Removing Tank Stance Argument

[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.

[Bright-Flower]

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.

I don't think SE wants tanks to have their dps stance damage at the same time as having the tank stance boost to enmity and defense.

I wouldn't particularly mind myself, but it would require additional changes. PLD oath gauge is gained differently depending on which oath we have active. Dark Knight has some abilities that are only active, or work differently, depending on if Grit/Darkside or both are activated. I'm not sure about warriors but I think they have changes too between stances.

So they could in theory strip away tank stances and say give tanks a passive trait that boost their defense and their enmity at all times, but it would requite more work tweaking the tanks, war and drk especially, without it. And then there's the question of damage. Do you let them keep the damage they get from dps stances? Because the whole point of these stances is to nerf their dps and buff defenses/enmity when tanking, so if you let them keep the damage with no tradeoff, the question is does that make tankes too powerful, having so much defense and keeping their dps stance dps? Or do you lock their dps at tank stance levels and make solo play more frustrating?

IMO, I'd rather they either increase boss damage output so that tanks need to consistently be in defensive stance rather than just needing it for an early enmity lead, or just leave it as is, than have their damage nerfed locked in for solo content.

[Raldo]

IMO, I'd rather they either increase boss damage output so that tanks need to consistently be in defensive stance

Probably easier to just add a +30% (or whatever number) damage taken while in DPS stance.

[Bright-Flower]

Probably easier to just add a +30% (or whatever number) damage taken while in DPS stance.

Do that and people will still be trying to push for maximum uptime in dps stance, and it will effectively be the same thing we have now.