Opinions: Should tanks work for aggro?

[aodhan_ofinnegain]

Going onto crits, I could swear boss autos crit, but I could be mistaken. Nothing is dangerous enough to even have it be an issue, however I do know tank busters cannot crit at all. Regardless, this talk of critical hits makes me think of Shiva and her bow phase, where she has a massively high crit rate ( at least in EX, and I believe it is in unreal as well). Even though defensive cooldowns, they still hurt and you can tell some of the less knowledgeable healers are bit surprised by this.

Going with this, you could make boss phases where they have periods of increased damage, whether it be from a higher crit frequency or another way to increase damage, but still have the tank busters. Shiva EX/Unreal suffers slightly in that there are no tank busters to mitigate, so your defensive cooldowns are best used to mitigate the bow, however, if you add tank busters, you suddenly have to juggle the cooldowns between the 2. And as a 1:30am thought, this could then provide a requirement to tank swap. Not to ensure the tank doesn't die because of a debuff, but making your healers life alot easier.

Currently, lvl 80 Ex trials, Savage and Ultimates do not have crit autos, but instead they have high rolls, this is mostly due to both the removal of Awareness as a skill, and more importantly you can't block a crit. So an increase in crit frequency would need to be more an increase of high rolls to allow PLD to mitigate the damage just as effectively as the other three, and that also goes for parry in the case of GNB and Camouflage's increased parry rate. Certain tankbusters have crit in the past such as critical hit in o3s (bit obvious) and Shinryu phase 3 tankbuster had a high crit rate (it hurt back in the day). Outside of those two examples, most busters usually are non crits.

[Lyth]

If they make adds more dangerous, they would potentially need to change how the mob AI works when it spawns. Currently, when they spawn, there is a few seconds (sometimes less) before the mob picks a target and attacks. This attack cannot be stopped even if you manage to get to top enmity before the attack goes off, unless you stop it in some way, either via a stun or interrupt (if applicable).

They can chase you as much as they want as long as they just have autos lined up. They only have to commit when they 'cast' a cleave or named attack. You usually have plenty of time, as long as you know where they spawn. It's even less of an issue now that everyone has some way of shielding a party member - just have Intervention/NF/TBN/HoS prevent crits on squishies as an additional effect. I'm thinking of the Goblin Snipers from Alexander's raid series as an example. Adds show up, specifically target a healer with named attacks. Tank intervention, or get crit and die. Then go pick them up.

I suppose the other thing that could be done to support this is to just make tanks significantly more mobile than the other roles. If we have more ready access to movement/gap closing techniques to intercept incoming adds/mechanics/etc, along with more opportunities to throw shields on vulnerable party members, there are plenty of ways that you could keep the tank who is not actively holding enmity on the boss busy.

[Spartan_Aoues]

ITERATION 2

English is my first language, but I didn't take the time to spell/grammar check. I'll try to run my comments thru a spell check and fix grammar.

For this iteration, I'll be clarifying my thots and replying to some comments.

The idea is that enmity comes not only from damage, but from doing mechanics, and using mitigation correctly.

[Spartan_Aoues]

Boss changes:
bosses hit much harder(100-200% more)
boss patterns vary wildly some are much less static, others are linear

Generally mitigating attacks properly grants more enmity(example. let's say the boss does a named attack that hits 3 times every 3 seconds, if you pop a cd every attack gens more enmity then normal.)

I do not see why this needs to be a thing. As long as the tank can hold hate without this, there is no point in having it at all.

I do not see why this needs to be a thing. As long as the tank can hold hate without this, there is no point in having it at all.

This promotes mig use and rewards good tanks for using mig as late as possible to block more damage. It isnt needed, but dps will have to stop or slow down. If dps are doing alot of damage this can help tank keep agro.

Also I like that idea that named attacks reduce enmity on a tank, I think that should be reduced or negated when tanks don't use cds


Tankbusters are a raid effort, DPS must use different mig, and shields. There should also be opportunities for a DPS or off-tank to help with damage(For ex: taking portions of a tank buster my doing some mechanics).

In my opinion, mitigating tank busters should fall to the tanks and healers, which it already does. Every tank has a defensive cooldown they can put n the other tank as well, so they do already provide mitigation for their co tank.

Generally, with the harder-hitting bosses, named attacks will take the form of tank busters, use a cd for 1/3-2/3 of tanks health. While tank buster requires 1-2 CDs with raid mitigation. What I want here is for 1.Make raid skill to have a higher impact on the mitigation 2.Tanks who spec into doing damage can still tank but require assistance from the raid.


Require the use of full class kits including sleep, stun, inter, magic/physical vulnerability (ex trick attack), and mitigations

Whilst I do not think sleep should be included in this list, stuns and interrupts should definitely be included.

The idea is that when you come to raid you have mastered your class. I want to see classes stretched to their limit where there is some use for sleep, stuns, and other unique parts of a class.

There was no reason for them to exist and it helps to clean up the boss' debuff bar. If you want more like a Ninja's Trick Attack, then at what point do you stop? Having too many could mean you can potentially have the debuff up most of the time,

I was more thinking that the ninja would save his trick attack for a boss mechanic so that when the boss casts that spell or that add spawns raids with ninjas will have an advantage over raids without. The raid wouldn't be over if you didn't have a ninja but you would have to compensate some other way.

A clear distinction between physical and magical damage

[Spartan_Aoues]

elemental damage

If you add elemental damage, that means you also need some way to reduce it, which would most likely mean materia.

I think it's ok for everyone to have multiple gear sets that focus on different resistances. I think it's ok for there to be a DPS loss when prioritizing a res.

what if a raid series has multiple elements that need to be reduced. Are you going to make people switch out materia every single time you do that fight?

Yes, you would have to swap out different sets for different fights. I think at most you will have a set for each elemental res, 1 max DPS set, and 1 def set. Then you would mix and match to get the min mig, res, and highest damage you could for that fight. As your gear gets better you can reduce the amont of mig/res gear you use in favor of more dps.

Bosses that do not have elemental attacks, suddenly you can do more damage because you can now slot more damage materia rather than elemental defense etc.

Yes, I really like that idea, also with good enough gear I think you should be able to out heal/mitigate a fight even without or with little elemental res.

The advantage of elemental res is that not only does it make doing old raids and trials important to gear progression. But it makes sure that new players will be able to experience old raids consistently.

[Spartan_Aoues]

Tanks changes:
Tanks get 1.5% more aggro as a base with a toggle stance loses a percentage of damage, some tanks have other stances some don't. For ex lets say paladin has a tank stance and a DPS stance but in the DPS stance it gets a perentage mitigating to phy attack or maybe a phy shield etc...

If a stance causes a tank to do less damage, then the tank will do everything in their power to not be in that stance at all.

I also like this. If a raid group can optimize themselves to the point where they can pump out max DPS while their tank isnt in tank stance then they should be rewarded with faster clears.

I think there should be some thot as to whether you will risk taking more damage in DPS stance or have a more consistent raid with tank stance. With most people opting to have a mix(maybe tank stance at the start, then switch for tank busters if needed, or focus on DPS stance for faster clears if gear is good enough)


Different tanks have different and clear advantages that help in different fights. pal>phy,drk>mag,war>heal,gun>parry?

But every single tank has to be able to clear every single fight. You cannot have a fight that requires Warrior and Paladin, then the next be Dark Knight and Gunbreaker.

I think you can tune the fights so that raids running more def sets can clear fights as a baseline. But there should be a clear advantage to picking a class. There should be clear strengths and clear weaknesses, the balance comes from having diverse raids that prioritize certain classes. 4 fights in Eden tier? Each tank should be the clear main tank for each 1

[Spartan_Aoues]

Raid changes:
All classes can have multiple sets of the same raid gear(1 for war, 1 for dark etc.... or maybe roll sets tank/healer/melee/ranged/magic).

The simplest argument against this is inventory space. There is no reason to clog up the inventory for different sets for no reason.

Let's say you have 10 slots is taken by bis ele res gear and dps/def sets, of the 30 item slots u still have 20 slots + inv. I also think it's ok for people not to have every bis combination for every spec for every fight. You may have to pick which set you prioritize. For example, different fights will need ele res, dps, and def. You can A. get every possible combination for every possible fight 100+ sets, or you make a general set with enough of the stats u need to survive as well as damage you need to clear the fight.


Stats are clarified and impactful. There should be a reason to use (piety, tenacity), focusing a specific stat should be a tank playstyle and should matter. (right now, the meta is getting to SPS, max crit/hit/det depending on the class. Basically, build for damage. good play style but should not be the only one.)

direct hit rate should be reverted to accuracy(ty for fix Mikey_R)

Determination should be slit into healing and damage, and work with life steal(if it doesn't already)

Focusing crit should promote a more high-risk high reward style of play

Focusing Piety/Tenacity should give stronger mig for a def playstyle


Dps will have an active role in reducing their enmity. some classes will have a built-in skill to help some won't, some mechanics will have a way for DPS to help reduce tank damage, and reduce their enmity
To steal enmity a DPS would need to generate about 110% of the total enmity generated by the tank. (the longer the fight goes on the hard it is to steal threat)

Except no DPS likes having to try and weave in an enmity reduction, especially if it is required because it helps the tank stay in their damage stance.

That would be a choice they would have to make with their raid. Have their tank stay in tank stance so DPS can focus on DPS, or use reduction/redirections/mitigation to increase overall raid parse.

As for the 110% enmity thing, just why? If you never have the DPS get close anyway, then it doesn't matter.

This makes it a little harder for dps to take agro, just a little buffer. It also becomes more effective the longer the fight goes on.

Danm that took me 3 hours. I had alot of fun tho, feel free to add or remove what ever you like, I look forward to further discussions.

[Grimoire-M]

In my opinion, yes, but it shouldn’t require a lot of micromanagement, certainly none from the party. Nor should it affect your rotation. To me, ShB got a lot of things right by giving tanks oGCD stances and removing aggro modifiers from everything except those stances. What I’d like to see restored is the trade off tank stances used to carry by penalizing damage dealt, in addition to adding back Unchained as a role action. A good way to do so would be to alter True North to allow you to ignore damage penalties and position requirements for its duration and give it to tanks. The other upside is it helps out melee DPS who die or get hit by stray damage down AoEs while trying to maintain uptime in prog.

[IBenjieI]

Only a lazy tank, sure. In between mechanics, tank busters and my rotation, I'm also keeping an eye on the enemy list and the aggro meters. If one enemy starts to lose my aggro, I'm not tanking well enough.

[TouchandFeel]

Personally I think that the traditional method of aggro-management that has existed in MMOs is antiquated, boring and should be done away with.
The slow consistent generation of aggro just happening in the background made sense in older MMOs where game-play tended to be slower and based around number-crunching behind the scenes, but with modern game-play evolving towards being more dynamic and faster paced, the idea of aggro-management needs to evolve as well, going from essentially being passive game-play to active game-play.

This shift towards active aggro-management can be achieved by simplifying the aggro system itself into something more binary, you have aggro on a mob or you don't, and therefore making the game-play revolve around abilities and situations of managing "snap aggro" as opposed to the traditional method of building and maintaining a numeric value that represents aggro.
Honestly with all the changes to the aggro system in this game over the years, we are basically already simulating a binary (has/does not have) aggro system where if a tank basically does anything with tank stance on, they have aggro.

Provoke already gives you snap-aggro by putting you on the top of the aggro-list and Shirk could easily be changed to making the target party member be the aggro target as opposed to just shifting some of your enmity to the target, and now you have a set of tools to quickly and easily shift aggro around.

The complexity in the game-play of aggro management is then increased by leveraging more mechanics in fights that require the gaining or exchanging of snap aggro to the tank, co-tank or another member of the party. More forced tanks swaps, more adds or multi-mob boss fights or phases, and of course all new fight specific mechanics; for example party members are all given a buff aligned to a different element and every now and then the boss telegraphs buffing themselves with a random element before following with a quick buster attack of that element a few seconds later and it is the tank's job to redirect aggro to the party member with the corresponding buff so that they can take the buster for minimal or no damage.

I feel an approach such as this would provide a greater unique game-play niche for the tank role compared to what we currently have.
This is of course not in lieu of there being a need for more mechanics that require using your single-target support defense abilities on other party members and a greater emphasis on boss positioning and placement by the tanks, both of which also need to occur.

On the other hand, I see trying to layer in extra complexities into the system itself as only making things potentially more convoluted and not necessarily interesting or fun. More often than not, the more you make a system complex, the less flexible it becomes to utilize in different ways. This means you have to rely on the complexity of the system itself to provide interest as opposed to having a more simple system that is then used in a number of different ways that are interesting.
Based on what we have had in the past, in this game and others, as well as many of the suggestions on making the system itself more complex, I do not see that direction working out well or being an improvement.