme long) transitions good for 2-3 minutes and a good chunk of healing is required, it is starting to gravitate towards the unfair side. Or in your words: dps and tanks are exempted of enmity "management" while healers have to keep doing so on the boss.

Had in a Thordan as SCH to outheal a row of derps together with a WHM... WHM could simply pop Shroud at ultimate... I got 3 hits in my face ;_;
Thordan is actually the first content I have high emnity on my SCH (doesn't mean I don't DPS but crit ET succors...) and often have orange it is pretty scary for me but luckily he doesnt cleave right away after he gets targetable again ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

[...] dps and tanks are exempted of enmity "management" while healers have to keep doing so on the boss.

---

Tank and DPS roles are not exempted from resource management during boss invulnerability phases - they are unable to manage enmity (as they lose one out of their two main ways of interaction), which is significantly different. Healers maintain 2 out of 3 ways in interacting with the boss, why should they be granted extra advantages? Why should they be exempt of a cost for their actions? Especially so when 2/3 healers have tools to manipulate enmity against the boss despite their displaced state.

The difference between tank and healer enmity at the start of an invulnerability phase can be considered a exhaustible resource that has to last until the boss returns. It falls upon the players to use this resource properly with the tools at hand.

If a tank has to provoke and generate snap enmity upon the boss' return, why is that not considered a reasonable test of skill and co-ordination? If the healers have to shield themselves, be covered or otherwise prevent themselves from dying when the boss returns, why is that not considered a reasonable test of planning and problem solving?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Tank and DPS roles are not exempted from resource management during boss invulnerability phases - they are unable to manage enmity (as they lose one out of their two main ways of interaction), which is significantly different.

---

Exempted or "unable", why would or should healers be in a different position here as opposed to the situation the other roles are in? The point still remains that your idea of "enmity management" does not apply here for other roles simply because they can't do anything about it. Healers are the only exception here and there's no good reason why it should be a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Healers maintain 2 out of 3 ways in interacting with the boss, why should they be granted extra advantages? Why should they be exempt of a cost for their actions? Especially so when 2/3 healers have tools to manipulate enmity against the boss despite their displaced state.

---

On the contrary, why would they be granted extra disadvantages? While tanks and DPS are unable to perform any action to generate any (real) enmity, why would healers be the only one at a disadvantage here? More importantly: Why would that one healer out of three have a bigger disadvantage compared to the other two who has no enmity tools at all. If we consider future healing jobs, it'll very likely be in a similar situation with the other three healers: Have some enmity dump, have some enmity prevention or no enmity tool at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

The difference between tank and healer enmity at the start of an invulnerability phase can be considered a exhaustible resource that has to last until the boss returns. It falls upon the players to use this resource properly with the tools at hand.

---

This contradicts how DPS driven this game is:
If Healers DPS and heal, they'll generate additional enmity through damage alone. They can avoid DPSing completely, but why would this be a thing? Or rather, why would good players who can do both be punished for pushing the limits of their job?
Tanks will have to sacrifice some damage to gain more enmity as buffer to last through the abnormally long phase. It's also a thing to maintain just enough enmity to stay ahead of the group to squeeze out some extra damage. Why would tanks be punished for pushing their limits and easing the DPS check for the DPS roles?

Since you included DPS in the "enmity management" concept, this is hardly a thing. Building enough enmity for DPS roles hardly takes effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

If a tank has to provoke and generate snap enmity upon the boss' return, why is that not considered a reasonable test of skill and co-ordination? If the healers have to shield themselves, be covered or otherwise prevent themselves from dying when the boss returns, why is that not considered a reasonable test of planning and problem solving?

---

It's not much of a "test" if the result would be instant death upon the boss's return: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neT3uh0CRwU from the opening post. In this particular situation there is no time to provoke or perform any other form of enmity generation on the boss. Yes, the white mage forgot to use Shroud. So that's a thing. But if forgetting shroud once causes this problem, there's no way using LA up to two times will prevent enough enmity to avoid these kind of scenario's. Old content aside, if future content would have these kind of gimmicks, it'll make other healing jobs not viable simply due to the amount of enmity they generate. Unless bringing a very specific group composition that excludes paladins and includes ninja's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

[...] Healers are the only exception here and there's no good reason why it should be a thing.
[...] why would they be granted extra disadvantages?

---

First of all, I do not consider paying normal costs for performing role actions a disadvantage. Healers are not in any way an exception as they continue to perform their role - healing - despite the boss being removed. That ASTs can perform similarly to a WHM but have a a greater difficulty to manage enmity is a problem inherent to AST design, not encounter design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

This contradicts how DPS driven this game is [...]

---

The quote you highlighted has nothing to do with the DPS focus the game has at the moment, or healer DPS. I simply mentioned buffered enmity as a resource to manage. It is the choice of the player as a tank to determine how much enmity to generate for each specific encounter. The tank should generate enough enmity to keep the boss throughout the encounter, not only from the DPS roles but also the healer. If a tank foregoes enmity to deal more damage ("pushing the limits", "being a good player" - whatever one would want to call it) and subsequently gets the healer killed despite commendable effort on the healer's part to avoid this, it is the tank that has failed to balance the aspects of the tank role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

It's not much of a "test" if the result would be instant death upon the boss's return [...]

---

No it would not. That would be just terrible. I have never stated that "Sephiroth Dives" are desired.

But currently (as far as I can remember at least) only one encounter has this element. Just as it is possible that a future encounter may include such an element again, it is equally if not more likely that such an element won't be present considering what we've come across in the game so far. I personally can't advocate change based on such conjecture. The picture you paint regarding healers getting destroyed the moment a boss returns to fight is in my opinion misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

It's not much of a "test" if the result would be instant death upon the boss's return: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neT3uh0CRwU from the opening post. In this particular situation there is no time to provoke or perform any other form of enmity generation on the boss. Yes, the white mage forgot to use Shroud. So that's a thing. But if forgetting shroud once causes this problem, there's no way using LA up to two times will prevent enough enmity to avoid these kind of scenario's. Old content aside, if future content would have these kind of gimmicks, it'll make other healing jobs not viable simply due to the amount of enmity they generate. Unless bringing a very specific group composition that excludes paladins and includes ninja's.

---

Instant Death because the White Mage wasn't watching their threat, AND adjusting to the situation even if they forgot shroud or it was too late.

The way to deal with that even in relevant times during T9 is whoever had aggro on Nael should stand with the main tank. That will prevent the party death dive and allow snap aggro. It's not that heavy where the MT can get it back quickly. Ideally the person with the MT should be shielded. I've still had aggro build-up solo healing as AST sometimes. I found it was best to use LA before golems dropped, should keep Nael in the yellow/orange range. Still regardless, it's a healer's job to watch their aggro on the boss and adjust the strategy as appropriate.

It's "extreme" content for a reason. I think it's fine as it is. Our main healer is an astro and our MT is a Pally and we've literally had no issue with this at all. I think asking the developers to nerf the game because you cannot manage aggro is a little pretentious, but good luck with your endeavor. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by technole

Instant Death because the White Mage wasn't watching their threat, AND adjusting to the situation even if they forgot shroud or it was too late.

The way to deal with that even in relevant times during T9 is whoever had aggro on Nael should stand with the main tank. That will prevent the party death dive and allow snap aggro. It's not that heavy where the MT can get it back quickly. Ideally the person with the MT should be shielded. I've still had aggro build-up solo healing as AST sometimes. I found it was best to use LA before golems dropped, should keep Nael in the yellow/orange range. Still regardless, it's a healer's job to watch their aggro on the boss and adjust the strategy as appropriate.

---

Agree with this 100%

Seriously, we're not spamming Rage of Halone all day anymore, which is why even if this wasn't a big thing back in the T9 days, it could be a big thing now to have healers build up enmity unnecessarily in invulnerability phases. Unless they dial back down the DPS requirements of cutting edge encounters - making do by creating a ridiculously high aggro ceiling whilst sacrificing tank DPS doesn't really seem to be the best way to go at it (or losing healer DPS).

The problem is mainly with how LA is weak compared to Shroud - WHMs have laughably low aggro after 2 Shrouds. SCH aggro could be a thing, if not for the fact they heal less and have the fairy be a big part of their HPS and thus enmity, which is why in non-solohealing situations SCHs usually stay in the green for good. So all in all, unless they feel like changing up LA, they might as well remove enmity buildup during invulnerability phases. Yes, you can work around it by creating a higher aggro ceiling or altering healer gameplay with that in mind, but should it really be a thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Snip

---

I believe I've mentioned several times how it wasn't a problem with the old content with how White Mages work and how it isn't a problem now with how the content is. Please read more carefully. I've brought this to attention as it may present a much bigger issue for future content and/or future jobs. Even if it's not a serious problem now, it's more of a pain in the ass gimmick more than anything for everyone:
Healers take more damage than tanks, losing GCDs left and right till the tank re-establishes hate. Which can be one hit or several hits depending on the situation
Tanks lose output potential as they're forced to perform enmity combos over damage combos which they normally could without that transition
DPS lose positionals because the boss is spinning left and right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

First of all, I do not consider paying normal costs for performing role actions a disadvantage. Healers are not in any way an exception as they continue to perform their role - healing - despite the boss being removed. That ASTs can perform similarly to a WHM but have a a greater difficulty to manage enmity is a problem inherent to AST design, not encounter design.

---

If not the healers being at a disadvantage, then tanks are at a disadvantage. If you consider "performing role actions" as "normal", then tanks performing enmity actions on the boss would be normal too. But they are unable to do so as the boss cannot be targeted or is invulnerable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

The quote you highlighted has nothing to do with the DPS focus the game has at the moment, or healer DPS.

---

I brought it up as it's something healers would do aside from just spamming that single button to keep the tank's HP bar up. Enmity buffer would only last for so many actions and someone else in the topic shared his/her experience in thordan EX. Said person also mentioned he/she was DPSing. That's one way to artificially lower your enmity for a phase. But why would good healers who can do both mending as well as maiming be punished for pushing their limits?

It's not much of a choice for a certain tank job either. Paladins pretty much have to repeat their Rage of Halone combo to build up enough enmity to last through the Ultimate End phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

No it would not. That would be just terrible. I have never stated that "Sephiroth Dives" are desired.

But currently (as far as I can remember at least) only one encounter has this element. Just as it is possible that a future encounter may include such an element again, it is equally if not more likely that such an element won't be present considering what we've come across in the game so far. I personally can't advocate change based on such conjecture. The picture you paint regarding healers getting destroyed the moment a boss returns to fight is in my opinion misleading.

---

Although not as extreme as T9: https://youtu.be/4v4nmg-fsIs?t=14m15s

While there was time to Provoke, any form of action being taken before the next tank action has effect will outhate the effect of Provoke.
Then there's the thing that Square-Enix will have to consciously design content that doesn't open up with a hard hitting move. I believe there would be more coordination in preparing for the next phase by positioning properly. Rather than take a beating and try to recover.

I'll just repeat it once more, as you seem to keep ignoring this:
It wasn't a problem back then due to how Shroud works and still isn't a problem for White Mages
It isn't a serious problem now as current content doesn't open up a phase with heavy damage moves
It may be a problem later unless content is specifically designed to:
...have nothing that will utterly destroy someone upon phase change
...have short invulnerable/untargetable phases
...have sufficient amount of time to build enmity for the phase where they cannot for the duration of it
...make any tank/healer combination work (even if sub-optimal) if the duration of such phase is long

This issue doesn't only concern healers (except for White Mages, I guess) and there's no valid reason why this is a thing. If "management" and "ability" was really a thing, consider it from a tank perspective:
Certain adds spawn with initial enmity build on adds:
Oppressor and Oppressor 0.5
Living Limb appears with enmity build up on Living Liquid
Ser Janlenoux and Ser Adelphel appear with enmity already build up on King Thordan
Everyone builds up enmity on The Manipulator while attacking it's legs (or healing for healers)

If you consider A4(S), why can't this be a thing for other encounters?

To preface, if you're going to quote, please consider actually including text other than "Snip" so I know what you're referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

[...][1] [Healers dying, tanks failing to be the main target, dps losing dps]
[...][2] tanks performing enmity actions on the boss would be normal too. But they are unable to do so as the boss cannot be targeted or is invulnerable.
[...][3] [Healers dealing damage, Thordan EX anecdote]
[...][4] Paladins pretty much have to repeat their Rage of Halone combo to build up enough enmity to last through the Ultimate End phase.
[...][5] [T13 video] While there was time to Provoke, any form of action being taken before the next tank action has effect will outhate the effect of Provoke.
[...][6] I'll just repeat it once more, as you seem to keep ignoring this:
[...][7] [Adds, bosses with pre-set enmity on spawn]

---

(1) Excuse my paraphrasing, but the described scenario appears to be easily solved by not panicking. The healers aren't killed outright and should move to the tank position. The tank is performing their role as usual and the DPS roles are losing a most likely trivial amount of damage.

(2) When the boss is displaced, the tank's role against the boss is effectively suspended. They cannot manipulate values against the boss in a meaningful way. Thus tanks should have ensured that enmity is sufficiently buffered, whilst considering their DPS and mitigation responsibilities. Healers on the other hand continue to function normally, their responsibilities and the costs for their actions should remain as normal.

(3) I will never argue against healers dealing damage. What is important to highlight is that in the anecdote the healer became the main target but wasn't killed outright after the phase change despite several strikes from the boss. This is in no way a healer being "punished for pushing their limits" as the tank got the boss back without deaths. If this happened every time and each time the healer died without neither the healing nor tank being able to do anything about it, then yes, it would be "punishing". Instead it shows that a tank can solve the enmity problem with their available tools and reacting on the spot.

(4) Paladins having trash enmity generation is a job-specific problem. I do not think that a wide-spread encounter design change is an appropriate response to it. With or without boss displacement phases a paladin will suffer in this regard.

(5) The DPS is clearly at fault. A tank cannot prepare the end of the enmity combo for that transition and enmity is visible to all combatants even when the boss is displaced. This is not hidden information and the DPS could have waited accordingly. A dead DPS deals no damage.

(6) Ignoring what? I've been replying to all points you've presented more than once with the argument that future encounters are still only conjecture on our part and arguing change on content that does not yet exist is something I don't support. If Squeenix does end up making encounters that are tailored to fuck with healers, then sure, that's terrible. But there's no evidence supporting that future any more than there is evidence against it. Adding to that, current content does not have encounters that in my opinion warrant such a change.

(7) I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at with the examples given, or what you mean by "If 'management' and 'ability' was really a thing". The adds (assuming Goblin Snipers) are a piece of the encounter puzzle and easily defused threats. Bosses with pre-set enmity appear with no displacement phase in-between. They could just as well appear with zero enmity and quickly end up in the same place with a Provoke and enmity combo. Even if a healer or DPS generated initial snap enmity, a small change to Provoke timing would probably fix that problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Snip

---

I included almost everything from your post by dissecting it later in the post. You could have at least realised/noticed that yourself.

Point 2, 3, and 4 would answer your point 6. You may consider it a conjecture, but past content proved otherwise. Content used in the past can and will recycle back into future content. King Thordan is the prime example of that. Void Ark and Crystal Tower to an extend when looking at Coil. Is it really that alien to you to consider the possible issues that may arise for future content jobs? Even so, why is this a thing? Is there even a valid reason that the whole enmity building while nothing can be done about it by simply doing your job? Tanks have to hold adds during the phase the boss is invulnerable, but cannot build enmity on the boss. DPS roles still have to kill adds, but this does not generate additional enmity on the boss. Healers have to keep the party in good shape throughout the phase, so why would they be the only ones who would build enmity by doing their job? Explain this: Why is this even a thing? Worst of all, why is this a thing for only specific jobs or group compositions?

The examples would point out that Square-Enix does have the scrips/techniques/functions available to alter enmity data on mobs, on both newly appearing and those already on the field based on existing enmity. You can build up enmity on the Manipulator through the legs in A4(S), for example. So why is this not a thing for King Thordan? If this was actually the case, then the whole "management" concept of it holds water. Otherwise there's no management involved for anyone if they can't do anything about it. You can only stack a certain amount of enmity and with it comes a drop in performance on tanks or drop in performance for healers if enmity becomes an issue due to the extremely long phase transition where nothing can be "managed" at all while performing your own role.

Sleigh mentioned something on page 1 that has gotten less attention and credit than it deserves:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleigh

...While I'm not a fan of clone abilities in general, I do think LA should just have an aggro dump instead of Quelling attached, because a dump is just plain better in 99% of situations, it's not about flavor or preference. Halving your total occasionally aggro just produces less total aggro than occasionally producing half aggro, you need only look at WHM's hideously low aggro in any fight by the 4-5 minute mark while an AST may be one of the highest.

One of the times I think copying a move is worth the boring view the player might have of it.

---

I don't think anyone is a big fan of jobs that's practically clones of each other. Look at the uproar the Astrologian "fix" created among the White Mages. While dumping enmity is the best way to deal with enmity in both short term as well as in the long run. Do we really want all healers have a Shroud of Saints copy? Or simply increase potencies on the tank enmity combo just so it works regardless of the group composition and encounter? These kind of "fixes" won't fix anything. It will just push the issues elsewhere.

Why make a "Snip" quote if you're going to refer to each section of the post in detail again later in the same reply? It seems... superfluous. And there is no need to be condescending. But I digress, it appears the key point of our disagreement on this topic is that you consider the party to be still fully engaged to the boss when it is displaced, whilst I do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

[...][1] You may consider it a conjecture, but past content proved otherwise.
[...][2] Healers have to keep the party in good shape throughout the phase, so why would they be the only ones who would build enmity by doing their job? Explain this: Why is this even a thing?
[...][3] Otherwise there's no management involved for anyone if they can't do anything about it. You can only stack a certain amount of enmity and with it comes a drop in performance on tanks or drop in performance for healers if enmity becomes an issue [...]
[...][4]I don't think anyone is a big fan of jobs that's practically clones of each other.

---

(1) Existing content do show that mechanics are recycled. It also shows that certain mechanics have not resurfaced yet, among which the "Sephiroth Dive" which is one of the key troubles you highlighted. Although we are not at fault in any way for speculating, all current data point towards that mechanic not resurfacing, and with that the notion of mechanics tailored to "punish" healers diminish greatly (be they current or future).

(2) I mentioned this in point 2 previously. Observe the image below. When the boss is displaced, interactions labelled ① cease along with the capacity to manipulate enmity directly via abilities such as Provoke. However, the interactions labelled ② function unhindered and from that I argue that the entirety of that interaction should remain - i.e. a healer still interacts with a displaced enemy, and what responsibilities may come from it. (Technically, ninjas also play a small and indirect part should they want to.)

When a boss displacement phase introduce additional enemies, the image applies separately for each present enemy, allowing full interaction between the Tank/DPS and the paired enemy. That some enemies can cause enmity build-up in fellow enemies according to certain rules may very well fall under encounter specific mechanics.

(3) I'd like to point out that there is a way for players to manage enmity even in displacement phases. The tools are few (or actually singular now that I think about it) and have a limited impact, but to claim that no management exist is simply false.

Moving on, am I correct in inferring that from your statement you consider tank performance to be more strongly dependent on their damage dealt, rather than their ability to keep enmity and mitigate damage? Assuming that is the claim, isn't it more reasonable that a tanks performance should be gauged on their ability to balance damage dealt with enmity generated? (After all, the tanking/raiding meta may change) If damage dealt becomes their main metric of performance, aren't they effectively a DPS class?

(4) It is plain to see that some jobs are not as well put together as others, both in terms of how well each individual piece of the toolkit performs as well synergy between these pieces and in comparison to other jobs' equivalent tools. I too dislike the level job homogenization present in XIV and though ASTs would most likely enjoy a Shroud clone rather than a Quelling clone when it comes to enmity management I think the best would be a more unique ability designed with consideration to what and how the job performs.

Coming from that, I get the feeling that the actual issue at hand is that ASTs (among others) has poor internal synergy which symptoms manifest in certain encounters? Wouldn't it be better to correct the function of astrologians rather than change encounter mechanics and enmity feedback? It would retain a layer of gameplay considerations and provide the tools to solve the challenges presented by that layer. For example (and a poorly constructed ones, I suspect), working from the assumption that "Sephiroth Dives" will not reappear, but displacement enmity is a thing:

LA's duration is much longer and refresh potency is lowered to achieve the same overall mana return. OR
LA now instead reverses enmity generation when active. OR
LA instead halves current enmity but returning it over a period of time.

The point is, there are ways to address these topics without simplifying the game.

http://i.imgur.com/oV8xfiW.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

The point is, there are ways to address these topics without simplifying the game.

---

So, are you in essence saying that the way the current enmity feedback works and having to work around it is somehow more "complex" (less simplified) than having no enmity generated during invulnerability phases would be? Cause, the way I see it, it is in fact the exact opposite. If you have to work around enmity, it means that you could have to either limit healer throughput (if you run with an AST), or overkill an encounter's aggro ceiling just to have a long invulnerability phase in mind. The way that works out is healers would more or less minimize their actions per minute and getting by with minimal overhealing/damage, and/or having the tanks permanently sit in their tanking stance and doing their enmity combos more. Which directly results in a DPS loss, playing finesse loss or a "fun loss", you name it. And yes, that is still assuming a tank does their primary job well enough and doesn't faceroll with the mitigational needs etc. (Subjective claim here, I know, but I am pretty confident in saying a majority would find it boring to 123123123 spam MT again without any worry in the world, rather than minmaxing damage with a calculated aggro lead and keeping the mitigational needs in mind).

So the options are pretty much: 1) Running dual WAR or having a perma-MT WAR (only tank which has its enmity combo be its highest potency combo, so even Deliverance tanking doesn't put the MT in a bad shape). 2) Not running AST with how gimp its enmity management is assuming you need to push for throughput and DPS, so just bring your WHM and call it a day. 3) Changing up how LA works (as suggested). 4) Keeping things as is and limiting the amount of throughput of the relevant jobs for the sake of overkilling the aggro ceiling. 5) Actually changing up the way the enmity response works and not having healers generate aggro on invulnerable mobs.

#1 can work, #2 can work but having an unviable job is never fun, #3 is a bandaid fix but homogenization is pretty unfun. So what that leaves us with is #4, which would exactly add what to our gameplay? Whether the raiding meta changes to be less DPS-centric again is another thing, but we no longer have a default-MT PLD with its 1 combo that doubledips for both the highest DPS combo and the enmity combo (as was the case in the T9 days). What does this mean? Lower aggro ceilings. I don't see what keeping this as is for the sake of keeping it adds to the gameplay from a skill perspective. Pop your LA with a little bit more caution (assuming one didn't do so already), limit your actions to the bare minimum to minimize enmity, and maybe have your co-healer cover up for you more. Couple that by having your tank turtle it up for more aggro if need be. Yeah, pretty sure a WHM would be brought at this point for ease of minmax, if LA didn't get changed.

Which finally leaves us with #5: changing how the enmity response works. So I ask of you, what exactly is the argument against this? Apart from the fact we're "used to" it being like it is now. What dimension of skillful gameplay gets taken out the moment they change this up? You still need to manage your resources (enmity included) in normal phases of a fight, as with everyone else, but you are now not punished for pushing your job to its limits, or alternatively, not punishing your tank for doing the same. Yes, this assumes the raiding meta stays more or less DPS-centric, but even if it didn't, people would still minmax their damage output.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tranquil

[1] So, are you in essence saying that the way the current enmity feedback works and having to work around it is somehow more "complex" (less simplified) than having no enmity generated during invulnerability phases would be?
[...][2] #3 is a bandaid fix but homogenization is pretty unfun. So what that leaves us with is #4, which would exactly add what to our gameplay?
[...][3] Which finally leaves us with #5: changing how the enmity response works. So I ask of you, what exactly is the argument against this? What dimension of skillful gameplay gets taken out[?]

---

(1) Yes, having healers generate enmity during boss displacement and having to deal with it is more complex than pausing everything in terms of player-enemy relations until the boss has returned. Provided that the boss does not instantly and unavoidably kill its main target upon return, player options expand to returning the boss to a tank (which is on the players' side mechanically almost identical to a tank swap) and protecting the healer until that can happen. Is this not a test of skill and co-ordination?

Having the healer top the enmity list during displacement phases is not an automatic fail state and does not inherently lead to a DPS loss on the tank's part. A tank can maintain the same DPS/enmity balance, have a smaller enmity buffer, use Provoke to take the boss back after phase transitions and end up in a position where they have even a bigger enmity lead as compared to the DPS classes due to the healer generating enmity when the DPS jobs cannot. If the tank then decides to forego enmity for the sake of DPS, then that is their prerogative and their problem to solve.

(2) A change to LA (or any other skill for any job) need not result in copying the mechanics from another job and assuming that homogenization is the only outcome seem pessimistic. I am confident there are changes that can be made to abilities that result in better job identity whilst providing a satisfying tool to use.

(3) I do not think that game complexity at this level should be reduced for the sake of convenience. I argue that it is more appropriate to either give jobs tools to (such as adding/changing abilities), or provide encounter mechanics manipulate enmity. If the latter is to introduce enemies or other mechanics that affect the displaced enemies' enmity, then that is more desirable than pausing healer enmity generation (though I personally don't think that should be a pervasive mechanic).

How is a healer currently punished for also dealing damage? Each action has a cost, it is the players' task to decide whether or not they wish to pay that cost, be it additional enmity, less mana to use for healing or an increase in risk of an ally dying. It is the same balancing act that tanks walk regarding enmity/DPS and DPS jobs do when they want to risk taking damage (or other detrimental effects) in order to have greater uptime. To be able to heal without paying in enmity requires less skill on the healers' part, just as pausing enmity during boss displacement removes situations where the tank and healers need to react to danger when the boss returns.

(1) You would really argue that to be the case, if it comes at the cost of mid-fight (in-phase) easiness? Having to cater to enmity some extra is in direct correlation with adjusting one's gameplay to be more streamlined, assuming you don't run a WHM/SCH combo. Ergo, while you can argue that having to pay attention to one's enmity in invulnerability phases requires "skill", it is more than offset from the fact the gameplay leading up to that moment will have been less thrilling. Please keep in mind, we're arguing about this with mostly the AST in mind. Enmity management is already faceroll easy on a WHM/SCH. By the time a fight is 2 Shrouds into its duration, a WHM will at worst be hovering in the yellow. Whether we make specific arrangements when running a WHM/SCH combo, does not matter because even with throughput maximization in mind (high tank DPS/healer DPS) - tragedies with enmity should not happen. Yes, you have the "Sephiroth Dive" mentioned in this thread, but let's keep this conversation to situations wherein mistakes are not obviously being made (Shroud omission etc.).

Whether you make changes into the enmity feedback during invulnerability phases will make WHMs and SCHs go from having an easy time to...having an easy time. There is literally little to no risk in fucking up as it is. We're mostly arguing about this with the AST in mind. Therefore, if the other jobs go from having no change (tanks/DPS) to having no impactful change in gameplay from changing this up (WHM/SCH) - barring the AST who would have a (rightfully) easier time with their enmity - where does the problem lie in? The only change that would occur is that AST's LA wouldn't need to be changed, and it would retain its unique Quelling Strikes-like aspect, whilst not affecting anything else negatively. WHM and SCH aggro is inconsequential 4-5 minutes into the fight, therefore changing the enmity feedback and how it functions would barely make any change, except to comps who are trying to minmax everything with a comp that has an AST in it (tank and healer DPS included, with a lower aggro ceiling).

(2) Okay, fair enough, but if they do change this up, no change in LA needs to be made and the impact to other jobs' gameplay will be inconsequential.

(3) Again, you are claiming that complexity is being reduced in making this change. I still maintain it is the opposite. Being "aggro-aware" is one thing, and the work-around to that is streamlining one's gameplay: more enmity, less healer enmity. Sure, this requires co-ordination and skill, but way less than what would be required of people who try to "multitask" on their job on top of their primary job (that is, minmaxing tank DPS with a lower aggro ceiling as a result, and also chipping in as much healer off-DPS as possible). And as I have said before: this already is a non-issue with WHM/SCH comps due to how powerful Shroud is and how SCH is, well, SCH, even if you were to minmax tank and healer DPS to the utmost limits - therefore no impactful changes in reducing the skillcap of these jobs would result in changing up the enmity response. The only change it makes is enabling AST-comps maximize their healer and tank throughput, without otherwise cheesing things.

The other option is indeed to change up LA, but given the aforementioned, should it be necessary?

Finally, healers being "punished" for dealing damage was in reference to maximizing healer throughput in compositions with an AST in it - wherein if you don't want to get gimped by enmity-related issues, the options are in creating a higher aggro ceiling than what you would with WHM/SCH comps (tank DPS loss), or alternatively, having healers generate less enmity. The latter has to do with cutting down off-DPS, as an example, hence it was mentioned. (Although it could also mean more evenly distributed healing between two healers etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tranquil

[...] Please keep in mind, we're arguing about this with mostly the AST in mind.

---

Let us then assume for a moment that XIV has the AST as the sole healer job, that tanks always stay in DPS stance (and always survive because magic ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) and that healers deal as much damage as possible whilst timing their LA impeccably. What the DPS do is largely inconsequential for this line of speculation.

In this scenario going into a displacement phase has no significant bearing on pre-displacement behaviour. Tanks need not make special concessions with regards to healer enmity as long as they can stay a single point of enmity ahead (which they should be anyway). Once the group leaves the displacement phase, the main tank can Provoke and keep going as normal. The amount of attention and behavioural changes needed is minimal as long as both parties are aware of what commonly happens and what needs to be done to address this. A buffer only becomes relevant if you want to keep the tank ahead of the healer for the displacement phase as well.

Now, let's return to the actual XIV. If WHM/SCH enmity is trivial and AST is the only one struggling with managing the enmity they generate through performing their role (and/or performing extra tasks), I argue that it is more reasonable to change AST.

Consider a hypothetical future piece of content where a mechanic forces healers to (without help) somehow manage their enmity below a certain level or similar within a time span or before a certain point, the WHM and SCH would likely be able to solve this as per how "[enmity] already is a non-issue with WHM/SCH comps due to how powerful Shroud is and how SCH is, well, SCH, even if you were to minmax tank and healer DPS to the utmost limits". But the AST with their current version of LA and other tools cannot overcome this hurdle, since the changes were made to displacement phase enmity and not to the AST.

From that, we either end up having to change AST and in a sense make the displacement phase change superfluous or play a game where such mechanics have no place because of the inherent weakness of AST. The latter is a bad place to be in my eyes. I'd rather have a game where different types of encounters are possible both to implement and to overcome due to well-designed jobs for the players to wield than a game where such things are off-limits for the sake of enjoying convenience at a prior point.

I don't have any qualms with the speculation in the post above, except for a part of the first half of the post - I am not sure why we would need to resort to that (Provoking post-displacement), whereas the outcome wouldn't be any different for the most part if invulnerability phases didn't build up enmity, except the Provoke-way to go at it feels like "bad form". That is, up until the moment we get another T9, which we might or might not get. Since we're speculating with "mays and may nots" in mind, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't really go the proposed route in the OP instead. But hey, I am not entirely opposed to changing up how the AST's LA works either, but I just see it as a second-tier fix. (Besides, to me it sounds like you honestly ignore some mays and may nots, whilst speculating the possibility of others).

As far as the speculation in your latter part of the post goes - that is some really heavy speculation, but I am not saying it is impossible. However, going that far to speculate "what ifs" is not really what's the most close to being relevant, because recycling older pre-existing mechanics, gimmicks and ideas and how things work within an encounter context seems more likely to me, with the issue with AST rising up again.

All in all I don't think it's gonna be on-topic if we speculate onwards from here. I still maintain what I wrote in my post, but won't say no to a "fix" to LA, as boring as it would be to do it that way. I am not opposed to new gimmicks and mechanics either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

The point is, there are ways to address these topics without simplifying the game.

---

I do hope you realise you're not even in line with yourself here. Not addressing this would involve:
Tanks spamming the enmity combo over and over
Healers still need to heal a certain amount throughout the fight. The only way to avoid additional enmity is to just sit there like a sack of potatoes and not DPS.
The moment a job gets issue with this would require retooling

Spamming 123 over and over for the enmity combo seems even more simplified. Or healers not DPSing to avoid enmity makes it a simple press-1-to-heal job. If anything that would make it oversimplified, it would be this kind of practice. Or would we have to resort to what you suggest; Retooling? whenever a tank or healer - or just healers specifically - would have problems concerning enmity, Square-Enix would simply need to retool their kit? I believe this is far worse practice than what you're trying to sell:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

From that, we either end up having to change AST and in a sense make the displacement phase change superfluous or play a game where such mechanics have no place because of the inherent weakness of AST. The latter is a bad place to be in my eyes.

---

Let's say Scholars are the ones next who will have enmity issues, simply retool their Aetherflow as you propose? Or if a certain tank has trouble keeping enmity on any healer due to the phase, simply retool the tank? Constantly retooling everything won't solve anything in the long run. Square-Enix will simply reiterate this whole endeavor over and over while removing this whole "displacement-but-you-still-build-enmity" gimmick is solved once and for all for any role and any encounter. Is it that hard to understand how nearsighted your idea is to simply retool jobs over and over? Astrologians are the one in the spotlight concerning this gimmick, with Paladins somewhere in the background. So what if a new tank/healer is introduced in the next expansion - With every current healer already retooled - and run into this trouble again? Retool them all over again till all the healers are practically clones of each other on the enmity board?

I'm bundling some quotes here since they are both relevant to the reply below.

Quote:

---

As far as the speculation in your latter part of the post goes - that is some really heavy speculation, but I am not saying it is impossible. [...] with the issue with AST rising up again.
[...] Let's say Scholars are the ones next who will have enmity issues [...]

---

That's one of my main arguments as to why I believe changes are better directed at the AST.

If a healer (actually, pick any job, it still applies) as an entity has runaway problems or scaling issues regarding enmity, mana, healing output, DPS, etc. then the solution should not be making changes to the various pieces of content it is pitted against - it is the job itself that is broken. And it means that every time something new is introduced, this internally unsound job can run into problems that requires another fix. It is better in the long run to have a well-designed job that scales well and handles new things well than making changes to wider systems in order to accommodate inconveniences such as this. The better a job is designed, the fewer changes will be needed in the future.

If Squeenix introduce new jobs with the same issue as old jobs had before they were addressed, then Squeenix need to take a hard look at their design team, 'cause someone is in that case making the same mistakes over and over again.

And to highlight a final thing: changes made to a job does not automatically equate to that job being homogenized in relation to other jobs. Two jobs can achieve similar end results with vastly different tools. If the one can only see homogenization as a solution to making all jobs viable, it's time to take a step back and look outside of the box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyrica_Ashtine

I do hope you realise you're not even in line with yourself here. Not addressing this would involve [...]

---

Foregoing the displacement enmity change does also not exclude playing your job and pushing for extra DPS both among tanks and healers just as before and provoking back the boss when it returns. I don't understand the notion of healers becoming the main target for a moment without dying being the worst thing in the world (doubly so if it is consistent and you can plan for/around it). We die on purpose to circumvent mechanics, we run into danger to build LB or improve DPS uptime, all these peculiar sacrifices and inconveniences - but this one is for some reason unbearable.

To be honest, I think this is largely an issue with astrologian's enmity tool rather than the fights themselves. It's just not nearly as effective at reducing hate in the long run compared to whm's shroud. Though I do think the current situation is acceptable overall, since tanks can gain plenty of enmity with ease and healers should be worried about how much hate they're generating which is, of course, directly related to how much overhealing they're doing (well, the mt I usually run with for Thordan ex is so busy trying to outrun the ot for hate, that he already has a sizable lead over me).

Even when you bring in the "now my mt has to get more hate and loses dps", you have to weigh that against the gain in party wide dps from bringing astrologian (well, at least my group usually sees an increase and I dps about as much as ast as I do as whm). If someone has some math as to how many enmity combos it would take for the loss of mt dps to outweigh the average increase in party dps from ast buffs in a 10-15 min fight or so, I'd like to see it. It wouldn't swing me one way or the other, but it would be interesting to see just how extra enmity you can afford to get without going negative on dps (assuming you need the extra enmity in the first place).

Anyway, I feel that even if you did change how enmity works for untargetable bosses, it's very possible that astrologian will run into aggro issues in fights with targetable bosses but high aoe damage; iirc there was already a thread that talked about that when it came to A3s. I think it's best to address astrologian's enmity management directly, honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutemutt

To be honest, I think this is largely an issue with astrologian's enmity tool rather than the fights themselves. It's just not nearly as effective at reducing hate in the long run compared to whm's shroud. Though I do think the current situation is acceptable overall, since tanks can gain plenty of enmity with ease and healers should be worried about how much hate they're generating which is, of course, directly related to how much overhealing they're doing (well, the mt I usually run with for Thordan ex is so busy trying to outrun the ot for hate, that he already has a sizable lead over me).

---

Pretty much. If it snapshots the same as all other buffs snapshot, you're already shooting yourself for not thinking ahead if you toss out AoE HoT heals before you use LA, and I know I forget that myself nearly all the time. Can imagine more people forget it as well. Besides, healing is usually way more roller coaster than just a 20s segment with super-heavy healing every 2 minutes and that's assuming LA lines up with it anyway. If they don't change the way it works they could at least increase the reduction rate to compensate for the way harder use. Otherwise just make it a self-target Smoke Screen or a reverse enmity generator (healing reduces your enmity for the duration). Complexity for the sake of complexity should be killed, not encouraged. It's only fine now since technically a tank can do more DPS combos than less (lock highest threat ability -> DPS buff -> Provoke -> Bop it and be in the lead by miles) but once T9 comes back, oh boy.

We have to take into consideration: T9 was not designed with AST in mind. I'm aware of the issue in this fight.

Back to Thordan:

Have done it as Whitemage (Video link) and as Astrologian (Video link), played it in a similar compareable way and didn't ran into issues by emnity.