How do we feel about tank damage right now?

[Reynhart]

Does that honestly sound to you like an appealing design paradigm for tanks or healers?

This view is completely biased in favor of DPS. You could have summed up their role exactly the same. Like it was said some pages ago, remove the arbitrary "enrages", and you wouldn't even need DPS.
It's funny because everybody is focusing on how every role should DPS, yet it's the DPS who apparently not do things "similar to the other roles".

Maybe that works for you since you're still apparently convinced that tanks should not be concerned with dps (and that optimization, despite having nothing else to do is "dps-obession").

Ok, now, it's getting really ridiculous...did you even read what I've said about optimizing ?

If this and the dozens of other threads are anything to go by, most tanks want more impact from their actions.

More impact is always good. What I don't understand is why people advocate that tanks absolutely need more DPS to have more impact, and that every time someone suggest that they should instead have more "tanking impact", one got the same absurd answer that "it would be too hard for new players".

[Kyni]

The Forum seems to have eaten my former post, oh well hope this one stays.

This view is completely biased in favor of DPS. You could have summed up their role exactly the same. Like it was said some pages ago, remove the arbitrary "enrages", and you wouldn't even need DPS.
It's funny because everybody is focusing on how every role should DPS, yet it's the DPS who apparently not do things "similar to the other roles".

There is difference here, while Healers and Tanks could beat the encounter, if there is no enrage or dps check, you would still bring DPS. Why? Simple because they kill stuff faster, while stacking tanks has no real benefit and stacking healers has heavy diminishing returns, so you would still try to minimize the numbers of slots dedicated to those roles. So yes you could beat such an encounter with tanks and healers only, but it would not be optimal. The reverse isn't true for tanks at least, remove the need for tanks in an encounter and becomes better bring a DPS instead. And no I'm not saying this needs to change, but it's just the nature of things. In a game where the ultimate goal is to reduce the enemies health to zero, adding more dmg is always useful, while adding more survivability isn't.

Ok, now, it's getting really ridiculous...did you even read what I've said about optimizing ?

You also called people that would quit playing tank, if their ability to even deal damage at all and with it the ability to even kill things was removed, which is kinda important to progressing in this game, “obsessed with being a wannabe-DPS”. So you can't really fault them for getting this impression.

More impact is always good. What I don't understand is why people advocate that tanks absolutely need more DPS to have more impact, and that every time someone suggest that they should instead have more "tanking impact", one got the same absurd answer that "it would be too hard for new players".

Because increasing dps is an easy and fool proof way of increasing the impact that tanks have. More interesting tanking responsibility would be nice, but after 6 years I don't think we will get any, also increasing dps and defensive mechanics isn't really mutually exclusive. And on a side note, if we look at how their efforts at improving healers healing game, I think we would end up with a 1 2 3 combo ( and a 1 2 combo for aoe) , and 1 or 2 more def cds, of which we definitely have enough already, so we can press an important button once every 40 seconds instead of 60 seconds.

Increasing tank dps also has other advantages. Like better solo play, it being a more sensible option to keep a second tank around for eventualities, landing in a deep dungeon grp with 3 tanks being better etc. Yes I know all minor stuff that doesn't matter much, but still positives nonetheless. And if you consider, that it seems the only argument against it is “ tanks shouldn't care for their dps compared to the other roles”, I see no reason not to do it, even if it's just so some people feel better about playing tanks.

[Reynhart]

The reverse isn't true for tanks at least, remove the need for tanks in an encounter and becomes better bring a DPS instead.

That's why I mentionned the "holy trinity". In a game where roles as so specialized, "removing the need for tanks" will never happen.

You also called people that would quit playing tank, if their ability to even deal damage at all and with it the ability to even kill things was removed, which is kinda important to progressing in this game, “obsessed with being a wannabe-DPS”.

What I said several times is that you should try to perform the best as you can for your role. But people reached an extreme point where they consider tank useless if they don't do more damage than now. That's why I imagined this kind of absurd situations, to show that even there, tanks would still be mandatory.

Because increasing dps is an easy and fool proof way of increasing the impact that tanks have.

It's also an easy way to reduce the impact DPS have, to the point that some have no issue putting the blame on tanks (and healers) when failing a DPS check even though they themselves could perform way better. Last time I checked, no tank or healer would chastize a DPS for dying to unavoidable damage.

More interesting tanking responsibility would be nice, but after 6 years I don't think we will get any

Well, if every suggestion receives that kind of answer, it will indeed be very hard to reach a consensus about improving tank involvement. We should especially gather to kill this "Savage has to be new-player friendly" nonsense.

also increasing dps and defensive mechanics isn't really mutually exclusive.

Sure, but there's no justification as why tanks should do more, instead of "But I want big numbers"

Like better solo play, it being a more sensible option to keep a second tank around for eventualities, landing in a deep dungeon grp with 3 tanks being better etc.

And how is that fair to DPS jobs ? Would you increase DPS healing and tanking capacities for solo play or pure DPS groups in Deep Dungeon ?

[Shurrikhan]

This view is completely biased in favor of DPS. You could have summed up their role exactly the same. Like it was said some pages ago, remove the arbitrary "enrages", and you wouldn't even need DPS.
It's funny because everybody is focusing on how every role should DPS, yet it's the DPS who apparently not do things "similar to the other roles".

Sure. I, who have had dedicated tank character and another a multi-role character that has nonetheless ended up tanking half the time, am biased against tanks in favor of dps. Of course. It's always the ones you'd least suspect, right?

You will never remove dps so long as fights are completed through reducing the enemy's HP to 0. It is the ONLY uncapped output in this game. If there were a fight where we just... stack mitigation until a nuke goes off, and damage dealing is solely used to defend our stacking shield against small adds who would otherwise slow its generation, then we'd have mitigation as a long-term resource. Heal a certain green damage to full HP while adds attack? Healing is the long-term resource. But we don't have those things in XIV. In all likelihood, we never will. Until we do, dps is the only metric worth basing the values of all others on. It is the currency, rather than commodity, of our gameplay, the one thing we can't have too much of in the course of any given fight. THAT is why things are framed in terms of dps and therefore the DPS role--because XIV fights specifically maintain that frame by choice.

Ok, now, it's getting really ridiculous...did you even read what I've said about optimizing ?

You (1) berated those who felt that the difference in output based on optimization felt lacking as obsessed dps-wannabes and (2)insisted that dps shouldn't be the metric by which tanks are judged, despite that survival is bimodal and therefore largely cannot provide any nuance for long-term gains,and (3) insisted that no matter how the relative reward compares to the effort achievable on another role (as seen any time a more skilled player swaps off tank to a dps and lets a less skilled player replace him to greater net effect in the party, making it eventually optimal that, for the best possible impact, one "outgrows" tanks) one should only ever care about their percentile for their own role. So what else am I supposed to think?

More impact is always good. What I don't understand is why people advocate that tanks absolutely need more DPS to have more impact.

"Absolutely"? I've yet to see that. As the first thing that comes to mind, though, and therefore the seemingly obvious solution, though? Probably because there's effectively nothing else for their efforts to provide; such would increasingly scale the difference between good and bad tanking (as, again, there's nothing else at present to meaningfully differentiate tanks); and we're not likely to see tanking differentiated by anything more than damage dealt until next expansion (if ever), so if a change were needed we might as well do something in the meantime while we plan suggestions for 6.0.

Now, admittedly, I badly want tanking to be "harder". I don't want it to necessarily be more stringent, where our behaviors are rigidly enforced, but I absolutely want it to be more demanding of our attention, foresight, and execution of tactics. But there's a difference between wanting those things and worrying that a band-aid fix to damage would prevent those things (reasonable enough, though less so than if the requests had absolutely zero warrant), or showing how that damage band-aid is unwarranted and would be not ultimately be helpful (I'd largely agree), and saying that damage is fundamentally irrelevant and that tanks should be satisfied with the passive strength of being tanks "because Holy Trinity". I'll agree with you on the first two points, but the moment a tank, as you've implied, can rightly be satisfied with their "impact" just for being present and hitting a couple keys on their respective queues, is the point where I'd have to give up tanking for good.

Because increasing dps is an easy and fool proof way of increasing the impact that tanks have.

Easy? Yes. But, fool-proof? Only in the sense that "fools", too, would benefit, except in so far as the same % deviation in output between two different percentiles would now have a larger gap in flat value. Even as a stop-gap solution, couldn't we do more? Sure, it's important that efforts should put out slightly more impactful rewards, but that works both ways. If there's to be an increased ceiling for our output, there probably ought to be an increased ceiling to our input (effort) on the tanks most lacking in complexity, even if only in terms of damage, and only slightly at that, for the time being.

[Reynhart]

Sure. I, who have had dedicated tank character and another a multi-role character that has nonetheless ended up tanking half the time, am biased against tanks in favor of dps.

The description you gave is. Especially since, again, everybody does damage, everybody does mechanics and positions. So, that "everything else" you gave to the DPS is basically nothing that tanks and healers already partly do...while the opposite is almost or completely false depending on the DPS you pick. (For example, BLM doesn't heal...at all, and barely mitigates)

You will never remove dps so long as fights are completed through reducing the enemy's HP to 0.

Again, holy Trinity, not removing any role, etc, etc...but still, healers and tanks have far more implication in DPS than DPS have in mitigation, enmity management and healing.

You (1) berated those who felt that the difference in output based on optimization felt lacking as obsessed dps-wannabes

No, I talked about people quitting tanking if they weren't able to do damage.

(2)insisted that dps shouldn't be the metric by which tanks are judged

No, only that DPS' DPS (Damn, it was so much easier when they were nicknamed "DD") shouldn't be the metric by which tank's skill are judged. Exactly like RDM's skill shouldn't be judged in regards to BLM's damage output.

(3) insisted that no matter how the relative reward compares to the effort achievable on another role (as seen any time a more skilled player swaps off tank to a dps and lets a less skilled player replace him to greater net effect in the party, making it eventually optimal that, for the best possible impact, one "outgrows" tanks) one should only ever care about their percentile for their own role. So what else am I supposed to think?

Yes, because before everything else, you should play the role you want to play. I'll never let anyone force me to play a DPS "because it's more optimal" if I want to play my tank or vice-versa.

such would increasingly scale the difference between good and bad tanking (as, again, there's nothing else at present to meaningfully differentiate tanks)

Last time I checked FFlogs to see DRK's DPS on E1S, it varied from 6k to 9k depending on percentile. That's 50% more, do we really need a larger scale to differentiate tank skill ?

and we're not likely to see tanking differentiated by anything more than damage dealt until next expansion

Considering that damage and mechanics are different in each encounter, we don't know how much "tanking" will be challenging in later Shadowbringers. As for actual job adjustments, if they want enmity to be back, they'd just need to reduce the enmity boost on tank stance, so that tanks would still need to perform a proper rotation or DPS will rip the target off them. (A x2 enmity could give some really fun results...)

I'll agree with you on the first two points, but the moment a tank, as you've implied, can rightly be satisfied with their "impact" just for being present and hitting a couple keys on their respective queues, is the point where I'd have to give up tanking for good.

Again, IIRC, FFlogs shows a variation of around 50% for DRK's DPS. That's already a lot of room to improve yourself. What I've implied in my absurd scenario is that tanks will always contribute meaningfully.

[Kabooa]

There is difference here, while Healers and Tanks could beat the encounter, if there is no enrage or dps check, you would still bring DPS. Why? Simple because they kill stuff faster, while stacking tanks has no real benefit and stacking healers has heavy diminishing returns

Rathalos EX, where the optimal pug strategy was 3 tanks and a healer.

If you could tank/healer Titan EX, the fight might take 18 minutes, but you're also far less likely to wipe at any point, meaning at the very worst case you lost 6 minutes, but saved, oh, who knows.

10 minutes to 8 hours, give or take.

[BarretOblivion]

Rathalos EX, where the optimal pug strategy was 3 tanks and a healer.

If you could tank/healer Titan EX, the fight might take 18 minutes, but you're also far less likely to wipe at any point, meaning at the very worst case you lost 6 minutes, but saved, oh, who knows.

10 minutes to 8 hours, give or take.

Rathalos EX was stated they wanted anykind of comp to be able to clear it so long as it was done with few deaths. Did we somehow forget its not supposed to be a classic MMO fight? Its a cross-over special fight that was an experiment.

[Ultimatecalibur]

If you could tank/healer Titan EX, the fight might take 18 minutes, but you're also far less likely to wipe at any point, meaning at the very worst case you lost 6 minutes, but saved, oh, who knows.

10 minutes to 8 hours, give or take.

Pretty much. DpS checks and Hard/Soft Enrages are there to force party compositions to have enough DpS to beat them. If they did not exist or if a tank/healer only group can pass them the groups looking for reliability of clear rather than speed of clear might favor tanks/healers over DpS.

Rathalos EX was stated they wanted anykind of comp to be able to clear it so long as it was done with few deaths. Did we somehow forget its not supposed to be a classic MMO fight? Its a cross-over special fight that was an experiment.

The fight demonstrates how role priorities change based on the fight's meta. When survivablity is prioritized it favors tanks and other jobs able to take/mitigate lots of damage when speed of kill if prioritized it favors dps.

[BarretOblivion]

Pretty much. DpS checks and Hard/Soft Enrages are there to force party compositions to have enough DpS to beat them. If they did not exist or if a tank/healer only group can pass them the groups looking for reliability of clear rather than speed of clear might favor tanks/healers over DpS.



The fight demonstrates how role priorities change based on the fight's meta. When survivablity is prioritized it favors tanks and other jobs able to take/mitigate lots of damage when speed of kill if prioritized it favors dps.

This true, but this also bring up the point of why bring in a 2nd healer or a 2nd tank? In so many fights at the very least the necessity for a 2nd tank feels tacked on. Healers its undertsandable because most of these fights are nearly or are impossible to solo heal, this makes sense why a 2nd healer is required in party comps. However, for tanks the best they do is either require a tank swap that happens a very few times in a fight, both tanks are getting hit by the tankbuster, or one time where you need to pick up a few adds. The OT feels like its on there because you need a 2nd OT for just a few times in a fight, instead of always being needed. Sure this issue comes down to poor fight design thinking of both tanks by the devs, and as many have said, yes we need to push for this to change. However, these changes would take till 6.0, which means we got a team slot that feels almost unnecessary for 18 months.

[Kabooa]

This true, but this also bring up the point of why bring in a 2nd healer or a 2nd tank?

Because the fights are specifically tuned and created around 2/4/2.

If you do not bring 2/4/2 you have to make adjustments. Whether or not that hassle is worthwhile to your team is up to you, but I'd wager no one wants to jump through the hoops of trying to do current content with only 1 tank.