Tank Stances, Traited

[Bourne_Endeavor]

To keep enmity a concern for everyone, I'd do something else, which is increase the damage of the DPS and thus, their enmity, to the point where they really have to pay attention and hold back if their tank has trouble building it. But when they're paired with a good tank, they will be able to unleash their full power without fear.

This is a horrible idea. Not only would it be a nightmare in pugs and DF, but it feels awful to essentially gimp your opening burst because the tank needs to build aggro. And what happens with ilvl differences? I already nearly rip off undergeared tanks whenever I run Samurai in Expert. They wouldn't have a chance with this kinda of a system.

[TabrisOmbrelame]

This is a horrible idea. Not only would it be a nightmare in pugs and DF, but it feels awful to essentially gimp your opening burst because the tank needs to build aggro. And what happens with ilvl differences? I already nearly rip off undergeared tanks whenever I run Samurai in Expert. They wouldn't have a chance with this kinda of a system.

This "system" is in World of warcraft. When your tank reach max level with a poor gear, you can't except he'll can take your maximum geared optimised as f*ck character in term of aggro. But we're in Ff14 and the tanking without tank stance isn't really normal. Elitist player could say : you don't need tank stance, more Dps is more mitigating cause the boss hit you less.

Where I say : good player is not determined by their DPS meter. Good player is some one who take every values in count when doing content, like the stuff of the tanks, the stuff of the heal, and even IN the fight, the reactivity.... Etc...

I'm a tank who stay ever in tank stance. And you know what? I don't give a single fuck to those Healer or Dps that try to make me learn how to do my job. DPSing is not my role, when I tag dungeons, it's wrote : TANK. But of course I'll drop the tank stance when it's not needed, like the 3 sword phase of Zenos.


As a proposal for the tank and Dps stance... I couldn't find the guys who say it but someone say this : Naoki Yoshida hasn't designed tank to be in Dps stance for unlimited time in fight.

So, I suggest this : reduce de the enmity generated in Dps stance by 40% (but the Dps stance of Drk don't affect grit's aggro if this one is activated along

[Reynhart]

I do not believe the dps loss should be removed from tank stance, but rather that a non-stanced tank should be more vulnerable.

Like I sai,d if ShO and Grit reduced damage by 50%, not having your stance would make you much more vulnerable

Not only would it be a nightmare in pugs and DF, but it feels awful to essentially gimp your opening burst because the tank needs to build aggro.

It would still be better than making enmity something that tanks don't really bother to build. Beside, it's already a good thing to delay your "burst opening" to line up with party buffs and debuffs and if, like suggested, having the tank really high on enmity gives a DPS buff to everyone else, you'll want to delay it.

And what happens with ilvl differences? I already nearly rip off undergeared tanks whenever I run Samurai in Expert. They wouldn't have a chance with this kinda of a system.

Enmity is everyone's job. If you go full power with an undergeared tank and you rip aggro, even if he's doing everything he can, it's your fault.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

It would still be better than making enmity something that tanks don't really bother to build. Beside, it's already a good thing to delay your "burst opening" to line up with party buffs and debuffs and if, like suggested, having the tank really high on enmity gives a DPS buff to everyone else, you'll want to delay it.

Enmity is everyone's job. If you go full power with an undergeared tank and you rip aggro, even if he's doing everything he can, it's your fault.

Uh, no. You aren't delaying your burst to lineup with buffs but merely rearranging things. Once the boss is pulled, I have my opener on DRG set and it does not deviate as buff alignment has already been pre-determined. Your proposal would force me to hold back Jump, Spineshatter Dive and etc because tanks couldn't establish aggro.

Again, my only options in this scenario would be to literally stop attacking. Undergear tanks already have difficulty with aggro when paired with certain jobs. Making aggro management more difficult and DPS enmity generation higher would make it impossible for me not to pull hate unless I gimp half my arsenal or flat out stop attacking. Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.

[Reynhart]

Under no scenario should a DPS have to hold back on a single target, though yes, they should be using Diversion and etc.

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

[Launched]

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

Completely removing enmity sounds like a much better idea than forcing me to stop casting Fire IVs for any reason besides mechanics.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

That's the only way to make enmity really matters, which is one way of encouraging tank stance uptime.
If, however poorly you manage your skills, a steroid-infused-DPS should not take aggro from you, then they might as well remove enmity and just make tank stances a permanent Ultimatum.

Like Launched, I would rather they remove enmity entirely than force DPS jobs to stop attacking or purposely perform gimped openers. Furthermore, it's an arbitrary solution that doesn't make tank stance rewarding or inherently beneficial. It's similar in concept to the devs slapping a stance penalty on Warrior. People despised it not because their DPS was lower but how awful it felt.

[frostmagemari]

Like I sai,d if ShO and Grit reduced damage by 50%, not having your stance would make you much more vulnerable

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't make you more vulnerable. You would be more protected within shield oath or grit, but you would not be more vulnerable out of it.
Since it's always been established that tanks can survive WITHOUT using the tank stances, there still wouldn't be a reason to step into tank stance except as damage prevention for tank busters or other heavy hitting moves.

You can only make a tank more vulnerable by reducing it's baseline defense so that the enemies would hit the tank harder than they do now if they were out of tank stance.

[Reynhart]

No it wouldn't. It wouldn't make you more vulnerable. You would be more protected within shield oath or grit, but you would not be more vulnerable out of it.
Since it's always been established that tanks can survive WITHOUT using the tank stances, there still wouldn't be a reason to step into tank stance except as damage prevention for tank busters or other heavy hitting moves.

It's more complicated than that. The main point is not that tanks can survive without the tank stance, but that, by staying in tank stance, they reduce their DPS, thus, the overall raid DPS, for a surplus of mitigation that don't really impact healing requirements.
The idea behind a stronger tank stance is mainly to create a larger gap between healing a DPS-stance tank or a tank-stance tank, to the point that what DPS the tank loses is compensated by what DPS the healers can afford.

And you could also increase enemy damage so that keeping a tank alive in tank stance would stlll not be trivial.

[frostmagemari]

It's more complicated than that. The main point is not that tanks can survive without the tank stance, but that, by staying in tank stance, they reduce their DPS, thus, the overall raid DPS, for a surplus of mitigation that don't really impact healing requirements.
The idea behind a stronger tank stance is mainly to create a larger gap between healing a DPS-stance tank or a tank-stance tank, to the point that what DPS the tank loses is compensated by what DPS the healers can afford.

And you could also increase enemy damage so that keeping a tank alive in tank stance would stlll not be trivial.

The problem with your idea Reynhart, is that to make damage consistently dangerous to a tank that is getting -50% damage, you are making everything absolutely DEADLY to everyone else who would get near an attack from that same boss.
This is a horrible way to balance the tanks, and to encourage tank stances...