How do we feel about tank damage right now?

[Kabooa]

An extreme of said position: Passive mitigation should likely be reduced in favor of frequent (or even consistently available) means of active mitigation. If needed, tank combos can be reworked to conserve button count, trading a pretense of complexity for actual complexity.

Like a more meaningful toggle. Always bothered me Tank Stance was a +20/-20 (before modifications) but the DPS toggle was often +X/-0.

having those toggles enable and disable options would be a plus, to me at least. 2 Button Wonders aside, protection warriors from TBC era Warcraft will always hold a special place in my heart via immunity Blocking and Revenge spam.

[Reynhart]

You suggested that damage is not a primary objective of tanks and we've established that it is.

Ok, let's admit that it is because of the relation between damage and enmity. So let me ask you that question : Why would you need more enmity ?

As you can see, I'd be perfectly fine with an upward adjustment in the rotation that allowed tanks to have more damage with more effort.

The main thing that I see is that you tunnel vision into damage numbers and use that to claim that tanks have "very low impact", which is extremely biased and completely disregard the part where tanks, well, tank.

enmity and mitigation largely being non-factors

But again, that is the real issue. The fact that actual tanking is not engaging, not our damage numbers.

A thing I noticed looking back at the graphs back in page 4 is the "score" of tanks. They are around 50 points in Eden where they were closer to 70 in Omega. It's funny when you realize that tanks used to lose roughly 20% of their damage when using tank stance. Basically, now that they removed the hassle of stance dancing and trading survival for damage, we don't get rewarded with the increased damage.

Passive mitigation should likely be reduced in favor of frequent (or even consistently available) means of active mitigation.

I still think mitigation GCD would make tanking far more engaging

[Kabooa]

A thing I noticed looking back at the graphs back in page 4 is the "score" of tanks. They are around 50 points in Eden where they were closer to 70 in Omega. It's funny when considering that tanks used to lose roughly 20% of their damage when using tank stance. Basically, now that they removed the hassle of stance dancing and trading survival for damage, we don't get rewarded with the increased damage.

Omega is PDPS. PDPS is heavily inflated by padding. It's the entirety of the reason that upon Dancer's introduction that the site in question changed its metric. And while that metric isn't perfect, it's more equitable.

So our first fault is trying to compare the raw aggregate data of a -PDPS- based dataset to the raw aggregate data of an -RDPS- based dataset.

Even if we moved back to Stormblood, using this new metric Tanks heavily drop because the only "RDPS" metric brought was by Warrior, and it shares that with two DPS jobs.

What we have is a combination of several factors.

A) A Change of measuring metric.
B) Retuning healer's damage (Where most of the jobs range between 60-70% increases, healers range from 80-90%)
C) The change of assumption in tuning Tanks (RE: There is no longer a penalty - AKA one tank is no longer at 80% while the other sits at 100%, as far as SE's tuning is concerned)

[BarretOblivion]

The main thing that I see is that you tunnel vision into damage numbers and use that to claim that tanks have "very low impact", which is extremely biased and completely disregard the part where tanks, well, tank.

A thing I noticed looking back at the graphs back in page 4 is the "score" of tanks. They are around 50 points in Eden where they were closer to 70 in Omega. It's funny when you realize that tanks used to lose roughly 20% of their damage when using tank stance. Basically, now that they removed the hassle of stance dancing and trading survival for damage, we don't get rewarded with the increased damage.

I still think mitigation GCD would make tanking far more engaging

Okay so... what pray tell does that make an OT then? Because according to your logic a OT is supposed not exist. I can't tank the same boss like leviathan every fight, what am I supposed to do? Oh I voke and help my MT with a TB before he takes it back? Greaaaat. The act of tanking is also doing damage. Not just in FFXIV, but in every MMO tanks have to also deal damage to do their tanking so it is one of our primary concerns. Its last on the list when progging but when clearing it certainly is up there in priority.
A GCD cooldown is probably going to be the dumbest thing they could add. Remember Inner Beast? Yeah, few used that in SB and that was a GCD cooldown. You know what tanks will just do? Have the OT use their OT skills for once or just tank swap.

On your point on tank stance... nobody used tank stance, well at least in end game. You establish hate and then swap to DPS stance the rest of the way unless you needed the extra mitigation (which you almost never needed). If they didn't remove it what would have happened? Well the OT would just take a tankbuster that the MT can't take while in DPS stance. The removal of the stances was to make the tanks more "new player friendly" plus it helped remove the aspect DPS/Heals watching their own hate.

[Reynhart]

Okay so... what pray tell does that make an OT then? Because according to your logic a OT is supposed not exist.

The OT would do exactly the same thing as they do now, tank. The fact that he doesn't manage the whole fight is completely irrelevant. And it's even more important now that every tank has several mitigation tools usable even as an OT.

A GCD cooldown is probably going to be the dumbest thing they could add. Remember Inner Beast? Yeah, few used that in SB and that was a GCD cooldown.

Only because the oGCD mitigation was more than enough to tank everything, and also because the opportunity loss of Inner Beast went way above a single GCD.

On your point on tank stance... nobody used tank stance, well at least in end game.

You're right, in endgame, after you gather enough knowledge of the fight to optimize your mitigation skill, your enmity rotation and optional tank swapping even if the fight didn't require that. And you were rewarded for those efforts by an increased amount of damage. Now, all of that effort is gone, so the reward is also gone.

The removal of the stances was to make the tanks more "new player friendly" plus it helped remove the aspect DPS/Heals watching their own hate.

New players were far away from the whole "stance optimization in Savage content", so no, it wasn't made for new players, but to close that very fiery debate, exactly like the update on accessories. And yes, it removed the aspect of watching hate. So, explain why tanks should be more rewarded now that they have less things to manage ? And that's without counting how the rotations themselves have been mostly streamlined, requiring, once again, less effort than in past expansions (At least for WAR and DRK).

[J-Reyno]

Ok, let's admit that it is because of the relation between damage and enmity.

Gonna stop you here. I'm glad we can agree that damage is necessary for enmity, but it is also a primary function of the role simply because it is intended by the devs who designed the role that tanks deal damage, just as much as it is intended for dps to deal damage. Tanks need to deal damage because content is designed around tanks dealing damage and utilizing the rotation they are given. It's not a debatable subject.

[Reynhart]

I'm glad we can agree that damage is necessary for enmity, but it is also a primary function of the role simply because it is intended by the devs who designed the role that tanks deal damage, just as much as it is intended for dps to deal damage.

You're right, the devs designed the tank role so that it would do damage...its current damage. So, end of debate, "working as intended" ?

[J-Reyno]

You're right, the devs designed the tank role so that it would do damage...its current damage. So, end of debate, "working as intended" ?

The discussion was whether dealing damage is a primary element of tank gameplay. You argued that it isn't, which would be like my arguing that tanks didn't receive a lower damage increase than the other roles even though we all know that is true. I haven't made any such argument, however, and we've established that yours was wrong.

If you want to argue that damage SHOULDN'T be a focus of the role, that's a different story Similarly, I might argue that tanks should deal more damage, but whether or not it's necessary for the role to deal damage isn't up for discussion.

[Reynhart]

The discussion was whether dealing damage is a primary element of tank gameplay.

No, again, the discussion on this thread is that you feel tanks don't do enough damage compared to other roles. You just use enmity as a reason why you should do more damage because it would help you fulfill your primary focus, which is false because you don't need this additionnal enmity to tank.

So again, you want more damage for damage sake.

And if you use devs as a justification for how tanks are expected to do damage, it's obvious I will use devs to justify that tanks are expected to do the damage they currently do, since in both cases, that's how devs designed tanks.

[Shurrikhan]

A GCD cooldown is probably going to be the dumbest thing they could add. Remember Inner Beast? Yeah, few used that in SB and that was a GCD cooldown. You know what tanks will just do? Have the OT use their OT skills for once or just tank swap.

Should we remove GCD healing as well, I wonder? I mean, oGCD healing has made it mostly superfluous as is, so... why not?

While we're at it, why don't we throw in some channeled oGCDs (broken on any other action) for DPS that deal more than their GCD outputs? Their contribution isn't actually capped, so gotta find some other way to make GCDs unnecessary for their role as well.

:: GCDs are only a waste insofar as low damage tuning and overpowered oGCDs make them a waste.