Removing Tank Stance Argument

[Duskane]

stances should just be one button to avoid button bloat (same could work for Ast secs)
Press once for Defiance
Press again for deliverance
also stops miss pressing and just deleting all your gauge
or
Tanks by default have traits that add Tank stance attributes and DPS stance just corrects the stats (so pre SB cleric stance basically but for tanks)

[shao32]

Tank stances are just so bad designed it doesn't matter where the meta is, if the meta was around 100% tank stance uptime we will suffer the GCD and resources penalty every time a forced tank swap it's present on top of the overall dps penalty and currently we can avoid switching stances thankfully but stay on then for whatever reason is still a huge punishment not only in term of numbers but in term of gameplay too.

This skills with the combo agro become painfully useless with time with the amount of agro we generate and the overall defensive capability we have.

Removing or just reworking tank stances will be no only a big benefic on terms of gameplay for us but a way to control tanks by the Devs, they complaint to much they can't work around us BCS we do to much damage and we didn't get tank acc fixed bcs of this and tank stances desin and current use are one of the primary contributors to that problem.

[Cabalabob]

Tank stance shouldn’t exist because it’s just a strange concept. Tanks needing tank stance to tank? Why should a job need a stance to perform its basic function? Healers don’t have heal stance (except ast but that’s about heal type not giving it the ability to heal).

Really tanks could have both their stances removed and it wouldn’t effect anything. Enmity combo when you want enmity, dps combo when you don’t, cooldowns for mitigation, provoke and shirk for enmity management between two tanks.

The only issue that would arise is for low level/new players, tank stance is basically a crutch for when your party outgears you, but this could be made up for by adding cooldowns with enmity effects on them. E.G. WAR could have unchained reworked to just double enmity on skills for the duration, PLD could get holy chain that forces all targets to attack them regardless of enmity, giving them time to generate an enmity lead. DRK already has abilities that increase enmity when used with dark arts.

Tank stance as a concept should really be a thing for jobs that can’t tank natively, e.g. imagine if fists of Earth on monk was basically shield oath. Allowing monks to take over tanking if the tank dies, just until they can recover. It’s not a thing that actual tanks should need... because they’re tanks.

[Kabooa]

Tank stance shouldn’t exist because it’s just a strange concept.

Uh what.

Tanking "Stance" as the name changes but the term is pretty universal is any defensive / protection boost at the cost of offense power. It's been a hallmark of tanking archetypes for most RPG games, because the immovable wall of meat shouldn't also be throwing out high amounts of damage. Why bring the damage dealers, who are at risk of dying to the lightest breeze, if the guy who can't die does just as well?

Why would a Monk have to sacrifice their DPS to therefore tank if Tanks don't have to do this? That's the strange concept here.

[Bright-Flower]

Tank stance shouldn’t exist because it’s just a strange concept. Tanks needing tank stance to tank? Why should a job need a stance to perform its basic function? Healers don’t have heal stance (except ast but that’s about heal type not giving it the ability to heal).

Really tanks could have both their stances removed and it wouldn’t effect anything. Enmity combo when you want enmity, dps combo when you don’t, cooldowns for mitigation, provoke and shirk for enmity management between two tanks.

The only issue that would arise is for low level/new players, tank stance is basically a crutch for when your party outgears you, but this could be made up for by adding cooldowns with enmity effects on them. E.G. WAR could have unchained reworked to just double enmity on skills for the duration, PLD could get holy chain that forces all targets to attack them regardless of enmity, giving them time to generate an enmity lead. DRK already has abilities that increase enmity when used with dark arts.

Tank stance as a concept should really be a thing for jobs that can’t tank natively, e.g. imagine if fists of Earth on monk was basically shield oath. Allowing monks to take over tanking if the tank dies, just until they can recover. It’s not a thing that actual tanks should need... because they’re tanks.

I think the intention on SE's part was 'tank stance for when tanking, dps stance for when not tanking.'

That way you have your defenses and enmity aplenty when tanking things, but can do more damage when not. Be it in raids/trials when only one tank is needed, doing solo stuff, or phases of bosses where there isn't anything to tank like killing Ifrit nails or Omega level checker etc.

In practice however, the game's design has lead to a meta where tanks want a bare minimum defense/enmity to get the job done and then pump out as much damage as possible, because for the most part you don't NEED tank stance to tank outside of getting an early head start etc. Further compounded by provoke/shirk combos to boost enmity between tanks.

[Cabalabob]

Uh what.

Tanking "Stance" as the name changes but the term is pretty universal is any defensive / protection boost at the cost of offense power. It's been a hallmark of tanking archetypes for most RPG games, because the immovable wall of meat shouldn't also be throwing out high amounts of damage. Why bring the damage dealers, who are at risk of dying to the lightest breeze, if the guy who can't die does just as well?

Why would a Monk have to sacrifice their DPS to therefore tank if Tanks don't have to do this? That's the strange concept here.

Because a tanks damage should be naturally low, because they’re a tank, not a dps. A monk would need to sacrifice dps to tank because they’re not a tank.

A stance should be to make you do something you can’t do without it. A tank shouldn’t need a tank stance because they are already a tank. A tank at best should need a dps stance that sacrifices defence and enmity to increase damage.

I think the intention on SE's part was 'tank stance for when tanking, dps stance for when not tanking.'

That way you have your defenses and enmity aplenty when tanking things, but can do more damage when not. Be it in raids/trials when only one tank is needed, doing solo stuff, or phases of bosses where there isn't anything to tank like killing Ifrit nails or Omega level checker etc.

In practice however, the game's design has lead to a meta where tanks want a bare minimum defense/enmity to get the job done and then pump out as much damage as possible, because for the most part you don't NEED tank stance to tank outside of getting an early head start etc. Further compounded by provoke/shirk combos to boost enmity between tanks.

But again, why should a tank need tank stance? Why not just make the tanks naturally tanky? A dps stance for when solo or not tanking is fine although the same thing is achieved by just giving them separate combos for enmity and dps, but tank stance on a tank is redundant because they should basically just BE tank stance.

[Mixt]

I actually tried experimenting with going without tank stance a while back.

It didn't go well.

Shield lob (PULL)
Flash X 3
Already lost aggro
Ultimatum + Flash
Lost aggro again
Mobs kill everyone
WIPE.

...Well, how nice.

But sure, let's remove tank stance, make the above scenario the norm, why not?

[Bright-Flower]

Because a tanks damage should be naturally low, because they’re a tank, not a dps. A monk would need to sacrifice dps to tank because they’re not a tank.

A stance should be to make you do something you can’t do without it. A tank shouldn’t need a tank stance because they are already a tank. A tank at best should need a dps stance that sacrifices defence and enmity to increase damage.



But again, why should a tank need tank stance? Why not just make the tanks naturally tanky? A dps stance for when solo or not tanking is fine although the same thing is achieved by just giving them separate combos for enmity and dps, but tank stance on a tank is redundant because they should basically just BE tank stance.

The idea is to limit tank damage while tanking, but give them more damage when they're not tanking so that they're not TOO good and doing too much damage as a tank, but not left with so little damage as to be annoying to play through quests etc. I think that's the intent anyway. The idea with tank stance is to swap between those two extremes. The issue is that FFXIV content generally does not require the benefits of the tank stance, at least not for the majority of a boss fight's duration, which leads to people hardly ever using it. Were the game balanced in a way where you NEEDED the enmity and defense boost from tank stance to tank all the time it would serve more of a purpose.

I actually tried experimenting with going without tank stance a while back.

It didn't go well.

Shield lob (PULL)
Flash X 3
Already lost aggro
Ultimatum + Flash
Lost aggro again
Mobs kill everyone
WIPE.

...Well, how nice.

But sure, let's remove tank stance, make the above scenario the norm, why not?

I assume that anyone arguing to remove tank stance is assuming the extra enmity would be baked into the job, not just stripping away their enmity tools with no compensation. People don't want to just say, remove Shield Oath and make no other changes to PLD to compensate.

[Cabalabob]

The idea is to limit tank damage while tanking, but give them more damage when they're not tanking so that they're not TOO good and doing too much damage as a tank, but not left with so little damage as to be annoying to play through quests etc. I think that's the intent anyway. The idea with tank stance is to swap between those two extremes. The issue is that FFXIV content generally does not require the benefits of the tank stance, at least not for the majority of a boss fight's duration, which leads to people hardly ever using it. Were the game balanced in a way where you NEEDED the enmity and defense boost from tank stance to tank all the time it would serve more of a purpose.



I assume that anyone arguing to remove tank stance is assuming the extra enmity would be baked into the job, not just stripping away their enmity tools with no compensation. People don't want to just say, remove Shield Oath and make no other changes to PLD to compensate.

That’s what I’m getting at. Tank stance is so barely useful they could just bake it into tanks naturally then just have a dps stance that nullifies their tank benefits in exchange for dps. There’s no reason for tank stance on a tank, that should just be their natural state. Kind of like the reverse 2.x WAR where they only had defiance and they’d turn it off to dps.

[shao32]

I actually tried experimenting with going without tank stance a while back.

It didn't go well.

Shield lob (PULL)
Flash X 3
Already lost aggro
Ultimatum + Flash
Lost aggro again
Mobs kill everyone
WIPE.

...Well, how nice.

But sure, let's remove tank stance, make the above scenario the norm, why not?

Removing tank stance don't involve losing the enmity we use to pull already, some adjustments need to be done to accommodate this change of course, so you scenario will not be accurate at all.