Boycotting Warrior 4.0 (Let's do it!)

[MagiusNecros]

Yes, it does. Holding hate is the only thing that is 100% your job.

You heard it here folks. Tanks don't need to tank. Only hold hate. :P

[aleph_null]

You heard it here folks. Tanks don't need to tank. Only hold hate. :P

You're quoting him out of context. He meant that aggro is 100% tank's job (I disagree, since we have shade, quelling, smoke, etc), not that your job is only to hold aggro. Survival comes with mitigation (tank's job mostly, with minor help from others like apoc, virus, adlo) and healing (healer's job mostly, with minor help from tanks' self heals), so it's not 100% tank's job.

[Reynhart]

You heard it here folks. Tanks don't need to tank. Only hold hate. :P

Why do I keep trying to make a point if you misunderstand such a basic sentence ?
Again, since it's the second time you're ignoring part of what I say just to make your point, a tank is :

"Keep aggro first, survive second and kill third"

Semantics.

It's not really semantics when you have to decide your priority.

(I disagree, since we have shade, quelling, smoke, etc)

So, if a PLD refuse to use Flash because he wants to spam Total Eclipse and big packs of mobs rush to the healer, it's partially the healer's fault ?

[aleph_null]

It's not really semantics when you have to decide your priority.

You're arguing my use of "optimal" and I simply corrected it. As I've said before optimality in a group is different from individual optimality. If you don't have a nin then the optimal group strat would be the war using unchained, but that's not the optimal rotation for a war. The lack of nin costs the war their ability to perform their optimal rotation.

Let's stop this argument here, I've said my thoughts on the matter. If sam requires higher tank stance uptime then I'll do it if I get a sam in my group. That's the best course of action for the group. But that doesn't change that if sam is the only job to require that, then that's their weakness compared to other jobs, just like how one of mnk's current weaknesses is their lack of aggro management (though it's overshadowed by the fact that mnk doesn't do much more dps than other dps jobs anyway).

So, if a PLD refuse to use Flash because he wants to spam Total Eclipse and big packs of mobs rush to the healer, it's partially the healer's fault ?

Not if the healer does what they can to prevent it, e.g. not casting regen mid pull. But there are cases where a tank's failure to keep aggro is due to someone else's fault. If a nin refuses to shade me at pull for no good reason then he's partially to blame if I lose aggro because I used my opener under the assumption that I'll get shade. If a whm uses medica2 and 2x cure3 for the first bomb aoe in a10s it's not my fault if the boss turns to them. If a blm refuses to use quelling during their opener it's not entirely my fault if I lose aggro 10s into the fight.

[Reynhart]

But that doesn't change that if sam is the only job to require that, then that's their weakness compared to other jobs

How can it be "their weakness" ? If a SAM requires much more tank stance than any other DPS, it means their also do much more damage, resulting in faster kills.

[Khalithar]

Not quoting all the different posts I want to reply to as that would take too long but I want to share my thoughts on this argument about tank dps.

I found myself getting caught up in the potencies and the possible nerfs, the cost of high threat gen by sam and monk. I think perhaps the tanks so focused on optimizing their dps have maybe lost their focus on what tanking really is.

It's about mitigating damage, keeping the incoming damage as low as possible. Now you can certainly argue that you can do that by killing the enemy faster, but by scaling back damage as they have, I think SE is trying to push us in the direction of mitigating damage by focusing on defense rather than offense.

In my opinion, that is what tanking should be about and appears to be the design the devs are aiming for.

[Khalithar]

Can't edit on mobile.

By having us focus on defense to decrease incoming damage it brings us back to what the role was designed for. The costs/penalties added to stance dancing, once again on my opinion, is being done as an opportunity cost to discourage us from swapping often unless we overhear content.

Based on what we've seen so far they're ultimate goal appears to be defense stance for group, offense stance for solo. Obviously all this goes out the window once we inevitably overgear the content, but that's a ways off.

[Phoenicia]

Snip.

Thing is, there is no real cost in switching stances for PLD or DRK. PLD in Sword Oath with gauge? Sure, use Sheltron then switch to Shield Oath. DRK doesn't lose blood gauge when switching into or out of Grit. It costs these two classes MP to switch, but that can be fixed with 1 or 2 MP combos.

Now let's look at WAR: WAR has 50 gauge, he needs to mitigate damage but is in Deliverance. Here's the delimma: Switch to Defiance right away? Oh I have 25 gauge and can't use Inner Beast. Stay in Deliverance and pop FC then go back to def--.. Nah, screw it, I'll just pop Rampart. This is worse than back when Grit and Oaths broke combos.

[aleph_null]

How can it be "their weakness" ? If a SAM requires much more tank stance than any other DPS, it means their also do much more damage, resulting in faster kills.

Because their dps comes at the cost of someone else's? I'm not saying sam's necessarily bad because of it. If the tanks' dps loss are so minor compared to their personal huge dps gain compared to other melees then sam might be in the optimal group composition.

It's the same way I'd consider drk's weakness in a7s being their lack of physical mitigation, which may cost healers' dps unless you're skipping a lot of things, but in the end their higher dps prevailed over pld's superior physical mitigation in speedkills, since you can skip a lot of things and the lack of physical mitigation doesn't become a big problem.

[Reynhart]

If the tanks' dps loss are so minor compared to their personal huge dps gain compared to other melees then sam might be in the optimal group composition.

We can't have actual proof before the actual release, but I'm pretty sure that's what will happen. That's why, as a tank, I'm perfectly OK to stay more in tank stance if it allows the group to attain its optimal DPS. That's why I said that, for a tank, optimizing its DPS is not the same as being optimal, since you need to also consider the other members.