what I hope for 4.0 Battle System

[Dzian]

:: As for Aegis Boon, the only thing that invalidated it in the context of ARR/HW that it was up to a literal 200% DR. 'Sure, let me eat the guaranteed kill at 1 HP and be topped off for my trouble, on a CD equitable to Shelltron (its modern analog)?'

The difference is that aegis had a huge big impact on a battle and it made a huge difference. a tank that used it well really stood out from a tank that didn't.

by comparison generally speaking most of the time no one would even notice if a paladin used shelltron or not because it has next to no visible impact on the flow of a battle. hell in most content you could get by without using it all and many people wouldn't even notice because of how much difference it makes.. it's part of why many people say tanking feels unsatisfying because there no real impact to your skills.

[Shurrikhan]

The difference is that aegis boon as a result had a big impact on a battle and it made a huge difference. a tank that used it well really stood out from a tank that didn't.

by comparison generally speaking most of the time no one would even notice if a paladin used shelltron or not because it has next to no visible impact on the flow of a battle. hell in most content you could get by without using it all and many people wouldn't even notice because of how much difference it makes.. it's part of why many people say tanking feels unsatisfying because there no real impact to your skills.

Have you healed a Sophia Ex where your PLD didn't use Shelltron correctly? I think you'd notice real quick-like. In terms of "(nearly) died / did not (nearly) die", it's generally just as significant as AB was. It's just not as ridiculously overpowered.

[javid]

Have you healed a Sophia Ex where your PLD didn't use Shelltron correctly? I think you'd notice real quick-like. In terms of "(nearly) died / did not (nearly) die", it's generally just as significant as AB was. It's just not as ridiculously overpowered.

lol sheltron is very useful. however it and two other DRK skills are the only skills that rewards you for tanking; (inner beast if you wanna be technical but 100% dmg absorb on a 300 potency attack ... is meh; but still a reward for tanking)

But I'm hoping they'll encourage more dmg on tanks and individual party members forces us to use cds more and feel more like a tank.

[javid]

Roles" are, in the end, mere specializations for which a degree of primary capabilities (damage-dealing in the case of any fight cleared by killing the enemies, or healing in any fight cleared by topping off a given NPC, etc.) is sacrificed to allow a higher degree of capacity for handling secondary functions (anything tactic that improves your raid's ability to clear the encounter that is not a direct, or primary, capacity, such as by reducing the ratio of incoming to outgoing damage) or tertiary functions (anything that improves upon those secondary functions while not directly contributing to them).
This.

Let's start... you simply state your premise but don't prove it. So let's have you prove for one how the concepts I suggested were anything to do with your concerns?

But let me reiterate some of the point's I made with a real example. Alex savage turn 6 first mob casted a spell that needed to be silenced. Pld, sch, nin, mnk, brd and mch are the only jobs that can fullfil that requirement. However if you've ever done this fight the job that were least equipped for the ROLE in order of difficulty were mnk ( just no....), sch (bc selene is unpredictable), pld (bc spiritwithin animation is long), nin (could mess up your rotation especially your proper opener) and lastly brd and mch tied for difficulty. The reason this is an example of role playing and an example of non direct dps mechanics yet vital to overall dps is embedded in the experience of that fight.

The smoothest and the fastest clears for that boss (and the entire raid) were the ones that emphasizes the importance of fulfilling that role (among others). Aka role playing

[Shurrikhan]

Let's start... you simply state your premise but don't prove it. So let's have you prove for one how the concepts I suggested were anything to do with your concerns?

But let me reiterate some of the point's I made with a real example. Alex savage turn 6 first mob casted a spell that needed to be silenced. Pld, sch, nin, mnk, brd and mch are the only jobs that can fullfil that requirement. However if you've ever done this fight the job that were least equipped for the ROLE in order of difficulty were mnk ( just no....), sch (bc selene is unpredictable), pld (bc spiritwithin animation is long), nin (could mess up your rotation especially your proper opener) and lastly brd and mch tied for difficulty. The reason this is an example of role playing and an example of non direct dps mechanics yet vital to overall dps is embedded in the experience of that fight.

The smoothest and the fastest clears for that boss (and the entire raid) were the ones that emphasizes the importance of fulfilling that role (among others). Aka role playing

That is not "role playing", for sure, and neither are they even "roles", exactly. They are simply toolkits. When in doubt, the one whose rDPS contibution is least inhibited by the action will perform the action—simple as that. Even if the Bard/MCH were forced to wait 28 seconds to use his 30 second CD, the loss of that 135 potency (and subsequent 28 loss on next desync) would still be less than that of a Monk's using AotD given the high TP cost, even if the cast would surely start off during his Opo-opo form. Therefore, the Bard/MCH will save his silence and be the one to handle the mechanic. But, the moment there is more than a single silence to be done more often than every 30s, your Bard/MCH alone cannot be your lone "silencer". You must have additional people save their skills and rotate in. If a cast were to start every 6 seconds, the Monk would actually be the only one who could handle the mechanic on his own, but at immense TP cost. Being the last resort would be difficult if not aligned with his silencing form, but in the end he is still able to handle it. (I regularly soled this on Monk in off-groups in T2; even the last fight was just short enough not to run out of TP.)

None of that is "role" play. It's simply team play that finds the least DPS cost to fill the functions required of the raid. Which is why I can't imagine why you would want to remove tanks or healers from the idea of DPS, as if they were the relevant deity's chosen just to be sitting in the party and filling hate or health bars alone, idling between. They are there because of dps, indirect or otherwise. And when they lose sight of that, they also lose sight of how best to bend those specialized roles (holding hate and healing/shielding) to their raid's advantage.

That said, my primary issue with your suggestion wasn't given in the definition you quoted; it's in the idea of being able to bring healers and tanks as a real choice. The moment you divorce healers and tanks from direct damage dealing (direct contribution, at least in any kill fight), you move decisions out of the hands of tanks and healers and into the hands of everyone else, who now have for more reason not to take them at all. By prioritizing these specialized functions as if they were somehow inherently worthwhile, you actually greatly reduce the amount of situations to which one could optimally bring a tank or healer, or else force the developers to artificially inflate the need for either, usually by reducing the versatility of DPS classes. The result will be a reduced gameplay QoL. These specializations exist for real reasons, and by breaking that balance you disjoint both team composition and the jobs themselves. What you're suggesting seems like a bit with no reins.

I wouldn't mind the occasional need for more "tanky" tanks, or more heal- or mechanics-attentive healers, but these things are always transient due to the output variance in gear. You can try to create something that cannot eventually be cheesed with higher stats, but you would walk a fine line between that and annoying gimmicks. Furthermore, consider the dynamics of fights as they are. The most you could purposely nerf healing by is the amount that would still allow the survival of burst incoming damage. Except, we're already fairly tight against some of those checks. So how then would you increasing healing done over the rest of the fight? By making the rest of the fight more and more like its burst periods, so that there end up seeming to be no dynamics whatsoever, just a stream of Cure IIIs and Medica IIs and Adloquiems and Benefic IIs supplied by double-ranged mana batteries? Is that really what you want from the time that you are healing—to be heal spamming until mana starvation? Or is it that you just absolutely don't want to have to dps? In that case, just nerf healer mana pools, making it impossible for them to spend time dpsing; they'll just stand there instead, starved and disused, but at least they won't be out of "role"!

[Llugen]

all this is tl;dr, but I need to know that they are going to fix the quite frankly ridiculously poor DRG rotation design.

[javid]

Without having to quote all the strawman arguments you made such as wanting tanks and healers to idle in between heals and taking dmg (where did I suggest that or suggest no DPS should come from tanks and healers?)

Let's stick to the OP. Yes having someone to deal with the silence of a6s was not a traditional ROLE like healer tank dps role since this game doesn't have a support class. However they can continue to design future fights that mandate dealing with such mechanic like silence stun etc that would lend well to specific ROLEs being required to optimally handling these mechanics.

And you only needed on person to handle the silence it wasn't necessary to split that task.

[javid]

Again.... don't know where you pulling these strawman arguments from....

But I'll say it plainly...i want tanks to have to sustain more smh on avg and healers have to heal more dmg on avg and have more other stat effects that preoccupy the healers thru out the fight.

If a party can find a way to leave a tank or healer out of the loop while having to deal with more overall dmg and status effects and heals necessary then that party is OP. And it sure will make a cool YouTube clip.

Within each fight i desire to have each job type have a unique mini game to play that favors their respective roles. A tanking mini game a healing mini game a dps mini game and a support mini game. This no way say I'm against raid dps check phases or overall rage.

[Shurrikhan]

Again.... don't know where you pulling these strawman arguments from....

But I'll say it plainly...i want tanks to have to sustain more smh on avg and healers have to heal more dmg on avg and have more other stat effects that preoccupy the healers thru out the fight.

If a party can find a way to leave a tank or healer out of the loop while having to deal with more overall dmg and status effects and heals necessary then that party is OP. And it sure will make a cool YouTube clip.

Sorry if I overextended that slippery slope argument. However, I personally cannot see "I want tanks to be doing more tanking and heals as doing more healing", without noting that statistical difficulty, and therefore healing/tanking requirements, are transient, as anything but what I mentioned.

That party that skips a tank or healer is simply either abnormally skilled or abnormally geared, even in the current meta. When you attempt to squish those possibilities down, past the usual tank-swap gimmicks or multi-nuke hits or cleanses, you also squish the possibilities of people clearing even with traditional setups. In other words, when you attempt to enforce the greater "role focus" you've mentioned, all you are really doing is increasing difficulty through greater periodic boss targeted damage, general raid/AoE damage, and the threat of raid damage (esuna-ables), which is simply a strain of increasing difficulty, to the benefit of those who can handle it (the majority) and the expense of those who cannot (a minority, but a significant group nonetheless). You're asking for a shift in meta / more role-focused responsibilities, but the only part that would actually lie outside of simple scaling—the initially set difficulty of which inevitably fades over time with increased gear—is to either destroy the balance of combined power between each "role" (which already generally favors heals and then tanks before dps) in order to inflate specialized capabilities (e.g. depend on gimmicks), or leave specialized roles further at the mercy of composition where the could previously adjust with gameplay (by reducing their non-specialized capabilities).

(You may ask, "why can't I just buff the specialized capabilities and leave the rest as is?" but consider, XIV already has abnormally strong healers, and rather strong tanks as well. After a point of buffing both the need for heals and tank mitigation, and/or the capabilities for heals and tank mitigation, you'd just inversely remove DPS from the composition. These things lie at a tenuous balance already, largely held in check only by side mechanics like Limit Break. If you seek to rebalance the roles in order to adjust their gameplay, you need to keep that in mind, or you're just going to end up with further "non-traditional" compositions. Personally, I wouldn't mind that. But I get the feeling you might.)

[javid]

You oversimplified my ask. I have made plain I want the meta to shift from DPS focus to "role-like gimmicks and DPS". Also I asked for nerf to tank buffs and heals or increase in dmg and healer specific mechanics. It's in the OP.

And actually the way I have insisted would require more DPS from dps jobs if the checks were left as is.