Quote Originally Posted by Eisenhower View Post
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.