Let's Talk Tanks

[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.

[Shurrikhan]

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

Those seem an ideal trio. Tenacity was immediately what came to mind for me, as well, for "Can't go down", and Instinct seems perfect for the "Can't be Hit" stat.

And agreed as to Retributive abilities, except insofar as they generate roughly the same (counter)offensive outputs and don't step on the toes of the true offensive stats. (At that point, it seems fine to include that in any of the three tank fantasies, and perhaps even in varying portions or with slightly varying improvements to the particular job's core fantasy; Warrior, for instance, may feel like it gets the most output (though really just the most burst output or epic moments) out of the "Can't go down" stat because it synergizes with its big hits taken and big recovery blows gameplay, while DRK and its counteroffensive toolkit may cycle between feeling most "in its element" under the "can't be hit" and "doesn't flinch" stats.)

That said, how do we cover the "Doesn't flinch" part? I proposed something similar before, called Steadfast, but I've no idea how exactly you want this stat to fit alongside the others, and don't want to again spill my thoughts onto your floor and then call you out when I slip; I'll try to keep such ridiculous errors to once per thread.

If I had to take a guess, that seems like something where blows would normally inflict a cost to offensive and defensive capacities, but you the stat reduces the scaling on those penalties. Would something like that fit well with how you feel dodge, parry, and block would work, for instance? Curious to know, if/when sleep gives you a clearer picture.

[Kabooa]

That said, how do we cover the "Doesn't flinch" part?.

It's not just my rodeo here, now that we're mostly on the same page again.

What did your Steadfast mechanic consist of?

[Shurrikhan]

It's not just my rodeo here, now that we're mostly on the same page again.

What did your Steadfast mechanic consist of?

It required that tanks pay less of an inherent penalty in their offensive output, but that everyone effectively pays a higher penalty (offensive and cumulatively defensive) for tanking, in that they get 'knocked around'. This doubled also as a way of allowing people to survive initial blows without making them sturdier in the long run, since their initially raised mitigation floor would be quickly knocked down. Think of it a bit like either granular vulnerability afflictions or normalized RNG (whereby initial dodge/parry/block chance starts much higher but is then reduced with proc success * effect of said proc). Steadfast simply reduced those penalties from damage taken, keeping you more consistent over further hits.

This would have faint anti-synergy with active mitigation, though only in the same way any two stacked mitigation effects (active or passive) have with each other when calculated at different layers (i.e. not calculated additively).

[Ekimmak]

Have thing I want to talk about in regards to the Tank's role in raiding, but not sure if I can get my point across without being mocked for being a below-average Savage PUG'er.

I feel like the Tank's role of positioning has been so phased out of savage content that when it actually became a thing again in E2S, it throws me for a loop where I'm supposed to hold Voidwalker.

[Kabooa]

It required that tanks pay less of an inherent penalty in their offensive output, but that everyone effectively pays a higher penalty (offensive and cumulatively defensive) for tanking, in that they get 'knocked around'. This doubled also as a way of allowing people to survive initial blows without making them sturdier in the long run, since their initially raised mitigation floor would be quickly knocked down. Think of it a bit like either granular vulnerability afflictions or normalized RNG (whereby initial dodge/parry/block chance starts much higher but is then reduced with proc success * effect of said proc). Steadfast simply reduced those penalties from damage taken, keeping you more consistent over further hits.

This would have faint anti-synergy with active mitigation, though only in the same way any two stacked mitigation effects (active or passive) have with each other when calculated at different layers (i.e. not calculated additively).

That's pretty hard to wrap my head around. I think I get the gist of it, and I think you're right that it doesn't quite fit in overall. That said, consistency over several hits does seem the sort of approach one could aim for when it comes to the unflinching tank.

What about staggering damage? Raw unmitigated hits shave a portion off, allocating it to a pool that deals damage to the tank every 6 seconds until the pool is expired. Improving the "Endurance" thresh hold determines how much gets shaved off.

Lets say at 470, you could currently have Endurance at a rate of 25%. This means any unmitigated, undefended attack is reduced by 25% and that amount added to the pool. The tank rolls a 6s timer before taking an echoed 'hit' that deals a minimum amount of what was shaved off (or less, if the pool could be reduced below that), and a maximum amount proportional to the total damage stored.

In this manner of speaking, this tank's damage intake is smoothed out at the start, though as it starts to take its toll (and the damage stored climbs higher and higher) the tank starts taking ramping amounts of damage if they, in turn, just take everything to the face without timing mitigation on more lethal incoming attacks.

Ideally there should be a way to reduce the stored damage count through the Tank's own action. Perhaps their healing capabilities double dip in this regard - Both healing themselves and a portion of it also going to the stored damage and shaving off their total.

Have thing I want to talk about in regards to the Tank's role in raiding, but not sure if I can get my point across without being mocked for being a below-average Savage PUG'er.

I feel like the Tank's role of positioning has been so phased out of savage content that when it actually became a thing again in E2S, it throws me for a loop where I'm supposed to hold Voidwalker.

Positioning has long been a tank's responsibility that has been rather minimized in the recent tier. The tanks own position instead of the boss has been a larger impact.

That said, given this is a thread purely for hypothetical discussion, do you just want more boss positions to matter, or do you also want the tank to have more positioning based abilities?