How do we feel about tank damage right now?

[Kabooa]

Okay, but... how does this make tanking, or dealing damage as a tank, less shallow by any noticeable margin?

How does adding 50 potency to every GCD?

[Shurrikhan]

How does adding 50 potency to every GCD [make tanking less shallow]?

Never said it did.

In fact I said it didn't.

I don't need to agree with another poster's own solution just because we both agree that some other solution is bloated. There can exist more than two opinions.

Suggest it then. Also, please define exactly what it is you want in complexity, so everyone here can understand beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Working on it. Will post it here once done. The main bottleneck is making sure that any generalized systems made in increasing that depth each work to double down on, rather than detract from, the unique aspects of the tanks and their enjoyable playflows--not just for the purposes of diversity, but more because that simply (1) feels better to play and (2) that provides a precedent counter to reduction-centric streamlining (which I feel guided ShB design more than it should have).

I define complexity as having competing options that are given weight based on situational need, upcoming fight mechanics, and alignment to macro-rotation.

For point of comparison, merely throwing in another plate to spin does not necessarily increase what I consider complexity. If adding that stronger but more constricted option actually takes away or makes non-competitive more options than it creates, we could call that negative complexity, or more aptly convolution (more buttons and tooltips required for at best the same complexity). This is often the case with maintence debuffs, where one or two tends to give benchmarks and rotational breakpoints around which to use varying rotations (think of the equally viable 3-step, 4-step, and 5-step DRG combos in SB before Lance Mastery was tremendously buffed), but a further maintenance buff without a clear idea of working with the complexity already in place (or simply overtune any of those rotational options) and you occlude one or more of those choices, making it at best, again, a net convolution rather than an increase to complexity.

"Shallow complexity", meanwhile, is about the least amount of complexity (use per 30 seconds [prioritize above all other effects, even if this means resetting your combo or otherwise making a mess of your playflow]) possible for the number of parts involved. Think of every way possible to make a more modular mechanic which can more seamlessly integrate with existing play. Now avoid those options. Think also of however the same effect in terms of capacity and complexity can be generated with fewer added actions. Now, ignore those means of efficiency. The result is "shallow complexity".