How do we feel about tank damage right now?

[Reynhart]

If the healer community wasn't already upset at much of how this expansion has treated them, I would suggest substantially nerfing healer DPS output

I'm personnaly on the side to reduce the healer's healing output, so that, like the dev claimed, they'd have to spend more time actually healing. Or, if they don't want to "nerf" anything because people will rage, just make sure that the next bosses deals significantly more damage.

[Liam_Harper]

I'm personnaly on the side to reduce the healer's healing output, so that, like the dev claimed, they'd have to spend more time actually healing. Or, if they don't want to "nerf" anything because people will rage, just make sure that the next bosses deals significantly more damage.

I like the idea of harder hitting bosses, then also giving tanks even better tools to deal with that significant damage increase. I'd rather have damage that feels real and a powerful toolkit that's rewarding to use well, than have bosses that hit like wet noodles and little baby heals that you just spam over and over to accumulate half a health bars worth.

[Shurrikhan]

I like the idea of harder hitting bosses, then also giving tanks even better tools to deal with that significant damage increase. I'd rather have damage that feels real and a powerful toolkit that's rewarding to use well, than have bosses that hit like wet noodles and little baby heals that you just spam over and over to accumulate half a health bars worth.

Tbf, we don't even need harder hitting bosses so much as just less ridiculous (46%+ at level 80, assuming loss to multiplicative stacking for every step; much higher otherwise) passive mitigation so that survival is more firmly in the players' hands instead of the mitigation toolkit outside of Savage TBs amounting to additional effective healing alone.

Heck, we don't even need to increase the risk of death to make proper mitigation necessary if only someone at 1% HP (eviserated, spine broken, an arm missing, face torn off, and both femurs fractured) didn't fight exactly as well as someone in perfect health... The difference from mitigation then would only be effective healing and occasionally increased survival, but also effective damage and future mitigation.

[Sawamura]

Let´s ask SE give back
tank enmity management vs dps and healer and enmity combo rotation and dps combo rotation!

for healer give them back Cleric stance.

Then tank and healer choose between party life or dps!

[Ekimmak]

Let´s ask SE give back
tank enmity management vs dps and healer and enmity combo rotation and dps combo rotation!

for healer give them back Cleric stance.

Then tank and healer choose between party life or dps!

And then the community will shove DPS meta back down our throats, and we'll feel awful when we can't do anything to stop an idiot DPS that doesn't know what enmity management is.

[MerlinCross]

And then the community will shove DPS meta back down our throats, and we'll feel awful when we can't do anything to stop an idiot DPS that doesn't know what enmity management is.

Treat them like an extra CD and go about your day after they get turned to mush.

[Shurrikhan]

Treat them like an extra CD and go about your day after they get turned to mush.

Amusing, but sadly non-optimal.

[Reynhart]

And then the community will shove DPS meta back down our throats, and we'll feel awful when we can't do anything to stop an idiot DPS that doesn't know what enmity management is.

Personally, I think enmity management should be the tank sole responsibility if we give them back an enmity combo (And remove the passive enmity of stances). This way, you'd have the same decision making as healer should have, wether you use your GCD to do as much DPS as possible risking someone taking a bad hit that can be lethal, or, sacrifice some of your DPS to make sure you comfortably do your primary job.

And, if we were in that situation, then I'd agree completely that a tank doing 100% DPS combo should do at least the same damage as a 100% DPS healer, or even higher.

Or, if they don't get an enmity combo back, having a short CD role action that converts a portion of your damage for increased enmity for the next 10s. Something like how Cleric Stance was converted from a proper "stance" to a short time buff back in SB...but still with a damage penalty. And you'd have to pinpoint how the exact times you'd be forced to use that CD to make sure you don't lose aggro while doing your top DPS.

[Shurrikhan]

Personally, I think enmity management should be the tank sole responsibility if we give them back an enmity combo.

If possible through undermechanics (e.g. something as freely alterable as positioning during GCDs without positional modifiers), I'd prefer everyone have some responsibility in enmity management. But I would hate to see it returned as just yet another CD which 99% of the time we hit immediately upon its refresh. I'd rather avoid any {Invigorate, but for X} style skills altogether except where they enhance the feeling of rhythm and aesthetic of the class in use that is otherwise free of any consideration.

Personally, I'd also rather mitigation play a large part in the alternative to pure damage, rather than merely enmity. Of course, I find Enmity as it stands only a derivative mechanic, as there is no real sense to enmity except a modifier attached to damage. If Enmity actually had more of a sense of something that you can and must edge out as more than just a single point's lead and situationally some safety margin, then my interests would likely shift, but for now it feels like mitigation, not enmity, ought to be the opportunity cost of damage, given that, say, punching someone in the face tends to piss them off more than their guarding their self against the same.

As for the comparison of healer and tank maximal damage, I'd prefer both be nearer to that of DPS (with DPS in turn having a little more flexibility in their rotations if they ever play a larger role in mob manipulation or damage at a given point in time comes to have more impact, rather than just total damage dealt). In that reduction of the output gap, though, should also come a decreased gap in offensive complexity, and I honestly think healers could see their way clear to have a little more complexity in their offensive play without feeling significantly interrupted if their tools were just revised slightly for more flexibility and damage-interplay (without tight or specific timings). Tanks' and Healers' available active/choiceful throughput should reflect their costless throughputs (e.g the strength of passive mitigation and oGCDs by situation and total healing dealt or made unnecessary). If a Healer's oGCDs outperform the combination of a Tank's passive bonus mitigation, the situational advantage of their added eHP, and their mitigation oGCDs combined, then that tank should have the higher damage over time when each have 100% optimized damage uptime. The same comparison could be made between healers (to other healers) and between tanks (to other tanks). The idea should be that each brings an equal amount to the table, though the manner and base allotment of their outputs should differ. (The job with the least passive role-performance should have the most flexibility in what it does, which may itself be a minor advantage where it allows for more situations by which to survive, and the job with the most ability to respond to or counter situations of extreme risk would have the lowest total impact over a more sustained fight, if only slightly -- etc., etc.)