Let's Talk Tanks

[Kabooa]

I'm again not sure why you would assume that.

Because what happens if I want to boost my shield via Determination, but I'd prefer to have Critical Strike and Haste as my focused stats? There's a specific part of my offense I want to focus on, but it's separate from what I want for my defense.

How would decoupling the defensive properties, give them their own categories, and then rebalancing the stat budget where gear comes with 1 Offense, 1 Defense, and then materia serves as your choice for where to further specialize, not serve your model better?

[Shurrikhan]

Edit: Confusion on my part.

How would decoupling the defensive properties, give them their own categories, and then rebalancing the stat budget where gear comes with 1 Offense, 1 Defense, and then materia serves as your choice for where to further specialize, not serve your model better?

Because we play under developers who prefer to make damage almost always the objectively best solution? Because when players have the choice of the unfun but numerically far superior option (as damage has pretty much always been in this game), most take it regardless of its relative cost to their gameplay? Because when you give options each from category Superior and category Inferior, the latter may as well not exist? Because it only really offers choices in answer to "How much can I be less of a tank" as the best progression path for tanks?

You'd effectively just give us gear with a single secondary stat each, completely contrary to the player choice my model is aimed at.

[Kabooa]

Because we play under developers who prefer to make damage almost always the objectively best solution? Because when players have the choice of the unfun but numerically far superior option (as damage has pretty much always been in this game), most take it regardless of its relative cost to their gameplay? Because when you give options each from category Superior and category Inferior, the latter may as well not exist? Because it only really offers choices in answer to "How much can I be less of a tank" as the best progression path for tanks?

You'd effectively just give us gear with a single secondary stat each, completely contrary to the player choice my model is aimed at.

Do recall this thread makes the assumption that additional background changes are implemented to accommodate a suggestion.

The Devs prior behavior can be, in this land of make believe, considered invalid and moving forward we can have wildly different encounter set ups. Don't work under the assumption that damage is always the more efficient solution.

If we're just going to labor under the assumption that only damage matters, we might as well close up shop, because we have a whole forum of that to work with already.

So let me clarify.

The primary issue I have with such specific secondary effects to the attributes is that I cannot choose to have those specific interactions without picking an offensive stat I may not want.

I might even argue that shifting the passive power gain to pure item Level or primary attributes and letting things that dictate your rotation be the primary sub-stats themselves would be the better course.

[Shurrikhan]

Edit: Ignore my complaints. They are mistaken. Your idea is fine.

Do recall this thread makes the assumption that additional background changes are implemented to accommodate a suggestion.

The Devs prior behavior can be, in this land of make believe, considered invalid and moving forward we can have wildly different encounter set ups. Don't work under the assumption that damage is always the more efficient solution.

If we're just going to labor under the assumption that only damage matters, we might as well close up shop, because we have a whole forum of that to work with already.

Understood. But, it's that's not just an XIV paradigm; it's an inherent issue with capped outputs like mitigation and healing. Damage-centric progression therefore tends to norm for nearly every MMO with a serious raid community, save perhaps for the odd raid in GW2 and cutting edge progression that's meant to otherwise lock us out of completion until we've had additional weeks to gear up from the same raid. Without allowing defensive stats to themselves be flex stats of sorts, such that their would-be excess mitigation can see real purpose, you condemn them to that same inherent issue.

The primary issue I have with such specific secondary effects to the attributes is that I cannot choose to have those specific interactions without picking an offensive stat I may not want.

What does it matter though, so long as everything is equally offensive or defensive, in that they're all flex stats? Is it worth so much more to be able to choose to be a turtle tank or dps-tank--especially given that unless all fights have homogenous dps checks and mitigation checks that decision will be mostly forced--than to have your choice of how you want your tank (not a turtle-tank or a dps-tank, just... a tank) to play?

Inevitably, you either have (1) less deliberate damage vs. mitigation choices or (2) one category or the other made inferior by situation. That's not to say that we can't make compelling progression via defensive vs. offensive choices, building up a defensive set for this one savage dungeon with disgustingly hard pulls and another set for speedrunning another bit of high-end content (where the two cannot mix while still getting above 80% performance or so). It's just... not my preference. I prefer that if we're to have deliberate branching gear progression, which is all I've ever seen from such systems, it should be with those particular branching content paths in mind, not just as a consequence of general gearing systems, and in the meantime our gear should choose only how we play through content and rarely ever what content we can play through.

I might even argue that shifting the passive power gain to pure item Level or primary attributes and letting things that dictate your rotation be the primary sub-stats themselves would be the better course.

That's effectively what I've suggested, except in that it's quite literally impossible to positively affect gameplay (at least without specifically negatively affecting gameplay elsewhere) without also positively affecting performance (which in turn amounts also to passive power).

[Kabooa]

Understood. But, it's that's not just an XIV paradigm; it's an inherent issue with capped outputs like mitigation and healing. Damage-centric progression therefore tends to norm for nearly every MMO with a serious raid community, save perhaps for the odd raid in GW2 and cutting edge progression that's meant to otherwise lock us out of completion until we've had additional weeks to gear up from the same raid. Without allowing defensive stats to themselves be flex stats of sorts, such that their would-be excess mitigation can see real purpose, you condemn them to that same inherent issue.

Flex implies you get choice in the matter.

Again - I am not getting the choice in what I want. I don't get to take A by itself. A is connected to B, and if I don't want B, too bad.

Even if you perfectly tune everything so that it is equally effective, even if we still max out two of the now three stats, that still leaves several cases - Where I want the offense of two stats, but the defense of the third.

Which still baffles me why you're so opposed to just decoupling the offense from the defense, and create the stat budget so that you must have a Defense stat. You do not lose anything if you could gain nothing in its place.

Even if changing nothing else, all it does is give the player more choice in the matter.

And that matters. The flavor in how the tank defends matters, the flavor in how the tank attacks matters, and creating a scenario where you cannot have one because of an unrelated, noncompeting choice kind of sucks, especially if they're so evenly tuned that the difference between any of it is marginal.

[Shurrikhan]

Create the stat budget so that you must have a Defense stat [which cannot share allotted potential with the offensive].

I see now where I had brainfarted earlier. Previously I had connected the idea to my own, wherein you would be able to choose between the two, despite there obviously being no such intent on your part. My sincere apologies.

Yep, that'd be fine then. I usually prefer to start with simple (read: few) but effective (read: gameplay-affecting) stats, but there are definitely ways to make, say, 6 of them each feel distinct, impactful, and intuitive.

Out of curiosity, what flavors did you have in mind for defensives?

[Kabooa]

I see now where I had brainfarted earlier. Previously I had connected the idea to my own, wherein you would be able to choose between the two, despite no such intent. My sincere apologies.

Yep, that'd be fine then.

Out of curiosity, what flavors did you have in mind for defensives?

I could have been more clear. I'll try and be better about that.

Now posed with the question, that's a tougher one to consider. I suppose we have to move back to the assumptions table that things would be in place to to support this.

Going back to a few previous points, I think we'd want them to enable and improve upon some power fantasies such as

-The tank who can't go down
-The tank who can't be hit
-The tank who doesn't flinch

They need not necessarily all be within the defensive category - Retributive attacks definitely fit more into an offensive category, but the manner in which retributive attacks are enabled is where Defense comes into play.

Let's try an example. In this particular example we're working on a triage healing system. The tank is tanking fairly constant but "low" damage, while the ability to heal them up doesn't occur over a GCD. The only hp that matters might be the last one, but waiting until the last one is unwise.

Retributive attacks are triggered. Blocking, parrying, shields breaking, so on, so forth. The retributive attacks themselves, if receiving additional scaling, would stem that from the offenses stats.

But for the sake of this scenario, let us say that rather than Retributive attacks having job based triggers (Block, Parry, etc), there's instead a universal call that comes from both passive Defense chances and active ability triggers (The Blackest Night). The individual shield mechanics differ - TBN offering the Dark Knight resource refunding for example, the Shelltron shield offering improved defenses while it holds.

I suppose our first option then can just be a return of Tenacity

Tenacity
Improves the effect of Healing and Shielding.

I'm unsure how you feel about variable scaling, but in my mind, we'd have similar numbers to now for incoming healing from other sources; Something around 10-12% from allies.

However, for the tanks, they'd gain a much higher return for their investment (Maybe as high as 20-30% increase), though each tank might weigh it differently. The Dark Knight only wants enough shielding to absorb as much as possible while ensuring it still breaks: It must break, that is the goal, while the Paladin would be thrilled were the shield to expire on the duration. More Shelltron Shield is more guaranteed blocking, which is more mitigation, and more Retribution calls to fuel his other abilities, as well as more efficient use of Shield gauge should it still be a thing.

Shield Bash
Weaponskill
Effect: Swings your shield for X potency at target enemy.
Retribution: Potency is increased by 10% per stack. At the maximum of 5 stacks, Shield Bash's recast is reduced by 40% and strikes all enemies in front of you.

(I believe this is a fairly nonvolatile example - In big boss settings it serves mainly as a no-loss stopgap at full stacks ideally, while in AoE settings, this would be the 'tanky / safe' option for the paladin in my head)

The improved healing would also apply to the healing options the Tanks have. Tenacity in short improves the Tanks sustain. The Dark Knight might want the shield to break, but both the tanks have active interest in shielding as much as possible, despite their different goals, as damage they don't take is damage they don't have to heal.

I do acknowledge that, for the Shelltron example, Tenacity itself might seem a potential DPS gain, but I believe so long as it was kept in mind, it would be on the same level of Seigan, or even neutral as more appealing, non-attacky options might favor consuming 'Retribution' more.

As preliminary naming and possible effects for the others, spitballing...

Instinct
Increases Parry and Block rating. Parry and Block, following a similar style to your Critical revamp suggestions. Default grants more chance, but during '100%' windows through actions, grants increased strength relative to the excess.

A third one is eluding me but that might be sleep.

I am hopeful that Tenacity and instinct cover the right power fantasies.

The Tank who can't go down, and the Tank who can't be touched.