DPS Stance vs Tank Stance Including Healer DPS

[Reynhart]

I ask how it is any better if they use it 100% of the time.

It's not better for tanks to use the stance 100% of the time. It's better to have the two options equally viable if you propely build your team around it.
You like to play safe when tanking ? Find yourself a healer friend who loves to DPS and you can play safe without being a liability.
You don't really like DPSing as a healer because you're afraid of losing focus on your party members ? Find an agressive tank friend and let him go to town while you back him up.

[Shurrikhan]

It's not better for tanks to use the stance 100% of the time. It's better to have the two options equally viable if you propely build your team around it.
You like to play safe when tanking ? Find yourself a healer friend who loves to DPS and you can play safe without being a liability.
You don't really like DPSing as a healer because you're afraid of losing focus on your party members ? Find an agressive tank friend and let him go to town while you back him up.

Fair enough, but again, that seems nothing like what you suggested. The current version would be far closer to that ideal than 50% damage mitigation or double HP recovery via tank stance and incoming damage tuned upward to meet it.

Though, if that was just spitball, and this ideal is all you're going for, then I'm in agreement.

[Reynhart]

Fair enough, but again, that seems nothing like what you suggested. The current version would be far closer to that ideal than 50% damage mitigation or double HP recovery via tank stance and incoming damage tuned upward to meet it.

I made some test back in Delta savage, and between 100% tank stance and 100% out of tank stance (I was DRK) except for the inital pull, I gained roughly 400 DPS while my healer only lost 100. So, the current effect of stances weighs heavily in favor of tank DPS.

I haven't tried Sigma savage, so maybe it's more balanced in some way, but I doubt it. For the healer to "gain" the 400 DPS I lose when I'm using my stance, it means that its effect must be far more powerful. The reason why I suggested that damage received by tanks should be tuned up a little, it's so that turtle tanking wouldn't be made too easy.

[Kabooa]

Frankly, they have to redesign stances to work like actual, gameplay modifying stances before I'd be on board with something absurd like constant -50%.

A Dark in Tank stance shouldn't play like a Dark out of stance. Your mindset, your actions available, and your gameplay style should change accordingly.

[aqskerorokero]

I do prefer a downside when a tank is in dps stance.

now we have tank stance on = more mitigation and lost of dps.

I'd like also to see dps stance on = more dps output and less max hp like 20%?

then as a result we could have a 3rd option = stance less.

[Reynhart]

I do prefer a downside when a tank is in dps stance.

The end result would be the same, so why not. More options is always better.

There's just a problem as DRK doesn't have a DPS stance.

[Fernosaur]

so you are saying it doesn't matter at all in terms of time spent on healing if a tank takes 20% less damage or not?

I say this as a career raid healer. No, it really doesn't, haha. What makes a difference is if the tank knows how to use cooldowns or not. If you're in DPS stance and using Rampart/Intuition/Bulwark/constant TBNs, hell, even Anticipation, that's what matters. If you don't use any of those, then by all means, please go back in tank stance, cause I don't wanna deal with baby-sitting yo ass over there (this isn't directed at you specifically, but a general "yous").

A tank that properly (or even remotely decently) manages their CDs makes it so whether they are on tank or DPS stances makes no difference to the amount of healing GCDs you invest in them. A good healer will find a way to circumvent excess damage by using their tools to their benefit, whether it's by buffing HoTs with Largesse, popping Fey Union, using Excog, Synastry, etc.

Believe me, the impact of tank stance is more of an overkill when you know exactly what's coming. Tank stance is nice in progression when you're still gauging how hard the tank busters and auto-attacks hit, but after that it's out the window.

[KaldeaSahaline]

Considering that, right now, people avoid tank stance, even though some survival skills can be locked behind it, it wouldn't change anything. Besides, the reason why tank stance is avoided is because, in the end, only DPS matters.

No, the reason why tank stance exists in the first place is to balance tank damage when compared to real DPS in group content, while still allowing them to do decent damage when soloing. The absurdity is to be able to survive "easily" out of it.

In your posts to others I've come to realize that you and I are likely on the same team here. We both want the same thing, I just think your idea needs a lot of work.

A half year ago or so I made a post on this very forum about a fictitious combat revamp. The core idea behind it was to shift healing to a more triage centered focus (less incoming damage, higher frequency, more targets, but higher consistent damage on tanks) and shift tanking to a paradigm where they had more control over their gameplay.

To supplement these changes I removed tank stances and shifted their effects into oGCDs and their rotational abilities. I also shifted healers to a lower overall throughput, but with the ability to choose their MP efficiency and the ability to rapidly convert MP into burst healing should they need it.

My goal in this exercise was to create a situation where a bad healer could be supplemented dynamically by the tank and vice versa while simultaneously making tanking a bit more interesting/engaging.

To tie it all together I proposed some encounter design elements that would need to change and a complete revamp of the PLD job with new abilities and retooled existing ones.

Feel free to give it a read and let me know your thoughts. I'm curious what you'd think of it.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...ork-%28LONG%29

[Reynhart]

Feel free to give it a read and let me know your thoughts. I'm curious what you'd think of it.

Interesting ideas in this post. I'm mainly a fan of WS giving a cumulated shield. I've posted something similar a long time ago, which I'd like to call Barrier Per Second. This way, mastering your rotation would have a huge impact on your survival, and no tank could ever advocate to simply spamming RoH all the time.

The point that bothers me is the removal of the stances. Like I said, I think stances are a good thing to give a proper damage balance between tanks and DPS jobs while allowing us to kill things when playing solo. I personally love "turtle" tanking, but since "aggressive" tanking gained a lot of flavor throughout the years, it's more interesting to tweak the stances to give two options, each with pros and cons, be it for progression or farm.

[KaldeaSahaline]

Interesting ideas in this post. I'm mainly a fan of WS giving a cumulated shield. I've posted something similar a long time ago, which I'd like to call Barrier Per Second. This way, mastering your rotation would have a huge impact on your survival, and no tank could ever advocate to simply spamming RoH all the time.

The point that bothers me is the removal of the stances. Like I said, I think stances are a good thing to give a proper damage balance between tanks and DPS jobs while allowing us to kill things when playing solo. I personally love "turtle" tanking, but since "aggressive" tanking gained a lot of flavor throughout the years, it's more interesting to tweak the stances to give two options, each with pros and cons, be it for progression or farm.

Got tied up at work for a while - The idea would be that RA wouldn't generate much (if really any threat), but you'd have an on demand short combo mitigation generator you could use. You wouldn't be able to spam it nonstop:

1) It generates less Oath than other skills
2) It generates little (no threat)

It wouldn't be so much about mastering a rotation though, but about intelligent decision making and resource management.

With regards to stances, the concept of "turtle" tanking still would exist. It just wouldn't be a flat toggle like current stances. It'd be decision making points throughout the encounter than tended towards safety and mitigation rather than DPS. I.e. you'd prioritize RA over JoA (mitigation > dps) and you'd focus on converting your Oath into defensive skills and threat benefits rather than DPS. The idea would be that you could then react to the skillset of your teammates to cover any gaps. This concept is not handled very well in the current design.