How do we feel about tank damage right now?

[Shurrikhan]

My "health insurance" is what allows the clear in the first place.

All balance must work around compositional assumptions. Ours is a base of 2-4-2. Unless you would actually be satisfied with tank gameplay being solely a matter of moving the boss, applying damage-less enmity, and popping mitigation skills, you're being disingenuous at best in considering the party's survival (rather than just whatever especially risky gambits a particular tank job's toolkit allows for or uptime strats made possible by timely tank positioning) a matter of tank rDPS. You may as well say that any given lead DPS has no contribution past the first tankbuster. At a stretch, and through a very different frame of reference, you could reasonably argue that, but it's not XIV's point of reference.

In either case, though, this goes back to the very same issue I'd just noted: these benefits are applied, beyond outright failure to play the job with any modicum of skill, at the tank's output floor; there is hardly, if any, way to improve upon tank's active mitigation through additional awareness or mechanical skill on the player's part, as it is applied simply and solely through CD schedules. The floor is likely too high, and therefore its relative gap too low because, for the last of several times now, tank contribution is not just damage-dealing.

Gaining the same amount of raw DPS between two percentile means that tanks would have a greater damage output range.

I've never suggested they should. Go back and reread. The whole thing this time. Not just whatever you can cherry-pick to purposely ignore the point.

I said they should have the same contribution, e.g.

...when including both indirect (healing GCDs saved) and direct output (damage)...

The only one who has reduced this discussion solely to relative spans of DPS is you. Everyone else has long since kept in mind that advancing a lower base by the same percentage does less and that tanks contribute more than just damage, but that those other factors scale to little or no benefit.

But, if the rotation is more punishing, it means that it suddenly requires more skill to achieve the same result, which is exactly what you don't want.

I beg to differ. As have all my posts that have mentioned anything of the subject. I'm perfectly fine with a given tank having a less monotonous or barebone rotation. Read them and you'd know.

The problem is that tanks and healers bring something else besides DPS. You can't simply focus on the DPS number to judge the value of a job. Especially since the base DPS will always be lower.

I wonder where I've heard this before? Could it be... any of the recent posts by the people you were arguing with, e.g.

That's the whole point. You've been accounting for only one part of the equation when balance requires that the gestalt opportunity cost/benefit of one must be equal to the gestalt opportunity cost/benefit of the other.

I'd personally have more fun if tanking was made more complex and engaging, even without touching the damage output.

As would we all. But one unrelated improvement does not preclude another.

[Ghald]

I have a question about potency and damage.


Lv.80 WAR - iLv.445
Attack Power - 3690

Inner Chaos hit for Crit+Direct Hit 38420 - 40428


Lv.79 WHM - iLv.387
Attack Magic Potency - 3134
Afflatus Misery hit for Crit 46000 - 47600


Considering Inner Chaos potency is 920 single target vs Afflatus Misery spread off potency 900 AOE why is WHM consistently hit harder than WAR that have 556 more attack power AND with Direct Hit ? I have tried this with several different monsters and the result is about the same. Are majority of the monster have much lower Magic Defence?

[Kabooa]

Casters don't have auto attacks. Their weapons have about 30% more "Damage" on their stat.

A basic damage formula looks like

Potency x Weapon Damage.

[Shurrikhan]

Considering Inner Chaos potency is 920 single target vs Afflatus Misery spread off potency 900 AOE why is WHM consistently hit harder than WAR that have 556 more attack power AND with Direct Hit ? I have tried this with several different monsters and the result is about the same. Are majority of the monster have much lower Magic Defence?

One has a 30% damage-increasing trait and higher weapon damage per ilvl, though that may be scaled down to absolutely no benefit. The other has Storm's Eye's 10% damage bonus only, which I have no way of knowing whether you've used.

[Ghald]

Thanks for clarifying that for me, thanks Kabooa, Shurrikhan.
I forgot to mention that I did applied Storm's Eye as well.

[Reynhart]

The only one who has reduced this discussion solely to relative spans of DPS is you.

What you said is also this :

That leaves the extent of added contribution mostly under the damage dealt metrics. But for two roles to be equally rewarding or mastery, they can't just have equal % gain relative to themselves, but also to each other.

What indirect damage you make the healer gain will never appear on any of you parse, so people would simply ignore that when judging the value of a tank. The goog thing is that, if tenacity scaled higher, it would make tank's contribution more valuable in direct damage and healer's damage opportunity. So it could be a temporary band-aid before they maybe make mitigation and enmity more important.
--------

Everyone else has long since kept in mind that advancing a lower base by the same percentage does less and that tanks contribute more than just damage, but that those other factors scale to little or no benefit.

That's the change I was advocating for pages ago :

If there was an equivalent reward, it shouldn't take the shape of more damage but more optimized mitigation. Which is probably the reason why some people said that, to be more, engaging "tanks don't simply need +1k DPS". SE should make "actual tanking" more engaging.

I beg to differ. As have all my posts that have mentioned anything of the subject. I'm perfectly fine with a given tank having a less monotonous or barebone rotation. Read them and you'd know.

I wasn't saying you don't want the rotation to be difficult. But, the rotation being more difficult, means that the tank would have to work harder than the DPS for the same raw reward. That last part is what you seem to not want.

[Shurrikhan]

What you said is also this

Yes, and? "That leaves the extent of added contribution mostly under the damage dealt metrics," has the same meaning as "damage contribution scales almost solely via added damage" which in turn has the same meaning as "those other factors [of tank contribution, i.e. besides damage] scale to little or no benefit." That's now several repetitions of the exact same idea.

But, the rotation being more difficult, means that the tank would have to work harder than the DPS for the same raw reward. That last part is what you seem to not want.

That depends on their starting point. Each tank has noticeablyeasier damage-optimization than the majority of gameplay. Whether the added effort comes from bringing back mitigation as alternative to output or the like, or simply through increased rotational complexity is largely irrelevant to effort-reward when so long as that total reward (direct and indirect contribution) is equal and proportionate. I'd prefer the prior, but if, say, a majority wanted to give WARs something more to look forward to than just Upheaval and not wasting IC via IR, or DRK to have more to look forward to than just banking its MP for others' buffs alone, I'd be glad to see them accommodated as a means of increasing the effort ceiling of those tank jobs.

[Kyni]

I have a question about potency and damage.


Lv.80 WAR - iLv.445
Attack Power - 3690

Inner Chaos hit for Crit+Direct Hit 38420 - 40428


Lv.79 WHM - iLv.387
Attack Magic Potency - 3134
Afflatus Misery hit for Crit 46000 - 47600


Considering Inner Chaos potency is 920 single target vs Afflatus Misery spread off potency 900 AOE why is WHM consistently hit harder than WAR that have 556 more attack power AND with Direct Hit ? I have tried this with several different monsters and the result is about the same. Are majority of the monster have much lower Magic Defence?

Casters don't have auto attacks. Their weapons have about 30% more "Damage" on their stat.

A basic damage formula looks like

Potency x Weapon Damage.

One has a 20% damage-increasing trait and higher weapon damage, though that may be scaled down to absolutely no benefit. The other has Storm's Eye only, and I'm hoping that for clarity of testing you've avoided that here.

You are most definitely missing something:
920* 1,25* 1,40 < 900*1,3 (maim and mend II is 30%, not that it matters)
1610 < 1170

It's pretty obvious that even with a bit more weapon dmg these numbers wouldn't work out and yes this is without storm's eye ( which would add another 1.1 modifier to the left side).

The missing thing is that tanks just have lower AP to dmg scaling than other roles. The only hint at this is in the tank mastery tooltip although “a bonus to damage dealt based on your strength attribute” sounds like the opposite. I really don't like hidden stuff like that personally, it should be obvious to why, just by looking at the quoted posts.

[Kabooa]

You are most definitely missing something:
920* 1,25* 1,40 < 900*1,3 (maim and mend II is 30%, not that it matters)
1610 < 1170

It's pretty obvious that even with a bit more weapon dmg these numbers wouldn't work out and yes this is without storm's eye ( which would add another 1.1 modifier to the left side).

The missing thing is that tanks just have lower AP to dmg scaling than other roles. The only hint at this is in the tank mastery tooltip although “a bonus to damage dealt based on your strength attribute” sounds like the opposite. I really don't like hidden stuff like that personally, it should be obvious to why, just by looking at the quoted posts.

Basically the tank formula swapped two integers.

Before, Strength was something like 70% the amount of a DPS main stat for Tanks, but was factored in at 100%.

Swap those two values now that tanks get 100% the main stat.

[Shurrikhan]

The missing thing is that tanks just have lower AP to dmg scaling than other roles. The only hint at this is in the tank mastery tooltip although “a bonus to damage dealt based on your strength attribute” sounds like the opposite. I really don't like hidden stuff like that personally, it should be obvious to why, just by looking at the quoted posts.

Mm. Tanks had had outright less attached Strength for so long I'd gotten used to the reduced AP relative to other jobs that the factor outright slipped my mind just before, but for someone joining the game after tanks would appear to have been given the same AP (via equal AP-producing main stat) to everyone else, it'd be a counter-intuitive at best.

As I mentioned in the beginning of the thread way back when, I'd rather see the stat itself reduced or the factor listed on mouseover/interaction with the Strength tooltip. Or, better yet, just to have reduced potencies and equal AP to the same intended damage. (I could say the same for Ranged jobs' 20% and Casters' 30% damage traits: I'd rather everyone had them or no one.)