How do we feel about tank damage right now?

[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.

[Silver-Strider]

Amusing, but sadly non-optimal.

It's optimal in maximizing my amusement

[MerlinCross]

Amusing, but sadly non-optimal.

I mean yeah but I keep seeing people mess up other things in content but that is just waved off anyway. In "Content that matters" I would think people would be Optimal about it(Now them actually liking the return of enmity is another thing).

But if DPS don't want to use enmity management they would get back, they're basically just like the DPS that are prone to run with a stack marker; a 2400 MP cost just waiting to happen.

That's not going to happen though, us getting Enmity back.

[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.)

[Reynhart]

I'd prefer everyone have some responsibility in enmity management.

If that's the case, I think it should either be :

• Too weak for tanks to completely neglect managing their enmity (Pretty much the same impact that Second Wind has on keeping DPS alive)
• Tied with a cost so that you wouldn't want to use it on CD. A thing like a Subtle Blow that greatly reduce the enmity you generate for a few seconds but reduce your DPS.

Personally, I'd also rather mitigation play a large part in the alternative to pure damage, rather than merely enmity.

If that's the case, it should still have a DPS cost. Either by having a damage penalty, or by having GCD mitigation skill. The choice should still be "how much GCD I can spend on not doing as much damage as possible" ? With best tanks finding the minimum amount of them. And of course, tuning the game so that, unless greatly overgearing, that minimal amount would still be a significant number. About 1/4th or 1/3rd of your GCD, which, in my opinion, should also be what healers have to spend on healing if damage recevied was tuned correctly.

As for the comparison of healer and tank maximal damage, I'd prefer both be nearer to that of DPS

I don't think it should. You should never be able to replace an average DPS with a good tank and achieve better DPS.

WHM's damage increased by 4754 dps. This is a whopping 119% increase in damage.

Can we see how their GCD healing compared from before ?

I don't really know how accurate they are, but I found these two videos from 4.0. It seem to me that healers always parsed very close to tanks on dummies, because they literally had 0 healing to do. What created the gap during actual content was the amount of GCD they couldn't spend dealing damage., which seems to be pretty much non-existant now, at least for top parses. (Also keep in mind that in the tank video, we see a WAR with Slashing debuff and Deliverance, two things that were removed in ShB, explaining how their damage scales differently)

[Shurrikhan]

If that's the case, I think it should either be :

• Too weak for tanks to completely neglect managing their enmity (Pretty much the same impact that Second Wind has on keeping DPS alive)
• Tied with a cost so that you wouldn't want to use it on CD. A thing like a Subtle Blow that greatly reduce the enmity you generate for a few seconds but reduce your DPS.

I agree that if enmity is to be at all a concern for tanks, there should never be a situation (except by specific fight mechanics) that they are entirely freed from that duty, or that even that more than roughly half of it should be performed by others.

However, I do think that others' contributions, if given at all, should not be so negligible as, say, Second Wind's contribution to survival, nor should it come as a maintenance skill. Rather, it should add a skillgap component that additionally affects how one performs their normal tasks, rather than replacing or interrupting it.

To be more concrete, it should not be

• Insignificant (let's say, less than some 20% of contribution towards optimized enmity management);
• Wholly situational (used specifically and at too significant a cost to warrant in the vast majority of situations, as that would just feel bloated); nor
• Optimal, yet irritating (forcing jobs to interrupt their rotations or integrate into them seemingly unrelated and incohesive skills).

If that's the case, it should still have a DPS cost. Either by having a damage penalty, or by having GCD mitigation skill. The choice should still be "how much GCD I can spend on not doing as much damage as possible" ? With best tanks finding the minimum amount of them. And of course, tuning the game so that, unless greatly overgearing, that minimal amount would still be a significant number. About 1/4th or 1/3rd of your GCD, which, in my opinion, should also be what healers have to spend on healing if damage recevied was tuned correctly.

Of course. And yes, GCDs would be included in such (and obviously contributing more over time to damage-mitigation variance than shared-recast time or gauge skill oGCDs, if those are even used on the given job). The difference is that one builds its margin during periods of reduced danger (prepping for mitigation events) and the other around periods of reduced damage potential (prepping for raid buffs). I find the first to be more iconic for tanks, and thus focused on that over simply "make sure to have enough enmity to max out the next trick attack". Strictly speaking, the latter would still apply, but adding the other focus should help, however much, to make tanks feel less like mere "Blue DPS".

I don't think it should. You should never be able to replace an average DPS with a good tank and achieve better DPS.

Let's not break the notion of the quote from the requirements that immediately followed it, shall we?

At present tanks have an incredibly small performance range relative to other roles. This is due primarily to both having as great of offensive uptime as any other melee, unlike healers, and fewer optimizations to be made (or, less effort required in making those optimizations) than most DPS. Decreasing the gap in complexity by increasing the effort required for optimal tank play would greatly diminish the chances of a tank replacing a dps simply due to being easier to perform with as is currently the case.

But, let's consider as well -- what you're describing has already been a historical norm until Stormblood. A 90th percentile tank could often outperform a 50th percentile DPS in ARR and HW. Was that so horrible? If tanks then had possessed the passive mitigation they carry now, I'd argue so, but, they didn't. So where does the problem really lie, in a good player being able to outperform a poorer player even outside the obviously optimal role, or simply when one role carries too many simultaneous advantages? The latter, I'd have to say.

A good DPS should obviously outperform a good Tank by a large margin (already the case); a fair DPS should likewise outperform a fair tank by a large margin (not so much the case, as the relative gap is greatly diminished). The issue to me is that there is little reward, and in many ways little to reward, in optimal tank play relative to DPS, and that if tanks were allowed more proportionate reward (i.e. damage range) they would be overpowered so long as they keep so much passive indirect contribution.

[Reynhart]

However, I do think that others' contributions, if given at all, should not be so negligible as, say, Second Wind's contribution to survival, nor should it come as a maintenance skill. Rather, it should add a skillgap component that additionally affects how one performs their normal tasks, rather than replacing or interrupting it.

Then, like I said, an easy solution is to put a damage penalty on enmity dump skills. It wouldn't make the job clunky by changing your rotation but you definitely wouldn't want to use it more than you had to.

But, let's consider as well -- what you're describing has already been a historical norm until Stormblood. A 90th percentile tank could often outperform a 50th percentile DPS in ARR and HW. Was that so horrible?

Horrible, no. But, in a game revolving around enrage timers, it bugs me that you can clear current top tier content with a party of 8-tanks.

So where does the problem really lie, in a good player being able to outperform a poorer player even outside the obviously optimal role, or simply when one role carries too many simultaneous advantages? The latter, I'd have to say.

Even with less passive mitigation, tanks are way sturdier than DPS ever will be. And with the dedicated OT skills, offer great utility without having to sacrifice anything. So giving them DPS level of damage output will be too many perks on one job.

The issue to me is that there is little reward, and in many ways little to reward, in optimal tank play relative to DPS, and that if tanks were allowed more proportionate reward (i.e. damage range) they would be overpowered so long as they keep so much passive indirect contribution.

In the end, the "optimal tank play" is mostly the focus of the main tank. He's the one who have to build a decent enmity, and keep an eye on its HP for tankbuster phase. For the OT, it would be harder to mechanically reduce their DPS.