Suggestion: Put Tank Stances on Cross Role Actions

[Zfz]

Personally I just want one tank (preferably the PLD because I like the PLD) where it's simply optimal to stay in tanking stance all the time except when not tanking anything. Where it is optimal to always meld Tenacity. Where going for the most obvious choices is always the best choice.

Give each role one job that is simple and straightforward to play. Let us lazy ass losers play the "kiddie class". Those who like to have to read up on theorycrafting and following guides and practice complex rotations just to be effective, can play the more complex and interesting jobs. Laugh at us all you want, we're stupid, we're lazy, we're losers, we're scumbags. We just want to have leisurely fun.

[YitharV2]

I agree the main problem of "stance fleeing players" is probably not the benefit of beeing outside of, but the heavy damage reduction tied to using it. However, making it a Cross role is far from necessary, I think. Simply making the tank deal as much damage while tanking than they do withouth stance on, will be enough to remove the "punishment feeling" that is tied.

This is also, what TERA does.

http://teradatabase.net/en/skill/904000100/

I've also found it a little weird Warriors can't use Fell Cleave in Defiance, because Fell Cleave is basically FFXIV's equivalent of Scythe, which can be used in both stances in TERA (it works on the same principle of building up stacks with skills except it's 10 stacks in TERA).

[Lyth]

From an efficiency standpoint, one thing that should definitely be done is to turn tank stance switching into a single hotbar button. You don't need to allocate two separate hotbar slots when the stances are generally mutually exclusive, and things like Sword Oath and Deliverance could be made into baseline traits that are present when tank stance is not active.

From a balance standpoint, they should remove the MP costs from Shield Oath and Grit, and make Sword Oath oGCD. WAR had its Defiance damage penalty reduced and PLD had its relative MP cost halved (from 18% of your MP to 9%) in order to account for the SB gauge costs, which have since been removed. Grit remains as expensive as ever (18%), and is probably the only case in which stance dancing terminates a dps buff. Delirium makes it even worse, because extending your buff forces you to stay in the same stance for an additional 8 to 15 seconds (23-30 seconds total) to avoid truncating the effect with a stance change.

There's nothing really wrong with having resource costs, but they should be standardised so that the penalties are similar on all tanks.

[aqskerorokero]

No and no, I rather have like: when dps stance is active, lower maximum hp and defensive stats by 20%.

[Felorr]

It reminds me a lot of the new cleric stance, which I mostly absolutely hate compared to old cleric stance.

[BluexBird]

For this idea to work, it would mean Warriors having the same HP as the other two tanks. The only fun thing about tanking on Warrior is how you're able to tower over all of them with your big HP pool. If I wanted a stance that gave me damage reduction, I'd go play Paladin. Seriously. This is was one of the deciding factors that made me choose Warrior over Paladin.

[347SPECTRE]

No, no absolutely not

DRK has already lost enough skills to cross role, let's just not.

[aleph_null]

The game is designed so that you can do your job and have fun while avoiding too much stress. When the playerbase saw that, they decided to exploit this margin to chose setups that perform as close as possible to the breaking point, with the additionnal stress that the designers didn't want. And the playerbase always does that. Diadem was deprived of rules the first time because they hope we'd take pleasure in exploring the area, so, naturally, everybody tracked the most profitable way of earning rewards and ignored everything else.

It will always be like that though. People will always figure out the optimal way to do things, even if it means avoiding the "intended" way to play the game. It's just natural? The burden lies on the devs to make sure that the optimal playstyle aligns with the way they want their games to be played. This is especially true for things you do repeatedly for the rewards, like diadem farming, dungeon farming. Shaving a few minutes off a dungeon run can save you hours if you run it dozens of times. For harder contents like raids and ex trials it's a bit different, but generally some "hardcore" players like to push the limits to see how far they can go. There is a reason why we have competitions for games (even in single player games people compete for records like fastest clear, highest score etc).

[YitharV2]

The game is designed so that you can do your job and have fun while avoiding too much stress. When the playerbase saw that, they decided to exploit this margin to chose setups that perform as close as possible to the breaking point, with the additionnal stress that the designers didn't want. And the playerbase always does that. Diadem was deprived of rules the first time because they hope we'd take pleasure in exploring the area, so, naturally, everybody tracked the most profitable way of earning rewards and ignored everything else. There is no claim system because they thought we'll be altruistic enough to help each other, so, for hunts, people compete with each other and sometimes reset mobs so that other won't earn they reward.
Let's face it...as a whole playerbase, we're jerks.

I mean, players are always going to try to push limits and play the game as optimally as possible. That's just how it is. I understand SE's reasoning, but I really feel like tanking and combat in general is too boring in this game. I just feel if I can watch Youtube or Netflix while playing that means there's no point in playing because I'm not engaged and I'm not having fun.

The developers of the game are supposed to design the game so optimal playstyle aligns with the way they want the game to be played as aleph_null said.

[Kalocin]

No, no absolutely not

DRK has already lost enough skills to cross role, let's just not.

Yeap, we already don't have much choice for the current ones, this would just make our mitigation worse as a whole.