Can we get entry ilvl for levelling dungeons already?

[TheAngelneer]

This is a discussion forum. Not a written exam.

Guess what is important on a discussion?

Clearly conveying one's point through proper wording.

And if it really was a case of it just editing the posts to "is their job to always have hate on all mobs when necessary/possible." as Oscura suggested, then this wouldn't have been a discussion in this first place, since people would be effectively agreeing with the post that started it ("You just can't be stuck on this whole idea that the tank's job is always to pick up aggro on every mob").

Both statements are equivalent, if people are clearly in opposition to one they can't be advocating for the other.

Quick, everyone go through that person's posts and make sure there are no grammatical, logical, or contextual errors in any of them.

By all means, be my guest. If there are errors resulting in logical inconsistencies I'll welcome the feedback.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

A tank should try to get aggro on every mob, unless they are aware beforehand that there is no aggro table.

[Oscura]

And if it really was a case of it just editing the posts to "is their job to always have hate on all mobs when necessary/possible." as Oscura suggested, then this wouldn't have been a discussion in this first place, since people would be effectively agreeing with the post that started it ("You just can't be stuck on this whole idea that the tank's job is always to pick up aggro on every mob").

Both statements are equivalent, if people are clearly in opposition to one they can't be advocating for the other.

Except this is wrong. As I posted before, and will post again. You keep ignoring the context of the original post that people replied to. The poster very specifically mentioned instances where a tank would either not tank mobs or simply not even exist. It even mentions that DPS do not exist solely to optimize DPS. It implies that, ultimately, a tank can let any mob run wild, since certain classes, like ranged ones, can bounce aggro or kite, as they do "not exist only to optimize dps." Even in the context of something like Shisui, as was argued before, you don't even kite or "bounce" that mob. You are simply inferring that the original poster was also referring to specific situations where bosses, adds or mobs don't have aggro tables, can't be targeted, or will do off-target attacks, which is not the case at all. It is not present in the post period. You cannot infer things based on your own convenience.

Sure, if you decide to take the original post out of context, the two phrases are agreeing. However, as you've said, "clearly conveying one's point through proper wording," which requires context. In the context of the post, it changes the entire meaning of their sentence saying that tanks don't have to tank every mob, as they were just speaking about mobs running wild. Mobs that can, and should be tanked. Their poor wording is not the fault of anyone else, so maybe you should criticize them?

[TheAngelneer]

A tank should try to get aggro on every mob, unless they are aware beforehand that there is no aggro table.

I disagree, there are situations that trying to get aggro on every mob is more trouble than it's worth. Like the frogs when fighting Mateus or the adds summoned by Ser Yuhelmeric, just to name a few

post

Yes, the poster does mention those situations.

The particular phrase that started the discussion is presented at the end of their post, on a separate paragraph, which means it is a new set of logical constructions that, in context, provide both:

a) an explanation, as they see it, on why people find the things they mentioned to be so odd (people don't think outside the box);

b) clarification on what "thinking outside the box" is, according to them

It follows that, according to their logic:

i) If you get rid of those fixed ideas/mindsets, you can then think outside the box;
ii) If you think outside the box you are able to understand how those challenges are possible;
iii) If you know that they are possible then you can understand why someone might be enticed to try it;

It does not follow from that statement that people should let ads and bosses go wild on everything, but it does convey the idea that not every single tankable enemy in the game should be picked up by the tanks. This somehow made some people upset (proving the point made on the original post) and I have presented cases in which it is indeed advantageous to the whole party if tanks do not grab aggro on certain mobs, and also that the concept of every mob should be tanked is impossible to sustain since it isn't even possible to be done. You can hold it as part of your own set of "ideals" as a tank, but it is neither achievable or optimal.

[magnanimousCynic]

I disagree, there are situations that trying to get aggro on every mob is more trouble than it's worth.

There are always exceptions; pointing out specific scenarios doesn't make the original statement, as a whole, false. When someone tells a sprout "do your best to avoid AoEs" do you decide to say "well ACTUALLY there are these specific AoEs in these specific duties for these specific mechanics that you want to get hit by, so you are wrong."? While there are a few examples of AoEs that you should stand in, that doesn't mean that we should have to list every exception to the original statement to avoid being called out.


Here's my mob tanking in dungeons done as a priority system, with examples of things to not require tanking being in the parenthesis:

1. Does the mob (BLM/WHM/RNG/THF/BRD Moogles in Thornmarch HM) use an aggro table which allows me to be their main target, either for damage or mechanics? If yes then go to #2.
2. Does the mob (Force Fields from Ala Mhigo) actually do any damage or have mechanics that require me to be top aggro? If yes, then go to #3.
3. Does the mob (The tiny ice sprites after the 2nd boss of Snowcloak) die too fast and deal too little damage to require establishing aggro? If not, go to #4.
4. Does the mob (the tiny Fausts that give stacks in A4N) have any mechanics where me tanking it would be a disadvantage? If not, then you should probably tank it.

That's about as broad of a ruleset that I can think of that covers a majority of all content that isn't Extreme, Savage, or Ultimate.

[TheAngelneer]

There are always exceptions to rules; pointing out specific scenarios doesn't make the original statement, as a whole, false. Do you see someone who tells a sprout "do your best to avoid AoEs" and you decide to say "well ACTUALLY there are these specific AoEs in these specific duties for these specific mechanics that you want to get hit by, so you are wrong." While there are examples of AoEs that would be good to stand in, that doesn't mean that we should have to list every exception to the original statement to avoid being called out.

This is not equivalent to what has been discussed. There is a big difference between saying someone should do their best to keep mobs on them and that they should have all aggroable mobs on them at all times.

It would be accurate if they said "You just can't be stuck on this whole idea that you should dodge every single AoE" and then people went "Also yes it is your job to dodge every single AoE. I cannot even believe this is up for debate." or "This is one of the most disappointing things I've ever read. It actually hurts reading this."

Can you see the difference? The first statement is factually correct, and those types of response are demonstrably wrong and should be addressed.

Other than that, the priority system you posted works pretty well.

[Oscura]

Yes, the poster does mention those situations.

The particular phrase that started the discussion is presented at the end of their post, on a separate paragraph, which means it is a new set of logical constructions that, in context, provide both:

Are we honestly going to ignore that the post in question could've simply put it on a separate paragraph incorrectly? It's not as if every single person is as picky about their wording and grammar as you are. At this point your interpretation is simply just that, your interpretation. It goes against the grain with what others read, which was someone at first speaking of situations where the usual law of "tanks must tank mobs period" is not met, followed by the slippery slope of "you don't have to tank everything," which is an incredibly broad term. Regardless of a separation of paragraphs, you cannot seriously act as if the two statements are completely unrelated. You cannot seriously argue that the person meant solely specific situations where it is advantageous not to tank something, cannot be tanked, or dies too quickly to be worth tanking. Their post never asserted, hinted to, or even implied any of that. Even in any post following, it was not brought up. You were the one person who brought this up, and the only thing that ultimately irked you was that people said you "should tank everything." You're not stupid, you knew that people meant you should aim to tank as much as possible when deemed necessary, but they simply said it as broad as possible because the original post implied that one does not have to tank even when it is necessary. That is even specifically why I said the post hurt to read. Tanks should tank everything unless they can't, and should avoid tanking things once they can work on their optimization when they know they don't have to, like low HP targets. I do not need a new player reading that post and saying, "oh, it's not that bad if I let a mob go when I'm doing a pull against trash and just let it hit the DPS the entire time then." The same way like with the AoE example, that I would not want someone reading that and saying "ah screw it so I can just stand in this whenever I please."

The fact of the matter is that you read the original post one way and that other people read it another way. You are nitpicking based in interpretation.

Edit: Also, it is not my "ideal," I regularly try to optimize as often as I can. I agree with you that some mobs just aren't meant to be tanked. I was simply addressing that the point you are making is not present in the original post at all aside from you reading the implication from a single sentence and nothing more.

[Mysterysword]

To avoid feeding the troll some more, entry ilvls for leveling dungeons absolutely need to be a thing. More than that, there should be much stricter ilvl restrictions imposed on peoples' weapons, across all roulettes/dungeons/trials, so we don't end up with, say, a DRG in Dun Scaith with an ilvl 210 weapon, or a SAM in godsdamned Sohr Khai with an Ironworks katana. Or an idiotic DRK trying to tank Lakshmi EX with an ilvl 260 relic.

This would also have prevented me from landing in Castrum Abania as WHM when all I had was an ilvl 270 Shire weapon. Additionally, it needs to be easier to farm weapons from dungeons. I ran Bardam's Mettle for 2-3 hours, farmed every single piece of healer gear available in that dungeon, and never once got the weapon.

[TheAngelneer]

I would not want someone reading that and saying

Then the problem here is you reading something and trying to guess what people are supposedly trying to say, as opposed to what they are saying, and projecting that behavior to other people.

If someone categorically states "yes it is your job to do thing X. I cannot even believe this is up for debate." then that is exactly what I understand out of it, and not that they actually mean "you should try to do X but not really.

[Oscura]

Then the problem here is you reading something and trying to guess what people are supposedly trying to say, as opposed to what they are saying, and projecting that behavior to other people.

If someone categorically states "yes it is your job to do thing X. I cannot even believe this is up for debate." then that is exactly what I understand out of it, and not that they actually mean "you should try to do X but not really.

I did not guess what they were trying to say. Reading the entire post and its context, it's very clear to me what they are saying. I am not singling out that one sentence, but reading the entire post as a whole. It keeps sounding as if you are singling that sentence out, or simply addressing it as if that sentence is only being singled out and nothing more. Sure, if I read that sentence by itself, and singled itself out, I'd be guessing, but I'm not. The only reason I singled it out in my original post was because I could not be bothered specifically nitpicking their entire post about how I felt. It was their opinion so I had no reason to prove them "wrong," but I could not deny that it hurt to read in the entire context of the post. Just because you disagree with how I read it, doesn't mean I am "guessing."

I will concede about the "cannot believe this is up to debate" thing though.