Mitigation types

FFXIV usually design healer/tank jobs with different type of mitigations:

1- shield: which is extra HP pool.
2- reduce damage received.
3- increase defense.
4- healing or regen.

I see that there is no different between reduce damage or increase defense.

The differences are clear with Shields and healing/regen.

But when to choose between shield or increase defense?
Or why we have increase defense or reduce damage received?

I wish that we can have a clear way to decide which to choose and when as we currently we have one type of attacks and 1 type of tank busters

We basically already have this. There is 4 true types of mitigation of which 2 act exactly the same in all circumstances

1) shields- their unique characteristic is shield cheesing where if you take zero damage because it was entirely absorbed by the shield you can avoid some negative debuffs
2) increased damage resistance (eg sacred soil) or
3) reduce damage dealt by boss (eg disassemble)- these two always act exactly the same in all instances and their unique characteristic is that they snapshot reduced damage for flow on effects like DOT busters while shields don’t (not 2 and 3 do actually have one point of difference. 3 doesn’t work if the boss isn’t the origin of the damage)
4) true invulns (HG and SB)- mostly just flavour here but they technically can erase certain debuffs due to taking zero damage like shield cheesing (the big example I can think of is queens doom tankbuster in DRN/S)

If you want to snapshot reduced damage for flow on effects use mitigation, if you want to shield cheese debuffs or increase max HP (which can also overcome HP based damage like evens gravity) use shields

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

We basically already have this. There is 4 true types of mitigation of which 2 act exactly the same in all circumstances

1) shields- their unique characteristic is shield cheesing where if you take zero damage because it was entirely absorbed by the shield you can avoid some negative debuffs
2) increased damage resistance (eg sacred soil) or
3) reduce damage dealt by boss (eg disassemble)- these two always act exactly the same in all instances and their unique characteristic is that they snapshot reduced damage for flow on effects like DOT busters while shields don’t
4) true invulns (HG and SB)- mostly just flavour here but they technically can erase certain debuffs due to taking zero damage like shield cheesing (the big example I can think of is queens doom tankbuster in DRN/S)

If you want to snapshot reduced damage for flow on effects use mitigation, if you want to shield cheese debuffs or increase max HP (which can also overcome HP based damage like evens gravity) use shields

---

I feel like there is missing opportunity by not giving mitigation types more use cases in fights,

Like for multiple AoE attacks I feel like shields are just better no? and reduce damage received is just a buff to shields which is much more powerful mitigation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tunda

I feel like there is missing opportunity by not giving mitigation types more use cases in fights,

Like for multiple AoE attacks I feel like shields are just better no? and reduce damage received is just a buff to shields which is much more powerful mitigation

---

The opposite actually, many raidwides one after another benefits mitigation more than shields, shields are better for a single massive damage AOE

10% mitigation on 5 100,000 damage AOE’s is better than 10% mitigation on 1 300,000 damage AOE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

I wish that we can have a clear way to decide which to choose and when as we currently we have one type of attacks and 1 type of tank busters

---

As in there is one correct mitigation type for a given attack? I like having some amount of ambiguity, it allows for some creativity and can potentially make situations more dynamic. If instead you want each mitigation type to have meaning advantages over others then I can agree with that, although I don't find the current mix of options too bad right now.

Shields can block debuffs and I think this should be used more often in content. They can also be applied proactively while heals can't without losing some of their effectiveness and in the few cases of attacks that directly subtract HP, shields are unaffected and very effective at reducing risk when HP is initially reduced. Reducing damage received and increasing defense are the same thing, but they differ from shields in that they can't be consumed, ie they will have an effect for as long as they are active, yet they don't lose effectiveness from being cast early like heals (unless they are needed to mitigate a long series of attacks) and importantly they don't contribute to overheal. That last trait is one of the reasons why I think tank healing should be far less than healer healing, even with overpowered mitigation (which should not exist) heals would at least still have some purpose, while overpowered tank healing leaves no room for external heals as it becomes overheal.

So the current defense system has a good foundation. What we need in my opinion are encounters to make the most of it and of course a balancing of abilities to allow defense and healing to feel interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

As in there is one correct mitigation type for a given attack? I like having some amount of ambiguity, it allows for some creativity and can potentially make situations more dynamic. If instead you want each mitigation type to have meaning advantages over others then I can agree with that, although I don't find the current mix of options too bad right now.

---

That used to be a thing when block(and I think parry) didn't work on magic damage, so if a tankbuster was magic you were making things harder by having a PLD. DRK still has a vestige of that in Dark Mind, since part of its identity originally was being the anti-magic tank.

Between defense up and damage down I've been told that the latter may not work on attacks that involve bosses using adds, like Shadowed Messengers in P11S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azurarok

Between defense up and damage down I've been told that the latter may not work on attacks that involve bosses using adds, like Shadowed Messengers in P11S.

---

That is correct, I guess that does count as a point of difference, damage down on the boss only works if the boss actually does an attack, something like the icicles in junction shiva in E12S doesn’t originate from the boss so only defence up works while boss damage down doesn’t

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

That is correct, I guess that does count as a point of difference, damage down on the boss only works if the boss actually does an attack, something like the icicles in junction shiva in E12S doesn’t originate from the boss so only defence up works while boss damage down doesn’t

---

Meanwhile defense up skills have to care about range so the party actually receives the buff. Or at least had to.
I'm sure Kerachole would've had an advantage over Sacred Soil for mechanics that involve the party to spread back when the latter was smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

As in there is one correct mitigation type for a given attack? I like having some amount of ambiguity, it allows for some creativity and can potentially make situations more dynamic. If instead you want each mitigation type to have meaning advantages over others then I can agree with that, although I don't find the current mix of options too bad right now.

Shields can block debuffs and I think this should be used more often in content. They can also be applied proactively while heals can't without losing some of their effectiveness and in the few cases of attacks that directly subtract HP, shields are unaffected and very effective at reducing risk when HP is initially reduced. Reducing damage received and increasing defense are the same thing, but they differ from shields in that they can't be consumed, ie they will have an effect for as long as they are active, yet they don't lose effectiveness from being cast early like heals (unless they are needed to mitigate a long series of attacks) and importantly they don't contribute to overheal. That last trait is one of the reasons why I think tank healing should be far less than healer healing, even with overpowered mitigation (which should not exist) heals would at least still have some purpose, while overpowered tank healing leaves no room for external heals as it becomes overheal.

So the current defense system has a good foundation. What we need in my opinion are encounters to make the most of it and of course a balancing of abilities to allow defense and healing to feel interesting.

---

I agree current design lack of reactiveness.. tactical choices.. when actually to use shield over mitigation? If you are a math bro you can calculate X% mitigation = xxx shield which is not what I would see interesting..

If there is 3 different attack types thta healer and tanks can manage with their mitigations to get 50% extra effectivness over others that would be cool to see

Shields can absorb DoT ticks and mitigate percentile attacks (like most of Eden's raid-wides). A powerful enough shield can prevent some effects such as knockbacks or Doom (depends on boss). Crucially, they can be used after the cast is completed for things like DoTs.

Invulns work if used before the cast completes but work after the cast for things like DoT ticks. Invulns are hallowed ground, holm gang, living dead and superbolide.

Raw % mitigation is only useful before the cast completes in most cases, as it snapshots at the end of the cast. Raw mitigation can reduce the potency of DoT ticks as well if used before cast completes, which was super important in the Abyssos raids. This includes Reprisal even though it's more of a damage down on the enemies.

Healing instead of mitigating is valid (ie. Warriors do it with Thrill+Equibilibrium), but only if the lack of mitigation won't cause them to die or nearly die (usually they won't actually die to lack of mit if healed, but there are some exceptions, especially if gear isn't good or not max HP).

In summary, most of the time it doesn't matter which, but understanding these nuances will help a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

Shields can absorb DoT ticks and mitigate percentile attacks (like most of Eden's raid-wides). A powerful enough shield can prevent some effects such as knockbacks or Doom (depends on boss). Crucially, they can be used after the cast is completed for things like DoTs.

Invulns work if used before the cast completes but work after the cast for things like DoT ticks. Invulns are hallowed ground, holm gang, living dead and superbolide.

Raw % mitigation is only useful before the cast completes in most cases, as it snapshots at the end of the cast. Raw mitigation can reduce the potency of DoT ticks as well if used before cast completes, which was super important in the Abyssos raids. This includes Reprisal even though it's more of a damage down on the enemies.

Healing instead of mitigating is valid (ie. Warriors do it with Thrill+Equibilibrium), but only if the lack of mitigation won't cause them to die or nearly die (usually they won't actually die to lack of mit if healed, but there are some exceptions, especially if gear isn't good or not max HP).

In summary, most of the time it doesn't matter which, but understanding these nuances will help a bit.

---

I mean this is the current problem with job design in FFXIV.. they train you to go autopilot each fight.. they do not give you the choice that let you think before pressing anything.

No we reach to the point where yoshi said: "I don’t want to take a conservative approach"

everything can run in this game with autopilot even savage in some extinct

There are one or two additional factors at play. E.g. damage debuffing the boss may do the same for you as either buffing your own defense or shielding an equivalent amount of damage, but from the point of view of your party, the boss doing less damage helps your party more if the boss is going to perform any mechanic in the duration of the debuff that could or would affect party members other than yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daralii

That used to be a thing when block(and I think parry) didn't work on magic damage, so if a tankbuster was magic you were making things harder by having a PLD. DRK still has a vestige of that in Dark Mind, since part of its identity originally was being the anti-magic tank.

---

Yeah this was part of the earlier version of the game, but I think the devs had trouble balancing it, especially because encounters in this game can be memorized and solved. When that happens a lack of capability stands out and people tend to avoid it and the class suffering from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

I agree current design lack of reactiveness.. tactical choices.. when actually to use shield over mitigation? If you are a math bro you can calculate X% mitigation = xxx shield which is not what I would see interesting..

If there is 3 different attack types thta healer and tanks can manage with their mitigations to get 50% extra effectivness over others that would be cool to see

---

I see what you want now, more meaningful differences between the results of using different mitigation/healing abilities. This can definitely be achieved through tweaking of current mechanics. For example adding more attacks that apply a DoT on initial damage; shields would be much better against them than heals or damage reduction because they would negate the biggest source of damage from the attack.

New attack types could be added with less straightforward damage applications too like a lifesteal attack that absorbs the initial damage done, multiplies it, and then applies it again. Mitigating it would be the best option if damage done to shields counted as part of the multiplied damage.

For the sake of keeping all classes viable, there should also be some uncertainty in the frequency of these attacks. I can see a problem if there was a fight that used the initial damage DoT attack heavily and predictable as it might exclude WHM which cannot easily shield the entire party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PyurBlue

Yeah this was part of the earlier version of the game, but I think the devs had trouble balancing it, especially because encounters in this game can be memorized and solved. When that happens a lack of capability stands out and people tend to avoid it and the class suffering from it.



I see what you want now, more meaningful differences between the results of using different mitigation/healing abilities. This can definitely be achieved through tweaking of current mechanics. For example adding more attacks that apply a DoT on initial damage; shields would be much better against them than heals or damage reduction because they would negate the biggest source of damage from the attack.

New attack types could be added with less straightforward damage applications too like a lifesteal attack that absorbs the initial damage done, multiplies it, and then applies it again. Mitigating it would be the best option if damage done to shields counted as part of the multiplied damage.

For the sake of keeping all classes viable, there should also be some uncertainty in the frequency of these attacks. I can see a problem if there was a fight that used the initial damage DoT attack heavily and predictable as it might exclude WHM which cannot easily shield the entire party.

---

That's why healer are required..

If for example we boss fight that did Tank buster that is strong against block but it is weak against shields

If Paladin where the tank healers can cast shield to mitigate the TB or it will keep paladin in dangerous state..

In this way we can keep healers vaiable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

If for example we boss fight that did Tank buster that is strong against block but it is weak against shields

---

In Heavensward, Paladins could only block physical damage with Sheltron so against Alexander the mitigation effectively didn't exist, since you needed the other abilities for some adds later on. The healers just had to be on top of the healing for Paladins or it was a wipe.

And guess what? Healers weren't always able to handle it.

As a Paladin myself I was frustrated that Sheltron wasn't blocking magic. Something that was so obviously needed. Without that, I literally got down to a few hundred HP.

I could imagine healer shields helping, maybe, I wasn't really paying attention to that but the basic job of a tank is to reduce incoming damage so it felt like that should be my role, not the healers'.

Where I agree the healers should play a role is that you need heals before subsequent hits.

If different tanks could mitigate different types of more effectively than others, you restrict the number of tanks you would take into the content. Why should you work harder to keep one tank alive when another does the job better? As Jeeqbit has already stated, this is what happened in HW. You could make it so the differences aren't as noticeable, but then you have lost that uniqueness of the tanks you were trying to create in the first place.

If we imagine all tanks has separate mitigation for different damage types, you necessarily limit how you deal with the damage. You must use this mitigation for this attacks, as opposed to using whatever you want. You necessarily limit creativity in how you mitigate the damage. With mitigations being more universal, you can adjust your mitigations around more variables, like healers, making better use of their kits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

I agree current design lack of reactiveness.. tactical choices.. when actually to use shield over mitigation?

---

And, just to point out, Reactiveness and tactical choices are different. Reactiveness involves seeing what is happening and reacting to it on the fly, tactical choices, on the other hand, rely on you mapping things out in advance. You know how you are mitigating damage and the order you do things in. The 2 literally cannot exist together. Even if you add RNG, it is just a case of scenario A, do this, Scenario B, do this other thing. It has been reduced to a tactical choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

In Heavensward, Paladins could only block physical damage with Sheltron so against Alexander the mitigation effectively didn't exist, since you needed the other abilities for some adds later on. The healers just had to be on top of the healing for Paladins or it was a wipe.

And guess what? Healers weren't always able to handle it.

As a Paladin myself I was frustrated that Sheltron wasn't blocking magic. Something that was so obviously needed. Without that, I literally got down to a few hundred HP.

I could imagine healer shields helping, maybe, I wasn't really paying attention to that but the basic job of a tank is to reduce incoming damage so it felt like that should be my role, not the healers'.

Where I agree the healers should play a role is that you need heals before subsequent hits.

---

That's why we have OT.. switch with other tank that can mitigate that type of TB..

The game is about teamwork.. if we make the game play for it's own how we can call it a team based game?
There should be teamwork and synergy between healers and tanks to make things less autopilot as we see now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

That's why we have OT.. switch with other tank that can mitigate that type of TB..

---

Doesn't that defeat what you were wanting out of this example, which is for healers to solve the problem and be viable?

I really feel they have done well with OT mechanics over the years. Yes, it's wavered depending on the tier, but we went from OTs handling adds and tankswapping, to OTs having unique mechanics, to MTs and OTs swapping so much there's effectively no MT/OT, to MTs and OTs essentially having the same mechanics (ie. boss autos/TBs second aggro), to them now getting creative with tankbusters/swaps since at least Endwalker. And we've had synergy between tanks for a long time in the form of Cover/Intervention/TBN/Nascent Flash.

I don't think it's really off-tanking that is an issue so much as healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

Doesn't that defeat what you were wanting out of this example, which is for healers to solve the problem and be viable?

I really feel they have done well with OT mechanics over the years. Yes, it's wavered depending on the tier, but we went from OTs handling adds and tankswapping, to OTs having unique mechanics, to MTs and OTs swapping so much there's effectively no MT/OT, to MTs and OTs essentially having the same mechanics (ie. boss autos/TBs second aggro), to them now getting creative with tankbusters/swaps since at least Endwalker. And we've had synergy between tanks for a long time in the form of Cover/Intervention/TBN/Nascent Flash.

I don't think it's really off-tanking that is an issue so much as healing.

---

It is same as why need MT? They just keep the aggro which is pressing 1 button.

Same as healer.. healer can fill the gap of not have the mitigation for this specific Tank buster.

OT for most fights have less things to manage than MT.
Mitigations being one dimensional is what makes the game autopilot.

I dont want to talk about how HW manage things I want to be clear of what I mean..

Shield, increase defense, block.
3 types of mitigations that tank/healer can have and give to other party member

TB which is every 120 second that can have strong against x mitigation and weak against y mitigation.

If MT can have 1 type of mitigation and OT can have another,
Healers can fill the gap between them.

OT can give mitigation to MT or healer can do.
It is like triangle synergy that can have less autopilot gameplay.

Failing TB doesn't mean gameover it means high damage received.

This can be performed for raid-wide too for healers.

Healing problem is happening because how tanks are overtuned
Not only that but how healer has been designed for years.
It is not only healers it is also tanks who has less to manage than DPS jobs.
DPS jobs have to manage rotation AND mechanics at the same time.. dmg is less important for healer and tanks but they still have to do damage as how the game designed

A lot of tankbusters nowadays involve both tanks, so one can't just throw a Nascent Flash, TBN, etc on the other because they likely need it for themselves, either for the buster itself or the damage that follows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daralii

A lot of tankbusters nowadays involve both tanks, so one can't just throw a Nascent Flash, TBN, etc on the other because they likely need it for themselves, either for the buster itself or the damage that follows.

---

it is this case because slash resistance debuff
which is the worst mechanic in game ever but it is good on paper.

I feel like different type of attacks can be more effective against specific type of mitigation would solve multiple problems:
When I say multiple attacks means 2 things: Raid-wide attacks, Tank busters.

What I mean by different type of attacks:
1- Attack 1 that countered 100% by Shields and 50% effective on defensives and blocks.
2- Attack 2 that countered 100% by Defensives and 50% effective on shields and blocks.
3- Attack 3 that countered 100% by Blocks and 50% effective on defensives and blocks.

How could this solve tank/healer issue:
1- Tanks will not as op as we see now.. Warrior can't mitigate Attack 1 as how DRK can mitigate it 100%.. team collaboration will be much more important.
2- Healers can finally use their single target mitigation and can be meaningful because if we have WAR and DRK and boss perform Attack 3 it will require healers to use their "block" mitigation to have it full 100% effectiveness.
3- Make tanks more specialized and require team synergy to mitigate attacks.. when I say specialized it is more like DRK have most of their tank utility as shield but also have block but less than PLD for example.

but this require tanks to be more specialized and have to get full rework on mitigation part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

I feel like different type of attacks can be more effective against specific type of mitigation would solve multiple problems:

---

When I say multiple attacks means 2 things: Raid-wide attacks, Tank busters.

Already went over this, had a feeling it had been skipped over though:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

If different tanks could mitigate different types of more effectively than others, you restrict the number of tanks you would take into the content. Why should you work harder to keep one tank alive when another does the job better? As Jeeqbit has already stated, this is what happened in HW. You could make it so the differences aren't as noticeable, but then you have lost that uniqueness of the tanks you were trying to create in the first place.

If we imagine all tanks has separate mitigation for different damage types, you necessarily limit how you deal with the damage. You must use this mitigation for this attack, as opposed to using whatever you want. You necessarily limit creativity in how you mitigate the damage. With mitigations being more universal, you can adjust your mitigations around more variables, like healers, making better use of their kits.

---

In short, you give tanks more things to mitigate with freedom in how to mitigate it rather than restricting their mitigation usefulness and forcing them into a specific pattern.

It is also worth noting that blocking is exclusive to PLD because of the shield, every tank has Parry as another form of passive mitigation. Functionally, they are just damage mitigations though, no different from the damage mitigation from Rampart or Guardian etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

When I say multiple attacks means 2 things: Raid-wide attacks, Tank busters.

Already went over this, had a feeling it had been skipped over though:



In short, you give tanks more things to mitigate with freedom in how to mitigate it rather than restricting their mitigation usefulness and forcing them into a specific pattern.

It is also worth noting that blocking is exclusive to PLD because of the shield, every tank has Parry as another form of passive mitigation. Functionally, they are just damage mitigations though, no different from the damage mitigation from Rampart or Guardian etc.

---

I didn't invent anything.. this is already in the game.
DRK has the ability to mitigate magic attacks better than PLD which if fine if all tanks designed around this kind of mechanic.

currently it is half baked or even lower than that.. warrior has highest healing while there is no attacks counter the healing part of warrior.. but dark knight has a counter to magic attacks.

system is half baked and shows how unbalance tanks are in different encounters