Community Opinions on Tanking

[Shurrikhan]

Paladin is the ONLY tank that can redirect damage to themselves because Paladin is the ONLY tank that has Cover.

No. Every tank has Provoke. The entire point of having a tank revolves around their redirecting damage onto themselves. It is not a one-off thing. When you can re-aim an attack, Cover is not your only means of taking damage for what would have been someone else.

A tank using Shirk will not gain aggro. It's literally a detaunt for the tank.

How do you have this much vehement confidence without knowing how circle-Shirking works?

The part where you said this:
Rather, the game is in desperate need of universal mechanics that can lend themselves to nuanced usage. I believe enmity, if revised, could be one of those things.
Or have you already forgotten what BS you've posted to try and remove what little utility Tanks have and shift it all over to DPS so they can be the kings of the game and do everything while Tanks and Healers just hold them up so they can play the game.

When a position says that enmity has to be changed to be a satisfying mechanic thing, why would you then strawman that position defending enmity as it currently stands?

Enmity tables only fail because far too much of the control is in the hands of DPS/Healers.

You keep using the term control. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Control is viable arbitration. Apart from popping Diversion/detaunts on CD, the only way for a DPS to control their enmity against a boss is by doing less DPS. That is not a viable solution. They cannot blindside an enemy to reduce enmity generated or be seen as to increase their enmity generated. Mechanically, their enmity merely happens, either 10% or 100% of it, without anything in between or any universal means of reduction for 90 of every 120 seconds.

I think enmity mitigators and detaunts are too powerful, clunky, and outright unnecessary. They provide power, but it is periodic, not pursuant to player control. The most control a DPS can exert upon their enmity generation as a decision is to not use Diversion, saving it for an add. That's it. That's the extent of their viable arbitration. But wanting those skills gone is not to say I want to simply spam Enmity combo after Enmity combo. I'd like to see more of them used, but for reasons of variance in gameplay and decision-making, not mere "tank-ness". There is nothing iconic about spamming enmity combos, only about having to choose between two goals with one's and/or one's parties survival hanging in the balance.

I don't want the decision between "enmity combo" and "damage combo" again basically made for us, simply shifted towards the way that makes tanks less useful (i.e. nerfs them without surrounding consideration). In terms of simultaneous throughput, tanks do start early tiers slightly overpowered, but I consider that better fixed by getting rid of the need and benefit for pentamelding rather than essentially disabling their damage combos until X factor occurs.

And just as importantly, I'd like to see those combos have throughput, short-term rather than wholly long-term, immediate rather than preparative, that's actually worth something more than just getting to continue to perform one's role.

Heck, I've even posited a suggestion that would make enmity, or at least enmity combo skills, useful beyond "Just enough enmity to have aggro" by adding additional tank related mechanics tied to them to help them feel less like "Bad DPS but with defence CD's"

And my issue with it is the same as I have with Diversion and de-taunts. It's all or nothing and simply acts as a race to pop the Stagger state for bonus damage. Thus it simply turns into immediate damage (and insufficient enmity to -- with your other suggested changes -- be worthwhile) or party-dependent damage. Their both very much just damage-dealing. It's just in the style of, say, SAM or that of Trick Attack. I prefer something granular that feels like a fight to survive. Now, yes, I like that others can have a part to play in that, that all can see a basic mob winding up for a tankbuster that would nonetheless deal hellish damage that would put a tank on its rear and nuke that mob for all its worth, finishing that snap-flurry with stuns, but a tank would still have the most force to throw around in those situations and it has its CDs.

...but do so in a way that partially relies on being a tank and partially relies on finding the best opportunities to go full DPS mode.

But you don't find those opportunities. You merely stack a metric until the effect occurs and unless everyone is about to go into relative downtime, in which case you delay slightly, you do that as quickly as you can or Stagger is not worth it. If Stagger is worth anything in solo play, it will be overpowered to the extent that DPS combos are a non-option in light parties. If it's balanced to be a viable option in light parties, it will be obligatory in full parties. You've referred to it only as periods of available burst and an infinitely scaling damage modifier. Neither is damage-proportionate; the whole mechanic is to exploit the window of opportunity for all its worth. There must therefore be a "useful at" breakpoint, obligatory thereafter and avoided therebefore.

What suggestion? Your initial post was just damning people wanting Tanks to feel like Tanks rather than fat DPS.

Really?

"Make tanks have to tank" tends to take optimized gameplay in which tank, healers, and DPS feel in sync and each directly capable of good value and replace it with gameplay in which they don't, all in favor of enmity-slapping enemies enough to ensure they don't look away. I don't find that aspect of "tanking" particularly fun or even remotely tank like. It's just a table metric to stack that has little to do with facing, thwarting, or overpowering an enemy offense. If the people pushing for tanks to feel more like tanks actually pushed having more tank-like things to do (e.g. interception, active mitigation, key stuns/silences), rather than merely gutting tank mitigation as to require tank stance (which just removes options in another way while ensuring that lower-end players can't survive) or requiring a deluge of enmity combos, I'd be all for it. But I've yet to see such suggested.

Give everyone more tank activities to be a part of, giving more depth to tanks but also spreading the responsibility around some so that everyone's already a bit trained to tank and the pressure is less uniquely on the one player, and I think you'd get more tanks.

I get that you can be hair-triggered over differences, assumed or otherwise, but that is not remotely the point I was trying to make.

My point is that the best improvements possible for tanks are the one's that make them feel like a tank, what makes a role feel like itself is the depth of consideration and activities consequent to logical use of its toolkit, and that the features of tanking as it stands (e.g. enmity, CDs) are not enough and should not be held as the end-all-be-all of what can make a tank feel like a tank. The solution is not necessarily or even likely in what little we have now.

I am scornful of those who would limit themselves solely to shallow, already-criticized systems to pursue their gameplay interests, or make changes aimed at gameplay without considering the surrounding balance, not of anyone and everyone who'd ask for rescaling of the existent tools as an element of more comprehensive changes. I think the latter is necessary, just not enough in itself.

Do I think healer oGCDs are too strong? Yes. Do I think healing in general is a bit overtuned, even with oGCDs out of the picture? A bit. Do I think tank CDs are too strong? Mildly to moderately.
On all these points I agree with many of the tenants of that sort of position. But gutting tanks to fix it or providing an incomplete plan merely replaces the problems with new ones that within a month's time will feel mostly identical. It needs more than that.

Every role should feel unique. Yes, DPS will always be a factor, you'll always strive to do more DPS, but a tank should feel like a tank, a healer should feel like a healer.

Agreed. I just said as much. We just disagree on what makes tanking feel unique. For me, it's being in the thick of the situation, adapting to it, and the awareness, instinctive planning, and balances between personal and team or immediate and upcoming survival necessary to make that adaptation work. I want to see those aspects emphasized.

What? I never mentioned anything about mitigation payoffs. Only damage.

My mistake then. I assumed based on every example of Stagger we've had thus far, from XIII or from, in gimmick form, T4 of BCoB, wherein Staggered enemies are stunned for the duration of the Stagger. "If a stun is mitigation, and Stagger is a stun, would not Stagger be mitigation?" so to speak.

Also, this is to say nothing of if active mitigation is highlighted in any way, to make the decision to stray away from stacking stagger in order to reduce damage taken.

Fair enough. Now that I know that a balance between the skill usage is desired, I will assume that whatever smaller technical changes are necessary to result in that will be made. Spirit over letter.

Tanks want to prioritise the Tank specific stat!? No wai!?

Far better than now where Tenacity is basically on the same tier as Piety in terms of where you prioritize it...

Tenacity would already be quite decent if healing and/or base mitigation were nerfed. 10% passive mitigation at 2k Tenacity is no joke.

Also, I didn't mean that as a bad thing. I listed them only as the changes I'd expect to happen.

Of course, if Stagger does not trigger a stunned/pacified/slowed state, and therefore provides no mitigation, I'd prefer to see Tenacity just stick to its guns for the... most part, and just give its modification to damage taken/dealt, so that it doesn't feel like an obligatory do-all stat and one feels like they can actually specialize into tankiness. But that's just me.

Yes, you want to co-ordinate with your team to try and maximize the benefits the tank will bring.

Isn't that literally what you wanted?

Yes. I like that.

You speak as though you know the specific timings and durations of stagger, even though, I included no such details. As such, it's possible that it could be balanced in a way where it's not majorly different between DPS.

Stagger will build at a tank-dependent rate. If it's not damage-scaling -- and given your acidity towards any suggestion of granular scaling through damage, my assumption is leaning that way -- then that rate is essentially preset. All that remains to vary it, then, is the enemy's threshold and the tank's Skill Speed, which may become the new best rDPS stat for 8-man content unless Tenacity overwhelms it as a do-all stat. Since the only point at which any of this would be significant is in versus-boss content, I'd have to assume Stagger applies to bosses as well. If the threshold varies by boss, then the boss determines the Stagger timings, and this will have an effect on the available compositions for that raid or trial. If it does not vary, then the Stagger timings are preset and certain jobs are automatically pushed in or out over a given fight length, or the tank varies their Skill Speed based on the composition at hand. Ideally, one would set the Stagger rate, universal or otherwise, to be achievable at some timing that can be viably accelerated to match any composition, but gradually desyncs from pairing best with one composition to another. For instance, 60/90/120/150/180 are all frequent CD timings, but most jobs tends towards either essentially per-90 or per-120 intervals. The winner between a per-90 or per-120 composition would be the one that faces the least waste (time necessary to hold buffs) in matching to Stagger. To balance the implications of Stagger, it would need to be just off from one such that it just enters the other after x time. The better the natural sync, the more Tenacity (assuming Skill Speed is still superior for Stagger generation) is available for the tank.

You mean that you might have to think about the encounter in some way shape or form? No wai!?!?

If it's a council type fight, then you won't need to prioritize stagger as much.

If it's something like adds spawning, then you try and delay the stagger until you've dealt with them.

Again. I think that's a good thing. I mentioned only what changes would be consequent to such a system. I wouldn't have mentioned that those effects were shared between both our systems if I was attempting to throw your every point under the bus and later stand triumphantly upon its corpse. I want interesting tank play, same as you. I just don't see the point, in such an important undertaking, of being less than comprehensive about it. I'll critique what cracks I find in your system. I expect you to do the same to mine. I'd just prefer we each consider the intent of our suggestions a bit more. I'll intend to do better in that regard, but it'd help to know more about what your exact intent is, in terms of how it feels and plays. I'll do the same where you have questions or note discrepancies.

Again, Paladin =/= Tanks.

It was a direct response to "Like as it is, DPS already have more party utility than any Tank, even Paladin." Expect the refutation to be on the point it's being made in reply to.

Only Paladin has team utility. This doesn't mean Tanks as a whole have team utility.

Didn't you just mention that Shake it Off (superior to Divine Veil) and The Blackest Night were useful tank tools?

Moreover, again... having enmity control at all and access to mitigation tools is already team utility. You're not a solo player. What non-raidwide or -split damage you take is mutually exclusive with the damage your party takes. Tanks are team utility.

It's like saying WHM is fine, because SCH and AST have good team utility and party damage increases and they're healers so thus all healers have good team utility and party damage increases.

It's quite the opposite. It's like saying that WHM shouldn't be judged against AST and SCH by the strength of its Regen or Cure III when oGCDs alone already make up the uptime difference providable by either.

Goad is of little value even in dungeons unless someone is underperforming in dungeon AoE spams or has died just after using Invigorate; I play at 2700+ SkS (a 1.8s GCD) and I don't run out. Erase doesn't work on most DoT mechanics in savage content, for which there are already next to none. Only 3 DPS have Mana Shift, though it comes at cost of either MP or uptime except immediately after Blizzard III or a in-UI Thundercloud proc (3 lost casts over the course of 10-minute fight due to clipping if the BLM casts it at any other time and/or lost F4 potential). Tactician is useful only if someone has died just after using Invigorate. It is quite literally impossible to run out otherwise. Refresh and Diversion alone are notoriously OP. Addle and Faint are each just halves of Reprisal, but each at a 50% longer CD. Compare all this to, say, Rampart, Reprisal, Convalescence, Shirk, and Provoke. By nature of controlling where so much of the damage goes, tanks are by no means short on team utility.

Natively, Vercure is worthless. Smoke Screen is irrelevant unless you have one and only one high pDPS party member (e.g a SAM or BLM) or only have a single Ranged and wish to delay Refresh/Tactician. Shadewalker is still made mostly superfluous by proper circle-shirking, Diversion/detaunts, and equal percentile tank damage. Dismantle is typically avoided except on tank busters, for which it tends to be unnecessary, because sabotage-based mitigation reduces limit gauge growth where shielding and personal mitigation. As you said, Mantra is superfluous. Brotherhood, however, is in a way more so, as Monk's personal damage is balanced around its presence; it pays personally for every cent it gives others except in a pure-physical comp where Monk provides competitive tDPS. SMN pays with its own damage for Contagion and Radiant Shield, though probably a bit less than it should in multi-caster compositions (every third Contagion stacked with every other TC-Ley Lines is a ridiculous source of rDPS). Bard, in turn, pays for having Battle Voice and Foe Requiem. Nature's Minne is actually decently useful when stacked with Convalescence. Stack that with Troubador and you can see why Machinist apparently needed such a huge damage buff to even the scales until 5.0. And, finally, despite having no "utility" BLM can take the lead tDPS (personal DPS dealt + bonus damage given to others - bonus damage received from others) in certain speedruns, making it potentially the most valuable member of its party.

But all this is comparing apples and oranges. In the end, which can you most afford to go without? Which one has the most significant impact upon party clear time? Any one DPS? Or a tank? A BLM doesn't need utility to be, in the hands of a good player, a top-tier contributor. Tanks, by virtue of holding threat, surviving what others could not, and being more efficiently healable, don't need much utility to provide everything that a whole arsenal of "utility" would. That's just common sense, and I don't know why you're bristling over an imbalance that exists only if taken out of context. All you stand to gain from adjusting it is an equalized directness of tank contribution, taking away what's special about PLD. And unlike what suggested, you wouldn't be making it more flexible and integral for PLD in the process so they remain uniquely the masters of that aspect.