Please Buff Tenacity So Tanks Actually Want To Use Tank Stance

[Llus]

All these suggestions about what to do in order to force tanks to use tank stance; I just have to ask "Why?" What's wrong with DPS stance? Is it a personal opinion as to what "this is what a tank does, because I say so"? Is it about having to use some off globals to reduce your enmity when a tank is in DPS stance? Is it about being shamed because your DPS numbers are low? Is it about pushing fights to such an extreme level of damage that, by the end of the fight, you could make diamonds by putting coal between your cheeks? Personally, I'd take the diamonds from coal fights; but I think that would end up killing off a lot of the tank population.

If they took away DPS stance we'd be back to ARR meta where you'd just turn off tank stance to increase their DPS, except PLDs would suffer a 70 potency DoT reduction (basically sword oath is a 70 potency DoT as long as you're in mele range of the boss +20% damage increase over shield oath). Everyone thinks that "DPS stance" came out in HW. The only tank to gain a "DPS stance" was WAR. PLD's already had a DPS stance, WAR "DPS stance" was just turn off defiance. DRK has the same type of "DPS stance" that ARR WARS had: turn off grit. The bonus DRK gets is a 20% constant DPS buff, now with more improved faceroll because MP doesn't matter and dark arts everything! (Srsly tho DRK needs a ton of fixes, low DPS, low raid utility, grit locked weaponskill bonus effects and blood price - do DRKs even use that skill anymore?)

[shao32]

Its any problem to want tank stances being actually usefull and let the ppl how dont like sacrifice defense for offense like a dps peasant being able to play they job as full performance?.
Its not force us to use tank stance per se, is more make it usefull specially on DRK/PLD who are not desing to constantly switching, removing tank damage penaltys or just give tank stances the proper benefics make the game more interesting, and keep WAR being a true stance dance tank and leave the other 2 how dont take more that huge penaltys every time they switch have the own style of MT.

[Shinkyo]

All these suggestions about what to do in order to force tanks to use tank stance; I just have to ask "Why?" What's wrong with DPS stance?

There’s nothing wrong with a dps stance.
I always like stance dancing and having to compromise offence vs defence.
The problem is that there’s no compromise anymore when you can clear the hardest with 100% uptime.
Maybe Ultimate bahamut will change that but I just wish we had more incentive to stance dance.
I know we’re outgearing the content at this point but even in BiS, there should still be a need for some tank stance uptime.
Reduced enmity would a good mechanic imo.
Basically, you’d build an aggro lead in tank stance (or through shirk) and you’d swap to dps stance until others are about to catch up then you’d have to build some me more aggro lead.
That would be interesting for me.

[FallenWings]

All these suggestions about what to do in order to force tanks to use tank stance; I just have to ask "Why?" What's wrong with DPS stance?

It pretty much boils down to peoples idea of what a Tank should focus on and the fact that said stances are referred to as "Tank" stances because of their defensive bonuses.

Tanks should only be stacking defenses and holding aggro is the basic premises for everyone who thinks of/plays tanks.

It's not a completely wrong way to go about it, but people simply greatly over value defense, especially when it is a great detriment to their offense, the latter of which they believe is none of their responsibility because they should only be focusing on that thing they believe their class is all about instead of thinking about the bigger picture.

[renmabiao]

Tank stance seems to be in contest here. The metric of performance : dps, AFTER 'acceptable tanking', loosely defined as
: top aggro
: appropriate defensive CDs without taxing other party members
: good boss positioning to max out party efforts.

Most play with the attitude that others 'should know' the tank dps-push style 'perfection' and if they don't, its their fault.
For PuGs, I'm uncertain if this is good. Everyone is shoving for dps rights. Guys like me don't like to devolve this game to DPS-flavours with tanking/healer 'chores'

Nobody talks about 'tanking' stuff that is difficult to quantify that separates the good from bad. This dps-approach from the community is shrouding newbie tanks as they put dps as top priority before their tanking roles.

I hope we can measure 'relevant dps' as much as we argue about 'relevant mitigation'. e.g. 'appropriate dps' on Shinryu like tail placement and killing hearts before it regenerates a 'tick'.

[Minas-tepes]

Op post is why developpers shouldn't listen players

[Llus]

There’s nothing wrong with a dps stance.
I always like stance dancing and having to compromise offence vs defence.
The problem is that there’s no compromise anymore when you can clear the hardest with 100% uptime.
Maybe Ultimate bahamut will change that but I just wish we had more incentive to stance dance.
I know we’re outgearing the content at this point but even in BiS, there should still be a need for some tank stance uptime.
Reduced enmity would a good mechanic imo.
Basically, you’d build an aggro lead in tank stance (or through shirk) and you’d swap to dps stance until others are about to catch up then you’d have to build some me more aggro lead.
That would be interesting for me.

For WAR, stance dancing has been a thing since ARR just because our stances are on the off-global. And I appreciate a fight that makes me stance dance into tank stance to burn some stacks on IB or to throw an equilibrium or even thrill of war+vengeance to survive a buster (A1S at min iLevel for example). For DRK, you just drop grit and you're in "DPS stance". For PLD, stance dancing is aids because both sword and shield are on the global. So the only one that really has a problem with their DPS+Tank stance is PLD and that could be fixed by moving sword oath to an off-global.


Now to the heart of your issue, is that nothing forces you to tank in tank stance; meaning nothing hits hard enough to require tank stance to survive and voke+shirk swapping means you should never lose your lead. Even with the aggro reset on every grand cross on O4S with voke+shirk, lucid, diversion, shade (and PLD cover cheats) aggro isn't a big issue. So in the end it's the fights that are the issue, not stances.

[Llus]

Its any problem to want tank stances being actually usefull and let the ppl how dont like sacrifice defense for offense like a dps peasant being able to play they job as full performance?.
Its not force us to use tank stance per se, is more make it usefull specially on DRK/PLD who are not desing to constantly switching, removing tank damage penaltys or just give tank stances the proper benefics make the game more interesting, and keep WAR being a true stance dance tank and leave the other 2 how dont take more that huge penaltys every time they switch have the own style of MT.

Sorry, but that's the way it's been since ARR and it's a good design from my view. You gain X by giving up Y. I find the sacrifice of defense (or HP for war) for offense is a good one. What would you give up in tank stance in order to gain the additional 20% constant damage bonus? Would you want Royal authority combo, Requiescat and FoF locked behind DPS stance to gain a constant 20% DPS increase in tank stance? What about DRK, lock darkside and DA to usage only when not in grit?

As far as PLD and DRK not being designed for constant switching, I believe grit and shield oath being on the GCD to be a good thing. You instantly gain a 20% defense bonus when going into SO or Grit; WAR needs to be healed before you gain Defiance's benefit. For DRK, dropping grit instantly gives you a DPS boost; while PLD requires a CGD to be useful so sword oath needs to be on the off global. DRK stance dancing is just as easy as WAR and for PLD, if you just DROP shield oath you get the same benefit as DRK would get but you'd lose your 75 potency mele-range-only DoT; depending on the fight this could be a net 0 loss (like if the boss jumps away from you, drop sword and start casting HS).

[Llus]

Tank stance seems to be in contest here. The metric of performance : dps, AFTER 'acceptable tanking', loosely defined as
: top aggro
: appropriate defensive CDs without taxing other party members
: good boss positioning to max out party efforts.

Most play with the attitude that others 'should know' the tank dps-push style 'perfection' and if they don't, its their fault.
For PuGs, I'm uncertain if this is good. Everyone is shoving for dps rights. Guys like me don't like to devolve this game to DPS-flavours with tanking/healer 'chores'

Nobody talks about 'tanking' stuff that is difficult to quantify that separates the good from bad. This dps-approach from the community is shrouding newbie tanks as they put dps as top priority before their tanking roles.

I hope we can measure 'relevant dps' as much as we argue about 'relevant mitigation'. e.g. 'appropriate dps' on Shinryu like tail placement and killing hearts before it regenerates a 'tick'.

Newbie tanks need to worry about aggro, mitigation (self and party) and boss positioning before anything else. They need to learn the fights before they start going for DPS stance. Once they're comfortable with that, then they can start pushing for DPS. Some people will be able to do that sooner than others. Once they learn stance dancing or mitigating appropriately at 100% DPS stance uptime, they can start worrying about the nuances between different fights that push that extra 1% or 5%

Either way, newbie tanks will either learn how to be a DPS tank or they'll be the turtle tank for their FC's dailies. If YOU (general tank population) don't want to run DPS stance, then don't. Stay in tank stance and accept the 20% damage penalty; just don't stay in tank stance or use aggro combos if you're not holding the boss...

Still, nothing from the OP on this and I still don't know what the OP wants other than not having to trade DPS for Defense which is a non-starter.

PLEASE BUFF TENACITY SO THAT DPS TANKS CAN STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT WHY THEIR DPS SUCKS

And by buff I mean make tenacity stat increase attack power and direct hit rate stats so that way melding becomes less of a hassle for tanks and somewhat make crafted pentamelds not mandatory for clearing... maybe even have it apply to Defense and Magic Defense... it can do what it currently can do but also what I suggested for buffs...

As of now the OP has changed their post so much that there's absolutely NOTHING about tank stance anymore and it's just about the tenacity stat, but they're still under the assumption that pentamelded accessories are required for clearing content. They're not. 100% NOT required to clear ANY content in this game. pentamelded accessories are used by people trying to push that extra 2-3% damage and is 100% a personal choice (unless you're in a world first prog group). The TEN stat is there for those players that want extra mitigation as well as extra damage and if that's your play style, then use tenacity. If you're comfortable with handling incoming damage and want to push the extra 2-3%, meld DH & Crit.

[Shinkyo]

So in the end it's the fights that are the issue, not stances.

It depends how you look at it.
To me, dps stance is too strong as the reduced mitigation/enmity is a small cost for the significant dps gain you get.
Put a higher cost in the form of reduced survivabity/enmity and you can balance stance dancing in an engaging/meaningful way without touching the content at all.

Personally, I blame the stances more than the content.