How do we feel about tank damage right now?

[FirstnameLastname]

Call me a cynic but I suspect it was done purely to make DPS players not feel bad when a tank pulls ahead of them.

And yet, even today there are DPS players that fall well behind my WAR. Like, how?

[Shurrikhan]

Tanks duo are also way sturdier now that any tank can backup the MT.

For all but one tank it's still a mitigation loss to cover the MT via external-mitigation abilities rather than just swapping in and using your mutually-exclusive MT variant instead. The only exception to this is where a 30% is both needed and unavailable, and the co-tank's 20% and/or Provoke is unavailable, at that point in the boss's rotation.

Generally, "OT" skills are not a need so much as just timing-easing utility.

Yes, tank duos are sturdier, but that comes far more significantly from fewer TBs autoing simultaneously than being able to sacrifice, say, a 20% mitigation skill to be used over AAs or a Rampart-level buster to add 10% mitigation to the ally's TB mitigation.

[Reynhart]

Relative to the DPS, yes they were.

So, basically, any time a DPS was buffed during HW and SB, you felt like your damage was decreased ? And why should tanks be that high compared to DPS anyway ? For all I know, DPS' sturdyness is miles below ours, with a much greaper gap than our damage output.

As for taking less damage. It's passive mitigation that I do not interact with.

That's as "passive" as every potencies and stats factored in your damage number. Like I said several times, how well you perform your rotation has nothing to do with how much damage you do compared to DPS.

Furthermore, it's mostly useless. E3S does so little damage, you could literally do the fight with Rampart and Invuls.

Do you have an actual number of how much damage you take during such a run ? Damage that your healer would have to compensate ? 20% permanent mitigation is huge.

[Quor]

Relative to the DPS, yes they were..

There is no relative. Stop it with this "relative" bs. 4.0 is not 5.0 is not 1.0 is not 2.0 is not 3.0. They are all different versions of the game, and any comparison between them (much less across roles) means nothing.

[Nedkel]

So I wasn't making a point on merits of the suggestion, but rather that rebutting it by saying "tanks should do more damage, not give support to party" is nonsensical.

If it's still unclear - it was never really my goal to defend Quor's suggestions - that's for them to do - but to point out the crappy logic behind Nedkel's "rebuttals"(2% is bad bc small numbers are bad/ direct dmg is somehow more tank-like than debuffs).

But in this game in order to generate enmity you have to deliver your personal damage, tanks are all about tanking and dealing damage, they also should have more CC, not buffs.
Why not make tanks rotation harder to do, increase the damage potential and then decrease enmity generation so there is a chance a bad tank is going to lose aggro against good dps?
Mechanic for tanks is already there, it just needs a good will to push it further.

And yet, even today there are DPS players that fall well behind my WAR. Like, how?

Because they are using 2-5 skills total.
You could do more dps than a tank by smashing your keyboard with your palm, literally i tried it. lol

[Reynhart]

Why not make tanks rotation harder to do, increase the damage potential and then decrease enmity generation so there is a chance a bad tank is going to lose aggro against good dps?

They should have made that by

• Removing the tank stance
• Removing every enmity dump
• Keeping an enmity combo for tanks

This way, tanks would have to find the sweet spot to do max damage while keeping aggro off everyone else. And since, right now, DPS scales higher than tanks, they probably wouldnt be able to do a single enmity combo at the very start then never touch it again, especially if you decrease the enmity bonuses compared to SB. Tanks would actually have to pay attention to the enmity bars, especially close to burst windows.

[Shurrikhan]

There is no relative. Stop it with this "relative" bs. 4.0 is not 5.0 is not 1.0 is not 2.0 is not 3.0. They are all different versions of the game, and any comparison between them (much less across roles) means nothing.

There is. It's what makes someone's time and effort worthwhile. If we put in the same effort and require roughly the same education, but my work awards me a third of what yours awards you, does that not discourage my efforts?

I'm not saying tanks are already in that discouraging position. (I think they're on the brink of it, but not yet in it.) But, the relative absolutely does matter.

You have a choice of roles. Why, if the desire (as it is for most players who do not actively wish to be carried) is to contribute meaningfully by strength of your actions or skill, would you pick the one in which your efforts make the least difference? That's a large set of people for whom that's a hell of a turn-off.

[Reynhart]

Why, if the desire (as it is for most players who do not actively wish to be carried) is to contribute meaningfully by strength of your actions or skill, would you pick the one in which your efforts make the least difference?

Again, tanks are there so that the team isn't murdered in mere seconds. Their tank stance could literally convert 100% of their damage into pure enmity, teams would still take two of them in each run. If two DPS dies at the same time by failing a mechanic (Not dodging an AoE, falling off a Platform, etc...), you'll still be able to win the fight. If two tanks die at the same time, things will only go downhill from here, unless you have a healer LB3 ready, which will return to bite you when you'll need the DPS LB3 to quicken the kill. Tanks will always be meaningul regardless of their damage.

The worst thing is that, technically, DPS are already the less meaningful role, since overgearing would eventually allow 8 tanks party to clear level cap content whereas we've yet to see an 8-DPS party clear a savage floor (Synced, of course). On a sidenote, tanks are already able of that kind of feat.

[Kyni]

Again, tanks are there so that the team isn't murdered in mere seconds. Their tank stance could literally convert 100% of their damage into pure enmity, teams would still take two of them in each run.

True but everbody that really cared about contributing would turn of tank stance the moment they had enough threat to see them through the encounter, or if that wasn't possible just quit playing tanks altogether.

If two DPS dies at the same time by failing a mechanic (Not dodging an AoE, falling off a Platform, etc...), you'll still be able to win the fight.

Unless you are overgeared for the fight, you would probably wipe to the enrage or fail a dps check that happens while the 2 DPS are dead. Obviously , if the encounter lacks those you wont wipe but on those you can just rezz spam through anyway ( I mean there have been kills of 24 man bosses with over a hundered deaths in the kill "try")

If two tanks die at the same time, things will only go downhill from here, unless you have a healer LB3 ready, which return to bite you when you'll need the DPS LB3 to quicken the kill.

Depends a lot on when in the fight it happens. We had plenty of times where both tanks died to the third dimensional shift ( the on where the tanks still have the dot of the healer preys) cast in E1S and still killed the boss without any problems, even without having a rdm to quickly get them back up. Basicly if a tank dies and there is no mechanic coming that requieres one it doesn't really matter that much, because autos are still healable on dps( Especially on E3S, wow those might as well not exist).

And there you can see the core issue here. Tanks are only meaningfull roughly once every minute to press there cd or do their one specific mechanic, that serves as the reason to bring 2. I personally want my contribution to be relevant more often than once every minute. And i do agree with Shurrikhan that the situation is not dire yet, but it's getting close to where it's gonna create problems ( considering the clemency/holy situation we are kinda already there). And I personally would prefer something to be done before we reach that point.

[ForteNightshade]

So, basically, any time a DPS was buffed during HW and SB, you felt like your damage was decreased ? And why should tanks be that high compared to DPS anyway ? For all I know, DPS' sturdyness is miles below ours, with a much greaper gap than our damage output.

The disparity was never quite as massive. Throughout HW and SB, tanks challenged average DPS if they were good enough. Granted, Warrior was overpowered back in Heavensward but even a good Dark Knight or Paladin could catch a less skilled DPS. That isn't remotely possible now, thus the scaling in ShB is much lower compared to previous expansions. There is no getting that.

That's as "passive" as every potencies and stats factored in your damage number. Like I said several times, how well you perform your rotation has nothing to do with how much damage you do compared to DPS.

There's a difference though. Damage is always relevant and beneficial. Mitigation, on the other hand, has a threshold. If you can survive the tank buster with Rampart comfortably, adding more mitigation accomplishes nothing. This is why Sentinel was considered the worst 30% tank CD for years. It offered 10% more mitigation, which was useless, for an additional 60s CD length.

Do you have an actual number of how much damage you take during such a run ? Damage that your healer would have to compensate ? 20% permanent mitigation is huge.

You're missing the point. If Levi does so little damage that you can go the entire fight without using a single CD excluding your Invuls, it makes our mitigation tools have significantly less value. That isn't to say 20% permanent mitigation isn't nice but it's far from necessary. O3S, O7S and O11S all hit significantly harder than E3S does yet we managed with less mitigation. Which may be a factor in why E1-3S feel so weak by comparison.

There is no relative. Stop it with this "relative" bs. 4.0 is not 5.0 is not 1.0 is not 2.0 is not 3.0. They are all different versions of the game, and any comparison between them (much less across roles) means nothing.

Yes it is. If the scaling going from Stormblood to Shadowbringers is different, which in turn, results is lower damage compared to previous expansions. That's a nerf. Saying each new expansion is essentially a different game is disingenuous. You're purposely ignoring past versions because it suits your argument.