Is there a way to keep tank stance on until I turn it off?

Leveling my first tank, and the game keeps turning tank stance off.
When I enter a dungeon, die, whatever. I'm constantly having to turn it on again.

Is there any way to make the default mode ON, until I decide to disable it?

It resets when you level sync. It shouldn't matter if you KO, unless you're in a FATE or something and don't take a rez.

There's no leaving it on and you don't always want it on. When you get to co-tanking with people in trial and raid content, it's important that only one person maintains aggro until a swap is needed.

Unfortunately not. You’ll find that tanks forgetting to turn tank stance on has become kind of a meme because everyone has done it at some point. You’ll get it hard-wired into your brain eventually that at the start of a dungeon or after reviving you’ll need to turn it back on, just gotta keep at it lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destatiredux

Unfortunately not. You’ll find that tanks forgetting to turn tank stance on has become kind of a meme because everyone has done it at some point. You’ll get it hard-wired into your brain eventually that at the start of a dungeon or after reviving you’ll need to turn it back on, just gotta keep at it lol

---

Oh well. I've just moved the indicator lower and closer to center, more in my field of view so maybe I won't forget it as often :)

It helps to modify the HUD layout and move the status effects where your eyes look at most of the time, which for me is under my hotbar.

It gets removed when you sync. This happens when you enter a dungeon that is a lower level or is item level synced, or when you click level sync at a fate.

Considering the direction of the game the devs might as well make tank stance a passive and just remove the skill while reminding tanks that shirk exists. /shrug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raoabolic

Considering the direction of the game the devs might as well make tank stance a passive and just remove the skill while reminding tanks that shirk exists. /shrug

---

Im not actually against this, like having to summon Carbuncle, its just fluff. Its being there doesnt make the job more complicated, its just stuff.

OP, just in case you're not aware, it does this with food as well, so try to wait until you're actually in a duty to use food so you don't accidentally lose it.

EDIT: Huh, I stand corrected apparently. Not sure what I was thinking of.

This used to be the case, many moons ago. Tanks with their stance on defaulted to keeping it on through any situation, and the community complained, particularly raiders. The argument was basically that tanks needed to be aware of their enmity generation and if it defaulted to always on, it was ruining multi-tank scenarios. Personally, I think it was so you could call out trolls, since if the alliance or raid said 'This person is tank' and the off-tank turned it on also, it was clear they weren't following the desires of the group.

Using Shirk with always-on isn't a great way of doing it, but instead they could utilize a buff like V&C's Ultimatum to increase enmity gain. I don't think it would impact any standard tank statuses, although raiders might still object to it. If off-tanks had a way to temporarily turn off the trait, it might help. Something like a Class Action called 'Withdraw', lasts 10s, recast in 10s, that removes the trait and lowers current enmity. Of course, Cleric Stance was removed because it... wait, why was it removed again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiramu

Im not actually against this, like having to summon Carbuncle, its just fluff. Its being there doesnt make the job more complicated, its just stuff.

---

I'd say the difference is that Tank Stances are (though they weren't before) OGCDs. Carbuncle is a hard cast that you need to spend MP and a potential Swiftcast on for something that enables you to do your job. Tanks can still get mileage out of Provoke despite not having their stance on for a few secs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BaroLlyonesse

Using Shirk with always-on isn't a great way of doing it, but instead they could utilize a buff like V&C's Ultimatum to increase enmity gain. I don't think it would impact any standard tank statuses, although raiders might still object to it. If off-tanks had a way to temporarily turn off the trait, it might help. Something like a Class Action called 'Withdraw', lasts 10s, recast in 10s, that removes the trait and lowers current enmity. Of course, Cleric Stance was removed because it... wait, why was it removed again?

---

They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro. But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsability when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.
And Cleric was removed because healers were healing less while the buff was up, which led to unfortunate issues during emergency situations...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BaroLlyonesse

This used to be the case, many moons ago. Tanks with their stance on defaulted to keeping it on through any situation, and the community complained, particularly raiders. The argument was basically that tanks needed to be aware of their enmity generation and if it defaulted to always on, it was ruining multi-tank scenarios. Personally, I think it was so you could call out trolls, since if the alliance or raid said 'This person is tank' and the off-tank turned it on also, it was clear they weren't following the desires of the group.

Using Shirk with always-on isn't a great way of doing it, but instead they could utilize a buff like V&C's Ultimatum to increase enmity gain. I don't think it would impact any standard tank statuses, although raiders might still object to it. If off-tanks had a way to temporarily turn off the trait, it might help. Something like a Class Action called 'Withdraw', lasts 10s, recast in 10s, that removes the trait and lowers current enmity. Of course, Cleric Stance was removed because it... wait, why was it removed again?

---

Why add another button to click, when you can click the one that's already there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zebraoracle

OP, just in case you're not aware, it does this with food as well, so try to wait until you're actually in a duty to use food so you don't accidentally lose it.

---

It does not happen with food. Why do you believe it happens with food?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raoabolic

Considering the direction of the game the devs might as well make tank stance a passive and just remove the skill while reminding tanks that shirk exists. /shrug

---

Sometimes the gear difference or rotation execution between tanks is so massive that shirk isn't enough, and the more geared tank gets the boss back after some time. Sometimes older bosses weren't designed for the timings that shirk comes off cooldown. Sometimes a tank death throws off the shirk timings and in order to avoiding taking the boss after a swap, you need to turn the stance off instead.

Perhaps spamming Provoke could solve that but I think it would be annoying to add this to your rotation when some tank rotations have a lot of abilities to use already. I also believe that many of my co-tanks would not usually spam provoke in this situation, causing it all to go wrong. Being able to save the situation myself by turning my stance off gives me a way to fix the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

It does not happen with food. Why do you believe it happens with food?

Sometimes the gear difference or rotation execution between tanks is so massive that shirk isn't enough, and the more geared tank gets the boss back after some time. Sometimes older bosses weren't designed for the timings that shirk comes off cooldown. Sometimes a tank death throws off the shirk timings and in order to avoiding taking the boss after a swap, you need to turn the stance off instead.

Perhaps spamming Provoke could solve that but I think it would be annoying to add this to your rotation when some tank rotations have a lot of abilities to use already. I also believe that many of my co-tanks would not usually spam provoke in this situation, causing it all to go wrong. Being able to save the situation myself by turning my stance off gives me a way to fix the situation.

---

If you have a food active and go into lower level content, it removes the food buff doesn't it? I could have sworn this was a conversation I'd seen in game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

I'd say the difference is that Tank Stances are (though they weren't before) OGCDs. Carbuncle is a hard cast that you need to spend MP and a potential Swiftcast on for something that enables you to do your job. Tanks can still get mileage out of Provoke despite not having their stance on for a few secs.



They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro. But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsability when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.
And Cleric was removed because healers were healing less while the buff was up, which led to unfortunate issues during emergency situations...

---

I understand that, however, I dont think either add anything to the jobs complexity or mechanics; and removing them to autos and making Shirk cast aggro more powerfully (or prioritise the aggro list) wouldnt remove anything either.

Long long time ago they actually did make it so tank stance didn't turn off when level sync'ed... then they broke it and never fixed it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zebraoracle

If you have a food active and go into lower level content, it removes the food buff doesn't it? I could have sworn this was a conversation I'd seen in game.

---

It doesn't. My food has always survived multiple roulettes. I usually apply it before entering. There are certain categories of buffs that don't get removed.

The reason tank stances can't be in that category is because there are levels where you don't have a tank stance and keeping it would mean you still have the stance at levels you are not supposed to. Those levels are extremely low, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

It doesn't. My food has always survived multiple roulettes. I usually apply it before entering. There are certain categories of buffs that don't get removed.

The reason tank stances can't be in that category is because there are levels where you don't have a tank stance and keeping it would mean you still have the stance at levels you are not supposed to. Those levels are extremely low, obviously.

---

Huh, I could have sworn there was some kind of content that removed food buff upon scaling to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiramu

I understand that, however, I dont think either add anything to the jobs complexity or mechanics; and removing them to autos and making Shirk cast aggro more powerfully (or prioritise the aggro list) wouldnt remove anything either.

---

Well, yeah I agree with that. Both carbuncle and tank stances are virtually relics of an older system. One Square likely doesn't know how to get around. If you condensed the classes further, you'd basically have the same thing you have now.

What I pointed out was really that tank stances aren't required to do your job to a certain point, especially if you just raised. Provoke's there and it's 25% aggro, regardless of stance. Carbuncle is an absolute thorn on my backside and Square's a dolt for keeping it. It's literally useless, not even for the shield anymore which I can't use while Egis or Demis are up. But I need it there, or I can't even call Egis nor Demis.

The only thing I'd be wary of would be how you'd safely establish which tank was main tank. But aggro combos can deal with that.

Whether or not Square can do anything good with it is a different story. Especially given their track record lately which has been...
https://media.tenor.com/mgAjklI7ntUA...tor-arcane.gif

Enmity combos were something that if you tried to explain them to a sprout it made tanking sound complicated. I doubt they would bring them back. Now that we can tell a sprout "just turn on tank stance and attack enemies" and know that this is optimal it's increased the amount of tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

Enmity combos were something that if you tried to explain them to a sprout it made tanking sound complicated. I doubt they would bring them back. Now that we can tell a sprout "just turn on tank stance and attack enemies" and know that this is optimal it's increased the amount of tanks.

---

That's good. I'd hate to have to deal with that on top of getting them to voke properly during certain busters. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

The reason tank stances can't be in that category is because there are levels where you don't have a tank stance and keeping it would mean you still have the stance at levels you are not supposed to. Those levels are extremely low, obviously.

---

That may have been the case before, but now all tanks have it at level 10. Though, having the toggle is still a good thing especially in AR when someone might decide to stand inside the group of people and not move when a boss has cleave attacks, and they may end up with being the main tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avatre

That may have been the case before, but now all tanks have it at level 10. Though, having the toggle is still a good thing especially in AR when someone might decide to stand inside the group of people and not move when a boss has cleave attacks, and they may end up with being the main tank.

---

This may seem stupid, but you can sync to below level 10 in certain fates and quest battles, and that's actually why they can't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

Well, yeah I agree with that. Both carbuncle and tank stances are virtually relics of an older system. One Square likely doesn't know how to get around. If you condensed the classes further, you'd basically have the same thing you have now.

What I pointed out was really that tank stances aren't required to do your job to a certain point, especially if you just raised. Provoke's there and it's 25% aggro, regardless of stance. Carbuncle is an absolute thorn on my backside and Square's a dolt for keeping it. It's literally useless, not even for the shield anymore which I can't use while Egis or Demis are up. But I need it there, or I can't even call Egis nor Demis.

The only thing I'd be wary of would be how you'd safely establish which tank was main tank. But aggro combos can deal with that.

Whether or not Square can do anything good with it is a different story. Especially given their track record lately which has been...
https://media.tenor.com/mgAjklI7ntUA...tor-arcane.gif

---

Okay, fair enough I get you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

This may seem stupid, but you can sync to below level 10 in certain fates and quest battles, and that's actually why they can't do it.

---

Ah, fair enough. I keep forgetting about things that are outside the roulettes for low level things.

It should be reversed and reduce hate generation on tanks. Honestly it shouldn't be a thing. Between provoke changes and shirk it shouldn't matter.

I don't know how many time I shirk the off tank in normal 8 person content just so they are 2nd on hate. Incase something goes side ways.

They could also just make tank hate combo without stance higher then dps and healers 2x generation without stance and 10x with stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deveryn

That's good. I'd hate to have to deal with that on top of getting them to voke properly during certain busters. :p

---

Dumbing down something isn't a good response to problems like this but considering the "no player left behind" direction the game is crashing towards makes this problem tough to tackle. Perhaps we should ask the healers if "streamlining" class architypes is a good idea. :^)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

They could bring back aggro combos.

---

Let's not. Truly. It was a painfully wasteful mechanic. Each tank had to spend 3-7 buttons on what was ultimately solely a mini-game of "How well can I calculate how high the peak DPS enmity will go before the enemy dies and trim my opening GCDs before dropping tank stance accordingly?"

Quote:

---

DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years.

---

Because it looks cooler and could be used as a way to give DRK more than just the 1-2-3 combo and an alternate spender after 2 in every 5 combos. Not for an enmity combo that'd be used only a few times per fight (before essentially hot-swapping that combo off one's bars as not to have said bars bloated by it).

Quote:

---

The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro.

---

Most will grab aggro, because it's higher rDPS to do so than to chance the boss nuking a DPS during their opener. That's not the issue so much as that "fighting for aggro" after the first moments of a fight or add spawn is a pretty damn boring maintenance mechanic given how shallowly it's ever manipulated in this game and is very expensive to support in any way XIV would think to attempt.

Quote:

---

But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsibility when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.

---

Diversion was removed because it was bloat, in much the same fashion as Invigorate. You just hit in on CD for a subtle rDPS gain if any only if you will be 2nd highest threat anyways and all other DPS are likewise mitigating their enmity, too. Which badly conflicted with the way enmity window maximization worked for tanks, since they'd want to estimate likely enmity totals over the fight right from the start, and they kind of had to (erroneously at times) assume their Damage-Dealers weren't idiots.

Tanks could use more to do, and current tank stance is still rather wasteful, but a return to enmity combos is not the answer. It's way too button-inefficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Let's not. Truly. (...)
Tanks could use more to do, and current tank stance is still rather wasteful, but a return to enmity combos is not the answer. It's way too button-inefficient.

---

I mean, I didn't mention it as gospel. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it here already, but my overall thoughts on enmity combos are like... they're an answer, but they're not the best answer. If anything because then we'd be back to people and tank rotations, about how tank openers do less damage because they're forced to generate aggro and all that headache. Hell, remember back when WARs completely ignored their tank combos and just spent stuff like Equilibrium to gain bursts of aggro? It's the same thing. Not only would they be unused, if they had to be used, they'd push rotations out and cause issues all over again.

What I meant was "well, if we're going to cut out on the tank stance, and if we don't want people to constantly compete for aggro willy-nilly, then having those skills might be best".

Naturally there are alternatives. If anything, make the tank stance a buff, where your normal combo gains aggro multipliers. The only thing impeding it would be pulling the bosses itself, since you'll want a bit of aggro beforehand, and it could be a waste of the buff's timer, even if milliseconds.

On a second read, yes, I did mention it. It just wasn't as clear. It also happened to be the sentences just after where you decided to crop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro.

---

Because I remember the times when we had the two combos and people felt irritated for having to press that combo just for aggro rather than the thing that maximized damage. Was really the only thing that came to mind when people said "let's do away with tank stances". Because then where would you put an aggro multiplier? Even what I said about a potential buff can cause issues. Such as "Oh, my opener is nowhere near as bursty. DRK, you pull with the buff up.", which can be perceived by some people as the class being weaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

On a second read, yes, I did mention it. It just wasn't as clear. It also happened to be the sentences just after where you decided to crop.

---

Your only sentence that followed what I quoted was on Cleric Stance. See the [HB] block.

Quote:

---

What I meant was "well, if we're going to cut out on the tank stance, and if we don't want people to constantly compete for aggro willy-nilly, then having those skills might be best".

---

Except, enmity combos would then replace one convenient oGCD with 2-3 additional GCD keys of otherwise zero purpose. And the thing is, you don't even need an action by which to replace tank stance. You need only buff Provoke to, say, apply an aura (hidden or otherwise) that increases enmity taken from the afflicter, or to have the tank enmity bonus be positionally dependent (only, say, 5x bonus from the rear, 7x from flank, and the 10x from the front).

You don't need to replace unnecessary action A with unnecessary action B, let alone C and D atop it.

Quote:

---

Naturally there are alternatives. If anything, make the tank stance a buff, where your normal combo gains aggro multipliers.

---

Don't make it specific to one's combo(s); else, one will no longer be able to gather with Flood, ranged attacks, etc. Just apply it to tanks across the board. There's no point in forcing the raid to delay their damage; there's no need to arbitrarily restrict the enmity aura buff to just a few tank actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Your only sentence that followed what I quoted was on Cleric Stance. See the [HB] block.

---

Okay, why spoiler that though? Especially when you acknowledge the problem I pointed out with the idea? Like, what you did was specifically:

[Maybe we could do this...]
No! Absolutely not, there are flaws!
<Spoilers>
[...but there are flaws]
then let's discuss them
</Spoilers>

...just saying, the formatting is a little bit weird. Makes it come across like I'm the idiot for not realizing it unless you choose to "read more", whereas you had the bright idea to point out it's flawed. When in reality, no, I pointed it out, you're just being redundant and adding shady formatting. But you do you.

And no? I wrote a fair bit before getting into Cleric Stance. Heck, the Cleric Stance bit was separated by a quote to someone else. It had nothing to do with this. Basically I don't understand what you mean by "Your only sentence that followed what I quoted was on Cleric Stance" because... no it was not? It was a whopping paragraph, and the talk about Cleric came way later in another section on the post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Except, enmity combos would then replace one convenient oGCD with 2-3 additional GCD keys of otherwise zero purpose. And the thing is, you don't even need an action by which to replace tank stance. You need only buff Provoke to, say, apply an aura (hidden or otherwise) that increases enmity taken from the afflicter, or to have the tank enmity bonus be positionally dependent (only, say, 5x bonus from the rear, 7x from flank, and the 10x from the front).

You don't need to replace unnecessary action A with unnecessary action B, let alone C and D atop it.

---

I mean, at the end of the day, it's still going to be a buff. But if it's applied to Provoke, then at least that gives it a bit more to the pulling as well. Good shout, honestly.
But it wasn't just one GCD, it was two on some tanks. They replaced two GCDs with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Don't make it specific to one's combo(s); else, one will no longer be able to gather with Flood, ranged attacks, etc. Just apply it to tanks across the board. There's no point in forcing the raid to delay their damage; there's no need to arbitrarily restrict the enmity aura buff to just a few tank actions.

---

Yeah but won't that also end up causing that "DRK, you do more than I do, both in APM and in damage, you pull" scenarios?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

Okay, why spoiler that though?

---

Because it was an aside to the larger point of the thread. Your "maybe bring 'em back" seemed primarily an incidental nudge towards, so I kept my "please no" equally brief, with the reasoning expandable.

Quote:

---

And no? I wrote a fair bit before getting into Cleric Stance.

Quote:

---

They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro. But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsability when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.
And Cleric was removed because healers were healing less while the buff was up, which led to unfortunate issues during emergency situations...

---

---

I literally quoted the whole of what is in bold, i.e., all but your comment on Cleric Stance. I could address also why CS wasn't a big deal to emergency situations either, as all oGCDs at the time except Tetra used percentile healing anyways and was therefore unaffected by CS (and, w/o wasting cast progress, CS itself only delayed healing by 1 GCD more than starting an offensive cast would now), but that falls outside my main concern.

I'm not sure why you're treating my response as malignant. I simply used the HB feature for its intended purpose --concision in regard to the thread's point of focus, tangential details optional-- while briefly addressing my point of concern. I neither cherry-picked nor unfairly framed what you had written. I merely happened not to have read the later pages; while that means I would have potentially missed if/where you had since moved away from the ideas you put on page one, no one owes it to others to check the remainder of a thread in place of someone's editing a since-changed idea, so that seemed unnecessary.

Quote:

---

I mean, at the end of the day, it's still going to be a buff.

---

There's no matter of potency or capacity affected, so it can only be a buff if the gameplay is improved. In that case, unless XIV were finally willing to actually make more than a table-entry mechanic out of enmity, the least cumbersome solution is likely to be the best. That's why I was concerned about seeing yet another "We could just bring back enmity combos" suggestion, however off-hand or "as example" it may have been.

Quote:

---

Yeah but won't that also end up causing that "DRK, you do more than I do, both in APM and in damage, you pull" scenarios?

---

It scales identically to, and only with, damage itself. Unless you're kicking a job for doing too little damage at pull now, neither would you kick it for dealing too little of something that scales directly and only with damage (e.g., enmity so long as you do not give the enmity modifier only to select GCD skills), nor be forced to pull with one job over another (since whoever Provokes is going to have threat regardless). Keep the aura as it is now, rather than on the main combo only, and there are no issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Because it was an aside to the larger point of the thread. Your "maybe bring 'em back" seemed primarily an incidental nudge towards, so I kept my "please no" equally brief, with the reasoning expandable.

I literally quoted the whole of what is in bold[/B], i.e., all but your comment on Cleric Stance. I could address also why CS wasn't a big deal to emergency situations either, as all oGCDs at the time except Tetra used percentile healing anyways and was therefore unaffected by CS (and, w/o wasting cast progress, CS itself only delayed healing by 1 GCD more than starting an offensive cast would now), but that falls outside my main concern.

I'm not sure why you're treating my response as malignant. I simply used the HB feature for its intended purpose --concision in regard to the thread's point of focus, tangential details optional-- while briefly addressing my point of concern. I neither cherry-picked nor unfairly framed what you had written. I merely happened not to have read the later pages; while that means I would have potentially missed if/where you had since moved away from the ideas you put on page one, no one owes it to others to check the remainder of a thread in place of someone's editing a since-changed idea, so that seemed unnecessary.

---

I already gave you the answer as to why I "think your answer was malignant" (I don't, I just find it weird, bc it looks like I didn't think things through. Which... I did...). And I reiterate: because while you're saying it's "an aside to the larger point of the thread", the part that you hid was the exact same sentiment that you said. The thing that's otherwise visible is you disagreeing with the first half of the sentence... which the 2nd half contradicts anyway. It wasn't an aside at all, especially if you're then going to agree that it has problems :|

I'm not saying you're an evil witch out to get me Shurrikhan. I'm saying your formatting is weird :|
Because it's like you're making visible the stuff where you disagree, but the stuff that you then agree and show that I too took issue with gets hidden under spoilers.

The rest about Cleric stance was me not getting the wording, really. Because it sounded like you were saying "Well, after that you write stuff on Cleric", whereas no, I still wrote a fair bit past that before getting to Cleric Stance. Again, whole paragraph on tanks and all that.

Like, this really doesn't bother me. I know it looks like it, but that's just because I write a lot and have trouble condensing it. I'm just going "but why tho?", not "omg you jerk how could you!?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

There's no matter of potency or capacity affected, so it can only be a buff if the gameplay is improved. In that case, unless XIV were finally willing to actually make more than a table-entry mechanic out of enmity, the least cumbersome solution is likely to be the best. That's why I was concerned about seeing yet another "We could just bring back enmity combos" suggestion, however off-hand or "as example" it may have been. [/HB]

---

Hmm... I get what you're saying, but it's not really me calling it a "buff" in the sense that it increases anything, but more so like it's going to appear on your buff/debuff bar like procs and stuff like that. I don't know what else to call those :o it's those pentagon-shaped things that indicate something about your character is being modified. Maybe "aura" like you mention. Though :p You can argue that it increases aggro multipliers? But eh, whatever really.

And yeah, on the enmity stuff, that's my bad for sure. Because like... what else can we do to generate aggro without a tank stance? If not a "buff" or some modifier, it'd have to be something engaged in the gameplay, and the only thing that came to mind because of how it's historically been were the aggro combos.

Do other MMOs have other ways of getting aggro passively? As in, not through dealing damage\healing you?

...and on that note, how do we classify non-combat aggro skills like Provoke or old Flash? Stuff that generates aggro without dealing damage or healing you? And should those be looked into if the tank stance were to go away entirely, or would they be too cumbersome? Because Flash was done away with entirely, not even reworked into an OGCD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

It scales identically to, and only with, damage itself. Unless you're kicking a job for doing too little damage at pull now, neither would you kick it for dealing too little of something that scales directly and only with damage (e.g., enmity so long as you do not give the enmity modifier only to select GCD skills), nor be forced to pull with one job over another (since whoever Provokes is going to have threat regardless). Keep the aura as it is now, rather than on the main combo only, and there are no issues.

---

Yeah but that's the thing. Currently, DRK does the highest burst opener in the game, and it's so strong that it's even optimal for Astrologian to give cards to DRKs. Meaning if anyone wanted to pull but their co-tank was a DRK, it'd be better for the DRK to pull and provoke later. Which, given how fights are now being designed, you'll be provoking anyway, so you'd want DRK to pull all the time if they were around. At least that's how it was like back then and why I assume it'd happen again if that were introduced. The ones that did the most aggro opened the fight, regardless of whether the tank was actually good or not. Even if WAR did better than DRK, if its opener wasn't what pushed the numbers up, DRKs would still be told to open the fight.

I'm not saying that that should matter, just that that was my experience with raiding before. If you did the most at the start, you opened, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

The rest about Cleric stance was me not getting the wording, really. Because it sounded like you were saying "Well, after that you write stuff on Cleric", whereas no, I still wrote a fair bit past that before getting to Cleric Stance. Again, whole paragraph on tanks and all that.

---

No, you got the wording. But that was my point: I literally quoted in full your "whole paragraph on tanks and all that."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Quote:

---

They could bring back aggro combos.

---

Quote:

---

DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years.

---

Quote:

---

The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro.

---

Quote:

---

But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsibility when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.

---

---

There are no words added, removed, nor reordered from...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midareyukki

They could bring back aggro combos. DRKs have been asking for their old finisher for years. The issue is that then people might end up easily competing for Aggro (not that it doesn't happen nowadays...), and people will hard-focus DPS instead of grabbing aggro. But honestly, while not perfect, I did like the system they had in Stormblood. Especially with stuff like Diversion, which forced the DPS to also have some responsability when it came to group content. But given the way the game's designed now and their philosophy, I understand why it's no longer the case. Seems to me they want a pick-up-and-play style rather than having to rely on team effort.

---

Quote:

---

And I reiterate: because while you're saying it's "an aside to the larger point of the thread", the part that you hid was the exact same sentiment that you said.

---

Yes. That was my intent in providing the details/warrant there -- to follow and elaborate upon the claim made.

Quote:

---

The thing that's otherwise visible is you disagreeing with the first half of the sentence... which the 2nd half contradicts anyway.

---

The entire sentence was quoted. Nor did any of your later sentences within your paragraph, every one of which was quoted, contradict your first sentence. I do not understand how you expect that I have skewed your meaning through the organization of said quotes.

Quote:

---

Hmm... I get what you're saying, but it's not really me calling it a "buff" in the sense that it increases anything, but more so like it's going to appear on your buff/debuff bar like procs and stuff like that. I don't know what else to call those it's those pentagon-shaped things that indicate something about your character is being modified. Maybe "aura" like you mention. Though You can argue that it increases aggro multipliers? But eh, whatever really.

---

An aura is any ongoing modifier. Those can be buffs, debuffs, or essentially neither. The term is a bit more muddled because "aura" can also refer to a style of snapshotting or of handling duration, a subset usually of buffs. These are the effects for which no duration is shown and simply last until the most recent server tick does not detect a given condition. Because tank stances have no cap to their durations, but appear on the buff bar, they may often be called either "buffs" or "auras" (or just "stances" because in most games 'stances' have no duration cap).

Now, per the example that led us here, if you were to remove the tank stance and simply grant the bonus enmity as an extension of Tank Mastery (and/or other ubiquitous undermechanics), that'd usually be called an "aura" because it would not appear on the buff bar. (A debuff can also be an aura, but there are very few examples, an

Does this clarify the typical terminology?

Quote:

---

Auras (aka [Status] Effects)

Buffs

Auras [Beneficial] (aka Dynamic-Conditional (Buffs)

Debuffs

Auras [Harmful] (aka Dynamic-Conditional (Debuffs)

---

<More on the enmity stuff after the Spoiler block.>

Quote:

---

but the stuff that you then agree and show that I too took issue with gets hidden under spoilers.

---

You seem to be under the impression that I disproportionately focused my quick summary on our points in contrast, hiding our points in agreement. That's not possible for a very simple reason: I also happened to disagree with the content of every quote included in that block (your "whole paragraph on tanks and all that"). Else I would have simply ended with "On the rest, agreed," and reconciled our viewpoints from there.

You suggest(ed) that aggro combos might be a route at least worth examining; I disagree(d), because enmity is rather unrewarding system to "manage" and high-enmity variant skills are notoriously inefficient (bloated) ways to interact with that system, regardless.
You implied(ed) that such is a significant reason for DRK's wanting back Power Slash; I disagree(d), because it's a non-factor in that desire, which stems instead from a want for greater rotational complexity and GCD- and/or VFX-diversity.
You suggest(ed) that one issue possible for enmity combos was people hard-focusing DPS over grabbing aggro; I disagree(d), because it hasn't been.
You suggest(ed) that Diversion and similar manipulars had some redeeming merit; I disagree(d), for the multiple reasons I then stated. I do not feel that Diversion entailed "team-effort" nor that moving away from its bloat entails, in itself, wanting more "a pick-up-and-play style."

I cannot have hidden away the agreement, showing only the contrast, when there was no agreement.

Quote:

---

And yeah, on the enmity stuff, that's my bad for sure. Because like... what else can we do to generate aggro without a tank stance? If not a "buff" or some modifier, it'd have to be something engaged in the gameplay, and the only thing that came to mind because of how it's historically been were the aggro combos.

---

Fair, fair. I restate my quick "least-cumbersome" spitball solutions again at the end of this post, but let me know if I've left anything too unclear.

Quote:

---

Do other MMOs have other ways of getting aggro passively? As in, not through dealing damage\healing you?

...and on that note, how do we classify non-combat aggro skills like Provoke or old Flash? Stuff that generates aggro without dealing damage or healing you? And should those be looked into if the tank stance were to go away entirely, or would they be too cumbersome? Because Flash was done away with entirely, not even reworked into an OGCD.

---

So, that gets a little complicated.

First, Flash didn't apply enmity directly / as a discrete application... not quite, iirc. All (de)buff events provide some (negligible -- like, 70 damage worth back at level 50) amount of enmity based on player level (which is why, in tank stance, just popping a few of buffs could offset aggro lost to a Regen tick or the like). Iirc, Flash just had a massive enmity modifier on that generic debuff event.

Now, why was Flash removed? I suspect that has equal parts to do with player dislike for bloat (since PLD was finally given AoE damage in Total Eclipse --and then Prominence, to boot-- and that AoE damage obviously applies enmity anyways) and dislike (players' and/or devs') for RNG-based defense. Technically, it wouldn't really have a term of its own, I think, but functionally, we could just call it a "Pure Enmity" or "Threat-Only" skill. Well, except of course that it wasn't just that; it was also a defensive AoE debuff.

Flash applied Blind, a flat Accuracy reduction. I suspect Accuracy still exists under the hood (just at a set amount per level, with raid bosses using just their expansion's level cap value), but if not, that would already have necessitated its death. Assuming Accuracy does still exist, though, the effect was often considered a bit unintuitive, as it was difficult to gauge just how much mitigation one was getting out of it (I usually found it a little less valuable than Dark Arts->Dark Dance, though I think the Blind effects given by DA-DP and Flash were identical). I kind of liked it in that it acted like a multi-charge CD of diminishing returns (even if a costly one, given damage loss), but I can see why most, especially with the removal of TP, wouldn't have wanted to touch it anyways.

Now, Provoke. For the longest time, Provoke simply set enmity to the highest enmity on the target's threat table and then added 1 atop it. This is what's classically just a "Taunt" at this point, or a "Match +1". It's the truly unique one.

Quote:

---

Yeah but that's the thing. Currently, DRK does the highest burst opener in the game, and it's so strong that it's even optimal for Astrologian to give cards to DRKs. Meaning if anyone wanted to pull but their co-tank was a DRK, it'd be better for the DRK to pull and provoke later.

---

Let's pick a frame of reference here.

Are we using the lasting Provoke modifier already mentioned? If so, that's going to be irrelevant unless DRK is doing at least double (or 3, 4x) the burst of other tanks.
Are we using the positional modifiers given as example? If so, that's going to be irrelevant unless, at the earlier spitball tuning, DRK is doing at least double the burst of other tanks.

Again, my example back there used both as premise: Enmity in general would be affected by relative positioning (hitting an enemy from the front would apply twice the enmity of hitting from the back, tanks would have some 5x enmity by default, and Provoke would have a larger overhead and a declining bump to enmity rate). Under the premises given, I don't see how it'd be an issue (let alone leave any problem that'd require enmity combos to be solved even if one were willing to sacrifice the damage to deal with that problem so inefficiently)?

Finally, though, I have to wonder if it'd even matter? Every tank has nearly, if not equal, off-tanking mitigation as main-tanking mitigation, at this point. So what would be the harm, anyways, of DRK pulling? Are we assuming that the MT-OT position parity forces an undesirable job kit constraint and would like to free ourselves of that however we can? I'm just wondering what's at risk here, even if just tangentially.

Unrelated but I remember having a giant aura male tank who would turn his stance off each time his health got at half haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SassyAssassin

Unrelated but I remember having a giant aura male tank who would turn his stance off each time his health got at half haha

---

I had to teach a DRK how to drop aggro once so we could 3-man the dungeon (Paglathan or w/e) w/o a healer (DRK-MNK-DRG), haha.

He kept pulling off of us before our own mitigation and self-sustain had been used up and then holding onto it for too long for us to save him. We'd finish off the packs w/o either of us quite dropping too, but we could have all stayed alive. Eventually he got the hang of it and no more deaths from there, at least.