Tank Scaling still a massive issue

[Tankstuff]

.

Dont be a clown. Of course enmity isnt an issue the dps is. Dont try and tell me tank dps is irrelevant, I just got done pugging O1s and killed it during enrage. I literally did double the damage of my cotank who has the tanking mentality of rediculous tanks like you, and if I had done the same we wouldnt have cleared. Sure in an ideal situation your dps are all perfect players but lets be honest i end up out parsing one or two dps regularly and dps are usually the lowest skill playerbase of mmos, id like to keep my dps and carry potential when I have to

[DacienSanderon]

If tenacity wasn't so bad, no one would be complaining about the loss of dps from strength.
But it is. And so, we must.

Tenacity isn't bad.

[DacienSanderon]

Just accept that you are objectively playing bad.

It's hard to take people like you seriously when you care more about dps than mitigation. If we accept that mitigation doesn't matter then objectively you are a waste of space playing a tank job. You get vastly more dps with a dps job.

It's also interesting how you so selfishly focus on your own dps to the exclusion of all else. Forget extra healer dps gained from not having to heal your squishiness.

[DacienSanderon]

Dont be a clown. Of course enmity isnt an issue the dps is. Dont try and tell me tank dps is irrelevant, I just got done pugging O1s and killed it during enrage. I literally did double the damage of my cotank who has the tanking mentality of rediculous tanks like you, and if I had done the same we wouldnt have cleared. Sure in an ideal situation your dps are all perfect players but lets be honest i end up out parsing one or two dps regularly and dps are usually the lowest skill playerbase of mmos, id like to keep my dps and carry potential when I have to

Congrats on reducing healer dps more than your cotank! I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you still would have cleared just fine even if you did 20% less damage. You didn't double your damage by switching out of tank stance. But hey, keep deluding yourself if that makes you feel better. Just don't waste our time with your drivel.

[DacienSanderon]

It seems to me that SE had realized that tank/dps balance is off from what they want. They made major adjustments with the release of SB. Now they\\'re trying to get the player base used to their (SE\\'s) idea of balance. At the same time, they aren\\'t able to fully realize the results without letting the players play. I think they either did a decent job taking player feedback (i.e. stance swapping) or their numbers corroborated what player feedback was saying (i.e STR acc). I think once the balance is to their liking, tank and DPS STR will rise at the same level and tank enmity will be a constant.

Lets be honest. They tried, they failed. Tanking is exactly the same as 3.x and the same stupid dps stance debate rages on because it is just as easy as ever to tank that way even with low lvl dps accessories.

[Shurrikhan]

The thing is, tanks are not suppose to output dmg at the same levels of dps ykno? It only makes sense the dps will get more stronger than tanks?

It doesn't, though.

Take enmity out of the equation if you must. Focus just on attack power, which sources both the tank's relative dps (i.e. portion of a particular DPS's dps) and enmity without needing constant patching.

One would expect tanks to be a relatively fixed portion of dps of a "true" DPS. Say... 80%.

That CANNOT occur of tanks are given 100% of a DPS's attack power at one level range, and then 80% for the next, 70% for the set after that, and so forth. At that point you have tiers of said portion, rather than a fixed percentile.

What WOULD make sense is if we:
- Gave tanks Attack Power ONLY from Vitality, but at less than a 1:1 ratio.

This would, however, contribute to "HP bloat" in the same way it did in Heavensward, which some may see as a problem in that it reduces the relative survivability of non-tanks in raids, which already require tank anyways. The rest comes down to simple scaling.
As a side-bonus, tanks are now free to meld their choice of secondary stats on accessories.

- Allow Attack Power gains from both Vitality and Strength, such that Vitality is always the preferred stat, but the combination of the two brings tanks to the intended portion of DPS attack power.

With this, tanks are again only permitted to meld Strength on accessories.

- Allow Attack Power gains from both Vitality and Strength, but at a rate which slightly favors Strength for Attack Power, but keeps it generally less useful for progression than Vitality, and Fending accessories are now split between the two.

With this, tanks have their choice of melding Vitality or Strength, though it will still mostly be decided by their range of content.

In any of these cases, you do NOT arbitrarily adjust AP-generating stats on particular tiers of accessories. Whatever decision you make, you make across the board.

But instead, what we got is a fix for one particular ilvl range, returning the issue any time before or after it, and all without any attempt to curtail HP bloat, which would have been the only reason not to give AP from Vitality in the first place.

[Thoro39]

Any Defense oriented tank that eats the 3rd Cleave in Susano's first phase takes much more damage and requires much more healing than a properly played offense Tank that does not get hit by the 3rd Cleave in the first place by sheer skipping of mechanics through higher DPS output; I sometimes hate healing defensively oriented tanks.
I hate having to heal that 3rd Tankbustercleave, just because they want to play defensively. The offensively oriented tank however, can pool more CDs for the first and second cleave, since he does not have to worry about the third anymore.

This is the case in Susano, this was the case in Niddhogg EX where a Tank would eat 2 extra flarebreaths before addphase if the DPS was not good enough and this was the case through many instances in A10S, A11S and A12S, where I would have to heal additional tankbusters/raidaoes with stubborn defense tanks. And they probably won't be the last fights that feature such cases.

[Inuakurei]

You can play as a tank. You can even play as what you believe a tank is, and I assume that is the focus on purely mitigation and aggro. You can stay in ShO/Grit/Defiance and press your aggro combo only and you will pass.

Just accept that you are objectively playing bad.

When you are given the choice to do more, and you choose to play a factually inferior playstyle for the sake of abiding to your belief of what a tank should be in your eyes then you are actively choosing to play badly, and the people calling you bad have every right to.

I like playing as a tank that does more then be a required meatwall. I like playing a Warrior with a greataxe that shrugs off hits AND cleaves fools. That is a tank to me. That is a WARRIOR/DARK KNIGHT/PALADIN THAT REMEMBERS THEY HAVE A SWORD TOO.

Because being an inferior dps is such a great playstyle. Everyone is just fine! Nothing at all should change, we should keep everything exactly how it is. All we just need to fix everything is more str! /s

My gripe is that we can't seem to get past this idea that tanks should have the damage of a dps.

There's a reason why Tanks have always been the most least played class in this game, no matter what SE does to get people to play tanks. They can throw all the extra tomes, gil, prizes, mounts, etc, that they want as incentives for people to play tanks, but it wont matter. As it is currently tanking in this game is fundamentally bad. All tanking is, is playing a gimped dps that holds aggro. No matter what you see yourself as, thats all you are.

There are ways to make a tank fun and engaging, but SE has taken the easy way out when it comes to tanking in this game. Just give tanks some dps skills, a few mitigation CD's, then call it a day. The worst thing about it though, is that the community seems to be ok with that. There are some good discussion about tank mechanics, but for every one good discussion there are three more that boil down to "muh dps" and think every problem can be fixed by just adding more str. Although as it turns out, if you base the Tank class playstyle around dealing damage, it'll attract players who enjoy dealing damage. Only problem with that is, the DPS role already exists, so tanks will ALWAYS be underplayed.

Just look through the "why do you tank" thread from a while back. Majority of the responses are either "I like low queue times", "I like 2H weapons", or "no one else in my static wanted to tank". And I assure you, there are people out there that like to be a "meatwall" and enjoy the tank playstyle of holding aggro, mitigating damage, etc. But what we have right now is a forum of players who want to dps that are forced to play tanks. Which is mostly SE's fault but eh.

Maybe one day if SE decides to add some better tank mechanics, people would actually play tanks more. But I doubt that will happen at least until 5.0 because people like you halt any kind of evolution we could have in tank mechanics beyond "does x do more damage than y" and until we can move beyond that will will never be more than a gimped dps role. But if you're ok with that then by all means.

[AziraSyuren]

My gripe is that we can't seem to get past this idea that tanks should have the damage of a dps.

nobody says that

[SunAurel]

Tank accessoires need to be scaled proportionally to the dps accessoires and i think 70% is a good number.

About defense vs offense approach to tanking...look i get it. I was a Defensive tank until i learned to cycle my cd's and now with you not losing gauge you can spam sheltron like hell in sword oath and you get the mitigation you need.

Tanking is not about 'surviving stuff with the most hp possible', you don't get a Cookie if you Stand with 5k hp or 20k as long as you stand.

You need to maximize your damage and survive and if you say you don't want to take the risk that"s fine but calling dps stance tanks wrong when their parties are very efficient at killing the boss bc of extra dps is nonsense